Loading...
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the applicant had submitted for a permit at 350 Ocean Boulevard Page 1 oflO next door, with a similar site plan, which was revoked.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