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