Loading...
7-12-16 Minutes.pdfCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES 6:00 P.M. — JULY 12, 2016 1t►/:11YIY 2"11 _WW, Members: Benjamin de Luna, Chair Brenna Durden, City Attorney Kirk Hansen Dayna Williams, Secretary Louis Keith Jeremy Hubsch, Building & Zoning Director Richard Lombardi Lindsay Norman Don Sasser Chair Ben de Luna called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Secretary Dayna Williams read the roll, finding a quorum was present. 1. Election of Vice Chair Item 1 was taken out of sequence and acted on later in the meeting. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 1, 2016. Motion: Approve the minutes of the Code Enforcement Meeting of June 1, 2016. Moved by Norman, Seconded by Keith The motion was approved unanimously. 3. Administration of Oath to Defendants/Witnesses Chair de Luna gave the oath to the defendants and witnesses. 4. Consider Request for Rehearing, Case 16-244, the Cloister Condominium. Paul Eakin, 599 Atlantic Boulevard Suite 6, stated he is here on behalf of the Cloister of Atlantic Beach Condominium Association. He stated they filed a Request for Rehearing which centers around two documents which were attached to the request, one being Exhibit 9 (a survey of the property) that was entered into evidence at the June 1, 2016 Code Enforcement Board Meeting; and is marked as Exhibit 1 for this meeting. Mr. Eakin stated it was not a full copy of the survey; he has since been able to procure a full copy of the survey and requested copies be submitted to the Board as Exhibit 2. He asked the Board if they had a copy of the Request for Rehearing and a copy of Exhibit 9 (aka Exhibit 1). Chair de Luna stated yes and explained their copy is comprised of the Request for Rehearing, the certificate of service, an amended certificate of service, and Exhibit 1 (which was Exhibit 9 at the prior Hearing on June 1, 2016), Exhibit 2, and Exhibit 3. Mr. Eakin called his witness and asked him to state his name, address and occupation. Don Ford, 338 6`h Street, stated he is the head of building and zoning for the City of Neptune Beach. Mr. Eakin asked the witness if he had ever worked for the City of Atlantic Beach. Mr. Ford stated yes, he was a building official for 21 years in Atlantic Beach, part time in late 1985 and full time from 1986 until 2006. Mr. Eakin asked the witness if he had reviewed Ordinance 52-72-1 and had he ever dealt with that PUD Ordinance while working in Atlantic Beach and the witness stated yes. Mr. Eakin asked Mr. Ford if he found information marked on Exhibit 2 that was not marked on Exhibit 1 (former Exhibit 9). Mr. Ford stated yes, it appears that on Exhibit 1 the bottom portion of the page where the check and recheck notes had been cut off. Mr. Eakin asked if there is a notation on Exhibit 2 showing a final survey had been done, and, if so, what is the significance of a final survey to a building official dealing with a PUD. Mr. Ford stated there is a notation of a final survey, explaining he uses the survey to show the accuracy of the approved plans for the PUD. Mr. Eakin asked, if a lock gate was called for in the Cloister PUD, would it be shown on this final survey, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Eakin asked Mr. Ford if he found a lock gate on the survey and he stated no. Mr. Lombardi asked for clarification of the difference between Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. Mr. Eakin stated if you look at the top of Exhibit 1 and the top of Exhibit 2 you will notice that the entire legal description is missing. Mr. Eakin stated you will also notice that at the bottom of the Exhibits, the notes and recheck notes are missing from Exhibit 1, which we consider to be critical as evidenced from the testimony of the witness. Ms. Durden requested Mr. Eakin state for the record exactly what that language is. Mr. Eakin read the last line appearing on Exhibit 1 (former Exhibit 9), which is attached and made part of this Official Record. Mr. Eakin then read the notes from the bottom portion of Exhibit 2, which is attached and made part of this Official Record. Mr. Hansen asked if Exhibit 2 shows any indication of a gate on the north end. Mr. Ford stated there are no gates indicated on the plan at all. Mr. Sasser stated Exhibit 2 shows a masonry and wood wall on the south end of the final drawing and questioned if the wall was ever built. Mr. Ford agreed it was on the drawing, but stated he does not remember that wall. Mr. Keith questioned the illustration on the west side of Exhibit 2, marked as reserved for ingress and egress. Mr. Ford stated that is the fire department ingress and egress, in case the garage catches on fire. Chair de Luna referred to the evidence the Board heard at the June 1, 2016 Code Board Meeting, in particular the Commission minutes of March 12, 1973, which clearly state there was a restriction on the south end of the Cloister. Chair de Luna stated Mr. Ford had expressed concerns with the minutes or the interpretation of the minutes, and asked him to provide his input. Mr. Ford stated what he was concerned with was doing research on minutes to determine a violation. He stated minutes from meetings do not determine a violation, the only thing that will determine a violation is a strict adherence to the PUD. Chair de Luna explained what the Board was faced with. He stated the Board has to use what information they have, which is the minutes and the subsequent conduct to make that determination. He stated the Board is using the minutes to determine there was a PUD and that there was a restriction. Chair de Luna stated the Board has not been shown any law that says you have to have a PUD, the actual official document. Mr. Eakin concluded his presentation. Ms. Durden stated, although Mr. Eakin did not speak to the second point he included in his Request for Rehearing, she wanted to bring it up to make it part of the Official Record. Ms. Durden stated the second point that was raised by Cloister states that Ordinance 52-72-1 (which is attached and made part of this Official Record as Exhibit 3) was never repealed by the City of Atlantic Beach, and therefore the new code provision could not be used for enforcement purposes, and the only Ordinance that could be regulating this 1973 Cloister PUD was the old 1972 Ordinance. Ms. Durden stated, during the June 1, 2016 hearing, she opined to this Board that she felt the 1972 Ordinance had been superseded by the later provisions that are reflected in the Code today. Ms. Durden requested Ordinance 47-85-2 be submitted .to the Board as Exhibit A. Ms. Durden explained that the Ordinance 47-85-2, approved by the City in 1985, established and adopted a new Code for the City of Atlantic Beach and expressly repealed all former ordinances, and she read Section 2 of Ordinance 47-85-2, which is attached and made part of this Official Record. Ms. Durden stated she did not want this hearing to go forth without the Board taking into account both of Mr. Eakin's bases for his request for rehearing. Motion: The Board moves to deny the request for rehearin1j. Moved by Norman, Seconded by Sasser Discussion ensued. VOTES: AYE: 5 — SASSER, NORMAN, HANSEN, KEITH, DE LUNA NAY: 1- LOMBARDI MOTION CARRIED Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on July 12, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Item 1 was taken out of sequence and acted on at this time. 1. Election of Vice Chair Chair de Luna asked if there were any volunteers. Motion: The Board moves to nominate Louis Keith. Moved by de Luna, Seconded by Sasser The motion was approved unanimously. 5. Miscellaneous Business. Discussion ensued regarding upcoming meeting dates and Mr. Sasser requested the Board members be sent notification of upcoming meetings and the Agenda Packet at least ten days to two weeks ahead of time. Chair de Luna and Secretary Williams explained the regularly scheduled meetings are held the second Tuesday of every other month. Mr. Norman asked what procedure to follow if you could not attend a meeting. Ms. Durden stated you should send an email to Secretary Williams and she will communicate it to the Chair, due to the Sunshine Law. Adjournment Chair de Luna adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Be amin de Luna, Chair r W,_ Da {� L. Williams, Secretary Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on July 12, 2016 Page 3 of 3 0 N a wr rlm= SOMI v 9 7694 REs � Far: �"HE Cto/s'T'�a's AN{OC//oR )X/-J�fN:R: o%ww �irT�Y9Oe% /dR%rf14!%�T<AKT/a W U O PteR_ /ad G G VI3(Sd l .r �_Ti�'�s.r.ao..v%wr..x. sra•,vr•Kr. vew AUyet "•w..yr»fensw..irwrrw(�;,'.w1—.N.s9H�.. :.er•re. X.ALY/ROFVAAs�M/�T a M'L, N.A.Ou.o.,v dflsa M»-:S//Nn T AG'k. A.xu ..,.,v m.w.n• tmnrtarm. C4 U13 /MANOR %.r.`". O..�ar• 48. leo . Po. aZ 1. NA. M/RCeNl. AJ6ae/ATG6 MC. �� W i� Ito I k.l.t .—.Pd Wei. V .rd wm.t tapevrrnl.lten at .w. _ y - pp tQ •Nr J. OIptSrlASwJtlld4-DClr��S P 7ycs+P1ANk r431?lM .oci1�B—/ '30 JLL7 •PSK •!Jt•o. 6LxI - .;,};; 7.. E N ry (/p ru) . ' .> ; R 1 1 % ANOj7/- OR ME �Aeee H TVeIKA o�NGf7UTPLA7 Avvk o�P��eJIJATLANTlc 6'W /�••- tt .wRjN lIN6 ORN TEL RS3SRV/IT/ON P '111W. LINE te ,os- 124' 3tl O 95•lU, 2S7•?7' r d 24 _ � FTM?::. a"r"".. C • � ° ( ry K g W 3 I� " e•t' se.. qq j:.a. G i1 t a i +�,`-"fl;.•' Nt" i• C J', :c.;, .N.`� � • • YT a J ? a trt• d sd. V t�l{ 1 G\' r(,�{: • to 1 '; ,• J a i 4 Rr f Jnr i+ Z elm ..� •,•':?��`.- n K ( �� ,:1 � .1 II �j FFA• 4Li' ,4i /et t•,.!2 . � o .{� � .� , a ` obi - •• tT �I�• Q 41.2' t• � ' ,¢• .t.�+-r I:.. • " air e.d• .xi r v 1 ,i �. Ate' � � r L.te d•06 /64!/97.5/ SQ FLc'ET mfr '.E.i,. �• . �.7G74 .9Cf�Es * 1l! t h r `°K �� 6V ,•al• ' ;F t ter se• 14 NOTEr (f) yC V ALG ENctGA �CNT3 � qNY JNJVC .wrsesN Go grEv a'Y rHs 's �eY. ,U Ta 't"Y L4 V � j I 441 K : o .i=fir ,j.• �� �i J �` � AN �! el•v t W r 3 N Iq N Iti of i'4 _ IS• � �• l0.tf Q F • t p$ ma7c 1 •t j N i .> � ... cG.. nn•a. t .a - V\\ /ERV •O a \; +. �� :V y. FOUKO yc"/RANfYFE bb N.BS" 2'IS•E� 5--. ae ✓G�$B' FN/JIP craw .V PJP_ 0 r Q CS p0/N j of B� G'/NN/Nr all rtwN'f-&-/ N"P. f'JVvRTN i�/tlP tGu9 A/ANeR \•• !g; 9s' N. Bs^32•/?•1� 399.96' vi -✓N.8 32%5'L • nuG.rNrwrJ lid • �G tit"/•,' Sr `iJ a \; +. �� r •!' b ••LL A :%YOob PJER ' ' • of WAGt-tl�FboYlAts A° +T//ERLY PRO✓EL /AN AF TN9 EAST=RLY LJNE tlF �Gu6•MANa.7 N Pf1ALj PA✓LLGJ�Nj' , •RMO AJ'LeE Nor,i R;GMFG'Eo Mc. /l.ldYi ro 9F/NR ENR✓lY IJPI'a-sdY•E. CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, Petitioner, V. THE CLOISTER OF ATLANTIC BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. Property Address: Case Number: 16-244 10 10th Street Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 RE#170237--0012 Legal Description: The Cloister Condominium Common Element Parcel OIR 3876-450 REQUEST FOR REHEARING COMES NOW, The Cloister OF Atlantic Beach Condominium Association,. Inc., Respondent, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Section 2-147(c) Code Of City Of Atlantic Beach, Florida ("Code") and requests a rehearing of the initial Order of the Code Enfordement Board•executed on the 6th day of June•, 2016 ("Order") and as grounds•there.fore states: 1. There exists new material evidence which if introduced at the hearing held in this matter before the Board on June 1, 2016 would probably have changed the Code Enforcement Board's decision. 2. During the hearing, the City introduced as Exhibit 9 into evidence what purported to be a survey of the property known as The 0 Cloisters, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "l". At the time of the hearing, the focus on Exhibit 9 was as to the south end of the property and whether or not the survey showed a gate or a closed-end structure. After the hearing, it was realized that Exhibit 9 was not a complete copy of a survey. Undersigned counsel, in turn, procured a complete copy -of Exhibit 9 from Boatwright Surveyors, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "2". 3." Comparing Exhibit "1" (Exhibit 9 at hearing) hereto to Exhibit "2" there are two things which are conspicuously missing from Exhibit 9. One is the legal description of the property appearing at the top of the survey. However, the most crucial information missing from Exhibit "1" (Exhibit 9 at hearing) is what appears at the bottom of Exhibit "2" hereto, 4. Of importance, what appears at the bottom of the survey attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and is missing from Exhibit 9 is: "NOTE: RECHECKED APRIL 15, 1975 TO SHOW FINAL SURVEY. H.A. DURDEN & ASSOCIATES, INC." 5. The significance of such cannot be over emphasized. Ordinance Number 52-72-1 referred to as the "PUD Ordinance", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 113" specifically states on page 8, paragraph 6 thereof: The final plan, after adoption by the City Commission, shall be deemed the Official Plan, 2 and shall be signed by the Mayor -Commissioner and the City Clerk, and by the sponsor and property owner or owners, who by such signing shall indicate agreement of their willingness to abide by the conditions and terms of such Official Plan. Thereafter, the building official of the City Of Atlantic Beach shall be authorized to issue building permits authorizing construction in strict accordance with. the conditions and terms of the Official Plan. 7. An Official Plan for a "PUD" Zone may be amended, the. procedure therefore to be the same as in the case of an original application being made under Section C hereof. Section F: USES PERMITTED. No*building, 'structure or -land shall be used; and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered, enlarged or maintained in a "PUD" Zone unless the same meets the conditions and terms of the Official -Plan, nor shall the same be occupied until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy certifying that the improvement on that portion for which the permit was issued is complete and fulfills all . of the terms and conditions of the Official Plan. (emphasis supplied) 6. The final survey is a document used by building officials throughout Florida to verify that buildings and structures have been erected. according to permitted plans prior to issuing certificates of occupancy or certificates of completion. So too,' in this matter, the final survey would have been used by the building official of Atlantic Beach in issuing a certificate of occupancy certifying that the improvement for which the permit was issued was completed' and that it fulfilled all the terms and 3 conditions of the Official Plan for the PUD regarding The Cloisters. 7. Likewise, no structure could be erected in a PUD Zone unless it met the conditions and terms of the Official Plan. Exhibit "2" reflects the final survey of the buildings and structures as found to exist by the surveyor H.A. Durden on April 15, 1975. The lack of a gate or closure of the structure built at south end of The Cloisters in 1975 also corroborates the testimony of three eyewitnesses given at the hearing. 8. As such, Exhibit "21', attached hereto, would have been direct proof that the terms and conditions of the PUD regarding The Cloisters did not include a condition that there be a gate at the south end of the property for emergency use only as found by the Code Enforcement Board in paragraph 4 of'its Order of June 6, 2016. 9. Given this evidence, the Order issued is contrary to the law and the evidence. 10. Since 'the City introduced Exhibit 9 at the hearing on June 1, 2016, Exhibit "2" -attached hereto could not with reasonable. diligence have been discovered before and produced at the hearing. 11. Further, and as a separate basis for rehearing, Respondent's*PUD is the product of the "PUD ordinance", Ordinance No. 52--72-l'attached hereto as Exhibit "3". -As such it cannot be modified or amended pursuant to Section 24-124, Code. This was the code section Respondent was charged with violating by the City and 4 found guilty of violating by the.Board in paragraph 5 of its Order. 12. That is because the "PUD ordinance" Ordinance No. 52-72-1 was never repealed by the City of Atlantic Beach and therefore still governs those PUDs enacted under it as opposed to PUDs enacted -by ordinance pursuant to the City's Land Development Code enacted in 1982, as amended. See Ordinance 90-82-74 which enacted the City's new Land Development Code in 1982 without repealing the "PUD ordinance" Ordinance No. 52-72-1. 13. Repeals by implication are not favored and will not be upheld in doubtful cases.. Enactments will be deemed to be repealed by implication only when no other conclusion can be reached. The courts should, if at all possible, interpret two statutes in such a way as the preserve the force of both. Courts must favor a construction that gives effect to both Statutes rather than construe one statute as being meaningless or repealed by implication. In the absence of an express repeal of one statute by another, it is the duty of the court to uphold the validity of each of two seemingly conflicting acts if possible. 'Each subsequent refinement of a law does not invalidate a previous enactment unless the invalidation is expressly stated in the law. 0A Fla. Jur. 2d Statutes, §207, 209. 14. Ordinance 90-82-74 did not specifically repeal Ordinance No. 52-72-1 but only repealed 'the old Land Development Code and enacted the new Land Development Code in 1982 which at the time 5 also instituted the process of enacting PUDs through PUD ordinances, theretofore, never done in Atlantic Beach. That is why Section 24-124 Code governs PUDs enacted pursuant to PUD ordinances while PUDs enacted under the old Ordinance No. 52-72-1 are still subject to its procedures,* including the amending of the PUD itself. 15. Therefore, Respondent could not have violated Section 24- 124, Code since it doesn't govern Respondent's PUD. 16. As such, the order issued is contrary to the law and the evidence. WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel humbly prays that the Board entertain this request and grant a rehearing in the matter. DATED this 16th day of June, 2016. EA & SNEED PAUL M. EAKIN, ESQUIRE Florida Bar Number 293377 599 Atlantic Blvd., Suite 6 Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Tel: (904).247-6565 Fax: (904) 24.7-6535 eakinsneed@comcast.net Attorneys :dor The Cloister 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true end correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Jeremy Hubsch, Acting Code Enforcement Officer, City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road; Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 via hand delivery this 16th day of June, 2016. At orney 7 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, Petitioner, V. Case Number: 16-244 THE CLOISTER OF ATLANTIC BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. Property Address: 10 10t1 Street Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 RE#7.70237--0012 Legal Description: The Cloister Condominium Common Element Parcel 0/R 3876-450 AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Request For Rehearing has been furnished to Jeremy Hubsch, Acting Code Enforcement Officer, City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 via hand delivery and by email delivery to Brenna Durden, Esquire and Wayne Flowers, Esquire this 16th day of June, 2 016 . EAKIN & SNEED PA L M. EAKIN, ESQUIRE Florida Bar Number 293377 599 Atlantic Blvd., Suite 6 Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Tel: (904) 247-6565 Fax: (904) 247--6535 eakinsneed@comcast.net Attorneys for The Cloister ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTTIC BEACH, DUVAL COUNTY FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING- "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT" OR "PUD„ ZONES PROVIDING AN ALTEM,8-'.TIVE MEANS OF LUM -DEVELOPME14T AND IMPROVMENT COMPRERENSIVELY DESIGNED WITH LATITUDE TO INCLUDE SEVERAL RELATED LAND USES THAT WOULD NOT OTHER-- 141SE DR POSSIBLE THROVW THE STRICT APPLICATION OF OTHER CITY ORDINANCES PRO'V'IDING FOR STANDARD ZONING AND SUB-- pIVISION REGULATIONS: PROVIDING PRINCIPLES A&D CRITERIA. FOR i'ERMISSIVE APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR "PUD" ZONES, THE CONDITION TO BE FULFILLED IN EACH APPLICATION AND THE DATA TO BE SUBMITTED; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDBRATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF APPLICATIONS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, AND FOR 140DIFICATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR ADOPTION OF THE "OFFICIAL PLAN" FOR "PUD'' ZONES,- AND AUTHORIZING LIMiITPD AUTHORI'T'Y TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO ISSUE PERMITS IN "PUD" ZONES AND REDUIRING CBRTIFICA.TES OF OCCUPANCY UPON COMPLETION OF PERMXTTBD "PUD" IMPROVE- MENTS. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY Off`ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA.- -.. SeCtIon A; INTENT AIM PURPOSE It is the'intent and.purpose of this ordinance to encourage planning of Land use, improvement and development as a single complex, rather than as an aggregation of individual buildings or un9ts located on separate unrelated land plots, consisting of physical grouping of residences in clusters., townhouses or apartments, combination of individually owned units, condominiums -and co-operatives, with..related ppen spaces and community facilities and services, such as recreational, peighborhood retail and professional facilities essential to or suppor-- ting such land planning and develppment, to be known as. "Planned Unit Development" or "PUD", whish shall apply to all areas of the City i4hethe�-,zoned or unzoned, to subdivision or re -subdivision of land and FXHI BIT 3 W 5 acreage repl.atting of existing platted land and wherever cir- cumstances require deviation from standard zoning and sub- division regulations'of the city specifying uses, lot area, and dimensions, yard, front and open space requirements, and shall also include land areas where appropriate for shopping centers, business and industrial. uses. The provisions of this ordinance are also intended to encourage the exercise of imagina- tive Planning and design in the highest and best use of land areas for modern housing offering a variety of dwelling or other unit types. Architectural harmony and compatibil#y with the neighbor- hood can be stiimlated by avoiding duplication of design, floor plan, and roof design. When these concepts are not taken into consideration, there is a constant threat of the dogradation pf the community. Therefore, submittal of any plans that are of duplicate or similar design or -duplicate any existing design for construction in this city shall be referred to the City Com- mission fox approval.. Section B:. PERMISSIVE . APPLICATION - PRTNCIPS,ES OF CRITERIA In order to provide greater flexibility in design, setbacks, dimensions and heights, and other limitations that would other- wise not be possible through the strict application of the standard zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of ' Atlantic Beach, all, applications -3- ;�"^. for "PUD" zones -under this ordinance shall be permissive only, and shall grant no property -right to any person, firm or corporation making• application hereunder, and shall be subject* to final action by the City Commission of the City of Atlantic Beach, after: public hearings hereinafter provided for, that a "PUD" is necessary and appropriate in order to provide and promote :the public safety, health, and general welfare, and that such a development if not generally incon- sistent with the City's master zoning plan, and meets the following criteria:• 1e Be large enough to form an integral planning unit, and to provide for adequate.open space, dirculation, off-street parking and pertinent development amenities, and to be conveniently served by appropriately oriented facilities and •services, 2e Be designed so that the diverse funational elements are integrated, are properly'orientated and are well related to topogra- phy and'natural landscape features; 3. Be well related to existing and proposed land use and c#culation patterns of adjoining properties, end should not constitute a i3i.stupting element with regard to. the character of.•adjacent neighbor -- hoods and communities; 4. Be planned to economize on street and utility improvements, but Should provide adequate access for service and emergency vehicles as* -well as for residents and the general public; WE Aj'. S- "'7 �- r! ,-- 5. Have an internal system of streets designed to move vehicles safely and efficiently without dominating the overall design or disrupting the functions of other planned facilities or open spaces bo Appropriate and useable open space in the form of private t ' parks, play areas, landscaped areas, water elements and walkways should be included immediately adjicent to or accessible to all units •contained �n such development; 7. Community facilities should be grouped in locations which relate to the open.space system in order to provide focal, points for the overall design, and to maximize pedestrian and vehicle access; - S. Be.based on and relatdd to established, planning standards, or where such standards are lacking, be adequate to meet the needs of 1 such developments as determined by competent planning and engineering consultants; 90 in case of cluster housing, townhouses or apartments, condominiums or co-operatives -and commercial or professional complexes, a�private property'owners association or.corporati,on shall be formed pq provide and .assure the continuous maintenance of open areas ' and Fommuni.ty services and common facilities, Section C; APPLICATION BY SPONSOR For areas where a sponsor considers "pili)" Zone to be appropriate, such sn'onsor may file an application therefore with the City Commission of the City of Atlantic Beach to designate the area a "kUD" Zone, Such _5.. application shall be accepted for consideration by the City Commission under the following conditions: 1. The sponsor shall be the owner of the area, or if not owned by the sponsor, the sponsor shall show privity in writing with the qwner or owners authorizing the sponsor to file the application. 2. The area shall be sufficiently large to permit development of a comunity•or neichborhood, having a range of houses or dwellings .necessary facilities and off-street parking compounds, parks, play- grounds or -reservations of areas therefore, appropriately located and }n harmony with the proposed "PUD".. '3, The area shall be adaptable to a planned unit development and bounded by major thoroughfares, streets, waterways or other extezna]. ]?oundaries, and as far as possible shall have whin of through it no. x-ajor thoroughfares or other phys.ica.1 features which would tend to destroy the neighborhood or community cohesiveness. geati.on Da DATA TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION Together with the application for a "PUD" Zone, there shah, he suibmit#ed a tentative overall development plan, which shall show: 1. Topographic and surface drainage plats 2. proposed plot plan 3. Proposed street or -vehicular traffic system 4. Proposed reservations for parks, parliways, playgrounds, school sates and other open spaces. Sa Proposed locations of any neighborhood business areas and offstreet parking space therefore. 6. Proposed type of dwelling or other units, and -Portions of area proposed. therefor. 7, proposed location or plot plan of buildings, garages and/or gther structures, and parking spaces. 8. Tabulation of the total number of acres in the proposed planned unit development, and the percentage thereof designated for tach of the proposed laY#d.uses, dwelling types, neighborhood retail: -businesses, other non.-xdsidential uses, off --street parking, streets, parks, schools, and other reservations. 9. A tabulation of the overall dx#elling or other type unit 4ensity per gross acre. lo. Preliminary plans and elevations of the several types of structures and/or improvements proposed, $ection X: CONSIDERATION BY ADV180RY PI,�Z�TMING BOARD Upon receipt of application for a "PUD" Gone, fulfilling the applicable requirements of Section B, C, and D hereof, the same shall ?fie taken under consideration by the Board, as fp1lowse 1> The Board shall consider the application and proposed plan - for the community,- the location, arrangement anal size of lots,•par'ks, school sites and other reservations of open spapes9 the location, width and grade of streets,- the location and arrangement of parking spaces; the location, arrangement and height of buildings; the location arrangement and design of neighborhood building areas and accessory parlUng spaces; the gross densities proposed for the entire area, axed such other features as will contribute to the orderly and harmonious, development of the area, with due regard to the character of the neigh-- I?orhood and its particular suitability for any one or more of the pro- posed uses. fide Board after due consideration shall make its recomme4ida- tion to the City Commission. 2. The City Commission may approve the application as. a tentative plan as submitted, or before approval, may require the sponsor to modify, alter, adjust, or amend the application or any part thereof. 3. Upon approval of a tentative plan the City Commission sham, set the proposed "PUD" Zone for a public hearing in the same manner as for public hearings required prior to final adoption. of pity ordinances. 4. Following the public hearing on said proposed "PUD" Zone, the City Commission shall tate the follovinci action-. approve the applications or before approval require that the sponsor to further modify, alter, adjust or amend the application or any part thereof; Qr disapprove the application. 5. if the application is approved by the City Commission, the land area shall he placed in a "PUD" Zone, and the sponsor, including the owner or owners, before beginning construction on the proposed development, shad submit to the City Commi.ssioxi a final plan consistent with the application for the "PUD" Zone. 6.• The final plan, after adoption by the City. Commission, shall be deemed the Official Plan, and shall be signed by the Mayor- bommissioner and the City Clerk, and 'by the sponsor and property owner pr owners, who by.such signing shall indicate agreement of their Willingness to abide by the conditions and tefms of such Official Plan. Whereafter, the building official of the city of Atlantic Beach shall be authorized t.o issue building permits authoriping construction in strict accordance with the conditions and. terns of the official Llan. 7. An Official Plan fora "PUD" Zone may be amended, the pro- cedure therefore to be the same as in the case of an original appli_ca, tion bej.ng made under Section C hereof. gection F: USES R MITTED No building, structure or land shall be pled; and -no building ox structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally 'altered, enlarged or maintained in a "PTA ".Zone unless the same -meets the conditions and berms of the Official Plan, nor shall the same pe occupied until the '4uilding official has issued a Certificate of occupancy certifying that the impxoverient on that portion for which the p�_-xmit was issued is �a complete and fulfills all of the terms and conditions of the Official, J i 4• .. f!; T9- d!Y Plan. Section G- SEPARABILITY In the event any section, subsection, paragraph or clause contained herein shall be declared unconstitutional or irwalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not effect the remaining portions hereof, which shall remain in full force and effect. Section H- CONFLICTS REPEALED' -All Ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hexeby repealed„ Section Ta EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon 1ina7 passage. f ' i i passed by the City Commission ori first reading 1972. Passed by the City Commission on second and final reading 1972. T Attest - (SEAL) Adele S. Grage• tiny Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA DUVAL COUNTY I, the underaWned City Clerk for the City of Atlantic Beach, Duval County, Florida, do hereby certify the within and foregoN Is a true and correct copy of the original as It appeare on record and -Ne In the offlee of the City Clerk for Atlantic Beach. WlMe" my hand and official seal of the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida, this /-O*� day of .20 City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 47-85-2 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND ENACTING A NEW CODE FOR THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA; ESTABLISHING THE SAvIE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES NOT INCLUDED THEREIN; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF AMENDING SUCH CODE; AND PROVIDING WHEN SUCH CODE AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION: Section 1. The Code of Ordinances, consisting of Chapters 1 to 24, each inclusive, is hereby adopted and enacted as the "Code of Ordinances, City of Atlantic Beach, Florida," which Code shall supersede all general and permanent ordinances of the City passed on or before April 9, 1984, to the extent provided in Section 2 hereof. Section 2. All provisions of the Code shall be in full force and effect from and after February 11, 1985, and all ordinances of a general and permanent nature enacted on final passage on or before April 9, 1984, and not included in the Code or recognized and continued in force by reference therein are hereby repealed from and after the effective date of the Code. Section 3. The repeal provided for in Section 2 hereof shall not be construed to revive any ordinance or part thereof that has been repealed by a subsequent ordinance which is repealed by this ordinance, Section 4. Unless another penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of such Code, or any provision of any rule or regulation adopted or issued pursuant thereto, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or by both fine and imprisonment. Section 5. Any and all additions and amendments to the Code, when passed in the form as to indicate the intention of the governing body to make the same a part of the Code, shall be deemed to be incorporated in the Code, so that reference to the Code shall be understood and intended to include the additions and amendments. Section 6. In case of the amendment of any section of the Code for which a penalty is not provided, the general penalty as provided in Section 4 of this ordinance and in Section 1-11 of such Code shall apply to the section as amended, or in case the amendment contains provisions for which a penalty, other than the aforementioned general penalty, is provided in another section in the same chapter, the penalty so provided in the other section shall be held to relate to the section so amended, r-. unless the penalty is specifically repealed therein. Section 7. All ordinances adopted after April 9, 1984, which amend or refer to ordinances which have been codified in such Code, shall be construed as if they amend or refer to lake provisions of such Code. Section 8. This ordinance and the Code adopted hereby, shall become effective February 11, 1985. Passed by the City Commission on First Reading Januar 28, 1985 Passed by the City Commission on Second & Final Reading February 11, 1985. L� Will. m Howell, ayor Presiding Officer (SEAL) Adelaide' R. Tucker, City Clerk Approved as to Form and Correctness: Y'Maude L. Mullis, C' torney