05-06-82 v MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD
•. OF THE CITY OF ATIANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
May 6, 1982
City Hall
7:00 PM
PRESENT: John F. Andresen - Chairman
Donna Ross
Ruth Gregg
Nal Mullins
Catherine Van Ness - Commission Representative
AND: A. William Moss - City Manager
Mary L. Dombrowski - Recording Secretary
AND: Adelaide Tucker
Maggie & Edward Then
Steven Bledsoe
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Andresen at 7:15 PM, who remarked that
several letters from citizens had been received: Ann R. Bledsoe, Marth F. Beether,
Billy M. Arzie, Alice B. Juhan, and Warren F. Klecan.
Mrs. Maggie Then requested clarification from the board regarding the PUD status on
her property and the non-conforming status. Mr. Mullins stated the intent was to
limit density. Mrs. Then maintained that her property should retain it's PUD status.
Mrs. Van Ness said that her property is in a proposed RG-2 district. Mr. Moss re-
marked that if the property burned down, she would have to conform to the RG-2 re-
quirements. A lengthly discussion ensued regarding authority to rebuild Mrs. Then's
property via the City Commission and the Board of Adjustments. Mrs. Then remarked
that the reverting clause for non-conforming properties is unfair in that it makes
an individual's property virtually worthless. Mrs. Van Ness said that everyone has
recourse or appeal. The chair stated that if her PUD was destroyed by 50% or more,
she would still have to come before the City Commission, or the Advisory Planning
Board and the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Moss remarked that the new ordinance is less
restrictive than the old ordinance because the old ordinance referred to 50% of the
assessed value, whereas the new ordinance referred to 50% of the value. Mrs. Then
agreed that the new ordinance was less restrictive.
The chair asked Mr. Steven Bledsoe, acting for Mrs. Bledsoe, to address the board.
Mr. Bledsoe requested that a parcel of land, 224' x 400' , which is south of Cornell
Lane and adjacent to the Atlantic Arms Apartments, be rezoned from RA Single Family
(proposed RS-2 Single Family) to RG-3 Multi-family zoning. A lengthly discussion
took place on the use, both present and future, of not only Mrs. Bledsoe's property,
but the surrounding properties. The chair stated that the board is not changing the
zoning as it exists, however, Mrs. Bledsoe could make application for rezoning after
the process is finished. The chair stated that the board would take the matter under
consideration, but will pass on it at this time.
Mrs. Martha Beether's letter was reviewed, which requested the duplex zoning be re-
tained on her Lot 680 in the Saltair section. It was determined by the board that
this was proposed RS-2 but this designation will be changed to RG-1 (duplex) and
therefore not an issue.
Mr. Moss remarked that Mrs. Dombrowski had done a survey of the Saltair area showing
the current usage and recommending boundry changes and zoning designation changes.
The Saltair area, rather than going to an RS-2 zone would retain zoning compatible
(RG-l) with the current usage of the land. Other changes recc- ,nded are the areas
P.,1:e 2
F'.wn:ng Board
• •
r % iy 6, 1982
•
indicated on the map fronting on East Coast Drive, currently designated as RC,
proposed to RS-2, be changed to RG-2. Also, the area currently designated as RB
between 6th and 7th Streets, proposed RS-2, be changed to RG-1. These recommendations
were accepted by the board.
The board reviewed Mr. Arzie's letter next, which requested that a change be made
regarding the phrasing for foster children from "less than" to "more than". This
was acceptable by the board. The home occupations referred to in Mr. Arzie's letter
are permissible in an RS-2 zone. Regarding the overhang/yard encroachment. . . this is
adequately addressed in the proposed zoning ordinance.
The next letter to be reviewed was from Mrs. Alice B. Juhan, who objected to the
proposed CG zoning of the Chateau and parking lot. Mrs. Juhan felt that CL was
adequate and compatible for the current usage. The lot north of the Chateau's narking
lot should retain its RA zoning. A general discussion took place regarding the
accessibility of an adjacent lot zoned single family to be used for parking for a
business. Mrs. Van Ness felt that the public was protected if the single family
zoning was retained on the lot north of the Chateau's parking lot. Mr. Moss asked
if parking on adjacent single family lots could be added as a permissible use in all
districts. Requirements for screening to protect residents could be implemented.
Off-street parking lots shall be a permissible use by exception, Mr. Moss read from
the proposed ordinance, which would take care of the problem. They would have to go
through the application process for use by exception. The chair remarked that it
should also read an "approved" barrier for parking lots with no specific designation
?s to the type of barrier. Mr. Moss felt that a change should be made; "height limit-
ations as required in other sections of this code shall not apply". The chair
indicated fine. Mrs. Tucker asked if the time for parking at the Sea Turtle would
be changed. The chair remarked that this had to be changed. The chair asked if every
one understood Mrs. Juhan's letter. Tne board felt that, in general, nothing could
be done for her at this time.
The board then reviewed Mr. warren F. }:lecan's letter, who objected to down zoning
of his property at 8th and East Coast Drive from the current zoning, RC - Multi-family,
to the proposed zoning RS-2 Single family. Tne chair remarked that the area in question
had already been changed by the board to reflect an RG-2 zoning.
Mr. Moss confirmed for the record that the area along East Coast Drive which had
been designated as RC, proposed RS-2, be changed to RG-2; also that area along Beach
Avenue which had been designated as RB, proposed RS-2, be changed to RG-1. The chair
confirmed these changes. Also, Mr. Moss requested confirmation of the zoning design-
ation change for the major portion of Saltair section (copy of map attached) from the
proposed RS-2 to RG-1. A lengthly discussion took place regarding the options open
for boundries on the east and north parts of Saltair. The chair drew the new boundries
in red for the Saltair section to carry the new proposed designation of RG-1.
The next items discussed were the business sections west and east of Mayport Road
which carried several proposed zoning designations with residential and co=1•ercial
zonings intersperced. No changes were indicated at this time, however, these areas
will require further consideration. Tne traffic patterns would severely clog the
major artery (Mayport Road) with either zoning. Churches are a use by exception in
commercial limited but not in commercial general. The chair remarked that those areas -
n Mayport Road should be left just as they are proposed. The use by exception for
churches was added to the commercial general zone as suggested by Mr. Moss.
Cor-missicner Van Ness requested a decision regarding the PUD status; zoning desiznation
vs. status. 1- c. s':vicestion was to se7.crate the idea of PIM as a zo-nine e si ,_7a:ic,n
Page 3
, d1,isory BLInning Board
May 6, 1982
and to use instead the zoning designation of PDA, which is Planned Development Area.
Also, the Commissioner felt that PUD's should carry a sunshine law on them. Mr. Moss
remarked that there is a sunshine law in the new ordinance; the development of the
land must start within one year, or the designation is lost. The chair stated that
in reference to Mr. George Bull's land, the agreement with Mr. Bull was to refer to
the land as PDA. The Commissioner replied that there is a problem if the land is not
under the same ownership. A lengthly discussion took place regarding PUD's designated
PDA if the land available was less than five (5) acres. The chair stated that a PUD
is not transferable by ownership and the PUD designation is only good for one (1)
year under the new ordinance. Mr. Moss stated that a PUD must also be compatible with
the Comprehensive Plan. The chair reiterated that a PUD is not a zoning designation;
it is a status or classification. If the PUD was going to be redone, it should be
redone to the highest classification possible. It was Mr. Hill's idea that that area
be designated as PDA, Mr. Moss remarked, and perhaps Mr. Hill should be consulted
regarding the PUD. A lengthly discussion took place regarding a PUD being changed
by amendment; a PUD is not a zone; procedures for PUD approval on a specific site.
Mr. Moss remarked that he could see no reason why it could not be zoned RS-1, and
wanted to know how this would affect the comprehensive plan. If the area went to
RS-1, it could always go to PUD, providing the site has the required five (5) acres.
The chair suggested that that area be called PDA-RS-l. Mr. Moss remarked that the
zoning ordinance has no reference to PDA. When it is referring to PUD, it refers
to the process. Mr. Mullins wanted to know the complications if that area was zoned
RS-1. Mr. Moss replied that we'd have 75' lots in a subdivision. The chair stated
that he saw the problem that the commission was having in that it should have some
zoning classification. The Commissioner remarked that she was sure that they would
feel that they still had a viable PUD on that property. A lengthly discussion ensued
regarding the requirements for new vs. existing PUD, change of ownership, etc. .
Rezoning that area would have to be consistant with the comprehensive plan, which
would be any residential zoning. The chair asked what the board had decided and were
they all in agreement that that area should carry some classification other than PUD.
Mr. Mullins replied that he was not sure. The chair delegated Mr. Moss to contact
the planner and see if he had an answer to the questions posed regarding the disposal
of an area zoned PUD after a year has expired. Mr. Moss felt that it would be a PUD
without going thru the process of the ordinance. The Commissioner wanted to know
if a grandfathered PUD loses its effectiveness after a year after this new ordinance
is passed. She stated that Mr. Bull had applied for a concept of a PUD only. Mr.
Moss replied that it was not just him, but others that were doing it as an exception
to the whole zoning ordinance. Reference was made to Jacksonville's Land Use Code,
Section 708. 702 (Page 504) Procedures (e) Expiration of Time Limits Provided in
Ordinance creating a PUD. If development actions required by the ordinance creating
a PUD are not taken within any time limits set by Council in such ordinance, the
approval of a PUD as provided in such ordinance shall become invalid and no further
action shall be permitted under same. USDs 2-5 EXCEPTED (Ord. 71-427-214, Sec. 1;
Ord. 72-73-230, Sec. 3) Apparently Jacksonville requires a PUD to be done as an
ordinance, which in effect is rezoning. There would be a specific contract with
each developer. Since our procedures differ, there would be no specific contract
with each developer. It was the general feeling of the board that this should be
added to our procedures (r) Time limitations as established by the City Commission.
Mrs. Ross asked if the time frame could be different on different PUD's. Mr. Moss
replied yes; part of the application would be the approximate date to begin construction
and the approximate date to complete construction. It was determined that it would
be necessary to have another meeting to settle this issue.
Mr. Moss asked (Pg. 3-1, B, (1) , (c) , if the intent was to have the Planning Agency
review all site plans as part of the site plans procedures? The chair responded no,
and the board accepted the recommendation to amEnd that passage as follows : "To approve
4
L, ,rd
May 6, 1982
all subdivision plans and Planned Unit Development (PUD) plans that require holding
a public hearing a after reviewing a written recc:;mendation from the Planning Agency."
On Pg. 3-2 (g), Mr. Moss recommended the wording include "Building Official's sign-
ature. The board accepted the recommendation to amend as follows: "The Administrative
Official's or the Building Official's signature. . ."
Tne chair remarked that the new designation for the Advisory Planning Board will
be the Local Government Planning Agency (LGPA).
Mr. Moss recommended that the first sentence on Pg. 3-2 (k) be changed as it is not
consistant with the council management form of government. The board accept the
recommendation to amend as follows: Delete "with approval of the City Commission".
On Page 3-3 (3) (b) the recommendation was accepted to amend as follows: "To review
site plans for all proposed subdivision and redevelopment, including Planned Unit
Developments. . ."
Mr. Moss remarked that on Page 3-3 (4) , the charter establishes the Board of Adjust-
ments. The recommendation was accepted to amend as follows: Delete "hereby established'
There was a recommendation by the board to ask the City of Jacksonville to give the
City of Atlantic Beach back the territory known as "Seminole Beach".
The recommendation was accepted to amend Page 3-7 (c) . (1) Second paragraph as follows:
"Proposed changes and amendments may be suggested by the City Commission, the Planning
Agency, the Administrative Official,".
Tne recommendation was accepted to amend as follows on Page 3-10 (e) : Delete "hold
a public hearing".
The Building Permit Procedure on Page 3-13 (a) (2 & 3) was questioned as read, however,
no changes were made at this time. This section was noted -to research for implications.
The chair indicated that the whole section "a" should be brought to the City Commiss-
ion's attention.
Mr. Moss remarked that this ordinance also allows construction trailers (Pg. 3-14 (6))
which the city has not allowed in the past.
Tne recommendation was accepted to amend as follows Pg. 3-15 (D) : Delete: The Codes
Enforcement Board" and 'kursuant to Ordinance No. 95-80-21 of the City Commission of
the City of Atlantic Beach". Amend to read: The City of Atlantic Beach has the
authority to enforce this section.".
The building height was determined to be 35' and should be consistant through out
the ordinance. Page 3-23, RG-2 and RG-3 Residential General Multiple Family, Mr.
Moss pointed out, does permit buildings higher than 35' and does allow for high-rises.
The Commissioner stated that this is self-limiting in that it would depend on the size
of the lot because of the setback requirements. The chair replied that he felt the
restrictions were very strict. The recommendation was accepted to amend the height
requirement for RG-3 Multi-Family to 35' ; also in the explanation below -** for multiple
family dwelling exceeding 35' in height. Page 3-24 (6).
Mr. Moss remarked that this ordinance does not address the issue of townhouses and it
would be practical to allow them. Commissioner Van Ness stated that they would actually
• Page 5
• Advisory Planning Board
May 6, 1982
rbe subdividing a lot, which would be against the charter. Mr. Moss replied that
would be correct; it would be an illegal subdivision. The chair remarked that this
has not held up in courts though. It was the general feeling of the board that
something should be included in this new ordinance to provide for townhouses, pro-
vided that the required fire walls are also stipulated. The Townhouse ordinance
(708.419) from the Jacksonville Land Use Code was read, however, Mr. Moss was not
convinced that this would meet Atlantic Beach's requirements. The board felt that
something would have to be written and included in this ordinance.
The recoiu.nendation was accepted to amend the height requirement for Commercial
Limited and Commercial General to 35' , Mr. Moss remarked that currently the Board
of Adjustments could grant a variance to the height. He questioned whether that
should be allowed. Page 3-45 (f) (a) is amended to read as follows: "Upon specific
application, the City Commission may make exceptions to the limitations and restrict-
ions on height of buildings. . ." and "the Citi Commission shall prescribe the maximum
allowable height. . . " Mr. Moss remarked that in terms of practicality, the city would
have no appeal if the Board of Adjustments were granted this authority because their
word is final.
Page 3-46 (b) (1) Fences/Corner Lots, has to be checked for conflicts with an existing
ordinance which is not a part of zoning.
On Page 3-47 (8) Home Occupations are a permissable use by exception that would have
to go before the Planning Board and the City Commission in all districts except RS-1.
411 The reconnuendation was accepted to amend to read as follows: "Home Occupations are a
permissable use by exception in all districts.". It was clarified that any "use by
exception" had to go before the city commission for a permit.
Mr. Moss mentioned that the site plan review section had to be rewritten.
On Page 3-53 (e) Walls, Mr. Moss stated that this would require him to go to every
business and require them to install a 5' wall. It makes no reference to a "new"
building. The chair felt that those existing business buildings would be grandfathered
in.
There being no further business before the board, the chair called for a motion to
adjourn. Mr. Mullins motioned to adjourn, which Mrs. Ross seconded. The motion
carried unanimously. 11:05 PM
J n F. Andrese - Chairman
•
)1/1-3-‘1-1;11;2. .6141411-1%”. , • • ii Ve64 Z? N IC '
•
• / / / 11 t I , I
1 I 1 , , , ,
• •
; 1.I >RA , , , I .., .., _, ;
_ I 1(
l�1 I
•1 1 !` IlL , 1...a,-64 c,--1-1
• 1 I ••,••�' 't • I ii 1
I �i� 1 �I I , 1 t 1 ' ' , //.' , 1 1 1 1. .1 �,' ',I
11-%)
1 1 ' ��
/ ' Q41
+, i.1 1•,) (i.i 1 I \
1/11A `,1 1 S. `+� I+' 1. , 1 1.1 ' '1 t • • , 'i, , I
i ` I, I ' Ir KI t ./ S 2' 1. , , , • ' ' 1 1.
tl t H tal . \I \- •41• 1 . H A (, .. .,..,,..:,. . , , if /: , / / , 7 R A.,....,
/,,,j i i y '•
: . . . R,A .. D, C A miN
li
, ' , H 1 . r 1, 1.,. I, ', i 1.\' ri.1„,) . '4 gat 0 a /,.' • ; I . . a 1. . . ' . '
I a 4 1 a 1 I •"•4 4 ,/ A) A
I r\. ' 'I t•I. J I; 1 I, f
/ : /?
'1 '•}. / •.! •1 ( _t. _1 I , 1� 1 1 1 , 1 1 1l .1 •11 •\ C.0 1 / 1' 1,. 1 , 'I ( 1 / '! w,,.l n... , 1 t1 N11{'I . ' 1 J
1 •
; 1 i I � j 111+ i, I t Y ,t l` \ //__�` _
• , I 1 1 I I ' I. (''' ; • / / 1 . / ..•. _ - —,
1 ; 1 \ i )4 -4 A I, \ \ 0 s -:"`.:4 •// , , 7
f /4/' ; ' • I ' 4 t • , ,• 1 ' („, I . .
R A
. ,, , ,, , , , , , \ k, \ I., k .1 . /
I. , it ' i ' \ \ i \ 1 / .f. / • / / i // •
• , I.'. ,. , , t. ..1 j , f
,�, 1 l ;, I! . ,, • .
�'` r~ 1 /, 1 ' 1 )- r' 1 f I ir,. .
/�/// \�i l' V
• ° r ' /• 11• ' .lri
1
s , • ; 1 , . ' CClS / • '
; ) `) .1 \ �y , /144 ,,,,, r..4...;t1 1 • �. n • / ! 1 I / / �.►.r.w.rl 1 "t �•J
: 1
I.lag • 4 •.•••• R 5
•
I---- /-3 1, si, 4 4-14' . . A.).8 : :
11 1 \ L., J `�1`1; . , r y �,„�� •
,f \ \ 1 v • 1'.,i•'o-f+►�- -lf.•`l f - J ,',./1..0.. ••. - 1/71 •• i 1 X1...1 �.
1 (1 •C � �� �/ � •, �� { 1• � 1� Jr'', , /• • . •1 ' 1• �.p
R t — �� ter+war �,.....1
• '� I %1 114/ / • f I � '~PIR '�` / \ ..0.40M X11 '^• r —� l�/ ., y • r l �.
' �.,1 _�� w• ' +•_ ,. .4.,z,•�..� •,.� -.� r•; .K.' -,.1 YMP:..,�1..r1. !'L+,J'►�A'►•.�'Lr��'iN 1.. �r-I +1i� .Y t.'1 r"' -!""1 r'1�" �3-{-J 1.f1' )
•
•
•
1
,.•. . Aig .. ;•
�.� / i ► J\ C G L i A
_ ►{� _ _ 1
V M,. .. •'•. •r.•.� •..� Md VIw-Mn1:.� '�f �• �/AAaJ✓'iM1�+M/.�•l'•-":';"`0.70-`4":1^•:::. `-`.1:.:"11.L.
.I:i..Y��'..1'6I•w�•M�� • •r-• __