03-20-18 CDB MinutesMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
March 20, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m . by Vice Chair Elmore who sat in for
Chair Paul. Mr. Major, Mr. Hansen, and Ms. Lanier and alternate Mr. Tingen were
all present. Chair Paul, Ms. Simmons and Mr. Mandelbaum were absent from the
meeting. 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 February 20, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community
Development Board.
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Tingen seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
Vice Chair Elmore suggested that this be deferred to the next meeting with the
hopes of having all seven board members present and the Board agreed.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZVAR18-0005 PUBLIC HEARING (John and Dannetta Mahler)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the
maximum structural projection permitted into required front yards from
4 feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 9 feet to allow for the addition of
a carport to the front of the existing house at Lot 1 ofClub Manor (aka 190
Club Drive).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained that this property is on the southeast corner of Ocean
Boulevard and Club Drive and is in the RS-2 zoning district. It was platted in 1954
with a 25 foot building restriction line across the front of the lot. The house was
built in 1958 and the garage was converted into indoor living space in 2017. The
proposed plan is to construct a carport on the front of the existing house. The
carport would be 16 feet from the front property line which is 9 feet past the 25
foot BRL. The need for a variance comes from Section 24-17 in the definition of a
building restriction line it describes that the City shall enforce building restriction
lines even when greater than the minimum yard requirements of that zoning
district. The minimum front yard in the RS-2 zoning district is 20 feet, but because
they have a 25 foot building restriction line as part of the plat then that is what is
Page 1 of13
Applicant Comment
Public Comment
Board Discussion
enforced. Section 24-83b Structural Projections allows features such as roof
overhangs, eaves and open porches to project up to 4 feet into the required front
yard minimums and the proposed carport would fall under this allowance. The
proposed carport would be allowed to go 4 feet in front of the 25 foot BRL which
is 21 feet from the front property line and the proposal is 16 feet from the front
property line which is 9 feet past the BRL. If the BRL wasn't in existence there
wouldn't be a need for a variance.
Ms. Lanier asked when the 20 foot setback came into being. Planner Broedell said
that happened in 1982. Vice Chair Elmore asked about a past variance request
where he thought there was a similar situation. Planner Reeves confirmed 2 other
requests where one was granted and one was denied. Mr. Hansen asked if the
variance that was granted was due to the fact that the original footprint was at 20
feet. Planner Reeves said yes. Ms. Lanier wanted to confirm whether there would
be a need for a variance if the BRL didn't exist to which Planner Broedell
confirmed.
John Mahler of 190 Club Drive introduced himself as the owner. He said that he
did a little research and he gave some examples of nearby construction and said
that he is still 6 feet 3 inches farther from the road than any of these examples.
Mr. Mahler said that the 4 feet he is asking for is basically a cantilever. He
commented that he felt like he was being picked on. Vice Chair Elmore explained
that all setback measurements start at the right of way line.
Vice Chair Elmore opened the floor to public comment. With none, it was closed.
Mr. Tingen declared that he had ex parte communication with the applicant. Mr.
Hansen said that he feels the Board would be saying they aren't going to have a
25 foot BRL, but a 20 foot BRL if they grant this variance. Ms. Lanier asked Planner
Broedell to clarify on the map which area had the 25 foot setback. Planner Reeves
showed the Board where it is located. Ms. Lanier asked how many situations are
there where a building invades the 25 feet. Planner Reeves said he knows of 2 and
there have been about 5 attempts in the last 4 years. There was discussion about
the fact that the homeowner had gotten a permit to enclose the former carport.
Vice Chair Elmore said that he doesn't have a difficult time with this since it does
meet the RS-2 setback requirements and there are already 2 previous examples
of variances that were granted. Ms. Lanier agreed. Mr. Hansen wanted to make
sure that the Board wasn't doing something far sweeping. There was further
discussion on the implications for this plat and any further variance requests if this
is granted.
Page 2 of13
Motion
B.
Staff Report
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR18-000S. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZVAR18-0004 PUBLIC HEARING (DeJean and Laurie Melancon)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the
maximum structural projection permitted into required front yards from
4 feet as required by Section 24-83 (b) to 12.5 feet; to increase the
maximum structural projection permitted into required side yards from 2
feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 2.8 feet; and to increase the
maximum height allowed for this lot from 17.5 feet as required by Section
24-82(c) to 23.7 feet in order to build a new deck and roof at the east 75
feet of Lot 5, Daniel and Hackett Replat of Block 16 (aka 664 Beach
Avenue).
Planner Broedell explained that this variance request is for a property located in a
Residential General zoning district. There was another variance for this property
in December 2017. The lot is 50 feet wide by 75 feet deep. The house was built in
1940 and there is an existing second story deck on the north side of the house.
The proposed plan is to construct a roof over the second story deck starting at the
front of the deck running the length of the house at around 36 feet. It would
extend 9.2 feet north from the house, which includes the 8.2 foot deck and a 1
foot roof overhang.
There are 3 variances that are needed to construct the roof: the maximum
structural projection allowed into the front yard, the other one into the side yard
and the maximum height allowed for a non-conforming lot.
The first two variance requests are for setbacks where in the RG zoning district,
the front and rear yard setbacks are 20 feet and the side yard is a combined 15
feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side. In this case the northern property
line would have a minimum of 5 feet. Section 24-83{b) allows structural projects
of up to 4 feet in the required front yards and up to 2 feet in the required side
yards. A similar proposed roof could be located 16 feet from the front property
line and 3 feet from the northern property line according to the code. The
proposed roof would be 7.5 feet from the front property line which projects 12.5
feet into the front yard and 2.2 feet from the northern property line which projects
2.8 feet into northern setback.
The third variance request is for maximum height allowed. Section 24-82{c) states
that on non-conforming lots less than 5,000 square feet in lot area, the maximum
height is restricted based on the total lot area compared to the minimum lot size
of that zoning district. Take that percentage and apply it to the maximum height
allowance of 35 feet. Planner Broedell calculated that the maximum height for
this lot is 17.5 feet. The proposed roof at its highest point is 23.7 feet from grade.
Page 3 ofl3
Applicant Comment
Public Comment
Board Discussion
DeJean Melancon of 664 Beach Avenue introduced himself as the applicant. He
confirmed that he was before the Board in December and didn't realize that he
would be back. He explained that he has an existing porch that is the main
entrance to the house and he would like to put a roof on it to keep it dry. Mr.
Melancon pointed out that the proposed roof will be 3 feet 4 inches below the
current roof. The proposed roof will be 1 foot further back from the existing roof
to tie it into the house. Ms. Lanier asked what the ceiling height is on the first floor
to which Mr. Melancon said it was 9 feet. Vice Chair Elmore asked if the porch has
always been part ofthe house and Mr. Melancon said he did not know.
Vice Chair Elmore opened the floor to public comment.
Joe lndriolo of 645 Ocean Boulevard introduced himself. He asked if the existing
stairway was going to come around to the side or will maintain to the existing
stairway. Vice Chair Elmore said that he doesn't see it wrapping around.
There was no further public comment.
Ms. Lanier expressed her interest in saving and preserving the old beach houses
and make them functional. She said that she didn't have an issue with any of the
requests. She asked Planner Broedell if only part of the porch encroached on the
setback and he said that it doesn't encroach on the northern side. He explained
that the lot line isn't straight so the setbacks change from the front of the house
to the back of the house.
Vice Chair Elmore said that he had ex-parte communication with the applicant. He
agreed with Ms. Lanier that the Board should work with the owners of the old
beach homes. Vice Chair Elmore pointed out that the footprint wasn't changing
and the enclosure of the entrance was adding character and would look like it was
always part of the house. He explained that there are other homes nearby that
encroach into the setbacks more than what the applicant is requesting. He
concluded that he has no problem with this variance request.
Mr. Hansen said he was concerned that approval be made based on the Board's
taste. He didn't think the porch would need to be as big as it is. He said it could be
smaller with a reasonable overhang and not need a variance for the setback, only
for the height.
Ms. Lanier asked staff what the porch measurement would need to be to not need
a variance. Planne( Reeves said that it would be 3 feet off the north property line
which is 8/lO's of a foot difference than what the applicant is proposing. Ms.
Lanier asked how wide the porch is when you come up the steps. Planner Reeves
said that it is conforming on the side yard excluding the roof overhang. The deck
Page 4 of13
Motion
C.
Staff Report
Applicant Comment
Public Comment
Board Discussion
Motion
would need to be reduced to 7.4 feet which would allow for the overhang and still
be conforming. Mr. Tingen said that he had no issues with the 1 foot difference.
Mr. Hansen said it could be 1 foot today but 3 feet tomorrow.
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR18-0004. Mr. Major seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4 to 1 with Mr. Hansen voting against.
ZVAR18-0003 PUBLIC HEARING (Lorraine Schmidt)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the
allowable fence height in side and rear yards from 4 feet as required by
Section lll(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva
Marina Unit 10-Bnorth halfLot2 and Lot3 (aka 1831 Selva Marian Drive).
Planner Reeves stated that this is a request for a variance on fence height from 4
feet to 6 feet in Selva Marina Unit 10-B which is a PUD zoned property located in
the north end of the City north of Saturiba on Selva Marina Drive. The request is
to replace an existing 6 foot wood fence with a new 6 foot wood fence. The PUD
documents state that fences or walls outside the dwelling zone shall not exceed 4
feet in height. The dwelling zone is 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet on the
sides. This PUD was approved in 1978 and the covenants and restrictions were
used as the governing text. Typically municipalities don't enforce covenants and
restrictions but in this case it is stated that the City is responsible for enforcing
them. However, it is evidence that they have not been enforced or the property
would not have a 6 foot fence today. This request is consistent with what is
allowed in the rest of the City where you can have a 6 foot fence on the side and
rear property lines.
Lorraine Schmidt of 1831 Selva Marina Drive introduced herself as the applicant.
She said that the reason for replacing the fence was due to the hurricane. She
pointed out that her neighbors have 6 foot fences. There were several neighbors
there to support her. Mr. Tingen said he had ex-parte communication with the
applicant. He said the neighbor behind her has a 6 foot fence and the neighbor on
one side already has a 6 foot fence.
Vice Chair Elmore opened the floor to public comment. With none, it was closed.
Ms. Lanier said that she walks the area and has no problem with approving this
variance request. Mr. Tingen was in agreement.
Mr. Tingen motioned to approve ZVAR18-0003. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Page 5 of13
D.
Staff Report
Applicant Comment
PLAT18-0001 (Allison Forsyth)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code
of Ordinances within the Residential General, Multi-family zoning district
at RE# 172137-0000, 172140-0000 and 172136-0000 (previously known
as 110,120 and 0 jackson Road).
Planner Reeves said that this is a request for plat approval on Jackson Road. Staff
is asking for a recommendation the City Commission. The property is zoned RG
Multi-Family and the future land use is residential high. The proposed plan is to
divide the .36 acres into 4 townhome lots. The platted lands combined are 125
feet by 125 feet. The new lots would be 31.25 feet wide by 125 feet deep with
each lot having 3900 square feet. The plan is to construct 2 two-unit buildings
where each unit has a garage. Planner Reeves explained the purchase of the
property and what is being deeded off by the owner and the platted land.
Residential high allows up to 20 units per acre and this land could have a maximum
of 7.2 units. Minimum lot size for town home lots is 2,175 square feet and the
proposed lots are over 3,900 square feet. There is a proposed easement on
Jackson Road of 15 feet that would allow for infrastructure. Staff is looking for a
recommendation to the City Commission that either finds this consistent or not
with the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 24 Article 4 of the code.
Ms. Lanier asked about previously platted town homes in the area and clarification
on the location. Vice Chair Elmore wanted to know what is on the property now
and Planner Reeves said the lot did have 2 single-family homes which have been
demolished leaving a vacant site ready to be developed. Ms. Lanier asked if the
townhomes would be rented or sold and if the Board could expect the property
owner to come back with variance requests. Planner Reeves said that everything
is conforming so doesn't expect that to happen.
Allison Forsyth introduced herself as the owner of the property. She said that she
does plan to sell the town homes but has no intent to request any variances.
Ms. Durden said that the City has been working with Ms. Forsyth on the easement.
They are still working on the language. In 2010, Beaches Habitat developed the
property to the north giving an easement of 25 feet but it is limited to water and
sewer. The City's concern is the pavement is very narrow and there is no
opportunity for drainage in the proposed easement. Ms. Durden wanted the
Board to know that this still needs to be worked out with the applicant. She
discussed this further. Vice Chair Elmore was concerned about fire and ambulance
access. Ms. Durden said that is one ofthe things that needs to be addressed before
this goes before the City Commission. Mr. Hansen asked if the Board's
recommendation should be with the condition that the City works out the
easements before City Commission votes on it. Planner Reeves said that Public
Page 6 of13
Public Comment
Board Discussion
Motion
Works has reviewed this and they are comfortable that no existing improvements
are on this property.
Vice Chair Elmore opened the floor to public comment. With none, it was closed.
Mr. Major asked how the Board saw this in the context of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Reeves said that the Future Land Use map presented is part of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this property and
the surrounding properties as residential use at a high density level up to 20 units
per acre.
Vice Chair Elmore said he supports this plat because it will be a good use of the
property. He just wants to make sure that the easement is worked out as to
improve the infrastructure while improving the area. Ms. Lanier thought these
townhomes would be attractive to young buyers. Mr. Tingen wanted to know if
the applicant would adjust the easement so that this doesn't get to the
Commission and need a lot of adjusting. He didn't think that the easement part
was worked out enough. Vice Chair Elmore asked if Mr. Tingen wanted to make a
recommendation with a condition to which Mr. Tingen deferred to Ms. Durden.
Ms. Durden said that everything regarding the easement is worked out other than
the access of right of way. She said that she wasn't uncomfortable with the Board
moving forward. Ms. Lanier asked her if the Board's only responsibility is the size
of the easement and not the use of the easement. Ms. Durden said that the City
only has 10 feet presently and it is essential that the City obtain additional
roadway that would allow access to the lots. She said the Board could approve
subject to appropriate easement to be granted by the applicant. Vice Chair asked
the applicant to come forward and see what could be worked out?
Ms. Forsyth said that they have been working on the language. She was using the
same language that Beaches Habitat had used when they did there development.
Her understanding was that it was always an access and utilities easement. Ms.
Forsyth said she has no problem with the access and understands the importance
of having ingress/egress. She is confident that the City and she will agree on the
language of the easement with the 15 feet that they have already agreed on.
Mr. Hansen motioned that the Board recommend approval with the condition that
Staff come to agreement on an easement along Jackson Road with the owner. Ms.
Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 to 1 with Mr. Tingen voting
against.
Page 7 of13
5. REPORTS
A. Capital Improvement Plan
Planner Reeves asked the Board for permission to defer this to next month's
meeting. Staff is not as prepared to address this as they would like to be. It is in
the code that the Community Development Board does capital improvement
planning for budgetary purposes. To Staff's knowledge this has never been done.
The City Manager has asked the Board to take a crack at this. The Board has a few
months before this would be due.
B. Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance Discussion
Planner Reeves explained that this is an update to the discussion on Medical
Marijuana Treatment Center Dispensing Facilities. In December 2017 the City held
a workshop where this Board created a map with some restrictions. Staff wrote
code based on this and took it to a Town Hall in January 2018 where the code
language was discussed. Staff has cleaned that up based on comments and
feedback from the public. Staff is now hoping to continue that discussion and get
any recommended changes before the code is brought back before a public
hearing next month.
The State has many regulations, but here are a few that the Board might be
interested in; 1) on-site dispensing is prohibited between 9:00p.m. and 7:00a.m.,
2) facilities cannot be within 500 feet of a public or private school, 3) they must be
treated the same as pharmacies, 4) the City cannot limit the number of facilities
allowed within the City, 5) the State has set a limitation on the number offacilities
permitted in the State based on the number of users in the system and how many
facilities there are State-wide, 6) the State has some requirements for lighting,
staffing, security and video surveillance.
Jacksonville Beach approved their ordinance in February 2018. They are permitted
in their C-2 zoning district with a condition use of C-1. They have the same hour
restrictions as the State with a 500 foot buffer from public and private schools
along with a 500 foot buffer from other dispensaries. Neptune Beach approved
their ordinance in January 2018. They have a permitted use in their C-2 and C-3
zoning districts. They have different hours of operation which are greater than the
State. The States says you can't dispense during the 9:00p.m. to 7:00a.m. hours,
but you can do other activities during that time (i.e. office work, cleaning, etc.).
Neptune Beach has 800 foot pedestrian buffers which are door to door from
schools, churches and other dispensaries. Jacksonville is still working on their
language.
The Board asked for clarification on pedestrian buffers and other buffers. Planner
Reeves explained a pedestrian buffer is the shortest distance a pedestrian would
walk using public sidewalks and right of ways from one door to another door. The
buffer proposed for Atlantic Beach is based on property line to property line.
Page 8 of13
Planner Reeves said that Staff has added a definition for the Treatment Center
Dispensing Facilities and Pharmacies. Both would be a permitted use within the
Commercial General districts only. Pharmacies would be removed from
Commercial Limited because we don't want the Dispensing Facilities in CL. We
would require the property to have frontage on Atlantic Boulevard or Mayport
Road. That would help keep them away from residential areas. Staff added a 100
foot separation between the customer entrance and a residentially zoned
property. This would be a straight line from the front door to the nearest
residential property. There is a 500 foot buffer from other Pharmacies and
Dispensing Facilities, that is counting those outside and inside Atlantic Beach.
Also, a 500 foot buffer for public and private schools, religious institutions and
child care centers including those outside and inside Atlantic Beach.
Staff included a few of the States regulations: 1) the prohibition of sale of certain
other products (i.e. alcohol, pipes, bongs), 2} certificate of security requirements
(i.e. alarms systems, video cameras), 3} sufficient lighting inside and outside the
facility, 4) a required waiting area for customers, and 5) prohibit dispensing
between 9:00p.m. and 7:00a.m. All ofthese would allow the City to enforce these
regulations even though they're also State regulations.
Ms. Lanier asked if a Facility could also be a vaping store. Planner Reeves said that
they could but there would be so many other restrictions so it's not likely. He
explained that Dispensing Facilities are licensed by the State for that purpose only.
They have to have experience in dispensing pharmaceuticals. Mr. Major asked if
there were any restrictions on who is allowed in the Dispensary. Planner Reeves
said that the State has requirements that only the patient or their registered agent
can pick up their medication but he wasn't sure if there is a restriction on who is
allowed in. Planner Reeves added that the actual dispensing is done in a separate
consultation room. The product wouldn't be visible to someone in the waiting
room. There are also heavy restrictions on advertising and signage.
Mr. Tingen asked if dispensing could be done through an existing pharmacy.
Planner Reeves said it would have to be a separate facility and there are some
strict design requirements that have to be met. There was discussion about pain
management facilities and how they are not regulated to the degree that the
dispensaries are at the State level.
Planner Reeves showed the Board the map that they had recommended with the
buffers in place. He said there are only a handful of open opportunities, including
a couple of properties on Mayport Road, in the current proposal. One issue with
this is that all of the possible locations are being pushed to Mayport Road and we
don't want to do that. It needs to be opened up to Atlantic Boulevard for equal
opportunity.
The childcare facilities are hard to track and Staff recommends eliminating those
from the code. There is only one that Staff knows of that has been mapped and
Page 9 of13
Board Discussion
would impact this situation. The other ones are in churches so they are already
counted. Planner Reeves reminded the Board that the buffers will work both ways,
if you limit the location of a Dispensing Facility then you limit Pharmacies,
Churches, etc. This could limit future development opportunities. Ms. Lanier
agreed that it would be hard to track since not all childcare facilities have to be
licensed. She said it would be difficult to enforce and be consistent which could
create other problems and issues.
Planner Reeves asked that the Board recommend changes if they have any. Next
month the ordinance would be brought to the Board as a public hearing. It would
then be taken forward for first and second reading at Commission in May. The
deadline is May 28th so we need to start moving it forward.
Mr. Major asked ifthere would ever be the possibility of granting waivers by which
someone could get past the restrictions. Planner Reeves said that at present it
would come before the Board as a variance. He said that the Board could specify
that any changes to these requirements would be a waiver and therefore would
go straight to Commission. The Board could define what criteria they should use
in approving that waiver.
Mr. Tingen asked if the City could follow a larger buffer like Neptune Beach.
Planner Reeves said they could, but he pointed out that with the current buffers
there are only about 6-8 properties that would qualify and the 800 foot buffer
would probably bring it down to 0 properties. Mr. Major pointed out that the 500
foot buffer was the result of many meetings and discussions between the City and
the public. Planner Reeves said it also mimics the State's requirement.
Ms. Lanier said it would be disingenuous for the City to enlarge the buffer with the
goal of not having any dispensaries. Planner Reeves said that Atlantic Boulevard
could be opened up if pharmacies in Neptune Beach were removed. That would
open up a couple possibilities around the Gate gas station, Monahan Jewelers and
the area around Pizza Hut.
Vice Chair Elmore said that he thinks the simplest thing to do is to not have
dispensaries in Atlantic Beach since Neptune Beach and Jacksonville Beach will
have them. Ms. Lanier said that she does see the value of Medical Marijuana, but
we are a tiny community and we have Jacksonville and 2 other communities that
have approved or will soon approve dispensaries in their communities. This gives
several options to the community. Mr. Major said he will be gone next month but
wanted to go on the record to say he would not like to see an outright ban but
would like to see the City allow dispensaries. Mr. Hansen said that he didn't think
banning it would prevent people from having access to it given the proximity of
Jacksonville, Jacksonville Beach and Neptune Beach. He said that if it is going to
be that difficult to figure it out then let's just ban it and let people access it through
these other communities.
Page 10 ofl3
Planner Reeves said that the "ban" conversation can take place next month. In the
meantime he would like to get any recommendations that the Board has. Director
Corbin asked Ms. Durden if the City doesn't allow it as a permitted use in any
district and there is an outright ban, is there another mechanism through a waiver
that it could still come in through any commercially zoned district. Ms. Durden
said that the current code allows a waiver to any provision that is in the code.
There is language that could be utilized and there is already some criteria in that
language, particularly the one that is referenced in Chapter 24 Land Development
Regulations. There is also some text about when the City Commission should
approve a waiver. A person could ask for a waiver from the ban. She gave an
example of the tattoo parlor, there is a ban against a tattoo studio but she did
recommend approval of the waiver because of the 1st amendment. Vice Chair
Elmore asked if there was any more discussion for this topic and with no response
he moved on to Item C.
C. Automotive Service Station Moratorium Ordinance Discussion
Staff Report
Director Corbin explained that this project came before him due to the recent
activity in the City in regards to a new service station that is being built. Over the
last several months staff has discussed possible code changes at multiple public
meetings. Ultimately, Commission asked Staff to put something together with
more detailed restrictions.
Director Corbin said that in the current code allows gas stations/convenience
stores with fueling stations are permitted in CL Commercial Limited and
automotive service stations are permitted in CG Commercial General. Section 24
165 does have provisions for design standards for service stations, lot size, access,
setbacks, etc. Car Repair is a permitted use in Commercial General and Light
Industrial with a special exception in LIW for heavy automotive repair. The areas
that are impacted are the commercial corridors. The feedback that Staff received
was to focus on CG and allow gas stations in those areas with more defined
restrictions.
Some of the issues that we have are with our definitions, with overlapping of
automotive service stations with convenience store and fuel pumps that have a
lack of standards that control the quantity and density of where they can be
located. The previous proposal was for an update in definitions, removal of service
station/automotive, removal of gas stations in CL and an update of permitted uses
in CG. At the town hall we heard that it is the size of facility, the lighting, the
intrusion into residential area, the number of pumps which affects the size and
scale and the proximity to residential property.
Director Corbin said that restrictions were added for accessory buildings located
within distance to residentially zoned property at a minimum of 15 feet and
eliminating the carwash and any auto repair with a gas station as an accessory use.
Page 11 ofl3
Board Discussion
A large buffer was added for the distance that a fuel pump can be located to a
residentially zoned property of 250 feet. Lighting will be restricted to make sure
that it doesn't intrude on residential property. All lighting on a development will
be consistent with its design and it will all be down lit. Staff is proposing that the
maximum number of fuel pumps within a project will be 4 allowing 2 automobiles
for each pump for a total of 8. The front of the parcel will have to front a
commercial arterial (Atlantic Boulevard or Mayport Road) and not side streets.
Landscaping will need to be beefed up to basically shield and buffer the project
from sight. Not only would the vehicle service area or parking lot have a tree every
25 feet but the entire property line along with existing landscaping requirements
of particular shrubs. There would be a shade tree every 25 feet along the property
line and an understory tree every 15 feet. A limit of 25 percent would be put on
amount of landscaping that could be applied for with a variance. The applicant
would have to show that they are unable to meet that before they could apply for
a variance due to other design requirements (i.e. parking, storm water, etc.).
Variances would follow the same process. Hours of operation would be restricted
to 5:00a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on a 24 hour cycle, being closed from 12:00 a.m. to 5:00
a.m. Staff will put very specific language in regarding signs as to eliminate signs
being strapped to every pole and posted in every window. That would include
electronic signage, video screens, light projections, anything with sound, etc. A
provision was added for any exterior consumable goods (i.e. propane, video
machines, vending machines, ice machines) would have to be screened from view
of the public right of way as well as the residential property. There would be a
buffer distance between gas stations which would be 1/4 of a mile. Language has
been added that would not make any existing gas station non-conforming so that
current owners won't have to worry about becoming a non-conforming use as
long as they are in business. lfthey did go out of business then the non-conforming
use provisions would kick in.
Director Corbin showed the Board the existing gas stations on the overhead. He
pointed out that with the proposed changes there are only a handful of sites
where a gas station could go. Some of these sites would have to go out of business
before the buffers could be reduced and a new site could be developed. At which
point another gas station could be allowed in the future, but it would be much
smaller, buffered and less intrusive. He asked the Board if they had any feedback
or changes.
Mr. Tingen asked about an empty gas station on Donner and asked if they would
have to follow these guidelines. Director Corbin said that they would have to meet
these guidelines before they could be reestablished. Ms. Lanier said that the
exterior restrictions will help with the aesthetics. She asked Director Corbin if any
gas station company would build a gas stations that only had 4 pumps. Director
Corbin said that a lot ofthe feedback that Staff received was that the gas stations
don't really make their money off of gasoline but off of the sales of drinks, candy,
cigarettes, etc. Mr. Major asked if the Board could get a draft of the ordinance.
Page 12 ofl3
Director Corbin said he should be able to get a draft to the Board in plenty of time
before the next meeting. Ms. Lanier asked about banning gas stations from corner
lots. Planner Reeves said that the existing code already has some minimum lot
sizes and access point requirements based on corner lots or interior lots. To a
certain extent it is address but has not been addressed any further. Vice Chair
Elmore asked ifthere were any other comments before the meeting is adjourned.
There were no other comments.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Hansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Mr. Tingen seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 13 of13