8-20-13 CDB Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday | August 20, 2013 | 6:00 pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
Call To Order And Roll Call.
Approval Of Minutes.
CDBminutes_2013_Jul16
Draft minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
2013_JUL16.PDF
Old Business.
New Business.
UBEX -13 -00100065 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for use-by -exception as permitted by Section 24 -111(c)(6), to allow a contractor, not
requiring outside storage, to be located on a property within the Commercial General (CG) zoning
district at 33 West 6th Street.
CDBSR_UBEX -13 -00100065_2013 -08 -20.PDF, UBEX -13 -00100065_2013 -07 -22.PDF
ZVAR -13 -00100067 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance from the provisions of Section 24-106(e)(3), to reduce the required side yard
setbacks for a principal structure from a combined fifteen (15) feet, with a minimum of five (5) feet
on either side, to a combined twelve and four -tenths (12.4) feet, with a minimum of four and five -
tenths (4.5) feet on one side of an existing single -family dwelling located on a property within the
Residential Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district at 345 10th Street.
CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100067.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -07 -25.PDF
Reports.
Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of
Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida
32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247 -5800. Interested parties may attend
the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the
address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect
to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made.
Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should
contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than
five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting.
1.
2.
A.
Documents:
3.
4.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
5.
6.
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 10
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 16, 2013
1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:05PM.
Vice Chair Kirk Hansen verified the presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason
Burgess, Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton and Sylvia Simmons.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05pm. Also present were Navy Liaison and Ex-
Officio Board member Matt Schellhorn, Principal Planner Erika Hall, and Building and
Zoning Director Michael Griffin. Board member Brea Paul was absent.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – JUNE 18, 2013.
Mr. Hansen called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular
meeting. Mr. Burgess moved that minutes be approved as written. Mr. Parkes seconded
the motion and it carried by a vote of 6-0.
3. OLD BUSINESS. None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. REZ-13-00100057, 1600 Selva Marina Drive (Atlantic Beach Partners LLC)
Public Hearing – Request to amend the Atlantic Beach Country Club Special Planned
Area (Ordinance No. 90-13-216), to increase the total number of residential
dwelling units permitted from one hundred eighty (180) to two hundred (200), with
a maximum of twenty-six allocated to lands within the City of Atlantic Beach. Up to
one hundred seventy-four (174) residential dwelling units are proposed on adjacent
lands located within the City of Jacksonville. A parallel PUD Amendment requesting
approval of the same master site deve lopment plan has been filed with the City of
Jacksonville.
Staff
Report Ms. Hall reported that Ordinance No. 90-13-216 adopting the
Atlantic Beach Country Club Special Planned Area (ABCC SPA) had
been approved by the City Commission at their last meeting on July
8, 2013. As approved, a maximum of one hundred eighty (180)
residential dwelling units are permitted, though only one hundred
sixty-nine (169) lots were shown on the accompanying Master Site
Development Plan (MSDP). Of those, all but one lot were
completely located within the City of Jacksonville. The current
application is an amendment to the approved ABCC SPA, to
increase the maximum number of dwelling units to two hundred
(200). The additional twenty (20) dwelling units, along with
another six (6) not shown on the original MSDP, are proposed to be
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 10
located within the City of Atlantic Beach. The remaining one
hundred seventy-four (174) will be located within the City of
Jacksonville.
Applicant
Comment T R Hainline, Rogers Towers, PA, authorized agent for the applicant,
explained that the additional twenty (20) units were being sought
by the Country Club to offer to the developer as collateral to
secure financing for the renovation of the Club facilities.
He reminded the Board that even with twenty-six (26) units located
within the Atlantic Beach portion of the project this development
would be considerably less intensive than what had been approved
previously as the Selva Marina Residential Planned Unit
Development. He noted that the applicant had met all procedural
requirements, including submittal of a revised narrative,
conceptual site plan and updated traffic study.
Public
Comment Dave Estes (1275 Linkside Drive) stated that he had sent an email
to members of the City Commission as well as this Board with
recommendations for language he wished to see included in either
the SPA narrative or the adopting ordinance. He said he had
received positive response in support of this language, with one
Commissioner saying that it was “good neighbor, common sense”:
1. “The Club shall maintain their backyard (areas that members
do not usually see, but neighbors on the perimeter of the club
do see) by mowing/trimming grass and weeds, including the
banks of ponds/waterways, and not piling up or dumping
landscaping debris.”
2. “The Club shall take into consideration how their actions will
affect the neighbor’s view of the golf course when planning
landscaping, hedges, nets, fences, etc.”
Mr. Estes also asked for clarification regarding the additional units
being sought with the current amendment. He asked if these units
were built, was there anything in the plan binding them to the
location shown on the submitted site plan.
Board
Discussion
Mr. Hansen disclosed that he is a member of the Selva Marina
Country Club Board, and that he is a participant in the LLC
providing bridge financing to the Club. However, he has no
personal financial interest that would be affected by action of this
Board. Therefore, he declared he had no conflict of interest and
stated he would not recuse himself from debate and vote on the
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 10
matter.
Mr. Elmore disclosed that he is the landscape architect of record
for this project, and having a financial interest, he stated he would
recuse himself from debate and vote on this matter. However, he
said he would answer any questions the Board might have.
In response to Mr. Estes’ inquiry, Mr. Elmore said the average cost
of each golf course hole is between $50,000 and $100,000. Once
the golf course design has been set, it severely limits the areas
where houses can be constructed, so it is highly unlikely that, if
constructed, these additional units would be located anywhere
other than as depicted on the MSDP.
Mr. Hainline added that any changes to the Master Site
Development Plan would necessitate an amendment that would
require review by this Board and approval by the City Commission.
Motion Mr. Parkes moved that the Community Development Board
recommend approval of the Atlantic Beach Country Club Special
Planned Area Amendment (Application REZ-13-00100057) to the
City Commission, being an amendment to a previously approved
Special Planned Area (SPA) described within said application,
approving the Master Site Development Plan and adopting the
application and supporting documents, and all terms and
conditions set forth therein, subject to conditions enumerated, and
provided the following findings of fact: (1) The request for
amendment has been fully considered after public hearing with
legal notice duly published as required by law; (2) The proposed
amendment to the approved Special Planned Area is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Designation
of Residential, Low Density; (3) The proposed amendment to the
approved Special Planned Area is consistent with the Land
Development Regulations, specifically Division 6, establishing
standards for Special Planned Areas and Section 24-124,
establishing procedures for modifications to previously approved
Special Planned Areas and Master Site Development Plans; (4) The
proposed amendment, including the Master Site Development
Plan, is 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
development. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously, 5-0, with Mr. Elmore abstaining due to his previously
stated conflict of interest.
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 10
B. ZVAR -13-00100063, 298 Pine Street (Bernstein)
Public Hearing – Request for variance from the provisions of Section 24-157(c)(1),
to allow the construction of a fence exceeding four (4) feet in height within ten (10)
feet of a property line which abuts a right-of-way that is fifty (50) feet or less in
width. Specifically, the applicant seeks to construct a six (6) foot high fence on the
property line abutting Seaspray Avenue, which is a fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way.
Staff
Report Ms. Hall provided an overview of application, stating that the
property owners had applied for a building permit for a six (6) foot
high fence to be located on the property line abutting Seaspray
Avenue in mid-February. Upon review, Planning & Zoning staff
denied the permit, finding that the proposed location was in
conflict with the provisions of Section 24-157(c)(1), which states
“For corner lots located on rights-of-way that are fifty (50) feet or
less in width, no fence, wall or landscaping exceeding four (4) feet
in height, shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any lot line which
abuts a street.” Ms. Hall explained as is customary whenever staff
disapproves an application, comments are entered into the permit
tracking system and a “correction report” with instructions to
revise plans is created, and forwarded to the applicant. In this
case, the applicant was the fence contractor.
Ms. Hall said her correction report was faxed to the fence
contractor, who in turn notified the property owner. Property
owner Karen Bernstein then came to City Hall and met with Ms.
Hall regarding the denial. She explained that Seaspray was heavily
travelled by school children, who often stopped off to play in her
hard. She said she had been told that there had previously been a
six (6) foot high fence on the property line, and she noted that her
neighbor directly to the west had a fence in the same location.
Ms. Hall said that she explained to Ms. Bernstein that it was not
within her authority to approve anything in conflict with the Code,
and that either the permit application would have to be amended
to set the proposed six (6) foot high fence back ten (10) feet from
the property line, or the height would have to be reduced to four
(4) feet. Ms. Hall said it was her understanding when Ms.
Bernstein said she had to have a six (6) foot high fence, that she
was making the choice to move the fence in the required ten (10)
feet from the property line abutting Seaspray Avenue, and thus,
Ms. Hall approved the permit application based upon that
statement.
Applicant
Comment Jeremiah Mulligan, Mulligan & Kauttu (24 Cathedral Place, Saint
Augustine) introduced himself as attorney for the applicants. He
said he wished to address discrepancies in the staff report. While
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 10
the applicants agree the building permit was originally denied, they
state that after meeting with Ms. Hall and explaining the
exceptional circumstances giving rise to their need for a six (6) foot
high fence, that she agreed and approved the request. Mr.
Mulligan asserted that the approval was not conditioned on an
amended application or an amended site plan.
Mr. Mulligan took issue with staff’s assessment of the applicants’
stated grounds for variance. Particularly, he said staff minimized
the applicants’ concerns for the welfare of school children who
routinely play in the applicants’ yard, and their concerns for privacy
and protection of their private property, by stating knowledge of
surrounding conditions were a matter of due diligence to be borne
by the applicants’ prior to purchasing the house. Further, he
argued that properties along the Seaspray Avenue corridor do
suffer exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of the
property. Beyond staff’s assertion that the property is zoned for
single-family use, and that is what is currently used for, he asserted
that reasonable use includes the right to privacy.
Mr. Mulligan noted that staff cited Section 24-157, regarding fences
on corner lots, and stated that staff had applied the incorrect law,
explaining that the fence in question was nowhere near the corner
of the lot, but commenced some forty-nine (49) feet away from the
corner. He also pointed out that the fence meets up with the fence
belonging to the neighbor to the west.
Mr. Mulligan concluded, stating that allowance of this variance
would not offend anyone, that the applicants had a need, and that
their circumstances met the requirements of grounds for approval.
Specifically, this is a safety issue for kids and a privacy issue for
property owners, and absence of the fence does not allow
complete and reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Mulligan also presented Board members with a petition in
support of the application, signed by thirty-two (32) property
owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as
well as photos of their property and fourteen (14) other properties
throughout the city having six (6) foot high fences constructed on
or near street-side property lines.
Public
Comment Karen Bernstein (298 Pine Street), introduced herself as the
property owner. She said since purchase, the house has
undergone major construction to rectify numerous issues. For a
number of weeks she was not residing at the location and was
unaware of the impacts of school traffic on the property. As she
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 6 of 10
came to the house to check work progress, she often found
children playing on their skateboards on the paver patio and
planter boxes, and even parents sitting on the planter box waiting
for their children.
Ms. Bernstein said she has since purchased a yellow lab puppy, and
with the existing two (2) foot high planter, a four (4) foot high fence
would not be sufficient to contain the dog and assure safety of
children walking by on the adjacent sidewalk.
Ms. Bernstein said the dates in the staff report were incorrect,
agreeing that the original application was made on February 19th,
and that Ms. Hall’s denial was dated February 19th also, but stating
that it was actually February 26th – one week later – when she
went to City Hall to discuss the denial with Ms. Hall.
Ms. Bernstein said Ms. Hall had told her that she understood the
circumstances to be exceptional, and that she approved the six (6)
foot fence to be located on the property line, but warned if there
was a complaint, it would be taken to Code Enforcement.
Ms. Bernstein said her contractor picked up the permit on March
5th, and there were no conditions or disclosures on the permit, so
the fence was constructed as originally submitted. The next thing
she knew, there was a Code Enforcement complaint, apparently
from a man living some two miles away.
Denise Rubin (229 Pine Street) said she was a neighbor. She said
she has lived in the area for fifteen years and she appreciates all
the improvements the Bernsteins have done to the property,
because it affects all the homeowners in the area. She also said at
one time, there was a six (6) foot high fence in that same location,
but a previous owner had removed it.
Anne McConnell (297 Magnolia Street) said she was the neighbor
immediately to the west. She verified that prior to the
construction of the fence, children were constantly in the
Bernsteins’ yard.
Stacey Frank (273 Pine Street) said the Bernsteins had greatly
improved the property, and this side yard was the only space they
could enjoy an outdoor area. She added she did not understand
how someone living two miles away on Beach Boulevard could
have a problem with this.
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 7 of 10
Ernie Voisin (289 Pine Street) said he did not have an issue with the
fence, and there were many other such fences throughout Atlantic
Beach.
Daniel Pence (Pence Property Management) said that he was the
fence contractor. He said there was clear explanation provided
with the fence was originally denied, but there were no conditions
provided on the permit when he picked it up.
Board
Discussion
Mr. Parkes stated that his son and daughter-in-law live across the
street from the subject property, and they experience the same
impact from the school traffic, whether it is children playing in
their yards, or parents parking in their driveway while waiting to
pick up their kids. He also noted that there are numerous such
fences all over town that seemingly do not comply with the letter
of the law. He said he felt this case presented a similar scenario to
the property located between Beach and Ocean that was granted a
variance just a few months ago. He added that he felt the City
Commission should remove this requirement altogether, noting
that a fence set back ten (10) feet from the property line on a fifty
(50) foot wide lot effectively reduces the useable space by twenty
(20) percent.
Mr. Burgess responded that while members of this Board may not
agree with a particular provision, it is not up to this Board to
amend the Code.
Ms. Simmons, disagreed with Mr. Parkes, stating that the basis of
approval of the Beach Avenue variance was irregular topography of
the rear portion of the lot, which effectively reduced the height of
the fence when looking at the lot from 7th Street. She concurred
with Mr. Burgess, stating that if there is a recurring issue, it needs
to be brought to the City Commission’s attention for direction, but
this Board must act within existing laws. Further, she encouraged
the Board to not be swayed by emotional appeals, noting that
there are many beach access streets with hardly any right-of-way
setback, and those property owners suffer constant beach traffic,
similar in nature to the school traffic.
Mr. Parkes argued that the situation described by the applicant is
unique to Seaspray Avenue, and it can result in a hostile situation
between homeowners and children and/or their parents.
Mr. Burgess asked why, other than the dog issue, could a four (4)
foot high fence not work, to which Mr. Parkes replied that the
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 8 of 10
property owners had no privacy.
Ms. Simmons reiterated that all of the beach accesses are heavily
traveled. She said she does not see this as a unique situation and
there is nothing in the application or the staff report to justify this
request.
Mr. Stratton said that while he would like to find a way to support
the applicants’ request, he agreed with everything Ms. Simmons
said. He continued, explaining if this variance were to be
approved, there would be a long line of applicants requesting to do
the same thing. The only solution would be for the City
Commission to address by means of the amendment process.
Mr. Elmore stated that the subject property is indeed a corner lot,
and the side yard is being treated as the front yard. Regarding the
Beach Avenue property which extended to Ocean Boulevard, the
primary difference there is that the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way
is wider than fifty (50) feet, and therefore a different provision
applies. He said that he lives next to a beach access so he knows
about disrespect of private property, but he does not believe
proximity to the school and impact of children and parents
traveling along the adjacent sidewalk is justification to approve this
variance, nor does he want to set such a precedent. He concluded
by saying that staff is not above making mistakes; however, this
Board must fall back on the Code – what the current law is.
Mr. Hansen said that while he is sympathetic to the applicants’
circumstances, he cannot open the City up to anarchy, and thus
cannot take into account the petition submitted. He reiterated
that this Board’s commission is not to rewrite the Code each time it
is found to be unfavorable to someone, but to decide each case
based upon the written code.
Mr. Elmore added that the planter cannot be considered a hardship
decreasing the effectiveness of a four (4) foot fence because it is
not something installed or required by the City.
Motion Mr. Burgess moved that the Community Development Board deny
ZVAR -13-00100063, a request for variance from Section 24-
157(c)(1), to allow the construction of a fence exceeding four (4)
feet in height within ten (10) feet of a property line which abuts a
right-of-way that is fifty (50) feet or less in width, finding that there
are no exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property;
finding that there are no surrounding conditions or circumstances
impacting the property disparately from nearby properties, but
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 9 of 10
that similar conditions are present throughout the City; finding
that there are no exceptional circumstances preventing the
reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in
the area; finding that there is no onerous effect of regulations
enacted after construction of improvements upon the property,
because said fence regulations have been in effect for nearly ten
(10) years, and prior to that, were even more restrictive; and
finding that the subject property has neither irregular shape nor
substandard size warranting special consideration. Ms. Simmons
seconded the motion and it passed by a vote of 5-1, with Mr.
Parkes dissenting.
C. ZVAR -13-00100064, 2069 Beach Avenue (Dunlap)
Public Hearing – Request for variance from the provisions of Section 24-106(e)(2),
to reduce the required rear yard setback for the principal structure from twenty
(20) feet to sixteen feet, nine (9) inches, to allow a first floor add ition to a single-
family dwelling located on a property within the Residential Single-Family (RS-2)
zoning district at 2069 Beach Avenue.
Staff
Report Ms. Hall explained that a nearly identical variance was requested
and granted in January 2007. However, the previous request was
specifically addressed to a second story addition which overhangs
the space subject to the current request. Because the 2007
variance order specifically addressed only a second-story addition,
staff determined, and confirmed with the City Attorney, that a new
variance would be required.
Ms. Hall clarified that, even though the previous addition was to
the second story, there is a rather large rectangular support
already occupying a portion of the first story space subject to this
variance request.
Applicant
Comment Michael Dunlap (1120 North Second Avenue, Jacksonville Beach)
introduced himself as the architect for the project and explained
that the original encroachment reduced the rear yard setback for
one corner of the structure from twenty (20) feet to sixteen (16)
feet, nine (9) inches. He said the current project would not result
in any additional encroachment, and that overall, only twenty-one
(21) square feet of lot area was impacted, due to the irregular
western property line.
Public
Comment There was no public comment made.
Board
Discussion Ms. Simmons asked why first story was not addressed in 2007. Mr.
Dunlap replied that previous addition was for a specific use and the
current request arises out of the need for more space.
Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 10 of 10
Mr. Elmore said he really did not see a problem with this particular
request since the space is already occupied, but he can foresee
future applicants using a similar approach to chip away at required
yards.
Mr. Hansen noted that irregular shape of a lot is a condition for
approval, and this is one of the grounds upon which the previous
Board based their decision. He said the only difference now is that
the area is already occupied.
Mr. Parkes said he cannot remember granting a single rear yard
variance since serving on this Board, and had the original (2007)
variance come before the Board, it probably would have been
denied. However, he noted this to be a unique situation in that a
previous Board did find grounds to approve the variance for the
second story addition.
Mr. Stratton agreed that there was little substantively changing,
since the encroachment was already occupied by the supporting
column. However, he too said that he would not have approved
the 2007 variance, had he been on that Board.
Motion Mr. Elmore moved that the Community Development Board
approve ZVAR-13-00100064, a request for variance from Section
24-106(e)(2), to reduce the required rear yard setback for the
principal structure from twenty (20) feet to sixteen (16) feet, nine
(9) inches, to allow for a first floor addition to a single-family
dwelling located on a property within the Residential Single-Family
(RS-2) zoning district at 2069 Beach Avenue, finding that as
determined by a previous Board, the subject property does have
topographic variation typical to most oceanfront lots in the vicinity,
and the preservation of the primary dune system has constrained
construction to the western portion of the parcel; and finding that
the western (rear) property line which abuts the Beach Avenue
right-of-way is angled and therefore not perpendicular to the
structure. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously, 6-0.
5. ADJOURNMENT – 7:18PM.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A.
CASE NO UBEX-13-00100065
Request for use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-111(c)(6), to permit a
contractor, not requiring outside storage, to be located on a property within a
Commercial General (CG) zoning district at 33 West 6th Street.
LOCATION 33 WEST 6TH STREET
APPLICANT TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION INC (BRENT PARRISH)
DATE AUGUST 20, 2013
STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
Background
Tier 1 Construction Inc is a roofing and general
contracting company. Owner Brent Parrish
seeks a use-by-exception so that he may obtain
zoning approval for a Local Business Tax Receipt
to operate his contracting business at 33 West
6th Street. The subject property has a
Commercial (CM) Future Land Use Designation
and is located within a Commercial General (CG)
zoning district.
According to the provisions of Municipal Code
Section 24-111(c)(6), within CG zoning districts,
“Contractors, not requiring outside storage,
provided that no manufacture, construction,
heavy assembly involving hoists or lifts, or
equipment that makes excessive noise or fumes,
shall be permitted. Not more than one (1)
contractor related vehicle shall be parked
outdoors on a continuous basis.”
Figure 1. Location map for 33 West 6th Street. CoAB GIS,
July 22, 2013.
Page 2 of 4
Analysis
According to Section 24-63(d), the review of any application for a use-by-exception shall consider each of
the following:
(1) Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to
vehicular and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control and access in case of fire
or catastrophe.
(2) Off-street parking and loading spaces, where required, with particular attention to the items in
subsection (1) above.
(3) The potential for any adverse impacts to adjoining properties and properties generally in the area,
resulting from excessive noise, glare and lighting, odor, traffic and similar characteristics of the use-
by-exception being requested.
(4) Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to items in subsection (1) and (2) above.
(5) Utilities, with reference to locations, availability and compatibility.
(6) Screening and buffering, with reference to type, dimensions and character.
(7) Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effects
and compatibility and harmony with properties in the district.
(8) Required yards and other open space.
(9) General compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the surrounding zoning district
as well as consistency with applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan.
(10) For those properties within the commercial corridors, consistency with the intent of Section 24-171,
commercial corridor development standards.
(11) Number of similar businesses that existing in the area with consideration that such uses are
intended to be an exception and not to excessively proliferate in one area of the city.
Figure 2. Google Maps aerial view of 33 West 6th
Street. Imagery dated March 2011, accessed online
July 22, 2013.
Figure 3. Google Maps street view of 33 West 6th
Street. Imagery dated 2013, accessed online July 22,
2013.
The subject property consists of a platted lot – Lot 4, Block 34, Section H – located midway the block, one
hundred fifty (150) feet from the Mayport Road right-of-way, and thus not subject to commercial corridor
development standards of Section 24-171. The property measures approximately fifty (50) feet in width by
one hundred two (102) feet in depth, with a total lot area of five thousand one hundred (5,100) square feet,
and it is improved with a modular metal structure consistent in appearance to others in the vicinity and
Page 3 of 4
measuring thirty (30) feet in width by fifty (50) feet in depth, or fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet in area.
The structure, built in 1993, conforms to current yard setbacks.
There are no proposed changes to established utility services, and refuse service will continue as standard
curb pick-up. Security lighting exists on the east, south and west sides of the building, but neither additional
lighting, nor signage is currently proposed.
Property ingress/egress is direct to/from the West 6th Street right-of-way. A thirty (30) foot wide by thirty
(30) foot deep concrete driveway/parking pad extends from the West 6th Street pavement to the building
foundation. The twenty (20) feet of depth fully on private property is sufficient to accommodate three
parking spaces – including one ADA, though none are marked as such – consistent with parking space design
standards specified in Section 24-161(g). However, Section 24-161(h)(3) requires that “business,
commercial, retail, or service uses not otherwise specified [shall provide] one (1) space for each four
hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area,” or a total of four (4) spaces for a building of these
dimensions. There is a gravel area directly to the east of the parking pad which appears to have been
previously used for spillover parking. Section 24-161(b)(2) provides that “all parking areas shall be paved
unless an alternative surface is approved by the Director of Public Works. Any such alternative surface shall
be maintained as installed and shall be converted to a paved surface if a failure to maintain results in
adverse drainage or aesthetic impacts.”
The building is accessed via a central entrance and two roll-up doors fronting on West 6th Street, and
concrete walkways on both east and west sides of the building lead to side door entrances. Considering the
building footprint, the concrete parking pad and the sidewalks leading to side entrances, it is estimated that
the total impervious surface coverage is approximately forty (40) percent, which is significantly lower than
the maximum seventy (70) percent allowed within non-residential zoning districts. However, there are no
trees or landscaping on the property. Because nearly the entire front of the property is utilized for access
and parking, it is not feasible to implement provisions of Division 8, Landscaping standards, but it is
recommended that the property be required to come into compliance with Section 23-30(b), minimum tree
requirements for commercial uses, which states “For each parcel upon which a commercial structure or
associated accessory use is proposed, or where the primary activity is commercial in nature…one (1) four-
inch caliper tree shall be planted and/or preserved for every eight thousand (8,000) square feet of parcel
area or portion thereof”. Therefore a minimum of one (1) tree is required.
The subject property is in the middle of a commercial block, at least one hundred fifty (150) feet in all
directions to the nearest residential property. However the side and rear yards are surrounded by a six (6)
foot high wooden privacy fence and this should provide sufficient buffering considering no outdoor storage
is permitted for contractors within CG zoning districts. Additionally, the applicant has stated in his submittal
cover letter “Tier 1 Construction proposes to use this location as general office space to accommodate three
employees. We plan to conduct day to day office duties that include office desk work, secretarial work,
customer service via telephone, etc.” While Tier 1 Construction Inc is a contracting business, the nature of
work to be performed onsite is typical of permitted office uses normally found in the CG zoning district. So,
no adverse impacts to adjacent properties are anticipated.
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of the Tier 1
Construction Use-by-Exception (Application UBEX-13-00100065) to the City Commission, to permit a
contractor, not requiring outside storage, to be located within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district
at 33 West 6th Street, provided the following, or similar findings of fact:
(1) Approval of this Use-by-Exception is in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-63,
Zoning and Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, and is also consistent with
Section 24-111 defining the Commercial General Zoning District.
Page 4 of 4
(2) The request is not contrary to public interest and is not detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of the general public.
(3) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the
surrounding area.
(4) The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of the Tier
1 Construction Use-by-Exception (Application UBEX-13-00100065) to the City Commission, to
permit a contractor, not requiring outside storage, to be located within the Commercial General
(CG) zoning district at 33 West 6th Street, provided the following, or similar findings of fact:
(5) The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of the Tier
1 Construction Use-by-Exception (Application UBEX-13-00100065) to the City Commission, to
permit a contractor, not requiring outside storage, to be located within the Commercial General
(CG) zoning district at 33 West 6th Street, provided the following, or similar findings of fact:
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of the Tier 1 Construction
Use-by-Exception (Application UBEX-13-00100065) to the City Commission, to permit a contractor, not
requiring outside storage, to be located within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district at 33 West 6th
Street, provided the following, or similar findings of fact:
(1) The request is contrary to public interest and may be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of general public because _______________________________________________.
(2) The proposed use is not compatible with adjacent properties and other properties within
the surrounding area because __________________________________________________.
ATTACHMENTS None.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B.
CASE NO ZVAR-13-00100067
Request for variance from the provisions of Section 24-106(e)(3), to reduce the
required side yard setbacks for a principal structure from a combined fifteen (15) feet,
with a minimum five (5) feet on either side, to a combined twelve and four-tenths
(12.4) feet, with a minimum of four and five-tenths (4.5) feet on one side of an existing
single-family dwelling located on a property within the Residential Single-Family (RS-
2) zoning district at 345 10th Street.
LOCATION 345 10TH STREET
APPLICANT FREDERICK LOOMIS
DATE AUGUST 20, 2013
STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
Background
The subject property consists of two platted
50’ wide by 150’ deep lots of record – Lots 22
and 24, Block 13, Atlantic Beach Subdivision
“A”, which was recorded in the Public
Records of Duval County on June 5, 1913 in
plat book number 5, page 69. The property
has a future land use designation of
Residential Low Density (RL) according to the
adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Map Series, Map A-1, Future
Land Use Map, and it is within a Residential
Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district, according
to the current Official Zoning Map, as
amended through Ordinance No. 90-13-218.
The original residential structure, located on
the easternmost lot (Lot 22) was constructed
in 1948, according to the Duval County
Property Appraiser’s Office data. A rear
addition and an attached two car garage
extending onto the western lot (Lot 24) were
approved by the City of Atlantic Beach in
1972, according to local archived files.
FIGURE 1. Subject property consisting of Lots 22, 24 of
Block 13, Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A”, recorded in the
Duval County Public Records on June 5, 1913.
Page 2 of 4
However, the attached garage was either never constructed, or it was later replaced with a detached garage
on Lot 24 and abutting the common platted lot line.
At this time, the property owner wishes to split the property along the original platted lot line so that he can
sell the Lot 24. This is permissible, as the property consists of two lots which are vested as nonconforming
lots of record, in accordance with the Section 24-17 definition of “lot of record” which is “(a) a lot that is
part of a documented subdivision, the map of which has been recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court,” or “(b) a lot or parcel of land described by metes and bounds, the description of which has been
recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, consistent with and in compliance with land
development regulations in effect at the time of said recording,” and, in accordance with Section 24-85(b)(1)
regarding nonconforming lots of records, which states:
“Where a lot or parcel of land has a lot area or frontage that does not conform with the
requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, but was a legally established and
documented lot of record prior to adoption of this Code (January 1, 2002) or previous codes and
applicable City of Atlantic Beach ordinances, such lot or parcel of land may be used for one single-
family dwelling in any residential zoning district, provided the minimum yard requirements for that
residential zoning district are maintained, or provided that the owner of said lot has obtained a
variance from the Community Development Board, in accordance with the requirements of Section
24-64 of this Chapter.”
Analysis
Section 24-189(a) provides that “Building permits may be issued following divisions of land without the need
for approval of a final subdivision plat or a replat only in accordance with each of the following provisions:
(1) The division results in no more than two (2) contiguous lots or parcels.
(2) The resultant new lots comply with the minimum lot area, width and depth, and access
requirements of the applicable zoning district, the comprehensive plan and all other applicable
requirements of these land development regulations.
(3) The division and the resultant new lots shall not create any nonconforming structures or any other
nonconforming characteristic.
(4) Approval by the designated administrative official of a certified survey depicting the proposed new
lots verifying compliance with the above requirements. Such certified survey shall be submitted to
the city and approved prior to recording of a deed for transfer of ownership of lands, and shall be
recorded as an addendum to the deed. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s) to
provide evidence of the approved certified survey along with any application for building permits.
While the property owner proposes to remove all structures from the western lot (Lot 24), there remains an
issue with the setbacks of the residential structure located on the eastern lot (Lot 22). Within the RS-2
zoning district, a minimum of fifteen (15) feet of combined side yard setbacks are required, with there being
at least five (5) feet on each side. As constructed and measured from the front of the structure, the side
yard setbacks are seven and nine-tenths (7.9) feet off the southwest corner and four and five-tenths (4.5)
feet off the southeast corner, for a total of twelve and four-tenths (12.4) feet, which is two and six-tenths
(2.6) feet short of the required minimum. Thus, staff is unable to process this administrative lot split until
and unless a variance is granted to cure the nonconforming nature of the structure located on the eastern
lot (Lot 22).
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
Page 3 of 4
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. Not applicable
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties. Not applicable.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area. Not applicable.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property. As stated above, the subject property consist of
two lots of record platted in 1913, and constructed with a single-family house in 1948, some eleven
(11) years before the original 1959 Atlantic Beach zoning code was enacted. The requested variance
of two and six-tenths (2.6) feet is a seventeen (17) percent deviation from the required standard.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. Not applicable.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable
use of the property. Not applicable.
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR-13-00100067, request for
variance from the provisions of Section 24-106(e)(3), to reduce the required side yard setbacks for a
principal structure from a combined fifteen (15) feet, with a minimum of five (5) feet on either side, to a
combined twelve and four-tenths (12.4) feet, with a minimum of four and five-tenths (4.5) on one side of
the existing single-family dwelling located within a Residential Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district at 345 10th
Street, upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the
provisions of Section 24-64, specifically one or more of the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-
64(d) and as described above.
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny ZVAR-13-00100067, request for
variance from the provisions of Section 24-106(e)(3), to reduce the required side yard setbacks for a
principal structure from a combined fifteen (15) feet, with a minimum of five (5) feet on either side, to a
combined twelve and four-tenths (12.4) feet, with a minimum of four and five-tenths (4.5) on one side of
the existing single-family dwelling located within a Residential Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district at 345 10th
Street, upon finding this request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in
accordance with the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described above, 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.
Page 4 of 4
(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.
ATTACHMENTS None.