Loading...
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