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