8-18 Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / August 18, 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 July 21, 2015 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 15-ZVAR-1048 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Candace Mette)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a reduction in the front yard setback
from 20 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(1) to 14 feet for a 5 by 10 screen porch addition;
and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to
be constructed at substantially the same time at Francis Cove Three Lot 8 (Except Part of
Recorded O/R 12596-2262) (aka 1845 Forsyth Court).
B. 15-ZVAR-1049 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Ellen Glasser)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-88(b and c)
requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials; and same time at North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3,
North 2.5 feet of Lot 72A and South 25 feet of Lot 73A (aka 2060 Beach Avenue).
C. 15-ZVAR-1050 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Joseph and Jennifer Indriolo)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a reduction in the percentage decrease
in height from the percentage of lot area less than 5,000 as required by Section 24-82(c) to allow
a 32.5 foot tall house at Daniel and Hackett Replat Block 16 Atlantic Beach, West Half of Lot 4
(aka 645 Ocean Boulevard).
5. Reports.
A. Commercial Buffer Code Discussion.
B. Density Bonus Discussion.
6. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review online at www.coab.us
and at the City of Atlantic Beach Building and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic
Beach, Florida 32233. 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. Please note that all meetings are live streamed
and videotaped. The video is available at www.coab.us.
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 11
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 21, 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 and Mr.
Stratton. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch;
Planner, Derek Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley &
Garrison, P.A. was Mr. Rob Bradley.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of June 2, 2015
Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the June 2nd meeting.
Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
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).
Mrs. Paul motioned to take item 3.A out of order and start with item 4.A
citing the complex nature of item 3.A and the desire to have the City
Attorney present whom was running late. Mr. Elmore seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 2 of 11
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 15-UBEX-1042 (PUBLIC HEARING)
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.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item as a use-by-exception to allow the sales
of alcoholic beverages at a hotel for on-site consumption. A zoning map
was presented showing the surrounding zoning districts. Pictures were
then shown of the hotel and the surrounding area. Mr. Hubsch then
explained the proposed remodeling of the hotel including the addition of
covered seating and a fire pit within the courtyard of the hotel with the
help of renderings. He showed where one of the existing rooms would be
converted to an office/lounge area where beer and wine would be sold
from. The overall number of rooms would remain at 10 after other
renovations.
Mr. Hubsch then reviewed various city codes regulating alcohol sales
including the requirement for a use-by-exception when not in conjunction
with a restaurant. Additionally, alcohol sales are prohibited between 2
and 7 AM, sufficient lighting must be provided and that sales and
consumption can only occur inside a building or in an outdoor seating
area.
Mr. Hubsch addressed the possible concerns if the use-by-exception were
approved. The site does not have any additional parking beyond those
required for guests, which could be a problem if the lounge became a
popular spot. As a result, the city may want to restrict sales in a way that
limits the number of patrons at the lounge. Additionally, there is a church
and residential nearby and the city may want to further restrict hours of
sales.
Mr. Elmore asked if One Ocean or other hotels did or would have to get
similar approval. Mr. Hubsch stated that all hotels would with exceptions
for those with a full restaurant, which would already be allowed for beer
and wine. Mr. Elmore then asked if the neighboring church had
approached the city with any concerns. Mr. Hubsch responded that he
had not heard from them at this point.
Applicant Comment
Greg Schwartzenberger, 428 Lora St, Neptune Beach, FL 32266,
introduced himself as an owner of the hotel. He clarified that they will
only sell beer and wine focusing on local beers that is really meant to be
Page 3 of 11
an added amenity for guests only. He added that they do have a working
relationship with the church in the form of overflow parking as well as a
similar agreement with the nearby real estate office. He stated that at
100% occupancy they would have between 22 and 30 guests. Mrs.
Simmons asked how the alcohol sales would be limited to guests since it
is intended as an amenity to them and not the general public. Mr.
Schwartzenberger responded that they are working on ways to link sales
to a room key or room tab. Mr. Elmore asked if they were open to
restricting hours of sale. Mr. Schwartzenberger stated that they have a
courtyard quiet time at 11 PM and would likely stop sales at that point on
weekends and possibly at 9 or 10 on weekdays. Mrs. Lanier asked about
any other changes to hotel. Mr. Schwartzenberger answered that they
would be updating the décor, while keeping with the charm of the area,
but not making visible changes from the outside with the exception of the
covered seating area.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Lorrie Pardee, 393 Ahern St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced himself
as a neighbor to the east and expressed her concern about traffic issues
and questioned the off-site parking agreements especially if the business
were to grow.
Marlina Vincent, 1130 Seminole Rd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed
her concerns related to pedestrians and especially children at the near-by
school and church and impacts from future growth of the business.
Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that,
historically, this area has always had heavy traffic.
Marcy Ashby, 133 Pine St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, asked if there is a
distance requirement for alcohol sales from churches or schools. Mr.
Hubsch replied that the city has no such requirement. She also asked
about any rules against children being present in the hotel with alcohol
sales. Mr. Hubsch again replied there were none.
Mr. Hubsch stated that conditions can be placed on the use-by-exception
to address the concerns of the public if the board feels necessary.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore stated that he felt based on the building design and the
owners desire to limit sales to guests that he feels the use will be fine and
that traffic should not be impacted. Mrs. Lanier stated that she likes the
plan and feels that appropriate conditions would be acceptable. Mrs.
Simmons stated that she sees a requirement for conditions related to the
Page 4 of 11
number of people allowed with concerns about parking especially. Mr.
Hansen agreed with a need to condition the number of people allowed.
Mr. Elmore stated that the Fire Marshall will limit the number of people.
Mr. Hansen also stated that he was in favor of limiting hours. Mr. Elmore
asked for the makeup of the 10 rooms. Mr. Schwartzenberger stated that
they have a collection of single kings, single queens and double queens.
Mr. Elmore then asked there were roll away beds available. Mr.
Schwartzenberger replied that they did not. Mr. Elmore then asked if 50
people would be a fair number. Mrs. Paul stated that she also felt that the
Fire Marshall could regulate it. Mrs. Lanier asked how staff would verify
the number of people. Mr. Hubsch stated that it would be largely based
on complaints.
Mr. Hansen asked what the applicant would say is a reasonable number
of people to allow. Mr. Schwartzenberger said that the 30 to 35 would be
acceptable. Mrs. Simmons asked if parking would self regulate itself with
regards to the number of people as people would have no where to park.
Mrs. Lanier agreed.
Mrs. Simmons proposed a limit of hours to 10 PM on weekdays and 11
PM on weekends. Mrs. Lanier agreed and asked the applicant if that was
acceptable. He replied that it was.
Mrs. Simmons asked if 35 people would be acceptable. Mrs. Lanier, Mr.
Hansen and Mrs. Paul said that it would.
Motion
Mrs. Simmons made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by-
exception to the City Commission with the following conditions: 1. That
the hours of sale be stopped at 10 PM Sunday through Thursday and at
11PM on Friday and Saturday. 2. That the maximum number of people in
the lounge area be limited to 35. 3. That the sales be limited to beer and
wine only. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
B. 15-UBEX-1043 (PUBLIC HEARING)
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.
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and explained that this is a use-by-
exception for a veterinary clinic within the Commercial General zoning
district. The surrounding uses are commercial with the exception of
residential use across Sailfish Drive to the northeast. The plan is too
Page 5 of 11
remodel the unit so that areas occupied by animals the most are located
along the exterior wall. They plan to utilize sliding glass doors and
insulation in the walls to reduce noise. They also plan to install pet waste
stations and a hose outside to help keep the area clean.
The primary reason that a veterinary clinic is a use-by-exception is due to
noise and odor impacts on surrounding properties. With use-by-
exceptions there are also general concerns with the intensity of the use,
traffic and compatibility with neighbors. In this case the use is less
intensive than most retail or restaurant uses with less traffic, especially
when considering this is in an existing building. There are some concerns
with compatibility and that is why the board may want to consider
making it a condition to install sound proofing on adjoining other units
and pet waste stations and a hose.
Mr. Elmore asked if there were other examples of veterinary clinics in
shopping centers in the area. Mr. Reeves pointed out that the applicant is
currently and has for years operated in a shopping center down the street
from this location. It was added that staff did look into code complaints at
the current location and did not find any.
Applicant Comment
Dr. John Green, 519 Atlantic Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, clarified that
they do not board animals but that they do perform surgeries that may
require a patient to stay overnight. Mr. Elmore asked how long the lease
for the property is. Dr. Green responded with 15 years. Mrs. Lanier asked
if they had any plans for the old seating area. Dr. Green said that they are
exploring a new material that is easy to clean and drain but haven’t
approached the city for approval yet.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Lorraine Smith, 112 Poinsettia St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that
she lives behind Dr. Green’s current location and has had no issues.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Hansen stated that has no problems with the business and is ready to
make a motion with the proposed conditions. Mrs. Lanier stated that she
felt the same.
Motion
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by-
exception to the City Commission with the following conditions: 1. That
the applicant install and maintain pet waste stations and a hose outside
Page 6 of 11
the business. 2. That the applicant install floor to ceiling sound proofing
between units within the shopping center. Mrs. Simmons seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Item 3.A. 15-ZVAR -1035 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and gave a background on the property
and reminded everyone that this is a continuation of the same item that
was differed from the June 2nd meeting. The proposed plan is to change
the stucco siding to horizontal lap siding while making minor architectural
changes to the balconies and columns. The applicant has changed the
garage door back to the original and is painting the columns to match the
siding in an updated design based on comments from the last meeting. 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 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.
Mr. Elmore asked about the issues related to permitting by the city. Mr.
Reeves explained that Dr. Doward hired a contractor to make repairs to
the property. That work was permitted but the repairs were not working.
Dr. Doward and the contractor separated and Dr. Doward hired a new
contractor. The first contractor removed notified the city that they were
no longer on the job which voided the permit. The new contractor came
into the city with new plans that had the horizontal lap siding. There was
some confusion at the permit desk where staff thought that they were
going to do the same work as the first contractor and that a review of the
new plans would not be necessary. The new contractor left and began
work thinking that they were put on the old permit as the contractor.
However, the old permit called for a like for like replacement of stucco
siding. Staff noticed the project under construction with the horizontal
lap siding and issued the Stop Work Order. Mr. Elmore stated that it
Page 7 of 11
seems as though the city made a mistake and the applicant acted on it in
good faith and that this is what the board is for. Mr. Hubsch stated that
contractors often meet with staff on projects to discuss all aspects and
make sure that their plans are ok. Simply speaking with clerical staff at
the front counter is the not the same level of precaution taken.
Mrs. Paul asked if the new contractor ever had a permit. Mr. Hubsch
responded that they did not. Mrs. Paul then clarified by asking if they had
any paperwork from the city giving them the ok. Mr. Reeves stated that
they did have a permit for the interior remodel on the property but not
one that covered siding.
Mr. Elmore asked how long the ordinance had been in effect. Mr. Reeves
stated that it has been in place since at least 2001. Mr. Elmore asked why
the code was created. Mr. Reeves responded that he did not know for
sure but believed that it was likely related to a corresponding down
zoning in the city where duplexes were no longer aloud where they were
before and this may have been an effort to remove them over time. Mr.
Elmore stated that this may be a case where codes are out of date.
Applicant Comment
Catherine Duncan, 1922 Felch Ave, Jacksonville, FL 32207, presented
herself as the architect on the project. A history of the property was
given. 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.
Ron Woods, 6260-D Dupont Station Ct, Jacksonville, FL 32213, introduced
himself as a consulting engineer focusing on stucco problems. A slide
show was shown featuring common stucco problems on wood frame
structures. He stated that stucco is an approved product but that it
requires a specific installation that is often not followed. He stated that he
would not recommend stucco siding in this case. Mrs. Lanier asked if the
3 story aspect is an issue. Mr. Woods responded that it is not.
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.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Page 8 of 11
Anjna Roy, 90 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced herself as
the owner of the adjoining townhouse. She stated that she and her
husband had nothing to do with Dr. Doward buying the property and that
her side had been repaired and that subsequent tests have assured them
that their side is good. She pointed out that everyone has said that stucco
is acceptable. She then referenced Section 24-64 that states variance
should not be granted for relief from situation that the property owner
has created.
Eric Miller, 2610 Horn St, Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250, introduced himself
as a realtor at the beaches and that he has seen people moving away
from stucco siding because of issues and that it has a lower value.
Ron Boarders, 96 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced
himself as a neighbor to the north and that he is concerned about the
sympathy for a contractor that takes the word of administrative staff and
that he is opposed to the use of different materials in this case. He stated
that in his experience, stucco works when installed correctly.
Jenni Edwards, 335 Ahern St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced herself
as nearby resident that lives in a 3 story stucco building that was built
around the same time and has had to make repairs to her property.
Brian Platock, 11640 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, spoke to the
aesthetic benefit of a mixture of siding materials.
Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke
about his concerns related to the project.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Paul pointed out that just because a sub contractor doesn’t know
how to install stucco properly does not excuse the general contractor
from making sure things are done right. Mr. Elmore stated that stucco is
clearly a product with issues and that Dr. Doward has gone to great
lengths to fix his problems. He added that he does not think that different
materials or architectural style would hurt anyone and that he was in
favor of the variance. Mrs. Lanier stated that she agrees and that we are
here because of a lack of effort. Mrs. Simmons reminded the board that
their job is to uphold the codes of the city and not to make decisions
what should be. Mrs. Simmons then stated that while there are still
material differences, the changes in architectural style from the previous
meeting result in a plan that is more consistent with the adjoining unit
and because of that she is inclined to grant the variance.
Mr. Elmore asked Mr. Arlington if a fire wall was required when the
structure was constructed. Mr. Arlington said that a 2 hour fire wall would
Page 9 of 11
be required and he believed it was a masonry wall in this case. Mrs.
Duncan confirmed that it is masonry. Mr. Elmore then stated that that
makes him feel better that Dr. Doward’s side could be secure despite
other possible issues with the building.
Mr. Hansen stated that he is concerned that if the variance is granted,
then they would be doing so based on feelings when they should be
upholding the current code. He added that maybe the code should be
changed but that needs to be done later. Mrs. Lanier said that she had
similar feelings but then focused on the word “substantially” and stated
that the design is substantially the same. Mrs. Paul responded by asking
what precedent that would set. Mr. Elmore stated that if another
property had similar issues then he would support that as well.
Motion
Mrs. Simmons made a motion to approve the variance finding that the
property presents exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable
use of the property as compared to other properties in the area with the
condition that that the completed construction be consistent with the
provided drawing that is known as Exhibit “A”. Mrs. Lanier seconded the
motion. The motion carried with a 3-2 vote with Mrs. Paul and Mr.
Hansen dissenting.
5. REPORTS.
A. Maintenance Bond Code Change Discussion.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch explained that under current code when a development
occurs that builds streets and utilities like water and sewer lines that are
turned over to the city that the city requires a one year maintenance
bond values at one hundred percent of the value of improvements. This
gives the city money to make any repairs during the first year. Comments
by recent projects have drawn attention to the burdensome requirement
that other cities don’t have. At this time, Jacksonville Beach is the only
other city to require a one hundred percent maintenance bond. Neptune
Beach, St Johns County and Nassau County require fifteen percent. Clay
County and Flagler County require ten percent. Public Works Director,
Doug Layton, believes that fifteen percent would be sufficient since the
city already does inspections as projects are built. It is also expected that
one hundred percent of a project would never fail as a result.
The proposed change would only require a minor change to Section 24-
233 to replace one hundred percent with fifteen percent.
Page 10 of 11
Mrs. Paul asked if the city requires projects to present video of their pipes
prior to accepting the utilities. Mr. Hubsch stated that is required. Mrs.
Simmons asked what the cost of one hundred percent would be. Mr.
Elmore stated that the Country Club project spent 12 to 14 million dollars
on their infrastructure. He continued to state that he believes 15 percent
is adequate when everything is inspected throughout the process. Mrs.
Paul asked if this is hurting development or if this would encourage new
development. Mr. Elmore stated that it probably isn’t at this point but
could be done.
Mr. Elmore made a motion that the board supports the Public Works
Director’s statement to reduce the Maintenance Bond from one hundred
percent to fifteen percent. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
B. Commercial Buffer Code Change.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch explained that the City Commission asked the board to review
the codes related to required buffers between incompatible uses. This
would include situations like residential next to commercial where uses
can have a negative impact on the neighbor. The code currently requires a
ten foot buffer strip between adjoining incompatible uses that are not
separated by an intervening street. Commission would like to focus on
the intervening street aspect as the city has multiple areas where
residential is directly across from commercial uses such as along Ahern
Street, Sturdivant Avenue and West 14th Street.
The code does require a landscape buffer of at least 10 square feet per
linear foot of parking area when that area is visible from the street. This
area is required to have one tree per 50 linear feet and shrubs along the
length of the area. Another concern with buffering from residential is
lighting. The code currently has provisions that state lighting should be
directed away from residential properties. The Commercial Corridor
Standards further add that lighting should not illuminate adjacent
properties or sky. However, this is not clearly defined and other cities do
have a defined measurement system to ensure this.
An existing example of what would be expected was shown. Mr. Elmore
commented on the benefit of having the trees but then pointed out the
issue with overhead power lines and how one code change could affect
another code. A negative example was shown where the building was
near the street and had no buffering.
Mr. Hubsch then presented some possible code changes. He started with
possibly eliminating curb cuts along residential streets for through lots
Page 11 of 11
that front on Atlantic Boulevard and Sturdivant Avenue for example. This
would help preserve the residential and pedestrian nature that these
streets have. Landscaping buffering could be increased so that a tree is
required every 25 feet, which would create a denser visual barrier.
Another change that could be added would be to require a lighting plan
demonstrating compliance with a set standard of light leaving a property.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Susanne Barker, 1938 Beachside Ct, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that
she had heard of a specific project that while she opposes the project in
general, she would support additional buffering.
Lorraine Smith, 112 Poinsettia St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that
she lives adjacent to one of these streets and that she is opposed to a
project that she also heard about due to safety and health concerns.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Paul asked staff if the city allowed 24 hour businesses. Mr. Elmore
stated that eliminating curb cuts would cause problems with traffic on
Atlantic Boulevard. Mr. Elmore then asked about fencing in conjunction
with landscaping and posed the idea of 6 or even 8 foot tall fencing. Mr.
Elmore then addressed concerns about lighting limits when businesses
are required to provide so much lighting for insurance. Mrs. Simmons
stated that these problems have existed on these streets for years and
have actually improved in recent years, but that there could be some
changes to the code so that as the area is redeveloped, the city can get a
better outcome.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A.
CASE NO 15-ZVAR-1048
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a reduction in the front
yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(1) to 14 feet for a 5 by
10 screen porch addition; and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for
adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same
time at Francis Cove Three Lot 8 (Except Part of Recorded Official Record 12596-
2262) (aka 1845 Forsyth Court).
LOCATION 1845 FORSYTH COURT
APPLICANT CANDACE METTE
DATE AUGUST 6, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Candace Mette, the owner of 1845 Forsyth Court. The property is part of a two unit townhouse in an “L” formation in the Residential General Multi-Family (RG-M) zoning district. The current structure violates the front yard setback by 0.6 feet. The property was developed in the mid 2000s as part of the Francis Cove III Beaches Habitat project. The applicant would like to build a 5 foot by 10 foot screen porch in their front yard over an existing patio that would be approximately 14 feet from the property line.
A variance is required under two code provisions for the proposed plan. The first code requiring a variance is the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time. This addition is occurring 10 years after the original construction. The second
Page 2 of 4
code provision requiring a variance is Section 24-108(e)(1) which requires a 20 foot setback between the front property line and the house. If the project were not screened but instead an open porch, the applicant could have asked for a variance from Section 24-83(b) that allows open porches to project 4 feet into the front yard. This would mean that only a two foot variance would be required. However, the applicant wants a screen porch for protection from insects. It is important to note that the same code provision also allows screen porches to project 4 feet into the rear yard. This house is a little unique in that what is the front yard by code (the side abutting the street) is functionally a side or rear yard. Due to the “L” shape of the lot (see survey below), the developers placed the functional front door and driveway of a standard floor plan townhouse unit in the east side yard. A sliding glass door that would typically be located to access the rear yard was moved to access the front yard. While the city does not specify door or driveway location on a home, this project would not have been approved today based on the lot shape and specified setbacks.
Front Door
Front Door
Adjoining Unit
Front Yard Build Site
Property Line
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.
(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.
The applicant stated in their application that the house sits sideways on the property resulting in the side
yard of their house being considered the front. The applicant also pointed out that the house currently sits
about 30 feet from the edge of pavement on Forsyth Court.
(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 approve 15-ZVAR-1048, request for a reduction
in the front yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(1) to 14 feet for a 5 by 10 screen porch
addition; and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be
constructed at substantially the same time at Francis Cove Three Lot 8 (Except Part of Recorded Official Record
12596-2262) (aka 1845 Forsyth Court), 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 below.
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 deny 15-ZVAR-1048, request for a reduction in
the front yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(1) to 14 feet for a 5 by 10 screen porch
addition; and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be
constructed at substantially the same time at Francis Cove Three Lot 8 (Except Part of Recorded Official Record
12596-2262) (aka 1845 Forsyth Court), 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-1049
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section
24-88(b and c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be
constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials; and
same time at North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3, North 2.5 feet of Lot 72A and South
25 feet of Lot 73A (aka 2060 Beach Avenue).
LOCATION 2060 BEACH AVENUE
APPLICANT ELLEN GLASSER
DATE AUGUST 6, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Ellen Glasser, the owner of 2060 Beach Avenue. The property is the north unit of a 3 story, 3 unit townhouse building located on the west side of Beach Avenue between 19th and 20th Streets within the Residential General Multi-Family (RG-M) zoning district. The applicant would like to build a second story deck with stairs down to the lower level on the rear of the unit.
A variance is need for the proposed plan because Section 24-88(b and c) requires that adjoining townhouse units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials; and at substantially the same time. The proposed plan will add new structure to the property 30 years after the original construction of the three townhouse units while also altering the architectural style of the rear of the unit compared to the other units. This project was started without a permit by a contractor and had a Stop Work Order placed on it when the city’s inspector came out to inspect another job at the property. The contractor submitted plans for a permit to the city which were denied by the Zoning Department for the reasons of this variance request.
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.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
The applicant stated in their application that the only access to the rear yard from the house is through a
bedroom on the first floor and that adding a door on the second floor to a deck would provide access.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
The applicant stated in their application that they were unaware of the code provision and that their
contractor, who has since walked off the job, started working without a permit.
(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 approve 15-ZVAR-1049, request for relief from
the Section 24-88(b and c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials; and same time at North Atlantic Beach Unit No.
3, North 2.5 feet of Lot 72A and South 25 feet of Lot 73A (aka 2060 Beach Avenue), 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 below.
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 deny 15-ZVAR-1049, request for relief from the
Section 24-88(b and c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially
the same architectural style, colors and materials; and same time at North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3, North 2.5
feet of Lot 72A and South 25 feet of Lot 73A (aka 2060 Beach Avenue), 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-ZVAR-1050
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a reduction in the
percentage decrease in height from the percentage of lot area less than 5,000 as
required by Section 24-82(c) to allow a 32.5 foot tall house at Daniel and Hackett
Replat Block 16 Atlantic Beach, West Half of Lot 4 (aka 645 Ocean Boulevard).
LOCATION 645 OCEAN BOULEVARD
APPLICANT JOSEPH AND JENNIGER INDRIOLO
DATE AUGUST 6, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS The applicants are Joseph and Jennifer Indriolo, the owners of 645 Ocean Boulevard. The property is nonconforming and approximately 81 feet deep by 50 feet wide in the Residential General (RG) zoning district with an existing nonconforming duplex (see the survey below). The property is nonconforming because it is smaller than the minimum required 100 feet deep by 75 feet wide and 7,500 square feet as required by the RG zoning district. The duplex is nonconforming because the property is too small for a two-family development and it violates the setbacks of the RG zoning district. The applicants would like to convert the structure to a single-family home while adding space in the form of a third floor with a maximum height of 32 feet 6 inches to accommodate their family.
Page 2 of 3
A variance is needed for the proposed development because Section 24-82(c) requires that the maximum allowable height of a structure on a nonconforming lot smaller than 5,000 square feet be reduced by the percentage less than 5,000 square feet. At approximately 81 by 50, this property has 4,050 square feet. That means a 19 percent reduction in the maximum height of 35 feet, which results in a maximum allowable height of 28 feet 4 inches. The proposed height is 4 feet 2 inches taller than what is allowed by code. The effective percentage reduction in height would then be 9.3 percent or almost half that required. The applicants have started to design the remodel and are aware of the Old Atlantic Beach Design Standards that they are required to meet. The plans submitted as part of this application still must be reviewed as part of a formal permit application, but appear to take those requirements into consideration. The rendering on the previous page calls for a height of 32 feet which is less than the requested 32 feet 6 inches because height is measured from grade and the extra 6 inches accounts for the foundation
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.
(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.
The applicants stated in their application that they would like to take an existing nonconforming duplex
and convert it into a single family home, but the small nonconforming lot forces a vertical addition to
accommodate their family.
Page 3 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 15-ZVAR-1050, request for a reduction
in the percentage decrease in height from the percentage of lot area less than 5,000 as required by Section 24-
82(c) to allow a 32.5 foot tall house at Daniel and Hackett Replat Block 16 Atlantic Beach, West Half of Lot 4 (aka
645 Ocean Boulevard), 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 below.
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 deny 15-ZVAR-1050, request for a reduction in
the percentage decrease in height from the percentage of lot area less than 5,000 as required by Section 24-
82(c) to allow a 32.5 foot tall house at Daniel and Hackett Replat Block 16 Atlantic Beach, West Half of Lot 4 (aka
645 Ocean Boulevard), 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 5.A PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION UPDATES
DATE AUGUST 11, 2015
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS
The City Commission has asked staff to look into strengthening buffers and negative development
impacts between incompatible uses in the City’s Land Development Regulations. The current buffer
regulations in Section 24-177 (e) apply only to properties that directly border each other. They do not
include properties that have an intervening street between them. The city has several areas where
commercial or industrial zoning districts are adjacent to residential zoning districts, but have a road
between them. This occurs along West 14th Street, Main Street, Sturdivant Avenue, Ahern Street, and
Stewart Street. Staff has a few recommended code changes that can potentially reduce the negative
impacts between residential properties that are adjacent to commercial corridors.
The first is requiring more trees along parking areas. Section 24-177 (d) (1) (c) currently requires one
tree for every fifty linear feet of street frontage. Staff is recommending increasing this requirement to one
tree for every twenty-five linear feet of street frontage. The second recommendation is to prevent curb
cuts and building entryways in the rear of through lots that border residentially zoned property. The
third is to require a lighting plan with specific standards for new commercial development or
redevelopment that is adjacent to residential properties. This is a way to ensure that residential
properties do not receive light pollution from commercial projects.
The recommended code changes can be seen in proposed form on the following page.
Proposed Land Development Changes
24-177 (d) Perimeter landscaping requirements.
(1) Street frontage landscaping. All VUA that are not entirely screened by an intervening
building from any abutting dedicated public street or approved private street, to the extent
such areas are not so screened, shall contain the following:
a. A landscape area of not less than ten (10) square feet for each linear foot of VUA street
frontage, fifty (50) percent of which shall be at least a five-foot-wide strip abutting the
street right-of-way except for driveways. The remaining required landscape area shall be
located within twenty-five (25) feet of the street right-of-way.
b. A durable opaque landscape screen along at least seventy-five (75) percent of the street
frontage, excluding driveways. Shrubs, walls, fences, earth mounds and preserved
existing under-story vegetation, or combination thereof, may be used so long as the
screen is no less than three (3) feet high measured from the property line grade. Walls or
fences shall be no more than four (4) feet in height and of wood or masonry at least
eighty-five (85) percent opaque. Earth mounds shall not exceed a slope of three (3) to one
(1). No less than twenty-five (25) percent of street side frontage of walls or fences shall
be landscaped with shrubs or vines.
c. No less than one (1) tree, located within twenty-five (25) feet of the street right-of-way,
for each fifty (50) twenty-five (25) linear feet, or fraction thereof, of VUA street frontage.
The trees may be clustered, but shall be no more than seventy-five (75) fifty (50) feet
apart. If an overhead power line abuts the street frontage, then the required trees reaching
a mature height greater than twenty-five (25) feet shall be located at least fifteen (15)
[feet] away from the power line.
Sec. 24-84. Double frontage lots.
(d) Special treatment of through lots zoned Commercial, Professional Office (CPO),
Commercial Limited (CL), Commercial General (CG), Central Business District (CBD), and
Light Industrial and Warehousing (LIW). For double frontage lots that are commercially or
industrially zoned and have residentially zoned property across an intervening street, the required
front yard shall be the yard which faces away from the residentially zoned property. There shall
be no building entryways or curb cuts from the intervening street in the rear of the property.
Lighting Plan
24-161 (m) Illumination values at the property line of a new commercial or industrial
development or redevelopment shall not be more than 0.2 fc at any point when a project is
located next to any residential Use or residentially zoned property. The illumination values at the
property line of a Project adjacent to any other Use shall not be more than 1.0 fc. Compliance
with these criteria shall not be required between two adjacent non-residential properties of like
zoning or Use classification provided that the properties are under the same ownership, or have
common parking areas or driveways.
At canopied areas, such as those found at drive-through facilities, service stations,
convenience centers, and car-washes, lighting under the canopy, awning, porte-cochere,
or similar structure shall be either recessed or cut-off fixtures.
The City may require a lighting plan in order to determine compliance with this section.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.B DENSITY BONUS DISCUSSION
DATE AUGUST 11, 2015
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS
The City has received recent interest from the development community about residential density
bonuses along Atlantic Boulevard, and the City Commission has asked that staff workshop the concept
with the Community Development Board. Density bonuses are typically used when a municipality seeks
to relax its maximum residential density in order to stimulate or incentivize desirable types of
development. In order to qualify for the bonus, there are generally criteria that a developer has to meet.
Some municipalities tie density bonuses to provision of specific types of housing, such as: low income
housing, housing for elderly, housing for special needs, conversion of historic structures to residential,
and transit oriented development. While others may use them for the creation of public amenities such
as: waterfront walkways, parks, environmental conservation, etc.
The City currently has three different types of residential land use classifications, each with its own
maximum density. Low Density (RL) allows up to six dwelling units, Medium Density (RM) allows up to
14 dwellings units, and High Density (RH) allows up to 20 dwelling units. These areas are defined on the
City’s Future Land Use Map (see attached). The Land Development Regulations define a dwelling unit as,
“a single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one (1) family as defined herein,
including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.” By that definition, a
four bedroom townhome is considered the same amount of units as a one bedroom apartment.
Hypothetically, a 40 unit complex of one bedroom apartments could have fewer residents than a 20 unit
townhome complex. This is one area where the city could consider a revision of its density policy. It could
allow a density bonus for one bedroom apartments and/or senior living facilities. However, the density
bonus could be specifically allowed only in certain areas of the city such as Mayport Road and Atlantic
Boulevard. It could also be tied to specific requirements such as design guidelines and/or proximity to
public transit.
The City of Jacksonville Beach created a density bonus a few years ago, to allow higher density within one
block of designated mass transit routes on Beach Boulevard. The idea behind this was that residents of
developments within one block of bus routes would be more likely to use public transportation and less
likely to drive cars, thereby reducing the impact on local roads that a normal development would have.
Jacksonville Beach’s density bonus allows a maximum density of 40 units per acre, where the maximum
density would typically be 20 units per acre. The density bonus provision in Jacksonville Beach enabled
the development of BluWater apartments at the old George Moore car dealership. This development has
attracted a relatively affluent tenant base. City staff is unsure how many tenants actually use the adjacent
JTA bus route.
Page 2 of 2
One point to consider when comparing the concept of a density bonus along Beach Boulevard with one
along Atlantic Boulevard is that JTA is planning to create a bus-rapid transit (BRT) route from downtown
to the beach that is proposed on Beach Boulevard (see attached map). “BRT is a high-quality bus-based
transit system that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost-effective services at metro-level capacities. It does
this through the provision of dedicated lanes, with busways and iconic stations typically aligned to the
center of the road, off-board fare collection, and fast and frequent operations.” BRT along Beach
Boulevard will be a higher quality service than the standard JTA bus service Atlantic Boulevard receives.
Given the stigma of riding buses compared to more efficient modes of public transit (light rail, streetcars,
subways, BRT etc), staff has doubts about whether potential residents of a BluWater type development
along Atlantic Boulevard would actually ride JTA to and from work.
There are other types of density bonuses that may be worth exploration in the City. The City is in the
process of creating a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) along Mayport Road. In order to facilitate
development in the area, the City may want to consider allowing higher residential density for certain
types of development. Bonuses could be tied to housing for the elderly (which have minimal
transportation needs), or they could be tied to high quality architectural designs that meet certain
guidelines. These concepts will possibly be explored in the CRA process with the involvement of the
community.
If the Community Development Board is interested in further exploring the matter, staff can draw up
possible Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan changes.