Loading...
12.19.2017 CDB Agenda Packet                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / December 19, 2017 / 6:00 PM Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes. A. Minutes of the November 21, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. None. 4. New Business. A. ZVAR17‐00011 PUBLIC HEARING (Mary B. Cloutier) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, for relief from the Section 24‐88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials in order to replace the siding on one side of the townhouse at the south 25 feet of Lot 670, Saltair Section Number 3 (aka 134 Pine Street). B. ZVAR17‐0012 PUBLIC HEARING (Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate, LLC.) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the maximum distance for off‐site parking from 400 feet as required by Section 24‐161(f)(2) to 1600 feet allowing for shared parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A”, Lots 817‐822 and 842‐ 844 (aka 461 Atlantic Boulevard). C. UBEX17‐0004 PUBLIC HEARING (Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate, LLC.) Request for a 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 code at 461 Atlantic Boulevard. 5. Reports. A. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Code Discussion 6. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review online at www.coab.us and at the City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Any person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should submit a Comment Card located at the entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting. Please note that all meetings are live streamed and videotaped. The video is available at www.coab.us. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at any meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the City not less than three (3) days prior to the date of this meeting at the address or phone number above.     December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 2 of 43                                                                                                                                                                                                                     December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 3 of 43 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD November 21, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:01p.m. All members were present except for Mr. Reichler and Mr. Mandelbaum. Also present were Planner Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board Secretary Valerie Jones and the City Attorney, Brenna Durden representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the October 17th, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Stratton motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS A. ZVAR17-0007 PUBLIC HEARING (Zachary Crabtree) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane). Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that this variance is a request for a screen enclosure at 1865 Live Oak Lane in the Selva Marina neighborhood. This is a planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, Selva Marina Unit 12‐C with a residential low future land use. Page 1 of 8                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 4 of 43 The proposed plan is to construct a screen enclosure over a previously permitted pool and outdoor kitchen that will be 7 feet 10 inches from the rear property line and 5 feet from the side property line. Section 3(d) of the PUD text states that "no dwelling, fence, walls, detached out buildings, enclosed swimming pool or similar structure shall be located, placed, altered or permitted on any lot in said subdivision outside the dwelling zone except as in hereafter provided". Planner Reeves explained the dwelling zone is the buildable area on lot defined by setbacks, those setbacks being 20 feet in the front and rear and the sides being 10 feet on both sides. Enclosed swimming pools (screen enclosures) do not have additional regulations permitting them to be outside of that dwelling zone. Planner Reeves explained that there are 11 or 12 PUD's that make up the blue PUD area on the zoning map. The variance request is to allow the screen enclosure to be outside of that dwelling zone. One of the things the Board had asked for at our previous meeting was information on the ordinance that created this PUD. Staff confirmed that this was not passed via ordinance. PUD's came into existence in Atlantic Beach in 1972. Through 1982 when the code was fully rewritten, PUD's were not passed by ordinance. There was an application that was approved by the City Commission like an ordinance would be, but not with the full public hearing and permanent documentation. Staff did provide the minutes from the approval in March 24, 1980 when the plat and, covenants and restrictions were approved by the Commission. The covenants and restrictions also call out the City's responsibility to enforce these rules. Planner Reeves explained that the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712 of the Florida Statutes, does not apply to zoning requirements, PUD's or other governmental regulations. It's strictly the private side of covenants and restrictions within planned neighborhoods that have those documents in place. Ms. Simmons asked the City Attorney if this meant that the Board has to uphold the old covenants and restrictions as if they are code now and that they do require those setbacks and there is still a need for a variance. The City Attorney confirmed that that was correct. She explained that in years past the City did not adopt their PUD's by ordinance but by vote of the Commission. It was declared a PUD and it was declared that the covenants and restrictions that were approved would be recorded and applied to the development. Ms. Durden continued to explain rewriting of the Land Development Code and what is needed for the future. She confirmed that the Page 2 of 8                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 5 of 43 Kerry Varkonda introduced himself as the owner of 1865 Live Oak Lane. He also introduced his attorney, Zachary Crabtree. Mr. Varkonda referenced a letter from a citizen that implied he had proceeded with installing the pool in order to put pressure on the board to get the screen enclosure. He ensured them that that wasn't the case. Zach Crabtree (8777 San Jose Boulevard, Building A, Suite 200, Jacksonville, Florida 32217) introduced himself as the attorney for Mr. Varkonda. He pointed out that reason number four would apply as grounds for approval and so would number three. Mr. Crabtree mentioned Planner Reeves comments regarding the mixture of restrictions that had not been enforced in this area and that would lead to the exceptional circumstances around this specific piece of property. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Chair Paul. Board Discussion Applicant Comment Motion Marketable Record Title Act does not serve to extinguish conditions that are set out in a deed restriction by approval of a local government. Planner Reeves added that the intent of Staff will be to recommend that these PUD's be addressed. There have been a mix of restrictions enforced. He explained a couple of similar examples of this same variance request where one met the PUD setback requirements and one did not. Mr. Stratton asked if this request was for a home on 10th Street (for example) there would not be a problem. Planner Reeves confirmed that that is correct. There was further discussion by the Board as to lot size. Ms. Lanier asked that the letter from the citizen not be put in the record due to the fact that it was not signed. Ms. Durden responded that because this is a quasi‐judicial proceeding, an unsigned letter with no opportunity to know who it is from or to ask any questions should not be considered in making your decision. The Board can make it part of the record. The Board asked Planner Reeves about the differences between attached and detached structures. Planner Reeves gave further clarification regarding this. Ms. Simmons made a motion to approve ZVAR17‐0007 finding exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared Page 3 of 8                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 6 of 43 Applicant Comment the rear and side yards. Mark Young introduced himself and his wife, Sarah Young as the owners of 1820 Sherry Drive North. He stated that when went to get a permit he was surprised that the fence could only be 4 foot and added that he had lived in the Royal Palms area and had a 6 foot fence. He said he understood the 4 foot in the front, but questioned why there can't be 6 foot fence in Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Susan Beaugrand of 1830 North Sherry Drive, the next door neighbor, stated that she in favor of the fence. She explained that everyone has 6 foot fence and that much of it is dilapidated and falling down due to the last 2 hurricanes. She felt that this would be an improvement. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Staff Report to other properties in the area. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 ‐1 with Chair Paul as the dissenting vote. ZVAR17-0008 PUBLIC HEARING (Sarah “Sally” L. Young) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North Sherry Drive). Planner Reeves explained that this variance is a request for a six foot fence in the Selva Marina neighborhood. This is a planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, Selva Marina Unit 10‐B with a residential low future land use. Page 4 of 8 The proposed plan is to replace an existing 6 foot wood fence with a new 6 foot wood fence but relocating the front connections of the house to the side property lines a little further forward. Planner Reeves illustrated on the overhead where the existing fence is located and where the proposed fence would be located. The Board asked whether the existing 6 foot fence was within code and Planner Reeves explained that 4 foot height is code. Therefore the existing 6 foot fence is not within code. Front and rear setbacks are 20 feet and sides are 10 feet. Planner Reeves explained that the applicant provided pictures of many of the homes in the neighborhood that have 6 foot fences. Because of an existing PUD which indicates that a maximum height for a fence is 4 feet and that is why there is a need for a variance.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 7 of 43 Walter McDermott of 1817 North Sherry Drive introduced himself as the neighbor across the street and is in favor as the 6 foot fence. Brian Kilby introduced himself as the owner of 1825 North Sherry Drive, he lives across the street from the Young's. He felt that 6 foot fences are very common across the back and side of the properties in the neighborhood. He commented that he didn't like having 6 foot fence on a portion of the front yard as requested. Lorraine Schmidt of 1831 Selva Marina Drive stated that she is in favor of the 6 foot fence. With no more speakers, Chair Paul closed public comment. Board Discussion Ms. Lanier said that she was happy to see young people and fresh faces moving into these neighborhoods and improving their properties. Motion Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR17‐0008. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. Mr. Stratton asked Planner Reeves if there was any part of this variance request that would require a variance request if it wasn't part of the PUD. Planner Reeves explained that if this were a normal regulation the front of the house is slightly less than 20 feet from the front property line which would mean that the fence would have to be the 1.6 feet back from the face of the garage. There was discussion to have the homeowner move the fence back that 1.6 feet so that it would stay within code. Ms. Lanier amended her motion to include a stipulation that the homeowner push back the fence on the northeast corner so that it meets current city code. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. ZVAR17-0010 PUBLIC HEARING (Lori Gaglione) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the permitted height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section 24-157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina Drive). Staff Report Planner Broedell explained this is a variance to allow a 6 foot fence in the front yard at 1505 Selva Marina Drive. The property is in the RS‐L, large lot, zoning district with a future land use of Residential Low Density. It is a corner lot that fronts both Selva Marina Drive and Seminole Road. The city code defines a corner lot as abutting two or more streets, explaining that the exterior lot line of the narrowest side of the lot adjoining the street shall be considered the front of the lot. That makes the southern property line that abuts Seminole Road the front of this property according to code. Page 5 of 8                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 8 of 43 Applicant Comment Public Comment The proposed plan would be to install a six foot fence to run along the southern (front) property line before turning and running it back to the house. The need for the variance is Section 24‐157(b)(1) stating that within required front yards the maximum of any fence shall be four foot and then within required side or rear yards the maximum height shall be six foot. Because of the way the city code defines the front yard for corner lots, this six foot fence is in their required front yard. The proposed fence along the southern property line would be over 30 feet from the pavement of Seminole Road. There are no site line issues. There is a hedge that is on city property and the fence would be behind it. Lori Gaglione introduced herself as the owner of 1505 Selva Marina Drive. She explained how she was surprised that he front yard would be Seminole Drive when her house as the driveway and front door face Selva Marina Drive. Ms. Gaglione added that she had approached four of her neighbors and they were all okay with the fence and if necessary, she would be happy Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public Board Discussion of the fence along the property line, the right of way and the concern of comment was closed. Ms. Lanier questioned the fact that the code would designate the front yard as Seminole Road. The Board asked for clarification of the placement to get their statements. setting precedence. Mr. Elmore suggested that she install a four foot fence with hedge behind it or in front of it. Planner Reeves explained the front yard requirement and the side yard requirements. Mr. Stratton asked if the four foot fence could go in as proposed with no variance and Planner Reeves confirmed that to be true. There was lengthy discussion about the front yard determination and Planner Reeves said this code was originally created to establish consistent and reasonable buildable areas, but this also impacts fences. Ms. Simmons stated she was inclined to give this variance. Ms. Lanier was not convinced that the front yard code was not in existence when this house was built. The Board discussed the possibility of trying to locate the original ordinance before making a decision. Mr. Stratton brought up the tunneling effect and his concern that the six foot fence could cause that. Ms. Lanier disagreed that it would not apply because this piece of property is so large. Mr. Elmore expressed his concern about setting precedence if Page 6 of 8                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 9 of 43 Applicant Comment the rear of this townhouse. The need for a variance is two parts from the Section 24‐88(b) and Section 24‐88(c), which prohibit changes in style and footprint to townhouses. Thomas James Belich Jr. introduced himself as the property owner of 73 West 10th Street. He explained where the porch would be placed and that it would not affect his neighbors. One of his neighbors has a similar porch and that is where he got the idea in order to gain some shade. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. Melissa Dunfee of 71 West 10th Street introduced herself as the neighbor of Mr. Belich. She is in favor of Mr. Belich putting up a porch. With no more speakers, Chair Paul closed public comment. Motion Staff Report they don't follow the code. Ms. Simmons asked him if he saw any place for compromise and he suggested the four foot fence with the hedge. Ms. Simmons motioned to approve ZVAR17‐0010 finding the irregular shape of the property warrants special consideration. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. Mrs. Simmons and Ms. Lanier voted for the variance; and Mr. Elmore, Mr. Stratton and Chair Paul voted against the variance. The motion failed with a vote of 2‐3. C. ZVAR17-0009 PUBLIC HEARING (Thomas James Belich Jr.) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, Page 7 of 8 colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence to allow the addition of a porch in the rear at Section “H” the west 30 feet of Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th Street). Planner Broedell stated that this is a variance dealing with the townhouse construction and design regulations at 73 West 10th Street. The zoning is RG, residential two‐family, and the future land use is residential medium density. It is the western unit of a two‐unit townhouse built in 1998. Planner Broedell pointed out the 10 feet 4 inch common wall that the two townhouses share. The proposed plan is to construct and open porch in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 10 of 43 _______________________________________ Attest Board Discussion Mr. Elmore said he was in favor of this variance. Ms. Lanier said she would support this variance. Motion Mr. Elmore motioned to approve ZVAR17‐0009 finding the onerous effect of regulations after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 5. REPORTS 6. ADJOURNMENT Planner Reeves announced that the new city manager has a new policy that the Community Development Director will not be granting administrative variances nor will the Public Works Director. Consensus was given to remove this section of the agenda. Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Ms. Lanier Brea Paul, Chair seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. _______________________________________ Page 8 of 8     December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 11 of 43                 December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 12 of 43 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A CASE NO ZVAR17-0011 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials at the south half of Lot 670 in Saltair Section No. 3 (aka 134 Pine Street). LOCATION 134 Pine Street APPLICANT Mary B. Cloutier DATE December 11, 2017 STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Mary B. Cloutier, the owner of the townhouse located at 134 Pine Street. This townhome is the southern unit of a two- unit building that was built in 1986. The property is located in the Residential Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district and its Future Land Use designation is Residential Medium Density (RM). A variance is needed to replace the existing siding of the applicant’s southern unit of the townhouse. Section 24-88 (b) requires that “adjoining townhouse units shall be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials.” The applicant is proposing to replace the existing T1-11 siding with hardi-board lap siding on the back, side, and part of the front of the southern unit. The re-siding of one unit of the townhouse would result in a differing architectural style and construction materials between the two townhouse units. The applicant stated that the proposed siding would be repainted in the existing color, in order to keep both townhouse units the same color. Currently, the architectural style of the townhouse units differs slightly as a result of a second story buildout of the southern unit. The effective date of the ordinance that established the Code Section that this variance is seeking relief from was January 1, 2002. Hardi‐Board Lap Siding Existing T1‐11 Siding       December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 13 of 43 ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. The applicant stated that the existing T1-11 siding needs to be replaced due to rotting of the wood and that the proposed hardi-board lap siding is both rot and termite resistant. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Page 2 of 3       December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 14 of 43 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0011, request for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials in order to allow the residing of one unit of a two-unit townhouse at the southern half of Lot 670, Saltair Section No. 3 (aka 134 Pine Street), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described below. A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the community development board, for the following reasons: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Or, The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny ZVAR17-0011, request for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials in order to allow the residing of one unit of a two-unit townhouse at the southern half of Lot 670, Saltair Section No. 3 (aka 134 Pine Street), upon finding this request is not consistent with the definition of a variance, or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below. No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the following: (1) Light and air to adjacent properties. (2) Congestion of streets. (3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety. (4) Established property values. (5) The aesthetic environment of the community. (6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources. (7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community. Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner. Page 3 of 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 o f 4 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 o f 4 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 o f 4 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 o f 4 3 December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 19 of 43     December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 20 of 43     December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 21 of 43 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.B CASE NO. ZVAR17-0012 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as required by Section 24-161(f)(2) to 1600 feet allowing for shared parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A”, Lots 817-822 and 842-844 (aka 461 Atlantic Boulevard). LOCATION 461 Atlantic Boulevard APPLICANT Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate, LLC. DATE December 12, 2017 STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate LLC, the entity proposing the construction of a new barbeque restaurant at 461 Atlantic Boulevard. This will be a full service restaurant selling beer, wine and liquor for on-premises consumption. The property is a vacant lot within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district with frontage on Atlantic Boulevard and Sturdivant Avenue. The plan is to construct a 150 seat restaurant with 15 parking spaces on site, including two handicap parking spaces. A total of 38 parking spaces are needed to meet the code minimum of one space per four seats as required by Section 24- 161(h)(15). In order to provide the remaining 23 required parking, the applicant has entered into a shared parking agreement with the Beaches Town Center Association with lots as far as 1,600 feet away. A variance is required for the City to be able to recognize and accept the shared parking agreement because Section 24-161(f)(2) requires off-site parking to be within 400 feet of the property. Section 24-161(f)(2) specifically states the following; “Parking spaces for uses other than residential uses shall be provided on the same lot or not more than four hundred (400) feet away, provided that required off-street parking shall in no case be separated from the use it serves by arterial streets or major collector streets, or other similar barriers to safe access between parking and the use. A shared parking agreement shall be required where offsite parking is used to meet parking requirements. In such cases, the uses sharing parking must demonstrate different peak-hour parking needs.” The presented shared parking agreement features five properties with a maximum of 279 plus parking spaces available with defined hours and days of the week that the parking may be used. The list of properties is comprised of the Community Presbyterian Church in Atlantic Beach; and the Bank of America on 3rd Street, the Ameris Bank on Atlantic Boulevard, the former K-Mart on Atlantic Boulevard and the Baptist Church on 3rd Street all in Neptune Beach. Two of these properties, Ameris Bank and K- Mart, are specifically problematic even though they are among the closest to the proposed restaurant due to the fact they are located across an arterial street, Atlantic Boulevard, which is prohibited by the code.   December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 22 of 43 This removes 140 plus spaces from consideration. The Baptist Church on 3rd Street is the furthest away at a little under 1600 feet as the crow flies. Recognizing deficiencies in the code related to shared parking and in anticipation of this project and others coming forward, staff has been working on a policy to define shared parking and how staff will administer it in the future. While the applicant did not have the opportunity to review and consider the draft written policy attached to this report prior to submitting their application, many of the basic principles were explained during multiple meetings with the applicant and their representatives. It should be noted that the attached policy is a draft and has not been reviewed by the City Attorney. A key difference between staff’s policy and the applicant’s agreement is that all related properties must be located within the City of Atlantic Beach. This gives the City the direct ability to know about any changes to parking and enforce the agreement. This ties into the term of the agreement, which staff believes should be permanent unless changes or the cancelation of the agreement are approved by the City. These together prevent the City from having to reduce the usability or even close a business because it no longer has access to its’ required parking. Even if a shared parking agreement requires the City to be notified of any changes to the agreement, there really is no benefit for parties to notify the City as the only thing that can happen is that the City is forced to reduce the usability of the site immediately, which reduces the time they may have been able to get away with less than their required parking. Section 24-161(a) states, “Off-street vehicular parking spaces required by this section shall be provided at the time of the construction or expansion of any building for the uses listed in this section… Required parking shall be maintained for the duration of the use it serves.” This further enforces the need for shared parking agreements to permanent as it clearly requires parking established at the time construction must be maintained for as long as the use is present. If one party to a shared parking agreement decides to lower its use and thus lowering its parking requirement then the City could allow the shared parking agreement to be modified or canceled as appropriate. Additionally, information on the other properties proposed to be a part of this agreement has not been supplied, so staff cannot verify parking counts and uses of the properties. This also means that staff was not able to confirm that the proposed properties and their uses demonstrate different peak hour parking needs as required by the code. Another issue is the Beaches Town Center Association’s right to the parking that is offering as part of the agreement. The proposed agreement should reference recorded documents showing their legal right the proposed parking spaces. Those recorded documents would ideally give the Town Center Association permanent rights to that parking so that availability of parking spaces cannot be reduced. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In the end, the proposed shared parking agreement is well short of the meeting the policy drafted by staff and is effectively unenforceable by the City. As a result, the approval of a variance based on the proposed agreement is does not make logical sense so staff is recommending denial of the variance request at this time. Page 2 of 4                                                                                                  December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 23 of 43 ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. The applicant stated in their application that they can only accommodate 15 parking spaces on their property and need to work with other properties in the area. Page 3 of 4   December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 24 of 43 REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0012, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as required by Section 24-161(f)(2) to 1600 feet allowing for shared parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A”, Lots 817-822 and 842-844 (aka 461 Atlantic Boulevard), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described below. A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the community development board, for the following reasons: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Or, The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny ZVAR17-0012, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as required by Section 24-161(f)(2) to 1600 feet allowing for shared parking agreements at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A”, Lots 817-822 and 842-844 (aka 461 Atlantic Boulevard), upon finding this request is not consistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not 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 4 of 4 December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 25 of 43 provided on-site. Minimum Shared Parking Agreement Requirements private property owners and contain the following; City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Dept. 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Telephone (904) 247-5826 www.coab.us December 12, 2017 SHARED PARKING AGREEMENTS POLICY General Requirements All properties involved in an agreement must be located within the City of Atlantic Beach. Agreements can only occur in non-residential zoning districts and between non-residential uses. All properties involved in an agreement must be within 400 feet of each other, measured in a straight line from property line to property line, unless a variance is approved. Any changes to an agreement or property that is a part of an agreement that impacts the number of parking spaces available, including a change in use, must be approved by the City prior to the commencement of any changes. Signage must be provided on all properties involved in an agreement indicating the availability of parking at the other properties that are part of the agreement. Accessible (handicap) parking spaces for each property involved in an agreement must be Code Provision Permitting Shared Parking Agreements Section 24-161 (f)(2) “Parking spaces for uses other than residential uses shall be provided on the same lot or not more than four hundred (400) feet away, provided that required off-street parking shall in no case be separated from the use it serves by arterial streets or major collector streets, or other similar barriers to safe access between parking and the use. A shared parking agreement shall be required where offsite parking is used to meet parking requirements. In such cases, the uses sharing parking must demonstrate different peak-hour parking needs.” - - - - - - All agreements must be recorded with the Duval County Clerk of Courts at the expense of the -List the address and legal description of all properties involved in the agreement. -Be signed by the owners or legal representatives of all properties involved in the agreement. -Expressly declare the intent of the agreement to run with the land and bind all successors in interest to the agreement. -A description of uses and operational characteristics for all properties involved in the agreement. -A description of the manner in which the agreement may be revised, which must include a provision requiring approval by the City. - A site plan or survey depicting all parking spaces and required shared parking signage locations for all properties involved in the agreement. -A composite site plan of all properties involved in an agreement showing pedestrian pathways. December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 26 of 43 Uses Monday - Friday Saturday & Sunday 6a-6p 6p-12a 12a-6a 6a-6p 6p-12a 12a-6a Office, Industrial 100 10 10 20 10 10 Retail 70 80 10 100 70 10 Restaurants, Entertainment 70 100 20 80 100 30 Lodging 70 90 90 80 100 100 Schools (k-12) 100 20 10 30 20 10 Places of Worship 20 40 10 100 60 10 All Other Uses 100 100 100 100 100 100 Restaurants, Entertainment 70 100 20 80 100 30 X 25 spaces 18 25 5 20 25 8 Places of Worship 20 40 10 100 60 10 X 50 spaces 10 20 5 50 30 5 Totals 28 45 10 70 55 13 The Community Development Director may reduce the number of required parking spaces if the applicant submits a parking demand study that demonstrates a lesser demand for parking as compared to the City’s Parking Demand Chart. Shared Parking Calculations The number of required parking spaces is computed by multiplying the minimum amount of parking normally required for each land use according to Section 24-161 by the appropriate percentage as shown in the following parking demand table. The number of parking spaces required is determined by totaling the resulting numbers in each column; the column total that generates the highest number of parking spaces then becomes the minimum parking requirement. Example Property A: 100 seat restaurant = 25 required parking spaces Property B: 200 seat place of worship = 50 required parking spaces Any shared parking agreement between this restaurant and place of worship would require at least 70 parking spaces provided between the two properties. This reduces the total number of required parking spaces by 5. Derek W. Reeves Interim Community Development Director D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 2 7 o f 4 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 2 8 o f 4 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 2 9 o f 4 3 December 19, 2017 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 3 0 o f 4 3 December 19, 2017 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 3 1 o f 4 3 December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 32 of 43 December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 33 of 43 December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 34 of 43 December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 35 of 43     December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 36 of 43     December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 37 of 43 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.C CASE NO. UBEX17-0004 Request for a 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 code at 461 Atlantic Boulevard. LOCATION 461 Atlantic Boulevard APPLICANT Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate, LLC. DATE December 11, 2017 STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate LLC, the entity proposing the construction of a new barbeque restaurant at 461 Atlantic Boulevard. This will be a full service restaurant selling beer, wine and liquor for on-premises consumption. The property is a vacant lot within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district with frontage on Atlantic Boulevard and Sturdivant Avenue. While the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with a full service restaurant is a permitted use with CG, the sale of liquor for on-premises consumption requires a use- by-exception per Section 24-111(c)(3). As this is new construction and the plans are still under review, there could be changes to the current proposed site plan. As of today, it is planned to have a one way drive isle entering the site from Atlantic Boulevard and exiting on Sturdivant Avenue. The proposed parking area will have angled parking and a total of 15 spaces, two of which are handicap parking. A dumpster will be located on the north side of the parking area near Sturdivant Avenue. The dumpster is required to be screened and fencing is proposed around an outdoor open area at the north end of the property. The nearest residential zoning and use is directly across Sturdivant Avenue to the north. This would be the only full service restaurant with on-premises consumption of liquor between the Town Center and Sailfish Drive with the exception of Hurricane Grill and Wings in front of the Publix in Neptune Beach.   December 19, 2017 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 38 of 43 SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval to the City Commission of a requested Use-by-Exception (File No. UBEX17-0004) to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 461 Atlantic Boulevard provided: 1. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-63, Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. 3. The requested use is consistent with Section 24-111(c) in that the proposed use is found to be consistent with the uses permitted in the CG zoning district with respect to intensity of use, traffic impacts and compatibility with existing industrial uses, commercial uses and any nearby residential uses. SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial to the City Commission of a requested Use-by-(File No. UBEX17-0004) to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 461 Atlantic Boulevard provided: 1. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is not in compliance with the requirements of Section 24- 63, Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. 3. The requested use is not consistent with Section 24-111(c) in that the proposed use is found to be inconsistent with the uses permitted in the CG zoning districts with respect to intensity of use, traffic impacts and compatibility with existing industrial uses, commercial uses and any nearby residential uses. Page 2 of 2 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 3 9 o f 4 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 4 0 o f 4 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 4 1 o f 4 3 December 19, 2017 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 4 2 o f 4 3 December 19, 2017 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A g e n d a P a c k e t P a g e 4 3 o f 4 3