5-21-13 Minutes of the May 21,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
J�
rf 9
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
May 21, 2013
1. CALL TO ORDER.-6:02pm
Chair Brea Paul verified the presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess,
Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Brea Paul, Sylvia Simmons, and Patrick Stratton. The meeting
was called to order at 6:02pm. Also present was Principal Planner Erika Hall. Board
member Harley Parkes was absent.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES-APRIL 16,2013.
Ms. Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the April 16, 2013 regular
meeting. Mr. Hansen requested, for a point of clarification, that the minutes be
amended to note that he serves on the Board of Directors for the Selva Marina Country
Club, Inc, and that he is a participant in the LLC providing bridge financing to the Club.
However, since nothing decided by the CDB would affect his financial interests, he
declared he had no conflict of interest and therefore would not recuse himself from
taking part in the public hearing and vote. Mr. Elmore moved that minutes be approved,
with the modification as requested by Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion
and it carried by a vote of 6-0.
3. OLD BUSINESS.None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. REZ-13-00100052, 1 Fleet Landing Boulevard [Kami Corbett, Foley& Lardner, LLP,
and Brian Burke, Brian Burke Associates, on behalf of Naval Continuing Care
Retirement Foundation Inc(Fleet Landing)]
Public Hearing - Request to modify the existing Fleet Landing Planned Unit
Development (PUD) as approved by Ordinance No. 90-88-135 and amended by
Ordinance No. 90-90-152, to incorporate an additional 2.06 acres and reconfigure
the Master Development Plan to allow the relocation of the existing maintenance
facility and the construction of a new Memory Care Center.
Staff Ms. Hall explained that Fleet Landing was originally approved as a
Report Planned Unit Development in 1989, and later amended in 1990 for
the inclusion of an additional 1.7 acres and relocation of certain
previously approved facilities in 1990. She said that amendment
was similar to the request before the Board today, explaining that
Naval Continuing Care Retirement Foundation, Inc, as the owner of
Fleet Landing, has recently acquired a two-acre parcel with
Page 1 of 4
w.www,
Minutes of the May 21,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
frontage on Mayport Road, and they now wish to incorporate that
parcel which also abuts the existing Fleet Landing property, into
the PUD and relocate the maintenance facilities from the current
location in the northwest corner of the property to the new parcel.
Doing so would allow the construction of a specialized skilled
nursing facility — called the Nancy House, for the treatment of
Alzheimer's patients — directly adjacent to the existing skilled
nursing facility.
Ms. Hall noted that the approved PUD allowed up to a maximum of
three hundred twenty-four (324) independent dwellings and
eighty-eight (88) skilled nursing beds, for a total of four hundred
twelve (412) units. Of those, three hundred twenty (320)
independent dwellings and eighty (80) beds, for a total of four
hundred (400) units, have been constructed, meaning that there
are twelve (12) additional units still available that could be
constructed. The proposed modification calls for the use of eight
(8) of those unconstructed units held in reserve, and the relocation
of sixteen (16) beds from the existing skilled nursing facility, leaving
four (4) units in reserve for future use.
Ms. Hall stated that the proposed modification, including the
rezoning of the new parcel from Commercial General (CG) to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) is entirely consistent with the
underlying Future Land Use designation of Commercial (CM). Also,
she said the proposed modification is generally consistent with the
description of a minor deviation, as provided in Section 24-124 of
the Land Development Regulations, particularly noting that there
was no proposed change in use, as both skilled nursing and
maintenance facilities are provided on the approved site
development plan; that there is no plan to increase building height,
density or intensity, and that the addition of 2.06 acres actually
resulted in a slight decrease in density; that there is no decrease in
buffers or open space proposed; and that there are no changes to
the existing access points or driveways.
Applicant Kami Corbett, an attorney with Foley & Lardner, LLP (Tampa office),
Comment said she represented Fleet Landing in this matter. Ms. Corbett said
that she had reviewed the staff report and agreed with the position
that the request was supportive of the Comprehensive Plan and
consistent with the Land Development Regulations. She
introduced Brian Burke, of Brian Burke Associates (Atlantic Beach)
as the Planner on the project, and said that Mr. Burke would
address any questions regarding the proposed modification to the
Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the May 21,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
site development plan. Mr. Burke displayed exhibits showing the
location of the new parcel, and explaining the plan to relocate the
existing maintenance facilities and construct the new Memory Care
Center. He noted that the new maintenance facilities would be
located 150-200 from the from property line, and therefore would
be out of the delineated Mayport Road Commercial Corridor, and
that front area would be preserved as a wooded area, possibly for
future development. He added that the new parcel would be
fenced and there would be a right-in only access from Mayport
Road, but it would be gated and secured.
Public No one from the audience came forth to give comment on the
Comment request.
Board Mr. Hansen asked why the additional parcel was needed, why they
Discussion had not used undeveloped space within the existing PUD, to which
Mr. Burke responded that any perceived "undeveloped" space with
the existing PUD was actually designated as required buffer and/or
open space. Additionally, relocation of the maintenance facility
was a logistic decision. Relocation of the maintenance facility to
the new parcel would allow direct access via Mayport Road, thus
removing delivery traffic and relieving congestion at the primary
entrance on Fleet Landing Boulevard.
Mr. Stratton stated that he wished to disclose that while he has no
financial interest in Fleet Landing, his parents have lived there for
more than twenty years.
Mr. Elmore stated that he had no issues with the proposal,
recognizing this as more of a matter of house-keeping. He
congratulated the consultants on a job well done and thanked
them for providing a succinct and well-organized application and
presentation. Mr. Burgess concurred.
Motion Mr. Elmore moved that the Community Development Board
recommend approval of the Fleet Landing PUD Modification
(Application REZ-13-00100052) to the City Commission, for the
lands described within said application, approving the
incorporation of an additional 2.06 acres into the Planned Unit
Development and revision of the site development plan, and
adopting the application and supporting documents, and all terms
and conditions set forth therein, subject to conditions enumerated,
and providing the following findings of fact: (1) The request for
PUD Modification, including rezoning of 2.06 acres from
Commercial General (CG) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), has
Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the May 21,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
been fully considered after public hearing with legal notice duly
published as required by law; (2) The proposed PUD Modification,
specifically the rezoning of 2.06 acres from Commercial General
(CG) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Designation of
Commercial (CM); (3) The proposed PUD Modification is consistent
with the Land Development Regulations, specifically Article Ill,
Division 6, establishing standards for modification to previously
approved Planned Unit Developments; (4) The requested rezoning
and the proposed site development plan are consistent with the
stated definition, intent and purpose of Planned Unit
Developments; (5) The zoning district classification of Planned Unit
Development, and the specific uses and special conditions as set
forth therein, are consistent and compatible with surrounding
development. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously, 6-0.
5. REPORTS. None.
6. ADJOURNMENT-6:16 PM
f/5212j?Qt _
Brea Paul, Chair
aCJLQL )
Attest
Page 4 of 4
immummomommommilommomiimmink