03-11-02 vCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
March 11, 2002
AGENDA
Call to order
Invocation and pledge to the flag
Approve minutes of the Commission Meeting of February 25, 2002
2. Courtesy of Floor to Visitors
3. Unfinished Business from Previous Meeting
A. City Manager's follow up report on issues from previous meetings
B. Appointments to the Tree Conservation Board (2) (Mayor)
4. Consent Agenda
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO
BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE
DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY
COMMISSION ON THESE ITEMS
A. Acknowledge receipt of monthly report of new Occupational Licenses (City
Manager)
B. Award contract to Gruhn May, Inc. in the amount of $37,028 for West End
Pump Station Modifications and Improvements pursuant to the specifications
of Bid No. 0102-3 (City Manager)
C. Award contract to Labor Line for temporary employment services pursuant
to the specifications of Bid No. 0102-11 (City Manager)
D. Award contract to Insituform Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $98,681 for
Sewer Improvements in the Donner Road area, pursuant to the specifications of
Bid No. 0102-7 (City Manager)
E. Extend contract with American Landcare for palm tree trimming on Atlantic
Boulevard medians and Town Center for one year at the current annual contract
price of $13,386 (City Manager)
5. Committee Reports
6. Action on Resolutions
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION HELD IN CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD AT
7:15 P.M. ON MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002
PRESENT: John Meserve, Mayor
Richard Beaver, Mayor Pro Tem
Mike Borno
Paul Parsons
Dezmond Waters, Commissioners
AND: James Hanson, City Manager
Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney
Maureen King, City Clerk
Mayor Meserve called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. The Invocation,
given by Mayor Meserve, was followed by a moment of silent prayer in
rememberance of the victims and families of the September 11, 2001
terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers, the Pentagon
and the airplane which crashed in Pennsylvania. The silent prayer was
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Mayor Meserve reported that he had received an e-mail from Captain
John Furness, who is serving in the Middle East, and indicated that when
he returns, he would like to present the city with a flag which has flown
over several countries in the area.
1. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Commission meeting of
February 25, 2002
Motion: Approve the minutes of the Regular Commission
Meeting of February 25, 2002 as presented.
The motion carried unanimously.
2. Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors:
Domenick Bottini of 2130 Mayport Road requested that the City
Commission consider naming a street after Chaplain Vincent R.
Capodonno, who was killed during the Viet Nam War. Mr. Bottini
distributed information to the Commissioners relative to the request.
~-~ Bob Totter of 275 11th Street referenced Item 8C -the proposed Street
Light Policy and the recommendation for additional street lights in
~:. V
O Q
T T
E E
s s
M S
O E
T C
I O Y
O N E N
N D S Q
COMMISSIONERS
BEAVER X
BORNO X X
PARSONS X
WATERS X X
MESERVE X
,. Page Two AGENDA March 11, 2002
7. Action on Ordinances
8. Miscellaneous Business
A. Authorize Edwards Engineering, Inc. to perform engineering services for
Sewer Extension on Dora St. and Church Road (CDBG project) at an amount
not to exceed $16,680.50 (City Manager)
B. Appeal of decision of Community Development Director regarding vested
rights related to development of four duplex structures proposed to be located
on lots at 328 Second Street and 347 Third Street (City Manager)
C. Approve proposed street light policy (City Manager)
9. City Manager Reports
10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and City Attorney
A. Discussion regarding review of the City Attorney's performance as set forth
in Section 2 of Resolution No. 99-29 (Mayor)
Adjournment
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter
considered at any meeting, such person may need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purpose, may need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record shall include the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Any person wishing to speak to the City Commission on any matter at this meeting should submit a request to
the City Clerk prior to the meeting. For your convenience, forms for this purpose are available at the entrance
to the Commission Chambers.
Every effort is made to indicate what action the City Commission is expected to take on each agenda item.
However, the City Commission may act upon any agenda subject, regardless of how the matter is stated on the
agenda.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26, Florida Statutes, persons with
disabilities needing special accommodation to participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk by 5:00
PM, Friday, March 8, 2002.
Minutes Page -2-
March 11, 2002
residential areas, and commented that the placement of street lights and
stop signs should not be politically motivated.
J.P. Marchioli of 414 Sherry Drive spoke on the following: (1) Felt that
fire hydrants should be flushed twice a year, (2) felt all land east of the
Intracoastal waterway should be annexed into the city, (3) opposed any
water rate increase and suggested that citizens be encouraged to use
cisterns and rain barrels to promote water conservation, and (4) stated he
had not seen the St. Johns River Water Management District report and
did not believe stormwater runoff was a maj or cause of pollution.
Woody Winfree of 335 Third Street stated that she was present in
support of her Second Street neighbors and stated that she was opposed to
overturning the staff decision (Item 8B).
Lyman Fletcher of 804 East Coast Drive commented on the pending
departure of longtime city employee, Georgia Horn, and thanked all of the
city employees for their work.
3. Unfinished Business From the Previous Meeting
,,~.~,, A. City Manager's Follow Up Report on Issues from Previous
Meetings
City Manager Hanson reviewed each item in the written report, which is
attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A.
B. Appointments to the Tree Conservation Board (2) (Mayor)
Mayor Meserve indicated that he would like to defer the appointments to
the next meeting.
Item 8B was taken out of sequence and acted upon at this time.
8 B. Appeal decision of Community Development Director
regarding vested rights to development of four duplex
structures proposed to be located on lots at 328 Second Street
and 347 Third Street (City Manager)
Mayor Meserve explained the procedure to be followed to conduct the
appeal hearing, and requested that it be kept in mind that the aesthetics of
the building were not at issue.
Community Development Director Doerr introduced herself and indicated
`` that vested rights had been discussed at length during recent revisions to
the land development regulations. She indicated that the basis for
common law vested rights was established through a long history of
OMMISSIONERS M
O
z
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
Minutes Page -3-
March 11, 2002
judicial review and court cases, except for DRIs. She indicted that
Florida courts have held that the following three criteria must be met in
order for a Development Project to be found to have common law vested
rights: (1) An act or omission of the government had occurred, which in
the city's case was the amending the zoning regulations in November of
last year, which became effective on January 1St, (2) the developer relied
in good faith on that act of the government, and the proposed development
project was planned and designed in good faith reliance on the previous
zoning regulations, and (3) the developer has had a substantial change in
position, such as he has made a significant expenditure of funds to the
degree that there has been a change in financial position, and it would be
unfair and inequitable to require a redesign of the project to comply with
the new regulations.
Ms. Doerr summarized the guidelines for vested rights, and
indicated vesting was not an outright exemption from new
regulations. It was pointed out that a vested development project
was exempt from new regulations only to the degree or amount
that the proposed project did not comply with the new regulations.
She indicated that a piece of property was not forever entitled to
the old regulations.
~.
Ms. Doerr reported that the Third Street property was not under
consideration at this time. She stated that on November 9, 2001,
the developer submitted preliminary plans to the Planning
Department for initial. review of a proposed project to be located
on Second Street. The project consisted of four dwelling units in
two three-story structures. She pointed out that applications for
Building Permits had not yet been submitted. She indicated that
the developer met with staff to discuss forthcoming changes to the
zoning regulations and the process for seeking vesting
determinations. The submittal of the preliminary plans was
followed by a vesting request related to four issues. Ms. Doerr
indicated that staff reviewed the proposed project and the
preliminary plans and provided the letter of vesting contained in
the Commission agenda packets. (All documents related to the
appeal are on file in the office of the City Clerk).
Planning Director Doerr emphasized that the developer was
rightfully entitled to construct duplexes on these lots, which was
consistent with the special condition included in the rezoning of
the area from two-family to single-family, which was approved by
the City Commission in November of 2001. She noted that the
special condition allowed the development of duplexes to continue
''""' for one year after adoption of the new zoning regulations.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
~.
Y
E
S
N
O
Minutes Page -4-
March 11, 2002
Planning Director Doerr indicated that the city had received a letter
from The Construct Group, Inc. dated November 21, 2001, which
contained a request for four items to be considered for vested
rights. She indicated the following vesting determinations were
made relative to the request:
Ms. Doerr stated that vested rights were granted for the first and
second items which included that the project could be vested in
accordance with the terms of the rezoning ordinance allowing
duplexes to be developed for period of one year, and vested to
exceed the new 50% impervious surface limitation to the degree
the project exceeds the new standards.
,..
,~,.
Ms. Doerr indicated that vested rights were not granted for the
third and fourth items, and in accordance with the vesting
provisions of Chapter 24, the developer appealed the denial related
to those last two issues. She stated that the project was not vested
to exceed a height greater than 35 feet because the preliminary
plans showed that all portions of the proposed buildings were
within the 35 feet height limitation. Relative to the fourth item,
she reported that the project was not vested to follow .previous
regulations related to eaves and cornices in that the proposed
project appeared to comply with current regulations governing
eaves and cornices.
Karen LaGuarde, the owner of the property, introduced herself and
stated that she had lived at 328 Second Street for fifteen years. She
indicated that she had worked with the developer and architect on
the plans.
Doug Brown introduced himself and stated that his firm was The
Construct Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Sun and Ski Development
Group. He thanked the city for granting certain of the requested
vestment rights which would allow the company to move forward
with the Ocean Breeze Townhouse development.
He indicated that the records submitted to the city were firm and
stated that he understood the appeal process pertaining to vested
rights, which to date, had been denied.
Mr. Brown stated that the Planning Director was referencing a set
of plans, that were not submitted as a review plan for vested rights.
He indicated that the plans were submitted on November 9, 2001, a
number of weeks before the hearings of November 12th and 26th
He indicated that the first set of documents produced by his
company were not conceptual documents, but were merely putting
ideas on paper. He stated that the plans for the project were at the
OMMISSIONERS M
O
z
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Minutes Page -5-
March 11, 2002
F 90-95% complete stage when the letter dated November 21St was
submitted.
Mr. Brown said that Planning Director Doerr had not requested
that plans be submitted with the vested rights request. He
indicated that she had required that the request be put in writing
listing the sections of the ordinance for which the vested rights
request was being made. He felt that had the 90-95% plans been
submitted, they would have shown all of the vested rights needed
for the project.
Mr. Brown referenced the materials submitted by the firm and
indicated that they had been working on the project since February
of 2001. He further stated that 500 hours in time and $40,000 in
consultant fees had already been invested in the project.
Mr. Brown indicated that he and George Bull, the architect of
record for the project, were appealing the denial of three of the
four vested rights as listed in the request of November 21, 2001.
Mr. Brown provided the following as reasons for their appeal: (1)
At the two public hearings of November 12th and 26th, he and Mr.
Bull were encouraged to proceed with the request for vested rights
related to the zoning ordinance at that time, which they provided to
the city in their letter dated November 21St with the attachment.
Mr. Brown then read the first and last paragraphs of the letter and
the items listed in the attachment. (These documents are on file in
the office of the City Clerk). He referenced Item 1 of the
attachment, and indicated that under the criteria set forth in
Section 24-82 of the current ordinance, his plan only met four of
the five required criteria. He felt vested rights should be approved
for this section of the ordinance. (2) Mr. Brown referenced Item
3, Exceptions to height limitations of the old ordinance and stated
that a variance was not required for the items listed in the
ordinance, which included elevators and stair bulkheads. He
further stated that his firm was requesting stair and elevator
bulkheads to be 4-1/2 feet above the 35 foot height limitation,
which was only 5% of the area of the building. He felt the
bulkheads for the buildings would not be visible from the street,
but could be seen from the east and west sides of the building, and
(3) Mr. Brown requested vested rights for Section 24-157 of the
code, concerning eaves and cornices, and indicated that the
amended ordinance included a statement... "forty percent or 24",
whichever is less" and the noted the proposed overhangs for the
townhouses were 36", which would not be allowed under the new
F''" ordinance.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
z
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
~j
O
Minutes Page -6-
March 11, 2002
,~ ~,,.,
' Mr. Brown felt Planning Director Doerr's response to the request
was handled in a untimely manner and felt denial of the requested
vested rights was unjustified. He stated that they received no
response from Community Director Doerr until January 9, 2002,
when a letter was received denying two (or three, however the
request was interpreted) of the four vested rights requested. He
further stated that the letter was written after the new ordinance
was adopted. He felt that they had followed the proper procedure
by requesting in writing the sections of the ordinance requiring
vested rights which impacted the project, and they felt they would
be granted. He reiterated his position that they had not been asked
to submit the nearly completed current progress documents or any
other. information on the project. He felt the company was placed
in an awkward position since Ms. Doerr may not have understood
the request, or on the other hand they may have been coerced into
losing their right to certain vested rights, since she did not respond
in a timely manner. He felt if additional information was required,
it should have been requested by the Planning Department well
before the new ordinance was adopted. Mr. Brown felt they
demonstrated their entitlement to the requested vested rights.
Mr. Brown referenced his letter of January 13, 2002 to Planning
.,,.
Director Doerr and read paragraphs three and six of the letter
which provided background information and corroborated his
earlier statements. He then referenced Ms. Doerr's response to
his letter dated January 22, 2002, and stated that the essence of the
letter was that she must have specific information to quantify the
vesting criteria and demonstrate entitlement to vested rights prior
to adoption of the new regulations. Mr. Brown contended that they
had demonstrated their entitlement to vested rights through the
information requested by Planning Director Doerr and provided in
the attachment to their letter dated November 21, 2001. (The
letters referenced by Mr. Brown are included with the appeal
documents on file in the office of the City Clerk).
George Bull, architect of record for the project, stated that he was
present at both public hearings prior to adoption of the ordinance,
and was led to believe by the City Commission that they would be
granted their vested rights as far as the new ordinance was
concerned. He believed that they had submitted their request in a
timely manner and had talked to Building Official Ford concerning
the extension of elevators and stair towers before the November
meeting with Planning Director Doerr. He concurred with the
statements presented by Mr. Brown and stated. that he did not
`"' understand what happened between the November meeting and
Ms. Doerr's response to their request, but a set of preliminary
drawing are. just that, preliminary- not final and complete. He
OMMISSIONERS M
O
z
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
O
Minutes Page -7-
March 11, 2002
. .,
indicated that the four items sent as an attachment to their
November 21, 2001 letter were addenda to the preliminary
drawings and should have been considered as such. He further
indicated that a great deal of time and money had been spent on the
project and believed in good faith that all of the requested vested
rights would be granted.
Mayor Meserve then opened the floor for public input and the
following citizens spoke concerning the proposed Ocean Breeze
Townhouse development:
Bill Paulk of 336 2"d Street stated that he was not opposed to the
proposed height of the project, but was opposed to the 36" eaves
projecting into the side yard setback.
Charlene Collier of 331 2nd Street believed the proposed size of the
structures was not in the best interest of the residents of the neighborhood.
She felt that the project would add to the drainage problems already
experienced on Second Street and would cause parking problems in an
area which already lacked sufficient parking.
,.,. Gae Weber of 331 2"d Street opposed the proposed height, expressed
concern that the amount of impervious surface would negatively impact
drainage in the area, and felt the project would create parking problems.
Ms. Weber felt the neighbors .should have been notified of the proposed
changes since the development would have a substantial impact on the
neighborhood.
Jane Wytzka of 352 2"d Street was also opposed to the proposed height
of the townhouses and objected to the secrecy surrounding the proposed
development. She pointed out that Karen LaGarde, owner of the property,
had signed a petition a few years earlier opposing the construction of
duplexes in the area.
Betty Eilers of 369 3rd Street stated that the Commission was already
aware of the flooding problems experienced on her property and expressed
concern that this and other duplex development in the area would
contribute to the flooding problem.
Deane Brown of 349 3rd Street opposed the project due to its excessive
height and expressed concern that it would contribute to the drainage
problems in a flood prone area.
David Thomas of 345 2"d Street opposed the project and agreed with the
concerns expressed by the previous speakers.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
z
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
O
Minutes Page -8-
March 11, 2002
~~
Karen LaGarde of 328 2°d Street, owner of the property, stated that it
was no secret that she had bought the double lot property several years ago
because it was zoned for duplexes.
Judy Cissel of 374 2°d Street stated that she was opposed to the project
and wanted Second Street to remain the way it is.
Dorothy Kerber of 365 1St Street stated that she preferred people to
improve existing single family homes. Mrs. Kerber stated that in 1998
she had circulated a petition in the area and at that time 60% of the
residents were opposed to any further construction of duplexes. She
pointed out that at that time, Ms. LeGarde signed the petition.
Lyman Fletcher of 804 East Coast Drive pointed out that the
Commissioners were the trustees of the character of Atlantic Beach and
they must protect that character. He believed strict application of the city
codes should be used to maintain that character of the neighborhood and
the height limitation should never be violated.
Jerome Suddarth of 120 Beach Avenue felt the development would
negatively impact parking in the area and pointed out that emergency
vehicles already have problems. traveling on Second Street.
No one else spoke for or against the .proposed development and Mayor
Meserve closed the public comments.
Mayor Meserve stated .that the city had gone through a six year process to
amend the zoning ordinance and numerous public hearings were held. He
further stated that during the public hearings held at the Atlantic Beach
Elementary School, the Commission was taken to task for infringing on
property rights, primarily concerning ownership of property zoned for
duplexes. As a result and because of legal opinions at that time, the
Commission established a one year period of time where residents could
build a duplex on their lots as long as they met the code requirements.
Mayor Meserve stressed that the city could not stop construction of
duplexes on the lots in question, as long as they meet the code
requirements. He further stated that architectural design and building a
three story structure were non-issues. He stated that in his opinion, the
only issue was whether or not to overturn the administrative decision
made by Planning Director Doerr based on the information she had at
hand.
Commissioner Waters felt that good decisions were made when the zoning
ordinance was being revised, but felt a year was too long of a period of
~`° time for vesting. He felt the ordinance should be revisited to review some
areas which may need to be amended. He also expressed concern that the
project may cause increased flooding in the area.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N 5
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
Minutes Page -9-
March 11, 2002
Commissioner Borno concurred with Mayor Meserve's comments and
provided additional information concerning the public hearings.
Commissioner Borno felt the appellants had followed the proper
procedure, and remembered that they had attended the meetings and were
assured that they had one year to invoke their vested rights. Commissioner
Borno felt an appeal was not warranted at this time since the final building
plans had not been submitted for review.
City Manager Hanson explained that the Commission granted aone-year
period of time after the effective date of the ordinance for people to be
able to build duplexes on their property. It was further explained that all
other regulations which came into effect the lst of the year would be
complied with. In this case, the developer wants to build a duplex with a
variance to the new regulations and vested rights for the old regulations.
He further explained that if the plans were submitted today, fully
documenting all of the details, it would be after the effective date of the
ordinance and the question remained whether the developers were far
enough along in the plans that they deserve vested rights for the items in
question.
Commissioner Parsons indicated that the Commission must do only what
..
the law allows.
Commissioner Beaver commented on property rights and felt the only
items to be considered were the height and eaves issues. He then
requested direction from the City Attorney as to the legality of what had
been done to this point in time.
Commissioner Waters inquired as to who was being vested at the time the
ordinance was adopted. The Mayor indicated that he had vested rights on
his own property and briefly explained that you cannot be vested just
because you want to do something with your property someday. He
indicated that you must have a project in place, it must be designed
sufficiently to see what your asking for, and you must have asked for
vesting before the law changed.
Commissioner Waters felt that vesting rights should only apply to the
owners of record at the time the ordinance was passed. He stated that it
was never his intention to allow anyone to buy a piece of property within
the next year and be allowed to build a duplex.
City Attorney Jensen responded that when the ordinance was passed, the
ability to build duplexes was not granted to individuals or property
owners. He explained that if property was zoned for the building of
duplexes before November 26, 2001, the Commission determined that for
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
'
Y
E
S
N
Q
Minutes Page -10-
March 11, 2002
one year that property could still be used to build a duplex and the ability
to do so went with the land.
City Attorney Jensen stated that Community Development Director Doerr
made an administrative decision not to grant these vested rights based on
the information and documents provided to her. He advised that it was
not so much as making a legal determination, as it was making a
determination based on factual findings-facts, evidence, documents,
whatever she had in front of her at the time. He indicated that based on
what she had, she made the determination to deny the vested rights. He
advised that the Commission must review the information she had to
review at the time, and pointed out that in his letter of November 21, 2001,
Mr. Brown did not request exceptions to the height limitation or for the
eaves to extend more than what was allowed by the current ordinance.
He indicated the preliminary plans submitted showed everything to be
within the 35' height limitation and no intrusions into the sideyard setback
more than would be allowed.
City Attorney Jensen inquired as to when the 90 - 95% plans were
received and the delay in the response to their November 21St request.
Community Development Director Doerr explained that the applicant and
Mr. Bull met with her to discuss the changes in the regulations, their
project and the process for vesting. Ms. Doerr stated that at that time she
requested that they look at the project they were planning and identify
changes in the regulations which might affect the project and provide in
writing a list of the changes along with the plans, demonstrating how the
changes in the regulations would impact their project.
City Attorney Jensen then inquired as to when the plans showing the
elevator bulkhead were received. Ms. Doerr stated that those plans were
submitted after the first of the year. City Attorney Jensen reviewed the
process for requesting vested rights and stated that although the applicants
specified four different areas, Ms. Doerr did not know the specifics of the
request until after the first of the year.
Mayor Meserve referenced Ms. Doerr's letter dated January 9, 2002 in
which it was stated that the request to exceed the 35'height limitation
would be denied and inquired concerning the determination that there was
not enough information to address impervious surface limitation. Mayor
Meserve clarified that the impervious surface determination was made
after the first of the year, but the process began within the time constraints
of year end.
"' Ms. Doerr clarified that the door for vesting was not yet closed and
indicated that the city would continue to receive a few minor vesting
requests from property owners who had been working on projects for
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E•
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
Minutes Page -11-
March 11, 2002
months, and had brought very specific detailed, dated, signed plans and
invoices from architects and engineers showing they were working on the
project before the new regulations went into effect on January 1St. She
felt fewer and fewer vesting requests would be received, but some might
come in for single family homes that take an extended period of time for
design. She reiterated that the date of January 1St did not automatically
close the door on vesting and pointed out that one of the three criteria of
vesting was that the property owner or developer must demonstrate that
they have proceeded in good faith reliance on the previous regulations and
the planning for the project must commence and continue along a
reasonable timeline.
Mr. Brown of The Construct Group, Inc. felt that a number issues
discussed were being treated unfairly. He stated that his sister, Karen
LaGarde, had purchased the property consisting of an old beach house on
two lots knowing that it was zoned for duplexes. He indicated that she
had owned the property for fifteen years and had the right to build
duplexes on those lots. He further stated that they were not asking for
anything more than what was in place last November. He indicated that if
the project had been submitted three months ago, there would have been
no appeals required for the project.
Mr. Brown stated that he and Mr. Bull were requesting vested rights on
issues addressed. He indicated that the drawings were nearly completed
by the end of the year, but Ms. Doerr never requested them and reiterated
his position that he had followed the proper procedure by requesting in
writing the sections of the ordinance requiring vested rights which
impacted the project. He fiu-ther stated that they had not been asked to
submit the nearly completed fmal plans or any other information on the
project. He indicated that George Bull, the architect of record, was hired
in September to move the project into contract document stage, and he
worked almost daily on the project from that time. He pointed out that
comparisons had been made between the old and new ordinances and Mr.
Bull had indicated the areas to ask for vested rights. He reiterated that
they were never asked to submit an additional set of plans and stated the
first plans were submitted in good faith to show what they were thinking
of doing. He noted that the elevations on the plans were concept
elevations.
Mr. Brown emphasized the fact that they were never asked to submit plans
with the vested rights request and indicated that he had a problem with the
time between the submittal on November 21St and Ms. Doerr's response on
January 9th denying part of the vested rights request. He felt the stair and
elevator bulkhead, which exceed the current height limit and. was denied
as vested right, was very important to allow a roof garden as part of the
project. Mr. Brown also briefly commented on parking and drainage
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
O
Minutes Page -12-
March 11, 2002
issues and stated that the project met building code requirements for these
items.
George Bull expressed displeasure with the lack of communication
between the November 21St submittal of the request and the January 9th
reply from Ms. Doerr.
Motion: Deny appeal of the vested rights decision and
reconfirm the vesting determination as set forth within
attached Exhibit A. (Exhibit A as referred to in the motion is
attached and made part of this official record as Attachment B).
Mayor Meserve inquired of Ms. Doerr as to why the developer was not
contacted by her when the vested rights request did not match what was
shown on the preliminary plans. submitted in November and why the
determination on impervious surface was made after January lst
Ms.Doerr indicated that the preliminary drawings were initially submitted
on November 9tt' (Ms. Doerr requested that entire package of
information, including all drawings be placed into the record) and the
drawings showed building footprints and driveways and she requested that
the developer define how much impervious area the proposed project
encompassed so that the amount by which the project exceeded the
impervious surface limits and the extent to which the project was vested
could be noted on the drawings. Ms. Doerr indicated that by the same
issue, the height on all of the drawings was contained within the 35' limit.
She indicated that the list that subsequently came to her, when she
requested a list of regulations that would impact the project, as proposed
in the preliminary drawings, was a "laundry list" of old regulations that
were not reflected in the drawings. Ms. Doerr maintained that she did not
need to ask for additional information on the height since it was stated in
the drawings. She further indicated that she could not quantify the
impervious surface from the drawings and requested additional
information.
Mayor Meserve indicated that was a tough issue since the developer felt
he had fully complied with the requirements for vested rights and did not
supply more information, and Ms. Doerr felt she had enough information
to make the determination and it went beyond the time frame to do so, and
there was now no opportunity for review. Ms. Doerr indicated that she
would never make a vested rights determination until she was sure what
the project was that was vesting
Commissioner Borno pointed out that the developer's letter of November
21St did not spell out the vested rights being requested for each. section of
the ordinance.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
BEAVER X
BORNO X X
PARSONS X
WATERS X X
MESERVE X
Minutes Page -13-
March 11, 2002
Commissioner Beaver believed the developer should have been more
specific in his request for vested rights. He felt that if they had said they
planned to put in an elevator which would exceed the height limitation,
then this would have triggered Ms. Doerr to go back to the developer and
ask for plans showing the elevator.
Discussion ensued, and it was pointed out by Ms. Doerr that the
preliminary plans showed an elevator contained within the 35' height
limitation.
There being no further discussion, the motion carried by a four to one vote
with Commissioners Beaver, Borno, Parsons and Waters voting aye and
Mayor Meserve voting nay.
Mayor Meserve called a recess at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
9:35.
4. Consent Agenda:
A. Acknowledge receipt of the following monthly reports
Occupational Licenses (City Manager)
B. Award contranct to Gruhn May, Inc. in the amount of
$37,028 for West End Pump .Station Modifications and
Improvements pursuant to the specifications of Bid No.
0102-3 (City Manager)
C. Award contract to Labor Line for temporary employment
services pursuant to the specifications of Bid No. 0102-11
(City Manager)
E. Extend contract with American Landcare for palm tree
trimming on Atlantic Boulevard medians and Town
Center for .one year at the current annual contract price of
$13,386 (City Manager)
Commissioner Parsons requested that Item D be removed from the
Consent Agenda for further discussion.
Motion: Approve Consent Agenda Items A - C and E as
presented.
There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously.
D. Award contract to Insituform Technologies, Inc. in the
amount of $98,681 for Sewer Improvements in the Donner
Road area, pursuant to the specifications of Bid No. 0102-7
(City Manager)
Commissioner Parsons inquired as to the difference between pipe
bursting and cured-in-place piping. Public Works Director Kosoy
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D .
Y
E
S
N
Q
BEAVER X X
BORNO X
PARSONS X
WATERS X X
MESERVE X
Minutes Page -14-
March 11, 2002
,,
explained the differences between the two acceptable rehabilitation
methods.
Motion: Award contract to Insituform Technologies, Inc.
in the amount of $98,681 for Sewer Improvements in the
Donner Road area, pursuant to the specifications of Bid
No. 0102-7
There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously.
5. Committee Reports:
There were no committee reports.
6. Action on Resolutions:
There was no action on Resolutions.
7. Action on Ordinances:
There was no action on ordinances.
F~.
8. Miscellaneous Business:
A. Authorize Edwards Engineering, Inc. to perform
engineering services for Sewer Extension on Dora Street
and. Church Road (CDBG project) for an amount not to
exceed $16,680.50 (City Manager)
Motion: Authorize Edwards Engineering, Inc. to perform
engineering services for Sewer Extension on Dora Street and
Church Road (CDBG project) for an amount not to exceed
$16,680.50,
There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously.
B. Appeal decision of Community Development Director
regarding vested rights to development of four duplex
structures .proposed to be located on lots at 328 Second Street
and 347 Third Street (City Manager)
This item was taken out of sequence and acted on after Item 3 -
Unfinished Business from the Previous Meeting.
C. Approve proposed street light policy (City Manager)
Motion: Approve the proposed street light policy.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
BEAVER X X
BORNO X X
PARSONS X
WATERS X
MESERVE X
BEAVER X
BORNO X X
PARSONS X X
WATERS X
MESERVE X
BEAVER
BORNO
PARSONS
WATERS
MESERVE
Minutes Page -15-
March 11, 2002
Chief Thompson explained that the proposed policy would establish a
procedure to add new street lights and carry out inspections.
Commissioner Borno felt the major thoroughfares in the city, such as
East Coast Drive, Ocean Boulevard, Plaza, Sherry Drive and
Seminole Road should be well lighted and, for the most part, the
neighborhoods left as they are.
Discussion concerning the spacing of light poles ensued. It was felt
that north Seminole Road needed more lights. Commissioner Beaver
favored the idea of inspections and inquired if the location of the
light poles could be placed on city's GIS system. Chief Thompson
indicated that it could be part of the GIS system and would provide a
tool for tracking.
Commissioner Waters reported that the traffic delay button located at
the pedestrian crosswalk on the corner of Mayport Road and Jackson
Street was missing and posed a serious hazard for someone trying to
cross Mayport Road. Chief Thompson indicated that he would have
it repaired.
,.~,
There was no more discussion and the motion carried unanimously.
9. City Manager Reports:
City Manager Hanson reported on the following items:
• Reported that a letter had been received from Jacksonville
Councilman Lad Daniels requesting the city's support in the
form a resolution to keep the overhaul work to be performed
on the USS Kennedy in the year 2003 at Mayport. The
Commissioners by consensus requested that the Resolution of
support be prepared for adoption at the next Commission
Meeting.
Reported that the new State of Florida Building Code went
into effect on March 1, 2002 and 123 sets of plans had been
submitted to meet the deadline for submittal under the
previous building code. He indicated that additional funds
were needed in the Building Department budget for review
and clerical personnel to help with the backlog. He indicated
the additional funding would be included as a mid-year budget
adjustment.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
0
Minutes Page -16-
March 11, 2002
• Reported that he had authorized an emergency expenditure of
$21,000 to repair a sinkhole on Sargo Road that was
endangering a garage and home.
• Reminded the Commissioners of the meeting on Thursday,
March 14, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. at the Sea Turtle Inn to discuss
the Bike/Pedestrian Path Project for the three beaches cities.
• Reported that Public Works Director Kosoy would provide an
update on the Core City Project at the next meeting.
10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and
City Attorney
Mayor Meserve
A. Discussion regarding review of the City Attorney's
performance as set forth in Section 2 of Resolution
No. 99-29
Mayor Meserve stated that he would like to use the following process
,~~~ in order to conduct an annual review of the City Attorney's
performance: A form will be distributed to Department Heads for
anonymous comments/input, the completed forms will be given to the
City Clerk, and within the week, the City Clerk will compile the
results and distribute them to the Commissioners.
Mayor Meserve indicated that the information received from the City
Clerk would be used by the Commissioners as part of the evaluation
process, and the performance evaluation would be conducted at the
next meeting.
Barrett Wanamaker Letter
Mayor Meserve indicated that he had received a letter from Mr.
Wanamaker suggesting that the city compensate the residents of
Sherry Drive for the dirt and dust blowing on their homes from the
Sherry Drive Reconstruction Project.
Discussion ensued and it was determined that if the request was
honored, it would set a dangerous precedent for future projects of this
type.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
O
Minutes Page -17-
March 11, 2002
,-,
Commissioner Waters
• Inquired concerning a huge mound of dirt being placed on a
residential property at the end of Begonia Street. City
Manager Hanson indicated that he would check on it.
Commissioner Borno
• Thanked Yvonne Calverley, the City Manager's
Administrative Assistant, for her work on obtaining the new
chairs for the Commission Chambers.
• Reported that a meeting with the Cultural Arts Board would
beheld on Wednesday, March 20th to discuss its possible
merger with the Recreation Advisory Board, and charitable
contributions.
There being no further discussion or business to come before the City
Commission, the Mayor declared the meetirjot#ned at 10:10 p.m.
Attest: May/I~resi g Officer
1, ~ ~..JJ
Ma een King
Certified Municcipat er ';
OMMISSIONERS M
O
z
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
0
-- ATTACHMENT A
MARCH 11, 2002 COMMISSION MEETING
~,
...March 4, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jim H
--~3~-
SUBJECT: Follow-up port
Joint Purchase of 5peed„Trackin~ Sign with Neptune Beach;' Mayor Meserve reported at the
- last City Commission meeting. that he had received a request from the City of Neptune Beach to
share in the purchase of a digital speed sign to be used in both communities. Since that time, we
have been told that Neptune Beach has had same other priorities arise making use of their
discretionary funds. Consequently, this request has been withdrawn.
Animal Con__ trot; A question was raised at the last Commission meeting about the City's Animal
Control staffuig. There are two full-tune positians budgeted far Animal Control. Both positions
are presently vacant. There is however a person in the Police Department who is working part-
time for Animal Control and part-time in-the Records Division. The City is and has been
responding to animal cantral complairns although the amount of patrol time available will be
very limited until both positions can be filled.
~ 0
_F _ ATTACHMENT B _
MARCH 11, 2002 COMMISSION MEETING
EXHIBIT A
VESTING LETTER
(Dated February 12, 2002, to Doug Brown, The. Construct Group, Inca.
ORDINANCE 90-01-173
("Core Area" rezoning ordinance).
AGENDA ITEM 8B
MARCH 11, 2002.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233-5445
TELEPHONE: (904) 247-5800
FAX (904) 247-5877
SUNCOM: $52-5800
htip://ci.atlaatic-beach.fl.us
.February 12, 2002
Doug Brown
The Construct Group, Inc:
30 Garfield Place, Suite 900.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Re: Proposed Duplex /Townhouse Construction at 328 Secand Street and 347 Third Street
Dear Mr. Brown:
~.
I write in reply to your letter of January 29, 2002, related to Vested Rights and the proposed development
projects. Chapter 24-51 of City Ordinance 90-01-172 requires that an applicant seeking vested rights
demonstrate an entitlement to such vested rights.. I have no authority to exempt a project from the land
development regulations of the City of Atlantic Beach, except in accordance with the terms of City law. My
request for information is not intended to create any excessive burden to you, but rather to create a legally
substantiated and. defensible vesting determination in the event the City's vesting findings should be
challenged.
As I have previously stated, .vesting is not a complete exemption from new regulations. In accordance with
Florida law,. a development project may be vested only to the extent that the vesting criteria are met and only
to the extent that the proposed yroiect does not comply with the new regulations. In other words, if your
project is designed at 60% impervious coverage (and all three vesting criteria are otherwise met), then new
regulations aze later adopted that establish a 50% impervious limit, the proposed project would be vested for a
maximum 60% impervious surface coverage. It would not be wholly exempt from any impervious surface
Iirnitation. This is why it is necessary foryou to provide information which verifies the impervious surface of
the projects as designed prior to November 2b, 2001, the adoption date of the new regulations.
Again, -with regard to height limitation, the preliminary design you have provided, in drawings dated
November 09, 2001, indicated. that the proposed structures fully comply .with .the thirty-five (35) foot height
limitation.. There are no portions of the structures, or elements thereof, that exceed 35 feet in height.
Accordingly, the City cannot find that this project is vested from compliance with this standard since height in
excess of 35-feet was not included within the preliminary .drawings submitted to the City of Atlantic Beach
prior to the adoption of the amended regulations.
Furthermore, while Ordinance 90-0I-173, which changed the zoning designation of these parcels from RG-1
(two-family) to RS-2 (single-family}, included a provision to allow .for the continued development of
duplexes for a period of one year, .that Ordinance specifically required that such development comply with all
other applicable land development regulations. The current regulations allow only chimneys to extend above
the maximum Height of Building.
The third provision you have asked to be vested from relates to eaves and cornices. You have asked to be
vested from the provision limiting eaves and cornices to not more than forty percent (40%) of the width of the
AGENDA ITEM 8B
- . ^, MARCH 11,2002
Page 2 of 2
February 12, 2002 ;
,;•...,
required yard. As I noted in my earlier letter, this. is not a new provision. Section 24-84 (a) of the urevious
zoning regulations contained the same limitation; therefore, there is no basis for vesting related to this issue.
To summarize, the proposed development projects are determined to be vested as follows:
1. Constriction of duplexes shall be allowed on the subject lots in accordance with the terms set
forth within Section 6, Ordinance 90-O1-173 (attached)..
2. Maximum Impervious Surface shall be limited as set forth below.
.Lot 7, Block 3, Atlantic Beach Subdivision A: 62.17 percent
Lot 9, Block 3, Atlantic Beach Subdivision A: 62.17 percent
Lot 18, Block 5, Atlantic Beach Subdivision A: 54.06 percent
(Proposed development also includes Lot 16 and west one-half of Lot 14; however, this proposed
development complies with the Maximum Impervious Surface limit of fifty percent.)
3. The proposed development shall not be vested to construct height above thirty-five (35) feet..
Height of Buildings shall be subject to regulations governing height as set forth within Ordinance
90-01-172, Zoning, Subdivision .and Land Development Regulations for the City of Atlantic
Beach.
4. Eaves and Cornices shall mean typical projections from the roof Structure of a Building. Eaves
and Cornices shall not project beyond forty-eight (48) inches into Required Front and Rear Yards.
Eaves and.Cornices shall not project into Required Side Yards beyond twenty-four (24) inches, or
forty (40) percent of the established Required Side Yazd Setback, whichever distance is less.
This vesting determination may be appealed to the City Conunission in accordance with Section 24-51 (c),
which states:
(c) Appeals of vesting determinations. An appeal of the denial of a vesting determination may be
made to the City Commission by filing such appeal with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days of
receipt of written notification of the denial. Appeals of vesting determinations shall be granted.
only by the City Commission.
Sincerely,
a..v~iE
Sonya B. oerr, AICP
Community Development Director
Concur:
arson, ity Manager
City of Atl tic Beach
( cc: George Bull, Jr.
Don Ford, CBO, Building Official, City of Atlantic Beach
Alan Jensen, City Attorney
Enclosures
AGENDA ITEM 8B
MARCH 11, 2002.
;.. ORDINANCE NUiV.~ER: 90-01-173
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC ..BEACH,
COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, ADOPTING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-01-173, REZONING LANDS AS
DESCRIBED HEREINAFTER FROM THE PRESENT ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL GENERAL, TWO-FAMILY
(RGl) TO RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMII.Y (RS-2) PROVIDING
FINDINGS OF FACT, REQUIRING .RECORDATION; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Commission for the .City of Atlantic Beach, Florida hereby finds
that the public health, safety and welfare of citizens are protected and enhanced by the enactment
of this ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the zoning change enacted by this ordinance shall provide for orderly
growth; encourage the most appropriate use. of Land; protect and conserve the value of property;
prevent the overcrowding of Land; promote, protect and improve the health, safety, comfort,
good order, appearance, convenience, and general welfare of the public and serve to accomplish
and implement the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and
;,,,,.
WHEREAS,. after required notice was published, public hearings were held on the 12th
day of November,.2001 at 7:15 p.m. and on the 25th day of November, 2001 at 7:15 p.m. to hear
and enact said Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY CONIlVIISSION ON
BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION .1. Upon consideration of the application,- .supporting documents,
recommendation of the Community Development Board, and comments from the staff and
citizens at the public hearings, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as Findings of Fact in
support of this Ordinance, and the City Commission finds as follows:
a. The request for rezoning has been fully considered after public hearing with legal notice
duly published as required by law.
b. The rezoning to Residential, Single-family (RS-2} is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Designation of Residential, .Medium. Density.
c. The rezoning to Residential, Single-family (RS-2) is consistent with the zoning and Land
development regulations for the City of Atlantic Beach.
d. The zoning district designation. of Residential, Single-family (RS-2) is consistent. and
compatible with surrounding development.
Ordinance 90-01-173 Pace 1 of 2
.AGENDA ITEM 8B
MARCH 11, 2002
,~,.,,,
SECTION 2. Pursuant to this rezoning procedure, (File Number REZ 2001-42) the
zoning classification of Residential General, two-family (RG-1) of the Iaz~ds described within the
legal description, attached as EXHIBBIT A,
is hereby changed to Residential, Single-family fRS-2).
SECTION 3. To the .extent that they do not conflict with the unique, specific and
.detailed provisions of this Ordinance,. all provisions of the Code of Ordinances for the City of
Atlantic Beach as such may be amended from time to time shall be applicable to development
.and use of lands referenced herein except to the degree that development may qualify for vested
rights in .accordance with applicable ordinances and laws. Furthermore, notwithstanding any
provision of this ordinance, no portion of any ordinance, building code, Comprehensive Plan or
any other regulation shall be deemed waived or varied by any provision herein.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be recorded in a boom kept and maintained by the
Clerk of the City of Atlantic Beach, Duval County, Florida, in accordance with Section .125.68,
Florida Statutes.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective on the date passed and enacted by
final reading. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the zoning classification shall be .
recorded on the official Zoning Map as maintained in the Building, Zoning and Community
Development Department by the Community Development Director or designated administrative
o$xciaL
SECTION 6. Special Conditions. For a period of one (I) year from the effective date
of this Ordinance, property owners or theiz lawful assigns shall be entitled to seek and obtain
Building Penults to constmct a Twa-family (Duplex). Dwelling upon lauds described herein,
' ' ' ' ' ~ ' provided that such Development shall be in compliance with all other applicable regulations
including the Florida Building Code and the Zoning Subdivision and, Land .Development
Regulations as set forth within Chanter 24 of the Code of Ordinances for the~~City ofAtlantic
Beach.
Passed on first reading and public hearing by the City Commission of the City of Atlantic
Beach this 12th day of Novennber, 2001.
Passed an final reading and public hearing this
ved as to form and concectness:
~~
C SI;N, ESQUIRE
City A ey
Attest: '~
MAUREEN KING
City Clerk