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