Loading...
Item 8B AGENDA ITEM #8B FEBRUARY 13, 2006 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Proposed revisions to Section 24-189(a) of the Subdivision Regulations, as contained within Chapter 24, the Land Development Regulations, eliminating the administrative approval of certain two-lot property divisions to require Commission review and approval of such requests. SUBMITTED BY: Sonya Doerr, AICP a. Community Development Director DATE: February 2, 2006 BACKGROUND: At the December 12th meeting, the City Commission discussed a revision to the Subdivision regulations, which would eliminate the administrative approval of certain lot divisions and require such divisions to come before the City Commission for review and approval with public notice required. Section 24-189(a) of the Subdivision regulations currently allows for the administrative approval of two-lot divisions only when ~„ such divisions are in compliance with the all requirements of the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. ~,,, At the December 12th meeting, the Commission deferred the matter to the Community Development Board for consideration and a recommendation. The Community Development Board considered this revision to Section 24-189(a) of the Subdivision regulations at their ~„ January 17th meeting. The CD Board recommended by a 4:3 vote that Section 24-189(a) remain unchanged. BUDGET: No budget issues. RECOMMENDATION: Direction to staff to: 1) prepare ordinance for first reading and public hearing to amend Section 24-189(a), eliminating the administrative approval of certain two-lot property divisions to require Commission review and approval of such requests, or 2) leave Section 24-189(a) of the Subdivision regulations as it currently exists allowing for the administrative approval of two-lot divisions only when such divisions are in compliance with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. ~"" ATTACHMENTS: Minutes (draft) of the January 17, 2006 Community Development Board meeting and the December 12, 2005 meeting of the City Commission meeting, and copy of proposed revision as previously discussed by the City Commission and copy of Section 24-189(a) as currently effective. ~,, February 13, 2006 regular meeting ~* AGENDA ITEM #8B FEBRUARY 13, 2006 Draft Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board S.a Review and recommendation to the City Commission related to proposed revisions to the Land Development Regulations (Chapter 24 of the Code of Ordinance for the City of Atlantic ~'" Beach) related to: 2) Amend Section 24-189, eliminating the administrative approval of certain two-lot property divisions to require Commission review and approval of such requests. (Proposed pursuant to direction from City Commission at the December 12th Commission meeting.) Sonya Doerr described the agenda item, stating that this is a proposed revision to the Subdivision regulations that would remove the administrative approval for certain types of lot divisions. As '" proposed, atwo-lot division would still be exempt from the full plat or re-plat process, but approval by the City Commission would be required. Ms. Woods asked whether this change would require involvement of the Community Development Board. Ms. Doerr said no, all ~. requests would go straight to the City Commission. Ms. Woods asked if more than two lots would come to the Board. Ms. Doerr responded yes, that process does not change. Chris Lambertson asked what they did in St. Johns County. Ms. Doerr responded that in St. Johns County atwo-lot division was allowed by administrative approval, as was the case with other surrounding jurisdictions. ~. Steve Jenkins asked what is the frequency of occurrence of such an action. Ms. Doerr responded that there have been eight two-lot divisions in three years. Lindley Tolbert, 334 6th Street, wondered why the Commission would want to change the ~„ existing regulation, that this should be an everyday job for the staff. The Commission does not have the expertise to do this. They were elected for policy decisions. ~„ Casey Quinn, 524 Plaza Street, stated that the situation should not be left totally up to the administration, that these should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. You can't subdivide every piece of property in the City anyway. Pat Pilmore, 995 Camilla Street, noted that Atlantic Beach is a small community. Everyone can be a player. She has respect for the Board and would like to see more planning come back to this ~,. Board to discuss things at this level, then at the Commission level. R.D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Ave, stated that he didn't agree with the Commission eliminating the staff responsibilities; and that the Commission want to have an overriding control. Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina, asked where this would lead to, what will be the next ~• authoritative action that they will have. The Commission does not have details to make these decisions. Chris Lambertson reminded everyone that the Board would not see these normally anyway. Peter Sapia, 1625 Selva Marina, stated that taking administrative function from City staff adds attorney fees and only adds to the costs. ,.. 10 ~"" AGENDA ITEM #8B Draft Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board FEBRUARY 13, 2006 -ter Dave MacInnes asked Ms. Doerr what happens if you deny an application. Can the applicant appeal? Ms. Doerr responded yes, they could appeal to this Board. ~. Sam Jacobson asked what the basis for staff denial would be. Ms. Doerr responded that they could be denied if they didn't meet minimum width or lot size requirements. Chris Lambertson stated that staff is very competent in the ability to review that data, and that this should not be taken out of the administrative arena and into the political area. ~. Sam Jacobson asked if Ms. Doerr approves it, what gets passed on. Ms. Doerr stated that once it's approved, the property owner submits approved surveys, and when they sell the lot, they record ~"' the new survey with their deeds. Steve Jenkins stated that it is very important that we have clear requirements so people know "' where they stand. We could be doing citizens an injustice if it wasn't clear what could be done or if it was made discretionary on what could be approved. Mr. Lambertson also expressed concerns about the possibility of uncertainty. Ms. Woods stated that prior to 2003 administrative ~'" requirement did not exist. Ms. Doerr responded that this was still done at the staff level at that time. Ms. Woods ran a scenario where it would be disadvantageous to have staff approval, expressing concern about incongruity of some possible approvals. Steve Jenkins stated that was the Board's challenge to make regulations clear. To make everything subjective to who the Board is was problematic. He would rather change regulations to address the current issues. Ms. Woods responded that the Code could be changed every year. Mr. Jacobson expressed the thought that certainty was only one issue. Other matters such as fairness and reasonableness are also important, and that is wasn't a bad thing to have Commission make these decisions. Dave MacInnes moved that the proposed amendment to Section 24-189 be denied, seconded by Craig Burkhart. ,,~, Chris Lambertson stated that there needs to be more certainty, just like with a variance. Mr. Burkhart stated that rules can be administered by the staff, and if there are problems, the regulations should be changed, not the responsibilities of staff. Mr. Jacobson stated that people wanted these subdivisions to be approved on their merits, not simply as an administrative approvals. Ms. Woods then read from the Code, stating that you need to look at the Comprehensive Plan when considering subdividing of land. The motion to recommend to the City Commission that Section 24-189 remain unchanged was approved by a 4:3 vote, with Lynn Drysdale, Sam Jacobson, and Carolyn Woods ~. dissenting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45pm. Signed Attest ~. 11 ~"' AGENDA ITEM #8B FEBRUARY 13, 2006 December 12.200 I11rGULAR Cdt~rIIF'IISSIC9N ~4fFFTIItiG I'aQe 9 14~~t~ved by Sitnrnons, secntaded ~~, T3orr~o Carnrrtissioner Fletcher suggested addict; agenda item 8G to tl~e motion. Commissioner Simmons stated that the to=a items needed to tie acted upon ~""' separately. CornmissianerBarna expressed his conccrri with whether the l~0 squat•e foot trtinirnum dimensions would kre sufficient far pt•eventing lat-ge Lots in other areas from being subdivided. die asked that, cluiYng thetr eon~iderations of this item, the Camtnunity Development Board. reveti~+ the square footage of existing platted: legal lots in the City so that atl the appropriate areas are included. Votes. Aye. ~ ~ Born4, ~'Ieteher, 5ln~nnns, Waters, ~~'c~lfson I~tay~~ 0 „~ M[~'T'Ib'l~t CAltltlEl3 W ~ SG. Revision to Chapter 24, Land Develapinett Regulations, Article I'V', Subdivision ~tegulatians tcx remove i.I~e aclmitYistrafive '~' approval far certain, types Qf lc~t, divisions ('City t7anager) City Ivanag~;r Hanson noted that consideration of this issue texas another request by a Commissaner at flee previous meeting. Ha explained that this would amend Section. ?4-I $9 of the code that provit#es far the .administrative approval of the subdivision of one at into two lots. Ht stated that fire praposeci change wauid requare all lot subdivisions to ga through the full repla€ting process anal carne before the Commission for approval. rtata~i that the Cotrtrnission has t© decide if they would Tike to have this item referred to the Community Development Board. for further consideration. .Mayor tiVolfson asked it Communit~~ Development Director Sort?'a Doerr had arty assistance with this first draft. City Mana¢er Hanson noted that Moth he and the City Attam:ey had an extensi~~e discussion of this matter v~rith Ms. Doerr before site had to go on t~~edical leave. NTotion: To refer revisinn to Chanter Z~. Land D4velitt~ntent lte~ulatiorts. Article I~', Subdivision Re~ulati4ns remr~viztir tiie administrative a .ravel for certain tv es of Iot divisions to the Cttrt~mttnty Devei©ntnent Board fctr revie~~~ and r~ectrrnrnendation fi~~ioved icy Borno, seconded lyy Fietclier AGENDA ITEM #8B FEBRUARY 13, 2006 ~. December L. 2{I05 RI/GIII.AR COA~itI~iISSiC-~' 14tEF"f"~,TG Faee lU Commissioner Fletcher noted that referral to the Cam.munity De~~eIoprrrtnt Board is required per. statute. Commissioner Borno requested that, in addition to the Community Development Berard revie~vna certified surveys tivith the new actions, they also be provided the title seaeeh for their revie~~~. Votes. Aye. 5 - Born:a, Fletcher, Sinur~ons, ~~'aters, 't~'crlfson ~'"' 1'~aw: 0 Mt)~"I~N CARRIED GB. Resolcr#on Nrr, OS-14 A RESpI.U'i'L+ON OF THE CITY ~F ATLAI"~ITIC BEACH, l~'I,ORIDA, ~. IMP[~SING A Mf}RAT4IxIUM ON DIVISIOI,r~S C?F LAND, AND Il'I~O'~~IDING AN E~CTI''V'E DATE, City Manager Hanson explained that this item is a proposed moratorium an the re-subdivision of property parcels until the previous t~vo items have been resolved. 1Vlatiarr. Approve. Resalrrtiott Na. 45-14 as presented. Mnveti l~v Barna, seconded bit Waters Cat~nmissianer Simmons inquired ha~v many di~~isarts of land have been. requested in the last. few weeks since the idea of the moratorium was ft~st ~. suggested.. Building. OffYCial Don Ford responded drat the Building Department rcceiti~ed approximately '?I inquiries on tl~e subject. and. 8 requests c~ha tamed in the necessary paper+vork. ~. Cammissiflner Fletcher brnugl~t up information. he researched regarding moratoriums in the TahoelSierra area. which allowed for mare broader moratoriums. Amended Matan. 1'a include the fallti~~n three ra osed dec~eloprnent standards as specified by 1+~'Ir '4'4'inter tv Elie moratariun3- 1). a truildint= coverat7e nrraxirnurn. 2) a floor area ratio maximum and 3) a side tir~all plane maximum. Commissioner Fletcher p~:ovided the specific details of each of the proposed standards and explained that these three standards would help prevent the ~, "McManson" problem. in the City. l4~ia~ved by Tletcher Amended Nation failed due to lark of a scca~nd. The question ~tiFas caked (~a apprc~vt~ lesolution 3v't~. a5-1 ~ as presented}. ~. AGENDA ITEM #8B FEBRUARY 13, 2006 DRAFT Sec. 24-189. Exemptions from the requirement for approval and recording of a Final Subdivision Plat or Replat. (a) Building Permits may be issued following divisions of Land without the need for approval of a ~" Final Subdivision Plat or a Replat only in accordance with each of following provisions (1) through (8). ~"" (1) Approval at a public hearing by the City Coniniission of a Certilied__Survev denictina the proposed new lots and upon finding that each of the following requirements and conditions are demonstrated. 'I he Certified Survey shall also depict the location of all Private '~" Protected Trees as de#ined by Chapter 23 of this Code of Ordinances (2) The Certified Survey shall demonstrate that each proposed new lot contains sufficient area ~. to meet all minimum Yard Requirements and that removal of no Private Protected 'f'rees as defined by Chapter 23-16 shall be required solely for the purpose of creating sufficient buildable area on the new lots. The Survey shall also identify the general intended building ~, -- tootprint location in relation to existing Private Protected Trees (3) The division results in no more than two (2) contiguous Lots or Parcels, and no division of any portion of the lands subiect to such a request under this Section shall have been divided during the precedin twenty-four (24) months (4) The resultant new Lots, comply with the Minimum Lot Area, Width and Depth, and access requirements of the applicable Zoning District, the Comprehensive Plan and all other ~„ applicable requirements of these Land Development Regulations as may be amended. (5) The resultant new lots are =enerally consistent in size width depth and sha e with surrounding development and. established platting patterns (6) The division and the resultant new Lots shall not create any Nonconforming Structures or any other Nonconforming characteristic. 7) Such Certif ed Survey shall be submitted to and approved the City .Commission prior to ~. recordina of a deed for transfer of ow7lership of I ands and shall be recorded as an addendum to the deed(s). It shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s) to provide evidence oI the approved Certified Survey along with any application for Building Permits (8) Notice of such requests to divide lots under the tez•ms of this Section shall be rovidcd as set forth in Section 24-52 (c) of this Chapter - , • +i. *~, , i~pl•i&#i£E'~~i%irrr-rn~-cc~ E~'~o~e-rccjurx~m c~rc-r--~-ccci-r ~ . was , ~,,, AGENDA ITEM #8B FEBRUARY 13, 2006 ~" Sec. 24-189. Exemptions from the requirement for approval and recording of a Final Subdivision Plat or Replat. (a) Building Permits may be issued following divisions of Land without the need for approval of a Final Subdivision Plat or a Replat only in accordance with each the following provisions. (1) The division results in no more than two (2) contiguous Lots or Parcels. (2) The resultant new Lots, comply with the Minimum Lot Area, Width and Depth, and access requirements of the applicable Zoning District, the Comprehensive Plan and all other applicable requirements of these Land Development Regulations. (3) The division and the resultant new Lots shall not create any Nonconforming Structures or any other Nonconforming characteristic. (4) Approval by the designated Administrative Official of a Certified Survey depicting the proposed new lots verifying compliance with the above requirements. Such Certified Survey shall be submitted to the City and approved prior to recording of a deed for transfer of ownership of Lands, and shall be recorded as an addendum to the deed. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s) to provide evidence of the approved Certified Survey along with any ~„ application for Building Permits. Initial Effective Date: January O1, 2002 as adopted by Ordinance Number 90-01-173 Last amended April 11, 2005 as adopted by Ordinance 90-OS-186 95