6-21-16 .1
5 At S)
No
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, Ms. 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 1 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. Ms. Workman asked about parking and how it
Page 2 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. Ms.
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. Ms. 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 that parking does not seem to be a major issue as
this is becoming a popular spot and it will work itself out and that
employees parking in the rear only helps. 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
Page 3 of 8
board. Mrs. Lanier asked what number the applicant would be
comfortable with. Mr. Horn responded that 75 would be his limit.
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 Ms. 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
Page 4 of 8
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.
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. Ms. 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
Page 5 of 8
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 Ms. Workman stated that they also agreed.
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.
Page 6 of 8
Mrs. Simmons asked if the turn radius is large enough to turn into the
parking spots. Mr. Elmore stated 14 feet is not enough.
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
Ms. 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.
Page 7 of 8
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.
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.
O'C'()\-c4%\32"
Brea Paul, Chair
,#. 'td / /Z'--
Attest
Page 8 of 8