Exh 8CL• - /
~c
~.~0•99
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Application for Use-by-Exception for a boat trailer sales and repair
business at 1860 Mayport Road.
SUBMITTED BY: George Worley II, Community Development Director ~ ~~
DATE: May 4, 19,99
BACKGROUND:
The applicant desires to operate a boat trailer sales and service business at 1860 Mayport
Road. The site was formerly a used automobile sales lot. The applicant proposed 20 trailers for
sale and up to 20 under repair at any one time. The property is zoned CG which allows new and
used vehicle sales and service by exception. Staffexpressed a concern about the number of
trailers to be kept on-site because they may be stacked and displayed in a larger number than
automobiles could be.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Board reviewed the proposal and recommends approval of
the Use-by-Exception, but limiting the maximum number of trailers for sale or repair to 30 and
providing that the exception be granted to the applicant only and at this location only.
ATTACHMENTS:
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.
'Please Type or Print in Ink App11c~~Fe~
i ~~~
APPLICATION FUR "USE BY EXCEPTION" City uf1AR 2 g ~g99 .
Quiidi~E Atlantic Qeacil
l; and ?onia~
Date Filedt_M11RCH 29t_1999_
Name and Address of Owner or Tenant in Possession of Premisecss
_____ ______ Phone
~ RANDx_W~LSO~1---------------
1860 MAYPORT ROAD Norks 904-246-2627
---------------------------------- -------------------------
- ATLANTIC_DEACH, FLORIDA 32233 }tomes 904-645-6091
Street address and legal description pf the premises ae to which the •Uae
by Exception' is requeetedt
1860 MAYPORT ROAD, ATLANTIC BEACEi, FLORIDA 32266; 17-2S-29E
PT GOVT LOT 3 RECD O/R BK 5940-1193
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A description of ttse "Use by Exception" desired, xt~ich shall specifically
and particularly describe tTse type, character and extent of the proposed
"Use by Exception"s
FOR NErI AND USED DOAT TRAILER SALES AND SERVICE
Specific reasons xlsy the eppliaant feels the request should be• granted:
TO E3E'I'TER SERVE THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND BUSINESSES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoning ~ae if iaations_COMMERCIAL_
. ~•./. G _ ___ ____ ____ ____
Signature of applicant/applicant's
authorized agent or attorney. IS
agent or attorney, include letter
Srorn applicant to tTsat effeot.
Signature of oxner of t-e property.
Applice on cannot be processed
without oxnere signature.
!, ~ .
Applicants Do not •f ill-in beyond this point. }lowever, be ps•epared to
respond to the folloxing items '
.• . ~ MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY ~F;
LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 3, AS SHOWN ON BUT NOT INCLUDED IN DONNER'S REPEAT, AS RECORDED
• IN PLAT BOOK 19, PAGE 16 OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF OUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA;
TOGETHER WITH THE SOUTHERLY 115.00 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 3 OF SAID DONNER'S REPEAT.
~se•
V
v
v
0
a
.~
~°
4
n1~
~J
~~
I ->, ~ '
I ~ J I
~ ti I
-,. • ~
v~
h~
~ ~ v
N ~ ~
a I
I 00
~
~a ~ ~
C
~ ` I
(~.o
I
• •4~.~
~
L
•. J; ~ •
.
~
4' .
u• • ~ j
. •
~o ~ ,• • V.
I
•
• `1
~ W
•~
•::
`~ ,
• 11
e
~~ ~ ~Q
C
o~•• ~
C
V.
r2l' i •. • ~ ~•r iy 22.x' i
I ~ ~ 4... ~' 4J i~ i..!
I
MAR ~ 2 1999
~^ cor/,
` a[OCK 3 City of Atlantic Bea
I Building and Zonin~
I
h __
(93.3T-~~-- O
I
I Q
N LOT 2, 6000K3 /
~
~
I~ Q
c
~\Ph
Sef S/2"/ivnPicr(CBGG45~ ~ti~i
~
~7 ~~77 pp~/~~
~/ /.W 0
~ t 0
77.B) ..~ ~•
FenceAPG~ox.Cinr• ~ 0 ~
• .. ~O. 0
.. •~• •..• • ~• ~ •. .. v b:
:0 • • • 'T • •fRAME'Off/CE ~ • e`n'd ~ - -
• ,' N' /B60 ~ y Q'
• . • P z. ~ • • •, •• • • \ ~\
• ~_ry. `
• :: 1,,,. o, • : • : • • ro
.~ : •:T :. 4• • .• : .~~~'~
. • a . • •• ' • ~,~~• a
• • • • • , , • ~ ~ ~ti ~V
••/.f' `~
/.. Gi.90 -...- -- - ~'
set ad ick/pcb%L9
ROBE2T STREET
NOTES : 30•?/6NT-OF•H's2Y PLAT BOOK 19, PAGE 16 DOES NOT SHOW ANGLES OR BEARINGS.
THE BEARINGS USED ARE BASED ON FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
NO BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE BY PLAT, BUT THERE MAY BE TRANSPORTATION DATUM FOR MAYPORT ROAD USING A CHORD
RESTRICTION LINES OR EASEMENTS THAT AFFECT THIS PROPERTY BEARING OF N.09'I8'OS'E. ALONG A LINE CONNECTWG EXISTING
BY 20NING OR RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION AT THE POINT OF CURVATURE
COUNTY THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON 7HI5 SURVEY. AND POINT OF TANGENCY.
THIS PROPERTY LIES IN FLOOD 20NE "X" BY FLOOD MAPS
REVISED 4/17/1989, COMMUNRY PANEL N0.120075 0001 D.
®~ (~~®Q ~lL(~~~
~~ I! LL v L4~~
- LB 6645
16d!'l1U ~1®
INC.
CERTIFIED TO ; ,tA/~y,,q,~L Cp/y<..~Y
i_
PROFESS! NAL LAND SU VEYOR N0.1674 FLORIDA
H. BRUCE DURDEN, SR.
7 J03 SOUTH 7HIR0 STREET ~ DATE: JANUARY 6, 1999
JACKSONVfLLE BEACH, FLORIDA 32250 SCALE I"=3O'
(904) 249-7261 FAX (904) 241-1252
THIS MAP OF SURVEY IS NOT VALID UNLESS !)•• IS SIGNED AND
HAS THE ORlG/NAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORfOA LICENSED SURVEYOR.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY 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.
6 '
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 are anticipated, so
customer parking will be very limited. Using the commercial pazking standazd of one space per
each 300 square 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. V
Staff recommends approval of this Use-bv-Exception subject to the number of commercial
vehicles being limited to five, that at least six total pazkin~ spaces be provided on-site. that no
outside storage of materials be permitted. and that the exception be granted to the applicant only,
for 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.
Staff has 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
pazking as shown does not appear to be a problem.
~'
Staffrecommends approval ofthe 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 prepazation 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 parking and vehicular access.
Staffrecommends approval of this request subject 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 exception
~~under 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.
Staff recommends denial of the requested Use-bY Exception.
AGENDA ITEM: # 4. e. Application for Variance to construct a two
car garage encroaching the reaz 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 reaz property line. The applicant indicates a desire to construct an
azchitecturally 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 apparent 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 Boazd to encourage additions to nonconforming
structures to meet the required setback when possible. This proposal only partially meets they
required setback. Based upon past actions of the Boazd Staffrecommends 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 annroval.
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 squaze 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. Staff recommends denial of the Variance request.
~ MINUTES OF T~'E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
Apri120, 1999
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
PRESENT
Don Wolfson
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 Don 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 known as a Part of Government Lot
3, located at the comer 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 six spaces plus an overflow area which can accommodate four additional
spaces.
Mr. Worley explained that all setback, parking and landscape matters would be
(..1 covered under the building permit when issued for the construction.
~;~
~~~~~ f ~4. r ,
~~f~`
After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to recommend approval of the use-b -
~ y
exception following staff s recommendation that the number of commerdal vehicles be
limited to five with 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-exception 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 nesv
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 antidpated 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-
exception with no more than twenty trailers displayed on site for both sale and repair.
Mrs. Walker seconded the motion.
The dlairntan e~cpressed concern with safety regarding loading and unloading of
-the trailers at the site as well as entering and leaving the property by large delivery trucks
through residential property.
The applicant e~cplained 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 more 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. Pillmore
and Mrs. Wallcer and two nays from Mr. Waters and Mr. Wolfson.
III. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Dirk Mueggenburg to operate a
n wholesale teabag packaging business at property located at 1179 Atlantic Boulevard.
Dirk Mueggenburg introduced himself and told the board that he purchased the
~'~~ ~- Vic..
"~~,~-,:-~ ~T
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 ne~v
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~cpressed 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-
e~cception subject to the conditions that no retail sales be permitted and that the use-by-
e.~cception be granted to the applicant only and for this location only and Nirs. 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 e.~cplained 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 exception. He stated he
wanted to operate a recreation center tivith jazzercise classes.
Mr. Frohwein 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 RG1A districts are intended for the development of medium
density two-family residential areas.
The chairman agreed with the staff report that the requested use-by-exception 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.
~-{~ '
_~
t ~±±~~
,.
t;/ c. n,.
G! ^ ° '' `
a~
~'
f .~,
r~~o
~~
Mr. Mabry requested that Ius application be ~vithdra~vn and not subnutted 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 e~asting nonconforming
residence on the corner of Camelia Street and West 14th Street.
Mr. Frohwein explained to the applicant that for the board to grant a variance
that it looks for the existence of a hardship that eeists with the land.
Mrs. Hurd introduced herself to the board and explained that she owns the
property which 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 was
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 nonconfornng and cannot be e~cpanded.
~I ~e explained further that Mrs. Hurd obtained a prior variance to construct an addition
to the existing nonconforming
Mr. Frohwein stated he tivould 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. Froh~vein 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 construct 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.
,~
ct ,cam 3 ..
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 explained 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) which 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 15 foot setback is applied to accessory
structures, principal buildings and fences in the past.
Mr. Worley e.plained 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 requirement in any ~vay 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 specific sections of the
code that follow 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.
~'
~~~
~~
The Chairman explained that a comer lot cannot be compared to an interior lot.
The Chairman read excerpts 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 derision 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 i~irs. Pillmore
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 er~cplained 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 her application be deferred
and the motion and second were withdrativn..
The Chairman directed staff to schedule a special meeting for Tuesday, Apri127,
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:
.~.
a..
~- ~~~
~' ATTEST: