Loading...
9-20-16 Agenda Packet CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / September 20, 2016 / 6:00 PM Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes. A. Minutes of the August 16, 2016 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. 4. New Business. A. 16-ZVAR-193 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Atlantic Beach Urban Farms) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height in the front yard from 4 feet as required by Section 24-157(b)(1) to 6 feet at Blocks 11, 12 and 13 of Section “H” (aka 1175 Atlantic Boulevard). 5. Reports. A. Board Member Event- September 29th 2016, 6:30 PM, Adele Grage Culture Center B. Staffing Update 6. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review online at www.coab.us and at the City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Any person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should submit a Comment Card located at the entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting. Please note that all meetings are live streamed and videotaped. The video is available at www.coab.us. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at any meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the City not less than three (3) days prior to the date of this meeting at the address or phone number above. Agenda Page 1     Agenda Page 2 Page 1 of 12 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD August 16, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:02 pm. Chair Paul verified that all  board members are present, except Mrs. Simmons and Mr. Parkes. Also  present were Planner, Derek Reeves and representing the firm Lewis,  Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden. Mrs. Paul asked alternate, Ms.  Workman, to fill the seat of Mrs. Simmons.      2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of June 21, 2016 Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2016 meeting. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of July 19, 2016 Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the regular meeting on  July 19, 2016. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion carried  unanimously.      3. OLD BUSINESS.     None.  Agenda Page 3 Page 2 of 12 4. NEW BUSINESS.    A. 16‐ZVAR‐149 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Robert Murphy) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24‐106(e)(2) to 5 feet at Atlantic Beach Part of Hotel Reservation Record, Official Record 9884‐1271 (aka 859 Ocean Boulevard). Staff Report  Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that it was a request for  a reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet. He showed the  proposed plan to remove an existing 3 story deck and replace it with a new  2 story covered deck 5 feet from the rear property line. The need for  variance is derived from City ordinance section 24‐106(e)(2) for the RS‐2  zoning district which requires a 20‐foot rear yard setback in addition to  section 24‐85(c)(1) which covers any changes to non‐conforming  structures. Planner Reeves showed two surveys. The survey from 1972  showed the original structure having an excess of 20 feet all the way  around the structure. The second survey shows the 3‐story addition,  including a deck, which was constructed in 1997. A pool variance was also  given in 1998 to allow them to build a pool in what was apparently  considered the front yard, on Club Drive. The latter survey showed an  eastern yard setback of 5 feet. According to Planner Reeves, Club Drive  today is the side yard, not the front yard. Ocean Boulevard is the front yard  under today’s code.     Mr. Reichler stated that one thing you cannot see on the picture is that  there is a line on the 1972 survey running North to South saying “Probable  Right‐Of‐Way” that is not on the next survey. Planner Reeves concurred.  He explained that variance was approved to construct a pool in 1998 on  Club Drive, which was then the front yard. He stated that today, Club Drive  is the side yard. He believes that the lot has not changed, but the surveys  have. He added that it may have been this difference in the surveys that  caused confusion in the late 90’s as the codes were the same they are today  in regards to corner lot setbacks.    Mrs. Lanier asked if the address was Ocean Boulevard and if that bore any  importance as to the front and rear yard. Planner Reeves stated it is an  Ocean Boulevard address, but it does not bear importance as to the front  and rear yard per City code. He stated that according to current surveys,  the front yard is Ocean Boulevard, the side yard is Club Drive and the rear  yard is the eastern lot line. The applicant is requesting to expand their deck  that is within the rear yard setback.    Agenda Page 4 Page 3 of 12 Planner Reeves proposed the possibility of a lesser variance, wherein the  owner would request a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 9 feet,  still allowing them to build their proposed project by utilizing the 48”  encroachment into the rear yard for open decks and porches, but not  allowing them to encroach into the 5 foot setback. It would also prevent  them from enclosing the structure and adding air‐conditioned space at a  future time, should that be desired by the Board.    Mrs. Lanier asked if the proposed structure would have a stairway going  down to the pool. Planner Reeves stated it would not.    Mr. Reichler questioned the actual site plan and whether or not the  proposed deck would be flush to the house, or if it would wrap around the  house. Planner Reeves stated it would be flush to the house.    Mr. Elmore inquired as to why Planner Reeves could not find a survey of  the property from 1998 after the structure’s expansion. Planner Reeves  explained that to his knowledge, files used to be paper‐based. In  2006/2007, the City sent out these paper files to be scanned in by an  outsourced entity. He stated he could not find a survey from this time  period within this property’s files.     Mr. Elmore then asked who did the current survey. Planner Reeves  responded that a “Blackman” had done the survey, with the revision date  of 2012, and it looks like it was produced as part of closing documents.     Mr. Elmore stated that it could be argued that the front and side yard could  be flipped. Planner Reeves stated that he has determined that Ocean  Boulevard is currently the front yard as code requires the narrowest side  to be the front.     Mr. Reichler commented that the current survey is not consistent with the  prior survey, but that the owner had provided the current survey from  2012 and stated that the current survey was pretty clear about where the  road and where the right of way is.     Mr. Reichler then inquired as to the state of the owner’s negotiations with  their neighbor regarding the proposed structure. Planner Reeves stated  that this is the most current site plan he is aware of.  Mrs. Lanier asked if  there was a fence between this property and the one to the east, bringing  to the light the concern of privacy. Mr. Reichler referenced a section of  code that refers to the privacy of adjacent properties. He stated that under  this code, determination of acceptance of new building in the Old Atlantic  Beach area is contingent upon several things; staff must consider the  Agenda Page 5 Page 4 of 12 privacy of adjacent properties. Planner Reeves stated this code section is  in the intent portion of the Old Atlantic Beach design standards which sets  the ground work for the hard measurements defined later in that section.    Ms. Workman  asked if a variance that was granted in the past concerned  more construction other than a pool. Planner Reeves explained that it also  entailed the surrounding decking; the variance was strictly about the  location of the pool. He then explained that under the current survey, said  pool variance would not even be required.     Applicant Comment  Robert Murphy introduced himself as the owner of 859 Ocean Boulevard.  He stated that he is requesting the variance to improve the value of his  property and to enjoy the space more. He stated that the new deck was  designed to provide a better space that could be enjoyed more, and  explained that a privacy curtain will be placed between he and his  neighbors’ property, on the east side of the deck on the second floor. The  original plan for a spiral staircase was removed to allow the privacy screen  to go all the way around, to be effective. He asked if the board had any  questions about what he is looking to do.    Jenny Edwards of 335 Ahern Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced  herself as the contractor working on the project. She stated that the deck  needs to come down, as it is rotten and unsafe. She said they got rid of the  proposed staircase and added the privacy wall for the benefit of the  eastern neighbor. She asked if the board had any questions about the  design or building of the structure.    Public Comment  Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment.     Brian Hughes of 171 Club Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that he  had spoken to the applicant about the proposed structure’s design and the  privacy concerns he had. He requested that Board make the privacy screen  a permanent structure of this proposed structure. He said that he has  about 15 feet between the edge of the deck and his window. He stated that  he is neutral as to the proposed deck, but that if it is approved, he  recommended that the board add the privacy screen as a permanent  structure to the deck addition.     Ms. Workman stated that she was concerned that the privacy wall could  become a quasi‐fixed wall that would become an enclosed room.    Agenda Page 6 Page 5 of 12 John Mahler of 190 Club Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that his  office, front porch and living room are in view of the deck of 859 Ocean  Boulevard and stated that he thinks the proposed deck is a vast  improvement.    With no more speakers, Chair Paul closed public comment.    Board Discussion  Mrs. Lanier stated that the proposed new deck is an improvement to the  property, but proposed that the privacy screen be a permanent addition.     Mr. Elmore referenced Planner Reeves’s lesser variance suggestion and  stated that it is a vast improvement esthetically and that it is a better use  of the property for the property owner. He stated that he would be in favor  of approving the variance with the 4 foot additional setback and the  privacy screen.    Mr. Reichler stated that to approve the variance they first need a reason to  approve it. He stated that the latest representation is that the property is  problematic, and that what was done before was incorrect. He stated that  there are no current grounds for approval. He agreed that the change  proposed is minor and he also referenced Planner Reeves’s proposed lesser  variance. He stated, however, that the original variance is asking for greater  relief than what is needed. Mr. Reichler also inquired if a future owner  could use the buildable area for a different use in the future. Planner  Reeves referred to the wording of the lesser variance and that it limits the  variance to an open two story deck with a solid roof.    Mr. Reichler asked if the City Attorney agreed that no future owners could  build anything in addition to this. Mrs. Durden stated that it needs to be  very clear in the motion that it identifies all of the factors. She expressed  concern that no plan currently exists that points to exactly what the board  is intending to do. She recommended that the Board be careful with the  language they use in the motion when drafting the variance order. For  clarification, she recommended adding to the order what is considered the  front yard now, so that it is clear in the future, namely, that Club Drive is  the front yard, that Ocean Boulevard is the front yard and that the eastern  edge is the rear yard. She stated that it is up to the Board to interpret the  code.    The Board then discussed this whether or not they had the authority to  decide what the front yard, etc. is, as well as whether or not variances  stayed with a property or with a specific structure they are granted to.    Agenda Page 7 Page 6 of 12 Mrs. Durden stated that a variance stays with a structure, not a property. If  a structure goes away, a variance goes away.    Mr. Reichler stated that he would vote for the variance based on the 9 foot  change to the setback, so long as it does not change the buildable area of  the property outside of the currently proposed structure, but no additional  structures. Mrs. Durden stated that yes, the variance in question would  only be for the specific two‐story deck that is being proposed, and only for  the deck in question would that variance be transferred to the new owner.    Motion  Mr. Elmore made a motion to approve a lesser variance, where the front  yard is along Ocean Boulevard, the side yard is along Club Drive and the  rear yard setback is reduced to 9 feet to allow a two story open deck with  a solid roof and with the following conditions:    1. That the porch cannot be enclosed and air conditioned at any  time;   2. That there shall be a fixed privacy screen along the entirety of  the eastern side of the deck on the second floor.    Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried 5‐1 with Ms.  Wo rkman  dissenting.      B. 16‐ZVAR‐145 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Sean Monahan) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to reduce side yard setbacks from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side as required by Section 24‐111(f)(3) to 0 feet on each side to allow the enclosure of an existing open porch at Saltair Section 1 Lots 765 and 766 (aka 614 Atlantic Boulevard).   Staff Report  Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that this is a request to  reduce side yard setbacks from combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet  on one side to 0 feet on each side to enclose an exiting open porch at 617  Atlantic Boulevard. This property lies within the Commercial General  Zoning District. To  the right is a veterinary office. To  west, is another older  property owned by the applicant. The proposed plan is to enclose an  existing open front porch and to remodel the façade. Planner Reeves then  showed drawings of current and proposed plans. On the proposed  drawings, the front porch will be enclosed to create more retail floor space  and the façade will be altered.     Agenda Page 8 Page 7 of 12 A variance is needed due to City code section 24‐111(f)(3), which requires  a combined 15 feet of side yard with a min of 5 feet on each side.    The original structure was built in 1978. The site plan from this time shows  4” setbacks. The veterinary clinic to the east does meet current setback  requirements with higher fixed windows along the western wall that let  light into the exam rooms.    Planner Reeves stated that any improvement in excess of 25% of building’s  value will require landscaping on the property as per code. He stated that  applicant does not intend to meet 25% building value. He stated that the  applicant does intend to change the parking, but in a manner that does not  require a variance. He stated that the proposed façade height does exceed  current height within the setbacks. Therefore, the proposed façade height  change does need to be considered as well as the enclosed space. The  existing structure has a bridge and valley to the façade where the peek is  at 20 feet, with portions at 12 feet.     Because of this, Planner Reeves requested that the board interpret  whether or not the proposed roof meets the Commercial Corridor Design  Standards. He referenced the Dollar Tree  variance situation. He asked that  if they elect to approve the variance that they also interpret this code at  same time.     Mrs. Lanier asked for clarity as to the need for this variance. Planner Reeves  explained that this structure is already nonconforming and cannot be  added onto in a way that is more nonconforming. By code, there should be  a total of 15 feet of combined side yard setbacks.    Ms. Workman  asked if the veterinary clinic came forward with input.  Planner Reeves explained that he had spoken on the phone with the clinic,  but they had not provided official public comment.    Applicant Comment  Sean Monahan introduced himself as the owner of the property. He  mentioned the interpretation of side yard setback as he understands is that  he has no problems enclosing the structure as long as 7.5 feet of porch is  left open on either side. He added that there would not be an obstruction  of view for the veterinary office as their windows are 6 feet off of the  ground and are primarily to allow passage of light.  He added that on the  other side is an adjacent wall and he owns that building. He added that  enclosing the space would allow him to have more retail show space, in  order to improve his business and to improve the look. He stated that it is  Agenda Page 9 Page 8 of 12 currently unused wasted space and that it will make the structure prettier.  He stated that he does in fact have a flat roof.     Mr. Reichler asked if Mr. Monahan is just enclosing an existing area or if the  roofline is being changed too. Mr. Monahan stated that the façade is being  raised not the roof.     Mrs. Lanier asked if the top of the new façade would be higher than the  “bump” as shown on Mr. Monahan’s picture. Mr. Monahan stated that they  wanted to raise it to 24ft or 23ft from the current 19ft or 20 ft.     Mrs. Lanier asked how long his current façade has existed. Mr. Monahan  stated that it was remodeled in the 1990s. She also asked how many more  square feet this would give Mr. Monahan and what percentage would he  be growing by. Mr. Monahan stated that it would add about 272 square  feet, about 12% more room for the whole building, but for the customer’s  experience, it would add about 25% more showroom.    Public Comment  Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, Chair  Paul closed public comment.    Board Discussion  Planner Reeves asked if the board could make the interpretation of code  based on the plans with the 19 foot façade as they have those plans in front  of them. He stated that if they do elect to change their plans, then they  would have to address that at that time. Mr. Monahan stated that the plans  shown are in fact an artist’s rendering for the general idea of the look not  the building permit plans. He stated that the draftsman made it too low  initially.    Chair Paul explained that if the board interprets him to have a flat roof then  he would have to come back for an additional variance. Chair Paul  compared the current flat roof issue to the Dollar Tree  situation on  Mayport Road, wherein the board determined that it was not a flat roof.    Planner Reeves added that the variance application and code  interpretation is all based upon what the board has in their packet and if it  varies, it will have to be reconsidered. He stated that if the applicant would  like to redraw the plans and bring them back based on a different design,  then that may be what has to happen.    Agenda Page 10 Page 9 of 12 Mrs. Lanier asked if this meant that if they approve the variance, then it is  only approved based on the 19 foot roof façade shown in the board  members packet.     Mr. Monahan asked if they would consider adjusting the plans to a higher  elevation of 23.5 feet.     Mr. Elmore stated that the roof was flat and preferred that Mr. Monahan  keep  what he has, in reference to his current roof facade. He stated that he  wanted to be true to the no commercial flat roofs codes, since they have  upheld others to the same standard, and argued that this was a separate  issue than the enclosure issue. Mr.  Elmore recommended that Mr.  Monahan go back and design the roof to meet code and stated that the  roof and porch enclosure are two separate items and two separate  variances.     Chair Paul then stated that the elevations submitted are similar to what  Panera submitted, and that the board made them put all types of  architectural relief on it.     Mr. Elmore stated that since this building is seen from only one side, there  can be some flexibility unlike Panera, which is a stand‐alone building seen  from 360 degrees.      Planner Reeves asked if Mr. Elmore remembered that from Dollar Tree, it  was conditioned in their approval to provide an offset in the straight line of  their parapet façade. Chair Paul mentioned that the applicant in the Dollar  Tree  situation had drawings on him as they anticipated such an issue  arising. Mr. Elmore requested hard evidence, a drawing of Mr. Monahan’s  intentions.     Mrs. Lanier asked if a property owner desired to remedy the appearance  of a flat roof, if they could add awnings or other structures to give the  appearance of some dimension.    Chair Paul asked if Mr. Monahan would like to withdraw his application and  re‐submit for a later meeting. Mr. Monahan stated he did not want to do  that. He stated that he wanted to discuss what could be done to the roof‐ line for the variance to be approved.     Mr. Reichler asked why the enclosure of the porch required a change in the  parapet wall. Mr. Monahan stated that it was a re‐model in order to create  an element of excitement and to produce more visibility.    Agenda Page 11 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Reichler stated that to approve the variance as‐is, the board would  have to specify that the roof is not flat. Planner Reeves stated that the  decision tonight is the variance for the enclosure of the space, but he asks  that if the board approves, that the Board make the roof interpretation so  that when the permit application is submitted, he can make the  appropriate decision.    Chairwoman Paul asked if the board is voting solely on the enclosure of the  porch, and not voting on the proposed elevations, that will be determined  by the Building Department or Planner Reeves. Planner Reeves requested  determination from the board on whether or not the roof meets code. He  stated that he is not comfortable making the decision on whether or not  the roof meets code.     Mrs. Lanier asked if the board approves the variance tonight, then we  would be approving the variance for the enclosure. Then, Mr. Monahan  could come back to the City with his architectural drawings that showed a  roof‐line that did not give the appearance of a flat roof, which could be  approved by staff, and he would not have to come back to the board.     This was discussed and it was stated that if his drawings did still give the  appearance of a flat roof, then he would have to come back to the board  for another variance approval.    Mr. Monahan asked if he could submit new potential drawings to Planner  Reeves for a decision as to whether or not they would need a variance.  Planner Reeves said yes.     Mr. Reichler made a comment that regardless of his opinion, the board is  hemmed in by the law’s requirements regarding flat roofs.    Mr. Monahan stated that if the board could at least approve the enclosure,  then he could work with his architect to make the changes to the roof – line.     Ms. Workman  stated that she did not feel comfortable making a decision  without the neighbors input. Chair Paul argued that adequate notice was  given to the neighbor.     Motion  Mrs. Lanier made a motion to approve 16‐ZVAR‐145 to reduce the side yard  setbacks from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side  to 0 feet on each to allow the enclosure of an existing open porch at 617  Agenda Page 12 Page 11 of 12 Atlantic Boulevard. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion carried  5‐1 with Ms. Workman  dissenting.       5. REPORTS.    A. Board Member Review    Planner Reeves reminded the board about the Board Member Review re‐ appointment process. He mentioned that Chair Paul, Mr. Elmore, Mr.  Parkes and Mrs. Simmons are all up for renewal this year. The board and  Planner Reeves discussed who was up for re‐election. Planner Reeves  informed them that the City Clerk’s Office would be contacting them if they  are up for renewal and that alternates are every year.    B. Staffing Update    Planner Reeves informed board that department does now have a full time  Code Enforcement Officer, Debbie White. They are still looking for new  Planning Director.     On another topic not on the agenda, Mrs. Durden mentioned that one of  the things the City Commission is considering funding for the next fiscal  year is a revision to the land development regulations. She stated that  there has been some thought about talking to this board and their role.    Mr. Reichler asked who initiated this request within the commission. Mrs.  Durden stated that all of the commissioners have. She stated that the  thought is that the Community Development Board would be very much  involved in participating in this revision and with the consultant that would  be hired to assist with these revisions.     Mrs. Durden also stated that the commission held their first public hearing  on a temporary moratorium for automobile service stations, in order to  allow the City to revise the land development code, as they may see fit, to  address automobile service stations, convenience stores which sell  gasoline or fuel. It also takes into account car washes and automobile  repair. In the CG, the CL, SPA, and Light Industrial and Warehousing zoning  districts. September 12th will be the second reading. Mrs. Durden stated  that there is an express provision in the moratorium to allow any existing,  operating business to continue to operate and it exempts the Gate Station.    Agenda Page 13 Page 12 of 12 Mr. Reichler asked if Gate got approval based on the fact that they were an  automotive service station rather than a convenience store that sells gas,  which has different requirements than a convenience store that sells gas.  He asked what it was that they are doing that makes them an automotive  service station as opposed to a convenience store that sells gas. Chair Paul  stated that that’s therein the quandary.   Mr. Elmore then discussed the process of development and the way  commercial uses morph.    Mr. Reichler asked about the point of moratorium and what it would  change.    Mrs. Durden stated that the temporary moratorium gives the City the time,  without new applications coming in, to make revisions if they choose to, to  make appropriate revisions to the Land Development Regulations.    Mr. Reichler  inquired as to who would be making the changes. Mrs. Durden  gave her personal opinion that the review of the Land Development  Regulations will be rolled into the same review. She stated that the  moratorium would be in effect for about a year.        6. ADJOURNMENT.    Mrs. Lanier motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the  motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned  at 7:50 pm.  _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest Agenda Page 14     Agenda Page 15 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A CASE NO 16-ZVAR-193 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height in the front yard from 4 feet as required by Section 24-157(b)(1) to 6 feet at Blocks 11, 12 and 13 of Section “H” (aka 1175 Atlantic Boulevard). LOCATION 1175 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD APPLICANT ATLANTIC BEACH URBAN FARMS DATE SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, PLANNER STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Atlantic Beach Urban Farms, represented by Steve Cissel. The property is located in the Commercial General (CG) zoning district at 1175 Atlantic Boulevard, which is west of Mayport Road on the ramp from Mayport Road onto west bound Atlantic Boulevard. The property also has frontage on 1st Street on the north side. There are a couple of structures under construction on the property including a greenhouse with attached work area and a shipping container structure. The applicant is planning to put up new fencing around the property including a 6 foot wood fence on the property line along 1st Street. This property is considered as a double frontage lot and subject to Section 24-84, which states, “the required front yard shall be provided on each street…” Front yard is defined in Section 24-17 as, “the required yard extending across the full width of the lot, extending from the lot line to the front building setback line as established by the zoning district designation.” Within the CG zoning district the front yard is 20 feet as required by Section 24-111(f)(1). Simply, this means that the first 20 feet along Atlantic Boulevard and 1st Street are considered as front yards for this property. A variance is required by Section 24-157(b)(1) that states, “within required front yards, the maximum height of any fence shall be four (4) feet…” This is because the applicant is requesting to build a 6 foot wood fence within the front yard along 1st Street. The applicant discusses in their application that the 1st Street side of the property is functionally the rear with the main focus directed towards Atlantic Boulevard so a 6 foot fence will provide a visual and sound buffer for the residences along 1st Street from their building and retention pond as well as Atlantic Boulevard. The applicants also note the differences between the residential area and this commercial property on the high intensity Atlantic Boulevard. However, this is not the only double frontage commercial lot on Atlantic Boulevard that is across from residential. Not to mention the multitude of CG properties that immediately abut residential properties. The neighboring property is identified as having a 6 foot fence in one of its two front yards, but this property is nonconforming because of that and is actually an exception to the rule. Remember that Section 24-64(g) states, “Nonconforming characteristics of nearby lands, structures or buildings shall not be grounds for approval of a variance. Agenda Page 16 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “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.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. The applicants stated in their application that the property is Commercial General bordering residential. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicants stated in their application that the adjacent properties have 6 foot wood fence. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of 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. Agenda Page 17 Page 3 of 3 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 16-ZVAR-193, request to increase the maximum fence height in the front yard from 4 feet as required by Section 24-157(b)(1) to 6 feet at Blocks 11, 12 and 13 of Section “H” (aka 1175 Atlantic Boulevard), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described below. 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. (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. Or, The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny 16-ZVAR-193, request to increase the maximum fence height in the front yard from 4 feet as required by Section 24-157(b)(1) to 6 feet at Blocks 11, 12 and 13 of Section “H” (aka 1175 Atlantic Boulevard), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24- 64(d), or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below. No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the following: (1) Light and air to adjacent properties. (2) Congestion of streets. (3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety. (4) Established property values. (5) The aesthetic environment of the community. (6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources. (7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community. Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner. Agenda Page 18 Ag e n d a Pa g e 19 Ag e n d a Pa g e 20 Ag e n d a Pa g e 21 Ag e n d a Pa g e 22 Agenda Page 23 Agenda Page 24