2009-11-04_CDBminutes vMinutes of the November 4, 2009 rescheduled meeting of the Community Development Board
?2~1~~Jr~r~
_.J ',`~~
.~ .a,~~r
""b`~ j
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
(Rescheduled from October 20, 2009)
The October 20~' regular meeting of the Community Development Board was cancelled on short
notice due to lack of quorum. The rescheduled October meeting was convened at 6:07 pm on
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole
Road in Atlantic Beach. In attendance were Community Development Director Sonya Doerr,
Principal Planner Erika Hall and Community Development Board members David Boyer, Lynn
Drysdale, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson (arrived at 6:35 pm) and Joshua
Putterman. Board member Blaine Adams was absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER. In the absence of Chair Chris Lambertson, Vice-Chair Lynn Drysdale
called the meeting to order at 6:07 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Ms. Drysdale called for a motion to approve the minutes of
the September 15, 2009 regular meeting. Ellen Glasser moved that the Board approve the
minutes of the September 15, 2009 meeting, as written. Joshua Putterman seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously, 5-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. It was noted that the City Engineer, Public Works
Director Rick Carper, and City Building Official, Michael Griffin were in attendance to
address any concerns regarding proposed changes to the land development regulations
relevant to the authorities, duties and responsibilities of their respective departments.
4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business for consideration.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
a. Public Hearing to continue review of a general update to Chapter 24, the Land
Development Regulations.
Ms. Drysdale suggested that Ms. Doerr refresh everyone's memories as to what had been
reviewed and discussed at the previous (September) meeting. Ms. Doerr explained that
the first thirty pages of the Board's current packet consisted of proposed updates to the
LDRs, including revisions discussed and suggested by the Board at the previous meeting.
Ms. Doerr reviewed those items, pointing out the how revisions had either been
incorporated or were to be addressed by Mr. Carper or Mr. Griffin. However, Ms.
Glasser noted that several questions had been posed by Mr. Lambertson, and she
requested that the Board wait until his arrival to discuss them further.
Page 1 of 4
Minutes of the November 4, 2009 rescheduled meeting of the Community Development Board
Ms. Doerr moved along to discussion of proposed changes to the Zoning Districts, which
she explained to be solely for "housekeeping" purposes that would simplify the
classification system and eliminate a number of obsolete designations. She noted that the
Catholic radio station, the cemetery and the Intracoastal preserves are now the only lands
zoned as Conservation in the City, and further explained that the cemetery continues to be
a permitted use and that the radio station is content to be a legal non-conforming use.
Thus, the Use-by-Exception provisions were no longer relevant for the Conservation
Zoning District, and removal of this portion of text was recommended.
She then explained that the existing RG-1 and RG-lA districts, both of which are
Residential General, Two-family that allow up to two dwelling units (duplexes and
townhouses) so long as there is sufficient land to meet Future Land Use requirements, are
proposed to be combined into a single Residential General, Two-Family Zoning District,
enumerated as RG Likewise, the existing RG-2 and RG-3 districts are both Residential
General, Multi-Family, and should be combined into a single Residential General, Multi-
Family Zoning District, enumerated as RG-M.
Ms. Doerr next recommended the removal of the Residential Mobile Home (RMH)
Zoning District, noting that the only remaining mobile homes within the City were
situated on the Singleton property, which has always been zoned as Commercial General.
Thus, there is no need to maintain this district.
Mr. Lambertson arrived at 6:35 pm, and Ms. Doerr asked that the Board return to the
items that Mr. Carper and Mr. Grim were in attendance to address, so that they could be
excused.
Ms. Doerr noted that per the Board's discussion at the previous meeting of the proposed
methodology for attaining `Calculated Average Grade' and its application to
determination of overall building height, she had again revised the definition. For those
properties lying outside of a flood zone, and with less than two feet of topographical
variation, a simplified method could be employed to determine the existing grade; or
alternatively the taking of points on a 10' x 10' grid superimposed over the buildable area
of the lot could be used for those lots if the property owner preferred. However, any lot
with more than two feet (2') of variation, and all ocean front lots would be required to use
the latter Calculated Average Grade method, as well as submit certified copies of the
survey and calculation worksheet demonstrating how the elevation was achieved. Mr.
Griffin said that the building height would then be thirty-five feet (35') on top of the
elevation as determined by calculated average grade plus any required `free board'.
David Boyer asked that a definition for `Buildable Area' be added to Section 24-17. Ms.
Doerr noted that this definition is already included.
Discussion next returned to Section 24-66, Stormwater, Drainage, Storage and Treatment
Requirements. In answering a question posed by the Board at the previous meeting, Mr.
Carper said that Atlantic Beach is the only community in North Florida to have on-site
retention requirements. He explained that in 2002, the city spent approximately $9
million to upgrade the stormwater system within the "core city". During the same time
frame, the master stormwater plan was updated; the City was advised that if everyone
were allowed to build to 50% impervious as allowed by Land Development Regulations
(LDR), then the City would be back in the same predicament. Thus, it was recommended
Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the November 4, 2009 rescheduled meeting of the Community Development Board
to keep the maximum impervious surface area at 50% for residential lots, but to require
any net increase over existing runoff be accommodated on-site. Board members
expressed concern that individual property owners were burdened with the cost of on-site
retention. However, Mr. Carper noted that should the City have to accommodate the
increased runoff, the cost would be two -three times more than the cumulative cost to
individuals, and the entire tax base would have to be increased. Ms. Doerr noted that any
requests for minor deviations from this regulation would be passed on to Mr. Carper to
evaluate, and as with administrative deviations that she processes, he would have the
ability to permit a deviation of up to 5% of the requirement.
Mr. Lambertson asked if the unfilled portions of a swimming pool could be considered as
retention, noting that for example, the typical pool is filled to six inches below the top.
Mr. Carper said that this had been discussed in the past but was not a consideration at this
time. Instead, he noted that most property owners that were approaching their limits were
instead doing things such as ripping out impervious surfaces such as driveways and
walkways and reinstalling pervious materials.
Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. Carper to explain the 400 square foot allowance given in
Section 24-66, questioning if the number was arbitrary. Mr. Carper explained coverage
of a 400-square foot area with impervious material would require an approximately 200
cubic foot swale to offset stormwater runoff. He noted that property owners tend to
neglect swales any smaller than this, and eventually they become inoperable and
disappear. He added that the LDRs provide that the City has the right to require
maintenance and operability of all stormwater facilities. Mr. Lambertson asked if the 400
square foot provision could be replaced with 10% of lot area to which Mr. Carper replied
no because it would result in a disproportionate advantage to owners of large lots. Mr.
Carper reminded the Board that, as currently written, the LDRs require anyone increasing
their stormwater runoff must provide on-site retention. This proposed provision is an
attempt to provide some relief.
Mr. Boyer noted that not all stormwater necessarily drains to the street, and asked if
allowances were made for natural retention bodies. Mr. Carper explained that property
owners had the opportunity to provide topographic surveys showing sufficient natural
storage, and if such was confirmed, he would be inclined to waive or grant a deviation to
the storage requirement. Ms. Drysdale agreed that it seemed obvious that there was
already language that allowed the City Engineer latitude in making a judgment as to this
requirement; however, Mr. Lambertson reiterated that he would like to see some credit
given for swimming pools.
Ms. Doerr asked if the Board had any other questions or comments for either Mr. Carper
or Mr. Griffin. With there being none, each was thanked for attending and they both
departed. The Board then returned to discussion of revisions to the zoning districts. Ms.
Doerr noted that the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District is the only one in which
hotels are allowed, and that is only with an approved Use-by-Exception. She said that
she proposed that hotels be made fully permissible within CGS noting that they would be
required to comply with all other regulations such as parking, landscaping, etc, as part of
the development review process that precedes issuance of a building permit.
Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the November 4, 2009 rescheduled meeting of the Community Development Board
In 24-114, Central Business District, Ms. Doerr explained that the provisions for
minimum lot or site requirement were irrelevant due to the nature of the Town Center.
She also noted that the maximum height is limited to twenty-five feet (25') which is less
than the thirty-five feet (35') allowed in the rest of the City, and may be a constraining
factor in terms of commercial development and redevelopment. The Board supported
returning the height limit to 35' in the CBD.
Finally, due to the lack of sufficiently large tracts of land qualified to be developed as
Planned Unit Developments (PUD), Ms. Doerr said that she is recommending the
removal of PUDs, and replacement with a new Special Planned Area (SPA) Zoning
District. She stated that existing PUDs would remain classified as such, but the new SPA
district would provide a flexible means of developing smaller infill parcels.
Ms. Doerr said that she would get the final section of the LDRs out to the Board for
review and discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for November 17~'. Additionally, a
revised Zoning Map showing the dissolution of RG-1 & RG-lA into RG Zoning District,
and RG-2 & RG-3 into RG-M Zoning District would be prepared. Upon completion of
review, the Board could make a single motion to send the revisions to the Commission
for final action.
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None.
7. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 8:23 pm.
Chris Lambertson, Chairman
Attest
Page 4 of 4