Loading...
2008-11-18 (meeting minutes)Minutes of the November 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board J3 ~i .tL~l f ~~~ s~ ,'', (~ j ...". MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Tuesday, November 18, 2008 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:03 pm on Tuesday, November 18, 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, David Boyer, Lynn Drysdale, Kirk Hansen, Joshua Putterman, and Chairman Chris Lambertson. Board member Ellen Glasser was absent (excused). 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the October 14, 2008 regular meeting. Kirk Hansen moved that the minutes of October 14, 2008 be approved as written. Blaine Adams seconded the motion which carried unanimously, 6-0. 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Chairman Lambertson welcomed the audience. 4. OLD BUSINESS. a. ZVAR-2008-07, Salaun. Request for a Variance to permit asix-foot high fence along the 11th Street 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 asked Ms. Doerr if additional materials had been submitted, to which Ms. Doerr replied that a traffic assessment provided by the Police Department had been included in the agenda packets, but nothing else new. Mr. Lambertson asked if there had been any changes to the previous request, to which Ms. Doerr responded none. Mr. Lambertson then invited the applicant to comment. June Salaun stated that she was again asking for the same increase of two (2) feet in height to the existing fence. Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Salaun if she had modified the request in any way since the last meeting, to which Ms. Salaun responded that she had located the property lines as requested. Mr. Lambertson asked if Ms. Salaun had any new information to present to the Board, and stated that if there was no new information, the Board would not continue discussion. Ms. Salaun provided no additional information, but stated that as atax-paying property owner, she was entitled to some privacy. She Page 1 of 6 Minutes of the November 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board further stated that she would be willing to set the fence back 20-feet from Ocean Boulevard which would be where she had put a red bow on her fence. Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Salaun how far the existing fence was from the property line. Ms. Salaun said that it varied between one (1) foot and three (3) because the fence is not perfectly straight. However, she said it was her understanding that she was entitled to have the fence on the property line, to which Mr. Lambertson added, at a four (4) foot maximum height, not six feet. Ms. Salaun said that others had been allowed to place higher fences around pools. Mr. Lambertson noted for the record that it appeared that the pool had been constructed within regulations. It was also noted that the building code required only afour-foot fence around pools. Mr. Boyer, absent from the previous meeting at which this item was discussed, inquired as to the existing fences, noting the unsightly appearance of the fences. Ms. Doerr explained that there was a six (6) foot section and an eight (8) foot section in the northwest corner. The eight (8) foot section is non-conforming, and she was unable to determine how long it had been there, as there was no documentation in the City's archives. Ms. Salaun reiterated that she was merely asking for privacy, and continued to insist that she was being treated unfairly. Ms. Salaun repeatedly referred to the "FDOT study" [the August 27, 2008 Traffic Assessment provided by ABPD Sergeant Tiffany Layson] implying that the report confirmed that the fence she wished to construct would "be fine" if she cut the bushes along the front. Mr. Lambertson that this had all been discussed at length at the previous meeting and that there was no point in continuing to argue the same information discussed last month. He noted that the purpose of deferring was to allow Ms. Salaun to consider options and revise the application to clearly show what she was requesting. Mr. Putterman commented that the traffic assessment did not say anything about a six foot fence, only the four foot fence that was already there, and the bushes. Mr. Putterman further stated that he would need to see something in writing from the Police Department stating that a six foot fence anywhere on the 11th Street would not be a safety problem. Mr. Lambertson stated that he did not think there was support for this application, to which Ms. Salaun responded that was his opinion alone, and that there were supposed to be seven people making the decision. She went on to say that she thought that a variance was supposed to be a compromise, and so far, no one was willing to compromise with her. Ms. Doerr then explained that a variance is not a compromise; rather there are very specific conditions that must be met in order for the Board to approve a variance. Mr. Lambertson opened the item to public comment. Chad Yarbrough, 403 Mako Drive, said that he was attendance because he has the same situation, and has been told that the purpose of the corner street-side setback was to prevent the "compounding" effect and to deal with the sight-triangle issue. However, he does not see that this is a problem. He said there were numerous fences exceeding four Page 2 of 6 Minutes of the November 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board (4) feet and closer to the street in his neighborhood and throughout the City, and even some in which the landscaping is used to create a "compound." Mr. Lambertson closed the public comment portion of the hearing and brought the item back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Adams told Ms. Salaun that he had made the motion to defer the item last month in hopes that she would meet with Public Safety and the Planning Departments and come to some sort of agreement, and that he did not understand why the same request was back before the Board again. Ms. Salaun responded that she had spoken with [Chief] Classey, and that he had told her that she only needed to cut the bushes planted on top of the berm. She said he never said he had a problem with her fence. Mr. Adams reiterated that the proposal in the Board's agenda packet was the same as last months, that there was no difference, and the reason the Board had deferred making a decision was to allow Ms. Salaun to modify her request and submit supporting documentation. Mr. Boyer said that he had been by the property and noted at least three different types of fence of varying heights, which looks terrible. Ms. Salaun responded that she had an existing four (4) foot high picket fence along the front. In the back was an eight (8) foot high fence that dropped down to seven (7) feet then six (6) feet and turned the corner. Then, more four (4) foot fence was put up to enclose the pool. This portion was double- boarded to add some privacy. Mr. Putterman asked if it was the opinion of Public Safety that a six (6) foot high fence would obstruct traffic, which Ms. Doerr confirmed that Public Safety always has a concern about anything that could interfere with visibility at intersections, adding that Chief Classey and Sergeant Layson's concerns were the high bushes because they were an immediate threat to traffic safety. Thus, they required the bushes to be cut right away. Ms. Doerr noted that the Police Department is only concerned with safety and not the zoning issues related to fences, and that even if there was not a safety issue, the request must meet the conditions for approval of a variance. Mr. Boyer asked how many accidents had been documented at the intersection of Ocean & 11th, to which Ms. Salaun interjected no accidents and no complaints. Ms. Doerr continued, saying the Public Safety Department does not encourage anything that could be a potential obstruction to traffic safety. Mr. Putterman responded that if Public Safety said that it was not an issue, he might be able to consider this more favorably, but he would not be willing to ignore their expert assessment and override their authority. Mr. Boyer expressed his desire to make a motion providing specific conditions of approval, but the Board, having not been given sufficient information by the applicant as to the precise location of existing or proposed structures, was unable to quantify those conditions. The Board again reviewed a site plan which had been originally prepared for and submitted with the pool permit application, as well as photos taken by staff and the applicant. After the Board's further discussion of the existing conditions, Mr. Lambertson asked if everyone understood the request, to which all agreed that they did. Mr. Lambertson then read from Section 24-64 of the Land Development Regulations: (a) Grounds for denial of a Variance. No Variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the Page 3 of 6 Minutes of the November 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board granting of the requested Variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or more of the following. (1) Light and air to adjacent properties. (2) Congestion of streets. (3) Public safety, including risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety. (4) Established property values. (5) Aesthetic environment of the community. (6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources. (7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community. Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situations created by the property owner. Mr. Lambertson emphasized the last sentence and noted that this was the litmus test. Mr. Hansen said he now felt he sufficiently understood what Ms. Salaun was attempting to do, but he did not have a clear understanding of Public Safety's position. Ms. Doerr said that she did not know if they had field-viewed this request because it had not been precisely defined on the application. Mr. Lambertson noted that Ms. Doerr has spoken with Chief Classey and that he and Sergeant Layson had responded only to the sight issues with the four foot fence and the existing landscaping, and had given Ms. Salaun no agreement that six-feet would "be fine." Mr. Adams said this was precisely the kind of discussion that the applicant should have been having with staff over the last month, and that he needed a definitive statement from Public Safety before he could support the request. Mr. Boyer agreed with Mr. Adams, and Ms. Doerr reminded the Board that they must also make a finding of fact consistent with Section 24-64. Ms. Salaun asked if a letter from Chief Classey would be enough, to which Mr. Boyer responded that the entire application needed to be revised with a specific proposal in writing and on a drawing. He further noted that it would be a very bad precedent for this Board to approve something as sketchy as had been presented. Mr. Adams asked if Ms. Salaun was willing to get a new survey, and Mr. Boyer continued that she needed to present specifics in writing. Mr. Lambertson called the meeting to order and called for a motion. Mr. Putterman reiterated that he want to see something in writing from Public Safety responding to exactly what she was requesting. MOTION: Mr. Adams moved that the Board deny the request for variance based upon findings that (1) there are no exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property; (2) there are no surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties; (3) there are no exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area; (4) there is no onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property; (5) there is no irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration; and, (6) this is not a Lot of Record of substandard size and warranting a variance in order to provide for the Page 4 of 6 Minutes of the November 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board reasonable use of the property. Mr. Lambertson called for a second, and there being none, the motion died. MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved that the Board defer the application and again request that the applicant revise it, providing a more precise indication of existing and proposed conditions. Mr. Boyer requested amendment of the motion, requiring the inclusion of a drawing, which could be based upon an existing survey, and a written recommendation from Public Safety. The amendment was accepted. Mr. Putterman seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 6-0. 5. NEW BUSINESS. a. ZVAR-2008-09, Dunlap for Ferguson. Request fora Variance to permit a permanent generator to be located 20 inches from the north side property line on an oceanfront lot at 2069 Beach Avenue. (Section 24-83(c) requires afive-foot setback for exterior equipment that makes excessive noise.) Ms. Doerr summarized the regulations relating to mechanical equipment, and noted that while generators certainly make excessive noise, the intent of this provision was to address equipment that runs continuously such as HVAC units, pool pumps and the like, and that this type of generator was not considered at the time this provision was added to the regulations. She noted that such generators have become fairly common on new larger homes. She explained this particular request explaining that the requested location would be on the other side of a wall and next to the neighbor's driveway and not a living area, and that unlike HVAC units and pool equipment, generators are only used during emergencies and if one is running, there are likely to be many others running at the same time. She noted that staff had no objection to this request, and that it did seem to clearly meet the Variance condition for "effects of regulations adopted after platting...." Michael Dunlap, representing the request explained that there was no other feasible location for the generator and that it would be mostly obscured from view by landscaping. Mr. Boyer inquired about the possibility of placing it on the south side of the house. Mr. Dunlap stated that this had been there preferred option, then explained the problems with putting it on that side. MOTION: Blaine Adams moved that the Board, finding (1) there are regulations enacted after the platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property that have an onerous effect upon current use and development of the property, and (2) approval of this request is consistent with Section 24-64 and the purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations, approve the request for Variance from the Section 24-83(c) to allow the placement of a permanent generator 20 inches from the north property line on an oceanfront lot located at 2069 Beach Avenue. Joshua Putterman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, 6-0. Page 5 of 6 Minutes of the November 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. There was no other business up for consideration. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:10 pm. Signed: ris ambertson, Chairman Attest Page 6 of 6