Loading...
1966 Beach Avenue ZVAR20-0014 Opposition S Hill and G West 09.08.2020Sent by email only to all but Janet Powell. Please confirm receipt of email. From: Susan Hill and Gregory West, owners of 57 19th Street (gregorykwest@gmail.com <mailto:gregorykwest@gmail.com> , 904-993-9444) To: Brian Broedell, Principal Planner (bbroedell@coab.us <mailto:bbroedell@coab.us> ) Amanda Askew, Director of Planning & Community Development (aaskew@coab.us <mailto:aaskew@coab.us> ) Brenna Durden, City Attorney (bdurden@coab.us <mailto:bdurden@coab.us> ) Copy: Montell Owens (montellandlisa@gmail.com <mailto:montellandlisa@gmail.com> ) Janet Powell (by US mail, First Class, to the "Return and Record" address set forth on the Warranty Deed attached to Variance Application ZVAR-20-0014) Re: Opposition by Susan Hill and Gregory West to ZVAR-20-0014 at 1966 Beach Avenue (September 15, 2020 Meeting) Variance Application ZVAR-20-0014 seeks two variances: changing the driveway of 1966 Beach Avenue from Beach Avenue to 19th Street and increasing the grade (thereby increasing the allowable building height). Although we would certainly be happy to see the vacant corner lot at 1966 Beach Avenue developed with a home appropriate to the size and character of the property, we oppose both zoning variances for the reasons set forth below. We respectfully request that the Community Development Board deny both since there are sufficient grounds for denial of both variances as provided in Section 24-64(c). We have lived at 57 19th Street diagonally across the street from 1966 Beach Avenue for more than 25 years. We spoke at the City Commission meeting on April 26, 1993 when the Commissioners unanimously approved the current 19th Street parallel parking plan and 6’ wide sidewalk in anticipation of the residential development of the north side of 19th Street. Driveway Access Applicant states that he does not want the driveway on Beach Avenue because it would be near a “relatively busy intersection”. But 19th Street is much busier. Beach Avenue is a one-way one-lane north-bound Street; 19th Street is a two-way two-lane street. Both Beach Avenue and 19th Street have stop signs at that intersection. Beach Avenue is used primarily by the Beach Avenue residents living between 18th and 19th Streets; 19th Street is also used by the Beach Avenue residents living between 18th and 19th Streets, but is also heavily trafficked by the many beach-goers parking and cruising in search of parking on 19th Street, especially during busy weekends and holidays and the even more busy summer months. As the City’s website description of the current 18th Street Enhancement Project states: “By all accounts, the number of 18th and 19th street beachgoers has increased steadily through the years. On most days throughout the year, the public parking area is orderly; on many days, however, the area is crowded with vehicles and traffic is heavy.” The variance seeking the movement of the driveway should not be granted on the basis of applicant’s suggestion that Beach Avenue is busier than 19th Street, since it is not. The Commission should deny the request to move the driveway from Beach Avenue to 19th Street because the variance would create more traffic safety issues than leaving it on Beach Avenue. The proposed driveway would also pose a danger to the many beach-goers walking on the sidewalk on the south side of 19th Street to avoid the heavy street traffic, particularly to older adults and families who use 19th Street Beach access because there are no wooden steps to climb. The uninterrupted sidewalk on the south side of 19th Street was part of the 1993 Commissioners’ plan instituting safe parallel parking. It was intended to be a safe uninterrupted way to get to the beach from cars and from the neighborhood west of Seminole. Allowing applicant’s driveway would add an unnecessary danger to the many pedestrians, since not only would applicant use it but, perhaps more importantly, other cars would undoubtedly turn around in it when leaving the beach (as they now often do each day in our driveway and our other neighbors’ driveways on the north side of 19th Street). Removing motorcycle parking would also undermine the City’s current unified parking plan for 18th, 19th and 20th Streets, effectively reducing the number of car parking spaces, since motorcycles would then take some of the limited parking needed by families and senior citizens and others using the 19th Street beach walk-over. The motorcycle parking area often has motorcycles and scooters parked in it now. Finally, removing the palm tree and its island would remove one of the few beautification components of the City’s plan for 19th Street. Even though keeping applicant’s driveway on Beach Avenue might be less convenient for applicant since applicant would have a more circuitous route to his house up 18th Street and then north on Beach Avenue (rather than just turning off of Seminole onto 19th Street), the Commission should not grant applicant's request for the convenience of applicant when there are parking, traffic safety and other public safety concerns raised by applicant's variance request. Grade Increase 19th Street has inadequate drainage and is prone to flooding in bad storms. Applicant in the application acknowledges that there has been past flooding from 1966 Beach Avenue. The application suggests that the grading as proposed will increase flooding from 1966 Beach Avenue onto 19th Street with possible runoff onto our property and the other low lying neighbors on 19th Street because the application states that the increased grading will reduce flooding to the neighbors to the north and west of 1966 Beach Avenue. Those runoff waters being diverted from the neighbors to the north and west will have to flow somewhere, and the only available direction for the diverted runoff will be north into 19th Street and perhaps onto the lower-lying properties on the north side of 19th Street, since the water that will be diverted from the west and south in a bad storm by applicant is certainly not going to run uphill east toward Beach Avenue. Applicant has not offered any professional study or other evidence to show that the increased grading will not cause additional flooding to 19th Street or to us or any of the other lower-lying neighbors. That burden of showing no harm from the variance should fall to applicant. Applicant in his application has not even nominally met that burden of showing no harm. Applicant’s variance should be denied until such a study is prepared and the affected neighbors and the Commission are both given a reasonable opportunity to review and approve it. If the Commission does determine that such a study should be prepared before further consideration of the variance request, we would ask that a copy be sent to us contemporaneously with its submission to the Commission.