2006-06-29 (special meeting minutes) vMinutes of June 29, 2006 special Community Development Board Meeting
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL RECONVENED MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Thursday, June 29, 2006, 7:OOpm
A special continued meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Thursday, June
290, 2006, at the Adele Grage Community Center. Present were Chairman Sam Jacobson, Steve
Jenkins, Craig Burkhart, Dave MacInnes, Carolyn Woods, Chris Lambertson, Lynn Drysdale and
Community Development Director Sonya Doerr.
Chairman Jacobson called the meeting to order at 7:lOpm. Mr. Jacobson advised those members
of the public in attendance, that while this meeting was not a public hearing, he would take
comments from the public following the Board's discussions and requested that comments not be
repetitive of those made at last week's meeting and that they be kept to about three minutes.
Chairman Jacobson suggested that the Board review and discuss each section of the draft, and take
a consensus vote on each section as they progressed, and then vote on the draft in its entirety. The
Community Development Board agreed to proceed in this manner, and reviewed and discussed
each section of the draft as follows.
(a) Purpose and Intent. The Community Development Board unanimously concurred to
accept this section as drafted.
(b) Applicability. Lengthy discussion followed regarding the appropriateness of extending the
area to be covered by the new regulations to the entire City. Craig Burkhart stated that the
entire City should be included now because the same issues facing Old Atlantic Beach
would very soon be facing the rest of the City. Chairman Jacobson stated that he felt the
area that is now covered had been the subject of much discussion and that this was too
major of a change to make at this late date. He also expressed concern that the public
might feel they had been misled if such a change were to be made now. A suggestion was
made to add language to section (e) -the annual review provision- that would direct the City
to also look at other areas of the City as part of that review. Jacobson, Woods, Drysdale
and Lambertson were in favor of leaving the boundary as now proposed with the addition
of language to look at other areas as part of the annual review. Burkhart, Jenkins,
MacInnes were in favor of expanding to include the entire City. (A 4:3 vote prevailed to
leave the boundary as set forth in this draft.)
(1) Coverage by Buildings. The Board discussed the intent of the three-tiered percentages to
give an incentive to build one and two-story houses by allowing these to cover more of a
lot. Staff noted the difference between Coverage by buildings and Impervious Surface
Area limits, which have been in effect for about 5 years, explaining that the 50%
impervious limit remains in effect. C. Woods proposed that the building footprint
percentages should also apply to the second-story and third-story portions of a house. After
discussion, the Board voted by a 5:2 majority to leave this section as proposed. (C. Woods
and D. MacInnes dissenting.)
Minutes of June 29, 2006 special Community Development Board Meeting
(2) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lengthy discussion of the FAR ensued. Chairman Jacobson
suggested that the Board first should concur that FAR limits should remain in the draft
noting that the Board was divided on this issue at the last workshop. S. Jenkins commented
that through all the many discussions, he was of the opinion that the FAR was the most
simple way to address mass and scale, and that while they may not know exactly what the
correct FAR is, he supports maintaining a FAR limit. The Board agreed by a 5:2 majority
that the FAR limit should be maintained. (C. Lambertson and D. MacInnes dissenting.)
Chairman Jacobson noted that, he too, had come to understand that FAR limits were an
effective way to address the. issue of houses that are too large for a small lot and that if the
issue of mass and scale were not addressed in a meaningful way, what we now identify as
the character of Atlantic Beach will change if the City does not take a position now to
protect what is special about the City.
Discussion continued related to the exemption from FAR for 6000 square feet or less lots.
The CD Board clarified their intent that smaller lots be presumed to be 6000 for the
purpose of calculating the FAR. Language to be added to (2)i. to clarify this. Discussion
moved into what the appropriate FAR should be; several members expressed concern that
.60 might still be too restrictive. Staff noted that the proposed FAR limit had been
increased from the original .46 to the current .60. After discussion and calculations of
several different FAR numbers, C. Woods proposed a .70 FAR, citing the .70 in the
Comprehensive Plan for Commercial/Industrial as an established FAR number. The Board
agreed that if .70 is adopted, or if the City Commission should adopt a different FAR, the
City should carefully monitor its impact and effectiveness, and consider adjusting the FAR
if that should seem appropriate. The Board agreed by a 4:3 majority to increase the
proposed FAR to .70. (S. Jacobson, L. Drysdale and S. Jenkins dissenting.)
Discussion of provisions, which identify what portions of a house are to be counted or not
counted, then followed. The Board suggested and unanimously agreed to make only one
change to these provisions, which was to increase the portion of an attached garage that is
not counted in the FAR calculation from 400 square feet to 500 square feet.
(3) Side Wall Planes. No changes were suggested to this section, and the CD Board
unanimously recommended approval of this section.
(4) Height to Wall Plate. A suggestion was made to eliminate the "Sloping roof' references
and the Sentence beginning with Sloping roof as well as the following sentence beginning
with "A Mansard roof." The Board unanimously concurred and felt this language was
confusing and unnecessary. No other changes were made to this section.
(S) Front Yard Shade Trees. A suggestion to require a second 4-inch caliper tree somewhere
else (at the owner's choice) was made. After discussion, the Board by a 4:3 majority
recommended adding the requirement for this second tree, and also allowing credit for
existing trees. (C. Lambertson, Steve Jenkins and D. MacInnes dissenting.)
(6) Annual review. The Board approved this section noting the earlier requested change that
language to direct the City to look at other neighborhoods during the annual review be
added.
2
Minutes of June 29, 2006 special Community Development Board Meeting
(7) Wrap-up discussion briefly followed, and Chairman Jacobson then called the vote. The
Community Development Board by a 6:1 majority voted to recommend approval to the
City Commission of this draft, with the changes as noted. (C. Lambertson dissenting.)
Chairman Jacobson then open the floor to public comment. Following public comment, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:20pm.
3