Agenda Packet 5-9-11CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
May 9, 2011 - 6:00 PM
AGENDA
Call to order
Invocation and pledge to the flag
1. Approve the minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting of April 25, 2011.
2. Courtesy of Floor to Visitors
A. Proclamation- National Public Works Week
3. Unfinished Business from Previous Meetings
A. City Manager's Follow-up Report.
4. Consent Agenda
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE
ROUTINE BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION IN
THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE
ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE
CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON THESE ITEMS.
A. Acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Report of New Business Tax Receipts issued for
April 2011.
5. Committee Reports
None.
6. Action on Resolutions
None.
7. Action on Ordinances
None.
8. Miscellaneous Business
A. Public Hearing- Appeal of Community Development Board Order denying ZVAR-2011-
01, request for a variance from Section 24-107(e)(2) to reduce the required twenty (20)
foot rear yard setback to allow for the future construction of a residential structure on a
nonconforming lot of record of substandard size located on the west side of the right-of-
way at 1725 Beach Avenue. (City Manager)
B. Approval of location of Fleet Landing sign (deferred from previous meeting). (City
Manager)
C. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Application for Revenue Sharing 2011-2012. (City
Manager)
D. Approve vendor for PD/ FD roof replacement. (City Manager)
E. Authorization to Apply for COPS Grant Application. (City Manager)
F. Award Contract for Disaster Debris Removal Services. (City Manager)
1
9. City Manager
A. City Manager's Report.
10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and City Attorney
A. Frisbee Golf Course at Johansen Park (Commissioner Daugherty)
B. Reconsideration of Strategic Planning approval to prioritize goals. (Fletcher)
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter
considered at any meeting, such person may need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purpose,
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record shall include the
testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Any person wishing to speak to the City Commission on any matter at this meeting should submit a
request to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. For your convenience, forms for this purpose are
available at the entrance to the Commission Chambers.
Every effort is made to indicate what action the City Commission is expected to take on each agenda
item. However, the City Commission may act upon any agenda subject, regardless of how the matter is
stated on the agenda.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26, Florida Statutes, persons
with disabilities needing special accommodation to participate in this meeting should contact the City
Clerk by 5:00 PM, Friday, May 6, 2011.
2
Attendance
Call to Order/Pledge
Approval of Minutes
Courtesy of the Floor
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
April 25, 2011
CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD
IN ATTENDANCE:
Mayor Mike Borno
Mayor Pro Tem John L. Fletcher
Commissioner Jonathan Daugherty
Commissioner Paul Parsons
Commissioner Carolyn Woods
City Attorney Alan C. Jensen
City Manager Jim Hanson
City Clerk Donna L. Bartle
Recording Secretary Nancy E. Bailey
Mayor Borno called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Woods gave the
Invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1. Approve the minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting of April 11,
2011.
Motion: Approve the minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting of April 11,
2011, as written.
Moved by Fletcher, Seconded by Daugherty.
Commissioner Daugherty stated he would like to correct a statement he made on page
4, second paragraph, fourth line where he stated he would like to see this money go to
our parks rather than a few individuals. He stated what he meant to say was "projects
that benefit the community as a whole, such as parks". Commissioner Fletcher stated
that could be reflected in tonight's minutes but if that is exactly what he said in the last
minutes it would not be appropriate to rewrite it and say, well, that's what I meant to
say. He stated we can make that a part of tonight's minutes that his clarification was
the community at large.
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
2. Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors.
A. Proclamation — Municipal Clerks Week
Mayor Borno read and presented City Clerk Donna Bartle with a Proclamation
proclaiming May 1 — May 7, 2011 as Municipal Clerks Week and recognized and
thanked Nancy Bailey and Susan Gorman. Ms. Bartle thanked the Mayor.
Mayor Borno opened the Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors. He welcomed the audience
and explained the process for public comments.
Jim Robinson, 2946 Dupont Avenue, Jacksonville, stated he is a candidate for the
At -large Group 4 City Council race in Jacksonville. He stated he has been studying the
beach issues as he has been campaigning and believes the beaches are a very special
asset to the entire county. He stated as an At -large member of the Council he would
look forward to working with the Commission and other Council members to make
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
sure the issues of the beaches are considered in downtown. He stated he would
appreciate their support and looks forward to hopefully working with them very closely
and taking office July 1.
No one else from the audience spoke so Mayor Borno closed the Courtesy of the Floor
to Visitors.
Unfinished Business 3. Unfinished Business from Previous Meeting
from Previous A. City Manager's Follow-up Report.
Meeting
None.
Consent Agenda
4. Consent Agenda
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WILL BE ENACTED BY
ONE MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED,
THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL
BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO
THE CITY COMMISSION ON THESE ITEMS.
A. Acknowledge receipt of the Utility Sales Report, Financial Report and the
Recreation Special Events Report for March 2011, and the Public Works and
Utility Departments Project Status Report as of April 15, 2011.
B. 2010 Water Quality Report for the City of Atlantic Beach.
Mayor Borno read the Consent Agenda.
Motion: Approve Consent Agenda Items A & B as read.
Moved by Woods, Seconded by Parsons.
Commissioner Fletcher asked to pull Item A. Commissioner Daugherty pulled Item B.
There was no vote on the motion since both items were pulled.
Commissioner Fletcher asked about the 30% production loss of 21,000 gallons in the
Utility Sales Report. Mr. Hanson explained this is comparing the meter readings at the
plants which are taken one day at the end of the month, with utility billings that are
over four different billing cycles. He explained when you have an increasing sale, as
you often do in the early spring, we are pumping out a lot of water that is yet to be
billed during the coming month. He stated in these months it looks like you have a
large water loss but actually in the fall or late summer there will be a negative for a
loss.
Mayor Borno thanked Jolyn Johnson for the Arts in the Park, stating it was a great
event, well turned out and she did a tremendous job.
Committee Reports
Action on Resolutions
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
Commissioner Daugherty stated he would like to put the water quality report on the
City's website rather than printing copies to be included with the water bills. Mr.
Hanson stated it is a law that it must be published.
Motion: Approve Consent Agenda Items A & B as read.
Moved by Fletcher, Seconded by Daugherty.
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
5. Committee Reports
None.
6. Action on Resolutions
A. RESOLUTION NO. 11-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, RELATING
TO THE STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM; MAKING FINDINGS;
AUTHORIZING THE LOAN APPLICATION; AUTHORIZING THE LOAN
AGREEMENT; ESTABLISHING PLEDGED REVENUES; DESIGNATING
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES; PROVIDING ASSURANCE; PROVIDING
FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion: Approve Resolution No. 11-20 as read.
Moved by Parsons, Seconded by Daugherty.
Finance Director Nelson Van Liere summarized the Resolution stating this
gives the authority to apply for the State Revolving Fund Loan at a very
reduced interest rate which will pay off the funds borrowed from Sun Trust for
the sewer line and TMDL.
City Manager Hanson further explained we have been very fortunate in this
project, stating we are far enough under budget that we are looking into putting
in the sludge and odor control improvements and are also fortunate in having a
much lower interest rate than we anticipated. He stated in comparing the
numbers from last August for the principal and interest payments that we
anticipated making over the next 20 years with this lower interest rate and the
lower bids, our best estimate is that we will be approximately $213,000 per
year under what was estimated. He stated this is one bright spot in an otherwise
very difficult looking budget coming up and congratulated Donna Kaluzniak
and Nelson Van Liere for a tremendous amount of work in getting all the
paperwork together to get this loan. Commissioner Fletcher commented that
this will soften the requirement for us to have any significant rate increases in
the future for water and sewer. Mr. Van Liere stated that was correct and they
did raise rates in anticipation of having to borrow quite a bit more money and
had also planned to have some future rate increases which they will now be
able to avoid. He stated this will also enable them to transfer more money to
the general fund.
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
B. RESOLUTION NO. 11-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ADOPTING
THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH STRATEGIC PLAN DATED FEBRUARY
2011.
Motion: Approve Resolution No. 11-21 as read.
Moved by Daugherty, Seconded by Woods.
City Manager Hanson summarized the eight goals that were identified by the majority
of the Commission. He stated unless anyone has questions or changes, the
Commission has customarily adopted the final strategic plan in a Resolution form the
past several years.
Commissioner Daugherty stated he would like to have the expansion of Rose Park,
which did not carry over from last year, added back as a priority.
Commissioner Fletcher asked for specifics of what the goals for Rose Park will be.
Commissioner Daugherty explained Rose Park consists of three separate parcels of
land which he would like to see utilized more as a park. Commissioner Fletcher stated
we have limited resources and priorities and he agrees in keeping Rose Park
somewhere in their considerations but asked what specifically, within the next year, do
they want to accomplish there. Commissioner Daugherty stated he understands that
come budgeting time there may not be money available for this but, as funds come
available, he would like this listed as a priority so those funds will be allocated for that
purpose. He stated, to be specific, they had discussed connecting the small empty
parcel of land to the parcel being used as a soccer field and turning the one street into a
cul-de-sac, improving the infrastructure and adding facilities, pavilions etc.
Mayor Borno suggested adding Rose Park under "Other Strategies" as Item B.
Amended Motion: Add Rose Park as Item B under Other Strategies.
Moved by Daugherty, Seconded by Fletcher
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Borno then called for a vote on the original motion, as amended.
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
Action on Ordinances 7. Action on Ordinances
None.
Miscellaneous 8. Miscellaneous Business
Business A. Request from Beaches Habitat for Relief from Lien on Dutton Island Road Lot.
City Manager Hanson gave the background history of this lot, stating Beaches Habitat
was requesting the City grant relief from a lien on the property so they can create a
community garden. He stated the long-term success of this project is not known and
his recommendation would be for the City to keep the lien on the books but agree not
to foreclose on it or take any action as long as Beaches Habitat is maintaining it and
pursuing this community garden.
Ralph Marcello, Executive Director of Beaches Habitat, introduced Becky Murray,
Jade Carlin, and Sarah Rutkowski of AmeriCorp who will be helping with the
community garden initiative. He stated when the property was quit claimed over to
Beaches Habitat they had no idea there was a lien on the property. He requested that
the City not keep the lien on Beaches Habitat. He further stated they would be willing
to pursue other options, such as a deed restriction that the property would only be a
garden, but they do not feel a lien is needed.
Mayor Borno stated he believes this is something they should consider. He stated if
you look at that parcel and if all three surrounding property owners wanted to divide
that property up, the City should have a deed restriction on it that they would have to
replat it. He stated he recommended deferring this until May 23 to give time for staff
to work with Beaches Habitat on how to protect the property.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Mr. Marcello what the adverse impact to him would be
of maintaining a lien that they would not foreclose on and waive accrued interest on.
Mr. Marcello stated, from talking with their attorney, if the lien is on the property, at
some time in the future it could be exercised, for whatever reason, against Beaches
Habitat. He stated he would have no problems leaving it there if there was no future
liability to them. Commissioner Fletcher stated he agrees with the Mayor on deferring
but if there isn't any immediate harm perhaps, down the road, if they see there is a big
improvement then maybe they could waive it. He stated he just believes it is in the
interest of the taxpayers that they should keep it, with the agreement that they don't
want to foreclose, they want it to succeed.
Commissioner Woods stated she believes the option of keeping the lien on the property
is so the City maintains some control over what does or doesn't happen to the property.
She stated either they maintain it as a successful garden or the City gets to regain
control of the property so it doesn't become an issue again.
Commissioner Daugherty stated Beaches Habitat has done a lot of great things in that
neighborhood and believes the history and past performance of Beaches Habitat shows
they are a responsible entity. He fully trusts that they would do everything they can do
to maintain this property, even if they don't use it as a garden. He stated a deed
restriction makes sure that the property is not built on, it lowers the density of the
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
neighborhood and it allows Beaches Habitat to use that land for mitigation purposes for
other projects they have. He stated he is in favor of a motion to release the lien on the
property once the owner does a non -revocable deed restriction to prevent any
permanent structure to be built on the property.
Motion: Release the lien on the property once the owner does a non -revocable
deed restriction to prevent any permanent structure to be built on the property.
Moved by Daugherty
Mr. Marcello stated they would be more than willing to put a restriction that if they
were not successful the property would automatically be deeded back to the City.
City Manager Hanson stated he believes they need to get both attorneys involved but
once they do that it should be simple to work it out.
Commissioner Woods stated she has a problem with deed restrictions, which last a
very long time, because the way communities reinvent themselves she does not like
limitations like that.
Commissioner Parsons stated he was in favor of deferring until they get more
information, etc.
City Attorney Jensen further explained, beginning in November 2009, they tried to
acquire title to the property by buying the tax certificates because taxes had not been
paid on the property for several years. He stated it was owned by a charitable land
trust and the City could not get any response because the only name and address they
had was a P.O. Box. He stated a few days away from a public auction, all the back
taxes were paid. He stated the City still could not get them to pay the lien, so
foreclosure was filed. He stated they didn't have any place to serve the charitable land
trust because they have a P.O. Box, but they were going to publish a notice in the
newspaper and a certified letter was sent to the P.O. Box. He stated he then received a
call from the attorney representing the charitable land trust and from Haywood Ball
informing him the owner of the property signed a deed giving the property to Beaches
Habitat, which was a way for the former owner to try to get out of the lien obligation
and the foreclosure suit. He stated therefore, the foreclosure suit is pending and no
response of pleadings has been filed. He stated he told the attorney to wait to see what
the Commission does. He stated the lien was originally recorded in September 2009
and there is a four or five year statute of limitations to foreclose that lien. He stated if
Beaches Habitat begins exercising ownership dominion and control over this property
as a result of that deed then they are on the hook for it. He stated we don't want to get
in the position if something goes wrong that we are then in an adversary court
proceeding with Beaches Habitat. He stated he believes we can work something out
with Beaches Habitat but they don't have clear title because of our lien. He stated the
key question is what do they want to do about the amount of money that's on the lien,
which is a decision the Commission has to make. Discussion ensued.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
Motion: Defer action until May 23, 2011.
Moved by Parsons, Seconded by Woods.
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
B. Procedure for Reporting on Suits Against the City.
City Manager Hanson read the provision from our Charter regarding suits and
explained this was a holdover from a time before the City had insurance for most
things. He stated we now have insurance for almost everything someone would sue us
for and it is the insurance company's responsibility to do the investigation of these
various claims because they are the ones settling them, after we pay the deductible. He
proposed, in the future, to provide a written report but no investigation in his regular
Commission Meeting report and if there were questions they could call the City
Attorney or the City Manager so as not to have a lot of discussion during the meeting.
He summarized the current outstanding law suits as listed on his staff report.
Motion: Approve the recommendation of submitting suits to the Commission
through the City Manager's written report without an investigation.
Moved by Daugherty, Seconded by Fletcher.
Commissioner Daugherty expressed concern that we are spending more on attorney's
fees than we are able to recoup from the actual fines on some of the lien suits. Mr.
Jensen stated the judgments are for $500 plus cost and by the time there is a lien on a
property we have obtained a judgment. Mr. Hanson stated we probably have more
than 100 outstanding liens, which the City Clerk keeps track of. He stated we get paid
for about one or two of these a month, usually because someone wants to refinance,
etc. He further stated he and Mr. Jensen have had a lot of discussions on the costs for
filing liens and what his cost is and he is not going to spend Mr. Jensen's time to
collect something unless it is worth collecting. Mayor Borno asked how long liens are
good for. Mr. Jensen stated they vary but most are four years but sometimes up to six
or seven years. He stated Code Enforcement Board liens can be good for twenty years.
Mayor Borno asked if there was a tickler for liens ready to expire to see if we need to
renew them. Ms. Bartle stated she did not realize liens expire so they are all on the list.
Mr. Jensen explained liens don't expire, there is a statute of limitations. Discussion
ensued.
Commissioner Woods asked about the format of the report and if Mr. Hanson will list
all of the suits and give a synopsis. Mr. Hanson stated he would only list the new suits.
She asked how we would get updates once a lawsuit started. Mr. Hanson stated the
updates should be given verbally, not in public, because with the insurance companies
trying to settle it's not something you would want to have a discussion on when the
reporters are here. Commissioner Woods stated she wasn't asking for a strategy
update, just any action that has happened. Mr. Hanson stated the highest deductible
they have on any of these is $10,000 so usually when they settle he reports it to the
Commission privately. He stated when they have a case that has some serious issues
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
they may ask for a shade meeting. He stated if she wants an update on any of the suits
she can call either Mr. Jensen or him. He further stated if the insurance companies are
handling them, Mr. Jensen would not have that much detail, but George Foster keeps
files of the correspondence from the insurance companies.
Commissioner Fletcher stated, to put this in the perspective of the insurance business,
the lower the level of information communicated from both Mr. Jensen and Mr.
Hanson, the better it is for the City to protect our own legal position with insurance
coverage.
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
C. Advanced Disposal Annual CPI Cost Adjustment Request.
Mr. Hanson recognized Tammy Wilson, the General Manager of Advanced
Disposal who was in the audience. Public Works Director Rick Carper
explained the City received a letter from Advanced Disposal requesting a
Consumer Price Index cost of living increase to their annual contract. He
further added our contract states the City shall grant the request, so this is for
information. He stated this is the first CPI increase we have had in three years,
which coupled with the fuel increase, takes us to about $15.70 per residential
unit per month which compares to $15.25 when the contract initiated three
years ago.
Commissioner Daugherty asked when the contract was initiated and when does
the option come up. Mr. Carper stated the contract started June 1, 2008 and
comes up in 2014, with an option to renew for five years.
Discussion ensued regarding some issues with the trash pickup.
Tammy Wilson, District Manager of Advanced Disposal, explained this time
of year they are loaded so they have to adhere strictly to the 5 cubic yard
guideline, but five months out of the year they should pick up everything that is
out. She stated if they have any issues please call her and she will help in any
way she can. She stated they want to make sure the residents are getting what
they are paying them to do and it is not acceptable to have recycling bins
blocking people's driveways. She stated if they have an issue, let her know and
she will resolve it, period. She reiterated the customers should get what they
are paying for.
City Attorney Jensen left the meeting at 7:14 pm.
D. Stormwater Master Plan Scope & Fees Approval.
Mr. Carper pointed out that attached to the agenda packet was the draft scope and fee
proposal from CDM which he has brought before the Commission for their approval to
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
do the Stormwater Master Plan update for the City. He further explained the focus of
the Stormwater Master Plan update.
Motion: Approve the Scope of Services and Fee Proposal for the Stormwater
Master Plan Update and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract with
CDM.
Moved by Fletcher, Seconded by Parsons.
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
E. Art in Public Places.
Recreation & Special Events Director Timmy Johnson stated the Commission
previously approved the Art in Public Places program with the understanding that the
artwork and location would come back for final approval. He stated although they met
with several artists, they only have one proposal from Ginifer Brinkley for their review
and approval. He stated Jolyn Johnson was in the audience if they had any
questions/concerns about the art.
Motion: Approve the art proposal from Ginifer Brinkley to be installed on the
restroom at Donner Park and approve the site locations for Art in Public Places to
be the Lift Station at Donner Park and the Lift Station on Camelia Street.
Moved by Parsons, Seconded by Daugherty.
Commissioner Woods stated the design for the restroom was available but she didn't
see any for the two lift stations. Mr. Johnson stated their plan was to get the locations
approved so the artist will have some idea of what they are putting the artwork on. He
stated without the location, they can't get anything from the artist. He stated the final
design will come back to the Commission for approval.
Commissioner Daugherty stated he doesn't believe it is necessary for the Commission
to approve the final design. He believes they can trust Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hanson to
do that. Mayor Borno stated that is not what they had decided on. Commissioner
Daugherty asked if there is a coating put on the artwork to protect it from graffiti so the
graffiti could easily be removed. Mr. Johnson stated they could make that request to
the artist, although they have not had a problem in the past with the other art.
Commissioner Daugherty asked, if in order to save time, could the Commission just let
the Committee make the art decisions. He asked if that is something they want to have
oversight on. Mayor Borno stated he believes the final approval should come back to
the Commission, because the artist's concept may not be something we feel
appropriate. He stated that is the Commission's responsibility. Commissioner Parsons
stated he also believes it should come back to the Commission .
April 25, 2011 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 10
Votes:
Aye: 5 — Borno, Daugherty, Fletcher, Parsons, Woods
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Jolyn Johnson asked why the lifeguard station was not included as a location as was
originally submitted. Mr. Hanson stated he asked that it be taken off the list. He stated
the lifeguard station is going to be a lot more delicate in terms of dealing with the
Town Center interests. He stated he believed it was inappropriate to ask the
Commission for a blanket approval on that since they will need more input from people
before anything can be put on that location. Mayor Borno stated the location is still a
possibility.
City Manager 9. City Manager
A. City Manager's Report.
Mr. Hanson reported on the latest alcohol deployment stating they only had one
business sell to minors, the Safari Food Store at 1197 Mayport Road.
Reports/Requests
City Commissioners
City Attorney
Mr. Hanson announced the beach renourishment is a go and the Corp of Engineers has
awarded the contract to The Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company. He stated the
contract value is $11,804,400 with construction starting around July 1.
10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and City Attorney
Commissioner Daugherty
• Congratulated Jolyn Johnson and Timmy Johnson and their staff on their work
on the Arts in the Park, stating he felt it was an amazing event.
• Discussed the beach renourishment.
• Remembered Dezmond Waters, stating he was an amazing member of our
community.
Commissioner Parsons
• Further discussed the beach renourishment, stating Ander Crenshaw had a lot to
do with it and has done a great job for us.
• Wished a belated birthday to the City Clerk.
• Reminisced about Dezmond Waters, stating he was in Dezmond's very first
home room class and was also taught by him that first year, then years later sat
next to each other as Commissioners. Stated he was one terrific man.
Commissioner Fletcher
• Reported on his trip to Tallahassee and speaking to the legislature on pension
reform on behalf of the City. Stated this was his first foray into Tallahassee on
behalf of the City. He stated the people who have gone there before him have
done a terrific job forging a great relationship with our legislators and with the
Florida League of Cities. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity.
April 25, 2011
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 11
Mayor Borno
• Thanked Commissioner Fletcher for being available to go to Tallahassee for the
City. Commissioner Parsons stated Mayor Borno should be commended for
that work too. He stated Dezmond Waters really worked at it and then Mayor
Borno took over and both have done such a good job and were so dedicated.
• Stated he has lost a good friend in Dezmond Waters; he was a true gentleman.
Adjournment There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:39
p.m.
Mike Borno, Mayor/Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
Donna L. Bartle, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM # 2A
MAY 9, 2011
PROCLAMATION
City of Atlantic Beach, Florida
WHEREAS, public works and public utilities services provided in our community are an integral part
of our citizens' everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation
of public works systems and programs such as water, sewers, streets and highways, public buildings,
solid waste collection, parks and canal maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety, and comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities and
services; and
WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design, and
construction, is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works officials; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel, who staff public works and
public utilities departments, is materially influenced by the people's attitude and understanding of the
importance of the work they perform.
WHEREAS, this year's theme is "Public Works: Serving you and your community" as we
celebrate the hard work and dedication of the many public works professional throughout the world.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Commission of the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida does hereby
proclaim the week of May 15 through May 21, 2011 as
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
in the City of Atlantic Beach, and calls upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint
themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works; and to recognize the contributions
which public works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED in regular session this
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF Atlantic Beach, FLORIDA
Mayor
H
w
H
H
O
M
u)
7w�WOW 0)
O
zH4
M \ 0
O H
4104
z\4
H.4.‹
MO
AM
MW4
P P
NW
OW
• cn
WHP
IoW
H N H
H "
H < W
U >H O
W oa
U W H
H U) W
4ZW
WQ
0
H
a
ri
w
z
m
H
M
m4
mrd
•M
H
HO
\ •ri
O G N
\ cd N
+� a
<0
Q
W(1-1
04›,0
W 4JO
a -H 12i
NUN
BUS PHONE #
CLASSIFICATION
RESTAURANTS(INC.
MISCELLANEOUS SALES, OTHER THAN
RECORDS/TAPES/CD/VIDEO SALES
904-838-7637
SOLICITATION, DOOR TO DOOR
904-568-4329
PAINTING/PAPER HANGING
MISCELLANEOUS SALES, OTHER THAN
ENGINEER FIRM/CORPORATION
904-652-4200
ENGINEER
z z z z z z z z
H H H H H H H H
0 H H H H H H H H
D
co co co m m co co co
U) H H H H H H H H
H cl. cl. C C cl. C cl. C
cn
0)
Z<
CTI CT)
O O
AA
HH
O O
MM
U
H
a
H
O
M
H M
MAN
N
M
a0w
00<
HHa H M
Oa
Ori
0MN
11-00007359
U
H
a
CO
CO
N
Mnw
MM
00<
NHw
0 EH
z M
go
zHH
4<
HHa
HHP
11-00007375
N
N
M
aW
Hmo
XI -DM
x
HWO
O M H
MXP
0
11-0
Mkp<
11-00007373
904-652-4200
H
CO
CO
u)
c+)
H O
mm
H
a
ai
M
O
cncn
cn
O
W
w
M
904-662-9374
ART GALLERY/DEALER
1.1
W W
z z
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
MAY 9, 2011
VENDING MACHINE
W
z
630-756-8098
VENDING MACHINE
W
z
630-756-8098
Z
0
U
cn
z
H H .--I H H
H H H H H
CO ▪ O ▪ CO ▪ O ▪ CO
H H H H H
u)
OZ m O
co Z a M M X M Z M Z M M
M H CO M 0 M 0 M 0 CO H CO
N- MN HN H u) N H u) N H N HN
N (D4N HN HHN HHN H N MZN
M H4 M H M W H M WP M 0 M ZM
D
4 H H 4 H4 H H 4 H H 4 H 4 1-1(214
1.+ Z>G+ AN OZU OZG+ ANN rx>G+
H• 4�x Mx wzx NI M M aWx
O N<0 .00 00 00 .F10 4 0
m> -I4 0>4 W>4 w>r< oo< 4104
WHW maw Z 4 W N 4 W x 4 W 0I -l1 X H w
ZHM PHM HMM HMM HMM (nM HE -1
O
WH 4a0 H WZ0 AuE H W FC H W. H 1241-1H H F H
00E- MP WWP z W H ZWEH 0 4 H U H H
u;.0 U
00 W z 4
E H4 004 40444' 00 00
W0W4 anza4'
00H HH OOH WOH WOE ZtDE WNH
WO4 r c' XL04 Zko4 Z°< 0,--i< 4N 1
to D .-1 C' C' N D
N O O N N N N
CO M CO CO M M CO
N N N N N N N
O O O O O 0 O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
H H H H H H -1
H H H H H H -1
O
00
0
0
0aM
z> -IH
• HWz
• 4
N
M
D
D
O
D
H
FL 32233
0
a a
a a x
H
a M a M 4
N N W
H N H N Z
I M f1 M
Qi
Q f+ Q f.i W
41
H U H U a U
W 0EE-�W WHW
0E -i
00 U D O U PHM pHM
U 00
WH WH u]WH
O Q H O Q H HA H Q H
MQH44HN
MQH- ZN
NO< ao< ao<
z
U H
517-349-6000
FL 32233
11-00007358
11-00007367
11-00007371
CLASSIFICATION
BUS PHONE #
MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT
LICENSE
904-885-4371
904-885-4371
H
W
w
Ch
cn
cn
w
z
co
co
co co
N N
N N
M c'1
a a
cn w w
co x x
wx a
Ho a
wHo
Q a cc)c: acfi(:
O
0 z2XEwm XEm
m ni co co •c0 •c0
m W W E-1
H
r-, HH ��� �a��a
I U H H
\-H cncn cnoa moa
O 0N pa cq U coNH .0- N E1
\ (tlN o) co
H -I
+)a
Q
,O
o
#k
a >1
W 4 O 0
04 •H c4 H
124 U W a
11-00007365
11-00007366
a
0
Q
C7
cn
Cl)
z
U
1-1
Wl00000000lo
,
UW ZOCD c4m0H
ry'WH>WmODa
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
MAY 9, 2011
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Community Development Board Order denying ZVAR-2011-
01, request for a variance from Section. 24-107(e)(2) to reduce the
required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to , allow for the future
construction of a residential structure on a nonconforming lot of record
of substandard size located on the west side of the right-of-way at 1725
Beach Avenue.
SUBMITTED BY: Erika Hall,
Principal Planner
DATE: April 21, 2011
BACKGROUND: On March 18, 2011, Staff received notice of intended appeal of the
Community Development Board's denial of the above -referenced variance request, ZVAR-2011-01.
The official appeal was received on April 12, 2011, thereby meeting the filing requirements of
Section 24-49(b) of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
Public hearings by local governments to decide land use and zoning applications are quasi-judicial in
nature, and consideration of appeal of quasi-judicial decisions by local governments are subject to
the "strict scrutiny" standard of review, meaning those bodies are limited to review of the record
made during the proceedings, and particularly addressing the following questions:
• Whether procedural due process was afforded;
• Whether the administrative body applied the correct law; and,
• Whether findings are supported by substantial competent evidence.
This staff report addresses the Wolfsons' charges within the framework of these questions.
I. HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Donald and Karen Wolfson own an oceanfront lot at 1725 Beach Avenue, as well as a 70' wide by
50' deep lot located on the west side of Beach Avenue right-of-way. Such lots of substandard size
located west side of Beach Avenue right-of-way, previously known as Garage Approach Roadway,
are not individually platted. Rather, they are remnants of Government Lots 3, 4 and 7, and
collectively make up a 50' deep strip of land which was conveyed to the Neptune Beach Terrace, Inc
by R -C -B -S Corporation, on May 2, 1936. Directly abutting the eastern boundaries of Ocean Grove
Unit No. 2 (recorded July 18, 1947) and Beachside (recorded July 17, 1986), these lots were then
sold as accessory lots to the corresponding oceanfront lots east of the right-of-way.
May 9, 2011 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
The Wolfsons acquired the above-described property on June 3, 1981. At that time, the area was
known as Seminole Beach, was located within the City of Jacksonville, and was subject to the
zoning, land use and development regulations of the City of Jacksonville. However, Seminole
Beach was annexed into the City of Atlantic Beach, effective January 1, 1987.
II. DECISION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGARDING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE, ZVAR-2011-01
On January 24, 2011, the Wolfsons submitted an application "requesting a variance of rear yard
setback allowing for reasonable use of the property" due to the "substandard size of a lot of record".
The subject property is vacant, and no known documents indicate it has been previously constructed.
A. Procedural Due Process
The application for variance was processed and scheduled for public hearing according to the
provisions of Section 24-64, and sufficient notice as required by Section 24-51 was given
prior to each meeting at which the application was considered. The record of each meeting
reflects the opportunities afforded to the Wolfsons to address the Board regarding this
request. Staff presentations, public comments, and Board discussions and disclosures of ex
parte communications are also documented. Further, the City Attorney was present at the
March 15th meeting and provided procedural guidance to the Board.
However, Mr. Wolfson alleges there has been a denial of procedural due process, stating in
his April 13th supplemental letter that he "was not allowed to present evidence to rebut the
position the Board took as a result of its discussions". Yet the record shows that, in addition
to the unlimited time allotted to the applicant to present his case at both the February 15t11 and
March 15th meetings, dialogue with the applicant continued throughout the Board's
discussion phase, as members asked for additional details or point of clarification on a
number of issues. If the applicant failed to present a vital piece of evidence during the
presentation of his case, it is not by any error of the Board.
B. Application of the Correct Law
The Wolfsons' petition is in response to denial of a request for a zoning variance, on a parcel
that was annexed into the City of Atlantic Beach, effective January 1, 1987. The Wolfsons
claim that assurances were made to owners of annexed properties that future development of
the area would be allowed to comply with City of Jacksonville regulations, rather than those
of the City of Atlantic Beach, subsequent to the annexation. City of Atlantic Beach
Ordinance No. 90-86-112, adopted on December 8, 1986, and made effective concurrent with
annexation on January 1, 1987, reads as follows:
The zoning atlas of the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida is hereby amended to
extend its boundaries to include the area known as Seminole Beach and
Oceanwalk, and to provide for the rezoning of those areas as indicated on the
snap attached hereto and made a part hereof and further providing for the
extension thereto of all the required setbacks and height limitations as
currently provided for in Chapter 24 of the Atlantic Beach comprehensive
zoning ordinance.
May 9, 2011 regular meeting
2
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Thus, Chapter 24, Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, provides the
correct and applicable context for consideration of this request. Specifically, the Wolfsons
requested a reduction in the required rear yard setback from twenty (20) feet to seven (7) feet
— verbally amended to ten (10) feet at the March 15th meeting — for a nonconforming lot of
record, located in the Residential, Two -Family Zoning District, on the west side of the right-
of-way at 1725 Beach Avenue.
As a lot of substandard size, the subject parcel does not meet the minimum lot area or
dimensional criteria required for the construction of a single-family dwelling. However,
existence of the lot predates the zoning code (adopted July 26, 1982) in effect at the time of
annexation. The provisions of Section 24-85, Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures, are
also applicable, and state, in part:
It is the intent of this Section to recognize the legal rights entitled to property
owners of existing nonconforming lots, uses and structures and to permit such
non -conformities to continue in accordance with such rights, but not to
otherwise encourage their continued survival. Furthermore, the presence of
any nonconforming characteristic shall not be considered as justification for
the granting of variances, • and any nonconforming structure or use, which is
made conforming, shall not be permitted to revert to any nonconforming
structure or use.
When a lot or parcel of land has a lot area or frontage that does not conform
with the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, but was a
legally established and documented lot of record prior to the adoption of this
code or previous codes and applicable Atlantic Beach ordinances, such lot or
parcel of land may be used for one single-family dwelling in any residential
zoning district, provided the minimum yard requirements for that residential
zoning district are maintained, or provided that the owner of said lot has
obtained a variance from the Community Development Board, in accordance
with the requirements of Section 24-64 of this Chapter.
Section 24-17, Definitions, defines a zoning variance as:
...a relief granted from certain terms of this Chapter. The relief granted shall
be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this Chapter and may be either
an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict,
literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in
accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this Chapter,
and such relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic
Beach.
C. Substantial Competent Evidence
The Community Development Board's denial of the Wolfson variance request is not arbitrary
and the decision is supported, in the record, by evidence that is both legally competent and
quantifiably substantial. The provisions of Section 24-64 were diligently applied to this
May 9, 2011 regular meeting
3
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
request, and the evidence as put for by Staff, the Wolfsons, and adjacent property owners was
weighed against those standards. The final decision hinges upon two factors:
(1)
The applicability of the City of Jacksonville Zoning Code.
The Wolfsons seek a reduction from the required rear yard setback of twenty (20) feet
to ten (10) feet, which is consistent with the City of Jacksonville's required rear yard
setback for the Seminole Beach area at the time annexation. However, they have
offered no documentation establishing an official agreement between the City of
Atlantic Beach and property owners, that would grant those owners a perpetual right
to invoke Jacksonville land development regulations. Neither has Staff been able to
locate such documentation. Staff did find Ordinance No. 90-86-112, referenced
above, and a Staff Memo issued to Atlantic Beach and Seminole Beach residents at
the time of annexation, on the subject of "Vital Statistics and General Information",
which included the following item regarding zoning:
(a) Any permits issued prior to January 1987 will be honored.
(b) Zoning of the area will be compatible with existing zoning, i.e., single-
family/multi-family.
(c) Any permissible activity allowed by the City of Jacksonville will be honored.
Consideration of these two documents clearly establishes the jurisdictional authority
over and applicability of the City of Atlantic Beach Land Development Regulations
to the subject property.
(2) The definition of "reasonable use".
"Reasonable use" is a legal concept articulated by federal and state courts in
regulatory takings cases. Within the context of those cases, and for the general
purpose of land development regulations, "reasonable use" means any use allowed by
the local code. Section 24-107, Residential Two -Family (RG) Zoning District,
permits single-family, two-family and accessory residential uses, in compliance with
the specified residential development standards which are also consistent with the
residential densities defined by the Comprehensive Plan.
Given these determinations and the findings of fact based upon the expert testimonies of
Staff and affected adjacent property owners offering verifiable evidence, and absent refutable
evidence to the contrary, the Community Development Board concluded that use of the
subject property for the construction of a residential accessory such as a detached garage with
living quarters subordinate and incidental to the principal structure on the oceanfront parcel,
is a reasonable use.
A single story garage may be built to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet and a maximum
lot coverage area of six hundred (600) square feet, and may be located five (5) feet from rear
and side property lines; while a two story garage may be built to a maximum height of
twenty-five (25) feet and a maximum lot coverage area of six hundred (600) square feet, and
may be located ten (10) feet from the rear property line.
May 9, 2011 regular meeting
4
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Contrasting these parameters for a residential accessory to the current limitations for the
construction of a single family residential structure on the subject lot indicates that this is not
only a reasonable use of the property, but also the best and most efficient use of the property.
The table below summarizes the development potential of the lot according to three possible
scenarios.
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
1 -STORY GARAGE
W/ APT -GH
2 -STORY GARAGE
W/APT-GH
2 -STORY SF
RESIDENCE
MAX
HEIGHT
V 15.0'
V 25.0'
V 24.5
FRONT
SETBACK
V 20.0'
V 20.0'
» 20.0'
SE REBACK
V 5.0'
d 10.0'
? 20.0'
SIDE
SETBACK
5.0'
(15.0'combined)
V 5.0'
(15.0, combined)
V 5.0'
(15.0 combined)
MIN ENCLX
AREA
N/A
N/A
650 SQ FT (1ST)
1000 SQ FT TTL
MAXLOT
COVERAGE
V 600 SQ FT
V 600 SQ FT
N/A
COMPLIANCE
5/5
5/5
4/5
SUMMARY
o Structure is compact but
does not maximize floor
area
o One side of lot remains
open and useable for
green space and/or add'l
parking without totally
obstructing or
interrupting the flow of
air and light to adjacent
properties to the west
o As a residential
accessory, ancillary to the
principal residence on the
oceanfront lot, any living
quarters in this unit
cannot be legally rented
or sold separate of the
oceanfront lot.
o Structure is compact, but
efficient and maximizes
floor area
® One side of lot remains
open and useable for
green space and/or add'l
parking without totally
obstructing or
interrupting the flow of
air and light to adjacent
properties to the west
o As a residential
accessory, ancillary to the
principal residence on the
oceanfront lot, living
quarters in this unit
cannot be legally rented
sold separate of the
oceanfront lot
o Requires a minimum 2'
variance to meet min
enclosed area
o Structure will extend
across entire lot to meet
min enclosed area, and
will severely obstruct or
interrupt flow of air and
light to adjacent
properties to west
o Does not allow for add'l
parking pad on side
o As a single-family
residential principal
structure, such a unit may
be legally rented long -
term or even sold
separately of the main
oceanfront parcel
TABLE ZVAR-2011-01A.1: LOT DEVELOPMENT AND LDR COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
May 9, 2011 regular meeting
5
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the decision of the Community Development Board
denying ZVAR-2011-01, finding that no error was made in procedural due process or
application of law, and that the decision is sufficiently supported by substantial competent
evidence.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A.1 Wolfson Letter of Appeal (April 12, 2011)
Exhibit A.2 Wolfson Supplemental Letter (April 13, 2011)
Exhibit B.1 CDB Order Denying ZVAR-2011-01
Exhibit C.1 CDB Minutes (March 15, 2011)
Exhibit C.2 CDB Minutes (February 15, 2011)
Exhibit D.1 ZVAR-2011-01 Document Index
(Please contact staff to request digital access and/or hard copies)
BUDGET: None.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
May 9, 2011 regular meeting
6
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
CITY OF ATLANTIC 1.=E+ ACII
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5826
Application Number 11-00100040
Property Address 1726 BEACH AVE
Application type description APPEALS
Property Zoning RES GEN 2F DISTRICT
Application valuation . 0
Date 4/12/11
Application desc
ZVAR-2011-01/REAR SB/APPEAL TO CC
Owner
Contractor
OWNER
Permit.
Additional desc
Permit Fee .
Issue Date . .
Expiration Date
APPEALS
50.00
4/12/11
Plan Check Fee . .00
Valuation . . . 0
Special Notes and Comments
APPROVED TO PROCESS CHECK ONLY
Fee summary Charged Paid Credited Due
Permit Fee Total
Plan Check Total
Grand Total
City of Atlantic Beach
*** CUSTOMER RECEIPT ***
Open; DSMI'H Type: OC Drawer;�1
Date; 4/12/11 01 Receipt no; 43722
Description Quantity
2011 100040
BP BUILDING PERMITS
1.00
Aaount
€50,N
50.00
.00
50.00
50.00
.00
50.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Tender detail
CK CHECK 5009 $50.00
Total tendered €50.00
Total paynent €50.00
Tana date; 4112/11 Tine; 10;46-;311
PERMIT IS APPROVED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE \VITA ALL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDINANCES AND THE FLORIDA
BUILDING CODES.
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Karen and Donald M. Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
904-394-8190
donaldwolfson@cs.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY
April 12, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr, Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
RE: ZVAR-2011-01
Dear Ms. Doerr:
Per the email dated April 1, 2011 from Ms. Erika Hall, please accept this letter as our appeal of the
decision of the Community Development Board issued Tuesday evening, March 15`h. It was our
intention to come before the City Commission on April 25`h, however, we had a scheduling conflict.
Therefore, we request that our appeal be placed on the agenda for the next City Commission meeting
on Monday, May 9th
Enclosed you will find our amended letter dated April 2nd to you which I hope you find to be self-
explanatory: Also, enclosed please find the Planning & Zoning Appeal fee of $50.00 as listed in Section
24-69 (a)(1) and referred to in Ms. Hall's email of April 15`
We hope that this request and payment is compliant with all of the provisions as set forth in 24-49(b).
Should you require anything else, please let us know at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
(N -r\
Donald M. Wolfson
Encls.
APPu I I- 0010004o
Ms. Sonya Doerr
April 12, 2011
Page two
CC:
Erika Hall, Principal Planner, City of Atlantic Beach
Louis M. Borno, Mayor
John L. Fletcher, City Commissioner
Paul B. Parsons, City Commissioner
Jonathan Daugherty, City Commissioner,
Carolyn R. Woods, City Commissioner
Alan Jensen, City Attorney, City of Atlantic Beach
Howard L. Dale, Esq., Attorney -at -Law
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
AA ii-noicoxo
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Karen and Donald M. Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
904-394-8190
donaldwolfson@cs.com
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL—Amended
April 2, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr, Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole. Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
RE: ZVAR-2011-01
Dear Ms. Doerr:
Tuesday evening, March 15`h, the 5-2 vote against the motion to approve our variance request denied
the variance necessary for us to build a single family structure on our property beyond the permissible
minimum set -backs. Presently, we are permitted to build a single family residence within the 10' x 55'
footprint (Le. 550 square feet) as depicted on the power point slide that was presented to members of
the ABCDB.
Section 24-82(j)(1) and (2) specifically requires the following minimum floor area for single family
residential dwelling units:
1. One (1) story: One thousand (1,000) square feet of enclosed living area.
2. Two (2) story: Six hundred fifty (650) square feet of enclosed coverage on the ground floor and
not less than a total of one thousand (1,000) square feet of enclosed living area.
Without a variance, building a single family structure within the permissible 550 square feet footprint
does not allow compliance with either one of these requirements. Furthermore, a standard garage
measures 20' deep by 10' wide per car thus making it impossible to include a garage capable of housing
a broad range of vehicles including but not limited to: a MINI Cooper (12.13' long), a Honda Civic
(14.78' long), a Chevrolet Suburban (18.67' long), etc. Without a variance, we cannot under any
circumstances include a garage within a permissible structure having a 10' depth.
The action of the ABCDB has placed a hardship upon us. Without the variance requested, or without a
variance reducing the rear yard and/or the front yard setbacks, we cannot build a single family structure
on this nonconforming lot of record. Any time the government, in this case the ABCDB, over -regulates a
piece of property so that it no longer has any practical use, such action as the one taken by the ABCDB,
in my opinion, constitutes a "taking" through the denial of our variance request or at least grounds for
relief under the Bert Harris Act. The action taken by the ABCDB eliminating the practical use of our
A`'rL- ``-Wvott
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr—Amended
April 2, 2011
Page two
property constitutes a taking of the most serious kind —the denial of the basic property rights of tax
paying citizens.
We respectfully invoke our right to appeal the legality of this decision before the City Commission and if
necessary before a court of law. At your earliest convenience, please provide me with the necessary
documents to apply for a hearing before the May 9h City Commission meeting. I request the detailed
minutes of the last two meetings of the ABCDB before which our variance request was discussed as well
as the complete list of names of those persons speaking before the Board on this matter.
Enclosed please find our check #5009 in the amount of $50.00 for the Planning & Zoning Appeal fee.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Wolfson
Encl.
CC:
Erika Hall, Principal Planner, City of Atlantic Beach
Alan Jensen, City Attorney, City of Atlantic Beach
Chris Lambertson, Community Development Board, Chairman
Christopher "Blaine Adams, Community Development Board
Kelly Elmore, Community Development Board
Ellen Glasser, Community Development Board
Brea Paul, Community Development Board
Harleston Parkes, Community Development Board
Kirk Hansen, Community Development Board
Howard L. Dale, Esq., Attorney -at -Law
POL, \A' 00 [COW
Karen and Donald M. Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
904-394-8190
donaldwolfson@cs.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY - SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL LETTER OF APRIL 12, 2011
April 13, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr, Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
RE: ZVAR-2011-01
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Dear Ms. Doerr:
Besides our request for the appeal of the decision of the Community Development Board dated April 12,
2011, please be advised that in addition to the concerns raised previously, specific grounds for the basis
for our appeal to the City Commission Monday, May 9th should include, but not be limited to the fact
that there is not competent substantial evidence to support the decision rendered by the Community
Development Board.
1 was not afforded due process in presenting our case as I was not allowed to present evidence to rebut
the position the Board took as a result of its discussions. The Chairman closed the floor for rebuttal and
the Board's action to deny our variance was in conflict with Section 24-82(j)(1) and (2).
Furthermore, the decision of the Board conflicts with all reasons for grounds for approval of a variance
as set forth in 24-64(d),(1-6):
(1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to
other properties in the area.
(4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or
after construction of improvements upon the property. Initial Effective Date: January 01, 2002
Last amended: March 08, 2010 by Ordinance 90-10-212 26
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr
April 13, 2011
Page two
(5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) substandard size of a Lot of Record warranting a Variance in order to provide for the
reasonable Use of the property.
Specifically, the Board found that our request did not comply with Section 24-64 of the Zoning and
Subdivision Regulations, which findings are set forth below and followed with our responses as duly
noted and set forth in bold type:
(1) The property is not of irregular shape warranting special conditions...
NOTE: Our property IS irregular in shape warranting special conditions since the
depth of the lot is 50',
(2) The substandard size of the lot of record neither warrants a variance in order to provide for
the reasonable use of the property nor are there other exceptional circumstances
preventing the reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the area...
NOTE: Minimum front and rear yard setbacks are 20' each leaving a footprint depth of
10' and with the minimum side yard setback requirements being a combined 15'.
Building a structure with a 10' depth Is not functional. Also, these setbacks would
allow for a single family structure to have a maximum footprint of 550sf which is in
conflict with the minimum floor area requirements, as stated above, for single family
residential dwelling units as set forth in 24-82(j)(1)(2), single family residential
dwelling units being permissible on this lot in the City of Jacksonville prior to
annexation of Seminole Beach by Atlantic Beach. Without granting the reduction of
the rear yard setback from 20' to 10', a 50' deep lot is an exceptional circumstance
preventing the reasonable use of the property compared to other 50' deep lots in the
area granted historical variances that provided relief allowing for reasonable use of
the property;
(3) The granting of the variance will have a materially adverse impact on the light and air to
adjacent properties, public safety, including risk of fire, traffic safety and general congestion
of streets, the natural environment of the community and established property values...
NOTE:
The 10' variance requested is not one of height and therefore, there is no adverse
impact on the light and air to adjacent properties vis a vis 24-82(c) which is carefully
addressed in the Code to which we intend to adhere. The height percentage reduction
for non -conforming lots of record was established to address this concern and thus
the Board ignored this requirement failing to recognize that the parameters of 24-
82(c) are applicable to this request;
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr
April 13, 2011
Page three
There are no public safety issues, specifically risk of fire as there will be at the very
least 30' between the rear wall planes of each adjacent structure and historically, this
margin between structures has been determined to be safe and approved time and
again in workshops attended by the COAB fire chief over a 14 year period;
Traffic safety and general congestion of streets - the permitting of residences between
17th and 18`h Streets along the west side of Beach Avenue has never been denied for
this reason and in fact has been approved specifically addressing this concern;
Adverse impact on the natural environment of the community— since the annexation
of Seminole Beach in 1987 and through 2010,12 residential structures have been
permitted and built nullifying this argument of the Board;
Adverse.impact on established property values — in 1991, our property value soared
2,400% immediately after the construction of 1778 Beach Avenue in 1989 and the
property values along the west side of Beach Avenue have risen constantly with the
construction of each single family residential unit again nullifying the argument by the
Board to deny our variance based upon a materially adverse impact on established
property values.
(4) The granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
Chapter 24, City of Atlantic Beach Zoning and Subdivision Regulations...
NOTE: Our answers address the concerns of the Board as set forth in the Order
Denying Variance dated March 23, 2011. We believe that there is no substantiation
relative to the variance not being in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
Chapter 24 that was offered by the Board that validated the denial of our variance
request.
We sincerely appreciate you accepting this Supplemental Notice in addition to the letter of appeal that
was hand delivered to your office Tuesday morning. We hope that this request and the payment that
was submitted Tuesday is compliant with all of the provisions as set forth in 24-49(b).
Should you require anything else, please let us know at your earliest convenience.
I hereby verify that the above statements are true and correct.
Sincerely,
C."4 V-sk,
Donald M. Wolfson
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr
April 13, 2011
Page four
CC:
Erika Hall, Principal Planner, City of Atlantic Beach
Louis M. Borno, Mayor
John L. Fletcher, City Commissioner
Paul B. Parsons, City Commissioner
Jonathan Daugherty, City Commissioner,
Carolyn R. Woods, City Commissioner
Alan Jensen, City Attorney, City of Atlantic Beach
Christopher A. White , Esq., Attorney -at -Law
APPLICANT:
FIL
City of Atlantic Beach • S00 Seminole Road , Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-544
Phone: (904) 247-5800 • FAX (904) 247-5845 • www.coab.us
ORDE
of the Community ) evelopment Board
for the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida
Donald and Karen Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
FILE NUMBER: ZVAR-2011-01
DATE OF HEARING: March 15, 2011
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
ORDER DENYING VARIANCE
Pursuant to Section 24-49 and Section 24-64 of the City of Atlantic Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations, the above referenced applicant requested a variance from Section 24-107 (e) (2), such
application seeking to allow a reduction in a required rear yard to allow for the future construction of
a residential structure on a non -conforming 70' wide x 50' deep lot of record located on the west
side of the right-of-way at 1725 Beach Avenue,
On March 15, 2011, said request was considered at public hearing by the Community Development
Board for the City of Atlantic Beach. Having considered the application and supporting documents
and statements made by the Applicant, the Community Development Board found that the request
did not comply with. Section 24-49 and Section 24-64 the City of Atlantic Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Regulations, finding as follows::
1. The property is not of irregular shape warranting special conditions, neither are there
exceptional topographic conditions of or• near the property, nor are there surrounding
conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties;
The substandard size of the lot of record neither warrants a variance in order to
provide for the reasonable use of the property, nor are there other exceptional
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Page 2 of 2
ZVAR-2017-01 Order
March 17, 2011
circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property compared to other
properties in the area;
3. The granting of the variance will have a materially adverse impact on the light and air
to adjacent properties, public safety, including risk of fire, traffic safety and general
congestion of streets, the natural environment of the community, and established
property values;
4. The granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of Chapter 24, City of Atlantic Beach Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the said findings, the Community Development Board hereby
DENIES the request to allow a reduction in a required rear yard to allow for the future construction
of a residential structure on a non -conforming 70' wide x 50' deep lot of record located on the west
side of the right-of-way at 1725 Beach Avenue.
DATED THIS 25 DAY OF i lQ,i' t , 2011.
ii��
%—
Cliris`fambertson, Chairman
Community Development Board
The undersigned certifies that the above Order of the Community Development Board is a true and
correct rendition of the Order adopted by said Board as the same appears in the record of the
Community Development Board minutes.
Community eveloprneiit Director
1
2
3
Draft Alinutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
1
4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETIGN'OF TIIE
5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBOARD
Tuesday, March 15;2011
6
7
8
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
9 The regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at'6:02 pm on Tuesday, March
10 15, 2011 in the City Hall Commission Chambers,'alocated at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. In
11 attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall, City: Attorney Alan, Jensen, and Board members Blaine
12 Adams, Kelly Elmore, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson,a+Harley Parkes and Brea Paul.
13
14 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lanbertson called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm.
15
16 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE 1EBRUARY 15, 2011 MEETING. Chairman Lambertson
17 called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2011 'ineeting. Ellen Glasser requested
18 two corrections, as follows.'.
19 (1) Page 1 of 4,. Item 3, last, sentence; member, Blaine Adams Ellen Glasser then
20 recognized the hard work and dedication of Community Development Director Sonya Doerr."
21 (2) Page 3 of 4, Paragraph 4, first sentence e` "Mr. Elmore Ms. Glasser asked if the applicant was
s
22 seeking a variance to construct, something for, personal use, or if it was for future disposal, to
23 Which ;Mr ' replied: that he could not rule out future disposal, but the immediate plan
24 wasdevelopment."
25
26
27
28
29 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS• Chairman Lambertson noted that City Attorney Alan Jensen was
30 in attendance at the request of the Board. He then welcomed the audience, noting the presence of
31 Commissioners John Fletcher 'and Paul Parsons, and thanked everyone for their interest and
32 attendance.
33
34 4. OLD BUSINESS.
35
36 a. ZVAR-2011-01, Donald and Karen Wolfson. Request for a Variance from Section 24-
37 107(e)(2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) feet to allow
38 for the future construction of a residential structure on a nonconforming lot of record at
39 1725 Beach Avenue.
40
41 Mr. Lambertson disclosed that he had been contacted by the applicant prior to the meeting.
42 Additionally, he said that he had been contacted by Board member Ellen Glasser who called to ask
43 if it was permissible for her to have a conversation with the applicant regarding his request outside
MOTION: Ellen Glasser, moved to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2011 meeting, as noted.
Blaine Adams offered a second, and the motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Page 1 of 10
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
44 of a noticed meeting. Ms. Glasser added that she did have a subsequent conversation with Mr.
45 Wolfson.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 Ms. Hall introduced this item as having been deferred by the Board at the previous meeting, with a
53 request for research and presentation of additional historic information by Staff and a revision to
54 the request by the applicant to address some of the, concerns that had been discussed at the same
55 meeting. The Board had also requested that the 'City Attorney,, attend the meeting. Ms. Hall
56 explained that Staff had researched historic variance requests ;., related to lots of sunilar
57 circumstances as the subject property, to determine if there had been a° precedence previously set.
58 In particular, the current applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback
59 from twenty (20) feet to seven (7) feet, to allow'for the future development 'of the subject property,
60 which is a nonconforming lot of record of substandard located on the ;West side of Beach
61 Avenue. Section 24-85(b) states that legally estahlished'nonconforming lots ofrecord may be used
62 for one single-family dwelling, provided,the minimum yard requirements for the residential zoning
63 district are maintained, or the owner obtains, a variance' from the Community Development Board
64 (CDB), in accordance with Section 24'.64."
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78 Ms. Hall noted.'that while pshe found no formal agreement to this effect, she did find, and had
79 provided to both.the applicant and the Board members, copies of a memo sent out to residents at
80 the time of annexation;, stating in regards to zoning:
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88 She also had provided the Board as well as the applicant with copies of side-by-side comparisons
89 of the Zoning Code and LDRs in effect for both Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville at the time, and a
90 section of the Official Atlantic Beach Zoning Map, as amended by the City Commission on
91 December 8, 1986, for the newly annexed area.
Mr. Elmore and Mr. Hansen also disclosed that the applicant had engaged each of them
independently in conversation regarding the current application. Mr. Adams and Mr. Parkes each
disclosed they had received voicemails from the applicant, but had not spoken directly with him
outside of the meeting.
For the Board's ,consideration of the current applications Staff provided historical information
about previous applications meeting certain criteria• (1)`:from owners of similar nonconforming
•
substandard lots of record` (2) located the area previously known as Seminole Beach
(particularly in the vicinity of Beach Avenue°previously known as Garage Approach Roadway) (3)
which was de -annexed `from the City of Jacksonville (COJ) an annexedinto the City of Atlantic
Beach (COAB), , as the�resultof`State of Floridan legislative action and a referendum vote of by
affected residents. ` :The annexation was approved°' in November of 1986, and became effective
January 1, 1987. At-,rthe previous CDB�'iieeting, the applicant suggested that prior to the
annexation, the COAB'had given such affected property owners assurance that COJ Zoning Code
and'Land, Development, Regulations'(LDRs) in effect at the time, but different from those of
Atlantic Beach, would be honored. Copies of supplementary documents are attached.
® Any permits issued prior to January 1987 will be honored.
® Zoning of the area will be compatible with existing zoning, i.e., single-
family, multi family.
▪ Any permissible activity allowed by the City of Jacksonville will be
honored.
Page 2 of 10
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Conununity Development Board
92 Specifically at issue for the current applicant, due to the reduced depth of the subject property, is
93 the required rear yard setback, which had been a minimum of ten (10) feet in the COJ, but a
94 minimum of twenty (20) feet in the COAB. Thus, Ms. Hall established an additional criterion
95 focus her research, (4) those historic variance requests to reduce the required rear yard setback to
96 the 1987-COJ standard of ten (10) feet.
97
98 During the years of 1987 through 1994, Ms. Hall found ten (10) requests for variance to the
99 required rear yard setback on properties subject to the 1987; annexation. Of those, three (3)
100 requests involved standard lots which were already well,irtothe design / engineering phases and
101 utilizing the COJ setback at the time of annexation Of the remaining seven (7) requests that
102 involved substandard lots, five (5) were approved by the CDB, and two were denied. Both denials
103 were eventually overturned by the City Commission, but the,r circumstances upon which the
104 Kredell appeal was granted were complex and unique to that property, whereas those of the
105 Hawkes appeal were more consistent with,.the five (5) approved requests. However, none of the
106 variances exceeded or requested more than:the ten (10) foot reduction necessary to comply with
107 the COJ standards.
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120 Ms. Hall concluded by saying that she had received numerous calls and inquiries requesting
121 explanation of concepts such as grandfathering, vesting, takings and precedence, and their
122 applicability to this variance request, as well as requests for specific historic information in an
123 effort to' determine if a `valid precedent did exist. While she felt that a precedent was set with the
124 early requests (1987-1994);. two factorsshould be considered which suggest that precedent may no
125 longer exist These incude i 1) the passage of time since the action which invoked the
126 "grandfathering": of those ,properties, i.e., 24 years since annexation and rezoning of Seminole
127 Beach, and 2) the lack of a imemorialized record of any agreement or provision guaranteeing a
128 reduced ten (10) foot rear yard setback, either at the time of annexation, or over the subsequent
129 fourteen (14) years leading up to the most recent full rewrite of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land
130 Development Regulations, which were adopted by Ordinance 90-01-172 on November 26, 2001
131 and made effective on January 1, 2002. However, she deferred to Mr. Jensen to provide legal
132 opinion and guidance to the Board regarding those matters.
133
134 Mr. Lambertson invited applicant Don Wolfson to address the Board. Mr. Wolfson stated that he
135 wanted to clarify a misinterpretation of his presentation at the February 15th meeting. The term
136 "hardship" had been used; this was not the basis of his request though. He said he was merely
137 requesting what had been historically communicated to the residents of former Seminole Beach as
138 a conveyance of the existing COJ ten (10) foot rear yard setback as part of the annexation
139 agreement. Additionally, though a petition had been circulated and signatures gathered from some
Ms. Hall also reiterated that the,1734 Beach Avenue.lot& structure that Mr. Wolfson had presented
as an exemplar of his proposal, was built,to a seven (7) foot setback, because it had been rebuilt in
the existing footprint of a 1974 structure. 'Because that structure had been built and presumably
permitted by COJ, she had no information onwhat the regulations might have been at that time, or
if a variance had been required or even'obtained. She was ableto. locate historic correspondence,
dated just prior to annexation though, in which a COT official explained to one of the affected
property owners (Moller) those„COJ setback, requirements;(20'.front, 10' rear, combined 15' sides)
could be reduced; to 10' front, 4' on either side, and 5' rear; by execution of something called a
"Yard Modification", which required approval signature by all contiguous property owners.
However, she found no. evidence that thc COAG ever had such a process.
Page 3 of 10
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
140 fifty (50) plus residents of the Ocean Grove area in opposition to his request, only three of those
141 parties owned property directly abutting his, being Jo Ann Ruggiero (1725 Ocean Grove Drive),
142 Barbara James (1727 Ocean Grove Drive) and John Laliberte (1729 Ocean Grove Drive).
143
144 Mr. Wolfson referred to his past service to the City as a member of the Community Development
145 Board for approximately fourteen (14) years, the majority of which time he served as Chair, as
146 well as time spent as Chair of the North Atlantic Beach Association, a group that had worked
147 diligently to procure the annexation of Seminole Beach. He noted that the compilation of official
148 City records provided to the Board for review did reflecteihis personal opposition to virtually the
149 same request he was making, on numerous instances int e past. However, he explained that each
150 variance was required to stand on its own merits, 'e:,,,acted on guiding principles and
151 established provisions of the time.
152
153 Mr. Wolfson said he was particularly troubledby the Board's denial:, of the Townsend Hawkes
154 variance, but he was personally opposed to. theprinciple of granting a variance that would result in
155 the fifty (50) percent reduction in the minimum required lot size. He then summarized the Hawkes
156 appeal, noting that Mr. Hawkes had established that he,.was, a long time owner of the property,
157 which was considered a legal lot- of record. He then read; aparagraph of the December 2, 1992
158 letter from Mr. Hawkes to then -City Manager Kim Leiribach, regarding the preservation of private
159 property rights impacted by the annexation.a
160
161 It is my understanding that when theCity of Atlantic Beach agreed to take
162 this North Atlantic"Beach oceanfrontage and ma kew it parr ofAtlantic Beach,
163 one of the,: agreernents'to this tf ansfer of property was,,,that Atlantic Beach
m
164 would honor the connnitnientsmade �to`the residents of North Atlantic
165 Beach, such as ourselves, and one of the,important commitments, to us, was
166 that this 50'x .50'..? lot could be used to erect a garage apartment with living
167 quarters, but now the City of Atlantic Beach denies our right to build such a
168 structure.,
169
170 Mr`Wolfson continuenoting thatthen-City Planner George Worley stated "The proposed use of
171 the building would be\foi, Mr. Hawkes' primary residence," in his staff report to the City
172 Commission, dated February 1, 1993 and regarding Mr. Hawkes' appeal of the variance denial. He
173 then read`'froin,a letter obtained February 8, 1993 by Hans Tanzler, Jr, attorney for Mr. Hawkes,
174 from Claude E:Bagwell, then -Chief of the City of Jacksonville Building & Zoning Inspection
175 Division:
176
177 This is to confirm our conversation that the referenced property could have
178 been a single family residence constructed under the City of Jacksonville's
179 zoning code had the property not been annexed by Atlantic Beach.
180
181 More specifically, the zoning code for the City of Jacksonville required a
182 rear yard setback of ten (10) feet. Presently, residential zoning districts also
183 require ten (10) foot rear yard setback.
184
185 Mr. Wolfson then read from the minutes of the February 8, 1993 City Commission meeting, at
186 which Mr. Tanzler represented the Hawkes' variance appeal and City Attorney Alan Jensen advised
187 the Commission to grant the variance:
Page 4 of 10
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198 Alan Jensen, City Attorney, advised that because of the promise that was
199 made prior to annexation, and the fact that other property, owners in that
200 area had been granted variances based on• similar logic, a.�denial of this
201 request would not be defensible in court
202
203 Mr. Wolfson then responded to Donald Wanstall's (1723 Ocean Grove Drive) statement at the
204 February 15th CDB meeting that motivation for seeuxing the variance was strictly financial, saying
y Jm
205 this was not true. He then countered the claim baes,rRuggiero and Wanstall that real estate
206 professionals had presented to them that., vegetated lots abutting theirs were substandard and could
207 not be developed, saying that no real estate agent had the 'authority to promise that those lots would
208 not be developed. In support of the 'probability that the 'land" would one day be developed, Mr.
209 Wolfson pointed to the 1996 installation of water'_ -and sewerlines by the COAB, noting that
210 property owners were, r' equired to pay for tap -ins ori both the east"and west sides of Beach Avenue.
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Hans Tanzler, a lawyer representing Mt: Hawkes, reported that Townsend
and Virginia Hawkes wished to supplement their income with the rental
property. He explained property owners in the area, formerly known as
Seminole Beach, were told prior to their agreeing to annexation that their
right to develop property would not be more restrictive under Atlantic Beach
than it was under Jacksonville. The rear setback would have been only 10
feet when the property was part of Jacksonville and the structure could have
been constructed.
Finally, Mr. Wolfson said he had suggested to+the `adjacent property owners that they go in together
and purchase the`lot-and maintain it as a buffer to their properties. However, since he had not
received an offer from them, he, assumed that was not an option. Still, in the spirit of compromise,
he offered to amend his request: from; a thirteen (13)•foot,reduction in the required rear yard setback
toy a.ten(10) foot' reduction, consistent with:those--variances granted in the late 1980s and early
199.0s. He closed by stating that he and his wife had been owners of the property since a number
of years prior to annexation, and they only wanted to exercise those rights guaranteed to them at
the time of annexation. `
Mr. Lam bertson opened the, floor to public comment, and recognized Atlantic Beach City
Commissioner John Fletcher (1740 Live Oak Lane) as the first speaker. Mr. Fletcher said he was
there to address the Board as 'a resident rather than as an elected official. As a property owner in
the vicinity, he said l*'had,,received calls from a number of his neighbors, and like them, he was
concerned about the repercussions, no matter the final outcome. He cautioned the Board that there
were a number of issues complicating the matter, and asked them to carefully examine the
evidence in light of the specific grounds for approval and grounds for denial of a variance, as
delineated in Section 24-64. He added that he found it ironic that Mr. Wolfson had been so
adamantly opposed to the identical requests during his tenure on the CDB, but was standing before
the same body making the same request today, on the same grounds which he opposed then. He
reminded the Board that it was Mr. Wolfson and then -Board member Dezmond Waters who
repeatedly referred to the original covenants and restrictions, which reportedly stated that the
substandard lots on the west side of Beach Avenue were to serve as supplementary parking
accommodations for the oceanfront lots. However, in the absence of those covenants and
restrictions, he was uncertain as to the original purpose and intent of those lots, or if that even
Page 5 of 10
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
mattered, given the extended passage of time and change in jurisdiction. Further, he said he
wondered if the City's intention was to honor the COJ ten (10) foot rear yard setback in perpetuity,
if at all, given the absence of any historic document specifically stating such. Mr. Fletcher thanked
the Board for their thoughtful deliberation and excused himself from the meeting.
Donald Wanstall (1723 Ocean Grove Drive) thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak again,
and apologized if he sounded angry at the February 15th meeting. He said he felt somewhat
blindsided when Mr. Wolfson attempted to engage him in conversation about the request just two
days before the meeting, even though the application had beenafiled with the City some thirty-three
(33) days before, on January 11, 2011. He asked that the Board carefully consider the grounds for
denial of a variance as listed in Section 24-64(c), and note "No variance shall be
granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion,, determines that the granting of the
requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or more of the following." He
then spoke to the potential impact to each, condition, but specificallyq1) light and air to adjacent
properties, (2) congestion of streets, (4) 'established property values, and, (7) the general health,
welfare or beauty of the community. He noted in the denialof ZVAR-2003 10 on June 17, 2003,
then -CDB member Wolfson argued that neighbors' -have a right to privacy, andhe certainly agreed
with that position. Further, he noted the Board haddirected.the applicant to attempt to reach some
sort of compromise with the adjacent owners prior to tonight's meeting. Mr. Wanstall
said that his wife had suggested she would . be amenable_; to the variance if the structure were
limited in height to one-story, but MrC,NOlfsorireplied that he would be amenable to reducing his
request by a foot, possibly.
Greg Kelly (1733 Ocean Grove Drive) said:,that while his; property is not directly adjacent to the
subject property,,the, granting' ofthe requested variance wouldhave a negative effect on everyone.
Jo Ann Ruggiero (1725'Ocean Grove Drive) said'that she had three (3) main objections. First and
foremost, there- would be a detrimental effect on her investment, and that of her three neighbors.
The' destruction of .trees and s. natural'vegetative' ° buffers would mean less natural beauty, less
privacy, and in turn, lower property values.'Second, besides failing to meeting any of the criteria
for granting the variance,, it seerfiedi this request met all the criteria for denying a variance. Third,
•
granting this variance would lead to the,.further erosion of a peaceful, eclectic neighborhood of the
beach community. She recommended the Board look beyond this one application, to the
consequences of the precedent'' they would be setting.
Barbara James (1725 Ocean,, Grove Drive) said she was in accord with the residents who had
signed the petition in opposition to the Wolfsons' request. She said she had been approached by
Mr. Wolfson the priork;Sunday and asked if she would write a letter in support of his application.
When she replied that she would not, she said Mr. Wolfson responded that he would report to the
Board that she had "no objection". Thus, she felt it was her duty to attend and ensure the record
correctly reflected her opposition.
Wayne Parrish (68 17th Street) said that he lived on the southwest corner of 17th and Beach, and
over the last five years he has observed continuous construction on the lots on the north side of
17th, and he was opposed to further increasing the density of the area.
Mr. Lambertson asked if there were others wishing to speak for or against the application, and with
no further comment, he closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board members.
Page 6 of 10
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9,201l
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
284
285 Ms. Glasser thanked Ms. Hall for her diligence in providing the Board with a thorough summary
286 of previous actions and supporting documents. She then asked Mr. Wolfson how he reconciled his
287 past opposition to such variances with his current position. Mr. Wolfson responded that
288 circumstances were different then. At the time of the Kredell application, Beach Avenue supported
289 two-way traffic, whereas it is now one-way, and a number of the properties had not been
290 developed at that point. Additionally, the City Commission and the City Attorney had determined
291 that the CDB had not taken the correct position and, in several instances, he had been wrong.
292
293 Ms. Glasser asked why Mr. Wolfson had voted to deny the Hawkes' variance, to which he replied
294 he had a philosophical problem with development of:a Jot "which was only fifty (50) percent of the
295 required minimum area of a standard lot. Ms. Glassertlen noted, Mr. Wolfson as giving "a lengthy
296 history of the area, with particular reference to the original deed' restrict ions" and stating "that
297 Garage Approach was uniquely designed;;""for additional parking facilities and not for living
298 spaces", according to the CDB minutes ofApril 18, 1989. She requested clarification on the use of
299 the term "hardship" in requesting a variance. While this., was historically a valid reason for
300 granting a variance, such is no longer the case. Now there'were very specific, grounds for approval
301 and grounds for denial spelled out ",,Ms. Glasser then confirrled that Mr. Wolfson did not need to
302 state a hardship for this request.
303
304 Mr. Parkes asked Mr. Jensen to ver :that at thetime of annexation, the only difference between
305 Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville was:'the rear yard=setback, and' all other development standards
306 were the same. Mr Jensen said that was;"correct; however, smce.the annexation, the Zoning Code
307 and LDRs have changed substantially. Av Parkes' said. he- wanted to be sure that there was no
308 other historicalwrequirement that needed to ,be lhonored. Mr. Jensen said he did not recall there
309 having been any such documentation, and reminded the Board that the subject property has been
310 under the jurisdiction" of the iCOAB-'for twenty-four (24) years, and is therefore subject to the
311 Atlantic Beach LD�
312
313 Mr Elmore said'he took the:" position that the' Wolfsons' had purchased the property prior to
314 annexation, and therefore their property rights should be preserved. However, he was sympathetic
315 to the neighbors also. � . rParkes replied that he was a property rights advocate as well, but the
316 Zoning Code that is applicable to this property has changed substantially over the years, in an
317 effort to balance the rights ofthe individual with those of the community. And, there appears to be
318 no agreement that._countermands the LDRs.
319
320 Ms. Glasser referred to'the,"Kredell and Hawkes denials, both of which were eventually overturned
321 by the City Commission; 'and asked about Mr. Jensen's February 8, 1993 statement that denial of
322 the (Hawkes) variance was not defensible in court. Mr. Jensen explained a number of factors were
323 considered, including the timing of the request relative to the annexation, consistency of the
324 request with other variances that had been approved, as well as the language of the LDRs in effect
325 at the time, and the weak findings upon which the CDB based their denial. Mr. Elmore asked Mr.
326 Jensen if this Board were to deny the request before them, would Mr. Wolfson be able to
327 successfully challenge the denial. Mr. Jensen reiterated that it has been over eighteen (18) years
328 since the Hawkes appeal. In the interim, there have been several complete rewrites of the LDRs as
329 well as numerous amendments, all requiring public notices, community workshops and/or public
330 hearings at which affected parties could have requested provisions to specifically address the
331 circumstances of these lots. However, no such provisions have been incorporated into the LDRs,
Page 7 of 10
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351 MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved toeappiove the requested, variance, as verbally amended by the
352 applicant earlier in this meeting, from Section 24-107(e)(2)4o reduce the required twenty (20) foot
353 rear yard setback to ten (10) feet to. -;allow for the construction.,of a residential structure on a
354 nonconforming lot of record on the west side of theright-of wayydirectly across from 1725 Beach
355 Avenue. Brea Paul seconded the motion andndiscussion ensued,
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363 a talctngs
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374 Mr. Parkes said that the degree of impact on light and air to adjacent properties was relative to the
375 scale of the structure. He then reviewed the grounds for approval. There was consensus that
376 neither irregular shape of the property warranting special conditions (#5), nor exceptional
377 topographic conditions of or near the property (#1), existed; neither did surrounding conditions or
378 circumstances impact the property disparately from nearby properties (#2), nor did exceptional
379 circumstances prevent the reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the area
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
and no additional variances meeting the same circumstances have been considered in the mean
time. Mr. Jensen then reminded the Board that variances are to be considered on a case-by-case
basis, and that they may be approved only upon findings of fact that they are consistent with the
definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of Section 24-64. If this Board were to
follow these directions of the ordinance in effect today and carefully review the request in light of
the grounds for approval and grounds for denial, as currently required, then their decision would
be defensible.
Board members concurred, and Ms. Glasser repeated Mi Wolfson's earlier statement that the
preceding variances to reduce the required rear yard setback all stood on their own merits. She
then inquired as to the conditions of the construction on the substandard Pennington lot, located
north of the subject property at 1733 Beach Avenue, and Ms Hall replied that structure was built
in the existing footprint of a 1974 structure which was demolished just prior to the redevelopment
of the lot. Thus, the structure was completely legal and no variance was required. As a point of
clarification, Mr. Lambertson noted that,, both through coordination with Staff and during the
meeting, Mr. Wolfson was amenable to a verbal,, amendment to his request, decreasing it from a
thirteen (13) foot reduction to a ten (10) foot reduction in the required rear yard; setback, consistent
with the other variances that had: been granted in the Pasi
Ms. Glasser noted<it was unfortupate that Mr. Wolfson had left such a long and detailed record of
his opposition to the :Same variance tihe now requested, but she wished to thank him for his
dedicated se rvice,to the community ower many years. And while she was troubled by his complete
reversal" inn position as well as the potential adverse impacts this variance might have on
surrounding properties, she was moore struck by Mr. Elmore's earlier observation that denial of this
variance precluded Mr. Wolfson from the reasonable use of his property, which was tantamount to
Mr. Elmore: reviewed the grounds for denial and said while it was arguable that the granting of this
variance might have materially adverse impact on congestion of streets (#2), public safety (#3),
established property values ( #4), the aesthetic environment (#5), and the general health, welfare
and beauty of the cominunity (#7), such a variance would have the greatest impact on light and air
to adjacent properties,:(#'1) and the natural environment of the community, specifically loss of
protected trees and wildlife habitat (#6). Ms. Paul agreed, but reminded the Board that the
applicant could potentially clear the lot without mitigation if there were no plans to develop it
within the next year, thus making the tree argument a moot point.
Page 8 of 10
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
380 (#3). Likewise, there was no onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after
381 development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property (#4), because
382 the narrow strip of land from which the garage lots had been carved had never been platted as
383 individual lots, and no documentation had been provided to show that the subject property itself
3 84 had ever been developed or constructed upon. However, there was concern as to whether the
3 85 substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
386 of the property (#6), applied. The question came back to what was considered "reasonable use" of
387 the lot.
388
389 Mr. Parkes asked Ms. Hall if she could explain precisely ywhat options were available to Mr.
390 Wolfson without a variance. Ms. Hall presented ;;a series Of scaled drawings showing several
391 scenarios in which the lot could be developed as;an accessory ode. -story or two-story garage, with
392 guest quarters. Additionally, she illustrated the lot coverage . of a single family dwelling
393 constructed according to the applicant's original variance request (7'''; rear yard), as well as one
394 constructed according to the amended request,(10' rear yard), and one constructed according to the
395 required yard setbacks (20' rear yard).
396
397 Mr. Parkes summarized that a two story garage accessory guest quarters, could be constructed
398 without a variance, and that such a structure seemed m keeping with the reputed purpose and intent
399 of the original garage lot covenants' and,restrictions, "which Mr. Wolfson had so vigorously
400 defended in the past. Further, it appeared`that a simple, long and narrow single-family residence
401 could be constructed without a variance; or, scale,and mass cold be adjusted so as to require a less
402 intrusive variance. Mr. Elmore concurred that the structure needed to be coherently articulated
403 with the environment and adjacent properties He asked: if the, applicant would consider reducing
404 the front yard rather,than therear, to whichFMr Lambertson replied that reduction of the front yard
405 was not part of this request, and to make it so, the applicant would have to withdraw this request or
406 ask that it be deferred, again "so that he could prepare an alternative plan and so that due notice
407
cony,'be given ;.Mr. Adams contended this. was:precisely what the Board had asked the applicant
408 to`doywhen the` application was, deferred last �fnonth. Yet there was no indication that the applicant
409 had' attempted to `° reach a compromise with his neighbors, and nothing new, by way of an
410 alternative plan was submitted.
411
412 Mr. Lambertson stated that even as verbally amended by the applicant earlier this evening, the
413 variance request accounts fora fifty (50) percent reduction in the standard. He continued, saying
414 that he could not. support such) a request that would allow development of a substandard lot to the
415 detriment of surrounding properties. However, Ms. Glasser said she was still conflicted. The
416 Board had confirmed the;' subject property was a legal nonconforming lot of record, and according
417 to the LDRs, such lots may be used for a single-family dwelling. Ms. Hall added that the caveat of
418 Section 24-85(b)(1), to which Ms. Glasser was referring was that nonconforming lots of record
419 could be used for single-family residences in any residential zoning district provided that the
420 minimum yard requirements for the particular zoning district were met, or provided that the
421 property owner obtained a variance from the CDB, in accordance with the requirements of Section
422 24-64. Mr. Parkes reiterated that a substantial accessory building could be constructed without a
423 variance, and a single-family dwelling, compatible with the scale of the lot and surrounding
424 structures could be constructed with lesser variances than even the amended request.
425 Mr. Hansen questioned the lack of a conceptual plan in the submittal, explaining that the
426 uncertainty of what would be done with this seemingly disproportionate request made him
427 apprehensive. Ms. Paul responded that it was not always feasible to expect the applicant to go to
Page 9 of 10
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
428 the trouble or expense to have something designed before a variance was granted. Ms. Hall added
429 that variance application submittals are required to submit a survey or lot diagram showing
430 setbacks, with existing and proposed structures. She reminded the Board that they had received
431 copies of a property survey as well as a very simple sketch of the lot with standard setbacks, along
432 with the other application materials in their February packets. Additionally, she noted that Mr.
433 Wolfson had presented photos of the recently constructed garage on the Pennington property, and
434 proposed to do something similar.
435
436 Mr. Lambertson cautioned the Board that what might,be appealing to one person would not
437 necessarily be appealing to another, and should the property, transact, they could not legislate taste.
438 Mr. Lambertson then noted that Mr. Wolfson had been; asked' at the February 15th meeting if the
439 property was to be developed for personal use,,,or ,if "it werejor, future disposal, to which Mr.
440 Wolfson had replied though he could not rule out future disposal,,., the immediate plan was for
441 development. Mr. Lambertson asked. Mr. Wolfson if this was still the' case — if the property was
442 currently for sale, meaning was it listed and/or posted for sale. Mr. ,Wolfson responded that the
443 property was currently listed but there is no signposted onsite.
444 = A
445 Mr. Lambertson asked if Mr. Wolfson desired to further amend his request in, any way, to which
446 Mr. Wolfson said no. Mr Lambertson`then restated that there was currently a motion and a second
447 on the floor to approve the amended, variance requested, from Section 24-107(e)(2) to reduce the
448 required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to ,ten (10)'feet to allow for the construction of a
449 residential structure on a nonconforming\lot of record on the west side of the right-of-way directly
450 across from 1725/BeachAvenue. Hevthen called; for ar vote, and;:'the motion failed, 2-5. [YES:
451 Elmore, Glasser; NO " Adams,'Hansen, Lambertson,:Parkes, Paul]
452 , ,.
453 Mr. Lambertsonadvised Mr `Wolfson that he could appeal the decision of the Community
454 Development Board to the City Commission within thirty (30) days of this decision.
455
456 5. NEW BUSINE
457
458 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None.
459
460 7. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:57 pm.
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469 Attest
Chris Lambertson
man
Page 10 of 10
Draft Minutes of the February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Co nnunity Development Board (revision 1)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
The regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:03 pm on Tuesday,
February 15, 2011 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic
Beach. In attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall and Community Development Board members
Blaine Adams, Kelly Elmore, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes and Brea
Paul.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 2010 MEETING
MOTION: Ellen Glasser rnoved to approve the minutes of the November 16, 2010 meeting, as
written. Kirk Hansen offered a second, and the motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Chairman Lambertson introduced and welcomed new Board
members Kelly Elmore and Brea Paul. He also expressed gratitude for the service of former Board
members Joshua Putterman (4 years) and Lynn Drysdale (8 years). Board member Blaine AdamsEllen
Glasser then recognized the hard work and dedication of Community Development Director Sonya
Doerr.
4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
MOTION: Kirk Hansen moved to elect Chris Lambertson as Chair and Ellen Glasser as Vice -Chair
of the Community Development Board for calendar year 2011. Harley Parkes second the motion and
it passed unanimously, 7-0.
5. OLD BUSINESS. None.
6. NEW BUSINESS.
a. ZVAR-2011-01. Request from Donald and Karen Wolfson for a Variance from Section 24-
106(e)(2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) to allow for
the construction of a residential structure on a non -conforming lot of record at 1725 Beach
Avenue.
Page 1 of 4
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the Febr-nmry 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board (revision 1)
Ms. Hall introduced this item and explained that the subject parcel was a legal nonconforming lot
of record with fifty (50) feet of depth and seventy (70) feet of frontage on the western side of what
was once called Garage Approach Roadway, now known as the northern extent of Beach Avenue.
Though never officially platted, this area was historically sold off to the oceanfront property
owners for for the construction of garages and/or guest quarters or surface parking.
Chairman Lambertson invited applicant Donald Wolfson to address the Board regarding his
request. Mr. Wolfson provided Board members with a historical timeline of development on and
around the subject property, and explained the significance of the 1986/7 annexation of the area
previously known as Seminole Beach to the City of Atlantic Beach (COAB) jurisdiction. Prior to
that event, the parcel was located within the City of Jacksonville (COJ), and such substandard
parcels were allowed to be developed according to COJ regulations, particularly, a ten (10) foot
rear yard setback as opposed to the COAB required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback. Mr.
Wolfson noted that numerous owners of similar nonconforming lots have been granted variances
and allowed to construct residential structures over the years. As the owner of the subject parcel
since 1981, he expressed his desire for the same allowances, and noted that without a variance, a
structure built according to current COAB regulations could be no more than ten (10') feet deep.
Mr. Wolfson also provided Board members with photos of a recently constructed garage apartment
on the parcel addressed as 1734 Beach Avenue, and explained that he wished to build a similar
structure.
Ms. Hall noted though the 1734 Beach structure was located seven (7) feet from the rear property
line, no variance had been required because the new structure was built in the footprint of a
previously permitted, legal garage apartment.
Ms. Glasser noted Staff had determined that the height of any structure would be limited to twenty-
four -and -one-half (24 n/) feet. She asked what effect a variance might have on the height, to which
Mr. Wolfson replied none, explaining' that the height was proportional to the total lot area.
Mr. Lambertson opened the public hearing and invited comments.
Donald Wanstall (1723 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property abuts the southwest corner of the
subject property spoke in opposition to the requested variance and stated that he had also submitted
his opinion via email. He called attention to the standards for approving and denying a variance, in
particular that "nonconforming conditions of adjacent properties shall not be considered" and a
variance "shall not be [granted] for personal comfort, welfare".
Jo Ann Ruggiero (1725 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the western side of the
subject property, also spoke in opposition to the requested variance and stated she had been told
the lots were substandard and therefore were undevelopable, and thus construction would never
occur on them.
Barbara James (1727 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the western side of the
subject property submitted a letter in opposition to the requested variance to Ms. Ruggiero, who
read the letter to Board members and submitted a copy for the file.
Page 2 of 4
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the Februai y 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board (revision 1)
John Laliberte (1729 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the northwest corner of
the subject property submitted a letter in opposition to the requested variance to Board members
via email, and Ms. Hall noted that it too had been added to the file.
Mr. Wolfson informed Mr. Lambertson that he had two letters in support of his application, the
first being from Ms. Helen Lane (1721 Beach Avenue) and the second being from Robert &
Forrest Parrish (1731 Beach Avenue). Mr. Wolfson read each letter and copies were provided for
the file.
Mr. Lambertson asked if there were others wishing to speak for or against the application, and with
no further comment, he closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board members. Ms.
Glasser asked, with respect to property taxes, if the substandard lot subject to this request was
billed separately, or together with the Wolfsons' oceanfront lot. Mr. Wolfson replied that the two
are currently tied together and billed as a single tax parcel, but upon the advice of the COJ
Property Appraiser's Office, he is in the process of separating them. Ms. Hall confirmed that the
Wolfson property is the only one which has the western nonconforming lot tied to the eastern
oceanfront lot, and that there is a law stating lots separated by a right-of-way are to be taxed
separately.
Mr. Elmore said that the annexation essentially resulted in a "taking" because the
"nonconforming" status was applied after the property owner had closed on that property. At the
time of purchase, the property owner had certain rights and expectations as to what could be done
with the property and due to the annexation and imposition of COAB regulations, those rights
were lost. Mr. Lambertson pointed out that zoning codes and land development regulations
evolve, noting that when the current code became effective in 2002, it was acceptable to divide a
one hundred (100) foot lot into two fifty (50) foot lots, but that was not the case now. Mr. Parkes
noted from some perspectives, all zoning could be viewed as takings. Ms. Glasser acknowledged
the property owner's right to "reasonable use" of the property, and noted that without a variance,
an accessory structure, occupying up to six hundred (600) square feet of lot area and built to a
maximum height of fifteen (15) feet could be constructed. Mr. Hansen voiced empathy for both
sides and questioned whether "reasonable use" without a variance was amenable to all parties.
Mr. ElmoreMs. Glasser asked if the applicant was seeking a variance to construct something for
personal use, or if was for future disposal, to which Mr. Wolfson replied he could not rule out
future disposal, but the immediate plan was development. He told the Board that the required
separation into a separate tax parcel would result in significantly higher taxes, and also added that
he had been required to tie the lot into the City's water & sewer lines at a considerable cost. Mr.
Wolfson emphasized the impact annexation had on such nonconforming lots, and Ms. Glasser
asked if there were specific examples the Board could review. Mr. Wolfson referred to other such
nonconforming lots to the north of his.
Mr. Elmore asked if Mr. Wolfson had considered moving the structure forward, asking for a
reduction of the front yard setback, and stated that he would entertain reducing the front yard to get
more separation in the back. Mr. Lambertson reminded the Board that they could approve a lesser
variance, but a shift or change in location of the requested variance would require due notice,
preventing the Board from acting on such a revision at tonight's meeting. Mr. Parkes added that he
would be in favor of such a revised application, noting that a garage typically requires a minimum
depth of twenty-three (23) feet. However, Mr. Adams expressed concerns for safety with a
Page 3 of 4
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Draft Minutes of the Februauy 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board (revision 1)
diminished front yard, and Mr. Lambertson agreed. Mr. Elmore pointed out that there is typically
four (4) to seven (7) feet of unpaved right of way between pavement and private lots in this
vicinity, and Mr. Parkes noted that the subject lot is seventy (70) feet wide, providing sufficient
space for surface parking next to a structure, rather than directly in front of it.
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion. Blaine Adams moved that the Board approve the applicants'
requested variance from Section 24-106(e)(2), reducing the required twenty (20) foot rear yard
setback to seven (7) feet, finding that the subject property met the grounds for approval of a
variance according to Section 24-64(d)(4) and (6). Kelly Elmore seconded the motion, and Mr.
Lambertson called for discussion. Ms. Glasser said she felt the Board required additional
information regarding the variances granted to, and the development of similar nonconforming lots
also subject to the annexation, and other Board members agreed. Mr. Elmore withdrew his second
and Mr. Adams amended his motion as follows.
MOTION: Blaine Adams moved that the Board defer consideration of ZVAR-2011-01 until the
March 15, 2011, so that Staff could research and provide additional historical information and/or
the applicants could amend their application in the spirit of compromise with adjacent property
owners. Harley Parkes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 7-0.
Chairman Lambertson asked Staff to request City Attorney Alan Jensen's attendance at the March
15, 2011 meeting.
7. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
8. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 pm.
Chris Lambertson, Chairman
Attest
Page 4 of 4
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY 9, 2011
EXHIBIT D.1 ZVAR-2011-01 DOCUMENT INDEX
REGARDING PT GOVT LOT 7 RECD 0/R BOOK 5349-1108, HAVING DIMENSIONS OF 70' X 50', LYING WEST
OF GARAGE APPROACH ROADWAY R/W, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM 1725 BEACH AVE
2011 FEB 02
2011 FEB 03
2011 FEB 15
2011 FEB 15
2011 FEB 15
2011 FEB 15
2011 MAR 08
(H) 2011 MAR 09
2011 MAR 15
2011 MAR 15
2011 MAR 15
2011 APR
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE (WOLFSON)
CDB STAFF REPORT (DOERR)
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION (WOLFSON)
LETTERS OF SUPPORT (LANE, PARRISH)
LETTERS OF OPPOSITION (JAMES, LALIBERTE, WANSTALL)
CDB MEETING MINUTES (HALL)
CDB STAFF REPORT (HALL)
(1) EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
(2) CDBSR ATTACHMENT A - KREDELL VARIANCE HISTORY
(3) CDBSR ATTACHMENT B - HAWKES VARIANCE HISTORY
EXCERPTS FROM SEMINOLE BEACH ANNEXATION FILES (HALL)
(1) MEMO TO AB/SB CITIZENS - VITAL STATISTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION
(2) COJ/COAB ZONING COMPARISON (1987)
(3) ORDINANCE 90-86-112 - EXTENSION OF ZONING TO SEMINOLE BEACH
(4) CC MEETING MINUTES (DEC 8, 1986)
(5) NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS
PETITION IN OPPOSITION (OCEAN GROVE, NORTH ATLANTIC BEACH RESIDENTS)
LETTERS IN OPPOSITION (WANSTALL)
CDB MEETING MINUTES (HALL)
MISC ITEMS REQUESTED
(1) COPY 1733-1734 EXISTING PRE -2008 SURVEY (WOLFSON)
(2) WATER/SEWER ASSESSMENTS (STAFF)
(3) COPY DEED BOOK 719-201 (STAFF)
(4) OVERVIEW OF TAKINGS FROM HALL (CDB)
(5) COPY FS 2007-70.001, BERT HARRIS ACT (CDB)
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 9, 2011
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve existing location of new Fleet Landing entrance sign
(replaced pursuant to Section 117 14(5) of the Sign regulations requiring non -conforming signs
to be brought into compliance by September 09, 2012.
SUBMITTED BY: Sonya Doerr, AICP
Community Development Director
DATE: March 01, 2011
BACKGROIUND: Mid -last year staff sent out another reminder advising businesses and
property owners with non -conforming signs that these must be brought into compliance by
September 09, 2012. The City's sign regulations were substantively re -written in 2002. Several
months after these became effective, the 10 -year amortization provision was added by the City
Commission. Quite a number of businesses have proceeded to bring their existing signs into
compliance in advance of the deadline, but there are still some 45-50 signs which must be
brought into compliance. After last year's reminder letter went out, Fleet Landing contacted
Staff regarding plans for their new sign at their Mayport Road entrance. The old sign is pictured
on page 2. The old sign exceeded the 8 -foot height limit and was a bit short of the five-foot
setback requirement, but was located within the Fleet landing Blvd. right-of-way. This is the
sign location that was approved as the Fleet Landing PUD was developed, and the sign has been
at this location within the Fleet Landing Blvd. right-of-way for many years. As seen in the
below photos, there is a great amount of City, FDOT, JEA and utility infrastructure at this
location, both overhead and underground that to some degree, constrains the location for
freestanding signs on this property. The Kangaroo station has two large signs that will have to
be brought into compliance and they have been similarly notified
The proposed new Fleet Landing sign met all size and location requirements of the current sign
regulations although it was to be shifted a few feet further west, but still within the same general
location of the Fleet Landing Blvd. right-of-way. The sign contractor met on-site with the City's
Public Works Director and others to consider the new sign. and the City subsequently approved
the new sign, permits were issued, and the sign was constructed late last year. Within recent
weeks, the City has received complaints from the Kangaroo station stating that the new Fleet
Landing sign obscures the fuel pricing on their sign. We have no obligation to provide visibility
for commercial signs on private property, and I would submit that when Kangaroo replaces or
modifies their two non -conforming signs, they will have the opportunity to remedy this to some
degree.
March 28, 2011 regular meeting
AtiENIM ITEN t!!! 813
MAY 201 1
'Mc „management of the Katigaroo station has asserted that the new Fleet Landing sign should
have come to the City Commission for approval based upon a provision in the sign regulations
that says signs in public or dedicated right-of-ways shall be approved by the City Cormnission
The section of fleet I..nding Blvd between Mayport Road and the small 'bride just before the
gatedentrance is mit dedicated (platted), but it was conveyed to the City by Fleet Landing„ and in
that respect is a public Right-of-way. The rernainder of Fleet 1,,anding Right-of-ways are private
access -restricted roadways.
At the time the in permit was sought, the. Planning and Public Works Directors discussed
whether the sign repined ("Iv Commission approval and concurredthat in this particular case,
this was not necessary tbr the thllowing ',reason& The existing sign was already in the Fleet
Landing Blvd. right-of-way; and the new sign was proposed in the: same general location as the
old sign. The need for the new sign WaS ,111; a „result of action by the City and, had been previously
approved„ by the City, Fleet .L.anding probably could demonstrate a legal vested right to replace
the sign in its same location. Alternative locations for the sign are limited due to overhead and..
underground. utilities. The new sign „supported ongoing elf:oils and goals to upgrade the
aesthetics of the i.viFlyport Road conidor.„
1110
,1111101115,1;:,/,211„ii„0„,„.1.•."1010,10,i
1)1,117 1Y L
saffloommvP,,,,,,Pron)ntrommonmvonvenum
itti„,70
The old Fleet Landing sig11
2
.10.tecit 28, '201 1 regular !meeting
New. .Fireet
fl
„
4,1411WA
AGENDA FEIN. df: 3B
MAY 9,, 201
.f1fL {if!ff1.1 )11.)1,
'17
41
The City ,Attorney has since, advised that the view location (although substantively
the same „as the original location(See attached she pan) and previously ipproved
by the City) probably should 'have been approved by the City Commission. As
such, retroactive approval„is i-equesteci at this time.
131,IDGE'r: No budget i !Lies,
Mareh. 28, 2(11 1 regular inclin
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 9, 2011
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve existing location of new Fleet Landing entrance
sign replaced pursuant to Section 117 14 (5) of the Sign regulations requiring non -conforming
signs to be brought into compliance by September 09, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS: Site plan showing location of original and new Fleet Landing
sign.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
4
March 28, 2011 regular meeting
mitiNDA rrLm t/ 813
MAY 9, 2011
01,114,1111Iff
0 1.
V
ar*
114140.1rnigailiM11011.0.111.0
01414,4-2-4133
A GlEis119A„ ITEM 8C
MAY 9, 2911
CITY OF ATLAN1IC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION
STAFERPOR IP
A(A)A ITEM: Authorize the Mayor 10 sign the Application for Revenue
Sharing 2011-2012
DATE: .April 18, 2011
StilIMIlflIFED BY; Nelson Van 1,iete,
BACKGROliND: 'tile submittal for the Ap p teat:Ion air Revenue Sharing
2011-2012 State fiscal 'Year is required by Sc. 218 of the
Florida Statutes in order in be eligible to participate in
revenue shirting. Section 218 of i:ltre Florid Statutes states:
t shall he the dut3,, of each agency and unit of local
government required to submit cert' hd. inforrnation to the
.Department pursuant to the administration of this part to
file timely information, ,Atiy Lath O1 local goveinment
tinting to provide timely information required pursuant to
the Elilltuiraistralion of this part shrill, by such action,
authorize the 1)cpartment to 'utilize the best information
available or, 1.10 nchi infortilation is available, to talk:: any
necessarytplin no Riding d isq nal i fication, either rliu1 u
entire!, anti, shall fui ther,. by such action, %Naive any ight to
challenge the determination of the Department as to its
share, if any, pursuant to the privilege or receiving shared
revatnues under this part
this application certifies that the City has fultilied certain
adiartinistrative requirements set 'fbrth inthe statutes and
includes signaturo of the appropriate
BUDGET: No Impact,
RECOMMENDATI( N: "Ilhe staff reconimends that the City (loot inission authori
t e Mayor to sign the Application .fr 'Revenue Sharing tbr
2011-2012,
ATTACHINI.ENr..f:
Apptication fir Revenue Sharing 20 1t-2012
Reviewed by tile City .Matiageri
AGENDA TI`EM # 8D
MAY 9, 2011
STAFF REPORT
City of Atlantic Beach
Commission Meeting
AGENDA ITEM: Emergency Purchase
DATE: May 2, 2011
SUBMITTED BY: David E. Thompso s -t. City Manager
BACKGROUND:
Several months ago, firefighters from Station 55 in Atlantic Beach initiated a number of upgrades
and improvements in the facility. Most of the work was simply to address the daily wear -and -tear
that can be expected in a building that houses firefighters 365 days per year.
During the planning stages, Atlantic Beach became aware of some water damage that had
damaged some ceiling tiles. As a result of the water damage, Atlantic Beach staff had a company
that specializes in mold evaluations examine the building. After the evaluation, it was clear that
there was mold damage that would need to be corrected as soon as possible. However, the first
order of business is to stop the leaks to prevent further damage.
Atlantic Beach Building Official Mike Griffin contacted several roofing companies to provide
evaluations and quotes on fixing the problem. It became clear that the roof could not simply be
patched. It needed to be replaced. When the roof was built more than 24 years ago, it was a 20
year roof. See attached memo from Building Official Mike Griffin.
The City received four (4) quotes from roofing companies, and the lowest quote was from
RoofMasters for a total of $29,725.
The fire department section of the present building is scheduled to remain in operation regardless
of the new police building. The police and fire sections share much of the same roofing, and it is
not feasible to limit the new roofing to the fire department section only. Additionally, no
defmitive plans have been made for the use of the existing police department building after the
police department moves into new facilities. However, most discussion has suggested that a large
part of the building will probably be retained and renovated. If this is the case, then the building
will need a functional roof.
BUDGET: The cost for a new roof will be $29,725. Staff is planning to utilize funding from the
Police Department to cover these expenses.
RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve the emergency purchase of a new roof for the Police/Fire
Building for $29,725.
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum from Mike Griffin, Building Official
REVIEWED BY CITY MANA
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
8Fl)
MAY 9', 20
City of Atlantic Reach .Buililing Departiiieit
800 Sonintole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Telephone (904) 247-5300
Fax (904) 247.-5305'
www,coabms
orand
To: David. Thompson, „Assistant City 'Manager
Front: Michael Griffin, CBO„ CFM,
Outlet May 2, 2011
Re:.Polic,'.e/Fire Rescue Buildi...ng Re -roofing
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information related to the current condition of the
Policeilzim Building., specifically involving water intrusion resulting from the need to replace the
existing roofing, Inspection of the „roof revealed there are numerous areas in need of repair where
shingles are cracking. As you are aware, several areas within the building have experienced water
leaks and there are portions in Fire/Rescue 'where mold remediation is 'necessary.
Below are quotes received from roofing contractors for replacement 'The lowest proposal was
submitted from RoolMasters which includes neAv code compliant 50 year architectural shingle,
system with a 10 year labor warranty rated at 130 mph:
1. RoofMasters - • 29, 725,
2. Whites 1.Zonfing- $36, 500,
3. Shore Roofing' $32,680.
4.1.Jnited Roofing -$34,200.
If you have questions or need additional information please let me know.
AGENDA ITEM # 8E
MAY 9, 2011
STAFF REPORT
City of Atlantic Beach
Commission Meeting
AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Apply for COPS Grant Application
DATE: April 28, 2011
SUBMITTED BY: David E. Thompson, A ss t. City Manager
BACKGROUND:
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services has
announced that they will be accepting grant applications during the month of May 2011.
This is a competitive grant program that provides funding for police agencies. The
program will provide 100% of the funding for approved entry-level salaries and benefits
for three (3) years, and it does not require a match from the City. After the termination of
the grant period, the City must commit to maintaining the positions for another twelve
(12) months.
In the past, COPS funding has been restricted to newly hired, entry level positions.
However, the new application process allows law enforcement agencies to apply for
funding for sworn positions that are scheduled to be eliminated due to local budget cuts.
Based on current budget projections for 2011-12, staff recommends applying for the
funding for two (2) law enforcement positions to be effective 2011 through 2014. Based
on present salaries and benefits, this will be approximately $126,802 annually or
$380,406 for the three (3) year grant period.
BUDGET: If the grant request is funded, then it will add approximately $380,406 to the
Police Department budget over the next three (3) years. It will also obligate the Police
Department to keep those positions for at least twelve (12) months after the termination
of the grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS: To authorize the Assistant City Manager to submit a COPS
grant application for up to two (2) law enforcement positions for a three (3) year period,
and to authorize the Assistant City Manager and the Mayor to sign the application and
subsequent documents related to this grant program.
ATTACHMENTS: Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice announcing the COPS
grant application schedule.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
AGI NDA ITEM NUMBER:
Dear Colleaglic;
a.TNt ENT ,of .1; lisTit
OFFick
(M1 NP OktpiNrrpp Stqtvio:Es
vo Sirci„,4„ \Vast dmittiati 0,C,
April ll 8, 201 11
AGENDA. rrEm
MA 9,2011
The Office of Cominunily Oriented Policing Saviees ((OPS) is pleased to announce that we will be accepting grant
applications kir the Visual Year (FY21)1 1 COPS ifitiNig Progr (('1111)„ Subject to funding availability, approximately
l'711) million may be available under FY NI CHP for the hiring and rehiring oladditional career law enforcement
officers.
The FY 201 t Cid P sol'icitation will open on May 2, 201 „ "Hie appliCntion dearillitc will be May 25, 2011, at 8:59
PM, V.11'1'. Please note that applications fir this program must be Fiailibraitited in two parts., Firs" applicams must apply
on1ir e via„itit,.*ii[:„t„,',„' l complete the ST -424„ whiel 5, s as gaVer ellt.Wi die standard :form reit bled for competitive
grant applicati on packages, llhe 5F-424 is intended to reduce the administrative burden to Mc Federal grants c1nnratn1ty,
which includes applicants/grantees t',"nd federal staff involved ln grants -related activities, Once the SF -424 has been
submitted, you will ,reecive an e-mail from the ("Ops Office VO th isliuctions on co In *ling the second part of the CH P
application through the OPS Office Online Application System flaunt' on the. COPS Office website it
• Applications must be submitted via the. COPS Office Online Applicution System 'by 0.i50 PM, EDI”,
on May 25, 2011 to be considered for I 2011 11 r finding„
CHP is an competitive grant program that provides 'lauding directly to law eaftreemeta agencies having primary 1n
enforcement authority to impact their community policing capacity and prOblern solving efforts.
(MP ,gi ants provide 100 percent finding 'for approved entry-level salaries .and benefits fir 3 years (3( niortits) for
newly -hired„ full-time sworn officer positions (including filling existing unfunded vacancies), or for rehired ofticir.$
have been Iicl NT, or are scheduled to bclaJ off' o.ri aspecific figure date, as a result of local budget cuts, There is no
local inatelirequirement or ,cap on the amount of finding that can be requested per officer position, but CliP grant hmdiEg
wiii b tiolefi mit your agency's current entry-level salary and benefits packages. Arty additional costs fiat higher than
entry-level salaries, and fringe benefits will he the responsibility of do grantee agency. All agencies° requests will be
cupped at no more than 5% of their actual sworn force strength reported in 'their application, up to a maxinuun of 50
°triton. The, request rtif any agency with a sworn force strength less than or equo I 1t 20 will be capped al ono officer%
Al the conclusion of federal flinding, grantees mustretain all sworn officer positions awarded under the CHF grant lor
a minimum crone year (12 months). The retained Cl1P-funded position(s) shan id be added to the grantee's law
enforcement budget. 'with state andior local funds, over and above the number of locally -lauded positions that would have
existed in the absence of the grant.
The ()I'S Office kinks forward to working with your agony, Ilyou Would like [nom inforrani km O require
technical assistance during the solicitation pro QeSS, please coinact the COPS Office Response Center at 1 .770
Sincerely„
Bernard K... Meteklan
Director
AGENDA ITEM #
MAY 9, 201 I
ilejeme Preparing Your Application
The COPS OUcr waros 1:0 MiSigre 1hiI yotir agency has sufficient time to complete your FY 201 I (TIP application once thie
solicitation opens, We strongly recortmeral that your itgency begin preparalimi$ for ,sulitriitting your application at this time, To
milaimize delays in stibmitting your application, please take some time now to address the, following items,
Register itwww„gratits.gov to apply for federal funding, M. order to ap:ply for a. grant, your organization twist coutplete the
Grarais,gov resist ration process, The registration process eau take between three to five business days or as king as four
weeks, if all steps are, mit completed in a, timely manner. Therefore, you should register early. You must have ti Data
Universal, Numbering System (DUNS) number and be registered with the Central iCI,"entractor 11,egistration (CC.R„) database to
begin your tipphicatirin 'with Grants.gov, :For additional instructions on how to register with Grants.gov please visit
All Applicants must have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number prior to stibmittir g an application ter COPS
funding. A DUNS number is a unique nine or thineett-digil sequence recognized as Inc universal standard for identifying and
tra eking entities receiving federal funds, Please note that ribtaining a DliiNS rum ober 'may take one to two business days. To
verify your DUNS number, please, call I ,%6305.571 1 ,r'rr Visit WWW.dith.COnthiS.
All Applicants must be regiSitrelti With Central Cormactor Registration (CCR) database prior to submitting an application
for COPS fandirtg. Tine CCR database is the repository ,for standard iiiibrination. about &elect! fluaricia,1 assistance' applicants,,
recipients, and sub -recipients, Applicants must ntaiatain an active, CCR registration with current information at all times
during the grant application process and, if awarded, the grant award periodif you have Ali active CCR registration that is set
to 'expire before September :30, 2l' you must renew your CCR registration hefitre, completing the application. Please, note
that 11e CCR verification process may take up ai two weeks to complete. To register or to verify that your CCR, registration
has not expired, please visit iv " .
Applicants ,sluarld not titall recipients ,of awards of $25,.000 ur bore under this solicitation, consistent with the Federal
Punding Accountability and Transparency Act iI,PEA"TA), will be required to report award information on any first-tier
sultawards totaling $25,000 or more, and, in cierta61 case,s, to report infOrtnation on the nanleS and total compensation of the
five most highly compensated executives of the recipient and 'first-tier subrecipients. If applicable, the HEATA Subawaid
Reporting System (FSRS), accessible at is the reporting tool 'rleCill'itMIL:$ LIIILII.I llssoIiLi1a1icn will arse 10
Carire id ruiner Suhaward information and any executive, eoinpeasation, data required by FF ATA , The, sulaaward,
intbrmation entered hi PSRS 1 then he displayed on iy,";;;Afitiiiiii3Oyliti3iiiity associated with, tile prime, award, fartheri,ng
Federal spending transparency. Each applicant entity must eitsu re that it has the necessary IiirneeSSM and systems in
place to comply With the aplica lite reporting retpriniments should R receive funding.
Visit the "Account AvteSS" portion, of the COPS web site at 'is to determine if your agency currently.Iuis
Lin active online axonal,. antPo r to create one. If yen do tian remember your p aSSWOM., yott can use this site to have a
pasword reininder sent to you. Please note that the COPS Agettcy Portal ("Account Access") has recently been modified,
Atis'iversto thequentiy aahed tatestions regard lag the COPS Agency Perla I! ca be 'rbotriat
by tannin ing the COPS Office Respon $e Certter at 1.8,00.02i ,6720,
1,Iyour agency was never assigned a password or you need assistance creating an aeon unt andoi systetri access, or you would
like to verify your itgency's correct Otti number, call 1,1300,421 .67711 between 9:00 a:m. and 5:00 p.m. .Eastem Daylight
lime, or e-mail ,,:iikviiliiire;qtysity)ti
Once logged into "Account Access," your agency will pre able to add additional user accounts and also ttpdratii your agencyr
contact and ad,dress irtformation, Please take this time to er1S1.111 that your agency's Law Finforceinei it Executive,
Government 11eiive, ind point of conflict information are current with our ,office.
Ymi will be, repro had 1u pravkbe the Unique (ieographic, Names information Sysion iGN S ) 1i1akm number assign ed iu
your agency. The CANIS database is maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey, J,S, Depanntent of' tile 1111.4,7k:11, rfo kidup
your GNI S 'Feature I 0„ please it their website at; tap oyes, rsticlote:iiito
!ItP
MAY9 20 II
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY commissioN MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Contract Award 'for Disaster ebrs Removal Services
SUBMIT -rep, BY: Mck Carper, RE, Director of Publio Works,„<le
DATE:: May 2, 2011
BACKGROUND: On April 611', 2009, the City opened proposals for Disaster Debris Removal
Services i Twelve proposals were submitted with bid prices ranging from $169,175 to S312,130
For a generic project roughly equal in volume to the cleanup required following Hurricane
Frances in 2004. Selection criteria for the bid required information in five categories: Project
Management Team 1 Operational Plan (15 Points), Documentation (ability to provide information
to ensure maximum reimbursement from FEMA) t Safety & lEnvironmental Consideration /
Available Equipment (10 Points), Proximity to Atlantic Beach (15 Points), Past Performanee
References (10 Points) and Bid Price (50 Points), Information en the top three evaluated bid
packages is summarized below.
Bidder
Team / Documentation Proximity Perform nce :id Total
Byrd Brothers
Emergency
Services
DRC .Emergency
Services
AshBritt, inc,
7.5 43 85,25
10 40 84.12
The bid require& the successful bidder to begin initial clearance of storirerelated debris
from critical roadways identifiedby the City of Atlantic Beach within twenty-four (24) hours of
receipt of notice to proceed. The contract is for three years and allows for one renewal not to
exceed three years, with altowance to annually adjust bid prices at the Contractor's request by a
percentage up to the Consumer Price Index — Urban Consu ers (CPI -U),
BUDGET: This is a Pre-Eveot 1 Contingency oontract and would be executed on ar
emergency / as needed basis.. No funds are appropriated in advance for disaster debris
cleanup,
RECOM ENDATION: While all of the ranked bidder's are experienced, reputable firms with
the capability to provide the services required, Byrd Brothers was the highest ranked firm. Staff
recommends awarding the primary contract to 1: yrd Brothers, with DRC ES as backup and
authorizing the Mayor to sign the contracts for the City.
ATTACHMENT:
(1) Bid Tab
(2) Selection Criteria
REVIEWEDY CITY ANAGER:
Evaluation of Proposals for Disaster Debris Removal Services — RFP 11-04
AGENDA ITEM # 8F
MAY 9, 2011
c
co
C
cc
M
=
r
,CC
2
0
H
Cl)
2
1—
2
1—
C
N
2
CO~
=
N
2
t
=
2
Score
C\
V
co
O
4
6
Lf)
I--
V
o
I--
co
cc;c0
cc co
Lf)
I--
I--
Lf)
N-
o
Lf)
N
CO
co
O
6
6
co
O
O
V
Lf)
I--
I--
No
co
N
co
Lf)
Ir --
Unit Cost of Debris
Management
50 .oints
Base Bid:
$193,575.00
40.00
Base Bid:
$312,130.00
18.00
Base Bid:
Not provided
Unit prices total:
$234,844.00 26.00
Base Bid:
$162,594.00
45.00
Base Bid:
$212,282.00
33.00
Base Bid:
$207,395.00
38.00
Base Bid:
$178,683.00
43.00
Base Bid:
$283,541.00
24.50
Base Bid:
$228,500.00
25.00
Base Bid:
Not provided
Unit prices total:
$189,560.00 41.50
Base Bid:
$213,605.00
27.00
Base Bid:
$169,175.00
49.00
Past Performance /
References /
Awards
N
w
Co
0 O
Q O
O
r
4
O
Lf)
(O
O
O
(0
O
Lf)
6
O
O
6)
O
O
CO
O
U)
N
O
O
6)
O
O
U)
O
Lf)
(0
O
Lf)
N
O
Lf)
(0
Proximity to
the City of Atlantic
Beach
15 .oints
12.00
O
O
O
Lf)
N
CO
O
O
O
Lf)
O
O
N
r--
CO
O
Documentation /
Safety and
Environmental
Consideration /
Equipment List
y
w
'` o
Q O
Q 0i
O
V.
I.....
0
Lf)
r-
0
O
6
0
O
6
0
O
6
o
Lf)
r-
O
o
U)
O
Lf)
r-'
O
In
V
o
o
N
0
Lf)
r-
0
Lf)
Lf)
Project Management
Team / Plan
15 .oints
13.12
O
Lf)
Lf)
N
o
Lf)
in
N-
O
Lf)
Lf)
N
O
Lf)
in
I--
O
6
6
I--
o
Lf)
Scaled Value
AshBritt, Inc.
ATL Disaster
Recovery
Bamaco Disaster
Recovery Inc.
Byrd Brothers
Emergency Services,
LLC
Ceres Environmental
Services, Inc.
Crowder Gulf
DRC Emergency
Services, LLS
J.B. Coxwell
Contracting, Inc.
Hensley R. Lee
Contracting, Inc.
OMNI Pinnacle
Philips and Jordan,
Inc.
T.F.R. Enterprises,
Inc.
>-.
0
E
(o
1•15
C-6
>-.
U
a)
a)
>
a)
PROPOSAL TO CREATE
COU•SE N JOHA
W rAT IS DISC GOLF?
AGENDA i'WM unA.
MAY 9, 2011
A FRISBEE GOLF
NSEN PARK
Disc golf k El disc game in which individual players throw a flying disc into a basket or at a target The
object of the game is to traverse a .course from beginning to end in the fewest number of throws of the
disc." There are currently more than 3000 established disc golf courses a5 of 2010, and approximately
87% are free.
The following 1:5 A presentation on the PDGA's (Profess iona Disc Coif Association) websi Le,
Iu
jif
111111',y, noun'I',,,,,11111111111iiiv,,y11111,111110., „
n.„ ,1111,1111111m
AciikNiffM ITFM. 110A.
MAY 9„ 201 1
Benefits 44 Disc Gtidf CotArse .„,,,,elorietoprirtent
"The ac.tivity provides low cost recreation to the community ipdhile being low cost.. for installation
and maintenance... As The Trumbull County Metroparks look Into the tenth year of offering disc
golf we have no regrets. Disc golf may be the best kept recreational secret."
ruvrin
-rrii rub
dnexpeasive t,c) Iddisidadt
A disc golf course is inexpensive to install and can make use of land unsuitable for otrier sports,
activities or development. This differentiates disc golf from most other outdoor sports that require
specialized sport facilitics, buildings or extensive land develnoment. Once Installed, a disc golf
course has few maintenancecosts associated with upkeep and operation, In addition disc golf can
be played year round, rain or shine. A small basic disc golf course can be built on asllittle as two
acres of land.A'full championship course usually 115 built on one to two acres per hole.
ire 1: t u lie CCU nrood )), and IW Park
,1(11, y,,',414 roi cff0 d
Disc If is found in state, county and neighborhood parks and private property in diverse
climates and terrain. A disc golf course brings the local community to your parks as well as
attracting disc golfers from the surrounding areas,
r..irec, very 10 yvbe rtit6ai+ 6:tit tbe1 , Bob Grgersen„
Kalamazoo's County Parks Director states. "We've received a lot of extra visitors and attention
because of the game. disc golfers are in the park 365 days a year. 'Whatever the season,
whatever the weather, I see players on the course. That's what IS exciting to me. We have
something .that attracts people all year round. We've had ice fishing and cross country skiing for
years, but disc golf is now our biggest winter activity, If you build it they will come"
Schools have been increasingly adding disc golf to their curriculum. Schools are finding that kids
not only love, the sport but that it helps developed critical thinking through scrutinizing and
negotiating obstaolleS, it provides a safe means of exercise and can be used for other life lessons
ke ecology„ planning and socialization.
11.)isc Gc)tt Course)); are
);rivirednordendtally Friendly
Well designed disc golf courses are ,environmentally friendly and utilize an area's, existing
topography„ Varied terrain is an advantage. Trees, shrubs, hills, creeks and lakes offer more
obstacles and challenge to a course. There is no clear -cutting of trees, grading of land„
costly fertilizer, or mowing maintenance necessary. Courses have been installed on old
landfills, around reservoirs where there is a hundred year -flood buffer and Pole Holes have been
anchored into above -ground concrete forms so as to avoid ,any digging In sensitive areas where
land disturbance needs to remain at a minimum,
Many of today's course designs employ the use alternative tee positions so that parts of the
course can lay fallow for a season or two. DGA first designed an anchor and collar system for our
Disc Pole Holesul so that alternate anchors could be installed on your course. Additional anchors
allows one tee off position to have 3 or more hole options. This not only limits erosion from foot
traffic but creates depth and flexibility to your course layout,
1.1.N1111A. 1TIl 0.A.
MA 9, ald
CiTtist iltid Itostijve itivestment
A disc golf course provides a good bang or the buck allowing dozens of players to play at the
same time.A successful disc golf course like two local courses
vr,Li and ttah Francisco, ticittuth ottott Park 61 C: 901 CO Ge can have over a hundred
players playing the course at the same time on a given weekend. In contrast, a tennis court that
costs more to Install only has two or at most, four players at a time.
In addition, the sport attracts positive and dedicated disc golf players and disc golf clubs who
bring a beneficial element to the area. The players tend to take an dctivi . role in the course and
the surrounding areas, making sure the course is in good shape and taken care of. "We had a
problem with vandalism in certain areas of the park, but after the disc golf course was
built, the increased activity in the park really decreased vandalism", sttes Fch Dippel,
Drrector or Parks and Recreation for South St. Patil„, Minnesota, "It only" takes a piece of park
space that wasn't being used arid makes it an important part of the park system.
Bob Downing, Portland Parks & Recreation District Manager, had this to say about the benefits of
disc golf in his district: The positive change in the park brought about by disc golf has
made a lot of people happy - neighbors,. police, golfers, local businessmen, arid parks
workers. The old adage that positive use will displace a negative use seems to he much
in evidence at ,Pier Park."
Mayor of Portland, Oregon, Vera Katz, found a recent disc golf tournament a positive addition to
the Portland Community and Park System. "As Mayor of Portland, 1 welcome any
opportunity to support events that bring together members of our community frr
positive and sustainable way. The NW Amateur disc golf Series is just such an
opportunity. On behalf of the citiz;,ns of Portland, Z welcome you! We are proud to be
the host for the 2004 Progress disc golf Tournament. 1 think you will find Pier Park to
be one of the jewels of our city.
WHY 1SC GOLF IN JOHANSEN PARK?
Johansen Park is one of the jewels of Atlantic Beach. It is a beautiful park that in
the past has been used very infrequently simply because there is so little to do
there. [ believe creating a disc golf ,course in this park will be a very low impact
utilization of this park that will give Atlantic Beach residents a reason to go there. It
is a very popular activity nationwide that our residents will now be allowed to enjoy
without traveling outside our city limits to jac<sonville, It will increase the
amenities of our park system and our quality of life with very little cost. Since
playing disc golf is free, people from every economic status can enjoy this outdoor
sport; no green fees, no caddies., no clubs. It is a great: family -friendly activity for
our residents to enjoy.
HOW MUCH
DOES IT C ST?
ik ENDA. ITEM 10A
2O
initial cost for the baskets and materials shoold be under $3,000. Thc only additional
maintenance to the park will be the addition of a trash can.
WHAT 15 THE IMPACT?
There seems to be room for 9 holes in the park. Each "hole" consist of a metal basket that the
disk are thrown into. Thereare also 9 tee off areas that will be created probably out of mulch
ad wood rads.
Parking will be in the tlie sarne areas that are currently available to the public alongside the road,
hi 11111111 111111111,11H
A.!NA 1
MAY 20111
1,011114n ;:111;:„
fjzt, ftrr
4z:
outhiNial
The 'holes" are simply stainless steel baskets This tee off area from a course in Martha's
that b end very well into the environment of Vineyard shows how low impact a Frisbee Go[f
the park.. Course can be,
AGENDA ITEM # 10B
MAY 9, 2011
City of Atlantic Beach
Strategic Plan
February 2011
The Atlantic Beach City Commission began using strategic planning as a process to set and
monitor major goals eleven years ago. Many accomplishments have been completed dealing
with the city's storm water system, several new city parks and recreation events, the city's water
and sewer systems and the Royal Palms and Mayport Corridor neighborhoods.
Most of the city's major strategic goals require a long-term investment of both money and time
and often take several years to complete. Because many of the strategic goals are long-term, the
2011 plan includes many elements from the 2010 plan, some with a change of emphasis, as well
as some new goals.
This strategic plan report consists of both a narrative description of the strategies and goals that
were set by the city commission in two workshops as well as a spreadsheet with the specific
steps to accomplish each of the goals. The spreadsheet will be used as a tool to track progress in
quarterly reports throughout the year. However, the city commission will be kept aware of most
of the major goals on a more frequent basis because'they often involve commission decisions for
budgeting and other actions throughout the year.
The strategic workshops in 2011 included two nightly meetings on February 22nd and 231-d. The
workshops were facilitated by Dr. Robert E. Lee who is a member of the graduate faculty at
Florida State University's Rubin D. Askew School of Public Administration Policy. He is also
the Executive Director of the Center for Local Government Excellence (CFLGE) which is also
located at Florida State University. Mr. Lee's service as facilitator on this occasion was working
as a private consultant to the City rather than on behalf of Florida State University.
The facilitator met with each of the elected officials prior to the second workshop and prepared a
broad set of strategies under which the city commissioners' proposed goals could be
accommodated. During the second workshop, each Commissioner submitted their top goals
under each strategy which were later scored and tabulated. Four goals received unanimous
support of all five elected officials. Four others received support of three of the five
commissioners.
One final goal was added by the City Commission at the regular meeting of April 25, 2011 when
the Strategic Plan was presented for adoption. This goal is the Rose Park Expansion and
Redesign. Therefore, there were a total of nine eight -goals for the 2011 strategic plan.
The major strategies and goals to accomplish them are briefly summarized as follows. They will
be described in more detail later in this narrative report.
Strategy 1: Financial Plan
• Pension Reform
• Maintain health insurance costs
AGENDA ITEM # 10B
MAY 9, 2011
Strategy 2: City Aesthetics
• Code Enforcement
Strategy 3: Public Safety
• Construct a New Police Building
• Continue the COPs Program
Strategy 4: Impact of Navy Ships
• Create/work with stakeholders
Strategy 5: Wastewater Improvements
• Meet the TMDL/ nitrogen removal standard by the mandated deadline
Other Items
• Prepare a Marsh Master Plan
• Rose Park Expansion and Redesign -
Strategy 1: Financial Plan. Develop and maintain a sound, sustainable financial plan that
establishes sufficient reserve funds, requires specific goals and objectives in the city's annual
budget documents, responds to the city's strategic initiatives, publicly provides quarterly
financial and program updates to the city commission, and encourages public, private and
intergovernmental partnerships to provide city services.
Background: Cities across Florida and the nation are facing difficult economic times in 2011.
Revenues are down and costs are up. Pension costs are rising due to investment losses in recent
years, healthcare costs are increasing, and the cumulative burden of state and federal mandates
piled on over many years is tremendous. The City of Atlantic Beach has been in somewhat better
financial shape than most other cities due to more conservative budgeting over many years.
However, budgets have been tight over the last couple of years and there have been many minor
service -level reductions. The city will probably be facing more difficult budget challenges over
the next year. During the strategic discussions, it was the clear consensus of the commission that
staff should plan to cut services if necessary rather than increase revenues.
Goal: Pension Reform. This goal received the unanimous support of the city commission. The
City of Atlantic Beach has three pension plans; one for the sworn police officers, one for other
general employees and a Defined Contribution Plan for managerial officials that have opted out
of the City's Defined Benefit Plan. Under Florida law, cities are required to provide minimum
levels of pension benefits for police officers if they accept insurance premium revenues (Section
185 funds) from the state to contribute to the pension plan. The pension benefits for general
employees, both in Atlantic Beach and in other cities across the state, generally lag slightly
below those benefits afforded to police and firefighters. In recent years, the level of employee
contributions to both defined benefit pension plans has increased and some changes have been
made to the general pension plan. However, the annual cost for the city to fund the plans
continues to increase. The commission has expressed a desire to consider various options to
AGENDA ITEM # 10B
MAY 9, 2011
reduce the pension costs, thereby making the plans more sustainable in the long-term. Funds are
budgeted this year and for a study of possible alternatives, although it has been put on hold
pending various amendments to state laws that are being considered in the legislature. The
actuarial study will be prepared after the legislature finishes their work and the results will be
presented to the city commission. Instructions will then be given by the commission to the city's
negotiator to work with the unions for pension amendments.
Goal: Maintain Health Insurance Costs. This goal received the support of three
commissioners. The city's cost for providing health insurance for employees, as well as their
dependents, has increased over several years. This is because of increasing costs in the healthcare
industry as well as several major illnesses from city employees and dependents. The city
commission has chosen to deal with the problem in recent years by reducing the health care
coverage benefits, by increasing the employee's contribution, co -pays and deductibles for
employee and dependent costs, and by increasing the city amount contributed to support the plan.
Finding innovative solutions to keep the cost of healthcare to the city from going up even more
will be a challenge.
Strategy 2: City Aesthetics. Maintain city aesthetics through beautification and maintenance
of city and state roadways, public rights of ways, and city parks, through consistent
enforcement of city zoning and maintenance codes, and through education partnerships with
neighborhood groups, churches, the business community and the City of Jacksonville.
Background: Atlantic Beach has completed numerous projects to improve the looks of the
community. In the last three years, major strategic efforts have been targeted to the Mayport
Road and Royal Palms neighborhoods. While the Mayport Corridor and Royal Palms projects
have involved numerous city departments and a broad variety of projects, the ones relating to this
strategy revolve around code enforcement. Before these became strategic priorities for the city,
many locations within these areas showed a rundown appearance from lack of maintenance of
the houses, businesses, and yards. Accumulations of household items, old toys and junk were
often seen in carports and yards, dead landscaping and junk cars were common, and several other
factors contributed to the blighted appearance. Major improvements in both areas have been
achieved over the last three years through code enforcement. This has required a reorganization
of responsibilities to focus on these target areas.
Goal: Code Enforcement. This goal received unanimous support of the Mayor and
Commission.. While new code enforcement violations crop up on a weekly or monthly basis, it is
the commission's desire to continue the level of code enforcement compliance and resulting
neighborhood appearance that has been achieved. One Commissioner suggested at the strategic
workshops that staff should consider amendments to the city code that would strengthen the
staff's ability to further improve neighborhood appearances.
Strategy 3: Public Safety. Provide professional and responsive public safety for citizens by
ensuring that those providing the service are properly trained, have properly updated facilities
and equipment, and are encouraged to engage the citizens and other stakeholders in the
AGENDA ITEM # 10B
MAY 9, 2011
planning and implementation of crime prevention techniques and safe pedestrian and
vehicular roadways, and take measures to ensure safe usage of the beach and other waterways
that improve the quality of life throughout the city.
Background: The citizens of Atlantic Beach have enjoyed an excellent police force over many
years. Statistics show that the community has the quickest response times and lowest crime rates
in Duval County. Previous strategic goals have involved the PD in two areas. The first is in
reducing crime in the Mayport Corridor and Royal Palms neighborhoods and the second is in
planning for a new police building. Both of these efforts are being carried over into the 2011
strategic plan.
Goal: Construct a New Police Building. This goal is supported by three of the city
commissioners. The current police building is poorly designed and far too small to meet the
current needs of the city's police force. The existing building has approximately 4,000 square
feet, but other police buildings in most similarly sized cities across Florida range from 10,000 to
20,000 square feet. The dispatch office is cramped by the addition of new electronic equipment
and the HVAC system is overwhelmed. The two holding cells are unusable and there is no room
for officers to interview victims or suspects unless individual office space is used. Retention of
evidence and other crime records is severely hampered. Planning for expanding the police
building started in 2005 but it was soon determined that it would be better to build a new
building. After research of available properties owned by the city, the decision was made by the
commission to locate the building just north of City Hall and in close proximity to the existing
police building. Architects are currently designing the building and should be ready for bid late
in the spring of 2011. It should take approximately one year to build.
Goal: Continue the COPS Program. This goal was supported by three of the city
commissioners. When the Mayport Corridor area was added as a strategic goal three years ago,
the decision was made to increase the police presence in the area through the addition of one
Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) officer, the reallocation of an existing position to
add a second officer and the addition of a new position for a Community Redevelopment
Coordinator. Since that time, all three officers have focused their time almost exclusively along
the Mayport Road and in adjoining neighborhoods. Their work has resulted in a dramatic
decrease in the amount of crime in the area. The Redevelopment Coordinator has not only
worked on policing issues, but has also worked closely toward the creation of a business
association along the Mayport Road, toward the creation of neighborhoods organizations, and to
provide a number of recreation programs. Numerous other projects and programs have been
started in the Mayport and Royal Palms areas. While the commission's description of this goal in
the strategic planning workshop described the COPS officers, other comments indicated that the
functions of the Redevelopment Coordinator should also be continued.
Strategy 4: Impact of Navy Ships. Proactively work with the City of Jacksonville and other
stakeholders in the region to prepare for the impact of the new ships at the Naval Base with
special emphasis on planning for appropriate use of properties in the region for fleet support
services and other businesses and to ensure that usage is complementary to the "residential
quality of life" in the city.
AGENDA ITEM # 10B
MAY9,2011
Background: Naval Station Mayport has been the home port for numerous Navy ships and
several aircraft carriers since the base was established in the 1950s. Most recently, the Aircraft
Carrier USS Kennedy was stationed at Mayport. However, the Kennedy was decommissioned in
2007 and with it many Navy and private employees left the area. The Navy has been planning
for various upgrades to the facilities at Naval Station Mayport to enable the homeporting of a
new nuclear carrier. Construction of the necessary facilities will require the temporary use of
several hundred contractors which will be followed by the arrival of the carrier with over 3,200
assigned personnel. Other new ships and commands are also expected at Mayport in the next
few years. The Navy has started making investments in the base to accommodate these new
ships, but has not yet set a date for the arrival of the carrier. The timing of the decommissioning
of the USS Kennedy had a major impact in our area because it coincided with the downturn in
the economy nationwide. Several proposed housing projects along the Mayport Corridor were
put on hold and several businesses have closed their doors. The relocation of new Navy
personnel to Naval Station Mayport is expected to bring with it a significant economic boom to
the Mayport Corridor.
Goal: Create and work with a group of stakeholders to make the most of the opportunities
that will be presented to the community through the naval expansion. This goal received
the unanimous support of the city commission. The expansion of Navy facilities and the
relocation of new ships and personnel to the area will bring with it numerous opportunities to
work with the Navy, the City of Jacksonville, and other entities to improve the Mayport
Corridor. These could include the provision of temporary housing for the contractors that will
build Navy facilities and helping the new naval personnel find permanent housing. Other
opportunities will include getting new family and neighborhood friendly businesses to locate
along Mayport Road. One opportunity (challenge) will probably be minimizing any traffic
related problems that may come with the increased personnel.
Strategy 5: Wastewater Improvements. Complete the wastewater treatment plant
improvement project and routinely evaluate long-term operating costs associated with the
operation of the city's utilities, including a sustainable storm water program.
Background: The City of Atlantic Beach, along with every other operator of a wastewater or
storm water system in northeast Florida, has been mandated to reduce the levels of nitrogen
discharged into the St. Johns River. Excessive nitrogen has caused algae blooms during summer
months with result in oxygen depletion, fish kills and a generally unsightly appearance. Atlantic
Beach is required to begin construction of needed modifications by April 30, 2011, complete
construction by December 31, 2012 and meet the reduced nitrogen limit by October 31, 2013.
Goal: Meet the TMDL\nitrogen removal standard by the mandated deadline. This received
the unanimous support of all the City Commissioners. In 2008, Atlantic Beach began a study to
determine the best method to meet the new nitrogen standard. The conclusion of that study was
that it would be most economical to meet the standards by combining the city's two wastewater
plants into one, eliminating the Buccaneer Wastewater Treatment Plant, and removing enough of
the nitrogen from the wastewater to offset the requirements for reductions in the storm water
system. Plans for both the upgrade of the city's main wastewater plant, which will be retained,
and the piping system needed to move the sewage from the Buccaneer Wastewater Plant (to be
AGENDA ITEM # 10B
MAY 9, 2011
eliminated) have been completed. Bids have been received for both projects and contracts have
been awarded. Both construction projects were started recently before the 2011 strategic
workshops. Construction on both of these projects is ongoing and is anticipated to be completed
in time to meet the state schedule.
Other Stratejies
Background: A sixth strategy statement was discussed and amended by the city commission at
the final strategic planning workshop. The revised version is as follows; "Utilize appropriate
social media resources to promote city services and improve city accessibility for citizens."
However, there were no goals under this strategy that received a scoring from a majority of the
city commission. However, during the discussion, one other goal that did not fit under this
revised strategy received support from three of the city commissioners.
Goal: Prepare a Marsh Master Plan. This goal received the support of three of the city
commissioners. The acquisition of approximately 350 acres of mostly marsh property on the
Westside of Atlantic Beach was a goal in one of the city's prior strategic plans. With the aid of a
private foundation grant, the property was acquired in 2009. The marsh property connects two
other City parks; the Tideviews and Dutton Island Preserves. Except for the public access points
at the Dutton and Tideviews Preserves, access to the marsh is very limited due to tidal
conditions. However, it was envisioned during the acquisition that the park would be made
accessible for passive public uses such as canoeing, kayaking and fishing. To determine how to
do that, the City Commission has included funding for a Marsh Master Plan in the current FY
2011 budget. The development of this plan will include significant opportunities for the input of
user groups, adjacent residents and others. When complete, the Plan should provide a roadmap
for projects over the next 10 to 20 years.
Goal; Rose Park Expansion and Redesign. The Commission voted unanimously at the regular
commission meeting on April 25, 2011 to carry over a project that was listed on the previous
year's strategic plan as a goal for the 2011-12 year. The Rose Park Expansion/ Redesign was
included under the general heading of Parks & Recreation Facilities in the previous year, but did
not get much attention due to limited budget availability. The Rose Park project, as described in
the 2010 strategic workshops, is to expand the park by removing a portion of Orchid St. from it's
intersection with Plaza Rd. on the south and going north along it's boundary with Rose Park so
that the two city -owned portions of Rose Park north of Plaza Rd. could be connected. Amenities
discussed in 2010 included picnic facilities, new trees and landscaping, and basketball courts.