Loading...
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