06.19.2018 CDB Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / June 19, 2018 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Minutes of the May 15, 2018 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. UBEX18-0001 PUBLIC HEARING (Sugar Cane Inc.)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-175(d)(3), to allow on-premises
consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code within the
Commercial Limited (CL) zoning district at 1487 Mayport Road, Unit 2.
B. ZVAR18-0010 PUBLIC HEARING (John Halverson)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable fence height
from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 9 PUD to 6 feet at
Selva Marina Unit 9 Block 1 Lot 20 (aka 1861 Sea Oats Drive).
C. PLAT17-0005 PUBLIC HEARING (North Florida Engineering Services Inc.)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances
within the Residential General zoning district at RE#172095-0000 and 172081-0050
(previously known as 56 Dutton Island Drive West and 0 Dudley Street).
5. Reports.
A. PUD Changes
B. Code Books/Code Rewrite
6. Public Comment.
7. 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 m a y a t t e 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.
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 2 of 52
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 3 of 52
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
May 15, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
̩̟ϣ ̺ϣϣ̢̻̕͟ Άχ͕ ϕχ̴̴ϣϟ ͂͟ ͂͑ϟϣ͑ χ͟ ϲ̜αβ ͎̝̺̝ ϔΌ ̟χ̢͑ ̃χ̢̻ϣ̝͑ ̝̉͑ ̉χ̻ϟϣ̴ϔχͺ̺ χ̻ϟ
χ̴͟ϣ̻͑χ͟ϣ ̝̉͑ ̢̩̻̕ϣ̻ Άϣ͑ϣ χϔ͕ϣ̻͟ ϭ̺͑͂ ̟͟ϣ ̺ϣϣ̢̻̝̕͟ ͕̝̉ ̢̣̺̺̻͕͂̚ ̝̉͑ E̴̺͂͑ϣ̚ ̝̉͑
Hχ̻͕ϣ̻̚ ̝̉͑ ̉χ̮͂͑ χ̻ϟ ͕̝̉ ̜χͺ̴ Άϣ͑ϣ χ̴̴ ͎͑ϣ͕ϣ̻̝͟ !̴͕͂ ͎͑ϣ͕ϣ̻͟ Άϣ͑ϣ D̢͑ϣϕ͂͑͟
̣̟χ̻ϣ ͂͑ϔ̢̻̚ ̴̜χ̻̻ϣ͑ Dϣ͑ϣ̱ ̟ϣϣ΅ϣ͕̚ ̴̜χ̻̻ϣ͑ ̢͑χ̻ ͑͂ϣϟϣ̴̴̚ ͂χ͑ϟ ̣ϣϕ͑ϣ͟χ͑Ό
̸χ̴ϣ̢͑ϣ Ͽ̻͂ϣ͕ χ̻ϟ ̟͟ϣ ̢͟Ό !̻͂͑͟͟ϣΌ̚ ͑ϣ̻̻χ Dͺ͑ϟϣ̻ ͑ϣ͎͑ϣ͕ϣ̢̻̻̕͟ ̟͟ϣ ϭ̢̺͑ ̃ϣΆ̢͕̚
̻̺̃͂̕χ̻ χ̻ϟ ̹χ̴̱ϣ̝͑
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the April 17, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community
Development Board.
͕̝̉ ̢̣̺̺̻͕͂ ͐ͺϣ̢͕̻͂͟ϣϟ ̟͟ϣ ϭ̺͂͑χ͟ ͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ ̢̺̻ͺ͟ϣ͕ ̢͕̻ϕϣ ͕̝̉ ̜χͺ̴ χϕ͟ϣϟ χ͕ ̟χ̢͑
χϭ͟ϣ͑ ͕̝̉ ̃χ̢̻ϣ͑ Άχ͕ ΅͂͟ϣϟ ̢̻ χ͕ ̟χ̢̝͑ ̟χ̢͑ ̃χ̢̻ϣ͑ χ͕̱ϣϟ ͕̝̉ Dͺ͑ϟϣ̻ ̢ϭ ̢͟ Άχ͕ ̱͂χΌ
χ͕ Ά̢͑͟͟ϣ̻ χ̻ϟ ͕̟ϣ ͑ϣ̴̢͎ϣϟ ̢͟ Άχ͕ ϭ̢̻ϣ̝ ͕̝̉ ̢̣̺̺̻͕͂ ̢̺̻͂͂͟ϣϟ ͂͟ χ͎͎͑͂΅ϣ ̟͟ϣ
̢̺̻ͺ͟ϣ͕̝ ̝̉͑ Hχ̻͕ϣ̻ ͕ϣϕ̻͂ϟϣϟ ̟͟ϣ ̢̺̻̝͂͂͟ ̩̟ϣ ̢̺̻͂͂͟ ϕχ̢͑͑ϣϟ ͺ̻χ̢̻̺͂ͺ̴͕Ό̝
3. OLD BUSINESS
̟χ̢͑ ̃χ̢̻ϣ͑ χ͕̱ϣϟ ̢ϭ ̟͟ϣ ͂χ͑ϟ Ά͂ͺ̴ϟ ̢̺̻ϟ ϕ̢̺̻͂̕ ϔχϕ̱ ͂͟ ̢̟͕͟ χϭ͟ϣ͑ ̟͟ϣ ͎ͺϔ̴̢ϕ
̟ϣχ̢̻͑̕ ̢͎̻͂͑͂͟ ͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ ̺ϣϣ̢̻̝̕͟ ̩̟ϣ ͂χ͑ϟ χ͑̕ϣϣϟ̝
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZVAR18-0009 PUBLIC HEARING (Karl and Dorothy Klein)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the
allowable fence height in rear yards from 4 feet as required by Section
III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 12-A PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit
12-A Lot 10 (aka 1918 Oak Circle).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that the variance requested is to increase the fence
height at 1918 Oak Circle in Selva Marina. The property is zoned PUD specifically
Selva Marina Unit 12-A. He said the plan is replace an existing 6 foot wood fence
with a new 6 foot wood fence. The fence has already been constructed. It was
damaged in Hurricane Matthew two years ago. The owner proceeded to do what
he thought was repairs at that time. The repairs would have actually constituted
the need for a permit. The City received a complaint on it so Staff went and saw
the work being done. At that point the repairs were stopped. Since a process has
been established in regard to the PUD's, this variance has been brought back up
to be taken care of in regards to the height of the fence. The PUD allows for a
Page 1 of 7
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 4 of 52
maximum fence height of 4 feet. The 6 foot fence exceeds this and that is why
there is a need for a variance.
This plat was approved in 1978. The Covenants and Restrictions are the governing
documents for the PUD. Those were submitted to the City at the same time that
the plat was approved. He reiterated that 6 foot fences are allowed in the rear
yard everywhere else in the City except for in the PUD's. Planner Reeves added
that the property has a lot of topography and pointed out some of the high and
low points of the fence. He said that the code does allow for there to be a
consistent line across the top of the fence as long as each end meets the code
requirements. Even though there are parts of the fence that are taller it is
consistent with the normal zoning code if that were to be applied.
Mr. Major asked why the applicant was required to pull a permit while doing
repairs. Planner Reeves explained that most of fence was replaced with only a few
of the original posts remaining. The design changed from having lattice on it to the
existing shadow box style. Mr. Major asked what the complaint was for. Planner
Reeves couldn't remember exactly but thought it might have been working
without a permit. Ms. Simmons asked if the complaint was from the neighbor on
the other side of the fence. Planner Reeves said that the property spans two
properties and one of those was the complainant.
Mr. Hansen brought up the fact that there have been several requests for a
variance for fences in PUD's in this area and wanted to know if this was the same
PUD. Planner Reeves said that it was the same developer but a different PUD. He
said that it appears that the PUD's were not enforced for a period of time until the
City recognized them and started enforcing them fully approximately two years
ago. That is when the City discovered that they are responsible for the
enforcement of them. Typically, a municipality is not responsible for the
enforcement of covenants and restrictions, which might have been the source of
confusion over the years. It turns out that the City is specifically defined with the
responsibility of the enforcement in the covenants. Mr. Hansen asked if the Board
had denied any requests for a six foot fence in the PUD area. Planner Reeves said
they had not (since they have started requiring variances for them).
Ms. Simmons asked how many PUD's are in that area. Planner Reeves said he
thought there were 12 and they are all very similar with a few having some
different requirements.
!pplicant omment
Karl Klein of 1918 Oak Circle introduced himself as the applicant. Mr. Klein said
that Staff had done a great job of spelling out the facts of the case. He addressed
the "Grounds for Decision" to grant or deny the variance. Mr. Klein said that it
should be granted due to exceptional topical conditions and the surrounding
conditions impacting the property compared to neighboring properties. He
Page 2 of 7
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 5 of 52
pointed out that it is only a violation because of where it is in Atlantic Beach. Mr.
Klein said that the rules of the PUD have been ignored more than observed.
Public omment
̟χ̢͑ ̃χ̢̻ϣ͑ ͎͂ϣ̻ϣϟ the ϭ̴͂͂͑ ͂͟ ͎ͺϔ̴̢ϕ ϕ̺̺͂ϣ̻̝͟
Ͽ͂χ̻̻χ H͂ͺ͕ϣ͑ ͂ϭ βϵϳζ ̢͕͑͟χ Dϣ ̉χ͑ ̢͑ϕ̴ϣ ̢̻͑͂͟ϟͺϕϣϟ ̟ϣ͕͑ϣ̴ϭ χ͕ χ ̻ϣ̢̟̕ϔ͂͑ Ά̟͂
̴̢΅ϣ͕ ϔϣ̢̟̻ϟ ̟͟ϣ χ̴̢͎͎ϕχ̻̝͟ ̣̟ϣ ͕χ̢ϟ ̟͟χ͟ ̟ϣ͑ χ̻ϟ ̟ϣ͑ ̟ͺ͕ϔχ̻ϟ ϕ̴̺͎͂χ̢̻ϣϟ Ά̟ϣ̻
̟͟ϣ ϭϣ̻ϕϣ Άχ͕ ϔϣ̢̻̕ ϔͺ̴̢͟ ϔϣϕχͺ͕ϣ ̟͟ϣΌ Άχ̻͟ϣϟ ̢͟ ͂͟ ϕ̴̺͎͂Ό Ά̢̟͟ ̟͟ϣ !̴͟χ̢̻͟ϕ ϣχϕ̟
ϕ͂ϟϣ͕ χ̻ϟ ̟͟ϣΌ Άϣ͑ϣ ̻͂͟ χΆχ͑ϣ ͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ ̜̭D̝ ͕̝̉ H͂ͺ͕ϣ͑ ͕χ̢ϟ ̟͟χ͟ ̟͟ϣ ϭϣ̻ϕϣ ̢͕ Άϣ̴̴
͂΅ϣ͑ ϲ ϭϣϣ͟ ϭ͂͑ ̺͕͂͟ ͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ ϲϳ ϭϣϣ͟ ̟͟χ͟ ̢͟ ͕͎χ̻͕̚ ϣϕϣ͎͟ ϭ͂͑ βϴ ϭϣϣ͟ ̟͟χ͟ ̢͕ ̢̻
ϕ̴̢̺͎͂χ̻ϕϣ Ά̢̟͟ ̟͟ϣ ϲ ϭ͂͂͟ ϕ͂ϟϣ̝ ̣̟ϣ ͕χ̢ϟ ̟͟χ͟ ̟͟ϣ χ̴̢͎͎ϕχ̻͟ ͺ͕ϣϟ ϴ ϭ͂͂͟ χ̻ϟ ϲ ϭ͂͂͟
̴͎χ̻̱͕̝ ̣̟ϣ ϔϣ̴̢ϣ΅ϣ͕ ̟͟χ͟ ̟͟ϣ χ̴̢͎͎ϕχ̻͟ ̢͕ ̻͂͟ ̢̻ ϕ̴̢̺͎͂χ̻ϕϣ ̢͕̻ϕϣ ̢͟ ̢͕ Άϣ̴̴ ͂΅ϣ͑ ϲ
ϭϣϣ͟ ̢̻ ̺͕͂͟ ̴͎χϕϣ͕̝
̴̢̢̜̟͎ ́χ̻ϣ ͂ϭ βϵϲϵ ̢͕͑͟χ Dϣ ̉χ͑ ̢͑ϕ̴ϣ ̢̻͑͂͟ϟͺϕϣϟ ̢̟̺͕ϣ̴ϭ χ͕ χ̻̟͂͟ϣ͑ ̻ϣ̢̟̕ϔ͂͑
͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ χ̴̢͎͎ϕχ̻̝͟ Hϣ ͕χ̢ϟ ̟͟χ͟ ϟͺϣ ͂͟ ̟͟ϣ ͎͂͂͑̕͟χ͎̟Ό ͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ χ͑ϣχ ̢͟ ̢͕ ϟ̢ϭϭ̢ϕͺ̴͟ Ά̟ϣ̻
ϔͺ̴̢ϟ̢̻̕ χ ϭϣ̻ϕϣ̝ ̝̉͑ ́χ̻ϣ ϣ̴͎χ̢̻ϣϟ ̟͟χ͟ ͕̺͂ϣ ͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ ϟχ̺χ̕ϣ ͂͟ ̟͟ϣ ͎͑ϣ΅̢͂ͺ͕
ϭϣ̻ϕϣ ϕχ̺ϣ ϭ̺͑͂ χ ͑͟ϣϣ ̻͂ ̢̟͕ ͎͎͑͂ϣ͑͟Ό ̟͟χ͟ ϭϣ̴̴ ϟͺ̢̻͑̕ Hͺ̢͑͑ϕχ̻ϣ ̉χ̟͟͟ϣΆ̚ ͕͂ ̟ϣ
̟ϣ̴͎ϣϟ ϕ̢̻͂͑͟ϔͺ͟ϣ ͂͟ ̟͟ϣ ϕ͕͂͟ ͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ ϭϣ̻ϕϣ̝ Hϣ ͕χ̢ϟ ̟ϣ ̢͕ ϕ̺͂ϭ͂͑͟χϔ̴ϣ Ά̢̟͟ ̟͟ϣ ̴̱͂͂
͂ϭ ̟͟ϣ ϭϣ̻ϕϣ̝
Ͽ͂χ̻̻χ H͂ͺ͕ϣ͑ ͑ϣ͟ͺ̻͑ϣϟ ͂͟ ̟͟ϣ ͎͂ϟ̢ͺ̺ ͂͟ χϟϟ ̟͟χ͟ ͕̟ϣ ͺ̻ϟϣ͕͑͟χ̻ϟ͕ ̟͟ϣ
͎͂͂͑̕͟χ͎̟Ό ̴ϣ̻ϟ͕ χ ϕ̟χ̴̴ϣ̻̕ϣ ͂͟ ̢̻͕͟χ̴̴̢̻̕ χ ϭϣ̻ϕϣ ϔͺ͟ ̺χ̻Ό ̟̺͂ϣ͂Ά̻ϣ͕͑ ϟ͂ χ
̢͟ϣ͑ϣϟ ̢̻͕͟χ̴̴χ̢̻͂͟ χ̻ϟ ̟͟χ͟ ̢͕ Ά̟χ͟ ̟͟ϣ ͎͑ϣ΅̢͂ͺ͕ ϭϣ̻ϕϣ Άχ͕̝
oard Discussion
Ms. Simmons asked Staff what the requirements would have been to build the
fence if they were meeting the standard building code instead of a PUD. Planner
Reeves said that if the applicant had applied for a permit and this wasn't a PUD it
would have been approved. Ms. Simmons asked if it would have been approved
with sections over 10 feet. Planner Reeves said he would debate the 10 feet
because he went out there himself and took the pictures in the presentation. He
pointed out the patio and said it was a little over a foot above grade and it was
lower on the other side. In another picture he said the fence was a little over 7
feet from the patio. There was lengthy discussion of the fences height at different
places with the changing topography and some areas were below 6 feet.
Mr. Hansen said that the code allows uneven topography to allow a consistent
fence line as long as it terminates with the fence height as required in the code.
Chair Lanier asked Planner Reeves if that was the case and he said it was.
Motion
Chair Lanier reminded the Board that Ms. Durden had suggested they use one or
more of the numbered reasons from the "Grounds for Decision" guidelines. Mr.
Page 3 of 7
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 6 of 52
Hansen motioned to approve ZVAR18-0009 based on item four (onerous effect).
Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS
Staff Report
A. Sign Code Update
Planner Corbin said that the City Manager has asked that Staff move forward with
the updating the sign regulations. He told the Board about a case called "Reed vs.
Gilbert" that went before the Supreme Court. It ruled against the city for its sign
regulations. Planner Corbin explained that there was a church that didn't have a
permanent home so they would go from place to place and they were using
temporary signs to help anyone who wanted to attend find them. Someone
complained to the city, the code administrator went after the church and the
church fought back. Once they dug into the details of the code, they found it was
content based. Depending what was in the code would determine how big your
sign could be or how long your sign could be out. The majority opinion was that
the city's code was content based, it allowed some temporary directional signs if
it was a qualifying event and therefore the qualifying event was content based. It
also allowed an unlimited proliferation of larger ideological signs without
restriction on number. The Court found that to be unconstitutional. They said that
sign regulations must be content neutral. This means that the things you can
regulate are size and location standards, lighting, whether it's a fixed versus
changing sign, commercial versus residential, on premise or off premise. So
typically, temporary signs are being allowed, but you are not allowed to put your
sign on someone else's property or on public right of way. It has to be on your
property. You can have time limits for how long a sign can be out if it's temporary.
Government speech signs are fine. Time, place and manner restrictions must be
narrowly tailored to serve the governments legitimate content neutral interests.
Staff has started looking at a variety of other codes that have already done this.
Planner Corbin said that he hopes to have something to turn around in a month,
depending on work load and how complicated it gets. He said he hopes to provide
the Board with a list of those with a couple of weeks so that they can go through
them and see what they look like. They will be used as a guide or a model. Planner
Corbin said that the Board will get a draft that will have the sections that are
content based red-lined with the new language added.
Chair Lanier asked Staff if they could give the Board some direction on what they
can look at in the community to start thinking about for the next month. Director
Corbin said that the City is not currently enforcing parts of the sign code. He
suggested they look at commercial areas and gas stations with signage plastered
outside and in the windows. He gave an example of a mattress store that is using
a mattress for a sign. Ms. Paul asked if there could be enforcement on weekends.
She said that many businesses take advantage of it knowing there won't be any
enforcement. Ms. Paul said the same goes for the building department because
you won't catch the guy illegally renovating his home during the week. Chair Lanier
Page 4 of 7
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 7 of 52
added that the same goes for cutting down trees. Director Corbin said that Code
Enforcement is getting ready to transition from part-time to full-time and maybe
some hours could be staggered for the future.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
OLD BUSINESS (revisited)
oard Discussion
Chair Lanier said that she and Mayor Glasser did talk about the process of the City
Commission overturning the decision of the Community Development Board
when there is an appeal. The Mayor suggested that a Board member attend these
appeals and make a public comment explaining the basis for the Board's decision.
She said that the Commission does read the minutes of the CDB but this is the
process, where the people can appeal and the Commission can overturn the
Board's decision. Mr. Hansen said that he thinks it should be mandatory for a
member of the Board to go to a Commission meeting where one of their decisions
is being appealed. Chair Lanier asked Staff to help the Board with a mechanism to
do this. Ms. Simmons asked if they could be notified in advance and Director
Corbin said that can be done.
There was a discussion about alternate members. Chair Lanier expressed her
frustration in regards to alternate members who are not fully up to speed. The
Mayor suggested a model where alternate members sit at the table and
participate in discussion but do not vote. She believes that an alternate that is
involved in the process, ever though they are not voting, would be more likely to
be more committed and stay up to speed on how decisions get made. Ms. Paul
reminded the Board that they still have a vacant alternate position which they
have not been able to fill.
With this Chair Lanier brought the discussion around to member Steve
Mandelbaum, who started as an alternate and then took a vacant spot, and has
now missed three meetings. She said that with the Board's approval it is time to
ask Staff to approach the Board Member Review Committee. Ms. Paul said that
she thinks it would start with the City Commission since this Board serves at the
pleasure of the City Commission. Chair Lanier asked Staff who would start the
process. Director Corbin said that he would check with the City Manager and get
back to the Board.
Chair Lanier pointed out, and confirmed with Ms. Paul, that there has only been
one time in nine years that the Board didn't have a quorum. Ms. Durden reminded
the Board that in Chapter 14, it states that "any member of the Community
Development Board may be removed for cause by the City Commission upon
written charges and after public hearing. Any member who fails to attend 3
consecutive meetings without cause, shall have his office declared vacant unless
the member's absence is excused by a majority of the Board members and the
Page 5 of 7
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 8 of 52
City Commission shall promptly fill such vacancy." She said that at the last meeting
there were only 2 consecutive unexcused meetings. Ms. Durden said that since
there have been 3 consecutive meetings then they need to vote and ask the
Commission to take action to replace Mr. Mandelbaum. Director Corbin
confirmed that based on what Ms. Durden read it is time to move forward. Mr.
Hansen asked if anyone had any idea why Mr. Mandelbaum hasn't been in
attendance at the last three meetings. Director Corbin said that he asked Mr.
Mandelbaum via email if he would be at the meeting and Mr. Mandelbaum said
he would not be in attendance but he did not offer any other information.
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to recommend to the City Commission that Mr.
Mandelbaum be removed from the Community Development Board after being
absent the last three meetings. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The passed
unanimously.
oard Discussion
Ms. Simmons wanted to know if the alternates received an agenda pack. Planner
Reeves confirmed that the alternates receive the same information as the other
Board Members. She asked if an alternate shows up for a meeting are they able
to speak by coming to the podium. Ms. Durden said that an alternate cannot make
comments as a citizen. She explained that in the past an alternate wanted to speak
and said that they were a citizen and should be able to. But in quasi-judicial
proceedings, in the event that that item might come back up in the future due to
being deferred or delayed and the alternate might then be up on the dais, then
that person might be declared disqualified to vote on it because they had taken a
stand as a citizen and then they are coming up to vote. She said that from a legal
perspective it would be different if the alternate was always up on the dais, even
if they are not voting.
Chair Lanier said that she hesitates about having an alternate because the Board
has seven members which lends itself to a lot of opinions, questions and
conversations. She was concerned that the addition of two more could become
cumbersome. Mr. Hansen said that he doesn't see where the Board would gain
anything by having alternates. Ms. Durden she thinks alternates create more
problems from a legal perspective due to the quasi-judicial neutral Board
perspective. But if there are going to be alternates then have them participate so
they do become more productive. She said that this is the only City that she knows
has alternates on any of their Boards and she was surprised to see them.
Mr. Hansen asked if the Board wanted to make any kind of a recommendation to
the City Commission to not have alternates. Ms. Simmons said that if it is in the
code then the Board needs to take that step. Ms. Paul said that that whole section
of the code is so loosely worded. She said that an alternate could spend their
whole two years sitting in the audience and not even be able to speak.
Page 6 of 7
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 9 of 52
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to recommend to the City Commission that alternates be
dropped from the Community Development Board. Ms. Simmons seconded the
motion. Mr. Major asked what other reasons there were for having alternates.
Ms. Paul said that the City Commission was worried that the Board wouldn't have
enough members to make a quorum. She added that she can only think of one
time in nine years where that has happened. In that case, everything was tabled
until the next meeting. Chair Lanier asked if the Board wanted to vote. The motion
passed unanimously.
oard Discussion
Director Corbin told the Board that they have chosen a consultant to work on the
code rewrite. He said that the work will begin soon and will take about 16 months
with a total of 16 meetings of which 4 will be specific to the Community
Development Board. Director Corbin invited the Board to start giving Staff input
on changes and corrections that they would like to see. He said they can call, come
in or email him. Mr. Elmore asked if the Commission would follow this process as
it goes or is it handed to them at the end to vote on. Director Corbin said they will
follow it as it goes.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Hansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Ms. Paul seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
_______________________________________
Linda Lanier, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
Page 7 of 7
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 10 of 52
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 11 of 52
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO. UBEX18-0001
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-175(d)(3), to allow
on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3
of the code within the Commercial Limited (CL) zoning district at 1487 Mayport
Road, Unit 2.
LOCATION 1487 Mayport Road
APPLICANT Sugar Cane Inc.
DATE June 4, 2018
STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Sugar Cane Inc., the company that operates the restaurant, Sugar Cane, at 1487 Mayport
Road. Sugar Cane is a full service Cuban restaurant that currently serves beer and wine located within an
existing shopping center in the Commercial Limited zoning district. This property is also included within
the Mayport Business Overlay District. The applicant would like to expand their offerings to include
liquor. The restaurant will have 150 seats to meet the State’s 4COP-SFS license for on-premises liquor
consumption in conjunction with a restaurant.
Section 24-275(d)(3), of the Mayport Business Overlay District, and Section 3-5 both require a use-by-
exception for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages.
The applicant is not
proposing any changes to
the ingress or egress of
the existing shopping
center. The shopping
center provides ample
parking as well as a
central dumpster location
for the tenants. The
applicant already has
signage and is not
proposing any changes or
increases in signage at
this time.
There are commercial
properties to the north,
south and west of this
property. To the east is a
single family home
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 12 of 52
neighborhood. This restaurant does not have any outside dinning and is located at the western end of the
shopping center, furthest from the residential properties. There is an existing six foot fence between the
residential properties and the shopping center property.
The closest restaurant serving liquor on Mayport Road is Casa Leon Mexican Restaurant in the City of
Jacksonville across from the Fairway Villas neighborhood about 0.85 miles away. The closest liquor
serving establishment is Harbor Tavern at West 2nd Street and Mayport Road about 0.75 miles away.
Policy A.1.10.5 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan states that the City should encourage commercial
development along Mayport Road that provides neighborhood services and generate daily activity and
interaction between residents of the surrounding neighborhoods like restaurants and similar uses.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval to the City
Commission of a requested Use-by-Exception (File No. UBEX18-0001) to allow on-premises
consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code within the
Commercial Limited (CL) Zoning District and located at 1487 Mayport Road, Unit 2 provided:
1. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-63, Zoning,
Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
3. The requested use is consistent with Section 24-111(c) in that the proposed use is found to be
consistent with the uses permitted in the CG zoning district with respect to intensity of use, traffic
impacts and compatibility with existing industrial uses, commercial uses and any nearby residential
uses.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial to the City
Commission of a requested Use-by-(File No. UBEX18-0001) to allow on-premises consumption of
alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code within the Commercial Limited (CL)
Zoning District and located at 1487 Mayport Road, Unit 2 provided:
1. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of this Use-by-Exception is not in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-63,
Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
3. The requested use is not consistent with Section 24-111(c) in that the proposed use is found to be
inconsistent with the uses permitted in the CG zoning districts with respect to intensity of use, traffic
impacts and compatibility with existing industrial uses, commercial uses and any nearby residential
uses.
Page 2 of 2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
5
2
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 16 of 52
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 17 of 52
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 18 of 52
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 19 of 52
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 20 of 52
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO. ZVAR18-0010
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable
fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina
Unit 9 PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 9 Block 1 Lot 20 (aka 1861 Sea Oats
Drive).
LOCATION 1861 Sea Oats Drive
APPLICANT John Halverson
DATE June 4, 2018
STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is John Halverson, the owner of 1861 Sea Oats Drive. The property is zoned PUD in the
Selva Marina neighborhood and has an existing single family home. The owners would like to replace an
existing six foot fence with a new six foot fence along the side property lines as highlighted in the site
plan below. A variance is required for the new fence because it does not meet the requirements of the
PUD.
This property is part of the Selva Marina Unit 9 PUD
and plat. The PUD was approved in 1976 by the
Commission. A copy of the City Commission
meeting minutes for the approval are attached. The
Covenants and Restrictions for the PUD, which are
usually not enforced by a municipality, were
provided to the City as the PUD’s governing text.
The Covenants do define the City’s enforcement
powers in the PUD. A copy is attached to the end of
this report.
Section III(D)(4) of the Covenants states in part,
“Fences or walls may be located outside of the
dwelling zone provided: (a) They shall not exceed
four (4) feet in height.” The dwelling zone is defined
by setbacks of 30 feet in the front and rear and 15
feet in each side yard.
When reading the Covenants, there are several references to a Special Advisory Planning Board that is
required to grant approvals in the PUD. However, like with similar recent variance requests in the Selva
Marina PUDs, it appears that this board no longer exists. The Covenants then defer responsibilities to the
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 21 of 52
City. Just as if a proposed project did not meet the City’s zoning code, it would have to get a variance,
when a proposed project doesn’t meet the requirements of the PUD, it must get a variance.
Historically, it appears that the City has not always recognized and enforced these Covenants, which has
resulted in a hodgepodge of development in this PUD, and others with similar circumstances. If the City’s
normal zoning code was applied to this fence, it would be approved administratively as six foot fences are
allowed in side and rear yards. Ultimately, staff would like to explore corrective measures for these PUDs
that would address the nonexistent boards and to make zoning requirements consistent.
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 in their application that there is an existing 6 foot fence on the property and
that all their surrounding neighbors also have 6 foot fences.
(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
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 22 of 52
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR18-0010, request to
increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit
9 PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 9 Block 1 Lot 20 (aka 1861 Sea Oats Drive), 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 ZVAR18-0010, request to increase
the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 9 PUD
to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 9 Block 1 Lot 20 (aka 1861 Sea Oats Drive), upon finding this request is
not consistent with the definition of a variance or it is not consistent with one or more of the grounds for
denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines
that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or
more of the following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public
safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas,
wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from
financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
Page 3 of 3
MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 1976
PAGE THREE
The following bids were received and opened
Bipco, Inc .5,922.40
Hardy's, Inc. 5,510.92
Sonoco Products Co. , Inc. 5, 516.42
After discussion, motion was made by Commiesioner Cook, secondee
by Commissioner Mhoon and carried to award the bid to the lo;.Y
bidder, Hardy°s. Inc.
The City Manager reported that he had tried several Companies
and the best offer he had received wee from Salve Marina Country
Club who offered to pay $100.00. He recommended that the Com--
mission accept this offer. Motion was made by Commissioner Cook,
seconded by Commissioner Mhoon and carried to accept the offer
from Seiva Marina Country Club to purchase the City's addresso-
graph plate maker for $100.00.
G. Selva carie '.snit #9 Acte Vinceof Flee and r9etrictions
Mr. George Bull presented a plat and covenants and restrictions
for Salva Marina Unit No. S. The Mayor stated that the Commis-
sion had approved the plat at a previous meeting and the signing
of the mylar at this time would make it an official plat of the
City of Atlantic Beach and acceptable by the Clerk of The Circuit
Court of Duval County. The question of adopting tho covenants
and restrictions by the City was raised by the Mayor and after, a
lengthy discussion referral was made to the Attorney for an
opinion. Mr. Ball advised that it would be improper for the City
to attempt to enforce covenants and restrictions. He recommended
that if the Commission so desired it would be appropriate to adopt
an ordinance contai.xine the pertinent points of the covenants and
restrictions in Ordinance form and make it applicable to e certain
zone. A motion was made by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Cowl--
ta .eeioner Minton that: the plat be approved with the understanding
that the Cormiesi on would have to approve all building permits
prior to the enactment of the proposed. ordinance. This action is
necessary to comply with the !lenreed Unit Development Ordinance.
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 23 of 52
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
4
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
9
o
f
5
2
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 30 of 52
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
o
f
5
2
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 33 of 52
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 34 of 52
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 35 of 52
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.C
CASE NO. PLAT17-0005
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of
Ordinances within the Residential General zoning district at RE# 172095-0000
and 172081-0050 (previously known as 56 Dutton Island Drive W and 0 Dudley
Street).
LOCATION 56 Dutton Island Road
APPLICANT North Florida Engineering Services Inc.
DATE June 5, 2018
STAFF Shane Corbin, Community Development Director
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is North Florida Engineering Services Inc., the representative of the owner of the properties
previously known as 56 Dutton Island Road and the adjoining 0 Dudley Street within the Residential
General (RG) zoning district. The applicant is requesting to have the two properties platted into four lots
with two lots on Dutton Island Road West and two lots on Dudley Street.
Both properties are 210 feet deep and have frontage on
Dutton Island Road West and Dudley Street. There is
an existing single family home on 56 Dutton Island
Road West. The plan is to use the existing home as
storage during the construction on the other three lots
in the plat, then demolish it and build the final house.
The existing house will not be made nonconforming by
the proposed plat. The other property, 0 Dudley Street,
is currently vacant, but it does have a portion of a
stormwater ditch on the west side of the property. This
stomwater ditch collects water from Robert Street two
blocks south that then flows north into Puckett Creek.
Combined, these two properties total three quarters of
an acre.
Within the RG zoning district, the minimum lot size is
75 feet of width by 100 feet deep and a total of 7,500
square feet of lot area. All of the proposed lots are 105
feet deep and at least 75 feet wide. Meaning each lot
has at least 7,875 square feet in lot area. The western
side of the plat is angled so the two western lots are
wider at their southern ends than their northern ends.
The northern lot is 76.06 feet wide at its narrowest and
the southern lot is as wide as 94.29 feet.
June 19, 2018 Community Development Board Agenda Packet Page 36 of 52
Until now, the stormwater ditch on the west side of the property has been maintained without an easement.
The applicant has agreed to provide an easement wide enough for crews to access the banks of the ditch
with equipment at the direction and approval of the Public Works Director. This easement is shown on the
proposed plat. The ditch and easement reduce the buildable width of the two western lots, but there is still
adequate area to build on the lots. The applicant has provided example site plans to show how possible
homes would fit on the lots.
The RG zoning district allows two-family buildings such as duplexes or two unit townhomes. However,
this is limited to density limitations. The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as Residential Low
with a maximum of 6 units per acre or a minimum lot area of 14,500 square feet for two units. As a result,
only single family homes can be developed on the proposed lots.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval to the City
Commission of the requested plat (File No. PLAT17-0005) as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the
Code of Ordinances within the Residential General (RG) Zoning District at RE# 172029-0000 and
172081-0050 provided:
1. Approval of this plat is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of this plat is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 24, Article 4 of the
Code of Ordinances.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial to the City
Commission of the requested plat (File No. PLAT17-0005) as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the
Code of Ordinances within the Residential General (RG) Zoning District at RE# 172029-0000 and
172081-0050 provided:
1. Approval of this plat is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of this plat is not in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 24, Article 4 of the
Code of Ordinances.
Page 2 of 2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
o
f
5
2
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
8
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
o
f
5
2