Loading...
08-31-89 v CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH SPECIAL CALLED COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 31, 1989, 7:15 PM Call to order 1 . Discussion and action relative to construction permit issued to Mark Kredell to build townhouses on property at the corner of Eighteenth Street and Beach Avenue 2. Any other business Adjournment MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1989 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gulliford. Present, in addition to the Mayor, were Commissioners Cook, Edwards, Jensen and Tucker. Also present were City Manager Leinbach and City Clerk King. 1. Discussion and action relative to construction permit issued to Mark Kredell to build townhouses on property at the corner of Eighteenth Street and Beach Avenue. After calling the meeting to order, Mayor Gulliford said the purpose of the meeting was to try to resolve an ongoing problem relative to the construction permit issued to Mr. Kredell. Since any action the City Commission could take was governed by ordinances and laws, he asked the audience to conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen and everyone would be given an opportunity to speak. Robert G. Fajans, 1847 Ocean Grove Drive, representing other family members and neighbors, read a prepared statement outlining the facts as he knew them and the opinions of the neighbors, and requested the permit be revoked. Mr. Fajans' statement is attached hereto and made a part hereof. At the conclusion of Mr. Fajans' statement Commissioner Cook said in his opinion the City Commission was the Legislative body of the city and he did not feel this was a legislative matter and any action taken by the City Commission would leave each Commissioner open to personal law suits. He said that in the opinion of the former City Attorney, the project proposed by Mr. Kredell was allowable; in an opinion rendered by the Interim City Attorney, the project is allowable; the permit was issued under the previous City Manager and the present City Manager had also directed Mr. Kredell to proceed. He said he felt this should be resolved by the City Manager or by the courts. Commissioner Jensen said he felt the City Commission could direct the City Manager under certain circumstances as had been done with the issuance of the Stop-Work order. He said Mr. Mullis' letter stated two single-family townhouses could be build if the setback requirements were met. Although not included in Mr. Mullis' letter, the ordinance also includes the provision that they must be built on separate lots and this condition must be complied with. Commissioner Cook repeated that in his opinion this was an administrative or judicial decision and not the responsibility of the City Commission. Commissioner Jensen said the Commission was a quasi-judicial board on appeals from the Community Development Board and he felt it was the responsibility of the Commission to make decisions on such matters. In a subsequent letter from the office of Arnold and Stratford it was apparent information regarding the location of the common wall between the units was not available when their initial opinion was rendered, and the question was raised whether the person who issued the building permit had knowledge of the location of this wall. Page Two Minutes of Special Commission Meeting August 31, 1989 Mayor Gulliford said the intent of this meeting was to determine what action the Commission should take in the matter. He pointed out he did not feel the Interim City Attorney had agreed with the initial opinion and that information regarding the location of the common wall between the units had not been made available to him when rendering that decision and he said he felt this was the main question to be resolved. He said it was his opinion the City Commission was authorized by the City Charter and City Code to act as a quasi-judicial body in matters of this sort. In response to the Mayor, Mr. Leinbach said he found Mr. Mullis' opinion somewhat confusing and had requested a second opinion from Mr. Stratford. He said the information shown on the site plan did not delineate the separation of buildings and in subsequent conversations with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Stratford, this would appear to be a matter of critical concern, and he suggested a survey may be necessary. He said he felt the established procedure was provided in the City Code wherein the Community Develop Board should hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the administrative official in the enforcement of the zoning code. In his opinion, this would appear to be the appropriate appellant body and he felt this section would stay further action until the appeal was adjudicated. He said he would check this point with the City Attorney. At this point Mark Kredell, 1855 Beach Avenue, asked that the meeting be cancelled since he was not represented by his attorney and his partners were not in attendance. Since there was no business for discussion in Item 2 of the Agenda, Commissioner Cook moved the meeting be adjourned. Since no one seconded the motion, the meeting continued. Commissioner Jensen said there were possibly some things which were not known by the city when the permit was issued, and may not have been known by Mr. Mullis or Mr. Stratford when they issued their opinions. He said Mr. Kredell was now on notice of the City's concern and the concerns of the other residents in that area; likewise, the city is on notice of the concerns of Mr. Kredell. The City Manager is empowered to take any necessary action, or not take any action so long as everyone is on notice of what the situation is. Since Mr. Kredell is now advised of the concern of the city, if he wished to proceed, he would be doing so at his own risk. When Mr. Kredell asked Commissioner Jensen to specify the concerns, Commissioner Jensen said "One major concern that we have, and the focal point of the whole issue is that the ordinance requires that single family townhouses be constructed on separate lots." Mr. Kredell responded "That's what we're doing." Commissioner Jensen continued "and Page Three Minutes of Special Commission Meeting August 31, 1989 that you meet all setback requirements." Mr. Kredell responded "That's what we're doing." Further discussion ensued about townhouses which had been built on one lot and it was pointed out the city code required separate lots and Mr. Kredell was asked whether his lots had been combined. Mr. Kredell refused to answer and said he felt this matter should be resolved in a court of law. He said he felt some disgruntled neighbors were basing their complaints on personal motives. He said he would be seeking legal action against any of the Commissioners who were trying to violate his civil rights. Gilchrist Stockton said he had reviewed Mr. Mullis' opinion and it was his understanding a lot smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. could not be built upon, and the combination of Mr. Kredell's two lots would still fall short of the 5,000 sq. ft. requirement. In accordance with Mr. Mullis' opinion, relief from the 5000 sq. ft. requirement could be granted by the Community Development Board; however, this matter had not been brought before that board. At this time Commissioner Cook, again, moved the meeting be adjourned. Since no one seconded the motion, the meeting continued. Commissioner Cook said he would not vote on this matter and Mayor Gulliford pointed out no action requiring any action of the Commission was indicated. Commissioner Jensen reiterated Mr. Kredell had said he was building the units on separate lots. When asked to confirm this fact Mr. Kredell refused to respond, stating instead he felt this was a legal problem which should be decided by the courts, and indicated he would initiate legal action against each of the Commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Cook. Mayor Gulliford called for order and said the city was simply trying resolve the questions raised. He said he had afforded all parties an opportunity to speak on the issue and the matter would be pursued through an administrative course. Attorney Hugh Carithers, 1549 Beach Avenue, said two building permits had been issued, one at each address. He said it would appear the Building Department had improper or inadequate information at the time the permit was issued. In that event he felt the administrative official was authorized to withdraw the building permit. There being no further business to come before the Commission, on motion from Commissioner Jensen, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote. Page Four Minutes of Special Commission Meeting August 31, 1989 Wiliam i. Gulli or. , Mayo , ` es' . Officer ATTEST: Mau een King, City Clerk 7 1;1 p :5 PRESENTATION ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COUNCIL ROBERT G. FAJANS AUGUST 28, 1989 INTRODUCTION My name is Robert G. Fajans. My wife , Lynda L. Fajans , and I own the property at 1847 Ocean Grove Drive, Atlantic Beach. My Wife - her mother, Mrs. Rubye C. Lawhead - her brother, Frank C. Lawhead - also residents of 1847 Ocean Grove Drive along with our immediate neighbors Mary Catherine Crawford of 1849 Ocean Grove Drive and Denise and Kenneth O'Rourke of 1843 Ocean Grove Drive , the O'Rourke 's immediate neighbor to the south, Cheryl Parker of 1841 Ocean Grove Drive have asked that I speak on their behalf on the subject of a building permit issued to Mark J. Kredell and Marilyn McDaniel to build two townhomes on the property located on the Southwest corner of 18th Street and Beach Avenue. The Crawford, Fajans , O'Rourke and Parker properties all abut the property cited in the building permit. It is our collective opinion, that the issueance of this building permit is not in accordance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations of Atlantic Beach. The Property cited in the building permit is composed of two substandard lots which have been referred to in the past as Parcel A - owned by Mark J. and Holly B. Kredell and Parcel B - owned by Fleming N. , Jr. and Marilyn I. McDaniel. Tie future of these substandard lots , particularly Parcel A owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kredell , has been very controversial in the past several months , as I 'm sure most , if not all , of you know. With all due respect to the members of City Council , the City Attorney, the City Manager and the Building Permits Department , it is my opinion and the opinion of those for witom I speak tonight that the decision to issue the building permit in the first place and the decision to revoke the stop work order were based upon incomplete facts and perhaps misinformation. My purpose tonight is to discuss with the City Council the facts , as we think we know them, and the issues surrounding these parcels of land and the building permit. With your permission, we ' ll present to you our opinion as to the correct intQ,rpretation of the situation and we ' ll then request that the City Council revoke the building permit or at least re-instate the Stop Work order until a new legal opinion considering tonight ' s discussion can be rendered by the City Attorney and a review of the situation can be made by the Community Development Board as is required by Section 24-17 of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations of Atlantic Beach. In order to help the City Council follow our position, we have made copies of this presentation with attachments and we would like to give each of you a copy at this time. FACTS AS WE KNOW THEM In the next several minutes we 'd like to present to you the facts as we know them today. FIRST: A building permit was issued to Mark J. Kredell of 1855 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach and Marilyn I. McDaniel (Address not specified) to construct two "Townhomes" on lot / 4, Section #9 , subdivision township 2 south. This property is located on the Southwest corner of 18th Street and Beach Avenue in Atlantic Beach. A copy of the "Application for Building Permit" and the survey are attached to the handout. The property shown in the survey is an irregular shaped lot approximately 50 feet by 88 feet. A lot of this size is a substandard lot per the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. As of this morning we have not been able to locate in the Court House a deed for the parcel of land shown in the survey. SECOND: We believe that the property shown in the survey is composed of two individually owned substandard lots that I previously referred to as Parcels A and B owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kredell and Mr. and Mrs. McDaniel , respectively. Please refer to Page 2 of tile survey. We have also attached copies of the deeds ihade at the Court House this morning and have attached them for your review. We could not find any record that these lots have been legally combined. The dates of record for these deeds are July 8 , 1986 for Parcel A and December 29 , 1982 for Parcel B, which would not make them lots of record as of July 26 , 1982. THIRD: We wish to emphasize that Parcel A is a substandard lot and Parcel B is a substandard lot and the combination of Parcels A and B would also be a substandard lot. FOURTH: That paragraph 24-17 (page 1418) of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations entitled "Substandard Lot of Record" states that a nonconforming lot of record which is smaller than 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep shall not be built on unless relief is obtained through action of the Community Development Board. To our knowledge the Community Development Board has not granted such relief for this building permit. FIFTH: That Section 24-83 (Page 1431) of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations states a non-conforming substandard lot of record on July 26 , 1982 may be used for a single family dwelling provided the minimum yard requirements are maintained. If Parcels A and B have been combined into one substandard lot then why was a building permit issued for two single family dwellings? If they are separate parcels then neither townhouse meets the off-set requirements. I ask that you look at a copy of the site plan. In fact , Unit #1 straddles the lot line between Parcels A and B. SIXTH: Section 24- 17 (Page 1419) states that townhouses ( Plural) are single family dwelling units ( Plural). Therefore, one would reasonably deduct that a townhouse ( Singular) would be a single family dwelling unit ( Singular). Thus the building permit issued allows two single family dwelling units to be built on one substandard lot , if in fact , there is one parcel not two. SEVENTH: In Mr. Claude L. Mullis ' letter of May 31 , 1989 , to Ms. Rene Angers , he states that the purpose and intent of Chapter 24 Zoning and Subdivision Regulations is to provide for orderly growth; to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to protect and conserve the value of property; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to promote , protect and improve the health, safety, good order, appearance and to help accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 'We , the neighbors , feel that the construction of a tall , thin building 5 feet off our back property line will , in fact , de-value our property because our properties will be less attractive re-sales , that the construction of this building will add to the over crowding of an already crowded area and markedly detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. Those are the facts as we see them. Now I 'd like to discuss the "issues" surrounding this issuance of this building permit. We think the issues can be defined as follows: ISSUES FIRST: Can a building permit be issued to both Mark J. Kredell and Marilyn I. McDaniel if two of the four owners of the parcels did not sign the building permit? SECOND: Is Parcel A a substandard lot and is it a lot of record prior to 7/26/82? THIRD: Is Parcel B a substandard lot and is it a log of record prior to 7/26/82? FOURTH: Have Parcels A and B been legally combined by the Kredells and the McDaniels? FIFTH: If Parcels A and B have been legally combined, is the new Parcel A a substandard lot and what is its date of record? SIXTH: If Parcels A and B are legally combined and it is determined that the combined Parcels have a date of record prior to 7/26/82 does the owner have to obtain relief from the Community Development Board as required by Section 24-17 of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and can more than one single family dwelling be built on a substandard lot per Section 24-83 of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations? SEVENTH: If Parcels A and B have not been legally combined then there are a series of issues: A. Can. Parcel A be built on and what street does it front? B. If the North Townhouse is on Parcel A does it not meet the legal offsets? C. Can Parcel B be built on and, if so, doesn' t it front on Beach Ave. ? D. If Parcel B can be built on and it faces Beach Ave. then does the South Townhouse meet the legal off-set reguirements? E. Does the South Townhouse straddle the property line between Parcels A and B? F. Can either Parcel A or B be built on without obtaining relief from the Community Development Board as required by Section 24- 17 of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Claude Mullis ' letter of May 31, 1989? NEIGHBORS' OPINION We , the neighbors , have the following opinions with regard to the issuance of a building permit to Mr. Kredell and Mrs. McDaniel. FIRST: That a building permit has been improperly issued to Mark J. Kredell and Marilyn McDaniel for two reasons - Marilyn McDaniel did not sign the application and part of a townhouse will be constructed on properties owned partially by Holly B. Kredell and Fleming N. McDaniel, Jr. who are not party to the building permit. SECOND: That Parcels A and B are substandard lots of record subsequent to 7/26/82 and that Parcels A and B have not been legally combined and, therefore, a building permit has been improperly issued. THIRD: That , if in fact , Parcels A and B have been legally combined then this combined parcel is a substandard lot of record subsequent to 7/26/82 and can not be built on and/or the owners have not obtained relief from the Community Development Board as required by Section 24-17 of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and, therefore, a building permit has been improperly issued. FOURTH: That two single-family dwellings can not be built on a substandard lot and, therefore , a building permit has been improperly issued. FIFTH: That the construction of the proposed townhouses violate the spirit of Chapter 24 of the Regulations in that they will de-value our property , over crowd the neighborhood and markedly detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. OUR REQUEST As I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, I and those form whom I speak tonight request that the City Council revoke the Building Permit or at least re-instate the "Stop Work" Order until the City Attorney can make a new review of the situation based upon tonight ' s discussion and until the proposal0to build on these properties is reviewed by the Community Development Board as required by Section 24- 17 of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations of Atlantic Beach.