12-19-17 CDB Minutes-v S
J "Seii:sA
r)
fI)ir -1
N
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
December 19, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:03p.m. All members were present
except for Ms. Simmons and Mr. Mandelbaum. Also present were Planner
Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board Secretary Valerie Jones and
the City Attorney, Brenna Durden representing the firm Lewis, Longman
and Walker.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the November 21st, 2017 Regular Meeting of the
Community Development Board.
Mr. Stratton motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZVAR17-0011 PUBLIC HEARING (Mary B. Cloutier)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64,for relief from
the Section 24-88(b)requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling
units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style,
colors and materials in order to replace the siding on one side of the
townhouse at the south 25 feet of Lot 670, Saltair Section Number 3
(aka 134 Pine Street).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained that this is a request for a variance from
townhouse requirements as described in Section 24-88(b). The
townhouse is the southern unit of a two-unit townhouse. It's zoned RS-2
and the future land use is residential medium density.
Page 1 of 7
The proposed plan is to replace the existing T1-11 siding with hardi-board
lap siding on the back, side and part of the front. Planner Broedell
illustrated on the overhead where the siding will go. He explained that the
applicant will paint the new siding the same color as the existing siding in
order to match the other unit. The issue is that the new siding is a different
style than the existing siding and neighboring unit.
Mr. Stratton asked for clarification on which style of siding was going to be
used. Mr. Reichler asked about the term "substantially" in Section 24-64
and wanted to know who makes the judgement on what "substantially" is.
Planner Reeves said that the Community Development Director makes the
first call and he felt that it was substantial enough that he not make the
decision but bring it before the board. There was further discussion
regarding the different types of siding.
Applicant Comment
Mary Cloutier introduced herself as the owner of 134 Pine Street. She
stated the reason she wasn't doing her whole front is because her
neighbor doesn't want to do it on their side. She picked the change point
so that it wouldn't be so obvious that the sidings were different. She
explained the poor quality of the existing T1-11 siding and how it is prone
to rot. This contributed to her decision to use the hardi-board because it
is a better quality product and will hold up better.
Mr. Reichler asked the applicant why she was not using the vertical hardi-
board. She explained that it is more expensive to install. Mr. Elmore said
that because the lap siding overlaps then water is not prone to go up. With
the vertical seam water can find its way behind the board.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore explained that our code needs to be changed so that Staff
doesn't have to come before the board for this in the future. He said he is
for the applicant having the hardi-board based on the fact that it is a
superior product to the T1-11.
Motion
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR17-0011 for all of the reasons cited
by Mr. Elmore. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Page 2 of 7
B. ZVAR17-0012 PUBLIC HEARING (Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase
the maximum distance for off-site parking from 400 feet as required
by Section 24-161(1)(2) to 1600 feet allowing for shared parking
agreements at Atlantic Beach Subdivision "A", Lots 817-822 and
842-844 (aka 461 Atlantic Boulevard).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that the applicant for this item asked that it be
deferred to the January meeting. Because this item was advertised he
asked that the Public Hearing be opened in case there is anybody in the
audience who would like to speak.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment for ZVAR17-0012. With no
speakers, public comment was closed.
The item was deferred to the January 16, 2018 meeting.
C. UBEX17-0004 PUBLIC HEARING (Atlantic Beach Yard Real Estate)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-
111(c)(3), to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages
in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code at 461 Atlantic Boulevard.
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that the applicant for this item asked that it be
deferred to the January meeting. Because this item was advertised he
asked that the Public Hearing be opened in case there is anybody in the
audience who would like to speak.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment for UBEX17-0004. With no
speakers, public comment was closed.
The item was deferred to the January 16, 2018 meeting.
5. REPORTS
A. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Code Discussion
Courtesy of the Floor
Chair Paul opened the floor. John Roddan introduced himself as the owner
of 785 Triton Road. Mr. Roddan asked if it was this Board that made the
decision to put the sidewalk in front of his home. He explained that he lost
his 3 bushes and a cactus plant and that it has affected his parking
situation. Mr. Elmore interjected that this would be a public works issue.
Chair Paul informed Mr. Roddan that this Board did not review and/or
Page 3 of 7
approve the sidewalks. She directed Mr. Roddan to contact the City
Manager. Planner Reeves provided Mr. Roddan with the City's number.
Chair Paul reminded the Board of their meeting with the City Commission
where they had a round table discussion in regards to medical marijuana
dispensaries. It appeared that the group was generally in support of
allowing dispensaries.
Staff Report
Planner Reeves went over the State of Florida rules on hours of operation
(on-site dispensing), facility locations in regards to schools, must be
treated the same as pharmacies, the City cannot limit the number of
facilities allowed. The state limits the number of facilities based on the
number of identification cards issued. There are 250 starting out and
increase of 50 for every 100,000 users in the state. All of this is spread
across 5 different regions. Each region gets a percentage of the facilities
based on a percentage of their state population. There are additional
requirements for lighting, staffing, security, video surveillance and a host
of other things that are required. Planner Reeves said that all of that comes
from state law and then the city would add what they want on top of that.
He went on to explain what some surrounding jurisdictions have done.
Mr. Stratton asked if the decision was made to definitely move ahead with
this and approve them. Chair Paul clarified that there was a round table
meeting and the majority consensus was that the Community
Development Board make a formal recommendation that would go to the
City Commission at which point they would define the regulations and then
a public hearing would be held. Some of the things that came out at that
meeting were that the facilities would only be in Commercial General
zoning districts and that they be separated from residential, daycares,
schools, places of worship and other similar facilities. If these facilities
were allowed and additional restrictions were added then they would have
to apply to and be treated like pharmacies.
Chair Paul turned the discussion back over to Planner Reeves. He
discussed the different separation options and presented several maps to
give the Board examples of what that could look like.
Planner Reeves pointed out that he used property line to property line. So
it would be 500 feet out from the property line and if any parcel touches
that 500 feet that entire parcel is taken out of the picture. He gave Fleet
Landing as an example. He went on to explain that the door to door
application used by a neighboring jurisdiction puts a lot more work on the
applicant and creates a lot of gray areas whereas using the parcel line to
parcel line is much easier.
Page 4 of 7
Staff's recommendation is that facilities have to have frontage on Mayport
or Atlantic. This would help insure some separation from residential
without special requirements. It would also help by keeping them on
frontage which is a more visible location. This would help police any
negative impact that could come out of this. He reminded the Board that
State restrictions are also pretty heavy with security, lighting, cameras,
inside waiting areas, who is allowed inside, etc. Then require the addition
of a 1,000 foot separation from pharmacies within Atlantic Beach. Right
now there is only one by Fleet Landing.
There was discussion at the joint meeting that we don't want to push all of
them to Mayport Road, so if we are looking for a solution to balance the
availability it is really hard to have a separation requirement that includes
pharmacies on Neptune Beaches side of Atlantic Boulevard because that
would wipe out most of the availability. Chair Paul asked Ms. Durden if the
Board is required to consider the zoning in the next town over to which
Ms. Durden responded that she did not believe they are. Planner Reeves
explained that if they do not have to consider Neptune Beach then it would
improve availability.
The last recommendation was to require a 100 foot separation from door
to any property line in a residential zoning district. This would be from the
front door that is used by the dispensary to be at least 100 feet away from
the nearest residential zoning district. This is fairly easy to map and would
provide a residential buffer without wiping out shopping centers (i.e. LA
Fitness, Cantina Louie) where the front of the shopping center is far from
any residential zoning district but the back immediately abuts a residential
zoning district.
Planner Reeves went on to explain that there was one other thing that
didn't come up at the joint workshop and he thought needed to be defined
further.That is dispensary versus processing versus cultivation. Cultivation
is the growing of the raw product, processing is turning that raw product
into whatever consumable method it needs to be and dispensary is selling
it over the counter to the patient. He asked the Board if they were okay
with all of those, only two or one and to include what would be acceptable
in their recommendation.
Board Discussion
Chair Paul expressed that she was fine with processing and dispensary but
not sure about the cultivation. Ms. Lanier believes that processing and
dispensing would work with Staff's proposed plan but not with cultivation
due to the need for a large piece of land and the commercial properties
don't provide that.
Page 5 of 7
Mr. Reichler questioned whether they need to make decisions on all of
this. Chair Paul would like more information on the state law before
deciding if they want to mess with dispensaries due to the fact that they in
themselves had a lot of regulations, not to mention cultivating. Mr. Elmore
thought that large companies would do the cultivating somewhere else
and then dispense. He compared it to a dairy farm where the cows are at
the farm and then the milk is distributed and sold throughout the state. In
the end, he doesn't want to see a dispensary in the community.
Mr. Stratton said he will be going off the board but he did want to be on
the record. He agrees with Mr. Elmore, to even consider allowing this in
Atlantic Beach makes him very uncomfortable. He believes there is a lot
of potential for misuse and doesn't see a positive side to allowing this. He
urged the fellow Board members to follow the route that Jacksonville
Beach took, which was to ban dispensaries.
Mr. Reichler said his understanding from being at the joint meeting was
that the direction was that if the city was to allow dispensaries what kind
of laws can be put together.
Ms. Lanier commented that if there is medicine that can help someone
alleviate their pain she is all for it, but that it is not unreasonable to ask
someone to go to Neptune Beach to get what they need. She also believes
that the City of Jacksonville will have facilities close by for people to access.
Mr. Reichler said he believed the Commission and the Mayor are expecting
some form of land development regulations utilizing reasonable
restrictions that would be consistent with what the citizens of Atlantic
Beach would want. Chair Paul suggested that they draft some legislation
that gives some direction, but as a Board they would like an outright ban
after further discussion. Planner Reeves agreed that they should have
something come out of this meeting, other than an outright ban, to
present to them.
Mr. Reichler felt that with some of the buffers it left room for a dispensary
to come in anyway. Chair Paul reminded everyone that whatever they do
would affect pharmacies also. The only way to not affect pharmacies
would be to go with the state regulations as set and to not make any
additions.
In a response to a question by Mr. Elmore on the adverse effects of the
buffer on future schools and daycares, Ms. Durden brought up a similar
situation with Jacksonville where their buffers and restrictions in regards
to sexual predators has created a situation where they are having trouble
when it comes to building a daycare or school in certain places. So if you
get a dispensary and the buffer is 1,000 feet then you would not be able
Page 6 of 7
to build a daycare or a school within 1,000 feet. The buffers work both
ways. There was lengthy discussion on this matter.
Mr. Elmore recommended the map with the 500 foot buffer for churches,
schools and pharmacies. Chair Paul agreed with Mr. Elmore. Ms. Lanier
was comfortable with the recommendation, she just wanted to make sure
that the 2 pharmacies and 2 grocery stores and anything else that is in the
south side of Mayport Road would remain and that they consider the
resources in Neptune Beach.
Mr. Stratton brought up the earlier recommendation with the map that
had the 500 feet buffers and to put verbiage with it that would show the
restrictions that the Board felt were the most appropriate to put in place
if dispensaries are going to be considered for Atlantic Beach. Because of
these restrictions and the effect of them on pharmacies the Board does
not recommend approval and are voting on an outright ban. Ms. Lanier
agreed but wondered if it was possible to get information on where the
buffer concept comes from and what is the reasoning behind it.
Ms. Durden pointed out that even the state feels that 500 feet from
schools is appropriate for a buffer. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that
you can apply this to a place or worship or a daycare and other like uses.
It is certainly a well-recognized and utilized zoning tool throughout the
United States. Just as there are variances and waivers as tools to utilize.
There is enough history of the use of buffers to justify their use. Ms. Lanier
found this explanation satisfactory to move on.
Planner Reeves said that it sounded like the Board would like for Staff to
do something based on the combination map because it will solicit the
most information and it will show how onerous this stuff can be for
pharmacies and dispensaries. This would at least continue the discussion
in the public realm and see what the community has to say. Staff will
rework the language and then get the Board's recommendation on the
final ordinance. The Board agreed.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Stratton
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Brea Paul, Chair
Attest
Page 7 of 7