Agenda2012_04-17-rev2
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.
APRIL 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
(Revised April 16, 2012)
Tuesday | April 17, 2012 | 6:00pm
North Conference Room | 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business. None.
5. New Business.
a. UBEX-12-00100012
90 Forrestal Circle South, Reeves | beauty salon
Request for a use-by-exception to operate a beauty salon establishment, as is consistent with
Section 24-109(d)(4) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial,
Professional & Office (CPO) Zoning District on a property located at 90 Forrestal Circle South.
6. Other Business Not Requiring Action.
a. Beach Avenue Overlay Discussion
7. Adjournment.
Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 8
1 2
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4
March 20, 2012 5
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:00pm 6
Vice -Chair Kirk Hansen verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, 7
Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton, and Brea Paul and called the meeting 8
to order at 6:00pm. Chair Chris Lambertson joined the meeting at 6:05pm. Also in attendance 9
were Principal Planner Erika Hall, Redevelopment Coordinator Susan Cohn, Building Official 10
Michael Griffin, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. 11
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – FEBRUARY 1, 2012. 12
Mr. Hansen called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2012 special meeting. 13
Ms. Paul said that she had one correction to request, stating that there was a typographical error in 14
line 15 of page 1, in which “Ms. Burgess” should read “Mr. Burgess”. Ms. Hall noted the 15
correction. 16
MOTION: Mr. Elmore moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the February 1, 2012 special 17
meeting, with the correction of Line 15, Page 1, as discussed. The motion was seconded by Mr. 18
Burgess, and carried by a vote of 6-0. 19
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. 20
Ms. Hall introduced new Redevelopment Coordinator Susan Cohn to the Board. 21
4. OLD BUSINESS. None. 22
5. NEW BUSINESS. 23
A. UBEX-12-00100007 24
APPLICANT: Brown dba Beaches Custom Auto Repair 25
ADDRESS: 980 Mayport Road 26
REQUEST: Request for (1) use-by-exception to operate an automotive leasing 27
establishment, and (2) use-by-exception to operate a used automotive 28
sales establishment, both of which are consistent with Section 24-29
111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the 30
Commercial General (CG) zoning district on a property located at 980 31
Mayport Road. 32
33
Ms. Hall introduced the application and explained the applicant, Joan Brown, currently 34
operates Beaches Custom Auto Repair, offering automotive servicing, minor repairs and 35
detailing on the subject property. However, Ms. Brown has recently secured a Penske Truck 36
Leasing franchise and wishes to operate that business from the same location, and she has 37
indicated that she is in the process of obtaining a dealer’s license and would also like to 38
operate a small used car dealership there. 39
Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 8
Ms. Hall noted that both automotive sales and leasing establishments are listed as permissible 40
uses-by-exception, according to Section 24-111(c)(10), so long as they are found to be 41
consistent with the commercial intensity, and compatible with other commercial and 42
residential uses in the vicinity. City archives indicate the subject property has at least a thirty-43
year history of automotive uses including sales and repairs. 44
Applicant Joan Brown addressed the Board and explained how her current uses and intended 45
uses are complimentary and address a need of the transient military community. She 46
described the current layout of the lot, including improvements already made and the 47
intended location of the proposed uses. She noted that Penske trucks are well maintained, 48
both mechanically and in appearance, and that other than one or two smaller trucks parked 49
south of the building, all others would be parked to the rear of the lot. 50
Mr. Lambertson thanked Ms. Brown for her comments and opened the hearing to public 51
comment. With there being none, he closed that portion of the hearing and opened discussion 52
to the Board. Mr. Lambertson asked what the current business was, to which Ms. Brown 53
replied minor repair and service, and detailing. 54
Building Official Michael Griffin asked if Ms. Brown could provide clarification on her plan, 55
stating that he believed all detailing should be within an enclosed building or at the rear of the 56
property and behind some sort of opaque privacy fence. Ms. Brown reviewed the submitted 57
sketch, noting that detailing activities are currently located in the front (northeast) corner of 58
the property, adding that she was not committed to the site plan as submitted, but was flexible 59
and intended to fully comply with whatever needed to be done. 60
Mr. Griffin then referred to an area on the site plan designated for five used car sales, and said 61
this should be the maximum number allowed. Ms. Brown replied that there would probably 62
be only two to three at any given time, due to her desire to keep overhead low, but there 63
might be times when four or five were available. 64
Mr. Griffin inquired about the area(s) designated for Penske truck parking, noting the 65
applicant showed three small trucks to be parked at the southeast of the building. He asked 66
about the size of those trucks, to which Ms. Brown responded they were 12’-16’, and she 67
planned to park one or two alongside the building to increase visibility so that patrons could 68
easily find the location for rental pick-ups and returns, but the remainder would be parked to 69
the rear of the lot. Mr. Griffin responded that he would agree to there being one small truck 70
parked in the front area adjacent to the building. 71
Mr. Lambertson suggested that the restrictions just stipulated by Mr. Griffin warranted 72
another solicitation of public comment, but with there being none, he once again returned the 73
discussion to the Board. 74
Mr. Burgess asked if Ms. Brown had an automotive sales license. Ms. Brown replied that she 75
had been studying for the required class and exam. However she said she had not yet 76
registered primarily because she is committed to operating her existing business at this 77
location, and she did not want to invest a great deal of money into something that would not 78
be approved. 79
Mr. Elmore noted the on-site billboard and asked if the applicant received income from 80
leasing the billboard, and Ms. Brown replied that the owner, Ray Corbin, did. Mr. Elmore 81
then inquired about on-site improvements, and Ms. Brown explained that she had done some 82
Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 8
planting, both in ground and in moveable pots, and that she plans to put in a groundcover 83
along the street-side boundaries, such as a low-lying lantana. Mr. Elmore recommended a 84
low shrub that would better define the edge, and he suggested display of vehicles for sale in 85
the northeast corner, nearest the intersection of Mayport Road and West 10th Street, would 86
result in the best visibility. 87
Mr. Parkes said that he supported sprucing up the property, but asked if it was reasonable to 88
come up with a guideline applicable to just one merchant when the City is about to undertake 89
a review of uses which would include development standards particular to a use. Mr. Burgess 90
agreed, noting the applicant would likely have to come into compliance with a new set of 91
guidelines or regulations in a year. Mr. Parkes remarked it would be better to make 92
suggestions as to improvements, but make compliance contingent upon the outcome of the 93
impending use review. 94
Mr. Stratton asked for clarification as to the impact the automotive sales moratorium enacted 95
on March 12th would have on this application. Ms. Hall responded that the moratorium 96
resolution contained specific language that exempted any application that was already in-97
process, and Ms. Brown’s application pre-dated the moratorium by more than one month, and 98
would have been considered at the February meeting of the Community Development Board, 99
but it was cancelled due to lack of quorum. Mr. Lambertson called for a motion regarding the 100
request for automotive leasing. 101
MOTION: Mr. Burgess moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval 102
of the request for a use-by-exception to allow the operation of an automotive leasing 103
establishment as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development 104
Regulations, within the Commercial General zoning district on a property located at 980 105
Mayport Road, and subject to the following conditions: (#1) No more than one (1) small 106
Penske truck shall be parked to the south-southeast of the existing building, being the front of 107
the lot facing Mayport Road, while all others are to be parked towards the rear of the lot. (#2) 108
Detailing activities shall be located to the rear of the lot. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. 109
Mr. Lambertson asked if Mr. Burgess and Mr. Hansen had intended to include the 110
landscaping and screening conditions as discussed as, and Mr. Burgess stated that he had 111
purposely excluded those conditions from this motion, and Mr. Hansen concurred. With there 112
being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 113
Mr. Lambertson then called for a motion regarding the request for automotive sales. 114
MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval 115
of the request for a use-by-exception to allow the operation of a used automotive sales 116
establishment as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development 117
Regulations, within the Commercial General zoning district on a property located at 980 118
Mayport Road, and subject to the site plan, as discussed and verbally agreed to by the 119
applicant, and the following conditions: (#1) The number of used automobiles maintained 120
on-site for sale shall be limited to a maximum of five (5); (#2) Used automobiles maintained 121
on-site for sale shall be parked / displayed in the northeast corner of the property, nearest the 122
intersection of Mayport Road and West 10th Street; (#3) Customer parking shall be located 123
along the south property line, to the east of the existing building; (#4) Detailing activities 124
shall be located to the rear of the lot. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. There was discussion 125
as to whether or not landscaping requirements should be specified, and again finding that this 126
issue was up for address by the City Commission, and any additional requirements not 127
already specified could be deemed as arbitrarily applied to the applicant, it was the consensus 128
Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 8
of the Board to not included specific landscape requirements as a condition of this 129
recommendation. Rather, as stated by Mr. Elmore, Board members agreed that whatever 130
development and design guidelines were adopted by the Commission in the near future would 131
be applicable to all merchants along Mayport Corridor, and all would have to demonstrate 132
compliance within a given length of time. With there being no further discussion, the motion 133
carried unanimously, 7-0. 134
B. ZVAR -12-00100010 135
APPLICANT: Franklin for Harkleroad 136
ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue 137
REQUEST: Request for (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d to allow a single 138
detached accessory structure of approximately 872 square feet in lieu 139
of the 600 square-foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24-140
151(b)(1)d&e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the 141
southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached 142
garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such 143
portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and, (3) variance 144
from Section 24-151(b)(1)d&e to reduce the required minimum rear 145
yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure from 146
ten (10) feet to four and seven-tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be 147
limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage 148
(ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor, all within 149
the Residential, Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district on a property 150
located at 2019 Beach Avenue . 151
Mr. Lambertson disclosed that Mr. Tim Franklin, who would be representing Mr. Harkleroad 152
in this matter, has done work in the past, and is currently doing work for Mr. Lambertson. 153
Also, Mr. Lambertson said he did receive a call from Mr. Franklin to discuss the prior 154
variance application(s) of Mr. Harkleroad. Mr. Lambertson stated that he has no financial 155
interest in the Harkleroad request, but he requested the opinion of City Attorney Alan Jensen 156
regarding his need to recuse himself. Mr. Jensen said there was no need to do so. 157
Ms. Hall provided a summary of the events leading up to this variance request, and then 158
described the proposed actions of the applicant as follows: (1) The connection that had been 159
made between the original primary structure and the original one-story, two-car garage would 160
be removed, and the area that formerly served as a breezeway between the two would be 161
restored. This would effectively return the primary structure to compliance with required rear 162
yard setbacks; (2) The original one-story, two-car garage which had been re-oriented from a 163
southern entry to a western entry, and increased from a one-story structure to a two-story 164
structure would remain as currently constructed, minus the connection to the principal 165
structure. As constructed, the southwest corner of this structure is four and seven-tenths (4.7) 166
feet from the rear property line, and thus requires a variance of five and three-tenths (5.3) feet 167
from the required rear yard setback for a detached accessory structure limited to twenty-five 168
(25) feet in height; (3) The new two-story, one-car garage constructed to the south of the 169
original garage would remain, but be reduced to one-story. As constructed, the southwest 170
corner of this structure is three and one-tenth (3.1) feet from the rear property line, and thus 171
requires a variance of one and nine-tenths (1.9) feet from the required rear yard setback for a 172
detached accessory structure limited to fifteen (15) feet in height; and, (4) The two garage 173
structures would be a connected on the lower level, making them into a single detached 174
accessory with a combined area of approximately eight hundred seventy-two (872) square 175
feet, in excess of six hundred (600) square-foot maximum footprint allowed for a single 176
Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 8
detached accessory structure, and thus requiring a variance of two-hundred seventy-two (272) 177
square feet. Ms. Hall further explained that the previous variances requested by the 178
Harkleroads were specific to required rear yard setbacks of the principal structure, whereas 179
this request was specific to the required rear yard setbacks of the detached accessory 180
structure(s), and thus this application was substantially different, and clearly met the 181
requirements for hearing by the Board. 182
Tim Franklin, attorney with the Law Office of Daniel M Copeland, addressed the Board on 183
behalf of the Harkleroads, reiterating this was a new hearing for a new, much less intensive 184
request based upon the removal of the connection between the principal and accessory 185
structures, and revision of the roof line with the removal of the second story of the one-car 186
garage. Mr. Franklin emphasized the minimal relief requested compared to the degree of 187
hardship suffered by his clients, as he presented the Board with a diagram showing the 188
intersection of the required rear yard setback lines applicable to each portion of the accessory 189
structure(s), and noted that if each portion of the accessory was treated individually, then 190
approximately eighty-five (85) percent of the two-car garage, and ninety-five (95) percent of 191
the one-car garage would be in compliance. 192
Mr. Franklin then addressed the nature of the hardship. While the narrative submitted in 193
support of this request had claimed Section 24-64(d)(2) – “surrounding conditions or 194
circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in 195
the area” – and Section 24-64(d)(3) – “exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable 196
use of the property as compared to other properties in the area”, Mr. Franklin acknowledged 197
staff’s response that the principal structure and detached accessory structure, as they existed 198
prior to purchase by the Harkleroads, were comparable in size and utilization to others in the 199
vicinity, and therefore there was a record of “reasonable use” of the property. He then 200
pointed out that staff did recognize Section 24-64(d)(4) – “onerous effect of regulations 201
enacted after platting or after development of property or after construction of improvements 202
of property” – as possibly being a valid justification of the requested variance(s), though not 203
for the same reasons as put forth in the application. While Mr. Franklin had pointed to the 204
imposition of the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), which essentially 205
pushes all construction westward on oceanfront lots, and the irregularity of Beach Avenue, 206
which was originally platted as a narrow alley, he noted that staff had proposed that it was the 207
onerous effect of the required rear yard setbacks that had become applicable to the detached 208
accessory structure(s) only upon the identification of the survey error, and after the 209
construction of the improvements was well underway that might justify approval of this 210
variance request. Either way, he said the survey error exacerbated existing parameters. 211
Mr. Franklin contended that he did not see the granting of this request as precedent-setting, 212
due to the unique set of circumstances. He also clarified that while staff had cited sections of 213
code regarding the Community Development Board and the Building Official’s ability to 214
revoke development orders and building permits, this was merely explanatory and not a 215
statement of malfeasance on the part of the Harkleroads. He continued, explaining that the 216
resultant hardship was not self-created, but self-financed. The Harkleroads had not taken 217
intentional reckless action, subsequently asking for forgiveness rather than permission, but 218
instead had been the victims of an erroneous survey. In response to calls to pursue a lawsuit 219
against the surveyor, he said there is a world of difference between filing a suit and collecting 220
on it. The surveyor must be insured, and the insurer must be solvent, and in the interim, the 221
surveyor could fold and dissolve. On the other hand, though, the authority of this Board to 222
grant a variance is the last stop-gap measure to determine whether regulations are preventing 223
the applicants from legitimately enjoying their property. With this request, the Harkleroads 224
Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 6 of 8
offer a compromise, and reiterate the City was just as guilty of relying upon the erroneous 225
survey in the prior issuance of building permits and a variance. 226
Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment. 227
Kathleen Russell (2117 Beach Avenue) spoke in objection to the requested variance, stating 228
that the applicant should look to the surveyor for remedy rather than seeking concessions 229
from the City. She noted the applicant had made a substantial investment in a property that 230
already consisted of ample facilities, and therefore neither Section 24-64(d)(3) or (4) were 231
applicable. She stated that she felt the applicants’ hardship was self-created in that it was 232
their duty to perform due-diligence, and upon signing the applications for both building 233
permits and variances, the applicant was certifying that all information submitted was correct 234
and accurate, thereby releasing the City from any responsibility. She concluded by stating 235
that the granting of this variance would have material adverse impacts on the surrounding 236
properties and sends a clear message that it is alright to circumvent local regulations, and ask 237
for forgiveness if caught. Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Russell where she lived in relation to 238
the subject property, and she said that she lived to the north, at the end of Beach Avenue. 239
Jessalyn Dattilo (1983 Beach Avenue) said that she had been a resident of the area for six 240
years, and she was aware that pedestrians and bicyclists are ever-present on Beach Avenue. 241
With the north side being four-to-five feet too close and the south side being two-to-three feet 242
too close the right-of-way, she was concerned over those pedestrians and bicyclists visibility 243
to vehicles exiting, especially from the south garage. 244
Rich Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) said he was the owner of the adjacent property directly to 245
the north of the Harkleroads and he concurred with the statement by Ms. Russell and objected 246
to all variances being considered. He expressed frustration with staff’s decision to allow the 247
Harkleroads to apply for a new variance, saying that this was essentially the same request as 248
previously submitted. He said the application conveniently omitted the definition of 249
“reasonable use” and asserted the “exceptional circumstances” claimed by the applicant arose 250
out of the unlawful nature of the project. He reiterated the point made by Ms. Russell 251
regarding certification by signature as to validity of application submittals, and added that the 252
granting of a permit does not grant permission to violate the law. He said he felt the behavior 253
of the applicants and their contracted agents indicated this was a self-created hardship, and 254
that the alternatives put forth by staff were mutually exclusive; therefore the variance should 255
be denied. 256
Ms. Hall directed Board members attention to a letter of objective received via email from 257
Heath Aldridge who is the owner of the vacant parcel to the west, across Beach Avenue, from 258
the subject property. Ms. Hall noted that Ms. Aldridge had requested that her letter be read 259
aloud at the meeting, so it was. After hearing Ms. Aldridge’s words of dissent, no other 260
speakers came forth so Mr. Lambertson closed the public comment portion of the hearing and 261
turned the floor over to Mr. Franklin for rebuttal. 262
Mr. Franklin explained that Mr. Harkleroad did express desire to seek compensation from the 263
surveying company, but he had been advised to try to resolve the matter of compliance with 264
the local regulations first and determine the total amount of damage that had been done. He 265
also took issue with surrounding property owners who had put forth some sort of conspiracy 266
theory and reminded everyone that such was not to be considered by this Board. He restated 267
that Mr. Harkleroad had relied upon the professional status of the survey, and had had no 268
reason to question its validity. Rather, the Harkleroads now stand before this Board because 269
Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 7 of 8
of multiple circumstances that specifically apply to and impact the Harkleroad property as a 270
result of that erroneous survey. 271
Mr. Lambertson opened the discussion to the Board. Mr. Burgess asked Mr. Franklin, 272
looking at Section 24-64(d)(3)-(4), what differentiated this property from others in the 273
vicinity. Mr. Franklin replied that it was not just the survey error, but the error combined with 274
the fact that this is an oceanfront lot platted long before enactment of the Florida Department 275
of Environmental Protection rules, long before the establishment of the CCCL which imposes 276
additional regulations on oceanfront lots, as well as angle of the road and orientation of the 277
lot – all these things together. Mr. Burgess said that looking at other oceanfront lots in the 278
area, he did not see how this lot was impacted any differently. Mr. Franklin conceded there 279
was no particular characteristic of the Harkleroad property that was exclusive to it alone. 280
Paraphrasing Aristotle, Mr. Elmore said that law is reason without emotion, and that it is the 281
duty of this Board to uphold and defend the Code as it is currently written. He continued, 282
saying that while he realized the survey error was a tragic mistake and he felt the design of 283
the project was consistent with the character of Beach Avenue, he was inclined to deny this 284
request because to grant it would open a door, and he found no justification to do so. 285
Mr. Stratton agreed, saying that he too feared opening Pandora ’s Box, and while he saw this 286
as a very unfortunate situation especially given his stance as a property rights advocate, it was 287
not within the authority of this Board, but a matter for the City Commission to implement 288
changes to the zoning regulations. Ms. Paul concurred with the statements of Mr. Elmore and 289
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Parkes agreed, though he added that it was difficult to turn the request 290
down because he viewed the design as good and compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. 291
Hansen echoed the sentiments of other Board members, but emphasized that the Board was 292
not being cold-hearted, but had granted leeway in the past, but the circumstances kept 293
mounting, to the point that this was beyond the authority of the Board to approve. 294
Mr. Parkes asked if the applicant could appeal the Board’s decision to the City Commission, 295
to which staff replied any adversely affected party would have a thirty (30) day window of 296
opportunity to submit a request to appeal this Board’s decision. 297
Mr. Lambertson said that he agreed with much that had been said, but he explained that 298
having built many homes on fifty (50) foot-wide lots similar to the subject property, it is the 299
integrity of the survey that serves as the foundation of any project. He noted that he had used 300
Mr. Boatwright for twelve years, and due to Mr. Boatwright’s reputation, he generally pays 301
for a new Boatwright survey if he receives something from any other surveyor. Beyond that, 302
he also makes it a practice to stake out his building envelope and have a foundation survey 303
done before pouring commences. He noted this is an added expense, but that it can also serve 304
as a system of checks and balances to avoid just such an unfortunate situation as the 305
applicants now find themselves. Mr. Lambertson then called for a motion. 306
MOTION: Kelly Elmore moved that the Board deny ZVAR-12-00100010, request for (1) 307
variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of 308
approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square-foot maximum; (2) variance from 309
Section 24-151(b)(1)d&e, to reduce the minimum required rear yard setback for the southern 310
portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three 311
and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) 312
variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d&e to reduce the minimum required rear yard setback for 313
the northern portion of the accessory structure from ten (10) feet to four and seven-tenths 314
Draft Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 8 of 8
(4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached 315
garage on the ground floor with guest quarters above on the second floor, all within the 316
Residential Single-Family (RS-2) zoning district on a property at 2019 Beach Avenue, finding 317
that there are neither exceptional circumstances or surrounding conditions preventing the 318
reasonable use of the property as compared with other properties in the area, nor has there 319
been an onerous effect of regulations enacted after the construction of improvements upon the 320
property. Jason Burgess seconded the motion and carried unanimously, 7-0. 321
Mr. Harkleroad thanked the Board and staff for the extensive amount of time and energy they 322
had devoted to this request. 323
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. 324
A. Beach Avenue Overlay Report 325
Ms. Hall reported that the direction has been given to staff for the Board to commence review 326
of the Beach Avenue zoning to identify some of the circumstances and conditions particular 327
to this area that might warrant a zoning overlay, and formulate recommendations of how to 328
best address these issues. She noted there is no stringent timeline in place and that the 329
Commission already has a number of issues before it, so it would most likely be mid-to-late 330
summer before a status report would be expected. Several Board members inquired about the 331
possibility of having workshops, and Ms Hall indicated this item would be regularly placed 332
on the agenda, and during the late spring / early summer months when often there is no 333
business on the agenda, the Board might consider scheduling a workshop in place of the 334
business meeting. 335
B. Non-Residential Uses Report 336
Ms. Hall reported that direction has been given to staff to begin reviewing non-residential 337
uses, both permitted by-right and by-exception, and especially those applicable to the 338
Mayport Corridor, to identify needed revisions to the land development regulations. She 339
noted that the City Commission at its March 12th meeting had passed a resolution enacting a 340
one-year moratorium on the granting of uses-by-exception for used automobile sales, and 341
explained that the Commission seeks to identify and eliminate outdated elements of the code 342
that are inconsistent with the community’s vision for the commercial corridors and 343
incorporate modern sustainable provisions that allow for the development and 344
implementation of strategies that bolster economic vitality of the Mayport Corridor. She 345
noted that as the Redevelopment Coordinator, Ms. Cohn is currently focused on this task, and 346
once a draft of general recommendations has been reviewed and approved by the 347
Commission, a more detailed plan of action will likely be brought to the Board for review, 348
input, and finally, recommendation to the Commission. 349
7. ADJOURNMENT – 8:27 PM 350
351
_______________________________________ 352
Chris Lambertson, Chairman 353
354
355
_______________________________________ 356
Attest 357
Community Development Staff Report
April 17, 2012 Public Hearing
Use-by-Exception, UBE-12-00100012
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Susan Cohn
Redevelopment and Zoning Coordinator
DATE: April 3, 2012
APPLICANT: Alice Reeves
975 Wilderland Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32225
REQUEST: Request for a use-by-exception to operate a beauty salon establishment, as is
consistent with Section 24-109(d)(4) of the Land Development Regulations,
within the Commercial, Professional Office (CPO) Zoning District on a
property located at 90 South Forrestal Circle.
STAFF COMMENTS The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Mayport Road and South Forrestal Circle and is approximately 0.2 acres, or about 8,712 square feet in total lot area, comprised of one hundred (100) feet of frontage along Mayport Road and eighty-six (86) feet of frontage on South Forrestal Circle. The property is presently designated as Residential, Low Density (RL) according to the Future Land Use Map of the adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Series, and it is zoned Commercial, Professional Office (CPO) according to the official Zoning Map. Surrounding properties are also zoned CPO, with the surrounding parcels consisting of single-family dwelling units. The applicant is seeking the use-by-exception in order to open a small-scale beauty salon, located within the existing residential structure. Low intensity service establishments such as barber or beauty shops are listed as permissible uses-by-exception, according to Section 24-109(d)(4), so long as found to be consistent with the commercial intensity, and compatible with other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity. According to Duval County Property Appraiser data, the subject property was constructed as a single-family residence in 1961 and has been used solely for this use since that time.
Recommendation and Approval of a Use-by-Exception, per Section 24-63:
Page 2 of 4
APRIL 17, 2012 REGULAR MEETING
1
UBE – 12 - 00100012
90 South Forrestal Circle
STREET MAP VIEW
AERIAL VIEW
Accessed via Bing Maps on Apr 4, 2012
2
UBE – 12 - 00100012
90 South Forrestal Circle
VIEW FROM SOUTH FORRESTAL CIRCLE
VIEW FROM MAYPORT ROAD
Accessed via Google Earth on Apr 4, 2012