10-19-04 CDB Adopted MinutesMinutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page I of 10
�i
MINUTES OF THE �►0
REGULAR MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
October 19, 2004
The regular monthly meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, October 19,
2004, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Lynn Drysdale, Robert Frohwein, Sam
Jacobson, Carolyn Woods, Craig Burkhart, Steve Jenkins, David MacInnes, Community Development
Director Sonya Doerr, City Attorney Alan Jensen and Recording Secretary Amber Lehman.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2004.
C. Burkhart made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2004 meeting; motion
seconded by D. MacInnes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
B. Frohwein recognized the presence of City Commissioners Simmons, Waters and Beaver in the
audience.
4. Old Business.
a. ZVAR-2004-10, Fiore. Request for a Variance from Section 24-151 (b) (1) (ix) to allow
an existing storage shed to remain in its current location at 1 -foot, 8 inches from the side lot
line and 3 -feet, 6 inches from the rear lot line for property within the RS -1 Zoning District,
and located at 412 Whiting Lane.
Tim Fiore, 412 Whiting Lane, requests approval of his variance under section (d) 3 of the
variance application: to allow existing storage shed to remain on grounds that there are
exceptional circumstances that are preventing reasonable use of the property as compared to
other properties in the area. Mr. Fiore submitted pictures for the record of various properties in
Atlantic Beach with garages and storage sheds, stating that he does not think these buildings
have the five-foot setback for accessory buildings that has been required since the 1959 zoning
code.
S. Jacobson questioned Mr. Fiore in reference to the previous month's meeting and the
comments Mr. Fiore had made about his willingness to re -situate the shed on his lot to provide
greater setbacks. Mr. Fiore commented that this did not seem reasonable after all, and replied
that Don Ford [Building Official] should have recognized the shed did not have a permit when
the building permit for the addition to his house was issued. He also stated that this was the fault
of the City, and that it is not feasible to relocate the shed.
Minutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 2 of 10
S. Jacobson advised Mr. Fiore that the Code specifically prohibits the consideration of other
nonconformities as the grounds for approving a variance. S. Jenkins stated that even though
there may be other properties with like issues, these are not what is meant by exceptional
circumstances and that the regulations do not allow approval of a variance based on other
properties. C. Woods questioned whether Mr. Fiore knew if there were any variances or approval
for the structures that are like his.
Mr. Fiore stated that his property does not have any storage, and this is an exceptional
circumstance. B. Frohwein stated that he had noticed that there were many properties in the area
with the same circumstances as Mr. Fiore. He also stated that Code Enforcement reviews issues
such as this and that even though these structures may exist, it does not mean that a variance was
granted. B. Frohwein also advised Mr. Fiore that if the Community Development Board denied
this request for a variance, Mr. Fiore could not request the same variance for one year.
Mr. Fiore stated that he did not know for sure whether these properties have variances, but that
he wanted to have the opportunity to research whether the properties have variances or not.
S. Jenkins stated that other nonconforming structures are not an issue to consider with this
individual request and that he does not see any reason for deferral until next meeting. C.
Burkhart made a motion to defer Mr. Fiore's variance request until the next meeting. Motion to
defer seconded by C. Woods, and motion unanimously carried.
b. SSA -2004-01 and REZ-2004-01, Bridge Tenders, LLC. Applications were remanded to
the Community Development Board at the September 27, 2004 meeting of the City
Commission for further review and recommendation related to a proposed development
project known as Johnston Island. The applications request a change in land use
designation as established on the 2005 Future Land Use Map for a small scale development
activity, in accordance with §163.3187 (c), Florida Statutes for the re -designation of 3.6
acres parcel from Conservation to Residential, Medium Density not to exceed 10 units per
acre, and also from Conservation to Commercial for a contiguous .5 -acre parcel.
Also considered is the related and amended application seeking to rezone approximately
7.5 acres from Conservation to Planned Unit Development (PUD), which proposes a plan
development containing a maximum of 36 dwelling units, a private yacht club with
restaurant and marina lodge. Parking to serve the project, associated amenities, accessory
uses, open space and submerged lands also occupy, or are proposed to occupy, the site.
Building height shall not exceed 35 -feet.
B. Frohwein briefly addressed the background of this project and the applications that were first
considered by the Community Development Board in February. He stated that Atlantic Beach
Comprehensive Plan does not permit for this development under the current designations, and
that prior to changing the zoning designation from Conservation to PUD for the proposed
residential and commercial use, there would have to be a change to the Comprehensive Plan
map. B. Frohwein noted that the Community Development Board makes only a recommendation
to the City Commission on these types of applications, and the City Commission makes the final
decision
Minutes'of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 3 of 10
Applicant Ron Zajack, 1601 Ocean Drive, Jacksonville Beach, addresses the Board and states
that he is the managing partner of Bridge Tenders, LLC, the owner of the property. Mr. Zajack
proceeded to read a statement into the record from Laura Perkins, who is also a partner in the
corporation that owns the island: My name is Laura Johnston Perkins, my family purchased
Johnston Island in two pieces back in 1930 and 1940, and for over 70 years we have been
owners and operators of the island. We have lived in the Bridge Tenders house, which is still
located on the property. Several years ago we offered to sell the island to the City of Atlantic
Beach, which did not occur. Last fall, my brother sold his interest of the island to Bridge
Tenders, LLC who is planning on developing the island. 1 contributed my interest to a Limited
Liability Corporation and currently have a 50% interest in Bridge Tenders, LLC. I am in
support of the development plan by Bridge Tenders, LLC for the island. Over the years, several
of the islands was annexed from the City of Jacksonville to the City of Atlantic Beach. My
brother and I were not notified of this annexation, nor were signs posted on the island. After the
City annexation of the property, it was first zoned as OR and a couple of years later it was zoned
as Conservation. My brother's and my rights as landowners to develop our land were severely
restricted by these actions. Tonight I ask you to support the land use change before you and
approve the PUD that has been revised and resubmitted to develop Johnston Island.
Applicant's representative, Chad Grimm, 13901 Sutton Drive, with Prosser Hallock, stated that
the developers are requesting the small scale amendment for about 4 acres, and the rezoning to
PUD for all of the property, and noted that 3.4 acres of the would be remain designated as
conservation land use. Mr. Grimm further noted that while the two items are separate
applications requiring two separate votes, he noted the Chairman's comments that the two do run
together and that he will move ahead and address simultaneously. The PUD is for a mixed-use
zoning. We have made significant changes since the project was submitted, and right now the
proposal is in compliance with base zoning here in the City of Atlantic Beach with two
exceptions — one of those is parking — the City's ordinance requires 10 -foot wide parking spaces
and we are requesting 9 feet, and a 10 feet drive aisle due to the small size of the island. We
think this would provide for a better design allowing a little bit more land and open space. In
response to the comments that we have heard over the past months, there have been changes to
the project. In summary, the height of 88 feet, which was first reduced down to 69 -feet and
approved at first reading by the City Commission, then limited to 35 -feet, has been changed to
35 -feet, which complies with the current City height limits. We have also taken drawings out of
the PUD documents that showed the original concept with the greater height, recognizing that
these might result in confusion. These were initially just a means to provide an illustration of the
quality of project we are proposing. Now that we are in compliance with the City's regulations,
you can expect a similar quality in the type of development like that you currently see here in
Atlantic Beach. Another item that we have changed in the PUD is that we have clarified the use
of the marina and the lodge. There was early confusion about a public restaurant facility, and
that will not take place here on this island. There will be no type of public facility generating
high traffic at peak hours. It is definitely going to be a private marina and private lodge serving
residences and club members only. An additional changed item is that we reduced the minimum
size of residential units from the original 1500 square feet, and this is currently set at a minimum
1000 square fee unit, which also meets the City Code. We have also added clarification in the
PUD application regarding the access through the DOT right-of-way. Through the process, there
has been a little bit of confusion as to who actually owns the access road once you turn off of
Atlantic Boulevard. The strip that is used to get to the island, across the little bridge, is currently
owned by the DOT. If ownership of the access road is ever transferred, the PUD includes
Minutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 4 of 10
language that will allow the City of Atlantic Beach Florida first right to purchase it, which is
state law anyway. If ownership ever did get transferred, the PUD contains a provision that the
current access to the island that the public now has would still remain available for the public's
use from dawn to dusk. Use of that space will not change from what is available to the public
today. The sign language has also been modified and simply states that we comply with the
City's current regulations, which we were planning on doing all along. We had tried to add a
little information on what we are proposing in terms of signs, but it seemed to confuse the issue.
Whatever we do will comply with City sign regulations. We have also clarified the schedule of
development. We originally came to you with two five year phases and now we just have one
ten year phase with a recognition that we are facing a long process, as you can imagine with
environmental permitting engineering for this island, but once we get through the permitting,
construction will actually proceed very quickly.
As Mr. Zajack has stated, Ms. Perkins and her brother were not aware of changing the land use
to conservation. This is a private island, and we feel that our proposal is a proposal in keeping
with the community of Atlantic Beach. ...and now in compliance with the existing regulations.
We are here asking for your support this evening.
C. Burkhart asked how many parking spaces will be provided.
Mr. Grimm replied that the amount of parking spaces will be in compliance with what is required
for each residence, two parking spaces per residence. For any of the support services, it depends
if there is a lodge. It would be based on your current ordinance for spaces for number of seats or
tables.
Mr. Zajack stated that the re -submission is meant to comply with all City regulations, except for
those exceptions that Mr. Grimm has just noted. ...to meet all of your regulations from height to
parking.
C. Burkhart stated that he had attended the City Commission meeting. He noted that the City's
ordinance required height of projects to be based on the calculated average grade. It appears that
the average grade on Johnston Island is three and half feet, and the project is planning to start
instead of three and half feet the project will start at seven feet, which is mandated by FEMA.
Mr. Zajack replied that the FEMA grade level for the island is seven feet. What we have done is
established that the FEMA mandate is there, and that a decision has not been made as to whether
to start the project at 3 and half feet or with the seven feet, which is mandated by FEMA. ...but
the height will be measured as required by the City code.
C. Burkhart stated that the applicant has described the population of the island to be owners and
members and inquired how many members are there going to be and what defines members. Mr.
Zajack replied that at this time it is unknown how many members there will be. When we first
sat down with the staff of Atlantic Beach, it was recommended that the island be held to a private
entity. The limiting factor becomes servicing and other things and that have not been determined
at this point. Servicing meaning parking and boat docks and other things that may be approved
in the future. But no determination has been made as to a number. Typically most clubs have
more members than users. That is always a number that has to be adjusted. C. Burkhart asked at
what point will that number be defined. Mr. Zajack replied that this island will be a members
only club and not open to the public.
Minutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 5 of 10
Steve Jenkins made a comment that it may be easier to pursue a variance request for these items
instead of asking for a PUD.
S. Jacobson stated that for clarity purposes (related to S. Jenkins' comment) it might be easier to
deal with the PUD without the variance consideration on the parking issue and then come back
later and tweak the PUD with an application for a parking variance.
S. Doerr, Community Development Director, stated that the PUD regulations prohibit
modifications of a PUD by the variance. The PUD allows for certain variances to be approved as
part of the PUD, but the variance procedure is not the proper method to later change the terms of
the PUD. If the PUD is approved, and if their development scenario changes, the developer will
be required to come back through public hearing process with an application for a modification
to the PUD ordinance, not a variance request.
S. Jacobson asked the developer to explain at greater lengths what the contemplated lodge will
be. Mr. Zajack replied that the contemplated lodge is for use by members only, and will only be
20 suites will be available for use by members and not open to the public. The members will pay
a rate for lodging. We are not fully defined on what our club looks like. S. Jacobson asked about
the 20 suites. Will this be like a motel? Mr. Zajack replied this will be more like a bed and
breakfast for use by the club members and their guests.
S. Jacobson stated that the developer is proposing residential units of 1000 square feet. What
would a 1000 feet unit be like? Will it be an efficiency apartment or a one bedroom unit? Mr.
Zajack replied that the 1000 square feet unit will be similar to other 1000 square foot units in
Atlantic Beach. When the project was originally proposed to the City Commission, the request
was granted (upon first reading) for 69 feet in height, which would have allowed units that were
2000-2300 square feet, but now that the building height is 35 feet, there isn't as much room. Mr.
Zajack stated that there will likely be a mix of sizes, some of which may be a one bedroom unit,
which will be approximately 1100 —1200 square feet in size.
S. Jacobson asked exactly how many parking spaces will there be. Mr. Zajack replied that in the
PUD there are designated parking areas, the number of parking spaces will meet the City of
Atlantic Beach requirements. B. Frohwein clarified that the developer will be complying with
the City's regulations on number of parking spaces but asking for smaller parking spaces, 9 feet
by 18 feet instead of 10 feet by 20 feet. Mr. Grimm stated in the initial layouts, the reason for
asking for these waivers was because there were some existing trees in the southwest corner that
they are trying to save.
S. Jacobson asked the developer about the elevation. Mr. Grimm stated that the 3.5 feet is an
assumption, the average grade that we are at right now is 4 %2 - 5 feet. The FEMA requirement
for finished floor elevation of building above 7 feet is for habitable space, but you can have
parking and basically any non -habitable use within those 7 feet.
B. Frohwein stated that these questions are about the overall height of the building and it is going
to be measured from the calculated grade average. The building will be 35 feet from the average
calculated grade, which will be 100 -point grid across the lot, as required by the Code. C.
Minutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 6 of 10
Burkhart stated for clarity that the developer will comply with the City's regulations on height,
and that the buildings will not exceed 35 -feet in height as measured by the City's regulations
B. Frohwein opened the public hearing for comments on the proposed small scale amendment
and PUD.
Stephen Kuti, 1132 Linkside Drive, stated that he was not against the Johnston Island project and
that every owner has a right to develop his or her property. However, there are rules and
restrictions. In this case the deed to the property very clearly states in Exhibit B, Item 5 states:
Easement to the United States of America in and to the 500 foot right-of-way of the Intracoastal
Waterway described in Deed Book, page 257, of the current public records of Duval County.
Item 6, rights if any of the public beach or recreational area any part of the land lying between
the body of water abutting the subject property and the natural line of vegetation, bluff, extreme
high water line, or other apparent boundary line separating the publicly used area from the
upland private are. In my opinion, this hearing should be postponed and the applicant should
request from the United States of America to the Corp of Engineers to determine if the right-of-
way of the public beach or recreation area between the body of water and extreme high water
line must be protected as public land. Without including the public land, the developer has not
enough land to develop the island. Mr. Kuti, also submitted for the record, copies of the
warranty deed. City Attorney Alan Jensen, explained the public's rights to use the property
under the terms of the easement and summarized that the public will continue to have the same
rights as currently exist.
B. Frohwein asked the City Attorney, if the Board made a recommendation to the City
Commission, and that if at any point in the future, if it were found that this property should open
to the public, the recommendation of this Board would not alter that. Mr. Jensen confirmed, and
stated that if any project were approved by the City, the property owners still have many other
agencies they have to go through to get approvals, including the Corp of Engineers and various
State and Federal agencies. S. Doerr stated that the applicant has previously addressed this issue.
The information has been provided by the applicant to the public and is in the record file.
Mr. Zajack replied that the uses permitted in the easement will be determined based on the exact
line between the uplands and submerged lands by the permitting agencies. As Mr. Jensen said,
we will abide by the rules that exist. Preliminary applications for the project have been
submitted to the appropriate agencies for the next phase. The property line does run out into the
water and there is no private beach. There had been some use permits issued in the past to
private entities, but this is still a private island owned now by Bridge Tenders, LLC and the
property line does go out into in the water.
Tom Goelz, 631 Beach Ave, had questions in regard to the project.
1. Submerged land not really clear if that is a basis for calculation of density or not
2. Business venture will not make money by selling 35 units of 1000 square feet. It will
make its money by the members.
3. Terms of members undefined.
4. Still uncertain as to the decisions that are made here by this group and by the
Commission whether they are binding for perpetuity or for the 10 years of this project,
can they come back for variances to add additional sub layer as they find a board to their
liking, are the approvals here permanently binding
Minutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 7 of 10
James Fletcher, 340 Garden Lane, has issues about the project changing the character of Atlantic
Beach, this will be the first condominium project proposed on our side of the Intracoastal
Waterway. There are other islands up the waterway that are available for this use as well. What
do we know about this island and project? He expressed concerns about parking, number of
members, residential parking for commercial parking, and how much of the commercial acreage
will be used for parking. He had questions about the density and whether or not 1000 square feet
is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. Mr. Fletcher stated that what is included in this
PUD is unclear. He also has concerns with the elevation and who owns the road. He had
questions on impacts of development on the evacuation of the capability of bridge and
underground utilities.
David Johnson, 1831 Live Oak Lane, stated that there were problems converting from the
established designation to the one that is proposed. Questioned whether the project should be
done at all because of legal notification.
Michael Shepland, 1985 Circle, opposed the development and opposed the conversion of
conservation land and had concerns about traffic.
Valerie Britt, Director of Land Use and Zoning for the Pablo Point Civic Association, submitted
a copy of the hurricane map for the record. Ms. Britt had concerns that once the amendment is
granted it would be harder to deny the PUD rezoning. She stated that a DRI would be required
for any marina development. Atlantic Beach would need a boat facility siting plan to exempt
any marina from DRI review. Ms. Britt stated that there is no need to convert from conservation
land use and one was not identified in the EAR. Ms. Britt had concerns about increasing
residential densities on the island because it is in the coastal high hazard area. Ms. Britt had
concerns about increased traffic on the hurricane evacuation route and on the traffic that would
have to turn around in her neighborhood. Ms. Britt expressed minor concerns in the increase in
students. She also had concerns about raising height limitations from 25 feet in a conservation
area to 35 feet in this proposal.
B Frohwein closed the public hearing.
Mr. Zajack responded to the public comments. He stated that they have amended the project to
follow the City's regulations the City's process for the PUD and will address issues of access
with the DOT, utilities with the City's Utility Department, and the will need to get all required
permits from the environmental agencies before any development. He requests support for the
land use and zoning change.
S. Jacobson asked Mr. Grimm to define the CHHA
Mr. Grimm stated that he believes that all of Atlantic Beach is in the CHHA, and is determined
by Storm Surge. He also stated that the residential densities were clear. They are not going to
exceed the 35 -foot height limitations. Parking is clearly identified on the map. Mr. Grimm also
addressed the issue of elevation. The DOT owns and maintains road going to the island. The
restaurant is a private restaurant and will not be open to the public.
Minutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 8 o
g f 10
D. MacInnes asked a question about the owners not knowing about the change to Open Rural
and then Conservation. B. Frohwein responded that he did not know if that pertained to the PUD.
Mr. Zajack replied that he did no think the issue has ever been resolved.
S. Doerr stated that Open Rural zoning category was eliminated about three years ago, and that
all lands within the City that had been designated as Open Rural zoning were designated as
Conservation zoning.
S. Jenkins requested confirmation that we are not here tonight to dispute that the land use and
zoning are Conservation. S. Doerr confirmed that the applications before the Board are the
issues to consider at this meeting.
B. Frohwein stated that the land use on about one-half acre has historically been commercial.
The property west of the easement line for the Intracoastal has a history of being utilized as a
commercial use, and states that he understands that this is the only use that would now be
approved by the Corps since it was previously a commercial use.
Mr. Zajack replied that it would be very difficult to use that part of the island for residential.
There is no guarantee that the Corps or FIND will approve residential use, and it would be
almost impossible to get mortgages on that land.
B. Frohwein stated that medium density residential allows up to 14 units per acre. S. Doerr
replied that this specific project is restricted to a maximum of ten dwelling units per acre because
that is the threshold for small scale amendments. B. Frohwein questioned whether access to the
Intracoastal on the north or east side of the island could affect residential development. Mr.
Grimm replied that yes, it would effect residential.
S. Jacobson asked whether the lodge and restaurant will be accommodated within the one-half
acre. Mr. Zajack replied that these uses must be on the one-half acre part of the site.
S. Jacobson questioned whether the comprehensive plan addressed density. S. Doerr replied that
the Comprehensive Plan supercedes the PUD ordinance.
C. Woods stated that this project does not promote responsible and appropriate growth and does
not meet the City's legal standards. C. Woods continued that the maximum density for medium
density residential of 14 units per acre exceeds the standard of 10 units per acre for a small scale
amendment. C. Woods stated that this plan allows for commercial uses within residential land
use. This development is not appropriate to the sensitive coastal location and is not small scale
development by anyone's standards. This development is not consistent with the desired
direction of development within the City toward lower density. C. Woods expressed concerns
about hurricane evacuation times.
C. Woods made a motion to recommend to deny the project because it is not in accordance with
the small scale amendment requirements of Chapter 163 Florida Statutes, specifically due to the
Comp Plan land use change to allow commercial and to allow residential up to 14 units per acre,
in addition, the land use category of residential exceeds the small scale threshold of 10 units per
acre. In addition, the land use category residential does not allow commercial land use and this
plan clearly shows that to be the case.
Minutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 9 o
g .f 10
S. Jacobson questioned whether the Board could recommend denial and include Ms. Woods'
written comments by reference as part of the motion. S. Jacobson asked whether the small scale
threshold of 10 units per acre was met by the commitment in the PUD and in the small scale
amendment to limit development to 10 units per acre.
The proposed motion died for lack of a second.
C. Woods stated that the State will look at the maximum density allowed for that land use
category. S. Doerr indicated that on the first page of the proposed small scale ordinance the
density was specifically limited to 10 units per acre. C. Woods responded that the densities for
any land use proposed in a small scale amendment cannot exceed 10 units per acre regardless of
the commitments made by the applicant to limit density below the maximum allowed by the
City.
B. Frohwein questioned what was the date of the existing Comp Plan that governs this project. S.
Doerr replied that it this project is being reviewed under the 1990 comp plan. The updated
Comprehensive Plan is currently being reviewed by the state, but is not yet effective. B.
Frohwein noted that the City Attorney was no longer at the meeting to answer legal questions.
S. Jenkins made a motion to deny the application for the small scale amendment for a change to
the land use map, finding that the application is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for
the City of Atlantic Beach, particularly the Future Land Use Element and with the stated goals
objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element. L. Drysdale seconded the motion.
S. Jacobson stated that he is not in favor of the project, and that he would prefer to see 5 single-
family units. He wants the City to recognize the uniqueness of the area and make an effort to
acquire property and dedicate it as a public park. S. Jacobson questioned whether the City has
the right to deny any development of the island without any compensation to the owners. S.
Jenkins agreed with S. Jacobson's statement, but stated again, that this is not the forum to
question the Conservation designations.
B. Frohwein stated that it is his belief that the existing land use and zoning provide for a
reasonable use for the property without approval of this small scale amendment, and stated that
he would be in favor of a Use -by -Exception to permit one dwelling unit per acre.
The motion to recommend denial to the City Commission of the small scale amendment
applications, as stated by S. Jenkins, carried by a six -to -one vote, with S. Jacobson opposing the
motion.
B. Frohwein requested a motion for the PUD rezoning. S. Doerr advised that the proposed
rezoning cannot be legally approved without finding that the rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the land use designation. The recommendation to the City Commission
for the PUD must be consistent with the recommendation for the small scale amendment.
C. Burkhart made a motion to recommend denial to the City Commission of the proposed PUD
rezoning, consistent with the action taken on the small scale amendment finding the proposed
Minutes of the October 19, 2004 Community Development Board meeting Page 10 of 10
PUD not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion seconded by L. Drysdale, and motion
to recommend denial carried unanimously.
5. New Business. None.
6. Adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:52 pm.
?iggnedAU
/0-?-�;-o4-
Attest