Agenda2012_01-17-rev1
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and
Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by
calling (904) 247-5800. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments
may be mailed to the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to
any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony
and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made.
Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic
Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this
meeting.
JANUARY 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday | January 17, 2012 | 6:00pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the December 20, 2011 meeting.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business. None.
5. New Business.
a. ZVAR-12-00100001, Lada, 1224 Ocean Boulevard.
Request for a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)f, reducing the required side yard setback
for an accessory structure (pergola) from five (5) feet to one (1) foot; increasing the
permitted area for an accessory structure (pergola) from one hundred fifty (150) square
feet to approximately two-hundred twenty-five (225) square feet; increasing the maximum
height for an accessory structure (pergola) from twelve (12) feet to thirteen (13) feet,
within the Residential Single Family (RS-2) Zoning District on a property located at 1224
Ocean Boulevard.
b. UBE-12-00100005, CARBUYERLINK.COM LLC DBA Beachside Ride
(Jacobellis), 1800 Mayport Road, Suite 12.
Request for a use-by-exception to sell used automobiles, including pre-sale
servicing and conditioning of automobiles but with no heavy automotive repair or
body work, as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10), within the Commercial
General (CG) Zoning District on a property located at 1800 Mayport Road, Suite 12.
[Main parcel address is 1830 Mayport Road, according to the Duval County
Property Appraiser Property Records].
6. Other Business Not Requiring Action.
a. Discussion of minimum separation between accessory structures.
7. Adjournment.
Draft Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 5
1 2
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4
December 20, 2011 5
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:00pm 6
Chairman Chris Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Kirk Hansen, 7
Chris Lambertson (chair), Harley Parkes and Brea Paul. Kelly Elmore arrived at 6:45pm. 8
Blaine Adams and Patrick Stratton were absent. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika 9
Hall, Building Official Michael Griffin, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. 10
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – NOVEMBER 15, 2011. 11
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2011 meeting. 12
MOTION: Ms. Paul moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the November 15, 2011 13
meeting, as written. Seconded by Mr. Hansen, the motion carried 4-0. 14
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. 15
Jason Burgess who was recently appointed to the Board with a term beginning in January 2012 16
was in attendance. 17
4. OLD BUSINESS. None. 18
5. NEW BUSINESS. 19
A. ZVAR -2011-00100065 20
APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad (owner) represented by Ray Henderson, President 21
and General Contractor, Beaches Building, LLC 22
ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue 23
REQUEST: Variance from Section 24-106(e)(2), reducing the required rear yard 24
setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet 25
with the Residential Single Family (RS-2) Zoning District. 26
27
Ms. Hall introduced the item and explained that she had met with the Harkleroads’ designer 28
during a pre-application meeting last April, and provided him with information regarding the 29
renovation of an existing detached two-car garage, including the re-orientation of access and 30
the addition of a second floor recreation room, the construction of a second accessory 31
structure consisting of a one-car garage, with a second floor guest quarters, and the relocation 32
of exterior stairs. Ms. Hall said that, as presented by the designer, she understood both the 33
existing detached two-car garage and the proposed detached one-car garage would neither 34
have internal connectivity to one another, nor to the primary structure, thus qualifying the 35
siting of the new accessory at ten (10) feet from the rear lot line. When the site plan was 36
formally submitted for development review and building permit issuance in September 2011, 37
it appeared to be consistent with what had been discussed at the pre-application meeting, and 38
Draft Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 5
was approved by Planning & Zoning, and subsequently, by all other reviewing departments, 39
and building permits were issued. 40
However, several weeks into construction, Ms. Hall said she and Building Official Michael 41
Griffin were told the intent was to connect all three structures, thus effectively incorporating 42
both accessory structures into the principal dwelling. This was confirmed upon site visit and 43
conversation with the contractor on November 15, 2011, and a notice was issued to the 44
property owner that construction was not consistent with the approved site plan, and 45
continuance would require a variance reducing the required rear yard setback for the principal 46
structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet. The property owner and the contractor then 47
responded that the approved construction plans indicated the connectivity amongst the 48
structures, and therefore construction would continue according to those approved plans. 49
Staff then responded that Planning & Zoning reviews site plans only, and though site plans 50
should sufficiently demonstrate all existing and proposed improvements, including 51
dimensions, setbacks, rooflines, easements, etc, it appeared there was a discrepancy between 52
the site plan reviewed and approved by Planning & Zoning and the construction plans 53
reviewed and approved by the Building Department. However, since the discrepancy had 54
been discovered, it needed to be addressed appropriately. On November 23, 2011, a variance 55
application was submitted with a copy of the original site plan revised to show the area of 56
connectivity between the existing detached garage and the principal dwelling, along with the 57
applicant’s comment that a “full set of plans were submitted to city & approved. 58
Construction is well underway and changes will be costly.” 59
Mr. Ray Henderson, General Contractor and President of Beaches Builders, LLC, spoke on 60
behalf of Mr. Harkleroad. He assured the Board there was no malicious intent to deceive the 61
City, and that the site plan submitted was consistent with the requirements of the Land 62
Development Regulations. Mr. Lambertson asked why the connector was not shown on the 63
original submittal site plan, to which Mr. Henderson replied that it was shown on the floor 64
plan, and that according to the Atlantic Beach definition of a site plan, it was not required to 65
be shown. Mr. Parkes, who is an architect, disagreed. He said while he did not know of any 66
universal standards, a site plan is a view from the plan perspective, and should show all 67
changes. Differences in elevations, or levels at which those changes occur are generally 68
addressed by symbology, such as line type, line weight, hatching or shading. Mr. Lambertson 69
agreed, and noted that stairs were shown on the site plan, even though they were not on the 70
ground level. 71
Mr. Parkes inquired as to the development review process. Mr. Griffin explained that 72
applications are received by the Building Department, with various parts being routed to 73
reviewing departments. Particularly, site plans only go to Planning, which does not get 74
involved in the construction details. After reading the definition of a site plan from Section 75
24-17, he continued by saying that the approval of the Building Department is based on the 76
construction plans. 77
Mr. Lambertson asked if, upon reviewing the construction plans, Mr. Griffin found the 78
connection to be shown, to which Mr. Griffin replied yes. Mr. Lambertson then asked about 79
the separation between the two accessories, given that there is currently no standard provided 80
in the Land Development Regulations, other than a ten (10) foot separation found within the 81
Residential Design Standards applicable only to Old Atlantic Beach. Mr. Griffin said that so 82
long as the construction plans suggest the consistent type and materials of construction, there 83
would be no requirement for separation. 84
Draft Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 5
Ms. Paul inquired as to the development review process, asking if staff members convened 85
for joint review of plans, or if departments reviewed independently. Ms. Hall responded that 86
generally, review was done independently; however, she said that she often confers with 87
Building Inspector Mike Jones, and he with her, though not formally. 88
Mr. Lambertson reiterated that staff had had a pre-application meeting with the designer. He 89
then asked Mr. Parkes how he would draw a site plan. Mr. Parkes responded that to him, a 90
site plan should consist of a full sheet (24” x 36”) scaled and dimensioned plan view, with the 91
projection of all elements, existing or proposed, down to the footprint, with symbology set to 92
differentiate one level from another and existing from proposed. Further, the site plan should 93
contain tables of all development calculations, such as impervious surface and land use 94
allocation. 95
Mr. Henderson told the Board that the architect had supplied a copy of a sketch with 96
handwritten notes made by Ms. Hall during the pre-application meeting, and he then 97
circulated a copy of such. [Note: Ms. Hall was not afforded the opportunity to see said sketch 98
and notes until after adjournment of the meeting. However, a copy has been entered into the 99
application file, and Ms. Hall does confirm the copy of the blue post-it note citing Section 24-100
48(h) as it applies to administrative minor dimensional variances, and Section 24-151(b)(1) 101
as it applies to open exterior stairs, was written by her, but neither the sketch nor the notes 102
page dated 4-27-11 were not made by her]. Ms. Paul emphasized these were notes from a 103
preliminary meeting, not something that was formally submitted and approved, and therefore 104
they are irrelevant. She continued, saying in her experience as a planning consultant, the site 105
plan was lacking, and Mr. Parkes noted the uninterrupted path of stippling, indicating 106
concrete or sidewalk, running between the accessories and the primary structure, which in 107
turn suggested from a plan view, no overlap or connectivity. 108
Mr. Lambertson summarized the problem at hand. A connection was shown on the 109
construction plans which were reviewed and approved by the Building Department, but not 110
shown on the site plan, which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Mr. 111
Hansen then said that he was of the opinion that had the connection been shown on the site 112
plan, staff would not have approved the plans, but referred the applicant to this Board for a 113
variance, and very likely, this Board would have denied that variance request. 114
Mr. Lambertson agreed, noting that accessory structures are clearly defined in the Land 115
Development Regulations, and while he conceded there may have been some level of 116
miscommunication, in the end, the burden is on the applicant to know the code. He then 117
asked Mr. Jensen if he could provide guidance as to how to resolve such situations of undue 118
hardship, and what was the City’s liability. Mr. Jensen said essentially the City had no 119
liability, and that he saw this as a mutual mistake. Mr. Lambertson asked if there was any 120
precedence, or if anything could be done administratively to resolve the matter. Mr. Jensen 121
said the Board could defer the matter to see if it could be resolved otherwise, though 122
ultimately, it was this Board’s duty to address. 123
Mr. Hansen asked if the Board deemed this approval to be in error, what precedent did it set, 124
and what would be the requirement of the applicant to remediate? Mr. Lambertson said being 125
a contractor, he could place himself in Mr. Henderson’s shoes, and realized that he was doing 126
everything that he thought was right. Mr. Parkes then noted that there were two standing 127
between Mr. Henderson and this Board, and neither of them was present, one being the owner 128
and the other being the architect. Mr. Lambertson agreed, noting the impetus is on the 129
architect to do his due diligence, to look at the code and to follow the code. Ms. Paul said 130
Draft Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 5
that she felt it important to be able to speak with the architect to understand what was or was 131
not presented on the site plan versus the construction plans. 132
Mr. Henderson reiterated that he was working according to approved construction plans, and 133
that a stop-work order was never issued. Mr. Griffin replied that the Building Department is 134
hesitant to issue a stop-work order because he does not want to hold up work and prevent the 135
builder from completing dry-in. However, he noted that in the letter from Ms. Hall to Mr. 136
Henderson, she gave notice that any work advancing the connection beyond what had been 137
done through November 15th would be done at the builder and owner’s on peril and financial 138
liability, pending attainment of a variance from the Community Development Board. Mr. 139
Lambertson then read the letter into the record, and asked as to the status of the project on the 140
day of the site visit by Ms Hall and Mr. Griffin. Mr. Griffin replied that construction was in 141
the framing stage and there was no connection on November 16, 2011. 142
Mr. Henderson then said he had to make the connection in order to dry-in. Mr. Lambertson 143
emphasized that the letter dated November 16th cautioned to do so would be at the 144
contractor’s own risk. Mr. Henderson said it was a risk that he had to take, or else potentially 145
lose materials valued at $75,000. He said his crew was sheeting at the time staff came out, 146
and that the roof line was already being connected, though the bridge had not been 147
constructed. 148
[Board member Kelly Elmore arrived at 6:45pm]. 149
Mr. Elmore said that he had visited the site and met with Mr. Henderson to get a better 150
understanding of the project. He said that he had not spoken with staff regarding the request, 151
but in reviewing the site plans contained in the agenda packet, he realized that this was an 152
oversight anyone could easily make. He concurred with Mr. Parkes, categorizing the 153
submitted site plan as footprint, rather than a site plan depicting interface and interaction of 154
the various floors as a complete project in the context of a varying topography. He said that 155
he personally did not find the connection egregious, and suggested that the average person 156
walking down the street would not know that the connection existed. He added that much of 157
the charm of Beach Avenue is defined by the proximity of the buildings to the street, and this 158
presented an excellent opportunity for the Board to entertain an overlay with reduced 159
setbacks. As to the particular request before the Board, Mr. Elmore said he saw no impact to 160
the City, and had no problem with granting this variance as an undue hardship. 161
Mr. Lambertson asked Mr. Jensen if there existed any administrative process to deal with 162
such an error of omissions, and Mr. Jensen said that it is the duty of the Board to make a 163
determination. Mr. Lambertson asked what would be the consequences going forward, and 164
Ms. Hall read from Section 24-64(b)(1): “Applications for a variance shall be considered on 165
a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is 166
consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” 167
Mr. Lambertson read aloud each of the grounds for denial of a variance and the Board found 168
than none were applicable to this request. He then read aloud each of the grounds for 169
approval of a variance, and suggested that essentially this request could qualify for approval 170
based upon Section 24-64(d)(4), “onerous effect of regulations [enacted]…after construction 171
of improvements upon the property”. Mr. Jensen stated staff had realized a disjunction in the 172
City’s review process that led to an oversight on the City’s part, but there was also oversight 173
on the part of the applicant who failed to submit a site plan consistent with the construction 174
plans. 175
Draft Minutes of the December 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 5
Mr. Hansen said that he did not have a problem granting this variance on the basis of mutual 176
error and resultant undue hardship, so long as it is clearly understood this the only reason it is 177
being granted and will not create a precedent. He asked Mr. Jensen if this was a defensible 178
position, and Mr. Jensen reiterated that each variance request stands on its own merits. This 179
request evolved out of a mutual error, and both parties were acting on the best available 180
information to them at the time. Further, this request addresses a project already technically 181
approved and in-processes. Chances are, especially considering that staff has already taken 182
steps to address process deficiencies, this exact scenario will not present itself again. 183
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion. 184
MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved to grant ZVAR-11 -00100065, request for a variance from 185
Section 24-106(e)(2), reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure from 186
twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet within the Residential Single-Family (RS-2) Zoning District 187
on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue, finding that this request was necessitated in 188
response to the onerous effect of regulations after the construction of improvements upon a 189
property and an undue hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to 190
process deficiencies, and on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals, and 191
finding that this variance request, like all others, stands on the merits of conditions particular 192
to it alone, and in no way constitutes a precedence for future actions. The motion, seconded 193
by Mr. Parkes, carried unanimously, 5-0. 194
[Board Member Kirk Hansen left the meeting at 7:40pm]. 195
Mr. Lambertson thanked Mr. Henderson for his patience and asked that he please understand 196
that this deliberation was in no way a reflection upon him; rather, the circumstances of this 197
request brought to light deficiencies that needed to be addressed, and it was essential that the 198
Board correctly document their decision as a undue hardship of special circumstances. Mr. 199
Henderson thanked the Board for their consideration of the matter. 200
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. 201
A. Land Development Regulations addressing minimum accessory structure separation. 202
203
Mr. Lambertson asked staff to look into the typical required accessory structure separation, 204
whether accessory-from-accessory, or accessory-from-principal, and provide information for 205
further discussion by the Board at the next meeting. 206
207
7. ADJOURNMENT – 7:50 PM 208
209
_______________________________________ 210
Chris Lambertson, Chairman 211
212
213
_______________________________________ 214
Attest 215
AGENDA ITEM 5a
JANUARY 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
January 17, 2012 Public Hearing
Zoning Variance, ZVAR-12-00100001
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: January 11, 2012
APPLICANT: Jennifer Lada
1224 Ocean Boulevard
REQUEST: Request for a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)f, reducing the required side
yard setback for an accessory structure (pergola) from five (5) feet to one (1)
foot; increasing the permitted area for an accessory structure (pergola) from
one hundred fifty (150) square feet to approximately two-hundred twenty-
five (225) square feet; increasing the maximum height for an accessory
structure (pergola) from twelve (12) feet to fifteen (15) feet, within the
Residential Single Family (RS-2) Zoning District on a property located at 1224
Ocean Boulevard.
STAFF COMMENTS This application comes to the Board as the result of Code Enforcement action regarding an accessory structure (pergola) constructed to completion on the subject property without benefit of a building permit. The Code Enforcement Officer forwarded the attached photographs to Planning & Zoning staff on November 2, 2011 for determination of compliance with the Land Development Regulations. The applicant informed the staff that she was unaware of the permit requirement, and said that she constructed the pergola by setting supporting posts outside / directly adjacent to an existing concrete slab patio. According to the survey provided, dated August 16, 2010, the existing slab measures nearly fifteen (15) feet wide by fifteen (15) feet deep, or two hundred twenty-five feet in area., so that is the estimated interior area of the pergola, exclusive of the overhanging elements. Accounting for overhang, the pergola encroaches upon into the required side yard, and is approximately one (1) foot from the side lot line. This is verified using that same survey, which indicates the section of fence adjacent to the pergola is located just inside the property line, approximately one (1) foot to the north, and approximately two (2) feet south of the concrete slab. According to the photographs submitted by the Code Enforcement Officer, the overhang is approximately in line with that adjacent section of fence, and thus is estimated to also be one (1)
AGENDA ITEM 5a – continued
Page 2 of 2
JANUARY 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
foot from the property line. According to general estimations by the Building Official and Building Inspector, the height of the pergola is approximately thirteen (13) feet in height. Section 24-151(b)(1)f, limits gazebos and similar structures to a maximum area of one hundred fifty (150) feet and twelve (12) feet in height, and such structures are to be placed no closer than five (5) feet from rear and side lot lines. As currently constructed and located, the pergola is nonconforming in terms of all three standards.
Grounds for Denial of a Variance:
□ Light and air to adjacent properties.
□ Congestions of streets.
□ Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
□ Established property values.
□ The aesthetic environment of the community.
□ The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
□ The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Grounds for Approval of a Variance:
□ Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
□ Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
□ Exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area.
□ Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property.
□ Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
□ Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property.
ATTACHMENTS: Survey dated August 16, 2010, supplied by the applicant
Photographs dated November 2, 2011, supplied by the Code Enforcement Officer
ZVAR -12-00100001
1224 Ocean Boulevard
ADJACENCY TO ROOF AT NW CORNER ADJACENCY TO ROOF AT NE CORNER
1Photos taken on November 2, 2011
ZVAR -12-00100001
1224 Ocean Boulevard
ADJACENCY TO FENCE AND PROPERTY LINE
2Photos taken on November 2, 2011
AGENDA ITEM 5b
JANUARY 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
January 17, 2012 Public Hearing
Use-by-Exception, UBE-12-00100005
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: January 11, 2012
APPLICANT: Dominic Jacobellis
CARBUYERLINK.COM LLC DBA Beachside Ride
1800 Mayport Road, Suite 12
REQUEST: Request for a use-by-exception to sell used automobiles, including pre-sale
servicing and conditioning of automobiles but no heavy automotive repair or
body work, as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10), within the Commercial
General (CG) Zoning District on a property located at 1800 Mayport Road,
Suite 12. [Main parcel address is 1830 Mayport Road, according to the Duval
County Property Appraiser Property Records].
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is requesting to have used car sales at on the subject property which is located within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district, in an area that was classified as “commercial intensive” a number of years ago. Therefore, the facilities and use typically found in this area have been of a more intensive or light industrial use. Over recent years, the City Commission has expressed a desire to move away from those more intensive uses, even going so far as to adopt an Ordinance No. 90-06-197 on December 11, 2006, which completely prohibits heavy automotive repair from the CG zone. Heavy automotive repair is defines as “the rebuilding or reconditioning of motor vehicles or parts thereof, including collision service, painting and steam cleaning of vehicles.” However, automobile service stations with minor automotive repair, including accessory car washes are permitted uses within the CG zoning district, per Section 24-111(b)(9). Such light repair and servicing of automobiles has typically also been allowed in conjunction with the sale of new and used automobiles, which is a permitted use by exception within the CG zoning district, per Section 24-111(c)(10), for the purpose of pre-sale conditioning. The subject property, which is located on the NW corner of Mayport Road and Edgar Street, was previously occupied by several auto sales and service establishments, as noted in the table below.
AGENDA ITEM 5b – continued
Page 2 of 4
JANUARY 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
BUSINESS ID & NAME CLASSIFICATION OPERATION 3013 I TO Z REPAIRS ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT/SUPPL 1992 - 1993 3026 ALL BEACHES AUTOMOTIVE AUTO SALES, USED 1992 3106 D C T V TELEVISION/RADIO REPAIR 1992 - 1993 3125 D J’S AUTO SALES AUTO SALES, NEW/USED 1992 - 1996 3167 GENE’S AUTO SALES AUTO SALES, USED 1992 3187 INTERNATIONAL BEST USED TIRES AUTO TIRE DEALER 1992 - 1998 3224 LADY GLASS WORKS MISC FABRICATION 1992 3239 LOPANIK CUSTOM CABINETS CABINET/CARPENTRY SHOP 1992 – 2006 3333 REXWOOD, INC ENGINE OR MOTOR SALES/REPAIR 1992 3367 SCOTT AUTO REPAIR AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1992 3390 SPECIAL TEES MISC SERVICE 1992 – 1997 3432 INTERNATIONAL AUTO REPAIR AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1992 - 1998 3433 INTERNATIONAL AUTO PAINT & BODY AUTO PAINT & BODY 1992 - 1993 3552 C & J’S AUTOMOTIVE AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1993 - 1994 3584 STARR AUTO SERVICE AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1993 3606 CHRIS’ AUTO SALES AUTO SALES, USED 1993 – 1994 3629 CHRIS’ AUTO REPAIR AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1993 - 1994 3645 CHRIS’ AUTO BODY & PAINT AUTO PAINT & BODY SHOP 1994 3653 HILLS AUTO REPAIR AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1994 - 2001 3734 TYSON AUTO SALES, INC AUTO SALES, NEW/USED 1994 - 1996 3779 MIDNIGHT AUTO REPAIR AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1994 – 1995 3805 TOUCH OF CLASS DETAILING SHOP AUTO CUSTOMIZING/DETAILING 1995 – 2000 3946 T N T COLLISION CENTER AUTO PAINT & BODY SHOP 1995 - 1998 4116 ADVENTURE PLAYSETS, INC MISC SALES 1997 - 1998 4174 ATLANTIC BEACH AUTOMOTIVE AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1997 4204 DOGWATCH OF JACKSONVILLE MISC SERVICE 1997 - 1998 4437 T N T MECHANICAL AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 1999 4919 J & L ENTERPRISES SCREEN PRINTING 2002 5017 AUTO STORE OF NE FLORIDA, INC AUTO SALES, NEW/USED 2002 - 2004 5061 GET YOUR SHINE ON AUTO CUSTOMIZING/DETAILING 2002 5174 RUDENE MUSE CLEANING/JANITORIAL 2003 - 2004 5498 AFFORDABLE AUTO SOLUTIONS, INC AUTO SALES, NEW/USED 2005 - 2007 5586 CAPITOL AUTO SALES, INC AUTO SALES, NEW/USED AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 2005 – 2011 5649 COASTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES INC ENVIRONMENTAL SERV/CONSULT 2005 - 2007 5911 B M P AUTOMOTIVE INC AUTO SALES, NEW/USED 2007 6280 CARS 4 LESS OF JAX AUTO SALES, NEW/USED 2010 - 2011 6340 TOUCH OF CLASS AUTO CUSTOMIZING/DETAILING 2011 - 2012
AGENDA ITEM 5b – continued
Page 3 of 4
JANUARY 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
The history of use-by-exceptions of this type within the CG zoning district is as follows: DATE APPLICATION ACTION 2007-DEC-10 UBE-2007-05 1850 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) AUTO SALES, USED APPROVED LTD 2 YRS 2007-FEB-12 UBE-2007-01 1075 ATLANTIC BLVD (CG) AUTO SALES, USED WITHDRAWN
2005-OCT-10 UBE-2005-08 1850 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) AUTO SALES, USED DENIED
2005-MAY-09 UBE-2005-04 1919 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) AUTO SALES, USED AUTO REPAIR, HEAVY
APPROVED LTD 28 CARS
2005-MAR-14 UBE-2005-01 589 W 14TH STREET (CG) AUTO REPAIR, HEAVY AUTO REPAIR, BODY
APPROVED
2005-JAN 10 UBE-2004-02 1800 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) AUTO SALES, USED AUTO REPAIR, HEAVY
APPROVED
2003-NOV-10 UBE-2003-05 1075 ATLANTIC BLVD (CG) AUTO SALES, LEASING APPROVED LTD 3 CARS 2003-JUL-14 UBE-2003-01 880 MAYPORT RD (CG) AUTO SALES, USED AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR
APPROVED
2002-OCT-28 UBE-2002-08 1198 MAYPORT RD (CG) AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR, PAINT & BODY
APPROVED
2002-MAY-13 UBE-2002-03 1198 MAYPORT RD (CG) AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR APPROVED
Recommendation and Approval of a Use-by-Exception, per Section 24-63:
□ A use-by-exception may only be approved for those uses and activities which are expressly identified as a possible use-by-exception within a particular zoning district.
□ The City Commission may, as a condition to the granting of any use-by-exception, impose such conditions, restrictions or limitations in the use of the premises, or upon the use thereof as requested in the application, as the City Commission may deem appropriate and in the best interests of the City, taking into consideration matters of health, safety and welfare of the citizens, protection of property values and other considerations material to good land use and planning principles and concepts.
AGENDA ITEM 5b – continued
Page 4 of 4
JANUARY 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
□ Any use-by-exception granted by the City Commission shall permit only the specific use or uses described in the application and may be limited or restricted by the terms and provisions of the approval. Any expansion or extension of the use of such premises, beyond the scope of the terms of the approved use-by-exception, shall be unlawful and in violation of this Chapter and shall render the use-by-exception subject to suspension or revocation by the City Commission.
□ The City Commission may suspend or revoke a use-by-exception permit at any time the City Commission determines that the use has become a public or private nuisance because of an improper, unauthorized or other unlawful use of the property.
□ If an application for a use-by-exception is denied, the City Commission shall take no further action on another application for substantially the same use on the same property for three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the date of said denial.
□ The nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district, or the permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other zoning districts shall not be considered as justification for the approval of a use-by-exception.
□ Unless expressly granted by the City Commission, the use-by-exception shall be granted to the applicant only and shall not run with the title of the property.
ATTACHMENTS: Photographs accessed from Google Maps on January 12, 2012.
UBE -12-00100005
1800 MAYPORT ROAD*
VIEW FROM EDGAR STREET
(PREVIOUS TENANT)
VIEW FROM MAYPORT ROAD
(PREVIOUS TENANT)
1Photos accessed from Bing Maps on Jan 12, 2012
UBE -12-00100005
1800 MAYPORT ROAD*
2Photos accessed from Google Maps on Jan 12, 2012