Minutes of Gate Petroleum Appeal Hearing (2) 5-12-16.pdfMINUTES OF GATE PETROLEUM APPEAL HEARING
ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION
HELD ON MAY 12, 2016
IN ATTENDANCE:
Mayor Mitchell E. Reeves
Commissioner Mitchell R. Harding
Commissioner Jimmy Hill
Commissioner John Stinson
Commissioner M. Blythe Waters
City Attorney Brenna Durden
City Manager Nelson Van Liere
Human Resources Director Cathy Berry
Recording Secretary Dayna Williams
Also Present:
Building and Zoning Director Jeremy Hubsch
Attorney Paul Eakin, Representing Eakin & Sneed
Attorney Jeffrey Sneed, Representing Barry Adeeb/Beach Diner
Attorney Jane West, Representing Atlantic Beach Cares/Glenn Shuck
Attorneys T.R. Hainline and Emily Pierce, Representing Gate Petroleum
Call to Order/Pledge & Invocation
Mayor Reeves gave the Invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Mayor Reeves called the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. in the Fellowship Hall of the Community
Presbyterian Church, 150 Sherry Drive, Atlantic Beach, Florida.
Mayor Reeves announced that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding on the Appeals by Mr. Eakin, Beach
Diner/Barry Adeeb, and Atlantic Beach Cares/Glenn Shuck of the Preliminary Site Development Plan
for the Gate Petroleum developments located in the 500 block of Atlantic Boulevard for the purpose of
determining whether any error was made in approving the Site Plan.
1.
Open Public Hearing, City Attorney Procedural Reminders, Ex Parte Disclosures.
Mayor Reeves opened the Public Hearing. City Attorney Durden explained the procedures of the
meeting. All ex parte disclosures were made by the Commission as follows:
Mayor Reeves stated any meetings and all appointments that he had were placed on the City's Outlook
email calendar; he met with Stan Jordan, Barry Adeeb, Paul Eakin, John Fletcher, John Peyton, Glenn
Shuck, Kirk Hansen, Alan Jensen, Atlantic Beach Cares, Betsy Cosgrove and many others, both for and
against the issue, adding that all the communications he has had will not impact his decision today, it
will be based on the testimony and facts given today and not the emotions.
Commissioner Harding44e stated he has met with numerous individuals, including Stan Jordan, Barry
Adeeb, Glenn Shuck, Betsy Cosgrove he -has received phone calls from Jim Smith, Fred Kerber, Mike
Borno, Atillio Cerqueira and numerous emails, phone calls and texts both supporting and opposing the
issue; however his decision today will not be impacted by those communications, it will only be based
on the evidence presented today.
Commissioner Hill He stated he has spoken to many citizens and in the last two months he had official
engagements with representatives from Gate Petroleum, representatives from Beach Diner, and
representatives from Atlantic Beach Cares, then the appeal proceedings took place and all of the
communication ceased;_. However, none of the conversations prior to this point will have any impact on
the decisions today, the decision will be based on all the facts gained from this hearing.
Commissioner Waters -She stated she has had numerous emails, phone calls and meetings both on the
street in public, and official meetings; prior to the appeals being issued she met officially with Glenn
Shuck and Betsy Cosgrove, Barry Adeeb and Stan Jordan, and Mayor Peytonj--Since the appeal has
been issued, she has received numerous emails both for and against the Gate Site Plan, none of those
emails or communications will affect her decision today, her decision today will be based on the facts
presented at this hearing.
Commissioner Stinson44e stated, prior to the appeal being filed, he met with Mr. Peyton, Mr. Jordan,
Mr. Adeeb, Ms. Cosgrove, Mr. Shucksince the day the appeal was filed, he ceased communications
and he has full confidence that he can listen to the facts presented today and make a fair and impartial
decision.
City Attorney Durden stated proper notice for the Public Hearing has been provided to all parties and
published in the Beaches Leader newspaper. She stated Volume 1 and Volume 2 of records, documents,
plans and other materials used by the Community Development Director in the course of the City's
review have been provided to the Commission and to all parties in accordance with the Atlantic Beach
Ordinance Code. She stated that consists of documents 1-73, except item number 26, which has been
stricken at the request of one of the parties. She stated for this hearing she wants to announce that it has
formally been made part of the record and the documents, except for item number 26, being documents
1-73 are officially made part of the record.
Mayor Reeves reminded everyone in the audience the importance of respect and to listen to all sides and
please -keep order during the meeting. He stated all the parties have been notified of the City's intention
to allow for evidence and testimony to be presented to the Commission by the parties and to proceed in
accordance with the Order of Presentation dated April 26, 2016. He explained While the times of day
are general and we may need a few more breaks for the court reporter to rest her hands, the timeframes
set out for given presentations, rebuttals and cross examinations will be enforced and . We have a
timekeeper and two clocks. aAll questions by the City Commission will occur after all presentations are
completed and —asked Commissioners, I ask that you to keep those questions written down, as
sometimes they will be answered throughout the day=tThe timekeeper will set the clock for the
timeframe requested by a party. He stated ill' any of the parties object to these procedures, please state
those objections now for the record and submit any documentation, if any, to support the objection;. -
you will have up to 2 minutes to state your objection.
T.R. Hainline, 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, representing the applicant, Gate Petroleum le stated,
as the City Attorney knows, we objected several weeks ago to the de novo; that is new evidence and new
testimony aspect of this hearing and the quasi-judicial aspect of this hearing. He stated iTt is our position
it should be on the record and on the record only that was before your staff and has . I have reduced that
objection to this letter and I will give copies to the appellants and to the Board. City Attorney Durden
asked that a copy be given to the court reporter.
-2-
Mayor Reeves asked Attorney West if she had any objections and she stated no.;; they concur with the
City Attorney's position that this is a de novo proceeding.
Attorney Jeff Sneed, representing Beaches Diner and Barry Adeeb=—H =stated, as noted in my
correspondence with City Council before the hearing, our objection is that there has been no showing,
and we cannot locate anywhere in the record, that the permit was issued by a validly appointed
Community Development Director and, as such, the permit is void and unenforceable by any party and
there is no purpose in having a hearing.
Attorney Paul Eakin, 599 Atlantic Boulevard, stated he joined Mr. Sneed in his objection; also an
additional objection in that the City adopted Mr. Lindorffs report in so far as the zoning issues were
concernedi—Mr. Lindorff has now submitted the documents he relied on in coming to his decisions in
his report as Volume 2 of the record. Mr. Eakin further stated he would move to strike any portion of
Volume 1 of the record that is not also contained in Volume 2, as being outside Ordinance 24-49 of what
is supposed to be submitted to this Commission as the record.
Attorney Wayne Flowers, representing the City, (no response can be heard) butl believe he stated
had no objections.
Mayor Reeves stated he would like to recognized those present: who is present so the audience will be
informed. He stated we have T.R. Hainline representing Gate Petroleum, Wayne Flowers representing
the City of Atlantic Beach, Paul Eakin representing Eakin & Sneed, Jeff Sneed representing Beach
Diner and Jane West representing Atlantic Beach Cares and Mr. Shuck.
City Attorney Durden stated she is aware of the objections and she-adviseds and recommendeds to the
Commission to proceed with the hearing in accordance with the Order of Presentation.
Mayor Reeves asked if any Commissioners had objections. There were none.
All witnesses were sworn in by the Court Reporter.
2. City's Presentation.
Mayor Reeves stated the City presentation will be up to 45 minutes in total for direct/rebuttal; rebuttal,
now or at the end of the hearing, if time remaining and . He asked confirmed with Mr. Flowers how
much time he wanteds the timekeeper to set on the clock_ for his direct testimony. Mr. Flowers stated
Flowers stated he would like to change the presentation time to 36 minutes.
Attorney Flowers stated the City is going to present 2 witnesses;; the first witness will be Jeremy
Hubsch, the Community Development Director for the City of Atlantic Beach. He will be followed by
Steve Lindorff–_who is an expert planner. He stated they will provide testimony on the basis for the
City's recommendation.
Jeremy Hubsch, Building and Zoning Director for the City of Atlantic Beach, explained his
position with the City, how he - . _ • e City's Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement
Economic Development Director and he administers the tree code. He stated the City Manager has was
-3-
named me the Community Development Director, by the City Manager as authorized as he is granted
authority by in Section 24-46(f) of the Code,. He stated he has been with the City for 3 years starting in
her role and he assumed her duties. Additionally, the Building and Zoning Director, Michael Griffin,
Director shortly thereafter.
Mr. Hubsch stated, as his role in the review of this project is undo
some background of and described his work experience, education and certifications,- Mr. Hubsch
work responsibilities and positions held.
Mr. Hubsch stated we are here to review whether or not the proposed Gate Petroleum project was
permitted properly and meets all applicable City Codes. He stated this is not a question of does Atlantic
Beach want a gas station, need a gas station and is this the highest or best use for the property;—ilEt is a
question of whether or not the proposal meets all the City's land development regulations. He stated, in
my role as administrator of the Land Development Regulations, he has a responsibility to the City, the
residents and businesses to apply the City Codes fairly and equitably. He added, if a property owner
meets all City Codes and requirements, he has to approve the project.
Mr. Hubsch explained the background story of the project beginning with the, stating the City received
the first submittal of plans from Gate Petroleum in October 2015. He stated the plans were circulated to
issued correction comments to the applicant which stated any inconsistencies with the City Codes that
from Gate, followed by a through the third set of revised plans, which were approved on February 9,
2016 after review by the various City departments.
Mr. Hubsch gave an in depth, detailed explanation of the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and
why the proposed use of a gas station with retail sales is permissible stating . He stated the City did
extensive research to make this zoning determination, citing historical data and criteria.
Mr. Sneed objected, stating Mr. Hubsch was testifying about matters that were stricken from the record.
Mr. Sneed made further comments but they were not heard because of microphone problems at 10:35 to
10:38, but Ms. Durden responded below.
Ms. Durden responded statinged the document dated March 29, 2016 was the document that was
stricken; She stated whether the information was obtained prior to that and used by Mr. Hubsch, the
information looked at and considered is allowed, but and the document dated March 29, 2016 to
memorialize the research that was previously done, is the only document that has been stricken. Mr.
Sneed made a comment, but there was still microphone problems, so he was not heard at 10:42.
Mr. Eakin objected stating at the time the content of the record was being discussed and, specifically, the
item that was stricken, it was his understanding that was a report that was given to this witness by
someone else in his office as a result of research that the other person had done; and the date of that
research was March 29, 2016, well after the date this witness came to his decision to issue the permit.
-4-
That was the basis of striking the document from the record and now you are going to allow this witness
to testify to the contents of that record. He stated there is a due process problem here because according
to that record, this witness was unaware of the contents of the record until he was given the record by
the author of the record. Now, if he was not, then that document should have been included in the
record, but it has already been decided that it was not.
Ms. Durden asked Mr. Flowers to approach and respond if he wants this to be part of the testimony. Mr.
Flowers responded stating ed we doi; adding that the council counsel was very much in favor of this
being a de novo hearing, not just a review of the record. He stated, so we are here to offer testimony and
opinions. This man is an expert and he is talking about the basis for the decision that was made. He
would note that the document that was stricken says during the evaluation of the Gate Petroleum
submittal this person who created this was asked to provide the information which the information was
provided to Mr. Hubsch and, therefore, was part of his decision making. He added that everything Mr.
Hubsch talked about or considered does not have to be in the written record in order for him to be able
to testify about it.
Ms. Durden stated we have heard the objections and directed Mr. Hubsch to proceed. Mayor Reeves
asked the attorneys to please go through the Chair if they want to make an objection.
Mr. Hubsch continued his explanation of the research conducted and he addressed, at length, some of
the issues expressed by opponents to this project. In addition, he addressed the issue concerning the
seating and parking requirements for Beach Diner, which resides on the property. He explained the
zoning codes and regulations pertaining to seating and parking requirements, stating that 19 parking
spaces are allotted for Beach Diner and the City has not found any provision to require Gate Petroleum
to maintain parking spaces for the diner. Mr. Hubsch stated, in summary, his opinion is the property
proposes a mix of uses that are allowed in CG Zoning category; there is no pump limitation under the
automobile/service station definition, or, in the service station supplemental regulations; the site
provides the appropriate amount of parking under the City's parking code; and all other standards are
met. Therefore, it is permissible as submitted and needs no zoning variances or exceptions from the
City. Mr. Hubsch stated, due to a substantial amount of public comment about the project, the City
decided to contract with Steve Lindorff, who is the former Planning Director of Jacksonville Beach and
has extensive experience in this field. He stated Mr. Lindorff was tasked to do an independent review of
the project and focus primarily on the questions of zoning and parking that have come up throughout the
course of this project. The City did review Mr. Lindorff s report, as well as its own interpretations of
the codes prior to signing off on the project, and based on our review the project is deemed consistent
with the code and approved.
Steve Lindorff, 2092 Vela Norte Circle, provided a detailed explanation of his background education,
professional work experience and honors received. He explained he was contacted by Mayor Reeves
and entered into a contract to assist the City and provide an independent review of the work done by Mr.
Hubsch to approve the site plan for this project. He gave an overview of his reviewed of all of the
documents that are included in the two appeal binders and -Ie concluded the Director's decision to
approve the site plan was properly done and his actions were in keeping with the way projects like this
typically progress through the development process. He stated Mr. Hubsch's job is administerial in
nature, meaning he cannot make it up as he goes along; he has to deal with the black and white language
of the code; it is not his job to pick winners and losers; he is carrying out a duty that is fairly clear and
has to rely on the black and white verbage in the code.
-5-
3. Applicant's Presentation.
Mayor Reeves stated the applicant's presentation will be up to 2 hours in total for direct/rebuttal;
rebuttal, now or at the end of the hearing, if time remaining and confirmed with Mr. Hainline how much
time he wanted for his direct testimony.
Mr. Hainline stated they have a Ppowerpoint presentation and hard copies of the presentation to provide
to the Board and the Appellants. Ms. Durden received the copies and requested one be given to the
court reporter. (Do we have this? We need it for our records.)
John Peyton, representing Gate Petroleum, 9540 San Jose Boulevard, expressed his thanks to the
City for the time they have put in for this effort, stating they have been at this for nearly 2 years. Mr.
Peyton stated Gate was founded by his father in 1960 with one service station, stating we are proud to be
a Northeast Florida based company for over 50 years. He stated we have grown our business
successfully because we do a good job;. He stated we are a local company and we give back to the
community. Mr. Peyton stated they have been at this for 2 years and there have been a lot of things said,
and he hopes to debunk some of the myths and present some of the facts. He stated opponents have
made reference that this process has not been transparent and nothing could be further from the truth;:
He stated Gate has been looking for a site for a service station in this area for a long time;_. He stated
they found a site that was in foreclosure and in distress and they came to the City in 2014 asking for
clarification on the zoning;_. He stated the City responded that we are an appropriate use for the zoning
that exists for this property; and. He stated Gate would not have bought this property if it were not
zoned properly. Mr. Peyton stated they have worked closely with the City staff for 2 years to make sure
they comply with the City Codes: and He stated Gate meets or exceeds the laws, codes and regulations
of the City. Mr. Peyton addressed other myths, misconceptions, issues and concerns expressed by
residents and the opponents of this project. Mr. Peyton elaborated on the misconception of the conflict
with Beach Diner. He stated, this is a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. He stated he respects the
advice Beach Diner has gotten from their couneilsel, but this is not an Atlantic Beach issue.
T.R. Hainline, 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, representing Gate Petroleum, stated he would like to
talk about the site development plan process and how it is provided in the City's Code, in an attempt to
present a context for the Board in their decision. He stated the staff's role is an administrative position;
the staff applies adopted, written, measurable standards in the existing Code;_. He stated the role of the
Commission is to determine if the staff made an error in its application of the Code's standards;_
stated-Mr. Hubsch was not the only staff person who reviewed Gate's site development plani. He
stated the staff review included input from Zoning, Public Works, Building Department, Utilities
Department, Fire Department and other staff. He stated if the Commission feels any existing standards
in the Code are inadequate, they may address this with future legislation. He stated in this appeal, like
the staff, the Commission is looking at the existing standards in the Code. He stated Gate is not seeking
any zoning change, exception, variance or waiver; adding, the Commission is not being asked to
consider or grant any relief to Gate from any code provisions. He stated; our experts, who will speak
today, will show you that Gate's proposed station meets or exceeds all code standards and . He stated at
the conclusion of the testimony of our witnesses, we will provide exhibits that include their resumes and
affidavits.
Tony Robbins, state s -a planner with Prosser, a firm in the Jacksonville area for more than
32 years,e provided his educational background, qualifications and certifications; as well as
extensive work experience as an urban and city planner. He Stated he agreed completely with the
-6-
findings of both Mr. Hubsch and Mr. Lindorff, a service station with a retail store is permitted at the site
in question.
Brad Davis, stated hcisa principal with Prosser, a planning and engineering firm, sStated he is
the civil engineer of record on this project and they took the information gathered through the process
and were granted approval on February 9, 2016, with conditions.
Russ Ervin, 1035 Kings Avenue, representing Ervin Lovett and Millere sStated they are an
architectural design practice and their role in this project was to redesign Gate's prototype and create
something that would fit into the neighborhood. He presented pictures of the rendering of the project,
incorporating design elements taken the Atlantic Beach Country Club, as well as the overall elements
seen in Atlantic Beach.
Janet Whitmill, 1144 Vale Orchard Lane, stated she is a landscape architect and presented pictures of
the approved landscape plan dated December 16, 2015, which meet and exceed the landscape
requirements by one and a half times. She explained Gate decided to enhance the landscape plans and
go after a water star certification and presented the rendering of the enhanced landscape plans, which
meet and exceed the code requirements by two to three times, not yet submitted to the City.
T.R. Hainline, stated the witnesses we have heard all spoke to code compliance, demonstrating Gate
meets or exceeds the standards in the code and stated the next witnesses will address some of the
community issues.
Austin Chapman, Transportation Engineer with Prosser, stated he works on development
agreements and driveway permitting; stating they have reduced the number of driveways on Sturdivant
Avenue from six to two and on Atlantic Boulevard from six to two:-Tthe Gate site will generate less
traffic than existing uses or uses that could be put on this site; stating4he FDOT did require a traffic
study as part of the site permitting, and she explained the study results.
Mark Bachara, Director of Security for Gate Petroleum Company, stating explained his background
experience and education, statingIhe is responsible for developing and implementing the company's
overall security programs and initiatives, which includes managing surveillance and crime prevention
systems and educating Gate employees on security programs and procedures.
Courtland Eyrick, 806 Riverside Avenue, stated he is a state certified general real estate appraisers:
Stated he conducted a study of residential property values near service stations and concluded the
proximity of a Gate service station does not adversely affect residential values.
T.R. Hainline, addressed the specific argument that has been made at Commission meetings by Mr.
Adeeb, relating to Beach Diner and the parking issue. He presented a detailed explanation of the history
of permits, approvals, and variances submitted by Mr. Adeeb to the City; stating the City has no record
Mr. Adeeb ever possessed a documented right to parking spaces on the adjacent shopping center; adding
City approvals did not grant property rights to Mr. Adeeb; City approvals are not a deed, easement or
lease.
Tony Robbins, stated we found no record with the City of any allocation of parking spaces to Beach
Diner, nor is it prescribed in the lease. In addition, it is not the City's role to enforce any lease or private
agreement between a tenant and a landlord.
-7-
Mike Kinnard, Gate store manager, 2222 Destine Lane, expressed support for Gate, citing many
positive reasons he is proud to be a member of their company; stating Gate would be a great neighbor in
Atlantic Beach.
T.R. Hainline, stated the Commission has heard about the staff's decision, from both your staff and our
experts: -4the City hired an independent expert, Mr. Lindorff, to review the plans and he confirmed
they meet and exceed all criteriai. Stated the staff did not make an error; Mr. Lindorff did not make an
error; their decision was based on your code standards. He sStated, we are offering and would agree to
be bound to the architectural renderings Mr. Ervin presented; our plans would be consistent with those
architectural renderings. He further stated, iln addition, we are offering and would agree to be bound by
the enhanced landscape plan presented by Ms. Whitmilli Wwe are offering those two conditions,
which are over and above your code standards.
John Peyton, stated Gate came to Atlantic Beach to build a store we are proud of_. Stated we have met
and exceeded your requirements; we have been transparent in the process; we have engaged your
citizens and have engaged you and your staff. He sgtated, you may decide, after this is over, to revisit
your code and make some changes; adding, what is not right, is to change the rules in the middle of the
gamei—Gate followed your rules, we met your code, we exceeded your code in most instances and we
are going to do a good job.
Mayor Reeves asked about the time left and stated we will add it to the remaining time. Mr. Hainline
was agreeable.
Lunch Break
Mayor Reeves recessed the meeting at 12:35 p.m. for lunch. He reconvened the meeting at 1:20 p.m.
4. Cross Examination by Eakin/Sneed/West of the City's and Applicant's witnesses.
Mayor Reeves explained the process that was agreed upon to allow up to 2 hours. He asked each
appellant to state how much time they would need.
5. Eakin Presentation.
Paul Eakin, representing himself as the owner of 599 Atlantic Boulevard, stated he has no cross
examination of Gate's witnesses, stating he reserves the right to call any and all of them as witnesses in
his case in chief. He asked that the witness stay for the remainder of the hearing.
Mr. Sneed confirmed the time he needed and agreed if any time was left, he would give it to Ms. West.
6. Sneed Presentation.
Mr. Sneed called Mr. Davis, stating he understood from Mr. Davis's testimony that he was the Civil
Engineer for the Gate project and Mr. Davis stated yes. Mr. Sneed asked, in doing that work, are there
-8-
regulations and codes that you have to follow; do the regulations and codes have defined terms; and did
you apply the defined terms as written; and the witness stated yes.
Mr. Sneed called Russ Ervin, stating he understood from Mr. Ervin's testimony that he was the architect
for Gate on this project and Mr. Ervin stated yes. Mr. Sneed asked are there regulations and codes you
have to apply in designing a project; do those regulations and codes have defined terms; and did you
apply those defined terms as they are written; and the witness stated yes.
Mr. Sneed called Janet Whitmill, stating he understood from Ms. Whitmill's testimony that she was the
Landscape Architect for the Gate project and Ms. Whitmill stated yes. Mr. Sneed asked are there
regulations and codes you have to follow; do the regulations and codes have defined terms you have to
apply; and did you apply the defined terms as written; and the witness stated yes.
Mr. Sneed called Mr. Robbins, asking if he agreed with Mr. Lindorff s testimony that the process of a
Community Development Director is an administerial process, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed
stated he was going to read the exact words given by Mr. Lindorff in his testimony; stating Mr. Lindorff
testified that land use workers in a city are not policymakers, they apply code; and the witness agreed.
Mr. Sneed stated he wanted it clear for the record that Mr. Robbins was not personally involved in Mr.
Adeeb's permitting in 1997; you have no personal knowledge of that process other than what you
gathered from reading the records of the City of Atlantic Beach; and you have no personal knowledge of
what the City of Atlantic Beach records keeping practices were in 1997; the witness stated that is
correct.
Mr. Sneed called Mr. Lindorff, stating he will start with what they can agree upon. Mr. Sneed stated,
you are not a lawyer; you have no legal training in interpreting contracts, leases, and things of that
nature; and you testified, on direct, that people working for the City of Atlantic Beach have to apply the
code as it is written; the witness stated that is correct. Mr. Sneed presented a slide, referring to it as, C3,
the third submission, dated February 5, 2016; and asked if it was from after your report was rendered,
and the witness stated that is correct. Mr. Sneed stated, on the first page of Mr. Lindorffs report he
described the proposed use as a retail convenience food store, asking if the witness remembered using
that phrase, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, it is smaller than a grocery store and the
witness responded yes. Mr. Sneed stated it operates on extended hours compared to Publix, and the
witness stated he would not know that as a fact in this instance. Mr. Sneed stated, but in your basic
experience, Gate stations are open longer hours than Publix, and the witness stated there are also 24 hour
Publix's, and Mr. Sneed stated alright. Mr. Sneed stated, would you agree that is an appropriate
definition for convenience store coming from Webster -Learner's Dictionary, and the witness stated yes,
he could accept that. Mr. Sneed stated, you worked for thirty years for Jacksonville Beach, and the
witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, Jacksonville Beach does not have convenience store listed as a
specified use in the commercial zoning district, and the witness stated that is correct. Mr. Sneed stated,
the convenience stores, gas stations permitted in Jacksonville Beach were permitted in the method you
described in your report here, "service stations with accompanying retail food stores". Mr. Lindorff
stated, food stores without limitation and automobile service stations or gas stations are all listed as
permitted uses both in Jacksonville Beach and in Atlantic Beach. Mr. Sneed stated, my question was
about your work in Jacksonville Beach, the Gate stores in Jacksonville Beach, they were permitted as
gas stations with retail food sales, and the witness stated that is correct. Mr. Sneed stated, would you
agree that in Atlantic Beach convenience stores are specifically listed, and the witness asked, in what
zone. Mr. Sneed stated, 24-110(b)(7), CL Zoning, Convenience food stores without fuel sales, but not
supermarkets; and 24-110(c)(4) Uses -by -exception, Convenience food stores with retail sale of gasoline,
is a specifically listed use, correct? Mr. Lindorff stated he would accept that Mr. Sneed has copied it
-9-
properly from the CL District zoning requirements; adding, if you want me to answer with certitude, he
will go and look it up in the code. Mr. Sneed stated he was not asking for Mr. Sneed to answer with
certitude, but he is asking for the witness to acknowledge that you know these provisions are listed in
the code. Mr. Lindorff stated he would accept his premise that that is what it says in Section 24-110.
Mr. Sneed stated, are you saying that you have no specific recollection of what is in the code when you
applied it to this project. The witness stated, after reviewing the CL Zoning District regulations, he
concluded that they were not relevant to the application that was before the City. Mr. Sneed stated, let
us look at Section 24-111 Commercial General Districts, asking if he reviewed this, and the witness
stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, is it fair to say, that the uses permitted by Use and Use -by -exception in CL
are adopted by reference directly into Commercial General, and the witness stated correct. Mr. Sneed
stated; convenience store without gas and convenience store with gas, three pumps, six fueling stations,
are both specifically permitted uses in CG, and the witness stated, that would be true. Mr. Sneed stated,
is it fair to say when a code section is incorporated by reference in another code section, it is your
understanding that you have to take what it says, you do not get to pick and choose the words that you
apply. Mr. Lindorff stated that is essentially what my testimony was, but in this particular instance, that
language was superseded by other language in the CG Zoning section, and Mr. Sneed stated we will get
to that. Mr. Sneed stated, in your analysis, you were provided with information by the City and by Mr.
Eakin on behalf of Mr. Adeeb. Mr. Lindorff stated he had communications with the City and Mr Eakin
and the information was provided as part of the record. Mr. Sneed stated yes, and part of the record that
you produced, Volume 2 of the record before us today, included Mr. Eakin's correspondence where he
attached a copy of the occupancy certificate for Beach Diner showing 94 seats, and the witness stated
yes. Mr. Sneed asked if he placed any weight on the contention that Beach Diner had 94 seats inside,
and the witness stated no. Mr. Sneed stated, you relied solely upon the representations of Gate that they
provided to the City, and the witness stated no, he relied on the plain language within the City's code.
Mr. Sneed asked does the City's code have the number of seats in Beach Diner printed in it somewhere,
and the witness stated no, but it has the parking requirement. Mr. Sneed stated, to apply that parking
requirement you have to know how many seats they have, is that correct, the witness stated yes. Mr.
Sneed stated, you relied solely upon the submittal of Gate, a seating plan that was 19 years old, and
formed your opinion that 19 spaces were all the City could require. Mr. Lindorff stated 1 space for
every 4 seats. Mr. Sneed stated, coming back to my question, did you rely upon Gate's representations
of the number of seats, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed asked if he made any investigation
whether the 19 year old drawing represented the as -built of what happened at Beach Diner. Mr.
Lindorff stated he reviewed the drawing and he has personal observation about what is on the property
at Beach Diner, and he mentioned that in his report and in his testimony this morning. Mr. Sneed stated,
you mentioned that you did not think they were using outside seating, and the witness stated correct.
Mr. Sneed asked if the witness had considered the fact that they have had outside seating in the past and
currently have outside seating, and the witness stated no, it was not relevant to his review. Mr. Sneed
stated to the witness, you saw this 19 year old plan had outside seating on it and you recognized in your
report that outside seating counts towards the number of parking spaces a restaurant requires, and the
witness stated yes. Mr. Sneed stated, you based your 19 seat opinion solely upon the inside seating
shown on the diagram, not including the outside seating that was also shown, and the witness stated yes.
Mr. Sneed stated the current use is important in determining how many parking spaces are allowed, and
the witness stated yes. 1:40:55 continues until 2:04pm not done
Break* Was there a break?
Mayor Reeves recessed the meeting at : p.m. He reconvened the meeting at : p.m.
-10-
7. West Presentation.
Ms. West called Mr. Peyton and asked him to describe why Gate is not amenable to building this
convenience store with just 6 fueling stations. Mr. Peyton stated it is about meeting peak demand when
they can. She asked if it was financially feasible for Gate to consider 6 fueling stations and has any cost
benefit analysis been done for the 6 fueling stations option, and he stated no. She asked if he knows a
Becky Hamilton, Vice President of real estate with his corporation, and he stated yes. Ms. West stated
she has an email from Ms. Hamilton, indicating, in her opinion, Gate stores receive between 5 to 7
deliveries per day during the week; 1 to 2 on Saturday; no deliveries on Sunday; and asked if that
sounded right to him and he stated yes.
Ms. West called Mr. Hubsch and asked him to explain why a convenience store with gasoline (limited to
6 stations) is treated as a use by exception (UBE). He stated it is treated as a UBE in the CL Zoning
District, which is a small area along Mayport Road, and he would surmise that is because the City would
not want a large scale gas station being at a major intersection. She stated, he alluded to limitations on
fueling stations earlier; when was that enacted and why. He stated it was in 2002 and he was not sure
why. She asked if he was familiar with a March 1, 2008 staff report drafted by Sonia Doerr, and he
stated no. Ms. West requested he read the highlighted section of the document into the record. Mr.
Hubsch stated, "the current convenient store use of this property is a permitted use within the CL
District. Only the addition of fuel sales requires an approval of use by exception. The number of
fueling positions in the CL District is limited to 6, this was included to avoid the mega station with large
lighted canopies and high traffic that would be objectionable to the adjacent neighborhood." She stated
there was a code reference to a gasoline service station he mentioned in his presentation, and he stated
automobile service station. She asked if convenient stores were listed under that code and he stated
retail sales and automobile service stations are an allowable use. He stated our code allows a mix of
uses that are allowable within CG and stated some examples. 2:40 to 2:46 not done
8. Cross Examination of Eakin/Sneed/West witnesses.
Mayor Reeves stated Mr. Eakin had up to 1 hour for his presentation/now or at the end of the hearing
and confirmed how much time he wanted.
Mr. Eakin, 599 Atlantic Boulevard, here on behalf of himself and his co-owner of that property. He
stated Mr. Hubsch relied on Mr. Lindorff's report in making his determination as to zoning in this
matter. He stated, did you know that Mr. Lindorff found that retail outlets for the sale of food are
actually food stores, permitted by right under our code, regardless of type or size. Did you know that he
also found that an automotive service station is permitted by right under our code, without having to do
minor auto repair or having to have an accessory car wash. Because Mr. Lindorff found the proposed
project to be both a retail outlet for the sale of food and an automotive service station, that it could not
be called a convenience store. Did you know that convenience stores with the retail sale of gasoline is
also a permitted use in CG zoning districts just like retail outlets for the sale of food and automotive
service stations with minor auto repair with accessory car washes. Did you know that convenience
stores with retail sale of gasoline is listed as a permitted use under Section 24-111, because it is
bootstrapped by virtue of it being a UBE under Section 24-110(c)(4). Did you know that Mr. Lindorff
completely ignored our code language in 24-111 that says where a proposed use is not specifically listed
in this section, the permissibility of the use shall be determined based upon it's similarity to listed uses.
Did you know Mr. Lindorff tried to make his personal opinion about retail food stores appear as part of
our code in his report. Mr. Eakin states he wants to point this out to everyone, because it tripped him up
-11-
the first couple of times he read Mr. Lindorffs report. WHAT FOLLOWS IS FROM A REPORT HE
IS REFERRING TO IN A HIGHLIGHTED AREA, BUT I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF WHAT HE
WHAT PRESENTING. This is the code being cited in his report, set off, indented, as if our code is
being quoted. There is a note put in brackets that I have highlighted here. This is not part of our code.
This is Mr. Lindorff speaking to the reader; Mr. Lindorff s opinion without any support or authority for
the statement being made. Did you know that Mr. Lindorff ignores our code's use of the term
convenience food store in our code to define a particular type of retail food store, while our code
recognizes both convenience food stores, supermarkets and grocery stores, as different kinds of retail
food stores. So what is it, what is it. No one can explain the logic of having 24-111(b)(15)
bootstrapped, 24-110(c)(4), so that I can get a convenience store with gas, up to 6 fueling positions, as a
permitted use in a CG zoning district, when I can use Mr. Lindorff s, Mr. Hubsch's and Gate
Petroleum's logic and use 24-111(b)(1) and (9) and get the same convenience store with a more
intensive use of gas, as also a permitted use in the same CG zoning district, if there is no difference.
There has got to be a difference, otherwise you always wind up with the same answer. You always wind
up with a Gate development. The difference is whether or not you are a convenience store. The law is
if you use different terms in different portions of the same Ordinance or Statute, that is strong evidence
that different meanings were intended. Mr. Lindorff wants to make the convenience store being built by
Gate just a retail outlet for the sale of food, selling gas; when in fact our code has a specific section that
says, "if you are a convenient store selling gas, you are a permitted use in a CG zoning district". The
code writers used a different terminology when talking about convenience stores, as opposed to the
general terms of retail outlets for the sale of food. Remember Section 24-16, the specific shall control
the general. So what is it? Gate says its mission is to be the premier convenience store provider in the
marketplace today. It does not say it wants to be the premier automobile service station provider. The
property appraiser for Duval County lists 54 properties owned by Gate Petroleum Company. Did you
know that of those 54 properties, 32 of them are classified by the Duval County property appraiser as
convenience stores with gas; 17 are classified as vacant or wasteland; 1 is classified as an office; 1 is
classified as a shopping center; 2 are classified as restaurants and 1 is classified as a service station. Did
you know that the Duval County property appraiser has a whole list of codes that it uses in classifying
properties. The table includes codes for supermarkets, for convenience stores, for pre -fab convenience
stores with gas, for convenience stores with gas and for service stations; Stopped @ 3pm on FTR
9. Rebuttal - Eakin, Sneed, West, City and Applicant.
Dinner Break
Mayor Reeves recessed the meeting at 6:01 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
10. Public Comment - Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors.
Mayor Reeves stated each speaker may have up to 2 minutes each, but no more than 2 minutes. He
stated he had sixty people requesting to speak, and when their name is called to speak, they may choose
to simply state for the record, they are either for or against, and Cathy Berry will write it on their speaker
slip and they may forgo their 2 minutes of speaking, or they may take their 2 minutes. Mayor Reeves
explained the process for public comments and thanked everyone for coming tonight.
-12-
Mayor Reeves stated each speaker may have up to 2 minutes each, but no more than 2 minutes. He
stated he had sixty people requesting to speak, and when their name is called to speak, they may choose
to simply state for the record, they are either for or against, and Cathy Berry will write it on their speaker
slip and they may forgo their 2 minutes of speaking, or they may take their 2 minutes. Mayor Reeves
explained the process for public comments and thanked everyone for coming tonight.
Bee Jay Lester, 907 Second Street, Neptune Beach, encouraged the Commission and Gate to do the
right thing for the residents who love the beaches area and do not want it to continue to grow any larger.
Penny Kamish, 193 Beach Avenue, spoke in support of the Gate Company.
Bert Rast, 1220 Seminole Road, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Diane Latta-Brandstaetter, 254 Oceanwalk Drive South, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Dan Janson, 707 Holly Drive, Jacksonville Beach, spoke in support of Gate.
Charles Freshwater, 341 12th Street, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Ashton Hudson, 319 12th Street, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Harley Parkes, 1838 Seminole Road, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Allen Hieb, 10 10th Street, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Cord Butler, 2014 Duna Vista Court, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Kerry Russell, 1915 North Sherry Drive, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Marla Buchanan, 1771 Sea Oats Drive, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Kelly Tuttle, 1860 Sea Oats Drive, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Mike Carlin, 1700 Selva Marina Drive, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Nicole Brose, 1824 Ocean Grove Drive, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Del Galloway, 258 Pine Street, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Gary Montour, 6312 Christopher Creek Road East Street, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Nancy De Candis, 515 Sturdivant Street, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Lorraine Smith, 112 Poinsettia Street, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Cecil White, 109 Sylvan Drive, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Marvin Gillman,
1331 1st Street North, Jacksonville Beach, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
-13-
Crispin Salvador, 4266 Seabreeze Drive, Jacksonville Beach, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
John Strub, 4557 Antler Hill Drive East, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Mac Helmsworth, 148 El Dorado Way, Ponte Vedra Beach, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Cason Adeeb, 12915 North Winged Elm Drive, Jacksonville, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Kasey McClendon, 1062 Snug Harbor, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Joe Adeeb, 4343 Ocean Course Drive South, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Bill McCullum, 541 Sherry Drive, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Donna Mylod, 184 Sylvan Drive, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Katie Anderson, 366 Seminole Road, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Richard Bell, 1952 Beachside Court, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Susanne Barker, 1938 Beachside Court, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Diana Townsend, 266 Poinsettia Street, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Peyton Hopkins, Jacksonville Beach, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Tom Foppiano, 377 4th Street, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Rachel Brumsey, 1525 Summer Sands Drive, Neptune Beach, spoke in opposition of the Gate
station.
Helen Bradley, 94 Oceanside Drive, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Jerry Redfield, 366 Seminole Road, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Jeff Barker, 1938 Beachside Court, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Ross Weeks, 380 8th Street, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Ed Beach, 407 Seaspray, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Claire Gertz, 28 17th Street, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Michael Aston, 1523 Summer Sands Dr, Neptune Beach, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Suzanne Shaughnessy, 168 Oceanwalk Drive South, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Stan Jordan, 501 Atlantic Boulevard, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
-14-
Joshua Hancock, 13062 Birch Bark Court North, Jacksonville,spoke in opposition of the Gate
station.
Joni Hancock, 13062 Birch Bark Court North, Jacksonville, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Curtis Long, 154 Beach Avenue, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Chris Jorgensen, 92 West 3rd Street, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Lynda Padrta, 1113 1st Street, Neptune Beach, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Williams Brigman, 355 6th Street, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Zimmerman Boulos, 1524 San Marco Boulevard, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Maria Mark, 1148 Linkside Drive, spoke in support of the Gate station.
Frank Fenno, 2159 Birch Bark Drive, spoke in opposition of the Gate station.
Mayor Reeves asked Ms. Berry if there any other speakers wishing to speak. Ms. Berry stated we have
34 who submitted slips, but chose not to speak. He requested she read the names and addresses and
whether they were for or against. She stated she had 14 speaker forms in opposition of the Gate station
and read the names and addresses.
Patrick Lundquist, 511 Selva Lakes Drive.
Anne Roberts, 222 Poinsettia Street.
Lucie de Sancy, 222 Poinsettia Street.
Michael Roberts, 222 Poinsettia Street.
Karen Garrett, 123 Pine Street.
Spencer Diaz, no address provided.
Jermaine Shavers, 13062 Birch Bark Court North.
Jacob Hancock, 13062 Birch Bark Court North.
Olya Shipun, 100 Great Harbor Way.
Mary Orser, 376 9th Street.
Gary Rhodes, 1551 Ocean Boulevard.
Richard Moore, 376 9th Street.
-15-
Ms. Berry stated she had 20 speaker forms in support of the Gate station and read the names and
addresses.
Louis Samson, no address provided,
James Dudley Long, no address provided.
Darleen Herbertson, no address provided.
Triston Brauter, no address provided.
Thomas Seller, no address provided.
Justin Smith, no address provided.
Stanley Brannen, no address provided.
Richard Solomon, no address provided.
Harry Hollie, no address provided.
Alan Hollie, no address provided.
Robert Dixon, no address provided.
Robert Weinberg, no address provided.
Matt Adkins, no address provided.
John McDaniel, no address provided.
Jason Brannen, no address provided.
Vicki Brannen, no address provided.
Heather Bolton, no address provided.
Keith Bolton, no address provided.
Rebecca Davisson, 915 Alhambra Drive North.
Larry Wilson, 4065 Cordova Avenue.
Mayor Reeves expressed thanks to the community for understanding and being very respectful. He
thanked the Church for the use of their facility and Gladys for her help and support with the sound
system.
-16-
Break
Mayor Reeves recessed the meeting at 9:26 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:41 p.m.
11. Closing Statements: Eakin, Sneed, West, City and Applicant.
12. Closing Statements: Eakin, Sneed, West, City and Applicant.
Mayor Reeves reconvened the meeting after the break. (what time?) He explained that —Eeach
attorney has 3 minutes for closing statements and . This is the order th be takeni Mr.
Eakin, Mr. Sneed, Ms West, Mr. Flowers and Mr.Hainline.
Mr. Eakin deferred his three minutes to Mr. Sneed.
Mayor Reeves requested the clock be set to six minutes for Mr. Sneed.
Mr. Sneed -requested that the Board "follow the Code" referring to He refers to City expert Mr.
Lindorff who stated that the Code is in black and white English. He
indicated that -Gate knew what -the code was and what parking issues were when they bought the
property. He stated tThe issue is regarding competent, substantial evidence that supports
granting this permit. The City and Gate never challenged the assertion that Gate was building a
convenience store. The -parking calculation for the restaurant was not done correctly. According
to Mr. Sneed, He explained that Mr. Lindorff said the "plans should not be approved if parking is
not properly calculated," and that Mr. Adeeb should have been asked for seating if that was a
material issue in dispute and the outside seating was ignored. He stated tThe outside seating, even
without tables if people are served coffee, -should be counted towards parking under City Code.
He stated that Mr. Lindorff gave personal eyewitness testimony to people receiving coffee out
there on the patio and waiting in line. Mr. Hainline spoke of things that there can be no question
about. There can be no question that Gate is building a convenience store. If you follow the City
Code, says Mr. Sneed, you have to deny this permit. City Code 2416 and the City CCD Director
said it was more stringent to restrict Gate to what your Code allows them to build; that is a
convenience store with three pumps and six fueling stations than what they've proposed. The
Code does refer to a convenience store as described in Commercial General District. He stated
Mr. Hubsch testified that applying service station was made in 2014. Mr. Sneed is asking that the
language of the Code be honored. He asks that the Permit be denied and the Code honored.
The City Code does not allow them to build a convenience store with more than three gas pumps.
They can build a convenience store --with gas pumps but no more than three. That's the grounds
for denying the permit. Deny the permit because they failed to properly calculate parking. They
relied upon evidence of seating that was non-existent. It never happened and there's no evidence
to rebut that. There's no evidence that Mr. Adeeb was wrong. Mr. Sneed requested more time to
finish but his time was up and Mayor Reeves thanked him.
Ms. West: "Let's talk about due diligence." January 2014 — Gate asked, "What can we do with
this property?" The City responded "A convenience store with six fueling stations." Gate didn't
like that response. In fact you heard here today John Peyton testify himself, he admitted that he
never even bothered to do a Cost Benefit Analysis for six pumps. Ms. West continues, instead
Gate lawyered up and pushed hard for a more creative interpretation of your Code. It worked.
The City flip flopped. They changed the rules midstream. Is that the property rights precedent
that this City wants to set? Of the 58 people that signed up to speak 16 were pro -Gate, 38 were
pro -Code compliance, so were 2700. All the residents who currently live here have property
-17-
rights, too. They have a legal right to depend on a reasonable interpretation of the Zoning Code
and it is your responsibility to make sure that reasonable interpretation sticks. No one is saying
that Gate can't build a small gas station That's allowed. A convenience store with six fueling
stations is permissible under your current Code. You know who insisted on that? Ponte Vedra.
They insisted on three stations, six pumps and closing hours between 11 and 6. They got it. You
can do it, too. You have the power to do the same here tonight. No one has rebutted that this is a
convenience store and they haven't done that because they can't. It obviously is. If it walks like a
duck talks like a duck, it's a duck. And ignoring the most applicable provision in your Code in
approving this permit tonight is reversal legal error. Rescind this permit. Do the right thing. If
you need to modify it, do that. But don't set bad precedence for the residents of the City of
Atlantic Beach. Thank you.
Mr. Flowers will only take two minutes and give one minute to Mr. Hainline. Mr. Flowers states
that he would first like to commend to you Jeremy Hubsch, your Planner, your Community
Development Director for the outstanding job he does for you and that he did for you in this
particular instance He got beat up here today but I want to tell you he is extremely conscientious.
He's a smart planner and I would submit to you that he knows that Code better than anyone else
in this room. We can differ on our opinions as to what it says but I don't think anyone knows it
better than he does. A lot of folks have sat in the seats that you're seating in right now over the
last 2-3 decades and they crafted zoning regulations, zoning designations for this particular piece
of property and others in this community. They determined that this would be a commercial
quarter. They determined that this zoning would be a CG category, a very, very intensive
category that allows a whole variety of uses; some of which I guess anybody would have
complaints about, but there are a lot of uses allowed. So to the extent that we're concerned about
the fact that designation applies to that property, that ship sailed a long time ago. It should be of
no surprise to anyone that this property is zoned the way it is or it could be used for all of those
varieties of uses that run to that category. I'll try to briefly speak to this because a convenience
store appears in the CL category but it somehow controls what you can do in CG. That just does
not make sense. The whole scheme that we talked about is the allowances increase as you go to a
more intense zoning category and the fact that the wording is different doesn't change the breadth
of what is allowed in the CG category, which includes service station which has no limitation on
pumps and also allows retail sales which is broader than convenience food store. I submit to you
that the decision is correct and I would ask you to rely on the folks that know your plan. Thank
you.
Mayor Reeves — set the clock for 4 minutes.
Mr. Hainline thanked the Mayor and members of the Commission, for their time and attention
today. Let's try to address the parking issue right off the bat. Mr. Adeeb stood here and said he
has 94 seats in his restaurant. That's what his business license says and that's what he said in his
changed deposition. He said 80 to 94 seats in his restaurant. Do the math. The parking
requirement is 94 divided by 4, that's 24 spaces. We offer a condition to provide him that Code
required parking for his 94 seats, that's what he says he has, of 24 spaces. We offer a Condition to
provide that 24 spaces. We know we can do it on site. So, let's get to the next issue. It's the And
issue and the convenience store issue. Here's your CG code right here. "Permitted — Retail
outlets for the sale of food and drugs. You know what they have in that store? It's a retail outlet
and they sell food and drugs. It's right there. Right there is a permitted use. Now, on the second
page, Automobile Service Station with minor automotive repair and, there's that word AND with
-18-
accessory car wash. So, we've said on many occasions if this Commission wants to interpret that
provision in a way that their Staff is saying it doesn't need to be, but if this Commission wants to
interpret that condition as requiring minor automotive repair and a car wash, we'll do that but
none of the neighbors want that. It doesn't make any sense. It's an absurd result. And do you
know what else your Code provisions says that uses the word AND? Retail sale of office
equipment AND furniture. If you sell only office equipment does that make you violate the Code?
Retail sale of home furnishings AND appliances. If you're going to sale chairs and tables, do you
have to sell washers, too? Cabinet shops , woodworking shops AND surfboard production. So if
you have a cabinet shop you have to produce some surfboards, too. And Mr. Hubsch already said
the example of retail sale of beer and wine. AND is used a lot and it does not mean that you have
to do all those things given as Mr. Lindorff and Mr. Hubsch described that AND lists the things
that you can do, you're permitted to do. You don't have to do all of those things. The absurd
result that is suggested by the contrary interpretation is that Gate has to do the more intensive
things which nobody wants it to do. So, I hope that deals with the AND issue. As Mr. Flowers just
said this site has been zoned since the 50's for intense commercial uses including service station.
Blocking this service station is effectively changing the current zoning on the site and the historic
zoning of the site. It's changing those rules in the middle of the game. The last comment I want to
leave you with is we heard at least two adjectives tonight alternatively used for your staff. I wrote
them down when they were used. An architect said you have a Great Staff. You have a Good
Staff. They are some of the best I have ever worked with. And then another person, one of the
early people, a woman speaker said "you have an (enet DID NOT UNDERSTAND) Staff.
Ennepitude was the word she used. One thing that hasn't been said here tonight relates to
support for your Staff and what message you send if you decide that their four months of work
that their two rounds of comments, the conditions that they imposed on Mr. Lindorff s review all
mean nothing and that they were wrong after all that time and careful thought. We ask you to
support your staff, follow your Code, Retail Outlets for Sale of Food and Drugs. Follow it.
Support your Staff. Follow your Code. We offer the condition to the parking which gives them
the parking they need for the seats they said they have. Thank you very much.
Mayor Reeves. Alright, thank you. Now we'll move on and I want to go over with the
Commissioners. We're going to follow our same rules we do at all meetings. The Commision will
follow the same procedures without any changes just like we do at any other meetings. The
Commission will follow the normal procedure up to 5 minutes each for a discussion and
comments. You may ask the parties question and their response does not count against your 5
minutes. At that time you do have a second round of 5 minutes for closure or rebuttal. Again,
those question answers do not take up your 5 minutes. Question to the floor. Yes.
Commissioner Hill. We've listened to 12 hours of testimony. I think it would be prudent to
extend those time periods extensively for this evening's proceedings. There is absolutely no way
we can cover the necessary material in that time frame. It's a long night, we're ready to get it over
with. We won't drag it out but I don't think we would be doing either party any service with a 5
minute restriction. We simply just can't cover the material.
Mayor Reeves. I respect your thoughts on that but our job today, the really hard job that we did
today, Commissioner Hill, was to sit here and really listen closely. Our job today was to listen and
to prepare our questions to ask. I have no problem with the 5 minute time because we have been
able to do this at other meetings. This is important and I understand that. I'm not trying to rush
it through but also not trying to drag it out and let it go on and on. I am open if we need to add
some minutes to that or another round at 5 maybe, but I will take any other comments. Then I'll
-19-
ask for the consensus of the Commission. I want to make sure that we don't get too far off track.
Commissioner Stinson.
Commissioner Stinson. Thank you, Mayor. I would concur with Commissioner Hill. I think we
need more than 5 minutes. Thank you.
Mayor Reeves. Any other Commissioners? While we're in discussion here, let's start off with
you, Commissioner Hill, how much time are you talking about?
Commissioner Hill. It's long, but two 11 minutes periods should get it done.
Mayor Reeves. Two 11. Okay.Commissioner Stinson, do you have any recommendations?
Commissioner Stinson. Mayor, on first thought, I would do 5 minute periods, go through the two
5 minute periods and then if a Commissioner has more questions or more information he would
like to gather from the appellants or any of the parties that we would have a discussion at that
point in time. I'm afraid that we're not going to get the information we need out of two 5 minutes.
Mayor Reeves. I understand that. So, you had said 11. (Mayor hears question from floor). Yes.
Unknown person — may be Ms. West. Can I ask a quick question?
Mayor Reeves. Yes.
Lady. Are you folks referring to the 11 minute or the repeated queries including their responses
to our questions? (Asked to repeat by Board) Are you referring to the time frame you're
suggesting including their answers? Because I just heard a calculation as to how long that's going
to take, that it's dependent on their answers.
Mayor Reeves. See, that's what I'm trying to say so I'm glad you asked that. What is your
calculation at 11 minutes each?
Lady: Including respondent's answers?
Mayor Reeves. Without respondent's answers. Concluded by Mayor asking Commission if we
can start off with 5 and 5 and then if we feel like we need to add time, we'll do that. Is that fair
enough? All fair. Okay. I just want to make sure that the timer understands that the
Commissioners have 5 minutes each but when someone is answering their question, please stop the
clock. That does not go against their 5 minutes. Okay. Let's start in alphabetical order and start
with Commissioner Harding.
10:03:14 PM
Commissioner Harding. I yield my 5.
Mayor Reeves. Okay. You yield your 5. You're not yielding to anyone? Okay you're just
yielding. Commissioner Hill.
Commissioner Hill. Procedurally I don't necessarily need to call a witness back to the stand. We
did listen attentively for a very long time. I believe I'm still cognizant to make some big decisions
this evening. I hope everybody else is. The 3 points that I want to discuss with my fellow
commissioners in an open forum is some key points that came up. The CLG vs. the CG was the
focal point for me. That was the part that seemed to be very critical and I can certainly see where
Staff could get there but I can also certainly see where someone could probably press that into a
court case. We have to, in our own minds clear that issue. That's first. I think that this Board
probably needs to take a really bold move after listening to all this testimony by recommending a
compromise position and then be able to fight that position out. I think that's are only choice
tonight. I'm going to listen and in my second 5 minutes I'm prepared to make a compromise
position. I need to be very careful because every word we say during this proceeding can and
probably will be heard again in a deposition. It's just the nature of the business we're in so I'll be
spending the time you guys are talking writing a recommendation. I do think that we have
ironically an opportunity here. I think it's an opportunity to do something that might accidentally
make almost every party in the room feel better about the process. I'm going to yield the rest of
my time and we'll talk about that opportunity soon.
-20-
Mayor Reeves. Alright. Reset the clock. Commissioner Stinson.
Commissioner Stinson.Thank you Mayor. First I'd like to ask a couple of questions of Mr.
Hainline. Mr. Hainline, thank you for your time today and I just have a couple of real quick
questions. The first one deals with the definition of AND as it's written in our Land Development
Codes. The definition is "AND indicates that all connecting items, conditions, provisions or
events shall apply."I take that to read you have to do both. I know you said that was an absurd
argument but if I'm having dinner with you and I say "pass the salt and pepper", you don't hand
me the salt and say I didn't know you wanted the pepper. Could you please elaborate a bit on why
you don't think AND applies in this instance.
Mr. Hainline. In the Service Station part of the CG Zoning District, the only time AND is used is
in conjunction with the Car Wash, so AND Car Wash. And a Car Wash is an intensification of
selling petroleum products. It's an additional thing, and intensification. As both Mr. Hubsch and
Mr. Lindorff , the experts you hired said, that list of things is a list of uses that can be done but the
AND does not mean that it has to be a Service Station accompanied by a Car Wash. It doesn't
mean that because if it did mean that, then that provision and all the provisions that say AND
would be urging a further intensification of the use which is not what your Code does. In the
prefatory language it says that is not what it is doing and it's not what it does in any instance
really. In any of the AND references that I mentioned. If someone selling Home Furniture, the
Code says Furniture AND Appliances, the Code does not make them also sell Appliances. There
are terms or instances in which AND does mean that you have to do both things. But in a Code
that is permissive in nature, that it is listing what the permitted uses are that tends toward Less
Intensive Uses, it says it right in there, it makes no sense to require both the Service Station AND a
Car Wash. If they have to do that, then they'll figure out someway to put a Car Wash in there. I
don't think that is the result that anyone wants.
Commissioner Stinson. Thank you. I just read Section 2416(f) that confirms what you said about
AND. My next question is regarding what "services" , not products, are they going to provide to
the customers at the Gate Station.
Mr. Hainline. That is a page long answer and was provided to your Staff in response to a question
they asked. I could read that entire page but I don't believe that is what you want me to do. The
services provided are not just sales of items but also assisting customers with filling tires, with
pumping gas, with oil changes, with things that happen at a Service Station. It is discussed in the
page long answer that we provided. There's no definition in your Code that describes what that
service is. The one when they talk about Service fits the answer we provided about Service
description. Services are provided. Mr. Kennard, the Gate Store Manager who spoke to you and
lives in Atlantic Beach, provided some answers to that. He referenced a woman who ran out of
gas and he took the gas can to her. He provided hard examples and then the answer itself
indicated more descriptive things of what the service is. Remember, just like Mr. Hubsch and Mr.
Lindorff said, Service Station is the most intense use. It doesn't have to be service bays although
we've said at Commission meetings if this Commission interprets it to require a service bay, we'll
put a service bay in. I think that is not a result people will be happy with. We provide Service.
There's no definition in the Code what that Service has to be. Service Station is the most intense
use. We said what we do at Gate fits into that definition.
Commission Stinson. Thank you sir. Mayor, I would like to ask Mr. Sneed two questions.
Mayor Reeves. Mr. Sneed.
Commisioner Stinson. Thank you, too, sir, for your time and effort you put into tonight and all
day. I've heard a term used in 3 different ways. I've heard fuel pumps, filling stations,
and our Code says fueling positions. How do you define fueling positions?
-21-
Mr. Sneed. My interpretation of that language was your typical two-sided gas pump — so if they
had 3 fueling positions they could put 6 pumps(? — word was not clear). You could go 3 that
worked on either side.
Commissioner Stinson. Do you know when Beach Diner was expanded in 1997, how many
parking spaces did they lose due to the expansion?
Mr. Sneed. They lost none. Mr. Adeeb testified to this. They expanded over a drive-thru lane
that was at the former "Dip 'N Sip" so they in fact added spaces at that point because the drive-
thru lane is gone and they had no conflict with parking cars straight up against the side of the
building. They added 7 spaces. That was in the photograph that I put up several times that
showed the spaces up against the western edge of the current Beaches Diner.
Commissioner Stinson. Thank you. To your knowledge, has Beach Diner ever been segregated,
separated or delineated with concrete barriers or concrete parking stops from the shopping
center?
Mr. Sneed. Never. Their lease was to enter a shopping center. As Mr. Adeeb testified when they
got their permit, it was to join a shopping center. They talk about it being a separate parcel, but it
had common ownership. It has had common ownership since then.
Commissioner Stinson. Thank you. Mayor, one last question for Mr. Hubsch, please.
Mr. Hubsch. Yes sir.
Commissioner Stinson. Thank you Mr. Hubsch. I appreciate your hard work as well. It's been a
long day. Is Beach Diner a conforming structure, business or operation according to the Codes of
Atlantic Beach?
Mr. Hubsch. It is a non -conforming structure as far as building setbacks. It does not meet our
front end rear setbacks, I believe.
Commissioner Stinson. So perhaps my eyes are getting tired, but I thought I read in our Codes
that if there was a reconstruction on a site that every attempt would be made to bring a non-
conforming structure into compliance. Is that correct?
Mr. Hubsch. The Code states that a non -conforming structure can continue as is. Section 2485.
Based on that, we've stated that they are allowed to maintain as is. The only Code provision that
would likely apply to what I believe you're speaking to is our Landscape Code. It says when
improvements on a site are more than 25% of the value, the applicant has to bring the site up to
meet Landscape Codes standards, which we have done in this case.
Commissioner Stinson. So then I'm incorrect in interpreting the Codes that if the Beach Diner is
part of the parcel that Gate Petroleum wants to develop for their service station they are not
required to bring the other part of the area in compliance. Is that correct?
Mr. Hubsch. That's correct, sir.
Commissioner Stinson. Thank you.
Mayor Reeves. Alright. Thank you. Commisioner Waters.
Commissioner Waters. In considering all of the significant public testimony and comments that
we've heard it strikes me, like Commissioner Hill mentioned, the possibility to reconcile many of
the concerns brought forth by our citizens as well as the desires of Gate as a business. I think that,
as elected officials, one of our most important jobs is to balance both sides of any issue we face and
make our best educated decision in the interest of our citizens. I'd like to as Jeremy Hubsch to
come back up. Please speak to the evolution of language in our Code over time. I think we are
stumbling over some definitions, many of which are not explicitly defined in our definitions
section, specifically, Service Station seems to be one that we are struggling with. I concur with
Commissioner Stinson that Service Station is what I think of as full service but I know in the
Exhibits we got in 27A even in 1986 we were beginning to see language both for convenience store,
-22-
but also the operation of a gasoline service station. No mention of bays or service. Can you speak
a little bit as to how that's changed over time.
Mr. Hubsch. Sure.. The term Automobile Service Station has been in the Code for a significant
amount of time. Now we may perceive that to be similar to "not a true service station where
service occurs" like Commissioner Stinson said. From what I've seen historically the Code has
stated that a Service Station was synonymous with a Gas Station. In the 1982 Zoning Code if you
look at the definition of Filling Station, which I think we can all gather, is the same as a Gas
Station, it says Filling Station See Automobile Service Station. It says it is synonymous with a
Gas Station. In the 1982 Code it actually says Auto Service Station but not Repair, Car Wash.
It wasn't really a Service Station or repair where services were occurring. It was really a Gas
Station. In 1985, the Commercial General Zoning District was the second most intensive zoning
district in the City. Also in 1985, the city removed it's most intensive zoning district which was
Commercial intensive which allowed heavy Automotive Repair. The City then shifted heavy
Automotive Repair into our Light Industrial Area which you know is between Levy and Dutton
Island Road. It then allowed minor Automotive Repair to occur in the CG district under the term
of Automobile Service Station. The City has essentially overtime made the Automobile Service
Station definition more intensive. Previously you didn't have to do servicing but it says now you
can do servicing. If you look through the history of the Code, it's always been about attempting to
limit repairs. As Mr. Hainline has stated, Automotive Repairs can have noise, a lot of negative
impact on neighborhoods so the intent has always been to limit repairs. We've made the Zoning
District more intensive over time.
Commisssioner Waters. Thank you. Ms. West, I'd actually like you to answer a very similar
question. We once knew only full service gas stations. We aren't necessarily New Jersey where
that's all that was allowed but can you speak to the fact that common perception of gas stations
may or may not have changed over time.
Ms. West. Absolutely. I don't know if you would need an attorney to speak to this or not, but I
think common sense would dictate that in the 1950's a service station serving fuel was basically a
one or two pump station where an attendant would come out and gas up your car. Obviously,
times have changed and we are much more auto -dependent now. You are now seeing mega -
stations that the previous planner alluded to that you are trying to prevent in going adjacent to
neighborhood communities because of the negative impact they have. These mega stations
contemplate canopies with the 24/7 lighting, pumps in access of 6 along the lines of what you have
here, 14 pumps or more. I think it has changed over time.
Commisssioner Waters. Thank you. I have one last question. I think I can squeeze in. We've
been asked to consider our Comprehensive Plan as our guiding principle in our deliberations
tonight, looking at it the way we would look at the Constitution of this Country. Just as our laws
enforce the Constitution, our Zoning institutes the Comprehensive Plan. We've heard from one
side that these particular Zoning regulations do not enforce our Comprehensive Plan. Jeremy
Hubsch, as our Building and Zoning Director, would you please speak to how our Comprehensive
Plan reconciles our residential character with the fact that we are bordered by two commercial
corridors. I'm going to say I have a prejudice here. I graduated from the University of Virginia
and Thomas Jefferson had very strong feelings on the subject. He thought the purpose of the
Constitution would be entirely defeated if interpreting it as a legal document we failed to adhere to
the law as it was written. Adherence to this is something that I think is really important both to
our citizens and to us as we deliberate but it seems that we have heard testimony from all our
specialists that they do reconcile with one another.
Mr. Hubsch. Yes. As I stated earlier in my presentation today, goals and objectives and policies
in a Comprehensive Plan are put into action in your Land Development Regulations. They're put
-23-
into action on the City's Zoning Map or in the City's permitted uses. For instance, one of the
great qualities of Atlantic Beach is that there are no Commercial uses in the internal residential
area of the City. That's because all those areas are zoned residential. If someone were to try to
rezone those properties to Commercial, they would be an intrusion into residential Atlantic Beach.
This is property that has been zoned Commercial since at least 1979, but we believe back to the
1950's.
Commissioner Waters. Can you speak to how our Zoning Requirements use buffers and other
things to reconcile?
Mr. Hubsch. Sure. The Zoning Code does address quite a few of the things that have been stated
in the Comprehensive Plan. There are buffer standards. There is a separate Service Station
supplemental Regulations that really contemplates all the negative impacts that a Service Station
could have on residential. It has location of pumps where they have access requirements, lighting
requirements. This is where the City has contemplated some of those negative impacts that are
stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Waters. Thank you.
Mayor Reeves. I have a question for Mr. Sneed or Mr. Abeeb regarding parking. Mr. Adeeb, we
talked about the 94 seats and we talked about the 24 parking spaces. The parking situation is kind
of a strange situation because we can only do so much when it comes to that. For you to operate
what is the number of parking spaces that you feel you need?
Mr. Adeeb. Mayor, I can answer that very quickly. When I came in 1997, the way you all are
viewing it today the Code was 1 parking space for 2 seats. I had 119 seats. You give me 50 spaces
and we're out of here. We're going to say thank you, it was great working with you and that's
what I would have gotten in 1997. I went before the CDV and I went before the Commissioners.
They vetted it . They did everything they could to get all the information they could. You read the
CDV minutes . When they voted on it they voted unanimously, both bodies. I got what I'm
entitled to then. Today, I have 50 parking spaces minimum. Now we have another argument with
Gate Petroleum in another Court but I can tell you right now, you give us 50 parking spaces
because that's what's fair.
Mayor Reeeves. First of all, I can't give you any parking spaces.
Mr. Adeeb. I got you. I'm speaking metaphorically.
Mayor Reeves. I understand the rule in 1997 but fortunately the City changed that. There are
some small businesses that could not open today if we still had that 1 for 2. If something could
happen, you would not accept anything less than 50?
Mr. Adeeb. In 1997, that is what you would have demanded.
Mayor Reeves reminded Mr. Adeeb that he is talking about 2016.
Mr. Adeeb. We work towards peak demand. You all know when my peak demand is. Everbody
does — it's weekends. You all come by the Diner everyday on the weekends on a regular basis,
most everyone of you. I use 65 to 80 parking spaces and that's what we work toward.
Mayor Reeves. Alright. I just wanted to clear that. Thank you very much. Mr. Peyton, would
you mind coming up. I just want to ask you a question. In your Plan you asked for 7 stations,
depending on how you want to word it. 7 sounds better than 14. Could you explain to me, why 7?
Mr. Peyton. We work towards peak demand. The roads are busy, usually in the morning,
morning commute, and also evening commute. Our ability to allow the station to perform is
dependent on our ability to have availability of pumps. If we can access customers easily in and
out, we are able to perform the returns necessary to invest the money in this real estate, these
lawyers, and the construction of this facility.
Mayor Reeves. If we were able to work out something or ask you to go to 6 and if you had known
that before when you did your plan, would you have asked for 24 so then you could negotiate?
-24-
Mr. Peyton. Well, I think the site is really dictating what we can fit on it. There's not room to put
more than that. We have circulation around this facility now with the number of pumps that
we're building. We think we can meet peak demand. I think, aesthetically it's not going to look
any different really from 6 to 7, in my opinion. We're going to provide better service if we have 7
versus 6. We're going to get a better return on our investment. That's important.
Mayor Reeves. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Hubsch. We talked about the Kangaroo on
Mayport Road which we know was built before 2000. Things have changed and Codes have
changed. The Kangaroo has 7 stations. Is that correct?
Mr. Hubsch. Kangaroo has 8 and 16.
Mayor Reeves. So the Kangaroo has 8 —16. How did you determine that you were comfortable ,
knowing that everyone wants to confuse the CL and CG, with Kangaroo having 8? (Note: Mayor
said 7, but Jeremy said 8)
Mr. Hubsch. Prior to the 2002 addition of the 6 pump restriction into the Commercial Limited
Zoning District, it still said all convenience stores with gasoline required use by exception. That
goes back to 1982. We know that between 1982 and that Kangaroo 4 gas stations were permitted
without getting use by exception in the Commercial General Zoning District. Kangaroo being one
of them. There's some stuff in your record, 23A, 23B where they specifically refer to those uses as
service stations. Those gas stations came under the Service Station definition, CG.
Mayor Reeves. If you could answer quickly, between the two locations if the other one has 8 and
the new location wants 7, is the new location larger, smaller or the same size as Kangaroo?
Mr. Hubsch. The number of pumps is smaller. Property size, I have not done the calculations but
they're fairly similar. They're both wide lots so it's a similar set up. I believe they're fairly
similar in size.
Mayor Reeves. Okay, thank you. Ms. West. What is your definition of a mega station?
Ms. West. I don't think that is defined in your Code, but service station is. I don't think there
should be any confusion..
Mayor Reeves. I asked you, what is YOUR definition of a mega station? You used those terms
several times.
Ms. West. Sure. I'm depending on your previous planner's testimony about a mega station and I
would refer to that as anything over 6. So, for 3 stations, 6 pumps. Anything over that I would
consider a mega station.
Mayor Reeves. I would disagree with that. When you see a station on the interstate with 28
pumps, that is a mega station.
Ms West. You asked my opinion.
Mayor Reeves. Okay, thank you. I have no further questions. We'll start back over. Mr.
Harding.
Mr. Harding. It just so happens that my first job in Atlantic Beach was a gas pumper at Willie's
Texaco at Royal Palm and Atlantic. I used to clean windows and check oil. I know what a service
station back then meant. Over the course of time, that has evolved. We got away from the full
service gas stations, filling stations, service stations, whatever you want to call them. Now, I'm
hearing an argument about what a service station is, what services have to be provided to be in
accordance with the Code. The first thing I'd like to ask Mr. Hubsch. We've heard made
reference numerous times tonight to the CL Zone Requirement pertaining to a Convenience Store
with gas, 6 pumps maximum. The CL Zone allowable and use by exception items carryover. Does
the restrictiveness of the CL Zoning requirement of 6 pumps for Convenience Store since it's not
specifically listed in the CG Zoning, do the same requirements as far as the maximum number of
pumps, is it applicable in the CG Zoning Requirements?
-25-
Mr. Hubsch. My interpretation, as well as that of Mr. Lindorff, is that it does not apply. The CG
Zoning District is a more intensive zoning district. It allows Automobile Service Stations which
allow the sale of retail gasoline with no pump restrictions and we believe the 6 pump restriction in
the lesser intensive zoning district goes away based on the Automobile Service Station definition.
Additionally, the CG Code allows a mix of uses. We know you can do Retail Sales. The only
restriction the City has on maximum side of retail sales is 60,000 feet. That is to eliminate the big
box retailers. Hypothetically, somebody could have a 59,000 square foot retail sales operation
could be a grocery store, could be convenience store and we know that they can do an all wheel (?)
service station. They can blend those two uses based on the way that the CG Zoning Code is
written.
Mr. Harding. Thank you. Mr. Adeeb By your own business license its says you have 94 seats .
By current code which only allots 24 spaces, that won't come close to accommodating your needs
on your high traffic volume days. What would you expect the answer to satisfy your needs for 80
parking spaces. How are you going to accommodate the additional parking that's necessary for
the days that you are at full capacity?
Mr. Adeeb. The fairness yard stick is 36 inches. When I came in 1997, if there's any ambiguity in
the minutes from 1997, it's that it doesn't specify whether I got approved with my extra 1000
square foot addition, an extra 70 seats I put in addition to the 40 seats that were there, then I
would have been approved for what the Code was at the time. It's a sacrifice for me to tell you to
apply the 1997 Code today because that only gives me 50 parking spaces. I'm telling you, I'm
willing to do that for the compromise. 50 is almost a killer for me. 24 doesn't work on Monday,
38 doesn't work on a Monday. It takes 50 everyday. I'm trying to avoid what will happen with 19
if I want to wing it or 24, whatever it is. People are going to be parked everywhere. Sylvan,
Sturdivant, and they're going to be hauling cars off and I'm probably going to be buying the
service for the wrecker service to haul them off. I'm then faced with looking at that on a repetitive
basis until the City starts putting up signs on Sylvan and Sturdivant that says No Parking. Now, I
really just have 19 parking places. It's not fair to my neighbors on the East, the shopping center
to the East of me to have to be hauling off our customer cars that would park over there. To
answer your question, 50 is the minimum and we can somehow make it work for that.
Mr. Harding. Thank you, sir.
Mayor Reeves. Commissioner Hill.
Commissioner Hill. I'm going to make a proposal. I propose that we adopt the application with
concessions. I'm going to list those concessions. Let's talk about parking for a second. We have to
address parking for the safety environment of our citizens. We know we have a tenant and a
landlord dispute, but let's talk about the logistics of parking. I propose that one of the conditions
to approve the parking is that applicant provide 30 parking spots on site. There's room to do it.
They stated clearly that they have additional water treatment capacity. I recommend that we
encourage them to utilize some of that square footage to add additional parking to 30 spots for
their tenant. Parking has to exist. Curb side parking is an option. The City of Atlantic Beach can
provide at least 12 that I can count , probably closer to 24. curb side parking on property that we
own right there on the property. To identify 3 spots that are currently used that are right next to
the building. The other compromise or condition that the 2 curb cuts on the north side of the
property be entrance only. That will solve 99.9% of the impact on the immediate neighbors. I'm
not interested in providing a sidewalk on the south side of the street because we just built a
sidewalk on the north side of that street within a few months. I think instead of adding sidewalks,
we need to provide some buffering. However, the applicant has shown us a diagram that showed a
tremendous increase in plantings that create a line of site issue. I want to be very specific about
this. I don't want to sell out safety for the concept of a shady, blocked view. The City should take
-26-
a very strong stance on line of site issues, curb side on any project going forward, not just this one.
That was the second. (Timer rings indicating time up.)
Mayor Reeves. We're still in that 2"d, we can come back with the other and you can follow
through if you want.
Commissioner Hill. That's why I asked for more time. Thank you.
Mayor Reeves. Alright. Commissioner Stinson
Commissioner Stinson. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate Commissioner Hill's presentation of a
compromise. I would just like to speak to some of the things I was questioning. I keep coming
back to this AND term and the definition in our Land Development Regulations where it's a
MUST(?). I read in Section 24111(b)(9) Automotive Service Station with minor Automotive
Repairs. I'm trying to figure out what kind of repair there is. I think all the attorneys sitting here
are selling a service to their clients. We are in service to a group of citizens. If I go to Beach Diner
and have breakfast, they sell me a product, but it's the service that keeps me coming back. I'm
struggling with that somewhat. I have a very unique viewpoint on fueling positions so Webster
tells me that a position is an area or a site. My personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter
how many hoses are sticking out of that box. That's one fueling position whether the car is on the
right side or the left side. The parking issue is very complicated for me because if it's an outparcel
and the common area maintenance fees have been consistent throughout the entire term of the
lease that leads me to believe that perhaps that they were considered separate. There is nothing
that defines that. There's nothing that says that Beach Diner gets 90 parking spaces and there's
nothing that says they don't get 90 spaces. For a period of time, they've been sharing this. Then I
listen to Commissioner Hill's pretty bold compromise. Some of what he says makes sense because,
if all the parties are going to come together, everyone is going to have to give, including the City of
Atlantic Beach. I think the City of Atlantic Beach would have to help with stormwater
maintenance, identifying other parking because 30 spaces, according to Gate Petroleum and Mr.
Peyton. That jeopardizes their business. 30 spaces is not enough for Beach Diner. They need 50
and it's a very complicated thing. I don't have any questions, thank you Mayor.
Mayor Reeves. Commissioner Waters
Commissioner Waters. I'm going to quote Thomas Jefferson again because he said something I
think truly profound. "Common sense is the foundation of all authorities of the laws themselves
and other construction." I think we have two commissioners who demonstrated a lot of common
sense and I think it is something that should guide everything we do tonight. I have a couple of
questions. I'm going to start with the elephant in the room when it comes to common sense. Ms.
West, in your opinion to you think it makes common sense for us to require Gate to put in a Car
Wash or service bay to be in compliance with the letter of the law and be a Service Station as
permitted. Does it make common sense?
Ms. West. (Could not hear reply)
Commissioner Waters. Mr. Sneed, does it make common sense?
Mr. Sneed (Cannot hear) Mr. Hainline talked about it. He talked only about 111 and that
subsection 9, I guess it is. There's a qualifying word in there. There's a WITH before the AND so
I don't think that particular provision requires you to do repairs and I don't think it requires you
to have the car wash. But what does require you to provide service is your general definition
provision, I think it's 17. Service Station Automotive is defined and it says AND in connection
with this perform minor automotive service.
10:52:40 p.m.
Commissioner Waters
-27-
13. Commission Questions/Deliberations and Vote.
Motion: Find that the Director did not commit an error because site plan meets applicable Code
requirements, confirming the approval of the site plan application.
Moved by , Seconded by
Roll Call Votes:
Aye: 5 — Harding, Hill, Stinson, Waters, Reeves
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
-or -
Motion: Find that the Director committed an error because site plan does not meet applicable
Code requirement(s) (to be specified), reversing the approval of the site plan application.
Moved by , Seconded by
Roll Call Votes:
Aye: 5 — Harding, Hill, Stinson, Waters, Reeves
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
-or-
Motion: Modify the approval of the site plan application and revise in manner specified.
Moved by , Seconded by
Roll Call Votes:
Aye: 5 — Harding, Hill, Stinson, Waters, Reeves
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Adjournment
There being no further discussion by the City Commission, Mayor Reeves declared the meeting
adjourned at : p.m.
ATTEST Mitchell E. Reeves
Mayor/Presiding Officer
-28-
Donna L. Bartle, CMC
City Clerk
-29-