Loading...
2011-12-20_CDB minutes Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board " 4° vN y r !.) 1 2 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 December 20, 2011 6 1. CALL TO ORDER. — 6:OOpm 7 Chairman Chris Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Kirk Hansen, 8 Chris Lambertson (chair), Harley Parkes and Brea Paul. Kelly Elmore arrived at 6:45pm. 9 Blaine Adams and Patrick Stratton were absent. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika 10 Hall, Building Official Michael Griffin, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. 11 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES — NOVEMBER 15, 2011. 12 Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2011 meeting. 13 MOTION: Ms. Paul moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the November 15, 2011 14 meeting, as written. Seconded by Mr. Hansen, the motion carried 4 -0. 15 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. 16 Jason Burgess who was recently appointed to the Board with a term beginning in January 2012 17 was in attendance. 18 4. OLD BUSINESS. None. 19 5. NEW BUSINESS. 20 A. ZVAR- 2011 - 00100065 21 APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad (owner) represented by Ray Henderson, President 22 and General Contractor, Beaches Building, LLC 23 ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue 24 REQUEST: Variance from Section 24- 106(e)(2), reducing the required rear yard 25 setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet 26 with the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District. 27 28 Ms. Hall introduced the item and explained that she had met with the Harkleroads' designer 29 during a pre - application meeting last April, and provided him with information regarding the 30 renovation of an existing detached two -car garage, including the re- orientation of access and 31 the addition of a second floor recreation room, the construction of a second accessory 32 structure consisting of a one -car garage, with a second floor guest quarters, and the relocation 33 of exterior stairs. Ms. Hall said that, as presented by the designer, she understood both the 34 existing detached two -car garage and the proposed detached one -car garage would neither 35 have internal connectivity to one another, nor to the primary structure, thus qualifying the 36 siting of the new accessory at ten (10) feet from the rear lot line. When the site plan was 37 formally submitted for development review and building permit issuance in September 2011, 38 it appeared to be consistent with what had been discussed at the pre - application meeting, and Page 1 of 5 Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 39 was approved by Planning & Zoning, and subsequently, by all other reviewing departments, 40 and building permits were issued. 41 However, several weeks into construction, Ms. Hall said she and Building Official Michael 42 Griffin were told the intent was to connect all three structures, thus effectively incorporating 43 both accessory structures into the principal dwelling. This was confirmed upon site visit and 44 conversation with the contractor on November 15, 2011, and a notice was issued to the 45 property owner that construction was not consistent with the approved site plan, and 46 continuance would require a variance reducing the required rear yard setback for the principal 47 structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet. The property owner and the contractor then 48 responded that the approved construction plans indicated the connectivity amongst the 49 structures, and therefore construction would continue according to those approved plans. 50 Staff then responded that Planning & Zoning reviews site plans only, and though site plans 51 should sufficiently demonstrate all existing and proposed improvements, including 52 dimensions, setbacks, rooflines, easements, etc, it appeared there was a discrepancy between 53 the site plan reviewed and approved by Planning & Zoning and the construction plans 54 reviewed and approved by the Building Department. However, since the discrepancy had 55 been discovered, it needed to be addressed appropriately. On November 23, 2011, a variance 56 application was submitted with a copy of the original site plan revised to show the area of 57 connectivity between the existing detached garage and the principal dwelling, along with the 58 applicant's comment that a "full set of plans were submitted to city & approved. 59 Construction is well underway and changes will be costly." 60 Mr. Ray Henderson, General Contractor and President of Beaches Builders, LLC, spoke on 61 behalf of Mr. Harkleroad. He assured the Board there was no malicious intent to deceive the 62 City, and that the site plan submitted was consistent with the requirements of the Land 63 Development Regulations. Mr. Lambertson asked why the connector was not shown on the 64 original submittal site plan, to which Mr. Henderson replied that it was shown on the floor 65 plan, and that according to the Atlantic Beach definition of a site plan, it was not required to 66 be shown. Mr. Parkes, who is an architect, disagreed. He said while he did not know of any 67 universal standards, a site plan is a view from the plan perspective, and should show all 68 changes. Differences in elevations, or levels at which those changes occur are generally 69 addressed by symbology, such as line type, line weight, hatching or shading. Mr. Lambertson 70 agreed, and noted that stairs were shown on the site plan, even though they were not on the 71 ground level. 72 Mr. Parkes inquired as to the development review process. Mr. Griffin explained that 73 applications are received by the Building Department, with various parts being routed to 74 reviewing departments. Particularly, site plans only go to Planning, which does not get 75 involved in the construction details. After reading the definition of a site plan from Section 76 24 -17, he continued by saying that the approval of the Building Department is based on the 77 construction plans. 78 Mr. Lambertson asked if, upon reviewing the construction plans, Mr. Griffin found the 79 connection to be shown, to which Mr. Griffin replied yes. Mr. Lambertson then asked about 80 the separation between the two accessories, given that there is currently no standard provided 81 in the Land Development Regulations, other than a ten (10) foot separation found within the 82 Residential Design Standards applicable only to Old Atlantic Beach. Mr. Griffin said that so 83 long as the construction plans suggest the consistent type and materials of construction, there 84 would be no requirement for separation. Page 2 of 5 Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 85 Ms. Paul inquired as to the development review process, asking if staff members convened 86 for joint review of plans, or if departments reviewed independently. Ms. Hall responded that 87 generally, review was done independently; however, she said that she often confers with 88 Building Inspector Mike Jones, and he with her, though not formally. 89 Mr. Lambertson reiterated that staff had had a pre- application meeting with the designer. He 90 then asked Mr. Parkes how he would draw a site plan. Mr. Parkes responded that to him, a 91 site plan should consist of a full sheet (24" x 36 ") scaled and dimensioned plan view, with the 92 projection of all elements, existing or proposed, down to the footprint, with symbology set to 93 differentiate one level from another and existing from proposed. Further, the site plan should 94 contain tables of all development calculations, such as impervious surface and land use 95 allocation. 96 Mr. Henderson told the Board that the architect had supplied a copy of a sketch with 97 handwritten notes made by Ms. Hall during the pre - application meeting, and he then 98 circulated a copy of such. [Note: Ms. Hall was not afforded the opportunity to see said sketch 99 and notes until after adjournment of the meeting. However, a copy has been entered into the 100 application file, and Ms. Hall does confirm the copy of the blue post -it note citing Section 24- 101 48(h) as it applies to administrative minor dimensional variances, and Section 24- 151(b)(1) 102 as it applies to open exterior stairs, was written by her, but neither the sketch nor the notes 103 page dated 4 -27 -11 were not made by her]. Ms. Paul emphasized these were notes from a 104 preliminary meeting, not something that was formally submitted and approved, and therefore 105 they are irrelevant. She continued, saying in her experience as a planning consultant, the site 106 plan was lacking, and Mr. Parkes noted the uninterrupted path of stippling, indicating 107 concrete or sidewalk, running between the accessories and the primary structure, which in 108 turn suggested from a plan view, no overlap or connectivity. 109 Mr. Lambertson summarized the problem at hand. A connection was shown on the 110 construction plans which were reviewed and approved by the Building Department, but not 111 shown on the site plan, which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Mr. 112 Hansen then said that he was of the opinion that had the connection been shown on the site 113 plan, staff would not have approved the plans, but referred the applicant to this Board for a 114 variance, and very likely, this Board would have denied that variance request. 115 Mr. Lambertson agreed, noting that accessory structures are clearly defined in the Land 116 Development Regulations, and while he conceded there may have been some level of 117 miscommunication, in the end, the burden is on the applicant to know the code. He then 118 asked Mr. Jensen if he could provide guidance as to how to resolve such situations of undue 119 hardship, and what was the City's liability. Mr. Jensen said essentially the City had no 120 liability, and that he saw this as a mutual mistake. Mr. Lambertson asked if there was any 121 precedence, or if anything could be done administratively to resolve the matter. Mr. Jensen 122 said the Board could defer the matter to see if it could be resolved otherwise, though 123 ultimately, it was this Board's duty to address. 124 Mr. Hansen asked if the Board deemed this approval to be in error, what precedent did it set, 125 and what would be the requirement of the applicant to remediate? Mr. Lambertson said being 126 a contractor, he could place himself in Mr. Henderson's shoes, and realized that he was doing 127 everything that he thought was right. Mr. Parkes then noted that there were two standing 128 between Mr. Henderson and this Board, and neither of them was present, one being the owner 129 and the other being the architect. Mr. Lambertson agreed, noting the impetus is on the 130 architect to do his due diligence, to look at the code and to follow the code. Ms. Paul said Page 3 of 5 Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 131 that she felt it important to be able to speak with the architect to understand what was or was 132 not presented on the site plan versus the construction plans. 133 Mr. Henderson reiterated that he was working according to approved construction plans, and 134 that a stop -work order was never issued. Mr. Griffin replied that the Building Department is 135 hesitant to issue a stop -work order because he does not want to hold up work and prevent the 136 builder from completing dry -in. However, he noted that in the letter from Ms. Hall to Mr. 137 Henderson, she gave notice that any work advancing the connection beyond what had been 138 done through November 15 would be done at the builder and owner's on peril and financial 139 liability, pending attainment of a variance from the Community Development Board. Mr. 140 Lambertson then read the letter into the record, and asked as to the status of the project on the 141 day of the site visit by Ms Hall and Mr. Griffin. Mr. Griffin replied that construction was in 142 the framing stage and there was no connection on November 16, 2011. 143 Mr. Henderson then said he had to make the connection in order to dry -in. Mr. Lambertson 144 emphasized that the letter dated November 16 cautioned to do so would be at the 145 contractor's own risk. Mr. Henderson said it was a risk that he had to take, or else potentially 146 lose materials valued at $75,000. He said his crew was sheeting at the time staff came out, 147 and that the roof line was already being connected, though the bridge had not been 148 constructed. 149 [Board member Kelly Elmore arrived at 6:45pm]. 150 Mr. Elmore said that he had visited the site and met with Mr. Henderson to get a better 151 understanding of the project. He said that he had not spoken with staff regarding the request, 152 but in reviewing the site plans contained in the agenda packet, he realized that this was an 153 oversight anyone could easily make. He concurred with Mr. Parkes, categorizing the 154 submitted site plan as footprint, rather than a site plan depicting interface and interaction of 155 the various floors as a complete project in the context of a varying topography. He said that 156 he personally did not find the connection egregious, and suggested that the average person 157 walking down the street would not know that the connection existed. He added that much of 158 the charm of Beach Avenue is defined by the proximity of the buildings to the street, and this 159 presented an excellent opportunity for the Board to entertain an overlay with reduced 160 setbacks. As to the particular request before the Board, Mr. Elmore said he saw no impact to 161 the City, and had no problem with granting this variance as an undue hardship. 162 Mr. Lambertson asked Mr. Jensen if there existed any administrative process to deal with 163 such an error of omissions, and Mr. Jensen said that it is the duty of the Board to make a 164 determination. Mr. Lambertson asked what would be the consequences going forward, and 165 Ms. Hall read from Section 24- 64(b)(1): "Applications for a variance shall be considered on 166 a case -by -case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is 167 consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section." 168 Mr. Lambertson read aloud each of the grounds for denial of a variance and the Board found 169 than none were applicable to this request. He then read aloud each of the grounds for 170 approval of a variance, and suggested that essentially this request could qualify for approval 171 based upon Section 24- 64(d)(4), "onerous effect of regulations [enacted]... after construction 172 of improvements upon the property". Mr. Jensen stated staff had realized a disjunction in the 173 City's review process that led to an oversight on the City's part, but there was also oversight 174 on the part of the applicant who failed to submit a site plan consistent with the construction 175 plans. Page 4 of 5 Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 176 Mr. Hansen said that he did not have a problem granting this variance on the basis of mutual 177 error and resultant undue hardship, so long as it is clearly understood this the only reason it is 178 being granted and will not create a precedent. He asked Mr. Jensen if this was a defensible 179 position, and Mr. Jensen reiterated that each variance request stands on its own merits. This 180 request evolved out of a mutual error, and both parties were acting on the best available 181 information to them at the time. Further, this request addresses a project already technically 182 approved and in- processes. Chances are, especially considering that staff has already taken 183 steps to address process deficiencies, this exact scenario will not present itself again. 184 Mr. Lambertson called for a motion. 185 MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved to grant ZVAR -11- 00100065, request for a variance from 186 Section 24- 106(e)(2), reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from 187 twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet within the Residential Single - Family (RS -2) Zoning District 188 on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue, finding that this request was necessitated in 189 response to the onerous effect of regulations after the construction of improvements upon a 190 property and an undue hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to 191 process deficiencies, and on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals, and 192 finding that this variance request, like all others, stands on the merits of conditions particular 193 to it alone, and in no way constitutes a precedence for future actions. The motion, seconded 194 by Mr. Parkes, carried unanimously, 5 -0. 195 [Board Member Kirk Hansen left the meeting at 7: 40pm]. 196 Mr. Lambertson thanked Mr. Henderson for his patience and asked that he please understand 197 that this deliberation was in no way a reflection upon him; rather, the circumstances of this 198 request brought to light deficiencies that needed to be addressed, and it was essential that the 199 Board correctly document their decision as a undue hardship of special circumstances. Mr. 200 Henderson thanked the Board for their consideration of the matter. 201 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. 202 A. Land Development Regulations addressing minimum accessory structure separation. 203 204 Mr. Lambertson asked staff to look into the typical required accessory structure separation, 205 whether accessory- from - accessory, or accessory- from - principal, and provide information for 206 further discussion by the Board at the next meeting. 207 208 7. ADJOURNMENT — 7:50 PM 209 210 211 Chris Lambertson, Chairman 212 213 214 BOA l laide 215 Attest Page 5 of 5