Loading...
10-21-82 v J. MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA October 21, 1982 7:00 PM City Hall PRESENT: W. Gregg McCaulie , Chairman Guy Jennings Ruth Gregg Ron Gray John W. Morris, Jr. , Commissioner AND: A. William Moss, City Manager Mary L. Dombrowski, Recording Secretary AND: Charles E. R. Watson Syndey MacLean Don MacLean Wesley R. Wilson Roy Deese Sam Chimmis Tim Shea John W. Snigha Kevin Gordon Jeffery Crane Don Kalina The meeting was called to order by Mr. McCaulie, acting as Chairman, at 7:01 PM. Mr. Moss informed the audience of the Advisory Planning Board's functions; explaining that Commissioner Morris's function on the board was to break a tie vote only and, of course, as a Commission representative. The City Manager serves an an exofficio member and advisor to the Board and has no vote. Mrs. Dombrowski records the minutes of the meeting. Since tonight is the first meeting of the board, replacing members whose terms have expired, Mr. Moss requested the patience of the audience asthese new board members go through the procedures which are new to them, as is the new zoning ordinance also. Mr. McCaulie volunteered to act as Chairman until such time as a Chairman could be elected, which was agreeable to the members. The chair then instructed the audience when addressing the board to identify themselves and state their address for the benefit of the record. Chairman McCaulie directed the board's attention to the first item on the agenda. Change of Zoning Classification Request by Mr. Tim Shea, an agent, acting on behalf of the owner, Bessie V. Carr. Application incorporated as a part of the minutes. Commissioner Morris addressed the board and the audience, reminding both that this board was new to what are deep and serious matters which have to be considered within the guide- lines of the ordinances. Special consideration must be given to the fact that a recommenc ation from this board to the City Commission requires a 4/5th's majority of the Commissiot to override that decision. Commissioner Morris, speaking for himself, guaranteed all petitioners fair and equal treatment, however, a thorough review would be done to assure compliance with the letter of the law. Page 2 ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 21, 1982 The chair invited Mr. Shea to present his request. Mr. Shea responded that it was his understanding that the board members would discuss his request and ask him questions concerning his development plans. Mr. Shea clarified the past zoning status of the property; the rezoning prior to the adoption of the Land Development Code; and the request before the board to rezone this property to allow the highest and best use of the property. It was Mr. Shea's contention that a professionally done, well managed neighborhood mall falls within the perimeters of "highest and best" use versus what the outcome would be under the current zoning (i.e. 15 units per acre with a potential of 120 units and the accompaning potential blight problems). Providing Atlantic Beach with development which would be an integral part of the community was also Mr. Shea's goal, since there is not another eleven (11) acre parcel of property in Atlantic Beach. A general discussion followed concerning the exact position of the property; ingress and egress, both primary and secondary; traffic potential and associated problems. The primary access would be from Atlantic Boulevard, with secondary access from Cornell Lane and/or Aquatic Drive. DOT approval would have to be obtained for that drive access on Atlantic Boulevard, although there is an existing median cut in front of the property. Mr. Moss remarked that in light of the plans to use Aquatic Drive, which he thought was a private drive, perhaps the board should be aware that there is another development proposed just north of Beaches Aquatic consisting of 130 patio homes. That developer is being required to upgrade Beaches Aquatic Drive, and of course, dedicate it to the city. A discussion ensued concerning the proposed patio home development in relationship to Mr. Shea's proposed develop- ment. Mr. Shea's development plans were not definite at this time and he was unwilling to reveal the developer's name. Mr. Shea stated that the specific businesses were unwilling to commit at this time until the zoning question was settled. Mr. Gray remarked that in requesting the Commercial General designation, it would open that property to virtually anything and might possible be a detriment to the City of Atlantic Beach. The relationship of the percentage of commercial and residential use might present a problem. Mr. Shea replied that the back of the property would be designated as a buffer zone/wall 50' to 75' between residential properties on Cornell Lane. Chairman McCaulie asked if there was any response from abutting property owners. Mr. Moss replied that the abutting property owners would be notified in writing prior to public hearings. Mr. Gray wanted to know, personally, who the developer was, his track record, and specifically what kind of businesses would go into the center. Mr. Shea replied that Commercial General is primarially designed for retail sales. What must be considered is the feasibility of business owners regarding the expense of the property; the potential draw for Navy personnel; the good activity for the Beaches (tourism, etc.) ; and establishing positive growth patterns. While Mr. Gray appreciated Mr. Shea's position, he felt that low cost housing was a better alternative than the white elephant at the south end of Jacksonville Beach (Publix Shopping Center) . Mr. Gray questioned Mr. Moss as to the exact procedures regarding the result of the vote. He felt that there were many items needing clarification before this matter could be approved. Mr. Moss stated that at this time there were no guarantees. Commissioner Morris remarked that because the board is new, we do not want your or your clients to be a victim of circumstances. If the board votes "No", it will be a year before a project of substantially the same magnitude on this property can be brought up again before the board. Should you withdraw your application and gather more information, you would be better served and so would your clients. The chair asked if there would be a problem tabling the matter and bringing it up again at a Page 3 ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 21, 1982 later date. Mr. Moss replied that there was no problem with that, except that action must be taken within sixty (60) days. He estimated that the 130 patio home development would be brought before the board after the 8th of November, probably the second week in November. Action would have to be taken on this matter sixty (60) days from the date the application was filed, which was Sept- ember 29, 1982. Mr. Shea remarked that he would not jeopardize the owner at this time and perhaps tabling the matter would be more advisable. The chair questioned Mr. Jennings if his company had some interest in this matter. Mr. Jennings stated that he had a conflict of interest because his company was interested in this property. He declined further comment. Commissioner Morris clarified the procedures for Mr. Shea by stating that the Advisory Planning Board sends it's recommendation to the City Commission, then the City Commission holds three (3) public hearings. A 4/5th's majority of the City Commission is required to override the Board's recommendation. Mr. Moss stated that prior to the Land Development Code adoption, there was considerable discussion on that property and adjacent properties with regard to rezoning. The discussion did not center of the commercial nature, however. The main question was whether it should be single family or multi-family residential zoning. Representatives of the owners of this particular property were present at those Public Hearings and were asked what was preferred. That will be vivid in their minds when the City Commission considers the issue. The chair asked the board if there were any further remarks or questions. If not, he invited the board to make a motion. Mrs. Gregg motioned to table Mr. Shea's request, which Mr. Gray seconded. The motion was approved, with Mr. Jennings abstaining from voting due to a conflict of interest. The chair informed Mr. Shea that the board has tabled his requested and will bring it up again at the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Shea will be notified of the definite time and date. The chair called the board's attention to the next item on the agenda; Application for "Use By Exception" Permit on Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 26, Section "H", Atlantic Beach, Florida, from Mr. Charles E. R. Watson for use by the Beaches Chapel Church as an outreach center for servicemen and women. Application with the minutes. The chair invited Mr. Watson to provide a synopsis of his request. Mr. Watson, of 32 North Palm Valley Road, Ponte Vedre, Florida, informed the Board that the Beaches Chapel Church wanted to obtain a five (5) year lease on his property for the purpose of providir an outreach program for your service men and women. This program would provide rooms for rent on a weekly or monthly basis in a christian atmosphere with an occassional fellowship breakfast in the small kitchen facilities located on the premises (Lot 3) . Since they would be providing a type of hotel/restaurant service, Mr. Watson had consult with Messrs. Copeland and Rowland of the Department of Hotel and Restaurants and Mr. Vic Yeager of the Department of Health to ensure compliance with current regulations. All gentlemen consulted indicated there would be no problems. As a result of the zoning change in July, the properties were split in the zoning. Lots 1 & 2 retaining the business or commercial zoning, however, Lot 3 reverted to RG-1 (duplex) zoning. These properties, formerly zoned Business "A", had received prior City Commission approval for Page 4 ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 21, 1982 use as professional offices, which due to financial limitations, were not finished or used for that purpose. Since Mr. Watson had an opportunity to lease the property, his intent in requesting the "Use by Exception" permit is to complete the buildings and execute the lease. A general discussion followed concerning the locations of the buildings; the use of the buildings; completion of the buildings in compliance with current building codes; notification of proposed comprehensive zoning changes; ingress/egress from Second Street; proposed off-street parking; proper designation of the property/request for compliance with the "Use by Exception" requirements as found on Page 3-22. Mr. Gray felt that this use didn't qualify for the "Use by Exception" as required under the RG-1 designation. He felt that Mr. Watson should have requested a zoning change if his intent was to return the property to a•single zone. Commissioner Morris believed that the application of the "Use By Exception" for this use was appropriate and that those persons listed on the Board of Elders were some of the finest people in the beach community. The chair questioned Mr. Watson if he understood that should this use requested cease for any reason, the zoning reverts for original use. Mr. Watson indicated that he understood. Mrs. Gregg asked if any staff would live on premises, and would there be adequate parking. Mr. Kalina, a minister for the Beaches Chapel Church, replied that he would comprise the staff and would live on premises. Mr. Watson responded to Mrs. Gregg's question concerning the parking, stating that he owned the adjacent lot should more parking be required. The chair asked if Mr. Watson would be willing to stipulate to providing that vacant lot for the Beaches Chapel parking in his lease. Mr. Watson said that he would be happy to do so. There being no further discussion, the chair called for a motion to approve or disapprove Mr. Watson's request. Mr. Jennings motioned to approve Mr. Watson's request, which Chairman McCaulie seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. The chair reiterated that this use by the Beaches Chapel Church was the only use approved at this time, and if that use ceases, it reverts back to its former zoning requirements. Mr. Watson stated that he understood. The next item for consideration by the board is the manner in which front yard setbacks were determined on corner lots. Definition 1l 84, Lot, Corner. Pg. 2-14 of the Land Development Code. The definition referenced determines the manner in which front yard setbacks must be determined. Incorporated as a part of the minutes are drawings submitted by various architects which include the old method of determining setbacks, the new method, and a suggested method, if any. The chair requested those interested parties identify themselves and address their remarks to reasons why this current method of determining setbacks for corner lots should be changed. Mr. Don MacLean, of 922 Park Forrest Lane, Jacksonville, asked to be recognized along with his brother, Mr. Sydney MacLean. Both gentlemen were officers of the MacLean Company of Jacksonville. Their particular interest was Lot 718, Saltair Section #3, Page S ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 21, 1982 Atlantic Beach, which was a corner lot on the south eastern corner of David Street and Sylvan Street. Their particular lot had unique circumstances because of the dead end streets involved. In order to conform to the present zoning requirements, the building would have to be constructed twenty-five (25') feet wide, which would not be marketable. Mr. MacLean felt the requirements were restrictive. The chair informed Mr. MacLean that the purpose of this meeting tonight was to discuss the setback requirements in general for corner lots through out the city, not to address specific lots. Mr. MacLean stated that he understood that, however, he was presenting how the twenty (20' ) foot setbacks from both lot lines abutting streets on corner lots created a hardship. A general discussion followed regarding the number of corner lots in Atlantic Beach which would be affected by this ordinance; the hardships involved; the traffic visibility around corners. Mr. MacLean remarked that •the setbacks used in the past worked very well in Atlantic Beach. Mr. Wilson asked to be recognized, stating that hehad purchased his lot on the south west corner of David and Sylvan Streets prior to the zoning change. He was under the impression that he could build a house 27.5' wide only to. find that under this new zoning, he was limited to a 25' wide home. He felt this was unfair. Mr. Don Reese of Reese Realty presented the same problem for the new owner of the corner lot on 5th Street and Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Reese felt that a lesser setback would be more appropriate on corners, remarking that in Neptune Beach the setback is only ten (10' ) feet. Mr. Moss estimated that there were probably quite a few more corner lots that would be affected. There had been a conflict in two different sections of the ordinance that was resolved in a staff meeting prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The primary intent was to clear the field of vision and to align the houses on both streets. Section "H" was the major concern, since that section was slowly being developed. The chair questioned Mr. Wilson and the other two gentlemen as to what, in their opinion, was the ideal density. Mr. MacLean remarked that the old code posed no particular problems. Mr. Reese stated that there is no problem with the density, however, there is a problem with the manner in which the house has to be set on the lot. Mr. Wilson agreed with Mr. Reese. Another item addressed was the 200' off-street parking requirement behind the building restriction line and the possible problems that might pose with the current setback requirements. Mr. Moss remarked that, in his opinion, the old ordinance did not grant that much flexibility, whereas the new ordinance does provide for an administrative variance of 10%, which the Administrative Official can grant. (Ref: Page 3-2 (h). ) Chairman McCaulie felt there should be some uniformity in the board's approach to this problem in general so that the Board of Adjustments in not inundated with variance requests. A lengthly discussion followed on the total amount of lots involved; the ideal setbacks and density; a 25' home resulting in a shotgun effect; the suggestions submitted by local architects; "reverse" zoning; the marketing and special aspects of corner lots. The chair proposed a motion that the administrative staff determine the number of Page 6 ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 21, 1982 corner lots for both single family and duplex and to solicit other architects and builders opinions for suggestions on setbacks. These facts could be reviewed at the next meeting. Mr. Moss replied that that would be virtually impossible due to the significant amount of staff time involved. A discussion followed on the practicality of this survey. Mr. Moss surmised that the board is asking for a staff recommendation since builders would opt for as much space as they could get. A reasonable compromise would be to revert to the old zoning with the 15' setback on one side instead of 20' . Perhaps it would be better to talk with some other builders and come back with a recommendation without actually doing a survey. Mr. Gray concurred with Mr. Moss's suggestion because a survey would take a tremendous amount of time and the board doesn't have any authority to act tonight anyway. Chairman McCaulie amended his motion to read: "Request the administrative staff to provide further information as to the lots which may be affected and to provide other suggestions in order to allow the board further consideration of this change." Mr. Gray seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. A discussion followed regarding when a chairman should be appointed and if it had to be done tonight. Mr. Moss stated that while the board didn't have to appoint a chair- man tonight, it should be done soon. Mrs. Gregg remarked that she felt Mr. McCaulie did very well tonight, and motioned to appoint Mr. McClulie as Chairman. Mr. Gray felt that it should be done tonight, and seconded Mrs. Gregg's motion. The motion passed unanimously to appoint Mr. Gregg W. McCaulie as Chairman. A discussion concerning meeting days took place. Mr. Jennings stated that Thursday night was a problem for him and Tuesday night was better. The board was in agreement that Tuesday night was acceptable. Mr. Moss stated that the meetings were planned as needed with no specific time per month. The question was raised by Mr. Gray if this Board fell under the Sunshine Law. Commissioner Morris responded that this Board was under the Sunshine Law and the basic guidelines were the intent of the discussion between two or more board members as the main concern. While they were not allow to lobby for or against a project or issue, if their intent was good there would be no problem. However, to discuss an issue or project with someone who may ultimately vote on that subject shouldn't be done. To discuss any matter with the City Manager or the City Attorney is perfectly acceptable. Mr. Gray restated his understanding of the Commissioner's remarks was that there is a dividing line as to whether or not someone would, or could possibly, be in a position to ultimately vote on an issue. The Commissioner stated that would be correct. The intent must also be noble. Chairman McCaulie wanted clarification as to whether or not there should be a time limit on his chairmanship. After some discussion, Mr. Jennings made the motion that the term for chairman should be one (1) year, which Mr. Gray seconded and was approved unanimously. It was determined by the board that Mr. McCaulie's term should start as of this meeting with the term expiring October 21, 1983. Mr. Moss suggested that a closer look be taken as to whether an individual has the option to withdraw at anytime during the procedures, or at the final meeting of the City Commission. Commissioner Morris felt that a person should be given the reasonable part of the doubt. It was the general consensus of the board that a developer should not be given free rein. More facts should be provided, in general, and in Mr. Shea's case. page 7 ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 21, 1982 The chair requested that Mrs. Dombrowski provide him and the board members with a list of the board members phone numbers and addresses. Since there was no further business before the board, the chair called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Jennings motioned to adjourn, which Mrs. Gregg seconded and was approved unanimously. 9:17 PM. C� . Chai eg: C. lie 's 1 . o o)x. .'L Zi del l d N 1 l 11 n g —Do-ill J,..._ ,4... ,cm,-;,-,i 6J; 1 ;H--1-- b+a�'- - . .4. tJ ,d V 09 al- 4-01 bioli�:L N 1 Hy H Yi-L1- %*,-n -4- 01" .•.1-� ot:- _ . ._q-1 n o f- 1--11-1 )..1.a,i ', of o b c:1 bid -i4- q N d - el al n o;4c_. • .� ad... . -�- 9 N 19d vi-:111" Jul- of 0�1c1 ��{-{,!-O �}--�- � 0.2 - -;. o �N1'1 t - ��U- Mo14.-,Iai.4.y'a)l NIallnc2 4H0 -1.-- .4. V d 4 al Nb -- . - -1e � / H cl'lno-5 Sno- _ H-ims' -� - - s ' 5 . 1 7 Nd - - --_--I o o 1-. 1 N 1-1-2►a.1., b', e N I c�'1 n 0.0 11y Vi - - • _Jillij .--.71-a-. ..-- _-49 -.'n • - . - . . . • -1-N\- -H ' 611.d. _ ; vr \ vo941 , - ; ,k. - %, c/r,o ' ! ; ;1. t. . ; - %_ % 1 , ; . ; . _Jhv...__ ., L _.,,„__ ._____. \ . ... - ._ 1 - 1 1 I ; . • . .; ; ; . ••••••• ._•___ . . -6- o . 1 0 ! • ; _ T SI_ � O • ii �o� -; - � — X51 L2 G o • ). wi- ,A . gbiY.N?'. .1--.'-1-.1N�Nd • ZG �,I J -b a,a�o. ' � .. - OLD NEW SUGGESTE . SO' So' /o' So' !1 - . ?° 3p .3s, X7.6 4/) I , ° c27 � • 50 • v o 0 %% ST ST ST i r YP 28% LOT DENSITY 35% LOT DENISTY 33% LOT DENSITY S T ST ST George Bull, Jr. The new ordinance in only restrictive for existing structures. On a vacant lot it is not restrictive. Assessed for taxes on the narrow side of the lot/street improvements. 25' home difficult to build. New ordinance has no back yard and is too close to adjoining lots. YV • D N E ugncr51mmbrc, Architects Incorporated Soy s-o� /O' 11:1 S1 i� - } • ci �o I Homer Hull, Jr. e2�. Architect 1517 Landon Avenue Jacksonville,Florida 32207 (904)398-9537 f 5° Or Yls 28% LOT DENSITY 35% LOT DENISTY Mr. Homer Hull, Jr. Comments: The new ordinance allows maximum densitywhich should depend on the creativity of the architect., No back yard, however.