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