Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-20-26 CDB Adopted Minutesy�1f, MINUTES Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 6:00 PM J City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Kirk Hansen, Chair Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Member Frederick Ferrin, Member Richard Arthur, Member Jeff Haynie, Member Absent: Douglas Moody, Alternate Member Ellen Golombek, Vice Chair Also Present: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD) Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk Rob Graham, City Attorney (CA) 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve minutes of the November 18, 2025 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. MOTION: To APPROVE the November 18, 2025 minutes. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Richard Arthur Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Frederick Ferrin For Richard Arthur (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Motion passed S to 0. 3. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Chair Hansen asked if anyone wanted to put their name forward for the positions of Chair or Vice Chair. Richard Arthur nominated Chair Hansen to continue in his role, noting that he was doing a good job. Chair Hansen agreed to remain in the position. No Vice Chair was elected during this meeting. Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 4. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. 0 Seminole Road PLAT25-0002 (Laura Bartlett and Susan Ranking) Request for a plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances within the Residential General, Multi -Family (RG -M) at RE # 169700-0010. Director of Neighborhoods Amanda Askew presented the case for 0 Seminole Road. The request was for plat approval for property with RE number 169700-0010. Director Askew explained that the code requires a platting process for more than three lots. Director Askew described the property as undeveloped, heavily wooded, located on Seminole Road and extending through to Beach Avenue, just east of Nineteenth Street. The property, currently owned by sisters, is zoned Residential General, Multi -Family (RG -M) with a comprehensive plan designation of residential low density. Director Askew explained that the property was previously platted as two lots, each approximately 50 feet by 354 feet. The current surveyed lot combines both for a total of about 100 feet by 359 feet. The proposal was to subdivide this into four lots, each approximately 50 feet wide with varying depths, with all lots exceeding 8,000 square feet in size. Director Askew provided historical context about the zoning regulations. Prior to the 2024 land development code updates, the RG -M district required minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet and minimum lot widths of 75 feet. These standards were not consistent with comprehensive plan density and development patterns for the area. The updated code maintained the same overall density but allowed for greater flexibility in lot configuration, aligning better with established patterns in the area. This approach supports smaller lot sizes consistent with nearby properties, including a 7 -unit development to the north and a 5 -unit development to the south. The comprehensive plan designates the area as residential low with a maximum of 6 units per acre. The residential low density has a minimum lot size of 7,260 square feet and a minimum lot width of 40 feet by 100 feet deep with 4,000 square feet in the zoning district. Director Askew confirmed that each of the proposed lots met the minimum lot area and width requirements. Steve Morgan from Riverside Custom Homes spoke as the applicant's representative. He stated they had been working with the customer since early 2021. Initially, the owners had planned to build one large house on the property, but their family dynamic changed, leading to the current request to subdivide the property. Jeffrey Cruikshank of 81 Beach Cottage Lane, a resident from the development just north of the property, spoke about the history of the area. He explained that in the late 1980s, Atlantic Beach annexed what was then called Seminole Beach. The city established zoning to avoid the "house house house" development pattern seen in cities to the south. Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 The RGM district was specifically designed to facilitate alternatives to single-family homes, with "multifamily" being a regularly mentioned goal. Mr. Cruikshank noted that in the 2020-2024 period, changes to the zoning code reduced the required width from 75 feet to 40 feet, which he described as a dramatic reduction. He expressed concern that these changes had the opposite effect of what was intended, eliminating the possibility for multifamily development in favor of single-family homes. He pointed out that the area was intended for different development types and different economic choices. Lee Kellison of 61 Beach Cottage Lane, from the same community as Mr. Cruikshank, stated that despite being zoned residential multifamily, the current code effectively made it impossible to build anything but single-family homes in the area. He explained that the required square footage per dwelling unit made it impossible to build the kind of multifamily developments already existing in the neighborhood. He argued that if the area was truly meant to be residential, the 75 -foot lot requirement should apply. Rob Lowther of 2019 Beach Avenue asked whether a previous owner, Heath Aldridge, had tried to have the property subdivided and was turned down. He wondered if the rejection was due to rules that had since changed. Mr. Kellison clarified that the previous code required 75 -foot lots, but the code had been changed to allow 40 -foot lots. After public comments, the board discussed the application. Richard Arthur sought clarification about the lot width sizes, confirming that while 75 feet was previously required, now 40 feet was the minimum. Greg Beliles calculated that the four homes would occupy about 66% of the maximum density allowed under the comprehensive plan, well within the intent. He noted that the application conformed to all requirements regarding widths, depths, and consistency with the surrounding area. Jeff Haynie agreed with this assessment, stating that while he didn't know the history others had described, the application clearly met the current criteria and rules. MOTION: To recommend APPROVAL of PLAT25-0002 finding that the approval is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances. Motion: Gregory (Greg) Beliles Second: Richard Arthur Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles (Moved By) For Frederick Ferrin For Richard Arthur (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie For Motion passed 5 to 0. Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 B. 2 Atlantic Circle, Unit 5 UBEX25-0005 (Adrianna Parker) Request for a use -by -exception approval for tattooing as required by Section 24.112(c) Code of Ordinances within the Commercial -General (CG) at RE # 177411-0020. Director Askew presented case UBEX25-0005 for 2 Atlantic Circle, Unit 5. The request was for a use -by -exception approval for a tattoo studio within the Commercial General zoning district. Director Askew explained that the property is located on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard and west of Aquatic Drive in a multi -tenant building zoned Commercial General. The applicant planned to open a microblading studio. The city code does not distinguish between microblading and tattooing, and the state considers microblading to be tattooing, which requires a use -by -exception approval in the City of Atlantic Beach zoning code. Director Askew noted that the applicant currently operates at 675 Atlantic Boulevard, Unit 6, where they were previously granted a use -by -exception. They are proposing to relocate their operations to this new location. The property has adequate parking and access to Atlantic Boulevard. Director Askew explained that multiple tattoo and/or body artist studios have been approved in recent years in Atlantic Beach, including locations at 1021 Atlantic Boulevard, 725 Atlantic Boulevard, and 469 Atlantic Boulevard. Chair Hansen clarified that the business was relocating and that there had been no issues with them at their previous location, which Director Askew confirmed. The applicant, Adrianna Parker, stated that she had been operating at her current location for the past three years, just off the corner of Seminole Road. She was moving up the street to be closer to home and downsizing to a smaller space. Ms. Parker mentioned that she would be working part-time, reducing her hours compared to her current operation. MOTION: To APPROVE UBEX25-0005. Motion: Richard Arthur Second: Jeff Haynie Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Frederick Ferrin For Richard Arthur (Moved By) For Jeff Haynie (Seconded By) For Motion passed S to 0. Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 C. 1849 Ocean Grove Drive ZVAR25-0034 (Carey Cavanaugh) Request for a variance to Section 24-157 (c)(2) to exceed the maximum fence height for corner lots located on rights-of-way fifty (50) or greater for a 6 -foot fence located on the property line. Director Askew presented case ZVAR25-0034 for 1849 Ocean Grove Drive. The request was for a variance from Section 24-157(c)(2) to exceed the maximum fence height for corner lots located on rights-of-way 50 feet or greater for a 6 -foot fence located on the property line. Director Askew explained that the property is located on the southeast corner of 18th Street and Ocean Grove Drive and is zoned Residential General -Two Family. The applicant was proposing to replace an existing fence along the 18th Street side. The right- of-way on 18th Street is 60 feet wide, and the replacement fence would be located in the same height and place as the existing fence. Director Askew noted that staff couldn't locate the original permit for the fence but found a survey from 1996 indicating the presence of a low concrete wall in the front yard along the corner on 18th Street with a 6 -foot fence extending the remainder of the property. She showed a Google Street View image from May 2011 depicting the fence. Director Askew explained that on corner properties, a 4 -foot fence is required for the first 20 feet, but for a 6 -foot fence, the code requires it to be set back from the property line. The applicant was requesting to have the 6 -foot fence directly on the property line. She noted that the property is near a major beach access with significant parking that experiences high traffic volume, particularly during warmer seasons. Jeff Haynie sought clarification that the 4 -foot section of the fence would remain 4 feet, which Director Askew confirmed, noting that this would not create any sight line issues. The applicant, Carey Cavanaugh, explained that he grew up in Atlantic Beach and had returned after a career in the Foreign Service. He noted two surprises with the house: the extent of damage from being close to the ocean, and issues related to the fence. He stated that the 6 -foot fence had been there for approximately 33 years. Mr. Cavanaugh described how busy the area is, particularly with commercial traffic on weekdays. He noted that the city had paved to the edge of the property line, with a pedestrian walkway, bicycle racks, and golf cart parking nearby. He expressed concern that a lower fence would invite people to climb over it to access the pool in the backyard. He also pointed out that the 4 -foot section of fence ends where there is a 6 -foot wall that had been there when they purchased the house, so lowering the fence would not improve sight lines for drivers but would only expose the backyard and pool to view. MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR25-0034 based on grounds #2 (surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately) and #3 (exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the area). Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 Motion: Gregory (Greg) Beliles Second: Frederick Ferrin Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles (Moved By) For Frederick Ferrin (Seconded By) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie For Motion passed 5 to 0. D. 356 Main Street ZVAR25-0036 (Salt Air Homes LLC) Request for a variance to Section 24.89 (d) for floodplain storage so that there is no net loss of storage for areas in a special flood hazard area, where a base flood elevation has been defined by FEMA on the FIRM maps. Goes along with Agenda Item 4.E. E. 360 Main Street ZVAR25-0038 (Salt Air Homes LLC) Request for a variance to Section 24-89 (d) for floodplain storage so that there is no net loss of storage for areas in a special flood hazard area, where a base flood elevation has been defined by FEMA on the FIRM maps. Director Askew presented cases ZVAR25-0036 (356 Main Street) and ZVAR25-0038 (360 Main Street) together due to their similarity. Both were requests for variances from floodplain storage requirements as required by Section 24-89(d) of the code. Director Askew explained that there was previously a single-family home on the property that had been demolished. The property, located on the west side of Mayport Road, north of Atlantic Boulevard on Main Street, is zoned Residential General -Two Family. The plan was to place a home on each parcel, with lot sizes of 50 feet by 102 feet. Director Askew explained that the property is located in the AE flood zone, which is connected to the Intracoastal Waterway. She reviewed the code requirements for floodplain storage, which state that there shall be no net loss of storage for areas in special flood hazards where a base flood elevation has been defined by FEMA. Site grading must create storage on-site to mitigate for filling of volume on-site, in addition to any storage required for increased impervious surface area. Director Askew noted that the applicant had provided signed and sealed engineering plans and calculations documenting that the no -net -loss requirement would be met and that the property would not have an adverse impact on the storage capacity of the floodplain. She also mentioned that the applicant was designing with less than 35% lot Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 coverage, meaning they were not required to provide on-site stormwater management, which is different from floodplain storage. The board had many questions trying to understand the exact nature of the variance request, given that the applicants had already provided documentation showing no net loss of floodplain storage. Director Askew clarified that despite the engineers certifying no net loss, the applicants were seeking relief from having to create storage on-site as required by the code. Oliver Kraut, the applicant, explained that the property drains into the Intracoastal Waterway and any flooding would come from the Intracoastal to the property, not the other way around. He stated that the floodplain storage requirement shouldn't apply to this property because there's no water coming from above that would increase flooding by filling. He noted that similar variances had been granted for properties on Begonia Street and Jasmine Street for similar reasons. Mr. Kraut also explained that meeting the floodplain storage requirement would make it almost impossible to build on the lots due to the amount of volume required and limitations on how deep one could dig because of groundwater. Jessica Civello of 391 Main Street spoke against the variance. She stated that flooding is not a theoretical issue for the neighborhood, as residents have watched streets turn into channels and yards fill with water during major storms. She emphasized that FEMA's flood maps clearly identify the area as one that floods regularly and remains highly vulnerable. Ms. Civello expressed concern that displacing floodplain storage would push water onto neighboring properties and streets where residents already bear the consequences. She also noted that the applicant, Salt Air Homes LLC, is not a resident of the neighborhood and would not deal with the long-term effects of displaced floodwater. Donna Beasley of 355 West 3rd Street, who lives next door to the property, stated that she had not been granted an exception when she built on her property in 2019 and had to retain water in her backyard. She expressed concern that if this property isn't required to retain water, it will flow to her property. Joseph Civello of 391 Main Street reiterated concerns about stormwater fees increasing and the historical value of Main Street. He disagreed with the applicant's assertion that the property would be useless without the variance, stating it would be a great spot for a single-family home. Courtney Hromco of 376 Main Street, whose parents bought their house in 1994, stated that even with just the original single-family home on the property, the backyard always had standing water. She noted that with two homes, the impervious surface would be much larger, requiring somewhere for water to be offset. She pointed out that other nearby property owners had been required to install drainage features. Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 In response to these concerns, Mr. Kraut stated that while he understood residents' worries about having two properties instead of one, the code doesn't require on-site water retention for properties under 35% lot coverage. He emphasized that his variance request specifically addressed floodplain requirements for flooding from the Intracoastal, not rain retention. During board discussion, Greg Beliles tried to understand whether the area drains into the Intracoastal or into the city stormwater system, which would affect the decision. Richard Arthur attempted to separate the stormwater issue from the floodplain issue, noting that if the engineer has certified no net loss as required by code, that should be sufficient. Jeff Haynie expressed confusion about why a variance would be needed if the engineers had certified no net loss. City Attorney Robert Graham clarified that the variance request appeared to be seeking exemption from the entire subsection of code, which would mean they wouldn't even have to submit plans from an engineer requiring no net loss. After considerable discussion and confusion about the exact nature and necessity of the variance, the board decided to defer the matter to allow for city engineering review of the applicant's plans. MOTION: To DEFER request ZVAR25-0036 and ZVAR25-0038 to the February 17, 2026 CDB meeting to allow for city engineering review. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Frederick Ferrin Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Frederick Ferrin (Seconded By) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Motion passed S to 0. F. 1812 Sea Oats Drive ZVAR25-0037 (James West) Request for a variance to Section 24-109 (f)(2) to reduce the minimum rear -yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. Director Askew presented case ZVAR25-0037 for 1812 Sea Oats Drive. The request was for a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet to build an addition onto the home. Director Askew explained that the property is located on the west side of Sea Oats Drive and is zoned Residential Selva Marina (RSM). She provided background information that in the 1970s, the area was platted as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with 12 Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 different PUDs. In 1972, an ordinance was passed to gain better control of development, requiring review by an advisory planning board and city commission. Director Askew noted that in 1982, the zoning code was updated and eliminated the PUD, but between 1982 and 2018, staff enforced R -S-1 setbacks. By 2018, 75 of the 224 lots in the PUD were nonconforming due to fence heights, additions, homes, and accessory uses. When staff proposed rezoning the area to R -S-1 in 2018, the community opposed it, feeling it would result in a loss of the area's unique character. As a result, staff proposed creating a new zoning district that would maintain the original building setbacks, minimum house sizes, and fence requirements. Director Askew showed a map with different colors indicating various setback requirements. The subject property has a 30 -foot front yard setback and a 30 -foot rear yard setback, with side yards combined at 15 feet. The applicant was seeking to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet to add a covered porch. Director Askew mentioned that since 2023, there had been eight similar requests in the neighborhood. Of these, two were approved based on the onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting, and the remaining six were not approved. The applicant, James West, along with his husband Raoul Sanchez and contractor Michael Munn, explained that they currently live on Mako Drive but purchased the property in question to renovate and move into. Mr. West described the unusual shape of the property, which was built very close to the rear property line, leaving only a 3 - foot area beyond which they couldn't build a covered porch without destroying the house. Mr. Sanchez emphasized that they wanted to enjoy the outdoors but needed protection from mosquitoes and bugs. He stated they had no plans to enclose the porch beyond possibly screening it and would use permeable pavers in other areas like the driveway to meet permeability requirements. Mr. Sanchez noted that their neighbor to the left has a 20 -foot setback for an entire home, and the two neighbors behind them also have 20 -foot setbacks with homes that extend even further with outdoor porches. He pointed out that many houses in the neighborhood have similar extensions. Michael Munn, the contractor, added that they had completely redesigned the house to fit the "beach cottage charm" they wanted to protect. He explained that the house had sat vacant for 15 years because it was unsafe and functionally obsolete. Their new plan would still have 863 square feet of permeable surface remaining after all updates and additions. Mr. Munn noted that the 30 -foot rear setback requirement for this street was unique in Atlantic Beach, describing it as "almost kind of a punitive thing on the street" and "an outlier that doesn't have a practical application." He emphasized that homes up and down the street had already been extended to a similar degree, and their plan would improve the neighborhood. Community De%elopment Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 During board discussion, Greg Beliles noted that most of the surrounding area had 20 - foot rear setbacks, with only a few blocks having the 30 -foot requirement. He expressed sympathy for the applicant having to deal with a building that was originally constructed close to the rear property line. Jeff Haynie expressed concern that approving this variance would be making a decision that should be made for the entire block by the city commission, rather than granting an individualized exception. Richard Arthur argued that the variance process existed precisely for situations like this. He noted that for 36 years, the city had adhered to a 20 -foot setback before starting to enforce the 30 -foot setback in 2018. He considered this history to constitute "exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the area." MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR25-0037 based on grounds #3 (exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the area). Motion: Gregory (Greg) Beliles Second. Frederick Ferrin Kirk Hansen Against Gregory (Greg) Beliles (Moved By) For Frederick Ferrin (Seconded Bv) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie Against Motion passed 3 to Z 6. REPORTS Director Askew reported that an architect from a previous case had sent an email expressing concern about nonconformities along Beach Avenue. She explained that Beach Avenue has a narrow right-of-way with many homes that have evolved over time. The architect suggested creating an overlay zoning district for Beach Avenue to alleviate problems and prevent hampering growth and redevelopment due to existing nonconformities. Director Askew noted that in 2024, there were 190 building permits issued on Beach Avenue, and in 2025, there were 216 building permits issued, indicating significant ongoing redevelopment. Chair Hansen added that he had received the note from the architect who had presented for 1875 Beach Avenue, a variance the board had granted despite the Chair voting against it. The architect expressed concern that the Chair's stance would inhibit redevelopment along Beach Avenue due to district codes. Chair Hansen pointed out that Beach Avenue appeared to be undergoing significant redevelopment already, as evidenced by the number of building permits and the difficulty Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 driving down the street due to construction vehicles. He stated he did not think creating a special zoning district was necessary and was not personally supportive of the idea. The Community Development Board did not move forward with a discussion to make an overlay zoning district on Beach Avenue 7. PUBLIC COMMENT A resident approached the board expressing confusion about a variance application they had submitted for 340 Sailfish Drive East by the December 20 deadline. They stated they were told to attend this meeting because their variance would be discussed but were surprised it wasn't on the agenda. Director Askew confirmed the variance was not on the agenda and hadn't been properly advertised. Chair Hansen explained they couldn't discuss it at this meeting without proper advertising, as that would not comply with the law. He suggested the resident speak with Director Askew the following day. Dan Giovanucci, who lives on 5th Street North in Old Atlantic Beach and serves as vice chair of the Environmental Stewardship Committee, addressed the board about tree regulations. He noted that the committee was preparing to deliver a new version of Chapter 23 to the commission that would be more streamlined and easier to work with. Chair Hansen expressed concern about the tree ordinance, particularly regarding a recent case on West 14th Street where a resident faced a significant burden due to doubled mitigation requirements after removing a tree without proper approval. He questioned whether the city was being too difficult on residents, noting that there was approximately $300,000 in the tree fund from mitigation payments, yet the city struggled to find places to plant trees. Chair Hansen specifically mentioned concerns about palm trees, which were once not highly valued for canopy but now could result in significant mitigation costs to remove. He urged the committee to ensure regulations weren't too burdensome for residents. Mr. Giovanucci responded that the tree canopy was an important part of the community's quality of life and culture. He explained that the code provides reduced mitigation requirements for existing residents, those adding to existing homes, or those with extra undeveloped lots. The more significant mitigation requirements apply primarily to developers who clear entire lots. Mr. Giovanucci noted that the fund had grown from typically $100,000 to over $200,000 due to primarily tree permits with penalties. He explained there was a budget to plant trees, with needs including replacing hundreds of trees on Dutton Island and in parks where trees had aged out and collapsed. Mr. Giovanucci also addressed the palm tree issue, stating that recent University of Florida research showed palms are significant mitigators for windstorms, second only to oak trees, and many are well over 100 years old. Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026 8. Attest: Richard Arthur suggested the committee consider the cumulative effect of compounding ordinances, particularly where stormwater requirements limit where trees can be planted. He advocated for more education and incentives rather than penalties and expressed concern that those with resources could find loopholes by hiring arborists to write letters justifying tree removal, while those without such resources face penalties. Mr. Giovanucci agreed with Mr. Arthur's points about focusing on incentives and positive approaches. He explained they had been working on education initiatives but had been delayed by having to defend the committee's existence for seven months the previous year. He also noted that state law changes were being pursued to address the loophole allowing arborists to claim trees are dead when they aren't, and the city's recent hiring of an arborist would help contest fraudulent claims. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Amanda Askew K ,iXIKHansen, Chair Community Development Board (CDB) January 20, 2026