Loading...
10-18-16 CDB Minutes v Jr}rte MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD October 18, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:05pm. All Board Members were present except for Ms. Simmons and Mr. Reichler. Chair Paul asked alternates, Ms. Workman and Mr. Mandelbaum, to fill in. Also present was Planner, Derek Reeves and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of September 20, 2016 Mr. Stratton motioned to approve the minutes as written. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. 16-ZVAR-221 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence at Saltair Section 3, South half of Lot 680 (aka 145 Pine Street). Page 1 of 7 Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and displayed a map with site context and detail. It is zoned RS-2 (a single-family zoning district), but it was grandfathered in as it is an existing townhouse. It is in the Residential Medium future land use. The proposed plan is to enclose an existing rear patio and deck (which also requires to thickening the patio slab to match the Finish Floor Elevation of the rest of the house) and to add a new second floor. The applicant also wants to add horizontal lap siding to the exterior of the unit. The need for a variance is derived from COAB code section 24-88(b) which states that "Adjoining two-family or townhouse dwellings units shall be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials." The use of the composite horizontal lap siding would be a change in the material and style from the current siding. What's more,the enclosure of the porch on the back side is a change in the architectural style. In addition to this this, COAB code section 24-88(c) states that "Adjoining two-family or townhouse dwellings units shall be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence unless an existing structure is being renovated within the same building footprint." The construction proposed is well after original construction and it would change the current building footprint. Therefore, relief from this code section is also needed. Planner Reeves then explained some analysis and concerns. The applicant has purported that the renovations occurring are within the existing footprint, but Planner Reeves urged the Board to distinguish between renovating versus construction in their analysis of the application. He stated that whereas 'Renovate' means to restore something old, 'Construct' means to build something new (i.e. as with this application, enclosing and open air porch and adding a roof, therefore increasing air- conditioned space.) Second, Planner Reeves looked at the proposed construction's effect on the foot print vs. envelope of the structure. He argued that foot print suggests a change in the site plan view (i.e. vertical/aerial view.) From this point of view, the proposed construction is within the existing footprint of the building. Changes to the envelope would encompass changes to exterior walls in a site plan view(i.e. changes to air-conditioned space, etc.) It is staff's opinion that the proposed construction would expand the current envelope of the structure. Page 2 of 7 Staff presented the Board's grounds for approval or denial. Mr. Stratton questioned if pictures or renderings were available of the proposed construction. Staff said there were not. Mr. Parkes introduced himself as the architect of the proposed structure and gave more explanation about it. Mr. Stratton requested of Staff that in the future, a picture of proposed work be presented. Ms. Durden stated that in her opinion, Mr. Parkes should recuse himself and not make any presentation for the project, as he is the architect for the project in question. She stated that Mr. Parkes should also not argue for the project. Mr. Elmore stated that he has been in the same situation where he had a conflict of interest and recused himself and did not vote, but still commented on the issue and discussed the pros and cons of the issue. Ms. Durden stated that she would provide the Board with a written opinion regarding appropriate legal practices in cases where there are conflicts of interest between Board members and projects that come before the Board. Ms. Lanier asked for clarification as to whether or not there is currently a full wall that separates the two existing porches. Staff clarified that there is a full existing wall and that the proposed expansion will be on the first and second floor; the roof will be the same style and material as the existing one. Staff discussed the difference between the existing siding and the new proposed siding on the front of the house. The current siding is vertical sheet siding, whereas the proposed siding would be horizontal lap siding (which would look different than the other townhome's siding, which is also the vertical sheet siding.) Applicant Comment Justin Larson of 4670 Hedgehog St., Middleburg, FL introduced himself as the contractor of the proposed construction. He stated that he has been in contact with the adjoining townhome's owner and that the neighbor understands that the new siding on the applicant's home will be different. He stated that the neighbor is planning to redo his siding in the future.The Board and Mr. Larson discussed the age of the current siding, aging it around 30 years old. Mr. Larson stated that the siding would stay the same color as it is now, and it would therefore match the adjoining townhome's color. Page 3 of 7 He also stated that the sliding glass door on the first floor would be placed in the same location on the rear of the house (same as now), just pushed out per the proposed enclosed porch and that the second story windows would be placed differently but would still exist on that wall facing the street, as they do now. Ms. Workman commented on the visual effect that changing only one side of the duplex would have. Mr. Larson argued that there are other townhomes on the same street that look different on either side. With no more questions from the Board for the applicant, Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Public Comment Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd St., Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, commented on a past situation reviewed by the Board wherein continuity in a building was reviewed and the Board approved breaking with the continuity, and recommended that the Board approve the proposed Variance in light of this. With no more public comment, Chair Paul opened the Board Discussion. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore gave his recommended approval for the Variance and commented that there are numerous examples in Atlantic Beach where two sides of a duplex are different. He also commented that the proposed hardy siding is far better quality than the current siding. He noted that a new architectural trend he is seeing is that multiple architectural features are combined for the siding materials of buildings. Mr. Stratton commented that he believes the code in question is in effect in this situation because its intent was to keep duplexes looking like a congruent single family home. He said that in his opinion, if the Board approves the Variance proposed tonight, then they would in effect invalidate the code and set the precedent for having to approve all future similar Variances. Chair Paul questioned how the Board could embrace changes in the Construction materials industry moving forward in light of the current Code. Page 4 of 7 Mr. Stratton suggested that the Board could potentially discuss a Variance approval with stipulations, such as an agreement between both owners of the townhomes as to the material and color that will be used for this current proposal as well as what will be used on the other side in the future, making sure that the Board views the building as a whole, not as two separate townhomes, so that the unit grows in unison. Ms. Lanier commented on the visual effect that having different siding on the two sides of the duplex would have and questioned the potential cascade of events that could ensue by approving the proposed Variance. Mr. Elmore commented that the Board could still regulate future proposed variances from the Code based on legitimate reasons, such as the structural integrity of future proposed materials in light of current building product standards. He stated that keeping the siding color the same was important, but he was in favor of approving improvements to the siding that would bring materials up-to-date. Mr. Stratton asked Chair Paul: If the Board approves the proposed Variance with the stipulation that the color stay the same as it currently is, if the adjoining neighbor would then have to get a Variance if in the future, they wished to replace their current siding with the same exact siding material that they currently have. Chair Paul said they would not because they would be replacing what is existing and in addition, they would not need a Variance should they in the future desire to replace their siding with the same siding that their adjoining neighbor has. In contrast,they would need a variance if they wished to replace their siding with a material other than the existing material or the same material as their neighbor's. In addition, they would need a Variance if they wished to change the color of their siding. Mr. Stratton promoted a Board approval of the updated siding proposed, with the stipulation that the color stay the same (as the adjoining townhome's.) Chair Paul then moved to the second code section applicable to this proposed Variance (24-88(c)), referencing the proposed enclosure of the back porch. Staff clarified that as far as they understand, there will be no changes to the existing shingle roof; It is only an enclosure of the existing porch under said roof, that is being proposed. The Board discussed whether or not the proposed enclosed structure will be new construction, meaning, new air- conditioned space. Page 5of7 Staff clarified that the setbacks would not be violated if the Variance is approved, it is strictly the enclosed structure in question. Mr. Elmore commented that he was in favor of them enclosing their already existing space, as it would not change the impervious surface nor would it change the roof-line of the building. Ms. Lanier questioned in there were any future-planned outside decks being built later on for the duplex in question. Staff commented that no such plans were submitted to them. Chair Paul questioned Staff if the applicant could add an outside deck in the rear year yard in the future, without a Variance, should this current Variance be approved and they enclose their porch. Staff commented that the applicant could do this on the ground level. Ms. Workman questioned if there was any representation from the neighbors next door.Staff commented that the proper procedures, per City Code, had been followed to give notice of the Variance request. Mr. Stratton requested that in the future, Staff provide a picture of proposed construction which warrants a Variance, (both of the front and the rear of buildings/properties) be provided. Ms. Workman commented that it would cheapen the look of the neighborhood, should approving this Variance start a trend in the neighborhood of joint frontage homes doing different construction. The Board discussed approving upgrades versus construction to only one side of townhomes with joint frontage and the issue of separate ownership of each side of such duplexes. Ms. Lanier expressed frustration with the current codes within the Land Development Regulations of the City, recommending that the Code be revisited and updated. Motion Mr. Elmore moved to approve 16-ZVAR-221 based on what he believes to be the onerous effect of regulations which, without this Variance, would prevent the homeowner from updating their siding product, with the stipulation that the building colors (of both sides of the duplex) stay the same. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-1 with all in favor except for Ms. Workman. Page 6 of 7 5. REPORTS. A. Staffing Update Planner Reeves stated he is still the acting Planning Director. Progress is being made to hire a Planning and Community Development Director. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Ms. Lanier moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:01pm. Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 7 of 7