Loading...
11-17-15 Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / November 17, 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 October 27, 2015 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. 4. New Business. A. 15-UBEX-1069 (PUBLIC HEARING) (A+ Towing and Auto Body) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-112(c)(5), to allow establishments for heavy automotive repair, towing service or the permanent storage of automobiles, motorcycles, etc. at 325 Mealy Drive. B. 15-ZVAR-1070 (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. Incentive Zoning 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 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD October 27, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 pm. Chair Paul verified that all board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Stratton and Mrs. Lanier. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Planner, Derek Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A. was Mr. Ric h Komando. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of September 15, 2015 Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes of the September 15th meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. A. 15-CGTA -1060 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for the transmittal of an application to the State of Florida in accordance with Florida Statues 163.3184 and 166.041, for an amendment to the text of the City of Atlantic Beach’s Comprehensive Plan for an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement with the City of Jacksonville for the provision of services within the Atlantic Beach Country Club. Staff Report Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and reminded the board that they recently heard two Comprehensive Plan Amendments and that this is one of those returning after the City Commission requested a change. The Page 2 of 6 change is to show the recreation and open space easement on the golf course and only have the residential home sites be low density residential. This will help eliminate future issues where someone may think that the golf course is developable property. Mr. Hubsch reminded the board that he is seeking a recommendation to City Commission to submit the revised Comprehensive Plan amendment package to the state for review. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment for 15-CGTA -1060. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Hansen stated that he sees no reason for further discussion. Mr. Elmore agreed. Motion Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to the City Commission that the city submit item 15-CGTA -1060 to the state for approval. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. 15-UBEX-1066 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 111(c)(3), to permit on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 1011 Atlantic Boulevard. Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and showed maps and photos of the planned location of the business. It was stated that the site is within an existing shopping center in the Commercial General Zoning District. The site is surrounded by other commercial uses with the nearest residential being behind the other side of the shopping center. The business is primarily a retail store for craft beer in growler containers. A growler was described as a container ranging in size from 32 ounces to 128 ounces. The business would typically operate in a manor where a customer can try up to 6 one ounce sample of beer and select one and have either their own or a purchased growler filled. While they wait they can purchase a pint of beer to consume on property. After a growler is filled, it is sealed for the customer to take home and consume as required by the state. This store is expecting to have 40 taps and will also sell other merchandise. They expect their hours to be 11 AM to 11PM every day. A use-by-exception is required for on-premises consumption of alcohol when not in conjunction with a restaurant. Page 3 of 6 Existing codes that are in place that may be of interest to the board were given, including no alcohol sales between 2 AM and 7 AM, sufficient lighting, and that consumption of alcohol must be within a contiguous area to the building. Applicant Comment Brian Slucker, 103 Quail Cove, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082, introduced himself as a partner in the business and explained that they are one of two operations like this in the state at this time. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he sees no issues with the business. With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore stated that he sees no problems with this application. Mrs. Paul and Mr. Parkes commented that this unit was previously occupied by a bar that had no issues. Mr. Hansen stated that he had no issues either. Motion Mrs. Lanier made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by- exception to the City Commission. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. 15-UBEX-1067 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for a use-by -exception as permitted by Section 24- 111(c)(3), to permit on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 725 Atlantic Boulevard, Unit 9. Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and stated that this another use-by- exception related to alcohol sales. Maps and photos were shown of the proposed location and the surrounding shopping center including other restaurants that sell alcohol. The nearest residential is located behind the shopping center and is pretty well separated from this location. The business is a family style Mexican restaurant with beer, wine and liquor sales. They do have one existing location in St. Augustine where their food sales are about 77 percent of all sales. Liquor sales are about 12 percent of all sales. They expect to be open 11 AM to 10 PM every day. Sales percentages have been noted because they are seeking a 4COP-SRX license that requires a certain amount of food sales. Page 4 of 6 A use-by-exception is required for on-premises consumption of alcohol. In this case beer and wine sales within a restaurant are allowed by right, but liquor is not. The same general codes requirements apply to this business as with the previous case. Applicant Comment Ben Porter, 3652 Burnt Pine Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32082, introduced himself as a partner in the business and explained that this is their second location for this restaurant and their 8th restaurant in general in the Jacksonville area. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore stated that this seems to be a similar case to the previous one and that discussion is not needed. Motion Mr. Elmore made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by- exception to the City Commission. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. C. Ordinance 95-15-111 (PUBLIC HEARING) AN ORDIANANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE II OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO AMEND SECTION 24-84, COUPLE FRONTAGE LOTS; AMENDING SECTION 24-161, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADINGL AMENDING SECTION 24- 177 BUFFER DESIGN STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Staff Report Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and explained that the board has seen this item earlier in the year as discussion and that this is the resulting codes in the form of an ordinance. This ordinance covers the three recommendations from the board related to buffer standards between commercial properties and residential including lighting standards, increased landscaping and the elimination of curb cuts on intervening streets. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the City Commission. The first section is about required landscaping. Current code requires one tree for every 50 feet of street frontage. This would require one tree for every 25 feet of street frontage. The current code also allows a cluster of trees every 75 feet and this would change that to every 50 feet. Page 5 of 6 The second section requires a lighting plan. The current code is vague and sets no hard numbers or rules and this would allow staff to enforce a set and recognized measurement on lighting in the form of foot candles. The third section is to eliminate curb cuts on through lots on the portion of the lot across from residential uses. This has been discussed by commission and there has been some push back by business owners and commission asked to remove this portion from the proposed code change. Mr. Elmore expressed concerns about changing landscape requirements if the city does not have a method to enforce the long term maintenance of the landscaping and that this continues to push landscaping into conflicts with utilities and other issues adjacent to right-of-ways. He also expressed concerns about increasing the number of trees while not increasing the landscape area which will require trees to fight with each other for nutrients. Mrs. Simmons stated that she would like to see more trees. Mrs. Lanier asked if there is a list of recommended plant species to help developers with designing their project. Mr. Hubsch stated that there are recommend lists, that they are not required lists. Mr. Parkes and Mrs. Simmons asked about the maintenance requirements that Mr. Elmore had mentioned. Mr. Hubsch stated that when trees are planted as part of a requirement that they are to be maintained in perpetuity. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. T. R. Hainline of 1301 Riverplace Blvd, Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL 32207, introduced himself as a representative of Gate Petroleum. He stated that he and his client are very opposed to the curb cut portion of the ordinance, but is ok with the other portions of the ordinance. He also stated that he had concerns that the curb cut portion could come back up at commission and that the board may want to ask for this to come back to the board to hear everything. Mrs. Simmons asked if the Gate felt that they were grandfathered in and would not be subject to these new code provisions. Mr. Hainline stated that he did believe that Gate would not be subject to these new code provisions, but that they are concerned about the long term property values of their property. Page 6 of 6 With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Komando if the curb cut provision could be brought back into the ordinance by commission. Mr. Komando stated that it could. Discussion continued about the curb cut provision. Motion Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance as presented without the curb cut provision to City Commission with the request that if Commission decides to reinsert the curb cut provision that it be sent back to the Community Development Board for further consideration. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Lanier asked that if this does come back with the curb cut portion that staff do additional research into effected properties. 5. REPORTS. None. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm. _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest     CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A. CASE NO 15-UBEX-1069 Request for use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-112 (c)(5), to allow establishments for heavy automotive repair, towing service or the permanent storage of automobiles, motorcycles, etc. within the Light Industrial and Warehousing (LIW) Zoning District at 325 Mealy Drive. LOCATION 325 Mealy Drive APPLICANT A+ Towing and Auto Body DATE October 7, 2015 STAFF DEREK W REEVES, PLANNER STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Christopher Calkins with A+ Towing and Auto Body. The site will primarily be used as an automotive repair shop with limited towing service. The applicant has stated that this will not be a junk yard. The applicant has also stated that all state laws regarding oil and other fluid waste will be followed. The site is 0.3 acre property with a 4,500 square foot metal building within the Light Industrial and Warehousing Zoning District on a corner lot. The property is fully fenced with a 6 foot chain link fence with two entrances. Most of the property within the fence is paved. The property is within 150 feet of a single family residential neighborhood, but is separated by another building. Page 2 of 3 A use-by-exception is required by Section 24-112(c)(5) for, “establishments for heavy automotive repair, towing service or the permanent storage of automobiles, motorcycles, trucks and tractors, boats, machinery and equipment, farm equipment and similar uses.” Minor automotive repair would be allowed by right, but the towing service and any repairs considered heavy automotive would fit within the described use. Minor automotive repair is the minor or routine servicing of motor vehicles or parts. Heavy automotive repair is the rebuilding or reconditioning of motor vehicles or parts including collision service, painting and steam cleaning of vehicles. The city’s Comprehensive Plan does address these types of uses and the general location of this proposed business. Policy A.1.10.5 states the following; “Along the Mayport Road corridor, the continuation and proliferation of light industrial uses, automotive sales and repair businesses and other more intensive commercial business activities shall be discouraged in favor of those businesses and uses that provide neighborhood serving retail products and services that generate daily activity and interaction between residents of the surrounding neighborhoods such as banks, drugstores, restaurants, churches, child care centers, grocery stores and similar businesses and uses.” While the location of this business is located within the Mayport Road corridor, it is located within the Light Industrial and Warehousing Zoning District, which is the most intense zoning district within the city. However, there are a few existing heavy automotive repair facilities in the city and at least one known tow service that is also located in the Light Industrial and Warehousing Zoning District. The site is relatively small and surrounded by a fence and ditches that will naturally limit activities on the property, but the board may want to consider a few conditions if they decide to recommend approval. The board may consider requiring a specific number of parking spaces on a site plan and clearly marked on site for customers and employees. The board may consider limiting the number of towed vehicles and the maximum duration of their stay on site. The board may consider prohibiting the parking or storage of vehicles in the right-of-way adjacent to the property. The board may also consider restricting the hours of operation to those deemed appropriate. Page 3 of 3 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-1069) to allow establishments for heavy automotive repair, towing service or the permanent storage of automobiles, motorcycles, etc. within the Light Industrial and Warehousing (LIW) Zoning District and located at 325 Mealy 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 24-112(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 denial to the City Commission of a requested Use-by-Exception (File No. 15-UBEX-1069) to allow establishments for heavy automotive repair, towing service or the permanent storage of automobiles, motorcycles, etc. within the Light Industrial and Warehousing (LIW) Zoning District and located at 325 Mealy 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 24-112(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-ZVAR-1070 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 JENNIFER INDRIOLO DATE NOVEMBER 9, 2015 STAFF DEREK W. 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 4 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 A similar variance was heard for this property at the August 18, 2015 meeting of the Community Development Board. Section 24-64(h) states that, “if an application for a variance is denied by the Community Development Board, no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for 365 days from the date of denial.” The board may decide that this new application is not substantially different from the previous application. The applicants have provided a statement as to why this is substantially different including the following; 1. The elimination of a large portion of the third floor balcony which previously addressed the northeast face of the home to provide greater privacy to the neighbors especially those on the north and east sides. 2. The provision of opaque window treatments on numerous third floor windows and the stairwell feature to provide greater privacy to the neighbors especially those on the north and east faces. 3. Elimination of a greater amount of pre-existing concrete drive on the northeastern side yard to provide greater pervious area. The applicants have also provided copies of the original plans and the revised plans in their application packet. Note the reduced deck space on the third floor and the shading on some of the windows indicating opaque window treatments. 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. The applicants stated in their application that this property is located much closer to the ocean than other lots in the RG zoning district and that the increased property values means that the code puts a greater hardship on this property. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicants stated in their application that this property is surrounded by other single family homes that could be up to 35 feet tall and that this would allow this property to have a reasonably sized single family home on it without requesting a yard variance. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. The applicants stated in their application that the property was platted and subdivided long before current regulations. (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 4 of 4 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 15-ZVAR-1070, 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-1070, 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.