Loading...
2002-04-25 (meeting minutes) vAGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH April- 25, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Commission Chambers at City Hall, S00 Seminole Road 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of March 19, 2002. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. None. 5. New Business. a. File No. ZVAR-2002-04, Lonnie D. Johnson. Request for a Variance from Section 24-104 (e) (3) to allow a carport to encroach into a seven and one-half (7.5) feet required side yard for property in the RS-1 'Zoning District and located at 382 Skate Road. b. File No. ZVAR 2002-05, Catalina D. Alday. Request for a Variance from Section 24- 106 (e) (3) to allow a roofed enclosure to extend to the side property line, thereby eliminating the side yard requirement for property in the RG-lA Zoning District and located at 1184 Hibiscus Road. c. File No. ZVAR 2002-06, Doug Morgan on behalf of Rose C. McCall. Request for a Variance from the fifteen (15) foot required side yard on a Corner Lot (See definition of Lot, Corner.) to bring an existing nonconforming structure into. compliance and to allow for a second story addition for property in the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 31 Fifth Street. d. File No. ZVAR 2002-07, Shawn and Andrea Burke. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (3) to reduce a required rear yard and also from Section 24-151 (b) (1) viii to allow a detached storage structure to exceed twelve feet in height for property located at 316 Sixth Street. e. File No. UBE-2002-02, Merv and Theresa Russell. Request for aUse-by Exception in the Commercial General Zoning District to allow for uses including general construction contractor, welding, fence assembly, electrical, air conditioning, plumbing A and irrigation contractors, cabinet shop, warehousing and general assembly on property located at 589 West 14th Street. f File No. UBE-2002-03, Beach Buggies and 4 x 4s, Billy and Aileena Witt. Request for aUse-by-Exception in the Commercial General Zoning District to allow automotive service and repair use on property located at 1198 Mayport Road, Suites 101,102, and 103. 6. Other reports or business not requiring action. 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 MEETING OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Apri125, 2002 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held Thursday, April 25, 2002, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chair Don Wolfson, Robert Frohwein, Karl Grunewald, Samuel Jacobson, Steven Jenkins, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, City Attorney Alan Jensen and Recording Secretary, Susan Dunham. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Z. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of March 19.2002 A motion was made by Mr. Frohwein, seconded by Mr. Jenkins and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Community Development Board meeting of March 19, 2002. 3. Recognition of Visitors None. 4. Old Business None. 5. New Business a. File No. ZVAR-2002-04. Lonnie D. Johnson. Reauest for a Variance from Section 24-104 (e) (3) to allow a carport to encroach into a seven and one-half (7 5) feet required side yard for property in the RS-1 Zoning District and located at 382 Skate Road Mr. Lonnie D. Johnson introduced himself. He stated that the gentlemen who installed the carport several years ago did not advise him that he needed a permit. He further stated that his next-door neighbor, Lucy Sampson, supports his request. Ms. Barbara Johnson stated that she was Mr. Johnson's daughter, that she lives with him and that she supports the carport. Discussion was held with regard to whether or not the carport would have met the setback requirements when it was originally built. Ms. Doerr advised that if building permits had been sought before the carport was built, the applicant would have been advised that the carport did not meet the setbacks. Mr. Grunewald moved to approve the variance request. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Wolfson moved to deny the variance request and, Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern that if the variance were granted, the variance would be in place for the life of the land. Ms. Doerr advised that the Community Development Board has the discretion to grant a variance to this applicant only. Ms. Johnson suggested that the structure be allowed to remain until her father decides to move or sell the property. A suggestion was made to store the boat behind the home but Ms. Johnson responded that the property floods behind the home. Mr. Grunewald referred the Board to Section 24-64 (c). Mr. Grunewald suggested that if the variance were approved that the Board include a caveat that the carport could never be enclosed and that the Minutes of Community DevelopmentBoard April 2S, 2002 '" carport be torn down if the property were sold. Mr. Grunewald stated that even if the applicant removed the structure and parked his boat there, it would still be a fire hazard. Mr. Wolfson asked Ms. Johnson if she would be willing to waive the variance when she takes ownership of the house. Ms. Johnson responded that she would be willing to remove the structure at that time. Mr. Frohwein suggested that the Board set a specific date to remove the carport. Mr. Johnson agreed to this condition. Mr. Wolfson withdrew the motion, and Mr. Frohwein withdrew the second. Mr. Grunewald moved to approve the Variance request with the following conditions: (1) that the structure be removed within ten years or sooner if the structure is destroyed for any reason; (2) that the structure cannot be rebuilt, (3) or that if the applicant no longer lives at this residence. or if the residence is sold to another person, the structure will be removed; and (4) Staff s two recommendations will also apply. Mr. Frohwein moved to amend the motion to state (1) that the structure be permitted to remain for up to ten years or so long as Mr. Johnson continues to own the property and reside at the property, whichever is shorter; (2) that the structure not be enclosed at any time; and (3) that the structure not be rebuilt if something happens to it. Mr. Jacobson seconded the motion. The vote was called and Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Grunewald voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Jenkins voted against the motion. ~. b. File No. ZVAR-2002-05, Catalina D. Alday Request for a Variance from Section 24-106 (e) (3) to allow a roofed enclosure to extend to the side property line thereby eliminating the side vard requirement for property in the RG1A Zoning District and located at 1184 Hibiscus Road Ms. Alday introduced herself to the Board. She advised the Board that the concrete block already existed when she bought the property. She also stated that due to rain, the door was becoming worn so she decided to extend the concrete block to the end of the building, screen and roof the enclosure to prevent the property from becoming further dilapidated. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Doerr advised that under the old Ordinance, a permit for the original concrete patio might not have been required. Mr. Frohwein advised that a concrete patio could be built to the property line, but that a structure cannot. Mr. Frohwein moved to deny the variance request and Mr. Grunewald seconded the motion. Discussion was held with regard to the fire and safety hazard of the structure. Mr. Grunewald stated that due to the shed to the south of the home and the roofed structure to the north of the home, there was no access to the back yard for emergency personnel. The vote was called and the Board unanimously approved the motion to deny the Variance. c. File No. ZVAR-2002-06, Doug Morgan on behalf of Rose C McCall Request for a Variance from the fifteen (15) foot required side vard on a Corner Lot (See definition of Lot Corner) to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance and to allow for a second story addition for property m the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 31_Fifth Street. Ms. Doerr advised that the applicant requested that this item be continued until the May meeting. 2 Minutes of Community Development Board April 25, 2002 d. File No. ZVAR-2002-07. Shawn and Andrea Burke. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (3) to reduce a reauired rear yard and also from Section 24-151 (b) (1) viii to allow a detached storage structure to exceed twelve feet in height for property located at 316 Sizth Street. Mr. Shawn Burke introduced himself and advised the Board that this house was architecturally designed and had received national recognition. He stated that when they purchased the property, the non- confornung structure was already there. Mr. Burke advised the Board of the following: 1) They enclosed the garage and connected it to the main part of the house; 2) With the elimination of the garage, they added an enclosure adjacent to the non-conforming structure; 3) The structure is already built; 4) The structure was built to the width, height and shape of the existing pergola; 5) The violation of the five-foot property line is two feet; 6) They created a structure that is match-for-match wood type, lined up edge-to-edge to groove, and the exact same color of the structure and pitch of the roof; 7) They tried to create an aesthetic look; and 8) They did not know the structure was non-conforming when they bought the house. Mr. Burke clarified that the taller of the two buildings was existing and they added the smaller portion. Ms. Doerr advised that with the code amendments, the detached structure is subject to the 20-foot setback requirements. Mr. Burke explained that the structure exceeds the 12-foot height restriction because they tried to match the existing pergola. He also explained that they tried to build the addition as the architect might have built it. Ms. Doerr stated that the structure is only one foot over the height restriction. Mr. Frohwein moved to approve the variance request, and Mr. Jacobson seconded the motion Discussion was held with regard to the possibility of building another structure. Mr. Burke advised that they already have one detached structure and they are not allowed two detached structures on their property. Mr. Wolfson advised the applicants that the new structure increased the violation of the setback. He stated that even if the applicants had determined a way to enlarge the structure and not encroach on the five-foot setback, they would have had to come to the Board for a variance. Mr. Grunewald asked Mr. Burke the size of the structure and its use. Mr. Burke responded that the structure is 10' x 10' and, in his opinion, it was built as an aesthetic piece to balance the house. He further stated that they use the structure for additional storage. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Doerr explained that if the Board granted this variance, it would bring the old structure into conformance. Mr. Frohwein expressed his concern that he did not know if the applicant would have reasonable use of the property without the Board granting the variance. A vote .was called and Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Frohwein voted in favor of the motion and Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Grunewald and Mr. Jenkins voted against the motion. Mr. Burke stated that he understood the Board's intent but asked that they reconsider their decision. He .. stated that their intent has always been to enclose the garage to make it afree-flowing structure and by doing so, they knew they were going to need space and would utilize what was currently there. Minutes of Community Development Board April 25, 2002 ~'' Mr. Wolfson stated that the applicants made the conscious decision to enclose the garage. Mr. Burke responded that the house had one bedroom with amother-in-law suite above the garage, which suite was not accessible from inside the house. Mr. Grunewald stated that the structure on the property is as unusual as many in Atlantic Beach. He further stated that he had a problem with a 12-foot storage facility and that at sometime a person has to look at what their possessions and what they need to dispose. e. Fite No. UBE-2002-02, Merv and Theresa Russell. Reauest for aUse-bv-Exception in the Commercial Genera( Zoning District to allow for uses including general construction contractor Mr. Merv Russell introduced himself and stated that when he built this warehouse he did not realize that he would require aUse-by-Exception. He further stated that he intends to use most of the space himself but would like to rent one or two of the units. Mr. Jenkins asked the applicant if he understood and agreed with the staff recommendations. Mr. Russell responded that he understood and agreed to the conditions. Mr. Russell was informed that if he sold the building, he would lose the Use-by-Exception and the leases would have to be terminated. Mr. Russell responded that he did not intend to sell the property. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Russell advised that there would be no vehicles or storage outside the building after hours. Mr. Russell further advised that small dumpsters with enclosures would ,~ be located at each end of the building. Mr. Wolfson stated that he did not believe that trees were enough to screen this property from the homes across the street and requested that the applicant plant a wall of "green." Mr. Russell advised that he would plant 20 oak trees. Discussion was held with regard to lighting. The applicant was instructed to direct lighting away from the adjacent properties. A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins, seconded by Mr. Frohwein and unanimously carried to recommend approval of the Use-By-Exception subject to Staffs three recommendations. In addition, the applicant will (1) work with the City to install plants (at the applicant's expense) to form a buffer to the neighboring residences; and (2) maintain these plants through the use of an irrigation system and a maintenance program. f. File No. UBE-2002-03, Beach Buggies and 4 x 4s Billy and Aileena Witt Reauest for a Use-b~ Exception m the Commercial General Zoning. District to allow automotive service and repair use on property located at 1198 Mavport Road, Suites 101 102 and 103 Ms. Brenna Durden introduced herself and advised that she was at this meeting on behalf of the owner of the property and that she would also assist Mr. and Mrs. Witt with their application. She stated that they have read the Staff comments and recommendations and are in agreement with the condition. Ms. Durden advised that Mr. and Mrs. Witt have had a business in Atlantic Beach for five years and would like to relocate their business. She stated that this location is better, a safer location and more conducive `~ to their clientele. 4 Minutes of Community Development Board April 25, 2002 Mr. Billy Witt informed the Board that they would like to improve the image of their company and they would like to incorporate a showroom in the new location to display restored vehicles. Mr, Frohwein expressed his concern with regard to the number of vehicles stored outside at their current location. He stated that at times he has counted up to 20 vehicles stored at the property. Mr. Wolfson concurred with Mr. Frohwein and voiced his concern that he did not want to see this same situation at the new location. Ms. Durden responded that the owners of the property have placed language into the lease with regard to the exterior and that this situation would be a violation of the lease. She stated that she believes the Board's concerns are equal to the owners' concerns and Mr. and Mrs. Witt are very aware of these concerns. Ms. Durden stated that there is a commitment to make this an appropriate business, one that looks nice on the exterior and that would not be a detriment to the city. Mr. Witt stated that he also did not want derelict vehicles parked outside. Ms. Durden stated that the work on the vehicles would be accomplished inside the building and once the vehicle was repaired, it would be moved to the parking lot for the customer to pick up. She stated that there is a provision in the customer agreement outlining that once the car is ready for pick up and the owner has been called, the owner has 72 hours to pick up the vehicle. Ms. Durden advised that they would be willing to accept 72 hours as a condition to the Use-by-Exception. Mr. Wolfson responded that 72 hours was too long because of the importance of this intersection. He stated that he did not want to see cars sitting at this location and that he did not think that this site is the best location for this business. Mr. Witt advised that the building could hold seven vehicles inside. He further advised that based on the size of the shop and the number of employees, it would be impossible to repair more than ten cars per day. He requested that the Board allow three cars and one company car to be parked outside. ~. Mr. Jenkins moved to recommend approval of the Use-by-Exception subject to two conditions: (1) no repair work will be performed outside; and (2) that there be no storage of vehicles on the property and storage will be defined as... The motion died for a lack of a second. Further discussion was held with regard to vehicles parked outside of the building after working hours. A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins and seconded by Mr. Grunewald to recommend to the City Commission approval of the Use-by-Exception subject to the following: (1) no work will be performed outside the building; and (2) that at no time will there be more than four vehicles, including the company vehicle, in the parking lot for storage after business hours for more than 48 hours, and none of these vehicles will be in the junk, derelict or inoperable condition. The vote was called and Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Grunewald and Mr. Jenkins voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Wolfson voted against the motion. 6. Other Reports or Business Not Repuirin~ Action None. 7. Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m SIGNED ~ Q ~,( `~ ~_ _ ATTEST 5