Loading...
2008-03-18 (meeting minutes)Minutes of the March 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board . `r~i'APl J' r~ s C) is1 f y r~ ~~ '~~Jii ~~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Tuesday, March 18, 2008 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6.•09 pm on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. In attendance were Board Members David Boyer, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Joshua Putterman, Chairman Chris Lambertson, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, and Staff Planner Erika Hall. Board members Blaine Adams and Lynn Drysdale were absent, and the position of Recording Secretary is currently vacant. 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:09 pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Motion to approve the minutes of the February 19, 2008 meeting by Kirk Hansen; seconded by Ellen Glasser; no further discussion; vote was unanimous. 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. There were no visitors present. 4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business for consideration. 5. NEW BUSINESS. ITEM 5.a. ZVAR-2008-03, William and Ann Arthur. Request for a Variance from Section 24-157 of the Land Development Regulations to Hermit an 8-foot high fence along the side and a portion of the rear of the lot to remain as constructed on a residential lot located at 890 Begonia Street. Community Development Director Sonya Doerr introduced this item. She stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to allow an 8-foot high fence along the side property line only, to serve as a visual screen due to the proximity of their property to the Dagley junkyard. Ms. Doerr explained that the applicant had installed a 6' fence with an attached 2' lattice detail and planted trees and vegetation to create a visual buffer. However, due to topographic conditions, the Arthurs do still experience a compromised view. Ms. Doerr expressed staff's support for this application, and explained that granting this variance would not set a community-wide precedent because of the circumstances unique to this location. Chairman Lambertson invited applicants Ann and William Arthur (890 Begonia Street) to address the Board. Mr. Arthur stated that at the time he built the fence, he did not realize that the addition of the lattice detail would make the fence out of compliance. He explained that over the years, Mr. Dagley has cut nearly all of the existing trees from the lot directly adjacent Page 1 of 4 Minutes of the March 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board to the Arthur's property and the ground and the junk have continued to rise. Mrs. Arthur added that they had planted a number of evergreens and vines to fill in some of the gaps, and that their neighbors had been in support of the fence and screening efforts from the beginning of the project. Ms. Doerr circulated a copy of a letter of support from a neighbor and additional photographs of the area. Chairman Lambertson opened the floor to public comment but there were no speakers, so he closed the floor and opened the discussion to the Board. Ellen Glasser asked if the neighbor who wrote the letter was the same one mentioned in the Staff Report. Mrs. Arthur said that Leesa, described as supportive in the Staff Report, lives directly next door, while Rose, who submitted the letter of support, lives across the street. Ms. Glasser expressed appreciation and satisfaction with the improvements made by the Arthurs and stated that she felt the fence was perfectly appropriate in this case. She added that her only concern would have been opposition from the neighbors. David Boyer noted that in many jurisdictions, it is the offending property that is required to put up a fence, and that Mr. Dagley should consider himself lucky. Ms. Doerr agreed this was true, but that the Dagley property was so large that the imposition of such a requirement might be considered unreasonable, and that fences were in fact required in some locations. Mr. Lambertson asked if there was a sunset provision for the junkyard use. Ms. Doerr replied that it was instead a reverter provision, meaning that if the junkyard use was abandoned, the use would immediately convert to residential single-family zoning (RS-2). She noted that most all of the junkyard property is platted as single-family lots. Mr. Boyer asked if there were any issues with hazardous waste. Ms. Doerr said that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection monitors the site. Actually, solid waste is the main issue, and all of that will have to be removed when the property converts to residential use. Mr. Lambertson asked how this matter came to the attention of the City. Mr. Arthur said that he had received a letter from Code Enforcement Officer Sherrer, stating that the fence was not in compliance. Mr. Lambertson asked if someone had complained about the fence. Mr. Arthur explained that his next door neighbor, whom had originally been in support of the fence, had complained as a matter of retaliation for a dispute over the parking of his boat next to the fence, and even damaging the fence. Ms. Glasser noted that obviously the neighbor was noticed of this public hearing, and if they had any objection, they could have appeared. Thus, her opinion stood as originally stated. MOTION: Ellen Glasser made a motion that the Board grant approval of ZVAR-2008-03, a request for Variance from Section 24-157 of the Land Development Regulations to permit an 8-foot high fence along the side of the lot to remain as constructed on a residential lot located at 890 Begonia Street. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous, 5-0. Page 2 of 4 Minutes of the March 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board ITEM 5.b. UBE-2008-02, Richard Langford, DVM. Request for aUse-bv-Exceation to permit a Veterinary Clinic within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District to be constructed at 615 Atlantic Boulevard. (Recommendation to Citv Commission.) Ms. Doerr introduced the application, and explained that a veterinary clinic requires aUse-By- Exception in the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District, typically because of a community's desire to review boarding practices that might result in nuisances to neighbors. However, she noted that it was her understanding that there would be no boarding of animals at this facility. She reported that the applicant intends to demolish the existing building and rebuild to meet code requirements, and that Public Works has done a cursory review and at this point only foresees some minor tweaking of the preliminary plan. Ms. Doerr stated that Staff supports this application as an appropriate use for this property. Chairman Lambertson invited the applicant, Dr. Richard Langford, DVM, to address the Board. Dr. Langford noted that as an animal hospital, some overnight stays would be required due to medical procedures. However, all such stays would be indoors, in air-conditioned facilities, as mandated by the state. Mr. Lambertson asked, for clarification purposes, if a kennel had a different definition than a boarding facility. Dr. Langford replied yes, and explained what was typically considered a kennel in the past, and how in the 1970s veterinarian hospitals began attaching such facilities, and then eventually, in the more recent past, the state began regulating and requiring that animals always be kept inside air-conditioned facilities equipped with indoor waste-flushing systems. He added that there are still a few of the older facilities that are grandfathered, but all new facilities must meet these requirements. Ms. Doerr asked Dr. Langford if he had seen the condition that she had recommended, and showed it to him: "No boarding of animals shall occur at this site, other than as may be necessary for immediate post-treatment care and recovery." After reading the condition, Dr. Langford said that he did not understand what it meant. He stated that no veterinarian practice can survive without some keeping of animals. Joshua Putterman inquired if overnight stays would only be for treatment or post-treatment purposes. Dr. Langford replied primarily. But, not to the point that people will be dropping off their animals for a week at a time while they go on vacation, Mr. Putterman questioned further. Dr. Langford explained that the reason people choose to leave their animals in the care of a veterinarian - as opposed to other options - is because the animal is under continuous supervision of the doctor and trained medical staff. Mr. Lambertson assured Dr. Langford that the City is not going to micromanage his veterinary practice. However, he cautioned Dr. Langford that he would have "police" himself and insure that onsite activities did not become a nuisance to adjacent property owners. Mr. Lambertson then asked if Ms. Doerr could refine the language of the request to reflect the nature of boarding that Dr. Langford said was typical of veterinary hospitals. Mr. Langford said that he could supply a concise definition based upon statute language. He then gave the following example: "No dogs to stay...on an overnight or 24-hour basis...when not under supervision of doctor." Page 3 of 4 Minutes of the March 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Lambertson agreed that would be helpful, and that it should be understood that all would occur inside, with no outside boarding or "kenneling." Ms. Glasser asked what kind of practice Dr. Langford has, to which he replied small animals, cats & dogs...general care, surgery. She also asked if this would be a second location. Dr. Langford said no, this would not be an expansion; rather, he wishes to relocate his current practice to Atlantic Beach. Chairman Lambertson recognized project architect Dennis Williams and asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Williams stated that he had read the guidelines [Commercial Corridor standards] and had discussions with staff, and that he was confident that he would be able to address all of these with no problem. Ms. Glasser asked if there were any issues with ingress/egress or the sign. Ms. Doerr responded that they would remain as they are. Dr. Langford explained the situation of the existing building on the front of the lot, requiring drivers to go around the building. He said the proposal has the new building situated in the northwest corner of the lot, such that there would be a clear line of site from the Atlantic Boulevard entrance to the Pine Street exit. Ms. Doerr noted that the existing sign is in compliance, and Dr. Langford added that he intended to use it as is, only making necessary name changes. MOTION: Ellen Glasser made a motion, with the Findings as included in the Staff Report that approval of this Use-by-Exception complies with the requirements of Section 24-63 of the Land Development Regulations and that it is consistent and compatible with other surrounding development along this portion of Atlantic Boulevard, that the Board recommend approval of UBE-2008-02 to the City Commission, to permit a Veterinary Clinic within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District to be constructed at 615 Atlantic Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: (1) No outside housing of animals; and, (2) No housing of animals overnight or for more than 24 hours except under the supervision of a veterinary doctor. Joshua Putterman seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS OR OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. There were no announcements or discussions of other business. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:43 pm. Signed: Chris Lambertson, Chairman ~. G~-G~}iL< Attest Page 4 of 4