Loading...
02.20.2018 CDB Agenda Packet                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday / February 20, 2018 / 6:00 PM Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes. A. Minutes of the January 16, 2018 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 3. Old Business. A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair 4. New Business. A. ZVAR17‐0016 PUBLIC HEARING (Joseph J. Conselice) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, for relief from the Section 24‐171(f) prohibition of chain link fences within 100 feet of the commercial corridor to allow an existing chain link fence to remain on a newly developed parcel at Lots 1 and 2, except the north 10 feet, as shown on Donners Re‐plat (aka 1631 Mayport Road). B. ZVAR18‐0001 PUBLIC HEARING (Kelly and Mike Diaz) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the required side yard from 10 feet as required by Section 24‐17 to 1.5 feet in order to increase the height of an existing nonconforming structure at the west 115 feet of Lot 6, Block 22 and the west 115 feet pf the north one‐half Lot 5, Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th Street). C. ZVAR18‐0002 PUBLIC HEARING (Kelly and Mike Diaz) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the required rear yard for detached garages from 10 feet as required by Section 24‐151(b)(1)(e) to 7 feet to allow for the construction of a two story detached garage with guest quarters at the west 115 feet of Lot 6, Block 22 and the west 115 feet pf the north one‐half Lot 5, Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th Street). D. Ordinance 90‐18‐231 PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DIVISION 2, SECTION 24‐51, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS; DELETING CURRENT SECTION 24‐51 IN ITS ENTIRETY; ADOPTING NEW SECTION 24‐51, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REQUIRED NOTICES, ESTABLISHING NEW NOTICE, ADVERTISEMENT AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 5. Reports. A. Introduction of New Community Development Director, Shane Corbin B. Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance Update C. Automotive Service Station Moratorium Ordinance Update 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 atte n d the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Any person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should submit a Comment Card located at the entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting. Please note that all meetings are live streamed and videotaped. The video is available at www.coab.us. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at any meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the City not less than three (3) days prior to the date of this meeting at the address or phone number above.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD January 16, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. All members were present except for Mr. Mandelbaum. New Board members were introduced: Mr. Brian Major, Mr. Kirk Hansen and alternate Mr. Mark Tingen. Chair Paul asked Mr. Tingen to sit in the empty seat. 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. Chair Paul asked the Board if they wanted to discuss the election of a new Chair and Vice Chair or defer that discussion to the next meeting in light of the large agenda. The Board gave consensus to discuss at the next meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the December 19, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board. Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS A. ZVAR17‐0012 PUBLIC HEARING (Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate) 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). Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that this is a request for a variance to increase the maximum distance for shared parking agreements from within 400 feet of the property to as far as 1600 feet away from the property. The parcel is an existing vacant lot on Atlantic Boulevard, but there is a Page 1 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       proposed new restaurant that would require parking. Planner Reeves explained that the property is zoned Commercial General and has Commercial General on either side. He pointed out the residential zoning areas across Sturdivant Avenue. The future land use for this property is commercial. The proposed plan is to construct a new Barbeque Restaurant with 150 seats. They will provide 15 parking spaces on site including 2 handicap. The plan is to enter into a shared parking agreement to provide the remaining 23 required parking spaces off site. They are proposing a shared parking agreement with the Beaches Town Center Agency (BTCA) with access to parking at 5 locations, the furthest one being 1600 feet away. They are also proposing the use of valet and shuttle services to help. The maps were provided by the applicants. It shows the property across Atlantic Boulevard, the Bank of America property on 3rd Street, the Baptist Church on 3rd Street, the former Kmart property parking and to the north is the Community Presbyterian Church. Each one has defined hours that the parking is available to the applicant and their customers. The need for a variance is Section 24‐161(f)(2) requires that if parking is not on‐site that it be within 400 feet of the site. Since the furthest proposed parking is 1600 feet away we need to extend that distance with a variance in order for this proposed agreement to be approved. The agenda packets include information about staff’s thoughts on shared parking agreements. Shared parking agreements should be between multiple properties that have different peak hours of parking demands. This allows them to reduce the total parking needed. It can be utilized by all properties freely, knowing that there is no conflict and there is no need for restrictions because each properties needs are different. The BTCA has specified when those times are available for the Barbeque Restaurant's customers to utilize the parking. The shared parking should be in the City, letting Staff regulate the property in the future. For example, if Kmart gets redeveloped and loses the 140 spaces they have available, then the City knows that and can act accordingly with any shared parking agreements on that property or possibly not allow the redevelopment to happen until the shared parking can be satisfied. The BTCA has provided an explanation and charts that outline all the parking at various hours of the day and day of the week. The least parking spaces that they have available is 177 at any given time. They have signed an affidavit saying they will notify the City when 90% of the parking that they have available is being utilized via shared parking agreements. There are 2 minor issues with the proposal: The Kmart and Ameris Bank are located across Atlantic Boulevard from the property. The code does Page 2 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Ms. Lanier noted that Sturdivant and Sylvan don't have any "no parking" signs. The only "no parking" signs that she saw were around the church. She asked if parking is available on those grassy areas of the side streets. Planner Reeves said parking is allowed on Sturdivant and any other smaller streets but not the larger arterial streets (Seminole, Sherry, etc.) as long as you are not within 7 feet of a driveway and you provide a 10 feet drive isle. Reeves explained that that is why the preferred option is that it would be within the City. Development could be held off until an agreement is reached on the shared parking. In this case the applicants are signing affidavits that they have parking available and should they go above the 90 percent capacity then they will let the City know so that these issues can be addressed. If one party unilaterally wipes out any available parking, the other property has to find more parking or they reduce the use of the property until they meet what they have available. If they only had 15 spaces available then they would be down to 60 seats. Mr. Major asked if bicycle parking counts as available parking and Planner Reeves said it did not. The City requires bicycle parking but it doesn't play into parking counts. Applicant Comment specifically prohibit off‐site parking located across arterial streets. The applicants are proposing to use shuttles and/or valet at those lots that would prevent customers from having to cross the street. They would actually be driven across the street instead of crossing Atlantic Boulevard. The applicant also has another agreement and that is the one with the neighboring office complex to the east. That would provide an additional 15 parking spaces during the evening and weekend hours for the applicant to utilize. That agreement provides over two‐thirds of the required parking for the restaurant. Mr. Elmore asked if this restaurant is considered to be in the Town Center jurisdiction. Planner Reeves said that the Central Business District zoning stops at Sherry so it is not. Mr. Elmore wanted to know how the city would be able to regulate the parking since some of it is in another city. Planner Steve Diebenow of 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 in Jacksonville introduced himself as being present on behalf of the applicant. He addressed the question about whether parking in Neptune Beach can be counted. There really isn't a prohibition in the code about parking spaces being outside the boundaries of Atlantic Beach, but there is a restriction that says you can't count shared parking agreements that are across an arterial street. The rational is that you don't want people running back and forth across an arterial street to their destination. The rational of the board at the time of the agreement with Al Mansour (Al's Pizza) was that Page 3 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       the use of a valet mitigated that concern because it was their car and not the customer that crossed the arterial street. Mr. Diebenow went on to talk about calculations of parking available and the agreement that the BTCA would provide notice when 90% were committed. Mr. Diebenow pointed out that in order to maintain their SRX (license to serve alcohol with food) they have to prove that they have zoning compliance or the license can be revoked. The scenario of getting down to 60 seats would need to be avoided because you have to have 150 seats available at all time to maintain the SRX. There is a lot of incentive for the of the building's exterior and pointed out how most of the people involved are Atlantic Beach residents. Ms. Lanier wanted to know if she came to eat at the restaurant, how would she know where to park if the 15 parking spaces are full and how would the valet person know how to come and get her. Mr. Diebenow said that there will be valet parking during the peak hours. He said they will be working with the BTCA and people will learn that they can park in certain locations and get on a shuttle to go to any of the stops that on the shuttle's route. The applicant has paid to be an additional stop on the shuttle route. Ms. Lanier asked Mr. Diebenow if it was possible for them to do anything multi‐story that would accommodate more parking. Mr. Bishop said that it has not been discussed so he didn't know. applicant to maintain the parking and stay in compliance with zoning or risk the ability to do business. Henry Bishop of 698 Beach Avenue introduced himself as one of the investors in this project along with 3 other families that reside in Atlantic Beach. Mr. Bishop explained that their on‐site parking was lessened because they wanted to expand the outside area with a fenced in area for children and families making it unique to the area. He showed a rendering Mr. Major asked if any of the applicant's neighbors have shown any disapproval or rejection of the project. Mr. Bishop pointed out that the Presbyterian Church wasn't on board at first because they didn't know if the applicant had gone through the BTCA. They didn't want to double count or over allocate their parking spaces. Beyond that he has not had any negative feedback. Mr. Tingen asked if there was any chance of customers jumping into parking spaces that are not a part of the agreements (example: McDonald's). Planner Reeves explained that any property owner has the right to control their parking as they see necessary. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Page 4 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              and valet. Applicant Comment Board Discussion Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court. She expressed her concern that residents seem to buy property and then they want to squeeze in their dream. Ms. Barker commented that we need to enforce the code or the business needs to scale down. She believes that approving this variance is adding to the already existing problem of parking. Ms. Barker pointed out that the Parking Committee will have their research completed at the end of the month and the Board should wait to see what the report shows. With no further public comments, Chair Paul opened the floor back up to the applicant who had a rebuttal. Steve Diebenow pointed out that if you look at the map, 70% of the parking spaces that the restaurant is relying on are located either directly to the north or south all within the 400 feet radius. The variance (expanding it to 1600 feet) is to take advantage of the fact that there is shuttle service from further remote lots. Ms. Lanier disclosed that she had a conversation with the applicant's attorney, Mr. Diebenow. Mr. Tingen disclosed that he had a conversation with Mr. Rick Moore who is a co‐applicant and investor. He said that the content of the conversation was no more than what is in the application itself. Mr. Elmore disclosed that he also had a conversation with one of Ms. Simmons was not sure why the applicant even needed a variance the owners, Mr. Henry Bishop, they discussed what he should present in his application. according to everything that she saw presented. Mr. Elmore agreed that it looks like they can keep with the 400 feet along with the shuttle stops He reiterated that Atlantic Beach will always have a parking problem, as do many other cities. Mr. Elmore would feel better about striking the 1600 feet. Ms. Lanier also felt like the 400 feet was sufficient. Chair Paul was concerned that they weren't in the Town Center boundaries and wondered if that boundary was going to creep down Atlantic Boulevard to Mayport Road. She questioned if this business would take parking away from other businesses at the Town Center. Mr. Elmore explained that at one point there was talk of expanding the CBD all the way to Royal Palms. Mr. Elmore motioned to approve ZVAR17‐0012 as submitted. There was not second of the motion and discussion continued. There was further discussion regarding the 1600 feet that is in the variance request and if there is even a need for a variance at all. Ms. Durden said that if the parking agreements are within the 400 feet then there is no Page 5 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Request need for a variance. She said that if you deny the variance then you would be telling the applicant that they need to find their parking within the 400 feet and that you don't want them to go beyond the 400 feet. Mr. Major wanted to know if they had met any of the seven criteria to deny the variance. Ms. Simmons said the reason for denial would be because it wasn’t needed. Mr. Hansen said that he didn't want to be on record denying a variance since it didn't meet any of the criteria. Ms. Durden suggested that they shouldn't approve the variance if the objective of the number of spaces required at the peak times for their respective uses. Mr. Elmore wanted to know if the applicant would be alright with the 400 feet. Steve Diebenow suggested that they go to a lesser amount of 600 feet. That would give the applicant some flexibility that if some of the parking spaces go away they can find other ones that are nearby. He said that from the City's perspective, by having the variance in place, they get to see under the hood on all the agreements and sworn statements from the applicant. Motion Mr. Elmore motioned to approve ZVAR17‐0012 with an amendment from 1600 feet to 600 feet. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried with a 6‐1 vote with Chair Paul as the dissenting vote. Board is to tell the applicant to utilize only those spaces within the 400 feet. Ms. Lanier said that if the restaurant can operate within code then just let them operate within code. Mr. Elmore said that they could still utilize the shuttle. Mr. Hansen said he would like to hear from Staff that the applicant meets the 400 feet. Planner Reeves said that he didn't know and that he would have to run the calculations and make sure those properties provide the B. UBEX17‐0004 PUBLIC HEARING (Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate) 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. Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that this is a use‐by‐exception to allow on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages at 461 Atlantic Boulevard within the Commercial General Zoning District. The applicant is proposed to construct a 150 seat Barbeque Restaurant and they would like to serve beer, wine and liquor. A use‐by‐exception is required as Section 24‐ 111(c)(3) states that the on‐premises consumption of alcoholic beverages requires a use‐by‐exception. Planner Reeves explained that a restaurant serving beer and wine only is a permitted use, it is the addition of liquor Page 6 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         that requires this use‐by‐exception. The code has a few provisions in place: no sales between 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., they must maintain sufficient lighting for safety purposes and consumption must occur either within the building or a continuous recreation area to the building. The nearest residential zoning is the single‐family and two‐family zoning to the north across Sturdivant Avenue. This would be the only full service restaurant between the Towns Center and Sailfish Drive that would be serving liquor, other than Hurricane Grill in Neptune Beach. Planner Broedell explained that this is a request for a variance to decrease the required front yard setback at 664 Beach Avenue. It is zoned Residential General and is on the west side of Beach Avenue. The lot is only 50 feet by 75 feet deep, making it a non‐conforming lot of record. The existing house was built in 1940 and is also non‐conforming in respect to setbacks. The proposed plan is to install a shed roof at the front of the house over the garage doors. The roof overhang to the furthest point of projection Applicant Comment Steve Diebenow of 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 in Jacksonville introduced himself as being present on behalf of the applicant. He said that he believes they meet the criteria and would answer any questions that the Board may have. There were no questions for the applicant. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed. Board Discussion Chair Paul brought it back to the Board for discussion. Motion Mr. Hansen motioned to recommend approval of UBEX17‐0004 to the City Commission. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. ZVAR17‐0013 PUBLIC HEARING (DeJean and Laurie Melancon) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the front yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24‐ 107(e)(1) to 5 feet to allow the construction of a shed roof projecting from an existing non‐conforming structure at the east 75 feet of Lot 5, Daniel and Hackett Replat of Black 16 (aka 664 Beach Avenue). Staff Report Page 7 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 DeJean Melacon introduced himself as the owner of 664 Beach Avenue. He explained that they were remodeling the home and replacing the exterior siding. The architect had suggested some design enhancements and the shed roof over the garage was one of those. He explained how they get significant flooding when it rains and water collects and goes into the garage. He is hoping that the shed roof will help with this. He added that two adjacent properties had garages that are around seven (7) feet closer to the street than his. Planner Reeves stated that he had a couple of emails he had received in regards to this variance. He said two of the emails were for this variance and the next two variances on the agenda. Melinda Bradshaw's email said that variances have a place in the city and that is why variances and this Board exist, is to grant them when necessary. Jane Wytzka's email was generally opposed to approving variances and she believes we should stick to the code. George Garcia's email said that when a neighboring property at 645 Ocean attempted to change their height, they were denied. Therefore, he believes the Board should not approve this request. Pam McCrary of 226 1st Street. She said she doesn't know any of the applicants but wanted to talk in general. In regards to this variance, she said that it would help the storm water issue and be a good idea. With no speakers, public comment was closed. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore disclosed that he had a conversation with the applicant. Ms. Lanier said that she was in favor of the addition to the front and liked the idea of helping homeowners that owner these older "historical" homes. She felt that it would help with the storm water. Applicant Comment Public Comment would be three and a half (3 1/2) feet and would result in that edge of the roof being five (5) feet from the front property line. Currently, the house is eight and a half (8 1/2) feet from the front property line. The need for a variance come from Section 24‐107(e)(1) which is the minimum yard requirements for the RG zoning district which requires a minimum front yard of twenty (20) feet. The roof would result in a five (5) feet front yard setback. This would be considered the expansion of a non‐ conforming structure. Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Page 8 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Applicant Comment Motion Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR17‐0013. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. ZVAR17‐0014 PUBLIC HEARING (Kevin Beebe) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the rear yard setback from 30 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 9 PUD to 14.6 feet to allow for the addition of an attached Florida Room in the rear of the existing house at Lot 13, Block 1, Selva Marina Unit No. 9 (aka 1894 Seminole Road). Staff Report result in a rear yard setback of 14.6 feet. Section 3 of the Selva Marina Unit 9 Covenants and Restrictions requires a 30 foot rear yard setback. The City approved these Covenants and Restriction in 1976 which means the City should enforce them, but there were times when the City did not enforce them. A lot of similar additions were approved administratively using the City's standard 20 foot rear yard setback for Residential. Ms. Simmons asked if the City would require a 20 foot rear yard setback instead of the 30 foot, if it was outside of this PUD. Planner Reeves said if it was a normal Residential zoning district, yes. Kevin Bebee introduced himself as the owner of 1894 Seminole Road. He explained a couple of other options to gain square footage but said none Planner Broedell explained that this is a request for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback in Selva Marina Unit 9 PUD. He explained that this PUD encompasses everything between 19th Street and Saturiba and between Sea Oats and Seminole. The proposed plan is for the addition of a Florida room in the rear of the existing house. The addition would be 20.4 feet by 20.4 feet which would of them were feasible. He said he found that the home behind him and several others had gone to a 15 foot rear yard setback. He said these additions were in the last 15 years and there was not variance needed. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Pam McCrary of 226 1st Street said her concern was the pervious and she felt the applicant covered that. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court wondered why there wasn't any analysis about how this addition would fit in and be within the 50% impervious. Chair Paul explained that would happen when it gets to the Building Department. She said that even though the applicant might be Page 9 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Board Discussion C. approved for the variance, he still would need to meet the impervious standards through the Building Department. Kevin Bebee wanted to let the Board know that he had the neighbors support. He said that he has a lot of property and had already calculated the impervious. With no more speakers, public comment was closed. code. Mr. Elmore agreed that it would still be better than the PUD setback but would stay within current code. Planner Reeves said the Board could approve a lesser variance with a 20 foot rear yard setback. It would still require a variance because of the PUD. Chair Paul said she was fine with this. Mr. Major wanted to clarify that if this was any other resident outside She felt like the Board should stick to the 20 foot rear yard setback in the Motion of the PUD and they requested a 14.6 foot rear yard setback it would be denied. Chair Paul said that the Board has historically said no. Mr. Hansen disclosed that he had an ex‐parte conversation with the applicant. He stopped by the applicant's address and the applicant showed him what he is trying to do. The applicant told Mr. Hansen that his neighbor had a 15 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Hansen asked Planner Reeves about the house directly behind the applicant. Planner Reeves said that the house behind the applicant was approved for 20 feet and there were multiple homes in the area that were approved at 20 feet or greater. Mr. Hansen thought that the Board should match the setback of the home behind the applicant. Ms. Lanier explained that the variance can't be granted just because an applicant wants it, there are no extenuating circumstances or hardship. Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR17‐0014 with an amendment that the rear yard setback be set to 20 feet. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried with a 6‐1 vote with Mr. Hansen as the dissenting vote. ZVAR17‐0015 PUBLIC HEARING (Leah Sherman) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to allow for the construction of a new two story home that would increase the maximum permitted height of 14 feet as required for this lot by Section 24‐82(c) to 24 feet; to reduce the minimum ground floor living area for two story residential dwellings from 650 square feet of enclosed living area as required by Section 24‐82(j)(2) to 564 square feet of enclosed living area; to decrease the front yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24‐106(e)(1) to 10 feet; Page 10 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           The 5 variance requests are: maximum height allowed for non‐conforming lots, minimum floor area for residential dwelling units, front yard setback, rear yard setback and side yard setbacks. Section 24‐82(c) limits the maximum building height allowed for non‐ conforming lots. This applies to all lots that are under 5,000 square feet. This lot is only 2,000 square feet. The proposed 24 foot height exceed this. Section 24‐82(j)(2) requires a minimum of 650 square feet of enclosed floor area on the ground floor for 2‐story residential dwelling units. The proposed home would have 564 square feet of enclosed floor area on the ground floor. The existing home has 562 square feet. The proposed home does not meet any of the RS‐2 zoning requirements for setbacks, due to the small lot size. Planner Broedell compared the existing setbacks to the proposed setbacks and pointed out how this might affect neighboring properties. Ms. Simmons commented on the fact that the applicant is asking for less than the minimum square feet on the ground floor and it is already encroaching on all the setbacks. Applicant Comment David Mosby of 6102 Fleetwood Road in Jacksonville introduced himself as a residential designer hired by the owner, Leah Sherman. He explained that originally the applicant was pursuing renovation and remodeling Staff Report to decrease the side yard setbacks from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side as required by Section 24‐ 106(e)(3) to a combined 10 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on both sides, and to decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24‐106(e)(2) to 12 feet at the east 50 feet of Lot 3, Block 19, Atlantic Beach (aka 536 Beach Avenue). Planner Broedell explained that this is a request for a five part variance. The address is 526 Beach Avenue and is zoned RS‐2 and it is another non‐ conforming lot. The lot is 40 feet wide by 50 feet deep. The existing house was built in 1923 and is legally non‐conforming. The proposed plan is to construct a new 2 story home to replace the existing 2 story home due to structural and design deficiencies. compared to the current coverage of 42.7 percent. The proposed home would be 10 feet from the front property line, 5 feet from both side property lines and 12 feet from the rear property line. The proposed height of the new home is 24 feet from grade compared to the existing height of 20.3 feet. The proposed lot coverage is 40 percent Page 11 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          plans. The home had fundamental issues that Ms. Sherman wanted to address and improved. The ground floor is approximately 2 inches above grade, so any significant rain storm produces downstairs flooding. That would require raising the house up which in turn would result in a variance request for height. The construction of the existing home is sub‐standard being built in 1923. The ground level ceiling height is approximately 6 feet 10 inches. This created problems when trying to improve plumbing, electrical and hvac. Mr. Mosby discussed the lack of parking for Ms. Sherman and how the new home would address this with covered or variances would condemn this property to its existing condition. Leah Sherman introduced herself as the owner at 536 Beach Avenue. She gave a little history of how she found the home and stated that there's no heating or air conditioning on the ground floor. She explained the flooding problems and how she wants to put her bedroom on the bottom floor in consideration if her health deteriorates. Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Mary Peterson of 541 Beach Avenue introduced herself as living across the street. She would like to see the variance pass due to the parking. Ms. Peterson said that Ms. Sherman's home is significantly lower than the other homes on the street. enclosed parking. Mr. Mosby said that after encountering all these issues it made more sense to pursue building a new home, both esthetically and financially. Mr. Mosby continued to talk about the existing setbacks and how the new footprint would being reduced in depth but increased in width. The home would be 10 feet off the front property line as opposed to the existing 3.8 feet and this would provide a little parking. He said that denial of the Public Comment Scott Griswold of 511 Ocean Boulevard introduced himself as a neighbor. He said his north property line shares a boundary with the south property line of 536 Beach Avenue. He requested that the variance be denied. He explained that he had an interest in buying the property at one point but was told by Jeremy Hubsch that any structural changes on this non‐ conforming lot would be subject to current zoning restrictions that were more restrictive than the existing structure. Mr. Griswold decided not to buy the property and has an email confirming this conversation with Mr. Hubsch. He said that his outside living is done at the rear of his home which abuts 536 Beach on the north side. He pointed out the height of the proposed structure, the entrance on the second story, a covered porch on the south side and other features that would negatively impact his outdoor living space and property value. Mr. Griswold said that these are grounds Page 12 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               for denial according to Section 24‐62(c). He believes this request is not supported by any reasons presented to grant an approval for a variance for Section 24‐62(d). Lack of covered parking or renovation verses new construction costs do not inhibit a reasonable use of the property. At the time of the sale in 2014, prospective purchasers had access to the code restrictions in place for new construction or renovation. He is concerned that precedent would be set if this variance is approved since there are several homes in the area with lots of the same size. Mr. Griswold thinks that Ms. Sherman can make many of the desired improvements without a variance and sees no basis to allow a larger structure. Therefore, he asks that this request be denied. Mike Graham of 721 Sandringham Drive in Jacksonville introduced himself as a friend and general contractor. He said that he has worked extensively with Ms. Sherman to solve the problems of the flooding, utilities and general structural flaws. Mr. Graham said that they exhausted a lot of time and money on doing that to come to the conclusion that they would have to jack up the house which then creates other structural issues and other variance issues. He said they tried to stay within the existing footprint and not infringe on neighbors. Curtis Ford of 2389 Ocean Breeze Court introduced himself as a previous owner of 2 homes on Beach Avenue. He said that Ms. Sherman's residence should have been torn down years ago due to the base floor elevation being 2 inches above grade. 2 feet of the additional 4 feet of height in the new home is just to get the base floor elevation out of the flood and the other couple feet are needed for the floor system. He said that is a great opportunity for the Board to pass this variance. Bruce Cleary of 122 6th Street introduced himself as a neighbor. He said that he has looked at this home for a number of years and it really looks like it is about to fall down. He said the variance should be granted due to a hardship situation of being a small lot. Ms. Sherman is actually reducing the blue print of the house. In regards to setbacks, he pointed out how the home behind her has a garage that is 5 feet off of the property line. Mike Mosby explained that the footprint will be smaller, they are under the 40 percent pervious line and the character of the house is being maintained. He truly believes this is a hardship due to the size of the lot, existing conditions and other issues that only the Board can resolve and give the applicant relief from. In regards to the southern porch on the new home, Ms. Sherman is willing to flip the house so that the porch will be on the north side and more of the current sight conditions will be maintained which should alleviate the concerns of the property owner to the south. Mr. Mosby presented a sight plan that had been amended to show the proposed house flipped. He gave this to the Board and Staff. Page 13 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             With no other speakers, public comment was closed. Board Discussion Ms. Lanier wanted to know if the 5 variances were being considered as a group or individually. Chair Paul said that they should all stay together. Ms. Simmons said that the substandard size of the lot of record would warrant a variance in order to provide for reasonable use of property. As well as exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Ms. Simmons also added that onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting. Motion Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR17‐0015. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore said that he could go either way but realizes that if she doesn't get the variance then the lot is condemned to death and so is the property unless it could be absorbed by another property. He can see where the shelf life of the house is done but is concerned that it will take 5 variances on a non‐conforming lot to make this happen. Mr. Major said that if you look at the 7 reasons to deny a variance, they are the exact opposite of this case and if you look at the 6 reasons for approval, they are all there. He said for those reasons it is an easy one for him. Mr. Hansen said that the home itself is ready to go but he wanted to know if the Board was voting on the original plan or flipping the plan (Plan B). Planner Reeves explained that because the setback requests and the variance requests would be the same with either plan, then the Board can approve it as is or they can approve with condition for the Plan B design. Ms. Lanier amended her motion to approve ZVAR17‐0015 with the condition that the original plans be flipped so the exterior stairs were on the north side. Chair Paul seconded the motion. Mr. Hansen brought up the neighbor (Mr. Griswold) and his concern of his outdoor space being invaded, as stated in an email. Mr. Hansen thought they should consider the effect on a neighbor if you start to grant variances that infringe on their light and space. Mr. Major felt that the original grievance by the neighbor stating that the stairway on the south would affect property value was more of an opinion but not a fact. Mr. Hansen felt that the changes in the new home only amounted to inches, except for the height and wasn't sure that it would be that much different when it comes to light and space for an adjacent neighbor. Page 14 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Chair Paul motioned to call the question. Ms. Lanier seconded the call. All were in favor and it passed unanimously. Motion Ms. Lanier repeated her motion which was to approve ZVAR17‐0015 with the condition that the plan be flipped so that the exterior stairs are on the north side. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried unanimously. D. 17‐SPPR‐501 (Selva Preserve LLC) Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances at RE#172027‐0100. Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that this is a request for a plat as required by the code. He explained that the Board will be making a recommendation to the City Commission on whether this plat is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the requirements of land development regulations. The property is located at the corner of 11th Street and Linkside Drive, bordered by Sherman's Creek on the east side and the Country Club to the north. This property is commonly referred to as Selva Preserve. It came before the Board as a proposed rezoning to SPA about two years ago. It is zoned Residential RS‐1 and it's in the Residential Low RL future land use. The proposed plan is to subdivide the 7.21 acres into 11 residential single‐ family lots. The lots would be accessed by a new private road that starts at 11th Street and continues along Linkside Drive and then north toward the Country Club and terminating in a cul‐de‐sac. There is a proposed emergency access on Linkside Drive as a secondary access. Current zoning allows up to 6 units per acre. The site currently has 3.21 acres of buildable land on the site which would allow a total of 19 units on this piece of land. Minimum lot depth is 100 feet, width is 75 feet and lot area of 7500 square feet. All these are met on all of the 11 proposed lots. They are proposed to fill in 1.12 acres of wetlands on the site. To mitigate for that they plan on creating and restoring 1.18 acres, which is more than what they are filling. They will also create 0.48 acres and restoring 0.7 acres. The applicant plans on enhancing 2.07 acres of existing wetlands. Featured on the plat is a 50 foot buffer required from water features (Sherman's Creek). There is an outstanding comment on the use of top of bank is approvable instead of the mean high water line. There is also a 25 foot upland buffer from wetlands. Some of the applicant's activities require tree removal. They have acknowledged these codes and agreed to follow them. The applicant also has a conservation easement with the Water Management District for the wetlands on the site. Page 15 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           The applicant has asked for the Board's input on providing an upland buffer in areas that have been filled. They could seek a waiver that would allow them to construct a swale and berm system which would result in more wetlands and less fill, still accomplishing the necessary filtration. So along with your recommendation, the applicant for you to include a recommendation for or against a swale design system. Ms. Lanier asked how many home sites were in the original plan and if the tree removal remains the same. Planner Reeves said that the plans are similar without requiring all the waiver considerations and they were doing smaller lots. Chair Paul said there were wetland impacts with no onsite mitigation. Ms. Lanier asked who would hold the easement to which Chair Paul said it gets recorded with the Water Management District and is a term of the title of your property. Mr. Tingen asked what the average height of the mitigated trees would be. Planner Reeves said that the minimum is 10 feet for trees, 8 foot clear trunk for palms and 12 feet for oaks. Mr. Tingen wanted to know what the height limit was for the homes being built. Planner Reeves said that 35 feet was standard RS‐1 zoning and 50 percent impervious. Ms. Lanier asked if the Board approved this tonight would it come back to them in the future. Planner Reeves responded that unless there would be a major change in which the City Commission would want to send it back to this Board, then he saw no reason for the plat to come back. There was discussion regarding the comprehensive plan. Planner Reeves said that the residential character is consistent with the zoning and the surrounding area. The lots are larger than other lots nearby. In regards to the environmental side, the applicant has really covered that with their mitigation. Planner Reeves said staff could do a more in depth analysis of the Comprehensive Plan and bring it back to the Board. Mr. Tingen had questions about the water flow after the fill in. Planner Reeves explained the water will go west with overflow going east. Mr. Major wanted to know if the Board was here to determine the ability of these engineering designs to mitigate environmental impact. Planner Reeves said that the Board is not approving the engineering, they are to make a recommendation on the division of the land. Mr. Major asked Planner Reeves to confirm that this plat is in compliance with the code of ordinances. Planner Reeves pointed out the outstanding comment on mean high water line verses top of bank. The second one is a Page 16 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Mr. Miller said that they do not know what the mean high water mark of Sherman's Creek is and that's because it's not tidal. The only way to measure it is to go to the intersection of Sherman's Creek where it outflows into the Intracoastal to measure the mean high water mark. The compromise they came up with is to measure from the top of the bank. "Mean" means average, the average waterline going up and down in Sherman's Creek. The average couldn't be higher than the top of the bank as is proposed and will exceed that and go beyond the code requirement. He went on to discuss the upland buffer and how it would require filling in existing wetlands in order to protect wetlands. The code allows for a swale system and this would keep the applicant from having to fill in existing wetlands. They are actually creating more wetlands and restoring more wetlands onsite that they are impacting. He went on to explain that recommending this plat does not confer on the applicant the right to build anything or remove any trees. It would only allow the applicant to create a map of the lots along with legal descriptions. A plat has to be done for state law and local code if a land owner is going to subdivide their land by more than two lots. Ms. Lanier asked if trees would be removed from the wetlands and the 25 foot buffer. Ryan Carter of 7 Waldo Street in St. Augustine introduced Applicant Comment possible waiver to do the swale system. They meet the 25 feet buffer code but they are willing to do a waiver. Zach Miller of 202 19th Avenue South in Jacksonville Beach introduced himself. He clarified that what was presented before the Board two years ago was a rezoning to SPA and that's why there were waivers sought. A plat is an ownership exhibit. He said they are not rezoning anything or asking for variances. The applicant is fully complying with the RS‐1 zoning. himself. He said that they have to create wetlands in order to meet the no net loss. Trees will be removed in the uplands, land leveled to wetland elevation and then replant with wetland species. The applicant's proposed mitigation plantings are 931 3‐gallon trees from a variety of categories as laid out in their mitigation plan. He gave detailed explanation of the existing trees and plants and how their mitigation would have more desirable species for a better wetland system. All of this has been permitted by the St. John's Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, approved through the Unified Florida Statutes 62‐343. This assessed the wetland impact and the ecological functional loss associated with the impact. He explained that a lot of the existing trees are poor quality and come down easily during a storm. Page 17 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Mr. Tingen wanted to know the approximate size of a 3 gallon tree. Mr. Carter said it's about 5 feet tall and 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch caliper. There was further discussion of the species mix and how they are trying to replicate what is in a coastal freshwater native forest. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed. Board Discussion Chair Paul pointed out how it looks like there would be a gain of wetlands and improvement of wetlands. She said that in order to build on this land the wetlands will be affected. She said that as a homeowner it is easier to maintain a swale because it is defined as opposed to the buffer which is a nebulous thing. She said that the yard slowly creeps into the buffer, which leads to buffer impacts and permits are violated. At some point a swale will need maintenance, sod has to be pulled back and the shape of the berm adjusted. Mr. Elmore said he sees nothing wrong with the platting and is willing to vote for it. Ms. Lanier talked about the fact that this is some of the last natural property left in Atlantic Beach but it is privately owned and as long as they are doing everything to code then that is all that can be done. Motion Mr. Elmore motioned to recommend approval of 17‐SPPR‐501 to the City Commission. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. Planner Reeves asked if they had any thought on the consideration of the swale system and the mean high water line or top of bank. Chair Paul was fine with top of bank since it is higher than the mean high water. She thought it would also be easier for a homeowner to identify. Mr. Elmore said he would accept the top of bank as point of demarcation. Mr. Miller explained that they already have a conservation easement and they are going to comply either way. He said that top of the bank is well beyond the mean high water line and 10 feet westward would be even further. Mr. Major asked if top of bank was satisfactory to meet all of the environmental requirements. Ms. Durden said that the code specifically calls for a mean high water line and that line has not been established. She said that it is extremely expensive to do that but technically that is how it is supposed to be done. Mr. Elmore suggested they do 25 feet from top of bank. Mr. Major wanted to know if that would meet or exceed their criteria. Chair Paul said it would exceed it because the criteria is mean high water line which would always be below top of bank. Mr. Miller said that there is one spot where 25 feet could be impacted so they would request 10 feet from top of bank. Page 18 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Mr. Elmore motioned to recommend approval of 17‐SPPR‐501 to the City Commission with the condition of receiving a waiver to construct a swale and berm system in lieu of the 25 foot upland buffer and waiver allowing the use of the top of bank in lieu of the mean high water line with the buffer increased to 60 feet. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. E. Ordinance 90‐18‐231 PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DIVISION 2, SECTION 24‐51, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS; DELETING CURRENT SECTION 24‐51 IN ITS ENTIRETY; ADOPTING NEW SECTION 24‐51, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REQUIRED NOTICES, ESTABLISHING NEW NOTICE, ADVERTISEMENT AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that there was a joint meeting with the City Commission earlier this year relating to the Mayport Business Overlay District. There was discussion about notice requirements for the MBOD. For that, 700 mailers had to be sent out and a couple of hundred signs had to be posted and how this can be excessive and burdensome to do. Staff has been working on new notice requirement provisions that are a little more reasonable and realistic to accomplish. Notice requirements are Section 24‐51 of the code for providing notice on various public hearing scenarios in the City. Comprehensive plan amendments, ordinances amending the land development regulations, rezoning, use‐by‐exceptions, variances and waivers. The current version was written in 2010. The state does define minimum requirements for many of these categories. These have been taken into consideration when drafting this language. The state requirements can be added to but cannot be lessened. There are multiple scenarios under the state requirements that have been combined in the city's current code. Where the state has 3 difference comp plan amendment the city has one. Planner Reeves gave another example and explained that many of these requirements lead to unreasonable and expensive requirements. A text change to the LDR that affects the whole city would require putting a sign up on every property in the city. This would take several thousand signs, several thousand dollars and a considerable amount of staff time. Staff had no recommended changes to items a, b and f. The items a and b are Comprehensive Plan related and item f is the rezoning of 10 acres or Page 19 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      more. The mindset is it's unreasonable to send letters and signs to every property or a twenty acre area of the city. Mr. Elmore wanted to know if the City's website could be used also. Planner Reeves said that's definitely an option. are required over newspaper. throwing The next one is small scale comp plan amendments. Mailers and signs are more possible since it is project specific. There are two things from the state requirements that could be treated the same but Staff recommends splitting it out and creating two new scenarios. This is because one is a simple text change and the other is a map change. The difference being that the text change is broader and impacts the whole city so you probably don't want signs and mailers for the whole city. The map change being at a smaller level, if split out, we can do the mailers for properties within 300 feet and we can do the signs. The next one is when changing permitted uses on a property. In this case mailers are possible but not ideal. However, a few hundred signs would not be recommended. newspaper and signs are possible but not recommended due to the The final one is the rezoning of land of less than 10 acres. This is the one where mailers Staff is in potential scale of the area. These are only rezoning's issued by the city. Staff is looking for a recommendation to take to Commission where we can approve it as written at the state statute level. We could approve as written and incorporate the recommended changes. The third level is the recommended and possible changes. Finally, you can deny for whatever reason you think this shouldn't move forward. You can also add things in like the on‐line advertising. Ms. Lanier wanted to know if the idea for the city website would be a reasonable addition to every one of these items. Planner Reeves clarified that one option is a notice on the website and another is an email that goes directly to residents. Planner Reeves was a little hesitant on the email Public Comment notification since the city has just began to acquire email addresses and to require it for noticing might be a little premature. Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court introduced herself. She wanted to caution the committee that getting the message out to the public is worth it no matter what the cost. She thought that it should be kept the way it is. Page 20 of 22                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Board Discussion Motion wouldn't take as much expense or time. Mr. Major questioned whether effort to simplify the current code they went too far and made it overly should be tabled for now. there could be a case by case depending on the size or importance. The Board said that that is hard to gauge. Planner Reeves said it had to be treated fairly and uniformly across the board. He said there are possibilities of doing notices at key intersections or blocks. Ms. Simmons felt like it Ms. Lanier wanted to know how this would affect Staff if it got pushed back for another month. Planner Reeves said it will probably require the automotive service ordinance to get pushed a little further and medical marijuana will be impacted as well. Mr. Elmore withdrew his motion because he sensed that the Board wanted to discuss it further. Concensus was given to continue the discussion and public hearing at the next meeting on February 20, 2018. 5. REPORTS Planner Reeves announced the Shane Corbin would be starting as the new Community Development Director on January 22nd. With no additional speakers, public comment was closed. Planner Reeves explained that the reason for bring this out is because there are several ordinances coming up that will all be impacted by this. The code rewrite will be massively impacted. Chair Paul felt like sign noticing was very important. Mr. Elmore wanted to know if this is something that the Commission will have the final say and approval on. Planner Reeves said yes. Mr. Elmore thought the Board should facilitate Staff so they can be more efficient and save costs. Mr. Elmore motioned to approve Ordinance 90‐18‐231 with the Staff recommended changes and possible changes along with e‐notify. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Mr. Major wanted to know if there was a way to know what monies and time would be saved along with the effect on visibility. Planner Reeves said that on the MBOD notifications it was over $4,000 in costs including newspaper, signs, materials and staff time. Planner Reeves calculated that in the next year it could cost $20,000 to $30,000 due to the ordinances coming up. There was discussion about the code rewrite and how that would require a sign on every property. Planner Reeves felt that in an burdensome. Ms. Simmons wondered if there were other ways of notification that Page 21 of 22                                          6. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:28 p.m. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest Page 22 of 22         CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A CASE NO. ZVAR17-0016 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-171(f) prohibition of chain link fences within 100 feet of the commercial corridor to allow an existing chain link fence to remain on a newly developed parcel at Lots 1 and 2, except the north 10 feet, as shown on Donners Re-plat (aka 1631 Mayport Road). LOCATION 1631 Mayport Road APPLICANT Joseph J. Conselice DATE February 12, 2018 STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is Joseph Conselice, the owner of 1631 Mayport Road. The property is located on Mayport Road in the Commercial General (CG) zoning district and the applicant is finalizing the construction of a new building on the property. The applicant would like to keep the previously existing chain link fence that surrounds the property. A variance is required to keep or otherwise have a chain link fence on this property due to Section 24-171(f) which specifically prohibits the use of chain link fencing within 100 feet of commercial corridors, where Mayport Road is defined as a commercial corridor. This chain link fence has been a topic of discussion in the past. On February 18, 2014, the Community Development Board heard a use-by-exception application for American Well and Irrigation when this property was part of that larger site. At that time, the Board recommended approval of the use-by- exception with the condition that the chain link fence be screened with hedges and irrigation be installed. This use-by-exception was approved with that condition in place by the Commission on May 12, 2014. Since that use-by-exception approval in 2014, the property has been subdivided, sectioning off the southwest corner of the property, though ownership is still the same. A permit was submitted to construct a new two-story building featuring a garage on the first floor and a residential dwelling unit on the second floor on this new property. The owner of the property and of American Well and Irrigation will live in the residential dwelling unit and will store the owner’s personal vehicles as well as trucks and equipment related to the business in the garage. Due to these uses, the garage was built to commercial standards including firewall separation. The division of land left the property vacant except for the nonconforming fence. The concurrent construction of a new structure would bring the entire property up to code. To meet code and remove the nonconformity, the contractor submitted a site plan showing the chain link fence to be replaced with a wood fence.   The approval of the use-by-exception did not grant a variance to allow the chain link fence to remain. Instead it allowed a nonconformity to remain under certain conditions on a property that was essentially going unchanged except for the use by a new owner. The situation that the use-by-exception was approved under has significantly changed where the land has been subdivided and the property has been redeveloped with a new structure and use. Page 2 of 4                                             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. The applicant stated in their application that they would like to keep their existing chain link fence. (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 3 of 4   REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0016, request for relief from the Section 24-171(f) prohibition of chain link fences within 100 feet of the commercial corridor to allow an existing chain link fence to remain on a newly developed parcel at Lots 1 and 2, except the north 10 feet, as shown on Donners Re-plat (aka 1631 Mayport Road), 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 ZVAR17-0016, request for relief from the Section 24-171(f) prohibition of chain link fences within 100 feet of the commercial corridor to allow an existing chain link fence to remain on a newly developed parcel at Lots 1 and 2, except the north 10 feet, as shown on Donners Re-plat (aka 1631 Mayport Road), 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 VfbOD2nd CONCRETEI BAR SHOWINQSURVEY OF. LOTS 1 and 2, BLOCK 17 LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 10 FEET THEREOF, AS SHOWN ON DONNER' S REPLAT ( BUT NOT A PART OF SAID PLAT ), AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 19, RAGES 16 and 1. 6A OF THE CURRENT ' PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. JACK SO N ROAD 9 10; 0 40 30 RIGHT OF WAY SCALE: 1" = 20' 85.98' FIELD )N 89' 17' 20" E N 89' 17' 20" E 86.00° : FOUND CONCRETE FOUND " X-CUT MONUMENT, NO CAP1 ON CURB -M— x---x-­ T WZF.E 50.0-01 36.0-MAEOUl) 0 i0.3' PIP, L8.1048 1 4 i 0 z,! z NOTESV 3 '1. THIS IS "A BOUNDARY SURVEY. r-, OF 4 Z2. BEARINGS BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 3 AND 2 BLOCK 17, BEING NORTH 20' 39' 20" EAST:' *, iz 3. NO BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES PER PLAT OF DONNE ' S 0z Irn000 REPLAT AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 19, PAGES 16 A14D 16A; Q m OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. V: O I A MAG DISK 3672 NORTH. U4. BENCHMARK IS FOUND NAIL & LB t I iEDGE OF PAVEMENT ± 15' WEST OF THE EAST PROPER Y LINE OF No.30 ARDELLA RD. ELEVATION = 11.42 ( N.A.V.D. 1) 88) I r I 0.2' % C( / I N N M CIV lb Q N i " OIv ( J Z01 SIGN 1 ! I i Q / I Q / i oN N89°1622" E 84.55' ' , N I NFOUND: 1/ 2-IRON Q N89.17 20" E 84.48 PIPE. L.B. 1048 -x— x- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W METAL ( 50.0') FLAG a I o W3 aVVV IPO d-ITEtEt' P # ONE -_ a Q ,^ 4/ PEDESTAL I v cI 4r" SET 1/ 2" IRON1 2 IRON 3872 I pSPIPE, LB 372 % PIPEt 48o EE00' gg FOUND • 1 / 2" IRON — tt4 N o % 1 N N O PIPE,. LH 3672 O I p10i BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE r " v aio 1o-­ coVERED L043.01STO9Y ECK Q I 24.3' r co : # 6.0 i ry' c zZI tY w M © aon O w r b( ~N O U2 v N . 1 CONCRETE 0 C) OI r I DRIVEWAY VD ` O W w n n, I N rly1* / La o 4 Q z. i 11 STAIRS, N " a, z o m CIV Ute/ I N X24.3' 26.0' i 70V. RFD 2r de xD oRY oD D - . . .. - , L, 11 20 BUILDING I RESTRICTION LINE xDUMPSTER R GHT POLE PAD 0 IN x—J m xx6' CHAIN LINKI FENCE x-x-x-x x---x— xix—x— x— x-x— x-x-x-x— x-x-x—x—x— x— x-Lx ­ SET 1/ 2" IRON aCONCRETE m MAG NAIL & DISK ( 50.0 ) PIPE, odET75. 1[' .{ FOUND 5/ 8" REM"3672, ON CURB LB3672lB eqr }FOUN1/ 2' IRONL8 7992 89'17'2©"W 125.22! PIPE. NO CAP S89' 1 7!20"W Zs750.00' 48.76' FIELD)S89' 33' 43"W MAG NAIL & ELB 3672 NORTH EDGE OF PAVEMENT t15' WEST OF THE EAST PROPERTY LINE BENCHMARKARQELROADFOUND ROAD PAVEDPUBLICRIGHT OF WAY ELEVATION = 11.42 ( N.A.V.D. 1988) : 30' OF `No.30 ARDELLA RD. THIS SURVEY WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF CONSERVE, LLC.. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON APPEARS TO LIE IN FLOOD ZONE ' Y' (AREA OUTSIDE THE 0. 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN) AS WELL AS CAN BE DETERMINED FROM THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP' No. 12031CO408H, REVISED JUNE 3, 2013 FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. UNLESS IT BEARS THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISEDSEALOF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER, THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES DONN W. BOATINI ii`, - "I.. i1. ` FLORIDA LSC. SURVEYOR and -MAPPER FLORIDA LIC. SURVEYING &'° MAPPING BUSINESS NO. L$ 3295 No. LB 3672 ONLY AND IS NOT VALID. SCALE: 1 = 20' FILE: 2017­1528 DRAVM BY: KL BO TWRIGHT LAND SURVEYORS, Inc. 1500 ROBERTS DRIVE, L BEACHJACKSONVILLE ,--FLORIDA 241 8550 NOVEMBER:. 10. 2017DATE. SHEET REF: 2016-80Oa( k1w). 2001-423( SWC )             CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.B CASE NO. ZVAR18-0001 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required side yard from 10 feet as required by Section 24-17 to 1.5 feet in order to increase the height of an existing nonconforming structure at the west 115 feet of lot 6 Block 22 and the west 115 feet of the north one-half lot 5 Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th Street). LOCATION 130 5th Street APPLICANT Kelly and Mike Diaz DATE February 13, 2018 STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicants are Kelly and Mike Diaz, the owners of 130 5th Street. The property is located on the southeast corner of Ocean Boulevard and 5th Street in the Residential, Single Family (RS-2) zoning district. Pursuant to Section 24-17 (“Lot, Corner”) of the City Code, the western lot line that abuts Ocean Boulevard is defined as the front of the property and the northern lot line that abuts 5th Street is defined as the side of the property. Section 24-17 requires a minimum side yard of 10 feet for side lot lines that abut a street. The northern side wall of the existing two-story house, built in 1932, is only 1.5 feet from the northern lot line, making it a nonconforming structure. The applicants are proposing to increase the height of the existing house from 24 feet to 29 feet. The request stems from the applicants’ desire to raise the existing foundation, increase the existing 6-6.5 foot first floor ceiling heights, and create adequate space to install ductwork. Section 24-85(c) prohibits the expansion or enlargement of nonconforming structures unless such expansion complies with the City’s Land Development Regulations, or unless a variance is obtained. Since the existing house is nonconforming with respect to setbacks, the proposed enlargement of the house requires a variance. 10’ 1.5’ Property Line         ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicant stated that the existing house currently has no A/C ductwork and the ceiling heights of the first floor of the home range from 6 to 6.5 feet. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Page 2 of 3     REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR18-0001, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required side yard from 10 feet as required by Section 24-17 to 1.5 feet in order to increase the height of an existing nonconforming structure at the west 115 feet of lot 6 Block 22 and the west 115 feet of the north one-half lot 5 Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th 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 ZVAR18-0008, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required side yard from 10 feet as required by Section 24-17 to 1.5 feet in order to increase the height of an existing nonconforming structure at the west 115 feet of lot 6 Block 22 and the west 115 feet of the north one-half lot 5 Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th 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           CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.C CASE NO. ZVAR18-0002 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required rear yard for detached garages from 10 feet as required by Section 24- 151(b)(1)(e) to 7 feet to allow for the construction of a two story detached garage with guest quarters at the west 115 feet of lot 6 Block 22 and the west 115 feet of the north one-half lot 5 Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th Street). LOCATION 130 5th Street APPLICANT Kelly and Mike Diaz DATE February 13, 2018 STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner STAFF COMMENTS The applicants are Kelly and Mike Diaz, the owners of 130 5th Street. The property is located on the southeast corner of Ocean Boulevard and 5th Street in the Residential, Single Family (RS-2) zoning district. An existing single-story detached garage that was built in 1932 is located 3.8 feet from the rear (eastern) lot line. The applicants are planning to demolish the existing single-story detached garage due to its dilapidated condition. The construction of a new two-story detached garage with living quarters on the second floor is proposed. The proposed detached garage would be 598.5 square feet in lot area and 25 feet in height. Section 24- 151(b)(1)(e) requires detached garages that do not exceed 600 square feet of lot area and 25 feet in height to be located a minimum distance of 10 feet from the rear property line. The applicants originally requested a variance from this requirement to allow the new garage to be located 7 feet from the rear property line. In the time following the original request and subsequent public advertising of the variance, the applicants have since changed their request to allow the garage to be located 9 feet from the rear property line. Existing House         ANALYSIS Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The applicant stated the existing garage is in a major state of disrepair and not structurally sound. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Page 2 of 3       REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR18-0002, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required rear yard for detached garages from 10 feet as required by Section 24-151(b)(1)(e) to 7 feet to allow for the construction of a two story detached garage with guest quarters at the west 115 feet of lot 6 Block 22 and the west 115 feet of the north one- half lot 5 Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th 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 ZVAR18-0002, request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required rear yard for detached garages from 10 feet as required by Section 24-151(b)(1)(e) to 7 feet to allow for the construction of a two story detached garage with guest quarters at the west 115 feet of lot 6 Block 22 and the west 115 feet of the north one- half lot 5 Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th 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 ITEM 4.D     CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.D CASE NO. ORDINANCE 90-18-231 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DIVISION 2, SECTION 24-51, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS; DELETING CURRENT SECTION 24-51 IN ITS ENTIRETY; ADOPTING NEW SECTION 24-51, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REQUIRED NOTICES, ESTABLISHING NEW NOTICE, ADVERTISEMENT AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DATE February 14, 2018 STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner STAFF COMMENTS At the January 16, 2018 meeting of the Community Development Board, staff presented draft ordinance language amending the notice requirements for public hearings. The initial draft language was based on State Statute requirements. Staff also presented several enhancements to the State’s requirements. Among other things, the Board asked staff to bring back revised language incorporating those enhancements. The updated draft included in the agenda packet shows this language. After further staff discussion, a few other changes were made to the draft language. The Board’s role was more clearly defined in the process. Notice dates for newspaper ads were extended from 7 or 5 days to 10 days. This keeps things consistent with current codes. The size of newspaper ads were increased to quarter page ads for all Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations and Zoning Map related items. This is a difference per run of $313.00 for the old two column wide ads to $492.98 for a quarter page ad. Staff was also asked to bring back cost figures of how much it would cost to do a City wide noticing. This would include newspaper ads, mailers and signs. As mentioned previously, the typical two column wide ad required is $313.00. This is run 2 or 3 times depending on the situation for a total of $626.00 to $939.00. There are currently about 5,700 unique property owners within the City and the surrounding 300 foot radius that would receive notices. Current postage rates are $0.46 with materials (envelopes, labels and ink) coming out to about $0.50 each. That is a total of $2,850 for the mailers. The most expensive piece of the current notice requirements are the signs. The cheapest the City has purchased signs in the recent past is $5.50 per sign, including signs and posts. Pricing is based on quantity so prices could be around $4.00 each for a City wide ordinance. There are about 6,200 RE numbers in the City. This includes condos that have multiple units on a single property that could have one sign, which reduces the number of signs needed. However, signs are required on each street frontage for corner lots. A rough guess suggest the total number of signs needed to be 6,200 or more. At $4.00 per sign, this totals around $25,000.   None of these costs include staff time involved in creating the notices. The most recent example of a large scale notice was for the Mayport Business Overlay District. This notice was carefully orchestrated to include all public hearing dates on a single sign and a single mailer. There were still over 700 mailers that took about 13 hours of staff time to label envelopes, fold and stuff the mailers and run them through the postage machine. With an Administrative Assistant making $16.00 per hour that comes out to around $1,700 to send out the 5,700 mailers. The biggest piece of staff time is the signs. The signs must be assembled and posted on each property. For the overlay, it took approximately 25 hours to post 250 signs. Since this requires a vehicle to be driven, the hourly rate was bumped up to $20.00 per hour. To post 6,200 signs, it would take 620 hours or $12,400. It would take one fulltime staff person 15.5 weeks to post that many signs. The Community Development Department only has three full time staff and two part-time. Certain things can be done quicker with the help of equipment or outsourcing aspects such as folding mailers. That’s $28,789 in material costs and $14,100 in staff time for a total of $42,889. This is with a well- planned timeline where all hearing dates are posted each sign and in each mailer. It may also be helpful to see how other cities in North Florida handle notice requirements. In the table below, blue boxes are when requirements are consistent with state requirements and white boxes are where a city has decided to exceed the state requirement. Red text has been added where the current code is the only jurisdiction to exceed state requirements. Signs are the most common example of that because those items are often city wide and the most onerous. Atlantic Beach’s current code far exceeds state requirements and the proposed ordinance exceeds the state requirements and what most cities require. Atlantic Beach Proposed Ordinance State Neptune Beach Jax Beach St. Augustine Orange Park Comp Plan Text News 10 10 7/5 7/5 7/5 7/5 7/5 Mail 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sign 14 NA NA NA NA NA NA Comp Plan Map News 10 10 7/5 7/5 7/5 7/5 7/5 Mail 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sign 14 NA NA NA NA NA NA Small Scale Comp Plan News 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 Mail 30 14 NA NA NA NA NA Sign 14 14 NA NA NA NA NA LDR Text (not uses) News 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mail 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sign 14 NA NA NA NA NA NA Zoning Map (applicant) News 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 Mail 30 14 NA NA 30 NA 15 Sign 14 14 NA 21 5 NA 15 LDR Text (uses) News 10 10 7/5 7/5 7/5 7/5 7/5 Mail 30 NA ALT ALT ALT ALT ALT Sign 14 NA NA NA NA NA NA Zoning Map (10+ acres) News 10 10 7/5 7/5 7/5 7/5 7/5 Mail 30 NA ALT ALT ALT ALT ALT Sign 14 NA NA 21 NA NA NA Zoning Map (<10 acres) News 10 10 NA NA 10 NA NA Mail 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Sign 14 NA NA 21 5 NA NA Page 2 of 2 DRAFT 2/14/2018 ORDINANCE NO. 90-18-231 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DIVISION 2, SECTION 24-51, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS; DELETING CURRENT SECTION 24-51 IN ITS ENTIRETY; ADOPTING NEW SECTION 24-51, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REQUIRED NOTICES, ESTABLISHING NEW NOTICE, ADVERTISEMENT AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Atlantic Beach routinely assesses its Code of Ordinances to provide the most effective and efficient implementation of the Code provisions; and WHEREAS, the Commission is desirous of updating the notice provisions contained in Section 24-51 of the Land Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Board has reviewed the proposed new provisions and provided its recommendations to the City Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Commission now desires to adopt new notice provisions in Chapter 24, Land Development Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. Section 24-51 of Chapter 24, Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances is hereby deleted in its entirety and new Section 24-51 provisions, all as more fully set forth and described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby adopted to read as shown in said Exhibit A. SECTION 2. Conflict. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. Severability. If a Court of competent jurisdiction at any time finds any provision of this Ordinance to be unlawful, illegal, or unenforceable, the offending provision shall be deemed severable and removed from the remaining provisions of this Ordinance which shall remain in full force and intact. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon final reading and approval. PASSED by the City Commission on first reading this ____ day of ________, 2018. PASSED by the City Commission on second and final reading this ___ day of ________________, 2018. CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH Ellen Glasser, Mayor Attest: Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk Approved as to form and correctness: Brenna M. Durden, City Attorney EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 90-18-231 Sec. 24-51. – Notice of Public hearings. Notice of all public hearings required under these land development regulations shall be provided by the city manager or designee in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Amendments to the text of the adopted comprehensive plan, future land use map series, site-specific comprehensive plan amendments: (1) Public hearings. The local planning agency and the local governing body each shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on a proposed amendment to the text of the adopted comprehensive plan, the future land use map series, or a site-specific comprehensive plan amendment, prior to transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state planning agency pursuant to F.S. § 163.3184. Upon receipt of written comments from the state planning agency, the local governing body shall hold at least one (1) additional public hearing to adopt the proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes, or not adopt the amendment. Both the local planning agency and the local governing body public hearing held at the transmittal stage shall be held on a weekday at least ten (10) days after notice is published pursuant to the requirements specified in subsection (a)(2) below, and the local governing body public hearing held at the adoption stage shall be held on a weekday at least ten (10) days after the second notice is published pursuant to the requirements specified in subsection (a)(2) below. (2) Notice. All notices regarding the amendment process, including public hearings, for comprehensive plans shall be as required by F.S. § 163.3184 and § 166.041, unless otherwise specified. a. Published notice. At least ten (10) days prior to each public hearing held by either the local planning agency or the local governing body, the city manager or designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The required published notice shall be no less than one-quarter (1/4) page in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline of the notice shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The notice shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the city and of general interest and readership in the community, not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 50, Florida Statutes. Whenever possible, the notice shall appear in a newspaper that is published at least five (5) working days a week, unless the only newspaper in the city is published less frequently. The notice shall be in substantially the following form: 1 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to change the use of land within the area shown in the map in this notice. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on (date and time) at (place). The notice shall also contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates the area covered by the proposal. The map shall include major street names as a means of identification of the area. The notice shall also state the places within the boundary of the City of Atlantic Beach where the proposed amendment may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be hearing regarding the transmittal or adoption of the amendment. b. Mailed notice. At least thirty (30) calendar days prior to each public hearing, the city manager or designee shall provide notice by mail of each public hearing to each real property owner whose land is subject to the amendment, and to all other owners of real property within three hundred (300) feet of the periphery of the subject property, whose names and addresses are known by reference to the latest ad valorem tax records published by the county property appraiser. The notice shall state the substance of the proposed amendment as it affects that property owner and shall set a time and place for one or more public hearings on such amendment. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the clerk of the governing body. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and location of the public hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right-of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the local planning agency or the local governing body. (b) Amendments to the text of the land development regulations including revisions to the list of permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within a zoning category or the official zoning map. 2 (1) Public hearings. The local planning agency shall hold one (1) public hearing and the local governing body shall hold two (2) public hearings on a proposed amendment that changes the official zoning map, or that changes the text of the land development regulations, including revision to the list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category. The second public hearing before the local governing body shall be held approximately two (2) weeks after the first public hearing. The day, time, and place at which the second hearing before the local governing body will be held shall be announced at the first public hearing. The public hearings shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday. Notice. All notices regarding the amendment process, including public hearings, for the official zoning map or the text of the land development regulations, including revision to the list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category, shall be in accordance with F.S. § 166.041, unless otherwise specified. a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to each public hearing held by either the local planning agency or the local governing body, the city manager or designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The required published notice shall be no less than two (2) columns wide by ten (10) inches long in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline of the notice shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The notice shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the city and of general interest and readership in the community, not one of limited subject matter. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing, the subject of the meeting, and the place or places within the boundaries of the city where the proposed amendment may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the amendment. 1. Published notices for amendments to the official zoning map shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF ZONING CHANGE 3 The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt Ordinance No. ______ rezoning (changing the permitted use of) the land within the area shown in the map of this advertisement. A public hearing on the rezoning will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). The notice shall also contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates the area covered by the proposed ordinance. The map shall include major street names as a means of identification of the area. 2. Published notices for amendments to the text of the land development regulations that change the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF ZONING CODE (LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) TEXT CHANGE The City of Atlantic beach proposes to adopt Ordinance No. ______ amending the text of the zoning code (land development regulations). The amendment will affect the land located within the area shown in the map of this advertisement. A public hearing on the proposed text change will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). The notice shall also contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates that area covered by the proposed ordinance. The map shall include major street names as a means of identification of the area. 3. Published notices for amendments to the text of the land development regulations that do not change the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category shall be advertised as follows. At least ten (10) calendar days but not more than thirty (30) calendar days in advance of each public hearing, the city manager or designee shall have published a notice of such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice of public hearing shall state the date, time and place of the meeting, the application number or the title of the proposed ordinance, and the place or places where such application or proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the public 4 hearing and be heard with respect to the application or proposed ordinance. b. Mailed notice. At least thirty (30) calendar days prior to each public hearing, the city manager or designee shall provide notice by mail of each public hearing to each real property owner whose land is subject to the amendment, and to all owners of real property within three hundred (300) feet of the periphery of the subject property, whose names and addresses are known by reference to the latest ad valorem tax records published by the county property appraiser. The notice shall state the substance of the application or proposed ordinance as it affects that property owner and shall set a time and place for one or more public hearings on such ordinance. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the clerk of the governing body. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and location of the public hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street on each street side of the land subject to the application. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right- of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the local planning agency or the local governing body. (c) Request for variance from or waiver of land development regulations. (1) Public hearings. The local planning agency shall hold one (1) public hearing on applications for variances from land development regulations, and the local governing body shall hold one (1) public hearing on applications for waivers of land development regulations. (2) Notice. a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to each public hearing, the city manager or designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Atlantic Beach. The notice of the public hearing shall state the date, time and place of the public hearing, 5 and the place where such application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the application. b. Mailed notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each public hearing, the city manager or designee shall provide notice by mail of the public hearing to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, whose names and addresses are known by reference to the latest ad valorem tax records published by the county property appraiser. The notice shall state the substance of the application and shall set a time and place for the public hearing. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the clerk of the governing body. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and location of the public hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street on each street side of the land subject to the application. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right-of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the local planning agency or the local governing body. (d) Request for use-by-exception. (1) Public hearings. The local planning agency shall hold one (1) public hearing on use-by-exception applications. (2) Notice. a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to each public hearing, the city manager or designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Atlantic Beach. The notice of the public hearing shall state the date, time and place of the public hearing, and the place where such application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the application. 6 b. Mailed notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each public hearing, the city manager or designee shall provide notice by mail of the public hearing to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, whose names and addresses are known by reference to the latest ad valorem tax records published by the county property appraiser. The notice shall state the substance of the application and shall set a time and place for the public hearing. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the clerk of the governing body. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and location of the public hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street on each street side of the land subject to the application. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right-of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the local planning agency or the local governing body. (e) Contest. If no aggrieved party contests the issue of proper notice within thirty (30) days of the city commission rendering its decision, then notice shall be deemed to be in compliance with this section. 7 New Section 24-51 is hereby adopted to read as follows: Sec. 24-51. - Public hearings and required notice. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (c) herein, ordinances that amend the text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board shall hold one (1) advertised public hearing and the City Commission shall hold two (2) advertised public hearings on proposed ordinances that amend the text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The first public hearing at City Commission shall be held at the transmittal stage, prior to the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state planning agency pursuant to F.S. § 163.3184. The second public hearing at City Commission shall be held at the adoption stage, within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days of receipt of any comments from the state planning agency, unless such time frame is extended pursuant to F.S. § 163.3184. Should the second public hearing at City Commission not be timely held, the amendment application shall be deemed withdrawn pursuant to F.S. § 163.3284., F.S. All public hearings shall be held on a weekday. (2) Notice. All notices regarding ordinances that amend the text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, shall comply with the requirements of F.S. § 163.3184 and § 166.041, unless otherwise specified herein. a. Published notice. At least seven ten (710) calendar days prior to the each public hearing at the Community Development Board and at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing at City Commission and at least five (5) calendar days prior to the date of the second public hearing at City Commission, the City Clerk or their designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing in accordance with Chapter 166, Florida Statutes. The required advertisement shall be one-quarter (1/4) page in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in advertisement shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the meeting, and the place or places within the city where the proposed ordinances may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance. b. Advertisements for ordinances that amend the text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan shall be in substantially the following form: 8 NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT CHANGE The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt the following Ordinance (title of the ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). (2) Notice. All notices regarding ordinances that amend the text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, shall comply with the requirements of F.S. § 163.3184 and § 166.041, unless otherwise specified herein. (b) Except as provided in Subsection (c) herein, ordinances that amend the Future Land Use Map series of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board shall hold one (1) advertised public hearing and the City Commission shall hold two (2) advertised public hearings on proposed ordinances that amend the Future Land Use Map series of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The first public hearing at City Commission shall be held at the transmittal stage, prior to the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state planning agency pursuant to F.S. § 163.3184. The second public hearing at City Commission shall be held at the adoption stage, within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days of receipt of any comments from the state planning agency pursuant to F.S. § 163.3184. All public hearings shall be held on a weekday. (2) Notice. All notices regarding ordinances that amend the Future Land Use Map series of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, shall be as required by F.S. § 163.3184 and § 166.041, unless otherwise specified herein. a. Published notice. At least seven ten (710) calendar days prior to the each public hearing at the Community Development Board and at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing at City Commission and at least five (5) calendar days prior to the date of the second public hearing at City Commission, the City Clerk or their designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The required advertisement shall be one-quarter (1/4) page in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in advertisement shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the meeting, and the place or places within the city where the proposed ordinances may be inspected by 9   the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance. b. Advertisements for ordinances that amend the Future Land Use Map series of the adopted Comprehensive Plan shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt the following Ordinance (title of the ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). The advertisement shall contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates the area covered by the proposed ordinance. The map shall include major street names as a means of identification of the general area. In addition to being published in the newspaper, the maps must be part of the online notice required pursuant to F.S. § 50.0211. (c) Ordinances for small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendments that amend the Future Land Use Map series and related text amendments. For site specific Future Land Use Map amendments involving the use of ten (10) acres or less and text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale Future Land Use Map amendment, the following public hearing and notice requirements shall apply: (1) Public Hearings. The Community Development Board shall hold one (1) advertised public hearing and the City Commission shall each hold one (1) advertised public hearing which shall be the adoption hearing as required by F.S. § 163.3187 and § 166.041, F.S. All public hearings shall be held on a weekday. (2) Published Notice. All notices regarding ordinances that amend the Future Land Use Map series of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, shall be as required by F.S. § 163.3187 and § 166.041, unless otherwise specified herein. a. Published Notice. At least seven ten (710) calendar days prior to the each public hearing at the Community Development Board and at least seven (7) days prior to the public hearing at City Commission, the City Clerk or their designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The advertisement shall be in substantially the following form: The required advertisement shall be one-quarter (1/4) page in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in advertisement shall be in a type 10 no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the meeting, and the place or places within the city where the proposed ordinances may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance. Advertisements for ordinances for small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendments that amend the Future Land Use Map series and related text amendments shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt the following ordinance (title of Ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on (date and /time) at (meeting place). The advertisement shall contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates the area covered by the proposed ordinance. and The map shall include major street names as a means of identification of the general area. In addition to being published in the newspaper, the maps must be part of the online notice required pursuant to F.S. § 50.0211. b. Mailed notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the first public hearing, each real property owner whose land is within three hundred (300) feet of the subject parcel(s) and whose address is known by reference to the latest ad velorem tax records shall be notified by mail. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; and the place or places within the city where the application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the application. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the City Clerk. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and place of the public hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street on each street side of the land subject to the application. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right-of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after 11 the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the Community Development Board or the City Commission. (d) Ordinances that change the text of the Land Development Regulations, other than those that revise the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category; and ordinances initiated by an applicant other than the City to change the actual Official Zoning Map designation of a parcel or parcels. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board and the City Commission shall each hold one (1) advertised public hearing on proposed ordinances that change the text of the Land Development Regulations, other than those that revise the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category; and Ordinances initiated by an applicant other than the City to change the actual Official Zoning Map designation of a parcel or parcels. (2) Notice. All notices regarding ordinances that change the text of the Land Development Regulations, other than those that revise the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category; and Ordinances initiated by an applicant other than the City to change the actual Official Zoning Map designation of a parcel or parcels, shall be in accordance with F.S. § 166.041, unless otherwise specified herein. a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to the each public hearing, the City Clerk or their designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The required advertisement shall be one-quarter (1/4) page in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in advertisement shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the meeting, and the place or places within the city where the proposed ordinances may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance. Advertisements for ordinances that change the text of the Land Development Regulations, other than those that revise the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TEXT CHANGE 12 The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt the following Ordinance (title of the ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). (e) Ordinances initiated by an applicant other than the City to change the actual Official Zoning Map designation of a parcel or parcels. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board and the City Commission shall each hold one (1) advertised public hearing on proposed ordinances initiated by an applicant other than the City to change the actual Official Zoning Map designation of a parcel or parcels. (2) Notice. All notices regarding ordinances initiated by an applicant other than the City to change the actual Official Zoning Map designation of a parcel or parcels, shall be in accordance with F.S. § 166.041, unless otherwise specified herein. a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to each public hearing, the City Clerk or their designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The required advertisement shall be one-quarter (1/4) page in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in advertisement shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the meeting, and the place or places within the city where the proposed ordinances may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance. Advertisements for ordinances initiated by an applicant other than the City to change the actual Official Zoning Map designation of a parcel or parcels shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF ZONING MAP CHANGE The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt the following Ordinance (title of the ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). The advertisement shall contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates the area covered by the proposed ordinance. The map shall include 13 major street names as a means of identification of the general area. In addition to being published in the newspaper, the maps must be part of the online notice required pursuant to F.S. § 50.0211. b. Mailed notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the first public hearing, each real property owner whose land is within three hundred (300) feet of the subject parcel(s) and whose address is known by reference to the latest ad velorem tax records shall be notified by mail. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; and the place or places within the city where the application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the application. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the City Clerk. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and place of the public hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street on each street side of the land subject to the application. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right-of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the Community Development Board or the City Commission. (ef) Ordinances that change the text of the Land Development Regulations to revise the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board shall hold one (1) advertised public hearing and the City Commission shall hold two (2) advertised public hearings on proposed ordinances that change the text of the Land Development Regulations to revise the list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category. At least one (1) public hearing before the City Commission shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday, unless the City Commission, by a majority vote plus one (1) vote, elects to conduct that hearing at another time of day. The first public hearing shall be held at least seven (7) days after the day the first advertisement is published. The second public hearing before the City Commission shall be held approximately ten (10) calendar days after the first public hearing and shall be advertised at least five (5) days prior to the second public hearing. (2) Notice. All notices regarding ordinances that change the text of the Land Development Regulations to revise the list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited 14 uses within a zoning category, shall be in accordance with F.S. § 166.041, unless otherwise specified herein. a. Published notice. At least seven ten (710) calendar days prior to the each first public hearing and at least five (5) calendar days prior to the second public hearing, the City Clerk or their designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The required advertisement shall be one-quarter (1/4) page, except that in no case shall it be no less than two (2) columns wide by ten (10) inches long, in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in advertisement shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The advertisement shall be placed in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the City and of general interest and readership in the City, not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 50, Florida Statutes. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; the title of the proposed ordinance and the place or places within the city where the proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the proposed ordinance. Advertisements for ordinances that change the text of the Land Development Regulations to revise the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TEXT CHANGE The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt the following Ordinance (title of the ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). b. Mailed notice. In lieu of publishing the advertisement set out in the previous paragraph, the City may mail a notice to each person owning real property within the area covered by the ordinance. Such notice shall clearly explain the proposed ordinance and shall notify the person of the time, place, and location of any public hearing on the proposed ordinance. (fg)Ordinances initiated by the City that change the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving ten (10) contiguous acres or more. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board shall hold one (1) advertised public hearing and the City Commission shall hold two (2) advertised public 15 hearings on proposed ordinances that change the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving ten (10) contiguous acres or more. At least one (1) public hearing before the City Commission shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday, unless the City Commission, by a majority vote plus one (1) vote, elects to conduct that hearing at another time of day. The first public hearing shall be held at least seven (7) days after the day the first advertisement is published. The second public hearing before the City Commission shall be held approximately ten (10) calendar days after the first public hearing and shall be advertised at least five (5) days prior to the public hearing. (2) Notice. All notices regarding ordinances that change the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving ten (10) contiguous acres or more, shall be in accordance with F.S. § 166.041, unless otherwise specified herein. a. Published notice. At least seven ten (710) calendar days prior to the each first public hearing and at least five (5) calendar days prior to the second public hearing, the City Clerk or their designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The required advertisement shall be one-quarter (1/4) page, except in no case shall it be no less than two (2) columns wide by ten (10) inches long, in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in advertisement shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The advertisement shall be placed in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the City and of general interest and readership in the City, not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 50, Florida Statutes. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; the title of the proposed ordinance and the place or places within the city where the proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the proposed ordinance. Advertisements for ordinances that change the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving ten (10) contiguous acres or more shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF ZONING MAP CHANGE The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt the following Ordinance (title of the ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). 16 The advertisement shall contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates the area covered by the proposed ordinance. The map shall include major street names as a means of identification of the general area. In addition to being published in the newspaper, the maps must be part of the online notice required pursuant to F.S. § Section 50.0211, Florida Statutes. b. Mailed notice. In lieu of publishing the advertisement set out in the previous paragraph, the City may mail a notice to each person owning real property within the area covered by the ordinance. Such notice shall clearly explain the proposed ordinance and shall notify the person of the time, place, and location of any public hearing on the proposed ordinance. (gh)Ordinances initiated by the City that change the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving less than ten (10) contiguous acres. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board and the City Commission shall each hold one (1) advertised public hearing on proposed ordinances initiated by the City that change the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving less than ten (10) contiguous acres. (2) Notice. All notices regarding ordinances initiated by the City that change the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving less than ten (10) contiguous acres, shall be in accordance with F.S. § 166.041, unless otherwise specified. a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to each public hearing, the City Clerk or their designee shall have published an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing. The required advertisement shall be one-quarter (1/4) page in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in advertisement shall be in a type no smaller than eighteen (18) point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the meeting, and the place or places within the city where the proposed ordinances may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance. Advertisements for ordinances that change the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving less than ten (10) contiguous acres shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF ZONING MAP CHANGE 17 The City of Atlantic Beach proposes to adopt the following Ordinance (title of the ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on (date and time) at (meeting place). The advertisement shall contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates the area covered by the proposed ordinance. The map shall include major street names as a means of identification of the general area. In addition to being published in the newspaper, the maps must be part of the online notice required pursuant to F.S. § 50.0211. b. Mailed notice. Each real property owner whose land the City will redesignate by enactment of the ordinance and whose address is known by reference to the latest ad velorem tax records shall be notified by mail. The notice shall state the substance of the proposed ordinance as it affects that property owner and shall set a time and place for the public hearing on such ordinance. Such notice shall be given at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and a copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the City Clerk. (hi) Applications for variances. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board shall hold one (1) advertised public hearing on applications for variances. (2) Notice. Notice of all public hearings for applications for variances shall be provided by the City Manager or their designee in accordance with the following provisions: a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to the public hearing, an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing shall be published. The advertisement shall be placed in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the City and of general interest and readership in the City, not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 50, Florida Statutes. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; and the place or places within the city where the application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the application. b. Mailed notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the public hearing, each real property owner whose land is within three hundred (300) feet of the subject parcel(s) and whose address is known by reference to the latest ad velorem tax records shall be notified by mail. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; and the place or places within the city where the application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the 18 application. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the City Clerk. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and place of the public hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street on each street side of the land subject to the application. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right-of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the Community Development Board. (ij) Applications for waivers. (1) Public hearings. The City Commission shall hold one (1) advertised public hearing on applications for waivers. (2) Notice. Notice of all public hearings for applications for waivers shall be provided by the City Clerk or their designee in accordance with the following provisions: a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to the public hearing, an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing shall be published. The advertisement shall be placed in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the City and of general interest and readership in the City, not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 50 of the Florida Statutes. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; and the place or places within the city where the application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the application. b. Mailed notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the public hearing, each real property owner whose land is within three hundred (300) feet of the subject parcel(s) and whose address is known by reference to the latest ad velorem tax records shall be notified by mail. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; and the place or places within the city where the application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the application. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the City Clerk. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and place of the public 19 hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street on each street side of the land subject to the application. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right-of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the City Commission. (jk) Applications for uses-by-exception. (1) Public hearings. The Community Development Board and the City Commission shall each hold one (1) advertised public hearing on applications for uses-by- exception. (2) Notice. Notice of all public hearings for applications for uses-by-exception shall be provided by the City Manager or their designee in accordance with the following provisions: a. Published notice. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to each public hearing, an advertisement giving notice of the public hearing shall be published. The advertisement shall be placed in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the City and of general interest and readership in the City, not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 50 of the Florida Statutes. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; and the place or places within the city where the application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the application. b. Mailed notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to each the first public hearing, each real property owner whose land is within three hundred (300) feet of the subject parcel(s) and whose address is known by reference to the latest ad velorem tax records shall be notified by mail. The notice shall state the date, time, place of the public hearing; and the place or places within the city where the application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard regarding the application. A copy of the notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the City Clerk. c. Posted notice. At least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the each public hearing, a sign identifying the request, including date, time and place of the public hearing, shall be posted on the subject parcel. Such sign shall be erected in full view of the public street on each street side of the land subject to the application. Where the property subject to the request does not have frontage 20 on a public street, a sign shall be erected at the nearest public right-of-way with an attached notation indicating the general direction and distance to the land subject to the application. Sign(s) shall be removed after a decision is rendered on the application. The failure of any such posted notice sign to remain in place after the notice has been posted shall not be deemed a failure to comply with this requirement, nor shall it be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made by the Community Development Board or the City Commission. (kl) Contest. If no aggrieved party contests the issue of proper notice within thirty (30) calendar days of the City Commission, or the Community Development Board in the case of variances, rendering its decision, then notice shall be deemed to be in compliance with this section. 21