Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-20-17 Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / June 20, 2017 / 6:00 PM Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes. A. Minutes of the April 18, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. 4. New Business. A. ZVAR17‐0001 PUBLIC HEARING (Thomas and Lisa Goodrich) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the maximum fence height from 4 feet in the side yard adjacent to a street on a corner lot as required by Section 24‐157(c)(1) to up to 7 feet to allow a 4 foot fence on top of an existing retaining wall along the Beach Avenue property line at North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3 Part of Lots 76A, 77A, and 78A (aka 30 20th Street). B. ZVAR17‐0002 PUBLIC HEARING (Kimberly Warren) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the side yard setback from 5 feet as required by Section 24‐108(e)(3)(a) to 0 feet to allow an open porch addition in the side yard at Ed Smith S/D South 41 feet of Lot 10, North 9 feet of Lot 11 Block 1 (aka 1620 Jordan Street). 5. Reports. A. Administrative Variances Approved (None) B. Staffing Update C. Form Based Codes/Code Rewrite D. Mayport Business Grants (Steve Mandelbaum) 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. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 40 Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 2 of 40 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD April 18th, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm. All members were present, including alternates. Also present were Planner Derek Reeves, Board Secretary Grace Mackey and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. None. 3. OLD BUSINESS. A. 17‐UBEX‐417 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Sean Monahan) Request for a use‐by‐exception as permitted by Section 24‐ 63, to allow an off‐street parking lot as described by Section 24‐162 for the businesses located at 625 and 645 Atlantic Boulevard in the Commercial General zoning district at 630 Sturdivant Avenue. Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that the request was to use the lot in question as a stand‐alone parking lot for adjoining and nearby businesses to the south (namely, 619, 625 and 645 Atlantic Blvd.) Access to the lot will come from Sturdivant Ave, as well as through a pathway between the lot and the adjoining lot to the south. The lot is in the Commercial General zoning district both currently as well as for future land use. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 3 of 40 The need for a use‐by‐exception comes from the code requirement that stand‐alone off‐street parking within 400 feet from the property it serves requires a use‐by‐exception. Also required in this circumstance are shrubs along the perimeter. As there are no adjoining residential properties, the requirement that no illumination affect adjoining residential properties is mute. In this circumstance there must also be no sales, service or business activity of any kind in the parking area and none is proposed. In addition to this, any sidewalks on‐site must have curb‐stops in front of them; there are no public or private sidewalks proposed on this property. Possible concerns include: visibility around the curve, as Sturdivant Avenue curves significantly at this part of the street. Another consideration given by staff was that of parking calculations on the properties to be served, but noted that all have the ability to add more spaces under the code. Planner Reeves presented two possible conditions of approval. First that all shrubs planted be as far off the property line along Sturdivant Avenue as possible while still being in the required landscape area. Second, that all lighting be shielded or otherwise pointed away from the Residential properties to the north. Mr. Elmore questioned how storm water retention would be mitigated. He also asked what other landscaping would be required. Planner Reeves explained that retention swales would be on site. In addition, he explained that to meet the 1 tree for every 50 linear feet requirement, around 7 trees would be planted. Mr. Reichler questioned the impervious surface requirements. Planner Reeves explained that the lot has a limit of 70% impervious surface that will be calculated by staff when the proposed construction goes through the permitting process. Applicant Comment Sean Monahan, 13754 Bermuda Cay Ct., Jacksonville, FL 32225 introduced himself as the applicant. He explained that he is trying to expand parking for customers up front (of Monahan jewelers) by providing employee parking on the property in question. He proposed changing his site plan as needed to meet impervious surface calculations, and noted that he would meet any required landscaping and water retention requirements as well. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 4 of 40 Public Comment Justin Henderson, 132 Magnolia St., Atlantic Beach 32233, stated that he lives directly across from the property in question. He expressed concern about the blind corner that the property lies on, especially considering how quickly pedestrians and drivers come around the corner. He stated his concern that increased traffic from the proposed parking lot would add to the traffic issues. Steve Jarett, 3741 1st St South, Jacksonville Beach 32250, gave his support for the proposed parking lot. Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd St, Atlantic Beach 32233, gave his support for the proposed parking lot. He commented that there are already other commercial parking lots along Sturdivant Ave. He believes that the proposed parking lot is congruent with the commercial‐ residential mix on Sturdivant Ave. With no further public comment, public comment was closed. Board Discussion Chair Paul gave her support for the applicant’s attempt to provide a solution for the parking issue they are facing. Ms. Lanier commented that she sees cars parked on the lot already, however, the current appearance of the lot is rather disreputable. She stated her favor for improving the appearance of the site. Mr. Stratton agreed with Ms. Lanier’s comments. Mr. Reichler opposed the application because the applicant did not include the impervious surface calculations in their application. He expressed his concern that the City would not enforce its impervious surface requirements. Ms. Simmons asked staff what the impervious surface allowance was for commercial lots. Planner Reeves answered that it is 70%. Ms. Simmons then questioned how the Public Works Department arrived at its calculations during their reviews. Planner Reeves noted that he could not speak to the plan reviews done by the Public Works Department, but clarified a few code specifics regarding impervious surface calculations. Mr. Stratton recommended that a motion be made to approve 17‐ UBEX‐417 with the condition that staff ensure that a maximum of 70% impervious surface be allowed. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 5 of 40 Motion Ms. Lanier motioned to recommend approval of 17‐UBEX‐417 as written to the City Commission. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. 17‐ZVAR‐457 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Jen Smith and Brett Nansen) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet as required by Ordinance No. 90‐87‐116 (Selva Linkside PUD) to 8 feet to allow an addition at Selva Linkside Unit 1 Lot 38 (aka 1124 Linkside Court West ). Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced item. The property is within a PUD with RL (residential low) future land use. It is surrounded on all sides by residential lots and is near the Public Works water treatment facility. The proposed plan is to add onto and enclose an existing screen porch; a corner of the addition will be 8 feet from the rear property line. The need for variance comes from the Selva Linkside PUD requirement that the rear yard setback be 10 feet; the applicant is requesting 8 feet. Ms. Lanier questioned what the side and rear yard setback requirements are of the PUD. Planner Reeves explained that they vary depending upon the lot. He stated that in this situation, he believes the side yard setbacks to be 5 foot on each side, the back to be 10 feet and the front to be either 20 feet or 10 feet, depending upon how your garage door is oriented. Mr. Reichler questioned what the PUD’s requirements were for impervious surface. Planner Reeves stated that the PUD does not call out any specific requirements for impervious surface. As such, the City defaults to its standard requirements per code. For residential lots, this is 50%. Mr. Reichler inquired as to the current impervious surface calculations were for the property in question. Planner Reeves answered that they did not know, however, they would find out during the building permitting plan review process. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 6 of 40 Applicant Comment Brett Nansen, 1124 Linkside Court W, Atlantic Beach 32233, introduced himself as the applicant and property owner. He stated that the purpose of their request is to try and make their living space more usable. He explained how their house is not parallel to their lot line and their intention is to square off the room that the requested addition would be added to. Ms. Lanier questioned how much additional space it would create for the applicant. Mr. Nansen answered that under the roof it would be a space of approximately 8 feet by 16 feet and the addition would extend the room by 5 feet. Mr. Elmore questioned the use of the room. Mr. Nansen answered that it is a living/media/TV room. Mr. Elmore explained that there are possible alternative building plans to the Variance in question that would not violate setbacks. Public Comment Julie Rabb, 1125 Sandpiper Lane, Atlantic Beach 32233, introduced herself as the neighbor directly behind the applicant. Ms. Rabb opposed bringing her and her neighbor’s property lines any closer. She stated that it would not be aesthetically pleasing, it would increase the drainage from rain onto her property and she also expressed her concern for increased noise near her property. In addition to this, Ms. Rabb commented on the precedent that the approval of this Variance would set. With no additional comment public comment was closed. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore expressed that the request for this Variance is a self‐ imposed hardship. He referenced past votes of the Community Development Board where similar requests were made and denied. He noted that he did not wish to set a precedent by approving this request and noted the Board’s responsibility to enforce the Land Development Regulations. Ms. Lanier also expressed her lack of support for the Variance request. Mr. Reichler gave concern for impervious surface percentages on the property. He also noted that even though the property was in a cul‐de‐sac, this did not constitute it having an irregular shape. At the same time, he commented that he had seen the Community Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 7 of 40 Development Board approve many similar requests in the past and, therefore, he would be in favor of this request. Motion Mr. Elmore motioned to deny 17‐ZVAR‐457 on the grounds that the request constituted a self‐imposed hardship. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried 6‐1 with Mr. Reichler as the dissenting vote. B. 17‐ZVAR‐461 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Atillio Cerqueira) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the maximum fence height from 4 feet in the front yard and a side yard adjacent to a street on a corner lot as required by Sections 24‐157(b)(1) and 24‐157(c)(1) to 8 feet to allow an 8 foot fence along the 14th Street West front and Hibiscus Street side property lines at Section “H” Block 252 Lots 1 to 5 (aka 400 Levy Road). Staff Report Planner Reeves gave site context: The property is zoned CG Commercial General (CG), with Commercial (CM) future land use. To the north of the property are Light‐Industrial zoned properties and to the south are Residential properties, with Commercial properties to the east and west. The request is to construct an 8 foot fence on the property along W 14th St and along the southern 90 feet of Hibiscus St. He noted that the fence has already been constructed and that this was caught by Code Enforcement. This construction is what the applicant would now like approval for from the Community Development Board. The need for a variance is derived from Section 24‐157(b)(1) which requires a 4 foot fence along the front yard of this property. Due to the nature of this property (it fronts W 14th St as well as Levy Rd., which do not intersect) it technically has two front yards. In effect, this imposes the applicable accessory structure and fence restrictions for front yards. In addition to this, Section 24‐157(c)(1) limits the fence height to 4 feet when, on a corner lot, the right‐of‐ way is less than 50 feet. In this case, Hibiscus and W 14th St are both 50 foot rights‐of‐way. Planner Reeves displayed a map of the property that delineated multiple lines along the property where different fence heights Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 8 of 40 would be allowed per code (based upon their setbacks from the property lines.) Ms. Lanier questioned the allowed fence height of 6 feet displayed on the map. Planner Reeves explained that when a Commercial property abuts a Residential property, an 8 foot fence is allowed along the adjoining property line(s). Otherwise, the maximum allowed fence height along the yard is 6 feet, so long as the fence is setback far enough from the property line. The property in question falls into the latter category. Planner Reeves then explained the applicable sight‐line distance requirement (115 feet) per code Section 19‐5 as the speed limit is 25mph on the Street. He displayed a map estimating the current sight‐line distance with the existing 8 foot fence. The map displayed that a portion of the fence was within the sight triangle and, as such, the fence did not meet the code requirement per Section 19‐ 5. Because of this, even if the Board approved the existing fence per the Variance request, the applicant would still need to request a Waiver from code Section 19‐5 for the sight‐distance requirements therein; this would be reviewed by the City Commission. Planner Reeves noted that there is also an existing code complaint on the property for outside storage of commercial vehicles and equipment in the yard. As such, the applicant built the fence in order to screen the property from the outside storage. Mr. Elmore clarified the code violations and consequent requests in effect of the applicant. It was explained that both the fence height as well as the sight‐line distance were in violation of current codes. Mr. Reichler questioned whether or not the fence was built without a permit. Planner Reeves clarified that the fence was built without a permit, however, the applicant later submitted an application for the fence which has been denied by City Staff. He noted that the illegal fence was discovered by Code Enforcement, because of the other code case on the property (for outside storage.) Mr. Reichler questioned who would consequently inspect a permitted fence to ensure it met code requirements. Planner Reeves answered that our Building Inspector or a contract inspector of the City, would inspect this. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 9 of 40 Ms. Lanier questioned if landscaping requirements would come into effect if the applicant pushed the fence back and lowered the fence height in order to meet current code requirements. Planner Reeves answered that landscaping requirements would come into effect only if the applicant were to do an improvement on the property with a value in excess of 25% of the property. Therefore, there are currently no landscaping requirements for the applicant. Applicant Comment Atillio Cerqueira, 36 W 6th St, Atlantic Beach 32233, stood to speak as the applicant and property owner. He explained that his tenant put up the fence, he did not. Mr. Cerqueira explained that his tenant received the notification of code violation for his outside storage. He then put up the fence and applied for the permit. Mr. Cerqueira then noted that he is advocating with the City Commission to change the code requirements for properties such as this one in the City. He then stated that he would like to keep the 8 foot fence on the property, with the condition that he could pull the fence back 5 feet from the property line(s) in order to remediate the line of sight issue. He mentioned that he is not opposed to landscaping either. Mr. Cerqueira spoke of other similar properties in the City which have similar fences to the one he is requesting. Public Comment Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd St, Atlantic Beach 32233, commented that residential neighbors in the City’s Light‐Industrial area often complain of not wanting to see their [Commercial] neighbor’s properties. Brian Milner, 1290 Hibiscus St, Atlantic Beach 32233. Stated that he lives directly adjacent to the property. Mr. Milner stated that he is in favor of the current fence which shields the property and noted its aesthetically pleasing factor. He gave his opinion that the difference between a 6 and an 8 foot fence was minimal. With no additional comment public comment was closed. Board Discussion Ms. Lanier commented on the limitations that the Community Development Board has when trying to find compromise between the light‐industrial area and neighboring residential properties, due to the current Land Development Regulations. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 10 of 40 Ms. Simmons disagreed and noted Board discussions about fence heights in the City, that is, that the desire is to limit fence heights so as to not “wall‐off” the City. She commented that the property could construct a 6 foot fence further back on the property without breaking Codes. She referenced past Variance approvals of taller fence heights that she believes were later regretted. Mr. Elmore agreed with Ms. Simmons and noted that the 8 foot fence in question presented multiple issues, including line‐of‐sight issues, the appearance of walling‐off the street. Chair Paul reminded Board that recent similar fence variances have been opposed by the Board. She gave her disapproval of the 8 foot fence and believes that the request is a self‐imposed hardship. Motion Ms. Simmons moved to deny 17‐ZVAR‐461. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 5. REPORTS. A. Administrative Variances Approved No Administrative Variances were approved since the last Community Development Board regular meeting. Planner Reeves did ask the Board for their opinion on a City Policy related to Section 24‐48(h). He explained how if the Director were to grant an Administrative Variance, it would have to be on at least of the grounds from Section 24‐64(d), the same grounds of approval used by the Community Development Board. He then presented an example that could arise where a corner‐lot property has setbacks that do not come into exact code compliance. In this example, all of the setback violations were within the 5% allotted deviation wherein an Administrative Variance could be granted. He then asked how the Board would like Staff to handle such a situation. The Board noted that the code allowed Staff to make a decision so long as it was within the 5% deviation, therefore, they were unsure as to Staff’s question. Planner Reeves clarified that he is unsure which ground of approval staff should apply (per Section 24‐64(d)) in this situation and whether or not staff should bring this sort of situation before the Community Development Board. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 11 of 40 Mr. Elmore questioned if the Board could make a recommendation that a seventh condition of approval be added that a minor design field error is made within 5% of the standard requirement. Planner Reeves commented that that would be a Code change. The Board then noted that they would be in the same predicament as staff, should the issue come before them, as none of the listed conditions of approval apply to the situation. City Attorney Brenna Durden commented that the problem may lie within Section 28‐48(h), the section which describes an Administrative Variance and when it may be granted. She explained that this section states that this type of Variance may be granted “only with written justification as set forth within subsection 24‐ 64(d)”, however, nothing within the latter code section grants permission to grant an Administrative Variance based upon the conditions listed in 28‐48(h). Therefore, the criteria listed for an approval of an Administrative Variance within Section 28‐48(h) defeat themselves, by referring back to the standard 6 criteria of approval listed within 24‐64(d). It was her opinion that the Section (28‐48(h)) be rewritten. She also commented on the conditions listed within 28‐48(h) (i.e. 5% of the standard requirement) and questioned if the Board wished this to be the criteria. Chair Paul informed staff that if they feel uncomfortable making a decision in these situations, to bring it before the Board. Mr. Elmore commented that the purpose of this code allowance is to help streamline government when minor errors occur. He noted that it requires staff to be privy to whether or not an error is truly minor and accidental, versus egregious and done with ill‐intent. Ms. Simmons gave her opinion that Staff needs support if they are making these decisions, as such decisions (to grant Administrative Variances) often come with dispute from various affected parties. Mr. Elmore then reiterated his desire to recommend a seventh ground for approval of a Variance that would meet the situations that fall within the Administrative Variance Section (28‐48(h)). He requested that City Counsel generate the language for such a ground that could be recommended for addition to the Code to the City Commission. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 12 of 40 It was clarified that in the meantime, if staff is unsure of what decision to make in a situation that falls within Section 28‐48(h), they may bring the situation before the Community Development Board. B. Staffing Update The City is currently interviewing for a Planner. The second round of interviews will be conducted on Friday, with the intention of having the new Planner begin work sometime within the first half of May. No changes to the position of Planner Reeves have been made; he will remain Interim Director. The Community Development Department has also hired a part time Administrative Assistant in order to help with general clerical work. C. Discussion Related to the City Commission Special Called Meeting on a Community Redevelopment Area and Form Based Codes Chair Paul requested that a discussion item regarding the previous week’s special called meeting of the City Commission, be added this this agenda. Four members of the Community Development Board were present at this meeting. At the meeting two items were discussed: The first, was the plan for the Community Redevelopment Area along Mayport Road. The second item discussed, was the City Code rewrite with the idea of form‐based codes as a basis for the rewrite. Staff did not have a presentation for this agenda item but offered to answer any questions that the Board may have. Chair Paul commented that after sitting through the meeting, she understands that the City Commission is looking to the Community Development Board for direction in regards to both the CRA plan along Mayport Road as well as to how to move forward with the Code re‐write (i.e. whether not to move forward with a form‐based code versus staying with the City’s current Euclidian‐based Code.) The discussion was then broken into the two separate items: The CRA along Mayport Road and the Code re‐write. 1. CRA Mayport Road Staff explained that a CRA study has already been done and was presented to the City Commission last September. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 13 of 40 Staff then defined a CRA and explained that it is a defined area that is deemed to be blighted (there are State definitions of this as well, such as, narrow right‐of ways, poor connectivity of streets etc. which hinder or prevent redevelopment of the area). Once this area is defined, the tax year is locked and then every year after this, the tax increase goes into a dedicated fund that is used to do improvement projects within the CRA defined area. In our City’s CRA situation, we would also collaborate with the City of Jacksonville and would need to approach them about contributing taxes. Staff explained that the City Commission is currently discussing how to approach the City of Jacksonville about this, should the City even wish to. Staff then explained that the study conducted looked at the Mayport Corridor and at all of the Commercial, Industrial and Residential properties off of it. Areas within the study include, but are not limited to: Donner neighborhood, Francis neighborhood, the area along Mayport Road all the way to the Marsh, Dutton Island Road (but not the Marsh). The CRA has a base term of 20 years, after which time, the terms are abolished. Staff explained that The City Commission has decided to move forward with pursuing our CRA but are now trying to decide how to approach the City of Jacksonville, and, what to ask of them. As this is a community development effort, the Commission is asking for the Board’s input on this. Mr. Mandelbaum commented that he did not see the City of Jacksonville being very interested in our CRA pursuits as their portion of the Mayport Corridor is not a priority to them in regards to redevelopment. Ms. Lanier concurred with Mr. Mandelbaum and gave her opinion that the City of Jacksonville would not see their property in the CRA as a development priority. She also mentioned that the City of Jacksonville is currently creating their budget for the next fiscal year and she did not see this as a good time to ask them to contribute financially. Ms. Lanier also commented that the We st side of Mayport Road is organically changing and growing in a positive direction. She argued that rather than waiting on the CRA, the City could move forward now with helping what is already happening in that are, exponentially grow. Mr. Elmore likewise argued for abandoning the CRA and instead, for letting the organic growth happening along Mayport Road take Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 14 of 40 place. He commented that if there is a need for the CRA in future years, the City could approach the idea again. Chair Paul questioned if increased Code Enforcement involvement along Mayport Road would help with the various issues along Mayport Road. Mr. Reichler argued that before he feels comfortable making a decision about moving forward or not with the CRA, the City first needs to be fully staffed and he would like to review the CRA as he has yet to do so. Chair Paul concurred that she too would like to review the CRA. She requested that the discussion regarding the CRA be continued next month, but that it appeared that the Board was currently not in favor of moving forward with the CRA. 2. Form Based Code Rewrite Ms. Simmons commented that she would need a formal presentation on what Form Based Code is, before she could make any decisions regarding it. Planner Reeves commented that Commissioner Waters presented this as an optional approach for our Code re‐write. He also expounded on the definition of form ‐based code. In essence, form‐ based codes explicitly define how structures may be built, from height to exact setbacks, etc. It eliminates the use component of a property, by explicitly defining how a structure must be built on any given property and that will dictate how the property is used. He then noted that our Code re‐write would most likely be a mix of Euclidian zoning and Form‐Based codes as we have a pre‐existing community that we must work with. Mr. Elmore commented that Form‐Based Codes can be restrictive as it is so definitive about what people can do. He argued that it can work well with a new community, but it is problematic with pre‐ existing communities such as ours. Chair Paul argued that employing Form‐Based Code would increase the work for staff (specifically in regards to enforcing the codes). She also argued that it may discourage businesses from moving here as it would place stringent restrictions on what the building and building façade would have to look like. Chair Paul then Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 15 of 40 requested a presentation from staff at the next regular Community Development Board meeting on Form‐Based codes. She also requested that staff give the Board local examples of Cities that used Form‐Based Code so that she can look into how it has impacted their communities. Mr. Reichler argued that before a decision is made regarding Form‐ Based Code, the very problems and objectives regarding the current Code need to be made so that the City knows how to approach the re‐write. Mr. Mandelbaum questioned whether or not the City’s code should even be re‐written, or rather, if the Board and the City should use its resources and staff toward more productive goals. Mr. Reichler questioned if Form‐Based Code re‐write could possibly apply to only a portion of the City Code. Chair Paul commented that before the Code re‐write could be undertaken, the City needs to be fully staffed and the City [Board and Commission] needs to have a better of understanding of what direction to move in for re‐writing the Code. Ms. Lanier concurred that making a decision about Form‐Based Code at this point is a solution in search of a problem, that is, it is a solution for re‐writing the City Code even though the very problems with the City’s Code have yet to be identified. Mr. Reichler also questioned why the City’s Code needs to be re‐ written and how much of the code falls into this category. Chair Paul argued that there are probably many changes that need to be made. Mr. Reichler commented that a list of items that need addressing in the code needs to be made. Ms. Simmons commented that the Board is not receiving a clear picture of what the Community desires as far as a code re‐write is concerned, because the Board only hears from the small portion of people that approach them wanting a change. She noted the extensive nature of re‐writing a code. The Board discussed looking at requests that have come before them in addition to staff’s opinions on what they believe needs to be changed based upon the situations that come to them. What’s Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 16 of 40 more, The Commission hears from their constituents and these concerns need to be taken into account as well. Chair Paul commented on the Community Development Board’s role as the City’s Planning Agency and therefore, their role in the approach to the City’s Code re‐write. Mr. Reeves commented that the City Commission has discussed having a joint meeting between themselves and the Community Development Board in order to discuss these things. He explained that the City Commission wants the Board to be involved in the process of re‐writing the code and would like some direction from the Board as to how to move forward with it. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Ms. Simmons moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:32pm. _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 17 of 40 Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 18 of 40 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A CASE NO ZVAR17-0001 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height from 4 feet in the side yard adjacent to a street on a corner lot as required by Section 24-157(c)(1) to up to 7 feet to allow a 4 foot wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall along the Beach Avenue property line at North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3 Part of Lots 76A, 77A and 78A (aka 30 20th Street). LOCATION 30 20th Street APPLICANT Tom and Lisa Goodrich DATE June 15, 2017 STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicants are Tom and Lisa Goodrich, the owners of 30 20th Street. The property is located at the southwest corner of Beach Avenue and 20th Street in the Residential General, Multi-family (RG-M) zoning district. There is an existing variable height retaining wall averaging 2.5 feet tall along the eastern property line along Beach Avenue. The applicants are nearing the completion of their new single family home on the property and would like to build a six foot tall wood fence around the property and a four foot tall wood fence on top of the existing retaining wall. A variance is needed for the four foot tall wood fence on top of the existing 2.5 foot retaining wall. Section 24- 157(c)(1) limits fence heights to 4 feet within the 10 foot side yard on corner lots where the adjoining right-of-way is 50 feet or less in width. The combination of the four foot wood fence and average 2.5 foot tall retaining wall will create a fence up to seven feet tall. Section 24-157(b)(2) requires fence height to be measured from the grade, meaning that the fence and wall must be considered together as one. Part of the applicants’ basis for granting the variance is under the assumption that the City removed a berm and constructed the retaining wall for the public parking. However, City files show that the retaining wall was permitted by a previous owner in 2007. See attachment A for the site plan from the permit application. The four foot tall wood fencing that ended up on top of the wall was permitted previously that same year. While the fence code was different in 2007 (changed to current version in 2009) the fence permit did require a revision to reduce the height to four feet in the same area being discussed today. See attachment B for pages from the fence permit. It is unclear if staff knew and understood that the four foot tall wood fence was going on top of the retaining wall or if didn’t matter under the interpretation of the old code. It is unclear when the public parking was constructed, but it did predate the retaining wall that was built by a property owner. Another element under consideration is how the height of a retaining wall is measured. Section 24-157(b)(3) limits the height to 4 feet. This does not specify the where the height is measured from since retaining walls start below grade and have different grade elevations on each side. Staff has interpreted the code to mean height should be measure from the lower of the adjacent grades. 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. The applicants stated in their application that Beach Avenue is three feet higher than their property, which allows people to look down into their yard, pool and living room and that the City destroyed a natural berm to build a retaining wall for public parking. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. The applicants stated in their application that public parking spaces were built on their property. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicants stated in their application that no other property has a lower elevation than the street with public parking directly adjoining. (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. Page 3 of 3 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0001, request to increase the maximum fence height from 4 feet in the side yard adjacent to a street on a corner lot as required by Section 24-157(c)(1) to up to 7 feet to allow a 4 foot wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall along the Beach Avenue property line at North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3 Part of Lots 76A, 77A and 78A (aka 30 20th 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 ZVAR17-0001, request to increase the maximum fence height from 4 feet in the side yard adjacent to a street on a corner lot as required by Section 24-157(c)(1) to up to 7 feet to allow a 4 foot wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall along the Beach Avenue property line at North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3 Part of Lots 76A, 77A and 78A (aka 30 20th Street), 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. e it v A R 7_ 000 I w s fy ket),l MAY 302017APPLICATIONFORZONINGVARIANCE v City of Atlantic Beach •800 Seminole Road •Atlantic Beach,Florida 32233-5445 Phone: ( 904)247-5800 • FAX(904)247-5845•http://www.coab.us Date 6'24/is7 T File No. 1. Applicant's Name thy— ci,r,( Li CT-oc-srte. ( 2. Applicant's Address t 1O1 Cc-k'ks ioe— an}tG '( cx,L. '322-3 3. Property Location 3o 2.04- Q \o„A{.tc. ci L A- 4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number (( Ct1 I.Ol—Q\CO 5. Current Zoning Classification Ire fA{pA tint 6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation 7. Provision from which Variance is requested _ N_,nr k c/o 1n-}-" 8. Size of Parcel I n a X trfl t 9.Utility Provider A 10. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction.Yes ®No (If yes,this must be submitted with any application for a Building Permit.) 10. Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Variance,which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-64 oftheZoning, Subdivision, and Land Development Regulations ( attached to this application). Attach as Exhibit A.Statement and site plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested. 11. Provide all of the following information: a. Proof of ownership(deed or certificate by lawyer or abstract company or title company that verifies recordownerasabove). If the applicant is not the owner,a letter of authorization from the owner(s)for applicanttorepresenttheownerforallpurposes related to this application must be provided. b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought. (Attach as Exhibit B.) c. Required number of copies: Four(4),except where original plans,photographs or documents larger than11x17inches are submitted. Please provide eight(8)copies of any such original documents.d. Application Fee(5250.00) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION ISCORRECT: Signature of owner(s)or authorized person ifJJowner's authorization form is attached: Printed or typed name(s): L 5.2.. a41G_ Tom1 60z(r/c:A Signature(s): kaa ADDRESS AND CONT CI' INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCEREGARDINGTHISAPPLICATION Name: (.1 sGl goodr/a, or 'Tom 6bodriat Mailing Address: 30 0904 Str ,,302. 3 Phone: (gbq)4 R a-n(4361 FAX: E-mail:yo u3A? @ /doud,cow, f aoq) qga-5-938 4011,5044 4Qin, cerm Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 19 of 40 I The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may he approved. Please check the circumstancesthatapplytoyourrequestandbrieflydescribein the space provided. d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variancemay be granted,at the discretion oft a Community DevelopmentBoard,for the following reasons: C5e/2 addcAan,r crit d(1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. k' IOU( yard ce//guar drtrerS and pedec-friAnc 'fa /nik dnuvr (r1I fsvrn1 116Y79r n-r'tn j2rOpP(111 ,e,l,,j ror.looed 11,u ilk-turn( bermI.ir1GL Cbii 91-rt C{{eL flub re'{7x in o 1•Cr4l l l (arbt dd/G c& (e4 01rlc i ,2)surrounding conditiops or circumstances impacting the propertydisparately from nearbypropertied loa S parkirio Spaces were bet!14- on oar tora r ti ti(3)exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to otherpropertiesinthearea. NU &Q r tero cr19 h&c lower vet j7 -ly,a,., Wye_5 &.+ cV11 i eubl tc park),) dtre(+k, clebor inrr, 4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or afterconstructionofimprovementsupontheproperty. _ ID (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 oftheproperly. e) Approval of a Variance. To approve an application for a Variance,the Community Development Board shallfindthattherequestisinaccordancewiththepreceding terms and provisions of this Section and that the granting of the Variance will be in harmony with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter. 0 Approval of Lesser Variances. The Community Development Board shall have the authority to approve a lesserVariancethan requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisionsofthisSectionandwiththePurposeandIntentofthisChapter. g) Nearby Nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands,Structures or Buildings shall not begroundsforapprovalofaVariance. h) Waiting period for re-submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board,no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall beacceptedfor365daysfromthedateofdenial. i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board,the work to be performed pursuant to a Variance shall begin within six(6)months from the date of approval of the Variance. The Community Development Director,upon finding of good cause,may authorize a one time extension not to exceed an additional six(6)months,beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void. j) A Variance,which involves the Development of Land,shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the Property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 20 of 40 Additional comments: Ne Q 5 ki i q •A.)( red e-F riti-ay101 / l i e i rfor1zOYrlh/ / e r 11 a r i•, ad IL A/4AI 6 gaPpor+ -thee 5free4- Cfra e-h Avic,ii) oi, ( e ei c. gi de o ovr P r' 1 cG Piyermehe) ovi Dur , r Pr 0 / `n 4 r13J d e f rycauric /mach gCess eavlu The PI- y7hav 7 oPJac. ht s l,ea c t 3 ' Imp r, eta 1 avcGtreeCrrufi privaN , 3a avid 1/a'b 1, 15c (er 5lriCf. •kne tc ranSPS. i v f- our yard ar>d 116 ire by-I- a l so U, skp o ,rveY1AN41# atl 14 4 , e.carc, oar yarl v.-i t oo-1- a Perw.e. wall 1,2ttfic pI2rtcIn, / w ch INKS be'uII- by tl ;- -1 rs onourpoperki ._ k/h i le_ Me Uhoters f)A the Gl"v / Oak-4 hare. Gt y PASemen+ here Y I t . L, i , r 4K are pAa6 Govn c I lis ID Ual,F) ihdmhe6dipen1vrshmeito ; 1 is wr H our ri h* -/o -ht ` ' aGPsha C1L fil L mid) av/1 1.rbi P w6 can 5 f i Cts was' be a(1o or Vla , / /. 51 .- Q vk. ./ , • ,v1);S I's DL- "nor)- rm r u21// b0.4- - ail, bhil-f ItAll4444vv- js -fa Gon4 e l- oar 4-' n(p aH -t-ke 11 . • N a crfher oyer--y has a l ewef .e l e vi 1-ton filar, e_ pvt L1ic a CereSS Si-r(qa par adjoills H-- A Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 21 of 40 MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF:LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS FURNISHED: A PART OF LOTS 76A, 77A AND 78A, NORTH ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO. 3, R-C-B-S, CORPORATION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15,PAGE 93, OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 78A, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THESOUTHRIGHTOF WAY UNE OF TWENTIETH STREET AS NOW RECORDED AS A 40 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY UNEOFBEACH AVENUE, FORMERLY GARAGE APPROACH ROADWAY, AS NOW ESTABLISHED AS A 25 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE FROM SAIDPOINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTH 02 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF SAID BEACHAVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 106.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET 20TH STREET 40' RIGHT-- OF-WAY FOUND 1/2"REBAR FOUND 1/2"IRON PIPENOIDENTIFICATION03/1048 N89'50'00'E 100.00' rTa°`ASPM A-- —IA FOUND P.K. NAIL & DISK 129.60'MEASURED N.T.S. LB/56/2 11.1 Brow oa..vr Ii Pr)In it':.c::,:tt!•..::, a. REMAINDER OF LOT 78A i)I() A,..—t---r i o LiNOTSHOWNORINCLUDEDti"".s r.=% Nx. . au IN THIS SURVEY C`<f-,-'N:2-.-7 ..: '^;•:iv..-`-...' rft!!eY`c•!3<4. ...rim' h a w c.. i.'•5'ti.*.`-y; T!IRiOF.,--',j TBA:$o.-s-;.;.:14 I (O cd o yw';_w <n ':..: _". .'m:..1.. I Z 3 m- b-• U paf' . Y• .. W ..L7.. M • m r 0 0 tis: r.(- 1 :cS1 Rau ° one[1C CTi`E„:ti rt i.., Y- gg IS 0 0 I: Lo in NN i`i? r - g 1 O tn3n ZZ PART OF LOT 77A i REMNNDER OF LOT 77A I I 0 0NOTSHOWNORINCLUDED IN 1195 SURVEY 41 CO (/)CE EL01°(‘' t . I nI 4--PART OF LOT 76A — . _ r4•. • i 1 LLI.1.41.rJ aq C-rf ,C' c FOUND 1/2`IRON PIPE P4J6room RIC NAB&Dt NO KENBFICtOON S89'50'00''W 100.00' I LB/3622 Nti REMAINDER OF LOT 76A 2 NOT SHOWN OR INCLUDED W IN THIS SURVEY j8 nh FOUND X-CUT AS N 20INSPROPERTYLFLOOD €Tr PER FLOOD N9AIREF AMPP 0794 OINK MINIM•COWART/No. 110075.WP/PUE1 W. 1209C-0407-7E REVISED S.REVISED J 2013 BEARER'S RASED OR THE SOON NOR-or-Nor LIE CF20111STREETASNOR'N'750'0"E NTS DOgIES NOT 7O SCALE N7D11S 6 9000 FENCE EXCEPT AS NOTED CQTBFlID TO: PERE WY E ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS DAT ARE NOT SNDON TREMA$ GOODRICHDNSSumEY?NM WY BE MND N DE PURE RECORDS OrOU'AL MINTY,Puma I hereby certify that this survey meets theI minimum technical standards as set forth byA I I the Florida Board of Land Surveyors, pursuant toI I D U R D E N SURVEYINGB AND3RDSTREETMAPPINGNORTH, INC. I Section x72°27 Florida Statutes and Chapter 5JI7 Florida Administrative C 1825 Oda11 (9LOICENS 3 822NESSXN853-6669682696 5 JACKSOJACKSONVILLE BEACH, FLORIDA 32250 SLAVE 1323 M3TE FLORIDA RECtSILRIED SURVEYOR 11...ILL BRUCE Ot lIIt.1 ,Tn THE SUA£Y HEREON INS WOE.11NDaT DE Hb€F11 Er ABSTRACT OR SEAROI OF 1171E AIDTHORDRE NTIE tI amma,mORIXRDENNOT UR 11110 AND IWPM. 70 W 111 cormu77aa SIGNED JUNE 1.2016E. PAYS OFS.NOES-4F-'pr Sr CRC_S ol[NAPs.ootwav r INE SCALE ]`= 70' --R t:mame OR ono?swim Amnon*Hai WY APPEAR II THE AeSiRICT OR SEMEN or miz WORK ORDER NUMBER: 16258 DRS SURVEY NOT VAD UNLESS 7MS PRN?IS C MTH DE SEAL OF 711E ABOVE 9ONID. B—8892 Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 22 of 40 60b4 (jai Reside rice NOVetni2tr 20Ito o 20-141 S+ree.6 , AB 0 rmkeggefirTwg----- pi V 1 - elr.d. - 1. th 7"-"‘.. . v•-• 4". 4:T•-60_ .dar..J.• 1'. . ,-..,, fir. AZ; ..,AS_ 4i,, , ; 1: V 14.,•- J.- , 9"' -, . 1'7 - . ', . ' . . - tr. ,„,,, P' 3/4.,-7- I i c. 4141- Vilr" ,-41.jh c911„411 - 111- 1 t- di'l't4, - 1.!" ' .•i I i L.„0110 lig 111 1, ill uk- ,---7 .... , L ., lb 1.,... ..?. „to ,. . . ... • 7,0--•,.. r••.rt. k,..... ...,.. 7-1; — LI tt ' •• , ii.. .. u., -::- •.1 Ili 1.". , I 01' ir' t 1I Jecrie•or ',.... I 41 likk i o ot; 1 c -4., i ir—ir4 ,:.-- -- ,, t il it, : 4• !I ' 1 1i in r , •s. y, 4 i 1..1.7. .. ... i I i i ' ir x-- 11. •I. • -_ 1 A 13teOGIA Atte . v(e.) of previous -Fenct buil+ on, re-hili AXI con9frmciftot bliCOAS -Far public petekto9 Oh i our proper+y. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 23 of 40 r J 217MW y1,...: i _ . . now. , 4000.: sc.-. , may r 1F r r_. .. . i., , O L i::11-4i. . i V s• . , V Ik- z ._ - 1 yf 4 k : k. 0 pcAll ad1 t. imp. ur torope beach Ave • rfva,ta m v sr cue oar over10°14.4. y APi)00 I becf oor i s riet trot w IlvIlli Gea Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 24 of 40 g , 11 ,, , 30 i ) ' 'freef Pakplic. view 'fromN. eac Avvwe- JJf, L 1 s _ I till v r-r Milan 1 ! W, M rte fi4 V' f . e. 1 s . u.f$, .-t- f: Z Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 25 of 40 e;.‘", ' 20Th Skrekt r e.0"`.4, tki"?'i4i:, 0.,•,. , 4i-,t,-... . •ft,.'','•,-., ': i ''' - . i 0,,,A..; pug 2017 t•••• *imk. 4:-).e.'•..., cs• ,...., . if; 4.•,:.,.• . 4.•• wit 1•i: 2•"-; i! a:• • 45 . ifi l . Vr . 5 1.- ... r*. r`, 4 ,:.. 4 iv', 7, .:— vs ir....•.4.F v._,• i...•s . II, , v)ere 1... ox•- 1 If*: 11•111C11111*..„ - 1- ,. 4.7- r li 1.11.1111.1.111.1!-Ilft- nor r•---- 4. illP• - 4 i" •A a• 1-4,sti left- '': ' - -„, ',',.-:,.',."-- N.. bea&ii aces . ,Wttn1OnOur por _ Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 26 of 40 Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 27 of 40 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.B CASE NO. ZVAR17-0002 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the side yard setback from 5 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(a) to 0 feet to allow an open porch addition in the side yard at Ed Smith S/D South 41 feet of Lot 10, North 9 feet of Lot 11 Block 1 (aka 1620 Jordan Street) LOCATION 1620 Jordan Street APPLICANT Kimberly Warren DATE June 13, 2017 STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Kimberly Warren, the owner of 1620 Jordan Street. The property is a rectangular lot located mid-block on Jordan Street in the Residential General, Multi-family (RG-M) zoning district. There is an existing 1,125 square foot single family home built in 2001 on the 50 foot wide, 100 foot deep lot. The applicant would like to have a 24 foot by 9 foot open porch in the south side yard. A variance is needed for the open porch in the side yard where the required side yards are a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on one side according to Section 24-108(e)(3)(a). The existing home has a 9.1 foot side yard on the south side where the porch would be and a 15.4 foot side yard on the north side. This means the minimum side yard on the south side is 5 feet. The side yard for the porch would be less than one foot (see picture below). As seen in the picture, the porch has already been constructed and without a permit. If the variance is not approved, the applicant will have to remove or modify the structure to make it conforming. A conforming open porch would be no closer than 3 feet from the property line. That would be the 5 foot setback as required plus the allowable 2 foot projection into the side from Section 24-83(b). On this side of the house is the only exterior door other than the front door as well as a storage closet that is only accessible from the outside. Both would be under the open porch. The applicant did reference issues with water damage to those doors as a result of being so exposed to the elements. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 28 of 40 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. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. The applicant stated in their application that house is not centered on the lot with a narrow side yard on the side with an exterior door and access to a storage closet which limits their use. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. The applicant stated in their application that the narrowness of the lot contributes to the difficulty of use the exterior door and access to a storage closed on the narrow side yard. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 29 of 40 Page 3 of 3 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0002, request to decrease the side yard setback from 5 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(a) to 0 feet to allow an open porch addition in the side yard at Ed Smith S/D South 41 feet of Lot 10, North 9 feet of Lot 11 Block 1 (aka 1620 Jordan 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 ZVAR17-0002, request to decrease the side yard setback from 5 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(a) to 0 feet to allow an open porch addition in the side yard at Ed Smith S/D South 41 feet of Lot 10, North 9 feet of Lot 11 Block 1 (aka 1620 Jordan Street), 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. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 30 of 40 01A, .,,,,,ID) IELV-F:, A APR 2 8 201 1,0, APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE F -' J City of Atlantic Beach • 800 Seminole Road •Atlantic Beach,Florida 32233-5445 Phone: (904) 247-5800 • FAX (904) 247-5845 • http://www.coab.us Date'A" \ 2n 1 0 File No. 1. Applicant's Name --a aAs 11)i' - , A C'—dib 111 ft 2. Applicant's Address ILL 2D 00 rei 3. Property Location LP 2D J.-01- Ce J • 4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number I `7 2_ 2 D g - 0 p 3 o 5. Current Zoning Classification ill?C' -- 2.6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation 7. Provision from which Variance is requested 8. Size of Parcel t - `‘,, v j 9. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction. Yes No (If yes,this must be submitted with any application for a Building Permit.) 10. Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Variance,which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-64 of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this application. Statement and site plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested. 11. Provide all of the following information: a. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate by lawyer or abstract company or title company that verifies record owner as above). If the applicant is not the owner, a letter of authorization from the owner(s) for applicant to represent the owner for all purposes related to this application must be provided. b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought. c. Required number of copies: Four (4), except where original plans, photographs or documents larger than 11x17 inches are submitted. Please provide eight (8)copies of any such documents. d. Application Fee($250.00) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS CORRECT: Signature of owner(s)or authorized person if owner's authorization form is attached: Printed or typed name(s): Ili rr ber 4..L3 5(yL-k-\ tAj il Signatures6 o5 iv fit' — ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name: ,,i,nt,bef L 3 t- f'h 1.0«r-e,(> Mailing Address: 162 ZJ J(-C-1L'-c)4—. Al on j r 86-k f) 3 23-3 PhoneRN •CiC1 I • I I FAX: E-mail: Cl.)cb each 4-cacher6)96,41.0. C Ary, Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 31 of 40 The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please check the circumstances that apple to Your request and briefly describe in the space provided. d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variance may be granted,at the discretion of the Community DevelopmentBoard,for the following reasons. 1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. 2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. 3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. 4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. 5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. t .4' .(- rpn pl b I 1 f. S AM. _ •C1.)Y6." Sbr ri C I0SP+ + `12$€ d e, eelInchp-W S ado etr, -T{i, p[r - (Y 10u3 - 5 $5 e- larrew s ves t' d i c"I I-6) substandar size o a Lot of Record warranting a Variance order to provide fo the re. nable Use of t,he property. I, a. . tea. 0 O. v A._ i • . A4 DF 5e rpG ieS Q- Se 0 Dn Prz er tv 4110-1-IS vgisn limy td (A U Sd.ba1'- u= - Ci-ay Q.Gk„ n +' P n* . n -r ocek- d 4- 51-lrrge, CloSel-W tl-h Wet - Vr AN- I(C.cekd on `1-e w +e,Nem. sly-41( e) Approva a Variance. To approve an application for a Variance, the Community Development Board shall find that the request is in accordance with the preceding terms and provisions of this Section and that the granting of the Variance will be in harmony with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter. f) Approval of Lesser Variances. The Community Development Board shall have the authority to approve a lesser Variance than requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter. g) Nearby Nonconformity. Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures or Buildings shall not be grounds for approval of a Variance. h) Waiting period for re-submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board, no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for 365 days from the date of denial. i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board,the work to be performed pursuant to a Variance shall begin within six(6)months from the date of approval of the Variance. The Community Development Director, upon finding of good cause, may authorize a one time extension not to exceed an additional six(6)months,beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void. j) A Variance, which involves the Development of Land, shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the Property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board. Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 32 of 40 Additional comments: V16 Cs sock GS -}-k 1 rip ,.I f„r., fo,ro S lin plc-e_ejn;c_.r plke /my* ` c) oF husc an propel-41c C,r'P f.. S cn 2nCo rn h e rQ d Li 5e. DP 41,0 5 161, S 1r,,p CF IA/0 who rt_ -I onlf Qat- (14,crock and .e"e- of A Sits n w (_fi ( n C4 CI D SS ri tir Std-4, or pJk-S((Le S1rny /uer hoil x ( l()sed 4 r S- ( 0SS 14 l_ll A, 7 F f c I O r r AC t,,y,c C u- him of 44R Oar co t.n c 1,064-Cr dA QCT. ) S CfA uS ire CD r ar,6 W- rC.Mp f no pI W o C os-u, 10t - C1o rn 1 I fla. ueccA- tA) le_r. Se I GSh__ D(' b l,.nc, t e S[s P -- ShY'uth re usu.6 olbu v_5_ Cc-0 mL nY USe +Do -g,(4— 5 rbcr- . 11 ( ', s (1-I- d Covey u(1 I n -Itree 15_ t -aS ro eotFvr CGS So C-h a-> D` --rE-e- w ro b Ude (7c - nC ac - an tArx0 7jiem340s51`curfiUn2,6 or r.hf.3 Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 33 of 40 Prepared By: Watson & Osborne Title Services,Inc. 155-5 Blanding Boulevard Orange Park,FL 32073 Record and Return To GRANTEEDoc#2 7237818.OR BK 141 eo Page 1518. 07OP2924 plumber Pages 2 NTYledaRecorded07, 3:2 7 at 03.34 PM.1M FULLER CLERK CIRCUIT COURT DUVAL COUPRECORDINGQ18.50 DEED DOC ST 3128800 General Warranty Deed Made this July 2)2007 A.D.By Sherry G.Faircloth,an unmarried woman and Lyndsi Megan Lovin,an unmarried woman,whose address is: 540 Morgan Street, Orange Park,FL 32073,hereinafter called the grantor,to Kimberly Smith,an unmarried woman,whose post office address is: 1620 JORDON STREET,Atlantic Beach,Florida 32233,hereinafter called the grantee: Whenever used herein the term"grantor"and"grantee"include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs,legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations) Witnesseth,that the grantor,for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars, ($10.00)and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,hereby grants,bargains,sells, aliens,remises,releases,conveys and confirms unto the grantee, all that certain land situate in Duval County,Florida,viz: THE SOUTH 41.00 FEET OF LOT 10,TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH 9.00 FEET OF LOT 11,BLOCK 1,ED SMITH SUBDIVISION,ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 26,PAGE 50,OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY,FLORIDA. 3 Parcel ID Number: 172288-0030 Together with all the tenements,hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,2006. DEED Individual Warranty Deed-Legal on Face Closers'Choice Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 34 of 40 92/2007 13:23 9042150910 LIGHTHalSE SURVEYING PAGE 02 MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE SOUTH 41.00 FEET OF LOT 10. 7OOETBFR WTWa NORTH aoo FEET OF LOT 11. BLOC( 1. ED SMITH sUBNivisldv AS RECORDED I11 PLAT BOOK.26. PAGE 60. OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. ClJiMPIED TO: KIMBERLY SMITH COMMUNITY FIRST CREDIT UNION WATSON & OSBORNE TITLE SERVICES FIRST AMERICAN TILE INSURANCE COMPANY JORDAN STREET We NIONT 00 WAY) S 00'03144' W 49,87 MEASURED) s ooroa or E AMC lie MI PIPE larit VOW b ant It PE 310.80' 011ASUND) 103 wmgmligo 44.001 PLAY) 1•1;:,--.2.•.1..111 70.100' KAT) 240.43' (PLAT) ar I It.v. `f I 4 .:-II a1.. 7''fiA. I st) CS iii tea'Af, ... tv = ls.444 ii m W La o w x.—i x 1--I 8 wiE i, * Lox z DVI) LOT 10 LOT 11 BLOCK 1 ki) ? BLOCK 1 N 0016b0'1w N 00.15'00" W \ J rd I n ear W JdSd (PLAT)t) 0•i xx 11.00'(KAT) N0 N 00103" w :.52'nem la MEASURED LOT b ILOT 4 BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 REVISIONS m s ' omDATE DEStlOI'U011 JOB . 07-0572 ©ATE OF FIELD SURVEY: 06-28-07 bDATE OF ISSUE 07- 02-- 07 SCALE: 1' 30 20 OTNL1. TEARNG6 l us D THE BEARING OF NOT 04 ALONO THEw.r..v wi nurr(IvK aF Std EC!PAR ... a Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 35 of 40 File No. 1 1 PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM c: reetzip code 32233 State County Duval n; First C 004. 11 e I 1.• i. ill I..", jjt r t. , FR A. si SUONTBJECT PROPVIEWOFERTY i 1 4AIL1', xY REAR VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY t' _, y J Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 36 of 40 V N * jC` I !' fi 7 ) CO r NN 4 z C.) 7) x r Z 7k ro w W v N N S is —o C. yI I- z _c C Ni clG" C Y- 1 t V\ 1 Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 37 of 40 kJA I102 J c 7 3. s i\ 1 IP L f s 1-11 Z.V$ o 0 fi i\ r. 1 1- 1 f cs- swik-, soe c.S' Nil C r 7.3 CV T1 n G 9 f' 1 S- V o 4 r 1 Cu fN t y VP 4 Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 38 of 40 May 2, 2017 RE: Case# 17-659 Dear City Officials, I received a stop work notice on or around April 15,2017 at my home at 1620 Jordan Street Atlantic Beach, Florida. I was in the middle of installing a covered patio on the south side of my home. The purpose of the patio was to create coverage that would prevent the elements from ruining my storage door and my back door for the forth time. All work was stopped. I was unaware that an aluminum patio was something that I would need a city permit for. I am sorry for the oversight and inconvenience. Since stopping work, I have submitted all documents and photos to the City of Atlantic Beach and applied for a variance. Our case is on the schedule for the June council meeting. Please be advised that I am in the process of a resolution. Sincerely, Kimberly Smith Warren Y Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 39 of 40 1 1 1 4.' 0 11- :. i I1.; ..t.;;',:' 11 :-; 7-.3'0* I 1.. 1.5.-=mplur z.q. di 11 ,, fil II I !I „ Illk, Id ' 4..7.-.... - -4.1:‘_ AO. • 4•‘vi. 1/1IYA% '' • .46-11' 'r' ''' .i111 g '. f• ‘,Y,---•:, t- ,=•-•''.:' v, .4, . - .. liii I 1 ...-:‘i,...-',.'.....': .. .ii. $ritiiii;'AA'!!fojt:::-•.'S.1;.. - ,.-- i i.7iV,-;..Ag -;z .i .j -1").- -c. r 04 '''.$V s -. )". 4.., ' 14". -114*-. _,-„:''' ..,, x' • '.- ..".-• '—it r'/A •••'!(... _. .. 4i''' , -„'.'; '.'tEkt, 4, •:,i ,-,4,ii• -.4,-,.'•' . T:.. :;. ir• • "--• :••• -,. v ••, 41/4-• 1: 1,-.•-•:..* ' . :t'.' 41; ik L i.•1• 4. ,. : , ...'"' l . t .1., 4. 7,'''''',jAr'-. iit,or,,-4. ,, 4,c,:„.• •.7 _ ir ii,......„.....--,sx4_, _ 1 :-.1"\-'• 4-.. -,,',.t.-,,.,.:*4'.1:,.51k .)i 1:.'4,i,. ' ,.-',.:1' 7,4 . . '' r, I a Jr -- - 4410 44- a. 7,•••• .. ..9" 'Irs ilk,...„ r• ' -, •.:, ,4.• .4p4, _mi.(:7s. , , i 0. . ,,,_,-.` -• :,.. gr 4 A-A.:-41...• 'Le 14, . • 4. a li ill •,,,,, 1% . 0,A rid I Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 40 of 40