Loading...
04-20-99 v MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA April 20, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PRESENT • Don Wolfson Robert Frohwein Mary Walker Pat Pillmore Dezmond Waters AND George Worley, II, CD Director Alan Jensen, Esquire Pat Harris, Recording Secretary ABSENT: • Buzzy Grunthal Sharette Simpkins Chairman Don Wolfson called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the minutes from the meeting of March 16, 1999. Some additions and corrections were made to the minutes and they will be placed on the agenda for approval at the next regular meeting. The Chairman notified the board that Item 4(e) on the agenda has been postponed until the next meeting. I. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by David Rockwood to construct and operate a painting contractor office at property known as a Part of Government Lot 3, located at the corner of Mayport Road and Edgar Street (vacant lot). Mr. Rockwood introduced himself to the board and stated that he desired to purchase the property and construct a building to operate his contracting business from. He stated there would be no outside storage except for his five commercial trucks. He said he proposes six spaces plus an overflow area which can accommodate four additional spaces. Mr. Worley explained that all setback, parking and landscape matters would be covered under the building permit when issued for the construction. After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to recommend approval of the use-by- exception following staff's recommendation that the number of commercial vehicles be limited to five with eight parking spaces, no outside storage of paints, chemicals or other hazardous material and Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion for discussion purposes. After further discussion, Mr. Waters amended his motion to recommend approval of the use-by-exception as requested solely to the applicant for this location only, subject to the number of commercial vehides being limited to five, and with ten parking spaces being provided. Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. II. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Randy Wilson to operate a new and used boat trailer sales and service business at property located at 1860 Mayport Road. Randy Wilson introduced himself and stated he desires to operate a boat trailer sales and service business at the location. He stated that the majority of the service to the trailers will be done on the inside of the building and anticipated approximately 20 new trailers and 20 trailers for service would be located on site. After discussion, Mrs. Pillmore moved to recommend approval of the use-by- exception with no more than twenty trailers displayed on site for both sale and repair. Mrs. Walker seconded the motion. The chairman expressed concern with safety regarding loading and unloading of the trailers at the site as well as entering and leaving the property by large delivery trucks through residential property. The applicant explained that the trucks being used were flatbed trucks and not semi rigs and he could have them exit on Mayport Road. Mr. Frohwein suggested that the applicant be allowed 30 total trailers on site. After further discussion, Mrs. Pillmore amended her motion to recommend approval of the request with no more than 30 new or used trailers on site and that the use-by-exception be granted to the applicant only for this location only. Mrs. Walker seconded the motion and it passed with a three ayes from Mr. Frohwein, Mrs. Pillmore and Mrs. Walker and two nays from Mr. Waters and Mr. Wolfson. III. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Dirk Mueggenburg to operate a wholesale teabag packaging business at property located at 1179 Atlantic Boulevard. Dirk Mueggenburg introduced himself and told the board that he purchased the building and desired to produce, develop, trade, store and manufacture health food products such as herbal teas and capsules and tablets. He stated that it is a brand new business and he will have delivery traffic but no retail sales to the public. Mr. Frohwein requested that the applicant supply proof of ownership of the property to the City. He expressed concern regarding delivery of products by the semi trucks and their ingress and egress to the property. After discussion, Mr. Frohwein moved to recommend approval of the use-by- exception subject to the conditions that no retail sales be permitted and that the use-by- exception be granted to the applicant only and for this location only and Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion. After further discussion, the board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the use-by-exception. N. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Stephen Hale Mabry to operate a fitness center to be constructed at property described as part of Government Lot 3 and located on Dudley Street. (vacant lot) Steve Mabry introduced himself to the board and explained that he desired to build a building to be used as a fitness center on an existing vacant lot in the RG-1 district. He stated he believes that this is a use permitted by exception. He stated he wanted to operate a recreation center with jazzercise classes. Mr. Frohwein stated that in his opinion it is not the intent of the code to have a commercial recreational facility as a use by exception in a residential zoning district. He stated that RG 1 and RG 1 A districts are intended for the development of medium density two-family residential areas. The chairman agreed with the staff report that the requested use-by-exception is not an acceptable use under the RG 1 district but that the intent in this section of the code is for pools and clubhouses in private subdivisions and not a business being conducted in a residential neighborhood. After discussion, Mr. Frohwein moved to recommend to the City Commission that the use by exception be denied because commercial developments in residential districts does not follow the intent of the code. Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion which unanimously passed. The board directed staff to communicate to the City Commission that they do not consider this use as acceptable under the RG I District. Mr. Mabry requested that his application be withdrawn and not submitted to the City Commission for action. V. Application for Variance filed by Kevin W. Newsome to construct a covered patio to an existing nonconforming residence owned by Mamie Hurd at property located at 720 W. 14th Street. Kevin Newsome introduced himself to the board as contractor for Mamie Hurd and explained that he proposes to construct an addition onto her existing nonconforming residence on the corner of Camelia Street and West 14th Street. Mr. Frohwein explained to the applicant that for the board to grant a variance that it looks for the existence of a hardship that exists with the land. Mrs. Hurd introduced herself to the board and explained that she owns the property which indudes three lots. She desires the addition to accommodate her large family and does not plan to ever sell the property. Mr. Worley stated that this is an existing nonconforming building which was constructed as far back as 1965 and probably before that. The structure was not constructed to meet the current setback requirements on the front which is W. 14th Street or the side on Camelia Street. The applicant is proposing to put an addition onto that building. He stated that the hardship that the board has found for additions like this in the past is that the existing building is nonconforming and cannot be expanded. He explained further that Mrs. Hurd obtained a prior variance to construct an addition to the existing nonconforming Mr. Frohwein stated he would be in favor of granting the variance if the side yard encroachment was not continued. He stated he would like to see the 15 feet maintained on the side yard with the improvements to be redesigned. After discussion, Mr. Frohwein stated he would move to deny the variance due to there being alternative methods for the construction unless the applicant amended her application . The applicant amended the application to construct the addition and maintain the 15 feet side yard setback. Mr. Frohwein moved to approve the variance as amended provided it is implemented within a period of one year. Mr. Waters seconded the motion and the variance as amended was unanimously granted. VI. Application for Variance filed by Christine Lester to construct a six foot fence that will encroach the setback requirements at property located at 625 East Coast Drive. Christine Lester introduced herself to the board and explained that she desired to construct a six foot fence on the Sixth Street side to the property line. She stated that the fence would be 34.2 feet from the 4-way intersection so there is no question of visibility. She stated that the fence is to be of stockade and lattice construction. She stated she reviewed the question of intent in the code and feels that proposed construction is within the spirit and the letter of the code. She stated she felt a variance was not required in her interpretation of the code. Mr. Worley stated that sections of the code in question should be Sections 24-157 and 24-17. The members briefly reviewed the above sections and Mr. Wolfson stated that for clarification the code should be 24-157(b) which sets forth where the fence would be allowed from the point of the right-of-way. Mr. Worley stated that 24-157(b) addresses what is commonly called a sight triangle. Section 24-157(a) addresses fence height in regard to location on the property, specifically, in reference to a front property line but has in the past been interpreted that the reference in 24-17 definition, lot, corner, the 15 foot setback is applied to accessory structures, principal buildings and fences in the past. Mr. Worley explained to the board that in the past there has been an interpretation of the code that we have enforced for years that the imposed setback requirement under the definition of lot, corner of 15 feet has applied to fences that exceed the 4 foot height limitation. He stated that the interpretation is based on the fact that 4 foot or shorter fences have no setback requirement in any way and fences over 4 feet in height have a setback restriction that is conforming to a building setback line. He stated that the interpretation has been that since the word setback is used it has applied to as an overlay of the setbacks that are established by specific sections of the code that follow. The sections of the code that address each of the zoning districts have a side yard setback requirement that are established in them. The greatest required setback by those established standards is 10 feet to a side property line. The lot, corner definition imposes a 15 foot setback which overlays the existing requirements under the code sections that follow. It is not the dearest way to do it and is without doubt not the best way to impose regulations through definition rather than a specific section of the code. The Chairman explained that a corner lot cannot be compared to an interior lot. The Chairman read excerpts from the previous meeting in which the City Attorney gave his interpretation of the code. He stated if the board takes action based upon the opinion of counsel and the applicant feels that the action was illegal she can appeal the decision to the City Commission. The applicant stated that she originally wanted to install the 6 foot fence for safety reasons with her young children. After discussion, Mr. Frohwein moved to deny the variance and Mrs. Fillmore seconded the motion. The Chairman asked staff if the board could hold a special meeting to specifically address the sections of the code involved in this issue and suggested that the applicant request a deferral until after such time as the review process and proposed amendment to the code could be acted upon. Mr. Worley suggested that the board call a workshop meeting the following Tuesday for the specific purpose of reviewing a draft ordinance. He stated the board could review the proposed ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Commission for final adoption. The Chairman stated that the proposed ordinance should clarify the intent of the code. He explained to the applicant that if the board denies the variance request she would be unable to return with the application for 12 months. After further discussion, the applicant requested that her application be deferred and the motion and second were withdrawn.. The Chairman directed staff to schedule a special meeting for Tuesday,April 27, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. and publish the required notice. The board will discuss proposed revisions to the zoning code, specifically, Section 24-157. There being no further business to come before the board the meeting was adjourned. --7,,e‘ 70 SIGNED: Ay, ATTEST' ,/ CX1r.'