Loading...
Exh 8A., 4~ ~ - ~`~" 9~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Application for Use-by-Exception to operate a parking lot, in conjunction with a nearby business, on property zoned CG, Commercial General. SUBMITTED BY: George Worley II, Community Development Director DATE: June 8, 1999 BACKGROUND: The applicant desires to construct and operate a parking lot to be used in conjunction with their existing business for the temporary parking of their vehicles. The applicants business involves modification of vans and busses to accommodate handicapped use. AUse-by-Exception was granted for the original location. Among the conditions placed at the time of the original exception was that not more than 20 vehicles be stored on-site. The applicants business has grown and they now desire additional parking. The applicant proposes to fence in the four lots to create two separate parking areas to accommodate up to 30 vehicles each. Section 24-162 provides the criteria for parking lots in all zoning districts. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Board reviewed this request and recommended approval of the Use-by-Exception subject to the conditions that all requirements of Section 24-162 be met, that the applicant comply with any applicable landscaping requirements under Section 24-177, 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 4) Section 24-162 . REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ,~ AGENDA ITEM NO. '' Please Type or Print in ZrcJc Application F'ee $IOQ.(lU ,ti ~r~ ~ ~ ~ }~~ APPLICATION FOI{ "l1SE IIY EXCEPTION" ~~ +y.r e.... 9 .1 1(.. ~ _ _ ~Y1 A'( S 1999 ~;~~ l~~- Date Filedr "_ ______ city of /~tlantic t3eac11 E3uilcling an~i Zonin~~ 1{ame and Address of Uxnerr or Tenant in Possession of Premisest i -~~~'l',,'<` _II ~-~>__ (C~~_ •J~n~.~n~~.. ( 1 Phone _L ~ ~ ~ ~', i- 1ti'1 ~~~ ~~iR••l cx• l " ~ Work: `~~u~~/ r~t~ ~ -~ ~' ~<- L i _ ~_ ' --`~ _ ~L X~-r L --- ~~~? =~ ~ --------- home r _ ~'~{~ t" "~ ..~ .~ Street adcireas and legal description pf the premises ere to xti.lcl~ ttie "Use by Exception" is requeatedr 63~-~. ~1•~ S~_c:~,}~ t-~• Luis -1-L2~~-'L~i------------------------ --------------------------------- A description of the "Use by Exception" desired, xhich shall E,pecifically and particularly describe tJre type, character and extent of the proRnaed "Use by Exception"t ----- ~ ~~~ 5 i ~~ t.~ ~ ~ n.;c ~ ) ~I (~ r. D ~:~Z '•7•~> / 1; 1 c.!r,- •S~~ r`c--1 `-~----------- ----------------------------------------------- 1=r. ~2 '~~i.: r' ~L.._<< c, r- ~ (%~ t'. ~c r~.t C, l ~_,~r Specific raaaana xhy the applicant feels the request should be granted: r ~i ~"~ -()or_(_.~C1S1~I~~1Gr•~?~_Sri~~^~ %~j~' ~cr?<:•_a_~~l~l~___`'_1r~~E`r ~-~~_W^~'-thSirc~~)_. - Wt tte'~ca^~~ be ~ti4,~,- 'tom ~f1G~e-ULS~~1-~•n~(X~Cr~i:~.. ~~_ I)~~l t~n~zn-l-z;~---- '~' ~`l)fC~'f L*~.r SQrx.~ Y~C,~ cQ.ec~ __- 2^ W~~~ \c,,nc~ ct~•pr. with ~'-t-c~~~c. ---------- ~ ----~--- -t= l.J - - ------------------------------- Zoning Classif ioaticn s ~-. ~• ----------------------------- i Signat re of applicant/applieant'a Signer re of oxner of tJre property. suthorixed agent or attorney. If Application cannot be processed agent or attorney, include letter xitJrout oxnera aipr,ature. from applicant to that affect. -_......~~~..~_~~..~~_~..-..~~..r..~~~»~..~_..«-.»....»~.._~_~......_..~..____......__»......__..~__ Applicants Do not°fill-in beyond this point. llox~ver, he hrepnred to reepanei to t}rcr f'olloxing itemo r FIHDTHOB OF FACT _.._ ' •-~' 1. Xnaress and a ress to ro art and p .~ Q p p y pro ored YES HO struotures is adequate. Nartiaular retwrenoe is wad! to autowotive and pedwstrian tatety and convenience, traffic flow wnd control and access in case of oatastrophej _-- ___ 2. Ott-street parking and laadinq is adequate. Particular ^ttention is paid to the itear in 2. above and the eoonaaia, noise, glare and odor efSaats of the special wxaeptlon on ad~oininq "' properties and properties, generally in the district) 3. Locations of retuse and swrviae arwas are cowpatible xith surrou:idinq popertiws and are :gaily accessible. _ ___ ___, 4. Locations, availability and aaMpatibility of utilities are adequate. -__ _ 5. Typv, dimensions and oharaater of sarewning and bu##erinq are adequate. ___ ___ 6. Signs and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare and tri-ftia safety, are in harwany and are compatible with other properties •J in the distriat. 7. Required yards and other open spaae^ see / adequate. ^-- _-- 8. Thw use is generally oawpatible xith adfaoent 1 properties and other proparty'in the, distriat. ___ ___ COHtiUHITY DEVEL0P2SE1{T HOARD REPORT AHD REC0JttiE}1DATXOHSi 1 ACTIO!{5 HY THE CITY C0t1lSZSSX0M: j ~ .- F'~ Q~~ ~~~a ~~ y ~, `;' ~.. ~ . n ~; ~' n ~ : ~ . ~' ~.~ u ' C ~a . ~~'~: ~~ ~,N ~ ,~ ~ ~~ •, a i ~3 O vg ~ C5 ~ )~ LJ o~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ T ~Q~ ~ ~~~ rn ~n .~ -~ ~~ ~ (/~ z ~~ ~ Lw~ ~ o ~' ~ ~. Cab ~ -L~ ~d ~-~ l~ ~ ~ A _ ,~ W ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 0 b ~ r.. _._ CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMM[JNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 18, 1999 ,, . , _ AGENDA ITEM: # 5. a. Application for Variance to construct a six foot fence within the fifreen 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 Iine. This Iot is exactly square rendering a determination of front and side under the Section 24-17 Defuution 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 ot~tions, Staff recommends denial of the Variance request. AGENDA ITEM: # 6. a. Application for Use-by-Exception to operate a Contractors office as a Home Occupation on property zoned RG-2 at 109 Pine Street. The applicant desires to conduct the office functions of his contractors. business from his home under a Home Occupation. Section 24-1 a7 provides that Home Occupations are permitted as Uses-by-Exception. Section 24-159 provides criteria and limitations on Home Occupations. The City has approved exceptions for Contractors in the past and Staff believes that this request is similar to those previously approved. Staff recommends approval ofthe requested Use-bv-Exception with the stipulations that the analicant comply with all restrictions set out in Section 24-159 and that the exception be granted to the applicant only, for this location on1Y '; AGENDA ITEM: # 6. b. Application for Use-by-Exception to operate a '~ vehicle parking lot on property zoned Commercial General at West 9th Street and Mayport Road. The applicant desires to construct and operate a parking lot to be used in conjunction with their existing business for the temporary parking of vehicles. The applicants obtained aUse-by- Exceptio'i~ to operate their business across the street approximately two years ago. The main business involves modification of vans and busses to accommodate handicapped use. Among the conditions placed at the tune of the original exception was that not more than 20 vehicles be stored on-site. The applicants business has grown and they now desire additional parking. The applicant proposes to fence in the four lots to create two separate parking areas to accommodate 30 vehicles each. Section 24-162 provides the criteria for parking lots in all zoning districts. Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions that all requirements of Section 24-162 be met and that the exception bedranted to the applicant only, for this location o_ nly. ~~~'~`3 • 1~ PRESENT MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE .COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA May 18, 1999 7:00 P.M. . CITY HALL Robert Frohwein Pat Pillmore Mary Walker Dezmond Waters _ r.o. . AND George Worley, ll, CD Director Alan Jensen, Esquire Pat Harris r.. .s y< ~' l~ ABSENT Don Wolfson Sharette Simpkins Buzzy Grunthal Chairman Robert Frohwein called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the minutes of the meeting of March 16, 1999. Mr. Frohwein moved to amend the minutes to clarify a statement he ,made regarding Item II in the second paragraph on the fourth page of the minutes to read: "Mr. Frohwein again expressed his concern with acting on the application since he is unclear because of his review of Section 24-157(x} and (b), Definitions of yard, side, structure, site triangle, setback, building line, building setback, and. lot, corner". Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The March 16, 1999 minutes will be placed on the agenda for dpproval at the next meeting. Mr. Frohwein called for approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 20, 1999. On motion made and seconded the minutes were approved. Mayor Suzanne Shaughnessy introduced herself to the board and requested that the board hold a discussion to determine whether the Community Development Board under its charter has jurisdiction over the construction. of the proposed Mayport Flyover which exceeds the height limitation in the code and whether a variance is required. The Chairman stated that Item 7 of the agenda is the review and discussion regarding proposed amendments of Chapter 24, Zoning Code and it would be appropriate to address the issue under that agenda item. I. Application for Variance filed by Christine Lester to construct a 6-foot fence that will encroach the setback requirements at property located at 625 East Coast Drive. The Chairman noted that the. section of the code on the application was incorrect. Mr. Worley stated that specifically, the board will be dealing with the definition of lot, corner which is in Section 24-17 and .Fences which is 24-157 and the application is '+ amended accordingly. Mrs. Lester introduced herself to the board .and presented charts showing the intersection of streets, sizes of rights of way, location of her residence as well as the proposal for the 6-foot fence She explained that the hardship that relates to the land deals with the increased traffiic patterns and noise along East.Coast Drive with five 4-way stops~'o~e of which is at her intersection.. She stated that she has.. spoken to all of the neighbors who are in support of the request. She asked the board to consider the circumstances and grant her request for variancewhich is the minimum request for the reasonable use of the property. She stated that she would be wining for the board to grant a temporary variance until a traffic study was completed. Mrs. Walker said she did not see how the traffic pattern affects the applicant's side of the street. She questioned how a 25-foot fence on the south side would give any more insulation than one that is 15 feet. After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to grant a variance for 10 years to meet the needs of the family and Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Mrs. Pillmore stated that she does not agree with a temporary arrangement for fences to be pem~itted at 6 feet or that children could be viewed as a hardship for granting a variance. Mr. Worley stated that based on the information submitted his recommendation would not be change. After discussion, the motion failed with one aye vote by Mr. Waters and three nay votes from Mrs. Walker, Mrs. Pillmore and Mr. Frohwein. Mr. Frohwein requested staff add as a discussion item on the agenda for the next meeting the matter of traffic flaw on East Coast Drive. After further discussion, Mrs. Pillmore moved to deny the variance. Mrs. Walker seconded the motion and the variance was denied. by a unanimous vote. Il. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Bradley N. Bowen to operate a contractor office at property iocated'at 109 Pine Street. Dorothy Hand intrcduced herself to the board and asked for an explanation of what impact the use-by-exception would have on the neighborhood. Mr. Worley explained that the application is applied for under Section 24-159 which addresses home occupations and that section of the code has a list of conditions which must be met by any home occupation. He stated that the intent of the code is to allow one r 4`. Wts7s Fr> to operate a business with bookkeeping and genera! office functions and only family members residing in the residence can be employed at the location. Denise Rubin introduced herself to the board and expressed her concern about enforcement of the section of the code and the integrity of the residential neighborhood. The applicant, Bradley l~owen, introduced himself to the board and explained that he fully intends to comply with the home occupation section of the code. He stated that he has ~ post office address in Jacksonville Beach. After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to recommend approval of the use-by-exception following staff s recommendation with the stipulation that the applicant comply with all of the restrictions set out in section 24-159 and the exception be granted to the applicant only for this location only. Mrs. Pillmore seconded the .motion .and the motion passed unanimously. 111. Application far Use-by-Exception filed by Debra and Ted Jackrel to construct a parking lot on property known as Lots 1,2,3, and 4, Block 40, Section H. Mrs. Jackrel introduced herself to the board and explained she and-her husband desire to construct and operate a parking lot to be used in conjunction with their existing business for the temporary parking of vehicles. She stated that she previously was granted ause-by-exception to operate their business across the street approximately two years ago. She stated she intends to use limestone rock so the property can drain properly and the property would not be covered with cement. She stated that the purchase of the property depended on obtaining the use-by-exception. Mr. Worley stated that off-street parking lots are permissible under Section 24-162 where such lots are within 400 feet of the premises requiring the parking. He stated that the property would be used solely far parking purposes for the business located across the street. Mrs. Walker expressed her concerning with landscaping and exactly what triggered compliance. Mr. Worley stated that the landscape ordinance is perimeter landscaping around vehicular use areas and the main focus is a buffer around the area. He stated that the applicant has proposed to fallow the setback restrictions along Mayport Road. He stated that the only permit required by the applicant would be a permit for the proposed fence. After discussion, Mrs. Walker moved to recommend approval of the use-by- exception and that the exception be granted to the applicant only for this location only; that the applicant comply with any landscaping that is determined by the Community Development Director as applicable according to Section 24-177. Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. v t ~ ~~~~~ The Chairman requested Mr. Worley to include as an agenda item at tr,e next meeting staffs determination of the percentage of improvements for Mr. and Mrs. Jacket's proposed parking lot Vl. DISCUSSION The board held a discussion regarding definitions_of structure as it pertains to a bridge Or flyover. Mrs. Pillmore stated she felt that under the definition in the code that the proposed Mayport Road Flyover should be treated as a structure since it is constructed for support and should be subject to the 35-feet height restriction in the building code. Mr. Waters stated that the board is dealing with structures because the term falls under definitions in the code and should be under the city's jurisdiction. He stated that in Section 24-156 there are exceptions to height limitations which states that upon specific application the City Commission may make exceptions to the limitations and restrictions regarding the height of buildings. Mr. Worley stated that both Atlantic Boulevard and Mayport Road are state roads. The. location of the flyover and the north to west bound access lane are across private property and it is his understanding that JTA or DOT are in the process of acquiring the land. Mrs. Walker stated that the remainder of the definition of structure states that and (which connects everything) used or intended for business or7iving quarters. She stated that possibly a flyover could be stretched to say its business quarters and she doesn't think so. She stated that she did not see the flyover as a matter that should came before the city for review. Mr. Waters stated that one needed to decide whether the term building or structure in tha code was the broadest category and in his view structure was the broadest as structure shall mean anything constructed, erected or placed the use of which requires permanent location on the ground or anything attached to something having a permanent location on the ground which ultimately includes fences greater than six feet in height Mr. Frohwein stated that the flyover could fall under building because of the word "or" that occurs in the first sentence. He stated that the matter is probably more of a legal issue as the City Attorney has already indicated that the flyover cannot be interpreted as a structure. Mayor Shaughnessy stated that a recommendation centers around the definitions and whether something like a bridge or superstructure fits under the definition of structure with all of the applicable definitions of the terms in Section 24-16. Mrs. Pillmore stated that she is totally agreeable to define the flyover as a structure ~~ as included in our code and should be brought before the elected officials of the City for '~ a decision. Mr. Frohwein stated that he wants to support the City Commission and trusts they have -good reason for wanting to have jurisdiction over the height of a flyover constructed in Atlantic Beach. He stated that he has difficulty in making a recommendation in favor of that support. _ . . .~ .~ After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to defer the discussion until the next meeting to allow further research. Mayor Shaughnessy stated it was difficult for the board to be given information on the same night for their review and recommendation and stated she did not want the board to render a decision with questions in their mind. Mr. Frohwein stated that the board report to the City Commission that they had not reached a decision as it is not clear cut. After discussion, Mrs. Walker seconded the motion to defer. Mrs. Pillmore reiterated her view that the board merely needs to ask if the flyover is a structure and whether the board has jurisdiction over the height limitation. Mrs. Walker stated she needed more time to review the whole ordinance before making a decision. The Chairman called the vote and the matter was deferred to the next meeting with three aye votes from Mrs. Walker, Mr. Waters and Mr. Frohwein and one nay vote from Mrs. Pillmore. There being no further business to come before the board on motion made the meeting was adjourned. SIGNED ATTEST -Sec. 24-162. Parking lots. Off-street parking lots shall be a permissible use by exception in all districts where such lots are within four hundred (400) feet of a premises requiring off-street parking, provided such lots in residential districts shall also conform to the following: (1) Such parking lots may be permitted only between the principal use and the nearest street in the residential district. (2) An approved wall, fencing, shrubbery or as otherwise required by the planning agency and the city commission shall be erected along edges of portions of such lots as adjoin land in the residential district unless releases are secured from all adjoining property owners. Height limitations as required in other sections of this article shall not apply. (3) No source of illumination for the lots shall be directly visible from any window in any residence in the residential district. (4) There shall be no sales or service activity of any kind on any parking lot unless a permit is applied for and is granted by the administrative official.