Agenda Item 8AAGENDA ITEM # 8A
FEBRUARY 27, 2012
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING for UBE -12- 00100005, request from Dominic Jacobellis,
CARBUYERLINK.COM LLC d/b /a Beachside Ride, for a use -by- exception to permit used
automobile sales as consistent with Section 24- 111(c)(10), within the Commercial General
(CG) Zoning District on a property located at 1800 Mayport Road, Suite 12.
SUBMITTED BY: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: February 21, 2012
BACKGROUND: Originally scheduled for public hearing at the February 13, 2012 meeting, this item was
deferred due to the absence of the applicant and requests from Commissioners for additional information. In particular,
staff was asked if this current request presented circumstances differing from previously approved uses -by- exception,
and what, if any, conditions had been placed on previous approvals. Review of the history of automotive - related uses
reveals very little differentiation amongst the various cases. In previous approvals, the most commonly applied
condition has been a limitation on the number of vehicles allowed, and this generally has been a function of the size,
layout and accessibility of the subject property. However, Commissioners may wish to consider other conditions, such
as limitations on hours of operation, requirements for security lighting. Staff has requested that the applicant appear
with a site plan delineating areas for vehicle display and vehicular use, including customer and employee parking, to
aid in further consideration of this matter.
In support of the above suggestion, staff reiterates the following provisions of Section 24 -63:
(f) The city commission may, as a condition of the granting of any use -by- exception, impose such conditions,
restrictions or limitations in the use of the premises, or upon the use thereof as requested in the application, as
the city commission may deem appropriate and in the best interest of the city, taking into consideration matters
of health, safety and welfare of the citizens, protection of property values and other considerations material to
good land use and planning principles and concepts.
(g) Any use -by- exception granted by the city commission shall pen only the specific use or uses described in
the application, as may be limited or restricted by the terms and provisions of approval. Any expansion or
extension of the use of such premises, beyond the scope of the terms of the approved use -by- exception, shall
be unlawful and in violation of this chapter and shall render the use -by- exception subject to suspension or
revocation by the city commission.
Additionally, Commissioners asked City Attorney Alan Jensen for an opinion regarding their ability to deny a use -by-
exception based upon pending legislation. As was noted by staff, there are two additional automotive - related requests
in process, and there have been as many similar inquiries regarding other Mayport Road properties over the last few
weeks. Staff is awaiting response from Mr. Jensen and direction from the Commission as to how to proceed with these
and firture automotive - related requests.
BUDGET: No budget issues.
RECOMMENDATION: Upon the applicant's attendance at the public hearing and submittal of a satisfactory
site plan, staff recommends approval of the request, with limitations set as to hours of operation and number of display
vehicles allowed on site, and the required maintenance of clearly delineated vehicular use areas for display, access,
parking; lighting improvements; along with a clear understanding that failure to maintain the site in accordance with
the conditioned approval will result in the revocation of such approval. If the applicant fails to attend the public
hearing, staff recommends denial of the application
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Community Development Board Minutes and application package.
REVIEWED BY CITY MAN A G - -
February 27, 2012 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
FEBRUARY 27, 2012
Minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
85 Mr. Hansen opened the floor to public comment and with there being none, closed that
86 portion of the hearing and brought the item back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Parkes
87 asked if Ms. Lada had employed a contractor, and she replied that her father and a friend had
88 built the structure. Ms. Lada also noted that upon receipt of the notice of violation from Code
89 Enforcement that she had spoken with Board member Chris Lambertson (not currently
90 present) to find out what she needed to do.
91 Mr. Hansen expressed frustration felt by all Board members in such a case, when something
92 is clearly an aesthetically pleasing and desirable amenity to property owners, but just as
93 clearly in contradiction to the provision of the code. Mr. Parkes reiterated that while lie
94 thought the structure looked nice and realized neighbors did not object, it was not properly
95 located, and Ms. Paul concurred. Mr. Burgess added that the request was not a just a matter
96 of slight variance, but fairly substantial deviation from two of the three applicable standards.
97 He noted that while the height was probably negligible based upon information provided by
98 Ms. Lada earlier, the fifty (50) percent increase in area and the eighty (80) percent reduction
99 in setback were not.
100 Mr. Hansen said that the difficulty of the Board's deliberation was compounded by the fact
101 that the structure had already been constructed, and while it is hard to tell a property owner
102 that they will have to remove a structure, the Board also has a duty to uphold the processes
103 and provisions of the code that others have gone to lengths and expenses to ensure
104 compliance. And Ile reiterated that approval of something blatantly nonconforming to the
105 code, and with no reasonable grounds for approval consistent with Section 24 -64 would
106 likely open a Pandora's box of unjustifiable requests. With no further discussion from the
107 Board, Mr. Hansen called for a motion.
108 MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved to deny ZVAR -12- 00100001, request for a variance from
109 Section 24- 151(b)(I)f, reducing the required side yard setback for an accessory structure
110 (pergola) from five (5) feet to one (1) foot, and increasing the permitted area for an accessory
111 structure (pergola) from one hundred fifty (150) square feet to approximately two hundred
112 twenty -five (225) square feet, on a property located within the Residential Single Family
113 (RS -2) Zoning District at 1224 Ocean Boulevard, finding that though the structure was
114 aesthetically pleasing and non - objectionable to adjacent property owners, none of the specific
115 grounds for approval of a variance as provided in Section 24 -64 of the Land Development
116 Regulations were met, nor were there any extenuating circumstances justifying the
117 noncompliance with development regulations or failure to obtain a building permit. The
118 motion, seconded by Ms. Paul, carried unanimously, 4 -0.
119 B. UBL -12- 00100005
120 APPLICANT: CARBUYERLINK.COM LLC DBA Beachside Ride, Dominic Jacobellis
121 ADDRESS: 1800 Mayport Road, Suite 12*
122 REQUEST: Request for a use -by- exception to sell used automobile, including
123 pre -sale servicing and conditioning of automobiles but no heavy
124 automotive repair or body work, as is consistent with Section 24-
125 111(c)(10), within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on
126 a property located at 1800 Mayport Road, Suite 12.
127 Ms. Hall noted that the address as provided on the application is 1800 Mayport Road, Suite
128 12, but the main address of the subject property, according to the Duval County Property
129 Appraiser's Office, is 1830 Mayport Road, though there are multiple units located on the
Page 3 of 6
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
FEBRUARY 27, 2012
11inutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Conunnnity Development Board
130
particular property, and the several other adjacent parcels are also owned by the same
131
property owner.
132
Ms. Hall provided an overview of automotive - related uses historically found within this area
133
of the Mayport Road corridor, and confirmed that the area had been classified as "commercial
134
intensive" a number of years ago. She explained that more recently, the City Commission has
135
expressed a desire to move away from those more intensive uses, even going so far as to
136
adopt Ordinance No. 90 -06 -197 on December 11, 2006, completely prohibiting heavy
137
automotive repair from the CG zone. Ms. Hall provided the definition of heavy automotive
138
repair as "the rebuilding or reconditioning of motor vehicles or parts thereof, including
139
collision service, painting and steam cleaning of vehicles ", and added that minor automotive
140
repair — such as oil changes, brake service, tire repair and /or replacement — with accessory car
141
washes, is still a permitted use per Section 24- 111(b)(9). Similarly, the sale of new and used
142
automobiles is still a permitted use -by- exception within the CG zoning district, per Section
143
24- 111(c)(10) and with the approval of the City Commission.
144
Ms. Hall then provided a brief history of applications for similar use by exceptions that have
145
come before the Community Development Board for recommendation for approval over the
146
last ten years. Of those, she noted prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 90 -06 -197, three
147
requests for heavy repair and /or body work, one request for used sales and three request for
148
sales and service were approved. One application for used automotive sales only was denied
149
in October 2005. Since 2007, there have only been two requests, both being for used sales
150
only, with one application being withdrawn by the applicant and the other being approved but
151
limited to a two year period. That approval was for the parcel immediately to the north of the
152
property subject to this request, and the rationale behind the time limit was to allow an
153
opportunity for economic recovery as the applicants had expressed a desire to eventually
154
redevelop the property for less intensive retail uses.
155 Dominic Jacobellis, owner of Carbuyerlink.com, LLC, addressed the Board regarding his
156 request, stating that he is licensed, insured and bonded as an automotive dealer, and that he
157 has operated his business from a Westside location on Cassat Avenue for a year, but he wishes
158 to relocate to Atlantic Beach. He said he is targeting a clientele consisting of navy personnel
159 and professionals with expendable cash and a desire to own upper end models. He said lie
160 anticipates ten to twelve later -model vehicles, typically with no more than 80,000 miles, will
161 be kept on site, and services will not exceed the definition of minor automotive repair,
162 consisting of primarily pre -sale conditioning, such as oil changes, tire replacement and
163 detailing. Mr. Jacobellis reiterated that it was his goal to acquire and sale automobiles that
164 are already in good condition, because anything more involved than a minor repair was not
165 profitable, and it was his desire to provide good, clean and reliable transportation at an
166 affordable price.
167 Mr. Hansen asked what the hours of operation would be, and Mr. Jacobellis responded that
168 this was a family business, to be run primarily by liirn and his father. Most showings will be
169 by appointment and at no time does he anticipate hours to extend beyond dusk, primarily
170 because lie wishes to be at home spending time with his family, but also because there is a
171 lack of outdoor lighting on the premises. Mr. Hansen opened the hearing for public
172 comment.
173 Melvin Petiet, 1059 Mimosa Court, spoke to the Board regarding a similar situation in
174 Springfield (downtown Jacksonville) in which the local governing board decided to prohibit
175 automotive - related uses. He said in time, other uses such as coffee shops and restaurants
Page 4 of 6
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
FEBRUARY 27, 2012
,tlinules of the January 17, 2012 regular meeling of the Connnnat ly Development Board
176 began to leave because they had counted amongst their patrons not only the patrons of the
177 automotive businesses, but also their employees. He added that once the providers of such
178 basic goods and services depart, it is not long before residents also leave and serious crime
179 moves in.
180 With no additional comment from the public, Mr. Hansen closed that portion of the hearing
181 and invited questions from the Board. Ms. Paul agreed with the points made by Mr. Petiet
182 and said that such business serve a vital function for the community, and Mr. Parkes agreed
183 the proposed business is typical of Mayport Road.
184 [Chris Lamhertson arrived at 6 :42pm]
185 Mr. Hansen said that given current economic conditions and the uncertainty of what is going
186 to happen locally [regarding NS Mayport], lie was hesitant to place a time limit on a business,
187 but would prefer to stipulate a two -year compliance review. With no additional questions
188 from the Board and no further discussion, Mr. Hansen called for a motion.
189 MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval
190 of UBE- 12- 00100005, request for a use -by- exception to sell used automobiles within the
191 Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on a property located at 1800 Mayport Road, Suite
192 12, finding that such use is consistent with provisions of Section 24- 111(c)(10), and that the
193 proposed pre -sale servicing and conditioning of automobiles is consistent with the definition
194 of minor automotive repair, as permitted by right, by Section 24- 111(b)(9). The motion,
195 seconded by Mr. Burgess, carried unanimously, 5 -0. Ms. Hall informed Mr. Jacobellis that
196 the Board's recommendation would now be forwarded to the City Commission for final
197 action, and that she would contact him with information regarding that meeting within a
198 couple of days.
199 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
200 A. Land Development Regulations addressing minimum accessory structure separation.
201
202 Ms. Hall provided Board members with examples of minimum required separation between
203 accessory structures within other municipalities, as requested at the December meeting. She
204 said of the approximately twenty municipalities she had looked at, eleven specified some sort
205 of separation. Most required a minimum of ten (10) feet separation between an accessory
206 structure and any other structure, while several differentiated by building type, requiring ten
207 (10) feet in accessory - principal scenarios and six (6) feet in accessory- accessory scenarios.
208 And there were outliers, such as Coconut Creek, that required twenty -five (25) feet between
209 accessories and principal buildings in residential zones.
210
211 Mr. Lambertson noted that neitlicr Neptune Beach nor Jacksonville Beach were included in
212 the list of municipalities looked at, and asked what the requirements were for those cities.
213 Ms. Hall replied that she had not completed leer research and had not had time to look into
214 Neptune Beach, but had checked both Jacksonville and Jacksonville Beach, and neither of
215 those cities specified a minimum separation. Mr. Parkes agreed that he was unaware of any
216 minimum required separation in either. I-Ie added that, as discussed at the time the minimum
217 separation requirement was removed from the Atlantic Beach code a couple of years ago, lie
218 felt ten (10) feet was too much, especially on the typical lot, which is small by most
219 standards, and he did not support returning to that dimension. Other Board members
220 generally concurred, expressing the need for some dimension that clearly indicated separation
Page 5 of 6
imp.
d ti
w"i
P IPM a
p t r U-m
A 0
I A.MR
•. ;�i' � - xr'Ir' Y Y',n'�i:a 5'..�p.'i-- _ { -� -�yy �� _ � _ •. -r - •��� +': •�Y a I � - �1� �� * � � I ��� ` � �'�Y � �� #' • "'r.�.i4'J�'� • r y . y'�•~-W.' '�!•� +�Sk'I!!T-.r•, J Fl �y + q
-,7 VY I fmill i
no: A7
' s= F� #�., M - .� 4 } : � ��'- ? :y�`y- �„ {`��r��rrII �.'eR i,�. -�r,� � . I� r. I � } 1 ,±y � �j y S ov.-P
IR 'p y - �yl S I' . •_f - ,. .� I: I ���- ���; 5 41.1. I� � < <:
' {` �T' i4,rCr•5�'�r {�r•41�': , y �1� 1 ,y. �I -7F1�4 • -:J� FI .., + f �'
�`L �''7�Y1rSi��'�`••ar�yy 1 '.r'f""7 r ]Y� .ter '� ti �4cy;•. f
- ' ��i �i S �f:.s. ' � ..:d!'7ri ,xr.'��� � . n ft �r.�.f: ��. l .,
•4 I :J I -+� � '4'-, ' .I. �• i. ;I:L : 1. � , � y � -]:.' ,I..�. ' r �lF1'.. ] 4. y� :I. ��.. :
�."+�'y�.5. 1:��,�'�'„'�ny-,�"_ .r r i�`�.r' + 5�•P�- r A�����}e.':y�i f +�4'i�
I L
j 4d
:i�; : t ? I •i 1 � r : '. � .. .,n . Z • 7, . :.tir _� :!:.�'� Jr`r- -
Till I
IT.
I w
4 :F I
a,:l �:_ i , , ;. a .� - : •�', �,G.? �'.I.. i a',':�� r } .' ;,-. t: •:�., r :`�, .iE+. - - . w�.wR�wr
Al
AGENDA ITEM # SA
FEBRUARY 27, 2012
UBE- 12- 00100005
The review of an application for a Use -by- Exception shall consider the following items. Please
address each of the following as applicable to your specific application.
1. Ingress and egress to property and proposed Structures thereon with particular reference to vehicular and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control and access in case of fire or catastrophe.
- T et I S ,d F%r" AoLlie -4,C aE ei i--. , -- AL5ra —n/d-- �,�Asjr:
pMhob, s �iyf or /tclec or Lo�RI►ok r,c
2. Parking and Loading Spaces, where required, with particular attention to the items in (1) above.
- T - "4.- P. 1 !°C 1 —%- fnQ At-2,e%,,4- t!AIZ.S . - /- r,4r C
3. The potential for any adverse impacts to adjoining properties and properties generally in the area resulting
from excessive noise, glare and lighting, odor, traffic and similar characteristics of the Use -by- Exception
being requested.
j*-lo iSEIS Ll,nn14r Ike S'nu)acdoF 4 I VAY11Ag C'04 2
A'0 1 2 E ap 1
4. Refuse, trash collection and service areas, with particular reference to items (1) and (2) above;
- 7 — h &-,-w— are- AdAny inns, n/® l,o Aucke -4S an �ic�er�y A /uS
-h40 duw galeeC
5. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability and compatibility;
►M
W
6. If adjacent uses are different types of uses, describe type of screening and buffering that will be provided
between your use and the adjacent use. re rS ,4 rvrF.1.4Kr -S hop tae In In �
S C - 9 cs r mac! b Y A ! ree-4- 441 are.. i g A dig r cd - -Xar L !S h oa 4-® 1 -6.c
7. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effects and
compatibility and harmony with properties in the District; (See Signs and Advertising, Chapter 17.)
8. Required Yards and other Open Space. Show building setbacks and areas of open space on site plan.
9. General compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the surrounding Zoning District as
well as consistency with applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. -Z m. &)o-t- 5 ore
exscAe --Hv #,M Jh ,C rnnao ne A,,,,✓e- ve- A-itr /vtA&Y
Other information you may wish to provide- 771i; A15 6e-6A
Maw ip.
1
of
f.
f.
4p
7 d I ff
I
It
F=
S O
�t
�,:
'S
'.1 e
y "1
Y; .
":5.
•
I 1
I ,
i