2-19-13 CDB Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday | February 19, 2013 | 6:00 pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
Call To Order And Roll Call.
2013 Election Of Officers
CH 14_CDBOARD.PDF
2013 Schedule
CDB_2013SCHEDULE.PDF
Approval Of Minutes.
CDBminutes_2012_Sep18
Draft minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community
Development Board.
2012_SEP18.PDF
Old Business.
New Business.
ZVAR -13 -00100043
(A) Variance from Section 24 -157(b)(1), reducing the required front setback (east,
adjacent to Beach Avenue) from 20.00' to 13.80', to replace an existing chain link
fence with a 6'-high shadowbox privacy fence.
(B) Variance from Section 24 -157(c)(1), reducing the required street side setback
(north, adjacent to 7th Street) from 10.00' to 0.00', to construct a new 6'-high
shadowbox privacy fence.
CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100043.PDF, EXHIBIT1_SURVEY_2012 -09 -
07.PDF, EXHIBIT2_CONSTRUCTION_2013 -01 -15.PDF, EXHIBIT3_FENCE -PER -
REGS_2013 -01 -15.PDF, EXHIBIT4_ELEVATIONS_2013 -01 -15.PDF,
APPLICATION_2013 -01 -04.PDF
REV -2013 -01
Review of Chapter 17 provisions regarding flags.
CDBSR_REV-2013 -01_FLAGS -REV1.PDF, EXHIBIT -1_SIGN -
REGS.PDF
REV -2013 -02
Review of use -by-exception for used car lots in Commercial General zoning
districts, particularly within the Mayport Corridor.
CDBSR_REV-2013 -02_NON -RES -USES -REV2.PDF, EXHIBIT -1_UBE -
CG -CC -REGS.PDF
REV -2013 -03
Review of proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 8 Floodplain Management
Ordinance as required by the State of Florida for adoption as part of the 2010
Florida Building Code.
CDBSR_REV-2013 -03_FLOODPLAIN -REGS.PDF, EXHIBIT -
1_CH8REVISIONS.PDF
Reports.
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.
1.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
2.
A.
Documents:
3.
4.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
C.
Documents:
D.
Documents:
5.
6.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday | February 19, 2013 | 6:00 pm Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road Call To Order And Roll Call. 2013 Election Of Officers CH 14_CDBOARD.PDF 2013 Schedule CDB_2013SCHEDULE.PDF Approval Of Minutes. CDBminutes_2012_Sep18 Draft minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 2012_SEP18.PDF Old Business. New Business. ZVAR -13 -00100043 (A) Variance from Section 24 -157(b)(1), reducing the required front setback (east, adjacent to Beach Avenue) from 20.00' to 13.80', to replace an existing chain link fence with a 6'-high shadowbox privacy fence. (B) Variance from Section 24 -157(c)(1), reducing the required street side setback (north, adjacent to 7th Street) from 10.00' to 0.00', to construct a new 6'-high shadowbox privacy fence. CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100043.PDF, EXHIBIT1_SURVEY_2012 -09 -07.PDF, EXHIBIT2_CONSTRUCTION_2013 -01 -15.PDF, EXHIBIT3_FENCE -PER -REGS_2013 -01 -15.PDF, EXHIBIT4_ELEVATIONS_2013 -01 -15.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -01 -04.PDF REV -2013 -01 Review of Chapter 17 provisions regarding flags.
CDBSR_REV-2013 -01_FLAGS -REV1.PDF, EXHIBIT -1_SIGN -
REGS.PDF
REV -2013 -02
Review of use -by-exception for used car lots in Commercial General zoning
districts, particularly within the Mayport Corridor.
CDBSR_REV-2013 -02_NON -RES -USES -REV2.PDF, EXHIBIT -1_UBE -
CG -CC -REGS.PDF
REV -2013 -03
Review of proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 8 Floodplain Management
Ordinance as required by the State of Florida for adoption as part of the 2010
Florida Building Code.
CDBSR_REV-2013 -03_FLOODPLAIN -REGS.PDF, EXHIBIT -
1_CH8REVISIONS.PDF
Reports.
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.
1.A.Documents:B.Documents:2.A.Documents:3.4.A.Documents:B.
Documents:
C.
Documents:
D.
Documents:
5.
6.
Atlantic Beach, Florida, Code of Ordinances >> PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Chapter 14 -
PLANNING/ZONING/APPEALS >> ARTICLE II. - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD >>
ARTICLE II. - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD [36]
Sec. 14-16. - Created.
Sec. 14-17. - Composition; qualifications of members; officers.
Sec. 14-18. - Terms of office of members; filling of vacancies.
Sec. 14-19. - Removal of members.
Sec. 14-20. - Powers and duties.
Sec. 14-21. - Certification of board actions to the city manager.
Sec. 14-22. - Local planning agency.
Sec. 14-23. - Proceedings of the board.
Sec. 14-24. - Appeals.
Sec. 14-25. - Petition of illegality.
Sec. 14-26. - Cost.
Sec. 14-27. - Enforcement; penalties for violation.
Sec. 14-28. - Legal proceedings.
Sec. 14-16. - Created.
There is hereby created a community development board.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-17. - Composition; qualifications of members; officers.
The community development board shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the city
commission, none of whom shall hold any other public office or position in the city, all of whom shall
be bonafide residents of the city, and where practical, each shall possess some special skill or
knowledge which would assist them in the discharge of their responsibilities under this article. The
community development board shall elect its chairman and vice chairman from among the
appointed members. The community development director shall act as secretary to the board under
the direction of the city manager.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-18. - Terms of office of members; filling of vacancies.
Following the expiration of the terms of office of current board members the term of office
shall be for two (2) years and members may serve a maximum of four (4) consecutive terms. All
terms shall expire on December 31 of the proper year. Any vacancy during the unexpired term of an
appointed member shall be filled by the city commission for the remainder of the term.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87; Ord. No. 5-03-42, § 2, 7-14-03)
Sec. 14-19. - Removal of members.
Any member of the community development board may be removed for cause by the city
commission upon written charges and after public hearing. Any member who fails to attend (3)
consecutive meetings without cause shall have his office declared vacant unless the member's
absence is excused by a majority of the board members, and the city commission shall promptly fill
such vacancy.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87; Ord. No. 5-03-42, § 2, 7-14-03)
Sec. 14-20. - Powers and duties.
The community development board shall have the power, duty, responsibility and authority
to:
Make recommendations to the city commission for the physical, fiscal and esthetic
development of the city;
Exercise supervisory control over planning and land use within the city, following the
standards established by the city commission pertaining to such planning or land use
regulation as contained in the Ordinance Code of the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida;
Recommend to the city commission proposed changes in the land use regulation map
of the city;
Recommend to the city commission proposed changes in the land use regulations of
the code;
Submit to the city commission their recommendations covering all applications for
changes in the provisions of the land use regulations of the city referred to them by
the city commission;
Submit annually to the city manager, not less than one hundred and twenty (120) days
prior to the beginning of the budget year, a list of recommended capital improvements
which in the opinion of the board, are necessary or desirable to be constructed. The
list shall be arranged in order of preference, with recommendations as to which
project shall be constructed in which year, and shall include sources of revenue;
Promote public interest in and understanding of the planning, zoning and
beautification of the city;
Meet on a regularly scheduled day each month, and periodically on call, and keep a
public record of all its meetings, resolutions, findings and determinations;
Require information from other departments of the city government in relation to its
work, which information shall be furnished to them within a reasonable time;
Request additional assistance for special survey work of the city manager, who may,
at his discretion, assign to the board members of the staff of any administrative
department or direct such department to make a special study requested by the
board;
Recommend to the city commission plans for the planning, replanning, improvement
or redevelopment of the city;
Recommend to the city commission plans for the replanning, reconstruction or
redevelopment of any area or district which may be destroyed in whole or in part or
seriously damaged by fire, earthquake, flood or other disaster;
Request the city manager to provide for the employment of sufficient personnel to
enable the board to carry out its powers, duties and responsibilities;
To act as a zoning board and to make recommendations to the city commission on
zoning applications and applications for exceptions filed in accordance with the land
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
development regulations of the Comprehensive Zoning Code of the City of Atlantic
Beach, Florida;
To act as an appeals board or board of adjustment to authorize upon findings of fact
minor variances from the terms of Chapter 24, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Atlantic Beach, as will not be contrary to the public interest and, where
owing to special conditions, not self-imposed or self-created, literal enforcement of the
provisions of said Chapter 24 would result in unnecessary hardship.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-21. - Certification of board actions to the city manager.
All plans or recommendations of the community development board, in order to be accorded
official cognizance by the city commission, must be certified to the city commission through the
office of the city manager by the chairman of the community development board as the official act of
the board, duly passed by a majority vote of the board as distinguished from the personal views or
desires of any single member or group of members of the board. Such certification shall be attested
to by the appropriate administrative official. This provision is not intended as prohibiting the board
from submitting alternate plans or recommendations or of submitting minority plans or
recommendations in certain cases when so approved by a majority vote of the board to be also
certified to the city commission for consideration.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-22. - Local planning agency.
The community development board is hereby designated as the local planning agency and
the local land development regulation commission as set forth in Part 2 of Chapter 163.3164,
Florida Statutes as from time to time amended.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-23. - Proceedings of the board.
Four (4) members of the community development board shall constitute a quorum but a less
number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is present. The board shall adopt rules as
may be required for the proper conduct of its business. Meetings of the board shall be held at the
call of the chairman and at such times as the board may determine. Such chairman, or in his
absence, the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. All
meetings of the board shall be open to the public. The board shall keep minutes of the proceedings,
showing the vote of each member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating
such fact, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which shall be
immediately filed in the office of the board and shall become a public record.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-24. - Appeals.
Appeals from decisions of the community development board may be taken by any person or
persons, jointly or separately, or any taxpayer or any officer of the city. Such appeals shall be taken
within thirty (30) days after the decision of the board on which the appeal is based. The appeal shall
be filed with the community development director on behalf of the community development board
(15)
and with the city manager for forwarding to the city commission. The appeal shall state the
grounds thereof and relief sought.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-25. - Petition of illegality.
Petition may be presented to court of record within thirty (30) days after filing of decision of
city commission, setting forth illegality.
Any person or persons, jointly or separately, aggrieved by any decision of the city
commission rendered as a result of an appeal filed in accordance with the provisions of section 14-
24 herein may present the court of record a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is
illegal in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be
presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision of the city commission.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-26. - Cost.
Costs shall not be allowed against the city commission unless it shall appear to the court that
it acted with gross negligence, or in bad faith, or with malice in making the decision appealed from.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-27. - Enforcement; penalties for violation.
The city commission may provide by ordinance for the enforcement of this chapter and of
any ordinance or regulation made thereunder, and may provide for the punishment of any violation
therein by fine or imprisonment or both, and also may provide civil penalties for said violation.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
Sec. 14-28. - Legal proceedings.
Legal proceedings may be instituted in addition to other remedies provided for violation of
this chapter.
In case any building or structure if erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired,
converted, or maintained, or any building, structure, land or water is used in violation of this chapter
or of any ordinance or other regulation made under authority conferred herein, the proper local
authorities or the city commission, in addition to other remedies, may institute appropriate action or
proceedings to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair,
conversion, maintenance, or use, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, to prevent the
occupancy of said building, structure, land or water, or to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business,
or use in or about such premises.
(Ord. No. 47-86-3, § 2, 1-26-87)
FOOTNOTE(S):
(36) Cross reference— Administration, Ch. 2; boards and commissions generally, § 2-131 et seq. (Back)
City of Atlantic Beach
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2013 Schedule for Application Submittal
NOTE: Applications must be complete and received by noon on Submittal Deadline dates.
Meeting dates are subject to change by action of the Community Development Board.
Meetings start at 6:00pm and are held in Commission Chambers at 800 Seminole Road.
Submittal Deadline Meeting Date
Thu, Dec 20, 2012 ............................................................................................................................ Tue, Jan 15, 2013
Mon, Jan 28, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... Tue, Feb 19, 2013
Mon, Feb 25, 2013 ......................................................................................................................... Tue, Mar 19, 2013
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 ......................................................................................................................... Tue, Apr 16, 2013
Mon, Apr 29, 2013 ........................................................................................................................ Tue, May 21, 2013
Fri, May 24, 2013............................................................................................................................. Tue, Jun 18, 2013
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 ............................................................................................................................ Tue, Jul 16, 2013
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... Tue, Aug 20, 2013
Mon, Aug 26, 2013 .......................................................................................................................... Tue, Sep 17, 2013
Mon, Sep 23, 2013 .......................................................................................................................... Tue, Oct 15, 2013
Mon, Oct 28, 2013 .......................................................................................................................... Tue, Nov 19, 2013
Mon, Nov 25, 2013 ..........................................................................................................................Tue, Dec 17, 2013
Draft Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 7
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
September 18, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:02pm
Chair Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, Kelly
Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes, Brea Paul and Patrick Stratton. The
meeting was called to order at 6:02pm. Also present were Principal Planner Erika Hall,
Redevelopment Coordinator Lesley Resnick, and Building and Zoning Director Michael Griffin.
Ms. Hall noted that NS Mayport liaison and ex-officio member Matt Schellhorn would not be in
attendance, but he had confirmed via email that he had no objections to any agenda items.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – AUGUST 21, 2012.
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular
meeting. Mr. Burgess moved that the minutes be approved as written. Mr. Hansen seconded the
motion and it carried by a vote of 7-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. None.
4. OLD BUSINESS. None.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR -12-00100031, 587 BEACH AVENUE (Greg Beere, Content Design Group, on
behalf of Kirk & Anne Marie Moquin)
Request for a variance from provisions of Section 24-172(c), Old Atlantic Beach residential
development standards, consistent with the provision of Section 24-172(e), to construct a
new home with modern design, on a property located at 587 Beach Avenue, within a
Residential Single Family (RS-2) zoning district.
Staff
Report
Ms. Hall reported that the subject property is located in the southeast
corner of the intersection of Beach Avenue and 6th Street and consists of
two oceanfront lots platted as part of the original Atlantic Beach
Subdivision ‘A’, recorded June 5, 1913. The resultant development parcel
measures approximately one hundred (100) feet in width, approximately
two hundred fifty (250) feet in depth and has a total area of about twenty-
five thousand five hundred square feet. The existing structure occupying
the parcel is a single family home constructed in 1908. The property
owners have proposed to demolish this structure and construct a new
modern design single family home.
Ms. Hall noted that property owner Kirk Moquin was present, along with
architect Greg Beere of Content Design Group, who would be fielding
design-related questions from the board. After projecting a rendering of
Draft Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 7
the proposed structure, she explained how the design was fully compliant
with the development standards applicable to the RS-2 zoning district in
which the property is located. A table summarizing the RS-2
requirements versus the proposal was shown, as were copies of the site
plan, floor plans and elevations which demonstrated compliance with the
RS-2 lot standards (width, depth, area) and development standards
(setbacks, height and impervious surface). Ms. Hall noted one exception,
being the placement of the garage six (6) feet from the north property line,
rather than the required ten (10) foot street side setback, adding that this
reduction in setback was consistent with a four (4) foot north side yard
variance that was granted to the previous owner by the Community
Development Board on November 6, 1986. She reminded the board that
variances, once acted upon, become vested rights that convey with the
property in perpetuity.
Ms. Hall then summarized the provisions of Section 24-172, which are
additional residential development standards that are applicable to the
geographic area known as Old Atlantic Beach, adopted September 11,
2006. She explained these standards were adopted as the result of the
“community character” study that had taken place in 2005-06, for the
purpose of maintaining the traditional-scale residential character of the
city. She continued, stating the intent of these standards was not to
regulate or exclude any particular architectural style, but to limit
potentially excessive height, mass and bulk of new or renovated
structures. To the contrary, recognition that other architectural styles
(differing from the traditional two-and-one-half story, shaker-side, and
gable-roof design common to the beaches) may achieve the desired
height, mass and bulk by alternative means led to the inclusion of a
provision for a special variance from these standards. She next reviewed
each instance for which this variance was being sought and outlined
mitigating factors that formed the basis for this request:
Section 24-172(c)(1) requires that second- and third-story exterior side
wall planes may not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in length without some
sort of horizontal offset, architectural detail or design element of at least
four (4) feet in order, to break up blank walls facing adjacent residences.
The northern-most wall of the second story measures approximately
forty-six (46) feet, while the southern-most wall of the third story
measures approximately fifty-four (54) feet. Ms. Hall cited extensive
buffering between the structure and neighbors on either side, stating that
to the north is the forty (40) foot wide 6th Street right-of-way as well as
the Moquins’ street side yard which would eventually be landscaped, and
to the south is a twenty-eight (28) foot wide interior side yard between the
structure and the southern property line. She noted this far exceeds the
minimum side yard setbacks to which most property owners build, being
a combined fifteen (15) feet with a minimum of five (5) feet on either
side.
Section 24-172(c)(2) requires that height of wall plates to the top
horizontal framing member may not exceed twenty-two (22) feet, for the
purpose of reducing mass and bulk of the structure. The result of this
Draft Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 7
provision is that third floors and the additional allowable thirteen (13) feet
of height must be captured within a roof structure. Ms. Hall noted this
provision clearly encourages gable roofs and is not compatible with flat-
roofed modern designs. She emphasized that the overall height of the
entire structure does not exceed the maximum allowable height of thirty-
five (35) feet, and the use of glass walls, cantilevers, step-ins, balconies,
and roof-top decks on various levels all work as subtractive elements
which counter the additional height of the parapet.
Section 24-172(c)(3) requires that the third floor footprint not exceed
more than fifty (50 percent of the second floor footprint, in order to
reduce mass of the structure. While the total area of the third floor, as
proposed, encompasses approximately one thousand seven hundred
twenty-seven (1,727) square feet, or about sixty-one (61) percent of the
second floor, Ms. Hall noted that approximately five hundred seventy-five
(575) square feet of this area is uninhabitable open space to the second
floor. Thus the habitable area of the third floor is effectively only one
thousand one hundred fifty-two (1,152) square feet, or forty-one (41)
percent of the second floor area. Further, Ms. Hall noted that the glass
walls along the northern and eastern elevations offer a great deal of
translucency and tend to mitigate additional enclosed area of the third
floor.
Applicant
Comment
Property owner Kirk Moquin deferred to Greg Beere, architect with
Content Design Group to address the board. Mr. Beere said that he felt
Ms. Hall and done a good job presenting their proposal, and he would be
happy to answer any additional questions the board or public might have.
Public
Comment
Scott Griswold (511 Ocean Boulevard) summarized the process by which
the Old Atlantic Beach development standards were derived during the
height of the building boom and said that the goals and objectives were to
reduce big box residential development. He stated that he lived within a
block of the subject property and objected to the proposed structure,
noting that, according to the rendering shown, the proposed structure
appeared much more massive than the neighboring structure.
Rich Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) said that he did not support or object
to the proposed structure, but wished clarification on the point of
beginning for the measurement of height of the building. Ms. Hall
responded that all oceanfront lots were required to provide certified
topographic surveys including calculated average grade over the buildable
area of the lot, and starting point of measure was then determined,
contingent upon Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regulations. Mr. Griffin, who is the city’s Certified Floodplain Manager
and Building Official, stated that because the property is located within
one of FEMA’s designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), the point
of beginning would be the required finished floor elevation.
Rodney Margol (41 6th Street) stated that he lived directly across from the
subject property, on the north side of 6th Street, and his primary concern
was the development of the north wall and landscaping of the street side
Draft Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 7
yard and right-of-way. Mr. Lambertson asked for elaboration on the
landscape plan. Mr. Beere assured everyone there would be landscaping
that softened the long horizontal elements and drastically improved the
conditions of the south side of 6th Street. He said up to this point, the
focus has been on the design of the structure, but as that is finalized,
efforts will be refocused on addressing the landscaping, and he will be
happy to meet with staff, members of this board, and neighbors to achieve
an amenable design. In general, the plan will address the three (3)
existing parking spaces and the street side yard with interesting textures
and indigenous plants that create a pleasing buffer on 6th Street.
Mary Petersen (541 Beach Avenue) reported that she was in attendance
with Harry Warnock (555 Beach Avenue) and Ronald Moore (525 Beach
Avenue), as owners of the three parcels immediately south of the subject
property. She said that she liked the look of the design, but more than
that, she liked the idea of redevelopment of the lot because it would
improve everyone’s properties by increasing value.
Bruce Cleary (122 6th Street) stated his interpretation of the original intent
of Section 24-172 as keeping the old look by means of controlling mass
and scale, and as written, the provisions specifically exclude this style of
architecture. Mr. Parkes reiterated that there is no explicit exclusion of
any architectural style. Rather the provisions specifically speak to
allowance of diversity of architectural styles. Mr. Cleary continued,
adding that he opposed the structure due to its size and flow and
concluding that it looked more industrial than residential.
Tom Frohne (361 5th Street) inquired how such a proposal would be
received in a historic area such as Springfield. Mr. Beere responded that
his firm currently has a modern design permitted for Springfield, and
while the process is much more difficult due to strict architectural
guidelines, it is absolutely possible to do modern in a historic
neighborhood. He added that such diversity of style adds to the fabric of
a neighborhood, and as Ms. Petersen had noted, this would increase value
of surrounding properties. Ironically, he noted that it has been
demonstrated that building “fake” old homes actually tends to depreciate
the value of historic homes.
Julia Hite (1075 Seminole Road) stated she is the owner of 122 Beach
Avenue where Mr. Cleary lives, and said that her primary concern is the
length of the garage. Otherwise, she thought the design was great for the
neighborhood. Mr. Beere said that due to the proximity to the right-of-
way, a fence affording any privacy is not possible. So the goal was to site
the garage so that it would also serve to create some measure of privacy
from the very active 6th Street beach access traffic.
Board
Discussion
Mr. Lambertson opened discussion of the application to the board. Mr.
Elmore stated that upon receipt of the agenda packet, he found the design
to be jarring, but in a good sense. He said the proposed structure will be a
wonderful addition to the fabric of Old Atlantic Beach and the oceanfront
homes, noting there are other classic examples of modern homes
Draft Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 7
throughout Atlantic Beach. Referring to the tremendous size of the lot
and the fact that it is an oceanfront lot, he added that the impact on
neighbors is not as severe.
Mr. Elmore continued, saying he did have some issue with the fifty-four
(54) foot long third story wall facing south, but realized the large interior
side yard setback, proposed at just over twenty-eight (28) feet, was a
mitigating factor. Additionally, he said he had some degree of concern
over the garage wall abutting 6th Street, but as a landscape architect, he
was aware of how drastically the right landscaping could soften the
impact of that wall.
Mr. Parkes referred to Section 24-172(c)(2), regarding the maximum
twenty-two (22) foot high wall plate, and stated that strict compliance
with this provision really defines what can be done, and practically results
in cookie-cutter houses. He also said that he has mixed emotions about
the wall plane provision found in Section 24-172(c)(1) because
imposition of any of the required details would be detrimental to the
architecture of the proposed structure. Mr. Hansen inquired about
transom windows, and Mr. Parkes replied that the code specifically calls
for horizontally projecting features. He concluded by saying that the
proposed design is a very carefully thought-out and in many ways a very
delicate building, and he cautioned the board against redesigning the
structure.
Mr. Lambertson said that he would like to make further clarification on
the height issue. He said that according to the submitted plans, the
proposed structure had an elevation of thirty-five (35) feet from the
finished floor elevation to the peak of roof, which in this case was the
parapet. However, it was his understanding of the code that the height of
the building was to be measured from the average calculated grade of the
lot. Ms. Hall responded that all oceanfront lots and any non-oceanfront
lot having more than a two (2) foot variation in topography must submit a
certified topographic survey along with an average grade calculation
made in accordance with the procedures provided in the land development
regulations. Generally, height of the building is measured from that
average calculated grade. However, properties located within a FEMA-
designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), are subject to additional
requirements. Mr. Beere stated that Ms. Hall had directed him to obtain
the certified topographic survey and the average grade calculation, and
subsequently, upon meeting with Building Official/Certified Floodplain
Manager Michael Griffin, the location of the property was verified to be
within the ‘AO’ SFHA and the design team was told that the point of
beginning for measurement of height of the building would be the
finished floor elevation.
Mr. Lambertson disagreed with staff’s interpretation, stating that it was
his understanding that all height measurements were to begin at the
calculated average grade, and looking at the submitted survey, he did not
see how this property could possibly be nearly eighteen (18) feet. He
estimated that the calculated average grade was actually three (3) to four
Draft Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 6 of 7
(4) feet lower, and therefore the height of the structure would need to be
adjusted down by as much.
Mr. Lambertson next asked to look at the position of the garage from a
procedural standpoint, noting that Ms. Hall had said that a four (4) foot
variance had been granted to the previous owner in 1986. He asked
where that variance had been applied, and Ms. Hall replied that it was
applied to the main structure on the (same) north side of the property.
Mr. Stratton asked for clarification as to how variances work, stating that
it was his understanding that in some jurisdiction there were limitations
on the amount of time an applicant had to act on a variance. Ms. Hall
responded that is generally the case. There is often spelled out within
land development regulations a length of time in which an applicant has
to act on a variance. If, within that length of time, the applicant has not
acted, the variance expires. However, if the variance is acted upon, then
whatever relief has been granted becomes a vested right of the property
owner and future successors. If a variance is subsequently abandoned and
not incorporated into a redevelopment plan, then the vested right is lost.
Mr. Hansen stated that he did not like the idea of opening up an old
variance which was legally obtained and acted upon. He questioned how
exemption from the twenty-two (22) foot wall plate height could be
granted without removing this requirement from everyone. Mr. Parkes
replied that the wall plate limitation was a defining element of traditional
gable roof architecture, as it is proportional to setbacks and defines angles
from the property line. The increased size of the subject property changes
those proportions and angles. Further, while the Old Atlantic Beach
residential development standards virtually eliminate the possibility of
modern design, the special variance provision gives this board broader
latitude to consider alternatives.
Mr. Burgess stated that he did not like the idea of limiting architectural
style, and emphasized that is not the charge of this board. Rather, this
board is charged with determining if, when presented with an alternative
to traditional design prevalent in the community, there are mitigating
factors present which make that alternative design equally acceptable in
terms of scale, mass and bulk.
Mr. Hansen said that Mr. Parkes and Mr. Burgess had done a good job
refocusing the task of this board. Given the large size of the lot, it’s
oceanfront location, it’s buffering to the north by the 6th Street right-of-
way, and the proposed setback of more than twenty-eight (28) feet to the
south, he said he was comfortable granting the variance for the third floor
area and south wall plane.
Mr. Elmore inquired as to the north wall plane and the location of the
garage, and Mr. Lambertson said he was not suggesting that the previous
variance be re-opened, but that it should be weighed in consideration of
the present request. Ms. Hall warned that the previous variance was
legally granted, and the street side yard for this property, as proposed on
Draft Minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 7 of 7
the submitted plans, was in compliance with that variance.
Mr. Beere again addressed the board, and stated that the issue of height
was a much bigger concern to him than shifting the location of the
structure south an additional three (3) to four (4) feet. He emphasized that
his team had met on several occasions with city staff to obtain guidance
and ascertain the proper development standards, and the submitted
proposal adheres to those standards. He said he was deeply concerned
that he was now hearing that the entire structure might have to be
redesigned to a substantially lower height.
Mr. Lambertson reiterated that variances cannot be granted for height and
that it is not up to this board to determine height. He recommended that
Mr. Beere work with staff to resolve the matter.
Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Beere if he was suggesting that it is possible to
move the entire structure four (4) feet to the south, to which Mr. Beere
replied that his client is amenable to that.
Motion Mr. Hansen moved that the Community Development Board approve
ZVAR -12-00100031, request for variance from the provisions of Section
24-172(c), Old Atlantic Beach residential development standards, to allow
the proposed redevelopment of the property located at 587 Beach Avenue
within the RS-2 zoning district, with a new single family home of modern
design, finding that the proposed development, as submitted and subject
to one revision shifting the entire structure south by four (4) feet to
maintain the northern ten (10) foot street side yard, is to be located on an
oceanfront parcel nearly four times larger than a standard lot and abutting
streets on two sides, and therefore will not result in unmitigated height,
mass or bulk that will excessively dominate the established development
pattern or restrict the light, air, breezes or privacy on adjacent properties,
and also finding that the proposed modern architectural style will
contribute to the diversity and fabric of Old Atlantic Beach. Mr. Burgess
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Lambertson emphasized the variance granted is for the proposal as
submitted, subject to the one revision, and any changes to this plan would
require the applicant to come back to this board.
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None.
7. ADJOURNMENT – 7:40 PM
_______________________________________
[____________________________], Chairman
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Page 1 of 4
AGENDA ITEM
CASE NO ZVAR-13-00100043
(A) Variance from Section 24-157(b)(1), reducing the required front setback (east,
adjacent to Beach Avenue) from 20.00’ to 13.80’, to replace an existing chain link
fence with a 6’-high shadowbox privacy fence.
(B) Variance from Section 24-157(c)(1), reducing the required street side setback
(north, adjacent to 7th Street) from 10.00’ to 0.00’, to construct a new 6’-high
shadowbox privacy fence.
LOCATION 698 Beach Avenues
APPLICANT Emly Purcell (owner)
DATE February 19, 2013
STAFF Erika Hall, Principal Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The subject property consists of two parcels, as described below, purchased independently by the applicant in
May 2012. The east-west oriented parcel (shaded orange on Exhibit 1) is vacant, while there is an existing two-
story single-family dwelling located on the north-south oriented parcel (shaded blue on Exhibit 1).
RE 170129 0010
N ½ Lots 6, 7, Block 16, Daniel & Hackett R/P (9-35)
0 Ocean Boulevard
Vacant
(shaded orange)
RE 170131 0000
Lot 8, Block 16, Daniel & Hackett R/P (9-35)
112 7th Street
Non-conforming two-story SF DU (Built 1926)
(shaded blue)
The house, constructed in 1926, was previously addressed as 112 7th Street, such that the front yard was
adjacent to 7th Street and the street side yard was adjacent to Beach Avenue. However, as part of the
applicant’s renovation plan, which included making the existing house less non-conforming and adding a new
habitable wing, pool and outdoor living area to the west of the existing house, the combined property was re-
addressed as 698 Beach Avenue, such that the front yard is now adjacent to Beach Avenue, the street side yard
is adjacent to 7th Street, and the rear (street side) yard is adjacent to Ocean Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit 2.
Page 2 of 4
As construction nears completion, the applicant has proposed to install a 6’-high shadowbox privacy fence, as
indicated by the solid purple line, also shown on Exhibit 2. Staff has reviewed each segment of the proposed
fence for compliance with the provisions of Section 24-157, as described below and noted on Exhibit 3.
SEGMENT “A” is proposed to be located within the required front yard, approximately 13.8’ from the front
property line. This segment is subject to Section 24-157(b)(1), which states “within required front yards, the
maximum height of any fence shall be four (4) feet”. Therefore a variance of 6.2’, reducing the minimum
required setback from 20’ feet to 13.8’ is necessary in order to install the 6’-high fence in the proposed location.
Staff recommends approval of this requested variance, based upon the following considerations:
(1) SEGMENT “A” is proposed to be installed in the same location as an existing chain link fence. Staff has
found no historic fence permits for this property. However, prior to the re-addressing of the property,
the area adjacent to Beach Avenue was the street side yard, and the chain link fence was in compliance
with current regulations.
(2) SEGMENT “A” commences approximately 78’ south of the Beach Avenue intersection with 7th Street,
and because Beach Avenue is a one-way street, no hindrance to traffic line of sight is anticipated.
(3) SEGMENT “A” is in line with the “new” front plane of the existing house, which has been made less non-
conforming by the opening up of a first story porch and second story balcony which were previously
enclosed, as noted on the “proposed north elevation” and “proposed south elevation” on Exhibit 4 and
in Figure 1, below. Further, SEGMENT “A” is in line with the front plane of the house and accessory
fence located on the adjacent property immediately to the south, as depicted in Figure 2, below.
Figure 1. Southeast location of existing structure, from
which Segment “A” would extend southward. This location
is 13.8’ west of the front property line, thus requiring a
variance of 6.2’ to place a 6’-high fence within the required
front yard setback, per Section 24-157(b)(1).
Figure 2. Proposed location of Segment “A” would
commence at the southeast corner of the existing structure,
to the right, and extend to the southern property line, where
it would align with the front plane of the structure to the
immediate south.
SEGMENT “B” is proposed to be located directly on the northern property line. This segment is subject to
Section 24-157(c)(1), which states “for corner lots located on rights-of-way that are fifty (50) feet or less in
width, no fence, wall or landscaping exceeding four (4) feet in height shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any
lot line which abuts a street. Therefore a variance of 10’, reducing the minimum required setback from 10’ to 0’
Page 3 of 4
is necessary in order to install the 6’-high fence in the proposed location. Staff recommends approval of this
requested variance, or a comparable alternative, based upon the following considerations:
(1) SEGMENT “B” is proposed to be installed directly on the north property line in order to provide privacy
and screen the property owner’s pool and outdoor living area from the 7th Street sidewalk which is a
high-traffic corridor to the 7th Street public beach access, as noted on the “proposed west elevation” and
“proposed east elevation” of Exhibits 3. Due to topographic variation within the rear of the property, as
depicted in Figures 3 and 4, placement of the fence in accordance with Section 24-157(c)(1) would result
in a fence with an effective height of 5’ or less. As noted by the applicant, the Community Development
Board previously approved ZVAR-07-00101117 (2008-01) for the property located at 620 Beach Avenue
due to the impact of topographic variation on the privacy afforded to a property abutting streets on
three sides.
(2) SEGMENT “B” commences approximately 42’ west of the Beach Avenue intersection with 7th Street, so
no hindrance to traffic line of sight is anticipated at that intersection. Platted as a 40’-wide right-of-way,
7th Street consists of a 20’-wide pavement and 10’ of unpaved right-of-way between the pavement and
the proposed location of the fence. In Figure 5, the location of the silt fence approximates the northern
property line and the location of the proposed fence. Additionally, there is a four-way stop at the
intersection of Ocean Boulevard and 7th Street, and the unpaved shoulder south of 7th Street is posted as
a no-parking zone, as shown in Figure 6, so no hindrance to traffic line of sight is anticipated at that
intersection.
Figure 3. The downward slope from the sidewalk onto the
subject property can be seen looking northeast across the
rear yard. Locating Segment “B” in accordance with Section
24-157(c)(1) would result in the overall height of the fence
being effectively lowered by one (1) or more feet, due to
topographic variation of the lot.
Figure 4. The downward slope from the sidewalk onto the
subject property can be seen looking east along the northern
property line. The sign in the foreground approximates the
property line and proposed location of the fence.
Page 4 of 4
Figure 5. Looking west from Beach Avenue to Ocean
Boulevard, along the northern property line adjacent to 7th
Street. The location of the silt fence approximates the
northern property line, and thus the proposed location of
the fence. To counter the impact of the topographic
variation, a variance may be granted to either place the 6’-
high fence within the required setback, or a variance may be
granted to construct a taller fence while maintaining the
required setback.
Figure 6. The sidewalk located in the unpaved shoulder
south of the 7th Street serves as a high traffic corridor to the
public beach access at the eastern terminus of 7th Street.
The south side of 7th Street adjacent to the subject property
is posted as a no-parking zoning in order to maintain
unobstructed passage and encourage pedestrian traffic.
SEGMENT “C” complies with Section 24-157(c)(2), which states “for corner lots located on rights-of-way that
are wider than fifty (50) feet, fences may be constructed within the side yard adjacent to the street at a
maximum height of six (6) feet provided that the fence is on the private property and shall not be located closer
than fifteen (15) feet from the edge of the street pavement or closer than five (5) feet to any sidewalk or bike
path”. Ocean Boulevard is a 60’-wide right-of-way, 20’ of which is paved, with 20’ of unpaved right-of-way on
either side of the pavement. Further, the subject rear property line is located 5’ east of the Ocean Boulevard
sidewalk.
SEGMENTS “D”, “E”, and “F” all comply with Section 24-157(b)(1), which states “within required side or rear
yards, the maximum height of any fence shall be six (6) feet”.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Property Survey
Exhibit 2 – Renovation Site Plan
Exhibit 3 – Fence Compliance Review
Exhibit 4 - Elevations
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM
CASE NO REV-2013-01
Review of Chapter 17 provisions regarding flags.
DATE February 19, 2013
STAFF Michael Griffin, CBO, CFM, Building & Zoning Director
Erika Hall, Principal Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The City Commission has requested that the Community Development Board review Chapter 17 (Signs and
Advertising Structures) provisions and make a recommendation as to the regulation of flags. In the past, it has
been staff’s interpretation that only US flags are exempt from sign regulations. The following sections of the
code are pertinent to this discussion, as may be additional sections, attached.
Section 17-2 – Definitions and references to other chapters within this code.
Flag: A piece of cloth or similar material having a distinctive size, color, and design used as a symbol, standard,
signal and other similar items of recognition and may include insignias of governmental, religious, charitable,
fraternal, or other organizations. Any flag and pole or attachment that frequently holds a flag shall be deemed a
permanent flag. This definition of flag shall not include the flag of the United States of America.
Pennant: Any small, single flag-like piece of cloth, plastic or paper attached to any staff, cord, building, or other
structure at only one (1) or two (2) edges, the remaining hanging loosely; lacking the insignia of a flag.
Section 17-42 – Prohibited signs and devices.
The following signs and devices shall be prohibited within the City of Atlantic Beach. In the case of any conflict
with other provisions of this Code, the prohibitions set forth below shall supersede such other conflicting
provisions.
(11) Pennants, ribbons, balloons, streamers, wind-operated devices and similar elements that are intended
to draw attention to a business or activity, either when used alone or incorporated into a sign.
ATTACHMENTS
Section 17-2 – Definitions (particularly advertising message, exempt sign, flag, pennant, public sign, sign)
Section 17-26 – Exempt signs
Section 17-27 – General provisions applying to all permitted signs
Section 17-42 – Prohibited signs and devices
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM
CASE NO REV-2013-02
Review of use-by-exception for used car lots in Commercial General zoning districts,
particularly within the Mayport Corridor.
DATE February 19, 2013
STAFF Michael Griffin, CBO, CFM, Building & Zoning Director
Erika Hall, Principal Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
As part of the Mayport Corridor revitalization efforts, the City Commission has requested that staff review the
permitted uses and uses-by-exception as related to used car lots currently allowed within the Commercial
General zoning districts, and return a recommendation. Staff requests comments from the Community
Development Board at the February 19, 2013 meeting.
Staff is currently working to improve development review and permitting processes to ensure better compliance
with regulations. All use-by-exceptions brought to the Community Development Board as required by Section
24-63, Use-by-exceptions, shall be monitored to ensure continued compliance with all requirements related to
ingress/egress, off-street parking, adverse impacts to adjoining properties, refuse service areas, screening and
buffering, and compatibility with adjacent properties. Additionally, those properties located within the areas
delineated as the commercial corridor must also comply with the provisions of Section 24-171, Commercial
corridor development standards.
ATTACHMENTS
Section 24-63 – Use-by-exception
Section 24-111 – Commercial General (CG)
Section 24-171 – Commercial corridor development standards
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM
CASE NO REV-2013-03
Review of proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 8 Floodplain Management
Ordinance as required by the State of Florida for adoption as a part of the 2010
Florida Building Code.
DATE February 19, 2013
STAFF Michael Griffin, CBO, CFM, Director of Building and Zoning
STAFF COMMENTS
The 2010 Florida Building Code (FBC) adopted on March 15, 2012 contains technical floodplain management
provisions that are consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It is now necessary to amend
City Code Chapter 8 Floodplain Regulations so that our provisions coordinate with the 2010 FBC. Although we
recently revised our floodplain management ordinance the Federal Emergency Management Agency has
established June 3, 2013 as the date which we must amend our regulations adopting the attached amendments.
The proposed ordinance has been reviewed and approved for adoption by the State of Florida Division of
Emergency Management.
This adoption also satisfies our requirement of the National Flood Insurance Program which regulates flood
insurance for properties within the City of Atlantic Beach.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed ordinance amendment City of Atlantic Beach Code of Ordinances to repeal Chapter 8 Flood Hazard
Areas; To adopt a NEW Chapter 8 Floodplain Management Ordinance