Loading...
06-19-90 v MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 19, 1990 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PRESENT: W. Gregg McCaulie, Chairman Ruth Gregg John Bass Don Wolfson ABSENT: Louis MacDonell Kathy Russell Sam Howie AND: Alan Jensen, City Attorney Kim Leinbach, City Manager Grace J. Bingemer, Recording Secretary AND: Carol Rishel Chuck Palmer Tim Barrett John Rowan Dezmond Waters Mr. McCaulie called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and called for comments or corrections to the minutes of the meeting of May 8, 1990. Mr. Wolfson and Mrs. Gregg both requested that changes be made in the minutes and that the corrected minutes be approved at the next meeting. The Chair then called for old business. There being none, Mr. McCaulie began the new business. * * * * * NEW BUSINESS A. APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE BY BARRETT AND ROWAN CONSTRUCTION. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Rowan were present to request a variance to allow a fence (already built) to remain on property. They advised the board that they had provided the required survey of the property, but that Brenda had somehow misplaced it. It was stated that the variance application did not specifically mention the northern border of the property which was very important imformation for the board. The variance application only states that it is a request for variance on non-dedicated roadway. After much discussion, it was determined that Barrett and Rowan were seeking a variance to get a "building" permit to build on a non-dedicated roadway. Ms. Rishel, the homeowner, spoke on behalf of the contractors' request. Another resident, not identified, also spoke in favor of the variance to build a fence. The Chair moved to approve the application for variance; Mrs. Gregg seconded and the motion passed. Following the vote, Mr. Wolfson once again brought up the problem of persons going before the board to seek variances "after the fact. " Mr. Wolfson called for the city manager to establish some guidelines for fining companies seeking "after the fact" variances and Mr. Leinbach responded that in those instances the permitting fees are doubled. B. APPLICATION FOR USE BY EXCEPTION BY BARRETT AND ROWAN CONSTRUCTION. John Rowan and Tim Barrett once again appeared on behalf of their application. The "use by exception" was requested because the company operated a construction business which was not allowed in their zoning classification. Mrs. Gregg stated that this was a proper use of this space, since the company would only maintain offices and would not store construction equipment or supplies at this location. Mr. Wolfson moved that the application be approved. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Gregg and passed unanimously. C. APPLICATION FOR ROOF VARIANCE BY LOIS AND CHARLES PALMER. Mr. Charles Palmer appeared and spoke to the board. Mr. McCaulie requested that perhaps Mr. Palmer change the trim between the roof and the landing so that persons driving on 2nd Street to Eastcoast Drive and traffic going north on Eastcoast would have sufficient visibility. The board suggested Mr. Palmer erect a railing of some material that would allow visibility. Mr. Palmer agreed to make the trim on the railing out of 2x2 boards and to place them 6" apart so that the structure would not cause a visibility problem. Mr. Bass moved that the variance be approved. Mrs. Gregg seconded. The motion was approved with the above stipulation (6" separation along the fence) . The motion was unanimously passed. * * * * * MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Mr. Leinbach announced that a new Community Development Director had been hired. Mr. Tom E. Bowles, an engineer, will take over the job July 9th. Mrs. Gregg brought up the matter of pools on Fiddler' s Lane being in violation of the code and of the order of the board (May 8,1990) to build a proper fence around the pool. The matter was referred to the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Ford, through Mr. Leinbach. Mr. Wolfson then moved to direct the code enforcement officer to investigate possible code violations by Mr. Ebert, 2303 Fiddlers Lane, and his neighbor (no name or address given) . Mrs. Gregg seconded the motion and it passed. Dezmond Waters addressed the board as to the definition of a sub-standard lot and the ordinance, which according to Rene Angers allows garage apartments to be built on sub-standard lots provided there is a 25' height limit. This would not disallow lot owners seeking a variance in order to build to a greater height, but would protect owners of neighboring properties. This was further explained to mean the height limit would remain 35' , except on sub-standard lots where the height limit would be 25' . The buildings on these lots would be more restricted than on regular lots by code. It was also mentioned by Mrs. Gregg that there would still be questions about the ground level. Mr. Leinbach called for public input. There was extensive discussion on the definition of a townhouse and how townhouses fit into existing zones. Currently, townhouses and rowhouses can be built in RG2 if a plat is filed. Mr. Leinbach stated that he was not aware of anything in the code that prevents a builder from building up the lot. The conclusion of the discussion was that each case of a sub-standard lot be considered on its' own merits. It was decided to report to the City Commission that the definition of a townhouse seems to be as appropriate as the board can make it. Further, there is a valid consideration for limiting the height of a building on a sub-standard lot to 25' subject to a variance if they want to build higher, but the board is concerned that it may deprive owners of sub-standard lots and put them at a disadvantage. The City Attorney suggested that to apply a different building criteria to sub-standard lots would leave the city open to problems. It was suggested that if the sub-standard lot was 80% as large as a standard lot, then the height limit would be 80% of the standard height limit (35' ) . Mr. McCaulie stated that it will be decided by the Commission if they want it to be a percentage, subject to variance; 25 feet, subject to variance; 35 feet, or whatever. Mr. McCaulie's position is as stated, that the City Commission or the board will decide the building criteria, including height limits for sub-standard lots. Mrs. Gregg, Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Bass were in favor of the propor- tionate (percentage) plan. It was suggested that the new Community Development Director look into the questions of fence height requirements and limits and also the questions regarding building height on sub-standard lots. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. . Gre ulie, Chairman