2001-03-20 (meeting minutes) v .
I, .
•
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
March 20, 2001
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of February 20, 2001
3. Recognition of Visitors
4. Old Business
a. Application for Variance filed by John Meserve to reduce the rear and side yard
setbacks to build an addition to a non-conforming residence located at 2126
Beach Avenue.
b. Application for Use by Exception filed by Atillio and Cathy Cerqueira to store
boats and recreational vehicles on the property located at Lots 1 through 7,
• Section H.
c. Application for Variance filed by Atillio and Cathy Cerqueira to erect a six-foot
fence around the perimeter of Lots 1 through 7, Section H.
d. Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review for Hidden Paradise.
5. New Business
a. Application for Variance filed by Coalson Contractors, Inc., to reduce the rear
yard setback to renovate the home located at 1814 Seminole Road.
b. Application for Variance filed by Chris Lambertson to reduce the front yard
setbacks of Lot 95, Saltair Section No. 3, to construct a new home.
c. Review of Application for Variance filed by J. Malcolm Jones for an existing
fence exceeding the six-foot height limitation at the property located at 161 Beach
Avenue.
6. Reports and Announcements
7. Adjournment
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board at the
above meeting, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may need to
• ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings be made, which record shall include the
testimony and evidence upon which appeal is to be based.
MINUTES OF MEETING OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
March 20,2001
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held Tuesday, March 20, 2001,in the City
Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chairman Don Wolfson, Robert Frohwein,William Gulliford,
Mary Walker, Community Development Director George Worley, II, and Recording Secretary Susan
Dunham.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of February 20, 2001
A motion was made by Mr. Gulliford, seconded by Mr. Frohwein and unanimously carried to approve the
Minutes of the Community Development Board meeting of February 20, 2001.
3. Recognition of Visitors
Chairman Wolfson introduced Mayor John Meserve.
4. Old Business
a. Application for Variance filed by John Meserve to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks to
build an addition to a non-conforming residence located at 2126 Beach Avenue.
Mr. Meserve introduced himself and stated that he made application a month ago and sent someone in
his stead in the naive thinking that it would de-politicize the situation. He said that this
• representative,who he has known for 14 years, could not answer the personal questions asked about
the property. Mr. Meserve stated that he is attempting to add a father-in-law suite and does not care
where the addition is located. However, Mr. Meserve stated the following: (1)if he builds the
proposed addition at the front of the house, another variance would be needed; (2)if he moved the
proposed addition forward, he would lose his garage;and(3)if he moved the proposed addition to the
other side,he would encroach on the front setback.
Mr. Worley advised that the front lot requirement on any lot is a 20-foot setback. He said that is one
of the issues that we try to protect the most because that is the separation from the street. Mr. Worley
further advised that Mr. Meserve has only 9.8 feet in the front that he could add onto without
encroaching into the 20-foot setback. He said that Mr. Meserve is already in violation of the rear yard
requirement and he is in compliance with the front and side yard requirements. Mr. Worley stated
that he would be remiss from a staff perspective to recommend creating a new encroachment where
none already exists. He said that given the choice of the two,the side yard addition would be
preferable from staffs perspective in that it is a continuation of an existing line of the building.
Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Meserve if he is planning to remove the magnolia tree. Mr. Meserve
responded that there would be no trees removed with the proposed construction.
Mrs.Walker asked Mr. Meserve if he felt that if the variance were to be granted, does he think it
would be the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or
structure? Mr. Meserve responded that he could not go more than about three feet before he is unable
to get a car into the garage. So,he said,from that standpoint,the impact of going four feet is almost
meaningless.
. Mr. Gulliford moved to approve the variance request. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion,which
passed by unanimous vote.
Minutes of Community Development Board
March 20, 2001
Page 2
• Chairman Wolfson reiterated that the Board needed to review this application again because the
Board members felt they did not have enough information to make a decision. He stated that the
drawings Mr. Meserve gave the Board members tonight helped him to understand more clearly what
Mr. Meserve is trying to accomplish. Chairman Wolfson advised Mr. Meserve that he was sorry he
had to come to the Board a second time but appreciated him taking the time.
b. Application for Use by Exception filed by Atillio and Cathy Cerqueira to store boats and
recreational vehicles on the property located at Lots 1 through 7, Section H.
Mr. Atillio Cerqueira introduced himself and stated that he has a business located at 36 West 6th
Street and is requesting a variance and a use by exception on his lots 1 through 7 on West 5th Street in
Atlantic Beach.
Mr.Worley stated that the diagram submitted by Mr. Cerqueira indicates a rectangular area that is
basically seven lots. Mr.Worley advised the Board that the property does not go through to West 6th
Street. He further indicated that the diagram is a little confusing in that it shows that there is a
warehouse on West 6th Street which forms the northern boundary of this site.
Mr. Cerqueira reminded the Board that he met with them approximately three months ago at which
time the Board asked him to design the roof structure for storage. He stated that after giving the
matter some thought,he decided on a plain lot with a fenced enclosure. Mr. Cerqueira stated that he
is coming to the Board this time for the same situation as his original application but without a roof.
• Mr. Cerqueira stated that the parking surface would be either shredded shingles or lime rock. He also
indicated that he would designate the parking spaces by laying timbers ten feet apart and then
marking each individual parking space.
Mr.Worley clarified that the additional landscape buffer he recommended in his staff report would be
located along Mayport Road as well as the western boundary which would give a boundary between
two different uses, commercial and residential. He stated that he felt an additional landscaping buffer
would be appropriate since this property is located on Mayport Road and the flyover would adversely
impact Mayport Road when it is completed. Mr.Worley advised that the next agenda item was a
variance request allowing fences to be installed closer to the property lines than are permitted by the
fence requirements. He stated that it was his feeling that taking the two items combined, landscaping
could be placed outside the fence,the fence could be set back to the appropriate distance from
Mayport Road and this would provide more of a buffer and less of an impact on traffic driving by the
property. Mr.Worley further advised that pursuant to Section 24177,the additional buffer
requirement is at least a 10-foot width of landscaping. He said that the remainder of the vehicular use
areas of the parking lot requires only a minimum 5-foot width for landscaping elsewhere.
Mr. Frohwein asked Mr. Cerqueira if he was willing to accept the additional landscape buffer. Mr.
Cerqueira responded that he was not. Mr. Cerqueira stated that currently,there is a four-foot fence
along the east and west property lines. He stated that he was trying to establish enough square
footage to make it feasible to run a profitable business. He further stated that the landowner on the
west side of the property is going to install a six-foot wooden fence around that property.
Mr. Cerqueira advised the Board that he was attempting to install a 6-foot fence for security reasons.
He said that people have very expensive boats or recreational vehicles in storage and they want to
• make sure they are protected.
Minutes of Community Development Board
March 20, 2001
Page 3
• Mr. Wolfson expressed his concern with regard to the lack of effort by Mr. Cerqueira to enhance the
aesthetics of the property. Mr. Cerqueira advised that that he would make sure that the front of the
property would be appealing by installing palm trees, bushes, and grass. Mr. Wolfson also stated that
he was concerned that the lighting not impact the surrounding neighborhood at night. Mr. Cerqueira
confirmed that he planned to install direct lighting in the corners that would be directed into the lot
and these lights would be turned on from dusk to dawn. Mr. Cerqueira further advised that the lights
would have to be at least ten feet above the top of any of the vehicles.
In response to a question from Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Worley stated that if the lighting is directed into the
interior of the lot and sufficiently shielded, then it would probably not be any more obtrusive than the
security lighting seen on commercial buildings downtown. He further stated that there is a provision
in the code for parking lots which would apply to the proposed use which requires that lighting be
shielded, facing into the lot and that there be no direct lighting on the residential properties.
In response to a question from Mrs. Walker, Mr. Worley stated that he was recommending the
additional landscape buffer to provide an additional visual buffer. He said that the ten-foot width
buffer would provide better depth and more visual separation. Mr. Worley said that he thought that
might be more appropriate for here because there is no structure.
Discussion was held with regard to whether or not to require the applicant to provide the Board with a
landscaping plan before proceeding with approval of the variance. Mr. Worley advised that the
applicant would be required to submit a landscape plan at the time of permit application. He further
stated that the landscaping on site would be verified prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
In response to a question from Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Cerqueira stated that he anticipates having
approximately 55 to 65 parking spaces approximately 32-36 feet long and 8 feet wide. Mr. Cerqueira
also stated that currently anyone coming from the south on Mayport Road would have to drive down
9th Street to Orchid Street and then drive back up 6th Street.
Mayor Meserve stated that a Metropolitan Planning Organization study has been done on this entire
issue. He said that one recommendation was to put a left turn at 2nd Street for south traffic coming to
the north allowing them to cross Mayport Road during slow traffic periods.
Mrs. Walker moved to recommend approval of the Use by Exception with the requirements
that Staff had itemized: (1)that the site must meet or exceed all landscaping code requirements,
especially the buffer requirements between incompatible uses which would be the east and west
sides; (2)that parking spaces for customers vehicles and vehicle storage must be clearly marked
on the site; (3) an additional landscaped buffer, equivalent to that required by incompatible
uses, should be placed along Mayport Road frontage of the property; (4)that the use be granted
to the applicant only and to this site only; that the west side lighting be least offensive to the
residential area; and that the project be implemented within nine months. Mr. Frohwein
seconded the motion.
Mr. Gulliford offered a substitute motion recommending the use by exception to the
Commission with provisions set forth in Mrs. Walker's original motion and with the addition of
a coated fence as a requirement to the use by exception. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion,
which motion passed by unanimous approval.
4110
Minutes of Community Development Board
March 20,2001
Page 4
• c. Application for Variance filed by Atillio and Cathy Cerqueira to erect a six-foot fence around
the perimeter of Lots 1 through 7, Section H.
Mr. Cerqueira stated that the application for variance is to erect a six-foot fence on the boundary line
of his property with the conditions of a buffer landscape.
Mr.Worley stated that the issue in this request is the setback's visual appearance. He stated that from
staff's perspective, staff rarely recommends a variance for a six-foot fence in the front yard of
properties and he would stand by that recommendation. Mr.Worley advised that the additional
landscaping that Mr. Cerqueira is proposing would be beneficial and setting the fence back ten feet
would allow him to put the landscaping outside the fence which would make it more effective. Mr.
Worley said that he would see this as the minimum variance that this Board could even consider. He
said that he still believes the 20-foot setback is appropriate but understands it would severely
encroach Mr. Cerqueira's usable area for parking.
Mr. Wolfson stated that staff is recommending that the request be denied and the 20-foot setback on
Mayport Road be maintained. Mr. Cerqueira stated that he did not understand the setback situation
relating to West 5th Street and it would be a dramatic setback for him if he would have to lose 15 feet
on this side. He further stated that he would reduce the variance request along Mayport Road from 20
feet to 10 feet but would ask for the full variance on West 5th Street.
Mr.Worley stated that he was more concerned with the visual impact along Mayport Road. He stated
that providing the landscape buffer along Mayport Road is more important than along West 5th Street
11111 since there would be a fenced retention pond belonging to Jacksonville Transportation Authority
across from this property on West 5th Street.
Mr. Cerqueira stated that the setback would need to be 10 feet instead of 15 feet. Mr.Wolfson
clarified that Mr. Cerqueira was now requesting a 10-feet setback for the fence on Mayport Road and
a 5-foot setback for the fence on West 5 Street and Mr. Cerqueira agreed.
Mr.Wolfson moved to approve the variance to set the chain link fence back 10 feet on Mayport
Road and 5 feet on West 5th Street at a maximum of six feet in height. Mr. Gulliford seconded
the motion,which passed by unanimous vote.
d. Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review for Hidden Paradise.
Mr. Paul Nichols of Bestcon introduced himself. Mr.Nichols advised that the nature and intent of
Hidden Paradise would be similar to Paradise Cove on Main Street.
Mr.Worley advised that subsequent to sending out his staff report,he received verbal comments from
the police department stating their concern with the cul-de-sac on Tulip Street.
Mr. Jim Lucas, engineer for the project, said that the St. Johns Water Management District would
prefer not to connect the road at this point in time. Mr. Lucas advised that the Water Management
District would prefer that they move the cul-de-sac somewhat to provide more of a buffer for the
turnaround because it is so close to the existing ditch. Mr. Lucas stated that once the street was
completed and connected at a later date,then the Water Management District would no longer be
concerned. Mr.Nichols stated that their intent is to create a neighborhood and cul-de-sacs tend to
• lend a certain sort of privacy to a neighborhood, places to go to rather than places to go through.
Minutes of Community Development Board
March 20,2001
Page 5
• Discussion was held with regard to the natural drainage ditch in Lot 1 at the intersection of 14th Street
and Tulip. Mr.Nichols stated that the drainage would be maintained at this location.
Mr. Worley advised that the lots proposed by Bestcon are smaller than required by new subdivisions
but are slightly larger than the lots that were originally there. He stated that the lots would be slightly
larger than 50 feet by 100 feet. He further stated that the minimum requirement for lots in this zoning
district is 50 feet by 100 feet so the lots will exceed that requirement. Mr.Worley said that this is a
replat,not a new subdivision.
Mr.Worley stated he would withdraw his recommendation to connect Tulip Street.
Mr. Guffiford moved to approve the preliminary subdivision plat review with staff
recommendations. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion,which passed by unanimous vote.
5. New Business
a. Application for Variance filed by Coalson Contractors,Inc., to reduce the rear yard setback to
renovate the home located at 1814 Seminole Road.
Mr. Peter Coalson introduced himself to the Board. Mr. Coalson stated that he prepared a set of
drawings for a renovation of an existing residence at 1814 Seminole Road. He stated that at the time
he drew the plans, he noted on the survey that the structure was non-conforming. He advised the
owners that that the structure had to maintain the existing footprint and the modification of the
building could not be extended. Mr. Coalson requested that he be allowed to rebuild the structure on
• the footprint that currently exists. He stated that this structure was not grandfathered in since it was
not permitted.
Discussion was held with regard to the work Mr. Coalson would be performing on the home. Mr.
Frohwein stated that covering the patio area was enlarging the non-conformance. Mr. Coalson advised
that he plans on tearing down the foundation.
Mr. Frohwein stated that the encroachment into the rear yard setback is 2.5 feet. He asked Mr.
Coalson that if it were an issue with the Board that he is increasing the non-conformance by adding the
structure,would it be conceivable that he could cantilever the roof out? Mr. Coalson responded that it
is structurally and economically conceivable but their desire for requesting this variance is that upon
purchasing the home the owner assumed that the structure represented a legal structure and therefore
an addition off the side would be something that they could do at some time.
Mr. Gulliford moved to grant the variance as requested. Mr.Frohwein seconded the motion.
Mr.Wolfson asked Mr. Coalson if there was a way to get the same square footage and accomplish
what the applicants want by widening the room? Mr. Coalson responded that the room is only 10 feet
9 inches wide and if it is reduced by 2.5 feet,the room could not be used.
Mrs.Walker stated that she is concerned about the existing portion of the home being taken down to
the foundation and being rebuilt. Mr. Frohwein added that he was concerned with the large amount of
mass that is being added by the patio roof even though it would not project any further to the rear. Mr.
Coalson stated that the use of the porch was needed and when the Phillips purchased the home,they
assumed that they would be allowed to improve their property based on the existing structure.
•
Minutes of Community Development Board
March 20, 2001
Page 6
• Mr. Frohwein asked Mr.Worley if the Board were to grant this variance, is there any reason that the
applicant could not change his mind and close the room in without requesting another variance? Mr.
Worley responded that setbacks are measured to the vertical supports of the roof of the building so if
the Board grants a variance, it is to the post that is supporting the roof. He said that if the applicant
came in at some future date and wanted to enclose that area,he would not view that as violating the
variance that is granted. Mr.Worley further stated that if the posts were set back to comply with the
setback of the roof, it could overhang. Mr. Coalson stated that he felt this was reasonable.
Mr. Frohwein offered a substitute motion to grant the variance to allow this owner to demolish
and rebuild this addition with the dimensions as currently existing as of this date which would
disallow any additional structures including the vertical posts for the proposed patio cover and
the provision that the patio posts conform to the setback lines. Mr. Gulliford seconded the
motion,which passed by unanimous vote.
b. Application for Variance filed by Chris Lambertson to reduce the front yard setbacks of Lot 95,
Saltair Section No. 3,to construct a new home.
Mr. Chris Lambertson introduced himself and stated that he is requesting a front yard variance to save
a magnolia, oak and pine tree. He stated that in 1990 a variance was granted to reduce the rear yard
setback to five feet for the purpose of saving the trees.
Mr. Lambertson stated that since the three trees sit right on the property line,they bumped out the
proposed home in those areas. However,he said that in order to do this they had to move the house
• forward because of the odd shape of the lot. He said that this variance will affect the neighbors in a
positive manner in that they are moving the house away from the neighbors behind, as well as saving
the trees which would create a buffer. Mr. Lambertson further advised that there is a 25-foot right-of-
way between Seminole Road and the front of the house so there would still be 40 feet between
Seminole Road and the front of the house.
Mr.Worley clarified that the original variance was granted to allow for a single family dwelling to be
constructed. He stated that this is a substandard lot so a variance was needed to build a house on it.
He further stated that the variance provided for a 5-foot rear setback. Mr.Worley clarified that under
the previous variance,the rear property line was considered the east boundary line which backs up to
the platted lots.
Mr. Worley clarified that the applicant is seeking to shift the house forward to 7.5 feet from the rear
rather than five feet and encroach the front by 5 feet rather than provide the 20 feet. Mr.Worley
further stated that the original application was abiding by the 20 feet but it was closer to the rear lot
line and encroaching on those trees. Mr.Wolfson stated that if this Board grants the variance,the
Board is allowing the house to be moved five feet closer to the front yard setback.
Mr. Lambertson advised that the proposed home would be two stories. He stated that he thought it
would be too intrusive to build a 3-story home,plus it would destroy the magnolia tree since the limbs
come out so far.
Mr.Wolfson stated that he feels that Mr. Lambertson has done the minimum to diversely impact this
particular lot.
•
Minutes of Community Development Board
March 20, 2001
Page 7
• Mr. Gulliford moved to grant the variance as requested. Mrs.Walker seconded the motion.
Mr. Frohwein expressed his concern with regard to reducing the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 7.5
feet and also a 15-foot front yard setback. He stated that he would like to see the 20-foot front yard
maintained but is more than willing to agree to a 5-foot rear yard setback. Mr. Frohwein stated that
perhaps a four-bedroom house on this lot is too much.
Mr. Gulliford stated that Mr. Lambertson could move the house back five feet and encroach less on the
front setback but the oak tree would be compromised. He stated that he would rather see the oak tree
stay. In addition,he stated that the encroachment is minimal because just points of the house will be
hitting the property line instead of a solid wall across the front.
Mr. Wolfson stated that taking into consideration the uniqueness of the lot,the location of the lot in
relation to Howell Park,the 25-foot right of way,he did not know what more could be done with the
lot.
A vote was taken and Mr.Wolfson, Mr. Gulliford and Mrs.Walker voted in favor of the motion,
Mr. Frohwein voted in opposition to the motion.
c. Review of Application for Variance filed by J. Malcolm Jones for an existing fence exceeding the
six-foot height limitation at the property located at 161 Beach Avenue.
Mr. Steven Diebenow of Rogers,Towers, Bailey,Jones &Gray introduced himself. He stated that he
• was in attendance tonight with Mr. Jones on behalf of Emily Pierce. Mr. Diebenow stated that this
matter has been before the Board previously. Mr. Diebenow advised that in 1999 a neighbor made a
complaint about this particular fence. When Ms. Pierce came before the Code Enforcement Board,
the Board came to the conclusion that the best way to address this issue would be through a variance.
He said that in March of 2000, Ms. Pierce filed an application for a variance and this Board denied
that variance in July of 2000. Mr. Diebenow further stated that the Board was very concerned about
the precedent that was going to be set if this particular variance was approved. In fact,one of the
crucial items contained in the staff report was that the Cedar Cove Condominiums met the setback
requirements. Mr. Diebenow stated that the Cedar Cove Condominium is set back 7.5 feet from the
property line and the proper setback in the RG2 zoning district is 15 feet.
Mrs.Walker asked Mr. Worley if the side yards as they are now met the setback requirement when
Cedar Cove Condominiums became a PUD? Mr. Worley responded that it was relatively close
together in time frame that the RG2 district was applied to that area. He said that Mr. Diebenow is
correct that the setback requirement for multi-family is 15 feet. He stated that the size and location of
the building should not be the determining factor but the use of the building as a multi-family
building could be. Mr. Worley said that a single family home could be built 7.5 feet off of that line, it
could be three stories, it could have balconies that extend as far as these and still comply with the
setback requirements.
Mr.Wolfson stated that he wanted to go on record that he felt he erred the last time this variance
request came before the Board.
Mr.Wolfson moved to recommend that the application for the variance filed by Mr. Jones be
approved. Mr. Gulliford seconded the motion.
•
•
. Minutes of Community Development Board
March 20,2001
Page 8
4111 Mrs. Walker expressed her concern that the motion be more specific as to the height of the fence. Mr.
Wolfson stated that the motion is to give Mr. Jones the variance to allow the fence to stay as it is and
if it needs to be repaired or replaced, it is not to be extended, raised or broadened. Mr.Worley stated
that in order to alleviate concerns with regard to height,the applicant could provide a diagram to be
placed in the file that indicates the existing fence heights.
A vote was taken and Mr.Wolfson,Mr. Gulliford and Mrs.Walker voted in favor of the
motion and Mr. Frohwein voted in opposition to the motion.
6. Reports and Announcements
Discussion was held with regard to staff contacting Board members to remind them of the Board
meetings. Mr. Worley suggested that it might be more appropriate if Board members call staff if they
would not be attending the meeting since Board members receive an agenda packet as a reminder.
Mr.Worley stated that at the last meeting the Board requested a timeline on the comprehensive plan
process. Mr. Worley advised that he should have the timeline within one week. Mr.Worley also advised
that a public hearing is scheduled for April 19 which is a pre-first reading public hearing to obtain public
input on the issues. Mr.Worley said that he believes that the three major issues will be garage apartments
on Beach Avenue, boat parking and rezoning of the core city area. .
7. Adjournment
There being no other business or discussion,the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
1v\
ATTEST i)/(/JZX
•
,.
III CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2001
AGENDA ITEM: #4. a. Application for Variance to construct an addition
onto the side of an existing nonconforming
residence at 2126 Beach Avenue.
The applicant desires to construct an addition onto an existing nonconforming residence. The
proposed addition will be in line with the existing building at 10.9 feet from the rear property line and
will encroach no further into the setback than the existing structure. The lot is also nonconforming in that
it 75 feet on each side. The proposed addition will be 7.5 feet from the south side property line where
the minimum required is only 5 feet.
The Board reviewed the proposed addition at its last meeting and deferred action subject to additional
0 information. The applicant will attend this meeting to answer the Board's questions. At this time Staff
has no recommendation pending the
AGENDA ITEM: #4. b. Application for Use-by-Exception to operate an
open storage business for boats and RV's at
Mayport Road and West Fifth Street.
A similar request from this applicant appeared before the Board in July of last year. The applicant
desires to operate a business providing storage for RV's and boats. The storage of vehicles in the CG
district has been interpreted in the past as a use similar to limited warehousing as provided in Sec. 24-111
(c) (7). The proposed Use is to be conducted in an open area covering the majority of the block. This
request is somewhat similar to the outside storage of vehicles permitted by Exception at Pan Am Mini-
storage. The vehicles will be stored for varying lengths of time in a secured area.
Staff believes that the proposed use could be accomplished in a manner that would not degrade
the immediate neighborhood through careful placement of landscaping. It is likely that the economically
viable uses of this land will be limited by the Flyover construction now in progress. However, the
proposed use could create a negative visual impact and will also produce some vehicular traffic to and
from the site. This property abuts a residential district on its eastern boundary and the storage of
vehicles is rarely perceived as a compatible use adjacent to residential lots.
III
•
IIIIII
If it is the Board's desire to recommend approval of this Use, Staff strongly recommends the
following conditions be placed upon such recommendation:
1) The site must meet or exceed all landscaping code requirements especially the buffer
requirements between incompatible uses.
2) Parking spaces for customers vehicles and vehicle storage must be clearly marked on the site.
3) An additional landscaped buffer, equivalent to that required for incompatible uses, should be
placed along the Mayport Road frontage of the property.
4) The use be granted to the applicant only and for this site only.
AGENDA ITEM: #4. c. Application for Variance to erect a six foot fence
around the perimeter of Lots 1-7, Blocks 32 and 33.
For a vehicle storage business.
This is a follow-on request from the above Use-by-Exception. If the exception is approved the
4110 applicant desires to completely fence the subject site with a six foot high fence to the property line to
provide security. The fence regulations require setbacks of 20 feet from Mayport Road and 15 feet from
West 5th Street for installation of a six foot fence.
The fence regulations are intended to provide a buffer against the visual impairment of most
fences. Given the proposed use of this site, it is Staffs recommendation that a landscaped buffer be
provided along the Mayport Road side of the site. This landscaping can and should be provided outside
of the fence. Because of this, Staff opposes any reduction of the 20 foot setback from Mayport Road.
On West 5th Street the need to provide some parking, even temporary parking, for customers can be
satisfied outside of the proposed fencing. The 15 foot setback provides room for this parking and allows
easy access to the street. In addition, some landscaping(a minimum 5 foot buffer strip) must be provided
along West 5`h. That too can be installed within the 15 foot setback. Give the foregoing, Staff
recommends denial of the requested fence setback Variance.
AGENDA ITEM: #4. d. Preliminary Subdivision Plat review for proposed
Hidden Paradise Subdivision.
The applicant proposes to re-plat an area near the Intra Coastal marsh to create a new
subdivision. At the last regular Community Development Board meeting the board provided general
input regarding this proposal. The applicant has now submitted a preliminary plat for a formal review and
Staff has submitted this plat to the Public Works and Public Safety departments for review. At this time
no recommended changes have been received from those departments.
III
• Staff has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to the lot layout, lot dimensions, street
alignment, or right-of-way dimensions. The proposal substantially conforms to the existing conditions of
the original subdivision. The issue of the proposed right-of-way of Carnation Street being 50 feet in
width where the code calls for new right-of-way to be 60 feet in width is mitigated by the fact that it was
originally platted at 50 feet and the other nearby right-of-ways are also 50 feet wide. The proposed
"temporary" cul-de-sac at Tulip Street should be eliminated and the segment of West 14th Street should
be completed and linked to Tulip Street. Additional modification recommendations may be forthcoming
from the Public Works and Public Safety Departments. At this time it is Staff's recommendation to
approve the proposed subdivision plat with the stated modifications and forward the plat to the City
Commission for review.
AGENDA ITEM: #5. a. Application for Variance to enlarge an existing
nonconforming residence at 1814 Seminole Road
The applicant desires to renovate and enlarge a nonconforming room addition on the rear of their
residence. The existing building is 17.5 feet from the rear lot line where 20 feet is required. The
enlargement of the addition is in line with the existing encroachment. The applicant claims no hardship
other than the existing site arrangement. Given the minor nature of the proposed addition and the
existing encroachment Staff recommends approval.
•
AGENDA ITEM: #5. b. Application for Variance to construct a Single-
family home on a nonconforming lot known as Lot
95, Saltair Section 3.
The applicant desires to construct a home on a substandard lot of record across from City Hall on
Seminole Road. The lot is nearly triangular and the standard setbacks cannot be met. A previous owner
of this lot came before the Board approximately five years ago and obtained a similar Variance, however
the current applicant desires a somewhat different lot layout. The proposed layout will provide a 5 foot
setback on the north side line, a 7.5 foot setback on the rear(east), and a 15 foot setback on the front.
The applicant has made an effort to save a number of trees on the lot at the rear and south sides.
Staff has carefully considered the unusual circumstances of this site. The shape and dimensions do
not allow for a reasonable building to be constructed without some form of setback Variance as well as a
Variance for construction on a nonconforming lot. Because of the lot shape and size and considering the
efforts of the applicant to maintain as large as practical front setback on Seminole Road, Staff
recommends granting the requested Variance with the setbacks as proposed.
•
AGENDA ITEM: #5. c. Re-hearing of application for a Variance to permit
an existing fence, with heights of 8 feet along one
section and 11 feet along another, to remain at 161
Beach Avenue.
This application was heard by the Board in July of last year. At that time Staff recommended
against the Variance but misrepresented the setbacks of the building next door as fully complying with
code. The adjacent building is 7.5 feet from the side line where 10 feet is required. The original staff
report is attached for reference.
The applicants attorney apparently attempted to schedule a re-hearing earlier, however the
communication breakdown occurred. In an effort to provide a fair hearing to the applicant, Staff agreed
to allow this issue to be addressed to the Board. All other information in the original Staff report remains
the same. Staff believes this is not a significant change and maintains the recommendation for denial.
•
•