Loading...
11-23-20 Special Called Commission meeting adopted minutesMINUTES Special Called Meeting of the City Commission Monday, November 23, 2020 - 4:00 PM Commission Chamber INVOCATION AND PLEDGE TO THE FLAG CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Glasser called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM and reported Commissioner Waters is running late. City Clerk Bartle called the roll. ROLL CALL: Present: Also Present: Ellen Glasser, Mayor - Seat 1 Cindy Anderson, Commissioner - Seat 2 (District 1308) Blythe Waters, Commissioner - Seat 3 (District 1307) — arrived at 4:12 PM Candace Kelly, Commissioner - Seat 4 (District 1306) Brittany Norris, Mayor Pro Tem / Commissioner - Seat 5 (District 1312) Shane Corbin, City Manager (CM) Brenna Durden, City Attorney (CA) Donna Bartle, City Clerk (CC) Kevin Hogencamp, Deputy City Manager (DCM) Kim Flower, Records Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Glasser opened the PUBLIC HEARING. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL (APP20-0002) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION (ZVAR20- 0014) FOR 1966 BEACH AVENUE A. City Attorney Procedural Reminders CA Durden explained the variance hearing procedures as outlined in the agenda packet. Mayor Glassor reminded the Commissioners that testimony from the previous hearing is to be considered background information. B. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications, if any CA Durden asked the Commission to disclose ex parte communications in regards to this appeal. She stated that it is necessary to disclose who the communication is with, the discussion topic and confirm that the decision today will be based on the record of this hearing and not on previous communication. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission November 23, 2020 Commissioner Anderson stated that she has had no exparte communication regarding this subject matter. Commissioner Kelly stated she has had no exparte communication regarding this subject matter. Commissioner Norris stated she responded to a citizen email regarding this subject matter. CA Durden stated that responding to an email is already a public record. Mayor Glasser stated that she has received emails regarding the subject matter but did not engage in conversation. She stated she engaged in a conversation with the Chairman of the Community Development Board (CDB) who informed her that this hearing was being placed on the agenda and they did not speak regarding the subject matter. CA Durden explained that staff will present an overview of the subject matter, the timeline, and the basis for the CDB decision. She stated the information will provide background; but the decision will be based on the six criteria that are set out in the Code Sec.24-65-C. She provided additional procedures. Mayor Glasser informed CA Durden that she supplied (3) emails she received to the applicant prior to the hearing. CA Durden stated that the information regarding the emails is considered background information. Commissioner Waters arrived at 4:12PM.) Commissioner Waters stated that she did engage in exparte communication with the applicant by phone when he called her to inquire about the process for an appeal. She stated nothing in their conversation will influence how she will vote this evening. CA Durden explained the meaning of Denovo. C. Swearing In of all persons who will speak City Clerk Bartle administered the Oath to all persons who stood signifying they will provide testimony. D. City Staff Overview, Documentation and Presentation/Testimony Planning and Community Development Director (PCCD) Amanda Askew presented slides which included, background, site context and details, the proposed plan and the considerations as detailed in the agenda packet. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission November 23, 2020 Mayor Glasser reported a correction to the staff report on page 7 of the agenda packet. She reported it incorrectly states the date of the CDB decision as September 2 when in fact the date is September 15. Commissioner Kelly requested to view the slide displaying the neighboring house. PCDD Askew pointed out the property line. Commissioner Norris asked PCDD Askew to clarify a previous comment regarding the grade calculation for the yellow house to the south of the property. PCDD Askew responded the elevation was taken off of the Beach Avenue side. Commissioner Waters inquired about other houses on the street being calculated off of the Beach Avenue side. PCDD Askew responded it was in the Code since 2004 but not enforced. Commissioner Norris asked if this was an exceptional request. PCDD Askew replied this is what the Commission will determine and that although not many, there are other properties along Beach Avenue with the similar gradient variance. Mayor Glasser asked about storm water concerns. PCDD Askew replied that the wall belongs to 1966 Beach Avenue and that the issue of storm water would be addressed if the variance was approved. E. Owens Documentation and Presentation/Testimony Mayor Glasser introduced Montel Owens and invited him to present his testimony. Mr. Owens provided background information regarding the history of the property. He stated that due to demolition malpractice on this site the dune topography is not the original and has changed due to soil erosion, storm water runoff and demolition process. He presented a handout (which is attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as Attachment A.) He explained the lot was subdivided from 100 by 100 to 50 by 100. He reported in 2003 a demolition application was submitted to COAB which certified that there would be no change to sight grade or fill material. Mr. Owens referred to page 4 of the attached handout. He read the demolition best practices and the demolition scope and stated that the demolition of the original house on the property was demolished without following the necessary safeguards such as a structural fill plan, a storm water management plan and a soil erosion mitigation plan. He stated this left a void in the site which resulted in the elevation being left lower than the original dune topography. He stated the site has continued to erode and continues to backfill itself. He referred to page 5 of the attached handout showing a topographic survey and page 6 showing a geotechnical survey. He provided additional overview of the handout. ATTACHMENT A - Applicant Handout Special Called Meeting of the City Commission November 23, 2020 F. Public Comments Mayor Glasser stated the following written comments were received (which are attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as Attachment B.) Susanne Barker requested to deny the variance. Collis and Debbie McGeachy requested to deny the variance. Jeffrey Dewey is in opposition. Greg West (read into the record due to being 300 words or less) requested to deny the variance. There was no one present who wished to speak. Mayor Glasser closed public comment. ATTACHMENT B - Written Comments, Special Called Meeting of the City Commission, November 23, 2020 G. Closing Comments/Rebuttal Mayor Glasser explained that closing comments allow for comments from both the staff and the applicant followed by any questions regarding the closing comments. PCDD Askew spoke regarding (Sec. 24-81(m) Calculated average grade. She reminded the Commission to use the six criteria when making their decision and that one or more of the six criteria must apply to allow the variance. She stated if none of the six criteria apply the variance would be denied. Mayor Glasser invited the applicant to respond to PCDD Askew's remarks and to add any additional comments/information. Applicant did not wish to respond to comments made by PCDD Askew nor did the applicant wish to add any additional information. Mayor Glasser asked the Commission if they had any questions. Commissioner Norris asked PCDD Askew for the location of the provision she previously referenced in the code. PCDD Askew stated the provision as (24-81(m) and read from the top of page 16 in the agenda packet. Commissioner Anderson asked PCDD Askew how she would interpret the provision. PCDD Askew stated that it was her interpretation to use the area that had been demolished as part of the calculations. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission November 23, 2020 Commissioner Anderson confirmed from staff that if the site's topography has changed due to man-made intervention, they would still use the same measurements. PCDD Askew responded, yes, that is what the Code requires. Mayor Glasser asked when that section of the Code was implemented. PCDD Askew responded she was unsure when it was implemented into the Code but confirmed it was in there in 2004. Mayor Glasser asked PCDD Askew, if it was standard procedure to bring in fill after a demolition. PCDD Askew stated the question would need addressed by a Building Official. Discussion ensued regarding fill. Mayor Glasser referred to the two surveys and questioned erosion of the property. PCDD Askew replied that over time without proper vegetation erosion occurs. Commissioner Waters spoke regarding the grade heights, elevations and erosion. She asked why the average was used instead of the median height of the lot used. PCDD Askew replied that section of the Code was implemented before she was here but it could be due to there are not many topography changes around the City. Commissioner Waters spoke regarding the surveys. Commissioner Kelly thanked the applicant for being thorough and articulate and asked why he wanted to change so many things. Mr. Owens replied due to the storm water management problem and flooding issues. She questioned adding 4ft to solve flooding. Mr. Owens responded the drainage swells and underground storm water facilities will require fill. Commissioner Kelly questioned Mr. Owens design of changing the driveway. Mr. Owens replied that stormwater is running down 1960 Beach Ave. onto 1966 Beach Ave. and could benefit from an increase in grade. Commissioner Kelly again questioned adding the 4ft. Mr. Owens responded bringing in fill would change the average grade. Mayor Glasser requested staff to clarify whether Commission is in the position to address bringing in fill at this point. PCDD Askew motioned that is correct. Mayor Glasser question Mr. Owen's design regarding the 4ft in relation to the 4th story. Mr. Owen's replied yes. He explained the ability to situate parking off of 19th and being able to pull a car into the story above as being key. She asked CA Durden if this could be considered. CA Durden suggested look at the six criteria and determine whether or not that topic is something that falls within those six criteria. Mr. Owen's emphasized the environmental circumstance. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission November 23, 2020 H. Commission Deliberation and Action Mayor Glasser instructed the Commission to deliberate and provide an action as instructed by the City Attorney. Mayor Glasser asked the Commission if there were questions and or conditions regarding stipulations regarding the variance. Commission Norris responded and requested a condition that all parking for the property remain on site and there would be no parking on 19th Street. Commissioner Anderson rebuked that this stipulation would be denying this homeowner the same rights as other homeowners have. Discussion ensued with consensus accepting Mayor Glasser's proposal that no net losses of public parking spaces occur. Mayor Glasser asked CA Durden for guidance. CA Durden stated that the parking proposal did not have any relevance to the request; however, the City's Code can be referenced stating how many parking spaces can be on site. Mayor Glasser wanted the applicant to hear the concerns regarding the property as he has not yet purchased the property. Discussion ensured regarding parking concerns and loss of public parking. Mayor Glasser referred to the slide, Grounds for Decision, and asked if there were any proposed conditions to consider, if not, Mayor Glasser requested a vote. The applicant requested to clarify his previous reference to an Ordinance regarding exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property and requested it to be considered when making the decision. He responded to the 19th street parking discussion and stated in his opinion it was safer to use 19th Street to maneuver a vehicle and handle parking matters. Mayor Glasser requested a Motion. MOTION: To approve APPEAL APP20-0002 considering the following factors of 1. Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property and 2. Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties; along with the condition of no net loss of public parking. Motion: Brittany Norris Second: Blythe Waters Commissioner Norris remarked on the excellent job of the applicant providing a historical narrative of the absence of maintenance/care of 1966 Beach Avenue. She stated that exceptional topographic conditions have developed and, in her opinion, 1960 Beach Avenue has played a part in the erosion of 1966 Beach. She stated she would argue the applicant meets two grounds for approval of the variance. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission November 23, 2020 Commission Waters stated that the applicant has provided historic evidence to demonstrate and support changes to the lot and topography. She stated this site as having exceptional circumstances. Commissioner Anderson stated this is a variance that she has been persuaded to support. Commissioner Kelly stated she believed the root cause for the waiver request as the house they want does not fit on the lot. She is not in favor of allowance of another variance. She commended the applicant on his presentation. Mayor Glasser thanked the applicant for providing historical background and documents of the property. Mayor Glasser spoke about her property on Beach Avenue. She stated she is considering that at least one in opposition being due to it would obstruct their beach view. Commissioner Norris commended the work of the CDB. She commended the applicant for his research. She stated she believes he has met the qualifications for a waiver and is in favor of approval. Commissioner Waters spoke of this being a substandard lot size, which created less room for stormwater retention and the ceasing if subdividing of these lots. She concurred with Commissioner Kelly regarding building to the lot you that have although building to this lot is extraordinarily difficult due to its topography and size. She added when it was subdivided under a different Code alot of things were not taken into consideration. Commissioner Anderson stated she is agreement with each of the Commissioners and reiterated the position to remain open and hear the new evidence. Commissioner Kelly stands by here previous stance. She is not in favor of approval of the waiver. Mayor Glasser stated she understands the desire to build like the other houses on Beach Avenue have built. She thanked the CDB. She stated the history provided by applicant has been helpful. CA Durden asked the Commissioners if the motion required modification to include additional grounds for approval. Commissioner Anderson requested that CA Durden confirm reason for the addition of 3. and 6. into the motion as grounds for approval would strengthen the reason for the variance. CA Durden replied, yes, and discussion ensued regarding how to proceed with the amendment. MOTION: To amend the motion to add the following factors as grounds for approval 3. Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. and 6. Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission November 23, 2020 Motion: Blythe Waters Second: Brittany Norris Ellen Glasser For Cindy Anderson For Blythe Waters (Moved By) For Candace Kelly For Brittany Norris (Seconded By) For Motion passed S to 0. MOTION: MOTION AS AMENDED: To approve APPEAL APP20-0002 and grant the variance based upon finding that the grounds for approval 1. Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property, 2. Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties, 3. Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area, and 6. Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property, exist with the condition that there be no net loss of public parking spaces. Motion: Brittany Norris Second: Blythe Waters Blythe Waters (Seconded By) For Brittany Norris (Moved By) For Ellen Glasser Against Cindy Anderson For Candace Kelly Against Motion passed 3 to 2. 3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Mayor Glasser declared the meeting adjourned at 5:54 p.m. Attest: Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk E en Glasser, Mayor Date Approved Special Called Meeting of the City Commission November 23, 2020 CONFIDENTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A November 23, 2020 Minutes THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ISSUE DATE NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Section 24-81(n)(c). — The intent of the variance request is for permission to build a single-family home with a starting grade elevation of 24.77' opposed to an average grade of 19.9' per the survey dated 08.2020 New discoveries show incidental tampering with existing grades prior to most recent survey causing an extraordinary environmental circumstance Demolition malpractice of a home that originally occupied the site. 2.) The dune topography on the current site has experienced unmitigated effects of storm water run-off and subsequent soil erosions due to said demolition malpractice, Page 1 of 12 CONFIDENTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 November 23, 2020 Minutes Original home site when owned by Suzan Rukab (years 1970 to 2001) 100' x 100' parcel dimension Massing on the northern half of the property 2 Story home (with basement) fronting Beach Ave. with a detached garage fronting 19" St. Parking matters were handled on 19' St. MANIOC FEE NO. 11411 1 Lrou (n,05.1 VOL III.. rAYOAL,41 u: - 5 OAS/ .w 10.0•'1 C C DJ t+r 111.2,~ WP SHOWING BOUAD)AAY SIAM= OF: pm 0 tl]MNMCA: 1:11 5 •: Ct.CN P *rat i• 2 551,'14., R4nGE 20 Ens CL']'5L CL1AriY R09 Da. Irn11E OAR1gj.ARL'• oESCRec7 AS r01-0.4 :01 a MPH LV Na•e.er.Q COMMAQ AI n.r 041201104, Or 15 logit -or -SAY _P4 a '9T' VNE17 011H 1FE ai51ER1., O1 •* Y Uvf tY BEAU. AtEWE r3RVERLY 4A4Am APPRCACI• 11CaCoa1'; '-IE5Kf 60:11,'CXtE. K4,42 5ALI YENIENLY RICHT-or-•1Y .P4 a 9E4-, A•.EY•,t a I STAID Or 50.06 FEL• 50 Ole POINT Or O OIwKt 1NC/ILi V:411'41E 5 JS'r TAY, 40X4 511.D sir .r *ow -Or -WAY LOW Cr MACH AVN -C L C.STAA1Cf OF SC,06 FEE'. THENCE •1979'OC'N- •ARaula ain 5Ar, rain -city RIGST-OF-u. a* Cr ,911' STRtET, A CA510 AX Cf IAC,00 (E£1; r•,ENY Nor Yo ", I•Af4yLL. AIH Sao v€51ERty ,1.sT..Cf- NAY UK O *ACM AVM" A rCSIMcS Cr v5m. 511,: .105-6.00•C PARA111.. 0155 OAt'. 55.I11CALY 19C••T-Cs,-*KY ,lF. P- '911. STREET. A CSST•NCE 'Jr '550.00 riLT 5l. ISL Mot Of BmRINra 19th STREET X9929 Qc'E 112c.2• 5r]ry r.. cry Imp 1JOn w]o+' ASAP ow[ ,1Y Au S•4 SO:20W* 21 C']' 1.50110N Ali.54 11Mt ilk 1 Ate BOCK IS rAcr 5? ligga morn oo's Arall 4444 of 4F IMAMS, w oIOYaP•ll Ir 11 OPP Jr irr' At] t [[AA..P.•.ee a / Yn[ .w01.5.O,a I T •601,/ 1.3 1/d0OsIO• 115 OXac a ]..mlrtr NJ. 000 rJK u - NDTCS EARIVCY 100. as /54311 W '.e •RY IpN:Y KIP/11-DP.-NPP LW CI NIAOAI AK11L'I AX NftVG salaiosIOY 2 'NM ARE YilLD%r. REeiIaCncs oK i 9Y IJ'4.5C PPE TITRE SIAS BE EASa)Epl'S NAT AffE.t .AIS 111010810 ,Y en 201.'C OR RECORJEL N TME P,IB.Y' RECg2)5 Cf 045 CAW'. 15511 1.01. NIT 11?.AP. M 4.55 55.R'F, 5 -105 PR0101' Y LIES A ROLA 20.E •P A5 SCALED FROSI Ire I IU?] N1.1J5t0N14 MAO IGC AtlAl]If 5N -AM, NLNSCU PPM: 1Y. '569. CONI..NTT guts. N0. 1100-5 0001 D. PREPARED FOR ME BENEfTT Of. 00wwO.MLALyN LANG T1 lI IN 4P*ANCE CO. PONT[ EEDRA rn1L orno to 0 NaT)IAvoir, P,A. Ita 716-"1'a1F7 lM•IML DURDEN LAND SURVEYORS 0010 . soomme. P31L fiDOA UC NIRY[YOR •rJ WO. LS ale Sot 74Y!. MOK+11 5' P] LD 150.3 warm MOD Sr*CEr 140SONV1J.L YAC., PS. DON 12210 110.) PH- TAA (1104) 141 -IIS: t. J 1 t e GRAPHIC 4CALE SCALE. t'-10' t LV FEET ) 151Ln- x3 r_ DTE; 1515 5L 2C111 51(15 KY 01 =aryl* 15 005 VAUD 0.423$ 15 15 SIrAIED 1.0 1515 705 RAMO SL.L Of 7W lt0ROA LialtILO LAPID SUM102 u+v.p.•v,•Aeo B -L -N' ,* v.•AtviYroi,: DIIAr1A- 551 1([L 0-242 Page 2 of 12 CONFIDENTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 November 23, 2020 Minutes Property sold, transfer of deed: Rukab to James Smith in 2001 Subdivision waiver issued to James Smith and prospective buyer Rusty Pritchett in 2002 Waiver grants ability to subdivide original 100' x 100' parcel in to two smaller 50' x 100' parcels No building permit would be issued until the existing home was demolished Rusty Pritchett intends to build on the south parcel only, leaving the north parcel cleared November 26, 2002 James (Rusty) and Amy Pritchett 1860 Sea Oats Drive Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Re: Approval of Subdivision Waiver Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pritchett: CITY ONATLANtIC BEACH 800 SEMINOIE ROAD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233-5,445 TELEPHONE: (904) 247.5800 FAX: (904) 247.5805 SUNCOM: 852-5900 http:// ei.atlantic-beach.n,uw This letter serves to confirm that the City Commission, at their November 25, 2002 public meeting, approved a waiver from a Section 24-255 (a) of the City's Subdivision regulations. This waiver will allow Building Permits to be issued on a new lot containing approximately 5000 square feet of lot arca, 50.06 feet in width and 100 -feet in depth, and as depicted and described on the attached survey. (issuance of permits, of course, shall be further subject to compliance with all Florida Building Code requirements and other applicable Land Development Rceulations.) Also, please bear in mind that the existing structure on the original "parent parcel" must be demolished prior to construction upon your property or the adjacent parcel. Please maintain a copy of this letter for your records, and I would suggest that you provide a copy of this letter alone with any future application for Building Permits. Please feel free to contact me at 247- 5817 or by e-mail at sdoerrra)ci.atlantic-beach-flus with any questions. Sincerely, Sonya D6err, AICP Community Development Director cc: Don Ford, CBO, Building Official Maureen King, City Clerk Page 3 of 12 CONFIDENTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 November 23, 2020 Minutes Demolition application submitted to City of Atlantic Beach in 2003 Applicant proposed to "Demolish house and remove debris" Applicant certifies that no change in site grade or fill material will be used on this project No topographic survey was required with the application Note: Applicant certified that the work would not bring a change to the site or grade, and fill dirt would not be provided. Demolition best practices always indicated the need for structural backfill following any demolition. Standard demolition guides state: If the building to be demolished has a basement or foundation that will result in replacement fill of 12" or greater, a design for the fit by a qualified licensed design professional shall be required. Special inspections shall be required for placement and compaction of fill. This also includes standards to deploy storm water management and soil erosion mitigation techniques during the demolition and after completion of the work to reinstate the grades and mitigate future erosion. Demolition of the original Rukab house was not done according to best practices. o Scope of work did not include a designed structural fill plan (back fill) o Scope of work did not include a stormwater management plan o Scope of work did not include a soil erosion mitigation plan This type of demolition process left a void/hole within the site The elevation was left lower than the original dune topography Continued erosion as the site continues to naturally backfill itself CITY OF ATLANTIC. BEACH wesuu.&*t IDwn W M1TIf BFACN,f1.pM1.51:.11NAffi.'1MT Yt...HO L1HL l.'.'.4!1 40,,st 1,n 4..oetr...,&1 ,.t, II 4. 5tt-r• AWA t••• AJ••• . . . 1Pss •4.•.x4-...• T.n•nt n0t JV".' 1tl),Z,VL•1L eitt. . . 1111•21.1,.). Pro{nory SDn::n na Tt& 04 Vrt.W7' APate•ttan 5..,.tt_n 44:211 :4404 t '4 tvr. auanI: •4..:4 01 S}73). 44' !VY IVU Pttnit. C®r.'Sttla1 emu:: AOt1010M1 Solar tout tut 100 :0 nu VV Wt for r.. .s•t.r1' C5.44e3 tut :must. 4.. e.rttt. !no Ten •1 100.00 414.46 10 010, Choc.. Tate) .00 ., .44 brand Tema I 140.04 [04.34 d. .) Ia.. Mewl, oNtli . rnlafa.r m.tntwt ntw•.. vm Ka An.„a.4. Answat ..ta/.•1w •itor14. 110442:/iw'1 t 0115 OF ATLANTIC BEACII DeMMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION n« l °If o RfAcl1 Ag • a lar. 1-cj Q1611, ti SID.; LT T.Wtao 404•',0• L . 1f.b.v4t.. 0..... sabre [JT•t•. Lnnlnr.t term, J...,Ry I ,thiN r1..ett A..r• A t 1..11.. p-- - fMNr.ryvJ..t..l ..v1•0.44 6-fum., 04o. owe RI4eIM ba. I•f•14>< knit n t..1•4 tej Cara. fro.. f •••• filo tett..ant, molter Nati rt.,u. sow •q.M orotn0 Y ft. taw+....•+.1.. u Wow t'w r.f Yu.t• awl e.•Uln nn •..r•. ,..o -.w Mw.•m Mev w..rn t• 1[L Yi.l1.M. .1srnJ.tut Atlt .•. n .c.rv.J Y... r.rt.I.OJ•ut 1tA W..J 4.1711:4 71.11' .. 7r.4.'6:11.17'.........A.“""7121.11:4 urte4 R 4Set1) I It.A 0.. 4esyn.+.Mtn.0 •n.•ol. IS dew, • room.. n+n net, m.••'nu•11 wT+.n. w> r. •s.r Q• Wmr.`.., .. ...n.••. wAwn'•.6,N[.bwte.+vs•tto.'Mw•..•nAnt t.,A. . tomato. w wrRa.ww u rwwwtt p. ow, ttwar•nox. ma.lnoweanWai.*I*a...4w twt.. nr Ma %mem. stow Neon 11.nort MM Wt..J. 1 sa••nn, At.:ewe . tar to fr2Yf • In1...o....a.•nTt41A.n Page 4 of 12 CONFIDENTIAL/ NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A November 23, 2020 Minutes A year later, on January 5th, 2004, the first topographic survey was certified to Rusty Pritchett Planning to build on the newly subdivided southern parcel (50' x 100'(, now 1960 Beach Ave. Note the contour lines and the void/hole due to the unusual demolition process ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 i. l:,•.711..^7i!. J ! A.IJA` :,,rig 4 x:..542 i. .. SIERL' Ukt ti IR. •. OF RA, Loi: rr 'Y7,- • NA' ,i'u eF EEA=aC+_TLrCt' YAIMN2 f. rata a +•Y r:.' Ya +sA ..t, trunt+:t W'* t` MAP SHOWING SURVEY OF 3 /MILE aJ EA:', GJ':>'L G:-,, f11+. I. AaRi:sLARy. r'. COWIt11.{ AT NE JITERSECTIO,I •i TN[ 57UT4NLY Nriih' Cf AA• USE :F lam 4Y04JE ;FORMERLY GARAsE Ap!1Y^„ACN R•VWNAY}, THVICE >7J7''Y ;:.5•!•;•r,• ,A ` = CISTAIILE Cf 10712 FEE': TNEMi SLUTH 69'290' WEST, PARALL I Mo '..L ELU1-. STg4CE Of mix RET. MENU NORTH G319UGr WEST. l'AtTA,r}t MT'I .AE RE.S'ER; 7..OI 7Cik1? FEET, THENL tC1 TH ?i29Or IAV A. CrIC SAO 5.;: IE-` R, • CL fa• Ttt ME PE$4T OF eEGHNI,v: 19TH STREET A: kCI-- rr MA iAA..,a_-r orreLa n2}4r:u.r r< K. PANITG 9F .INN+1 itu. 5, at,o of 58919'00"W 100.00' FArA6 SST 5:, J. T.13. if. A -C-,c :7)4'Y,Y IAq -. et,J4E 'tS AS 15P [tURGLY MIX 1AI61ETE14:1 JRAMNG 5,45595 2.4 -; r:A rE'r 5/r 15. ]tL I. EEAr-rr JAF.• VSEJ `; a ,:at.O Et1R CRASS DISri A- THE ECuM•EET C+70kER c * a,1A.A,r1, YrY ;:f SENNCUE Rr01 ,M TN cA tII IA s , • ,, ww - - . , _ U E u. AREA 'u : ' 'LAM t-: auU 4`a INCLL !u CAN 0 ? _ ^'t •.. to:n F 1M r,i[ Ft,_IU ti.3)P.ANC E NATE *+:- tAtAh'JTY_t N II.t$E`i ' APRT, 1: .Pk; FOP E sCEIAI.Irr- 44I. rhr 44.;,000. Ai Aly SE.L + r Nrr• , •,fA%i RYE Y%FF:F rl`_ 5+.=:•EY 'hac 1.Ia' D01VN W. BOATyIR CRIT, r .S11. rLORIDA LC. 5UROEYC(- <Ira MAF -DER r,= 729:' Cii.DNE6 BY- DRAWN BY: _._. BOATWRIGHT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. Isco ROBERTS DP ...T. JACKSCNv.Li.f B£ACf r`CRIOA 24' -B`.SC Page 5 of 12 SI -£E`_ F CONFIDENTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A November 23, 2020 Minutes A geotechnical survey and report certified to owner and contractor on January 3017, 2004 ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Sandy soils erode in an "elastic" manner o Elastic — Eroding quickly under moderate rain and wind conditions the project will consist of a three-story residential structure..." The finished floor elevation for the residence has not been firmly established, however, we assume that less than two feet of fill will be required to bring the site to the desired grade. We understand a particularly below grade structure will be constructed into the existing sand dunes" At the time of our visit, the site was cleared with a few palm trees." THE SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT. There are several nearby residential structures surrounding the site." The surface soils consisted of very loose light brown sand (SP)." Surface water was not observed on the site at the time of our visit." 1 1 1 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 0EQTECHNICAL EXPLORATIQN PROPOSED PRITCHEIT RESIDENCE INDsch ATE,. ant, ti' SEER ANanoc Such, Honda J.nory 10. TCO. PROJECT NO. 11186000101 REPORT NO. 21922 Prtpa# d For. Yr. RT atr 4,K1.01 1515 SNva Marva Orly. Ao RAH B..cn, Flerda 12222 Pr.p.rad Ey UNIVERSAL ENONEEPINO SCIENCES 5561 0o12 44404 Ba/ev0 Scuts 1.999r rao. FIor.M 12216 1640 11.12930r57 CONSULTANTS. Goma:... Ergiw0Yg • Enwmm,.ar Enpm 41.05 . Coruh,rnon NaNr. TouRg Tl.stdld a•aavan . P••:a1. Prddp ln<pdc4on OFFICES: D•/dna Bead, • Deft, • RN M3Ms • C -vro.. HANrood ..NO.mrv4 . Drax OrYrdo . PEM CERN . Roddadpa . 56,0x,.. 5t 44os.. Tanoa • Won Palm Baan 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project information was provided to us by Mr. Rusty Pritchett We understand the project wit consist of a three-story residential structure. We have been fumished a Site Plan showing the proposed construction and adjacent roadways. We understand that the proposed residence will be located in Atlantic Beach, Florida. Detailed structural information has not been fumished, however, we assume that wall and Individual column loads will not exceed 5 klf and 100 kips, respectively. We have also assumed that soil supported floor loads will not exceed 125 psf. The finished floor elevation for the residence has not been firmly established, however, we assume that less than two feet of fill will be required to bring the site to the desired grade We understand a particularly below grade structure will be constructed into the existing sand dunes. Our recommendations are based upon the above considerations. If any of this information 3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS The site of the proposed residence is located at the southwestem quadrant of the intersection of Beach Avenue and 19'street in Atlantic Beach, Duval County, Florida. At the time of our visit, the site was cleared with a few palm trees. The site is relatively flat There are several nearby residential structures surrounding the site. The surface soils consisted of very loose light brown sand (SP). Surface water was not observed on the site at the time of our visit. Page 6 of 12 CONFIDFNTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A November 23, 2020 Minutes ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 KEY OBSERVATION: Note that the Jan. 5"' topographical survey depicts contours that clearly show a void/hole. 25 days after said survey was complete, a Jan. 30`" geotechnical survey states that "THE SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT..." Conclusion: Backfill was brought in to properly re-establish the dune topography at the location where the new home would be built. o The owner and contractor realized that there was a hole left by the previous demolition and fill dirt would reinstate the site elevations and grades properly, the RIGHT thing to do. 1 1 1 Ja 0 t1 Yftl a . r l r +:fa:4t-. .. . is, i'.'ht• • MYY' Ley?'- 1$' ..at CSt w, r"yr 589419'00"V4 100.00' 3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 The site of the proposed residence is located at the southwestem quadrant of the intersection of Beach Avenue and 19`" street in Atlantic Beach. Duval County, Florida. Al the time of our visit, the site was cleared with a few palm trees. The site is relatively flat. There are several nearby residential structures surrounding the site. The surface soils consisted of very loose light brown sand (SP). Surface water was not observed on the site at the time of our visit. Page 7 of 12 CONFIDENTIAL/ NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 November 23, 2020 Minutes Rusty Pritchett submitted a building permit application on March 8th, 2004 Applicant certified that there would be a change to site grade elevations Applicant certified that there would be a need for additional fill material Reviewed with comments from the Department of Public Works on March 10'h, 2004 o "Provide drainage plans", "Provide erosion and sediment control plans with details" Supporting statements that acknowledge site soil conditions that erode quickly and SWM plans would be needed No written response of any kind was found on record to the requests 2 days following public works comments a March 12th approval letter was delivered to contractor npj esra I-04c:t Ptofe:I• orsABnlTTor twucwoau ran LAND/VER tun A11A111C SLACK P.0094 1.31+11. TSLeIwL" ra lIa.): a1.tW up,_uNa.+rtla PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Permit Application a 04- t781.4„o tA..)tt_uMIS C s'Rhr7,o,3 I tc.o t-.3/ate SFR— You F2 You applice ion t:s approved u noted by drc Public Works Dem -ane Float appikatba approval mut moat from the Ba1d1a; Depar®eat. b'cur paned appboadoe b.a been micweG by Ne public Works Dapuanent end tee fol.aamg items need anew. a. dor /6.AA Ol p/QAd I to.hae Protann neGl So_l„ntznr mn.rot W.}h O Ao.IS Please eutm:t Nese tequtretnenu to the Public Wont, Department, 12.0 Suelp:per lane, Adannt Beath. FL 32233 en ardor that ae ear approve your applieados 11}V.1 Tuve any quee :ors plea. tall (904)2474M 12vReby Donna RLL Public u3:iii Dinelor Slat COM Nodtd Date F.yeei Date 3/I.4 CITY OF ATLANTIC BL' 1CII BUILDING / ZONING DEPARTMENT ase nueMaardMeW )1:•. Nal tsl.ssm teal 14,114) t'a J PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Permit Application la - Z'7 a tale / Io- Prapany Address: 19 ia! 40E. // Applicant:. Lill LU a41-1.v.!'nalae[YLe1Reh.1`9 helm, Ll a) SFr? Thepermit appGtabes hu beta: ai Approved Revk..rd ..d for kabala. Items tared attune.: Pkase reaubNt r apples whoa these hems Yaw Ms impleIaL Rrvlewed tly: L.V _ ` I- Dant s - t , - • y Page 8 of 12 CONFIDENTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A November 23, 2020 Minutes ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Official building permit issued on January 7", 2004 to construct a new single-family home on reestablished dune topography Architectural plans dated October 19' 2003 and submitted with original permit application on March 8", 2004 o Plans submitted do not convey proposed finished floor elevations Certificate of Occupancy dated May 23rd, 2005 Finished Floor Elevations (FFE) survey was completed on June, 10" 2005 o FFE of 28.13' at which is about 1'-11" higher than curb of Beach Avenue for proper rainwater run off o Overall finished building height from street to highest point on building is approximately 34'-4" MAP SHOWING SURVEY OF A r•AF- ili !,1IL•_:.'.. _ y .:.•JN iti, .G': 'dcCIJhC.1' P - '! F. srtG: ^.r Fc' i. ••. 1".1.?-+CI;_AR_r ' r:, t0'A3'. FCR A rot,- rA. CIiJ41LNl_ • -f IN1LIMEr1101J 0 - 01;-HfRLY 1PS !T ;:1 • _d•J: C' 1411.'i tf:I 1 A A;1 • •::I HI Or *AO, e t + -1 - :'.rSTFP. TOC r ;.1 ., 0' SLA CI AcC.NJC (1C,:MCR-Y C.:AZ..44F :.P5F;JSC- 70A3CF `. - x001 153111 .' r;' r) '-ENL As% AicAyr, Sa:r' ,Ar::TFF Y R -'MT .^.F A -T _INE LF dtAO, • A DISr.'.Nr.- :r °,:07 FFFT '0 -HF r' - Rri;:N4-40, (hL\:x f:uri \JL "::U IH 0.519'CC EAST, ANO AI CA:: Sail: orSTCwi • k 'NAY LIUL, t. _ SC'JIH 892313C' * 'r. PARAI.rl 54Tr 7.-= S:;)'F--'iL` Ft'? '„f WAY LINE O' : - STq£EI. A L'IS•AVC: Or 103.05 ;Tr' iD 111E EASTERLY LITeL OF L01 211, BEACH::7L 5 Rrr.ORrrr 1•, ACES 14, i!,, '•1D AAP '4C Or Tilt CURRENT' PJBLIC REWRDS :F SAIC COUNTY: T1.74:"r N01 "+i AI La:: 'NF Y,FSTFR.Y ,.8:1. OF Salt _0T _U ANO IHE 'AES:LriL' LINE. OF LC1 21 OF Scn 5?AC',1f:•F F . -•r,.` 0 )6{ ••_ .L_ N/J1t!H tt7.29.0U` :AS!. PA.RAt l rl IaiT' TNF S YJTl FRL Y R'C.-" 05 'NAY 1',c • , :A• or ICO.CC rrri r•. TIG PAINT 1 if. t s Mt 11 AAA F m' I: 19TH STREET 44) FCHT .0 WA.. IF:.," J0 u N 8929'00" E 100.00' Y 2222 4a 1S. F.Gk 01 1. 7 U 21 K MC Is r•1 a io TL•.4:r s 8919'00—W 100.00' r•' E.'..1 •.vr: t: cr,s 505,1: 5-11 4 A 96JNCAi" 5.,145Fr 4114:5 NA:tU :N NLS 1.ilr POi: 71 WAY AP& 7E. t"', •'•CN : H_N:'i'1:"4'CCY F3 PA IMA1WRt.iT LA'O S.+RsTnttS O;A'tir 1110%1PI6. 2-112- t5 a• -TO TIIT PR0FrTY S•(Y+N •i-?r'r•. A'F'u.3 111 L IN r10071 70%7 "x•' (ArsiA 01..510_ SU+i WAN' •LLt it A3 D_LI. 4•e CAN `JE DETERt11.t3 "RCI4 r r 11:00 INSURANCE RAT' NAP' CCMu )t, TY-'.t.rl 1•. t'0ER 1203/5 X0'C. RC•Y15CC APR:. 17. 19P4 F0 A. -.AN -IC 9rA I, rr OR 05. MI rAJ7 VA! W, rL YC\Gi_Ht ,1Nii M_ 75 .4a. RFIaEG SE/4 7r A rl f12t:A , drN•:rt: SOF4POT AYO MDP•LF.• FONT OF REFLNENCE NT or TrrC1NIN•:; IHS 5'JhV.1 WAS es,oE r015 TIr R-'.--- 1'E. RUST" & .ANY r4RC '"T: rvrR"r.,r.«' •1,-H-h UORCI L4], P.A.: :"a STOCAPT T ` r : .ARAt.-Y COMPANY. STEPHEN W. CREWS. P.S.M. FLORIDA LIC. SURVEYOR cnd MAPPER No, LS 5998 r.,Lii'!+ S..F: l:c: Ps:, ]I:NE 5 $,n aJ .10,5 CHECKED wY- ORAAN BY: •-w FILE: xr..a-re • BOATWRIGHT LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 1500 R09ERIS OHNE, JACKSONVILLE BEAC,I, F1ORIDA 241-8550 DATE, SHEET • OF • a.4FF- L•.F0-14:.p5, -i Page 9 of 12 CONFIDENTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A November 23, 2020 Minutes Adjacent site, 1966 Beach Avenue was left fallow following construction of 1960 Beach Ave. ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Site left without backfill to re-establish the original dune topography from demolition Site left without a proper storm water management plan Site left without a proper soil erosion mitigation plan Site left without plantings, unseeded. o Improper site care = Erosion Collapse of original (Rukab) western boundary retaining wall (permit to replace dated October 14'^, 2015) Caused flooding at the home of Collis McGeachy (1961 Beachside Ct) whom shares the western boundary of 1960 and 1966 Beach Ave. (Per owner Collis McGeachy) Brought forth flooding concerns at home located at (57 Nineteenth St) per owner Gregory West. Fallow ground will eventually lead to Beach Avenue road collapse, in the distant future If these discrepancies aren't cured, the current owners of 1960 Beach Avenue will experience the effects of erosion on their northern boundaries (at foundation and entry). CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH 8011 SEMINOLE.. ROAD ATLANTIC REACH, FL. 32233 INSPECTION PHONF. LINE 247.5814 MUST CALL JOB INFORMATION: Job ID: Job Type: Description: Estimated Value: Issue Date: Expiration Date: PROPERTY ADDRESS: Address: RE Number: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Address: FENCE PERMIT BY 4PM FOR NEXT DAY INSPECTION: 247-5814 5-FNCF-2051 FENCE PERMIT REPAIR CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 519,000 00 9/14/2015 3/12/2016 1966 BEACH AVE 169525-0000 POWELL JANET A 2200 S OCEAN LA APT 1/09 GENERAL CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: Name: TOUCHSTONE CONTRACTING SOLUTIONS INC Address: 8654 Hilma RD Phone: - - PERMIT INFORMATION: FEES: Fen :c!RO'A Total Payments: 535.00 535 00 N7tMn 1% APrUH%b OSI IN VTORD %SC. %pill All 1111 Of .1I I.ASI It RIM. II ORM \%NI 1', 1W 1111 11111110/ MTI Df W: t INlr5 CONFIDENTIAL / NON:PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 November 23, 2020 Minutes Recent topographical survey of 1966 Beach Ave., dated August 4'', 2020 Shows effects of unmitigated soil erosions o Shows more than 2' loss in elevation at the eastern, highest portion of the parcel o Note how the contour lines have "slid"/spread down to fill in the original void/hole left by the original demolition, a natural phenomenon due to human error. RNs ANS oK Ne. (,C+411r AVNAtT 19TH STREET 440 FOOT R/W) WV? YAK 1;C HKWANr N89'29'00 E 100.00 IN S899nt97t 9969(A) fi 9419 91.1.icpR VAL K M AS ,ALr 22.14 ENOL YAM NAA N R9 P/p dSV.24.92. AA 19/81 POINT OF BEGINNING A" CONC 5/h BEACHSIDE PB 42 PGS 14-14C P/O GOu£RNr£NT Lor 3 SECTION 9 TONNSHLP 2 SOUTH RANGE 29 EAST. NOTE: THE AVERAGE MEAN LOT ELEVATION IN THE BUILDABLE AREA IS 79.9' NA VD/88. Page 11 of 12 CONFIDENTIAL / NON-PUBLIC ATTACHMENT A November 23, 2020 Minutes ISSUE DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Requesting a variance to increase the average grade an additional 4.87' due to an extraordinary environmental circumstance caused by human error. The site and its topography have changed due to negligence. This negligence has caused environmental harm and attributes to storm water management concerns. Extraordinary environment circumstances caused by improper demolition practices which proved harmful to the environment. Probable ways to cure the discrepancies o Implement storm water management techniques to make up for error o Implement soil erosion mitigation techniques to make up for error Some of these techniques may include: Dry Wells Grading and site fill Drainage Swales Green Roofs Gutters and diverters French Drains Permeable membranes and surfaces Rain water harvesting / cisterns Vertical Architectural brief/program (corner lot setbacks help with coverage issues) Underground Storm water management storage structures or facilities Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT B November 23, 2020 Minutes Bartle, Donna From: Susanne Barker <susannefbarker@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 10:39 PM To: Askew, Amanda; Bartle, Donna; Elected Officials; Durden, Brenna; Corbin, Shane Subject: Opposition to Item No, APP20-0002 for Special Called Commission Meeting Dear Commissioners, On Monday afternoon you will be deciding whether to grant a variance to the applicant who is considering the purchase of the lot on 1966 Beach Avenue. This variance request was denied by the Community Development Board on September 15 with a vote of 4 to 2. Atlantic Beach Preservation has worked to preserve the quality and character of our city. Part of our involvement has been in the support of enforcing our current Land Use Codes and in discouraging variances that would have a negative affect on our neighborhoods. We respectfully request that you deny this variance for the following reasons. 1. If this house is built as shown, there will be flooding that will affect neighbors to the south, west and north of this property. This would add to our already challenging flooding issues. Our Commission recently changed the allowable pervious surface to 45% to help mitigate flooding. To allow this variance would be a step backward. 2. The applicant can certainly buy the property "as is" and build a great house within our current codes. The variance requested is to suit the specific desires of the applicant. It isn't the City's job to provide variances to suit every individual. Our codes are developed with careful thought to apply to all citizens. 3. There is no hardship here. If the applicant's architects and engineers can't produce a plan that is in compliance with our codes, he can find a suitable property elsewhere. He hasn't purchased the property and will suffer no loss. Our city is a special place and it's understandable that many people want to live here. However, if variances are given without careful thought, all of us will have much to lose. Sincerely, Susanne Barker Co Chair AB Preservation and Atlantic Beach Preservation Members Tom Hindle Mary Emmerson Smith Nancy Staats, MD Peter Staats, MD Steve Fouraker Page 21 of 28 ATTACHMENT B Carole Schwartz November 23, 2020 Minutes 1 Page 22 of 28 ATTACHMENT B November 23, 2020 Minutes Bartle, Donna From: McGeachy, Collis @ Jacksonville <Collis.McGeachy@cbre.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 2:25 PM To: Askew, Amanda; Bartle, Donna; bdurden@coab.com Subject: Opposition to Item No. APP20-0002 which is an appeal of the Community Development Board's denial for ZVAR20-0014. We appreciate this opportunity to voice our concerns and opposition to the applicant's appeal of his previously denied variance request to the Community Development Board as per File # ZVAR20-0014 on September 15, 2020. We have lived at 1961 Beachside Ct which is immediately west of the vacant lot for the last 23 years. Our reasons for opposing the applicant's appeal request are set forth below and are based on the applicant not meeting the requirements for a variance as per section 24-64(c) of the city building code. The applicant cited 4 reasons for appealing the denial of his variance request: 1) Unusual topography conditions, 2) Erosion of grade due to the increased elevation of the home to the south, 3) zoning not meeting current lot dimensions and 4) property has the wrong zoning. 1) The subject property has unusual topography which is quite common for lots in close proximity to the ocean due to the various original dunes' lines. Anyone building in Atlantic Beach must comply with the building codes which have specific guidelines in terms of establishing the average grade of the lot. Asking for a 5.17 foot increase to 24.77 feet from 19.9 feet for his average grade to build from is unreasonable and is not a hardship as the applicant will already have a spectacular and unobstructed ocean view from all levels of his proposed house down the 19th Street beach access. Conversely, raising the average grade will create a hardship for us with a much taller structure blocking our morning sunlight and further reducing our privacy due to the higher elevation. 2) The applicant cited erosion of the lot as a second reason for his variance request. The average grade has significantly improved over the years since it was sold and cleared in 2001. This lot was originally a double lot that included a single-family house that straddled both lots. When the original lot sold in 2001, the new owner demolished the existing house and subdivided the lot into two 50'x100' Tots and sold the southern lot in 2001 as well. The existing house at 1960 Beach Ave. which is the southern half of the original lot was built in 2005. With no onsite improvements and landscaping on the subject property for approximately 19 years, the soil has continued to migrate to the west following the topography of the lot which has increased the western side of the lot's elevation by at least one foot from it's original elevation. A good barometer of the soil migration over the years is the difference in the lot elevation to the top of the wall that separates our lot from the subject lot. The elevation from our side is 62 inches from our side versus 41 inches from the subject lot side — almost a 2 -foot difference. 3) As for the applicant's appeal based on the wrong zoning and being on a corner lot, any buyer for this lot has the opportunity to check with the city to see what the required setbacks are to build on a corner lot. Regardless of the size of the lot, a potential buyer is required to maintain a 10 -foot setback from his side yard on a corner lot and a 20 -foot setback from the front of his house. Therefore, we see no reason to allow for the variance request denial by the CBD based on section 24-64(c) to be overturned. In addition to the 4 cited reasons for the variance request, we would like to further address some comments brought up by the applicant in his "additional comments" labeled pages 1 and 2 of his original variance application. Page 23 of 28 ATTACHMENT B November 23, 2020 Minutes First, the applicant referenced that a new concrete block wall was added to the western boundary line between our lot and the subject vacant lot after a typical summer thunderstorm flooded our backyard. Following is a clarification of the events and our flooding experience. There has been a western wall on the subject property for at least 25 years. This western wall fell over into our backyard in 2015. Subsequently, a new wall was constructed. The old wall was built without footers and started leaning to the west after the lot was cleared in 2001 and the soil began migrating to the western boundary line. Also contributing to the wall failing was a palm tree root ball growing next to the wall on the vacant lot. The current owners of the vacant lot built the new wall with a substantial footer which ran parallel along the western property line as well as approximately 25 feet along the 19th Street sidewalk. Since the new wall had a sizeable footer, there was a gap of about 8 inches between the new wall on 19th Street and the sidewalk. The contractor who built the wall did not backfill the trench between the new wall and the 19th Street sidewalk once completed. We subsequently had a torrential thunderstorm and all of the rain coming down the sidewalk funneled into the trench between the new wall and the sidewalk and flooded our backyard. We backfilled the trench between the wall and the sidewalk the next day and have not had any further flooding issues. The applicant is also requesting to bring in fill dirt to add to the western side of the lot. If this is allowed, we would anticipate that the homeowner to the south will experience flooding due to the difference in elevation as both lots currently have the same elevation along the western side of their lots. We are also concerned that raising the lot elevation will subject us to flooding again as well as to the north into 19th Street and the lower lying properties on the northside of 19th Street. The applicant also stated on page 1 of the additional comments the need to bring in fill dirt for the western portion of the lot because of global warming. 19th Street is the highest elevation point in Atlantic Beach and we don't think any of us will be living by the time the sea level would reach Beach Ave. — let alone the western side of the subject lot. Lastly, the applicant requested that they be allowed to remove existing motorcycle/scooter parking spaces and a palm tree along 19th Street to allow for his driveway access from 19th Street. We feel that this will create an unsafe situation and burden for the 19th Street/Beach Ave. intersection. Beach Ave is one way and is primarily used by the residents who live between 18th and 19th Street. 19th Street is also used by these same Beach Ave. residents when leaving their homes as well as Beach Ave. residents who live north of 19th Street. 19th Street Is also heavily trafficked by beach -goers both local and from in town looking for hard to find parking spaces - especially during the busy summer months. Given that the 19th Street traffic is significantly higher than Beach Ave., we feel that allowing the applicant to move his driveway entry to 19th Street will create a traffic circulation problem and should be required to maintain his driveway entry point from Beach Ave. like the other Beach Ave. residents. As for removing the motorcycle/scooter parking spaces along with the palm tree, this will magnify the already contentious parking issues facing Atlantic Beach residents and nonresidents. As for the palm tree removal, this is one of the few beautification assets enhancing the 19th Street corridor. Finally, allowing the applicant's driveway access from 19th Street will also require removal of the concrete wall on 19th Street. We are concerned that the substantial difference in elevation between the subject lot and our lot will subject us to flooding with no impediment to contain his runoff. We know that someone will eventually build on this lot and we are only asking that any applicant comply with the current building rules and regulations governing Atlantic Beach. This applicant submitted all of his support documentation prior to the Community Development Board Zoom hearing for their review and consideration and pleaded his case. The CDB denied his variance request 4 -2 after a lengthy deliberation. 2 Page 24 of 28 ATTACHMENT B We respectfully request that you urtlioicethloetritfim2a20 IOtavutepment Board's denial of the applicant's variance request as he has not proven any burden of harm in the CBD's denial. Collis & Debbie McGeachy 1961 Beachside Ct Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 C + 904 662 1396 collisdebbie@beilsouth.net 3 Page 25 of 28 ATTACHMENT B November 23, 2020 Minutes Bartle, Donna From: Bartle, Donna Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 8:19 AM To: Elected Officials Subject: FW: Opposition to Item No. APP20-0002 which is an appeal of the Community Development Board's denial for ZVAR20-0014 From: Greg West imailto:gregorykwest@gmail.comj Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:20 PM To: Durden, Brenna <bdurden@coab.us> Cc: Askew, Amanda <aaskew@coab.us>, Bartle, Donna <dbartle@coab.us>; collis.rncgeachy@cbre.com Subject: Re: Opposition to Item No. APP20-0002 which is an appeal of the Community Development Board's denial for ZVAR20-0014 If Amanda determines that our earlier form of opposition is outside the size limit to be read into the record at the hearing, please substitute the following shorter version which is 298 words. We would like our opposition, whichever version, read into the record at the hearing rather than just provided in written form to the commissioners. Thank you.] We have lived at 57 19th Street, which is diagonally across the street from the vacant lot, for the last 26 years. We oppose applicant's appeal request for the same reasons set forth in Collis McGeachy's opposition emailed to you on November 19, 2020. We would welcome applicant as a neighbor and would certainly like to see a home on that vacant lot. But a great house can be designed for and built on the lot without the granting of any height variance. Applicant is simply asking for a variance to build a taller house solely for applicant's convenience. At the variance hearing on September 15, 2020, he said he would like to be able to go up another floor. The slopes resulting f•oni the various dunes near our beach are part and parcel of living close to the ocean. The lot that applicant is considering is not unique in Atlantic Beach; it is simply situated on the west side of the primary dune running under Beach Avenue. When William Morgan, our architect, was designing our house 28 years ago, he advised us of the height limitations resulting from the calculation of the slope of our lot, because our lot spans the secondary and tertiar dunes, Mr. Morgan designed our house to comply with those limitations. We were proud to remain within those limitations, since we have always admired our City's dedication to enforcing its height restrictions to maintain the residential character of the City. Applicant's variance request should be denied, and applicant should simply build a house on that lot that conforms to the City's height limitations. If applicant feels that applicant for applicant's own convenience must have a taller house, applicant should just buy a different lot that would allow the building of that taller house. On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 8:53 PM Durden, Brenna <bdurden( coah.us> wrote: Hi Greg and Susan, 1 believe your email is within the 300 word/3 minute limitation for being read into the record during the hearing and it has been received before the deadline for doing so. By copy of this to Amanda, 1 am asking her to confirm that this is correct and that your email Will be read into the record during Page 26 of 28 Flower, Kimberly M. ATTACHMENT B November 23, 2020 Minutes From: Bartle, Donna Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:14 PM To: Flower, Kimberly M. Subject: Fwd: 1966 Beach Ave Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Bartle, Donna" <dbartle@coab.us> Date: November 17, 2020 at 4:07:00 PM EST To: Elected Officials <electedofficials@coab.us> Cc: "Askew, Amanda" <aaskew@coab.us> Subject: FW: 1966 Beach Ave Forwarding comments below. Thank you, Donna Original Message From: Askew, Amanda Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 11:42 AM To: Bartle, Donna <dbartle@coab.us> Subject: FW: 1966 Beach Ave Please distribute Mr. Dewey's email to Commission. Thanks -- Original Message From: Askew, Amanda Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 11:41 AM To: 'jeffrey dewey' Subject: RE: 1966 Beach Ave Thank you for sending in your email. I will forward it to Commission. In case you want to attend the meeting with Commission it will be held on Monday, November 23rd at 4pm at city hall in Chambers. Original Message From: jeffrey dewey[mailto:jeffreydewey@bellsouth.net] i Page 27 of 28 ATTACHMENT B Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 20183, 2020 Minutes To: Askew, Amanda Subject: 1966 Beach Ave As longtime residents of 1974 Beach Ave, we are against changing the decision made by the CDB. The corner of 19th Street and Beach Ave does not need to be dwarfed by an extra tall structure. It would negatively affect the neighborhood. It is a gathering place and also a busy corner with walkers and bikers. Jeffrey and Robert Dewey Sent from my iPhone 2 Page 28 of 28