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.'