Agendar"" ~
AGENDA
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITX COMMISSION
AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Jnne 1, 2000
5:00 P.M.
City Hail Commission Chamk+ers
~ 1. Cali to Order
2. Introduction by the Mayor.
3. Overview of major ordinance changes by Community Development Board Chairman.
4. Discussion of review process:
A. Methodology of review.
B. Scheduling of future meetings
Z. Adjournment
~, MINUTES OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP HELD IN THE COMMISSION
CHAMBERS AT 5:00 P.M. ON THURSDAY, NNE 1, 2000
Commission Members present were Mayor Meserve and Commissioners Beaver, Borno,
Mitchelson and Waters.
Community Development Boazd Members present were Chairrnan Wolfson and Board Members
Pillmore, Walker, Frohwein, and Burkhart.
Staff Members present were City Manager Hanson and Planning and Development Director
Worley.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Meserve at 5:10 p.m. Members of the Community
Development Boazd, the Commission and Staff introduced themselves. Mayor Meserve
indicated that he wished Chairman Wolfson to lead those present through a brief discussion of
the major changes in the zoning ordinance and to establish a method for reviewing the ordinance.
The Mayor indicated that he wished to take a measured approach to reviewing the document,
~ which he believed would take several meetings to accomplish. He felt review of the definitions
was critical and would take two meetings. He felt all Commissioners should be present at all of
the meetings and that it was crucial to allow enough public input so the citizens would be aware
of all proposed changes to the zoning ordinance.
Chairman Wolfson discussed a recent article in the Beaches Leader pertaining to the proposed
changes to the ordinances which he felt contained significant misstatements. Mayor Meserve
indicated that Community Development Director Worley was willing to speak to any reporter
concerning the proposed revisions and urged them to contact hi.m for correct information.
Mayor Meserve felt that discussion of the complicated issue oiF impervious surface coverage
limits should be left to the last in order to obtain more data from the consultants on the core city
project. He felt it was crucial to obtain the correct data before setting any limits,
Mayor Meserve deferred further comments to Community Development Boazd Chairman
Wolfson who commented on the great amount of time and effi~rt put forth by the Boazd in
revising the language and intent of the code and who briefly covered the major revisions to the
zoning ordinance as follows:
• Definitions. Explained that the Board went over the definitions three to four times to
remove inconsistent language, terminology no longer used or actual definitions not used
in the code. Chairman Wolfson welcomed feedback on these changes and stated that as
!"~ much time as possible should be spent on this section cf the code. He indicated that
name "Open Rural" had been changed to "Conservation District".
,(-~, Joint Workshop Meeting Page -2-
June 1, 2000
• Application Procedures. Explained that the procedures for vaziances, rezonings and
use-by-exceptions had been reformatted for clarity. He felt that the new applications for
vaziances cleazly explained the appeal procedure.
• Secondary and Accessory Structures. Felt this was an important area to be discussed
with the Commission.
• Home Occupations. Indicated that the changes made in this section to sepazate those
into two classes -high and low impact.
• Creation of the Central Business District Zone (Tow~i Center area}. Indicated that
input was needed from the City of Neptune Beach and the Town Center Agency for
uniformity on both sides of Atlantic Boulevard.
Commissioner Waters requested that Chairman Wolfson explain the duties of the
Community Development Board. Chairman Wolfson explained that the Community
Development Boazd met the third Tuesday of every month to consider the requests for
variances and use-by-exceptions, as determined by Comununity Development Director
~,,,,\ Worley. The Boazd was also responsible for addressing and understanding the
Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations.
Planned Unit Developments and Subdivision Regulations. Indicated that revisions
were made for ease of understanding and consistency.
Impervious Surface. Indicated that help was needed from the Commission, the
engineers and citizens to establish surface coverage limits. Chairman Wolfson felt that
the established limits should make sense and be long lasting.
A written summary of the proposed major changes to the ordinance is attached and made part of
this official record as Attachment A.
Commissioner Borno stated he had read the proposed ordinance several times, and inquired as to
the procedure to use if a conflict is found in the ordinance, so it can be noted and discussed by
everyone.
A brief discussion of the Sunshine Law ensued and it was determined that there would be no
conflict if the Mayor or a Commissioner called a member of the Community Development Board
for an explanation of a change made to the ordinance.
Discussion ensued and it was suggested that the Commission read through the ordinance and
have any technical questions answered by Community Development Director Worley. Mayor
Meserve inquired concerning grandfathering as it applied to the revisions. He also inquired
~. Joint Workshop Meeting Page -3-
June 1, 2000
concerning the application of the rule that if more than 50% of anon-conforming building is
destroyed can it be rebuilt as it was, or does it have to be rebuilt to conform. After some further
discussion of the requirement, Commissioner Mitchelson stated he would oppose any change
which would not allow a structure to be rebuilt and would favor construction on the same
footprint.
Procedure and methodology were then discussed. Community Development Director Worley
indicated that an understanding of the definitions was needed in order to review each section of
the code, which then could be followed by a review of the definitions.
As part of the public hearing process, Mayor Meserve suggested, and those present agreed, that
the ordinance should be placed as a source document on the cit}~'s website with updates
following significant changes.
Commissioner Waters suggested that the ordinance be reviewei! section by section for context,
while reviewing the definitions at the same time. It was the consensus of those present that the
word "draft" and the date be placed on each page of the ordinaJice. It was pointed out that the
date on the page would be changed to coincide with any revisions made to that particular page.
After some further discussion, it was the consensus of those present to hold a second workshop
meeting on Thursday, June 22, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. It was the consensus of those present to use the
following procedures: (1) All questions of a technical nature will be submitted in writing to
Community Development Director Worley, who will answer them directly, or at his discretion,
submit the questions to the Community Development $oard for further review, (2) policy issues
will be discussed at the joint workshop so as not to get bogged down in minutiae, (3) the City
Manager and Community Development Director will be responsible for all information provided
to the press, with personal examples provided to highlight the major issues, and (4) an updated
copy of the ordinance will be made available for reading at City Hall.
Board Chairman Wolfson inquired as to the time frame for the ordinance to be placed on the
website and Community Development Director Worley indicated that it would take
approximately two weeks.
There being no further comments or discussion, Mayor Meserve adjourned the meeting at 6:30
p.m.
Submitted by:
Julie M. Brandt
Secretary
~'""°"
ATTACHMENT A
JUNE 1, 2000 JOINT WORKSHOP
>.--4.
Summary of
Major Changes proposed
in Ordinance 90-00•lti9
The following summary is intended to highlight those areas where the Community Development
Board concentrated much of its efforts. This is in no way intended to minimize the great amount of
time and effort put into the difficult task of revising the language and intent of the code, and in
eliminating other conflicting provisions throughout.
~r Definitions (Section 24-17) were a major point of interest for the Board. The
definitions in the existing code contain language which is not consistent with the
language used elsewhere in the code, terminology no longer commonly used, or
definitions of terms not used at all in the body of the code. These problems create
confusion and lead to inconsistent or incorrect interpretations of the code provisions.
~6 The application procedures for Re-zoning, Exceptions and Variances (Sections 24-62
through 24-64) have been cleaned up to make the. process clearer.
~ Secondary and Accessory structures (Sections 24.17, 24-86, & 24-151) were another
point of concentration. The definitions and regulations of these two types of uses
overlapped significantly. The Board has made recommendations to simplify this and
~""""^. eliminate the overlapping definitions and provisions.
S* Home Occupations (Section 24-159) were another point of interest. These uses have the
potential to disrupt the residential character of a neighborhood if not regulated
adequately. The Board approached this issue by separating Home Occupations into two
classes. Those co~idered Iow impact such as office or record keeping uses are
permitted wh$e those with more potential for adverse impacts are permitted only by
Exception.
~ Another issue that has repeatedly appeared before the Boazd over the years has been
Exceptions and Variances in the area of Town Ginter. To address the different character
of this area the Board has proposed the creation of a Central Business District zone
(Section 24-I 14) to encompass that area as well as a portion of Atlantic Boulevard
westwazd several blocks. The new district proposes a more restricted list of pe:nnitted
uses in that area as well as a mare liberal approa<;h to use of City right-of--way in tbe
conduct of business in this district.
~:+ The Planned Unit Development (Section 24-126;) and the Subdivision regulations
(Sections 24-186 through 24-258) were also revised to make them more easily
understood and consistent with each other.
:~ Finally, the $oazd debated the issue of placing impervious surface coverage limits on
both residential and commercial properties. The inclusion of this regulation is an issue to
!"'~""` be discussed in joint workshop with the City Commission The proposal of specific
impervious percentage limits will be aided by information derived from the design of the
Core City Utility project.