Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-19-26 CDB Adopted MinutesMINUTES Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting 0 Tuesday, May 19, 2026 - 6:00 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Doug Moody, Member Kirk Hansen, Chair Richard Arthur, Member Ellen Golombek, Vice Chair Jeff Haynie, Member Nancy Staats, First Alternate Member Absent: Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Member Rick Ferrin, Member Also Present: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD) Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk Rob Graham, City Attorney (CA) 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve minutes of the April 21, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. MOTION: To APPROVE the April 21, 2026 minutes. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second. Doug Moody Doug Moody (Seconded By) For Kirk Hansen For Richard Arthur For Ellen Golombek For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Nancy Stoats For Motion passed 6 to 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 1 of 12 4. NEW BUSINESS A. 590 Jasmine Street REZN26-0001 (Hoose) Staff Presentation Neighborhoods Department Director Amanda Askew began her presentation, explaining that this was a rezoning request with case number REZN26-0001, associated with ordinance number 90-26-261 for the property at 590 Jasmine Street. She described it as a request to rezone from the current Special Planned Area (SPA) designation to an updated Special Planned Area. Director Askew explained that SPAs are very similar to the old Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), which are zoning districts that allow developers to create their own zoning district standards including lot size standards, minimum setbacks, lot coverage, and other development standards. Director Askew noted that SPAs are typically used in areas where redevelopment is being attempted or where there are special considerations for development, allowing the spelling out of specific development standards associated with the property. She indicated the property's location on the west side of Mayport Road, on the south side of 6th Street, and fronting on Jasmine Street as well. History and Background Director Askew explained that in 2019, the same property came in for an initial rezoning from Residential Single -Family 2 (RS -2) to SPA. The current request seeks to update the written description and site plan associated with this development. She noted that in 2019, the SPA took six lots and consolidated them into three developable lots. Prior to the first SPA, the six lots of record would have been developed fronting on Jasmine Street, but the 2019 and current SPA request has the new orientation development with 3 lots fronting on 6th Street. The current land use remains SPA, and Director Askew noted that the developer did not formally replat the lots or begin construction following the 2019 approval. Therefore, there are still technically six lots today, though they have zoning approval to develop as three. The lots are currently vacant and located on a corner, with the Jasmine Street side being unpaved. She described the current 6 lot dimensions: the first lot is 70 feet by 102 feet, and the remaining lots are 50 feet by 102 feet, originally oriented towards Jasmine Street. Environmental Concerns Director Askew addressed significant environmental concerns on the property, noting that such issues are not unusual in this area of town, which has many historic old landfill sites. The property underwent Phase I and Phase 2 environmental assessments that identified recognized environmental conditions. The marsh area may have been a former dump, and the presence of unknown buried solid waste at the property is considered a moderate to high environmental risk. The Phase 2 environmental study found used tires and solid waste on the property visible back to ground level. Director Askew explained the location of the buried waste was on the southern part of the lots. The SPA adapts to these environmental limitations by Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 2 of 12 calling for the problematic area to remain undeveloped, ensuring no disturbance of the buried trash. Comparison: 2019 vs. 2026 Proposals Director Askew presented a comparison between the original 2019 SPA regulations and the current 2026 proposal. The original SPA had very large lots with significant open space in the back area with environmental considerations and zero lot lines on the east side. The current proposal includes slight changes: the buildable area is decreasing as they are making a large portion of their property a conservation easement. The development will still consist of three single family homes, but they are now proposing a three-foot side yard setback on each side. The new proposal specifies three different lot sizes with the key difference being three- foot side yard setbacks versus zero feet in the original plan. They are also specifying driveway design standards, and the rear yard—three-quarters of the lot—will be considered a conservation easement. While the 2019 plan had no indication regarding lot coverage, the current proposal, when not identified in PUD or SPA regulations, defaults to the 45 percent limit. However, given the significant conservation easement area, they are not at risk of approaching the 45 percent lot coverage limit. Development Standards and Requirements Director Askew outlined that City of Atlantic Beach tree regulations will apply, and the developers propose they do not have floodplain storage on the required properties. The property backs up immediately to the Intracoastal, making it similar to other properties the board has reviewed in relation to Intracoastal connections. They are providing positive drainage off-site rather than through the lots and will obtain Saint Johns River Water Management District permits and meet city requirements. The proposed development standards include combining lots 1 through 6 into three single family homes. Lot 1 will be 38 feet wide by 90 feet deep, while lots 2 and 3 will be 32 feet by 90 feet. The rear lots closer to the trash and Intracoastal areas (lots 4, 5, and 6) will be provided as a conservation easement. They propose minimum three-foot side yards, minimum 20 -foot front yard setbacks, and conservation areas in the rear of the property. Director Askew showed a visual depiction of the large area that will be the conservation easement, with the developable area closer to West 6th Street. She noted that Jasmine Street remains unpaved as a dirt road, but the development orients along the paved street side with the proposed three-foot setbacks. Benefits and Consistency Analysis Director Askew outlined the benefits of the rezoning to an SPA in both 2019 and 2026, including less density than previously allowed in the RS -2 zoning district, preservation of more trees, and provision of sufficient area for stormwater to percolate through the site before entering the Intracoastal. She confirmed that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, which is the primary consideration for rezonings. The density matches and actually reduces density compared to what would otherwise be allowed. Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 3 of 12 Director Askew reiterated that this was already an SPA in 2019, and they are only seeking to change the written description and site plan. The property has not been developed or platted, and if successful, plat lines would follow the lines shown in their site plan and written description. The proposal maintains three single family homes with density compliant with the comprehensive plan, smaller developable lots in the front area, improved setbacks, conservation easement in the rear, no floodplain storage, and clear drainage plans. She noted that while not mentioned in her presentation, the SPA regulations propose an eight -foot fence, which staff supports. Part of this property is adjacent to a salvage yard, and while the city typically limits properties to six-foot fence heights, the SPA regulations seek an eight -foot fence in rear and side yards. Rezoning Considerations Askew concluded by outlining the standard rezoning considerations the board uses to review zoning requests: consistency with the comprehensive plan; consistency with the intent of land development regulations; consistency with professional planning principles and standards; whether the proposed amendment or development creates or contributes to urban sprawl; whether it will constitute spot zoning; whether uses will be consistent or compatible with existing and proposed land uses; whether it will deviate from established development patterns; whether it will result in significant adverse impacts on property values; and whether it will detract from the character and quality of life in the general neighborhood. Board Questions for Staff Jeff Haynie questioned Director Askew about the density reduction she mentioned. Director Askew explained that currently, as six lots of record, they could build six single family homes, but they are reducing development to three homes—a reduction by half. Haynie asked for clarification about buildable area versus conservation easement calculations, and Askew clarified that the buildable area refers to the area outside of the conservation easement, while the conservation easement is part of the lot but not included in the buildable square footage calculations. Doug Moody asked about the original SPA, questioning whether someone could have built all six homes on each lot. Director Askew clarified that the original SPA was similar in orientation with three lots that were long and linear, like the current proposal. The major change was the distance between homes, they had zero -foot setbacks, and they didn't technically call out the rear area as a conservation easement. Staff appreciated the conservation easement designation because it ensures future owners know the area cannot be used for pools or other development if there is buried trash. Chair Hansen inquired about sequestering the conservation easement area with moderate to high environmental risk, asking about fencing or barriers to prevent people from wandering into the area. Director Askew responded that she believed fencing was proposed but suggested asking the applicant's representative for specifics. She confirmed they have fencing definitely adjacent to the automotive storage facility property. Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 4 of 12 Nancy Staats raised several concerns. She questioned calling the area a "conservation easement," comparing it to oceanfront or wetland conservation areas, noting she had observed visible cars in the area. She expressed concerns about potential danger to children and families, questioning the lack of protection. Staats also calculated that with effective lot sizes between 2,880 and 3,420 square feet and proposed home sizes of 1,900 square feet, the lot coverage would represent 66 percent of the buildable area, which seemed much higher than the 45 percent limit when considering only the truly buildable white area. Director Askew responded that the applicant could address specific calculations, but noted that their written description specifies that former lots 4, 5, and 6 may only be used for undisturbed conservation purposes, defined as natural preserves, natural resource- based parks, and passive recreational uses. These areas remain part of the lot for lot coverage calculations, therefore lot coverage would not be an issue. Ellen Golombek expressed understanding of the conservation designation but noted that given the current makeup of the area, it doesn't seem possible that any of the specified conservation uses would be feasible without major cleanup. She agreed with Staats' safety concerns, noting that while Jasmine Streetis a dirt road with little travel, the whole area feels unsafe. She expressed interest in hearing from the applicant about plans for making the area safe for homeowners and others. Richard Arthur asked about the zoning adjacent to the property, which Director Askew confirmed was also an SPA area serving as an automotive salvage yard with different SPA regulations. Arthur confirmed that lots were always oriented toward 6th Street rather than Jasmine Street, and asked about conservation easement recording. Director Askew confirmed that each lot would be recorded with its dimensions and show a conservation easement on surveys, becoming part of the parcel tax record for each lot. Applicant Presentation by Zach Miller Zach Miller, representing the applicant, addressed several points raised during the staff presentation and board questions. He clarified that while they listed 1,900 square feet as the total heated/cooled area for a potential second story, the actual site plan shows approximately 1,000 square feet. Regarding lot dimensions, the actual lots will be 320 feet deep, with the top lot being 38 feet wide and the other two being 32 feet wide. Both the site plan and plat will clearly indicate the conservation easement as an undeveloped area. Miller confirmed with the property owner Jennifer Jorgensen, had confirmed there would be fencing in the backyard to prevent access to the conservation area. He noted that cars visible in the area are actually on property to the south, not on their property, though it's difficult to distinguish property lines when traveling down Jasmine Street. Miller explained that there are essentially two scenarios: they could proceed with six lots of record, with each lot entitled to one home by right under city code and Florida law, or they could proceed under either the 2019 SPA or the proposed revised SPA. He shared a copy of the 2019 SPA site plan, noting that it approved three lots: 34 feet wide by 320 Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 5 of 12 feet deep, with proposed homes of 23 feet by 70 feet, 27 feet by 45 feet, and 27 feet by 58 feet respectively. The current proposal seeks to make the western lot larger at 38 feet, partly due to a drainage ditch and partly to distance residents from the automotive use to the west. The other two lots would decrease by two feet each, from 34 feet to 32 feet wide. Miller noted that a variance for floodplain storage was filed simultaneously in 2020 and approved, but staff now recommends including it in the SPA. Miller explained they're changing lot sizes east to west and moving setbacks. The original 2019 approval had zero lot lines against the eastern property line. Regarding lot coverage, Miller clarified that city code uses impervious surface calculations, including buildings, AC pads, and driveways, capped at 45 percent. He calculated their proposal at approximately 18-20 percent impervious surface, well below the limit. Miller introduced Chuck Kennedy, their engineer, available for engineering questions, and Jennifer Jorgensen for questions about home appearance and development details. Board Questions for Applicant Nancy Staats asked whether Miller knew about the Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental results when the 2019 plan was approved. Miller responded that he was not aware of that information. Staats noted that knowing the Phase 2 results would significantly impact the developable area unless extensive and costly cleanup were undertaken, making the current proposal appear smaller left to right given the environmental constraints. Miller acknowledged the surface contamination situation, noting that the Phase 2 results led to extending the conservation easement from originally covering lots 6, 5, and 4 to now covering all of lot 3 and part of lot 2, making the conservation easement area larger. However, he emphasized that the effective lot sizes remain the same in terms of ownership and impervious surface calculations. The area cannot be developed per the site plan, written description, and plat. Miller noted that while cleanup would face hurdles, it wouldn't be impossible, as he had experience with other developments requiring solid waste cleanup and soil replacement. He suggested the bigger issue might actually be bringing Jasmine Street up to code with proper paving. Public Comment Chair Hansen opened the floor to public comment, asking each speaker to limit comments to three minutes. Anna Nulk spoke in opposition to the proposed development and requested variances. She argued that the proposal attempts to place three oversized homes on extremely narrow lots with minimal separation between structures. Two proposed lots are only 32 feet wide with homes nearly filling the entire buildable area and side setbacks reduced to just three feet, which doesn't provide meaningful separation, privacy, light, or compatibility with the current neighborhood. She felt the design appeared driven primarily by maximizing building area and development intensity rather than creating Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 6 of 12 appropriately scaled residential lots, creating an overcrowded and incompatible development pattern inconsistent with current neighborhood character. Nulk expressed substantial concerns about the environmental review, noting that Phase 2 revealed moderate to high risks. While primarily associated with lots 4-6, she remained concerned about cars in adjacent salvage yards and found it hard to believe there was no further testing of subsurface soil and groundwater quality given the history of automotive use and trash disposal. She argued that approving dense residential development under these conditions raises serious questions about public health, groundwater safety, soil contamination, stormwater impacts, and long-term liability. Regarding potential soil contamination, Nulk noted she hadn't seen testing results and expressed concerns about substantial oil leaks or other issues that could pose serious public health and safety concerns not only to residents but to the neighborhood as a whole. She requested that the board deny the proposal or require a significantly revised plan and further environmental evaluation before considering approval. Tori McGill identified herself as a resident of 630 Begonia Street and noted she was six and a half months pregnant. Her primary concern was the environmental aspect, expressing concern for families, young children, and animals in the neighborhood. She questioned how building three homes on such a small area could be safe, especially for potential residents. She emphasized concerns about groundwater and soil safety raised by the previous speaker and expressed care for wildlife displacement. McGill respectfully asked the board to oppose the proposal. Lorien Anderson spoke as a resident living around the corner from the proposed SPA, opposing the rezoning for several reasons. She noted that the impending stormwater study would likely demonstrate that their part of the neighborhood already grapples with regular flooding, with 6th Street flooding regularly and water typically remaining for at least two days after rain. Her concern was that having all homes face 6th Street with additional impervious surface would leave nowhere for water to go except onto 6th Street. Anderson explained that water drains slowly through storm drains and even more slowly into marshland. While it's regularly discussed that marshes absorb water, she observed from living there that this doesn't happen effectively because of extensive fill, and fill doesn't percolate water like non -fill areas. Additional filling would cause more flooding, and since the development doesn't have floodplain storage requirements with only off- site positive drainage, she questioned whether developers understand the necessity of preventing additional stormwater from entering the street. Anderson expressed alarm about environmental assessments, noting that the REC indicates the marsh on the southern half was filled in the 1970s after previously being natural marsh. Allowing development would mean most land would be filled, and even though designated as conservation easement, it's already filled with materials that stop drainage. She noted their own reports call it hazardous with unknown buried materials from what they believe was a landfill. Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 7 of 12 Anderson expressed concerns about potential impacts on water quality if buried waste is disturbed, noting that neighborhood animals, including her dog, drink from roadside water. The land was purchased for $10 per parcel by four LLCs, making it reasonable to ensure safety before building. She emphasized that wetlands naturally move inland with sea level rise, but if there's no available land due to filling, they cannot adjust accordingly, worsening flooding. Anderson concluded by emphasizing the importance of wetlands for cleaning and filtering pollutants from surface waters, storing stormwater and runoff, preventing flood damage to developed lands, recharging groundwater, and serving as nurseries for saltwater and freshwater fish and habitat for birds. These features attract both tourists and new residents to Florida. She felt this type of hasty development would negatively impact the existing community, making it less attractive to future residents. Charles Kennedy identified himself as the civil engineer on the project and addressed stormwater concerns. Their plan involves minimal grading on the site except for raising house pads out of base flood elevation on stem walls. For lot grading, the break will be as close to the front as possible, ensuring minimal water drains toward West 6th Street. Gutters will route stormwater to the rear, and the back area connects directly to the Intracoastal. Kennedy explained that flooding in the area would be driven by Intracoastal rise rather than site runoff. From an engineering perspective, the Intracoastal is considered an infinite boundary body, meaning additional water sent to it doesn't matter because flooding comes from Intracoastal rising, not site contributions. He emphasized minimal fill placement with minimal water directed to 6th Street—only enough to prevent driveways from draining toward houses. Sarah Boren of 388 8th Street raised questions about trees, noting the apparent presence of many trees on the lot and wondering about particularly large heritage trees over 30 inches. She wanted to understand details about the conservation easement, including any sunset provisions, length, exit options, and whether it could be sold to the city if resources became available for cleanup and conversion to a pocket park. Boren noted she hadn't read the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports but observed that such sites are typical for leaching, questioning whether the water table had been tested. Based on density and proposed build -out, she wanted to understand tree preservation plans. She noted that the Environmental and Scenic Committee was trying to encourage comer lots to include at least one shade tree on front and side if possible, to minimize heat island effects as development increases. Board Discussion Chair Hansen closed public comment and brought discussion to the board, emphasizing that their role was to make a recommendation to city commission regarding rezoning, not building requirements, which weren't part of the evening's discussion. Jeff Haynie asked Director Askew about comments suggesting the current SPA already allows the proposed density. Director Askew confirmed that the existing SPA permits Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 8 of 12 three lots with homes facing 6th Street in a relatively small developable area closer to 6th Street. The current SPA has zero setbacks on the eastern property lines for all three lots, with different lot widths but still equating to three lots. Haynie asked about lot size differences shown on page 3 of the report. Director Askew clarified that the buildable area (white space on previous slides) was 3,420 square feet for one lot and 2,880 for another, though total lots were nearly 10,000 square feet. The buildable portion that could actually be developed was the smaller figure. Doug Moody sought clarification that the difference between proposals was effectively the conservation easement area. Director Askew confirmed this was correct. Moody asked whether, if they denied the current proposal and council rejected the change, the developer could build under the original 2019 approval. Director Askew confirmed this was correct. Moody framed the decision as determining whether the new proposal creates a better environment for the neighborhood than the old proposal. Chair Hansen agreed this was reasonable and suggested that one advantage for developers in changing the SPA was avoiding the need to pave Jasmine Street or run utilities there, taking everything from 6th Street instead, providing economic motivation for the change. Moody confirmed with Director Askew that lots in both proposals run from Sixth Street back into the conservation easement, with Director Askew clarifying that the old SPA did originally come off Jasmine Street but they hadn't formally replatted. Under current regulations, they could replat for three lots facing 6th Street with slightly different distances than shown. Richard Arthur asked about the 2019 SPA confirmation that it faced 6th Street, which Director Askew confirmed. Arthur asked whether the 2019 version included conservation designation, and Director Askew explained it wasn't specifically written in the written description as conservation, making the current proposal more protective by preventing potential future development. Arthur asked about the expired 2020 floodplain storage variance, and Director Askew confirmed it had expired. The city's proposed legislation would eliminate the need for such variances in this situation. Arthur asked about stormwater in conservation easements, and Director Askew noted they wouldn't trigger on-site requirements because they're under 35 percent lot coverage. Arthur confirmed that the 2019 approval with zero setbacks could proceed with permits if nothing happened with the current proposal. Ellen Golombek sought clarification about the denial scenario, confirming they could build under 2019 approval but with less conservation area. Director Askew confirmed this was correct—the current proposal increases the conservation easement and setbacks compared to the 2019 version, where they could go to zero setbacks and build slightly larger homes. Nancy Staats asked about the expired variance, which Director Askew explained was for floodplain storage after the SPA approval. The variance expired after one year without Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 9 of 12 commencing construction. Staats asked about the Saint Johns River Management District's likely future requirements. Staats inquired about the city's obligation regarding Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies showing moderate to high environmental risk. Director Askew explained the city doesn't have authority unless they're pulling building permits or disturbing ground. If ground disturbance occurs, they work with applicants to ensure cleanup per DEP regulations through the Department of Environmental Protection. Staats asked about ground disturbance from tree removal and site development. Director Askew explained the mapped environmental issues were in areas where development wouldn't occur -so no trash cleanup would be required. Staats asked about Phase 3 studies, and Director Askew confirmed deeper investigation was possible with additional testing points. Staats expressed personal concern about being at the edge of something with moderate to high environmental risk. Jeff Haynie characterized the decision as choosing between "bad and worse" because of what had already been approved. He noted that functionally, the proposal would look and feel like medium to high density development that doesn't fit the area's character, but this had already been approved. Comparing the 2019 and 2026 proposals, he noted the old one had 6 feet 11 inches side yard setback on the western side, meaning houses would be almost 7 feet apart, while the new proposal would place houses only 6 feet apart. He didn't see the new proposal as an improvement in terms of density impact. Ellen Golombek asked whether the 2019 version going further into the easement would require cleanup. Director Askew explained that without construction, DEP allows leaving contamination alone. Even placing a playset wouldn't require remediation, but building a pool would. Golombek confirmed that houses in the 2019 version go further back but not enough to disturb the contaminated area. Doug Moody asked whether the original SPA would allow homeowners to use the contaminated area for lawns and children's play. Director Askew confirmed this was possible as long as soil wasn't disturbed. Moody noted that home ownership under the original plan would include part of the contaminated area, while the current proposal with conservation easement would potentially prevent new homeowners from having their backyard over a dump. Golombek asked about tree removal details, noting information in the application. Applicant Miller confirmed only one tree over 30 inches, which would be preserved, and that all development remained subject to current code requirements including tree replacement. Nancy Staats noted that the original version appeared more aesthetically pleasing due to more perceived buildable space. She questioned whether environmental results were known during the original platting, suggesting they wouldn't have placed usable yard areas in contaminated zones if they had known, making it misleading to buyers. The effectively usable space for potential buyers would be quite different if the current Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 10 of 12 proposal were denied, as Phase 2 problems extend to where previous development was planned, potentially not meeting required 20 -foot setbacks. Jeff Haynie asked about conservation easements and whether they depend on Atlantic Beach action. Director Askew confirmed they could be added during the platting process without city blessing. Haynie suggested they didn't need to feel compelled to recommend approval based on it being better than alternatives, since developers could voluntarily add conservation easements to unsafe areas regardless. Applicant Rebuttal Zach Miller requested rebuttal time, which Chair Hansen granted. Miller clarified that they have a permit to remove trash, so they could proceed under either six lots of record or the 2019 SPA. He reiterated that the question was really between the 2019 SPA versus the current SPA proposal, noting that one of the speakers actually lives in a house his client built on Begonia, representing the type of development they create in the area. Final Board Discussion Chair Hansen summarized that they would have small lots regardless -either 2019 small or 2026 small -with houses being built either way. Arthur confirmed there had been a Phase 2 environmental study conducted. MOTION. To RECOMMEND that Commission DENY the application for the revised SPA. Motion: Nancy Stoats Second. Jeff Haynie Doug Moody Against Kirk Hansen Against Richard Arthur Against Ellen Golombek For Jeff Haynie (Seconded By) For Nancy Staats (Moved By) For Motion failed 3 to 3. Chair Hansen announced that the motion did not carry, meaning the SPA was neither approved nor rejected, and would go to city commission with no recommendation from the board. Director Askew confirmed the item would go before commission at the next step, tentatively scheduled for the second meeting in June (June 22nd), requiring two readings at city commission. 5. REPORTS There were no reports. Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 11 of 12 6. 7. Attest: PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. l�l�L Amanda Askew Kirk Hansen, Chair Community Development Board (CDB) May 19, 2026 Page 12 of 12