Loading...
02.19.2019 CDB Agenda Packet CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / February 19, 2019 / 6:00 PM Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes. A. Minutes of the January 15, 2019 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. 4. New Business. A. ZVAR19-0002 PUBLIC HEARING (Gregory Carr) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into required rear yards from 4 feet to 7 feet to allow an open porch in the rear yard of 574 N. Nautical Boulevard (Lot 4 Block 3 Seaspray). B. ZVAR19-0001 PUBLIC HEARING (Stephen Starke) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height allowed in rear yards from 6 feet to 8 feet and to decrease the required setback for fences over 4 feet tall on corner lots from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow for an 8 foot fence along the rear lot line of 650 Begonia Street (Lots 1-6 Block 138 Section “H”). C. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair D. Reschedule of March 19th meeting due to Election Primaries 5. Reports. A. Board Membership Updates 6. Public Comment. 7. 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 t o 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 accordanc e with the American s wit h Disabilitie s Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes , persons with disabilities needing special accommodations t o participat e i n thi s 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.     February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 2 of 36 Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD January 15, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Lanier. Ms. Paul, Mr. Major, Mr.  Hansen, Mr. Tingen, Mr. Elmore and Ms. Simmons were all present. Also present were  Director Shane Corbin, Principal Planner Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board  Secretary Valerie Jones and the City Attorney, Brenna Durden representing the firm  Lewis, Longman and Walker.    2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the December 15, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board. Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The  motion carried unanimously.    3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.    4. NEW BUSINESS A. ZVAR18‐0020 PUBLIC HEARING (Sheila Powers) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the maximum length allowed for a privacy screen/wall and to decrease the required side yard setbacks for privacy screen/wall from 15 feet to 0 feet.  Staff Report  Planner Broedell explained that this is a request to increase the maximum length  allowed for a privacy screen/wall and to decrease the required side yard setback for  the privacy screen/wall. The property is located at 1946 Beachside Court between 18th  and 19th and is a single family home. In May of 2018, a stop work order was placed on  the property due to the replacement of a six foot fence with a new six foot fence that  had an additional 2 feet of lattice at the top. The applicant was told to submit a permit  and they did. The permit was denied for exceeding maximum fence height allowed.  The request is to keep the six foot fence with the lattice. Pla nner Broedell said it was a  total of 8 feet. He said that the extra 2 foot extension of the fence height was reason  for denial. Planner Broedell said there is a Section 24‐157(d) which allows structures  intended primarily for creating privacy, the length is limited to 12 feet with a height of  8 feet and the side yard setbacks need to be met. Planner Broedell said there is the  question of whether this is a fence or a structure intended for privacy. The applicant is  proposing no side yard setbacks.  Ms.  Simmons  asked  if  there  are  different  elevations  from  yard  to  yard.  Planner  Broedell said that the applicant had put the lattice on top of the fence for privacy  February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 3 of 36 Page 2 of 9 reasons due to the townhome to the west having an elevated deck. He clarified that a  fence doesn't require a setback but if it is considered a privacy screen then it needs to  meet the side yard setbacks.   Applicant Comment  Sheila Powers Alesch and Ted Alesch introduced themselves as the homeowners of  1946 Beachside Court. Mr. Alesch said the main reason for the request is that the  neighboring deck that should be 20 feet off the property line is 9 feet off the property  line and it is 4 1/2 foot off grade. When the neighbors are out on their deck, the  Alesch's 6 foot fence hits them in the waist. There hope was that the lattice would give  them some privacy. Mr. Major asked the applicants if they felt like all eyes were on  them when they are out in their back yard to which they said yes. The applicant said  there are several homes that have the higher elevation.  Public Comment  Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. She said that the Board received  communication from Gregory Richter, Jeff Barker and Michael Salerno in support of the  variance.    Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court introduced herself as a neighbor of the  Alesch's for 20 years. She said that the townhomes behind them are not abiding by the  setbacks and this has caused problems. She is in support of the fence.   Board Discussion  Mr. Major wanted to know the Board's thoughts as to whether the fence obstructs light  and air. Mr. Tingen said he sees this as an 8 foot fence request. Mr. Hansen said he saw  the swale and believes that the townhouses built decks because their yards were wet  but in doing so they destroyed the privacy of the homes behind them. For that reason  he  doesn't  have  a  problem  with  this  variance.  Ms.  Simmons  agreed  that  the  topographical facts make the 8 foot fence into a 4 foot fence.  Motion  Ms. Simmons motioned to approve ZVAR18‐0020 due to the topographical issues. Mr.  Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.       B. ZVAR18‐0021 PUBLIC HEARING (Ruthie Wilcher Cody and Allen J. Cody III) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the maximum fence height allowed in front yards from 4 feet to 6 feet to allow a 6 foot fence in the western front yard of a double frontage lot. Staff Report  Planner Broedell said this is a request to increase the maximum fence height from 4  feet to 6 feet to allow a 6 foot fence in the western front yard of a double frontage lot.  Planner Broedell said the proposed plan is to install a six foot fence on the vacant lot  on the northern property line and part of the western property line. The need for a  variance comes from the fact that Section 24‐84 states that on double frontage lots  the required front yard shall be provided on each street, thus making 2 required front  yards. Section 24‐157 limits the maximum fence height in front yards to 4 feet. He said  that the applicants are having issues with people cutting through their vacant lot to  get to Donner Park. The main purpose of the fence would be to keep trespassers out.  February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 4 of 36 Page 3 of 9 Planner Broedell said that the requirement for the front yard on both lots has been  around since 1982.    Ms. Simmons asked Planner Broedell to clarify where the existing fence is and whether  it is nonconforming and he confirmed that it is a 6 foot fence so if it were a 4 foot fence  the placement would be fine but the 6 foot fence needs a 20 foot setback.   Applicant Comment  Ruthie and Allen Cody introduced themselves as the homeowners of 1880 George  Street. They shared some of their concerns and how their lot is being used as a pass  through to the park. Many people will use the lot for their dogs and people walk  through there at night. Ms. Cody said they would like to fence it in for privacy and  safety.     Ms. Simmons asked them if they are the only ones with an empty lot to pass through.  Mr. Hansen asked about doing the 4 foot fence and Ms. Cody said the kids will climb  it. Mr. Elmore said they could solve the problem by putting the 6 foot fence on the 20  foot setback for the front and rear.  Public Comment  Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment.     Kirk Johnson introduced himself as someone who does a lot of work for the Cody's. He  said that a lot of the traffic is drug related and they use the back street to do that.  Board Discussion  Ms. Simmons said that she is for a 6 foot fence on the property line. Mr. Hansen said  his only concern is what the Board says to the next person who wants a 6 foot fence  on the property line. She referred to approval reason #3 that speaks of exceptional  circumstances as compared to other properties.  Motion  Ms. Simmons motioned to approve ZVAR18‐0021 due to exceptional circumstances  preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the  area. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion passed 6‐1. Mr. Major was a  dissenting vote.      C. Ordinance No. 90‐19‐238 PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATED TO MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT COVERAGE, STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES IN CHAPTER 24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS: 24‐17, DEFINITIONS; 24‐64, VARIANCES; 24‐66, STORMWATER, DRAINAGE, STORAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS; 24‐104, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE‐FAMILY‐ LARGE LOT; 24‐105, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE‐FAMILY; 24‐106, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE‐FAMILY; 24‐107, RESIDENTIAL GENERAL, TWO‐FAMILY; 24‐108, RESIDENTIAL GENERAL, MULTI‐FAMILY; 24‐115, RESIDENTIAL, SELVA MARINA; February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 5 of 36 Page 4 of 9 PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Staff Report  Director Corbin explained that this ordinance has been on the City Commission's radar  as a priority since January of 2018. Jones‐Edmunds did modeling for a single drainage  basin and looked at different impervious surface scenarios.  They found that local scale  surface flooding would worsen due to the increases in run off volume due to additional  impervious surface coverage. The additional run off adds stress to local scale drainage  features that have already met or exceeded their hydraulic capacities. Systems that  are already at or exceeding their capacities are prone to create nuisance flooding. The  modeling assumed that all storm water structures and road side swales were well  maintained. This means that they did not take into account anything that is failing or  not being maintained.    He said that at the request of the Commission, Staff reviewed the code and came up  with a variety of things that can be tweaked. One possibility is the definition that talks  about  swimming  pools  not  being  considered  as  impervious  surface.  Previously  pervious pavers receive a 50% credit when calculating the onsite storage requirements  and also had the 50% maximum impervious surface limit for new residential  development. Other issues in Section 24‐66 had to do with the Director of Public Works  being able to give administrative waivers, and credit that was given for previous  impervious surface on‐site when calculating required storage. There are issues with  enforcement  and  making  sure  the  on‐site  storage  facilities  are maintained.  The  language in the code is not very strong and there needs to be the ability to knock on  someone's door and ask to come into their back yard if we know that there is an issue.  Previously, you are not required to provide on‐site storage if you're doing an addition  or modification of up to 400 sf or by 10% (whichever is less).    Director Corbin told the Board about an existing issue where a lot was redeveloped  and the home is built out to 50% of the lot coverage and the rear of the lot was  designated for on‐site storage for their storm water. The homeowner put slate rock  down on top of all of it. He said that Staff believes this happens pretty frequently once  the CO is issued and a fence goes up.    Impervious surface first showed up in the code in 1982 with a 35% maximum. That  changed in 1998 to 50% which is currently the maximum. Commercial has been at 70%  and no changes will be made to that. Staff presented to the Commission on October  22nd and the direction given was to eliminate the 50% credit for pavers, to remove the  exemptions given for pools when doing on‐site storage calculation, eliminate the  grandfathering of pre‐existing structures and pre‐existing surface to be removed when  calculating the on‐site storage when there is a redevelopment of the lot, remove the  waiver for Public Works and create a typical variance process and  create  better  language to allow for better enforcement. Later the Commission added reducing the  overall impervious surface ratio from 50% to 45% and that is included in this proposal.    February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 6 of 36 Page 5 of 9 Director Corbin said that Staff has made recommendations as how to administer this.  They added in modification of a sidewalk or driveway of an existing lot would not  trigger this. They would also be able to do an addition of 150 sf. There would be a  requirement for a declaration of a restricted covenant before a CO is issued. Before a  CO is issued someone would have to go record the on‐site requirements with the  county so that a new owner would be aware of the on‐site storage requirements. Staff  include language as to conducting inspections on a property with reasonable notice  and at reasonable times.     Chair Lanier asked if a home is scraped does the new house have to abide by all of the  Cities existing codes. Director Corbin said that the builder would get credit for all of  the square footage of the previous house when doing the calculations for the new  mitigation. Ms. Paul asked if a swale was the only form of mitigation or is the City open  to  other  underground  retention  options.  Director  Corbin  said  that it is his  understanding  that  it  doesn't  just  have  to  be  a  swale.  Mr.  Hansen said it is his  understanding the storm water drainage system as it stands today is not adequate.  Director Corbin said that according to the report, some of the systems are exceeding  capacity already and as impervious surface is added, it will stress those systems ever  farther.     Mr. Hansen wanted to know why and he is concerned that the engineers didn't answer  that question. He believes that the required retention is not being enforced and there  is too much impervious surface. Mr. Hansen said that before we start restricting what  can be built, he would like to have an understanding of all of the things that can be  done  (i.e.  better  maintain  the  existing  system,  enforce  the  on‐site  retention,  replacement of piping, sediment, etc.). He wanted to know if those are contributing to  the problem or is it the 50% impervious surface. Director Corbin said based on what  he read it was a combination of not enough retention and too much impervious  surface. Mr. Hansen said he knows that is what the report said but it wasn’t clear as to  what the fix is.    Mr. Major wanted to know what triggers an inspection of the property. Director Corbin  said that the language in the proposal would give the ability (i.e. if a neighbor floods,  street floods, etc.) to inspect those properties with reasonable notice given and at a  reasonable time.     Chair Lanier asked if the City has a clear assessment of the level of failing for the storm  water system. Director Corbin said that is detailed in the storm water master plan. He  said it talks about issues that need to be upgraded and replaced throughout the City.   Public Comment  Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. She said that and email was received  from Jamie Eaton.    Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court said she was in favor of the proposal and  urged the Board to support it.    February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 7 of 36 Page 6 of 9 Lewis Wolfrom of 2033 Selva Madera Court said that he has firsthand experience with  the process. He said his first permit was denied due to storm water issues. He worked  with Mr. Williams and they came up with a plan by which Mr. Wolfrom had to install  retention areas and gutters. He was concerned about the restrictions on swimming  pools and wanted to know if any kind of analysis. He wanted to know if this would  eliminate swimming pools as an option for someone who would like to have one.     Matthew Eaton of 1747 Live Oak Lane said that he and his wife own a drainage supply  company. They supply drainage supplies to commercial and residential properties to  the sub‐contractors and general contractors that install them. He said that swales are  commonly done in the City due to the expense and the trees and their roots. He  believes that the proposal is double dipping with pools being disallowed and going  from 50 to 45%. Mr. Eaton said that someone with a half‐acre lot wouldn't have the  option to install a pool. He agreed that the engineering company who presented the  proposal needs to be asked if this is more of an issue in old AB or the east side of  Seminole. Mr. Eaton said that the soil in the Selva Marina area is extremely sandy and  he believes that if an evaluation was done it would show very little run off. He said the  proposal  is  extremely  restrictive  and  it  will  significantly  disallow  a  lot  of  future  redevelopment.    Lisa Herrold of 659 Sherry Drive said she grew up in Atlantic Beach and has watched  the development and redevelopment. She has issues with water from her neighbor.  She does believe a lot of it is in old AB. She approves of the proposal.    Sally Maddy of 1915 Creekside Circle wanted to know if the City could consider other  options such as storm water mining. It would allow for the recycling of water.    Jordan Clarkson of 2015 Vela Norte Circle said that the proposal mentioned that this  was done on a typical area of redevelopment. Mr. Clarkson said that the area he lives  in doesn't look anything like that and does not look like the old AB area. He said they  have swales behind them, retention areas and has never seen his street or retention  area flood. Mr. Clarkson said it seems like this have more to do with redevelopment  verses  the  areas  that  are  viable,  they're  handling  the  water  and  have  good  soil  percolation. He said that a 400 sf pool usually maintains approximately 6 inches of  clearance before it would overflow and that would be about 1500 gallons of water. He  said that he has a pool, has gone through several hurricanes and nor'easters and never  seen his pool overflow. Mr. Clarkson added that he concerned about invasion of privacy  by an official who can drive by and take a best guess at what is causing an issue. He  believes there needs to be stronger wording before giving that right.    Mr. Eaton returned to the podium, he said that the Water Management Districts  accepts permeable pavers. He said that it took about 30 years for this to happen. Mr.  Eaton said he hopes the Board will consider that.    Joe Gerrity introduced himself as the City Manager of Atlantic Beach. Mr. Gerrity said  that he wanted to clarify some of the questions regarding the operation of the City. As  February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 8 of 36 Page 7 of 9 far as the storm water system, he said that it is maintained as well as it can possibly be  maintained. Mr. Gerrity said that the City purchased a vacuum truck which has allowed  for a more efficient job of cleaning. He said that all of the s torm systems are on rotation.  Mr. Gerrity said that if there is a storm event at high tide then all bets are off. He said  that the only thing the City has going for it is its pervious surface. Mr. Gerrity gave the  example of the flooding in the Aquatic area from the storm in 2015. He said that the  City has spent between $15 and $20K to correct a situation that has been affecting a  citizen for about 10 years. He believes that once the CO is issued then the City has no  way to see if pavers, patios, etc. are added and no way to enforce the impervious ratio.    Mr.  Hansen  thanked  the  City  Manager  for  answering  his  question regarding  the  maintenance of the current system. Ms. Lanier asked Staff if th ere is any other situation  that happens that allows a City Official to go onto a property. Ms. Durden said that one  example is if there is a need to look at what the conditions of approval for an exception  were, to confirm compliance or to consider a SPA that has speci fic conditions regarding  its rezoning.  Board Discussion  Ms. Paul said that she objects to the 45% and would like for it to be back to 50%. She  said a pool that is down 6 inches will hold quite a bit of water. Regarding pavers, she  would like to see the restrictions be in line with the Water Management District. Ms.  Paul said that tying the property access to the title is no more obtrusive than similar  HOA restrictions.    Mr. Major said that he thought the changes were a little bit draconian and not founded  in  deep  engineering  analysis.  He  agrees  that  the  impervious  limits  shouldn't  be  increased but that the enforcement would be good.    Mr. Hansen said he asked the engineers if the 3 or 4 square blocks that they based the  findings on is consistent with the rest of the City and they said it was. But he said he is  concerned because he has heard several public comments saying that they don't  experience any problems with drainage in the areas where they l ive. Mr. Hansen would  like to see the pavers be better defined since there are some pavers that are pervious  and could be allowed. He believes that it is important to have enforcement for on‐site  retention because he thinks that has a lot to do with the problems. He would like to  see this done before telling people that they can't build on 55% of their lot. Mr. Hansen  said he would like to see it stay at 50%.    Mr. Tingen said he has a pool and he believes it prevented floo ding on his own property.  He commended Staff on all of the work and he commend the City Manager on the  purchase of the vacuum truck.    Mr. Elmore said that he works with storm water issues daily and has for 25 years as a  landscape architect. He said that he believes there are other solutions to the runoff  that need to be considered. He pointed out that the soils in AB are different in different  areas and the water table varies due to elevation and soil. Mr. Elmore said that there  are broader holistic things to consider. He said there are several places in the City that  February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 9 of 36 Page 8 of 9 ponds could be dug and help alleviate some of the problems of flooding in the core  City. Mr. Elmore said that area is the only area he knows that floods unless you are  close to the intracoastal. He pointed out several areas that don't flood due to their  ponds and areas that don't flood due to the old trough and dune system which works  well and is a natural drainage system. Mr. Elmore said that old Core city has very few  pipes or storm gutters. He thinks that the City needs to put in a storm water collection  system in that area and run it to designated areas like Howell Park or Johansen Park.  Mr. Elmore said that he is concerned about putting all of the burden on the property  owner. He said that any systems put in by property owners will eventually degrade and  silt in, whereas the ponds can be maintained by the City. Mr. Elmore would like to do a  Storm Water Master Plan which included lakes, ponds and storm water systems. He  said that by the time a homeowner builds a house and puts in a driveway it is hard  enough to stay at 50% and he would like to see the 50% remain. Mr. Elmore said that  he agrees with the previous comments on pools and they should remain pervious. He  said that the City needs to do further research what they can do without putting the  responsibility on the homeowners.    Ms. Simmons said she would like to see if there are options in regards to the pavers.  She believes that great changes have been made and would like to see that researched  further. Ms. Simmons said that she didn't realize that there was flooding in old Atlantic  Beach. She lives in that area and hasn't seen her area flood.    Ms. Lanier asked how other communities handled pools. Director Corbin said they  didn't research that, they did discuss not being able to control or monitor whether  people cover their pools or not. She mentioned that she has seen people seal there  pavers making them impervious. Ms. Lanier thought that on‐site storage enforcement  was needed. She disagreed with giving a credit to someone who is scrapping a house  and she would like to see that pass.    Mr. Hansen said it appears that the flooding that he has seen has been caused by  something a neighbor did that redirected the water runoff. He would like to see open  grass pavers defined differently.    Mr. Elmore spoke about the different types of pavers and most of them will eventually  fill with sand. That is why he hates to see the onerous put on the homeowner. He said  that looking at bigger systems that the City can control and periodically dredge out is a  much better way to proceed.    Ms. Simmons asked for clarification on the part that Public Works would play. Director  Corbin said that Public Works would still do their review but they would no longer  administratively waive any of the requirements, it would have to go through a formal  variance request process and come before the Board.    Mr. Major said that he would vote no on the Ordinance as it reads right now. Ms. Paul  said that she thinks the Board should vote no on the document as a whole in hopes  that the City Commission would hear the variety of opinions. She said that she doesn't  February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 10 of 36 Page 9 of 9 feel like they have addressed the storm water situation for the City but instead, it  passes it on to the homeowner. Ms. Paul said that the City needs a master storm water  system like other communities have and the City does not have one. She said she  doesn't think this fixes the problem but only passes the buck on to future generations.  Mr. Hansen agreed that it needs a holistic approach.     Chair Lanier asked the Board if there are any pieces that the Board finds common  sense. Ms. Paul said that the removal of Public Works to administratively grant a  variance. Mr. Elmore said that there is a formula that was created by past Public Works  Director Rick Carper. It determined how much water you would have to store on your  property. It was based on facts and variables, one variable was the water table. The  City only gives the top 3 feet in calculating but if you are in a high, dry place it is likely  that you wouldn't hit water for 6 or more feet. Mr. Elmore said he believes the Public  Works Director should have some flexibility due to what the soil allows. Ms. Paul was  concerned that this might vary from Director to Director. Ms. Simmons said that at this  point, the Board should just send one or two conditions forward.  Motion  Mr. Elmore motioned to deny Ordinance 90‐19‐238 on all points until further defined.  Ms. Paul seconded the motion. Mr. Hansen wanted to amend the motion to add that  they come back with a more holistic approach. Mr. Elmore agreed and told Staff that  there are a lot of good parts but still a lot of question marks to let it go through. Ms.  Paul seconded amended the motion. The motion carried unanimously.    5. REPORTS   There were no reports.    6. PUBLIC COMMENT  There was no public comment.     7. ADJOURNMENT  Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Tingen seconded the  motion. The motion carried unanimously.  _______________________________________ Linda Lanier, Chair _______________________________________ Attest February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 11 of 36     February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 12 of 36 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A CASE NO. ZVAR19-0002 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into required rear yards from 4 feet to 7 feet to allow an open porch in the rear yard of 574 N. Nautical Boulevard (Lot 4 Block 3 Seaspray). LOCATION 574 N Nautical Boulevard APPLICANT Gregory Carr DATE February 11, 2019 STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Gregory Carr, the owner of 574 N Nautical Boulevard. The property is zoned residential, single-family (RS-2) and includes a single family home built in 1976. The home has a concrete patio in the backyard where the applicant uses his grill and smoker. The applicant is proposing to install posts and a roof over this concrete pad to provide shelter from the rain. The proposed covered patio would extend 10 feet from the back of the house, resulting in the porch being located 13 feet from the rear lot line. The required rear yard setback is 20 feet. Section 24-83(b) allows open porches to project up to 4 feet into required rear yard setbacks, meaning the open porch could be located 16 feet from the rear lot line. The proposed porch would project 7 feet into the required rear setback, 3 feet beyond the allowed projection for porches. February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 13 of 36 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b) (1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. The applicant stated that the developer built the house further back on his lot than any other house on his street. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicant stated that his house is setback so far on the lot that it does not leave as much room to build a patio cover as his neighbors have. (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. February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 14 of 36 Page 3 of 3 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR19-0002, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into required rear yards from 4 feet to 7 feet to allow an open porch in the rear yard of 574 N. Nautical Boulevard (Lot 4 Block 3 Seaspray), 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 ZVAR19-0002, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into required rear yards from 4 feet to 7 feet to allow an open porch in the rear yard of 574 N. Nautical Boulevard (Lot 4 Block 3 Seaspray). 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. February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 15 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 16 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 17 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 18 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 19 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 20 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 21 of 36     February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 22 of 36 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.B CASE NO. ZVAR19-0001 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height allowed in rear yards from 6 feet to 8 feet and to decrease the required setback for fences over 4 feet tall on corner lots from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow for an 8 foot fence along the rear lot line of 650 Begonia Street (Lots 1-6 Block 138 Section “H”). LOCATION 650 Begonia Street APPLICANT Stephen Starke DATE February 11, 2019 STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Stephen Starke, one of the title managers for the company that owns 650 Begonia Street. This property contains six vacant platted lots on the corner of West 6th Street and Begonia Street. Each lot is planned for single family homes. The applicant is proposing to keep an existing, unpermitted 8 foot fence along the western (rear) lot lines of all six lots to block/minimize the view of the junkyard located to the west of these lots. Section 24-157(b)(1) limits maximum fence heights in rear yards to 6 feet. Also, Section 24-157(c)(1) states “For corner lots located on rights-of- way that are fifty (50) feet or less in width, no fence, wall or landscaping exceeding four (4) feet in height, shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any lot line which abuts a street.”, meaning the southern 10 feet of the fence exceeds this maximum 4 foot height. 650 Begonia Street and the property directly to the west (0 W 6th Street) are both zoned residential, single-family. Nearby parcels to the west and south are zoned Special Purpose and have been used as a junkyard for decades. On various occasions over the years, junkyard operations have encroached beyond the Special Purpose (junkyard) boundaries and upon 0 W 6th Street, directly to the west of 650 Begonia, creating a potential eyesore/nuisance for any future owners of these six lots. 650 Begonia St 0 W 6th St February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 23 of 36 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b) (1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicant states that the rear of the property has an automotive salvage yard with vehicles stacked up. The proposed fence would eliminate this nuisance view of the salvage yard for the applicant as well as surrounding property owners. (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. February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 24 of 36 Page 3 of 3 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR19-0001, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height allowed in rear yards from 6 feet to 8 feet and to decrease the required setback for fences over 4 feet tall on corner lots from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow for an 8 foot fence along the rear lot line of 650 Begonia Street (Lots 1-6 Block 138 Section “H”), 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 ZVAR19-0001, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height allowed in rear yards from 6 feet to 8 feet and to decrease the required setback for fences over 4 feet tall on corner lots from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow for an 8 foot fence along the rear lot line of 650 Begonia Street (Lots 1-6 Block 138 Section “H”), 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. February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 25 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 26 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 27 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 28 of 36     February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 29 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 30 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 31 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 32 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 33 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 34 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 35 of 36 February 19, 2019 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 36 of 36