10-18-16-Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / October 18, 2016 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Minutes of the September 20, 2016 regular meeting of the Community Development
Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 16-ZVAR-221 (PUBLIC HEARING) (John Wells)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24 -64, for relief from the Section 24-88(b)
requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the
same architectural style, colors and materials and for relief from the Section 24 -88(c)
requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the
same time or in a continuous sequence at Saltair Section 3, South half of Lot 680 (aka 145
Pine Street).
5. Reports.
A. 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 mad e by the Communit y Developmen t Board with respect t o 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.
I n accordanc e wit h the American s with Disabilitie s Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes , person s
with disabilities needin g specia l accommodation s t o participat e i n 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.
Page 1 of 7
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
September 20, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:02pm. All members were present
except for Mrs. Lanier. With Mrs. Lanier absent, Chair Paul asked Mr.
Mandelbaum to fill her seat. Also present were Planner, Derek Reeves,
Recording Secretary, Grace Mackey and representing the firm Lewis,
Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of the August 16, 2016 regular meeting of the Community
Development Board.
Mr. Elmore made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 16,
2016 regular meeting. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The minutes
were approved unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
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).
Page 2 of 7
Staff Report
Planner Reeves presented the variance as a request to allow a 6 foot
wooden fence in the front yard along 1st Street at 1175 Atlantic
Boulevard, with the normal allowable height being 4 foot. The site in
question is zoned Commercial General (CG). He explained that there
would be no changes to the proposed use tonight, as a Use-by-exception
was already approved over a year ago.
Planner Reeves showed a site plan of the property. The property in
question has frontage on Atlantic Boulevard as well as along 1st Street
at the north end of the property.
The need for a variance is derived from section 24-157(b)(1) of the City
of Atlantic Beach ordinances, which states that “within required front
yards, the maximum height of any fence shall be (4) feet…”. Other
applicable ordinances are Section 24-84, which covers double-frontage
lots and states that “a required front yard shall be provided on each
street” and section 24-17 which explains that from the property line of
a front yard to 20 foot back is the required minimum front yard setback.
Planner Reeves showed pictures of the property in question, including
a picture of the existing property. The pictures also showed an existing
6 foot wooden fence to the east of the property, a nonconforming
structure without an existing variance, on the American Legion
Property, which Urban Farms plans to tie into on their property.
Near the property in question is a church as well as single-family homes
to the North West of the property.
Applicant Comment
Steve Cissell of 1175 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233,
introduced himself and explained that the biggest hardship in question is
cut-through traffic. He stated that they are trying to bifurcate their
accessibility from the public. He purported that his development is a
commercial property not meant for foot traffic. He stated that their chosen
front yard is Atlantic Boulevard. He wants to deny their backyard to the
neighborhood, particularly because of the retention pond which lies on the
north side of the property which could be an attractive nuisance. Mr. Cissell
also spoke of the noise from Atlantic Boulevard traffic, and believes that
the proposed fence would be a sound buffer for the homes in the area. He
also argued that the 6 foot fence would be a visual buffer for the neighbors
from the commercial steel building on the property in question.
Mr. Cissell then argued that the north end of the property, which lies along
1st Street, is the backyard of the property and therefore, a 6 foot wooden
Page 3 of 7
fence would be allowable without a variance. He pointed out that the
adjacent property to the East already has a 6 foot solid wood fence along
1st Street.
Mr. Reichler questioned where the retention pond would lie in regards to
the proposed 6 foot fence, if the fence were to be built at least 20 feet
back. Mr. Cissell explained that because of the way the retention pond is
designed, there is not enough dry horizontal land 20 foot back from the
property line, to build the fence 20 foot back without it going through the
pond. He then showed Mr. Reichler and other Board members a physical
site plan of the property.
Mr. Mandelbaum asked which type of fence is proposed. Mr. Cissell stated
it would be a solid wood fence.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Chris Jorgenson of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, stated
no objection to the applicant constructing a 6 foot rather than a 4 foot
fence. He encouraged the Board to accept and vote for it.
Planner Reeves pointed out an email he received from Michael Hoffman of
176 Camelia Street. The email reads as follows:
“I support the variance request being made by Atlantic Beach Urban Farms
to construct a 6-foot wooden fence along the northern side of their
property. The fence will mitigate visual and aural pollution from the Flyover
intersection.
I would prefer that the pond remain outside the 6-foot fence because it is
visually attractive.”
With no more public comment, the floor was opened for board discussion.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore recused himself from voting on this variance proposal as he has
worked with the client on the development of the project. He did speak on
the situation however, stating that the reason for the shape of the
retention pond was in large part due to the desire to work around the roots
of several large live oaks on the property that they want to preserve. He
also proposed supporting the variance on the grounds that the property in
question is a Commercial General property right next to residential
Page 4 of 7
properties and having a 6 foot fence would provide a good buffer between
the different land uses.
Mr. Stratton asked Mr. Elmore how a 6 foot fence along 1st Street would
help buffer sound coming from Atlantic Boulevard. Mr. Elmore said that the
6 foot fence along 1st Street would more help separate land uses for
definitively. Mr. Stratton then asked if the 6 foot fence would be a benefit
to the residential residents around the property in question. Mr. Elmore
said he thought so and reiterated that separating the land uses would be a
good think.
Chair Paul expressed that the 6 foot fence would potentially help deter any
through traffic.
Mrs. Simmons stated that the proposed fence could benefit the
neighborhood as long as landscaping buffers the fence itself, so as to not
create a “tunnel” effect on the street. She also stated that having the fence
in the proposed location could keep people off of the property at night.
Mr. Reichler raised the question of legal eligibility for the variance to be
approved. He stated that he hadn’t seen a legal reason to allow the
proposed fence. Mrs. Simmons stated that it could be passed on the basis
of surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property
despairingly from surrounding properties, noting the potential security
threat from people who may seek to enter the property at night, as well as
the potential issue of children entering the retention pond.
The Board discussed the legally require height of a fence around a
swimming pool, which is 4 foot.
Mr. Reichler questioned why a 6 foot fence could not be built at the 20 foot
setback line, as this line is on the edge of the retention pond, with a 4 foot
fence at the property line. The Board discussed this.
Mr. Reichler questioned if the retention pond was deep enough for a fence
to be required around it and again questioned what hardship would allow
the proposed variance to be approved. Mr. Cissell stated that the retention
pond sloped at a 4 to 1 slope. If the proposed fence was built 20 foot back
from the property line, then parts of the fence would be in the pond.
Mr. Cissell stated that one hardship in question is the fact that the property
in question is commercial but it is surrounded by residential properties. He
also stated that there is the concern of people wandering onto the
property at night and he stated that the fence would be a visual buffer that
Page 5 of 7
would help block the property from surrounding residential properties as
well.
The Board discussed the retention pond on the property. Mr. Cissell argued
that the proposed placement of a fence would mitigate risk going forward,
as the property is an “attractive hazard.”
Chair Paul suggested that approval of the variance could be granted based
on the condition that it is an irregular property (referring to the double
frontage of the property) and therefore, a special condition could be
warranted. Mr. Reichler argued that a rectangular shaped property could
not be seen as “irregular”.
Chair Paul said exceptional topographic conditions could be possible
grounds for approval referring to the trees preserved on site by shaping
pond the way they did. Mr. Reichler asked Mr. Elmore if the definition of
“topographic” as stated for the condition proposed by Chair Paul had
anything to do with trees, or if it only referred to the elevation of the
property. Mr. Elmore answered that it has more to do with beach front
dunes on properties where there are extreme differences in elevation. He
then discussed the trees that were preserved by the property owner and
explained that the pond was shaped irregularly in order to save these trees.
Mr. Reichler then questioned if the pond was a liability, possibly for
financial reasons. Mr. Elmore stated that insurance adjusters do take into
account a properties exposures to a number of issues. Mr. Reichler then
questioned why, if this was the issue at hand, it was not included as
reasoning in the proposed variance.
The Board then discusses the necessity or lack thereof of separating the
zoning districts in the area.
Mr. Stratton brought up a variance request on Beach Avenue that was
denied by the board, and their suggestion was to put up a hedge that grew
up to about 8 feet, abutting their 4 foot fence. Now that property has a 4
foot fence with vegetation that provides them security. He stated he would
be willing to approve a 6 foot fence as proposed if it was landscaped, so
residents surrounding the property would view a hedge not a fence. Mrs.
Simmons argued that the difference between this situation and Beach
Avenue is that Beach Avenue is all residential, and if everyone put up 6 foot
fences along their front property lines, then a tunnel effect would be
created along the road. In contrast, across from the property in question is
a church which is wide open therefore no tunnel effect would be created.
Page 6 of 7
She stated that it would be a benefit for the neighborhood to separate the
mixed residential and commercial properties.
Mr. Reichler argued that if the variance in questioned is approved without
specifically stating the hardship in question, which would allow said
approval, then it opens the door for all other properties zoned Commercial
General which are bordered by residential properties, to have all sorts of
variances approved just because they are bordered by residential
properties, without other specific reasons.
The Board discussed whether or not there was a hardship imposed upon
the property, which would allow the approval of the proposed variance.
Motion
Mrs. Simmons made a motion to approve the request for a variance with
the addition that there is landscaping on the street side of the 6 foot fence.
Planner Reeves stated that such landscaping would have to be on the
property, so they would have to push the fence back further onto the
property to accommodate the proposed landscaping addition.
Mrs. Simmons then made a motion to approve the variance as presented
finding that surrounding conditions or circumstances impact the property
disparately from nearby properties. Mr. Parkes seconded motion. All
approved the variance except for Mr. Reichler who opposed it.
5. REPORTS.
A. Board Member Event – September 29th, 2016, 6:30pm, Adele Grage
Culture Center
Planner Reeves reminded the Board members to respond to Ms.
Calverley in the City Manager’s Office if they wanted to attend the Board
Member Event on September 29th.
B. Staffing Update
Planner Reeves stated that the City is planning to interview 2 new
people for the Director position in the Planning Department. No dates
have been set for these interviews yet.
Page 7 of 7
Mr. Elmore asked for an update on the impact of the safe routes to
school project. Mr. Reeves explained that the project in question is a
planned 8 foot concrete multi-use sidewalk path. He stated that
Commission has asked staff to move forward with original design
concept which runs from Ahern up to the 5 way stop on the east side of
Sherry Drive. It would also extend along the east side of Seminole up to
17th Street, pending funding. He explained that anything beyond the
approximately $600,000 included in the grant funding will not be
covered by the grant, and the City would have to pay for it. Therefore,
the City decided to build up to 17th Street if the money granted can pay
for it.
The Board discussed this planned sidewalk project.
The Board then discussed the traffic flow on Beach Avenue.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. Parkes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded
the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:01pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO 16-ZVAR-221
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the
Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be
constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and
materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining
townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or
in a continuous sequence at Saltair Section 3, South half of lot 680 (aka 145
Pine Street).
LOCATION 145 PINE STREET
APPLICANT JOHN WELLS
DATE OCTOBER 11, 2016
STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is John Wells, the owner of the property and is represented by Justin Larsen, the contractor for
the proposed construction. The property is the southern half of a two unit townhome in the RS-2 zoning
district built in 1982. The current unit is a two story, 2 bedroom/ 1.5 bath townhome with T1-11 siding and
a covered two story rear deck. The applicant would like to close in the covered rear deck for additional living
space and another bathroom and then replace the siding with horizontal lap siding.
A variance is required for two aspects of this plan. First by Section 24-88(b) which states, “adjoining two-
family or townhouse dwelling units shall be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and
materials.” The current exterior siding is a wood sheet material with vertical lines and the proposed siding
is a composite board material that will run horizontally and overlap. This is a change in both material and
architectural style. The second need for a variance comes from Section 24-88(c) which states, “adjoining two-
family or townhouse dwelling units shall be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous
sequence unless an existing structure is being renovated within the same building footprint.” The enclosure of
the rear deck is construction adding to the structure well after original construction and is not part of a
sequence of new construction.
It is the second part of this variance request that leaves some room for interpretation and is what is
questioned by the applicant. The enclosure of the rear deck is occurring on top of an existing slab and under
an existing roof. The existing slab is lower than the rest of the house and will have to be modified, but the
roof can remain as is. If “building footprint” is considered as the top-down or site plan view then the proposed
enclosure will not add to the building out line. However, the code refers to construction and renovations
within the same section where construction implies new structure and renovate implies changes to existing.
Construction would be an addition of space or the conversion of an existing space from one use to another
such as an open porch to air conditioned space. Renovation would be the replacement of an existing kitchen
or bathroom. “Building footprint” is not defined within the code, but the context in which it is used suggests
that the previous comments were the intent and that perhaps “building envelope” would have been a better
term to use.
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.
(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.
The applicant stated in their application that they are staying within the footprint of the original structure
to add interior square footage.
(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.
Page 3 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 16-ZVAR-221, request for relief from the
Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining
townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence at Saltair
Section 3, South half of Lot 680 (aka 145 Pine Street), 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-221, request for relief from the
Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining
townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence at Saltair
Section 3, South half of Lot 680 (aka 145 Pine Street), 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.