Agenda2012_03-20
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.
MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday | March 20, 2012 | 6:00pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the February 1, 2012 special meeting.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business. None.
5. New Business.
a. UBEX-12-00100007
980 Mayport Road, Brown dba Beaches Custom Auto Repair
Request for (1) a use-by-exception to operate an automotive leasing establishment (Penske Truck Rentals),
as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, and (2) a use-by-
exception to operate a used automotive sales establishment, as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of
the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district on a property
located at 980 Mayport Road.
b. ZVAR-12-00100010
2019 Beach Avenue, Franklin for Harkleroad
Request for (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of
approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square-foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24-
151(b)(1)d & e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the southern portion of the accessory
structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such
portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and, (3) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d & e to
reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be
reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven-tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to
twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the
second floor.
6. Other Business Not Requiring Action.
a. Beach Avenue Overlay Report
Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding development of a Beach Avenue
Overlay.
b. Non-Residential Uses Report
Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding review of non-residential uses,
especially those applicable to the Mayport Corridor.
7. Adjournment.
Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 8
1 2
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4
February 1, 2012 5
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:04pm 6
Chair Chris Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, 7
Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton, and Brea Paul 8
and called the meeting to order at 6:04pm. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall, 9
Building Official Michael Griffin, Building Inspector Mike Jones, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. 10
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – JANUARY 17, 2012. 11
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular 12
meeting. 13
MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the January 17, 2011 regular 14
meeting, as written. The motion was seconded by Ms. Burgess, and carried by a vote of 7-0. 15
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. None. 16
4. OLD BUSINESS. 17
A. ZVAR -11 -00100065-A.1 18
APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad (owner) 19
ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue 20
REQUEST: Request for an amendment to a previously granted variance [ZVAR-21
11 -00100065] from Section 24-106(e)(2), further reducing the 22
required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) 23
feet to four and one-half (4 ½) feet [for an additional five and one-24
half (5 ½) feet], within the Residential Single Family (RS-2) Zoning 25
District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. 26
Ms. Hall reviewed the facts of the case as relevant to a previous variance granted by the 27
Board on December 20, 2011, which allowed a reduction of the required rear yard setback for 28
the principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet. Particularly, she reminded the 29
Board that the previous request was found consistent with Section 24-64(d)(4) of the Land 30
Development Regulations establishing grounds for approval of variance due to onerous effect 31
of regulations enacted after construction of improvements upon the property and an undue 32
hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to process deficiencies, and 33
on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals. She then explained that 34
approximately three weeks after the granting of the original variance, the Building 35
Department was informed of potential errors in the survey upon which the approved site plan 36
and construction drawings were based. Subsequently, a new certified survey was requested 37
and a Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Department. The new survey, revised on 38
Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 8
January 11, 2012, delineated the rear (westernmost) property line such that the northwest and 39
southwest corners of the existing garage were actually located 12.2’ and 4.7’, respectively, 40
from the rear property line, whereas the approved site plan indicated them to be 14.2’ and 41
10.0’, respectively, from the rear property line. Additionally, the southwest corner of the new 42
garage being constructed to the south of the existing garage was shown on the new certified 43
survey as being 4.5’ from the rear property line, whereas the approved site plan indicated that 44
corner was 10.2’ from the rear property line. 45
Ms. Hall reported this effectively reduced the required rear yard by an additional five and 46
one-half (5 ½) feet, more or less, and in order to continue with construction, the property 47
owner had the option to apply for an amendment to the granted variance based upon the 48
revised survey, or bring all new construction into compliance with applicable standards and 49
valid variances. She also reminded the Board that according to the provisions outlining the 50
duties and responsibilities of the Community Development Board, it “may reverse, affirm or 51
modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or 52
determination, provided such action is based upon new evidence or where it is determined 53
that a previous decision was made based upon inaccurate information”. [Section 24-47(c)] 54
Property owner Carl Harkleroad addressed the Board and confirmed that a Stop Work Order 55
had been issued due to a discrepancy discovered between a newly certified survey and a pre-56
purchase survey that had been used as the basis for the approved site plan and construction 57
drawings. He said that he had provided both a raised-seal copy of the newly certified survey 58
as well as a copy of the pre-purchase survey to Ms. Hall, and was requesting an amendment 59
to the granted variance, further reducing the required rear yard setback to four and one-half (4 60
½) feet, to account for the discrepancy between the two surveys. 61
For clarification, Mr. Lambertson asked if the pre-purchase survey submitted to staff had a 62
raised-seal, to which Ms. Hall replied that it did not. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. 63
Harkleroad if he had the original or a raised-seal copy of the pre-purchase survey with him, to 64
which Mr. Harkleroad responded that he did not. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. Harkleroad 65
if, given time, he could retrieve the survey, to which Mr. Harkleroad responded that he did 66
not know where it was. City Attorney Alan Jensen then interjected that if Mr. Harkleroad 67
stated the pre-purchase survey was certified and had a raised-seal, the Board could stipulate 68
as to that fact and give a reasonable amount of time for Mr. Harkleroad to produce it. 69
Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Hall indicated that the Board 70
had been provided copies of two letters received via email, including one in objection to the 71
variance from Mr. Richard Reichler, and one in support of the variance from Dr. Stanley 72
Barnwell. 73
Rich Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) introduced himself as the adjacent property owner to the 74
north of the subject property. He stated that, based upon two grossly inaccurate 75
measurements between the existing structure and Beach Avenue, and many major 76
misrepresentations since before the Harkleroads’ purchase of the property, he strongly 77
recommended the Board deny tonight’s request for amendment to, and revoke the previously 78
granted variance. [NOTE: Per Mr. Reichler’s request, a copy of his complete statement is 79
attached to and made a part of these official minutes.] 80
John Meserve (2126 Beach Avenue) introduced himself as a neighbor just a few houses to the 81
north of the subject property. He noted that new construction is essential complete except for 82
trim and interior finishing, and recommended that the Board grant the requested variance 83
Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 8
amendment, noting that Beach Avenue is a narrow one-way street, with many garages and 84
other accessories located near or directly abutting the right-of-way. He added that Mr. 85
Harkleroad’s construction does not intrude any more into the right-of-way than neighbors to 86
both the north and south. He said that modification of the existing structure, as constructed to 87
this point, was not an option, but would require a complete tear-down and new start. Mr. 88
Meserve also responded to Mr. Reichler’s concern about Mr. Harkleroad’s potential to further 89
increase the scale and mass of the principal structure closer to the street, stating that Board 90
could stipulate as to limitations as to height and mass of the addition, which Mr. Harkleroad 91
could then record as deed restrictions. He concluded that the flawed survey existed since 92
before the purchase of the property, and therefore should not be considered as the fault of the 93
present owner. 94
Richard Bell (1952 Beachside Court) said that he opposes the variance and the amendment, 95
noting that there is already a scarcity of adequate parking on the site, which imposes a burden 96
on neighbors. 97
Kathleen Russell (2117 Beach Avenue) stated that she had lived in the area for nearly thirty 98
years and had several Stop Work Orders issued while constructing her home, and each time, 99
she did what was necessary to bring the work into compliance. Afterwards, she served on the 100
Community Development Board, then on the Code Enforcement Board, and these 101
appointments gave her a greater appreciation of the difficult decisions made by these boards 102
and the unique circumstances that property owners often find themselves in. However, in this 103
particular situation, she said the fault was clearly that of the surveyor, and she suggested the 104
property owner should look to the surveyor for recourse, rather than asking for additional 105
concessions not afforded to other law-abiding citizens. 106
Heath Aldridge (Durham, North Carolina) explained that she was the owner of the two vacant 107
lots directly across Beach Avenue from the Harkleroad and the Reichler residences, amongst 108
several other properties in Atlantic Beach, and she just happened to be in town and noticed 109
the sign advertising the meeting on the site. She expressed concern that Atlantic Beach no 110
longer sends out notifications to abutting property owners for variance hearings, and strongly 111
recommended that this practice be reinstated. She then noted that the previous variance was 112
granted on the finding of criterion number four, but she asserted that there was no such 113
onerous effect of regulations enacted after the development of the property or after the 114
construction of improvements upon the property, and that an inaccurate survey could not be 115
claimed as grounds, because it is the property owner(s)’ responsibility to do due diligence and 116
hire reputable contractors and service providers. Referring to the 2002 Boatwright survey 117
found by staff in City archives, she noted that it did not make sense for a property owner to 118
change to a completely different surveyor, when one already had the file and merely needed 119
to be update and recertify it. She concluded by asking the Board to deny the variance 120
amendment and revoke the original variance. 121
With there being no one else from the audience wishing to speak, Mr. Lambertson closed the 122
public comment portion of the hearing and returned the item to the Board for discussion. 123
Mr. Hansen noted that the approved variance had no restrictions. Mr. Parkes added that the 124
original or primary question had been one of a ten (10) foot rear yard setback for an accessory 125
that was subsequently attached to the principal structure. The fact that principal structures 126
and accessory structures have differing height limits was not given adequate consideration at 127
that time. As a point of clarification for the audience, Mr. Lambertson explained that the 128
original garage was in compliance. New construction consisted of addition of a second level 129
Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 8
to that existing garage, addition of a new two-story garage and finally connection of the 130
garages to one another and the principal structure. As a result, there were many nuances to 131
consider. 132
Mr. Parkes asked staff how the Boatwright survey was obtained. Ms Hall replied that it was 133
in the City’s digital archives, which may consist of historic building plans, surveys, permits 134
and such documents for individual addresses. Mr. Elmore then asked where the Atlantic 135
Coast survey came from, and Mr. Harkleroad said it was supplied to him by the seller of the 136
property. Discussion as to survey requirements at the time of property transactions ensued, 137
and Mr. Burgess added that the closer may have had a relationship with Atlantic Coast and 138
that could have been why that company was selected to do the closing survey. 139
Mr. Elmore expressed disdain for the poor quality of even the most recent certified survey, 140
noting that basic surveying data, such as corner identification, was still missing. Mr. Parkes 141
added that with all the technology of the day, he did not know of anyone who provided hand-142
drawn surveys as a final deliverable. 143
Mr. Elmore, noted that originally the applicant had come before the Board to request a 144
variance because a connection that essentially converted accessory structures into an 145
extension of the principal structure was not shown on the site plan reviewed and approved by 146
the Planning & Zoning Department, though it was eventually found to be shown on 147
construction plans reviewed and approved by the Building Department. Neither was wrong 148
in their independent reviews and subsequent approvals, but inconsistency between the two 149
documents uncovered a flaw in the review process, and consequently there was concession 150
that the City would shoulder blame, and this Board granted a ten (10) foot rear yard variance 151
for what is now the principal structure. Now, the applicant comes before us again, with an 152
incorrect survey. 153
Mr. Parkes interjected that the Board approved the previous variance based on what was 154
thought to be an honest mistake. Had the original submittal for building permits included a 155
correct survey, this would have never been approved. 156
Mr. Elmore noted that Mr. Reichler had mentioned pins had been moved and that Building 157
Inspector Mike Jones had been present while Atlantic Coast surveyors were on the site and 158
had had conversations with various people involved. He then asked if Mr. Jones could 159
elaborate on what he witnessed. Mr. Jones introduced himself as the Building Inspector and 160
Plans Examiner for the City of Atlantic Beach. He acknowledged that he had attempted to 161
verify the setback himself, taking off from a pin he found on the north side. He said at that 162
time, his estimation was consistent with the distances shown on the site plan. But soon after, 163
questions arose over the accuracy of the survey, and on a Friday afternoon soon afterwards, 164
he encountered a three-man survey crew from Atlantic Coast on-site, who were reporting the 165
southern pin had been moved, but reset. Then, the following Monday, Atlantic Coast called 166
and reported that the pins had been moved over the weekend and said they would not certify 167
the survey. 168
Mr. Lambertson inquired into the creation of the site plan, asking if the architect had used the 169
parameters of the survey. Mr. Jones said that he had called the project designer, Roger 170
Russell, to inquire as to how the site plan was created. He said that Mr. Russell told him that 171
he pulled off the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) to get a dimension line. Mr. 172
Russell, present in the audience interjected that he was not an architect, but a designer, and 173
was not regulated. Mr. Elmore responded the CCCL, while it has a legal description, is not a 174
Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 8
line you can pin to – it is not an acceptable monument. Mr. Parkes commented that there are 175
rare circumstances when such unconventional methods are required, but in doing so, he 176
always includes a disclaimer. 177
Mr. Lambertson asked why the surveyor came out, moved the pins and then did not certify 178
the survey he had just created, to which no one had an answer. He then asked what the 179
position of Atlantic Coast Surveyors was at this time. Ray Henderson, building contractor for 180
the project, responded that Atlantic Coast eventually did present a new certified survey with 181
corrections, but since then, they have not been returning phone calls or responding to emails. 182
Ms. Hall read the note from the most recent certified survey from Atlantic Coast Surveyors, 183
“Revised 1-11-12 to show new garage addition and ties to property line” and commented that 184
staff is troubled by the fact that this note is not completely truthful and does not adequately 185
address the revisions made. For instance, as Mr. Elmore had pointed out earlier, there was 186
not sufficient documentation of monuments and control points, nor was there indication that 187
the location of the structures changed what could be considered a significant distance, thus 188
placing a heaving burden on this Board and staff, and having potentially catastrophic 189
implications for the property owner and construction professionals he has employed. 190
Mr. Stratton asked how a surveyor could make an error of five feet, and Mr. Lambertson 191
replied that is possible for anyone, but as a contractor, he tries to implement checks and 192
balances that protect him from such errors, such as getting a foundation survey to verify the 193
horizontal constraints of his projects before commencing with vertical construction. 194
Mr. Lambertson then directed the Board to the application, noting that the applicant had once 195
again indicated “onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of 196
the property or after construction or improvements upon the property”. However he promptly 197
dismissed this as invalid grounds for approval of the amendment, and asked the Board 198
members to review the other criteria. 199
Mr. Parkes inquired as to the status of the project and asked if any work had been done since 200
the error was discovered. Mr. Griffin stated that speculation regarding the accuracy of the 201
survey occurred soon after the original variance was granted, and a Stop Work Order was 202
issued on January 9th. 203
Mr. Elmore noted a comment made by Mr. Meserve regarding the character of Beach Avenue 204
as germane to the consideration, and reiterated that he would like to see the area addressed 205
with an overlay. He then said he was torn as to how to decide this case – to be principled and 206
require everything out of compliance to be removed, or to be compassionate and approve the 207
amendment because he does not see the impact of the design as a negative to the neighbors on 208
either side. Mr. Parkes said he agreed with much of Mr. Elmore’s comments, but looking at 209
the Code and the Boards positions in the past, he felt it was necessary to defend those 210
positions and uphold the Code. He continued, saying that he did not think the parking issue 211
was a valid concern, and that he was sympathetic to the owner and builder whom he felt had 212
no part in this, but was drawn into this by no fault of their own when provided with an 213
incorrect survey. 214
Mr. Lambertson agreed, again stating this could happen to anyone, but the Board must be 215
vigilant and consider what would happen when the next person shows up with a faulty 216
survey. Ms. Paul countered that a faulty survey is not something that can be prevented, and 217
that we rely upon professionals to provide accurate and reliable information. 218
Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Burgess said that in looking at the criteria, he could not find one that addressed an 219
erroneous survey, and therefore could not find grounds to approve the amendment before 220
them. Mr. Stratton concurred, stating that even if everyone on the Board wanted to grant the 221
variance amendment out of compassion, there is nothing in the guidelines allowing the Board 222
to grant it. Mr. Hansen said he complete agreed, and Mr. Parkes said that looking back, he 223
now questioned whether the Board had a valid reason to grant the original variance. 224
Mr. Stratton, who was absent from the December 20th meeting, noted the criteria had not 225
changed and asked how the previous request met the criteria. Mr. Elmore reiterated his 226
earlier comments and said that it was essentially viewed as error by both staff and applicant, 227
and that it really did not fit into one of those boxes. Mr. Lambertson said that the initial 228
variance was granted because the original site plan did not show the second-level connection 229
between what was a one-story accessory and the principal structure. He added that at this 230
point, he would not feel comfortable revoking the previously granted variance. 231
Mr. Parkes agreed that the basis of the previous variance was a series of oversights and errors 232
and that the variance was granted because the circumstances were viewed as no fault of the 233
owner. However, he said that he now viewed the project in an entirely new light, because if 234
the survey had been correct from the beginning, neither Building nor Zoning would have 235
approved the plans. 236
Mr. Lambertson asked Board members for their final comments and called for a motion. Mr. 237
Stratton said that while he felt very badly for the situation, he also felt that approval of this 238
amendment would be setting this Board and the City up for legal action, noting that the 239
residents of the Atlantic Beach have expectations that this Board will uphold the Code of the 240
City. 241
MOTION: Mr. Stratton moved that the Board deny the requested variance amendment 242
further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS-2 zoning 243
district from ten (10) feet – as approved by order of a previous variance – to four and one-half 244
(4 ½) feet, finding that the request does not meet any of the grounds for approval according to 245
Section 24-64(d), and also reverse the previous decision and revoke the variance order 246
granted to reduce the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS-2 zoning 247
district from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, finding that the request did not meet any of the 248
grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d) either. Ms. Paul seconded the motion. 249
Mr. Lambertson said he wanted to ensure the Board was clear on the implications of this 250
motion. Saying essentially this would require the applicant to take the structure back to the 251
original state, he read from the staff report this would require “all new construction to be 252
completely removed. In this scenario, the original one-story two-car detached garage would 253
have to be restored to original horizontal and vertical dimensions, though it could still be re-254
oriented from a southern access to a western access. Likewise, the original breezeway 255
separating the detached garage from the principal structure would have to be restored.” 256
MOTION WITHDRAWN: Mr. Stratton withdrew his motion and Ms. Paul withdrew her 257
second. 258
Mr. Stratton then asked for discussion of the second scenario, which would be a denial of the 259
present amendment, but a reaffirmation of the previous variance. Mr. Hansen said that one of 260
the problems with this scenario is that the new construction consists of the addition of a 261
second story. Mr. Elmore added that any modification would change the roof lines, which 262
Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 7 of 8
would require the whole thing to be re-engineered. Mr. Lambertson said again that he felt the 263
original variance was based on substantial evidence; even though the connection at the basis 264
of the request was not shown on the site plan, it was found in the structural plans. 265
Mr. Lambertson then inquired as to the appeal process, and Mr. Jensen responded that appeals 266
would be to the City Commission. Mr. Parkes added that the Commission was essentially the 267
authors of the guidelines. Mr. Stratton said that if the Commission drafted the guidelines by 268
which this Board was to consider variances, they would certainly have expectations that any 269
variances granted could meet the established criteria. Ms. Hall explained that an appeal is a 270
quasi-judicial review, in which the Commission would only be permitted to review the 271
official record to determine three things – whether there had been due process afforded to all 272
affected parties, whether the correct law had been applied, and whether there was substantial 273
competent evidence to support the decision. 274
Mr. Lambertson read the second option from the staff report, noting this scenario would deny 275
the current request to amend the variance, but allow the original variance to stand, meaning 276
any new construction encroaching beyond the ten (10) foot setback would have to be 277
removed. 278
Noting that this was the only rear yard variance approved during his tenure on the Board, Mr. 279
Parkes said he questioned whether he would have voted in the same manner on the original 280
variance if he had had the current information. Mr. Elmore agreed that looking forward, he 281
could not say he would have done the same either because there are long-term repercussions 282
to be considered. 283
MOTION: Mr. Stratton moved that the Board deny the requested variance amendment 284
further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS-2 zoning 285
district from ten (10) feet – as approved by order of a previous variance from Section 24-286
106(e)(2) – to four and one-half (4 ½) feet, finding that this request does not meet any of the 287
grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d), and that the Board also reverse the 288
previous decision and revoke the variance from Section 24-106(e)(2) granted to reduce the 289
required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS-2 zoning district from twenty 290
(20) feet to ten (10) feet, finding that in accordance with Section 24-47(c), the previous 291
decision was based upon inaccurate information, and that this action is based upon new 292
evidence which does not meet any of the grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d) 293
either. The motion, seconded by Mr. Hansen, was carried by a vote of 5-2, with Ms. Paul and 294
Mr. Lambertson dissenting. 295
Under consensus of the Board, Mr. Lambertson expressed a desire to hold a joint workshop 296
with the Commission to discuss Beach Avenue character and possible solutions such as an 297
overlay; however, he recalled that when the Board previously requested such a workshop, 298
staff was told no. He asked if the Board could request workshop with the Commission, to 299
which Mr. Jensen replied yes and agreed that a delegate from this Board could address the 300
Commission with such a request. 301
302
Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 8 of 8
5. NEW BUSINESS. 303
A. ORDINANCE NO 90-12-214 304
REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Commission to amend Section 24-151, 305
to establish a minimum required separation of six (6) feet between 306
accessory buildings and structures and other buildings and 307
structures; to correct four (4) incorrect references in the existing 308
provisions; and to reorder subsection 24-151(b)(2), grouping those 309
provisions related to use and those related to dimensions. 310
311
Ms. Hall explained that the submittal before the Board arose out of the Board’s desire to 312
reincorporate a defined separation between accessories structures and other structures into the 313
Code, and consisted of a draft ordinance and a strike-through / underline revision of the 314
affected Section 24-151, implementing a minimum required six (6) foot separation as item 315
24-151(b)(2)f. Additionally she noted four incorrect references within Section 24-151 that 316
were corrected, and reordering of subsection (b) according to application, with some being 317
related to use and some being related to dimensions. 318
Mr. Parkes said that he would support reducing the separation to five (5) feet, and Mr. Elmore 319
concurred, as did other members of the Board, saying that it was a dimension consistent with 320
other setback requirements. 321
MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission adoption 322
of the ordinance before them, thereby amending Section 24-151 of the Land Development 323
Regulations to establish a minimum required separation of five (5) feet between accessory 324
buildings and structures and other buildings and structures, and making other corrections as 325
noted, finding that this amendment is consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plan and the 326
purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations 327
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None. 328
7. ADJOURNMENT – 8:15 PM 329
330
_______________________________________ 331
Chris Lambertson, Chairman 332
333
334
_______________________________________ 335
Attest 336
AGENDA ITEM 5a
MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
March 20, 2012 Public Hearing
Use-by-Exception, UBE-12-00100007
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: February 8, 2012
APPLICANT: Joan Brown
Beaches Custom Auto Repair
980 Mayport Road
REQUEST: Request for (1) a use-by-exception to operate an automotive leasing
establishment (Penske Truck Rentals), as is consistent with Section 24-
111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, and (2) a use-by-exception to
operate an automotive sales establishment, as is consistent with Section 24-
111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial
General (CG) Zoning District on a property located at 980 Mayport Road.
STAFF COMMENTS The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of southbound lanes of Mayport Road and West 10th Street and is approximately 0.47 acres, or about 20, 473 square feet in total lot area, comprised of one hundred two (102) feet of frontage along Mayport Road and two hundred (200) feet of frontage on West 10th Street. The property is presently designated as Commercial (CM) according to the Future Land Use Map of the adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Series, and it is zoned Commercial General (CG) according to the Official Zoning Map. Surrounding properties are also zoned CG, with the parcel to the north being the location of the First Baptist Church of Atlantic Beach; the parcels to the south and west being the location of Transit Plus; and the parcel to the southwest being the location of Advanced Lens Technologies. The applicant currently operates an automotive service establishment, offering minor automotive repair and detailing services on the subject property, as is permitted by Section 24-111(b)(9). However, she recently secured a Penske Truck Rental franchise and now requests to operate that business from this same location. Additionally, the applicant has stated she is in the process of obtaining a dealer’s license and also requests to operate a used car dealership from this location. Both automotive sales and leasing establishments are listed as permissible uses-by-exception, according to Section 24-111(c)(10), so long as found to be consistent with the commercial intensity, and compatible with other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity. As noted in the table below, the subject property has been occupied by automotive sales and service establishments for more than thirty (30) years. Harry T. Gross commenced operation of Bud’s Auto on the subject
AGENDA ITEM 5a – continued
Page 2 of 3
MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting
property in 1979, when it was already zoned CG, and at which time used car sales were permitted by right only with the Commercial Intensive (CI) and Light Industrial & Warehousing (ILW) zoning districts. Staff has been unable to determine what preceded Bud’s Auto, or how the automotive use came into existence on the property. With the adoption of Ordinance 90-85-96 though, the CI zoning district was eliminated and auto sales and leasing were reclassified as permitted uses-by-exception within the CG zone. Then, in January 1986, Mr. Gross was granted a use-by-exception for his automotive sales business located at 980 Mayport Road, thereby establishing a record of conformance with the current zoning regulations. However, staff found no evidence, either in UBE files or in official minutes of either the Community Development Board or the City Commission that Mr. Murr ever applied for or was granted a use-by-exception for his automotive sales business that occupied the subject property subsequent to Mr. Gross’ business.
BUSINESS ID & NAME CLASSIFICATION OPERATION 3081 BUD’S AUTO SALES AUTO SALES, USED AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR AUTO STORAGE 1979 - 2000
4805 MURR’S MOTORS AUTO SALES, USED AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 2000 - 2011 6397 BEACHES CUSTOM AUTO REPAIR AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR 2011 - The history of use-by-exceptions of this particular or similar uses within the CG zoning district is as follows:
DATE APPLICATION ACTION 2012-FEB-13 UBE-12-00100005 1800 MAYPORT ROAD (CG)
AUTO SALES, USED
RECOMMENDED BY CDB SCHEDULED FOR CC PH 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 1994-JAN-24 UBE-1994-xx 1650 MAYPORT RD (CG)
AUTO LEASING
APPROVED
1986-JAN-13 UBE-1986-xx 980 MAYPORT RD (CG)
AUTO SALES, USED APPROVED
AGENDA ITEM 5a – continued
Page 3 of 3
MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting
According to a memorandum dated April 14, 2003 from then-Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, the U-Haul truck leasing establishment located at 1650 Mayport Road was granted a use-by-exception on January 24, 1994. This is consistent with City Commission meeting minutes and information from the City Clerk’s database which indicates local business tax receipts have been issued for this establishment at this address since 1994, as is shown in the next to the last entry in the table above..
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.
□ 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: Maps & aerial photographs accessed from Google Maps & Bing Maps on
February 8, 2012.
UBE -12-00100007
980 MAYPORT ROAD
STREET MAP VIEW AERIAL VIEW
1Bing Maps accessed on Feb 8, 2012
UBE -12-00100007
980 MAYPORT ROAD
VIEW FROM MAYPORT ROAD
(PREVIOUS TENANT)
VIEW FROM WEST 10TH STREET
(PREVIOUS TENANT)
2Google Maps accessed on Feb 8, 2012
AGENDA ITEM 5b
MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
March 20, 2012 Public Hearing
Zoning Variance, ZVAR-12-00100010
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Erika Hall
Principal Planner
DATE: March 12, 2012
APPLICANT: Carl E Harkleroad
2019 Beach Avenue
REQUEST: Request (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d, to allow a single detached
accessory structure of approximately eight hundred seventy-two (872) square
feet in lieu of the 600 square-foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24-
151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the
southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from
five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion of the structure
being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) variance from Section 24-
151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the
northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to
four and seven-tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty-
five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters
above on the second floor.
NOTE: At the time of submittal, a new certified survey was not provided. Instead, the submittal
included an 8 ½ x 11 copy of the 2002 Boatwright survey, with some of the recent
alterations drawn in, as well as the notes “THIS SURVEY WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
RAY HENDERSON” and “RECHECKED BOUNDARY: FEBRUARY 14, 2012” included. Staff
advised Mr. Franklin, agent for the applicant, that a raised-seal certified copy of the survey
would be required by the Board, and Mr. Franklin indicated such would be made available
prior to the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS This is a new variance application, substantially differing from the previous requests by the applicant in that this is a request for variances from the land development regulations pertaining to accessory structures, whereas the previous requests were pertaining to the principal structure. As such, the applicant is offering certain concessions and alterations to the design of the project as follows:
MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA ITEM 5b
Page 2 of 4
• The connection previously made between the principal structure and the existing detached garage will be removed and a breezeway-width separation between the principal structure and the previously-detached garage will be restored.
• There will be an internal connection between the two detached accessory units, thus essentially making them a single detached accessory unit with a total footprint of eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet, which exceeds the maximum footprint of a single detached accessory unit by two hundred seventy-two (272) square feet, and thus requiring a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d.
• The second story of the newly constructed single-car garage portion will be removed, and the height will be limited to fifteen (15), while the second story addition to the existing two-car garage is requested to remain and be utilized as guest quarters. However, due to previous construction according to an erroneous survey, the structure(s) do not meet minimum rear yard setbacks as specified in Sections 24-151(b)(1) d & e, and thus variances from these provisions are necessitated. Justifications for the applicant’s requests are as follows:
• Section 24-64(d)(2), “surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of
the property as compared to other properties in the area”, stating the methodology employed in the 1938 platting of the North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3, including that portion of Beach Avenue previously known as Garage Approach Roadway, adversely impacts this particular lot. Staff is unable to discern the “sharp turn” described in the applicant’s narrative, and there is no evidence that this lot is now or has previously been developed to a lesser degree than any of the other nearby properties having the same or similar characteristics. At just over 10,000 square feet in area, this lot is more than twice the size of many parcels in Atlantic Beach, including a number on the oceanfront. As built in 2003, the existing single-family house has a gross area of 4,802 square feet, with 3,466 square feet being heated & cooled and 550 square feet being dedicated to a one-story two-car garage. The existing house, exclusive of the recent alterations, already meets and exceeds the threshold for reasonable use, so staff does not support this as a valid reason for the granting of any of the requested variances.
• Section 24-64(d)(3), “exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as
compared to other properties in the area”, stating that the exceptional circumstance arises out of the fact that the recent alterations were lawfully constructed pursuant to building permits and a variance that were later rescinded due to a survey error, and this has resulted in an undue hardship not of the property owner’s making. While staff does agree that revocation of the previously issued variance did result in a financial hardship on the property owner, it is not seen as a prohibition on the reasonable use of the property as compared to others in the area, as noted above. And, Section 24-47(c) of the Land Development regulations clearly states “In exercising its powers, the Community Development Board may, in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse, affirm or modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or determination provided such action is based upon inaccurate information.” Further, Section 6-17(b)(4) of the Municipal Code of Ordinances bestows the following powers upon the Building Official regarding the revocation of building permits: a. Misrepresentation of application. The building official may revoke a permit or approval, issued under the provisions of this code, in case there has been any false statement or misrepresentation as to the material fact in the application or plans on which the permit or approval was based.
MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA ITEM 5b
Page 3 of 4
b. Violation of code provisions. The building official may revoke a permit upon determination by the building official that the construction, erection, alteration, repair, moving , demolition, installation or replacement of the building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems for which the permit was issued is in violation of, or not in conformity with, the provisions of this code.
• Section 24-64(d)(4), “onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of
the property or after construction of improvements upon the property”, stating that the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and “scour” line(s) affect oceanfront RS-2 lots differently, pushing the buildable area as far to the west as possible and creating limitations on the reasonable use of “valuable oceanfront” parcels. Staff points out that the existing CCCL was last revised in 1992, and the existing principal structure, which is the easternmost structure on the property, was constructed in 2003. To the west of the principal structure was constructed a detached accessory similar to other properties in the area. At the time of the 2003 construction, the required rear yard setback for a single-story detached accessory was ten (10) feet from the rear property line, though in actuality, it was built four and seven-tenths (4.7) feet from the rear property line. Though staff has uncovered no variance for this five and three-tenths (5.3) foot reduction, it is assumed either some relief was granted, or the accessory was erroneously located and therefore nonconforming until revisions to the land development regulations in 2010 reduced the required rear yard setback for single-story detached accessories to five (5) feet. Note the additional three-tenths (0.3) feet is just over three (3) inches, which is within the authority of the Community Development Director to administratively grant, being five (5) percent of the standard varied. Thus, again, there has been no barrier to reasonable use of the subject property. However, staff does recognize Section 24-64(d)(4) as being valid justification for one or more of the requested variances, in that the identification of a survey error after the construction of improvements was well underway, has resulted in the encroachment of previously adjudged “legal” structures into required rear yard setbacks, and has created an onerous and burdensome hardship on the property owner to bring the structures into compliance. Additionally, staff interprets imposition of the CCCL and other FL-DEP regulations lines and coastal permits as more of a function of the topographic conditions associated with oceanfront property, and therefore recognizes Section 24-64(d)(1) has having some validity in tempering those limitations. It should be noted that the applicant is requesting that the original two-car garage be considered separately from the new one-car garage in the application of rear yard setbacks. The rationale for this is that detached accessories exceeding the maximum six hundred (600) square foot footprint are subject to required twenty (20) foot rear yard setbacks, per Section 24-151(b)(1)d. Implications of this are discussed further, below. The considerations before the Board at this time are as follows: 1. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, thereby allowing the two detached accessory structures to be connected on the ground floor, resulting in a single detached accessory unit having an eight hundred seventy-two (872) square foot footprint, thereby exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area (footprint) for a single detached accessory by two hundred seventy-two (272) square feet, or forty-five and three-tenths (45.3) percent of the standard?
□ YES □ NO 2. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the northern (existing) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, as is required for two-story detached accessory units, and then granting a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e, further reducing
MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA ITEM 5b
Page 4 of 4
the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven-tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of fifteen and three-tenths (15.3) feet, or seventy-six and five-tenths (76.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area.
□ YES □ NO 3. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the southern (new) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet, as is required for one-story detached accessory units, and then further reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one-tenths (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage addition constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of sixteen and nine-tenths (16.9) feet, or eighty-four and five-tenths (84.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area.
□ YES □ NO Alternatively, per Section 24-64(f), the Board may approve a lesser variance than that requested, if such lesser variance is found to be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations. As such, the Board may deny request #1 above, and require the two detached accessories be maintained as separate units. In doing so, the Board may then wish to consider options #4 and #5, below, as respective alternatives to requests #2 and #3, above. 4. Considering the original two-car garage which has a five hundred fifty (550) square-foot footprint, and a new second-story addition of guest quarters, limited to a maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e be granted, reducing the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven-tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would result in a reduction of five and three-tenths (5.3) feet, or fifty-three (53) percent, from the standard applicable to two-story detached accessory structures limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area.
□ YES □ NO 5. Considering the new one-car garage which has a three hundred twenty-two (322) square-foot footprint and is limited to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of one and nine-tenths (1.9) feet, or thirty-eight (38) percent, from the standard applicable to single-story detached accessory structures limited to fifteen (15) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area.
□ YES □ NO
`ATTACHMENTS: Application for Variance, ZVAR-12-00100010
2019 Beach Avenue
March 13, 2012 –View from SW
2019 Beach Avenue
March 13, 2012 –View from W
2019 Beach Avenue
March 13, 2012 –Stairs