05-18-99 v MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
May 18, 1999
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
PRESENT Robert Frohwein
Pat Pillmore
Mary Walker
Dezmond Waters
AND : George Worley, II, CD Director
Alan Jensen. Esquire
Pat Harris
ABSENT : Don Wolfson
Sharette Simpkins
Buzzy Grunthal
Chairman Robert Frohwein called the meeting to order and asked for approval of
the minutes of the meeting of March 16, 1999. Mr. Frohwein moved to amend the minutes
to clarify a statement he made regarding Item II in the second paragraph on the fourth
page of the minutes to read: "Mr. Frohwein again expressed his concern with acting on the
application since he is unclear because of his review of Section 24-157(a) and (b),
Definitions of yard, side, structure, site triangle, setback, building line, building setback,
and lot. corner". Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The
March 16, 1999 minutes will be placed on the agenda for approval at the next meeting.
Mr. Frohwein called for approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 20, 1999. On
motion made and seconded the minutes were approved.
Mayor Suzanne Shaughnessy introduced herself to the board and requested that
the board hold a discussion to determine whether the Community Development Board
under its charter has jurisdiction over the construction of the proposed Mayport Flyover
which exceeds the height limitation in the code and whether a variance is required.
The Chairman stated that Item 7 of the agenda is the review and discussion
regarding proposed amendments of Chapter 24, Zoning Code and it would be appropriate
to address the issue under that agenda item.
Application for Variance filed by Christine Lester to construct a 6-foot fence
that will encroach the setback requirements at property located at 625 East Coast Drive.
The Chairman noted that the section of the code on the application was incorrect.
Mr. Worley stated that specifically, the board will be dealing with the definition of lot,
corner which is in Section 24-17 and Fences which is 24-157 and the application is
amended accordingly.
Mrs. Lester introduced herself to the board and presented charts showing the
intersection of streets, sizes of rights of way, location of her residence as well as the
proposal for the 6-foot fence. She explained that the hardship that relates to the land
deals with the increased traffic patterns and noise along East Coast Drive with five 4-way
stops one of which is at her intersection. She stated that she has spoken to all of the
neighbors who are in support of the request. She asked the board to consider the
circumstances and grant her request for variance which is the minimum request for the
reasonable use of the property. She stated that she would be willing for the board to grant
a temporary variance until a traffic study was completed.
Mrs. Walker said she did not see how the traffic pattern affects the applicant's side
of the street. She questioned how a 25-foot fence on the south side would give any more
insulation than one that is 15 feet.
After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to grant a variance for 10 years to meet the
needs of the family and Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion for discussion purposes.
Mrs. Pillmore stated that she does not agree with a temporary arrangement for
fences to be permitted at 6 feet or that children could be viewed as a hardship for granting
a variance.
Mr. Worley stated that based on the information submitted his recommendation
would not be change.
After discussion, the motion failed with one aye vote by Mr. Waters and three nay
votes from Mrs. Walker, Mrs. Pillmore and Mr. Frohwein.
Mr. Frohwein requested staff add as a discussion item on the agenda for the next
meeting the matter of traffic flow on East Coast Drive.
After further discussion, Mrs. Pillmore moved to deny the variance. Mrs. Walker
seconded the motion and the variance was denied by a unanimous vote.
II. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Bradley N. Bowen to operate a
contractor office at property located at 109 Pine Street.
Dorothy Hand introduced herself to the board and asked for an explanation of what
impact the use-by-exception would have on the neighborhood.
Mr. Worley explained that the application is applied for under Section 24-159 which
addresses home occupations and that section of the code has a list of conditions which
must be met by any home occupation. He stated that the intent of the code is to allow one
to operate a business with bookkeeping and general office functions and only family
members residing in the residence can be employed at the location.
Denise Rubin introduced herself to the board and expressed her concern about
enforcement of the section of the code and the integrity of the residential neighborhood.
The applicant, Bradley Bowen, introduced himself to the board and explained that
he fully intends to comply with the home occupation section of the code. He stated that
he has a post office address in Jacksonville Beach.
After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to recommend approval of the use-by-exception
following staff's recommendation with the stipulation that the applicant comply with all of
the restrictions set out in section 24-159 and the exception be granted to the applicant only
for this location only. Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion and the motion passed
unanimously.
Ill. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Debra and Ted Jackrel to construct
a parking lot on property known as Lots 1,2,3, and 4, Block 40, Section H.
Mrs. Jackrel introduced herself to the board and explained she and her husband
desire to construct and operate a parking lot to be used in conjunction with their existing
business for the temporary parking of vehicles. She stated that she previously was
granted a use-by-exception to operate their business across the street approximately two
years ago. She stated she intends to use limestone rock so the property can drain
properly and the property would not be covered with cement. She stated that the purchase
of the property depended on obtaining the use-by-exception.
Mr. Worley stated that off-street parking lots are permissible under Section 24-162
where such lots are within 400 feet of the premises requiring the parking. He stated that
the property would be used solely for parking purposes for the business located across the
street.
Mrs. Walker expressed her concern with landscaping and exactly what triggered
compliance.
Mr. Worley stated that the landscape ordinance is perimeter landscaping around
vehicular use areas and the main focus is a buffer around the area. He stated that the
applicant has proposed to follow the setback restrictions along Mayport Road. He stated
that the only permit required by the applicant would be a permit for the proposed fence.
After discussion, Mrs. Walker moved to recommend approval of the use-by-
exception and that the exception be granted to the applicant only for this location only; that
the applicant comply with any landscaping that is determined by the Community
Development Director as applicable according to Section 24-177. Mrs. Pillmore seconded
the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
The Chairman requested Mr. Worley to include as an agenda item at the next
meeting staffs determination of the percentage of improvements for Mr. and Mrs. Jackel's
proposed parking lot
VI. DISCUSSION
The board held a discussion regarding definitions of structure as it pertains to a
bridge or flyover.
Mrs. Pillmore stated she felt that under the definition in the code that the proposed
Mayport Road Flyover should be treated as a structure since it is constructed for support
and should be subject to the 35-feet height restriction in the building code.
Mr. Waters stated that the board is dealing with structures because the term falls
under definitions in the code and should be under the city's jurisdiction. He stated that in
Section 24-156 there are exceptions to height limitations which states that upon specific
application the City Commission may make exceptions to the limitations and restrictions
regarding the height of buildings.
Mr. Worley stated that both Atlantic Boulevard and Mayport Road are state roads.
The location of the flyover and the north to west bound access lane are across private
property and it is his understanding that JTA or DOT are in the process of acquiring the
land.
Mrs. Walker stated that the remainder of the definition of structure states that and
(which connects everything) used or intended for business or living quarters. She stated
that possibly a flyover could be stretched to say its business quarters and she doesn't
think so. She stated that she did not see the flyover as a matter that should come before
the city for review.
Mr. Waters stated that one needed to decide whether the term building or structure
in the code was the broadest category and in his view structure was the broadest as
structure shall mean anything constructed, erected or placed the use of which requires
permanent location on the ground or anything attached to something having a permanent
location on the ground which ultimately includes fences greater than six feet in height
Mr. Frohwein stated that the flyover could fall under building because of the word
"or" that occurs in the first sentence. He stated that the matter is probably more of a legal
issue as the City Attorney has already indicated that the flyover cannot be interpreted as
a structure.
Mayor Shaughnessy stated that a recommendation centers around the definitions
and whether something like a bridge or superstructure fits under the definition of structure
with all of the applicable definitions of the terms in Section 24-16.
Mrs. Pillmore stated that she is totally agreeable to define the flyover as a structure
as included in our code and should be brought before the elected officials of the City for
a decision.
Mr. Frohwein stated that he wants to support the City Commission and trusts they
have good reason for wanting to have jurisdiction over the height of a flyover constructed
in Atlantic Beach. He stated that he has difficulty in making a recommendation in favor of
that support.
After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to defer the discussion until the next meeting
to allow further research.
Mayor Shaughnessy stated it was difficult for the board to be given information on
the same night for their review and recommendation and stated she did not want the board
to render a decision with questions in their mind.
Mr. Frohwein stated that the board report to the City Commission that they had not
reached a decision as it is not clear cut.
After discussion, Mrs. Walker seconded the motion to defer.
Mrs. Pillmore reiterated her view that the board merely needs to ask if the flyover
is a structure and whether the board has jurisdiction over the height limitation.
Mrs. Walker stated she needed more time to review the whole ordinance before
making a decision.
The Chairman called the vote and the matter was deferred to the next meeting with
three aye votes from Mrs. Walker, Mr. Waters and Mr. Frohwein and one nay vote from
Mrs. Pillmore.
There being no further business to come before the board on motion made the
meeting was adjourned.
SIGNED 11.4 •
ATTES /r