Loading...
2005-07-19 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD July 19, 2005 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, July 19, 2005, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Lynn Drysdale, Robert Frohwein, Sam Jacobson, Carolyn Woods (arrived 7:45pm), Craig Burkhart, Dave Maclnnes, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, City Attorney Alan Jensen and Recording Secretary Amber Lehman. Steve Jenkins was absent. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of June 21, 2005. Mr. Frohwein stated that he wanted language, as follows, added to item Sa, last paragraph on page 2, before the vote was called. Mr. Frohwein stated he recognized the narrowness of the lot, but felt it would be unreasonable to develop the lot with the mass and scale as requested by the applicant. Dave Maclnnes made a motion to approve the minutes of June 21, 2005 with the change made by Mr. Frohwein, seconded by Ms. Drysdale; motion unanimously approved. 3. Election of an interim Chairman to fulfill the term of Robert Frohwein, beginning August 2005 through December 2005. Mr. Burkhart made a motion to elect Sam Jacobson as the interim Chairman beginning August 2005 through December 2005, seconded by Dave Maclnnes; motion unanimously approved. 4. Recognition of Visitors. Mr. Frohwein recognized the presence of Commissioner Sylvia Simmons in the audience. Mike Hoffmann, 176 Camelia Street, stated that he was gravely concerned with action taken at the last Community Development Board Meeting about the proposed four new lots to be created on property that the City owns on West First Street. (At the June Community Development meeting, a motion carried to recommend approval to the City Commission of a rezoning of this City-owned property from Commercial to RS-1 (Single family) and also to approve a subdivision replat to create four lots.) Mr. Hoffman expressed his opinion that the City Manager had conceived this plan and was forcing it on the City and Marsh Oaks residents. Mr. Hoffman stated his concerns were about the removal of the tree canopy and the buffer the trees provide between Atlantic Boulevard and the commercial uses the neighborhood. He asked the CD Board to reconsider their action due to the citizens not being present at the June meeting to speak for or against the issue. Mr. Hoffman stated that "` in the minutes of the June 21st meeting, Ms. Doerr stated that the Public Works Director, Rick Carper, had spoken with the residents in the area about having the three lots created with one to be kept and occupied by a police officer. Mr. Hoffman had contacted Mr. Carper, the Public Works Director, and Mr. Carper stated that he had not contacted any of Minutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting "" the residents about the lots. Ms. Doerr later clarified that it was Commissioner Rick Beaver -and not Rick Carper -who had spoken with the residents. Mr. Hoffman stated that he believed the City Manager's plan is overkill and that the City should keep the property and put a trailer on the property to house the police officer. Mr. Hoffman stated that this was Mr. Hanson's idea and that his plan will destroy the buffer, but let the City sell the land at a profit and put three additional residences in the neighborhood. Mr. Hoffman stated that the City should put a trailer on the park instead of killing and taking down these trees. If it was proved in the future that a police officer living in a trailer near the park would not be sufficient, then it should be dealt with later and that Mr. Hanson should not be forcing this plan on the City. Don Wolfson, 1725 Beach Avenue, stated that he also has concerns about the preservation of the tree canopy on this property, and felt that the park safety issue could be resolved a lot differently than is now being proposed. Mr. Wolfson also stated that no one on the City Commission or the Community Development Board was from west Atlantic Beach, and that those citizens should have a chance to address this issue. If the City sells this parcel of land, it will change the neighborhood indefinitely. Ms. Doerr asked the City Attorney if the motion made at the June meeting, recommending approval of the rezoning and the re-plat could be reconsidered at the next meeting. Mr. Jensen advised that (in accordance with Robert's Rules) any reconsideration needed to occur ~' at this meeting. Ms. Doerr further stated that this plan as generally proposed has been considered by the City Commission for about two years and was also discussed during the last two Strategic Planning processes. The rezoning and the re-plat was a published agenda item before the City Commission during the last month or so, and this matter was brought to the Community Development Board at the direction of the City Commission and not at the sole direction of the City Manager. The City Commission directed staff to proceed with the proposed rezoning and the re-plat through the customary procedure as established in the City Code. Ms. Doerr also clarified that it was Rick Beaver who talked to the residents instead of Rick Carper. Ms. Doerr also stated that there would be future public hearings on this matter before the City Commission; that these would be publicly noticed and advertised, and that residents would have an opportunity to address this issue at that time before any final approvals were made. Ms. Doerr stated that it would probably be several months before this matter would be considered by the City Commission. Mr. Jacobson stated that he did not want to limit public participation due to some procedural technicality, and stated that he has no opposition to considering that matter again at the next Community Development Board meeting. Mr. Burkhart made a motion to have this item reconsidered at the next Community Development Board Meeting in August; motion seconded by Mr. Jacobson, and unanimously approved. 5. Old Business. None. 2 Minutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting 6. New Business. a. UBE-2005-07, Charlie Logsdon /Ben and Kelly Erhayel on behalf of B & K Property Management. Public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Commission related to a request for aUse-by-Exception to allow for the on-premise consumption of beer and wine in association with a sports bar and grill and game room within the Commercial Limited (CL) Zoning District at 1487 Mayport Road, Units 1-4 within the Mayport Square Shopping Center. Kelly Erhayel, 8549 Arlington Expressway, Jacksonville, stated that she and her husband were the developers of Mayport Square and would like to open arestaurant/bar, which would be the anchor tenant for the shopping center. Charlie Logsdon, 13384 Peace Road, Jacksonville, identified himself as the proposed tenant and operator of the business. He stated that he owns Cecil's Bar and Grill in Arlington and that it has been in business for 17 years. The proposed bar and grill will be an upscale place that will have darts, billiards, and other games. Mr. Logsdon also said that he will plans to serve a minimal amount of food, just 10% in order to comply with the smoking law that allows businesses to operate with a smoking clientele. Ms. Woods asked what the square footage of the space was, and Mr. Logsdon replied that the size of the business would be 4000 square feet. Ms. Woods asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Logsdon replied that the hours would be 10:00am - 2:OOam, possibly fluctuating with how busy they are. Ms. Woods asked if there would be bouncers checking ID. Mr. Logsdon replied that he would have someone checking ID at all times. The clientele will be 18 years and over, and only beer and wine will be served. Mr. Frohwein stated that he was under the impression that this business was going to be primarily a restaurant. But, if it is not a restaurant, he is not sure that the Board would be able to approve this Use-by-Exception, sine the business they seem to be describing is not listed in the Code as a possible Use-by-Exception. Ms. Doerr stated that she also understood that the primary business would be a restaurant, and not a bar or billiards and pool hall. Mr. Frohwein stated that if the business could not be defined as a restaurant, then there would not be authority to grant aUse-by-Exception. Ms. Doerr confirmed that the establishment would have to be defined as a restaurant in order for the board to grant aUse- by-Exception in the Commercial Limited Zoning District. Ms. Woods asked if there was a zoning district that would allow the establishment to serve beer and wine and just 10% of food, Ms. Doerr replied that in a Commercial General District that could be done, with approval of aUse-by-Exception as a business for on- premise consumption of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Frohwein asked the City Attorney for a clarification on the definition of restaurant. Mr. Jensen compared the proposed site to Lynch's Irish Pub in Jacksonville Beach, which is kept at 10% food to allow patrons to smoke. 3 Minutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting Ms. Woods stated that she was encouraged by what the Applicants have done with the redevelopment of the Mayport Square shopping center. Mr. MacInnes stated that he did not have a problem with the establishment, as proposed being defined as a restaurant with only 10% of sales being food. Ms. Drysdale stated that staff has indicated in the staff report that the principal business will be the restaurant. Ms. Doerr also stated that staff has worked with the applicant before, and she has suggested three conditions within the staff report if a motion was made to recommend approval of this request. Ms. Doerr reminded the Board the CD Board's actions are governed by City laws, and that the CL district regulations state that Permitted Uses shall not include "amusement centers and video game arcades and any type of token or coin-operated video or arcade games, movie theaters, billiard and pool halls." Mr. Frohwein stated that the Use-by-Exception provisions are very specific, and asked Ms. Doerr for her interpretation. Ms. Doerr stated that Mr. Jacobson is correct; this property is in the Commercial Limited district, and that only those uses specifically listed as a Use-by- Exception may be approved. Mr. Frohwein stated that based on what the applicants had stated during tonight's meeting, the proposed use seems to be more of a billiard hall than a restaurant. Ms. Doerr read the following definition of restaurant from the Code. Restaurant shall mean any establishment where food is prepared or served for consumption on or off the premises or within an enclosed business or Building. Ms. Doerr further stated that the Code's definition of restaurant is broad and does not address what percentage of sales must be food, but advised that the CD Board should feel that it is reasonable to consider this business a restaurant in order to recommend approval to the City Commission. Mr. Jacobson stated that he liked the idea of this establishment, but felt the Board cannot be support approval of a use that is not consistent with or allowed by the zoning laws, and expressed concern that calling this business a restaurant was a stretch. Mr. Jacobson requested guidance from the City Attorney. Mr. Jensen stated that the Board must follow the Code and interpret it where necessary. Mr. Frohwein stated that the City Code for Atlantic Beach clearly dictates that there will not be billiards or pool halls in a CL zoning district and that this business sounds more like a pool hall than a restaurant. Ms. Drysdale made a motion recommending denial of the Use-by-Exception because it is not in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-63 of the Zoning and Subdivision and Land Development Regulations or with Section 24-110, the Commercial Limited Zoning District regulations, because this type of use is specifically excluded from that zoning district. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burkhart, and the motion to recommend denial carried unanimously. 4 Minutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting b. REZ-2005-02, Johnston Island PUD, Prosser Hallock on behalf of Bridge Tenders, LLC. Public Hearing to consider and make a recommendation to the City Commission related to proposed Ordinance 52-05-03, an ordinance rezoning lands as described herein from Conservation to Planned Unit Development. The application seeks to rezone approximately 7.5 acres to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed plan of development contains ten residential lots and a 25-slip private marina and marina club. Parking, associated amenities, accessory uses, open space and submerged lands occupy the remainder of the site. The proposed project is generally located immediately north of the Atlantic Boulevard (SR 10) bridge on the east side of the Intracoastal Waterway within the City of Atlantic Beach. Tony Robbins with Prosser Hallock, 13901 Sutton Park Drive, Jacksonville, representing Bridge Tenders, requesting a recommendation of approval for a substantially changed project. Mr. Robbins stated that he agrees with Ms. Doerr's staff report. Mr. Robbins summarized the new project stating it would have up to 10 residential lots with a maximum building height of 35-feet, a floating dock with a private restaurant that will require payment of an initiation fee and monthly dues. The private restaurant will have a maximum of 250 seats and its use will be available only to club members. The club and restaurant will be operated similar to a private country club. The architecture will be compatible with and similar to that which has been described as preferred during the recent Atlantic Beach community character meetings. The proposed new plan is consistent with the Comp Plan and also with ongoing community ~ character preservation efforts. a Mr. Robbins stated that water and sewer would be provided by the City of Atlantic Beach and will be constructed by and at the cost of the developer. There will not be any restriction of current public access for fishing under the bridge. The FDOT will continue to maintain the access road to the island. Traffic on Atlantic Boulevard generated by this project will be less than 1 percent of the adopted level of service volume. Mr. Jacobson stated that he was unclear about who would be building the homes on Johnston Island, and how the process of building would be reviewed to ensure that the architecture is compatible with the architecture in Atlantic Beach and what is shown in the application. Ms. Doerr stated that, as the staff report indicates, the applicant has committed to build consistent with what is depicted and described in the application, and that any future owners will be subject to all conditions and terms of this PUD. Mr. Jacobson asked what happens when the lots are sold. Ms. Doerr replied that the ordinance contains special language to ensure that this design and architectural concept is required whenever the project is constructed. Mr. Jacobson asked if Mr. Robbins could be more specific about what accessory dwellings will be constructed at the site. Mr. Robbins replied that the accessory dwellings are smaller residences, which a lot owner could choose to build, but these cannot be leased or rented out. They are intended to be more like amother-in-law suite or possibly to be used by a college student coming back home to live with his/her family. Mr. Jacobson asked about the club, and asked if it would be for profit, and if so, does the developer think that such a club would work at this location. Mr. Robbins replied that the club 5 Minutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting will not be available for use by the general public, and that the club may never happen, but it is provided for as described in the PUD. Mr. Jacobson asked if there had been a business plan done for the proposed club. Mr. Zajack responded by saying that no official plan has been done, but he has spoken to other club owners. He also said that the dues for the residents to use the club would be a minimum of $2500 dollars initially and $100 dollars a month. He also went on to say that there are no other real yachting clubs in the area so they feel there is a demand. Ms. Woods stated that she believes that the Board was talking about two different developments at the same time. She had questions about the number of units, and stated that the survey has a lot of easements. She wondered whether there would be permission to build within in the easement and how much of the land can be built on. Mr. Robbins responded that there are 10 lots, but the plan has flexibility allow for the smaller accessory dwelling unit on each lot if a homeowner so chooses. As for the question on easements, Mr. Robbins stated that there can be no residential units built on the Corps easement. Mr. Robbins confirmed that there are a total of 3.6 acres of buildable area. Mr. Zajack explained the plan for the marina, which will be bulk-headed. Mr. Robbins responded that there will be 25 slips inside the marina. Ms. Woods stated that lot size is set forth in the PUD, but with a minimum lot size of 4100 ~ square feet, landscaping will be reduced. The Comprehensive Plan shows the land use as RL. Ms. Doerr stated that the Low Density category allow up to 6 units per acre. Ms. Woods questioned which zoning is compatible with the RL land use. Ms. Doerr responded that a PUD or other residential zoning land use could be compatible. Ms. Woods questioned the parcel size that could be permitted with the zoning. Ms. Doerr stated that straight residential zoning designation could also be consistent with the Comp Plan, but that a PUD is probably a better zoning designation for this property since the City would not be able to attach any special provisions under a straight residential zoning designation. Ms. Woods had questions about signs and whether they would be illuminated, and stated that banner signs could not exceed 100 square feet and could be up for 60 days with permit. Mr. Robbins responded that it is absolutely not the intent to change the signs every 60 days. Mr. Jacobson stated that he believes that there will not be banners up all year round because the people who have paid so much money to live on this island will certainly not want it that way. Mr. Burkhart stated that in the application it describes the minimum lot line to be zero, which means that the neighbor is almost forced into the next yard. Mr. Robbins stated that just because the lot line may be zero, residents may not use the zero lot line, it all depends on the particular house plan. Mr. Jacobson asked about the common wall paragraph on Page ? of the application and what is common wall. Mr. Robbins replied that the first paragraph on Page 7 will be removed from the ~,,, application. This was inadvertently left in the text, but there will be no common walls. Ms. Woods asked about the fire code and setbacks. Ms. Doerr stated that all fire separation requirements of the Florida Building Code must be met. 6 Minutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting Mr. Frohwein stated that it looked as if there was more than a half an acre of commercial being developed. Mr. Frohwein asked whether it was reasonable to say that this area is commercial and not residential, with all the parking to be commercial with one parking space to 4 seats in the restaurant, and it seems that there should be 63 spaces. Mr. Robbins responded by saying that all parking will have to meet the parking code of Atlantic Beach. The parking plans and calculations will have to be shown on the future construction plans. Mr. Burkhart stated that the floating club and parking will have to meet all Atlantic Beach codes, and this may dictate the final size of the floating club. Mr. Robbins stated that the marina will be subject to extensive permitting by the City and state and federal agencies Mr. Frohwein had comments about the setbacks. Mr. Robbins stated that the intent is to give design flexibility, but that all construction must meet fire code requirements, but in no case will a house be closer than 5 feet from the side lot lines. Mr. Frohwein noted that there was a 15- foot minimum front yard setback, but some language states that zero front yard setback is allowed. Mr. Robbins stated that this is an error and that the front yard setback is intended to be a minimum of 15-feet. Ms. Doerr also stated that the intent is for 15 feet for the front yard setback, and she will verify that the documents correctly include this. Mr. Frohwein noted that the minimum rear yard setback is 20-feet and asked where setbacks were measure from. Ms. Doerr commented that setbacks are always measured from the property lines. Mr. Frohwein referenced a flag lot, Lot 10, and asked if this application calls specifically for 21 units. Mr. Robbins responded that it is for 10 lots with a maximum of 21 units for the entire PUD Mr. Frohwein had questions about accessory units with 2 parking spaces, and questioned if additional parking space for additional living spaces is going to create a problem in providing for three parking spaces. Mr. Robbins stated that all required parking will be provided. Mr. Frohwein asked what percent of the project would be landscaped. Mr. Robbins responded by saying that the landscaping will meet whatever the City LDRs require. Mr. Frohwein had questions about the height of fences. Mr. Robbins stated that, referring to the application, the referenced 8-foot will be changed to six-foot maximum height for any fence. Mr. Frohwein addressed the code regarding banner signs, which says that banners are allowed no more than 30 cumulative days in a calendar year, and said he felt it was fair to ask for the same signage in Johnston Island. Mr. Robbins stated no objections and noted that the first paragraph on page 8 would be stricken. Ms. Woods asked about what appeared on page 7 concerning aten-year construction sign. Mr. Frohwein asked why should Johnston Island be different. Mr. Robbins stated to strike last paragraph on page 7, and add language to simply state that the PUD would comply with the City's sign regulations with respect to any construction signs. Mr. Frohwein asked whether the roads are private and who would maintain them. Mr. Robbins answered that all roads are private will be maintained by property owners, as stated on page 9. Mr. Burkhart expressed concerns about construction extending over the seawall. Mr. Robbins suggested an amendment to Section g on page 6, to state that no structure shall extend over the sea wall. 7 Minutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting Don Wolfson, 1725 Beach Ave, agreed with Ms. Woods, that this project has come a long way, and commended the group for good questions, but expressed concerns about densities in the PUD and the request for rezoning from conservation to Planned Unit Development. Mr. Wolfson stated his opinion that he would like to see one unit per acre on the site. Mr. Wolfson stated that the marina was very well designed. He expressed concern with the density, and stated that the Board can give some feedback to the applicant. No other persons spoke in opposition or in favor of this application. Mr. Jacobson moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of an ordinance adopting this PUD and including the modifications that were offered tonight, specifically that a condition be included in the PUD ordinance requiring the development to be consistent with architectural continuity of Atlantic Beach and with that as depicted within the PUD application. The motion was second by Mr. Burkhart. Ms. Woods stated that she was still concerned that the residential and commercial uses will not co-mingle. Ms. Woods asked that the PUD include statements defining what are commercial uses and what are residential uses. Mr. Frohwein stated that there should also be a site plan that clearly delineated what is residential and commercial. Mr. Robbins offered to provide these items. Ms. Woods recognized that construction in this development was compact the development; and that this is a common planning tool to concentrate the development in order to preserve open space. Mr. Doerr asked for confirmation that the proposed motion included the findings of fact as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Jacobson stated yes. Mr. Burkhart asked if the floating club and the parking lot will fit into a half acre. Mr. Robbins replied yes, that both the floating club and the parking lot will fit into the half acre. Mr. Robbins stated that the applicant will clarify the commercial and residential areas. Commissioner Sylvia Simmons, residing at 211 Beach Ave, addressed the Commission as a resident, and stated that when you look at an apartment use, it is residential but it is also a commercial venture in that the property is charging rent and making money as a result of ownership. Ms. Simmons stated that you can have commercial and residential activities simultaneously. Ms. Woods asked if the only thing commercial would be the restaurant? Ms. Doerr stated that the way that the project is designed, you could compare the club to a private country club with private dining facilities. Ms. Doerr stated that the floating restaurant is considered commercial, and that there is no other land use category in the Comp Plan or in the City Code to define it as anything other than commercial even though it is private and not open to the public. Mr. Frohwein recommended a reduction in the density and stated that the project is very • concentrated. Mr. Frohwein stated that the narrow lots dictate that everything will max out at 30 feet, and expressed concern that this may not be the best use for the property. Mr. Frohwein stated that the proposed plan is intense. He stated that he had concerns with traffic from the project. 8 Minutes of July 19, 2005 Community Development Board meeting Mr. Robbins stated that the density of the project has already been reduced to ten single-family lots, which may or may not have an accessory unit on each lot. He also stated that they have attempted to address all of the comments and concerns that have been made for over a year, and they are interested in proceeding with the plan as it is now including those changes that have been requested and offered this evening. Mr. Frohwein stated that he certainly thinks that great strides have been made to improve this project, and appreciates all efforts from the applicant. Mr. Jacobson stated that if this PUD were proposed for Old Atlantic Beach, it probably would not be approved. He stated that he had voted for the previous project, but that this plan is so much better. He believes that the project has a good chance to succeed, even though it may be a little dense. The island is isolated from the rest of the city, and there is lots of open space around the island, so there won't be a feeling of over crowding. Mr. Jacobson also stated that owners will have the option to choose or not whether they want to live in this type of development. Mr. Burkhart expressed his opinion that the project is clustered well, which greatly increases the amount of open space. This PUD has evolved through massive resident reaction and response from the Commissioners and changes made by the applicant. He agreed that the owner of the land has a right to use this land, and the current plan is a reasonable and very fair compromise. There being no more discussion, the vote was called. The motion to recommend approval to the City Commission of the proposed PUD, with changes as discussed and agreed to at this meeting, was approved by a 5-1 vote, with Mr. Frohwein dissenting. 7. Adjournment. There being no furt er siness, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm. Signed .,G( ~a..v4~ Attest 9