01-27-82 v MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
January 27, 1982
City Hall
7:30 PM
PRESENT: John F. Andresen, Chairman
Hall Mullins
T T
Ruth Gregg
Catherine G. Van Ness, Commissioner
AND: A. William Moss, City Manager
Mary L. Dombrowski, Recording Secretary
AND: Tom Rodgers, Treco
Maggie & Edward Then
Baron Bartlett, Attorney
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Andresen. Ms. Ruth Gregg was introduced
and welcomed to the board as a new member, replacing Mr. Dick Rigsbee. The chair
requested that a Thank You letter be prepared for Mr. Dick Rigsbee, in recognition of
his many years of service on the board.
The first item on the adgenda was the continuation of the Treco PUD application for the
development of the Catholic Diocese property. Mr. Bull was invited to address the
board with any comments he might have regarding this PUD application, since he had
indicated possible conflicts in a letter to the board. Mr. Bull's primary objections
were: that the covenents and restrictions did not fully address the guidelines for
approval/disapproval on structures, aesthetically or environmentailly (i.e. preser-
vation of the natural habitate on building sites and streets) ; he also inquired as
to the revisions that Treco contemplated in their covenents and restrictions that would,
in fact, achieve the concepts necessary to comply with the Planned Unit Development
requirements as opposed to an ordinary subdivision. Mr. Bull felt that filing the
Treco project as a PUD was a device to evade the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Rodgers
responded that Treco had filed their development plans as a PUD in accordance with
Mr. Moss's recommendation. Mr. Rodgers remarked that every effort would be made to
preserve the great trees on the building sites and to jog around any great trees in
conflict with proposed streets. Chairman Andresen indicated that the board understood
both points of view. He questioned the opposition to acceptance of the application as
a PUD, if by the same token, it would be accepted as a subdivision. More control is
provided for under a PUD, Chairman Andresen stated, than under a subdivision. The chair
requested input from the board.
Mr. Mullins stated that he felt the beauty of the area was being preserved, with Ms.
Gregg concurring. Mr. Moss stated that the city would have more control over the
development as a PUD and Treco deferred to his recommendation to proceed with the
application as a PUD. Mr. Moss had the impression that Mr. Bull had been urging that
Treco come in under a PUD at the last City Commission meeting.
Chairman Andresen then referredthe board to Page 7 of the covenents and restrictions,
regarding the fencing. He was opposed to the idea of allowing chain link, hogwire, or
metal fencing. He recommended woven wood or shadow box fencing. The board agreed.
Mr. Rodgers agreed to restrict chain link, hogwire and metal fencing as part of their
deed restrictions.
The chair then referredto Page 8, #21, to ascertain that this does indeed eliminate
antennas, for television reception. Mr. Rodgers stated that yes, this did eliminate
antennas and that Cox Cable would be available. Mr. Rodgers responded to Commissioner
Van-Ness's inquiry about #4, the minimum floor elevation, that this was designed to
alleviate possibility of flooding and ties into their drainage design. When questioned
by Commissioner Van Ness regarding the 10' distance for trees from the structure, Mr.
Rodgers replied that this could be lowered if the board desired. Chairman Andresen
made reference to Lot 38; reaffirming that prior approval had been given to this lot.
Commissioner Van Ness verified that, according to the restrictions, if the lot or lots
are required to be replatted, it is necessary to come back to the commission prior to
replatting. Mr. Rodgers said yes.
Regarding a violation of covenent, the Commissioner wanted to know if the monies were
to go back to the developer, not to the city. Further, any penalty that the City
would impose would be levied on top of any fine going to the developer. Mr. Rodgers
replied that this was correct.
The minimum 1400 square footage per home was then addressed. Mr. Rodgers replied that
there is no breakdown per story; that it applied to the total home. Reference was
then made to 419, regarding the size of signs allowed. It was determined that the
allowable size of the sign (for sale/rent) would have to be researched in compliance
with the sign ordinance and that figure inserted into #19.
The question of whether or not the covenents and restrictions were binding on sucessive
owners was addressed to Mr. Rodgers. Mr. Rodgers responded that yes, they were binding
on sucessive owners. In replying to the question about garages facing the street,
Mr. Rodgers responded that where possible the garages would be placed to the side;
however, on the smaller lots, 80' x 100' , those garages would have to face the street.
It was the general feeling of the board that any garage facing the street should be
required to have an automatic garage door opener. Mr. Rodgers agreed to this require-
ment.
Chairman Andresen then called for remarks or motions from the board to approve or
disapprove the Treco PUD application. Mr. Mullins moved that the Treco PUD application
be approved with the indicated changes. Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. The motion
was passed uanaimously with three (3) ayes. Changes: L. Chain-line, hogwire and
metal fencing would be restricted. 2. The size of the allowable sign would be
researched and inserted. 3. A garage door opener would be required on any garage
facing the street. The motion was passed on to the City Commission recommending
approval by the Advisory Planning Board.
Chairman Andresen then recognized the presence of former Mayor Billy Howell in the
audience, and inquired if he had any remarks to make. Mr. Howell indicated no.
The next item on the adgenda was the amendment to Mrs. Then's PUD application. The
chair opened this to discussion proceeding in order of the items listed in Mrs. Then's
letter, dated December 9, 1981 (copy attached) . A lengthly discussion, covering each
item was conducted to make sure that the board understood each request.
Item #1 An addition of a small balcony to the east and south side of the 3rd floor
unit and dormer, and the installation of elevator. (exceeds all existing requirements)
The question was raised as to whether or not the balcony in question was in fact
approved in the original PUD application. Reference was made that the elevator
(invalid lift) would have to come under special rules and regulations. Mr. Moss
indicated that the Southern Standard Building Code had stringent and complicated
codes which elevators would have to comply with as regards construction and install-
ation. Commissioner Van Ness questioned that she thought there was already a balcony
on the south side. Mrs. Then responded that no, there was a balcony on the north
units are same we put laundry in 3rd unit space until we get money to build it -
laundry shown on plan and will be relocated between the buildin•s or discarded.
This will be determined at the time 173 is completed.
The chair questioned if this was the original parking area of the two story apartments?
Mrs. Then said yes. The chair further questioned Mrs. Then if this was the unit with
the parking spaces under the apartment that she was talking about enclosing the park-
ing area and making it another apartment? Mrs. Then replied yes. The chair stated
that this would require 3.4 more parking spaces. Mrs. Then said no. .this was already
The chair asked the board if all members thoroughly understood all the items that
have been discussed. All the board members indicated yes. The chair suggested that
the items before the board be voted upon seperately. Mr. Malcolm Jones asked to be
recognized and allowed to speak before the board voted on these items. The chair
invited him to proceed.
Mr. Jones stated that he was against Mrs. Then's proposed plans, and as far as his
understanding was, what she's done here was under her original PUD application, and
the only thing she required more was the south 25' x 240' strip. Mr. Jones felt that
the project was already overbuilt. That the requirements were 1.8 units per acre and
she was now over by one (1). Now Mrs. Then wanted to add one (1) possibly two (2)
more down the road. Her parking, if I understood Mr. Moss correctly, is already in
violation because the parking should not be in tandem. They should have access
directly from the parking space to the street or alley. I think she is incorrect as
to the 160 square feet, even if tandem, because it goes on the street and the setback
line of the house. I can not see how you, in good faith, could approve this. This is
not conforming with the rest of the neighborhood. This has nothing to do with this
particular application, but she has so many violations over there now, with what she
has done without building permits, that I think that should also be addressed before
you approve it. I know that there are two different governing bodies, but it's unreal
what she's done over there. She started our doing a good job, but she 's gone overboard.
I can't fathom you or the City Commission allowing her to do one more thing in that
area. All the neighbors don't like it. It is against common sense to allow her any-
more. Mrs. Gregg asked Mr. Jones where he lived and if he was a permanent resident.
He replied that he lived on the south side and was here most weekends, at least once
a week, and approximately 4 months during the year. Mrs. Gregg questioned the violations
and wanted to know what they were. Mr. Jones referred to the original garage apartment
and the regulations he was told at City Hall regarding any structural changes to the
building with the setback at 10' . . . .that he would have to knock it down and go back
40' . He stated further instances. . .extending the balcony on the third floor, north,
within a month they extended the balcony. Putting in a kitchen on the second floor
south main building, then closing off some of the doors and made it an apartment before
anyone realized it. Mr. Jones indicated that Mr. Moss had a list of violations up to
July. Mrs. Gregg then asked if Mr. Jones had been in the house recently. She remarked
that she had been in the home today; that it was beautiful; and for Mrs. Then's own
private use. Mr. Jones stated that he was in a fish bowl with all the balconies that
now exist; with tenents loking into our back yard while we're trying to eat on our
back deck; we can't open our bedroom blinds without tenents being able to look in
because their rooms loke straight into us. It's getting to be ridiculous with what
she's trying to do. They've closed in the four (4) car garage for Ed's shop; so she
doesn't have all that parking. Mrs. Gregg indicated that you could still get a car
in there. Mr. Jones stated that Mrs. Then's going to have to open it up and even
then it's in tandem and still in violation of ordinances. Mrs. Gregg further
remarked that if Mr. Jones had gone there and personally viewed the home, that he
would understand it better. She personally felt that there wasn't anything wrong with
it. Mr. Jones asked what was going to happen when Mr. & Mrs. Then were no longer
there to take care of the place. He further questioned what would happen if the
repairs were not done regularly. He expressed deep concern. Mrs. Gregg remarked
• that she felt that the lift would not bother his side of the project; that she
knew exactly the spot Mrs. Then wanted the lift. Mrs. Ross indicated that we (the
board) do have to consider what might happen in the future. She expressed concern
about the lack of adequate parking; 9 of them in tandem. As it exists now, there
really isn't enough parking to serve all units. The additions would be 2 bedrooms
to a garage apartment, 2 bedrooms to the main house, and a whole new unit to the
basement. Mrs.Ross further remarked on the possibility of tenents having more
than one car which would pose further problems. Mrs. Ross cautioned Mrs. Then
that the PUD is not to be used to violate any existing ordinances or anything
that could have been grandfathered in to have the maximum use out of the property.
Tn Pun, ?•1r ' Uncc *T!,,, ht 4/imo benefit to the
neighborhood and to the community. Mrs. Ross didn't see any benefits and the
parking and height limits concerned her. Mr. Moss stated that this was a peculiar
situation. By the ordinances because of the PUD which on one hand allows you flex-
ibility, however, on the other hand, the number of units required that she come in
under a PUD. Mr. Moss stated that Mrs. Then never really had any choice but to come
in under PUD. Anything over three (3) units has to come in as PUD, however, there is
more reason to think that you would obey the ordinances. Mr. Jones stated that under
the code, 1.8 units per acre, that she never really had to come in as a PUD. Mr.
MOSS replied that there is another section of the ordinance which requires three (3)
or more units to come in under PUD; he assumed that is why Mrs. Then came in under
PUD. The chair brought up a point that if this project came in under PUD in its
entirety from its conception, PUD says that any changes from the original plan, as it
was submitted, would have to be amended. All of these items requested would have to
be amendments and that required public hearings. Unfortunately, we can't find the
original PUD. Mr. Moss remarked that this meeting was part of the hearing process.
Commissioner Van Ness stated that the map they had at the last meeting was the
original PUD. It was in the lower corner of the map ( 6 x 244 from 82) and that was
how we determined the entire PUD. The chair remarked that we really had not idea what
the original PUD included though. Mrs. Then remarked that the original plans should
be with the City. Mrs. Then invited the board to come and view the property if anyone
felt her measurements were off. The chair again stressed that there was doubt as to
her original PUD. Chairman Andresen then closed the discussion, stating that all
five (5) items had been thoroughly discussed and everyone understood the requests.
He indicated that the voting should be accomplished seperately. Mrs. Then stated
that she understood that if any of her request were denied-, that she would not be
coming back again with future requests. She stated that she wanted to know so that
she would have some personal privacy in her home; that these items requested were the
extent of her p ns for the property. The chair requested motions on acceptance or
denial of paragraph #1, the Then PUD request. Mr. Mullins made reference to the
phrase "non-conforming use". He wanted to know if Mrs. Then was in a non-conforming
status. The chair stated that the project didn't conform to the existing city re-
gulations. We can approve it as a PUD; the elevator (invalid lift) approved by what
ever organization approves elevators, but it doesn't conform to existing ordinances.
Mr. Mullins made the motion that Item #1 be forwarded for approval. Mrs. Gregg
seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously and passed on to the City
Commission recommending approval. The chair called for motions on Item #2. Mrs.
Ross made the motion that Item #2 be denied. The chair seconded the motion.
Commissioner Van Ness cast the tie vote of aye. The motion to deny Item #2 was
passed on to the City Commission recommending non-approval. The chair called for
motions on Item #3. Mrs. Ross made the motion for denial, citing the following
reasons: inadequate parking and the roof assembly. The chair seconded the motion.
There was a discussion: the roof assembly would have to be revamped and the chair
stated it would be an engineering feat to accomplish. It was on that basis that the
chair seconded the motion. Mrs. Ross stated plus there was a violation, regardless
of building permits, because it should really be back 15' , not 10' as shown. On
the side, the requirement is a minimum of 15' . Commissioner Van Ness cast the tie
vote of aye. Mrs. Then then requestioned specific reasons for denial. The chair
and Mrs. Ross stated that Mrs. Then was adding more than the property could handle,
and the parking was definately in excess and violation. Mrs. Then stated that all
' the- parking was on her property. The motion to deny Item #3 was passed on to
' the. Cit Commission recommending non-approval. The chair indicated that there
was.nothin• to vote on re:ardin•. Item #4 therefore the board :ave this Item #4
an a e forwardin• it on to theCit Commission. The chair called for motions
on Item #/5. Mr. Mullins made the motion that Item #5 be forwarded to the council
recommending approval. Mrs. Gregg seconded the motion. The vote was tied. The
chair called for the nay votes. The chair, Mrs. Ross and Commissioner Van Ness
voted nay. Mr. Mullins'motion was denied and Item No. 5 forwarded to the City
Commission as recommending non-approval. Mr. Bartlett asked for clarification
of Item #i5. It was his understanding that this was approved under the original
..• :L . : Uss si.Led if it is applies IOr as part OI toe cnange , tuc UWUcL wua.
consider that it wasn't part of the original PUD or the owner wouldn't be
requesting it. Mrs. Then stated that it was approved as part of the original PUD.
Commissioner Van Ness asked if 1-11 were part of the original plan. Mrs. Then said
yes. Mrs. Then stated that she would do anything to meet the requirements and
desires of the board; that she could take away unit 11 and add on her two bedrooms.
The chair indicated that all the items had been voted on and that they could not go
back and do it again. Mr. Bartlett wanted clarification on unit 11; if this was
part of the original PUD. The chair indicated that he didn't think this was under
the original PUD ; even if it was, she is now asking for an amendment to close it in
because it is now used as a parking area and it was designed specifically for
parking.
The chair asked if there were any further questions before the board. There being
no additional questions, the chair declared the meeting adjourned. 9:35 PM.
Imi
John dresen, Ch man
5,:c -Ler 9 , 1981
;r. 3i 11 :•;oss , City Man:,or r
City of ,7,t] -intic Beach
Via 37233
p=-er Sir :
In response to your request to itemize the n's:a=es of de e]c• :nt
in my PUD:
(enclosed here-with are 7 sets of plans of the various haLz :s of
• develc--::.:nt as outlined when approved) (these may not b
in this exact order)
1. eridi t i on of s11 balcony to cast and south sire of
3rd floor unit & Dormer & installation of r_=?.i•-': ;:or.
(exceeds all existing requirements) -
2. 1-ddi tion of 1 bedroom or den to 2 cxi sitnc units at
193 on an existing foundation. (:- arts all requi :-: _nts)
3. ddition of loft b Broom in 195 & 197 (already rc_ :ed n
but :Till re_ui _e addition of dor-._ r ror ::i __ . _� s en
copleted.
4 . plan of parking already paved and in and -_eting all
J
parking requirements for the 11 a uro':ed units. =1•_ a
Or note the reouirem_nts for 11 units is 161 aces . e
have 18 exceeding re dui rel nts by 1= ca_s.
5. Cc-_.letion of unit =11 at 173 Beach ;no plans .. ., e -
city has copy, all three units are came we put is _y
in 3rd unit sr,ace until we cat money to build it -
laundry is shown on plan a-,^ will be r e l cca to d hetes en
the bu-ildi ncs or- discarded. This will be de'_ - . ..._-:d
at the t_-.e 173 is cc•7ppie_ed.
I understand the purpose of these plans now is to eliminate the
need for additional public hearings as the phases are develo ed.
Permits will be issued as development becins or a nester permit
will be issued now to cover these phases.
I would appreciate the return of 6 of these sets of plans after
approval.
thank you!
Sincerely,
! arcaret Then