Loading...
3-20-12 Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 1, �,S :r ��. "> ss i J y r t3 )� 1 2 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 March 20, 2012 6 1. CALL TO ORDER. — 6:OOpm 7 Vice -Chair Kirk Hansen verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, 8 Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton, and Brea Paul and called the meeting 9 to order at 6:OOpm. Chair Chris Lambertson joined the meeting at 6:05pm. Also in attendance 10 were Principal Planner Erika Hall, Redevelopment Coordinator Susan Cohn, Building Official 11 Michael Griffin, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. 12 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES — FEBRUARY 1, 2012. 13 Mr. Hansen called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2012 special meeting. 14 Ms. Paul said that she had one correction to request, stating that there was a typographical error in 15 line 15 of page 1, in which "Ms. Burgess" should read "Mr. Burgess ". Ms. Hall noted the 16 correction. 17 MOTION: Mr. Elmore moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the February 1, 2012 special 18 meeting, with the correction of Line 15, Page 1, as discussed. The motion was seconded by Mr. 19 Burgess, and carried by a vote of 6 -0. 20 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. 21 Ms. Hall introduced new Redevelopment Coordinator Susan Cohn to the Board. 22 4. OLD BUSINESS. None. 23 5. NEW BUSINESS. 24 A. UBEX -12- 00100007 25 APPLICANT: Brown dba Beaches Custom Auto Repair 26 ADDRESS: 980 Mayport Road 27 REQUEST: Request for (1) use -by- exception to operate an automotive leasing 28 establishment, and (2) use -by- exception to operate a used automotive 29 sales establishment, both of which are consistent with Section 24- 30 111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the 31 Commercial General (CG) zoning district on a property located at 980 32 Mayport Road 33 34 Ms. Hall introduced the application and explained the applicant, Joan Brown, currently 35 operates Beaches Custom Auto Repair, offering automotive servicing, minor repairs and 36 detailing on the subject property. However, Ms. Brown has recently secured a Penske Truck 37 Leasing franchise and wishes to operate that business from the same location, and she has 38 indicated that she is in the process of obtaining a dealer's license and would also like to 39 operate a small used car dealership there. Page 1 of 8 Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 40 Ms. Hall noted that both automotive sales and leasing establishments are listed as permissible 41 uses -by- exception, according to Section 24- 111(c)(10), so long as they are found to be 42 consistent with the commercial intensity, and compatible with other commercial and 43 residential uses in the vicinity. City archives indicate the subject property has at least a thirty - 44 year history of automotive uses including sales and repairs. 45 Applicant Joan Brown addressed the Board and explained how her current uses and intended 46 uses are complimentary and address a need of the transient military community. She 47 described the current layout of the lot, including improvements already made and the 48 intended location of the proposed uses. She noted that Penske trucks are well maintained, 49 both mechanically and in appearance, and that other than one or two smaller trucks parked 50 south of the building, all others would be parked to the rear of the lot. 51 Mr. Lambertson thanked Ms. Brown for her comments and opened the hearing to public 52 comment. With there being none, he closed that portion of the hearing and opened discussion 53 to the Board. Mr. Lambertson asked what the current business was, to which Ms. Brown 54 replied minor repair and service, and detailing. 55 Building Official Michael Griffin asked if Ms. Brown could provide clarification on her plan, 56 stating that he believed all detailing should be within an enclosed building or at the rear of the 57 property and behind some sort of opaque privacy fence. Ms. Brown reviewed the submitted 58 sketch, noting that detailing activities are currently located in the front (northeast) corner of 59 the property, adding that she was not committed to the site plan as submitted, but was flexible 60 and intended to fully comply with whatever needed to be done. 61 Mr. Griffin then referred to an area on the site plan designated for five used car sales, and said 62 this should be the maximum number allowed. Ms. Brown replied that there would probably 63 be only two to three at any given time, due to her desire to keep overhead low, but there 64 might be times when four or five were available. 65 Mr. Griffin inquired about the area(s) designated for Penske truck parking, noting the 66 applicant showed three small trucks to be parked at the southeast of the building. He asked 67 about the size of those trucks, to which Ms. Brown responded they were 12' -16', and she 68 planned to park one or two alongside the building to increase visibility so that patrons could 69 easily find the location for rental pick -ups and returns, but the remainder would be parked to 70 the rear of the lot. Mr. Griffin responded that he would agree to there being one small truck 71 parked in the front area adjacent to the building. 72 Mr. Lambertson suggested that the restrictions just stipulated by Mr. Griffin warranted 73 another solicitation of public comment, but with there being none, he once again returned the 74 discussion to the Board. 75 Mr. Burgess asked if Ms. Brown had an automotive sales license. Ms. Brown replied that she 76 had been studying for the required class and exam. However she said she had not yet 77 registered primarily because she is committed to operating her existing business at this 78 location, and she did not want to invest a great deal of money into something that would not 79 be approved. 80 Mr. Elmore noted the on -site billboard and asked if the applicant received income from 81 leasing the billboard, and Ms. Brown replied that the owner, Ray Corbin, did. Mr. Elmore 82 then inquired about on -site improvements, and Ms. Brown explained that she had done some Page 2 of 8 Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 83 planting, both in ground and in moveable pots, and that she plans to put in a groundcover 84 along the street -side boundaries, such as a low -lying lantana. Mr. Elmore recommended a 85 low shrub that would better define the edge, and he suggested display of vehicles for sale in 86 the northeast corner, nearest the intersection of Mayport Road and West 10 Street, would 87 result in the best visibility. 88 Mr. Parkes said that he supported sprucing up the property, but asked if it was reasonable to 89 come up with a guideline applicable to just one merchant when the City is about to undertake 90 a review of uses which would include development standards particular to a use. Mr. Burgess 91 agreed, noting the applicant would likely have to come into compliance with a new set of 92 guidelines or regulations in a year. Mr. Parkes remarked it would be better to make 93 suggestions as to improvements, but make compliance contingent upon the outcome of the 94 impending use review. 95 Mr. Stratton asked for clarification as to the impact the automotive sales moratorium enacted 96 on March 12 would have on this application. Ms. Hall responded that the moratorium 97 resolution contained specific language that exempted any application that was already in- 98 process, and Ms. Brown's application pre -dated the moratorium by more than one month, and 99 would have been considered at the February meeting of the Community Development Board, 100 but it was cancelled due to lack of quorum. Mr. Lambertson called for a motion regarding the 101 request for automotive leasing. 102 MOTION: Mr. Burgess moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval 103 of the request for a use -by- exception to allow the operation of an automotive leasing 104 establishment as is consistent with Section 24- 111(c)(10) of the Land Development 105 Regulations, within the Commercial General zoning district on a property located at 980 106 Mayport Road, and subject to the following conditions: (#1) No more than one (1) small 107 Penske truck shall be parked to the south - southeast of the existing building, being the front of 108 the lot facing Mayport Road, while all others are to be parked towards the rear of the lot. ( #2) 109 Detailing activities shall be located to the rear of the lot. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. 110 Mr. Lambertson asked if Mr. Burgess and Mr. Hansen had intended to include the 111 landscaping and screening conditions as discussed as, and Mr. Burgess stated that he had 112 purposely excluded those conditions from this motion, and Mr. Hansen concurred. With there 113 being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously, 7 -0. 114 Mr. Lambertson then called for a motion regarding the request for automotive sales. 115 MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval 116 of the request for a use -by- exception to allow the operation of a used automotive sales 117 establishment as is consistent with Section 24- 111(c)(10) of the Land Development 118 Regulations, within the Commercial General zoning district on a property located at 980 119 Mayport Road, and subject to the site plan, as discussed and verbally agreed to by the 120 applicant, and the following conditions: ( #1) The number of used automobiles maintained 121 on -site for sale shall be limited to a maximum of five (5); ( #2) Used automobiles maintained 122 on -site for sale shall be parked / displayed in the northeast corner of the property, nearest the 123 intersection of Mayport Road and West 10 Street; ( #3) Customer parking shall be located 124 along the south property line, to the east of the existing building; ( #4) Detailing activities 125 shall be located to the rear of the lot. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. There was discussion 126 as to whether or not landscaping requirements should be specified, and again finding that this 127 issue was up for address by the City Commission, and any additional requirements not 128 already specified could be deemed as arbitrarily applied to the applicant, it was the consensus Page 3 of 8 Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 129 of the Board to not included specific landscape requirements as a condition of this 130 recommendation. Rather, as stated by Mr. Elmore, Board members agreed that whatever 131 development and design guidelines were adopted by the Commission in the near future would 132 be applicable to all merchants along Mayport Corridor, and all would have to demonstrate 133 compliance within a given length of time. With there being no further discussion, the motion 134 carried unanimously, 7 -0. 135 B. ZVAR -12- 00100010 136 APPLICANT: Franklin for Harkleroad 137 ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue 138 REQUEST: Request for (1) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d to allow a single 139 detached accessory structure of approximately 872 square feet in lieu 140 of the 600 square foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 141 151(b)(1)d &e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the 142 southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached 143 garage, from five (5) feet to three and one -tenth (3.1) feet, with such 144 portion being limited in height to fifteen (1 5) feet; and, (3) variance 145 from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d &e to reduce the required minimum rear 146 yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure from 147 ten (10) feet to four and seven - tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be 148 limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage 149 (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor, all within 150 the Residential, Single- Family (RS -2) zoning district on a property 151 located at 2019 Beach Avenue . 152 Mr. Lambertson disclosed that Mr. Tim Franklin, who would be representing Mr. Harkleroad 153 in this matter, has done work in the past, and is currently doing work for Mr. Lambertson. 154 Also, Mr. Lambertson said he did receive a call from Mr. Franklin to discuss the prior 155 variance application(s) of Mr. Harkleroad. Mr. Lambertson stated that he has no financial 156 interest in the Harkleroad request, but he requested the opinion of City Attorney Alan Jensen 157 regarding his need to recuse himself. Mr. Jensen said there was no need to do so. 158 Ms. Hall provided a summary of the events leading up to this variance request, and then 159 described the proposed actions of the applicant as follows: (1) The connection that had been 160 made between the original primary structure and the original one -story, two -car garage would 161 be removed, and the area that formerly served as a breezeway between the two would be 162 restored. This would effectively return the primary structure to compliance with required rear 163 yard setbacks; (2) The original one -story, two -car garage which had been re- oriented from a 164 southern entry to a western entry, and increased from a one -story structure to a two -story 165 structure would remain as currently constructed, minus the connection to the principal 166 structure. As constructed, the southwest corner of this structure is four and seven - tenths (4.7) 167 feet from the rear property line, and thus requires a variance of five and three - tenths (5.3) feet 168 from the required rear yard setback for a detached accessory structure limited to twenty -five 169 (25) feet in height; (3) The new two -story, one -car garage constructed to the south of the 170 original garage would remain, but be reduced to one -story. As constructed, the southwest 171 corner of this structure is three and one -tenth (3.1) feet from the rear property line, and thus 172 requires a variance of one and nine - tenths (1.9) feet from the required rear yard setback for a 173 detached accessory structure limited to fifteen (15) feet in height; and, (4) The two garage 174 structures would be a connected on the lower level, making them into a single detached 175 accessory with a combined area of approximately eight hundred seventy -two (872) square 176 feet, in excess of six hundred (600) square -foot maximum footprint allowed for a single Page 4 of 8 Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 177 detached accessory structure, and thus requiring a variance of two- hundred seventy -two (272) 178 square feet. Ms. Hall further explained that the previous variances requested by the 179 Harkleroads were specific to required rear yard setbacks of the principal structure, whereas 180 this request was specific to the required rear yard setbacks of the detached accessory 181 structure(s), and thus this application was substantially different, and clearly met the 182 requirements for hearing by the Board. 183 Tim Franklin, attorney with the Law Office of Daniel M Copeland, addressed the Board on 184 behalf of the Harkleroads, reiterating this was a new hearing for a new, much less intensive 185 request based upon the removal of the connection between the principal and accessory 186 structures, and revision of the roof line with the removal of the second story of the one -car 187 garage. Mr. Franklin emphasized the minimal relief requested compared to the degree of 188 hardship suffered by his clients, as he presented the Board with a diagram showing the 189 intersection of the required rear yard setback lines applicable to each portion of the accessory 190 structure(s), and noted that if each portion of the accessory was treated individually, then 191 approximately eighty -five (85) percent of the two -car garage, and ninety -five (95) percent of 192 the one -car garage would be in compliance. 193 Mr. Franklin then addressed the nature of the hardship. While the narrative submitted in 194 support of this request had claimed Section 24- 64(d)(2) — "surrounding conditions or 195 circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in 196 the area" — and Section 24- 64(d)(3) — "exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable 197 use of the property as compared to other properties in the area ", Mr. Franklin acknowledged 198 staff's response that the principal structure and detached accessory structure, as they existed 199 prior to purchase by the Harkleroads, were comparable in size and utilization to others in the 200 vicinity, and therefore there was a record of "reasonable use" of the property. He then 201 pointed out that staff did recognize Section 24- 64(d)(4) — "onerous effect of regulations 202 enacted after platting or after development of property or after construction of improvements 203 of property" — as possibly being a valid justification of the requested variance(s), though not 204 for the same reasons as put forth in the application. While Mr. Franklin had pointed to the 205 imposition of the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), which essentially 206 pushes all construction westward on oceanfront lots, and the irregularity of Beach Avenue, 207 which was originally platted as a narrow alley, he noted that staff had proposed that it was the 208 onerous effect of the required rear yard setbacks that had become applicable to the detached 209 accessory structure(s) only upon the identification of the survey error, and after the 210 construction of the improvements was well underway that might justify approval of this 211 variance request. Either way, he said the survey error exacerbated existing parameters. 212 Mr. Franklin contended that he did not see the granting of this request as precedent- setting, 213 due to the unique set of circumstances. He also clarified that while staff had cited sections of 214 code regarding the Community Development Board and the Building Official's ability to 215 revoke development orders and building permits, this was merely explanatory and not a 216 statement of malfeasance on the part of the Harkleroads. He continued, explaining that the 217 resultant hardship was not self - created, but self - financed. The Harkleroads had not taken 218 intentional reckless action, subsequently asking for forgiveness rather than permission, but 219 instead had been the victims of an erroneous survey. In response to calls to pursue a lawsuit 220 against the surveyor, he said there is a world of difference between filing a suit and collecting 221 on it. The surveyor must be insured, and the insurer must be solvent, and in the interim, the 222 surveyor could fold and dissolve. On the other hand, though, the authority of this Board to 223 grant a variance is the last stop -gap measure to determine whether regulations are preventing 224 the applicants from legitimately enjoying their property. With this request, the Harkleroads Page 5 of 8 Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 225 offer a compromise, and reiterate the City was just as guilty of relying upon the erroneous 226 survey in the prior issuance of building permits and a variance. 227 Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment. 228 Kathleen Russell (2117 Beach Avenue) spoke in objection to the requested variance, stating 229 that the applicant should look to the surveyor for remedy rather than seeking concessions 230 from the City. She noted the applicant had made a substantial investment in a property that 231 already consisted of ample facilities, and therefore neither Section 24- 64(d)(3) or (4) were 232 applicable. She stated that she felt the applicants' hardship was self - created in that it was 233 their duty to perform due - diligence, and upon signing the applications for both building 234 permits and variances, the applicant was certifying that all information submitted was correct 235 and accurate, thereby releasing the City from any responsibility. She concluded by stating 236 that the granting of this variance would have material adverse impacts on the surrounding 237 properties and sends a clear message that it is alright to circumvent local regulations, and ask 238 for forgiveness if caught. Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Russell where she lived in relation to 239 the subject property, and she said that she lived to the north, at the end of Beach Avenue. 240 Jessalyn Dattilo (1983 Beach Avenue) said that she had been a resident of the area for six 241 years, and she was aware that pedestrians and bicyclists are ever - present on Beach Avenue. 242 With the north side being four -to -five feet too close and the south side being two -to -three feet 243 too close the right -of -way, she was concerned over those pedestrians and bicyclists visibility 244 to vehicles exiting, especially from the south garage. 245 Rich Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) said he was the owner of the adjacent property directly to 246 the north of the Harkleroads and he concurred with the statement by Ms. Russell and objected 247 to all variances being considered. He expressed frustration with staff's decision to allow the 248 Harkleroads to apply for a new variance, saying that this was essentially the same request as 249 previously submitted. He said the application conveniently omitted the definition of 250 "reasonable use" and asserted the "exceptional circumstances" claimed by the applicant arose 251 out of the unlawful nature of the project. He reiterated the point made by Ms. Russell 252 regarding certification by signature as to validity of application submittals, and added that the 253 granting of a permit does not grant permission to violate the law. He said he felt the behavior 254 of the applicants and their contracted agents indicated this was a self - created hardship, and 255 that the alternatives put forth by staff were mutually exclusive; therefore the variance should 256 be denied. 257 Ms. Hall directed Board members attention to a letter of objective received via email from 258 Heath Aldridge who is the owner of the vacant parcel to the west, across Beach Avenue, from 259 the subject property. Ms. Hall noted that Ms. Aldridge had requested that her letter be read 260 aloud at the meeting, so it was. After hearing Ms. Aldridge's words of dissent, no other 261 speakers came forth so Mr. Lambertson closed the public comment portion of the hearing and 262 turned the floor over to Mr. Franklin for rebuttal. 263 Mr. Franklin explained that Mr. Harkleroad did express desire to seek compensation from the 264 surveying company, but he had been advised to try to resolve the matter of compliance with 265 the local regulations first and determine the total amount of damage that had been done. He 266 also took issue with surrounding property owners who had put forth some sort of conspiracy 267 theory and reminded everyone that such was not to be considered by this Board. He restated 268 that Mr. Harkleroad had relied upon the professional status of the survey, and had had no 269 reason to question its validity. Rather, the Harkleroads now stand before this Board because Page 6 of 8 Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 270 of multiple circumstances that specifically apply to and impact the Harkleroad property as a 271 result of that erroneous survey. 272 Mr. Lambertson opened the discussion to the Board. Mr. Burgess asked Mr. Franklin, 273 looking at Section 24- 64(d)(3) -(4), what differentiated this property from others in the 274 vicinity. Mr. Franklin replied that it was not just the survey error, but the error combined with 275 the fact that this is an oceanfront lot platted long before enactment of the Florida Department 276 of Environmental Protection rules, long before the establishment of the CCCL which imposes 277 additional regulations on oceanfront lots, as well as angle of the road and orientation of the 278 lot — all these things together. Mr. Burgess said that looking at other oceanfront lots in the 279 area, he did not see how this lot was impacted any differently. Mr. Franklin conceded there 280 was no particular characteristic of the Harkleroad property that was exclusive to it alone. 281 Paraphrasing Aristotle, Mr. Elmore said that law is reason without emotion, and that it is the 282 duty of this Board to uphold and defend the Code as it is currently written. He continued, 283 saying that while he realized the survey error was a tragic mistake and he felt the design of 284 the project was consistent with the character of Beach Avenue, he was inclined to deny this 285 request because to grant it would open a door, and he found no justification to do so. 286 Mr. Stratton agreed, saying that he too feared opening Pandora 's Box, and while he saw this 287 as a very unfortunate situation especially given his stance as a property rights advocate, it was 288 not within the authority of this Board, but a matter for the City Commission to implement 289 changes to the zoning regulations. Ms. Paul concurred with the statements of Mr. Elmore and 290 Mr. Stratton. Mr. Parkes agreed, though he added that it was difficult to turn the request 291 down because he viewed the design as good and compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. 292 Hansen echoed the sentiments of other Board members, but emphasized that the Board was 293 not being cold - hearted, but had granted leeway in the past, but the circumstances kept 294 mounting, to the point that this was beyond the authority of the Board to approve. 295 Mr. Parkes asked if the applicant could appeal the Board's decision to the City Commission, 296 to which staff replied any adversely affected party would have a thirty (30) day window of 297 opportunity to submit a request to appeal this Board's decision. 298 Mr. Lambertson said that he agreed with much that had been said, but he explained that 299 having built many homes on fifty (50) foot -wide lots similar to the subject property, it is the 300 integrity of the survey that serves as the foundation of any project. He noted that he had used 301 Mr. Boatwright for twelve years, and due to Mr. Boatwright's reputation, he generally pays 302 for a new Boatwright survey if he receives something from any other surveyor. Beyond that, 303 he also makes it a practice to stake out his building envelope and have a foundation survey 304 done before pouring commences. He noted this is an added expense, but that it can also serve 305 as a system of checks and balances to avoid just such an unfortunate situation as the 306 applicants now find themselves. Mr. Lambertson then called for a motion. 307 MOTION: Kelly Elmore moved that the Board deny ZVAR -12- 00100010, request for (1) 308 variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of 309 approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square -foot maximum; (2) variance from 310 Section 24- 151(b)(1)d &e, to reduce the minimum required rear yard setback for the southern 311 portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three 312 and one -tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) 313 variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d &e to reduce the minimum required rear yard setback for 314 the northern portion of the accessory structure from ten (10) feet to four and seven - tenths Page 7 of 8 Minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 315 (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty -five (25) feet, and used as a detached 316 garage on the ground floor with guest quarters above on the second floor, all within the 317 Residential Single - Family (RS -2) zoning district on a property at 2019 Beach Avenue, finding 318 that there are neither exceptional circumstances or surrounding conditions preventing the 319 reasonable use of the property as compared with other properties in the area, nor has there 320 been an onerous effect of regulations enacted after the construction of improvements upon the 321 property. Jason Burgess seconded the motion and carried unanimously, 7 -0. 322 Mr. Harkleroad thanked the Board and staff for the extensive amount of time and energy they 323 had devoted to this request. 324 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQULRING ACTION. 325 A. Beach Avenue Overlay Report 326 Ms. Hall reported that the direction has been given to staff for the Board to commence review 327 of the Beach Avenue zoning to identify some of the circumstances and conditions particular 328 to this area that might warrant a zoning overlay, and formulate recommendations of how to 329 best address these issues. She noted there is no stringent timeline in place and that the 330 Commission already has a number of issues before it, so it would most likely be mid -to -late 331 summer before a status report would be expected. Several Board members inquired about the 332 possibility of having workshops, and Ms Hall indicated this item would be regularly placed 333 on the agenda, and during the late spring / early summer months when often there is no 334 business on the agenda, the Board might consider scheduling a workshop in place of the 335 business meeting. 336 B. Non - Residential Uses Report 337 Ms. Hall reported that direction has been given to staff to begin reviewing non - residential 338 uses, both permitted by -right and by- exception, and especially those applicable to the 339 Mayport Corridor, to identify needed revisions to the land development regulations. She 340 noted that the City Commission at its March 12 meeting had passed a resolution enacting a 341 one -year moratorium on the granting of uses -by- exception for used automobile sales, and 342 explained that the Commission seeks to identify and eliminate outdated elements of the code 343 that are inconsistent with the community's vision for the commercial corridors and 344 incorporate modern sustainable provisions that allow for the development and 345 implementation of strategies that bolster economic vitality of the Mayport Corridor. She 346 noted that as the Redevelopment Coordinator, Ms. Cohn is currently focused on this task, and 347 once a draft of general recommendations has been reviewed and approved by the 348 Commission, a more detailed plan of action will likely be brought to the Board for review, 349 input, and finally, recommendation to the Commission. 350 7. ADJ URNMEN — 8:27 PM 351 352 .i 353 Chris Lambertson, Chairman 354 355 gAtf) 356 357 Attest Page 8 of 8