Loading...
2001-12-18 (meeting minutes) v • AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH December 18, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of November 20, 2001. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. a. Request to consider a recommendation to the City Commission on an application for rezoning of property from Open Rural (OR) to Special Purpose (SP) to allow an existing radio station to continue with the use restricted to radio station and accessory structures only. Said property consists of approximately 2.5 acres and is generally located north of Atlantic Boulevard and east of the Intracoastal Waterway. b. Request for a Variance to reduce a required twenty-foot rear yard to allow an addition to extend approximately three and one-half feet into the rear yard setback for property located • at 393 Third Street. 5. New Business. a. Request to consider a Variance to allow a six-foot high fence, which is elevated on a berm resulting in a fence height of approximately eight feet, to remain along rear and side property lines of a lot within the RS-1 Zoning District, for property located at 1799 Sea Oats Drive. 6. 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 O 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 December 18, 2001 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held Tuesday, December 18, 2001, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chair Don Wolfson, Robert Frohwein, Karl Grunewald, Samuel Jacobson, Steve Jenkins, Mary Walker, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of November 20, 2001 A motion was made by Mr. Grunewald, seconded by Mr. Jenkins and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Community Development Board meeting of November 20, 2001. 4. Recognition of Visitors None. 5. Old Business a. Request to consider a recommendation to the City Commission on an application for rezoning of property from Open Rural (OR) to Special Purpose (SP) to allow an existing radio station to continue with the use restricted to radio station and accessory structures only. Said property consists of approximately 2.5 acres and is generally located north of Atlantic Boulevard and east of • the Intracoastal Waterway. Ms. Doerr advised the Board that this Special Purpose District is very limited and addresses the unique needs of the existing use of the property. She further advised that since this item last came before the Board in October, the new Land Use Code had been amended and adopted, and the legal description of this property was included in Section 21-14. She stated that it is important to recognize that if this property is re-zoned to Special Purpose District, this is the only authorized use of the property without coming before the Community Development Board and the City Commission. Mr. Diebenow was not in attendance. (Arrives at 7:15 pm.) Mr. Wolfson advised Ms. Doerr that he had hoped that this property would be given a Conservation designation with a Use-by-Exception attached rather than a Special Purpose District. Ms. Doerr responded that the Special Purpose District would provide tighter control and that there is no provision for this use as a Use-by-Exception in the Conservation Zoning District. She stated that this Special Purpose District restricts the property to this use only, and it cannot be used for anything else without coming before the Community Development Board. Mr. Wolfson stated that he was concerned that they were perpetuating that use indefinitely. Ms. Doerr responded that as long as that owner owns that property, they are entitled to continue this use. Mr. Jacobson stated that this is spot zoning. He stated that if it stops being a radio station, he would like to see it revert to its original state. Ms. Doerr advised that if that use were to end, it would have to be brought back to the Board to establish rights for another use. She further stated that in Section 24-103 in the Intent Section,the following language was added, "Any use has to be consistent with the • Comprehensive Plan." Ms. Doerr advised that this is a legal non-conforming use and if it goes away, any future use has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan designates that , Minutes of Community Development Board December 18, 2001 Page 2 • as Conservation. She further advised that whether a telecommunication tower is consistent or non- consistent with Conservation may be a legal issue. Mr. Frohwein stated that if radio stations were a permitted use, then another radio station would not be required to come before the Community Development Board. He suggested that a Use-by-Exception instead of a permitted use would be further limiting. Ms. Doerr responded that even if this specific permitted use expires if it ceases for twelve months or is abandoned, that any new use in a Special Purpose District requires the Board's approval as would a Use-by-Exception. She further stated that that the radio station's legal description is part of the Ordinance establishing the Special Purpose District and that this would have to be amended before any other use would be allowed or the SP district expanded. Ms. Doerr explained that even though the property is rezoned Special Purpose, it would first be subject to the conditions in the specific rezoning Ordinance in the package, since those provisions are more detailed than the zoning regulations. Ms. Doerr advised the Board that it was her feeling that the level of regulatory authority in a rezoning Ordinance is stronger than that of a Use-by-Exception. Mr. Jacobson advised that the Ordinance and the new zoning classification were in conflict where the zoning classification provides for abandonment after six months and the Ordinance gives it a period of 12 months. Mr. Steven Diebenow arrived at 7:15 p.m. and introduced himself. He stated that he was here on behalf of the radio station. Mr. Diebenow explained that the reason they asked for a year in the specific terms of this Special Purpose District was that the radio station is run solely by contributions and donations by benefactors, and that the regulations allowed the flexibility to ask for twelve months rather than six months. He stated that if the radio station were to get knocked over, he did not know if six months would • be enough time to raise money and rebuild the radio station. In response to a question from Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Diebenow responded that he thought that the radio station carried insurance for that type of disaster but he was not familiar with the insurance plan. He stated that the radio station is asking for one year to put everything back in order, but if the Board thinks that six months is enough time, then the radio station would have to work with that schedule. Mr. Diebenow reminded the Board that the radio station property has already been down-zoned and down-planned not once, but twice. Mr. Diebenow stated that from the overall perspective, the radio station has had a significant erosion of their legal rights and probably an actionable erosion of their rights. He further stated that he appreciated the accommodations and the willingness of Staff, the Board and the City Commission to work with them. Discussion was held with regard to placing an ownership restriction which could possibly diminish the property value or leaving the Ordinance as is and accepting the possibility that the property could be sold to another "bigger and better" telecommunication firm. Ms. Doerr advised that zoning and ownership should not be tied together. She further stated that land use regulations should look at characteristics of use, not who owns the land, and that to make decisions based upon ownership is discriminatory. In addition, she stated that the applicant should agree to a condition that ties ownership to the use of the property. Mr. Grunewald moved to recommend to the City Commission that this property be rezoned from Open Rural to Special Purpose to allow an existing radio station to continue with the use restricted to radio station and accessory structures only with the caveat that the radio station be landscaped so that it would be aesthetically attractive. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion. • , Minutes of Community Development Board December 18, 2001 Page 3 • Discussion was held with regard to the possibility of the owner filling wetlands and building on all 2.5 acres. Ms. Doerr advised that a condition could be added, if the owner wants to offer this, then he would have to come before the Board. Mr. Diebenow advised that the radio station does not intend to fill wetlands the site. Mr. Grunewald withdrew the motion and Mr. Frohwein withdrew the second. Mr. Frohwein moved to recommend to the City Commission to approve the proposed ordinance with the following caveats: (1) to have a significant amount of landscaping on site to screen the existing building; (2) no signage and remove the existing signage; (3) no wetland mitigation or wetland impact on the property; and (4) that any and all future construction will be necessary to provide a site plan for this Board to view and review prior to obtaining any building permits. Mr. Grunewald seconded the motion. Mr. Wolfson referred to Section 24-177, Requirements for Buffering. He stated that the landscape element of Chapter 24 be incorporated so that it is maintained with the maximum amount of landscaping without placing an excessive burden on applicant. Ms. Doerr stated that she would work with the applicant. A vote was called and Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Frohwein, Mrs. Walker and Mr. Grunewald voted in favor of the motion and Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Wolfson voted against the motion. Motion to recommend approval of the requested rezoning carries. b. Request for a Variance to reduce a required twenty-foot rear yard to allow an addition to extend approximately three and one-half feet into the rear yard setback for property located at 393 Third Street. Mr. Michael Stevens introduced himself. He stated that he would like to extend the outside utility room 3.5 feet to follow the footprint of the legally constructed pad outside his house. He further stated that he understands that he can legally expand on the side of the house and can go within five feet of the property line on the side. Mr. Stevens advised that he was only requesting to continue with what was approved previously. Ms. Doerr informed the Board that the additional research she performed did not provide any new information. She stated that this is a situation where there were two platted lots of record in accordance with the zoning regulations in effect at that time and that once construction was completed, ownership was divided in a fee simple manner which does not match the recorded plat. She stated that she spoke with the City attorney, Mr. Alan Jensen, who advised that the platted lots have not changed, just the ownership of the platted lots has changed. Ms. Doerr stated that if the Board required the applicant to replat, the Board could not approve the replat because of the minimum requirements. She further stated that the Board would need to study this issue and include provisions in the regulations to address this issue. Mr. Frohwein stated that the hardship was the inadequacy of the Zoning Code to interpret the setbacks on this type of lot. He stated that the City issued a permit for a structure to be built that runs east and west • along the two lots; the lots were never replatted; there is nothing that defines the front, rear and sides of this property; and it is a non-conforming structure if the front of the structure is on Third Street. , Minutes of Community Development Board December 18, 2001 Page 4 • Discussion was held with regard to side yard setbacks. Ms. Doerr advised that the side yard needs to be 15 feet, with a 5-foot minimum. Ms. Doerr further advised that she did not feel that this property meets the criteria for hardship. Mrs. Walker asked Mr. Stevens if he could build a smaller 8 feet x 18.4 feet structure. Mr. Stevens responded that he was originally allowed to install the pad and the studs are there and will continue to be there if he builds the structure 3.5 feet shorter. Ms. Doerr recommended that the Board look at Third Street as the front yard, the opposite yard as the rear yard and the east side as the side yard requiring a minimum of five feet. She stated that another way to look at the lot is the way it was platted--Lot 32 would make Third Street the front requiring 20 feet, the rear yard the opposite yard requiring 20 feet and no setback between the two. She further stated that logic dictates that there be some separation. Mr. Frohwein stated that the most liberal interpretation was to pick the Third Street frontage and he did not think that would be unreasonable. He further stated that he did not recognize a hardship that would allow this Board to reasonably grant a variance. However, Mr. Frohwein advised that as of January 1, 2002, the applicant could remove 3.5 feet off the rear of the concrete slab and come before this Board and that this would be a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Frohwein moved to deny the variance request and Mr. Grunewald seconded the motion. Ms. Doerr suggested that the setbacks be included in the motion for further clarification. • Mr. Frohwein withdrew the motion and Mr. Grunewald withdrew the second. Mr. Wolfson stated that from a historical perspective he believes the front of the lot is Sherry Drive, the rear of the lot is on the eastern part of the applicant's property and Third Street represents the side yard. He stated that all of the setbacks are in compliance if that is how the Board looks at that property. Mr. Grunewald stated that if this is the case,the address needed to be changed to meet Code. Mr. Jacobson moved that in conformance with present reality that Third Street be considered the front, the north be considered the back and the east side be considered the side yard. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Grunewald and Mr. Jenkins voted in favor of the motion and Mrs. Walker and Mr. Wolfson voted against the motion. The motion carried. Mr. Jacobson moved to deny the variance request. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed by unanimous approval. 6. New Business a. Request to consider a Variance to allow a six-foot high fence, which is elevated on a berm resulting in a fence height of approximately eight feet, to remain along rear and side property lines of a lot within the RS-1 Zoning District, for property located at 1799 Sea Oats Drive. Mr. Daniel Cantrell introduced himself. He advised the Board that his back yard is located on the corner of Saturiba Drive and Seminole Road. He stated that he has had a six-foot fence for years which did nothing for abatement of noise and light due to the drop in elevation at the back of the lot. He further 111 stated that he filled in the back edge of the lot to gain some privacy and relief from noise and light. Minutes of Community Development Board December 18, 2001 Page 5 In response to a question from Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Cantrell clarified that when a few sections of the fence blew down, they added soil and then put the fence back up. Mr. Jenkins asked Ms. Doerr her position with regard to the applicant's response dated November 17, 2001. Ms. Doerr responded that fence height has always been measured from average grade and the fence is now located above average grade which results in a fence height of greater than six feet. Mr. Cantrell responded that the definition in the Zoning Code is six feet above grade and grade is not defined. He stated that there are two places in the Zoning Code that mention grade: (1) average grade requires a ten-foot grid and you take the average on the grid. Obviously that is not the definition because fences go around the property; (2) finished grade which is the surface of all fill. He stated that if finished grade is used, there is no violation. Mr. Cantrell advised that he was an engineer and the general definition of"grade" is the surface of the topography after all fill. He further advised that he filled the lot because of erosion and the low elevation and that he did not feel that he was violating the Zoning Code. Mrs. Walker stated that the spirit behind finished grade is that someone doesn't come in, fill the area and then begin measuring height. Mr. Frohwein stated that the Zoning Code does not indicate where to begin measuring a fence. He further stated that the City has interpreted that berms are unacceptable, the berm is clearly fabricated and he also does not believe that it is in the spirit of the Zoning Code. Mr. Frohwein moved to deny the variance request. Mr. Grunewald seconded the motion. Mr. Jacobson advised that given the factors imposed upon the applicant by traffic noise, volume of traffic, hours of traffic and the contour of the land, he does not believe the fence is obtrusive and believes that the 110 applicant has a reasonable claim to hardship. Mr. Jacobson moved to grant the variance request with the understanding that Mr. Jacobson does not accept the argument on behalf of the applicant that he should be allowed to build on top of a berm. Mrs. Walker seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Mr. Jacobson, Mrs. Walker, Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Jenkins voted in favor of the motion and Mr. Frohwein and Mr. Grunewald voted against the motion. Motion to grant the variance request carries. 7. Adjournment There being no other business or discussio the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. SIGNED ATTEST 1àV22/2'7 L • VARIANCE WORKSHEET MEETING DATE :_ /a//r/#/ AGENDA ITEM M Yes No 1 ) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land , structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands , structures or buildings in the same district ; V __ 2 ) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or applicant ; 3 ) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties 4111 in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. ; 4 ) Will granting this variance confer any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands , buildings or structures ? 5 ) Will the variance requested be the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable \/ use of the land , building or structure ? J� 6 ) Will the requested variance be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Code ? _ 7 ) Will the requested variance be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare ? **********: *****; ** ****: **,% ************: ******* ************** Notes and Comments : • MEMBERS SIGNATURE : / !( -„r--___ C • VARIANCE WORKSHEET // MEETING DATE :_ Ig/q' 69 / AGENDA ITEM :."S_eQ,._„____ Yes No 1 ) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land , structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands , structures or buildings in the same district ; 2 ) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or applicant ; 3 ) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work 11/1 unnecessary and undue hardship on the — applicant. ; V/7 4 ) Will granting this variance confer any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands , buildings or structures ? 5 ) Will the variance requested be the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure ? 6 ) Will the requested variance be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Code ? 7 ) Will the requested variance be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare ******************: ***: *: ******: *= *************************** ** Notes and Comments : 1111 40201----- MEMBERS SIGNATURE : . _____ 4111 VARIANCE WORKSHEET MEETING DATE : ( 1/23 /01 AGENDA ITEM : Y e s No 1 ) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land , structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands , structures or buildings in the same district ; / 2 ) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or applicant ; —_ 3 ) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work 1111 unnecessary and undue hardship on the — — applicant ; 4 ) Will granting this variance confer any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands , buildings or structures ? 5 ) Will the variance requested be the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure ? 6 ) Will the requested variance be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Code 7 ) Will the requested variance be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare ? _ ***= ****** ************* ** = **** ********************** ** **** Notes and Comments : 4111 MEMBERS SIGNATURE : �Oi [ 9_ 1 • VARIANCE WORKSHEET MEETING DATE :_ A91/0) / AGENDA ITEM : 3 64_-- Yes No 1 ) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land , structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands , structures or buildings in the same district ; 2 ) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or applicant ; VVV 3 ) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work 4111 unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. ; 4 ) •Will granting this variance confer any special privilege that is denied by this / chapter to other lands , buildings or structures ? 5 ) Will the variance requested be the minimum / necessary to make possible the reasonable V/ use of the land , building or structure ? 6 ) Will the requested variance be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Code ? _ 7 ) Will the requested variance be injurious to j the area or detrimental to the public V/ welfare ? ****************************************************:K*********** Notes and Comments : • MEMBERS SIGNATURE . 4111 VARIANCE WORKSHEET MEETING DATE :_ a – i - 01 AGENDA ITEM : 5 Yes No 1 ) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land , structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands , structures or buildings in the same district ; 2 ) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or applicant ; _ 3 ) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work 1111 unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant ; • _ —.-- 4 ) Will granting this variance confer any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands , buildings or structures 5 ) Will the variance requested be the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure ? r� 6 ) Will the requested variance be in harmony �[ with the general intent of the Zoning Code ? �/` - • 7 ) Will the requested variance be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare ? **********************: *: *************************************** Notes and .Comments : 1111 MEMBERS SIGNATURE : • VARIANCE WORKSHEET MEETING DATE : _NGXv 15:1 2D01 AGENDA ITEM : — __— Yes No 1 ) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land , structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands , structures or buildings in the same district ; 2 ) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or applicant ; 3 ) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the 4111 applicant ; 4 ) Will granting this variance confer any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands , buildings or structures 5 ) Will the variance requested be the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land , building or structure ? 6 ) Will the requested variance be in harmony / with the general intent of the Zoning Code ? V/ . 7 ) Will the requested variance be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public / welfare ? Y— ******************: ***: *: ******************************* ******: Notes and Comments : 1111 MEMBERS SIGNATURE :