Loading...
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