4-19-16 CDB Minutes it.:1-
iea
.x :
1.9
. Z
-,ort 9'r"
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
April 19, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:07 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, except Mrs. Simons, Mr. Parkes and
alternate Mr. Mandelbaum. Also present were Building and Zoning
Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Planner, Derek Reeves and representing the firm
Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of March 22, 2016
Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the March 22nd meeting.
Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
A. 16-ZVAR-33 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce
the required eastern side yard setback form 15 feet as required
by Section 24-108(e)(3)(c) to 7.5 feet to allow a 3 unit townhouse
building at Donner's Subdivision part of Lot 15 (aka 125 Donner
Road).
Mrs. Paul stated that the public hearing for this item had been opened at
the previous meeting and deferred to this meeting. During the time
between meetings the item was withdrawn. She then stated that the
public hearing is closed and no further action needs to be taken.
Page 1 of 13
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 16-REZN-1065 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for Special Planned Area (SPA) rezoning as permitted by
Sections 24-116 through 24-126 to allow a maximum of 15
residential units. The property is currently zoned Residential,
Single Family (RS-1). The Future Land Use Designation is
Residential Low Density (RL).
Staff Report
Before the staff presentation began. Mrs. Paul stated that the applicant
had submitted some new information on Friday that staff has not fully
reviewed and is not included in the agenda packet. With that in mind she
stated that she did not expect the board to come to a final decision
tonight.
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and stated that is an application to
rezone a piece of property to Special Planned Area (SPA) from Residential
Single Family (RS-1). The property does have a Future Land Use
designation of Residential Low. He stated that an SPA is a zoning
classification that allows for unique aspects that do not fit within the
City's traditional zoning districts. The example of the Atlantic Beach
Country Club was given as a recent project to go through process.
He showed the location of the property north of 11th Street, west of
Sherman's Creek, east of the Selva Linkside neighborhood and south of
the Atlantic Beach Country Club and is 7.2 acres in size.
The Residential Low Future Land Use designation has been in place since
1990 on this property and allows up to 6 units per acre. This is consistent
with the surrounding neighborhoods.
A brief history of the zoning changes on the property was given. In 1982,
when a major overhaul of the zoning code was completed, the property
was zoned Open Rural. This was changed in 2003 by the City when it
eliminated the Open Rural classification and converted it to Conservation.
In 2008, the property owners rezoned the property to RS-1 and planned
for 16 units. Prior to any development, the owners partnered with the
redevelopers of the Selva Marina Country Club and joined their PUD in
2009. When the development fell through and the Atlantic Beach Country
Club came in 2013, this property was not part of their plans and was
converted back to RS-1.
Page 2 of 13
The owners today are proposing a 12 lot single family home development
with the possibility of up to 15 units. Minimum lot size would be 60 feet
wide and 100 feet deep. Front yard setbacks would be 20 feet, rear yard
would be 10 feet and side yards would be 5 feet. Waivers would be
needed for the 60 foot lot width as it is less than the City's standard 75
foot requirement for residential, as well as the 10 foot rear yard which is
less than the standard 20 feet and for the 5 foot side yards which is less
than the standard total of 15 feet. They are proposing a private road with
access from 11th Street with a gate and underground utilities. A site plan
was shown where the private road would parallel Linkside Drive and lots
would run west to east.
Mr. Hubsch then showed where existing wetlands exist on the site
including what areas would be filled and preserved. He noted the berm
and swale system that separated the lots from the wetlands and directed
water to a pond in the Atlantic Beach Country Club where the owners
have permission to store their runoff. It was explained that the owners
had submitted an environmental assessment back in 2008 and the City
hired Steve Swan as an independent reviewer to provide a report on the
site. Both reports found that the canal was man made to provide
stormwater improvements and that it had degraded the quality of the
wetlands on this property.
In 2010, when the City acquired the Buckman Trust, the City added some
provisions to the code as part of wetland and waterway protections. One
provision that was added was that there shall be no net loss of
jurisdictional wetlands within the City. Allowances for preservation,
restoration and relocation were also created. The applicants are
proposing to fill 1.74 acres of wetlands on site and 0.07 acres offsite
where the fill on site would affect adjoining wetlands owned by the Selva
Linkside HOA. They are proposing to preserve; 1.74 acres of wetlands,
0.15 acres of upland berm, 0.36 acres of ditch, and 0.24 acres of
Sherman's Creek that is on the property. They have received a permit
from the St John's River Water Management District to fill the 1.74 acres
of wetlands and to mitigate in Clay County at a mitigation bank. However,
this does not meet the City's requirement for no net loss of wetlands.
The applicants submitted a reforestation plan to improve the preserved
wetlands as a form of onsite restoration and enhancement mitigation, but
staff recommended denial of that plan finding it to be insufficient. The
applicants have recently submitted a revised plan to meet the restoration
allowance that staff has not fully reviewed.
Page 3 of 13
The applicants have asked for a series of waivers as allowable by code.
The board was reminded that waivers should not just be given and should
be weighed for their ability to provide a better outcome. As noted before,
these include lot width, rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks. They
were originally seeking one access point where code requires two for the
number of lots. They have found a solution that Public Works will
approve. They are also requesting a waiver from the required 50 foot
buffer from Sherman's Creek and a 25 foot upland buffer from wetlands,
which made up for by the swale and berm system proposed. Another
waiver is from the requirement for no net loss of wetlands. They propose
that their preservation, restoration and enhancement plan meets code
because it mitigates for the low quality wetlands removed by improving
the remaining wetlands.
Going forward, the board is making a recommendation to the City
Commission where it can recommend approval, approval with conditions
or denial. Staff would like the board to consider some possible conditions
if they do recommend approval. That would be to only allow a 10 foot
rear yard on lots that do not abut Sherman's Creek. This would provide an
additional buffer like the standard 20 foot rear yard setback. Second staff
would recommend that the preserved wetlands be put into a
conservation easement to be held by a third party. Public Works has
asked that the side yard setbacks be expanded for Lots 9 and 10 where
adjacent to a drainage easement. The last would be to require
measurable standards for the wetland restoration.
Mrs. Lanier asked if there was any other private land to the north of this
land. Mr. Hubsch stated that it is the Atlantic Beach Country Club to the
north. Mr. Reichler asked about missing information in the application
including a topographic map and other aspects. Mr. Hubsch stated that
aspects of the application are addressed at ordinance level and not
necessary at this stage, but that if the board felt they were important now
could make that part of their motion. Mr. Reichler asked if it was the code
or Comprehensive Plan came first in respect to the wetlands portion. Mr.
Hubsch stated that they were done at the same time. Mr. Elmore pointed
out that the code is what is enforceable.
Applicant Comment
Laura Ferrante, 1760 Selva Marina Drive, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233,
introduced herself as an attorney and part owner of the property. Ms.
Ferrante began by giving a history of the property including the efforts
taken over the ten years of their ownership. She covered the
environmental, wetland, stormwater, traffic and zoning aspects of the
plan. She added that she felt like this process has taken long enough and
Page 4of13
asked for the item to not be deferred. She stated that they had provided
everything that was asked for and nothing should be lacking.
She next addressed the different aspects of the plan. The number of lots
gave them flexibility on arrangement. Provisions for a second access had
been worked out and agreed to. They are preserving 2.51 acres of
wetlands in a conservation easement with North Florida Land Trust as
mitigation for the filled wetlands. They did just provide an enhanced
restoration plan to the City. She then noted that they will comply with
required tree mitigation.
Ms. Ferrante moved to the issue of no net loss of wetland in the City. She
stated that they are impacting 1.74 acres of wetlands and that those
wetlands are of a low quality and functionality. She then stated that the
City does not have a system to provide mitigation within the City, but that
they do still have the option to restore and enhance the wetlands that
they are preserving on site. A restoration and enhancement plan has
been submitted to the City, but the code is not clear on how it should be
treated. Public Works directed them to get a UMAM, which is commonly
used by the water management district and DEP. She noted that these
organizations use these methods to establish their preferred method of
mitigation in wetland banks. This is because large sites benefit the region
better than multiple small sites. They did get a UMAM and came back
with 0.464 units of impact and a total functional gain based on their plan
for mitigation of 0.469.
The second aspect of the wetland mitigation was the reforestation plan.
She stated that 440 trees per acre in three gallon containers is the
standard, though this property has 278 trees per acre today. They are
looking at 166 to 182 three gallon trees per acre as is consistent with the
water management and DEP practices.
She then moved to tree mitigation where they have heard the concerns
of residents and are proposing the use of legacy trees that will replace the
canopy quickly. She noted that their certified arborist studied the site and
found that most species were of lower quality, shorter lifespan types that
were less resistant to wind and susceptible to failure. Mr. Reichler asked
about what she meant by failure as all trees die. Ms. Ferrante responded
that the land is sinking, causing roots be exposed and are already leaning
from ocean breezes. She stated that they are proposing trees that are fit
for these types of locations.
She clarified that the reforestation plan is not intended to meet tree
mitigation and that that will be treated separately. She stated they plan to
Page 5 of 13
use a mix of 3 to 30 gallon trees for the reforestation to promote a
quicker return to full canopy. Because most of the trees are larger than
the standard mentioned before, they can be spaced further apart. Their
plan has 174 trees, which have been approve by the regulatory agencies.
Ms. Ferrante then moved to applicable Comprehensive Plan sections and
stated up front that she believed that they met all of the ones mentioned
in the staff report.
She then moved onto the waivers listed by staff. She stated that waivers 1
through 3 are not prohibited by SPA zoning so they should not be
considered waivers, but instead as development conditions. She felt items
4, 6 and 7 are waivers and they have agreed to meet 4 and 7. Waiver 5
has a specific exception listed in code granting the ability so it too should
not be a waiver.
After summarizing their plan, Ms. Ferrante and her team fielded
questions from the board. Mr. Elmore asked how much fill would be
brought in on the developable land. Mr. Jim Lucas, the projects engineer,
stated that minimum flood elevation is 6 feet and the homes finish floors
would be at least 8.5 feet. Mr. Reichler added that he believed that he
saw 11 feet in their application the water management district. Mr.
Elmore then stated that his point was that every tree would have to be
removed because you could not fill around the trees that much.
Mr. Reichler asked about the ability to mitigate within the City. Ms.
Ferrante described their mitigation with the water management district
and army corp. at mitigation banks outside of the City. Mr. Ryan Carter,
the projects wetlands expert, addressed the issue with how mitigation is
accepted by different regulatory bodies. He explained that the preferred
method of mitigation is to use a mitigation bank and that 99 percent of
cases he has worked that is the end result. Mr. Reichler then asked for a
good faith effort that they tried to get approved mitigation within the City
that would meet the requirements of the water management district and
the Army Corp. and did not just go with the preferred method. Mr. Carter
responded that it is not impossible to get approval to mitigate within the
City to their standards, but that it would be very difficult. He then noted
that they are essentially double mitigating by meeting the water
management district's and Army Corp.'s requirements outside of the City
and then providing a preservation, restoration and enhancement plan to
mitigate within the City.
Mr. Elmore asked Mr. Carper for clarity on the status of Sherman's Creek
and if the Army Corp. has jurisdiction. Mr. Carper responded that the in
Page 6of13
his experience, the Army Corp. has always claimed jurisdiction including
on this very project.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. She asked that due to the
number of speakers, that each person limit their time to three minutes.
Martha Padgett, 888 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 showed the
board a poster and several pictures and asked that the board deny the
rezoning based on wildlife and environmental aspects found in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Don Padgett, 888 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
supported what was just said and added that he recognizes property
rights but that the environmental should be looked at again.
Barbara Esparza, 1436 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 declined to
speak. Mrs. Paul recognized that she is opposed to the rezoning.
David Vincent, 1130 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 concurred
with the first speaker's thoughts and noted that the amount of wildlife
has increased in recent years and asked what would stop people from
going into the preserved areas.
Justin Blakeman, 1451 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is opposed to the development and that it would not fit with the area.
Ron and Sue Able, 1227 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 declined
to speak. Mrs. Paul recognized that they are opposed to the rezoning.
Mary Ann Bennett, 1180 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated
that she has seen this property come up for discussion many times before
and that it does not fit for restoration and environmental reasons.
Charlotte Tingen, 1198 Sandpiper Lane E, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
declined to speak. Mrs. Paul recognized that she is opposed to the
rezoning.
Donna Miller, 1450 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 declined to
speak. Mrs. Paul recognized that she is opposed to the rezoning.
Mark Tingen, 1198 Sandpiper Lane E, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is the President of the Selva Linkside HOA and that he has been
Page 7 of 13
following this for a month, which has been difficult and that there is no
way to address what was submitted last Friday.
Robert Hogan, 1164 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he has concerns about utility locations and traffic impacts.
Glad Hogan, 1164 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she
was against the project because of the filled wetlands.
Mike Armour, 1132 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
is concerned about the amount of fill and flood impacts.
Duane Roberts, 1196 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he supports property rights but is concerned about flooding, setbacks and
traffic.
Maria Mark, 1148 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that she
has a history with this property including a law suit with the City and a
settlement with the property owners. She added that she supports the
proposed development with 15 lots.
Claudia Estes, 1275 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that is
opposed to the project after the country club had expand the retention
ponds near her house due to needed capacity and what would happen on
this property.
Kenneth Boston, 1211 Linkside Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is concerned about the impacts on wildlife that live in the woods of
this property.
With no more speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Lanier asked why the property was changed from Conservation. Mr.
Hubsch stated that the Future Land Use Map, which designates future
possibilities, has been Residential Low since 1990. The zoning at the time
and to 2003 was Open Rural and was changed by the City to Conservation
because it got rid of the Open Rural designation and converted those
properties to Conservation. When the applicants rezoned the property to
RS-1 in 2008, the residential zoning was consistent with Residential Low
Future Land Use. Mrs. Lanier asked more information to the deliberations
on the change from Conservation to RS-1. Mr. Hubsch stated that the staff
report from the change is in the agenda packet and that staff could add
the minutes from meetings if this comes before the board again.
Page 8 of 13
Mrs. Paul asked what was allowed in Conservation and Open Rural
districts. Mr. Hubsch confirmed that Conservation would prohibit
buildings and Open Rural would allow very low intensity uses.
Mr. Elmore suggested that the developer be able to go back and make
changes to address comments made tonight. He added that the property
is zoned for residential so the board has to respect that. He then
expressed concerns over the 5 foot side yard setbacks and tree removal.
Mr. Rick Carper, contracted reviewer of the project for the City, addressed
stormwater and flooding concerns. He noted that stormwater ponds are
designed for 25 year events, which the ponds at the country club do have
excess capacity designed for this project. The event in November
exceeded a 25 year storm and that's why there was flooding. Mrs. Paul
asked if the design is consistent with other regulatory bodies. Mr. Carper
confirmed that it is consistent.
Motion
Mr. Reichler made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning
application to the City Commission finding the project to be inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Goal A.1, Objective A.1.1, A.1.2 and Policy
A.1.2.1. Mrs. Lanier seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Reichler
expressed his concerns that the applicant has not shown that these
requirements are being met or that they are not being met with
documented reasons for why it is not. He suggested that applicant may
want to address that and come back.
(Comprehensive Plan sections quoted for reference;
Goal A.1 The City shall manage growth and redevelopment in a manner,
which results in a pattern of land uses that: 1) encourages, creates and
maintains a healthy and aesthetically pleasing built environment, 2)
avoids blighting influences, 3) preserves and enhances coastal,
environmental, natural, historic and cultural resources, 4) maintains the
City's distinct residential community character, 5) provides for reasonable
public safety and security from hazardous conditions associated with
coastal locations, 6) that provides public services and facilities in a
timely and cost effective manner, and 7) that encourages energy
efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources.
Objective A.1.1 Land development activities and project review
procedures shall include requirements intended to protect natural
environmental features and improve the physical characteristics of the
City so as to ensure the conservation and protection of Environmentally
Page 9 of 13
Sensitive Areas, as defined by Policy D.3.2.8 of the Coastal Conservation
Element and any other natural resources including wetlands, wildlife
habitats, estuarine systems, and surface and groundwater resources.
Goal A.1.2 The City shall protect, conserve and enhance the natural
functions of existing wetlands, marsh and estuarine systems, and other
' Environmentally Sensitive Areas in order to maintain the quality and
function of natural systems and wildlife habitats.
Policy A.1.2.1 The City shall protect natural wetlands and other
Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as may be identified by Map A-2 and
Map A-4 of the Future Land Use Map Series or as may be identified by
other accepted environmental survey methodologies, and their functions
from the adverse impacts of development by maintaining the following
required upland buffers between wetlands and adjacent development as
set forth herein and as also implemented through the Land Development
Regulations.
(a) After the effective date of this plan amendment, a minimum
natural vegetative upland buffer of fifty (50) feet shall be required
and maintained between developed areas and the Intracoastal
Waterway(ICW) regardless of any other regulatory agency requirement
of a lesser distance. This requirement shall also apply to the portions of
tributaries, streams, or other water bodies connected to the Intracoastal
Waterway. Such portions of the ICW and these tributaries, streams, or
other water bodies subject to this buffer requirement shall be established
by the presence of a Mean High Water Line of the adjacent tributary,
stream or other water body as established in accordance with Chapter
177.26, Florida Statutes, and such Mean High Water Line shall be
depicted on all Site Plans, proposed development plans, and other
documents submitted for review and permitting. The fifty (50) foot
upland buffer shall be measured from the St. Johns River Water
Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Wetland jurisdictional line.
Determinations of vested rights which may supersede the requirement for
this 50 foot buffer shall be made on a case-by-case basis in accordance
with the Land Development Regulations and applicable Florida law.
(b)In the case of other natural wetland areas, which may not be directly
connected to Intracoastal related streams or waterways as described
above, but are part of the coastal marsh and estuarine system, a natural
vegetative upland buffer of twenty-five (25) feet shall be required and
maintained between development and adjacent wetlands. Where
Page 10 of 13
required, such buffer shall be measured from the jurisdictional wetland
line as established by the appropriate regulatory agency.
(c) With the exception of facilities to provide public access for the
recreational use of Intracoastal related natural resources, any buffers as
may be required by preceding paragraphs (a) or (b) shall be maintained
in a natural state with the exception of the clearing of Understory
Vegetation as defined by Chapter 23 of the City's Municipal Code of
Ordinances, and any such clearing shall be approved by the City and if
required, the appropriate State or Federal agency prior to any form of
clearing, alteration or disturbance of a required buffer.
(d) Where remaining natural wetlands have been damaged or degraded
over time through previous development, storm events, improper
drainage runoff or other adverse activities, but where wetland vegetation
and habitat still are predominant in quantity on a proposed development
site, all plans submitted for review or permitting shall demonstrate a plan
for mitigation, restoration, enhancement or recovery of jurisdictional
wetlands. It is the express intent of the City that no net loss of
jurisdictional wetlands occur through any development action within
the City. Any impacted wetlands on a development site shall be replaced
elsewhere on the same site or elsewhere within the City of Atlantic Beach.
The City shall incorporate appropriation provisions within the Land
Development Regulations to further implement this policy.)
Mr. Reichler amended his motion to recommend denial of the rezoning
application to the City Commission finding the project to be in violation of
Section 24-272(b) of the Land Development Regulations. Mrs. Lanier
seconded the amended motion for discussion.
Mrs. Paul asked if the City had any system in place for applicants to
mitigate within the City. Mr. Carper stated that there is no formal system
that would be accepted by other regulatory bodies. Mrs. Paul asked how
long it would take to do that. Mr. Carper stated that it would be several
months. Mr. Reichler asked if there were methods such as on site
mitigation available. Mr. Carper said that they could do that.
Mr. Stratton stated that it may be useful to the applicant for the board to
address the board's specific issues. Mrs. Paul agreed and suggested going
through the individual waiver requests.
Page 11 of 13
Mrs. Paul began the discussion with waiver request one for a minimum
lot width of 60 feet. Mr. Stratton stated that larger lots would allow for
more green space. Mr. Elmore pointed out that smaller lots puts the same
number of lots in a smaller area which frees up space for wetlands. Mrs.
Lanier addressed the consistency with the surrounding neighborhoods
where Selva Linkside does have smaller lots but Selva Marina has much
larger lots.
Mrs. Paul covered waiver request two for a 10 foot rear setback. Mrs.
Simmons stated this is similar to the first waiver in that they both are
about green space and so is waiver three about 5 foot side yard setbacks.
Mrs. Paul expressed her concerns about how close homes would be
together.
Mrs. Paul stated that waiver request four has been resolved between the
applicant and Public Works according to the applicant's most recent
submission.
Mrs. Paul then covered waiver request 5 for the 50 foot buffer from
Sherman's Creek. Mr. Elmore stated that he felt the 50 foot requirement
should be required for all lots to preserve the environment. Mrs. Lanier
agreed and then asked staff who enforces the buffer in the future. Mr.
Hubsch stated that it would be a natural vegetative buffer that could not
be filled or altered and Code Enforcement would enforce that long term.
Mr. Carper stated that the Water Management District is requiring a deed
restriction.
Mrs. Paul next addressed waiver request 6 for the 25 foot buffer from
wetlands. She added that a swale and berm system would be used
instead. Mr. Carper stated that the swale is more beneficial from a water
quality standpoint. Mrs. Lanier pointed out that a berm would not have
trees on it like the buffer will.
Mrs. Paul stated that the applicant has agreed to meet the requirements
for a sidewalk and a waiver is not needed.
Mrs. Paul moved to the last waiver request for no net loss of wetland
within the City. Mrs. Paul stated that it seems pretty clear that the public
and board do not want to see a loss of wetlands regardless of the quality.
Mrs. Lanier said that the animals do not know the difference between
manmade and natural areas and that we should seek to preserve this
habitat. Mr. Reichler stated that the applicant could provide evidence that
they meet this requirement.
Page 12 of 13
Mr. Reichler withdrew his motion. Mrs. Lanier accepted the withdrawn
motion.
Mr. Elmore made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning
application to the City Commission specifically including the denial of
waivers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS.
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Lanier seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned
at 9:28 pm.
tUri. Taa_
Brea Paul, Chair
Attest
Page 13 of 13