2008-01-15 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of the January 1 S, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
. %'t ~~~~~~~
s
J ~~
~r
~o~
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
January 15, 2008
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 7:06pm on Tuesday,
January 15, 2008 in the Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. In
attendance were Blaine Adams, Lynn Drysdale, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson,
Joshua Putterman, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and Staff Planner Erika Hall.
Board member David Boyer was absent, and the position of Recording Secretary is currently vacant.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Acting Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 7:05
p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Order of agenda was changed to first elect officers.
2. ELECTION OF 2008 OFFICERS. Motion to elect Chris Lambertson Chair of the Board by
Lynn Drysdale; seconded by Blaine Adams; no further discussion; vote was unanimous. Motion
to elect Lynn Drysdale Vice-Chair of the Board by Chris Lambertson; seconded by Joshua
Putterman; no further discussion; vote was unanimous.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Motion to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2007
meeting by Lynn Drysdale; seconded by Joshua Putterman; no further discussion; vote was
unanimous.
4. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEMBERS. There were no visitors present who wished to speak.
Though former members were not present, Mr. Lambertson recognized Craig Burkhart, Sam
Jacobson, and Carolyn Woods for their service to the Community Development Board and the
City of Atlantic Beach. He then introduced and welcomed new members Blaine Adams, Ellen
Glasser, and Kirk Hansen.
5. OLD BUSINESS.
Item 5.a. Request to extend the time to commence work approved pursuant to a previously
granted Variance by a time period of one year. (ZVAR-2006-09 was approved in October
2006 to allow a swimming pool to be located closer to the designated front property line
than the Principal Building but not closer than five-feet from the Ocean Boulevard side
property line on a corner lot located within the RS-2 Zoning District at 220 12t Street
Ms. Doerr explained the conditions under which an extension is typically granted.
Page 1 of 5
Minutes of the January 1 S, 2008 Community Development Board Meeting
Neil McGuiness, subject property owner, addressed the Board. He stated that the home is
currently on the market for sale, and that he is seeking an extension of the variance to run with
the property.
Mr. Lambertson asked if anyone else from the audience wished to address the Board on this
matter. With no requests to speak from the audience, he closed the item to the floor and opened
discussion to the Board. As a point of clarification, Ms. Doerr asked Mr. McGuiness if he was
asking for commencement to run with the property, to which he replied yes. Mr. Lambertson
noted for informational purposes only that such actions do not expire in many jurisdictions.
Joshua Putterman inquired as to the reason for expiration. Ms. Doerr replied that it was more
applicable to vertical construction.
Ellen Glasser asked if construction on the pool would commence whether or not the house sold,
and if not, why not just wait for the potential owner to come through the process. Mr.
McGuiness replied that it was primarily a question of marketability. Already having the variance
in place made the property more attractive.
Blaine Adams questioned, if the extension was granted, could a new owner come back with
additional changes. Ms. Doerr replied yes; however, this would have to be as a new variance
application. Mr. Lambertson advised Board Members that each case is different and that it was
more important to look at the merits of the individual property when making a decision.
MOTION: Motion to grant an extension to the existing variance for atwo-year period,
beginning at the time of original expiration and running with the property by Lynn
Drysdale; seconded Kirk Hansen; no further discussion; vote was unanimous.
6. NEW BUSINESS.
Item 6.a. ZVAR-2007-08. Killian. Request for a Variance from Section 24-151 of the Land
Development Regulations to reduce the 15-foot rear yard setback to 7-feet, six inches for a
two-story Accessory Structure, which shall contain a new pool house and a garage to be
constructed in coniunction with the remodel of the existing single-family residence at 1445
Seminole Road.
Ms. Doerr explained that the subject property had an irregular shape as well as a platted front
building restriction line greater than the normal 20' front setback, both of which are limiting
factors in the renovation and redevelopment of the lot.
David Killian, DS Killian General Contractor (6973 Highway Avenue, Suite 108, Jacksonville),
spoke on behalf of the project, as did James West, subject property owner. Mr. West stated that
he was in the process of upgrading an existing cinder block home in conjunction with the work
detailed in this proposal. He stated that he had spoken with neighbors and had encountered no
opposition to the project. Mr. Killian also noted that since the submittal of this application, a
revised site plan with reduced encroachment into the setback, had been submitted. With no other
speakers from the audience, Chairman Lambertson closed the item to the floor and opened the
discussion to the Board.
Page 2 of 5
Minutes of the January I5, 2008 Community Development Board Meeting
Ms. Glasser asked the applicant what was located to the rear of this property, to which Mr. West
replied two lots with homes situated closer to East Coast Drive. Mr. Putterman confirmed that
this was to be a two-story structure. Ms. Drysdale asked the purpose of the structure. Mr.
Killian replied that this would be a two-car garage on the first floor, with storage on the second
floor. He added that there would also be a summer kitchen.
Mr. Lambertson asked what the setback was for pool equipment, to which Ms. Doerr replied 5'.
MOTION: Motion to approve a Variance from Section 24-151, to reduce the 15-foot rear
yard setback to 7-feet, six inches for the construction of a two-story Accessory Structure,
containing a new pool house and garage, and constructed in conjunction with the remodel
of the existing single-family residence at 1445 Seminole Road by Blaine Adams; seconded
by Ellen Glasser; no further discussion; vote was unanimous.
Item 6.b. ZVAR-2008-01. Barker. Reauest for a Variance from Section 24-157 of the Land
Development Regulations to permit construction of a 6-foot high fence to be constructed on
the property line along the 6t Street side of a corner lot located at 620 Beach Avenue.
Chairman Lambertson explained that he serves as contractor for the project and thus recused
himself, and Vice-Chair Drysdale presided over deliberations.
Ms. Doerr provided an overview of fence regulations, and explained that there were several
factors impacting the redevelopment of the subject property. First, she noted that the lot has
street frontage on three sides. In considering a variance to the fence height limit, thought must
be given to the City's desire to prevent "walled compounds" as well as the safety issue of "clear
sight distance". Second, she explained that the property has an approximate one-foot down-
slope towards the corner at 6th & Ocean. Finally, Ms. Doerr explained that their was an
unusually wide unpaved portion of right-of--way that bordered the lot, and she suggested that this
combined with the required 10' setback had the potential to become a "dead area" that might be
poorly maintained.
Tim Franklin (418 Seagate Avenue, Neptune Beach) spoke on behalf of property owners Brian
and Leah Barker. Mr. Franklin emphasized that the one-foot grade change running east to west
would effectively result in a lower fence and a loss of privacy for the owners. He noted that in
the past, the Board had granted a similar variance for the lot located at the intersection of
Seminole and Sherry. Additionally, he pointed to properties along 20th Street that did not have
variances, and now had "extra parking" along the street and were not well maintained. Mr.
Franklin also pointed out to the Board that the fence on the site plan and accompanying
illustrations made use of insets in an effort to preserve trees. He noted that the plan might be
revised to include more insets and preserve more trees, as needed. Lastly, Mr. Franklin presented
a letter of support from neighboring property owners across 6th Street.
Ms. Drysdale asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against this application.
Neil McGuiness, 1629 Beach Avenue and previous 6th Street neighbor, stated that several years
prior the City installed a Beach Access and shower facility at the end of 6th Street, and that
traffic had increased substantially since then. Thus, he spoke in support of the variance to place
the fence on the property line along 6th Street, thereby decreasing the chance that this would turn
into a parking area for beach-goers and increasing the chance that the area would be well
maintained.
Page 3 of 5
Minutes of the January I5, 2008 Community Development Board Meeting
RD DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, stated that he too lives on a street with a wider than normal
right-of--way. He stated that placement of the fence at the required 10' setback would result in an
increased need for parking enforcement.
Scott Griswold, 511 Ocean Boulevard, stated that he lives within a block of the subject property,
and he questioned whether the higher fence would limit the sight distance on Ocean. Ms. Doerr
reminded the Board and audience that even if a variance was approved, that the applicant would
still have to apply for a Fence Permit from the Building Department, and that as part of the
approval process, Public Safety must review the proposal for sight distance.
Mr. Putterman asked where the applicant perceived problems. Property owner Brian Barker
asked to address the Board, and replied that the primary problems were with the wider than
normal right-of--way and the required setback on Ocean. Ms. Glasser asked if there was a
sidewalk on 6th Street, to which Mr. Barker replied no.
With no one else from the audience wishing to speak, Ms. Drysdale closed the item to the floor
and opened discussion to the Board.
Ms. Glasser asked for clarification as to how the applicant intended to avoid the appearance of a
walled compound. Ms. Doerr stated that the applicant had provided a proposed design that
addresses the problems of a "compound".
Ms. Glasser stated that she did not see "parking issue" as a reason to approve a variance, and she
was wondering how that would be classified. Ms. Doerr replied that it would most likely fall
under condition #2 because having streets on three sides was not typical of most lots in the City,
though she noted that the parking issue did not clearly fit any given conditions. Ms. Glasser
agreed, however she stated that she felt it was a legitimate concern and reason for approval. Ms.
Doerr reminded the Board that there were other issues with this particular property that had
merit. Ms. Glasser asked Ms. Doerr to read the letter from the neighbor (Earl B. Hooten) into the
record.
Mr. Adams noted too that the existing vegetation was probably far more distracting to drivers
than the proposed fence. Mr. Barker agreed, but assured the Board that the property would be
landscaped in substantial accordance with the site plan. Mr. Adams confirmed with Ms. Doerr
that Public Safety would review the application for Fence Permit.
Ms. Glasser stated that she appreciated the input of the speakers and found the information that
they provided to be most helpful. She said that she originally did not like the idea of granting
this variance, but that she could now see that the concerns of the property owner are legitimate,
and that she thinks the finished product will be beautiful.
Kirk Hansen noted that some properties go right to the edge of pavement, and he asked if a
variance would be required in such a case, to which Ms. Doerr replied no. In such a case, there
would not be the wider than normal unpaved right-of--way.
MOTION: Motion to approve a Variance from Section 24-157, to allow the construction of
a 6-foot high fence, subject to the condition that the fence be constructed substantially as
represented on the submitted site plan including landscaped insets, to be constructed on the
property line along the 6t6 Street side of a corner lot located at 620 Beach Avenue by Joshua
Putterman; seconded by Blaine Adams; no further discussion; vote was unanimous.
Page 4 of 5
Minutes of the January 1 S, 2008 Community Development Board Meeting
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS OR OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
Item 7.a. Report on Commission Workshop Discussion of Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.)
Ms. Doerr reported that the issue of Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) had been discussed at a workshop
held earlier that evening, and that the consensus of the Commission was have an ordinance come
before them to remove the existing F.A.R. provision from the Land Development Regulations.
Ms. Doerr stated that generally the Community Development Board is required to make a
finding that any change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, she stated that this
would be a revision to the LDRs, and that she needed to confer with the City Attorney and
review procedures to determine if it was required that this come before this Board. She asked if
this were not a requirement, would the Board still want the opportunity to review the issue.
Ms. Glasser said that she felt this was a very interesting issue to come up so early after an
election, and she asked what the City would do in such a case to get the pulse of the citizens.
Ms. Doerr replied that the Commission feels that they have the pulse. Mr. Hansen noted that two
of the Commissioners campaigned on this very issue, and therefore, ethically, they were bound
to bring it up.
Chairman Lambertson stated that he felt it would be a valuable experience for the new Board
Members. Additionally, he said that whatever information might be gathered at a public hearing,
it would be an important opportunity to get that information into the record. He stated that he
supported the idea of having the issue before the Community Development Board, though he
hoped to keep it brief.
Ms. Doerr responded that the item would come to the Board in February in order that they make
a recommendation to the Commission.
Mr. Lambertson reiterated his thoughts that it is important to give people an opportunity to talk
about it.
8. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Adams motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:18pm. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Glasser and passed unanimously.
Signe :Chris Lambertson, Chairman
~.
Attest
Page S of 5