01-21-20 CDB Adopted MinutesPresent:
MINUTES
Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting
Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - 6:00 PM
Commission Chamber
Absent:
Also Present:
Linda Lanier, Member
Kirk Hansen, Chair
Sylvia Simmons, Member
Brian Major, Member
Mark Tingen, Alternate Member
Jennifer Lagner, Member
James Moyer, Member
Brenna Durden, City Attorney (CA)
Brian Broedell, Principal Planner
Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk
Amanda Askew, Community Development Director
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Hansen.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approve minutes of the December 17, 2019 regular meeting of the Community
Development Board.
3. OLD BUSINESS
None
4. NEW BUSINESS
A.0 COMP PLAN UPDATE
STAFF REPORT: Director Askew presented the information as explained in the staff
report. She also provided a PowerPoint presentation.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Chair Hansen told the Board that he would like to go
through everything section by section to maintain some order. He started with the
Infrastructure Element Policy C.1.2.3 which includes the Water Supply Facilities Work
Plan (WSFWP).
Mr. Major asked what the 2020-2040 WSFWP was. Director Askew explained that
this is required by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for
every municipality that falls within their region. It ensures that the City has adequate
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020
water supply and potable water facilities are available to serve existing customers and
potential build -out of customers. It is a document that shows how you are going to use
water and conserve water. Mr. Major asked if it had been published and Director
Askew said it has been published.
There being no further questions, Chair Hansen moved on to the Future Land Use
Element with maximum density per acre (Table A-1).
Staff explained that this proposed change does not affect the maximum density for each
category. It would just remove the requirement of a minimum density.
Chair Hansen continued with the Floor Area Ratio (Policy A.1.5.9, A.1.11.5 and Table
A-2) discussion.
Staff explained that the changes related to the Floor Area Ration (FAR) are regulated in
the Land Development Regulations by building height, setbacks, parking requirements
and landscaping regulations.
Ms. Simmons expressed concerns about public input for these proposed changes and
these changes could change our City.
Chair Hansen continued with the Marsh Oaks Business District (Policy 1.11.1).
Director Askew explained the proposed changes to this section are related to providing
incentives for workforce or affordable housing. Staff choose the Marsh Oaks Business
District to help encourage redevelopment in that area.
Ms. Lanier asked about the permitting of a percentage of bonus units and whether that
had to be workforce housing. Director Askew said that the code can be written any
way that they want. She said that typically developers use State funding. Director
Askew said that Staff is recommending that the CDB recommend a percentage of
bonus density and require that a percentage will be affordable. She said they are not
looking at large swatches of land but smaller parcels that they are hoping some would
assemble a bunch of small parcels. Director Askew said that they don't want to over
build the community but provide affordable housing by incentivising developers to
assemble those lands. She said that up for discussion is the percent bonus density and
percent affordable. Director Askew said Staff is wanting to get the idea out there to the
community. She said the details would be worked out in the Land Development
Regulations (i.e. is it for 30 years, the life of the project, how to calculate it, what
documents are submitted, etc.).
Ms. Simmons asked if this can be done by a variance. She used the Habitat
townhouses as an example. Director Askew said that was done by rezoning and the
process is not the same. She added that the only way to allow a change in density is by
changing the Comp Plan. Ms. Simmons spoke against the change in density. She
believes that this comes from Staff and needs to be done through a workshop with
CDB, City Commission, experts and residents.
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020
Mr. Major asked where the idea originated. Director Askew said that Staff has been
discussing the topic but also did have a developer contact them and wanted to know
how they can make Mayport Road better. Staff pulled out their vision plans and
regulations. The developer concluded that they couldn't make the numbers work
without more density. Staff was aware that there is not enough affordable housing so
they asked the developer if they would be open to this and the developer thought it was
a great idea. Mr. Major asked if any City officials were aware of this and Director
Askew said that the Mayor had spoken to the City Manager several times and is in
support of providing affordable housing.
Chair Hansen continued with the Transportation Element (Objective B.2.3 and Policy
B.2.3.3).
Director Askew indicated that the proposed changes to the Transportation Element are
meant to help encourage multipurpose paths where possible.
Ms. Simmons brought up an old storm water plan that was going to alter Old Atlantic
Beach by putting in 25 foot wide roads, curbs, sidewalks, etc. This was going to wipe
out a lot of trees and green space. Ms. Simmons said the outrage was so huge that the
City pulled the contract and held massive amounts of meetings, ending up with what
they have now. She could vote for this but only with certain criteria added. Ms.
Simmons thought that in the past there was some kind of citizen vote that had to be
met.
Director Askew said that the proposed streets for multi-purpose paths are available in
the proposed Parks Master Plan. They are only looking at locations that have the right-
of-way. Director Askew gave the examples of striping a bike path on Main Street to
help slow down traffic and completing the missing sidewalk section on Seminole Road.
She said that is why the wording says "where possible". Chair Hansen was concerned
that it could be very subjective and do you litigate that. Director Askew said this
document only guides growth and depends on the budget.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Chair Hansen opened the Public Hearing. Todd Wylie of
1855 Live Oak Lane spoke against the increase in density based on a developer's profit
motive. He was concerned about an increase to traffic and schools.
Rae Brady of 1636 Sea Oats Drive spoke about trees and impervious surface.
Silet Wylie of 1855 Live Oak Lane spoke against the increase in density and in favor
of a workshop.
With no further speakers, Chair Hansen closed the Public Hearing.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Chair Hansen said he didn't hear any concern about the
WSFWP from the Board. He asked if there was any further opinion on the increase in
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020
density and affordable housing.
Ms. Lanier agreed that the Board needs to hear from the community, especially the
Marsh Oaks area. She said that every day she sees people walking and biking from
Mayport to the Country Club to work their jobs. Ms. Lanier said they have good jobs
but can't afford $700,000 houses. She said that if we want the people that we work
with and around to continue to live in Atlantic Beach then we have to address where
they will live because they are getting priced out.
Mr. Major addressed the transportation element and would like to see whatever it takes
to make bike riding and walking safe and acceptable.
Ms. Lanier said that she didn't think the Board had any issues with Table A.2 and
Policy A.1.5.9 but only the density bonus. Ms. Simmons thought both should be
discussed at a workshop with the community. She asked Director Askew that if they
don't have the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) then what will prevent the codes being changed
somewhere down the line. Ms. Durden said it is a different process to amend a Comp
Plan rather than a zoning code. She said it is less onerous than it used to be to amend a
Comp Plan but you still do have some State review for that process. Ms. Durden said
the State only looks at issues that would affect the State resource (i.e. Atlantic
Boulevard, Mayport Road or a natural resource that is being impacted). She explained
that to amend the Land Development Regulations it is only 2 public readings and 3
public hearings. Ms. Simmons asked if there was a FAR in the code and Director
Askew said there is not. Ms. Durden added that the City does have an impervious
surface and she considers that maximum the same as the FAR provision and it is in the
code. Ms. Simmons didn't think that was the same. Ms. Durden did agree that
impervious surface would not take into account 2 and 3 story buildings like the FAR
would. She said type of FAR that takes stories into account is not in the zoning code.
Ms. Simmons asked Director Askew that if somebody wanted to build a commercial
building with a FAR of 85% could they do that now without a variance. Director
Askew said they could not. Ms. Simmons concluded that if it is removed from the
Comp Plan then there wouldn't be protection because it isn't in the Land Use Code.
Chair Hansen asked if it should be removed from the Comp Plan and put in the Land
Use Code. Ms. Simmons said to leave it where it is and add it to the Land Use Code as
well. Chair Hansen thought he understood Ms. Durden to say it is inappropriate to
have it in both. Ms. Durden said it is redundant but you can have it in both. Ms.
Simmons said that once it is placed in the code then it can be removed from the Comp
Plan.
Chair Hansen moved on to the Transportation Element. Director Askew explained that
in the objective they would add "where possible, existing right-of-ways should provide
for bikeways, sidewalks or similar facilities to encourage safe and increased pedestrian
and bicycle activity". The new policy under that objective would read "All existing
rights-of-way shall be reviewed when resurfaced, redesigned or modified to provide for
bikeways, sidewalks, multi -use paths, or similar facilities throughout the city to
provide linkages to schools, parks and other destination points."
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020
Ms. Lanier asked if it could be as minimal as striping a bike path or as bit as an 8 foot
wide multi -use path and anything in between depending what is possible and whether
or not there was community support. Director Askew said that is correct. Ms. Lanier
asked if there should be added language that addresses community review. Chair
Hansen proposed that language be changed to modified "to assess the feasibility" to
provide for bikeways... Ms. Simmons was concerned that because there can be a
turnover of Staff then there is no way to know what would happen if a future Director
wasn't as reasonable. She said she would go for it if the majority of the Board would.
Ms. Lagner would like to have a study and/or more input to see how the variety of
options can be connected and whether they would affect stormwater. Mr. Major said
the statement is vague but it is appropriate for the Comp Plan. Director Askew said
that in looking at their LEED certification that one of the goals is decrease carbon
monoxide and create a healthier and safer environment. Ms. Simmons felt like the City
Commission had oversight in the past in regards to sidewalks and multi -use paths.
Director Askew said that would still be the process, this only gives more language to
the Comp Plan to encourage these types of transportation.
A.1 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT Policy C.1.2.3
MOTION: Recommend to the City Commission the approval of Policy C.1.2.3 (Water
Supply Facilities Work Plan 2020-204)
Motion: Linda Lanier
Second: Mark Tingen
Linda Lanier (Moved By) For
Kirk Hansen For
Sylvia Simmons For
Brian Major For
Mark Tingen (Seconded By) For
Jennifer Lagner For
Motion passed 6 to 0.
A.2 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (Permitted Density) Table A-1
MOTION: Recommend approval of eliminating the minimums on density.
Motion: Sylvia Simmons
Second: Linda Lanier
Linda Lanier (Seconded By) For
Kirk Hansen For
Sylvia Simmons (Moved By) For
Brian Major For
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020
Mark Tingen For
Jennifer Lagner For
Motion passed 6 to 0.
A.3 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (Floor Area Ratio) Policy A.1.5.9, Policy
A.1.11.5 and Table A-2
MOTION: Recommend that Policy A.1.5.9, Policy A.1.11.5 and Table A-2 remain in the
Comp Plan until such a time that this is workshopped with the community.
Motion: Sylvia Simmons
Second: Linda Lanier
Linda Lanier (Seconded By) For
Kirk Hansen For
Sylvia Simmons (Moved By) For
Brian Major For
Mark Tingen For
Jennifer Lagner For
Motion passed 6 to 0.
A.4 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (Marsh Oaks Business District) Policy A.1.11.1
MOTION: Recommend that this policy be workshopped with the community.
Motion: Linda Lanier
Second: Mark Tingen
Linda Lanier (Moved By) For
Kirk Hansen For
Sylvia Simmons For
Brian Major For
Mark Tingen (Seconded By) For
Jennifer Lagner For
Motion passed 6 to 0.
A.5 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Objective B.2.3 and Policy B.2.3.3
MOTION: Recommend approval with the addition of the language modified "to assess the
feasibility" to provide for bikeways, sidewalks...
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020
Motion: Linda Lanier
Second: Sylvia Simmons
Linda Lanier (Moved By) For
Kirk Hansen For
Sylvia Simmons (Seconded By) For
Brian Major For
Mark Tingen For
Jennifer Lagner For
Motion passed 6 to 0.
B. SIGN CODE Chapter 17
STAFF REPORT: Planner Broedell presented the information as explained in the
staff report. He also provided a PowerPoint presentation.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Major asked whether the changes being made were
based on constitutionality or just additions due to dealing with the sign code. Planner
Broedell said that since the sign code is being updated Staff took a holistic approach.
Ms. Lanier had concerns about signs that show up in the right-of-way. Mr. Tingen
asked how many residential areas would be affected (i.e. neighborhood entrance signs).
Planner Broedell said those would remain the same. Ms. Simmons asked if the Board
was supposed to pass this tonight. She wanted a chart that would show what the
regulations are on real estate signs versus political signs, etc. and what is recommended
now. Planner Broedell went over some of the information in his slide presentation.
There was further discussion about front yard signs and different limits. Director
Askew said that technically you could take your sign down after 60 days and put a new
sign back the next day, even if it's the same sign. She said that the sign code language
is more of a tool for the City to enforce circumstance where there are a dozen signs in
the front yard. Ms. Lanier thought the amount of days placed on the signs could be a
big issue. There was clarification to event signs and how they can be left until the
event is over (i.e. an election, sale of a home, etc.) Mr. Major asked how Staff arrived
at the sizes for signs, especially commercial signs. Planner Broedell explained that
most commercial signs are in areas where people would be driving by and it give more
allowance for a driver to see the sign. Ms. Simmons asked about what changes were
being made to commercial sign illumination. Planner Broedell said Staff was
proposing to require new commercial ground signs to be externally illuminated onto
the sign compared to the existing language which only encourages external
illumination. He added that moving signs are still not allowed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Chair Hansen opened the Public Hearing. There were no
speakers and the Public Hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Tingen was in favor of the changes being made. Mr.
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020
Major was uncomfortable about making a recommendation on any other proposed
changes. Ms. Simmons asked how this would change the size of a commercial sign.
Planner Broedell said there would be no change. Mr. Major said he is okay with the
changes that have to be made to make it constitutional. Ms. Simmons agreed that she
got bogged down with the changes to the sign code after going through the comp plan
changes. She would like more time or a piece by piece explanation of how it was and
what it will be and for what reasons. Chair Hansen said he has discussed this with
Staff and he is comfortable that the Board is doing is making a change that makes all
signs being treated the same. Ms. Lanier said she feels like this is an attempt to put
rules back in place that are not based upon content and are based upon aesthetics (i.e.
number and size of signs). She was concerned that there will be trouble by putting a
time limit on signs. Ms. Lanier said she is fine with the number and size of signs. Mr.
Major still had concerns about the illumination requirement and how that was
constitutional. Chair Hansen said his understanding is it would give churches (for
example) that are in residential areas the ability to have signs whereas legally they can't
now. There was further discussion regarding whether to make changes on anything
that didn't pertain to the changes affecting the constitutionality of the sign code. Ms.
Simmons would like to see this deferred. Mr. Tingen wanted to know about signage
painted on the side of a building. Planner Broedell said that wasn't being addressed in
these changes. He said that the tall pole signs in front of some storage places are
already non -conforming and they would still be non -conforming. They are proposing
to add a trigger that if a large addition or renovation was done, then the owner would
have to make the sign conforming. Ms. Lanier thought that signs were supposed to
come into compliance over 5 or so years ago. Director Askew said many of the
commercial signs on Atlantic Boulevard have come into compliance leaving some in
non-compliance on Mayport Road. She said there are some triggers already in the sign
code (i.e. sign gets blown out by weather event, a change in more than 75% of the
surface area), this is just an addition trigger. Mr. Major asked if these changes were
made by any elected official or the commissioners. Planner Broedell said these were
staff proposals.
Chair Hansen asked where the whereas's in the ordinance came from. Ms. Durden said
the origin comes from several other city sign codes that have been adopted in light of a
lot of different case law. She said they were created by a lawyer named Bill Brenton
who was a national sign code expert and understood everything about sign code and
law. Ms. Durden explained that they are intended to provide protections by providing
intent behind what the city is trying to accomplish when adopting sign provisions. She
said they are important when they can be used to show what the initial intent was upon
adopting the sign code provisions. Ms. Durden said they become usual in defense of
the sign code in the event of a law suit.
Ms. Lanier said that it seems like there are still a lot questions and there is a need for
more time to be spent on this.
MOTION: Recommend to defer action on the Sign Code.
Motion: Linda Lanier
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020
Second: Sylvia Simmons
Chair Hansen said he thinks the Board should recommend approval. Ms. Simmons said that if
this is deferred and for any future instances of recommending a change in code, she thinks the
Board should go over those changes page by page and read them. She said that would give
them an opportunity to have Staff input.
Linda Lanier (Moved By) For
Kirk Hansen Against
Sylvia Simmons (Seconded By) For
Brian Major Against
Mark Tingen Against
Jennifer Lagner For
Motion failed 3 to 3.
Ms. Durden said that the motion failed and there is no recommendation to move it forward.
She said it would stay on the Board's agenda unless the City Manager removes it. Chair
Hansen asked for more information from Staff for the next meeting. Mr. Major still took issue
with not understanding where the need for these changes came from.
5. REPORTS
None
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Attest:
all/A4
Amanda Askew Kirk Hansen, Chair
Community Development Board (CDB)
January 21, 2020