2005-11-15 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of November 15, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
November 15, 2005
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, November 15,
2005, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Sam Jacobson, Chris Lambertson,
Carolyn Woods, Steve Jenkins, Lynn Drysdale, Dave MacInnes, Planning 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 7:18p.m.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 16, 2005 and the Special
Meeting of October 3, 2005.
A motion was made by Steve Jenkins, seconded by Chris Lambertson, and unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 16, 2005 and the Special
Meeting of October 03, 2005.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business. None.
5. New Business
a. ZVAR-2005-08, Lynette Tyson and John J. Dinneen. Request for a Variance to reduce
the required rear yard setback on a Corner Lot from 20-feet to 8-feet to allow an attached
garage to encroach into the rear setback in conjunction with the redevelopment of a single-
family residential lot, within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 110 8th Street.
Jim Barganier and Dean Davis spoke representing the applicant, Lynette Tyson. Mr. Barganier
stated that they were requesting a variance to the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet so that
the garage could be rebuilt in its general location. Existing attached garage comes within 10 feet
of the rear yard. The Applicant intends to construct a new house conforming to all setback
requirements, except for the garage, which would be no closer than 8-feet from the real property
line. The existing house does not conform to the current setback requirements. The new house
will be a two-story house.
Carolyn Woods asked if the garage will be attached to the house. Mr. Barganier responded
that it would be attached. Ms. Woods inquired if the existing structure had been taken down
yet. The response was no.
Sam Jacobson asked whether the whole structure would be taken down. The response was
that it would be.
Joanne Waits, 145 8th Street, stated that she was excited about them [the Applicants] being new
,,, neighbors. She had questions on whether the front of the house would now be the side of the
house and attended the meeting as she was curious to see what was proposed
Steve Jenkins asked Sonya Doerr about the staff report and the statements in the report about
the several constraints on the lot and the irregular shape of the lot. Ms. Doerr responded that
Minutes of November I5, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
,,., it was not a rectangular lot, but was rather a corner lot on an unusual curve and not a
perpendicular corner. This lot is also constrained by platted building restriction lines that are
greater than the RS-2 zoning setbacks. There is also a utility easement on the south side of the
property. Mr. Jenkins asked whether each one of those irregularities was restrictive in nature, as
opposed to those that might exist on a standard lot. Ms. Doerr responded yes. Ms. Doerr also
stated that a portion of the original lot has been sold off in the past, (not by this owner} but this
mage the lot shallower than as originally created.
Ms. Woods stated that the lot seemed to contain a 75 x 100 rectangle with additional lot space
beyond that rectangle.
Sonya Doerr responded that it is an 81 x 95 foot lot with a 15-foot building restriction on the
Beach Avenue side, a 10-foot easement on the south side, and a 25-foot building restriction line
on the north side, in addition to the zoning setbacks that apply.
Ms. Woods stated the west line is 101 feet, the south line is 95, thus the actual size of the lot is
101x95.
Sonya Doerr responded that the buildable area within the lot is the 81x95 size, and agreed that it
this is not substandard sized lot, but rather confined by other restrictions.
Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Doerr that if the garage was constructed as a detached garage, as
an accessory structure in the rear yard, what would the setback be. Ms. Doerr responded that a
detached one-story garage could be 10-feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Lamberston continued to
state that what the applicant has requested would result in only a minor difference in placement
. of the building on the lot if they simply detached the garage, and that the design as presented
seemed to be well though-out plan for the lot and the new home.
Steve Jenkins stated that if it weren't for the weird boundary line, with a part of the lot being
sold off at some point in the past, there wouldn't be a problem because the lot would be deeper.
Carolyn Woods made a motion to deny the request due stating that the lot is large enough
to accommodate a reasonable size home within the existing setback requirements. The
motion to deny died due to a lack of a second.
Chris Lambertson made a motion to approve the variance as requested; motion seconded
by Lynn Drysdale. Motion to approve carried by a 5:1 vote, with Ms. Woods dissenting.
b. Selva Verde re-plat, Lindley Tolbert. Review and recommendation to the City
Commission related to a proposed preliminary subdivision re-plat to create three new lots,
for property within the RS-1 Zoning District and located at the northwest corner of 12th
Street and Selva Marina Circle.
Lindley Tolbert, 334 6th Street, purchased 2 lots, one at 1202 Selva Marina Circle and one at
361 12th Street. Prior to August these lots were one large parcel.
Campbell Ford, 1825 Oceanview Drive, attorney representing Ms. Tolbert, understood that
there were concerns about this proposal but stated that the rules and regulations of the City
were being followed.
Carolyn Woods stated that the rule and regulation with the highest authority is the
Comprehensive Plan. In particular the portion about Old Atlantic Beach that states the City
shall manage growth that maintains healthy environment, preserves and enhances social,
environmental and natural historical resources, and provides for public safety. The distinct
residential character of the neighborhood needs to be maintained. This property does meet the
2
Minutes of November 15, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
infill development requirement. This property is only a small portion of the neighborhood, by
allowing the property to be divided again will lead to the degradation of this neighborhood.
The lots proposed would be 30 feet smaller than any other lot in the area. The most important
thing in the Plan that addresses this is preserving this area the character that it currently has.
Mr. Ford states that the proposal is for lots that are quite a bit bigger than the 75-foot minimum.
Required by the rules. Second of all, he recognizes that they are coming in late under the same
set of laws that have long been in effect and that his client should not be penalized ass long as
they are still complying with the law that is now in effect.
Ms. Woods stated that nothing in the Code or Comp Plan states that the City must allow the
creation of smaller lots.
Mr. Ford responded that what should govern the decision is the precedence that has been
established over and over again in the past, and that if you follow those rules and the specifics
of the Code in considering this request, should be able to accomplish this request.
Dave MacInnes stated that it looks like there will be three lots. Ms. Tolbert responded that
the lot that is over 19,000 square feet would be divided in two, resulting in three lots.
Chris Lambertson asked staff about why this matter was being brought before this Board.
Sonya Doerr responded that the original parcel was a much larger piece of property. The City's
subdivision regulations allow you to administratively divide a piece of property into two lots if
those two lots meet all size and other requirements. The larger parcel had been divided into two
lots, and one of those lots was still large enough to again divide into two lots meeting the RS-1
"' and Low Density sizes, but that further division could not be approved administratively by staff.
Such a division would have to be reviewed as a subdivision re-plat through the process set forth
in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Lambertson asked if there had been an effort to address this
further division administratively. Ms. Doerr stated that she advised the applicant that a replat
was necessary because in the end, the divisions of the parcel creates more than two contiguous
lots. Each of the three lots proposed may be large enough to meet all the size requirements, but
that the replat process is the proper procedure to use for this request.
Sam Jacobson asked Ms. Doerr about why this is different than other divisions of lots. Ms.
Doerr explained that over the years, property owners in Atlantic Beach sold off portions and
pieces of platted lots, such that many of the oldest subdivisions no longer resemble the original
plat maps as those were approved and recorded. Depending on when such lots were created, the
City recognizes those as being legal lots of records. Current regulations require that all lot
division must be approved and done in accordance with the proper process in order to obtain
building permits for these lots.
Mr. Ford stated that if you look at the rules about dividing the property, technically and
administratively, there was some thought that they could meet the requirements
administratively just be dividing the property. All three of these lots are more than the
minimum size required for the new lots. Ms. Tolbert, however, had followed Ms. Doerr's
direction that the three lots must be created through the replat process. Steve Jenkins asked City
Attorney Alan Jensen, to address Mr. Ford's position that seems to state that the City cannot
deny this request, and that it cannot be approved administratively. Mr. Jensen responded that it
sounds to consistent with the Comp Plan and with the zoning regulations, but the CD Board can
~,.., recommend to approve or deny.
Minutes of November 1 S, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
Mr. Jacobson: A comment was made that it appears that it is compliance with the Comp Plans,
what is the basis for that statement.
Sonya Doerr responded that the land use designation for this property is low density residential,
which allows a maximum of six dwelling units per acre and that the proposed division into three
single-family residential lots will be within that density limit, and the use will be single-family
residential within a residential area.
Lynn Drysdale asked staff if any of these three proposed lots would be considered
nonconforming or substandard. Ms. Doerr stated no; as proposed they all meet the RS-1 and
Low, Density size requirements.
Carolyn Woods stated that the according to the Comp Plan it does meet the square footage, but
nowhere in the plan does it say we must approve this. The Comp Plan does specifically say that
the City is trying to preserve existing old neighborhoods, and this proposal does not do that.
Ms. Woods stated that it specifically violates that provision of the Comp Plan.
Chris Lambertson asked staff about the building restriction lines on the original plat maps that
were distributed to the Board. Ms. Doerr responded that the platted building restriction lines
must still be maintained in the case that this request is approved. The zoning setback is 20-feet
in the front and 20-feet in the rear. The 75x100 RS-1 District lot size predated the Comp Plan,
but the 7500 square feet lot size is also consistent with the Low Density land use category. Mr.
Lambertson asked is it made sense that these building restriction lines were larger than the
zoning setbacks in keeping with the character these larger lots and asked if making these lots
smaller would create an a hardship for later developing these lots. Mr. Lambertson stated that it
seems we would be making smaller lots but keeping the same restrictions that apply to larger
lots. Ms. Doerr responded that the lots would still comply with the Comprehensive Plan density
and that this could not later be used as justification for a Variance request. Mr. Lambertson
state his concern that we might be creating irregular lots.
Sam Jacobson asked about what kind of building will be able to go on these lots. Ms. Doerr
responded that any building would be subject to all regulations and entitled to no relief in the
form of a Variance.
Mr. Ford stated that the minimum lot size is 7500 square feet, and all three of the lots to be
created by this division will be greater than that minimum.
Chris Lambertson responded that you have shrunk the building envelope, which will likely push
any new buildings to the maximum height and that could negatively affect the character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Ford stated that they would meet the same restrictions that everyone in Atlantic Beach
had to meet when building new homes.
Sam Jacobson inquired from the applicant as to their occupation. Ms. Tolbert responded that
she remodeled beach houses for a living. Mr. Jacobson asked if it was the intention to put up
structures on these lots. Ms. Tolbert responded that she would like to sell two of the lots and
build on the other lot.
Mr. Jacobson asked whether a tree survey was done. Ms. Tolbert responded that the trees
would be minimally impacted. All trees fall on the lot line or within seven feet on either side.
..,, The larger lot does not have a lot of trees.
Mr. Jacobson asked if it was recognized that breaking this down would not conform with the
wishes of neighborhood. Ms. Tolbert stated that a number of the lots have been divided and it
has not degraded the appearance of the neighborhood.
4
Minutes of November I5, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
The hearing was then open to the public for speaking.
Kevin Byrnes, 391 8th Street . Mr. Byrnes asked if the bigger lot was the corner lot. Ms.
Tolbert responded that it was. Mr. Byrnes asked how that division was decided upon, and Ms.
Tolbert responded it was done keeping the integrity of the neighborhood in mind.
Susan Marriani, 360 12t" Street. She lives caddy-corner from the property. Have lived there
for years with one house on those lots. Moved there because they love the community.
Aesthetically, there is no way that you can say that this will not change the look and feel of the
neighborhood. The old town feel will be negatively affected. The quality of life, once you
develop this area, there is no going back. She expressed concerns about the resources -just
had the sewers redone due to the water problems. What is to stop division of large lots on
Selva Marina Drive, are they going to divide them all into six 50-foot lots. She also expressed
concerns about safety, evacuation. Unplanned growth such as this does not consider the future.
We must think of our children. If the developers have their way the quality of life will be
negatively affected. Should go with the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.
Leonazd Caurse, Selva Marina. Disagrees that there is an outpouring from the community. This
objection represents only a small minority. Believes that you are infringing on the property
rights. They have met the law, and this should be approved.
Next-door neighbor then spoke. The man read an e-mail from his 96-year-old mother, who
was concerned with any proposal to reduce the size of lots, believing it will reduce the quality
of life. Believes that this proposal is against the original intent of the neighborhood.
Kate Gamball, 320 12th Street, bought simply because of the greenscape, it appears that we
have no legal resource. Concerned that the neighborhood is being changed dramatically. Do
feel that there should be some value in the larger lots, and no longer has the initial quality of
life. Requested that the Board please deny this request.
Thom Goelz, 320 Beach Ave. Don't confuse property rights with the ability of the Board to
address quality of life issues. If its simply a geometric issues, why are we here tonight. There
aze larger issues than just if they meet the laws that need to be considered.
Nancy Bodge, 336 12th Street. Submitted letter into the record expressing concern that the
proposal will degrade the area. The proposal to allow three new residences is not good.
Concerns that the tree canopy will be lost. Public interest is not met with the request
Recommend denial to the replat.
Renee Legiero, 389 12th Street. Specifically bought this house for the area, to see it split up
into three is very heartbreaking
William Robichieu, 352 12th Street. Does not have a lot to add, other than it is a shame that we
are taking a community street and destroying a neighborhood that we have come to love.
Atlantic Beach has become the place to live at the beaches. It would be a shame to destroy
the character of the area.
Sam Jacobson asked the staff that in the material that is provided to the Board there are criteria
(suggested findings) for recommending approval or denial. Where do the criteria come from?
Ms. Doerr responded that you need to have some reason to recommend approval or denial to the
City Commission based upon consistency with the Land Development Regulations, the
Comprehensive Plan and the procedure for this request as set forth in the subdivision
regulations. Mr. Jacobson stated he was particularly interested in the third item: about is the
replat compatible with surrounding properties?
Minutes of November I5, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
Is this a proper element that should be considered in a replat, such as what was requested here
tonight. Ms. Doerr responded that compatibility was an issue that needs to be considered in
most zoning and land use related decisions.
The pubic hearing was closed and the floor was open to discussion.
Carolyn Woods clarified the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Woods looked at this area
as being part of Selva Marina, it borders old Atlantic Beach, but to compare these lots to the
small lots in Old Atlantic Beach is not a comparable comparison. These lots are not compatible
with size of the lots in Selva Marina.
Dave MacInnes stated that based on Mr. Jensen's comments -suggested recommendations
for approval of denial -there seems that there could be legal issues if we recommend denial.
Mr. Jensen stated that this Board needs to just recommend approval or denial; the City
Commission will make the final decision.
Sam Jacobson stated that whatever recommendation is offered by the Community Development
Board, it will have major affect on the Commission's decision.
Carolyn Woods reiterated that any decision to be made was bound primarily by the Comp Plan.
Sam Jacobson stated that in many ways that this Board is dealing with the right of the
community to regulate land use versus the question of private property rights and the notion
that anyone that owns property should be able to do what they want. On the other hand,
neighbors also have property rights and there are regulations to offer guidance, our role is to
figure out where the appropriate balance is.
In this case we are dealing with an established neighborhood that has a certain ambiance or
character that people are looking for. People have an emotional investment in their
neighborhood. There has to be some reasonable restriction that other people have to follow to
go with the ambiance of the neighborhood. In my opinion, what Ms. Tolbert is asking to do will
not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
After additional discussion, Carolyn Woods made a motion to deny the request in that it is
not compatible with Goals A.1 and Objective A.1.6 of the Comp Plan in that it is contrary
to the community, the proposed replat is not compatible with adjacent properties, and
Selva Marina is an area with larger lots, this is not in keeping with that character.
Lynn Drysdale recommended to add Objective A.1.3 to the motion. Ms. Woods agreed to
amend the motion to add that the proposal is also not compatible with Objective A.1.3.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Dave MacInnes dissenting.
7. Other Business
a. Follow-up discussion related to Community Character workshops.
Sonya Doerr brought up the Community Character workshops to see if there were any
thoughts or concerns. Ms. Doerr stated that they were drafting regulations and discussing with
the City Manager for adoption in the month of February. There will be continued discussions
to determine where the community wants us to go.
Sam Jacobson inquired whether Mr. Winter was coming back. Ms. Doerr responded that he
would not be back but will continue to help. Mr. Jacobson stated that he believed that they
6
Minutes of November 1 S, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
were very worthwhile workshops.
Steve Jenkins stated that it appeared that language was still being considered to address height
issues. Mr. Jacobson stated that drafting will be the hard job.
Sam Jacobson wondered why is everything so limited to old Atlantic Beach. Sonya Doerr
responded that the commission focused on old Atlantic Beach due to citizens' concerns.
The commission decided that they need to look beyond old Atlantic Beach, because everything
applies to all Atlantic Beach residents. Need to determine what is appropriate city wide.
Carolyn Woods stated that there was also discussion about regular bi-monthly meetings. Ms.
Woods stated that there was discussion about workshops on a day for which nothing is
scheduled, such as the second Tuesday of the month. Ms. Woods asked Ms. Doerr about the
possible topics of those workshops. Ms. Doerr responded that there would be specific topics
of discussion to be determined.
Dave MacInnes stated that the initial reaction to the workshops was great. The overall issues
about empty nesters and property values was important. Issues such as what is going to
happen when a house is going to be destroyed by fire, can these recommendation be phased in
over time? Ms. Doerr responded that the recommendations can be implemented in any matter
determined by the Commission.
Sally Clemmons - 1638 Park Terrace West, spoke and stated that commissioner wanted to
bring in Mr. Winters with the intent on the money to be limited to Old Atlantic Beach. Each
resident has a different opinion.
Sam Jacobson stated that we need to set some times in December.
Steve Jenkins stated we need to carve it up into manageable sections and determine how many
sections there will be. Ms. Doerr responded that the smaller the pieces the more meetings
would be necessary.
Chris Lambertson stated to set a date for Monday the 5~' at 5:00 p.m, we can always cancel it.
There was then discussion of a Charter amendment for a height limit referendum and options
for language and recommendations to City Commission. The Mayor and Commission want to
address the height issues, do we need to allow a certain provision for mixed use? Know that
it the limit will be 35 feet throughout the City. Certain locations to vary could be established
through waiver process.
Steve Jenkins stated that we don't see a need to increase the height limit on Atlantic Blvd., and
questioned the notion that we wanted to increase the height limits
Carolyn Woods stated that the comp plan goals was to not have development on more land
and that there needs to be strategies to keep the core city be more dense, we need to keep
dialogue open. Sam Jacobson stated that what is going to happen on Mayport Road will
change the populace. Dave Maclnnes added that on Mayport Road there is a 60 feet to no
height limit on Dutton Island.
K. C. Quintent, 545 Plaza spoke and stated that there needs to be more definition on the 25-foot
limit in the town center - no high rises. Ms. Woods stated that there will be discussion about
these issues at the workshops.
""`
Minutes of November 1 S, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
,,, Sam Jacobson stated that the golf course partially in Jacksonville may be up for sale.
Dorothy Kerber spoke and responded that there will be no sale of the course until the board of
governors wants to sell,
Dave Kirsten also spoke and said the board just came out with a letter to sell unused land and
will look to establish a new golf course and golf house. Ms. Woods asked if the unused land
was in Atlantic Beach or Jacksonville.
Mark Johnson spoke and believed that actions were proceeding so fast and that people are not
taking the detail and not seeing the results. There is no interaction with builders or architects
and no concept about what you are going to end up with - is this really going to work. There
were no ads and absentee owners, who will be affected, are not being kept informed. The City
needs to stop rushing the process or we will have more problems than we are proposing to fix.
Ms. Doerr responded that there is no time frame for adopting the report, and the process can be
slowed down as necessary. Mr. Jenkins stated that the process has already taken 2 years. Mr.
Kirsten asked if this was going before the voters or was it just going before the Mayor and the
Commission. Ms. Doerr stated that, as now being discussed, any height limit referendum would
be put before voters.
7. Adjournment.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
--
;-
r
Signed Sam Jacobso airman
..-
~...._ ~'~ ~ c~.~.,..... __
A est
8