Loading...
2001-11-20 (meeting minutes) v ..: . . , AGENDA IIICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH November 20, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of October 17, 2001. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business a. Request to consider a recommendation to the City Commission related to an application for a Use- by-Exception to allow a cabinet and furniture repair shop to occupy a new 6,850 square foot building proposed to be located on an un-numbered and undeveloped parcel lot located on the east side of Mayport Road south of Dora Street within the 1800 block and more particularly described as a portion of Government Lots 2 and 3 within Section 17,Township 2S and Range 29E. 5. New Business. a. Request to consider an application for a Variance to reduce a side yard setback for new construction on a nonconforming structure to allow a second-story deck to extend into the required five(5)foot side yard for property located at 41 Sixth Street. • b. Request to consider an application for a Variance to reduce a required twenty(20) foot rear yard to allow an addition to extend approximately three and one-half(3.5) feet into the required rear yard for property located at 393 Third Street. c. Request to consider a recommendation to the City Commission related to a request to replat a portion of Lot 7, Block 1 within Donner's Replat subdivision creating three residential lots, located on Dudley Street,west of Mayport Road. 6. Reports and Announcements. a. Chairman's report. Discussion of 4th DCA decision,Pinecrest Lakes, Inc v. Karen Shidel. 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 November 20, 2001 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held Tuesday, November 20, 2001, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chair Don Wolfson, Craig Burkhart, Karl Grunewald, Steve Jenkins, Mary Walker, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, Building Official Don Ford and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of October 17, 2001 A motion was made by Mr. Grunewald, seconded by Mrs. Walker and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Community Development Board meeting of October 17, 2001. 3. Recognition of Visitors None. 4. Old Business a. Request to consider a recommendation to the City Commission related to an application for a • Use-by-Exception to allow a cabinet and furniture repair shop to occupy a new 6,850 square foot building proposed to be located on an un-numbered and undeveloped parcel lot located on the east side of Mavport Road south of Dora Street within the 1800 block and more particularly described as a portion of Government Lots 2 and 3 within Section 17, Township 2S and Range 29E. Mr. Damon Rebhahn introduced himself to the Board. He stated that his business is currently located at 1886 Amelia Street in Atlantic Beach and he would like to occupy the described property for greater space, a new showroom, offices and better exposure. In response to questions from Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Rebhahn stated that tractor trailers would not be making deliveries to this location, only small trucks. In addition, he stated that there is a 43-foot turnaround in the parking lot for these trucks to turn around. Mr. Grunewald added that a truck would not necessarily have to turn around, it could back into an empty parking space and go back out again. Mr. Grunewald also attested that trucks that deliver to this location are not tractor trailers. Mr. Rebhahn advised that he would landscape the property to meet City Code, he would place a 3' x 8' foot lit sign on the building and he has no plans for fencing at this time. Ms. Doerr stated that Staff recommends approval of this Use by Exception because it is a less intensive use than in that area. She further stated that there have been problems on this lot in the past and developing the lot would correct these problems. A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart, seconded by Mr. Jenkins and unanimously carried to recommend approval of the Use by Exception as presented by Staff. 4110 7 Minutes of Community Development Board . November 20, 2001 Page 2 • 5. New Business a. Request to consider an application for a Variance to reduce a side yard setback to zero feet to allow a second-story deck to extend into the required five (5) foot side yard for property located at 41 Sixth Street. Ms. Doerr advised that the deck construction had begun but had been halted at the direction of the Building Department. Mr. Michael Dunlap introduced himself. He stated that they have basically followed the existing footprint of the house with the exception of the decks they are adding on the east and west sides. He further stated that the south edge of the house is on the property line so anything that is added to the house is out of code. Mr. Dunlap advised that the lower deck is within Code, but the second floor deck on the south side has triggered this problem with the land use code. He advised that they are asking for three columns in the corner and to attempt to shift the columns back five feet is a detriment to the design effort and project quality that they have achieved to date. Mr. Dunlap reminded the Board that the deck is on the beach access side, so it would not affect anyone else's property. Discussion was held with regard to redesigning the deck, but Mr. Dunlap stated that this would interfere with the view out of the dining room on the north as well as the entry area on the south. Mr. Dunlap also stated that shifting the eyebrow curve five feet would appear to be a mistake in the design of the building. Mrs. Walker questioned Staff with regard to the side yard setbacks on this building and whether or not this house was situated on a corner lot. Discussion ensued and Mr. Wolfson advised that there had once • been an interpretation that these lots were corner lots because historically the ocean had been considered a street and since this lot is next to a beach access, it was thought to be a corner lot. Ms. Doerr stated she was not aware of any current regulations that would cause this lot to be considered as a corner lot, but that if it was a corner lot, the setback on the 6th Street side would be fifteen feet rather than five feet. Mr. Wolfson commented that this was not relevant to this request. The variance is to reduce the setback to zero feet. Discussion was held with regard to the elevation of the first floor deck. Mr. Dunlap stated that he believes the new deck construction is lower than 30 inches. Building Official Ford advised that he has not seen the elevation for the ground floor deck yet, but if it is 30 inches or higher, then it also has to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Burkhart moved to deny the Variance request to allow a second-story deck according to staff recommendation. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Mr. Dunlap advised that the hardships are that the variance would have a minor impact on the neighborhood; the construction is outside the land use code but the whole neighborhood is outside the land use code; that the City should have language in the zoning code that addresses historic buildings; and that moving the deck back five feet would make the project structurally and economically impractical. A vote was taken, and the motion to deny the Variance was approved by unanimous vote. b. Request to consider an application for a Variance to reduce a required twenty (20) foot rear yard to allow an addition to extend approximately three and one-half (3.5) feet into the required rear yard for property located at 393 Third Street. • Minutes of Community Development Board November 20, 2001 Page 3 • Mr. Michael Stevens introduced himself. He stated that he came before the Board a few years ago to request a variance to build a laundry room on the side of the house. At that time he was advised that the side yard was actually the back yard. Mr. Stevens further stated that he has now been advised that the side yard is actually the side yard and he would like to build a side room or outside utility room which would encroach the rear yard setback by 3.5 feet. Ms. Doerr stated that the applicant was advised incorrectly in the past that the east side of the lot was the rear of the yard. She stated that this lot had been divided in a fee simple manner, but the platted lot of record had not been re-platted in a manner consistent with how the four unit have been constructed. to be She further stated that based on the platted lot of record, Third Street is the front of the lot and the 20 foot rear yard setback has been applied to the north side of the lot. In response to a question from Mr. Wolfson, Ms. Doerr advised that lots 32 and 34 have been divided into four units, two each per lot. Mr. Wolfson stated that this application was addressing Lot 32. Ms. Doerr confirmed that Lot 32 is an interior lot and not a corner lot. Mr. Ford and Ms. Doerr commented that at the time the duplexes were constructed, they meet the setbacks, but later ownership of the two lots was subdivided between the four units. Based upon that division, the front and rear orientation as defined by the zoning code changed. Mrs. Walker stated that this structure is non-conforming because the front yard setback is not 20 feet. Mr. Burkhart suggested moving the air conditioning pad forward 3.5 feet to bring the addition into compliance. • Mr. Grunewald moved to deny the Variance request and Mr. Burkhart seconded the motion. Discussion was held with regard to whether the structure is non-conforming. Mr. Burkhart moved to withdraw the motion denying the variance request and Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion. Mr. Burkhart moved to approve the Variance request assuming the 8 x 22 structure is moved forward so that it would comply with the present interpretation of the 20-foot rear yard setback. Mr. Wolfson advised that this motion does not respond to the applicant's request. He stated that the Board needs to either approve or deny the request that has been presented to the Board. He added that the applicant is allowed to amend his request. Mr. Stevens requested to amend his variance request to move the air conditioning pad south 3.5 feet. Mr. Wolfson clarified that the applicant is amending his request to move the structure as far south as required and removing the north portion that is encroaching the rear yard setback. Mr. Grunewald confirmed with Mr. Stevens that he received a building permit to install the concrete slab. Mr. Stevens responded that he did. Mr. Ford stated for the record that Mr. Stevens was granted a foundation permit not a building permit. He further stated that this foundation permit was conditional upon Mr. Stevens obtaining a building permit at a later date. In addition, Mr. Ford stated that he did not believe any permits were issued for the plumbing. Further discussion was held with regard to whether or not the structure was conforming. The Board determined that a complete historical file should be reviewed prior to granting a change to the property. • Minutes of Community Development Board November 20, 2001 Page 4 111 Mr. Wolfson stated that he was impressed with the in-depth information that Ms. Doerr presents to the Board. He further stated that in the future he would appreciate historical information on these types of properties. The motion died for a lack of a second. A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart, seconded by Mr. Grunewald and unanimously carried to defer this item until the next Community Development Board meeting. c. Request to consider a recommendation to the City Commission related to a request to replat a portion of Lot 7, Block 1, within Donner's Replat subdivision creating three residential lots, located on Dudley Street,west of Mayport Road. Mr. Joseph Quest introduced himself. He stated that he would like to replat the lot into three lots to build three separate houses or duplexes. He further stated that he would like the City to close the open ditch on the property and install a large pipe. Mr. Jenkins discussed the drainage ditch with Ms. Doerr. Ms. Doerr advised that the applicant will continue to own the drainage ditch but an easement would be recorded on the final plat. She further stated that the applicant would work with the Public Works Department with regard to this issue. Mr. Jenkins confirmed with the applicant that he understood he was not able to build on this ditch. Ms. Doerr clarified that Mr. Quest is purchasing one-half of Lot 7 and he would like to replat the portion • that he is buying into three lots. Ms. Doerr advised that the Comprehensive Plan states this is a low- density area so the lot area of his property only allows three units which could be one duplex with two units and one single-family residence. Ms. Doerr further explained that a low-density area requires 7,200 square feet per unit so the applicant does not have enough lot area for four units. Mr. Quest advised the Board that he would like to amend the request to build the house on Church Road and the townhouse on Dudley Street. A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart, seconded by Mr. Jenkins and unanimously carried to recommend to the City Commission approval of the replat and recording the easement. 6. Reports and Announcements a. Chairman's report. Discussion of 4th DCA decision, Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Karen Shidel. Mr. Wolfson asked Ms. Doerr to address the memorandum she sent to the Board dated October 26, 2001. She stated that the Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Karen Shidel case complied with density but not with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that this is the first time in history that a project has been ordered to be demolished because the Fourth DCA found the project to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. An adjacent property owner filed an injunction against the developer. She further stated that a decision has not been made as to whether the Supreme Court will hear the case. She emphasized that this case points out very clearly that developments must comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wolfson advised that the lower court ruled in favor of the developer but when the plaintiff appealed, • the DCA ruled in favor of the plaintiff. He stated that until it is heard by the Supreme Court or overturned Minutes of Community Development Board , . . November 20, 2001 Page 5 IIIby the Supreme Court, than these are significant guidelines that every development board in the State of Florida must follow. Ms. Doerr read into the record an addition to the intent statement of each of the residential zoning districts that has been included as part of the amendments to Chapter 24, which states: All Development of Land and Parcels within the RS-1 Zoning Districts shall comply with the residential Density limitations as set forth in the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Atlantic Beach, as may be amended. 7. Adjournment There being no other business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. SIGNED ,, . . t AI .41 ATTEST " (LI a , A /% • •