Loading...
04-16-01 v • MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN ATLANTIC BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT 7:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, APRIL 16,2001. City Commissioners Present: John S. Meserve, Mayor Rick Beaver, Mayor pro tem Mike Borno Theo Mitchelson Dezmond Waters, City Commissioners Community Development Board Members Present: Don Wolfson Mary Walker Robert Frohwein Staff Present: Don Ford, Building Official Maureen King, City Clerk • The meeting, which was held for the purpose of receiving public input on the draft of the proposed new zoning ordinance, was called to order by Mayor Meserve. The Mayor introduced members of the City Commission and Community Development Board and outlined the rules for the evening. He encouraged people to submit written comments or questions and assured them that all comments submitted would be addressed. The Mayor also gave an overview of the review process which had taken place thus far on the proposed ordinance. Don Wolfson, Chairman of the Community Development Board, summarized the responsibilities and scope of authority of the Community Development Board. He pointed out that there were several conflicting sections in the zoning code, and other sections were vague and difficult to interpret, which made it difficult for the board to be consistent in dealing with matters which came before the board. He also reported that the engineers who are designing the core city stormwater improvements had suggested the city reduce the density of this area and had also suggested that the city establish a 50% impervious. The Mayor then summarized the major changes in the ordinance (1) clarify language and definitions; (2) to maintain the density in the core city area; (3) establish a maximum impervious surface limit of 50%; and (4) create a Central Business District (CBD) zoning classification. The Mayor then opened the floor for a public hearing and invited comments from the audience. • Tom Foppiano, 377 4th Street, inquired whether existing duplexes would be grandfathered in and whether duplex owners would be assured they could rebuild in the event of a disaster. Mr. Foppiano felt that unless these structures were grandfathered in potential purchasers may not be able to secure mortgages, and thus, property values would be negatively impacted. • Page Two Minutes—April 16, 2001 Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance Daniel Meyer, 1200 Tulip Street, said he liked the diversity in Atlantic Beach. He owns a large piece of property in Marsh Oaks and felt the proposal to allow only one recreational vehicle to be parked on any residential lot, was a bad law. He felt that while this may be desirable in one area, it was unreasonable to apply that standard to people who owned larger lots. Ron Schiebler, 1040 Tulip Street, said he owned an acre of land in Marsh Oaks and also felt that the limits on recreational vehicles, or the length of a boat should not apply to large tracts of property such as his since, he said, he could park a motor home and a boat on his property and it would not be seen from the street. He felt the ordinance was too restrictive and said he liked the diversity in Atlantic Beach and did not want to see it treated like a gated community. William Winfree, 680 East Coast Drive, said he was concerned regarding the impact the proposed rezoning would have on the owners of duplexes. He was concerned that mortgage companies would not lend money if properties could not be rebuilt after a disaster. • Betty Eilers, 369 Third Street, felt that duplex owners should not be required to seek variances to rebuild in the event their properties were destroyed in a natural disaster. She also inquired whether she could rebuild larger or better if she so desired. She said she was opposed to any ordinance that would not allow her to rebuild her home. Jack McLaughlin, 375 Third Street, said he owned a duplex and his elderly mother lived in the unit next door. He said this ordinance would create an extreme hardship for him if he could not rebuild their homes. Bill Paulk, 336 Second Street, inquired whether the proposed 50% impervious surface limits would apply to all zoning classifications and was advised that it would apply to all. He also, felt that all existing structures should be grandfathered in. Dorothy Kerber, 365 First Street, said she had served on the citizens' committee which reviewed the ordinance. She felt that a 50-ft. lot was not large enough for the large duplexes being built today. Also, a 50-ft. lot was not large enough to provide adequate parking for these duplexes. Ms. Kerber felt the 50% impervious surface limit would be beneficial to stormwater management. Gerri Sabot, 330 First Street, said she had recently purchased property in Atlantic Beach with the intent to build a second unit. Under the current zoning this would be allowed. However, under the proposed zoning she would be unable to do so and would be denied the income she had planned on receiving from this property. Sherry110 Burns, 130 East Coast Drive, felt that some of the duplexes which have been built in P recent years had improved the area, and under the proposed ordinance she felt some of these • Page Three Minutes—April 16, 2001 Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance property owners would have trouble selling their property. She felt the intent of the ordinance was to get rid of duplexes and said this would ruin the investment she had made in her property. She felt the survey which had been mailed to the residents was misleading. Edward Patterson, 670 Plaza, inquired regarding the 25-ft. limit on recreational vehicles which could be parked in residential areas. He said he could see no need to limit such vehicles to 25-ft. as long as they could be parked behind the setback line on the owner's property. Keith Maddox, 348 Seventh Street, said he has been parking his 19-ft. boat in his yard since 1988 and had been cited twice recently for improperly parking his boat in his yard. He also reported that the city had cut a hole in his driveway and asked when this would be repaired. The Mayor said he would make sure this matter was looked into. Hobart Joost, 336 Seventh Street, said he has a 25-ft. boat and asked for clarification regarding the size of boat trailers which could be parked legally under the new ordinance and was advised that boat trailers could be up to 32-ft. • Steve Diebenow, 1301 River Place, representing QOP Radio Station, pointed out the radio station property was zoned Commercial General under the City of Jacksonville. After the area was annexed by Atlantic Beach the zoning was changed to Open Rural and the radio station was permitted by exception. Mr. Diebenow noted that radio station was not listed as either a permitted use or a use by exception under the new proposed Conservation District zoning and inquired if the radio station could be rebuilt if it was destroyed in a disaster. He suggested a special zoning category be established for the radio station property, similar to what had been done for the junkyard property. The Mayor suggested he submit his recommendation in writing and follow up with the City Manager. Sylvia Simmons, 211 Beach Avenue, said she was in favor of single family zoning in the core city but felt that the post-disaster situation needed to be addressed. She felt that people needed to be allowed to rebuild their homes and felt that existing structures needed to be grandfathered in. Paul Eakin, 1745 Beach Avenue, representing his neighbor, Craig Sutton, noted that boat was not defined, and also inquired whether the deletion of boat trailer as an accessory use was deliberate or if this was an oversight. He felt this section was misleading. Stephen Kuti, 1132 Linkside Drive, said he supported the 50% impervious surface limit and felt that 50% was a reasonable number and would help with stormwater management. Regarding the parking of boats he felt that one size did not fit all. He felt that licensed boats should be allowed to be parked on any residential property. • Bob Winters, 540 Sailfish Drive, felt that thinning population down the o ulation in the core city would also thin down the economy. He felt that the definition of recreational vehicle was vague and felt the intention was to include vehicles which were not used for primary transportation, and felt • Page Four Minutes—April 16, 2001 Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance to limit citizens to one such vehicles would result in hardships—he felt that two vehicles would be much more reasonable. Mr. Winters also inquired regarding the 20-ft setback requirement and asked how this figure was determined. Why 20 ft. and not 15 ft. or 5 ft? Was it for safety or aesthetic purposes? Mr. Winters also inquired whether a permit would be required for the installation of satellite antenna. J.P. Marchioli, 414 Sherry Drive, pointed out that the townhouses on Sherry Drive were a great improvement over the old duplexes which they had replaced. He felt that the 500 ft. separation of similar structures needed to be clarified — was the 500 feet to be measured in the same street, or was this a 500 ft. radius? Regarding the parking of boats, he felt that some consideration needed to be given to the size of lots. Charles Rohrman, 306/08 Fourth Street, said he was counting on his duplex for retirement income. • Michael Liff, 385 Third Street, owner of a duplex, said he felt the intent of the ordinance was to eliminate duplexes. He inquired why the only area being considered was First Street through Fourth Street in the core city. He was opposed to this change because he felt it would render his investment valueless. Gregg Carr, 574 Nautical Boulevard, said he is a boat owner and used to park his boat in his driveway. He now parks it on the grass were it is in compliance with city regulations. However, he said that this kills the grass, and from an aesthetic point of view, it looked much better when it was parked in his driveway. He suggested a 5-ft setback would be more reasonable. Dan Foglton, 333 Fourth Street, said he owned half of a duplex and wanted to protect his home and be assured he could rebuild it if his home should be destroyed . Dave Pesterfield, 307/309 Fourth Street, would like to be assured that he could build on the same footprint and possibly build higher if his home was destroyed. He pointed out that this would have no impact on the impervious surface requirement. Nancy Garcia, Northeast Florida Association of Realtors, (NEFAR) reiterated the concerns of the association which had been submitted in writing and are attached hereto as Exhibit A. She said the association felt that the ordinance would have a negative impact on property values; felt that Section 24-151 was counter productive and suggested that dog houses and children's play houses should be excluded from this section; felt the 50% impervious surface requirement may • have a negative impact on marketability and value of homes and that a lower limit on impervious surface may accomplish the desired result. Ms. Garcia indicated that NEFAR would continue to review the situation and pledged to assist the city where possible. • Page Five Minutes—April 16, 2001 Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance Pat Pillmore, 995 Camelia Street, did not see boats as being offensive and felt that owners should be allowed to park them in their yards; approved of the duplex zoning in the core city area and said she would like to see this concept developed further where small businesses could be operated downstairs with living quarters upstairs; felt that stronger enforcement of parking regulations was needed in business districts. Peggy Cornelius, 278 First Street, liked the diversity of Atlantic Beach and felt that a zoning change in the core city area would limit the ability of some people to live in Atlantic Beach; indicated she was not in favor of any maximum impervious surface limit. Bob Totter, 275 11th Street, felt that all areas of the city did not receive equal representation on the City Commission and encouraged the establishment of electoral districts. Don Phillips, 1566 Park Terrace West, complimented Don Wolfson and all those who had worked on the proposed ordinance. He indicated that the engineers working on the core city drainage project had recommended limiting the amount of impervious surface and felt that establishing such a limit would help the St. Johns River Water Management District to look favorably on the infrastructure project. Alan Potter, 374 Second Street, felt that if duplexes were destroyed, the insurance coverage may not be adequate to pay off the remaining mortgages. He felt the City Commission did not have authority to prevent property owners from rebuilding what they currently own and felt that all existing duplexes should be grandfathered in, otherwise he felt the city was opening itself up to the possibility of several class action law suits. Since no one else wished to speak, the Mayor declared the p . ' -acing closed and adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. II 1 S. I SERVE YOR ATTEST : ntat-OttO-v,..) MAUREEN KING CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A Minutes - 4/16/01 • tASSONORTHEAST FLORIDA CIATION OF REALTORS® INC. REALTOR 3949 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD • JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207-2013 TELEPHONE(904) 396-1323 • FAX(904) 398-8025 April 7, 2001 The Honorable John S. Meserve 2126 Beach Avenue Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Dear Mayor Meserve: On behalf of the Northeast Florida Association of Realtors, (NEFAR), I am writing to you regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 24 Zoning and Subdivision Regulations for the City of Atlantic Beach. We commend the City and the City Commission for this effort to update the regulations to address the current economic and environmental issues surrounding land use. A review of the new ordinance, however, has generated some • concern from Realtors regarding its effect on the value of land in Atlantic Beach and the rights of real property owners in the city. As Realtors our Code of Ethics established by the National Association of Realtors directs us to become and remain informed on issues affecting real estate and to assist regulatory bodies to eliminate practices which may damage the public. We recognize that the interests of a community and its citizens require the best use of land and the widest distribution of land ownership. Adequate housing, a functioning city and healthy environment are all components of a desirable community in which to live. Realtors are also dedicated to preserve and protect the rights of individuals to own real property. Upon review of the proposed changes to Chapter 24 Zoning and Subdivision Regulations NEFAR's Beaches Legislative Task Force has determined that some provisions may be detrimental to the purpose and intent of the regulations as established in Section 24-2. Specifically, we believe if implemented as written, this new ordinance will have a negative impact on property values in the City. In addition several provisions effectively deny the rights of property owners and in our opinion serve as a detriment to the promotion and protection of the general welfare of the public. The members of the Northeast Florida Association of Realtors recognize the importance of efforts to preserve and promote the value of land. However attempts to legislate these issues are complicated and costly. Administration and implementation of these regulations must be clear and balanced to protect the rights of all landowners and • ensure their due process under the law. REALTOR'—is a registered mark which identifies a professional in Real Estate who subscrib s to a strict Code of F.th cs as a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS' • Forour consideration, attached is a list of NEFAR's concerns regarding the Y 9 9 proposed changes to Chapter 24. It is our hope that you will consider these points as you review the proposed legislation, Should you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact, Nancy Garcia, NEFAR Director of Government Affairs at 904-396-1323. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, (07,1 979?1,/,-- Dan Jones 2001 President, Northeast Florida Association of REALTORS® • • • RF1L1OR .-i. � •.ti .. .. . r�y,i tcrrJ mark which identifies,;+ �mfr��ion:+t In Neal Ii.catr who auhncrihr. to a moo Code of EthiQi 3+3 on•mlxr u(the NATIONAL AJSOC1Al ION OF R€ALTORS' • Atlantic Beach Chapter 24 Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Proposed Revisions The Northeast Florida Association of REALTORS® has identified four areas of concern regarding the proposed revisions. 1. RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS -- ZONING ORDINANCE § 24-85(a),(4) • Assessed value does not always equate to market value. Section 24-85 (a),(4) prohibits reconstruction when "more than fifty (50) percent of the assessed value of the nonconforming building is destroyed."Assessed value as established by the Duval County Property Appraiser does not always equate to actual market value, particularly in a rapidly rising market, such as Atlantic Beach. If a property is substantially under-assessed, a 50 percent threshold might equate to a comparatively small amount of damage from fire or flood. For example a nonconforming home assessed at $100,000, could not be rebuilt to original specifications if it suffered $50,000 worth of damage, even though the home may in fact be worth $200,000 on the market. The homeowner could lose significant value if rebuilding to conform results in a much smaller house. • • The provision will result in loss of property value. Section 24-85(4) appears not to only prevent voluntarily razing a structure so that it can be rebuilt, but also to limit rebuilding in the event of a fire, flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster. This provision can be unfair to property owners-for example where the property may be oddly shaped or situated so that a nonconforming structure is the only type of structure that can reasonably be placed on the lot, or where there has been a substantial investment in a property that insurance proceeds do not account for. For example, if an unusual building is used for a restaurant or a shop, is destroyed by an accidental fire, and can only be rebuilt much smaller, the owner could suffer significant depreciation of property value. • Section 24-85(4) could also produce undesired effects on urban form. For example, if one building out of a line of dimensionally non-conforming buildings is destroyed, and any replacement on that lot must comply with current zoning standards, the resulting replacement building may be sited substantially closer to or further from the street or be shorter or differently shaped, or have a different orientation, making for a less attractive neighborhood. • The amendments do not sufficiently distinguish between a non- conforming building and a nonconforming use. The casualty provision in Section 24-85(4) appears to apply only to the reconstruction of non-conforming buildings for a non-conforming use. The definition of"nonconforming use or • building" in Section 24-17 compounds the confusion in that it seems to address only use concerns and to ignore issues of structural non-conformity. • 2. PERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS - ZONING ORDINANCE § 24-104 TO 24-107 • A 50% pervious surface requirement may have a significant adverse impact on housing marketability and value. In the RS-1 Single Family Residential District, lots may be as small as 7,500 square feet and maximum building height is set at 35 feet. In the RS-2 Single Family Residential District, lots are even smaller - only 5,000 square feet, again with a maximum building height of 35 feet. A review of the Duval County Tax Rolls by NEFAR also found approximately 1130 residential lots in the City that are less than 5000 square feet in area and 1071 residential lots between 5000 and 7500 square feet in area. (Includes RS-1, RS-2, RG-1, RG-1A, RG-2, and RG-3 districts.) Combined these small lots represent approximately 60.4°!0 of the residential lots in Atlantic Beach. In tropical areas such as Atlantic Beach, outdoor living structures, like pools and patios, are highly desirable. A 50% pervious surface requirement, particularly on small lots, may make it impossible to construct a marketable home with the desired outdoor amenities. • A pervious surface requirement should be based on sound technical analyses of groundwater recharge characteristics and soil permeability. Less ground area may be needed to provide adequate recharge where the underlying soils are highly sandy. It may be the case that a lower requirement for • pervious surface would still provide for adequate groundwater recharge. 3. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES - ZONING ORDINANCE §24-17 AND 24-151 • The accessory use and structure limitation is inordinately restrictive and effectively denies a property owner of their rights. While limitations on the size and number of accessory buildings makes sense in high-density residential neighborhoods, the broad definition of structure in the Zoning Ordinance Amendments results in a regulation that is far too restrictive. Virtually everything, other than a pool or small pump house, is subject to the restriction. Popular and common accessories, such as doghouses and children's play equipment should be specifically excluded. • A screened porch attached to the house should not be considered an accessory structure, In a community where screened porches are highly desirable, this is an onerous restriction placed upon the homeowner. • Setting a limit of one accessory structure on a lot is potentially counterproductive to the community. In an area where screened enclosures around pools are very popular, the limitation may result in a homeowner choosing the screened enclosure over a detached garage. Garages, however, can significantly improve the appearance of neighborhoods by providing storage space not only for • vehicles, but also for a variety of outdoor implements that would otherwise contribute to yard clutter. • • The proposed limitation effectively imparts upon the City a reputation as being unfriendly to families. Under the proposed amendments, a property owner would have to choose between a screened porch and a swing set for her children or grandchildren, between a dog house and a garage, and between a garden gazebo and a tool shed. 4. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES -- ZONING ORDINANCE §24-17, 24-85(a), (1), (2), AND 24-163 • The limitation placed on recreational vehicles is unreasonable, particularly when considered in combination with the limitations on accessory structures and impervious surfaces. If outdoor storage of recreational vehicles is limited to no more than one, residents should be given other options for storing additional vehicles on their properties. For example, additional accessory buildings should be allowed for this purpose. • The broad definition of recreational vehicles combined with the limitation • to one would lead to some nonsensical and unfair results. For example, although a single boat stored outside is likely to have significantly greater visual impact than two all-terrain vehicles, only one all-terrain vehicle will be allowed. • Recreational choices of residents will be severely restricted. A resident who has a screened pool would be unable to construct a detached garage to house a boat and trailer, as it would exceed the accessory structure limit, and possibly the pervious surface limit as well. Consequently, the resident would be forced to store the boat and trailer outside, but would be precluded from storing more than one of them on his or her property because of the recreational vehicle restriction. I