Loading...
4-16-13 CDB Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday | April 16, 2013 | 6:00 pm Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road Call To Order And Roll Call. Approval Of Minutes. CDBminutes_2013_Mar19 Draft minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. 2013_MAR19.PDF Old Business. New Business. ZVAR -13 -00100047 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for variance from Section 24-161(f)(3), to allow required non - residential off-street parking that backs into a public right -of -way (Ahern Street). CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100047.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -03 -25.PDF REZ -13 -00100048 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request to rezone approximately 33.90 acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Special Planned Area (SPA). CDBSR_REZ -13 -00100048_REV1.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -03 - 25.PDF REZ -13 -00100049 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request to rezone approximately 7.05 acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Residential Single -Family (RS-1). CDBSR_REZ -13 -00100049.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -03 -25.PDF Reports. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida  32233, and may be obtained at this office or  by calling (904) 247 -5800.  Interested parties may attend the meeting and make  comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above.  Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with  respect to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons:  In  accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this 1. 2. A. Documents: 3. 4. A. Documents: B. Documents: C. Documents: 5. 6. CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACHCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARDREGULAR MEETING AGENDATuesday | April 16, 2013 | 6:00 pmCommission Chambers | 800 Seminole RoadCall To Order And Roll Call.Approval Of Minutes.CDBminutes_2013_Mar19Draft minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.2013_MAR19.PDFOld Business.New Business.ZVAR -13 -00100047 (PUBLIC HEARING)Request for variance from Section 24-161(f)(3), to allow required non -residential off-street parking that backs into a public right -of -way (Ahern Street).CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100047.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -03 -25.PDFREZ-13 -00100048 (PUBLIC HEARING)Request to rezone approximately 33.90 acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Special Planned Area (SPA).CDBSR_REZ -13 -00100048_REV1.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -03 -25.PDFREZ-13 -00100049 (PUBLIC HEARING)Request to rezone approximately 7.05 acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Residential Single -Family (RS-1).CDBSR_REZ -13 -00100049.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -03 -25.PDFReports.Adjournment.All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida  32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247 -5800.  Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above.  Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons:  In  accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this 1.2.A.Documents:3.4.A.Documents:B.Documents:C.Documents:5.6. Draft Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Page 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD March 19, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:03pm Chair Brea Paul verified the presence of a quorum with the attendance of Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes, Brea Paul, Sylvia Simmons and Patrick Stratton. The meeting was called to order at 6:03pm. Also present were NS Mayport Liaison and ex-officio board member Matt Schellhorn, Principal Planner Erika Hall, and Building and Zoning Director Michael Griffin. Board member Jason Burgess was absent. 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – FEBRUARY 19, 2013. Ms. Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting. Mr. Hansen moved that minutes be approved as written. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 6-0. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. ZVAR -13-00100045, 356 10th Street (Per Olof Ezelius, owner) Request for variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d, reducing the required rear yard setback for a detached one-story garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet in area, from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet. Staff Report Ms. Hall presented a brief history of the property. She stated that the applicant has requested to construct an eight hundred seventy- five (875) square foot single-story detached garage. Per the provisions of Section 24-151(b)(1)(d), such a single-story detached garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet in area must comply with the applicable setbacks as established for the principal structure. Ms. Hall explained that the subject property is zoned as Residential Single-Family (RS-2), which requires a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback. Ms. Hall said the character of the existing structure, which is less than sixteen hundred (1,600) square feet in area and lacks adequate storage, having neither a garage nor a carport nor an attic, is the reason the applicant has requested to construct a garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet. However, adverse impacts to at least one and possibly two large oak trees located to Draft Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Page 2 of 6 the south of the principal structure prevent the applicant from constructing the proposed garage in compliance with the required rear yard setback of twenty (20) feet. Ms. Simmons asked had adjacent property owners been notified of the variance request, and if so, had staff heard of any objections. Ms. Hall replied that in addition to a legal notice published in The Beaches Leader and a sign posted on-site, notice was mailed to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. She said that she had received no statements of objection to the proposal. Applicant Comment Property owner Per Olof Ezelius addressed the Board. He explained that he and his wife had recently purchased the property after renting it for three (3) years. He said the house is very functional for the most part, but it lacks much-needed storage space and needs some minor reconfigurations. One such reconfiguration would be the removal of the laundry area from the existing kitchen and relocation to the utility area of the proposed garage. Mr. Ezelius said he had considered several design options, including plans that provided more space, but those would be detrimental to the trees. He said he felt the current proposal suited his needs, and best served his neighbors, the neighborhood and the environment. He asked if any Board members had reservations about granting the variance, to please defer the decision to the next meeting and take the time to visit the site. Ms. Paul asked Board members if anyone had questions for Mr. Ezelius. Both Mr. Hansen and Ms. Simmons declared ex parte communications with an adjacent property owner during their site visits. Mr. Elmore noted that the existing structure is located approximately nine (9) feet further from the front property line than is required. He asked the applicant if he had considered renovations to the existing structure such that the larger detached garage would not be required. Mr. Ezelius replied that the interior layout of the house is functional, and the desire is to upgrade without drastically altering the layout. He said they had considered demolishing the existing structure and rebuilding, but the trees would still be an issue. Mr. Hansen recommended turning the garage ninety (90) degrees, Draft Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Page 3 of 6 aligning it with and attaching it to the principal structure, noting the addition of such an attached garage would meet the required rear yard setback of twenty (20) feet. However, Ms. Paul questioned whether such a configuration would still impact the oak tree located nearest the west property line. Mr. Stratton asked if the applicant was attempting to save both oaks, to which Mr. Ezelius replied yes, noting that the existing driveway would have to meander around the western tree. [At the applicant ’s request, a copy of his opening statement is attached to these minutes.] Public Comment Jim Thoermer (365 10th Street) said he lived across the street, and he assured the Board that the applicant’s primary concern was protection of the trees. He explained that there had been significant impact to the 10th Street tree canopy over the previous two years, as several lots had undergone redevelopment and JEA had removed a number of trees encroaching into the buffer around power lines. He said that the applicant had given careful consideration to the potential impact on the two oaks, as well as the neighbors and the neighborhood, and he recommended that the Board approve the variance. Richard Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) recommended that the Board deny this request because it did not meet the grounds for approval of a variance. He stated that the property owners and their successors would later have the right to replace the existing structure and/or remove the trees. Thus the hardship would disappear, but the variance would last forever. Chris Lambertson (357 12th Street) expressed concern that approval of this request would set a precedent for everything that comes afterwards. He strongly suggested the recording of specific rationale for approval, if approved, so as to not open the door to reconsider all rear yard setbacks. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore extolled the value of the tree canopy, but emphasized that the Board should not confuse precedent with emotion over trees. He said that he believed there is enough available land to allow the reconfiguration of the existing structure and addition of a compliant garage. However, he cautioned no matter what is done to the site, the trees will be impacted, whether by equipment or development. He explained that any footings would impact anchor Draft Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Page 4 of 6 roots and feeder roots. Mr. Parkes agreed with Mr. Elmore, stating there appears to be considerable potential to construct a six hundred (600) square foot detached garage, as well as a small addition on the back of the house, between the trees and compliant with setbacks. He further questioned the rationale of placing the laundry in the proposed detached garage structure, some thirty (30) feet from the principal structure. Mr. Stratton concurred that saving trees is admirable, but he advised the applicant to construct a compliant six hundred (600) square foot garage, and if additional space is still needed, to renovate the principal structure. Ms. Simmons noted that back yards often consist of wasted space, and she asked staff to provide history regarding this provision. Ms. Hall replied that the lot was originally developed in 1975, at which time the 1959 Zoning Code was still in effect. Under the 1959 Zoning Code, detached single-story garage accessory structures could be constructed up to a maximum footprint of twelve (12) percent of the total lot area and located a minimum of five (5) feet from rear and side property lines. The subject property, which measures six thousand five hundred (6,500) square feet in area, would have accommodated a seven hundred eighty (780) square foot garage. However, the 1959 Zoning Code was repealed and replaced by the 1982 Zoning Code, which limited accessory structures to six hundred (600) square feet in area. This provision was carried forth when the 1982 Zoning Code was repealed and replaced by the 2002 Zoning Code. When the 2002 Zoning Code was amended in December 2003, the setback for single-story detached garages, still limited to six hundred (600) square feet in area and fifteen (15) feet in height, was increased to a ten (10) foot rear yard setback. Further, a provision for a two-story detached garage, limited to a six hundred (600) square feet footprint and twenty-five (25) feet in height, was included, with a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. When the 2002 Zoning Code was again amended in March 2010, the minimum rear yard setbacks for the detached single- and two-story garage accessories were revised to five (5) and ten (10) feet, respectively. Mr. Elmore reiterated that the Board needed to remove the trees from the equation and focus on the true matter of the accessory structure size and location. Ms. Paul agreed, stating she would Draft Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Page 5 of 6 hate to see preservation of the trees used as justification of the variance, and then find that the trees had been removed, whether intentionally or not. Mr. Stratton asked Mr. Ezelius what would be the issue with constructing a six hundred (600) square foot detached garage and a two hundred seventy-five (275) square foot addition to the principal structure. Mr. Ezelius replied that the current configuration of the existing structure – particularly the roof line – does not lend to easy modification. He said the desire for additional ground-level space was to accommodate storage and to relocate the laundry from the kitchen. Mr. Elmore emphasized that there are alternatives providing greater area which comply with the code. Mr. Ezelius replied that he was aware that he could build up to twelve hundred (1,200) square feet with a two-story detached garage, but that option did not resolve the problem of needed space on the ground-level. Mr. Hansen reviewed the proposal and estimated that removal of the work benches shown on the plan would still result in a compliant two-car garage with adequate space for a laundry area. He asked Mr. Parkes the depth of a standard two-car garage, to which Mr. Parkes replied a 24’ x 24’ garage, would comfortably accommodate two cars, a washer, dryer and air conditioning unit. Mr. Ezelius commented that the additional space was needed to accommodate his hobby. Mr. Parkes stated that his primary concern was setting precedent, noting that in all the time he had been on the Board, he could not recall ever approving a variance to the rear yard setback requirement. He continued, stating that the job of the Board is to defend the Code as written, and grant variances only when the rationale meets the specific standards outlined in Section 24-64. Mr. Elmore agreed, stating that this request is based upon a self- imposed hardship. He emphasized that the Board cannot validate the request because there are code-compliant alternatives available to the applicant. Mr. Stratton added that while he applauded the applicant’s attempt to protect the trees, the Board did not have the authority to randomly grant variances without valid grounds for approval. Motion Mr. Parkes moved that the Community Development Board deny ZVAR -13-00100045, request for a variance from Section 24- Draft Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Page 6 of 6 151(b)(1)d, reducing the required rear yard setback for a detached garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet in area from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet, finding that trees do not constitute exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area; finding that the property does not suffer the onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property; and finding that the request is based upon a self-created hardship, in that the property owner was aware that the property did not meet his needs when he purchased the property in December 2012, and the applicant now seeks relief beyond reasonable use, solely for personal comfort or convenience. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 6-0. 5. REPORTS . None. 6. ADJOURNMENT – 7:18 PM _______________________________________ Brea Paul, Chair _______________________________________ Attest Ezelius Opening Statement March 19, 2013 CDB meeting Variance Meeting Talking Points 1. We appreciate your consideration reviewing our Proposed Garage Project. I never had the pleasure to meet anyone of you on the Board and this is totally new experience for me. 2. My wife Marita and I have spent significant time reviewing various building options over an extended period of time before we settled on the proposed plan that is in front of you. We have tried to provide as much detail in our Variance application as possible and I am mainly here to answer any questions you may have. Before doing so I would like to make a few additional comments: A. We believe we have proposed the most sensible plan after having considered all facts. The proposed plan is best for the neighborhood, neighbors and environment. Other building options that would not require a Variance would be worse on all three points. We can’t find a single reasonable argument why our proposal could not be approved. B. The driveway is not going to be implemented as shown on the site plan. For example, that Driveway conflicts with one of the live Oaks and we will not have a driveway going to the Utility Room. The architect showed a sample driveway for the purpose of calculating lot coverage only. C. If any of you are for whatever reason hesitant to approving our plan and at the same have not visited and reviewed our backyard we wish for the Board to first make an on-site review and postpone the decision to the April meeting. We wish to avoid that decision to become a “paper or desk” like decision without having seen our back yard. D. I also have the full size blue prints with me should you wish to see them. I am open for questions. CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.A. CASE NO ZVAR-13-00100047 Request for variance from Section 24-161(f)(3), to allow required non-residential off- street parking that backs into a public right-of-way (Ahern Street). LOCATION 42 EAST COAST DRIVE APPLICANT JOHN ZONA III, AIA, ON BEHALF OF SHOPPES OF LAKESIDE DATE APRIL 16, 2013 STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER STAFF COMMENTS Background The subject property consists of Lots 1, 3 and 5, Block 1 as platted in 1913 as part of the Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” (Exhibit 1). The individual lots are rectangular in shape, with each having fifty (50) feet of frontage parallel to Ahern Street, which is a platted forty (40) foot wide right-of-way originally named Atlanta Street, and one hundred feet of depth parallel to East Coast Drive. The parcel is currently zoned Central Business District (CBD) and has a Future Land Use designation of Central Business District (CBD). The parcel was previously occupied by one single-family dwelling unit and a detached garage that were demolished in 2005. The property is currently utilized to accommodate spill-over parking from the Shoppes of North Shore and other Town Center establishments. FIGURE 1. 42 East Coast Drive, location map. Google Earth, accessed March 29, 2013. Page 2 of 5 FIGURE 2. 42 East Coast Drive, street view, looking west from East Coast Drive. Google Earth, accessed March 29, 2013. FIGURE 3. 42 East Coast Drive, street view, looking southeast from Ahern Street. Google Earth, accessed March 29, 2013. The current proposal is to construct a two story structure, with the first floor dedicated to parking and the second floor dedicated to a seven thousand eight hundred ten (7,810) square foot restaurant space, including a three thousand two hundred forty (3,240) square foot air-conditioned space, a two thousand nine hundred seventy (2,970) square foot open-air dining deck and a one thousand six-hundred (1,600) square foot open-air dining deck. The submitted conceptual plan shows a total of one hundred fifty-six (156) seats. Per Section 24- 161(h)(15), required off-street parking for restaurants and bars is one (1) space for each four (4) seats, including any outdoor seating where service occurs. Thus a minimum of thirty-nine (39) off-street spaces would be required to accommodate the proposed seating. Forty-four (44) off-street parking spaces are shown on the submitted parking level plan. However, fourteen (14) of those spaces shown would require backing directly into Ahern Street. This is contrary to the provision of Section 24-161(f)(3), which states: Off-street parking for all uses other than single- and two-family residential shall be designed and constructed such that vehicles are not required to back into public rights-of-way. Parking spaces shall not extend across rights-of-way including any public or private sidewalk or other pedestrian thoroughfare. This provision was added to the land development regulations with the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-07-200, on July 9, 2007. Thus the applicant seeks a variance from this provision, in accordance with Section 161(b)(6), which states: Applications to vary from the requirements of this section shall follow the procedures set forth in Subsections 24-64(a) [variance application requirements] and (b) [variance public hearing requirements]. The Community Development Board may approve such application only upon finding that the intent of this section as set forth in preceding subsection (a) is met. Section 24-161(a), noted above, defines the purpose and intent of these regulations, as follows: Off-street vehicular parking spaces required by this section shall be provided at the time of the construction or expansion of any building for uses listed in this section. Parking shall be arranged for convenient access and the safety of pedestrians and vehicles; shall provide barriers when located at the perimeter of a lot to prevent encroachment on to adjacent properties; and when lighted, lights shall be directed away from adjacent properties. Parking areas and driveways shall not obstruct stormwater facilities, drainage swales or clear vehicular sight distances. Excess surface parking is discouraged, and in no case shall the number of extra surface parking spaces exceed ten (10) spaces or ten (10) percent, whichever is greater. Parking calculations demonstrating provision of required parking shall be provided with all building Page 3 of 5 permit applications submitted for review. Required parking shall be maintained for the duration of the use it serves. Analysis Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “[a]pplications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance: (1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. There are no exceptional topographic variations affecting the subject property; therefore this provision is not applicable. (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. The applicant states “Virtually all of the properties fronting on Ahern Street currently have direct access parking to their respective properties thereby providing much needed parking” and “There are approximately 75 spaces that currently have direct access to Ahern Street between East Coast Drive and Sherry Drive. The owners of the subject property currently own the property to the west which has 33 spaces of the 75 that access parking directly from Ahern Street”. The property to the west and currently under same ownership as the subject property, is the Shoppes of North Shore, which was originally constructed in 1990/91. The original development plan for this property consisted of twenty-seven (27) parking spaces that encroached into and from which drivers would have to back into the Ahern Street right-of-way. This configuration was approved as part of a use-by-exception granted on June 26, 1989, which also reduced the required number of parking spaces from one hundred forty (140) to one hundred two (102). When the site plan was revised early the following year, an amendment to the use-by-exception was approved on February 26, 1990, reducing the required number of parking spaces from one hundred twenty-six (126) to ninety-seven (97). This plan called for a total of thirty-two (32) parking spaces encroaching into Ahern Street, but as currently built, that number has been reduced to twenty-seven (27) spaces in order to accommodate the bank drive through and tenant dumpsters. The remaining forty-two (42) spaces with “direct access to Ahern Street” serve residential uses that either are single- or two-family, and thus are exempt from the provisions of Section 24- 161(f)(3), or are multi-family or condo units that were approved and in process and/or constructed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-07-200 in 2007. On August 27, 2011, the City Commission granted a waiver to Southcoast Capital Partnership, exempting them from compliance with the provisions of Section 24-161(f)(3), solely for the purpose of restriping an existing non-conforming parking lot as it had existed with six (6) spaces that backed onto East Coast Drive for at least twenty-seven (27) years prior. Redevelopment of any of these properties resulting in the reconfiguration of parking would require that they be brought into compliance with Section 24-161(f)(3) as well as minimum landscape and buffer requirements. Per Section 24-64(b)(4), “[t]he nonconforming use of adjacent or neighboring lands, structures or buildings shall not be considered as a justification for the approval of a variance”. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Staff does not find any exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. The proposed use Page 4 of 5 is entirely consistent with the permitted uses allowed within the Central Business District. However, the submitted conceptual plan – especially parking – exceeds the capacity of the site. Staff recommends (1) reducing structure size and/or seating capacity to the minimum required to obtain a Series 4-COP SRX alcoholic beverage license, being one hundred fifty (150) seats, and thereby reducing the required off-street parking to thirty-eight (38) spaces; and (2) reconfiguring parking level design, similar to what is shown on Exhibit 2, so that vehicular circulation is maintained on the subject property, thus eliminating the need to back into the Ahern Street public right-of-way. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. The applicant states “When the property was purchased in 2000, my client’s expected that the parking options would be similar to his adjacent property. The new law passed in 2008 prohibited that from happening, creating a serious hardship”. As noted above, Ordinance 90-07-200 was adopted on July 9, 2007. The following month, the Community Development Board reviewed a request from this property owner to rezone the subject parcel from Central Business District (CBD) to Commercial General and obtain a Use-by- Exception to permit a boutique hotel on the property. According to the minutes of the August 21, 2007 Community Development Board meeting, “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.” [Page 2 of 10, paragraph 1] Further, “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…it is anticipated that parking will be reconfigured to address the spaces that are currently shown to back out onto East Coast Drive.” [Page 5 of 10, paragraph 4]. Action on this particular application was deferred and it never came before the Board again. However, it is obvious that the applicant was aware of the new provisions of Section 24-161(f)(3) and was willing to work within those limitations. Per Section 24-64(c), “[v]ariances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situations created by the property owner”. (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. The overall subject property is of regular rectangular, as are the three individual lots which constitute the parcel; therefore this provision is not applicable. (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. The subject property is not of substandard size, but does consist of three platted lots of record, with size consistent with others on the same plat; therefore this provision is not applicable. Additionally, Section 24-64(c) provides grounds for denial of a variance, stating that “[n]o variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon…(2) congestion of streets…[or] (3) public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety”. The applicant claims “There are not driving hazards created due to the nature of traffic on Ahern between Sherry Dr and East Coast Drive. It acts more like a service alley than a thru-street and primarily serves the parking spaces that have direct access to it”. Staff strongly disagrees with this characterization of Ahern Street, Page 5 of 5 which is a platted forty (40) foot wide right-of-way that serves a great deal of through traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian. East Coast Drive is already difficult to traverse due in part to the approximately forty (40) foot offset in Ahern Street, and the short distance from the high-traffic intersection of East Coast Drive and Atlantic Boulevard, less than three hundred (300) feet to the south. There is no question that line of sight will be severely impacted by the construction of a two story building on the subject property, especially since there are no defined building setbacks within the Central Business District. Further compounding the effect of blind spots on drivers and pedestrians will be the increased congestion associated with both the patron traffic entering and exiting the first floor parking from East Coast Drive and the fourteen (14) parking spaces proposed to back onto Ahern Street. ATTACHMENTS  EXHIBIT 1 – ATLANTIC BEACH SUBDIVISION “A” PLAT  EXHIBIT 2 – ALTERNATIVE PARKING PLAN (STAFF) CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 4.B. CASE NO REZ-13-00100048 Request to rezone approximately 33.90 acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Special Planned Area (SPA). LOCATION 1600 SELVA MARINA DRIVE (SELVA MARINA COUNTRY CLUB) APPLICANT ATLANTIC BEACH PARTNERS, LLC REPRESENTED BY T R HAINLINE, JR DATE APRIL 16, 2013 STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER STAFF COMMENTS Background The subject property consists of approximately 33.90 acres located within the City of Atlantic Beach, and is currently part of the Selva Marina Country Club Residential PUD, which is a cross-jurisdictional PUD adopted by Ordinance No. 90-07-202 on September 24, 2007, and amended by Ordinance No. 90-09- 209 on September 14, 2009. The Conceptual Site Plan of the approved PUD is Exhibit 1. The current application is the pre-cursor to an annexation initiative which would bring the golf course property and the proposed residential development entirely into the Atlantic Beach jurisdiction. Compatibility with established development patterns and preservation of the natural environment are significant factors to the residents of Atlantic Beach. As such, there is to be a deed restriction recorded that would designate the remaining undeveloped golf course property as perpetual green space upon the annexation of the property into Atlantic Beach. Page 2 of 9 The current application seeks the following: 1. Exclusion of the Selva Preserve parcel (172027-0100) from the overall project. (The reversion of this parcel to its previous zoning classification (RS-1) is dealt with in REZ-13-00100049, which is item 4.C. on this agenda.) 2. Inclusion of the existing golf course parcel (169399-0000) in the overall project. 3. Reconfiguration of the conceptual site plan, relocating all residential development to the center of the golf course parcel. The proposed conceptual site plan, highlighted to show current jurisdiction, is Exhibit 2. Analysis As a point of clarification, Special Planned Area (SPA) is a zoning classification that replaced the Planned Unit Development (PUD) classification within the City of Atlantic Beach several years ago. This was due to the fact that PUDs require a minimum of ten (10) acres, and there are no longer any such sizeable tracts of land under unified control, not already part of an existing PUD. There are provisions in the code for amendment of existing PUDs, but the proposed changes to the Selva Marina Country Club redevelopment substantiate consideration as a completely new project. Still, as a starting point, it is worthwhile to compare the previously approved PUD (Ordinance No. 90-09-209) to the proposed plan. TABLE 1. SITE SUMMARY COMPARISON ORD NO 90-09-209 REZ-13-00100048 (PROPOSED) CoAB CoJ TOTAL CoAB CoJ TOTAL RESIDENTIAL Acreage 32.54 8.14 40.68 0.08 34.36 34.44 Units 85* 34* 114* 1** 169** 169** * 5 units partially in CoAB/CoJ ** 1 unit partially in CoAB/CoJ RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Golf Course N/A N/A N/A 26.14 91.25 117.39 Clubhouse, Amenities 8.50 0.00 8.50 6.74 0.00 6.74 INFRASTRUCTURE Vehicular Access NOT SPECIFIED NOT SPECIFIED NOT SPECIFIED 1.37 9.08 10.45 TOTAL 41.04 8.14 49.18 34.33 134.69 169.02 As shown in Table 1 – Site Summary Comparison, and noted in the background information above, the approved Selva Marina Country Club Residential PUD consisted of about forty-one (41) acres within the City of Atlantic Beach and eight (8) acres within the City of Jacksonville, for a total project area of slightly more than forty-nine (49) acres. The approved PUD did not include the acreage currently dedicated to the golf course. However, that acreage which is within Jacksonville’s jurisdiction is now being added and the Selva Preserve parcel which is within Atlantic Beach is being removed. The adjusted acreage for the new project is approximately one hundred sixty-nine (169) acres, with a little more than thirty-three (33) acres in Atlantic Beach, and nearly one hundred thirty-five (135) acres in Jacksonville. The approved PUD provided for a total of one hundred fourteen (114) dwelling units, with eighty (80) completely located within Atlantic Beach, twenty-nine (29) completely located within Jacksonville, and five (5) partially located in each jurisdiction. One hundred sixty-nine (169) dwelling units are depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan for the new project, though the narrative states a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) units may be constructed, and of those illustrated, one hundred sixty-eight (168) dwellings are located completely within Jacksonville, while one (1) is located partially in Atlantic Beach. Golf course and related accessory uses will be allocated to just over one hundred seventeen (117) acres of the total project area, while nearly seven (7) acres will be dedicated to the clubhouse facilities and other Page 3 of 9 recreational amenities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. This is just slightly less than the eight and a half (8.5) acres allocated to the clubhouse and associated amenities in the approved plan. Lastly, just over ten (10) acres is designated as vehicular access, a use that was not enumerated in the approved PUD. TABLE 2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON ORD NO 90-09-209 REZ-13-00100048 (PROPOSED) SF MF CH SF80 SF70 SF60 SF55 SFCY CH NUMBER OF UNITS 94 20 N/A 169 DU on Conceptual Plan / 180 DU max N/A MIN LOT STDS Width (FT) 42 N/A NS 80 70 60 55 50 NS Area (SQ FT) 4,620 N/A NS 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,500 4,000 174,240 MAX IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (%) 65 65 NS 65 65 65 65 65 85 MIN YD REQ Front (FT) 10 10 NS 15 15 15 15 20 20 Side – Street (FT) 5 15 NS 10 10 10 10 10 10 Side – Interior (FT) 5 15 NS 5 5 5 5 5 10 Rear (FT) 10 10 NS 10 10 10 10 10 10 MAX HT (FT) 35 35 NS 35 35 35 35 35 35 Table 2 – Development Standards Comparison, details the mix of housing types, lot dimensions and development standards for both the approved PUD and the proposed project. Of the one hundred fourteen (114) dwelling units provided for in the approved PUD, a maximum of twenty (20) units were anticipated to be multi-family with the remaining ninety-four (94) being single-family. The overall concept of the approved PUD was based upon neo-traditional design principles, including narrower lots having a minimum width of forty-two (42) feet and minimum lot area of four thousand six hundred twenty (4,620) square feet, as well as reduced building setbacks. Approved front and rear setbacks for both single- and multi-family was ten (10) feet, while side setbacks for single-family were approved to be five (5) feet; for multi-family, sides were approved to be ten (10) feet. The current proposal is for single-family dwellings only, and the minimum lot widths are consistent with platted lot sizes found throughout Atlantic Beach, ranging from fifty (50) feet to eighty (80) feet. Likewise, lot types – with the exception of the “courtyard” lots that are four thousand (4,000) square feet in area – are consistent with platted lots sizes found throughout Atlantic Beach, ranging from five thousand five hundred (5,500) square feet to eight thousand (8,000) square feet. A total of three (3) courtyards are depicted on the submitted site plan, for a total of twelve (12) of these more compact lots. The proposed plan includes an increase in required front yard setbacks, from the approved ten (10) feet to a proposed fifteen (15) feet, while the required rear yard setback remains ten (10) feet and the required interior side yard setback remains five (5) feet. Street side yard setbacks have been revised, from the approved five (5) feet to a proposed ten (10) feet, which is consistent with current Atlantic Beach provisions. The maximum impervious surface allowable on individual lots is maintained at sixty-five (65) percent, which is greater than the typical Atlantic Beach residential standard of fifty (50) percent. However, the justification for both the increased impervious surface area on individual lots and the reduced building setbacks is the fact that the majority of acreage within the project is dedicated to open space and recreation. Similarly, the maximum impervious surface area allowed for the clubhouse and recreational amenities, for which specifications were not previously given in the approved PUD, is eighty-five (85) percent. Lastly, maximum building height is thirty-five (35) feet, which is consistent with development standards throughout the City of Atlantic Beach. Staff has reviewed the proposal in light of the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, finding that it supports the following: Page 4 of 9 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT  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; and, 3) preserves and enhances coastal, environmental, natural, historic and cultural resources.  Objection A.1.3 – The City shall encourage future development and redevelopment, which 1) retains the exceptionally high quality of life and the predominantly residential character of the City of Atlantic Beach… and, 3) provides for varied and diverse recreational opportunities.  Policy A.1.3.3 – The City shall continue to manage, preserve and construct facilities that provide diverse opportunities to all residents for both passive and active recreation, including parks, nature preserves, trails and bikeways, skateboard parks and ball fields, dune crossovers, waterway accesses and associated amenities.  Objective A.1.4 – Sites, structures, and neighborhoods which have been identified as having historic, architectural, archaeological, civic or cultural importance shall be protected from damage or destruction, and the preservation of such valuable resources shall be encouraged by the City.  Objective A.1.5 – The City shall maintain development patterns which… 2) foster diverse and stable neighborhoods…4) provide proper locations for…energy efficient land use patterns, and 5) encourage healthy and aesthetically pleasing living conditions.  Policy A.1.5.5 – Flexible regulatory methods shall be utilized to provide incentives for achieving environmental enhancement, economical land development and energy efficient patters of land use that provide for an appropriate mix of uses within the City.  Objective A.1.6 – The City shall preserve the sound structural condition and the diverse character of the built environment of the City and shall encourage development programs and activities that are directed at infill development as well as the conservation, redevelopment and re-use of existing structures and the preservation of and re-investment in older neighborhoods.  Objective A.1.7 – The City shall coordinate its planning and development activities with the resource management plans of the St Johns River Water Management District, the Department of Environmental Protection, the City of Jacksonville and the City of Neptune Beach, as well as with other private entities and public agencies, as may be appropriate.  Objective A.1.10 – The City shall continue to maintain a development character which is compact in form, orderly in its land use patter, and diversified in its makeup so as to ensure employment opportunities, affordable housing, a pleasant living environment, and cost- effective and energy efficient public services.  Objective A.1.11 – The City shall provide for land use, development and redevelopment in an efficient manner, which supports the land use designations as set forth within the 2010- 2020 Future Land Use Map; which enforces the residential densities and the limitations upon the type and intensity of uses, and which results in development appropriate to the sensitive coastal location of the City, particularly with respect to the predominantly residential character and small-town scale of the City. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT  Goal E.1 – The City shall maintain sufficient parks, recreation facilities and open space so as to provide the citizens with a wide variety of leisure time activities in order that the City continues to be a healthy, desirable and attractive community in which to live.  Objective E.1.1 – The City shall inventory at least once every five years, public and private recreation resources to identify service inadequacies and opportunities for sharing of facilities and programs so as to provide safe, convenient access for all residents to beaches, Page 5 of 9 parks and other recreation facilities in accordance with Level of Service standards set for within this plan amendment.  Policy E.1.1.4 – The City shall continue to support efforts of other government agencies and shall offer cooperation to achieve level of service standards for regional recreation and open space facilities as set forth within this plan amendment.  Policy E.1.1.5 – The City shall maintain the existing recreation facilities, as identified in Table E-2, or similar facilities so as to continue to meet or exceed the Level of Service standards as set forth within this plan amendment.  Policy E.1.1.10 – As of the date of this plan amendment, the City has exceeded the adopted Level of Service standards for recreation facilities and open space area. The adopted Level of Service, as set forth within Table E-1, shall be maintained as minimum standards.  Objective E.1.2 – The City shall continue to provide varied and diverse recreation activities to the community, and shall coordinate with public agencies, private organizations and individuals, as well as adjacent local governments to supplement efforts and resources of the City. TABLE E-1 Recreation and Open Space Level of Service Standards City of Atlantic Beach, 2010-2020 TYPE OF FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD Playground (with equipment) 1 playground per 2,500 population Baseball or Softball Field 1 field per 2,500 population Soccer or Football Field 1 field per 5,000 population Basketball Court 1 court per 2,500 population Tennis Court 1 court per 2,500 population Running/Hiking Trail 1 trail per 10,000 population Community Center 1 center per 10,000 population Beach Access 1 access per 2,500 population Passive Park / Scenic Open Space 5 acres per 1,000 population Golf Course* (Public or Private) 1 18-hole course per 25,000 population Regional Park / Open Space* 5 acres per 1,000 population *Regional facilities are defined as those, which may not be located within the City of Atlantic Beach, but are in such close proximity so as to directly serve the daily recreational needs of the residents of the City of Atlantic Beach, such as Kathryn Abby Hanna Park and area golf courses. FACILITY 2005 INVENTORY 2010 INVENTORY Playground 5 7 Baseball or Softball Field 5 4 Soccer or Football Field 3 4 Basketball Court 5 5 full / 4 half Racquetball/Handball Court 2 2 Volleyball Court 2 0 Tennis Court 5 9 Running/Hiking Trail 1 5 Community Center 1 3 Beach Access 21 21 Passive Park / Open Space 412 acres 412 Regional Park / Open Space 450 acres 450 Skate Park 0 1 Golf Course 1 1 Page 6 of 9 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT  Goal G.1 – The City shall coordinate and cooperate with adjacent jurisdictions, other public and governmental agencies to ensure: 1) equitable and reasonable sharing of authority, responsibility and resources in the provision of services, education and housing; 2) the provision for effective development review and permitting; and 3) the effective representation on behalf of the City in decisions related to future growth management, planning and funding resources. Further, staff finds the proposed plan to be generally consistent with the definition, purpose and intent of the Special Planned Area zoning district, as follows:  Section 24-116 – The purpose of the special planned area district is to create a mechanism to establish a plan of development or redevelopment for a site where the property owner and the community’s interests cannot be best served by the provisions of the conventional zoning districts, and where assurances and commitments are necessary to protect the interests of both the property owner and the public, and also the unique qualities of the City of Atlantic Beach which are expressed through this chapter and the comprehensive plan. The intent of this section is to provide an appropriate zoning district classification for new development and redevelopment where specific development standards and conditions will be established within the enacting ordinance. The quality of design and site planning are the primary objectives of the SPA district.  Section 24-117 – For the purpose of this chapter, special planned area shall mean a zoning district classification that provides for the development of land under unified control which is planned and developed as a whole in a single or programmed series of operations with uses and structures substantially related to the character of the entire development. A special planned area shall also include a commitment for the provision, maintenance and operation of all areas, improvements, facilities, and necessary services for the common use of all occupants or patrons thereof. At this time, staff has identified the following areas of concern, and encourages the Board to make a recommendation subject to the applicant’s address of these issues: EXHIBIT D – WRITTEN NARRATIVE OF PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT  SECTION III-A. Permitted Uses: Development Criteria  1.d. – The applicant proposes that the “courtyard” lots, as described further in Section III-A- 9, may be used for daily/overnight rentals. Within the City of Atlantic Beach, short term rentals – being anything less than ninety (90) days – are expressly prohibited in residential zoning districts. Staff would recommend careful consideration as to whether or not short term rentals should be allowed. If the Board is inclined to recommend short term rentals be allowed within the “courtyard” lots, staff would suggest establishing the following:  Maximum number of “courtyard” lots to be developed. Three (3) courtyards, for a total of twelve (12) units are shown on the submitted site plan.  Maximum number of guests per unit.  Minimum stay.  11. – The applicant proposes that “spires, cupolas, steeples, chimneys and other appurtenances not intended for human occupancy may be placed above the maximum heights provided herein”. Within the City of Atlantic Beach, height of building is defined as the vertical distance from the applicable beginning point of measurement to the highest point of a building’s roof structure or parapet, and any attachments thereto, exclusive of chimneys only within the residential zoning districts. Staff would suggest revision of this Page 7 of 9 paragraph to conform with the provisions of the Atlantic Beach land development regulations.  SECTION III-B. Clubhouse/Recreational Amenities  Activities held at the clubhouse and recreational amenities will potentially have impact on adjacent residential properties, and the applicant has shown certain consideration by providing for vegetative buffers and directional lighting. However, staff also suggests inclusion of the following:  Hours of operation for normal activities.  Hours of operation for special activities involving additional lighting and public address systems and/or amplified music.  SECTION III-D. Accessory Uses and Structures.  1.a. – The applicant proposes detached accessory structures with a bonus room above be required to have a minimum five (5) foot rear and side yard setback, and detached accessory structures without a bonus room above be required to have a minimum three (3) foot rear and side yard setback. Staff suggests revision of this paragraph such that all detached accessory structures have a minimum five (5) foot rear and side yard setback.  3. – The applicant proposes land clearing and processing be considered an accessory use. Staff recognizes that extensive maintenance of trees and landscaping is required in order to support the function of the golf course and recreational amenities. However, staff suggests that any land clearing activities that involves the removal of trees greater than three (3) inches in diameter should require submittal of a current tree survey and a work plan to the City of Atlantic Beach for review prior to the commencement of such activities.  SECTION III-E. Access  4. – The applicant has provided here, and also in SECTION II-G, that pedestrian and vehicular access at Dutton Island Road East “may” be secured inside the property to limit access to residents of the development and commercial traffic to/from the golf course, clubhouse and recreational amenities. Staff reminds the Board this was one of the major issues of the previous proposals, and the approved PUD expressly states that “permanent access and internal roadways shall be designed, developed and maintained such that [the development] cannot be used as a ‘cut-through’ route from Selva Marina Drive to Mayport Road”. [Item M(b), page 9, Exhibit B, Ordinance 90-07-202]. Staff strongly suggests revision of all occurrences of this statement to reflect that this “shall” be secured access.  SECTION III-F. Signage  7. – The applicant has included a provision to allow an unlimited number of banners, each not exceeding fifty (50) square feet in area, to promote special seasonal, civic or community events, and to allow “festival banners” be placed on street light poles. Section 17-33 of the Atlantic Beach Municipal Code of Ordinances regulates the use of banners, requiring that they be registered with the city, generally limiting them to thirty (30) consecutive or cumulative days within one calendar year and prohibiting them from containing an advertising message and from hanging over or extending into rights-of-way. Staff suggests that the Board may wish to require the incorporation of the following conditions on the use of banners:  Limitation on the number of events and/or number of cumulative days that event banners may be displayed.  Requirement that banners shall only be visible internally to the development. Page 8 of 9  SECTION III-H. Landscaping and Tree Protection  The applicant proposes that the golf course parcel, including all subsequent residential lots, be subject to the City of Jacksonville landscape and tree protection regulations. However, the City of Jacksonville minimum tree standards for residential lots are much less stringent than those for the City of Atlantic Beach. Jacksonville requires one (1) four-inch caliper tree per five thousand (5,000) square feet of lot area, whereas Atlantic Beach requires one (1) four-inch caliper tree per two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of lot area. Staff recommends that all tree removal and landscaping be done in accordance with Atlantic Beach provisions, rather than applying Jacksonville standards to the golf course and residential parcels. Doing so supports the intent to maintain consistency and compatibility with existing residential development adjacent to the golf course, as well any future designation of the golf course as a perpetual green space. EXHIBIT H – TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PLANNED ATLANTIC BEACH COUNTRY CLUB  The traffic study prepared by Transportation Planners Enterprise, Inc, dated March 19, 2013 and submitted as a supporting Exhibit H to the application, focuses on two intersections only – Mayport Road / Dutton Island Road East and Seminole Road / Selva Marina Drive. Staff believes the submitted study is faulty for three reasons: (1) It assumes that all residential traffic will utilize Dutton Island Road for ingress/egress and therefore does not anticipate impacts (from residential units) to Selva Marina Drive and Seminole Road; (2) in turn, it does not anticipate impacts to the intersection of Seminole Road / Plaza / Sherry Drive, locally known as “Five Way”; and (3) the study only analyzes the PM rush hour, while staff considers a significant impact will be on the AM movement through the Five Way intersection. Staff would recommend that a revised traffic study taking these factors into account be submitted prior to scheduling this application for public hearing before the City Commission. REQUIRED ACTION The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of the Atlantic Beach Country Club SPA (Application REZ-13-00100048) to the City Commission, a rezoning to Special Planned Area for lands described within said application, approving the site development plan and adopting the application and supporting documents, and all terms and conditions as set forth therein, subject to conditions enumerated, and provided the following, or similar, findings of fact: (1) The request for rezoning has been fully considered after public hearing with legal notice duly published as required by law. (2) The rezoning to Special Planned Area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Designation of Residential, Low Density. (3) The rezoning is consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically Division 6, establishing standards for Special Planned Areas. (4) The rezoning and the site development plan are consistent with the stated definition, intent and purpose of Special Planned Areas. (5) The zoning district classification of Special Planned Area, and the specific uses and special conditions as set forth herein, are consistent and compatible with surrounding development. The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of the Atlantic Beach Country Club SPA (Application REZ-13-00100048) to the City Commission, a rezoning to Special Planned Area for lands described within said application, provided the following, or similar, findings of fact: Page 9 of 9 (1) The rezoning to Special Planned Area is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Designation of Residential Low Density because _____________________________________________________________________. (2) The rezoning is not consistent with the Land Development Regulations, specifically Division 6, establishing standards for Special Planned Areas because ___________________________________________________________________________. (3) The zoning district classification of Special Planned Area and the specific uses and special conditions as set forth herein are not consistent or compatible with surrounding development because ________________________________________________________. ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit 1. The Cove & Selva Preserve Conceptual Site Plan  Exhibit 2. Atlantic Beach Country Club Conceptual Site Plan CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM 4.C. CASE NO REZ-13-00100049 Request to rezone approximately 7.05 acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Residential Single-Family (RS-1). LOCATION 0 11TH STREET (NE OF INTERSECTION OF 11TH ST & LINKSIDE DR) APPLICANT SELVA PRESERVE LLC, REPRESENTED BY T R HAINLINE, JR DATE APRIL 16, 2013 STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER STAFF COMMENTS The subject property consists of approximately 7.05 acres of undeveloped land and is currently part of the Selva Marina Country Club Residential PUD as the result of a Joint Venture Agreement. This action seeks to remove the subject property from the PUD approved by Ordinance No. 90-09-209, and revert to the RS-1 zoning designation as previously approved by Ordinance No. 90-08-205. The Future Land Use designation for the property is Residential Low Density (RL), which is consistent with the RS-1 zoning classification. The applicant has stated that there are no current plans to develop the property. However, any future development plans will have to comply with all subdivision and land development regulations, such as platting; provision of infrastructure, including roads, water and sewer lines, and stormwater facilities; as well as compliance with environmental mitigation for tree and vegetation removal, and wetland impacts, and RS-1-specific lot standards. REQUIRED ACTION Upon finding the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Community Development Board should make a recommendation to the City Commission to approve the change in zoning classification of the subject property from PUD to RS-1.