Loading...
8-16-16 CDB Minutes v )11\ .�01119'r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD August 16, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:02 pm. Chair Paul verified that all board members are present, except Mrs. Simmons and Mr. Parkes. Also present were Planner, Derek Reeves and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden. Mrs. Paul asked alternate, Ms. Workman, to fill the seat of Mrs. Simmons. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of June 21, 2016 Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2016 meeting. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of July 19, 2016 Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the regular meeting on July 19, 2016. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. Pagel of 12 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. 16-ZVAR-149 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Robert Murphy) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-106(e)(2) to 5 feet at Atlantic Beach Part of Hotel Reservation Record, Official Record 9884-1271 (aka 859 Ocean Boulevard). Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that it was a request for a reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet. He showed the proposed plan to remove an existing 3 story deck and replace it with a new 2 story covered deck 5 feet from the rear property line. The need for variance is derived from City ordinance section 24-106(e)(2) for the RS-2 zoning district which requires a 20-foot rear yard setback in addition to section 24-85(c)(1) which covers any changes to non-conforming structures. Planner Reeves showed two surveys. The survey from 1972 showed the original structure having an excess of 20 feet all the way around the structure. The second survey shows the 3-story addition, including a deck, which was constructed in 1997. A pool variance was also given in 1998 to allow them to build a pool in what was apparently considered the front yard, on Club Drive. The latter survey showed an eastern yard setback of 5 feet. According to Planner Reeves, Club Drive today is the side yard, not the front yard. Ocean Boulevard is the front yard under today's code. Mr. Reichler stated that one thing you cannot see on the picture is that there is a line on the 1972 survey running North to South saying "Probable Right-Of-Way" that is not on the next survey. Planner Reeves concurred. He explained that variance was approved to construct a pool in 1998 on Club Drive, which was then the front yard. He stated that today, Club Drive is the side yard. He believes that the lot has not changed, but the surveys have. He added that it may have been this difference in the surveys that caused confusion in the late 90's as the codes were the same they are today in regards to corner lot setbacks. Mrs. Lanier asked if the address was Ocean Boulevard and if that bore any importance as to the front and rear yard. Planner Reeves stated it is an Ocean Boulevard address, but it does not bear importance as to the front and rear yard per City code. He stated that according to current surveys, the front yard is Ocean Boulevard, the side yard is Club Drive and the rear yard is the eastern lot line.The applicant is requesting to expand their deck that is within the rear yard setback. Page 2 of 12 Planner Reeves proposed the possibility of a lesser variance, wherein the owner would request a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 9 feet, still allowing them to build their proposed project by utilizing the 48" encroachment into the rear yard for open decks and porches, but not allowing them to encroach into the 5 foot setback. It would also prevent them from enclosing the structure and adding air-conditioned space at a future time, should that be desired by the Board. Mrs. Lanier asked if the proposed structure would have a stairway going down to the pool. Planner Reeves stated it would not. Mr. Reichler questioned the actual site plan and whether or not the proposed deck would be flush to the house, or if it would wrap around the house. Planner Reeves stated it would be flush to the house. Mr. Elmore inquired as to why Planner Reeves could not find a survey of the property from 1998 after the structure's expansion. Planner Reeves explained that to his knowledge, files used to be paper-based. In 2006/2007, the City sent out these paper files to be scanned in by an outsourced entity. He stated he could not find a survey from this time period within this property's files. Mr. Elmore then asked who did the current survey. Planner Reeves responded that a "Blackman" had done the survey, with the revision date of 2012, and it looks like it was produced as part of closing documents. Mr. Elmore stated that it could be argued that the front and side yard could be flipped. Planner Reeves stated that he has determined that Ocean Boulevard is currently the front yard as code requires the narrowest side to be the front. Mr. Reichler commented that the current survey is not consistent with the prior survey, but that the owner had provided the current survey from 2012 and stated that the current survey was pretty clear about where the road and where the right of way is. Mr. Reichler then inquired as to the state of the owner's negotiations with their neighbor regarding the proposed structure. Planner Reeves stated that this is the most current site plan he is aware of. Mrs. Lanier asked if there was a fence between this property and the one to the east, bringing to the light the concern of privacy. Mr. Reichler referenced a section of code that refers to the privacy of adjacent properties. He stated that under this code, determination of acceptance of new building in the Old Atlantic Beach area is contingent upon several things; staff must consider the Page 3 of 12 privacy of adjacent properties. Planner Reeves stated this code section is in the intent portion of the Old Atlantic Beach design standards which sets the ground work for the hard measurements defined later in that section. Ms. Workman asked if a variance that was granted in the past concerned more construction other than a pool. Planner Reeves explained that it also entailed the surrounding decking; the variance was strictly about the location of the pool. He then explained that under the current survey, said pool variance would not even be required. Applicant Comment Robert Murphy introduced himself as the owner of 859 Ocean Boulevard. He stated that he is requesting the variance to improve the value of his property and to enjoy the space more. He stated that the new deck was designed to provide a better space that could be enjoyed more, and explained that a privacy curtain will be placed between he and his neighbors' property, on the east side of the deck on the second floor. The original plan for a spiral staircase was removed to allow the privacy screen to go all the way around, to be effective. He asked if the board had any questions about what he is looking to do. Jenny Edwards of 335 Ahern Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced herself as the contractor working on the project. She stated that the deck needs to come down, as it is rotten and unsafe. She said they got rid of the proposed staircase and added the privacy wall for the benefit of the eastern neighbor. She asked if the board had any questions about the design or building of the structure. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Brian Hughes of 171 Club Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that he had spoken to the applicant about the proposed structure's design and the privacy concerns he had. He requested that Board make the privacy screen a permanent structure of this proposed structure. He said that he has about 15 feet between the edge of the deck and his window. He stated that he is neutral as to the proposed deck, but that if it is approved, he recommended that the board add the privacy screen as a permanent structure to the deck addition. Ms. Workman stated that she was concerned that the privacy wall could become a quasi-fixed wall that would become an enclosed room. Page 4of12 John Mahler of 190 Club Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that his office, front porch and living room are in view of the deck of 859 Ocean Boulevard and stated that he thinks the proposed deck is a vast improvement. With no more speakers, Chair Paul closed public comment. Board Discussion Mrs. Lanier stated that the proposed new deck is an improvement to the property, but proposed that the privacy screen be a permanent addition. Mr. Elmore referenced Planner Reeves's lesser variance suggestion and stated that it is a vast improvement esthetically and that it is a better use of the property for the property owner. He stated that he would be in favor of approving the variance with the 4 foot additional setback and the privacy screen. Mr. Reichler stated that to approve the variance they first need a reason to approve it. He stated that the latest representation is that the property is problematic, and that what was done before was incorrect. He stated that there are no current grounds for approval. He agreed that the change proposed is minor and he also referenced Planner Reeves's proposed lesser variance. He stated, however,that the original variance is asking for greater relief than what is needed. Mr. Reichler also inquired if a future owner could use the buildable area for a different use in the future. Planner Reeves referred to the wording of the lesser variance and that it limits the variance to an open two story deck with a solid roof. Mr. Reichler asked if the City Attorney agreed that no future owners could build anything in addition to this. Mrs. Durden stated that it needs to be very clear in the motion that it identifies all of the factors. She expressed concern that no plan currently exists that points to exactly what the board is intending to do. She recommended that the Board be careful with the language they use in the motion when drafting the variance order. For clarification, she recommended adding to the order what is considered the front yard now, so that it is clear in the future, namely, that Club Drive is the front yard, that Ocean Boulevard is the front yard and that the eastern edge is the rear yard. She stated that it is up to the Board to interpret the code. The Board then discussed this whether or not they had the authority to decide what the front yard, etc. is, as well as whether or not variances stayed with a property or with a specific structure they are granted to. Page 5 of 12 Mrs. Durden stated that a variance stays with a structure, not a property. If a structure goes away, a variance goes away. Mr. Reichler stated that he would vote for the variance based on the 9 foot change to the setback, so long as it does not change the buildable area of the property outside of the currently proposed structure, but no additional structures. Mrs. Durden stated that yes, the variance in question would only be for the specific two-story deck that is being proposed, and only for the deck in question would that variance be transferred to the new owner. Motion Mr. Elmore made a motion to approve a lesser variance, where the front yard is along Ocean Boulevard, the side yard is along Club Drive and the rear yard setback is reduced to 9 feet to allow a two story open deck with a solid roof and with the following conditions: 1. That the porch cannot be enclosed and air conditioned at any time; 2. That there shall be a fixed privacy screen along the entirety of the eastern side of the deck on the second floor. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Workman dissenting. B. 16-ZVAR-145 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Sean Monahan) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce side yard setbacks from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side as required by Section 24-111(f)(3) to 0 feet on each side to allow the enclosure of an existing open porch at Saltair Section 1 Lots 765 and 766 (aka 614 Atlantic Boulevard). Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that this is a request to reduce side yard setbacks from combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on one side to 0 feet on each side to enclose an exiting open porch at 617 Atlantic Boulevard. This property lies within the Commercial General Zoning District. To the right is a veterinary office. To west, is another older property owned by the applicant. The proposed plan is to enclose an existing open front porch and to remodel the facade. Planner Reeves then showed drawings of current and proposed plans. On the proposed drawings, the front porch will be enclosed to create more retail floor space and the facade will be altered. Page 6of12 A variance is needed due to City code section 24-111(f)(3), which requires a combined 15 feet of side yard with a min of 5 feet on each side. The original structure was built in 1978. The site plan from this time shows 4" setbacks. The veterinary clinic to the east does meet current setback requirements with higher fixed windows along the western wall that let light into the exam rooms. Planner Reeves stated that any improvement in excess of 25%of building's value will require landscaping on the property as per code. He stated that applicant does not intend to meet 25% building value. He stated that the applicant does intend to change the parking, but in a manner that does not require a variance. He stated that the proposed façade height does exceed current height within the setbacks. Therefore, the proposed facade height change does need to be considered as well as the enclosed space. The existing structure has a bridge and valley to the facade where the peek is at 20 feet, with portions at 12 feet. Because of this, Planner Reeves requested that the board interpret whether or not the proposed roof meets the Commercial Corridor Design Standards. He referenced the Dollar Tree variance situation. He asked that if they elect to approve the variance that they also interpret this code at same time. Mrs. Lanier asked for clarity as to the need for this variance. Planner Reeves explained that this structure is already nonconforming and cannot be added onto in a way that is more nonconforming. By code,there should be a total of 15 feet of combined side yard setbacks. Ms. Workman asked if the veterinary clinic came forward with input. Planner Reeves explained that he had spoken on the phone with the clinic, but they had not provided official public comment. Applicant Comment Sean Monahan introduced himself as the owner of the property. He mentioned the interpretation of side yard setback as he understands is that he has no problems enclosing the structure as long as 7.5 feet of porch is left open on either side. He added that there would not be an obstruction of view for the veterinary office as their windows are 6 feet off of the ground and are primarily to allow passage of light. He added that on the other side is an adjacent wall and he owns that building. He added that enclosing the space would allow him to have more retail show space, in order to improve his business and to improve the look. He stated that it is Page 7 of 12 currently unused wasted space and that it will make the structure prettier. He stated that he does in fact have a flat roof. Mr. Reichler asked if Mr. Monahan is just enclosing an existing area or if the roofline is being changed too. Mr. Monahan stated that the facade is being raised not the roof. Mrs. Lanier asked if the top of the new facade would be higher than the "bump" as shown on Mr. Monahan's picture. Mr. Monahan stated that they wanted to raise it to 24ft or 23ft from the current 19ft or 20 ft. Mrs. Lanier asked how long his current facade has existed. Mr. Monahan stated that it was remodeled in the 1990s. She also asked how many more square feet this would give Mr. Monahan and what percentage would he be growing by. Mr. Monahan stated that it would add about 272 square feet, about 12% more room for the whole building, but for the customer's experience, it would add about 25% more showroom. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, Chair Paul closed public comment. Board Discussion Planner Reeves asked if the board could make the interpretation of code based on the plans with the 19 foot facade as they have those plans in front of them. He stated that if they do elect to change their plans, then they would have to address that at that time. Mr. Monahan stated that the plans shown are in fact an artist's rendering for the general idea of the look not the building permit plans. He stated that the draftsman made it too low initially. Chair Paul explained that if the board interprets him to have a flat roof then he would have to come back for an additional variance. Chair Paul compared the current flat roof issue to the Dollar Tree situation on Mayport Road, wherein the board determined that it was not a flat roof. Planner Reeves added that the variance application and code interpretation is all based upon what the board has in their packet and if it varies, it will have to be reconsidered. He stated that if the applicant would like to redraw the plans and bring them back based on a different design, then that may be what has to happen. Page 8 of 12 Mrs. Lanier asked if this meant that if they approve the variance, then it is only approved based on the 19 foot roof facade shown in the board members packet. Mr. Monahan asked if they would consider adjusting the plans to a higher elevation of 23.5 feet. Mr. Elmore stated that the roof was flat and preferred that Mr. Monahan keep what he has, in reference to his current roof facade. He stated that he wanted to be true to the no commercial flat roofs codes, since they have upheld others to the same standard, and argued that this was a separate issue than the enclosure issue. Mr. Elmore recommended that Mr. Monahan go back and design the roof to meet code and stated that the roof and porch enclosure are two separate items and two separate variances. Chair Paul then stated that the elevations submitted are similar to what Panera submitted, and that the board made them put all types of architectural relief on it. Mr. Elmore stated that since this building is seen from only one side, there can be some flexibility unlike Panera, which is a stand-alone building seen from 360 degrees. Planner Reeves asked if Mr. Elmore remembered that from Dollar Tree, it was conditioned in their approval to provide an offset in the straight line of their parapet facade. Chair Paul mentioned that the applicant in the Dollar Tree situation had drawings on him as they anticipated such an issue arising. Mr. Elmore requested hard evidence, a drawing of Mr. Monahan's intentions. Mrs. Lanier asked if a property owner desired to remedy the appearance of a flat roof, if they could add awnings or other structures to give the appearance of some dimension. Chair Paul asked if Mr. Monahan would like to withdraw his application and re-submit for a later meeting. Mr. Monahan stated he did not want to do that. He stated that he wanted to discuss what could be done to the roof- line for the variance to be approved. Mr. Reichler asked why the enclosure of the porch required a change in the parapet wall. Mr. Monahan stated that it was a re-model in order to create an element of excitement and to produce more visibility. Page 9 of 12 Mr. Reichler stated that to approve the variance as-is, the board would have to specify that the roof is not flat. Planner Reeves stated that the decision tonight is the variance for the enclosure of the space, but he asks that if the board approves, that the Board make the roof interpretation so that when the permit application is submitted, he can make the appropriate decision. Chairwoman Paul asked if the board is voting solely on the enclosure of the porch, and not voting on the proposed elevations, that will be determined by the Building Department or Planner Reeves. Planner Reeves requested determination from the board on whether or not the roof meets code. He stated that he is not comfortable making the decision on whether or not the roof meets code. Mrs. Lanier asked if the board approves the variance tonight, then we would be approving the variance for the enclosure. Then, Mr. Monahan could come back to the City with his architectural drawings that showed a roof-line that did not give the appearance of a flat roof, which could be approved by staff, and he would not have to come back to the board. This was discussed and it was stated that if his drawings did still give the appearance of a flat roof, then he would have to come back to the board for another variance approval. Mr. Monahan asked if he could submit new potential drawings to Planner Reeves for a decision as to whether or not they would need a variance. Planner Reeves said yes. Mr. Reichler made a comment that regardless of his opinion, the board is hemmed in by the law's requirements regarding flat roofs. Mr. Monahan stated that if the board could at least approve the enclosure, then he could work with his architect to make the changes to the roof— line. Ms. Workman stated that she did not feel comfortable making a decision without the neighbors input. Chair Paul argued that adequate notice was given to the neighbor. Motion Mrs. Lanier made a motion to approve 16-ZVAR-145 to reduce the side yard setbacks from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side to 0 feet on each to allow the enclosure of an existing open porch at 617 Page 10 of 12 Atlantic Boulevard. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Workman dissenting. 5. REPORTS. A. Board Member Review Planner Reeves reminded the board about the Board Member Review re- appointment process. He mentioned that Chair Paul, Mr. Elmore, Mr. Parkes and Mrs. Simmons are all up for renewal this year. The board and Planner Reeves discussed who was up for re-election. Planner Reeves informed them that the City Clerk's Office would be contacting them if they are up for renewal and that alternates are every year. B. Staffing Update Planner Reeves informed board that department does now have a full time Code Enforcement Officer, Debbie White. They are still looking for new Planning Director. On another topic not on the agenda, Mrs. Durden mentioned that one of the things the City Commission is considering funding for the next fiscal year is a revision to the land development regulations. She stated that there has been some thought about talking to this board and their role. Mr. Reichler asked who initiated this request within the commission. Mrs. Durden stated that all of the commissioners have. She stated that the thought is that the Community Development Board would be very much involved in participating in this revision and with the consultant that would be hired to assist with these revisions. Mrs. Durden also stated that the commission held their first public hearing on a temporary moratorium for automobile service stations, in order to allow the City to revise the land development code, as they may see fit, to address automobile service stations, convenience stores which sell gasoline or fuel. It also takes into account car washes and automobile repair. In the CG, the CL, SPA, and Light Industrial and Warehousing zoning districts. September 12th will be the second reading. Mrs. Durden stated that there is an express provision in the moratorium to allow any existing, operating business to continue to operate and it exempts the Gate Station. Page 11 of 12 Mr. Reichler asked if Gate got approval based on the fact that they were an automotive service station rather than a convenience store that sells gas, which has different requirements than a convenience store that sells gas. He asked what it was that they are doing that makes them an automotive service station as opposed to a convenience store that sells gas. Chair Paul stated that that's therein the quandary. Mr. Elmore then discussed the process of development and the way commercial uses morph. Mr. Reichler asked about the point of moratorium and what it would change. Mrs. Durden stated that the temporary moratorium gives the City the time, without new applications coming in,to make revisions if they choose to,to make appropriate revisions to the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Reichler inquired as to who would be making the changes. Mrs. Durden gave her personal opinion that the review of the Land Development Regulations will be rolled into the same review. She stated that the moratorium would be in effect for about a year. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mrs. Lanier motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. 6..eci,.,_ Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 12 of 12