Loading...
2002-06-18 (meeting minutes) v:~-. AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH June 18, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room, 800 Seminole Road Please note the change in location for the June meeting The meeting will be held in the Conference Room of the City Hall o f ces. 1. CaII to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of May 21, 2002. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. a. File No. ZVAR-2002-06, Doug Morgan on behalf of Rose C. McCall. Request for a Variance from the fifteen (15) foot required side yard on a Corner Lot (See definition of Lot, Corner.) to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance and to allow for a second and third- story addition for property in the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 31 Fifth Street. b. File No. ZVAR-2002-09, Chris Hionides and Nadia Hionides. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to allow asecond-story wood deck to encroach approximately fifteen (15) feet into a required twenty (20) foot rear yard, while maintaining a minimum distance of five (5) five feet from the rear lot Iine for property in the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 124 12th Street. 5. New Business. a. Appeal of an administrative decision by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 24-50 (a), related to the allowable number of dwelling units and proposed reconfiguration of Lots 1 and 3, Block 8, Subdivision A, located at the southwest corner of East Coast Drive and Seventh Street. 6. Other reports or business not requiring action. 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD June 18, 2002 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held Tuesday, June 18, 2002, in the City Hall Conference Room. Present were Chair Don Wolfson, Craig Burkhart, Robert Frohwein, Karl Grunewald, Samuel Jacobson (arrived at 7:41 p.m.), Steven Jenkins, Mary Walker, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, City Attorney Alan Jensen and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of May 21, 2002 A motion was made by Mr. Frohwein, seconded by Mr. Grunewald and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Community Development Board meeting of May 21, 2002. 3. Recognition of Visitors None. 4. Old Business a. File No. ZVAR-2002-06, Doug Morgan on behalf of Rose C McCall Request for a Variance from the fifteen (15) foot required side vard on a Corner Lot (See definition of Lot Corner 1 to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance and to allow for a second storv addition for property in the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 31 Fifth Street Mr. Doug Morgan stated that he is a friend of the applicant and that he would oversee the construction of this project if the variance request were approved. He further stated that Mrs. McCall would like to install a bedroom over the carport so that her daughter could live in the home to take care of her. Mr. Morgan advised that this addition is a bedroom and sitting area, with no kitchen, and would provide a second egress out of the upstairs. Mrs. Rose McCall introduced herself. She stated that the house was built in the 1920s and the rooms are very small. She further stated that they are very crowded upstairs and it would be a great comfort to have a little more space for their daughter who plans to live with her so that she does not have to move into a nursing home. Ms. Betsy McCall introduced herself and advised that she would be the built-in caretaker for her mother. Mr. Morgan informed the Board that they would not increase the footprint of the house; they would be building over the existing carport. He stated that they could build aten-foot structure to avoid the request for a variance but that it would look awful. Ms. Doerr stated that it appears that Mrs. Rose McCall owned the property prior to the beach incorporating in 1955. She further stated that the long narrow lots were created well before the establishment of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Doerr advised that she believes the lot meets the exceptionally narrow defmition which is a criteria when the Board looks to grant a variance. Ms. Doerr also informed. the Board that some of the construction proposed is in the right of way. She stated that the City has reason to believe that the house was built before establishment of the Fifth Street right-of--way. Mrs. Rose McCall responded that the encroachment is not in the street but over the sidewalk. The Board discussed the right-of--way encroachment issue. Ms. Doerr advised that either the encroachment would .. have to be removed from the right-of--way or it would have to be determined that the Mrs. McCall has legal rights to this encroachment because it existed prior to the establishment of the right-of--way. Minutes of Community DevelopmentBoard ,June 18, 2002 '~~' The Board discussed the 25-foot width of the lot. Mrs. Rose McCall advised that her grandmother purchased the property with relatives and they divided the 50-foot lot into two lots. . Discussion was held with regard to setbacks of the existing structures and to ensure that the applicant did not increase the current footprint of the home. Mr. Frohwein stated that the proposed eaves to the north, the existing eaves and the eaves on the adjacent house are almost over each other. Mr. Frohwein asked Mr. Morgan if he planned to reduce the eaves. Mr. Morgan responded that the proposed construction would be limited to this property. Ms. Walker expressed the concern that the applicant is proposing to build athree-story house with a zero lot line and that this is a lot of house in a confined area. A motion was made by Mr. Grunewald and seconded by Mr. Jenkins to approve the variance as requested. Ms. Doerr suggested to define the setbacks as shown on the survey. Mr. Grunewald amended the motion to approve the variance request with the following; (1) that the building not extend over the property line and not exceed the existing footprint; (2) that there will be no additional impervious surface areas constructed on this property; and (3) that there will be a minimum of two on-site parking spaces maintained. Mr. Jenkins seconded the amended motion. Discussion was held with regard to the size of the building, the lack of distance between this home and the home next door and the uniqueness of the 25-foot width of the lot. Ms. Doerr advised the Board that the new construction would have to meet the fire separation requirements as set forth in the Building Codes. Mr. Burkhart expressed the point that if the house were placed in the middle of the lot, it would not overwhelm the lot. The vote was called and Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Grunewald,rlr~' , Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Wolfson voted in favor of the motion, Ms. Walker voted against the motion. b. File No. ZVAR-2002-09, Chris Hionides and Nadia Hionides Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to allow asecond-storv wood deck to encroach approximately fifteen (15) feet into a reau~red twenty (20) foot rear vard, while maintaining a minimum distance of five (5) five feet from the rear lot brie for property in the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 124 12th Street Mr. Wolfson clarified that the Board members reviewed the memorandum from the Community Development Director dated June 4, 2002. Mr. Hionides introduced himself and stated that he purchased this duplex property in the middle of December. He stated that they had decided to renovate the property for lus 82-year-old mother, they had subrrutted the plans for the renovations, and they had begun construction. Mr. Hionides advised that his construction company tore down the existing sunroom, to the west of the property, without his instruction. They would like to re-build the sunroom and add a deck on top. Ms. Kathy Bushnell introduced herself and stated that she lives to the west side of this house. Ms. ' Bushnell distributed to the Board members a response to the variance request including pictures. Ms. Bushnell voiced her concerns with regard to the proposed construction. 2 Minutes of Community DevelopmentBoard - _ June I8, 2002 Ms. Doerr advised the Board that this property fell under Sec. 24-86(b). She stated that because this home was a lawfully constructed two-family dwelling before the changes to the Code, the owners were entitled to maintain that use. Ms. Doerr further advised that at the last Community Development Board meeting, the Board focused on the fifty percent rule. However, she stated that based on the information she found, there are no records to indicate that the dwelling was an improperly constructed duplex. City Attorney Jensen stated that the first floor sunroom that was demolished was part of the existing footprint of the home. In addition, he stated that he understood that the second floor deck would not increase the footprint of the duplex that had already existed. Ms. Doerr advised that once it was determined that this was a first floor addition that was already in existence, it became apparent that this property fell within Sec. 24-86(b) and it was her opinion that the applicants do not require a variance. Discussion was held with regard to holding a workshop to discuss Sec. 24-86. Ms. Bushnell expressed concern with regard to the staircase leading up to the deck. Ms. Doerr responded that as long as the staircase fell within the footprint of the home, the staircase would be in compliance. Mr. Wolfson requested the return of Mr. Hionides' filing fee. 5. New Business a. Appeal of an administrative decision by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 24-50 (a), related to the allowable number of dwelling units and proposed reconfi~uraiton of Lots 1 and 3, Block 8, Subdivision A, located at the southwest corner of East Coast Drive and Seventh Street. Ms. Doerr advised the Board that she recommended this appeal process to the applicant. She stated that she did not feel comfortable granting this request because it was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Doerr stated that the property owner wishes to take two lots and reorient them from one direction to another direction which the Comprehensive Plan allows since they are not creating additional lots. However, she said that the two lots were developed as one development parcel and under the Comprehensive Plan, it would only support two units across property lines, not the three units that are located there now. Ms. Doerr further stated that since the units had been developed across property lines and, even though they meet the subdivision regulations, the addition of one more unit would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. George Bull, Jr., introduced himself and stated that he represents Mr. William Winfree. Mr. Bull advised the Board that Mr. Winfree bought this property in 1974 and the zoning at that time was multi- family. Mr. Bull stated that Mr. Winfree was assured that this property would remain RG-2 zoning. He further stated that, as the Comprehensive Plan was being developed and submitted, he was unaware that his property was being rated as low density in RG-2. Mr. Bull advised that Mr. Winfree has a hardship because he cannot use the property in the same way as when he purchased it. Mr. Winfree introduced himself and stated that he was 75 years old and there was no place else in Atlantic Beach that he could buy. He said that if he can separate the lots and build a house next to it, than he can stay in Atlantic Beach. Ms. Doerr advised that the City is located in a coastal high hazard area and one of the policies in the state Comprehensive Plan is that the City cannot increase density in coastal high hazard areas. She stated that it is not unusual for zoning to be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan land use densities and, therefore, Chapter 163 includes a provision that states that in the case of conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations, the Comprehensive Plan prevails. Ms. Doerr advised that if the applicant was willing to give up one unit in the existing three-units, she believed that if he built a Minutes of Community DevelopmentBoard -June 18, 2002 ~7. single family residence and could meet all the land development regulations, he would not be increasing density. Discussion was held with regard to the right of the applicant to sell 60 feet x 100 feet of the lot and what would happen if a building permit were sought .for this piece of properly. Ms. Doerr advised that the applicant could sell portions of the lot in any configuration that he would like. However, she stated that it is her responsibility to verify that a building permit application complies with the City's land use regulations and Comprehensive Plan and it is her belief that this piece of property would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the two existing lots were originally considered one development parcel. Mr. Jensen responded that he did not believe the City could deny a building permit based on what is on the neighboring lot. Ms. Doerr advised that the Comprehensive Plan states that the residential low-density land use designation allows a maximum number of 6 units per acre. Mr. Jacobson clarified that the applicant wants to place four units on 16,000 square feet. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Jensen if someone bought the 60 x 100 lot, would they be in violation of the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Jensen responded that they would not be because the lot is big enough under the City's existing zoning to allow asingle-family home. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not fit the standard lot size of 50 x 100. Mr. Jensen further stated that the Comprehensive Plan on density is a general requirement and does not apply to a 50 x 100 lot because you cannot get 1/6 of an acre out of a 50 x 100 lot. Ms. Doerr responded that generally, on a developed subdivision, density is applied to the platted lot. She stated that the Board has the discretion to decide to use density zones to calculate density. However, she stated that this would require some fairly sophisticated analysis of how many units per land use zones. She further stated that this is why most jurisdictions elect to look at previously platted lots. Mr. Bull asked Ms. Doerr what would happen if they applied for a building permit fora 60 x 100 lot? Ms. Doerr responded that she would not "sign off' on that particular permit based on her interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bull asked Ms. Doerr that since they already have three units on the property, could they convert the downstairs. to one unit which would leave one single family unit and one duplex? Ms. Doerr responded that she did not have an issue with this scenario because it would not increase density. Mr. Bull withdrew the application. 6. Other Retorts or Business Not Requiring Action Discussion was held with regard to holding a workshop with the following topics: (1) discussion of Sec. 24-86 and (2) how to come to a consensus. The Board determined that they would decide after the summer if they would hold a workshop. Discussion was held with regard to Portable On Demand Storage systems (PODS). Ms. Doerr advised that the City needs to come up with a position. 4 Minutes of Community Development Board ,,June 18, 2002 '"~` 7. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.