Loading...
2008-10-14 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of the October 14, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board ?i J:L`l Jj J~ ..J3 ~~ .~. y ~ ... '. ,.::.. i~ ~~ a~,~ f1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Tuesday, October 14, 2008 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:04 pm on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. In attendance were Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, Principal Planner Erika Hall and Community Development Board members Blaine Adams, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Joshua Putterman, and Chairman Chris Lambertson. Board members David Boyer and Lynn Drysdale were absent. 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2008 and September 16, 2008 regular meetings. Ellen Glasser moved that the minutes of July 15, 2008 and September 16, 2008 be approved as written. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion which carried unanimously, 5-0. 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Chairman Lambertson noted no visitors in the audience. 4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no unfinished business for consideration. 5. NEW BUSINESS. a. UBE-2008-04, Stang. Request for aUse-by-Exception to permit a pet day care and boarding facility in the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at a developed and unused property at 1075 Atlantic Boulevard. Chairman Lambertson introduced the item and Ms. Doerr explained the existing conditions of the property which made it suitable for the applicant's request. In particular, she noted that the property is long and narrow, and the rear portion is heavily vegetated, creating a good buffer. She also explained that she had conferred with Building Official Michael Griffin, who agreed that the existing structure was much better suited to this use than a retail use, which would require compliance with stricter building codes. Applicant Karen Stang and her husband Greg, 1864 Nightfall Drive, Neptune Beach, were given the opportunity to address the Board. Ms. Stang summarized that the use would be a dog day care, though consideration might be given to extending overnight boarding at a future date. Ms. Glasser inquired as to cosmetic improvements of the property, to which Mr. Stang responded that the existing property is functional for their Page 1 of 5 Minutes of the October 14, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board needs, but they do have intentions to greatly improve the aesthetics by painting the exterior, replacing the existing chain link fence with a white pvc fence and landscaping the front. Mr. Putterman asked if there would be any additional structures placed on the rear of the lot, to which Mr. Stang replied no. Ms. Glasser asked and Ms. Doerr confirmed that animal boarding is a permitted Use-by- Exception within CG. Mr. Lambertson asked whether or not recommendation and approval of this Use-by-Exception would cover only the day care operations, or if it would also extend to cover over-night boarding, if the applicant should choose to pursue that sector also. Ms. Doerr said this application would cover both day and night boarding, thus not requiring the applicant to come before the Board again. Mr. Hansen inquired as to the demand for such a service, to which Ms. Stang replied that she had done thorough research and found that it is a growing market, typically consisting of single professionals and working couples that want the companionship of a pet but do not want to leave it home alone during the day. With no other questions for the applicant from the Board, Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment. No one from the audience came forward so that portion of the hearing was closed and the discussion was returned to the Board. MOTION: Joshua Putterman, moved that the Board, finding the requested use is consistent and compatible with the surrounding development along this portion of Atlantic Boulevard, and finding that approval of this Use-by-Exception complies with the requirements of Section 24-63 of the Land Development Regulations, recommend approval to the City Commission of this Use-by-Exception to permit a dog day care and boarding facility in the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at a developed site located at 1075 Atlantic Boulevard. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion which carried unanimously, 5-0. b. ZVAR-2008-07, Salaun. Request for a Variance to permit asix-foot high fence along the side property line of a corner lot where only afour-foot high fence is permitted. Property is within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 1070 Ocean Boulevard. Chairman Lambertson introduced the item and Ms. Doerr explained that the applicant had recently constructed a pool in compliance with pool placement regulations on the 11th Street side of her property. Additionally, the applicant has constructed a permitted four-foot high wood picket fence, which is in compliance with fence regulations; however, she now wishes to construct asix-foot high fence along the 11th Street property line, citing a need for privacy. Section 24-157 of the Land Development Regulations requires a 10-foot setback of fences greater than four feet in height on corner lots primarily to prevent interference with clear sight distance at intersections, and secondarily, to prevent intersections in residential neighborhoods from appearing as walled crossways. Ms. Doerr noted Public Safety had inspected the site and expressed concern about visibility at this intersection with the existing conditions. Applicant June Salaun, 1070 Ocean Boulevard, addressed the Board, explaining that the four-foot fence afforded her no privacy. She said that her pool contractor had called the Page 2 of 5 Minutes of the October 14, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Building Department to find out the fence regulations and when he was told that the height could be four feet in the front and six feet on the sides, he assumed it was correct and placed the fence to know where to place the pool. Ms. Salaun made reference to other properties on which pool and fence appear closer to the street and higher than four feet, and to conversations she had with several Public Safety and Building Department staff. Finally she said that she had spoken with Commissioners Carolyn Woods, Paul Parsons, and City Attorney Alan Jensen about her request. Mr. Lambertson interjected that the duty to review and take final action on Variances had been conferred upon the Community Development Board, and while Commissioners Woods, Parsons and City Attorney Jensen might make such general statements, they had not examined the specific evidence of this case in light of the criteria of review established for approving or disapproving a variance. Ms. Salaun stated that had she known [that she would not be allowed to put up the six- foot fence] she never would have went to the expense of installing the pool. Ms. Doerr noted that the applicant originally did commence installation of the fence without a permit, after which astop-work order was issued and the applicant was advised to apply for a variance. Ms. Doerr added if the applicant had followed proper procedure to obtain a permit before construction of the fence, staff would have denied approval, but it would have resulted in the opportunity for staff to work with the applicant towards an acceptable solution. The Board entertained a number of questions and comments from Ms. Salaun and advised her of various fence placement options and configurations given the location of the pool. Sensing no progress towards resolution, Mr. Lambertson admonished Ms. Salaun's lack of due diligence prior to commencing this project and her apathy towards public safety. He then opened the floor to public comment, and with there being none, he brought the discussion back to the Board. Blaine Adams stated that he felt adjustments could be made, and that he would like to see the applicant work with staff to resolve this issue; however, he was unable to support this request. Kirk Hansen added that he deferred to the Public Safety review of the sight distance triangle. Ellen Glasser explained that while she supports the applicant's right to privacy, she sees replacement of the four-foot fence with asix-foot fence as a definite public safety concern, and thus cannot support this request. Chris Lambertson reiterated that this is clearly a safety issue, and because Public Safety staff does not support this variance request, neither can he as Chairman of the Board. Because it was evident that the request for variance would not be approved at this point, he suggested that Ms. Salaun withdraw her application and work with Public Safety staff to reach a solution. Ms. Salaun agreed to do so. Mr. Lambertson further advised Ms. Salaun to obtain an accurate survey so that the exact location of the pool and existing fence could be determined in relation to the subject property lines, explaining that staff and be able to better assist Ms. Salaun once correct and precise locations were known. MOTION: Blain Adams moved that further consideration of ZVAR-2008-07, request for variance to allow asix-foot high fence along the side property line on a corner lot where only afour-foot high fence is permitted, be deferred until the next meeting. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion which carried unanimously, 5-0. Page 3 of 5 Minutes of the October 14, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board c. ZVAR-2008-08, Slingo/Martineau. Request for a variance to reduce the required five-foot side yard setback to three feet to allow a nonconforming garage to be extended with the addition of a carport along the same nonconforming side setback line. The property is within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 320 Ninth Street. Mr. Lambertson introduced the item and Ms. Doerr explained that the applicant wishes to extend an existing detached garage with a carport to provide covered storage for a second vehicle. The existing garage has athree-foot setback from the side property line, and the proposed carport would be along that same line, though it would still be setback approximately 57-feet from the front property line. Ms. Doerr noted that the original house and garage were constructed in 1956, prior to the City's first zoning regulations which were established in 1959, and thus approval of this request would be consistent with approval condition #4. Further, Ms. Doerr recommended that any approval be limited to the construction of an open carport not to be enclosed in any manner at a later date. Applicant Christopher Slingo, 320 9th Street, addressed the Board. Mr. Slingo confirmed that the proposed carport would be architecturally consistent with and follow the same roof line as the existing garage. He added that he had no desire to enclose the carport, and that he had obtained letters demonstrating no objection from several neighbors. Ms. Glasser asked if the alignment would block access to the garage, to which Mr. Slingo replied that it was his intention to convert the garage primarily to storage, with the back portion facing the pool used as a cabana. Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment. With there being none, he closed the floor and brought the discussion to the Board. Ms. Glasser expressed gratitude to the applicant for submittal of letters of support from neighbors and reiterated that this was clearly a condition of the property being built before zoning was in place. Mr. Adams noted that the subject property is an interior lot; thus it is not an issue of public safety. MOTION: Ellen Glasser, finding that the Land Development Regulations enacted after construction of improvements upon the property do have an onerous effect upon current use and development of the property, moved that the Board approve ZVAR-2008-08, request for a Variance to reduce the required five-foot side yard setback to three feet to allow a nonconforming detached garage to be extended along the same three-foot side setback line with the addition of a carport. Further, approval of this Variance shall be limited to an open carport only as proposed by Building Permit #08-1168, and the carport shall not later be enclosed in any manner. Blaine Adams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, 5-0. d. ZVAR-2006-09, McGuiness. Request for a second extension of time to commence work approved pursuant to a previously granted variance to allow a swimming pool to be located closer to the designated front property line that 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 22012th Street. Page 4 of 5 Minutes of the October 14, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Lambertson introduced the item and asked Ms. Doerr why Atlantic Beach did not allow variances to run with the property, to which Ms. Doerr responded that the Board has the discretion to do so. Construction typically commences within six months, and once that happens, the variance does run with the land. In this case, however, construction of the pool has not occurred because the applicant (not present) intends to sell the property, and merely wishes to maintain the variance in order to make the property more attractive to potential buyers. The Board previously approved an extension, limited to two years from the granting of the original variance. Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment. June Salaun, 1070 Ocean Boulevard, expressed concern that this variance had been granted at all when the Board clearly stated opposition to her variance request, which she categorized as "exactly one block away... same location... same situation as mine." Ms. Doerr replied that this was not the same case. In fact, this variance was for the location of the pool, whereas Ms. Salaun's variance request was for location and height of the fence. Mr. Adams added that pools are only required to have afour-foot fence, and the owner of the subject property has not approached the Board to put up anything different. Ms. Glasser said that she thought the Variance should be amended to run with the property. Mr. Hansen asked if there were any limiting reason as to why the Variance should not run with the property, to which Ms. Doerr replied there were none. MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved that the Board grant indefinite extension of time to commence work approved pursuant to previously granted Variance ZVAR-2006-09, to allow a swimming pool to be located closer to the designated front property line that 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 12tH Street, and further, amend said Variance such that it shall run with the property and be transferrable to future owners. Joshua Putterman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously 5-0. 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. There was no other business up for consideration. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:19 pm. ;~~ ~ .~ -: !~ ''' r' igned: Chris ~ambertson, Chairman Gi. ~C~*"/i. Attest Page 5 of 5