6-2 Full Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / June 2, 2015 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Draft minutes of the April 21, 2015 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 15-ZVAR-1035 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-88(b)
requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” south half of Lot 6
Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd).
B. 15-ZVAR-1022 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a reduction in side yard setback from
15 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet on the east side at Atlantic Beach
Subdivision “A” west half of Lot 10, Lot 12 Block 2 (aka 331 Ahern St).
C. 15-UBEX-1037 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for an expansion of an existing use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-111(c)(5), to
allow limited wholesale operations at 1175 Atlantic Blvd.
5. Reports.
A. Reschedule of June 16, 2015 Meeting.
6. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic
Beach Building and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and
may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247 -5826. Interested parties may attend the meeting
and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address
above. Any person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should
submit a Comment Card located at the entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect t o
any matter considered at any meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is to be based.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons
with disabilities needing special accommodations t o participate in this meeting should contact the City
not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting at the address or phone number above.
Page 1 of 10
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
April 21, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Parkes. Also
present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Zoning
Technician, Derek Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley
& Garrison, P.A. was Mrs. Darcy Galnor.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of March 17, 2015
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes of the March 17th meeting.
Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 15-SAFR-1023 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of
the Code of Ordinances at RE#171917-0000 (aka 363 12th St)
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item as a replat of an existing developed
property in the Selva Marina neighborhood. The property is an irregular
rectangle shape approximately 255 feet deep and just over 100 feet wide
with a total area of about 30,500 square feet. The owners are proposing
to divide the lot into two buildable lots with one facing 12th Street and
the second in the rear accessed by a 25 foot wide easement along the
east side of the first lot. There is an existing structure that would have to
be removed as part of the approval since nonconforming structures
cannot be created by a division of land.
Page 2 of 10
The minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and minimum lot width and
depth of 100 feet are met by both lots. The original covenants and
restrictions for this property, which are no longer valid, but speak to the
original design of the area, required 90 feet of street frontage and 13,000
square feet of lot area. Obviously the 90 feet of street frontage is not met.
There was a recent lot split approved in this neighborhood at 1251 Selva
Marina Circle, but that was a little different in that it was larger by 8,000
square feet, both lots created had street frontage and the original lot was
an irregular shaped lot on a cul-de-sac.
City code requires all new lots to have access to a paved public street and
this is why they must replat the property so that the proposed easement
is determined to meet this requirement and that it is recorded to ensure
permanent access.
The city’s Comprehensive Plan calls for the city to maintain the residential
character of the community. The approval of this plan would create a flag
lot which could be deemed to be altering the community character. There
are also several other lots, especially those along the west side of Selva
Marina Drive that could attempt to do a similar flag lot design if this is
approved.
Applicant Comment
Visillios Simieonidis, 363 12th Street, introduced himself as the owner and
asked that the plan be approved before turning the floor over to his real
estate agent, Andrew Bell of 11451 Kabroon Ct, Jacksonville, FL 32246. He
stated that the owners would like to split the lot as others have done in
the area and that it would not change the character of the neighborhood
no more than the other McMansions that are being built all around the
property. He stated that this is a property rights issue and should be
allowed.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Ryan Schmitt, 369 12th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, is the owner of
the adjacent property and expressed concern over the possibility of two
neighbors on one side where you once had one.
Ashton Hudson, 319 12th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, is a nearby
property owner and spoke about the concerns over community character
and pointed to the fact that this is about personal profit.
Todd Budnick, 370 12th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, is the neighbor
across the street from the proposed site and stated that he moved to the
area because of the estate lots that create the character of the area.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Page 3 of 10
Board Discussion
Mr. Hansen stated that he doesn’t see why this should be done. Mr.
Elmore agreed and expressed his significant concern about the creation
of flag lots. Mrs. Lanier also agreed that flag lots would have a negative
impact on the character of the area.
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to recommend denial of the replat of 363 12th
Street to the City Commission. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
B. 15-ZVAR -1021 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a
reduction in front yard setback from 35 feet as required by
Section 24-17 “Building Restriction Line” to 24 feet at Selva
Marina Unit Block 1 Lot 21 except the southern 4 feet (aka 1320
East Coast Dr)
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and the proposed plan that calls for a
new home to be constructed 24 feet from the east property line in the
front yard, which is 11 feet forward of the 35 foot platted building
restriction line (BRL). A variance is needed because by code, the city must
recognize platted BRLs when they are greater than setbacks established
by a zoning district. The location of the house is based on the location of a
20 inch diameter Live Oak in the southwest corner of the yard. The tree is
approximately 27 feet from the southern, side property line and 37 feet
from the western, rear property line. This places the tree within the
buildable area of the lot.
Platted BRLs are common in the Selva Marina neighborhoods which this
property is a part of. However, this is a somewhat unique circumstance
where you have a BRL on one side of a street and the opposite side is the
standard 20 foot zoning setback. There are a total of 10 properties along
East Coast Drive that have a BRL. Of those 10, 2 violate the BRL. They
were constructed since the code regarding BRLs was created and appear
to be the result of survey error or misrepresentation. Two more of those
10 properties are now being or have been recently fully redeveloped and
follow the BRL.
The overall lot size is about 14,400 square feet with a buildable area of
7,700 square feet when considering the BRL. When preserving an area
around the tree with a 17 foot radius to account for the drip line, there is
6,900 square feet of buildable area. The total area under roof of the
Page 4 of 10
proposed two story house is 5,296 square feet. A house of the same size
could be built as one story house in the buildable space while preserving
the tree. Additionally, the longest side of the house is on the side with the
tree and a gable roof design facing the tree is not the best design when
trying to save the tree.
The tree itself is one inch into the protected status and is 10 inches short
of the minimum size needed for Heritage Tree designation. Meaning that
the board could not place a similar condition on the property where the
tree requiring the variance be designated as a Heritage Tree.
Mrs. Simmons asked for the distance between the tree and the house as
proposed. Mr. Reeves stated that the base of the tree is about 16 feet and
the canopy extends 16 to 20 feet out. Mr. Elmore asked if staff had asked
the applicants about flipping the design of the house so that the deeper
portion of the house was on the opposite side. Mr. Reeves stated that he
did his own analysis and found that because the tree is located so far into
the side of the lot that flipping the house would still put the rear porch
near the tree and would only accomplish a minimal reduction in the
needed variance so he did not contact the applicants with such a
solution.
Mr. Elmore asked how much further forward the house would be from
the new house to the north. Mr. Reeves stated it would be 11 feet
forward of the house to north as it was built on the BRL.
Mr. Hansen asked if the house could be moved closer to the tree to
reduce the needed variance. Mr. Elmore stated that it could move some
and still preserve the tree.
Applicant Comment
The owners, Maria Wilkes and Matthew Riddleberger at 1320 East Coast
Dr, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, and their contractor, Frank Gamble, 1223
Trailwood Dr, Neptune Beach, FL each spoke on the issue. Mrs. Wilkes
stated that they were trying to line the home up with the neighbor’s
garage while trying to protect the tree and utilize it in the design. Mr.
Riddleberger stated that the neighbors had no issue with the proposed
design.
Mr. Elmore asked if they were aware of the 35 foot setback when
designing the home. All three applicants stated that they were not.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no one wishing to
speak, public comment was closed.
Page 5 of 10
Board Discussion
Mrs. Paul noted that an email from one of the referenced neighbors, Mr.
Mansur, was included in the agenda packet and spoke against the
variance.
Mr. Elmore stated that while he was surprised to learn of such a large
building restriction line and is concerned that two other properties did
not follow it; the property to the north was fully redeveloped without a
problem. He added that the tree is nice but that the home could have
been designed around the tree and met setbacks. Mrs. Lanier agreed and
felt that it seems to be a trend to design a structure needing a variance
rather than designing it within regulations to start with.
Mr. Elmore asked staff how the properties to the south were developed
so recently and were allowed to violate the setback. Mr. Reeves stated
that no variances were requested for either property. One property did
not show the building restriction line on the survey and staff at the time
may not have known one should have been there. Mr. Elmore asked
where the building restriction line came from. Mr. Hubsch stated that it
was platted when the neighborhood was created. Mr. Reeves added that
the second property did not have a survey on file but the site plan
showed a standard 20 foot front yard setback, which also would not stand
out to staff without prior knowledge of the plat.
Mr. Elmore stated that this appears to be a self inflicted hardship that the
board does not usually grant variances for. Mrs. Wilkes asked if the board
would consider a lesser variance. Mr. Elmore did not think that would
make a difference. Mrs. Paul and Mr. Stratton agreed with Mr. Elmore.
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to deny variance 15-ZVAR -1021. Mr. Lanier
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
C. 15-ZVAR -1022 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for an
increase in allowable fence height from 6 feet as required by
Section 24-157(b)(1 and 2) to up to 10 feet at North Atlantic
Beach Unit Number 2 Part of Lot 41 and 25 foot strip of land lying
south thereof (aka 1875 Beach Ave)
Staff Report
Mr. Hansen and Mr. Elmore declared ex parte communications with the
applicants about the variance request. Mr. Reeves then introduced the
item and gave a brief description of the property. The applicants are
Page 6 of 10
requesting to build a new six foot wood fence on top of an existing two to
three foot tall concrete block wall with additional wood fencing at grade
up to 10 feet tall following the contours of the land.
A variance is needed because Section 24-157(b)(1 and 2) limit the height
of a fence to 6 feet tall as measured from grade in the side yard. The
wood fence up to 10 feet tall violates this and 6 feet of wood fence on top
of a two to three foot tall concrete block wall exceeds 6 foot overall limit.
The variance request stems from an approved building permit where the
applicants requested to replace their existing fence with a new 6 foot
fence. At the time, staff did not know that the wood fence was being
placed on top of an existing wall. The city’s inspector stopped by the site
one day as he was unaware of a permit at the address and after learning
of an approved permit noticed the height of the fence under
construction. He called staff in the zoning department and confirmed that
the fence was taller than allowed. A stop work order was placed on the
job. Staff then visited the site and verified the conditions. During a
meeting with the applicant, staff informed the applicant that they could
not approve the desired design as constructed and that a variance would
be required.
Photos were presented of the fence as it stood to show the existing
condition. Height was discussed at various points along the fence.
It was clarified that miscommunication at the time of permitting is not
grounds to approve a variance as all building permit applications have a
line that states the construction will meet all codes.
Similar variance requests heard by the board were shown. This included
587 Beach Avenue where an increase in fence height was requested on an
oceanfront, beach access property that was denied. They were requesting
a lower height but didn’t have as much topographic change and the
access was wider. The second variance was 298 Pine Street. They were
also requesting an increase in fence height at a high traffic site near the
elementary school. They also did not have the topographic change and
were denied by the board and commission on appeal.
Mrs. Lanier asked staff about the fence on a retaining wall. Mr. Reeves
explained the difference between retaining walls and fences and
allowable height.
Applicant Comment
Eric Nottmeier and Tracy Synan, 1875 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL
32233, are the owners of the property. Mr. Nottmeier presented a brief
powerpoint presentation showing the built conditions of the property.
Page 7 of 10
During the presentation, numerous examples were given of stolen
property, drug use and other safety and security concerns.
Mr. Stratton asked if the new fence is the same height as the old. Mr.
Nottmeier said yes. Mr. Stratton then asked staff if they could have
replaced the fence piece by piece. Mr. Reeves responded that they could
replace planks but not posts, horizontal braces or entire panels without a
permit.
Discussion ensued about the conditions of the property, allowable height
relative to fences versus retaining walls and possible design solutions.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke in
favor of granting the variance.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore stated that he was aware of issues at beach accesses and that
he has no problem with the height especially with the topography. Mr.
Hansen stated that since the fence could have been replaced over time
utilizing the old structure if it weren’t for miscommunication that he is ok
with the new fence. Mrs. Simmons stated that there are significant
topographic issues related to the beach access and is willing to give this
variance consideration. Mr. Stratton drew more attention to the
topography issues. Mrs. Lanier stated that in her experience, this fence
does not create a tunnel effect that some fear.
Motion
Mr. Stratton motioned to approve the variance due to exceptional
topographic conditions of the property. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS. Mrs. Paul congratulated the members of the board that were reappointed for another term and brought to question the need to appoint a chair and vice chair. Mr. Elmore nominated Mrs. Paul for chair. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. It was decided that there was not a need for a vice chair.
Page 8 of 10
A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Update
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch explained that the City Commission has directed staff to go
forward with code changes based on what has come out of their own
discussions as well as the recommendations of the board. He noted that
the tree protection code is outside of Chapter 24 so procedurally any
changes do not have to be fully vetted by the board prior to commission
codifying any changes. The upcoming commission meeting will have the
first reading of the proposed code.
Mr. Stratton asked about what was going forward in regards to when a
permit is required. Mr. Hubsch stated that it will be tied to construction
within 24 months as recommended with an added feature to protect
special or “Legacy” trees. A “Legacy” tree is any tree on a special list that
is over 20 inches in diameter. The removal of one of these trees will
require a permit regardless of construction. The list was then presented.
It was also pointed out that there are benefits for planting “Legacy” tree
species when mitigating non-Legacy trees.
Mr. Elmore asked about other changes. Mr. Hubsch presented the
prohibited species list, recommended species lists including shade trees,
understory trees and palms. Recommended species would be those that
count for mitigation credit.
Mr. Hubsch stated that the city will be hosting a tree planting ceremony in
Howell Park on April 24th at 10 AM. Kids from Atlantic Beach Elementary
will be there as well as Mayor Woods and Commissioner Marks.
B. Reschedule of May 19, 2015 Meeting
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch informed the board that the next meeting on May 19th will
have to be rescheduled due to elections in Commission Chambers. He
stated that there were two options available. One option would be to
move the meeting to the North Conference Room which has limited
seating but could work. The second option is to reschedule.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore stated that he would prefer to have the meeting in Chambers.
Mr. Hubsch proposed a couple of dates. After some discussion the board
decided to move the meeting to May 26th.
Page 9 of 10
C. Community Development Board Member Expansion Discussion
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch notified the board that the City Commission is considering
increasing the number of members on the Community Development
Board to nine members from the current seven. This brought up by
Commissioner Hill whom is chair of the board appointment committee
and was part of the recent interviews of those wishing to be on the
Community Development Board. Commissioner Hill felt that there were a
number of qualified applicants and thought that it may be beneficial to
get them on the board. After discussion at the last Commission meeting it
was decided to consider adding two alternates instead of two full
members.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Paul stated that she asked Commissioner Hill at the appointment
interviews about how he would feel about even more people on the
commission and expressed her desire to stay at seven members. Mr.
Elmore added that he felt that there should be some consistency for all
boards in the city and that this increased demand to be on this board is
due to recent hot button issues and that when things calm down again
that the city would likely have a hard time filling seats. Mr. Hubsch asked
if Mrs. Paul would like to represent the board and discuss this at the next
commission meeting. Mrs. Simmons added her concern about the
amount of discussion during topics and how much worse that would be
with two more.
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to recommend to the City Commission that the
number of board members be kept at seven. Mrs. Lanier seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to general public comment.
Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is opposed to the tree ordinance changes because it puts unnecessary
burdens on residents.
Mr. Hansen notified the board of a quasi judicial meeting at 5 PM on April
22 for an appeal of a decision made by the board a few years ago that is
returning to be reheard by the City Commission. Mr. Elmore asked for
more detail. Mr. Hansen stated that this was variance denied by the board
and by the City Commission on appeal. A higher court sent the appeal
Page 10 of 10
back to commission because there were procedural errors where the
commission had information not available to the board.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO 15-ZVAR-1035
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for relief from the Section 24-
88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach
Subdivision “A” south half of Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd).
LOCATION 88 OCEAN BLVD
APPLICANT DR. DAVID DOWARD
DATE MAY 21, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, ZONING TECHNICIAN
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant, Dr. David Doward, is the owner of 88 Ocean Boulevard. The property is a three story townhouse where each half of the building and land is owned by separate people. The building was constructed in 2006 with a flat roof and stucco siding on both units that were mirror images of each other and connected by a concrete block wall down the middle of the building. Dr. Doward would like to replace the siding with horizontal lap siding while making some minor architectural changes on his portion of the building. A variance is needed because Section 24-88(b) states that, “adjoining two-family or townhouse dwelling units shall be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials.” The proposed changes will result in different exterior materials and architectural style from the original construction and what exists on the adjoining unit, which is in its original condition. The reason for the requested variance requires a little history. Dr. Doward bought his unit in 2013 knowing that there were documented stucco failures. Dr. Doward hired a contractor to make repairs when it was discovered that the water intrusion issues were worse than they thought. The contractor began to replace the stucco with new stucco as permitted. Prior to completion, the building was still facing water issues and Dr. Doward hired a new contractor and an engineer. The engineer recommended building a drainage system behind the siding. An architect designed a system that would allow water to pass behind the exterior finish but elected to go with horizontal lap siding after the original failure of the stucco and the subsequent failure of the second attempt of using stucco. Due to issues with permitting and the change of contractor, the horizontal lap siding was not approved by the city and a stop work order was placed on the property after work had started. This led to the variance application. The city’s Building Official, Dan Arlington, has stated that stucco is an approved building material and does not believe that the design of the structure prohibits its use. He added that a properly designed drainage system behind the siding could work for any accepted siding material. It is expected that the adjoining unit has similar issues that will have to be addressed at some point, but it is unknown when or how they will make the necessary repairs.
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and
shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance
and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall
mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as
expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a
relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance
with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as
set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
In their application, the applicant has identified the condition of the structure and the need to make
repairs resulting from construction defects that other properties in the area do not have to resolve.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
In their application, the applicant stated that the continual issues resulting from stucco siding has
prevented the completion of their home and subsequently the ability for them to move in and live in the
home they bought two years ago.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property.
Page 3 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of 15-ZVAR-1035, request
for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoin townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” south half of
Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described above.
A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the community development board, for the following
reasons:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
of the property. Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of 15-ZVAR-1035, request for
relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoin townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” south half of
Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a
variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is
consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described
below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the
granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the
following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO 15-ZVAR-1036
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a reduction in side yard
setback from 15 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet on the east
side at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” west half of Lot 10, Lot 12 Block 2 (aka 331
Ahern St).
LOCATION 331 AHERN STREET
APPLICANT 331 AHERN LLC
DATE MAY 21, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, ZONING TECHNICIAN
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant, 331 Ahern LLC is the owner of 331 Ahern Street and is represented by Alex Sifakis. The property is a 75 foot by 130 foot vacant lot with an easement along the western side for access to the neighboring development. The applicant would like to build a three unit townhouse building on the portion of the property not covered by the easement with a 7.5 side yard setback from the eastern property line. The property is zoned Residential General, Multi-Family (RG-M) and has a future land use of Residential Medium (RM) which allows up to 14 units per acre. Based on these designations, a three unit multi-family structure is allowed on this property provided that it meets all other restrictions including setbacks. A variance is needed for the proposed development because Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) requires that multi-family dwellings have a 15 foot side yard setback on each side instead of the proposed 7.5 feet from the eastern property line. The applicant has noted that they will provide at least 15 feet on the western side due to the easement that is limiting the developable area of the lot and is the main reason that a variance is requested. A 7.5 foot side yard setback is the required side yard setback for two-family dwellings within the RG-M zoning district. The applicants are pointing to their plan to develop the property as three townhomes where the impact on the neighbor to the east would be no different than that of a two townhome project because they would only have one neighbor. There is some legitimate discussion to be had on this topic. Section 24-108(f) references two-family dwellings or two-unit townhouse together for minimum lot size but Section 24-108(e) references two-family dwellings and townhouse together without the two-unit descriptive for side yard setbacks. The definition of townhouse states that it is a building with 2 or more units. This raises the question of whether or not a 3 unit townhouse building is multi-family or is townhouses an independent classification. The applicants are aware of the Old Atlantic Beach Design Standards and plan to meet them. They are also aware of the requirements of Section 24-161(j) that require 3 parking spaces per unit for multi-family developments east of Seminole Road
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and
shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance
and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall
mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as
expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a
relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance
with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as
set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
The applicant stated in their application that the property has a large easement on the western side of the
lot with a driveway, fence and lift station that are part of the condo development to the west which limits
the developable area of the property.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property.
Page 3 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of 15-ZVAR-1036, request
for a reduction in side yard setback from 15 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet on the east
side at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” west half of Lot 10, Lot 12 Block 2 (aka 331 Ahern St), upon finding this
request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64,
specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described above.
A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the community development board, for the following
reasons:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
of the property.
Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of 15-ZVAR-1036, request for
relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for a reduction in side yard setback from 15 feet as required by
Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet on the east side at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” west half of Lot 10, Lot 12
Block 2 (aka 331 Ahern St), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance,
or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is consistent with
one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the
granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the
following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.C
CASE NO 15-UBEX-1037
Request for an expansion of an existing use-by-exception as permitted by Section
24-111(c)(5), to allow limited wholesale operations at 1175 Atlantic Blvd.
LOCATION 1175 ATLANTIC BLVD
APPLICANT ATLANTIC BEACH URBAN FARMS
DATE MAY 21, 2015
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Atlantic Beach Urban Farms. They were originally approved for a use-by-exception to allow
wholesale operations in the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on August 11, 2014. This is a new company
utilizing innovative techniques to grow produce inside a greenhouse for retail and wholesale sales. The applicants
were originally required to obtain a Use-By-Exception per Section 24-111 (c) (5), which says one is needed by,
“Limited wholesale operations, not involving industrial products or processes or the manufacturing of products of
any kind.”
The applicants are now seeking to expand their originally approved use-by-exception to include a “grow container
research facility and market”. Section 24-63 (g) states, “Any use-by-exception granted by the city commission shall
permit only the specific use or uses described in the application as may be limited or restricted by the terms and
provisions of the 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.” Based on that code provision, the
applicants are required to seek approval for the expansion of their use.
The site was previously a carpet business located on three separate, partially wooded lots. All existing structures
have been demolished and the site has been cleared and prepped for new construction. The applicants originally
proposed a 7,000 square foot greenhouse and a smaller packing and distribution building. They are now planning
a 5,166 square foot greenhouse and 2,520 sf. “farmhouse growing distribution building”, as well as a 2,520 sf.
“grow container research facility and market”. The applicants intend to use decommissioned shipping containers
for this use. They plan to use them as a “research facility to explore the future of in-door growing environments for
education and commercial growing”. The new research facility constitutes an expansion of the originally approved
use-by-exception and therefore needs to be approved through the use-by-exception process.
The site is located on Atlantic Boulevard making it subject to the Commercial Corridor Development Standards in
Section 24-171. The applicants are working through some design options for the structures at the site and plan to
show the Community Development Board renderings at the June 2nd meeting to ensure they meet the standards
The applicants will also be required to submit commercial plans to the city that are required to meet all city, state,
and federal codes shall the project be approved.
Page 2 of 2
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval to the City
Commission of a requested Use-by-Exception (File No. 15-UBEX-1037) to permit an expansion of
an existing use-by-exception for limited wholesale operations within the Commercial General
(CG) Zoning District and located at 1175 Atlantic Boulevard provided:
1. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-63,
Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
3. The requested use is consistent with Section 24-111(c) in that the proposed use is found to be
consistent with the uses permitted in the CG zoning districts with respect to intensity of use,
traffic impacts and compatibility with existing commercial uses and any nearby residential uses.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial to the City
Commission of a requested Use-by-Exception (File No. 15-UBEX-1037) to permit an expansion of
an existing use-by-exception for limited wholesale operations within the Commercial General
(CG) Zoning District and located at 1175 Atlantic Boulevard provided
1. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is not in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-63,
Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
3. The requested use is not consistent with Section 24-111(c) in that the proposed use is found to
be inconsistent with the uses permitted in the CG zoning districts with respect to intensity of
use, traffic impacts and compatibility with existing commercial uses and any nearby residential
uses.