Submitted by Susan Hardee Steger
August 20, 2015 4:28 p.m.
On August 12, 2015, the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) met to consider a change to a future land use map amendment and zoning change with a PUD overlay for proposed development at Citrona and Hickory Streets in Fernandina Beach. The request by owner-developer Jay Mock is to change the present zoning from R-1 to R 2 in order to develop 48 single family homes on a 7.41 acre parcel of which 2.5 acres will be open space. Should the city commission approve on second reading the “net density” proposal, an R-1 designation allows for 36 units. By changing the zoning to R-2, 12 additional units will be allowed. The project was approved by a 5-2 vote with board members Chip Ross and Chris Occhuizzo voting against the project. City staff recommended approval.
According to Adrienne Burke, community development director “the proposed development is not anticipating the change to the definition of net density. They are pursuing an allowable number of units per acre based on the current definition.”
Nick Gillette of Gillette & Associates spoke to the benefits of the zoning change. Unlike R-1 zoning, R-2 requires a portion of land to be set aside for open space and recreation saving more trees. Gillette said “there is rarely development within the city where 33% [of the land] is set aside for open space and recreation.” Additional tree saving measures in the project include variable setbacks.
Mock addressed other positive aspects of the project. According to Mock, there is a “void in the market” for available homes in the $250,000 – $300,000 range. There are 10 houses available in the retail market (MLS Listings) between $250,000 – $325,000 range in the city and 15 on the entire island. Mock’s desire is to “bring on a product that makes [home ownership] more affordable.” He added that the project does not impact wetlands, it does not significantly increase density, and with adjourning multi-family to the south, and school board property to the north, it is a fitting zone change for the area.
Environmental concerns were raised over reports of past landfill and public dumping. Gillette showed a slide of 45 testing locations where soil borings ranging from a depth of 6 feet to 25 feet were taken. Environmental and geotechnical engineers were hired to evaluate the property. “You can drink the water on this site.” In response to a question asked during public comment as to whether federal guidelines at the super fund and hazardous waste site levels were conducted, Gillette said he considers the high degree of due diligence conducted on the parcel at the caliber of a “residential super fund testing.” Environmental testing was conducted on the property at the industrial level of Phase I and Phase II levels.
Public Comment:
Three city residents spoke to the zoning change. One was concerned about the increased in density as well as environmental issues. The other speaker who resides on Parkview Place West said she feels like a “trapped rat” as she tries to get out of her neighborhood during school opening and closings.
Jennifer Schriver, city commission candidate, said as a mother of two children she represents the kind of people the development is trying to attract. “I absolutely under no circumstances would want to live in this kind of development.” She questioned the facts and figures presented. Her request to the PAB was to “wait and to be prudent on this.” Since there are “48 units, that is 96 cars, that is 200 people. That is a lot more of a footprint than what meets the eye . . . The trees; yes that is an issue, but the greater issue is the lack of the quality of life that a project like this brings to the island.”
Mock, a long time city resident, said he is not going to get involved in a project unless it is done right. The required testing in the permitting process for the city and other agencies is done for the public’s protection. “The testing is not superficial.”
Gillette then spoke to the traffic issue. Traffic demands generally go down when housing projects are located near a school. Families want to live near schools. The children who normally are driven to school or to parks can now walk. Most schools have a traffic impact during 15 minutes of opening and closing.
Unable to attend the PAB meeting, John Carr, Greenway advocate, presented a letter to PAB members with his major concern being “the drainage issues into the Greenway, the development of yards , paving, irrigation, and drainage into the greenway at such a close proximity is very likely to upset the fresh water/ salt water balance. The net effect is the change of nutrients and salt and their effects on the spartina grass in that parcel of the Greenway. This could well become a downward trend in the viability of the Greenway from Jasmine to Atlantic even wiping out the spartina and leaving us a scenic mudflat for the future.”
Gillette responded the development must have treatment for storm water. The storm water will be treated on site and the developers are working with the city to capture untreated storm water along Citrona and Hickory that now runs directly into the Greenway. This will help reduce the current nutrient level in the Greenway.
PAB Members’ Comments:
Jon Lasserre said that the proposed project is the type of project the area needs. The plan is a “smart planning.” When people live in a “high use” area, such as one adjacent to a school, there are traffic issues. This is the type of project the area needs and presents a good happy medium. The Jasmine and Citrona area is ripe for this kind of development. Should the city go with straight zoning (R-1) the city gets no benefits.
David Beal offered his support for the plan. This is “good planning.” He believes the R-2 zoning offers a great transitional use for the area. “This is great design.” Beal served as a former housing chair for the city and saw the struggle to bring affordable housing in city. “This is about affordable you can get in the city because of land costs. It just makes sense to me. Single family housing close to a school is fantastic.”
Mark Bennett offered his support saying he does not think R 1 zoning will work as well on the property as well as R 2.
Chris Occuzzio admitted the project looks good. He did not support the zoning change because he is concerned about setting a precedent. “This could be a slippery slope.”
Chip Ross said he is philosophically against changing zoning anywhere on the island. “The planning is fine, the PUD is fine.” It is simply “where do we stop.” More is not better.
Judith Lane said although it is difficult for her to support going from R–1 to R–2, she will support the project because the plan is good. Lane said she would “hate to see what else might go there.”
According to Adrienne Burke, community development director, the first reading of the zoning change goes before the city commission for approval on September 1.
Oh no. :0(
My understanding is that under R-1, 24 houses were allowed and that they were assuming that the net density proposal would be approved, thus allowing 36 lots, then building on that supposition to move to R-2, “only 12 houses more”. To quote Pat Gass, “when is enough, enough?”
Chris: You are correct that the 12 unit increase is based on the city commission approving on second reading the net density proposal. I will clarify.
Thanks, Susan
Ok, let’s see…how many homes can we squeeze on our little island? How many homes can we squeeze on less than five acres? In the area in question, there is already an overload of traffic, you have the middle and high school, the Greenway, etc. While I understand that the developer is following the restrictions, when is enough, enough?
These homes will be close to, if not, zero lot lines that will cost about $300K. Does anyone else see this as a problem?
There are so many blighted, vacant areas already. Personally, I’d like to see incentive for development in those areas rather than incentivizing decimation of greenway or undeveloped land. I know the City is working on making some of the blighted areas better but I disagree with this development.
If they closed the island to all brand new construction they would preserve all the wetlands and trees that are left and existing property values would soar to meet the void. New buyers and residents would be forced to improve what’s already here, that would eventually take care of the blighted areas of the island.
This island is going to sink. Doesn’t anyone realize the number of new subdivisions currently on the market on Amelia Island? Take a look at 14th st, the Parkway.
I believe they represent over 300 homes. That is at least an increase of 600 residents to the island. I agree enough is enough. What do we all do when an evacuation is necessary.
Susan, this proposed development is not anticipating the change to the definition of net density. They are pursuing an allowable number of units per acre based on the current definition.