Loading...
07-08-82 v • --y----4 MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ZONING WORKSHOP JULY 8, 1982 6:30 PM PRESENT: Robert B. Persons, Mayor Preben Johansen, Commissioner William Gulliford, Commissioner Catherine Van Ness, Commissioner Alan Jensen, Commissioner AND: A. William Moss, City Manager Mary L. Dombrowski, Recording Secretary AND: Mrs. Ann Bledsoe Mr. Stephen Bledsoe Mrs. Dorothy Kerber Mr. Ronald L. Crofton Mr. Fred Lewis Mr. Dutton Mr. Ken Amber PURPOSE: Review of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Commissioner Van Ness, acting as the senior member of the Commission, called the meeting to order at 6:44 PM. Mayor Persons and Commissioner Jensen, Mayor Pro Tem, arrived late. Commissioner Van Ness requested Commissioner Gullifords' report on his meeting Saturday with the Saltair residents. Commissioner Gulliford replied that residents had requested two lots on the northwest side of the north end of Poinsettia retain the old zoning (i.e. single family - RS-2) , rather than duplex (RG-1) as proposed under the new zoning. The residents also requested that the twelve (12) lots between Pine Street and Magnolia Street, proposed as duplex zoning, revert to the single family zone as they had been zoned. After a general discussion, the motion was made by Commissioner Gulliford to redraw the duplex zone in the Saltair subdivision to conform with the old boundry line, thereby reducing the number of duplex lots as pro- posed, and maintaining the existing conformation of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johansen and passed unanimously. The chair recognized Mrs. Ann Bledsoe, owner of undeveloped property south of Cornell Lane and east of the Atlantic Garden Apartments. Mrs. Bledsoe requested a zoning change for her property from the proposed RS-2 (single family) to a higher density zoning such as RG-2 or 3. Mrs. Bledsoe's request was based on the nature of the developments ad- jacent to her property: the Atlantic Garden Apartments to the west and commercial develop- ments to the south. She further cited the impracticality of single family residences abutting these types of developments. After a lengthy discussion of the request, and consideration of the most appropriate zoning designation to assign these properties (i.e. desirable density) , Commissioner Van Mess requested a suggestion, in the form of a motion, to present to the Commission Monday night. The commission felt that Mrs. Bledsoe's request had merit, therefore, Commissioner Jensen made the motion to change the zoning designation to RG-2, which Commissioner Gulliford seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. The borders of this new RG-2 zone are as follows; west of the Aquatic East property; north of the commercial zone which fronts Atlantic Blvd. ; east of the Atlantic Garden Apartments; and south of Cornell Lane/rear lot lines of those properties on the south side of Saratoga Circle South. . Page. 2 MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ZONING WORKSHOP JULY 8, 1982 The chair then recognized Mr. Ronald L. Crofton, a developer proposing 130 units (7.5 units per acre) of patio homes to be located just north of the Aquatic East Club. Commissioner Van Ness informed the commission that this property has a pro- posed zoning designation of RG-2, which is consistant since Mr. Crofton's parcel abuts the Canterbury Court Apartments. The Mayor clarified with Mr. Crofton that the proposed zoning presented no problems. Mr. Crofton assured the Mayor that RG-2 is no problem, however, if the commission desired a PUD for this development, his staff would be in- structed to submit a PUD. Commissioner Johansen replied that while he appreciated Mr. Crofton's attitude, he felt a PUD was more restrictive and afforded the commission more control since the entire project must be submitted for consideration. Commissioner Gulliford demurred, remarking that the whole reason for this (zoning) is to eliminate a certain amount of individual evaluation. If the criteria is met as set forth by the proposed zoning, an individual can do whatever he wants. Commissioner Gulliford didn't feel strongly about PUD, stating that the commission probably was trying to get away from it to some degree. Commissioner Van Ness reiterated that Mr. Crofton's development would conform with proposed zoning requirements. Mr. Moss confirmed that should Mr. Crofton not bring his project in as a PUD, commission control would be lost. The only controls would be density and construction requirements under the building codes. There would be no control on quality although Mr. Moss felt that the development could be effectively controlled, administratively, to conform compatibly with the area. Commissioner Gulliford remarked that Mr. Crofton was kind enough to preview his plans for the commission, when he could have waited until the proposed zoning passed and proceeded with his plans under the RG-2 zone. Mr. Crofton shouldn't be singled out because he came forward with his plans at this particular time. The Mayor responded that, under the current zoning law (proposed) , Mr. Crofton would have to go PUD anyway. A general discussion took place regarding proposed developments under PUD or RG-2. Commissioner Jensen remarked that under the old zoning, three or more units must apply for a PUD, with no restrictions of the existing zone. He suggested that the commission may want to add this to the proposed zoning ordinance. Commissioner Van Ness clarified the land area requirement under the proposed zoning ordinance was two (2) acres. Mr. Moss stated that Mr. Crofton would be subdividing the land, therefore the commission would have control over any subdivision. A lengthly discussion ensued regarding the density and lot area requirements under the proposed zoning (RG-2) , the intent to avoid future PUD's on smaller lots, Mr. Croftons' proposed tennis courts and parks and comm- ission control to ensure compliance for these items, streets and ingress/egress patterns. Commissioner Gulliford remarked that rather than belabor this matter all night, he suggested that this discussion had brought up a general point as to whether or not the commission wants to have the right to refuse, through a PUD and its' requirements, tracts like this in the future with respect to this type zoning. This would have to be de- termined Monday night (July 12, 1982) and researched as to what zoning determination would affect that specific project. The commission noted this subject for further discussion Monday night. The chair then recognized Mr. Fred Lewis, whose main concern was that commercial property east of Mayport Road and just north of Plaza Drive, known as the M & L Shopping Center. Mr. Lewis felt that the proposed zoning (CL) was inappropriate and incompatible for the current usage. The past zoning (BB) allowed any business, except junk yards, and the proposed zoning limits that usage. Commissioner Van Ness stressed that that particular area (shopping center) abuts a residential area which did not lend itself to a "bar" type situation. Commissioner Gulliford remarked that the same situation occurs of Atlantic Blvd. & Royal Palms Drive, abutting an RS-1 district to the north. Commissioner Van Ness remarked that is not precisely correct, clarifing the property off Cavalla Road is zoned RG-2, which acts as a buffer zone. Commissioner Gulliford felt that the RG-2 zoning was in response to existing development. Commissioner Van Ness remarked that the Page 3 MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ZONING WORKSHOP JULY 8, 1982 board had tried to avoid that. Mr. Lewis interjected that the previous zoning would be compatible with Commercial Intensive (CI) . Under the present proposed zoning, Mr. Lewis would not be allowed to continue the use of his warehouses should he lose a tenant. A license would not be issued for a new tenant. Commissioner Johansen replied that the use of the building is grandfathered. Mr. Lewis contradicted Commissioner Johansen, stating that the business use is grandfathered. Mr. Moss clarified that should Mr. Lewis have a tenant. . .say a barber shop. . .and that tenant leaves and another tenant wants to have an auto repair. . .that would not be allowed under that zoning. Mr. Moss remarked that he would have to research whether or not this would be a discrepancy. Commissioner Jensen remarked that Commercial Limited wouldn't prevent the use of the building, rather it would have to be a use allowed under the existing (proposed) ordinance. The Mayor confirmed that Mr. Lewis may not be able to put the same type of tenant back. Mr. Lewis insisted that this would restrict him on tenants since it would be hard to find an attorney who wanted an office in a warehouse. Commissioner Gulliford stated that the intent of Commercial Limited was low intensity commercial uses and business and profess- ional offices which are suitable within close proximity to residential districts. Mr. Lewis maintained that the property on Mayport Road is not suitable for those uses as specified in Commercial Limited, such as art galleries, medical or dental offices, professional offices. Mr. Moss remarked that the purpose of this zoning is also to project Atlantic Beach twenty (20) years down the road. A lengthly discussion took place regarding the grandfathering of a bar that had gone out of business and another bar wanting to come in the same place; the uses allowed under CL & CG; those uses that would be grandfathered in; the circumstances under which grandfathering status could be retained. Commissioner Van Ness remarked that another important factor to consider regarding CL, as opposed to CG, is that CL would not have that same usage for on and off traffic on Mayport Road as would occur under CL. Commissioner Johansen remarked that he didn't want to intensify the usage, however, he didn't see how the use allowed could be lowered. Commissioner Van Ness remarked that the CG zoning on the west side of Mayport Road was retained due to the stop light at Plaza Drive, which allows ingress and egress for the entire CG zone. Commissioner Johansen felt that retaining the CL zoning would be penalizing that particular area. Mr. Moss remarked that although he wasn't part of the conversation to determine a zone designation for that area, he felt that, in his experience, it was the rationale to an existing situation which has been totally dis- ruptive to the neighborhood. To the person, we hear every week, complaints regarding that area, and that the Advisory Planning Board probably felt that the use as it now exists is not only not compatible, but the present owners have not even attempted to make it compatible. Commissioner Gulliford felt that John Andresen's opinion on the board's reasoning should be gotten and a report given to the commission Monday night. Mr. Moss stated he would report back Mr. Andresen's opinion. Commissioner Johansen had two (2) questions which he would like answered. 1) Mr. Bull made the remark that there were no provisions whatsoever for a repeal of any decision of the Administrative Official, Mr. Moss. Commissioner Jensen responded by referring Commissioner Johansen to Page 1-1, Paragraph B which states "The City Commission has the authority to hear appeals on any decisions. . .". Commissioner Johansen was satisfied with that and proceeded to his second question. 2) 1160 Beach Avenue, Candy & Jean Nordhann. They maintain their duplex is grandfathered in, even though it has not been used as a duplex. Commissioner Johansen asked for clarification from Commissioner Jensen regarding a grandfathered in use which has not been in use as specified; that the grandfather clause would no longer apply. Commissioner Jensen felt that would not be correct. Mr. Moss remarked that the existing ordinance says that, however, the proposed ordinance says that if it is not used for a period of six (6) months, then it would revert back to the current zoning for that district. Commissioner Johansen reiterated that the grandfather clause would not apply. Commissioner Jensen felt that if the rental part of Page, 4 MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ZONING WORKSHOP JULY 8, 1982 the duplex went unrented for nine (9) months, it should not revert back to single family residence. Mr. Moss replied that the zoning in that district has always been single family. He quiered how it came to be a duplex. Commissioner Johansen remarked that it was grandfathered in 1959. Mr. Moss remarked that while he had no dispute with that, the building permit shows a single family home. There was no later building permit to remodel, nor to remodel as a duplex. A general discussion ensued regarding the criteria applied in determining a legal duplex being grandfathered in, and maintaining that status. Also discussed was the concept of using a duplex in the European manner by renting a room and providing one meal (breakfast) to a visitor for one night, one week;whether or not this would constitute a business and require a license. The comm- ission determined that this use would constitute a business and require a license. This use would not be allowed in a residential area. Mr. Lewis asked that the commission resolve his request. Recapping, Mr. Moss was to obtain Mr. Andresen's thoughts on that particular stretch of land and report back Monday night. Commissioner Jensen stated that the commission had to look beyond just the ware- house; the whole shopping center must be considered. Commissioner Johansen thought that the highest designation the commission would approve would be Commercial General (CG) , determined on the basis of Mr. Moss's report from Mr. Andresen. Mr. Lewis quoted Florida Jurisprudence Volume 35, which pertains to zoning. Several excerpts from that volume were read by Mr. Lewis. Particularly "All that one plans to use his property in accord- ance with existing regulations in entitled to assume is that such regulations will not alter to his detriment, unless the change bears a substantial relation to health, morals, welfare, or safety of the public." Commissioner Johansen remarked that Mr. Lewis hit it right on the nose; stating that is why that zoning designation was changed because people that live there complained bout the conditions. Commissioner Jensen stated that regard- less of any change, Mr. Lewis would still be able to use what is there now. Established use was then discussed. Mr. Lewis was invited by Commissioner Gulliford to bring this up Monday night. The distance requirement regarding bars would also be brought up Monday night. Commissioner Gulliford informed Mr. Lewis that this meeting is strictly a workshop The commission is not empowered to act on anything. The matter had to be resolved when the commission sat, in session, as a commission meeting and not a meeting of the committee of the whole. Mr. Moss stated that Sevilla is not shown on our map and suggested that the lines be drawn in as an RG-3 designation, compatible with the existing use, or as a PUD. Mr. Moss was not sure if that development came in as a PUD. Commissioner Van Ness stated that it did come in as a PUD and once it gets that PUD, it keeps that designation. Mr. Moss replied that premise is applied if the project is under development to retain it's PUD designation. However,everything else has had the zoning changed, otherwise we'd have PUD's throughout the city. Commissioner Gulliford remarked that Mr. Bull is still de- veloping it. The commission clarified that Sevilla would be shown as a PUD. Mr. Moss stated yes; PUD designation would be shown for Sevilla. Commissioner Van Ness stated that she would like to discuss that block between 10th & 11th Streets, on the east side of Beach Avenue. Presently, it is proposed as an RG-3 zone. The current usage consists of: The Bikini Apartments (Island Club) and Mr. Johnson, on the next lot over, has six (6) units in that house with inadequate parking. Other than that, the situation is duplex all down the street. Commissioner Gulliford queried Mrs. Van Ness about down zoning it to RG-2. No, Commissioner Van Ness stated, it should be cut back down to RG-l. She didn't know how it got to be RG-3 to begin with, however, that whole block is not currently being used to conform with an RG-3. The Mayor stated that it was his understanding that folks who live in that block want it as RG-3. , Page.5 MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ZONING WORKSHOP JULY 8, 1982 Commissioner Van Ness agreed, however, the people that live on the west side of the street don't like it at all. Commissioner Jensen suggested that the Planning Board be asked about that also. Commissioner Van Ness suggested that the boundry line be drawn just north of the Bikini Apartments and Mr. Johnson's place would just have to be grandfathered in. As far as Commissioner Van Ness was concerned, if he met the existing code, he has got to meet the existing parking requirements. Commissioner Jensen interjected if Mr. Johnson's place was legal now. The general feeling was that Mr. Johnson's place might be in violation now, as far as parking in concerned, under the RC zoning. A discussion ensued regarding where the boundry line should be drawn. The commission agreed with Commissioner Van Ness's suggestion. Further discussion took place on the existing zoning, and the proposed zoning, and the events leading up to this point in so far as alternate proposed zoning designations considered. Commissioner Gulliford stated that the commission would have to vote on every individual issue anyhow Monday night, and this item could be discussed then. Commissioner Gulliford indicated another area on the map that should be discussed; the area west of Mayport Road. Mr. Moss asked if everyone was comfortable with Section "H", stating that 19 building permit requests have been received attempting to get in under the wire with the old zoning. Mr. Moss felt that 19 duplexes constitutes a development. To be consistant with our previous policies, there should be some type of requirements for this development. Mr. Bull had to go through a 60 day process with 10 lots. Permits written for Section "H" have absolutely no requirements; none for sewer/water lines or streets. A general discussion ensued regarding the appropriate actions needed in that area. Mr. Moss suggested that it be mandatory to hook-up to city water and sewer and to put in streets. Provisions were discussed to require this under the existing ordinance. "Acceptable" sewer facilities and streets are included in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Moss suggested that he tell the builder that the matter has been taken under advisement, awaiting a legal opinion. Commissioner Van Ness felt that they would have to trust in the good judgement of the Health Department regarding septic tanks. Mr. Moss then asked if the commission was confortable with the RS-2 designation. The consensus of the commission was yes. The chair recognized Mr. Kelly Amber of 79 Saratoga Circle South, whose concern was addressed to seven (7) lots which he owned in Atlantic Beach Villa Unit #2 that fronted on Mayport Road. (Lots 29 & 30, Block 3, and Lots 1, 2, 21 & 22 of Block 4, and Lot 1, Block 3) Mr. Amber applied for commitments for the Veterans Administration, which were rejected. The reason for the denial of mortgage commitments was the fact that the lots were within 150' of Mayport Road. Mr. Amber requested a zoning designation change be considered by the commission for these properties which would allow professional offices. He had approached the City Commission approximately eight (8) years ago to request this same consideration, to which the commission would not respond unless Mr. Amber could state specifically what use he desired for his property. Mr. Amber later approached the commission with the use designated for the tax collector's office. The commission indicated some resistance to that idea. As the property is presently zoned, the land is not usable. Without attractive types of financing, such as VA or FHA, the land is difficult to sell. Commissioner Van Ness questioned Mr. Amber if he wanted a CL type of zoning. Mr. Amber replied that would be favorable for Mayport Road. Commissioner Johansen remarked that Mr. Amber knew the lots to be within 150' of Mayport Road when he bought them. Mr. Amber was asking the commission to intrude on a residential neighborhood with a commercial zoning. Commissioner Gulliford reminded the commission that the intent of Commercial Limited was to provide a buffer zone adjacent to a resid- ential district. That zoning would merely extend the CL zone which is further south on Mayport Road presently. Mayor Persons remarked that traffic problems would increase dramatically should that area be rezoned to commercial. Commissioner Johansen informed Page 6 ' MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ZONING WORKSHOP JULY 8, 1982 Mr. Amber that he does have the right to request rezoning formally after this zoning ordinance passes. Since no decision could be made tonight, Commissioner Johansen felt that would be more advisable. Commissioner Van Ness pointed out that it is a lot easier to change something now than to come back later. Mr. Amber felt that the concern for traffic was not valid when Third Street through Neptune Beach and Jacksonville Beach managed very well with commercial properties fronting on Third Street. Mr. Amber reiterated his concern and request to be able to use his property to some advantage. Mr. Moss suggested to Mr. Amber that if a use could be found that he (Mr. Amber) felt would be acceptable to the surrounding residents and to the city commission, then a formal request for rezoning should be submitted. The consensus of the city commission agreed with this suggestion. Commissioner Gulliford questions a remark which Mr. Bull made concerning Mr. Moss's dictatorial powers on Page 3-1, which says the "Administrative Official appointed by the City Commission shall have the following powers and responsibilities. . .". The Commissioner pointed out that Mr. Bull assumes that the City Manager is in fact the Administrative Official. That Administrative Official could be anyone that the City Commission chose to appoint. In fact, we could appoint the Building Inspector as the Administrative Official. Commissioner Van Ness stated yes. A building official, per se, that would cover the whole department. Commissioner Gulliford stated that that indiv- idual could accomplish all the administrative actions required by this code. Mrs. Kerber interjected that "he (the building official) could hire "x" number of people to help him administer it" so we would in fact have another layer of bureaucracy in our little city hall. Commissioner Gulliford stated that the way the code is written, it does not automatically assume that the City Manager is, in fact, the Administrative Official. Mr. Bull, in his attack, made that assumption. Mayor Persons felt that the whole code is very technical as far as how things are done; who has what power. Mr. Moss remarked that, in terms of practicality, you have one City Manager, and a couple of secretaries. He did not know where the bureaucracy could be. The Mayor remarked that the bureaucracy is that within the code, not necessarily Mr. Moss. The Mayor projected five years from now, we have another city manager who goes by the letter of the code. Then we'd have a problem. Mr. Moss remarked that presently we have a subdivision coming of more than 100 units. A subdivision doesn't get reviewed in one day. The potential is there for doubling the city in a relatively short time. The control of the bureaucracy in the budget process, Mr. Moss asserted. The Mayor felt that there was a distinct similarity between this code and the code of Federal Regulations. The alternative the Mayor felt would be to simplify the code. Also, the thirty-three (33) pages of definitions could possible be a future source for conflict, and possibly litigation. Commissioner Van Ness remarked that without the definitions, we'd be flying by the seat of our pants. Mrs. Kerber questioned what was wrong with the old code. Mr. Moss replied that the old code didn't require anything. Commissioner Gulliford felt that it was important to have something definitive. He trusted the political system, and trusted that system to monitor the growth of this city. However, the Commissioner felt that a group of people in this city on the commission acted totally and completely irresponsible in allowing Selva Marina streets and the fact that they are not suitable for the city to accept dedication of those streets. This will cause severe problems in the future for this city. The Mayor indicated some concern regarding the variances allowable under this code. Commissioner Gulliford disagreed with that, in that the way the code is written, it is extremely tight and very limited. Also the definition of variance on Page 2.24. Mr. Moss remarked that the Board of Adjustments is provided for by State Statues and seems to be compatible with those Statues. • Page 7 MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ZONING WORKSHOP JULY 8, 1982 A general discussion ensued regarding past public hearing that both the Advisory Planning Board and the City Commission had held. Reference was made to Jiffy Mart selling beer illegally. A lengthly discussion took place regarding the ordinance proposed to allow the sale of beer & wine. Sewer rates were discussed and the impact on all citizens in Atlantic. Impact fees were not assessed before 1977. It was determined that the height of 35' would be applicable to Commercial and Industrial districts also. The definition of alteration was questioned. Commissioner Gulliford stated that this sould be more definitive. "Any alteration" should be changed to "Any substantial alteration" or "Any material alteration". Mr. Moss remarked that the guide is actually the building code since that is more definitive. No change was determined. Mr. Moss suggested that the committee might want to take a ride out to the Community Block Grant area and review the accomplishments of the grant. The Capital Improvements are finished, however, the remodeling is not finished yet. There being no further business to discuss, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 10:06 PM. �♦ \ Rob-rt B. Person , Jr. Mayor - Commissioner •T: 1/1- 0"1-fers.,„ Pat Whitney City Clerk