8-16-16-Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / August 16, 2016 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Minutes of the June 21, 2016 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
B. Minutes of the July 19, 2016 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 16-ZVAR-149 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Robert Murphy)
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 5 feet at Atlantic Beach Part of Hotel Reservation
Record, Official Record 9884-1271 (aka 859 Ocean Boulevard).
B. 16-ZVAR-145 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Sean Monahan)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce side yard setbacks from a
combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side as required by Section 24-111(f)(3) to
0 feet on each side to allow the enclosure of an existing open porch at Saltair Section 1 Lots 765
and 766 (aka 614 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 Community Development 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 mad e by the Communit y Developmen t 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.
I n accordanc e wit h the American s with Disabilitie s Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes , person s
with disabilities needin g specia l accommodation s t o participat e i n 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 8
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
June 21, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, except Mr. Stratton. Also present were
Planner, Derek Reeves and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and
Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden. Mrs. Paul asked alternate, Mrs. Workman, to
fill Mr. Stratton’s seat.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of April 19, 2016
Mrs. Lanier motioned to amend the minutes of the April 19th meeting to
add additional information and clarity on the wetland mitigation involved
in the Selva Preserve SPA rezoning. Mrs. Paul seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 16‐UBEX‐101 (PUBLIC HEARING)
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 to allow
limited wholesale operations at 725 Atlantic Boulevard, Units 3
and 15.
Page 2 of 8
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that the proposed use
is for on‐premises consumption of alcohol as well as limited wholesaling at
725 Atlantic Boulevard, Units 3 and 15. The property is zoned Commercial
General and located within an existing shopping center. The future land use
is split between Commercial and Residential Low (RL) where the rear
parking lot is in RL. There will be no change in the RL area. The proposed
business will consist of a warehouse like space at the rear where beer is
brewed to be sold wholesale and in a tap room located at the front of the
building.
Plans call for minimal changes to the exterior of the structure, but windows
will be added along Sailfish Drive to show the brewing tanks and a piece of
mechanical equipment will be added outside of the building next to the
back door, which will be screened.
A use‐by‐exception is required for the tap room aspect of the business as
alcohol consumption on‐premises without food sales requires one as well
as for the limited wholesale of kegs through a distributor out the back of
the business. A list of existing codes related to such businesses was gone
over.
It was showed that there will be no changes to parking or traffic flow and
that surrounding uses for the tap room included other commercial
businesses in the shopping center and beyond it. Surrounding uses for the
warehouse space is more warehouse space with multi‐family residential to
the east and single family residential to the north.
Possible conditions recommended by staff include limiting the hours
operation, limit the number of customers in the flex space, prohibit
customers from staying the hallway between the tap room and brewing
area, require employees to park in the rear parking lot, and to require
brewing waste to be stored inside.
Mr. Reichler asked for clarity if staff was recommending any of the
conditions listed. Planner Reeves clarified that they were. Mrs. Lanier
asked how customers would be limited within the hallway between the
two areas from going to other businesses. Planner Reeves responded that
it is up to the board to decide what is appropriate, but that other
businesses within the shopping center operate in a similar manner. Mr.
Elmore asked how such a restriction would be enforced. Staff stated that it
would be up to Code Enforcement just like any other condition. Mrs.
Simmons asked if the rear space would be open to customers at all times.
Staff stated that it would. Mrs. Workman asked about parking and how it
Page 3 of 8
was different than the Al’s issue heard earlier this year. Planner Reeves
stated that it was because Al’s is a standalone business that was expanding
while this is an existing shopping center that is not changing. Additionally
it was pointed out that shopping centers have among the highest parking
requirements and that in theory a mix of uses within the shopping center
should act as form of shared parking. Mr. Parkes asked if the warehouse
spaces were considered part of the shopping center for parking
requirements. Staff responded that it was likely the case, but that
additional research would be required to verify. Mr. Reichler asked for
more information on the number of people allowed in the rear warehouse
space. Mrs. Paul suggested that that may be a question for the applicant.
Applicant Comment
Chuck Horn, 119 Margaret Street, Neptune Beach, Florida 32266,
introduced himself as the owner of the business. He stated that they
envision the rear space as an area for games and charity events where you
would have 50 to 75 people at most. He added that most of the warehouse
space would be blocked off with a gate so that customers could not access
the tanks, which also limits the number of people. Mrs. Workman asked if
this was similar to the Green Room in Jacksonville Beach. Mr. Horn
responded that it is very similar but with more seating and open space.
Mrs. Lanier asked for Mr. Horn’s thoughts on the hallway between the
spaces. Mr. Horn stated that they do plan on painting stripes and adding
signs, but they expect little traffic to flow between the spaces as the tap
room is the main place for customers and the rear space is more for small
events. Mrs. Workman asked if they had any issues with the conditions
recommended by staff. Mr. Horn stated that they did not and had discussed
them all before including adding sound insulation in the tap room.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Simmons stated she liked the conditions shown by staff and that the
City had a growing entertainment district that let the businesses feed off
of each other and thrive. Mr. Parkes stated that he does have concerns
about the number of people allowed in the rear space. Mrs. Lanier asked
how the Fire Marshall would address the space sectioned off or not. Mrs.
Durden recommended limiting the number of people to the lesser of the
Fire Marshall standard or a number set by the board. Mrs. Lanier asked
what number the applicant would be comfortable with. Mr. Horn
responded that 75 would be his limit.
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Reichler asked for clarity on the condition of storing brewing waste to
be stored inside. Mr. Horn responded that you would be able to smell burnt
wheat if the waste were stored outside in open containers and that storing
it inside in sealed containers would stop that. Mr. Reichler stated that this
is the only issue he believes would have a negative impact and should be
the only condition. Mr. Elmore asked how often that waste would be
removed. Mr. Horn stated that it would be about once a week.
Mrs. Simmons asked if the board should consider the additional condition
in the staff report about prohibiting outside activity. Planner Reeves
pointed out that staff would not approve new outside seating because it
would require that parking spaces be removed.
Motion
Mr. Elmore made a motion to recommend approval of the use‐by‐
exception to the City Commission with the following conditions; 1) That
hours of operation be limited to 11PM Sunday through Thursday and
midnight Friday and Saturday, 2.) That employees must park in the rear
parking lot, 3.) That all brewing waste must be stored inside the building,
and 4.) That customers be prohibited from loitering in the hallway between
the spaces. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried with a
vote of 5‐2 with Mr. Reichler and Mrs. Workman dissenting.
B. 16‐ZVAR‐105 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to reduce
the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24‐
016(e)(2) to 9 feet 4 inches at Saltair Section 3 Lot 362 (aka 398
Sherry Drive).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that this is a request to
reduce the rear yard on a single family lot one lot north of Atlantic Beach
Elementary. Standard setbacks are 20 feet front and rear with a combined
15 feet on the sides with a minimum of 5 feet on one side. The applicant
would like to demolish the existing house and build a new two story, 2500
square foot home on the lot with a covered rear porch 9 feet 4 inches from
the rear property line. A site plan was shown. A majority of the
encroachment would be for a 10 foot covered porch. Less than a foot
would be for an enclosed part of the house.
The applicants are trying to save a 42 inch oak on the north side of the
property, which does limit the developable area on the lot. It was noted
that the site plan shown may change slightly, but will be no more
nonconforming than the requested variance. The lot is about 97 feet deep
and 59 feet wide, with 72 feet across the front and 46 feet across the rear.
Page 5 of 8
A normal lot in this area is 100 feet by 50 feet. The width at the normal 20
foot rear yard setback is 36 feet wide. The house is a two story house where
the two story portion is massed at the front of the lot so the rear of the lot
will be a single family home. To demonstrate other options, an example
was shown of a detached structure that could be built by code that would
be the same size but only 5 feet off the side and rear property lines. The
house to be demolished is a single story, nonconforming structure that is
currently 4.9 feet from the rear property line.
Staff offered a possible condition that would limit the height within the
area of the requested variance to one story or 15 feet as that would limit
the impact on adjacent properties. The applicant has stated that they
would be agreeable to that condition.
Applicant Comment
Tim Shea, 4217 2nd Street South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250,
introduced himself as a real estate agent representing the builder of this
project. He stated the real selling point of this is the option to do the more
impactful detached structure. He added that the lot does have an irregular
shape and that there are opportunities to move the house and reduce the
impact on the rear yard. Mrs. Workman asked if there was a fence in the
rear between the properties. Mr. Shea responded that there is a 6 foot
fence.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Brent Edwards, 395 Poinsettia Court, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is the neighbor directly behind this property and that he is not for or
against the variance, but asked if they do grant the variance that the board
do limit it to a one story covered porch with open walls.
John Evans, 398 Sherry Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated from the
audience that he would like to echo what has already been said.
With no more speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore stated that this is a cut and dry issue where the board should
uphold the Land Development Regulations and that the lot is not really an
irregular lot. Mr. Parkes stated that some minor changes to the plans could
make this house work for the lot. Mr. Reichler agreed and stated the lot
does have additional buildable area that could be utilized. Mrs. Lanier and
Mrs. Workman stated that they also agreed.
Page 6 of 8
Motion
Mr. Elmore made a motion to deny the variance request finding that it did
not meet any of the grounds for approval. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
C. 16‐ZVAR‐109 (PUBLIC HEARING)
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 maintain
existing buildings at Saltair Section 1 Lots 762 to 766 (aka 625
Atlantic Boulevard).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that the variance
requested will actually impact two properties under the same ownership
but with different businesses. The plan is to resurface both parking lots
with pervious pavers. A couple of parking spaces will be removed from 617
Atlantic Boulevard to create access to 625 Atlantic Boulevard. The driveway
will be reduced at 625 Atlantic Boulevard and new parking spaces will be
added where the driveway is closed. A handicap parking space will be
added as well. All new parking spaces will be 9 feet by 18 feet. The drive
aisle between the parking spaces at 625 Atlantic Boulevard will be 14 feet
wide. A variance is required because Section 24‐161(g)(3) requires a 22
foot wide drive aisle for two way aisles.
The existing parking at 617 Atlantic Boulevard is nonconforming due to
parking space dimensions and drive aisle width, but no changes will be
made so that can be maintained. The current driveway at 625 Atlantic
Boulevard is nonconforming do to its width, which will be reduced. Both
properties exceed impervious surface limits, but that will be reduced with
the use of pervious pavers. It should be noted that existing parking and
paved areas extend beyond the property into the right‐of‐way and the
proposed plan will continue that. Public Works will have to review that at
permitting. Landscape requirements for commercial properties cannot be
required for this project since it will be less than 25 percent of the property
value.
Mrs. Lanier asked if the 14 foot drive aisle would be wide enough for two
cars to pass. Planner Reeves stated that two standard size cars could not.
Mrs. Simmons asked if the turn radius is large enough to turn into the
parking spots. Mr. Elmore stated 14 feet is not enough.
Page 7 of 8
The proposed plan will reduce parking at 617 Atlantic Boulevard by 2 or 3
spaces, but the property is over parked and the loss of parking spaces will
not result in less than code requirements. Parking at 625 Atlantic Boulevard
is under parked and the added spaces will get the project closer to code
requirements.
Applicant Comment
Sean Monahan, 619 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233,
introduced himself as the owner of both properties referenced and owner
of the business at 617 Atlantic Boulevard. He stated that he would like to
do both parking lots in pervious pavers to beautify the area. He added that
the flow between properties should help with traffic flow.
Mrs. Paul asked if the applicant had worked with any professionals such as
an architect or engineer. Mr. Monahan stated he had not initially but is
now. Mr. Elmore asked if they owned all the way to Sturdivant Street. Mr.
Monahan stated that he does not. There are duplexes behind one building
and a vacant lot behind the other.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Kerry Monahan, 619 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated
that she is the wife of the applicant and part owner of the property and
that the improvements will beautify the area and makes the area safer for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
With no more speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Workman stated that she is in favor of the variance if the board
conditions the requirement for pervious pavers. Mr. Parkes stated that he
was not willing to approve anything based on the provided plans. He
recommended allowing the applicant to return to the next meeting with
engineered drawings. Mr. Elmore agreed and added that the proposed
parking is just too small and that FDOT could be a problem. Mrs. Paul
agreed and asked if the applicant would be open to deferring so that they
could get better plans. Mr. Monahan said he was ok with deferring.
Motion
Mr. Parkes motion to defer the variance application to the July 19th meeting
so that the applicant could provide additional information. Mrs. Lanier
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 8 of 8
5. REPORTS.
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Simmons seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned
at 7:50 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
ITEM 2.B
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 19, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, except Mr. Stratton and Mr. Elmore as well as
alternate Mr. Mandelbaum. Also present were Planner, Derek Reeves and
representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden.
Mrs. Paul asked alternate, Mrs. Workman, to fill one of the vacant seats.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of April 19, 2016
Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the April 19th meeting.
Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
B. Minutes of June 21, 2016
Mrs. Simmons motioned to amend the minutes of the June 21st meeting
on page 3 to correct her comments at the start of discussion. Mr. Reichler
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
A. 16‐ZVAR‐109 (PUBLIC HEARING)
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 maintain
existing buildings at Saltair Section 1 Lots 762 to 766 (aka 625
Atlantic Boulevard).
Page 2 of 6
Mrs. Paul closed the public hearing that had been opened the previous
meeting as the application had been withdrawn.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 16‐SFPA‐125 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of
the Code of Ordinances at RE# 172147‐0000 and 172150‐0000
(previously known as 115 and 125 Donner Road).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that the applicant is
seeking to plat approval for townhouse style development in the
Residential General, Multi‐Family (RG‐M) zoning district. The proposed plat
is for a total of 7 lots and 7 dwelling units. Four of the units have already
been built on the western portion of the plat with a two unit building facing
Donner Road and another two unit building facing Ardella Road. The final
three units are permitted for the eastern portion of the plat. The existing
and under construction units have all been built to townhouse standards
with regards to firewall separation and other similar requirements.
Planner Reeves addressed relevant codes and stated that multi‐family,
including townhouses, are allowed within the RG‐M zoning district and that
the minimum lot area per unit is 2,175 square feet with smallest being
more than 3,450 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
designation for the property is Residential High (RH), which allows 20 units
per acre. At 0.66 acres, the property could have up to 13 units. The
applicant is requesting a plat for 7 units.
Planner Reeves showed where some minor text changes have occurred to
the plat documents since the agenda packet was released. There is one
outstanding issue where Public Works is requesting a deed restriction for
stormwater system maintenance. They are basically asking for a deed
restriction that will protect the stormwater system on the property so that
each unit is protected from work done by their neighbors. This issue should
be resolved soon. Staff recommended approval with the condition that the
stormwater and associated deed restriction be finalized to the satisfaction
of staff prior to the plat being taken to Commission.
Ms. Workman asked about the recent variance that had been on the
agenda for this property. Planner Reeves stated that there was a code
interpretation that was worked out with the City Attorney where the side
yard setback was different for townhomes and multi‐family buildings.
Ultimately it was decided that to be considered townhouses, they must be
Page 3 of 6
fee simple ownership, which is where the platting comes in today. The
variance was withdrawn based on this determination. Mrs. Lanier asked
about the outstanding stormwater issue and how it would be resolved.
Planner Reeves stated that the deed restriction would prohibit an owner
from altering the flow of stormwater as it moves from the backyard to the
street so that every unit is protected. This is especially critical for the
middle unit that has no way to move water from its rear to front without
flowing around the outer units.
Applicant Comment
Chris Lambertson, 355 11th Street, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233,
introduced himself as the owner and developer of the property. He stated
that they are trying to keep in tune with the neighborhood by having two
story townhomes with garages that are less dense than a three story
apartment building. He added that these are intended to be rental
properties until he decides to sell them individually and always planned on
platting the property. After some discussion about townhouses, Mrs.
Durden read the definition of townhouse from the code.
Tim Franklin, 60 Ocean Boulevard, Ste 10, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
introduced himself as the applicant’s attorney. He stated that this a routine
platting and not a time for development conditions. He added that the
stormwater deed restriction is to protect the future owners and is really
just a small part of the covenants that Mr. Lambertson wanted as part of
the development. Mrs. Paul asked if a grading plan could be included as
part of the covenants. Mr. Franklin stated that can be done. Mr.
Lambertson added that a post construction topographic survey is provided
to the City for all projects as well.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
After no other comments, Mrs. Paul stated that this is a fairly routine plat
that meets code so a lot of discussion is probably not necessary.
Motion
Mrs. Lanier made a motion to recommend approval of the plat to the City
Commission with the condition that the stormwater and associated deed
restriction be finalized to the satisfaction of staff prior to the plat being
taken to Commission. Mrs. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
Page 4 of 6
B. 16‐UBEX‐129 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a use‐by‐exception as permitted by Section 24‐
111(c)(8), to allow a woodworking shop at 33 W 6th Street.
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item and explained that the applicant
would like to open a woodworking shop in the Commercial General zoning
district. It was shown that proposed property is in the middle of other
commercial uses with residential down the street and separated by other
commercial uses. The proposed business would be a woodworking shop
that specializes in the repair of standalone furniture such as dressers and
tables. Customer interaction is typically handled through appointments so
there is minimal walk in traffic or multiple customers there at one time.
The building is 1,500 square feet and insulated on 5,100 square foot lot.
Current hours of operation are from around 10 AM to 6 PM. There is also
a trailer related to the business that will be stored behind a fence on the
property.
There are a couple of existing codes that limit businesses like these that
prohibit the outside sale, display and storage of furniture; and that require
activities be performed within an enclosed building. There are some other
potential issues to consider. There are the residential homes 150 feet to
the west. Parking and access will remain the same. The business donates it
wood scraps and saw dust and will use household style cans for other
waste. The saw dust that is donated is collected with a dust collection
system that keeps the building clean.
There are also a couple of Comprehensive Plan provisions that come into
play for businesses like these. Policy A.1.10.4 calls for development and
redevelopment that serves the neighborhood while also being
aesthetically pleasing. In this case, the exterior of the building is not
changing. Policy A.1.10.5 calls for an elimination of light industrial type
uses within commercial areas along Mayport Road in favor retail and
service uses. This business does have elements that are industrial in nature
like the production of furniture. However the business is also service
oriented by repairing furniture.
Due to the nature of the proposed business and its location, staff presented
two possible conditions for the board to consider. The first is to limit hours
of operation in consideration to the nearby residential. The second is to
limit the number of commercial vehicles to one, which would be consistent
with the requirements placed on other uses in the zoning district.
Page 5 of 6
Mrs. Paul asked for some examples of businesses that would be allowed in
this zoning district. Planner Reeves read off a partial list from the code. Mrs.
Paul clarified that it is the manufacturing aspect that makes this a use‐by‐
exception. Planner Reeves confirmed that it is the woodworking
manufacturing aspect. Mrs. Lanier asked if this was similar to the stained
glass place on Mayport Road. Planner Reeves said yes, except that
woodworking has the potential for more noise.
Applicant Comment
Adam Rowley, 111 Levy Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, introduced
himself as the owner of the business. He started by asking for clarity on
what would be considered a commercial vehicle related to the possible
condition. Planner Reeves stated that it would be any vehicle routinely
used to carry out business. He then stated that he would be ok with that.
He followed that by stating that he has no plans to change his hours at this
time. He then added that he feels like he is a good fit for the neighborhood.
Mr. Reichler asked for more detail on the aspects that make this a use‐by‐
exception, being noise and dust. Mr. Rowley stated that he uses a dust
collection system that keeps everything inside the building and that the
building is insulated so little noise gets out.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he is
in favor of the business and that the codes need to be revised.
With no more speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Parkes stated that woodworking doesn’t make that much noise and
that this is what this area has developed to be. Mr. Reichler agreed and
questioned if the codes need to be reviewed. Mrs. Paul also agreed. Mrs.
Lanier agreed stating this business is more of craftsman than anything.
Discussion ensued about the need for conditions on this business. Mr.
Parkes felt that conditions were not necessary for this business.
Motion
Mrs. Lanier made a motion to recommend approval of the use‐by‐
exception to the City Commission. Ms. Workman seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Page 6 of 6
5. REPORTS.
Informal Update on Staffing
Planner Reeves informed the board that Jeremy Hubsch had resigned from
his role as the Building and Zoning Director and that he had been named
the Interim Director. It was explained that Building Department had been
split off and is its own department under the City’s Building Official. The
planning and code enforcement activities has been made its own
Community Development Department. Administrative duties are shared
with the Building Department for planning work and with the Clerk’s Office
for Code Board duties. At this time the City is reviewing applications for a
new Director and Code Enforcement Officer. Planner Reeves reminded the
board that part of their role is to recommend staffing changes to ensure
that the board is able to operate effectively.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. Parkes motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Simmons seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned
at 7:08 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO 16‐ZVAR‐149
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 5 feet at Atlantic Beach
Part of Hotel Reservation Record, Official Record 9884‐1271 (aka 859 Ocean
Boulevard).
LOCATION 859 OCEAN BOULEVARD
APPLICANT ROBERT MURPHY
DATE AUGUST 5, 2016
STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Robert Murphy, the owner of the property at 859 Ocean Boulevard. The property is located
on the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Club Drive within the Residential Single Family 2 (RS‐2) zoning district.
There is an existing 3 story home with a swimming pool on the property. The applicant would like to tear
down 3 stories of existing open balconies and build a new larger second floor open porch with a solid roof 5
feet from the eastern property line.
A variance is required because Section 24‐106(e)(2) requires a 20 foot rear yard setback and the applicants
are proposing a 5 foot rear yard setback for their new deck. The picture on the left below shows the existing
deck and the picture on the right below is a rendering of the proposed deck. Everything new to the right of
the red line is an expansion of the existing nonconforming deck requiring a variance.
Page 2 of 4
The existing nonconforming development is likely the result of the fact that the property is a bit unique in
that it is a corner lot with near equal frontages on both streets. It has 96 feet on Ocean Boulevard and 99 feet
on Club Drive. By code, the front yard of a corner lot is the narrower side facing a street, which is Ocean
Boulevard in this case. When the property was developed in the mid‐1970s, it had in excess of 20 feet all the
way around the structure to property lines (bottom left). In 1997, the 3 story portion of the house was added
on to the east and north sides of the house. The site plan (bottom right) treated Club Drive as the front yard
with 25 feet to the Club Drive (south) property line, 20 feet to the north (rear) property line and 5 feet to the
east (side) property line. Corner lot requirements were the same at the time so it is unclear what happened
to allow the construction. No variances were found.
1972 Survey 1997 Site Plan
If a survey similar to the one above one the left was used in the permitting of the addition, you will see one
measurement along Ocean Boulevard and two measurements along Club Drive. The distance along Ocean
Boulevard is greater than the longer distance along Club Drive. However the second measurement along Club
Drive makes the total length along Club Drive greater than that along Ocean Boulevard. This would explain
what was stated in the minutes of the June 16, 1998 Community Development Board meeting where it was
explained that the Club Drive side was 6 inches shorter than Ocean Boulevard making Club Drive the front
yard. This is the meeting that granted a variance to allow a pool to be constructed within the front yard
setback. In reality the pool was constructed legally within the side yard of the property.
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 applicants stated in their application that the existing home addition and deck were approved and now
they just want to replace unsafe deck.
(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‐149, request to reduce the rear
yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24‐106(e)(2) to 5 feet at Atlantic Beach Part of Hotel Reservation
Record, Official Record 9884‐1271 (aka 859 Ocean 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‐149, request to reduce the rear
yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24‐106(e)(2) to 5 feet at Atlantic Beach Part of Hotel Reservation
Record, Official Record 9884‐1271 (aka 859 Ocean 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‐ZVAR‐145
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to reduce side yard setbacks
from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side as required by
Section 24‐111(f)(3) to 0 feet on each side to allow the enclosure of an existing open
porch at Saltair Section 1 Lots 765 and 766 (aka 614 Atlantic Boulevard).
LOCATION 617 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
APPLICANT SEAN MONAHAN
DATE AUGUST 5, 2016
STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Sean Monahan, the owner of the property and business at 617 Atlantic Boulevard. The
property consists of a standalone building with a single tenant and associated parking within the Commercial
General (CG) zoning district. The parking extends to the property lines in front of the building and the
building is less than a foot from the side property lines. The applicant is planning to resurface the parking lot
with pavers and remodel the building façade while enclosing the front walkway/porch area.
A variance is required by Section 24‐111(f)(3), which requires side yard setbacks of a combined 15 feet with
a minimum of 5 feet on one side, while the applicant would like to enclose an open porch that is within one
foot of each side property line.
The existing structure is considered a nonconforming structure because it does not meet the required side
yard setbacks as well as rear yard setbacks and has an impervious surface in excess of 70 percent. Section
24‐85(c) prohibits the expansion of a nonconforming building that would make the structure more
nonconforming. Open porches can be 24 inches into each side yard for a combined side yard of 11 feet. By
enclosing the open porch, the nonconforming setbacks increase from 11 feet to 15 feet.
The property was originally developed in 1978 with 4 inch side yards. While there have been changes to the
exterior of the building over the years, the building is in the location it was approved to be in relative to
property lines. The applicant also owns the building to the west and welcomes the addition because the
building facades will be more in line with each other. The property to the east is a newer building that should
be minimally impacted as their windows are high on the wall and there are no doors or walkways in the area.
Page 2 of 3
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 building was constructed under zero lot line regulations
that have changed, which now limit the enclosure of the porch area. They added that forward position of
the building to the east that they would not suffer by putting walls on an existing covered porch.
(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 3 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 16‐ZVAR‐145, request to reduce side yard
setbacks from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side as required by Section 24‐111(f)(3) to
0 feet on each side to allow the enclosure of an existing open porch at Saltair Section 1 Lots 765 and 766 (aka 617
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‐145, request to reduce side yard
setbacks from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side as required by Section 24‐111(f)(3) to
0 feet on each side to allow the enclosure of an existing open porch at Saltair Section 1 Lots 765 and 766 (aka 617
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.