Loading...
2007-08-21 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of the August 21, 2007 regular meeting of the Community Development Board MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD August 21, 2007 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 7:12pm on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 in the Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. In attendance were, David Boyer, Lynn Drysdale, Chris Lambertson, Sam Jacobson, Carolyn Woods, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, and Planner Erika Hall. Craig Burkhart and Joshua Putterman were absent. 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Sam Jacobson called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Boyer led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. There were no visitors present who wished to speak. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Motion to approve the minutes of July 17, 2007 meeting by Carolyn Woods; seconded by David Boyer; no further discussion; vote was unanimous. 4. OLD BUSINESS. None 5. NEW BUSINESS. Item S.a. REZ-2007-03 and UBE-2007-04, OUR Properties, Inc. Request for a change in zoning designation from Central Business District (CBD) to Commercial General (CG) for property located at the southwest corner of Ahern Street and East Coast Drive, and a concurrent request for aUse-bv-Exception to permit a "boutique" hotel with a maximum of 26 sleeping units within the CG Zoning District. Ms. Doerr summarized the existing conditions of the subject property and the applicant's request to change the zoning designation from Commercial Business District (CBD) to Commercial General (CG) and also part of this item is a concurrent request for aUse-by-Exception that would allow the construction and operation of a "boutique" hotel on the property, which is located at the southwest corner of Ahern Street and East Coast Drive. Ms. Doerr described this as a "straight" rezoning request seeking a change from one commercial designation to another commercial designation, unlike a PUD rezoning where we are looking at the specific development plan for a property. If this rezoning is eventually approved, then the project must meet all regulations and requirements that apply to construction on the site. Compatibility with surrounding uses, densities and intensities, as well as architectural styling and structural dimensions were further discussed as an overview of the proposal. Sam Jacobson inquired as to the origination of the CBD and the twenty-five (25) foot height limitation. Ms. Doerr replied that the Central Business District zoning category was created in 2001, but that it was about two years before the area was designated on the Zoning Map. She also stated that only the Central Business District and Conservation District are subject to 25' building height limit. Mr. Chris Hionides introduced himself as owner of the subject property. Mr. Hionides stated that the CBD consists of only about three blocks in Atlantic Beach. As such, only buildings in this small area are subject to the 25' height restriction. Mr. Hionides commented that there are several hotels in Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting this area and stated that his goal was to create a new product that would provide "another choice" for potential visitors to the Atlantic Beach area besides the Sea Turtle, which will be the usual expensive luxury hotel. He stated that the exterior architectural style would be similar to the adjacent North Shore complex, and that parking would be accommodated on the premises, within the first floor of the building. This, along with the fact that a hotel is not a permitted or exceptional use within CBD, is the primary reasoning for the rezoning request. Ms. Doerr confirmed that hotel use is permitted only within the Commercial General Districts, and then only with approval of aUse-by-Exception. David Boyer asked the applicant to orient the audience on the displayed site plan and show the points of ingress/egress. Carolyn Woods asked the applicant to further speak to the location and dimensions of parking. She was especially concerned about five parking spaces that were depicted as backing out onto East Coast Drive. Mr. Hionides replied that this plan was conceptual and that his team was aware that the configuration of parking would have to be reconfigured to meet the recent changes in the parking code. Dimensions for the parking spaces as depicted are 9-ft x 18-ft with aone-way driving aisle through the parking level. Ms. Doerr reminded Board members that only conceptual site plans are typically submitted with this type of rezoning application. The approval of a zoning change does not approve the conceptual site plan, which merely illustrates the general concept of the project. Once a rezoning is approved, conceptual site plans are revised and refined into construction and engineering plans that must meet all of the Land Development Regulations before any permits are issued. Ms. Woods asked when was the property purchased and what was the zoning at that time. Mr. Hionides replied that it was between five and six years ago, and that he believed it to be CG Ms. Woods asked if Mr. Hionides had attended any of the public meetings that took place prior to the rezoning of the area from CG to CBD, to which Mr. Hionides replied that he had not. Ms. Doerr confirmed that the date of the rezoning to CBD was September 8, 2003. Mr. Jacobson said that there had been some discussion within the past year as to whether or not the 25' height limit should be maintained for this three-block area. Further, he noted that while he personally was not in favor of the 25' height limit, this very Community Development Board, as well as the City Commission, was emphatic that there should be no changes to the height limit at that time. Thus, he stated that he felt that decision set the tone for reviewing any proposed changes to height within this specific geographic area. Mr. Hionides respectfully disagreed with Mr. Jacobson, stating that he understood that in the past the height limit had been carefully reviewed and established through a democratic process. However, he was now presenting his vision through the same democratic process, and that project deserved to be examined also. He stated that his goal was to create something that reflected the character of the Atlantic Beach community and that would serve as a destination in itself and would have an economic ripple effect for the surrounding businesses. Mr. Jacobson questioned whether this might be recognized as "spot zoning." He suggested that Mr. Hionides would need to demonstrate that the existing zoning was in some way unfair or prejudicial to his property, or explain how his proposal would result in some vast social improvement that would warrant the proposed rezoning. In other words, how would a change in zoning of this property benefit Atlantic Beach? Mr. Hionides replied that "boutique" hotels are the trend -what people are looking for -and having that option available would be an economic benefit to the community. He stated that he foresees guests staying at the hotel also eating at the local restaurants, shopping at the local shops, participating in local recreational activities -all without ever having to move their automobiles because these things are all within walking distance. Page 2 of 10 Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting Mr. Jacobson expressed his concern over the feasibility of the project and asked what kind of market studies had been done in support of this plan. Mr. Hionides replied that his idea was based upon the success of area hotels such as the Sea Turtle and the Sea Horse. He reminded the audience that he is also owner of the Casa Marina in Jacksonville Beach. He stated that this is a hugely successful and tasteful hotel, and that it was his goal to bring such a high quality product to Atlantic Beach also. Mr. Jacobson inquired as to the expected operating budget, annual revenue and rates. Mr. Hionides replied that nightly rates would be in the vicinity of $250. Chris Lambertson requested that everyone view this proposal as an opportunity to look at something different from what currently exists. He stated that there are similar uses and similar structures in Atlantic Beach. Additionally there are ancillary items such as economic benefits and tourism that should be considered. Mr. Jacobson questioned though, what would be the end result if the proposal did not come to fruition: Would the community end up with an abandoned, derelict property? Ms. Doerr reminded the Board that the purpose of their review was to determine if the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with surrounding uses and to make a recommendation to the City Commission. She stated that the most recent visitation of the height limit in the CBD was several years ago, and was a discussion specifically of this issue, but it was never presented as a formal change to the ordinance. Ms. Woods asked for clarification on that matter, questioning if height limitations were not also part of the Town Center Overlay in works with Neptune Beach. It was noted that the height limit in Neptune Beach is 35-feet. Ms. Doerr stated that the Town Center Overlay had been an ongoing discussion for several years and that nothing was under formal consideration by either City at this time, but that this issue would likely be taken up in the future. Mr. Jacobson opened the discussion to public comment Lee Lanier, 145 Sherry Drive, spoke in support of the proposal stating that he felt it would be a good use and good fit with the neighboring business district as well as the adjacent residential areas. Celeste Wadkins, 201 1St Street, expressed concern over additional traffic in the area as well as an increase in parking problems. She stated that Town Center parking already overflows some two to three blocks into the residential areas, with visitors parking on and in front of private yards. She stated that it is nearly impossible to get through the area as it is now, noting that Al's was a zoo, especially at night. Additionally, she noted from personal experience, that many times hotel rooms are shared by more than one family, especially those with higher rates, as this is proposed to be, thus creating the need for additional parking. Sally Clemens, 1638 Park Terrace West, also expressed concern over the traffic and hoped for a creative solution. Kelly Elmore, 1650 Beach Avenue, stated that he was currently the chairman of the Town Center Agency. Mr. Jacobson questioned Mr. Elmore about the Town Center Agency, stating he had never heard of this group. Mr. Elmore stated that this group is a volunteer agency with members from both Atlantic and Neptune Beach with a mission to maintain the vitality and upkeep of Town Center. Mr. Elmore also commented that the process of creating an overlay was established at the request of the mayors of Atlantic and Neptune Beaches, in an effort to create congruent zoning that would result in a uniform appearance. Mr. Elmore referred to the previous "down zoning" of the area and stated that the current administration had declined to review the proposed overlay. Page 3 of 10 Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting As to parking, Mr. Elmore, who is a landscape architect, noted that places that work and that are typically considered to be successes usually have parking problems. He stated that ironically, often a draw and thus, having parking problems is not always considered a bad thing. Ms. Woods asked Mr. Elmore if he had any professional interest in the project presently before the Board, to which Mr. Elmore responded that he did not. Ms. Woods asked Mr. Elmore if it were former Mayor Meserve, to whom he referred as one of the originators of the Town Center Overlay idea, to which Mr. Elmore replied yes. Mr. Jacobson commended Mr. Elmore for his civic involvement with the Town Center Agency. However, he stated that the City Commission is the elected body, and he did not know if it was the place of the Community Development Board to question their decisions. Ms. Doerr interjected that the City Commission has not rejected the idea of the overlay district for Town Center. Rather, they have had numerous other large issues to deal with in the recent past. She suggested that perhaps now that some other items are concluding, it appears that the Commission may revisit the issue. Mr. Jacobson stated that the Board needed to return to the issue at hand, stating that the applicant has given nothing binding. He asked, how could the Board be assured that approving such a rezoning would not be a mistake? After all, once the rezoning is granted, and should the project fail, the land would remain rezoned and therefore open to numerous, undesirable possibilities. Mr. Elmore again stated that he viewed this to be down zoning in many ways. Mr. Lambertson questioned Mr. Jacobson's assessment that the Board did not have the right to review applications or projects that seem to be contrary to the decisions of the Commission. He stated that he felt it was their duty to review individual projects on their merits and then pass along recommendations to the Commission for final decision. Nadine McDade, 54 East Coast Drive, expressed her concern over increased traffic also. She stated that she felt this to be spot zoning, and that essentially putting the hotel in a residential neighborhood is an inconsistency. Wayne Guinn, 259 Ahern Street, stated that he was a resident and owner of several properties in the vicinity. He reinforced the earlier assessments that there are already severe traffic and parking problems in the area that would only be compounded by the addition of the proposed hotel. Furthermore, he asserted that there is already noise from deliveries to existing businesses during all hours of the late night/early morning. Mr. Jacobson replied that eventually something will be on the property, and that there will be more traffic in any case, questioned would it not be better if it were something economically feasible. Mr. Hionides returned to the podium to address some of the concerns expressed by residents. In regards to traffic and parking, he reminded everyone that this property is not currently zoned as residential, so there will be traffic and parking situations with whatever is developed, whether it remains CBD or is rezoned to CG. Then he explained that traffic in such a hotel as he proposes is a "one time move" -people will come to the hotel and park and the traffic will be primarily pedestrian. In fact, he asserted, he believes that this will actually reduce traffic from its current use for parking. Mr. Hionides noted that the conceptual plan provides all required parking. The number of spaces provided is based upon the numbers required by the City of Atlantic Beach's Land Development Regulations. Further, the proposal is conceptual in nature at this time, but that they do not intend to ask for any variances or waivers. It would be irresponsible to invest any more money in the details Page 4 of 10 Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting of a plan without knowledge of the ability to carry the plan out. Thus, his request for rezoning is before the Board tonight. Mr. Jacobson acknowledged that he had never before this night met Mr. Hionides. However, he expressed concern over a recent article appearing in Folio Weekly, that referenced property owned by Mr. Hionides on the corner of Mayport Road and Atlantic Boulevard. Mr. Jacobson noted that there have been times that the Board has given people leeway based upon their reputation when they have demonstrated good faith actions within the community. However, he expressed concern if granting approval for the current request was based upon Mr. Hionides past performance within the community. Mr. Jacobson inquired as to the ability of the project to meet the maximum impervious surface and stormwater drainage requirements. Ms. Doerr reminded the Board that the maximum for commercial sites is seventy (70) percent, as opposed to the lower limit of fifty (50) percent for residential sites. Mr. Jacobson asked if the Board was expected to render a decision on the assumption that Mr. Hionides would indeed meet all these requirements, given that no details were set in stone. Noting that few rezonings do come before the Board, he stated that if he had his choice, this matter would not be before the Board at all. Ms. Doerr replied that that was the process. She explained that those details would be worked out at the time of construction and engineering plan approval which was part of the building permit process, and that no permits will be issued until all requirements are met. Mr. Jacobson asked if anyone had done any due diligence. John Zona, Jacksonville resident, stated that he had been the architect working on the development of this project for the past year-and-a-half to two years. He stated that he has done rough impervious surface calculations and he does not anticipate a problem. Further, he stated that the parking provided was at the rate of 1.25 spaces per room, consistent with the Atlantic Beach Land Development Regulations, though it is anticipated that parking will be reconfigured to address the spaces that are currently shown to back out onto East Coast Drive. Otherwise, the project can be designed and executed substantially as currently drawn. Mr. Jacobson asked for any other comments then closed the floor to public comment, and discussion resumed between Board members. Ms. Woods noted that there are many issues at hand. On the surface, it would seem simple. However, there has been a perception of "spot zoning". She suggested that perhaps the entire CBD regulations needed to come up for review, based upon comments she has heard tonight. She stated that apparently the subject property was purchased prior to the rezoning from CG to CBD, but the property owner did not become involved in the process at that time. Those property owners most directly affected by this proposal have spoken with us, and they are the ones most typically heard. David Boyer stated that the current zoning status is more reflective of spot zoning. He noted that Comprehensive Plan Policy A.1.11.1 speaks directly to this request and provides the reason for granting the approvals to permit this project. Mr. Boyer read this policy, then notes that this project must be consistent with its neighborhood, and affirming again that this is already a commercial area. Mr. Boyer stated that he did not see a problem with either the requested rezoning or the Use-by- Exception, noting that this is a very specific case that must be considered on its own merits. Additionally, he pointed out that he believed it would decrease traffic. Lynn Drysdale stated that she was not comfortable with the requested change, referring to a previous proposal submitted by Mr. Hionides for the same property. She noted that the same issues of traffic and parking led the Board to recommend denial of that project. She said that she did not see a real Page 5 of 10 Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting difference in the volume to be generated by the present proposal and the previous one (an office building). Additionally, she said that a major concern was the lack of control due to the lack of a concrete project. However, that is the nature of the process and a risk that the Board and the City take. Ms. Doerr directed the board members to a list of recommendations and conditions that she had prepared, and that could be included, along with others, in any recommendation for approval. Mr. Lambertson looked at the similarities between CBD versus CG, and stated that other than height and some small limitations on use, the two districts are very similar. He stated that if the Use-by- Exception is approved, that allows only a very small window as to deviations in the project. Ms. Doerr reminded the board that these were concurrent application and conditions would be specific to this proposal only. Ms. Drysdale asked if this created somewhat of a hybrid district, to which Mr. Lambertson replied that the Use-by-Exception was specific to this individual proposal. Ms. Doerr added that the City Commission had the authority to make the Use-by-Exception and any conditions run with the property. Ms. Woods noted that there was a wide range of Uses-by-Right for the CG district and that many of those uses were inappropriate for this area. Mr. Lambertson noted that prior to the creation of the Central Business District and the rezoning of this property to CBD, all of those "scary things" listed allowed in CG could have been possible on this property since it was Zoned CG Mr. Boyer asked if hotels and motels could not be Uses-by-Exception in the CBD. Ms. Doerr responded no, that hotels are permitted only in the CG zoning district and then only with approval of a Use-by-Exception. She noted that, per the ordinance, aUse-by-Exception can only be approved for uses that are specifically listed as a possible Use-by-Exception in each zoning district. In this case, this change would also allow for the 35-foot height. She noted that this is why the CG zoning was left in place for the Sea Turtle. She also reminded the Board that though they were making other assessments, the primary consideration in this decision was consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jacobson asserted that a rezoning is the most major and serious step one can take in reference to the use of land. He stated that the applicant's strongest argument for the project was that it would be visionary, and that the Board had no way of knowing that this proposed hotel would ever materialize. He reaffirmed his concern that the property owner has no more formalized studies to support the project, and that in granting this approval would be the equivalent to writing the applicant a blank check. Mr. Boyer questioned whether conditions could run with the land, to which Mr. Jacobson replied that there was no way to make zoning conditional. Ms. Doerr explained that any conditions would be on the Use-by-Exception, and noted that other special conditions had been placed upon certain approvals in the past. However, zoning approval cannot be "bartered" but that conditions willingly offered by the Applicant could be placed on the rezoning. Mr. Jacobson suggested that the Board consider the scenario if, in three years after approval of this application, there still is no hotel on the site and questioned would this property be committed in perpetuity to being a only a hotel. Ms. Doerr commented that the City Commission always has the right to reconsider any special conditions that might be placed on an ordinance or any other action if needed. Mr. Lambertson inquired further about the possibility of a conditional zoning, and excluding certain uses that might not be wanted. He wondered if a PUD might be more appropriate for this site. Ms. Page 6 of IO Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting Doerr stated that this property did not meet the LDR requirements for a PUD since PUDs have to be at least 10 acres in size. Ms. Doerr commented that limiting uses to less than allowed by the CG district could be done, and this had been done in other rezonings she had worked on. He asked if perhaps the Board might request to get City Attorney Alan Jensen involved. Mr. Hionides replied that he was more than willing to exclude unacceptable uses and to come back to the next meeting to provide additional information as had been requested. MOTION: Chris Lambertson made a motion to defer further consideration of the applicant's request to allow Ms. Doerr to engage Mr. Jensen in discussions with Mr. Hionides, to determine conditions acceptable to all parties and striking certain offensive uses from CCU particular to this property alone. Carolyn Woods seconded the motion. The motion to defer was approved unanimously. Item S.b. ZVAR-2007-06, Richard Nellis. Request for a Variance to allow a 900 square foot detached garage within the Residential Single-Family, Large-Lot Zoning District, on a property located at 475 Palmwood Avenue. Chris Lambertson recused himself from consideration of this application, stating that he had worked with the property owner on the project in the past. Richard Nellis, 475 Palmwood Avenue, appeared before the Board as the property owner and applicant. Mr. Nellis stated that he was seeking a variance to build a 900 square foot detached garage, an increase of 300 square feet over the current allowance of the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Nellis stated that such a variance had been granted by the Board in 2002 to the property owner at 1900 Seminole Road, allowing the construction of a 1200 square foot garage. (Staff has found no evidence of such a Variance.) Mr. Nellis reported that the basis of his request was to sustain his classic car restoration hobby. He required storage space not only for the cars but also for parts and equipment used for such restorations. Mr. Nellis assured the Board that he was not starting a business and would not be restoring cars for the purpose of resell. Rather this was a personal hobby. Sam Jacobson asked how many cars Mr. Nellis proposed to keep in the new garage, to which Mr. Nellis replied, two. He stated that he currently has one, but is looking to acquire one or two more. David Boyer asked if there would be a workshop on the second floor, to which Mr. Nellis replied no - that area would most probably be used for storage, explaining that because parts are hard to come by, people with this hobby do not typically turn away parts when they come across them. Rather they are purchased and put in storage for future needs. Mr. Boyer noted that Mr. Nellis mentioned manufacturing parts that were no longer obtainable. He questioned whether increased noise would be a factor of concern. Mr. Nellis replied that a compressor would probably be the source of the most noise, and many people have those in their garages. Mr. Boyer noted the proposed location of the garage on the subject property and asked Mr. Nellis about access. Mr. Nellis stated that the existing driveway would be extended with wood chips, and thus would not have additional impact on impervious totals. Further, Mr. Nellis pointed out to the Board that his current impervious calculation is only 29%. Therefore, even if the extension of the Page 7 of IO Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting driveway were paved, we would remain substantially below the maximum impervious amount allowed. Carolyn Woods asked if the garage were attached to the main house if there would be any limit as to the size allowed. Ms. Doerr replied no, there would be no limit as to size if attached to the main house. Ms. Woods asked Ms. Doerr to confirm that the detached garage was required to be only 15' off the rear property line. Ms. Doerr confirmed this is the case for two-story detached garages, but that asingle-story detached garage could be 10-feet from the rear lot line. Lynn Drysdale asked Mr. Nellis is he currently has or uses machinery on the property, to which Mr. Nellis replied that he does not. He stated that he currently uses machinery located at the homes or business of others. Ms. Woods asked if it would be possible to somehow attach or adjoin the part of the proposed garage square footage to the main house, so that he could build a larger garage. She asked Ms. Doerr to confirm the setbacks for Mr. Nellis' property. Ms. Doerr stated that for the principal structure, the setbacks area 35' Building Restriction Line in the front as well as 20' in the rear and 7.5' on each side. Ms. Doerr stated that there may be up to three detached structures on a lot, including a 600 square foot detached garage and a 150 square foot storage shed. Ms Woods asked, given Mr. Nellis' large lot, would it be possible to attach the garage to the house. Mr. Nellis replied that it would not be possible without taking down trees. Mr. Nellis said that there are numerous trees spread throughout the lot. Ms. Woods proposed attaching the garage only by means of a breezeway, and asked Ms. Doerr what the requirements would be in order to be considered attached. Ms. Doerr stated that it would require a solid structure roof. Mr. Jacobson reiterated that the garage could be constructed to any size, so long as it is part of the house and meets setbacks, and other development regulations. Kenneth Adams, Dunes Way, asked to speak to the Board on behalf of the client, as the designer of the proposed structure. He stated that aesthetic reasoning had led to the current design. They found it better to have a separate structure. Ms. Woods proceeded to review the criteria for approval of such a request, asking the applicant if his lot was in any way different or disadvantaged by disparate conditions or other exceptional circumstances, to which Mr. Nellis replied no. Ms. Woods questioned whether trees qualified as exceptional circumstances, to which Ms. Doerr replied that the Board has generally decided not. Ms. Woods asked Mr. Nellis to reconsider and withdraw his application for a month, and to search for some other way to justify this variance. Mr. Boyer inquired as to whether there were any reasons in the ordinance for the Board to approve or deny a Variance application. Ms. Doerr referred him to Section 24-64 of the zoning regulations, the Variance provisions, noting that these are also included in the Variance application and in the Staff Report. Sam Jacobson asked if Mr. Nellis had personally received any complaints about his plans. Mr. Nellis replied that his neighbor to the rear was concerned that the garage would be an obstruction to his view. Mr. Nellis asked to temporarily delay his application. Page 8 of 10 Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting Item S.c. Public Hearing by the Community Development Board, serving as the Local Planning Agency, to consider and make recommendation to the City Commission related to a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan to change an area from Residential, Medium Density (RM) to Residential, Low Density (RL). Sonya Doerr gave a brief overview of the proposed change to the Future Land Use Map, and as a point of clarification, she explained that new multi-family or duplex structures cannot currently be built within this area. She stated that existing residential structures may be rebuilt if they are legally constructed and vested. Thus, this proposed change has no impact on current owners of existing multi-family or duplex structures provided that they were legally created to begin with. Ms. Woods asked if why this change was not made several years ago when the matter of duplexes was considered. Ms. Doerr replied that Medium Density is not necessarily inconsistent with the RS- 2 zoning. The Low Density designation requires approximately 7250 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, whereas Medium Density designation would require only 3200 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. For the most part, the only way a new duplex would be allowed in this area in any case would be if several lots were combined and a change in zoning was approved. This area is currently zoned Residential Single-Family (RS-2). The proposed change will make most everything on the eastern side of the City Low Density, excluding the Multi-Family and Two-Family along Ahern Street, which will remain Medium Density. Ms. Woods replied that it sounded as if this should have been the case all along then. Ms. Doerr stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1990, the area was zoned as Residential General, Two-Family (RG-1), which was more consistent with the Medium Density Designation. However, in 2001, the area was rezoned to RS-2. Mr. Jacobson opened the floor to public comment. Betty Eilers, 369 1St Street, stated that she was unaware that the property had been rezoned from RG- 1 to RS-2, and expressed concern over the proposed changes. She asked to be sent a copy of Section 24-86 that describes the provisions for rebuilding legally constructed two-family dwellings within the same footprint. Ms. Doerr reminded the Board that there are different provisions for the reconstruction ofmulti-family structures. Bernard Kane, 333 Ocean Boulevard, spoke on behalf of a group of residents from the affected area. He questioned the net effect of the change and expressed concern over the lack of information provided to residents. He stated that although he had received the notice and the map, he did not understand what or why this was being done. Mr. Whitehead, 550 Sherry Drive, questioned the reasoning behind the proposed change. Ms. Doerr responded that this had been initiated at the request of the City Commission, but that this change would be consistent with state policies to limit density in the Coastal High Hazard Areas. Thus, summarized Ms. Woods, this is a net zero change. She noted that the City Commission received numerous complaints prior to the 2001 change, requesting that no more duplexes be allowed. And that is why the zoning was changed at that time. Mike Stevens and Connie Crave, 393 3`d Street, expressed lack of trust of what is being done. She stated that she did not trust the City and felt that residents were purposely kept in the dark. Page 9 of 10 Minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting Charles McCrary, 363 Sherry Drive, "echoed those sentiments." R. D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, stated that he felt that a better plan would be to maintain the Medium Density and have a higher density zoning serve as a buffer between the commercial areas and the single-family residential areas. Melissa Nelson, 352 7th Street, asked for clarification about consistency between the Comp Plan and the Zoning. Ms. Doerr replied that the existing Medium Density is not inconsistent with the zoning, but that the Low Density designation will make this area consistent with most of the City that is east of Seminole Road. Diane Dial, 321 3rd Street, asked if residents could be assured that this would be the absolute last thing done to this area of the City stating that every two years something had to be "stirred up" in Old Atlantic Beach. Kay Walston, 1510 Seminole Road, stated that she owns a duplex on East Coast Drive. She noted that other areas in the vicinity will remain Medium Density and she questioned why. Ms. Doerr responded that staff was acting on the direction of the City Commission, and that is the area they defined. Ms. Woods noted that part of the reason was to reduce density to assist with flooding in the area. The areas that are proposed to remain Medium Density also have a higher concentration of duplexes. Frank Kerber, 375 1St Street, stated that he was glad to see change and hoped to see further control over renters. Lee Lanier, 145 Sherry Drive, agreed stating that the neighborhood had turned into a "freakin ghetto". MOTION: Carolyn Woods made a motion to recommend to the City Commission the transmittal of this proposed Future Land Use Map amendment to change from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Low Density (RL) for this particular area. Lynn Drysdale seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous, 5-0. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Sam Jacobson adjourned the meeting at 10:14pm upon a motion made by David Boyer. Signed: ~a.!/~ A est: Page 10 of IO