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