Submitted by Eric Bartelt
April 20, 2016 12:44 p.m.
Tuesday night’s City Commission meeting opened to a packed house. On the agenda was a proclamation for Earth Day, a presentation by Advanced Disposal about the rising costs of recycling, a zoning change for the movie theatre shopping center, a discussion about the operation of the dive shop at the Atlantic Avenue Rec. Center, and a couple of proposed Land Development Code Amendments.
What drew the crowd was one of those Land Development Code Amendments; one that pertained to the combining of lots along S. Fletcher Ave. At issue was whether to amend the Land Development Code (LDC) to allow the combining of commercial lots into a single lot that is more than 100′ wide. Currently, the Code prohibits combining lots along S. Fletcher and it also imposes a 35′ height restriction. Those two restrictions make it nearly impossible to build large scale commercial buildings.
The issue came before the Commission in response to applications made to the Planning Dept. by local residents David Caples (for a multi-use development at S. Fletcher and Atlantic Avenues) and George Sheffield and Lowell Hall (for a restaurant and bar between the Hammerhead and Hall’s Beach Store, at S. Fletcher Ave. and Sadler Rd.). Approval of both their applications had been previously recommended by both the Planning Advisory Board and the Planning Dept.
This is not the first time this issue has come before the Commission. In 2014, the Planning Dept. proposed the creation of three economic development nodes for the commercially zoned properties that are located at Fletcher and Atlantic, Fletcher and Sadler and a commercial area just south of the Surf Restaurant. The Planning Advisory Board recommended approval then also, but the City Commission rejected the proposal.
On Tuesday night, Mayor Miller opened the public hearing and 10 citizens, including former Mayor and Commissioner Ron Sapp, addressed the Commission, along with applicants Caples, Sheffield and Hall, and local Architect John Cotner, who had provided elevation drawings of the proposed Caples project.
Except for the applicants and John Cotner, all who spoke were opposed to making the change in the LDC. The opposition centered around the fear that allowing the combining of lots would be the first step in the eventual elimination of restrictions on large scale developments along the beach. The sentiment was that the change would lead to the “Daytona Beachification” of Fernandina, with large condominiums and hotels eventually lining the beach. They cited the intentional work done by previous Commissions to put restrictions in place to prevent such large scale development.
Proponents cited the fact that the change was limited to only the three commercial zoning clusters at Atlantic, Sadler and near the Surf, and that those zones already have commercial development, some of which exceed the 100′ lot width restriction. The change, they pointed out, would not affect any residential zoning. Architect Cotner also pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the LDC, that at Fletcher and Atlantic, combining lots along Atlantic Ave. is allowed, but just around the corner on Fletcher, combining lots is not allowed. Cotner noted that none of the other restrictions in place, such as the 35′ height limit, would be changed.
After the public input, the Commissioners weighed the pros and cons. Commissioners Poynter and Lentz favored the change while Commissioner Kreger opposed it. Commissioner Smith advocated putting the issue on the ballot in November as a referendum question. Mayor Miller, waiting until after the other Commissioners had expressed their views, sought clarification about exactly where the lots in question were and whether the LDC change would also apply to the commercial properties east of Fletcher, along the beach. Senior Planner Kelly Gibson, representing the Planning Dept., said the change would apply to properties east of Fletcher, along the beach. Miller then asked if it was possible to NOT include the properties along the beach, even though they are in the same zoning category. Gibson replied that that was possible, opening the door to a possible compromise, whereby only properties on the west side of Fletcher would be affected by the LDC change. The compromise did not advance, however, and Mayor Miller sided with Commissioners Kreger and Smith to defeat the measure.
Editor’s Note: Eric Bartelt retired as a corporate design consultant and moved to Fernandina Beach in 2004. His previously lived in Wisconsin. Since Eric’s arrival in Fernandina Beach, he spends his time volunteering. We thank Eric for his contributions to the Fernandina Observer.
I guess my question would be, Why didn’t the compromise advance. I don’t think there is a perfect solution to this, but now we are still faced with an unsightly old car wash lot on the corner of Atlantic and Fletcher. I would however not be opposed to putting such an item on the ballot and getting the opinion of the voters in our town. It is my thought that as long as the height restriction is maintained, this project will not move us closer to being another Daytona Beach. I have only been here 18 years, just a drop in the bucket by comparison to many. I have seen much change over those years, some good and some change disappointing. The thing is folks, we just need to find a way to help business, create more jobs, increase our tax base, and attract tourists. This must all be done with the preservation of our island first and foremost. To do this it requires what has become the new four letter word. Compromise.
I hope the proponents come back with a proposal for just the west side of Fletcher. The corner of Atlantic and Fletcher is truly an eyesore and has been so for many years. There will be development…….let’s hope it’s smart development. The proposed plan looks very appealing and all of the proponents are local folks that really care about Fernandina. And I would say to Commissioner Smith, it is your job to make these tough decisions. We voted out many of the past commissioners because they put most decisions on the ballot for referendum. Let’s not let that happen again.
It would seem to me that a compromise on this proposal was the obvious way to go. We need developments like this to spur some business on this Island which will result in increased tax revenue for the City as well as more jobs. Why is the Commission not following the advise of the Planning Advisory Board and the Planning Dept?
I hope that Mr. Caples, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Sheffield resubmit their plan to the Commission and all the Commissioners vote for these projects to proceed without changing all the zoning along Fletcher. Like Tony says…. compromise.
Like, Tony, Karin, and John. This seems to be a perfect Business/Commercial opportunity, for our City, Let’s face it, The area along the west side of Fletcher at Atlantic is a Blighted Area. Compromise, with the Developers on design, Modify zoning in that area so the East Side of Fletcher, is Protected. At Sadler and Fletcher, anything to get rid of Hammerheads would be an Improvement.
Folks seem to talk about our need for more jobs and more tourists, as if they are a given. Are they? Why? I bet our unemployment rate is very low. And I bet it is a rare day when there is no room available on the Island for a tourist. Perhaps we should celebrate what we have, and not agree to help a few residents get rich(er) by constructing large buildings which we don’t need, to hire low-paid service industry workers who would have no place to live here anyway.
Let the owners of those lands build on the land they own; challenge them to come up with plans that complement the lot sizes. That’s the compromise we should seek.
Trudie, fact is and please correct me if I am wrong, but the service industry is a major employer of the Island. If you check with the Chamber of Commerce or the Tourist Development Council I think you will find that tourism has risen steadily over the years. It is my guess that at this point we rent out over 500,000 rooms each year. It is also being a bit presumptuous that low paid service industry workers don’t live on the Island. Many of these, as you put it, low paid workers, work service jobs to supplement their family’s income so they can live and pay taxes right here on the Island. To assume that we are allowing a few residents to get rich over this is actually not the issue. Properties on the Island since day one, in many cases, have been bought as investment properties and those folks have paid years of taxes and have every right to make a profit. I feel the compromise should be made with respect to the east vs west side of Fletcher. Any potential properties should be built in accordance with City regulations and any modifications to those regulations such as set backs and such that allows for the improvement of City. The corner of Atlantic and Saddler has been a disgrace for at least 18 years, if not more. Why not allow it to be improved, increase land value around it and generate taxes to the City?
I have to agree with Trudie’s point. The very first question always hotly debated… do we need/want more tourism. More people, more development, more traffic? I would submit that the island has plenty of that now.
As for the constant cry for more business, for more jobs, it does seem we have pretty much full employment here. These jobs are just going to be more retail and service jobs, Nothing wrong with that but do we need to create more of them? Won’t people just be moving here from other places to fill those?
Next is always the tax issue, development will get us more taxes for the city or county. I have always been a bit puzzled by this on the island. Here we have this tiny island it is filled with worlds wealthiest people has tons of tourist dollars and still somehow we can not seem to generate enough tax revenue? How is that possible? As far as the county goes we have massive development and growth on the other side of the bridge all the new homes, all the new business. Based on the view that growth = taxes in a few years we should be swimming in money. Do you believe that?
Last is the “blight” issue. We wouldn’t even be discussing this if those lots had been developed as they stand within the current ordinance. As someone else said they are investment parcels. Just think of the return on your investment if you can string those pieces together and build a hotel. That has always been the owners plan. There is no reason hammerheads or the old gas station has to look like that, it is prime property right now. Plenty of things can be done with those lots that look nice and make money… the owners just haven’t done it…..they are hoping for the big windfall. So if it is a disgrace perhaps we can address that with the current property owners. Perhaps we can pass an ant-blight law that requires vacant lot property owners to maintain landscaping and trash collection on untended property.
Maybe people don’t realize how many lots are involved in this land development change- it’s not just the corner that was once the car wash or the corner at Hammerheads. Do you think that there’s anything that guarantees the development will look like the picture John Cotner drew- no, its simply a rendition- there are no design standards that are enforceable- what is built will be based upon the highest bidder and what their idea is- which translates into what will make them the most money. David Caples mentioned a gas station. Why do we need another gas station at Main Beach? Is that one of the things we need at the beach, no- but it’ll make someone some money. The foundation of all redevelopment for the beach area is laid in this decision and it sounds like many people are ready for bigger and better which when you close your eyes will end up looking like any other nondescript place. Everyone knows we are overdue for a hurricane so when it comes- if its big, like a Sandy event- all those lots affected by this land change up North Fletcher, along Atlantic, down S. Fletcher, and along Sadler Rd will be redeveloped into higher densities and intensities of development. You heard what the gentleman said who owned property when asked if he wanted to redevelop his property and the answer was that he hadn’t planned on it but if this change comes about he would seriously consider it. Do we have a diamond in the rough? Of course we do and the fight against being over-developed has been laid in blood- so why are you willing to throw that away? No place on the east coast of Florida has what we have; but make this extensive land change and if the big one comes and a massive rebuild is necessary, you’ve just introduced Daytona into Fernandina Beach. Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it and then my guess is that you’ll be longing for the good old days of funky Fernandina Beach.
David,
There is no development that guarantees the owner that it will make money. The developer has to provide a product that is attractive to tenants as well as their customers. While you are right that the picture presented was just a concept and the actual structure can change, the design still has to go through the City’s technical review committee and meet all land development codes as to height, setbacks, parking requirements. Go look at some of John Cotner’s other work in the City (Cafe Karibo, Timoti’s, even the Burger King on 8th Street) and you will see real evidence that any design that John puts his name to is going to be a first class, attractive design.
As to your contention that redevelopment, even massive redevelopment after a catastrophic storm, would be more intensive and dense, what is your basis for that claim? There has been no proposed change in density allowances or height variances, simply the combining of lots.
The “compromise” was suggested by Commissioner Len Kreger, but not reported here. Len referred to past discussions of creating a land development overlay for the Main Beach area that would provide direction and opportunity for dealing with the blight there.
At the meeting on Tuesday, I heard both sides, positive and negative and I believe the best resolution for the property owners and our city is, was as Mayor Miller stated. Allow the combing of lots on the west side of Fletcher so as to clean these areas up with buildings that fit into our “island look”…. BUT, leave the beach lots under the rules as they stand now! To me, this seems the best of both worlds for both sides.
The compromise for allowing combined lots was reported here. Thank you Eric Bartelt for excellent coverage of the meeting.
” Miller then asked if it was possible to NOT include the properties along the beach, even though they are in the same zoning category. Gibson replied that that was possible, opening the door to a possible compromise, whereby only properties on the west side of Fletcher would be affected by the LDC change. The compromise did not advance, however, and Mayor Miller sided with Commissioners Kreger and Smith to defeat the measure.”
Marlene, you mentioned the positive and the negative. You are 100 % right. There are many positive points as well as negative points to this augment. When issues such as this come up too many just hold their breath until they get what they want. This is were good Government on any level will sit down and at least try to work out a solution to try to satisfy each sides needs. That is the definition of compromise. Neither side will walk away with 100% of what they are asking for, but at the end of the day the issue just may be resolved. I agree, lets look west and forget about east.
Bold move by Commissioner Miller casting the deciding vote against his boss’ proposal.
It seems like the same ones object to progress or changes. A compromise would help. Cables and Cotner are two of a successful individuals and would do the right thing – we need to clean up these sore spots and forget all the negative comments. I don’t think the Mayor did the right thing.