The URL can be used to link to this page

2019 Beach Avenue ZVAR -11-00100065 (Harkleroad) 2FILE C J Sd -oil )~ Community Development Board ORDER APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 FILE NUMBER: ZVAR-11-00100065 I ZVAR-11-00100065-A.1 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: February 1, 2012 Pursuant to Section 24-64 of the City of Atlantic Land Development Regulations, the above referenced applicant requested an amendment to a previously granted variance from Section 24-106(e)(2) to further reduce the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from ten (10) feet to four and one-half (4 1h) feet within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. On February 1, 2012, a special called meeting was convened and a public hearing was held where the said request was considered by the City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Board. Having considered the application, supporting documents and comments by staff, the applicant, and the public, the Community Development Board moved to deny the current request for amendment and rescind the previously granted variance, finding the request for amendment inconsistent with the specific grounds for approval provided by Section 24-64(d)(1) through (6) and contrary to the general purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations, and further finding, in accordance with Section 24-47(c), and based upon the presentation of new evidence, the previous variance which reduced the required rear yard setback from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet was granted based upon presentation of inaccurate and erroneous information. The motion carried by a vote of five to two (5-2). NOW THEREFORE, based on the said findings, the Community Development Board hereby DENIES this variance amendment to further reduce the required rear yard setback for the principal structure from the previously granted ten (10) feet to four and one-half (41h) feet from the rear property line at 2019 Beach Avenue. FURTHER, based on the said findings, the Community Development Board hereby RESCINDS the December 20, 2011 order granting a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback for the principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet from the rear property line at 2019 Beach Avenue. DATED THI ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. Chris Lambertson, Chairman Community Development Board The undersigned certifies that the above Order of the Community Development Board is a true and correct rendition of the Order adopted by said Board as appears in the record of the Community Development Board minutes. Michael Griffin, CB CF Interim Community Development Director ..raj CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday I February 1, 2012 1 6:00pm Commission Chambers 1 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the January 17, 2012 meeting. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. a. ZVAR-11-00100065-A.1, Harkleroad, 2019 Beach Avenue. Request for an amendment to previously granted variance (ZVAR-11-00100065] from Section 24-106(e)(2), further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to four and one-half (4 1/2) feet, for an additional reduction of five and one-half (5'6) feet, within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. S. New Business. a. ORDINANCE NO 90 -12 -XX Recommendation to the City Commission to amend Section 24-151, to establish a minimum required separation of six (6) feet between accessory buildings and structures and other buildings and structures; to correct four (4) incorrect references in the existing provisions; and to reorder subsection 24-151(b)(2), grouping those provisions related to use and those related to dimensions. 6. Other Business Not Requiring Action. None. 7. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247-5800. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting. FEBRUARY 1, 2012 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 4a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT February 1, 2012 Public Hearing Zoning Variance, ZVAR-11-00100065-A.1 TO: Community Development Board FROM: Erika Hall Principal Planner DATE: January 23, 2012 APPLICANT: Carl E Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue REQUEST: Request for an amendment to previously granted variance [ZVAR-11-00100065] from Section 24-106(e)(2), further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to four and one-half (4 1h) feet [for an additional reduction of five and one-half (5 Y2) feet], within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. TAFF COMMENT Previously, the above referenced applicant requested a variance from Section 24-106(e)(2) to reduce the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. On December 20, 2011, a public hearing was held and said request was considered by the City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Board. Having considered the application, supporting documents and comments by staff and the applicant's authorized agent, the Community Development Board unanimously approved the request, finding it consistent with Section 24-64(d)(4) of the Land Development Regulations establishing grounds for approval of a variance due to the onerous effect of regulations enacted after construction of improvements upon the property and an undue hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to process deficiencies, and on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals, and also finding that this variance request, like all others, stood on the merits of circumstances particular to it alone, and in no way constituted a precedence for future actions. However, since the granting of the above described variance, there have been two developments dictating reconsideration. First, northern adjacent property owner Richard Reichler has submitted a letter of objection and expressed intention to appeal the Board's decision, of the original variance based upon purported inaccuracies in the survey submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance, and to the Planning & Zoning Department for the previous variance request. Additionally, Mr. Reichler has expressed concern regarding the applicant's ability, based upon the granting of the variance - to now exceed the height and size limits once imposed on the previously FEBRUARY 1, 2012 SPECIAL MEETING detached accessory units that are now considered part of the principal structure. Further, several Board members have contacted staff about this same issue, and are concerned over the impact of this "unintended consequence" of granting the original ten (10) foot rear yard setback to the principal structure. Second, because of concerns over purported inaccuracies in the survey, a new certified survey was required by the Building Department. As a result, it has been determined that both the original and revised site plans for the current project were drawn according to incorrect survey data, and the new certified survey indicates the western property line is approximately five and one-half (5 Y2) feet further to the east than originally presented. This further decreases the remaining rear yard from the assumed ten (10) feet remaining after granting of ZVAR-11- 00100065 to only four and one-half (4 '/2) feet. Therefore, the applicant is now requesting an amendment to the original variance, decreasing the minimum required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to four and one-half (4 1/2) feet. In the mean time, a STOP WORK ORDER was issued when the current error was brought to light, even though a substantial amount of construction has already been completed. Though both sides previously assumed a certain degree of responsibility for miscommunications, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings, the issue at hand now is clearly beyond the scope of liability for the City, and the Community Development Board may proceed according to the following provision: In exercising its powers, the Community Development Board may, in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse, affirm or modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or determination provided such action is based upon inaccurate information. [Section 24-47(c)]. And thus the options available to the Board are as follows: 1. Reaffirm the previous order and approve the requested amendment, further reducing the minimum required rear yard setback for a principal structure within the RS -2 zoning district on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue, from twenty (20) feet to four and one-half (41/2) feet. The Board should keep in mind that the maximum height for principal structures is thirty-five (35) feet as opposed to twenty-five (25) feet for two-story detached accessories typically allowed to within ten (10) feet of the rear property line and, as opposed to fifteen (15) feet for one-story detached accessories typically allowed to within five (5) feet of the rear property line. While the Board may prescribe conditions [Section 24-64(g)], that essentially places a height limit on that portion of the building located within the reduced rear yard, such a condition could be difficult to monitor or enforce in the future. 2. Reaffirm the previous variance order but deny the requested amendment, thereby requiring any new construction encroaching beyond the ten (10) foot setback from the rear property line to be removed. 3. Deny the requested amendment and revoke the previous variance order, thereby requiring all new construction be completely removed. In this scenario, the original one-story, two -car detached garage would have to be restored to original horizontal and vertical dimensions, though it could still be re- oriented from a southern access to a western access. Likewise, the original breezeway separating the detached garage from the principal structure would have to be restored. FEBRUARY 1, 2012 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 4a Page 2 of 5 In considering these options, the Board should carefully review the applicable provisions: SECTION 24-49. APPEALS. ...appeals of final decisions of the Community Development Board may be made by adversely affected person(s) in accordance with the following provisions. Appeals shall be heard at public hearing within a reasonable period of time with proper public notice, as well as due notice to the interested parties. At the hearing, any party may appear in person, by agent or by attorney. (b) Appeals of decisions of the Community Development Board. Appeals of a decision of the Community Development Board may be made to the City Commission by any adversely affected person(s), any officer, board or department of the City affected by any decision of the Community Development Board made under the authority of this Chapter. Such appeal shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after rendition of the final order, requirement, decision or determination being appealed. The appellant shall present to the City Commission a petition, duly verified, setting forth that the decision being appealed is in conflict with or in violation of this Chapter, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the conflict or violation. The petition shall be presented to the City Commission within thirty (30) days after the filing of the appeal with the City Clerk. SECTION 24-64. VARIANCES. A variance may be sought in accordance with this Section... (a) Application. A request for a variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall contain each of the following: (1) A legal description of the property 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 of the owner's authorized agent. Written authorization by the owner for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall be provided with the application. (b) Public hearing. Upon receipt of a complete and proper application, the Community Development Director shall within a reasonable period of time, schedule the application for public hearing before the Community Development Board following required public notice. At the public hearing, the applicant may appear in person or may be represented by an authorized agent. (1) Applications 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. (2) The Community Development Board shall not grant a variance which would allow a use that is not a permitted use, or a permitted use -by -exception, in the applicable zoning district. In the case of an application for a use -by -exception that is considered concurrently with an application for a variance, approval of the variance shall be contingent upon approval of the use -by -exception by the City Commission. In the event that the use -by -exception is denied by the City Commission, any approved variances shall be rendered null and void. (3) The Community Development Board shall not approve any variance that would allow a use that is prohibited by the terms of this Chapter or the Comprehensive Plan. FEBRUARY 1, 2012 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 4a Page 3 of 5 (4) The nonconforming use of adjacent or neighboring lands, structures or buildings shall not be considered as justification for the approval of a variance. (c) Grounds for denial of a variance. 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 situations created by the property owner. (d) Grounds for approval of a variance. A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the following reasons: (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. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction or improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of 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 a variance, the Community Development Board shall find that the request is in accordance with 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. In granting a variance, the Community Development Board may prescribe appropriate conditions in conformance with and to maintain consistency with City Code. Violation of such conditions, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Chapter, and shall be subject to established Code Enforcement procedures. (f) Approval of a lesser variance. The Community Development Board shall have the authority to approve a lesser variance than requested if a lesser variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the purpose and intent of this Chapter. (g) Nearby nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby lands, structures or buildings shall not be grounds for approval of a variance. (h) Waiting period for re -submittal. If an application for a variance is denied by the Community Development Board, no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the date of denial. (i) Time period to implement variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board, the work to be performed pursuant to a variance shall begin within twelve (12) months from the date of approval of the variance. The Community Development Director, upon finding good cause, may authorize a one-time extension not to exceed an additional twelve (12) months, beyond which time the variance shall become null and void. FEBRUARY 1, 2012 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 4a Page 4 of 5 (j) Transferability. A variance, which involves the development of land, shall be transferable and shall run with the title of the property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board. ATTACHMENTS: Application for Variance (Amendment), ZVAR-11-00100065-A.1, including "Variance Request Statement" from owner's agent, dated 01-11-2012, and received by the City of Atlantic Beach Building Department on the same date. Certified Boundary Survey from Atlantic Coast Surveyors, for Job # 10-2469, dated 10-28-10, and revised on 01-11-2012, and received by the City of Atlantic Beach Building Department on the same date. This survey shows the northwest corner of the existing garage to be 12.2' from the rear (western) property line, the southwest corner of the existing garage to be 4.7' from the rear property line, and the southwest corner of the new garage to be 4.5' from the rear property line. Letter of Objection, from adjacent property owner Richard Reichler, dated 01-12-2012, received by Planning & Zoning staff via email on the same date. Revised Site Plan, drawn and annotated on top of a copy of a boundary survey from Atlantic Coast Surveyors (dated 10-28-2010) and submitted with original Application for Variance, ZVAR-11-00100065, received on 11-23-2011. This site plan shows the northwest corner of the existing garage to be 14.2' from the rear (western) property line, and the southwest corner of the existing garage to be 10.0' from the rear property line. The southwest corner of the new garage is shown to be 10.2' from the rear property line. Copy of Boundary Survey from Atlantic Coast Surveyors, certified to Carl E Harkleroad and Judith M Harkleroad (purchasers), Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, and Crabtree and Fallar Title Services, Inc, and dated 10-28-2010, received by Planning & Zoning staff from Mr. Harkleroad on 01-17-2011 at 7:05pm at the regular meeting of the Community Development Board, held in Commission Chambers at 800 Seminole Road. According to this copy of a survey obtained by the current owner at time of purchase, the northwest corner of the existing detached garage is 14.2' from the rear (western) property line, and the southwest corner of the same existing detached garage is 10.0' from the rear property line. Copy of Map Showing Survey of "2019 Beach Avenue', made for the benefit of Michael J and Michele R Curran, dated April 8, 2002 and signed by Donn W Boatwright, as received by the City of Atlantic Beach Building & Zoning on 04-12-2002. According to this copy of a survey obtained from the City archive files, the northwest corner of the existing detached garage is 12.2 feet from the rear (western) property line, and the southwest corner of the existing detached garage is 4.7' from the rear (western) property line. Copy of Letter from City of Atlantic Beach (to Florida Department of Enviromental Protection) verifying that the project proposed for 2019 Beach Avenue, did not contravene local setback requirements, zoning or building codes, and was consistent with the state approved Local Comprehensive Plan, dated 08-02-2000 and signed by then -Building Official Don Ford and then -Zoning Director George Worley II. FEBRUARY 1, 2012 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 4a Page 5 of 5 My name is Richard Reichler and I live at 2025 Beach Ave. Mr. Harkleroad is my next door neighbor to the south. I am recommending that the board reverse the prior variance approval ZVAR-11-00100065 of December 20, and deny the current variance request, based on the fact that both were submitted using grossly misrepresented survey information. The building permit application and December variance application are both based on an extremely unusual boundary survey in that it contains no boundary measurements. No corners are identified -- no distances or bearings between corners are measured. Only plat information is shown for the boundary, and most of that is either not relevant or is misrepresented. Importantly though, two grossly inaccurate measurements are presented as the distance between the western corners of the existing single -story garage and the beach avenue right-of-way: A 10ft number that misrepresents, by over 5ft, that the to - be -enlarged existing garage will exactly meet the required setback, and a 14.2ft number that, when used with the 10ft number, misrepresents the angle of the right-of-way boundary as approximately 11 degrees to north instead of the actual 18 degrees, providing the illusion that there is just enough room to attach an additional (albeit illegal) concrete block garage next to the existing two car garage. Only after the 10ft variance was approved, on December 20th, did the just -mentioned misrepresentations become obvious when the building inspector explained to me that because of a missing (per the builder) physical survey marker, the inspector had to rely on the previously -mentioned survey measurements in order to check that the addition was in compliance with setback requirements. The misrepresentations became even more numerous when on the following day, the same survey tech that had drafted the original survey, along with the builder, attempted to persuade the building inspector and myself that the survey's interpretation of the location of the city's right of way was correct by a.) illegally moving my capped survey monument 3ft towards the street, in order to make its location consistent with the two grossly inaccurate measurements on the survey and b.) loudly arguing that the location of the southwest corner of the property (where the marker was purportedly missing) could not possibly be located anywhere near the location shown on the archive survey presented by the city at the December 20 meeting and should be 7-8ft closer to (and almost in) the road surface. The survey for today's variance request includes additional inaccuracies, including all the bearings. The 4.5ft setback is not consistent with the 12.2ft and 4.7ft figures obtained from an earlier survey for the prior owner of the property. Again, no measurements appear to have been made, nor were any monuments set. In summary, the information provided to the city by the homeowner for the building permit, the December20 variance, and the current variance request is not just inaccurate, it includes many major misrepresentations that have occurred since before the homeowner purchased his home. The only legitimate solution to this issue, based on the new information, is for the board to reverse the 10ft variance approval and deny the current request. The property needs to be brought back into compliance with the existing land development regulations. Hall, Erika From: Stanley Barnwell [barnwesl@ohsu.eduj Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:56 PM To: Hall, Erika Subject: 2011 Beach Avenue Harkleroad, Carl Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Sir/Madam: I am the property owner of 2011 Beach Avenue, the neighbor immediately south of 2019 Beach Avenue, currently owned by Carl and Judy Harkleroad. This property has been in my family since 1955. I understand construction at 2019 Beach Avenue is under a stop -work order because of setback and survey -related issues This new garage addition does not in any way adversely affect my property, and I do not foresee any potential problems associated with it. However, the construction delays do affect all of us on Beach Avenue because of limited driving and parking space available. So construction may continue, I request a variance be granted to allow for the setback. I would like the Harkleroads to be able to finish quickly the work on their property. From my perspective it is very attractive. Feel free to call with any questions. thanks Stanley L. Barnwell, M.D., Ph.D. Medical Director, Interventional Neuroradiology Department of Neurological Surgery and the Dotter Interventional Institute Oregon Health and Science University 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road Portland, Oregon 97239-3098 503-494-7736 (Barbara Fullman, administrative assistant) barnwesl@ohsu.edu 1/25/2012 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH 800 SEMINOLE ROAD ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5814 Application Number . . . . . 11-00100065 Date 1/19/12 Property Address . . . . . . 2019 BEACH AVE Application type description ZONING VARIANCE Property Zoning . . . . . . . TO BE UPDATED Application valuation . . . . 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Application desc 24106(e)(2) rear yard setback ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Owner Contractor ------------------------ ------------------------ HARKELROAD OWNER ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit . . . . . . ZONING VARIANCE Additional desc . . Sub Contractor . . BEACHES BUILDING LLC Permit Fee . . . . 150.00 Plan Check Fee .00 Issue Date . . . . 11/23/11 Valuation . . . . 0 Expiration Date . . 11/23/11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Special Notes and Comments APPROVED TO PROCESS CHECK ONLY SLG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . . ZONING VARIANCE 150.00 -------------------------------------------------- .arged Paid Credited ---------- ---------- Due -------- ---------- 150.00 150.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 150.00 150.00 .00 .00 300.00 300.00 .00 .00 Cityp ef Atlantic Beach ee} C llXR RECEIPT t** Oper: DSMITH Type: OC Drawer: 1 Date: 1/19/12 81 Receipt no: 24921 Description Quantity Amount 2811 188865 BP BUILDING PERMITS 1.88 1158.88 Tender detail D( QED( 1415 1158.88 Total tendered 1158.88 Total payment 1158.88 Trans date: 1/19/12 Time: 14:88:26 CE WITH ALL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDINANCES AND THE FLORIDA City of Atlantic Beach Building Department J i 800 Seminole Road ' Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445 Phone (904) 247-5826 Fax (904) 247-5845 E-mail: building-dept@coab.us City web -site: http://www.coab.us APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by the Building Department.) ZVAR-11-00100065 Date routed: 1/18/2012 APPLICATION REVIEW AND TRACKING FORM Property Address: 2019 BEACH AVENUE Applicant: Project: CARL HARKLEROAD ZONING VARIANCE AMENDMENT Review fee $ 150.00 Department review required Yes No Building X Planning & Zoning X Tree Administrator X Public Works X Public Utilities X Public Safety X Fire Services X Dept Signature EH Other Agency Review or Permit Required Review or Receipt of Permit Verified By Date Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ATA SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, FEB 1, 2012. Florida Dept. of Transportation N/A N/A St. Johns River Water Management District N/A N/A Army Corps of Engineers N/A N/A Division of Hotels and Restaurants N/A N/A Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco N/A N/A Other: N/A N/A APPLICATION STATUS Reviewing Department First Review: NApproved. ❑Denied. (Circle one.) Comments: VARIANCE APPLICATION SUFFICIENCY REVIEW ONLY I SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ATA SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, FEB 1, 2012. BUILDING [STOP WORK ORDER, RE: BUILDING PERMIT RADD-11-0000262s1 PLANNING & ZONINGEH �r ctiL�lav eX Reviewed by: '�fi Date: 01/19/2012 TREE ADMIN. Second Review: ❑Approved as revised. ❑Denied. PUBLIC WORKS Comments: PUBLIC UTILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY Reviewed by: Date: FIRE SERVICES Third Review: ❑Approved as revised. ❑Denied. Comments: Reviewed by: Date: Revised 07/27/10 ZVAR-11-00100066-A.1 Hall, Erika From: CDBOARD [cdboard@coab.us] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:03 PM To: (Alan@AJensenLaw.com); ( . om); (chris@elitehomesfl.com); ( . et); (I ); (macputter.@comcas ae ); (Schmirkley@bellsouth.net); hparkes@comcast.net; sbdoerraruab-us; Hall, Erika Subject: FW: Harkleroad Variance(s) From: Richard Reichler[SMTP:RICHREICHLER@GMAIL.COM] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:02:47 PM To: CDBOARD Subject: Harkleroad Variance(s) Auto forwarded by a Rule Final Version 5:00pm January 12, 2012 (I promise never to use Gmail for these Again!) To City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Board (CDB) Members: Please accept this statement from me, as I will not be able to attend the January 17, 2012 meeting. Thank you. My name is Richard Reichler, and I live at 2025 Beach Avenue,next door to the Harkleroads at 2019 Beach Avenue. I attended the December 20, 2011 meeting of the CDB but was not able to stay for the entire discussion of my neighbor's variance request. When I read the minutes of the meeting, I was disappointed that the requested variance was granted unconditionally and that I was not present to recommend that a combination of lesser variances be applied to specific violations (per sec. 24-64 (F) of the Land Development Regulations). I then started to determine what, if any, negative impact this variance would have on me. The primary negative impact on me is that, with the variance, it appears that the 2019 Beach Avenue homeowner can now increase the volume of the addition dramatically (in accordance with sec.24-85c(1) of the Land Development Regulations) within the same footprint up to 35 ft above calculated average grade (CAGR) or about 40-43 ft above the existing garage floor level. The builder did not submit required height information, but it is clear that another two floors and upwards of 2,000 square feet of living space could be added and the two structures could be further connected. This is a significant added benefit above the "relief' that the builder seems to have needed to avoid "unduehardship". This benefit to the applicant comes at my expense, as the potential massive structure will shadow my lawfully constructed private garage and western exposure of my principle residence. During my research process, I noticed that the 5 ft setback of the existing private garage, as shown in an older, as - proposed site plan for the now -existing main residence and private garage that was presented at the variance hearing, had become an exactly 10 ft setback in the "Project Site Plan" presented in the building permit application and also shown at the variance hearing. I asked Mike Griffin if the setback had been verified by the City. He said that Mike Jones had verified the 10.2 ft setback of the garage addition, which is consistent with the 10 ft value in the permit application for the existing garage. On December 30th, I asked Mike G. to have Mike J. call me and describe to me how he verified the measurements. Based on what transpired since, I believe that the following misrepresentations have occurred: 1. That, at the time of permit application, the applicant misrepresented, by the submission of a grossly inaccurate "survey" as a site plan, the distance from the city right of way to the to -be -expanded existing private garage as 10 ft, when in fact it was 4.7 ft, in order to meet the 10 ft setback requirement for a detached private garage (see Dec. 20 variance hearing exhibits and Boatwright 2004 as -built survey of the 2019 property held by Mike Griffin). 2. That, as told to me in person by the Atlantic Beach Building Inspector, the builder, Mr. Ray Henderson, personally and successfully persuaded the City of Atlantic Beach Building Inspector into the mistaken belief that, because of a supposedly missing (per the builder) survey monument, the misrepresented 10 ft setback of the existing private garage from the "survey" was to be used to determine the as -built setback of the under -construction 3rd -car garage (measured at 10.2 ft by the inspector), in order for the applicant to successfully obtain variance ZVAR-2011- 00100065 from the Community Development Board. 3. That, on January 5, 2012, after the variance ZVAR-2011-00100065 was granted by the Community Development Board, the builder, Mr. Ray Henderson, along with Mr.Gary Rogers of Atlantic Coast Surveyors, Inc., personally attempted to misrepresent to the City of Atlantic Beach Building Inspector and myself that the as -built setback of the under -construction 3rd -car garage was 10.2 ft, although it is actually closer to 4 or 5ft, through the illegal relocation by over 3 ft, by Mr. Rogers, of an existing monument, set by Tri-State Land Surveyors, Inc. that marked the southwest corner of my 2025 Beach Ave. property, and the placement of a small survey flag (but no monument) 7-8 ft closer to the road surface from an existing iron rod marking the southwest corner (or approximate SW corner) of the 2019 Beach Ave. property. Note that Mr. Rogers provided the measurements for (and also drafted) the "survey" that was included in the building permit application. The Tri-State monument and the survey flag disappeared three days later. The following day, Atlantic Coast Surveyors refused to certify the survey to the City of Atlantic Beach (per Mike Griffin), resulting in a Stop Work order placed on the project. I understand from Mike Griffm that my neighbor wishes to obtain another variance for an even shorter setback from the right of way. I respectfully request that the Board consider reversing the IOft variance approval ZVAR- 11 - 00 100065, in accordance with sec.24-47c of the Land Development Regulations, since the decision was made based on inaccurate information, prior to hearing the new variance application. I would like to attend the "special" Board meeting that is under consideration. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend a meeting prior to January 30th. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 904-571-4092 or e-mail me at richreichlerkgmail.com ZVAR-11-00100065-A.1 Date ZVAR-1 1 -0010006541 APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE City of Atlantic Beach - 800 Seminole Road • Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445 Phone: (904) 247-5800 - FAX (904) 247-5845 - http://www.coab.us File No. 1. Applicant's Name L'/4"a dugze 2. Applicant's Address ZOO hE&H )qnV,i&war 3. Property Location 2�(��E�i%F ftl/&;k)1w 4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number % 417ae " 000 5. Current Zoning Classification 141�� a6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation 7. Provision from which Variance is requested5,E =A292� 8. Size of Parcel �c �G �? L'�Mth )9. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the propct'On.❑Yes NNo (If yes, this must be submitted with any application for a Building Per��ii10. Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Variance, which demonstrates compliation 24-64 of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a copy of which is attacation. Statement and site plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested. 11. Provide all of the following information: a. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate 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 for all purposes related to this application must be provided. b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought. c. Required number of copies: Four (4), except where original plans, photographs or documents larger than llx17 inches are submitted. Please provide eight (8) copies of any such original documents. d. Application Fee ($150.00) 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): OAJ2 , � ftf�7gLj�b A fAY Signature(s): ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEYVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name: (�Rc t. gfil�ka-t�-"4& Mailing Address: 4.,U l Phone: qPP -5(I - 24107 FAX: 32233 •-� E-mail:„ Version 1. 12.2007 ZVAR-1 1 -0010006541 Instructions to apply for a Variance Variance requests are considered and acted upon during public hearings before the Community Development Board at their regular monthly meetings, which are held the third Tuesday of each month, unless otherwise scheduled. Meetings are held at City Hall in the City Commission Chambers at 7:00 pm. The deadline for filing a Variance application, in order to be heard at the monthly meeting, is 5:00 pm on the first Monday of each month. Applications should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department located at City Hall. In order for a Variance application to be scheduled for public hearing, the application must be complete. All required information must be provided, and the required fee must be paid. (Variance fees are not refundable in the event that the Variance request is denied.) Once the required fee and a complete application are submitted, the request will be scheduled for the next available public hearing. An advertised notice of the hearing will be published in the newspaper, and an orange zoning sign will be placed upon the property to notify neighboring residents that a Variance request will be considered. Before filing an application for a Variance, it may be useful to read and understand the following definition and requirements from the City's Land Development Regulations related to Variances. A Variance may be approved by the Community Development Board only when consistent with these provisions. Section 24-17. Definition of a Variance. 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. Sec. 24-64. Variances. A Variance may be sought in accordance with this Chapter. Applications for a Variance may be obtained from the Community Development Department. A Variance shall not reduce minimum Lot Area, minimum Lot Width or Depth; and shall not increase maximum Height of Building or Impervious Surface Area as established for the various Zoning Districts. Further, a Variance shall not modify the Permitted Uses or any Use terms of a property. (a) Application. A request for a Variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall contain each of the following. (1) a complete legal description of the property 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. ZVAR-1 1 -0010006541 (4) the signature of the owner, or the signature of the owner's authorized agent. Written authorization by the Owner for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall be provided with the application. (b) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a complete and proper application, the Community Development Director shall within a reasonable period of time schedule the application for a public hearing before the Community Development Board following required public notice. At 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 of the requested Variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or more of the following. (1) light and air to adjacent properties. (2) congestion of Streets. (3) public safety, including 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 situations created by the property owner. The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please check the circumstances that apply to your reauest and briefly describe in the space provided. (d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the following reasons. ❑ (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. (4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. ZVAR-1 1 -0010006541 ❑ (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. ❑ (6) substandard size of a Lot of 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 a Variance, the Community Development Board shall find that the request is in accordance with 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 the authority to approve a lesser Variance than requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter. (g) Nearby Nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures or Buildings shall not be grounds for approval of a Variance. (h) Waiting period for re -submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board, no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for 365 days from the date of denial. (i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board, the work to be performed 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) months, beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void. (j) A Variance, which involves the Development of Land, shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the Property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board. Additional comments: r ZVAR, Version1.12.2007 ZVRR-11-0010006541 Variance Request Statement We are applying for a setback variance to within 4.5 feet of West property boundary along Beach Avenue per attached certified revised boundary survey dated 1-11-12. The original survey/site plan provided to Building and Zoning for permitting was incorrect as it showed the property line approximately 6 feet West of the newly established line. Statement Prepared by: Ray Henderson l Beaches Building, LLC for: / Carl E. Harkleroad Owner o< Om z z� m0 C/)cn -i _ 00 m* �z Om m� m m0 ry Z M A O CJ A 'i7 .o A d1 r r o f X> m u o " z n� n� D Im • " A S °m a$ o z 8 O p p z m OC O .pro .n Z p p m A o to z 0 p p n n p d p Aro p O O ro p c, r., �z,� 0 C ro m ro c a> m c 3 C--, A y m .�� rR1 CT Czi CA dd!A ca o m �Si LFi C C z ro < c m m / R � /-f4•%) N Cep L 3. � IS• I w o ^� ,T�j W ~ \ _I w �' O Cs)R z ca s \ o z r� C) r (\ 0 �' v ,14-1 �- Y I I� Il7J H z H � x � H o ~ C n tilv I x Cl) C H X/ z C W m O 11 Is f � l: c� o z r� C) r (\ 0 �' v ,14-1 �- Y I I� Il7J H z H � x � H o ~ C n tilv I x Cl) C H X/ z C W m O 11 0 m 0 < _+ m Op D� Z= m0 00 00z m m* rD ZO mm ,dam ,4AJMa 67e'94 -V 1 > H 1 Z 0 �0 ° n Z >A D ID Cl) r•� C H X O C m W •� 0 p z n 0 tU I z E 00. O- r y O zi y x 0 z z00 m r p Q O z n a7 O n d z O O y OO z O< v mzO z t pam O 7 y m 2 m Q = <C m -3 z m o r(4.5� � w L3• r /1• I uL ! 3$,- b D b t4 0 0 ,dam ,4AJMa 67e'94 -V 1 > H 1 Z 0 �0 ° n Z >A D ID Cl) r•� C H X O C m W •� 0 ZZ ,dam ,4AJMa 67e'94 -V 1 > H 1 Z 0 �0 ° n Z >A D ID Cl) r•� C H X O C m W •� 0 0 m 0 < m Op D� Z m0 C/)cn --I _ 00 u xz Om m� m X �X rD Z G) mm O X 9 i e► on O (] A A I A ro ! d E X7 0 e A a tD r mA w1% .ti x" [�* O p ° z °z d Z a °z o o° �� ' ° ro a° 5 v zm z w o O x z m z o 0 r n p UO m L s m O xn �7 m m <> Z m [* xr o CCfifi z czi z rn z0 O to < dp'Vt E+ O A m O� x(4.7) N a J Z3• r �N x = ti y r A $�' l81, r Cts, !( h ,dTL AJ;T4 �2MV:W o r n C 0 6 Eo o r ,,1 w zi x CO c � zz n od z bd � C7 x d �o rd y t� m A m m z � H Z r G) z OD H O °n Z ��v a> D �x x Cl) C H X/ 0 C wm v O D ;u 0 < _{ m Op z, Z —' J of m0 U) 00 O0 m:E XZ Om m� m X �X ry Z Gi mm Q X a a► °z 8 E °" 0 n A O x 0 A y •�f y v O •n?0 C pC A z z C v C7 y C A :V O :U p� v O O O r -3 9 O O � O O p p O 0� d 00 n A D v 0 xy z m 0 -i A R7 > A •n rmz• z m Z OM C7 z v m z ai n m 0 °tbT ;gA O C M 2 h7 2 1 F (4.S) Z3- 3•1 13 k d {i38. r�J AL, 171 -4 V• ,� �� •��F yy x T ��f6'a•\!-"fit zr�� .� 1 9 a �` • 33 � -kk oo M > r`t7 aJ C Y\ d io o C �m a D;o 0< =i m Op z� D o� m0 cnU) -i m 00 0Z Om m m �O �D rD Z G) M O >, A O N 21 N� :+ ro T C) r .tl a n x tl [w 9 B n q O i a =a z O n n r roU z a z z N Oro C O z G O ro 10 Z z •Oro v z X O O 0 O ro ti �:, r Q a m O m Q1 0 n a n 7 Q 0 z m z z 3 t' O ro m c m z a ro z a ne C ? LO r f _ w �� v� � 38• x7 n r; H Ot (8) ° O 1 WO n� 9 Q1 0 Q 0 w z ti N 1 C',C',M � 0 �n � �d z MEN ��_ Rrqw.� c:.O N N Z H:o IzN 46 G).;u>bo ,rrl f4 ��_ Rrqw.� \. :1 (i IT uj 00 .0 R V - T n, N'T\ m otd I.; -0 pq 0 .0 r,4 to (i E7 7F I '..41-1- �N3 _ 3 ze��££�ze`NN I N,.9 RIS I Z661 'fZ AVT NO HZL HSnDUW CL y 53OYd '.0. MOOS "M NI 030N003M Stl S 0Y32'Sr E 117.90' OA 3NOZ 0001] 3N11 V37llN0O NDLLO0dL6N00 lY15V00 %CO S -- 'O oY 19'6b�O,3.69.Z ,CO'm 3 .6S.Z4Z0 S p (•Z H1d30) .ov. 3NOZ 000,3 R 2CA co 3 < (oj kAi CD 1- m our �� ,"I, OD 6.9' tO 1ar N i O i OOa s�rare.Zewr S 5 (,j 8 Ca OD 0) N wan x« i co 0) i noon slurs C (.Z N1d3C) .OV. 3NOZ OOOId (LI 13) M. 3.07 OOOlf �c k ff tOM01 13J09,6Z.405 S_ (NOM Ol a1 .f l'OS .£b.6ff05) a_ . N65030GN07 I Sy 'V69 '693Nn MN O NOISON3 -- fAA xDO nn�nti NOZG' O-OyOZ 'IZylOj >�Nyy2 D p0)2A yz0Omy VJ KZWZO T Uz�m O 17�mn CC m�� C N A -z NCOZ, p /^\ � VJ NppO >�yW O' .M.W c my r� 0 m OZC„1 f1 v ZR�m O ~mD0 �y z m 1^ C O a &.464 401106' ooR� n n 11 11•p -u o "a -0-a00 0aoo�j Zizoo 11000-1" ;azm1Hn �nn;oz;cu: m<-mma M,, C: °n nc Cm Gm m �m �nrr�. �It11 .00mmm cCz� 0 mrZZ ZG) mP., 0 z r MD Z n m -u > ;> zgnu°�I Onoi>,m °OMonr mZ0:0 °°m°mD IDoO i OZM _ gym- z i.: x 0O%'..X B II fl II U (n o�n b d�� h H h .dTcaanc OMW 0 C 00 Rt v �D 0 O C 0 n rA 0 v (n >> mom m Z -n D r D lz r m 'i < z U1W C � .4 `tt O ro rl1 < O "'� cozo ; tiz �� m v p n,D'� Z /v a X(D< Tr co 0m0 � 0 y m N 0 °oca z ,� v > Np 0--o- U) Dm.� O'Z 9O z DO MO a -1 -04 om Im �I� ,�' c —I [fl n > NAmma �a�o�� V O �� AZA sa°Ix >r o -< 0;u 7l /-O:�i >r- -0rp0 oZ >(In m a -4 C: m ; � 3 a N co =K) O W p -qa mr m m O Na Z n Om m o 0 Nr 3D D O OZ z 3 N W `0 CITY OF A&4W&4 C444 - 7&Ud4 August 2, 2000 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: 2019 Beach Avenue Curran Beach House ZVAR-11-00100065-A.1 800 SEMINME ROAD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233-5445 TELUPNONE (904) 247-5800 FAX (904) 247-5805 SUNCOM 852-5900 We have reviewed the project located at 2019 Beach Avenue and find that it does not contravene local setback requirements, zoning or building codes, and is consistent with the state approved Local Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, tom- C' Don C. Ford Building Official George orley,11 Zoning Director % \ % ) ) 2 L4 ) \ ■ -°oRm LL / / o o CD CDLn � � -- / �ngm \ \ a eyes@ 0 \ it E °eQa o S 2 -„ Cl E cu � / / \ � o � g S LL001 E/ R u k E \ E. 5 ¢ % § k 2 pLU k Ul)E =g C).\ / k ƒ / u u / \ 0. \ k � ■ \ f f % f f 64O /) o � @ _ i R � / » f P E E E \ k k 5 k \ U u u \ D ) \ OL E$ f E f c Q a g a m R N 3 m rn LL BI -91y 9 -MT ZQ-OUT 6-9/ 9I -[I/ % \ % a C: d N N N N _ ^. ^" U U U c rvm�No v v 4I r L L L U ti O U U U f b�ON E E Q O Q o p Q 0 0 C) N N N IL MOAN '. ro ry NT DN 6 N a ~tiNN F- 2 a rl .-ANN L fC LA N 00 rl N ro a� c a� N N ^ rl N E > i c m E � E U O O U >, p c 2 v c W :=r0 a d E Q)0 Q =3E cn U " 0 cn v E Q a Q n Q 0 0 0 0 00 N C) o N Mo ori � N ip N ori iD �O rl v� Ln �� .o L, € E o o � U i V �� L N o 0 0 0 0 0 LL N N Ln ri N W u £Z - OZ/Z LZ/Z 8 - S/£ ST - ZI/£ ZZ - 6T/£ City Commission ATTN: City Clerk City of Atlantic Beach Richard Reichler 2025 Beach Avenue Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 January 16, 2012 Received Boo Seminole Road JAN 117 2012 Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 005 Dear Commissioners, Office of City Clerk I respectfully request that the Atlantic Beach City Commission grant my appeal, in accordance with sec. 24-49 (b) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Atlantic Beach, of variance ZVAR-11-ooi00065, granted by the Atlantic Beach Community Development Board on December 20, 2011, providing for "...a variance from Section 24-1o6(e)(2), reducing the required rear yard setback for a principle structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet within the Residential Single -Family (RS -2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue..." There are three primary reasons for my request: 1. That both the building permit and variance for 2019 Beach Avenue were obtained through the misrepresentation of facts to the Atlantic Beach Building Department and Community Development Board. 2. That the grounds for approval of the variance are invalid. 3. That the unconditional variance approved provides a benefit to the applicant (at the expense of neighboring properties, especially mine) that is grossly in excess of the relief purportedly required by the applicant --relief that could have been provided through approval of a lesser variance or variances per sec. 24-64(f) of the Land Development Regulations. I plan to present my petition to the Commission on February 13, 2012, as I will be out of town on January 23rd. Please note that if the Community Development Board nullifies or reverses the variance approval in accordance with sec. 24-47(c) of the Land Development Regulations, prior to presentation of this appeal, my appeal will be withdrawn, as it will be unnecessary. At the time of permit application, the applicant misrepresented, by the submission of a grossly inaccurate "survey" as a site plan, the distance from the city right of way to the to -be -expanded existing detached private garage as 10 ft, when in fact it was 4.7 ft, in order to meet the 10 ft setback requirement for a detached private garage. Note that an additional measurement on the "survey" of 14.2 ft (which is inconsistent with the rest of the "survey" measurements), when used in conjunction with the other fictitious number to locate the street right of way, gives the false impression that there is just enough room to place a garage that is 22 ft deep (minimum needed for a concrete block structure) by 13 ft wide (reaches south -side setback line) adjacent to the existing private garage (Please refer to the Dec. 20 variance hearing exhibits and Boatwright 2004 as -built survey of the 2019 property, held by Mike Griffin). As told to me in person by the Atlantic Beach Building Inspector, the builder, Mr. Ray Henderson, personally and successfully misrepresented to the City of Atlantic Beach Building Inspector that, because of a supposedly missing survey monument (per the builder), the false 10 ft setback of the existing private garage shown on the "survey" was to be used to determine the as -built setback measurement of the under -construction 3rd -car garage (measured at 10.2 ft by the Inspector), needed in order to obtain variance ZVAR-2011-ool00065 from the Community Development Board. After the variance ZVAR-2011-ool00065 was granted by the Community Development Board, the builder, Mr. Ray Henderson, along with Mr. Gary Rogers of Atlantic Coast Surveyors, Inc., personally attempted to misrepresent to the City of Atlantic Beach Building Inspector and myself that the as -built setback of the under -construction 3rd -car garage was 10.2 ft, although it is actually closer to 4 or 5 ft, through the illegal relocation (3 ft towards the road), by Mr. Rogers, of an existing monument, set by Tri-State Land Surveyors, Inc. that marked the southwest corner of my 2025 Beach Ave. property, and the placement of a small survey flag (no monument) 7-8 ft closer to the road surface from an existing iron rod marking (or approximating) the southwest corner of the 2019 Beach Ave. property. By attempting to create a setback line consistent with the two fictitious measurements (10 ft and 14.2 ft) on the "survey", the two had managed to expose just how absurd and grossly inaccurate the "survey" was. Yet, both Mr. Rogers and Mr. Henderson continued to assert to me, in the presence of the Building Inspector, that the fictitious setback line was correct (Mr. Henderson became visibly angry). Note that Mr. Rogers provided the measurements for (and also drafted) the "survey" that was included in the building permit application. The relocated Tri-State monument and the survey flag disappeared three days later (see Atlantic Beach Police Department Case#12-00421). The following day, Atlantic Coast Surveyors refused to certify the "survey" to the City of Atlantic Beach (per Mike Griffin), resulting in a Stop Work order placed on the project. 9 The "onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements of the property" (sec. 24-64(d) (4) of the Land Development Regulations), used as grounds for the variance request, is not applicable in this case since every regulation violated by the builder was enacted at least a year before the building permit was submitted. For the building permit application, Mr. Henderson cited and utilized sec. 24-151(b) xiv of the Regulations governing accessory structures to place an exterior stairway within 3 ft of the south -side lot line, yet he implied that he was unaware of, and unknowingly grossly violated, item iv (detached private garages) in the same sec. 24-151(b), necessitating the after -the -fact variance request. Mr. Henderson also was able to cite and utilize on the building permit W application a more obscure section 24-48(h) of the same Land Development Regulations that details the granting of minor dimensional variances within the authorities and responsibilities of the Community Development Director, yet he has so far ignored the driveway regulations contained in sec. 24-253 (i & ii) of the Regulations (he would need a variance but did not apply for one) and the City's Tree Regulations (violated). The remaining grounds for the variance request: "...an undue hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to process deficiencies, and on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals..." are: a) Not included in the Grounds for approval of a Variance (sec. 24-64(d) of the Land Development Regulations). b) As a result of the invalid "onerous effect" grounds, specifically prohibited, as "Variances shall not be granted solely ... for relief from financial circumstances or relief from situations created by the property owner" (sec. 24-64(c)). 3 The unconditional variance approved provides a benefit to the applicant (at the expense of neighboring properties, especially mine) that is grossly in excess of the relief purportedly required by the applicant. By granting "principle residence" status to the combined original residence and addition, the owners and/or successors now have the right, at any time in the future, to expand the volume of the addition, primarily upward, as much as 35 feet above calculated average grade (CAGR, defined in sec. 24-17 of the Land Development Regulations) and further connect the two structures, all in full compliance with the existing Land Development Regulations (sec. 24- 85(c)(1)). Since the CAGR may be as much as 7-8 feet above the floor of the private garage that is under construction (I say "may be" because this required information was not supplied to the Building Department to allow for verification that the proposed height of the structure is in compliance with height requirements), this would allow for an additional two floors and over 2,000 additional square feet of living space, blocking the southerly exposure of my lawfully constructed private garage and western side of my principle residence to the sun. The potential structure allowed, solely as a result of this variance, may significantly reduce the value of my home. If the existing building permit is revoked, the variance still provides substantial incremental value to the homeowners, even if part of the new construction is demolished and reconstructed to the io ft setback line. This gift to the applicant is far in excess of what would have been provided by lesser variances specific to the violations (mainly the Zoo additional square ft and minimal connection to principle structure) per sec. 24-64(f) of the Land Development Regulations. E Conclusion The combination of main residence and private garage that existed prior to the recent construction, built in 2001, more or less reflects the maximum utilization of the property at that time, and for the most part, today. Not much has changed. The height rules for oceanfront properties changed somewhat and a detached private garage of height greater than 15 ft, but less than 25 ft, above CAGR can now be constructed to within 10 ft, rather than 15 ft, of the street right of way. There is little more that can be legally accomplished. However, despite multiple violations of the Land Development Regulations and Tree Regulations, as well as several misrepresentations to the Building Department by the builder, this variance still remains in force, as a substantial and valuable gift to the property owner from the City, enabling him to create a structure, with 3 -car garage, rivaling the size (and height) of his 3,500 sqft main residence, within 15 ft of Beach Avenue. Again, based on the information presented above, I respectfully request that the Atlantic Beach City Commission grant my appeal, in accordance with sec. 24-49 (b) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Atlantic Beach, of variance ZVAR-11-ool00065, granted by the Atlantic Beach Community Development Board on December 20, 2011. Sincerely, Richard Reichler 11 Community Development Board ORDER APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 FILE NUMBER: ZVAR-11-00100065 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: December 20, 2011 ORDER GRANTING VARIANCE The above referenced applicant requested a variance from Section 24-106(e)(2) to reduce the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet with the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. On December 20, 2011, a public hearing was held and said request was considered by the City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Board. Having considered the application, supporting documents and comments by staff and the applicant's authorized agent, the Community Development Board unanimously approved the request, finding it consistent with Section 24-64(d)(4) of the Land Development Regulations establishing grounds for approval of a variance due to the onerous effect of regulations enacted after construction of improvements upon the property and an undue hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to process deficiencies, and on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals, and also finding that this variance request, like all others, stands on the merits of circumstances particular to it alone, and in no way constitutes a precedence for future actions, and hereby GRANTS this variance to reduce the required rear yard setback for the principal structure to ten (10) feet from the rear property line at 2019 Beach Avenue. The undersigned certifies that the above Order of the Community Development Board is a true and correct rendition of the Order adopted by said Board as appears in the record of the Community Development Board minutes. DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. C./ Erika Hall, Principal Planner • Cb (wyl, _ 1 !�� 4 _. tAOtLI� RD �k Nqb V,( V-�VA ftu, on a127/200 A';�ZLWI-CP N- ZV�' VLA V� COKMA[aK, , oil 12PoL 2061 v 0* '13 EA:�-'�i FDp'T" e y2 11�T (2- 4.41 Ar-> Mrtj I s,�'P-'f Vc Z3 IS �6 s ' z64 44 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING Tuesday I December 20, 20111 6:00pm Commission Chambers 1 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the November 15, 2011 meeting. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. None. 5. New Business. a. ZVAR-2011-06 (11-00100065), Harkleroad, 2019 Beach Avenue. Request for a variance from Section 24-106(e)(2), reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. 6. Other Business Not Requiring Action. 7. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247-5800. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting. DECEMBER 20, 2011 Regular Meeting December 13, 2011 Carl Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Phone: (904) 247-5800 Fax: (904) 247-5845 www.coab.us Re: December 20`h meeting of the Atlantic Beach Community Development Board Dear Mr. Harkleroad: Please be advised that your application for Zoning Variance will be considered by the Community Development Board at their meeting on Tuesday, December 20th. The meeting begins at 6:00pm and will be held in the Commission Chambers located at City Hall at 800 Seminole Road. A copy of the staff report has been included for your reference. Please email me at ehall@coab.us, or call 270-1605 to confirm whether or not you will be in attendance. (You may leave a voice mail message.) Si�nceer�ely., UA� Erika Hall Principal Planner encl �t City of Atlantic Beads *i# CUt;'1(*R 41110 *** doer: 39*LL-Y Noe: 11 Drawer: 1 Date: 11/23/11 W Receic,t no: 124x4: Descriotion Uuantlty tarount ?Nl1 1w,h BN BIJ(LDIM3 A'c;ti4lfa 1. NN f 1 -N. & Terrier detail CK IN t:K 3 01 i 1 `tN. w Total tendered f1:A.NN TotA Davit -Tit ULM.NN Trans Bate: 11/'3!11 fire: 1W:N:i3 ATLANTIC BEACH CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH 800 SEMINOLE ROAD ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5814 . . . . 11-00100065 Date 11/23/11 . . . 2019 BEACH AVE !ription ZONING VARIANCE . . . . TO BE UPDATED L . . . . 0 -------------------------------------------------- -d setback --------------------------------------------------- Contractor ---- ------------------------ OWNER FL 32233 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit . . . . . . ZONING VARIANCE Additional desc . . Permit Fee . . . . 150.00 Plan Check Fee .00 Issue Date . . . . Valuation . . . . 0 Expiration Date . . 11/23/11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Special Notes and Comments APPROVED TO PROCESS CHECK ONLY SLG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fee summary Charged ---------- Paid Credited Due -------------------- ----------------- Permit Fee Total ---------- 150.00 150.00 .00 .00 Plan Check Total .00 .00 .00 .00 Grand Total 150.00 150.00 .00 .00 PERMIT IS APPROVED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDINANCES AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODES. AGENDA ITEM 5a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT December 20, 2011 Public Hearing Zoning Variance, ZVAR-2011-06 (11-00100065) TO: Community Development Board FROM: Erika Hall Principal Planner DATE: November 23, 2011 APPLICANT: Carl E Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue REQUEST: Request for a variance from Section 24-106(e)(2), reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. NOTE: The City's Development Review process requires examination of certain elements by certain staff. Planning staff reviews site plans only, for compliance with Zoning and Land Development Regulations. Planning staff is not required to have any more than passing familiarity with construction and engineering plans, and they are not expected to search through construction or engineering plans and extract obscure information that should have been clearly presented on the site plan. STAFF COMMENTS Earlier this year, staff met with an architectural designer to discuss proposed renovations to the structures located at 2019 Beach Avenue. An approved site plan [Don Ford, Building Dept, 01/18/2001; George Worley, Planning Dept, 01/19/20011 from the City's digital archives was reviewed and referenced during this consultation. The following information was gleaned from the 2001 site plan: Using the geopdf measure tool, the scale of the site plan was verified by measuring a known dimension. The width of the rear property line was confirmed, as was the width of the north side yard and the rear yard. The separation between the two existing structures was then determined to be three (3) feet in width. Using the same methodology to confirm the scale of the elevations, the separation between structures was again confirmed to be three (3) feet. The height of the existing detached garage was determined to be approximately 16.73', and the northwest corner of the same DECEMBER 20, 2011 Regular Meeting was estimated to be 12.64' from the rear lot line when normal measure was taken from the wall plane. • The following note was also found in reference to the existing detached garage: "ACCESSORY SECONDARY DWELLING ON SPREAD CONC FOOTINGS & STRUCTURALLY SEPARATED FROM MAIN RESIDENCE". In summary, the approved 2001 site plan, garage detail and elevation demonstrated that the existing garage was detached from the principal structure and was situated ten (10) feet from the rear lot line. The existing garage was oriented north -south, such that access required a nearly 90° right-hand turn from Beach Avenue into the driveway, followed by a nearly 90° left-hand turn from the driveway into the garage. And the separation between the existing garage and principal structure consisted of an approximately three (3) foot wide breezeway also running north -south about twelve (12) feet, and leading to a stairway about seven (7) feet long and ascending to a first floor landing to the north of the principal structure. Phase one of the proposed work consisted of interior renovations to the principal structure only, and not subject to zoning review. Phase two, however, consisted of renovation of the existing detached garage, including (1) re -orientation so that the access would be from the west rather than the south; (2) addition of a second story for use as a game room; and, (3) construction of a new open stairway on the south side of the renovated garage, with connection to the existing breezeway, proposed to be elevated and maintained between the detached garage and the principal structure. There was also later discussion (4) as to whether or not a second accessory structure could be constructed south of the existing detached garage. With further consideration of the existing conditions, the previously proposed renovations, as well as the constraints of the Land Development Regulations, staff determined that a garage apartment could not be constructed because it would have to meet the same minimum rear yard setbacks (20') as the principal structure [Section 24-89(f), 24-106(e)(2)], and there was not sufficient space for this. However, the available space did yield a buildable area consistent with the minimum required setbacks (10' from rear lot line & 10' from south side lot line), the maximum required footprint (<600 square feet) , and the maximum height (<25') of a two-story, one -car garage with guest quarters, which is a conforming accessory use[Section 24-151(b)(1)c]. Staff also explained two provisions that could be applied to gain more buildable width. • Section 24-48(h) allows the Community Development Director to grant a minor dimension variance, up to five (5) percent of the standard from which variance is sought. In the case of combined fifteen (15) foot side yard setbacks, the most that could be granted under this provision would be nine (9) inches; • Section 24-151(b)(1)n allows open exterior stairs to be located within required side yards, three (3) feet from the side lot line. This provision could be applied if the second accessory structure was constructed south of the existing detached garage, and the open stairway was relocated south of the second accessory. While there is no minimum required separation between accessory structures, staff reiterated that neither of the two accessories could be connected to the principal structure, nor could they be connected to one another. Staff then reiterated that while there is currently no provision for minimum separation for accessory structures within the Land Development Regulations, there would be requirements per the Florida Building and Fire Codes, and those issues would be addressed as part of the Building Department's review. However, the chief objective of the Planning & Zoning review was to insure that both the existing and proposed accessory structures remained detached from one another and the principal structure, i.e., no structural roof element would connect or tie the accessory structures together or into the principal structure. Believing these issues would be adequately addressed by the maintenance of the existing three (3) foot wide open breezeway between the primary and accessory structures, and a minimal though yet -to -be -determined separation between the two accessory structures, staff gave the preliminary approval to proceed with the design. The interior renovations were permitted by the Building Department and completed in early to mid July 2011. Application for the renovations to the existing garage and addition of another garage, with sleeping quarters above was made on September 15, 2011. Planning staff reviewed the submitted site plan dated June 13. 2011, finding it to be consistent with the changes previously discussed: (1) renovation of the existing garage included no changes to the existing footprint, but was shown to relocate the vehicular access from the south side to the west side, and to add an upper level said to be utilized as a "game room"; (2) addition of a second accessory structure was shown directly adjacent to and south of the existing garage, and was said to include a one -car garage on the lower level and a "bonus room"/guest quarters on the upper level; (3) addition of an open stairway was shown on the south side of the new garage/guest quarters, encroaching into the required side yard setback, as allowed according to Section 24-151(b)(1)n, and connecting with the previously existing open breezeway, now raised to the first floor elevation. Staff observed no indication of a new connection between the existing principal structure and either accessory structure, and thus granted zoning approval on September 19, 2011. Building permits were issued on October 28, 2011. In mid November, the Building Official asked Planning staff to meet with a resident who was interested in doing the same as his neighbor - particularly, connecting his detached garage with the main house with a covered breezeway. At this time, the ongoing construction at 2019 Beach Avenue was referenced. Building and Planning staff reviewed the approved site plan and, not finding evidence of any such connection, made a site visit. When staff was unable to conclusively identify a potential connection on site, they met with the contractor, who confirmed the intent to connect the accessory structures to the principal structure. Upon return to the office and review of the construction plans, an obscure note indicating the connection was found. However, the connection was not shown on the submitted site plan. Related work was stopped, and notice was given to the property owner and the building contractor that construction was not consistent with the approved site plan, and that either the construction would have to be changed to comply with the approved site plan, or a variance from the Land Development Regulations allowing the intended construction would have to be obtained. First submittal of the variance application consisted only of the following statements under the Additional Comments section: "Full set of plans were submitted to City & approved. Construction is well underway and changes will be costly." Staff found the variance application to be insufficient and requested that a revised site plan clearly delineating the intended connection be re -submitted, along with a completed application noting the applicable circumstance and justification for the approval of the requested variance. The application and a copy of the site plan revised to show the area of proposed connection and a note stating "Connection on 2nd Floor" was received on November 23, 2011. Item (d)(4) - onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property - has been checked, and the statement "Permitted project does not meet zoning setbacks" has been added. Staff maintains what was originally discussed and proposed, and then shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department for Development Review and Building Permit issuance, are not consistent with the intended construction as now verified with the contractor and the property owner. During preliminary consultation with the designer, staff was led to believe the proposal was for accessory structures, detached from the principal structure and in compliance with all required accessory standards. In fact, the provision for a minor dimensional variance and the provision for open exterior stairs within required side yards are both noted on the site plan originally submitted, as is the required rear yard setback for a detached two-story garage, thus corroborating staffs recall of the preliminary consultation. On December 8, 2011, the Building Official visited the site and found that construction had continued such that, against the advice of staff, the connection between the principal structure and the accessory structures has been established. As a result, the two accessory structures are now effectively incorporated into the principal structure, and are now subject to the same required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback. In order for construction to continue in a legally permitted manner and staff to issue final inspection approvals upon project completion, either the Community Development Board must grant a variance reducing the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to ten (10) feet, or the plan of construction must be revised to comply with the Land Development Regulations. ATTACHMENTS: 2001 Approved Site Plan, with enlargements of site plan & elevations (reviewed during preliminary consultation, spring 2011) 2011 Approved Site Plan (submitted 9/15/11 for development review/building permits) Notice ofNon-Compliance with Approved Site Plan (sent to applicant on 11/23/2011) 2011 Site Plan (submitted 11/23/11 as part of variance application) Photographs of existing conditions, as of December 8, 2011 //- /000 GS APPLICATION FOR A VARIAN City of Atlantic Beach • 800 Seminole Road - Atlantic Beach, Florida 3223 Phone: (904) 247-5800 - FAX (904) 247-5845 • http://www.coab.us Date I I— 1 (.o — a o ) I File No. 1. Applicant's Name CAP, I- 4 AR,K l.. LX ID v 2. Applicant's Address ano i9 B�,4GN A vjl n UU 3. Property Location l�Vt / n 4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate �Nids Number -700-- COCO 5. Current Zoning Classification KS- 2 ,' r6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation R�-- 7. Provision from which Variance is requested 2�0�� (e)(2) (i`! 8. Size of Parcel `-D' Y 9. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction. ❑Yes [:]No (If yes, this must be submi-ed with any application for a Building Permit.) 10. Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Variance, which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-64 of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this application. Statement and site plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested. 11. Provide all of the following information: a. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate 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 for all purposes related to this application must be provided. b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought. c. Required number of copies: Four (4), except where original plans, photographs or documents larger than 11x17 inches are submitted. Please provide eight (8) copies of any such original documents. d. Application Fee ($150.00) 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 na ): A41 -E _ QA Q << 1-f20A0 Signature(s): ADDRESS ANO 914flULOATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name: CARL 6. I�AR06-62oAO Mailing Address: 02 O 119 136+(.,-4 AJ & 4T L+J7 ZG_ B64Cid )CL 3 as 33 Phone: `jOi - 5 3 b-% 3 Vy FAX: E-mail: uAA"019aCe1n4ZL.CoM Instructions to apply for a Variance Variance requests are considered and acted upon during public hearings before the Community Development Board at their regular monthly meetings, which are held the third Tuesday of each month, unless otherwise scheduled. Meetings are held at City Hall in the City Commission Chambers at 7:00 pm. The deadline for filing a Variance application, in order to be heard at the monthly meeting, is 5:00 pm on the first Monday of each month. Applications should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department located at City Hall. In order for a Variance application to be scheduled for public hearing, the application must be complete. All required information must be provided, and the required fee must be paid. (Variance fees are not refundable in the event that the Variance request is denied.) Once the required fee and a complete application are submitted, the request will be scheduled for the next available public hearing. An advertised notice of the hearing will be published in the newspaper, and an orange zoning sign will be placed upon the property to notify neighboring residents that a Variance request will be considered. Before filing an application for a Variance, it may be useful to read and understand the following definition and requirements from the City's Land Development Regulations related to Variances. A Variance may be approved by the Community Development Board only when consistent with these provisions. Section 24-17. Definition of a Variance. 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. Sec. 24-64. Variances. A Variance may be sought in accordance with this Chapter. Applications for a Variance may be obtained from the Community Development Department. A Variance shall not reduce minimum Lot Area, minimum Lot Width or Depth; and shall not increase maximum Height of Building or Impervious Surface Area as established for the various Zoning Districts. Further, a Variance shall not modify the Permitted Uses or any Use terms of a property. (a) Application. A request for a Variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall contain each of the following. (1) a complete legal description of the property 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 of the owner's authorized agent. Written authorization by the Owner for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall be provided with the application. (b) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a complete and proper application, the Community Development Director shall within a reasonable period of time schedule the application for a public hearing before the Community Development Board following required public notice. At 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 of the requested Variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or more of the following. (1) light and air to adjacent properties. (2) congestion of Streets. (3) public safety, including 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 situations created by the property owner. The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please check the circumstances that apply to your request and briefly describe in the space provided. (d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the following reasons. ❑ (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. �) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. ?&-147TA7 (?&:S c -T Doles A10 i #1 Zflr-►1r -66 5d%AM< 5 ❑ (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. ❑ (6) substandard size of a Lot of 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 a Variance, the Community Development Board shall find that the request is in accordance with 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 the authority to approve a lesser Variance than requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter. (g) Nearby Nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures or Buildings shall not be grounds for approval of a Variance. (h) Waiting period for re -submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board, no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for 365 days from the date of denial. (i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board, the work to be performed 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) months, beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void. (j) A Variance, which involves the Development of Land, shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the Property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board. Additional comments: F L Lt_ S67 Of Pa s 1�1�2,E B ��'hz7TwtP to CT,rCOO wu(JO^-Way ,44P C,AA!!1wt�Bfz Co SerLa ZVAR, Version 1. 12.2007 ESAU • ant November 16, 2011 George R Henderson Beaches Building LLC 1516 Marsh Inlet Court Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH BUILDING AND PLANNING 800 SEMINOLE ROAD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233-5445 TELEPHONE: (904) 247-5826 FAX: (904) 247-5845 www.coab.uS RE: BUILDING PERMIT 11-00002625, DETACHED GARAGE RENOVATION/2"D STORY ADDITION Dear Mr. Henderson, I am writing in reference to a discussion you had with Atlantic Beach Building Official Michael Griffin, regarding the above -referenced project yesterday afternoon. As Mr. Griffin explained, the site plan reviewed by the Planning Department did not indicate the construction of a structural connection between the existing detached garage and the principal structure. Approval was granted based upon presentation to staff that the detached garage would remain detached from the principal structure. This scenario complies with the land development regulations for accessory structures which require a minimum rear yard setback of ten (10) feet for two-story detached garages [Section 24-151(b)(1)e]. However, it has been brought to our attention that the intent is to have a connecting corridor between the new second story of the garage and the existing house. In doing so, the existing detached garage, becomes part of the principal structure, and therefore must meet the required rear yard setback for principal structures within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning District, which is twenty (20) feet [24-106(e)(2)]. Since there is clearly not twenty (20) feet between the western most extent of the garage structure and the western (rear) property line, the only way you may continue with tie-in to the principal structure is by obtaining a variance from the Community Development Board. For your convenience, a copy of the variance application is attached. Meeting dates and application submittal deadlines for upcoming Community Development Board meetings are listed below. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PUBLIC HEARING DEC 2011 NOT APPLICABLE NO MEETING SCHEDULED JAN 2012 TOES, JAN 3, 2012 — 5:00PM TUES, JAN 17, 2012 — 6:00PM AB BLDG DEPT/REC DESK i AB COMMISSION CHAMBERS FEB 2012 MON, FEB 6, 2012 — 5:00PM TUES, FEB 21, 2012 — 6 :OOPM AB BLDG DEPT/REC DESK AB COMMISSION CHAMBERS 2019 Beach Avenue, Harkleroad (11-000026250 Garage Connection -Variance Required 16 November 2011 Page 2 of 2 In the mean time, please be aware that continuation of construction related to the attachment as described above will be at your own risk, as approval of the required variance is solely at the discretion of the Community Development Board, and any unapproved/unpermitted construction will have to be removed if the said variance is denied. Please feel free to contact me at (904) 270-1605 or ehall@coab.us if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, 0hl� Erika Hall Principal Planner cc Michael Griffin, Building Official Alan Jensen, City Attorney encl LINE BEACH AVENUE 42'-O" b ant. YWIYp�i w• 1T -a, -•t• GRAD 1992 COASTAL CONSTRUCTION BASEMEN�T4, •25.5' CONTROL LINE ' 18 . ® r' a ,ze<, arc -to.a•- ACCBS9011Y SECONOAR I DWELLING ON SPREAD 1 -{TORY FRAME ec•0°•a D CONC FOOTINGS 6 n fIN13MEC FLOOR 29.)1 STRUCTURALLY SEPARAT00 FROM MAIN RESIDENCE N 6W N 89• ! Z • PiLVER \. aw WALK . _ •' aaa a h 10 .,1 46• '1'•, ' NE RESIDEN ' HIGH PIERS W/ 4k6' HINGED IN PLACE O GATE (STING -. TPLR- 1 8. NEW PAVE WALK L o 1j , _ Sy=j%"SEAWARD LIM SGAWA G I . i I i • .ANS ARE DESIGNED TO Be IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE I —_..... — — .—DLISHED IN SECTION 628-33.007. PLORIDA ODE. 'ORI! RESISTING SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED IN H SECTION6, ANSI/ASCE 7-86 (JULY 19901 °MINIMUM )R DUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES" TO NIND LOADS ASSOCIATED WITH A MINIMUM BASIC 10 MPH. AND CLADDING HAVE BEEN SELECTED AND THEIR 0 INTO THE DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS IN i SECTION 6 OP THE "MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS POR rHER STRUCTURES" MENTIONED IN NOTE 2. LINE BEACH AVENUE 42'-O" 2 Qi ( h�qorcv e pj a,, pPPROVEQ ORY Oi ATLANTIC MICR nun mna 0—C9 X N1 8 2001 'pJ♦�if 1 A� RECEIVED DEC 2 9 2000 Clry of Adam; B66Ch eL o.a Au1lUing and ZoMn& CURRAN BEACH HOUSE 2019 BEACH AVENUE ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA Fisher & Simmons Architect 15"'1" second street seulh s, Inc. Jacksondlle BeacL, Florida 1 0011 TS )WTB ,envoo t ♦ SITE PLAN & SECTION M 2o[Q each fie. f� 1 EXIST GRADE GRAD DOT T BASEMEN�T4, •25.5' YOND DE.3J' 18 . ® r' a ,ze<, arc -to.a•- 2 Qi ( h�qorcv e pj a,, pPPROVEQ ORY Oi ATLANTIC MICR nun mna 0—C9 X N1 8 2001 'pJ♦�if 1 A� RECEIVED DEC 2 9 2000 Clry of Adam; B66Ch eL o.a Au1lUing and ZoMn& CURRAN BEACH HOUSE 2019 BEACH AVENUE ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA Fisher & Simmons Architect 15"'1" second street seulh s, Inc. Jacksondlle BeacL, Florida 1 0011 TS )WTB ,envoo t ♦ SITE PLAN & SECTION M 2o[Q each fie. f� 1 xlub _SZ.G L Gn h'r1 11 �� 'tl 1� t� -- 1 :-fr - Z�1 .�nrin-�� - - , I,0 ORZ Ln 't117oo 7,5 ;�- t}oxac �-p co:mz.;u ( c m:rn'A �` trc z9 �' 'TT C . fn ;u -A G 7L1 N c m r. ' z� �t; i ir8 �z �'^ALP z - m .ZM — 3- 9 > o] Q is n'•,t r• � . � :8_c� ... hr� � � � .. .� . d. �noomm 0 ob on fid: M ✓Tj .�.� Z W r ,d :a `{�j ITi'o o .00 o.v u� 3 "':� 1... iQ�znm S . r I`mCt f�+ 1. n ` `t cti� Y > .v IZ 7Z _Ilqvr VI -k � n�z W i -nano Zr - n ro �Ti.44074 (QCE,aw .Xo rt C Q n �'1 arm r .+w - D�� us X-iovo -A = O�zno rnx ? KCnrrn a_'O K 1'II�r+N Z� _ DxOox Z_ T_ zD- r� Orn 1- ..-. O r '3 rn�c?ZN y3 3� iN 'O 7�7f7lO �{ i �� n -u 4` ;DSZ ^ V Zrn >z D � d J - x I rn J .�' � 4�, V A N I 11 • r +1 P 1 — — — 5 ^' S 02.52'59�E — — — w •� � p I r � tv ru 10 z 1-STQRY BLOCK . z \ ro N� �f. f -� I u w f #2011 00 -i ., o \� FINISHED FLOOR = 23.85 N� ! -11-Nj r- rn I -Z4 f ry 1 ) d N I r-•nN I � � � > D � D rn -u z\\ 0 D a D r r<�rn ' J o 7C O �� CO I� r J ct x g v rn N raonX I N-irn D rn I. — — �no> t 0ON Q� rnrnx pe �J' I OrnrTnGzi r .a' f m Zrn� < 0 o�� I I ��v + rn rn r<n � i f 1 1 0 ._q E v `u - m A <O -Oj A _ v N f------------ }i .1 _-I �� vrnc A --1 1 r - - _ 01 rn _ -'- - _ �..... _- Z Z: - �, -- O 95 00 ft v) O X --- � I - - - rnf _-_-- �,n Z -j J N N W ,--j _ il.i W ILU�� p 0Z) WpL< O O WUWUJ< < F- d3�rjg�Q L <00 1LW W >F-OF-UCS` U V �Z a'J pQpF-NUajC.4 � W W z X<Qa W R (DQ:)f 0 U U W ?y: -j Q JZ-, r-r O F- N < J -J O > x OiLn-d QN�Q� lu F✓ F- N N W W W W p EU (D Q a� U U Q) U w 35 ft- W N N W Q U z N O r F-�� 0 ao I-- O W z N w tU NO N_ x-iN �} xN Q USW U-1 1L + w + N U W D W N 11;ALL-Ifi olu D -j d Ili + 1 ' Q0-1y ;- z - 10' 0 li♦ -tL t p Mfy6-4i a = Go 0 w o ccli N 0 + + w a O o, 0 WO U IL J iL QF-� J0C, QF--� x0Cq 0 O J 1L ,N Z. - I C*4 W Oz F- J ! Z °' -3 D J aOfo o uJ o 2z- o al 0 Qzz o QwCD w Q 000pOQ O_ d]d1 + Qth � x W � Cy T r ,rte '0C OR Community Development Board ORDER APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 FILE NUMBER: ZVAR-12-00100010 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: March 20, 2012 ORDER DENYING VARIANCE Pursuant to Section 24-64 of the City of Atlantic Land Development Regulations, the above referenced applicant requested (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d&e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d&e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor, all within the Residential Single Family (RS - 2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. On March 20, 2012, a public hearing was held where the said request was considered by the City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Board. Having considered the application, supporting documents and comments by staff, the applicant, and the public, the Community Development Board moved to deny the current request, finding it inconsistent with the specific grounds for approval asserted by the applicant, particularly Section 24-64(d)(2) and (3), noting no exceptional circumstances or surrounding conditions that prevent the reasonable use of the subject property as compared to other properties in the area, and Section 24-64(d) (4), noting that no regulations had been enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property, but that the applicability of existing regulations to the project changed due to discovery of an erroneous survey. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of seven to zero (7-0). NOW THEREFORE, based on the said findings, the Community Development Board hereby DENIES this variance to increase the area of a detached accessory structure from six hundred (600) square feet to eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet; to reduce the required rear yard setback for the southern portion from five (5) feet to three and one -tenths (3.1) feet; and to reduce the required rear yard setback for the northern portion from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) from the rear property line at 2019 Beach Avenue. DATED THIS 26T" OF MARCH, 2012. Chris Lambertson, Chairman Community Development Board The undersigned certifies that the above Order of the Community Development Board is a true and correct rendition of the Order adopted by s id Board as appears in the record of the Community Development Board minutes. i el Griffin, C , CFM Interim Community Development Director APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE City of Atlantic Beach • 800 Seminole Road - Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445 Phone: (904) 247-5800 • FAX (904) 247-5845 • http://www.coab.us Date f �F �h File No. Z AR 12` 00100010 1. Applicant's Name _ 2. Applicant's Address 3. Property Location 4. Property Appraiser' �( Al 5. Current Zoning Classification /f,) 6. M& t. 111716WIT1111P 7. Provision from which Variance is requested_ 1 1/x Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation soil/1foeN; 8. Size of Parcel l01 O 188 IN 8— V1 �1 4/0� 9. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction. []Yes D<No (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 compliance with Section 24-64 of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this application. Statement and site plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested. 11. Provide all of the following information: a. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate 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 for all purposes related to this application must be provided. b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought. c. Required number of copies: Four (4), except where original plans photographs or documents larger than 11x17 inches are submitted Please provide eight (8) copies of any such original documents. d. Application Fee ($150.00) 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: . 0 M Printed or typed name(s): Signature(s): - ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name: /�dw&7' U ITA Mailing Address: Phone: 704- lv(J O FAX: 704 04 E-mail: f I�/�i�lei�l✓ Co�v� • , /rte'- Version 1. 12.2007 ZVAa2 12 - 00 l 000 l0 Instructions to apply for a Variance Variance requests are considered and acted upon during public hearings before the Community Development Board at their regular monthly meetings, which are held the third Tuesday of each month, unless otherwise scheduled. Meetings are held at City Hall in the City Commission Chambers at 7:00 pm. The deadline for filing a Variance application, in order to be heard at the monthly meeting, is 5:00 pm on the first Monday of each month. Applications should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department located at City Hall. In order for a Variance application to be scheduled for public hearing, the application must be complete. All required information must be provided, and the required fee must be paid. (Variance fees are not refundable in the event that the Variance request is denied.) Once the required fee and a complete application are submitted, the request will be scheduled for the next available public hearing. An advertised notice of the hearing will be published in the newspaper, and an orange zoning sign will be placed upon the property to notify neighboring residents that a Variance request will be considered. Before filing an application for a Variance, it may be useful to read and understand the following definition and requirements from the City's Land Development Regulations related to Variances. A Variance may be approved by the Community Development Board only when consistent with these provisions. Section 24-17. Definition of a Variance. 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. Sec. 24-64. Variances. A Variance may be sought in accordance with this Chapter. Applications for a Variance may be obtained from the Community Development Department. A Variance shall not reduce minimum Lot Area, minimum Lot Width or Depth; and shall not increase maximum Height of Building or Impervious Surface Area as established for the various Zoning Districts. Further, a Variance shall not modify the Permitted Uses or any Use terms of a property. (a) Application. A request for a Variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall contain each of the following. (1) a complete legal description of the property 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. zV,42 12 - 00100010 (4) the signature of the owner, or the signature of the owner's authorized agent. Written authorization by the Owner for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall be provided with the application. (b) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a complete and proper application, the Community Development Director shall within a reasonable period of time schedule the application for a public hearing before the Community Development Board following required public notice. At 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 of the requested Variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or more of the following. (1) light and air to adjacent properties. (2) congestion of Streets. (3) public safety, including 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 situations created by the property owner. The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please check the circumstances that apply to your request and briefly describe in the space provided. (d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the following reasons. ❑ (1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. J(2)surrounding conditions or circu stances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. `f �7rI /* P (3) exceptional circumstances Dreventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. �',G� ��'1� /='t) ER/(4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. Ji"f 7ZVA,2 12- 00 K" 10 �5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. ,iii' ❑ (6) substandard size of a Lot of 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 a Variance, the Community Development Board shall find that the request is in accordance with 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 the authority to approve a lesser Variance than requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter. (g) Nearby Nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures or Buildings shall not be grounds for approval of a Variance. (h) Waiting period for re -submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board, no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for 365 days from the date of denial. (i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board, the work to be performed 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) months, beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void. (j) A Variance, which involves the Development of Land, shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the Property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board. Additional comments: '�5,r Xlw,4(1/4 ,2i Law Firm of Daniel M. Copeland is hereby authorized to act on behalf of Carl &Judy Harkleroad , the owner(s) of those lands described within the attached application, and as described in the attached deed or other such proof of ownership as may be required, in applying to the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida, for an application related to a Development Permit or other action pursuant to a: (X Zoning Variance (— Use -by -Exception F- Rezoning F- Plat, Replat or Lot Division BY: SignWWOWAkwWa-if Printed Name Signature of Owner Printed Name Phone Number I— Appeal F- Fence or Pool Permit F- Sign Permit F Other Signed and sworn before me on this day of ., /F , by /�� Identification verified: AIUCAA41— n,,Qe11N . Oath sworn: (— Yes No TIMOTHY S. FRANKLIN NOTARY PUBLIC _STATE OF FLORIDA Comm# EE002931 Notar nature o Expires 6/21/2014 ZVAP- 12-00100010 City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 (P) 904.247.5826 (F) 904.247.5845 www.coab.us State of Florida County of Duval ission expires: w� _ZVArZ 12. 00100010 Harkleroad — 2019 Beach Avenue Variance Application Support Materials The following materials including attendant attachments are offered in support of the variance application filed and properly before the honorable Community Development Board for the City of Atlantic, Florida (the "Board"). The Landowner has authorized the applicant, Daniel M. Copeland, P.A., to file the application, and the applicant has authorized the agent, all as according to the authorizations attached to the application. SUMMARY OF REQUEST. The landowner seeks to obtain three (3) distinct variances to allow landowner to obtain reasonable, beneficial use of certain garage/guest house structures lawfully constructed pursuant to permit and variance obtained, but where made non -conforming through the rescission of the permit and prior variance upon discovery of a survey error. The landowner seeks three variances: 1) 24-151(b)(1)(d), LDRs, to allow for a single, detached accessory structure of 872 sq. ft. (mol) in lieu of the 600 sq. ft. maximum; 2) 24-151(b)(1)(d & e), LDRs, reduce minimum setbackforthe southern portion of the accessory structure from 5' to 3.1', i.e. seeking a reduction in the minimum setback for the portion of the detached structure to be used as a detached garage, such portion limited to 15' in height; and, 3) 25-151(b)(1)(d & e), LDRs, reduce minimum setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure from 10' to 4.7', i.e. seeking a 5.3' reduction in the minimum setback for the portion to be used as both a detached garage (ground floor) and guest house (2nd floor), such portion limited to 25' in height. As a necessary part of the variance, landowner will remove the 2nd floor living space from the southern portion of the detached structure, and will remove all roof connections and connected heated cooled connections between the main residence and the detached garage/guest house. Already on file or attached to and all made a part hereof this application is documentation demonstrating ownership of the subject property by landowner together with a survey/site plan delineating the existing improvements relative to setbacks and size. ANDARDS OF VARIANCE. 7Z -VAP- l2- 00t off, The variance may be granted for the reasons set forth at section 24-64(d), LDRs, most notably: (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Yes. Beach Avenue was platted in 1938 as a "garage approach roadway" using limited rods and irons for this lengthy stretch, and its paving does not run evenly along its platted course. Also notable is the fact that the roadway is angled and especially takes a sharp turn at the landowner's lot. Consequently, there are surveying and orientation issues relative to the Beach Avenue roadway known to the City which impact landowner's lot to a greater degree relative to other RS -2 lots including others on the ocean on other roadways. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Yes. The exceptional circumstance is the fact that a project was lawfully constructed pursuant to permit and variance and later rescinded due to survey error discovered. This is not a self- created hardship where landowner financed the construction himself and did not obtain financing through a bank, and is not necessarily remediable via lawsuit against the survey company unless collectible. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property of after construction of improvements upon the property. Yes. The advent and movement of the State of Florida's coastal construction and "scour" line(s) and requirements for the uniform easterly projection and orientation of structures affect oceanfront RS -2 lots differently, and push the envelope as far to the west as possible, creating limitations on the reasonable use of the this valuable oceanfront parcel. Further, there are no material adverse impacts that will result from the grant of the variances under section 24-64(c), LDRs, noting in regard to all those factors set forth that the structure's size and contours was approved at its current location, and only later rescinded when it was discovered the unplatted portion of the road was actually closer to the structure than thought. Thus, with the second floor living space removed from the southern portion, and the disconnection between the main residence and the accessory structure, the structure fits in with the established aesthetics at this location, and has a positive impact on property values, the natural environment (pushes development off the dunes and beach) and the general health, welfare and beauty of the community. Finally, the variance is not being sought for personal comfort or convenience or a situation created by the property owner, where the later -discovered surveying error was relied upon equally by the City in granting the permits and variances that allowed the development. -ZlAX2 2 - a) coot o In sum, the grant of the variances will allow for a reduced but reasonable, beneficial use of the detached garage/guest house structures, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's LDRs. I would be pleased to respond to any requests for additional information and look forward to presenting this matter to the honorable Community Develo�nt Board. Sin klin, Esq. Daniel M. Copeland, P.A. 9310 Old Kings Road South Suite 1501 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 (904) 482-0616 (904) 482-0618 Property Appraiser - Property Details HARKLEROAD CARL E Primary Site Address 2019 BEACH AVE 2019 BEACH AVE ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233-5934 Atlantic Beach FL 32233 HARKLEROAD JUDITH M 2019 BEACH AVE Property Detail RE # CAMA Total Building Value Tax District ___J_169708-0000 I USD3 Pr012911y Use $862,500.00 0100 SINGLE FAMILY # of Buildings Just (Market) Value 1 Legal Desc. $1,864,735.00 15-93 09 -2S -29E Cap Diff/Portability Amt Qualified N ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 3 PT Subdivision 12/10/2004 03100 NORTH ATLANTIC BCH UNIT 3 The sale of this property may result in higher property taxes. For more information go to Save Our Homes and our Property Tax Estimator.Property values, exemptions and other information listed as 'In Progress' are subject to change. These numbers are part of the 2012 working tax roll and will not be certified until October.Learn how the Property Appraiser's Office values property. Page 1 of 2 ZAr,- Q.Colowl o Official Record Book/Page 15424-00194 Value Su Value Method CAMA Total Building Value $985,000.00 Extra Feature Value j $17,235.00 Land Value (Market) $862,500.00 Land Value (AgricJ $0.00 Just (Market) Value $1,864,735.00 Assessed Value $1,864,735.00 $0.00 / $0.00 Cap Diff/Portability Amt Taxable Value $1,814,735.00 Tile # 9409 CAMA $977,244.00 $16,010.00 $862,500.00 $0.00 $1,855,754.00 $1,855,754.00_ $0.00 / $0.00 See below See below Taxable Values and Exemptions — In Progress If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value Summary box. County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Amend 1 Homestead (HB) - $25,000.00 Amend 1 Homestead (HB) - $25,000.00 Taxable Value $1,830,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Sales History Feature Code Feature Description i Bldg. Length i Width Book/Page Sale Date Sale Price Deed Instrument Type Code Qualified/Unqualified Vacant/Improved 15424-00194 11/9/2010 $2,150,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 12181-02326 12/10/2004 $100.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 12002-01886 8/13/2004 $2,600,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 09696-01934 7/20/2000 $650,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 09637-01146 5/18/2000 $655,000.00 1 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 08119-00756 6/15/1995 $255,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 03723-00459 5/17/1974 $69,500.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved Extra Features LN Feature Code Feature Description i Bldg. Length i Width I Total Units Value 1 FPGR7 Fireplace Gas i 1 0 ( 0 2.00 i $7,377.00 2 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 8 12 96.00 $788.00 3 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 4 164 656.00 $4,846.00 4 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 0 0 406.00 $2,999.00 Land & Legal Land Legal LN Code Use Description Zo ng Front ,Depth 1 Category 1 Land Units Land Value LN Legal Description 1 0140 RES OCEAN LD 3-7 UNITS PER AC ARS2 50.00 211.00 Common 50.00 $862,500.00 1 115-93 09 -2S -29E 2 I N ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 3 PT 3 LOT 67 Buildings Building 1 Building 1 Site Address 2019 BEACH AVE Atlantic Beach FL 32233 Building Type 0108 - SFR CLASS 2 SOH Year Built 2003 Element Code Detail Exterior Wall 14 14 Wood Shingle Roofing Structure 3 3 Gable or Hip Roofing Cover 3 3 Asph/Comp Shingle Interior Wall S 5 Drywall Int Flooring 12 I 12 Hardwood http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=1697080000 2/21/2012 Property Appraiser - Property Details Page 2 of 2 ZVr1212--CX") I0 -,Y- .d Gross Area ' Heated Area Assessed Value Int Flooring 15 j 15 Quarry/Hard Tile Proposed Rolled -back Base Area; 624 624 $1,864,735.00 Heating Fuel i 4 4 Electric $12,239.66 $13,079.52 Balcony 99 0 $1,864,735.00 Heating Type i: 4 4 Forced Dulled $9,759.79 $10,516.85 Finished Open Porch ; 245 0 $1,864,735.00 Air Conditioning 3 3 Central $4,135.72 �z C Finished upper story 1 1530 1530 $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $62.53 $62.61 BAS" FDG'' L "� I f0A Fun Finished upper story 1 1312 1312 i $1,864,735.00 Element Code $5,719.07 $6,040.35 $6,040.35 . Finished Open Porch 344 0 $50,000.00 Stories 3.000 $601.22 ( $818.26 Gen Gov Voted �- Finished Det Garage 550 0 $1,814,735.00 Bedrooms 3.000 $0.00 School Board Voted $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 Finished Open Porch 8 0 I Baths j 4.000 Urban Service Dista f $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 Finished Open Porch 90 0 $0.00 Rooms /Units 1.000 Totals Total 4802 3466 $32,839.35 $35,433.70 Just Value 1 Assessed Value Traversing Data 1 Taxable Value Last Year $1,862,527.00 $1,862,527.00 BAS:33,12:=W33 S20 E24 N4 E9 N16 $ BAL:73,0:=S3 E33 N3 W33 $ FOP:73,12:=N9 E33 S9 U4L4 W9 D4L4 W16 $ FUA:106,12:=U4L4 W9 D41_4 W16 S49 E14 N4 E10 N7 E9 N38 $ FUA:69,12:=U4L4 W9 D41_4 W16 S42 E24 N14 E9 N28 $ F013:36,12:=N12 E33 S12 U4L4 W9 D4L4 W16 $ FDG:109,12:=E25 S22 W25 N22 $ FOP:34,44:=N4 E2 S4 W2 $ FOP:69,40:=S10 W9N10E9$. Taxing District Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value last Year Proposed Rolled -back Gen Govt Beaches $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $12,224.77 $12,239.66 $13,079.52 Public Schools: By State Law $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00 $9,823.42 $9,759.79 $10,516.85 By Local Board $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00 $4,590.14 $4,135.72 $4,914.12 FL Inland Navigation Dist. $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $62.53 $62.61 ( $64.60 Atlantic Beach i $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $5,719.07 $6,040.35 $6,040.35 Water Mgmt Dist. SJRWMD $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $753.65 $601.22 ( $818.26 Gen Gov Voted 1 $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 School Board Voted $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Urban Service Dista f $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $0.00 $0.00 i $0.00 Totals $33,173.58 $32,839.35 $35,433.70 Just Value 1 Assessed Value i Exemptions 1 Taxable Value Last Year $1,862,527.00 $1,862,527.00 $50,00 0.00 $1,812,527.00 Current Year $1,864,735.00 $1,864,735.00 1 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 Property Record Card (PRC) The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) provides historical property record cards (PRCs) online for 1995-2005. The PAO no longer maintains a certified PRC file due to changes in appraisal software; therefore, there are no PRCs available online from 2006 forward. You may print this page which provides the current property record. (Sections not needed can be minimized.) To print the past -year cards below, set your browser's Page Set Up for printing to Landscape. 2005 12004 1 2003 12002 12001 1 2000 1 1999 1 1998 1 1997 1 1996 1 1995 More Information arcel Tax Record I GIS Map I Map this property on Google Maps I City Fees Record http://apps.coj .net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=1697080000 2/21/2012 zvqiz- i2 oo Iaxio �'r'0'. O! � i,,� a l•A�•. ypl l°Fs v'-. Iol Y�Lt;t�3�'��o p a r t 04ZMa'`� vuh e � i ca. t'` uF� ew Q0 2 Q �C 000 �; �`♦ i°.A '�' � � � `�' � � �� h O."�Jevcoe .0 h ii w2to Yah . IN: v t C�lulC �uO C� VV yM h.`oo v�� ou''�C o4tio� Q�' °C r euv r tlt JO vai_b�CCv.U4ti ! '`� �'F ` �i,C�y' `�. c • QBE env �4ip�e�c�ceov'tl'K�t ao is ��l�i;max 'u t.+i> tl O.0 .h t i14" 4, It ~tiov4otlecoaa pp��1v�� 4 i, 1S ' i Y u6 y � n Q o a w 0 Z'k, � h z l' � t T.F. i - W al t V - C y� Im Q c 14 M C� o Q I Us V aYF �o Lt �� d SL yooB'J i, 1S . -/1 1. 7S y6/ n [ a w � i v s. v � C . -/1 1. 7S y6/ z\lAa 12- 00 r000 /o /£• of I I 0 ,6F Clip/ tp \ C • � I� V y ,ot'F/•d fZ �fYs/ F9d a oro s .f• o--MP, hiy b I to 14 t y ' � z •t , :�� , / s r,cz ° � o 'B7 t tcz y e g C/AX9Bt ter I H SY I , •S' F 9 8 Z �, Et•'t XT rc s z 6 E , 7X77 � cz L °. a�ZZ V Q I LF 60 Z' v :f �. � v � hl •r 1 �a^E• E ^„�¢ �• 1 i. o�lb •� ' Q I: V G. (y1 I . •les vt i ;. -er 0 14 ' � t /£• of I I 0 ,6F Clip/ tp \ C • � I� V y ,ot'F/•d fZ �fYs/ F9d a A T L A N T I C O C E A N Pkv___ ----- ZVA02-0710CCYO ee ey t; kk Oil Li: 0��a sops_ 88 ! � say 0 aa� _ a �o as+ mnnucna.µ ..u_u<, R�: p0��–io�t� — pi -�i>reeT ; >• r _ d 'ej e ,.tea Pkv___ ----- ZVA02-0710CCYO ee ey t; kk Oil zVAP. �2. ail c�oi v Hello, my name is Richard Reichler and I live at 2025 Beach Ave, next door to the Harkleroads. I am recommending that the Board deny all three variance requests by the applicant I am somewhat frustrated that the City has, for the third time, allowed the Harkleroads to submit a variance application without the documentation required by the law, in that applicable side setbacks are not, and have not been, included in the lot diagrams. I also fail to see how this application is substantially different from the last variance, in that the footprint of the structure has not changed and the same setbacks are violated. Furthermore, the applicant is asking the Board to grant variances based on a proposed structure that has not been adequately described. Why did the applicant not supply a sketch or drawing of the proposed plan in the variance application? It appears that the applicant is currently in violation of the following regulations: 24-151 (b)(1)(d) "Detached private garages, carports, guest house or guest quarters, not to exceed six hundred (600) square feet of lot area". The building is 272 square feet too big 24-151 (b)(1)(d) and 24-106 (e)(3)" Such detached structures exceeding six hundred (600) square feet of lot area shall comply with applicable setbacks as established for the principal building" (15ft total side setbacks). The south wall of the building encroaches 2ft into the south side setback. The applicant is not seeking a variance for this violation in his request, and I am not aware why a variance would not be required. 24-151 (b)(1)(d) and maybe(e). The structure encroaches into the rear setback as close as 3ft from the Beach Avenue right of way The applicant has provided the following reasons for approval of the requested variances: Surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Since the applicant has conveniently omitted their interpretation of "reasonable use", I can only assume that they mean the use of a detached, 872 -square ft, 3 -car garage with living space above it The property is lot number 67 of 80, platted, 50 -ft oceanfront lots along the portion of beach avenue formerly known as Garage Approach Roadway as shown in attachments 4 through 6. Some of these lots are zoned multifamily, but most are zoned R-2, similar to the subject property. The properties along the road have "rods and irons" identifying the corners of their lots just like virtually every other property in town. The pavement along this stretch is uneven in some areas, but especially in front of the subject property, because the builder has destroyed all of the curbing and a portion of the pavement in building the structure so close to the road. Although the road does turn at the junction of lots 64 and 65, this means only that the property sits on a straight section of road (see attachments 8 and 9). The fact that the subject property's north and south boundaries are not perpendicular to the street is not unusual in Atlantic beach. I am not aware of, and the city does not appear to be aware of, any special surveying or orientation issues with this property different from my property or others in the area. What the applicant calls "reasonable use" would be in violation of the land development regulations for his neighbors just as it is for the applicant If the applicant believes that the laws for R-2 zoned properties on the ocean should allow what he considers reasonable use, it should be dealt with via a fair rezoning process. I concur with City staff that my neighbor's property is no different than the surrounding properties. Note that there is nothing in the regulations or in the property's circumstances that prevents the lawful construction of an attached 3 -car garage with an incremental 872 square feet of living space above it, which is what the applicant's neighbors expected him to build. Exceptional Circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to others in the area. The fact is that the project was unlawfully constructed pursuant to the permit and variance based on multiple misrepresentations to the city, not a "survey error". The permit and variance would not have been rescinded if the construction was lawful. The permit and variance never conferred the right to violate the law. If the logic of the applicant's argument is accepted, all homeowners in Atlantic beach should be allowed to break the law, so long as they can do so before the City realizes the infraction. The applicant has provided no evidence to date that this was not a self-created hardship (I'll get into this later). Nevertheless, self-created or not, the applicant is 100% responsible and accountable for the information presented in his permit and variance applications. Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. I am not sure what the logic is here, but it sounds as if the applicant believes that the buildable area or setbacks of oceanfront properties, especially R-2 zoned oceanfront lots subject to the coastal construction control line and scour line (or erosion control line), which by the way do not directly impact the size or location of the buildable area of the property, are too restrictive. Regardless of the applicant's opinion, there are hundreds of other properties in Atlantic beach, including mine, that have the same restrictions. This is an issue better addressed via formal zoning rule changes, not through the variance process. Staff has inserted a statement into their response that "staff interprets imposition of the CCCL and other FL -DEP regulations lines and coastal permits as more of a function of the topographic conditions associated with oceanfront property, and therefore recognizes Section 24-64(d)(1) has having some validity in tempering those limitations." Section 24- 64(d)(1) is a reason for approval of a variance that states "Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property". The topographic conditions of or near the property are similar to hundreds of oceanfront homes in Atlantic beach and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other Florida oceanfront homes. There is nothing exceptional, or rare, about the property with respect to coastal regulations and permitting, and therefore this reason for approval does not apply. I do not agree with staff comments that "staff does recognize section 24-64(d)(4) as being valid justification for one or more of the requested variances, in that the identification of a survey error after the construction of improvements was well underway, has resulted in the encroachment of previously adjudged "legal" structures into required rear yard setbacks, and has created an onerous and burdensome hardship on the property owner to bring the structures into compliance. " When I asked Erika what she was trying to say, she responded that, regardless of fault, the current regulations became onerous to the homeowner once it was determined that the regulations had been violated. Although true, it is certainly not a reason for approval of the variances. My response was, and is, that the regulations are only going to be onerous to those that violate them and are not onerous to all of the applicant's neighbors and the other residents of Atlantic Beach who don't violate the law. If her argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then no laws could ever be enforced, regardless of the circumstances of their violation. Furthermore, I want you to look closely at attachment 11. When Mr. Harkleroad submitted the building permit application, he certified with his signature "that 1 have read and examined this application and KNOW the same to be TRUE and CORRECT" In other words, it is nobody's fault but the applicant's if he submits an incorrect and misleading survey as part of the application. He also certified that "All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other federal, state, or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction". In simple terms, the granting of a permit does not grant the right to violate the law. The variance application mentions in multiple locations that the need for the variance is not the result of a self-created hardship. Self-created or not, the hardship that the owner refers to is entirely financial as he is not restrained from the building of an 872 square foot, 3 -car garage with significant incremental living space above it. An illegally -built, detached structure that meets his reasonable use test is just cheaper than the attached alternative. The applicant has back -handedly fingered the city as partially responsible for allowing the development of the building based on the survey -with -error. The city staff erred only in that they trusted Mr. Harkleroad and his permit application. Obviously this was a mistake, but not one that falls under any of the grounds for approval for a variance. The applicant describes the revised structure as having no adverse material impacts and that the structure fits in with the established aesthetics at this location, and has a positive impact on property values, the natural environment and the general health, welfare and beauty of the community. Since they have yet to describe said structure, how can we believe this? Anyway, the self-created hardship issue is very important to the applicant, so I feel obligated to address it. Mr. Harkleroad, his building contractor, Mr. Henderson, and his designer all appear to be very intelligent, successful people, but their actions, along with ACS surveyors during this project, have been exceptionally bizarre and unprofessional, to say the least. A few unanswered questions: Who would pay for a survey in attachment 1 for which nobody bothered to measure anything? No more information is needed other than the plat information and house dimensions available on the COJ.net website. Who was instrumental in hiring ACS as the surveyor for the closing in the first place and why would they pick these people? Why would the seller of the house (If they were responsible for doing the hiring) have hired ACS when they could simply have had Boatwright update their last survey for a nominal fee? Why is it that the dozen or more misrepresentations and omissions on the drawing all benefit the homeowner, most specifically the 10ft even distance from the south end of the existing structure to the rear setback and the 14.2ft distance from the north side of the building to the rear property line, which combined, imply a vastly increased buildable area just large enough to fit an additional single car garage? When the owner decided to build the new structure, why did he not bother to buy a more detailed survey? The simple drawing may have been all that was needed for closing the sale, but a conscientious builder would not accept this information -challenged closing drawing as the basis for a site plan, nor would a professional architect, had the owner chosen to use one. Why, after the multiple misrepresentations on the survey were exposed, and after the drafter of the survey (with the aid of the builder) was caught intentionally misleading our City's Building Inspector about the location of the City's right-of-way, did the homeowner go back to the same individual to provide the even -more -misrepresented drawing in attachment 3 for presentation at the February 1 variance hearing instead of actually finding a reputable surveyor? Again, why do the newly added misrepresentations and omissions on this second bogus survey all benefit the homeowner, specifically the shortened angles of the road right of way and the curiously missing distance between the newly built 3rd garage and the south property line that conveniently masks a two -foot encroachment into the side setback? Has the homeowner complained at all to the state about the unprofessional and illegal actions of the surveyors? Why does the applicant imply that a lawsuit against the survey company would be uncollectible? What is the status of the lawsuit, if there is or ever will be one? Why would the builder use a drawing with virtually no useful information on it to construct a building that he expected to be within a couple of inches of the property's side and rear setbacks? Especially since the measurements that were shown on the document were completely inconsistent with the plainly visible survey monuments that he appears to have ignored. Why did the builder continue to mislead the Building Inspector about supposedly - missing survey markers instead of asking the surveyors to replace the monuments at nominal cost? Why did the builder vigorously defend the survey tech's removal and relocation of my survey monument 3ft into the city's right of way as detailed in attachment 7? Does he consider this standard procedure? It's illegal. What information did the builder use to draw a coastal construction control line on the original survey in attachment 2 that was used by the designer to site the new structure? If he had another survey with this information on it, why was it not used? How is it that the builder, who was able on the "site plan" in attachment 2 to cite obscure sections of the land development regulations such as the allowance for minor dimensional variances, located deep within the duties and responsibilities of the community development director, and rules for the open exterior stairs, at the very end of the accessory structure rules (both of which provide for increased building footprint), avow at the December 20th variance hearing a misunderstanding of the applicable accessory structure regulations and setback requirements that just happen to reduce the building's legal footprint? Why did the builder not submit an application for a driveway permit or an application for removal of the three trees close to the rear property line in attachment 10? Properly complying with either one of these requirements would have exposed, before or early in the construction process, the misrepresented road right of way boundary to city staff, potentially reducing or eliminating the owner's financial hardship. Why did the designer use the coastal construction control line in attachment 2, of all things, to site the new structure? For a building that was to be built right up to the side and rear setbacks, why would the designer use a line crudely drawn by the builder on the basically information -free "survey' drawing? Why did the designer even use this drawing when he knew of a much more detailed boundary survey, shown in attachment 12, available to the public in the City's archives that he had discussed in detail with Erika Hall in early 2011? Apparently, the designer simply did not use or obtain, and the homeowner did not provide, a survey with sufficient information to site an accessory structure. Why did the homeowner not use a licensed architect for the project in the first place? By not doing so, he personally assumes responsibility for these and any other mistakes. This behavior by the homeowner and his contracted help certainly paints the picture of a self-created hardship and cannot be explained by a simple "survey error". In summary, the applicant has not shown anything close to grounds for approval of a variance. His exceptional circumstances are shared with hundreds of his fellow residents. His self-created hardship is completely financial as he was never restrained from building and using a legal 3 -car garage on his property as his neighbors expected him to do. The illegally -built structure is simply his least expensive alternative -one that would add value exclusively to his property at the unfair expense of his neighbors. City staff did err, in that they trusted that the building permit information, that Mr. Harkleroad certified to be correct, was indeed correct. This is not a valid justification for allowing Mr. Harkleroad to violate the law. The structure simply needs to be brought into compliance with the land development regulations. One final note: Staff included at the end of their report the wording of two lesser variances as alternatives to those requested by the applicant. Although irrelevant at this point, since there are no reasons for approval to support them, the two alternatives are mutually exclusive, as granting both would violate section 24-151 (b)(1)(d) in that "Only one detached private garage, carport, guest house or guest quarters shall be allowed on any single residential lot." Z � Zd 01 uU z W �Q 4 o in o 10 Ui ZI, 60 Z !**... W p � 'Q m Qq N o W 0 C4 0 LL QN �a mm� ag a It ."W-70 -I[unp71 yv ti b � q � � 0 N b � moi Cg 0 n; a ' _ M v A V �c°�3et I I v A I X" 00 � u Zy� aEn p8pzh X088 4,651 " m B' qac z u z n �� u C75 zg"aC fluI 6w13 g gi RE 9� Mia UF.HZ1 LLV 00 00ffig OR HUE 8�I�� e. 0 0 0 0 i oc 4 } N 0 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 J Office (904) 247-5826 Fax (904) 247-5845 6y 4, Job Address: t each Avenue Permit Number: -&-'v? 6cJ Legal Description Parcel # ^ Valuation of Work $ 150,000 Proposed Work heatea/cooled 1150 non-heated/cooled 315 Class of Work (circle one): New Addition Iteration Repair Move Demolition pool/spa window/door Use of existing/pro structure(s)i (circle one): ommercial Residential If an ezisting str=re, is a fire spnukler system installed? (Circle one): Yes No N /A Florida Product Approval # For multiple products use p uct —approval ]form Describe in detail the type of work to be performed: Demo existing garage roof. Add 2nd floor above existing garage. Add and bonus room above. a a g -t m � 9-/57-11 - Property Owner Information: Name: Harkleroad Address: 2019 Beach Avenue City A B State FL—Zip 32233 Phone 904-53411 E -Mail or Fax # (Optional) Contractor Information: Company Name: Beaches Building. LLC Office Phone 626-5556 Job Site/ Con State Certification/Registration # CGC15069 Architect Name & Phone # Roger Russell 223-3701 Engineer's Name & Phone # Louis Gabriel 825-2324 Fee Simple Title Holder Name and Address Bonding Company Name and Address Mortgage Lender Name and Address Agent: George R. Henderson t 1 101" U1IY UY AAUANTIC BEACH SEE PERMITS FOR ADDITIONAL, REQUIREMENTS AND C0Nn1'rtnNc Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated 1 certify that no work or installation has comm issuance of a permit and that all work will be per ormed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. This pe and void f work is not commenced within six (6) months, or if construction or work is suspended �rnb abandonedfor a period sGtz (NJmonth work is commenced 1 understand that separate permits must be secured for Elecoica W g, Signs, W F Tanks and Air CondWonem da 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 YO'QR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. I herecertify that 1 have read and exami ication and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of l ordinmx u governing this type ..work will be complied "lb i red herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to gree to vi to r ca vrsrons ofany other fene proderal, regulating construction or the performance ofcomin uction Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor _p Print Name CA's .._..r4r<dt,hatD —.__.._..._.__.............. _. Print Nameli-- Sworryto and subscr'brrd b forme me Swo to and subsc 'bed this y Day of EP 41AE ?-Oft 20tj this Day of q ?_ Notary Public - State of Florida My mm'nireg .b," to sma Notary Public g * Edward r Suter o a D aC ?FO�.' Commission N DD 111189 My Commrasion DD883992 a n Exprces 02/2312073 Revisad ' M m N JN u " !`Z. Z a°coca �Ul1�oa�aa v' mw°1Ch >- 0 �. 0< 14 >-*<ut I< O � w rcwa 4 y LL¢a N M, QQG' # 1../ Y ^a F O 0 W U' F L7 e4„ Z a°coca 0 �. 0< 14 w w �' mw m 0.°¢[9 O � w rcwa 4 y LL¢a }� Zo OS Z NU. ;L 13,- Z:'l13 0°0 .ljF Ld ¢ 0<LL m I "a a iL J ��a� ., U 6<un¢a o O uJ olf- 0 04 z aw W U' F L7 e4„ Z a°coca UQ Z: 0P j- J z u o n R n LU 0• ;L u �d) ayrcEli .ljF momoc W¢TO UJ p¢O WC ., 6<un¢a ✓� olf- 0 04 z aw u1 >L > 7 o z E xz Ohs; NO � ,r j R�➢Q zi1 wM> S .11 ¢>w� RzKOw m a Tui n�>fm'w �Y ul Ll �zwll= O¢¢aO� U. 'L000z �z�Zz, moo �auliuU d�iaaao� grpA i17(1�g l►l J J N/ el ar✓��G :rsA-u��i� iv z �� O m OUc L4 U z/ z Z w B F d Z .C3 ~ N .-. .., U O � x rn a .wa Z� a 8 v� NV v M v= .--i Z� r o ° s y N 0, ° O1� oo CO a U o CD F U o Z 04 z ~ O O [p ¢ m 0 67C z O za i� `W` m CO z E ` _ ilzarCB, law u f < NF 5. a C ,o °, O Q Q m m z c ¢ S e I�^ < U 0 z °T < N O p (D :D D V] ar✓��G :rsA-u��i� iv z �� O m L4 U z/ z Z w B F d � x rn a .wa Z� a ¢ sx v Z� r o ° s U 0, ° O1� CO a U o CD F U o Z 04 z O ;i CO z E ` _ ilzarCB, f 5. a w } 21 i o$ I I -sw o c� N a� l t�OJ - i�;•- i< Z m °' z 0 filO Z 4 U 6 O Z¢ m 2 Li C O L G S 0 C C O O ` a [ 0- m o o 0 g o o0 of c c -c;, =: L6 Y W aSS e� ((I yI aa�a r ear 4s t 41 1 -A I o a s 1 4V � 4 a• � o a c o e I Q I n na a °1Fry Je� I i e.0 o N acee �tWinN�a\1 aoecE � o��dr'�`5 e I �7 e�r4uSi oe`.°Sp� i'r 41144 I 6iy4 I 1 cE e° 1 0 p O �n��i R pAb1QL�0 y I I �r V t h Z o ell. ■ ale °ono 4 I � i4.1\ w:__. _ \ K,� J aaoae u o �lvo a. 1 e.4 I O � pyo;° 1 oipl�0y 4 ° I V`aJe°o Q J C n o y a+ y D �4'�S �•% Or O .Ool�a O.C:. ca°So Oi t( i eea": �. OTI h. 111 O r e2 l W� i e -.�io- ter`'. ;,-� „ti,.V� fin.<4�' 1: �� ; t 1..e E e n h 'a �8 ..'c.Y I= I I Y 7 W V O V rye_ • Q cgs i t f � • ° iq •'i��< •r.y`'.� ?%"��L'' :: '�_ `0 o a., aai� ¢° ; - p `�-. a. 4 ��,•'�' LUC.�e'p i l tV •`lf� �Y i� °+ ` V ° ° 1 t d P ° I ��', 5 a �Of t\+. •$�•O.'nR a v`ti .wt �. a a at�� t a• •. v a • l i a `'�`B Q� 'y{ kMN c -1 u •� a0A Iu • i.t k 4 �a au � � a °• \ v � nV G 1 oree �a d Q ��aa�. `�kacFa v a� +•.caw �a ea ° ° ai�A ��4 r f�� r♦a,4� v � w � �1� vi ,�y,�, elte.t, v �! y � ��.�(trk'.*i:°� `a .� [ I ..r`y`a y il` ear •a i a • f �y�.o� i- 3 O �naA °poor � �. vo f y3-".��• r��a t ° O ° o ~ tai 3�jxtaw +• ! en ° F ° i a E� t CO, N o i : ac � J °+.. u a » • tt Vv ': + � c � '� Q. � a, o t t . ill. i k� a s ° V•CalN3faj�� €\Y QD F '+,`t'n i 1.°°�•�-`�+°`. i,°y,a d'u STC . tt�aa F . +. t:. �c � I •i LON W k,c�ta �� a•°� ��nr a F ul .� ,,ta•!d �V °q'..Y �' Q� nt�'P ta�•EO � � aP It F6 k��` °O y \� a ai• � ��tf '�aq �a o � °V a rlo1L� i ��Q�`i4 • o° N t 4C144 tL �,oa OCP! � t lav w o ��°cels°e c`ahae q .C�a Q- .s tt�a ° e�n•ioe ��do°i 7, ell 14 -uvu+.'a ;�— v azy� +° al �t a°•2'ki 4 c° Ciol ��nhD r 'k nl ae��ao t h 4 it � t A a. �. 1 l • l A Z. kit [ e • a t t e V a „.Du°�o ' 2 � 2 may• ,. 4 e 44 0 . '; . 714 Atlantic Beach Police Department Case Number 12-00421 Statement by Richard Reichler 0900 January 10, 2012 On Thursday, Jan 5", I witnessed the builder, Ray Henderson, and a survey technician demonstrating to Mike Jones, the building inspector, that the street right of way at 2019 Beach Ave. was 10ft from the building addition under construction. I asked the technician why he had moved my survey monument (marking the southwest corner of my lot and the northwest corner of the 2019 lot) 3ft to the west (toward the street) and he replied to Mike and I that he was returning it to the location it was at the time he did the survey (dated 10-28-10). 1 replied that the survey marker had not moved (from the location he took it from) since it was set in July 2010. An argument began between myself, the builder, and the technician over the supposed southwest corner of the 2019 property, now marked with a small pink flag (but no monument) that was placed approximately 1-2ft from the road surface. Mike Jones said that he was told (by the builder?) that the architect had verified the setback based on DEP markers. When I told them that the corner should be located closer to an existing iron rod protruding from the ground about 7-8 ft east of the flag (away from the street) to be consistent with the subdivision plat and the two surveys of the property that I had seen, the technician explained that the flagged position was correct even though it would suggest that the asphalt road was on the private property of the homeowners just to the south of 2019. In addition, Mr. Henderson was adamant that the existing rod, or the area near it, could not possibly be the corner of the lot. When I told Mr. Henderson that I still did not believe him, he said that he had a survey from a licensed (he may have said "reputable") surveyor and that is all he needed. I said that I would have my surveyor get with his surveyor. I sent an e-mail to Mike Jones outlining what surveys I had to confirm my arguments with the builder and surveyor tech. I called Tri-State Land Surveyors at 3pm and talked to Larry Eddy, whose team had set my monument. He agreed that the movement was very unusual and that if I was willing to wait until the following week, he would send a crew out to replace the monument at no cost. Late on Thursday or Friday morning, I called the president of ACS Inc., Randy Rogers, to inform him that one of his (I assumed) survey techs had moved my survey marker. I told him that I thought it extremely unusual that they would need to do such a thing. I further informed him that the original position (from where the tech had removed the monument) was set by Tri-State Land Surveyors in July 2010 and verified in a recent (April 2011) survey by Boatwright Land Surveyors for a DEP permit. Since the ACS survey was performed in October 2010, it was extremely unlikely that the monument had moved out of, and then back into, its original position during this time period when there was no construction occurring anywhere near the monument. Randy said that he would send a team out on Monday to compare surveys. He asked me to send him a copy of the Boatwright survey if I could and I asked him to send a copy of his original survey to Tri-State. On Friday, I e-mailed Mike Griffin and Mike Jones about my discussion with Randy Rogers. I also talked to Donn Boatwright, who confirmed that the circumstances of the movement were unusual. He said the he had performed multiple surveys of the 2019 property in the past and that the location of the SW 70 corner of the 2019 property should be close to where I thought it was. I faxed him a copy of the marked -up (by the builder for permit submission) ACS survey at his request. I also left a message for Donn to send a copy of his DEP permit survey to ACS, if he was able to. I also talked again to Larry Eddy at Tri-State to find out whether he received the survey from ACS. He said he had not and said that there was "a zero percent chance" that he would ever receive it. On Sunday, shortly before noon, upon returning to my house from a walk, I noticed that no survey monument had been set by Thursday's survey team near the survey flag at the SW corner of the 2019 property. I expected that this would be the case. My survey marker was still in the relocated position, unchanged from Thursday. At 2pm on Sunday, upon leaving my house, I noticed that my marker was missing, leaving a large hole. The survey flag on the neighbor's property was also missing, with no hole at that location. I called the AB police to report the theft of my marker. I also e-mailed Mike Griffin and Mike Jones to inform them of the theft. On Monday morning, I called Randy Rogers at ACS again. He confirmed to me that his brother, Gary Rogers, was the tech that Mike Jones and I conversed with on Thursday (and who told us he had moved the monument). I told him that I believed that at least one of the numbers on the survey was inconsistent with the rest of the survey. He confirmed that Gary had provided all of the measurements for the ACS survey and that Gary was the "GR" that drafted the survey. When I told Randy that my survey marker was missing, he said that a survey team, including Gary, had been sent to the site on Sunday afternoon to check the survey numbers and that he had reported back that he could not check the survey because "all of the survey markers up and down the street were missing". I told Randy that I was unaware of any other missing monuments other that the one at the SW corner of my lot. I also told Randy that I considered it highly suspicious that the marker or markers were taken during or very close to the time that his brother was at the job site, especially since he was the only person that would have any reason whatsoever to remove them. I e-mailed Mike Griffin and Mike Jones to inform them of my discussion with Randy. I called Donn Boatwright to tell him what had transpired since Friday and told him that sending his survey to ACS at this point was probably unnecessary. Donn called the ACS survey that I had faxed him "a disaster". 2012 Beach Avenue - Google Maps Go,)Slc Address 2012 Beach Avenue Address is approximate Page 1 of 1 a] http://maps.google.comlmaps?q=2021 +Beach+Avenue,+Atlantic+Beach,+FL&sll=30.3 50... 3/20/2012 I J Page 1 of 1 a] http://maps.google.comlmaps?q=2021 +Beach+Avenue,+Atlantic+Beach,+FL&sll=30.3 50... 3/20/2012 2017 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL - Google Maps Go Address 2017 Beach Ave L Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Page 1 of 1 httrr//mans. gong] e. com/manOn=2017+Reach+Avenue.+Atlantic+Reach.+FT,&-,l1=30.3 50... 3/2.0/2012. 2023 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL - Google Maps I l , Address 2023 Beach Ave V L Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Page 1 of 1 Save trees. Go green! Download Google Maps on your phone at googlexom/gmm ©® http://maps.google.comlmaps?q=2023+Beach+Avenue,+Atlantic+Beach,+FL&sll=30.3505... 1/4/2012 ' �_-- r�o oil__-__� < --��__--'---'-_-'_'~- MIUW ---_----------_-'_--'-~--- _-� ~�_ ^� +� quo� = d le JU al 0 m 57,41'N ^ March 13, 2012 Tim Franklin, Esq. 9310 Old Kings Road South Suite 1501 Jacksonville, FL 32257 City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road. Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Phone: (904) 247-5800 Fax: (904) 247-5845 www.coab.us fhSENT VIA EMAIL Re: March 20`h meeting of the Atlantic Beach Community Development Board Dear Mr. Franklin: Please be advised that the Harkleroad application for Zoning Variance will be considered by the Community Development Board at their meeting on Tuesday, March 20th. The meeting begins at 6:OOpm and will be held in the Commission Chambers located at City Hall at 800 Seminole Road. A copy of the staff report has been included for your reference. Please email me at ehall@coab.us, or call 270-1605 to confirm whether or not you will be in attendance. (You may leave a voice mail message.) Sincerely, Erika Hall Principal Planner encl cc: Carl Harkleroad — VIA EMAIL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING Tuesday I March 20, 2012 1 6:00pm Commission Chambers 1 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the February 1, 2012 special meeting. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. None. 5. New Business. a. UBEX-12-00100007 980 Mayport Road, Brown dba Beaches Custom Auto Repair Request for (1) a use -by -exception to operate an automotive leasing establishment (Penske Truck Rentals), as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, and (2) a use -by - exception to operate a used automotive sales establishment, as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district on a property located at 980 Mayport Road. b. ZVAR-12-00100010 2019 Beach Avenue, Franklin for Harkleroad Request for (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d & e to reduce the required minimum rearyard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) fee4 with such portion being limited in height to fifteen (I5) feet; and, (3) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d & e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor. 6. Other Business Not Requiring Action. a. Beach Avenue Overlay Report Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding development of a Beach Avenue Overlay. b. Non -Residential Uses Report Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding review of non-residential uses, especially those applicable to the Mayport Corridor. 7. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247-5800. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting. MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting AGENDA ITEM 5b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT March 20, 2012 Public Hearing Zoning Variance, ZVAR-12-00100010 TO: Community Development Board FROM: Erika Hall Principal Planner DATE: March 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Carl E Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue REQUEST: Request (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d, to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet in lieu of the 600 square -foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion of the structure being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty- five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor. NOTE: At the time of submittal, a new certified survey was not provided. Instead, the submittal included an 8 1h x 11 copy of the 2002 Boatwright survey, with some of the recent alterations drawn in, as well as the notes "THIS SURVEY WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF RAY HENDERSON" and 'RECHECKED BOUNDARY. FEBRUARY 14, 2012" included. Staff advised Mr. Franklin, agent for the applicant, that a raised -seal certified copy of the survey would be required by the Board, and Mr. Franklin indicated such would be made available prior to the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS This is a new variance application, substantially differing from the previous requests by the applicant in that this is a request for variances from the land development regulations pertaining to accessory structures, whereas the previous requests were pertaining to the principal structure. As such, the applicant is offering certain concessions and alterations to the design of the project as follows: MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING • The connection previously made between the principal structure and the existing detached garage will be removed and a breezeway -width separation between the principal structure and the previously -detached garage will be restored. • There will be an internal connection between the two detached accessory units, thus essentially making them a single detached accessory unit with a total footprint of eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet, which exceeds the maximum footprint of a single detached accessory unit by two hundred seventy- two (272) square feet, and thus requiring a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d. • The second story of the newly constructed single -car garage portion will be removed, and the height will be limited to fifteen (15), while the second story addition to the existing two -car garage is requested to remain and be utilized as guest quarters. However, due to previous construction according to an erroneous survey, the structure(s) do not meet minimum rear yard setbacks as specified in Sections 24-151(b)(1) d & e, and thus variances from these provisions are necessitated. Justifications for the applicant's requests are as follows: Section 24-64(d)(2), "surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area", stating the methodology employed in the 1938 platting of the North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3, including that portion of Beach Avenue previously known as Garage Approach Roadway, adversely impacts this particular lot. Staff is unable to discern the "sharp turn" described in the applicant's narrative, and there is no evidence that this lot is now or has previously been developed to a lesser degree than any of the other nearby properties having the same or similar characteristics. At just over 10,000 square feet in area, this lot is more than twice the size of many parcels in Atlantic Beach, including a number on the oceanfront. As built in 2003, the existing single-family house has a gross area of 4,802 square feet, with 3,466 square feet being heated & cooled and 550 square feet being dedicated to a one-story two -car garage. The existing house, exclusive of the recent alterations, already meets and exceeds the threshold for reasonable use, so staff does not support this as a valid reason for the granting of any of the requested variances. Section 24-64(d)(3), "exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area", stating that the exceptional circumstance arises out of the fact that the recent alterations were lawfully constructed pursuant to building permits and a variance that were later rescinded due to a survey error, and this has resulted in an undue hardship not of the property owner's making. While staff does agree that revocation of the previously issued variance did result in a financial hardship on the property owner, it is not seen as a prohibition on the reasonable use of the property as compared to others in the area, as noted above. And, Section 24-47(c) of the Land Development regulations clearly states "In exercising its powers, the Community Development Board may, in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse, affirm or modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or determination provided such action is based upon inaccurate information." Further, Section 6-17(b)(4) of the Municipal Code of Ordinances bestows the following powers upon the Building Official regarding the revocation of building permits: a. Misrepresentation of application. The building official may revoke a permit or approval, issued under the provisions of this code, in case there has been any false statement or misrepresentation as to the material fact in the application or plans on which the permit or approval was based. MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 2 of 4 b. Violation of code provisions. The building official may revoke a permit upon determination by the building official that the construction, erection, alteration, repair, moving , demolition, installation or replacement of the building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems for which the permit was issued is in violation of, or not in conformity with, the provisions of this code. Section 24-64(d)(4), 'onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property", stating that the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and "scour' line(s) affect oceanfront RS -2 lots differently, pushing the buildable area as far to the west as possible and creating limitations on the reasonable use of "valuable oceanfront" parcels. Staff points out that the existing CCCL was last revised in 1992, and the existing principal structure, which is the easternmost structure on the property, was constructed in 2003. To the west of the principal structure was constructed a detached accessory similar to other properties in the area. At the time of the 2003 construction, the required rear yard setback for a single -story detached accessory was ten (10) feet from the rear property line, though in actuality, it was built four and seven - tenths (4.7) feet from the rear property line. Though staff has uncovered no variance for this five and three -tenths (5.3) foot reduction, it is assumed either some relief was granted, or the accessory was erroneously located and therefore nonconforming until revisions to the land development regulations in 2010 reduced the required rear yard setback for single -story detached accessories to five (5) feet. Note the additional three -tenths (0.3) feet is just over three (3) inches, which is within the authority of the Community Development Director to administratively grant, being five (5) percent of the standard varied. Thus, again, there has been no barrier to reasonable use of the subject property. However, staff does recognize Section 24-64(d)(4) as being valid justification for one or more of the requested variances, in that the identification of a survey error after the construction of improvements was well underway, has resulted in the encroachment of previously adjudged "legal" structures into required rear yard setbacks, and has created an onerous and burdensome hardship on the property owner to bring the structures into compliance. Additionally, staff interprets imposition of the CCCL and other FL -DEP regulations lines and coastal permits as more of a function of the topographic conditions associated with oceanfront property, and therefore recognizes Section 24-64(d)(1) has having some validity in tempering those limitations. It should be noted that the applicant is requesting that the original two -car garage be considered separately from the new one -car garage in the application of rear yard setbacks. The rationale for this is that detached accessories exceeding the maximum six hundred (600) square foot footprint are subject to required twenty (20) foot rear yard setbacks, per Section 24-151(b)(1)d. Implications of this are discussed further, below. The considerations before the Board at this time are as follows: 1. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, thereby allowing the two detached accessory structures to be connected on the ground floor, resulting in a single detached accessory unit having an eight hundred seventy-two (872) square foot footprint, thereby exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area (footprint) for a single detached accessory by two hundred seventy-two (272) square feet, or forty-five and three -tenths (45.3) percent of the standard? ❑ YES ❑ NO 2. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the northern (existing) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, as is required for two- story detached accessory units, and then granting a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e, further reducing MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 3 of 4 the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of fifteen and three -tenths (15.3) feet, or seventy-six and five -tenths (76.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area. ❑ YES ❑ NO Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the southern (new) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet, as is required for one-story detached accessory units, and then further reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one -tenths (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage addition constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of sixteen and nine -tenths (16.9) feet, or eighty-four and five -tenths (84.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area. ❑ YES ❑ NO Alternatively, per Section 24-64(f), the Board may approve a lesser variance than that requested, if such lesser variance is found to be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations. As such, the Board may deny request #1 above, and require the two detached accessories be maintained as separate units. In doing so, the Board may then wish to consider options #4 and #5, below, as respective alternatives to requests #2 and #3, above. 4. Considering the original two -car garage which has a five hundred fifty (550) square -foot footprint, and a new second -story addition of guest quarters, limited to a maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e be granted, reducing the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would result in a reduction of five and three -tenths (5.3) feet, or fifty-three (53) percent, from the standard applicable to two-story detached accessory structures limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area. ❑ YES ❑ NO 5. Considering the new one -car garage which has a three hundred twenty-two (322) square -foot footprint and is limited to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of one and nine -tenths (1.9) feet, or thirty-eight (38) percent, from the standard applicable to single -story detached accessory structures limited to fifteen (15) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area. ❑ YES ❑ NO ATTACHMENTS: Application for Variance, ZVAR-12-00100010 MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 4 of 4 2019 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — View from SW 2019 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — Stairs 'V]' -k 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 City web -site: http://www.coab.us APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by the Building Department.) 12-00100010 Date routed: Mar 12, 2012 APPLICATION REVIEW AND TRACKING FORM Property Address: 2019 BEACH AVENUE Applicant: CARL E HARKLEROAD (TIM FRANKLIN, AGENT) Project: 2019 BEACH GARAGE ADDN Review fee $ 150.00 Department review required I Yes No Building Planning & Zoning X Tree Administrator Public Works Public Utilities Public Safety Fire Services Dept Signature EH Other Agency Review or Permit Required Review or Receipt of Permit Verified B Date Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection N/A N/A Florida Dept. of Transportation N/A N/A St. Johns River Water Management District N/A N/A Army Corps of Engineers N/A N/A Division of Hotels and Restaurants N/A N/A Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco N/A N/A Other: N/A N/A APPLICATION STATUS Reviewing Department First Review: Approved. ❑Denied. (Circle one.) Comments: Staff Sufficiency Review. Scheduled Compliance Review & Public Hearing before the Community Development Board on 3/20/2012. "Applicant to provide revised and re -certified, raised seal copy BUILDING of Boatwright survey dated 2/14/2012 and showing most recent additions prior to meeting." PLANNING & ZONING Reviewed by: Eftat&, Pr' CLJ-Pla,vuler 3/12/2012 � '^�� Date: TREE ADMIN. Second Review: ❑Approved as revised. ❑Denied. PUBLIC WORKS Comments: PUBLIC UTILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY Reviewed by: Date: FIRE SERVICES Third Review: []Approved as revised. ❑Denied. Comments: Reviewed by: Date: Revised 07/27/10 Harkleroad — 2019 Beach Avenue Variance Application PRESENTATION MATERIALS a r�e J� Z14 G ;dan Ln vo m 4 -*A Jq- JEW lie Eli 9 999 Ini''J * al M MMM t� JC T A •• b * G a� =4 a o � r Wi- +. c tecu w a, n� ¢LF, �� S (= -M O W CrfJ 9 9 fJ-a M d' = ru ..•y 'p �• V Y •.r iL a ++ �k J M C rp aa. y * nom. iL NY C D N m Wig~ � Lj d. '0 �J w 2 S. a, u -oma nom c 2019 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — View from W 15- CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BO) REGULAR MEETING Tuesday I March 20, 2012 1 6:00p Commission Chambers 1 800 Seminole 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the February 1, 2012 special meetir 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. None. S. New Business. O� :Y760-1 a. UBEX-12-00100007 980 Mayport Road, Brown dba Beaches Custom Auto Repair Requestfor (1) a use -by -exception to operate an automotive leasing establishment (Penske Truck Rentals), as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, and (2) a use -by - exception to operate a used automotive sales establishment, as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district on a property located at 980 Mayport Road. b. ZVAR-12-00100010 2019 Beach Avenue, Franklin for Harkleroad Request for (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(I)d & e to reduce the required minimum rearyard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) fee4 with such portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and, (3) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d & e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor. 6. Other Business Not Requiring Action. a. Beach Avenue Overlay Report Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding development of a Beach Avenue Overlay. b. Non -Residential Uses Report Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding review of non-residential uses, especially those applicable to the Mayport Corridor. 7. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247-5800. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is mode. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting. MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board ls' a 1 2 3 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 February 1, 2012 6 1. CALL TO ORDER. — 6:04pm 7 Chair Chris Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, 8 Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton, and Brea Paul 9 and called the meeting to order at 6:04pm. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall, 10 Building Official Michael Griffin, Building Inspector Mike Jones, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. 11 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES — JANUARY 17, 2012. 12 Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular 13 meeting. 14 MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the January 17, 2011 regular 15 meeting, as written. The motion was seconded by Ms. Burgess, and carried by a vote of 7-0. 16 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. None. 17 4. OLD BUSINESS. 18 A. ZVAR-11-00100065-A.1 19 APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad (owner) 20 ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue 21 REQUEST: Request for an amendment to a previously granted variance [ZVAR- 22 11-001000651 from Section 24-106(e)(2), further reducing the 23 required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) 24 feet to four and one-half (4 '/2) feet [for an additional five and one - 25 half (5 '/Z) feet], within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning 26 District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. 27 Ms. Hall reviewed the facts of the case as relevant to a previous variance granted by the 28 Board on December 20, 2011, which allowed a reduction of the required rear yard setback for 29 the principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet. Particularly, she reminded the 30 Board that the previous request was found consistent with Section 24-64(d)(4) of the Land 31 Development Regulations establishing grounds for approval of variance due to onerous effect 32 of regulations enacted after construction of improvements upon the property and an undue 33 hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to process deficiencies, and 34 on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals. She then explained that 35 approximately three weeks after the granting of the original variance, the Building 36 Department was informed of potential errors in the survey upon which the approved site plan 37 and construction drawings were based. Subsequently, a new certified survey was requested 38 and a Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Department. The new survey, revised on Page 1 of 8 /, Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 39 January 11, 2012, delineated the rear (westernmost) property line such that the northwest and 40 southwest corners of the existing garage were actually located 12.2' and 4.7', respectively, 41 from the rear property line, whereas the approved site plan indicated them to be 14.2' and 42 10.0', respectively, from the rear property line. Additionally, the southwest corner of the new 43 garage being constructed to the south of the existing garage was shown on the new certified 44 survey as being 4.5' from the rear property line, whereas the approved site plan indicated that 45 corner was 10.2' from the rear property line. 46 Ms. Hall reported this effectively reduced the required rear yard by an additional five and 47 one-half (5 ''/z) feet, more or less, and in order to continue with construction, the property 48 owner had the option to apply for an amendment to the granted variance based upon the 49 revised survey, or bring all new construction into compliance with applicable standards and 50 valid variances. She also reminded the Board that according to the provisions outlining the 51 duties and responsibilities of the Community Development Board, it "may reverse, affirm or 52 modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or 53 determination, provided such action is based upon new evidence or where it is determined 54 that a previous decision was made based upon inaccurate information". [Section 2447(c)] 55 Property owner Carl Harkleroad addressed the Board and confirmed that a Stop Work Order 56 had been issued due to a discrepancy discovered between a newly certified survey and a pre - 57 purchase survey that had been used as the basis for the approved site plan and construction 58 drawings. He said that he had provided both a raised -seal copy of the newly certified survey 59 as well as a copy of the pre -purchase survey to Ms. Hall, and was requesting an amendment 60 to the granted variance, further reducing the required rear yard setback to four and one-half (4 61 ''/z) feet, to account for the discrepancy between the two surveys. 62 For clarification, Mr. Lambertson asked if the pre -purchase survey submitted to staff had a 63 raised -seal, to which Ms. Hall replied that it did not. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. 64 Harkleroad if he had the original or a raised -seal copy of the pre -purchase survey with him, to 65 which Mr. Harkleroad responded that he did not. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. Harkleroad 66 if, given time, he could retrieve the survey, to which Mr. Harkleroad responded that he did 67 not know where it was. City Attorney Alan Jensen then interjected that if Mr. Harkleroad 68 stated the pre -purchase survey was certified and had a raised -seal, the Board could stipulate 69 as to that fact and give a reasonable amount of time for Mr. Harkleroad to produce it. 70 Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Hall indicated that the Board 71 had been provided copies of two letters received via email, including one in objection to the 72 variance from Mr. Richard Reichler, and one in support of the variance from Dr. Stanley 73 Barnwell. 74 Rich Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) introduced himself as the adjacent property owner to the 75 north of the subject property. He stated that, based upon two grossly inaccurate 76 measurements between the existing structure and Beach Avenue, and many major 77 misrepresentations since before the Harkleroads' purchase of the property, he strongly 78 recommended the Board deny tonight's request for amendment to, and revoke the previously 79 granted variance. [NOTE: Per Mr. Reichler s request, a copy of his complete statement is 80 attached to and made apart of these official minutes.] 81 John Meserve (2126 Beach Avenue) introduced himself as a neighbor just a few houses to the 82 north of the subject property. He noted that new construction is essential complete except for 83 trim and interior finishing, and recommended that the Board grant the requested variance Page 2 of 8 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 84 amendment, noting that Beach Avenue is a narrow one-way street, with many garages and 85 other accessories located near or directly abutting the right-of-way. He added that Mr. 86 Harkleroad's construction does not intrude any more into the right-of-way than neighbors to 87 both the north and south. He said that modification of the existing structure, as constructed to 88 this point, was not an option, but would require a complete tear -down and new start. Mr. 89 Meserve also responded to Mr. Reichler's concern about Mr. Harkleroad's potential to further 90 increase the scale and mass of the principal structure closer to the street, stating that Board 91 could stipulate as to limitations as to height and mass of the addition, which Mr. Harkleroad 92 could then record as deed restrictions. He concluded that the flawed survey existed since 93 before the purchase of the property, and therefore should not be considered as the fault of the 94 present owner. 95 Richard Bell (1952 Beachside Court) said that he opposes the variance and the amendment, 96 noting that there is already a scarcity of adequate parking on the site, which imposes a burden 97 on neighbors. 98 Kathleen Russell (2117 Beach Avenue) stated that she had lived in the area for nearly thirty 99 years and had several Stop Work Orders issued while constructing her home, and each time, 100 she did what was necessary to bring the work into compliance. Afterwards, she served on the 101 Community Development Board, then on the Code Enforcement Board, and these 102 appointments gave her a greater appreciation of the difficult decisions made by these boards 103 and the unique circumstances that property owners often find themselves in. However, in this 104 particular situation, she said the fault was clearly that of the surveyor, and she suggested the 105 property owner should look to the surveyor for recourse, rather than asking for additional 106 concessions not afforded to other law-abiding citizens. 107 Heath Aldridge (Durham, North Carolina) explained that she was the owner of the two vacant 108 lots directly across Beach Avenue from the Harkleroad and the Reichler residences, amongst 109 several other properties in Atlantic Beach, and she just happened to be in town and noticed 110 the sign advertising the meeting on the site. She expressed concern that Atlantic Beach no 111 longer sends out notifications to abutting property owners for variance hearings, and strongly 112 recommended that this practice be reinstated. She then noted that the previous variance was 113 granted on the finding of criterion number four, but she asserted that there was no such 114 onerous effect of regulations enacted after the development of the property or after the 115 construction of improvements upon the property, and that an inaccurate survey could not be 116 claimed as grounds, because it is the property owner(s)' responsibility to do due diligence and 117 hire reputable contractors and service providers. Referring to the 2002 Boatwright survey 118 found by staff in City archives, she noted that it did not make sense for a property owner to 119 change to a completely different surveyor, when one already had the file and merely needed 120 to be update and recertify it. She concluded by asking the Board to deny the variance 121 amendment and revoke the original variance. 122 With there being no one else from the audience wishing to speak, Mr. Lambertson closed the 123 public comment portion of the hearing and returned the item to the Board for discussion. 124 Mr. Hansen noted that the approved variance had no restrictions. Mr. Parkes added that the 125 original or primary question had been one of a ten (10) foot rear yard setback for an accessory 126 that was subsequently attached to the principal structure. The fact that principal structures 127 and accessory structures have differing height limits was not given adequate consideration at 128 that time. As a point of clarification for the audience, Mr. Lambertson explained that the 129 original garage was in compliance. New construction consisted of addition of a second level Page 3 of 8 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 130 to that existing garage, addition of a new two-story garage and finally connection of the 131 garages to one another and the principal structure. As a result, there were many nuances to 132 consider. 133 Mr. Parkes asked staff how the Boatwright survey was obtained. Ms Hall replied that it was 134 in the City's digital archives, which may consist of historic building plans, surveys, permits 135 and such documents for individual addresses. Mr. Elmore then asked where the Atlantic 136 Coast survey came from, and Mr. Harkleroad said it was supplied to him by the seller of the 137 property. Discussion as to survey requirements at the time of property transactions ensued, 138 and Mr. Burgess added that the closer may have had a relationship with Atlantic Coast and 139 that could have been why that company was selected to do the closing survey. 140 Mr. Elmore expressed disdain for the poor quality of even the most recent certified survey, 141 noting that basic surveying data, such as corner identification, was still missing. Mr. Parkes 142 added that with all the technology of the day, he did not know of anyone who provided hand - 143 drawn surveys as a final deliverable. 144 Mr. Elmore, noted that originally the applicant had come before the Board to request a 145 variance because a connection that essentially converted accessory structures into an 146 extension of the principal structure was not shown on the site plan reviewed and approved by 147 the Planning & Zoning Department, though it was eventually found to be shown on 148 construction plans reviewed and approved by the Building Department. Neither was wrong 149 in their independent reviews and subsequent approvals, but inconsistency between the two 150 documents uncovered a flaw in the review process, and consequently there was concession 151 that the City would shoulder blame, and this Board granted a ten (10) foot rear yard variance 152 for what is now the principal structure. Now, the applicant comes before us again, with an 153 incorrect survey. 154 Mr. Parkes interjected that the Board approved the previous variance based on what was 155 thought to be an honest mistake. Had the original submittal for building permits included a 156 correct survey, this would have never been approved. 157 Mr. Elmore noted that Mr. Reichler had mentioned pins had been moved and that Building 158 Inspector Mike Jones had been present while Atlantic Coast surveyors were on the site and 159 had had conversations with various people involved. He then asked if Mr. Jones could 160 elaborate on what he witnessed. Mr. Jones introduced himself as the Building Inspector and 161 Plans Examiner for the City of Atlantic Beach. He acknowledged that he had attempted to 162 verify the setback himself, taking off from a pin he found on the north side. He said at that 163 time, his estimation was consistent with the distances shown on the site plan. But soon after, 164 questions arose over the accuracy of the survey, and on a Friday afternoon soon afterwards, 165 he encountered a three-man survey crew from Atlantic Coast on-site, who were reporting the 166 southern pin had been moved, but reset. Then, the following Monday, Atlantic Coast called 167 and reported that the pins had been moved over the weekend and said they would not certify 168 the survey. 169 Mr. Lambertson inquired into the creation of the site plan, asking if the architect had used the 170 parameters of the survey. Mr. Jones said that he had called the project designer, Roger 171 Russell, to inquire as to how the site plan was created. He said that Mr. Russell told him that 172 he pulled off the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) to get a dimension line. Mr. 173 Russell, present in the audience interjected that he was not an architect, but a designer, and 174 was not regulated. Mr. Elmore responded the CCCL, while it has a legal description, is not a Page 4 of 8 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 175 line you can pin to — it is not an acceptable monument. Mr. Parkes commented that there are 176 rare circumstances when such unconventional methods are required, but in doing so, he 177 always includes a disclaimer. 178 Mr. Lambertson asked why the surveyor came out, moved the pins and then did not certify 179 the survey he had just created, to which no one had an answer. He then asked what the 180 position of Atlantic Coast Surveyors was at this time. Ray Henderson, building contractor for 181 the project, responded that Atlantic Coast eventually did present a new certified survey with 182 corrections, but since then, they have not been returning phone calls or responding to emails. 183 Ms. Hall read the note from the most recent certified survey from Atlantic Coast Surveyors, 184 "Revised 1-11-12 to show new garage addition and ties to property line" and commented that 185 star is troubled by the fact that this note is not completely truthful and does not adequately 186 address the revisions made. For instance, as Mr. Elmore had pointed out earlier, there was 187 not sufficient documentation of monuments and control points, nor was there indication that 188 the location of the structures changed what could be considered a significant distance, thus 189 placing a heaving burden on this Board and staff, and having potentially catastrophic 190 implications for the property owner and construction professionals he has employed. 191 Mr. Stratton asked how a surveyor could make an error of five feet, and Mr. Lambertson 192 replied that is possible for anyone, but as a contractor, he tries to implement checks and 193 balances that protect him from such errors, such as getting a foundation survey to verify the 194 horizontal constraints of his projects before commencing with vertical construction. 195 Mr. Lambertson then directed the Board to the application, noting that the applicant had once 196 again indicated "onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of 197 the property or after construction or improvements upon the property". However he promptly 198 dismissed this as invalid grounds for approval of the amendment, and asked the Board 199 members to review the other criteria. 200 Mr. Parkes inquired as to the status of the project and asked if any work had been done since 201 the error was discovered. Mr. Griffin stated that speculation regarding the accuracy of the 202 survey occurred soon after the original variance was granted, and a Stop Work Order was 203 issued on January 9`b. 204 Mr. Elmore noted a comment made by Mr. Meserve regarding the character of Beach Avenue 205 as germane to the consideration, and reiterated that he would like to see the area addressed 206 with an overlay. He then said he was torn as to how to decide this case — to be principled and 207 require everything out of compliance to be removed, or to be compassionate and approve the 208 amendment because he does not see the impact of the design as a negative to the neighbors on 209 either side. Mr. Parkes said he agreed with much of Mr. Elmore's comments, but looking at 210 the Code and the Boards positions in the past, he felt it was necessary to defend those 211 positions and uphold the Code. He continued, saying that he did not think the parking issue 212 was a valid concern, and that he was sympathetic to the owner and builder whom he felt had 213 no part in this, but was drawn into this by no fault of their own when provided with an 214 incorrect survey. 215 Mr. Lambertson agreed, again stating this could happen to anyone, but the Board must be 216 vigilant and consider what would happen when the next person shows up with a faulty 217 survey. Ms. Paul countered that a faulty survey is not something that can be prevented, and 218 that we rely upon professionals to provide accurate and reliable information. Page 5 of 8 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 219 Mr. Burgess said that in looking at the criteria, he could not find one that addressed an 220 erroneous survey, and therefore could not find grounds to approve the amendment before 221 them. Mr. Stratton concurred, stating that even if everyone on the Board wanted to grant the 222 variance amendment out of compassion, there is nothing in the guidelines allowing the Board 223 to grant it. Mr. Hansen said he complete agreed, and Mr. Parkes said that looking back, he 224 now questioned whether the Board had a valid reason to grant the original variance. 225 Mr. Stratton, who was absent from the December 2e meeting, noted the criteria had not 226 changed and asked how the previous request met the criteria. Mr. Elmore reiterated his 227 earlier comments and said that it was essentially viewed as error by both staff and applicant, 228 and that it really did not fit into one of those boxes. Mr. Lambertson said that the initial 229 variance was granted because the original site plan did not show the second -level connection 230 between what was a one-story accessory and the principal structure. He added that at this 231 point, he would not feel comfortable revoking the previously granted variance. 232 Mr. Parkes agreed that the basis of the previous variance was a series of oversights and errors 233 and that the variance was granted because the circumstances were viewed as no fault of the 234 owner. However, he said that he now viewed the project in an entirely new light, because if 235 the survey had been correct from the beginning, neither Building nor Zoning would have 236 approved the plans. 237 Mr. Lambertson asked Board members for their final comments and called for a motion. Mr. 238 Stratton said that while he felt very badly for the situation, he also felt that approval of this 239 amendment would be setting this Board and the City up for legal action, noting that the 240 residents of the Atlantic Beach have expectations that this Board will uphold the Code of the 241 City. 242 MOTION: Mr. Stratton moved that the Board deny the requested variance amendment 243 further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning 244 district from ten (10) feet — as approved by order of a previous variance — to four and one-half 245 (41/2) feet, finding that the request does not meet any of the grounds for approval according to 246 Section 24-64(d), and also reverse the previous decision and revoke the variance order 247 granted to reduce the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning 248 district from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, finding that the request did not meet any of the 249 grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d) either. Ms. Paul seconded the motion. 250 Mr. Lambertson said he wanted to ensure the Board was clear on the implications of this 251 motion. Saying essentially this would require the applicant to take the structure back to the 252 original state, he read from the staff report this would require "all new construction to be 253 completely removed. In this scenario, the original one-story two -car detached garage would 254 have to be restored to original horizontal and vertical dimensions, though it could still be re - 255 oriented from a southern access to a western access. Likewise, the original breezeway 256 separating the detached garage from the principal structure would have to be restored." 257 MOTION WITHDRAWN: Mr. Stratton withdrew his motion and Ms. Paul withdrew her 258 second. 259 Mr. Stratton then asked for discussion of the second scenario, which would be a denial of the 260 present amendment, but a reaffirmation of the previous variance. Mr. Hansen said that one of 261 the problems with this scenario is that the new construction consists of the addition of a 262 second story. Mr. Elmore added that any modification would change the roof lines, which Page 6 of 8 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 263 would require the whole thing to be re -engineered. Mr. Lambertson said again that he felt the 264 original variance was based on substantial evidence; even though the connection at the basis 265 of the request was not shown on the site plan, it was found in the structural plans. 266 Mr. Lambertson then inquired as to the appeal process, and Mr. Jensen responded that appeals 267 would be to the City Commission. Mr. Parkes added that the Commission was essentially the 268 authors of the guidelines. Mr. Stratton said that if the Commission drafted the guidelines by 269 which this Board was to consider variances, they would certainly have expectations that any 270 variances granted could meet the established criteria. Ms. Hall explained that an appeal is a 271 quasi-judicial review, in which the Commission would' only be permitted to review the 272 official record to determine three things — whether there had been due process afforded to all 273 affected parties, whether the correct law had been applied, and whether there was substantial 274 competent evidence to support the decision. 275 Mr. Lambertson read the second option from the staff report, noting this scenario would deny 276 the current request to amend the variance, but allow the original variance to stand, meaning 277 any new construction encroaching beyond the ten (10) foot setback would have to be 278 removed. 279 Noting that this was the only rear yard variance approved during his tenure on the Board, Mr. 280 Parkes said he questioned whether he would have voted in the same manner on the original 281 variance if he had had the current information. Mr. Elmore agreed that looking forward, he 282 could not say he would have done the same either because there are long-term repercussions 283 to be considered. 284 MOTION: Mr. Stratton moved that the Board deny the requested variance amendment 285 further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning 286 district from ten (10) feet — as approved by order of a previous variance from Section 24- 287 106(e)(2) — to four and one-half (4 '/2) feet, finding that this request does not meet any of the 288 grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d), and that the Board also reverse the 289 previous decision and revoke the variance from Section 24-106(e)(2) granted to reduce the 290 required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning district from twenty 291 (20) feet to ten (10) feet, finding that in accordance with Section 24-47(c), the previous 292 decision was based upon inaccurate information, and that this action is based upon new 293 evidence which does not meet any of the grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d) 294 either. The motion, seconded by Mr. Hansen, was carried by a vote of 5-2, with Ms. Paul and 295 Mr. Lambertson dissenting. 296 Under consensus of the Board, Mr. Lambertson expressed a desire to hold a joint workshop 297 with the Commission to discuss Beach Avenue character and possible solutions such as an 298 overlay; however, he recalled that when the Board previously requested such a workshop, 299 staff was told no. He asked if the Board could request workshop with the Commission, to 300 which Mr. Jensen replied yes and agreed that a delegate from this Board could address the 301 Commission with such a request. 302 Page 7 of 8 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 5. NEW BUSINESS. A. ORDINANCE NO 90-12-214 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Commission to amend Section 24-151, to establish a minimum required separation of six (6) feet between accessory buildings and structures and other buildings and structures; to correct four (4) incorrect references in the existing provisions; and to reorder subsection 24-151(b)(2), grouping those provisions related to use and those related to dimensions. Ms. Hall explained that the submittal before the Board arose out of the Board's desire to reincorporate a defined separation between accessories structures and other structures into the Code, and consisted of a draft ordinance and a strike -through / underline revision of the affected Section 24-151, implementing a minimum required six (6) foot separation as item 24-151(b)(2)f. Additionally she noted four incorrect references within Section 24-151 that were corrected, and reordering of subsection (b) according to application, with some being related to use and some being related to dimensions. Mr. Parkes said that he would support reducing the separation to five (5) feet, and Mr. Elmore concurred, as did other members of the Board, saying that it was a dimension consistent with other setback requirements. MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission adoption of the ordinance before them, thereby amending Section 24-151 of the Land Development Regulations to establish a minimum required separation of five (5) feet between accessory buildings and structures and other buildings and structures, and making other corrections as noted, finding that this amendment is consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plan and the purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None. 7. ADJOURNMENT— 8:15 PM Chris Lambertson, Chairman Attest Page 8 of 8 2// /20/Z &.. Ibov-, My name is Richard Reichler and I live at 2025 Beach Ave. Mr. Harkleroad is my next door neighbor to the south. I am recommending that the board reverse the prior variance approval ZVAR-11-00100065 of December 20, and deny the current variance request, based on the fact that both were submitted using grossly misrepresented survey information. The building permit application and December variance application are both based on an extremely unusual boundary survey in that it contains no boundary measurements. No corners are identified -- no distances or bearings between corners are measured. Only plat information is shown for the boundary, and most of that is either not relevant or is misrepresented. Importantly though, two grossly inaccurate measurements are presented as the distance between the western corners of the existing single -story garage and the beach avenue right-of-way: A 10ft number that misrepresents, by over 5ft, that the to - be -enlarged existing garage will exactly meet the required setback, and a 14.2ft number that, when used with the 10ft number, misrepresents the angle of the right-of-way boundary as approximately 11 degrees to north instead of the actual 18 degrees, providing the illusion that there is just enough room to attach an additional (albeit illegal) concrete block garage next to the existing two car garage. Only after the 10ft variance was approved, on December 20th, did the just -mentioned misrepresentations become obvious when the building inspector explained to me that because of a missing (per the builder) physical survey marker, the inspector had to rely on the previously -mentioned survey measurements in order to check that the addition was in compliance with setback requirements. The misrepresentations became even more numerous when on the following day, the same survey tech that had drafted the original survey, along with the builder, attempted to persuade the building inspector and myself that the survey's interpretation of the location of the city's right of way was correct by a.) illegally moving my capped survey monument 3ft towards the street, in order to make its location consistent with the two grossly inaccurate measurements on the survey and b.) loudly arguing that the location of the southwest corner of the property (where the marker was purportedly missing) could not possibly be located anywhere near the location shown on the archive survey presented by the city at the December 20 meeting and should be 7-8ft closer to (and almost in) the road surface. The survey for today's variance request includes additional inaccuracies, including all the bearings. The 4.5ft setback is not consistent with the 12.2ft and 4.7ft figures obtained from an earlier survey for the prior owner of the property. Again, no measurements appear to have been made, nor were any monuments set. In summary, the information provided to the city by the homeowner for the building permit, the December20 variance, and the current variance request is not just inaccurate, it includes many major misrepresentations that have occurred since before the homeowner purchased his home. The only legitimate solution to this issue, based on the new information, is for the board to reverse the 10ft variance approval and deny the current request. The property needs to be brought back into compliance with the existing land development regulations. AGENDA ITEM Sa �-\A r--5-\A- COMMUNITY lei COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT March 20, 2012 Public Hearing Use -by -Exception, UBE-12-00100007 TO: Community Development Board FROM: Erika Hall Principal Planner DATE: February 8, 2012 APPLICANT: Joan Brown Beaches Custom Auto Repair 980 Mayport Road REQUEST: Request for (1) a use -by -exception to operate an automotive leasing establishment (Penske Truck Rentals), as is consistent with Section 24- 111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, and (2) a use -by -exception to operate an automotive sales establishment, as is consistent with Section 24- 111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on a property located at 980 Mayport Road. STAFF COMMENTS The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of southbound lanes of Mayport Road and West 10th Street and is approximately 0.47 acres, or about 20, 473 square feet in total lot area, comprised of one hundred two (102) feet of frontage along Mayport Road and two hundred (200) feet of frontage on West 10th Street. The property is presently designated as Commercial (CM) according to the Future Land Use Map of the adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Series, and it is zoned Commercial General (CG) according to the Official Zoning Map. Surrounding properties are also zoned CG, with the parcel to the north being the location of the First Baptist Church of Atlantic Beach; the parcels to the south and west being the location of Transit Plus; and the parcel to the southwest being the location of Advanced Lens Technologies. The applicant currently operates an automotive service establishment, offering minor automotive repair and detailing services on the subject property, as is permitted by Section 24-111(b)(9). However, she recently secured a Penske Truck Rental franchise and now requests to operate that business from this same location. Additionally, the applicant has stated she is in the process of obtaining a dealer's license and also requests to operate a used car dealership from this location. Both automotive sales and leasing establishments are listed as permissible uses -by -exception, according to Section 24-111(c)(10), so long as found to be consistent with the commercial intensity, and compatible with other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity. As noted in the table below, the subject property has been occupied by automotive sales and service establishments for more than thirty (30) years. Harry T. Gross commenced operation of Bud's Auto on the subject MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting AGENDA ITEM 5a — continued Page 2 of 3 property in 1979, when it was already zoned CG, and at which time used car sales were permitted by right only with the Commercial Intensive (CI) and Light Industrial & Warehousing (ILW) zoning districts. Staff has been unable to determine what preceded Bud's Auto, or how the automotive use came into existence on the property. With the adoption of Ordinance 90-85-96 though, the CI zoning district was eliminated and auto sales and leasing were reclassified as permitted uses -by - exception within the CG zone. Then, in January 1986, Mr. Gross was granted a use -by -exception for his automotive sales business located at 980 Mayport Road, thereby establishing a record of conformance with the current zoning regulations. However, staff found no evidence, either in UBE files or in official minutes of either the Community Development Board or the City Commission that Mr. Murr ever applied for or was granted a use -by -exception for his automotive sales business that occupied the subject property subsequent to Mr. Gross' business. BUSINESS ID & NAME The CLASSIFICATION OPERATION 3081 BUD'S AUTO SALES AUTO SALES, USED 1979-2000 AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR SCHEDULED FOR CC PH 2007 -DEC -10 AUTOSTORAGE APPROVED 4805 MURR'S MOTORS AUTO SALES, USED 2000-2011 2007 -FEB -12 AUTO SERVICE REPAIR WITHDRAWN 6397 BEACHES CUSTOM AUTO REPAIR AUTO SERVICE REPAIR 2011- 011- The history of use -by -exceptions of this particular or similar uses within the CG zoning district is as follows: DATE APPLICATION ACTION 2012 -FEB -13 UBE-12-00100005 1800 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) RECOMMENDED BY CDB AUTO SALES, USED SCHEDULED FOR CC PH 2007 -DEC -10 UBE-2007-05 1850 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED LTD 2 YRS 2007 -FEB -12 UBE-2007-01 1075 ATLANTIC BLVD (CG) WITHDRAWN AUTO SALES, USED 2005 -OCT -10 UBE-2005-08 1850 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) DENIED AUTO SALES, USED 2005 -MAY -09 UBE-2005-04 1919 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED; AUTO REPAIR, HEAVY LTD 28 CARS 2005 -MAR -14 UBE-2005-01 589 W 14TH STREET (CG) APPROVED AUTO REPAIR, HEAVY; AUTO REPAIR, BODY 2005 -JAN 10 UBE-2004-02 1800 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED; AUTO REPAIR, HEAVY 2003-NOV-10 UBE-2003-05 1075 ATLANTIC BLVD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, LEASING LTD 3 CARS 2003-JUL-14 UBE-2003-01 880 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED; AUTO SERVICE REPAIR 2002 -OCT -28 UBE-2002-08 1198 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SERVICE REPAIR; PAINT & BODY 2002 -MAY -13 UBE-2002-03 1198 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SERVICE REPAIR 1994 -JAN -24 UBE-1994-xx 1650 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO LEASING 1986 -JAN -13 UBE-1986-xx 980 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting AGENDA ITEM 5a — continued Page 3 of 3 According to a memorandum dated April 14, 2003 from then -Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, the U -Haul truck leasing establishment located at 1650 Mayport Road was granted a use -by -exception on January 24, 1994. This is consistent with City Commission meeting minutes and information from the City Clerk's database which indicates local business tax receipts have been issued for this establishment at this address since 1994, as is shown in the next to the last entry in the table above.. Recommendation and Approval of a Use -by -Exception, per Section 24-63: ❑ A use -by -exception may only be approved for those uses and activities which are expressly identified as a possible use -by -exception within a particular zoning district. ❑ The City Commission may, as a condition to the granting of any use -by -exception, impose such conditions, restrictions or limitations in the use of the premises, or upon the use thereof as requested in the application, as the City Commission may deem appropriate and in the best interests of the City, taking into consideration matters of health, safety and welfare of the citizens, protection of property values and other considerations material to good land use and planning principles and concepts. ❑ Any use -by -exception granted by the City Commission shall permit only the specific use or uses described in the application and may be limited or restricted by the terms and provisions of the approval. Any expansion or extension of the use of such premises, beyond the scope of the terms of the approved use -by -exception, shall be unlawful and in violation of this Chapter and shall render the use -by -exception subject to suspension or revocation by the City Commission. ❑ The City Commission may suspend or revoke a use -by -exception permit at any time the City Commission determines that the use has become a public or private nuisance because of an improper, unauthorized or other unlawful use of the property. ❑ If an application for a use -by -exception is denied, the City Commission shall take no further action on another application for substantially the same use on the same property for three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the date of said denial. ❑ The nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district, or the permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other zoning districts shall not be considered as justification for the approval of a use -by -exception. ❑ Unless expressly granted by the City Commission, the use -by -exception shall be granted to the applicant only and shall not run with the title of the property. ATTACHMENTS: Maps & aerial photographs accessed from Google Maps & Bing Maps on February 8, 2012. MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting 10 0 0 0 Q 00 0 0 0 0 I � N Q G I O W o0 ! _ ;RoYa1 Palms Dc { – — ul ooye_ G skate Rd z ro 1-17 pjwU Rose St s �r IS IaIO!A 1S n H o 1S slao1S _ — vs-rpo15lW- Eametia st Jasmine St 1$ atI1WSe( c� 1^' l$ C!5'ffEJB IS e!uo6ag Y r� i W a C W W N Val 00 0 Q 00 0 oc 0 ry- 0 O N Q W � 00 m � W W cc F- 0 0 Q z LJ.J W V) D c 0 G i LU0 LL ' W E a 0 iz- oc z 0 Q az y, W Q ~ D 0 0 w cc = LL W_ N N 1-I O N 0 a7 C O C) V) v U U m U) 0- M Q, to 0 0 f1 s rt�LYr/� J �d APPLICATION FOR A USE -BY -EXCEPTION City of Atlantic Beach • 800 Seminole Road • Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445 Phone: (904) 247-5826 • FAX (904) 247-5845 • http://www.coab.us Date I — Z6- / 2, File No. Uev. a- o i 000D 7 1. Applicant's Name _ 2. Applicant's Address 3. Property Location Cu.t5rom WM .0 Receipt Zgll & 4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number 707'71 600() Block No. 5. Current Zoning Classification 7. Requested Use -by -Exception 6. Comprehensive UBE-12-00100007 �S Z Z, Lot No. / Land Use designation, Ise Je (10 8. Size of Parcel )doi � I► Cid4 Sr AT-. 9. Utility Provider J �- (4t )Q/!TrC ! --e c G• h>fi Lr —/c)t5- i4CkKe,5 10. Statement of facts and special reasons for the requested Use -by -Exception, which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-63 of the City of Atlantic Beach Code of Ordinances, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Attach as Exhibit A. (The attached guide may be used if desired. Please address each item, as appropriate to this request.) 11. Provide all of the following information. (All information must be provided before an application is scheduled for any public hearing.) a. Site Plan showing the location of all structures, temporary and permanent, including setbacks, building height, number of stories and square footage, impervious surface area, and existing and/or proposed driveways. Identify any existing structures and uses. b. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate 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 for all purposes related to this application must be provided. c. Survey and legal description of property sought to be rezoned. (Attach as Exhibit B.) d. Required number of copies. (Two (2) copies of all documents that are not larger than 11 x 17 inches in size. If plans or photographs, or color attachments are submitted, please provide eight (8) copies of these.) e. Application Fee ($250.00) 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 nan e(s): a h 1, . &OL, " Signature(s): ADDRESS ANAWONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name: _ Mailing Address: 01 !. 3 Phone: Z -t0 60 FAX: C19t E-mail: fQ(ZQCbC,,S CU 3 Mr -7 ) P -G iC" UBE-12-00100007 EXHIBIT A The review of an application for a Use -by -Exception shall consider the following items. Please address each of the following as applicable to your specific application. 1. Ingress and egress to property and proposed Structures thereon with particular reference to vehicular and pedestrian safety and con enience, traffic flow and con roI and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Ir0 la I� S ,� C'.Qlr gal f �S i 1'yI.U�V ✓54 1 YP�O(�.Ut' i�Y�/IOUSt U Gt lSI 2. Parking and Loading Spaces, where required, with particular attention to the items in (1) above. /!_ M A 3. The potential for any adverse impacts to adjoining properties and properties generally in the area resulting from excessive noise, glare and lighting, odor, traffic and similar characteristics of the, Use -by -Exception 4. Refuse, trash collection and see areas, with particular reference to items (1) and (2) above; 5. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability and compatibility; 6. If adjacent uses are different types of uses, desc ibe type of screening and buffering that will be between your use and the adjacent use. t►'Vli��0-�' " 01(l/la(uo� n_1!i�i 1_c.vn 1N^.rb....n 1.1 I 1r ...-r L. i1r.c I tJnn 7. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effects and compatibility and harmony with properties in the District; (See Signs and Advertising, Chapter 17.) G� yt OC c��tl� Lot �c l'5) 8. Required Yards and other Open Space. Show building setbacks and areas of open space on site plan. t/ 9. General compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the surroundin �oning District as well as consistency with applicab e provisions of the Compreh nsive Plan. r lJl informationy u may wish to F �kA (- P . L-4 V,—Pry5 i ✓, O toa t � �S2Z'� �v1JajX00 9�6 AGENDA ITEM 5b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT March 20, 2012 Public Hearing Zoning Variance, ZVAR-12-00100010 TO: Community Development Board FROM: Erika Hall Principal Planner DATE: March 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Carl E Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue REQUEST: Request (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d, to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet in lieu of the 600 square -foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion of the structure being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty- five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor. NOTE: At the time of submittal, a new certified survey was not provided. Instead, the submittal included an 8 % x 11 copy of the 2002 Boatwright survey, with some of the recent alterations drawn in, as well as the notes "THIS SURVEY WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF RAY HENDERSON" and "RECHECKED BOUNDARY. FEBRUARY 14, 2012" included. Staff advised Mr. Franklin, agent for the applicant, that a raised -seal certified copy of the survey would be required by the Board, and Mr. Franklin indicated such would be made available prior to the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS This is a new variance application, substantially differing from the previous requests by the applicant in that this is a request for variances from the land development regulations pertaining to accessory structures, whereas the previous requests were pertaining to the principal structure. As such, the applicant is offering certain concessions and alterations to the design of the project as follows: MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING • The connection previously made between the principal structure and the existing detached garage will be removed and a breezeway -width separation between the principal structure and the previously -detached garage will be restored. • There will be an internal connection between the two detached accessory units, thus essentially making them a single detached accessory unit with a total footprint of eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet, which exceeds the maximum footprint of a single detached accessory unit by two hundred seventy- two (272) square feet, and thus requiring a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d. • The second story of the newly constructed single -car garage portion will be removed, and the height will be limited to fifteen (15), while the second story addition to the existing two -car garage is requested to remain and be utilized as guest quarters. However, due to previous construction according to an erroneous survey, the structure(s) do not meet minimum rear yard setbacks as specified in Sections 24-151(b)(1) d & e, and thus variances from these provisions are necessitated. Justifications for the applicant's requests are as follows: Section 24-64(d)(2), "surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area", stating the methodology employed in the 1938 platting of the North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3, including that portion of Beach Avenue previously known as Garage Approach Roadway, adversely impacts this particular lot. Staff is unable to discern the "sharp turn" described in the applicant's narrative, and there is no evidence that this lot is now or has previously been developed to a lesser degree than any of the other nearby properties having the same or similar characteristics. At just over 10,000 square feet in area, this lot is more than twice the size of many parcels in Atlantic Beach, including a number on the oceanfront. As built in 2003, the existing single-family house has a gross area of 4,802 square feet, with 3,466 square feet being heated & cooled and 550 square feet being dedicated to a one-story two -car garage. The existing house, exclusive of the recent alterations, already meets and exceeds the threshold for reasonable use, so staff does not support this as a valid reason for the granting of any of the requested variances. Section 24-64(d)(3), "exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area", stating that the exceptional circumstance arises out of the fact that the recent alterations were lawfully constructed pursuant to building permits and a variance that were later rescinded due to a survey error, and this has resulted in an undue hardship not of the property owner's making. While staff does agree that revocation of the previously issued variance did result in a financial hardship on the property owner, it is not seen as a prohibition on the reasonable use of the property as compared to others in the area, as noted above. And, Section 24-47(c) of the Land Development regulations clearly states "In exercising its powers, the Community Development Board may, in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse, affirm or modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or determination provided such action is based upon inaccurate information." Further, Section 6-17(b)(4) of the Municipal Code of Ordinances bestows the following powers upon the Building Official regarding the revocation of building permits: a. Misrepresentation of application. The building official may revoke a permit or approval, issued under the provisions of this code, in case there has been any false statement or misrepresentation as to the material fact in the application or plans on which the permit or approval was based. MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 2 of 4 b. Violation of code provisions. The building official may revoke a permit upon determination by the building official that the construction, erection, alteration, repair, moving , demolition, installation or replacement of the building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems for which the permit was issued is in violation of, or not in conformity with, the provisions of this code. Section 24-64(d)(4), "onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property", stating that the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and "scour" line(s) affect oceanfront RS -2 lots differently, pushing the buildable area as far to the west as possible and creating limitations on the reasonable use of "valuable oceanfront' parcels. Staff points out that the existing CCCL was last revised in 1992, and the existing principal structure, which is the easternmost structure on the property, was constructed in 2003. To the west of the principal structure was constructed a detached accessory similar to other properties in the area. At the time of the 2003 construction, the required rear yard setback for a single -story detached accessory was ten (10) feet from the rear property line, though in actuality, it was built four and seven - tenths (4.7) feet from the rear property line. Though staff has uncovered no variance for this five and three -tenths (5.3) foot reduction, it is assumed either some relief was granted, or the accessory was erroneously located and therefore nonconforming until revisions to the land development regulations in 2010 reduced the required rear yard setback for single -story detached accessories to five (5) feet. Note the additional three -tenths (0.3) feet is just over three (3) inches, which is within the authority of the Community Development Director to administratively grant, being five (5) percent of the standard varied. Thus, again, there has been no barrier to reasonable use of the subject property. However, staff does recognize Section 24-64(d)(4) as being valid justification for one or more of the requested variances, in that the identification of a survey error after the construction of improvements was well underway, has resulted in the encroachment of previously adjudged "legal" structures into required rear yard setbacks, and has created an onerous and burdensome hardship on the property owner to bring the structures into compliance. Additionally, staff interprets imposition of the CCCL and other FL -DEP regulations lines and coastal permits as more of a function of the topographic conditions associated with oceanfront property, and therefore recognizes Section 24-64(d)(1) has having some validity in tempering those limitations. It should be noted that the applicant is requesting that the original two -car garage be considered separately from the new one -car garage in the application of rear yard setbacks. The rationale for this is that detached accessories exceeding the maximum six hundred (600) square foot footprint are subject to required twenty (20) foot rear yard setbacks, per Section 24-151(b)(1)d. Implications of this are discussed further, below. The considerations before the Board at this time are as follows: Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, thereby allowing the two detached accessory structures to be connected on the ground floor, resulting in a single detached accessory unit having an eight hundred seventy-two (872) square foot footprint, thereby exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area (footprint) for a single detached accessory by two hundred seventy-two (272) square feet, or forty-five and three -tenths (45.3) percent of the standard? ❑ YES ❑ NO 2. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the northern (existing) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, as is required for two- story detached accessory units, and then granting a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e, further reducing MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 3 of 4 the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of fifteen and three -tenths (15.3) feet, or seventy-six and five -tenths (76.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area. ❑ YES ❑ NO Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the southern (new) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet, as is required for one-story detached accessory units, and then further reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one -tenths (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage addition constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of sixteen and nine -tenths (16.9) feet, or eighty-four and five -tenths (84.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area. ❑ YES ❑ NO Alternatively, per Section 24-64(f), the Board may approve a lesser variance than that requested, if such lesser variance is found to be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations. As such, the Board may deny request #1 above, and require the two detached accessories be maintained as separate units. In doing so, the Board may then wish to consider options #4 and #5, below, as respective alternatives to requests #2 and #3, above. 4. Considering the original two -car garage which has a five hundred fifty (550) square -foot footprint, and a new second -story addition of guest quarters, limited to a maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e be granted, reducing the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would result in a reduction of five and three -tenths (5.3) feet, or fifty-three (53) percent, from the standard applicable to two-story detached accessory structures limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area. ❑ YES ❑ NO Considering the new one -car garage which has a three hundred twenty-two (322) square -foot footprint and is limited to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of one and nine -tenths (1.9) feet, or thirty-eight (38) percent, from the standard applicable to single -story detached accessory structures limited to fifteen (15) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area. ❑ YES ❑ NO 'ATTACHMENTS: Application for Variance, ZVAR-12-00100010 MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 4 of 4 2019 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — View from SW 2019 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — View from W 8 2019 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — Stairs APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE City of Atlantic Beach • 800 Seminole Road • Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445 Phone: (904) 247-5800 • FAX (904) 247-5845 • http://www.coab.us Date 3 % �P File No. Z AR 12- 00100010 1 1. Applicant's Name _ 2. Applicant's Address 3. Property Location 4. Property Appraiser' r 5. Current Zoning Classification �f ( ,fi) � 6. /9(/ E.AC/ I-V Plan Future Land Use designation 7. Provision from which Var'ance is requested �7" /7/ 0 / U WIFW a 7 z • "IlIrl"Al d frucwz►� :� 9e 8. Size of Parcel / to, Olga /el4v1% 9. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction. ❑Yes KNo (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 compliance with Section 24-64 of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this application. Statement and site plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested. 11. Provide all of the following information: a. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate 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 for all purposes related to this application must be provided. b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought. c. Required number of copies: Four (4), except where original plans photographs or documents larger than 11x17 inches are submitted Please provide eight (8) copies of any such original documents. d. Application Fee ($150.00) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS CORRECT: Signature of owner(s) or authorized person if owner's authorization form, iis/ attached: Printed or typed name(s): Signature(s): ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name• ' Mailing Address: C Phone: 7 W- FAX: 7,44 04f E-mail: fTi�/1/Yi�l✓ VAR. Version 1.12.2007 ZVAr2 t2 - oo t 000 t0 Instructions to apply for a Variance Variance requests are considered and acted upon during public hearings before the Community Development Board at their regular monthly meetings, which are held the third Tuesday of each month, unless otherwise scheduled. Meetings are held at City Hall in the City Commission Chambers at 7:00 pm. The deadline for filing a Variance application, in order to be heard at the monthly meeting, is 5:00 pm on the first Monday of each month. Applications should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department located at City Hall. In order for a Variance application to be scheduled for public hearing, the application must be complete. All required information must be provided, and the required fee must be paid. (Variance fees are not refundable in the event that the Variance request is denied.) Once the required fee and a complete application are submitted, the request will be scheduled for the next available public hearing. An advertised notice of the hearing will be published in the newspaper, and an orange zoning sign will be placed upon the property to notify neighboring residents that a Variance request will be considered. Before filing an application for a Variance, it may be useful to read and understand the following definition and requirements from the City's Land Development Regulations related to Variances. A Variance may be approved by the Community Development Board only when consistent with these provisions. Section 24-17. Definition of a Variance. 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. Sec. 24-64. Variances. A Variance may be sought in accordance with this Chapter. Applications for a Variance may be obtained from the Community Development Department. A Variance shall not reduce minimum Lot Area, minimum Lot Width or Depth; and shall not increase maximum Height of Building or Impervious Surface Area as established for the various Zoning Districts. Further, a Variance shall not modify the Permitted Uses or any Use terms of a property. (a) Application. A request for a Variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall contain each of the following. (1) a complete legal description of the property 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. -ZVWa t'2-001010 (4) the signature of the owner, or the signature of the owner's authorized agent. Written authorization by the Owner for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall be provided with the application. (b) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a complete and proper application, the Community Development Director shall within a reasonable period of time schedule the application for a public hearing before the Community Development Board following required public notice. At 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 of the requested Variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or more of the following. (1) light and air to adjacent properties. (2) congestion of Streets. (3) public safety, including 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 situations created by the property owner. The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please check the circumstances that apply to your request and briefly describe in the space provided. (d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the following reasons. ❑ (1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. 5,°f 471,1*AT P e(3) exceptional circumstances�Feventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. [9/(4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. ,)AC -ZVA2. 12.00IOX10. �5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. ❑ (6) substandard size of a Lot of 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 a Variance, the Community Development Board shall find that the request is in accordance with 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 the authority to approve a lesser Variance than requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter. (g) Nearby Nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures or Buildings shall not be grounds for approval of a Variance. (h) Waiting period for re -submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board, no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for 365 days from the date of denial. (i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board, the work to be performed 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) months, beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void. (j) A Variance, which involves the Development of Land, shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the Property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board. Additional comments: ZVAR, Version 1.12.2007 ZVA-e 12.001 GbU l ( Harkleroad — 2019 Beach Avenue Variance Application Support Materials The following materials including attendant attachments are offered in support of the variance application filed and properly before the honorable Community Development Board for the City of Atlantic, Florida (the "Board"). The Landowner has authorized the applicant, Daniel M. Copeland, P.A., to file the application, and the applicant has authorized the agent, all as according to the authorizations attached to the application. SUMMARY OF REQUEST. The landowner seeks to obtain three (3) distinct variances to allow landowner to obtain reasonable, beneficial use of certain garage/guest house structures lawfully constructed pursuant to permit and variance obtained, but where made non -conforming through the rescission of the permit and prior variance upon discovery of a survey error. The landowner seeks three variances: 1) 24-151(b)(1)(d), LDRs, to allow for a single, detached accessory structure of 872 sq. ft. (mol) in lieu of the 600 sq. ft. maximum; 2) 24-151(b)(1)(d & e), LDRs, reduce minimum setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure from 5' to 3.1', i.e. seeking a reduction in the minimum setback for the portion of the detached structure to be used as a detached garage, such portion limited to 15' in height; and, 3) 25-151(b)(1)(d & e), LDRs, reduce minimum setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure from 10' to 4.7', i.e. seeking a 5.3' reduction in the minimum setback for the portion to be used as both a detached garage (ground floor) and guest house (2nd floor), such portion limited to 25' in height. As a necessary part of the variance, landowner will remove the 2"d floor living space from the southern portion of the detached structure, and will remove all roof connections and connected heated cooled connections between the main residence and the detached garage/guest house. Already on file or attached to and all made a part hereof this application is documentation demonstrating ownership of the subject property by landowner together with a survey/site plan delineating the existing improvements relative to setbacks and size. STANDARDS OF VARIAN Zv&►212- 001 00q The variance may be granted for the reasons set forth at section 24-64(d), LDRs, most notably: (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Yes. Beach Avenue was platted in 1938 as a "garage approach roadway" using limited rods and irons for this lengthy stretch, and its paving does not run evenly along its platted course. Also notable is the fact that the roadway is angled and especially takes a sharp turn at the landowner's lot. Consequently, there are surveying and orientation issues relative to the Beach Avenue roadway known to the City which impact landowner's lot to a greater degree relative to other RS -2 lots including others on the ocean on other roadways. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Yes. The exceptional circumstance is the fact that a project was lawfully constructed pursuant to permit and variance and later rescinded due to survey error discovered. This is not a self- created hardship where landowner financed the construction himself and did not obtain financing through a bank, and is not necessarily remediable via lawsuit against the survey company unless collectible. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property of after construction of improvements upon the property. Yes. The advent and movement of the State of Florida's coastal construction and "scour" line(s) and requirements for the uniform easterly projection and orientation of structures affect oceanfront RS -2 lots differently, and push the envelope as far to the west as possible, creating limitations on the reasonable use of the this valuable oceanfront parcel. Further, there are no material adverse impacts that will result from the grant of the variances under section 24-64(c), LDRs, noting in regard to all those factors set forth that the structure's size and contours was approved at its current location, and only later rescinded when it was discovered the unplatted portion of the road was actually closer to the structure than thought. Thus, with the second floor living space removed from the southern portion, and the disconnection between the main residence and the accessory structure, the structure fits in with the established aesthetics at this location, and has a positive impact on property values, the natural environment (pushes development off the dunes and beach) and the general health, welfare and beauty of the community. Finally, the variance is not being sought for personal comfort or convenience or a situation created by the property owner, where the later -discovered surveying error was relied upon equally by the City in granting the permits and variances that allowed the development. ZZIA212-GO10001( In sum, the grant of the variances will allow for a reduced but reasonable, beneficial use of the detached garage/guest house structures, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's LDRs. I would be pleased to respond to any requests for additional information and look forward to presenting this matter to the honorable Community Develot?rrent Board. Since klin, Esq. Daniel M. Copeland, P.A. 9310 Old Kings Road South Suite 1501 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 (904) 482-0616 (904) 482-0618 Law Firm of Daniel M. Copeland is hereby authorized to act on behalf of jearl & Judy Harkleroad , the owner(s) of those lands described within the attached application, and as described in the attached deed or other such proof of ownership as may be required, in applying to the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida, for an application related to a Development Permit or other action pursuant to a: CX Zoning Variance (— Use -by -Exception r Rezoning (— Plat, Replat or Lot Division BY:ij"W A � aw Sign C A -e 'qmpztj�roal Printed Name signature of Uwner vrintea Name Phone Number F_ Appeal I— Fence or Pool Permit I— Sign Permit ✓— Other ��F��/ Signed and sworn before me on this �yN day of '1F , by 67 Identification verified: Oath sworn: Yes !No TIMOTHY S. FRANKLIN NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE OF FLORIDA Comm# EE002931NotaZre °s` o ®�cE1Expires 6/21/2014 - , ssion expires: .ZVAP- .12-00100010- Law 12-ODI000l0 City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 (P) 904.247.5826 (F) 904.247.5845 www.coab.us State of Florida County of Duval Property Appraiser - Property Details HARKLEROAD CARL E Primary Site Address 2019 BEACH AVE 2019 BEACH AVE ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233-5934 Atlantic Beach FL 32233 HARKLEROAD JUDITH M 2019 BEACH AVE Prooertv Detail Official Record Book/Page 15424-00194 RE # 169708-0000 Tax District USD3 Proper Use 0100 SINGLE FAMILY # of Buildings 1 Legal Desc. 15-93 09 -2S -29E N ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 3 PT SubdivislQD 03100 NORTH ATLANTIC BCH UNIT 3 The sale of this property may result in higher property taxes. For more information go to Save Our Homes and our PropeV Tax Estimator.Property values, exemptions and other information listed as 'In Progress' are subject to change. These numbers are part of the 2012 working tax roll and will not be certified until October.L earn how the Property Appraiser's Office values property. Value Summary Page 1 of 2 zvAz Q. coi 000l o Tile # 9409 Taxable Values and Exemptions — In Progress If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value Summary box. County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 ..................................................... ...................................................I............................................................................................................................................................................................................. Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Amend 1 Homestead (HB) - $25,000.00 Amend 1 Homestead (HB) - $25,000.00 Taxable Value $1,830,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Sales Hictnry Book/Page 7nt 1 Cri iFed 2012 In Proarm Value Method CAMA CAMA Total Building Value $985,000.00 $977,244.00 Extra Feature Value $17,235.00 $16,010.00 Land Value (Market) $862,500.00 $862,500.00 Land Value (Agric.) $0.00 $0.00 Just (Market) Value $1,864,735.00 $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,864,735.00 $1,855,754.00 Cap Diff/Portability Amt $0.00 / $0.00 $0.00 / $0.00_ Exam tp ions $50,000.00 See below Taxable Value $1,814,735.00 See below Taxable Values and Exemptions — In Progress If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value Summary box. County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 ..................................................... ...................................................I............................................................................................................................................................................................................. Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 Amend 1 Homestead (HB) - $25,000.00 Amend 1 Homestead (HB) - $25,000.00 Taxable Value $1,830,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Sales Hictnry Book/Page Sale Date Sale Price Deed Instrument Type Code Qualified/Unqualified Vacant/Improved 15424-00194 11/9/2010 1 $2,150,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 12181-02326 12/10/2004 1 $100.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified i Improved 12002-01886 8/13/2004 $2,600,000.00 ( WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 09696-01934 7/20/2000 $650,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 09637-01146 5/18/2000 $655,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 08119-00756 6/15/1995 $255,000.06 WD Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 03723-00459 5/17/1974 $69,500 00 WD Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved LN I Feature Code Feature Description I Bldg. Length Width I Total Units Value ..�.w 1 FPGR7 Fireplace Gas i.l.- . .0. 0 .. _ 0 2.0 _ e $7,377.00 2 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 8 12 96.00 $788.00 3 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 4 164 656.00 $4,846.00 4 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 0 0 406.00 $2,999.00 Land & Legal Land LN Code ;Use Description 2oning Front Depth Category I Land Units Land Value 1 0140 RES OCEAN LD 3-7 UNITS PER AC ARS2 50.00 211.00 Common 50.00 $862,500.00 Buildings Building 1 __ _ Building 1 Site Address Element I _ Code Detail 2019 BEACH AVE - Atlantic Beach FL 32233 Exterior Wall 14 14 Wood Shingle Roofing Structure 3 3 Gable or Hip Budding Type1 0108 - SFR CLASS 2 SOH Roofing Cover 13 3 Asph/Comp Shingle Year Built 2003 Interior Wall 5 5 Drywall Int Flooring 12 112 Hardwood http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=1697080000 Le ag I II�LN Legal Description 1 15-93 09 -2S -29E 2 N ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 3 PT 3 I LOT 67 2/21/2012 Property Appraiser - Property Details Tvce Gross Area Heated Area Base Area 624 624 Balcony 99 0 Finished Open Porch 245 0 Finished upper story 1 1530 1530 Finished upper story 1 1312 1312 Finished Open Porch 344 0 Finished Det Garage 550 0 Finished Open Porch 8 0 Finished Open Porch 90 0 Total 4802 3466 Int Flooring Assessed Value 15 15 Quarry/Hard Tile Heating Fuel Proposed 4 4 Electric Heating Type $50,000.00 4 4 Forced -Ducted Air Conditioning �,,. $13 079 52 3 3 Central $25,000.00 Element $9,823.42 Code $10,516.85 Stories 3.000 $1,839,735.00 Bedrooms $4,135.72 3.000 FL Inland Navigation Dist. Baths $50,000.00 4.000 $62.53 Rooms / Units $64.60 1.000 $1,864,735.00 Page 2 of 2 Z Vm212- co I ofa( BAS 1,"'1 IP .,� �.1z FDG L FUA I.Iy FUA �•`-"J % f4� Traversing Data BAS:33,12:=W33 S20 E24 N4 E9 N16 $ BAL:73,0:=S3 E33 N3 W33 $ F013:73,12:=N9 E33 S9 U41_4 W9 D41_4 W16 $ FUA:106,12:=U4L4 W9 D41_4 W16 S49 E14 N4 E10 N7 E9 N38 $ FUA:69,12:=U4L4 W9 D41_4 W16 S42 E24 N14 E9 N28 $ FOP:36,12:=N12 E33 S12 U41_4 W9 D41_4 W16 $ FDG:109,12:=E25 S22 W25 N22 $ FOP:34,44:=N4 E2 S4 W2 $ F013:69,40:=S10 W9N10E9$. 2011 Notice of ProDosed Pronertv Taxes Truth in Milla a Notice Taxino District .. Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value Last Year Proposed Rolled -back Gen Govt - $1 864,735 00 _ _ $50,000.00 $1,814 735.00 $12 224.77 � .,�.-....�..w, $12,239.66 �,,. $13 079 52 Public Schots By State Law $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00 $9,823.42 $9,759.79 $10,516.85 By Local Board $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00 $4,590.14 $4,135.72 $4,914.12 FL Inland Navigation Dist. $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $62.53 _. $62.61 $64.60 Atlantic Beach $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $5,719.07$6,040.35 $6,040.35 Water Mgmt Dist. S]RWMD $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $753.65 $601.22 $818.26 Gen Gov Voted $1,864,735.00 _. $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 School Board Voted $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Urban Service 1. Dist3 $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Totals $33,173.58 $32,839.35 $35,433.70 ]ust Value Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value Last Year $1,862,527.00 $1,862,527.00 $50,000.00 $1,812,527.00 Current Year $1,864,735.00 $1,864,735.00$50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 Property Record Card (PRC) The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) provides historical property record cards (PRCs) online for 1995-2005. The PAO no longer maintains a certified PRC file due to changes in appraisal software; therefore, there are no PRCs available online from 2006 forward. You may print this page which provides the current property record. (Sections not needed can be minimized.) To rint the past -year cards below, set your browser's Page Set Up for printing to Landscape. 2005 12004 12003 12002 1200112000 1 1999 11998 1 1997 1 1996 11995 More Information arcel Tax Record I GIS Man I Mao this orooerty on Google Maps I City Fees Record http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearchBasic/Detail.aspx?RE=1697080000 2/21/2012 cn, ;z'Aa - 12. 601 ow I t Wf ............ ,tx .71 2 • 49 It 0i Lai V NZ CD2 i O ettlti Olt 4 tQ'I t 0 -16 U4 'b t ti kill vb 14 �E rk a tb k.z ` Ilk ;z'Aa - 12. 601 ow I t Wf ............ .71 Lai V NZ CD2 i ettlti .71 MIMI 12— 00 / 006 /c ori or �� • 0-- I '. E, I" i i Z VA212 00/0001( og 8 a M a� ATLANTIC OCE AN Q O O S U Q W m J _J e Z O rr `1 W $3 o X5§a ill N . - 5@;}lg } gqtbW ga > 11a �� in��e a x 29S0 50.,3' Pk _ _ _ _ _ — _ Saar m,l �� PIP F .add Z 2nd,"„ yFa im.�.7rt 5p4 y EC _SdZ9'SU'E _50.1]_ i FL W m ]"a N CL aEo2a �" i M��F LLI C I 2 a vCEWM d' R it "��E9 _ nl artimTM1�" ee� sa ��' f F illi�ed ■ `` f ,c 8� m �a � -ZVAP- 3un Jig 50-1 :L;Lj a Hall, Erika From: Heath Aldridge [mbhaldridge@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 12:46 PM To: Hall, Erika Subject: FW: 2019 Beach Ave Variance Requests Dear Ms. Hall, Thank you for ensuring this letter is received by the members of the CDB in a timely fashion and read at the March 20 Public Hearing. March 19, 2012 CBD City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Dear Members of the Community Development Board: As a property owner directly across from 2019 Beach Avenue, I respectfully wish to submit my opposition to the proposed zoning variance requests for this property. When Mr. Harkleroad purchased 2019 Beach Avenue in November 2010, he acquired a 3,500 square foot home with a two car garage constructed by a well-respected builder. If the Harkleroads determined the property with its two car garage was inadequate as configured, then it was their responsibility to conduct the necessary due diligence. In particular, if they wanted a third garage, then it was in their best interest to review the City of Atlantic Beach zoning regulations, determining whether such a structural change to the site was legally permissible. Mr. Harkleroad utilized an inaccurate survey on which to base the proposed 3 -car garage addition - an interesting development, since an updated survey by the reputable Boatwright Land Surveyors (the company that had been used by the two prior owners of 2019 Beach Avenue to provide surveys) with the accurate boundaries and setbacks would have clearly presented the zoning regulation infringements and a series of construction violations could have been avoided. Now the property owner is once again requesting variances, in other words exemptions, or exceptions, from compliance with existing zoning regulations.. regulations which the rest of us are expected to follow. Let me review the basic intent of a variance..as we know, a variance is an administrative exception to the zoning regulations. A variance request is typically justified only if special conditions exist that create a hardship, making it too difficult to comply with code requirements. Special conditions or verifiable hardship arise from a physical configuration of the lot or its structures. A variance is not designed to grant special privilege to a property owner. Also per your variance instructions a variance "shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situations created by the property owner." In other words, when a variance is granted, any other property owner with similar site conditions should be able to obtain a similar variance. Thus, any variance must be carefully considered as it can create undesired consequences, a unintended precedent, and legal ramifications. In reviewing the proposed grounds presented by the applicant for the approval of the variances for 2019 Beach Avenue, it is readily apparent none provide justification for any of the three variance requests. Referencing guidelines from the variance application instructions: 1 "surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties." In spite of the applicant's contention, the alignment of and the original platting of Beach Avenue as a "garage approach roadway" imposes no specific hardship or impact upon the site in question... nothing different from nearby properties. 2 "exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area." There is nothing to prevent the reasonable use of 2019 Beach Avenue. Mr. Harkleroad simply wanted a three car garage and has constructed an illegal building, one which fails to comply with zoning regulations. The applicant has cited "survey error". Granted, there was an error -ridden survey, one provided by the applicant..a survey followed by a host of misrepresentations, removed and relocated survey markers. And if this survey is the culprit and the applicant is an innocent victim, then one must ask: Has the applicant filed a complaint against Atlantic Coast Surveyors with the appropriate licensing body so that others can avoid this surveying company? Have they sought compensation from this surveyor for the presumed errors and omissions? Finally, one has to wonder: how the builder and the property owner could not readily see the difference between an actual 3 ft 7" building setback from the road right-of-way and a supposed loft building setback per the Atlantic Coast Surveyors survey? This is a measurable difference to the eye and should have raised concerns about the survey before any construction proceeded. Indeed, the "survey errors" appears to be a self-inflicted hardship. 3 "onerous effect of regulations....." Again there are no onerous regulations pertaining solely to this property. The Coastal Construction Control Line etc were all in place prior to Mr. Harkleroad's purchase of the property. Any 'onerous' effect upon the property owner has been self-imposed by his lack of due diligence. Just as it was the property owner's responsibility to provide a legitimate survey, he should have been aware of the Coastal Construction Control Line..it is not unique to his oceanfront property. As we are all aware, zoning regulations form a framework for orderly growth and land use. Likewise setbacks, height limitations, restricted uses, and other guidelines are all in place to provide reasonable standards for construction, renovations and additions. In turn, property owners and citizens of the community have a rightful expectation that these regulations are enforced with an even -hand, with no special allowances for a selected few. If a three car garage were a prerequisite for the Harkleroads at 2019 Beach Avenue, then they needed to pursue the construction within the parameters of existing zoning regulations.. perhaps a construction project which could have been done legally, but at substantially greater expense than an attempt to by-pass regulations via these variance requests. If the city administrators and its elected officials determine the City of Atlantic Beach zoning regulations warrant revisions, then change the law so that all can benefit. However, I would venture these regulations have been well considered. It is then the responsibility of the CBD to review the Harkleroad application in light of the legal intent of variances, the specific variance guidelines detailed in Sec 24-64, and to deny these variance requests. Respectfully, Heath Aldridge