9-18-12 Minutes of the September 18,2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
f ri r,,J,
J
Po'
NW:,
'''!..051 %�
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
September 18, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER. —6:02pm
Chair Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, Kelly
Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes, Brea Paul and Patrick Stratton. The
meeting was called to order at 6:02pm. Also present were Principal Planner Erika Hall,
Redevelopment Coordinator Lesley Resnick, and Building and Zoning Director Michael Griffin.
Ms. Hall noted that NS Mayport liaison and ex-officio member Matt Schellhorn would not be in
attendance,but he had confirmed via email that he had no objections to any agenda items.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES—AUGUST 21, 2012.
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular
meeting. Mr. Burgess moved that the minutes be approved as written. Mr. Hansen seconded the
motion and it carried by a vote of 7-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. None.
4. OLD BUSINESS. None.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR-12-00100031, 587 BEACH AVENUE (Greg Beere, Content Design Group, on
behalf of Kirk&Anne Marie Moquin)
Request for a variance from provisions of Section 24-172(c), Old Atlantic Beach residential
development standards, consistent with the provision of Section 24-172(e), to construct a
new home with modern design, on a property located at 587 Beach Avenue, within a
Residential Single Family(RS-2)zoning district.
Staff Ms. Hall reported that the subject property is located in the southeast
Report corner of the intersection of Beach Avenue and 6`h Street and consists of
two oceanfront lots platted as part of the original Atlantic Beach
Subdivision `A',recorded June 5, 1913. The resultant development parcel
measures approximately one hundred (100) feet in width, approximately
two hundred fifty(250) feet in depth and has a total area of about twenty-
five thousand five hundred square feet. The existing structure occupying
the parcel is a single family home constructed in 1908. The property
owners have proposed to demolish this structure and construct a new
modern design single family home.
Ms. Hall noted that property owner Kirk Moquin was present, along with
architect Greg Beere of Content Design Group, who would be fielding
design-related questions from the board. After projecting a rendering of
Page 1 of 7
Minutes of the September 18,2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
the proposed structure, she explained how the design was fully compliant
with the development standards applicable to the RS-2 zoning district in
which the property is located. A table summarizing the RS-2
requirements versus the proposal was shown, as were copies of the site
plan, floor plans and elevations which demonstrated compliance with the
RS-2 lot standards (width, depth, area) and development standards
(setbacks, height and impervious surface). Ms. Hall noted one exception,
being the placement of the garage six(6)feet from the north property line,
rather than the required ten (10) foot street side setback, adding that this
reduction in setback was consistent with a four (4) foot north side yard
variance that was granted to the previous owner by the Community
Development Board on November 6, 1986. She reminded the board that
variances, once acted upon, become vested rights that convey with the
property in perpetuity.
Ms. Hall then summarized the provisions of Section 24-172, which are
additional residential development standards that are applicable to the
geographic area known as Old Atlantic Beach, adopted September 11,
2006. She explained these standards were adopted as the result of the
"community character" study that had taken place in 2005-06, for the
purpose of maintaining the traditional-scale residential character of the
city. She continued, stating the intent of these standards was not to
regulate or exclude any particular architectural style, but to limit
potentially excessive height, mass and bulk of new or renovated
structures. To the contrary, recognition that other architectural styles
(differing from the traditional two-and-one-half story, shaker-side, and
gable-roof design common to the beaches) may achieve the desired
height, mass and bulk by alternative means led to the inclusion of a
provision for a special variance from these standards. She next reviewed
each instance for which this variance was being sought and outlined
mitigating factors that formed the basis for this request:
Section 24-172(c)(1) requires that second- and third-story exterior side
wall planes may not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in length without some
sort of horizontal offset, architectural detail or design element of at least
four (4) feet in order, to break up blank walls facing adjacent residences.
The northern-most wall of the second story measures approximately
forty-six (46) feet, while the southern-most wall of the third story
measures approximately fifty-four (54) feet. Ms. Hall cited extensive
buffering between the structure and neighbors on either side, stating that
to the north is the forty (40) foot wide 6th Street right-of-way as well as
the Moquins' street side yard which would eventually be landscaped, and
to the south is a twenty-eight(28)foot wide interior side yard between the
structure and the southern property line. She noted this far exceeds the
minimum side yard setbacks to which most property owners build, being
a combined fifteen (15) feet with a minimum of five (5) feet on either
side.
Section 24-172(c)(2) requires that height of wall plates to the top
horizontal framing member may not exceed twenty-two (22) feet, for the
purpose of reducing mass and bulk of the structure. The result of this
Page 2 of 7
Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
provision is that third floors and the additional allowable thirteen (13)feet
of height must be captured within a roof structure. Ms. Hall noted this
provision clearly encourages gable roofs and is not compatible with flat-
roofed modern designs. She emphasized that the overall height of the
entire structure does not exceed the maximum allowable height of thirty-
five (35) feet, and the use of glass walls, cantilevers, step-ins, balconies,
and roof-top decks on various levels all work as subtractive elements
which counter the additional height of the parapet.
Section 24-172(c)(3) requires that the third floor footprint not exceed
more than fifty (50 percent of the second floor footprint, in order to
reduce mass of the structure. While the total area of the third floor, as
proposed, encompasses approximately one thousand seven hundred
twenty-seven (1,727) square feet, or about sixty-one (61) percent of the
second floor, Ms. Hall noted that approximately five hundred seventy-five
(575) square feet of this area is uninhabitable open space to the second
floor. Thus the habitable area of the third floor is effectively only one
thousand one hundred fifty-two (1,152) square feet, or forty-one (41)
percent of the second floor area. Further, Ms. Hall noted that the glass
walls along the northern and eastern elevations offer a great deal of
translucency and tend to mitigate additional enclosed area of the third
floor.
Applicant Property owner Kirk Moquin deferred to Greg Beere, architect with
Comment Content Design Group to address the board. Mr. Beere said that he felt
Ms. Hall and done a good job presenting their proposal, and he would be
happy to answer any additional questions the board or public might have.
Public Scott Griswold (511 Ocean Boulevard) summarized the process by which
Comment the Old Atlantic Beach development standards were derived during the
height of the building boom and said that the goals and objectives were to
reduce big box residential development. He stated that he lived within a
block of the subject property and objected to the proposed structure,
noting that, according to the rendering shown, the proposed structure
appeared much more massive than the neighboring structure.
Rich Reichler(2025 Beach Avenue) said that he did not support or object
to the proposed structure, but wished clarification on the point of
beginning for the measurement of height of the building. Ms. Hall
responded that all oceanfront lots were required to provide certified
topographic surveys including calculated average grade over the buildable
area of the lot, and starting point of measure was then determined,
contingent upon Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regulations. Mr. Griffin, who is the city's Certified Floodplain Manager
and Building Official, stated that because the property is located within
one of FEMA's designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), the point
of beginning would be the required finished floor elevation.
Rodney Margol (41 6th Street) stated that he lived directly across from the
subject property, on the north side of 6th Street, and his primary concern
was the development of the north wall and landscaping of the street side
Page 3 of 7
Minutes of the September 18,2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
yard and right-of-way. Mr. Lambertson asked for elaboration on the
landscape plan. Mr. Beere assured everyone there would be landscaping
that softened the long horizontal elements and drastically improved the
conditions of the south side of 6th Street. He said up to this point, the
focus has been on the design of the structure, but as that is finalized,
efforts will be refocused on addressing the landscaping, and he will be
happy to meet with staff, members of this board, and neighbors to achieve
an amenable design. In general, the plan will address the three (3)
existing parking spaces and the street side yard with interesting textures
and indigenous plants that create a pleasing buffer on 6th Street.
Mary Petersen (541 Beach Avenue) reported that she was in attendance
with Harry Warnock (555 Beach Avenue) and Ronald Moore (525 Beach
Avenue), as owners of the three parcels immediately south of the subject
property. She said that she liked the look of the design, but more than
that, she liked the idea of redevelopment of the lot because it would
improve everyone's properties by increasing value.
Bruce Cleary(122 6th Street) stated his interpretation of the original intent
of Section 24-172 as keeping the old look by means of controlling mass
and scale, and as written, the provisions specifically exclude this style of
architecture. Mr. Parkes reiterated that there is no explicit exclusion of
any architectural style. Rather the provisions specifically speak to
allowance of diversity of architectural styles. Mr. Cleary continued,
adding that he opposed the structure due to its size and flow and
concluding that it looked more industrial than residential.
Tom Frohne (361 5th Street) inquired how such a proposal would be
received in a historic area such as Springfield. Mr. Beere responded that
his firm currently has a modern design permitted for Springfield, and
while the process is much more difficult due to strict architectural
guidelines, it is absolutely possible to do modern in a historic
neighborhood. He added that such diversity of style adds to the fabric of
a neighborhood, and as Ms. Petersen had noted, this would increase value
of surrounding properties. Ironically, he noted that it has been
demonstrated that building "fake" old homes actually tends to depreciate
the value of historic homes.
Julia Hite (1075 Seminole Road) stated she is the owner of 122 Beach
Avenue where Mr. Cleary lives, and said that her primary concern is the
length of the garage. Otherwise, she thought the design was great for the
neighborhood. Mr. Beere said that due to the proximity to the right-of-
way, a fence affording any privacy is not possible. So the goal was to site
the garage so that it would also serve to create some measure of privacy
from the very active 6th Street beach access traffic.
Board Mr. Lambertson opened discussion of the application to the board. Mr.
Discussion Elmore stated that upon receipt of the agenda packet, he found the design
to be jarring, but in a good sense. He said the proposed structure will be a
wonderful addition to the fabric of Old Atlantic Beach and the oceanfront
homes, noting there are other classic examples of modern homes
Page 4 of 7
Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
throughout Atlantic Beach. Referring to the tremendous size of the lot
and the fact that it is an oceanfront lot, he added that the impact on
neighbors is not as severe.
Mr. Elmore continued, saying he did have some issue with the fifty-four
(54) foot long third story wall facing south, but realized the large interior
side yard setback, proposed at just over twenty-eight (28) feet, was a
mitigating factor. Additionally, he said he had some degree of concern
over the garage wall abutting 6th Street, but as a landscape architect, he
was aware of how drastically the right landscaping could soften the
impact of that wall.
Mr. Parkes referred to Section 24-172(c)(2), regarding the maximum
twenty-two (22) foot high wall plate, and stated that strict compliance
with this provision really defines what can be done, and practically results
in cookie-cutter houses. He also said that he has mixed emotions about
the wall plane provision found in Section 24-172(c)(1) because
imposition of any of the required details would be detrimental to the
architecture of the proposed structure. Mr. Hansen inquired about
transom windows, and Mr. Parkes replied that the code specifically calls
for horizontally projecting features. He concluded by saying that the
proposed design is a very carefully thought-out and in many ways a very
delicate building, and he cautioned the board against redesigning the
structure.
Mr. Lambertson said that he would like to make further clarification on
the height issue. He said that according to the submitted plans, the
proposed structure had an elevation of thirty-five (35) feet from the
finished floor elevation to the peak of roof, which in this case was the
parapet. However, it was his understanding of the code that the height of
the building was to be measured from the average calculated grade of the
lot. Ms. Hall responded that all oceanfront lots and any non-oceanfront
lot having more than a two (2)foot variation in topography must submit a
certified topographic survey along with an average grade calculation
made in accordance with the procedures provided in the land development
regulations. Generally, height of the building is measured from that
average calculated grade. However, properties located within a FEMA-
designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), are subject to additional
requirements. Mr. Beere stated that Ms. Hall had directed him to obtain
the certified topographic survey and the average grade calculation, and
subsequently, upon meeting with Building Official/Certified Floodplain
Manager Michael Griffin, the location of the property was verified to be
within the `AO' SFHA and the design team was told that the point of
beginning for measurement of height of the building would be the
finished floor elevation.
Mr. Lambertson disagreed with staff's interpretation, stating that it was
his understanding that all height measurements were to begin at the
calculated average grade, and looking at the submitted survey, he did not
see how this property could possibly be nearly eighteen (18) feet. He
estimated that the calculated average grade was actually three (3) to four
Page 5 of 7
Minutes of the September 18,2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
(4) feet lower, and therefore the height of the structure would need to be
adjusted down by as much.
Mr. Lambertson next asked to look at the position of the garage from a
procedural standpoint, noting that Ms. Hall had said that a four (4) foot
variance had been granted to the previous owner in 1986. He asked
where that variance had been applied, and Ms. Hall replied that it was
applied to the main structure on the(same)north side of the property.
Mr. Stratton asked for clarification as to how variances work, stating that
it was his understanding that in some jurisdiction there were limitations
on the amount of time an applicant had to act on a variance. Ms. Hall
responded that is generally the case. There is often spelled out within
land development regulations a length of time in which an applicant has
to act on a variance. If, within that length of time, the applicant has not
acted, the variance expires. However, if the variance is acted upon, then
whatever relief has been granted becomes a vested right of the property
owner and future successors. If a variance is subsequently abandoned and
not incorporated into a redevelopment plan,then the vested right is lost.
Mr. Hansen stated that he did not like the idea of opening up an old
variance which was legally obtained and acted upon. He questioned how
exemption from the twenty-two (22) foot wall plate height could be
granted without removing this requirement from everyone. Mr. Parkes
replied that the wall plate limitation was a defining element of traditional
gable roof architecture, as it is proportional to setbacks and defines angles
from the property line. The increased size of the subject property changes
those proportions and angles. Further, while the Old Atlantic Beach
residential development standards virtually eliminate the possibility of
modern design, the special variance provision gives this board broader
latitude to consider alternatives.
Mr. Burgess stated that he did not like the idea of limiting architectural
style, and emphasized that is not the charge of this board. Rather, this
board is charged with determining if, when presented with an alternative
to traditional design prevalent in the community, there are mitigating
factors present which make that alternative design equally acceptable in
terms of scale,mass and bulk.
Mr. Hansen said that Mr. Parkes and Mr. Burgess had done a good job
refocusing the task of this board. Given the large size of the lot, it's
oceanfront location, it's buffering to the north by the 6th Street right-of-
way, and the proposed setback of more than twenty-eight (28) feet to the
south, he said he was comfortable granting the variance for the third floor
area and south wall plane.
Mr. Elmore inquired as to the north wall plane and the location of the
garage, and Mr. Lambertson said he was not suggesting that the previous
variance be re-opened, but that it should be weighed in consideration of
the present request. Ms. Hall warned that the previous variance was
legally granted, and the street side yard for this property, as proposed on
Page 6 of 7
Minutes of the September 18,2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
the submitted plans,was in compliance with that variance.
Mr. Beere again addressed the board, and stated that the issue of height
was a much bigger concern to him than shifting the location of the
structure south an additional three(3)to four(4)feet. He emphasized that
his team had met on several occasions with city staff to obtain guidance
and ascertain the proper development standards, and the submitted
proposal adheres to those standards. He said he was deeply concerned
that he was now hearing that the entire structure might have to be
redesigned to a substantially lower height.
Mr. Lambertson reiterated that variances cannot be granted for height and
that it is not up to this board to determine height. He recommended that
Mr. Beere work with staff to resolve the matter.
Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Beere if he was suggesting that it is possible to
move the entire structure four (4) feet to the south, to which Mr. Beere
replied that his client is amenable to that.
Motion Mr. Hansen moved that the Community Development Board approve
ZVAR-12-00100031, request for variance from the provisions of Section
24-172(c), Old Atlantic Beach residential development standards,to allow
the proposed redevelopment of the property located at 587 Beach Avenue
within the RS-2 zoning district, with a new single family home of modern
design, finding that the proposed development, as submitted and subject
to one revision shifting the entire structure south by four (4) feet to
maintain the northern ten (10) foot street side yard, is to be located on an
oceanfront parcel nearly four times larger than a standard lot and abutting
streets on two sides, and therefore will not result in unmitigated height,
mass or bulk that will excessively dominate the established development
pattern or restrict the light, air, breezes or privacy on adjacent properties,
and also finding that the proposed modern architectural style will
contribute to the diversity and fabric of Old Atlantic Beach. Mr. Burgess
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Lambertson emphasized the variance granted is for the proposal as
submitted, subject to the one revision, and any changes to this plan would
require the applicant to come back to this board.
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None.
7. ADJOURNMENT—7:40 PM
(QRoiS
R)Cecc. Qc\t \ ], Chairman
Attest
Page 7 of 7