1-17-12 Minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
J
s:
J
1 rj �}
2
3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5 January 17, 2012
6 1. CALL TO ORDER. — 6:10pm
7 Commencement of the meeting was delayed due to a sporting event taking place at Russell Park
8 and impacting the availability of parking. Vice Chair Kirk Hansen verified presence of a quorum
9 with the attendance of Jason Burgess, Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes and Brea Paul and called the
10 meeting to order at 6:10pm. Chair Chris Lambertson arrived at 6:42pm. Kelly Elmore and
11 Patrick Stratton were absent. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall and Building
12 Official Michael Griffin.
13 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES — DECEMBER 20, 2011.
14 Mr. Hansen called for a motion to approve the minutes of the December 20, 2011 meeting.
15 MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the December 20, 2011
16 meeting, as written. The motion was seconded by Ms. Paul, and carried by a vote of 4 -0.
17 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS.
18 There were no visitors in attendance.
19 4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business originally on the agenda, and the below
20 listed items was taken out of sequence and discussed at 6:45pm, after the conclusion of
21 public hearings for all New Business items, and only for the purpose of setting a date
22 for a special called public hearing to consider the application at a later date.
23 A. ZVAR -11- 00100065
24 APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad (owner)
25 ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue
26 REQUEST: Scheduling of a Special Meeting to consider an amendment to the
27 previously granted variance, due to a possible error in the submitted
28 survey.
29 Ms. Hall told the Board this application was received after closing of the agenda item
30 submittal period, and the applicant was notified that the next regularly scheduled meeting
31 would be on February 21, 2012. Because of a purported error in the survey (site plan)
32 originally submitted for building permits and the previous variance) a Stop Work Order has
33 been issued by the Building Department, and it is the applicant's desire to resolve the matter
34 well before the next regular meeting.
35 Property owner Carl Harkleroad addressed the Board and confirmed that a Stop Work Order
36 had been issued due to a discrepancy discovered between a newly certified survey and one
37 obtained at the time of purchase of the property. At that time, Mr. Harkleroad presented Ms.
Page 1 of 6
Minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
38 Hall with a copy of a survey that he stated was obtained at the time of purchase in 2010, and
39 Ms. Hall noted this on the submittal. Mr. Harkleroad continued that because the variance
40 granted last month was based upon what is not considered to be an erroneous survey, he is
41 seeking an amendment to that variance to ensure the legal conformity of property.
42 Ms. Hall explained several factors dictate the scheduling of such a special meeting. First and
43 foremost, there are statutory requirements for public notice. At a minimum, notice must be
44 posted on the property one week prior to any public hearing. Second, availability of facilities
45 must be confirmed. Ms. Hall displayed the booking calendar for the Commission Chamber,
46 and indicated that due to time required to prepare a staff report and get it to the Board for
47 review, give sufficient public notice, and accommodate the presidential primary election
48 scheduled for January 31", it looked like Wednesday February 1 s` would be the first possible
49 date for a special meeting. Board members reviewed the calendar, discussed their schedules
50 and concurred that a special called public hearing would be scheduled for February 1, 2012.
51 5. NEW BUSINESS.
52 A. ZVAR -12- 001000001
53 APPLICANT: Jennifer Lada
54 ADDRESS: 1224 Ocean Boulevard
55 REQUEST: Variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)f, reducing the required side yard
56 setback for an accessory structure (pergola) from five (5) feet to one
57 (1) foot; increasing the permitted area for an accessory structure
58 (pergola) from one hundred fifty (150) square feet to approximately
59 two - hundred twenty -five (225) square feet; increasing the maximum
60 height for an accessory structure (pergola) from twelve (12) feet to
61 fifteen (15) feet, within the Residential Single - Family (RS -2) Zoning
62 District on a property located at 1224 Ocean Boulevard.
63
64 Ms. Hall introduced the item and explained that this application came to the Board as the
65 result of Code Enforcement action regarding an accessory structure — a pergola — that had
66 been constructed to completion on the subject property without benefit of a building permit.
67 Planning staff was consulted on November 2, 2011 to determine compliance with the Land
68 Development Regulations. Upon review of photographs submitted by Code Enforcement and
69 a survey dated August 16, 2010 submitted by the property owner, staff estimated the area of
70 the pergola (excluding overhang of eaves) to be approximately two - hundred twenty -five
71 (225) square feet and the setback (including overhang of eaves) to be approximately one (1)
72 foot from the side lot line. Ms Hall said she was unable to determine the precise height of the
73 structure, but based upon estimations from the Building Official and the Building Inspector, it
74 appeared to be well in excess of the maximum height limit for such a structure. Having made
75 this determination, Ms. Hall advised Ms. Lada of her option to remove the structure, bring it
76 into compliance or apply for a variance.
77 Jennifer Lada, 1224 Ocean Boulevard, addressed the Board and confirmed she was unaware
78 of the building permit requirements when she constructed the pergola. However, she said that
79 she had received nothing but complements on the structure, and she presented the Board with
80 signatures of neighboring property owners who supported this variance request. Ms. Lada
81 also said that she had measured the height of the structure as one hundred forty-six (146)
82 inches, or just over the permitted twelve (12) foot maximum height, but she did not indicate if
83 this measure was taken from the interior or exterior.
84
Page 2 of 6
Minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
85 Mr. Hansen opened the floor to public comment and with there being none, closed that
86 portion of the hearing and brought the item back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Parkes
87 asked if Ms. Lada had employed a contractor, and she replied that her father and a friend had
88 built the structure. Ms. Lada also noted that upon receipt of the notice of violation from Code
89 Enforcement that she had spoken with Board member Chris Lambertson (not currently
90 present) to find out what she needed to do.
91 Mr. Hansen expressed frustration felt by all Board members in such a case, when something
92 is clearly an aesthetically pleasing and desirable amenity to property owners, but just as
93 clearly in contradiction to the provision of the code. Mr. Parkes reiterated that while he
94 thought the structure looked nice and realized neighbors did not object, it was not properly
95 located, and Ms. Paul concurred. Mr. Burgess added that the request was not a just a matter
96 of slight variance, but fairly substantial deviation from two of the three applicable standards.
97 He noted that while the height was probably negligible based upon information provided by
98 Ms. Lada earlier, the fifty (50) percent increase in area and the eighty (80) percent reduction
99 in setback were not.
100 Mr. Hansen said that the difficulty of the Board's deliberation was compounded by the fact
101 that the structure had already been constructed, and while it is hard to tell a property owner
102 that they will have to remove a structure, the Board also has a duty to uphold the processes
103 and provisions of the code that others have gone to lengths and expenses to ensure
104 compliance. And he reiterated that approval of something blatantly nonconforming to the
105 code, and with no reasonable grounds for approval consistent with Section 24 -64 would
106 likely open a Pandora's box of unjustifiable requests. With no further discussion from the
107 Board, Mr. Hansen called for a motion.
108 MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved to deny ZVAR -12- 00100001, request for a variance from
109 Section 24- 151(b)(1)f, reducing the required side yard setback for an accessory structure
110 (pergola) from five (5) feet to one (1) foot, and increasing the permitted area for an accessory
111 structure (pergola) from one hundred fifty (150) square feet to approximately two hundred
112 twenty -five (225) square feet, on a property located within the Residential Single Family
113 (RS -2) Zoning District at 1224 Ocean Boulevard, finding that though the structure was
114 aesthetically pleasing and non - objectionable to adjacent property owners, none of the specific
115 grounds for approval of a variance as provided in Section 24 -64 of the Land Development
116 Regulations were met, nor were there any extenuating circumstances justifying the
117 noncompliance with development regulations or failure to obtain a building permit. The
118 motion, seconded by Ms. Paul, carried unanimously, 4 -0.
119 B. UBE -12- 00100005
120 APPLICANT: CARBUYERLINK.COM LLC DBA Beachside Ride, Dominic Jacobellis
121 ADDRESS: 1800 Mayport Road, Suite 12*
122 REQUEST: Request for a use -by- exception to sell used automobile, including
123 pre -sale servicing and conditioning of automobiles but no heavy
124 automotive repair or body work, as is consistent with Section 24
125 111(c)(10), within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on
126 a property located at 1800 Mayport Road, Suite 12.
127 Ms. Hall noted that the address as provided on the application is 1800 Mayport Road, Suite
128 12, but the main address of the subject property, according to the Duval County Property
129 Appraiser's Office, is 1830 Mayport Road, though there are multiple units located on the
Page 3 of 6
Minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
130 particular property, and the several other adjacent parcels are also owned by the same
131 property owner.
132 Ms. Hall provided an overview of automotive - related uses historically found within this area
133 of the Mayport Road corridor, and confirmed that the area had been classified as "commercial
134 intensive" a number of years ago. She explained that more recently, the City Commission has
135 expressed a desire to move away from those more intensive uses, even going so far as to
136 adopt Ordinance No. 90 -06 -197 on December 11, 2006, completely prohibiting heavy
137 automotive repair from the CG zone. Ms. Hall provided the definition of heavy automotive
138 repair as "the rebuilding or reconditioning of motor vehicles or parts thereof, including
139 collision service, painting and steam cleaning of vehicles ", and added that minor automotive
140 repair — such as oil changes, brake service, tire repair and /or replacement — with accessory car
141 washes, is still a permitted use per Section 24- 111(b)(9). Similarly, the sale of new and used
142 automobiles is still a permitted use -by- exception within the CG zoning district, per Section
143 24- 111(c)(10) and with the approval of the City Commission.
144 Ms. Hall then provided a brief history of applications for similar use by exceptions that have
145 come before the Community Development Board for recommendation for approval over the
146 last ten years. Of those, she noted prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 90 -06 -197, three
147 requests for heavy repair and/or body work, one request for used sales and three request for
148 sales and service were approved. One application for used automotive sales only was denied
149 in October 2005. Since 2007, there have only been two requests, both being for used sales
150 only, with one application being withdrawn by the applicant and the other being approved but
151 limited to a two year period. That approval was for the parcel immediately to the north of the
152 property subject to this request, and the rationale behind the time limit was to allow an
153 opportunity for economic recovery as the applicants had expressed a desire to eventually
154 redevelop the property for less intensive retail uses.
155 Dominic Jacobellis, owner of Carbuyerlink.com, LLC, addressed the Board regarding his
156 request, stating that he is licensed, insured and bonded as an automotive dealer, and that he
157 has operated his business from a Westside location on Cassat Avenue for a year, but he wishes
158 to relocate to Atlantic Beach. He said he is targeting a clientele consisting of navy personnel
159 and professionals with expendable cash and a desire to own upper end models. He said he
160 anticipates ten to twelve later -model vehicles, typically with no more than 80,000 miles, will
161 be kept on site, and services will not exceed the definition of minor automotive repair,
162 consisting of primarily pre -sale conditioning, such as oil changes, tire replacement and
163 detailing. Mr. Jacobellis reiterated that it was his goal to acquire and sale automobiles that
164 are already in good condition, because anything more involved than a minor repair was not
165 profitable, and it was his desire to provide good, clean and reliable transportation at an
166 affordable price.
167 Mr. Hansen asked what the hours of operation would be, and Mr. Jacobellis responded that
168 this was a family business, to be run primarily by him and his father. Most showings will be
169 by appointment and at no time does he anticipate hours to extend beyond dusk, primarily
170 because he wishes to be at home spending time with his family, but also because there is a
171 lack of outdoor lighting on the premises. Mr. Hansen opened the hearing for public
172 comment.
173 Melvin Petiet, 1059 Mimosa Court, spoke to the Board regarding a similar situation in
174 Springfield (downtown Jacksonville) in which the local governing board decided to prohibit
175 automotive - related uses. He said in time, other uses such as coffee shops and restaurants
Page 4 of 6
Minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
176 began to leave because they had counted amongst their patrons not only the patrons of the
177 automotive businesses, but also their employees. He added that once the providers of such
178 basic goods and services depart, it is not long before residents also leave and serious crime
179 moves in.
180 With no additional comment from the public, Mr. Hansen closed that portion of the hearing
181 and invited questions from the Board. Ms. Paul agreed with the points made by Mr. Petiet
182 and said that such business serve a vital function for the community, and Mr. Parkes agreed
183 the proposed business is typical of Mayport Road.
184 [Chris Lambertson arrived at 6:42pm]
185 Mr. Hansen said that given current economic conditions and the uncertainty of what is going
186 to happen locally [regarding NS Mayport], he was hesitant to place a time limit on a business,
187 but would prefer to stipulate a two -year compliance review. With no additional questions
188 from the Board and no further discussion, Mr. Hansen called for a motion.
189 MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval
190 of UBE -12- 00100005, request for a use -by- exception to sell used automobiles within the
191 Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on a property located at 1800 Mayport Road, Suite
192 12, finding that such use is consistent with provisions of Section 24- 111(c)(10), and that the
193 proposed pre -sale servicing and conditioning of automobiles is consistent with the definition
194 of minor automotive repair, as permitted by right, by Section 24- 111(b)(9). The motion,
195 seconded by Mr. Burgess, carried unanimously, 5 -0. Ms. Hall informed Mr. Jacobellis that
196 the Board's recommendation would now be forwarded to the City Commission for final
197 action, and that she would contact him with information regarding that meeting within a
198 couple of days.
199 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
200 A. Land Development Regulations addressing minimum accessory structure separation.
201
202 Ms. Hall provided Board members with examples of minimum required separation between
203 accessory structures within other municipalities, as requested at the December meeting. She
204 said of the approximately twenty municipalities she had looked at, eleven specified some sort
205 of separation. Most required a minimum of ten (10) feet separation between an accessory
206 structure and any other structure, while several differentiated by building type, requiring ten
207 (10) feet in accessory- principal scenarios and six (6) feet in accessory- accessory scenarios.
208 And there were outliers, such as Coconut Creek, that required twenty -five (25) feet between
209 accessories and principal buildings in residential zones.
210
211 Mr. Lambertson noted that neither Neptune Beach nor Jacksonville Beach were included in
212 the list of municipalities looked at, and asked what the requirements were for those cities.
213 Ms. Hall replied that she had not completed her research and had not had time to look into
214 Neptune Beach, but had checked both Jacksonville and Jacksonville Beach, and neither of
215 those cities specified a minimum separation. Mr. Parkes agreed that he was unaware of any
216 minimum required separation in either. He added that, as discussed at the time the minimum
217 separation requirement was removed from the Atlantic Beach code a couple of years ago, he
218 felt ten (10) feet was too much, especially on the typical lot, which is small by most
219 standards, and he did not support returning to that dimension. Other Board members
220 generally concurred, expressing the need for some dimension that clearly indicated separation
Page 5 of 6
Minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
221 and detachment, but that was not so great as to limit property owner's potential to develop
222 their property with permissible accessory structures. The Board agreed that given the typical
223 lot in Atlantic Beach, a minimum required separation of six (6) feet between structures of all
224 types should be sufficient.
225
226 Ms. Hall noted that several codes included language to the effect that structures located closer
227 than the required minimum separation would be considered as attached, and therefore would
228 be required to meet the minimum yard setbacks for the principal or larger structure type. For
229 instance, if the minimum required separation was six (6) feet, and a garage was constructed
230 only four (4) feet from the principal structure, then by definition, that garage would be
231 considered attached and part of the principal structure, and therefore would have to meet a
232 twenty (20) foot rear yard setback, as opposed to a ten (10) foot setback for a two -story
233 garage, or a five (5) foot setback for a one -story garage.
234
235 Mr. Lambertson asked that staff move forward with a draft of such a provision and bring it
236 back to the Board for review and recommendation to the City Commission.
237
238 7. ADJOURNMENT — 7:10 PM
239 /
240 _
241 Chris Lambertson, Chairman
242
243
244 644 -$11-a--2
245 Attest
Page 6 of 6