Loading...
2009-01-20_CDBminutes vMinutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board -S =sL' 'r . 'r .' JS ~~ri1 s~ ,~ a MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Tuesday, January 20, 2009 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 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 David Boyle, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, and Chairman Chris Lambertson. Board member Lynn Drysdale arrived at 6:1 Opm, and Blaine Adams and Josh Putterman were absent. 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 December 16, 2009 regular meeting. Ellen Glasser said she had a comment regarding, but not made, at the previous meeting. Mr. Lambertson explained that any comment not previously made could not be considered a correction, but could be made now and recorded in the minutes for tonight's meeting. Kirk Hansen moved that the Board approve the minutes of the December 16, 2009 meeting, as written. Ms. Glasser seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 4-0. Ms. Glasser then added her comment for tonights recorded, complimenting staff on their professionalism in the handling of some difficult applications over the past few months, noting they should receive recognition for all their hard work. 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. There were no visitors present at the meeting. 4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business for consideration. 5. NEW BUSINESS. a. ZVAR-2009-01, Pressley. Request for a Variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)x to reduce the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to allow a 144 square foot storage shed to remain located five (5) feet from the rear property line on a lot within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 246 Pine Street. Mr. Lambertson introduced the item and asked Ms. Doerr to summarize the request and existing conditions. Ms. Doerr explained that the applicant had constructed an unpennitted 144 square foot 10-foot high storage shed at the rear of his property, and upon discovery by the Building Department, the applicant was required to apply for a building permit. However, the permit application was denied by Zoning because it did not meet the required 10-foot setback from the rear property line required for such a Page 1 of 5 Minutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board structure. Ms. Doerr explained that smaller storage sheds, 80 square feet in size or less, are permitted to be located five feet from the rear property line, but anything larger, up to the maximum allowable size of 150 square feet and 12-feet in height, must meet the 10- foot setback. She noted that, though the storage shed is barely visible from the Pine Street frontage because of dense vegetation, it is fully visible from the adjoining rear lot that fronts Magnolia Street, and it is this property owner that has complained about the size and location of the shed, thus demonstrating the purpose of the 10-foot setback for larger storage sheds. Mr. Lambertson asked applicant and property owner Greg Pressley, 246 Pine Street, to address the Board regarding his request. Mr. Pressley stated that the house sits furthest back of all the houses on the block and therefore there was not sufficient space in the rear yard to place the shed the required ten feet from the property line. He explained that his wife is currently overseas in the military and they have a great deal household and personal items to store. He noted that the shed, at 144 square feet in area and 10-feet in height, is below the maximum size allowed by regulations. Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment and with there being none, closed the floor and brought the application back to the Board for discussion. Ms. Glasser asked if the shed was finished at this point, to which Mr. Pressley replied no. She then asked if the applicant was building the shed himself, to which he replied yes. She asked if the structure was on a concrete slab, to which Mr. Pressley responded no, explaining that it was on a skid on cinder blocks, anchored. Ms. Glasser asked how this issue had come to the attention of the city...from a neighbor? Ms. Doerr said that was her understanding, that Code Enforcement had received a complaint. Mr. Pressley said that was not his understanding, that he had not received any complaints. Kirk Hansen noted that the Staff Report said that a neighbor had complained. He then pointed out that the drawing submitted shows a wooden deck in near proximity to the shed, and asked if it was still there. Mr. Pressley explained that he had taken up the deck so that he could remove some tree roots that were interfering with the anchoring of the shed, but that he planned to put it back down. Mr. Hansen also noted an existing shed on the drawing. Mr. Pressley said that one would be removed upon completion of the new shed. David Boyer asked if there were regulations limiting the number of buildings on a property, to which Ms. Doerr responded there may be up to three buildings, with only one being a shed. Mr. Lambertson asked what the structure was constructed out of, and if the structure required a concrete slab and Mr. Pressley said he had built the shed out of framing wood and that it is portable. Ms. Glass asked if this home was part of a Homeowners' Association, and Ms. Doerr confirmed that it was not. Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Doerr to go over the size of shed allowed to be located five feet off of the rear property line - 80 square feet -and the maximum size of storage unit allowed - 150 square feet. Mr. Lambertson explained that that he was trying to find a hardship under which a variance could be granted, and while the Board realized that the applicant had invested a lot of time and money, this situation fell outside the normal parameters of what they could normally approve. He made the recommendation that the applicant could downsize the structure to 80 square feet, or relocated the structure ten feet off the rear property line. Mr. Pressley asked about grandfathered structures, to which Mr. Lambertson responded that was only in the case of structures that were existent before the current zoning Page 2 of 5 Minutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board regulations. He said that anything located any closer to the property line becomes an encroachment. Mr. Pressley explained that to move the structure now he basically would have to destroy it, pulling out bolts from concrete, removing the rafters. He said that he already had a great investment. Ms. Glasser said that she was totally sympathetic to Mr. Pressley's situation, but she did not see a hardship. Mr. Pressley asked what constituted a hardship, to which Mr. Lambertson replied that it was more of a condition or set of conditions that must exist in order for the Board to grant a variance. He noted that they are listed on the variance application and then read from Section 24-64(d): Grounds for approval of a Variance. A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the following reasons. (1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property; (2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties; (3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area; (4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property; (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration; (6) substandard size of a Lot of Record warranting a variance in order to provide for reasonable use of the property. Ms. Glasser continued that the Board has to be concerned about setting precedent. Lynn Drysdale added that several similar applications have been before the Board over the last year, and while she too was sympathetic to Mr. Pressley's situation, the Board must be consistent. MOTION: Lynn Drysdale moved that the Board deny ZVAR-2009-01, request for a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)x, to reduce the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to allow a 144 square foot storage shed to remain located five (5) feet from the rear property line on a lot within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 246 Pine Street. Ellen Glasser seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 5-0. b. ZVAR-2009-02, Budnick. Request for a Variance from Section 24-157(b) to permit an eight (8) foot high fence along the rear property line on a lot within the RS-L Zoning District and located at 37012th Street. Mr. Lambertson introduced the item and asked Ms. Doerr to summarize the request and existing conditions. Ms. Doerr ex~lained that the Budnicks are redeveloping a lot on 12tt' Street, abutting another lot on llt Street with an unoccupied house which has been the subject of Code Enforcement action over the last few years. Besides the vacant house, there are unsightly storage sheds. The Budnicks have asked to be allowed to construct an 8' high fence along the back property line to lessen their view of the adjacent lot. However, it must be realized that the situation on the adjacent lot is temporary and the Building Department has been working to persuade the property owners to improve the appearance of the property for several years, and has been successful to a degree. She added that the property looks much better today that it did several years ago, and that the property owners have expressed their intention to either redevelop the property or put it on the market whenever economic conditions improve. Page 3 of 5 Minutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Lambertson asked applicants and property owners Christy and Todd Budnick, 363 7th Street, to address the Board regarding their request. Mrs. Budnick confirmed that she was requesting an 8' fence along the rear property line to shield her home and yard from views of the abutting property. She said that she understood that the condition of that property was supposed to be a temporary situation, but that it had been ongoing for a number of years and she foresaw no resolution. She said that she had tried to do some planting and landscaping that would help, but to get plants of the size necessary was cost- prohibitive. She said the proposed fence would be vinyl, and that the 8' section would not be visible from the [12 ]street. Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment and with there being none, closed the floor and brought the application back to the Board for discussion. Ms. Glasser, referring to a photo of the Budnicks' home under construction, asked the height of the existing chain link fence separating the lots. Mrs. Budnick replied 4-5'. Mr. Boyer said that it appeared to be standard 4' all the way around. Mrs. Budnick said that she had someone hold up a piece of OSB on top of the existing fence. She then stood on her slab, and saw that a fence of approximately the same height would block view of all of one storage shed and most of the second. Mrs. Budnick said she was told that the [additional] 2' height of fence would cost approximately $400. Mr. Hansen asked had the Budnicks gotten a quote for entire fence, and would not the cost come out to be approximately the same as landscaping? Mr. Boyer asked if they Budnicks had been aware of the condition of the adjacent property when they purchased their lot, adding that he did not see this as a hardship. Mr. Budnick said that they did not realize the severity of the conditions until after they had purchased because their lot was highly vegetated. He said that it was not until they began clearing for construction did they realize the condition of the adjacent lot. He then questioned, "What is temporary?", adding that it appears this has been ongoing for ten years, and asking if it would be another ten years [before it was resolved]. Ms. Glasser asked about the applicability of the International Properly Maintenance Code, recently adopted. Ms. Doerr said that Code Enforcement Officer Alex Sherrer has looked into it and said that nothing there applies. Mrs. Budnick said that the couple had done their due diligence prior to purchasing the property, and that they only wanted to protect their investment. She then asked if a 2' section of lattice on top of the 6' fence was permissible. Ms. Doerr explained that lattice is specifically included in the definition of a fence; however arbor is not. Ms. Doerr suggested that such a landscaping device could be placed on top of the 6' fence and then jasmine or some other running vine could be allowed to fill in. Ms. Budnick said that she had not considered such a solution, but thought it was a good idea worth trying. MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved that the Board deny ZVAR-2009-2, request for a variance from Section 24-157(b) to permit an eight (8) foot high fence along the rear property line on a lot within the RS-L Zoning District and located at 370 12th Street. David Boyer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Page 4 of 5 Minutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. There was no other non-actionable business for discussion. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 6:53 pm. Si ed: Chris Lambertson, Chairman ~jr.~iLL__---. Atte t Page 5 of 5