##VIDEO ID:OMntTPNlqbw## good evening you're attending a session of the city of Jacksonville Beach Board of adjustments Board of adjustment meetings are qu all decisions of the board will be based on competent substantial evidence including testimony provided in this meeting any person who is not an applicant or agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker card located at the side table by the door and turn them into the floor each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak on each item please refrain from speaking from the audience and Applause foring you not be allowed please silence your cellones we have a roll call please John Morland here Owen Curley here Jeff TR Jennifer Williams here Matt met here La here okay uh next on our agenda is the approval of minutes we have minutes to approve please everybody SC them and ready a motion I move to approve commes from last meeting I to approve the minutes from the last two meetings November 6 2024 nov 19 second okay moov in second all in favor opposed okay approve uh is there any correspondence other than what's at our table no okay same as no old business can we start with the First new business I call case number boa 24-10 0073 applicant Maria and James Duran property address 202 33rd Avenue South motion to consider sections 34- 336 d1e for 55% lot cover L of 35% maximum 34- 336 E1 C1 for a front yard setback of 20 ft and L of a 25 ft minimum 34 336 E1 C2 for Westerly side yard setback of 5 ft L of 10 ft minimum 34- 336 E1 C3 for a rear yard setback of 23 ft and L of 30 ft minimum for construction of a single family home second okay uh remember each the public will be given 3 minutes to speak when we open the public hearing does any board member have any experte communication I've had none none I've had none I've had none and I've had none would the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation please raise your hand do you swear or affirm that the test money you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth gone please your name address Scott Darnell 630 M Mar on Beach Florida 3202 I'm here representing the owner um with the intent of trying to get the um additional lock coverage for this property I do have elevations the four plans that have been developed if there's any questions there um we we want to answer any questions that may be posed to us and then we can respond with any kind of drawings that may be supportive that what is your getting a floor plane that actually works for the owner that's a an rs1 that's actually supposed to be 10 or typically 10,000 ft this slot is only about 6,500 ft so getting something that's not overly narrow that actually works with a little bit more of a modern um lifestyle is what we're looking for do anybody have any other questions for the okay uh can you step back sir and then um I will now open the public hearing do we have any speaker starts yes we do okay Tom Richardson please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to given this matter is the truth the whole truth and you with the truth to help you down I do please see your name Andress Tom Richardson 216 33 Avenue South go ahead sir you agree uh first of all I just apologize uh for even being a somebody who wants to do denial because the people that applied all these things are wonderful people and everybody wants to build bigger and everything so I just apologize for that up front um I just want to State the reason why we love to live live in a jack Beach uh I like going out the back door of our house and be able to look look down either way and see the sky see the trees without a lot of buildings you know right in the in the right in the way there you can feel the wind coming down through all those houses there we're kind of a uh we're kind of a smaller houses in our area there's more big ones coming in most of them are close to the ocean but uh uh we are uh we're that type of house and we have uh I can look out the side windows and it's 20 ft to the next house so we have you know trees and things on each side bamboo and all that sort of thing which we enjoy and uh we go to the backyard and it's at least 60 ft to the next to the next building sometimes maybe 100 feet so we have a real generous situation in the back so you just have this real sense of openness we uh we entertain in the backyard it's just nice to be able to look out the sun come up the sun comes up in the morning you see the sun come up right away you don't have to wait till it gets you know real high up in the air we're just we're like outdoor people and uh I know Community now tends to have more big houses and more space in Indo for uh for that sort of thing but we're just we have what we have and uh so we really appreciate being able to have that and uh we'd like to maintain it if at all possible um the purpose of uh uh we got a little sheet here we we turned down hope everybody has this there two-sided you make refer to that okay you can hold my clock while we're searching for paper I appreciate it so what we have here this is just a side view from our neighbor next door to us next to 202 and then this is like looking over the fence from our yard and this is the view we have it's a nice view uh you basically have the trees the sky and everything else and we kind of have a a dotted line in there showing if it does go 37 ft Max what that would do to the uh to the view there we also are showing the 23t existing uh building offset and then we show a 30t legal uh offset that it would be if we followed the uh the legal requirements in place without a variance so that's what we're looking like now and uh just to sort of summarize we love the view in the back we like the wind blowing down you know through our backyard and everything and the larger the buildings the more this is deflected uh water run off the more we have we go beyond 35 ft there's more stress on the city systems and well there was time to find paperwork no problem let's go with that okay and we appreciate very much and we love our neighbors to be your otherwise thank you very much for your consideration thank you Steve Williams my name is Steve Williams sorry please raise your do you swear from the testimony about to give this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth shall be God I do please your name and address Steve Williams 3731 dual draw Jacksonville Beach uh thank you for uh seeing me this evening and by the way happy holidays to everyone I um rural estate broker that represents the owner directly on the west side of the subject property that we're talking about and they're very very they're in South Carolina so they couldn't be here and ask to attend as their agent so the 5 foot side setback but they're asking for in l 10 foot and couple that with the extremely tall proposed new home they're going to build there it is going to be quite the shadow that's going to put uh on top of of their rear yard and over their house and we just feel like it's too egregious I've I've been before this U varant and adjustment board over the years many times uh both and support and and in denial and I understand uh the complications with it but all these years that I've been before this board I don't ever recall um a lot coverage request and as severe as this one 55% I don't think has ever been approved in fact I don't even know if 50% has ever been approved for uh an rs1 zoning situation granted rs1 in the size of the lots that are platted in South Jacksonville Beach and other places are hardship I totally get that and I do support the fact that they should be able to work in try and fit something that fits their lifestyle but this is uh way way way more than I've ever seen approved and I would uh strongly urge the board to uh turn down this request I did talk to the neighbors um across the street as well as behind this property and I have a petition signed here by eight of the neighbors I'd like to hand to to you all um that ask for denial the 23 ft um for the front yard exuse me for the rear yard and the 20 I think it's 25 the front yard set back I I I can get those I kind of understand those but in this particular case I think the lot coverage in the 5 yard uh set back on the western side uh is just way way over the top and I do request on behalf of the owner that this is turned down thank you no speakers cards but we have letters okay read letters now yes the first one is from Chet stes dear Board of adjustment members in writing you today over several I'm writing you today over several concerns within the application for the property at 202 33rd Avenue South my property is across Second Street from this property first off I noticed a discrepancy in the documents it mentions they are seeking 55% lock coverage in one section and 48% in the other I am okay with the reduced front yard setbacks they are pretty large on this street another issue I have is the setback request on the west side going from 10 ft down to 5T I heard there are concerns from the neighbor to the west on that issue my question is why not get 5 ft from step back on the east side I also have potential concerns on the rear setback going down 23 ft from 30 I would think that neighbor to would be unhappy with that thanks for your time check Stokes 142 33rd Avenue South and then I have another one here dear committee members this letter is concerning the hearing on December 17th 2024 boa2 24-10 73 the address is 202 33rd Avenue South Jacksonville Beach Florida we live next door at 12 212 33rd Avenue South and sold the property to the current owners we moved to the larger house next Flor because we did not want to add on or demolish the house at 202 and rebuild because we felt it would change the local feeling of the neighborhood we are Leary if the variant is approved with the proposed massive block coverage that there will be more standing water on the street and we and the neighbors will have flooding issues another concern is how close the house will be to our adjoining lot line since they are asking for another 5 ft closer this would be way too close and would impede on the quality of living for us with both sunlight level and noise level we also try to be good neighbors and have lived in the two houses a combination of 24 years this Varian is for a massive lot coverage and we are requesting it not be granted sincerely Diane and Tony Hunter and we have the other from I believe Mr Richardson who's spoken already speaker okay uh is there anyone in the audience who's not filled out a speaker card that wishes to speak okay uh invite the applicant to come back and uh address any of the issues that were raised by either the speakers or the emails can I hand you guys the small packet that shows the building elevations yes so a few things that you'll see as that that packet goes around one our intent is to actually fit into the neighborhood um and actually enhance it at the same time so words like egregious um and monstrous those types of words I think aren't in character with the the aesthetic that's being proposed and those comments were actually made if I understand without seeing those elevations so what you also notice it's a low roof slope it's it's down 6 and 12 the mass of the building actually sits on on the Northern portion it then does step down considerably um and then we don't even come close to the 35 ft um overall Max height I'm not sure where the 37t um reference was but that's we were under the impression is actually 35 and we are well below that on the 55% coverage um never having been applied for do we know that for certain has there ever been a coverage that's that's add this percentage that's ever been applied for as referenced before it's been very s very okay we don't reference other requests when considering your request so either way I would reply okay fair enough um on the the North and the South setbacks those actually match existing um footprint right so we're not asking for anything more on the North we're not asking for anything else on the south the discrepancy of the 48% versus the 50 versus the 55% that is a discrepancy that we went through before we applied or as we applied so that 7% was actually going to be a function of the driveway or any other what we were calling completely perious uh but we would only get 50% coverage of that perious coverage so that that bumps that 48 up to the up to the 55 again our intent you can see on the elevations is to match the character of the neighborhood um is to fit in but give them the lifestyle that they're looking for um with a floor plan that actually works for a modern lifestyle especially of a couple that wants to stay here through their their later years and so making sure that's accessible everything from a ground level to how the garage is organized as well as how the patio works as well so that's purely by intent and that's that's really a function of exactly what our our client's looking for and I think it's been delivered here on the floor plan um with a nice step down kind of lower Mass um flatter roof slope as well so I heard you say that 48% the difference between the 48 and 55% is that you were planning on having the driveway have they considered having like a perious driveway permeable driveway that's actually offet so they can go down to the 48% you know rather than the 55% cover that's actually what we're looking at that's exactly right so as much as we can minimize that a little bit of a hard surface um over on the the side patio a little bit of a couryard that just gets difficult especially on young kids feets um feet so we want to make sure that's has a little bit of a a tough surface but out on the driveway we are considering that no question clients is aware as neighbor feelings I I do think it's I represent for them that is a bit of a new discovery especially knowing they know the neighbors they've had the place for a long time they know who they they purchased it from this did catch them by surprise so one of the things we're supposed to consider when granting variances is the minimum amount necessary um for U for the Vari um I hear you say that um the 55 is because U of the calculations of the permeable uh versus non permeable driveway but is it if you put if you're considering it if you're considering maybe strips concrate strips is that going to would that number be the minimum not the 55 if make sure I understand so we're just looking at that 7% yeah just relative to the driveway we would minimize the driveway as much as we could no question I think the 7% may start to be actually perious or impervious over on the courtyard side where there's a little bit of patio so that's where we kind of spend that percentage if that makes sense uh it does but I guess it goes back to my other question then which is what is what is the minimum am U is the minimum amount the 47 or is the minimum amount the 55 I do believe it's the 55 48 because you minds are but we only get 50% credit for the for any paper though okay okay then um 48% is what would be the absolutely no okay I Chang my response there thank you for letting me confer with them yeah and then um we one of the height is not really in our perview the height of building not really but I do have a question what is the height of this uh the peak is actually at 48 ft or excuse me 28 ft 28 yes and you can see the on that elevation on at least references the 35t thank all right does anybody else have any questions from the email there was a question as to why the 5 foot on the width was taken from the west and not to East do you have any comment to that was really more a responsive just trying knowing it's a corner lot it doesn't drive the floor plan it doesn't drive any portion of that courtyard that was just trying to be respective of trying to kind of nestle it in the best that we could knowing that building was going to kind of fall down and not try to block any kind of view as you're making that turn right around that corner lot but it doesn't it's indifferent we could respond to that positively if you like and then my other question I I don't know you've seen this exhibit it was one that was given to us by one of the people that spoke it's basically showing that the existing setback or the home of the setback of the existing home looks to be within the 30 ft limit and if the request that you're you're having for 23 ft would be an extension of that home farther into the backyard but if I'm looking at the exhibit that you Ed it looks like it overlays the length of the existing hole almost exactly correct so I was hoping you could speak a little bit to whether or not you would be going deeper to the backyard than exists today or if that is intended to align with the existing it it would line with the existing and that's off of A current survey um as well that was recently provided for us I just wanted to put that in record might discy makes sense and the uh the footprint is of the existing home is that the darkened area within the darken yeah so the the portion is just slightly narrower without a whole lot of color it's hard to show it questions one more question so if I'm understanding this correctly the the 5 foot Westerly side yard set back and mo of 10 foot is not something that's compelling it it's material here that you move the property over correct okay just the overall footprint okay any other questions okay uh you can step back sir uh I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to board to discussion is there a motion I move to approve um case number boa 24-10 that's not the right one oh 73 it it meets the standards and requirements of the Land Development code section 34- 2.86 or 286 um due to special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the parcel of land building or structure which are not applicable to other Parcels of land structures or buildings in the same Zone District okay second it a discussion I would suggest amending it um to include 48% lot coverage in of the 55% plot coverage and removing the West Side yard set 55 ft and then we canally Recons it from there unless someone wants to add something else to that any making that amended change uh do you want to go ahead and make you want me to have discussion first you want me um can we can do it either way does everybody want to move first I make a motion to amend the prior motion to restrict the law coverage to 48% as the minimum necessary and to adjust the 5 foot side yard setback to the eastly side as opposed to the westly side previously are we going to do a sidey setback at all or just removing I thought if you moved it more Central that you won't need a set back move second now discussion would be my question I don't think from looking at it it doesn't they move a little more East then it doesn't look like they're going to need a set back on the east side it just looks like one it looks like it's a 10t side yard there's a lot more land there but that looks like it's an easement if I'm looking at the page 18 in our packet the drawn outline of the the new floor print has 10t from the property line and I believe it requires a 10t setback so they would need 10t on each side they' looked at 5 foot on the leftest side if we push it 5ot to the east they would need a five foot set back on the east side as well the remaining that appears there appears to be City Beyond so did second it uh yes it's the mov in second and we just have discussion about the am have a bit of a problem on this because typically we have not approve things 50% exception we're approving whether or not to accept this amendment to the original motion not whether or not to approve the so it's 48% it's 48% and uh and moving the uh Westerly uh side yard set back of 5T back to 10 ft and then allowing them to sh that was the amend but my concern is that they're not concerned I I I think they've made some effort to be compliant um and if this was a standard lot using at 155% it would still only be 34% for standard and with the reduction of 48 it actually takes coverage standard down 30 I think a good thing okay uh if everybody's ready we can uh have a a roll call vote on the amendment now we're voting on the amendment yes is to approve the amendment go ahead John Moren yes Jennifer Williams yes not next yes La yesly yes okay so the motion has been amended it's uh 48% black coverage and uh the Westerly setback is not 5T it's it's the regular 10 and then we're allow them to ship to the east okay is there discussion now on this am I think it's clearly an undersized lot uh standard width of these Lots would be 90 ft this is only 50 ft the lot coverage Falls as indicated previously well the minimum considering the standard lot there um I think the applicant spoke to a desire to address the lot coverage needs and has also come back down to the minimum of 48% signaling they they're doing what they can to fit within that uh as indicated by um commentary via email the front yard setback in this this case is 25 ft in the rs1 which is a significant set set back in the front yard they're only asking for an additional two feet to F there they're matching the ex footprint lengthwise of of the home that was there so they shouldn't create uh material obstruction to what exists today um all in all there there is a material setback on front and back in total uh relative to what's in the Land Development code but given the 40 foot of width that they've lost I think that they're using the length that they have to try make make the lot functional for the area in which they they purchased it I I think that by amending the original request to the 48% coverage as well as shifting to the West we are able to address some concerns of the community create space between neighbors to allow that quality of life um and observing the existing the footprint of the existing home I think that this this does uh address uh the visual concerns as well well okay any other discussion okay uh can we have a roll call please John yes Jennifer Williams yes Matt Mets yes Laura chne yes enen Carly yes your request for variance has been approved as we call the next absolutely case number 24181 applicant Aaron meisenheimer property address 4 South 6 Street motion to consider sections 34- 373d for parking area setback of 0t in L of 5T minimum and 34425 B1 for landscape buffer of 0t and L of 5T minimum to bring parking up to office warehouse standards were required number of parking spaces for an existing Warehouse um this uh they withdrew the application huh they withdrew the application oh they withdrew that one too yeah and the was with they showed up um 8 they showed up but they deferred so we only have D left no yeah have 82 left but 81 to speak I believe right do you guys want to say something or just we're deferring yeah yeah okay and then 81 they okay so we're down2 82 look at how fast we are I mean seriously just take a moment okay look at that okay case number boa 24-100 0082 applicant Patrick and Whitney Van Meter um property address 3930 Duvall Drive motion to consider sections 34- 336 e1e for an accessory structure set back of 0t in L of 5T minimum for a new deck wood deck addition to an existing single family home okay uh as a reminder each room of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing does any board member have any exart Communications I've had none none none none and I've had none would the applicant please for to be sworn in and give their presentation please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so have be gone I do please take your name and address my name is Crystal Wellington I'm owner's agent my address is 1210 7th avue North Jacksonville Beach Florida 322 okay go ahead um this is a new home um an ePay deck um that is um pervious uh was built to be perious was uh put onto the back um on top of the bulkhead um as a place for the kids to fish um it does not exceed the bulkhead and go into the Lagoon at all and it matches up with the neighbor um EX as well um so they're just asking for approval for that yeah I just realized I was saying that's all I have I have I have um I have a drone shot and um lines if you'd like to see that on my computer but we did not submit that with the packet I believe do you know if they spoke to the neighbors they have and uh what was the reaction from the neighbors uh so the neighbor to the South who and D approve um have no issues with it uh the neighbor to the north has not addressed that concern specifically he's just generally annoyed with the construction on the street um which we can all understand it's a tight Road um but he has not specifically said anything about this and don't think he's here okay any questions for that what is the hardship the is you know this so so this it is okay it is and um so the the Builder would have addressed that with the initial building permit but this was built with facing where it shouldn't go towards the calculations this isn't one of those things 50% ofing 100% of is considered think yeah it's 100% it is 100% right it is only feels like a quart in between um the still count problem 50% perable but I guess it doesn't so 100% we have we have saing qu inch in between either way you're still you're still with the anyway is the deck already built yes it is okay did they build it or did the Builder build it no The Bu did not build it their landscape design team designed it and brought their own uh subcontractor in to build it and so um this is a forgiveness the 50% in Pur it says on on the thing I'm sorry on the dimensions on the wood deck is 50% impervious oh okay so does this account for uh the impervious uh is the L coverage the okay I'm sorry they buil it the landscape people came and buil it correct okay any other questions for the okay you can set back do we have any speaker cards n I'm sorry I'll open the public hearing any speaker cards is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card wishes to speak I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion is there a motion I move I move to approve case number vaa 24-100 z82 based on the testimony and evidence provided the request has met all standards for variance as outlined in section 34286 of the Land Development code second second case moved and seconded any discussion I think this is definitely the minimum request there's no issue with um coverage and the setback request is on the rear of the yard as we can tell from the satellite images there is no rear neighborhood would be encroached upon nobody from the community come forward to express any concerns uh based on the applicant's testimony this is aign to similar decks in the neighborhood of surrounding neighbors as you know concern okay and it is an undiz lot so we do have okay any other discussion okay can we have a roll call vote please Jennifer Williams yes John Morin yes Matt M yes La yes car yes uh request for variance been approve thank you okay uh planning department report is next um next meetings on um January 7th um there's six cases and there won't be a January 22nd meeting um they'll be doing um the construction something like that renovating this and then after that I'll give you guys an email depending on what we do with um the applications within the next few months due to the um New LDC update we might hold on some applications but I'll send you guys an email let you guys know probably March or late February so we get vacation yeah wow okay courtesy of the floor to visitors anyone thank you for joining us okay uh is there a motion to adj motion to okay that case Mo second all in favor I all right merry Christmas