7-16-13 CDB Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday | July 16, 2013 | 6:00 pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
Call To Order And Roll Call.
Approval Of Minutes.
CDBminutes_2013_Jun18
Draft minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
2013_JUN18.PDF
Old Business.
New Business.
REZ -13 -00100057 (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). A maximum of twenty -six (26) said units are allocated to lands within
the City of Atlantic Beach, while up to one hundred seventy -four (174) said units are proposed on
adjacent lands located within the City of Jacksonville. A parallel PUD amendment, requesting
approval of the same master development plan has been filed with the City of Jacksonville.
CDBSR_REZ -13 -00100057_REV-1.PDF, REZ -13 -00100057_APPL_2013 -05 -23.PDF, REZ -
13 -00100057_TRAFFICSTUDY_2013 -05 -20.PDF
ZVAR -13 -00100063 (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.
CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100063.PDF, EXHIBIT -1_BP -13 -00002165_PI_2013 -03 -05.PDF,
EXHIBIT -2_BP -13 -00002165_PRCR -PZ_2013 -02 -19.PDF, ZVAR -13 -00100063_APPL_2013 -06 -05.PDF
ZVAR -13 -00100064 (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 (16) feet, nine (9) inches, to
allow 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.
CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100064.PDF, EXHIBIT -1_ZVAR -06 -00100115 -FILE.PDF, ZVAR -13 -
00100064_APPL_2013 -06 -17.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:
C.
Documents:
5.
6.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACHCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARDREGULAR MEETING AGENDATuesday | July 16, 2013 | 6:00 pmCommission Chambers | 800 Seminole RoadCall To Order And Roll Call.Approval Of Minutes.CDBminutes_2013_Jun18Draft minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.2013_JUN18.PDFOld Business.New Business.REZ -13 -00100057 (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). A maximum of twenty -six (26) said units are allocated to lands within the City of Atlantic Beach, while up to one hundred seventy -four (174) said units are proposed on adjacent lands located within the City of Jacksonville. A parallel PUD amendment, requesting approval of the same master development plan has been filed with the City of Jacksonville.CDBSR_REZ -13 -00100057_REV-1.PDF, REZ -13 -00100057_APPL_2013 -05 -23.PDF, REZ -13 -00100057_TRAFFICSTUDY_2013 -05 -20.PDFZVAR-13 -00100063 (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.CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100063.PDF, EXHIBIT -1_BP -13 -00002165_PI_2013 -03 -05.PDF, EXHIBIT -2_BP -13 -00002165_PRCR -PZ_2013 -02 -19.PDF, ZVAR -13 -00100063_APPL_2013 -06 -05.PDFZVAR-13 -00100064 (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 (16) feet, nine (9) inches, to allow 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.CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100064.PDF, EXHIBIT -1_ZVAR -06 -00100115 -FILE.PDF, ZVAR -13 -00100064_APPL_2013 -06 -17.PDFReports.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:C.Documents:5.6.
Draft Minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 8
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
June 18, 2013
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:02pm
Chair Brea Paul verified the presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess,
Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes, Brea Paul, and Sylvia Simmons. The meeting was called to
order at 6:02pm. Also present were Principal Planner Erika Hall, Redevelopment and
Zoning Coordinator Jeremy Hubsch, and Building and Zoning Director Michael Griffin.
Board members Kelly Elmore and Patrick Stratton were absent.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – MAY 21, 2013.
Ms. Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2013 regular
meeting. Mr. Hansen moved that minutes be approved as written. Mr. Burgess
seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 5-0.
3. OLD BUSINESS. None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. UBEX-13-00100056, Cantina Maya Sports Bar & Grille (Perez), 1021 Atlantic
Boulevard
Public Hearing – Request for use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-111(c)(3),
to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter
3 of the Municipal Code and a 4-COP SRX alcoholic beverage license issued by the
Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcohol and
Tobacco. The applicant is Javier U Perez on behalf of Cantina Maya Sports Bar &
Grille, located at 1021 Atlantic Boulevard, within a Commercial General (CG) zoning
district.
Staff
Report Ms. Hall summarized the request and explained that a 4-COP
alcoholic beverage license, which allows sales and on-premises
consumption of beer, wine and liquor, is permitted as a use-by-
exception within the Commercial General zoning districts. The SRX
designation, which stands for “special restaurant” means that the
license is exempt from quota restrictions set for the county
because certain other conditions are met. In particular, the Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of
Alcohol and Tobacco (FL DBPR-ABT) requires the following of
establishments receiving this designation: (1) a minimum of
twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet of floor space under
permanent cover; (2) a minimum of one hundred fifty (150)
Draft Minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 8
permanent seats for patrons; and, (3) a minimum of fifty-one (51)
percent of gross revenue generated by the sale of food and non-
alcoholic beverages. Though these conditions are monitored by FL
DBPR-ABT, Ms. Hall confirmed that the applicant’s leased space is
approximately three thousand one hundred fifty (3,150) square
feet in area, according to the site plan, and the number of
permanent seats provided is one hundred fifty-eight, according to
the floor plan, both of which are submitted to DBPR-ABT for
review.
Applicant
Comment The applicant declined the opportunity to comment on his request.
Public
Comment No one from the public came forward to comment on the request.
Board
Discussion Mr. Hansen stated that he saw no issues with this request, as
previous occupants of the location had held the same 4-COP SRX
license, and monitoring of the conditions for the “special
restaurant” provision is done by the DBPR-ABT.
Motion Mr. Burgess moved that the Community Development Board
recommend to the City Commission approval of UBEX-13-
00100056, request by Cantina Sports Bar & Grille, located at 1021
Atlantic Boulevard within a Commercial General (CG) zoning
district, for a use-by-exception to allow on-premises consumption
of alcoholic beverages, finding that said request is consistent with
provisions of Section 24-64, Section 24-111(c)(3), and Chapter 3 of
the Municipal Code for the City of Atlantic Beach, and in
accordance with the requirements for a 4-COP SRX alcoholic
beverage license, as regulated by the Florida Department of
Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcohol and
Tobacco. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion and it carried by a vote
of 5-0.
B. UBEX-13-00100059, Moto Electric Vehicles (Jackrel), 58 West 10th Street
Public Hearing – Request for use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-
111(c)(10), to allow the sale of new and used automobiles, specifically low speed
electric vehicles commonly referred to as “street legal” golf carts. The applicant is
property owner Ted Jackrel and the proposed location is a vacant lot on the south
side of West 10th Street having a legal description of Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 41, Atlantic
Beach Section “H” and a physical address of 58 West 10th Street, within a Commercial
General (CG) zoning district.
Staff
Report Mr. Hubsch summarized the request and explained that per Section
24-111(c)(10), a use-by-exception is required for the sale of new
and used automobiles. However, he explained this request is
unique in that the proposal is to develop a vacant lot, which will be
Draft Minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 8
owner-occupied by an establishment specializing in the sales of low
speed electric vehicles commonly referred to as “street legal” golf
carts, and that sales are primarily – estimated at ninety (90)
percent – internet-driven. He added that due to the nature of the
business being primarily internet-driven, the applicant is also
requesting a variance for reduction in required off-street parking,
which is listed as item 4C on this agenda.
Mr. Hubsch continued, describing the two alternative site plans
provided by the applicant’s architect. The first presents a seven
thousand seven hundred thirty-one (7,731) square foot building
positioned to the rear of the lot with parking fronting on West 10 th
Street, while the second presents a seven thousand four hundred
sixteen (7,416) square foot building positioned on the eastern side
of the lot with parking on the west side of the building. He noted
that the second plan offers better visual screening of the parking
area from Mayport Road, provides better opportunities to
landscape the front of the property and makes the site more
pedestrian friendly. Therefore, staff prefers the second plan over
the first.
Mr. Hubsch described the surrounding uses as follows: to the east
is a parcel that fronts on Mayport Road, currently vacant, but
previous occupied by used car sales, moving truck leasing and a car
detailing business; to the south is Advanced Lens Technologies, a
manufacturer of sunglass lenses; to the west is vacant residential
property, soon to be developed by Beaches Habitat for Humanity;
and to the north, directly across West 10th Street is the First Baptist
Church. He added that the final plan submitted for a building
permit would have to strictly adhere to provisions of the
landscaping, buffering and signage regulations, and that all goods,
services and business activities are to be completely enclosed in
the proposed building. So it is anticipated that the property would
remain clean and free of the crowded and cluttered appearance
that is typical of most automotive sales establishments.
Applicant
Comment Jason Canning introduced himself as the architect for the project
and described the parameters of the site and proposed business
which had led to the two conceptual plans submitted in support of
these applications.
Public
Comment Mark Hendry (800 Camelia Street) stated that he had come to the
meeting to gain clarification on the use, as he envisioned a typical
car lot. With a better understanding of the proposed use and the
site plan, including knowledge that there would be no outside
display or sales area and that approximately ninety (90) percent of
Draft Minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 8
sales would be internet-based, he said he did not really have much
concern over the parking issue. Instead, he expressed more
concern over the potential traffic increase that would be
introduced into the neighborhood, referring to the substantial
traffic increase West 10th Street had already experienced with the
construction of the Mayport Road medians.
Ana Rivera (77 West 9th Street) reminded the Board that West 10th
Street is now the first and only left-turn access to the
neighborhood south of Plaza for northbound traffic on Mayport
Road. Since the construction of the medians, traffic on West 10th
Street has increased significantly. She said she and many other
homeowners in the neighborhood are fighting to recover their
property values and she is concerned that besides additional
traffic, the neighborhood streets may become a test-drive track for
the low-speed vehicles. She added that the vacant lots to the west
of the subject property are soon to be developed by Beaches
Habitat for Humanity.
Board
Discussion Ms. Paul asked which uses would be permitted by-right on the
subject parcel. Mr. Hubsch responded, reading from the list of
permitted uses detailed in Section 24-111(b). Mr. Parkes noted
there seems to be many uses listed that would not require a use-
by-exception but would generate more traffic and parking needs.
Mr. Burgess added that the property would be owner-occupied
also, meaning that there would be a vested interest to preserve the
property values of the neighborhood.
Ms. Simmons noted that the staff report stated the intended use
furthered Comprehensive Plan, particularly Policy A.1.10.5, which
provides “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”. However, she questioned how
this business which is both automotive sales – though not as
typically seen – and primarily internet-based, could be viewed as
“neighborhood serving…that generate daily activity and interaction
between residents of surrounding neighborhoods”. She continued,
saying that she took the neighbors’ concerns regarding traffic on
10th Street, and the potential for it to be used as a testing ground
for inexperienced drivers to heart.
Mr. Parkes asked for verification that these vehicles had a low-
Draft Minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 8
speed designation, to which Mr. Jackrel replied they did. Ms.
Simmons inquired as to the safety of slow-moving vehicles. Mr.
Burgess responded that they are typically referred to as “street
legal” and are allowed to legally operate on streets with posted
speed limits of no greater than thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Ms.
Simmons asked if this was a local regulation, to which Mr. Burgess
replied it was a state regulation.
Mr. Hansen, referring again to Comprehensive Plan Policy A.1.10.5,
said in his mind, this proposed use was not an intensive
commercial use when compared to the average used car lot where
there was typically also heavy automotive repairs done. Referring
to the estimate of ninety (90) percent internet-driven sales, he
asked if a high inventory would be maintained or if they would
receive frequent drop-shipments.
Mr. Canning replied that the goal was to lessen travel to and from a
warehouse maintained in Gainesville, and that the design of the
site plan is being driven by the inventory to be maintained on site.
He said the vehicles are customized and fitted with equipment per
order and then shipped. Currently, a couple hundred units are sold
per year. Ms. Jackrel added that she anticipated much less traffic
and fewer disruptions to the neighborhood by this business than
their previous business which supplied transit buses.
Mr. Hansen asked about the origination and make-up of the other
ten (10) percent of business. Mr. Jackrel replied that Fleet Landing
was a high-volume local customer. He estimated approximately
one to two retail clients visited the bricks-and-mortar store weekly.
Other than the showroom, the planned structure would house
business offices and a conference room.
Motion Mr. Hansen moved that the Community Development Board
recommend approval to the City Commission of UBEX-13-
00100059, a request for a use-by-exception to allow the sale of
new and used automobiles, specifically low speed electric vehicles
commonly referred to a “street legal” golf carts within the
Commercial General zoning district at 58 West 10th Street, finding
that the request advances the goals, objectives and policies of the
adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the
redevelopment of the Mayport Road corridor and surrounding
residential neighborhoods, and also finding that it is consistent
with Section 24-111(c) and in accordance with the provisions of
Section 24-63 of the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Burgess
seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 5-0.
Draft Minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 6 of 8
C. ZVAR -13-00100058, Moto Electric Vehicles (Jackrel), 58 West 10th Street
Public Hearing – Request for variance from the provisions of Section 24-161(h)(3),
to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces for a proposed retail
automotive sales establishment, from nineteen (19) to eleven (11). The applicant is
property owner Ted Jackrel, and the proposed location is a vacant lot on the south
side of West 10th Street having a legal description of Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 41, Atlantic
Beach Section “H” and a physical address of 58 West 10th Street, within a Commercial
Gen eral (CG) zoning district.
Staff
Report Mr. Hubsch summarized the information provided in support of the
previous item (UBEX-13-00100059) and reiterated that the nature
of the business was internet sales, with only about ten (10) percent
of sales resulting from customer visits to the showroom. He
emphasized that the proposed automotive sales use is not the
typical new or used car lot with which most people are familiar.
Rather, the Jackrels are proposing an establishment specializing in
highly desirable alternative transportation well suited for our
community. However, because there is no guarantee that there
will not be a shift in allocation of on-site sales versus internet sales,
he proposed as a condition to approval of the parking variance that
the property owners provide an executed shared parking
agreement with the First Baptist Church, located directly to the
north, across West 10th Street.
Applicant
Comment Property owner Debra Jackrel addressed the Board, and
summarized the nature of her business and how she has
maintained her property over the last fifteen (15) years, and asked
for clarification regarding the need for a shared parking agreement.
Jason Canning, architect and representative of the property owners
Ted and Debra Jackrel, expressed concern over staff’s
recommendation that the variance be conditioned upon the
Jackrels securing a shared parking agreement with the First Baptist
Church when they already own four platted lots directly to the
southeast of the subject property, two of which front on Mayport
Road and two of which front on West 9th Street. Mr. Canning said
the Jackrels would likely be parking their personal vehicles on the
adjacent parcels, and their employees could do the same.
Public
Comment Mark Hendry (800 Camelia Street) stated that he had come to the
meeting to gain clarification on the use, as he envisioned a typical
car lot. With a better understanding of the proposed use and the
site plan, including knowledge that there would be no outside
display or sales area and that approximately ninety (90) percent of
sales would be internet-based, he said he did not really have much
Draft Minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 7 of 8
concern over the parking issue. Instead, he expressed more
concern over the potential traffic increase that would be
introduced into the neighborhood, referring to the substantial
traffic increase West 10th Street had already experienced with the
construction of the Mayport Road medians.
Ana Rivera (77 West 9th Street) reminded the Board that West 10th
Street is now the first and only left-turn access to the
neighborhood for northbound traffic on Mayport Road. Since the
construction of the medians, traffic on West 10th Street has
increased significantly. She said she and many other homeowners
in the neighborhood are fighting to recover their property values
and she is concerned that besides additional traffic, the
neighborhood streets may become a test-drive track for the low-
speed vehicles. She added that the vacant lots to the west of the
subject property are soon to be developed by Beaches Habitat for
Humanity.
Board
Discussion
Ms. Paul asked if such a variance would be tied to the property if
the business ceased to operate or the property was sold. Ms. Hall
responded that generally dimensional variances – being those that
affect yard setbacks – are tied to the property and do transfer.
However, parking is calculated based upon use, so any new
occupant would be reassessed and required to provide off-street
parking consistent with the use. She added that this variance
request is specifically associated with the use-by-exception request
just heard by the Board, and while the Board may move to approve
this variance, it is conditioned upon the approval of the use-by-
exception by the City Commission. If the Commission were to deny
the use-by-exception, this variance would become null and void.
Motion Mr. Burgess moved that the Community Development Board
approve ZVAR-13-00100058, request for a variance from the
provisions of Section 24-161(h)(3), to reduce the number of off-
street parking spaces for a proposed retail automotive sales
establishment from nineteen (19) to eleven, for a property located
within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district at 58 West 10th
Street, conditioned upon the procurement of an executed shared
parking agreement with the First Baptist Church, also located
within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district at 1050
Mayport Road, finding that the request is consistent with the
provisions of Section 24-161(b)(6) regarding variance from
standard parking calculations and in accordance with the
provisions of Section 24-64(d) regarding the granting of a variance.
Further, the shared parking agreement would be consistent with
the provisions of Section 24-161(f)(2). Ms. Simmons seconded the
Draft Minutes of the June 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 8 of 8
motion and it carried by a vote of 4-1, with Mr. Parkes dissenting.
Mr. Parkes then explained his opposition to the motion solely on
the requirement of the shared parking agreement, stating the
applicants’ inability to secure such a shared parking agreement
could result in the failure to obtain the necessary use-by-exception
since the two applications are bound together. Mr. Hansen said he
understood Mr. Parkes’ dissent and thought it was a good point,
but he was unsure as to how it could be justified. Mr. Parkes
replied that [per Section 24-64(b)(1)] each application for a
variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the
grounds for approval of this particular case are due to the nature of
the business, being primarily internet-driven.
Mr. Hansen, as a member of the prevailing vote moved to
reconsider the vote approving ZVAR-13-00100058, to strike the
requirement to procure the shared parking agreement with the
First Baptist Church, finding that there exists exceptional
circumstances particular to the proposed use and that absolute
conformance with the required off-street parking provisions of
Section 24-161(h)(3) would prevent the reasonable use of the
property as compared to other properties in the area. Mr. Parkes
seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 4-1, with Mr.
Burgess dissenting.
5. REPORTS . None.
6. ADJOURNMENT – 6:50 PM
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A.
CASE NO REZ-13-00100057
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
development plan has been filed with the City of Jacksonville.
LOCATION 1600 SELVA MARINA DRIVE (SELVA MARINA COUNTRY CLUB)
APPLICANT ATLANTIC BEACH PARTNERS, LLC REPRESENTED BY T R HAINLINE, JR
DATE JULY 16, 2013
STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
Atlantic Beach Partners, LLC has submitted a
request to amend the Atlantic Beach Country
Club Special Planned Area (SPA) approved by
Ordinance No. 90-13-216. 1
The current application seeks to increase the
number of total residential dwelling units from
one hundred eighty (180) to two hundred
(200), with one hundred seventy-four (174)
located within the City of Jacksonville and
twenty-six (26) located within the City of
Atlantic Beach. This proposed increase in
density is detailed in the amended narrative
and shown on the revised master
development plan, and the traffic study has
been updated also to account for the
increased density.
1 The Atlantic Beach Country Club Special Planned Area (SPA) is scheduled for second and final reading and public hearing
before the Atlantic Beach City Commission on July 8, 2013, and therefore is expected to be approved before this meeting.
Page 2 of 3
Table 1 – Site Summary Comparison – shows the land use allocation of the approved Atlantic Beach Country
Club Special Planned Area versus the proposed amendment. Staff has noted a discrepancy between the
total acreage provided in the approved SPA and that reported in this proposed amendment, and has
requested that the applicant address this issue with either a revised SPA narrative or an explanation of how
the approved SPA is in error. However, neither had been received at the time of publication of this staff
report.
TABLE 1.
SITE SUMMARY COMPARISON
ORD NO 90-13-216 (APPROVED) REZ-13-00100057 (PROPOSED)
CoAB CoJ TOTAL CoAB CoJ TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL
Acreage 0.08 34.36 34.44 5.00 34.49 39.49
Units 11 1691 1802 26 174 200
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Golf Course 26.14 91.25 117.39 19.94 91.67 111.61
Clubhouse, Amenities 6.74 0.00 6.74 6.74 0.00 6.74
INFRASTRUCTURE
Vehicular Access 1.37 9.08 10.45 2.45 9.43 11.88
TOTAL 34.33 134.69 169.02 34.13 135.59 169.72
1 The approved ABCC SPA conceptual site plan depicts one hundred sixty-nine (169) residential dwelling units, with
one (1) partially located within the City of Atlantic Beach.
2 The approved ABCC SPA narrative provides for a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) residential dwelling units,
although only one hundred sixty-nine (169) are depicted on the conceptual site plan.
Table 2 – Estimated Traffic Impacts on Level of Service – shows the allocation of PM peak-hour trips onto
surrounding roadways. Notes provided below compare estimated traffic impacts resulting from the
proposed two hundred (200) dwellings versus the previously approved one hundred eighty (180) dwellings.
TABLE 2.
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC IMPACTS
ON LEVEL OF SERVICE
YEAR
2007
YEAR
2013
YEAR
2016
WITHOUT
DEVELOPMENT
YEAR
2016
WITH
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE VOLUME/
LEVEL OF SERVICE
(LOS)
(1) MAYPORT RD (4-LANE)
(a) North of Dutton Island
Road
2,912 2,351 2,628 2,649/C1 4,200/C
(b) South of Dutton Island
Road
3,023 2,674 2,755 2.813/C2 4,200/C
(2) SEMINOLE RD (2-LANE)
(a) South of Selva Marina
Drive
618 618 637 765/C3 870/C
(3) SELVA MARINA DR (2-LANE) 161 161 161 223/B4
500/C
1 This is an increase of three (3) trips over the previous traffic study adopted as supporting documentation to
Ordinance No. 90-13-216.
2 This is an increase of five (5) trips over the previous traffic study adopted as supporting documentation to
Ordinance No. 90-13-216.
3 This is an increase of seventy (70) trips over the previous traffic study adopted as supporting documentation to
Ordinance No. 90-13-216.
4 This is an increase of twelve (12) trips over the previous traffic study adopted as supporting documentation to
Ordinance No. 90-13-216.
Page 3 of 3
Staff realizes a great deal of concern has been previously expressed by the citizenry, members of this Board
and elected officials alike, regarding the potential ABCC residential traffic impact, particularly to Seminole
Road and the “Five Way” intersection. As noted above, the additional twenty (20) dwelling units proposed
are estimated to increase PM peak-hour traffic on Seminole Road, south of Selva Marina Drive by seventy
(70) trips by the year 2016. This is one hundred forty-seven (147) more trips than current year traffic and
one hundred twenty-eight (128) more trips than estimated for year 2016 without development, and it brings
the segment capacity to within one hundred five (105) trips of the established level of service cap of eight
hundred seventy (870) trips.
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of the Atlantic Beach
Country Club SPA Amendment (Application REZ-13-00100057) to the City Commission, a request 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 (26) of those units allocated to lands within the City of Atlantic Beach,
approving the site development plan and adopting the application and supporting documents, and all terms
and conditions as set forth therein, subject to conditions enumerated and providing the following or similar
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 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land
Use Designation of Residential, Low Density.
(3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically
Division 6, establishing standards for Special Planned Areas.
(4) The proposed amendment and the site development plan are consistent with the stated
definition, intent and purpose of Special Planned Areas.
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of the Atlantic Beach
Country Club SPA Amendment (Application REZ-13-00100057) to the City Commission, a request 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 (26) of those units allocated to lands within the City of
Atlantic Beach, 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 Residential Low Density because
_____________________________________________________________________.
(2) The rezoning is not consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically Division
6, establishing standards for Special Planned Areas because
___________________________________________________________________________.
ATTACHMENTS None.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B.
CASE NO ZVAR-13-00100063
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.
LOCATION 298 PINE STREET
APPLICANT KAREN & FRANK BERNSTEIN
DATE JULY 16, 2013
STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
Background On February 19, 2013, Pence Property Maintenance acting on behalf of the property owners Karen and Frank Bernstein, applied for a building permit to construct a fence on the subject property. According to the building permit application, the work to be performed was “putting in a fence on side of house” and the attached site plan (sketched on a copy of a survey dated 12-3-2012), showed the proposed location as the northern property line and the street side yard adjacent to Seaspray Avenue. The application review and tracking form, prepared by Building Department staff at intake, described the project as a “6-ft fence replacement”. The application was then routed to Planning & Zoning, Public Works and Public Utilities for review. Planning and Zoning staff denied the application on first review, based upon the proposed location of a six (6) foot high fence on the property line of a street side yard adjacent to a right-of-way measuring fifty (50) feet or less in width, which is in conflict with Section 24-157(c)(1) of the land development regulations. Staff cited this provision and gave instructions as to how to revise the plans so the fence would be in compliance. The Planning & Zoning “correction report” was forwarded to the applicant, who then contacted property owner Karen Bernstein. Ms. Bernstein then came to City Hall and met with staff, who explained the fence provisions to her and reiterated that either the fence could be constructed at the proposed location at a height no greater than four (4) feet, or if the fence height were to exceed four (4) feet, it would have to be stepped in ten (10) feet from the northern (Seaspray Avenue) property line. Staff cautioned Ms. Bernstein if the fence was constructed in a manner (height or location) not in compliance with the Municipal Code, there would likely be Code Enforcement action taken. Feeling that Ms. Bernstein had a clear understanding of the regulations, and that the fence would be constructed on the property line at a height not to exceed four (4) feet, staff approved the building permit application that same day, February 19th. Public Works approved the application on February 22nd, Public Utilities on February 25th, and the permit was issued by the Building Department on March 5th.
Page 2 of 5
In mid-May, the Code Enforcement department began receiving complaints regarding a new six (6) foot high vinyl fence that had been constructed directly abutting the sidewalk running along the southern side of Seaspray Avenue and the northern property line of the subject property. The property owners were notified that their fence was not in compliance with the land development regulations. However, they disagree, stating that they were issued a valid building permit to construct the fence and now seek this variance to remedy the situation.
Figure 1. 298 Pine Street prior to installation of fence. Google Maps Street View imagery dated March 2011, accessed
online June 25, 2013.
Figure 2. 298 Pine Street, view from northeast corner.
Staff photo taken on June 25, 2013.
Figure 3. 298 Pine Street, view from northwest corner.
Staff photo taken on June 25, 2013.
Page 3 of 5
Analysis
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “[a]pplications 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. In the applicants’ narrative “large volume
of sidewalk use by school children going to and from school, side yard presents a dangerous condition
for children” is listed as an exceptional topographic condition. Staff asserts that proximity of property
line to side walk does not constitute an exceptional topographic condition, which is instead an issue of
highly variable elevations over a lot. The subject property is relatively flat, with very little topographic
variability, thus this particular ground for approval of a variance is not applicable.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
The applicants’ previous assertion regarding the large volume of sidewalk use by school children could
possibly be considered as a circumstance impacting this and other properties directly abutting Seaspray
Avenue. However, staff believes that knowledge of the school location and investigation of the impact
of sidewalk traffic is a matter of due diligence, a burden to be borne by the property buyer, prior to
purchase. Staff does not consider this condition to be valid grounds for approval of this variance.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area. The subject property is currently used as a single-family residence, consistent
with other lots platted according to Section No. 3 of the Saltair subdivision, and consistent with the
permitted uses provided within Section 24-106, Residential Single-Family (RS-2) districts. Neither
presence nor absence of a fence, nor height nor location of a fence impacts the use of this property as a
single-family residence or dwelling unit, which is defined in Section 24-17 as “a single unit providing
complete independent living facilities for one (1) family as defined herein, including permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation”. Therefore, this condition is not valid
grounds for approval of this variance request.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property. The current fence regulation as stated above has
been in effect since the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-03-184 on November 23, 2003. Prior to that date,
the setback requirements for a six (6) foot high fence on a street side yard was more restrictive, being
fifteen (15) feet, according to previous land development regulations adopted by Ordinance No. 90-01-
172 on November 26, 2001. Therefore, the current regulations were clearly in effect at the time of
application for building permit and construction of the fence on the subject property. As noted above,
staff reviewed the application for the fence permit, denied the request and provided the applicant with
correction options. Further, staff met with the property owner and reviewed the correction options
based upon current regulations. Therefore, there was no regulation enacted after the construction of
improvements upon the property. In fact, the applicant acted in direct opposition to the direction of
staff, having been advised both verbally and in writing, and constructed a fence in conflict with current
regulations. Therefore, this condition is not valid grounds for approval of this variance request.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. The subject property is not of an
irregular shape; rather it has a rectangular shape, consistent with other lots platted according to Section
Page 4 of 5
No. 3 of the Saltair subdivision, as well as much of the City of Atlantic Beach. Therefore, this ground for
approval is not applicable.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property. The subject property is not of a substandard size; rather it measures fifty (50) feet in
width and one hundred (100) feet in depth, which is consistent with other lots platted according to
Section No. 3 of the Saltair subdivision, as well as many platted lots within the City of Atlantic Beach, as
this was previously the minimum lot standard for the City. Therefore, this ground for approval is not
applicable.
Section 24-64(c) provides specific conditions for denial of a variance, and clearly states: “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.” The applicants purchased a large-breed dog knowing their
space limitations, knowing the proximity of their property to both the right-of-way (street and sidewalk) and
the Atlantic Beach Elementary School, knowing the high volume of pedestrians on said right-of-way to and
from the school, and having been advised of the permissible fence parameters by staff.
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR-13-00100063, 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, 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 above.
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny ZVAR-13-00100063, 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, upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in
accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is consistent with one or more
of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that
the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more
of the following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: BP-13-00002165, Fence Permit File
o (a) Fence Permit, issued 03.05.13
o (b) Building Permit Application, dated 02.11.13
o (c) Site Plan showing location of proposed fence
o (d) Application and Review Tracking Form – Kaluzniak, approved 02.25.1
o (e) Application Review and Tracking Form – Carper, approved 02.22.13
o (f) Application Review and Tracking Form – Hall, approved 02.19.13
Exhibit 2: Plan Review Corrections Report – Planning & Zoning, issued 02.19.13
DATE: 2/19/13 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTIONS REPORT PAGE 1
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICATION NBR . . : 13-00002165
ADDRESS ......: 298PINE ST
APPLICATION DATE . : 2/19/13
APPLICATION TYPE..:FENCE PERMIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OWNER .......:BERNSTEIN
298 PINE STREET
ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233
CONTRACTOR.....:PENCE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
12376 RUNNING RIVER RD S
JACKSONVILLE FL 32225
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENCY NAME: PLANNING & ZONING
DATE ACTION ACTION BY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/19/13 DISSAPPROVED - 1ST REVIEW ERIKA HALL
PER SECTION 24-157(c)(1): 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 the street.
Seaspray Avenue is a fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way;
therefore, Section 24-157(c)(1) applies. Either a four (4)
foot high fence may be placed directly on the property
line - the location indicated on the submitted site plan;
OR, a six (6) foot high fence, as proposed on the
application, may be placed ten (10) feet from the property
line.
Please either revise the application, changing the height
of the fence to four (4) feet; OR, revise the site plan so
that the location of the proposed six (6) foot high fence
is ten (10) feet from the property line.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.C.
CASE NO ZVAR-13-00100064
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
(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.
LOCATION 2069 BEACH AVENUE
APPLICANT MICHAEL DUNLAP, ARCHITECT
DATE JULY 16, 2013
STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
Background
The applicant sought and was granted a
variance for practically an identical request in
early 2007, with the sole difference being
that the 2007 request was to accommodate a
second story addition with corner supports.
The property owner now wishes to enclose
the first floor area which the 2007 second-
story addition overhangs.
Staff considers this variance request to be
primarily a procedural house-keeping matter
because (1) the 2007 variance order specifies
the variance was being granted for the
purpose of a second story addition only, even
though (2) the northern corner support
already occupies the area which is subject to
the current variance request. Granting of the
current request would not result in an
encroachment beyond that which already
exists as the result of the 2007 variance, and
subsequent second-story addition.
FIGURE 1. 2069 Beach Avenue. Google Maps, accessed
June 26, 2013.
Page 2 of 3
Analysis
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “[a]pplications 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. As noted in the applicant’s narrative, the
subject property does have topographic variation typical of most oceanfront lots in the vicinity, and
preservation of the primary dune system has constrained construction to the western portion of the
parcel.
(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. Not applicable.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. The western (rear) property line
which abuts the Beach Avenue right-of-way is angled and therefore not perpendicular to the structure.
The existing second-floor encroachment and the proposed first-floor encroachment, which is minimal at
approximately twenty-one gross square feet, results from the straight positioning of the structure
relative to the angled property line.
(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-13-00100064, 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 (16) feet, nine (9) inches, to allow a first floor addition to
a single-family dwelling located within a Residential Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district at 2069 Beach
Avenue, 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-13-00100064, 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 (16) feet, nine (9) inches, to allow a first floor addition to
a single-family dwelling located within a Residential Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district at 2069 Beach
Avenue, upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in
accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is consistent with one or more
of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below.
Page 3 of 3
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.
ATTACHMENTS
• EXHIBIT 1: Copy of ZVAR-06-00100115 (PZ File #2007-01)