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