Agenda2011_1220
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.
DECEMBER 20, 2011 Regular Meeting
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday | December 20, 2011 | 6:00pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the November 15, 2011 meeting.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business. None.
5. New Business.
a. ZVAR-2011-06 (11-00100065), Harkleroad, 2019 Beach Avenue.
Request for a variance from Section 24-106(e)(2), reducing the required rear yard setback
for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet within the Residential Single
Family (RS-2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue.
6. Other Business Not Requiring Action.
7. Adjournment.
Draft Minutes of the November 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 4
1 2
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4
November 15, 2011 5
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:02pm 6
Chairman Chris Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Kelly Elmore, 7
Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson (chair), Brea Paul, and Patrick Stratton. Blaine Adams and 8
Harley Parkes were absent. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall and Building 9
Official Michael Griffin. 10
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 20, 2011. 11
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2011 meeting. 12
MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the September 20, 2011 13
meeting, as written. Seconded by Ms. Paul, the motion carried 5-0. 14
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. 15
Ms. Hall introduced Board members to Mr. Jason Burgess who was in attendance and was 16
recently appointed to the Board with a term beginning in January 2012. 17
4. OLD BUSINESS. None. 18
5. NEW BUSINESS. 19
A. UBE-2011 -00100063 20
APPLICANT: Connie Craven 21
ADDRESS: 393 3rd Street 22
REQUEST: Home Occupation (Artist/Jewelry Designer & Internet Sales) 23
24
Ms. Hall introduced the item, explaining that Ms. Craven is requesting a Use-by-Exception 25
granting approval for a Home Occupation consistent with Section 24-106(c)(4), and in 26
accordance with the provisions of Section 24-159, permitting professional artistic services 27
together with design and crafts activities associated with beading and jewelry making, not 28
involving equipment other than normal business office machines, within a single-family 29
dwelling located on a property in the Residential Single Family (RS-2) Zoning District at 393 30
3rd Street. She noted that Ms. Craven was unable to attend this meeting due to a previously 31
scheduled event; however, she did provide a copy of her artist’s statement to explain her work 32
process and a link to her eBay website to show the finished products. 33
Ms. Hall continued that Ms. Craven had sufficiently addressed all review criteria of Section 34
24-63(d) on her application, noting that there is no need for additional structures, additional 35
ingress/egress, additional parking or loading areas, additional or special refuse or trash 36
collection, additional utilities, additional yards open space or special screening/buffering, 37
signs, or exterior lighting, because all activities, including storage of materials and finished 38
Draft Minutes of the November 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 4
jewelry products, will be completely within one bedroom of the existing dwelling. A 39
computer, digital camera and scanner/printer are to be used in the marketing and sales of the 40
products through Ms. Craven’s online eBay store, while delivery of supplies and shipment of 41
orders will be via standard USPS service. 42
Mr. Elmore commented that this appeared to be a clear-cut case in which the requested 43
activities have already been deemed as acceptable by the provisions of Section 24-159, and 44
that this Board’s review is merely a procedural requirement. Mr. Lambertson opened to the 45
floor to public comment, and with there being none, closed that portion of the hearing and 46
brought the item back before the Board for further discussion. With no additional discussion, 47
he called for a motion. 48
MOTION: Mr. Elmore moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval 49
of UBE-2011-00100063 permitting a Home Occupation for professional artistic services 50
together with design and crafts activities associated with beading and jewelry making, and 51
internet marketing and sales, not involving equipment other than normal business office 52
machines, within a single-family dwelling located on a property in the Residential Single 53
Family (RS-2) Zoning District at 393 3rd Street, finding that the request is consistent with 54
Section 24-106(c)(4), and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-159 of the adopted 55
Land Development Regulations. Seconded by Mr. Stratton, the motion carried unanimously, 56
5-0. 57
B. ORD NO 60-11 -17 (PROPOSED) 58
APPLICANT: Planning & Zoning Division 59
ADDRESS: Commercial & Industrial Zoning Districts, Citywide 60
REQUEST: Revision of Section 17-29 of Sign Code 61
62
Ms. Hall introduced this item to the Board, and explained that staff is requesting that the 63
Board make a recommendation to the City Commission to amend Section 17-29 of the Sign 64
Code, to allow fascia signs equivalent to one (1) square foot of sign face area per each linear 65
foot of frontage, up to a maximum two hundred (200) square feet of sign face area, applicable 66
to fascia signs on both single-occupant and multiple-occupant structures, and to remove 67
extraneous language and reorder/renumber the section so as to clarify the provisions. 68
Ms. Hall explained that with the recent submittal of a preliminary sign plan by the incoming 69
tenant of the old Publix space, staff realized there was a problem with Section 17-29. 70
Particularly, prior to adoption of Ordinance No 60-02-12 on September 9, 2002, provisions 71
regarding fascia signs read as follows: 72
No flat sign shall utilize or occupy an area greater than one square foot of surface 73
for each linear foot of building or unit frontage of the building or unit occupied to 74
which the sign is attached. [Section 17-2(b)(1)] 75
However, Section 17-29(a) of the adopted Sign Code regarding fascia signs currently reads as 76
follows: 77
(1) Fascia signs for buildings with a single business or occupant. 78
(a) Size permitted: One (1) square foot of sign face area for each linear foot of 79
the building width that faces the front of the lot, as defined in Section 24-17 80
of this Code, provided that no single fascia sign on any one side of a building 81
shall exceed sixty (60) square feet of sign face area. 82
Draft Minutes of the November 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 4
(2) Fascia signs for buildings with multiple businesses or occupants. 83
(a) Size permitted: One (1) square foot of sign face area for each linear foot of 84
the unit(s) occupied by one business or occupant, provided that no such 85
fascia shall exceed forty-eight (48) square feet of sign face area for any one 86
business. 87
88
As such, the currently adopted maximum sign face areas of sixty (60) and forty-eight (48) 89
feet, impose severe limitations on the visibility of fascia signs placed on buildings with large 90
linear frontages exceeding those dimensions, especially those set back a substantial distance 91
from the right-of-way, as is the case with most shopping centers. And, because there are no 92
provisions for sign variances, applicants must ask the City Commission to grant waivers of 93
these Sign Code provisions. 94
95
Ms. Hall continued, explaining that while researching this matter, it was discovered that a 96
number of fascia signs permitted since the 2002 rewrite do exceed the stated maximums, but 97
there is no evidence that any of those have appeared before the Commission seeking or 98
obtaining waivers. Further, there is no indication that these signs were accounted for in 99
recent sign compliance reviews related to impending amortization of nonconforming signs. 100
To do so now would more than double the number of nonconforming signs, and to require 101
businesses to bring both freestanding and fascia signs into compliance would most likely be 102
judged as an undue and excessive hardship. 103
104
Ms. Hall stated that review of the Neptune Beach Sign Code revealed a nearly identical 105
framework to that of Atlantic Beach, except Neptune Beach limits fascia sign face area – both 106
single- and multiple-occupant – to a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet. In order to 107
substantiate which regulation was more consistent with the norm, the maximum sign face 108
area for fascia signs within several other Florida municipalities were examined, as 109
summarized in the table below: 110
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
111
Based upon findings that the current Atlantic Beach provisions are considerably more 112
restrictive than those of the other jurisdictions, and there is no historic evidence to 113
substantiate the 2002 revision, staff has drafted an ordinance proposing revision of Section 114
17-29 for consistency with the Neptune Beach regulations for maximum sign face area of 115
fascia signs. Ms. Hall then directed the Board to the strike-through/underline draft of Section 116
17-29 attached to the staff report. She explained that the only substantive change was to the 117
maximum sign face area standard for fascia signs, but noted “house-keeping” mandated a few 118
additional standardization updates, such as removal of redundant or extraneous language, 119
Draft Minutes of the November 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 4
addition or revision of subsection titles and number, all of which are addressed in comments 120
in the right margin of the draft, and summarized below: 121
122
Comment [eh1]: Creates a new subsection titled “Fascia signs” to differentiate from 123
regulations applicable to freestanding and bracket or marquee signs. 124
Comment [eh2]: Revises language, changes the maximum area of fascia signs (for 125
buildings with a single business or occupant) to 200 square feet, 126
consistent with NB and other jurisdictions. 127
Comment [eh3]: Corrects subsection reference according to updated numbering. 128
Comment [eh4]: Revises language, changes the maximum area of fascia signs (for 129
buildings with multiple businesses or occupants) to 200 square feet, 130
consistent with NB and other jurisdictions. 131
Comment [eh5]: Creates a subsection title for bracket & marquee signs. 132
Comment [eh6]: Adds the word “only” to emphasize exclusivity of this particular 133
provision. 134
Comment [eh7]: Revises for word choice. 135
Comment [eh8]: Revises to eliminate redundant language contained in definition of 136
freestanding signs. 137
Comment [eh9]: Revises to eliminate redundant language (9 lines), summarizes into a 138
single statement and placed under proper heading of “Size permitted”. 139
Comment [eh10]: Revises to eliminate extraneous language and make subsection 140
structurally consistent with remainder of section. 141
Comment [eh11]: Relocates improperly placed paragraph from next subsection. 142
Comment [eh12]: Creates a subsection title for real estate signs. 143
Comment [eh13]: Revises the subsection title for street numbers. 144
145
Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment, and with there being none, brought 146
the item back to the Board for discussion. The consensus of the Board was that it is entirely 147
reasonable for the Atlantic Beach sign regulations to be consistent with those of Neptune 148
Beach, especially along a shared corridor. With no further discussion, Mr. Lambertson called 149
for a motion. 150
151
MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval 152
of proposed Ordinance No. 60-11 -17, amending Section 17-29 of the Sign Code as presented 153
in strike-through/underline draft format and described by staff, finding that these revisions are 154
consistent with and serve to accomplish and implement the goals, objectives and policies of 155
the Comprehensive Plan regarding provision of orderly growth, protection of property values, 156
advancement of economic development opportunities, maintenance of a safe and aesthetically 157
pleasing environment. Seconded by Ms. Paul, the motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 158
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None. 159
7. ADJOURNMENT – 6:25 PM 160
161
_______________________________________ 162
Chris Lambertson, Chairman 163
164
165
_______________________________________ 166
Attest 167
AGENDA ITEM 5a
DECEMBER 20, 2011 Regular Meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
December 20, 2011 Public Hearing
Zoning Variance, ZVAR-2011-06 (11-00100065)
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: November 23, 2011
APPLICANT: Carl E Harkleroad
2019 Beach Avenue
REQUEST: Request for a variance from Section 24-106(e)(2), reducing the required rear
yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet
within the Residential Single Family (RS-2) Zoning District on a property
located at 2019 Beach Avenue.
NOTE: The City’s Development Review process requires examination of certain elements by
certain staff. Planning staff reviews site plans only, for compliance with Zoning and
Land Development Regulations. Planning staff is not required to have any more than
passing familiarity with construction and engineering plans, and they are not expected
to search through construction or engineering plans and extract obscure information
that should have been clearly presented on the site plan.
STAFF COMMENTS Earlier this year, staff met with an architectural designer to discuss proposed renovations to the structures located at 2019 Beach Avenue. An approved site plan [Don Ford, Building Dept, 01/18/2001; George Worley, Planning Dept, 01/19/2001] from the City’s digital archives was reviewed and referenced during this consultation. The following information was gleaned from the 2001 site plan:
• Using the geopdf measure tool, the scale of the site plan was verified by measuring a known dimension. The width of the rear property line was confirmed, as was the width of the north side yard and the rear yard. The separation between the two existing structures was then determined to be three (3) feet in width.
• Using the same methodology to confirm the scale of the elevations, the separation between structures was again confirmed to be three (3) feet. The height of the existing detached garage was determined to be approximately 16.73’, and the northwest corner of the same
was estimated to be 12.64’ from the rear lot line when normal measure was taken from the wall plane.
• The following note was also found in reference to the existing detached garage: “ACCESSORY SECONDARY DWELLING ON SPREAD CONC FOOTINGS & STRUCTURALLY SEPARATED FROM MAIN RESIDENCE”. In summary, the approved 2001 site plan, garage detail and elevation demonstrated that the existing garage was detached from the principal structure and was situated ten (10) feet from the rear lot line. The existing garage was oriented north-south, such that access required a nearly 90° right-hand turn from Beach Avenue into the driveway, followed by a nearly 90° left-hand turn from the driveway into the garage. And the separation between the existing garage and principal structure consisted of an approximately three (3) foot wide breezeway also running north-south about twelve (12) feet, and leading to a stairway about seven (7) feet long and ascending to a first floor landing to the north of the principal structure. Phase one of the proposed work consisted of interior renovations to the principal structure only, and not subject to zoning review. Phase two, however, consisted of renovation of the existing detached garage, including (1) re-orientation so that the access would be from the west rather than the south; (2) addition of a second story for use as a game room; and, (3) construction of a new open stairway on the south side of the renovated garage, with connection to the existing breezeway, proposed to be elevated and maintained between the detached garage and the principal structure. There was also later discussion (4) as to whether or not a second accessory structure could be constructed south of the existing detached garage. With further consideration of the existing conditions, the previously proposed renovations, as well as the constraints of the Land Development Regulations, staff determined that a garage apartment could not be constructed because it would have to meet the same minimum rear yard setbacks (20’) as the principal structure [Section 24-89(f), 24-106(e)(2)], and there was not sufficient space for this. However, the available space did yield a buildable area consistent with the minimum required setbacks (10’ from rear lot line & 10’ from south side lot line), the maximum required footprint (<600 square feet) , and the maximum height (<25’) of a two-story, one-car garage with guest quarters, which is a conforming accessory use[Section 24-151(b)(1)c]. Staff also explained two provisions that could be applied to gain more buildable width.
• Section 24-48(h) allows the Community Development Director to grant a minor dimension variance, up to five (5) percent of the standard from which variance is sought. In the case of combined fifteen (15) foot side yard setbacks, the most that could be granted under this provision would be nine (9) inches;
• Section 24-151(b)(1)n allows open exterior stairs to be located within required side yards, three (3) feet from the side lot line. This provision could be applied if the second accessory structure was constructed south of the existing detached garage, and the open stairway was relocated south of the second accessory. While there is no minimum required separation between accessory structures, staff reiterated that neither of the two accessories could be connected to the principal structure, nor could they be connected to one another. Staff then reiterated that while there is currently no provision for minimum separation for accessory structures within the Land Development Regulations, there would be requirements per the Florida Building and Fire Codes, and those issues would be addressed as part of the Building Department’s review. However, the chief objective of the Planning & Zoning review was to insure that both the existing and proposed accessory structures remained detached from one another and
the principal structure, i.e., no structural roof element would connect or tie the accessory structures together or into the principal structure. Believing these issues would be adequately addressed by the maintenance of the existing three (3) foot wide open breezeway between the primary and accessory structures, and a minimal though yet-to-be-determined separation between the two accessory structures, staff gave the preliminary approval to proceed with the design. The interior renovations were permitted by the Building Department and completed in early to mid July 2011. Application for the renovations to the existing garage and addition of another garage, with sleeping quarters above was made on September 15, 2011. Planning staff reviewed the submitted site plan dated June 13. 2011, finding it to be consistent with the changes previously discussed: (1) renovation of the existing garage included no changes to the existing footprint, but was shown to relocate the vehicular access from the south side to the west side, and to add an upper level said to be utilized as a “game room”; (2) addition of a second accessory structure was shown directly adjacent to and south of the existing garage, and was said to include a one-car garage on the lower level and a “bonus room”/guest quarters on the upper level; (3) addition of an open stairway was shown on the south side of the new garage/guest quarters, encroaching into the required side yard setback, as allowed according to Section 24-151(b)(1)n, and connecting with the previously existing open breezeway, now raised to the first floor elevation. Staff observed no indication of a new connection between the existing principal structure and either accessory structure, and thus granted zoning approval on September 19, 2011. Building permits were issued on October 28, 2011. In mid November, the Building Official asked Planning staff to meet with a resident who was interested in doing the same as his neighbor – particularly, connecting his detached garage with the main house with a covered breezeway. At this time, the ongoing construction at 2019 Beach Avenue was referenced. Building and Planning staff reviewed the approved site plan and, not finding evidence of any such connection, made a site visit. When staff was unable to conclusively identify a potential connection on site, they met with the contractor, who confirmed the intent to connect the accessory structures to the principal structure. Upon return to the office and review of the construction plans, an obscure note indicating the connection was found. However, the connection was not shown on the submitted site plan. Related work was stopped, and notice was given to the property owner and the building contractor that construction was not consistent with the approved site plan, and that either the construction would have to be changed to comply with the approved site plan, or a variance from the Land Development Regulations allowing the intended construction would have to be obtained. First submittal of the variance application consisted only of the following statements under the Additional Comments section: “Full set of plans were submitted to City & approved. Construction is well underway and changes will be costly.” Staff found the variance application to be insufficient and requested that a revised site plan clearly delineating the intended connection be re-submitted, along with a completed application noting the applicable circumstance and justification for the approval of the requested variance. The application and a copy of the site plan revised to show the area of proposed connection and a note stating “Connection on 2nd Floor” was received on November 23, 2011. Item (d)(4) – onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property – has been checked, and the statement “Permitted project does not meet zoning setbacks” has been added. Staff maintains what was originally discussed and proposed, and then shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department for Development Review and Building Permit issuance, are not consistent with the intended construction as now verified with the contractor and the property
owner. During preliminary consultation with the designer, staff was led to believe the proposal was for accessory structures, detached from the principal structure and in compliance with all required accessory standards. In fact, the provision for a minor dimensional variance and the provision for open exterior stairs within required side yards are both noted on the site plan originally submitted, as is the required rear yard setback for a detached two-story garage, thus corroborating staff’s recall of the preliminary consultation. On December 8, 2011, the Building Official visited the site and found that construction had continued such that, against the advice of staff, the connection between the principal structure and the accessory structures has been established. As a result, the two accessory structures are now effectively incorporated into the principal structure, and are now subject to the same required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback. In order for construction to continue in a legally permitted manner and staff to issue final inspection approvals upon project completion, either the Community Development Board must grant a variance reducing the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to ten (10) feet, or the plan of construction must be revised to comply with the Land Development Regulations.
ATTACHMENTS: 2001 Approved Site Plan, with enlargements of site plan & elevations
(reviewed during preliminary consultation, spring 2011)
2011 Approved Site Plan
(submitted 9/15/11 for development review / building permits)
Notice of Non-Compliance with Approved Site Plan
(sent to applicant on 11/23/2011)
2011 Site Plan
(submitted 11/23/11 as part of variance application)
Photographs of existing conditions, as of December 8, 2011