Loading...
2004-04-20 (meeting minutes) v,~"- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Apri120, 2004 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chair Robert Frohwein, Craig Burkhart, Lynn Drysdale, Sam Jacobson, Steve Jenkins, Carolyn Woods, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham. Absent was Mary Walker. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of March 16, 2004 and minutes of the workshop of February 03, 2004. Changes to minutes as follows: 1) Page 3, third paragraph, line 4: change "exceeding" to "exceeds." A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 16, 2004, as amended. A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart, seconded by Ms. Woods, and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the workshop of February 3, 2004. 3. Recognition of Visitors. Ms. Sally Clemens introduced herself. She stated that she was very proud that the board voted seven to zero against the Atlantic Beach Yacht Club. Ms. Doerr informed the board that the two applications for the Atlantic Beach Yacht Club were originally scheduled for the March 8 City Commission meeting, but the applicant requested a continuance to the April 6 Commission meeting. She indicated that, last night the City had received a request to withdraw both applications. 4. Old Business. a. ZVAR-2004-04, Fred Bender. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to reduce the rear yard setback from 20-feet to 9-feet and also to reduce the 15-foot street side setback on a corner lot to 5-feet to allow for asecond-story garage addition on an existing non-conforming structure within the RS-2 Zoning District, and located at 1098 Beach Avenue. Mr. Fred Bender introduced himself. He stated that his home was built in 1920, and he purchased the home in 1991. He advised that he decided to make some renovations to build above the garage and make interior modifications and was informed that he needed a variance to do so. Mr. Bender stated that at the last Community Development Board meeting, the Board made suggestions to modify the plans. He indicated that he contacted his architect for recommendations. He advised that the architect informed him that 1) expanding the footprint of the home was not an option since 48 percent of the lot was covered; 2) if he built off the existing non-conforming footprint, it would be costly, it would be restrictive based on structural soundness, and it could reduce the amount of space in the second car garage. Draft Minutes of the April 20, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Bender stated that there had been numerous re-builds over non-conforming properties in the community in the past, and he requested to be grandfathered to build in the current footprint. Ms. Woods asked Mr. Bender how he was currently using his garage? Mr. Bender responded that he was using it as a studio. Mr. Frohwein asked the applicant if he had been provided with a copy of the grounds for approval of a variance. Mr. Bender responded yes. Mr. Frohwein asked which criteria pertained to his circumstance. Mr. Bender stated that it was difficult for him to find one of those particular conditions that would fit. Mr. Frohwein read the six criteria for approving a variance request. He stated that in the absence of any of those conditions, he thought it would be difficult for the Board to approve the variance. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Bender to confirm that he was having to work with a house that was built in the 1920s. Mr. Bender responded yes. Mr. Jacobson stated that the applicant: 1) was not in a position to build on a clean lot; 2) had to deal with the hand he was dealt; 3) was not proposing to change the footprint; and 4) the applicant was being onerously impacted by zoning that was changed after the house was built. Mr. Chris Hionides introduced himself. He stated that Mr. Bender was his neighbor. He informed the board that Mr. Bender's car had been vandalized, and so had his car. He stated that he liked the plans, and the design would fit in the neighborhood. He further stated that other applicants had been to the Board to request similar changes, and requests had been granted. Mr. Hionides stated that he hoped the Board would approve the request. Mr. Jacobson made a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion. Mr. Jacobson stated that the applicant didn't have a lot of choices. He stated that the applicant 1) bought this house before the setback requirements were in place; 2) either has to tear his house down or work with what he has; 3) is a caring owner; 4) plans are consistent with the tone and character of what is currently there; 5) the plans is not going to crowd the lot; 6) any worsening may have some negligible impact on air space; 7) will be detrimental to the applicant if he cannot make reasonable use of his property; and 8) this owner is subject to conditions that other landowners are not subjected to. Mr. Burkhart stated that the applicant's request was not unreasonable, but the Board had a set of requirements, and the applicant did not meet any of those requirements. He further stated that when the applicant purchased the house he had aone-car garage, and he knew the conditions around the house and lot. Mr. Burkhart added that the code requirements were in place when the applicant purchased the home, and no changes in the code have changed the position affecting this lot. ~., Mr. Frohwein stated that he recognized Board Member Jacobson's position but felt the applicant had reasonable use of the existing property. He further stated that he did not feel that the Board could use vandalism as a reason to grant the request. 2 Draft Minutes of the April 20, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board . The vote was called and Mr. Jacobson voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Burkhart, Ms. Drysdale, Mr. Frohwein and Mr. Jenkins voted against the motion. Ms. Woods asked to abstain from the vote because the applicant's second story would block her ocean view. Ms. Doerr advised Ms. Woods that she was required to vote. Ms. Woods voted in favor of the motion. The motion to approve the Variance failed to carry. 5. New Business. a. ZVAR-2004-06, Sandra L. Martin. Request for a Variance from Section 24-107(e)(1) to reduce the front yard setback from 20-feet to 10-feet to allow for an enclosed stairwell and entryway to extend into the required front yard in conjunction with remodeling and an addition to an existing structure within the RG-2 Zoning District, and located at 44 Dewees Avenue. Mr. Jacobson informed the Board that Mrs. Martin was a very close family friend of many, many years. He stated that they raised their children together, camped together and she had been the office manager where he works for ten years. He stated that ordinarily he would ask to disqualify himself, but as advised by City Attorney Alan Jensen in another similar matter before the Board, he could only disqualify himself if there was a financial conflict. Mrs. Sandra Martin introduced herself and stated that she was there on behalf of herself and her husband regarding the front setback on their home. She stated that their house was built in the 1940s before the zoning regulations were in place. She further stated that the house was approximately 1,560 square feet and they would like to expand the home. Mrs. Martin explained that the enclosed stairway would reach the second and third floors, it would not be a living area, and it would not be across the whole front of the house. She stated that the present stairway was a circular stairway installed in 1975 to save space and would be replaced with an elevator. Mrs. Martin informed the Board that their architect, Robert Broward, was present to answer any questions. She further informed the Board that the stairway could not be located on either side of the house due to side setbacks. Mr. Burkhart asked Mrs. Martin if she would consider building the stairwell so that it would cover the front of the guest bedroom, which would not require a variance. He stated that if they turned the structure, they would only need a one or two-foot variance, which could be administratively granted by Ms. Doerr. Mr. Robert C. Broward, Architect, introduced himself. He advised that without a variance, all views were blocked. Mr. Broward proposed that they could push the stair into the house four more feet and then create an entranceway. He stated that this would provide an undercover entrance to the stairway and would intrude only 12 feet. Mr. Jenkins asked if the applicant was willing to amend the variance request from a 10-foot variance to a six-foot variance? Mr. Broward responded that they reduce that amount of the variance by four feet from the north/south direction. Ms. Doerr stated that this would reduce the front yard setback to 14-foot. 3 Draft Minutes of the April 20, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins to approve the amended variance request to allow a 14- foot front setback, as opposed to a 10-foot front yard setback as originally requested, with the condition being that this variance request was granted for the construction of this stairway only, and at no future date will the home be extended out along the front of the house. Ms. Drysdale seconded the motion. Ms. Doerr suggested that the Board reference the site plan submitted with the application, with the change to al4-foot setback. The motion was clarified accordingly. Mr. Jenkins stated that the Board had some discretion with regard to irregularly shaped lots, and the Board had been consistent with that discretion in voting in favor of this applicant. The vote was called and Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Drysdale voted in favor of the motion, Ms. Woods voted against the motion. The motion to approve the amended request carried. b. PLAT 2004-O1, Beaches Habitat for Humanity. Review of proposed plat for an eight-lot subdivision located off of Cornell Lane, east of Mayport Road and to be known as the Cornell Two subdivision. Mr. Chuck Kennedy introduced himself as an employee of Beaches Habitat. He advised that this site was approximately two acres of undeveloped land, and they would be building one and two-story duplexes. He stated that in order that this project to be financially feasible, they would need to house 16 families within the development. He advised that they would be also constructing roadways and stormwater structures. Ms. Woods asked if the lots would be sold individually? Mr. Kennedy responded that they would be sold as town-home lots. Mr. Jenkins clarified that Beaches Habitat had eight lots and the request was that some lots should be permitted to contain less than the required square footage. Mr. Kennedy responded that only one lot met the 7,500 requirement. In response to a question from Ms. Woods, Mr. Kennedy advised that the stormwater facilities would be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association, and they would have to pay association dues. Mr. Kennedy advised that they had the following requirements: $30,000 for site acquisition and development and $30,000 for construction of house. He stated that if they lost units in this development, they could not meet that goal. Mr. Jenkins stated that he would be interested to know if the only reason behind this request was financial. Mr. Ralph Marcello, Executive Director of Beaches Habitat, introduced himself. He advised that when they met with their board, they set a limit of $30,000 per lot for both cost of acquisition and stormwater. He stated that the cost was $200,000 for two acres, which 4 Draft Minutes of the April 20, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board equaled to $12,000 per lot for 16 units. Mr. Marcello advised that the population they serve was mostly parents with children, and they did not feel that a condominium unit would fit that demographic, but duplexes would. Mr. Marcello informed the Board that they felt obtaining this waiver would provide a better environment for their population; they would build fewer houses than if they built condominiums, and they would better serve the City of Atlantic Beach and Beaches Habitat. Mr. Jenkins asked if they had run a plat diagram staying within the existing requirements. Mr. Kennedy responded that the best they could come up with was 14 units if they stayed within the existing requirements. Mr. Jenkins advised that low-income housing was something that the Board had addressed, that the Board needed to support and needed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he was concerned that this was a financial issue and would like to know what other options Beaches Habitat might have to address this. Mr. Burkhart suggested that Beaches Habitat look at doing a condominium project. Ms. Doerr advised that Beaches Habitat was proposing eight lots with each town-home to be divided into fee simple ownership, and explained that fee-simple title and condominiums were two different types of property ownership. Ms. Doerr commented that this project is proposed to be an affordable housing project, and '' the Comp Plan requires that the City address affordable housing needs. This property is somewhat a unique in that it is designated as Residential, High Density by the Comprehensive Plan, and there is very little High Density undeveloped property anywhere in the City that can be used to provide affordable housing. The High Density category allows up to 20 units per acre, and this property is currently zoned RG-2, which is multi-family. This project contains 16 units on almost 2 acres. Substantially more units could be built on this property. In this case, because of the high-density designation and the affordable housing policies in the Comprehensive Plan, approval of the reduced lot sizes would seem to be consistent with the Comp Plan, where approval of smaller lots sizes in other areas of the City would not be. Mr. Jacobson asked why this project would not be a Planned Unit Development (PUD.) Ms. Doerr stated that the site is currently was zoned properly for this project, so it did not need to be rezoned to a PUD. The property is also too small to meet the residential PUD size requirement. Mr. Marcello advised that Beaches Habitat owned the property. Ms. Woods asked why the City would not maintain the drainage areas. In response to another question from Ms. Woods, Mr. Kennedy advised that the street would be a City street, but that the City would not maintain private stormwater ponds, and that the stormwater system would be required to be permitted by the St. John's Water Management District and constructed to meet their requirements. Mr. Frohwein stated that he believed that the two lots that front Cornell Lane, on the side yard for the easterly lot, required a 15-foot setback in lieu of the 7.5-foot shown. Ms. Doerr responded that this was correct. Mr. Frohwein asked if that would still work for Beaches 5 Draft Minutes of the April 20, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board Habitat. Mr. Kennedy responded that they might lose one unit or they would have to reconfigure it. Ms. Doerr advised that the Community Development Board was making a recommendation to the City Commission only on the preliminary plat and the reduced lot sizes. There is no a no variance requested, and setbacks and other requirements will have to be met as each lot is developed. Mr. Frohwein stated that the Board was being asked to approve a request based upon financial considerations to see that Beaches Habitat hit a target of $30,000 per lot. Mr. Frohwein asked for Beaches Habitat costs. Mr. Kennedy responded that for 16 units they were looking at $30,000; for 14 units they were looking at $34,000. Mr. Kennedy stated that the intangible was that they were helping two less families if they built only 14 units. Ms. Woods asked with regard to Lot 8, she was assuming those looked larger because they were handicapped lots. Mr. Kennedy responded, yes. He stated that they must have four handicapped units to meet certain grant and funding assistance requirements. Mr. Burkhart asked if six units were two-story and two units were one story. Mr. Kennedy responded yes. Mr. Jacobson asked how much each unit would sell for. Mr. Marcello responded close to $70,000. Mr. Jacobson asked how much they would have to add to each house. Mr. Marcello responded approximately $4,000. He further stated that they sell the houses at cost and they provide a 25-year interest free mortgage. "" Mr. Marcello advised that they had applied for financing from Home, which is a HUD program, and this program required that they set aside so many units for handicapped. He stated that they need this money to make this plan work. Mr. Jacobson asked if they increased the sale price from $70,000 to $74,000, would this work. Mr. Jacobson stated that if the Board did not work with Beaches Habitat on this, two fewer families would be served, and the people who do buy would end up paying an additional $15.00 per month. In response to a question from Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Kennedy stated that if the number of units were reduced to 15, they would go back to their Board and ask for approval to build condominiums. Mr. Marcello stated that the issue was that two more additional families could be served, and it would reduce the costs for the other families. He stated that they want to make this project as cost effective as they can, and they were not looking at single individuals but families. He further stated that it was not only the dollars but also the types of families and the need to serve as many families as they can. Ms. Woods asked if the retention pond could be moved closer toward the street? Mr. Kennedy responded that it would reduce the buildable area of the site. Ms. Woods expressed concern with the setbacks. Ms. Doerr responded that the setbacks were illustrative numbers. Ms. Doerr stated that as each lot was developed, it would have to meet the setback requirements. Discussion was held with regard to whether this project should be condominiums or town homes. Mr. Frohwein stated that it would greatly benefit the subdivision if they could move the pond up to Cornell Lane. He stated that his position was that he would like to see 14 units. He further stated that although they were serving two less families, he thought the value would be enhanced by the larger lots. In addition, Mr. Frohwein stated that Beaches Habitat was in 6 , Drcaft Minutes of the April 20, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board the developmental stage where they thought their development costs were $280,000 but it could change when they go out to bid. He stated that he was reluctant to proceed with supporting their request. Mr. Burkhart asked if Beaches Habitat was under a tight timetable. Mr. Marcello responded that he thought aone-month delay would be okay. Mr. Burkhart stated that this would allow time to research moving the pond; the effect the 15-feet setback would have on their plans and would allow time to talk with the city attorney, Alan Jensen, to determine more information on the condominium. Mr. Frohwein stated that he believed there was a willingness by the applicant to further examine moving the stormwater toward the road, which would change the plat. Mr. Marcello requested that this item be deferred to the next meeting. He stated that there was some risk to their grant request, but they would deal with that. The item was deferred to the May meeting. 6. Business not requiring action. Discussion of options and possible amendments to Land Development Regulations intended to retain character of Old Atlantic Beach. Ms. Doerr advised that the City Commission had held their annual strategic planning sessions several weeks ago, and the issue related to retaining the character of Old Atlantic Beach was identified as a priority issue. She stated that the city manager had asked her for background information and a broad range of options to be discussed. She further stated that this was an issue the Commission had heard about repeatedly on the floor of numerous commission meetings: concerns about massive houses looming over adjacent modest houses in the older part of the City. Ms. Doerr informed the Board that she was asked to provide options, which would be discussed at future workshops. Ms. Doerr stated that this was the very beginning of a process, and that the Commission was not expecting any action from the Community Development Board at this time and that the topic had been placed on tonight's agenda at the Chairman's request. Discussion was held amongst the Board members. Ms. Doerr suggested that Board members read through the information that she provided, and stated that the Community Development Board would be involved as this process developed. Mr. Frohwein requested that board members call Ms. Doerr in advance if they were going to be unable to attend a meeting. 7. Adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Signed Attest 7 • Minutes of the Apri120, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board the developmental stage where they thought their development costs were $280,000 but it could change when they go out to bid. He stated that he was reluctant to proceed with supporting their request. Mr. Burkhart asked if Beaches Habitat was under a tight timetable. Mr. Marcello responded that he thought cone-month delay would be okay. Mr. Burkhart stated that this would allow time to reseazch moving the pond; the effect the 15-feet setback would have on their plans and would allow time to talk with the city attorney, Alan Jensen, to determine more information on the condominium. Mr. Frohwein stated that he believed there was a willingness by the applicant to further examine moving the stormwater towazd the road, which would change the plat. Mr. Mazcello requested that this item be deferred to the next meeting. He stated that there was some risk to their grant request, but they would deal with that. The item was deferred to the May meeting. 6. Business not requiring action. Discussion of options and possible amendments to Land Development Regulations intended to retain character of Old Atlantic Beach. Ms. Doerr advised that the City Commission had held their annual strategic planning sessions several weeks ago, and the issue related to retaining the character of Old Atlantic Beach was identified as a priority issue. She stated that the city manager had asked her for background information and a broad range of options to be discussed. She further stated that this was an issue the Commission had heazd about repeatedly on the floor of numerous commission meetings: concerns about massive houses looming over adjacent modest houses in the older part of the City. Ms. Doerr informed the Boazd that she was asked to provide options, which would be discussed at future workshops. Ms. Doerr stated that this was the very beginning of a process, and that the Commission was not expecting any action from the Community Development Board at this time and that the topic had been placed on tonight's agenda at the Chairman's request. Discussion was held amongst the Board members. Ms. Doerr suggested that Board members read through the information that she provided, and stated that the Community Development Board would be involved as this process developed. Mr. Frohwein requested that board members call Ms. Doerr in advance if they were going to be unable to attend a meeting. 7. Adjourn ent. Th e' g h s' a ;the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Signed l g ^' ~ ~ ~ Attest 7