Loading...
3-22-16 Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / March 22, 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 February 16, 2016 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. 4. New Business. A. 16-ZVAR-45 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Al Mansur) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as required by Section 24-161(f)(2) to 1500 feet allowing for shared parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Block 1 Lots 2, 4 and 6 (aka 303 Atlantic Boulevard). B. 16-UBEX-41 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Al Mansur) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 3-5, to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant within the Central Business District at 303 Atlantic Boulevard. C. 16-ZVAR-33 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Chris Lambertson) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the required eastern side yard setback from 15 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet to allow a 3 unit townhouse building at Donners Subdivision part of Lot 15 (aka 125 Donner Road). 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 7 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD February 16, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:07 pm. Chair Paul verified that all board members are present, with the exception of Mrs. Simmons and Mrs. Lanier. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Planner and Derek Reeves. Mrs. Paul welcomed the new board member Rich Reichler as well as the two new alternates, Steve Mandelbaum and Judy Workman. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of October 27, 2015 Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes of the October 27th meeting. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of November 17, 2015 Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes of the November 17th meeting. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. Page 2 of 7 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. 16-ZVAR -9 (PUBLIC HEARING) 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 (140 8th St.). Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and stated that the property is located on 8th Street in the RS-2 zoning district and Residential Low future land use. The property is located within the Club Manor plat. The proposed plan is to build a new single family home on the property 20 feet from the northern property line along 8th Street. A variance is needed because the Club Manor plat has 25 foot Building Restriction Line (BRL) from the northern property line along 8th Street and the city code requires that the city enforce platted BRLs. An image of the plat was shown with all of the BRLs highlighted. The applicants are requesting a variance because they believe that building to the BRL would place them in a hole compared to where the neighboring units were built. An image was shown that displayed sightlines based on building at the requested distance versus at the BRL. The neighbor to the east does have a rear yard variance that allows the structure to be 12 feet closer to this property than what would be allowed. Both neighbors have rebuilt or added on in the mid 2000s utilizing standard zoning setbacks but did not follow the BRLs. This has resulted in both homes being about 15 feet from their northern property line where they also have a 25 foot BRL. Mr. Reichler asked if a formal site plan had been submitted. Planner Reeves stated that one had not. Mr. Reichler then asked what the buildable area would be for the lot. Planner Reeves stated that the variance would be an increase of about 500 square feet of buildable area. Mr. Reichler asked a series of follow up questions related to light and air and the possibility of the neighbors to expand. Planner Reeves that the previously presented sightline diagram could also be seen as light and air while also confirming that the neighboring properties could both add on to their homes. Applicant Comment Saswata Roy, 90 Ocean Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, introduced himself as the owner of the property and that he has asked Page 3 of 7 Chris Lambertson, his builder, to speak on his behalf. Mr. Lambertson pointed to the surrounding conditions in the neighboring properties that place this one in a unique circumstance. He also noted that while the both neighboring properties are 15 feet from the property line, they are only requesting 20 feet to be at the normal front yard setback and to provide some relief from the surrounding conditions. He also pointed to the lack of enforcement of the regulations. He then addressed some of Mr. Reichler’s previous concerns that the home will be about 4,000 square feet, two stories tall with a detached accessory structure. Mr. Lambertson then provided a letter of support to the board. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. John Dinneen of 110 8th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he is the owner of the neighboring property to the east and that he is in favor of the variance. Mr. Roy spoke briefly that he would like everyone to know that he is trying to build something that fits into Atlantic Beach where they can have some room to plant things and back and enjoy their yard. Joe McGurrin of 659 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke in favor of the variance. With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Parkes stated that he is the architect on this project and recused himself from the vote. Mr. Elmore reminded the board that they recently heard a similar case on East Coast Drive that the board denied. He stated that he did not necessarily oppose this variance but does have concerns about the previous case. Mr. Stratton noted each case is different. Mr. Elmore then asked staff how many more of these BRLs exist in the city. Staff responded that the Selva Marina neighborhood has BRLs and there could be more. Mr. Stratton stated that the previous structure on this site violated the BRL and that this is just putting it back where it was. Mr. Parkes, speaking as the project architect, stated that the previous structure violated the BRL and so do the neighbors and you won’t find that in Selva Marina. Discussion continued about setting precedent on BRLs. Page 4 of 7 Mr. Reichler stated that he is having a hard time finding a legal reason to approve this variance. He reminded the board that nearby nonconformities are not grounds to approve a variance. Mr. Stratton stated that he thinks number 2 where surrounding conditions impact the property. Mrs. Paul stated that she felt number 4 would qualify where platted BRLs are outdated and that they can be removed with a little bit of paperwork. Mr. Elmore stated that those are logical arguments. Motion Mr. Elmore made a motion to approve the variance finding that surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties, and that the onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. 16-ZVAR -13 (PUBLIC HEARING) 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 (170 8th Street). Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and stated that this is a two part variance that requires both parts for them to be able to do what they would like do. It was explained that this property is also part of the Club Manor plat and had platted BRLs. In this case the applicant would like to construct an addition onto the house for a garage that will go over the 15 foot BRL located along Ocean Boulevard. The property is on a corner lot where by code the front yard is along Ocean Boulevard and the side yard is along 8th Street. The house is functionally designed facing 8th Street and is about 15 feet from the 8th Street property line. The house is about 17 feet from the property line along Ocean Boulevard. Both sides are nonconforming due to setbacks and BRLs. A two part variance is needed to address the nonconformities and allow the addition of a garage. The first part is to redefine the front yard as corner lot. By making 8th Street as the front yard, the home will largely be made conforming related to setbacks with the exception of the area 15 feet from the 8th Street property line. The second part is to allow the garage addition to violate the BRLs to go to the standard zoning setback Page 5 of 7 for a corner lot which is 10 feet in the side yard instead of the 15 foot BRL. Diagrams were shown of enforceable setbacks pre and post variance if it were approved. The plat of the neighborhood was shown to demonstrate that it was originally intended to be 4 lots on this side of the 8th Street that would make 8th Street the front yard for all 4 lots. When the lots were divided into 3, the 2 lots on the ends had their yards shifted, which conflicts with the BRLs. An option of a lesser variance was presented that would remove the BRL from the Ocean Boulevard side only, which would still allow the applicant to build what they want while preserving the BRL along 8th Street. The consistency with the surrounding area was discussed where most properties along Ocean Boulevard have a 20 foot setback along Ocean Boulevard and this would have a 10 foot setback. The properties within the same plat have a 15 foot BRL along Ocean Boulevard. The other properties along 8th Street also have a 25 foot BRL with the exception of the other variance that was approved tonight. Mr. Reichler asked why a variance to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure was not also requested. Planner Reeves stated that the code allows nonconforming structures to be added onto when the addition does not make the structure more nonconforming. Basically, that the addition must be within setbacks and meet all other codes. Mr. Reichler then asked if the proposed addition could be done in referenced lesser variance and why it differs from the request. Planner Reeves stated that the lesser variance allows the proposed addition to be constructed, but the full variance removes all BRLs from the site when only side needs to be removed. Mr. Reichler then asked if the board had the authority to change yard designation and that perhaps this should have been a request to reduce the front yard setback instead complicating it with the corner lot designation. Mr. Hubsch stated that he agreed that that was another option to reach the desired outcome and that the board could make their motion in that manor if they chose. Applicant Comment William Dorsey, 170 8th Street, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, introduced himself as the owner of the property and stated that the front of his house has always been 8th Street functionally and by address. He stated that he would simply like to add a garage that the house does not currently have. He presented a photo of the property showing the Page 6 of 7 impervious surface that he planned to remove as part of the construction. He added that he would be ok with the lesser variance. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. Berry Adeeb, 501 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he was in favor of the variance and asked if the variance ran with the property. Mr. Hubsch answered Mr. Adeeb’s question stating that yes variance do run with the land. With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Reichler stated that is clear that the house already violates the setbacks on 3 sides after the conversion of the previous garage and porches to living space and adding on. He added that the owner has not presented a legal reason to approve the variance other than the fact that he does not have a garage like his neighbors. He then stated that he would be in favor of granting the lesser variance. Mr. Elmore stated that he is concerned that this would be the only property along Ocean Boulevard in this area to have a 10 foot setback. Mr. Parkes stated that he was concerned about changing the front yard and side yard for a corner lot. Mrs. Paul echoed that feeling. Mr. Parkes asked for clarity on how through lots are treated. Mr. Hubsch stated that Ocean Boulevard is the front yard for those lots. Mr. Reichler stated that the board should consider the lesser variance. Mr. Parkes agreed. Mr. Elmore asked if the property to the south was a side yard on Ocean Boulevard. Planner Reeves stated that its front yard is on Ocean Boulevard even though the house functionally faces 7th Street. Discussion ensued about the precedent that this variance could set for other corner lots. Motion Mr. Patrick made a motion to deny the variance finding that the variance would have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the community. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 5. REPORTS. None. Page 7 of 7 6. ADJOURNMENT. Prior to adjournment, Mr. Elmore asked staff for information related to the Gate gas station project after having several people approach him about it as a board member. Mr. Hubsch stated that the city received a permit application for a gas station in the fall and staff has been working through the review process with the applicant. There have been a lot of questions from the public about the use. Staff, with the help of the City Attorney determined that the proposed use fits within the allowable use of an Automobile Service Station in the Commercial General zoning district where the property is located. For additional clarity on the matter, the city hired Steve Lindorff, the former Director of Jacksonville Beach’s Planning Department with over 35 years of experience to review the use and other aspects of the permit. He too found that the city made proper decisions related to the project. The city did receive notice today that two adjacent businesses have appealed and those appeals will be heard by the City Commission. Mr. Elmore asked if this would be coming before the board. Mr. Hubsch stated that the project would only come before the board if it needed a variance and that to this point they have gone above and beyond our requirements. Mr. Elmore then asked if there will be access to the adjoining streets other than Atlantic Boulevard. Mr. Hubsch stated that they have one access point on the side street and two on the rear street. Mr. Elmore asked if commission has the ability to deny the project. Mr. Hubsch stated that commission could rule against his decision and deny the permit at which point there could be an appeal to a higher court. Mr. Reichler asked that staff help applicants understand where the required yards are on their property relative to their address and the built conditions on the lot in order to avoid future issues. Mr. Hubsch assured Mr. Reichler that this is done by staff, but that staff will do better in the future to avoid those types of issues. Mr. Parkes motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm. _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest     CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A CASE NO 16-ZVAR-45 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as required by Section 24-161(f)(2) to 1500 feet allowing of shared parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Block 1 Lots 2, 4 and 6 (aka 303 Atlantic Boulevard). LOCATION 303 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD APPLICANT AL MANSUR DATE MARCH 8, 2016 STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Al Mansur, who is the owner of Al’s Pizza at 303 Atlantic Boulevard. The property is located within the Central Business District (CBD) zoning district, known locally as the Beaches Town Center. The restaurant currently has 108 seats and 21 parking spaces, plus another 4 spaces in the rear that can accommodate 7 cars with tandem parking that are typically used by staff. Section 24-161(h)(15) requires 1 parking space for every 4 seats for restaurant uses. The applicant is planning to add onto the existing structure and ultimately provide 150 seats to the restaurant while not removing any existing parking. The applicant is requesting this variance so that they can reach the required parking for their planned expansion to 150 seats. The expansion is necessary to get a full liquor license for the restaurant, which will enable it to be competitive with most of the other restaurants at the Town Center. The required parking for 108 seats is 27 spaces, which would mean that property is under parked by two spaces today. However, functionally 28 spaces are utilized on property. By increasing the number of seats to 150, a total of 38 parking spaces need to be provided. The property lacks additional space for any new parking. Section 24-161(f)(2) allows for shared parking agreements with nearby properties, provided that they can demonstrate excess capacity at their peak hours and that they are within 400 feet. The applicant has secured shared parking agreements with four properties and also an agreement with an existing valet service within the Beaches Town Center. However, the furthest of the shared parking agreement is almost 1500 feet from the property. A variance is needed to allow the city to accept a shared parking agreement that is in excess of 400 feet away from the property. The map on the next page shows the location of each proposed location for a shared parking agreement where the restaurant is outlined in red, the valet is an orange star and the lots are yellow stars. The valet service is located directly across the street from the restaurant and will provide signage on property directing customers to its location. It will operate 7 days a week during peak hours. Two blocks to the south of the restaurant is a bank property providing 15 spaces at all times and all other spaces during non-bank hours. Another block south is a church that is providing 14 spaces every day except Sunday and all spaces after 3PM on those days. A block to the southwest of that church is another bank that is providing all spaces during non-bank hours. This property is the furthest at almost 1500 feet away. Finally, there is another church 2 blocks to the west of the restaurant that is providing 60 spaces every day except Sunday before Page 2 of 4 2PM and Wednesday after 6PM. They are also providing 120 spaces Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday after 4PM and Sunday after 2PM. Not counting the valet service, the shared parking agreements provide 15 spaces at all times within 800 feet of the restaurant. All of the locations combined provide in excess of over 200 parking spaces at certain times of the week, which is most evenings when demand is the highest. Shared parking agreements are a common tool, especially within urban areas where there are a mix of uses and limited parking. Visitors to urban shopping/dining districts such as the Beaches Town Center often expect to park off-site. In fact, Al’s Pizza is somewhat unique amongst Beaches Town Center restaurants, in that it does provide a substantial amount of required parking on-site. Due to the popularity of the Beaches Town Center, the Beaches Town Center Agency is seeking creative solutions to provide parking for its businesses. One of the solutions is to contract with property owners on the periphery of the Town Center that have excess parking. This strategy can potentially allow Al’s Pizza to provide necessary parking above and beyond the City’s code requirements. Any and all shared parking agreements will be verified by staff prior to approval and acceptance by the city. The locations of the proposed agreements will be verified if the variance is approved to allow the location of the parking to be up to 1500 feet from the property. Staff recommends that if the CDB approves the variance, a condition be placed upon the approval which would require the applicant to place signage in its current parking lot directing visitors to the allocated off-site lots. 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 applicant has stated in their application that they are in the middle of the Town Center where parking is very limited and that that limitation is preventing them from providing a service that most other restaurants are able to provide and often with less dedicated parking than they already provide. (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 they are a restaurant that wants to provide a service to their customers but cannot due to the limited parking and the existing structure on the property. (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-45, request to increase the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as required by Section 24-161(f)(2) to 1500 feet allowing for shared parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Block 1 Lots 2, 4 and 6 (aka 303 Atlantic 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 16-ZVAR-45, request to increase the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as required by Section 24-161(f)(2) to 1500 feet allowing for shared parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Block 1 Lots 2, 4 and 6 (aka 303 Atlantic Boulevard), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below. No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the following: (1) Light and air to adjacent properties. (2) Congestion of streets. (3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety. (4) Established property values. (5) The aesthetic environment of the community. (6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources. (7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community. Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.     CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.B CASE NO 16-UBEX-41 Request for use-by-exception as permitted by Section 3-5, to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant within the Central Business District at 303 Atlantic Boulevard. LOCATION 303 Atlantic Boulevard APPLICANT Al Mansur DATE March 8, 2016 STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Al Mansur, owner of Al’s Pizza, which is located at 303 Atlantic Boulevard. The property is located in the Central Business District (CBD) zoning district. Mr. Mansur is in the process of designing a renovation and expansion of his existing restaurant. Part of the expansion will be the addition of additional seats, which will enable the restaurant to be licensed by the State of Florida for full alcohol service. The applicant is required to obtain a Use-By-Exception per Section 3-5 of the City Code which states, “The sale of any alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption, including beer, wine and liquor shall be properly licensed by the City of Atlantic Beach, and shall be limited only to restaurants, cafes, bars and private clubs within commercial general and commercial limited zoning districts or the central business district in compliance with chapter 24 of the city code and subject to approval of a use-by-exception in accordance with section 24-63.” There are several nearby restaurants in the Atlantic Beach portion of the Beaches Town Center that have full alcohol service, including Poe’s, Ragtime, and Ocean 60. In order to expand the existing restaurant, the applicant will have to provide additional parking. The applicant is seeking to provide the required parking offsite through a shared parking agreement. The shared parking agreement has been submitted to the city, but needs a zoning variance due to the distance from the site. The zoning variance will be approved or denied at the March 22nd CDB meeting. Page 2 of 2 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. 16-UBEX-41) to allow a restaurant with on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages within the Central Business District (CBD) Zoning District and located at 303 Atlantic Boulevard 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 24-114(b) in that the proposed use is found to be consistent with the uses permitted in the CBD 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. 16-UBEX-41) to allow a restaurant with on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages with in the Central Business District (CBD) Zoning District and located at 303 Atlantic Boulevard 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 24-114(b) in that the proposed use is found to be inconsistent with the uses permitted in the CBD 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.C CASE NO 16-ZVAR-33 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the required eastern side yard setback from 15 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet to allow a 3 unit townhouse building at Donners Subdivision part of Lot 15 (aka 125 Donner Road). LOCATION 125 DONNER ROAD APPLICANT CHRIS LAMBERTSON DATE MARCH 8, 2016 STAFF DEREK REEVES, PLANNER STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Chris Lambertson, the owner and developer of 125 Donner Road. The property is located in the Residential General Multi-family (RG-M) zoning district and has a Residential High (RH) future land use designation. These allow for multi-family properties with up to 20 units per acre. At 20 units per acre the applicant could build up to 13 units on his 0.66 acres of land. The applicant has already built 2-two unit townhouse style buildings on the western portion of the site and is proposing to build a third building with 3 townhouse style units on the remaining portion of the site that would be 7.5 feet from the eastern side property line. This would result in a total of 7 units. A variance may be required depending on the board’s interpretation of the code related to side yard setbacks within the RG-M zoning district. Staff is first asking that the board assist staff in interpreting the code by reviewing the relevant language and providing direction. The issue at hand is how to treat a townhouse structure with 3 or more units related to side yard requirements. Section 24-108(e)(3)(b) side yard, states, “Two-family (duplex) dwellings and townhouse: Seven and one half (7.5) feet each side.” Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) side yard, states, “Multi- family dwellings: Fifteen (15) feet each side.” Townhouse is listed in section (b) with a 7.5 foot side yard setback. But a 3 or more unit townhouse style building is also multi-family and could fall into section (c). Definitions within the Section 24-17 provide little else in clarity. Townhouse is defined as, “a residential dwelling unit constructed in a group of two (2) or more attached units with ownership lines separating each dwelling unit through a common wall(s) and where ownership of each dwelling unit is held in fee-simple title for property as defined by a metes and bounds or other valid legal description…” Dwelling, multifamily is defined as, “a residential building designed for or occupied exclusively by three (3) or more families…” The applicant has designed the individual units to be sold fee-simple meeting the townhouse definition, the building is also designed for three families which also makes the building multi-family. The proposed structure could be considered both a townhouse and a multi-family building for setback purposes. The one difference between a multi-family building and townhouse building is the impact on adjoining properties. A townhouse style building results in a single unit adjacent to the side property line, while a multi-family building could have any number of units adjacent to the side property line. This places more units, often stacked on top of each other, next to a side property line. Due to this it makes more sense Page 2 of 4 to place multi-family buildings further from side property lines that could overlook into a neighbor’s property. The board can decide to treat a 3 unit townhouse building as a “townhouse” and allow a 7.5 foot side yard setback, which negates the necessity of a variance for this applicant. Or, the board can decide to treat a 3 unit townhouse building as “multifamily” and require a 15 foot side yard setback. This would require a variance to be approved for the applicant. If a variance is required, the applicant has pointed out in their application that they are requesting to build 7 total units, which is nearly half of the maximum density of 13 units. This was done to keep the structures consistent with the surrounding area that is composed mostly of single family homes and other townhouses. The proposed units would be similar to those already completed to the west and be two stories tall with an oversized one car garage with fully fenced backyards. The site plan above shows a possible layout for a 3 unit townhouse building and the distances to neighboring properties. Note that Ardella Road cuts across the properties on the north, Richardson Lane runs along the eastern edge of the image and Donner Road is along the south side. Page 3 of 4 ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. The applicant stated in their application that the regulations are unclear and that they unfairly discriminate against the townhouse building type that has the same impacts on neighbors as large multi- family buildings. (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-33, request to reduce the required eastern side yard setback from 15 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet to allow a 3 unit townhouse building at Donners Subdivision part of Lot 15 (aka 125 Donner Road), 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-33, request to reduce the required eastern side yard setback from 15 feet as required by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet to allow a 3 unit townhouse building at Donners Subdivision part of Lot 15 (aka 125 Donner Road), 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.