6-21-16-Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / June 21, 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 April 19, 2016 regular meeting of the Community Development
Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 16-UBEX-101 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Atlantic Beach Brewing Company)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-111(c)(3 and 5), to allow
on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of
the code and limited wholesale operations at 725 Atlantic Boulevard Unit 3 and 15.
B. 16-ZVAR-105 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Tim Shea)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the rear yard
setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-106(e)(2) to 9 feet 4 inches at Saltair
Section 3 Lot 362 (aka 398 Sherry Drive).
C. 16-ZVAR-109 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Sean Monahan)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce a two-way drive
aisle width from 22 feet as required by Section 24-161(g)(3) to 14 feet to allow a
new parking design while maintaining existing buildings at Saltair Section 1 Lots 762
to 766 (aka 625 Atlantic Boulevard).
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 11
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
April 19, 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, except Mrs. Simons, Mr. Parkes and
alternate Mr. Mandelbaum. Also present were Building and Zoning
Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Planner, Derek Reeves and representing the firm
Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of March 22, 2016
Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the March 22nd meeting.
Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
A. 16-ZVAR -33 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce
the required eastern side yard setback form 15 feet as required
by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet to allow a 3 unit townhouse
building at Donner’s Subdivision part of Lot 15 (aka 125 Donner
Road).
Mrs. Paul stated that the public hearing for this item had been opened at
the previous meeting and deferred to this meeting. During the time
between meetings the item was withdrawn. She then stated that the
public hearing is closed and no further action needs to be taken.
Page 2 of 11
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 16-REZN-1065 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for Special Planned Area (SPA) rezoning as permitted by
Sections 24-116 through 24-126 to allow a maximum of 15
residential units. The property is currently zoned Residential,
Single Family (RS-1). The Future Land Use Designation is
Residential Low Density (RL).
Staff Report
Before the staff presentation began. Mrs. Paul stated that the applicant
had submitted some new information on Friday that staff has not fully
reviewed and is not included in the agenda packet. With that in mind she
stated that she did not expect the board to come to a final decision
tonight.
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and stated that is an application to
rezone a piece of property to Special Planned Area (SPA) from Residential
Single Family (RS-1). The property does have a Future Land Use
designation of Residential Low. He stated that an SPA is zoning
classification that allows for unique aspects that do not fit within the
City’s traditional zoning districts. The example of the Atlantic Beach
Country Club was given as a recent project to go through process.
He showed the location of the property north of 11th Street, west of
Sherman’s Creek, east of the Selva Linkside neighborhood and south of
the Atlantic Beach Country Club and is 7.2 acres in size.
The Residential Low Future Land Use designation has been in place since
1990 on this property and allows up to 6 units per acre. This is consistent
with the surrounding neighborhoods.
A brief history of the zoning changes on the property was given. In 1982,
when a major overhaul of the zoning code was completed, the property
was zoned Open Rural. This was changed in 2003 by the City when it
eliminated the Open Rural classification and converted it to Conservation.
In 2008, the property owners rezoned the property to RS-1 and planned
for 16 units. Prior to any development, the owners partnered with the
redevelopers of the Selva Marina Country Club and joined their PUD in
2009. When the development fell through and the Atlantic Beach Country
Club came in 2013, this property was not part of their plans and was
converted back to RS-1.
Page 3 of 11
The owners today are proposing a 12 lot single family home development
with the possibility of up to 15 units. Minimum lot size would be 60 feet
wide and 100 feet deep. Front yard setbacks would be 20 feet, rear yard
would be 10 feet and side yards would be 5 feet. Waivers would be
needed for the 60 foot lot width as it is less than the City’s standard 75
foot requirement for residential, as well as the 10 foot rear yard which is
less than the standard 20 feet and for the 5 foot side yards which is less
than the standard total of 15 feet. They are proposing a private road with
access from 11th Street with a gate and underground utilities. A site plan
was shown where the private road would parallel Linkside Drive and lots
would run west to east.
Mr. Hubsch then showed where existing wetlands exist on the site
including what areas would be filled and preserved. He noted the berm
and swale system that separated the lots from the wetlands and directed
water to a pond in the Atlantic Beach Country Club where the owners
have permission to store their runoff. It was explained that the owners
had submitted an environmental assessment back in 2008 and the City
hired Steve Swan as an independent reviewer to provide a report on the
site. Both reports found that the canal was man made to provide
stormwater improvements and that it had degraded the quality of the
wetlands on this property.
In 2010, when the City acquired the Buckman Trust, the City added some
provisions to the code as part of wetland and waterway protections. One
provision that was added was that there shall be no net loss of
jurisdictional wetlands within the City. Allowances for preservation,
restoration and relocation were also created. The applicants are
proposing to fill 1.74 acres of wetlands on site and 0.07 acres offsite
where the fill on site would affect adjoining wetlands owned by the Selva
Linkside HOA. They are proposing to preserve; 1.74 acres of wetlands,
0.15 acres of upland berm, 0.36 acres of ditch, and 0.24 acres of
Sherman’s Creek that is on the property. They have received a permit
from the St John’s River Water Management District to fill the 1.74 acres
of wetlands and to mitigate in Clay County at a mitigation bank. However,
this does not meet the City’s requirement for no net loss of wetlands.
The applicants submitted a reforestation plan to improve the preserved
wetlands, but staff recommended denial of that plan finding it to be
insufficient. The applicants have recently submitted a revised plan to
meet the restoration allowance that staff has not fully reviewed.
The applicants have asked for a series of waivers as allowable by code.
The board was reminded that waivers should not just be given and should
Page 4 of 11
be weighed for their ability to provide a better outcome. As noted before,
these include lot width, rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks. They
were originally seeking one access point where code requires two for the
number of lots. They have found a solution that Public Works will
approve. They are also requesting a waiver from the required 50 foot
buffer from Sherman’s Creek and a 25 foot upland buffer from wetlands,
which made up for by the swale and berm system proposed. Another
waiver is from the requirement for no net loss of wetlands. They propose
that their preservation and restoration plan meets code.
Going forward, the board is making a recommendation to the City
Commission where it can recommend approval, approval with conditions
or denial. Staff would like the board to consider some possible conditions
if they do recommend approval. That would be to only allow a 10 foot
rear yard on lots that do not abut Sherman’s Creek. This would provide an
additional buffer like the standard 20 foot rear yard setback. Second staff
would recommend that the preserved wetlands be put into a
conservation easement to be held by a third party. Public Works has
asked that the side yard setbacks be expanded for Lots 9 and 10 where
adjacent to a drainage easement. The last would be to require
measurable standards for the wetland restoration.
Mrs. Lanier asked if there was any other private land to the north of this
land. Mr. Hubsch stated that it is the Atlantic Beach Country Club to the
north. Mr. Reichler asked about missing information in the application
including a topographic map and other aspects. Mr. Hubsch stated that
aspects of the application are addressed at ordinance level and not
necessary at this stage, but that if the board felt they were important now
could make that part of their motion. Mr. Reichler asked if it was the code
or Comprehensive Plan came first in respect to the wetlands portion. Mr.
Hubsch stated that they were done at the same time. Mr. Elmore pointed
out that the code is what is enforceable.
Applicant Comment
Laura Ferrante, 1760 Selva Marina Drive, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233,
introduced herself as an attorney and part owner of the property. Ms.
Ferrante began by giving a history of the property including the efforts
taken over the ten years of their ownership. She covered the
environmental, wetland, stormwater, traffic and zoning aspects of the
plan. She added that she felt like this process has taken long enough and
asked for the item to not be deferred. She stated that they had provided
everything that was asked for and nothing should be lacking.
She next addressed the different aspects of the plan. The number of lots
gave them flexibility on arrangement. Provisions for a second access had
Page 5 of 11
been worked out and agreed to. They are preserving 2.51 acres of
wetlands in a conservation easement with North Florida Land Trust. They
did just provide and enhanced restoration plan to the City. She then
noted that they will comply with required tree mitigation.
Ms. Ferrante moved to the issue of no net loss of wetland in the City. She
stated that they are impacting 1.74 acres of wetlands and that those
wetlands are of a low quality and functionality. She then stated that the
City does not have a system to provide mitigation within the City, but that
they do still have the option to restore and enhance the wetlands that
they are preserving on site. A restoration and enhancement plan has
been submitted to the City but the code is not clear on how it should be
treated. Public Works directed them to get a UMAM, which is commonly
used by the water management district and DEP. She noted that these
organizations use these methods to establish their preferred method of
mitigation in wetland banks. This is because large sites benefit the region
better than multiple small sites. They did get a UMAM and came back
with 0.464 units of impact and a total functional gain based on their plan
of 0.469.
The second aspect of this was the reforestation plan. She stated that 440
trees per acre in three gallon containers is the standard, though this
property has 278 trees per acre today. They are looking at 166 to 182
three gallon trees per acre as is consistent with the water management
and DEP practices.
She then moved to tree mitigation where they have heard the concerns
of residents and are proposing the use of legacy trees that will replace the
canopy quickly. She noted that their certified arborist studied the site and
found that most species were of lower quality, shorter lifespan types that
were less resistant to wind and susceptible to failure. Mr. Reichler asked
about what she meant by failure as all trees die. Ms. Ferrante responded
that the land is sinking, causing roots be exposed and are already leaning
from ocean breezes. She stated that they are proposing trees that are fit
for these types of locations.
She clarified that the reforestation plan is not intended to meet tree
mitigation and that that will be treated separately. She stated they plan to
use a mix of 3 to 30 gallon trees for the reforestation to promote a
quicker return to full canopy. Because most of the trees are larger than
the standard mentioned before, they can be spaced further apart. Their
plan has 174 trees, which have been approve by the regulatory agencies.
Page 6 of 11
Ms. Ferrante then moved to applicable Comprehensive Plan sections and
stated up front that she believed that they met all of the ones mentioned
in the staff report.
She then moved onto the waivers listed by staff. She stated that waivers 1
through 3 are not prohibited by SPA zoning so they should not be
considered waivers, but instead as development conditions. She felt items
4, 6 and 7 are waivers and they have agreed to meet 4 and 7. Waiver 5
has a specific exception listed in code granting the ability so it too should
not be a waiver.
After summarizing their plan, Ms. Ferrante and her team fielded
questions from the board. Mr. Elmore asked how much fill would be
brought in on the developable land. Mr. Jim Lucas, the projects engineer,
stated that minimum flood elevation is 6 feet and the homes finish floors
would be at least 8.5 feet. Mr. Reichler added that he believed that he
saw 11 feet in their application the water management district. Mr.
Elmore then stated that his point was that every tree would have to be
removed because you could not fill around the trees that much.
Mr. Reichler asked about the ability to mitigate within the City. Ms.
Ferrante described their mitigation with the water management district
and army corp. at mitigation banks outside of the City. Mr. Ryan Carter,
the projects wetlands expert, addressed the issue with how mitigation is
accepted by different regulatory bodies. He explained that the preferred
method of mitigation is to use a mitigation bank and that 99 percent of
cases he has worked that is the end result. Mr. Reichler then asked for a
good faith effort that they tried to get approved mitigation within the City
and did not just go with the preferred method. Mr. Carter responded that
it is not impossible to get approval to mitigate within the City, but that it
would be very difficult.
Mr. Elmore asked Mr. Carper for clarity on the status of Sherman’s Creek
and if the Army Corp. has jurisdiction. Mr. Carper responded that the in
his experience, the Army Corp. has always claimed jurisdiction including
on this very project.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. She asked that due to the
number of speakers, that each person limit their time to three minutes.
Martha Padgett, 888 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 showed the
board a poster and several pictures and asked that the board deny the
Page 7 of 11
rezoning based on wildlife and environmental aspects found in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Don Padgett, 888 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
supported what was just said and added that he recognizes property
rights but that the environmental should be looked at again.
Barbara Esparza, 1436 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 declined to
speak. Mrs. Paul recognized that she is opposed to the rezoning.
David Vincent, 1130 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 concurred
with the first speaker’s thoughts and noted that the amount of wildlife
has increased in recent years and asked what would stop people from
going into the preserved areas.
Justin Blakeman, 1451 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is opposed to the development and that it would not fit with the area.
Ron and Sue Able, 1227 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 declined
to speak. Mrs. Paul recognized that they are opposed to the rezoning.
Mary Ann Bennett, 1180 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated
that she has seen this property come up for discussion many times before
and that it does not fit for restoration and environmental reasons.
Charlotte Tingen, 1198 Sandpiper Lane E, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
declined to speak. Mrs. Paul recognized that she is opposed to the
rezoning.
Donna Miller, 1450 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 declined to
speak. Mrs. Paul recognized that she is opposed to the rezoning.
Mark Tingen, 1198 Sandpiper Lane E, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is the President of the Selva Linkside HOA and that he has been
following this for a month, which has been difficult and that there is no
way to address what was submitted last Friday.
Robert Hogan, 1164 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he has concerns about utility locations and traffic impacts.
Glad Hogan, 1164 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she
was against the project because of the filled wetlands.
Page 8 of 11
Mike Armour, 1132 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
is concerned about the amount of fill and flood impacts.
Duane Roberts, 1196 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he supports property rights but is concerned about flooding, setbacks and
traffic.
Maria Mark, 1148 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she
has a history with this property including a law suit with the City and a
settlement with the property owners. She added that she supports the
proposed development with 15 lots.
Claudia Estes, 1275 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that is
opposed to the project after the country club had expand the retention
ponds near her house due to needed capacity and what would happen on
this property.
Kenneth Boston, 1211 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is concerned about the impacts on wildlife that live in the woods of
this property.
With no more speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Lanier asked why the property was changed from Conservation. Mr.
Hubsch stated that the Future Land Use Map, which designates future
possibilities, has been Residential Low since 1990. The zoning at the time
and to 2003 was Open Rural and was changed by the City to Conservation
because it got rid of the Open Rural designation and converted those
properties to Conservation. When the applicants rezoned the property to
RS-1 in 2008, the residential zoning was consistent with Residential Low
Future Land Use. Mrs. Lanier asked more information to the deliberations
on the change from Conservation to RS-1. Mr. Hubsch stated that the staff
report from the change is in the agenda packet and that staff could add
the minutes from meetings if this comes before the board again.
Mrs. Paul asked what was allowed in Conservation and Open Rural
districts. Mr. Hubsch confirmed that Conservation would prohibit
buildings and Open Rural would allow very low intensity uses.
Mr. Elmore suggested that the developer be able to go back and make
changes to address comments made tonight. He added that the property
is zoned for residential so the board has to respect that. He then
expressed concerns over the 5 foot side yard setbacks and tree removal.
Page 9 of 11
Mr. Rick Carper, contracted reviewer of the project for the City, addressed
stormwater and flooding concerns. He noted that stormwater ponds are
designed for 25 year events, which the ponds at the country club do have
excess capacity designed for this project. The event in November
exceeded a 25 year storm and that’s why there was flooding. Mrs. Paul
asked if the design is consistent with other regulatory bodies. Mr. Carper
confirmed that it is consistent.
Motion
Mr. Reichler made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning
application to the City Commission finding the project to be inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Goal A.1, Objective A.1.1, A.1.2 and Policy
A.1.2.1. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Reichler
expressed his concerns that the applicant has not shown that these
requirements are being met or that they are not being met with
documented reasons for why it is not. He suggested that applicant may
want to address that and come back.
Mr. Reichler amended his motion to recommend denial of the rezoning
application to the City Commission finding the project to be in violation of
Section 24-272(b) of the Land Development Regulations. Mrs. Lanier
seconded the amended motion for discussion.
Mrs. Paul asked if the City had any system in place for applicants to
mitigate within the City. Mr. Carper stated that there is no formal system.
Mrs. Paul asked how long it would take to do that. Mr. Carper stated that
it would be several months. Mr. Reichler asked if there were methods
such as on site mitigation available. Mr. Carper said that they could do
that.
Mr. Stratton stated that it may be useful to the applicant for the board to
address the board’s specific issues. Mrs. Paul agreed and suggested going
through the individual waiver requests.
Mrs. Paul began the discussion with waiver request one for a minimum
lot width of 60 feet. Mr. Stratton stated that larger lots would allow for
more green space. Mr. Elmore pointed out that smaller lots puts the same
number of lots in a smaller area which frees up space for wetlands. Mrs.
Lanier addressed the consistency with the surrounding neighborhoods
where Selva Linkside does have smaller lots but Selva Marina has much
larger lots.
Mrs. Paul covered waiver request two for a 10 foot rear setback. Mrs.
Simmons stated this is similar to the first waiver in that they both are
Page 10 of 11
about green space and so is waiver three about 5 foot side yard setbacks.
Mrs. Paul expressed her concerns about how close homes would be
together.
Mrs. Paul stated that waiver request four has been resolved between the
applicant and Public Works according to the applicant’s most recent
submission.
Mrs. Paul then covered waiver request 5 for the 50 foot buffer from
Sherman’s Creek. Mr. Elmore stated that he felt the 50 foot requirement
should be required for all lots to preserve the environment. Mrs. Lanier
agreed and then asked staff who enforces the buffer in the future. Mr.
Hubsch stated that it would be a natural vegetative buffer that could not
be filled or altered and Code Enforcement would enforce that long term.
Mr. Carper stated that the Water Management District is requiring a deed
restriction.
Mrs. Paul next addressed waiver request 6 for the 25 foot buffer from
wetlands. She added that a swale and berm system would be used
instead. Mr. Carper stated that the swale is more beneficial from a water
quality standpoint. Mrs. Lanier pointed out that a berm would not have
trees on it like the buffer will.
Mrs. Paul stated that the applicant has agreed to meet the requirements
for a sidewalk and a waiver is not needed.
Mrs. Paul moved to the last waiver request for no net loss of wetland
within the City. Mrs. Paul stated that it seems pretty clear that the public
and board do not want to see a loss of wetlands regardless of the quality.
Mrs. Lanier said that the animals do not know the difference between
manmade and natural areas and that we should seek to preserve this
habitat. Mr. Reichler stated that the applicant could provide evidence that
they meet this requirement.
Mr. Reichler withdrew his motion. Mrs. Lanier accepted the withdrawn
motion.
Mr. Elmore made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning
application to the City Commission specifically including the denial of
waivers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
Page 11 of 11
5. REPORTS.
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Lanier seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned
at 9:28 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4A
CASE NO 16-UBEX-101
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-111(c)(3 and 5), to
allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with
Chapter 3 of the code and limited wholesale operations at 725 Atlantic
Boulevard Unit 3 and 15.
LOCATION 725 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD, UNITS 3 AND 15
APPLICANT ATLANTIC BEACH BREWING COMPANY
DATE JUNE 8, 2016
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS The applicants intend to open a microbrewery, the “Atlantic Beach Brewing Company” in an existing shopping center at 725 Atlantic Boulevard. The shopping center is zoned Commercial General (CG). A use by-exception is required by Section 24-111 (c) (3) for onsite consumption of alcohol and by 24-111 (c) (5) for limited wholesale operations. The applicants intend to use two separate, but adjacent units for their business. The rear unit will be used for brewing and distributing beer, while the front unit will be a “tap room” that serves beer brewed on site. The applicants are planning to have 84 seats in the “tap room”. The applicants may also occasionally use the “brew room” for special events. The rear unit is 5,148 square feet and the front unit is 1,650 square feet. The applicants have stated that the business will close at 11 pm Monday-Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday nights. The existing shopping center is somewhat unique, in that the front units which face Atlantic Boulevard are a mix of retail, service, and dining; while the rear units, which are accessed via Sailfish Drive are more or less warehouses. The shopping center has several restaurants which serve alcohol, such as Cantina Louie, Fish Company, and North Beach Bistro. The rear portion of the site is currently used for deliveries at existing businesses, and does not immediately abut residential. This makes the site one of the most appropriate places for a microbrewery in Atlantic Beach. Microbreweries elsewhere are occasionally used for special events, fundraisers, and parties. Staff recommends that the City consider putting conditions on the proposed use (if approved), that would limit the amount of people that can attend events, and prohibits functions from taking place in either the front or rear parking lots. Additionally, staff recommends placing conditions that will ensure that all brewing and storage activities take place within the building, and not the rear parking lot/loading area.
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-101) to allow on-premises
consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code and limited
wholesale operations within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 725
Atlantic Boulevard, Units 3 and 15 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 24-111(c) in that the proposed use is found to be consistent with the uses permitted in the CG zoning district with respect to intensity of use, traffic impacts and compatibility with existing industrial uses, commercial uses and any nearby residential uses.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial to the City
Commission of a requested Use-by-Exception (File No. 16-UBEX-101) to allow on-premises
consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code and limited
wholesale operations within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 725
Atlantic Boulevard, Units 3 and 15 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 24-111(c) in that the proposed use is found to be inconsistent with the uses permitted in the CG zoning districts with respect to intensity of use, traffic impacts and compatibility with existing industrial uses, commercial uses and any nearby residential uses.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO 16-ZVAR-105
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the rear yard
setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-106(e)(2) to 9 feet 4 inches at
Saltair Section 3 Lot 362 (aka 398 Sherry Drive).
LOCATION 398 SHERRY DRIVE
APPLICANT TIM SHEA
DATE JUNE 9, 2016
STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Tim Shea, a potential buyer of the property, with permission to act on the current owner’s behalf for this variance application. The property is located on the west side of Sherry Drive just north of Atlantic Beach Elementary. This property is in the Residential Single Family (RS-2) zoning district with existing single family homes on each side and in the rear. The applicant is planning to demolish the existing home and build a new home with a rear porch that will be 9 feet 4 inches from the rear property line. A variance is required because Section 24-106(e)(2) requires a rear yard setback of 20 feet for the primary structure. As seen in the site plan below (and in the application packet), the proposed attached 20 foot by 10 foot porch is to be well within the rear yard setback shown in red.
Page 2 of 4
The property has an irregular pie shape where the front is about 72 feet wide while the rear is about 46 feet wide with a total depth of about 97 feet. The required depth for a lot in the RS-2 zoning district is 100 feet. In this case the sides are 100 feet but the angles across the front and rear result in about 97 feet of depth. Typical lots in this plat are rectangular lots that are 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep. The average width on this lot is 59 feet which is significantly greater than typical lots in the area. When taking the 15 feet of side yard setbacks into consideration, the buildable area is 36 feet wide at the 20 foot rear yard setback line. This is a foot wider than what would be available on typical lots. Overall, this property is smaller than the minimum required size for new lots in the RS-2 zoning district of 75 feet wide by 100 feet deep. This would make this property, and most others in the area, a legal nonconforming lot of record. Nonconforming lots can be redeveloped provided they meet minimum setbacks. The proposed new home would replace an existing nonconforming structure that violates rear and side yard setbacks. It appears that this nonconformity was created around 1976 when the existing home was connected to an existing detached garage in the rear of the lot. A survey of the existing property is included in the application packet.
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.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
The applicant stated in their application that the irregular shape of the rear of the lot is forcing them to
request a variance for their rear porch area.
(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-105, request to reduce the
rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-106(e)(2) to 9 feet 4 inches at Saltair Section 3 Lot 362
(aka 398 Sherry Drive), 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-105, request to reduce the rear
yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-106(e)(2) to 9 feet 4 inches at Saltair Section 3 Lot 362 (aka
398 Sherry Drive), 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.C
CASE NO 16-ZVAR-109
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce a two-way drive
aisle width from 22 feet as required by Section 24-161(g)(3) to 14 feet to allow a
new parking design while maintaining existing buildings at Saltair Section 1 Lots
762 to 766 (aka 625 Atlantic Boulevard).
LOCATION 625 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
APPLICANT SEAN MONAHAN
DATE JUNE 8, 2016
STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Sean Monahan who is the authorized agent for 625 Atlantic Boulevard and the owner of 617 Atlantic Boulevard. Both properties have one-story commercial buildings at the rear of the lots with parking in front and are located within the Commercial General zoning district. The applicant is requesting to redesign both parking lots where 625 Atlantic Boulevard would have a 14 foot wide drive aisle between parking on either side. The parking at 617 Atlantic Boulevard would remain largely the same except that 2 spaces will be removed for access to the parking lot of 625 Atlantic Boulevard. The building at 617 Atlantic Boulevard is 1800 square feet, which requires 5 parking spaces for its current retail use. The site is currently over parked and the loss of 2 spaces will not be an issue, though the current spaces and drive aisle are nonconforming due to their substandard dimensions. The nonconforming parking can be maintained as is. The biggest changes will occur at 625 Atlantic Boulevard where the one large driveway to Atlantic Boulevard will be reduced and a second side of parking will be added. The building at 625 Atlantic Boulevard is 3100 square feet, which requires 13 parking spaces for its current shopping center use. The site currently has 8 spaces where cars often take advantage of the near property width driveway to park behind each other. The applicant hopes to be able to pick up the remaining 5 spaces needed in their plan. Opening up the property line between the two properties will also allow for easier movement in and out of both properties. A variance is required because the drive aisle between the two sides of parking at 625 Atlantic Boulevard will be 14 feet wide and Section 24-161(g)(3) requires 22 foot drive aisles. The parking spaces themselves will meet the minimum 9 feet by 18 as required by code and where possible they will be as wide as possible to allow for greater turn areas. It is important to note that the measurements provided in the application are based on the existing conditions where parking areas extend beyond the property lines to the sidewalk in the right-of-way. The sidewalk is actually about 5 feet from the property line. The viability of this will have to be reviewed by Public Works once formal plans have been submitted for permitting.
Page 2 of 4
Code does require certain landscaping on commercial properties. However, it cannot be required until a property undergoes redevelopment that exceeds 25 percent of the current assessed value, which is not expected in this case. The City’s Building Official has reviewed preliminary plans and has asked that a handicap parking space be provided at each property where none exist today. The applicant has also run this plan by Public Works to consider the impacts of filling the small grass area at the southwest corner of 625 Atlantic Boulevard. They felt that the use of pervious pavers would more than make up for small area to be covered. It should also be noted that while impervious surface limits for commercial properties is 70 percent, existing properties that exceed that can maintain their impervious surface percentage after any redevelopment.
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 existing parking lots are small and provide access and
pedestrian safety issues. The proposed changes would help resolve some issues.
(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-109, request to reduce a two-
way drive aisle width from 22 feet as required by Section 24-161(g)(3) to 14 feet to allow a new parking design
while maintaining existing buildings at Saltair Section 1 Lots 762 to 766 (aka 625 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-109, request to reduce a two-way
drive aisle width from 22 feet as required by Section 24-161(g)(3) to 14 feet to allow a new parking design while
maintaining existing buildings at Saltair Section 1 Lots 762 to 766 (aka 625 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.