CDB MTG APRIL 2014MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
April 15, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER. - 6:00 pm
Chair Brea Paul verified that all board members are present with the exception of Patrick
Stratton and Linda L ier. The meeting was called to order at 6:OOpm. Also present was
Redevelopment and Zoning Coordinator, Jeremy Hubsch, Recording Secretary Jenny
Walker, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A. was Mr. Rob
Bradley.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES - February 18, 2014.
Brea Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 18, 2014 regular
meeting. Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Parkes
seconded the motion: and it carried by a vote of 5 -0.
3. OLD BUSINESS. ;gone.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
Staff
Report
A. UBE :v:- 14- 00100012(PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for use -by- exception as permitted by Section 24 -112 (C) (5), to
allow the permanent storage of automobiles and automotive repair.
Jeremy Hubsch, Redevelopment and Zoning Coordinator stated
this UBEX -14- 00100012 is a request for a Use -by- Exception to
allow the permanent storage of automobiles and automotive
pair in a Light Industrial and Warehousing Zoning District.
e applicant is Coastal Cab Company. The subject property is
,cated in a large district of properties that are zoned Light
dustrial and Warehousing (LIW). The proposed Use -by- Exception
requested to allow the applicant to administer, repair, and store
axicabs at 1840 Mealy Street. The applicant currently operates
he taxi cab company that dispatches, administers, repairs, and
tores the vehicles on site.
Page 1 of 7
The applicants are required to obtain a Use -By- Exception per
Section 24 -112 (c)(5), which requires one for, "establishments for
heavy automotive repair, towing service or the permanent storage
of automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, and tractors, machinery and
equipment and similar uses."
The applicants stated in the application package the activities on
7ite include those of a service /transportation company serving
Jacksonville and the Beaches. Their primary business hours of
operation are Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
However, they state that they are a 24/7 operation with minimal
staff on duty after 5:00 PM that includes dispatch and call center
support. The application states that "drivers will come to base
occasionally in the evenings to change vehicles ". The fleet consists
of 65 vehicles. The cab drivers are independent contractors. The
maintenance shop is a full service shop that operates between
3:00 AM and 6:00 PM. They state that they will not service
vehicles on weekends or in the evenings.
Jeremy Hubsch presented and aerial view of the subject site and
surrounding properties. Sec. 24 -112 of the Land Development
Regulations state the intent of the light industrial and warehousing
zoning district is intended for light manufacturing, stoage and
warehousing, processing or fabrication of nonobjectionable
products, not involving the use of materials, processes or
machinery likely to cause undesirable effects upon nearby or
adjacent residential or commercial activities. Policy A.1.5.6 of the
Comprehensive Plan states that Commercial and light industrial
development shall be located and designed so as to minimize
adverse effects on residential areas, traffic facilities, and the
aesthetic character of the City.
Jeremy discussed three suggested actions to recommend approval
and three suggested actions to recommend denial. Staff suggests
that a condition of a cap be set on the amount of cars that can be
'kept on site as storage. This will ensure that the property does not
Jrn into a junk yard or scrap yard.
i srea Paul asked if this application is a result of a Business License
renewal and Jeremy stated that the business had already opened
rior to obtaining their license and then were notified of the need
ror the Use -by- Exception. We are working on finding a way to stop
these business from opening without a Business Tax Receipt.
Page 2 of 7
Applicant
Comment
Public
Comment
Board
Discussion
Motion
Staff Report
Rob Glazier, the general manager of Coastal Cab introduced
himself and discussed the fact that if there are more that 15 cars
on his property then he is losing money. He states that other than
employees cars there shouldn't ever be more than 25 cars on the
property.
None.
Kirk Hanson stated that he doesn't feel a cap is needed,
Considering the neighboring Tots are full of vehicles. Sylvia does
not agree and wants cap placed on the number of vehicles left on
the lot. Jeremy stated that there is something in the code that says
the nonconforming use of neighboring land structures or buildings
in the same zoning district cannot be considered for justification of
:Lpproval for the Use -by- Exception. Mr. Hanson asked the applicant
pow many vehicles does he need to have allowed on the lot at one
rime. Mr. Glazier said aside from his 10 employees cars, he would
pike to have 25 cabs allowed at one time.
Kirk Hanson makes a motion to approve UBEX -14- 00100012 with
the condition of no more than 25 stored vehicles not including
employee vehicles at any one time. Mr. Elmore seconded the
motion. It carried with a 5 -0 vote. Brea Paul then stated that the
question of how to handle the businesses opening before obtaining
their Business Tax Receipts will be left to due diligence on the part
f Code Enforcement.
P ZVAR -14- 00100014 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for zoning
v riance as permitted by Section 24 -64 for a 6' fence to be Tess
than 10' from property line as required by Section 24- 157(c).
Jeremy states that this is a request for variance from the provisions
of Section 24- 157(c)(1), to allow the construction of a fence
exceeding four (4) feet in height within ten (10) feet of a property
line which abuts a right -of -way that is fifty (50) feet or Tess in
Fiidth. Specifically, the applicant seeks to construct a six (6) foot
h fence 5' off the property line that abuts 1st Street, which is a
,ity (50) foot wide right -of -way. Jeremy reports that the applicant
Page 3 of 7
Applicant
Comment
constructing a new home at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and
First Street. The applicant plan to put a 3 or 4' fence along the
front (Ocean Boulevard) and corner side (First Street), which is
allowed by code. They are requesting a zoning variance to put a 6'
tall fence inside of the required 10' setback along the corner side
of the lot. This segment measures approximately twenty -three
feet long and would be setback five feet from the First Street
property line. It is roughly 70 feet from the easternmost point of
the requested 6' fence and Ocean Boulevard. The requested 6'
fence segment is highlighted in Figure 1.
Jeremy discussed the Section 24 -64(d) provides six distinct grounds
for the approval of a variance. Section 24.64 (c)(7) of the Land
Development Regulations states, "Variances shall not be granted
solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property
owner." The applicants stated in their application package, "The
additional setback on a corner lot is diminishing the use of the
back yard /pool area. By gaining just 5' extra would allow an
enjoyable living condition."
He gave conditions to approve and motions to deny.
3 l Donnell with Bosco Building Contractors, 2158 Mayport Road,
itroduced himself. Dale states that the fence is setback a good
aistance from the road and sidewalk and would not be an impact
to either. The sidewalk is exactly along the side of the road and
was existing. Sylvia asked the applicant at what point in the
planning /building process did they realize they would need to
apply for this variance? Sylvia stated "I live 2 blocks away and walk
by that location constantly and feel it is a nice house compared to
What was there, but I also have a pool and a crowded 50' yard and
it was never a surprise that we were going to have to fence it in,
and that we wouldn't have very much room, so I don't see how
this could have creeped up on anyone." Dale stated that the
homeowners live out of town, this is their request and this is what
they want. He said he cannot say when this came up. Jeremy
-ated that the fence was on the original application and staff had
deny it and let the contractor know that they would have to
. ply for a Zoning Variance.
Jerry Smith, 303 1st Street introduced himself. He asked Dale what
the fence was made out of. Dale stated 6' shadowbox. Jerry asked
Jeremy what the height requirement of fences around a pool.
Page 4 of 7
Public
Comment
Jeremy said 4'.
Rich Reichler of 2025 Beach Avenue introduced himself. He stated
"I am going to refer to Bosco Corp. and Todd Bosco and I am going
to show why he felt the need to do this." "He has a history of
violating the Land Development Regulations without actually
having to resort to variance requests, this may be done only
because of the owners' insistence, I'm not sure, case in point, 697
Beach Ave, formerly 117 7th St., Mr. Bosco helped the owner get a
side yard variance for this through lot property but was denied a
front yard variance for a fence, while I asked the City planner why
r.he owners were allowed to build a fence 20' into the front yard
setback and she replied that the previous owners had used the
western side of the original portion of the property for their child's
swingset and sandbox and therefore the front yard setback
requirement would not apply. The planner did not have the
authority to make this interpretation, only you and the commission
do, it remains an illegal fence. 437 Ocean, now under
construction, which is actually now 436 Beach Ave, this through lot
property is in obvious violation of at least two regulations. The 2
story private garage is located 5 feet into the front yard setback as
is a 6' fence, I had asked Mr. Griffin, unfortunately no longer here
with the City, about the illegality of the structure when its building
permit application was submitted, Mr. Griffin was aware that the
location of the proposed garage was not consistent with the law,
nce the permit was issued Mr. Griffin explained that he felt an
,obligation to sign the building permit because his planner had
`ven Bosco or the designer or the owner the impression that it
'ould be okay. Mr. Griffin did not have any obligation or the
authority to sign the permit knowing that it was in violation of the
law. The garage and fence remain illegal. In addition, the property
appears to be in violation of the impervious surface requirements.
The site plan for the property includes a 50% reduction in paver
area for the impervious surface area calculations. But there is no
evidence that any qualifying surfaces were actually used in the lot.
As far as 96 Ocean, this property is also in violation of the
impervious surface area requirements because they used the
andard paver system despite applying the non - applicable 50%
eduction for pervious pavers. I recommend first that the City
require that the builder and owner correct the violation as there is
PO variance allowed for this prior to issuance of any fence permit
er Certificate of Occupancy, if it has not already been issued. As for
the fencing request itself, the owner did not as required by code
show in his plans required setbacks and specifically the distance of
Ise proposed fence from the setbacks. The owner is only
Page 5 of 7
Board
Discussion
requesting "fence going into setback" he states that 5' extra would
allow an enjoyable living condition. Based on the application he
could give himself 10 ft. The application does not explain how a 4'
fence diminishes the use of the back yard compared to a 6' fence,
nor does he state what the circumstances concerning his corner
lot affects him disparately from the corner lots to his north and
west or any of the other thousands of corner lots in the City. Mr.
Hubsch has already stated why this application should be denied."
"As Ms. Simmons has already mentioned, Mr. Borders, the owner,
sn't even finished building this place, if a bigger, higher fenced
yard was important to him, he should have incorporated it into his
building plans. I recommend that the application be denied, and
again I ask the City to require the owner to install impervious
pavers or other pervious systems in order to be in compliance with
his building permit and the City Land Development Regulations.
Thank you."
Mr. Smith spoke again stating he doesn't understand why they
would "need" a 6' fence when a 4' fence would fill the requirement
in the community. Mr. Smiths opinion is that if you have a 3' fence
and then a 6' fence that it would be an "eyesore ". He walks by
there every day and says he doesn't think it would look very good.
le agrees that the variance should not be granted based on
njoyment.
Mr. Elmore votes to deny the variance because it is a self imposed
hardship. He recommends some shrubbery for privacy. Mr.
Elmore addressed Mr. Reichlers issue regarding impervious surface
calculations stating that he needs to take those issues up with the
Public Works, that is not something we address on this board. Mr.
Carper is the one who reviews the plans for impervious surface.
£" r. Reichler came back up and address Mr. Elmore stating "it is my
ipression that the building department does not actually check
the impervious surfaces, whether they have been constructed or
not, but my impression is that Mr. Carper does not either, because
its not part of the right of way and he only inspects the right of
way, driveways, etc., so I will follow up with Jeremy and make sure
that there is actually someone doing these inspections. Mr. Elmore
• "rrects Mr. Reichler and states that actually Mr. Carper does
ispect that as part of his site runoff, as he is in charge of
3tormwater runoff being the Director of Public Works, he looks at
every building application he reviews to ensure the impervious
surface calculations. Mr. Reichler says he has reviewed the plans
and he feels they would go over the 50% impervious calculations if
Page 6 of 7
they aren't using some type of pervious pavers that they are
getting credit for but that he will get with Jeremy and Rick Carper
to ensure that again someone is inspecting this. Dale with Bosco
stated that they have gotten with Mr. Carper and they have ground
water systems located on both of the properties.
Motion
Kelly Elmore made the motion to deny ZVAR -14- 00100014, Ms.
Simmons seconded the motion. It was denied 5 -0.
5. REPORTS.
A. Commercial Corridor Standards. Staff was asked to discuss taking away the flat
roof requirement. Jeremy Hubsch says staff would like a 1 month deferral, we
have been too busy to have the ability to do it. This will be deferred until next
month.
6. ADJOURNMENT - 6:42 PM
4e2 --N,Q 2
Br & . Paul, Chair
Page 7 of 7