Loading...
Agenda Item 8AAGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM it 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Community Development Board decision to allow construction of a fence exceeding four (4) feet in height with ten (10) feet of a property line at 298 Pine Street. SUBMITTED BY: Michael Griffin, CBO, CFM Building and Zoning Director DATE: August 15, 2013 STRATEGIC PLAN LINK: No Link BACKGROUND: This is a request submitted by Karen and Frank Bernstein for the appeal of a Community Development Board made July 16, 2013 denying a variance for a fence to be located closer than ten (10) feet to the side property line which abuts a public right -of -way at 298 Pine Street. Attached is a copies of the following related to the fence permit file: a. Fence permit issued March 3, 2013 b. Building permit application dated February 11, 2013 c. Site plan showing location of proposed fence d. Application Review and tracking forms from Donna Kaluzniak, Rick Carper and Erika Hall e. Plan review and corrections report from Erika Hall dated February 19,2013. Also attached you will find a draft copy of the July 16, 2012 Community Development Board minutes which includes the variance discussion and denial. A copy of the appeal application dated August 14, 2012 received from Rumrell, Bate, Mcleod and Brock, P.A. is also included. BUDGET: No budget impact RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Staff recommends upholding the Community Development Board decision not to allow a six (6) foot high fence to be placed within 10 feet of a side yard property line which abuts a public right -of -way. Copies of fence permit file, draft July 16, 2013 Community Development Board minutes, application for appeal submitted by Rumrell, Bate, Mcleod and Brock, P.A. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AGENDA ITEM 11 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.8. CASE NO ZVAR -13- 00100063 Request for variance from the provisions of Section 24- 157(c)(1), to allow the construction of a fence exceeding four (4) feet in height within ten (10) feet of a property line which abuts a right-of-way that is fifty (50) feet or less in width. Specifically, the applicant seeks to construct a six (G) foot high fence on the property line abutting Seaspray Avenue, which is a fifty (50) foot wide right -of -way. LOCATION 298 PINE STREET APPLICANT (KAREN & FRANK BERNSTEIN DATE JULY 16, 2013 STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER STAFF COMMENTS Background On February 19, 2013, Pence Property Maintenance acting on behalf of the property owners Karen and Frank Bernstein, applied for a building permit to construct a fence on the subject property. According to the building permit application, the work to be performed was "putting in a fence on side of house" and the attached site plan [sketched on a copy of a survey dated 12- 3- 20121 showed the proposed location as the northern property line and the street side yard adjacent to Seaspray Avenue. The application review and tracking form, prepared by building Department staff at intake, described the project as a "6 -ft fence replacement ". The application was then routed to Planning & Zoning, Public Works and Public Utilities for review. Planning and Zoning staff denied the application on first review, based upon the proposed location of a six (6) foot high fence on the property line of a street side yard adjacent to a right -of -way measuring fifty [50] feet or less in width, which is in conflict with Section 24- 157(c)(1) of the land development regulations. Staff cited this provision and gave instructions as to how to revise the plans so the fence would be in compliance. The Planning & Zoning "correction report" was forwarded to the applicant, who then contacted property owner Karen Bernstein. Ms. Bernstein then came to City Hall and met with staff, who explained the fence provisions to her and reiterated that either the fence could be constructed at the proposed location at a height no greater than four (4) feet, or if the fence height were to exceed four (4) feet, it would have to be stepped in ten (10) feet from the northern (Seaspray Avenue) property line. Staff cautioned Ms. Bernstein if the fence was constructed in a manner (height or location) not in compliance with the Municipal Code, there would likely be Code Enforcement action taken. Feeling that Ms. Bernstein had a clear understanding of the regulations, and that the fence would be constructed on the property line at a height not to exceed four (4) feet, staff approved the building permit application that same day, February 19th, Public Works approved the application on February 22nd Public Utilities on February 25th, and the permit was issued by the Building Department on March 5ri,, AGENDA ITEM ii 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 In mid -May, the Code Enforcement department began receiving complaints regarding a new six (6) foot high vinyl fence that had been constructed directly abutting the sidewalk running along the southern side of Seaspray Avenue and the northern property line of the subject property, The property owners were notified that their fence was not in compliance with the land development regulations. However, they disagree, stating that they were issued a valid building permit to construct the fence and now seek this variance to remedy the situation. $eayinfy Awoue,,041101 / Ruch. Flonda, holed Slates :.J1..,an Nlh•Mdc Figure 1. 298 Pine Street prior to installation of fence. Google Maps Street View imagery dated March 2011, accessed online June 25, 2013. Figure 2. 298 Pine Street, view from northeast corner. Staff photo taken on June 25, 2013. Figure 3, 298 Pine Street, view from northwest corner. Staff photo taken on June 25, 2013. Page 2 of 5 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 Analysis Section 24- 64(b)(1) provides that "[a]pplications for a variance shall be considered on a case -by -case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section." According to Section 24 -17, Definitions, "[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24 -64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach." Section 24 -64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. In the applicants' narrative "large volume of sidewalk use by school children going to and from school, side yard presents a dangerous condition for children" is listed as an exceptional topographic condition. Staff asserts that proximity of property line to side walk does not constitute an exceptional topographic condition, which is instead an issue of highly variable elevations over a lot. The subject property is relatively flat, with very little topographic variability, thus this particular ground for approval of a variance is not applicable. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. The applicants' previous assertion regarding the large volume of sidewalk use by school children could possibly be considered as a circumstance impacting this and other properties directly abutting Seaspray Avenue. However, staff believes that knowledge of the school location and investigation of the impact of sidewalk traffic is a matter of due diligence, a burden to be borne by the property buyer, prior to purchase. Staff does not consider this condition to be valid grounds for approval of this variance. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The subject property is currently used as a single - family residence, consistent with other lots platted according to Section No. 3 of the Saltair subdivision, and consistent with the permitted uses provided within Section 24 -106, Residential Single - Family (RS -2) districts. Neither presence nor absence of a fence, nor height nor location of a fence impacts the use of this property as a single - family residence or dwelling unit, which is defined in Section 24 -17 as "a single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one (1) family as defined herein, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation ". Therefore, this condition is not valid grounds for approval of this variance request. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. The current fence regulation as stated above has been in effect since the adoption of Ordinance No. 90 -03 -184 on November 23, 2003. Prior to that date, the setback requirements for a six (6) foot high fence on a street side yard was more restrictive, being fifteen (15) feet, according to previous land development regulations adopted by Ordinance No. 90 -01- 172 on November 26, 2001. Therefore, the current regulations were clearly in effect at the time of application for building permit and construction of the fence on the subject property. As noted above, staff reviewed the application for the fence permit, denied the request and provided the applicant with correction options. Further, staff met with the property owner and reviewed the correction options based upon current regulations. Therefore, there was no regulation enacted after the construction of improvements upon the property. In fact, the applicant acted in direct opposition to the direction of staff, having been advised both verbally and in writing, and constructed a fence in conflict with current regulations. Therefore, this condition is not valid grounds for approval of this variance request. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. The subject property is not of an irregular shape; rather it has a rectangular shape, consistent with other lots platted according to Section Page 3 of 5 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 No. 3 of the Saltair subdivision, as well as much of the City of Atlantic Beach. Therefore, this ground for approval is not applicable. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. The subject property is not of a substandard size; rather it measures fifty (50) feet in width and one hundred (100) feet in depth, which is consistent with other lots platted according to Section No. 3 of the Saltair subdivision, as well as many platted lots within the City of Atlantic Beach, as this was previously the minimum lot standard for the City. Therefore, this ground for approval is not applicable. Section 24 -64(c) provides specific conditions for denial of a variance, and clearly states: "Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner." The applicants purchased a large -breed dog knowing their space limitations, knowing the proximity of their property to both the right -of -way (street and sidewalk) and the Atlantic Beach Elementary School, knowing the high volume of pedestrians on said right -of -way to and from the school, and having been advised of the permissible fence parameters by staff. REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR -13- 00100063, request for variance from the provisions of Section 24- 157(c)(1), to allow the construction of a fence exceeding four (4) feet in height within ten (10) feet of a property line which abuts a right -of -way that is fifty (50) feet or less in width, upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 -64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24 -64(d) and as described above. The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny ZVAR -13- 00100063, request for variance from the provisions of Section 24- 157(c)(1), to allow the construction of a fence exceeding four (4) feet in height within ten (10) feet of a property line which abuts a right -of -way that is fifty (50) feet or less in width, upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24- 64(d), or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24- 64(c), described below. No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the following: (1) Light and air to adjacent properties. (2) Congestion of streets. (3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety. (4) Established property values. (5) The aesthetic environment of the community. (6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources. (7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community. Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner. Page 4 of 5 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 ATTACHMENTS ■ Exhibit 1: BP -13- 00002165, Fence Permit File o (a) Fence Permit, issued 03.05.13 o (b) Building Permit Application, dated 02.11.13 o (c) Site Plan showing location of proposed fence o (d) Application and Review Tracking Form - Kaluzniak, approved 02.25.1 o (e) Application Review and Tracking Form - Carper, approved 02.22.13 o (W Application Review and Tracking Form - Hall, approved 02.19.13 • Exhibit 2: Plan Review Corrections Report - Planning & Zoning, issued 02.19.13 Page 5 of 5 DATE: 2/19/13 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTIONS REPORT CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH 800 SEMINOLE ROAD ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233 AGENDA ITEM II 8A SEpTEM13ER 9, 2013 EXHIBIT 2 APPLICATION NBR ADDRESS APPLICATION DATE APPLICATION TYPE . . 13- 00002165 298 PINE ST 2/19/13 FENCE PERMIT OWNER CONTRACTOR BERNSTEIN 298 PINE STREET ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233 PENCE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 12376 RUNNING RIVER RD S JACKSONVILLE FL 32225 AGENCY NAME: PLANNING & ZONING DATE ACTION ACTION BY 2/19/13 DISSAPPROVED - 1ST REVIEW ERIKA HALL PER SECTION 24 -157 (c) (1) : For corner lots located on rights -of -way that are fifty (50) feet or less in width, no fence, wall or landscaping exceeding four (4) feet in height, shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any lot line which abuts the street. Seaspray Avenue is a fifty (50) foot wide right -of -way; therefore, Section 24-- 157(c)(1) applies. Either a four (4) foot high fence may be placed directly on the property line - the location indicated on the submitted site plan; OR, a six (6) foot high fence, as proposed on the application, may be placed ten (10) feet from the property line. Please either revise the application, changing the height of the fence to four (4) feet; OR, revise the site plan so that the location of the proposed six (6) foot high fence is ten (10) feet from the property line. EXHIBIT 1(a) CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH AGENDA ITEM i 8A 800 SEMINOLE ROAD SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247 -5814 Application Number Property Address Application type description Property Zoning Application valuation . 13- 00002165 298 PINE ST FENCE PERMIT TO BE UPDATED 0 Date 3/05/13 Application deac 6 FT FENCE Owner BERNSTEIN 298 PINE STREET ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233 Contractor PENCE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 12376 RUNNING RIVER RD S JACKSONVILLE FL 32225 (904) 535 -3362 Permit FENCE PERMIT Additional desc . Permit Fee . . . 35.00 Plan Check Fee . Issue Date . . . Valuation . . . . Expiration Date . . 9/01/13 .00 0 Special Notes and Comments Roll off container company must be on City approved list and container cannot be placed on City Right -of -Way. (Approved: Advanced Disposal, Realco, Sbappelle's and Waste Management.) Fee summary Charged Permit Fee Total 35.00 Plan Check Total .00 Grand Total 35.00 Paid Credited 35.00 .00 .00 .00 35.00 .00 Due .00 .00 .00 PERNI11 Iti ,AI'I'UOVI:I1 (IMIA' Iti ACCORDANCE MED ALI. CITY OF A'ILANTIii.' REA(11 0IkIfINAM1C'HS AND 'FILE FLORIDA I4I111,13L }G tuns, Job Address: i BUILDING PERMIT APPI.ICATION CITY OP ATLANTIC REACH $00 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beath, FL 32233 (Rice (904) 247 -5826 Fax (904) 247 -5845 i . 71 - -i Legal Description I r' �� , Floor Area of Sq.Et. Valuation of Work S = Proposed Work heated /cooled EXHIBIT 1(b) AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2413 Permit Number: Parcel # Sq.Ft non - heated /cooled Class of Work (circle one): r `' new' ' Addition Alteration Repair Move Demolition pool /spa window /door Use of existing/proposed strueture(s) (circle one): Commercial i Residential If an existing structure, is a fire sprinkler system installed? (Circle one): Yes No N lA Florida Product Approval id For multiple products use product approval Form Describe in detail the type of work to be performed: Pro wner In orniaLian: Name: 1 ri.' i•. I, i �° I +`,7 t= i 1 Address: City t! , 1 r r ', t State i?-Zip 's•: Phone E-Mail or Fax 4 (Optional) Contractor Information: polo CompanyNanie: f ,;'' `- :r'= + c� . r V) , r. c r...,r > , Qualifying Agent: Address: I. , J.. r t, Li f4l ' City I - . Office Phone _I_. e. -, s t! . s Job Site/ Contact Number State Cenificalion/Regislralion 4 Architect Name & Phone # _ Engineer's Name & Phone IT Fee Simple Title Holder Name and Address Bonding Company Name acid Address Mortgage Lender Name and Address 4pplietnlen is hereby made to obtain a permit to o the work and installations as indicated. 1 certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance ofo permit and thol all work will be par formed to meet the standards grail laws regulating corrstn+cllon in this cjurisdiction. This permit becomes nail wa k it commenced lundetstand:hat separate permmits or mist he secured for work lectrical 'York Ilumbl g, Sgs s, Kill, P000ls Furnaces, allrry$, time lleniers, Tanks andddr Conditioners, cic. WARNING TO OWNER; YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF CO(ENCEMENT. I hereby certify that 1 have read and examined this Neutron and brow the same to be true and correct. All provisions of lows and ordinances severing tins type of ork will be complied with whether specified herein or trod. Tile granting of a permit does not presume 10 grrr ourhtuity 10 violate or creneei the provisions of any other federal, stole, or local 1171P regulating coatlruelian or the performance of construction. _ t it State i L Zip Fax # Signature of Owner K LL) (31 Signature of Contractor t 1 Print Name ..mow., �W.,JII•1. tai.!!,,. �.......... �. ,.,,...�.— F�'_�...�;:.'P.:?.�.. Print Name kai(2t1.... i.(k. iiefo this Notary Public , 20 LIETJSEAA M T tIYC1XJ,11I55i64 1 EE /161935 EXPtflEB:Jowl, 1,2317 6sr4 11MM wiry Pubic u dmtiren Revised 10.24.12 EXHIBIT 1(c) MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 514, SECTION 3 SALTAIR, AS RECORDED IN PLAT DOCK 10. PAGE IG, 'ME CURRENT PUBIl' REGaTDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, rLONIfA G TIFIED T0: FRANK ULNNSI IN & KAREN BERNSTEIN BANK GE ENGLAND 4Jl V. ENG LENDING ROME VEDRA intr. LLC /HAIIEIAWAY & REYNCLBS, PA CLD R[PUBLIG ITA11CdTAL `E11LE INSURAr1G£ CDEJPANY Lot 503 ,1fy el Atlantic Beach Plennl g end Zoning Deparlirt� 1s ap ThIS Reprove' arlfles compliance w t hot pli Hold toning, Rub 'vision and other development r gulAtib , doesnonule approval tar l _e o tatemPNa loth Florida B d d applicable loch, ie d Ferat perrntttn4 requirements must he Vefift. d by algnpi0r to the the MInnTIG Beach Bulldir 1 CSiliciat p Building Per it. Approved E ete: 1011 592 500.001" (PLAT) , 11 2Y2710' L 60.00` (e1EASU15) 91 LW 514 C F 1/� LEGEND: O - sur' dsr"J 0x 1C 00x01a*M:a':a 60▪ :1x0 oA WM) 00c 11OL s0, ea 03.•Itt IePAxIOO, Pit - wwap`r (10"01° Ak N cen4v111 - 1:00MLS MN.ti■um MN sum AB' ■•• NW /WPM ■I II■ . tl�IIi 1■ Roy Thompson SURVEYING, r„. [Gov Tfau CNNTANGE for 'r'u0i 40i3 PttTSr01 Y,JI,>.sr. 9010 710 Jo.0444 J, 4 .41,14 322GT 11901001 (x+1446,6125 EFuul (.94 -446-51/8 21D4R 5 23'08'45 W 90.17' (MEASURED) 54.48' tPtAT} PJNE :,Tl EET cTtl IOOII 00 h,Yl .AU 00 in RE41tIONS TC '(501110 PONTE VEDR TITLE, L.L.C. DATE CF FI LD Sa7R'iEY: 12 -3 -2412. C£RTTCCATF 00 (01 0101r1 !xn 1 N1u4�'''" NOTES.' MAArret eat rrnr n ex n' riti t . ROME, Or - .y,.e-02124'. . r 1TP00 n00 loumnarifis Ppro0nx0.4 04 'Malt 0.40[4 A 'T IA 0,14C Rg1111 OILY an CA400(10 LAMS LIT 01WN ISM 000 on wood Pt M[ o 00000 011PG W0L1ROI�L . 4M', V4R@ *fa 17. I40 s, MAMMY 1+JUmflh MOTS PAM 0(00 ▪ hos 7' t0T nR[ 4 tw s1tNJIr1F 9AM1ZIlQ V4L04 0010000(0 4 h014 Om PU 5440%, 0! 11010000000 0005 001000 010000010 "e 011 l tutracaa 4 0w f0n 1401 00(moonlit 0001sAN 00JI1(if1'IG07[b (0(01 000 pUulUxL SCALE: 1 6'41404 py010001004; T:,*P,DI 11400.4 r,.a,o.A I'LAA 51010010 LAND SURVEYS O WIJSTRUCfON N105TL1{e 5UR 140 5TA0L 00 11011011 80 SURVEYS, O � SUBDIVISIONS AGI'.NDA I I•I'M Il 8A sI :I TEMPGR 9, 2013 RECEIVED City of Atlantic Beach FEB 19 2013 Building Department 800 Seminole Road fir. Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-M Phone (904) 247 -5826 • Fax (904) 247-5845 E-mail: building- depl ©coab.us City web -site' hllp:!/w4w,r.coab-us EXHIBIT 1(d) APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by the Building Department.) /3- / i.0 Date routed: 2 9 /3 APPLICATION REVIEW AND TRACKING FORM Property Address: ST Applicant: T erie rt r1( Project: Review fee $ Department review required Yes No Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection Florida Dept. of Transportation _two P ing $. Zonin St, johns River Water Management District Tree minlslrator Army Corps of Engineers u+ is or-S---, Division of Hotels and Restaurants :Z!! is UtiJil -- Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Public Safety Other: _ Fire Services Dept Signature Other Agency Review or Permit Required Review or Receipt of Permit Verified By Date Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection Florida Dept. of Transportation St, johns River Water Management District Army Corps of Engineers Division of Hotels and Restaurants Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Other: _ ti APPLICATION STATUS Reviewing Department (Circle one.) BUILDING PLANNING & ZONING TREE ADMIN. First Review: Approved. Comments; ]Denied Reviewed by: Date: P'75":- Second Review: DAppraved as revised, ❑Denied. Comments: U LIC UTILITI ,t_ / P RUC SAFET FIRE SERVICES Reviewed by: Date: Third Rouiew: DAppraved as revised. ❑Denied. Comnlunts: Reviewed by Date: Revkad07l27110 Date: City of Atlantic Beach Building Department 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 -5445 Phone (904) 247 -5926 • Fax (904) E- rnall: building- dept(coab.us City web -site: http://www.coalius REcFT FED Fpp l ,r i3 -5895 EXHIBIT 1(e) APPLICATION NUMBER To be assigned by the Building Department.) /3 /4-C Date routed: 2 9 '3 APPLICATION REVIEW AND TRACKING FORM Property Address: ! 8 / ilL JT Applicant: r ll ei- irO t r 1-y Project: dr,: rc ill De • artment review re . aired Yes No B ldlin -i Planning & Zonin. ree Administrator St. Johns River Water Management District ' ublic VThil , Army Corps of Engineers •tic- Utititf -- -- Public Safet Fire Services Dept Signature % - Other Agency Review or Permit Required Review or Receipt Permit of Per It Verified By Date Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection Florida Dept. of Transportation St. Johns River Water Management District Army Corps of Engineers Division of Hotels and Restaurants Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Other: Reviewing Department (Circle one.) BUILDING PLANNING & ZONING TREE ADMIN. PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC UTILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE SERVICES Rovised 07/27/10 APPLICATION STATUS First Review: IApproved. ❑Denied. Comments: / p_ J ,I�� Reviewed by: Date: r Second Review: ['Approved as revised. ['Daniel Comments: Reviewed by: Third Review: ['Approved as revised. ❑Denied. Comments: Reviewed by; Date: City of Atlantic Beach Building Department 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233.5445 Phone (904) 247.5826 Fax (904) 247.5845 E -mail: building - dept @coab.us Clly web -site' hltp llwww.coab.us EXHIBIT 1(f) APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by the Building Department.) /3.2/G,S� Date routed: 1 % /J+3 APPLICATION REVIEW AND TRACKING FORM 9f ?' rti !Property Address: � �� Applicant: TincrPrr riy �'1/�t:+rl ". Project: !) ir of y Department review required Yes No Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection _ Planning� & Zanin Tre`dministrator ublic VkicIfkr> lr Public Safely Fire Services Review fee $ Dept Signature Other Agency Review or Permit Required Review or Receipt of Permit Verified By Dale Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection _ Florida Dept. of Transportation St...lohns River Water Management District Army Corps of Engineers Division of Hotels and Restaurants Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Other: Reviewing Department (Circle one.) - BUILDING --_ PLANNING & ZONI REt ADMIN. PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC UTILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE SERVICES Rovleed 07/27110 APPLICATION STATUS First Review: Comments: Approved. -Hied. Reviewed by: Date: 03/4 9/2.66 Second Review: DApproved as revised. ['Denied. Comments: Reviewed by: Date: Third Review: LApproved as revised. ]Denied. Comments: Reviewed by. Date: APPLICATIION FOR A VARIANCE City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road • Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 -5445 Phone: (904) 247.5800 • FAX (904) 247 -5845 • lattp : /lwww.conh,us Date . I YaP. 5 Z01.3 L Applicant's Name Vam-ey-) -Eern6Aetn File No. ZZVAL1,1,3_Ly)irtioc.16,3 2. Applicant's Address ' ��tr s 1 L , 3. Property Location 2" Q) f t t<'.r tit Ai' •ie., i' 0 1, L. 51238 t4'(kav' C.3 L- 5'iq 4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Nanber / -000o AILS 5. Current Zoning Classification / S " 2 6. Comprehensive Plan /Future Land Use deslgntation 7. Provision from which Variance is requested Sin of Panel Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction. EIYcs ►:'tNo (If yes, this must be submitted with any application for a Building Permit.) 10, Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Variance, which demonstrates a inpllai►ee With Scetiotl 24 -64 of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, as copy of Well is attached to this application. Statement and site _Dian must clearly describe anti depict the Variance Dint is re( nested. 11. Provide an of the following information: a. Proof of ownership (deed or eertificnte by lawyer or abstract company or title company that verifies record owner as above). if the applicant is not the owner, a letter of authorization from the owner(s) for applicant to represent the owner foi' all purposes related to this application must be provided. b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought. e. Required number of copies: Four (4), except where original ulnas, photographs or documents WWI' I t of any .S ela documents, d. Application Fee (5250.00) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS CORRECT: Signature of owner(s) or authorized person if owner's authorization form is attached: Printed or typed name(s): ' 'y-CLI . Bey e Y1 le-QA c Zen-14e WA Signature(s): ADDRESS AND CON'T'ACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS ,iPPLICATION Name: L. Mailing Address: _ a><1t.- tt RNA PL 2. _ Phone: 1 24-6 6'4(u1 FAX: I:- anti: 4berila 1( t ?C -ot.cL rr-a Section 24 -17, I ?efinition of n Variance. nce. :1//v I.= -c )r.cc't:1& A Variance shall mean relief' granted from certain terms of this Chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly wallowed b. this Chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24 -64 of this Chapter. and such relief may be subject to conditions as wet forth by the City of Atlantic Beach. See. 24 -64, Variances, A Variance tnay be sought in accordance with this Chapter. Applications for a Variance may be obtained from the Community Development Depaartment. A Variance shall not reduce minimunl l.ot Area, minimum Lot Width or Depth; and shall not increase maximum 1 -IciL ht of Building or Impervious Surface Arca as established for the various Zoning Districts, Portlier, a Variance shall not modify the Permitted Uses or tiny Use terms ofa properly. (a) Application. A request for it Variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall contain each of the following. 111a complete legal description of the properly for which the Variance is requested. (2) a reasonable statement describing the reasons for the Variance. (3) a survey or Lot diagram indicating setbacks: existing and proposed construction, as well as other significant features existing on the Lot. (4) the signature of the owner, or the signature attic owner's authorized agent. Wrillen authorization by the Owner for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall be provided with the application. (bt Public Hearing, Upon receipt of a complete mid proper application, the Community Development Director shall within a reasonable period of time schedule 111E application for it public hearing before the Community Development Board following rewired public notice. Al the public hearing, the applicant may appear in person or may be represented by an authorized agent. (c) Grounds for denial of a Variance. No Variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting unite requested Variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or rlMON'[.' u(the fotlnwirig. ( I ) Tight and air to adjacent properties. (2) congestion of Streets. (3 1 public safety', including risk of lire. flood. crime or either threats to public safety. (4) established proper() values. (5) the aesthetic environment of the continunity. (6) the natural environment of the community. including Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Wildlife habitat, Protected Trees, or other significant environmental resources. (7) the general health, welfare or beatify oftlie community. Variances shall not be grained solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situations created by the properly owner. 1,?› C)(:)1e(1)6-4 The folloryine re r rph sets forth ,Reasons for Which a Variance may he approved. Please check the circumstances that tjapty to your request and briefly describe in the space provided. (d) Grounds for approval ofa Variance. A Via•iance may be granted. at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the following nelsons. { I) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. Pr I I A `iol urn k- ❑ (2) stirrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately Imam nearby properties, ❑ (3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use or the property as compared to other properties in the area. E r'1) onerous effect of regulations enacted ruler platting or nflcr development of the property or after' consti'ttclion 01' improvements upon the pro erty. - 1_,L4. _ t �iti i�Pc ❑ (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. ❑ (l+) substandard size of a Lot or Record warranting a Variance in order to provide for the reasonable Use of the property, (e) Approval of a Variance. To approve an application for n Variance. the Community Development Board shall rind that the regoesl is in accordance ‘vtth the preceding terms and provisions of this Section and that the granting of the Variance will be in harmony with the Purpose and intent of this Chapter, (f) Approval of Lesser Variances. The Community Development Board shall have die authority to approve a lesser Variance than requested il'a lesser Variance stroll be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the Purpose and lntenr of this Chapter. (g) Nearby Nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures cfr C3uildings shall not be grounds for approval ot'a Variance. (hi Waiting period for re.subinit(nl. if an application for a Variance is deified by the Community Development f3oat'd, no further action on another application for substantially Elie same request on the Sadie property shall he accepted for 365 days from the date or denial, ( i) Time period ui implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board, the work to be perforated pursuant to a Variance shall begin within six (6) months from the date of approval of the Variance The Community Development Director. upon finding of good cause. may authorize a one time extension not to exceed an additional six (6) niotttlis, beyond winch time the Vnr'intiCC shall become null and void. (j) A Variance. which involves the Development of Limd, shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the Property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board. Additional comments: Ifl rl oiur horut,r in. c7Prpmlcltx, t z , +71-11€.6 1, 7 t �� -'\b tr w �jo/ � +r4. 144,+- r YIJ -ir On 1 Y'N.�• i. l r b1.1, [ `i 144er v ) rLLi 11 L n pk n ,A r i r7 pTAn-iev - - V rL Y\ a_\01-1,3 &at r If y - �,, 1 , . 6 e { 1[ _ , t� 1 �(i `51 L ! i r L3 r'i 4 -te. �, "1 D y� v E -i1lY? C.I. P . (11 � 0- e 117-' . ui �t.,'� Y ef' y Y tier . 14S it -P.d, . A 9[ cmtk v [ O ,20L3 OxY Gi 1 mt Ie. u�,^fs� � �!1 i try^ �#b�a`� �l� - a rti 1 ` 1- ,UDC ' e,_ leilot LYeec f VIOL 0111 ‘.14164--4r `�'1L La c c i .Ales.r \ slrir k w t ((1 c [1r,.oriq LL-sytt-0. + more- Vrokbeb L k _Is) c-k k - _ Ltion, `Eke i s try ri.ari A Pre arced b and return to: Debbie Thompson Ponte Vedra Title, LLC 50 A1A North, Suite 108 Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 File Number: PV'I'12922 (Space Above This Line For Recording Data) Warranty Deed AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 20I3 This Warranty Deed made this 10th day of December, 2012, between Kelly M. McCaw, an unmarried woman whose post office address is 1657 Fenton Avenue, St Johns, FL 32259, grantor, and Frank Bernstein and Karen Bernstein, husband and wife whose post office address is 298 Pine Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, grantee: (Whenever used herein the terms "grantor" and "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations, trusts and tnlstccs) Witnesseth, that said grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO /100 DOLLARS ($10,00) and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Duval County, Florida, to -wit: Lot 514, SECTION No. 3 SALTAIR, a subdivision according to the plat thereof recorded at Plat Book 10, Page 16, in the Current Public Records of Duval County, Florida, Parcel Identification Number; 1705490000 Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining, To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever, SUBJECT TO covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements of record and taxes for the current year, And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and Lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except as specified herein, Warranty Deed - Page 1 Z\/At. : -f_X 1 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: fitness 1 Signature Ruth K, Witness t Printed Name cDonald 1 ss 2 Signature Witness 2 Printed Name State of Rotedit County of i441' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Kelly M. McCaw, an unmarried woman, she (_) is personally known to me or A:tfi! � t ' %TER'S LICFNSFion. Ali,"errr, Illttit V.. 1\gc Q lO l ... .... f6NMisst�i! # t 199379 y,�,, .. yiMIRES: Mkt 27, 2016 o'r C ��` ViVIW.M808NOIMAY.sam rr +ma`s Warranty Deer! • rage 2 20, by otary Public Printed Nanie: Ruth K. McDonald My Commission Expires: -Z✓44k l aP cci 63 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 MAP SHOWING LOT 514, SECTION PAGE 16, OF THE FRANK BANK PONTE VEDRA OLD REPUBUC LOT 503 BOUNDARY SURVEY 3 SALTAIR, AS RECORDED IN PLAT CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, BERNSTEIN &EDKAR N BERNSTEIN OF ENGLAND d //b /o ENG LENDING TITLE, LLC /HATHAWAY & REYNOLDS, NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY LOT 502 50.00' (PLAT) / • I N23'27108E .--' 50.00' (MEASURE)) 0.Y OF BOOK 10, FLORIDA. PA fsfP 6 00°1,� yV offP Oa o. 9' QW e•-• • LOT515 r5 OH' . LOT 514 .1 � :411 10!nit, 1. I'I'I'I'I'A I'I'I'I'I'i r y , 6 :.. Di' , 5. °w Ma Lu IX Q � D CO In b ° CD }: cr 0:$ Lo- IJ a W / 4;,p 11,tt. • A.Y t� 1 I'i'i �6. f. 16 36.9 .: II 1.IIIIIIIIId,,,,A r n Mao IY4 � vein n. _ 9S6' 1 I FIIIIIIII nil I'I'IA-,S� /II 3 O O n Z (It ro in n In O n (n 19.9' S 23'08'45" W BI 50.17 (MEASURED) 50.00' (PLAT) PINE STREET (SD' MAW a NAY) LEGEND: sT S PC - FONT 6 aarvA,us o '015/2VS i • - INN th, IRw PPE PT - POW Of TAN:DAT MTESS ...WE NUM KB - PON1 T t✓ftt� C L • a 1" 1' N.'NfIE MN/MDR FCC - PONT ON! U CC.POHW /C ■ CCNO95NDt O CWWAIUE —X— � FEALC = MNGSEtE Er, An INI- ...`\a V-, `ll►1l• • �, I IL U F -11111•11 ,1;i( iM Ray Thompson SURVEYING, in°. - PONTE VEDR TITLE, L L C REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPDON !Going the DISTANCE for YOU! 4613 Ph81ps Highway. Suite 210 Jacksonviie. Florida 92207 (Phone)904 -098 -5125 (Pao) 904 -44 &5178 JOB # 21849 1 DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: 12 -3 -2012 1 SCALE: 1` = 20' NOTES: 1: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON 111E A6SL•E0 B(ARWG OF -- 11- EL0QQ_x'__ ALONG 159: SOWINuE51ET&T 6.1W0ARY LANE a SUBJECT PARCEL 2- BY CNAPHI0 PLOTTING CNLY THE CAPTIONED LARDS LE 40100 R00 ZONE X A ' AS SHOWN ON THE NATIONAL ROOD INSURANCE CERTIFICATE H HEREBY COMFY THAT -- �'.s' i5 a' MY RE,ONSat0 CHARGE AND BEETS THE uvoNW • <-51 5TH' ��� .•5(1 F0RTN 01 1110 TL00UA 0A4O W 005402 T"�AW3', TEOOASdi4 NAPA '. CRAP'. 61517 -6, FLC AA AMYNSFRA'I.1j•. ANT TO SECTION • i! SBgA STATUTES ■`■ ``# NAP, 0 DATED: wax 17. 1989. 852 10 RY NUMBER 15075 PANEL Maid_ . s TAUS SURVEY REFLECTS ALL EAR -10.M 4 R1015 U WAY AS PER RECORDED PLAT le/OR TITLE CCPUE11 E11T F SUPPLIED, UNLESS 15(1 01 5 STATED. NO UGHER TOLE VERFlCAIDN HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY THE UNDERS2000 4: 110S SURVEY 5 NOT VALID 1.1D1OUT AN AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONC SIGNATURE AND AUTHENRCAIED ELECTRONIC SEAL 56 ,'AYMI6•0016 P RES5IERED SUR `" VD LIAM :. 6146 STATE DR FLORY. • 7469 LAND SURVEYS 0 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS 0 SUBDIVISIONS AGENDA ITEM i! hA SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 Drr f! d4ime es of the July 16, 2013 regular. meeting of-the Community i w::ity Development Board MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD July 16, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER - 6:OSPM. Vice Chair Kirk Hansen verified the presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton and Sylvia Simmons. The meeting was called to order at 6:OSpm. Also present were Navy Liaison and Ex- Officio Board member Matt Schellhorn, Principal Planner Erika Hall, and Building and Zoning Director Michael Griffin. Board member Brea Paul was absent. 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES - DUNE 18, 2013. Mr. Hansen called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting. Mr. Burgess moved that minutes be approved as written. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 6 -0. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None, 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. REZ-13-00100057, 1600 Selva Marina Drive (Atlantic Beach Partners LLC) Public Hearing - Request to amend the Atlantic Beach Country Club Special Planned Area (Ordinance No. 90 -13 -2161 to increase the total number of residential dwelling units permitted from one hundred eighty (180) to two hundred (200), with a maximum of twenty -six allocated to kinds within the City of Atlantic Beach. Up to one hundred seventy-four (174) residential dwelling units are proposed on adjacent lands located within the City of Jacksonville. A parallel PUD Amendment requesting approval of the same master site development plan has been filed with the City of Jacksonville. Staff Report Ms. Hall reported that Ordinance No. 90 -13 -216 adopting the Atlantic Beach Country Club Special Planned Area (ABCC SPA) had been approved by the City Commission at their last meeting on July 8, 2013. As approved, a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) residential dwelling units are permitted, though only one hundred sixty -nine (169) lots were shown on the accompanying Master Site Development Plan (MSDP). Of those, all but one lot were completely located within the City of Jacksonville. The current application is an amendment to the approved ABCC SPA, to increase the maximum number of dwelling units to two hundred (200). The additional twenty (20) dwelling units, along with another six (6) not shown on the original MSDP, are proposed to be Page 1 of 10 Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Applicant Comment Public Comment Board Discussion AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 located within the City of Atlantic Beach. The remaining one hundred seventy -four (174) will be located within the City of Jacksonville. T R Hainline, Rogers Towers, PA, authorized agent for the applicant, explained that the additional twenty (20) units were being sought by the Country Club to offer to the developer as collateral to secure financing for the renovation of the Club facilities. He reminded the Board that even with twenty -six (26) units located within the Atlantic Beach portion of the project this development would be considerably less intensive than what had been approved previously as the Selva Marina Residential Planned Unit Development. He noted that the applicant had met all procedural requirements, including submittal of a revised narrative, conceptual site plan and updated traffic study. Dave Estes (1275 Linkside Drive) stated that he had sent an email to members of the City Commission as well as this Board with recommendations for language he wished to see included in either the SPA narrative or the adopting ordinance. He said he had received positive response in support of this language, with one Commissioner saying that it was "good neighbor, common sense ": 1 "The Club shall maintain their backyard (areas that members do not usually see, but neighbors on the perimeter of the club do see) by mowing /trimming grass and weeds, including the banks of ponds /waterways, and not piling up or dumping landscaping debris." "The Club shall take into consideration how their actions will affect the neighbor's view of the golf course when planning landscaping, hedges, nets, fences, etc." Mr. Estes also asked for clarification regarding the additional units being sought with the current amendment. He asked if these units were built, was there anything in the plan binding them to the location shown on the submitted site plan. Mr. Hansen disclosed that he is a member of the Selva Marina Country Club Board, and that he is a participant in the LLC providing bridge financing to the Club. However, he has no personal financial interest that would be affected by action of this Board. Therefore, he declared he had no conflict of interest and stated he would not recuse himself from debate and vote on the Page 2 of 10 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board matter. Mr. Elmore disclosed that he is the landscape architect of record for this project, and having a financial interest, he stated he would recuse himself from debate and vote on this matter. However, he said he would answer any questions the Board might have. In response to Mr. Estes' inquiry, Mr. Elmore said the average cost of each golf course hole is between $50,000 and $100,000. Once the golf course design has been set, it severely limits the areas where houses can be constructed, so it is highly unlikely that, if constructed, these additional units would be located anywhere other than as depicted on the MSDP. Mr. Hainline added that any changes to the Master Site Development Plan would necessitate an amendment that would require review by this Board and approval by the City Commission. Motion Mr. Parkes moved that the Community Development Board recommend approval of the Atlantic Beach Country Club Special Planned Area Amendment (Application REZ -13- 00100057) to the City Commission, being an amendment to a previously approved Special Planned Area (SPA) described within said application, approving the Master Site Development Plan and adopting the application and supporting documents, and all terms and conditions set forth therein, subject to conditions enumerated, and provided the following findings of fact: (1) The request for amendment has been fully considered after public hearing with legal notice duly published as required by law; (2) The proposed amendment to the approved Special Planned Area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Designation of Residential, Low Density; (3) The proposed amendment to the approved Special Planned Area is consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically Division 6, establishing standards for Special Planned Areas and Section 24 -124, establishing procedures for modifications to previously approved Special Planned Areas and Master Site Development Plans; (4) The proposed amendment, including the Master Site Development Plan, is consistent with the stated definition, intent and purpose of Special Planned Areas; (5) The zoning district classification of Special Planned Area, and the specific uses and special conditions as set forth herein, are consistent and compatible with surrounding development. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 5 -0, with Mr. Elmore abstaining due to his previously stated conflict of interest. Page 3 of 10 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board B. ZVAR -13- 00100063, 298 Pine Street (Bernstein) Public Hearing - Request for variance from the provisions of Section 24- 157(c)(1), to allow the construction of a fence exceeding four (4) feet in height within ten (10) feet of a property line which abuts a right -of -way that is fifty (50) feet or less in width. Specifically, the applicant seeks to construct a six (6) foot high fence on the property line abutting Seaspray Avenue, which is a fifty (50) foot wide right -of -way. Staff Report Applicant Comment Ms. Hall provided an overview of application, stating that the property owners had applied for a building permit for a six (6) foot high fence to be located on the property line abutting Seaspray Avenue in mid - February. Upon review, Planning & Zoning staff denied the permit, finding that the proposed location was in conflict with the provisions of Section 24- 157(c)(1), which states "For corner lots located on rights -of -way that are fifty (50) feet or less in width, no fence, wall or landscaping exceeding four (4) feet in height, shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any lot line which abuts a street." Ms. Hall explained as is customary whenever staff disapproves an application, comments are entered into the permit tracking system and a "correction report" with instructions to revise plans is created, and forwarded to the applicant. In this case, the applicant was the fence contractor. Ms. Hall said her correction report was faxed to the fence contractor, who in turn notified the property owner. Property owner Karen Bernstein then came to City Hall and met with Ms. Hall regarding the denial. She explained that Seaspray was heavily travelled by school children, who often stopped off to play in her hard. She said she had been told that there had previously been a six (6) foot, high fence on the property line, and she noted that her neighbor directly to the west had a fence in the same location. Ms. Hall said that she explained to Ms. Bernstein that it was not within her authority to approve anything in conflict with the Code, and that either the permit application would have to be amended to set the proposed six (6) foot high fence back ten (10) feet from the property line, or the height would have to be reduced to four (4) feet. Ms. Hall said it was her understanding when Ms. Bernstein said she had to have a six (6) foot high fence, that she was making the choice to move the fence in the required ten (10) feet from the property line abutting Seaspray Avenue, and thus, Ms. Hall approved the permit application based upon that statement. Jeremiah Mulligan, Mulligan & Kauttu (24 Cathedral Place, Saint Augustine) introduced himself as attorney for the applicants. He said he wished to address discrepancies in the staff report. While Page 4 of 10 Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Public Comment AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 the applicants agree the building permit was originally denied, they state that after meeting with Ms. Hall and explaining the exceptional circumstances giving rise to their need for a six (6) foot high fence, that she agreed and approved the request. Mr. Mulligan asserted that the approval was not conditioned on an amended application or an amended site plan. Mr. Mulligan took issue with staff's assessment of the applicants' stated grounds for variance. Particularly, he said staff minimized the applicants' concerns for the welfare of school children who routinely play in the applicants' yard, and their concerns for privacy and protection of their private property, by stating knowledge of surrounding conditions were a matter of due diligence to be borne by the applicants' prior to purchasing the house. Further, he argued that properties along the Seaspray Avenue corridor do suffer exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of the property. Beyond staff's assertion that the property is zoned for single - family use, and that is what is currently used for, he asserted that reasonable use includes the right to privacy. Mr. Mulligan noted that staff cited Section 24 -157, regarding fences on corner lots, and stated that staff had applied the incorrect law, explaining that the fence in question was nowhere near the corner of the lot, but commenced some forty -nine (49) feet away from the corner. He also pointed out that the fence meets up with the fence belonging to the neighbor to the west. Mr. Mulligan concluded, stating that allowance of this variance would not offend anyone, that the applicants had a need, and that their circumstances met the requirements of grounds for approval. Specifically, this is a safety issue for kids and a privacy issue for property owners, and absence of the fence does not allow complete and reasonable use of the property. Mr. Mulligan also presented Board members with a petition in support of the application, signed by thirty -two (32) property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as well as photos of their property and fourteen (14) other properties throughout the city having six (6) foot high fences constructed on or near street -side property lines. Karen Bernstein (298 Pine Street), introduced herself as the property owner. She said since purchase, the house has undergone major construction to rectify numerous issues. For a number of weeks she was not residing at the location and was unaware of the impacts of school traffic on the property. As she Page 5 of 10 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board came to the house to check work progress, she often found children playing on their skateboards on the paver patio and planter boxes, and even parents sitting on the planter box waiting for their children. Ms. Bernstein said she has since purchased a yellow lab puppy, and with the existing two (2) foot high planter, a four (4) foot high fence would not be sufficient to contain the dog and assure safety of children walking by on the adjacent, sidewalk. Ms. Bernstein said the dates in the staff report were incorrect, agreeing that the original application was made on February 19th and that Ms. Hall's denial was dated February 19th also, but stating that it was actually February 26th — one week later — when she went to City Hall to discuss the denial with Ms. Hall. Ms. Bernstein said Ms. Hall had told her that she understood the circumstances to be exceptional, and that she approved the six (6) foot fence to be located on the property line, but warned if there was a complaint, it would be taken to Code Enforcement. Ms. Bernstein said her contractor picked up the permit on March 5th, and there were no conditions or disclosures on the permit, so the fence was constructed as originally submitted. The next thing she knew, there was a Code Enforcement complaint, apparently from a man living some two miles away. Denise Rubin (229 Pine Street) said she was a neighbor. She said she has lived in the area for fifteen years and she appreciates all the improvements the Bernsteins have done to the property, because it affects all the homeowners in the area. She also said at one time, there was a six (6) foot high fence in that same location, but a previous owner had removed it. Anne McConnell (297 Magnolia Street) said she was the neighbor immediately to the west. She verified that prior to the construction of the fence, children were constantly in the Bernsteins' yard. Stacey Frank (273 Pine Street) said the Bernsteins had greatly improved the property, and this side yard was the only space they could enjoy an outdoor area. She added she did not understand how someone living two miles away on Beach Boulevard could have a problem with this. Page 6 of 10 Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Board Discussion AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 Ernie Voisin (289 Pine Street) said he did not have an issue with the fence, and there were many other such fences throughout Atlantic Beach. Daniel Pence (Pence Property Management) said that he was the fence contractor. He said there was clear explanation provided with the fence was originally denied, but there were no conditions provided on the permit when he picked it up. Mr. Parkes stated that his son and daughter -in -law live across the street from the subject property, and they experience the same impact from the school traffic, whether it is children playing in their yards, or parents parking in their driveway while waiting to pick up their kids. He also noted that there are numerous such fences all over town that seemingly do not comply with the letter of the law. He said he felt this case presented a similar scenario to the property located between Beach and Ocean that was granted a variance just a few months ago. He added that he felt the City Commission should remove this requirement altogether, noting that a fence set back ten (10) feet from the property line on a fifty (50) foot wide lot effectively reduces the useable space by twenty (20) percent. Mr. Burgess responded that while members of this Board may not agree with a particular provision, it is not up to this Board to amend the Code. Ms. Simmons, disagreed with Mr. Parkes, stating that the basis of approval of the Beach Avenue variance was irregular topography of the rear portion of the lot, which effectively reduced the height of the fence when looking at the lot from 7th Street. She concurred with Mr. Burgess, stating that if there is a recurring issue, it needs to be brought to the City Commission's attention for direction, but this Board must act within existing laws. Further, she encouraged the Board to not be swayed by emotional appeals, noting that there are many beach access streets with hardly any right -of -way setback, and those property owners suffer constant beach traffic, similar in nature to the school traffic. Mr. Parkes argued that the situation described by the applicant is unique to Seaspray Avenue, and it can result in a hostile situation between homeowners and children and /or their parents. Mr. Burgess asked why, other than the dog issue, could a four (4) foot high fence not work, to which Mr. Parkes replied that the Page 7 of 10 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board property owners had no privacy. Ms. Simmons reiterated that all of the beach accesses are heavily traveled. She said she does not see this as a unique situation and there is nothing in the application or the staff report to justify this request. Mr. Stratton said that while he would like to find a way to support the applicants' request, he agreed with everything Ms. Simmons said. He continued, explaining if this variance were to be approved, there would be a long line of applicants requesting to do the same thing. The only solution would be for the City Commission to address by means of the amendment process. Mr. Elmore stated that the subject property is indeed a corner lot, and the side yard is being treated as the front yard. Regarding the Beach Avenue property which extended to Ocean Boulevard, the primary difference there is that the Ocean Boulevard right -of -way is wider than fifty (50) feet, and therefore a different provision applies. He said that he lives next to a beach access so he knows about disrespect of private property, but he does not believe proximity to the school and impact of children and parents traveling along the adjacent sidewalk is justification to approve this variance, nor does he want to set such a precedent. He concluded by saying that staff is not above making mistakes; however, this Board must fall back on the Code — what the current law is. Mr. Hansen said that while he is sympathetic to the applicants' circumstances, he cannot open the City up to anarchy, and thus cannot take into account the petition submitted. He reiterated that this Board's commission is not to rewrite the Code each time it is found to be unfavorable to someone, but to decide each case based upon the written code. Mr. Elmore added that the planter cannot be considered a hardship decreasing the effectiveness of a four (4) foot fence because it is not something installed or required by the City. Motion Mr. Burgess moved that the Community Development Board deny ZVAR -13- 00100063, a request for variance from Section 24- 157(c)(1), to allow the construction of a fence exceeding four (4) feet in height within ten (10) feet of a property line which abuts a right -of -way that is fifty (50) feet or less in width, finding that there are no exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property; finding that there are no surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties, but Page 8 of 10 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 20I3 Draft Minutes' of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board that similar conditions are present throughout the City; finding that there are no exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area; finding that there is no onerous effect of regulations enacted after construction of improvements upon the property, because said fence regulations have been in effect for nearly ten (10) years, and prior to that, were even more restrictive; and finding that the subject property has neither irregular shape nor substandard size warranting special consideration. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion and it passed by a vote of 5 -1, with Mr. Parkes dissenting. C. ZVAR -13- 00100064, 2069 Beach Avenue (Dunlap) Public Hearing - Request for variance from the provisions of Section 24- 106(e)(2), to reduce the required rear yard setback for the principal ;structure from twenty (20) feet to sixteen feet, nine (9) inches, to allow a first floor addition to a single - family dwelling located on a property within the Residential Single- Family (RS -2) zoning district at 2069 Beach Avenue. Staff Report Applicant Comment Comment Board Discussion Ms. Hall explained that a nearly identical variance was requested and granted in January 2007. However, the previous request was specifically addressed to a second story addition which overhangs the space subject to the current request. Because the 2007 variance order specifically addressed only a second -story addition, staff determined, and confirmed with the City Attorney, that a new variance would be required. Ms. Hall clarified that, even though the previous addition was to the second story, there is a rather large rectangular support already occupying a portion of the first story space subject to this variance request. Michael Dunlap (1120 North Second Avenue, Jacksonville Beach) introduced himself as the architect for the project and explained that the original encroachment reduced the rear yard setback for one corner of the structure from twenty (20) feet to sixteen (16) feet, nine (9) inches. He said the current project would not result in any additional encroachment, and that overall, only twenty -one (21) square feet of lot area was impacted, due to the irregular western property line. There was no public comment made. Ms. Simmons asked why first story was not addressed in 2007. Mr. Dunlap replied that previous addition was for a specific use and the current request arises out of the need for more space. Page 9 of 10 AGENDA ITEM # 8A SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Elmore said he really did not see a problem with this particular request since the space is already occupied, but he can foresee future applicants using a similar approach to chip away at required yards. Mr. Hansen noted that irregular shape of a lot is a condition for approval, and this is one of the grounds upon which the previous Board based their decision. He said the only difference now is that the area is already occupied. Mr. Parkes said he cannot remember granting a single rear yard variance since serving on this `Board, and had the original (2007) variance come before the Board, itprobably would have been denied. However, he noted this to be a unique situation in that a previous Board did find grounds to approve the variance for the second story addition. Mr. Stratton agreed that there was little substantively changing, since the encroachment was already occupied by the supporting column. However, he too said that he would not have approved the 2007 variance, had he been on that Board. Motion Mr. Elmore moved that the Community Development Board approve ZVAR -13- 00100064, a request for variance from Section 24- 106(e)(2), to reduce the required rear yard setback for the principal structure from twenty (20) feet to sixteen (16) feet, nine (9) inches, to allow for a first floor addition to a single - family dwelling located on a property within the Residential Single - Family (RS -2) zoning district at 2069 Beach Avenue, finding that as determined by a previous Board, the subject property does have topographic variation typical to most oceanfront lots in the vicinity, and the preservation of the primary dune system has constrained construction to the western portion of the parcel; and finding that the western (rear) property line which abuts the Beach Avenue right -of -way is angled and therefore not perpendicular to the structure. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 6 -0. 5. ADJOURNMENT - 7:18PM. Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 10 of 10