04-17-18 Comm Develop Board MinutesMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
April17, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chair Paul. Mr. Major, Mr.
Mandelbaum and alternate, Mr. Tingen, were absent from the meeting. Ms.
Simmons, Mr. Elmore, Mr. Hansen and Ms. Lanier were all present. Also present
were Director Shane Corbin, 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 March 20, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community
Development Board.
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
Ms. Paul said that she has been the Chair for several years and she doesn't desire
to be the Chair for this year. She would be happy to be the Vice Chair. Mr. Hansen
said that he thought Ms. Lanier would make an excellent Chair. Ms. Lanier said that
she would be glad to do it. Mr. Hansen nominated Ms. Lanier to be Chair. Ms.
Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hansen
nominated Chair Paul to be Vice Chair. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously. It was decided Vice Chair Paul would chair this
meeting.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZVAR18-0008 PUBLIC HEARING (Michael Phillips)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the
minimum distance required for open exterior stairs from side lot lines
from 3 feet as required by Section 24-151(b)(1)(n) to 1.5 feet to allow for
an open exterior staircase on the south side of a new two story detached
garage at Lot 4, Block 24, Subdivision 'it" Atlantic Beach (aka 340 Ocean
Boulevard).
Staff Report
Director Corbin explained that the variance requested is to accommodate a
stairwell to an accessory structure. The property is zoned RS-2 and is
approximately 50 feet wide by 115 feet deep. It is a new construction single family
home. Initially, the applicant had submitted for a permit at 350 Ocean Boulevard
Page 1 oflO
next door, with a similar site plan, which was revoked. When they resubmitted for
340 Ocean Boulevard, someone included the 350 Ocean Boulevard plan as a
reference point. That caused a little bit of confusion. Director Corbin showed that
plan on the overhead and pointed out the stairwell for that address.
A permit was applied for 340 Ocean Boulevard with a 2 car garage. Staff submitted
comments to the applicant on June 17 and requested that setbacks be shown on
the site plan. On the second submittal the setbacks are shown, but there isn•t a
staircase shown. Staff approved it based on the site plan, it was approved by other
reviewers and a permit was issued. Director Corbin put the first site plan submittal
up and pointed out that there wasn•t a doorway or staircase indicated. He then
showed the revised site plan that Staff received and again it didn•t have a staircase
on the structure. He explained that when renderings show elevations and the
elevations do show staircases but not on the site plans that Staff used to actually
look at the setbacks. Director Corbin then showed a current survey of the property
that shows where the staircase is located and it is within the setback line.
On December 17, 2017 Staff received a complaint on the staircase. Staff went and
looked at the situation and verified that there was indeed a setback violation. Staff
spoke with the developer and they agreed that there was an issue. On January 18
Director Corbin became aware of it. The Building Department and Planning Staff
went out to the site and accessed the situation. At that time the developer wanted
to solve it and not file a variance. Whether by moving the staircase or taking the
stairs up through the interior of the building. The Developer was allowed to
continue working on the home while he tried to figure this out. Staff continued to
receive complaints. On March 18 Director Corbin contacted the developer and Jet
him know that it was time to make a decision on what he was going to do. Director
Corbin told him that if he wasn•t going to apply for a variance then Staff would
have to do enforcement for the setback violation. At that point, the Developer
decided to go for a variance.
The request is to keep the staircase. The attached garage is 5 feet from the side
property line and meets the setback, but the staircase projects towards the
property line. It is allowed to project 2 feet towards the property line but it
projects and additional1.5 feet. Director Corbin said Staff looked into cutting the
staircase in half along with some other creative ideas but then they encountered
other building code issues. He said that the Building Department Official was at
the meeting if the Board had any questions for him.
Analysis and concerns are that the staircase is protruding 1.5 feet beyond the
allowed setback. Director Corbin said that the City is not going to issue a Certificate
of Occupancy and a Stop Work Order has been placed on the accessory structure.
Chair Lanier asked whether the two lots were owned by the same developer.
Director Corbin said that they were but have been sold off separately. Chair Lanier
wanted to know if the upstairs of the garage is an apartment or just a room.
Page2of10
Applicant Comment
Public Comment
Director Corbin said that he believes it is for the property owner's daughter to use
as a spare bedroom. She asked for clarification of the rear setback which is 10 feet
and Planner Reeves explained the difference due to it being a detached structure.
They discussed the lot size and confirmed that it was a new build. Mr. Hansen said
that it was his understanding that the site plan shows the setbacks but he wanted
to know if the elevations show the setbacks. Director Corbin said that they do not.
Michael Phillips of 992 Ocean Boulevard introduced himself as the developer. He
said that he has been pulling permits in the City since 1989 and has only asked for
one variance in that time. He said that he is here for a variance on something that
he permitted and he said that there have been inspections throughout the build.
Mr. Phillips said that the neighbor came forward and said that it was too close to
her property and that's when it became an issue. He pointed out that the staircase
was shown on other pages that were stamped by the engineer. Mr. Phillips said
that the site plans are not the only thing that matters on the plan, rather, all the
pages matter. He said that he got a permit, built it and now he is being told he will
have to take it down unless he can work something out with the neighbor. Mr.
Phillips went on to explain why the stairs can't just be moved. Moving them to the
inside of garage would take up a fourth of the garage and involve gas lines, water
lines, etc. He blamed the architect and said the City missed it. He explained that
he had a footer inspection on October 18 and nothing was said then.
Ms. Simmons said there seems to be a lot of blame here and that a lot of people
supposedly missed something: the architects missed putting the staircase in the
rendering and she wanted to know what the City missed. Mr. Phillips said that the
City goes through each page. He said that different departments look at these
plans: public works, zoning, etc. Mr. Phillips said that they don't just go off the site
plans, there are cantilevered decks, soffits, etc. Ms. Simmons said that if Mr.
Phillips has been living and building in Atlantic Beach for that long then he missed
it too. She said that he should be aware of the setbacks and not just blaming
others. He said that with the different setback options then he depends on his
architect, engineer and the City to catch these things. He added that there is blame
to go around and it is unfortunate where things are.
Vice Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Allen Winter introduced himself as Council for Ms. Kane, the southern neighbor,
but also as a neighbor residing at 308 Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Winter said that there
has to be push back when these things happen and he is glad that City officials are
listening. He said that he sees 4 parties in this matter: the owners, the builder, the
City and Ms. Kane. Mr. Winter pointed out that the only party with clean hands is
Ms. Kane. He is asking that the variance be denied because she should not be
damaged by this and has done nothing wrong.
Page 3 oflO
Joan Kane of 330 Ocean Boulevard introduced herself as the neighbor. She said
she built her home 21 years ago. She is asking for the variance to be denied due to
the fact that it is against code, it damages her property value, it invades her privacy
and security as someone could easily climb over the fence.
Vicki Reynolds of 328 Beach Avenue introduced herself. She said that a mistake has
been made with this home and asked that the variance be denied.
Bruce Cleary of 122 6th Street introduced himself. He said that because the builder
has been building in Atlantic Beach for so long and this was a new build that he
should have known what the setback was.
Board Discussion
Chair Lanier said that this one is easy for her due to the fact that it was an empty
lot and it is a newly designed home that should have been built to standard. She
opposes granting the variance. Ms. Simmons agreed that the builder should have
known the setbacks and she cannot approved this variance.
Vice Chair Paul asked if Staff was routed an entire set of plans or site plan only.
Planner Reeves said they are routed an entire set of plans. He said that multiple
plan sets come in and depending on the project it can go to upwards of 5
departments at the same time. Planning receives architectural and site plans
typically, sometime structural, but not always. In this case, Planning looked at
architectural on the first review but they were missing the setbacks on the site
plan and the structural projections. When the revision was submitted the
projections and the setbacks were shown on the site plan so there was no reason
to open the plans.
Mr. Hansen said that he was not in favor of this variance. Ms. Durden reminded
the Board to make its motion based on the criteria set forth in the City code (i.e.
grounds for decision: approval or denial). Ms. Simmons pointed to 1, 4, 5 and 7 for
denial of the variance. Chair Lanier added 3 which is public safety.
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to deny ZVAR18-0008 based on grounds for denial items 1,
3, 4, 5, and 7. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
B. Ordinance 90-18-234 PUBLIC HEARING
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER
24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AMENDING SECTION 24-17,
DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 24-110, COMMERCIAL LIMITED
DISTRICT (CL); AMENDING SECTION 24-111, COMMERCIAL GENERAL
(CG); ADOPTING NEW SECTION 24-169, PHARMACIES AND MEDICAL
MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTER DISPENSING FACILITIES; PROVIDING
FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
Page 4 oflO
Staff Report
WAIVER OF SECTION 24-51 PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Planner Reeves explained that this is the Public Hearing for the Medical Marijuana
Treatment Center Dispensing Facilities ordinance that has been discussed for
several months. This was a voter referendum in 2016 and the City has a
moratorium in place that will expire at the end of May. This ordinance will address
that moratorium so it can be lifted. There was a joint meeting in November 2017
with City Commission and the Community Development Board and a meeting last
month. Here are some of the State regulations: Facilities cannot dispense between
9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., they cannot be within 500 feet of a public or private
school, they must be treated the same as pharmacies, the City cannot limit the
number of facilities allowed, the State has limitations on the number of Facilities
permitted in the State based on the number of registered users, there are security
requirements that including staffing and video surveillance.
Planner Reeves told the Board what neighboring communities are doing.
Jacksonville Beach approved Dispensaries in February in their C2 District, it is a
conditional use-by-exception on 3rd Street and their CBD. They mention the State
hour restrictions and they add a 500 foot buffer to Medical Marijuana Treatment
Centers on top of the State requirements. Neptune Beach approved Dispensaries
in January allowed as a permitted use in their C2 and C3 Districts, with limited
house between 2:00a.m. and 7:00a.m. The State says you cannot dispense during
those hours but you can do other activities such as office work, growing, etc.
Neptune Beach went a little further and said no activities between 2:00a.m. to
7:00 a.m. They have an 800 foot pedestrian buffer from churches, public and
private schools and other Medical Marijuana Treatment Facilities.
The proposed Ordinance would make Pharmacies and Medical Marijuana
Treatment Facilities as a permitted use within Commercial General. Pharmacies
would be removed from Commercial Limited. The parcel would need to have
required frontage on Atlantic Boulevard or Mayport Road. This would ensure
separation from residential neighborhoods. There is a minimum 100 foot
separation between a customer entrance and any property line of a residentially
zoned property. There would be a 500 foot buffer from Pharmacies and
Dispensing Facilities inside and outside of Atlantic Beach, so we would count the
ones that are in Neptune Beach or Jacksonville. It would mirror the State's
requirement for public and private schools, and add religious institutions whether
inside or outside Atlantic Beach. Planner Reeves showed the Board a map and
then explained a couple of the eligible locations for Dispensaries.
Most of the available locations are on Mayport Road along with 3 parcels on
Atlantic Boulevard (One Ocean Hotel, Value Pawn and the storage unit property
next to Value Pawn). Planner Reeves reminded the Board that the buffers work
both ways so if we get a pharmacy in, no church or school could be within 500 feet
of that facility. Planner Reeves said that the Board should make a
Page 5 oflO
Public Comment
Board Discussion
Motion
c.
Staff Report
recommendation for approval or denial or approval with conditions and it will
move forward to Commission for a first reading on May 14.
Vice Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. There was no public
comment so the Public Hearing was closed.
The Board asked if this Ordinance would come back to them again and Planner
Reeves said it would not due to the moratorium deadline. Ms. Durden clarified
that if the Board wanted to make changes as part of their recommendation they
can do that in their motion. Chair Lanier said she was ready to send it through to
the Commission.
Ms. Simmons motioned to recommend approval of Ordinance 90-18-234 to the
City Commission. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously. Vice Chair Paul asked when it would have its first reading and
Planner Reeves said the first reading would be on May 14th and second reading
on May 29th.
Ordinance 90-18-233 PUBLIC HEARING
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER
24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AMENDING SECTION 24-17,
DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 24-110, COMMERCIAL LIMITED
DISTRICT (CL); AMENDING SECTION 24-111, COMMERCIAL GENERAL
(CG); AMENDING SECTION 24-165, GAS STATIONS; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF
SECTION 24-51 PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Director Corbin explained that this item began in September 2016 and has been
ongoing. The current code has some outdated terminology and some uses that
need clarification. For example, in Commercial Limited you can have a
convenience store with gas pumps but in the Commercial General you have auto
service station, both of which can be considered gas stations. There is outdated
terminology that needs to be clarified and the definitions are inadequate and the
standards need to be updated.
At a Town Hall on January 27 the public comments showed that they wanted to
see restrictions on size, lighting, total number of pumps that would be allowed
and the general proximity that a gas station would be allowed to any residential
property. The Ordinance was discussed by the Commission on March 12 and the
feedback from them was that they wanted a more detailed set of restrictions
based. That brings us to the version that is presented to the Board.
Page 6 oflO
This Ordinance contains new definitions, removal of some definitions, and
removal of gas station with pumps in the CL. Automobile service station with
minor auto repair was removed. Gas stations, electric charging stations,
convenience stores and car wash definitions were added. A variety of design
standards were added to be more restrictive. One being that no fuel pump shall
be located within 250 feet of any lot line of any property that is zoned residential.
Language has been added in regards to lighting, the lighting would have to be
consistent throughout the project and it would have to be down lighting so that it
can't shine off the property. No lighting can be more than 0.2 footcandles beyond
the property line, which is standard lighting when looking at development plans.
The number of pumps have been restricted to 4. This number came from the
Commission at the last meeting. There currently is no limit on gas pumps in
Commercial General. All future gas stations will be required to front commercial
arterials such as Mayport Road or Atlantic Boulevard. We are proposing enhanced
landscaping by adding some understory trees as well as shade trees.
Variances would follow the typical process. Hours of operation would be restricted
to 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Signage would be very limited. There would no longer
be inflatable objects, flags, stickers, signs on gas pumps and telephone poles.
Outdoor sales of consumable goods (i.e. ice, red box, propane, etc.) would have to
be screened in the future.
The biggest restriction would be a quarter mile buffer between any future gas
station and current ones. The Commission didn't feel comfortable with an all-out
ban and eliminate access for citizens. Director Corbin showed the Board a map
that displayed locations where new gas stations wouldn't be allowed. Effectively,
one or more gas stations would have to go out of business to eliminate the buffer
before a new gas stations could open. Staff is proposing to include some language
to protect any existing gas station that is in operation so that they wouldn't be
affected. The same for anyone who has a permit in or a site plan and they are
moving forward with a project.
Vice Chair Paul asked about the gas station at Levy Road and Mayport Road that
has been vacant and for sale, can someone purchase it and continue to operate it
as a gas station. Director Corbin said they would have 6 months from the time that
this Ordinance would go into effect.
Chair Lanier wanted clarification on any existing permits or projects in motion,
that they would not be affected. Director Corbin said that is correct and she asked
if the sign age part would be retroactive. Director Corbin gave an example of a new
gas station that was about to come on line and they had certain things that they
didn't already have approved in their plan and they wanted to add additional
sign age. This Ordinance would prohibit that. But if there is a gas stations out there
that has already been approved for an ice machine and propane outside, then the
Ordinance wouldn't go into effect. Director Corbin said that typically there is a lot
Page 7 oflO
Public Comment
Board Discussion
Motion
5. REPORTS
Public Comment
of signage that a gas station doesn't submit an application for, they just put them
out.
Mr. Hansen asked for clarification on the 4 pumps to which Director Corbin
explained that it would be up to 8 cars fueling at one time.
Vice Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. There was no public
comment so the Public Hearing was closed.
Vice Chair Paul said that the Ordinance does seem to be a reasonable solution in
response to the feedback from general public. Mr. Hansen said he read through
this Ordinance and the old Ordinance and he thinks this is a good fix. He said he
would recommend it to the City Commission. Chair Lanier said she supports this
and said that the Staff has done a masterful job of sorting through all of
conversation and issues. Ms. Simmons concurred and commended Staff for the
details (lighting, distances, landscaping, etc.).
Mr. Hansen motioned to recommend approval of Ordinance 90-18-233 to the
City Commission. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
The Board discussed Mr. Mandelbaum's absenteeism and direction on replacing
his seat. Ms. Durden said that the Board could request the Commission to take
notice that one of the members has not appeared at the meeting. She said she
would look to see if there is a specific provision and get back to the Board after
the public comment.
There were no reports.
Planner Reeves asked Vice Chair Paul to open the floor for any general public
comment. Vice Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Gloria of 2726 Dahlonega Drive is a property owner in Atlantic Beach. She asked
for clarification on the marijuana buffer because she is a member of a church in
Atlantic Beach. She said she was concerned if something is opening up. Vice Chair
Paul said that there isn't anything opening up at this time but that it had to be
addressed as a City prior to someone wanting to open up a Facility. She explained
that the State has criteria and the City also has criteria which includes the 500 feet
from a church or a school. There was no more public comment so the Public
Hearing was closed.
Page 8 oflO
Board Discussion
Vice Chair Paul brought the meeting back to the discussion with Ms. Durden. She
said there is a section in the code, Chapter 14-19 that says "Any member of the
Community Development Board may be removed for cause by the City
Commission upon written charges and after public hearing. Any member who fails
to attend 3 consecutive meetings without cause shall have his office declared
vacant unless the member•s absence is excused by a majority of the Board
members and the City Commission shall promptly fill such vacancy." So it does
appear that this Board does have the ability to declare that position vacant unless
the member•s absence is excused by a majority of the Board members. Vice Chair
Paul said that Mr. Mandelbaum has missed all of the meetings this year. Mr.
Hansen asked if he had notified someone that he wasn•t going to be at a meeting
then would that be excused. Mr. Hansen moved to declare Mr. Mandelbaum•s
seat vacant and ask the City Commission to appoint a new Board member. Ms.
Simmons seconded the motion. Planner Reeves said that he heard from Mr.
Mandelbaum through email for the November meeting and the February meeting.
He said that one was a work commitment and the other was a conflict. Ms.
Durden said that there may be issues that the Board is not aware of. Mr.
Mandelbaum has missed 2 meetings in a row and it is up to the Board whether
they want to wait and see if he misses a 3rd meeting. Mr. Hansen withdrew his
motion but he asked that Staff please inform Mr. Mandelbaum that they would
like to see him at the meetings or they will entertain a motion to have him
removed. Planner Reeves reminded the Board that there is a vacant alternate seat
that the Board Member Review Committee isn•t actively seeking to fill. He
suggested that the Board might want to ask Commission to fill that alternate seat
in case they do come to a decision on Mr. Mandelbaum.
Chair Lanier said that she has found that when an alternate is sitting with the
Board they are completely uninformed and they don•t have the history of decision
making that the current Board has grown into. She said that it is the precedence
and slippery slopes and all ofthe things that the Board has worked so hard to not
set-up for themselves and the community. Chair Lanier said that she doesn•t
believe an alternate member, unless they attend every meeting and go out with
the package and inspect everything, she doesn•t think that they are equipped. She
said that she would rather have members that could come to every meeting
instead of an alternate member. Ms. Simmons agreed with Chair Lanier. Vice Chair
Paul added that there doesn•t seem to be much direction in the wording in regards
to the alternates.
Mr. Elmore commented on the fact that the City Commission over ruled the Board
on a decision they had made regarding 6 foot fencing for a property on Selva
Marina Drive. He said that he is concerned that there will now be many requests
for variances for 6 foot fences. Mr. Elmore said that the Board doesn•t have the
backing of the City Commission.
Page 9 oflO
Ms. Simmons asked if there is a way for the Board to send a notice to the City
Commission that would explain why they feel the way they do regarding 6 foot
fences. Mr. Elmore said that the point is the Commission didn't stand behind a
unanimous decision to deny the variance and allow this to happen when it flies
right in the face of what the City code says. He said he was really disappointed.
Ms. Durden said that there is a way for the Board to draft a letter or a report and
present it to the Commission in regards to fences or any other concern. Mr. Elmore
questioned whether there would be any legal grounds for future variance requests
that would use this situation. Ms. Durden said that each variance stands on its
own and is dependent upon the particulars ofthat particular case. But legally she
thinks there would be a strong argument. Vice Chair Paul said that there have been
several decisions made in situations that were important to the Board and the City
Commission over ruled these decisions. She suggested that a letter may need to
be included in the packets that go to the City Commission on future decisions. Ms.
Simmons asked if there was anything in the code that would direct the
Commission to send it back to the Board if there are going to be changes. Ms.
Durden said that if it is an appeal they can deny or modify. She said that on a use
by-exception this Board is only making a recommendation. Ms. Durden said that
if the changes that the Commission is making are substantially different then what
the Board has recommended, then possibly the Commission should send it back
to the Board. She said she doesn't know if there is anything in the current code
that requires them to do that. Ms. Durden believes that since the Board's action
is only a recommendation, the Commissioners are the ones with the final agency
action in regards to the use-by-exception. She reminded the Board that there will
soon be a rewrite of the City LDR and this might be a topic that needs to be
addressed. If the Board wants to add language in regards to the distinction made
between an application that comes before this Board and an application that
comes before the Commission.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:40p.m. Ms. Simmons seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 10 oflO