Town of Glen St. Mary 

The Town of Glen St. Mary held the regular monthly meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. at the Town Hall with Council MembersDavis, Foster, Hodges, and Rhynehardt present. Mayor Juanice Padgett presided over the meeting. Council Member Davis opened with prayer followed by the flag salute.

Note: These meeting minutes are a summarized version of the actual discussions at the meeting. These are not verbatim transcripts. For a complete audio recording of the discussion please contact Donna Loadholtz at glenstmary3777@gmail.com.

Mayor Padgett closed the regular monthly meeting and opened a public hearing.

Public Hearing:

1. Ordinance 2017-01 – Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Cannabis Dispensing Businesses – Mayor Padgett asked Attorney Bense to read Ordinance 2017-01 by title. Mayor Padgett then asked if there was anyone present that had any questions or comments. No one had any comments so Mayor Padgett closed the public hearing and reopened the regular meeting.

    

   Minutes: Consideration:

1. Approval of minutes of January 17, 2017 – Regular Monthly Meeting: On a motion by Councilman Rhynehardt, second by Councilman Foster, the Board voted to approve theminutes as presented. (Vote 5-0)

   Policy Agenda Items:

1. Vote to Approve Second Reading of Ordinance 2017-01 – Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Cannabis Dispensing Businesses – On a motion by Councilman Rhynehardt, second by Council member Davis, the Board voted to approve the second reading of Ordinance 2017-01 as presented. (Vote 5-0)

2. Vote to Adopt Ordinance 2017-01 – Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Cannabis Dispensing Businesses – On a motion by Councilman Rhynehardt, second by Councilman Foster, the Board voted to adopt Ordinance 2017-01 as presented. (Vote 5-0)

    

   Mayor Padgett then closed the regular monthly meeting and opened a public hearing.

    

Public Hearing:

1. Resolution 2017-01 – Approving a Variance of Both Sides and Rear of Property Located at 9852 South Glen Avenue - Mayor Padgett asked Attorney Bense to read Resolution 2017-01 by title. Mayor Padgett then asked if anyone had any comments for or against this matter. She added there was a gentleman coming from Gainesville that wrote the diagram, but that Ms. Patti Yost had brought the paperwork. Mayor Padgett realized the property owner wrote the dimensions for two lots, which is one hundred fifty feet, but they have two lots and twenty-five feet of another lot. So they really wouldn’t need the variance on the sides, however, the front setback should be fifty feet. We have the e-mails where we told him what the setbacks are. Patti came today and he still wants to come. Councilman Rhynehardt asked if this is a house. Mayor Padgett responded it is storage buildings. She handed out the drawing that was submitted with the Variance application. Councilman Foster asked about whether this would be a problem if the road was made a four-lane road if more property in the area is developed. Mayor Padgett stated if that were to happen, the state would have to buy more right-a-way anyway, but said it was a good thought. Mayor Padgett discussed with the front and rear setbacks for commercial property abutting residential property, it only leaves fifty feet to build on, making it hard to get commercial business on just one lot. Council then discussed the different barrier materials they may use as a buffer to the residential property in the back. Mr. Steven Bryner asked how long the property owner has owned the property. Mayor Padgett responded that it had been purchased in July 2016. Councilman Foster suggested scooting it back a little bit more and get it off the highway frontage a little bit. Mayor Padgett responded that the problem with that is you have a hundred foot building on a hundred and thirty foot lot. Once you start doing this, you are setting a precedence and then the next business will want to do the same thing. Mayor Padgett has spoken with Ms. Patti earlier in the day and the buildings can only be forty-five feet long to meet the setbacks. Questions were raised about what the buildings would look like. Ms. Patti referenced other properties they own that this would be similar. Mr. Steven Bryner raised concerns of noise at all hours of the night, such as a motorcycle that has been stored in one of the current buildings bays. It was started inside the building and has been very noisy. He voiced his concerns of it being a rental type property and how it draws transient type people. He asked about the beautification of the property as well of the type of items to be allowed for storage on the property. Ms. Patti replied that the plans are that they would have a fence around the property with a security gate. The requirements are usually that there would be some sort of covering over the fencing so that it is not immediately visible. They are going to take down the current building. Building the new buildings will clean up the property as well as bring business to the area. Tenants sign contracts stating they will not store fireworks or combustibles in the storage units. The gate will have a keypad that only tenants would have access to the property. They will also have security cameras that will be monitored off-site remotely. Council member Hodges asked how many units in the current building are being utilized now. Ms. Patti replied approximately ten of the twenty-six are currently occupied because they are trying not to encourage rentals there because it is going to be torn down and they would have to relocate the tenants. Discussions about how many new units the new plan would have, but that is dependent upon the setbacks that are allowed. The current building drawings are 7,200 square feet. Council asked if any of the buildings would be climate controlled. Ms. Patti responded the two center buildings would be climate controlled. Questions were asked about backing up traffic by turning into the property but having to wait for the gate to open. A larger setback would prevent this from happening. Council voiced concerns with the roadway being dangerous because it is a busy stretch of road. Attorney Bense stated with the new variance and setbacks, the buildings will be different sizes. If the current drawings are estimated to be fifty units, but that is with the buildings being the current size. The proposed outer buildings will be one-sided, but the two center buildings would be double-sided, but theoretically you have to go inside to get access to the storage units from the center of the building. Council had been waiting for another representative to make it to the meeting to further discuss the process. Ms. Patti brought him up to speed with what we had discussed before he was able to get to the meeting. Mayor Padgett told Mr. Steve the property is one hundred thirty feet from front to back, but there is a fifty foot setback for the front and a thirty foot setback on the rear because it butts up to residential property. Mayor Padgett stated he could put a row of shrubs along the back to make it twenty-five feet. But they are still looking at fifty feet on the front and twenty-five on the back. Mr. Steve asked if there was any way they could be granted anything less than twenty-five feet on the back. Mayor Padgett stated that she wasn’t wanting to start a precedence for every other business to want the same thing. She was surprised at the drawing and looked back at the e-mails that were sent telling them what the setbacks are. He asked wasn’t this the purpose of the meeting, to request variance setbacks. She replied, no. He was supposed to put them on the paperwork like he had done on the drawing. She pointed out the setbacks stated on the drawings for the sides and rear, but nothing for the front. Ms. Patti told Mr. Steve that she had misunderstood. Some discussion of DOT requirements and the setbacks transpired versus them trying to maximize the square footage of their lots to make money in the storage business. Mayor Padgett responded that she understood, but she is here to protect the residents of the Town. A bit more discussion revealed that the business was looking to build three feet off the property line, not twenty feet as we had understood the drawings to show. Mayor Padgett then stated she had one property owner call and ask about this. The resident had stated that if the setback was going to be five feet, she would be down here opposing, but was fine with it being twenty feet. Her name is Bethel Johns. Mayor Padgett suggested at this point that they would need to go back and re-draw the plans and we would re-advertise and have another public hearing. Mr. Steve asked before he paid to have it re-drawn, he wanted to understand that the best they were going to get is a three foot variance putting the setback at twenty-two feet off the property line. Mayor Padgett told him he needed to ask for what he wants, but she doesn’t know how the other Council feels. He claimed he did ask for what he wants, he said he requested three feet off the property line. It was requested wrong, it was written opposite of what he actually wanted. Council asked Mr. Steve what he was going to put around the property. Steve responded it depended on what they were granted and what would make the neighbors satisfied, whether it was a privacy fence, a masonry wall, or chain-link fence. Councilman Foster then asked what type of building and roof they were planning to build. Upon hearing they had plans to put a single rear sloped roof that would be draining onto the surrounding properties, the question was raised of whether or not St. Johns Water Management had been contacted about their plans. Steve claimed they weren’t going to have any pavement, but Council responded that the buildings covered a large area of the property and whether or not they may be required to have a retention pond. Councilman Foster made the point that if they have a hundred foot building ten feet wide, with the rain flow, if you dump all that water to the back of the property, it has no place to go but onto other people’s property. Mayor Padgett then asked if they had checked with St. John’s Water Management. They responded that they have not. Mayor Padgett informed Mr. Steve that St. John’s Water Management determine the guidelines for retention ponds. Mr. Steve was adamant that they are not planning on putting in a retention pond. Mayor Padgett told him that if they have that much concrete covering the property with buildings, they may require him to. Councilman Foster commented he may be required to install storm drainage. Council suggested getting with the St. Johns Water Management out of Palatka before having his plans redrawn. Mayor Padgett went over the basic setbacks of commercial property, with a five foot option if shrubs are added to the rear of the property. Fencing was again addressed for the neighboring properties. Mr. Steve stated if his requested setbacks were approved and he is able to put the seven thousand feet of concrete on the ground. If pitching the roofs so that the water drains back onto their own property, pitching the property to drain to the road, and he is granted the five foot setback, he would put shrubbery up, that he is not going to spend $10,000 on a privacy fence. He felt that it was a negotiation. Mayor Padgett rebutted that she would not negotiate that. It is going to be the setback. It’s not going to depend on what he was going to put. She felt like he was trying to twist her arm saying that. He stated he wasn’t trying to do that, but find out what the property owners were okay with seeing next to them for privacy, then that is what they will do. Mayor Padgett suggested contacting St. Johns Water Management. She told Mr. Steve he needed to redraw the plans with the fifty foot setback in the front, keeping in mind they have one hundred seventy-five feet of highway frontage because of the additional twenty-five feet. The side setbacks are twenty-five feet. Attorney Bense told the business representatives that from a legal standpoint, it is very unclear what they are asking. It appears they are looking for the opposite of what it is they are asking for. Mr. Steven Bryner asked again if there would be a fence or just shrubbery at this point. There would be at least a chain-link fence or a privacy fence for protection. There will be a security gate of some sort. What kind that will be to make everybody happy is unclear at this point. Mayor Padgett suggested drawing the fence in the plans within the fifty foot setbacks so that the cars turning in would not be out on County Road 125 waiting to turn in. No one had any other questions about the variance. Mayor Padgett told Mr. Steve to contact our office by e-mail if he had any questions.

    

   Policy Agenda Items:

1. Vote to Approve Resolution 2017-01 – Approving a Variance for Both Sides and Rear of Property Located at 9852 South Glen Ave – This variance was found to have been requested incorrectly. The requestor will have to resubmit.

2. Review Prior Month’s Expenditures (Check Register) – Council had no other questions about the prior month’s expenditures.

    

   On a motion by Council member Davis, second by Council member Hodges, the Town meeting was adjourned at 7:45 P.M.