Loading...
06-04-01 v • MINUTES OF THE REZONING WORKSHOP OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN THE COMMISSIONCHAMBERS AT 5:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2001 City Commissioners Present: John S. Meserve, Mayor Mike Borno Rick Beaver Theo Mitchelson Dezmond Waters Staff Present: Jim Hanson, City Manager Don Ford, Building Official Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney Maureen King, City Clerk The meeting, which was called for the purpose of addressing concerns expressed by the public regarding the proposed new zoning ordinance, was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Mayor Meserve. 4110 Since most of those in attendance were interested, primarily, in the duplexes/townhouses issue, this matter was be considered first. City Commissioners were provided with a staff report on zoning options which had been prepared by staff in response to concerns expressed by citizens at a public meeting held on April 16, 2001, and also in written comments received since that meeting. A copy of this report, which was used as a reference for discussions at this meeting, is attached as Exhibit A. The City Manager summarized the issues he felt needed to be addressed by the City Commission. He suggested the City Commission give direction to city staff, and staff then craft the language and bring the document back to the City Commission for their approval. He summarized what he believed to be the major issues, as follows: (1) Does the City Commission wish to consider rezoning and grandfathering in all existing duplexes/townhouses in only the RG-1 zoned area in the core city, or do they wish to down zone all RG-1 areas throughout the city to a single family zoning classification? (2) Does the City Commission wish to limit rebuilding of non-conforming duplexes/ townhouses to the existing footprint, or could they be rebuilt on a larger footprint? (3) Would grandfathering be applied only to structures destroyed by a natural disaster, or would it also apply if a resident wished to demolish and rebuild a structure? The City Attorney indicated that if a zoning change was approved, a grace period should be established by which construction of duplexes/townhouses permitted under the current zoning would have to commence. 0 • Page Two City Commission Workshop June 4, 2001 Discussion ensued and Commissioner Mitchelson felt that if a building was built legally at the time of its construction and is subsequently rendered to be non-conforming by some change of city ordinance, then in the event of destruction whether it was by natural disaster or by choice, it should be able to be rebuilt within the same footprint and for the same use that was originally permitted. He noted that the Community Development Board had expressed some concern about fire issues with homes that were built too close together. However, he felt the City had excellent fire service and he did not share those safety concerns. Commissioner Borno felt that the city was nearly built out and favored down zoning to single family on a city-wide basis. He felt that structures, whether conforming or non-conforming, should be allowed to be rebuilt to the existing footprint in accordance with whatever the code is at the time of rebuilding and he did not feel it mattered whether the original structure was destroyed by natural disaster or by the owner for the purpose of upgrading the structure. Commissioner Borno expressed some concerns about fire safety and Building Official Don Ford explained that structures within ten feet of each other were required to have a fire wall. Commissioner Borno agreed with establishing a grace period and felt six months would be • appropriate. Mayor Meserve reported that the Community Development Board felt zoning laws should correct non-conforming issues over time. However, he did not feel that Atlantic Beach had a problem that needed to be corrected through zoning changes and, therefore, he did not feel the City Commission needed to establish a zoning code that, over the years, would correct a problem that did not exist in the city. He felt there were some areas in the core city where large duplexes were being built on 5,000 sq. ft. lots and if that type of construction took place on every lot, he felt property values would be negatively impacted. The Mayor felt property owners should be allowed to rebuild either to the original footprint or within the allowable setbacks regardless of whether a structure was destroyed by natural disaster or the owner wanted to upgrade. He felt that matters such as drainage and density would also be controlled by impervious surface restrictions and setbacks. He also supported a grace period of six months from the time the ordinance is signed into law. Commissioner Beaver said he agreed with practically everything that had been said so far but he hoped construction permits would not be renewed unless construction had begun. Commissioner Waters supported the Mayor's comments on grandfathering of duplexes/ townhouses and agreed with establishing a grace period to begin construction after the ordinance was adopted. He felt there could be some fire hazards in the city as a result of non-conforming uses. However, he felt property owners should have the right to rebuild on the original footprint. The City Manager confirmed the items on which the City Commission had reached consensus, as • follows: • Page Three City Commission Workshop June 4, 2001 (1) Regarding down zoning, the City Commission agreed that down zoning should be done on a city-wide basis (2) Duplexes/townhouses may be rebuilt on the same footprint or to the building setback lines and must be rebuilt to comply with current building codes (3) Set the grace period for issuance of a construction permit for duplexes/ townhouses at six months after the adoption of the ordinance. The City Attorney suggested setting the grace period at one year and pointed out that permits could not be renewed unless construction was ongoing Subdivisions of Lots into Substandard Parcel: Discussion ensued regarding Item 2 on the staff report (Exhibit A) and it was consensus that all future duplexes should be built to townhouse standards. Following discussion, the City Commission agreed not to increase the minimum lot size for construction of duplexes from 5,000 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft. • Concern was expressed that substandard lots were being created by subdividing 50 ft. lots and it was suggested that language be included to provide that no duplex/townhouse or multi- family structure could be built on a single family lot. When asked about the legality of subdividing lots to create substandard lots, City Attorney Alan Jensen responded that property owners did not need permission from the city to sell off one half of a duplex. He assumed that if a person bought half a duplex they also bought half of the lot,thereby creating substandard lots. Following further discussion it was agreed to incorporate items 2a, c, d, e and f of Exhibit A into the ordinance. Mayor Meserve felt it would be necessary to have a further public hearing and said that the City Commission would not rush anything through without notifying citizens and allowing further input. Recreational Vehicle (RV) Restrictions: The Mayor noted that staff had recommended eliminating all terrain vehicles (small 3- wheeled vehicles) from the definition of recreational vehicle. He felt that if an RV was stored in an enclosed building, it should not be included in the number of allowable vehicles since it was hidden from sight. Discussion ensued regarding changing the regulations to allow RV's to be parkedl5 ft behind the property line instead of behind the building setback line and Commissioner Waters said • he did not want the new ordinance to be less restrictive than the current requirements. Page Four • City Commission Workshop June 4, 2001 Commissioner Beaver said he had no problem with changing the ordinance to allow parking of RV's 15 ft. behind the property line but felt that only property owners should be allowed to park their RV's on a vacant lot, and suggested the ordinance be changed to allow two RV's per lot or one RV per each 5,000 sq. ft. lot. Following further discussion it was agreed to allow one RV per 5,000 sq. ft. of lot and that such vehicle must be parked 15 ft. behind the front property line. Accessory Buildings: The Mayor noted that the amended definition of accessory structure which had been provided defined accessory structure as "occupiable" which he felt was a good change since this would eliminate doghouses, small pump houses, swing sets, etc. He also felt that a screened pool enclosure should not be considered an accessory structure. Discussion ensued and Commissioner Waters suggested establishing a percentage of yard that could be covered by accessory buildings but it was felt that setback and impervious surface requirements would control the number and size of accessory structures on a lot. The Mayor felt that setting a cubic foot limit for accessory structures would solve the problem of someone • building structures such as pump houses, which were not counted as an accessory structure and then using that structure for other purposes, such as a storage shed. Building Official Don Ford pointed out that a permit was needed to build any accessory building, only one was allowed, and it must be less then 600 sq ft. Following further discussion there was consensus to allow one accessory structure per lot, eliminate small dog houses, small storage buildings, attached screened, roofed structures etc. from the definition of accessory building, and not use the word "occupiable" since this would exclude garages. Discussion ensued regarding Item 5 (Exhibit A) and the City Commission concurred with items 5a through 5d and 5f. In discussion regarding Item 5e it was felt that while the Radio Station on Atlantic Boulevard would be grandfathered in under the new ordinance, radio station should be authorized by exception in the new CON district. The Mayor noted that the new ordinance established restrictions on the hours of operation of commercial business. He felt this would cause a hardship for many businesses such as Publix, gas stations, restaurants, etc. and should be taken out. He felt the noise ordinance and other current laws would regulate business activities. The Commission concurred. There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. • Maureen King City Clerk • EXHIBIT A Commission Workshop 6/4/01 May 29, 2001 Staff Report on Zoning Options The City of Atlantic Beach has been planning for the wholesale revision of its zoning code for many months. A hearing was held on Monday, April 16, 2001 to get input from the public on the draft of the zoning code that had been presented by the City's Community Development Board and revised through several workshop discussions held jointly with the City Commission. Several issues were raised by the public both in written comments and in person. This list of options is to provide possible amendments for the City Commission to consider relating to the issues that appear to be problematic to large groups of individuals. 1. Grandfathering of Duplexes in down zoned section of Core City a. Allow for the reconstruction of duplexes if destroyed in"same footprint". Possible language as follows; "Substandard structures that were in existence upon the passage of this ordinance shall be deemed to comply with the code and shall, 4111 in the event of destruction by fire, flood or similar disaster be allowed to be rebuilt in the same footprint, providing the footprint was in compliance with the code prior to passage of this section. Rebuilding of these structures requires compliance to current building and safety codes, and the reconstruction of duplexes must comply with current townhome standards including firewalls." 2. Subdivisions of Lots into Substandard Parcels a. Require all future duplexes to be constructed to townhouse standards. Suggested language to add to Section 24-106 and 24-107 "all duplex and townhouse construction shall be constructed with a two hour firewall as defined in the current building code under townhouse construction." b. Increase minimum lot size for construction of a duplex from 5,000 square foot to 7,500 square foot. c. Clarify language in code to ensure no building permits will be issued on substandard lots. Language suggested; "No single family, duplex,townhouse or multiple family structure shall be allowed on a single-family lot, multiple lots or parcels unless the resulting density complies with the regulations within the code and the comprehensive plan." d. Require duplexes or town homes to be connected by a firewall (breezeway not • acceptable) i e. Require duplexes to be of substantially the same architectural style and color f. Require duplexes to be constructed at the same time unless existing single-family home is being reconstructed/split and new unit will remain in same "footprint". 3. RV Restrictions a. Eliminate (5) "all terrain vehicles" from definition of Recreational Vehicle on page 20 of the proposed zoning code. This would effectively exclude from limitation bicycles, motorcycles and other recreational equipment unless it is on a trailer and therefore covered in Section 24-163 (2); "not more than one (1) recreational vehicle, hauling trailer, or boat trailer shall be permitted if parked or stored behind the front yard building line". b. Amend Section 24-164(2) to allow two such recreational vehicles per lot instead of one or limit to one RV for each 5,000 square feet (require 10,000 square feet for 2nd RV). c. Amend Section 24-163 (2)to replace "front yard building line" (20 feet behind 4110 property line) with "15 feet behind the property line". 4. Accessory Buildings a. Amend Section 24-17 definitions for "accessory structure"to limit these only to structures defined as "occupiable" in the current building code to include the following Occupiable Room. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes, or in which occupants are engaged at labor; and which is equipped with means of egress, light, and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code. This will exclude the following types of uses from being considered as accessory and therefore being limited to one per lot; dog houses, small pump houses, swing sets and playground equipment. 5. Other Items a. "Assessed Value versus Market Value" for reconstruction in Section 24-85(a)(4); A recommendation has been made that the term"assessed value" be replaced with "market value". This market value is to include the value on the tax rolls of • Duval County and differs from the "assessed value" by virtue of not being limited to a three percent increase per year for owner occupied homes. A second 4 • suggestion has been made to reduce the 50% "trip wire" for prohibiting reconstruction of a nonconforming building to 33%. b. Question over "non-conforming use"versus "non-conforming building" in Section 24-85(a)(4); Amend the proposed language in this section to remove "non-conforming use" and replace it with"unless it meets the current building and zoning standards". The revised heading would then read, "If more than fifty (50) percent of the assessed value of the non-conforming building is destroyed, the building shall not be reconstructed unless it meets current building and zoning standards". This section is confusing as written in the proposed zoning code. c. Definition of"screening" (page 21) change; "lies" to "lines" so that it will read "screening shall mean a strip of land parallel to the adjacent property lines,..." d. Correct typo and logic error in section 24-47(7); strike "administrative of' and "or disapproval" from second sentence so that the remaining sentence reads "the Building Official's signature, stating approval is required on all building permit applications before a permit shall be issued." e. Conservation Districts; representatives from the Catholic Radio Station have complained that the change in wording from the "Open Rural" zone to the 4110 "Conservation District" removes radio or television transmitters from the list of uses by exception enumerated in the new conservation district. This means that they could not rebuild the radio station building or antenna if it were destroyed. Under the present zoning, it could be rebuilt but would require approval by the Community Development Board. If the commission chose to add "radio or television transmitters, antennas, etc"back to the list of uses by exception for the Conservation District, then the catholic radio station would be in the same position after adoption of the new zoning ordinance. f. Community facilities; Section 24-136(f); present draft indicates that "all public and private parks, playgrounds and green spaces must be clearly identified and the proposed location of each must be approved by the City." A question has been raised as to who represents "the City" in this instance. To clarify this section it may be most appropriate to insert "the Mayor and Commission" in place of"the City". 11, • MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN ATLANTIC BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT 7:15 P.M. ON MONDAY,JUNE 4,2001 City Commissioners Present: John S. Meserve, Mayor Rick Beaver, Mayor Pro Tern Mike Borno Theo Mitchelson Dezmond Waters, City Commissioners Selva Marina Streets Committee Members Present: Keith Falt Glenn Johnson Jerry Maddy Bill Mayhew Staff Present: Jim Hanson, City Manager Bob Kosoy, Public Works Director 1111 Donna Kaluzniak, Utility Director Maureen King, City Clerk The meeting, which was held for the purpose of receiving public input on the proposed Selva Marina Streets Improvement Project and Special Assessments, was called to order by Mayor Meserve at 7:25 p.m. Mayor Meserve indicated that the Selva Marina Street problems began in the early 1980's and on two separate occasions in 1992 and again in 1998, the Commission considered taking ownership of the streets, but no action was taken to solve the problems. Commissioner Borno, Chairman of the Selva Marina Streets Study Committee,thanked the Committee Members, City Manager Hanson, and Public Works Director Kosoy for their assistance which made a big difference in being able to make a recommendation, which he and the Committee felt was fair and equitable for all of the residents. Commissioner Borno then read the Committee's report and recommendation. The report, including the recommendation, is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A. Public Works Director Kosoy, with the assistance of Utility Director Kaluzniak, provided a Powerpoint presentation of the proposed project. Photographs of deteriorated streets, damaged or dead trees to be removed and the location of small retention areas were displayed. It was pointed out that only twelve damaged or dead trees required removal, 0 Page -2- Minutes—June 4, 2001 Public Hearing on Selva Marina Streets Improvement Project and this had been confirmed by the city's arborist, Early Piety. An itemized list of costs was displayed and it was reported that the project would affect 133 lots and would cost approximately $604,440 to complete. Included in the costs were survey work, legal expenses and taxes, water line replacement, sewer line replacement, stormwater line replacement, additional street lighting, tree removal and street reconstruction. The City's share of the costs was estimated to be $354,240. After the presentation, Mayor Meserve opened the floor for a public hearing. The following citizens spoke in favor of the improvements: Claire Scott of 339 19th Street, Roger Weeder of 1912 Creekside Circle, Jerry Maddy of 1915 Creekside Circle, Glenn Johnson of 367 19th Street, Scott Owens of 1911 Creekside Circle, Tom McMenemy of 1845 Hickory Lane, Bill Mayhew of 1870 North Sherry Drive, and Tom Goodrich of 1907 Creekside Circle. The following citizens submitted written comments supporting the improvements: Karl Klein of 1918 Oak Circle, Rick Banks of 1860 North Sherry Drive, Beth Nielsen Gildea of 1918 Creekside Circle, Bob Price of 1873 Hickory Lane, and Margo Hill of 1918 Hickory Lane. The reasons most often cited for favoring the improvements were: the improvements are needed and are long overdue; the hard work of the Committee, Staff and Commission has provided the residents a window of opportunity to get the improvements completed; this has been going on for more than twenty years—move forward with the project; and the project is • fair, equitable and doable. Pete Blodgett of 1911 Sea Oats Drive favored the improvements, but felt the city should accept a greater share of the costs. The following citizens spoke against the improvements: William McGee of 1831 Selva Marina Drive, Wendell Sheppard of 1927 Selva Marina Drive and Robert Ford of 315 19th Street. These residents felt they should not be assessed for the improvements since they lived on dedicated streets. Mr. McGee felt that traffic from the residents of the condominiums and Fleet Landing caused the most damage to the streets and they should share in the costs for improvements. It was pointed out that each property owner in the subdivision would receive benefits from the city's ownership of the streets and from the related improvements, which it was felt would result in increased property values. A brief question and answer session ensued. Roger Weeder expressed concern that damage to the edge of the street was being caused by garbage trucks and this would likely continue after the project was completed. Mayor Meserve stated that type of damage would occur, and in the future the city would make repairs as needed. Mr. McMenemy inquired as to a time frame for completion of the project. Jim Lucas of Lucas and Associates indicated that with direction from staff, they were ready to take the project to bid. He further indicated that the permits from the St. Johns Water Management District were already in place and he believed the project could be completed within six months after commencement. Commissioner Borno indicated that the Jacksonville Electric Authority(JEA) project to replace electrical lines would begin at • the end of July. However, it was pointed out that the drainage improvements could not begin until all of the required easements were obtained. Public Works Director Kosoy • Page—3- Minutes—June 4, 2001 Public Hearing on Selva Marina Streets Improvement Project indicated that descriptions for the easements had been prepared but they had not been obtained. Commissioner Borno indicated that the paving of the streets would be the last item to be completed, and it would be coordinated with paving in the core city project to reduce costs. Mayor Meserve assured everyone that the project would be completed in a manner which was fair and equitable to everyone, and that the city would move forward to complete the project as quickly as possible. Motion: Commission directs City Staff to continue with engineering, processing for funding, and give the Commission guidelines to pursue the project. Since no one else wished to speak, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed and adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. 1 ' • C, eserve aye Attest: Maureen King • City Clerk _ ATTACHMENT A • JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA STS • SELVA MARINA NORTH STREET STUDY COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY REPORT 3/12/01 This report is intended to report the findings and recommendations of the Selva Marina Street Study Committee. It is the Committee's recommendation that the Mayor and Commission of Atlantic Beach accept ownership of the private streets in the Selva Marina Subdivision from the previous developers of that subdivision with the understanding that several improvements are to be made to the streets, drainage structures, water and sewer lines and other improvements, and that the costs for those improvements be shared between the homeowners in the subdivision on an assessment basis and the City of Atlantic Beach. A summary of the subjects studied by the Committee, the Committee's findings for needed improvements, answers to a number of legal questions, and how the costs are to be shared are in the following report. • The Selva Marina Subdivision was developed by the Sevilla Development Corporation between 1978 and 1980. It is located in north Atlantic Beach on the east side of Selva Marina Drive (old Sherry Drive),just to the north of Saturiba Drive. There are 133 single-family lots in the subdivision. The streets were never dedicated to, or accepted by, the City of Atlantic Beach. No homeowners association was ever created although the developer issued a ten-year maintenance bond for the streets, which expired in 1990. Problems with the construction of the streets were apparent as early as 1983 when the City commissioned a report prepared by the engineering firm of England & Thims, Inc, which recommended numerous improvements to reconstruct the streets and install drainage systems to meet current City standards. The total estimate of costs at that time was $254,795. The City did not take any action to accept the ownership of the streets at that time. City staff estimated the cost of the improvements identified by the 1983 study to be over $1,000,000 in 1998. There were additional efforts to convince the City Commission to accept ownership of these streets and to make improvements in 1992 and 1998. The City Commission formed at least one committee, although again no action was taken to solve the situation. The streets have continued to deteriorate since they were installed and a group of homeowners in the area again approached the City Commission in 2000 requesting that something be done to solve this long-standing problem. As a result, the Mayor and Commission appointed the present • committee with the following charge: • • To embark upon a series of meetings, some on site,to become knowledgeable about the various problems and issues • To identify needed actions, including possible legal issues involving ownership of the right-of-way as well as what capital improvements (resurfacing, restructuring, regrading) are needed in both the short and long term • To identify a range of possible funding options to be presented for public consideration. These options could include investment from the City, assessments of the property owners, delayed improvements, or any combination of funding sources and timeframes. • To present the range of funding options to the Mayor and Commission. The Committee members that have been appointed by the City Commission are listed in Attachment A to this report. The Committee has met eight times. Their study has been conducted to consider the simplest, safest (from a public safety stand point), most practical, affordable and legal solutions to the tasks assigned. The first meeting of the Committee was held on site with Public Safety Director David Thompson. The Committee considered the size, location and conditions of the roads as well as concerns about some trees that may be • impediments to proper response from fire trucks, garbage trucks or other large vehicles that needed access. Between meetings, Committee members were also asked to obtain copies of the lot surveys from all of the 133 homeowners in the subdivision. With help from the staff, the Committee developed questions related to the location of utilities and their condition, methods of road repair, and the extent of and solutions to the drainage problems. In one of the meetings, the Committee met with the City's Finance Director to understand how the assessment process works under Florida Law and how past assessments have been done in Atlantic Beach. In another meeting, the Committee met with City Attorney Alan Jensen and Guy Bond, a specialist attorney brought in to consult on property matters. Their report dated February 16, 2001 (Attachment B), answers the legal questions that were raised by the staff and Committee through previous discussions. The Committee's recommendations to the City Commission are based upon the advice of legal counsel as outlined in the February 16t memorandum. One of the most important parts of the Committee's recommendation is what is NOT being recommended. While the 1983 England & Thims report recommended straightening out the streets and removal of 81 trees, the actions were considered at the time (and still are) unduly destructive of the beautiful wooded character of the neighborhood. The streets have been in existence for over 20 years with a very low history of traffic accidents. The winding nature of the road and limited visibility causes motorists to drive very slowly. With this mind, and upon • the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, road realignments and the resulting removal of a number of large trees will not be necessary. However, 12 trees have been identified for • removal. Most of these have been hit numerous times by garbage trucks and other large vehicles because of their proximity to the driving surface and most are in very bad condition. The City's Arborist, Early Piety, has also looked at each of these and concluded that they should be removed. Most importantly, the recommendations for improvements made by this Committee will not result in a degradation of the neighborhood. Quite the opposite, they are expected to increase the property values, reduce or eliminate the flooding complaints that have plagued the neighborhood since it was built, and provide for maintenance in the future. A list of specific improvements that will be needed in the neighborhood,the costs of those improvements, and other related costs is attached to this report and labeled Attachment C. Also included on that list are the Committee's recommendations as to how these costs should be shared between the homeowners and the City. Total costs are estimated to be $604,440. The costs to be paid by the homeowners totals $250,200. The total cost per lot, assuming that the assessment is done a per lot basis and all lots are assessed, will total $1,881. A considerable amount of discussion went into the allocation of costs between the City and the homeowners. The reasons for the distribution, in order that they appear on the attachment, are as follows: • Survey Work, Legal Expenses and Taxes; Florida Law does not allow for these costs to be charged to the property owners under the assessment process. Therefore, the • City must pay these costs if the project is to continue. • Water Lines; The Committee has recommended that the cost of the water line replacements that would be necessary because of the street reconstruction should be split evenly between the City and the homeowners. While the City had accepted the water system at the time of the construction of the subdivision in 1980,the system did not totally meet City standards for necessary valving and other items. Also, the extensive work estimated to be needed for the water lines would not have been needed if the streets were not being reconstructed. The main issue was the relative lack of cover between the water lines and the streets above and a concern by the Public Works Director that the grinding of old asphalt will cause for numerous breaks in the City lines. • Sewer Lines; The Committee's recommendation for the City of Atlantic Beach to pay the total cost for the repairs needed for the sewer system. The City had accepted these sewer lines originally and the repairs that are needed result only from the aging of the system that the City has maintained. These repairs would be needed even if the streets were not being reconstructed at this time. • Storm water; The total storm water costs are estimated at $160,000. Approximately $50,000 of this amount is estimated for the replacement of a 12-inch storm line that was installed when the subdivision was originally created. The remaining portion of • the money is needed to construct swales, detention areas and install other storm drainage structures that have never existed in the subdivision, but that are needed to 1111 correct the flooding problems. The Committee's feeling was that the City should pay for the item that needed maintenance and that the homeowners should pay for the installation of new storm water facilities. • Street Light/Tree Removal; The $6,000 expenditure for street lights is for the purpose of adding new lights when JEA replaces their electric system in this area. Because this is an addition that was never constructed in the subdivision, the homeowners feel that it is appropriate for this amount to be included in the assessment. The cost of $2,500 is estimated to remove 12 trees needed for street safety. There was little discussion about this being allocated to the owner's column. • Streets; The $200,000 price for the street reconstruction and resurfacing is split between the City and the owners with two thirds of the cost allocated to the City ($133,300) and one third to the owners ($66,700). While the streets may not have been constructed to meet City standards at the time they were built, the City has used gas tax funds to pay for the resurfacing of other City streets. The feeling of the Committee members was that they should be entitled to the same resurfacing funds as other publicly owned streets and the cost paid by the homeowners in this category is reasonable because the streets will require more than just resurfacing. The additional costs to nail the streets down and provide for a proper base should be paid by the homeowners and that cost was estimated to be one third of the total. • A critical question addressed by the Committee was who to assess. While there are 133 lots in the subdivision, 14 of those do not have frontage on the private streets. Instead, they front on Selva Marina-Drive or Saturiba Drive, which are already owed and maintained by the City. One argument considered was that those owners that do not front private streets would not receive as much as a benefit from the City ownership of the streets and related improvements as other property owners. However, it is the Committee's recommendation that all 133 owners be assessed equally. All of the owners will receive benefits from the City's ownership and related improvements because of increasing property values in the entire subdivision. The Committee also considered whether the assessment should be made on a per lot basis or on a frontage foot basis. In looking at the layout of lots, it is immediately apparent that a per foot basis would be unfair. Several of the lots front on cul-de-sacs and have a much narrower frontage than others. Each property owner would however receive approximately the same value from the improvements. Consequently, the Committee felt that it would be unfair to charge a higher amount to some owners than others. Attachment D to this report is a drawing of the lots in the subdivision. In summary, this report is to recommend that the Mayor and Commission accept ownership of these private streets upon the condition of the sharing of needed costs as recommended herein. A principle that the Committee considered from the very first meeting was that any recommendation made must be fair to the City, to the residents and owners of the Selva Marina S • Subdivision, as well as to the taxpayers of Atlantic Beach. The Committee feels that the recommendations provided herein are fair to all concerned. Further, it will provide a permanent solution to the problem of private streets in this area. The City of Atlantic Beach has studied this issue on at least three occasions in the past and would inevitably be asked to do so again in the future until a permanent solution is in place. • l jar r _e_ s ,-.., 1111PF Mike Borno, Chairman D• on• aters, III t , i 401 La "Fr Ilkw. —_—.. All 14 -71"/. 1.44-" /1"-..3 -'4----- ,......._.^ Keith Fa I . •Anne Gab 1 Glenn Jo son Ie. - so , 0.,, ,. ,, ,. ..„,,„. ,,, , /,,,,,./, _ ,,,, li ,t,,, / Jerry Maddy Bill Mayne, Debra Moss • ATTACHMENT A • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH SELVA MARINA STREETS COMMITTEE NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE E-NLATT. ADDRESS Keith Fait 247-0714 kfalt(Fworldnct.att.net 1840 N. Sherry Drive Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Jeanne Gabrynowitz 247-0896 1907 N. Sherry Drive Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Glenn Johnson 242-8629 glenn�la>.aol.com 19th Street Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Jerry Maddy 249-8868 jdmandscme,aol.corn 1915 Creekside Circle Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 410, Bill Mayhew y 242-8629 billmav2d,,aol.com 1870 N. Sherry Drive Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Debra Moss 246-4783 SURF1CNIMFP.aol.corn 1855 Hickory Lane Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Commissioner Mike Borno 246-9383 paba..leadine.net Commissioner Dezmond Waters 241-2984 Susan Dunham, Recording Secretary 246-3591 sdunha n Imsn.corn • l/1 o Inn ATTACHMENT B ALAN C. JENSEN Attorney at Law • 935 North Third Street Post Office Box 50457 Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32240-0457 Telephone (904) 246-2500 Facsimile (904)246-9960 E-Mail: AJensenLaw®aol.com MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 2001 TO: Selva Marina Streets Committee • FROM: Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney C. Guy Bond, Esquire RE: Legal Questions For Selva Marina Project Responses to list of legal questions for Selva Marina Project dated February 6, 2001: • A. Street Ownership/Developers 1. How can the developers convey title to the privately owned streets to the City? We have been advised that the current owners will voluntarily convey those streets to the City provided that they not incur any expense in doing so. If this is true, the best way to obtain ownership is by deed. There are different forms of deeds, each providing a different level of assurance from the grantor as to his ownership and outstanding encumbrances. In a Warranty Deed, the grantor warrants that he owns the property and that no one else has any claim to it. We, of course, will ask for a Warranty Deed. However, it is likely that the grantor will agree only to give a deed that does not contain any warranties of title. We recommend that the City not make an issue over that because we will obtain appropriate title assurances from a title insurance company to replace the deed warranties. 2. Do the developers have any obligation for maintenance of the streets or drainage systems? We have concluded that it is likely the current owners of the streets have a legal obligation to pay to maintain the streets. We could take them to court and likely obtain a judgment against them for the amount needed to do the necessary repairs. However, it is our understanding that these companies have been inactive for some period of time and that they have no assets. A judgment against a company with no assets is worthless and we would have wasted the City's money obtaining such a judgment. Additionally, if we approach the current owners of the streets with the 10 threat of litigation, it is unlikely that they will voluntarily convey the streets to us. If that were to happen, the only way we would obtain title to these streets would be by the process of eminent domain and by incurring the expenses and costs that would go along with that. Accordingly, we • Selva Marina Streets Committee Memorandum of February 16, 2001 • Page 2 believe that it is in the City's best interests to approach the current owners of the streets seeking their cooperation in obtaining a voluntary conveyance of the streets and to avoid the delays and expenses that would come with litigation. 3. Is there any obligation to pay back taxes on the private streets? If so, would the City rake on the obligation if it accepted ownership? We have been advised that there are several years of ad valorem taxes which have been assessed against the streets but which have not been paid. These taxes will not go away simply because the City obtains title to the streets and, unless dealt with, the City could be responsible for paying the taxes. Florida Statutes §196.28 provides a process to cancel past due or current property taxes. In our case, this would require a resolution by the Jacksonville City Council, obviously a political process. This is something that would have to be done at the appropriate time. 4. What is the total estimated cost related to transfer of the titles to the City, including surveys, legal, or other items? We do not believe that the cost of the City of obtaining title to the streets, including surveys, legal expenses and other items, will exceed $2,000.00. This assumes a cooperative relationship with current owners of the streets and a favorable outcome of the resolution presented to the Jacksonville City Council to cancel all of the property taxes. B. Street Ownership/Homeowners 1. If some portions of the paving are on the homeowners'property, how should the City acquire proper title? [Assume 2' to 6' "slivers" of property along the road frontages of 8 lots in the area] The City could acquire proper title to portions of the paving which are on homeowners property either by the homeowner voluntarily conveying that portion of the property to the City, or the City taking those portions for a valid public purpose by eminent domain. An alternative would be to request that the homeowner grant a perpetual easement over that portion of his property on which the paving is located for the City to improve and maintain the road, install any necessary utilities, and the like. 2. What is the total estimated cost related to transfer of the titles to the City, including surveys, legal, or other items? The total estimated cost related to transfer of the titles to the City, including surveys, legal, and other items, would depend upon the number of properties involved, whether the homeowners were cooperating with the City, and whether title was taken or the alternative of an easement was 4110 used. Surveys would be necessary to identify the exact property involved, whether the property is to be deeded by the homeowner, taken by eminent domain, or a perpetual easement is to be granted. Surveying work should not exceed approximately $300.00 per lot involved. The Selva Marina Streets Committee Memorandum of February 16, 2001 • Page 3 preparation of documents, either deeds or easements, would probably not exceed $100.00 per lot, and then recording fees would be nominal. If the City is required to take certain properties by eminent domain, other costs would be involved which could become substantial, including real estate appraisers, legal fees for the City and the property owner, and the like. The total of these costs is difficult to estimate unless and until we can identify all properties involved and which homeowners will cooperate with the City. C. Easements for storm drainage 1. Some drainage improvements should be made, including replacing an old 12"pipe that runs partially across private property, and building some berms/swales at the ends of several cul de sacs that do not presently exist. How would the City get easements to construct/maintain these drainage structures? Obtaining easements would again depend upon whether the private property owners would cooperate with the City or not. The property owners could convey temporary construction easements and then permanent maintenance easements for the drainage improvements, or again the City could take the easements by eminent domain. 41111 2. What would the total estimated cost be for the acquisition of the easements? The total estimated cost for the acquisition of the easements would depend upon the number of easements required and the whether or not the property owners cooperate with the City. In the event of cooperation from the property owners, surveying work would be necessary to identify the area of the easement with precision, and $300.00 per lot would be an approximate cost of the surveying work. Preparation of the documents in that event would not be that expensive, again probably a maximum of$100.00 per lot, and recording fees would be nominal. If the easements have to be acquired by eminent domain, the same costs as above would be included, together with real estate appraisers and attorney's fees for the City and the property owners. 3. If the drainage improvements contemplated would directly improve the homeowners from whom the easements are needed, would it be proper for the City to refuse to make the improvements until the easements are donated? As it relates to easements needed from a particular property owner whose property will be directly improved, I think it would be appropriate for the City to request an easement and have that easement prior to making the improvements. However, if the drainage improvements would improve a large area, including several homeowners, and easements were only needed from some of those, and the City was of the opinion that the drainage improvements should be done, it would probably not be proper for the City to refuse to make the improvements until those particular easements were donated. In that event, for the benefit of the entire area, which would be a valid 11111 public purpose, easements could either be donated or taken by eminent domain. Selva Marina Streets Committee Memorandum of February 16, 2001 Page 4 D. Other Ouestions 1. Can the City include legal, survey and any other property/easement acquisition costs in an assessment of property owners for street and drainage improvements? Attached hereto is a copy of §170.01, Florida Statutes. Subsection (1)(k) includes a provision for the payment of all or any part of the costs of any such improvements can be collected by a special assessment, which would certainly include survey work, but may not include legal and property/easement acquisition costs. There is a case law to the effect that under this particular provision of the statute, it is improper to include in the assessments the attorney's fees, engineering costs, and other expenses incidental to acquisition of the necessary property/easement. Once these costs are more specifically defined and identified, a better determination can be made as to whether they can be included in the assessments. 2. If the City uses the assessment method of paying for a portion of the costs, should assessments be levied on all homeowners in the subdivision, only those that have driveways on private streets, or only those that have no access to a public street? §170.02, Florida Statutes, is as follows: • "170.02. Method of prorating special assessments. Special assessments against property deemed to be benefited by local improvements, as provided for in §170.01, shall be assessed upon the properties specially benefited by the improvement in proportion to the benefits to be derived therefrom, said special benefits to be determined and prorated according to the foot frontage of the respective properties specially benefited by said improvement, or by such other method as the governing body of the municipality may prescribe." It would not seem fair and equitable for these assessments to be on a foot frontage basis in certain units of Selva Marina, since many of them involve cul de sacs. The lots on the cul de sacs may have very few front feet as opposed to a property a couple of lots down which would have a substantial amount of foot frontage. Both properties, however, would be receiving the same benefit. Another method of assessment, which would appear to be fair and reasonable, is a per lot basis. Every lot in the affected units of Selva Marina would be assessed equally. Certain lots could be considered as exempt if they face on public streets only and drain to those public streets. However, even these lots would benefit by the improvements, such as increased property values. The committee probably needs to review each of the units in Selva Marina affected and make its recommendation to the City Commission, taking into account the foregoing. As long as the City • Commission makes its final decision based on a review of the facts and circumstances of the entire project, and does not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner, its decision should withstand any legal challenge. J O. a ; µ MUNICIPALITIES Title 12 Cross References Community development districts,special assessments,see§ 190.01 1. r,• 170.01. Authority for providing improvements and levying and collecting } special assessments against property benefited - M (1) Any municipality of this state may, by its governing authority: == .;" ` (a) Provide for the construction, reconstruction, repair, paving, repaving, hard surfacing, rehard surfacing, widening, guttering, and draining of streets, __• boulevards, and alleys; for grading, regrading, leveling, laying, relaying, pay- ;,• , `` ing, repaving, hard surfacing, and rehard surfacing of sidewalks; for construct- z- -• , , Yom, ing or reconstructing permanent pedestrian canopies over public sidewalks; '`'i`-�t-'' and in connection with any of the foregoing, provide related lighting, landscap- � , +T ing, street furniture, signage, and other amenities as determined by the govern- ' ; . ing authority of the municipality; `;:•,-5-.;:' (b) Order the construction, reconstruction, repair, renovation, excavation, '"' grading, stabilization, and upgrading of greenbelts, swales, culverts, sanitary • •y i. ,. sewers, storm sewers, outfalls, canals, primary, secondaarry,and tertiary rcTains, 'i ' water bodies, marshlands, and natural areas, all or part of a comprehensive ' stormwater management system, including the necessary appurtenances and .3' structures thereto and including, but not limited to, dams, weirs, and pumps; x " ' ':x (c) Order the construction or reconstruction of water mains, water laterals, -L.-. 1- alternative water supply systems, including, but not limited to, reclaimed water, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination systems, and other water distri- - 4' bution facilities, including the necessary appurtenances thereto; • (d) Pay for the relocation of utilities, including the placement underground of • electrical, telephone, and cable television services, pursuant to voluntary agree- `'t ment with the utility, but nothing contained in this paragraph shall affect a `-5 ` utility's right to locate or relocate its facilities on its own initiative at its own y-y:. expense; _ (e) Provide for the construction or reconstruction of parks and other public recreational facilities and improvements, including appurtenances thereto; = (f) Provide for the construction or reconstruction of seawalls; (g) Provide for the drainage and reclamation of wet, low, or overflowed .....-•-l:,,' �:.,' lands; <<' (h) Provide for offstreet parking facilities, parking garages, or similar facili- ties; (i) Provide for mass transportation systems; a (j) Provide for improvements to permit the passage and navigation of water- •si:, s craft; and (k) Provide for the partany '' payment of all or any of the costs of such ;�: improvements by levying and collecting special assessments on the abutting, "' adjoining, contiguous, or other specially benefited property. sP, However, offstreet parking facilities, parking garages, or other similar facilities and mass transportation systems must be approved by vote of a majority of the 242 `' 1 • fl ^t. :.'te a 4 •a m . A ' e • M. • 1 R SUPPLEMENTAL LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS § 170.01 • Ch. 170 affected property owners. Any municipality which is legally obligated for providing capital improvements for water, alternative water supplies, including, but not limited to, reclaimed water, water from aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination systems, or sewer facilities within an unincorporated area of • `" , the county may recover the costs of the capital improvements by levying and collecting special assessments for the purposes authorized in this section on the - specially benefited property; however, collections of the special assessment shall not take place until the specially benefited property connects to the capital improvement. K ;F` (2) Special assessments may be levied only for the purposes enumerated in this section and shall be levied only on benefited real property at a rate of `;` assessment based on the special benefit accruing to such property from such _ " improvements when the improvements funded by the special assessment pro- vide a benefit which is different in type or degree from benefits provided to the community as a whole. • (3) Any municipality, subject to the approval of a majority of the affected ry; ; property owners, may levy and collect special assessments against property - benefited for the purpose of stabilizing and improving: a' • • (a) Retail business districts, . ., (b) Wholesale business districts, or (c) Nationally recognized historic districts, . or any combination of such districts, through promotion, management, market- w . " ing, and other similar services in such districts of the municipality. This "sr-:' subsection does not authorize a municipality to use bond proceeds to fund s j • ':'i;= :'.;ii ongoing operations of these districts. '•1 Amended by Laws 1987, c. 87-103, § 1, eff. June 30, 1987; Laws 1991, c. 91-45, § 39; . , :-' Laws 1992, c. 92-156, § 1, eff. April 9, 1992; Laws 1994, c. 94-344, § 2, eff. June 3, 1994; Laws 1995, c. 95-323, § 4, eff. July 1, 1995. Ga `"?ins'' Historical and Statutory Notes `¢ ;'-r Derivation: Laws 1967, c. 67-552 became law without . : ;:- .:it: . Laws 1983,c. 83-337,§ 1. Governor's approval. I. *-4;- Laws 1983,c. 83-204,§ 32. Laws 1978, c. 78-360, allowed municipalities • -:`:,•. '; Laws 1982,c. 82-198,§ 1. to levy special assessments for the construction „y:'�" Laws 1979,c. 79-164,§ 32. of off-street parking facilities, parking garages, .- Laws 1978,C. 78-360,§ 1. or similar facilities. X ii ,• , • ^,1s: .- Laws 1967,c. 67-552,§ 1. Laws 1979, c. 79-164, a reviser's bill, correct- Laws 1959,c. 59-396,§ 1. ''''`=-..i. Comp.Gen.Laws 1927,§ 3022. ed a typographical error. Laws 1982, c. 82-198, § 1, inserted '�� ' Laws 1923, c. 9298,§ 1. "provide Laws 1959, c. 59-396, added the reference to for mass transportation systems" in the penulti- r' `,° "widening, guttering and draining of streets," mate sentence, and inserted ", and mass trans"-='F'. and added the reference to ordering the con- portation systems,"in the last sentence. ,x a R- struction or reconstruction of sanitary sewers, Prior to the 1983 amendments, the section as • f., storm sewers and drains, and necessary appur- it appears in Fla.St.1982, Supp.provided: tenances thereto. "Any city, town, or municipal corporation of Laws 1967, c. 67-552, added provision for this state, hereinafter referred to as the 'munici- water mains, water laterals, water distribution pality,' whether organized under the general 3 and reclamation of wet, low or overflowed law, or under special act, or having a charter • ,= lands. adopted by vote under an enabling act, (herein- I • }-_ -- 243 .1 TA Y' • ATTACHMENT C SELVA MARINA COSTS TOTAL CITY OWNERS Survey Work $6,000 $6,000 $0 Legal $5,000 $5,000 $0 Taxes $14,940 $14,940 $0 Water Lines $130,000 $65,000 $65,000 Sewer Lines $80,000 $80,000 $0 Stormwater $160,000 $50,000 $110,000 Street Lights $6,000 $0 $6,000 Tree Removal $2,500 $0 $2,500 Streets $200,000 $133,300 $66,700 III Total $604,440 $354,340 $250,200 =133=$1,881 0 • _ — _ PROPOSED E_'vv_. �C.'TA LL DITCH — — — j1 `I tim......r ..4i . 41. II,J1�•-PQOPpb:• .••ESMT I I E.</9T. "� E A J C.<�.T: . -ACT. 11 r-- �C �.1I-'._ELo 5 T J 28 II I"I 10 I1�7 to �I 9 8 �, 7•/,„ ;a:_ r4 \� U 12 III r] I I I,I ;4" '1 III 9 8 II 8 9 3 I 6 Z7 W • B 4 9 IZ n A OW' �IL \' 2Co ,� Y�V/ - rU_ 5 1411 oU fV 25 Cy 3 210 II 14 13� O 12 it U\ 4 I U 8 9 r �\ /9 TN S. BEET Fir...7.\---- (r) i 1 2.4 9 TN 5T/40I , ��� 12 13 12 I 4 5 I 2I J1.�..�3I4.1 F- croiP 29'E,Mr. f.—W 4 W 14 _IB7223 28 14 cc 9 / 1U G Za 21 I B 2 27 k 15 10 L/M/TS OF STUDY W 20 I Z� I V S Q W U I� I O U 4 r .1f Q H ` Q 2 x 4 113, 25 DALE LAVE Iliti) W • © h1 r� 3 Q W ? !' 24 iG IZ v 1r e Ir kil It W I I 2 IB 13 d CY • IO J BC 0.o.1/4 I c, 22 19 4 W Vit Ill Ill V 201 o 2 S54; 411 I ri I Pje� `F �n�n/ ,•s. d�/L� 8 9 EVALUATION OF PAVING,'DRAINAGE Q ROADWAY GEOMETRY /A -_ SEL VA MAR/NA UN/TS/01//6 -)C. `19)\ -01-LP-71 3/P)s9 af) -1_010) yr yaft� --).02L.. 1 fi ):)-- 0)hc- .,) i\JJ-K5 ,N 0\..)1 u/ki.)-nn w A2 z S_ 8 -e -11 e 1D ,i/62 _5 )1,1 s- '? -1-_A-V4-9)1 W 0 L 2/f/51 / 9'2 reef PV ,/ L251 /A r -hr-2 2,i)/A( s/2/ • pw -fr 9°•Q-99 tqt 49--c. D e V k )0 91 Off,d/ 76-1 a(lj b/ j yam)d ( s -c h ?/(1 EfFJ 71,7-7 trc5 cyti 0 tit,' a i a S 14'(,/0 IzAE- Lha ' '(1, '' yr. /-YS L Pr laW)! 5' 7-Z,-P10 r2 C z - b b4-:- ' i/T viii-{vw vit-ri_a s N -VI_ L 1 N(V1 i1 "LaRi 9p -2. ),6) y-V A's-r-"W )1ti ) --4t r ---Pd Q ?Z1 - )b2 I;Y/ /7 _____,22,2g /-z c k-- !- -e 4 -V ----or -t'2)) (77 d _V24 o y C, 0 1 -2.._))-7-, '-,/ fb )-, 1, ):7 -7zCl b 11 7 11 J-z -7-f / '''s -;'' ' 1-'PY Y ),ig • X10 - l6r) tipD 9 i vb.IHN-d , r;) J 8?z„c0 ) (4P4/ . ^ -?-- ,/1/ fop' ELS=L A z (tc2, 9 2.1p,(1 yribizni 'Zioc-E 775 - z7;,4 IP 2' 2i-,H/ 'IPi7V I 0 9p ?-sr . / r / ry b 1 � �1 n 7 -7 7o / I 5(21� \ i-V . 0 )/a', wh-,7'S' _5:4C No5.f2 P(1/ ? f1 4Nr7Q 2-+ e (-D a--r-) 1---1 0 ) ) )-n 1)2-7 14.1) r - --D-r''7 0-O, 1 - cv =`'JJ ,D-' / No SN H IC � tib cN r0N� 0.X V 7 Va./ /VS Cil)4/ h- LTh i --zr-evs- s-m,i-rryyzi --)J1--?5--) f � (-e.-a, / (tea 4 6/4 ed /I o /q / • r3L( -yy 70-n ,0,5eE 7 N=O ( 2 02c4 - os�� y 3 � CSS I S��yv jet SIZE c 14\L\co 232- ) I f.._aivve_ Su.Act44 LOasisuLtizi « (2 l I.M - l4 7 / Yr e 2‘16-`) c3 !1 wl ( 1oN- 737 e' Ro �e 12 (.(J�e x IIQ C e k tick Ct 2 � ,g.��; , CJs / 7-4/s -7-r 33? / 9 6 boa_ Cr- ,Qo r7 o.K Lt y /RYZ ele-0/c_.1 LA) a sc.( - S 3 7/ ( 4-6 ?i•-"4-/Aly /170 44,- 1 abr /_,() Mr1,2eAe Let1.0-e_ 442 J4& ' /91/ A/ A • a 'f 9 - 7 d'5 !k✓L-�L /J E T 11 /861 J4 N►A,G03A 24/ t a 34- C-147215 i21S L1 ' -14 371 Ick Sb. 2-0 -Z2-916 6)4 rilM � ��'pje/7— / l7/l/, 57(eek yt • 7.3y78 ---Sccs ,�.� � ,Z 1,8 tc-Q DA 6 0 • • I, NA' 1--(-7't,A) V_ ,. .,\\I - r;•1 wz"T \ ., . .›, z‘ cr-, F , ci. ,- IN _,_ u\- -1, . ,,,A ‘ r\ ..\,,\ t_r_ \ - -- . ---2;-) r , "ss, *>,, ,sN \ t L - 1- . ill ai ...\igiNA, ci‘j.i - () GI (Ai< \A sz>‘ • \ 4 Ztl. Qiit &--7--, .: .,, ,; 01 ,,) :, \''' , ,c. 1 i -7 . 1 _. , .... - ,_ , v, k., z &N -rte rf o L:,-, , 4 I i; 'A' -, A, N ')\-) 'NYS _ ' L r :NN N 4 /v/oi tN.;vtda, t,oraa/K.J fy,5-5 s rn -Dr (;. f' lII 11 f 1 tM • 1 Ulm rt • y/ //Sod er/2 hock&r7e, /, (cSY' 7//e)L, g / 0-1 -3,, s 7� S CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME L- / 2 ADDRESS 33 GI TELEPHONE I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: 1\\AW CONI\(swr\ (0-e-J r- C' l CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT V I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME d 7(,,Q k (A¢{ed.Q rr C'pnADDRESS 1I K fQX c,,,k_ ( j r TELEPHONE ( qco I I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: /r- Cell / / i • i • iO _A-266,pr_ • III CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK ATnTHIS MEETING NAME .. ññ4'),VADDRESS ! //5 ( eee _ TELEPHONE g-s ----erf I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: 1 • W Jw' '117 , Pil\c„j()", k,,) ,.e.41) • 1h _ 0 • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAMEgtsL-`'N Yl vDh)14 .0-4 ADDRESS 3 61-- (c' TELEPHONE o24 t (0-1 o� I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: AM I )•(,.A • • • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 7PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME ��6) v4/v/V ADDRESS Cr9/1 eVz- f D L cr ko-(�e TELEPHONE 24/ /z I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: • S 0 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING S A MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT jp. I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME OM L LI . e_ / ADDRESS )PIS- IC /, I A. TELEPHONE ow/7, (az--g I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: --\-\{\J t.___R,Q9) 1 cr\., • CO \----\ )._)-"V 0 ti 7)• • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME 0; 1( M)1l ADDRESS f F? v V. Sk-P,- v7 TELEPHONE 2,{-2_ /(62-- I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: • 0 • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME 1 GvkA CjtoOctr�C ADDRESS N6-1 Ccc-kste(e C \ec 1-1 TELEPHONE - 0' - 3 33 Co I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: \d1/47\ik •'1;: ' • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME 6-172-L /,J ADDRESS - / 9/1 oQ (51 2-33) TELEPHONE la 4/(2 L I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: • , 0 (aA---Q\111174 0,4,44 co-tc �.L. aWL1_,C:t t(- , CAJt)1 fiA-Ce-a riY1A.J >\ 4 -11, 4-1-0a4 bAi tux- CL . 1111 • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME Wi dic V/]/((/S ADDRESS iS6o /V, SHE Ezy bz, TELEPHONE 2 47 367S- X I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: We are hrA /y /AJ ©F- -1-A e 5 r Bet- / pro vent S • 06/04/2001 14:05 9043460295 SHARP & GAY,PA PAGE 01 • Beth Nielsen Gildea 1918 Creekside Circle Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 904-246-4192 FAX COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER TRANSMITTED TO: 247-5805 To: Jim Hanson,City Manager Matter: Public Improvements Date: 06/04/01[Date] yQ � r,-���,••-��,,h �� � y k d ®.� pi ani �!. �'•, �i.�.�i"'I�pp�� �,^,1•}:I.���n5'L.�a�M'_.c.:'Fr'.��., ..:;�n!::(!4N:;:i�:.:�,.F.�..,.'i'R,',rf1�11 +u7i�r31C,,,.,.i�,..�`1.u.�1'i A,�ii&4r ,..,• „t, ...e.6w.te�;l(Cdl Im.!1'ii6t:.;; ;�F�. 1i�. �%'^ ,,.. None S COMMENTS: Mr. Hanson: I received your letter of 5/21/01 in regard to the improvements in the Selva Marina area. In the event I cannot attend the public hearing scheduled for this evening, I wanted to be certain my support for the project is noted. I am very pleased to hear that the City will be making the necessary repairs and am agreeable to the assessments as indicated in your letter. I would also like to thank both you and the committee members for making this happen. /61-1-J'L Ii3);(,1-1 • •NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET.IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE PAGES,PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AT. • • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME J.d6 ADDRESS / 7L # (di Air TELEPHONE i I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: nfligag O • • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: /0 u g i w E/lhr- I/I49",,"4 -71 t;?��� Gci,ch,L em,t6c r /1"e 414(4 //Lia J iJ 71_0 ( It!". - roads a «( do 6,1/8 /teea7 ncJ�� f2Ul rr_ (/' / i,-\ k/fU'� . rr l Ct SSPSS m /S Ve/'y e GS4k_,.k� 111 411) CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING I� NAME P&Tca LoD&67-T 7 ADDRESS 19! 1 SCA} DAYS Dc vc TELEPHONE Z4.9- 8005 V I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: Sept OA�S Dt2we is• TH6 CUL-1D -S'Rc A/Ji1;tH OP 1\)0176 t9 7w ST, T S6.ft ()Ars Cl2eLt • WHET 1S EST, 31611-1"owN ()F 746 MAIN CATGoO,Z, 3 O &Pose D 1MpaovMOS" 7 ' • S-r (2.-t:r R.6 esNr-rauc-t-v ') ' St Kea Sfrra M REV+tZr • N8-4/ SI sa.41 H- 3 Li ice S//RI-cartSTR u r' c 7rTinr‘o-- • S^T'L"�-r L 16-HT► NC rj-g R MoVXI \I H P; rouT TA aL C N Kt,° 1..I WIL.L. kiw P&P-AIX 14'G- 2e NE c€ rkfLY 50- Tri-14- (11/9-/N: ? ? • _1 13EL46v6" C'rrY DF A , 3 S1-Govr) ��qY 74 Gi EOTC'1z SN14U 0 F Corr • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING . NAME ( L4t -///te)Dte-12- ADDRESS D TELEPHONE 02 I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: 844;;; ,„„u\ -€), QL.'/R • 111 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME f ,bp t J'`"'l 4t. b e-1`C,�s- ADDRESS TELEPHONE I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: j C AC--0--Y1' 1 ytiS ar o vt ,te. gy mLadet z S Jar` e= ,5 14-_ W)+k Cowtmti l-ft . ff LC)a-5 att 0-IzzA -Hai+ 1.--e4eswi ic5-K 1,7zwei6 (A) toe re. rt t.+ `� Vl� es� �1 i ri L1 C� F elAci .arct.i Yt a'Y 1c2-4(-11 l cP..-10 I VL to Li) )tk aAp rp pr 5 (-.-tt.zi I t43 I v i r� r �. �� caCtst., ba4 (av \ pf:. ,51 [7[13 c-k p Act6e. 1-1) frulas 4c. e Inket.614- tm 6-4 - tee-4-yet c:1) CO'Yle.E-Y Vt p4%. kple- c-lort h5 e •C -, ► & CO21 + +k1,5 , i K. -tko be4 -1)4 /-114;06f 0 > kirtko®d1 c 1t wez0l alum 1w e. do a..l a S y 4- Yst.► c i.2..6 Gwzu -t oy Lva.G 00,4-/es>) pike, • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ✓ I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME ADDRESS 3/S /q72/-ST TELEPHONE o?'}¢: I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: • • • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: 6�/ G U/ d (� ► �r 7'7� ✓✓s.lig /y m � s d� �s S���til c ,T !i C--C 5 I /k / " r CSL/KCC 7'( 141 v e A/0 pre) bl 1 A �d Cem do Adirt S _- cic/ss 1 - s 4e nQ �ve►� b�1 ty . I--- ice /9--s M L c t, -S o Ss, , a is or /fit e v e /-11 --b/411J,5 , 4)OJL C Otgc #1t • /7o � ( d vvi It �c /L n � �G 4' o�� - )44 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH JUNE 4, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING SELVA MARINA STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: • Licor-A (A. 1 1C ('(f;.SG, (r)(2ti UG ,1 �/ . I S0 C_` 7 (f1)GS't Yuis c)--)12A6f,r\ CS . r