2006-08-15 (meeting minutes)Minutes of August I5, 2006, Community Development Board Meeting
'MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
August 15, 2006
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, August 15, 2006, in the
City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chairman Sam Jacobson, Carolyn Woods, Dave
MacInnes, Chris Lambertson, Lynn Drysdale, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, City
Attorney Alan Jensen and Recording Secretary Bambi Dickinson. Craig Burkhart and Steve Jenkins
were absent.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
The meeting was called to order at 7:04pm.
2. Recognition of Visitors. No persons spoke at this time.
3. Old Business.
3.a. ZVAR-2006-03, Tarik Z. Bateh on behalf of William H. Parham Jr., Trust. Request for a
multi-part Variance to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure, the construction of a
second-floor balcony, and a second story addition to an existing cottage.
Tarik Z. Bateh, introduced himself as representing the applicant, Mr. Parham. He acknowledged
that at the prior meeting, the application had raised several questions regarding the proposed
construction of the laundry room, porch, and second story on the cottage, and he now hoped to
provide answers to those questions. He noted that the property is two lots of record under common
ownership. Ms. Doerr advised she had requested that Alan Jensen, City Attorney, attend the meeting
to address the status of the property as two separate lots. Ms. Doerr advised that the property was
developed as two separate lots around 1930, and that although the property is under common
ownership, the lot containing the cottage is vested as a nonconforming lot of record and that asingle-
family dwelling is permitted on this lot. City Attorney Jensen concurred, stating that the property
contains two lots and it will continue to be two lots. Mr. Bateh stated that they had looked at
repositioning the laundry room as requested, but that this was not feasible. The current state of the
cottage is aone-bedroom, one-bath dwelling occupied by a tenant who has resided there for
approximately five years. After construction is complete on the cottage, it would strictly be used for
family and friends and would not be used as a rental property. Mr. Bateh introduced Mr. Richard
Tracy Collins representing William Leuthold Architect Inc. for questions. Ms. Woods requested
clarifications about the lot lines. The size of the cottage parcel is approximately 50 feet by 75 feet as
determined by Mr. Collins and that the cottage parcel was once separated from the ocean-front lot by
a private alley, which has since been closed. Ms. Woods expressed concern that it seems like a lot of
structure on a small lot. Mr. Collins stated that Mr. Parham had given instructions to maintain as
much as the existing structure as possible. Ms. Woods expressed her opinion that approval of a
Variance to allow expansion of the cottage would be encouraging it continue and inconsistent with
Section 24-85. Ms. Doerr advised that it has been the practice of the City to look at a property like
this as one development parcel for the purpose of determining setbacks. Mr. Lambertson noted that
the southerly yard shown on the cottage still causes the same concern as expressed at the previous
"` meeting. Mr. Bateh stated that the cottage would encroach on the side yard set back by two feet but
believes that the request meets 3 (numbers 2,4,6) of the six conditions under which a variance may
be approved. Chairman Jacobson responded that the laundry room and porch did not seem to be the
Minutes of August I5, 2006, Community Development Board Meeting
issue, but rather the cottage. He expressed concerns of filling up real estate with a lot of structure on
a substandard size lot. He questioned why a Variance for height had not been applied for since
application indicates a second story on the cottage. Mr. Bateh stated that he did not believe a
Variance was needed for the proposed height of the cottage. Chairman Jacobson concluded that by
stating that the property is two lots, then they must meet setback requirements for two separate lots.
Mr. Lambertson suggested staff guidance due to the fact the parcel has abnormalities and unique
characteristics. He asked that if by making the cottage two feet smaller, would it meet setback
requirements and not need a Variance. After further discussion related to the cottage, Mr. Bateh
requested the withdrawal of the cottage portion of the application. The Board acknowledged the
Applicant's request to amend the application to exclude the cottage portion of the Variance request.
The application, as amended, was further discussed, with the City Attorney noting that any action
now taken by the Board will address only the main house and the variances requested for the laundry
room and balcony addition. Chairman Jacobson confirmed that the Applicant concurred, and
advised Mr. Bateh that he does not believe that they can double the size of the cottage without
reappearing before the Board.
A motion was made by Mr. Lambertson and seconded by Mr. MacInnes to approve ZVAR-
2006-03, as amended, a request for amulti-part Variance from Section 24-106 (e)(3) to reduce
the required side yard setbacks from 5-feet to:
• two feet, seven inches (2'7") on the north side yard adjacent to existing house; for the
addition of a laundry room only as depicted on the plans submitted with this application;
and
• zero feet (0') on the south side adjacent to the existing house to permit construction of a
second-floor balcony only, also as depicted on the plans submitted with this application.
The motion passed to approve the request, as amended to exclude all action related to the
cottage, passed unanimously.
Mr. Bateh, representing the applicant, requested that the minutes of this meeting clearly reflect that
this Variance request had been amended such that portions of the original variance application
related to the existing cottage had been eliminated from this request, and that no action for approval
or denial was taken, but rather withdrawn related to the cottage.
4. New Business.
4.a. UBE-2006-04, request for aUse-by-Exception to allow for the on-premise consumption of
beer and wine in association with a restaurant within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning
District at 1013 Atlantic Boulevard within the Atlantic Village Shopping Center.
Corey Fox, owner of the Landshark Cafe, introduced himself and his other business partners who
were present. He gave a brief discussion of the hours of operation, type of food served, and location
of the restaurant. He stated that no beverages or food were going to be served outside. The tables
outside were strictly for smoking patrons to smoke.
A motion was made by Ms. Woods and seconded by Chairman 3acobson to recommend
approval to the City Commission of UBE-2006-04, a request by Landshark Cafe for aUse-by-
Exception to allow for the on-premise consumption of beer and wine in association with a
restaurant within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 1013 Atlantic Boulevard
within the Atlantic Village Shopping Center. The motion passed unanimously.
2
Minutes of August I5, 2006, Community Development Board Meeting
4b. Request from Ian Sean McAfee to allow fora 6-foot high fence within 10-feet of the side
property line on an irregular shaped corner lot located at 824 Sherry Drive.
,, Ian McAfee, introduced himself as the owner of the property at 824 Sherry Drive. He stated he is
requesting the fence due to the noise, lack of privacy, and security issues at his home. The back of
his home is clearly visible to all who pass by on both sides, and his family has no privacy. Applicant
presented a letter from a neighbor who resides at 800 Sherry Drive since 1966. Neighbor agrees
with the noise issue and supports the fence. The Board discussed the request, concurring that the
request met two of the conditions needed to approve a Variance as indicated in the staff report,
specifically: The property is of irregular shape warranting special consideration. (The property is a
triangular shaped property.} There are surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the
property disparately from nearby properties. (The property is surrounded by a major public
intersection on all sides but the rear.)
A motion was made by Ms. Drysdale and seconded by Mr. Lambertson to approve ZVAR-
2006-05, arequest for a Variance from Section 24-157 (c) to allow a 6-foot high fence within
10-feet of the side property line on an irregularly shaped corner lot located at 824 Sherry Drive
as shown on the site plan submitted with the application. The motion was approved
unanimously.
4.c. Request from Gil Phillips for a Variance from Section 24-157 (c} to allow a 6-foot high fence
within 10-feet of the street side property line on a corner lot located at 390 Third Street (corner
of Sherry Drive and Third Street) as constructed.
Gil Phillips, 331 Seventh Street, appealed to the Board to keep his existing fence. He originally
came before the Board about his lot on April 18, 2006. Mr. Phillips believed he was meeting the
~., approved guidelines because he received his permit without the approved changes. Mr. Lambertson
inquired what was the code on this issue. Ms. Doerr advised that the Applicant's home was located
on one of the busier street in the City with the elementary school and the school entrance directly
across Sherry Drive. He stated that his error was not malicious in nature and contributes the mistake
to clerical and owner error. A motion was made by Mr. Lambertson and seconded by Chairman
Jacobson to approve ZVAR-2006-06, a request for a Variance from Section 24-157 (c) to allow
a 6-foot high fence within 10-feet of the street side property line on a corner lot located at 390
Third Street (corner of Sherry Drive and Third Street) as it has been constructed. The motion
passed by a vote of 4-1 with Ms. Woods opposed.
Chairman Jacobson brought up that there may soon be some Community Development Board
openings and to encourage known qualified persons to apply.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
r~ •,\
igned
..~ Attest
3
Minutes of July 18, 2006, Community Development Board Meeting
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 18, 2006
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, July 18, 2006, in
the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chairman Sam Jacobson, Craig Burkhart, Dave
MacInnes, Chris Lambertson, Lynn Drysdale and Community Development Director Sonya Doerr.
Carolyn Woods and Steve Jenkins were absent.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Jacobson called meeting to order at 7:OSpm.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 20,
2006 and the continued meeting of June 29, 2006. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Recognition of Visitors. No one spoke at this time.
4. Old Business. There was no Old Business to discuss.
5. New Business.
a. ZVAR-2006-03, Mr. Tarik Bateh, attorney with Rogers Towers, 1301 Riverplace Boulevard,
Suite 1500, on behalf of William H. Parham, Jr. Trust, addressed the Board and summarized the
application. Request is for amulti-part Variance from Section 24-106 (e)(3) to reduce the
Required Side Yard setbacks to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure, a second floor
exterior balcony on the east side of the house and also a second story addition to an existing
cottage dwelling on an oceanfront lot located within the within the RS-2 Zoning District at 41
Sixth Street.
Discussion and questions followed related to the requested Variances, and the ability to redesign
the construction so that lesser Variances would be needed. The Board questioned the status of
the cottage as an accessory structure, a guest house, garage apartment or a separate lot. Ms.
Doerr responded that these two houses (the cottage and the oceanfront house) had previously
been separated by an alley that has since been closed, but that the two houses had separate
addresses and from information in City files, the property had been developed in the 1930s as
two separate lots. The property is now under single ownership, and has been reviewed as one
development project.
After further questions related to the design of the project, Mr. Jacobson stated that it might be
useful to continue this application to the next meeting and ask the architect and builder to be
available to answer questions. Mr. Bateh offered to defer until the next meeting. Motion to
defer carried unanimously.
There being no further busines the Board adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Signed
ci. ~~.lJlh._-
Attest
1