Reorganized Planning Advisory Board convenes and approves three cases

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
December 16, 2016 5:48 p.m.

On December 14, 2016, the reorganized Planning Advisory Board (PAB) of the City of Fernandina Beach convened for the first time and considered three cases, two of which generated considerable public interest. All three cases were recommended for approval and move on to the Fernandina Beach City Commission for action in early 2017.

PAB Case 2016-25: Application for small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Zoning Change Request – 2700 Atlantic Avenue

Eleven people turned out to speak to this case, in which Compass Group represented by Ron Flick asked to rezone a 4.73-acre parcel from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to General Commercial (C-1). The parcel is located on the south side of Atlantic Avenue and formerly contained an adult daycare facility that has been recently demolished.

In presenting his case, Flick said that while a use for the property has not yet been determined, the project would be pedestrian centered and more analogous to resort activity than to downtown Centre Street activity. He committed to follow and maintain all requirements to C-1 zoning, and seemed to indicate that the vegetative buffer on the south side of the parcel would be maintained.

In response to PAB and public concerns over the unknown nature of his project, Senior Planner Kelly Gibson said that the applicant was not required to disclose that information as part of his application.

While not all of the speakers were opposed to the change, they were uncomfortable with allowing the change without more knowledge of the developer’s plans for the parcel. They raised concerns over increased traffic in the area that would make ingress and egress from Tarpon Avenue more difficult. Concerns were voiced about the potential for loud music, big parking lots, tree removal and strip mall shopping. Some speakers said that without hearing a reason to change, they urged the PAB to deny the request.

Flick countered by reminding the audience that the parcel had formerly housed a commercial facility—the adult daycare facility—for more than two decades. He said that under current R-2 zoning, he could add 40 multi dwelling units to the property. He also said that changing the designation to commercial would net the city more income from the property, quoting state figures that one dollar spent on residential investment costs the city $1.47 in services, while the same dollar spent on commercial construction costs the city 40 cents in services. Flick also said that he would pull development toward the sidewalk, with parking behind or on the side, to lower impact to neighboring residential areas.

Audience member James Shroads, an original member of the PAB, said that the parcel was intended for commercial zoning, but that because of the pre-existing daycare facility it was zoned residential. Residential is not allowed in C-1 zoning.

PAB Vice Chair David Beal said that he would be more comfortable with an intermediate zoning, such as Multiple Use (MU). Gibson said that such zoning would not allow for a hotel. New PAB Member Benjamin Morrison said that while he understood and appreciated the public’s concerns, he supported the zoning change.

When the vote was taken, only new PAB member Wayne Peterson opposed the change. He did not cite his reasons for opposition.

PAB Case 2016-26 Amelia Park TND Final Plat of two sections

Michael Antonopoulos represented Amelia Park TND, LLC in this request to change zoning to residential from what was planned to be an area of retail development. After years of failure to attract commercial interest to these parcels, the majority of homeowners and the developers acquiesced to market demand for additional residential in this planned Traditional Neighborhood Development and abandoned the concept of small scale commercial. The change will allow for 13 additional dwelling units that will be developed in a pattern consistent with adjoining Amelia Park home sites.

A similar request will be forthcoming for two additional parcels across Park Avenue from the ones in this application.

The PAB approved this recommendation unanimously; there was no public input.

PAB Case 2016-27 to increase density in the Central Business District

Kelly Gibson presented this case on behalf of the City Manager and keeping with a goal set by the Fernandina Beach City Commission during its visioning workshop in early 2016.

Gibson indicated that the desire to raise density in the downtown area is not new.   There has long been a desire to add residential dwelling units over commercial establishments on Centre Street and neighboring side streets in the Central Business District in order to add vibrancy to the commercial district. However, existing density requirements worked against that goal. By doubling current density in that area, the city hopes to spur economic development, promote a walkable community, and allow development of dwellings with more affordable rent. Gibson added that the proposed change would also be a strong statement of support for maintaining and repurposing historic structures.

Six speakers split, with half opposing and half supporting the change. Opponent Jim Shroads raised concerns involving increasing congestion and competition for limited street parking. Historic District resident and former PAB member Chip Ross called it a “half baked proposal.” He said that the city has a problem managing parking, pointing to the mostly unused city parking lot at Broome and North 2^nd Streets. He opined that the current measure was a shotgun approach, and that the only person to benefit would be property owner Dick Goodsell. Lynn Williams spoke to the cost of retrofitting Centre Street buildings to meet code and modern living requirements. He claimed that such upgrades would still make rents prohibitive.

Positive feedback came from Jeff Kurtz, Executive Director of Fernandina Main Street, and two developers, Spurgeon Richardson and Mike McCluskey. Kurtz strongly supported the proposal and what he hoped would bring a greater vibrancy to the central business district. While acknowledging the parking challenge, he said that transforming empty space above retail shops to residential would not generate as much traffic and parking concern as using that space for professional offices. Richardson agreed. McCluskey, who owns the property formerly occupied by Fred’s Department Store, said that it is not practical to build residential in the Central Business District unless you can build small units. To do so requires an increase in density. He said, in response to Williams’ concerns over costs to convert old buildings, that such matters are up to entrepreneurs to handle. “Everyone wants to be able to walk to places like a grocery store,” he said. “But such amenities can only be supported by more people living within walking distance.”

PAB members spent almost an hour discussing this matter. Member Judith Lane said that while she supported increasing density, she did not want to move forward without also addressing related issues, primarily parking. She said that the PAB’s pattern is to move forward on an issue with the intention of addressing side issues at a future date that never seems to arrive.

PAB Chair Mark Bennett seemed inclined to attempt to support multiple density limits depending on whether projects were new construction or existing historic buildings.

Vice Chair David Beal said, “We’ve got to start some place. Requiring 2 parking spaces for a 700 square foot dwelling is not realistic. Let’s pass this and see what happens. Let’s get some proposals to build coming forward.”

Member Benjamin Morrison suggested that the city probably had several projects just waiting the change in density. Gibson said that there are no proposals in the pipeline.

Lane continued to press for more research on related issues like parking, but Beal countered by saying that while people fear unintended consequences of a density increase, there are currently many safeguards in place through other parts of the code. He said that the code could be tweaked if necessary. Lane said that she preferred to have a more encompassing change go through initially to avoid the need to tweak.

Gibson suggested that the PAB act on the density request first and follow that with an examination and recommendations of the parking situation.

PAB member Wayne Peterson suggested that the PAB move on to other business. Member Benjamin Morrison moved and David Beal seconded approval of the recommendation to approve the density increase with the proviso that parking for residential dwelling units downtown needs to be addressed as part of this package of amendments.

The PAB unanimously voted keep the momentum going and progress the application to the City Commission for their consideration. The board expressed a clear expectation for staff to bring forward LDC amendments specific to residential parking downtown at the next regular PAB meeting scheduled for January 11th, 2017.

Kelly Gibson added following the meeting that in terms of tracking, if passed at 1st reading by the City Commission in January 2017, the request would be transmitted to the State for review. This process takes roughly 60 days for the State review and for the City to advertise prior to 2nd reading. Therefore, parking amendments and the CBD density increase could be adopted simultaneously at 2nd reading, which is anticipated for March or April.

The reorganized Planning Advisory Board (PAB) now consists of 5 members, each of whom has been appointed by a sitting city commissioner and whose term coincides with that of the appointing commissioner:

• David Beal (Smith selection) 2 year term
• Mark Bennett (Kreger selection) 2 year term
• Judith Lane (Poynter selection) 1 year term
• Benjamin Morrison (Lentz selection) 1 year term
• Wayne Peterson (Miller selection) 4 year term

Two alternate members will be appointed by the FBCC as a whole at a future meeting. The members elected Mark Bennett chair and David Beal vice chair for 2017.