03-21-17 CDB Minutes v J <<
g\
r „. •f
15 ter.
�N
JF31wr
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
March 21st, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:04pm. All members, including
alternate members, were present, except for Mr. Stratton.
Alternate Board Member Judy Workman was asked to sit in his
place. Also present were Planner Derek Reeves, Board Secretary
Grace Mackey and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and
Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of January 17, 2017 regular meeting of the
Community Development Board
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Ms. Lanier
seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.
B. Minutes of February 21, 2017 regular meeting of the
Community Development Board
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr.
Mandelbaum seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
There was no old business.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 17-UBEX-417
Planner Reeves explained that the applicant requested that their
N case 17-UBEX-417 be deferred to the April 18, 2017 regular
meeting of The Community Development Board, after their case
was advertised for the current meeting.
As this case was publicly advertised, public comment was opened.
Page 1of15
Justin Henderson, 132 Magnolia St., Atlantic Beach 32233,
commented that his home lies directly behind the lot in question.
He mentioned the preexisting traffic on that street and stated his
concerns for increased traffic on that road.
With no additional comments the Public Hearing was continued to
April 18, 2017.
B. 17-ZVAR-405 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Jeffrey Sellers)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to
increase the allowable projections into side yards from 24
inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 48 inches to allow
longer eave projections at Club Manor Lot 8 (aka 145 8th
Street).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves provided site context and detail about the property
in question. It is currently zoned RS-2 (Residential, Single-family)
with a future land use of Residential Low. The proposed
construction is to remodel and add a second floor to and existing
1956 single family home on site. The work they are currently doing
has already been permitted through the City. Their proposal is to
replace the existing roof with a flat metal roof with 48 inch eave
overhangs on all four sides of the roof.
The need for a variance comes from Section 24-83(b) which states:
"Structural projections.Architectural features such as eaves and
cornices, and cantilevered bay windows, open balconies and
porches may project a distance not to exceed forty-eight (48)
inches into required front and rear yards. Such balconies and
porches may be covered, but shall not be enclosed in any
manner, except that balconies and porches within rear yards
may be enclosed with screening only. Eaves and cornices,
cantilevered bay windows, chimneys, and architectural
elements intended to create design relief along the side wall
plane may project into required side yards, but not beyond
twenty-four(24) inches."
Within the RS-2 zoning district, the required side-yard setbacks are
a combined 15 feet, with a minimum of 5 feet on either side. On
the property in question,the side-yard setbacks have been and will
remain 7.5 feet on each side for a combined 15 feet.
Page 2 of 15
Planner Reeves commented that the utility easement on the
property was brought to the attention of the City's Public Utilities
Department. This department did not express concern for the
proposed eaves' encroachment onto the easement.
Mr. Elmore questioned if the initial building permit application
showed 48 inch eaves. Planner Reeves responded that it did, but
was denied because of this. The plans were then revised to 24 inch
eaves and the permit was approved and issued.
Applicant Comment
Jeffrey Sellers, 145 8th St. Atlantic Beach 32233, introduced himself
as the applicant. Mr. Sellers explained that as he interpreted the
code, only a 3 foot side-yard setback requirement was in effect, as
you could (by code) encroach 24 inches into a hypothetical 5 foot
side yard setback. Since both of his setbacks are 7.5 feet, he
believed he could encroach 48 inches into each side, leaving 3.5
feet of either side.
Ms. Workman questioned Mr. Seller's code interpretation again.
Mr. Sellers explained that he believed that the code was saying that
as long as you did not encroach more than 24 inches into a 5 foot
side yard setback, then he was within code.
The Board asked Staff for clarification of the code interpretation
regarding setbacks and the eave overhang. Planner Reeves
explained that the applicant seemed to interpret the code to mean
that you could have a minimum of 5 feet for a setback on either
side of the house. Therefore, having 7.5 feet on each side, they
believed themselves to have an extra 2.5 feet of space on each side,
onto which they could encroach. Unfortunately, they
misunderstood the combined 15 foot setback requirement.
Public Comment
Julie Sleeper, 700 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach 32233, expressed
her lack of support for the current construction on-site.
Mark Tomaski, 448 Snapping Turtle Ct West, Atlantic Beach 32233,
expressed disdain for the situations where people have not
followed code, then come before the Board to request a Variance
after they have constructed an illegal structure.
Board Discussion
Ms. Workman commented on the negative impact the construction
has already had on the neighbors.
Page 3of15
Mr. Elmore commented that he believed the circumstance for
which the applicant is requesting a variance to be a self-imposed
hardship and as such, should be denied. He noted the precedent
that approval of this variance would set for future situations.
Ms. Lanier commended the property owner on the aesthetics of his
design, but concurred with Mr. Elmore that his grievance is self-
imposed. Chair Paul also agreed that she did not see grounds for
approval of the variance request.
Mr. Reichler commented that he did not see reason to not approve
the variance based upon the conditions of denial, however, he did
not see how the applicant's reason for approval was applicable.
Motion
Mr. Elmore moved to deny variance request 17-ZVAR-405, on the
grounds that the request is a self-imposed hardship. Ms. Workman
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
C. 17-REZN-389 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Joshua Ashby c/o Fleet
Landing)
Request for a rezoning of the southern 2.4 acres of RE#
168341-0000 lying in the City of Atlantic Beach as
permitted by Section 24-62, from Conservation (CON) to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) while modifying the
previously approved PUD known as Fleet Landing created
by Ordinance Number 90-88-135 as amended by Ordinance
Numbers 90-90-152 and 90-13-218 to include said 2.4
acres as permitted by Section 24-124.
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced Steve Lindorff and explained that the
City has hired him to handle this application.
Steve Lindorff, 2092 Vela Norte Circle Atlantic Beach, 32233,
introduced himself as the president of Community Redevelopment
and Planning LLC. He disclosed that his home is one block away
from the 20th Street entrance to Fleet Landing.
Mr. Lindorff explained that this would be the third of three
amendments to the Planned Unit Development for Fleet Landing.
The property in question is 2.4 acres and is part of a larger parcel,
the bulk of which is in the City of Jacksonville. The portion of the
Page 4of15
partial within Jacksonville is zoned RMC (Residential Multifamily.)
This zoning does not limit housing type, nor does it limit building
height but it does limit the number of units that can be constructed.
The subdivisions Ocean Walk and Selva Norte lie to the East of the
property in question. The future land use of the portion of the
property in Atlantic Beach is Residential Multi Family.
The current zoning is conservation (CON), which the applicant
believes is an anomaly. Prior to the current comprehensive plan,
the property was zoned as open rural, but was then changed to
conservation. Mr. Lindorff explained that Open Rural zoning
classification is often used as a holding place while a decision is
being made regarding the most appropriate zoning for a piece of
land.
The proposed rezoning would change the property's zoning from
Conservation to PUD, that is, to incorporate the land into Fleet
Landing's existing PUD, subject to all of the regulations thereof.
The proposed construction on the property is: construct an access
roadway, complete storm water retention and add a sewer lift
station. They will conserve the floodplain area but are proposing
temporary construction staging (on the Southwest corner of the
property) in conjunction with the development of an independent
living residential facility on the portion of the parcel within the City
of Jacksonville.
Mr. Lindorff explained that the original PUD was approved in 1989
then was updated in 2013 to add land to it. He then gave more
detail to the history of the property and the rezoning of it to
Conservation.
Mr. Lindorff then spoke to the portion of land considered wetlands.
He enumerated on the many layers of permitting and approval that
the developers will be required to go through outside of the City of
Atlantic Beach, speaking to the strict requirements that will be
enforced. He also mentioned that the City could request
documentation as it saw fit in order to meet its local environmental
regulations.
Mr. Lindorff then proposed possible conditions of approval for the
Board to choose from. The first, would be for the Board to limit the
use of the land to only what the applicant is currently requesting
(to prevent future development.) The second, would be to remind
Page 5 of 15
the applicant that the land is subject to the Flood Hazard
requirements. The last, would be to limit the number of units that
may be built on the property, as stated in the Planned Unit
Development covenants and restrictions.
The Board and the applicant discussed the entrances and exits
currently used to access the property (i.e. Mayport Road and 20th
Street.)
Ms. Lanier questioned the proposed lift station on the flood plain
and if the grade of the area would be raised in order to construct
this. Mr. Lindorff replied that this was a possibility, however, it was
also possible to construct the lift station with an impervious
foundation. Ms. Lanier questioned if the hydraulics of the area
would be changed as a result of the proposed lift station
construction. Mr. Lindorff did not believe that it would.
The Board discussed the appropriate process for displacing
floodplains. Mr. Reichler noted that the area where the lift station
construction is proposed is not within jurisdictional wetlands,
however, it is within a floodplain. He questioned the rules
associated with floodplains concerning this type of construction. It
was noted by the Board and Staff that the applicant was not
requesting to do anything inconsistent with current regulations.
The Board clarified that the area on which the access road
construction was proposed was in fact not on wetlands.
Ms. Simmons questioned why the property in question is eligible
for inclusion into the PUD. Mr. Lindorff replied that it is a part of
Fleet Landing which is all zoned as a PUD.
The Board discussed the portion of the property that contained
wetlands, versus which parts of it did not. Mr. Reichler questioned
what proposed construction, if any, would be on wetlands. Planner
Reeves replied that only the proposed walkway, which would go
over the wetlands and be subject to external environmental
regulating agency approvals, would be on wetlands.
The Board discussed the historical rezoning of the property to Open
Rural. It was clarified that the zoning change of Open Rural to
Conservation was not because the entire property was wetlands or
protected area. Instead, it was a mass change to change the zoning
of Open Rural properties to Conservation.
Page 6 of 15
Applicant Comment
Brad Wester, 1 Independent Drive Suite 1200, Jacksonville 32202,
of Driver McAfee Peek and Hawthorne introduced himself as the
applicant. He reiterated that none of the proposed work will be in
the wetlands area, outside of the boardwalk, which will be
permitted through the Department of Environmental Protection.
He explained that they are only requesting that a portion of the
Western side of the property be developed upon and to do so they
need the zoning changed to do so.
The Board and the applicant discussed the construction and the
areas of the parcel reserved for conservation versus development.
Public Comment
Gregory Powell, 1871 Selva Marina Drive Atlantic Beach 32233,
opposed the rezoning request, stating his disdain for
overdevelopment of the floodplain in Atlantic Beach. He stressed
his concern that the displacement that will take place on the
floodplain in order to develop the proposed construction,will cause
greater flooding in the nearby neighborhoods. He also argued that
the land was intentionally zoned as Conservation for the land and
wetlands on it and he stressed his concern for encroachment upon
the wetlands and how that impacts the flood levels.
Don White, 2069 Selva Marina Drive, stated that his home is
adjacent to the property in question. He commented that Fleet
Landing has been a great neighbor and partner in the community.
His only concern was the four homes proposed that he did not see
laid out on the plans presented. He proposed rezoning only the part
of the property on which development will take place, but leaving
the rest as Conservation.
Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd St, Atlantic Beach 32233 discussed the
development consistently taking place in the City and how
development is changing the City.
Mark Tomaski, 448 Snapping Turtle Ct West, Atlantic Beach 32233,
stated that he has been working on the conservation of the land in
question for the last seven years. He referenced Sherman Creek,
which runs through the property. He argued against the rezoning of
the land to PUD, as he believes that doing so will make it more
difficult for The City of Atlantic Beach to incorporate the land into
their city limits, in the future. Mr.Tomaski recommended that Fleet
Landing be granted PUD zoning for the property only West of
Page 7 of 15
Sherman Creek, but keep the zoning of Conservation for everything
East of Sherman Creek.
Board Discussion
Ms. Workman moved to deny 17-UBEX-329 as read. There was not
a second to the motion. Without a second, the motion failed.
Mr. Reichler questioned how applying the PUD zoning to only the
Western portion of the property, would affect the rest of the
property (East of Sherman Creek). He referenced Selva Preserve,
which rezoned its land to Residential (it contains jurisdictional
wetlands) but was forced to meet the City's Comprehensive Plan
still.
City Attorney Brenna Durden explained that a portion of the
property could keep its current zoning (referencing the portion of
land East of Sherman Creek), while the rest of the property could
be rezoned. She stated that the applicant would need to provide a
legal description for that lesser(Eastern) portion of land that would
be kept as Conservation zoning. She stated because the City had
advertised for the entire property, only rezoning a portion of it
would not conflict with City policy concerning proper public
noticing.
Ms. Durden referenced the map submitted by the applicant, and
displayed during the meeting, and stated that the Board could use
that map (which displays a line approximately 550 feet West of
Sherman Creek) in order to approve a partial rezoning of the
property (short of an official legal description for that portion of
land.) She also explained that the Board could also limit the
developers to certain development conditions within the portion of
land that would be rezoned to PUD.
Mr. Elmore responded that he believed the applicant's proposed
land use to be within the confines of the PUD already in effect for
Fleet Landing.
Mr. Reichler questioned if anything within the applicant's Rezoning
Application came into conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
including Future Land Use, or with the City's Future Land Use
Regulations.
Planner Reeves responded that the Future Land Use of the Property
is Residential Medium Density. He explained that when the
applicant submits for formal permitting, Staff will then review all of
1 Page 8 of 15
I
the proposed construction to verify that it meets the City's
Regulations. Mr. Lindorff mentioned that all environmental
regulations would be in effect, however,they would not and do not
prevent development.
Ms. Lanier asked the applicant, Mr. Wester, if a denial of his
rezoning application would denote an inability for the proposed
work to take place, or if there would still be a means to undertake
the work on the property. Mr. Wester explained that within Fleet
Landing's PUD, the covenants and restrictions state that sole direct
access to the development and non-development parcels, shall be
from Fleet Landing Blvd. Therefore, the proposed development is
within Fleet Landing's rights, however, the proposed development
is actually stricter than what is allowed them.
Chair Paul commented that she would prefer that a rezoning take
place now with the restrictions proposed by Fleet Landing, rather
than the property be sold at some point and a possible rezoning be
proposed that would allow for even greater development on the
property. She stated that she was in favor of the rezoning.
Ms. Simmons referenced the five proposed grounds for approval
and questioned if it could be confirmed officially that development
will not encroach on the areas set aside for conservation. City
Attorney Brenna Durden explained that Sherman Creek is
mentioned within the current legal descriptions, i.e. "East of
Sherman Creek" and "West of Sherman Creek". Ms. Simmons
recommended that, pending Board approval, the Board place a
condition on their recommendation of approval that explicitly
stated the area of land to be left zoned for Conservation (that is,
the portion of land from the Eastern property line, West
approximately 550 feet.)
Motion
Mr. Elmore moved to recommend approval of 17-REZN-389 based
upon the condition that the conservation easement (meaning, the
land from the Eastern property line, and West 550 feet as
designated on the map brought before the Community
Development Board) is to be described as discussed and the
description is to be brought to the City Commission when the
application is heard before them. The Board's approval is
dependent upon this description being included in the application
packet that is brought to the City Commission. Ms. Simmons
seconded the motion.
Page 9 of 15
Prior to the Board's vote being called, Mr. Reichler requested that
an amendment be made to Mr. Elmore's motion. The Board
discussed in more detail what the different conditions of approval
should be.
Mr. Reichler made a new motion to recommend approval to the
City Commission of case 17-REZN-389 with the conditions that: the
application is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan,
especially its future land use element; its proposed development is
consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the City's existing
Land Development Regulations; approval is contingent upon that
no development of any kind, including but not limited to,walkways,
roads and structures occur within 550 feet of the Eastern property
line,this area generally shown as the Conservation Area on the PUD
Modification Site Plan. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion.
Ms. Simmons amended the motion to also include the three
conditions of approval in the one Staff Report power point
presentation in addition to the other two conditions of approval in
the second staff report, in the hard copy report on page 6 of 8.
These five conditions are as follows:
1. Use of the property shall be limited to the following (1)
expansion of an existing adjacent stormwater retention pond, (2)
access roadway, (3) sanitary sewer lift station, (4) nature trail,
and (5)wetland preserve. A temporary construction staging area
is permitted but shall be removed and the area reasonably
restored within 90 days of receipt of a certificate of occupancy
for the independent living facility
2. In addition to the Chapter 24 Land Development Regulations,
development of the subject property shall be carried in
compliance with the provisions of Chapters 8 Flood Hazard
Protection and 23 Protection of Trees and Native Vegetation of
the COAB Code of Ordinances
3. Notwithstanding the additional limits set forth above and the
addition of the 480-unit independent living facility, the currently
authorized 324 residential units (320 built) and 88 nursing care
beds (88 built) shall remain in effect.
4. That no development of any kind, including but not limited to
walkways, roads, and structures, occur within 550 feet of the
eastern property line. This area is generally shown as the
"Conservation Area" on the "PUD Modification Site Plan."
5. That the permitted uses on the land west of a line 550 feet from
the eastern property line include those allowed in the PUD
created by 90-88-135, as amended, to specifically include the
Page 10 of 15
following items shown in the PUD Modification Site Plan: an
elevated nature trail no wider than 6 feet; to the west and north
of that a lift station; to the south of that a temporary
construction staging area; to the west of that a two-way road as
approved by the Fire Marshall; to the west of that a 5 to 8 foot
wide sidewalk; and to the west of that a storm water retention
pond expansion.
Mr. Reichler seconded the motion as amended by Ms. Simmons.
The motion carried 6-1 with Ms. Workman as the dissenting vote.
D. 17-UBEX-329 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Brightway Auto Sales)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-
63, to allow an establishment for the sale of automobiles as
listed in Section 24-111(c)(10) in the Commercial General
zoning district at 580 Mayport Road.
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that the applicant is requesting that a
section of the property in question along Mayport Road (at the
corner of Mayport Road and 6th Street W), be granted as parking
spaces for cars that are for sale. The property is zoned Commercial
General (CG). The Future Land Use is also Commercial. The
surrounding properties have mixed zoning classifications, including
Single and Two Family, and the properties across from it on
Mayport Road are largely Residential.
The applicant is proposing to use the paved area along Mayport
road on-site as an area where cars can be parked that are for sale.
Such use of the property requires an approved use-by-exception as
the sale of automobiles on properties zoned Commercial General
always requires a use-by-exception per City code.
It is an existing non-conforming property, but the proposed use
would be to use the property as it stands today on the existing
paved lot.
Evidence on-site suggests that the property was used for car sales
in the past as well. Without a use-by-exception though, such use
would be nonconforming.
Planner Reeves listed some of the current nonconformities of the
property: They lack the required 10 foot landscape buffer along
Mayport Road; The vehicle use area along Mayport Road and 6th
Street West has no screening; All parking backs into the City Right-
Page 11 of 15
of-Way; The driveway width is approximately 300 feet wide (as
opposed to the required 20 foot width); They do not meet the
minimum tree requirement. In addition to these, off street parking
requirements are not met currently.
Applicant Comment
Ryan Hawkins, 13020 Biggin Church Road S, Jacksonville 32224,
owner of the used car lot, explained the parking situation between
units (his included) on the property and commented that the
parking requested for his business does not and will not block the
parking for any of the other tenants. He argued that the parking he
is requesting has been used for this purpose historically as well for
the same purpose.
Mr. Reichler questioned if landscaping the property as required
(planting a 3 foot hedge along Mayport Road) would be a hardship
for Mr. Hawkins, as it would cover the front of the cars. Mr. Hawkins
replied that it would not be a hardship, however, it would lessen
the exposure of the cars to those passing by, and he would prefer a
shorter hedge along the road.
Ms. Simmons questioned why Mr. Hawkins desired to stay within
Atlantic Beach. Mr. Hawkins replied that studies he has had
conducted have shown that a large portion of his business at the
Atlantic Beach location in question, comes from a 5 miles radius of
the property.
Ms. Workman questioned who would be updating the property
(landscaping, etc.): Mr. Hawkins (the tenant) or the owner of the
property. Mr. Hawkins replied that he would probably be
maintaining such updates to the property. He then gave a more
broad history of the property and commented that for about 25
years, the property has been used for used car sales such as his use
currently.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With none, public
comment was closed.
Board Discussion
Chair Paul commented that if the Board chose to approve this
application, they could use it as an opportunity to have the
property owner come into code compliance vis-a-vis the
stipulations the Board puts on the approval.
Page 12 of 15
Ms. Lanier commented that the Board has, to date, been ethical in
their decisions toward other requests for and by car lots. She noted
that as this is not a new business, it makes for a complicated
situation.
Ms. Workman questioned Staff regarding the property owner's
responsibility to come into code compliance in light of the many
nonconforming issue on the site. Planner Reeves explained the
conditions in which the owner would be required to come into
compliance with the code, none of which are that of a change of
tenant situation, which is what the current situation is.
Ms. Workman questioned if the use-by-exception (if granted)
would stay in effect with the property regardless of future
ownership. Planner Reeves stated that the use-by-exception would
only be in effect with the current property owner. Should the
property be sold,the use-by-exception would no longer be in effect.
What's more, should the current tenant requesting the use-by-
exception move from the property, the use-by-exception would no
longer be in effect.
Mr. Elmore discussed the City's Mayport Road Corridor study, and
the vision that the City has for this area.
Mr. Hawkins stated that he would be repainting the poles (along
Mayport Road) and argued that he is doing various site-
improvements to enhance the appearance of the property. He
commented that there was no irrigation along Mayport Road
currently, where the aforementioned hedges would be potentially
planted. He argued that it would be too lofty of a request to ask the
owner to install such an irrigation system.
Mr. Elmore commented that in order for him to approve Mr.
Hawkins' request, he would require landscaping along Mayport
Road. Mr. Hawkins argued that landscaping as requested would be
a difficult thing to achieve, as much of it would require work and
financing from the property owner.
Planner Reeves informed the Board that they could put stipulations
regarding landscaping etc. on an approval of this application, and
that the City has a Code Enforcement Officer who could enforce
such stipulations.
Page 13 of 15
Ms. Workman commented that there are no teeth in the City's
current Code Enforcement program. Chair Paul gave examples of
situations where the City's Code Enforcement has been effective.
Mr. Hawkins questioned if the hedges had to be 3 foot tall along
Mayport Road.
Motion
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve 17-UBEX-329 with the
stipulation that the area along Mayport Road be landscaped per
section City code section 24-177(d), requiring shrubs along
Mayport Road as well as 2 trees (a palm tree would suffice.)
The Board asked the applicant, Mr. Hawkins, if such stipulations
would be a hardship. Mr. Hawkins recommended that the Board
approve the application with such stipulations,and see how the
City Commission responded to the application once it goes
before them.
Mr. Elmore seconded Ms. Lanier's motion, with the additional
stipulation that the number of vehicles is limited to an amount
of cars that does not impede upon the City sidewalk and right-
of-way, namely, 10 cars. The motion carried 6-1 with Ms.
Workman as the dissenting vote.
5. REPORTS.
A. Administrative Variances Approved
Planner Reeves stated that there had been none.
B. Staffing Update
Planner Reeves noted that the City has advertised for a Zoning
Technician and Planner, however, only one position will be filled,
depending upon the qualifications of the applicants. He also noted
that the Director position for the Community Development
Department closed and no interviews were conducted and as of
now, has not been reopened.
C. Board Member Review Discussion
Planner Reeves explained that the Board Member Review
Committee has been meeting to address the issues of Board
Member recruiting, training, evaluation, and retention. He asked
the Board if they had any suggestions regarding these issues.
Chair Paul commented that they are looking to find better ways to
recruit applicants for the various City Boards that is more
Page 14 of 15
sustainable and less dependent upon current events going on in the
City.
Ms. Lanier gave examples of what other cities do to engage citizens
in governance. She gave the example of Jacksonville Beach, which
gives annual bus tours for citizens where City Officials explain city
property and issues to the citizens. She commented that there is far
less citizen engagement in the City of Atlantic Beach.
Ms. Lanier also commented that there could be greater training for
Board members as to the way that the City government works,
regarding the various Boards and the Commission and the
processes,which affect and create law.
She also commented that evaluations of applicants for Board
membership would be a good idea. She argued that applicants
should be able to prove that they have the necessary qualifications
in order to become a Board member.
opportunity that a program of
Ms. Lanier commented on the pp y p g
mentorship and training for new, younger Board members could
have for the prospective future of elected leadership.
Ms. Simmons commented on the importance of training for new
Board members so they understand the process they are a part of.
Mr. Elmore commented on the precedent that the decisions made
by the Community Development Board have in the City. He noted
that an understanding of the importance of the Board's decisions,
could be communicated via education and training for new
members.
Chair Paul requested that the Board email Planner Reeves with any
recommendations they have.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Simmons
seconded the motion. The motioned carried unanimously and the
meeting was adjourned at 9:27pm.
4?? Z 0 N_ e'),.a
Brea Paul, Chair
Attest
Page 15 of 15