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