The URL can be used to link to this page

12-12-05 v MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 2005 CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD Attendance IN ATTENDANCE: Mayor Donald Wolfson City Manager Jim Hanson Mayor Pro Tern J. Dezmond Waters III City Clerk Donna L. Bussey Commissioner Mike Borno City Attorney Alan C. Jensen Commissioner Jamie Fletcher Commissioner Sylvia N. Simmons Call to Order/Pledge Mayor Wolfson called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. The Invocation, given by Commissioner Waters, was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting on November 28, 2005. Commissioner Simmons requested that the last paragraph of Item 8G on page 19 be changed to read that "It was the consensus of the Commission to place any referendum items on the November 2006 ballot..." rather than "... to place the three referendum items...". Motion: Approve the minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting on November 28, 2005 as amended. Moved by Borno, seconded by Waters Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno,Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Mayor Wolfson welcomed former Mayor Suzanne Shaughnessy to the meeting. Courtesy of the Floor 2. Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors Mayor Wolfson announced that the Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors will be limited to discussions on any items other than Item 8A. He explained that the public hearing portion of that item has been closed but that the quasi- judicial hearing for it will recommence after the Courtesy of the Floor. Woody Winfree, 335 Third Street, spoke in support of the moratorium being proposed in Item 6B. She spoke from personal experience and expressed that this action would be a good step for property owners and for December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 the community at large. She believed that single-family homes lead to more stable and less transient neighborhoods and are in the best interest of the community. Richard Ouellette, 1060 Seminole Road, applauded the Commission for considering a moratorium on lot division. He also recommended a similar moratorium on new building permits until the adoption of the code changes proposed by the recent study. Benjamin Brown,Jr, 457 Sailfish Drive East, addressed the situation at his house and his inability to pay the monthly code enforcement fines imposed upon him. He expressed that he has discussed the issue with the City Manager but can not afford to sell his house, as suggested. He indicated that he will be attending the Code Enforcement Board meeting on January 10, 2006 and would like to see his fines reduced. Michael Hoffmann, 176 Camelia Street, indicated he had two matters to address. First he discussed the City-owned property around Atlantic Boulevard and West 1st Street and noted that residents have requested that an urban forester provide suggestions for creating a better buffer for that area. He reported that he recently called the City of Jacksonville and spoke with Larry Figart, an urban forester with the Florida State Extension Services. Mr. Hoffman noted that Mr. Figart would be able to examine the situation there and provide suggestions on how the City of Atlantic Beach could enhance the natural sound barriers of that area. Mr. Hoffman asked that the City pursue this and provided Mr. Figart's contact information to the City Clerk. Mr. Hoffman also addressed the issue of installing sidewalks in the City. He commended the City for creating a prioritized list for the areas which need new sidewalks the most. He made suggestions for the sidewalk situations in various areas of the City, specifically on West 3rd Street, West Plaza and West 10th Street. Kevin Bodge,336 Twelfth Street, discussed the issue of granting variances and approvals for land division and development in the City. He noted that any fatally defective application for such requests should be dismissed and the applicant should be given the opportunity to correct the defect and reapply properly. He discussed the subject of potential lawsuits and indicated that public citizens and developers alike have the same legal rights to challenge a governmental action. Thus, Mr. Bodge believed that the potential of a lawsuit against the City should be irrelevant in the decision-making process. Jane Wytzka, 352 Second Street, encouraged the Commission to hire the Winter Group to finish the City's community character project. She discussed the results from her research regarding how much building has occurred in the City since the Commission first addressed the community character issue. She indicated that the Winter Group is well-equipped to assist Atlantic Beach with retaining its character and incorporating the tree ordinance. Ms. Wytzka referred to other cities that have successfully December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 handled similar situations and urged the Commission to spend the needed funds to finish this project which began in April 2004. Bob Liggero, 389 Twelfth Street, spoke on Item 6B and applauded the Commission for their proposal of a moratorium on land division. He compared the subdivision of large lots into smaller lots with dividing a large diamond into smaller diamonds and noted that the larger one would be the most preferred gem. Agenda Item 8A was taken out of sequence and acted upon at this time 8. Miscellaneous Business A. Request to replat a portion of Block 1 within Unit 1 of the Selva Marina subdivision, including all of Lot 33 and portions of Lot 32 and Lot 34 for the purpose of creating three single-family residential lots ranging in size from 8167 square feet to 12,884 square feet in Lot Area. This property is located at the northwest corner of 12th Street and Selva Marina Circle (City Manager) Mayor Wolfson noted that it was two weeks ago that the Commission was notified that this agenda item was a quasi-judicial hearing. He clarified that the specific procedures for such a case were not provided to them until they had sat down at that meeting. He also explained that all the public input and comments for this item were received at the previous meeting and that the hearing was recessed in order to allow the Commission time for further research and study of the ordinances cited. The Mayor then reopened the hearing for the Commission to continue. Mayor Wolfson asked City Manager Hanson for any comments. The City Manager summarized that this hearing was a consideration of a request to subdivide one lot into three lots. He reiterated that, after the testimony of a number of people at the last meeting, the Commission deferred their decision in order to review Florida State Statutes, specifically Statute 177 regarding replats. Mayor Wolfson asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Borno inquired if they should make their ex parte disclosures at that time. Mayor Wolfson responded that the City Attorney had advised that the list of disclosures would be made public prior to casting their votes. Commissioner Waters stated that he did not believe that the request was consistent with Goal A.1 of the City's future land use element which maintains the distinct residential community character for its neighborhoods. He noted that many people spoke to that effect at the previous meeting and thus he wished to ensure that the recorded audiotapes of that meeting were entered into this meeting's proceedings for future reference. He proceeded to discuss the public comments from that meeting. December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 At this point, the Mayor noted the need for a motion and a second before further discussion ensued. Commissioner Fletcher asked if it would be appropriate to introduce the new information received by the Commission that evening. City Attorney Jensen responded that even though they each received new ex parte communications, their decisions had to be based on only the evidence that was presented at the last meeting. Therefore, they could acknowledge receipt of the new information but could not use it for the basis of their decision. Commissioner Fletcher asked for further clarification. Mr. Jensen explained that under court rules, only new evidence that could not have been reasonably discovered prior to the last meeting could be allowed to be entered as newly presented evidence at this point. He advised that the new information given to the Commission that evening was public record and could easily have been presented at the previous meeting. The Mayor then made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher. Motion: To deny the request for the replat at the northwest corner of 12th Street and Selva Marina Circle. Mayor Wolfson stated he had conducted significant research over the last two weeks and proceeded to share the information he gathered which supported his motion for denial. This information is presented in the attached document, which is made part of this official record as Attachment A. In reviewing his supporting information, the Mayor stressed the point that in the event of inconsistency between the requirements of any Zoning or Land Development Regulations, the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan shall prevail. He then reviewed the specific goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and indicated that the proposed replat is not consistent or compatible with those items. Mayor Wolfson also emphasized the importance of considering Section 24- 205(3) of the Code, in its entirety. He indicated that a partial interpretation of this section incorrectly leads one to believe that a property owner is entitled to approval once he/she meets the land development regulations. The Mayor pointed out that the Code states that approval or denial by the City Commission rests not only with procedural compliance with the required certifications and specific requirements, but also with compliance with provisions of Article IV and other applicable policies, ordinances, laws and regulations. December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 Mayor Wolfson also referred the Commission to Florida State Statute 177.101(3) which requires the vacation of a pre-existing plat prior to approval of a re-subdivision of the lots. He did not find evidence that the applicant had requested this and pointed out that the Selva Verde subdivision lots were platted in 1951. In summary, the Mayor noted that the Commission is hearing the case of a developer who is asking to redevelop a fully developed neighborhood, to replat a subdivision within a mature, built-out development. He emphasized the Commission's responsibility to uphold the law and to act in a non-political manner. Commissioner Waters stated that he was not familiar with the new information presented that evening and inquired if Commissioner Fletcher could present it to them. City Attorney Jensen advised that the Commission could acknowledge receipt of the information, a letter from Kevin Bodge, but that it was not appropriate to read the information into the record. Further discussion ensued clarifying the issues surrounding ex parte communication and the evidence for basing a decision. Commissioner Borno thanked the Mayor for his summary and asked the City Attorney if the City's ordinances support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney responded that the ordinances implement the goals and directives of the Comprehensive Plan and that the City's Community Development Director could find no inconsistencies in the application with the land development regulations or with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Fletcher informed the Commission that he has a report summarizing his research and asked the City Clerk to distribute copies to each of them. This report is attached and made part of this official document as Attachment B. He indicated that there exists confusion regarding the role of the Comprehensive Plan in their decision and regarding the consistency of the replat request with the Comprehensive Plan. He then proceeded to read through his report. He reiterated Florida Statute Chapter 163 which stated that the Comprehensive Plan takes precedence over any inconsistency with the requirements of any zoning or land development regulations. Therefore, he concluded that the Comprehensive Plan is clearly to be considered in their decision. He then reviewed the information supporting his belief that the evidence for this replat request is inconsistent and incompatible with the present Comprehensive Plan. In summary, Commissioner Fletcher concurred with the Mayor's motion. Commissioner Waters stated that this request does not support the rights, expectations, investments and quality of life of the neighboring properties as voiced by those property owners at the previous Commission meeting and at the Community Development Board meeting of November 2005. He requested that the City Clerk submit the tapes from these meetings in the record of proceedings. City Attorney Jensen asked for clarification and indicated that the evidence is closed and no further evidence can be December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 submitted. He noted that once the minutes of the meetings are adopted those minutes become the official record. Commissioner Waters asked that the tax record mentioned be put in the record as well. He noted that the tax record shows that the taxes paid for this lot have always been for a single family residence on a single lot. There were no further comments or discussion and the Mayor called the question and asked for a roll call vote (to deny the request to replat a portion of Block 1 within Unit 1 of the Selva Marina subdivision, including all of Lot 33 and portions of Lot 32 and Lot 34 for the purpose of creating three single-family residential lots ranging in size from 8167 square feet to 12,884 square feet in Lot Area. This property is located at the northwest corner of 12th Street and Selva Marina Circle) Moved by Wolfson,seconded by Fletcher Votes: Aye: 4 - Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 1 —Borno MOTION CARRIED The quasi judicial hearing was reopened in order to receive the ex parte communications in the record. The Mayor called on each commissioner to read their list of ex parte communications for the record. These lists are attached and made part of this official record as Attachment C. The Mayor then closed the quasi judicial hearing. At 8:25 p.m. Mayor Wolfson called a one minute break to allow people to leave the meeting. Unfinished Business 3. Unfinished Business from Previous Meeting from Previous Meeting A. City Manager's Follow-up Report City Manager Jim Hanson referred the Commission to his written report, which is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment D. His report addressed the following topics: pending staff reports and the Adopt-A-Tree program. He specified that the pending reports address the issues of Post Office boxes, Public Safety at Tideviews, and Park Rules. Consent Agenda 4. Consent Agenda A. Acknowledge receipt of Building Department Report, Utility Sales Report, Public Works and Utility Department Report and New Occupational Licenses Report for November 2005 (City Manager) December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 B. Award a contract for Construction of the Ocean Blvd— 13th Street Drainage Improvements including Additive Alternate 1 to Callaway Contracting Inc. in an amount not to exceed $132,437.56 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement for construction services on the City's behalf(City Manager) Motion: Approve Consent Agenda as presented. Moved by Simmons, seconded by Borno Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Committee Reports 5. Committee Reports None. Action on Resolutions 6. Action on Resolutions A. Changes to the Board Member Review Committee (Mayor) Mayor Wolfson thanked the Commission for their suggestions and comments on this item's resolution. He suggested moving forward with the changes, due to the urgency and need to appoint members to vacant positions in order to ensure the Boards and Committees are complete. Commissioner Simmons informed the Commission that, after consulting with the City Manager and City Attorney, it was determined that they could consider the option of allowing the current seated board members, if they are willing, to continue their terms until the resolution can be completed. She noted that this would alleviate the urgency to finalize the language of the resolution before any board members' terms expired in December. She also suggested that the resolution be brought to the strategic planning workshops in order to discuss and to make decisions on it. Discussion was initiated regarding some of the proposed changes to Sections two and three of the resolution. Commissioner Simmons noted that this was a complex process and that there were some areas of the resolution where the Commission had a difference of opinion. She suggested it would be better approached in a workshop setting. Motion: To defer the resolution to the strategic planning workshop with a facilitator to help guide the Commission through the process. December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 Moved by Simmons, seconded by Fletcher Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Simmons then made a second motion. Motion: To continue the terms of the seated board and committee members whose terms might be due to expire prior to the completion of the resolution until such a time when it is finalized. Commissioner Borno asked for a more definite time frame for completion of this item. Commissioner Simmons proposed a timeline beginning with discussion of the item during the strategic planning workshops scheduled for February 1st and 2°1, 2006, and then the Board Member Review Committee could schedule their next meeting the third Thursday in February. Commissioner Waters spoke against overloading the strategic planning workshops with this type of issue. The question was called. Moved by Simmons, seconded by Fletcher Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Agenda Items 8F and 8G were taken out of sequence and acted upon at this time due to the appropriateness of discussing those items prior to addressing the moratorium issue in Item 6B. 8F. Discussion of possible creation of a new Single-family Residential Zoning District classification consistent with certain areas of the City, which contain typical lots larger than those required by the RS-1 Zoning District (City Manager) City Manager Hanson explained that, at the request of a Commissioner at the previous meeting, City staff has prepared a description of a new residential zone that would require larger lots than other existing residential zones. He noted that the suggested description would include a 10,000 square foot minimum area with a 100 foot minimum requirement for lot frontage and depth. He explained that if this description was adopted into the Code, the Commission would then have to designate which areas of the City would be included in the new zoning district. He indicated that first, the issue would have to go before the Community Development Board, and thus, the Commission needed to decide whether or not to refer it to them. Motion: To seek input from the community and to proceed with the processes described in the staff report, including the review and December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 recommendation from the Community Development board relative to a new single family residential zoning district classification. Moved by Simmons, seconded by Borno Commissioner Fletcher suggested adding agenda item 8G to the motion. Commissioner Simmons stated that the two items needed to be acted upon separately. Commissioner Borno expressed his concern with whether the 100 square foot minimum dimensions would be sufficient for preventing large lots in other areas from being subdivided. He asked that, during their considerations of this item, the Community Development Board review the square footage of existing platted legal lots in the City so that all the appropriate areas are included. Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED 8G. Revision to Chapter 24, Land Development Regulations,Article IV, Subdivision Regulations to remove the administrative approval for certain types of lot divisions (City Manager) City Manager Hanson noted that consideration of this issue was another request by a Commissioner at the previous meeting. He explained that this would amend Section 24-189 of the code that provides for the administrative approval of the subdivision of one lot into two lots. He stated that the proposed change would require all lot subdivisions to go through the full replatting process and come before the Commission for approval. He noted that the Commission has to decide if they would like to have this item referred to the Community Development Board for further consideration. Mayor Wolfson asked if Community Development Director Sonya Doerr had any assistance with this first draft. City Manager Hanson noted that both he and the City Attorney had an extensive discussion of this matter with Ms. Doerr before she had to go on medical leave. Motion: To refer revision to Chapter 24, Land Development Regulations, Article IV, Subdivision Regulations, removing the administrative approval for certain types of lot divisions to the Community Development Board for review and recommendation. Moved by Borno, seconded by Fletcher December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 Commissioner Fletcher noted that referral to the Community Development Board is required per statute. Commissioner Borno requested that, in addition to the Community Development Board reviewing certified surveys with the new actions, they also be provided the title search for their review. Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno,Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED 6B. Resolution No. 05-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH,FLORIDA, IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON DIVISIONS OF LAND,AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City Manager Hanson explained that this item is a proposed moratorium on the re-subdivision of property parcels until the previous two items have been resolved. Motion: Approve Resolution No. 05-14 as presented. Moved by Borno, seconded by Waters Commissioner Simmons inquired how many divisions of land have been requested in the last few weeks since the idea of the moratorium was first suggested. Building Official Don Ford responded that the Building Department received approximately 21 inquiries on the subject and 8 requests who turned in the necessary paperwork. Commissioner Fletcher brought up information he researched regarding moratoriums in the Tahoe/Sierra area which allowed for more broader moratoriums. Amended Motion: To include the following three proposed development standards as specified by Mr. Winter to the moratorium: 1): a building coverage maximum, 2) a floor area ratio maximum, and 3) a side wall plane maximum. Commissioner Fletcher provided the specific details of each of the proposed standards and explained that these three standards would help prevent the "McMansion" problem in the City. Moved by Fletcher Amended Motion failed due to lack of a second. The question was called (to approve Resolution No. 05-14 as presented). December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Action on Ordinances 7. Action on Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 90-06-188, Introduction and First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 24-17,DEFINITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Wolfson read the ordinance by title and asked Rick Carper, Director of Public Works, to present the background on this item. Mr. Carper reported that current city land development regulations exclude the water surface area of a swimming pool from being considered as part of the impervious surface area of a lot. He reviewed the findings of his research into other neighboring cities regarding this issue. Motion: Approve Ordinance No. 90-06-188 on first reading. Commissioner Simmons asked if this ordinance also included a change in the definition of pavers in their relation to impervious surface. Mr. Carper responded that the change in the definition on pavers is a clarification stating that the pavers must be installed on sand surface with no impervious liner below them. He also noted another addition stating that the 50% impervious surface area requirement also applies to PUDs. Commissioner Waters asked if pavers would continue to be allowed a 50% impermeability surface designation. Mr. Carper confirmed this. Commissioner Waters suggested that the City consider changing that soon as well. Commissioner Fletcher continued to discuss the specifics regarding pavers and the 50% impervious surface area requirement. Mr. Carper responded to his questions addressing this subject. Commissioner Fletcher asked the City Attorney if the 50% impervious surface area can be applied to exceptions given in the past. City Attorney Jensen advised it would be difficult to retroactivate this requirement. Mr. Carper provided further explanation on how the 50% ISA limit is applied to requests and clarified the preconstruction issue on the subject. December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 Moved by Borno, seconded by Fletcher Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Miscellaneous Business 8. Miscellaneous Business A. Request to replat a portion of Block 1 within Unit 1 of the Selva Marina subdivision, including all of Lot 33 and portions of Lot 32 and Lot 34 for the purpose of creating three single-family residential lots ranging in size from 8167 square feet to 12,884 square feet in Lot Area. This property is located at the northwest corner of 12th Street and Selva Marina Circle (City Manager) This item was taken out of sequence and acted upon earlier in the meeting. B. Possible Use of Winter & Company for additional services to the Community Character Project (Commissioner Simmons) Commissioner Simmons referred to the historic timeline provided for this item in the Commission's agenda packet. She pointed out an error in that document, stating that July 12, 2005 should read as July 12, 2004. She noted that this has been part of two consecutive strategic planning priorities and has been proceeding slowly due to various circumstances. She expressed the need to move forward with the project and proposed that the City accept parts three and four from the original four-part Winter and Company proposal. She explained that the previous Commission accepted parts one and two and that both of those are now completed. Commissioner Simmons referred the Commissioners to the figures and dollar amounts associated with parts three and four which she distributed to the Commission that evening. She explained the new components for the Commission to consider and the anticipated end results from parts three and four. She indicated that Mr. Winter would be enthusiastic to continue working with the City in order to finish the full process. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that this would allow the City staff and Commissioners to focus on other priorities as well. Motion: To accept the new proposal by Winter and Company at the cost of$63,860 and to authorize staff to negotiate for continuation of the Community Character process through to its completion. Moved by Simmons, seconded by Fletcher Mayor Wolfson asked for clarification of the documents and information to which Commissioner Simmons made reference. He noted that he had not December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 yet reviewed the figures and dollar amounts due to the fact that they were handed out by Commissioner Simmons just that evening, immediately prior to the meeting. The referenced information is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment E. Commissioner Simmons assisted in explaining the information and reviewing the associated costs and expenses of the project. She noted that it would take very little budget revision to add parts three and four to their plan. Commissioner Waters inquired what the anticipated final results would be from this second stage. Commissioner Simmons responded that that they anticipate having finalized design standards, revisions to Chapter 24 of the City Code, and a final tree ordinance. Further discussion ensued. City Manager Hanson requested clarification of the motion and whether the intent was to have the contract on the agenda for the next meeting or to authorize what they have and move ahead with it. Commissioner Simmons expressed the need to authorize the City Manager to sign the contract they have and move ahead with bringing Mr. Winter to the City in February. Commissioner Borno expressed his support for the motion. Mayor Wolfson questioned and addressed the intents and expectations of the previous Commission when they originally began this process with Winter and Company. Commissioner Simmons responded and provided some of the background information. The Mayor stated the need for the goals and objectives to be in alignment with the fees and costs being presented. He agreed with Commissioner Simmons' concerns to move the project forward but requested that the Winter and Company proposal be further clarified. Discussion proceeded addressing the specifics of the next steps and anticipated results. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the issue of community character is critical to the citizens and expressed his strong support for the motion. City Manager Hanson indicated that more work is needed on this contract and that he has questions regarding it. He suggested that City staff work with Winter and Company to bring back a draft contract to the Commission with more specifics and details. Mayor Wolfson concurred with the need for more detail and staff input before acting upon it. Commissioner Simmons called the question and restated the motion. Motion: To accept bringing Winter and Company back to fulfill the proposal and to authorize staff to work with Winter and Company to draft a contract. December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 14 Mayor asked for clarification regarding the dollar amount included in the original motion. It was agreed and clarified that the dollar amount would be left out of the motion. Moved by Simmons, seconded by Borno Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED C. Possible workshop to discuss rules of order for City Commission meetings (Commissioner Fletcher) Motion: To defer Item 8C. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Simmons Mayor Wolfson asked for clarification of the length of time for the deferral. Commissioner Fletcher rescinded his motion to defer. Motion: To table Item 8C. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Simmons Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED D. Budget Modification for Ped Paths (City Manager) City Manager Hanson asked Rick Carper, Director of Public Works, to present an overview on this item. Mr. Carper reviewed the information in his staff report pertaining to last year's budget proposals for this item and his recommendation to the Commission not to award the bids for these bike paths due to the high construction costs. He indicated that, because of the timing with the budget process, the money was placed into the General Fund and the Half-Cent Sales Tax Fund and was not rolled over to the new budget. He stated that he is now requesting that the money be reallocated to the Public Works account for this project. Motion: Approve a budget modification to transfer$58,000 from the Half Cent Sales Tax Fund and $4,000 from the General Fund to PW0404-Seminole Road Ped Path to allow for completion of Phase 1 and to approve the transfer of$30,000 from the General Fund for Projects PW0504-Plaza Drive Phase 2 Ped Path, and as an additive alternate, to fund Phase 2 (Oceanwalk Drive South and Ocean forest December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 15 Drive North) requiring approximately $60,000 additional from the General Fund. Moved by Borno, seconded by Waters Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED E. Decorative Lighting for the 5 Point Intersection (City Manager) Rick Carper, Director of Public Works, reviewed that the previous Commission had approved the decorative lighting for the Five Points Intersection at their August 22, 2005 Commission meeting, with the provision for JEA to install and maintain the system. He reported that since then JEA has stated that, due to various reasons, they will not maintain the fixtures as originally proposed with the Dark Sky fixtures. Mr. Carper informed the Commission that, in light of this, he has researched the issue further and recommends working with the Holophane vendor as the least expensive option for installing the decorative lighting. He asked for authorization for the City to contract directly with the lighting distributor to purchase the poles, the fixtures, and the foundations and to use the City's electrical contractor for the installation. As noted in his staff report, Mr. Carper recommended that the City purchase the 16-foot poles rather than the 14-foot poles. Motion: To follow the recommendation of staff and authorize direct city acquisition of materials and installation of decorative lighting for the Five Points intersection by the City's annual electrical contractor at the cost of$32,500 plus $526.30 for the 16-foot poles. Commissioner Borno discussed and suggested the need to include the additional cost factors and fixtures involved with the 16-foot poles. Commissioner Waters asked for clarification of the reasons for the City assuming the maintenance of the lighting. Mr. Carper responded and some discussion of the maintenance and fixture options ensued. Commissioner Simmons pointed out the need to ensure that the palm trees are taller than the height of the light poles so that the advantages of downward lighting are not lost by lighting the tops of the trees. She was informed that the trees are already over 16-feet tall. Commissioner Fletcher asked for clarification of the $13,000 cost difference for the decorative lights. Mr. Carper explained that the difference is due to the cost for their installation. Commissioner Fletcher verified that Mr. Carper did not believe the maintenance of the lights to be a major cost issue for the City. When asked if the Commission could chose the type of light December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 16 fixture, Mr. Carper noted that the previous Commission had already agreed upon the Holophane design. He stated that the light pole at Ocean and 16`h Street is an example of the same design proposed for the Five Points Intersection. Mayor Wolfson pointed out that the pole to which Mr. Carper referred is peeling. The Mayor expressed concern with the pole's lack of salt tolerance and stated he has a problem with choosing the same finish for the Five Point Intersection poles. The Mayor discussed the extent of the problem that the City of Jacksonville was experiencing with their light poles peeling downtown and asked what information and specifications the City of Atlantic Beach had to ensure that the same problem would not occur here. Commissioner Simmons asked how the poles in Town Center avoided peeling. Mr. Carper responded that the City paints them. Mayor Wolfson withdrew his concern with the light poles as long as the City upholds the maintenance process to keep them looking good. Commissioner Borno asked if the motion included the additional cost for the 16-foot poles. Mr. Carper confirmed that was the staff's recommendation. Moved by Simmons, seconded by Fletcher Votes: Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED F. Discussion of possible creation of a new Single-family Residential Zoning District classification consistent with certain areas of the City, which contain typical lots larger than those required by the RS-1 Zoning District (City Manager) This item was taken out of sequence and acted upon earlier in the agenda. G. Revision to Chapter 24, Land Development Regulations,Article IV,Subdivision Regulations to remove the administrative approval for certain types of lot divisions (City Manager) This item was taken out of sequence and acted upon earlier in the agenda. H. Resolution from City of St. Augustine Beach on "Holiday Trees" (Commissioner Borno) Commissioner Borno reported there was a miscommunication with his original request to provide the Commissioners with the St. Augustine resolution marked up as Resolution 05-15 for the City of Atlantic Beach. He noted that the marked up version was not distributed to them until this December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 17 evening at the meeting. For the record, Commissioner Borno read Resolution 05-15 in its entirety with the appropriate changes made for the City of Atlantic Beach. Mayor Wolfson noted the error that it was the resolution of St. Augustine Beach that was on the agenda, and not the Resolution for the City of Atlantic Beach as he read. Motion: To approve Resolution 05-15. Moved by Borno Motion died due to lack of a second. I. Enhancement of welcome signs (Mayor Wolfson) Mayor Wolfson displayed pictures of the City's welcome signs and noted that they have become weathered and are in need of enhancement. He suggested repainting the signs in their original colors and refinishing them. He also recommended beautification of the beds surrounding the signs and soft lighting to illuminate the faces of the signs. He discussed changes to the sign on Atlantic Boulevard to make it more visible and more attractive to traffic entering and leaving the City. Commissioner Simmons agreed with the suggestion for painting and enhancing the appearance of the signs. However, she indicated that the sign on Atlantic Boulevard is not easily seen by traffic entering the City and thus their efforts at enhancing that side of it might not be noticed. Mayor Wolfson stressed the importance of the City's welcome signs as a contribution to the City's ambience and as identification of the City's boundaries. He also noted the need for the signs to be lit, especially at night. Commissioner Borno suggested a concrete, decorative marker for the City entrance. The Mayor noted that his preference is to enhance, light, and landscape what currently exists. City Manager Hanson questioned if the improvements to the signs on Atlantic Boulevard are in lieu of the welcome sign idea proposed in conjunction with Neptune Beach. Mayor Wolfson indicated that it was not clear whether Neptune Beach supported the welcome sign idea. Commissioner Waters discussed the placement of a welcome sign and noted the only appropriate place for it would be in Neptune Beach in the limited area approved by the Florida Department of Transportation. He supported the creativity and substantial quality of the current design but also supported refurbishing the existing signs. He suggested putting a welcome sign at the December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 18 Wonderwood expressway city limits and reiterated the belief that a sign at the Atlantic Boulevard location will not be seen or make an impression unless they work with Neptune Beach and place a sign in the middle of the road. The Mayor clarified that maintenance of the signs would involve painting, lighting, and planting. He reiterated that the entrances to the city are significant and discussed the proper placement of the welcome signs. It was the consensus of the Commission to ask staff to bring back a cost estimate for the enhancement and maintenance of the City's welcome signs. Commissioner Simmons suggested looking into placing welcome signs in the medians on Mayport Road. J. Discussion about rescheduling workshop set for January 16, 2006,Martin Luther King Day (Mayor Wolfson) The Mayor stated that, when first scheduling the workshop for January 16, 2006, the Commission did not realize that date was Martin Luther King Day. He noted the need to find a more suitable and convenient date. City Manager Hanson stated that the best dates for the strategic planning sessions would be February 1st and 2nd. The Mayor confirmed that the workshop would be tentatively rescheduled for those dates. City Manager 9. City Manager A. City Manager's Report No report. Reports/Requests 10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and City City Commissioners Attorney City Attorney A. Approval of settlement agreement on Roberts dangerous dog case (Attorney Jensen) City Attorney Alan Jensen referred the Commission to the settlement agreement and the proposed consent order for this case, as presented in their agenda packets. He noted that it has been recommended for approval by the attorney assigned to the case by the City's insurance company. City Attorney Jensen summarized that, if the settlement agreement was accepted, the City would only be giving up the petitioners' obligation to obtain a $100,000 surety bond and the designation of the dangerous dog title to the dog in this case. He noted that experience shows that it is normally very December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 19 difficult to acquire the cash bond these days and that the City maintained the requirement for proof of liability insurance. He also indicated that the dog and owners would still be treated as second offenders if they were involved in any additional incidents. Motion: To deny the settlement agreement as presented. Commissioner Borno expressed concern with accepting the settlement due to the fact that it would omit the designation of dangerous dog and thus weaken the City's ordinance as it stands and give the dog owner relief in relation to insurance. He believed that, according to the City's code, the dog should be deemed a dangerous dog. Commissioner Simmons questioned the reasoning behind striking a compromise which takes away the designation of dangerous dog. City Attorney Jensen responded that it is part of negotiations for a settlement agreement to compromise and that even though the title of dangerous dog would be omitted, the dog would still be treated as such and subject to the penalties of such. Discussion ensued regarding the omission of the dangerous dog title and the City Attorney clarified that if the dog was involved in an additional incident, it would still be treated as a second offender. Commissioner Waters stressed the importance in maintaining the dangerous dog ordinance as it is and ensuring it continues to be applied to any future offenders. Further discussion ensued regarding the responsibilities of the owner and the potential results of not accepting the settlement agreement. Mayor Wolfson understood that this agreement would not dilute the City's ordinance but expressed concern that it could establish a precedent for another citizen in another incident to pursue the same recourse. The question was called. Motion: To deny the settlement agreement as presented. Moved by Borno, seconded by Waters Votes: Aye: 2 - Borno, Wolfson Nay: 3 - Fletcher, Simmons, Waters MOTION FAILED The motion was then presented in the affirmative, as such: Motion: To approve the settlement agreement as presented. Moved by Waters, seconded by Fletcher December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 20 Votes: Aye: 3—Fletcher, Simmons, Waters Nay: 2 - Borno, Wolfson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Waters ❖ Would like to invite the NEFLC to dine in Atlantic Beach and noted that the three beaches work together on this invitation. ❖ Stated the need for better instruction, formatting, and forewarning for when a quasi-judicial hearing will occur. He also requested that a formal document be provided for the Commissioners to maintain a proper log for relevant communications and disclosures. Would like more information on their role and the procedures for taking and hearing evidence. ❖ Explained his reason for initially voting against putting a mailbox at Mandalay Park but stated that he now believed that a mailbox may fit in the new designs for upgrading that park. He reported that he has received some letters supporting this idea. ❖ Asked the City Attorney to explain what rights the City provides for property owners against developers. He believed that the City should consider placing the rights of property owners in the Code, if it is not already established there. ❖ Disagreed with the current method for calculating the Commission's pay raises based on a percentage of their salary. He noted that this gave the Mayor a higher pay raise than the other Commissioners. Commissioner Waters believed that the Mayor and the Commissioners should all receive the same amount for their raises. City Attorney Jensen ❖ Clarified that the settlement approval would include authorization for the City Manager to sign the settlement agreement. Mayor Wolfson ❖ Stressed the importance of staff members who are speaking on behalf of the City to be certain to speak in context and not out of context. He specifically addressed references to Chapter 24 in the case heard in Item 8A and indicated that when information is not placed in the proper context, or if omissions are allowed, misunderstandings and incorrect presumptions easily occur. He emphasized to staff and to the City Manager the importance of being careful during these procedures. ❖ Discussed the issue of quasi judicial hearings and the need for more timely notification of when those procedures are going to occur. He December 12,2005 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 21 noted the disadvantage experienced by the Commission when they were not informed of the quasi judicial hearing or the procedures for it until they sat down at the meeting for it. He addressed the necessity to be provided adequate time to properly research, study, and prepare the issues and positions involved. He commended Commissioner Fletcher for his job at providing details and presenting his case. He asked that this issue be studied further and given a serious approach to it. Adjournment There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. CDO,"SCO Donald M. Wolfson, Mayor/Presidin Officer ATTEST: hAetli alM4er Donna L. Bussey City Clerk k7 t\.k :;(` ATTACHMENT A /, DECEMBER 12, 2005 COMMISSION MTG CGrtiti'rvl S`:,■C-yam"' Replat: F.S. Chapter 177 Part I Platting F.S. 177.051 Name and replat of subdivision. (2) Any change in a plat...shall be labeled a "replat," and a replat must conform with this part. F.S. 177.071 Approval of plat by governing bodies. (1)(a) When the plat to be submitted for approval is located wholly within the boundaries of a municipality, the governing body of the municipality has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat. COAB Chapter 24 Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations Division 2. Administration Sec. 24-46 City Commission It shall be the responsibility of the city commission to perform the following duties and responsibilities in accordance with this chapter: (1)To enforce this chapter in accordance with, and consistent with, the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Atlantic Beach... (3) To approve or deny requests for subdivisions, plats and changes to plats and planned unit developments (PUDs) in accordance with the requirements of this chapter after holding required public hearings and after considering a written recommendation from the community development board. Sec. 24-48 Local planning agency The community development board as established by the city commission, shall serve as the local planning agency for the city and shall serve the following functions, including those functions as the local planning agency as set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, as may be amended. (2)To review applications for all proposed changes in zoning district designations, proposed plats, changes to previously approved plats, planned unit developments, and changes to comprehensive plan future land use designations. (3)To transmit to the proper governmental bodies, agencies or departments the written recommendation of the community development board, where the recommendations are called for by this chapter. Article IV. Subdivision Regulations Division 1. Generally Sec. 24-186 Purpose and Intent The public health, safety, comfort and welfare require harmonious, orderly and progressive development of land. The appropriate and lawful division of land is a vital step in the progress of the community's development. Once land has been shaped into lots, blocks and streets, correction to defects is costly and difficult... In that the general welfare, health safety and convenience of the community are directly affected by the use and division of land, it is in the interest of the public that development be designed and constructed in accordance with sound rules and proper standards. The purpose and intent of this article is as follows: (1) To establish reasonable and equitable standards of design and procedures for the division and development of land that will encourage stable communities and healthy living environments, and which preserve environmentally sensitive lands and the natural beauty of the City of Atlantic Beach. (done October, 1951) (2) To ensure that public facilities, utilities and infrastructure will have a sufficient capacity to serve the residents of land proposed for development and to ensure that adopted level of service standards as established by the comprehensive plan are not diminished. (6) To provide for adequate light, air, privacy and to prevent the overcrowding of land and congestion of the population. (done October, 1951) (10)To guide future growth and development of the City of Atlantic Beach, in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan, this specific provision of this article and other applicable requirements of these land development regulations. Sec. 24-204. Stage 2 review: Preliminary plat and information required for review. (c) Review process. The community development board shall make a recommendation to the city commission to approve the application, deny the application, or approve the application subject to specified changes based upon the requirements of these land development regulations, the comprehensive plan and other conditions which may be unique to the land proposed for development. 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. Future Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies Future land use, new development and redevelopment within the City of Atlantic Beach shall be in accordance with the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies and as further controlled by the Land Development Regulations, as may be amended to implement the Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Comprehensive Plan...Further, all Land Development Regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and in the event of inconsistency between the requirements of any zoning or Land Development Regulations, the provisions of this Comprehensive Plan shall prevail. [Differs with the opinion of the City Attorney offered during the portion of the quasi judicial hearing two weeks ago when according to the minutes, "City Attorney Jensen answered that they (Comprehensive Plan Objectives) are goals and objectives which can be implemented through Chapter 24 of the City's Code. He noted that they can not be used as evidence, but can be used as guidelines or as a roadmap. He further clarified that they are not considered applicable regulations because regulations are established by ordinances." Goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, in the event of inconsistency between the requirements of any zoning or Land Development Regulations, the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan shall prevail.] Community Development Board approved the motion "to deny the request for re-plat in that it is not compatible with Goals A.1 and Objective A.1.6 of the Comp Plan in that it is contrary to the community, the proposed re-plat is not compatible with adjacent properties, and Selva Marina is an area with larger lots, this is not in keeping with that character"...and added that the request was also "not compatible with Objective A.1.3." Goal A.1 The City shall manage growth and redevelopment in a manner, which results in a pattern of land uses that: 1) encourages, creates and maintains a healthy and aesthetically pleasing built environment...,4) maintains the City's distinct residential community character... Objective A.1.3 - XXX Maintaining Residential Character The City shall encourage future development and redevelopment, which 1) retains the exceptionally high quality of life and the predominantly residential character of the City of Atlantic Beach...[Do not agree with the applicability of Objective A.1.3 in this case] Objective A.1.6 Preservation of Older Neighborhoods The City shall preserve the sound structural condition and the diverse character of the built environment of the City and shall encourage development programs and activities that are directed at infill development as well as the conservation, redevelopment and re-use of existing structures and the preservation of and reinvestment in older neighborhoods. Policy A.1.6.3 The City shall discourage redevelopment practices that displace very low, low and moderate-income residents. ADD: Goal F.2 The City shall encourage the preservation and protection of housing of historic significance as well as other components of the existing housing inventory. Policy F.2.2.7 The City shall support the efforts of community based organizations and neighborhood improvement initiatives, which will contribute to the stabilization, conservation, enhancement and improvement of exhisting housing, structures and other physical facilities within neighborhoods. Sec. 24-205. Stage 3: Final subdivision plat review and approval. (3) Approval or denial by city commission. The city commission, after considering all comments shall approve, deny or approve subject to specified conditions, the final plat for recording, based upon compliance with the required certifications and security requirements and with the other requirements and provisions of this article and other applicable policies, ordinances, laws and regulations. [According to the minutes of the first portion of the quasi judicial hearing, "Mr. Ford pointed out that the sole purpose of the final subdivision plat review process and approval is to ensure that the request meets all the necessary requirements of the land development regulations" and in context I emphasize that portion of Sec. 24-205(3) AND WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE IV AND OTHER APPLICABLE POLICIES, ORDINANCES, LAWS AND REGULATIONS. FURTHERMORE, according to Ms. Doerr's explanation offered during the first portion of the quasi judicial hearing "that land development regulations establish a procedure and once a property owner meets those requirements and follows the process, they are entitled to approval" is ONLY partially correct and unless taken in entirety of Sec. 24-205(c) this narrow interpretation may be misleading!!! POINT: in my opinion, at no time is the authority of the Commission regarding replating a subdivision relinquished to an approval based solely upon the procedural compliance to required certifications and security requirements. If it is, then there is no reason to conduct a quasi judicial hearing when the compliance could be administratively approved. This opinion contradicts the positions as set forth by the developer, counsel for the developer, and the CDB Director.] F.S. 177.101 Vacation and annulment of plats subdividing land. Per F.S. 177.101(3) It is my understanding that applicant has not requested the vacation of a pre-existing plat in part of the Selva Marina Unit No. 1 subdivision and therefore there is no basis to approve the re-subdivison of a fully developed and approved subdivision whose lots were platted in 1951 into a subdivision of a subdivision and to be named Selva Verde by the developer. F.S. 177.031 Definitions OUTLINE SEQUENCE According to the minutes, I "inquired if this request is being made by a small developer. Ms. Tolbert stated that is incorrect...(I) asked if Ms. Tolbert intended to live in any of the three proposed plats or if she intended to sell any of them. Ms. Tolbert questioned the relevance of the question and reiterated that she is not a developer." F.S. 177.031 Definitions (6) "Developer" means the owners of record executing the dedication required by s. 177.081 and applying for approval of a plat of a subdivision pursuant to this part. (11) "Lot" includes tract or parcel and means the least fractional part of subdivided lands... (14)"Plat or replat" ...[by definition are interchangeable] (18)"Subdivision" means the division of land into three or more lots, parcels, tracts, tiers, blocks, sites, units, or any other division of land. ATTACHMENT B 1211;10e, DECEMBER 12, 2005 COMMISSION MTG RE-PLAT SUMMARY REQUEST(SUBMITTED BY MS. TOLBERT): "TO REPLAT AT PORTION OF BLOCK 1 WITHIN UNIT 1 OF SELVA MARINA SUBDIVISION, INCLUDING ALL OF LOT 33 AND PORTIONS OF LOT 32 AND LOT 34..." DATE OF SUMMARY: 12/12/05 SUMMARY SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER SUMMARY 1) WHEREAS, MS. DOERR STATES: THE"FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW... ALL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (INCLUDING ZONING CODES) ENACTED OR AMENDED... AND IN THE EVENT OF INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANY ZONING OR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TAKE PRECEDENT." (CHAPTER 163,FS). ("Power point prepared for CC and CDB training workshop. SM" ; given to Commissioner Fletcher on 11/4/05). Capitalization inserted. a. Similarly, Community Board Member Carolyn Woods stated in her findings of fact: "the rule and regulation with the highest authority is the Comprehensive Plan." (cited from the Community Development Board findings of fact,noted in the Agenda Packet for the 11/28/05 Commission Meeting). b. Similarly, Ms. Doerr stated: "... you need to have some reason to recommend approval or denial to the City Commission based upon consistency with the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, (and)the Comprehensive Plan..."Furthermore, "Ms Doerr responded that compatibility was an issue that needs to be considered in most zoning and land use related decisions." (noted in the Agenda Packet for the 11/28/05 Commission Meeting;parenthesis added). c. i. 2) WHEREAS, "THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN"INCLUDE: A CONSERVATION ELEMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT(and)RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT',etc. (Taken from the same power point as above). 3) WHEREAS, "AT AN EARLY POINT IN THE SUBDIVISION PLAT OR SITE PLAN PROCESS, A LOCALITY MAY HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DENY THE PLAT OR PLAN."(Cited from a Fax Memorandum from Sonya Doerr dated 11/14/05). 4) WHEREAS, "THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER A PLAN OR PLAT SHOULD BE APPROVED OR DENIED AS A POLICY MATTER, BUT WHETHER THE PLAN OR PLAT WILL BE APPROVED OR DENIED UPON DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IS SATISFIES THE APPLICABLE ORDINANCES. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, ONE TRIAL COURT HAS STATED THAT, AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN IS MORE MINISTERIAL THAN THE APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVSION PLAT (Va. Cir. Ct. 199U," ------f- -- 5) THEN COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS RE-PLAT) x i REQUEST COULD FIND IT TO BE INCONSISTENT AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRESENT C•MP' .1 ■ ►I ' : ► THE FOLLOWING WAYS: ibL, a. "The proposed re-plat is not compatible with adjacent properties and other properties within the surrounding area because this neighborhood within r the Selva Marina subdivision contains larger lots than those requested." "i/° G (cited from the Community Development Board findings of fact, noted in the Agenda Packet for the 11/28/05 Commission Meeting). i. In particular, Community Development Board Member Mr. Jacobsen stated: "In my opinion, what Ms. Tolbert is asking to do will not be compatible with t he surrounding neighborhood."(noted in the Agenda Packet for the 11/28/05 Commission Meeting). b. The proposed re-plat is not compatible with Objective A.1.6 of our Comprehensive Plan, which states: i. Preservation of Older Neighborhoods: The City shall... encourage development programs and activities that are directed at infill development as well as the conservation, redevelopment and re-use of existing structures and the preservation of and re-investment in older neighborhoods." ii. Similarly, Dr. Bodge writes: "The subject property is within old Selva Marina: historically platted and developed as low-density, with large lots, generous setbacks and greenspace" (citing ex parte letter received 11/10/05 from Dr. Kevin Bodge, 336 12th st, AB). iii. Similarly,this reason for re-plat denial was cited by our own Community Development Board (cited from the Community Development Board findings of fact, noted in the Agenda Packet for the 11/28/05 Commission Meeting). c. The proposed re-plat is not compatible with the"Conservation Element" of our Comprehensive Plan. d. The proposed re-plat is not compatible with the "Infrastructure Element" of our Comprehensive Plan. i. Again, Dr. Bodge states it nicely: "Splitting the property into three potential residences instead of two (or one) greatly increases storm water drainage/retention requirements..." (cited from the same letter as above). Dr. Bodge also mentions(in a separate letter dated 11/9/05)that the re-plat "ultimately increases impermeable surface areas." e. The proposed re-plat is not consistent with our Tree Preservation Ordinance Intent Section by"the likelihood that its unique trees (and possible "preservation trees") will be lost or impacted." (Dr. Bodge's letter of 11/10/05;parenthesis added for clarification). i. Similarly,the proposed re-plat is not consistent with our tree canopy preservation clause of the Comprehensive Plan, in that: 1. Objective A.1.3.2 "provides for the preservation and protection of the dense tree canopy," (Cited as finding of fact by our Community Development Board,noted in the aforementioned Agenda Packet for 11/28/05. Community Development Board Member"Mr Jacobsen asked whether a tree survey was done." (noted in the aforementioned Agenda Packet for 11/28/05). f. "The request is contrary to public interest and is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of general public." (Cited as finding of fact by our Community Development Board,noted in the aforementioned Agenda Packet for 11/28/05. NB: The issue of"public interest"was also specifically mentioned by staff as an option to deny the re-plat request, as cited in the Staff Report of 11/15/05). Specifically,the proposed re-plat is not compatible with public interest in the following ways: i. Due to the potential aforementioned infrastructure issues, and; ii. Due to public comments from neighbors(noted in the aforementioned Agenda Packet for 11/28/05),and; iii. "Approval of regulations,permits, variances, and related actions requires that the action be in the public interest. There is no net public benefit to the subject Request" (cited from Dr. Bodge's letter dated 11/9/05). g. "...such a division would be an illegal division of property under current Land Development Regulations," (cited from above Staff Report). All such requests must consider new laws(citation). h. "The proposed subdivision re-plat is not consistent with RS-1 Zoning District or the RL (Residential, Low Density) Comprehensive Plan Designation." (Cited as finding of fact by our Community Development Board,noted in the aforementioned Agenda Packet for 11/28/05.) • i. "The proposed re-plat is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically, Goal A.1; Objective A.1.6 and Objective A.1.3 of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element." (Cited as finding of fact by our Community Development Board,noted in the aforementioned Agenda Packet for 11/28/05.) Specifically, i. "Objective A.1.3 —Maintaining Residential Character: The City shall encourage future development and redevelopment, which 1) retains the exceptionally high quality of life and predominantly residential character of the City of Atlantic Beach," ii. "Goal A.1: The City shall manage growth and redevelopment in a manner,which results in a pattern of land uses that: 1) encourages, creates and maintains a healthy and aesthetically pleasing built environment,2) avoids blighting influences, 3) preserves and enhances coastal, environmental, natural, historical and cultural resources, 4) maintains the City's distinct residential community character, 5)provides for reasonable public safety and security from hazardous conditions associated with coastal locations," 6. THEREFORE, OSSIBLE ACTION BY THE COMMISSION APPEAR TO INCLUDE: a. Motion to uphold our Community Development Board's Recommendation to deny the re-plat based on its incompatibility with our Comprehensive Plan. b. Motion to allow the re-plat against our Community Development Board's majority decision. c. Move to create"Pending Zoning"for the City. i. "In order to be granted vested rights through the pending ordinance doctrine, a landowner must show: 1. what the law was at the time he/she applied for the permit; 2. that the governing board and the staff were NOT actively pursuing a change in the law on the date that the application was filed; 3. what the law is now." a. (Cited from a Memorandum sent to Ms. Doerr from Ms. Lopez,Asst. County Attorney, St. Johns Co., dated 8/18/2000; capitatlization added.) ii. "There must be active and documented efforts on the part of those authorized to do the work which, in the normal course of municipal action, culminate in the requisite zoning change."(Cited as above from Ms. Lopez). iii. "For a zoning change to be pending, however, it is not essential that the property owner be advised of these activities," (Cited as above from Ms. Lopez). iv. Mr. Nore Winter's October, 2005 "Report on Potential Changes to the Residential Development Standards"appears to suffice as"active and documented efforts(which will) ... culminate in the requisite zoning change." 1. In particular, Mr. Winter's"Development Standards" regarding "Street Trees, Curb Cuts, Building Coverage,Impervious Surface, Stormwater Detention, Height Limits, and Floor Area Ratio"all appear relevant. (Cited from Mr. Winter's "Proposed Development Standards", 10/05). d. Motion for a Development Moratorium: - i. Reasonable moratoria appear to be legally supported by the following: 1. "In this Case, the City undertook a comprehensive review of its regulations, and during the moratorium period, enacted changes pertaining to multi-family development relating to setbacks,building length, parking,utilities, sidewalks, right-of-way width, landscaping and other concerns. The City was entitled to enact the moratorium as a land-use tool to promote effective planning and preserve the status quo during this change. See Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 US. 302, 337,122, S. Ct. 1465, 152, L.Ed. 2d 517(2002) (temporary moratoria used widely among land-use planners to preserve the status quo while formulating a more permanent development strategy). By using this planning tool, the City prevented development inconsistent with its pending changes in development regulation. An emergency is not required to justify the use of this tool. Clearly, such a moratoria constituted a legitimate governmental purpose." (Cited from "Takings Update"from law firm of Tolces, Doody, & Ezrol, PA, Fort Lauderdale, 11/17/05). 2. Furthermore viz the Tahoe Case, the aforementioned Update reports: "In June 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court ruling that found temporary development moratoria to be a permanent taking of property worthy of compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the US. Constitution. In this ruling, the Court noted "temporary development moratoria prevent developers and landowners racing to carry out development that is destructive of community's interests before a new plan goes into effect. Such a race-to-development would permit property owners to evade the land-use plan and undermine its goals." e. State law allows a Commission to order further studies prior to rendering a decision(citation). i. The Commission could move to order a"tree survey" or tree removal site plan, as brought up by Mr. Jacobsen(noted in the aforementioned Agenda Packet for 11/28/05),prior to deciding. F. State law allows a Commission to ask for amendments to any request prior to rendering a decision(citation). i. The Commission could move toward a compromise on this request by amending it to two lots only. • r r�r v r �.-fi. `.=�-L-�f: Gip. �� r i Z-6)ef--/-1-4/ ,4 ' --e-23-z.-kt.-7-,-Lr2--3-Ic---/ 1,---Ars City Atlantic Beach, Florida _ Report on Potential SrS,-J,J:Jrs . • Changes to the � - -::-Ye>., Residential Develo r...,r ,,�__ •F '#i; pment standards c) r . -- Proposed D v to `..r., pment Standards Street Trees `v �, a • one tree per 50 feet of street frontage r '1 • minimum�ize 212-inc f7 'form water D� .n -i, � cal+per,ax time of p soling • incorporate drainage systems as a part of la d- e a-1. On-street Parking °' scape design- si=- ,E'�� • prohibit paving n �� 9 public right-of-way way on through Height limits: streets. &,�^ r'`Q P b �� Ridge Flat , _-�urh Guts. w- -- Height - 'late • no more than one curb cut e�ry 60 feet — 9 deck height frontage t of street at 5 foot se ,. . • maximum of 1 feet wide at 10 foot setback: feet eel 15 feet 30 feet 20 fez Front Lawns jour Area Ratio • minimum 50%of the front yard setback area • maxi mum floor area ratio_ with these provi- should be landscaped with plant material • up to 600 square feet of a detached garage, Building not be included in the FAR. To 9 9g' -" g Coverage • FAR may be Increased to a maximum of 0.50 with l'14-4 � iiig. • maximum of 40°.6 of the lot roofed structures design review using design guidelines Building Orientation Ot 1e-Story Element (re' �71/nl( the Principal,front building wall shall be oriented • along the street front of a ry porch or other element,shall be provided parallel to the street. building. • minimum area of 80 square feet in plan Side yard setbacks • minimum for each side yard is 5 feet Front Primary Wall • minimum for combined side yai s 15 feet ' width of the primary front wall plane 35 feet Front yard setback *Side Wall Plane • minimum 20 f et -- u � — • shall not exceed 35 feet in length -ini < • separation in wall planes(depth) Rear yard setback mum of 4 feet P P shall be a mini- • r e to 5 feet for accesso • other rear fractures t` JL°f a yard setbacks remain�t 20 feet /' Maxim amj Length Srq a`z� maximum length of 40 feet - GaragTo c a-r a _o-C.--4-.-e---a Doo S • separated by a minimum of 4 feet no more than 30 percent of the front facade garage Maximum Third Floor door / l,,, �/J� a 1- ,��° footprint of any third floor area shall not exceed npervious Surfs¢ t percent of the second floor maximum 50% impervious surface a r more information contact the City of Mantic Beach Community Development L--�w? �'' '' Director.Sonya Doerr,at 904-247.5826 ATTACHMENT C DECEMBER 12, 2005 COMMISSION MTG Louis M. Borno, Jr City Commissioner 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Fl 32233 Monday December 12, 2005 Subject: Quasi-Judicial Hearing, subdivision of property at 12th Street North and Selva Marina Circle, owned by Ms. Lindley Tolbert. To: Mayor, City Commissioners and associated Parties. I disclose(ex parte communications)that I have either been contacted or have read communications related to the subject property from the following persons. Mr. Tom Goelz, 631 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, Fl 32233 Mr. Les Samuels, 408 Snapping Turtle Court East, Atlantic Beach, Fl 32233 Mr. Geo Mayforth, 10 10th Street, Atlantic Beach, Fl, 32233 Mr Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive, Atlantic Beach, Fl, 32233 Mr. Dean S. Smith, 1345 Seminole Road,Atlantic Beach, Fl, 32233 Renee Liggero, 389 12th Street,Atlantic Beach, Fl, 32233 Prior to the Quasi—Judicial hearing on Monday November 24, 2005, I had discussions with the following persons. Mr. Jim Hanson, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Fl, 32233 (City Manager) Mr. Alan C. Jensen, Esquire, 935 North Third Street, Jacksonville Beach, Fl, 32240-0457 (City Attorney) At the November 24,2005, City Commission Meeting I also heard from 8 (eight) Atlantic Beach Citizens for the sub division and 5 against as noted by name and address in the minutes of that meeting. Respectfully, 44., /`9 Mike Borno City Commissioner As of 5:00 pm on December 12, 2005 List of names on file in City Clerk's Office with correspondence relative to the Selva Marina Replat issue. Commissioner Mike Borno Kevin Bodge, Ph.D., P.E., 336 12th Street, 249-7032 Tom Goelz, 631 Beach Avenue, 616-3858 Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive Renee Liggero, 12th Street, 241-9634 George Mayforth, 1405 Park Avenue, Ste. 201, 491-3804 Carl Russell Les Samuels Dean and Jan Smith, 1345 Seminole Road As of 5:00 pm on December 12, 2005 List of names on file in City Clerk's Office with correspondence relative to the Selva Marina Replat issue. Commissioner Sylvia Simmons Kevin Bodge, Ph.D., P.E., 336 12th Street, 249-7032 Tom Goelz, 631 Beach Avenue, 616-3858 Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive Renee Liggero, 12th Street, 241-9634 George Mayforth, 1405 Park Avenue, Ste. 201, 491-3804 Carl Russell Les Samuels Dean and Jan Smith, 1345 Seminole Road As of 5:00 pm on December 12, 2005 List of names on file in City Clerk's Office with correspondence relative to the Selva Marina Replat issue. Commissioner Jamie Fletcher: Kevin Bodge, Ph.D., P.E., 336 12th Street, 249-7032 Tom Goelz, 631 Beach Avenue, 616-3858 Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive Renee Liggero, 12th Street, 241-9634 George Mayforth, 1405 Park Avenue, Ste. 201, 491-3804 Carl Russell Les Samuels Dean and Jan Smith, 1345 Seminole Road In addition to the list above, Commissioner Fletcher also revealed the following ex parte disclosures during the meeting of December 12, 2005: Kate Gambell Dixon Lyman Fletcher Dana Carpenter City Attorney Alan Jensen Mr. Campbell Ford As of 5:00 pm on December 12, 2005 List of names on file in City Clerk's Office with correspondence relative to the Selva Marina Replat issue. Mayor Pro Tem Dezmond Waters Kevin Bodge, Ph.D., P.E., 336 12th Street, 249-7032 Tom Goelz, 631 Beach Avenue, 616-3858 Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive Renee Liggero, 12th Street, 241-9634 George Mayforth, 1405 Park Avenue, Ste. 201, 491-3804 Carl Russell Les Samuels Dean and Jan Smith, 1345 Seminole Road As of 5:00 pm on December 12, 2005 List of names on file in City Clerk's Office with correspondence relative to the Selva Marina Replat issue. Mayor Don Wolfson Kevin Bodge, Ph.D., P.E., 336 12th Street, 249-7032 Tom Goelz, 631 Beach Avenue, 616-3858 Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive Renee Liggero, 12th Street, 241-9634 George Mayforth, 1405 Park Avenue, Ste. 201, 491-3804 Carl Russell Les Samuels Dean and Jan Smith, 1345 Seminole Road Also, see attached list of 11/28/05 submitted by Don Wolfson I t/1-57o3 e_�rS AISCZOS U2/� 1 _ ___ __ __ f jj' f� coo Lez _- - t led,,-�,„ A zs, - ,c22_,,tzvs, 0 4 u betA./14.1.■ l 43-1/4".nze,,,,,, i .1. ..__c., 6, 40 I,,c- -,,,,,.,,, /ocA-vcc L.,`,;rev 1 .....- 0_,.,-,.. _-eet__2__ -4-c-L2 ,/, It rIcus-,/ Q,,cl, - Lc. r/ 1 Ca f_ccoi vic., e.,vs.,04.4.2P _ 1 1-------------- — I 4, _ _ . - I i._ '`Trovv INACktor 13)0h DECEMBER 12, 2005 CITY COMMISSION MEETING TOLBERT QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS SINCE SUBMISSION TO THE CITY CLERK OF LAST LIST AT THE END OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING,NOVEMBER 28,2005: 1. KEVIN BODGE,PH.D.letter,November 9,2005 2. KEVIN BODGE,PH.D.letter,November 10,2005 3. LES SAMUELS letter,November 21,2005 4. GEORGE MAYFORTH letter,November 22,2005 5. THOMAS GRANT letter,November 28,2005 6. JUDITH LEROUX e-mail,November 29,2005 7. SAM JACOBSON phone conversation,December 5,2005 8. DEAN S. SMITH e-mail,December 8,2005 9. LYMAN FLETCHER phone conversation,December 11,2005 10. KEVIN BODGE,PH.D letter and supporting documents,December 12,2005 ...to the best of my recollection,the above represents those communications regarding the proposed Selva Verde subdivision of that have transpired with me since the recess of the Tolbert quasi judicial hearing. 10t1 GEL' . _ -v (uv e ' ATTACHMENT D DECEMBER 12, 2005 COMMISSION MTG December 5, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM: Jim Hanso City Manager SUBJECT: Follow-u eport Pending Reports; Three staff reports are being prepared, but are not yet ready to present to the City Commission. It is anticipated that each of the following will be included on the Agenda for the regular meeting of January 9, 2006; - Post Office Boxes; where they presently exist in Atlantic Beach and what options may exist for locating new drop boxes to replace the one taken away from Plaza Drive - Park Safety at Tideviews; list of options for improving safety - Park Rules; follow up on previous staff report on adoption of park rules by ordinance and authorizing police officers to enforce them Adopt-A-Tree Program; Since the last city commission meeting, several commissioners have asked questions about the Adopt-A-Tree Program. Attached is a copy of the"City of Atlantic Beach Tree Maintenance Agreement"that is distributed to residents along streets approved by the City Commission for the Adopt-A-Tree Program. Each owner/resident that wants a tree to be planted should fill out the form and return it to the City so that they will be included on the planting list. This form has been modified to incorporate changes made at the last meeting for planting trees in the Royal Palms area adjacent to, but not directly in,the city's right-of-way. AGENDA ITEM#3A DECEMBER 12,2005 City of Atlantic Beach �J 1 4 e IA 716 Ocean Blvd. �' <` �_ s Atlantic Beach, FL 32333 J '„ _ — (904) 247-5828-Main , 1-,{3 9� (904) 247-5849- Fax Dear Atlantic Beach Resident: To increase the beauty and tree canopy in Atlantic Beach, the City has designated several areas in which to plant trees. The tree(s) will be planted on the right of way or on private property within ten feet of the right of way and we are asking the homeowners and renters to assist with maintaining the tree(s). If you would like to assist the City in this effort,please complete the form below and return it no later than . For additional information,please call (904)247-5828. ,� City of Atlantic Beach Tree Maintenance Y,_ Agreement �� Date: I agree to Name of Citizen take responsibility of the newly planted tree at , Address Telephone Number on the public right of way adjoining my property or on my property within ten feet of the right of way. I will be willing to maintain tree(s) based on the following list of requirements: • Watering-Fill the ring at the base of the tree(s) completely 3 times a week, for 6 months. • Fix water ring if damaged • Keep Mulched • Keep trimmed • Fertilize once yearly with one cup of 6-6-6, 8-8-8, or 10-10-10 tree fertilizer, found at your local hardware store. • Please keep in mind this maintenance is for the life of the tree. Signature of Owner Signature of Renter Thank you, Alex Hawkins Beautification Division Chief ATTACHMENT E Winter& CO REVISED DECEMBER 12, 2005 COMMISSION MTG Phase 2 Implementation of Character Management Strategy Atlantic Beach, Florida 10-Dec-05 FEES Develop 3rd Draft of Design Standards 3.1 Develop Draftr#3 of Design Standards 3.2 Model potential resuls 3.3 Present Draft 2 mass/scale ordinance(Trip 1) 3.4 Conduct community work session(Trip 1) Personnel Rate Hours Amount Subtotal N.Winter $155 50 $7,750 J. Husband $100 24 $2,400 W.Ward $70 40 $2,800 B. Shears $50 16 $800 L. Einsweiler/Duncan Associates $135 20 $2,700 Fees $16,450 Develop Final Draft of Design Standards 4.1 Final revisions 4.2 Present final draft(Trip 2) Personnel Rate Hours Amount Subtotal N.Winter $155 40 $6,200 J. Husband $100 24 $2,400 W.Ward $70 40 $2,800 B. Shears $50 16 $800 L. Einsweiler/Duncan Associates $135 20 $2,700 Fees $14,900 Design Guidelines (Trips are concurrent with those above.) 5.1 Develop strategy for use of guidelines 5.2 Develop draft 5.3 Develop second draft 5.4 Develop final 5.5 Present final draft(Trip 3) Personnel Rate Hours Amount Subtotal N.Winter $155 50 $7,750 J. Husband $100 24 $2,400 W.Ward $70 80 $5,600 B. Shears $50 40 $2,000 L. Einsweiler/Duncan Associates $135 8 $1,080 DGs Fees $18,830 Page 1 Winter&CO REVISED Page 2 of 2 TREE ORDINANCE 6.1 Review issues 6.2 Develop draft 6.3 Develop second draft 6.4 Develop final(Trip 3) Personnel Rate Hours Amount Subtotal N.Winter $155 24 $3,720 J. Husband $100 8 $800 W.Ward $70 24 $1,680 B. Shears $50 8 $400 L. Einsweiler/Duncan Associates $135 16 $2,160 Total Fees Tree Ordinance $8,760 TOTAL FEES $58,940 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES TRAVEL Unit Cost Quantity Amount Subtotal Airfare $500 4 $2,000 Ground Transportation $180 3 $540 Car Rental $100 6 $600 Accommodations $60 8 $480 Meals $50 10 $500 Mileage $100 - $0 Total Travel Expenses $4,120 IN-HOUSE EXPENSES Unit Cost Quantity Amount Subtotal Photography $50 1 $50 Reproduction $200 1 $200 Technical modeling $100 1 $400 Workshop Materials $100 1 $100 Phone $50 1 $50 Total In-House Expenses: $800 TOTAL EXPENSES $4,920 TOTAL PROJECT FEES AND EXPENSES $63,860 Page 2