Minutes - 03-11-02MINUTES 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
remberance 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 V
O Q
T T
E B
S S
M S
O E
T C
I O Y
O N E N
N D S O
COMMISSIONERS
BEAVER X
BORNO X X
PARSONS X
WATERS X X
MESERVE X
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 major 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 wouldlike 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 ofCommunity 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
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
O
Minutes Page -3-
March 11, 2002
judicial review and court cases, except for DRIB. 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 ls`, (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 preliminazy 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 Doen•
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 aze 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 azea 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 ~I
N
Q
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 yeaz, and vested to
exceed the new 50% impervious surface limitation to the degree
the project exceeds the new standazds.
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 thaf the project was not vested to follow previous
regulations related to eaves and cornices in that the proposed
project appeazed to comply with current regulations governing
eaves and cornices.
Kazen LaGuarde, the owner of the property, introduced herself and
stated that she had lived at 328 Second Street for fifteen yeazs. She
indicated that she had worked with the developer and azchitect 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 12a' 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
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
O
Minutes Page -5-
March 11, 2002
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 azchitect 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 12`h and 26`h, 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 215` 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 azea 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
ordinance.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
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) ofthe 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 awkwazd 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 aze included with the appeal
documents on file in the office of the City Clerk).
George Bull; azchitect 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 faz 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
0
T
I
O
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
0
Minutes Page -7-
Mazch 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 2"d 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
azea which already lacked sufficient parking.
Gae Weber of 331 2nd Street opposed the proposed height, expressed
concern that the amount of impervious surface would negatively impact
drainage in the azea, 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 Kazen LaGazde, owner of the property,
had signed a petition a few yeazs eazlier 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 3`d Street opposed the project due to its excessive
height and expressed concern that it would contribute to the drainage
problems in a flood prone azea.
David Thomas of 345 2"d Streetopposed the project and agreed with the
concerns expressed by the previous speakers.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
Minutes Page -8-
March 11, 2002
Karen LaGarde of 328 2nd 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 15L 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. LeGazde 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 yeaz 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 azea.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
0
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
..
Q ~~,
Minutes Page -9-
March 11, 2002
Commissioner Bomo concurred with Mayor Meserve's comments and
provided additional information concerning the public hearings.
Commissioner Bomo felt the appellants had followed the proper
procedure, and remembered that they had attended the meetings and were
assured that they had one yeaz to invoke their vested rights. Commissioner
Bomo 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 none-year
period of time after the effective date of the ordinance for people to be
able to build duplexes on their property. It was fixrther explained that all
other regulations which came into effect the 1st 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 faz
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. 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 ask 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 Attomey 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
z
I
0
N S
E
c
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
Minutes Page -10-
Mazch 11, 2002
one yeaz 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 sideyazd setback
more than would be allowed.
City Attomey Jensen inquired as to when the 90 - 95% planswere
received and the delay in the response to their November 21S` 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 Attomey 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 Attomey 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 detenminafion 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 yeaz, 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
O
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 lsc 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
LaGazde, 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 neazly 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 further stated that they had not been asked to
submit the neazly completed final plans or any other information on the
project. He indicated that George Bull, the azchitect 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 bullchead, 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 pazking and drainage
OMMISSIONERS M
0
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 1St
Ms.Doerr indicated that the preliminary drawings were initially submitted
on November 9th (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 prof ect
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
0
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
BEAVER X
BORNO X X
PARSONS X
WATERS X X
MESERVE X
Minutes Page-13-
Mazch 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, Bomo, Pazsons 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 Pazsons 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-
Mazch 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 carved 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.
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 $16,650.50 (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 carved 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 Bomo felt the major thoroughfares in the city, such as
East Coast Drive, Ocean Boulevazd, 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 thaf the traffic delay button located at
the pedestrian crosswalk on the comer 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 Mazch 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 amid-year budget
adjustment.
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
Y
E
S
N
Q
I
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,
Mazch 14, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. at the Sea Turtle Inn to discuss
the Bike/Pedestrian Path Project for the three beaches cifies.
• 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
z
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 Boazd would
be held on Wednesday, March 20`h 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 declazed the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Attest:
John Meserve
Mayor/Presiding Officer
Maureen King
Certified Municipal Clerk
OMMISSIONERS M
O
T
I
O
N S
E
C
O
N
D
.
Y
E
S
N
O