Agenda2012_09-18
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.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Regular Meeting
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday | September 18, 2012 | 6:00pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business. None.
5. New Business.
A. ZVAR-12-00100031, 587 Beach Avenue (Content Design Group for Moquin)
Request for a variance from provisions of Section 24-172(c), Old Atlantic Beach
residential development standards, consistent with the provisions of Section 24-172(e)
to construct a new home with modern design, on a property located at 587 Beach
Avenue, within a Residential Single Family (RS-2) zoning district.
6. Other Business Not Requiring Action. None.
7. Adjournment.
Draft Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 5
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
August 21, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:00pm
Chair Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, Kelly
Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes, Brea Paul and Patrick Stratton. The
meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. Matthew Schellhorn, ex officio board member and
community planning liaison to NS Mayport, was also in attendance, along with Principal Planner
Erika Hall, Redevelopment Coordinator Lesley Resnick, Building and Zoning Director Michael
Griffin, and City Attorney Alan Jensen.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – JUNE 19, 2012.
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2012 regular meeting.
Mr. Parkes moved that the minutes be approved as written. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion and
it carried by a vote of 7-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS.
No visitors were recognized.
4. OLD BUSINESS. None.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR -12-00100027, 271 CAMELIA STREET (CONNERS)
Request for a variance from Section 24-107(e)(2), reducing the minimum required rear
yard setback for the principal structure from twenty (20) feet to eleven and three-tenths
(11.3) feet, for the addition of a screened room with a structural roof onto the rear of the
principal structure, on a property located at 271 Camelia Street, within a Residential Two
Family (RG) zoning district.
Staff
Report
Ms. Hall reported that the applicant was seeking a variance reducing the
required rear yard setback for his principal structure in order to construct
a screened room with a hardened or “structural roof”. The standard
required per Section 24-107(e)(2) is twenty (20) feet, and the applicant is
asking to reduce the required rear yard to eleven and three-tenths (11.3)
feet.
Ms. Hall explained that because porches with structural roofs have the
potential to be enclosed to create additional conditioned space within the
principal structure, they are limited as to the amount they may project into
a setback. Per section 24-83(b), porches having structural roofs and
screen walls may encroach into required rear yards up to forty-eight (48)
inches. Alternatively, entirely screened rooms with no impervious roof,
Draft Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 5
such as pool cages, may be located as close as five (5) feet from rear and
side yard setbacks, per section 24-151(b)(1)l. She said these provisions
were explained to the applicant when he first inquired about addition of a
screened porch to the rear of his home.
Applicant
Comment
Applicant Michael Conners addressed the board and confirmed that the
illustration provided by Ms. Hall was consistent with the addition he
proposed. He explained that his property is approximately 500 feet from
the Intracoastal, and a screened porch is a necessity to counter the attack
of gnats, mosquitoes and biting flies. He added that he felt such an
addition would be an improvement to his property that would, in turn,
improve the neighborhood.
Public
Comment
There was no public comment.
Board
Discussion
Mr. Lambertson opened discussion of the application to the board, and
Mr. Stratton asked if Mr. Conners needs could be met with a screened
lanai, similar to a pool cage, which consists of both walls and roof
composed of screen. Mr. Conners responded that he did not understand
how a three (3) inch foam roof constituted a structural roof. Mr.
Lambertson replied that the impervious nature of the roof made it
structural.
Mr. Parkes explained an alternative would be to construct an accessory,
such as a screened gazebo, which could have a structural roof. Such an
accessory could be located to within five (5) feet of the rear and side lot
lines. However, it would have to be limited in size to one hundred fifty
(150 square feet and in height to twelve (12) feet. Additionally, such
accessory structures must be located a minimum of five (5) feet from
principal structures.
Mr. Burgess asked Mr. Conners if there were any conditions or
characteristics of his property that made it different from surrounding
properties, to which Mr. Conners replied no.
Mr. Lambertson directed board members to review the grounds for
approval of a variance and grounds for denial of a variance, as provided
along with the applicant.
Motion Mr. Burgess moved that the board deny the request for variance to reduce
the required rear yard setback from twenty (20) feet to eleven and three-
tenths (11.3) feet for the construction of a screened room with a
structurally hardened roof onto the rear of the principal structure, finding
that the none of the grounds for approval of a variance, as provided by
section 24-64(d) were met.
Mr. Parkes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 7-0.
Mr. Lambertson reiterated to Mr. Conners that he had several options
available to him and encouraged him to discuss these further with staff.
Draft Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 5
B. LDR AMENDMENT, SECTION 24-51 (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS),
SECTION 24-69 (FEES)
Public hearing to review proposed revisions to Section 24-51, Notice of Public Hearings,
and Section 24-69, Fees; to take public comment; and to make a recommendation to the
City Commission regarding said amendment.
Staff
Report
Ms. Hall explained that public hearings are integral to due process related
to applications that seek relief from or propose changes to land uses and
development standards. Florida statutes provide very specific directions
as to how and when public hearings should be held, and how and when
they are to be advertised, for both amendment of comprehensive plans
and associated future land use maps, and amendment of land development
regulations and zoning district map and permitted uses. And though
statutes, particularly Chapter 163 which is the Community Planning Act
of 2010, and its former incarnation as the Growth Management Act of
1985, prescribe public hearings for requests for variances from or
exceptions to adopted development standards and permissible uses, the
timing and method of notice is not as clearly defined. Essentially,
provisions for notice of these types of public hearings which result in a
development order rather than an ordinance, have been left to the design
of individual municipalities. As such, the City of Atlantic Beach has
complied with the basic requirements of posting an agenda for meetings
at which public hearings are to be held on the city bulletin board, and
posting a sign of notification on the subject property, each at least a week
before the actual hearing. But many other municipalities, Jacksonville
Beach and Neptune Beach included, are more aggressive in noticing
public hearings. More than just posting a sign on the subject property,
other municipalities also publish notices in the local newspaper and/or
send letters of notification to adjacent property owners within a certain
radius of the subject property.
Further, she explained that, in light of this, and in an effort to encourage
more transparency and increased levels of public participation in
governance of the city, commissioners had requested that staff draft
revisions to section 24-51 which would make public notice requirements
for Atlantic Beach consistent with the other beach cities. She said that the
strike-through and underline draft before this board tonight does that.
Ms. Hall then directed board members to a chart comparing the current
provisions of section 24-51 to the current provisions of chapter 163 and
chapter 166 (specifically, the subsection having to do with public hearings
and notification for municipal ordinances), and to the provisions of both
Jacksonville Beach and Neptune Beach, and finally to the proposed
revisions. She also noted that, due to the added expense of published
advertisements and mailed notices, she was recommending an increase in
the fee for variance applications [section 24-69(a)(5)], from the current
$150 to $250, which is the amount also charged by the other beach cities.
No other fee increases are recommended at this time, as all others are
consistent with the other beach cities.
Draft Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 5
Public
Comment
There was no public comment.
Board
Discussion
Mr. Stratton expressed concern over the added expense of published
advertisement and mailed notice for variances and use-by-exceptions, as
well as how the increased fee would impact potential applicants. Ms. Hall
explained that some municipalities required a flat fee for the application,
along with a variable fee for notice, depending upon the actual cost of
publication and the precise number of notices mailed out. However, she
was instructed to maintain an all-inclusive flat application fee consistent
with the other beach cities. She added that at this time, Atlantic Beach
charges at least $100 less than many municipalities, including Neptune
and Jacksonville Beach.
Mr. Lambertson, noted as an owner of property in other jurisdictions, he
felt that mailed notices were of great benefit, much more so than posted
signs, to property owners that lived out of the city or county or even state
where the public hearing was to take place.
Mr. Elmore stated that he believed delineating the requirements for
notices related to zoning and land use matters, rather than simply referring
to the Florida statutes, was a good idea, as statutes can be cumbersome to
wade through. He also said he felt the chart prepared by Ms. Hall did a
good job of summarizing and justifying the proposed revisions.
Motion Mr. Elmore moved that the board recommend adoption of the proposed
revisions to section 24-51 and section 24-69, as drafted by staff, finding
that these revisions are consistent with the provisions of Florida statutes
regarding public hearings for amendments to the comprehensive plan,
associated land use maps, zoning and land development regulations, as
well as the provisions of neighboring beach cities regarding land
development orders. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion, and inquired of
City Attorney Alan Jensen if he was comfortable that the proposed
revisions were sound. Mr. Jensen responded in the affirmative. Mr.
Lambertson called for the vote, and the motion carried unanimously, 7 -0.
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
A. BEACH AVENUE DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION
Review of staff-produced exhibits regarding development patterns, followed by virtual tour
and discussion of existing conditions along Beach Avenue.
Staff
Report
Ms. Hall presented a series of maps demonstrating some of the
characteristics of properties fronting on Beach Avenue, as a means to
provide the board with some background and insight into the “big
picture” of how this area had developed over the past 100 years. She then
guided board members through a Google Earth street view tour of Beach
Avenue, stopping at selected properties and reviewing the type and age of
the structure, orientation to and location in proximity to the street, as well
as calling attention to parking and landscaping issues routinely brought to
staff.
Draft Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 5
Board
Discussion
Board members discussed the idiosyncrasies of the Beach Avenue
properties, as well as related variance requests made over the last several
years. It was the general consensus of the board that there is no blanket
solution that can address all the potential issues that may – or may not –
arise, related to the future development or redevelopment of Beach
Avenue properties. And therefore, the board decided that there should be
no revisions to the development standards at this time, but that any
property owner wishing to deviate from the current standards should be
encouraged to do so in accordance with the provisions of section 24-64
(variances) or section 24-172 (residential design standards), as applicable.
Further, Mr. Hansen summarized the thoughts of the board, reiterating
that section 24-64(b)(1) guarantees that each application for a variance
shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and only approved on the
merits of the individual case and findings that the request is consistent
with the definition of a variance and criteria as established in section 24-
64, or 24-172, as applicable.
Mr. Lambertson did express interest in the board looking further at right-
of-ways, in terms of private party improvements and maintenance, and
public parking, especially on those side streets leading to beach accesses.
Ms. Hall said she would do some research and gather materials for
presentation at a future meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT – 7:27 PM
_______________________________________
Chris Lambertson, Chairman
_______________________________________
Attest
AGENDA ITEM 5A
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Regular Meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT
ZVAR-12-00100031
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: September 11, 2012
APPLICANT: Greg Beere, Content Design Group
on behalf of Kirk & Anne Marie Moquin
587 Beach Avenue
REQUEST: Request for a variance from provisions of Section 24-172(c), Old Atlantic
Beach residential development standards, consistent with the provisions of
Section 24-172(e), to construct a new home with modern design, on a
property located at 587 Beach Avenue, within a Residential Single Family (RS-
2) zoning district.
STAFF COMMENTS
Content Design Group has submitted preliminary plans for the new Moquin home to be located at 587
Beach Avenue. As proposed, the house is consistent with the development standards for the RS-2
zoning district, in which the property is located.
However, there are additional residential development standards for the geographic area of the city
known as “Old Atlantic Beach”. These were adopted as Ordinance No. 90-06-195 on September 11,
2006, for the purpose of managing development and redevelopment of properties, “which because of
excessive height, mass or bulk may result in new development that excessively dominates established
development patterns within neighborhoods or [that] excessively restricts light, air, breezes or privacy
on adjacent properties.” [Section 24-172(a), purpose and intent]
Due to the modern design of the Moquin house, the proposed structure does not meet the following
“Old Atlantic Beach” development standards set out in Section 24-172(c).
(1) Side wall planes. To avoid stark, exterior side walls from facing the sides of adjacent
residences, particularly on two-story and three-story residences, the following standards
shall apply to new two-story and three-story single-family and two-family dwellings; to
renovations involving structural alterations or additions to the sides of existing single-family
and two-family dwellings, and where a second- or third-story is added to an existing single-
family or two-family dwelling.
AGENDA ITEM 5A – continued
Page 2 of 3
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Regular Meeting
a. Second- and third-story exterior side walls, which exceed thirty-five (35) feet in
length, shall provide horizontal offsets of at least four (4) feet, or architectural
details, design elements or other features which serve to break up the appearance of
the side wall, such that adjacent properties are not faced on the side by blank two-
or three-story walls void of any architectural design other siding material or
windows.
b. Such design features may also include balconies, bay windows and other types of
projecting windows or architectural details provided that these shall not extend
more than twenty-four (24) inches into the required side yard, and that a minimum
separation of ten (10) feet is maintained between such extensions into the required
side yard and any other existing residential buildings.
Staff comments: The northern elevation abuts 6th Street and features a cantilevered
second-story and a stepped-in third story. The southern elevation features an open
staircase from the first to second floor and a cantilevered second- and third-story. Though
the third-story along the southern elevation is a fifty-four (54) foot-long windowless wall, it
should be noted there is at least a twenty-eight (28) foot setback between the southern
elevation and the interior property line, so that the additional buffering between home and
an adjacent residence.
(2) Height to wall plane. For single family and two-family dwellings, the maximum height to the
top horizontal framing member of a wall from the first floor finished floor elevation shall not
exceed twenty-two (22) feet.
Staff comments: The intent of the “height to wall plane” provision is to encourage third
stories which are contained within the roof structures, such as found in “traditional” design
homes, for the purpose of reducing the mass and bulk of the structure. Though this is not
compatible with modern designs such as the proposed plan, the overall height of the
structure does not exceed the maximum allowable height of thirty-five (35) feet, and the
use of cantilevers, step-ins, balconies and roof-top decks on various levels, all tend to
mitigate the additional height to parapet.
(3) Third floor footprint. In order to reduce the mass of taller single-family and two-family
dwellings, the interior footprint of any third floor shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the
size of the second floor interior footprint.
Staff comments: The proposed third-story is about one thousand seven hundred twenty-
seven (1,727) square feet enclosed, which is approximately fifty-eight (56) percent of the
area of the second-story that three thousand ninety-three (3,093) square feet enclosed.
However, about five hundred seventy-five (575) square feet of the third-story is
uninhabitable space, consisting of clear opening to the second floor. Discounting this area
of uninhabitable space, the effective area of the third floor is reduced to one thousand one
hundred fifty-two (1,152) square feet, or about forty-seven (37) percent of the second floor
area. Also, the glass walls along the eastern and western elevations offer a great deal of
translucency, and tend to mitigate the additional enclosed area of the third floor.
AGENDA ITEM 5A – continued
Page 3 of 3
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Regular Meeting
The provisions of section 24-172 are applicable to all residential development within Old Atlantic Beach,
in addition to the development standards delineated for each zoning district. However, realizing that
there are alternative means to achieve the purpose and intent of this section, provisions for obtaining a
variance from these standards are also provided in section 24-172(e):
[A]n applicant may request a variance to provisions of this section in accordance with the
procedures as set forth within section 24-64 of this chapter, except that the following shall be
considered as grounds to approve such requests. (Subsections (c) and (d) of section 24-64 shall
not be applicable to such requests.)
Requests to vary from the provisions of the residential development standards may be granted,
at the discretion of the community development board, upon finding that:
(1) The proposed development will not result in excessive height, mass or bulk that will
excessively dominate the established development pattern within the neighborhood or
excessively restrict light, air, breezes or privacy on adjacent properties.
(2) The proposed development will be compatible and consistent with the diversity of
architectural styles and building forms found in Old Atlantic Beach.
On this basis, Content Design Group seeks relief from the residential development standards described
above, so that the preliminary plans as submitted may be finalized and the Moquins’ new home may be
constructed at 587 Beach Avenue. Staff recommends approval on all three counts.
ATTACHMENTS:
Variance application
Architectural Plans, including elevations, 3D images and rendering
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
City of Atlantic Beach · 800 Seminole Road · Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445
Phone: (904) 247-5800 · FAX (904) 247-5845 · http://www.coab.us
Date ____________________________ File No.____________________________
1. Applicant's Name ____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Applicant's Address __________________________________________________________________________________
3. Property Location __________________________________________________________________________________
4. Property Appraiser’s Real Estate Number _______________________________________________________________
5. Current Zoning Classification __________________ 6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation _________
7. Provision from which Variance is requested_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Size of Parcel __________________________________
9. Homeowner’s Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction.
Yes No (If yes, this must be submitted with any application for a Building Permit.)
10. Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Variance, which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-64 of
the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this application.
Statement and site plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested.
11. Provide all of the following information:
a. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate by lawyer or abstract company or title company that verifies
record owner as above). If the applicant is not the owner, a letter of authorization from the owner(s) for
applicant to represent the owner for all purposes related to this application must be provided.
b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought.
c. Required number of copies: Four (4), except where original plans, photographs or documents larger
than 11x17 inches are submitted. Please provide eight (8) copies of any such original documents.
d. Application Fee ($150.00)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS
CORRECT:
Signature of owner(s) or authorized person if owner's authorization form is attached:
Printed or typed name(s): ________________________________________________________________
Signature(s): ____________________________________________________________________________
ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE
REGARDING THIS APPLICATION
Name: __________________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _________________________________________________________________________
Phone: _____________________ FAX: _______________________ E-mail:________________________
ZVAR, Version1.12.2007