Loading...
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   ƒ       (         6ƒ ( 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 1ƒ ( 1   ƒ       :          1ƒ ( 1ƒ (        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   ƒ       :          1   ƒ       (         6ƒ :&+ 6ƒ (&+ 1   ƒ         (    & +       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.