7-21-15 Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / July 21, 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 June 2, 2015 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old 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).
4. New Business.
A. 15-UBEX-1042 (PUBLIC HEARING) (28 Sherry)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-111(c)(3), to permit on-premises
consumption of alcoholic beverages within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 28
Sherry Drive.
B. 15-UBEX-1043 (PUBLIC HEARING) (John Green DVM)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-111(c)(2), to permit a veterinary clinic
within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 725 Atlantic Boulevard, Unit 1.
5. Reports.
A. Maintenance Bond Code Change Discussion.
B. Commercial Buffer Code Change
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 to 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 7
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
June 2, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Parkes, Mr. Elmore
and Mr. Stratton. 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 April 21, 2015
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes of the April 21st meeting.
Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
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)
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and gave a background on the property.
The proposed plan is to change the stucco siding to horizontal lap siding
while making minor architectural changes to the balconies, columns and
garage door. A variance is needed because of Section 24-88(b) which
requires adjoining duplex or townhouse units to be substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials. The change in materials for the
Page 2 of 7
siding is the main item of concern. A large reason for the requested
variance is because the original construction with stucco had significant
issues with water and a subsequent attempt to repair the stucco failed.
After hiring new contractors and experts, it was recommended to start all
over with new siding over a drainage plain. Staff pointed out that stucco
was never attempted on the new design and that the city’s Building
Official has stated that stucco is an accepted building material and saw no
reason that it would not work, especially on the drainage plain.
There are a couple of reasons that the city has a code provision like this.
The more obvious reason is to preserve the aesthetics of the community.
The second is to ensure the individual owners that there neighbor will
have to maintain their portion to similar standard.
Mrs. Simmons, asked what staff’s views were towards the grounds for
approval that the applicants identified. Mr. Reeves responded that based
on the Building Official’s comments that stucco is a viable building
material and especially with a drainage plain, then neither point really
poses a unique hardship.
Applicant Comment
Catherine Duncan, 1922 Felch Ave, Jacksonville, FL 32207, presented
herself as the architect on the project. While going through a
presentation, photos were shown of the extent of damage as a result of
water intrusion. Based on the damage, all of the stucco was removed.
After a failed attempt to apply new stucco, the owner hired an engineer
that specializes waterproofing that recommended using the drainage
plain. With the drainage plain, it was decided to not install stucco again. It
was pointed out that horizontal lap siding is consistently used on
surrounding properties and that landscaping would block a lot of the
siding.
Ken Laefgren, 2558 Huntington Way, Orange Park, FL 32073, presented
himself as the waterproofing engineer on the project. He spoke to the
issues involved with stucco construction.
Dr. David Doward, 185 8th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced
himself as the owner of the property. He spoke about the history and
timeline to this point on the property. He also provided letters of support
from residents of the city.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Ron Boarders, 96 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced
himself as a neighbor to the north and that he is opposed to the use of
Page 3 of 7
different materials in this case. He stated that in his experience, stucco
works and that the time this has taken is immense.
Saswata Roy, 90 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced himself
as the owner of the adjoining townhouse. He stated that there should
have been more due diligence done by the owner in all aspects and that
he is frustrated by the amount of time construction has gone on. He
commented on the fact that his unit had similar issues that were repaired
without the extensive work. He also stated that he is not opposed to the
different material if that is what is required to make the repairs but that it
should still match style and color wise.
Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke
about his concerns related to the project.
Chris Iseley, 1400 Prudential Dr, Ste 5, Jacksonville, FL 32207, presented
himself as the attorney for Dr. Doward, the owner of the property. He
spoke to some of the concerns mentioned by the public and noted that
the biggest issue seems to be getting the project done.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Lanier asked staff for clarity in the permitting problems. Mr. Reeves
stated that the project began with one contractor that pulled two
permits, one for an interior remodel and one for siding. When the
contractor and Dr. Doward separated, the contractor notified the city that
he was no longer on those permits which basically canceled the permits.
The new contractor pulled a new interior remodel permit but not a siding
permit. It is unclear why, but staff never gave permission to install
horizontal lap siding. Mrs. Duncan stated that she had brought new
signed and sealed plans for permitting but was told at the front desk of
the building permit that the new drawings were not nedded. Mrs. Lanier
asked if work had started prior to the attempt to bring in new plans. Mrs.
Duncan said that it had not. Mrs. Simmons asked that if it was accurate
that while the front desk did say that the new plans were not necessary, it
was the applicant’s responsibility to inform staff that the plans had
changed between contractors. Mr. Reeves confirmed that.
Mrs. Simmons noted the consistency of lap siding in the area but
expressed concerns with the architectural styles. Mrs. Duncan explained
the architectural changes. Mrs. Simmons stated that the city cannot rely
on future residents to maintain landscaping and it is the architectural
changes that make the variance harder to approve.
Mrs. Paul asked staff if this code would apply to row houses where there
are more than two units connected. Mr. Hubsch stated that it would as
Page 4 of 7
they would be classified as townhouses. Mrs. Lanier asked for the
definition of a townhouse. Mr. Hubsch stated that a townhouse is defined
as a residential dwelling unit constructed in a group of two (2) or more
attached units with ownership lines separating each dwelling unit
through a common wall(s) and where ownership of each dwelling unit is
held in fee-simple title for property as defined by a metes and bounds or
other valid legal description.
Mr. Hansen stated that he sympathizes with the applicant, but does not
see how this qualifies for a variance. Mrs. Simmons expressed similar
thoughts.
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to deny the request for a variance.
Mr. Iseley asked to withdraw the application so that they could reconsider
aspects of the plan. Mrs. Paul accepted the request to withdraw the
application and closed the hearing.
B. 15-ZVAR -1036 (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)
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and the proposed plan that calls for a 3
unit townhouse to be constructed 7.5 feet from the eastern property line.
It was stated that the property was vacant with the exception of an
easement on the western side of the property that contained a driveway
and lift station related to the condos to the west. Mrs. Simmons asked
how that came to be. Mr. Reeves responded that it both properties were
at one time under the same ownership and this property was sold off
with the easement. Mrs. Lanier asked how much of the property is
occupied by the easement. Referencing an image on the slide, Mr. Reeves
showed that through most of the property the easement is about 20 feet
while it is about 25 feet closer to the street. Mrs. Lanier asked if the
owners bought the property with the easement in place. Mr. Reeves
confirmed that they did.
Mr. Reeves then showed the buildable area that would be about 48 feet b
90 feet resulting in units 16 to 17 feet wide. The design would have to
meet the Old Atlantic Beach Design Standards.
Page 5 of 7
A variance is needed because multi-family structures require a 15 foot
side yard setback while they would like a 7.5 foot side yard.
There is a concern that a three story structure could be that much closer
to the neighbor to the east. There is also some concerns about tree loss.
On the other side, if this were a two unit townhouse, it would have a 7.5
foot side yard setback. It is the multi-family designation that requires the
increased side yard. This is of note because under either plan, you have
one unit at the end of the building next to the property line.
Applicant Comment
Lisandro Rosales, 7563 Phillips Hwy Ste 109, Jacksonville, FL 32256,
introduced himself to represent the project. He stated that they are
asking for the variance due to the easement and that the difference
between a two unit and three unit structures would be no different to the
neighboring property.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Melissa Nelson, 352 7th St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced herself as
the developer of the condos to the west of the site and stated this would
have a significant impact on the neighbor to the east and would be too
much for the area.
Jenni Edwards, 335 Ahern St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that she is
the owner of an adjacent condo unit and that she was not in favor the
project because the area is already crowded.
At this point, the applicant asked to defer the item so that they could
reconsider their plans. Mrs. Paul accepted the request to defer.
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 permit limited wholesale
operations at 1175 Atlantic Blvd.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and gave background information on the
project. Where the project originally called for growing their product
within a green house, they are now exploring the possibility of doing
some grow operations within shipping containers.
There is another question about the type of material that they can use on
the green house structure. Some of the material that they are considering
Page 6 of 7
is not clearly allowed or prohibited by the Commercial Corridor Standards
and they, along with staff, would like an interpretation from the board.
The main reason for tonight’s meeting is because the use of shipping
containers is an expansion of their previously approved use-by-exception.
Anytime an expansion of use occurs, it must be approved. If
recommended for approval by the board, staff recommends adding a
condition related to the exterior design of the shipping containers.
Examples of buildings constructed with shipping containers were shown.
The topics to be discussed when considering a use-by-exception were
reviewed and noted that most of the issues had been vetted in their
initial use-by-exception approval and that now they must focus on the
impacts of the new facility.
Applicant Comment
Susan King, 1993 Colina Ct, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced herself
as a partner in the business and explained the concept of the business
today and the reason for the changes to shipping containers.
Tracey Westbrook, 1560 Selva Marina Dr, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233,
introduced herself as a partner in the business and explained that the
research element of the shipping containers isn’t about the ability to
grow in them because that is proven. It’s more about showcasing the
research to food pantries and schools to show them the possibilities and
help them acquire their own shipping container system. She noted that
construction of the facilities would not take place on site.
Steve Cissel, 1175 Atlantic Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced
himself the developer, architect and general contractor for the project
and covered the building materials to be used on the site. In addressing
the materials for the green house, he presented samples of different
polycarbonate materials with different shapes and colors that could be
used as siding.
Mrs. Lanier declared ex parte communication with Tracey Westbrook.
Mrs. Simmons asked for clarity on what decision they were making. Mr.
Hubsch explained the reason for discussing the materials was to get an
interpretation from the board since the materials were not specifically
allowed or prohibited by the Commercial Corridor Design Standards. Mrs.
Paul stated that it is essentially flat panels versus corrugated panels. Mr.
Cissel stated that the flat will be used on front of the building but they
would like clarity on what’s allowed on the rest of the building.
Mrs. Simmons expressed her concerns about trying to improve the
commercial corridors and the impact that this will have. Mrs. Paul stated
that the buildings on both sides of this one are all corrugated metal.
Page 7 of 7
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 the project.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Lanier stated that she is even more in favor of the project now with
the use of innovative materials.
Motion
Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the use of the corrugated polycarbonate
on the greenhouse and approve the use of the shipping containers for the
expansion of the use. Mr. Hansen asked to amend the motion to
recommend approval of the use of shipping containers and to add a
condition that staff, with the applicants and City Commission establish
design standards for the shipping containers. Mrs. Lanier accepted the
amendment. Mrs. Simmons seconded the amended motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS.
A. Reschedule of the June 16, 2015 Meeting
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch explained that due to the short time between meetings, the
board may want to push the meeting out to another date. It was decided
that Mr. Hubsch would contact the missing members to get a decision.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Lanier seconded the
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 3.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 JULY 13, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, PLANNER
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 4
Update
In response to comments from the public and the board at the June 2nd, 2015 meeting, the applicants have
altered their design and provided additional information. The design will now keep the original
construction garage door and paint the new columns on the balconies to match the siding. When compared
to the neighboring unit, the only differences other than the siding material will be the narrower columns
and lack of an arch above the second floor balcony. They have also provided copies of the report on the
condition of the house and the building plans.
While the differences in architectural style have been minimized in the new design, the main issue of the
different siding material still requires the variance to be approved.
Page 3 of 4
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 4 of 4
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.A
CASE NO 15‐UBEX‐1042
Request for use‐by‐exception as permitted by Section 24‐111 (c)(3), to permit on‐
premises consumption of alcoholic beverages within the Commercial General (CG)
Zoning District at 28 Sherry Drive.
LOCATION 28 SHERRY DRIVE
APPLICANT The Color Black LLC dba 28 Sherry
DATE July 9, 2015
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicants have recently acquired the Palms Hotel at 28 Sherry Drive. The property is zoned Commercial
General (CG) which allows hotels. They intend to make renovations and convert it to a boutique hotel. One
component of their renovation plans is to improve the interior courtyard area and convert it into an outdoor
lounge, where they plan to serve beer and wine to guests. The current courtyard has tables and is an area
where guests can conceivably drink beer and wine they purchased off site. The applicants would like to be able
to serve beer and wine as a service to guests. Renderings of their proposed design can be found in the agenda
package.
The applicants are required to get a use‐by‐exception for alcohol sales according to Sections 3‐5 and 24‐111 (c)
(3). Section 3‐5 states, “The sale of any alcoholic beverages for on‐premise consumption, including beer, wine
and liquor shall be properly licensed by the City of Atlantic Beach, and shall be limited only to restaurants,
cafes, bars and private clubs within commercial general and commercial limited zoning districts or the central
business district in compliance with chapter 24 of the city code and subject to approval of a use‐by‐exception in
accordance with section 24‐63.” The City Code has several regulations specific to alcohol sales. Section 3‐2
states that no sales or service shall occur between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Section 3‐7 states that
businesses that sell alcohol shall maintain sufficient lighting for safety purposes. Section 3‐8 states that alcohol
consumption can only occur inside a building, within a recreation area, or within an outdoor seating or dining
area.
The hotel is currently limited in the amount of parking spaces it can provide on‐site. According to the
applicants, there are overflow parking arrangements with the adjacent Berkshire Hathaway and the
Presbyterian Church. The parking provided on site is generally sufficient for hotel guests, but not for potential
visitors of the proposed lounge. At this time the applicants have not indicated a desire to serve outside visitors.
However, staff recommends a condition that a formal shared parking agreement be submitted to the city if the
applicants intend to serve alcohol to visitors that are not staying at the hotel. Section 24‐161 (f) (2) allows a
Page 2 of 4
shared parking agreement so long as the parking is within 400 feet, which both Berkshire Hathaway and the
Presbyterian Church are able to meet.
Additionally, due to the proximity to residential neighborhoods and a church, the city may consider placing
conditions on hours of alcohol sales and noise levels. There is one code provision which limits noise in
proximity to churches. Section 11.2 (g) states, “no person, whole on public or private grounds adjacent to any
building in which a school, church, or medical facility is in session or use, shall willfully make or assist in the
making of any noise which disturbs the peace or good order of such activity occurring within the building.”
This section provides the ability for the city to regulate any potential noise issues with the adjacent church.
Figure 1. Current Palms Hotel. View looking west from Sherry Drive.
Page 3 of 4
Figure 2. 28 Sherry aerial photo
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‐1042) to permit on‐premises
consumption of alcoholic beverages within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and
located at 28 Sherry Drive 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 district with respect to intensity of use,
traffic impacts and compatibility with existing industrial uses, commercial uses and any nearby
residential uses.
Possible Conditions:
Requiring an amended use‐by‐exception if the applicants ever seek to allow outside visitors
to use the outdoor lounge.
Consideration of conditions related to hours of sales and noise levels.
Page 4 of 4
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
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‐1042) to permit on‐premises
consumption of alcoholic beverages within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and
located at 28 Sherry Drive 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 industrial uses, commercial uses and any
nearby residential uses.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO 15‐UBEX‐1043
Request for use‐by‐exception as permitted by Section 24‐111 (c)(2), to permit a
veterinary clinic within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 725 Atlantic
Boulevard, Unit 1.
LOCATION 725 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD, UNIT 1
APPLICANT John Green DVM
DATE July 9, 2015
STAFF DEREK W REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Dr. John Green, the owner and operator of an existing veterinary clinic at 519 Atlantic
Boulevard in Atlantic Beach. Services cover all things healthcare for household pets, but do not offer over night
or long term boarding of animals. The applicant is required to obtain a Use‐By‐Exception per Section 24‐
111(c)(2), which states one is needed for, “veterinary clinics” within the Commercial General zoning district.
The site is located at the end of an existing commercial strip center within the Commercial General zoning
district. Within the strip center there is a nail and spa place to the west and warehouse uses to the north. The
south side is the storefront for the clinic and the east wall is the exterior of the building. Immediate neighbors
to the strip center are other commercial uses to the south, east and west. To the north and north east is some
multi‐family residential and beyond that is some single family residential within 300 feet. Ample parking is
provided for the entire shopping center. Construction on the property would be limited to an interior build out
and new signage. The interior build out will attempt to limit noise by strategically locating cages, using
insulated sliding glass doors and floor to ceiling sound proofing in the walls. The applicant, in conjunction with
the property owner, has agreed to place waste bags and baskets outside the unit for customers use. The
applicant will maintain the waste baskets while also hosing off sidewalks as necessary.
Based on the location relative to residential and the lack of overnight boarding of animals, staff expects little to
no negative impacts as a result of this business. Due to the close proximity to public right‐of‐ways and the
shared nature of the shopping center, it is recommended to add a requirement for waste bags and baskets as a
condition of approval. It is also recommended to add a requirement for sound proofing to be installed between
this unit of the shopping center and its immediate neighbors as a condition of approval. While these solutions
are offered by the applicant they would not be required unless added as a condition.
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‐1043) to permit a veterinary
clinic within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 725 Atlantic
Boulevard, Unit 1 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 district with respect to intensity of use,
traffic impacts and compatibility with existing industrial uses, commercial uses and any nearby
residential uses.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
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‐1043) to permit a veterinary
clinic within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 725 Atlantic
Boulevard, Unit 1 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 industrial uses, commercial uses and any
nearby residential uses.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Maintenance Bond Code
SUBMITTED BY: Jeremy Hubsch
Building and Zoning Director
DATE: May 12, 2015
BACKGROUND:
Whenever the City accepts public improvements in a subdivision, Section 24-233 requires a
maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of improvements. The maintenance bond is to cover the
cost of accepted improvements for a year. It essentially acts as an insurance policy for the City
shall any construction defaults occur.
It has come to the City’s attention during recent developments that requiring a 100%
maintenance bond is not in line with many other municipalities. Currently, Atlantic Beach and
Jacksonville Beach are the only municipalities that require the full 100%. Neptune Beach, St.
Johns County, Nassau County, and Flagler County only require 15% of the cost of
improvements. Clay County and Flagler County require 10%. The City of Jacksonville is
negotiable.
Public Works Director Doug Layton believes that 15% is sufficient to cover the improvements
that the city accepts. The city reviews plans and conducts inspections on work that is accepted.
Mr. Layton believes it is unlikely that if there are constructions defects or issues, they will cost
the full 100% of the entire project to repair. Staff would like the Commission to consider
whether or not to keep the maintenance bond requirements at 100% or reduce it to 15%.
BUDGET: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Reduce maintenance bond requirements in Section 24-233 from 100% to
15%
ATTACHMENTS: None
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
_____________________________________________________