The URL can be used to link to this page

11-21-17 Agenda Packet CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / November 21, 2017 / 6:00 PM Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes. A. Minutes of the October 17, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. A. ZVAR17‐0007 PUBLIC HEARING (Zachary Crabtree) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12‐C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12‐C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12‐C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane). 4. New Business. A. ZVAR17‐0008 PUBLIC HEARING (Sarah “Sally” L. Young) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10‐B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10‐B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North Sherry Drive). B. ZVAR17‐0010 PUBLIC HEARING (Lori Gaglione) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the permitted height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section 24‐157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina Drive). C. ZVAR17‐0009 PUBLIC HEARING (Thomas James Belich Jr.) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, for relief from the Section 24‐88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24‐88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence to allow the addition of a porch in the rear at Section “H” the west 30 feet of Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th Street). 5. Reports. A. Administrative Variances Approved (None) 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 atte n d the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Any person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should submit a Comment Card located at the entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting. Please note that all meetings are live streamed and videotaped. The video is available at www.coab.us. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at any meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the City not less than three (3) days prior to the date of this meeting at the address or phone number above. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD October 17, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. All members were present. Also present were Planner Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board Secretary Grace Mackey and Mr. John Wallace representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the July 18th, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board Ms. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. ZVAR17‐0004 PUBLIC HEARING (Nathan Howell) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the minimum parking dimensions of nine feet by eighteen feet as required by Section 24-161(g)(1) to nine feet by thirteen feet in order to install a fence in the front yard at Ocean Grove Unit One on the North 54.15 feet of Lot 2, Block 6 (aka 46 Coral Street). Staff Report Planner Broedell explained that this variance is a request to reduce the minimum parking dimensions requirement. The property has an attached townhome and it is the front unit. The zoning is residential general multi‐ Page 1 of 8 Board Discussion family and future land use designation is residential low density. The proposed plan is to install a 4 foot fence in the front yard. Because the use is residential, 2 parking spaces are required and each one needs to be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep. This request would result in an area for both parking spaces 19 feet wide by 13 feet deep. Due to the reduction in the depth of the parking, any cars parked there would stick out into the right of way. 10 feet of concrete driveway exists between the property line and edge of street pavement. No side walk Nathan Howell introduced himself as the owner of 46 Coral Street. He explained that if the fence were to be built he could park 3 cars and they would go into the right of way but not into the street. He has 2 dogs and said that this would help with the dogs and any children in the future. Chair Paul asked if he would be leaving the concrete that is already there once the fence is installed and the owner said yes. Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Chair Paul. Ms. Lanier inquired whether the city has plans for sidewalks in this area. currently exists in this area. Another consideration is that in the code it states that "except smaller dimensions may be provided for single family residential lots", it's far more than the 5% administrative variance that Planner Reeves could approve. Mr. Stratton requested further explanation of these facts while addressing them on the overhead screen. There was discussion of the length of vehicles, green space, etc. Applicant Comment Public Comment Planner Reeves said there were no plans for sidewalks for this street at this time. Ms. Lanier asked if there is another way to get to the grassy area without going onto the wood deck. There was discussion as to whether there were any other fence design options. After several suggestions Planner Reeves explained that all of these suggestions would still be in need of a variance for one of the parking spaces. The board continued discussing changing the pass through thereby only affecting one of the parking spots and the common occurrence of parking in the right of way in Atlantic Beach. Ms. Lanier asked what was concluded in regards to changing the pass through. It was clarified that the fence could now run along the deck and jut out to create a pass through of 42 inch by 42 inch. Page 2 of 8 Motion Ms. Lanier made a motion that the board approve ZVAR17‐0004 with stipulation that from east to west the fence tracks the wooden deck with the exception of a 42 inch by 42 inch access between the wooden deck and the grassy area to the east. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. ZVAR17‐0005 PUBLIC HEARING (Kayla Sim) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence to allow the addition of an open porch in the rear at Aquatic Gardens, Lot 17-D (aka 720 Aquatic Drive). Staff Report Planner Broedell explained that Agenda Item 4.B is a 2 part variance, request for relief from Section 24‐88(b) and 24‐88(c) which are part of the townhome construction and design requirements. 720 Aquatic is the southernmost unit of a 4 unit townhome building in Aquatic Gardens. The property is zoned RGM (residential general multi‐family) and the future land use is residential high density. The proposed plan is to construct an open porch in the rear of the townhome. A picture from the applicant shows where posts already exist so they would be putting a composite aluminum roof over those posts. There are existing concrete pavers and some are placed over an existing concrete slab. The proposed porch would only extend over the concrete slab with the pavers on it. One part of the need for a variance would be because the proposed aluminum roof would result in a different architectural style as well as different materials from the adjoining townhomes for this unit. Also, the construction of this porch is considered an addition and an expansion of the existing building footprint which according to Section 24‐88(c) adjoining townhome dwelling units are required to be constructed in a continuance sequence unless the existing structure is being renovated within the same building footprint. It was noted that this porch, if installed, would meet the setback requirements for the RGM zoning district. Page 3 of 8 Mr. Elmore asked if they were adding any other impervious surface and if so, was it under the 50%. Planner Reeves explained that he hasn’t checked the impervious surface but because they are covering existing concrete it wouldn't need to be checked. Ms. Simmons asked what impact the porch roof would have on the neighbor immediately to the north. Planner Broedell showed on the screen how it wouldn't affect any of the neighbors. Applicant Comment Kayla Sim introduced herself as the owner of 720 Aquatic Drive. Ronnie Runyen introduced himself as the general contractor who is assisting the homeowner with the plan for this variance. Chair Paul asked whether there was a roof when the homeowner bought the home and the homeowner acknowledged that there was and it had a leak so it was taken down. Mr. Stratton asked if a variance is needed to replace an existing roof. Planner Reeves explained that it was a nonconforming structure in the past and because they removed it, then you can't go back with it without approval. The City Attorney acknowledged that this was correct. The use of different roofing materials was brought up again. Mr. Runyen explained that the fascia part of the aluminum roof would be the same color as the fascia on the building itself and the roof slope will not be steep so there will not be much visibility of the top of the roof. He went on to say that it is in the back yard and there is a fence. Mr. Reichler questioned why they were using aluminum instead of shingles. The contractor explained that it was for durability and cost. There was further discussion in regards to the materials and the roof pitch. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Chair Paul. Board Discussion The board discussed the fact that when the homeowner bought the property it had a roof on the porch and replacing that roof seems very reasonable. Motion Mr. Stratton made a motion that the board approve ZVAR17‐0005 for the reason stated in paragraph #4: onerous effect of regulations enacted after plotting. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Page 4 of 8 outside the dwelling zone except as in hereafter provided". Planner Reeves explained while referencing the overhead diagram what was the dwelling zone (buildable area on lot defined by setbacks), those setbacks being 20 feet in the front and rear and the sides being 10 feet on both sides. Enclosed swimming pools (screen enclosures) do not have additional regulations permitting them to be outside of that dwelling zone. The variance request is to allow the screen enclosure to be outside of that dwelling zone. Planner Reeves explained that there are 11 or 12 PUD's that make up the C. ZVAR17‐0007 PUBLIC HEARING (Zachary Crabtree) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane). Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that this variance is a request for a screen enclosure at 1865 Live Oak Lane in the Selva Marina neighborhood. This is use. The proposed plan is to construct a screen enclosure over a previously permitted pool and outdoor kitchen that will be 7 feet 10 inches from the rear property line and 5 feet from the side property line. The rendering of the proposed enclosure was shown on the overhead. Section 3(d) of the PUD text states that "no dwelling, fence, walls, detached out buildings, enclosed swimming pool or similar structure shall be located, placed, altered or permitted on any lot in said subdivision a planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, Selva Marina Unit 12‐C with a residential future land Planner Reeves pointed out the neighborhood on the overhead showing the neighborhood and property. blue area that he referenced on the overhead. All of them are pretty much in the same situation as far as being approved in the late 70's and platted early 80's. This was around the same time that the city did a massive code update in 1982 where, in order to keep these as PUD's, George Bull the developer provided the covenants and restrictions as the governing text for each of these PUD's. It is specifically stated in the covenants that the city is to enforce these regulations within the area but that has not always been recognized by the city. Typically cities do not enforce covenants and restrictions, those are private restrictions that the HOA or individual owners are responsible for enforcing, not the cities. Because the city wasn't always enforcing them it has resulted in a lot of mismatch of construction in places where they would have applied the cities standard zoning whether an addition, screen enclosure, etc. In the city zoning code is Section 24‐151(b)(1)(l) and that allows screen enclosures to be 5 feet Page 5 of 8 Applicant Comment from side property lines. So if applied in this instance they are within those requirements and would have been approved administratively. But because we have to enforce these PUD regulations, that is why we are here today, to allow it to be outside the dwelling zone as defined earlier. Planner Reeves gave further clarification regarding PUD's as the board had several questions. There was discussion of the screen enclosures height and whether it is attached or detached. The screen enclosure height can be a maximum of 15' because it is listed as an accessory structure. association still operating and if you don't make certain notices under that statute, those covenants automatically expire and are null and void as a matter of law by the statute. If you don't catch them (the association) within a 30 year time, they have to be revived by 51% of all the affected owners or they're still not impacted. Many of these old covenants are contrary to current zoning code. We would not be here other than the road block of these old, ancient covenants. He said the applicant is being impacted by covenants that are expired. Charles Brown introduced himself as an attorney representing the applicant. He explained his involvement with this topic and the fact that most of these covenants and restrictions from the 70's and 80's have or been expired by operation of law. There's a statute called the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712 Florida Statutes. It's not invoked very often. It was created back in the 60's and it was used for a portion of 10‐15 years to eliminate old restrictions. The way it works is when you look at a deed or snapshot in time, you go back in time 30 years and see if there are any covenants and restrictions restrictions as to use (voluntary, not governmental) by a developer or builder. If there are no restrictions recorded at that time, you're free and clear of it. If you don't have the Chair Paul asked at what point Mr. Brown believes the covenants expired. He noted that they were notarized on March 28, 1980 and would have expired after 30 years. There was lengthy discussion in regards to this new information. The Board asked Staff whether the city was aware of this and what the city attorney thought. Planner Reeves did point out that a PUD is public record whereas covenants and restrictions are private. The city attorney wasn't able to comment whether it applied to a PUD. Kerry Varkonda introduced himself as the owner of 1865 Live Oak Lane. Mr. Varkonda explained that he had met with the city and asked what did he need to do to get this done and he was told he would need a variance. So he decided to split the 2 things (the pool and the screen enclosure) because he wanted to do something with his back yard and if he can't get Page 6 of 8 the screen enclosure, he'll live with it. That is why he went ahead with the pool. When Mr. Varkonda discovered the problem with the PUD he went and met with Mr. George Bull, Jr. to talk about it. Mr. Bull said there was a group of 3 members that used to meet to resolve these situations but this organization was dissolved in 2011. The LLC that was in place to enforce this is no longer in existence. He offered to and did write a letter to Planner Reeves explaining all of this. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Chair Paul. Board Discussion The city attorney did explain that there has been discussion of getting rid of all these PUD's and adopting one comprehensive overlay but that is in the early stages of development. The Board clarified that if they give the variance it stands alone and it's not setting precedence. The Board discussed whether or not the property would be considered to be in an "exceptional circumstance" because of the adoption of the PUD as described in this section. Chair Paul brought up the point that she would have a hard time enforcing something (the PUD) that hasn't been enforced to date. Mr. Stratton asked Planner Reeves if this structure that is being proposed were to be proposed for 8th Street or 9th Street, would it require a variance. Planner Reeves said no. Motion Mr. Elmore made a motion to defer ZVAR17‐0007 with a request for additional information and clarification on these PUDs in general and the potential impact of the Marketable Record Title Act. Mr. Recihler seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. D. UBEX17‐0003 PUBLIC HEARING (Eric Luman) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 111(c)(3), to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code at 1237 Mayport Road. Chair Paul announced that the application had been withdrawn. Planner Reeves explained that a use‐by‐exception was no longer needed for the proposed use after the City Commission passed the ordinance creating the Mayport Business Overlay District. Page 7 of 8 under the moratorium that was passed a little over a year ago and recently extended so we can address this. an ordinance with revised text to the Land Development Regulations and Staff will come before you with a recommendation with a public hearing and then move forward to Commission for their public hearings and votes. The first step we're looking at taking is a public outreach component including some type of public hearing in early to mid‐November. The meeting will help us gather some public input to help direct us in our 5. REPORTS A. Administrative Variances Approved No Administrative Variances have been approved since the last Community Development Board Meeting. B. Automotive Service Station Moratorium Update Planner Reeves explained that there was some information in the agenda packet for the board to look at in regards to how to fix the issue of gas stations, service stations, automotive repair, etc. All the subjects that fall Moving forward, this will be language before we bring it to the Board. Planner Reeves asked if the Board would be open to a meeting with the commission. The Board agreed to meet with the City Commissioners with the condition that there is an agenda and some direction. 6. ADJOURNMENT Chair Paul moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest Page 8 of 8 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 3.A CASE NO. ZVAR17-0007 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane). LOCATION 1865 Live Oak Lane APPLICANT Zachary Crabtree DATE November 14, 2017 STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Zachary Crabtree who is representing the owners of 1865 Live Oak Lane. The property is zoned PUD in the Selva Marina neighborhood and has an existing single family home. The owners are building a new outdoor kitchen and pool in the back yard of the property and would like to have that area covered by screen enclosure that would be 5 feet from the side property lines and 7 feet 10 inches from the rear property line. A variance is required for the screen enclosure because it does not meet the required setbacks of the PUD. This property is part of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD and plat. The plat includes the southern portion of Hickory Lane, Dale Lane and the northern portion of Live Oak Lane. The PUD was approved in 1978 by the Commission and the plat was approved in 1980 by the Commission. The Covenants and Restrictions for the PUD, which are usually not enforced by a municipality, were provided to the City as the PUD’s governing text. The Covenants do define the City’s enforcement powers in the PUD. A copy is attached to the end of this report. Section III(D) of the Covenants states, “No dwelling, fence, wall, detached outbuilding, enclosed swimming pool or similar structure shall be located, placed, altered or permitted on any lot in said subdivision outside of the dwelling zone, except as hereinafter provided.” The dwelling zone is defined by setbacks of 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet in each side yard. Outbuildings, fences and pools are granted exceptions with defined setbacks of 5 feet from side and rear yards in addition to other requirements, but screen enclosures or enclosed swimming pools are not. This would mean that they are required to meet the setbacks of the dwelling zone. The proposed setbacks of a 5 foot side yard and 7 foot 10 inch rear do not meet the setbacks of the dwelling zone. When reading the Covenants, there are several references to a Special Advisory Planning Board that is required to grant approvals in the PUD. However, this board no longer exists and the applicant has provided a letter from a former member stating the board became inactive in 2011. The Covenants then defer responsibilities to the City. Just as if a proposed project did not meet the City’s zoning code, it would have to get a variance, when a proposed project doesn’t meet the requirements of the PUD, it must get a variance. Historically, it appears that the City has not always recognized and enforced these Covenants, which has resulted in a hodgepodge of development in this PUD, and others with similar circumstances. This means that the City’s normal zoning code was applied. If the City’s normal zoning code was applied to this screen enclosure, it would be approved administratively as the side and rear yard setbacks are 5 feet for such a structure. Ultimately, staff would like to explore corrective measures for these PUDs that would address the nonexistent boards and to make zoning requirements consistent. November 14, 2017 Update At the October 17, 2017 meeting of the Community Development Board, a couple of questions were asked of staff to report back on at the next meeting. The first question was to see the ordinance that created the PUD. Staff has learned that this PUD, and all of those approved from 1972 when PUDs first were allowed until 1982 when the code was rewritten, was not approved with an ordinance. Most PUDs from this era were zoned to an appropriate zoning district when the code was rewritten in 1982. A select few PUDs from this era were allowed to remain as PUDs because of the platting and texts (Covenants and Restrictions) provided. The attached minutes from the City Commission’s March 24, 1980 show the approval of the plat and Covenants and Restrictions. It is because of this approval and the recognition of the area as a PUD on the Official Zoning Map that the City enforces the Covenants and Restrictions. Additionally, and as mentioned earlier, the Covenants and Restrictions also call out the City’s responsibilities to enforce the regulations. Another question arose after the applicant’s representative brought the Marketable Record Title Act and its impact on this property and variance request into the discussion. Several board members asked the City Attorney and staff for clarity on potential impacts of the act. The City Attorney and staff have reviewed the act and believe that it has no impact on municipal zoning and only on the privately enforceable Covenants and Restrictions. It is believed based on the comments of the applicant’s representative, Mr. Brown that he only meant to say that the neighborhood allowed the Covenants and Restrictions to lapse under the act, which speaks to the neighborhood’s lack of desire to continue the rules contained within. Page 2 of 4 ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. The applicant stated in their application that they are trying to rebuild the outdoor space in the form of a wood deck that they had before with a new screen enclosure around a patio and pool. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Page 3 of 4 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0007, request to decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane), 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 ZVAR17-0007, request to decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane), or it is not 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 4 of 4 ~~kt9~,fl!sL AITORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW R.R.CRABTREE CHARLES W. BROWN, JR. ZACHARY C. CRABTREE RACHEL R. TAUBE A. M. CRABTREE, JR. (1924-1995) 8777 SAN JOSE BOULEVARD BUIWING A, SUITE 200 JACKSONVIllE, FLORIDA 32217 TELEPHONE (904) 732-9701 TELECOPIER (904) 732-9702 September 25,2017 The City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 RE: Variance Application Property -1865 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Dear Sir or Madaam: Enclosed please find four (4) copies ofMr. and Mrs. Varkonda's ("Owners") variance application along with a check in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and Noll 00 ($250.00) for the application fee. Also enclosed within the application itself is the Agent Authorization Form allowing our office to act on behalf of the Owners. If there is anything else you may need, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned . Sincerely Yours, ~rabtre:= SEP 2 5 2017 SEP 25 2017 APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE City of Atlantic Beach . 800 Seminole Road . Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445 Phone: (904) 247-5800 . FAX (904) 247-5845 . http://www.coab.us File No. ~ Date ----+'1+--/ ~--+sf--L.., It «.\1--0 OJ1' --'--- 1. Applicant's Name -+"'''4-=:......:;~---lo...::.!........lro£~I.L...-'!...!.!<~~~~-=-_~U!LI!L:!!._=...!...-...JU:oaJ(-W~=.,-=t..::!:::::JI~~~ 2. Appli~nrsAddre~~~~~__~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5. Current Zoning Classification PtA D 7. 3. Property Location 4. Property Appra iser's Real Estate Nu mber _--'----'--=-"-"__"""--_---"'---''-'-''''''_____________ 6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation Provision from which Variance is requested....:...frJ~:......J:1f...lJ~L~~--..!1~II!....!~~~~~~~~~~=-.£lj~-~~4 S~~.s. 8. Size of Parcel 1 0 X 10 C> 9. Homeowner's A~ociation or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction. DYes ~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 11 xl'? 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): _~:.t..J.L....!!~~A ~y c.. C -==-=...:....!.....:=£~=z,...... ~¥--~~_=..:..,r ~~+;~~~..:...._______ Signature(s): ~ ADDRESS ~NTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICAnON Name: -Zc:...C, bo.v ,/ G C.vJ...Jvee. /UJ....hcee L ac ~) G~O(A.I')1 e.A. . Mailing Address: 8777 ~m Tt# dlvdy 6(J.~. 4. 5fe.. '2.00, ~.,,; ft, Jl?/7 Phone: 10Y-7j2-'70 ( FAX: 1o¥-7]'l,-12()"'L E-mail ~~~C¥~~e£;YM1 .t:~. The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please check the circumstances that apply 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 Development Board , for the following reasons . o (I) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. ______________ o (2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. o (3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in thearea. ______________________ __________________ ~ (4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property . S« ~.£4G.-... jf "f) f11 6 ,.......-Z5 o (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration . ______________________ o (6) substandard size of a Lot of Record warranting a Variance in order to provide for the reasonable Use of the property. ___________________________________________________________ (e) Approval of 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. (t) Approval of Lesser Variances. The Community Development Board shall have the authority to approve a lesser Variance than requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter . (g) Nearby Nonconformity . Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures or Buildings shall not be grounds for approval of a Variance. (h) Waiting period for re-submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board, no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for 365 days from the date of denial. (i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board , the work to be performed pursuant to a Variance shall begin within six (6) months from the date of approval of the Variance. The Community Development Director, upon finding of good cause, may authorize a one time extension not to exceed an additional six (6) months, beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void. U) 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. or lessen aesthetics of the community. ..r,n",rt ..,,, Statement of Reasoning for Variance an introduction, our office has pleasure of representing the of both Mr. Kevin Varkonda and Mrs. W. Varkonda ("Varkonda"), owners of Property located at 1865 Live Oak Atlantic Florida ("Property"). The Varkonda's purchased Property in June of201 After at the Property for five (5) they that back wooden deck to house was rotten and need of replacement. to being connected to their house, was a building structure and could not exceed setback requirements Selva Marina. replace the wooden deck, a contractor would need to bring the building structure up to current building codes provided Atlantic Beach. As building structure to brought to code, Varkonda's to the old wooden to include a paver outdoor kitchen, pool, and screened enclosure. They hired a local contractor to renderings of their intended upgrade. drawings are enclosed herein with this application. After the drawings were created, it became known that Selva Marina has 10 foot requirements rather than 5 foot setbacks allowed by the are not on the Marina Plat book 37, (attached hereto). upgrades that do not require a are the outdoor kitchen, the pool, and patio. However, to attach to screerled enclosure to the horne, it would need to be within the 10 foot under Selva If it were not attached to the horne, it would meet requirements 5 there is no way to create this structure without it to the Also variance application is a copy original survey and building structure house (wood deck) as as the new survey drawn with the dimensions of upgraded structure, which would be enclosed by a screen. Allowing for variance would cause the entire structure to be brought to building code for two reasons: 1) it would allow the pool to meet the fencing under the and 2) it would allow the rail to guests, invitees, and the like staying on paver The variance should be for the following reasons. The variance will not increase Impervious Surface of Property as it will be constructed on top of a portion building structure (wood deck) that is already deemed impervious part of the property. Furthermore, the screened enclosure will not increase or U,"""L'-''''';''" the minimum Lot Area or or width the Property nor will it affect light air of the adjacent properties. It will not patterns this area nor will it affect the surrounding property fact, it should enhance Property as well as the n Therefore, due to the onerous effects of the regulations enacted since the wooden deck connected to the home is now needed to be reconstructed, improved, and brought up to the current buildings code, it is necessary that the Varkonda's obtain a variance to allow for the entire new building structure deck, pool, outdoor kitchen, and screened enclosure to encroach into the setback requirements under Selva Marina PUD. While the screened enclosure was not present prior to this new improvement, it is necessary to carry out the same intent of the prior building structure. The pool and outdoor kitchen are already permitted structures and do not need the variance, but when creating the fencing surrounding the pool and the necessary guard rails to protect the patrons on the deck per Atlantic Beach's building codes, the screened enclosure allows for the entire proposals attached to fully comply with any and all requirements of Atlantic Beach and Selva Marina. Thank you for your time in this matter and if you need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely Yours, : hary c. Crabtree, Esq. ~ Property Appraiser -Property Details Page 1 of2 VARKONDA KERRY G 1865 LIVE OAK LN ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 Primary Site Address 1865 LIVE OAK LN Atlantic Beach FL 32233 Official Reqnd Book/Page 15983-01763 Tile # 9409 VARKONDA SUZANNE W 1865 LIVE OAK IN Detail description see section below The sale of this property may result in higher property taxes. For more information go to Save Our Homes and our Property Tax Estimator. 'In Progress' property values, exemptions and other supporting information on this page are part of the working tax roll and are subject to change. Certified values listed in the Value Summary are those certified in October, but may include any official changes made after certification 6126/2017 Learn how the Property Appraiser's Office values property. Taxable Values and Exemptions -In Progress If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value Summary box. County/Municipal Taxable Value (ls.s.~.S~d.'y~.I.u.~...............................................~~.3..I.~~?~:g9. Homestead Homestead Banding 196.031(1)(b) (HB) SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Taxable Value $381,370.00 Taxable Value $381,370.00 ~~~~~.d.Ya..I.u.~.............................................J~~.1.!.3.!9.:g.o. Homestead Banding 196.031(1)(b) (HB) Assessed Value Taxable Value $406,370.00 !442Q-Ql!;l14 3/7/2008 10/16/1998 4/22/1987 9/15/1980 4/4/1980 WD -Warranty Deed $158,000.00 WD -Warranty Deed $17,500.00 WD -Warranty Deed $100,000.00 WD -Warranty Deed Unqualified Unqualified lengthFeature Description Bldg. Fireplace Prefab 0 00Deck WoodenDKWR22 912Deck WoodenDKWR23 12 9COvered Patio4 CVPR2 land &. legal Land Land land APUO land IN CmtI Use Description ValueUnits !In 0100 RES lD 3-7 UNITS PER $180,000.001.00 Lot AC Buildings Building 1 Building 1 Site Address Code Detail 1865 LIVE OAK IN Unit Element 8 8 Horizontal LapExterior WallAtlantic Beach Fl 32233 3 3 Gable or Hip Roof Struct http://apps.coj .netiP A 0 _PropertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 172020 141 0 Total Units 1.00 800.00 108.00 108.00 Value $552.00 $3,432.00 $<163.00 $389.00 37-29 09-2S-29E SELVA MARINA UNIT 12-C2 REPLAT 3 LOT'! Property Appraiser Property Details 2 2 0102 5FR 2 STORY 1981 ROOfing Cover 3 3 Asph/Comp 51'111g Interior Wall 5 5 Drywall Int Flooring 12 12 Hardwood Int Flooring 15 15 Quar/Hrd Tile Heating Fuel 'I " Electric Heating Type 'I 4 Forced-Ducted Air Cond 3 3 central Element Code Stories 2.000 Finished 1162 Bedrooms 3.000 '120Garage Baths 2.500 Base Area 426 Rooms I Units 1.000 Finished upper '10story 1 Finished Open '10Porch Deck 125 finished upper 57story 1 Finished Open 25 0 8Porch Unlin Open 60 0 12Porch Finished Open 60 a 18Porch Finished upper 2425 25story 1 finished Open 2S a 8Porch Total 3759 2872 3135 Property Record Card (PRC) The PRe accessed below reflects property details and values at the time of Tax Roll Certification in October of the year listed. 2016 • To obtain a historic Property Record Card (PRe) from the Property Appraiser's Office, submit your request here: More Information ~I Parcel Tax Record I ~I Map this prooerty on Google Maps I City Fees Record _PropertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 172020 141 0 6/2612017http://apps.coj Doc # 2012134773, OR BK 15983 1763o at 01:01 ,Number: 2, Recorded PM, JIM FULLER CLERK CIRCUIT COURT DUVAL COUNTY RECORDING DEED DOC ST .00 File Number: PVTU360 Warranty Deed This Warranty Deed made this 22nd day of June, 2012, between AJan T. Ennis and Denise Ennis, alkla Denise Alfirevic, busband and wife whose post office address is 191 12th Street, Atlantic Beach. FL 32233. grantor, and Kerry G. Varkonda and Suzanne W. Varkonda, busband and wife whose post office address is 1865 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beacb, FL 32233, grantee: (Whenever used herein the lerms "grantor" and '·.,....,"'Ie".. include al! the parties 10 this instrument and the heirs, legal representalives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and of corporations, lrusts and trustees) Witnesseth, that said gran lor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NOli 00 DOLLARS ($ 10.00) and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Duval County, Florida, to-wit: Lot 4, Selva Marina Unit No. 12-C Replat, according to tbe map or plat thereof, as recorded In Plat Book 37, Page(s) 29, of tbe Public Reeords of Duval County. Florida. Parcel Identification Number: 1720201410 Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. SUBJECT TO covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements of record and taxes for the current year. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee 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 the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except as specified herein. Warrant}' fHed • Page I OR BK 15983 PAGE 1764 In Witness Wbereof. grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and sea) the and year first above written. sealed anlt 4elivered in our presence: Ruth K. McDonald Witness 2 Printed Name State of Plo t:d.dA County of Sf JOhns The instrument was acknowledged before me this JJrtd day of .~U f1 , , Alan T. and Denise Ennis, busband and wife, who are personal~irnown to me or c51) have pr(~duloed A VALlDa-DW\l-F.WStftS~~fication. FMh K. McDonald COMMISSION #EE19837!i EXPIRES: MAt 27,2016 www.MRor;NofARY.com Printed Name: K. McDonald My Commission J..,/I"JU ... ". WlfFran/y Dwi Page 1 ~ ... -' 1-_.................... 0 """,,_00_001:100"'''''''' ~~~~3~§~gi:~~~ ~ ~ OOOONON-G-O~OOO"-~oaeo~o.-eoo-. ~ : ~ g~~*:;~~:~:::~:::a:~~:~:::~i ... ~ -N ........ ~...... a>O_N ... ,. ... ~...... a>O_N..,,. .......... CIo __________ NNNNNN~NN 2 ..LOi ..LJ'o~ .i5ova ~z 3!)NVCJ ',..1.1..11050 Z -.- " ~ ." '~ ". -"I: ~ ~[j] ~ ~ '" i> = ~ - ."'"6 _ " L~' .L"y~ ,"Z ~DNrn:J •nu>os z.: dln"N;.o.L •Of .J.CT'7 -,-/lOP 30 .J.t1Vd .iN»Hd07./I~ 31:trI.JJ"I;t O~Ol::fd :.: ...... ___ >--I-"'~~";::': o ........... eo I-~ ~i~~~ ~ ;I!~l; ~ . 1-....1<:0 I-..... _ ""::::0'" 01-_-0 o-co .... ., ... 0> -ceo .... XCI a> ... x ........ "" ..... -a.. ... o .... ... ..:0 .... 0 ...... . )-0 ...... .., >""I"'''' ,.. co ::~~~~ ~ ~ K ~ / ! ~!i!i i, ~i;~~~~ ;;;;~~~: ~;;;; ............ 01-.1-"':z::"'''''' z~ --.~o~ ... ....II-CO ~i!i -~ ::; :l ~ z u -0 .; ~~ L 0 ;:~,:"~;;!cl-:;oa: ... ~~~ i~~~g_~~;~~~~~~ ;::g§~;~;§§E~; :;-~~..... : :~~:;E:~~~~:~~~ ::::0 co u ~ ::!~~~~~8~~ ~ t.Ji~.:$¥iW ... ;~=: ._;;;:I-:=~:;;~:O =:; E8;:;:;:;::8$88~ I~~i~i;~i~~!i~; ~;=::'~::::L:-~-_ ~ ~ r:iR~f<iR~(:\:Q~~~~E~~S~;~~~35~ :=~~::~5:2:~~~:~ co u ~~~~~lf;;;~~ o ~ ~ 4 ~:~;~~a~~:=::~:; I:: :i~~IIi~:i!== oQK~;:::g~~~~~~:~: ~ 888888888ex: _:::::~~:~:~"::::~~::i~: : ~ ~ss~s~5i;d:Q\.,) 0 I-e~~;::~:~;=-~~~~ ~ ~ d ~ §§~~~gi~;~~~~~§ 2 0 >l-f-Z 2 J :l a <t U ~~ z .J ii g 4 :) 2:0 4 -~Q ) I.J w U \Il <l l1J _u ~~ QQ K 0 ~ o ~ _uo ~IO ~~o z \J ~o 2 f= ~~ o _~~2 rZ~ ><1 ~oCi .J K~_ ~t ~ ~ ~ 0 III WLLC(a <l >I 3/1JtfO '\.d. /\t1t13Ht;; HJ...tJON L _____~--~_'\ II A'} / Ia 7~,j;,... ..., v / ..s,:0>-/.......... -7 r ~ I ZZ.---~ -~!.\ ~'.Lo..., I "I .Lo..., ~ 1Pl=~~~:;;g~~ ~ :!~wllilli~s~~ ~ ...J a. LU a: u, N- d z r- Z ::l « z a: <X ~ property is not to any valid assocIatIon and restrictions, and the property is not subject to association dues which are obligated to us as the property owners. By:__--.£----'I Affidavit :seo'temtoer __, 2017 zonlmg section Homeowners Association Affidavit following No.: 172020-1410 Property Address: 1865 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beach, Florida To whom it may concern: I, Kerry G. Varkonda and Suzanne W. Varkonda, hereby certify that that the above By: State of County of Duval The foregoing of September, by W. Varkonda, husband and wife, who produced a driver's license as identification and took an oath. COLLEEN A. KEELING Commission 1# FF 074450 Expires December 7, 2011I!on4ed _ Trar Fain __~!OI9 Seotem!oer --s:----' 2017 Ownership Affidavit Department, zoning section RE: Ownership Affidavit for following site location: 1 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beach, 32233 Parcel No.: 172020-1410 whom it may concern: I, Kerry Varkonda and W. Varkonda, that we are the Owners of the property described above in connection with filing application(s) for a variance to allow for a to be within Selva rear yard setback requirements submitted to the Atlantic Beach .Planning and ., DeP ..""emnt./1.<uartm ~. of Florida County of Duval "-~~ foregoing instrument was acknowledged me this _~_ O. Varkonda and Suzanne W. Varkonda, husband and wife, who produced a day of ......'"'''''''' HU"",.... <VU and an oath. COLLEEN A. KEELING Commission # FF 074450 December 7. 2017 AUTHORIZATION FORM To: City of Atlantic Beach, and any agents and representatives Re: Property Owner -Kerry G. Varkonda and Suzanne W. Varkonda RE No.: 172020-1410 Property Address: 1865 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 We, the undersigned, hereby authorize any agents or representative of The City of Atlantic Beach, to furnish all documents and information relating to the above mentioned property and inquires made thereofto the following attorney and any members of his office and staff: Zachary C. Crabtree, Esquire Crabtree Law Group, P.A. 8777 San Jose Blvd., Bldg. A, Ste. 200 Jacksonville, Florida 32217 We further authorize The City of Atlantic Beach to allow Mr. Crabtree and any members of his office and staff to act on my behalf as it relates to the property, including but not limited to the filing of an application for a variance . The authorization for release of this information includes telephonic communication. A photostatic copy of this authorization shall be considered as effective and valid as the original. This authorization shall be effective for a period of twelve (12) months from the date below. #: 3, July Attn: Mr. Covenants and Restrictions, etc. -Selva Marina Unit No. l{e-l{eCOra Vol 5109 -102 Dear Mr. h.'t:>",uoc was of Development Corporation, March of 1980. The document various covenants and 1''''''M'"Y,~"rw'c aSS~OCl.at€:a with No. is to notify you at time. The r.",'n::lnta and Restrictions document also became inactive at that time. I George Bull, Jr. ----------------------~...--.~-.....~...~....... S 00"24 '53" [ TWO STOR Y FRAME POSlED K186 ~; "-: MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 4, SELVA MARINA UNIT No. 12-C REPLAT, AS RECORDED IN PLA T BOOK 3 7. PACE 29 , OF TII[ CURRCNT puauc RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA CERTIfiED TO KERRY VARK ONOA & SU ZANNE VARKONDA TRUS 1Ll N MORTGAG£ PONTE veDRA TITLE , LLC CH ICAGO n TLE INSURAN CE COMPANY LE GEN D t"'!tc: .. POIIit r 01 .'IIltS ."...,..IIJII( f'ICC .. IICIIIfOlCCMJlllDWCl """'"""'" .. <J:II.;C!I'flt E9 TITLE, L.L.\...I---+---------l LIVE OA K LANE {(lO'~'or_y, N 00"24'53" w N 00'19'55" W 0' w a: ::> ~VI ... « "' w a:' ~ ~'-" 8 "N g ~ -(1) LOT .3 ~ ~. en;" 0 o · · co ~ !" ", (1) 110 CO "' VI 90.00' 89.97' L(lT 90.06' 90 00' ( PLAT ) (MEASURED) 0' w a: ::> VI ~ « I-w "': ~ri irJ ~8 en LOI 5 w ;-.. . w 0 '" . 0 Ill · '" ,n en cr. CO "" Z Z .1 (MEASURED) (PLAT) TWO STORY FRAME POSTED MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 4, SELVA MARINA UNIT No. 12-C REPLAT, AS RECORDED II~ PLAT BOOI( 37, PAGE 29, OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. CERTIFIED TO: I<ERRY VARI<ONDA & SUZANNE VARI<ONDA mUSILINE MORTGAGE PONTE VEDRA TITLE, LLC CHICAGO TillE INSURMICE COMPANY LIVE OAI< LANE (GO' r.:rm or IYA~) N OO'2'~'53" \'I 90.00' (PLAT) N 00"19'55" W 89.97' (MEASURED) pc - DO.CO· (PLAT)::!I 110.71' (IJrASUnW)---::J~!lIII!!I!I!iiili!;----::~r_----~------~_:----~~,~=-~--~-o ~~O.~,'~--~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~--~··~··~·..~--~=-=T·~·-=--==~r-==-=~~~.==~~~.~;=~.~~--- S 00"19'41" E 90,06' (MEASURED) 0.)' S 00'24'53" [ 90.00' (PLAT) :r.C1l0~1 o. 10"M I$1I11" 2 :iO'JlIf. r?AlICE 20 I:'\~T LEGEND: ... ~1 1/2-ntQ...n ~u."p,o PSlIIG140 • roolln In' nOli PIP( 1:0 IO[1I1lf'r..AnOlI V:ILE~ OIH[R\llSE 1101(0) 04-.4-COIiCR[1C 1I0J'UIJr.m .. A!:~ ca:oanO."IElt " rtllCC d - PC _ 1'1 ... POCill or CurtV.\1\JAC POUT or TN'C!I.C"1 rOle ... PCltU or nLv[R5( C~'1VM\Jnc rcc -r(;lUl or CC\1l'OU','Q CU~VA'\);;LG A com:lI(1F. R[VlSIONSRay Tlionipson SURVEYING, Inc. OO\lE OESCRIPnON IGuinn '''~ DISTANCE (or Youl ·Hi13 FIo,ipo 1'lIaloway, :',1111" 210 J,'cl ";oll~illc . r-IOIid" :lnO'f (Phune) !lO'\-oI,IO·5125 PONTE V;~TITLE, L.L.C.I---+-----:----1 ''----~ (r-ax) 90~-1·\0·5173 JOB II 21118 DA TE OF FIELD SURVEY: ES: "O"" "'OZ" r:AnuIGS ME UASCO 0.'4 lH( _.rJ~ m:,\Jur,G or __ .L'-. ... ~ _._- .Olle nl: 1l0011111ru.Y DOIJIIONlY ullr Oi' ~O,"'CI I'All(;{L. r ClIIIPIIIC I'LOT1lIlC ONLY lIIE CAI'110NED u\NOS LIE I',mlll' FLOOD ZO:-;E ___~___ AS SIlOI',~1 Oil TIlE IIA1101lo\L FlOOD IIISURANCE IJIIP, '.TEO: APil1L 17, 109D, CClmUlmy /;UI,\OE/!: 120075 PANEL JlIlOLll ' 115 SUi'I\,('( n[HEC1S ALL [ASEUEIHS & RIGHT OF I'IAY AS pm uCConOED .AT olt/OIl 1I1l£ CO"'JI1IJDlT I, SUPPUED. UNLESS 01HERI',1SE STATtO, 110 11IEn lllLE 'J1:RI,IC"l1Q11 liAS eEEU PERFORUED IlY 111£ UlIOER5ICNED, 115 SUiWt:Y IS IIOT VAUO 1',lTIlC\Jl IIJI {,UTlIWlICATEO ELEcmellle SlGIIA1UR£ 'ID .\UllIENTlCA1EO ELECIROIIiC SEAl. 6-20-2012 LAND SURVEYS o CONSTRUC~ON SURVEYS SCALE: 1" = 20' 1 n.~' 1/1865 2~.I'7-7"'.--.;;,,:,,:,'-------' ---Zl.~'--- I.OT 4 0 w a:: => Ul ....... <l;t w'"~1t "'-J' '-' nO O>~ ·0 0)0 0) LOT 5 w Z Z MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVE Y OF '.IH ". ');nVA MAI1itJ " 1)t.Jl r u n 1?r: Il·,.n .. ~r. A ~ f1r...r.flRn .':n "J Pf./iT nOtlK .rl. IJA(.:!. ',.!!' . (.If n-l l :::urmJ'li r pl1 "ll r~ 11'f'O)RO:; {)I.' ('~J V~L cr...JN 1"t. ~ l~!f1fr'A . (;£l1 nrJ(O TO: W · ' z ", · ~.~. . ..J It :,c ~ ~~ . J;'. I;';! ;! :J 0' w ~l ~~ ~;.,. "?.,. a) . ~ ~ ~. ~ !,o .., 1"\ ." 8 8 ,, :.:t: '" Or;f"I ~ 1. AUji{£' \oil£; tl An{)l;~~AN r: \4()Q1'QA <:(JRp~,qI~ ' TTt'ilU I[Y.;' mu: I ~WRMICI. rUllO, 11K. rATlrJ!:;t'JIlJ, SONC' Mi ll lA.lSltA W, P.. A, 1. 1.) 1 Jr, ~~~.~~~ J.d! Form MAP.Survey -"W1nTOTAl' appralsal software by a Ia mode, lrrc ,-l-8O().ALAMODE --. ~ • VI" IL.. "~ UI',., '1 ' '-', t...l-. v CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY _~:Ik~~ -,&..tJ..~ ., S ~~~ ~td~<tf'M.h ~J~.c.o ~~~. LIVE OAK LAN E (e lf RJGH T or WAY) SQ, FT. % ~J 00'24'53" W 90.00' (PLAT) N 00·19'55" W 89.97' (MEASURED) LOT SIZE 9083 I ~ EXlSTING BUILDINGS 2258 25% fT.L..:I: EXlSTINGIPA~ . 10%• IMPERVIOUS 927 ........ 0 21 . ~' 11.2' PROPOSED W , === 1070 12% a::: b IMPERVIOUS :::::) ~ ~'~~---:l s? .,' ~V>1-« .... TOTAL ~.~. ~-1?O' 4 2 55 47% ~ ......, l/' ~;;- ~ -20-')' ~Io l STRUCTURE OUTDOOR oj KITCHEN m STORY AME Ale TYPE NEW LOT :3 :~'-o" ... "f:.D #186 5 umT CONSTRUCTION ~ I ~ r. A/C,.; PAD I MATERIAL TREMRON I ~Outdoor Kitchen STONEGATE ~ 11 5' AREA 42SQ, FT. I I.Q;';.. in ,. STRUCTURE SCREEN (/) renEncl ;" 26.1' 21.11'ENCLOSURE ?LOT <I ROOF SLOPED :~'-o' Pool Equipment__I( JT ) MATERIAL ALUMINUM Ir( 'N 1 00 '(. ~~.. b... _ / 90,06' (MEASURED) ., COLOR BRONZE 00' ',:;< 90.00' (PLAT) [--. AREA 1070 SQ. FT, SCClIOt t g, TO'IlNS fUP 2 SOOlli. RANCE 29 ( .AST I*** SETBACKS ARE MEASURED TO WALLS *** I LEGEND : 0 -Sll 1/2" II(BAII PC -P()jNT C»' (UlVAT\J (STANPEO PSU1814tt • - r.QJHD lff lION PPC PT -POIP" C»' TAHCVII;Y NO 1000lFlCAnON PRe -lION T C»' Al\/£JlS£( OIl4[JNlt;[ NOTID) CUlNAT\lII( • -••,... CDNCJI{ l[ IdHT PCC -POIN T (Y/ ~ Io/C • AIR C<JOTIONEII G CUf!VAT -)(-FlNeI • COtICM:1L I-I -f-Ray Th ompso n EVISIOI f-f-SURVEYING. Inc . DAlE Ut.:,I,;KWIIUN I>-f- IGoing the DISTA N C E for YO I~ PONTE~~TITLE, L.L.c.r- f"'6 13 PhITp~ HIO'I y , S uite 2 10 ' ~~..,. I'loridII 32207 1.1111 \ (Phone) ~5 1 25 I I I' (Fax ) 904 -448-5 178 I JOB II 21118 L DA TE OF FIELD SURVEY : 6-2.0-2012 I SCALE: ,. = 20' CER TIFICATE ;r::: rNOTES: DEI! MY I/!:5PONSIIlU CHAAc( II; BEARINGS AAE BOON THI: ~BEARIHC or __ l'Lfl9.'35.'Or:.. f , ___ I tt~1N C(RTIF Y 'IIiA T rut ., ...." ALONG THE NM TH EJII..Y 9OUIIOARY UN[ (F !iU8.£CT PAllen. All) liED'S THE IlIUW STANO Sl T fMIH 8'1 11€ FLORIOIo --ROAlro CY PRons.<;IOtI \o£YOIIS. -'HI! IIA fIt. CHN'TER 61CY7 -0 , FL()IIII).I. CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A CASE NO. ZVAR17-0008 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North Sherry Drive). LOCATION 1820 North Sherry Drive APPLICANT Sarah (Sally) L. Young DATE November 13, 2017 STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Sally Young, the owner of 1820 North Sherry Drive. The property is zoned PUD in the Selva Marina neighborhood and has an existing single family home. The owners would like to replace an existing six foot fence with a new six foot with a couple of changes to the location. The site plan below shows the existing fence (the black lines with two little dashes) and the new fence (yellow highlight) .A variance is required for the new fence because it does not meet the requirements of the PUD. This property is part of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B PUD and plat. The plat generally includes the first few lots north of Saturiba Drive on North Sherry Drive and Selva Marina Drive. The PUD was approved in 1978 by the Commission. A copy of the City Commission meeting minutes for the approval are attached. The Covenants and Restrictions for the PUD, which are usually not enforced by a municipality, were provided to the City as the PUD’s governing text. The Covenants do define the City’s enforcement powers in the PUD. A copy is attached to the end of this report. Section III(D)(4) of the Covenants states in part, “Fences or walls may be located outside of the dwelling zone provided: (a) The shall not exceed four *4) feet in height.” The dwelling zone is defined by setbacks of 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet in each side yard. When reading the Covenants, there are several references to a Special Advisory Planning Board that is required to grant approvals in the PUD. However, like a similar recent variance request in Selva Marina Unit 12-C, it appears that this board no longer exists. The Covenants then defer responsibilities to the City. Just as if a proposed project did not meet the City’s zoning code, it would have to get a variance, when a proposed project doesn’t meet the requirements of the PUD, it must get a variance. Historically, it appears that the City has not always recognized and enforced these Covenants, which has resulted in a hodgepodge of development in this PUD, and others with similar circumstances. The applicant has provided multiple pictures from the area of other properties with six foot fences as evidence. This means that the City’s normal zoning code was applied. If the City’s normal zoning code was applied to this fence, it would be approved administratively as six foot fences are allowed in side and rear yards. Ultimately, staff would like to explore corrective measures for these PUDs that would address the nonexistent boards and to make zoning requirements consistent. Page 2 of 4 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 applicant stated in their application that the lot of neighbor to the north is higher than theirs and that they have a deck near the property line that a six foot fence would provide more privacy from. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. The applicant stated in their application that the neighbor behind them has a swimming pool and a six foot fence would do a better job of keeping their kids from getting that pool. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicant stated in their application that every other property in the neighborhood has a six foot fence. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. The applicant stated in their application that they are planning a future addition and pool with screen enclosure and believe that a six foot fence will provide better security and privacy. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Page 3 of 4 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0008, request to increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North Sherry Drive), 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 ZVAR17-0008, request to increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North Sherry Drive), or it is not 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 4 of 4 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.B CASE NO ZVAR17-0010 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the permitted height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section 24-157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina Drive). LOCATION 1505 Selva Marina Drive APPLICANT Lori Gaglione DATE November 13, 2017 STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Lori Gaglione, the owner of the single family home at 1505 Selva Marina Drive. The property is located in the Residential Single-Family, Large Lot (RS-L) zoning district and its Future Land Use designation is Residential Low Density (RL). The lot adjoins both Selva Marina Drive and Seminole Road, making this a corner lot. For corner lots, Section 24-17 defines the front of the lot as the exterior lot line of the narrowest side of the lot adjoining the street. As the narrowest side of the lot adjoining a street, the southern property line that adjoins Seminole Road is considered the front of this lot. A variance is needed to install a 6 foot tall fence along the (front) property line adjoining Seminole Road. Section 24- 157(b) limits maximum fence heights to 4 feet within required front yards, meaning a 6 foot fence is required to be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line. The proposed fence would be over 30 feet from Seminole Road and placed behind an existing hedge located on city property (see picture). A variance is not needed for the proposed new porch. While it is mentioned in the variance application, no variance is necessary. 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 states in their application that the proposed fence would not obscure the view of traffic in any way due to the unique configuration of the intersection between Seminole Road and Selva Marina Drive and the irregular shape of the property. (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 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0010, request to increase the permitted height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section 24- 157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina Drive), 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 ZVAR17-0010, request to increase the permitted height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section 24-157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina Drive), upon finding this request is not consistent with the definition of a variance, 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 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.C CASE NO ZVAR17-0009 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence to allow the addition of a porch in the rear at Section “H” the west 30 feet of Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th Street). LOCATION 73 West 10th Street APPLICANT Thomas James Belich Jr. DATE November 13, 2017 STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Thomas Belich Jr., the owner of the townhouse located at 73 West 10th Street. The townhouse was built in 1998 and shares a common wall at the back of the unit with the adjacent townhouse to the east. The lot is 48 feet wide by 102 feet deep and is located in the Residential General Two-Family (RG) zoning district. The property’s Future Land Use designation is Residential Medium Density (RM). A two-part variance is needed to construct an open porch in the rear of the townhome. First, Section 24-88 (b) requires that “adjoining townhouse units shall be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials.” The installation of a composite roof and support posts to create a porch in the rear of this townhome would result in an architectural style, colors, and materials different than those of the other attached units. Second, Section 24-88(c) requires that “adjoining townhouse units shall be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence unless an existing structure is being renovated within the same building footprint.” The construction of the open porch would be independent of the other attached units and considered expanding the building footprint by City Code. The effective date of the ordinance that established the Code Sections that this variance is seeking relief from was January 1, 2002. The proposed attached open porch would extend 12 feet from the rear wall and would be 12 feet wide. The proposed location of the porch complies with setback regulations for the RG zoning district. 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. The applicant stated in their application that the porch would provide needed shade in the backyard of the home. The applicant also stated that it is in their opinion that it is unreasonable not to be allowed to construct an open porch that is similar to other porches built on similar homes 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. Page 2 of 3 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0009, request for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence in order to allow the addition of an open porch in the rear of the existing townhouse at Section “H” the west 30 feet of Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th 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 ZVAR17-0009, request for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence in order to allow the addition of an open porch in the rear of the existing townhouse at Section “H” the west 30 feet of Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th Street), upon finding this request is not consistent with the definition of a variance, 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