Loading...
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-• __