2006-01-17 (meeting minutes) vMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
January 17, 2006
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, January 17, 2006, in
the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Sam Jacobson, Steve Jenkins, Craig Burkhart,
Dave MacInnes, Lynn Drysdale, Carolyn Woods, Chris Lambertson, Community Development
Director Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Amber Lehman.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Lynn Drysdale made a motion recommending approval, which was seconded by Dave MacInnes.
The minutes were unanimously approved.
3. Recognition of Visitors
The Chairman recognized Commissioner Sylvia Simmons.
4. Old Business.
There was no Old Business to discuss.
5. New Business.
Chairman Jacobson stated that UBE-2006-O1 was added to this agenda, due to agenda schedules,
which would prohibit the applicant from getting a decision on their application until March.
Carolyn Woods stated that she had not had time read it, and felt uncomfortable with voting on it.
Sonya Doerr stated that this is would seem to be a rather simple request for aUse-by-Exception,
but all Use-by-Exceptions require a recommendation from the Community Development Board
before being heard by the City Commission. Ms. Doerr stated that February 21 is the next CD
Board Meeting, and the next Commission meeting the Applicant could be scheduled for would be
March 13, 2006. Ms. Doerr stated that there will still be a public hearing before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins asked about notice for the public hearing. Sonya Doerr cited the specific section of the
code and stated that there are different notices for various zoning applications. The required notice
is a sign posted one week before the meeting where final action is taken by the City Commission.
Sam Jacobson stated that the only reason for this Use-by-Exception request is for the drive-thru for
the restaurant. Ms. Doerr confirmed that the restaurant is a permitted use. After discussion the
Board decided to proceed with this item and hear from the applicant.
,, Brea Paul with DRMP, 3611 St. Johns Bluff Road addressed the Board. Ms. Paul stated that
Dunkin Donuts would like to have this Use-by-Exception to allow adrive-thru for the permitted
use of a Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins store. The business will be located with access from
Sailfish Drive and the adjacent shopping center. The parcel is located on the corner of Atlantic and
Sailfish Drive, with no access requested onto Atlantic.
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
"' Carolyn Woods inquired as to what property was located to the north. Ms. Paul responded that a
shopping center was to the north.
Sam Jacobson asked if there was an existing structure on the site. Ms. Paul responded that the
parcel was currently vacant and used as a grass parking lot for 2-3 years, and that there were no
trees to remove.
Carolyn Woods asked about the traffic conditions on Sailfish. Sonya Doerr stated that traffic is not
that heavy on Sailfish, and that commercial traffic is restricted from using Sailfish Drive. Ms.
Woods then asked about the number of visitors expected to use the drive-thru. Ms. Paul responded
that she did not have that information. Mr. Jacobson then inquired about the hours of operation.
Ms. Paul responded that it will hopefully be open 24 hours, 7 days per week.
Chris Lambertson asked if they had looked at the entrance off of Sailfish in terms of stacking of
vehicles and questioned whether traffic will stack at the light.
Public Works Director, Rick Carper, stated that there is no light and that this will increase traffic
slightly, but the entrance is far enough away from Atlantic Boulevard, that it will not cause a
problem. Sonya Doerr stated that at this point we are not looking at construction plans, but these
issues will be reviewed at that time.
Dave MacInnes stated that there is no egress or regress from Atlantic Blvd. and asked if there are
any other out-parcels on the shopping center site. Ms. Paul responded that this is the last one.
Chris Lambertson made a motion recommending approval of Use-by-Exception, motion
seconded by Dave MacInnes. The motion was approved unanimously.
5.a Review and recommendation to the City Commission related to proposed revisions to the
Land Development Regulations (Chapter 24 of the Code of Ordinance for the City of Atlantic
Beach) related to: (Item 3 taken first.)
3) Amend Section 24-17, definition of Impervious Surface, to address swimming pools
and the use of brick pavers.
Public Works Director, Rick Carper, addressed the Board and stated that the Commission had
directed staff to change the definition of Impervious Surface to include swimming pools.
Mr. Carper stated that Jacksonville Beach and Jacksonville do not address impervious surfaces in
their drainage regulations. The thought from the Commission when they originally decided to
consider swimming pools as pervious area was that a pool retains about 6 inches of stormwater.
Carolyn Woods asked whether Atlantic Beach should be giving half credit for swimming pools to
account for the six inches. Mr. Carper stated that this had been discussed. After restating and
clarifying her question, Mr. Carper responded that was not what staff was directed to do by the City
w* Commission. Mr. Carper found no other communities that gave partial credit for pools.
Chris Lambertson commented about the City of Jacksonville Beach Code, and concurred that this
regulation was not written into their Codes. Ms. Woods stated that if our Code is based on
2
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
retention of water, there should be some credit given. Mr. Carper responded that it was based on
"' runoff. Mr. Jacobson asked why this is being addressed by the CD Board. Mr. Carper responded
that this revision had been initiated by the Commission. Ms. Doerr stated that it is before the CD
Board because it is a proposed revision to the Land Development Regulations, and the CD Board
must make a recommendation to the City Commission on any changes to the Land Development
Regulations.
Carolyn Woods stated that it seems that every surface has a percentage that it is given for runoff.
Mr. Carper responded that there are standard coefficients. Ms. Woods asked if there is a coefficient
for pools. Mr. Carper stated that there is not.
Sam Jacobson asked about pavers and why this is being addressed again. Mr. Carper said that the
Commission had asked the question, and responded that the amount of impacts depended upon the
installation, the slope, and how much water is running off of the paver surface.
Dave MacInnes asked that if someone currently has a pool and the house is destroyed, would the
pool be grandfathered in. Mr. Jacobson asked if homeowners can rebuild in the original footprint
of the house. Ms. Doerr stated that there were regulations to deal with nonconforming structures
and nonconforming uses.
Carolyn Woods suggested that the Board get the answer to these questions and do some scenarios
to see how drastically changes to conditions will effect homeowner's property, and recommended
that the Board come up with standards for pavers, swimming pools, and slopes and run scenarios to
see how it effects property.
Sam Jacobson asked how would we run scenarios. Ms. Woods responded that we could take our
smallest lot to consider and see how Codes effect development on that lot.
Sam Jacobson asked what was the reason for the impetus behind this request. Mr. Carper
responded that the core city storm system was designed fora 5-year storm event, and at a 10-year
storm, there would be flooding in the streets. With a 25-year storm, there would be no house
flooding, but flooding up to the houses.
Steve Jenkins stated that he was hesitant to confuse this issue with the question of allowing existing
nonconforming structures to be rebuilt and believed that the confusion of the technical issues with
this issue was a mistake. Mr. Jenkins believed that the recommendations are reasonable.
Sam Jacobson asked if we can we separate the swimming pools from the paver issue. Chris
Lambertson stated that if we split the issues, the topic intertwines with broader similar issues, and
noted that Atlantic Beach is the only municipality that requires you to retain stormwater on your
lot.
Sam Jacobson stated that he didn't feel that this is the place to rework the definition. Mr.
Lambertson stated that we need to look at the big picture. Mr. Carper provided background on the
Stormwater Master Plan Update, which determined what was needed to ensure that the system
~'' would function as designed. Mr. Carper commented on the options given in the stormwater plan,
including payment of impact fees, and stated that the runoff coefficient used was .46 for the core
city, and at the same time redevelopment really started, the City's consultant ran the models as did
the design engineer to protect the $8 million of improvements put in the ground, and suggested to
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
go to .6 at 50% lot coverage. Mr. MacInnes thought that this was not the place to try to re-work
"'" definitions. Mr. Lambertson thought that we should not just take one piece forward, and need to
look at the whole issue and stated that we can't look at the issue unless the whole structure has been
laid out. Mr. Jacobson thought that that this particular definition had been work-shopped to death
five years ago, and therefore, should not be addressed singularly. If pools and pavers are addressed
at zero impervious, the house could fall under .6. The pool then would require an expensive
retention system. People don't realize what the effect of the change will have if they are building a
pool.
Carolyn Woods stated that part of the problem is that the definition says impervious, and the Code
is concerned with runoff getting into the sewer system, not percolation. This definition conflicted
with the intention of the Code. The purpose of the Code is to retain water on-site, which is what a
pool does.
Craig Burkhart stated that the interpretation that we came up with several years ago for the pavers
fell through the cracks and that the pool issue should be dealt with separately. Typical pavers laid
on sand do not allow percolation of any more than 3-4%. Mr. Burkhart agrees that some credit
should be given for pools since there will be retention of 6 inches in a storm. Fifty percent of the
25-year stormwater will be preserved within the pool, so we should continue to give credit for the
pool surface.
Lynn Drysdale stated that she sees the merit for everything that we have been hearing, and that the
Board should deal only with the task of definition as before the Board, and stated that she was
comfortable with language dealing with pavers and that pools should be considered impervious,
but agrees that some credit should be given.
Sam Jacobson stated that his pool has never come close to overflowing, even during hurricanes.
Mr. Jacobson agreed that there were two different set of considerations. We need to address the
purpose of the regulation, and we should address pools and pavers separately.
George Mayforth, Atlantic Beach, stated that pools should be exempt from impervious area
requirements. Pools are not generally overflowing. The City should check to see what the Water
Management District is doing. Enough adjacent communities don't address the issue. He stated
that the Board should identify pavers with certain pervious ratings as certain pavers are able to
absorb more stormwater; it depends on the paver itself. Need to identify porous pavers and define
what is acceptable in the permitting process. C-value numbers are assigned that should be used.
You can't just ignore the fact that pavers are porous, and it should be so noted.
Sam Jacobson stated that whatever absorption there is in pavers depends upon the type of storm.
Mr. Mayporth stated that the paver industry is changing rapidly. The City should be careful with a
blanket statement that all pavers are impervious. Mr. Carper is stating that pavers are being put
down and circumventing the rule with non-porous type pavers.
Peter Sapia, 1625 Selva Marina Drive, stated that the Commission believes that they should stop
the evolution of Atlantic Beach, and does not believe that the voters have given them that mandate.
The course of change set by the 5-way intersection will be dwarfed by what is now being done.
The Chairman questioned the relevancy of the 5-way intersection. Mr. Sapia felt that establishing
pools as impervious will decrease the taxes from that property, and this will effect the City's
revenue stream.
4
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
~"'' Pat Pilmore, 995 Camelia Street, stated that pavers were supposed to be a pervious system, and the
pervious system was supposed to have spaces to allow for drainage.
Jane Wytska, 352 2nd Street, addressed that impact of pools beyond the drainage issue. Her
neighbor installed a pool on a ?5-foot wide lot. It causes noise and impacts vegetation. She
believes that the pool will impact quality of her life and should be considered impervious and that
pools should not be allowed on small lots.
Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive, objects to ruling a pool as impervious. He is concerned
about property rights in Atlantic Beach. The Commission is not taking in the impacts of the
language concerning pavers. Things are being done without considering the unintended
consequences. He urges the Board to make sure that you understand, and we understand, and to
ask more questions of the Commission. What happens if a house is damaged. Has the negative
impact on property values been considered?
Carolyn Woods stated that you have to also consider the flipside, and consider what the changes
will bring and if change is not made, what effects there could be.
Steve Jenkins stated that if more than 50% of your house is destroyed, then you have to conform
with new Codes.
*. Thomas Grant stated that there is not enough time between meetings. Decisions being made could
have a negative impact for the residents of Atlantic Beach, and some of this change is more severe
than it needs to be.
Lindley Tolbert, 334 6th Street, stated that the current Commission is trying to control the size of
new homes, and is pushing for pools and pavers to be 100 percent impervious so that residents
cannot build bigger homes. Ms. Tolbert questioned some comments by the Commission, and
comments by certain Commissioners to make new regulations retroactive. The Board should
consider the hidden issues covered by this issue.
R.D. DeCazle, 180 Beach Ave, stated that he was perturbed with the way the Commission was
rushing things involving community character. He is presently trying to develop his own property.
If pools are made impervious, there is no way he can have a pool at his home. He agrees that some
credit should be given for pools. He cannot put a full driveway in due to the Code. He is having
to shrink his plan down, and thinks that the Commission is taking away private property rights.
Peter Litsky, 322 6th Street, stated that he was concerned about the speed that the Commission
was taking. Agreed with the proposal by Ms. Woods to study a standard lot. It is obvious that a
pool does have some retention value. He agrees that a study is necessary, and agrees that pavers
do have some water retention capacity. He does not think that it is up to this Board, but that it
should be up to the engineers and the values given by the industry. By combining pools and
pavers in this ordinance, it appears that they put the pool along with the pavers so that the pool will
be completely overlooked.
Kevin Byrnes, 391 A Street, stated that pavers do have some retention water and that a pool is a
great place for water retention.
5
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
Carolyn Woods addressed pools and proposed defining pools as a percentage so that they are
75 percent pervious and 25 percent impervious. Motion seconded by Dave MacInnes.
Craig Burkhart asked Ms. Woods how she determined that 75% was appropriate. Ms. Woods said
it was based on everyone's comments. Mr. Burkhart asked if she would be adverse to using 66%
based on the information provided by Mr. Carper and what appears to be a standard free board of 6
inches, which seems more like a mathematical format. Ms. Woods said that she was just using
logic, and stated that the Water Management District doesn't count them as impervious at all.
Steve Jenkins felt like input received tonight made the issue of the pools as impervious or not
impervious a question, and there should be discussion on a scientific definition.
Dave MacInnes expressed his belief that this type of thing be delayed be until the community
character issues are worked out, but would not be opposed to voting on the motion.
Sam Jacobson expressed concern that the Board is uninformed, and we have heard only matters of
opinion. It makes sense to get really informed information. We need to get expert information
from iJNF or some other source.
Lynn Drysdale stated that premature uninformed action could result in potential litigation.
The motion was withdrawn.
Steve Jenkins moved that the language on swimming pools be rejected, and that it go back to
staff for further study. Motion seconded by Lynn Drysdale.
Mr. Jenkins recommended that the Board reject the language related to pools and retool
language to incorporate language that would allow the pool to act as retention, with the staff
to conduct a study of the appropriate stormwater retention value. Amended motion was
seconded by Lynn Drysdale.
Steve Jenkins then recommend approval of the language addressing the retention value of
the pavers, which was seconded by Lynn Drysdale.
Carolyn Woods stated that brick-appearing pavers are rated on their permeability, and through this
motion you could be denying the ability to get credit for installing permeable pavers. Accepted
standards for the industry is the language that should be put in. Ms. Doerr explained that the 50%
standard currently in the Code was the result of checking with manufacturers. Ms. Doerr stated
that what the City has discovered is that the way pavers are often installed prevents permeability.
Ms. Woods stated that she felt that the required base should be specified. Mr. Carper stated that
open grid pavers are built over an underdrain, that drains into a system. Ms. Woods stated that the
language should be based on the method of installment. Mr. Carper stated that he did not have
adequate staff to inspect each and every installment.
Chris Lambertson stated that pavers are installed in South Florida over compacted limerock, that
does not absorb any water. Ms. Woods asked that if they laid it on sand, with '/4 inch spacing,
would that be open grid. Mr. Carper stated that he would look at that. Mr. Lambertson stated that
this appears that this is just a clazification. Mr. Carper responded that the interpretation that he
6
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
inherited on the existing language was that if pavers weren't installed on concrete or asphalt, they
~'' got 50% credit as pervious surface.
Mr. Jacobson believed that 12x12 pavers would not be 50% impervious, and that pavers built over
concrete would get around the requirement. Spoke wholeheartedly in favor of the motion.
The motions to recommend rejection of the language related to swimming pools, and that
this issue go back to staff for further study, and to recommend approval of the revision, as
proposed, related to pavers were approved unanimously.
5.a Review and recommendation to the City Commission related to proposed revisions to the
Land Development Regulations (Chapter 24 of the Code of Ordinance for the City of Atlantic
Beach) related to:
1) Establishment of a new Single-family Residential Zoning District, to be known as
Residential, Single-family-Large Lot (RS-L).
The Board then returned to agenda item S.A.1 dealing with the establishment of a new single-
family residential zoning district category to be known as Residential, Single-Family -Large Lot
(RS-L).
Sonya Doerr stated that this was a proposed new zoning district classification that, if adopted,
would require a larger lot size for some new lots. Existing legal lots of record would not be
affected. The new zoning district would be single-family district, and this item is only
consideration of this new Zoning District classification. We are not considering a map change
tonight. The City has to first have the zoning category in place before amending the map to
designate any area as this new zoning designation. As proposed, any new RS-L lots would be
required to be 100-feet in width, 100-feet in depth, with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet.
Setbacks, height, impervious area, and other requirements axe the same as in the RS-1 district.
Ms. Doerr stated that the intention was to later establish this new Zoning District in portions of the
Selva Marina area where these larger lots were originally platted.
Carolyn Woods stated that she always thought of these lots as more rectangular than square. Ms.
Doerr stated that many of these original lots are deeper than they are wide, but 100-feet of depth
for residential lots is the standard depth in all other residential zoning districts in the City.
Mr. Jacobson asked if the Board had seen the letters in the paper addressing the topic of reducing
lot size. Mr. MacInnes did not see the tie-in to new lots. Ms. Doerr said that a lot of record will
remain a lot of record. The question was withdrawn.
Lindley Tolbert, 344 6th Street, asked why does the City need a large lot subdivision and will it
better the community, or is this coming just from the Commission. There are not many lots that
are 200-feet wide lots. If we raise the required size, we can stop the subdivision of lots. It seems
the City is trying to fast track issues. Has anyone talked with the people this will affect? These
recommendations have cost quite a number of people a lot of money -millions of dollars of
additional taxable revenue. Decisions are being made that are rushed through. The Board should
think how this would affect them.
Carolyn Woods stated that people like the space, and most people would like to retain the
7
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the ~'ommunity Development Board
character of these large lots. People that subdivide are affecting the character. The Comp Plan
"' states that we should preserve older communities through these efforts. Ms. Tolbert and Ms.
Woods discuss the issue, with Ms. Woods explaining why those who own the property first have
inherent property rights. Ms. Tolbert stated that there should be no change to the Comp Plan. Mr.
Jacobson stated that this was a classic case of existing property owner's rights versus purchaser's
rights. Ms. Tolbert stated that is why we have laws. Ms. Tolbert also expressed concern that
people should have more than two weeks to make changes and get applications in; and
recommended that they give property owners the proper amount of notice.
Leonard Caurse, 1756 Live Oak Lane, stated that he had been out of town for three weeks and
when he came back and read his mail, he did not have a clue that this meeting was occurring. Hid
first question was one of what is the definition of proper notification. His second question was, is
it legally required, with the third question, did they do it.
Sam Jacobson stated that it takes two readings and proper notice to adopt an ordinance and
establish a new zoning classification. Mr. Caurse stated his concerns about the time frames and
that even a month doesn't give him time. Ms. Doerr stated that there was a first and second
reading before the City Commission required. This is not creating a zoning change on the zoning
map; it is establishing a new zoning classification. Mr. Caurse states that this is the first step in
creating this new designation, and the earliest they can vote is March. Mr. Caurse described the
effect of this ruling on a woman with two kids whose property is her nest egg -you are taking this
away from people. Ms. Woods asked about the person next door who is affected by the smaller
lots -the person in the middle property goes down. Mr. Caurse responded no; he would like to
reduce his property size now that he is retired.
Sam Jacobson noted that this is a complex issue, and that the problem is that for every action there
is a bad reaction. With more and more subdivision of lots, people fear Atlantic Beach will
become Jacksonville Beach.
Mr. Caurse requested that the Board not even take this to City Council, and they have another
hearing on the proposal to explain. He believes that people don't have a clue about what is
happening. Mr. Caurse then asked what would happen if his division is already approved and
then the regulations are changed. He needs time to get a legal opinion. Sonya Doerr stated that
this ordinance has not been scheduled for the Commission yet. Ms. Doerr also stated that as far
as lot divisions that have been approved, they will remain legal lot divisions.
Pat Pilmore, 995 Camilla Street spoke about the lot size issue and felt that too much emphasis
was put on the developer's opinion. Ms. Pilmore believed that the housing market and developers
are pushing size, and this is a marketing tool to make money. She strongly believes in limiting
the size.
Jane Wytska, 352 2nd Street, stated that she had paid more than the appraised value for a house in
Atlantic Beach to be near the beach. She worries about the process not being rushed. She stated
that houses are oversized, and that the process has gone way too slow. Large buildings block the
sun and are obtrusive and not a good part of the community.
Peter Sapia, 1655 Selva Marina Drive, stated that creating new large lots will create large costs.
Mr. Sapia believes that there should be facts and figures to support the proposals, and that the
funds lost by these actions could be used to build additional infrastructure. Recommends that the
8
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
Commission should leave the existing zoning regulations alone.
Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive, stated that in the Commission minutes, it was noted that
notice would be given. Ms. Doerr responded that this item is only a recommendation to create a
new zoning category, and will not rezone anything at this time. Any change will come at a later
time; all landowners within the proposed district and within 300 feet will be noticed at that time,
as well as a published advertisement. We are not at that stage yet. Mr. Grant stated that there are
still so many questions, considerations need to be weighed heavier than they are. Subdividing of
smaller lots can be done tastefully so as not to affect the property values of others. Nothing
should be done until Mr. Winter is done. Mr. Jenkins reminded the audience that this was simply
a new zoning designation being included in the zoning code. Mr. Jacobson did agree that a
positive vote is the first step in the eventual approval of land design that Mr. Grant is not happy
about. Mr. Jacobson stated that everyone is regulated to some extent.
R.D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, stated that there is a price difference between Atlantic Beach
and other beach areas. People have come to value their property rights as to why they buy in
Atlantic Beach. Additional layers of bureaucracy will negatively affect values. The hidden
agenda of the Commission is growth management to prevent more people from coming to Atlantic
Beach. Mr. Jacobson asked whether 75-foot lots will affect property values. Mr. DeCarle stated
that low rates have allowed people to build large houses. If people want to buy large lots and
build large houses, so be it.
Kevin Byrnes, 391 8`~ Street, asked if anyone on the Commission could answer how many more
lots in old Atlantic Beach can be divided into 75x100 parcels. Ms. Doerr responded that the lots
are in the various units of Selva Marina and not old Atlantic Beach. Most of Old Atlantic Beach
are platted into 50x100 or SOx1301ots. Ms. Doerr stated that there are less than a couple of dozen
lots in Selva Marina that could be subdivided under the current rules.
Lynn Drysdale made a motion to recommend approval of the establishment of a new single
family Zoning District category to be known as Residential, Single-family, Large Lot (RS-L),
moving that Sec. 24 be amended as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by
Steve Jenkins.
Dave MacInnes stated that he didn't see the need for this, and that there are only a handful
of lots this would apply to. Mr. Lambertson stated that even though he has reservations,
there has been adequate time to consider this. Mr. Jacobson stated that it had to go through
us to get to the Commission, and he didn't see the need to not send it on to the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 6:1 vote, with Mr. MacInnes opposing.
S.a Review and recommendation to the City Commission related to proposed revisions to the
Land Development Regulations (Chapter 24 of the Code of Ordinance for the City of Atlantic
Beach) related to:
2) Amend Section 24-189, eliminating the administrative approval of certain two-lot
property divisions to require Commission review and approval of such requests.
(Proposed pursuant to direction from City Commission at the December 12th
Commission meeting.)
9
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
Sonya Doerr described the agenda item, stating that this is a proposed revision to the Subdivision
regulations that would remove the administrative approval for certain types of lot divisions. As
proposed, atwo-lot division would still be exempt from the full plat or re-plat process, but
approval by the City Commission would be required. Ms. Woods asked whether this change
would require involvement of the Community Development Board. Ms. Doerr said no, all
requests would go straight to the City Commission. Ms. Woods asked if more than two lots
would come to the Board. Ms. Doerr responded yes, that process does not change.
Chris Lambertson asked what they did in St. Johns County. Ms. Doerr responded that in St. Johns
County atwo-lot division was allowed by administrative approval, as was the case with other
surrounding jurisdictions.
Steve Jenkins asked what is the frequency of occurrence of such an action. Ms. Doerr responded
that there have been eight two-lot divisions in three years.
Lindley Tolbert, 334 6th Street, wondered why the Commission would want to change the
existing regulation, that this should be an everyday job for the staff. The Commission does not
have the expertise to do this. They were elected for policy decisions.
Casey Quinn, 524 Plaza Street, stated that the situation should not be left totally up to the
administration, that these should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. You can't subdivide every
piece of property in the City anyway.
Pat Pilmore, 995 Camilla Street, noted that Atlantic Beach is a small community. Everyone can
be a player. She has respect for the Board and would like to see more planning come back to this
Board to discuss things at this level, then at the Commission level.
R.D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Ave, stated that he didn't agree with the Commission eliminating the staff
responsibilities; and that the Commission want to have an overriding control.
Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina, asked where this would lead to, what will be the next
authoritative action that they will have. The Commission does not have details to make these
decisions.
Chris Larnbertson reminded everyone that the Board would not see these normally anyway.
Peter Sapia, 1625 Selva Marina, stated that taking administrative function from City staff adds
attorney fees and only adds to the costs.
Dave MacInnes asked Ms. Doerr what happens if you deny an application. Can the applicant
appeal? Ms. Doerr responded yes, they could appeal to this Board.
Sam Jacobson asked what the basis for staff denial would be. Ms. Doerr responded that they
could be denied if they didn't meet minimum width or lot size requirements.
Chris Lambertson stated that staff is very competent in the ability to review that data, and that this
should not be taken out of the administrative arena and into the political area.
Sam Jacobson asked if Ms. Doerr approves it, what gets passed on. Ms. Doerr stated that once it's
10
Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
approved, the property owner submits approved surveys, and when they sell the lot, they record
the new survey with their deeds.
Steve Jenkins stated that it is very important that we have clear requirements so people know
where they stand. We could be doing citizens an injustice if it wasn't clear what could be done or
if it was made discretionary on what could be approved. Mr. Lambertson also expressed concerns
about the possibility of uncertainty. Ms. Woods stated that prior to 2003 administrative
requirement did not exist. Ms. Doerr responded that this was still done at the staff level at that
time. Ms. Woods ran a scenario where it would be disadvantageous to have staff approval,
expressing concern about incongruity of some possible approvals.
Steve Jenkins stated that was the Board's challenge to make regulations clear. To make
everything subjective to who the Board is was problematic. He would rather change regulations
to address the current issues. Ms. Woods responded that the Code could be changed every year.
Mr. Jacobson expressed the thought that certainty was only one issue. Other matters such as
fairness and reasonableness are also important, and that is wasn't a bad thing to have Commission
make these decisions.
Dave MacInnes moved that the proposed amendment to Section 24-189 be denied, seconded
by Craig Burkhart.
Chris Lambertson stated that there needs to be more certainty, just like with a variance. Mr.
Burkhart stated that rules can be administered by the staff, and if there are problems, the
regulations should be changed, not the responsibilities of staff. Mr. 3acobson stated that people
wanted these subdivisions to be approved on their merits, not simply as an administrative
approvals. Ms. Woods then read from the Code, stating that you need to look at the
Comprehensive Plan when considering subdividing of land.
The motion to recommend to the City Commission that Section 24-189 remain unchanged
was approved by a 4:3 vote, with Lynn Drysdale, Sam Jacobson, and Carolyn Woods
dissenting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45pm.
Signed
~--- ~ ~------- 1'2 Attest
11