8-18-15 - Minutes w4n.%
4 )
:U
wea ti�s aa,��auo
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
August 18, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Elmore. Also
present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Planner, Derek
Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A.
was Mr. Brad Garrison.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of July 21, 2015
Mrs. Lanier asked for a correction in line 7 under "Board Discussion" on
page 8 of 11 to say, "...we are not here for a lack of effort..." With the
correction understood, Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of
the July 21st meeting with the condition that the word "not" be added as
discussed. Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 15-ZVAR-1048 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a
reduction in the front yard setback from 20 feet as required by
Section 24-108(e)(1) to 14 feet for a 5 by 10 screen porch
addition; and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for
adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at
substantially the same time at Francis Cove Three Lot 8 (Except
Part of Recorded O/R 12596-2262) (aka 1845 Forsyth Court).
Page 1 of 9
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and explained that the applicant would
like to add a 5 by 10 screen porch on an existing concrete pad. A variance
is required because the requested location is within the required 20 foot
front yard setback on the property and that it is an addition to one unit of
a two unit townhouse structure.
It was explained that the structure is a nonconforming structure due to
setbacks in the front and rear yard. The lot is also nonconforming due to
its irregular shape before and after the division for the townhomes.
However, the lot was approved as part of plat in 2003 by the City
Commission. Staff would not recommend such a division today. There is
about 36 feet from the edge of pavement on Forsyth Court to the front of
the house so there is a large amount of unpaved right-of-way. Something
to consider is that code does allow porch projections 4 feet into the front
yard but they cannot be screened in. It was presented that the structure
is also a bit unique in that it is turned sideways from its usual orientation.
It was part of Beaches Habitat project where they used a similar floor
plan several times and had to rotate this unit to fit the lot resulting in the
front door facing the side and rear patio moved to what would normally
be a side yard but is now a front yard.
Applicant Comment
Candace Mette, 1845 Forsyth Ct, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced
herself as the owner of the property and restated that her house is
turned sideways and that there is 36 feet from the house to the street.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Hansen stated that the overall uniqueness of the property and the
lack of impact from the addition that the variance should be granted.
Mrs. Simmons stated that there are at least 4 findings for approval that
she believed would apply to this variance.
Motion
Mrs. Simmons made a motion to approve the variance finding that items
2, 3, 5 and 6 of the grounds for approval apply. Mr. Hansen seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 2 of 9
B. 15-ZVAR-1049 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief
from the Section 24-88(b and c) requirement for adjoining
townhouse dwelling unit to be constructed of substantially the
same architectural style, colors and materials; and same time at
North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3, North 2.5 feet of Lot 72A and
South 25 feet of Lot 73A (aka 2060 Beach Avenue).
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and explained that this is request for a
variance for a second floor deck on the rear of a townhouse unit with
stairs that lead down to an expanded first floor deck. It was then
explained that the deck is already largely complete as it was being
constructed without a permit. The Building Inspector put a Stop Work
Order when at the property for an inspection on an unrelated permit. An
application for a permit was submitted that was then denied for the same
codes that the applicant is asking for a variance from.
A variance is required because the proposed work would alter the
architectural style and materials of the unit as compared to the other
units and is being done at a different time as the other units were
completed in 1981.
Mr. Reeves then addressed some of the comments made by the applicant
in their application. They stated that this would provide access to the rear
yard but the property does already have a rear door through a bedroom.
Staff did agree that the deck would not be visible from the street or inside
adjoining units. However, the other units would be able to see the deck
from their rear yards. There were references to nonconforming structures
on adjoining units, which cannot be used as justification for granting
another nonconforming structure but do appear to be unpermitted based
on research. This would be an improvement to the property, but the
overall property is a nonconforming use as three units because only two
units could be built today and this code is designed to prevent the
continuance of nonconforming uses. The extra expense to remove the
addition is the fault of the owner and their contractor for not getting
permitting prior to construction. There is no HOA, but there are letters
from the adjoining units in the agenda packet supporting the variance.
Mrs. Paul asked what permits were pulled on the property. Mr. Reeves
responded that it was an HVAC permit that the Building Inspector was at
the property for upon discovery of the unpermitted work. Mrs. Paul asked
if all three units were to do the same work at the same time if they would
be here today. Mr. Reeves stated that they would meet code and
therefore would not require a variance. Mrs. Paul asked for clarification
on the new decking versus old decking, which Mr. Reeves clarified. Mrs.
Page 3 of 9
Simmons asked for a timeline on the property and code changes. Mr.
Reeves stated that the property was built in 1981 and the relevant codes
were passed in 2001. Mrs. Lanier then asked when the owner bought the
property. Mr. Reeves confirmed with the owner that it was in December
of 2014.
Applicant Comment
Ellen Glasser, 2060 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that she is
a former resident and former member of the Community Development
Board and has just moved back to the city. She then stated that first floor
deck expansion is not twice the size and that the second floor deck is
really more of a landing. She also added that she did have permits for
work to the deck on the front of the unit as well as some doors and
windows that were pulled by her contractor and thought that the rear
work was covered by those permits. It was not until later that she knew
the rear deck was not permitted and now the contractor has walked off
the job. She added that Beach Avenue is not a consistent place in that
there are variations in the built environment everywhere. She then stated
that her neighbors are extremely supportive. She also expressed concerns
about safety in that she has no other exits from her property except for
the first floor.
Mr. Parkes stated that this seems similar to a recent variance on another
townhouse that he was absent for where the board looked at how
substantial the changes were and ultimately approved a variance with a
much greater impact than this would have. Mr. Hansen stated that this
seems to be about townhouses that are supposed to look the same and if
this is substantially different.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Parkes stated that this would have minimal impact on surrounding
properties and questioned how something like this building was approved
from a safety perspective without another exit. Mrs. Lanier stated that
she believes the uniformity requirement for townhouses is more related
to what's visible from the street and that this is a beneficial change and
would support it.
Motion
Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the variance finding that item 4 of
the grounds for approval applies. Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Page 4 of 9
C. 15-ZVAR-1050 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a
reduction in the percentage decrease in height from the
percentage of lot area less than 5,000 as required by Section 24-
82(c) to allow a 32.5 foot tall house at Daniel and Hackett Replat
Block 16 Atlantic Beach, West Half of Lot 4 (aka 645 Ocean
boulevard)
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and described the owners intentions to
remodel the existing structure including new doors, windows, siding and
interior while also adding a third story to the structure resulting a height
of 32 feet 6 inches. It was explained that the property is within the area
known as Old Atlantic Beach and is subject to the Old Atlantic Beach
Design Standards. One of those requirements is that the third floor can be
no larger than fifty percent of the second floor.
A variance is required because Section 24-82(c) requires the maximum
height be reduced for structures on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet. It
was explained that this lot is 4,050 square feet or 81 percent of the
minimum 5,000, which results in a maximum height of 28 feet 4 inches.
It was presented that this is a nonconforming lot, so a reduction in height
seems logical except that the setbacks remain the same resulting in a
house built in the same place as if the lot were conforming. The existing
structure is also nonconforming due to less than required front and side
yard setbacks. The requested height is approximately half of the 18
percent reduction required. It was noted that this code provision started
in 1990 with minor changes made over time.
Mrs. Paul asked if this would be a legal lot today. Mr. Reeves responded
that it could not be created today. Mr. Parkes asked about the wall plate
height requirement in Old Atlantic Beach. Mr. Reeves responded that the
applicants would have to meet the 22 foot wall plate height and 35 foot
side wall length requirements of the Old Atlantic Beach Design Standards.
The applicants are aware of these provisions and the plan would be fully
reviewed at permitting. Mrs. Lanier asked when the owners bought the
property. Mr. Reeves responded that it was earlier in 2015. Mr. Reeves
then reminded the board that the requested variance is simply about
allowable height and that the architectural design will be reviewed at
permitting. Mrs. Simmons asked if it mattered what the surrounding
properties height were. Mr. Reeves responded that code does not
reference surrounding properties but said that the neighbors are two
story homes.
Page 5 of 9
Applicant Comment
Joseph Indriolo, 3842 Tropical Ter., Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250,
presented himself as the owner of the property that he bought a few
months ago and his desire to convert the duplex to a single family home
for himself, wife and children. He added that he spoke with the neighbor
to the north who was happy to hear the duplex would be going away and
two neighbors across that street that were also in favor the plan.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Laurie Melancon of 664 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
she lives behind this property and is concerned about a third story on a
house that is surrounded by two story homes.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Lanier asked staff how the size of the lot compares to others in the
area. Mr. Reeves stated that this lot is the smallest on the block and
probably one of the ten smallest in Old Atlantic Beach. Mr. Stratton stated
that this is a clear case of the code is the code and that he sees no way
that this variance could be approved. Mr. Parkes stated that during the
Save Atlantic Beach days that had a major impact on codes, height was a
critical point of concern. Mr. Parkes added that while has not problem
with the design, the variance seems to be just so that they can add a third
floor to a house on a small lot and cannot see a way to approve it. Mr.
Hansen then added that he too does not see how they could grant the
variance. Mrs. Lanier stated that every piece of property has rules
attached to it and that is unfortunate that the owners were not aware of
this rule when they bought the property but the rules must be upheld
and is also not in favor of the variance.
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to deny the variance finding that the proposed
variance has a negative impact on light and air to adjacent properties. Mr.
Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS.
A. Commercial Buffer Code Discussion.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch reminded the board that this is a continuation of a discussion
related to buffers between commercial and residential uses where there
Page 6 of 9
is an intervening street as requested by the City Commission. This is
largely focused on Ahern Street, Sturdivant Avenue and West 14th Street.
The existing code was then explained and examples were shown of good
and bad existing conditions from around the city.
Some recommendations were presented based on the previous meeting
discussion. The first staff recommendation would be to increase shade
tree plantings by requiring one shade tree for every 25 linear feet of
street frontage and limit spacing to 50 feet apart. The second
recommendation is to eliminate curb cuts on the residential street for
through lots that have frontage on two streets. The third
recommendation is to require a lighting plan that sets a specific number
foot candles at the property line.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Simmons asked if shrubbery could be required. Mr. Hubsch stated
that shrubs are required by current code but limited in height. Mr. Hubsch
stated that he would like to get consensus from the board to take forward
to City Commission. Mrs. Lanier asked if a 25 foot separation would be to
close together for shade trees. Mr. Hubsch responded that it acceptable
and that current code for buffers between adjacent commercial and
residential uses already require this. Mr. Hansen asked about the types of
trees that would be allowed. Mr. Hubsch stated that the city does have a
recommended tree list and minimum size standards at planting. Mr.
Stratton asked if existing properties are required to meet the new codes.
Mr. Hubsch stated that only properties that are being redeveloped would
be affected by this code.
Motion
Mrs. Paul made a motion that staff proceed to City Commission with the
recommendations as presented in the staff report for direction to prepare
an ordinance. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
B. Density Bonus Discussion.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch explained that the City Commission has been approached by
the development community to increase density along our commercial
corridors and the City Commission asked staff to workshop the idea with
the board for further discussion. It was explained that density bonuses
are added number of residential dwelling units when certain criteria are
met as set forth by the city such as affordable housing, elderly housing,
transit oriented development, environmental protection, etc. The city's
Page 7 of 9
current Future Land Use Map was shown and density limits were
explained. The definition of a dwelling unit was given and it was explained
that a one bedroom apartment is the same as a four bedroom even
though more people could live in a four bedroom. The reasons for density
limits were explained including health, safety and welfare as well as
desired aesthetics.
FDOT currently has Atlantic Boulevard and Mayport Road rated as a "D"
on the Level of Service scale which means that the roads are approaching
an unstable level of flow. The rating scale goes from "A" to "F". This is
important because, even though the community is largely built out, can it
handle additional growth from higher density.
It was explained that Jacksonville Beach passed a density bonus in 2011
along Beach Boulevard and the Blue Water Apartments were built with
that density bonus. Their density bonus is a transit oriented development
bonus for properties within a block of a mass transit route in their
commercial zoning district. They allow up to 40 units per acre where their
normal is 20 units per acre like ours. Transit oriented development is
often something that is seen in urban areas. It was then pointed out that
Beach Boulevard is planned to have a BRT or Bus Rapid Transit route
along it that Atlantic Boulevard does not. While this is still a bus service
like Atlantic Boulevard and Mayport Road already have, it is considered a
higher form of mass transit that standard buses.
Within Atlantic Beach, housing prices are continuing to increase which
pushes young professionals and the elderly out of the market. A possible
bonus could be to allow a bonus for one and two bedroom units where
those people are more likely to live. The idea would be that 40 one or two
bedroom apartments would have the same number of people as 20 units
of three and four bedroom apartments would. The impact on services
would be similar but the community is then open to markets that it may
not be otherwise. A part of the density bonus could be a requirement for
higher quality design as part of the trade off for more units.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Paul asked if there is an area of town that this is envisioned for. Mr.
Hubsch stated that Mayport Road is prime for redevelopment and could
see spin off from the Country Club and Fleet Landing for new active
lifestyle senior housing. Mrs. Simmons stated that we may be premature
in having this discussion. Mrs. Lanier stated that we might not be early,
especially when they city is exploring a Community Redevelopment Area
(CRA) that could benefit from these changes. Mr. Hubsch stated that he
does foresee similar discussions coming out of the CRA process. Mr.
Parkes asked about the need for limitations on unit size. Mr. Hubsch
stated that the city does have minimum unit sizes but could add
Page 8 of 9
maximum sizes as well. Mr. Parkes added that he does not think that it is
a good idea to tie the bonuses to transit routes since they can change, but
that he is in favor of providing young people and those in the service
industry a place to live in the community.
Mrs. Paul asked if staff could bring more information and examples for
the next meeting and added that this may give the city an opportunity to
say what development it does want and not what it doesn't want.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned
at 7:45 pm.
r K.:,J< H ida th 111‘e CI r
,~.-1 A.■_.,
Attest
Page 9 of 9