2003-05-20 (meeting minutes) vL- !-'/-T'1~T71 t
Hl~ ^~,I~I^7H
t'~3~TPv~~iNT'~'~J Ts R. :IF.~.nI?M~'.N ~ RtZARn
CITY OF ATLA1'+1TiC. ~raCi:
Tuesday, lYfay-z0, 2003-at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Commission Chambers, 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order and pledge of allegiance.
2. Approval of Minutes of the meetings of March 18, 2003, and April 22, 2003.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business.
a. ZVAR-2003-04, George Bull, Jr. on. behalf of William and Sarah Scott.
Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (1) and (3) to reduce the
required twenty ,(20) foot yard on the Beach Avenue side of an oceanfront lot to
thirteen (13) feet and also to reduce the required ten (10) foot side yard on the
north side of the lot to 4.86 feet to allow a proposed two-story addition to an
existing nonconforming structure, for property within the RS-2 Zoning District
and located at 1987 Beach Avenue.
b. ZVAR-2003-05, Debra G. Wilkins. Request for a Variance from Section 24-
106 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to fifteen (15) feet
to allow a screened enclosure with a solid roof to be constructed over an
existing concrete patio, for property within the RG-lA Zoning District and
located at 1395 Main Street.
5. New Business.
a. ZVAR-2003-06, Valda Hector. Request for a Variance from Section 24-~04
(e) (2) and (3} to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard and the required
seven-and-a-half (7.5) foot side yard to allow an existing addition to a
nonconforming detached storage shed to remain for property within the RS-1
Zoning District located at 387 Skate Road.
b. ZVAR-2003-07, David and Suzi Rogers. Request for a Variance from Section
24-104 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to ten (10) feet
to allow for the construction of a detached garage, for property within the RS-1
Zoning District and located at 380 10th Street.
c. ZVAR-2003-OS, Stacy Moseley and Joseph Sherrer. Request for a Variance
from Section 24-105 (e) (21) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot setback
from Beach Avenue to four (4) feet to allow for the construction of second-story
deck on an existing nonconforming structure, for a double frontage lot within
the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 578 Beach Avenue.
d. ZVAR-2003-09, Dorothy Papazin. Request for a Variance from Section 24-
104 (e) (1) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot front yard to fourteen-and-a-
half (14.5) feet and also to reduce the required fifteen (15) foot street side
setback on a Corner Lot to twelve (12) feet to allow for the construction of a
new residence, for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 587
Beach Avenue.
6. Other business not requiring action.
a. Discussion of term limits for members of all appointed City Boards and
Committees pursuant to request of the City Commission.
b. Discussion of proposed Redevelopment Plan and Mayport Community
Redevelopment Area.
c. Distribution of proposed general revisions to Chapter 24.
7. Adjournment.
All information related to these applications and full legal descriptions for the subject
properties are available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning
Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida. If a person
decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with
respect to any matter considered at the meeting, he or she will need a record of the
proceedings, and for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all
hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
persons needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should
contact the City of Atlantic Beach (904) 247-5800, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic
Beach, Florida 32233 not later than 5 days prior to the date of this meeting.
MINUTES OF MEETING OF
REGULAR MEETING OF
COVLy1UNITY DEVELOPNIENT BOARD
May 20, 2003
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held Tuesday, May 20,
2003, in the City Hall Commission Room. Present were Don Wolfson, Chair, Craig
Burkhart, Lynn Drysdale, Robert Frohwein, Samuel Jacobson, Steve Jenkins, Mary
Walker, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Susan
Dunham.
>l: Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Wolfson introduced and welcomed new Board memher, Lynn Drysdale.
2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of the Meeting of March 18 , 2003, and Apri! 22,
2003
A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins, seconded by Mr. Burkhart, and unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes -of #h~ Community Development Board meetings of
March 18, 2003 and April 22, 2003.
3. Recognition of Visitors
None.
4. Old Business
a. ZVAR-2003-04, George Bull, .1r. on behalf of William and Sarah Scott.
Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (1) and (3) to reduce the
required twenty (20) Foot yard on the Beach Avenue side of an oceanfront lot
to thirteen (~3) feet and also to reduce the required ten (~0) foot side yard on
the north side of the lot to 4.8~ feet to allow a proposed two-story additiog to
an existing nonconforming structure, for property within the RS-2 Zoning
District and located at 1987 Beach Avenue.
Mr, Ceo_rge Bgll, Jr,, intrQdL~Ced hic~seif and distributed. au amended site plan tQ the
Board members. He stated -that -the amendment reduced the requested front yard
encroachment and placed the addition more to the center of the property. He further
stated that they would like to upgrade the existing structure by adding a second story
garage and bedroom addition. Mr. $ull stated that the hardships are as follows: 1) The
house was built in the 1950s, and they are not able to build to the south, east or west.
This was an inherited situation not caused by the owner; and 2) Building toward the
ocean would be financially unfeasible due to the cost to remove boulders placed after
Hurricane Dora.
.blinrues of Community Development Board
May 2U, 2003 meeting
Page 2
1VIs. Doerr referred Board members to the copy of the aerial photograph included in the
application packet. She stated that she felt that the relocation of the Coastal Construction
Line created an unusual circumstance to this lot. She further stated the State would be
less favorable to building seaward, and it would be difficult to add onto this property
since the Coastal Construction Line was located so far landward on the lot.
Ms. Doerr co~rmed that the proposed addition was seaward of the Coastal Construction
Line. IVIr. Frohwein asked IVIs. Doerr if she had knowledge if the State would respond
favorably if the addition were east of the Coastal Construction Line. Ms. Doerr
responded that the Department of Environmental protection (DEp) would rather see
construction to the west of that line. Mr. Frohwein advised that the applicant could make
the argument to the DEP that the Zoning Codes do not allow for construction to the east
of the Coastal Construction Line.
Mr. Wolfson stated that the Iot was very deep and the applicant was using a lot of land
that was landward of the current building. He stated that the applicant has an opportunity
to build seaward of the current structure, and he did not recognize a hardship. in this
instance.
Mrs. Walker asked IVIr. Bull if the owner had considered building upward. Mr. $u11
responded that the new Florida Building Codes state that you can improve any piece of
property up to Sd percent of the original value without making the old structure confgrm
to the new Building Codes. He stated that if they built up, the building would have to
meet the new Building Codes and it would be financially unfeasible.
A motion was made by 1VIr. Wolfson and seconded by Mrs. V1'alker to deny the
variance request.
Discussion was held with regard to whether or not a hardship existed for the applicant.
1VTr. Bull withdrew the variance request.
b. ZVAR-2003-05, lyebra G. Wilkins. Request for a Variance from Section
24-106 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to fifteen (15)
feet to allow a screened enclosure with a solid roof t_o_be constructed over an
existing concrete patio, for property within the RG-lA Zoning District and
located at 1395 Main Street.
The applicant was not in attendance. Mr. Wolfson moved this item to the end of the
Agenda.
5. New Basiness
a. ZVAR-2003-06, Valda Hector. Request for ~ Variance from Section 24-
104 (e1 (2) and (3) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard and the
required seven-and-a-half f~.51 foot side yard to allow an existing addition to
,1linutes of Community 1?evalopme~rtBoard
May 20,1003 meeting
Page 3
a nonconforming detached storage shed, constructed without building
permits, to remain for property within the RS-1 Zoning District located at
387 SkatE~ Road.
Mrs. Valda Hector introduced_ herself. She advised the Board that she had an
existing shed, which she had extended. She further advised that she was asked
by City staff to reduce the shed and she did not understand why. 1VIrs. Hector
stated that she had a petition signed by homeowners on Skate Road stating that
the shed was not a problem. Mrs. Hector advised that she bought the house 1 S
years ago and the shed was in place at that time.
Ms. Doerr stated that the addition to the shed was constructed without a permit
and it did not meet Building or Zoning Codes. She further stated that the
Building Department has worked with Mrs. Hector to address the safety issues
and that she had advised Mrs. Hector that a variance was still required.
Mr. Jacobson asked Mrs. Hector why she wanted to extend the shed. Mrs.
Hector responded that she wanted to build a bedroom, which she now
understands is not. allowed. The garage enclosure has been demolished pursuant
to the order of the Building Department.
Mr. Wolfson advised that the shed with the extension was 374 feet and only 150
square feet was allowed for storage sheds.
Mrs. Hector advised that her hardship was a need for more storage space.
A motion was made by Mr. Frohwein and seconded by Mr..Burkhart to deny
the variance request and to include Staff findings.
Ms. Doerr advised that she, the Building Official and the City Commission .had
described the proper procedures to Mrs. Hector.
The vote was called and the motion to deny the variance request passed by
unanimous vote.
b. ZVAR-2003-07, David and Suzi Rogers. Request for a Variance from
Section 24-104 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard~ to
ten (10) feet to allow for the construction of a detached garage, for property
within the RS-1 Zoning District and located at 380 10th Street
Mr. David Rogers introduced himself. He stated that when he first spoke with
Ms. Doerr he did not realize that the rear setback for this lot was 20 feet. He
stated that they plan to build an old southern beach style house with a detached
garage. He also stated that he was under the impression that all of 10th Street was
RS-2 but it turns out this particular lot was zoned RS-1 which posed a problem
Minutes of Comnnrniry Development Board
May 20, 2003 meeting
Page 4
for the driveway. Mr. Rogers advised that their hardship was building what they
want on the lot. He advised the Board that the lot was 50 feet x 130 feet.
Ms. Doerr stated that the changes to the Zoning Codes had basically preclucjed
detached garages on undeveloped lots. She stated that the Board should consider
this issue in changes to the regulations.
Mr. Wolfson advised that this lot was smaller than the normal lot in RS-1
Zoning. Ms. Doerr advised that the zoning changes to RS-2 one or two lots from
this lot. She asked the Board if there was an RS-2 lot in an RS-1 zoning district,
could this be considered a hardship. Ms. Doerr stated that if the lots were zoned
properly, this lot would be zoned RS-2.
Mr. Burkhart stated that he would consider a motion to approve the aggregate 15
foot side yard but not reduce the 20 foot rear yard since this was a deeper lot
than the typical 50 foot x 100 foot lot.
Mr. Rogers withdrew the request for the variance to the rear yard
A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart, seconded by Mr. Frohwein, to grant a
variance to allow for a combined fifteen foot side yard, not less than five feet
on each side, suggested action for approval to follow the four Findings of
Fact on the application, and that the variance applies only to the applicant
and that construction must begin within one year.
The vote was called and the motion passed with Mr. Burkhart, Ms. Drysdale,
Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Jenkins, Mrs: Walker and Mr. Wolfson voting in favon of
the motion, and Mr. Jacobson voting against the motion.
c. ZVAR-2003-08. Stacy Moseley and Joseph Sherrer Request for a
Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (21) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot
setback from Beach Avenue to four (4) feet to allow for the construction of
second-story deck on an existing nonconforming structure, fora double
frontage lot within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 578 Beach
Avenue.
Ms. Stacy Moseley introduced_hecsel£ She_.statecLthat they would like.-to build a
deck that would be four feet in depth and would be cantilevered exactly as the
house across the street. She further stated that afour-foot deck would allow
them to access the life of Beach Avenue and would also reduce the shear mass of
the house as it exists in relation to Beach Avenue. Ms. Moseley advised that the
hardship in this situation was that they were paying double lot taxes and there
was no way for them to enjoy Beach Avenue.
Mr. Neil McGinnis introduced himself. He advised that other neighboring homes
were situated closer to Beach Avenue and, therefore, Ms. Moseley's hardship
~Lfinutes of Canm:txiryDevelopmentBnard
May 20, 2003 meeting
Page S
was that she was being kept further back from Beach Avenue than her neighbors.
In addition, he stated that the deck would add to the aesthetics of the house.
A motion was made by Mr. Jacobson and seconded by Mrs. Walker to
approve the variance request with the conditions set forth in the Staff
Report.
The vote was called and the motion passed with Mr. Burkhart, Ms. Drysd#~le,
Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Jenkins and Mrs. Walker voting in favor of the motion,
and Mr. Frohwein and Mr. Wolfson voting against the motion.
d. ZVAR-2003-09, Dorothy Papazian. Request for a Variance from Section
24-105 (e) (1) to reduce the reauired twenty (20) foot front yard to fourteen-
and-a-half (14.5) feet and also to reduce the required fifteen (15) foot street
side setback on a Corner Lot to twelve (121 feet to allow for the construction
of a new residence, for pronerty within the RS-2 Zoning District and located
at 587 Beach Avenue.
Mrs.. Dorothy Papazian introduced_ herself. She_ stated. that her hardship was that the
living quarters in her current house were located upstairs. In addition, she advised. that
she had broken her leg and knee, and had to go to another location to swim. Mrs.
Papazian stated that she wished to build a new house and a pool and would like to
connect the existing carnage house to the new house with a covered breezeway to
provide covered access between the two houses when it is raining.
Mr. Neil McGinnis introduced himself as a neighbor to the applicant. He stated that there
had been a problem with crime in the area so he would like to see another house
developed on this lot.
Mr. Harry Warnock introduced himself as a neighbor to the applicant. He stated that he
was in favor of the building and the pool, but wanted these to conform to setback
regulations.
Mr. Wolfson advised that the new lot was unique in that there did not seem to lae a
narrower side to the lot. Ms. Doerr stated that Mrs. Papazian owns two oceanfront lots
that run east and west, and that she intends to reconfigure the lots in a manner allowed by
the subdivision regulations, to provide a separate, roughly 100-foot by 100-foot lot where
she could build a new house.
Mr. Wolfson asked Ms. Doerr if the applicant could front the property on 6~ Sheet; xhan
the rear and side yards could be 20 feet. Ms. Doerr responded that as long as the lot ;net
the width and depth requirements, that could be done, but the applicant did not want to do
phis.
Mr. Frohwein explained to the applicant the four issues: 1) reconfiguring the two lots; 2)
the side setback; 3) the front setback; and 4) the connection of the covered breezeway to
Minutes of Community Development Board
May 20, 2003 meeting
Page 6
the carriage house. Concerning reconfiguring the lots, Mr. Frohwein had no objection
since this met the regulations. Mr. Frohwein asked the applicant if she would consider
reconfiguring the lots such that setbacks could be met for both lots.
Mr. Burkhart explained that if the lots were configured properly, there would be room on
all sides to meet the setbacks. Mr. Burkhart suggested to the applicant that there would
be room for all the buildings to fit within setbacks if she just changed the lot lines and
shifted the building location.
Mr. Wolfson stated that by squaring the lots, Mrs. Papazian could choose which side to
place the front of the house. Ms. Doerr advised the Board that Mrs. Papazian wished to
locate the new building as she had proposed to maintain her ocean views.
Mr. Burkhart stated that he could not support the variances, and suggested that the
applicant explore .options to shift the lot lines and the location of the new house so that it
met the setback requirements. It was his opinion that she would be able to accomplish
what she wanted without any variances with some minor adjustments. Mr. Woll;son
suggested that the site plan could be reset so that the new structure was in compliance
with the setbacks, except for the carnage house. Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Burlc~art
suggested to the applicant that Mrs. Papazian work with the builder, engineer and staff to
re-draw to comply with setbacks.
Ms. Doerr recommended that the Board designate the Sixth Street side as the front of the
lot. Mrs. Papazian stated that this would not work for what she wished to build.
Mr. Frohwein informed Mrs. Papazfan that Ms. Doerr made the comment that the Boazd
could proceed with designating the 100.03 as the front yard, and the 100 feet as the side
yard which would allow for Mr. Burkhart's comments that the footprint would almost fit
if the house was shifted six feet to the south.
Mr. Wolfson explained to the applicant the options available to her at this time: that the
request could be acted upon and possibly denied; she could withdraw the request; or
continue and go back and work with her builder and staff to see if she could work the site
plan out so that a variance was not needed. Mrs. Papazian said she would go back to her
builder and architect and also discuss with staff.
The item was deferred to the next meeting.
6. Other Business Not Requiring Action.
a. Discussion of term limits for members of all appointed City Boards and
Committees pursuant to request of the City Commission.
Ms. Doerr advised that she had been directed by the City Commission to solicit
feedback on term limits for Community Development Board members. She
~Ltinutes njCnmmtuiityl~EYelapnient Board
May 20, 2003 meeting
Page 7
stated that the City Commission had proposed four, two-year terms for a total of
eight years.
Mr. Jacobson supported an initial four-year term, but thought it was importanX to
have "fresh views" and supported a limit to the maximum number of terms. He
thought that the four-year then two two-year terms thereafter at discretion of the
Commission to re-appoint was reasonable. Mr. Frohwein was opposed to the
initial two-year term, but supported initial four-year term, then one two-year
reappointment. Mrs. Walker supported an initial four-year term, then one two-
year reappointment for a maximum of six years. Mr. Burkhart supported an
initial four-year term, then two two-year reappointments. Mr. Wolfson
supported an initial four-year term, then two-year reappointments. Mr. Jenl~ins
and Ms. Drysdale both supported initial two-year terms then two-year
reappointments up to eight years. Comments were expressed that it might be
easier to get more people who were willing to serve if they thought it was only a
two-year commitment, but all members voiced an opinion that with the
complexity and variety of issues they deal with, it probably takes the better of
two years to become fully knowledgeable and comfortable with the requirements
of that particular board. They also expressed that "continuity and a history" was
important, but generally seemed to all be in favor of some maximum number of
terms.
Mr. Wolfson advised that he informed the Mayor and City Commission that he
would not be seeking re-appointment at the end of his term.
b.__Discussion of proposed Redevelopment Plan and Mayport Community
Redevelopment Area. ~- '
This Agenda item was deferred~until~the next meeting.
c. Distribution of proposed general revisions to Chapter 24
Ms. Doerr requested that the Board members review the revisions to Chapter 24
and a-mail or call her with suggested changes.
Ms. Doerr advised that the Department of Community Affairs found the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report sufficient.
4. Old Business (continued from heginning of the meeting)
b. ZVAR-2003-05, Debra G. Wilkins. Request for a Variance from Section
24-106 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to fifteen (15)
feet to allow a screened enclosure with a solid roof to be constructed over an
existing concCete patio, for. property within the_ RG-tA Zoning District-gnd
located at 1395 Main Street.
The applicant was still not present, so the item was deferred until the next meeting.
Mixutes oJComtmmityDevelopmentBoard
May 20, 2003 meeting
Page 8
7. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
SIGNED
ATTEST