Loading...
05-25-82 v P MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH May 25, 1982 City Hall 7:00 PM PRESENT: John F. Andresen - Chairman Ruth Gregg Hal Mullins Catherine Van Ness - Commission Representative AND: A. William Moss - City Manager Mary L. Dombrowski - Recording Secretary AND: Mr. George Bull Mr. Robert A. Skeels - Attorney for Mr. Bull Mr. Phil Grenville - G & M Construction Company Mr. Don Meuse - G & M Construction Company Mr. J. Johnson ABSENT: Donna Ross Chairman Andresen called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM. Mr. Moss asked that Mr. Johnson's request to rezone a lot that he was considering purchasing be taken first, since the other gentlemen were here for the Selva Marina Gardens Phase II project. The chair agreed and asked Mr. Moss to supply background information on Mr. Johnson's request. Mr. Moss informed the board that the property that Mr. Johnson is interested in is on West 9th Street, which is zoned BA and does not allow automotive repair. Under the proposed zoning, CG would not permit that use either. Mr. Johnson is requesting that you reconsider and change that CG zoning designation. The chair indicated that they were not in a position to rezone one piece of property. Mr. Moss then acquainted Mr. Johnson with the public hearing schedule for the pro- posed zoning ordinance where he could make his comments known. The next item before the board was the consideration of the Selva Marina Gardens Phase II PUD application. The chair remarked that the literature presented tonight by Mr. Skeels on Mr. Bull's behalf did not allow ample time to study the project. The chair stated that the board could either look at it hurriedly, or, if Mr. Moss had the facts well placed in his mind, he could summerize it for the board. Mr. Moss replied that the developer, his representative, and the contractors had submitted a proposed covenants and restrictions and a proposed plat five or six weeks ago. They asked for a delay since they didn't want to make their presentation at the same time the board was having a public hearing on the zoning ordinance. The City Commission gave permission, two weeks ago Monday night, for their application to be reviewed by this body after review and approval by the City Manager. Two weeks were required for them to compile the information that the board would require prior to consideration of this application. The package provided by the developer and the contractors attempts to dispel any possible confusion as to what is being proposed. The proposed layout combinations indicate what may occur in the development up to within 1" of the property lines. The flexibility of the different scenerios (2' , 4' , etc. ) is desired by the developer, with the understanding that there will be a minimum of 10' between buildings. Some lots might be centered, on zero lot line, etc. ; however, no building permit could be issued if the 10' minimum between buildings requirement wasn't met. Mr. Bull offered a suggestion that the builders indicate on the proposed plot plan the location of the adjacent building. This suggestion was approved by Mr. Moss and the board. The letter Page 2 May 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Board submitted by Mr. Skeels summerized all the PUD procedures that our ordinance requires, Mr. Moss stated. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the acceptability of Mr. Skeel's letter as binding on Mr. Bull. It was determined by the board that the letter did in fact bind Mr. Bull and would be accepted as such by the board. Mr. Moss informed the board that proposed plans provided for a single family home on two (2) lots, with square footage equal to or greater than a typical single family home. The patio home would be on a single lot. A general discussion ensued regarding the definitiion of a patio home. Mr. Muse asserted that, conceptually, the patio home living areas are more private as opposed to the single family home. There is less maintenance on a patio home and the smaller lot size is more in keeping with the desires of the buying public. Mr. Bull felt that the patio home gave total privacy within the home; neither wall had windows; patio and garden areas are afforded privacy. A lengthly discussion ensued on the original Selva Marina Gardens project; what was approved and what was built. Also, what has been developed in the city; water, sewer and streets were discussed. The chair remarked that the restrictions (not cov- enants and restrictions) and the firmness of our enforcement of these restrictions were his primary concern. Mr. Moss replied that covenants and restrictions still suggest an agreement between the developer and owner and we have been traditionally forced to accept these covenants and restrictions as part of the PUD. Mr. Moss stated that the entire package is going to documented through the whole process and covenants and restrictions will not be the prevailing answer. Mr. Skeel's letter is also part of the application and is as binding as any other part of the application. Mr. Moss agreed with the chair that the application should be reviewed by an attorney in detail. Further lengthly discussion ensued regarding Mr. Skeel's letter as an integral part of the application; Mr. Bull meeting past and future commitments to the city; Mr. Skeels as legal representative for Mr. Bull; the Catholic Church's PUD application (TRECO - Selva Tierra) ; and gunshot developments. Mr. Moss then addressed the provision in the covenants and restrictions allowing the developer the right to resubdivide. Mr. Moss requested that this paragraph be deleted, or at least, include the City as also approving any resubdivision. Mr. Bull replied that he had no problem with the City also approving any resubdivision. Mr. Moss questioned if, in terms of flexibility, Mr. Bull had to include the paragraph that pertains to single family homes on a double lot. Mr. Bull answered that while he didn't really require it, that section kept his lender comfortable. Mr. Moss clarified that from the City's point of view, the only difference between the single family home and the patio home is 200 square feet larger and on a double lot. Mr. Bull confirmed this as correct. Mr. Moss required clarification on the 15' buffer zone: the role; who owns it; who pays taxes on it; the future potential of the buffer zone should the corporation dissolve; back taxes. Mr. Bull responded that the covenants impose on the adjoining home owner the responsibility for policing it, however, Mr. Bull retains ownership and pays the taxes. Also, Seminole Road is a high traffic potential situation, and we wanted to get the small lots offset away. Mr. Moss remarked that the concern is 20 to 30 years from now that buffer zone isn't a dead area with no one maintaining that property. Mr. Bull stated that he had no problem with trying to solve that buffer zone as a potential problem if someone could come up with a better idea. Mr. Moss remarked that in trying to anticipate present and future traffic accessability from Selva Marina Drive, 19th Street and the proposed 20th Street to Seminole Road and down to the beach access, he felt a walkway was needed to provide for pedestrian flow. Mr. Bull was questioned if he would have any problem with providing some type of walkway along Seminole Road to the beach access (800' apx. ) . Mr. Moss envisioned a demand on the city to provide a walkway, especially with a projection of 100 additional homes. Mr. Bull stated emphatically that he would not consider providing any type of walkway and if the city wanted a walkway on a public street, then the city could do it. Mr. Bull further stated that there are no requirements presently for any sidewalks in subdivisions for Atlantic Beach. A lengthly discussion ensued regarding the impracticality of re- quiring sidewalks; public accessability for pedestrians; potential demand to provide Page 3 May 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Board sidewalks for school children; potential problems perceived in certain developments regarding orderly pedestrial flow. Commissioner Van Ness questioned Page 5 & 7 of the covenants and restrictions pertaining to the fence height (5' and 7' ) which conflicts with the existing ordinance. Mr. Bull remarked that the ordinance didn't apply to a PUD, however, the fencing was designed for privacy and did not extend beyond the building line. The chair referred back to the discussion on sidewalks, saying that while he appreciated Mr. Moss's efforts, the board could not expect sidewalks in the absence of a City law requiring same. Mr. Moss responded that a PUD is a permissive application allowing for variance from standard requirements of the City. At the same time, the City can grant those variances providing that the development is acceptable to the City. The ordinance does refer to orderly traffic and pedestrian flow. The chair asked if there were any more questions, if not, he would entertain a motion. Mr. Mullins moved that the Advisory Planning Board forward the PUD application for Selva Marina Gardens Phase II to the City Commission recommend- ing approval. Mrs. Gregg seconded. Mr. Moss wanted clarification that the board was approving the application as it is. A discussion was deemed in order. The chair requested Mr. Moss review the list of comments that the board had made. Mr. Moss read the following: 1) Mr. Bull should sign some type of legal document showing he is the applicant and agrees to what is being provided in that document. This should be made part of the recommendation. 2) Adjoining lots and buildings should be shown on each plot plan as part of the building permit application. 3) Paragraph "F" of the Covenants and Restrictions show the City as also having approval/disapproval for any resubdivision plans. 4) The 15' buffer zone would stay like it is. 5) Walk- ways are not being considered. Actually, there are only three (3) things Mr. Moss thought the board had agreed to incorporate. Mr. Bull stated he would accomodate the first request by signing Mr. Skeel's letter, which was accepted by the board. He had already agreed to the second request. The third request Mr. Bull remarked could be accomodated by adding "approved by the Board and the City". Mr. Mullins withdrew his original motion and rephrased his motion as follows: Move that the PUD application for Selva Marina Gardens Phase II be forwarded to the City Commission recommending approval with the following recommendations: That Paragraph "F" be changed to read "that the resubdividing will be subject to approval of the Board and the City" and adjoining lots and building should be shown on each plot plan as part of the building permit application. Mrs, Gregg seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The next item before the board was the final review of the proposed zoning ordinance, specifically the proposal of rezoning the large portions currently designated PUD to RS-1, Single Family. Mr. Moss brought Mr. Bull up-to-date on the status of the pro- posed zoning ordinance and the schedule of public hearings after the final report is received by the City Commission. The last board meeting discussed the zoning design- ation PUD, which is really a zoning status, not a zone per se. Mr. Marvin Hill, the planner, had said that generally an area should not be designated PUD until the City actually has an approved plan. His opinion was that the City would do better to show some other designation. Tonight the board will finalize their report and determine whether or not to send it forth to the City Commission as a PUD or show it as some other type of designation with the understanding that the land use and the Comprehensive Plan envisions a PUD. To clarify, Mr. Moss stated that a PUD is in effect a "re-zoning", with its' own process. The land area in the proposed zoning ordinance required for a PUD has been changed from five (5) acres to two (2) acres. Mr. Bull remarked that he would rather have that property zoned at the lowest possible designation but would object to any specific residential zoning classification. Mr. Moss stated that a further complication is that the property in that area is not under single ownership. A lengthly discussion ensued on the types of development that could gain approval under various zoning classifications. Mr. Moss felt that the City would go for the lowest, the least intense use such as open rural which would protect the City's /.Page 4 • • May 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Board interests. Under Florida law, the Comprehensive Plan sets a pattern for the growth of the City and the City can't substantially deviate from the plan. Mr. Bull remarked that in terms of compromise the designation "Open Rural" is as acceptable as any. Commissioner Van Ness questioned Mr. Bull regarding the zoning of the property just north of the City limits. Mr. Bull replied that it is zoned "Open Rural". The Commissioner felt that there was some reason why the City couldn't allow "Open Rural" as a designation in the past and had to be given some other type of designation. Mr. Bull remarked that was correct, there had been some problem with "Open Rural", which is why, properly or improperly, that area had been given the zoning classification "PUD". A lengthly discussion took place regarding the single or unified ownership; a "PUD" cannot be sold or transfered with new ownership; designating that area farming - "Open Rural". Mr. Moss asked the chair if he felt the board would be willing to make that recommendation to zone that area "Open Rural". The chair replied that he was in favor of that recommendation to zone that property "Open Rural". The chair further remarked that another problem was inherited "PUD's". Mr. Bull asserted that a "PUD" shouldn't be inherited and only be permissive for six (6) months. Mr. Moss stated that the time limitation is not listed in the present ordinance, however, under the proposed ordinance the City Commission would set the time limitation. The chair called for a motion on the zoning classification to be assigned to those areas now designated "PUD". Mr. Mullins made the motion that the areas currently designated "PUD" be zoned "Open Rural - Non-Agricurtural". Mrs. Gregg seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. A lengthly discussion ensued regarding the designation prior to "PUD" and eliminating the inherited rights of "PUD". Mr. Moss stated that an "Open Rural" designation would be written up and a copy forwarded to Mr. Bull. Possible changes in the proposed zoning ordinance were reviewed next. It was de- termined that the title "Advisory Planning Board" be retained since it is listed in the ordinance many times that way instead of Local Government Planning Agency. Mr. Moss questioned the definition of "family" consisting of "2" adult members. Commissioner Van Ness said that this was to stop the communes. It was determined that this definition didn't conflict with the existing ordinance. Mr. Moss felt that the ordinance omitted addressing the problem of landscaping to allow for traffic visibility (Pg. 2-13) . While shrubbery was mildly addressed regarding traffic visibility in the Fence section (Pg. 3-46) he would like to rewrite this section. The board agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Moss pointed out that the ordinance restricts living in mobile homes and recreational vehicles in residential areas but does not restrict them in commercial areas. The chair felt this should be written to reflect this change for any area. The next item referenced was the fee for filing a "PUD". Mr. Moss questioned if the board wanted to set a schedule of fees or did they want to remain flexible with the City Commission setting the fees. Mr. Moss felt that the City had spent a lot of monty on projects that have flopped. The board determined that the fee(s) should be flexible, depending on the development. Mr. Moss replied that the taxpayer would object to subsidizing the cost of consulting and reviewing a "PUD" or subdivision. On Page 3-43 (e) ; No accessory structure shall be used as a residence was added, temporary or permanently, nor shall any residence, of a temporary character be permitted. Also, (h) on Page 3-43 was added to read: Storage or took shed which was considered an acceptable use. The next change was on Page 3-53 (e) walls; after solid masonary wall was added "or wood fence or shrubbery as approved by the Administrative Official". A similar change was made on parking lots. The next item "substandard lots" on Pages 2-22 and 3-16 were checked for conflicts. The board determined there is no conflict because it refers to a lot rather than a home. The matter of townhouses has not been resolved yet, Mr. Moss remarked, and he hasn't found any acceptable method of resolving this. Nothing was determined regarding the substandard lot should a townhouse be destroyed. The chair remarked that inJack- • Page 5 May 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Board sonville, the townhouse could be rebuilt providing it be rebuilt exactly as it was. The proposed ordinance doesn't address minimum living area square footage for any type of home. It was determined to designate 1000 square footage as the minimum for a single family home; 900 square footage per living unit for a duplex; and to incorporate the existing square footage requirements for multiple dwellings as found on page 214 and 215 of the existing ordinance. The fence height limitation also had to be rewritten to provide for traffic visibility. Mr. Moss clarified that the board wanted parking lots to be paved in business districts, which they did. Also, off-street parking for residents be paved which the board agreed should be added in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Moss pointed out that the Advisory Planning Board is omitted as part of the review process requirement for subdivisions. The chair stated that this addition is necessary and amended that sentence to read: 'From the Administrative Official to the Advisory Planning Board to the City Commission' on page 4-1. Mr. Gregg felt that sidewalks should be required in the Subdivision requirements. However, Mr. Mullins felt that this should be up to the descretion of the Advisory Planning Board. Mr. Moss addressed the "Secondary Dwellings" next, remarking that this should be more direct. In the existing ordinance we allow garage apartments on Ocean Blvd, whenever a property goes from street to street. Mr. Moss questioned whether the board wanted to add the existing section on Secondary Dwellings or to leave it out altogether. It was the general feeling of the board that since we have existing secondary dwellings, we have to cover this in the proposed ordinance (existing before 1959) . The next item is that there are no setback requirements for accessory structures. Currently, we require five (5' ) feet from each property line. The board determined that the setback of five (5') feet for accessory structures should be listed in the proposed ordinance. The existing ordinance requires that off- street parking be behind the building setback line, Mr. Moss stated, while the proposed ordinance doesn't specify where the off-street parking should be. The board determined that this should be a standard requirement (off-street parking behind the building line) and should be added in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Moss remarked that minor changes had been made but these were the major changes discussed tonight. Copies of the corrected ordinance would be made and forwarded to the City Commission. Mr. Mullins asked the chair if he would accept a motion to adjourn. The chair accepted the motion, which Mrs. Gregg seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 9:47 PM. Jo n F. Andresen - Chairman 4-06L/C, I - 4401 y ;� ., CITY OF '� re1C4ieic 'ead - 9(ov:e a. 716 OCEAN BOULEVARD --ti% - -- - P.O.BOX 26 ATLANTIC BEACH,FLORIDA 32233 ' '. TELEPHONE(904)249-2395 September 15, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Advisory Planning Board File FROM: John F. Andresen, Chairman Advisory Planning Board SUBJECT: Authorization to Affix My Signature Please be advised that I, John F. Andresen, gave authority to Mary L. Dombrowski, Recording Secretary, to affix my signature to the minutes of the May 25, 1982, Advisory Planning Board meeting. I was out of town at the time and was unable to sign them myself. 011 Sincerely, / < �/ ohn F. Andresen JFA/m cc: Historical File Alan Jensen, City Attorney P