2008-12-16 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of the December 16, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
_,:~,
J
:: J ~s
"L~;
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:00 pm on Tuesday,
December 16, 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, Lynn
Drysdale, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Joshua Putterman, and Chairman Chris Lambertson.
Board member David Boyer arrived at 6:05 pm.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lambertson called for a motion to approve the
minutes of the November 18, 2008 regular meeting. Ellen Glasser moved that the minutes of
November 18, 2008 be approved as written. Lynn Drysdale seconded the motion which
carried unanimously, 6-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Chairman Lambertson welcomed the audience and noted
that no visitors were present at the commencement of the meeting. However, City Attorney
Alan Jensen arrived at 6:10 pm. Mr. Lambertson also took this opportunity to review with
Board members the meeting rules of order that the City Commission recently endorsed for
use by all City boards and committees. Ms. Doerr noted that the Commission's endorsement
was in response to the Florida League of Cities' effort to encourage implementation of a
consistent parliamentary procedure throughout the state.
4. OLD BUSINESS.
a. 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 asked Community Development Director Sonya Doerr to
introduce the item. Ms. Doerr noted that this was item was deferred by the Board at the
two previous meetings, and that the applicant had modified her request such that she was
now asking only to place asix-foot high fence in the same location as the existing four-
foot fence along 11th Street, extending to a distance that is 20-feet from the Ocean
Boulevard property line. As requested by the Board at its November 18, 2008 meeting,
Ms. Doerr said she had consulted with Public Safety and Public Works regarding the
amended application, and copies of their respective comments were provided to the
Board in the agenda packets. Astaff-prepared field sketch documenting existing
Page 1 of 4
Minutes of the December 16, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
conditions and dimensions was also included in agenda packets, as was a copy of a legal
survey obtained from the City Clerk's property files.
Ms. Doerr noted that while the applicant had amended the original request, eliminating
the need for variance for the portion of fence to be located parallel to the Ocean
Boulevard property line, the applicant was still asking for a substantial variance of
approximately seven and one-half (7.5) feet from the required 10-foot setback for the
portion of fence to be located parallel to the 11th Street property line. Ms. Doerr stated
that, due to lack of support from other reviewing departments as well as the applicant's
inability to establish grounds for approval of such a variance, according to the provisions
of Section 24-64 (d) of the Land Development Regulations (LDR), staff was unable to
support the applicant's request. However, Ms. Doerr continued, the Community
Development Board has the authority, according to Section 24-64(f) of the LDR, to
approve a lesser Variance than requested. As such, Ms. Doerr had recommended the
Board might consider approval of a Variance of five (5) feet from the required 10-foot
setback for the portion of fence to be located parallel to the 11th Street property line. This
would place the six-foot high fence along the pool paver line, five-feet from the 11 ~'
Street property line and 20-feet from the Ocean Boulevard property line.
Mr. Lambertson asked the applicant if she would like to comment. June Salaun, 1070
Ocean Boulevard, came forward and introduced herself as the applicant. Mr. Lambertson
asked how the amended application differed from that considered by the Board at the
October and November meetings. Ms. Salaun stated that she had agreed to bring the
fence parallel to Ocean Boulevard in to the paver line, thus eliminating the need for that
part of the variance. Mr. Lambertson asked, then, was the applicant asking to raise the
existing fence to six-feet along 11th Street, and up to the front edge of the house? Ms.
Salaun confirmed this was her request, stating that the three-foot difference between her
request and Ms. Doerr's recommendation was important because she rescues dogs and
needs the space for them. Mr. Lambertson asked the Board if they had any questions for
Ms. Salaun.
Joshua Putterman inquired about the section of fence located to the east of the pool, as
shown in the first photograph included in the staff report. Ms. Salaun responded that it is
an eight-foot wide section of six-foot high fence, and she was told by staff that it is
allowable. Mr. Lambertson added that this section of fence is located 20-feet from the
Ocean Boulevard property line, which is the permitted setback for asix-foot high fence.
Ellen Glasser asked for confirmation of the location of the 20-foot setback, to which Ms.
Salaun responded that it was in line with the front of the house.
David Boyer noted that there was no measured drawing showing the pool or accurate
location of existing sections of fence, to which Ms. Salaun responded that these items
were on the drawing done by City people. Mr. Boyer acknowledged staff's sketch of
existing conditions, but replied that there was no legal survey. Ms. Salaun said that she
did not see the need for a survey since [they] had measured everything. Mr. Lambertson
explained to Ms. Salaun that it is the applicant's responsibility to provide all documents
in support of their request, but staff had created this drawing to assist the Board in
visualizing existing conditions. Ms. Doerr added that she also included a copy of a
survey found in the address file maintained by the City Clerk's office.
Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the December 16, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment and with there being no one,
closed the hearing and brought the discussion back to the Board.
Ms. Glasser apologized for her absence at the November meeting, but said she had read
the minutes of that meeting, and that it seems that the applicant's current amended
request is actually the same as it was in October and November. Mr. Putterman noted
that the distance from Ocean Boulevard had been addressed because the applicant had
proposed to shorten the length of fence running along 11~' Street, so that it would be in
compliance with Code, however there was still the issue of setback of the fence from 11th
Street to be considered. Mr. Lambertson called Board members' attention to page three
of the staff report and confirmed that the applicant is requesting that the six-foot high
fence be allowed in the current location of the existing four-foot fence.
Mr. Lambertson also took the opportunity to read into the record the comments of former
Public Safety Director, now Assistant City Manager David Thompson, and Public Works
Director Rick Carper. Mr. Boyer noted that Mr. Thompson stated that he could not
conclusively determine that the placement of a six-foot high fence, 20-feet from Ocean
Boulevard, would cause further obstruction of the sight distance triangle. Mr. Boyer said
he thought this statement was erroneous in that it referred to placement at 20-feet from
Ocean Boulevard, rather than 20-feet from the property line on the Ocean Boulevard side.
Kirk Hansen said that he understood Mr. Thompson to be referring to the property line,
and since the requested location was beyond the 20-foot setback from the Ocean
Boulevard property line, he did not have a problem with the comment. However, he did
share concern with Mr. Carper, who spoke of the precedent that such an approval would
set for future requests.
Mr. Boyer noted that tonight's decision could have serious implications for future
variance requests, reminding Board members that, several months earlier they had
approved a variance for a swimming pool just a short distance from this property, and he
foresees potential buyers of the property returning for a similar fence variance as this one.
Mr. Lambertson concurred and encouraged the Board to carefully consider all
applications and ask deeper questions with forethought. He then asked Lynn Drysdale if
she had anything to add to the discussion, to which she replied she could find no reasons
listed in Section 24-64(d) of the LDR applicable to this case, and therefore no grounds to
approve this Variance. Blaine Adams agreed.
Mr. Lambertson confirmed that no Board member was finding grounds to approve the
current request, and explained that their remaining options were to either approve a lesser
variance, if the applicant were inclined to modify the request as recommended by staff, or
deny the request altogether.
MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved that the Board deny ZVAR-2008-07, 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, finding that none of the grounds for
approval of a Variance, as described in Section 24-64(d) of the Land Development
Regulations are met, and that specifically, a Variance shall not be granted solely for
the personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for
relief from situations created by the property owner. Lynn Drysdale seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously, 7-0.
Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the December 16, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Ms. Salaun asked if she could again address the Board. She said that she had been trying
to work with staff and that she felt that her requests had been misrepresented. Mr.
Lambertson advised Ms. Salaun that the Board had acted on the application that she
submitted and that if she felt she had been unfairly treated, she should put her concerns in
writing and submit them to the City Manager.
Ms. Doerr noted that staff has made every effort to work with Ms. Salaun regarding the
construction of her pool and fence for the past four months. However, Ms. Salaun has
continuously failed to follow procedure as defined in the Land Development Regulations,
refusing to submit adequate documents in support of her request, and has ignored the
Board's recommendations to meet with staff and work to draft a more precise request that
would have the least possible implication on the public good.
5. NEW BUSINESS. There was no new business scheduled for consideration.
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
Ms. Doerr announced that the Board Member Review Committee had reappointed those
Community Development Board members whose terms were set to expire on December 31,
2008. Thus,
7. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 6:40 pm.
.., ; f
ice...-. i;~-°' `_
Signed: C~iris Lambertson, Chairman
/"L~l./Q ~/~GIJL.
Attest
Page 4 of 4