Loading...
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)