Agenda2011_1115
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and
Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by
calling (904) 247-5800. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments
may be mailed to the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to
any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony
and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made.
Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic
Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this
meeting.
NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Regular Meeting
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday | November 15, 2011 | 6:00pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the September 20, 2011 meeting.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business. None.
5. New Business.
a. UBE-2011-00100063, Craven, Home Occupation.
Request for a Use-by-Exception granting approval for a home occupation consistent with
Section 24-106(c)(4), and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-159, permitting
professional artistic services together with design and crafts activities associated with
beading and jewelry making, not involving equipment other than normal business office
machines, within a single-family dwelling located on a property in the Residential Single
Family (RS-2) Zoning District at 393 3rd Street.
b. PROPOSED ORDINANCE, Revision to Sign Code.
Revision of Section 17-29 of the Sign Code to change the maximum sign face area of fascia
signs on buildings with multiple occupants within Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Districts to one square foot of sign face area per each one linear foot of frontage occupied
by a single tenant, up to a maximum of 200 square feet.
6. Other Business Not Requiring Action.
7. Adjournment.
Draft Minutes of the September 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 7
1 2
3
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5
September 20, 2011 6
7
8
I. CALL TO ORDER – 6:02pm 9
A. VERIFICATION OF QUORUM. 10
Chairman Chris Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of 11
Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson (chair), Harley Parkes, Brea Paul, and 12
Patrick Stratton. Blaine Adams was absent. Also in attendance were Building 13
Official Michael Griffin, City Attorney Alan Jensen, and Principal Planner Erika Hall. 14
II. AGENDA ORGANIZATION 15
A. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – AUGUST 16, 2011 16
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2011 17
meeting. 18
MOTION: Ms. Paul moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the August 16, 19
2011 meeting, as written. Seconded by Mr. Elmore, the motion carried 6-0. 20
III. EXCEPTIONS – NONE 21
IV. VARIANCES 22
A. DEFERRED ITEMS TO BE HEARD – NONE 23
B. NEW ITEMS TO BE HEARD 24
1. ZVAR -11 -00100054 25
ADDRESS: 66 W 7th Street 26
OWNER: Kenneth D Wise 27
AGENT: Kenneth D Wise 28
REQUEST: Rear Yard Dimensional Variance 29
Ms. Hall introduced the item, stating that Mr. Wise owns one unit of a two-family 30
dwelling located at 66 W 7th Street within the Residential General (RG) Zoning 31
District. She explained that the rear wall of the existing structure is located 32
approximately twenty-four and one-half (24 ½) feet from the rear property line 33
and that the required rear yard setback within RG is twenty (20) feet. Ms. Hall 34
said that according to his application, Mr. Wise is requesting a five (5) foot 35
Draft Minutes of the September 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 7
reduction of the rear yard setback in order to construct a 12’ x 12’ addition on the 36
rear of the existing structure; however, by her estimation, such an addition would 37
require a seven-and-one-half (7 ½) foot reduction. 38
Kenneth Wise (66 W 7th Street) spoke in regards to his request, stating that his 39
family needed additional space for their children. He explained that currently, his 40
teenage son Derek (also present) shared a bedroom with his two year old son, and 41
that due to the age difference, each had very differing needs as far as schedule and 42
work/play space. Mr. Wise said that he would like to construct a small addition so 43
that Derek could have his own bedroom. Derek Wise spoke in support of the 44
request, explaining the difficulty in sharing a bedroom with a toddler. 45
Mr. Lambertson asked if the Wise home was attached to another, and Mr. Wise 46
confirmed that there was a storage area that joined his home to the next. 47
Mr. Elmore asked about the interior configuration of the Wise home along the rear 48
wall, noting that an addition could be configured such that it spanned the entire 49
width of the existing structure, but extended no further than the rear yard setback 50
line, thus eliminating the need for a variance. Mr. Wise responded that the 51
addition was designed so as to most efficiently accommodate a bed, dresser, desk 52
and closet. 53
Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment and with there being no 54
one to speak for or against the item, closed that portion of the hearing and 55
returned the discussion to the Board. 56
Mr. Elmore noted this is a self-imposed hardship, and that there is sufficient 57
space for an alternative. He then inquired as to the current impervious surface 58
area. Ms. Hall responded that she estimated impervious surface would be 59
approximately fifty-four (54) percent if the requested variance were granted. She 60
noted however, that the City Engineer has the authority to waive up to five (5) 61
percent of that standard. Mr. Lambertson replied that such an addition would not 62
be ideal, and would result in a narrow room. 63
Mr. Stratton asked if there is any reason the addition could not be built on a 64
second story, and both Mr. Parkes and Mr. Lambertson replied that would be cost 65
prohibitive, though in regards to zoning, it would be an acceptable thing to do. 66
MOTION: Mr. Elmore, finding that the request met none of the grounds for 67
approval of a variance, moved that the Community Development Board deny 68
ZVAR -11 -00100054. The motion was seconded by Mr. Parkes and carried by 69
unanimous vote, 6-0. 70
2. ZVAR -11 -00100055 71
ADDRESS: 1604 Coquina Place 72
OWNER: Paul Hinder 73
AGENT: Fabio Fasanelli 74
REQUEST: Side Yard Dimensional Variance 75
Ms. Hall introduced the item, stating that Mr. Hinder recently purchased an 76
existing single-family home located at 1604 Coquina Place, within the Residential 77
General, Multi-Family (RG-M) Zoning District, and is in the process of 78
Draft Minutes of the September 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 7
renovating the home. She noted that the house is on an irregularly shaped lot 79
which measures approximately fifty-five (55) feet in width at the front property 80
line, but tapers along the southern boundary such that it measures only about 81
thirty-five (35) feet in width at the rear property line. The existing house is 82
situated on the property such that there is a nearly ten (10) foot side yard running 83
the entire length of the house, on the north side, and a slightly over ten (10) foot 84
side yard which tapers to a just under four (4) foot side yard along the south side 85
of the house. She noted that the southwest corner of the existing house does 86
currently encroach upon the required side yard by about one (1) foot. Ms. Hall 87
also added that it is unknown whether or not a previous variance for the southern 88
side yard exists since the property was platted in 1937, the house was constructed 89
in 1938, and both were located within the City of Jacksonville until Ocean Grove 90
was annexed into the City of Atlantic Beach in 1988. 91
Ms. Hall explained that, according to plans submitted by contractor Fabio 92
Fasanelli, the desire is to extend the northern-most wall of the existing structure 93
approximately four (4) feet such that the northern side yard would then be about 94
5.7’, to allow for interior renovations of the existing first floor and an addition to 95
the second floor. 96
Paul Hinder (1604 Coquina Place) confirmed the information presented by Ms. 97
Hall, emphasizing that the southwest corner does encroach upon the side yard, 98
due to the irregular shape of the lot. He explained that the proposed renovation 99
includes the first floor expansion, as described, as well as the addition of a living 100
room and two bedrooms upstairs. 101
Mr. Parkes suggested that Mr. Hinder have his drawings revised, stating that it 102
seemed entirely possible to design the addition such that it would meet setbacks. 103
Mr. Hansen noted that from the front, the setbacks would be met, but as the lot 104
narrows, the ability to do anything is lost. He then added that if the southern lot 105
line was not angled, the lot would be a regular rectangle and there would be a full 106
side yard, as required. 107
Mr. Stratton said that he was not familiar with the property, but it appeared that 108
provision 24-64(d)(5) regarding “irregular shape of the lot warranting special 109
conditions” was applicable, though he did not know what the impact would be on 110
the neighbors. Mr. Elmore said that he was familiar with the property because he 111
lives nearby, and that he did not foresee any adverse impacts to the neighbors. 112
Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment and with there being no 113
one to speak for or against the item, closed that portion of the hearing and 114
returned discussion to the Board. 115
Mr. Parkes summarized that the first floor expansion and the second floor addition 116
would be within the northern side yard, and that there was already an 117
encroachment into the southern side yard. Mr. Elmore said that he understood Mr. 118
Parkes’ point that they were dealing with a nonconforming structure on a 119
nonconforming lot, and the land development regulations state that a 120
nonconforming structure shall not be made any more nonconforming. He added 121
Draft Minutes of the September 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 7
that he felt the plans could be revised so as to work within the existing footprint 122
and required setbacks. Mr. Parkes agreed the existing plane of the northern wall 123
should be continued to the second story and the addition contained within the 124
existing footprint. 125
MOTION: Mr. Parkes, finding that the existing structure is a nonconforming 126
structure and that according to the intent of Section 24-85, nonconforming 127
structures may be maintained but their continued survival is not otherwise 128
encouraged, and finding also according to provision 24-85(c)(1) nonconforming 129
structures shall not be expanded or enlarged unless in compliance with building 130
setbacks or with benefit of a variance, moved that the Community Development 131
Board grant ZVAR-11 -00100055 as a lesser variance than requested in accordance 132
with Section 24-64(e), reducing the required fifteen (15) foot side yard setbacks 133
to thirteen and one-half (13 ½) feet combined, being approximately 3.8’ wide on 134
the southern side and 9.7’ on the northern side, with the extension of the existing 135
northern plane to the second floor addition. Seconded by Mr. Elmore, the motion 136
carried by unanimous vote, 6-0. 137
3. ZVAR -11 -00100056 138
ADDRESS: 341 12th Street 139
OWNER: Charles Freshwater 140
AGENT: Michael Phillips 141
REQUEST: Rear Yard Dimensional Variance 142
Mr. Lambertson recused himself from consideration of this item, stating that he is 143
the owner of the property directly to the west, and thus has a financial vesting in 144
the development of the property. Mr. Parkes then recused himself from 145
consideration of this item, stating that he was the architect of the proposed plans, 146
and thus had a financial interest in the project. The gavel was passed to Mr. 147
Hansen, senior-most board member, given that a vice-chair has not yet been 148
elected since the resignation of the previous officer. 149
Ms. Hall introduced the item, describing the subject property as one of three lots 150
created from the subdivision of one and one-half lots previously platted as part of 151
Selva Marina Unit 1. She explained that as originally platted in 1951, the Selva 152
Marina lots were much larger than the typical Atlantic Beach lots, and that front 153
building restriction lines in excess of the standard front yard setback were normal 154
throughout Selva Marina. When the property was subdivided and the Selva 155
Verde plat was created in 2006, the old building restriction lines were transferred 156
to the newly created lots. In the case of the subject property (Lot 2) which is a 157
corner lot, the result was a thirty-five (35) foot setback where there would 158
typically be a twenty (20) foot front yard setback, and a thirty (30) foot setback 159
where there would typically be a ten (10) foot street side yard setback. Combined 160
with the standard twenty (20) foot rear yard setback and five (5) foot side yard 161
setback, the buildable area was reduced to just under four thousand (4,000) square 162
feet, as compared to the other two lots created by the subdivision which were 163
impacted by the building restriction lines on only one side, and resulted in slightly 164
over four thousand seven hundred (4,700) square feet of buildable area within Lot 165
1 to the north, and just under six thousand (6,000) square feet of buildable area 166
Draft Minutes of the September 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 7
with Lot 3, to the west. As such, the owner is unable to fit a home of modest 167
footprint completely within the setbacks, and is requesting a variance to reduce 168
the required rear yard setback from twenty (20) feet to six (6) feet to allow the 169
construction of a new single family home. Ms. Hall added that if the requested 170
variance is granted, the portion of the house to be constructed in the setback area 171
would be the garage, which is non-habitable space, and that the total impervious 172
surface area would be approximately forty-three (43) percent of the total lot area, 173
whereas both lots to the north and west were each built to slightly over fifty (50) 174
percent impervious surface coverage. 175
Michael Phillips (1250 Selva Marina Circle), contactor for the property owner, 176
addressed the Board, reiterating that the portion of the structure to be constructed 177
within the setback was an attached garage. He noted that he had completed a 178
couple of jobs recently, constructing detached garages, that are permitted to be as 179
close as five (5) feet from rear and side property lines whenever single story. He 180
explained this was essentially the same thing, because the garage was only 181
attached to the house by means of a covered breezeway. In fact, if the breezeway 182
were not to be covered by a solid roof structure, the garage could be considered 183
detached and placed five (5) feet from the rear property line. 184
Charles Freshwater (3559 Forest Bend Terrace) addressed the Board in regards to 185
apparent opposition of residents of the neighborhood. He stated that it was his 186
desire to respect the building restriction lines and build a house that took 187
advantage of porches opening onto large yards on both street sides. 188
Mr. Hansen opened the hearing to public comment. 189
Campbell Ford (1210 Selva Marina Circle) who owns the property directly to the 190
north, said that he had come to the meeting to speak against the variance, but felt 191
that he did not have all the information to make an informed decision, and thus 192
proposed that the Board defer the item to the next meeting to allow neighbors an 193
opportunity to view the plans and understand what was being proposed. 194
Kevin Bodge (336 12th Street) who lives to the south, across 12th Street, detailed 195
the contentious history of the property, and agreed with Mr. Ford’s assessment 196
that there needed to be an opportunity for the Board and potentially impacted 197
neighbors to carefully review the plans and determine precisely what the variance 198
entailed. He agreed that if the footprint did not change with or without the 199
variance – if it were only a matter of a solid roof over a breezeway – then the 200
impact would be negligible. However, he was concerned that the granting of the 201
variance would open the door to something much more adverse in terms of 202
impact, in the future. 203
Bill Thompson (377 12th Street) who lives several houses west of the subject 204
property, said he also had prepared to speak against the variance, but had just 205
received new information contrary to that originally presented to him. However 206
he still had some concerns about the Board making allowances and setting 207
precedence. 208
Draft Minutes of the September 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 6 of 7
William Robichaud (352 12th Street) who lives to the south, across 12th Street, 209
said that it is his understanding that the footprint of the habitable portion of the 210
structure was completely within the prescribed setbacks, and that it was the 211
attached garage that was proposed to encroach the standard rear yard setback. 212
Noting that a detached garage can be placed five (5) feet from rear and side 213
property lines, he suggested that plans be revised such that the solid roof structure 214
over the connecting breezeway be removed or replaced with a pergola-type 215
structure, thus separating the garage from the principal structure. Mr. Robichaud 216
added that already there will be three homes on a property that originally had only 217
one home. He found greater concern in the fact that up to three structures are 218
allowed on a single lot, being the primary residential structure and two accessory 219
structures, such as a detached garage, pool house, or storage shed. If this variance 220
were to be granted, the current or future owner could petition to construct those 221
two additional structures at a later date. If the variance was not granted, and the 222
garage was counted as detached, it would mean one less structure that could be 223
placed on the lot. 224
Mary Ann Lambertson (357 12th Street) who lives directly to the west of the 225
subject property, spoke in opposition to the variance, stating that it would have an 226
adverse impact on the light and air available to adjacent properties. She then 227
deferred the remainder of her time to her attorney, Tim Franklin. 228
Tim Franklin (418 Seagate Avenue) said that the issue at hand, reducing the 229
required rear yard from twenty (20) feet to six (6) feet was not just a matter of 230
maintaining green space and pervious surface. He stated that the crux of the 231
matter before the Board came down to one question: Can the applicant achieve 232
reasonable use of the property without the variance? He stated that he could. Mr. 233
Franklin added that none of the grounds for approval of a variance applied to this 234
request, stating that the land development regulations pre-dated the Selva Verde 235
plat which was executed in 2006. At that time, the current property owner 236
accepted the building restriction lines as they were, and Mr. Freshwater bought 237
the property knowing what the building restriction lines were. Furthermore, he 238
noted his client and residents of the neighborhood were adamantly against any 239
relief from the front building restriction lines, which are private deed restrictions. 240
He suggested if the property owner wished to have an attached garage, that the 241
covered breezeway be removed from the plan and that the garage be moved closer 242
to the house. 243
Mr. Hansen closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened 244
discussion of the item to the Board. 245
Mr. Stratton stated that he thought the plan was beautiful, and though he did not 246
find any particular relevance in what the neighbors wanted, he found no reason 247
the property owner should not have to abide by the rules. 248
Mr. Elmore also stated that he very much liked the elevations and appreciated the 249
intent of the design, but the property owners knew what they were coming into 250
when they purchased the property, so he could not support the variance. 251
Draft Minutes of the September 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 7 of 7
Ms. Paul concurred that she understood the intent of the design and empathized 252
with the owners, but saw the granting of the variance as setting precedence. 253
Mr. Hansen added that he personally felt hyper-sensitive to granting variances 254
from required rear yard setbacks, considering applications the Board had 255
considered over the last few months, and he did not feel that this request met the 256
grounds for approval. 257
MOTION: Mr. Elmore, finding that the requested variances does not sufficiently 258
meet any of the grounds for approval as provided in Section 24-64(d) of the land 259
development regulations, and that there are alternative solutions available to the 260
property owner, moved that the Community Development Board deny ZVAR -11 -261
00100056. The motion was seconded by Ms. Paul and carried by unanimous 262
vote, 4-0. 263
V. WAIVERS – NONE 264
VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS – NONE 265
VII. ZONING AMENDMENTS – NONE 266
VIII. MINOR MODIFICATIONS & APPEALS – NONE 267
IX. ORDINANCES – NONE 268
X. OLD BUSINESS – NONE 269
XI. NEW BUSINESS – NONE 270
XII. INFORMATION 271
A. “FLORIDA PLANNING OFFICIALS HANDBOOK” 272
Ms. Hall passed out copies of the updated publication to Board Members prior to the 273
meeting. There was no discussion of the materials. 274
XIII. ADJOURNMENT – 7:35pm 275
276
277
_______________________________________ 278
Chris Lambertson, Chairman 279
280
281
282
_______________________________________ 283
Attest 284
AGENDA ITEM 5a
NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Regular Meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
November 15, 2011 Public Hearing
Use-by-Exception, UBE-2011-04 (11-00100063)
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: October 31, 2011
APPLICANT: Connie G Craven
393 3rd Street
REQUEST: Request for a Use-by-Exception granting approval for a home occupation
consistent with Section 24-106(c)(4), and in accordance with the provisions of
Section 24-159, permitting professional artistic services together with design
and crafts activities associated with beading and jewelry making, not
involving equipment, within a single-family dwelling located on a property in
the Residential Single Family (RS-2) Zoning District at 393 3rd Street.
STAFF COMMENTS In mid October, Ms. Craven requested to operate her jewelry design and internet sales business from her home at 393 3rd Street, located within the Residential Single Family (RS-2) Zoning District. It was determined that the activities of her business were most similar to those of an artist or craftsperson, thus qualifying it as a Home Occupation according to Section 24-159(c), and permissible per Section 24-106(c)(4) with an approved Use-by-Exception in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-63. Ms. Craven has sufficiently addressed review criteria of Section 24-63(d), noting that there is no need for additional structures, additional ingress/egress, additional parking or loading areas, additional or special refuse or trash collection, additional utilities, additional yards, open space or special screening/buffering, signs or exterior lighting, because all activities, including storage of materials and finished jewelry products, will be conducted completely within one bedroom of the existing dwelling. A computer, digital camera and printer are to be used in the marketing and sales of the products through Ms. Craven’s online eBay store, while delivery of supplies and shipment of orders will be via standard USPS service. A copy of Ms. Craven’s artist statement, which explains in great detail her work process, and is required to participate in shows and sales, is attached. Additionally, her eBay store may be accessed at http://www.stores.eBay.com/beadsbytheC, to see examples of her work.
S
h
e
r
r
y
D
r
4 t h S t
3 r d S t
P o i n s e t t i a C t
0 100 20050Feet
UBE-11-00100063Location MapCraven residence393 3rd Street (RS-2)
Atlantic BeachAtlantic BeachElementaryElementary
AGENDA ITEM 5b
NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Regular Meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
November 15, 2011 Public Hearing
Proposed Ordinance 60-11-xx
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: November 1, 2011
REQUEST: Make recommendation to City Commission to amend Section 17-29, to
allow fascia signs equivalent to one square foot of sign face area per each
linear foot of frontage, up to a maximum 200 square foot sign face area. This
maximum shall be applicable to fascia signs on both single-occupant
structures and multiple-occupant structures, and to remove extraneous
language and reorder the section so as to clarify the provisions.
STAFF COMMENTS Prior to adoption of Ordinance No 60-01-11, on September 9, 2002, provisions regarding fascia signs read as follows: Flat signs. A flat sign is any sign erected parallel to the face of or on the outside of any building and supported through its length by such wall, or any sign in any way applied flat against a wall. Such signs shall not in any case project more than twelve (12) inches from the face of the building, nor shall they extend above the adjoining eave line on a building with a pitched roof. No portion of any such sign which extends over city property shall be less than eight (8) feet above the sidewalk grade of any street or avenue, or fifteen (15) feet above the crown grade where the sign is located parallel to and abutting on an alley. No flat
sign shall utilize or occupy an area greater than one square foot of surface for each
linear foot of building or unit frontage of the building or unit to which the sign is
attached. [17-2(b)(1)] However, Section 17-29(a) of the adopted Sign Code regarding fascia signs currently reads as follows:
(1) Fascia signs for buildings with a single business or occupant. (a) Size permitted: One (1) square foot of sign face area for each linear foot of the
building width that faces the front of the lot, as defined in Section 24-17 of this Code,
provided that no single fascia sign on any one side of a building shall exceed sixty
(60) square feet of sign face area. [For example, if the width of the building facing the
front of the lot is fifty (50) feet wide, the maximum total sign face area for all fascia signs is fifty (50) square feet.] (b) Number of fascia signs permitted: Not more than three (3) fascia signs shall be allowed on any one side of a building. Where fascia signs are placed upon more than one side of the building, the combined sign face area shall not exceed the amount permitted by subparagraph (1)a. above.
(2) Fascia signs for buildings with multiple businesses or occupants. (a) Size permitted: One (1) square foot of sign face area for each linear foot of the unit(s)
occupied by one business or occupant, provided that no such fascia sign shall exceed
forty-eight (48) square feet of sign face area for any one business. [For example, if the width of a unit or several units, occupied by one business, is twenty-four (24) feet, then one sign, a maximum of twenty-four (24) square feet of sign face area is permitted.] (b) Required spacing between signs on buildings with multiple occupants: Fascia signs for different occupants shall be separated by a minimum distance of thirty-six (36) inches. The stated maximum sign face areas of sixty (60) and forty-eight (48) feet, respectively, impose severe limitations on the visibility of fascia signs placed on buildings with linear frontages exceeding those dimensions. Because there are no provisions for sign variances, this forces applicants to ask the City Commission to grant waivers of Sign Code provisions. In researching this matter, it appears that a number of fascia signs permitted since the 2002 rewrite do exceed the stated maximums, but there is no evidence that any of those have appeared before the Commission seeking or obtaining a waiver. Further, these non-conforming signs have not been accounted for in recent sign compliance reviews related to impending amortization. To do so would more than double the number of nonconforming signs, and to require businesses to replace both freestanding and fascia signs would most likely be judged as an undue and excessive burden. Review of the Neptune Beach sign code revealed a nearly identical framework to that of Atlantic Beach, except Neptune Beach limits fascia sign face area – both single occupant and multiple-occupant – to a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet. It would seem reasonable for Atlantic Beach sign regulations to be consistent with those of Neptune Beach, especially along a shared corridor. The table below provides maximum sign face area allowed for fascia signs within some other Florida jurisdictions.
FASCIA SIGNS MAXIMUM SIGN FACE AREA
JURISDICTION SINGLE OCCUPANT MULTIPLE OCCUPANT Atlantic Beach 60 SQ FT 48 SQ FT Cape Canaveral 160 SQ FT 160 SQ FT Destin 150 SQ FT 150 SQ FT Gainesville 200 SQ FT 200 SQ FT Jacksonville 300 SQ FT 300 SQ FT Jacksonville Beach 250 SQ FT 250 SQ FT Neptune Beach 200 SQ FT 200 SQ FT Sarasota* 300 SQ FT 200 SQ FT Saint Augustine 250 SQ FT 250 SQ FT Tallahassee 300 SQ FT 150 SQ FT A draft of the proposed ordinance, along with a strike-through/underline draft of Section 17-29 are attached for review and discussion.
ORDINANCE 60-11-17
EXHIBIT A
Sec 17-29. Signs permitted within Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts.
Subject to the provisions as set forth within this section, the following signs shall be permitted within
Commercial Professional Office (CPO), Commercial Limited (CL), Commercial General (CG), Central
Business District (CBD), and Industrial, Light and Warehousing (ILW) Zoning Districts. Except as
specifically exempted in Section 17-26, and further subject to issuance of a sign permit, no other signs or
advertising device shall be displayed or erected within the City.
(a) Fascia signs.
(1) Fascia signs for buildings with a single business or occupant.
a. Size permitted: One (1) square foot of sign face area for each linear foot of the
building width that faces the street frontage of the lot as defined in Section 24-17 of
this Code, provided that no single fascia sign on any one (1) side of the building shall
exceed sixty (60) the total signage shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet of
sign face area, including buildings on corner lots. (For example, if the width of the
building facing the front of the lot is fifty (50) feet wide, the maximum total sign face
area for all fascia signs is fifty (50) square feet.) If the building is on a corner lot,
then the widths of the building façades facing multiple street frontages can be
added together to determine the total signage area, but in no cases shall the total
fascia signage exceed two hundred (200) square feet, nor shall an individual sign
exceed the square footage corresponding to the linear width of the building side on
which that sign is posted.)
b. Number of fascia signs permitted: Not more than three (3) fascia signs shall be
allowed on any one (1) side of the building. Where fascia signs are placed upon
more than one (1) side of the building, the combined sign face area shall not exceed
the amount permitted by subparagraph subsection (a) (1) a. above.
(2) Fascia signs for buildings with multiple businesses or occupants.
a. Size permitted: One (1) square foot of sign face area for each linear foot of the
unit(s) occupied by one (1) business or occupant, provided that the total signage no
such fascia sign shall not exceed forty-eight (48)two hundred (200) square feet of
sign face area for any one (1) business. If the business or occupant is on the corner,
then the widths of the unit(s) occupied by the business or occupant that are facing
multiple street frontages can be added together to determine the total signage
area, but in no case shall the total signage for particular business or occupant
exceed two hundred (200) square feet, nor shall any individual sign exceed the
square footage corresponding to the linear. (For example, if the width of a unit or
several units, occupied by one (1) business is twenty-four (24) feet, then one (1)
sign, a maximum of twenty-four (24) square feet of sign face area is permitted.)
b. Required spacing between signs on buildings with multiple occupants: Fascia signs
for different occupants shall be separated by a minimum distance of thirty-six (36)
inches.
(b) Bracket or marquee signs. In lieu of the above described fascia signs, a business or permitted
use may install a single bracket sign or marquee sign in accordance with the following
provisions:
Comment [eh1]: Creates a new heading
"Fascia Signs" to differentiate from Freestanding
Signs.
Comment [eh2]: Revises language, changes
the maximum area of fascia signs to 200 square
feet, consistent with NB and other jurisdictions.
Comment [eh3]: Corrects reference
according to new numbering.
Comment [eh4]: Revises language, changes
the maximum area of fascia signs to 200 square
feet, consistent with NB and other jurisdictions.
Comment [eh5]: Adds a subsection title for
bracket & marquee signs.
(1) Size permitted: The maximum size of a bracket sign or a marquee sign shall be
determined in the same manner as a fascia sign, provided that no such sign shall have
more than sixty (60) square feet of projected sign face area.
a. There shall be no more than twelve (12) inches of clear space adjacent to the
building wall, and such signs shall not extend or project from the face of the building
more than ten (10) feet.
b. No portion of such sign shall extend above the height of the roof.
c. No portion of such sign shall be closer than eight (8) feet to any sidewalk or
pedestrian walkway, and no closer than five (5) feet from any street side property
line. All such signs shall be securely anchored to a wall and shall in no manner be
connected to or suspended from the roof of any building.
(2) Within the Central Business District only. , and iIn addition to other permitted signs, uses
limited only to retail establishments, and restaurants, cafes and coffee shops, may
install a single bracket sign extending above a public sidewalk or pedestrian walkway.
The purpose of this provision is to provide appropriate and consistent signage for the
unique pedestrian environment of the town center area. Such signs shall be located
only in accordance with the following provisions and upon issuance of a sign permit:
a. May be located only above first floor entryways or first floor windows with no
portion of the sign display area exceeding ten (10) feet above the established grade
of the adjoining sidewalk or walkway;
b. Shall provided minimum vertical clearance of eight (8) feet above the sidewalk or
walkway;
c. Shall provide minimum clearance of six (6) inches from the building façade;
d. Shall be separated from any other such sign by a minimum of twenty (20) feet;
e. Shall not exceed three (3) feet in horizontal width and two (2) feet in vertical depth;
f. Shall give the appearance of traditional wood routed or sandblasted signs.
Materials such as high density urethane (HDU) and recycled high density
polyethylene (HDPE) plastics, which give a similar appearance, shall be acceptable
substitutes;
g. Shall be externally illuminated only and shall contain no electrical components; and
h. Shall create no safety hazard or obstruction to the public’s use of the sidewalk or
walkway as determined by the Director of Public Safety.
(c) Freestanding signs. In addition to the above signs, freestanding signs may be erected permitted
as set forth below:
(1) Size permitted: Freestanding signs, including pole, pylon, monument and ground-type
signs shall be limited to oOne (1) square foot of sign display area for each linear foot of
frontages of the development parcel on which the sign(s) are placed, provided no such
sign shall exceed ninety-six (96) square feet of sign display area, or eight (8) feet in
height and twelve (12) feet in width, except as provided in subsection (c)(2)b. below.
(2) Permitted height of sign for freestanding signs. For the following zoning districts, except
as set forth in following paragraph d.2., the maximum height of signs shall be:
a. Commercial Professional Office (CPO): Eight (8) feet.
b. Commercial Limited (CL): Eight (8) feet.
c. Central Business District (CBD): Eight (8) feet.
d. Commercial General (CG): Eight (8) feet.
e. Industrial Light and Warehousing (ILW): Eight (8) feet.
(3) Permitted width of free standing signs. The maximum width of signs in any non-
residential zoning districts shall be twelve (12) feet.
Comment [eh6]: Adds word “only” to
emphasis exclusivity of provision.
Comment [eh7]: Revises for more
appropriate word choice.
Comment [eh8]: Revises to eliminate
redundant language; contained in definition of
freestanding signs.
Comment [eh9]: Revises to eliminate
redundant language, summarize into a single
statement under proper heading of “Size
permitted”.
(4)(2) Number of freestanding signs permitted:
a. DOn a development parcels with street frontage upon a street,shall be permitted
one (1) freestanding sign shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) feet of
linear street frontage, up to a maximum of three (3) freestanding signs.. Height of
sign for such multiple signs shall not exceed eight (8) feet and sign display area shall
not exceed ninety-six (96) square feet; or
b. Development parcels with street frontage upon more than one (1) street, shall be
permitted one (1) additional freestanding sign on each street side of the
development parcel.
c. Required distance from property lines: No portion of any freestanding sign shall be
located closer to the property line than five (5) feet. Additional distance from
property lines may be required if determined necessary by the Director of Public
Works, to maintain clear vehicular and pedestrian sight distance. Freestanding signs
shall not be located so as to interfere with clear vehicular or pedestrian sight
distance. Further, signs determined by the Director of Public Safety to interfere
with safe sight distance for pedestrians or vehicles shall be immediately removed.
(5)(3) Within Commercial General (CG) and Commercial Limited (CL) Zoning Districts
only. Alternatively, on development parcels with street frontage of three hundred (300)
linear feet or more shall be permitted one (1) freestanding sign not to exceed ten (10)
feet in height and s one hundred twenty (120) feet in sign display area. The required
distance from any property lines for such freestanding sign shall be a minimum of ten
(10) feet. Additional distance from property lines may be required if determined
necessary by the Director of Public Safety, to maintain clear vehicular and pedestrian
sight distance.
a. On a development parcel that has frontage upon more than one (1) street, one (1)
additional freestanding sign shall be permitted on each street side of the
development parcel. The height of sign for any such secondary sign shall not exceed
eight (8) feet, and sign display area shall not exceed ninety-six (96) square feet.
(6) Required distance from property lines: No portion of any freestanding sign shall be
located closer to the property line than five (5) feet, except as may be required pursuant
to preceding paragraph (4)d.2. Freestanding signs shall not be located so as to interfere
with clear vehicular or pedestrian sight distance. Signs determined to by the Director of
Public Works to interfere with safe sight distance for pedestrians or vehicles shall be
immediately removed.
(d) Requirement for a unified sign plan. After the initial effective date of these regulations, all new
non-residential development, which shall contain space or units for more than one (1) business
or occupant, shall provide a unified sign plan with the application for building permits. All
subsequent applications for sign permits shall comply with the approved unified sign plan. The
unified sign plan shall comply with respect to the following:
(1) Manner and type of construction, including materials to be used, installation method
and mounting details.
(2) Means of illumination, if any, and hours of illumination.
(3) Size, color, lettering, and graphics style.
(e) Pre-development signs. Signs for the purpose of announcing a coming development project may
be placed within commercial and industrial zoning districts subject to the following provisions:
(1) Issuance of a sign permit shall be required, and no such sign shall remain on any
development parcel for a period of time exceeding one (1) year from the issuance date
of the sign permit.
Comment [eh10]: Revises to eliminate
redundant language, make structurally
consistent with remainder of section.
Comment [eh11]: Revises to re-locate
provisions from below to more logical order.
(2) Complete and proper applications for building permits for the related development
project must be submitted within sixty (60) days of the placement of any such sign, or
the sign shall be removed. In the case that the sign is not removed, the sign shall be
considered an abandoned sign, subject to the provisions of Section 17-41(c).
(3) Such sign shall be removed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of any certificate of
occupancy, or at any time when construction ceases for a period of time longer than
thirty (30) days. In the case that the sign is not removed within these periods of time,
the sign shall be considered as abandoned, subject to the provisions of Section 17-41(c).
(4) Only one (1) such sign shall be placed upon the development parcel and shall not exceed
the height or size permitted by preceding paragraph (a).
(f) Within non-residential zoning districts, one (1) sign per lot or developed parcel advertising the
sale or lease of the property, limited to eight (8) feet in height and a maximum of twenty-four
(24) square feet of sign face area. A sign permit shall be required for such signs, and these signs
shall be removed within ten (10) days of sale or lease of the property.
(g)(f) Requirement to display street number. All business and activities regulated by the
requirements of Section 17-29 shall display the street number in a manner that is prominent
and clearly readable to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as appropriate. Street numbers shall be
displayed on all freestanding signs and over front doors or primary entryways.
Comment [eh12]: Revises to eliminate
redundant language – real estate signs
addressed elsewhere.