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.