2008-05-20 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
?i ~~~ ~~
J~ \
:J
.~ f~~~
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 7.•07 pm on Tuesday,
May 20, 2008 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic
Beach. In attendance were Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, Principal Planner
Erika Hall, and Community Development Board members Blaine Adams, David Boyer, Lynn
Drysdale (arrived at 6:35), Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen and Chairman Chris Lambertson. Board
member Joshua Putterman was absent, and the position of Recording Secretary is currently
vacant.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm.
The meeting directly followed a workshop on the purpose and process of the State mandated
Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lambertson entertained a motion and second to
approve the minutes of the April 15th meeting. Board member David Boyer pointed out that
the minutes simply stated in regards to item 4.a. that "There was no further discussion and
the vote passed by a 5-to-2 vote. Boyer and Glasser opposed." Mr. Boyer said that this was
an incomplete representation of the discussion and debate amongst the Board members
regarding this item. In fact, all members contributed to the discussion and their insights
should be included, but he felt that it was especially important that viewpoints of the
dissenting voters be included in the record. Ms. Glasser concurred with Mr. Boyer, stating
that she felt the record was incomplete.
Mr. Lambertson looked to staff Planner Erika Hall who has been taking meeting minutes
over the last several months in the absence of a Recording Secretary for clarification.
However, Ms. Hall reminded the Board that Ms. Doerr had enlisted the services of staff from
the City Clerk's office to record the session and take minutes for the April 15th meeting. Ms.
Doerr noted that the minutes procedure is a bit different for City Commission meetings and
added that an audio recording of the meeting is on file with the Clerk's office if needed.
Further, the applicant also hired a court reporter to transcribe the meeting verbatim. Ms.
Doerr said that a copy of that transcript could probably be purchased from the court reporter
if needed. With no further discussion, the minutes of the April 15th meeting were approved
by unanimous vote.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Chairman Lambertson welcomed members of the
audience who were in attendance for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) workshop,
and decided to stay for the regular meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, Board member
Page 1 of 8
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Ellen Glasser thanked the audience for their attendance and input, and encouraged their
continued participation in local government.
4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no unfinished business for consideration.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
Item S.a. - Recommendation to the City Commission from the Community
Development Board. serving in its capacity as the Local Planning Asency, that the
community issues as identified during the workshop by public. staff. and the CD Board
be specifically addressed during the EAR process.
Ms. Doerr explained that this was a necessary step in the EAR process, and that it merely
required the formalization of a recommendation to the City Commission in regards to the
major issues identified and settled upon by citizens, staff and the CD Board at the workshop
that concluded prior to the opening of this meeting.
MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved that the Community Development Board, serving in
its capacity as the Local Planning Agency, recommend to the City Commission that the
Gst of community issues identified by public, staff and CD Board during the May 20,
2008 workshop, be specifically addressed during the EAR process. That list includes
the following issues:
(1) Preservation & protection of Intercoastal Waterway marshes and associated
estuarine environments.
(2) Redevelopment & reinvestment in older neighborhoods.
(3) Redevelopment of commercial corridors.
(4) Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA).
(5) Obstacles to redevelopment.
(6) Aging infrastructure.
('~ Conservation and environmentally sensitive areas.
(8) Preservation & protection of water supply.
(9) Alternative, multi-modal transportation, particularly bicycle and pedestrian.
SECOND: Kirk Hansen seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION: There was no further discussion of this item.
VOTE:. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion, 6-0.
Page 2 of 8
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Item S.b. - ZVAR-2008-04. Deprin. Request for a Variance from Section 24-151(b)(iz) of the
Land Development Regulations to allow a skateboard rams to remain on a Street Side Yard
on a Corner Lot at 392 Ocean Boulevard.
Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Doerr to introduce this item. Ms. Doerr explained that the subject
property, located at 392 Ocean Boulevard, is located within the Residential, Single-Family (RS-
2) Zoning District. The subject property is a corner lot, with frontage on Ocean Boulevard and
the side yard adjacent to 4th Street. The applicant has constructed a wooden ramp, which was
originally on the public right-of--way, but has since been relocated to the Street Side Yard of the
subject property. Section 24-151 permits skateboard, skating, bicycle or similar ramps for use on
private property only, so long as they are not located within Required Front Yards or the Street
Side Yards on a Corner Lot.
Ms. Doerr continued that the current provisions regulating such structures were enacted several
years ago specifically to address the safety, noise and nuisance issues that resulted from several
such structures that had been built in neighborhoods. It was not the intent of the Commission to
prohibit such structures on private property; however regulations were needed to ensure that
these structures were located so that nuisance and safety concerns were minimized to the greatest
extent possible.
Mr. Lambertson invited the applicant to address the Board.
David Deprin, 392 Ocean Boulevard, asked the Board for a relaxation of staff's strict
interpretation of the regulation. He explained that this is a "training" ramp for surfing. It was
built by his son who is a lifeguard and an avid surfer. The ramp has been in use for
approximately three (3) months, and it is substantially lower in height than a skateboard ramp.
Mr. Lambertson invited public comment, and with there being none, opened the discussion to the
Board.
Ms. Glasser requested clarification from Ms. Doerr as to the provisions. Ms. Doerr said that
such a structure cannot be located in the Street Side Yard of a Corner Lot. In this case, that Street
Side Yard setback is 15 feet.
Mr. Boyer asked should there not have been a permit required for the construction of such a
structure. Ms. Doerr replied that the Building Department does not require a permit for this type
of construction, as it does not define this as a structure, per se. Mr. Boyer stated that he just
wondered how it got there.
Mr. Lambertson asked how the City became aware of the structure -had someone complained.
Ms. Doerr replied that it was initially recognized as a code violation by the Code Enforcement
Officer. Upon his notice, the applicant moved the ramp onto private property.
Kirk Hansen asked the applicant to verify that this is a temporary structure, to be dismantled at
the end of the 2008 season. Mr. Deprin said that the 2008 season ended on October 28, and
confirmed that the structure would be dismantled after that.
Page 3 of 8
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Mr. Boyer asked if Mr. Deprin's son would be retiring from surfing at the end of this season, to
which Mr. Deprin replied no. Mr. Boyer inquired about the 2009 season -implying that the
ramp would likely be reconstructed next spring. Mr. Deprin replied that it was another season,
and that what happened next year depended upon his son's performance this year.
Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Doerr again what was prohibited, and she reread the provisions. Mr.
Lambertson asked was this provision fairly new, to which Ms. Doerr replied that it was approved
about three (3) years ago. He then asked what the impetus was. Ms. Doerr said that there had
been a number of complaints due to the noise and encroachment of the structures into the right-
of-way. Mr. Lambertson asked if there had been any previous requests for variance from this
provision. Ms. Doerr said no, that this was the first.
Blaine Adams asked why side yards were prohibited locations. Ms. Doerr responded that it was
only in the case of Corner Lots and only within the Side Yard adjacent to a Street. Mr. Boyer
asked why the ramp had not been located within the back yard. Mr. Deprin replied that there was
not enough room due to the length of the ramp.
Mr. Hansen inquired as to the number of persons using this "training" ramp. Mr. Deprin
confirmed only one -his son. Mr. Boyer asked, considering the location, what measures
prevented anyone else from using the ramp. Mr. Deprin said none, other than the fact that it was
posted with "No Trespassing" signs.
Mr. Adams restated that the ramp is temporary and said that he could support the variance if
language was specific as to the date it had to be removed. Mr. Lambertson replied that
approving this variance would set a precedent, and Ms. Doerr pointed out that none of the typical
conditions [that justify approval of a variance] applied in this case. Mr. Lambertson concurred
and expressed his concern that the Board must refer to the actual conditions of the ordinance.
Mr. Deprin suggested that the yard becomes irregular whenever the 15' Street Side Yard is taken
into consideration. Mr. Lambertson emphasized that that did not constitute a reason for
approval, as defined by the Code, and Ms. Glasser added that it appeared these provisions were
created precisely to avoid this situation.
Mr. Lambertson read through the list of conditions, finding none applicable. Mr. Boyer
concluded that he saw no way the Board could support the variance, especially with no guarantee
that the same situation would not reappear next year or in other places. Mr. Adams agreed,
explaining the Code had been precisely written and he found nothing that would warrant a
variance. Lynn Drysdale concurred, although she commended the industriousness of Mr.
Deprin's son and his involvement in a healthy activity, as did Mr. Hansen.
MOTION:. David Boyer moved that the Board deny ZVAR-2008-04, a request for a
Variance from Section 24-151(b)(ix) of the Land Development Regulations to allow a
skateboard ramp to remain in the Street Side Yard on a Corner Lot Located at 392 Ocean
Boulevard.
SECOND: Lynn Drysdale seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:. There was no further discussion of this item.
VOTE:. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion to deny the Variance.
Page 4 of 8
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Item S.c. - U_B_ E-2008-03. Shivam Atlantic, LLC Request for aUse-Bv-Exception to allow
development of a new Hampton Inn & Suites hotel in the Commercial General (CG)
Zoning District on an undeveloped site located at the northwest corner of Atlantic
Boulevard and Aquatic Drive.
Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Doerr to introduce this item. Ms. Doerr summazized the project as an
80-room 3-story hotel and explained that hotels aze not permitted by-right in the Commercial
General (CG) Zoning District, but are permitted with approval as aUse-By-Exception. She
stated that the site was surrounded by commercial uses and that a hotel was consistent with other
uses on adjacent lands. She also noted that with the recent renovations and marketing of the Sea
Turtle (One Ocean) as high-end luxury resort hotel, there would seem to be a need for alternative
high quality but more affordable accommodations.
Mr. Lambertson invited the applicant to address the Board. Applicant Bobby Bhikha, with
Shivam Atlantic, LLC, 11 First Street North, Jacksonville Beach, deferred to his representative
engineer John Nevin, Nevin Goodson & Associates, 7406 Fullerton Street, Jacksonville.
Mr. Nevin reviewed the preliminary site plan, noting that access would be from Aquatic Drive
and stormwater retention would be underground. He noted that the existing condition of the lot
consists of some trees, but for the most part it is littered with trash and rubbish, and it is
frequented by the homeless and others probably involved in illegal activities.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment.
Cheryl McCormick, 792 Aquatic Drive, expressed concern over the addition of traffic to the area.
She said that the residential neighborhood to the north of the subject property is already
experiencing severe problems with cut-through traffic. She asked if there were any
improvements planned that would assist the neighborhood with easing the traffic. Additionally,
she noted that the neighborhood experiences severe flooding, and while a new retention pond is
being constructed just north of the subject property, she is concerned about more impervious
surface.
Mazdie LeBouton, 774 Aquatic Drive, echoed the sentiments of Ms. McCormick, adding that
currently, cazs cutting through the neighborhood travel at speeds upwazds of 50-60 mph, even
though the posted speed is 25 mph, and "No Thru Traffic" signs are posted. Further, she said
that stop signs are rarely obeyed.
Ms. LeBouton also said that Cutlass Drive was previously closed off, so that there was only the
one entrance into /exit out of the neighborhood, but she recalled that it may have been opened at
the request of the Fire Department. Mr. Lambertson recommended that residents present to the
City Commission the original intent (that Cutlass be blocked) and find out if the traffic pattern
could revert to the original. Ms. Glasser noted that there is also on-street parking, and kids have
a tendency to dart out from between the cazs.
Mr. Hansen said that someone from the Fire Department will most definitely say that access is
the reason that Cutlass was opened, but if the opening has resulted in a greater number of public
safety hazards and of greater severity, then it should be revisited.
Page S of 8
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Sally Clemens, 1638 Park Terrace West, said that she did not hear mention of the height. Ms.
Doerr verified that it was 35'.
R. D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, spoke in support of the project and said that he felt it would
help clean up problems with vagrants in the vicinity and help address a need for more affordable
short term accommodations. He added that if this facility was comparable to the applicant's
other properties located in Jacksonville and Jacksonville Beach, that it would be a very nice
addition to Atlantic Beach's commercial corridor.
Maria Mark, 1148 Linkside Drive, said that she sympathized with the traffic issues plaguing the
neighborhood and encouraged the CD Board to support a citizen request to review the traffic
patterns for the neighborhood.
Mr. Lambertson requested that Mr. Nevin respond to those issues brought up by the residents that
could be addressed by the applicant. Mr. Nevin assured the Board and audience that the
applicant would prefer to gain access to Atlantic Boulevard, but he does not think that FDOT
will grant it given the proximity to Aquatic Drive. Ms. Doerr elaborated that there is a minimum
distance required between points of ingress/egress. As to retention, Mr. Nevin said that it must
be addressed by "pre-post" on the private property explaining that their project could not have
any off-site drainage. Drainage will be underground system that more efficiently recharges the
ground water. Mr. Nevin also said that the applicant will provide a limited traffic study and work
with Public Works to come up with the best signage and other traffic engineering solutions, such
as a "Right Turn Only" design out of the hotel.
With no further public comment, Mr. Lambertson closed the public hearing and opened the
discussion to the board.
Ellen Glasser asked who would be responsible for conducting the traffic study. Ms. Doerr said
that the applicant hires a consultant to conduct an independent study -required for transportation
concurrency purposes -which is then reviewed by Public Works, and possibly someone from the
NEFRC or a privately contracted transportation engineer.
Mr. Adams, noting that he lived in Aquatic Gardens, expressed concern about the pedestrian
access and connectivity, saying that a number of residents, himself included, walk to the Publix
shopping center. He said that the plan shows 85 parking spaces, and to be comfortable with the
plan, he would need to see sidewalks and access, particularly on the western side of Aquatic.
Ms. Doerr responded that it could be aright-of--way issue and that the City could not require the
applicant to install such improvements off of their site.
Mr. Adams also noted the proposed location of the dumpster on the back of the property, in close
proximity to the residential neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood already experiences a
great deal of noise around 5:30 am from garbage trucks going to the shopping center, and
conditional language requiring garbage pickup after a certain time should be included. Ms.
Doerr said she had no objection to that language and also added that, with construction of the
Hopkins Creek retention pond underway and new sidewalks planned along Aquatic Drive, the
pedestrian connectivity will be improved.
Page 6 of 8
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Ms. Glasser asked for confirmation that the project would be subject to landscaping
requirements. Ms. Doerr replied yes, that the project would be required to submit a full
landscape plan, subject to the specific provisions for the commercial corridor.
Ms. Drysdale asked if the access would be directly in line with/across from the Aquatic Drive
access to the shopping center, and if the only uses to be housed in the structure were guest
quarters and office space. Applicant Bobby Bhikha said that the preliminary design placed the
access in line with the shopping center access. He also said there would be a guest area in which
continental breakfast would be served; however, there would be no restaurant, bar, kitchen or
other dining facilities. Ms. Drysdale asked Ms. Doerr to verify that, by exclusion, this UBE
would not allow for addition of such facilities at a later date. Ms. Doerr responded that that was
correct. Such facilities would have to have been included on this application and provide any
required parking.
Ms. Glasser recognized that the current configuration of the shopping center parking lot
encourages random driving and cutting through lots. Ms. Doerr explained that the impending
renovations to the shopping center will include a reconfiguration of the parking lot and drive
aisles.
Mr. Lambertson inquired as to the applicant's other hotel holdings. Mr. Bhikha replied that he
owned the Best Western and the Quality Suites, both in Jacksonville Beach, as well as the
Holiday Inn Express, currently under construction, also in Jacksonville Beach.
Mr. Nevin added that the proposed Atlantic Beach Hampton Inn would provide 24 full-time jobs.
Mr. Lambertson asked Mr. Nevin if he anticipated that cars would stack up. Mr. Nevin replied
that he did not, but it would certainly be reviewed in the traffic study. Ms. Doerr said that hotels
generally do not generate a large number of peak hour trips.
Mr. Adams reiterated the need for intersection improvements. However, he said that he would be
against anything that limited drivers' ability to make a left turn from Aquatic onto Atlantic. Bill
Ebert, Ebert Norman Brady Architects, 1361 13~` Avenue South, Jacksonville Beach, reiterated
that hotel usage has a very low peak hour traffic count. Ms. Glasser asked if language could be
added to address this concern also. Ms. Doerr said that this would be an FDOT issue, but that
there currently existed a full opening (allowing a left hand turn) and it did not seem plausible that
it would be limited, especially given the options if drivers were forced to turn right out of the
hotel. Mr. Nevin was emphatic that the applicant did not want aright-turn-only on to Atlantic
Boulevard. In fact, such limitation would be detrimental to the business. He stated that an
FDOT recommendation for aright-turn-only on to Atlantic Boulevard would essentially be a
deal-breaker for the hotel. Mr. Nevin stated he would certainly work with FDOT and the City of
Atlantic Beach to make the best possible improvements to serve his client and the residents of
the city.
MOTION: Finding that the approval of this Use-By-Exception complies with the
requirements of Section 24-63 of the Land Development Regulations and that the requested
use is consistent and compatible with other surrounding development along this portion of
Atlantic Boulevard, Ellen Glasser moved that the Community Development Board
recommend approval of UBE-2008-03, a request for a Use-By-Exception to allow
Page 7 of 8
Minutes of the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
development of a new Hampton Inn & Suites hotel in the Commercial General (CG)
Zoning District on an undeveloped site located at the northwest corner of Atlantic
Boulevard and Aquatic Drive, to the City Commission, provided that a condition be added
that there would be no dumpster pickups earlier than 7:00 am.
SECOND: Lynn Drysdale seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:. Blaine Adams stated he was totally against the project, yet after reviewing
the codes, he could find no legitimate reason to vote against it.
VOTE:. The vote was unanimous in favor of recommendation for approval, 6-0.
6. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 8:20 pm.
~`
~~~
Sign ,
L yaa l7.~'ys ~.ellc,. ~ ~~ f i~ jr ~~nir sr, a ~t
DZ~hh_
Attest
Page 8 of 8