2007-11-20 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of the November 20, 2007 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
November 20, 2007
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 7:OSpm on Tuesday,
November 20, 2007 in the Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach.
In attendance were, David Boyer, Craig Burkhart, Lynn Drysdale, Chris Lambertson, Sam Jacobson,
Joshua Putterman, and Staff Planner Erika Hall. The seat previously held by Carolyn Woods is
currently vacant.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Sam Jacobson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Mr.
Burkhart led the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. There were no visitors present who wished to speak.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Motion to approve the minutes of August 21, 2007 meeting by
Craig Burkhart; seconded by Joshua Putterman; no further discussion; vote was unanimous.
4. OLD BUSINESS. None
5. NEW BUSINESS.
Item 5.a. ZVAR-2007-07 and P1atRev-2007-01, Prinz. Request for a Zoning Variance to
reduce the 7.5-foot side yard setback to 5-feet and the 20-foot front setback to 17-feet on a lot
at 483 Whiting Lane; and, request for revision to Unit Two-A of the Royal Palms Subdivision
to remove the 25-foot front ulatted Building Restriction Line and anuly only the standard
residential 20-foot front yard zoning setback to all lots within Unit Two-A.
Gus Prinz, 468 Whiting Lane, applicant and owner of the subject property explained to the Board
that he had purchased the property at 483 Whiting approximately two months prior, with intentions
to renovate the home for his family. He stated that the home was typical of those found throughout
the neighborhood, in that it was positioned in the center of the lot. As a result, an addition is nearly
impossible without encroachment into setbacks. Thus, in order to improve the existing structure, Mr.
Prinz stated that he was seeking the variances as noted on his application. Additionally, Mr. Prinz
noted that Whiting Lane is a 60-foot wide right-of--way. However, the actual pavement is only 20-
feet wide, meaning that there is approximately 20-feet of unpaved right-of--way in front of each lot,
in addition to the required front yard setback and/or existing building restriction lines.
Mr. Prinz told the Board that he recently renovated the home located at 462 Whiting Lane, where his
family currently resides, and he invited the Board to come by and look at the quality of his work. He
stated that the renovations he was proposing for 483 Whiting Lane would benefit both the individual
property as well as the entire neighborhood. Mr. Jacobson responded that he had been by and looked
at the house at 462 Whiting Lane. He commended Mr. Prinz for doing such a nice job.
Page 1 of 5
Minutes of the November 20, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting
Mr. Boyer noted that some demolition had begun. Mr. Prinz acknowledged that he had already
started removing interior walls. Mr. Putterman asked how wide the garage was going to be. Mr.
Prinz noted that Mr. Putterman was looking at the plan submitted with his original application and he
told the Board that the plan had since been revised. He then passed out large format copies of the
plan for the Board to review. Mr. Boyer asked Mr. Prinz to point out the location of the front of the
existing house.
Mr. Jacobson noted the 25-foot Building Restriction Line (BRL), and asked as to the significance of
this. Mr. Burkhart stated that 25-to-30-foot BRLs were common during the time that the Royal
Palms Subdivision was platted. Mr. Jacobson then asked if the Board had the authority to remove
BRLs. Ms. Hall explained that removal of the 25-foot BRL was not the same as abandoning a plat
or re-platting a subdivision, in that lots were not reconfigured and ownership was not affected.
Instead, removal of the 25-foot BRL would allow property owners additional space for renovations
and additions that might bring new life to the neighborhood. Mr. Boyer asked if this had been
advertised. Ms. Hall replied that yes, Public Hearing signs had been posted around the
neighborhood and in front of Mr. Prinz's property. Mr. Jacobson said that he realized that nothing
was being taken away from property owners by such action, and in fact, they would potentially
benefit from increased use of their respective properties. However, he would feel more comfortable
if each property owner was notified that such action was being considered, so that they would have
adequate opportunity to offer input. Mr. Boyer and Mr. Burkhart agreed. Ms. Hall stated that there
are 418 parcels in Unit Two-A.
Mr. Boyer noted that Mr. Prinz's plan includes a rather large "office" and inquired whether or not
such a use was permitted in residential districts. Mr. Lambertson stated that home offices are
permitted in residential areas, but that activities exceeding intensity of a normal home office require
additional approvals [Section 24-159. Home Occupations]. Mr. Prinz responded that the label
"office" was misleading, and that the room was actually going to be the family room.
Ms. Drysdale recommended that clarification be made as to what is being sought.
Mr. Jacobson stated that the Board was being asked to consider three separate actions: (1) a variance
for side yard setback, from 7.5-feet to 5-feet, and a variance for front yard setback, from 20-feet to
17-feet, for the property located at 483 Whiting Lane; (2) a waiver of the front BRL for the property
located at 483 Whiting Lane; and (3) removal of the platted front BRL for all of Unit Two-A. Mr.
Jacobson then asked if there were any comments or discussion for the first item.
Mr. Boyer noted that there seemed to be some discrepancies between the application, the two plans
submitted, and what was described in the Staff Report. Ms. Hall explained that Mr. Prinz had
submitted an application accompanied by a plan with dimensions based upon what he thought was a
30-foot BRL. Upon conferral with the Planning Department, Mr. Prinz confirmed that the BRL was
actually 25-feet. The Planning Department also provided some clarification as to width of pavement
versus the platted right-of--way for Mr. Prinz. He then submitted a new application based upon the
confirmed numbers. Several days afterwards, Mr. Prinz submitted a revised plan that depicted
reconfiguration of the layout. Mr. Lambertson noted that the revised plan was actually less intrusive
into setbacks than the original, and thus there was really no need for either the Staff Report or the
application to be revised again.
Mr. Boyer, noting several previous cases that had come before the Community Development Board,
stated that he did not think that the Board was getting enough information. He expressed concern
Page 2 of 5
Minutes of the November 20, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting
over potential enforcement issues with multiple applications, multiple plans, and discrepancies
evident from one document to the next. He questioned how anyone [at a later date] was to know
what was approved, and how it could be enforced. Mr. Burkhart pointed out to Mr. Boyer that all
documents are date-stamped when received by the Building and Planning Departments. Ms.
Drysdale stated that there should be no question as long as the Board made very clear in the record
what was being approved. She stated that the record should reflect conditions and/or limitations and
document versions upon which approvals are based.
MOTION: Lynn Drysdale made a motion to approve the request for variance, based upon the
plan presented at this meeting and previously submitted [stamped "Received November S,
2007"] in support of this application, reducing the side yard setback from 7.5-feet to 5-feet, and
reducing the front yard setback from 20-feet to 19-feet. Additionally, relief from the 25-foot
Building Restriction Line should be granted for this property only. Chris Lambertson noted
that this motion locked the applicant into this plan, and he asked Mr. Prinz to please confirm
that the last-submitted plan was indeed what he wanted to do, to which Mr. Prinz replied yes.
Chris Lambertson seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Jacobson noted that
the Board was not adverse to removal of the 25-foot Building Restriction Line, and that they
certainly saw the benefit of doing so in that it might encourage much-needed residential
redevelopment in the area. However, it was the consensus of the Board to obtain confirmation
that they had such authority, as well as make sure that all affected property owners had
adequate notice and opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
Item S.b. UBE-2007-05, Benny's Car Comnany. Recommendation to the City Commission
related to a Use-bv-Exception to allow used car sales in the Commercial General (CG) Zoning
District at an existing site located at 1850 Mayport Road.
Ben Erhayel, 20 Donner Road, applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Erhayel explained that he
intends to redevelop the subject property as a shopping center whenever market conditions improve.
In the meantime, he is seeking a temporary Use-by-Exception for used car sales on the property,
allowing him to keep his current employees on payroll. Mr. Erhayel noted similar auto repair and
sales uses surrounding the property.
Mr. Jacobson asked whose car lot this would be. Mr. Erhayel replied that he held the business
license.
MOTION: Craig Burkhart made a motion to forward the request for approval of a temporary
Use-by-Exception to the City Commission, with the condition as recommended by staff
limiting this Use-by-Exception to a two-year time period.
Mr. Jacobson asked if there would be any signs, landscaping or other on-site improvements. Mr.
Erhayel replied that the site would remain as is -that the purpose was earn enough to hold the
property until it was feasible to redevelop as a shopping center. Mr. Burkhart stated that signs would
have to meet current code, and that a permit would have to be obtained.
Mr. Jacobson then asked Mr. Erhayel to elaborate on his parking plan and hours of operation. Mr.
Erhayel directed the Board to Exhibit C that showed access, customer parking and vehicle display.
He said that hours of operation would probably be Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM and
Page 3 of 5
Minutes of the November 20, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting
half a day on Saturdays, probably 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Mr. Jacobson asked if any mechanical
work would be done on-site, to which Mr. Erhayel replied no, only minor maintenance such as oil
changes.
Mr. Boyer asked what was located at 1852 Mayport Road. Mr. Erhayel stated that warehouses, auto
mechanic shops, and auto body/paint shops occupied the adjacent properties.
Mr. Jacobson made the recommendation that, if approved, this Use-by-Exception should have
the following additional conditions:
(1) limitation of 15 for-sale cars on premises at any time;
(2) no auto service or mechanical repairs on premises; and
(3) no auto-body work on premises.
Mr. Burkhart amended his original motion to include these three conditions. Mr. Boyer
seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Item Sc. fNOT ON AGENDAI Discussion of application process, board review, enforcement
of approved items.
Mr. Boyer expressed concern over enforcement of cases approved by the Board. He stated that there
are several cases where the Board has approved one thing, but something entirely different has
appeared "on the ground". He reiterated his earlier thought that the Board does not get enough
information. In particular, he spoke about the structure going in at 880 Mayport Road (Advantage
Plumbing). The owner/applicant appeared before the Board earlier this summer for aUse-by-
Exception for a plumbing contractor. However, Mr. Boyer stated, he was that this would be a two-
story metal building. He asked if this was permissible according to the Commercial Corridor
standards. Ms. Hall replied that the building permit application had gone through the normal Plan
Review channels: Building, Planning, Public Works, etc. She stated that the finished building
would meet the requirements of the Commercial Corridor standards, including anon-metal facade,
architectural details and landscaping. However, the applicant had only just gotten the permit
approximately two weeks prior, and Ms. Hall reminded the Board that it took time to get everything
in place. What is on the ground at the time of final inspection by the Building Inspector or Official
must correspond to what is on the approved plan, though. Mr. Boyer asked that the Board be
provided with a copy of the plan approved as part of the building permit application for 880
Mayport, as well as a copy of the minutes from the approval of the UBE.
Similarly, Mr. Boyer noted that the Board had approved a variance for 1969 Beach Avenue. The
plans submitted to the board showed an overhang or cantilevered upper level, with no improvements
on the ground floor. However, as built, there is a support that comes down to the ground. He asked
that the Board also be provided with a copy of the plan approved as part of the building permit
application for 1969 Beach Avenue, as well as a copy of the minute from the approval for the
variance.
Page 4 of 5
Minutes of the November 20, 2007 Community Development Board Meeting
Mr. Lambertson disagreed that the Board needs to request more details across the board. He stated
that there needs to be "reasonable" information and detail, and if, upon review, the Board finds that
it is not comfortable making a decision, it is their prerogative to ask for more information or more
details. However, it is unreasonable to put the expense of highly detailed plans on property owners
without any guarantee of approval. Mr. Lambertson echoed earlier statement that motions must
include all restrictions, limitations and/or conditions that the Board deems necessary. Mr. Burkhart
noted that submittal requirements are specifically delineated in Chapter 24, and that the Department
of Community Development does not have an enforcement arm, and must rely upon the Building
Official to ensure compliance.
Mr. Jacobson concurred that these were legitimate concerns and counter-concerns. He asked that
this be put on the agenda for further discussion. In the mean time, he asked the Board to examine
current submittal requirements and procedures for application review, and he asked staff to think
about ways in which the system might be improved.
Board members also inquired as to the unfilled seat previously held by Carolyn Woods, and
upcoming end-of-terms. Ms. Hall stated that she did not have information on the terms with her, but
that she would make sure a copy was included in the next month's packet.
6. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Sam Jacobson adjourned the meeting at 8:20pm upon a motion
made by Craig Burkhart, seconded by Joshua Putterman. The next regular meeting is scheduled
for December 18, 2007.
ig ed:
T
1~~~ ~ ~
Date:
Page 5 of S