04-20-82 v ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 20, 1982
7:00 PM
CITY HALL
PRESENT: John F. Andresen - Chairman
Hal Mullins
Donna Ross
Ruth Gregg
Catherine Van Ness - Commission Representative
AND: A. William Moss - City Manager
Mary L. Dombrowski - Recording Secretary
Oliver C. Ball - City Attorney
Chairman Andresen called the meeting to order at 7:12 PM, and issued a statement
that the proposed building height restriction was listed incorrectly. It should
read 35' , not 25' . That is the only change the board had at this time. The chair
acquainted the audience with the background work done on the State mandated Com-
prehensive Plan. The zoning ordinance is a follow-up to that plan, and it is
required that the ordinance fit the plan. The chair invited the board members to
comment before the public hearing was opened. Mr. Mullins stated that the board
had been working on this ordinance for many months. The purpose of the public
hearing was to determine how the public felt about the package that the board had
put together. A member of the audience questioned who required this Comprehensive
Plan be done. The chair replied that this is a State requirement with time limita-
tions. If the requirements are not fulfilled within the time specified by the
officers of the State, the State will come in and do their own plan, over which we
will have no control. The chair was asked, generally speaking, how much and where
does this increase the maximum density permitted? The chair answered that it more
than likely doesn't increase the density and affords the city more restrictions
than we've had in the past. The chair explained that in the past the Planned Unit
Development had been used as a scapegoat, since it virtually has no limitations
other than what the people that examine it allow. The new Planned Unit Develop-
ment requirements have been revised to emphasize the benefit to the area and the
community, with additional restrictions; such as a five (5) acre requirement.
Several members of the audience had concerns regarding the rezoning of the Saltair
section, or more specifically, that area known in the past as RB or duplex zoning.
The rezoning would have the designation of RS-2, which is a single family zone.
The general feeling from many members of the audience was that this designation was
not in keeping with the current use of the land, and would in effect be removing
the buffer between commercial and multi-family zoning by going straight into a
single family zone. The concern about the non-conforming status of current duplexes
should they be destroyed by 50% or more regarding the inability to rebuild was also
addressed. The property value would depreciate considerably if this zoning ordinance
passes as it is written. Another area of contention was the area north from 5th Street
between 7th & 8th, which had been zoned multi-family for some time, and is in use in
that manner. This area would be wiped out, yet the Cloisters and the apartments would
retain their current zoning. The chair remarked that with reference to the Saltair
section, the consensus of the board at the time this was written was to lower the
density, thereby adding to the ultimate beautification and benefit of the city. The
chair was asked when this ordinance was supposed to pass? Mr. Moss responded that this
was the public hearing for the preparation of the Final Report to the City Commission.
This is not an ordinance at this tire, it is merely a report. When the City Coc.mission
Page 2
Advisory Planning Board
Public Hearing
April 20, 1982
receives this report, they in turn will hold their own public hearings. At that
time, this will take the form of a proposed zoning ordinance. Many members of the
audience felt that those owners that had duplexes or triplexes in the rezoned area
would lose a great deal of equity. Also, that property couldn't be resold without
putting a cloud on it. Mr. Moss remarked that the new zoning ordinance does not
outlaw a non-conforming use. It prohibits the rebuilding of a duplex that has been
destroyed by 50% or more. Also, the use as a duplex must be continuous to maintain
its non-conforming status. Should that use stop for six months, it would revert
back to what the then present zoning would be. The use of the non-conformity is the
factor, not the sale or change of ownership. Ms. Kathleen Harris of the Florida
Times Union/Journal stated that there is a rumor that, if this report is adopted as
a new zoning ordinance, certain parts of the city, particularily that property just
north of the Chateau, could accomodate a mid-rise or a high-rise. Ms. Harris asked
the chair if there was any truth to this rumor. Ms. Van Ness remarked that the property
isn't big enough. The chair stated that that particular question is limited except
by the amount of property available. Mr. Moss remarked that the empty lot adjacent
to the parking lot of the Chateau is currently zoned single family. Mr. Harris asked
would anything be allowed under this report which would not now be allowed? Mr. Moss
replied that she was comparing a proposed report of about 100 pages vs. one with about
25 pages. Half of the new proposed ordinance is in definitions, which is a great help
to the city. The chair recognized Mr. MacDonnell of 1535 Selva Marina Drive, who
requested that he be allowed to direct some questions to the City Attorney. Mr.
MacDonnell wanted to know if it was in order, and was this the proper forum to register
a formal legal protest against the change of zoning of specific parcels of property,
or just a general protest. Mr. Ball responded that this process tonight is legislative.
That Mr. MacDonnell and the other members of the audience were a lobby. This is the
chance for the public to make suggestions to get changes. This report is open to
amendment. Mr. Ball encouraged Mr. MacDonnell to register his complaint tonight.
Mr. MacDonnell protested in general for the record the rezoning of property without
the owner's consent. He was concerned about the rezoning unless he had some right
of appeal. The chair remarked that the board had not altered the bedroom community
aspect at all, and that the duplex lots Mr. Howell referred to were pretty much zoned
at someone's whims. Mrs. Ross stated that she felt that might be inaccurate in that
the property was zoned duplex up to 8th or 9th Streets for many years. She felt that
the property owners have a legimate concern and wondered what the board would be
accomplishing by rezoning this area (Saltair) to single family. Mr. Bull asked to
be recognized. He referred to the lack of consistancy in the zoning of the Saltair
section, which would have a new designation of RS-2. He also wanted to know why an
RS-2 zone was put between PUD and RG-2 zones with no real access. The PUD is allowed
in an RS-2 zone. Does that mean that if the PUD were to burn down that it could be
rebuilt or does it revert back to an RS-2 zone. The chair stated that the problem
is referring to a PUD as a zone, which it is not. A PUD is a ''status", not a "zone" .
Mr. Bull indicated that he understood the PUD process, however, the PUD was associated
with RS-2, which means two things to him: 1. Either RS-2 could be PUD, or 2. That
those specific uses that have already been grandfathered in could still remain PUD.
Mr. Moss remarked that if any existing PUD, now shown to be in a different zoning
district, were to be destroyed, it would probably fall under that zoning designation
placed on that district. The chair was asked if a PUD is really an unzoned area
which the owner would approach the city for a specific zoning designation, which ever
zoning classification was adaptable for their plans. The chair remarked if those plans
were approved for that property, yes. Mr. Warren Klecan has several concerns regarding
existing multiple family dwellings. . .substandard lots. . .lack of financing. .over 50%
burn-out. He bought, in good faith, property zoned triplexes, The value of the land
to him is that they are zoned triplexes. The intent now is to down zone to single family
which would be surrounded by multi-family dwellings. The chair explained that it is
Page 3
Advisory Planning Board
Public Hearing
April 20, 1982
almost impossible to spot zone; that it has to be done in geographic areas that
will conform to the surrounding areas. The chair invited Mr. Klecan to send specific
concerns in writing to the board, stating the legal, etc. Mr. Jeff Montanague was
recognized by the chair, who remarked that PUD is under essentially all the zoning
designations. He wanted to know if that meant that an owner of several lots in an RS-1
district could petition to have a PUD of a higher density. Mrs. Ross replied that the
idea being that it should be proved that there was going to be some improvement over what
that zone is now designated. The chair remarked that there is also an area limitation
on a PUD, which is five (5) acres. Mr. Don McLaine felt that the Saltair area, as it
had been zoned, provided an excellent buffer between the business and residential zones.
He voiced an objection to reducing that buffer, stating that he felt that would not be
in the city's best interests. The chair requested that Mr. McLaine put his comments in
writing to the board. Mr. Arzie mentioned his concern regarding the home occupations,
which were not provided for in the ordinance. Mr. Moss stated that home occupations are
permitted uses in every area except RS-1. RS-2 is okay, with restrictions. Mr. Arzie
voiced another concern in this proposed rezoning, which would exclude foster home child-
ren. When asked for suggestions to reword the ordinance regarding foster children,
Mr. Arzie replied that it is possible that the words "less than" should have read "more
than". Anyone that has more than five (5) foster children is in business. The chair
remarked that the change suggested is in order and the board would make that change. The
chair was asked about hurricanes completely destroying multiple dwellings and the loss
regarding mortgages. Would the owner be penalized for rebuilding? The chair replied that
he thought not; that this process would always have a plea for redress. Amendments could
be written. The chair recognized Mr. Tommy Lyles, who asked if the area from Donner Rd.
and Church Rd. was in fact going to be rezoned from business to RG-2. Mr. Lyles had
bought some property there for the sole reason that it was affordable for him to operate
his store. Mr. Mullins asked if that zoning would restrict him from building his store?
Mr. Lyles replied no, however, once it was built and the new zoning went into effect,
his building/use would be in a non-conforming status. This concerned him because,
should a calamity occur with more than 50% damage, he could not rebuild. Mrs. Ross
remarked that the intent was to improve the area, since there are no other multi-family
districts in Atlantic Beach. There is a need for multi-family units with the base so
close. Mr. Moss remarked that the board was attempting to determine the highest and
best use for that district and that it was the opinion of the board that the area in
question was not that attractive for businesses. The chair felt that the area would
be very attractive for multi-family units. Mr. Arzie wanted to go on record as having
objections to major portions of the zoning ordinance. The requirements should be more
specific. The chair felt that the requirements regarding setback, candlelevers, etc. ,
were very explicit and needed no further definition. Mr. Tom Borden, president of the
Beaches Preservation Society, remarked on the concerns that were occuring in Jacksonville
Beach that would have definate negative impact on Atlantic Beach, regarding increased
density. He asked that we heighten our awareness on these proposed plans in Jacksonville
Beach and asked for Atlantic Beach resident's support at the public hearing on May 3,
1982 at 8:00 PM. The chair was asked the approximate completion date of this ordinance.
Mr. Moss replied that the anticipated target date for completion was July. Mr. Ruther-
ford asked Mr. Moss if the building permits would be frozen in the interium. Mr. Moss
replied no, however, there is a definite problem between the existing zoning and the
proposed zoning. The chair asked if anyone had any further remarks. There being no
further comments, the chair called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Mullins motioned to
adjourn, which the chair seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 8:45 PM.
(-)
/,bhn .• Andres-n'- Chairman