Loading...
587 Beach Avenue ZVAR-12-00100031 Misc. -141 Cathiileak Ser 16; IVA I'm Scott Griswold and I have lived for over 28 years at 511 Ocean Boulevard in a home that was built around 1913. I live within a block of the proposed house at 587 Beach. I attended several of the meetings when the Section 24-172 standards for old Atlantic Beach were being developed. This occurred during a building boom and some of the residents wanted to restrict the construction of'big box houses' that were popular at that time. A consultant was hired and input from the citizens was solicited. "Old Atlantic Beach" development standards set out in Section 24-172(c). Policy A.1.4.4 states: "Within Old Atlantic Beach, the city shall consider options to discourage the redevelopment of residential lots in ways that are inconsistent and incompatible with the historic and existing built environment. " It also states "The further intent of these regulations is to appropriately limit height and bulk and mass of residential structures in accordance with the expressed intent of the citizens of Atlantic Beach" I looked at the request for variance of that proposed house and I do not think the proposed home at 587 Beach meets the above guidelines for the following reasons: item 2 Height to wall plane. 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. The staff admits this design does not meet the intent of that provision. Since that is the case I think a new design which meets the intent should be submitted. item(3) Third floor footprint states that it "shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the size of the second floor interior footprint". Staff comment is that (575) square feet of the third-story is uninhabitable space and if you remove this from the calculation the house complies with the 50% rule. I think the design should be changed to comply with the rule, not change the calculation to make the house fit the rule. On the last page of the submittal there is a computer image showing the proposed house with an existing house on its left side as viewed from the beach looking west. There is a large contrast between those two homes and the one on 597 beach is much more massive and does not blend in with the existing architecture of the area. This is a vivid representation of the exterior design which Section 24-172 standards are trying to prevent. If this property was purchased when the Section 24-172 standards existed then any new construction should comply with those standards. Granting a variance ignores the wishes of the Atlantic Beach citizens. Thank you for considering my comments. Hall, Erika From: Erik Diaz [erikdiazmd@gmail.cam] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:17 PM To: Hall, Erika Subject: 587 Beach Avenue Variance Request Dear Ms. Hall, As I may not be able to attend tonight's meeting due to work, I would like to provide my formal written dissent regarding variance request ZVAR-12-00100031, from provisions of Section 24-172 (c), for 587 Beach Avenue, set to be discussed this evening, September 18, 2012 at 1800. Regarding the variance request ZVAR-12-00100031, from provisions of Section 24-172 (c), for 587 Beach Avenue As a homeowner in the immediate vicinity of 587 Beach Avenue, I am writing to recommend that this request is declined. First and foremost,the design of this home would stand in stark contrast to those surrounding it. "Old Atlantic Beach" development standards were written explicitly to forbid such "modern" developments, and to maintain the unique aesthetics of our historic neighborhood. While adjacent neighborhoods and communities may have fallen victim to the recent surge in novel structures and design, Old Atlantic beach has managed to retain its character. As stated in Sec. 24-172 (a), Policy A.1.4.4 "Within Old Atlantic Beach,the city shall consider options to discourage the redevelopment of residential lots in ways that are inconsistent and incompatible with the historic and existing built environment." Any objective observer would, without question, agree that the proposed structure is inconsistent and incompatible with the said environment. A quick perusal of the neighborhood by even an untrained eye would confirm this. I urge the Development Board to bring to my attention any structure in our area that challenges the standards as this one does. Per the specific development standards that the proposed structure does not meet: (1)Side wall panes: In and of itself,the southern elevation of the structure, with a 54-foot long windowless wall, void of any architectural design, should be enough to deny this variance request. The claim that, "a twenty-eight(28) foot setback between the southern elevation and the interior property line" provides an "additional buffer" does not excuse the eyesore imposed upon neighboring properties. The side wall, regardless of setback, should be considered an unacceptable blight for Old Atlantic Beach. It is also curious that the proposed plans do not include digitized images from the southern(or western, for that matter) sides. (2)Height to wall pane: The argument proposed in "Staff comments" is that the use of cantilevers, decks, step-ins and balconies "all tend to mitigate the additional height to parapet." Firstly,please note that many of these "mitigators" contribute to a violation of the "Third floor footprint" provision, below. Furthermore, while some observers may recognize this "mitigating" effect, the casual, unbiased observer is unlikely to recognize anything but what the developmental standards disallow: a height to wall pane which exceeds the twenty-two (22) foot limit. 1 • (3) Third floor footprint: While the provisions do not allow exceptions for "uninhabitable space," the argument made is that due to the "clear opening" to the second floor, the structure should be allowed to occupy an incredulous 56%of what the second floor does, equalling an immense 1,727 square feet. Also, glass walls are used as an excuse to exceed the established 50%limit. Neither the dimensions of the uninhabitable space, nor the windows (which should be an assumed feature of any level) should allow the owners to be granted relief from such a basic and necessary zoning requirement. Altogether, while the building proposed may be considered an architectural masterpiece, it would all the while stand alone in its indignant design within the neighborhood. While the diversity of some architectural designs are certainly welcome,this one seems designed specifically to thumb its nose at the new home development standards set forth by the city of Atlantic Beach. I would like to remind you of the intent of the regulations: "...to appropriately limit height and bulk and mass of residential structures in accordance with the expressed intent of the citizens of Atlantic Beach." Furthermore, in the provisions, they are: (1)To ensure that buildings are compatible in mass and scale with those of buildings seen traditionally within the residential neighborhoods of Atlantic Beach. (2)To maintain the traditional scale of buildings as seen along the street. (3)To minimize negative visual impacts of larger new or remodeled buildings upon adjacent properties. (4)To promote access to light and air from adjacent properties. (5)To preserve and enhance the existing mature tree canopy, particularly within front yards. I challenge you to justify how the proposed structure would demonstrate any of these intents to Atlantic Beach taxpayers. As unique city, we strive to maintain aesthetically pleasing surroundings in harmony with an exceedingly unique, stand-alone historical beach town. If we wish to maintain our standards, I suggest that the request for this variance be declined. While diversity may at times be an asset, structures incompatible with those of their neighbors are not, and should not be granted exceptions. Sincerely, Erik Diaz 578 Beach Avenue 2 Hall, Erika From: Erin Faye Lonas [erinlonas©hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:39 AM To: Hall, Erika Subject: Submission of Disapproval of 587 Beach Avenue Variance Request Hi Erika, I'm a property owner and tax payer in Atlantic Beach and wanted to submit my formal disapproval of the variance request for 587 Beach Avenue that is being discussed at the Community Board Meeting tonight.Unfortunately I am unable to to attend,so please file this feedback along with the other recorded dissents for the project. I chose to buy property in Atlantic Beach because of the quaint"old town"feel of the town-specifically because it was different than Jacksonville Beach,Neptune Beach,and Ponte Vedra as it had retained more of it's aesthetic history. One of my favorite pastimes is walking along Beach Ave and looking at the houses as they have a nice flow and synergy between them,representing a sense of community and commonality that is both charming and harmonious.I am very proud that I was able to buy a house in a neighborhood embodying those qualities and am equally proud when my friends and family come to visit and we walk along Beach Ave. The design proposed for 587 Beach Avenue would take away not only from the aesthetics of Atlantic Beach but would also set a precedent that would lead to Atlantic Beach losing it's unique charm that differentiates it from the other beaches in the area. Per Section 24-172,it is clearly stated that the purpose of the regulations is to ensure that new buildings are compatible in mass and scale with other buildings within the residential neighborhoods and to minimize negative visual impacts from new structures.The proposed design of 587 Beach Avenue defies both of those intents.Creation of this structure would not only be incompatible with the other houses in the area,but it would also be visually unappetizing and would take away from the scenic enjoyment of the neighborhood. Furthermore,as noted above,this would create a precedent for exceptions from the regulations.I would be interested in understanding the justifications supporting an exception approval if approved.Without legal or environmental differentiators,would the variances approved now become the new standard?If not,what would the rationale be to apply arbitrary judgments and decisions to future variance requests? The regulations of Section 24-172 were created to support the Atlantic Beach community by maintaining a visually appealing neighborhood.This adds not only to the intangible enjoyment of local residents but also to the economic value of our homes by differentiating us from other local beaches.Please support the current regulations and deny the request for variance for 587 Beach Avenue. Thank You, Erin Lonas 483 Selva Lakes Circle 1 . Florida Department of Rickr Scott -,z- e Governor ' .,' ,:1 Y' Environmental Protection Jennifer Carroll FLOR 'A Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building Lt.Governor 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Herschel T.Vinyard,Jr. `:- x= Tallahassee,Florida 32399-3000 Secretary (Mail Station 300) October 4, 2012 Kirk R. and Anne Marie Moquin c/o James Blythe Content Design Group 5 West Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Dear Mr. Blythe: Request for Additional Information File Number: DU-442 Applicant Name: Kirk R. and Anne Marie Moquin Project Address: 587 Beach Avenue,Atlantic Beach Project Location: Between approximately 288 feet and 388 feet south of DEP's reference monument R-50, in Duval County Please be advised that your permit application is considered to be incomplete as provided for by Section 120.60, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 62B-33.008(3), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Receipt of information listed below is required. The items of information listed below are numbered to correspond with the item numbers and the rule citations on the application form. 6. A fee as set forth in Rule 628-33.0085(4), F.A.C. Thank you for submitting an application fee of $5,500.00 for a single family dwelling, non- habitable major structure, and other structures/activities. Please clarify if the detached garage is a separate structure from the dwelling. If so, an additional $1,000.00 fee would be required. The total fee is unclear until additional information as detailed below in this letter is received. 8. Written evidence, provided by the appropriate local governmental entity having jurisdiction over the activity, that the proposed activity, as submitted to the Bureau, does not contravene local setback requirements or zoning codes. Thank you for submitting a local government letter. Although it provides some evidence of project review by the City of Atlantic Beach, it does not include the proposed pool, does not state which plans were reviewed, and does not specifically state compliance with zoning codes. > Please provide a revised letter that includes evidence that the plans reviewed by the City are the same as the plans submitted to the Bureau. For example, you may include in the letter the engineer/architect/designer's name, sheet number and revision date of the plans reviewed, or attach a copy of the plans reviewed by City staff` www.dep.statejl.us James Blythe Request for Additional Information, DU-442 October 4, 2012 Page Two 10. For structures with proposed permanent exterior lighting, two (2) copies of a dimensioned lighting plan drawn to an appropriate scale, showing: A. The location of all proposed permanent exterior lighting fixtures clearly marked by distinctive symbols for each model used, B. A table with the column headings shown below providing the specified information for each fixture model used, and SYMBOL FIXTURE TOTAL BULB LUMENS TYPE OF MOUNTING (e.g. model name NUMBER OF AND TYPE MOUNT HEIGHT or stock number) EACH (e.g., 420 lumens (e.g., wall, pole, FIXTURE output or bollard) red/amber/yellow LED) C. A detailed description or manufacturer's catalog sheet (cut sheet) for each fixture model used. Please note the following recommendations for lighting from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FWCC)regarding nesting marine turtles: • A black baffle accessory is required for all ceiling or wall mounted down light fixtures. Please provide the model number and a cut sheet for each compatible black baffle accessory. • It appears there is an excessive number of recessed ceiling mounted fixtures on the first floor (ground floor)plan, Sheet E 2.01. The guideline is one fixture per 100 square feet of area. Please review the plan and adjust the number of fixtures. • It appears there is an excessive number of step light fixtures on the third floor plan and the roof plan, Sheets E 2.03 and E 2.04. The fixtures should be limited to the ingress/egress areas. Please review the plan and adjust the number of fixtures. • Bulbs/lamping: FWCC recommends long wavelength lamps greater than 580 nanometers such as amber or red LED (diodes, not filters), compact fluorescent (CF) lamps (maximum 13 watts)with a maximum output of 480 lumens each, or low pressure sodium (LPS) bulbs (18 watts, 35 watts), instead of incandescent yellow "bug" bulbs. FWCC no longer recommends Turtle Safe Lighting, Inc. (TSL)coated CF bulbs. • FWCC approved lighting may be found at their website at: http://www.myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/managed/sea-turtles/ • Please review the lighting plan and adjust the plan as necessary. James Blythe Request for Additional Information,DU-442 October 4, 2012 Page Three 11. Two copies of a dimensioned site plan. The drawings shall be signed and sealed by an architect, engineer, landscape architect, or professional surveyor and mapper (as appropriate) licensed in the state of Florida. The site plan shall include: A. The locations and exterior dimensions of all proposed structures, including foundations and other activities, and the bearings and distances from the CCCL to the seaward corners of the foundations of any major structures. Delineate the exterior limits of the proposed dwelling structure; label all proposed structures; provide exterior dimensions for all proposed structures; and provide the distances seaward of the control line for all proposed structures. B. Dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures on adjacent properties and distances from the CCCL to the seaward corners of the foundations of any existing structures. These measurements shall include all structures that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line for permits requested under the provisions of Section 161.053(4)(b), F.S. The seaward distances of the adjacent structures are not depicted. C. The horizontal location of the erosion control line, any contour lines corresponding to elevation 0.00, the approximate contour of mean high water and the seasonal high water, and the horizontal location of the seaward line of vegetation and outlines of existing natural vegetation. The locations and elevations for MHW and SHW are not depicted. 12. Two copies of a dimensioned grading plan. The drawings shall be signed and sealed by an architect, engineer, landscape architect, or professional surveyor and mapper (as appropriate) licensed in the state of Florida. The grading plan shall include: A. Existing and proposed elevations, and contours and spot elevations. Depict proposed contours and/or proposed spot elevations across the site. B. For any proposed excavation or fill: (1) A table of all permanent, temporary, and net excavation and fill volumes seaward of the CCCL. Provide a table of all proposed excavation and fill volumes. (Note that all sand excavated seaward of the control line must remain and be placed on the property seaward of the control line.) James Blythe Request for Additional Information, DU-442 October 4, 2012 Page Four 14. Details, including engineering design computations, for any proposed waste or storm water discharge onto, over, under, or across the beach and dune system, such as storm water runoff, swimming pool drainage,well discharge, domestic waste systems, or outfalls. All waste discharges, grading, and drainage must be graphically depicted as being directed landward, away from the beach/dune system and adjacent properties. ➢ Depict or describe in a note the proposed management of swimming pool drainage. 16. Two copies of detailed planting plans, including the location of proposed plants, existing native vegetation, and plants to be removed. Plans shall include a plant list with both scientific and common names. Please include a plant list as described above. Please be aware of the following: The overall height of palms and specimen trees planted seaward of a major structure shall not exceed 14 feet overall height(measured from the ground to the growing tip of the unopened bud). The permittee shall maintain bracing or guying systems for palms and other large trees planted seaward of a major structure for a minimum of two growing seasons. Bracing or guying systems shall include deadmen or anchors designed to resist soil failure from forces created by tropical storms and installed below root ball depth. Plantings in other areas of the project site seaward of the CCCL shall not include invasive nuisance plant species such as listed in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's List of Invasive Species, Categories I and II. (A copy of this list is available on the Internet at www.fleppc.org.) 17. For major structures, two copies of a dimensioned site plan drawn to art appropriate scale, on eight and one half(8 %)-inch by eleven (11)-inch size paper showing property boundaries, the location of the proposed structure(s), the proposed construction limits, the location and volume of any proposed excavation or fill, and the locations of roads, adjacent dwellings, the vegetation line, and the approximate mean high water. This information is necessary for site inspection and distribution of public notices. This item is normally submitted as a reduction of the site plan. Please submit a revised drawing when the site plan is revised. 18. For major structures, two copies of dimensioned cross-sections drawn to an appropriate scale, on 8 %-inch by 11-inch paper, showing: A. All subgrade construction or excavation with elevations referenced to NAVD 88 (U.S. survey foot). James Blythe Request for Additional Information, DU-442 October 4, 2012 Page Five B. Typical cross-sections of major structures. C. Location of the control line. D. Typical profile of existing and proposed grade at the site. E. The location of the contour line corresponding to elevation 0.0 NAVD 88 (U.S. survey foot). This information is necessary for site inspection and distribution of public notices. > This item is normally submitted as a reduction of the cross section plan. 21. Other Information: [62B-33.008(5), F.A.C.] • Provide the composition or a cross section detail for the proposed driveway and parking area, and the pool deck. If concrete slab is proposed, it shall be designed as frangible and breakaway (scored in maximum 5'x5' squares). • Provide information and cross section details for the pool including elevations for the top and bottom of the structure, existing and proposed grades, and pool depth; and label the pool on the plans. • All site, grading, and cross-section plans must be referenced to NAVD 88. • It appears that new walls and fences are proposed; please depict and label them on the site plan and provide a cross section detail for each. Note: It is noted that the 100-year storm elevation is depicted on the cross section as +16.04 feet, assumed to be NAVD. The published elevation for R-50 in Duval County is +17.5 feet (NGVD); a surveyor can provide the exact conversion factor. It appears the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member may not be sufficiently elevated. If you have any questions, please contact me by mail at the letterhead address (add Mail Station 300), by telephone at (850) 921-7849 or by email to valerie.jones@dep.state.fl.us. Sincerely, Lr Valerie Jones, Petlrnit-Manager Coastal Construction Control Line Program Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems VJ/ cc: Kirk R. and Anne Marie Moquin, Property Owners - r'rL�l1"IJ� City of Atlantic Beach `��� 800 Seminole Road �) Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 15*0 yr Phone: (904) 247-5800 Fax: (904) 247-5845 .1.'40.219'P www.coab.us October 30, 2012 Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Division of Water Resources Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Re: Zoning/Land Use Verification MOQUIN RESIDENCE, DU-442 587 Beach Avenue Atlantic Beach, Florida To Whom It May Concern: This letter serves to confirm that the above-listed property is zoned Residential, Single- Family (RS-2) and is located within a Residential, Low Density (RL) future land use designation as established by the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Atlantic Beach. Existing structures are recognized as lawfully constructed, according to the Atlantic Beach Land Development Regulations. The property owners have proposed demolition of the existing structures and redevelopment of the subject property with a new single family home and swimming pool. Staff has reviewed the "100% Design Development" architectural plans submitted by Mr. James Blythe, AIA, Content Design Group as well as revised site and engineering plans submitted by Mr. Doug Skiles, PE, Envision Design + Engineering. Particularly, the overall site plan, page C-1.1 (dated October 29, 2012) and the elevations, pages A-4.1 through A-4.4 (dated August 25, 2012) demonstrate the proposed redevelopment of the subject property and construction of a new single family home and swimming pool in a manner that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Development Regulations and that does not contravene local setbacks and development standards. Please feel free to call (904) 270-1605 or email ehall@coab.us with any further questions. Sincerely, 01.44)4f_e_ Erika Hall Principal Planner cc Greg Beere, Content Design Group 4 ,sZoROTECTIONlick Scott *: Florida Department of Governor Environmental Protection Jemufer CarrollLt. Governor 1 Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building rl�Rw�`"� !` 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Herschel T. Vinyard,Jr. ,,", W Tallahassee,Florida 32399 3000 Secretary (Mail Station 300) November 29, 2012 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Request for Public Comments File Number: DU-442 Applicant Name: Kirk R. and Anne Marie Moquin You are hereby notified that the Department of Environmental Protection is considering the referenced application for a coastal construction control line permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for the removal of a single family dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling, swimming pool and other structures/activities. A copy of the plans is enclosed. The proposed project is located between approximately 288 and 388 feet south of the Department of Environmental Protection's reference monument R-50, in Duval County, and is within the local jurisdiction of the City of Atlantic Beach. Project address: 587 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach. This public comment request is being distributed in order to assist the Department of Environmental Protection in developing facts on which to base a decision on the permit application. For accuracy and completeness all comments should be submitted in writing with supporting data, evidence, or rationale to furnish a clear understanding of the basis for the comments. The decision as to whether a permit will be issued will be based on an evaluation of: (1) The design adequacy of the proposed construction. (2) The expected impact of the proposed construction to the beach/dune system. (3) The expected impact of the proposed construction to adjacent properties. (4) The expected impact of the proposed construction on public beach access. (5) Appropriate siting of the proposed construction with respect to local setback, zoning restrictions, and maximum usage of upland portions of the property. (6) The expected impact of the proposed construction on nesting sea turtles and hatchlings and their habitat. Comments should be submitted within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of this notice to Valerie Jones, Permit Manager, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, by mail at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 300, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 or by e-mail at Valerie.jones(&dep.state.fl.us. Plans for the proposed work may be seen at the office of the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems at 4708 Capital Circle NW, Tallahassee, Florida, 32303. \ VJ/ Enclosure www.dep.state flus ,, 4 s m P, n /7� L--- 1 ;,1. "1 i,/' max N LR�a T....4uuwos , a ,t r.". ,.>c-mt ^^:" 4" !•�?- J-5-'A ig ,> e; .�G� qY YY �',S, 7 y'� ' t..;XX) AIM l,o.rows —h— — I— — uc ep IPG.sucos D" a$ Ego / �_ •-,"', ' 1,•,,"" S x � 1 YC ti, rr (, _ '� 1. ' P,•..1I m, i r, <,y i I "1 ' V-613':';',5' g ! -`.0 i ii d of , ti,ws —OM i a - Ps m.p. ' 8 E p r,. ' IL ^x Ig z ..�.---,ill—.p�▪ .. I- m 0 �Gllli�. II gki I 12i IjLi Isi Q.) /..-ti,te- „.4tr:14,-- -- i , __,..„_ 1 %Lail �,�> ..011015 LK ONLY ("-1 mo—i---......::ff......,'r� — -V---=----'—i,m,rw neo. —a �9 .>_«�L m .o.eis laws Ltt.vL C— — _- - \--..1.........%>]rmm i _ .. I ill 1 I #IP 1 0 Y 4501''''''''.�wa r//. _._mortrTp�u-7msi r>.0 , 3.Z6 J y! .L 68 3_3C,BLCoS 1— — os E r *w p E ___ NO V 0 2 2012 xeurLm.a aM n.� DM MVO Ka IMMO COASTAL SYS M C 1 t _ N ,bw- z_ _ _e ` a W S - O k :.,, 1, 8 2002 5.0 AY=PalpeN,SJle N] OwgIp L.AIp.P.E n gp çes1dence Ei iSIM 9«-0„5,45 —1. ' T = 587 Beach Avenue DE5IGN • ENGINEERING .. et No nee...tie an.y.s]uP