Loading...
06-01-00 v 0 AGENDA JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD June 1,2000 5:00 P.M. City Hall Commission Chambers 1. Call to Order • 2. Introduction by the Mayor. 3. Overview of major ordinance changes by Community Development Board Chairman. 4. Discussion of review process: A. Methodology of review. B. Scheduling of future meetings 7. Adjournment III MINUTES OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT 5:00 P.M. ON THURSDAY,JUNE 1,2000 Commission Members present were Mayor Meserve and Commissioners Beaver, Borno, Mitchelson and Waters. Community Development Board Members present were Chairman Wolfson and Board Members Pillmore, Walker, Frohwein, and Burkhart. Staff Members present were City Manager Hanson and Planning and Development Director Worley. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Meserve at 5:10 p.m. Members of the Community Development Board, the Commission and Staff introduced themselves. Mayor Meserve indicated that he wished Chairman Wolfson to lead those present through a brief discussion of the major changes in the zoning ordinance and to establish a method for reviewing the ordinance. The Mayor indicated that he wished to take a measured approach to reviewing the document, which he believed would take several meetings to accomplish. He felt review of the definitions was critical and would take two meetings. He felt all Commissioners should be present at all of the meetings and that it was crucial to allow enough public input so the citizens would be aware of all proposed changes to the zoning ordinance. Chairman Wolfson discussed a recent article in the Beaches Leader pertaining to the proposed changes to the ordinances which he felt contained significant misstatements. Mayor Meserve indicated that Community Development Director Worley was willing to speak to any reporter concerning the proposed revisions and urged them to contact him for correct information. Mayor Meserve felt that discussion of the complicated issue of impervious surface coverage limits should be left to the last in order to obtain more data from the consultants on the core city project. He felt it was crucial to obtain the correct data before setting any limits. Mayor Meserve deferred further comments to Community Development Board Chairman Wolfson who commented on the great amount of time and effort put forth by the Board in revising the language and intent of the code and who briefly covered the major revisions to the zoning ordinance as follows: • Definitions. Explained that the Board went over the definitions three to four times to remove inconsistent language, terminology no longer used or actual definitions not used in the code. Chairman Wolfson welcomed feedback on these changes and stated that as much time as possible should be spent on this section of the code. He indicated that name "Open Rural" had been changed to "Conservation District". Joint Workshop Meeting Page -2- June 1, 2000 • Application Procedures. Explained that the procedures for variances, rezonings and use-by-exceptions had been reformatted for clarity. He felt that the new applications for variances clearly explained the appeal procedure. • Secondary and Accessory Structures. Felt this was an important area to be discussed with the Commission. • Home Occupations. Indicated that the changes made in this section to separate those into two classes -high and low impact. • Creation of the Central Business District Zone (Town Center area). Indicated that input was needed from the City of Neptune Beach and the Town Center Agency for uniformity on both sides of Atlantic Boulevard. Commissioner Waters requested that Chairman Wolfson explain the duties of the Community Development Board. Chairman Wolfson explained that the Community Development Board met the third Tuesday of every month to consider the requests for variances and use-by-exceptions, as determined by Community Development Director Worley. The Board was also responsible for addressing and understanding the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations. • Planned Unit Developments and Subdivision Regulations. Indicated that revisions were made for ease of understanding and consistency. • Impervious Surface. Indicated that help was needed from the Commission,the engineers and citizens to establish surface coverage limits. Chairman Wolfson felt that the established limits should make sense and be long lasting. A written summary of the proposed major changes to the ordinance is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A. Commissioner Borno stated he had read the proposed ordinance several times, and inquired as to the procedure to use if a conflict is found in the ordinance, so it can be noted and discussed by everyone. A brief discussion of the Sunshine Law ensued and it was determined that there would be no conflict if the Mayor or a Commissioner called a member of the Community Development Board for an explanation of a change made to the ordinance. Discussion ensued and it was suggested that the Commission read through the ordinance and have any technical questions answered by Community Development Director Worley. Mayor Meserve inquired concerning grandfathering as it applied to the revisions. He also inquired Joint Workshop Meeting Page -3- June 1, 2000 concerning the application of the rule that if more than 50% of a non-conforming building is destroyed can it be rebuilt as it was, or does it have to be rebuilt to conform. After some further discussion of the requirement, Commissioner Mitchelson stated he would oppose any change which would not allow a structure to be rebuilt and would favor construction on the same footprint. Procedure and methodology were then discussed. Community Development Director Worley indicated that an understanding of the definitions was needed in order to review each section of the code, which then could be followed by a review of the definitions. As part of the public hearing process, Mayor Meserve suggested, and those present agreed, that the ordinance should be placed as a source document on the city's website with updates following significant changes. Commissioner Waters suggested that the ordinance be reviewed section by section for context, while reviewing the definitions at the same time. It was the consensus of those present that the word "draft" and the date be placed on each page of the ordinance. It was pointed out that the date on the page would be changed to coincide with any revisions made to that particular page. After some further discussion, it was the consensus of those present to hold a second workshop meeting on Thursday, June 22, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. It was the consensus of those present to use the following procedures: (1) All questions of a technical nature will be submitted in writing to Community Development Director Worley, who will answer them directly, or at his discretion, submit the questions to the Community Development Board for further review, (2) policy issues will be discussed at the joint workshop so as not to get bogged down in minutiae, (3)the City Manager and Community Development Director will be responsible for all information provided to the press, with personal examples provided to highlight the major issues, and (4) an updated copy of the ordinance will be made available for reading at City Hall. Board Chairman Wolfson inquired as to the time frame for the ordinance to be placed on the website and Community Development Director Worley indicated that it would take approximately two weeks. There being no further comments or discussion, Mayor Meserve adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Submitted by: Julie M. Brandt Secretary ATTACHMENT A JUNE 1, 2000 JOINT WORKSHOP Summary of Major Changes proposed in Ordinance 90-00-169 The following summary is intended to highlight those areas where the Community Development Board concentrated much of its efforts. This is in no way intended to minimize the great amount of time and effort put into the difficult task of revising the language and intent of the code, and in eliminating other conflicting provisions throughout. + Definitions(Section 24-17) were a major point of interest for the Board. The definitions in the existing code contain language which is not consistent with the language used elsewhere in the code, terminology no longer commonly used, or definitions of terms not used at all in the body of the code. These problems create confusion and lead to inconsistent or incorrect interpretations of the code provisions. + The application procedures for Re-zoning, Exceptions and Variances(Sections 24-62 through 24-64) have been cleaned up to make the process clearer. + Secondary and Accessory structures (Sections 24-17, 24-86, & 24-151) were another point of concentration. The definitions and regulations of these two types of uses overlapped significantly. The Board has made recommendations to simplify this and eliminate the overlapping definitions and provisions. •} Home Occupations (Section 24-159) were another point of interest. These uses have the potential to disrupt the residential character of a neighborhood if not regulated adequately. The Board approached this issue by separating Home Occupations into two classes. Those considered low impact such as office or record keeping uses are permitted while those with more potential for adverse impacts are permitted only by Exception. + Another issue that has repeatedly appeared before the Board over the years has been Exceptions and Variances in the area of Town Center. To address the different character of this area the Board has proposed the creation of a Central Business District zone (Section 24-114) to encompass that area as well as a portion of Atlantic Boulevard westward several blocks. The new district proposes a more restricted list of permitted uses in that area as well as a more liberal approach to use of City right-of-way in the conduct of business in this district. • The Planned Unit Development (Section 24-126) and the Subdivision regulations (Sections 24-186 through 24-258) were also revised to make them more easily understood and consistent with each other. + Finally,the Board debated the issue of placing impervious surface coverage limits on both residential and commercial properties. The inclusion of this regulation is an issue to be discussed in joint workshop with the City Commission. The proposal of specific impervious percentage limits will be aided by information derived from the design of the Core City Utility project.