03-21-17 Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / March 21, 2017 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Minutes of the January 17, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
B. Minutes of the February 21, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 17‐UBEX‐417 Deferred to April 18, 2017 meeting by applicant after advertising.
B. 17‐ZVAR‐405 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Jeffrey Sellers)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the allowable projections into
side yards from 24 inches as required by Section 24‐83(b) to 48 inches to allow longer eave
projections at Club Manor Lot 8 (aka 145 8th Street).
C. 17‐REZN‐389 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Joshua Ashby c/o Fleet Landing)
Request for a rezoning of the southern 2.4 acres of RE# 168341‐0000 lying in the City of Atlantic
Beach as permitted by Section 24‐62, from Conservation (CON) to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) while modifying the previously approved PUD known as Fleet Landing created by Ordinance
Number 90‐88‐135 as amended by Ordinance Numbers 90‐90‐152 and 90‐13‐218 to include said
2.4 acres as permitted by Section 24‐124.
D. 17‐UBEX‐329 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Brightway Auto Sales)
Request for a use‐by‐exception as permitted by Section 24‐63, to allow an establishment for the
sale of automobiles as listed in Section 24‐111(c)(10) in the Commercial General zoning district at
580 Mayport Road.
5. Reports.
A. Administrative Variances Approved (None)
B. Staffing Update
C. Board Member Review Discussion
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 made by the Community Development Board with respect to 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 to 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.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
January 17th, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. All board members
were present except for Ms. Simmons and Mr. Stratton. New
regular board member Mr. Steve Mandelbaum, was welcomed. He
has taken the seat of Mr. Harley Parkes. Alternate board member
Judy Workman and new alternate member Thomas Hindle, were
asked to join the Board to fill the absent seats.
A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
Chair Paul moved to postpone the selection of a Chair and Vice
Chair for the Board, as two regular Board members were absent.
The motion to postpone the selection carried unanimously.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of October 18, 2016
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore
seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
Page 1 of 8
RL. The lot was originally platted as part of Selva Marina unit 1 and
currently has an existing Single Family Home on the site.
In 2014, the same property came before the Community
Development Board with a Variance request to reduce the
requirement for width at the building restriction line. The Board
requested that the applicant instead come back and plat the
property with a greater building restriction line that would meet
the code requirements and would, therefore, not require a
Staff Report
A. 16‐SPPR‐269 (Linda Dunlap)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article
4 of the Code of Ordinances at Selva Marina Unit 1, Parts of
Lots 28 and 29 (aka 1251 Selva Marina Circle).
Planner Reeves introduced the item and showed a map of the
property in question. The property sits at the end of a cul‐de‐sac. It
is in a RS‐L zoning district, and has a future land use designation of
Variance. The applicant did this and the re‐plat was approved first
by the Community Development Board and then by the City
Commission.
One of the conditions of that prior approval, however, was that the
existing home on the property be demolished or otherwise make
the property division conforming within 120 days of that approval.
This never happened. Therefore, the approval by the City
Commission became void. For this reason, the property is now
before the Community Development Board again, requesting plat
approval.
Planner Reeves explained that this current request for plat approval
is slightly different than the request from 2014, and noted that the
driveway orientation and area near the street may be better than
as was outlined in the prior request. He expounded on the details
of the proposed plat and explained that the proposed plat does
meet the applicable code requirements for building restriction line
width as well as the code requirements for the applicable zoning
district. He noted that the plat request has been reviewed by the
appropriate City departments and they have found no outstanding
issues with it.
Planner Reeves then outlined some analysis and concerns
pertaining to the plat request. He gave some history of the property
including the original plat and the covenants that pertained to it.
Page 2 of 8
He gave some area context to the lot and showed that it is the
largest remaining lot in the original platted area, and would allow
up to 5 units if a PUD were approved.
Planner Reeves noted that the action required of the Board tonight,
is that they recommend approval or denial of the plat request to
The City Commission. He asked that a condition be placed upon the
property pending approval, of 180 days from approval to conform
to the lot division, whether through demolition or renovation of the
Applicant Comment
opened the floor to public comment.
Public Comment
With no public comment, Chair Paul opened the Board Discussion.
Chair Paul and Mr. Reichler agreed that 180 days to comply from
current home on the property. The applicant would then have an
additional year to file the Plat. Planner Reeves noted that the 180
day requirement was at the request of the applicant.
Jeremy Hubsch of 1733 9th St N., Jacksonville Beach, FL, stated that
he is the representative of the applicant and asked that the 180
requirement be 180 days from end of the Property’s lease which is
July 1st, 2017. Planner Reeves asked the applicant to confirm that
a requirement be that platting would be recorded within one year
of Commission approval. The applicant concurred with this. With
no more questions from the Board for the applicant, Chair Paul
Board Discussion
Motion
the lease date of July 1, 2017 was reasonable.
Ms. Lanier made a motion to recommend approval of 16‐SPPR‐269
to the City Commission with the conditions: 1.) that the existing
home be demolished within 180 days of July 1, 2017; and 2.) that
the plat be recorded within 1 year of Commission approval. Mr.
Reichler seconded. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. 16‐ZVAR‐281 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Henry Osborne and Rena
Coughlin)
Page 3 of 8
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to
increase the allowable projection of open porches into the
rear yard from 48 inches as required by Section 24‐83(b) to
6 feet to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No 1 Part
of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach Avenue).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item. The property is located in the
20 feet, which allows for a 16ft rear yard for open porches. The
proposed porch is 14ft form the rear property line.
Planner Reeves noted that the proposed porch has already been
constructed, and was discovered to have been built without a
permit. A stop work order was issued for the construction of the
porch and it was found that a Variance would be necessary for the
Planning Department to approve the constructed porch, as the
angle of the rear yard lot line causes a triangular area of the porch
and its roof to be within the rear yard setback. He displayed a
survey that portrayed this.
Mr. Reichler questioned the timeline of the displayed survey (which
had the constructed porch on it. He asked if the survey was done
RG‐M (Residential General, Multi‐Family) zoning district. It is a
Single‐Family home. The proposed plan is to extend an existing
porch into the rear yard to a point 14 ft from the rear property line.
The need for variance is derived from the City of Atlantic Beach
code of ordinances Section 24‐83(b) which allows open porches,
including eaves and other elements to project 48 inches into rear
property line. The minimum rear yard within this zoning district is
by the surveyor after the construction of the deck in question. Staff
confirmed that this was the case. Mr. Reichler then asked if a
building permit application had been submitted yet to the City. Staff
answered that one had not been applied for, but that the applicant
had been found to be constructing the deck without a permit. Mr.
Reichler then questioned if this was a Code Enforcement issue that
should be dealt with accordingly. Staff answered that it was not,
because the applicant was making efforts to resolve the Code
violation. Ms. Durden, the City Attorney, commented that this
[coming before the Community Development Board for a Variance]
was not an uncommon way for an applicant to resolve a code
violation they have committed.
Page 4 of 8
Applicant Comment
Mr. Reichler asked if the City had inspected this construction to
ensure that it meets FL Building Codes. Staff answered that the City
had not conducted such inspections.
Mr. Reichler questioned if the deck would need to go through the
building permit process still, regardless of whether or not the Board
approved the variance. Staff confirmed that this was the case. Staff
clarified that a Variance approval from the Board would only
approve the location of a structure on the property, but would not
circumvent the necessary approval of the actual structure from City
Staff, namely, the Building Department, through the building permit
application process.
floor to public comment.
Rena Coughlin of 1632 Beach Ave Atlantic Beach, FL, spoke and
explained that she was trying to get into compliance with the code,
as she understands the necessary requirements. Ms. Lanier asked
Ms. Coughlin if, until she got stop work order, she thought
everything with the job was fine. Ms. Coughlin answered that she
did think everything was fine up until that point. With no more
Public Comment
With no public comment, Chair Paul opened the Board Discussion.
Chair Paul commented that it seems to be common that a
questions from the Board for the applicant, Chair Paul opened the
Board Discussion
contractor makes a mistake and the homeowner ends up coming to
the before Board asking for mercy. The question of responsibility
for obtaining a building permit was raised. Staff commented that
ultimately it is the property owner’s responsibility.
Mr. Reichler commented that he believed the situation at hand was
more of a code enforcement issue, however, the Community
Development Board needed to look at the Variance request and the
owner’s reasoning for requesting a Variance. He mentioned the two
possible conditions of approval given by the owner. He commented
that he did not feel that the property owner met the necessary
requirements to meet either condition.
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Elmore stated that the applicants are neighbors and friends of
his, however, the board doesn’t want to set a precedent of granting
one person a favor, but that they need to be impartial in regards to
enforcing the Land Development Regulations.
Motion
Mr. Reichler motioned to deny 16‐ZVAR‐281 finding that the
owners have not met the requirements for grounds for approval.
Mr. Hindle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
5. REPORTS.
A. Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Update
Staff introduced the item and explained that every 7 years, Florida
Statutes require an update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan addresses future land use, schools,
transportation, environmentally sensitive areas, etc. Our City’s date
is coming up in March for letting the State know what the City will
intend to do, whether make updates to our Plan or keep it as‐is.
Essentially, the Comprehensive Plan directs what the Zoning Code
should be.
Staff asked the Board if they had a recommendation as to which
direction they believe the City should go with their Plan, whether
making minor versus major changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
City Attorney Ms. Durden clarified that the board was not being
asked to make recommendations denoting formal action, however,
they were being asked to offer some ideas and discussion in regards
to what they would like to see regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Durden also mentioned that there are statutory updates that
the City is, at minimum, legally required to begin implementing.
Mr. Elmore stated that he would rather focus on the City’s Land
Development Regulations which he believes need to be reviewed
in order to better fit our community. Staff gave further definition to
a Comprehensive Plan versus City Code. Chair Paul concurred with
Mr. Elmore, that the City’s Land Development Regulations could use
some updates.
Mr. Reichler made two recommendations. The first, was that the
Future Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan be made more
consistent with the Current Zoning of land. The second
Page 6 of 8
recommendation, was that the future Land Use be made consistent
with what citizens of Atlantic Beach are expecting so there are no
surprises moving forward, referencing the Gate situation.
Ms. Workman mentioned the Beautification Committee formed
last year. She stated her opinion that this play a definite part in all
of this.
Chair Paul asked Staff if they would be working with the Board on
this Comprehensive Plan or if an outside committee would be
brought in. Mr. Elmore gave his opinion that Staff and local experts,
rather than outside persons, be brought in to help in this process as
they are familiar with the Community and the material at hand.
Mayor Reeves stated that this revisiting of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan will be a partnership between the City
Commission and the Community Development Board working
towards updating our Code in order to best serve our Community
today. Mayor Reeves then stated his disdain for the current issues
surrounding Administrative Variances in the City, as an example of
current processes that should be reconsidered by the City
Commission and the Community Development Board.
Chair Paul requested that the Comprehensive Plan be added to the
agenda for the next Community Development Board Meeting.
The topic of Administrative Variances was raised by the Board for
discussion.
Staff introduced the applicable City code section (Sec. 24‐48(h)) and
purpose of Administrative Variances. The history and intended
purpose of Administrative Variances was also discussed. It was
noted that Administrative Variances could theoretically be granted
at any point before or after construction. The Board discussed the
appropriateness of Administrative Variances, with the question of
checks and balances raised. Chair Paul asked that a monthly report
of administrative variances granted be put on the Community
Development Board’s monthly agenda.
B. Staffing Update
Staff notified the board that Community Development Director
Drew DeCandis is no longer with City. Planner Reeves is again
interim director.
Page 7 of 8
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. Elmore moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Lanier seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was
adjourned at 7:20pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
Page 8 of 8
ITEM
2.B
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
February 21st, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm. All members, including
alternate members, were in attendance. Also present were Planner,
Derek Reeves, Board Secretary, Grace Mackey and representing the
firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden.
A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
Mr. Elmore made a motion to nominate Ms. Paul as the Chair for
another year. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. All were in favor
of naming Ms. Paul as the Chair of the Community Development
Board for the current term. Mr. Stratton made a motion to
nominate Mr. Elmore as Vice Chair. Ms. Lanier seconded. All were
in favor of naming Mr. Kelly Elmore as the Vice Chair of the
Community Development Board for the current term.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of January 17, 2017
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes as written.
Mr. Elmore asked that the minutes be changed to reflect his
statement that the City’s LDR’s need to be “reviewed” not
“changed” as the current minutes state in item 5, paragraph 3 of
the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the January 17, 2017
Community Development Board.
Page 1 of 11
2nd Street. Therefore, the proposed addition is technically in the
rear yard.
The need for a variance is derived from the required minimum rear
yard setback of 20 feet in the RS‐2 Zoning District.
Planner Reeves explained that the home on the property was built
in 1950. The pool on‐site is nonconforming as it is in the front yard.
The fence around
3. OLD BUSINESS.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
Staff Report
Applicant Comment
A. Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Update
Chair Paul moved to address new business before old business
due to the number of people present to speak on the new
business. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously to address new business before old business.
A. 17‐ZVAR‐309 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Marie Mortenson)
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 19 feet to allow an addition at
Milbert Homes S/D Lot 5 (aka 225 Sherry Drive).
Planner Reeves introduced the item and gave site context. The
property is zoned RS‐2 and RL for future land use. The proposed
plan is to construct a 197 square foot addition to an existing 1 story
single family home 19 feet from the Northern property line. Planner
Reeves clarified that even though the front of the house faces
Sherry Drive, for setback purposes, the front yard is actually along
the South end of the property is also
nonconforming; the fence should be 4 feet tall but is 6 feet tall.
Ms. Lanier asked Staff if the house to the South of the property in
question, had a front yard technically along 2nd Street or Sherry
Drive. Staff stated that based upon the aerial view displayed of
these properties, it looks like that property’s front yard is along
Sherry Drive and its side yard is along 2nd Street.
Marie Mortensen introduced herself as the owner of 225 Sherry
Drive. She stated that Carlos, who is working with her contractor,
will speak on her behalf.
Page 2 of 11
Carlos Gill, 1018 14th Avenue North, Jacksonville Beach, stated that
even though the setback issue is at hand, the actual footprint of the
home with the proposed addition, will not extend any further to
the North or to the East.
Public Comment
Paula O’bannon, 304 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated her
concern and advocacy for sidewalks. She alluded to the sidewalks
along 2nd Street and advocated for having more sidewalks.
Jane Wytzka, 352 2nd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that
she was stunned by this scenario, as she believes this homeowner
to be requesting a reasonable addition, as opposed to the large
building and demolishing happening in the City. She advocated for
the approval of this project.
Board Discussion
There was no Board Discussion.
Motion
Mr. Reichler motioned to approve case 17‐ZVAR‐309 based upon
the condition of an onerous effect of regulations enacted after
platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements on the property. Ms. Lanier
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. 17‐ZVAR‐325 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Ahern TH Project LLC)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, for
relief from the Section 24‐161(f)(3) requirement for off‐
street parking spaces on properties with uses other than
single and two‐family residential to be designed and
constructed such that vehicles are not required to back into
the public rights‐of‐way to allow up to 6 parking spaces
along Ahern Street and 3 driveways/6 parking spaces along
East Coast Drive at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 2 Lots 2,
4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 (aka 54 East Coast Drive and 329 and 331
Ahern Street).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item as a request to place six
parking spaces in the form of three driveways along East Coast
Drive and six parking spaces along Ahern Street where vehicles
would be required to back into the right‐of‐way. Planner Reeves
Page 3 of 11
stated that the property is in the Residential Medium (RM) future
land use zoning district. The proposed construction plan for the
property is to construct a new 12‐unit condo development, all
under a condo association. The property will have four three‐story
buildings built on it, although technically, connecting breezeways
will by Code make it two buildings instead of four.
The need for variance is derived from section 24‐161(f)(3) of the
City Code which states:
“Off‐street parking for all uses other than single and two‐family
residential shall be designed and constructed such that vehicles are
not required to back into public rights‐of‐way. Parking spaces shall
not extend across rights‐of‐way including any public or private
sidewalk or other pedestrian thoroughfare.”
As the proposed construction is multi‐family, a design of parking
which requires cars to back into the Public right‐of‐way is
prohibited without a Variance.
He explained that East Coast Drive is a 30 foot right‐of‐way with two
lanes of traffic and a sidewalk along the West side of the street.
Ahern Street is a 40 foot right‐of‐way and has a sidewalk along the
north side of the street.
The first driveway on East Coast Drive would be about 33ft away
from intersection of East Coast Drive and Ahern Street. The Ahern
Street parking space closest to the same intersection would be 97
feet away from the intersection. Planner Reeves noted that along
both East Coast Drive as well as along Ahern Street, the proposed
architectural drawings place the edge of the building at least 20 feet
away from the property line.
He then mentioned that there is the legal possibility of platting the
development then making each unit an individually owned
townhome rather than a condo. Since townhomes are more similar
to single‐family homes and that with both building types, each unit
could have a driveway leading right up to the individual units.
Ms. Simmons asked staff if the public right‐of‐way on East Coast
Drive came right up to the sidewalk along the same road. Staff
answered that it did. Staff also clarified that an additional four to
five feet of public right‐of‐way extended beyond the sidewalk onto
the property as well along Ahern Street. Staff confirmed that this
Page 4 of 11
property. Staff clarified that this access to the condos to the West
of the property will remain as a permanent easement that will not
be obstructed whatsoever, should this building project come to
fruition.
Planner Reeves then explained that Multi‐Family projects East of
Seminole Road are required to provide three parking spaces per
unit, specifically for beach going guests. The current project in
question, would provide two parking spaces per unit within the
proposed garages, and the remaining twelve spaces would be more
than satisfied should this Variance request be approved.
Applicant Comment
would remain public property and that the building setbacks
proposed would provide plenty of space for full parking spaces on
the property and not within the public right‐of‐way.
Ms. Simmons questioned, if the property was platted, how many of
the townhomes along East Coast Drive could hypothetically have a
parking space along east coast. Staff replied that theoretically they
could have all 12 units along East Coast Drive.
Mr. Elmore questioned where the dumpster pad would be located.
Ms. Lanier asked Staff to clarify the pervious surface requirement
for the property in question. Staff answered that it is 50% required
pervious surface.
Mr. Mandelbaum asked Staff to explain the portion of the site map
provided that shows an easement on the property in question that
is used to provide access to the parking spaces next door to the
Staff answered that currently the applicant is proposing individual
garbage cans and providing space within the garages to hold the
garbage cans.
Rick Johnston, 3528 Ocean Drive, Jacksonville Beach, FL, introduced
himself as the developer and spoke to the Board regarding their
development approach to the property in question, mentioning the
growing Atlantic Beach urban core and the pedestrian traffic in the
area. He also mentioned the idea of increasing sidewalk sizes. Mr.
Johnston emphasized the time he put into trying to help the
proposed project integrate into the community.
Page 5 of 11
already very busy.
Public Comment
Paula O’Bannon, 304 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated her
concern about water flow with the proposed six parking spaces
along East Coast Drive, referencing the impervious surface. She also
expressed concern for the sidewalk along that street and advocated
for the bolstering of the current sidewalk situation along the street.
Kathy Spitz, 278 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed
Variance. She then recommended that a holistic traffic survey be
done in the area.
Lindsey Peake, 320 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that
her office is above Ocean 60 and she walks there from her home
along 1st Street. She expressed discontent for the current sidewalk
along East Coast Drive. Ms. Peake recommended placing a stop sign
at the end of Ahern Street and possibly even speed humps along
the road.
Jerry Smith, 303 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, commented
that East Coast Drive was one of the busiest streets in the town
center area and expressed concern about safety. Mr. Smith also
commented on the aesthetics of the proposed construction and
expressed concern for more driveways along the street as it is
concern for bicyclists, children and other pedestrians using the
sidewalk, should parking spaces be allowed along East Coast Drive.
Margaret McKay, 278 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed
her concern for public safety within the intersection of 1st Street
and East Coast Drive. She discussed the number of kids that are
pedestrians crossing through the area and stated her concern for
their safety. Ms. McKay also questioned the necessity of the
Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233,
advocated for the proposed project and encouraged the Board to
approve it.
Rocky Russell, 460 Ocean Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233,
expressed a desire for the developers to conform to the City’s Code
concerning requirements and setbacks, rather than be given a
Variance.
Fred Kerber, 375 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed his
discontent for the parking situation at the beach.
Page 6 of 11
Board Discussion
Ms. Lanier expressed concern about cars backing out along East
Coast Drive near the East Coast Drive and Ahern Street intersection,
as there is a high level of pedestrian traffic in that area.
Mr. Stratton noted that this area is dangerous [due to the traffic],
and noted the especially dangerous nature of the proposed parking
spaces along East Coast Drive. He proposed sending the project
stretch of East Coast Drive as proposed.
Mr. Elmore suggested that the developer potentially change the
layout of the proposed project in order to fit the extra parking
spaces internally on the property, rather than along East Coast
Drive.
Mr. Reichler commented that there are other ways of approaching
the variance in question that would be safer for the public. He also
commented on the congested nature of this area.
The Mr. Johnston, approached the Board and stated that he wished
to withdraw his application for a Variance at the time. He thanked
the Board for their time and consideration.
Chair Paul reminded the Board of objective B.1.3 of the City of
Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan which discusses the City’s role
to keep streets safe.
proposal back for further review with City Staff, in order to make
the development safe for the area.
Ms. Simmons commented on how narrow East Coast Drive is, and
expressed her lack of support for the parking spaces along the
C. 17‐UBEX‐333 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Ted Jackrel)
Request for a use‐by‐exception as permitted by Section 24‐63,
to allow a limited wholesale operation, not involving
industrial products or processes or the manufacturing of
products of any kind as listed in Section 24‐111(c)(5) in the
Commercial General zoning district at 1475 Main Street.
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item. The property in question is
zoned Commercial General and has a future land use of
Commercial. The lot is currently vacant, with a metal garage on the
Page 7 of 11
assembled vehicles and adding accessories (such as radios, etc.)
Planner Reeves noted that code section 24‐154(c) requires all
activities on Commercial General zoned properties to be conducted
inside. He also recommended that the Board view the electric
vehicles that would be stored on this property to be thought of as
products that must be kept inside, rather than auto sales which can
have outdoor parking. Planner Reeves recommended the Board
stipulate as a condition of recommended approval that access from
Levy Road be prohibited as it is a main thoroughfare in the area. He
also recommended that the Board limit the type of product that be
sold on‐site and that they require all products to be stored and/or
Applicant Comment
Jason Canning, 1713 Furman Road, Jacksonville, FL, introduced
himself as the architect of the project. Mr. Canning explained that
they do not intend to install Fire Sprinklers in the building and, as
such, they must keep the building to less than 12,000 square feet
in size. Because of this, they will not be able to stack materials
higher than 12 feet tall and therefore, they have no intention of
constructing a building 35 feet tall.
parked inside not outside.
Mr. Canning reference a variance granted to the same property
owners at another property of theirs, where they showcase their
vehicles. He explained that the intention for the current property
before the Board was to showcase the accessories available for
these vehicles. He also mentioned that the owner intends for all
loading and unloading of materials to be done one the property,
not on the street nor on the City right‐of‐way.
Mr. Mandelbaum asked if the proposed use of the property of
loading and unloading equipment would take traffic volume off of
W 9th and W 10th street. Mr. Canning confirmed that.
Northeast corner of the property. The proposed construction on‐
site is to build a 12,000 square foot building to house the wholesale
distribution aspect of the larger business, an electric vehicle
company.
The need for a use‐by‐exception is derived from City Code section
24‐111(c)(5) which specifically requires a use‐by‐exception for
limited wholesale operations in the Commercial General Zoning
District. In this case, the applicant would be bringing in pre‐
Page 8 of 11
Mr. Elmore moved to approve 17‐UBEX‐333 with the following
conditions:
1. That there be no driveway access on Levy Road;
2. That the wholesale operation be limited to electric
vehicles and associated parts and/or accessories; and
3. That all products, including electric vehicles, must be
stored inside a fully enclosed building at all times, except
while actively loading or unloading trucks.
Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Old Business Item 3.A was heard at this time.
the City
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers,
public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Ms. Simmons asked Staff if any complaints or traffic issues have
come about as a result of the applicant’s business on their other
property. Staff replied that only a traffic and landscaping complaint
were made and both have been resolved.
Ms. Lanier commented on the benefit of economic development
such as this situation, in this area of the City. Mr. Elmore likewise
gave approving comments toward the nature of the business
proposed on this property. Chair Paul gave her approval for the
business proposed on‐site as well.
Motion
A. Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Update
Planner Reeves displayed for the Board the necessary updates
is required to make to the Comprehensive Plan, per
updates to Florida Statutes. Staff also presented to the Board
some issues that have come before them in recent years that
they may wish to consider when looking at possible regulation
amendments.
The Board discussed the nature of the Comprehensive Plan
versus the Land Development Regulations.
Page 9 of 11
Planner Reeves requested that the Board make a
recommendation to the City Commission as to how extensive a
review they would like to take at the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Namely, the Board can recommend that either only the
minimum required changes be made to the Comprehensive Plan,
or that a broader review be done.
Ms. Lanier asked Staff if tree mitigation would fall into this
Comprehensive Plan Review. Staff responded that elements of
the Board contributed more o
tys Land Development Regu
toward reviewing the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
City Attorney Brenna Durden commented that the rev
the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations could be conducted simultaneously
ng forward. Currently, however, a dec
concerning the Comprehensive Plan Review
deadlines.
tree mitigation and the City’s tree canopy could be part of this.
Chair Paul commented that she believes it would better benefit
the community if f their time
toward the Ci ’lations, rather than
iews and
updated to
movi ision must be made
in order to meet
Mr. Reichler gave his concern toward the possible issue of
discrepancies between the Land Development Regulations and
the Comprehensive Plan. He supported reviewing both
documents in order to make sure they are consistent with one
another.
Mr. Elmore made a motion for the Community Development
Board to recommend to the City Commission that only the
minimum necessary updates and review be done to the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
5. REPORTS.
A. Administrative Variances Approved
No Administrative Variances have been approved since the last
Community Development Board Meeting.
B. Staffing Update:
Planner Reeves explained that the job posting for the Community
Development Director has now been closed. The Interim City
Manager is currently reviewing applications for this position.
Page 10 of 11
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Chair Paul made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15. Mr.
Elmore seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
Page 11 of 11
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO 17-ZVAR-405
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable
projections into side yards from 24 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to
48 inches to allow longer eave projections at Club Manor Lot 8 (aka 145 8th
Street).
LOCATION 145 8th Street
APPLICANT JEFFREY SELLERS
DATE MARCH 15, 2017
STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Jeffrey Sellers, the owner of 145 8th Street. The property has an existing single family
home located on a mid-block lot between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard on 8th Street in the
Residential Single-family 2 (RS-2) zoning district. The applicant is currently remodeling and expanding
the existing single home under an approved permit. The applicant originally requested a permit that
included eave projections of 4 feet, which were reduced in size for permit approval. Ultimately, the
applicant wants to finish the home with the 4 foot eaves that would be 3.5 feet from the side property lines
on both sides.
A variance is needed as the proposed 4 foot eves extend beyond the 24 inches allowed by Section 24-
83(b). The required minimum side yard setbacks are a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on one
side within the RS-2 zoning district. The existing home is 7.5 feet from each side property line, which is
the minimum allowable. Applying the 24 inches to the existing house would mean that nothing should
project beyond a point 5.5 feet from the side property lines.
There is an existing 5 foot wide utilities easement along the west side of the property that is actively used.
The proposed eaves would encroach 1.5 feet into this easement. Staff has reached out to the Public Utilities
Department to determine if such an encroachment would be an issue. No answer was available at the time
of publishing.
Another issue to consider is the impact of rain coming off the roof and how that may impact the
neighboring properties. While the roof is nearly flat, preventing water from falling at an accelerated rate
that would cause it fall onto to the neighboring properties, the water still ends up closer to property lines
than it would have. This is also leads to concerns of light and air for the adjoining properties.
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 minimum setback is 5 feet, while the provided
setback is 7.5 feet on each side to the wall. Ultimately the eaves will be greater than 3 feet from
property lines.
(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 2 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 17-ZVAR-405, request to
increase the allowable projections into side yards from 24 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 48
inches to allow longer eave projections at Club Manor Lot 8 (aka 145 8th Street), 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 17-ZVAR-405, request to increase
the allowable projections into side yards from 24 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 48 inches to
allow longer eave projections at Club Manor Lot 8 (aka 145 8th Street), 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.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO. 17‐REZN‐389
Request for a rezoning of the southern 2.4 acres of RE# 168341‐0000 lying in
the City of Atlantic Beach as permitted by Section 24‐62, from Conservation
(CON) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) while modifying the previously ap‐
proved PUD known as Fleet Landing created by Ordinance Number 90‐88‐135
as amended by Ordinance Numbers 90‐90‐152 and 90‐13‐218 to include said
2.4 acres as permitted by Section 24‐124.
LOCATION 1 Fleet Landing Boulevard
APPLICANT Joshua Ashby c/o Fleet Landing
DATE March 11, 2017
STAFF Steven G. Lindorff, CR&P LLC.
BACKGROUND
The original Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning (Ordinance No. 90‐88‐135) was adopted by
the City Commission in 1989, and was previously amended in 1990 and 2013. Both of the amend‐
ments added land to the Fleet Landing life care development project. The 2013 amendment was
significant as it authorized the addition of a 24‐bed memory care facility (The Nancy House) to the
project. Fleet Landing is authorized for 324 residential units and 88 nursing care beds. The current
built condition is 320 residences and 88 beds.
Early this year, the applicant acquired the Estates of Atlantic Beach (“Estates”) parcel located to the
north and east of the existing Fleet Landing development. The new parcel is 29.35 acres of which
26.95 acres are in the City of Jacksonville. The remaining 2.4 acres are in Atlantic Beach and are the
subject of this PUD amendment. This latest acquisition brings the total size of the Fleet Landing
property to approximately 111.47 acres of which 72.55 acres are within the Atlantic Beach city lim‐
its.
The development of the Estates parcel was previously the subject of a review by the City of Atlantic
Beach that lead to the approval of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (Duval County Public Rec‐
ords Book 15040, Page 1819). An amendment was made to that document in May of 2016 (Duval
County Public Records Book 17674, Page 1351) that removed prior restrictions and added new
ones. Among those restrictions was the definition of a development parcel and nondevelopment
parcel as well as restrictions on access. A copy of the amendment is attached.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following is the applicant’s narrative statement regarding its intent regarding the proposed de‐
velopment of the entire newly‐acquired parcel, including the pa rt located in Jacksonville. Staff notes
have been inserted where appropriate:
The applicant is in the process of expanding the campus to address the communities'
needs for additional senior housing and healthcare beds. The Naval Continuing Care
Retirement Foundation Inc. has acquired additional properties, formally known as
the "Estate of Atlantic Beach Property”,see Note 1, that are mostly located within
the City of Jacksonville, but also include a sma ll 2.4‐acre parcel within the City of
Atlantic Beach.
Exhibit C depicts the proposed expansion parcels and general campus expansion im‐
provements. To develop these properties and have a well‐functioning community
master plan, the applicant requests to modify PUD 90‐99‐135 [PUD: 90 ‐88 ‐135]
to add 2.4 acres of property and modify it's zoning to a category commensurate with
the overall Fleet Landing master plan and land use.
The purpose of these modifications is to allow an access drive, utilities and amenities
to a new Independent Living Complex located within the abutting City of Jacksonville
portion of the property. Exhibit D depicts the proposed improvements in context to
this request. The proposed zoning modification is necessary to resolve the incon‐
sistency between the property's current land use and zoning. Specifically, the prop‐
erty currently has a land use of Residential Medium Density (RM) and is zoned
Conservation (CON); the CON zoning is not consistent with the land use and was
originally an Open Rural (OR) zoning, which would allow for the proposed access
drive, utilities and amenities.
Note 1: Per Exhibit F, the 2.4‐acre property is located within the Parcel 2 boundary
and the proposed modification is consistent with the recorded Deed Restrictions.
[STAFF NOTE: This statement is accurate with respect to the 2.4‐acre part that
is the subject of this amendment since they do not propose constructing any
habitable structures, but it is noted that it is integral to the development of the
larger Estates parcel located in Jacksonville]
Note 2: The zoning inconsistencies between OR and CON occurred due to a blanket
change that modified all OR zoning to CON, and did not always consider the over‐
riding land use category, nor context of impacts to any specific parcel or master
development plan.
[STAFF NOTE: Staff agrees that the characterization of the CON future land use
designation in this instance is an anomaly, however, the proposed uses do not
conflict in a significant way provided that the roadway and utilities are con‐
structed in compliance with the City’s flood hazard area regulations.
Page 2 of 8
The proposed PUD modification will not increase the quantity of approved PUD
residential units, beds, density, or reduction of open space.
[STAFF NOTE: This statement is accurate with respect to the 2.4‐acre part that
is the subject of this amendment, but it is noted that it is integral to the devel‐
opment of the larger Estates parcel located in Jacksonville]
Development Standards: The development standards for the modification will be
per Section 24.108 and all other applicable Sections of the Atlantic Beach Land De‐
velopment Code.
Development Schedule: The development is proposed to be completed within 5
years.
Successors & Assignments:The owners agree to bind their successors in title to those
condition[s] contained within the amended PUD.
Maintenance:Operation and maintenance of the facilities will be the responsibility
of the owner.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Per Section 24‐62.c.2 of the Atlantic Beach Land Development Code, the Community Development
Board shall “Indicate the relationship of the proposed rezoning to the comprehensive plan for the
city and provide a finding that the requested change in zoning is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.”
Below are the policies of the comprehensive plan that are relevant to this project. Consistency with
the comprehensive plan is one of the findings of fact necessary for approval of an amendment to a
PUD.
Future Land Use Element
Policy A.1.1.1
Land development within the City shall be permitted only where such development is compatible
with environmental limitations of the site and 2010‐2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A‐3 2010 EAR
Based Amendment Future Land Use Element – GOPS Adopted March 22, 2010 by Ordinance Num‐
ber 31‐10‐09 Amended November 26, 2012 by Ordinance Number 31‐12‐10 only when submitted
plans demonstrate appropriate recognition of topography, soil conditions, flooding conditions,
trees, vegetation and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas, including wetlands and coastal re‐
sources, and habitat protection of rare, endangered or threatened species and areas of unique nat‐
ural beauty.
Policy A.1.2.1
The City shall protect natural wetlands and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as may be iden‐
tified by Map A‐2 [STAFF NOTE: Eastern half of site identified as part of “Freshwater Forested
Page 3 of 8
Wetland] and Map A‐4 [STAFF NOTE: Eastern half of site identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Wetlands Inventory, and St. Johns River Water Management District Wetlands and Deep‐
water Habitats] of the Future Land Use Map Series or as may be identified by other accepted envi‐
ronmental survey methodologies, and their functions from the adverse impacts of development by
maintaining the following required upland buffers between wetlands and adjacent development as
set forth herein and as also implemented through the Land Development Regulations.
(a) After the effective date of this plan amendment, a minimum natural vegetative upland
buffer of fifty (50) feet shall be required and maintained between developed areas and the
Intracoastal Waterway 2010‐2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A‐4 2010 EAR Based Amend‐
ment Future Land Use Element – GOPS Adopted March 22, 2010 by Ordinance Number 31‐
10‐09 Amended November 26, 2012 by Ordinance Number 31‐12‐10 (ICW) regardless of
any other regulatory agency requirement of a lesser distance. This requirement shall also
apply to the portions of tributaries, streams, or other water bodies connected to the Intra‐
coastal Waterway. Such portions of the ICW and these tributaries, streams, or other water
bodies subject to this buffer requirement shall be established by the presence of a Mean High
Water Line of the adjacent tributary, stream or other water body as established in accord‐
ance with Chapter 177.26, Florida Statutes, and such Mean High Water Line shall be depicted
on all Site Plans, proposed development plans, and other documents submitted for review
and permitting. The fifty (50) foot upland buffer shall be measured from the St. Johns River
Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wetland ju‐
risdictional line. Determinations of vested rights which may supersede the requirement for
this 50‐foot buffer shall be made on a case‐by‐case basis in accordance with the Land Devel‐
opment Regulations and applicable Florida law.
(b) In the case of other natural wetland areas, which may not be directly connected to Intra‐
coastal related streams or waterways as described above, but are part of the coastal marsh
and estuarine system, a natural vegetative upland buffer of twenty‐five (25) feet shall be re‐
quired and maintained between development and adjacent wetlands. Where required, such
buffer shall be measured from the jurisdictional wetland line as established by the appropri‐
ate regulatory agency.
(c) With the exception of facilities to provide public access for the recreational use of Intra‐
coastal related natural resources, any buffers as may be required by preceding paragraphs
(a) or (b) shall be maintained in a natural state with the exception of the clearing of Under‐
story Vegetation as defined by Chapter 23 of the City’s Municipal Code of Ordinances, and
any such clearing shall be approved by the City and if required , the appropriate State or Fed‐
eral agency prior to any form of clearing, alteration or disturbance of a required buffer.
(d) Where remaining natural wetlands have been damaged or degraded over time through
previous development, storm events, improper drainage runoff or other adverse activities,
but where wetland vegetation and habitat still are predominant in quantity on a proposed
development site, all plans submitted for review or permitting shall demonstrate a plan for
mitigation, restoration, enhancement or recovery of jurisdictional wetlands. It is the express
intent of the City that no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands occur through any 2010‐2020
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A‐5 2010 EAR Based Amendment Future Land Use Element – GOPS
Page 4 of 8
Adopted March 22, 2010 by Ordinance Number 31‐10‐09 Amended November 26, 2012 by
Ordinance Number 31‐12‐10 development action within the City. Any impacted wetlands on
a development site shall be replaced elsewhere on the same site or elsewhere within the City
of Atlantic Beach. The City shall incorporate appropriation provisions within the Land De‐
velopment Regulations to further implement this policy.
Policy A.1.2.3
The City shall require that, as a condition of development approval, new construction projects pro‐
vide effective stormwater management, which avoids the contamination of Environmentally Sensi‐
tive Areas, wetlands, marsh and estuarine environments in accordance with applicable water qual‐
ity standards of the St. Johns River Water Management District, the City’s National Pollutant Dis‐
charge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit and Stormwater Management Plan and the Land De‐
velopment Regulations, as may be amended. Policy A.1.2.4 The City shall not issue development
permits that would significantly alter wetland communities and functions. Policy A.1.2.5 New de‐
velopment shall be subject to the stormwater regulations as set forth within the Land Development
Regulations, and post development conditions shall not discharge any increased level of stormwater
run‐off into the City’s stormwater system. Policy A.1.2.6 The City shall enforce all applicable wetland
regulations, including those as set forth within the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
of this Plan, and shall continue to develop and implement comprehensive strategies to provide for
the effective protection of wetlands, marsh and estuarine systems, and other Environmentally Sen‐
sitive Areas within and adjacent to the City.
Coastal and Conservation Element
Policy D.1.2.1
The City shall rigorously enforce its floodplain management regulations to conform with or exceed
the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[STAFF NOTE: With the exception of a small area in the westernmost part of the 2.4‐acre site,
the property is entirely located in the AE zone on the FEMA flood hazard maps. Zone AE are
areas that have a 1% probability of flooding every year (also known as the "100‐year flood‐
plain"), and where predicted flood water elevations above mean sea level have been estab‐
lished. Properties in Zone AE are considered to be at high risk of flooding under the Na‐
tional Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). See the excerpt of the Flood hazard map attached.
Policy D.3.2.1
The City shall require applicants for development permits to submit appropriate environmental
surveys and reports prior to the issuance of development permits. All applications for development
permits and applications to rezone to Planned Unit Development and other zoning related applica‐
tions shall be required to identify environmental features, including any Wetlands, CCCL, natural
water bodies, open space, buffers and vegetation preservation areas, and to sufficiently address any
adverse impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
WAIVERS
The applicant is not requesting that the City waive any Land De velopment Code requirements.
Page 5 of 8
POSSIBLE CONDITIONS
After speaking with several residents and the applicant, staff has identified several conditions
that the board may consider in their recommendation to the Commission:
1. That no development of any kind, including but not limited to walkways, roads, and
structures, occur within 550 feet of the eastern property line. This area is generally
shown as the “Conservation Area” on the “PUD Modification Site Plan”.
2. That the permitted uses on the land west of a line 550 feet from the eastern property
line include those allowed in the PUD created by 90‐88‐135, as amended, to specifically
include the following items shown in the PUD Modification Site Plan: an elevated nature
trail no wider than 6 feet; to the west and north of that a lift station; to the south of that
a temporary construction staging area; to the west of that a two‐way road as approved
by the Fire Marshall; to the west of that a 5 to 8 foot wide sidewalk; and to the west of
that a stormwater retention pond expansion.
Page 6 of 8
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of the Fleet
Landing PUD Amendment (Application No.17‐REZN‐389) to the City Commission, modifying Ordi‐
nance No. 90‐88‐135, as previously amended, for lands described within said application, adopting
the application and supporting documents, and all terms and conditions as set forth therein, subject
to conditions enumerated, and provided the following, or similar, findings of fact:
(1) The request for the PUD Amendment has been fully considered after public hearing
with legal notice duly published as required by law.
(2) The amendment of the existing PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Future Land Use Designations of Conservation and Residential, Medium Density.
(3) The amendment is consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically
Division 6, establishing standards for Special Planned Areas; and more specifically Section
24‐126 which provides that PUDs created prior to the effective date of the ordinance enact‐
ing the special planned area district provisions shall remain so designated on the zoning map
and shall remain subject to all specific terms and conditions a s set forth within the particular
PUD ordinance, except that any change to a previously enacted PUD shall be made in accord‐
ance with the procedures as set forth within this division..
(4) The rezoning and the site development plan are consistent with the stated definition,
intent and purpose of Special Planned Areas.
(5) The zoning district classification of Special Planned Area, and the specific uses and
special conditions as set forth herein, are consistent and compatible with surrounding de‐
velopment.
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recomm end denial of the Fleet Land‐
ing PUD Amendment (Application 17‐REZN‐389) to the City Commission, for the lands described
within said application, provided the following, or similar, findings of fact:
(1) The rezoning to Special Planned Area is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the Future Land Use Designation of Conservation and Residential Medium Density be‐
cause __________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________.
(2) The rezoning is not consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically
Division 6, establishing standards for PUDs now governed by the requirements set forth for
Special Planned Areas because ______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________.
(3) The zoning district classification of a PUD now governed by the requirements Special
Planned Area and the specific uses and special conditions as set forth herein are not con‐
sistent or compatible with surrounding development because __________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Page 7 of 8
ATLANTIC BEACH FEMA FLOOD HAZARD MAP
(Excerpt)
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Page 8 of 8
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
L
o
o
p
R
o
a
d
Atlantic Beach
COJ
Ac
c
e
s
s
Dr
i
v
e
Sid
e
w
a
l
k
Fleet Landing PUD Modification Site Plan
�
PUD Modification Exhibit D
�
Development Area
Construction
Staging Area Access Drive
Sidewalks
Nature Trail
Pond Expansion
Utilities-Lift Station
Temporary Construction Staging
Parcel 2 Line
Pond Lift
Expansion Station
Nature Trail
Proposed Improvements
�
Existing Fleet Landing Acquisition
Parcel A Campus (COJ LUZ: MDR- RMD-C)
Independent
Living Units
Conservation Area
2.4 Acres Expansion Parcel
�
Prepared By: Naval Continuing Care Retirement Foundation Inc. February 15, 2017
REV. 3-16-17
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.C
CASE NO 17-UBEX-329
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-63, to allow an
establishment for the sale of automobiles as listed in Section 24-111(c)(10) in
the Commercial General zoning district at 580 Mayport Road.
LOCATION 580 MAYPORT ROAD
APPLICANT BRIGHTWAY AUTO SALES
DATE MARCH 10, 2017
STAFF DEREK W. REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Ryan Hawkins, a partner in Brightway Autos, a proposed tenant of 580 Mayport Road,
which is owned by Atillio Cerqueira. The applicant is requesting to operate a used car lot on the eastern
portion of the property along Mayport Road within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district. The
applicant has an existing used car lot across West 6th Street at 660 Mayport Road. The applicant’s current
location operates under a use-by-exception approved in 1987 at a time when the approval ran with the land
even though several car sales businesses have operated at the site over the years. The proposed site directly
across West 6th Street would provide additional space for inventory. Offices would remain at 660 Mayport
Road. In total, 10 to 11 cars could be located on the proposed site without blocking cars in. A use-by-
exception is required by Section 24-111(c)(10) for the sale of automobiles at this location.
The proposed site is an existing paved property at the corner of Mayport Road and West 6th Street. The
paved area is about 32 feet wide by 102 foot length of the property. There is an existing nonconforming sign
at the south end of the property. The existing landscaping is nonconforming in that it does not provide the
required 10 foot landscape buffer, or the required shrubs and trees within that buffer.
Policy A.1.10.5 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan states the following about automotive sales uses along
Mayport Road;
“Along the Mayport Road corridor, the continuation and proliferation of light industrial uses,
automotive sales and repair businesses and other more intensive commercial business activities shall
be discouraged in favor of those businesses and uses that provide neighborhood serving retail
products and services that generate daily activity and interaction between residents of the
surrounding neighborhoods”
The applicants already operate a used car dealership across West 6th Street from this location. The next
closest car dealership is Rick’s Used Cars at Mayport Road and Simmons Street.
Policy A.1.11.1 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan states the following for development in the CG zoning
district;
“These areas shall include those businesses that provide retail goods and services, which serve the
routine and daily needs of residents, including banks and professional services, grocery and
convenience stores, restaurants, accredited public and private schools and child care, but not
including manufacturing, warehousing, storage or high intensity commercial activates of a regional
nature, or uses that have the potential for negative impact to surrounding properties due to excessive
noise, light or extremely late hours of operation.”
While most residents of the City need a car for transportation, many do not buy cars frequently. This is
counter to the list of desired uses that people tend to use daily or weekly.
The proposed used car lot is requested to be located on the eastern end of a property that is part of a much
larger property. This larger property has 15,921 square feet of multi-tenant structures that require their own
parking. Since this is a multi-tenant building within in the CG zoning district, it should be considered a
shopping center where there would be a need for 67 parking spaces. The larger property is already
nonconforming due its parking design that requires cars to back into the street. Making the property even
more nonconforming is that the few marked parking spaces that do exist require tandem parking where one
car is blocked in. As seen in the image below, the area between the building and street is completely paved
(also a violation of the maximum driveway width) that allows for parking along the roughly 254 foot length
of the building highlighted by the red line. Within that space you could park around 28 cars in a conventional
manner. That is not including the area that would be lost if you could not park in front of the 11 garage bay
doors along this side of the building. This is far less than the required 67 spaces for a shopping center and
that is true if you allowed tandem parking along the entire length.
Some may object to classifying this property as a shopping center, despite the multi-tenant design, due to
the existing uses within the structures and that they are different than what is usually found in a typical
shopping center. If you were to apply the blanket “commercial” parking requirement, there should be 40
parking spaces. This too could only be met by parking in front of at least some bay doors while also allowing
tandem parking.
The loss of the 10 to 11 parking spaces along Mayport Road for a used-car-lot would make the overall
property more nonconforming. While a site plan of the original construction of this property is not available
in City records, it can be assumed that the paved area along Mayport Road was intended for parking and
has been used for such over the years. In part, Section 24-161 specifically requires all required parking be
maintained for the duration of the use it serves.
Page 2 of 3
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. 17-UBEX-329) to allow An establishment for
the sale of automobiles as listed in Section 24-111(c)(10) in the Commercial General zoning district at
within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 580 Mayport Road 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. 17-UBEX-329) to allow An establishment for
the sale of automobiles as listed in Section 24-111(c)(10) in the Commercial General zoning district at
within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 580 Mayport Road 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.
Page 3 of 3