Exh 8Au 1'~1
5-/0- 99
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
DATE:
BACKGROUND:
Application for Use-by-Exception for a Wholesale herbal tea and
vitamin business at 1179 Atlantic Boulevard.
George Worley II, Community Development Director ~ ~~
May 4, 1999
The applicant desires to operate a business that includes preparation ofproducts such as
tea bags and vitamin capsules for wholesale purposes. The proposed location is zoned CG which
allows limited wholesale businesses. The applicant noted on his application that he will have
delivery trafEc but no retail sales to the public. The location was formerly a contracting business.
There is adequate parking and vehicular access. The Board expressed concern about large
delivery vehicle entry from Atlantic Boulevard but no other viable alternative exists.
RECOMMENDATION:
t After discussion the Community Development Board recommended approval of the Use-
by-Exception subject to the conditions that no retails sales be permitted and that the exception be
granted to the applicant only and for this location only.
ATTACHIvIENTS:
1) Application for Use-by-Exception
,2) Staffreport to the Community Development Board
3) Draft minutes of the Community Development Board meeting
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ,_---
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Ploaee Type or Print in Ink App1i~~~1~.(jp~~
APPLICATION POR 'USE BY EXCEPTION" ~~..JJ
QpR - 2 1999
sate Filedr - City of Atlantic Beach
'~~~ -~s ------------ Building and zr~ning
Name and Address at Orner or Tenant in Possession of Promisees
~rRU_ Hy~=~C_C-Nduj2~____________ Phone
!38lZ 1oR7_u~f,~_ PDi_vT _ ~?Rwv~--- xorkt_Jdy_?ZO~~s'!______-_--
7ficu sv_ni v~'cc ~_,~,_t ~ _ 32ZZ ~ ---- xame=----- = ~ ---------------
Street eddroos and legsl dvscriptian pf the prerwieee ee to rhich the `Use
by Exception' issr requested:
- !~ ~g---~~-G~NTiG-- i3Gl/~ ~ -~L/d-~!i ~C__~~rdcfl~--F~-32233----
_ ~~ E~ _ ~on%s L1? uc 7 ~,~ ___d_.Fr i c~ _ t iv_ ~4 2 t fcvus~ _ ~3~lca;,~ c------
A deaaription of the 'Use by fixoeption• desired, rhich shall specifically
snd particularly deaoribe the type, ahareater and extent of the proposed
'Uev by Exception't
COt?PR~SSiN6''__7_~r~l~?S1___tiGCi~!C_ Cif S~LS_~_ ~iGt%,c!C__%_G'_/~8~65~-
~~ ~N~i~G_ tt Pac~c~~C __~ ~T~__,~Q,v~u h r=~z__ 5~~~~_ aa~~s~~N.~_----
~~ 7fc~s - -------------------------------------------------------------
Spvcifie rvasaonn rhy the applioant loels the rrquest should be granted:
. __ au s~ N ass -----------------------------------------------------------
Q__fl%6ffr~? __~,~Li U~d?Y__j ~Rrri~ _,f ~lr~~! _ ~OR_ N4lzh~L_Of=~iC_C_--
. --- h u S /N ~'SS ~__ 11/0_ ~~~Li c_ S.E2 UiC ~ ~ -----------------------------
a
Zoning lesaeiticstiont ~~~_Gd_nt!?:~~~/`6~L1~i6F/t
r - - 1~~uSTIt~T
. ~lfN t R~ ~ d~UlT 6lC l ;owncCe~`ro~,~ .
Sip u of p cent/appliesnt•e Signs e o f the property.
cut ed n or attorney. Ii Appli t n be processed
ago r a rn y. inaludo latter ritho t rner igneture.
Srow ^pplic t to that rffsot.
Applicants Do not'Sill-in beyond this point. Horrver, be prepared to
respond to the Solloring itomst
1
. ~
F2MDI!!Qr OF FAC?
~ ~~
~''\ r
1 i. In rwww and
q wgrwww to propwrty and. propowwd YES HO
atruaturww i^ adwgvatr. Tartiaular rwtwrwnaw iw
aadw to autasatiw and padwwtrian watrty and
convwniwncs, trattio ilor and aantral and aaawwa
in aaaw at aatastropha~ ___ ___
2. Ott-wtrwst parking and loading iw adwquatw.
Tsrtiaular attratioa fa paid to tha itraa in 1.
abavw and tAw waonosia, noiar, Qlarw and odor
w3twat^ ot• ttsw •pwoisl axowptioa on adjoining ~-
prapwrtiww and proprrtiww
grnwrally in thw
i
diatriot/ ~__ _-_
3. Laaationa of rrtuaw sad awrviaa arras arr
coapatibiw rids wurrouadinq popwrtiwa tad arw
warily aaowawiblr. ~ _~ ___,
4. Locationw, availability and aaapatibiiity of
utilitiww srw ^dwquatw. w_ ___
3. 7ypw, disrnaions and ol~assatrr of iarwwninq
and buttwring arr adwquatr. ..__ ___
6. Signs and propoawd ~xtwrior lighting, rith
rwtwrwnaw to plan and tsattio watwty, arw in
Aarnany and arw oo:patiblr rids othwr propwstirs
in thw distsiat. .~_ ___
7. Rwquirrd rardw sad othwr open wpaows srw
adwquatw. .__ .._-
e. Thw ttrw iw gwnwrally ooapatiblw rith ad~tawnt
propwrtiww sad olhwr propwrtr in tlsw diatriot. .,~ ___
• COMMUNITY D=Yt1.0TlJtS7' BOARD 1ttPORT AItD RCCCltMtItDAYZONB:
ACTZOIlB ~Y T1tt CITY CaMlIISiZONt •
~'
Apr-1:3-y9 U/:55A Gity ~
v+i +-i ~ ~~~ :.i. ~., -va-~u-.-__u ~o,~i ,
utrn 'r~~.CVVGtvOVrt~
' - n ~ ~
~
~
' ~~ ~ '~ HOQV~~Q~~~
• ...
. r
~0~ ]56.0'
...._ SE9bl so
s3
l
.
1 ~c~eobr•t•r !N'~Dt
~-TT- G'~aRG~ _.._..
i
°'
I
~~
...1 DIn~Mu~rr,ert6urg
.,. , 13812 7cxn,ga Po1nr Drive ""' ~ '~
~y "
Jed4sanv,o~ Fi 32225-5~l21 USA ~~ ~• ,:. ~ .n.!
N .
.,
TQ/FAXt7 (9Q4) 220-9851
1
. j
1
Qf N
~wt~ SrM+
LL
' v(~.~
'
.~ Atl•t It~r+f.
~
rl 1
,.. ~ I o d
f .....~ .~.v
' I H... •.« . ~ 9 .4w •ts.
Q~ 1
t
0 ~
Q
~ I ~ i :'
.....
ro-~ ».: ~ 0 6'
7 VJN
-.r ~ n' +s
.. .N ..
`.•
P.Ol
r'nart 01
EXHIBIT C
a x8
•6
k -9n
U 9
O
8
~ t~•o
[ Z ~i
r+ ... ~ r
+ `!
n 8 • f~ ---
$:
•r
o !J o
~I .. 9 Y
(! r U
e ~~ ~b
~t •J
u V ~ 0v
• ~b ~
O..w. -
.w1(1
I l.KI S,po.
V! 1 ~!
0
C.ln4 . t.l w'~'~T
I
I ~i ~'
~ a+e
~~
fV f~.
N • -'
r ~ .o
~.+~ !
iw irr .w~• -
..~, •~ c+
pti~.+ ne
~~
c rr
d
o
~•+.
.'L'~
\,
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COl~~V1[.TNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: Apri120, 1999
AGENDA ITEM: # 4. a. Application for Use-by-Exception to operate a
Painting Contractor business in the Commercial
General zoning district.
This is a request for an exception to allow the applicant to operate a painting contractor
business. The applicant will construct a building to house this business on the existing vacant lot.
• This is a contracting business which is listed under Uses-by-Exception in the CG district. The
applicant proposes to store 5 commercial vehicles on-site. No retail sales aze anticipated, so
customer pazking will be very limited. Using the commercial parking standazd of one space per
each 300 squaze feet of gross floor area results in only five spaces required. The applicant
proposes six spaces plus an overflow area which can accommodate at least four additional spaces.
The drawing submitted by the applicant is a preliminary sketch Landscaping and exact parking
arrangement will be required for building permitting. The building, as shown, will comply with all
required setbacks for CG zoning.
Staff recommends approval of this Use-bv-Exception subiect to the number of commercial
vehicles being limited to five, that at least six total parking spaces be provided on-site, that no
outside storage of materials be permitted, and that the exception be eranted to the applicant only.
-fir this location only.
AGENDA ITEM: # 4. b. Application for Use-by-Exception to operate a
used boat trailer sales and service business on
property zoned Commercial General at 1860
Mayport Road.
The applicant desires to operate a boat trailer sales and service business at this location. The
site was formerly a used automobile sales lot. The applicant has not specified the number of trailers
to be kept on hand, nor the number of trailers expected to be under repair at one time. The
property is zoned CG which allows new and used vehicle sales as an exception.
Staffhas a concern about the number of trailers to be kept on-site because they maybe
stacked and displayed in a higher number than automobiles can be. Staffrecommends limiting the
maximum number of trailers for sale to twenty. Similarly, limiting the number of trailers under
repair to the maximum that can be placed inside of the building seems prudent as well. Customer
parking as shown does not appear to be a problem.
Staff recommends approval of the request with the stipulations that not more than twenty
trailers be displayed for sale that all trailers under repair be stored inside of the building. and that
the Use-bv-Exception be granted to the applicant only. for this location only.
AGENDA ITEM: ~ 4. c. Application for Use-by-Exception to operate a
tea bag packaging business on property zoned
Commercial General at 1179 Atlantic Blvd.
The applicant desires to operate a business that includes preparation of products such as tea
bags and vitamin capsules for wholesale purposes. The proposed location is zoned CG which
allows limited wholesale businesses. The applicant notes on his application that he will have
delivery traffic but no retail sales to the public. The location was formerly a contracting business.
There is adequate pazking and vehiculaz access.
Staff recommends approval of this request subiect to the conditions that no retail sales be
permitted and that the exception be granted to the applicant only. for this location only.
AGENDA ITEM: # 4. d. Application for Use-by-Exception to operate a
fitness center business on property zoned RG-
1,Residential General.
The applicant desires to construct a building to be used as a fitness center on an existing
vacant lot in the RG-1 district. The applicant believes that this is a use permitted by exceptiony
ai~der 24-106 (c)(3) "Public and private recreation facilities". The term is not defined in the code
and is not used elsewhere in the chapter. Each of the residential districts contain this exception.
The proposed use will be located well within an existing residential neighborhood.
Staffhas reviewed this request and has not found clear direction within the code to address
this proposal. The use seems to be a commercial use and one requiring a commercial building. The
term "facilities" is not defined to and in general usage can mean a building as well as non-habitable
structures. It is staffs belief that the intent of this reference was to permit parks and playgrounds
open to the public rather than commercial business uses. Based upon this interpretation of intent.
Staffrecommends denial ofthe requested Use-bv-Exception.
AGENDA ITEM: # 4. e. Application for Variance to construct a two
car garage encroaching the rear setback line
on property zoned RG-1 at 159 Ocean Blvd.
~ The applicant owns an existing residence on a through lot between Beach Avenue and
Ocean Boulevazd. Per Section 24-84(b) the front yard is on Ocean Boulevazd. The building
currently conforms to all required setbacks. The applicant proposes to construct an eight foot
addition onto the rear and approximately ten feet onto the south side of the existing garage which is
currently 21 feet from the rear property line. The applicant indicates a desire to construct an
architecturally pleasing addition. They also indicate that it is possible to construct the desired
addition without encroaching the setback.
Based upon the fact that obvious alternatives exist which do not encroach the setback and
that there is no agnazent hardship in constructing a conforming addition. Staffrecommends denial
of this request.
AGENDA ITEM: # 4. f. Application for Variance to construct a
covered patio room onto an existing
nonconforming residence at 420 West 14th
Street, zoned RS-2.
The applicant proposes to construct an addition onto her existing nonconforming residence
on the corner of Camelia Street and West 14th Street. The existing building is nonconforming as to
the front (West 14th Street) and east side (Camelia) setback requirements. The proposed addition
is to be a glassed-in room on the south side of the existing building. The applicant obtained a
Variance in the past to construct the existing addition. The proposed addition is partially stepped
back to meet the minimum setback of 15 feet required.
It has been the majority opinion of the Board to encourage additions to nonconforming
structures to meet the required setback when possible. This proposal only partially meets the
required setback. Based upon past actions of the Boazd Staff recommends denial of the proposed
addition as indicated on the site plan. If the proposed addition were to be setback its full width to
meet the required setback. Staffwould recommend approval.
AGENDA ITEM: # 4. g. Application for Variance to construct a six
foot fence within the fifteen foot side setback
at 625 East Coast Drive.
The applicants own a residence on the corner of East Coast Drive and Sixth Street. They
desire to construct a six foot high fence on the Sixth Street side to the property line. This lot is
exactly square rendering a determination of front and side under the Section 24-17 Definition of
Lot, Corner impossible. Based upon the mailing address and building facing, Staffhas determined
that East Coast Drive is the front. The proposed fence is to be of stockade and lattice construction.
The applicants have provided considerable information supporting their desire for the fence at the
six foot height.
Staffhas discussed with the applicants alternatives including landscaping and a four foot
fence to alleviate their security concerns. It is staffs belief that such alternatives should be
thoroughly explored before a Variance is granted for a six foot fence. Based upon the possibility of
~~ viable alternative options. Staffrecommends denial ofthe Variance request.
~ MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITX~ DEVELOPMENT BOARD
OF THE CITY OFA?'LAIVTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
Apri120, 1999
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
`f`~~ .
PRESEN I' Don Wolfson ~ ~C'~ Y
Robert Frohwein
Mary Walker ,~
Pat Pillmore ~^'~
Dezmond Waters
AND George Worley, II, CD Director
Alan Jensen, Esquire
Pat Hams, Recording Secretary
ABSENT:
Buzzy Grunthal
Sharette Simpkins
(~ Chairman loon Wolfson called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
minutes from the meeting of March 16, 1999. Some additions and corrections were
made to the minutes and they will be placed on the agenda for approval at the ne.~ct
regular meeting.
The Chairman notified the board that Item 4(e) on the agenda has been
postponed until the next meeting.
I. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by David Rockwood to construct
and operate a painting contractor office at property lrnown as a Part of Government Lot
3, located at the corner of Mayport Road and Edgar Street (vacant lot).
Mr. Rockwood introduced himself to the board and stated that he desired to
purchase the property and construct a building to operate his contracting business from.
He stated there would be no outside storage except for his five commercial trucks. He
said he proposes sic spaces plus an overflow area which can accommodate four additional
spaces.
Mr. Worley explained that all setback, parking and landscape matters would be
covered under the building permit when issued for the constriction.
+~ r~ j
f~ `~"
~~ r~
~~~
After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to recommend approval of the use-by- ,.
exception following staff's recommendation that the number of commerdal vehicles be
limited to five tivith eight parking spaces, no outside storage of paints, chemicals or other
hazardous material and Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion for discussion purposes.
After further discussion, Mr. Waters amended his motion to recommend approval
of the use-by-e~cception as requested solely to the applicant for this location only, subject
to the number of commercial vehides being limited to five, and with ten parking spaces
being provided. Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
II. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Randy Wilson to operate a netiv
and used boat trailer sales and service business at property located at 1860 Mayport
Road.
Randy Wilson introduced himself and stated he desires to operate a boat trailer
sales and service business at the location. He stated that the majority of the service to
the trailers will be done on the inside of the building and anticipated approximately 20
new trailers and 20 trailers for service would be located on site.
After discussion, Mrs. Pillmore moved to recommend approval of the use-by-
e~cception with no more than twenty trailers displayed on site for both sale and repair.
Dirs. Walker seconded the motion.
The chairman expressed concern with safety regarding loading and unloading of
~~he trailers at the site as well as entering and leaving the property by large delivery trucks
through residential property.
The applicant explained that the trucks being used were flatbed trucks and not
semi rigs and he could have them e~dt on Mayport Road.
Mr. Frohwein suggested that the applicant be allowed 30 total trailers on site.
After further discussion, Mrs. Pillmore amended her motion to recommend
approval of the request with no amore than 30 new or used trailers on site and that the
use-by-exception be granted to the applicant only for this location only. Mrs. Walker
seconded the motion and it passed with a three ayes from Mr. Frohwein, Mrs. 1?illmore
and Nirs. Walker and two nays from Mr. Waters and Mr. Wolfson.
III. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Dirk Mueggenburg to operate a
' 'wholesale teabag packaging business at property located at 1179 Atlantic Boulevard.
Dirk Mueggenburg introduced himself and told the board that he purdmased the
.'
~ ~ ~~,~
building and desired to produce, develop, trade, store and manufacture health food ~,
products such as herbal teas and capsules and tablets. He stated that it is a brand new
business and he will have delivery traffic but no retail sales to the public.
Mr. Frohwein requested that the .applicant supply proof of ownership of the
property to the City. He e.Ypressed concern regarding delivery of products by the semi
trucks and their ingress and egress to the property.
After discussion, Mr. Frohwein moved to recommend approval of the use-by-
exception subject to the conditions that no retail sales be permitted and that the use•by-
exception begranted to the applicant only and for this location only and Dirs. Pillmore
seconded the motion.
After further discussion, the board voted unanimously to recommend approval of
the use-by-exception.
N. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Stephen Hale Mabry to operate
a fitness center to be constructed at property described as part of Government Lot 3 and
located on Dudley Street. (vacant lot)
~~ Steve Mabry introduced himself to the board and explained that he desired to
build a building to be used as a fitness center on an e.~dsting vacant lot in the RG 1
district. He stated he believes that this is a use permitted by e.XCeption. He stated he
wanted to operate a recreation center with jazzerase classes.
Mr. Froh~vein stated that in his opinion it is not the intent of the code to have
a commercial recreational facility as a use by exception in a residential zoning district.
He stated that RG1 and RGlA districts are intended for the development of medium
density two-family residential areas.
The rha;rman agreed with the staff report that the requested use-by-e.~cception is
not an acceptable use under the RG 1 district but that the intent in this section of the
code is for pools and clubhouses in private subdivisions and not a business being
conducted in a residential neighborhood.
After discussion, Mr. Froh~vein moved to recommend to the City Commission
that the use by exception be denied because commercial developments in residential
- districts does not follow the intent of the code. Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion
which unanimously passed.
The board directed staff to communicate to the City Commission that they do not
consider this use as acceptable under the RG 1 District.
~~ _` ~~
l 1
~~~ ~A!
~~
Mr. Mabry requested that his application be ~vithdra~m and not submitted to the
City Commission for action.
V. Application for Variance filed by Kevin W. Newsome to construct a covered
patio to an existing nonconforming residence owned by Mamie Hurd at property located
at 720 W. 14th Street.
Kevin Newsome introduced himself to the board as contractor for Mamie Hurd
and explained that he proposes to construct an addition onto her exxisting nonconfornng
residence on the corner of Camelia Street and West 14th Street.
Mr. Frohwein e~cplained to the applicant that for the board to grant a variance
that it looks for the existence of a hardship that e.~cists with the land.
Mrs. Hurd introduced herself to the board and explained that she owns the
property whidl indudes three lots. She desires the addition to accommodate her large
family and does not plan to ever sell the property.
Mr. Worley stated that this is an e~dsting nonconforming building which vas
constructed as far back as 1965 and probably before that. The structure was not
constructed to meet the current setback requirements on the front which is W. I4th
Street or the side on Camelia Street The applicant is proposing to put an addition onto
that building. He stated that the hardship that the board has found for additions like
this in the past is that the existing building is nonconforming and caruiot be e~cpanded.
ize explained further that Mrs. Hurd obtained a prior variance to construct an addition
to the existing nonconforming
Mr. Frohwein stated he would be in favor of granting the variance if the side yard
encroachment was not continued He stated he would like to see the 15 feet maintained
on the side yard with the improvements to be redesigned.
After discussion, Mr. Frohwein stated he would move to deny the variance due to
there being alternative methods for the construction unless the applicant amended her
application .
The applicant amended the application to constrict the addition and maintain the
15 feet side yard setback
Mr. Frohwein moved to approve the variance as amended provided it is
implemented within a period of one year. Mr. Waters seconded the motion and the
variance as amended was unanimously granted.
~~. ~ T ~-: tCryJ...
~~afi,~~. ~ a
~~Y 'j ~
.~ ,
,~ 'r~ a<
;•~ ,
VI. Application for Variance filed by Christine Lester to construct a siY foot _
fence that will encroach the setback requirements at property located at 625 East Coast
Drive.
Christine Lester introduced herself to the board and e~cplained that she desired to
construct a six foot fence on the Sixth Street side to the property line. She stated that
the fence would be 34.2 feet from the 4-way intersection so there is no question of
visibility. She stated that the fence is to be of stockade and lattice construction. She
stated she reviewed the question of intent in the code and feels that proposed
construction is within the spirit and the letter of the code. She stated she felt a variance
was not required in her interpretation of the code.
Mr. Worley stated that sections of the code in question should be Sections 24-157
and 24-17.
The members briefly reviewed the above sections and Mr. Wolfson stated that for
clarification the code should be 24-157(b) tivhich sets forth where the fence would be
allowed from the point of the right-of--way.
~ Mr. Worley stated that 24-157(b) addresses what is commonly called a sight
triangle. Section 24-157(a) addresses fence height in regard to location on the property,
specifically, in reference to a front property line but has in the past been interpreted that
the reference in 24-17 definition, lot, corner, the IS foot setback is applied to accessory
structures, principal buildings and fences in the past.
Mr. Worley e~cplained to the board that in the past there has been an
interpretation of the code that we have enforced for years that the imposed setback
requirement under the definition of lot, corner of 15 feet has applied to fences that
e.YCeed the 4 foot height limitation. He stated that the interpretation is based on the
fact that 4 foot or shorter fences have no setback rent in any way and fences over
4 feet in height have a setback restriction that is conforming to a building setback line.
He stated that the interpretation has been that since the word setback is used it has
applied to as an overlay of the setbacks that are established by specsfic sections of the
code that follrnv. The sections of the code that address each of the zoning districts have
a side yard setback requirement that are established in them. The greatest required
setback by those established standards is 10 feet to a side property line. The lot, corner
definition imposes a 15 foot setback which overlays the e~dsting requirements under the
code sections that follow. It is not the clearest way to do it and is without doubt not the
best way to impose regulations through definition rather than a specific section of the
code.
~~ ~ ~~
T'
~~
The Chairman explained that a comer lot cannot be compared to an interior lot.
The Chairman read e.YCerpts from the previous meeting in which the City
Attorney gave his interpretation of the code. He stated if the board takes action based
upon the opinion of counsel and the applicant feels that the action was illegal she can
appeal the decision to the City Commission.
The applicant stated that she originally wanted to install the 6 foot fence for
safety reasons with her young children.
After discussion, Mr. Frohwein moved to deny the variance and Mrs. F'illmore
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked staff if the board could hold a special meeting to specifically
address the sections of the code involved in this issue and suggested that the applicant
request a deferral until after such time as the review process and proposed amendment
to the code could be acted upon.
Mr. Worley suggested that the board call a workshop meeting the following
Tuesday for the specific purpose of reviewing a draft ordinance. He stated the board
could review the proposed ordinance and make a recommendation to the City
Commission for final adoption.
The Chairman stated that the proposed ordinance should clarify the intent of the
code. He explained to the applicant that if the board denies the variance request she
would be unable to return with the application for 12 months.
After further discussion, the applicant requested that hex application be deferred
and the motion and second were withdrawn..
The Chairman directed staff to schedule a special meeting for Tuesday, April 27,
1999 at 7:00 p.m. and publish the required notice. The board will discuss proposed
revisions to the zoning code, specifically, Section 24-157.
There being no further business to come before the board the meeting was
adjourned
SIGNED:
C=am
~ ~ , !,
~' ~ C~ , ~i
J
ATTEST: