Loading...
09-18-90 v AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Acceptance of the Minutes of the July 21, 1990 meeting. 3. Old Business. 4. New Business. a. Consideration of an application for Variance filed on August 31, 1990 by John and Susan King for a deck addition at 301 Pine Street. b. Consideration of an application for Variance filed on August 31, 1990 by Tom and Betsy Schifanella for dwelling improvements at 20 17th Street. c. Consideration of an application for Variance filed on August 31, 1990 by Anthony and Theresa Cipollina for dwelling improvements at 137 10th Street. d. Consideration of a request forwarded to the Community Development Board by the Mayor and City Commission regarding the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Sec. 24-252 Streets. The Mayor and City Commission are seeking guidance on standards for the acceptance of private streets. e. Consideration and discussion of material related to the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Adjournment. MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PRESENT W. Gregg McCaulie, Chairman Louis MacDonell Sam Howie Kathy Russell Ruth Gregg Don Wolfson John Bass AND Thomas E. Bowles, Community Development Director Virginia C. Benoit, Recording Secretary Robert Kosoy, Public Services Director AND Dezmond Waters John Bailey John and Susan King Tom and Betsy Schifanella Theresa Cipollina Mike and Beverly Shackleford Mr. McCaulie called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and moved to approve the minutes from the previous meeting, August 21, 1990. The motion passed without second. OLD BUSINESS Mrs. Gregg mentioned that some of the pools previously cited as being out of compliance with code, still had not been fenced. She also mentioned that she had turned it over to Code Enforcement and that Don C. Ford was going to write to the homeowners if necessary. Mr. Bass apologized to anyone who might have called him about applications for variances, but mentioned he had been very busy and unable to return his calls. The other board members commented on the favorable article in the paper and the good publicity. NEW BUSINESS I. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE BY JOHN A. AND SUSAN KING FOR AN ELEVATED DECK ADDITION AT 301 PINE STREET. Mr. and Mrs. King appeared on their own behalf. No one appeared to object to the variance request. Mrs. Gregg questioned 'how far' the deck would be from the City right-of-way. Mr. King responded that the deck would be six feet from the City property. Mr. King told the Board that there had been a stoop at the door, but that it had collapsed and never been replaced. Following discussion Mr. Howie moved to grant the variance, with the stipulation that the area covered by the deck would not be enclosed and that the owners would not come back later and seek another variance to enclose. Mr. Bass seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FILED BY TOM AND BETSY SCHIFANELLA TO ENCLOSE CARPORT AREA AND ADD AN EXTENSION TO THE REAR WALL OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 17TH STREET. Tom Schifanella and Betsy Schifanella were present to answer questions from the board members. Mr. Schifanella presented the board a topographic survey of the property. No one spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Howie noted that the building is a duplex and wanted to know if the Schifanellas had permission from their neighbors to build an addition. Mr. Schifanella had a letter which he submitted to the board. Mr. MacDonell wanted to make sure he understood exactly what the addition would be and Mr. Schifanella explained that the existing carport would be enclosed and the rear wall would be extended approximately 3 feet beyond the wall as now exists and from there would be continued up to the second and third story of the home. House plans and photographs were presented to the board for clarification. Mr. McCaulie asked the applicants where they intended to park their two cars and Mr. Schifanella responded that they would have a parking area on 17th Street and also room for one car on Beach Avenue. Mrs. Russell asked if the parking area was on the right-of-way and Mr. Schifanella did not know. Mrs. Russell said she would like to know exactly where the right-of-way is located in relationship to the two parking spaces since the codes do not permit parking on the right-of-way. Mr. Wolfson moved to deny the request for variance. Mrs. Russell seconded the motion. Further discussion centered around the board's serious concerns about accessibility for emergency vehicles, particularly if the roads are crowded with parked cars. Variances were granted in order to build the home originally. Mr. stated that the reason the code calls for inclusion of parking is to avoid dangerous and illegal parking, especially in the vicinity of a public access. Mrs. Russell quoted chapter 24-17 which states, "Parking space, off-street shall mean an off-street parking space consisting of an area adequate for parking an automobile with room for opening doors on both sides, together with properly related access to a public street or alley and maneuvering room, but located totally outside of any street or alley right-of-way." Following the discussion of the parking, Mr. Howie expressed the opinion that to enclose the carport would not even require a variance. Mr. McCaulie and Mrs. Gregg both disagreed based on the fact that the lot is substandard. It was noted that they were not exceeding the setback requirements, except for the lot size. Mr. Bowles stated that the lot size was less than the required minimum for the usage. Mr. Bass questioned Mr. Wolfson about changing his motion to deny. Mr. McCaulie said that if someone wanted to offer an amendment to the motion they could do it and Mr. Wolfson stated he wanted to leave the motion as presented, to wit, a motion to deny based on the parking. No one offered an amendment. Mr. MacDonell suggested that Mr. Wolfson withdraw the motion and offer a new motion to grant the variance subject to a provision to provide paved, off-street parking on the north part of the property, within the property line. Mrs. Gregg was concerned that the board would be in a position where they would have to allow variances to all the substandard lots if this variance was granted. Mrs. Schifanella felt that her property was unique in its design and that other properties would not necessarily want to add on (or enclosed carports) in the same way. Mrs. Russell felt that the board would be in a position where they could not deny the Schifanella's neighbors requests for variances if this variance were granted. Mr. MacDonell didn't feel the granting of one variance would not encumber the board. Mr. McCaulie called for the board to go through the eleven points on the application for variance to help them come to a decision. Mr. Wolfson also stated that he would stand by his motion to deny the application because of the parking and the substandard lot. Mr. Wolfson said he would withdraw his motion if the Schifanellas would agree to add parking and to enclose the carport area without extending the building to the west. Mr. and Mrs. Schifanella said that without the extra five (5) feet on the back of the building the plan was not feasible. Mr. Wolfson and Mrs. Gregg both expressed concerns about increasing the footprint on a substandard lot. Mrs. Schifanella stated that she and her husband did not know this was a substandard lot when they purchased it, nor did they discover this fact when they had the plans drawn and tentatively presented them to someone (unknown) in the building department. It was not until they were ready to begin the project that they found they needed a variance and had a substandard lot. Mr. Schifanella spoke to the building inspector and he was the person who advised him (Schifanella) to go ahead with his plans. Mr. MacDonell mentioned that the property was purchased prior to annexation and the Schifanellas did not know the property on substandard when they purchased it. Mr. McCaulie and Mr. Wolfson both noted that the lot was a substandard lot even by the City of Jacksonville code. Mr. Wolfson also noted that Beach Avenue is a narrow, winding, garage-approach road and there have been problems with it since annexation including many controversial items, particularly since the lots are substandard. The fact that the people who have bought the homes may not have been aware of these problems, but that doesn't change the fact that the problems exist. Mr. Wolfson was also concerned about precedents the board might set with these controversial decisions. Mr. McCaulie returned to the issues on the application for variance. He expressed concerns that the application did not really meet the requirements of the board. Mr. McCaulie noted further that it seemed there were other ways the structure could be expanded, although it might not be exactly what the Schifanellas wanted. Mr. Bass asked the board to go through the eleven points and then come to a decision. After discussion, Mrs. Schifanella said that without the variance they would be forced to move. She stated that they wanted to start a family and their home, as it now was, did not suit their needs. Mr. Bass felt they had asked for the minimum variance necessary. The board noted that parking problems currently exist along Beach Avenue in general. Mr. MacDonell and Mr. Wolfson discussed the (public) access to the beach at the Lane's property line. Mr. McCaulie called the question. Mr. Wolfson's motion to deny the variance passed by a vote of four to three. Mr. McCaulie, Mr. Wolfson, Mrs. Russell and Mrs. Gregg voted in favor. Mr. Howie, Mr. Bass and Mr. MacDonell voted against the motion. Mr. McCaulie reiterated that the application was denied and that the board had already voted. It was restated that the expansion of the footprint of the building and the addition was the important part of the application. Mr. Wolfson informed the Schifanellas that they could appeal the decision of the board by going before the commission. III. CONSIDERATION OF A AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FILED BY ANTHONY AND THERESA CIPOLLINA FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT 137 TENTH STREET. Mr. Mike Shackleford, son-in-law of Mr. and Mrs. Cipollina, appeared on behalf of the applicants. He presented the plans to the board members which showed that approval of the application would allow an encroachment of two (2) feet into the twenty (20) foot backyard setback. It was determined that the actual encroachment was only one (1) foot, seven (7) inches, less than ten (10%) percent of the requirement. After examining the plans, Mr. MacDonell moved to grant the variance. Mr. Howie seconded the motion. Mr. John Bailey spoke from the audience about the fact that Beach Avenue is a non-conforming right-of-way in some areas and a conforming right-of-way in others. He noted that the property owned by the Cipollina's was not substandard and approving the application would make no practical difference. It also noted that the previous City Manager authorized his assistant to grant up to a ten (10%) percent variance which has caused a great deal of trouble. The plans were explained thusly; the Cipollinas want to build a parking structure with a bedroom and bath above. The construction will be the same as the existing house and will preserve the continuity of the current house. The Cipollinas noted that this will be the last addition to the home. The parking area will provide room to park two (2) cars. Mr. Wolfson stated that since he had led the objection to the previous application he felt it necessary to clarify his reasons, particularly the fact that the other lot is a substandard lot and this lot is not. He then called the question. The motion to approve the application passed unanimously and the variance was granted. Mr. McCaulie called for a five (5) minute break at Mrs. Gregg's request. * * * * * * IV. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE ON STANDARDS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE STREETS PER ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SEC.24-252 (STREETS) . Mr. Bowles explained the Mayor's request to the board. The Mayor and the City Commission want to have guidelines to help them determine when (and if) to accept private streets as dedicated streets . The concern about acceptance deals with how the streets were constructed. The only stipulation about private streets addresses the width of the right-of-way, but makes no mention of how the streets are constructed and to what 'standards' they conform. Mr. Bowles introduced Mr. Bob Kosoy to the board and invited him to comment on needed guidelines. The City had refused to accept some streets in Selva Marina because they lacked curbs, and an independent engineer had determined that it would cost $300,000 to $400,000 to bring the streets up to standard. Further, it was stated that those streets had never been dedicated to the City because those residents did not want to pay for the improvements. Mr. MacDonell stated that engineering firms doing subdivision design generally use standards of the city where the project will be located. Mr. Kosoy noted that even if the City decided to use FDOT standards or the City of Jacksonville standards for private roads, it would not be enforceable since the Atlantic Beach code did not have any guidelines. Mr. MacDonell suggested that the City officially adopt the guidelines of the City of Jacksonville. Mr. McCaulie asked Mr. Bowles if Sec. 24-251(4) , Design and Construction Standards, General Requirements, "all design and construction methods shall conform to the following manuals published by the Florida Department of Transportation, latest editions, and shall serve as reference guide and standards for construction of all improvements, road design standards," etc. didn't set the standards for the City of Atlantic Beach streets. Mr. Bowles said it was necessary to keep in mind that the FDOT standards are for inner city routes and not specifically for subdivision roads. For example, a sub- division may be able to get by with an inch and a quarter (1-1/4") of asphalt when the DOT route could require two (2") or three (3") inches. Mr. Bowles suggested that his office draft one (1) or two (2) pages of standards and present those to the board for its consideration. Mr. MacDonell added that there are two (2) areas to consider when you talk about private streets; the City of Jacksonville, after consolidation, would not allow building permits unless the property fronted a thirty-five (35) foot, dedicated, completed city street, or an approved private road, and in order for a private road to be approved it had to meet the specifications of the dedicated city streets. This provision was to force people to put in roads that were to spec. Mr. MacDonell asked Mr. Bowles to incorporate this requirement to prevent future problems. After completing the standards, Mr. Bowles will present them to the Community Development Board for suggestions or changes and then it will be presented to the City Commission for consideration. Mrs. Russell noted that there exists a provision in the code which addresses the issuing of building permits only to properties which abut on a public roadway, but it does not deal with the question of subdivisions. Mr. Wolfson requested that the draft documents (from Mr. Bowles office) be sent to the board members along with the agenda and applications. V. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF MATERIAL RELATED TO THE PREPARATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Mr.Bowles suggested, in the interest of time, that the board, the commission and the consulting engineers who prepared the draft of the plan, meet in a workshop the night of October 9th, 1990 for the purpose of going over some of the draft comments. This would be the first step in preparing the final document to be submitted to the DCA. Mr. Bowles also emphasized that once the final document is accepted by the DCA it binds the City and failure to follow through could leave the City open to punitive actions ,including fines. Mr. Wolfson mentioned that he was involved in the Comprehensive Plan with the City of Neptune Beach and that the engineering firm that did the plan wrote a good document for a very fair price and further that he had never seen a response like this to a first draft document and it was an embarrass- ment. Mrs. Gregg mentioned that when the engineering firm spoke with the board they often contradicted things the board felt were important, such as the traffic problem in Atlantic Beach. She stated that the engineers said there was no traffic problem. Mr. Wolfson said he felt the people doing the comprehensive plan were not familiar with the city; that many of the problems in the plan were the result of ignorance. Mr. MacDonell wanted to be sure that it was possible, once the document was accepted, to go back and amend it in six months. Mr. Bowles responded that the plan could be amended every six months. Mr. Wolfson asked why representatives from Gee and Jenson were not in attendance, and was told that the gentleman who prepared the document was based in West Palm Beach and was unable to be here. In addition, Mr. Bowles wanted to save some money for the meetings with the Community Development Board and the City Commission. Mr. Wolfson, Mrs. Gregg and Mrs. Russell questioned the money spent on the draft document. They felt the city was being asked to pay for things that the engineers should have done in the first place. Mr. Bowles thought the point was well taken, but noted that the problem now was to finish the plan and get it accepted by the DCA. Mr. MacDonell suggested that perhaps Gee and Jenson was trying to save the city money by limiting the document. Mr. Wolfson disagreed and said he thought Gee and Jenson dropped the ball on this one. Mr. Wolfson requested the secretary provide him with copies of the invoices from Gee and Jenson. Mrs. Gregg suggested that Mr. Wolfson go before the City Commission at the Monday meeting and bring up his concerns about the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wolfson said he would attend as a citizen. Mr. Bowles said that his main concern at this time was to come up with a document that would be accepted by DCA and would be something that the city could live with for at least six (6) months until it could be amended. Mr. McCaulie wondered if there were restrictions on the amendments. Mr. Bowles stated that he didn't know how easy, or how difficult, it would be amend the document. Right now he just needed consensus on a day to meet for the workshop. The date suggested was the 9th of October. The board decided to meet with, or without, the commissioners present. The workshop was tentatively placed on the calendar for October 3, 1990 after two members of the board said they wouldn't be available the week of the ninth. * * * * * * There being no further business, Mr. McCaulie adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. SIGNED: W. Gregg McCaulie, Chairman ATTESTED: ` 1 w. --(.. -*-- , . Virgi r Collins Benoit,/Recording Secretary