By Kathy Fulginiti

Overall Impressions: The four fans that were running made it difficult to hear, even when the people were using the microphones properly.  The people talking in the hallway contributed to the background noise.  There were a lot of people in attendance. 

Pacific Ave Redevelopment Plan

The lawyer gave a slide presentation that outlined the goals of the  PARD.  It has the backing of state, county, and city officials and is broken into two sections: residential and business.  The business area is centered around the Byrne Plaza.  Purposes:  Use resources to improve Pacific Ave., negotiate with developers, acquire properties, use more contemporary architecture, look into adaptive reuse.  The city reviews and makes recommendations.   The height of the buildings is relevant to the base flood level.  Was 32’, now requested to go to 35-40’ (generally three stories).  The vote to adopt the resolution was passed.  No questions taken from audience. (Or at least, I didn’t hear them ask for questions.)

Yvonne and Scott Phillips, 135 E. Young

They want to attach something (sounds like an open greenhouse area) to the back of the condo to beautify the area and to get extra space.  Insulated but not heated.  Won’t impact anyone else.  It will not be indoor space.  Board voted to allow.

B.L. Development, 240-242 E. Rio Grande Ave.

This property consists of two lots that are both 40’ by 100’.  One lot is empty and the other has a duplex to be demolished that sits sideways to the street.  The duplex was converted from a garage.  4 units would be allowed on the property, but they want to have 5.  The new structure would front Rio Grande Ave.  The original plans were changed to provide the proper setbacks.  The city engineer said the plans call for a four-story building that would exceed the height limits.  There was some back and forth about how the flood elevation gives that appearance, but in reality, it would be three stories.  The architect said he can revise the plans to reflect the height issue. The structure would consist of two identical side units, each having two rentals.  The middle part of the building would be a three-story townhouse that is recessed back a few feet from the side units. Even in the back it would be recessed a bit.  There was a lengthy discussion about parking. There should be 5 ½ spots.   No parking spaces are included in the plans, but a couple cars can be parked on the pavers that are in front of the building. The board voted to allow.  

Kamal Ghobryal, 250 E. Andrews Ave.

Currently there are two rental units in the front building and one unit in the back.  The owner wants to change the front house into three units and make the back unit into a pool house.  No tear-downs.  Build a roof over the existing deck. Add landscaping.  The first floor unit would house the owner’s mother, the second floor would be for the owner, and the third be used as a rental unit.  Only street parking is available. They can’t begin the project until the back house is cleared. The board voted to allow the changes, contingent on the removal of a tenant. 

2701 Associates, 2701 Ocean Ave.

This is the parking lot where Morey’s Piers wants to add solar panels and beautify the area. The lot would be fully renovated: repaved, fencing, landscaping.  A transformer box for the solar would need installation. The lawyer also explained that this move would make sure that the area stays a parking lot for the foreseeable future. The city recommended that some of the spaces be reserved for electric car charging stations.  Morey’s Piers explained that they have been looking into it, but the volume of cars needing that has not reached the level where it would be feasible from a monetary standpoint. (Each station would cost about $10,000.)  When they do add charging stations, it would probably be at the Cedar Avenue parking lot.     

This one had a few public comments.  One attendee claimed it would ruin the area.  She has lived on the 400 E. block of Poplar Avenue for over 70 years.  The number of trucks going in and out and the cars lining up to park would put people crossing the street in jeopardy.  The lawyer explained that the solar units will be high enough to allow the trucks to access the warehouse without a problem. (It seems that the warehouse is by the boardwalk and its entrance is in the parking lot.) Another attendee was concerned about glare off the solar panels and it was explained that there is no glare.  The same panels were installed by the AC Airport after they approved the design.  They have had no glare problems.  Two other residents said they had no problems with it. It was passed by the Board.

To join to our FREE email notification list, click here.

Disclaimer: These are not the official minutes of the meeting. While we have taken every precaution to ensure that the content of this summary are both current and accurate and does not infringe on any rights of any person or entity, errors can occur. We assume no responsibility for errors/emissions.