Loading...
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.