Loading...
2003-08-19 (meeting minutes) vAGET'~TDA j•evised COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OFATLANTIC BEACH Tuesday, August 19, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Commission Chambers, 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to order and pledge of allegiance. 2. Approval of Minutes of the meetings of July 15, 2003. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. a. ZVAR-2003-12,. Peter ~ Durante. Amended request for a Variance from Section 24- 105 (e) (1) to reduce the required 20-foot front yard to allow an exterior spiral staircase and an open balcony to encroach into the front yard for property within the R5-2 Zoning District and located at 417 Ocean Boulevard. (This item is continued from the June and July meetings.) b. ZVAR-2003-13, Kelly Mannel and Ron Mackoul. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to ten (10) feet to allow for the construction of a detached one-car garage for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 312 East Coast Drive. Applicants have asked to defer this request until the September meeting pending proposed revisions to Chapter 24, which may impact their regtcest. 5. New Business. a. ZVAR-2003-14, Gregory and Susan Kelly. Request for a Variance from Section 24-106 (e) (2) to allow a proposed addition to the rear of asingle-family residence to encroach into the required twenty (20) foot rear yard by a distance of 3-feet, seven- inches on the south side and 5-feet, 8-inches on the north side for property within the RG-1 Zoning District and located at 1733 Ocean Grove Drive. b. UBE-2003-03, and ZVAR-2003-15, Michael Dunlap on behalf of Chris IIionides. Amended request for aUse-by-Exception per Section 24-161 (i) to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 28 to 13, and also for a Variance to reduce the required side yard setback on a corner lot from 15-feet to 11-feet related to the proposed development of a new commercial building containing retail and professional office uses to be located at the southwest corner of Ahern Street and East Coast Drive. 6. Other Business. a. Discussion and consideration of proposed revisions to Chapter 24. 7. 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 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. 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD August 19, 2003 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, August 19, 2003, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chair Don Wolfson, Craig Burkhart, Lynn Drysdale, Robert Frohwein, Steve Jenkins, Community Development Directox Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham. Absent were Samuel Jacobson and Mary Walker. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance The meeting was called to order 7:04 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Meetings of July 15, 2003 A motion was made by Mr. Frohwein, seconded by Ms. Drysdale, and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 15, 2003, and the Minutes of the Workshop of July 15, 2003, as written. 3. Recognition of Visitors None. 4. Old Business a. ZVAR-2003-12, Peter G. Durantc. Amended request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (1) to reduce the required 20-foot front yard to allow an exterior spiral staircase and an open balcony to encroach into the front yard for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 417 Ocean Boulevard. (This item is continued from the ,Tune and July meetin s. Mr. Wolfson advised that the applicant's previous request for a Variance had requested a variance on the rear yard setback and that it was not to be considered in this application. Mr. Peter Coalson introduced himself and stated that he represented Mr. Durante. He advised that they would like to extend an existing balcony and construct a spiral stair on top of an existing patio into what was technically the front yard, though by appearance, was the side yard of the structure. In response to a question from Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Coalson stated that this request reduced the setback from 20 feet to 11 feet. Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Coalson to explain the hardship. Mr. Coalson responded that their request leaned toward aesthetics, and the closest they could come to defining hardship was the way the structure was located. He fizrther explained that if Fourth Street were the side yard, they would not be facing these restrictions. Mr. Coalson said that 1) there was no physical impairment to require the spiral stair but Mr. Durante would be more comfortable if he had an additional exit from his home, and 2) that Mr. Durante would like to improve the appearance of that side of the home. Minutes ofAugust 19, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 2 Mr. Coalson confirmed that there was an existing 32-inch by 12-foot cantilevered balcony with no posts to the ground. Mr. Coalson also confirmed that the balcony extended 32 inches cantilevered from the wall. Mr. Coalson clarified that their hardship was that the side of the house was such that they were faced with the need of a front yard setback for what in this particular house was the side yard. In response to a question from Mr. Wolfson, Ms. Doerr advised ~ that the allowance for a cantilevered extension was 48 inches. Mr. Wolfson explained that this meant that the cantilevered balcony could be increased by 16 inches, or 50 percent, and it could be extended across the entire side of the building. Mr. Frohwein clarified that the 32-inch cantilevered balcony projected into the 20-foot setback. Mr. Wolfson confirmed with Mr. Coalson that the building was 32 feet from the pavement on the Fourth Street side. Mr. Wolfson stated that the he believed the city's right-of--way was 40 feet and the width of the road was 17 feet. Ms. Doerr responded that she believed this was correct. Mr. Wolfson asked if the road was going to be widened. Ms. Doerr responded that it was not. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr.. Coalson why he did not recommend cantilevering the balcony and widening it to 48 inches instead of 60 inches. Mr. Coalson responded that he had to attach the five-foot diameter stair to the balcony and it would not fit if it were reduced to 48 inches. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Coalson why he did not request the variance for the circular stairwell and have the balcony extending to 48 inches which would be the minimum variance required. Mr. Coalson responded that the reason was the appearance of the structure. He stated that it already had a patio and fence and the balcony over it would improve the appearance. Mr. Wolfson proposed that if the deck projected 4 feet and Mr. Coalson asked for the variance for just the spiral staircase, then that would be the minimum needed to install the spiral staircase. Mr. Coalson stated that if a five-foot projection would make the proposal more palatable, than he was empowered to modify it as such. Mr. Frohwein asked Mr. Coalson if the five-foot spiral staircase could sit back toward the house. Mr. Coalson responded that it could. Mr. Frohwein also asked Mr. Coalson if the cantilevered balcony could project into the yard four feet. Mr. Coalson responded that this would work. Mr. Frohwein advised that if he could accomplish this, he would not need a variance. Ms. Doerr advised that an open balcony could be 16 feet from the front property line. Mr. Frohwein stated that the spiral staircase would fall within the 16 feet. Mr. Burkhart moved to approve the variance request with afive-foot balcony and a five- foot stair recognizing that this reduced the required setback by 8/10 of a foot. Mr. Burkhart stated that the house was plotted on the lot facing Ocean Boulevard and was obviously intended that way originally. He further stated this size of a variance would fall within the five percent administrative variance that was available and that was why he would support it. Mr. Burkhart advised that the code had been amended to make the Fourth Street side the front yard and when the house was originally sited, Ocean Boulevard was the front. He further advised that the city had since changed this and the city did not ask the homeowner's permission. Minutes of August 19, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 3 Mr. Wolfson said that the way it was platted originally, this was a conforming building on a platted lot, and even with the code changes, it was still is a conforming building with a clear front and rear yard. Mr. Wolfson stated that he understood what Mr. Burkhart meant with regard to the administrative variance. Ms. Drysdale seconded the motion. Mr. Frohwein advised that he believed that the code was in existence when this structure was built. Mr. Burkhart responded that the definition of the front yard was relatively new. Ms. Doerr advised that when the lots were platted, the Ocean Boulevard side was the front of the property. Mr. Wolfson stated that he recalled that it was up to the owner to determine which frontage he or she wanted to identify as the address. The vote was called and Mr. Burkhart and Mr. Jenkins voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Frohwein, Ms. Drysdale and Mr. Wolfson voted against the motion. The motion was denied. b. ZVAR-2003-13, Kelly Mannel and Ron Mackoul. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (c} (2} to reduce the required hventy (20} foot rear yard to ten (10) feet to allow for the construction of a detached one-car ~ara~c for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 312 East Coast Drive. Applicants have asked to defer this request until the September meeting pending proposed revisions to Chapter 24, which may impact their request. 5. New Business. a. ZVAR-2003-14, Gregory and Susan Kelly. Request for a Variance from Section 24-106 (e) (2) to allow a proposed addition to the rear of a sin~lc-family residence to encroach into the required twenty (20) foot rear yard by a distance of 3-feet, seven-inches on the south side and 5-feet, 8-inches on the north side for property within the RG-1 Zoning District and located at 1733 Ocean Grove Drive. Mr. Gregory Kelly introduced himself. He stated that they were attempting to add living space to a less than 2,000 square foot house where they have the need for a home office, additional space for three children, one of which was autistic and required additional sleeping space. Mr. Kelly explained that they were requesting an extension of over five feet on the north side of the property and an extension of over three feet on the south side. Mr. Wolfson requested that Mr. Kelly explain the nature of the hardship. Mr. Kelly advised that they had the option of extending into the front yard but there was a significant grove of trees that they would like to preserve. In addition, he stated that there was a septic drain field located in the front yard on the opposing side of the garage, which they plan to eliminate in the near future. Mr. Kelly advised that they would like to build the addition in the rear, which would not require that any trees be removed. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Kelly what his needs would be if they remodeled on the west side of the house. Mr. Kelly responded that most likely they would build up to the 20-foot setback on the garage side of the house and would enclose the existing garage. He stated that this would require Minutes ofAa~gust 19, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 4 other modifications to the addition for an even flow in the house and a minimum of disturbance to the property. Discussion was held with regard to the definition of a hardship. Mr. Wolfson advised that he did not understand the legal hardship in this request. Mr. Jenkins explained to Mr. Kelly that a hardship was something that was peculiar to his lot that would prohibit him from enjoying the lot the way that his neighbors enjoy their lot. Mr. Kelly summarized that their hardship was the drain field and the preservation of trees. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Kelly how close the drain field was located to the front of their home. Mr. Kelly responded that it extended right out the front door and just to the north side of the front door. Mr. Kelly stated that they would like to extend the full front of the home but in order to preserve the trees, it would be an extension of the garage side only. Mr. Jenkins moved to deny the request for a Variance. Mr. Burkhart seconded, the motion. Mr. Frohwein advised that he recognized an "almost" hardship with the drain field but he saw that as a temporary condition. He further advised that there were other opportunities to add onto the home on the southwest corner as had been discussed. Ms. Drysdale stated that, in the past, when applicants had realized that their application might be denied, they had been allowed to withdraw their request. She suggested that the applicant might want to consider this option. Mr. Wolfson advised that applicants were given the opportunity to withdraw their requests. He advised Mr. Kelly that he had a very nice lot in a very nice neighborhood, and felt that he had a lot of options to be creative with the addition. Mr. Kelly informed the board that he would like to withdraw his request, and possibly return to the board at a later date with an amended request. Ms. Doerr recommended continuing the item so that the applicant would not be required to pay another application fee. b. UBE-2003-03, and ZVAR-2003-15, Michael Dunlap on behalf of Chris Hionides. Amended request for aUse-bv-Exception per Section 24-161 (i) to reduce the required number of narking spaces from 28 to 13, and also for a Variance to reduce the required side _yard setback on a corner lot from 15-feet to 11-feet related to the proposed development of a new commercial building containing retail and professional office uses to be located at the southwest corner of Ahern Street and East Coast Drive. Mr. Michael Dunlap introduced himself as the project architect representing Mr. Chris Hionides who was the owner of this parcel as well as North Shore Center to the west. He stated that they were requesting consideration on two issues: (1) a variance to reduce the corner lot dimension or setback dimension from 15 feet to 11 feet, and (2) the Use-by-Exception to reduce parking from the 28 spaces required by the Code to 13 spaces provided on site. Mr. Dunlap advised that Mr. Chris Hionides owned this lot as well as North Shore so they could be considered in some ways to be an extension of North Shore Center but not connected. He stated that this project was a separate building on a separate lot. He stated that this project was a Minutes ofAttgttst 19, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 5 blend of the setback requirements, height restrictions, parking issues, the built habitat and natural habitats. He advised that they were creating a colonnade building with covered walkways on the ground floor and second floor, a retail base, stairs at each end, elevator lifts with roughly 4,500 square feet per floor, for a total of 9,500 square feet--retail below and professional offices upstairs. Mr. Dunlap addressed the parking issue as follows: If they were, in fact, an extension of North Shore, then they had 91 parking spaces in North Shore and they had 13 parking spaces [in the new project]. (Mr. Dunlap displayed a rendering of the project.) The office and retail in North Shore and the cafe add up to 21,040 square feet of space, and the new project was 9,500 square feet, for a rough average of 30,000 square feet of office retail including Sticky Fingers. They are providing, between North Shore and this project, 104 parking spaces. He stated that Sticky Fingers required quite a bit more parking than that of office-retail but he did not think that there was such a severe parking problem that there was substantial evidence to deny a project like this. He further stated that they felt that the office space was taken care of during the day by shared spaces and they did not need to provide 12 parking spaces for the second floor because it could be shared by on-street parking in the neighborhood within two blocks. Mr. Dunlap stated that they were providing 13 of the 16 spaces for retail of the ground floor. Mr. Dunlap advised that they could move the building back and double the parking but they would like to give the community a pocket park by using 32% of the site for green space. He stated that they could fill the lots with asphalt but he thought that had been done too much; or they could in-build them with a balance of built habitat and natural habitat. Mr. Dunlap informed the board that in the audience was Mr. Ned Jones, who developed 16,000 square feet of mixed-use space in Neptune Beach, and provided 12 parking spaces. He stated that that project.had been a success in Neptune Beach and it was only two blocks away. He further stated that this project was a very close-by precedent, not located in Atlantic Beach but located in Town Center, and it added an economic vitality that had been missing for years. Mr. Dick Hilliard spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that he did not see any water retention areas ~ and they want to back out onto Ahern Street, which was already a bad intersection. Mr. Jenkins requested that the board resolve the issue of whether or not they could include the North Shore parking area as countable or as a whole in the aggregate. Mr. Wolfson said that historically speaking, when Sticky Fingers came before the board that there was a restaurant in place that did not succeed, that they wanted to put in their restaurant, and that there was a need for additional parking. He said that the owner of Sticky Fingers at the time said that he had made arrangements, if needed, for valet parking across the street, which the board felt would be cumbersome. In addition, Mr. Wolfson said that Al's Pizza had two variances, one when he remodeled, and one when he expanded the restaurant. He advised that this entire quadrant has very minimized parking. Ms. Doerr advised that Section 24-161(e}(2) provided a provision for shared parking under certain conditions. She said that a parking study or analysis on the entire area that is under single ownership or unified control is typically required when there was shared parking by mixed uses. Minutes ofAugust 19, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 6 In response to a question from Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Doerr stated that her staff report indicated that she did not object to the parking waiver subject to certain conditions: 1) that the 13 on-site parking spaces adjacent to the new building be designated for use only by the retail part of the project, which would be 3 less than the 16 required by Code for the retail space, and 2) that the property owner designate private parking for office use within the lot he owns that was adjacent to this property. She said that this would have resulted in only a 3-space deficit for the whole project. However, she informed the board that Mr. Dunlap had since informed her that there was a restriction in the tenant leases that prohibited the designation of parking for specific businesses. Mr. Dunlap stated that he would welcome a parking study if the city would fund it. He further stated that he believed there was a perceived parking problem at Town Center but that it was a weekend and nighttime issue, not a daytime issue. Discussion was held with regard to the Use-by-Exception granted to Sticky Fingers. Mr. Wolfson advised that the board alleviated the amount of parking spaces required and that the records should be on file. Mr. Frohwein advised that he liked the proposed mixed use of the building as opposed to solely retail. He thought that it would add attractiveness to Town Center. Mr. Frohwein asked Mr. Dunlap how they were going to handle retention. Mr. Dunlap responded that they were exempt from the St. John's Water Management and, in light of that, the city was willing to waive their retention requirements. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Dunlap about any concessions he may have from the city. Mr. Dunlap responded that his engineer spoke with Bob Kosoy, who indicated that they would be exempt from City standards if they were exempt from St. John's Water Management. Ms. Doerr advised that the city had separate drainage and stormwater requirements from the St. John's Water Management District. She further advised that this project would be subject to a paving and drainage review as part of the permitting process. Ms. Drysdale stated that she liked that this project was sensitive to maintaining the green space and the mixed use. She asked Mr. Dunlap if the green space in the rear of the property was adjacent to the parking lot at North Shore. Mr. Dunlap responded that there was 32 feet of shared property line. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Dunlap if there was any consideration to reduce the number of offices and retail spaces so that they could reduce the number of parking spaces needed. Mr. Dunlap responded that it was difficult, at this point in time, to determine how many businesses would be located in each bay. Mr. Wolfson stated that the retail mix was going to be problematical because if they have a bakery that was going to serve food or coffee and have seating, then they would have a greater demand for parking than if they had drive up, walk-in minimum usage retail. Mr. Dunlap responded that the code defines retail to allow coffee shops, and there was a real distinction between a restaurant license and a coffee shop license. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Dunlap how many feet were between the building line and the lot line, north to south. Mr. Dunlap responded 32 feet. Mr. Wolfson advised that he was asking this question because that was possible additional parking. Mr. Dunlap stated that they discussed this Minutes of August 19, 2003 Regular Meeting ojCommunity Development Board Page 7 in early design sessions but thought there was already too much traffic on East Coast. He further stated that Al's Pizza service and driveway were part of the congestion problem and they did not want to compound the problem. Discussion was held with regard to shared parking and what would happen if the two developments were separated at a later date. Ms. Doerr advised that the city could require a shared parking agreement. Mr. Frohwein asked Ms. Doerr if she saw any benefit to limiting the types of retail uses that could occur here, specifically meaning restaurants which seem to demand a lot of parking requirements and would that be reasonable, fair and equitable to do so. Ms. Doerr responded that over time, it would be very difficult for the city to monitor. She stated that restaurants are allowable commercial uses at this time and the property owner would need to offer that limitation. Mr. Wolfson discussed limiting offensive lighting and noise such as music that would bother residents. Ms. Doerr responded that the code addressed lighting and this project would be subject to landscaping requirements. Mr. Frohwein stated that he did not want to disallow music and felt that, in this particular scenario, the buffer would be the building itself. Mr. Wolfson stated that he would prefer music on the south side and not on the north side. Mr. Dunlap agreed. Mr. Wolfson also stated that he would not have a problem with open seating on a patio. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Dunlap what the hardship was for the variance. Mr. Dunlap stated that he would have to say that there was no hardship in this case but would like the board to consider the character and compatibility to the neighborhood. He further stated that they had a compatible project that was mixed use and that was going to add vitality. Chair Wolfson moved to deny the request for the variance. Mr. Burkhart seconded the motion. Mr. Wolfson stated that he did not see a hardship and he did not see why the building could not be reduced by four feet. Mr. Frohwein referred to a publication given to them by Ms. Doerr, which discussed the uniqueness to allow buildings to be built closer to streets. He stated that without reading this publication, he thought it would be difficult to understand what he believed Mr. Dunlap was proposing. He further stated that in this case he thought this was a unique piece of property in a unique section of town and that he could vote in favor of allowing the variance. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Frohwein what difference it would make if the building were reduced by four feet. Mr. Wolfson said it would not change the ambiance of the building, the attractiveness or the purpose. Mr. Wolfson said that the property could be developed to the architect's desire and still be in compliance with the setbacks. Mr. Frohwein responded that he was seeing an attempt to maintain a lot of green space by pressing the building to the north and, therefore, it would not bother him to have it project to the east. Mr. Wolfson asked the applicant if the same scenario existed to the west side of the building. Mr. Dunlap responded that he believed that the west side was 5 feet 11 inches and would remain the Mina~tes of August 19, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 8 same. He said that by reducing the structure by four feet, they would lose 160 square feet on each floor, totaling 320 square feet. In addition, he said there was the issue of the architectural effort which if he felt he could have met the 15-foot setback, he would have done so. He said that there was a sense of proportion to the building and there was an aesthetic to the building that he felt worked on an 18-foot bay that lined up with the parking and lined up some characteristics that he was after. Mr. Dunlap suggested looking around the neighborhood; there are a lot of buildings built up to the property line, such as Ragtime, Sun Dog and Al's Pizza. He told the board members that if they wanted to see buildings that met the setbacks to go visit K-Mart. The vote was called and Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Wolfson voted for the motion, Ms. Drysdale and Mr. Frohwein voted against the motion. The motion passed and the variance request was denied. A .motion was made by Mr. Frohtivein and seconded by Mr. Wolfson to recommend approval to the City Commission of the Use-by-Exception. Mr. Jenkins stated that he thought the applicant had failed to convince the board that this project would not cause aparking/congestion problem. He further stated that he did not think that it was the city's responsibility to prepare a parking study--the applicant was requesting the variance and it would be his responsibility to demonstrate that this project would not cause further congestion to what was already a congested area. Mr. Jenkins also expressed concern about drainage. In response to a question from Mr. Frohwein, Ms. Doerr advised that the code required that stormwater be handled on site. Mr. Frohwein asked if any exceptions could be made. Ms. Doerr responded that the Public Works Director had the discretion to waive on-site storage requirements in some situations, but that would be done during the review process. She further stated that the Public Works Director would not waive city requirements solely because the St. John's Water Management District exempted the project. Mr. Frohwein asked if the board could attach to the motion a recommendation that stormwater be handled on site. Ms. Doerr responded that the code specifically gave authority to the Public Works Director and she did not believe it was within the board's authority. Mr. Dunlap advised that they would not receive a building permit until they handle the stormwater issue. He stated that they are either exempt, which he thought they were, or they could handle it with water elements on site, with the neighbor who is the same owner, with French drains under the parking, or they could use grass-crete to park on. Mr. Frohwein expressed concern with regard to a possible waiver. Ms. Doerr responded that she did not want to give the impression that Mr. Kosoy was waiving stormwater requirements. She stated that the code gave him some discretion as to how to address stormwater requirements for on-site storage. Mr. Dunlap added that they would take the necessary steps to ensure that the pocket park did not become a lake. Mr. Frohwein moved to modify the motion to include that a shared parking agreement exist with North Shore and that this be a mandatory requirement. Mr. ~Volfson seconded the amendment. Minutes of August 19, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 9 Mr. Jenkins asked if this could be enforced. Ms. Doerr responded that if the parking was required to satisfy requirements, the board could require a shared parking agreement. She stated, however, that she was not sure if it had been determined that this could be done. Mr. Jenkins stated that he did not feel that the city would be in a position to enforce or monitor this condition. Mr. Wolfson stated that he believed that a caveat to this effect could be placed on a Use-by- Exception. He did say, however, that he did not know about enforcement. Mr. Wolfson further stated that this was a single owner, single landlord, so he thought that the proposal as presented ties the whole development together. He stated that the City Attorney might have to address this issue. Ms. Doerr advised that Section 24-161(e)(2) addressed shared parking within 400 feet of contiguous parcels. She stated that a demonstration of off-peak requirements for different uses had to be shown. Ms. Doerr explained that the board could make the condition as part of the recommendation to the City Commission and that the applicant would have several weeks to determine if they could provide a shared parking agreement. Discussion was held with regard to why this was aUse-by-Exception instead of a variance. Ms. Doerr advised that the code stated that parking waivers require aUse-by-Exception rather than a Zoning Variance. Ms. Doerr requested that it be clarified that the shared parking agreement be between properties within 400 contiguous feet as set forth in Section 24-161. Mr. Frohwein amended the motion to include that the on-site parking spaces shall be designated to serve the first floor retail uses. Mr. Wolfson said that this was a very dangerous intersection. Ideally, he said that he would like to see the property developed as a parking lot. Mr. Dunlap responded that if they built a parking lot, 50 cars could be parked there and Sticky Fingers could fill it up on the weekends and there is a lovely new parking lot in the neighborhood. Mr. Dunlap stated that here was a chance to have a lovely new place in the neighborhood. He asked if the board wanted more asphalt in the community. He said that he did not think so and he did not think Neptune Beach did either, which was why they agreed to 16,000 square feet. Mr. Dunlap said they felt that there was substantial shared parking on street and in the neighborhoods to support those businesses. Discussion was held with regard to the interior parking lots in Neptune Beach. Mr. Dunlap said that if every building was knocked down in Town Center and made into parking, on the weekends it would not be enough parking--it would never be enough parking, because the City of Jacksonville is to the west and everyone has the right to park one block from the beach. Mr. Wolfson said that he remembered a discussion with Sticky Fingers where they cautioned the owner about the lack of parking and it was determined that the "supply and demand" would take care of the problem. Mr. Wolfson said he was not so concerned because this was a daytime use and a mixed use. The vote was called on the following motion: Minutes ofAugust 19, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 10 To recommend approval to the City Commission of the Use-by-Exception with the following conditions: 1. That a shared parking agreement, in accordance with the terms of Section 24-161 (e) (2) exist with the Shoppes of North Shore, or other property within 400 feet of the subject site, and that this be a mandatory requirement; and 2. That the on-site parking spaces shall be designated to serve the first floor retail uses. Mr. Burkhart, Ms. Drysdale, Mr. Frohtivein and Mr. Wolfson voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Jenkins voted against the motion. The motion to recommend approval passed. 6. Other Business. a. Discussion and consideration of proposed revisions to Chanter 24 Ms. Doerr explained that she made the revisions as outlined by Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Jenkins explained why the board made revisions to the definition of hardship. Further discussion was held and the board directed staff to schedule another workshop. Ms. Drysdale left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. 7. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ~~ ~. ~ SIGNED ~-a i 1 t:~ 1