4-16-13 Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
•S `J'r
S Y
J StiY
J lir yr
r i3 9i'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
April 16, 2013
1. CALL TO ORDER.-6:07pm
Chair Brea Paul verified the presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess,
Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Brea Paul, and Patrick Stratton. The meeting was called to
order at 6:07pm. Also present were NS Mayport Liaison and ex-officio board member
Matt Schellhorn, Principal Planner Erika Hall, and Building and Zoning Director Michael
Griffin. Board members Harley Parkes and Sylvia Simmons were absent.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES-MARCH 19,2013.
Ms. Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular
meeting. Mr. Hansen moved that minutes be approved as written. Mr. Elmore seconded
the motion and it carried by a vote of 5-0.
3. OLD BUSINESS.None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR-13-00100047,42 East Coast Drive(Shoppes of Lakeside,Inc)
Request for variance from Section 24-161(f)(3), to allow non-residential off-street
parking that backs into a public right-of-way.
Staff Ms. Hall explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a
Report two-story structure, with the first floor dedicated to parking and
the second floor dedicated to a seven thousand eight hundred ten
((7,810) square foot restaurant space, including three thousand
two hundred forty (3,240) square foot air-conditioned space, a two
thousand nine hundred seventy (2,970) square foot open-air dining
deck and a one thousand six hundred (1,600) square foot open-air
dining deck. The submitted conceptual plan shows a total of one-
hundred fifty-six (156) seats, and per Section 24-161(h)(15),
required off-street parking for restaurants and bars is one (1) space
for each four (4) seats, including any outdoor seating where service
occurs. Thus, a minimum of thirty-nine (39) off-street spaces
would be required to accommodate the proposed seating. Forty-
four (44) off-street parking spaces were shown on the submitted
parking level plan, with a total of fourteen (14) accessed directly
from, and requiring backing into the Ahern Street public right-of-
Page 1 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
way, which Ms. Hall said was contrary to the provisions of Section
24-161(f)(3) which prohibits off-street parking for all uses other
than single- and two-family residential backing into public rights-
of-way.
Ms. Hall reviewed Section 24-64(d), grounds of approval for a
variance, stating that neither (1) exceptional topographic
conditions (5) irregular shape of the property or (6) substandard
size of a lot of record, were applicable. She then focused on the
applicant's statements regarding the applicability of provisions (2),
(3) and (4).
The applicant had asserted that Section24-64(d)(2) — surrounding
conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately
from nearby properties — was applicable because there are
seventy-five (75) existing spaces serving surrounding properties
that are allowed to back onto Ahern Street. Ms. Hall confirmed
there are twenty-seven (27) spaces serving the commercial uses at
Shoppes of North Shore, located directly west of the subject
property, which do back onto Ahern Street. However, that
development was constructed in 1990/91, and the parking plan
was approved as part of a use-by-exception on June 26, 1989, and
later amended on February 26, 1990, more than 27 years prior to
the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-07-200 on July 9, 2007, which
enacted the provisions of Section 24-161(f)(3). The remaining
forty-two (42) spaces with "direct access" to Ahern street serve
residential uses that are either single- or two-family, and thus are
exempt from the provisions of Section 24-161(f)(3), or are multi-
family or condo units that were approved and in process and/or
constructed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-07-200 in
2007.
Ms. Hall reminded the Board that per Section 24-64(b)(4), the
nonconforming use of adjacent or neighboring lands, structures or
buildings shall not be considered as justification for the approval of
a variance.
The applicant also claimed Section 24-64(d)(3) — exceptional
circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as
compared to other properties in the area — was applicable, but
failed to explain how. Ms. Hall noted the proposed use was
entirely consistent with the permitted uses allowed within the
Central Business District, but she explained that the submitted
conceptual plan exceeded the development capacity of the site.
Page 2 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Ms. Hall suggested that the property can still be developed to its
best and highest use, while respecting the capacity of the site, by
(1) reducing the structure size and seating capacity to the
minimum required to obtain a Series 4-COP SRX alcoholic beverage
license, being two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in
area and one hundred fifty (150) seats, thereby reducing the
required off-street parking to thirty-eight (38) spaces; and (2)
reconfiguring parking level design so that vehicular circulation is
maintained on the subject property, thus eliminating the need to
back into the Ahern Street right-of-way. She projected an
alternative parking plan to demonstrate that this could be
accomplished.
Finally, the applicant claimed that Section 24-64(d)(4) — onerous
effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of
the property or after construction of improvements upon the
property — was applicable. Ms. Hall agreed the current provisions
of Section 24-161(f)(3) were adopted after the applicant's purchase
of the subject property in 2000. However, she noted that the
applicant had previously submitted an application for a concurrent
rezone and use-by-exception on the subject property just one
month after adoption of Ordinance 90-07-200. At that time, and as
noted in the official minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community
Development Board meeting, the applicant acknowledged the new
parking regulation and committed to complying with it. She said
the current Board should have the same expectation that the same
client would work within the same regulations today.
Ms. Hall then reviewed applicable provisions of Section 24-64-(c) —
grounds for denial of a variance —which state no variance shall be
granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion,
determines that the granting of the requested variance shall have
materially adverse impact upon (2) congestion of streets, or (3)
public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or
other threats to public safety. She then read the Public Safety
review comments submitted by Police Chief Michael Classey:
"We have reviewed the request for the variance referenced above.
As you know, Sec 24-161(f)(3) specifically prohibits constructing
parking spaces which require drivers to back up into the public
right-of-way. The applicant characterizes Ahern Street as more of a
"service alley". While a vehicle volume study was not able to be
completed due to the very short turnaround time of the
evaluation, the police department does not concur with this
Page 3 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
description. While not to the level of a thru street such as
Seminole or Sherry, Ahern Street is a heavily traveled roadway. It is
used for much more than accessing the existing parking spaces as
the applicant contends and serves as a cut thru between Sherry,
East Coast, Ocean and Beach. Any parking plan that would cause
vehicles to back out into the roadway would create an unnecessary
hazard that could not be supported from a public safety
standpoint."
Ms. Hall concluded, reminding the Board that also according to
Section 24-64(c), variances shall not be granted solely for personal
comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or
for relief from situations created by the property owner.
Applicant Richard Trendel, Petra Management, Inc (2440 Mayport Road)
Comment spoke on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the applicant's
claim that the parking proposed to back onto Ahern Street was
consistent existing parking serving other properties which abut
Ahern Street.
Public No one from the audience came forth to give comment on the
Comment request.
Board Mr. Elmore stated that while he would love to see something
Discussion developed on the site which had long been an eyesore, he could
not support this variance request. He disagreed with the
characterization of Ahern as a service alley, and he complimented
staff for illustrating that parking requirements could be sufficiently
met on-site and without backing into the public right-of-way.
Mr. Stratton agreed, noting that the alternative plan drawn by staff
would not require a variance.
Mr. Hansen added that the subject property requires a higher
degree of compliance with the regulations due to the fact that it is
a corner property. Visibility, and thus safety, is further impaired by
the jog in Ahern Street.
Motion Mr. Hansen moved that the Community Development Board deny
ZVAR-13-00100047, a request for variance from Section 24-
161(f)(3), to allow required non-residential off-street parking that
backs into a public right-of-way, finding that there are no
surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property
disparately from nearby properties, but that certain other
properties were developed before the adoption of Ordinance No.
Page 4 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
90-07-200 and in accordance with an approved use-by-exception,
or they are exempt from the provisions of Section 24-161(f)(3) due
to the nonresidential nature of their use; finding that there are no
exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the
property as compared to other properties in the area, but that the
applicant's proposal exceeds the physical capacity of the property
and there exists alternative design scenarios that would be in
accordance with the requirements of Section 24-161(f)(3); finding
that though regulation has been enacted after the platting of the
property, it does not have an onerous effect on the future
development of the property, because it has been demonstrated
that the property can be developed to its highest and best use
while meeting the requirements of Section 24-161(f)(3); and,
finding that proposal would have a materially adverse effect on
public safety by creating traffic hazards impacting both motorized
and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously, 5-0.
B. REZ-13-00100048, 1600 Selva Marina Drive (Atlantic Beach Partners,LLC)
Request to rezone approximately 33.90 acres from Planned Unit Development(PUD)
to Special Planned Area (SPA). The subject property is currently used as a golf
course and country club. The proposed project is the redevelopment of the Selva
Marina Country Club facilities, including the clubhouse and recreational amenities,
which may include a pool, cabana/clubhouse, pro shop(s), health/exercise facility,
offices, tennis court(s)and/or field(s),parking,storage,and similar facilities.
Staff Mr. Elmore disclosed that he is the landscape architect of record
Report for this project, and having a financial interest, he stated he would
abstain from debate and vote on this matter, though he would be
happy to answer any questions that the Board might have.
Mr. Hansen disclosed that he is on the Board of Directors of the
Selva Marina Country Club 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 he would not recuse himself from
debate and vote on the matter.
Ms. Hall summarized the applicant's request as being a
modification of an existing PUD, and explained that identical
documents have been concurrently filed with the City of
Jacksonville seeking the following changes: (1) Exclusion of the
Selva Preserve parcel (RE# 172027-0100, located within the City of
Atlantic Beach) from the overall project; (2) Inclusion of the
existing Selva Marina Country Club golf course parcel (RE# 169399-
Page 5 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
0000, located within the City of Jacksonville) in the overall project;
and (3) reconfiguration of the conceptual site plan, relocating all
residential development to the center of the golf course parcel.
She stated that the current application is the pre-cursor to an
annexation initiative which would bring the golf course property
and the proposed residential development entirely into the
Atlantic Beach jurisdiction. As such, compatibility with established
development patterns and preservation of the natural
environment are significant factors to the residents of Atlantic
Beach, and there applicant has indicated that there will be a deed
restriction recorded that would designate the remaining
undeveloped golf course property as perpetual green space upon
the annexation of that property into Atlantic Beach.
She then explained that the proposed modification was consistent
with and supported a number of goals, objectives and policies of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use
Element, the Recreation and Open Space Element, and the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element.
Ms. Hall projected a table entitled "Site Summary Comparison" and
reviewed the acreage allocation in the approved Selva Marina
Country Club (SMCC) Residential PUD as well as the proposed
Atlantic Beach Country Club (ABCC) SPA/PUD. She noted the
approved SMCC Residential PUD consisted of a total of about forty-
nine (49) acres and one hundred fourteen (114) dwelling units,
while the proposed ABCC SPA/PUD consists of about one hundred
sixty-nine (169) acres and a maximum of one hundred eighty (180)
dwelling units. Thus the effective density of the project will be
reduced from two and three-tenths (2.3) dwelling units per acre to
one and one-tenth (1.1) dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Hall then projected a table entitled "Development Standards
Comparison" and reviewed the approved and proposed housing
mix, as well as minimum lot standards, yard requirements,
maximum height and impervious surface standards. She noted the
approved SMCC Residential PUD consists of a mix of single and
multi-family units in a compact Neo-Traditional arrangement,
whereas the proposed modification consists only of single-family
dwellings in an arrangement more characteristic of a suburban
subdivision. She stated the lot development standards are
generally consistent with the those required by Atlantic Beach
single-family zoning districts, with the main differences being a
Page 6 of 17
Minutes of the April 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
slight reduction in front yard setbacks, from twenty (20) feet to
fifteen (15) feet and rear yard setbacks, from twenty (20) feet to
ten (10) feet, as well as a maximum impervious surface area of
sixty-five (65) percent as opposed to Atlantic Beach's current fifty
(50) percent. However, she explained these were acceptable
deviations from Atlantic Beach standards due to the fact that the
entire residential development would be surrounded by over one
hundred seventeen (117) acres of golf course that would most
likely be preserved with a deed restriction or conservation
easement.
Ms. Hall then explained staff had collectively identified a number
of areas of concern described in her original staff report to the
Board. She said the applicant had met with staff and offered a
number of concessions based upon those discussions, in the form
of a revised narrative (Exhibit D), submitted to staff early this day
and provided to the Board tonight in the form of a strike-
through/underline draft. She then addressed each of these
concerns and how the applicant was addressing each.
• SECTION III-A.1.d: USE OF COURTYARD LOTS FOR
DAILY/OVERNIGHT RENTALS. Within the City of Atlantic
Beach, short term rentals — being anything less than
ninety (90) days —are expressly prohibited in residential
zoning districts. Staff had recommended establishing a
maximum number of such Courtyard Lots that could be
used for short term rentals, as well as the maximum
number of guests to be allowed per unit and the
minimum stay. The applicant added language stating
that (1) the maximum number of Courtyard Lots to be
used for daily/overnight rental would be four (4) units
located within the same courtyard lot configuration; (2)
all such units shall be owned by the same entity, which
shall be the owner/operator of a hospitality business,
such as hotel(s) or resort(s), and shall be managed by an
entity with offices in Duval County; and (3) all such
units shall be subject to restrictive covenants, including
a provision such that if ownership passes from a
hospitality business to an individual, daily/overnight
rentals shall no longer be a permitted use.
• SECTION III.A.11: "SPIRES, CUPOLAS, STEEPLES,
CHIMNEYS AND OTHER APPURTENANCES NOT
INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY MAY BE PLACED
Page 7 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS". Within the City of
Atlantic Beach, height is defined as the vertical distance
from the applicable beginning point of measurement to
the highest point of a building's roof structure or
parapet, and any attachments thereto, exclusive of
chimneys only within the residential zoning districts.
Ms. Hall reminded the Board that this provision is
included in the City Charter and is non-waiverable
within residential zoning districts, though there is a
provision for waiver to height, for inclusion of non-
habitable architectural features on structures within
non-residential zoning districts, and the applicant could
seek such a waiver for structures on the non-residential
clubhouse parcel. As such, the applicant revised this
section to conform to provisions of Article XIV, Section
59 of the Charter of the City of Atlantic Beach and the
definition of "height" as provided in Chapter 24 (Land
Development Regulations).
• SECTION III-B: IMPACT OF CLUBHOUSE/RECREATIONAL
AMENITIES ACTIVITIES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. Ms.
Hall said that while staff recognizes the applicant has
shown consideration for adjacent residential properties
with the inclusion of vegetative buffers, directional
lighting and lighting timers, there is still concern as to
the impact activities held in conjunction with the
clubhouse and recreational amenities will potentially
have on the surrounding neighborhoods. As such, staff
suggested that perhaps hours be established both for
normal (daily) operations and for special activities
involving additional lighting and public address systems
and/or amplified music. The applicant replied that the
property already functions as a golf and country club,
and there is no anticipated change in the hours of
operation. As noted, vegetative buffers, directional
lighting and lighting timers will be regularly utilized to
temper impact upon adjacent residential properties.
Further there will be immediate compliance with any
code enforcement directives regarding complaints
received.
• SECTION III-D.1.a — DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
— SPECIFICALLY THOSE WITHOUT A BONUS ROOM
ABOVE — MAY BE LOCATED IN A REAR OR SIDE YARD
Page 8 of 17
Minutes of the April 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
THREE (3) FEET FROM A LOT LINE. Ms. Hall noted that
although most lots within the proposed development
back up to the golf course, there are a number of lots
which abut other lots. Within the City of Atlantic
Beach, all detached accessory structures thirty (30)
inches or greater in height are required to comply with
a minimum five (5) foot rear and side yard setback.
Staff recommended compliance with this provision.
The applicant revised this section to comply with
Atlantic Beach standards.
• SECTION III-D.3 — LAND CLEARING IS PROPOSED AS AN
ACCESSORY USE. Ms. Hall reported that staff had had
an extensive discussion with the applicant regarding
tree removal and land clearing related to
redevelopment of the property versus that which would
be considered normal maintenance essential to the
operation of the golf course and recreational amenities.
This provision remains as originally written, such that,
for maintenance purposes of the facilities, land clearing
remains an accessory use, subject to applicable fire
codes and other land development regulations.
• SECTION III-E.4 — PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
ACCESS AT DUTTON ISLAND ROAD EAST "MAY" BE
SECURED INSIDE THE PROPERTY TO LIMIT ACCESS TO
RESIDENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL
TRAFFIC TO/FROM THE GOLF COURSE, CLUBHOUSE
AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES. Ms. Hall noted that
the securing of Dutton Island Road East access had been
a major issue in previous proposals and the approved
Selva Marina Country Club Residential PUD expressly
states that "permanent access and internal roadways
shall be designed, developed and maintained such that
the development cannot be used as a 'cut-through'
route from Selva Marina Drive to Mayport Road". She
said she had spoken with the applicant who concurred
this provision was supposed to read "shall", and it was
revised accordingly.
• SECTION III-F.7 — AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF BANNER
SIGNS NOT TO EXCEED FIFTY (50) SQUARE FEET IN AREA
TO PROMOTE SEASONAL, CIVIC, OR COMMUNITY
EVENTS THAT OCCUR ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, AS WELL
Page 9 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
AS FESTIVAL BANNERS PLACED ON STREET LIGHT POLES,
ARE PERMITTED. Within the City of Atlantic Beach,
banners must be registered with the City. Each
establishment or organization is limited to thirty (30)
consecutive or cumulative days per calendar year, and
the banner may neither contain an advertising message
nor hang over or extend into rights-of-way. Staff
recommended the prohibition of banners on public
property, including the placement of festival banners on
street light poles located within the public right-of-way,
as well as a limitation on the number of events and/or
cumulative days that event banners may be displayed,
and a requirement that banners shall only be visible
internally to the development. The applicant agreed
that banners would be permitted pursuant to Section
17-33 and revised this section accordingly.
• SECTION III-H — PROPERTIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE (GOLF COURSE,
RESIDENCES) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO COJ LANDSCAPING
AND TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS, WHILE
PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH (CLUBHOUSE,
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO COAB
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS.
Ms. Hall said staff had several concerns related to this
provision. First, there was the concern that the land
within Jacksonville would be cleared according to COJ
regulations, and there would be a monetary payment to
COJ rather than replanting of trees to meet mitigation
requirements. Second, there was concern that due to
COJ's less stringent minimum tree standards — being
one (1) tree per five thousand (5,000) square feet of lot
area — as opposed to Atlantic Beach standards — being
one (1) tree per two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet of lot area — the new development would
have a residential tree canopy significantly different
from adjacent neighborhoods. According to the
applicant, the main reason to apply the COJ standards
for tree removal from the golf course and residential
area was to reduce the burden of mitigation that would
be associated with the many pine trees located on the
property. However, the applicant expressed a
commitment to meeting the Atlantic Beach minimum
Page 10 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
tree standards for residential properties. Ms. Hall
reported that after a lengthy discussion, a compromise
was reached in which it was confirmed that all tree
removal, land clearing and landscaping would be
reviewed and permitted through the City of Atlantic
Beach, though the staff would apply the COJ standards
for tree removal on the golf course/residential parcel.
The language of this clarified to reflect this.
• EXHIBIT H — TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PLANNED ATLANTIC
BEACH COUNTRY CLUB. Ms. Hall said the original traffic
study prepared by Transportation Planners Enterprise,
Inc, dated March 19, 2013, focused on two intersections
only — Mayport Road/Dutton Island Road East and
Seminole Road/Selva Marina Drive. Staff found this
study to be faulty for three reasons: (1) It assumed all
residential traffic would utilize Dutton Island Road for
ingress/egress and therefore did not anticipate impacts
(from residential units) to Selva Marina Drive and
Seminole Road; (2) It did not anticipate impacts to the
intersection of Seminole Road/Plaza/Sherry Drive,
locally known as "Five Way"; and, (3) It only analyzed
the PM rush hour, though staff suggests a significant
impact will be on the AM movement through the Five
Way intersection. Ms. Hall reported that an updated
traffic study, dated April 12, 2013, was submitted and
had been included in the materials Board members
received at the beginning of the meeting. She said this
document addressed staff concerns as follows: (1) The
revised model dispersed thirty-three (33) percent of
residential traffic to Selva Marina Drive and sixty-seven
(67) percent to Dutton Island Road East by year 2016;
(2) New traffic counts were taken at the Five Way
intersection; and (3) New traffic counts were taken for
the AM rush hour. Ms. Hall explained that the projected
impact of the project is about a six (6) percent increase
in traffic by 2016. She then displayed a table from the
updated traffic study summarizing the estimated traffic
impacts on level of service, and noted that the overall
impact was below the established level of service for
each road, as provided in the Transportation Element of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant T R Hainline, Rogers Towers, PA, introduced himself as the
Page 11 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Comment authorized agent for the applicant, which he said was a team of
local builders and developers with a great track record. He
thanked staff for the detailed and thorough review of the project,
and said he now wished to provide the Board with a broad view of
the goals the applicant wished to accomplish, namely (1) to
maintain the viability of the club; (2) to maintain the value of the
land; and (3) to maintain the natural environment, particularly the
viewsheds, important to this community.
Mr. Hainline noted that the proposed development represents a
dramatic change from the approved PUD, in which all the density
was loaded into less than a quarter of the land of the new project,
but it is the applicant's desire to create a development that is
consistent with the existing character of Atlantic Beach. He
emphasized that the proposal consists of three distinctive uses —
single family residences, the golf course, and the clubhouse and
recreational amenities. He reiterated the applicant's commitment
to adequate buffers, secured access and a residential tree canopy
consistent with adjacent neighborhoods, and he emphasized the
updated traffic study's finding that levels of service on impacted
roads would remain acceptable.
Mr. Hainline then addressed a citizen concern regarding drainage
that was heard at a community meeting held the previous Tuesday
(April 9, 2013). He explained that drainage will be reviewed by at
least three agencies —the City of Atlantic Beach, the St Johns River
Water Management District, and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection — and that the development would
comply with all pre-/post-development requirements. Stormwater
facilities will be added to accommodate all runoff associated with
residential development and the as part of the golf course
redesign, the property will be graded and treatment basins will be
incorporated. He emphasized that stormwater runoff cannot be
added to the creek or adversely impact the storage capacity of the
creek.
Mr. Hainline then discussed annexation, stating that it is the
applicant's intent to seek annexation of the golf course and
residential properties into the City of Atlantic Beach. He said that
submittal of this concurrent rezone request to both jurisdictions is
the first step. The submittal of an interlocal agreement to each
jurisdiction will be an intermediate step.
Mr. Hainline concluded, emphasizing the applicant's commitment
Page 12 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
to continue working with staff and residents to meet the
overarching goals of the project (1)to maintain viability of the club;
(2) to maintain the value of the land; and, (3) to maintain the
natural environment, particularly the viewsheds, important to this
community.
Public James Wheeler (1404 Linkside Drive) stated he was concerned that
Comment there would be increased traffic utilizing 11th Street and Donner
Road as a cut-through between Seminole Road and Mayport Road.
Cindy Cain (1945 Francis Avenue) questioned how Dutton Island
Road East, which is now essentially one lane width, would be able
to accommodate traffic from the development. Ms. Paul invited
Mr. Hainline to respond, and he verified that Dutton Island Road
East will be improved to City of Atlantic Beach standards, with a
minimum pavement width of twenty (20) feet and secured access.
Janet Allen (1007 Big Pine Key) also expressed concern regarding
increased cut-through traffic on 11th Street, and she asked why the
applicant desired short term stays within the development. Mr.
Hainline said that the inclusion of the short term units was to
provide an option to collaborate with an established
resort/hospitality provider. Mr. Elmore elaborated, stating that the
overnight stay concept is part of the rebranding of the club. He
said that One Ocean had expressed a desire to market golf junkets,
and it is seen as a unique opportunity to benefit both the club and
local businesses.
Mary Kring (1580 Selva Marina Drive) asked what else could be
developed on the property according to this Special Planned Area
zoning, and if it is only single-family, why not change the zoning
district classification of the property to one of the conventional
single-family zoning districts. Mr. Hainline responded that the
portion of the project currently within the City of Atlantic Beach is
to be redeveloped with a new clubhouse and recreational
amenities, that there will be no residential units on this property
(other than the one existing house on the parcel to the north of
the clubhouse parcel). He continued, explaining that in a Special
Planned Area, as in a Planned Unit Development, the narrative and
the site plan are binding. What is constructed must conform to
what is shown on the site plan and what is described in the
narrative.
Father Mark Water (1243 Linkside Drive) inquired about the
proposed Dutton Island Road East access and expressed concern
Page 13 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
regarding increased cut-through traffic on 11th Street and Parkside
Drive, noting that most people try to avoid Five Way. Mr. Hainline
responded that the Dutton Island Road East access will be privately
owned and maintained, and that it will be a secured ingress/egress
for residents and commercial (vendor) traffic only. He added that if
staff felt the traffic study needed to be revised to include impacts
to 11th Street,the applicant would certainly comply.
Monica Hayes (Sevilla) concurred that traffic generally backs up a
block or more at the Five Way intersection during rush hour, and
most especially during the morning when the school traffic
controls are activated. She then asked if consideration had been
given as to the number of children this development would
generate, thus increasing the traffic with a school destination
during the morning rush hour. Ms. Hall told the Board that certain
demographic and destination assumptions are built into
transportation models, and thus the estimated number of trips
provided in the traffic study takes into account these concerns.
Board Mr. Stratton asked what the impact on the project would be if the
Discussion golf course was not annexed into Atlantic Beach. Ms. Hall
responded that the annexation was separate action and there
would not be any change in how the land was developed, whether
the golf course and residential parcels were located in or out of
Atlantic Beach. She reminded the Board that identical documents
— including both narrative and site plan — were submitted to both
the City of Jacksonville and Atlantic Beach.
Mr. Burgess summarized the differences in what is now approved
versus what is proposed, stating that the most striking differences
are (1) the change the boundaries and acreage, which is now four
times greater the adopted plan, but which also reduces the overall
density of the project; (2) the relocation of the residential
development to the center of the golf course to create a more
conventional residential golf community; and (3) the elimination of
multi-family housing.
Motion Mr. Stratton moved that the Community Development Board
recommend approval of the Atlantic Beach Country Club SPA
(Application REZ-13-00100048) to the City Commission, being a
change in zoning district classification from Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to Special Planned Area (SPA) for lands
described within said application, approving the site development
plan and adopting the application and supporting documents, and
Page 14 of 17
Minutes of the April 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
all terms and conditions as set forth therein, subject to conditions
enumerated, and provided the following findings of fact: (1) The
request for rezoning has been fully considered after public hearing
with legal notice duly published as required by law; (2) The
rezoning to Special Planned Area is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Designation of
Residential, Low Density; (3) The rezoning is consistent with the
Land Development Regulations, specifically Division 6, establishing
standards for Special Planned Areas; (4) The rezoning and the site
development plan are consistent with the stated definition, intent
and purpose of Special Planned Areas; and, (5) The zoning district
classification of Special Planned Area, and the specific uses and
special conditions as set forth herein, are consistent and
compatible with surrounding development. Mr. Burgess seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously, 4-0, with Mr. Elmore
abstaining due to his previously stated conflict of interest.
C. REZ-13-00100049,0 11th Street(Selva Preserve,LLC)
Request to rezone approximately 7.05 acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD)
to Residential Single Family (RS-1). The subject property is currently part of the
Selva Marina Residential PUD as the result of a Joint Venture Agreement. This action
seeks to remove the subject property from the PUD approved by Ordinance No. 90-
09-209 and revert to the RS-1 zoning designation as previously approved by
Ordinance No. 90-08-205.
Staff Ms. Hall reported that this request is incidental to the previous
Report application and should be viewed as merely an issue of
housekeeping. She explained this parcel came to be part of the
approved Selva Marina Residential PUD in 2009 as the result of a
Joint Venture Agreement. However, that venture was not realized
and the owners of this parcel are not partners in the Atlantic Beach
Country Club SPA request. Because this parcel is less than ten (10)
acres in area, and thus does not meet the minimum area
requirements of a PUD, it must be rezoned. Because the owners of
this parcel do not currently have plans to develop this parcel, they
have asked that the zoning simply revert to the previous
classification, Residential Single-Family (RS-1).
Applicant T R Hainline, Rogers Towers, P A, stated he was the authorized
Comment agent for the applicant in this request also. He concurred with
staff's assessment that this request was a matter of housekeeping,
stating this property alone does not meet the minimum area
requirements to be considered as a Planned Unit Development,
and thus must be rezoned. He added the RS-1 zoning is consistent
and compatible with surrounding lands, and any future
Page 15 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
development of the property would have to comply with all
provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations for the City of Atlantic Beach.
Public Father Mark Waters (1243 Linkside Drive) expressed concern about
Comment the impact of future development of the parcel on 11th Street and
other infrastructure including the water/sewer capacity and
sidewalks.
Janet Allen (1007 Big Pine Key) expressed concern regarding any
future development on the subject property, and questioned the
density.
Board Ms. Hall was asked to respond to the density question. She stated
Discussion that the Future Land Use Designation is Residential, Low Density,
which allows a maximum of six (6) dwelling units per acre, or up to
forty-two (42) dwellings, without any consideration being given to
environmental factors, infrastructure requirements or other
subdivision and land development regulations. However, she told
the Board that a preliminary assessment conducted when the land
was previously zoned RS-1 estimated that no more than eleven
single-family lots could be established on the parcel due to
environmental conditions.
Mr. Stratton asked how this compared with what was currently
approved for the parcel. Ms. Hall reviewed the approved Selva
Marina Country Club Residential PUD site plan and replied that the
subject parcel is shown to have a total of twelve (12) complete lots
and six (6) partial lots. However, she noted the minimum lot
standards for the RS-1 zoning district are greater, and therefore
more restrictive, than those for the approved PUD.
Motion Mr. Burgess moved that the Community Development Board
recommend approval of Application REZ-13-00100049 to the City
Commission, being a change in the zoning district classification
from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Residential, Single-
Family (RS-1) for lands described within said application, including
all supporting documents and information contained therein, and
all terms and conditions as set forth therein, subject to conditions
enumerated, and provided the following findings of fact: (1) The
request for rezoning has been fully considered after public hearing
with legal notice duly published as required by law; (2) The
rezoning to Residential, Single-Family (RS-1) is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Designation of
Residential, Low Density; (3) Development pursuant to this
Page 16 of 17
Minutes of the April 16,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
rezoning to Residential, Single-Family (RS-1) shall be consistent
with the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations
for the City of Atlantic Beach prior to issuance of local permits
authorizing construction or site alteration; (4) The zoning district
classification of Residential, Single-Family (RS-1) is consistent and
compatible with surrounding development, in that surrounding
uses are existing single-family or future single-family residential
uses. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously, with Mr. Elmore abstaining due to his previously
stated conflict of interest.
5. REPORTS. None.
6. ADJOURNMENT- 7:50 PM
Brea Paul, Chair
Attest
Page 17 of 17