2-16-16 Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / February 16, 2016 / 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.
B. Draft minutes of the November 17, 2015 regular meeting of the Community
Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 16-ZVAR-9 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Saswata Roy)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to remove the Section 24-17
“building restriction line” requirement to allow the standard RS-2 zoning classification
front yard setback of 20 feet along 8th Street at Club Manor Lot 12 except the westerly
23.69 feet and lot 13 except the easterly 23.55 feet (aka 140 8th Street)
B. 16-ZVAR-13 (PUBLIC HEARING) (William Dorsey)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to designate 8th Street as the front
yard as opposed to Ocean Boulevard as required by Section 24-17 “lot, corner” and to
remove the Section 24-17 “building restriction line” requirement to allow the standard
corner lot side yard setback of 10 feet along Ocean Boulevard at Club Manor Lot 11 and
the westerly 23.69 feet of Lot 12 (aka 170 8th Street)
5. Reports.
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 three (3) 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. Parkes
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
ITEM 2.B
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
November 17, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Hansen. Also
present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Planner, Derek
Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A.
was Mr. Sam Garrison.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of October 27, 2015
Mrs. Paul asked for a correction on page 2 of 6 where Mr. Stratton is said
to have seconded a motion but he was absent from that meeting. Mrs.
Paul asked staff to verify who made the motion and bring back the
corrected minutes to the next meeting.
3. OLD BUSINESS. None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
Mrs. Paul stated that it appears that Item 4.B has a lot of speaker cards.
Mrs. Paul then motioned to move up Item 4.B before Item 4.A. Mr.
Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 2 of 6
B. 15-ZVAR -1070 (PUBLIC HEARING)
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 square feet 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).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item and stated that this item may sound
familiar to the board as this property was before the board with another
variance request in August. Section 24-64(h) requires a one year waiting
period between submissions for a variance that is substantially the same
on the same property. The requested variance wording is the exact same
but the design of the structure is different. Planner Reeves reminded the
board that they voted 6-0 to deny the variance finding that the plan had a
negative impact on light and air to adjacent properties. Planner Reeves
then reminded the board that they could decide that the new application
is substantially the same to the previous and that it has not met the one
year waiting period. This decision can be made at any point prior to a
vote on this request.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Paul opened the floor for board discussion. Mrs. Paul stated that the
request was the same and it is not like they were going from a height
variance to a setback variance. Mrs. Simmons agreed and added that the
board does not vote to approve based on design. Mrs. Lanier stated the
reason for denial was the impact on light and air and that is still an issue.
Mr. Parkes expressed concerns that property owners should have a
chance to revise plans after a denial and return within a year. Mrs. Paul
asked if there is an appeals process. Staff responded that applicants can
appeal any board decision within 30 days of the decision. Mr. Elmore
stated that the rules are the rules and that they should have to wait a
year, especially with a 6-0 vote. Mr. Stratton expressed concerns about
setting a precedent.
Mrs. Paul asked the city attorney if the board had to hear from the
applicant procedurally. Mr. Garrison stated that if the board deems the
application to be untimely then they did not have to hear from the
applicant. Mr. Elmore asked if precedent would be set by hearing this
variance so soon. Mr. Garrison stated that it could but the item is here
before the board and it is the board’s decision to make.
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Elmore and Mrs. Simmons stated that they had ex parte
communication with multiple people related to this project.
Motion
Mrs. Paul made a motion that application for a variance is substantially
the same to the previous application in August of this year and that the
waiting period has not been met. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
A. 15-UBEX-1069 (PUBLIC HEARING)
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. within the Light Industrial and Warehousing
(LIW) Zoning District at 325 Mealy Drive.
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 on the
corner Mealy Drive and Mealy Street in the Light Industrial and
Warehousing Zoning District. The site is surrounded by other light
industrial uses with the nearest residential being to the north about 250
feet away. The property is almost fully paved with a 4,500 square foot
metal building and a six foot chain link fence surrounding the property.
The business is primarily a heavy automotive repair shop with a tow
business as well. The towed vehicles will be stored on site but the
applicant has stated that it will not be a junk yard where cars stay for a
long period of time.
A use-by-exception is required for the heavy automotive repair aspect as
well as the towing and storage of automobiles. The city also has code that
requires all work to be preformed inside of a building which the repair
shop would be required to meet.
Staff has come up with a few possible conditions that board may want to
consider for this project. They include requiring a site plan showing
dedicated customer parking and storage areas for towed vehicles; to limit
the hours of operation; to limit the number of vehicles stored on site; to
limit the amount of time that a vehicle may be stored on site; to prohibit
the storage or parking of vehicles within the right-of-way. The board
could also require all repair occur inside the building in addition to the
city code that would allow for easier enforcement later. The board can
select from these ideas or add their own.
Page 4 of 6
Mrs. Paul asked about how close this property was to the Coastal Cab
property. Staff stated that they are located a few parcels to the south.
Mrs. Lanier asked for clarification on heavy automotive. Staff responded
that heavy automotive is where you would see engines taken apart or
body work while light automotive would be battery replacement and tire
repair. Mrs. Lanier then asked for clarity between a tow yard and a junk
yard. Staff stated that the amount of time a car is on site is part of it and
that the applicant may be able to shed more light on requirements.
Applicant Comment
Chris Calkins, 2152 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32250,
introduced himself as the owner of the business. He stated that he wants
to focus on the repair aspect, which he is trained in luxury cars, but would
continue the tow aspect to help pay bills.
Mrs. Paul asked how long a towed vehicle must stay on site. Mr. Calkins
said that most cars have to be on site 35 days but newer ones are 45 days
before he can start taking action on them. Mrs. Paul then asked how long
the average stays on site. Mr. Calkins stated that most are a couple of
days because people come to get them, but some do stay the full term.
Mrs. Paul then asked if he planned on selling any cars. Mr. Calkins stated
that he did not. Mr. Stratton asked if the applicant was the owner of the
property. Mr. Calkins stated that he is not but hopes to purchase the
property if approved. Mrs. Lanier asked if he was planning on moving his
business or expanding from the current location. Mr. Calkins stated that
he would move.
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. Stratton asked what conditions the rest of the board would consider.
Mr. Elmore stated that he is for a condition to prohibit parking and storing
cars in the right-of-way. Mrs. Lanier stated that she would like to see
repairs take place inside the building and that that should take care of
hours of operation since residential isn’t that close to the property. Mr.
Elmore stated that this is probably an ideal area for this business. Mrs.
Lanier agreed.
Page 5 of 6
Motion
Mrs. Lanier made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by-
exception to the City Commission with the following conditions; that all
repair activity take place inside the building and that there be no parking
or storage of cars in the right-of-way. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS.
A. Incentive Zoning Discussion.
Director Hubsch introduced the concept and reminded the board that this
is a continuation of previous discussions. The concept is based around the
idea that the city can encourage and attract growth that it would like to
see by offering incentives to developers. The primary incentive would be
to allow additional density. The city currently allows 14 units per acre on
commercial properties, but does allow up to 20 units per acre in other
parts of the city. The first step would be to allow 20 units per acre in
commercial areas and then to work increases on top of that for providing
things that the city would like to see.
Staff is proposing an al la carte type menu where if a development
offered things on the desired list then they get points and those points
would amount to a certain number of additional units per acre. A list of
possible criteria was given including location in a CRA, proximity to
transit, providing for public parks, energy star construction. A couple of
example projects were presented to show how the system would work.
Mrs. Simmons asked if the project in Jacksonville Beach on Beach
Boulevard was developed with anything like this. Mr. Hubsch responded
that they did get an extra 20 units per acre for a total of 40 units per acre
just because of their proximity to transit. Mr. Elmore stated that he is in
favor of this and would like to see it go further. Mr. Parkes stated that he
sees this as an advantage for properties along Mayport Road that could
be combined into a larger project. Mr. Elmore and Mrs. Paul both spoke
about a need for one and two bedroom units in the area that will add
places for young professionals to live. Mrs. Simmons expressed concerns
about the long term success of projects like these, but recognized that
having a project provide certain elements like those listed could help. Mr.
Hubsch added that any project like this would have to come in as an SPA
and get a recommendation from the board and approval from
commission.
Page 6 of 6
Mrs. Lanier asked what the process would be going further. Mr. Hubsch
stated that there would be extensive changes to the Land Development
Regulations as well as changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Parkes asked if there were a way to add the developer’s track record
as a way to offer incentives since some developers are better and can
show that with their previous products.
Staff was directed to continue working and bring back examples and more
information to continue the discussion.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned
at 7:07 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO 16-ZVAR-9
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to remove the Section 24-17
“building restriction line” requirement to allow the standard RS-2 zoning
classification front yard setback of 20 feet along 8th Street at Club Manor Lot 12
except the westerly 23.69 feet and Lot 13 except the easterly 23.55 feet (aka 140
8th Street).
LOCATION 140 BEACH AVENUE
APPLICANT SASWATA ROY
DATE FEBRUARY 5, 2016
STAFF DEREK REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Saswata Roy, the owner of 140 8th Street. The property is located on 8th Street between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard within the RS-2 zoning district. A single family home was recently demolished in preparation for the construction of a new single family home. There is a platted 25 foot Building Restriction Line (BRLs) across the front of the lot as well as a utility easement across the rear of the property. The applicant is requesting to build the new home under the standard RS-2 zoning district front yard setback of 20 feet. The property is part of the Club Manor plat that was approved by the city in 1954 and covers properties along 8th Street, the south side of Club Drive and the ocean-front properties along Beach Avenue directly to the east. The platted BRLs are somewhat unique to this portion of the city as much of the surrounding area was platted in the early 1900s. It would appear that platted BRLs became a trend in the 1950s as seen with the Selva Marina neighborhoods that started around the same time. Regardless of the reason for their existence, Section 24-17 “building restriction line” states in part, “Building restriction lines, which may
require greater building setback than the minimum yard requirement of the applicable zoning district, and
which have been recorded upon a final subdivision plat approved and accepted by the city, shall be enforceable
by the city.” Therefore a variance is required to violate the platted BRL and build at the RS-2 zoning district front yard setback of 20 feet as requested. The applicant references the neighboring properties throughout their application as the reason for their requested variance. They provided the drawing below that shows a composite of their own property and the ones to either side with building outlines, relevant setback lines and dimensions between structures and property lines. The drawing was made with surveys available in city records. The property in the middle is the applicant’s and shows the outline of the original structure on the property, which has since been demolished, that violated the 25 foot BRL and even the standard RS-2 zoning district front yard setback of 20 feet. The structures on both sides also have portions of their building that violate the BRL. One difference is that both lots are corner lots. For corner lots, the front yard is along the narrowest lot line adjoining a street. This would put their front yards on Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and make 8th
Page 2 of 4
Street a side yard for both. Both properties were redeveloped or added onto in the mid 2000s. It is unclear why or how but it would appear that a mixture of BRLs and setbacks were used in the approval process.
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.
The applicant has pointed out in their application that, of the three properties on this block, the other
properties are about 15 feet from the 8th Street property line. This would put their own house in a hole
compared to the others on the street.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
Continuing off of number one, the applicant stated in their application that being in a hole will block light
and air to their own property and potentially block ocean views that would have otherwise existed.
(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 properties on both sides of their property were allowed to
violate the 25 foot BRL in the mid 2000s without a variance when it was still a requirement to follow BRLs.
They also pointed out that even the previous structure on their lot violated the BRL.
(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 regulations have not been enforced consistently over time as
evidenced by the properties on either side of their own property and that granting the variance will not
set a precedent since there are not other areas in the city where just three lots are on a street and two of
the three already violate the setback. They added that BRLs in this part of town are inconsistent with the
development pattern of the area and have been violated continuously over time.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property.
Page 4 of 4
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 16-ZVAR-9, request to remove the
Section 24-17 “building restriction line” requirement to allow the standard RS-2 zoning classification front yard
setback of 20 feet along 8th Street at Club Manor Lot 12 except the westerly 23.69 feet and Lot 13 except the
easterly 23.55 feet (aka 140 8th Street), 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 16-ZVAR-9, request to remove the Section
24-17 “building restriction line” requirement to allow the standard RS-2 zoning classification front yard setback
of 20 feet along 8th Street at Club Manor Lot 12 except the westerly 23.69 feet and Lot 13 except the easterly
23.55 feet (aka 140 8th Street), 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.
1
(
6
(
25
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
I
O
N
L
I
N
E
(
B
Y
P
L
A
T
)
20
'
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y
R
E
A
R
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
20
'
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
(
Z
O
N
I
N
G
)
GA
R
A
G
E
15
0
PO
O
L
PO
O
L
D
E
C
K
WA
L
K
DR
I
V
E
V
J
5
6
4
'
'
6
110 1
(
1
:
1
(
1
(
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
17
0
8'
14.3'14.4'
18.6'
14.9'
14.9'
$'#%*#8'07'
1%'#
0
$
1
7
.
'
8
#
4
&
1
7
.
1
'
1
:
1
(
6
:&+
6
(&+
1
(
&
+
BA
S
E
D
O
N
S
U
R
V
E
Y
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
:
AS
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
O
R
S
I
N
C
.
BA
S
E
D
O
N
S
U
R
V
E
Y
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
:
EX
A
C
T
A
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
O
R
S
I
N
C
.
BASED ON SURVE
Y
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
:
ALL AMERICAN SU
R
V
E
Y
O
R
S
O
F
FLORIDA INC.
(S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
H
A
S
BE
E
N
D
E
M
O
L
I
S
H
E
D
)
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO 16-ZVAR-13
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to designate 8th Steet as the
front yard as opposed to Ocean Boulevard as required by Section 24-17 “lot, corner” and to remove the Section 24-17 “building restriction line” requirement
to allow the corner lot side yard setback of 10 feet along Ocean Boulevard at Club
Manor Lot 11 and the West 23.69 feet of Lot 12 (aka 170 8th Street).
LOCATION 170 BEACH AVENUE
APPLICANT WILLIAM J DORSEY
DATE FEBRUARY 5, 2016
STAFF DEREK REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is William Dorsey, the owner of 170 8th Street. The property is a corner lot at 8th Street and Ocean Boulevard within the RS-2 zoning district. There is currently a single family home and a pool on the property. There are platted Building Restriction Lines (BRLs) across the two street sides of the property as well as a utility easement across the south side of the property. The applicant is requesting to designate the 8th Street side of the property as the front yard and allow for an addition of a garage over the BRL along Ocean Boulevard, which would then be considered the side yard. The property is part of the Club Manor plat that was approved by the city in 1954 and covers properties along 8th Street, the south side of Club Drive and the ocean-front properties along Beach Avenue directly to the east. The platted BRLs are somewhat unique to this portion of the city as much of the surrounding area was platted earlier in the 1900s without BRLs. Section 24-17 “building restriction line” states in part,
“Building restriction lines, which may require greater building setback than the minimum yard requirement of
the applicable zoning district, and which have been recorded upon a final subdivision plat approved and
accepted by the city, shall be enforceable by the city.” Therefore a variance is required to build outside of the platted BRLs as requested. The existing house is nonconforming in two respects under current codes. It violates the BRLs and it violates setback requirements for corner lots. The first issue is that the existing house violates the 25 foot BRL along 8th Street by about 10 feet, resulting in the house being about 15 feet off of the property line. The second issue is related to setbacks on corner lots which are determined by Section 24-17 “lot, corner” which states, “The exterior lot line of the narrowest side of the lot adjoining the street shall be considered the
front of the lot. The exterior lot line of the longest side of the lot abutting the street shall be considered as a
side of the lot and shall have a minimum required side yard of ten (10) feet.” This would make Ocean Boulevard the front yard since it is the narrowest side of the lot adjoining the street and 8th Street the side yard since it is longest side. Making 8th Street the front yard requires a variance. Front and rear setbacks are both 20 feet. The existing house has about 17 feet in the front and 9 feet in the rear.
Page 2 of 4
The image on the left is the current survey with lines added where the red lines are current zoning setbacks and the blue lines are the BRLs and easements within the zoning setbacks. The area within the bold red and blue lines is the buildable area on the lot. The image on the right shows the resulting buildable area if the variance is approved as requested with the garage addition shown in orange.
For a historical perspective, when the house was constructed in 1960, it met the BRLs. It is not clear how corner lots were treated at the time, but it would not meet zoning setbacks today as mentioned before. The original garage was converted into a master bedroom in 2002. In 2004, an addition was added on the north side of the property that resulted in a violation of the platted 25 foot BRL. A site plan for the addition shows the standard setbacks for a corner lot in the RS-2 zoning district at the time. It showed 20 feet in the front along Ocean Boulevard and 15 feet in the side along 8th Street. Corner lot side yards have since been changed to 10 feet. The requirement to follow the BRLs was in place at this time. It is unclear if staff knew about the BRLs or the requirement to follow them, but the addition was approved and constructed. Approval of the variance would allow for the addition of a garage and reduce the nonconformity of the structure though not remove it completely due to the 2002 addition on the north side. However, the continuity with the surrounding properties would be an issue as well as potential impacts on immediate neighbors. Contextually, all of the properties on 8th Street have their front yard on 8th Street due to BRLs. While the next few properties on the east side of Ocean Boulevard have their side yard on Ocean Boulevard due to BRLs as well as zoning setbacks. Then every property for 3 blocks south has their front yard on Ocean Boulevard on both sides of the street.
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.
The applicant stated in their application that the property does not have a garage, which is something that
other properties have and that the yard designations do not make sense when everything about the house
says that the front yard is on 8th Street.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property.
Page 4 of 4
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 16-ZVAR-13, request to designate 8th
Street as the front yard as opposed to Ocean Boulevard as required by Section 24-17 “lot, corner” and to remove
the Section 24-17 “building restriction line” requirement to allow the standard corner lot side yard setback of 10
feet along Ocean Boulevard at Club Manor Lot 11 and the West 23.69 feet of Lot 12 (aka 170 8th Street), 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 16-ZVAR-13, request to designate 8th Street
as the front yard as opposed to Ocean Boulevard as required by Section 24-17 “lot, corner” and to remove the
Section 24-17 “building restriction line” requirement to allow the standard corner lot side yard setback of 10 feet
along Ocean Boulevard at Club Manor Lot 11 and the West 23.69 feet of Lot 12 (aka 170 8th Street), 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.