Minutes of Special Called Meeting 4-11-15.pdfMINUTES OF SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF
ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 22, 2015
PRESENT: Mayor Carolyn Woods
Mayor Pro Tem Mark Beckenbach
Commissioner Jonathan Daugherty (arrived at 5:47 p.m.)
Commissioner Jimmy Hill
Commissioner Maria Mark
ALSO: Donald Wolfson, Petitioner
Christopher White, Esq.
Nelson Van Liere, Interim City Manager
Rich Komando, City Attorney
Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk
Nancy E. Bailey, Recording Secretary
Call to order.
Mayor Woods called the Special Called meeting to order at 5:47 p.m. in the Commission Chamber. She
explained, per the court order and the agreement between both parties, the only documents to be
considered are those contained in the packet that has been submitted and distributed to the Commission.
She stated, therefore, there will be no public comments or Courtesy of the Floor.
City Attorney Rich Komando stated Christopher White is present with Donald Wolfson and they
discussed this and the documents have been provided by them. He asked if Mr. White takes an
exception to that. Mr. White stated he did not.
1. Wolfson Appeal of Variance Denial ZVAR-2011-01
A. City's Documentation.
Jeremy Hubsch gave an overview of the zoning variance request made by Mr. and Mrs. Wolfson to the
Community Development Board. He explained the grounds for denial of the request, stating the Board
determined the request would have the greatest impact on the light and air to adjacent properties; and the
grounds for approval, stating the Board did not believe the request met any of these conditions. He
stated the Board voted 5-2 to deny the request for the 10 ft. setback reduction. He stated the applicants
then appealed to the City Commission.
City Attorney Komando explained there was a previous decision by the Commission that was appealed
to the Circuit Court which was then appealed to the First District Court of Appeal and it was that
decision which returns it to the Commission today. He stated Jeremy, at his advice, is being very
cautious about discussing that so they don't violate the court order to limit the Commission's
consideration to what was originally considered by the Community Development Board (CDB). He
asked Mr. White if that was correct. Mr. White asked, as a point of order, in the agenda packet, have all
of the decisions been presented to the Commission, i.e., the Circuit Court decision and the DCA
decision. Mr. Komando stated he doesn't know that the most recent Circuit Court decision was added
but the DCA opinion was provided last time. Mayor Woods confirmed that the Circuit Court decision
was in the packet. Mr. White stated the consideration from the Commission has to be everything and
only everything that was in the record but he doesn't know if that precludes them from commenting on
any of the language contained in those orders from the Circuit Court. Mr. Komando stated he doesn't
have a problem with that.
B. Applicant's Documentation.
Mr. Wolfson presented his case for his variance request. He stated this lot has always been zoned for
residential use. He stated they purchased this lot in March 1981 prior to annexation of Seminole Beach
by Atlantic Beach in 1987 and have owned this lot that was zoned for single family residence for 37
years. It was zoned RGA and the setbacks that were permissible when they were annexed were 20 ft.
front yard, 2 ft rear yard and 15 ft combined side yards. The City of Atlantic Beach stated they would
respect the same standards/rights that the citizens of Seminole Beach had at the time of annexation and
to date there has been no communication of a change to that affect. He stated upon annexation in 1987
the nomenclature of that district changed to be uniform with the City of Atlantic Beach to RS2 zoned for
single family residence. He stated they have paid taxes on this lot for 34 years that is zoned single
family residence and were assessed for sewer tap -in. He stated without a variance they cannot build a
single family residence compliant with the zoning requirements for that lot. He stated this Commission
will either approve the request for the variance or deny it, He stated approval of their variance request
enables them, as taxpaying property owners to enjoy the use of their property to the same extent that
their neighbors are allowed; denial of their request restricts them to the two parking choices. He stated
if they deny their variance today the City will place a strenuous use limitation upon them and if that is
done today they will accept that; however, they expect the City and the County to refund the
overcharged taxes for 34 years, plus interest, and to refund an assessment that was unfairly levied
against them for a use that they do not need. He further stated something was said by the previous
Development Board and previous Commission that by building a residential structure it will adversely
impact light and air to adjacent properties. He stated that is the very purpose of a height limitation; that
is what impairs air and light, not a single family residence. He stated they would be greatly appreciative
if they approve their variance; if they deny it, they expect to have damages and reimbursement for the
charges of their prorated taxes that they have been paying for a parking lot rather than for a single family
residence, which it has been zoned for since 1936.
Mr. Wolfson's attorney, Christopher White, further discussed the variance request, addressing the legal
principles, due process, and pointing out the lack of competence of substantial evidence to justify the
denial. He stated in the Commission's appellate capacity they should grant the variance based upon the
reasons he has discussed and those Mr. Wolfson has stated and what is contained in the record.
Mr. Komando stated Mr. White argued two different aspects, one being due process and one being
competence of substantial evidence but the argument about a due process violation was essentially what
occurred here at the Commission before it was appealed. He stated that argument wasn't for the CDB.
He stated what was argued in the appellate decision, that due process was violated, asking Mr. White
isn't that cured today. Mr. White stated what this body does in its appellate capacity is determine by the
Board whether there was due process by the Board. He stated he isn't talking about what the Circuit
-2-
Court found out about the due process violation with the Commission; he is now going back a step to the
appellate capacity of this Commission and what it can look into, which is not just the competency of
substantial evidence but whether the Wolfsons were afforded due process before the Board. Mr.
Komando asked is it his opinion that this process today cures that problem, one way or another. He
asked if Mr. White believes he has not received due process from this hearing. Mr. White stated no,
absolutely they have been afforded due process by this hearing. Mr. Komando stated he just wanted to
make sure that was clear. He further asked Mr. White, related to the 1993 Hawks variance, if he agreed
that that decision by the Commission was not binding on this Commission. Mr. White stated absolutely,
he conceded that the prior granting of variances are not binding; they do not set a precedent, just as the
arbitrary denial should not take place when there is not competence of substantial evidence. Mr.
Komando stated his client had asked for approval of the variance but Mr. White made a comment that
they are not looking at the grounds for approval they are only looking at the grounds for denial. He
asked if he is saying that there wasn't one of the Sec. 24-64(d) grounds for approval or is there a ground
that they want the Commission to consider. He asked which criteria they want the Commission to focus
on for grounds for approval. Mr. Wolfson stated the grounds for approval he believes applicable are #3
- Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area, and #6 - Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to
provide for the reasonable use of the property, elaborating on the reasons for choosing both. Mr. White
also added #4 — Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property
or after construction of improvements upon the property; explaining when the property was purchased
there was a 10 ft. rear yard setback, when it was annexed the Atlantic Beach Code placed it at 20 ft.
which places an onerous effect because of regulations that take affect after purchase of the property
because of the annexation.
Mr. Komando asked if there is a lesser variance that would get Mr. Wolfson to the 650 s.f. Mr. Wolfson
explained the reason they asked for the 7 ft. variance.
Because this is a quasi judicial hearing, Mr. Komando asked if there are any disclosures by the
Commission of any ex parte communication pursuant to Resolution 95-26, meaning have they talked to
anyone about this and if so, who and what was the content of the communication.
Commissioner Daugherty stated besides the emails, which we have record of, he hasn't had any.
Commissioner Beckenbach stated he has had the same emails.
Mayor Woods stated she has discussed it with staff
Commissioner Hill stated he had an email requesting he come look at it but doesn't remember the
citizen's name, but he never went and looked at the property directly with them.
Commissioner Mark stated she has had emails from Joe Riggero, Barbara James , Donnie Wanstall, and
Greg Kelly, who also called her on the phone regarding tho variance hearing.
Mr. Komando asked Mr. White if he had any exception to those. Mr. White stated the only exception he
has is to the extent that any of them are not part of the record of the Board itself, because anything
outside of that, just like with public comment here would be inappropriate to consider. Mr. Komando
stated that was correct and the Commission has been advised not to consider anything that wasn't
considered by the Community Development Board. He asked the Commission, by their affirmation, if
they were able to do that today. The Commissioners, excluding Commissioner Daugherty, stated yes.
Commissioner Daugherty disclosed that three-four years ago Mr. Wolfson invited him out to that
-3-
property and he did tour the property with Mr. Wolfson. Mr. Komando stated that was fine. Mr.
Komando asked if the Commission had any questions for the applicant.
The Commission asked Mr. Wolfson, the City Attorney and Mr. Hubsch several questions. Mr.
Wolfson, Mr. Komando and Mr. Hubsch responded to each. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Komando asked Mr. White and Mr. Wolfson if they had any rebuttal or closing that they would like
to present.
Mr. Wolfson gave his rebuttal stating the former director, Sonya Doerr, and her predecessor, Erika Hall,
came before the Development Board with a lot of history. He stated what Mr. White was referring to
was their finding of why they recommended the variance be approved with the land, not with the
application. He stated the reason why was because that was the basis for granting the variances before.
He stated that is the position that they have taken; that that is the expert opinion because that was the
qualified perspective. He stated he just wanted to clarify that that was part of the original process.
Commissioner Daugherty stated, as part of disclosure of ex parte communications, after looking back at
his emails he noted that he replied to a citizen, either Don Wanstall or Greg Kelly, stating that "I don't
see why the Commission would change its mind but I'm only one vote". Mr. Komando asked if he
would still be able to make a decision based only on the record that was before the CDB. Commissioner
Daugherty replied yes.
Commissioner Mark expressed concern about Mr. Wolfson's closing comments about bringing an action
against the City, suing for back property taxes that he has paid on this lot as residential lot. Mr.
Komando asked that the Commission not take that into consideration. He stated the determination of
property values is something that is the purview of the Property Appraiser, not something that is the
purview of this Commission.
Commissioner Hill stated you have to determine when a law is enacted and if a law is in place, from that
point forward that law should be in place. He stated, if it isn't, why make the law in the first place. He
stated at some point they have to be brave enough to do what our current laws say.
Mayor Woods addressed each of the grounds for denial and the grounds for approval of a variance. She
also read the memo in the agenda packet from staff to the citizens stating that any permissible activity
allowed by the City of Jacksonville will be honored, asking when do you stop honoring a promise.
Discussion ensued.
Motion: Grant the Appeal and Approve the Variance.
Moved by Daugherty, Seconded by Woods
Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Mark stated, for the record, in the March 15, 2011 minutes of
the Community Development Board it refers to denial of the Hawkes variance. She stated this
discussion was with Mr. Wolfson where he gave a lengthy history of the area with particular reference to
the original deed restrictions, stating "that garage approach was uniquely designed for additional parking
facilities and not for living spaces, according to the CDB minutes of April 18, 1989", which she believes
was after the annexation. Mayor Woods stated that is incorrect because the deed says shall be used for
-4-
residential purposes. Commissioner Mark stated she was only reading the quote from Mr. Wolfson.
Discussion ensued.
Votes:
Aye: 2 — Daugherty, Woods
Nay: 3 - Beckenbach, Hill, Mark
MOTION FAILED
Adjournment
There being no further discussion by the City Commission, Mayor Woods declared the meeting
adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
ATTEST
Donna L. Bartle, CMC
City Clerk
-5-
Carolyn Woo
Mayor
CN: Page 1 of 2
LAND USE & ZONING COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 5:00 PM
Council Chambers 1st Floor, City Hall
Scott Wilson, Chair
Lori Boyer, Vice Chair
Danny Becton
Aaron Bowman
Katrina Brown -Excused Late Arr. 6:13 pm
Jim Love
Joyce Morgan
Tape No.
Dana M. Farris, Chief of Legislative Services
Legislative Assistant:
Attorney:
Research Assistant:
Planning Department
Philip Zamarron
Susan Grandin
Jason Teal
Sondra Fetner
Yvonne Mitchell
Joel McEachin
Meeting Convened 5:05 p.m. Meeting Adjourned 12:27 a.m.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting,
such person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, such person may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
to be based.
REQUEST TO SPEAK: 1. Fill out a speaker card.
2. Sign it if you are going to speak.
3. Read the rules on the back of the card.
4. Place card in tray.
PARKING: If you park in the Library Garage (Entry on Duval St, W of Main St),
Please see the Legislative Assistant for ticket validation.
***Note: Continuation of Special meeting to be held on Monday, May 9th at 4p.m. in Council Chambers.***
1. 2016-55
Meeting Break times:
• Break
• Reconvened
• Break
• Reconvened
• Break
Reconvened
ORD -Q Rezoning 2220 Oak St (0.68± Acres) - CRO to PUD (The Roost - Commercial Uses) - 2216 Oak
Street, LLC. (Dist 14 - Love) (Glick) (LUZ) (PD & PC Am/Apv) (CPAC #5 Deny) (Exparte- Crescimbeni,
Morgan, Bowman, Boyer, Schellenberg, Dennis, Newby & Love)
LUZ PH - 3/15/16, 4/5/16, 5/4/16 @ 5:00 PM
Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 3/8/16
1. 1/12/2016 CO Introduced: LUZ
1/20/2016 LUZ Read 2nd & Rerefer
2. 1/26/2016 CO Read 2nd & Rereferred; LUZ
3. 3/8/2016 CO PH Only
6:31 pm
6:49pm
8:46pm
8:58pm
10:50pm
11:02pm
Council Member Wilson called the meeting to order and 5:05p.m. The meeting began with introductions of committee
members and staff. CM Wilson read the rules governing the meeting. Ex Parte declarations were provided by Council
Members Boyer, Becton, Love, Bowman, Morgan, Crescimbeni, Schellenberg, Wilson, Ferraro, and K. Brown.
All speakers and witnesses were sworn in by the court reporter. CM Wilson explained witnesses were required to remain
throughout the meeting. Ms. Susan Grandin reviewed the memorandum regarding the rezoning criteria for PUD's in
Riverside/Avondale.
Each party provided an opening statement. Mr. Steve Diebenow (representing applicant) was first to present his case. He
called three witnesses: Courtland Eyrick, Austin Chapman, and Michael Saylor. Mr. Bobeck (opposing council) called seven
http://cityclts.coj.nct/coj/CurrentYear/Landlise/89-May-04-2016-Spec-Mtg-Minutes.htm 5/31/2016
CN: Page 2 of 2
witnesses: Thad Crowe, Fred Pope, Jr., Stephen Tocknell, Jack Shad, Kevin Petway, Kay Ehas, and Mark Shafer. After each
party presented its witnesses, the committee asked additional questions.
Both parties objected to the introduction of evidence which was not included in the spiral bound notebook provided to
committee members. It was determined that the information may be included in the staff report, application, and/or Planning
Commission transcript. Therefore, it was allowable with the objection acknowledged for the record.
CM Crescimbeni requested a copy of the spiral bound notebook. In addition, he requested staff to provide an explanation
about how licenses were issued for the business with the administrative deviation and the conditions were not upheld.
Due to the time restraint, the committee agreed to hear all public comments prior to recessing the hearing to another date.
The public was sworn in by the court reporter. There were approximately 60 speakers: 20 proponents and 40 opponents. In
addition, there were numerous cards submitted from individuals that did not wish to speak; however, wanted opinions
acknowledged.
Each party will have their remaining time from the original presentation added to their closing arguments.
There being no further business, the meeting was recessed at 12:27a.m., and will reconvene on Monday, May 9, 2016.
Meeting will be held in Council Chamber.
Minutes: Yvonne P. Mitchell, Council Research Division
05.06.16 Posted 3:00 p.m.
Tapes: LUZ Special Meeting — LSD
05.04.16
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/CurrentYear/LandUse/89-May-04-2016-Spec-Mtg-Minutes.htm 5/31/2016
9Z:LT
60/0T/STOZ
OGX-MTI
SqVIHRIVW dIHSHRMAEW Snqd HSIHdEHINH gor
s are TIT Imp [
CN:
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/CurrentYcar/L.andlisc/88-May-09-2016-Spec i...
LAND USE & ZONING COMMITTEE
Monday, May 9, 2016 4:00 PM
Council Chambers 1st Floor, City Hall
Scott Wilson, Chair
Lori Boyer, Vice Chair
Danny Becton
Aaron Bowman
Katrina Brown
Jim Love
Joyce Morgan
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Tape No.
Dana M. Farris, Chief of Legislative Services
Legislative Assistant:
Attorney:
Research Assistant:
Planning Department:
Sergeant at Arms:
Philip Zamarron
Susan Grandin & Sondra Fetner
Yvonne Mitchell
Bill Killingsworth
Folks Huxford
Kristen Reed
Bruce Lewis
Kenneth Browning
Meeting Convened. 4:04 P.M. Meeting Adjourned 10:14 P.M.
Break 4:47 p.m. Reconvened 4:58 p.m.
Break 6:56 p.m. Reconvened 7:08 p.m.
Break 8:53 p.m. Reconvened 9:02 p.m.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting, such
person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, such person may need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Attendance:
CP Greg Anderson
CM John Crescimbeni
CM Al Ferraro
CM Matt Schellenberg
Item/File No.
1. 2016-55
Title/History
ORD -Q Rezoning 2220 Oak St (0.68± Acres) - CRO to PUD (The Roost - Commercial Uses) -
2216 Oak Street, LLC. (Dist 14 - Love) (Glick) (LUZ) (PD & PC Am/Apv) (CPAC #5 Deny)
(Exparte- Crescimbeni, Morgan, Bowman, Boyer, Schellenberg, Dennis, Newby & Love)
LUZ PH - 3/15/16, 4/5/16, 5/4/16 @ 5:00 PM
Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 3/8/16
1. 1/12/2016 CO Introduced: LUZ
1/20/2016 LUZ Read 2nd & Rerefer
2. 1/26/2016 CO Read 2nd & Rereferred; LUZ
PH reconvened. Chairman Wilson read all the speaker cards into the record that did not
wish to speak at first meeting but was present in support or opposition. Ms. Grandin stated
that members were restricted in receiving any additional information/evidence at the
conclusion of the meeting. There should be no ex parte communication of any form
regarding 2016-55 "Roost PUD" prior to the vote of the full Council. Council members were
informed to notify their ECAs to intercept calls, emails, etc. regarding this matter. CM K.
Brown announced that she watched the video of the first meeting since she arrived late on
Wednesday, May 4th
Council President Anderson informed the committee and attendees that 2016-55 would not
be voted on by the full Council until May 24th He stated all Council members needed
adequate time to review all of the evidence in order to make the best decision.
1 oft 6/1/2016 9:24 AM
Cit': hltp://cityclls.co.j,nct/co,j/CurrentYcar/LandUsc/88-May-09-2016-Spcci,,.
The proponent and opponent presented their rebuttals and closing arguments. All
objections were duly noted for the record. PH closed.
The committee began deliberations with numerous questions for all the witnesses. Staff was
requested to justify their recommendation as it related to the Code, Planning Commission's
recommendation, and the Riverside/Avondale Overlay. There was extensive discussion
regarding parking and outdoor sales. The proponent was agreeable to a compromise on the
outdoor sales in order to maintain the 150 seats.
Motion/2nd move to amendment as modified by Planning Commission to include no outside
sells after 5:OOp.m; no live entertainment after 10:OOp.m; garbage pickup between 8p.m. —
8:00a.m.; and no tv inside or outside establishment. - Bowman/K. Brown (5-2) (Boyer &
Love)
Motion/2nd move as amended — Bowman/K. Brown (5-2) (Boyer & Love)
Note: All 14 conditions were included in motion under several friendly amendments. The
conditions will be added in the written description and listed as conditions to ensure
enforcement.
PH/AMEND/APPROVE 5-2 (Boyer & Love) (Revised written description & site plan & legal
description + Conditions)
Members were reminded not to receive any additional information regarding 2016-55 prior to full Council vote on May
24, 2016.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
Minutes: Yvonne R Mitchell, Council Research Division
05.11.16 Posted 2:30 p.m.
Tapes: LUZ Special Meeting - LSD
05.09.16
2of2 6/1/2016 9:24 AM
Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016, at 7:00 P.M.
in the Council Chambers, 11 North 3rd Street,
Jacksonville Beach, Florida.
OPENING CEREMONIES:
Council Member Buck gave the invocation, followed by the salute to the flag.
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Latham called the meeting to order at 7:12 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Mayor: William C. Latham
Council Members: Lee Buck Keith Doherty
Bruce Thomason Phil Vogelsang
JAp(SONVILLE
BEACH
Christine Hoffinan
Jeanell Wilson
Also present were City Manager George Forbes, and City Clerk Laurie Scott.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Ms. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Hoffinan, and passed unanimously, to approve the
following minutes as presented:
• City Council Workshop held on April 18, 2016
• Regular City Council Meeting held on April 18, 2016
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Wilson announced the Jacksonville Beach Art Walk would be held on the second
Tuesday of the month.
Council Member Vogelsang announced the Peace Officer Memorial ceremony would be held on
Monday, May 16, 2016, at 10:00 A.M. at the Jacksonville Beach Police Department.
Mayor Latham congratulated the Parks and Recreation Department, Mr. Forbes and Department
Heads for a successful Beaches Opening Day Parade held on Sunday, April 24, 2016.
CC160502min Page 1 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS:
Speakers:
• Suzanne Van de Kamp, 14600 San Pablo Drive North, Jacksonville, spoke regarding
the future of the Jacksonville Beach Tennis Center.
• Diana Gardner, 3504 Bay Island Circle, Jacksonville Beach, spoke in support of
youth tennis at Jacksonville Beach Tennis Center. She requested the City continue to
offer a reasonably priced after school instructional program, summer camps, and
private lessons made available as needed. She asked the City to support the Northeast
Florida Junior Team Tennis Program.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Item # 16-373 - Presentation by Denise Bunnewith with North Florida TPO
Denise Bunnewith gave a presentation of the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) for the City of Jacksonville Beach for FY 2016/17-2020/21.
Mr. Forbes stated there were concerns on the landscape project on Beach Boulevard from
San Pablo to 9th Street. The current specs state that the irrigation system will be removed
after nine months to a year later. The City would like to leave the irrigation system and
take over that system. Ms. Bunnewith answered that she would have someone contact Mr.
Forbes regarding that issue.
Ms. Wilson questioned the repaving of Seminole Road. Ms. Bunnewith stated that was a
local project and not on their list of projects.
Ms. Bunnewith announced there would be a public meeting on May 17, 2016, at 6:00 P.M.
at the Ponte Vedra Branch Library regarding the Ponte Vedra North Traffic Study.
Mr. Doherty asked how far in advance are the projects developed due to the increasing
problem at the J. Turner Butler Boulevard and Marsh Landing intersection. Ms.
Bunnewith answered it was part of the Ponte Vedra North Traffic Study, and it is being
left as is for now.
CITY CLERK:
CC160502min Page 2 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
CITY MANAGER:
(a) Item #16-368, Appointment of Two Trustees to the Firefighters' Pension Board;
(b)
Appointment of Two Trustees to the Police Officers' Pension
Board
Mr. Doherty nominated Mr. George Candler and Mr. Dennis Povloski for
reappointment to the Firefighters' Pension Board.
Motion: It was moved by Ms. Wilson and seconded by Ms. Hoffman, to reappoint
Mr. George Candler and Mr. Dennis Povloski to the Firefighters' Pension
Board.
Ms. Hoffinan questioned the number of candidates that apply for these boards. Mayor
Latham stated that the Council is invited to go over the applications.
Ms. Wilson commented these choices were justified as these members have only been
on the board for one term.
Roll call vote: Ayes — Buck, Doherty, Hoffman, Thomason, Vogelsang, Wilson, and
Mayor Latham. The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Wilson nominated Mr. Marvin Dupree and Mr. Alan Grant for reappoinment to
the Police Officers' Pension Board.
Motion: It was moved by Ms. Wilson and seconded by Ms. Hoffman, to reappoint
Marvin Dupree and Alan Grant to the Police Officers' Pension Board.
Roll call vote: Ayes — Doherty, Hoffman, Thomason, Vogelsang, Wilson, Buck, and
Mayor Latham. The motion carried unanimously.
Item #16-369, Approve a Commercial Lease Agreement with ASAP Towing
and Storage Co., Inc, for Property at the Industrial Park.
Motion: It was moved by Ms. Wilson and seconded by Ms. Hoffman, to authorize
the City Manager and Mayor to execute a lease with ASAP Towing and
Storage Co. Inc., for property at the Jacksonville Beach Industrial Park, as
described in the memorandum from the Property & Procurement Officer
dated April 27th, 2016.
CC160502min Page 3 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
Mr. Forbes explained this lease is for City property located on 10th Street South. It
covers 27,500 square feet of land and an 880 -square foot building. The City is
allowing a two-month grace period to complete repairs to the building.
Ms. Wilson stated that the property is not to be used as a junkyard, but the lessee will
be storing cars and vehicles there. Mr. Forbes commented the lease did prohibit it
becoming a junkyard. Also, a screened fence will be constructed around the leased
property to block the view.
Mr. Vogelsang asked if any real estate companies had been consulted and how was
this tenant chosen. Mr. Forbes stated no real estate companies were contacted.
Mr. Thomason questioned where storm debris would be stored if the property is
leased. Mr. Forbes answered that the storm debris is stored in another part of the
property.
Mr. Doherty asked if the City has an official towing company. Mr. Forbes stated the
Police Department has a list they utilize.
Roll call vote: Ayes — Hoffinan, Thomason, Vogelsang, Wilson, Buck, Doherty,
and Mayor Latham. The motion carried unanimously.
(c) Item #16-370, Award RFQ 03-1516 to Dix. Hite +Partners for Downtown
Action Plan Implementation and Management Plan.
Motion: It was moved by Ms. Wilson and seconded by Ms. Hoffinan, to award
RFQ 03-1516 to Dix. Hite + Partners and authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to execute a contract for services with Dix.Hite + Partners, as
described in the memorandum from the Planning and Development
Director dated April 26, 2016.
Mr. Forbes explained this was part of the Downtown Action Plan. The City received
three (3) qualified responses from requests for qualifications. The City recommends
Dix.Hite + Partners based on their presentation and experience. They will be
working on the public parts of the Downtown Action Plan, and Phase 1 is to come
up with an execution plan. The City Council will then vote to approve Phase 2, which
will be approving their recommendations.
Roll call vote: Ayes — Thomason, Vogelsang, Wilson, Buck, Doherty, HoffiLian,
and Mayor Latham. The motion carried unanimously.
CC160502min Page 4 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
(d) Item #16-371, Approve Bid No. 1516-08 - Electric Supplies -12 Months
Requirement
Motion: It was moved by Ms. Wilson and seconded by Ms. Hoffiiian, to award Bid
No. 1516-08 to the lowest bidders meeting specifications as explained in
the memorandum from Beaches Energy Services Director dated April 20,
2016.
Mr. Forbes explained this bid covered about 27 different items from connector covers
to elbow arrestors. These are various items stocked by Beaches Energy for the electric
system.
Roll call vote: Ayes — Vogelsang, Wilson, Buck, Doherty, Hoffman, Thomason,
and Mayor Latham. The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS:
ORDINANCES:
Item #16-372, ORDINANCE NO. 2016-8072 (First Reading - PUBLIC
HEARING)
Mayor Latham requested that the City Clerk read Ordinance No. 2016-8072 (First
Reading), by title only, whereupon Ms. Scott read the following:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT: PUD ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FLORIDA, AS PROVIDED UNDER
CHAPTER 34 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF SAID CITY.
(Beach Marine property — 2315 Beach Boulevard)
Mayor Latham read the following statement for the record:
"This ordinance for the rezoning of property is before this Council for a public
hearing and consideration on its first reading. Under the laws of the State of
Florida, an application for the rezoning of property is handled as a `quasi-
judicial' proceeding. A quasi-judicial proceeding means that a governing body is
now functioning in a manner similar to a court with the Mayor and Council sitting
as impartial decision makers hearing testimony and questioning presenters, who
are to provide substantial and competent evidence to support their side of the
issue. It is the duty of the Council to arrive at sound decisions regarding the use
of property within the City. This includes receiving citizen input regarding the
proposed use on the neighborhood, especially where the input is fact -based and
not a simple expression of opinion.
CC 160502min Page 5 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
It is the applicant's burden to demonstrate that their application is consistent with
the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. If the applicant is
successful in showing consistency, then it is up to the local government to
produce competent, substantial evidence of record that the application should be
denied. The Council's decision on a rezoning application is based on the criteria
set forth in Section 34-211 of the Land Development Code. Each member of the
Council has been provided a copy of the criteria."
Also, the Council has received a copy of the application, the staff and Planning
Commission reports on this rezoning request.
Public Hearing
Mayor Latham opened the public hearing on Ordinance No. 2016-8072 and asked if
the applicant or their agent was present and if they would like to make a presentation.
Mack McCuller, 225 Water Street, Jacksonville, representing the applicant, Rose and
Ken, Inc., stated they are seeking rezoning of approximately 27 acres from
Commerical: C-2 and Industrial: I-1 to PUD (Planned Unit Development). He stated
the project would allow for the development of up to 40 townhome units in a mixed-
use development. The price range will be from $500,000 to $700,000. The applicant
has met all requirements except for the pylon sign on the property. The owner has
elected to have the sign treated as a legally conforming sign under Article VIII,
Division 4, Sign Standards. Mr. McCuller handed the amended application page to
the City Clerk.[attached] Mr. McCuller introduced Brian Wheeler, professional
planner, representing the Genesis Group.
Brian Wheeler, 9822 Tapestry Park, Jacksonville, representing the Genesis Group,
stated there are broad benefits to the community. He added it was important to not
lose sight of those and not to diminish the functional or business aspects of operating
a marina. Mr. Wheeler explained there were consistencies with the Comprehensive
Plan and with the PUD standards.
Mr. McCuller summarized that they were seeking approval for 40 townhome units
with the ability to convert the hotel units to 32 additional townhomes. This would be
an enhancement of the Beach Marine property and to the City.
Mr. McCuller requested Part D of the draft ordinance be withdrawn regarding the
existing pylon sign. He requested the City approve the application.[Part D contains
language regarding the operation and nonconforming nature of the pylon sign and
its being subject to regulations of Article VII, Division 4, Sign Standards.]
CC160502min Page 6 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
Speakers:
Mike Stang, 1020 19t Street North, Jacksonville Beach, spoke in favor of the
ordinance. He has concerns regarding the curve on the road to the north and the
parking issue.
Tom Taylor, 603 15th Street North, Jacksonville Beach, spoke in favor of the
ordinance. His concern is if the sign is the issue, move it to a different time and
proceed with the project.
Brenda Shields, 315 18th Street North, Jacksonville Beach, spoke and had concerns
regarding the noise from the additional outdoor areas proposed in the application. She
handed out a letter stating her concerns to the City Council and the City Clerk. [copy
on file]
Sandy Golding, 1203 18th Avenue North, Jacksonville Beach, spoke in favor of the
ordinance. However, she noticed the pylon sign with a digital display was advertising
as she drove by that day.
James Overby, 21 Burling Way, Jacksonville Beach, spoke regarding the sign
ordinance and advertising on the existing pylon sign on the Beach Marine property.
James Sorrell, 1410 Pinewood Road, Jacksonville Beach, stated the density of the
project is too high, the parking would be a problem and the project would be a burden
to the City.
City Attorney Susan Erdelyi clarified that the existing pylon sign was a legal
nonconforming sign. In 1988, the City issued a permit allowing that sign to display
time, temperature and other similar messages. At that time, flashing signs were not
allowed. Sometime after the permit was issued, commercial messages began to be
displayed on the sign, and a Code Enforcement case was created as a result.
Ultimately, the Code Enforcement Board held that the sign was in compliance with
the Code even if the Code in existence at that time was unclear about the frequency
of message changes, but did not provide any clarity regarding the frequency of
message changes. Ms. Erdelyi stated that since the current Code limits the frequency
of message to once every 24 hours, we should comply with the current Code and that
there are no vested rights attached to this pylon sign.
Mr. McCuller stated the messages displayed on the sign were for onsite tenants. He
stated the Board of Adjustment approved the parking for this specific project and
CC160502min Page 7 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
gave the parking variance. The 1988 Code Enforcement Board decision found the
sign in compliance and found no violation of the frequency of message changes.
Ex -Parte Communications
Mayor Latham read the following statement for the record:
"Before requesting a motion on this ordinance, beginning with myself, each of the
members is requested to indicate for the record both the names of persons and the
substance of any ex- parte communications regarding this application. An ex parte
communication refers to any meeting or discussion with a person or citizen who may
have an interest in this decision, which occurred outside of the public hearing
process."
Mayor Latham stated he had met with the applicant and his team along with the
City Manager to discuss the application. He was also contacted by Sandy Golding
regarding the sign issue.
Ms. Hoffman stated she had breakfast with Joe Loretta of the Genesis Group a
few months ago regarding the application, and she spoke with Sandy Golding
earlier that day.
Mr. Doherty stated he spoke with Sandy Golding earlier that day regarding the sign
and noise issues. He also received an e-mail from Brenda Shields regarding the noise
issue.
Ms. Wilson stated she received phone calls from Mr. McCuller and Sandy Golding
but never spoke with either of them.
Mr. Buck had a conversation with Sandy Golding and had a meeting with the City
Manager.
Mr. Thomason spoke with Sandy Golding by telephone the day before about the sign
issue and spoke with City Staff that day.
Mr. Vogelsang only received an e-mail from Brenda Shields.
Mayor Latham asked if the City Clerk had received any additional written
communications, to which she responded that she had not.
Mayor Latham read the following statement for the record:
CC160502min Page 8 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
"Before opening the floor for discussion or questions by the Council, please be
reminded that our decision will be based on the criteria set forth in the Land
Development Code, and the Council is required to approve a clear statement of
specific findings of fact stating the basis upon which such facts were determined, and
the decision was made."
Mayor Latham asked for a motion to approve the ordinance as read by title.
Motion: It was moved by Ms. Wilson and seconded by Ms. Hoffivan, to adopt
Ordinance No. 2016-8072, establishing a Planned Unit Development:
PUD Zoning District, approving a unified, mixed-use commercial and
residential master development for the subject Beach Marine property.
Amended motion: It was moved by Mr. Vogelsang and seconded by Ms. Hoffman
to change Section D of the ordinance as the attorney indicated by
deleting the language starting with "Sign Standards," through the
rest of D. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Vogelsang stated his support of the project. The Board of Adjustment addressed
the parking issue and looking at the parking study; the parking should not be a
problem. The digital aspects of the pylon sign should be addressed by Code
Enforcement.
Mr. Thomason questioned Mr. McCuller about the "Adventure Landing" message
displayed on the pylon sign. Mr. McCuller clarified the attorney for Adventure
Landing was located on the property.
Mr. Thomason asked Mr. Wheeler if the applicant intended to operate airboat tours
as they are listed as an additional use allowed by right on Page 4 of the summary with
his application. Complaints had been received by the police department about the
noise when the previous owner had airboat tours. Mr. Wheeler said there was no
immediate intention to have airboat tours, and it is listed as an allowed use for the
overall commercial use of the property. Mr. Thomason stated his support of the
project.
Mr. Buck stated his support of the project and commented that he hopes the
timetables are accurate for successful development.
Ms. Wilson stated her support of the project. She asked for clarification of the
Department of Transportation property being designated as reserved space for the
condominiums. Mr. Forbes stated that the variance was granted based on the fact
there are other parking spaces available, and the FDOT property is for public parking.
Ms. Wilson also commented about the noise issue, and that the City should be diligent
in enforcing it.
CC160502min Page 9 of 10
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
held Monday, May 2, 2016
Ms. Hoffman stated her support for the project. She does not want to delay the project
due to the digital sign issue, but it does need to be addressed.
Mr. Doherty stated his support of the project. He commented that the sign issue
should not delay the project.
Mr. Thomason commented that the owners should help to keep the noise at a
manageable level to not disturb the residents.
Mayor Latham stated that he and the City Manager met with City of Jacksonville
Mayor Cuny regarding 2°d Avenue North. He also commented that they are
beginning attempts to allocate funds to repair the bridge. He stated his support of the
project.
Mr. Forbes reminded the audience this ordinance requires two public hearings. There
will be a second public hearing in two weeks, and the ordinance will be voted on for
final adoption.
Orginal motion: Roll call vote: Ayes — Wilson, Buck, Doherty, Hoffman,
Thomason, Vogelsang, and Mayor Latham. The motion carried
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Submitted by: Laurie Scott
City Clerk
Date:
. Latham, MAYOR
s//ae/ /6
CC160502min Page 10 of 10
Attachment to City Council Minutes
May 2, 2016, Item 16-372
Division 4. — Sign Standards
All standards shall conform to 2015 LDC Article 8, Division 4 — Sign Standards unless otherwise noted below.
As this is a mixed-use development which is one of its kind for the City of Jacksonville Beach, the applicant
shall be allowed a mixture of signage types as typically offered within the land -development code, which shall
include as follows:
Existing Pylon Sign with digital display. The existing two-sided pylon sign that is centrally located at
the southern entrance will continue as a legally nonconforming sign under Article VIII, Division 4. Sign
Standards.
branding of the zite:
Proposed Development Ground Mounted Signage. The subject property will utilize the intent of the
Shopping Center ground mounted signage for overall development signage located on-site. The subject
property has approximately 3,200 linear feet of frontage along Beach Boulevard, 20th St. and rd Ave. North.
The overall subject site shall have no greater than 800 total square feet of maximum allowable sign area, to be
located within signage zones defined within Attachment F. All or select allowable signage within signage zone
'C" can be permanently relocated within Signage Zone 'B". All or select allowable signage within Signage Zone
1B1 can be permanently relocated to within Signage Zone "A". No one individual sign shall exceed 200 square
feet in size, nor 16 feet height and width of 12.5 feet per code. The existing non -conforming pylon sign is not
subject to relocation per these PUD signage location criteria nor does it count against maximum overall
allowable signage square footage for this site.
The intent Is for the overall site to have similar or complimentary architectural design for the signage
package throughout.
Proposed Wall, Roof, Projected, Window or Door Signage. The subject property will comply with the
2015 Land Development Code Article VIII, Division 4 Sign Standards for wall, window, projections and door
locations.
Environmental Standards
The development shall conform to 2015 LDC Article 8, Division 5 — Environmental Standards.
Utilities:
Adequate public facilities will be available for each phase of new construction for the project per Article X of
the LDC. The applicant has worked with the Public Works Department to understand the water and sewer
requirements necessary to bring utilities to both the northern and southern basins of this property.
Open Space / Recreation Facilities / Waterways:
8IPage
GENESIS
6 N O Y V0•1011 TO II U A L I T•
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting
held Monday, April 11, 2016, at 7:00 P.M.
in the Council Chambers, 11 North 3rd Street,
Jacksonville Beach, Florida
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Terry DeLoach.
Roll Call
Greg Sutton (Chairman) Absent
Terry DeLoach (Vice Chairman)
Bill Callan
David Dahl
Georgette Dumont
Alternates
Britton Sanders
Jeffrey Jones
JACKSONVILLE
BEACH
Also present were Bill Mann, Director, Heather Ireland, Senior Planner and Recording Secretary
Amber Lehman.
Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Mr. Dahl, seconded by Mr. Callan, and passed unanimously, to approve the
following minutes as presented:
• Planning Commission meeting held on March 14, 2016
• Planning Commission meeting held on March 28, 2016
Ex -Parte Communications
Commissioners Callan, Dumont, Dahl and Jones noted that they had received calls about this case.
Correspondence
Mr. Mann stated that he had provided a letter from Mr. Woodburn concerning the case on the
agenda.
New Business
(A) PC #11-16- 2315 Beach Boulevard (Beach Marine)
PC 160411 mins Page 1 of 9
Rezoning Approval for property located at 2315 Beach Boulevard (Beach Marine),
currently zoned Commercial, general: C-2 and Industrial: 1-1 to be rezoned to Planned
Unit Development: PUD, for a proposed mixed use master planned development, pursuant
to Section 34-210 of Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code.
Staff Report:
The subject property is located between 2nd Avenue North and Beach Boulevard, and 20th
Street North and the Intracoastal Waterway. The primary business address of the subject
property is 2315 Beach Boulevard. The subject property consists of 27.7 acres total, with
12.5 acres of uplands and 15.2 acres of active marina basin. The property owner has applied
for approval to rezone the property from Commercial, general: C-2 and Industrial: I-1 to
Planned Unit Development: PUD for a proposed mixed use development that would
include both commercial and residential uses.
The applicant has determined that a PUD zoning designation would provide for a
consolidated review of all development approvals within the context of the overall
development vision for Beach Marine. The applicant's narrative description provides
details on the proposed development.
Existing development on the subject property consists of the following:
• 28,800 square feet of restaurants (indoor and outdoor);
• 1,500 square foot special events patio;
• 14,700 square feet of office space (three-story office bldg.);
• 9,250 square feet of mixed use commercial space;
• 251 wet and 296 dry boat slips;
• 8,700 square feet of Boat Sales Showroom, plus 1,714 square feet of mezzanine
level office boat repair;
• 7,000 square feet of boater warehouse/locker storage space ancillary marina
structures.
The PUD rezoning application proposes:
• 27,500 square feet of restaurants (indoor and outdoor);
• 1,500 square feet special events patio;
• 14,700 square feet of office space (three-story office bldg.)
• 26,775 square feet expanded mixed use commercial building;
• 280 wet and 296 dry boat slips;
• 8,700 square feet of Commercial Showroom space, plus 1,714 square feet of
mezzanine level office;
• 7,000 square feet of boater warehouse/locker storage space;
• 15,525 square feet of general storage/warehousing;
• 40 residential townhomes;
• 64 -bed hotel, convertible into a maximum of 32 multi -family dwelling units.
PC 160411 mins Page 2 of 9
The project was granted a parking variance via Application BOA#15-100203 for a 95 space
reduction from the maximum 482 space off-street commercial parking requirement
identified in the applicant's shared parking analysis (Attachment I of the application). The
total on-site commercial parking space requirement is 387 spaces with the variance. Each
proposed townhouse unit will provide its required two parking spaces.
From the application narrative, the anticipated project buildout will be 3-5 years for the
residential units and 5-10 years for the commercial uses. Phase 1 will consist of the
residential townhouses on the south side of the basin, reconstruction of south eastern
commercial parking area, and may also include the new storage/warehousing building, and
the removal of any existing buildings to be redeveloped. Phase 2 may be split into two
parts, and will consist of the new commercial construction along the south side of the basin,
and the townhouse development along the northern basin. Phase 3 will include the hotel on
the north side of the basin. According to the applicant's narrative, all phases may be
adjusted based on market demand.
Given that this application deals largely with an existing developed commercial marina
property, the focus of the Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council on its
approval should be on the following aspects of the application for the additional uses
proposed and for any requests to deviate from those land development code regulations
that would normally apply to the development that the applicant is proposing:
1. The applicant is seeking to ratify by this rezoning, the extents of existing outdoor deck
areas associated with the two existing restaurant buildings on-site. (1,800 square feet
associated with Billy's restaurant, 5,000 square feet adjacent to the former Nipper's
restaurant building) There are provisions in the application narrative, however, that if any
other restaurant or bar development were to occur on the subject property, they would
comply with the City's LDC Sec 34-407, Outdoor Restaurant and Bar standards, including
those for allowable outdoor deck areas.
2. In addition to the listed uses to be permitted by right in the proposed development, the
applicant is requesting that the following uses be allowable as conditional uses, subject to
LDC requirements:
• Bar, lounge, nightclub, tavern or other drinking place
• Outdoor bar
• Microbreweries not classified as restaurant
As these uses are listed as conditional uses in the C-2 zoning district regulations that
currently govern the majority of the subject property, staff has no issue with this request.
3. In conjunction with the potential for approved conditional use approved drinking
establishments within the subject property, the applicant is requesting that the LDC Sec
34-393 Alcoholic beverage establishments regulations that require a 500 -foot distance
between drinking establishments be waived for any future drinking establishments that may
be approved for location within the PUD. Staff does not support this request, given the
PC 160411 mins Page 3 of 9
problematic history of past drinking establishments on the subject property, and also given
that the applicant is now proposing to introduce residential uses within the subject property.
4. The applicant is requesting to develop multifamily townhouses on undeveloped areas along
the north and south sides of the marina basin, as shown on the PUD Master Plan,
Attachment F to the application. This request is viewed by staff as reasonable, especially
in light of the recent successful development and sales of similar water -oriented
townhouses recently built on the south side of the Intracoastal Waterway bridge. The
applicant is also requesting relief from the standard RM -1 townhouse, two-family, and
multiple family dwelling setbacks, due to the limited space of the developable areas along
the basin, and because they are intended to be oriented directly on the waterfront and the
10' wide pedestrian boardwalk that wraps around the basin. In this context, the proposed
modified development standards are viewed as reasonable.
5. The applicant is proposing a 64 -room hotel to be developed along the north side of the
basin, and is further requesting that that facility be convertible to 32 multifamily dwelling
units in the event that the hotel concept proves unsuccessful. Given that the required
parking for the 64 -room hotel would also satisfy the requirement for a 32 -unit multifamily
use, this request is not seen as unreasonable. It should be noted that such conversion to
multiple family units may require an amendment to the PUD Master Plan if the hotel
building footprint were to change significantly from how it is currently delineated on the
master plan.
6. The applicant is requesting the ability to construct a 15,525 square foot general
warehouse/storage facility at the southeast comer of the existing dry boat storage building.
This request is viewed as reasonable given that the applicant is currently entitled to develop
such use on the I-1 zoned portion of the subject property now, in the same general area, in
the vicinity of other I-1 zoned properties along 20th Street North.
7. Parking - The applicant received a variance for the commercial portions of the proposed
development last year, via Application BOA 15-100203. The justification provided in that
application was that there was existing on -street parking on both sides of the Beach
Boulevard frontage road along the south side of the subject property, and that parking was
used with FDOT's permission by customers and visitors to the applicant's property. The
Board of Adjustment did express concern that the parking along the south side of the
frontage road was only partially paved. Staff feels the applicant should coordinate with
FDOT to see if improvements could be made to at least some of the spaces along the south
side of the frontage road to an extent where there would be at least 95 fully paved and
striped spaces along the frontage road. There are currently roughly 66 paved and striped
paved spaces along the north side of the frontage road.
8. Signage - The applicant has a legal nonconforming pylon style sign located along the south
side of the subject property. That sign is currently allowed to exist as a legal nonconforming
sign, as are many other non -monument style ground signs in the city that were built before
the sign standards were amended in April of 2006. (Ref Ord. No. 2006-7920) The applicant
is asking that he be allowed to continue, repair, and even rebuild this nonconforming sign
PC 160411 mins Page 4 of 9
in the event is significantly damaged or destroyed. If this request is approved as part of the
requested rezoning, this pylon or pole sign would be the only such nonconforming sign in
the city that would not have to abide by the current nonconforming sign regulations. Those
regulations do allow minor repairs and maintenance of nonconforming signs, but also
require that if a nonconforming ground sign is damaged by any means, or allow to
deteriorate, to an extent equal to 50% or more of the cost to replace it, then it must be
removed, or rebuilt in conformance with current regulations. Staff does not support this
request because if it is granted, it would constitute the inequitable treatment of one
commercial property owner over other commercial property owners with similar such
nonconforming signs on their properties.
The applicant is also asking for flexibility and increased sign area for what would be the
permitted size and number of ground signs on the subject property, in addition to the
existing nonconforming pylon sign. He is requesting an increase in maximum allowable
ground signage from one ground sign with a maximum size of 200 square feet to not more
than four ground signs, each with a maximum size of 200 square feet citing the fact that he
has over 3,200 linear feet of commercial street frontage on Beach Boulevard, 20th Street
North, and 2nd Avenue North. He is also proposing that, since a significant portion of his
property's Beach Boulevard commercial frontage is not visible from Beach Boulevard due
to the elevated bridge roadway and embankment, that three signage zones be created on
the subject property. These zones, A, B, and C (east to west), are delineated by vertical
dashed lines on the PUD Master Plan. The applicant would like the ability to place the
allowable signage for uses in Zone C (containing both restaurants, the office building and
the hotel) to be located in zones B or C, and the allowable signage for uses in Zone B (the
residential townhomes) to be located in Zone B or Zone A. This would allow the movement
of signs that might not normally be visible from certain portions of Beach Boulevard to be
located on more visible areas along that road. All proposed new ground signs would be
constructed within the allowable LDC dimensions for monument style ground signs
(maximum 200 square foot sign area, maximum 16' height, maximum 12.5' width.)
This request for additional ground signage is not inconsistent with the PUD regulations
approved for the two large commercial PUD shopping centers in south Jacksonville Beach,
both of which were approved for more than one ground signs, due to their large extents of
street frontage, and frontage on multiple streets. Further, if the applicant were to subdivide
the commercial portions of his property into formal outparcels, each outparcel would be
allowed its own ground sign, with a maximum of 200 square feet of signage depending on
its linear street frontage.
9. The applicant indicates in the project narrative and attachments thereto, that he has applied
to the State for "Specialty Center" designation. The applicant explains that this designation
would allow for alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the premises by an
individually licensed alcoholic beverage vendor to be consumed within the overall
specialty center but may not be removed from the center. This information is acknowledged
as being in the application, but the applicant's agents were informed by staff that this
assertion was viewed simply as extraneous information, and would not be specifically
reviewed or approved in the consideration of this rezoning application.
PC 160411 mins Page 5 of 9
The applicant has put together a fully encompassing PUD rezoning application in an effort
ensure the predictable and reliable course of future development of the subject property.
Based on the discussion of the various points above, staff feels that the proposed PUD
should be approved, as long as those concerns discussed herein are addressed in the
Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council of the application.
Applicant:
The agent for the applicant, Mac McCuller, 225 Water Street, Jacksonville, introduced
Brian Wheeler and Joe Loretta with the Genesis Group. Mr. McCuller noted that Beach
Marine has been here since the 60's and is a very important component of Jacksonville
Beach. He stated this is the latest attempt to keep the property in a commercially viable
mode. He added that residential use is allowable in the zoning district in which was located.
Mr. McCuller stated that the amount of residential is less than proposed a decade ago.
Mr. McCuller stated that the conditions that Mr. Mann reviewed were for the most part
acceptable. Mr. McCuller noted that they were willing to withdraw the request that the
500 -foot distance be waived for any future drinking establishments. He stated that they
will work with FDOT in the parking issues. Mr. McCuller noted that they cannot agree
with the staff recommendation about not being allowed to replace the pylon sign. He stated
this is unique to Jacksonville Beach and if the sign is not visible there could be an increase
in accidents, adding that monument signs cannot be built that tall.
Mr. Brian Wheeler, 9822 Tapestry Park Circle, Jacksonville, stated that the proposal is
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, summarizing those applicable policies from the
plan. He then cited portions of the Land Development Code with which this project is
consistent. He added that the PUD is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent
with land use changes in this area of Jacksonville Beach. Mr. Wheeler then provided
exhibits that showed how the existing sign is not visible to Beach Boulevard traffic.
Mr. McCuller summarized that the application is basically for the approval of 40 dwelling
units in the multi -use project and asked for a recommendation of approval without the
condition placed on the signage.
Mr. Sanders stated that the road that goes back to the hotel is horrible, and there is a blind
spot. He asked how they will help to address this road. Mr. McCuller stated that the road
is the responsibility of the City of Jacksonville. He added that a hotel could go in today,
so the focus is on the 20 townhomes that generate a total of 10 peak hour trips, which is a
fraction of the trips already occurring here.
Mr. Dahl asked about the 64 -room hotel and the potential for more multi -family units. He
asked if they studied what the impact would be with 32 multi -family homes instead of the
hotel. Mr. McCuller stated adding these units would be well less than the existing traffic
using the road. Mr. Wheeler stated it is slightly less for the units than the hotel units.
PC 160411 mins Page 6 of 9
Mr. DeLoach stated that the problem with the sign visibility is from west to east, not east
to west. Mr. McCuller stated the concerns are for those people that are new to this use.
Mr. DeLoach noted that they could do a u -turn if they missed the turn. Mr. DeLoach noted
that there are risks with these types of digital signs. He agreed with staff that this would
be inequitable treatment of businesses. Mr. McCuller responded that they had a right for
identification of the business. Mr. Dahl asked if the City Attorney had addressed the issue
of equity. Mr. Mann stated that she had read the staff report but had no specific comments
on it. Mr. Dahl summarized the issues with the sign. Mr. DeLoach stated that they didn't
have a legal opinion on this. Mr. Mann stated that the City Attorney will be requested to
make an opinion. Ms. Dumont stated that also of concern is how often the sign changes
and conditions should be put on the changing of the message. Mr. Mann summarized the
number of signs that could be allowed per Code. Mr. DeLoach noted that there were
potentially five digital signs.
Mr. Dahl asked if the full sign was grandfathered in for form as well as for imaging. Mr.
Mann responded that it was not grandfathered in for digital display. Discussion followed
on the displays that occur on the sign and that it appears to violate City Code. Mr. McCuller
added that they would provide the Court Order on the grandfathering of the sign.
Mr. Dahl asked about the Specialty Center designation. Mr. McCuller stated that they
would be subject to the determination of the State. Mr. Dahl asked on who polices that
open area for container use. Mr. McCuller noted that they are not asking the Commission
to address that issue. Ms. Dumont noted that there would be people walking with their
containers past the townhomes within 3 feet.
Public Hearing:
Mr. DeLoach opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of
or in opposition to the application.
Mr. David Siddall, 1944 Beach Blvd., stated that the city has come a long way. He added
that Beach Marine wants to be a positive development within the City, adding that his
would be a positive impact and encouraged support.
Ms. Sandy Golding, 1203 18th Avenue North, stated she was in support of this development
but had concerns about some of the requests. She asked for deferral however because of
the mail out time for the packet. She thought that the public did not have the opportunity
to review the plans. She added that she did have a problem with the request to replace the
pole sign. She noted that other marines in this situation do not have the large pole sign and
the turn at 20th is a safer turn anyway.
Mr. James Sorrell, 1410 Pinewood Road, agreed that he did not have sufficient time to
review the packet. He agreed that the signage should not be allowed to be replaced. He
stated that in -car navigation would help to eliminate the need for the sign. He did state that
the redevelopment is well -needed, but expressed concern about the BOA determination on
the waiver of 95 parking spaces. Mr. DeLoach reminded Mr. Sorrell that parking is not an
PC 160411 mins Page 7 of 9
issue for the Planning Commission.
Mr. McCuller stated that this is not a great magnitude of development proposed. He added
that the signage will be compliant with code except for the pylon sign. Mr. Dahl asked if
they had addressed solid waste. Mr. Mann stated that solid waste facilities need to be on
private property.
Seeing no one else who wished to address the board, Mr. DeLoach closed the public
hearing.
Discussion: Ms. Dumont stated that she liked the mixed-use aspect, but expressed
concerns. She asked Mr. Mann if they were allowed to have outdoor music. Mr. Mann
stated that individual establishments are not allowed to have outdoor music, but the land
owner has obtained an outdoor sound permit. Any new restaurants would have to meet
current standards. Ms. Dumont expressed concern about combining residential
development with outdoor music until 1:00 a.m. She asked about the parking spaces per
room and Mr. Mann responded that they meet the Code. Mr. Mann noted that there is
convertibility language in the Code now that would allow converting 64 hotel rooms to 32
dwelling units. Ms. Dumont asked when the Board of Adjustment made their
determination of parking. Mr. Mann stated that the plan hasn't changed since their
determination a few months ago. Mr. Mann added that the application has been available
since March 31 and that there would be two City Council public hearings.
Mr. DeLoach expressed support for the project and the project will go forward with or
without the sign. He stated that was really the only issue he had with it.
Mr. Dahl moved approval of the application with the following conditions; that the 500
foot waiver be withdrawn, that the FDOT issue for total provision of 95 spaces be
forwarded to the City Council, and that the non -conforming pylon sign be approved
pending a determination by the City Attorney concerning liability. Motion died from a
lack of a second.
Motion: Ms. Dumont moved approval of the application; that the applicant remove
reference to the 500 foot standard being waived; that the applicant be required
to coordinate with FDOT concerning the 95 parking spaces in the FDOT right-
of-way; and that the existing pylon sign be treated as a non -conforming sign
and be treated as such consistent with land development code regulations
subject to the regulation involving variable message signage unless proved
otherwise to be not applicable. Motion was seconded by Mr. Sanders.
Roll call vote: Ayes — Dumont, Sanders, Callan, and DeLoach. Nays - Dahl.
The PUD Rezoning was approved 4-1.
PC 160411 mins Page 8 of 9
Planning & Development Director's Report
Mr. Mann stated that he could move an application to May 9, 2016.
Adjournment
There being no further business coming before the Commission, Mr. DeLoach adjourned the
meeting at 8:31 P.M.
Submitted by: Amber Maria Lehman
Recording Secretary
Approval:
Chai
Date:
Z ° l
PC 160411 mins Page 9 of 9
6. Sneed
Mr. Sneed called Mr. Davis and asked questions regarding, stating he understood from Mr. Davis's
testimony that he was the Civil Engineer for the Gate project and Mr. Davis stated yes.his work with
Gate, Mr. Sneed asked, in doing that work, are there the regulations and codes that he you have has to
follow; - - - - _ --
and the witness stated yes. and Mr. Davis responded to those questions.
Mr. Sneed called Russ Ervin and asked questions regarding, stating he understood from Mr. Ervin's
testimony that he was the architect for his work with Gate, on this project and Mr. Ervin stated yes. Mr.
Sneed asked are there the regulations and codes he has you have to apply in designing a project de
and Mr. Ervin responded to those questions.
Mr. Sneed called Janet Whitmill, stating he understood from Ms. Whitmill's testimony that she was the
and asked questions regarding her work with Landscape Architect for the Gate project and Ms.
Whitmill stated yes. Mr. Sneed asked are and the there regulations and codes sheyou have has to
follow.; do the regulations and codes have defined terms you have to apply; and did you apply the
defined terms as written; and the witness stated yes. and Ms. Whitmill responded to those questions.
Mr. Sneed called Mr. Robbins to give testimony. Mr. Sneed asked questions regarding, asking if he
agreed with Mr. Lindorff s testimony that the process of a Community Development Director is -an
administerial process, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated he was going to read the exact words
not policymakers, they apply code; and the witness agreed. Mr. Sneed stated he wanted it cl r for the
record that Mr. Robbins his was not personally involvementd in Mr. Adeeb's permitting in 1997and
you have no his personal knowledge of that -the process other than what you gathered from reading the
records of the City of Atlantic Beach; and you have no personal knowledge of and what the the City of
Atlantic Beach records keeping practices were in 1997; the witness stated that is correct. Mr. Robbins
answered those questions.
Mr. Sneed called Mr. Lindorff, to give testimony. stating he will start with what they can agree upon.
Mr. Sneed stated,asked for confirmation regarding you are not a lawyer; you have no legal training in
interpreting contracts, leases, and things of that nature; and you testified, on direct, that his earlier
statements. Mr. Lindorff responded. people working for the City of Atlantic Beach have to apply the
code as it is written; the witness stated that is correct. Mr. Sneed presented a slide show and asked
questions about information found in his report and Mr. Lindorff responded. , referring to it as, C3, the
third submission, dated February 5, 2016; and asked if it was from after your report was rendered, and
the witness stated that is correct. Mr. Sneed stated, on the first page of Mr. Lindorff s report he
that phrase, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, it is smaller than a grocery store and the
-
witness stated he would not know that as a fact in this instance. Mr. Sneed stated, but in your basic
definition for He asked about convenience stores, corning from Webster Learner's Dictionary, and the
Beach, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, Jacksonville Beach docs not have convenience
store listed as a specified use in the commercial zoning district, and the witness stated that is correct.
- - - - - , gas stations permitted in Jacksonville Beach were permitted in
the method you described in your report here, "service stations with accompanying retail food stores
Mr. Lindorff stated, food stores without limitation and automobile service stations or gas stations are all
listed as permitted uses both in Jacksonville Beach and in Atlantic Beach. Mr. Sneed stated, my
permitted as gas stations with retail food sales, . - : - - - . Mr. Sneed stated,
would you agree that in Atlantic Beach convenience stores are specifically listed, and the witness asked,
in what zone. Mr. Sneed stated, 24-110(b)(7), CL Zoning, Convenience food stores without fuel sales,
but not supermarkets; and 24-110(c)(4) Uses -by -exception, Convenience food stores with retail sale of
gasoline, is a specifically listed use, correct? Mr. Lindorff stated he would accept that Mr. Sneed has
copied it properly from the CL District zoning requirements; adding, if you want me to answer with
certitude, he will go and look it up in the code. Mr. Sneed stated he was not asking for Mr. Sneed to
answer with certitude, but he is asking for the witness to acknowledge that you know these provisions
are listed in the code. Mr. Lindorff stated he would accept his premise that that is what it says in Section
24-110. Mr. Sneed stated, are you saying that you have no specific recollection of what is in the code
when you applied it to this project. The witness stated, after reviewing the CL Zoning District
regulations, he concluded that they were not relevant to the application that was before the City. Mr.
Sneed stated, let us look at Section 24-111 Commercial General Districts, asking if he reviewed this, and
the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, is it fair to say, that the uses permitted by Use and Use -by -
exception in CL are adopted by reference directly into Commercial General, and the witness stated
correct. Mr. Sneed stated; convenience store without gas and convenience store with gas, three pumps,
six fueling stations, are both specifically permitted uses in CG, and the witness stated, that would be
true. Mr. Sneed stated, is it fair to say when a code section is incorporated by reference in another code
section, it is your understanding that you have to take what it says, you do not get to pick and choose the
words that you apply. Mr. Lindorff stated that is essentially what my testimony was, but in this
particular instance, that language was superseded by other language in the CG Zoning section, and Mr.
Sneed stated we will get to that. Mr. Sneed stated, in your analysis, you were provided with information
by the City and by Mr Eakin on behalf of Mr. Adeeb. Mr. Lindorff stated he had communications with
the City and Mr. Eakin and the information was provided as part of the record. Mr. Sneed stated yes,
and part of the record that you produced, Volume 2 of the record before us today, included Mr Eakin's
correspondence where he attached a copy of the occupancy certificate for Beach Diner showing 94 seats,
and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed asked if he placed any weight on the contention that Beach Diner
had 94 seats inside, and the witness stated no. Mr. Sneed stated, you relied solely upon the
representations of Gate that they provided to the City, and the witness stated no, he relied on the plain
language within the City's code. Mr. Sneed asked does the City's code have the number of seats in
Beach Diner printed in it somewhere, and the witness stated no, but it has the parking requirement. Mr.
Sneed stated, to apply that parking requirement you have to know how many seats they have, is that
correct, the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, you relied solely upon the submittal of Gate, a seating
plan that was 19 years old, and formed your opinion that 19 spaces were all the City could require. Mr.
Lindorff stated 1 space for every 4 seats. Mr. Sneed stated, coming back to my question, did you rely
upon Gate's representations of the number of seats, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed asked if he
made any investigation whether the 19 year old drawing represented the as -built of what happened at
Beach Diner. Mr. Lindorff stated he reviewed the drawing and he has personal observation about what
is on the property at Beach Diner, and he mentioned that in his report and in his testimony this morning.
Mr. Sneed stated, you mentioned that you did not think they were using outside seating, and the witness
stated correct. Mr. Sneed asked if the witness had considered the fact that they have had outside seating
in the past and currently have outside seating, and the witness stated no, it was not relevant to his
review. Mr. Sneed stated to the witness, you saw this 19 year old plan had outside seating on it and you
recognized in your report that outside seating counts towards the number of parking spaces a restaurant
requires, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, you based your 19 seat opinion solely upon the
inside seating shown on the diagram, not including the outside seating that was also shown, and the
witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated the current use is important in determining how many parking
spaces are allowed, and the witness stated yes. 1:40:55 continues until 2:04pm not done
Cason Adeeb, 12915 North Winged Elm Drive, Jacksonville, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Kasey McClendon, 1062 Snug Harbor, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Joe Adeeb, 4343 Ocean Course Drive South, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Bill McCullum, 541 Sherry Drive, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Donna Mylod, 184 Sylvan Drive, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Katie Anderson, 366 Seminole Road, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
8:34:44
Richard Bell, 1952 Beachside Court,
11. Closing Statements: Eakin, Sneed, West, City and Applicant.
Mayor Reeves reconvened the meeting after the break. (what time?) He explained that -Eeach
attorney has 3 minutes for closing statements and . This is the order that -will be Petr Mr.
Eakin, Mr. Sneed, Ms West, Mr. Flowers and Mr.Hainline.
Mr. Eakin deferred his three minutes to Mr. Sneed.
Mayor Reeves requested the clock be set to six minutes for Mr. Sneed.
Mr. Sneed -requested that the Board "follow the Code" referring to Hc refers to City expert Mr.
Lindorff who stated that the Code is in black and white English. According Mr. Snccd He
indicated that -Gate knew what -the code was and what parking issues were when they bought the
property. He stated tThe issue is regarding competent, substantial evidence that supports
granting this permit. The City and Gate never challenged the assertion that Gate was building a
convenience store. The -parking calculation for the restaurant was not done correctly. According
to Mr. Snccd, He explained that Mr. Lindorff said the "plans should not be approved if parking is
not properly calculated," and that Mr. Adeeb should have been asked for seating if that was a
material issue in dispute and the outside seating was ignored. He stated tThe outside seating, even
without tables if people are served coffee, -should be counted towards parking under City Code.
He stated that Mr. Lindorff gave personal eyewitness testimony to people receiving coffee out
there on the patio and waiting in line. Mr. Hainline spoke of things that there can be no question
about. There can be no question that Gate is building a convenience store. If you follow the City
Code, says Mr. Sneed, you have to deny this permit. City Code 2416 and the City CCD Director
said it was more stringent to restrict Gate to what your Code allows them to build; that is a
convenience store with three pumps and six fueling stations than what they've proposed. The
Code does refer to a convenience store as described in Commercial General District. He stated
Mr. Hubsch testified that applying service station was made in 2014. Mr. Sneed is asking that the
language of the Code be honored. He asks that the Permit be denied and the Code honored.
The City Code does not allow them to build a convenience store with more than three gas pumps.
They can build a convenience store -with gas pumps but no more than three. That's the grounds
for denying the permit. Deny the permit because they failed to properly calculate parking. They
-13-
4/14444
adeifedr
fr~.,
Thiew
Re: Opposition to Proposed Gate Convenience Store/Gas Station
Mr. Lindorff:
Mayor Mitch Reeves asked that we, the residents of the SaltAir neighborhood, submit to you our concerns about the
proposed convenience store/gas station proposed at 535 Atlantic Blvd. which is a part of our neighborhood.
I live on the corner of Sturdivant Avenue and Sylvan directly across the street from this location. My comments are
made as an adjacent landowner owning property located at 104 Sylvan Drive, Atlantic Beach, Florida, and as one of
the spokespersons for the SaltAir neighborhood.
We are opposing the installation of this mega -convenience store and gas station because of the devastating, negative
impact it will have on our neighborhood and our city. The Atlantic Beach City Charter and the Land Development
Regulations serve as cornerstones on how to move forward with development.
Both the Charter and the City Ordinances dictate that commercial development shall have no adverse
impact to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Atlantic Beach Charter:
• Policy A.1.3: Development shall have no adverse impact to surrounding neighborhoods.
• Policy A.1.11.1 General Commercial: Land use categories shall not include uses that have the potential for
negative impact due to excessive noise, light or extremely late hours of operation.
Land Development Regulations — Chapter 24 of the City Ordinances (Ord. No. 90-10-212, § 2(Exh. A),
3-8-10):
Intent: to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to protect the natural environment; to protect and
conserve the value of property; to promote, protect and improve the health, safety, comfort, good order,
appearance, convenience, and general welfare of the public; and to help accomplish the goals and objectives
of the comprehensive plan.
• Section 24-2 (a): To protect and conserve the value of property....to promote, protect and improve the health,
safety, comfort... and general welfare of the public.
• Section 24-171: .."create an environment that is ... safe for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicular traffic.
• Section 24-111 (b) Permitted Uses "....uses shall not include uses that have the potential for negative
impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and properties due to excessive traffic, noise, light or extremely late
hours of operation or other factors that may adversely affect existing commercial uses..."
Following are negative impacts to our neighborhood:
• Environment — Hazardous gasoline fumes and residue will be released into the air, soil and groundwater,
which will be very dangerous to the health of residents, especially children. These fumes are multiplied
because of the high volume of idling cars and trucks that will be brought into our neighborhood. Atlantic Beach
Elementary School and Community Presbyterian PreSchool are only a block away. (LDR Sec.24-2, LDR Sec
24-171)
• Flooding (Retention Pond) - Because of the high traffic volume and refueling residue left behind,
convenience stores -gas stations pose an unusually severe threat to ground and surface waters. Adding
vehicle servicing facilities increases the threat. One study found that contaminant levels in convenience
store -gas station runoff were 5- to 30 -times higher when compared to residential runoff. (LDR Sec 24-, LDR
Sec. 24-171)
Gate gas station on Atlantic Boulevard. Imagine if we have heavy rains
and all the dangerous ground contaminant running into our water systems
pictures taken July 2015 (not the big flood October) at 104 Sylvan, 30 feet from proposed retention pond
• Safety: The very need and requirement to have adequate lighting to promote safety with these type projects
automatically ensure a negative impact to our surrounding neighborhood. The addition of so many cars pulling
into our area creates pedestrian safety issues and noise. In addition, in an early correspondence to the City
Gate Petroleum indicated they would need a variance as the depth of the lot was not sufficient for adequate
pedestrian safety. However, the plans they have submitted do not request any variance so as to not have to
go to the Community Development Board for approval. (LDR Sec.24-2, LDR Sec.24-111(b), LDR Sec
24-171) ..... How did this safety concern go away? It didn't.
• Dangerous Traffic Problems: Sturdivant Avenue is a narrow street used by children and adults on foot,
bikes and skateboards as a path to the beach and Town Center. It is already congested and additional
vehicles will jeopardize the safety of all. Oil tankers, delivery trucks and additional vehicles should not be
traveling this narrow street.
There is an FDOT traffic counter located on Atlantic Blvd. 175' west of 3' street(AIA). According to the FDOT,
25,000 cars travel daily on Atlantic Blvd. Based on the October 2014 FDOT Trip Generation study and
included formulae, we can expect as many as 2700 cars DAILY to visit a 6400 square foot convenience store
with 14 fueling positions. Even half this number would cause havoc in our neighborhood. We have raised this
concern to the city — yet, as recently as 3 weeks ago, no effort had been made to do any type of traffic study
to quantify the negative impact to our neighborhood. (LDR Sec. 24-111(b))
One of Many Daily Delivery Trucks - Gate Gas Station Ponte Vedra Beach
• Crime — Convenience store employees are second only to taxi drivers for being subject to robberies and
homicides. We do not need to add to the potential of another Jordan Smith case in Atlantic Beach (which
occurred at a Gate Convenience Store/Gas Station). (LDR Sec.24-2, LDR Sec 24-171)
Clerk is shot, killed at
Northside Gate station
By Teresa Stepzinski Sun, Nov
9, 2014 @ 11:19 am I updated
Mon, Nov 10, 2014 @ 6:13 am
Photo by First Coast News.
A clerk was shot about 5:30
a.m. at the Gate station in
the 500 block of Busch
Drive Sunday and died at a
hospital.
• Quality of Life - 24 x 7 Operating hours. There are no more "extreme" operating hours than 24 hours a
day, seven days a week! These type operations bring an undesirable element of transients into the area and
a level of "busy-ness" where the neighbors will NEVER get relief. The sale of beer and wine invites late night
traffic — which invites disruptive behavior and crime. (LDR Sec. 24-111(b))
• Noise: Between HVAC units running 24x7, back-up beepers, loud car stereos, and customers shouting
across the gas bays, convenience stores can be extremely noisy. Add the sound of vacuums and possibly a
car wash, and the noise worsens. Make it an all-night establishment and you have a use which definitely does
not belong near homes. (LDR Sec. 24-111(b))
Back of Gate Gas Station, Jacksonville Beach
3 VERY noisy HVAC units running non-stop
• Lighting: Lighting is essential to convenience store safety and profitability. We're less likely to patronize a
poorly lit store while criminals find this inviting. But too much lighting and area residents will suffer glare in
their bedrooms and/or lose their view of the nighttime sky. (LDR Sec. 24-111(b))
Proposed 7 row's of pumps with canopy
will be quite bright at night
• Visual Impacts — Few homeowners would choose a convenience store as a prominent item in their
viewshed. The problem is compounded when no one is tasked to maintain the overall property. Based on (3)
of the closest Gate stations and pictures (we have over 100 both inside and out); we have NO confidence that
Gate will maintain this property either. Is this what we can expect after 2 years, 4 years, or even 8 years?
(LDR Sec. 24-2)
Side View of Gate Gas Station Ponte Vedra Beach, and Back View Gate Gas Station Jacksonville Beach
• Property Values — Local realtors have advised homeowners that our property values will decrease by as
much as 20%. There is a concern that the SaltAir neighborhood could become a low rent area as
homeowners will not want to remain in the area. Also as a "what if" let's do the math on 10-20% decrease of
say 100 homes at 200K per. (LDR Sec. 24-2)
• Threat to Local Businesses — A mega convenience store will negatively impact existing businesses in the
area. They include: Ohana's Hawaiian Shaved Ice, A&J's Old Fashioned Ice Cream, Davinci's Pizza, SL
Food Mart, King Food convenience store and Beach Diner. Current Gate plans show limiting the Beach Diner
to 19 parking spaces. According to the owners, this without any doubt, will put them out of business. (LDR Sec.
24-111(b))
Illilli�i�ll lid 11111 11111111111 1111111
And, two gas stations are already located within three (3) blocks of this project;
and NEVER too busy for a wait to get gas.
• Character of the Community and Impact to Historic Resources — Atlantic Beach is a beautiful and quiet
seaside community -- This proposed project is just 3 blocks from the ocean. A mega station will dramatically
change the landscape of AB forever, and NOT in a positive way - as per hundreds of locals and long term
residents and their comments! (see separate attachment for quotes).
In conclusion, the guiding charter and regulations repeatedly state that permitted development SHALL NOT include
those uses that have the potential for negative impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
They don't say "may", they say "shall not."
There will be negative impacts due to excessive traffic, noise, light and extremely late hours of operation. In addition,
there will be environmental and negative impact to existing commercial uses.
As a result, per Section 24-111(b) of Chapter 24, Land Development Regulations, no permit can be issued
for mega -convenience store/gas station at the 535 Atlantic Boulevard location as it will have a negative
impact to the surrounding neighborhood and existing commercial uses.
We look forward to hearing from you that you agree with this analysis.
Best regards,
Glenn Shuck
104 Sylvan Drive
904-435-5200
gdshuck@msn.com
Cloister south gate
Committee of the Whole the 23rd of January 2016
My personal comments about direction to the City Manager and staff:
1) City staff take immediate action to enforce the CDB ruling of Feb 2015 and
cause the closing the south gate to the Cloister condominium
a. The stop sign at the south gate advising exiting traffic be removed and
replaced with "Wrong Way" and "Do Not Enter "signs.
b. Notification to residents by the CEO.
c. Citations by CEO and Public Safety for any and all infractions.
2) Club Drive traffic patterns and changes to patterns and parking should be
addressed in a recommendation from City staff. This recommendation should
be presented to the City Commission no later than the second regularly
scheduled Commission meeting of February 2016. Cost estimates should be
included in the recommendation.
3) "Little" Plaza traffic patterns and changes to traffic patterns and parking
should be addressed in a recommendation from City staff. This
recommendation should be presented to the City Commission no later than
the second regularly scheduled Commission meeting of February 2016. Cost
estimates should be included in the recommendation.
4) 10th Street Beach Access congestion and parking along 10th Street between
Ocean Blvd. and the 10th Street beach access should be addressed in a
recommendation from City staff. This recommendation should be presented
to the City Commission no later than the second regularly scheduled
Commission meeting of February 2016. Cost estimates should be included in
the recommendation.
5) Impact of any and all changes recommended should include:
a. 7th and 8th Streets between Beach Ave. and Ocean Blvd. should be
identified and considered.
b. Beach Ave between 7th Street and Club Drive should be identified and
considered.
c. The affect the changes may induce on residents of the Seaplace
Condominiums should be considered.
d. Any other potential impact areas should be given due consideration to
the affect any change may cause residents to experience.
6) Personal comments about the matter:
a. Policies, procedures, regulations, ordinances, and laws govern our
City;
b. These governing principles should be applied fairly, justly and equally
to all citizens;
c. I refuse to accept:
i. Citizens arbitrarily and unilaterally ignoring these principles;
ii. City staff ignoring these principles;
iii. The City Commission to ignore these principles.
d. There is a process, due process, for seeking relief from a ruling
believed unfair, unjust or discriminatory.
e. That process was circumvented in this case.
f. That said, I want to be clear, I believe in and support personal
property rights. These are city streets, paid for by taxpayers of CoAB.
Restricting access requires a clearly defined safety concern.
February 9, 2016
William Chapman
2050 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Chairman
Atlantic Beach City Commission
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Dear Chairman:
CC
y C. 0221:12
22 SEA Ca
C rIL. a3ee
C f y Attorney
0>
0
Ora,,. -- — —3
Received
FEB 1 2 2016
Office of City Clerk
A little better than a year ago, I built a beautiful home in Atlantic Beach with the desire to make
this a bigger part of my family's life. We currently divide our time between Atlanta and Atlantic
Beach.
For 13 years we lived in a beautiful condominium in Jacksonville Beach but the ambiance and
way of life was considerably less than what we wanted or needed in a second home. Security &
safety became an issue. We weighed Ponte Vedra Beach and Atlantic Beach and the charm of
Atlantic Beach won handily. It is a beautifully maintained community with charm (that my
friends and I say) is so very special.
I am very opposed to commercialization in a community such as ours unless there is a glaring
need to do so. In the event a request for consideration is approved by the Commission, it
should be granted if and only if the objections in the enclosed petition are addressed. That
being said, I ask that you do everything possible to deny Gate Petroleum of any other business
with like issues the clearance to build in our community near the central center of the
community.
I pay an enormous amount in City and County taxes and go out of my way to support
businesses in our area. Please ask yourselves if there is a need (the answer will be "no"); will
this benefit the residents (the answer will be "no") ; is there a potential to move toward the
safety and feel of Jacksonville Beach (the answer will be "yes") and, finally, will it be a departure
from what is now a very charming community (the answer will be "yes").
Thank you in advance for handling this request responsibly.
ejoi
William Chapman
' Fax:2623010
Doc # 2014248743, OR BK 16964 Page 467,
.at 03:45 PM, Aorini® Fussell CLERK CIRCUIT
DEED DOC ST $6300,00
Consideration Paid: $900.000,00
Documentary Transfer Taxes: S6,9D0.00
Prepared Br
Chris k. Strolunenger, Esquire
Rogers Towers, P.A.
1301 Riverplace Blvd_, Suite 1500
Jacksonville, FL 32207
FA14-32-CHALK REO/3 20 2►1-
After Recciug Rerun To.
Chris R. Strobmenger, Esquire
Rogers Towers, P.A.
1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 1500
Jacksonville, FL 32207
Parcel JD Number; 17078-0000
110683-0010
17084-0000
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ,wi(
Nov 11 2014 12:24 P.02
Number Pages: 5,. Recorded 10/31/2014
COURT DUVAL COUNTY RECORDING $44.00
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
KNOW ALL MEN 11Y TRESE PRESENTS:
LSREF2 CHALK REO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Grantor"), whose
mailing address is 2711 N. Haskell Avenue, Suite 1800, Da11A4, Texas, 75204 for axtd in
consideration of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which consideration are hereby acknowledged, lras GRANTED,
BARGAINED, SOLD, and CONVEYED, and by these presents does GRANT, BA.RGAfl , SELL,
and CONVEY, unto GATE'PETROLEUM COMPANY, aFlorida corporation, ("(2rantee") whose
mailing address is 9540 San Jose Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida, 32257 (i) all that real property
situated in the County of Duval, State of Florida, and more particntRrly described on Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes, (ii) together with all improvements and
related amenities located in and on such real. property, (iii) easements, if any, benefiting such real
property, and (iv) all rights and appurteenan.ces, ifany, pertaining to such real property, including any
right, title and interest of Grantor in and to adjacent streets, alleys or rights-of-way (collectively, the
"Property").
This Deed is made and accepted expressly subject to the matters set forth in Exhibit B
attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes (collectively, the "Permitted
Encumbrances").
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD t a .. erty, subject to the Permitted Encumbrances, together
with all and singular the rights and app • azures belonging in any way to the Property, unto the said
69662.001657 BMF US 529493560
Fax:2623010
oR EK 16964 PAGE 468
Nov 11 2014 12:24 P.03
Grantee, its successors and assigns FOREVER, and Grantor binds itself and its successors and
assigns to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND all and singular the Property; subject to the
Permitted Encumbrances, to Grantee, its successors and assigns against every person lawfully
claiming or to claim all or any part o'the Property, by, Through, or under Grantor, but not otherwise.
EXECUTED to be effective as of the 'dam day of October, 2014,
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence GRANTOR:
of these witnesses;
Witness:
LSREF2 CHALK REO, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability cordpaiay
BNI44 di 141 11.
Name: Marisa K. McGaughey
Name: Ch�„/ Title: Assistant Vice President
Witness:
dv
Nano : 1 hila /� `t rAi
STATE OF TEXAS
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
Before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, on this day
personally appeared Marisa K. McGaughey, the Assistant Vice President ofLSREP2 CHALK REO,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, knownto me (or proved to me on oath of
or through (description of identity card or other document)) to be the person
whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and thereupon she acknowledged that she
was authorized to execute the within ixlstrunaent on behalf of said company, and that she executed
said instrument as the voluntary act of the said company, and for the purposes and consideration
expressed therein and in the capacity stated therein.
Giyen under my hand and seal of office this ,c71114 day Qf October, r�,.,D:, 2014:
TANYA DAHLEN
My Commission Expires
August 2, 2017
JAX.119D4973_l
69062.001657 2.MF_US 52999156v1
(Seal)
, Notary Public
VIP
(signature of Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: &-a a 1
-2-
OR BK 16969 PAGE 469
Fax:2623010
Nov 11 2014 12:24 P.04
BIT "A"
J...ezalDe9cription of the Laod
Lots 788 through 799 and Lots 803 through 809 of PLAT OF SEC 11.0N NO, 1 SALTAIR,
according to the Flat thereof asrecorded in Flat Book 10, Page(s) 8, of the Public Records
of Duval County, Florida
-3-
JAX 1904973_l
69062.001657 EMF U3 $29493$6v1
Fax:2623010
OR BK 16964 PAGE 470
Nov 11 2014 12:24 P. 05
Fahibit"B"
. Permitted Eitcumbran
1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2014 and subsequent years, which are not yet due and
payable
2. Restrictions, dedications, 'conditions, reservations, easements and other matters shown on the
plat of PLAT OF SECTION NO. 1 SALTAIR, as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page(s) 8.
3. Easement for Drainage and tItilities recorded in Book 4513, Page 364 (Lots 805 and 806).
4. Matters which a current survey OT careful inspection of the land and any improvements
thereon would reveal,
5, Rights of tenants as identified on .$xhi bit "C" attached hereto pursuant to unrecorded leases,
none of which contains a right of first refusal, right of first offei or any other option to
purchase the Property,
-4-
JAX\19o4973_1
69062.001657 EMI/ Us 5294935611
Fax:2623010 Nov 11 2014 12:24 P.06
OR BK 16964 PAGE 471
"C"
Rent Roll
1. Barry Adeeb
2. Planet Patery, Inc.
3. Charlotte Rotoclo
4. Min and iTyun Corp.
5. San L, Green, PVM
6. Shamrock Building Materials
-5-
JAX\194973_1
6200.04107 Era US 32949356v1
1
StlEIGEEE
aG.TE (A) .g
f.
:EE
s
7,1
6'0'455
----- 6A A
xi A
I.
22gc•-....1._ I 1,./
SYLVigpilyk AEgd
oicr tisrA9.,,)
T
t
1
PI
0
N 3
lir! '04
lid
f 'i, (•5 r, ------'-Z.,`
D4
4di
!!.12
I14i
-=•••
4 t,
TENANT LEASE FOR THE ATLANTIC PALMS PLAZA
This LEASE AGREEMENT is made and entered into this first day of June 1997 by and between John L.
Green and William W. Nicol, herein after referred to as Lessor, and Barry Adeeb d.b.a. Atlantic Beach
Diner, hereinafter referred to as Lessee.
Witnesseth That: The Lessor, for and consideration of the rents hereinafter to be paid by the Lessee and the
covenants herein to be made and kept by the Lessee, hereby demises and leases unto the Lessee that certain
premises located in Duval County, Florida.
Square feet: 1900 +/-_ Address: 501 Atlantic Blvd.
Atlantic Beach, Fl. 32233
To Have And To Hold for an initial term beginning on the first day of June, 1997, and ending on the 3
day of May, 2002 unless such term shall be sooner terminated as hereinafter provided.
1. RENT. In consideration of said demise the Lessee covenants and agrees to pay to the lessor as rent for
said premises the total aggregate sum of $19,000 the first year in monthly installments of $1583.33 per
month with the first such installment due and payable on June 1, 1997, and a like installment due on the
same day of each and every month thereafter during the remaining term of the first year of this lease
without demand The monthly rental rate stated herein does not include any applicable sales and use taxes,
which shah be added to such rent and paid each month by Lessee. After the first year, the rent for each
following year shall be increased by an amount of 5.50 per square of the preceding year. Lessee may
prepay any year's total rent in advance and receive a 6.5% reduction off the total aggregate sum for that
year. In the event the lessee elects to pay any year in advance, the next years rent will still be based on the
preceding year's base seat plus the 5.50 per square foot increase and not the discounted amount. All such
installments, or advance payment of rent, together with any other payments required to be made by Lessee
to Lessor hereunder, shall be payable at the office of the Lessor located at 535 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic
Beach. Florida 32233 or at such other location as may be hereafter specified by Lessor to Lessee. Any
payment not received by 12 pm of the 6th day of any month will be assessed a late fee of 525 plus $5 per
day after the 6th until paid Failure to pay any month's rent by the 30th of the month will cause Lessor to
issue a three day notice to Lessee to pay the rent and any incurred penalties and late fees. Failure to pay all
rents, penalties, and late fees by the third day will be cause to issue a notice of eviction. In the event of
eviction, the Lessee will still be responsible to the Lessor for the remaining term of the lease.
2. SECURITY DEPOSIT. The Lessor hereby acknowledges receipt of the sum of 5 1500 as security for
the full, faithful and punctual performance by the Lessee of the Lessee's covenants and agreements
contained herein, and if Lessee shall abide by all the covenants and agreements contained herein, and shall
deliver up to Lessor the demised property at the end of the term or when this agreement is terminated in the
same condition as when originally demised to the Lessee by the Lessor, ordinary wear and tear excepted,
such sum shall be returned to Lessee, without interest, but otherwise such sum shall be retained by Lessor.
The rights of the Lessor against the Lessee for a breach of the Lessee's covenants and agreements
contained herein shall in no way be limited or restricted by said security deposit, but the Lessor shall have
the absolute right to pursue any available remedy to protect the Lessor's interest herein as if security
deposit has not been made.
3. DEFAULT. Each of the following events shall be a default hereunder by Lessee and a breach of this
Lease Agreement:
(a) If Lessee shall fail to pay to Lessor any rent or sales or use tax thereon as and when the same shall
become due and payable and shall not make such payment within ten(10) days after notice thereof by
Lessor to Lessee:
(b) If Lessee or any successor or assignee of Lessee, while in possession, shall file a petition in bankruptcy
or insolvency or for reorganization or arrangement under the Bankruptcy Act of any State, or shall
voluntarily take advantage of any such law or act by answer or otherwise, or shall take an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, or, if Lessee be a corporation_ shall be dissolved_ voluntarily or
involuntarily;
TENANT LEASE FOR THE ATLANTIC PALMS PLAZA
2
(c) If involuntary proceedings under any such bankruptcy law or insolvency act, or for the dissolution of a
corporation shall be instituted against Lessee or such successor or assignee, or if a receiver or trustee
shall be appointed of all or substantially all of the property of Lessee or such successor or assignee;
(d) If Lessee shall fail to perform any of the conditions on Lessee's part to be performed and if such
nonperformance shall continue for a period of ten (10) days after notice thereof by Lessor to Lessee or
ifsuchperformance cannot be reasonably had within such ten (10) days period, Lessee shall not in
good faith have commenced such performance with such ten (10) day period and shall not diligently
proceed therewith to completion;
(e) If Lessee shall vacate or abandon the demised premises for a period of ten (10) days or more;
(f)
(g)
If this Lease or the interest of Lessee hereunder shall be transferred or assigned in a manner other than
herein permitted; or
If Lessee fails to take possession of the demised premises on the term commencement date or within
ten (10) days after notice that the demised premises are available for occupancy, if the term
commencement date is not fixed herein, and if such occupancy date shall not be referred in writing by
Lessor.
4. LESSOR DEFAULT OPTIONS. In the event of the occurrence of any default specified hereunder, the
Lessor shall have the option, upon ten (10) day's written notice to the Lessee to:
(a) Terminate this lease, resume possession of the property for his own account, and recover
immediately from the Lessee the difference between the rent specified in this Lease and the
fair rental value of the property for the remainder of the term, reduced to present worth; or
(b)
Resume possession and release or rent the property for the remainder of the term for the
account of the Lessee, and recover from the Lessee, at the end of the term or at the time each
payment of rent comes due under this lease as the Lessor may choose, the difference. between
the rent specified in the lease and the rent received on the releasing or renting. In either event,
the Lessor shall also recover all expenses incurred by reason of the breach, including
reasonable attorney's fees.
5. QUIET ENJOYMENT. Lesser hereby acknowledges that it has received the premises in thoroughly good
and tenantable order, health, cafe condition and repair, of which the execution of this Lease, and Lessee's taking
of possession hereunder, shall be conclusive evidence; and Lessee hereby further covenants that it will not
permit, commit or suffer any noise, disturbance or nuisance whatsoever, nor allow any unhealthy, unsafe or
untenantable condition on said premises which shall be detrimental to the premises or annoying to the neighbors
and, in the opinion of the Lessor, should said premises not be so maintained, then, in that event, this shall
constitute a default under the terms of this Lease Agreement, and Lessor shall have all the remedies set out
hereunder in the event of default.
6. ASSIGNMENT. The Lessee covenants and agrees not to assign, transfer, mortgage, pledge or
hypothecate this leasehold or to sublet the demised premises or any part thereof without the prior written
consent of the Lessor. Any transfer of this Lease from the Lessee by merger, consolidation or liquidation
shall constitute an assignment for the purposes of this Lease.
7. AL i hRATIONS. The Lessee shall not make any alterations or changes in the demised premises
without the prior written consent of the Lessor.
8. SECURITY FOR PAYMENT OF RENTS. _ : _ _ ;� �:�•_:.• _a . A.1 un o h e :.sor
of the furniture fixtures . • • • - 4:. - = ch maybe .rou_'u or :*•i .: • - • a••'sed
TENANT LEASE FOR THE ATLPA IS
p . _ ..,• which are •.i.--... . on said
reserved, and agrees that the Lessor's
fo closure • •l . = ..- option of Lessor.
e rents herein
be enforced by distress,
9. PREMISES. Lessee agrees that all merchandise, boxes, furniture, equipment, etc., shall be kept in the
premises upon delivery and that Lessee will keep the exterior of the premises, including all common
passageways, sidewalks, alleyways and entranceways, free from all merchandise, boxes, furniture,
equipment, refuse and debris at all times.
3
10. LEGAL ACTION. Lessee shall indemnify and save harmless said Lessor from and against any and all
claims, suits, actions damages or causes of action arising during the telau of this Lease for any personal injury,
loss of life, or damage to property sustained in or about the leased premises by reason or as a result of Lessee's
occupancy thereof and from and against any orders, judgements or decrees which may be entered thereon and
from and against all costs, attorneys' fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in and about the defense of any such
claim in the investigation thereof.
11. LIABILITY INSURANCE. Lessee agrees, at its own expense, to maintain in full force and effect
during the lease term, a policy or policies of "Comprehensive Public Liability" insurance including
property damage, written by one or more responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the
State of Florida, which will insure Lessee and Lessor (and such other persons, firms, or corporations as are
designated by Lessor) against liability for injury to persons and/or property and death of any person or
persons incurring in or about the premises. Each policy shall be app€vved as to form and insurance
company by Lessor, and the liability ur►r such insurance shall not be less than $100, 000.00 for any one
person injured or killed, and not less than $300,000.00 for any one accident, and not less than $50,000.00
property damage.
12. SUBORDINATION. It is agreed by Lessee that this Lease shall be subject and subordinate to any
mortgage, deed of trust, or other liens now on the premises or which may hereafter be made on account of any
proposed loan to be placed on said premises by the Lessor to the full extent of all debts and charges secured
thereby, and to any renewals, extensions and modifications of all or any part thereof which Lessor may
hereafter, at any time, elect to place on said premises, and Lessee agrees upon request to hereafter execute any
paper or papers which counsel for the Lessor may deem necessary to accomplish that end, and in default of
Lessee's doing so the Lessor is hereby empowered to execute such paper or papers, in the name of the Lessee;
and as the act and deed of said Lessee, and this authority is declared to be coupled with an interest and not
revocable.
13. LIENS. Lessee shall keep the demised premises, and the property in which the demised premises are
located, free from any liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished, or any obligations incurred
by Lessee, it being expressly acknowledged that the leasehold interest hereby demised shall not be subject to
any such liens.
14. SERVICES. The Lesser agrees that it will contract for and provide the following services at its ex nse:
(a) Electricity
(b) Sewer and water
(c) Garbage
(d) Telephone
The Lessor will provide the following services:
(a)
(b)
TENANT LEASE FOR THE ATLANTIC PALMS PLAZA 4
Except as specifically provided for herein, the Lessor is not obligated to provide any services to the Lessee.
15. PLATE GLASS INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain, at its own expense, "plate glass"
insurance coverage on all exterior plate glass in the leased premises.
16. HAZARDOUS TRADE. Lessee agrees that no hazardous trade or occupation shall be permitted or carried
on in or on the premises, and nothing will be done or permitted, and nothing will be kept in or about the
premises which will increase the risk or hazard of fire or damage so as to increase Lessor' s Hazard Insurance
premium or cause Lessor's Hazard Insurance policy to be void The Lessee further covenants not to conduct
any business that is contrary to, or in violation of the laws of the United States of America, or the State of
Florida, or the ordinances of any county or municipality in which the leased premises may be Iocated.
17. ENTRY FOR REPAIRS. Lessor or Lessor's authorized agent may, at any reasonable time, enter and view
said premises and make any repairs which, in Lessor' s opinion, may be necessary.
18, WAIVER OF BREACH. Lessor's waiver of breach of any one covenant or condition of this Lease is not a
waiver of breach of others, or a waiver of any subsequent breach of the one waived. Lessor 's acceptance of
any rem installment, after breach , is nota waiver of the breach, and a waiver of the breach of the Lessee's
covenant to pay any rent installments is when due shall not be construed to be a waiver of Lessor's right to refuse
any such delinquent payments in the future.
19. CASUALTY DAMAGE. In the event the premises are destroyed or so damaged by fire or other casualty
during the term of this agreement so that they become untenanrtable, then in that event the Lessor shall have the
right to i aider said premises tenantable by making the necessary repairs within ninety (90) days therefrom and
if said premises are not rendered tenantable within said time, it shall be optional with either party to cancel this
Lease and, in the event of such ranllation, the rent shall be paid only to the date of such fire or casnmlty.
If the whole of the demised premises or such portion thereof as will make the demised premises unsuitable of
the purpose herein leased is condemned for any public use or purpose by any legally constituted authority, then
in either of such events, the Lease shall terminate as of the date when possession is taken by such public
authority and rental shall be payable by Lessee only to such date.
If any part of the demises premises shall be condemned and taken without causing a termination pursuant to the
above paragraph, then the Lessor at its option shall have the right to either terminate the Lease upon written
notice within sixty (60) days after said taking, or to continue the term of said Lease, in which event the rental .
shall be equitably reduced in proportion to the space so taken (but not for parking space so taken), and Lessor
shall, at its own cost and expense, restore the remaining portion of the demised premises to the extent necessary
to render it reasonably suitable for the purposes for which it was leased, and make all repairs to the building in
which the demised premises are located to the extent necessary to render it suitable for the purpose for which it
was leased, and make all repairs to the building in which the demised premises are relocated to the extent
necessary to constitute the building a complete architectural knit.
All compensation awarded or paid upon such a total or partial taking of the demised premises shall belong to
and be the property of the Lessor without any participation by the Lessee, and Lessee hereby assigns to the
Lessor any award made to Lessee; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed to
preclude the Lessee from prosecuting any claim directly against the condemning authority in such
condemnation proceedings for loss of business, or for the value of, stock, trade, fixtures, furniture, and other
personal property belonging to the Lessee, provided that no such claim shall diminish or otherwise adversely
affect the Lessor's award
20.OPTION TO RENEW. The Lessee shall have and it is hereby given, if at the applicable time no default
exists hereunder, the privilege of renewing this Lease for five, five-year renewal terms. The Lease rate shall be
an extension of the original Lease agreement increasing yearly an additional $.50 per square foot each year of
the additional five years. In the event Lessee desires to exercise this option, Lessee shall do so by written notice
to the Lessor at least six months prior to the expiration of the initial term of this Lease.
TENANT LEASE FOR TEE ATLANTIC PALMS PLAZA 5
21.TAXES. During the term of this Lease, and any extensions and renewals hereof, the Lessee shall be
responsible for, and will pay to the Lessor, its proportionate share of real-estate, ad valorem taxes and
special assessments assessed against the premises of which tle demised premises are a part of. This amount
will be pro -rated on a monthly basis and paid monthly with the normal monthly rent, sales taxes, and utility
assessments where applicable. A copy of the tax bill will be provided to the tenant when received by the
lessor and any adjustments to the total tax amount will be corrected at that time. Any increases will due to
the lessor and any overpayments will be credited to the tenant. Lessee shall also pay to the Lessor the sum
of $.15 per square foot of the premises leased herein per year for the common area maintenance adjacent to
the premises herein, with said sum due and payable each year in advance. This fee will cover the costs of
routine maintenance of the parking lot and surrounding walkways. The failure of the Lessee to pay said
sum or Lessee's proportionate share of the taxes or additional assessments as provided herein shall
constitute a default of the covenants contained herein, and Lessor shall be entitled to exercise all, of the
remedies provided for herein for such default. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed as
placing the Lessor under a duty for common area maintenance.
22.BINDING AGREEMENT. This Lease Agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the successors,
assigns, heirs, and administrators of the parties hereto.
23. NULL AND VOID. It is hereby agreed by and between the parties that the finding of any provision,
clause, or paragraph of this Lease to be null or unenforceable shall not have effect upon the remaining
provisions of this Lease, and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
24. SIGNS. Lessor must approve all signs before erection or painting the demised premises.
25.AIR CONDMONING. Lessor has installed central heat and air adequate to supply the premises. Any
subsequent service, repairs, or replacement of said units shall be the sole responsibility of the Lessee.
26.MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. Lessee shall at all times keep the demised premises, including
exterior entrance, all glass, and window moldings, all partitions, doors, fixtures, including lighting, heating
and plumbing fixtures, in good order condition and repair. All structural portions of the premises shall be
maintained by the Lessor, but if the Lessor is required to make structural repairs by reason of Lessee's
negligent act or omission to act, then Lessee shall be obligated for the cost of such repairs and shall pay
Lessor for same on demand.
If Lessee refuses or neglects to repair properly as required hereunder and to the reasonable satisfaction of
Lessor, lessor may make such repairs without liability to Lessor for any loss or damage that accrues to Lessee's
merchandise, fixtures, or other property or to Lessee's business by reason thereof, and without waiving any of
Lessor's remedies for Lessor's default, and Lessee shall pay Lessor's cost for making such repairs, upon
presentation of bill thereof.
27.INSURANCE POLICIES. All insurance policies required to be maintained by the Lessee under the
terms of this Lease Agreement shall name the Lessor as Loss Payee.
28.USE. The premises are restricted to use as a diner. The premises may not be used for the retail sale of
merchandise customarily sold at stores operated by or under the lease from lessor or at grocery stores of the
type commonly called convenience stores.
_ENANT LEASE FOR THE ATLAN*TTC PALMS PLAZA '.
29.SUMMARY OF RENT, TAXES AND COMMON AREA FEES:
Item
Amount
Rent
$ 1583.33
Sala tax
102.92
Prop. Tax
176.25
Insurance
49.00
Total Monthly
S1911.50
CAM/year
285.00
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
IN OUR PRESENCE:
6-elrve
Tom,,
City of Atlantic Beach
Commissioners Meeting
November 23, 2015
B.Cosgrove
Atlantic Beach Charter
Key Points
1
■ Charter calls for development that encourages and maintains a healthy
and aesthetically pleasing built environment (Goal A.1)
■ The Charter calls for development which retains the high quality of life
and residential character of the City (Objective A.1.3)
• The Charter requires that development has no adverse impact to
surrounding neighborhoods (Policy A.1.3)
• The Charter specifically states that land use categories shall not
include "uses that have the potential for negative impact due to
excessive noise, light or extremely late hours of operation (Policy A.
1.11.1 General Commercial)
11/23/15
1
Land Development Regulations
Key Points
• To help accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan. (Sec 24-2)
• Encourages the most appropriate use of land (Sec 24-2)
■ To protect and conserve the value of property (Sec 24-2)
■ To promote, protect and improve the health, safety, comfort....and
general welfare of the public (Sec 24-2)
1
1
■ It is the responsibility of the city commission to enforce (Sec
24-46)
• The intent of the the commercial corridor development standards is
to create an environment that is visually appealing and safe for
pedestrians, bicycles and vehicular traffic. (Sec 24-171)
Land Development Regulations
Sec 24-111 Commercial General District (CG)
at Uses permitted:
(a) (9) Automobile service station with minor automotive repair
and with accessory car wash
■ Sec 24-111 (b) Permitted Uses
i
1
■ ...Such uses shall not include uses that have the potential for
negative impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and properties due
to excessive traffic, noise, light or extremely late hours of operation
or other factors that may adversely affect existing commercial uses or
any nearby residential uses.
11/23/15
2
What is a negative impact?
■ Excessive traffic
• Excessive noise
• Excessive light
■ Extremely late hours of operation
Florida Department of Transportation
Average Daily Traffic Rate (AADT) for Atlantic Blvd is 25,000
Measured from 175' west of 3rd Street
Site Information
Site
725091
Description
SR 10 175' W. OF 3RD ST.
-'' Section
72100000
Milepolnt
15.493
DT
Site Type
Portable
CIaSs Data
No
K Factor
9
D Factor
55.5
T Factor
2.1
TRAFFIC REPORTS (provided in — format)
i
11/23/15
3
Florida Department of Transportation
Trip Generation
• New study in October 2014 focused on Trip Generation for Large
Gas Stations . Suggests using blended formula which results in
lower numbers than 11'E estimates
■ As the size of convenience stores have increased, traffic to that
location has increased (more services)
■ More fueling positions mean more traffic
■ Blended formula suggests 2700 cars DAILY will visit a 6400 square
foot gas station with 14 fueling positions (average 250 visits per
fueling position). 112b formulae go as high as 5000 cars daily.
i
What is a negative impact?
• Excessive traffic - 2700 cars DAILY into a 200'x400' lot???
■ Excessive noise
■ Excessive light
■ Extremely late hours of operation - Does 24x7 qualify?
• Or other factors
i
11/23/15
4
Final Comments
■ The City Commission has the obligation to enforce land use
regulations in concert with the Comprehensive Plan
• The Land Use Regulations in Sec 24-111(b) specifically states that
commercial uses ...
Shall not include...Such uses that have the potential for negative
impact to surrounding neighborhoods and properties due to
excessive traffic, noise, light or extremely late hours of operation
• An influx of 2700 cars daily and 24x7 operational hours have the
potential to negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods and
properties.
• An automotive gas station/convenience store is not an appropriate
land use at 535 Atlantic Blvd.
11/23/15
5
JSZ
4. Policy A.1.2.5 states, "New development shall be subject to the stormwater regulations as set
forth within the Land Development Regulations, and post development conditions shall not
discharge any increased level of stormwater runoff into the City's stormwater system." Please
demonstrate that the project as proposed will not discharge any increased level of stormwater run
off.
5. 24-66 (c) states that "there shall be no net loss of storage areas in the 100 -year floodplain." Site
grading shall create storage onsite to mitigate for filling of volume onsite. This storage is in addition
to the storage required for the increase in impervious surface area. The applicant shall provide
signed and sealed engineering plans and calculations documenting that this "no net loss"
requirement is met.
6. According to 24-66 (e) "All construction activities shall be in conformance with the city's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit, in addition to the requirements of the
water management district and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES
requirements include use of best management practices (BMPs) prior to discharge into natural or
artificial drainage systems. All construction projects of one (1) acre or more require a stand-alone
NPDES permit. Site clearing, demolition and construction on any size site may not commence until
site inspection and approval of the proper installation of a required best management practices
erosion and sediment control plan is completed."
7. Section 24-266 establishes protection of areas within 500 feet of existing public potable water
wells. A portion of the proposed development is within a 500 foot radius of a potable water well, as
depicted on map C-1 of the 2010-2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Series. Please demonstrate
compliance with this code.
8. According to 24-68, "No Lands shall be cleared, grubbed, filled, excavated or topographically
altered by any means, and no vegetation on any development site disturbed, prior to issuance of all
required approvals and development permits authorizing such clearing or alteration. Except as
required to meet coastal construction codes as set forth within a valid permit from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection; or as required to meet applicable flood zone or
stormwater regulations, the grade, elevation or topography of any parcel, development or
redevelopment site shall not be altered." Please comply with this provision while this project is in
the review process.
9. Section V. "Development Standards" of the proposed SPA text states that the maximum lot
coverage will be 60%, which is 10% higher than typically allowed in residential zoning districts. This
is not an uncommon request in planned developments. However, please clarify to the city what the
overall maximum lot coverage will be for the entire 7.21 acre development. Averaging in any
preservation areas, common areas, and buffers should reduce the overall lot coverage below the
60% requested on the individual residential Tots.
10. Objective A.1.3 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The City shall encourage future development
and redevelopment, which "provides for the preservation and protection of the dense tree
canopy". Please provide a description anticipated tree removal and preservation within the SPA
Text.
11. Per Section 24-120 (b) (2) please provide "A written statement for completion of the development
according to plans and schedule approved by the ordinance, and for the continuing operation and
maintenance of all privately owned areas, functions and facilities, which will not be operated or
maintained by the city pursuant to written agreement."
12. Per Section 24-120 (b) (4) please provide "Statements providing commitments for the continued
maintenance and ownership of all shared and common areas, any private streets, all stormwater
management structures and facilities, infrastructure and any other improvements.
13. Section 24-251 (b) states, "The arrangement of Lots and blocks and the street system shall make
the most advantageous use of topography, shall preserve mature trees, other natural features and
environmentally sensitive areas, wherever possible." Please describe in the SPA text how the
proposed design complies with this provision.
14. Section 24-251 (c) states, "A final subdivision plat shall not be approved unless all land intended for
use as building sites can be safely and reasonably used for building purposes without danger from
flood or other inundation, or from adverse soil or foundation conditions, or from any other menace
to health, safety or public welfare. In particular, lands that are within the 100 -year flood -prone
areas, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance
Administration, shall not be subdivided and developed until proper provisions are made for
protective flood control measures and stormwater management facilities necessary for flood -free
access to the sites. All lots and building sites shall be developed such that habitable space is
constructed at a minimum finished floor elevation of eight and one-half (8.5) feet above mean sea
level or with two and one-half (2.5) feet freeboard, whichever is greater. Flood protection
provisions shall be approved by the designated administrative official to assure that fill or grade
level changes will not alter the natural drainage or adversely affect other areas downstream
through added runoff or adverse impacts to water quality." Please describe in the SPA text how the
proposed design complies with this provision.
15. The proposed site is within Maps A-2 and A-4 of the Comprehensive Plan in an area designated as
an environmentally sensitive area. Per 24-272 (a) please provide "an environmental assessment of
the site and the potential for impacts to the presumed resource shall be provided by the applicant
seeking such permit."
16. At this time, staff is not prepared to issue a ruling on the proposed exemption requested from 24-
272 (d) (1). Staff would like to point out that the Army Corps of
Engineers permit for this project states that the proposed project will discharge fill into the waters
of the US. The language from the Army Corps appears to discredit the notion that this project is
exempt from 24-272 (c) (1). This requested waiver will be further evaluated as plans are reviewed
in future submittals.
17. Army Corps of Engineers permit #SAJ-1992-00736 states that the development is approved for a 9
unit residential project. The proposed SPA is seeking approval for up to 15 homes.
18. Please provide a description in the SPA text regarding how many acres of existing wetlands on site
will be filled, how many acres will be preserved and how any preserved wetlands will be
maintained.
19. The SPA text submitted states that the maximum density is 7 units per acre. The maximum density
in the Residential -Low Density (RL) is 6 units per acre. Please revise in future submittals.
20. The SPA text states that the current zoning is PUD. This is incorrect. Per Ordinance 93-13-217 the
property was rezoned from PUD to Residential, Single -Family (RS1) in 2013. Please revise on future
submittals.
Jeremy Hubsch
Building and Zoning Director
jhubsch@coab.us
(904) 247-5817
ZONING REVIEW COMMENTS
City of Atlantic Beach
Building and Zoning Department
800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445
Phone: (904) 247-5817 Fax: (904) 247-5845 Email: jhubsch@coab.us
Date: 10/30/15
Permit:
Review:
Site Address:
RE#:
15-REZN-1065
1st
11th Street and
Linkside Drive
172027-0100
Applicant:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
James Lucas, J. Lucas and Associates
1305 Cedar Street, Jacksonville, F132207
(904) 396-3060
JMLGATOR@bellsouth.net
Correction Comments
1. Policy A.1.2.1.d of the City of Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan and Section 24-270 of the Land
Development Regulations state, "It is the express intent of the City that no net loss of jurisdictional
wetlands occur through any development action within the City. Any impacted wetlands on a
development site shall be replaced elsewhere on the same site or elsewhere within the City of Atlantic
Beach." The proposed plan seeks to impact jurisdictional wetlands. The SJRWMD permit states the
applicants will mitigate for wetlands in the Greens Creek Mitigation Bank in Clay County. This
mitigation site is approximately 50 miles from the proposed development in Atlantic Beach. The
proposed mitigation does not occur within the city of Atlantic Beach as required by Policy A.1.2.1.d and
Section 24-270.
2. Policy A.1.2.3 states, "The City shall require that, as a condition of development approval, new
construction projects provide effective stormwater management, which avoids the contamination of
Environmentally Sensitive Areas, wetlands, marsh and estuarine environments in accordance with
applicable water quality standards of the St. Johns River Water Management District, the City's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit and Stormwater Management Plan
and the Land Development Regulations, as may be amended." Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan
Map A-2 (wetlands) depicts a significant portion of the property as "hydric hammock" wetlands. Map
A-4 (environmentally sensitive areas) depicts a significant portion of the property as St. Johns River
Water Management District Wetlands and US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands. Please demonstrate
how future construction will not contaminate these environmentally sensitive areas in accordance
with the SJRWMD water quality standards and the NPDES standards.
3. Policy A.1.2.4 states, "The City shall not issue development permits that would significantly alter
wetland communities and functions." Please describe how the proposed project will or will not alter
wetland communities and functions on site.
RO G E RS
TOWERS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Via Hand Delivery
Mr. John M. Stinson
Atlantic Beach City Commission
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
T. R. HAINLINE, JR. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard • Suite 1500
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
904. 346. 5531
THainline@rtlaw.com
December 1, 2015
904. 398 . 3911 Main
904.396.0663 Fax
www.rtlaw.com
Received
DEC 1 2015
Office of City Clerk
Re: Proposed Gate Service Station at 535 Atlantic Boulevard
Dear Mr. Stinson:
This firm represents Gate Petroleum in its efforts to redevelop the site at 535 Atlantic
Boulevard as a service station.
We are aware of presentations made by Barry Adeeb and others during the "Courtesy of
the Floor" portion of the November 23, 2015 meeting of the City Commission.
We wanted to write you at this time to state:
(1) Many of the November 23 statements made by Mr. Adeeb and other
speakers about Gate, its proposed use of the property, and the City's review of Gate's plans
are false and without any basis in fact or law.
(2) Gate is not removing Beach Diner from the property. Gate intends to honor the
existing lease with Beach Diner and to co -exist with Beach Diner. Gate has submitted a plan to
the City which includes the Beach Diner building and Code -required parking for Beach Diner.
(3) Gate has retained Russ Ervin of Ervin, Lovett, and Miller, an architect who lives
in Atlantic Beach and is well known in northeast Florida, to design the station. Like other
stations which Gate has designed to fit in with local architecture, this station will have an
Atlantic Beach look all its own.
(4) Gate will comply with all applicable COAB Code requirements, including the
increased landscaping requirements and lighting limitations recently adopted at the Nov. 9
meeting.
(5) City agencies have reviewed the plans submitted by Gate for its proposed service
station. Pursuant to the review process established in the COAB Code, the agencies have
provided Gate with comments on those plans. Gate will respond to agency comments in a timely
and complete manner within the context of the Code -established review process.
Mr. John M. Stinson
December 1, 2015
Page 2
(6) The review process will ensure that Gate's proposed service station complies with
all applicable COAB Code provisions, including those which are designed to protect the interests
of the community and its citizens.
Gate has conducted itself with transparency and professionalism throughout this process.
We respect Beach Diner and have made every effort to accommodate its needs. It is unfortunate
that Mr. Adeeb and others have taken to name-calling, wearing "Greedy Gate" t -shirts at
previous meetings and making false statements about Gate over the interne and to the City
Commission. Gate will not respond to such name-calling. Nor has Gate asked the more than
150 Gate employees who live in Atlantic Beach to attend City Commission meetings and speak
against Mr. Adeeb or Beach Diner. We respect your time as commissioners and will continue to
focus our efforts on responding to the agency comments as provided in the Code -established
review process.
Gate appreciates the City's thoroughness and professionalism in following the Code and
its processes. Gate looks forward to completing the review process, opening its proposed station
in Atlantic Beach, and becoming a fully participating corporate citizen of Atlantic Beach.
Very trul : udr
i/%
T.R.
cc: Nelson Van Liere, City Manager
Jeremy Hubsch, Building and Zoning Director
Rich Komando, City Attorney
JAX\2007937_3
(AV
QOtJ
09'4
S✓
1,1141 c
ji er),\
Of\ e ,:v (v ( iv(C
_ he
(-
CL
bc ‘rt,Js
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5814
COMMERCIAL NEW
MUST CALL BY 4PM FOR NEXT DAY INSPECTION: 247-5814
JOB INFORMATION:
Job ID: 15-CVPR-2411
Job Type: CIVIL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
Description: GATE CIVIL REVIEW APPROVED TO PROCESS CHECK
ONLY FOR CIVIL REVIEW GATE
Estimated Value:
Issue Date: 2/9/2016
Expiration Date: 8/7/2016
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
Address: 535 ATLANTIC BLVD
RE Number: 170684-0000
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name:
Address:
Company, Gate Petroleum
9540 San Jose BLVD
PERMIT INFORMATION: UTILITY DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS:
Ensure all meter boxes, sewer cleanouts and valve covers are set to grade and visible.
A sewer cleanout must be installed at the property line. Cleanout must be covered with an RT1
concrete box with metal lid. Cleanout to be set to grade and visible.
All concrete driveway aprons must be 5" thick, 4000 psi, with fibermesh from the edge of pavement to
the property line. Reinforcing rods or mesh area not allowed in the right-of-way.
Full erosion control measures must be installed and approved prior to beginning any earth disturbing
activities. Contact Public Works (247-5834) for Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection prior to start
of construction.
All silt must remain on-site during construction.
Roll off container company must be on City approved list and container cannot be placed on City Right -
of -Way. (Approved: Advanced Disposal, Realco, Republic Services, Shappel's and Waste Pro.)
Full right-of-way restoration, including sod, is required.
rN1141;4 :4tY)igioi in the road mus Abe°reps re using�C6.iga°ndara uetail Wasec a°nidimust a 6%rla AF°R°A
f:
c
Y OY A`='LJA N'11'IC 3EAC
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
INSV'ECTQON PHONE LINE 247-5814
feet in each direction from the center of the cut. Repair must be shown on the plans.
1. (Informational) As the result of public comment from some nearby residents and an
existing tenant on site (Beaches Diner), the City has contracted with "Community
Redevelopment and Planning Consultants" (Steven Lindorff) to conduct an independent
review of this proposed project. Mr. Lindorff served as Director of Planning and
Development for Jacksonville Beach for 30 years. Mr. Lindorffs report outlines why
the proposed use is permissible in the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District.
2. (Informational) Section 3-2 (b) states, "the licensed premises where any alcoholic
beverages are kept, except for restaurants, grocery stores and markets where the primary
business is the sale or serving of food, shall be closed for business between the hours of
2:00 AM and 7:00 AM all days of the week. No person shall be permitted on the
premises of such business during such hours except to clean the premises, to perform
necessary functions for closing the establishment, or to perform necessary
maintenance."
At this time, the City has not made a determination on Section 3-2 (b) regarding the
hours of operation of the proposed use. A determination will be made when the
applicant seeks the City's signature on its state alcohol license. Be aware that the city
may require the proposed use to close between the hours of 2:00 AM and 7:00 AM.
3. (Informational) Per 24-67 (d), when preliminary site development plans are signed off
on by all departments, the applicant may submit an application for a development
permit for vertical construction.
4. (Informational) Be aware that the city will ensure that construction complies with
Section 24-171 (c)(3) which states "The exterior finish of new buildings shall be of
brick, wood, stucco, decorative masonry, exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS),
architectural or split faced type block or other finish materials with similar appearance
or texture. Metal clad, corrugated metal, plywood, or oriented strand board (OSB), and
exposed plain concrete shall not be permitted as exterior finish materials on the front or
any street side building."
5. (Informational) Additionally, Section 24-171 (c) (1) states, "roofs, which give the
appearance of a flat roof from any street side of the building are prohibited. Roofs may
be gabled, hipped, mansard, or otherwise designed so as to avoid the appearance of a
flat roof from the adjoining street."
6. (Informational) Mr. Lindorff's report provides reasoning for why the City is not able to
require on-site parking beyond the minimum standards established in Section 24-161.
Gate, as property owner has submitted plans which state the existing restaurant on site
prR�i1T ICaAPI>Rn1N Il (1N1.vIN ,16-'N1RhDlAN iAvi au 1, ('ITV (W AT1,9ANTJC IIImi ORDINANCES ND THI FLORIDA
BUILDING CODES.
CITY OF ATTf ,A `T"_CC :REACT-
800
REACC800 SEMINOLE i ; OAD
ATLANTIC II` EACH, FL 32233
LINSl1 E(TION PHONE HINfli; 247-5814
space per 4 seats) and 16 spaces for the "retail sales" structure (1 space per 400 square
feet of gross floor area). The proposed plan shows 26 spaces for the retail sales building
and 19 spaces for the restaurant, as well as an additional 11 spaces in the city right-of-
way.
Sheet C2.0 -Existing Conditions/Demolition Plan has a note which states, "Contractor
shall sequence onsite and offsite work such that it does not disrupt existing diver [sic]
and parking". The Beach Diner shall have access to the required 19 on-site parking
spaces, its loading zone, and full use of its facilities before, during, and after
construction. If there is an interruption to the Beach Diner, a stop work order may be
issued.
7. (Informational) The site plan shows a four foot fence around the retention area. Be
aware that 24-171 (f) prohibits "chain link. barbed wire. razor or concertina wire, and like
fencing."
8. (Informational) A separate sign permit shall be submitted for the construction of new
signage.
9. (Informational) Prior to any tree removal on site, please submit a tree removal permit.
The tree plantings shown in the submitted landscape plan are able to be used as
mitigation (if necessary).
FEES:
Building Flat Rate Fee $300.00
ENG REV COMMERCIAL BLDG $0.00
UTIL REV COMMERCIAL BLDG $0.00
Total Payments: $300.00
PERMIT IS APPROVED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDINANCES AND THE FLORIDA
BUILDING CODES.
Commissioner Stinson:
Item 5A. Appointment to the Cultural Arts and Recreation Advisory Committee
The Board Member Review Committee met on January 28, 2016,
interviewed two candidates, Julia Hite and Faye Wood, and made
recommendations to appoint them both to the Cultural Arts and Recreation
Advisory Committee.
Appoint Julia Hite as a member of the Cultural Arts and Recreation
Advisory Committee for the unexpired term ending 7/8/17.
Appoint Faye Wood as a member of the Cultural Arts and Recreation
Advisory Committee for the unexpired term ending 7/8/17.
Call to Order
1.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
BOARD MEMBER REVIEW COMMITTEE
January 28, 2016 @ 5:00 p.m.
City Hall, North Conference Room
AGENDA
Approval of the minutes of the BMRC meeting of December 1, 2015.
I4t_ jv' my- -
4A
vo(0.4%
6 -v °wt' G''ti t
2. Interview the new candidates (listed below) for consideration to the Cultural Arts and r
Recreation Advisory Committee.
A. 5:05 pm Julia Hite
B. 5:25 pm Faye Wood
W. A evt(AAtS
3. Make recommendations on filling vacancies on the Cultural Arts and Recreation
Advisory Committee. (There are two (2) vacancies with terms ending 7/8/2016
and two (2) vacancies with terms ending 7/8/2017.)
4. Other Business.
Adjournment
ml (i) na/ 11
rt itit/,
v,./AA:zA4 <_ A „Ac,),,,
JAJoJtAAL_
me$)
in 0/LA .4/140j
607 (kr) l jaa
011
< J% n � LmAi
� n
1s .
MINUTES
Board Member Review Committee Meeting
December 1, 2015
5:00 p.m.
Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Commissioner Jimmy Hill. In attendance were
Commissioner Jimmy Hill (Chairman), Members Jerry Johnson, Solomon Brotman, Code Enforcement
Board Chair Brea Paul and City Clerk Donna Bartle. Also in attendance was Finance Director Russell
Caffey.
1. Approval of the minutes of the BMRC meeting of October 14, 2015.
Motion: Approve minutes of the Board Member Review Committee meeting of October 14, 2015.
Moved by Brotman, seconded by Johnson
Motion carried unanimously
3. Discuss the current members of the Community Development Board whose terms expire on
12/31/15 and are interested in reappointment.
The Committee decided to address reappointments of current members Linda Lanier and Patrick
Stratton prior to addressing new appointments, so a portion of Item 3 was taken out of order and
addressed at this time.
Motion: Recommend reappointing Linda Lanier and Patrick Stratton to serve an additional term
as regular members on the Community Development Board for the terms ending 12/31/2017.
2. Interview the new candidates for consideration to the Board/Committee(s) indicated.
A. Mike Paschall (for Community Development Board)
The Committee interviewed candidate Mike Paschall. The Committee offered the opportunity to ask
questions and the Committee responded to those questions.
4. Make recommendations on filling three regular upcoming vacancies and two alternate
vacancies on the Community Development Board for terms beginning January 1, 2016 and
ending 12/31/2017.
Extra time was available between the two interviews, so the Committee decided to discuss the remaining
candidates for the Community Development Board and make the recommendations. City Clerk Bartle
advised the Committee that Mr. Vincent has withdrawn his application. They discussed the applicants,
Susan Carr, Steven Mandelbaum, Richard Reichler and Mike Paschall, for consideration to the
Community Development Board. It was noted that Ms. Paul is being considered for a vacancy on the
Commission, so if she is chosen for that, she would need to vacate her seat on the Community
Development Board which would then need to be filled by a new applicant. The Committee decided to
address the possibility of an additional vacancy as well as the one regular vacancy and two alternates.
Motion: Recommend appointing Richard Reichler as a regular member of the Community
Development Board for the term beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2017.
Moved by Brotman, seconded by Paul
Motion carried unanimously
Motion: Recommend appointing Steven Mandelbaum as an alternate member of the Community
Development Board for the term beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2017, and if
a regular member vacancy occurs within 60 days, recommend that he be appointed as a regular
member to fill that vacancy.
Moved by Brotman, seconded by Hill
Motion carried unanimously
Motion: Recommend appointing Judy Workman as an alternate member of the Community
Development Board for the term beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2017.
Moved by Brotman, seconded by Hill
Motion carried unanimously
Motion: Should Steven Mandelbaum change from alternate to regular member of the Board
recommend appointing Susan Carr to be the alternate member.
Moved by Brotman, seconded by Hill
Motion carried unanimously
2. Interview the new candidates for consideration to the Board/Committee(s) indicated.
(continued)
B. Jennifer Lada (for Pension Board)
The Committee interviewed the candidate, Jennifer Lada. The Committee offered the opportunity to
ask questions and the Committee responded to those questions.
5. Discuss the following two candidates for the General Employees' Pension Board of
Trustees and make a recommendation on filling one vacancy beginning immediately
four year term.
A. Alan Gleit (interested in reappointment)
B. Jennifer Lada (new applicant)
The Committee discussed the two candidates and made the following recommendations.
Motion: Recommend reappointing Alan Gleit to serve an additional term on the General
Employees' Pension Board of Trustees.
to a
Motion: Recommend Jennifer Lada to be "on deck" for appointment to fill a future vacancy on
either Pension Board for a vacancy occurring within the next 12 month period.
Adjournment
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
John M. Stinson
Chairman
Draft- Minutes of the Board Member Review Committee Meeting on December 1, 2015. Page 2 of 2
Received
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
BOARD / COMMITTEE MEMBER APPLICATION FORM
JAN 222016
Please check (J) the box beside each Board or Committee that you are applying to serve on. If you check more than
one, please rank your interest in each board / committee by order of priority. office of City Clerk
(A summary of each board/committee is available on page 2 of this form.)
Code Enforcement Board
Pension Board of Trustees
Cultural Arts and Recreation Advisory Committee
Community Development Board
Board Member Review Committee
DATE: 1-21-16
APPLICANT'S NAME:
Julia Hite
ADDRESS: 1055 East Coast Dr Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
DAYTIME PHONE: 904 710-8972 (cell)
E-MAIL ADDRESS: tahsdad@aol.com
EVENING PHONE:
FAX:
Please explain any employment experience, board/committee experience, and/or community volunteer experience
relative to the board/committee applying for.
I am a registered nurse by profession and was in a supervisory position for many years. Currently, I am the Facilities Manager for The Museum,The former
Jacksonville Art Museum. I am responsible for maintaining a 22,000 square ft, building We host art shows, lectures,
not for profit galas and professional meetings.
Please provide a brief explanation of your interest or any special qualifications you have in this field and your reasons
for wishing to be appointed to this board/committee.
I am a very organized individual with a strong sense of community.
Please return completed form to
Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
PLEASE NOTE: Members of the Code Enforcement Board, Community Development Board and Pension Board of
Trustees are required to file Statement of Financial Interest Forms. Also, information regarding "Conflict of Interest"
is provided on page two of this application. This application will expire two (2) years after date of submittal,
1
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
BOARD / COMMITTEE MEMBER APPLICATION FOIFeived
Please check (-'1) the box beside each Board or Committee that you are applying to serve (AJAR At2c11
one, please rank your interest in each board / committee by order of priority.
(A summary of each board/committee is available on page 2 of this form.)
Code Enforcement Board
Pension Board of Trustees
Cultural Arts and Recreation Advisory Committee
more than
Office of City Clerk
Community Development Board
Board Member Review Committee
DATE: f Z Z 2i'R' APPLICANT'S NAME:
ADDRESS: 390 /PA A 5 -fief et Ili n i C -Rk c (�—• F�---
DAYTIME PHONE: quit. '70-1, EVENING PHONE: Steed
E-MAIL ADDRESS:._.
iivtiA1 b c (t, 46imat%, (o;._ FAX:
/VC? it "�-
Please explain any employment experience, board/committee experience, and/or community volunteer experience
relative to the board/committee applying for.
f 10 i-- .z2 0 l�ui1 �`� /Q elk k ;/Nn-- CA- �t,� ,. a_ - &
1-&Ck►nLez_.2 roiriatp . Ric Ve/u«t t (Ufa:.°
c, Att s . � 5 etov�.� .��...r �3c�ac les F-esri`de ' ,r ~ -e� ee �u
-� f� � � � � i / � S Itic�u.�-i` � car
V0 p &s, 8 eac, ji b F! t3 ,. f '..tint_ 1 ksonz vijf 4 ct 5 t , Ckitn p'ciiS e s
Please provide a brief explanation of your interest or any special qualifications you have in this field and your reasons
for wishing to be appointed to this board/committee.
/W.:e. /9.. .- a /&S LP4LP /16 � - if i1 as a4tetJ,istae. s_Ade > yalarA
cLa t Y0 // 9ohisxcam. � 1 Cke) F .s �i —t- t t
(� Li ( -4)00 Ak 40 /1102k,e:,1A-C)010O trK- V01Vlt_rf-e'er
I -A
Received
Please return completed form to
Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Office of City Clerk
PLEASE NOTE: Members of the Code Enforcement Board, Community Development Board and Pension Board of
Trustees are required to file Statement of Financial Interest Forms. Also, information regarding "Conflict of Interest"
is provided on page two of this application. This application will expire two (2) years after date of submittal.
JAN 222016
1
CULTURAL ARTS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Created by Resolution #02-13 July 8, 2002; Amended by Res. #03-5 & 10-08
Total of nine (9) citizen members
Meets at 6:00 p.m. the 4th Tuesday of the month
2 -year term; 4 -term limit
NAME/ADDRESS
Grant Healy
2075 Vela Norte
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
VACANT
Louis Cantania
2279 Seminole Road # 4
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
VACANT
Pamela White
2069 Selva Marina Drive
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
VACANT
Nick Malie
5215 Antares Court
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
VACANT
Jay Wilson
1842 Hickory Lane
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Timmy Johnson
Director, Recreation & Special
Events
EXP. DATE
07/08/2016
Chair
(1St Term)
7/08/2017
7/08/2016
(2nd term)
07/08/2017
07/08/2016
(1St Term)
07/08/2016
07/08/2017
(2nd Term)
Vice Chair
07/08/2016
07/08/2016
(1st Term)
Staff Liaison
Della Giovanni Recording Secretary
Administrative Assistant
Effective 12/8/15
CONTACT INFORMATION
(904) 241-5391 (daytime)
(904) 910-9214 (evening)
gahealy@comcast.net
(904) 616-7800
Icatania@bellsouth.net
(904) 616-2799 (daytime)
(904) 246-7041 (evening)
Pjwhite25@comcast. net
(904) 249-8382
Nickmalie@yahoo.com
(904) 221-3211
iayrbwilson(c�gmail.com
(904) 247-5828 (w)
(904) 247-5828 (w)
Vacancies 2015 & 2016 as of 1/22/16
GENERAL EMPLOYEE'S PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES: 4 year term; no term limit
POLICE EMPLOYEE'S PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES: 4 year term; no term limit (beginning 6/10/13)
The board members are required to file Statement of Financial Interests
Termed Interested
Term Out in Reappt?
Pension Board of Trustees Status Service (4 year terms w/ no term limit) Expiration N/A Y or N
1 1 1
None
CULTURAL ARTS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 2 -year term; 4 -term limit
Created by Resolution 6402-13 July 8, 2002; Amended by Res. 7103-5 & 10-08
Meets at 6:00 o.m. the 41° Tuesday of the month
Cultural Arts & Recreation Advisory Committee Status
Martha Marshall Resigned 12-12-15
Termed Interested
Term Out in Reappt?
Service (2 year terms w/ 4 term limit) Expiration Y or N Y or N
7/8/2016 N N
Sheena Rupert
Resigned 10-23-15
7/8/2016
N
N
Judy Workman
Charlise Goodbread
Resigned 1-11-16
7/8/2017
N
N
Resigned 1-22-16
7/8/2017
N
N/A
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD: 3 year terms; 3 consecu ive term limit
Meet In Commission Chambers 6:00 p.m. Second Tuesday odd numbered months
The board members are required to file Statement of Financial Interests
Code Enforcement Board
Richard Lombardi- ALTERNATE
Meade Coplan
Louis Keith
Richard Lombardi
Status
Service (3 year term w/ 3 tern[ limit)
Termed Interested
Term Out in Reappt?
Expiration Y or N Y or N
N/A
changed to regular
1st
9/30/2016
N
Active
2nd
9/30/2016
N
Active
1st
9/30/2016
N
Active
1st (reg.)
9/30/2016
N
a Note: If the current alternate is appointed as a regular member, an alternate member will be needed.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: 2 -year terms; 4 consecutive term limit; per Ordinance 5-03-42 adopted July 14, 2003
Regular meetings are held in the Commission Chambers at 6:00 pm the third Tuesday of each month.
The board members are required to file Statement of Financial Interests
Term Out in Reappt?
Community Development Board Status Service (2 year term w/ 4 term limit) Expiration Y or N Y or N
Kelly Elmore
A. Brea Paul
Harleston Parkes
Active
3rd Term
12/31/2016
N
Active
3rd Term
12/31/2016
N
Active
3rd Term
12/31/2016
N
Sylvia Simmons
Active
2nd Term
12/31/2016
N
**RETURN PETITION TO BEACH DINER**
PETITION TO OPPOSE GATE GASOLINE STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE
Gate Petroleum is planning to build a 14 -pump gasoline station and 6400 square -foot
convenience store next to the Beach Diner and across the street from the SaltAir neighborhood in
Atlantic Beach. Gate has already filed for a permit but it has not yet been approved by the city
officials. We are opposing this permit and the construction of a gas station of any type because
of the devastating and negative impact it will have on our community. Q
f,, ,r i .... p Ylk. �VAS-
c,t pry. --4-11 4teveS
• Dangerous Traffic Problems — Sturdivant Avenue is a narrow residential street used by r,rw4,ne
many children and adults on foot, bikes and skateboards as a path to the beach and Town
Center. Atlantic Beach Elementary School and Community Presbyterian Pre -K School - t �� •'
are both only a block away from this proposed gas station. Oil tankers, delivery trucks
and additional vehicles should not be traveling on this residential street. Sturdivant is
already congested and more traffic would be unsafe for everyone, especially for
pedestrians. Atlantic Boulevard is already congested from heavy traffic, and oil tankers
and delivery trucks turning into the property would create a very serious safety hazard.
• Environment — Hazardous gasoline released into the soil, ground water and air will be j j
very dangerous to the health of residents, especially children. 611e -owl)
• Crime 24 x 7 — Convenience stores are known for their high rate of robberies and 4 e$' -' cared.
homicides. In addition, they can be a haven for transients. We do not need to bring thosee-s
negative influences into our community. 5CGim3 g6S
• Property Values — Homeowners across the street and behind this proposed station will
see their property values dramatically reduced. 4I which etAt/ef - art v_
• Threat to Local Businesses — A mega convenience store will negatively impact the
smaller local businesses. Small businesses in the area include the Beach Diner, Ohana
Hawaiian Shaved Ice, A&J's Old Fashioned Ice Cream, Davinci's Pizza, and the S L
Food Mart and King Food convenience stores. Two gas stations Mobil and Shell are
already located within three blocks of this proposed gas station.
• Character of Community — Atlantic Beach is a beautiful and quiet seaside community
and its character needs to be preserved for us and our children and grandchildren.
The City of Atlantic Beach residents deserve to be protected by their Mayor and City
Commissioners. These officials were elected to represent us, and they are required by City Code
to protect the safety, health and well-being of their citizens. A large gas station just four blocks
from the ocean is definitely not in the best interest of our town. Help us to protect and preserve
the environment and beauty of our seaside community!
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION to show your opposition to the Gate permit and proposed
14 -pump mega gasoline station and 6400 square -foot convenience store. For more information,
go to www.facebook.com/atlanticbeachcares/
Printed Name Street Address and City
Phone Number with Area Code Email Address
DATE (e e� /�f `(
PURPOSE( d 1 i ' m.1 141
CUE COLUMN
cixelv.vt")„,
NOTES
abrc Jig .61414y
4// "C. Vi4N) 4Dr
tf_rvx60,474-6f rort)52(__
41 A ILL _ D / 5('VGwt
absef i
whA 15 itfvJ- 120144
C�;3O u s mos .
r
sW, -re5
d
alywwlerrwri-i-14- p/4
414 A,
2 " ;(
Wed- ht-EA)N6
s o
(4,
_7
Id I-
net_ -4(ti
,� 9/ruf 4 oma, r
Ld
eP P 11-44)r4r )61` i4rei
rior ,v-646 61 tx,
SUMMARY 4°Ya'AQS leAttv *. f4(utrL 5,
f\VA V1045 , rd u. 44.4/
fyt �0� ' Camoft y ?Ili""<f)�a�
DATE "r.
PURPOSE t5C(
CUE COLUMN
NOTES
Mev
evraAi— AeMwR
44-
1
pbv4cl kvTci4j ov\
q(sfen) `--
s
rAthA frz'n
a o� '�1-vw vs
- c
�� Ati tiik Co e- 1
j,v ro C 6
,,, (A
SUM MARY
PURPOSE
CUE COLUMN
SUMMARY
NOTES
6n Zkc414s
citvk
. 6040-117- do m1
or►e tri✓t
A, Reec+� -F( ea,04.61 *Pow- 5,t+
rasp' 5 / n -12304i/4
Gy
3. What- e),411 4credS 11 t aiv4 J Y31
4. d oc,u FptFiv4S S¥rc, 42_
y r)tb* e
k
age.. k Ai' olOC m
(1. AC tiU tit+ r ai reerni.-is 44 Z a 6s -{e; yj
Joh tit
(, (Mods.( t 041- rit4 e Lle
;,1 14.4v elly 4440,1
a . malt o5rtmoVL -/ .� �►��
}j. yV1oi - �,06/Ad - P�(oriS -4c C.. 346 '4{7'„
(f. W h6 ' 5944 of U+Yu av5 do -*c 5 ite(cQc-rs
a k
Jack. reA4141tA( ? 4 Cray.e l �a
416 — ask tri&c 1e e- � �v
6 . I'm a bletwev a wl (‘‘bvt A 1,6 ids rv�rev�c�
w ivot kcA. s • 111 let
of
/1)4,1 bectirt
acsf s
f9av
c
PURPOSE
CUE COLUMN
NOTES
6-41 r`'v`'�ff`'''
4 toNw ,0,mru 11,060J
a5L g c-
2 • htlik of h -tcd /O laf trk
-- foal. rAfx
6MM/14k Q01-12-
-- )2) It -to 446 ale
3. Tofaut mi i ( c'- Inc , oder-taX10/
60149 644 („I
L.a4S [Ai( e
6 _ 5uy'vdcJ & s �e
t_tva of Seklact_
(P - 7.1.( FC, 1r C-1
�- sn L c7F cu11(1A 5
50 -AM cx d ncs
— Y'w4s-E m c4 s(ktab-4
-1 ¶pitci-vL -tbitt
have
SUMMARY
Let's start with the Lindorf report: I quote from his concluding paragraph in the 800 word Beach
Diner segment of his report:
Dec, 2015 the city's bldg. and Zoning Dir. received a letter dated Dec 18, 2015 from Atty. Paul
Eakin writing on behalf of ABD. The letter says, among other things, that the business is entitled
to 61 parking spaces based on one space for every two seats for the 122 seats (94 indoor and 28
outdoor) based on LDC in 1997, and therefore, is not subject to the revised 2002 off-street
parking of one space for each 4 seats. However, there are NO PUBLIC RECORDS that would
indicate that the leased property and improvements when they were originally built in the 1960s
ever conformed to the City standards, nor the records show that the Lessee EVER POSSESSED
a documented right to parking spaces on the adjacent shopping center property. The applicants
offer to provide AB Diner with 19 off-street parking spaces will mark the FIRST TIME that such
written documentation will be a matter of public record.
REALLY??
Now, let's fact check Mr. Lindorf s assertion of NO PUBLIC RECORDS:
Minutes of May 20, 1997 CDB meeting with George Worley, the CDB director, among others in
attendance, along with the citizen chairman, Don Wolfson.
Para 7...Mr. Adeeb addressed the board stating his desire to operate a breakfast restaurant and
construct an addition to accommodate additional seating. The proposed addition will be
constructed on the west side of the building and will not further encroach into the setback. He
stated that the landlord is going to REPAVE and RESTRIPE the parking lot to go along with the
proposed renovation.
Mr. Worley reminded the board that the application is REQUESTING A VARIANCE to
construct an addition to a nonconforming structure and the applicant would have to meet code
requirements for SEATING, PARKING, and LANDSCAPING.
Mrs. Walker voiced concern regarding the sq. footage and remodeling 50% of the structure.
After further discussion, Mrs. Walker moved to approve the variance to construct an existing
nonconforming building subject to receiving the signature of the owner on the application. Mr.
Frohwein seconded the motion and the VARIANCE WAS UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED.
Really Mr. Lindorf, NO PUBLIC RECORD....
Bad info in, bad info out I
Interestingly, all of these misrepresentations could have been avoided with a conversation with
the effected parties, including, to be fair, Gate Petroleum...I am led to conclude the information
Mr. Lindorf recited was in large part provided by Mr. Hubsch, the current Zoning Director.
So let's go to Mr. Hubsch...
Dec. 1, 2015, 12:58 pm Mr. Hubsch sends email to Barry Adeeb:
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence:
In the case of the 1997 BD expansion, the city would have been looking to ensure that the
existing site had enough parking to allow the expansion. At the time of expansion, IT APPEARS,
the City let the Beach Diner be considered part of the shopping center for parking calculations (4
spaces for every 1000 sq.ft.) However, of the 90 spaces that were located within the entire site,
84 of those would have been specifically allocated for the 20,691 sq. ft. "shopping center" on
site. While the Beach Diner would have been required 12 spaces at its size of 2847 sq. ft. of
heated area. By those calculations, it LOOKS LIKE the city gave some type of favorable ruling
that allowed the expansion when there were 90 spaces instead of 96.
These 4 words from Mr. Hubsch are important in the context of having accurate information...IT
APPEARS and LOOKS LIKE....
To be generous, these 4 words are code words for "I Don't Have a Clue! It's not worth my time
to research the facts.
I could go on and on with the historical inaccuracies. This bad info has brought the BD to having
to defend a position that it was granted 19 years ago by this very City.
hi conclusion, the attributs I find essential for success in any endeavor, personal or
professional not even close, far and away, is COURAGE...and that's what I ask of each of
you...
�f Vac‘t f�se�c /'*
Nove er 26, 2001
seating places;
(2) Bowling alleys: Four (4) spaces for each alley;
(3) Business or commercial Buildings: One (1) space for each three hundred (300) square feet of
gross floor area;
(4) Churches, temples or, places of worship: One (1) space for each four (4) seats or seating
places;
(5) Clubs or lodges: One (1) space for each four (4) seats or seating places or one (1) space for each
two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater;
(6) All residential Uses: Two (2) spaces per Dwelling Unit.
(7) Hospitals, clinics and convalescent homes: One and one-half (1 1/2) spaces for each hospital.
bed;
(8) Hotels and motels: One (1) space for each sleeping unit plus spaces required for accessory Uses
such as restaurants, lounges, etc., plus one employee space per each 20. sleeping units or portion
thereof;
(9) Libraries and museums: One (1) space for each five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor
area;
(10) Manufacturing, warehousing and industrial Uses: One (1) space for each two (2) employees
on the largest working shift, plus one (1) space for each company vehicle operating from the
premises;
(11) Medical or dental clinic: One (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor
area;
(12) Mortuaries: One (1) space for each four (4) seats or seating spaces in chapel plus one (1) space
for each three (3) employees;
(13) Marinas: One (1) space for each boat berth plus one (1) space for each two (2) employees;
(14) Office and professional Buildings: One (1) space for each four hundred (400) square feet of
gross floor area;
(15) Restaurants, cocktail Lounges and/or other eating places:. One. (1) space for each two. (2)
.seats;
(16) Rooming and boardinghouses: One (1) space for each guest bedroom;
(17) Schools and educational Uses:
i. EIementary and junior high schools: Two (2) spaces for each classroom, office and kitchen;
ii. Senior high schools: Six (6) spaces for each classroom plus one (1) space for each staff
member.