01-17-17 Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / January 17, 2017 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Minutes of the October 18, 2016 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 16-SPPR-269 (Linda Dunlap)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24 , Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances
at Selva Marina Unit 1, Parts of Lots 28 and 29 (aka 1251 Selva Marina Circle).
B. 16-ZVAR-281 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Henry Osborne and Rena Coughlin)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable projection
of open porches into the rear yard from 48 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet
to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No 1 Part of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach
Avenue).
5. Reports.
A. Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Update
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.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
October 18, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6.05pm/ !ll oard Members were
present except for Ms/ Simmons and Mr/ Reichler/ hair Paul asked
alternates, Ms/ Workman and Mr/ Mandelbaum, to fill in/ !lso present was
Planner, Derek Reeves and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and
Walker, Mrs/ renna Durden/
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of September 20, 2016
Mr/ Stratton motioned to approve the minutes as written/ The minutes
were approved unanimously/
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None/
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 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).
Page 1 of 7
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item and displayed a map with site context
and detail/ It is zoned RS-2 (a single-family zoning district), but it was
grandfathered in as it is an existing townhouse/ It is in the Residential
Medium future land use/
The proposed plan is to enclose an existing rear patio and deck (which also
requires to thickening the patio slab to match the Finish Floor Elevation of
the rest of the house) and to add a new second floor/ The applicant also
wants to add horizontal lap siding to the exterior of the unit/
The need for a variance is derived from O! code section 24-88(b) which
states that “!djoining two-family or townhouse dwellings units shall be
constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and
materials/” The use of the composite horizontal lap siding would be a
change in the material and style from the current siding/ What’s more, the
enclosure of the porch on the back side is a change in the architectural
style/
In addition to this this, O! code section 24-88(c) states that “!djoining
two-family or townhouse dwellings 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
construction proposed is well after original construction and it would
change the current building footprint/ Therefore, relief from this code
section is also needed/
Planner Reeves then explained some analysis and concerns/ The applicant
has purported that the renovations occurring are within the existing
footprint, but Planner Reeves urged the oard to distinguish between
renovating versus construction in their analysis of the application/ He
stated that whereas ‘Renovate’ means to restore something old,
‘onstruct’ means to build something new (i/e/ as with this application,
enclosing and open air porch and adding a roof, therefore increasing air-
conditioned space/)
Second, Planner Reeves looked at the proposed construction’s effect on
the foot print vs/ envelope of the structure/ He argued that foot print
suggests a change in the site plan view (i/e/ vertical/aerial view/) From this
point of view, the proposed construction is within the existing footprint of
the building/ hanges to the envelope would encompass changes to
exterior walls in a site plan view (i/e/ changes to air-conditioned space, etc/)
It is staff’s opinion that the proposed construction would expand the
current envelope of the structure/
Page 2 of 7
Staff presented the oard’s grounds for approval or denial/
Mr/ Stratton questioned if pictures or renderings were available of the
proposed construction/ Staff said there were not/ Mr/ Parkes introduced
himself as the architect of the proposed structure and gave more
explanation about it/ Mr/ Stratton requested of Staff that in the future, a
picture of proposed work be presented/
Ms/ Durden stated that in her opinion, Mr/ Parkes should recuse himself
and not make any presentation for the project, as he is the architect for the
project in question/ She stated that Mr/ Parkes should also not argue for
the project/ Mr/ Elmore stated that he has been in the same situation where
he had a conflict of interest and recused himself and did not vote, but still
commented on the issue and discussed the pros and cons of the issue/ Ms/
Durden stated that she would provide the oard with a written opinion
regarding appropriate legal practices in cases where there are conflicts of
interest between oard members and projects that come before the
oard/
Ms/ Lanier asked for clarification as to whether or not there is currently a
full wall that separates the two existing porches/ Staff clarified that there
is a full existing wall and that the proposed expansion will be on the first
and second floor- the roof will be the same style and material as the
existing one/
Staff discussed the difference between the existing siding and the new
proposed siding on the front of the house/ The current siding is vertical
sheet siding, whereas the proposed siding would be horizontal lap siding
(which would look different than the other townhome’s siding, which is
also the vertical sheet siding/)
!pplicant omment
Justin Larson of 4670 Hedgehog St/, Middleburg, FL introduced himself as
the contractor of the proposed construction/ He stated that he has been in
contact with the adjoining townhome’s owner and that the neighbor
understands that the new siding on the applicant’s home will be different/
He stated that the neighbor is planning to redo his siding in the future/ The
oard and Mr/ Larson discussed the age of the current siding, aging it
around 30 years old/
Mr/ Larson stated that the siding would stay the same color as it is now, and
it would therefore match the adjoining townhome’s color/
Page 3 of 7
townhomes on the same street that look different on either side/
With no more questions from the oard for the applicant, hair Paul
opened the floor to public comment/
hris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd St/, !tlantic each, FL 32233, commented
on a past situation reviewed by the oard wherein continuity in a building
was reviewed and the oard approved breaking with the continuity, and
recommended that the oard approve the proposed Variance in light of
this/
With no more public comment, hair Paul opened the oard Discussion/
Mr/ Elmore gave his recommended approval for the Variance and
commented that there are numerous examples in !tlantic each where
two sides of a duplex are different/ He also commented that the proposed
hardy siding is far better quality than the current siding/ He noted that a
new architectural trend he is seeing is that multiple architectural features
Public omment
oard Discussion
He also stated that the sliding glass door on the first floor would be placed
in the same location on the rear of the house (same as now), just pushed
out per the proposed enclosed porch and that the second story windows
would be placed differently but would still exist on that wall facing the
street, as they do now/
Ms/ Workman commented on the visual effect that changing only one side
of the duplex would have/ Mr/ Larson argued that there are other
are combined for the siding materials of buildings/
Mr/ Stratton commented that he believes the code in question is in effect
in this situation because its intent was to keep duplexes looking like a
congruent single family home/ He said that in his opinion, if the oard
approves the Variance proposed tonight, then they would in effect
invalidate the code and set the precedent for having to approve all future
similar Variances/
hair Paul questioned how the oard could embrace changes in the
onstruction materials industry moving forward in light of the current
ode/
Page 4 of 7
Mr/ Stratton suggested that the oard could potentially discuss a Variance
approval with stipulations, such as an agreement between both owners of
the townhomes as to the material and color that will be used for this
current proposal as well as what will be used on the other side in the
future, making sure that the oard views the building as a whole, not as
two separate townhomes, so that the unit grows in unison/
Ms/ Lanier commented on the visual effect that having different siding on
the two sides of the duplex would have and questioned the potential
cascade of events that could ensue by approving the proposed Variance/
Mr/ Elmore commented that the oard could still regulate future proposed
variances from the ode based on legitimate reasons, such as the
structural integrity of future proposed materials in light of current building
product standards/ He stated that keeping the siding color the same was
important, but he was in favor of approving improvements to the siding
that would bring materials up-to-date/
Mr/ Stratton asked hair Paul. If the oard approves the proposed Variance
with the stipulation that the color stay the same as it currently is, if the
adjoining neighbor would then have to get a Variance if in the future, they
wished to replace their current siding with the same exact siding material
that they currently have/ hair Paul said they would not because they
would be replacing what is existing and in addition, they would not need a
Variance should they in the future desire to replace their siding with the
same siding that their adjoining neighbor has/ In contrast, they would need
a variance if they wished to replace their siding with a material other than
the existing material or the same material as their neighbor’s/ In addition,
they would need a Variance if they wished to change the color of their
siding/
Mr/ Stratton promoted a oard approval of the updated siding proposed,
with the stipulation that the color stay the same (as the adjoining
townhome’s/)
hair Paul then moved to the second code section applicable to this
proposed Variance (24-88(c)), referencing the proposed enclosure of the
back porch/
Staff clarified that as far as they understand, there will be no changes to
the existing shingle roof- It is only an enclosure of the existing porch under
said roof, that is being proposed/ The oard discussed whether or not the
proposed enclosed structure will be new construction, meaning, new air-
conditioned space/
Page 5 of 7
Staff clarified that the setbacks would not be violated if the Variance is
approved, it is strictly the enclosed structure in question/
Mr/ Elmore commented that he was in favor of them enclosing their already
existing space, as it would not change the impervious surface nor would it
change the roof-line of the building/
Ms/ Lanier questioned in there were any future-planned outside decks
being built later on for the duplex in question/ Staff commented that no
such plans were submitted to them/
hair Paul questioned Staff if the applicant could add an outside deck in
the rear year yard in the future, without a Variance, should this current
Variance be approved and they enclose their porch/ Staff commented that
the applicant could do this on the ground level/
Ms/ Workman questioned if there was any representation from the
neighbors next door/ Staff commented that the proper procedures, per ity
ode, had been followed to give notice of the Variance request/
Mr/ Stratton requested that in the future, Staff provide a picture of
proposed construction which warrants a Variance, (both of the front and
the rear of buildings/properties) be provided/
Ms/ Workman commented that it would cheapen the look of the
neighborhood, should approving this Variance start a trend in the
neighborhood of joint frontage homes doing different construction/ The
oard discussed approving upgrades versus construction to only one side
of townhomes with joint frontage and the issue of separate ownership of
each side of such duplexes/
Ms/ Lanier expressed frustration with the current codes within the Land
Development Regulations of the ity, recommending that the ode be
revisited and updated/
Motion
Mr/ Elmore moved to approve 16-ZV!R-221 based on what he believes to
be the onerous effect of regulations which, without this Variance, would
prevent the homeowner from updating their siding product, with the
stipulation that the building colors (of both sides of the duplex) stay the
same/ Mr/ Stratton seconded the motion/ The motion was approved 6-1
with all in favor except for Ms/ Workman/
Page 6 of 7
5. REPORTS.
A. Staffing Update
Planner Reeves stated he is still the acting Planning Director/ Progress is
being made to hire a Planning and ommunity Development Director/
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Ms/ Lanier moved to adjourn the meeting/ Mr/ Elmore seconded the
motion/ !ll were in favor/ The meeting was adjourned at 7.01pm/
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO 16-SPPR-269
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of
Ordinances at Selva Marina Unit 1, Parts of Lots 28 and 29 (aka 1251 Selva
Marina Circle).
LOCATION 1251 Selva Marina Court
APPLICANT Linda Dunlap
DATE January 9, 2017
STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant, Linda Dunlap who is the owner of 1251 Selva Marina Circle, is requesting to re-plat their
37,160 square foot property into two separate properties. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-
sac in the first unit of the Selva Marina development and is within the Residential Single-family, Large
Lot (RS-L) zoning district. Lot 1 would have an area of 20,456 square feet and Lot 2 would have an area
of 16,704 square feet. Both lots would have access to Selva Marina Circle.
This property previously came before the Community Development Board in October of 2014, after a
previous variance request that same year, for a similar re-plat that was recommended for approval to
the City Commission with conditions. The Commission did approve the plat with conditions. One of the
conditions was that the existing home be demolished or renovated in such a way that it is not made
nonconforming by the division of land within 120 days. This requirement was not met and the approval
became void. The existing house is still standing so a similar condition will have to be part of this approval
if granted. The applicant has requested 180 days for demolition and one year for final plat approval.
Typically, a division of land resulting in only 2 lots can be approved administratively. This is not possible
in this case due to Section 24-256(a) which requires a minimum of 75 feet of lot width at the Building
Restriction Line (BRL). The lot width at the current platted BRL is less than 75 feet. Re-platting the lots
with greater BRLs that have at least 75 feet of lot width at the new BRLs solves this problem. As part of
the requirements of Section 24-256(a), properties must also meet the minimum size requirements of
their zoning district. Within the RS-L zoning district, the minimum lot depth and width are both 100 feet
and the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Both of the proposed lots meet these requirements and
far exceed them in some aspects. The image on the next page shows the proposed division with the lot
depth (blue line) and the lot width at the BRL (red line). Lot 1 had a depth of 232 feet and a width at the
BRL of 96 feet. Lot 2 had a depth of 167 feet and a width at the BRL of 75 feet.
Proposed Property Division
This re-plat is slightly different than the one approved in 2014, in that the dividing line has been shifted
slightly and the front of Lot 1 has been widened. Even with these changes, Lot 1 at 20,456 square feet is
still larger than 38 of the remaining 46 lots that comprise the original platted area of Selva Marina Unit
1. Though Lot 2 is smaller at 16,704 square feet, it is larger than 30 of those same 46 lots.
All departments have reviewed the proposed plat and have no outstanding comments.
Page 2 of 3
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval to the
City Commission of the requested Plat, 16-SPPR-269, at 1251 Selva Marina Circle within the
Residential Single-family, Large Lot (RS-L) Zoning District with the condition(s) that.
1. The home be demolished within 180 days of Commission approval- and
2. The final plat be recorded within one year of Commission approval.
finding that-
1. !pproval of this Plat is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan- and
2. !pproval of this Plat is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 24, !rticle 4.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial to the City
Commission of the requested Plat, 16-SPPR-269, at 1251 Selva Marina Circle within the
Residential Single-family, Large Lot (RS-L) Zoning District finding that-
1. !pproval of this Plat is NOT consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan- and/or
2. !pproval of this Plat is NOT consistent with the requirements of Chapter 24, !rticle 4.
Page 3 of 3
Our client desires to re-plat their property at 1251 Selva Marina Circle into two large single family lots.
The property currently has a single family home on it and is located in the Residential Large Lot (RS -
L) zoning district. The property is 37,159 square feet or .85 acres, making it one of (if not) the largest
single family lots in Atlantic Beach. In December 2014, our client was granted approval of essentially
the same re-plat as we are proposing. However, the approval had a condition that the existing home be
demolished within 120 days. That condition being placed on the approval was a mistake from the
previous agent for the owners, as there was an existing lease on the property which made it impossible
to demolish the home within 120 days. The previous approval is now null and void due to the condition
not being met in a timely manner.
The owners would like to gain approval for the same concept, which is subdividing the property into
two lots. Lot one is proposed to be 20,456 square feet and lot two is proposed to be 16,704 square feet.
Both of these lots are well above the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in the RS-L zoning
district. Other single family zoning districts in the City have minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet.
Both of these lots will be more than double the size of standard lots in the City, and lot one will be
almost three times the size. There are seven other lots which front Selva Marina Circle, with the
average size of these lots being .38 acres. As proposed, lot 1 will be .47 acres and lot 2 will be .38
acres, making both lots consistent with the surrounding lots.
Section 24-256 (a) states that no new lots can have a width of less than 75 feet at the building
restriction line (BRL). The proposed lots will meet this requirement, as well as all other City
requirements. The proposed plat maintains an existing 15' drainage easement and 6' sanitary sewer
easement, which are both depicted on the plat. Additionally, the applicants are proposing to limit their
driveway widths to no more than 12 feet through the right of way and within the first twenty feet of the
property. There is an existing lease on the property, which ends on June 30, 2017. We would like to ask
that the owners have 180 days from July 1, 2017 in which to demolish the existing home, and then
initiate an application for final plat recording.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO 16-ZVAR-281
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable
projection of open porches into the rear yard from 48 inches as required by
Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No 1
Part of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach Avenue).
LOCATION 1632 Beach Avenue
APPLICANT Henry Osborne and Rena Coughlin
DATE January 9, 2017
STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicants are Henry Osborne and Rena Coughlin, the owners of 1632 Beach Avenue. The property
is located on the west side of Beach Avenue, one lot south of Dewees Avenue, in the Residential General-
Multi-Family (RG-M) zoning district. There is an existing 3 story single family home on the property. The
applicants recently constructed a covered deck extension off an existing first story deck at the rear of
the property that is 14 feet off the rear property line.
A variance is required by Section 24-108(e)(2) in conjunction with Section 24-83(b). Section 24-108(e)(2)
requires a 20 foot rear yard setback, while Section 24-83(b) allows open porches to project 4 feet into
rear yards. This effectively allows open porches to be no closer than 16 feet from the rear property line.
With the new deck 14 feet from the rear property line, a variance is needed. The requested variance is
to increase the allowed 4 foot projection into the rear yard of Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet. If approved,
this will allow the rear porch extension, but prevent the future enclosure of any space within the 20 foot
setback required by Section 24-108(e)(2).
The survey provided in the application shows that the property has an irregular shape with one side
property line 120 feet long and the other side property line 98 feet long where both the front and rear
property lines are angled. This results in no 90 degree angles in the corners of the property. The survey
also shows the new portion of the deck at the southwest corner of the property. Though a measurement
is not shown, staff confirmed with the surveyor that portion depicted is the base of the porch and it is
14.3 feet from the rear property line. The proposed variance would allow for the existing slight extension
of the roof too. Due to the angles of the lot, it is a triangular area that is in violation of setbacks and only
a point will be 14 feet from the rear property line. So much so that the northern corner of the new porch
is in compliance with the code.
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.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
The applicants stated in their application that their lot has an irregular shape that does not allow the
extension of the rear of the building.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the
property.
The applicants stated in their application that the minimum lot size in the RG-M zoning district is 7,500
square feet, but their lot is only 5,749 square feet.
Page 2 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 16-ZVAR-281, request to increase the
allowable projection of open porches into the rear yard from 48 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet
to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No. 1 Part of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach Avenue), 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-281, request to increase the
allowable projection of open porches into the rear yard from 48 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet
to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No. 1 Part of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach Avenue), upon finding
that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds
of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a
variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the
granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the
following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
Page 3 of 3