Loading...
06-20-17 Agenda Packet Amended                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 1 of 63 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 March 21, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. B. 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 2 of 63                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 3 of 63 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD March 21st, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:04pm. All members, including alternate members, were present, except for Mr. Stratton. Alternate Board Member Judy Workman was asked to sit in his place. 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. A. Minutes of January 17, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Ms. Lanier seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously. B. Minutes of February 21, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Mandelbaum seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. 17‐UBEX‐417 Planner Reeves explained that the applicant requested that their case 17‐UBEX‐417 be deferred to the April 18, 2017 regular meeting of The Community Development Board, after their case was advertised for the current meeting. As this case was publicly advertised, public comment was opened. Page 1 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 4 of 63 Justin Henderson, 132 Magnolia St., Atlantic Beach 32233, commented that his home lies directly behind the lot in question. He mentioned the preexisting traffic on that street and stated his concerns for increased traffic on that road. With no additional comments the Public Hearing was continued to April 18, 2017. B. 17‐ZVAR‐405 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Jeffrey Sellers) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable projections into side yards from 24 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 48 inches to allow longer eave projections at Club Manor Lot 8 (aka 145 8th Street). Staff Report Planner Reeves provided site context and detail about the property in question. It is currently zoned RS‐2 (Residential, Single‐family) with a future land use of Residential Low. The proposed construction is to remodel and add a second floor to and existing 1956 single family home on site. The work they are currently doing has already been permitted through the City. Their proposal is to replace the existing roof with a flat metal roof with 48 inch eave overhangs on all four sides of the roof. The need for a variance comes from Section 24‐83(b) which states: “Structural projections. Architectural features such as eaves and cornices, and cantilevered bay windows, open balconies and porches may project a distance not to exceed forty‐eight (48) inches into required front and rear yards. Such balconies and porches may be covered, but shall not be enclosed in any manner, except that balconies and porches within rear yards may be enclosed with screening only. Eaves and cornices, cantilevered bay windows, chimneys, and architectural elements intended to create design relief along the side wall plane may project into required side yards, but not beyond twenty‐four (24) inches.” Within the RS‐2 zoning district, the required side‐yard setbacks are a combined 15 feet, with a minimum of 5 feet on either side. On the property in question, the side‐yard setbacks have been and will remain 7.5 feet on each side for a combined 15 feet. Page 2 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 5 of 63 side yard setback, then he was within code. The Board asked Staff for clarification of the code interpretation regarding setbacks and the eave overhang. Planner Reeves explained that the applicant seemed to interpret the code to mean that you could have a minimum of 5 feet for a setback on either side of the house. Therefore, having 7.5 feet on each side, they believed themselves to have an extra 2.5 feet of space on each side, onto which they could encroach. Unfortunately, they misunderstood the combined 15 foot setback requirement. Public Comment Applicant Comment Planner Reeves commented that the utility easement on the property was brought to the attention of the City’s Public Utilities Department. This department did not express concern for the proposed eaves’ encroachment onto the easement. Mr. Elmore questioned if the initial building permit application showed 48 inch eaves. Planner Reeves responded that it did, but was denied because of this. The plans were then revised to 24 inch eaves and the permit was approved and issued. Jeffrey Sellers, 145 8th St. Atlantic Beach 32233, introduced himself as the applicant. Mr. Sellers explained that as he interpreted the code, only a 3 foot side‐yard setback requirement was in effect, as you could (by code) encroach 24 inches into a hypothetical 5 foot side yard setback. Since both of his setbacks are 7.5 feet, he believed he could encroach 48 inches into each side, leaving 3.5 feet of either side. Ms. Workman questioned Mr. Seller’s code interpretation again. Mr. Sellers explained that he believed that the code was saying that as long as you did not encroach more than 24 inches into a 5 foot Julie Sleeper, 700 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach 32233, expressed her lack of support for the current construction on‐site. Mark Tomaski, 448 Snapping Turtle Ct West, Atlantic Beach 32233, expressed disdain for the situations where people have not followed code, then come before the Board to request a Variance after they have constructed an illegal structure. Ms. Workman commented on the negative impact the construction has already had on the neighbors. Board Discussion Page 3 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 6 of 63 Mr. Elmore commented that he believed the circumstance for which the applicant is requesting a variance to be a self‐imposed hardship and as such, should be denied. He noted the precedent that approval of this variance would set for future situations. Ms. Lanier commended the property owner on the aesthetics of his design, but concurred with Mr. Elmore that his grievance is self‐ imposed. Chair Paul also agreed that she did not see grounds for approval of the variance request. Mr. Reichler commented that he did not see reason to not approve the variance based upon the conditions of denial, however, he did not see how the applicant’s reason for approval was applicable. Motion Mr. Elmore moved to deny variance request 17‐ZVAR‐405, on the grounds that the request is a self‐imposed hardship. Ms. Workman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. 17‐REZN‐389 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Joshua Ashby c/o Fleet Landing) Request for a rezoning of the southern 2.4 acres of RE# 168341-0000 lying in the City of Atlantic Beach as permitted by Section 24-62, from Conservation (CON) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) while modifying the previously approved PUD known as Fleet Landing created by Ordinance Number 90-88-135 as amended by Ordinance Numbers 90-90-152 and 90-13-218 to include said 2.4 acres as permitted by Section 24-124. Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced Steve Lindorff and explained that the City has hired him to handle this application. Steve Lindorff, 2092 Vela Norte Circle Atlantic Beach, 32233, introduced himself as the president of Community Redevelopment and Planning LLC. He disclosed that his home is one block away from the 20th Street entrance to Fleet Landing. Mr. Lindorff explained that this would be the third of three amendments to the Planned Unit Development for Fleet Landing. The property in question is 2.4 acres and is part of a larger parcel, the bulk of which is in the City of Jacksonville. The portion of the Page 4 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 7 of 63 partial within Jacksonville is zoned RMC (Residential Multifamily.) This zoning does not limit housing type, nor does it limit building height but it does limit the number of units that can be constructed. The subdivisions Ocean Walk and Selva Norte lie to the East of the property in question. The future land use of the portion of the property in Atlantic Beach is Residential Multi Family. The current zoning is conservation (CON), which the applicant believes is an anomaly. Prior to the current comprehensive plan, the property was zoned as open rural, but was then changed to conservation. Mr. Lindorff explained that Open Rural zoning classification is often used as a holding place while a decision is being made regarding the most appropriate zoning for a piece of land. The proposed rezoning would change the property’s zoning from Conservation to PUD, that is, to incorporate the land into Fleet Landing’s existing PUD, subject to all of the regulations thereof. The proposed construction on the property is: construct an access roadway, complete storm water retention and add a sewer lift station. They will conserve the floodplain area but are proposing temporary construction staging (on the Southwest corner of the property) in conjunction with the development of an independent living residential facility on the portion of the parcel within the City of Jacksonville. Mr. Lindorff explained that the original PUD was approved in 1989 then was updated in 2013 to add land to it. He then gave more detail to the history of the property and the rezoning of it to Conservation. Mr. Lindorff then spoke to the portion of land considered wetlands. He enumerated on the many layers of permitting and approval that the developers will be required to go through outside of the City of Atlantic Beach, speaking to the strict requirements that will be enforced. He also mentioned that the City could request documentation as it saw fit in order to meet its local environmental regulations. Mr. Lindorff then proposed possible conditions of approval for the Board to choose from. The first, would be for the Board to limit the use of the land to only what the applicant is currently requesting (to prevent future development.) The second, would be to remind Page 5 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 8 of 63 the applicant that the land is subject to the Flood Hazard requirements. The last, would be to limit the number of units that may be built on the property, as stated in the Planned Unit Development covenants and restrictions. The Board and the applicant discussed the entrances and exits currently used to access the property (i.e. Mayport Road and 20th Street.) Ms. Lanier questioned the proposed lift station on the flood plain and if the grade of the area would be raised in order to construct this. Mr. Lindorff replied that this was a possibility, however, it was also possible to construct the lift station with an impervious foundation. Ms. Lanier questioned if the hydraulics of the area would be changed as a result of the proposed lift station construction. Mr. Lindorff did not believe that it would. The Board discussed the appropriate process for displacing floodplains. Mr. Reichler noted that the area where the lift station construction is proposed is not within jurisdictional wetlands, however, it is within a floodplain. He questioned the rules associated with floodplains concerning this type of construction. It was noted by the Board and Staff that the applicant was not requesting to do anything inconsistent with current regulations. The Board clarified that the area on which the access road construction was proposed was in fact not on wetlands. Ms. Simmons questioned why the property in question is eligible for inclusion into the PUD. Mr. Lindorff replied that it is a part of Fleet Landing which is all zoned as a PUD. The Board discussed the portion of the property that contained wetlands, versus which parts of it did not. Mr. Reichler questioned what proposed construction, if any, would be on wetlands. Planner Reeves replied that only the proposed walkway, which would go over the wetlands and be subject to external environmental regulating agency approvals, would be on wetlands. The Board discussed the historical rezoning of the property to Open Rural. It was clarified that the zoning change of Open Rural to Conservation was not because the entire property was wetlands or protected area. Instead, it was a mass change to change the zoning of Open Rural properties to Conservation. Page 6 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 9 of 63 Applicant Comment Public Comment Brad Wester, 1 Independent Drive Suite 1200, Jacksonville 32202, of Driver McAfee Peek and Hawthorne introduced himself as the applicant. He reiterated that none of the proposed work will be in the wetlands area, outside of the boardwalk, which will be permitted through the Department of Environmental Protection. Don White, 2069 Selva Marina Drive, stated that his home is the wetlands and how that impacts the flood levels. adjacent to the property in question. He commented that Fleet Landing has been a great neighbor and partner in the community. His only concern was the four homes proposed that he did not see laid out on the plans presented. He proposed rezoning only the part of the property on which development will take place, but leaving the rest as Conservation. He explained that they are only requesting that a portion of the Western side of the property be developed upon and to do so they need the zoning changed to do so. The Board and the applicant discussed the construction and the areas of the parcel reserved for conservation versus development. Gregory Powell, 1871 Selva Marina Drive Atlantic Beach 32233, opposed the rezoning request, stating his disdain for overdevelopment of the floodplain in Atlantic Beach. He stressed his concern that the displacement that will take place on the floodplain in order to develop the proposed construction, will cause greater flooding in the nearby neighborhoods. He also argued that the land was intentionally zoned as Conservation for the land and wetlands on it and he stressed his concern for encroachment upon Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd St, Atlantic Beach 32233 discussed the development consistently taking place in the City and how development is changing the City. Mark Tomaski, 448 Snapping Turtle Ct West, Atlantic Beach 32233, stated that he has been working on the conservation of the land in question for the last seven years. He referenced Sherman Creek, which runs through the property. He argued against the rezoning of the land to PUD, as he believes that doing so will make it more difficult for The City of Atlantic Beach to incorporate the land into their city limits, in the future. Mr. Tomaski recommended that Fleet Landing be granted PUD zoning for the property only West of Page 7 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 10 of 63 Sherman Creek, but keep the zoning of Conservation for everything East of Sherman Creek. Board Discussion Ms. Workman moved to deny 17‐UBEX‐329 as read. There was not a second to the motion. Without a second, the motion failed. Mr. Reichler questioned how applying the PUD zoning to only the Western portion of the property, would affect the rest of the property (East of Sherman Creek). He referenced Selva Preserve, which rezoned its land to Residential (it contains jurisdictional wetlands) but was forced to meet the City’s Comprehensive Plan still. City Attorney Brenna Durden explained that a portion of the property could keep its current zoning (referencing the portion of land East of Sherman Creek), while the rest of the property could be rezoned. She stated that the applicant would need to provide a legal description for that lesser (Eastern) portion of land that would be kept as Conservation zoning. She stated because the City had advertised for the entire property, only rezoning a portion of it would not conflict with City policy concerning proper public noticing. Ms. Durden referenced the map submitted by the applicant, and displayed during the meeting, and stated that the Board could use that map (which displays a line approximately 550 feet West of Sherman Creek) in order to approve a partial rezoning of the property (short of an official legal description for that portion of land.) She also explained that the Board could also limit the developers to certain development conditions within the portion of land that would be rezoned to PUD. Mr. Elmore responded that he believed the applicant’s proposed land use to be within the confines of the PUD already in effect for Fleet Landing. Mr. Reichler questioned if anything within the applicant’s Rezoning Application came into conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including Future Land Use, or with the City’s Future Land Use Regulations. Planner Reeves responded that the Future Land Use of the Property is Residential Medium Density. He explained that when the applicant submits for formal permitting, Staff will then review all of Page 8 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 11 of 63 the proposed construction to verify that it meets the City’s Regulations. Mr. Lindorff mentioned that all environmental regulations would be in effect, however, they would not and do not prevent development. Ms. Lanier asked the applicant, Mr. Wester, if a denial of his rezoning application would denote an inability for the proposed work to take place, or if there would still be a means to undertake the work on the property. Mr. Wester explained that within Fleet is actually stricter than what is allowed them. Chair Paul commented that she would prefer that a rezoning take place now with the restrictions proposed by Fleet Landing, rather than the property be sold at some point and a possible rezoning be proposed that would allow for even greater development on the property. She stated that she was in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Simmons referenced the five proposed grounds for approval and questioned if it could be confirmed officially that development will not encroach on the areas set aside for conservation. City Attorney Brenna Durden explained that Sherman Creek is mentioned within the current legal descriptions, i.e. “East of Sherman Creek” and “West of Sherman Creek”. Ms. Simmons recommended that, pending Board approval, the Board place a condition on their recommendation of approval that explicitly stated the area of land to be left zoned for Conservation (that is, the portion of land from the Eastern property line, West approximately 550 feet.) Landing’s PUD, the covenants and restrictions state that sole direct access to the development and non‐development parcels, shall be from Fleet Landing Blvd. Therefore, the proposed development is within Fleet Landing’s rights, however, the proposed development Motion Mr. Elmore moved to recommend approval of 17‐REZN‐389 based upon the condition that the conservation easement (meaning, the land from the Eastern property line, and West 550 feet as designated on the map brought before the Community Development Board) is to be described as discussed and the description is to be brought to the City Commission when the application is heard before them. The Board’s approval is dependent upon this description being included in the application packet that is brought to the City Commission. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. Page 9 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 12 of 63 Prior to the Board’s vote being called, Mr. Reichler requested that an amendment be made to Mr. Elmore’s motion. The Board discussed in more detail what the different conditions of approval should be. Mr. Reichler made a new motion to recommend approval to the City Commission of case 17‐REZN‐389 with the conditions that: the application is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, especially its future land use element; its proposed development is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the City’s existing Land Development Regulations; approval is contingent upon that no development of any kind, including but not limited to, walkways, roads and structures occur within 550 feet of the Eastern property line, this area generally shown as the Conservation Area on the PUD Modification Site Plan. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. Ms. Simmons amended the motion to also include the three conditions of approval in the one Staff Report power point presentation in addition to the other two conditions of approval in the second staff report, in the hard copy report on page 6 of 8. These five conditions are as follows: 1. Use of the property shall be limited to the following (1) expansion of an existing adjacent stormwater retention pond, (2) access roadway, (3) sanitary sewer lift station, (4) nature trail, and (5) wetland preserve. A temporary construction staging area is permitted but shall be removed and the area reasonably restored within 90 days of receipt of a certificate of occupancy for the independent living facility 2. In addition to the Chapter 24 Land Development Regulations, development of the subject property shall be carried in compliance with the provisions of Chapters 8 Flood Hazard Protection and 23 Protection of Trees and Native Vegetation of the COAB Code of Ordinances 3. Notwithstanding the additional limits set forth above and the addition of the 480‐unit independent living facility, the currently authorized 324 residential units (320 built) and 88 nursing care beds (88 built) shall remain in effect. 4. That no development of any kind, including but not limited to walkways, roads, and structures, occur within 550 feet of the eastern property line. This area is generally shown as the “Conservation Area” on the “PUD Modification Site Plan.” 5. That the permitted uses on the land west of a line 550 feet from the eastern property line include those allowed in the PUD created by 90‐88‐135, as amended, to specifically include the Page 10 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 13 of 63 following items shown in the PUD Modification Site Plan: an elevated nature trail no wider than 6 feet; to the west and north of that a lift station; to the south of that a temporary construction staging area; to the west of that a two‐way road as approved by the Fire Marshall; to the west of that a 5 to 8 foot wide sidewalk; and to the west of that a storm water retention pond expansion. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion as amended by Ms. Simmons. The motion carried 6‐1 with Ms. Workman as the dissenting vote. D. 17‐UBEX‐329 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Brightway Auto Sales) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 63, to allow an establishment for the sale of automobiles as listed in Section 24-111(c)(10) in the Commercial General zoning district at 580 Mayport Road. Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that the applicant is requesting that a section of the property in question along Mayport Road (at the corner of Mayport Road and 6th Street W), be granted as parking spaces for cars that are for sale. The property is zoned Commercial General (CG). The Future Land Use is also Commercial. The surrounding properties have mixed zoning classifications, including Single and Two Family, and the properties across from it on Mayport Road are largely Residential. The applicant is proposing to use the paved area along Mayport road on‐site as an area where cars can be parked that are for sale. Such use of the property requires an approved use‐by‐exception as the sale of automobiles on properties zoned Commercial General always requires a use‐by‐exception per City code. It is an existing non‐conforming property, but the proposed use would be to use the property as it stands today on the existing paved lot. Evidence on‐site suggests that the property was used for car sales in the past as well. Without a use‐by‐exception though, such use would be nonconforming. Planner Reeves listed some of the current nonconformities of the property: They lack the required 10 foot landscape buffer along Mayport Road; The vehicle use area along Mayport Road and 6th Street West has no screening; All parking backs into the City Right‐ Page 11 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 14 of 63 Applicant Comment Board Discussion Atlantic Beach. Mr. Hawkins studies he has had conducted have shown that a large portion of his business at the Atlantic Beach location in question, comes from a 5 miles radius of the property. Ms. Workman questioned who would be updating the property (landscaping, etc.): Mr. Hawkins (the tenant) or the owner of the property. Mr. Hawkins replied that he would probably be maintaining such updates to the property. He then gave a more broad history of the property and commented that for about 25 years, the property has been used for used car sales such as his use currently. Public Comment of‐Way; The driveway width is approximately 300 feet wide (as opposed to the required 20 foot width); They do not meet the minimum tree requirement. In addition to these, off street parking requirements are not met currently. Ryan Hawkins, 13020 Biggin Church Road S, Jacksonville 32224, owner of the used car lot, explained the parking situation between units (his included) on the property and commented that the parking requested for his business does not and will not block the Mr. Reichler questioned if landscaping the property as required (planting a 3 foot hedge along Mayport Road) would be a hardship for Mr. Hawkins, as it would cover the front of the cars. Mr. Hawkins replied that it would not be a hardship, however, it would lessen the exposure of the cars to those passing by, and he would prefer a shorter hedge along the road. Ms. Simmons questioned why Mr. Hawkins desired to stay within parking for any of the other tenants. He argued that the parking he is requesting has been used for this purpose historically as well for the same purpose. replied that Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With none, public comment was closed. Chair Paul commented that if the Board chose to approve this application, they could use it as an opportunity to have the property owner come into code compliance vis‐à‐vis the stipulations the Board puts on the approval. Page 12 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 15 of 63 Ms. Lanier commented that the Board has, to date, been ethical in their decisions toward other requests for and by car lots. She noted that as this is not a new business, it makes for a complicated situation. Ms. Workman questioned Staff regarding the property owner’s responsibility to come into code compliance in light of the many nonconforming issue on the site. Planner Reeves explained the conditions in which the owner would be required to come into compliance with the code, none of which are that of a change of tenant situation, which is what the current situation is. Ms. Workman questioned if the use‐by‐exception (if granted) would stay in effect with the property regardless of future ownership. Planner Reeves stated that the use‐by‐exception would only be in effect with the current property owner. Should the property be sold, the use‐by‐exception would no longer be in effect. What’s more, should the current tenant requesting the use‐by‐ exception move from the property, the use‐by‐exception would no longer be in effect. Mr. Elmore discussed the City’s Mayport Road Corridor study, and the vision that the City has for this area. Mr. Hawkins stated that he would be repainting the poles (along Mayport Road) and argued that he is doing various site‐ improvements to enhance the appearance of the property. He commented that there was no irrigation along Mayport Road currently, where the aforementioned hedges would be potentially planted. He argued that it would be too lofty of a request to ask the owner to install such an irrigation system. Mr. Elmore commented that in order for him to approve Mr. Hawkins’ request, he would require landscaping along Mayport Road. Mr. Hawkins argued that landscaping as requested would be a difficult thing to achieve, as much of it would require work and financing from the property owner. Planner Reeves informed the Board that they could put stipulations regarding landscaping etc. on an approval of this application, and that the City has a Code Enforcement Officer who could enforce such stipulations. Page 13 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 16 of 63 Ms. Lanier motioned to approve 17‐UBEX‐329 with the stipulation that the area along Mayport Road be landscaped per section City code section 24‐177(d), requiring shrubs along Mayport Road as well as 2 trees (a palm tree would suffice.) The Board asked the applicant, Mr. Hawkins, if such stipulations would be a hardship. Mr. Hawkins recommended that the Board approve the application with such stipulations, and see how the City Commission responded to the application once it goes before them. Mr. Elmore seconded Ms. Lanier’s motion, with the additional stipulation that the number of vehicles is limited to an amount of cars that does not impede upon the City sidewalk and right‐ of‐way, namely, 10 cars. The motion carried 6‐1 with Ms. Workman as the dissenting vote. 5. REPORTS. A. Administrative Variances Approved Planner Reeves stated that there had been none. B. Staffing Update Planner Reeves noted that the City has advertised for a Zoning Technician and Planner, however, only one position will be filled, depending upon the qualifications of the applicants. He also noted that the Director position for the Community Development Department closed and no interviews were conducted and as of now, has not been reopened. Ms. Workman commented that there are no teeth in the City’s current Code Enforcement program. Chair Paul gave examples of situations where the City’s Code Enforcement has been effective. Mr. Hawkins questioned if the hedges had to be 3 foot tall along Mayport Road. Motion C. Board Member Review Discussion Planner Reeves explained that the Board Member Review Committee has been meeting to address the issues of Board Member recruiting, training, evaluation, and retention. He asked the Board if they had any suggestions regarding these issues. Chair Paul commented that they are looking to find better ways to recruit applicants for the various City Boards that is more Page 14 of 15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 17 of 63 sustainable and less dependent upon current events going on in the City. Ms. Lanier gave examples of what other cities do to engage citizens in governance. She gave the example of Jacksonville Beach, which gives annual bus tours for citizens where City Officials explain city property and issues to the citizens. She commented that there is far less citizen engagement in the City of Atlantic Beach. Ms. Lanier also commented that there could be greater training for Board members as to the way that the City government works, regarding the various Boards and the Commission and the processes, which affect and create law. She also commented that evaluations of applicants for Board membership would be a good idea. She argued that applicants should be able to prove that they have the necessary qualifications in order to become a Board member. Ms. Lanier commented on the opportunity that a program of mentorship and training for new, younger Board members could have for the prospective future of elected leadership. Ms. Simmons commented on the importance of training for new Board members so they understand the process they are a part of. Mr. Elmore commented on the precedent that the decisions made by the Community Development Board have in the City. He noted that an understanding of the importance of the Board’s decisions, could be communicated via education and training for new members. Chair Paul requested that the Board email Planner Reeves with any recommendations they have. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motioned carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:27pm. _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest Page 15 of 15 Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 18 of 63 ITEM 2.B                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 19 of 63 OLD BUSINESS. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. 3. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD April 18th, 2017 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. 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 20 of 63 surface Applicant Comment 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 required. Planner Reeves explained that retention swales would be pointed away from the Residential properties to the north. also 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. Elmore questioned how storm water retention would be mitigated. He asked what other landscaping would be Mr. Reichler questioned the impervious surface requirements. Planner Reeves explained that the lot has a limit of 70% impervious that will be calculated by staff when the proposed construction goes through the permitting process. 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 21 of 63 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 22 of 63 Motion 4. NEW BUSINESS. Staff Report 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. A. 17‐ZVAR‐457 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Jen Smith and Brett Nansen) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to Linkside PUD 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). 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 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 23 of 63 Applicant Comment Public 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. 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. 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. Board Discussion With no additional comment public comment was closed. 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 24 of 63 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 Staff Report 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. 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). 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. 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 25 of 63 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 26 of 63 complain of not wanting to see their [Commercial] neighbor’s neighbors in the 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. Applicant Comment Public Comment 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. 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. Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd St, Atlantic Beach 32233, commented that residential City’s Light‐Industrial area often                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 27 of 63 No 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. Motion 5. REPORTS. 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 Administrative Variances approved since the last 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. Ms. Simmons moved to deny 17‐ZVAR‐461. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. A. Administrative Variances Approved were 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 28 of 63 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 29 of 63 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 30 of 63 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 West 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 31 of 63 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 32 of 63 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 33 of 63 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 34 of 63     Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 35 of 63 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.                                     Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 36 of 63 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 2 of 3   Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 37 of 63 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. Page 3 of 3 Co m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 A g e n d a P a c k e t Pa g e 3 8 o f 6 3 Co m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 A g e n d a P a c k e t Pa g e 3 9 o f 6 3 Co m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 A g e n d a P a c k e t Pa g e 4 0 o f 6 3 Co m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 A g e n d a P a c k e t Pa g e 4 1 o f 6 3 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 42 of 63 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 43 of 63 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-y7hav7 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 44 of 63 au P4J6room NTIEIWPM. 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. . 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:$o.-s-;.;.:14 I (O cd o yw';_w <n ':..: _". .'m:..1.. I Z 3 m-b-• U paf' .Y• ..W ..L7.. M • m r 0 0 tis: r.(- 1 :cS1 Rau ° one[1C CTi`E„:ti rt i.., Y-gg IS 0 0 I: Lo in NN i`i? r -g 1 O tn3n ZZ PART OF LOT 77A i REMNNDER OF LOT 77A I I 0 0NOTSHOWNORINCLUDED IN 1195 SURVEY 41 CO (/)CE EL01°(‘' t . I nI 4--PART OF LOT 76A — . _ r4•. • i 1 LLI.1.41.rJ aq C-rf ,C' c FOUND 1/2`IRON PIPE RIC NAB&Dt NO KENBFICtOON S89'50'00''W 100.00' I LB/3622 Nti REMAINDER OF LOT 76A 2 NOT SHOWN OR INCLUDED W IN THIS SURVEY j8 nh FOUND X-CUT AS N 20INSPROPERTYLFLOOD €Tr PER FLOOD N9AIREF AMPP 0794 OINK MINIM•COWART/No. 110075.WP/PUE1 W. 1209C-0407-7E REVISED S.REVISED J 2013 BEARER'S RASED OR THE SOON NOR-or-Nor LIE CF20111STREETASNOR'N'750'0"E NTS DOgIES NOT 7O SCALE N7D11S 6 9000 FENCE EXCEPT AS NOTED CQTBFlID TO: PERE WY E ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS DAT ARE NOT SNDON TREMA$ 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 AIDTHORDREtIamma,mORIXRDENNOT UR 11110 AND 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 45 of 63 - 4141- ir' 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. 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' 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 46 of 63 may r J 217MW y1,...: i _ . . now. , 4000.: sc.-. , 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 47 of 63 ' 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 48 of 63 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 49 of 63     Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 50 of 63     Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 51 of 63 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 52 of 63 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. Page 2 of 3   Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 53 of 63 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. Page 3 of 3 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($250.00) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS CORRECT: Signature of owner(s)or authorized person if owner's authorization form is attached: Printed or typed name(s): Ili rr ber 4..L3 5(yL-k-\ tAj il Signatures6 o5 iv fit' — ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name: ,,i,nt,bef L 3 t- f'h 1.0«r-e,(> Mailing Address: 162 ZJ J(-C-1L'-c)4—. Al on j r 86-k f)3 23-3 PhoneRN •CiC1 I • I I FAX: E-mail: Cl.)cb each 4-cacher6)96,41.0. C Ary, Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 54 of 63 The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please check the circumstances that apple to Your request and briefly describe in the space provided. d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variance may be granted,at the discretion of the Community DevelopmentBoard,for the following reasons. 1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. 2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. 3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. 4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. 5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. t .4' .(-rpn pl b I 1 f. S AM. _ •C1.)Y6." Sbr ri C I0SP+ + `12$€ 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 for365daysfromthedateofdenial. 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 55 of 63 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 56 of 63 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 57 of 63 BOUNDARY 92/2007 13:23 9042150910 LIGHTHalSE SURVEYING PAGE 02 MAP SHOWING 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 58 of 63 reetzipill si File No. 1 1 PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM c: code 32233 State County Duval n; First C 004. 11 e I 1.• i. I..", jjt r t. , FR A. SUONTBJECT PROPVIEWOFERTY i 1 4AIL1', xY REAR VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY t' _, y J Community Development Board June 20, 2017 Agenda Packet Page 59 of 63 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 60 of 63 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 61 of 63 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 62 of 63 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 63 of 63