Loading...
03-21-17 CDB Minutes v J << g\ r „. •f 15 ter. �N JF31wr MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD March 21st, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:04pm. All members, including alternate members, were present, except for Mr. Stratton. Alternate Board Member Judy Workman was asked to sit in his place. Also present were Planner Derek Reeves, Board Secretary Grace Mackey and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of January 17, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Ms. Lanier seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously. B. Minutes of February 21, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Mandelbaum seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. 17-UBEX-417 Planner Reeves explained that the applicant requested that their N case 17-UBEX-417 be deferred to the April 18, 2017 regular meeting of The Community Development Board, after their case was advertised for the current meeting. As this case was publicly advertised, public comment was opened. Page 1of15 Justin Henderson, 132 Magnolia St., Atlantic Beach 32233, commented that his home lies directly behind the lot in question. He mentioned the preexisting traffic on that street and stated his concerns for increased traffic on that road. With no additional comments the Public Hearing was continued to April 18, 2017. B. 17-ZVAR-405 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Jeffrey Sellers) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable projections into side yards from 24 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 48 inches to allow longer eave projections at Club Manor Lot 8 (aka 145 8th Street). Staff Report Planner Reeves provided site context and detail about the property in question. It is currently zoned RS-2 (Residential, Single-family) with a future land use of Residential Low. The proposed construction is to remodel and add a second floor to and existing 1956 single family home on site. The work they are currently doing has already been permitted through the City. Their proposal is to replace the existing roof with a flat metal roof with 48 inch eave overhangs on all four sides of the roof. The need for a variance comes from Section 24-83(b) which states: "Structural projections.Architectural features such as eaves and cornices, and cantilevered bay windows, open balconies and porches may project a distance not to exceed forty-eight (48) inches into required front and rear yards. Such balconies and porches may be covered, but shall not be enclosed in any manner, except that balconies and porches within rear yards may be enclosed with screening only. Eaves and cornices, cantilevered bay windows, chimneys, and architectural elements intended to create design relief along the side wall plane may project into required side yards, but not beyond twenty-four(24) inches." Within the RS-2 zoning district, the required side-yard setbacks are a combined 15 feet, with a minimum of 5 feet on either side. On the property in question,the side-yard setbacks have been and will remain 7.5 feet on each side for a combined 15 feet. Page 2 of 15 Planner Reeves commented that the utility easement on the property was brought to the attention of the City's Public Utilities Department. This department did not express concern for the proposed eaves' encroachment onto the easement. Mr. Elmore questioned if the initial building permit application showed 48 inch eaves. Planner Reeves responded that it did, but was denied because of this. The plans were then revised to 24 inch eaves and the permit was approved and issued. Applicant Comment Jeffrey Sellers, 145 8th St. Atlantic Beach 32233, introduced himself as the applicant. Mr. Sellers explained that as he interpreted the code, only a 3 foot side-yard setback requirement was in effect, as you could (by code) encroach 24 inches into a hypothetical 5 foot side yard setback. Since both of his setbacks are 7.5 feet, he believed he could encroach 48 inches into each side, leaving 3.5 feet of either side. Ms. Workman questioned Mr. Seller's code interpretation again. Mr. Sellers explained that he believed that the code was saying that as long as you did not encroach more than 24 inches into a 5 foot side yard setback, then he was within code. The Board asked Staff for clarification of the code interpretation regarding setbacks and the eave overhang. Planner Reeves explained that the applicant seemed to interpret the code to mean that you could have a minimum of 5 feet for a setback on either side of the house. Therefore, having 7.5 feet on each side, they believed themselves to have an extra 2.5 feet of space on each side, onto which they could encroach. Unfortunately, they misunderstood the combined 15 foot setback requirement. Public Comment Julie Sleeper, 700 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach 32233, expressed her lack of support for the current construction on-site. Mark Tomaski, 448 Snapping Turtle Ct West, Atlantic Beach 32233, expressed disdain for the situations where people have not followed code, then come before the Board to request a Variance after they have constructed an illegal structure. Board Discussion Ms. Workman commented on the negative impact the construction has already had on the neighbors. Page 3of15 Mr. Elmore commented that he believed the circumstance for which the applicant is requesting a variance to be a self-imposed hardship and as such, should be denied. He noted the precedent that approval of this variance would set for future situations. Ms. Lanier commended the property owner on the aesthetics of his design, but concurred with Mr. Elmore that his grievance is self- imposed. Chair Paul also agreed that she did not see grounds for approval of the variance request. Mr. Reichler commented that he did not see reason to not approve the variance based upon the conditions of denial, however, he did not see how the applicant's reason for approval was applicable. Motion Mr. Elmore moved to deny variance request 17-ZVAR-405, on the grounds that the request is a self-imposed hardship. Ms. Workman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. 17-REZN-389 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Joshua Ashby c/o Fleet Landing) Request for a rezoning of the southern 2.4 acres of RE# 168341-0000 lying in the City of Atlantic Beach as permitted by Section 24-62, from Conservation (CON) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) while modifying the previously approved PUD known as Fleet Landing created by Ordinance Number 90-88-135 as amended by Ordinance Numbers 90-90-152 and 90-13-218 to include said 2.4 acres as permitted by Section 24-124. Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced Steve Lindorff and explained that the City has hired him to handle this application. Steve Lindorff, 2092 Vela Norte Circle Atlantic Beach, 32233, introduced himself as the president of Community Redevelopment and Planning LLC. He disclosed that his home is one block away from the 20th Street entrance to Fleet Landing. Mr. Lindorff explained that this would be the third of three amendments to the Planned Unit Development for Fleet Landing. The property in question is 2.4 acres and is part of a larger parcel, the bulk of which is in the City of Jacksonville. The portion of the Page 4of15 partial within Jacksonville is zoned RMC (Residential Multifamily.) This zoning does not limit housing type, nor does it limit building height but it does limit the number of units that can be constructed. The subdivisions Ocean Walk and Selva Norte lie to the East of the property in question. The future land use of the portion of the property in Atlantic Beach is Residential Multi Family. The current zoning is conservation (CON), which the applicant believes is an anomaly. Prior to the current comprehensive plan, the property was zoned as open rural, but was then changed to conservation. Mr. Lindorff explained that Open Rural zoning classification is often used as a holding place while a decision is being made regarding the most appropriate zoning for a piece of land. The proposed rezoning would change the property's zoning from Conservation to PUD, that is, to incorporate the land into Fleet Landing's existing PUD, subject to all of the regulations thereof. The proposed construction on the property is: construct an access roadway, complete storm water retention and add a sewer lift station. They will conserve the floodplain area but are proposing temporary construction staging (on the Southwest corner of the property) in conjunction with the development of an independent living residential facility on the portion of the parcel within the City of Jacksonville. Mr. Lindorff explained that the original PUD was approved in 1989 then was updated in 2013 to add land to it. He then gave more detail to the history of the property and the rezoning of it to Conservation. Mr. Lindorff then spoke to the portion of land considered wetlands. He enumerated on the many layers of permitting and approval that the developers will be required to go through outside of the City of Atlantic Beach, speaking to the strict requirements that will be enforced. He also mentioned that the City could request documentation as it saw fit in order to meet its local environmental regulations. Mr. Lindorff then proposed possible conditions of approval for the Board to choose from. The first, would be for the Board to limit the use of the land to only what the applicant is currently requesting (to prevent future development.) The second, would be to remind Page 5 of 15 the applicant that the land is subject to the Flood Hazard requirements. The last, would be to limit the number of units that may be built on the property, as stated in the Planned Unit Development covenants and restrictions. The Board and the applicant discussed the entrances and exits currently used to access the property (i.e. Mayport Road and 20th Street.) Ms. Lanier questioned the proposed lift station on the flood plain and if the grade of the area would be raised in order to construct this. Mr. Lindorff replied that this was a possibility, however, it was also possible to construct the lift station with an impervious foundation. Ms. Lanier questioned if the hydraulics of the area would be changed as a result of the proposed lift station construction. Mr. Lindorff did not believe that it would. The Board discussed the appropriate process for displacing floodplains. Mr. Reichler noted that the area where the lift station construction is proposed is not within jurisdictional wetlands, however, it is within a floodplain. He questioned the rules associated with floodplains concerning this type of construction. It was noted by the Board and Staff that the applicant was not requesting to do anything inconsistent with current regulations. The Board clarified that the area on which the access road construction was proposed was in fact not on wetlands. Ms. Simmons questioned why the property in question is eligible for inclusion into the PUD. Mr. Lindorff replied that it is a part of Fleet Landing which is all zoned as a PUD. The Board discussed the portion of the property that contained wetlands, versus which parts of it did not. Mr. Reichler questioned what proposed construction, if any, would be on wetlands. Planner Reeves replied that only the proposed walkway, which would go over the wetlands and be subject to external environmental regulating agency approvals, would be on wetlands. The Board discussed the historical rezoning of the property to Open Rural. It was clarified that the zoning change of Open Rural to Conservation was not because the entire property was wetlands or protected area. Instead, it was a mass change to change the zoning of Open Rural properties to Conservation. Page 6 of 15 Applicant Comment Brad Wester, 1 Independent Drive Suite 1200, Jacksonville 32202, of Driver McAfee Peek and Hawthorne introduced himself as the applicant. He reiterated that none of the proposed work will be in the wetlands area, outside of the boardwalk, which will be permitted through the Department of Environmental Protection. He explained that they are only requesting that a portion of the Western side of the property be developed upon and to do so they need the zoning changed to do so. The Board and the applicant discussed the construction and the areas of the parcel reserved for conservation versus development. Public Comment Gregory Powell, 1871 Selva Marina Drive Atlantic Beach 32233, opposed the rezoning request, stating his disdain for overdevelopment of the floodplain in Atlantic Beach. He stressed his concern that the displacement that will take place on the floodplain in order to develop the proposed construction,will cause greater flooding in the nearby neighborhoods. He also argued that the land was intentionally zoned as Conservation for the land and wetlands on it and he stressed his concern for encroachment upon the wetlands and how that impacts the flood levels. Don White, 2069 Selva Marina Drive, stated that his home is adjacent to the property in question. He commented that Fleet Landing has been a great neighbor and partner in the community. His only concern was the four homes proposed that he did not see laid out on the plans presented. He proposed rezoning only the part of the property on which development will take place, but leaving the rest as Conservation. Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd St, Atlantic Beach 32233 discussed the development consistently taking place in the City and how development is changing the City. Mark Tomaski, 448 Snapping Turtle Ct West, Atlantic Beach 32233, stated that he has been working on the conservation of the land in question for the last seven years. He referenced Sherman Creek, which runs through the property. He argued against the rezoning of the land to PUD, as he believes that doing so will make it more difficult for The City of Atlantic Beach to incorporate the land into their city limits, in the future. Mr.Tomaski recommended that Fleet Landing be granted PUD zoning for the property only West of Page 7 of 15 Sherman Creek, but keep the zoning of Conservation for everything East of Sherman Creek. Board Discussion Ms. Workman moved to deny 17-UBEX-329 as read. There was not a second to the motion. Without a second, the motion failed. Mr. Reichler questioned how applying the PUD zoning to only the Western portion of the property, would affect the rest of the property (East of Sherman Creek). He referenced Selva Preserve, which rezoned its land to Residential (it contains jurisdictional wetlands) but was forced to meet the City's Comprehensive Plan still. City Attorney Brenna Durden explained that a portion of the property could keep its current zoning (referencing the portion of land East of Sherman Creek), while the rest of the property could be rezoned. She stated that the applicant would need to provide a legal description for that lesser(Eastern) portion of land that would be kept as Conservation zoning. She stated because the City had advertised for the entire property, only rezoning a portion of it would not conflict with City policy concerning proper public noticing. Ms. Durden referenced the map submitted by the applicant, and displayed during the meeting, and stated that the Board could use that map (which displays a line approximately 550 feet West of Sherman Creek) in order to approve a partial rezoning of the property (short of an official legal description for that portion of land.) She also explained that the Board could also limit the developers to certain development conditions within the portion of land that would be rezoned to PUD. Mr. Elmore responded that he believed the applicant's proposed land use to be within the confines of the PUD already in effect for Fleet Landing. Mr. Reichler questioned if anything within the applicant's Rezoning Application came into conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, including Future Land Use, or with the City's Future Land Use Regulations. Planner Reeves responded that the Future Land Use of the Property is Residential Medium Density. He explained that when the applicant submits for formal permitting, Staff will then review all of 1 Page 8 of 15 I the proposed construction to verify that it meets the City's Regulations. Mr. Lindorff mentioned that all environmental regulations would be in effect, however,they would not and do not prevent development. Ms. Lanier asked the applicant, Mr. Wester, if a denial of his rezoning application would denote an inability for the proposed work to take place, or if there would still be a means to undertake the work on the property. Mr. Wester explained that within Fleet Landing's PUD, the covenants and restrictions state that sole direct access to the development and non-development parcels, shall be from Fleet Landing Blvd. Therefore, the proposed development is within Fleet Landing's rights, however, the proposed development is actually stricter than what is allowed them. Chair Paul commented that she would prefer that a rezoning take place now with the restrictions proposed by Fleet Landing, rather than the property be sold at some point and a possible rezoning be proposed that would allow for even greater development on the property. She stated that she was in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Simmons referenced the five proposed grounds for approval and questioned if it could be confirmed officially that development will not encroach on the areas set aside for conservation. City Attorney Brenna Durden explained that Sherman Creek is mentioned within the current legal descriptions, i.e. "East of Sherman Creek" and "West of Sherman Creek". Ms. Simmons recommended that, pending Board approval, the Board place a condition on their recommendation of approval that explicitly stated the area of land to be left zoned for Conservation (that is, the portion of land from the Eastern property line, West approximately 550 feet.) Motion Mr. Elmore moved to recommend approval of 17-REZN-389 based upon the condition that the conservation easement (meaning, the land from the Eastern property line, and West 550 feet as designated on the map brought before the Community Development Board) is to be described as discussed and the description is to be brought to the City Commission when the application is heard before them. The Board's approval is dependent upon this description being included in the application packet that is brought to the City Commission. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. Page 9 of 15 Prior to the Board's vote being called, Mr. Reichler requested that an amendment be made to Mr. Elmore's motion. The Board discussed in more detail what the different conditions of approval should be. Mr. Reichler made a new motion to recommend approval to the City Commission of case 17-REZN-389 with the conditions that: the application is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, especially its future land use element; its proposed development is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the City's existing Land Development Regulations; approval is contingent upon that no development of any kind, including but not limited to,walkways, roads and structures occur within 550 feet of the Eastern property line,this area generally shown as the Conservation Area on the PUD Modification Site Plan. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. Ms. Simmons amended the motion to also include the three conditions of approval in the one Staff Report power point presentation in addition to the other two conditions of approval in the second staff report, in the hard copy report on page 6 of 8. These five conditions are as follows: 1. Use of the property shall be limited to the following (1) expansion of an existing adjacent stormwater retention pond, (2) access roadway, (3) sanitary sewer lift station, (4) nature trail, and (5)wetland preserve. A temporary construction staging area is permitted but shall be removed and the area reasonably restored within 90 days of receipt of a certificate of occupancy for the independent living facility 2. In addition to the Chapter 24 Land Development Regulations, development of the subject property shall be carried in compliance with the provisions of Chapters 8 Flood Hazard Protection and 23 Protection of Trees and Native Vegetation of the COAB Code of Ordinances 3. Notwithstanding the additional limits set forth above and the addition of the 480-unit independent living facility, the currently authorized 324 residential units (320 built) and 88 nursing care beds (88 built) shall remain in effect. 4. That no development of any kind, including but not limited to walkways, roads, and structures, occur within 550 feet of the eastern property line. This area is generally shown as the "Conservation Area" on the "PUD Modification Site Plan." 5. That the permitted uses on the land west of a line 550 feet from the eastern property line include those allowed in the PUD created by 90-88-135, as amended, to specifically include the Page 10 of 15 following items shown in the PUD Modification Site Plan: an elevated nature trail no wider than 6 feet; to the west and north of that a lift station; to the south of that a temporary construction staging area; to the west of that a two-way road as approved by the Fire Marshall; to the west of that a 5 to 8 foot wide sidewalk; and to the west of that a storm water retention pond expansion. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion as amended by Ms. Simmons. The motion carried 6-1 with Ms. Workman as the dissenting vote. D. 17-UBEX-329 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Brightway Auto Sales) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 63, to allow an establishment for the sale of automobiles as listed in Section 24-111(c)(10) in the Commercial General zoning district at 580 Mayport Road. Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that the applicant is requesting that a section of the property in question along Mayport Road (at the corner of Mayport Road and 6th Street W), be granted as parking spaces for cars that are for sale. The property is zoned Commercial General (CG). The Future Land Use is also Commercial. The surrounding properties have mixed zoning classifications, including Single and Two Family, and the properties across from it on Mayport Road are largely Residential. The applicant is proposing to use the paved area along Mayport road on-site as an area where cars can be parked that are for sale. Such use of the property requires an approved use-by-exception as the sale of automobiles on properties zoned Commercial General always requires a use-by-exception per City code. It is an existing non-conforming property, but the proposed use would be to use the property as it stands today on the existing paved lot. Evidence on-site suggests that the property was used for car sales in the past as well. Without a use-by-exception though, such use would be nonconforming. Planner Reeves listed some of the current nonconformities of the property: They lack the required 10 foot landscape buffer along Mayport Road; The vehicle use area along Mayport Road and 6th Street West has no screening; All parking backs into the City Right- Page 11 of 15 of-Way; The driveway width is approximately 300 feet wide (as opposed to the required 20 foot width); They do not meet the minimum tree requirement. In addition to these, off street parking requirements are not met currently. Applicant Comment Ryan Hawkins, 13020 Biggin Church Road S, Jacksonville 32224, owner of the used car lot, explained the parking situation between units (his included) on the property and commented that the parking requested for his business does not and will not block the parking for any of the other tenants. He argued that the parking he is requesting has been used for this purpose historically as well for the same purpose. Mr. Reichler questioned if landscaping the property as required (planting a 3 foot hedge along Mayport Road) would be a hardship for Mr. Hawkins, as it would cover the front of the cars. Mr. Hawkins replied that it would not be a hardship, however, it would lessen the exposure of the cars to those passing by, and he would prefer a shorter hedge along the road. Ms. Simmons questioned why Mr. Hawkins desired to stay within Atlantic Beach. Mr. Hawkins replied that studies he has had conducted have shown that a large portion of his business at the Atlantic Beach location in question, comes from a 5 miles radius of the property. Ms. Workman questioned who would be updating the property (landscaping, etc.): Mr. Hawkins (the tenant) or the owner of the property. Mr. Hawkins replied that he would probably be maintaining such updates to the property. He then gave a more broad history of the property and commented that for about 25 years, the property has been used for used car sales such as his use currently. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With none, public comment was closed. Board Discussion Chair Paul commented that if the Board chose to approve this application, they could use it as an opportunity to have the property owner come into code compliance vis-a-vis the stipulations the Board puts on the approval. Page 12 of 15 Ms. Lanier commented that the Board has, to date, been ethical in their decisions toward other requests for and by car lots. She noted that as this is not a new business, it makes for a complicated situation. Ms. Workman questioned Staff regarding the property owner's responsibility to come into code compliance in light of the many nonconforming issue on the site. Planner Reeves explained the conditions in which the owner would be required to come into compliance with the code, none of which are that of a change of tenant situation, which is what the current situation is. Ms. Workman questioned if the use-by-exception (if granted) would stay in effect with the property regardless of future ownership. Planner Reeves stated that the use-by-exception would only be in effect with the current property owner. Should the property be sold,the use-by-exception would no longer be in effect. What's more, should the current tenant requesting the use-by- exception move from the property, the use-by-exception would no longer be in effect. Mr. Elmore discussed the City's Mayport Road Corridor study, and the vision that the City has for this area. Mr. Hawkins stated that he would be repainting the poles (along Mayport Road) and argued that he is doing various site- improvements to enhance the appearance of the property. He commented that there was no irrigation along Mayport Road currently, where the aforementioned hedges would be potentially planted. He argued that it would be too lofty of a request to ask the owner to install such an irrigation system. Mr. Elmore commented that in order for him to approve Mr. Hawkins' request, he would require landscaping along Mayport Road. Mr. Hawkins argued that landscaping as requested would be a difficult thing to achieve, as much of it would require work and financing from the property owner. Planner Reeves informed the Board that they could put stipulations regarding landscaping etc. on an approval of this application, and that the City has a Code Enforcement Officer who could enforce such stipulations. Page 13 of 15 Ms. Workman commented that there are no teeth in the City's current Code Enforcement program. Chair Paul gave examples of situations where the City's Code Enforcement has been effective. Mr. Hawkins questioned if the hedges had to be 3 foot tall along Mayport Road. Motion Ms. Lanier motioned to approve 17-UBEX-329 with the stipulation that the area along Mayport Road be landscaped per section City code section 24-177(d), requiring shrubs along Mayport Road as well as 2 trees (a palm tree would suffice.) The Board asked the applicant, Mr. Hawkins, if such stipulations would be a hardship. Mr. Hawkins recommended that the Board approve the application with such stipulations,and see how the City Commission responded to the application once it goes before them. Mr. Elmore seconded Ms. Lanier's motion, with the additional stipulation that the number of vehicles is limited to an amount of cars that does not impede upon the City sidewalk and right- of-way, namely, 10 cars. The motion carried 6-1 with Ms. Workman as the dissenting vote. 5. REPORTS. A. Administrative Variances Approved Planner Reeves stated that there had been none. B. Staffing Update Planner Reeves noted that the City has advertised for a Zoning Technician and Planner, however, only one position will be filled, depending upon the qualifications of the applicants. He also noted that the Director position for the Community Development Department closed and no interviews were conducted and as of now, has not been reopened. C. Board Member Review Discussion Planner Reeves explained that the Board Member Review Committee has been meeting to address the issues of Board Member recruiting, training, evaluation, and retention. He asked the Board if they had any suggestions regarding these issues. Chair Paul commented that they are looking to find better ways to recruit applicants for the various City Boards that is more Page 14 of 15 sustainable and less dependent upon current events going on in the City. Ms. Lanier gave examples of what other cities do to engage citizens in governance. She gave the example of Jacksonville Beach, which gives annual bus tours for citizens where City Officials explain city property and issues to the citizens. She commented that there is far less citizen engagement in the City of Atlantic Beach. Ms. Lanier also commented that there could be greater training for Board members as to the way that the City government works, regarding the various Boards and the Commission and the processes,which affect and create law. She also commented that evaluations of applicants for Board membership would be a good idea. She argued that applicants should be able to prove that they have the necessary qualifications in order to become a Board member. opportunity that a program of Ms. Lanier commented on the pp y p g mentorship and training for new, younger Board members could have for the prospective future of elected leadership. Ms. Simmons commented on the importance of training for new Board members so they understand the process they are a part of. Mr. Elmore commented on the precedent that the decisions made by the Community Development Board have in the City. He noted that an understanding of the importance of the Board's decisions, could be communicated via education and training for new members. Chair Paul requested that the Board email Planner Reeves with any recommendations they have. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motioned carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:27pm. 4?? Z 0 N_ e'),.a Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 15 of 15