Historic District Council approves Amelia Wharf concept with slew of conditions

FERNANDINA BEACH - The ambitious Amelia Wharf riverfront restaurant and retail complex won conceptual approval from the Historic District Council Thursday on its third trip before the board, but the council imposed conditions requiring changes to the building’s architectural character, 63-foot tower and massive roofline before it can receive final approval.

In practical terms, the council wants the building redesigned to better reflect Fernandina Beach’s historic industrial working waterfront, wants the tower restricted to a limited-use observation and circulation structure so it can qualify for an exception to the normal height limit, and wants the long, elevated roofline broken up to reduce the building’s apparent mass.

 

The approval moves forward a proposed 28,316-square-foot development on 0.88 acres of vacant industrial-waterfront property at 0 N. Front St. Plans call for a restaurant, retail shops, eventual marina services, a welcome center, outdoor dining and connections to the city’s waterfront boardwalk. The plans show 15 parking spaces and one loading space.

The project first came before the HDC in June, when the council continued the application and asked for more information about mechanical equipment, height encroachments and required view corridors. Revised plans returned in August, but the council did not grant conceptual approval after members raised concerns about the project’s scale, architectural style and height. The plans presented Thursday were unchanged from August.

Much of Thursday’s discussion focused on whether such a large new building would fit the character of Fernandina Beach’s waterfront.

 

Chairman James Pozzetta said the current design looks more like architecture found farther north along the East Coast.

 

“This current design is a very northeast coastal vernacular style,” Pozzetta said. “And I think we have opportunities to kind of bring it into the south.”

 

Pozzetta said the developer could incorporate industrial details such as exposed structural connections and use architectural elements associated with southeastern coastal buildings, including deeper roof overhangs and brackets.

“That's a northeast Cape Cod look. That's not really a southeast look,” Pozzetta said of the proposed short roof overhangs.

 

Council member Veronica Byrnes agreed that the building should draw more heavily from Fernandina Beach’s working-waterfront history.

“I do think that the design should embrace more of this industrial vernacular, the shrimping industry, the shipping industry, the lumber industry,” Byrnes said.

 

The project’s tower produced some of the most detailed discussion.

The Community Redevelopment Area guidelines generally limit building height to 30 feet above the base flood elevation. The proposed tower rises roughly 63 feet from ground level.

 

City staff said the tower could qualify for a permitted exception to the normal height limit if it meets the Florida Building Code requirements for Group U, a classification covering utility and miscellaneous structures. The city building official will ultimately determine whether the final design qualifies. If it does not, staff said, the tower design will have to be revised.

That means the tower cannot simply become another floor of occupied space.

 

Developer Ron Flick said that is not what he intends.

“It prevents me from putting an office space in there, making it a permanent element of something that's occupied,” Flick said. “And that's not what we've asked for. That's not what we're proposing.”

 

Flick said access would be controlled and the tower would function as an observation area rather than a conventional occupied floor.

 

“It's not going to become a, whatever, a party feature or something like that,” he said.

 

Pozzetta warned that the distinction is critical because changing the use could change the tower’s building-code classification.

 

“The U (classification) allows you to violate the height limit,” Pozzetta said. “A (classification) does not.”

Flick replied, “Totally agree.”

 

Pozzetta said the tower itself is an important part of the design.

“I think the tower is a super key ingredient to the success of this project,” he said. “So I think if and when we make a motion, the motion's probably going to contain language that says it has to be 100% U for the tower itself.”

 

“Agree,” Flick responded.

The council also directed the developer to reconsider the building’s roofline.

 

The plans place substantial mechanical equipment on the roof and use roof structures to screen it from view. Certain mechanical screening can extend above the normal height limit, but Pozzetta said the current design creates a long, nearly continuous elevated roof section that adds to the building’s apparent size.

He suggested moving some mechanical equipment beneath two prominent gables. That could provide a functional reason for those portions of the roof to qualify as mechanical penthouses while allowing other elevated sections to be removed.

 

“The benefit of that is it potentially allows you to reduce the area of penthouse roof that you currently are showing, which is the entire length of the building,” Pozzetta said. “If by parking those bits in those gables that you can reduce that, it'll help you start to break up the mass and scale of this big building.”

Pozzetta said reducing the amount of roof above the height limit would make a substantial visual difference.

 

“Right now, it's just a big straight line that runs across the whole length of the building,” he said.

The council’s conditions require the developer to minimize mechanical screening above the height limit, keep the tower within the Group U occupancy classification, reduce the amount of the main roof and mechanical penthouse extending above the 30-foot limit, incorporate southeastern coastal and industrial architectural elements and provide additional renderings showing the building in the context of surrounding waterfront development.

 

Pozzetta said those renderings are needed because the existing drawings largely show Amelia Wharf by itself, making it difficult to judge its size against neighboring buildings.

“It makes it really hard to understand, ‘How big is this thing?’” he said.

 

He asked for street-level views showing the proposed development alongside existing waterfront buildings.

“I think that would start to give you, ‘How does this thing fit within the context of our city?’” Pozzetta said.

 

Public access to the waterfront also remains part of the design. Plans include pedestrian access from Front Street to the river and a connection to the city boardwalk. Flick said people would continue to be able to travel north and south along the waterfront boardwalk even when the commercial portions of Amelia Wharf are closed.

Conceptual approval does not authorize construction.

 

The developer must now submit the project for formal Technical Review Committee site-plan review. That process will include a traffic study, pedestrian circulation plan, environmental or species review as required, verification of permits from outside regulatory agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and reviews by city departments.

Amelia Wharf will then return to the Historic District Council with completed plans for final approval. Only after those reviews are completed can the developer apply for building permits.