Loading...
11-08-04 v~`' MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 08, 2004 CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD Attendance IN ATTENDANCE: Mayor John Meserve City Manager Jim Hanson Mayor Pro Tem Richard Beaver City Clerk Donna L. Bussey Commissioner Paul B. Parsons City Attorney Alan C. Jensen Commissioner Sylvia N. Simmons Commissioner J. Dezmond Waters III Call to Order/Pledge Mayor Meserve called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. The Invocation given by Mayor Meserve was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2004 Motion: Approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2004 as presented. Moved by Waters, seconded by Simmons Votes: Aye: 5-Beaver, Parsons, Simmons, Waters, Meserve Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Courtesy of the Floor 2. Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors Alan Potter of 374 2"d Street spoke in opposition to Item 7D, the ordinance for refunding of Series 1996 Utility Revenue Bonds. Mr. Potter believed increasing debt to refund the bonds was not a way to save money for the citizens of Atlantic Beach. Stephen Kuti of 1132 Linkside Drive expressed concern for the placement of signage for the Plaza bicycle path relative to the exits from the Selva Lakes development, which he considered to be dangerous for bicyclists to cross. He also opposed the proposed Johnston Island development (Items 7B and 7C). Sharon Scholl of 2049 Selva Marina Drive referenced comments made ~' during the September 27, 2004 Commission Meeting and stated she would November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa e 2 ~' not be opposed to some type of development, if she knew the hydrology/geology of the island would support the proposed development. She urged the Commissioners to look at the whole project and reject it if they thought the island was not stable enough to support the proposed development. Carolyn Wood of 303 6th Street reiterated her opposition to the development expressed during the September 27, 2004 Commission Meeting. She indicated that she had been in contact with David Roach of the Florida Inland Navigation District, who informed her that he had contacted the developers to inform them they would not be allowed to put any commercial development in their easements. She urged the Commissioners to retain the Conservation land use designation. Steve McGuire of 328 10th Street expressed concern for the direction he believed the city was taking relative to enforcement of the parking code and spoke in opposition to "selective" law enforcement on his street. Mr. McGuire indicated that he had received a ticket during the night for parking in front of his home opposing traffic, but others had not. He also commented on the following: (1) A ticket received by a Stanton College Prep student for honking his horn, (2) That it was illegal to skateboard in the street in Atlantic Beach, and (3) The potential problems at the skate park if it was unsupervised. Chief Thompson responded that parking tickets were being issued for cars parking opposed to traffic at night because there were no reflectors on the front of the car and complaints had been received that on-coming traffic could not see the parked cars in the dark. He indicated that the horn honking frightened elderly drivers and the ticket was issued after receiving complaints. J.P. Marchioli of 414 Sherry Drive commented that he never parked the wrong way on Sherry Drive and complained of speeders on his street. He suggested that the owners of Johnston Island (Items 7B and 7C) secede from the city and agreed with Mr. Potter concerning the bond refunding (Item 7D). /~~' Unfinished Business 3. Unfinished Business from Previous Meeting from Previous Meeting A. City Manager's Follow-up Report There was no follow-up report. Consent Agenda 4. Consent Agenda A. Acknowledge receipt of Public Safety Department Monthly Report for September, Report of New Occupational Licenses November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pate 3 !~ issued in October and Public Works and Utility Departments Monthly Report for October (City Manager) B. Award Lawn Maintenance of City Parks to Cuyler's Lawn Service in the amount of $60,528 (City Manager) C. Authorize the City Manager to sign a Joint Use Agreement with the City of Jacksonville allocating $35,000 for the Skate Park (City Manager) D. Approve the list of items to be declared surplus (City Manager) E. Authorize the Mayor to sign the application and subsequent paperwork relative to the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (City Manager) F. Approve the annual increase of $4,467 to the contract of First Vehicle Services for one year, from 12/1/04 through 11/30/05 (City Manager) Motion: Approve Consent Agenda Items A through F as presented There was no discussion. Moved by Simmons, seconded by Parsons Votes: Aye: 5 -Beaver, Parsons, Simmons, Waters, Meserve ~ Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Committee Reports 5. Committee Reports There were no Committee Reports. Action on Resolutions 6. Action on Resolutions There was no action on Resolutions. Action on Ordinances 7. Action on Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 20-04-68 Public Hearing and Final Reading ORDINANCE N0.20-04-68 AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2003 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 The Mayor read the ordinance by title only. Motion: Approve Ordinance No. 20-04-68 on final reading. /-. Mayor Meserve explained that the ordinance would make year-end adjustments to the accounts listed. November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa e 4 ~'' Mayor Meserve opened the floor for a public hearing. No one spoke and he closed the public hearing. There was no discussion. Moved by Waters, seconded by Parsons Votes: Aye: 5 -Beaver, Parsons, Simmons, Waters, Meserve Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED B. Ordinance No. 31-04-03 Public Hearing and Final Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING THE 2005 FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 95-90-48, AS AMENDED, SAID ORDINANCE NUMBER 31-04-03, WHICH SHALL CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS ESTABLISHED ON THE 2005 FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) FOR LANDS AS DESCRIBED HEREIN FROM CONSERVATION TO RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY AND COMMF.,RCIAL RELATED TO A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY KNOWN AS JOHNSTON ISLAND, PROVIDING FOR INTENT; AUTHORITY; FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY; FINDINGS OF FACT; SEVERABILITY; RECORDATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE The Mayor read the ordinance by title only. Motion: Approve Ordinance No. 31-04-03 on final reading. Mayor Meserve opened the floor for a public hearing. Michael Sheklin of 1985 Brista De Mar Circle believed the property lacked the acreage for an upscale development and parking. He also expressed concern for ingress and egress, which he believed would cause future problems. Mr. Sheklin believed it would be dangerous to allow a marina at that location due to the swift current near the bridge. He urged the Commission to keep the Conservation zoning and oppose the development. Former Mayor Lyman Fletcher of 809 East Coast Drive spoke in opposition to the Johnston development. He stated that he was opposed to mixing commercial with residential uses and urged the Commissioners to consider denying the developers the option of building commercial. He ~.. believed approval of the project would set a precedent for the future development of the Dagley property. He requested that if the project was November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 ~' approved in some form, that the rights granted to the developer run with the developer and not the land. Former Mayor Fletcher also requested that the Commissioners give deference to the recommendation of the Community Development Board at two different meetings to deny the request and warned them of the potential for hidden costs associated with the development. Mary Billotti of 469 Pablo Point Drive, Jacksonville and Patricia Hairston of 13560 Picarsa Drive, Jacksonville, spoke in opposition to the development. A written copy of Ms. Billotti's objections is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A. No one else spoke and the Mayor closed the public hearing. Ron Zajack, a managing partner of Bridge Tenders, Inc., introduced Laura Johnston Perkins, Carl Smith, and Bill Holland, Ms. Perkins' lawyer from Valdosta, Georgia. Mr. Holland provided background information concerning her family's ownership of the island and the purchase of the property by Bridge Tenders, Inc. It was pointed out that Ms. Perkins was a partner in Bridge Tenders, Inc. and supported the development of the island. Mayor Meserve reopened the public hearing. Valerie Britt of 71 San Pablo Road North, Jacksonville, distributed a handout citing the Pablo Point Civic Association's objections to the proposed development. A copy of the handout is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment B. Ms. Britt summarized the objections. Mayor Meserve closed the public hearing and explained that the proposed development project of Johnston Island would be considered in two parts: the changing of the land use designation on the Future Land Use Map related to a small scale development activity from Conservation to Residential, low density and a contiguous .5-acre parcel from Conservation to Commercial; and the rezoning of the land from Conservation to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Mayor stated that comments had been made insinuating that if the Commission took a positive action on the requests, it would be committing an illegal act. He requested an opinion from the City Attorney. City Attorney Jensen advised that all action proposed to the City Commission was legal. Commissioner Waters inquired if the commercial rezoning was eliminated from the project would they be able to do everything they want under the low-density residential designation. November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Paee 6 ,/r Mr. Zajack responded that nine months ago, Bridge Tenders applied for a mixed use PUD to designate a commercial designation, which under the PUD classification, they would establish the use and one year from now they could not put something else, like a McDonalds on the site. He believed the Commissioners would have to put some reliance in the city's PUD process. He indicated that too much time had gone by to change the request and preferred to proceed with the current request. Commissioner Waters rephrased the question and asked if what they wanted to accomplish could be done if the entire parcel was rezoned low-density residential, or did they have an inherent investment in the commercial as opposed to the residential. Mr. Zajack responded that the mixed use PUD allowed the exact same thing as residential with ancillaries and they had not taken the time to look at the other designation. Mayor Meserve referenced a statement included in the application which indicated that Bridge Tenders agreed or intended to agree that any dining facilities, marina, lodge or club would be restricted to use by members and their guests only and would not be open to the general public. The Mayor inquired as to this statement and Mr. Zajack responded that nine months ago, it was agreed to make it a private facility, which means that only club members could use the facility. The Mayor inquired as to what would be considered a commercial facility, if it were only for members. Mr. Zajack stated that it was termed a private club, not a commercial facility. The Mayor inquired if only the people who lived there and their guests would be able to use the facilities constructed on the land. Mr. Zajack responded the residents; their guests and club members would be able to use the facilities. Mayor Meserve summarized the revisions to the project since the initial submission. Commissioner Waters inquired as a worse case scenario, if the development was totally destroyed by an act of God, what could be redeveloped on the site relative to the Commercial designation. Community Development Director Doerr stated that the Commercial designation would remain and would be subject to the same federal, state and local redevelopment standards as the rest of the city. Commissioner Parsons inquired as to what would be allowed under Conservation zoning. Ms. Doerr responded that there were no permitted uses under Conservation, but they could apply for ause-by-exception. Ms. Doerr explained the use-by-exception process. Commissioner Beaver inquired if the other amenities (the lodge and restaurant for guest use only) would be allowed if the property were November S. 2004 REGULAR COMMISSIO_ N MEETING Page 7 ,~ changed to residential, low-density. Ms. Doerr responded that the question was posed if these could be considered accessory uses to the residential use, and indicated that if it was not clear that it was prohibited in the zoning regulations under the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, there could be some interpretation involved, which she understood concerned several Commissioners. Commissioner Beaver expressed concern that if something down the road happened to require redevelopment, and if a scaled down commercial aspect was allowed and the map amended now; the future redevelopment might focus on a dramatically different type of commercial. Community Development Director Doerr indicated that approval of the amendment to the Future Land Use Map authorized no development or issuance of any permits. It was pointed out that the PUD and subsequent development plans would have to be approved by the Commission. After that, the construction, engineering and drainage plans must be approved at the local level and by all the other permitting agencies prior to the issuance of any permits by the city authorizing construction in accordance with the PUD. Discussion ensued. Ms. Doerr emphasized that the PUD would bind the commercial aspect of the property, unless the PUD expired, which would '~ require a new PUD. It was pointed out that any future commercial redevelopment would come back to the Commission and be reviewed under the land development regulations and Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Commissioner Beaver confirmed that the only commercial development would be what was allowed under the PUD, and the only way the commercial development could increase in scope, size or shape, would be that a future Commission approved the change. There being no further discussion, Mayor Meserve called for a roll call vote. Moved by Beaver, seconded by Simmons Votes: Aye: 3 -Beaver, Simmous, Meserve Nay: 2 -Parsons, Waters MOTION CARRIED BY A THREE TO TWO ROLL CALL VOTE C. Ordinance No. 52-04-02 Public Hearing and Final Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OFATLANTIC BEACH, .,.•~ COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, ADOPTING ORDINANCE NUMBER 52-04-02, REZONING LANDS AS November 8. 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa e 8 DESCRIBED HEREINAFTER FROM CONSERVATION (CON) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO BE KNOWN AS THE JOHNSTON ISLAND PUD; PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; REQUIRING RECORDATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE The Mayor read the ordinance by title only. Motion: Approve Ordinance No. 52-04-02 on final readinE Mayor Meserve opened the floor for a public hearing. Carolyn Woods of 303 6th Street stated she opposed the PUD and believed the previous ordinance should never have been passed. Lyman Fletcher of 804 East Coast Drive spoke in opposition to the PUD and warned the Commissioners of unintended consequences relative to the approval of the commercial aspect of the development. Tom Goelz of 631 Beach Avenue questioned the PUD procedure and stated ~ he was not comforted by the idea that the Commercial aspect of the PUD could not become anything else without a public hearing and Commission approval. He believed the Commission could not really control what could be developed on Johnston Island five or ten years down the road. Alan W. Potter of 374 2"d Street spoke in opposition to allowing a "private club" as part of the development. Michael Sheklin of 1985 Brista De Mar Circle urged the Commissioners to proceed cautiously and preserve public access to the water and character ofAtlantic Beach as a coastal wetlands community. Catherine Kane of 1969 Brista De Mar Circle expressed concern for traffic problems that could be caused by the development. Valerie Britt of 378 Tilefish Court, Jacksonville, spoke in opposition to the project and stated by approving the previous ordinance, the Commission had done the wrong thing for the community. She reiterated her position that the proposed project was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and did not comply with state statutes and the Land Management Act. She also disputed the statements made by Community Development Director Doerr. No one else spoke and the Mayor closed the public hearing. /- Ron Zajack indicated that for the record, he wanted it known that neither F' Ron Zajack nor anyone in his organization made a contribution to any of the November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa e 9 ~'' Commissioners or the Mayor or any elected official in the community. Concerning Mr. Sheklin's comments, Mr. Zajack stated that the development going on across the intracoastal had only built one-third of the units, and it would look different than expected when built out. Mr. Zajack indicated that early on, the Commission was informed that they, the developers, would provide water and sewer for the project, built to the city's specifications. He indicated that at the city's request, the development would be a private development, owned by the association to be formed under the laws of the State of Florida. He pointed out that under the current ordinance, the PUD allowed mixed uses. Tony Robbins of Prosser and Hallock stated he agreed with the revisions to the project, as listed on Pages 2 & 3 of Ms. Doerr's staff report, and indicated he would be happy to answer questions concerning those changes. Mr. Robbins addressed Commissioner Simmons' concern relative to the shared parking. Mr. Robbins explained that under the PUD process, in the existing land development regulations, by exception, Section 24-162 allowed for off-street parking lots in all nonresidential districts, which must meet the listed requirements. To address comments relative to traffic concerns, Mr. Robbins indicated that the developer's and the independent analysis from the Regional Planning Council both indicated there would be no significant impact on traffic from thirty-six units, and the property was being developed at twenty-one units. Mr. Robbins pointed out that this was a redevelopment project, and was not like the one across the intracoastal. He further indicated that for forty years the land was used as a mixed use, and it was not coming in to take out Dutton Island, but to clean up and present a positive project developed within the confines of the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the PUD was a binding document to ensure a level of comfort for the Commissioners. He indicated that engineering and detailed plans for the development would come back to the Commission for approval, and in addition to meeting the city's requirement, permitting procedures would also be required by the FDOT, the FDEP, the ACOE, and the SJRWMD. Commissioner Waters inquired concerning hidden costs, and asked what would be done to keep the island from eroding away. Mr. Robbins indicated there was a stabilization plan for the existing shoreline, which would prevent further degradation of the land. He indicated that a detailed plan would be sent to the regulatory agencies for approval and would involve rip/rap for stabilization. Commissioner Waters inquired concerning the type of building materials that would be used. Mr. Zajack indicated that the project had not been redesigned and was to be concrete on pilings. Commissioner Waters hoped there would be no South Beach stucco type November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa a 10 development. Commissioner Waters suggested that Mr. Zajack take a walk on the beach and note the architecture to keep within the character of the city. Commissioner Waters expressed concern that the bed and breakfast/lodge could turn into a hotel and inquired as to how the lodge would be utilized. Mr. Zajack responded that the lodge was for the residents and their guests and would probably be built as suites found in a motel. He indicated that two bedroom units would be in violation of the spirit of the PUD. He further indicated that ten to twelve lodge units would be built above the club. Commissioner Waters inquired if the PUD could run with the applicant and not with the land. City Attorney Jensen advised that the PUD was a classification of property and this was a zoning change and must go with the land, not with the developer. He further indicated that the mixed use PUD controlled the usage. Community Development Director Doerr reported that, if the project does not develop in accordance with the terms of the PUD, it could expire. An expired PUD cannot be developed without renewing and re-establishing the rights within the PUD. Mayor Meserve recapped that the Commission understood the maximum number of units would be twenty-one with the height of 35-feet, and some !'~ type of commercial development at 6,000 square feet opened only to members and guests, not open to the general public. Mayor Meserve inquired concerning the developer's vision for the lodge, club and restaurant. Mr. Zajack responded that it was envisioned that there would be a marina with a clubhouse and if they are guests or members who park their boat there, they could stay at the lodge. He indicated that he never envisioned the general public would come in to stay at the lodge or eat at the restaurant. He indicated that to use the facilities, the person must be a member or guest of a resident. The Mayor stated that as the process moved forward a final design would be brought to the Commission, and inquired as to when the Commission could set the limitations on the project, mutually acceptable to the Commissioners. Community Development Director Doerr suggested at the time the detailed development plans came back before the Commission, before any permits are issued, you could ask the applicants if they would consider bringing a design representation of the project. She indicated at that time, the developers maybe far enough along to have some idea of what the architectural types would look like. She noted that the Commission had rights to impose certain restrictions that they could not in a regular residential district, however, at this time the city does not dictate architectural design anywhere else in the city other than what is done in the November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa a 11 :~ commercial corridor standards. She indicated that in the future, the city may do that and at the time of permitting, if it is not set forth in the PUD, what ever was in the land development regulations would prevail. It was pointed out that if the PUD was approved, the Commissioners would still have a another chance to review the project when the detailed development plan is presented to the Commission for approval. Discussion of the commercial aspect ensued. Ms. Doerr read the following, which the applicant has agreed to have added into Section Three of the PUD: "Further, use of the marina lodge and club, including any restaurant or dining facilities, shall be restricted to use by members and their guests only and shall not be open to the general public. It is the express intent that the marina lodge and club remain as a private country club type facility for use only by bonafide members and their guests with no general commercial business activity permitted and any conversion to such commercial uses is prohibited". Commissioner Beaver expressed uncertainty concerning the sale of club memberships and believed this type of activity would not fit in with the character of Atlantic Beach. He also believed he did not have enough information concerning the size and configuration of the lodge and the ~` number of memberships. Mr. Zajack indicated that he could not give specifics at this time because they were not known. He indicted that they would meet all the city's requirements, including parking for the lodge. Commissioner Simmons agreed that parking could be a concern relative to the number of memberships sold. She inquired concerning the maximum capacity for the restaurant and was told that the Fire Code determined the number of patrons who could occupy the restaurant at one time. As an example, it was pointed out that all of the members could not occupy the restaurant at one time and the size of the project also set limitations on the restaurant and lodge use. She expressed concern for noise and was informed the city had a noise ordinance to set limits on outside entertainment. Commissioner Simmons indicated that she would like to find a balance between property and community rights. She believed the island would not make a good park because of the cost, location, needed maintenance to keep it from eroding, and the swift currents in the Intracoastal waterway at that location. Commissioner Simmons recapped all of the revisions to the project and commented on the positive changes, including the deep-water marina, which would allow residents a place to park their boats. Commissioner Simmons reminded the Commissioners that they would see a final development plan and believed money would not be spent if it was not going to be a quality project. She pointed out that the developers were willing to evolve with the Commission's requests and believed the November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa a 12 Commissioners needed to have some faith that it would be a good development for the city. The Mayor believed the marina/lodge should be defined, and believed, from his past experience that the FDOT would not allow a traffic light at the base of the bridge. He inquired if no traffic light could be included in the PUD. City Attorney Jensen believed language could be added to the PUD indicating that the developer would agree not to request a traffic light in the future. Discussion of controlling architectural style ensued and Community Development Director Doerr indicated that appropriate language could be included in the PUD. Community Development Director Doerr clarified that the motion included the statement she read into the record and language that the developer would agree not to request a traffic light in the future. Amendment to the motion: Amend ordinance to include statement read b_y Community Development Director Doerr concerning the use of the marina, lode and club; and to include language indicating that the developer would agree not to request a traffic light in the future. Moved by Beaver, seconded by Parsons Votes: Aye: 5 -Beaver, Parsons, Simmons, Waters, Meserve Nay: 0 AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION CARRIED The Mayor called for a roll call vote. Moved by Beaver, seconded by Parsons Votes: Aye: 2 -Simmons, Meserve Nay: 3 -Beaver, Parsons, Waters MOTION FAILED BY A TWO TO THREE ROLL CALL VOTE The Mayor called aten-minute recess and the meeting was reconvened at 10:00 p.m D. Ordinance No. 15-04-10 Introduction and First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, SUPPLEMENTING ORDINANCE NO. 15-95-7, ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 13, 1995, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 15-96-8, ENACTED ON MARCH 11, 1996; PROVIDING FOR THE REFUNDING OF A PORTION OF THE CITY'S OUTSTANDING November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa a 13 UTILITIES SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1996; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $20,000,000 UTILITIES SYSTEM REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004, TO FINANCE THE COST THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS FROM THE PLEDGED REVENUES ON A PARITY WITH THE CITY'S OUTSTANDING UNREFUNDED PORTION OF THE 1996 BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE USE AND APPLICATION OF THE PLEDGED REVENUES; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF, AND MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS WITH, THE REGISTERED OWNERS OF SUCH BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF THE BONDS AT NEGOTIATED SALE; APPROVING THE USE OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF THE BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE DELIVERY OF A FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING AN UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE DELEGATION TO THE CITY MANAGER OF THE AUTHORITY TO AWARD AND DELIVER THE BONDS TO THE UNDERWRITER WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Mayor read the ordinance by title only. Motion: Approve Ordinance No. 15-04-10 on first reading. Finance Director Van Liere explained the bond refunding procedure and indicated the city would save $1 M. Discussion ensued concerning the procedure for selling the bonds. The public hearing for the ordinance will beheld November 22, 2004. Moved by Parsons, seconded by Beaver Votes: Aye: 5 -Beaver, Parsons, Simmons, Waters, Meserve Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Miscellaneous Business 8. Miscellaneous Business A. Tom McMenemy's appeal of the Tree Conservation Board's decision (City Manager) Mayor Meserve indicated that Mr. McMenemy of 1845 Hickory Lane was appealing a finding of the Tree Conservation Board and this appeal was to be considered a quasi judicial hearing by the Commission. He requested that the City Attorney explain how the hearing should be conducted. November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Paee 14 ~'' City Attorney Jensen advised that Mr. McMenemy should receive due process under the city's code of ordinances and a decision should be based on substantial evidence presented. He also advised that it should be disclosed if any Commissioner discussed this matter with anyone prior to the hearing. Commissioner Beaver disclosed that he had personally spoken with Mr. McMenemy. Building Official Ford provided background information and indicated that Mr. McMenemy removed atwenty-four inch diameter oak tree from the right-of--way adjacent to his home without a permit. Mr. McMenemy was referred to the Tree Conservation Board who assessed mitigation for the tree at $117 per inch for a total mitigation of $2,808. A tree survey taken before the Selva Marina street resurfacing project was displayed showing the location of the tree. Mr. McMenemy stated that he was still not sure that the tree, which was removed, was on city right-of--way. He indicated that when the streets were private, his property line went into the street, and when the city took over maintenance of the streets, he believed that his lot line now went to the edge of the street. Commissioner Waters inquired as to why he wanted the tree removed. Mr. McMenemy responded that it was spongy and he feared it would fall on his neighbor's house. Mayor Meserve inquired if the residents of Selva Marina were given maps showing the rights-of--way after the project was completed. City Manager Hanson responded that they were not given maps. Discussion ensued. The Mayor felt Mr. McMenemy should be given the benefit of the doubt concerning the right-of--way line, and inquired as to how the mitigation fee was determined. Mr. Ford explained the assessment. Commissioner Waters believed Mr. McMenemy should replace the tree on the right-of--way with a smaller, healthy tree. Commissioner Parsons believed mitigation should not be waived. Motion: Deny the request of Mr. McMenemy to waive the Tree Conservation Board mitigation assessment of $2,808 for property located at 1845 Hickory Lane. Discussion of the right-of--way line ensued. Mayor Meserve acknowledged that some confusion regarding right-of--way ownership could exist. November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Paee 15 ,,~ Commissioner Beaver agreed that this could be a "gray area" and requested that letters be sent to the homeowners in the area regarding tree removal on city rights-of--way. Instead of paying the mitigation, Commissioner Beaver suggested that Mr. McMenemy plant back two six-inch live oak trees on his property. Moved by Parsons, seconded by Simmons Votes: Aye: 2 -Parsons, Waters Nay: 3 -Beaver, Simmons, Meserve MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FAILED Discussion of the size of the trees to be planted ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. McMenemy purchase two four-inch live oak trees to be planted on his property. Mr. McMenemy agreed that he would purchase two replacement trees as stipulated. Motion: Waive the Tree Board mitigation assessment of $2,808 and substitute the mitigation assessment with the planting of two four-inch live oak trees at 1845 Hickory Lane. One of the trees will be planted on the right-of--way at a location approved by the city. The trees will be planted within sixty days and must survive for one year after planting. .,.. Moved by Simmons, seconded by Beaver Votes: Aye: 5 -Beaver, Parsons, Simmons, Waters, Meserve Nay: 0 - MOTION CARRIED Mayor Meserve requested that an article concerning maintaining and removal of trees on city rights-of--way be placed in the December Tideviews newsletter. B. Request from Beaches Habitat for a Waiver from the Subdivision Regulations to allow development of individual lots to begin prior to final completion and acceptance of street, drainage and utility improvements (City Manager) Motion: Approve request from Beaches Habitat for a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations to allow development of individual lots to begin prior to final completion and acceptance of street, drainage and utility improvements. ,,~.. Ralph Marcello, Executive Director of Beaches Habitat, introduced Charles Kennedy, Engineer for the Cornell Two/Scheidel Court project, and November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Paee 16 ~' explained the request. Mr. Marcello indicated that Beaches Habitat would have most of the infrastructure work completed by January, but wanted to ensure they could make best use of several volunteer organizations prior to receiving a certificate of completion for the project. Mr. Marcello indicated that Beaches habitat would provide a performance bond to guarantee completion of the project. Discussion ensued and it was the consensus of the Commissioners to waive the performance bond. The Commissioner praised the work of Beaches Habitat for providing affordable housing to the residents of Atlantic Beach. Moved by Beaver, seconded by Parsons Votes: Aye: 5 -Beaver, Parsons, Simmons, Waters, Meserve Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED C. Presentation of the redesign for the five points intersection (City Manager) Public Works Director Carper presented a conceptual drawing of proposed improvements to the five points intersection as designed by HDR ""~ Engineering, Inc. A copy of the visual presentation is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment C. Mr. Carper explained that the city would have to purchase right-of--way on the corner of Sherry Drive to make the turn lane from Seminole to Sherry Drive. He indicated that he had discussed the purchase with the property owner, but no formal action had been taken. He indicated that the property owner seemed receptive to the purchase, but his wife expressed concern for moving traffic closer to their home. It was explained that the new configuration would bring traffic five feet closer to their home, but it would be safer with the installation of a stop sign on the turn lane corner. Discussion of traffic flow through the intersection ensued. Commissioner Waters pointed out a problem he encountered with traffic stopping on Seminole when someone was waiting to get into their driveway. Mayor Meserve inquired if a dedicated right turn lane could be installed on Seminole for traffic turning onto Plaza. Mr. Carper stated he did not know if there was enough right-of--way to install the lane and pointed out it would interfere with the sidewalks. He indicated he would check on the right-of- way, but felt the additional lane might cause more confusion. Mayor Meserve commented that this project was part of the city's Strategic Plan and indicated that in the past, the city had not spent a lot of time or ~ money on aesthetics. He believed this was the City Hall/Center of the city and this type of improvement would make a nice, focal point for the city, November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 17 which will eventually tie in with the new bicycle lane. The Mayor indicated that funds for the improvements could come from funds designated for Mayport Road improvements, which will not happen this year. He recommended that the five points intersection improvements be completed in one phase this year. Public Works Carper inquired if the mailbox should be moved to the next median opening on Plaza. The Commissioners concurred that it should be moved to that location. Commissioner Parson pointed out that the location marker needed to be relocated from the spot designated for art. Commissioner Beaver inquired concerning the cost to purchase the right-of- way and Mr. Carper indicated that it would be approximately $3,000 based on the property appraiser's value for the land. Motion: Accept the five points intersection improvements as part of the City of Atlantic Beach Strategic Plan and proceed with the project in one phase, with funding for the improvements coming from funds designated for the Mayport Road Project. Moved by Waters, seconded by Simmons Votes: `~ Aye: 5 -Beaver, Parsons, Simmons, Waters, Meserve Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED City Manager 9. City Manager A. City Manager's Report City Manager Hanson commented on each item of his written report, which is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment D. Beach Renourishment Commissioner Beaver expressed concern that the beach cities did not have a representative downtown to speak for funding for beach renourishment. He recounted several incidents, which supported his concern, and reiterated the need for a consultant. Mayor Meserve reported that a meeting with the beach Mayors and Jacksonville Council Member Art Graham was held the previous week and they came to the same conclusion. He indicated that the three beach cities agreed to fund Kevin Bodge as their representative to the City of Jacksonville, and Council Member Graham stated he also would try to add to the funds for Mr. Bodge. It was also reported that Council Member November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pa a 18 Graham indicated that he would contact the Jacksonville Public Works Department and urge them to support the technical expertise of Mr. Bodge. The Mayor indicated that he would be meeting on November 16"' at 2:00 p.m. with Ron Shoemaker of the City of Jacksonville. The Mayor indicated that the increase in cost of beach renourishment was a separate issue and the city needed to find out if the cost had increased from $8M to $15M and still required matching funds. Public Works Director Carper reported that the Corps guidelines had been published and the Corps would fund 100% to restore the beach to pre-storm conditions and after that they would go back to the fifty percent matching funds for beach renourishment. It was the consensus of the Commission that Kevin Bodge should be retained to represent the beach cities. City Manager Hanson indicated he would ask Mr. Bodge for a proposal to split his services between the three beach cities. Public Works Director Carper reported that the City of Jacksonville had completed a survey of all of the beaches, but had used the standard 1,000- foot monuments, instead of the required 500-foot intervals required by the "~ Corps for beach renourishment. Mr. Bodge was to find out if the Corps would accept the 1,000-foot measurements due to the emergency. Reports/Requests 10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and City City Commissioners Attorney City Attorney Commissioner Beaver • Reported on the Water Conservation Workshop he and Commissioner Waters attended. He indicated that he had spoken relative to the rate increase issue and urged them to educate the residents to conserve water. He indicated that atwo-day per week watering cycle would be imposed, but it was up to the property owner to decide which two days. Commissioner Beaver stated he inquired how this would be enforced and indicated that the City of Atlantic Beach did not want to be an enforcer. It was felt that watering on a specific day was easier to monitor. Exemption of shallow wells was being considered and it was decided that the irrigation systems for cities and parks were exempt. Commissioner Waters • Suggested that an overlay be completed to preserve the ambience of the Old Atlantic Beach area. November 8, 2004 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 19 • Requested that staff investigate ownership of the marshlands in the city and if any of the land has been used for mitigation. Mayor Meserve • Reported that The Times Union was publishing a special edition to celebrate the opening of the pier and an ad-copy person had approached him concerning the city purchasing an ad to congratulate Jacksonville Beach and he had agreed to purchase one. A. Appointments to Boards and Committees (Mayor) The Mayor suggested that a Committee be formed to screen applicants and make a recommendation to the Commission before anyone is appointed to one of the city's Boards or Committees. He indicated that he would like the City Manager, the City Clerk and Commissioner Simmons to serve on the committee. Commissioner Waters suggested that a Board or Committee Member also serve on the committee. After discussion, it was determined that the Board or Committee Member would be voluntary. The City Manager, City Clerk and Commissioner Simmons agreed to serve on the committee. !~ Adjournment There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 1 ATTEST: d~~~ Donna L. Bus~~y Municipal Clerk ~" ~ ,~ K , ATTACHMENT A NOVEMBER 8, 2004 COMMISSION MEETING /Z C/T/ZEN CONSUL T/NG FOR LAND USEAND ZON/NG, /NC. CITIZEX COX~9'zTLTIXO FOR L.fiXD Z7~9'E O' ZOXIXQr, IXC. ~. O. BOX 49209 J.fi CK9'OX YILLE BE.fi CS, FZ OR ID.~ 32240 CI TIZEXCOX9'ZTL TIXOQSO T11l.fi IL. COM To: Atlantic Beach City Commission The application before the City of Atlantic Beach to change the conservation designation in the Comprehensive Plan Functional Land Use Map to residential and commercial at Johnston Island is internally inconsistent with your city Plan's goals, objectives and policies, both under the Plan for which this application was submitted and under the new Plan's EAR based amendments pending before DCA in a compliance review. The comprehensive plan application submitted by the developer/ Bridge Tenders is also in conflict with the Regional Policy Plan, the Growth Management Act, FS 163, and the State Plan. Johnston Island is in the CHHA and the proposal to amend the plan would increase the residential density of Johnston Island rather that divert new growth away form the coastal high hazard area. The proposal risks evacuation routes and times, and increases the risk of public expenditure after storms. For environmental, transportation, traffic, density, area character, coastal management, preservation conservation reasons and others, this Plan change must be denied. There has been no demonstrated city or public need for a change in the city's Plan from conservation at Johnston Island. In fact, when going thorough the EAR process and the EAR based amendments, the city's goal was to preserve and protect conservation lands, not reduce them. The public has indicated they strongly oppose this change, coming out in hundreds for months. The crowds have now tired of appearing but have not changed their positions of opposition to a change in the public plan. Newly proposed private interests should not risk public welfare in the CHHA. Please follow the two recommendations of your Local Planning Agency to ~leny this Plan change. Deny pending Ordinance 31-04-03 and d rty the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at Johnston Island Citizen Consulting for Land Use & Zoning, Inc. P.O. Box 49209 Jacksonville Beach, Florida 40 citizenconsu/ting@hotmail. com ATTACHMENTS Attached to this general statement as a handout for you are excerpts from the Department of Community Affairs' June 2004 reminders to the city about the importance of protection of the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and the city's environmentally sensitive areas, which would include Johnston Island as being in the Coastal High Hazard Area. The fact that the island is in the waterway in the area of other conservation areas makes the proposed changes more at issue. Even though these objections and comments provided to the city by DCA were made to guide the city in revising the transmitted EAR based amendments-not this Plan change at Johnston Island specifically-- and the proposed change of the Island before ~.. you for a vote is to be reviewed under the old Plan, the references to the state laws and requirements as to the CHHA still apply. It is also noted that the applicant's agent used the new comprehensive plan policies in what we consider an unsuccessful attempt to support the application so those same policies are referenced here to indicate that the newly adopted policies add to the reasons to deny this application to change the plan away from conservation. Again, the comments of the state's Department of Community Affairs are provided to you today again because they reference state laws that apply to you being required to divert new growth away form the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). You can not increase the density at Johnston Island. Thank you for your careful review of these materials. INTRODUCTION /~- The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the `~ Department's review of the City of Atlantic Beach's proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ...OBJECTIONS, ECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 04-1 ER June 4, 2004 Division of Community Planning Office of Comprehensive Planning OBJECTIONS The Department has identified objections to objectives and policies that affect development within the coastal high hazard area and emergency evacuation, along with wetlands protection, wellhead protection, transportation, and capital improvements. Objection: Coastal High Hazard Area; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) requires the comprehensive plan to direct population away from the coastal high hazard area (CHHA). Reference: Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(g)7, and 8., and 163.3178(2)(h), F.S. Rules 9J-5.006(2), 9J-5.006(3)(b)5., 9J-5.006(4)(b)6., Rule 9J-5.005(5), Rule 9J- 5.012(2)(e)3., 9J-5.012(3)(a), Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., 7., and (c)7., F.A.C. Recommendation: The City should address population in the CHHA consistently throughout the comprehensive plan. Increases of residential densities within the CHHA should not be allowed and the use of "mitigation" to this end should be deleted. Objection: Wetland; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(a), F.A.C., requires that the City identify the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b), F.A.C., requires that the comprehensive plan then direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and where incompatible land uses are allowed to occur, consider mitigation as one means to compensate for the loss of the wetland functions. City's boundaries along with the types, values, functions, sizes and conditions of the wetlands. Policies A.1.9.2., D.3.2.8., prohibit "adverse impacts" and "significant and adverse" impacts to wetlands but do not adequately describe the types of impacts that can occur based on the criteria for wetlands identified in Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(a), F.A.C., above. The city appears to be attempting to address the largest remaining wetland system along the western boundary of the City by designating it Conservation on the FLUM. Policy A.1.6.3., states that the City will not approve FLUM amendments that impact Environmentally Sensitive Lands as defined in the Conservation Element of the comprehensive plan. Sections 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(d), and 163.3177(6)(g), F.S. ~• Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4., 9J-5.013(2)(b)4., 9J-5.013(2)(c)6., and 9J-5.013(3), F.A.C Recommendation. Based on the map adopt policies that direct specific incompatible land uses away from the wetlands. This maybe based on the type of land use as well as the type, size and other characteristics of the wetlands. Address protection of the wetlands at the development stage of the land use as well as the FLUM. Adopt policies that clearly direct future land ". ,: development regulations that will address prohibiting certain uses in wetlands as well as minimizing the impacts to the wetlands and mitigating any impacts to wetlands. /-- Rules 9J-5.016(3)(b)2., and 9J-5.016(4)(a), F.A.C. "!~ Objection: Future Land Use Categories; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., F.A.C., re uires that the future land use categories include densities or intensities. q Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c), F.A.C., requires that mixed use land use categories include a percentage mix of uses. Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(6)(a), and 163.3177 (10)(a), F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(5), and 9J-5.006(4)(c), F.A.C. Recommendation: Include a percentage of the mix of uses required for parcels designated with the Commercial land use category. Please keep in mind when amending this land use category the concerns identified with it in regards to the CHHA. COMMENTS Comment: Policy D.2.2. requires the City to implement a temporary moratorium on construction after a hurricane occurrence until redevelopment policies have been determined. The comprehensive plan should provide more direction on what the policies and priorities would be based on the damage that has occurred rather than waiting for the aftermath of a hurricane. Objection: Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan Prior to the changes between transmission and adoption, the proposed amendments were not ~'"~ consistent with the following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan: Public Safety (6) Goal and Policies (b) 22. and 23 Water Resources (7) Goal and Policies (b) 1., and 5. Land Use (15) Goal and Policy (b)6 Public Facilities (17) Goal and Policy (b) 7 Transportation (19) Goal and Policies (b) 3., 9., 12., and 13 Plan Implementation (25) Goal and Policy (b) 7 ATTACHMENT A NOVEMBER 8, 2004 COMMISSION MEETING ccluz , C/T/ZEN CONSUL T/NG FOR LAND USEAND ZON/NG, /NC. CITIZEX COX-9''ZTZTIXO FOR L~iXD ~9'E ~' ZOXIX(~, IXC. ~P. O. B O.~ 49209 J.AI CK5O X PILLS BE.~ C'S, FL O R ID.,~ 32240 CITIZ.EXCOX~~L TIRO@SO T11l.fi IL. COM ~Op~ CERTIFICATION 1 certify this to be a true and correct copy Of dle record in my office. WITIiIESSETH my hand and official seal of N9 Gly of Atlantic Beach, Florida, m. a 9~ da ~r- fit' ~.@~ ity clerk CC ~/Z ^ C/T/ZEN CONSUL T/NG FOR LAND USEAND ZON/NG, /NC. To: Atlantic Beach City Commission The application before the City of Atlantic Beach to change the conservation designation in the Comprehensive Plan Functional Land Use Map to residential and commercial at Johnston Island is internally inconsistent with your city Plan's goals, objectives and policies, both under the Plan for which this application was submitted and under the new Plan's EAR based amendments pending before DCA in a compliance review. The comprehensive plan application submitted by the developer/ Bridge Tenders is also in conflict with the Regional Policy Plan, the Growth Management Act, FS 163, and the State Plan. Johnston Island is in the CHHA and the proposal to amend the plan would increase the residential density of Johnston Island rather that divert new growth away form the coastal high hazard area. The proposal risks evacuation routes and times, and increases the risk of public expenditure after storms. For environmental, transportation, traffic, density, area character, coastal management, preservation/conservation reasons and others, this Plan change must be denied. There has been no demonstrated city or public need for a change in the city's Plan from conservation at Johnston Island. In fact, when going thorough the EAR process and the EAR based amendments, the city's goal was to preserve and protect conservation lands, not reduce them. The public has indicated they strongly oppose this change, coming out in hundreds for months. The crowds have now tired of appearing but have not changed their positions of opposition to a change in the public plan. Newly proposed private interests should not risk public welfare in the CHHA. Please follow the two recommendations of your Local Planning Agency to deny this Plan change. Dent/ pending Ordinance 31-04-03 and deny the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at Johnston Island Citizen Consulting for Land Use $ Zoning, Inc. P.O. Box 49209 Jacksonville Beach, Florida 40 citizenconsulting@hotmail. com ATTACHMENTS Attached to this general statement as a handout for you are excerpts from the Department of Community Affairs' June 2004 reminders to the city about the importance of protection of the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and the city's environmentally sensitive areas, which would include Johnston Island as being in the Coastal High Hazard Area. The fact that the island is in the waterway in the area of other conservation areas makes the proposed changes more at issue. Even though these objections and comments provided to the city by DCA were made to guide the city in revising the transmitted EAR based amendments-not this Plan change at Johnston Island specifically-- and the proposed change of the Island before you for a vote is to be reviewed under the old Plan, the references to the state laws and requirements as to the CHHA still apply. It is also noted that the applicant's agent used the new comprehensive plan policies in what we consider an unsuccessful attempt to support the application so those same policies are referenced here to indicate that the newly adopted policies add to the reasons to deny this application to change the plan away from conservation. Again, the comments of the state's Department of Community Affairs are provided to you today again because they reference state laws that apply to you being required to divert new growth away form the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). You cannot increase the density at Johnston Island. Thank you for your careful review of these materials. INTRODUCTION ~""' The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the City of Atlantic Beach's proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ...OBJECTIONS, ECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 04-lER June 4, 2004 Division of Community Planning Office of Comprehensive Planning OBJECTIONS The Department has identified objections to objectives and policies that affect development within the coastal high hazard area and emergency evacuation, along with wetlands protection, wellhead protection, transportation, and capital improvements. Objection: Coastal High Hazard Area; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) requires the comprehensive plan to direct population away from the coastal high hazard area (CHHA). Reference: Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(g)7, and 8., and 163.3178(2)(h), F.S. Rules 9J-5.006(2), 9J-5.006(3)(b)5., 9J-5.006(4)(b)6., Rule 9J-5.005(5), Rule 9J- 5.012(2)(e)3., 9J-5.012(3)(x), Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., 7., and (c)7., F.A.C. Recommendation: The City should address population in the CHHA consistently throughout the comprehensive plan. Increases of residential densities within the CHHA should not be allowed and the use of "mitigation" to this end should be deleted. Objection: Wetland; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(a), F.A.C., requires that the City identify the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b), F.A.C., requires that the comprehensive plan then direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and where incompatible land uses are allowed to occur, consider mitigation as one means to compensate for the loss of the wetland functions. City's boundaries along with the types, values, functions, sizes and conditions of the wetlands. Policies A.1.9.2., D.3.2.8., prohibit "adverse impacts" and "significant and adverse" impacts to wetlands but do not adequately describe the types of impacts that can occur based on the criteria for wetlands identified in Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(a), F.A.C., above. The city appears to be attempting to address the largest remaining wetland system along the western boundary of the City by designating it Conservation on the FLUM. Policy A.1.6.3., states that the City will not approve FLUM amendments that impact Environmentally Sensitive Lands as defined in the Conservation Element of the comprehensive plan. Sections 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(d), and 163.3177(6)(g), F.S. Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4., 9J-5.013(2)(b)4., 9J-5.013(2)(c)6., and 9J-5.013(3), F.A.C Recommendation. Based on the map adopt policies that direct specific incompatible land uses away from the wetlands. This may be based on the type of land use as well as the type, size and other characteristics of the wetlands. Address protection of the wetlands at the development stage of the land use as well as the FLUM. Adopt policies that clearly direct future land development regulations that will address prohibiting certain uses in wetlands as well as minimizing the impacts to the wetlands and mitigating any impacts to wetlands. Rules 9J-5.016(3)(b)2., and 9J-5.016(4)(a), F.A.C. Objection: Future Land Use Categories; Rule 9J-5.006 3 c 7. F.A. ( )() C., requires that the future land use categories include densities or intensities. Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c), F.A.C., requires that mixed use land use categories include a percentage mix of uses. Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(6)(a), and 163.3177 (10)(a), F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(5), and 9J-5.006(4)(c), F.A.C. Recommendation: Include a percentage of the mix of uses required for parcels designated with the Commercial land use category. Please keep in mind when amending this land use category the concerns identified with it in regards to the CHHA. COMMENTS Comment: Policy D.2.2. requires the City to implement a temporary moratorium on construction after a hurricane occurrence until redevelopment policies have been determined. The comprehensive plan should provide more direction on what the policies and priorities would be based on the damage that has occurred rather than waiting for the aftermath of a humcane. Objection: Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan ~,~, Prior to the changes between transmission and adoption, the proposed amendments were not consistent with the following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan: Public Safety (6) Goal and Policies (b) 22. and 23 Water Resources (7) Goal and Policies (b) 1., and 5. Land Use (15) Goal and Policy (b}6 Public Facilities (17) Goal and Policy (b) 7 Transportation (19) Goal and Policies (b) 3., 9., 12., and 13 Plan Implementation (25) Goal and Policy (b) 7 f ATTACHMENT B NOVEMBER 8, 2004 COMMISSION MEETING JOHNSTON ISLAND RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL ' OF THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE FOR D LITTON ISLAND FROM CONSER NATION DESIGNATION OPPOSITION TO INCREASING THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF THE ICW COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA ISLAND OPPOSITION TO INCREASING THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON THE ICW ISLAND OPPOSITION TO CHANGING THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER ~- AT THE F.I.N.D. EASEMENTS AND EASEMENTS OF THE US GOVERNMENT ON THE ISLAND NEAR THE TRESCA PARK PRESER VE, D LITTON ISLAND PRESER VE AND D LITTON ROAD PRESERVE AND IN THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, REGIONAL POLICYPLAN, AND STATELAWAND RULE INCONSISTENCIES OF THE PROPOSAL By Valerie Britt Witness for Opponents' Case Credentials Previously Submitted to the Record PABLO POINT CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. (PPCA) 71 San Pablo Road North Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Pab IoPoi ntCA l 983 @yahoo. com /~ ~~ (904) 221 - 4945 ~~~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ v ~~i ~ ~ ~~ CIVIC AS~O~IA~'~O~ MEMO To: City of Atlantic Beach From: Pablo Point Civic Association, Inc., 71 San Pablo Road N. 32225 Date: Friday,. November 5, 2004 RE: Johnston Island Land Use/PLUM Change Hearing RE: Notice of Association's Authorized Expert Witness FOR: Monday, November 8, 2004 Commission Meeting and City Record This is to notify the City Commission that Valerie Britt is authorized to appear as an expert witness on our behalf at the Commission hearing Monday regarding a proposed change of the comprehensive plan designation for Johnston Island. Positions Valerie Britt has held or does now hold to qualify her as a competent witness in planning and transportation issues to testify as our witness include, but are not limifed to: PPCA Director of Land Use & Zoning, Planning and Zoning Chair for the Greater Arlington Civic Council, Inc., Future of Florida Assembly (invited participant statewide), CPAC Comprehensive Plan and. Growth Management Chair, CPAC Land Use & Zoning Committee Member, Metropolitan Planning Organization CAC, various subcommittees of the MPO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority E-SW Corridor Study Committee (which included the beaches),, GACC Land Use & Zoning Chair, American Planning Association- Member, various transportation public bodies, 1000 Friends of Florida Growth Management Award recipient. Ms. Britt is informed of the history of this island and with the allowed uses under the old Plan and zoning that applied in Jacksonville, the 1990 Plan of Atlantic Beach and Ms. Britt was present at the hearings of previous applications-for Johnston Island including the proposed and denied scallop .plant prior to 1990 under the Jacksonville Plan, proposed and denied DRI, the proposed and failed commercial rezoning, and the adoption of the PLUM designation after annexation, and she has reviewed the records of all matters related to Johnston Island land use designations over years. As an expert witness for the opponents, Ms. Britt needs to be given adequate time to testify on Monday, 11/8/04. VALERIE BRITT 378 Tilefish Court Jacksonville, Florida 32225 WITNESS I am Valerie Britt, appearing as an expert witness for the opponent's case, including for residents of Pablo Point and for Pablo Point Civic Association, Inc. at 71 San Pablo Road North 32225. The opponents for whom I present the case for denial are adversely affected parties in the matter of the proposed change from conservation to a multiple land use designation of residential condo development and commercial development, both changes submitted together as a single land use amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. For any application properly before you to change the comprehensive plan designation of Johnston Island, it is impossible for the Commission to find the change consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with the area character of the community. My credentials are already a matter of record of the Johnston Island applications and are summarized in the association's letter of authorization of witness. There is some confusion in citing policy numbers in that the application was first submitted under the old Plan and the matter is now before the Commission just as the DCA is issuing their compliance finding of the new plan. The applicant has used new policies while the Director has advised the use of the old policies. Regardless of which plan is referenced, the proposal does not facilitate or further the goals and objectives of the Atlantic Beach Plan and the proposal for change of designation of the island is in conflict with some of the policies of the plan. The Bridge Tender applications are inconsistent with Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan's Goa1.I, objective 1.1, objective 1.8, objective 1.4, objective 1.6, objective 1.7, policies 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.7, 1.3.6, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.7.1, 1.8.1 and others. For such a small city and relatively small total city acreage, the proposed intensity and density of development so far from the urban core and town center of the community constitutes urban sprawl because it would create a need for unanticipated urban facilities, services and for utilities not planned. As it currently exists, the isolated, low density, low intensity island nearly a mile away from most Atlantic Beach residents would require the construction and extension of ~.. Atlantic Beach utilities, if the changes are approved. The current designation of conservation already reflects the values, vision, and character of Atlantic Beach. The proposal for change from conservation is in conflict with that community vision-a vision that was once again memorialized in the City's EAR based new Plan. Johnston Island's proper designation should be considered in relationship to the Intracoastal Waterway, the Florida Inland Navigational District (FIND) easements, the easement rights of the United States, and the public interests in retaining that assigned designation of conservation Johnston Island is in the Coastal high Hazard Area (CHHA). Therefore, the Bridge Tenders applications are in conflict with Florida's Rule 9J-5.012 (3) (b) 6, which requires every comprehensive plan of this state to direct population away from the coastal high hazard area. A denial of the Bridge Tenders application will be supported by Florida Statutes 163.3177(a), 163.3177(6)(8), 163.3187(2) and by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J- 5, in .005(2), .005 (5), .005 (4) and 9J5.006 (4), 9J5.012 (3) (a). The natural environment of the Intracoastal waterway and the nearby preservation areas of the Dutton island Preserve, Tresca Park Preserve, and the Dutton Road Preserve can ~` not be improved upon by chan ine conservation and low intensity development to both condos in a more dense residential development combined with commercial development on the ICW CHHA island. The Bridge Tenders proposals in every form before you formally and informally are too intense for the character of the area of the marshes and Pablo Creek. Bridge Tenders, LLC, under the managing partner Ron Zajack and family partner Laura Johnston Perkins, claiming ownership of Johnston Island, wish to designate part of the conservation land to general commercial. There are many reasons why that part of the island should NOT be re-designated as commercial from the existing conservation assignment, and why it must remain conservation. Although the family has tried to informally claim vested rights to the Rumrunner Restaurant's 1980's brief use, outside of the formal process to do so, there is no such right to commercial, even as a vested or nonconforming use. The old Rumrunners Restaurant was already discussed when the island was given its initial Plan designation under Atlantic Beach's annexation and is irrelevant in this private application to change from the conservation designation to the more intense uses. However, be reminded that even lawfully conforming uses at the adoption of a Plan must be brought into compliance with the Plan and zoning code when the business closes. The small business of Rumrunners operating with well water and septic tank and erroneously built in an easement without proper permitting failed prior to Jacksonville's adoption of its 2010 plan and the comprehensive plan designation assigned to the island prior to the Atlantic Beach annexation did not allow for a restaurant. Prior to annexation, the assigned Plan category for the island never allowed for the types of restaurant and commercial and retail uses this developer proposes. While a supporting small ship's store was allowed under the Jacksonville Plan to support the water dependent category prior to annexation, that did not allow for a full fledged restaurant with indoor and outdoor seating and alcoholic beverage service as the Bridge Tenders propose for their Yacht Club use. The proposed indoor/outdoor restaurant before you was never allowed for Johnston Island in the Jacksonville Plan either. Had Johnston Island remained under the jurisdiction of Jacksonville instead of having been annexed by Atlantic Beach, the uses proposed by Bridge Tenders through the pending comp plan amendment and through the PUD application would have been inconsistent with the jacksonville Plan just as it is with the Atlantic Beach Plan--Both the old one under which the application was submitted and the new one. Furthermore, all development of Johnston Island, whether under the Jacksonville or Atlantic Beach Plan, would have to be in or come into conformance with the Plan. The.3 acres proposed for general commercial could not have been developed in the old Plan category even if Johnston Island had not been annexed by Atlantic Beach. Just as was discussed in the hearings in which the Johnston family participated through their agent in 1998, the prior Jacksonville Plan category did NOT allow for retail and general commercial development. The applicant would have you believe that they had commercial rights except for the annexation but we have been all around this claim before and found that rhetoric of family and agents was not grounded in facts. The city of Atlantic Beach denied the designation of the island as commercial once before and no challenge of it held up in court. In fact, these same issues popping up at the last minute were completely on the table in 1998 when Atlantic Beach rejected the idea of designating the island as commercial. In 1998, I submitted to the record the pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan of Jacksonville and the zoning code which detailed the uses allowed and not allowed in their water dependent category and pointed out that commercial had never been allowed on Johnston Island under that designation. There is no Johnston Island family entitlement to commercial to influence your decision on whether to change the Plan category there from conservation to commercial. As I see it, the only use established there on the island to consider in fairness to the family and Bridge Tenders was the home of the bridge tender and the low density rural single home / single family residential nature of the ICW island. The current conservation designation does that. Again, the island did not allow general commercial retain and services even rior to the annexation and would not allow it under the Jacksonville Plan now, just as i ps not allowed under the Atlantic Beach plan. For purposes of this second request for general commercial designation of the island, I will repeat some of the reasons that certified planner Janis Fleet made record in 1998 as reasons why Atlantic Beach should not designate Johnston Island as commercial general. For the record, Ms. Fleet, with Fleet & Associates Architects & Planners, Inc., was the consultant who wrote for Atlantic Beach the Plan under which this application is being reviewed and the planner who was retained by me for Pablo Point in 1998 to assist the opposition to commercial designation in that 1998 process that eventually resulted in Atlantic Beach's rejection of the commercial general designation of the island. My point is that the current designation of the island and the decision not to designate the island for commercial general was no accident. To quote from Janis Fleet's 19981etter: The intent of the CG category, according to the Atlantic Beach zoning code is " to provide general retail sales and services for the CITY AS A WHOLE. These [CG] districts should have direct access to major thoroughfares." The Johnston Island parcel does not meet the intent of the CG category. The access of the island limits its ability to serve THE CITY AS A WHOLE. Also, there is no water and sewer provided to the site by the city not does the city utilities plan extent to this outlying area in the midst of the ICW located near the preservation areas of Tresca and Dutton Island. At the time of the first consideration of a CG designation for Johnston Island, planner Janis Fleet pointed out that policy 1.3.6 of the future land use element of the Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan states that "commercial...development projects shall be located and designed so as to minimize adverse affects on residential areas, traffic facilities and the aesthetic character of the area." Ms. Fleet concluded that requirement was not met when considering commercial designation for the island. Planner Janis Fleet pointed out the adverse conditions that could be created on Atlantic Boulevard for a CG development and showed in her comments why CG development would not be compliant with Plan policies. Yet, before you again, you have an application to change the island to a CG Plan designation-to change the city's plan and cater to private owner interests, beyond rights, to designate part of the island as general commercial, which is a category for general retail sales and services for the city as a whole. If the developer does not intend to develop retail sales and services for the city as a while, then the application for CG is the wrong request and must be denied as inconsistent with the Plan. The applicant and perhaps the relatively new (post 1998) planning staff would have the new commission and the record believe that the initial Atlantic Beach comprehensive plan designation of Atlantic Beach for Johnston Island was inadvertent and that it was accidentally lumped in with the other marsh-front areas annexed. That is absolutely not true! For the radio site and for Johnston Island, other designations including CG and more limited commercial was considered and rejected. Those of us who went through the long process, including the Johnston family through their agents, know that there was a painstakingly thorough review of the options, including various levels of commercial development and a review of that old record will give a hint of that work to determine the best designation and to get to this point. I remember well that I hired an aerial photographer to capture the environmental nature of the island area and that I submitted those professional photographs to the record, along with several rolls of film of the island I took on my own. As mentioned, a certified planner familiar with the City's Plan was retained to participate in that process of the initial designation of Johnston Island. The public and the affected owners had their say, and the commission debated and deliberated to determine the best designation of two sites, while being in agreement on the designation of the rest of the annexed land that was marshland. I also remember well that that year the Johnston family made at least three legal challenges and were unsuccessful on all counts, so that the actions of Atlantic Beach were upheld. The family's unsuccessful challenges of the Atlantic Beach decisions on the Comprehensive Plan designation, the zoning, and the DRI application were documented in the public records and can be read in the opinions and orders of the Duval Circuit Court, the First District Court of Appeals and in the Florida Division of Administrative hearings (DOAH). Since there are again rumblings from the family about whether the annexation was legal, it is significant to note that the admitted facts of at least one court petition filed by the family gave as a finding of fact that Atlantic Beach had annexed the island. Why else would the family apply to the city of Atlantic Beach in 1998 and again this year for a change of the plan if they did not believe that Atlantic Beach had jurisdiction over the designation of the island? The record suggests any issue of annexation is a ship that has sailed! So, no, unlike the staff report and the application would have the commission believe, the rejection of commercial designation of Johnston Island in 1998 was not haphazard and Johnston Island was not just lumped in with the marsh lands annexed. Instead, specifically for the radio tower and Johnston Island, there was much public input and input of experts on both sides, which led to the current designation: That process respected the rights of the owners and the interests of the public. There is no reason to disturb that designation of the island's Plan category. Years later, the matter before the city of whether to approve a change and intensify allowed uses should not be complicated by the worn out claims of lack of proper annexation. If Mr. Zajack as a relatively new owner in the new partnership really did not know about that 1998 process and the unsuccessful court cases that served to uphold the Atlantic Beach decisions, that is perhaps a private contract matter between seller and buyer and among partners. Whether or not there was full disclosure of the seller to the buyer is not before the city in this comprehensive plan matter. The facts and record before you support denying intensification and increased density of the island and denying the application for a comprehensive plan change. Retaining the current designation of the island serves a public purpose. The marina part of the proposed yacht club development presents additional planning problems and the yacht club will not work without a marina! A new marina in Atlantic Beach would have to go through the regional review as a DRI and there is no DRI application yet before the city of Atlantic Beach. In addition, the yacht club/marina will require a submerged land lease to use public lands. The manatee issue will also arise in those applications to follow this application so I urge you to consider those issue before prematurely approving as use to accommodate a marina at Johnston island. Project data available through JU and the US Geological Survey Sierenia Project indicate manatees use this area as shown through aerial survey, telemetry, and manatee mortality data. Manatees migrate through this area as they travel to and from warmer waters. In the five mile sphere of influence, there are higher numbers during the non-winter months. By adding wet slips, manatees would be at an increased risk ofwatercraft-related harassment, injury, and death due to a significant increase of watercraft to the area. Around 2002, and perhaps also in later studies by other agencies, the US Fish & Wildlife Service designated this portion of Duval County as high risk for manatee injury and mortality. In 2002, the Save the Manatee Club notified the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers that it did not recommend allowing increases of wet slips in the area. During that time, Duval County was ranked 4`h both in overall manatee mortality and in watercraft related mortality. Watercraft mortality must be considered when reviewing a new boat facility such as this proposed yacht club marina. Just as they did in 1998, the Local Planning Agency has again twice this year recommended that the conservation designation for Johnston Island remain as the land use assignment in the Plan for Johnston Island. That is also my recommendation. Please adopt the recommendations of your planning agency Page 1 of 2 PUBLISHED IN THE TIMES UNION-SHORELINE SUPPLEMENT STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE ATLANTIC BEACH 04-lER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(S) IN COMPLIANCE DOCKET NO.04-IER-NOI-1602-(A)-(I) The Department gives notice of its intent to find the Amendment(s) to the Comprehensive Plan for Atlantic Beach, adopted by Ordinance No(s). 31-04-04 on September 13, 2004, IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3189, and 380.05, F.S. The adopted Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) and the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, (if any), are available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the City of Atlantic Beach, City Hall, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445. Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S., has a right to petition for an administrative hearing to challenge the proposed agency determination that the Amendment(s) to the Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan are In Compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The petition must be filed within twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of the information and contents described in Unifonn Rule 28-106.201, F.A.C. The petition must be filed with the Agency Clerk, Department of Community.Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, and a copy mailed or delivered to the local government. Failure to timely file a petition shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an administrative proceeding as a petitioner under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. If a petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing will be to present evidence and testimony and forward a recommended order to the Department. If no petition is filed, this Notice of Intent shall become final agency action. If a petition is filed, other affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding. A petition for intervention must be filed at least twenty (20) days before the final hearing and must include all of the information and contents described in Uniform Rule 28-106.205, F.A.C. A petition for leave to intervene shall be filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Management Services, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060. Failure to petition to intervene within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such a person has to request a hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to participate in the administrative hearing. After an administrative hearing petition is timely filed, mediation is available pursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3) (a), F.S., to any affected person who is made a party to the proceeding by filing that request with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The choice of mediation shall not http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/Advisories/Atlantic%20Beach%2004-1ER.htm 11/8/2004 1 GR YF IF r: 0 ~1 ~ 4 ~F ~F r Y,• t s.c ym ~.~ ~+ y Qiyt ,~F ,~ t ~ 1. sr 1 ~ 'fr :.~ ~a r S~~ f ay` ~ y i i`1 i~ F /.'n a~'~~,.TT~~ -K_ 'gyp' ... 5 ~ i1 ,: ,~ 7X~ C Nr ] ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ra:'1D~r.k, y 4 ~3 '~s' { k5 r ~1~ ~ 4 e r~r~ ~;.' d- ~. ~, ,:~~s' ;- . ~~ , ~'~;. "~v'.. ATTACHMENT B NOVEMBER 8, 2004 COMMISSION MEETING JOHNSTON ISLAND RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OF THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE FOR DUTTON ISLAND FROM CONSER NATION DESIGNATION OPPOSITION TO INCREASING THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF THE ICW COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA ISLAND OPPOSITION TO INCREASING THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON THE ICW ISLAND OPPOSITION TO CHANGING THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AT THE F.I.N.D. EASEMENTS AND EASEMENTS OF THE US GOVERNMENT ~ ON THE ISLAND NEAR THE TRESCA PARK PRESER VE, D LITTON ISLAND PRESER VE AND D LITTON ROAD PRESERVE AND IN THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, REGIONAL POLICYPLAN, AND STATE LAWAND RULE INCONSISTENCIES OF THE PROPOSAL By Valerie Britt Witness for Opponents' Case Credentials Previously Submitted to the Record PABLO POINT CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. (PPCA) 71 San Pablo Road North Jacksonville, Florida 32225 PabloPointCA1983@yahoo.com ~~ ~ (904) 221 - 4945 1'r ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~~ ,,~.. v ~ ~~ ~~ b CIVIC AS~O~IA~`~ON MEMO To: City of Atlantic Beach From: Pablo Point Civic Association, Inc., 71 San Pablo Road N. 32225 Date: Friday, November 5, 2004 RE: Johnston Island Land Use/PLUM Change Hearing RE: Notice of Association's Authorized Expert Witness FOR: Monday, November 8, 2004 Commission Meeting and City Record ~,/~'' This is to notify the City Commission that Valerie Britt is authorized to appear as an expert witness on our behalf at the Commission hearing Monday regarding a proposed change of the comprehensive plan designation for Johnston Island. Positions Valerie Britt has held or does now hold to qualify her as a competent witness in planning and transportation issues to testify as our witness include, but are not limited to: PPCA Director of Land Use & Zoning, Planning and Zoning Chair for the Greater Arlington Civic Council, Inc., Future of Florida Assembly (invited participant statewide), CPAC Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Chair, CPAC Land Use & Zoning Committee Member, Metropolitan Planning Organization CAC, various subcommittees of the MPO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority E-SW Corridor Study Committee (which included the beaches), GACC Land Use & Zoning Chair, American Planning Association Member, various transportation public bodies, 1000 Friends of Florida Growth Management Award recipient. Ms. Britt is informed of the history of this island and with the allowed uses under the old Plan and zoning that applied in Jacksonville, the 1990 Plan of Atlantic Beach and Ms. Britt was present at the hearings of previous applications for Johnston Island including the proposed and denied scallop plant prior to 1990 under the Jacksonville Plan, proposed and denied DRI, the proposed and failed commercial rezoning, and the adoption of the PLUM designation after ~ annexation, and she has reviewed the records of all matters related to Johnston Island land use designations over years. As an expert witness for the opponents, Ms. Britt needs to be given adequate time to testify on Monday, 11/8/04. VALERIE BRITT 378 Tilefish Court Jacksonville, Florida 32225 WITNESS I am Valerie Britt, appearing as an expert witness for the opponent's case, including for residents of Pablo Point and for Pablo Point Civic Association, Inc. at 71 San Pablo Road North 32225. The opponents for whom I present the case for denial are adversely affected parties in the matter of the proposed change from conservation to a multiple land use designation of residential condo development and commercial development, both changes submitted together as a single land use amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. For any application properly before you to change the comprehensive plan designation of Johnston Island, it is impossible for the Commission to find the change consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with the area character of the community. My credentials are already a matter of record of the Johnston Island applications and are summarized in the association's letter of authorization of witness. There is some confusion in citing policy numbers in that the application was first submitted under the old Plan and the matter is now before the Commission just as the DCA is issuing their compliance finding of the new plan. The applicant has used new policies while the Director has advised the use of the old policies. Regardless of which plan is referenced, the proposal does not facilitate or further the goals and objectives of the Atlantic Beach Plan and the proposal for change of designation of the island is in conflict with some of the policies of the plan. The Bridge Tender applications are inconsistent with Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan's Goal I, objective 1.1, objective 1.8, objective 1.4, objective 1.6, objective 1.7, policies 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.7, 1.3.6, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.7.1, 1.8.1 and others. For such a small city and relatively small total city acreage, the proposed intensity and density of development so far from the urban core and town center of the community constitutes urban sprawl because it would create a need for unanticipated urban facilities, services and for utilities not planned. As it currently exists, the isolated, low density, low intensity island nearly a mile away from most Atlantic Beach residents would require the construction and extension of Atlantic Beach utilities, if the changes are approved. The current designation of conservation already reflects the values, vision, and character of Atlantic Beach. The proposal for change from conservation is in conflict with that community vision-a vision that was once again memorialized in the City's EAR based new Plan. Johnston Island's proper designation should be considered in relationship to the Intracoastal Waterway, the Florida Inland Navigational District (FIND) easements, the easement rights of the United States, and the public interests in retaining that assigned designation of conservation Johnston Island is in the Coastal high Hazard Area (CHHA). Therefore, the Bridge Tenders applications are in conflict with Florida's Rule 9J-5.012 (3) (b) 6, which requires every comprehensive plan of this state to direct population away from the coastal high hazard area. A denial of the Bridge Tenders application will be supported by Florida Statutes 163.3177(a), 163.3177(6)(g), 163.3187(2) and by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J- 5, in .005(2), .005 (5), .005 (4) and 9J5.006 (4), 9J5.012 (3) (a). The natural environment of the intracoastal waterway and the nearby preservation areas of the Dutton island Preserve, Tresca Park Preserve, and the Dutton Road Preserve can not be improved upon by changing conservation and low intensity development to both condos in a more dense residential development combined with commercial development on the ICW CHHA island. The Bridge Tenders proposals in every form before you formally and informally are too intense for the character of the area of the marshes and Pablo Creek. Bridge Tenders, LLC, under the managing partner Ron Zajack and family partner Laura Johnston Perkins, claiming ownership of Johnston Island, wish to designate part of the conservation land to general commercial. There are many reasons why that part of the island should NOT be re-designated as commercial from the existing conservation assignment, and why it must remain conservation. Although the family has tried to informally claim vested rights to the Rumrunner Restaurant's 1980's brief use, outside of the formal process to do so, there is no such right to commercial, even as a vested or nonconforming use. The old Rumrunners Restaurant was already discussed when the island was given its initial Plan designation under Atlantic Beach's annexation and is irrelevant in this private application to change from the conservation designation to the more intense uses. However, be reminded that even lawfully conforming uses at the adoption of a Plan must be brought into compliance with the Plan and zoning code when the business closes. The small business of ~` Rumrunners operating with well water and septic tank and erroneously built in an easement without proper permitting failed prior to Jacksonville's adoption of its 2010 ~ plan and the comprehensive plan designation assigned to the island prior to the Atlantic Beach annexation did not allow for a restaurant. Prior to annexation, the assigned Plan category for the island never allowed for the types of restaurant and commercial and retail uses this developer proposes. While a supporting small ship's store was allowed under the Jacksonville Plan to support the water dependent category prior to annexation, that did not allow for a full fledged restaurant with indoor and outdoor seating and alcoholic beverage service as the Bridge Tenders propose for their Yacht Club use. The proposed indoor/outdoor restaurant before you was never allowed for Johnston Island in the Jacksonville Plan either. Had Johnston Island remained under the jurisdiction of Jacksonville instead of having been annexed by Atlantic Beach, the uses proposed by Bridge Tenders through the pending comp plan amendment and through the PUD application would have been inconsistent with the jacksonville Plan just as it is with the Atlantic Beach Plan-- Both the old one under which the application was submitted and the new one. Furthermore, all development of Johnston Island, whether under the Jacksonville or Atlantic Beach Plan, would have to be in or come into conformance with the Plan. The.3 acres proposed for general commercial could not have been developed in the old Plan category even if Johnston Island had not been annexed by Atlantic Beach. Just as was ..•- discussed in the hearings in which the Johnston family participated through their agent in 1998, the prior Jacksonville Plan category did NOT allow for retail and general commercial development. The applicant would have you believe that they had commercial rights except for the annexation but we have been all around this claim before and found that rhetoric of family and agents was not grounded in facts. The city of Atlantic Beach denied the designation of the island as commercial once before and no challenge of it held up in court. In fact, these same issues popping up at the last minute were completely on the table in 1998 when Atlantic Beach rejected the idea of designating the island as commercial. In 1998, I submitted to the record the pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan of Jacksonville and the zoning code which detailed the uses allowed and not allowed in their water dependent category and pointed out that commercial had never been allowed on Johnston Island under that designation. There is no Johnston Island family entitlement to commercial to influence your decision on whether to change the Plan category there from conservation to commercial. As I see it, the only use established there on the island to consider in fairness to the family and Bridge Tenders was the home of the bridge tender and the low density rural single home / single family residential nature of the ICW island. The current conservation designation does that. Again, the island did not allow general commercial retain and services even prior to the annexation and would not allow it under the Jacksonville Plan now, just as it is not allowed under the Atlantic Beach plan. For purposes of this second request for general commercial designation of the island, I will repeat some of the reasons that certified planner Janis Fleet made record in 1998 as reasons why Atlantic Beach should not designate Johnston Island as commercial general. For the record, Ms. Fleet, with Fleet & Associates Architects & Planners, Inc., was the consultant who wrote for Atlantic Beach the Plan under which this application is being reviewed and the planner who was retained by me for Pablo Point in 1998 to assist the opposition to commercial designation in that 1998 process that eventually resulted in Atlantic Beach's rejection of the commercial general designation of the island. My point is that the current designation of the island and the decision not to designate the island for commercial general was no accident. To quote from Janis Fleet's 19981etter: The intent of the CG category, according to the Atlantic Beach zoning code is " to provide general retail sales and services for the CITY AS A WHOLE. These [CG] districts should have direct access to major thoroughfares." The Johnston ~,,, Island pazcel does not meet the intent of the CG category. The access of the island limits its ability to serve THE CITY AS A WHOLE. Also, there is no water and sewer provided to the site by the city not does the city utilities plan extent to this outlying area in the midst of the ICW located near the preservation areas of Tresca and Dutton Island. At the time of the first consideration of a CG designation for Johnston Island, planner Janis Fleet pointed out that policy 1.3.6 of the future land use element of the Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan states that "commercial...development projects shall be located and designed so as to minimize adverse affects on residential areas, traffic facilities and the aesthetic character of the azea." Ms. Fleet concluded that requirement was not met when considering commercial designation for the island. Planner Janis Fleet pointed out the adverse conditions that could be created on Atlantic Boulevard for a CG development and showed in her comments why CG development would not be compliant with Plan policies. Yet, before you again, you have an application to change the island to a CG Plan designation-to change the city's plan and cater to private owner interests, beyond rights, to designate part of the island as general commercial, which is a category for general retail sales and services for the city as a whole. If the developer does not intend to develop retail sales and services for the city as a while, then the application for CG is the wrong request and must be denied as inconsistent with the Plan. A~ The applicant and perhaps the relatively new (post 1998) planning staff would have the new commission and the record believe that the initial Atlantic Beach comprehensive plan designation of Atlantic Beach for Johnston Island was inadvertent and that it was accidentally lumped in with the other marsh-front areas annexed. That is absolutely not true! For the radio site and for Johnston Island, other designations including CG and more limited commercial was considered and rejected. Those of us who went through the long process, including the Johnston family through their agents, know that there was a painstakingly thorough review of the options, including various levels of commercial development and a review of that old record will give a hint of that work to determine the best designation and to get to this point. I remember well that I hired an aerial photographer to capture the environmental nature of the island area and that I submitted those professional photographs to the record, along with several rolls of film of the island I took on my own. As mentioned, a certified planner familiar with the City's Plan was retained to participate in that process of the initial designation of Johnston Island. The public and the affected owners had their say, and the commission debated and deliberated to determine the best designation of two sites, while being in agreement on the designation of the rest of the annexed land that was marshland. I also remember well that that year the Johnston family made at least three legal challenges and were unsuccessful on all counts, so that the actions of Atlantic Beach were upheld. The family's unsuccessful challenges of the Atlantic Beach decisions on the Comprehensive Plan designation, the zoning, and the DRI application were documented in the public records and can be read in the opinions and orders of the Duval Circuit Court, the First District Court of Appeals and in the Florida Division of Administrative hearings (DOAH). Since there are again rumblings from the family about whether the annexation was legal, it is significant to note that the admitted facts of at least one court petition filed by the family gave as a finding of fact that Atlantic Beach had annexed the island. Why else would the family apply to the city of Atlantic Beach in 1998 and again this year for a change of the plan if they did not believe that Atlantic Beach had jurisdiction over the designation of the island? The record suggests any issue of annexation is a ship that has sailed! So, no, unlike the staff report and the application would have the commission believe, the rejection of commercial designation of Johnston Island in 1998 was not haphazard and Johnston Island was not just lumped in with the marsh lands annexed. Instead, specifically for the radio tower and Johnston Island, there was much public input and input of experts on both sides, which led to the current designation. That process respected the rights of the owners and the interests of the public. There is no reason to disturb that designation of the island's Plan category. Years later, the matter before the city of whether to approve a change and intensify allowed uses should not be complicated by the worn out claims of lack of proper annexation. If Mr. Zajack as a relatively new owner in the new partnership really did not know about that 1998 process and the unsuccessful court cases that served to uphold the Atlantic Beach decisions, that is perhaps a private contract matter between seller and buyer and among partners. Whether or not there was full disclosure of the seller to the buyer is not before the city in this comprehensive plan matter. The facts and record before you support denying intensification and increased density of the island and denying the application for a comprehensive plan change. Retaining the current designation of the island serves a public purpose. The marina part of the proposed yacht club development presents additional planning problems and the yacht club will not work without a marina! A new marina in Atlantic Beach would have to go through the regional review as a DRI and there is no DRI application yet before the city of Atlantic Beach. In addition, the yacht club/marina will require a submerged land lease to use public lands. The manatee issue will also arise in those applications to follow this application so I urge you to consider those issue before prematurely approving as use to accommodate a marina at Johnston island. Project data. available through N and the US Geological Survey Sierenia Project indicate manatees use this area as shown through aerial survey, telemetry, and manatee mortality data. Manatees migrate through this area as they travel to and from warmer waters. In the five mile sphere of influence, there are higher numbers during the non-winter months. By adding wet slips, manatees would be at an increased risk ofwatercraft-related harassment, injury, and death due to a significant increase of watercraft to the area. Around 2002, and perhaps also in later studies by other agencies, the US Fish & Wildlife Service designated this portion of Duval County as high risk for manatee injury and mortality. In 2002, the Save the Manatee Club notified the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers that it did not recommend allowing increases of wet slips in the area. During that time, Duval County was ranked 4`~' both in overall manatee mortality and in watercraft related mortality. Watercraft mortality must be considered when reviewing a new boat facility such as this proposed yacht club marina. Just as they did in 1998, the Local Planning Agency has again twice this year recommended that the conservation designation for Johnston Island remain as the land use assignment in the Plan for Johnston Island. That is also my recommendation. Please adopt the recommendations of your planning agency. Page 1 of 2 PUBLISHED IN THE TIMES UNION-SHORELINE SUPPLEMENT STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE ATLANTIC BEACH 04-lER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(S) IN COMPLIANCE DOCKET NO.04-1 ER-NOI-1602-(A)-(I) The Department gives notice of its intent to find the Amendment(s) to the Comprehensive Plan for Atlantic Beach, adopted by Ordinance No(s). 31-04-04 on September 13, 2004, IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3189, and 380.05, F.S. The adopted Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) and the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, (if any), are available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the City of Atlantic Beach, City Hall, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445. Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S., has a right to petition for an administrative hearing to challenge the proposed agency determination that the Amendment(s) to the Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan are In Compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The petition must be filed within twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of the information and contents described in Uniform Rule 28-106.201, F.A.C. The petition must be filed with the Agency Clerk, Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, and a copy mailed or delivered to the local government. Failure to timely file a petition shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an administrative proceeding as a petitioner under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. If a petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing will be to present evidence and testimony and forward a recommended order to the Department. If no petition is filed, this Notice of Intent shall become final agency action. If a petition is filed, other affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding. A petition for intervention must be filed at least twenty (20) days before the final hearing and must include all of the information and contents described in Uniform Rule 28-106.205, F.A.C. A petition for leave to intervene shall be filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Management Services, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060. Failure to petition to intervene within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such a person has to request a hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to participate in the administrative hearing. ,~ After an administrative hearing petition is timely filed, mediation is available pursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3) (a), F.S., to any affected person who is made a party to the proceeding by filing that request with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The choice of mediation shall not http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/Advisories/Atlantic%20Beach%2004-1 ER.htm 11 /8/2004 M1 ~ ~~ N F ~ + ~;,Ya, ' . y.. $: . .{f;..: ... r. *Y{' ~` ATTACHMENT C NOVEMBER 8, 2004 COMMISSION MEETING r Design Intent .,, ___ ----- Visual reduction in scale through ~ ~:. reduction of existing asphalt. better street definition (curbing, ~w, t~.~ ~ crosswalks sidewalks etc.). ~ , ~~ °~" ,~s~~, ~ ~ h perimeter definition with the use d ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ of native low-maintenance plant ~~~~~~~~ ~..~~. zt~~,.~a`~~~= ~,~,~~; material. '[~" i F ~ ~ c.+ x ~," ,~,,`~ ~ ~~{ ~ ~ Iv,~bil~~' ,~ ,~,~,, ~""'~~~ x r ~ ' ' ~ ~- ~ i a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ '14 ~"~ ~ ..a'"~ ~~ t E'flYli FI'IE II "~ ~~ cm. ~ey~. ~ gw I aainft :.: ~ 1- ~ ~ .~ eSa~ ~ ~;, _. e ""•.:; .. .....IAtA ~ ..:.. ... YFNNIDW/[1g1MNR ~P~" IOC~l1A YM[fF a~F.~ 5 i ~".. ~~ ~ ~'~~ ~ IM NKMI~RNeltlll5 ~L~, ~ f x RTK@1N11 ~9 N11AY tt 7""~ u~uw.iutiow~oirs mn F' :i M . wuwiaawcwE. ~ ~ r ----- ur aurowi ooeawu fi. ~?y ~ ~~ 1 C h, fi y: ~y rT master plan r...~•~-•-.- ^e~ ~ ~ ~ r. ~ ~`~~ ~ . ~" { r -~ ~ ~~, f ,~ r, ~ ~ s ~ a~= ~E ', f~ ..r~ ~~~ ,,'" .fir 1 erwup mend '` ~ ~ ~ ~.I ~l} i`% v h s rd ~~ '~ v a ~ ~ t M ~t ,;vim/ 1 ~...i'Y,c. ~ F ~l I t ~ ~'S,~„.. 9 P ~ '~=~++m.NU...N 4 ~ ,' l ' '4WBCiYaL,pilY ~ r ~ . ~ .F?,.. ! ~~ E ~ II,I e ., ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,l R'' I_, ~ k :~~~ r `tip. ;r r aerial perspective '~ ~~«, . ~. w .~. j ilw~,~...... ~ m ~ f ~- i ~ ' } C1K~IlJl~41 ~'"~ ~aY'` I I ~` # f _ ~ yr ~ r j `~/ p(}VI(Qf~(Ik Ili ~I k < ~ ~ r~ ~„ r r i -" ~ ~~ fly e ~,'%~,5'a , yy~ ~ »N i r _.~;~ ~~ a f 2 Decorative Paving ~~b <~, ~~ ra4F~.<?2~,tt9 ~~ .P~... Plant Material ~~ ~s~i,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~: ~k ~ ~§. t ~T __ 6„ ,, ,^' ~ i ~ J 1,~~ Y~ ay yy~~. x bjj,J~ r ~ t1 t i5, i . ~t q,~."~~. a~ f 3 ~ ~` a i t ~ ~. ~~ ~ e 4~' ~ h~ ~ ~~~ " ~. I III a a , ~ w Mrs ~ ~ ,. r ~[ ~ ' I~ cabuaye Malin ~ ~r~~tia~, ~iavv~t~ui~ri muhly grass s~~- " n.~ rs ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~rmUrl~t~, '~ ` i .~ ~ ~ ,,R~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ .. °~ ^~ ~s' ~ F ks ,f~,% y ~ ( ~ ~ ~ caa ,ma ~ 4 `+$•. ' ~~~~~ . ~ 1k ~ ' j . ' ~y„r' ~a ~V~~ ~ ~ ./r ~iX,. 1 ,y,~ f`. '~ nl y ~ ?A ~p~.YK ~, ' `q~ ~ ~tk3`v- ~l _,~ d i; ~ ~ !~, ~ f '? k~ .~~{ E '. ~ 7t ~ ¢..~~ q 3`40.1 1 ~t ~r~, ,gyp; L'' ,ti Y~ l iC i ~ r/ `~u u ~ • ~ d; n`~ ~ .. i.w. E l y CC1[A(ilUf1IL1'. ... ` .: ~ ..-~-_ ~.-_.._..._._ --,...:...d~^x.r,~ Si.L~.i..W.... ....,, . 3 "art islands" a:~~. ~ ,. crosswalks :~ Plant Material parsons juniper ~ x ~~ a c ~~. ~C ~ ~ ~, \ ~ P 1 h ii< lantana 4 algerian ivy CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH FIVE POINTS INTERSECTION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 11.03.2004 UNIT NIT COST ~ TOTAL COST DEMOLITION CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL LF $5 235 $7,175 ASPHALT SAW CUTTING LF $1.50 1,280 $1,920 ASPHALT REMOVAL SY $10 700 $7,000 CONCRETE REMOVAL SY $10 275 $2,150 SUBTOTAL $12,245 GENERAL SITE CIVIL MODIFY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA $1,200 2 $2,400 NEW CURB & GUTTER LF $23 1,020 $23,460 6" LIMEROCK BASE (TURN LANE) SY $7.20 95 $684 12" SUBBASE STABLIZATION (TURN LANE) SY $3.40 95 $323 CONCRETE (SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS) SY $30 380 $11,400 IRRIGATION SYSTEM LS $12,000 1 $12,000 SUBTOTAL $50,267 ASPHALT RESURFACING 1" SURFACE MILLING SY $5 1,815 $9,075 ASPHALT OVERLAY SY $4 1,815 $7,260 6" SOLID STRIPE LF $0.70 110 $77 24"SOLID STOP BAR EA $150 5 $750 PAVEMENT ARROWS EA $35 1 $35 TRAFFIC SIGNS (STOP / PED. CROSSING) EA $150 8 $1,200 ,~''. SUBTOTAL $18,397 DECORATIVE PAVING CONCRETE BANDING SY $38 65 $2,470 CROSSWALK PAVERS (4" x 8" w/ CONC. BASE) SF $11 1,335 $14,685 FIRE LANE PAVERS (4" x 8" w/CONC. BASE) SF $11 1,580 $17,380 ART ISLAND PAVERS (24" x 24") SF $12 1,325 $15,900 ADA DETECTION PAVERS SF $10.50 250 $2,625 SUBTOTAL $53,060 AMENITY FEATURES ENTRY /LOCATION MARKER LS $8,000 1 $8,000 ACCENT UPLIGHTING EA $1,300 5 $6,500 SUBTOTAL $14,500 LANDSCAPING PALM TREES EA $300 16 $4,800 ACCENT TREES EA $350 1 $350 SHRUBS /GRASSES EA $19 700 $13,300 GROUNDCOVER EA $10 750 $7,500 SOD REPLACEMENT SF $0.40 2,500 $1,000 SUBTOTAL $26,950 HARD COSTS SUBTOTAL $175,419 MOBILIZATION (10%) $17,542 M.O.T. (7%) $12,279 CONTINGENCIES (20%) $35,084 TOTAL $240,324 THE ESTIMATE SHOWN ABOVE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY COST FROM THE EXPECTED RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AT THE CORNER OF SEMINOLE AND SHERRY. THIS IS APRE-ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ACTUAL COSTS. HDR ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THIS ESTIMATE AND ACTUAL COSTS. A'T7Al:HMENT D NOVEFdI6FR fit, 2004 COPAi'AISSION MEETING ~, November 2, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM: Jim Hanso SUBJECT: City Manag is Report Change in Administration Policv Concerning Beach Renourishment Proiects; Some time ago it was reported that President Bush had proposed a change in policy relating to beach renourishment that would affectively remove the federal government from the funding process in the future. Apparently the President has heard enough from our senators, congressmen and the general public that the following guideline was issued from the top level at the Corps of Engineers; ~,,, "Although the administration had proposed that, beginning in FY 2005, beach renourishment would be considered anon-federal responsibility equivalent to operation and maintenance responsibilities and other types of projects, the administration does not plan to implement this new policy without congressional concurrence." Skate Board Park; At the last meeting, it was reported that the city had received only one bid for the skate park construction and would rebid the project to encourage more bids. The current plan is to amend the requirement requiring aminimum offive-years experience in skate park construction and allow instead that any company with either skateboard construction experience (bowl type skateboards) or swimming pool contractors could bid the job. However, a point system will be put its place that gives substantial credit for past experience in skate park construction. The date for the next round of bidding is November 23`d r