Loading...
4-17-12 Minutes of the April 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board S a J p1 iiiii r) -J}; )�` MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD April 17, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER. — 6:04pm Vice -Chair Kirk Hansen verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton, and Brea Paul and called the meeting to order at 6:04pm. Chair Chris Lambertson was absent. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall and Building Official Michael Griffin. 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES — MARCH 20, 2012. Mr. Hansen called for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 20, 2012 regular meeting. Mr. Elmore moved that the minutes be approved as written. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 6 -0. 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. None. 4. OLD BUSINESS. None. 5. NEW BUSINESS. A. UBEX -12- 00100012 APPLICANT: Alice Reeves, represented by Jim Elliot ADDRESS: 90 Forrestal Circle South REQUEST: Request for a use -by- exception to operate a beauty salon establishment, as is consistent with Section 24- 109(d)(4) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial, Professional & Office (CPO) Zoning District on a property located at 90 Forrestal Circle South. Staff Ms. Hall reported this property, though part of the Atlantic Beach Villas Report residential subdivision platted in 1960/61, falls within an approximately 170' deep swath of parcels rezoned to commercial use in the mid 1980s. This area was envisioned to house very low intensity professional office uses experiencing light traffic and infrequent customer contact, such as for the practice of architecture, law, real estate or insurance sales. Several small scale personal care and service establishments, such as barber or beauty shops, tailors and shoe repair shops were included as permitted uses -by- exception, presumably to serve the surrounding neighborhoods. Though this area has been zoned as commercial for over 25 years now, this particular property has been maintained as residential. The applicant, Ms. Reeves, is under contract to purchase the property and wishes to utilize it for a commercial use, particularly, a hair salon. Being that this is a change in use of the property, the applicant, if approved for the use -by- Page 1 of 4 Minutes of the April 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board exception, will have to comply with all those commercial corridor development standards applicable to non - residential uses with frontage along Mayport Road. Ms. Hall explained the general practice of staff is to discuss such development standards and requirements with applicants pursuing permitted uses at the time the local business tax receipt is applied for, being the time when a location undergoes a change of tenant/occupant or use. Once the applicant has demonstrated compliance or is making progress towards compliance with applicable standards, final approval is granted for the use. However, in the case of uses -by- exception, staff does not grant final approval of use — the City Commission does, upon recommendation of the Community Development Board. Thus it is important that the required development standards are clearly referenced in any recommendation and/or approvals originating from this Board or the Commission. Applicant's Jim Elliot, Realtor with Watson Realty and representative of the applicant, Presentation explained that the subject property is currently bank -owned and has sat vacant for a while. He said the applicant foresees the use of the property as follows: The eastern most addition — previously a den — would be the primary location of the salon operations, consisting of three (3) chairs at most. The original living room at the front entrance would serve as a waiting/reception area. The majority of the kitchen/dining area would be converted to accommodate sink basins for hair washing, while the remaining area of the kitchen would be reserved for employee use. One bedroom would be used for an employee break area, while the other would be used for storage. Public Greg Selby (3 Forrestal Circle N) expressed concern regarding potential Comment impact a commercial use would have on the remainder of the subdivision which is residential. Particularly, he said he felt there would not be adequate space for on -site parking and the existing landscaping already poses a hazard in that it creates an obstruction so that drivers cannot see bicyclists and skate - boarders heading south on the adjacent sidewalk. He also said he feared that conversion of the residential property to a commercial use would nullify the waiver that property owners were granted in 2009 to maintain chainlink fences. Phyllis Davis (82 Forrestal Circle South) said she too was concerned about the safety issue of increased traffic, noting that drivers cannot see beyond the shrubbery and must begin pulling into Mayport Road to determine if there are bicyclists or skaters on the sidewalks to the north of Forrestal intersection. She also expressed concern over the amount of parking that would be required to accommodate the use, noting that on- street parking would add to the congestion of the streets and the ability to maneuver them safely, and how additional impervious surface for on -site parking would affect stormwater runoff. She also noted the property has been poorly maintained for at least a year. Mr. Elliot was allowed to responded, restating that the property is Page 2 of 4 Minutes of the April 17, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board currently bank -owned and subject to a short sale. He emphasized that, should this transaction be completed, the new owner would make significant improvements to the property and maintain them, since these would be in the best interest of her business. He added that all required parking would be within the boundaries of the property, and consistent with all applicable land development regulations. Board Ms. Paul concurred with comments regarding parking and stormwater Discussion runoff, while Mr. Parkes noted that any commercial permitted use -by- right within the CPO would have to meet all applicable land development regulations, and there is no reason to believe this would not be the case for this property as well. The property is already zoned CPO; it's just a matter of this use being a permitted use -by- exception rather than a permitted use -by- right, meaning that rather than the final approval of the use being made by staff, it is made by the City Commission, upon recommendation of this Board. Unless special conditions are attached exempting the use from meeting particular requirements, the owner will still have to comply with all the normal regulations, including maximum impervious surface, stormwater runoff retention, minimum parking and signage requirements. Mr. Burgess asked to what depth the CPO encroaches upon this neighborhood, and Ms. Hall said it appears to be the width of two lots, or somewhere around 160 -170'. Mr. Elmore inquired about parking requirements, and Ms. Hall said there is not a provision precisely for this use. It appears that salons and massage therapists have previously been required to provide parking on the basis of square footage of the unit occupied, which would be three (3) parking spaces for this structure which has just over 1200 square feet. Mr. Elmore suggested that in order to not disturb the adjacent residents, signage should not be lighted. Motion Mr. Parkes moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission approval of the use -by- exception, UBEX -12- 00100012, to allow the operation of a beauty salon establishment, as is consistent with Section 24- 109(d)(4) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial, Professional & Office (CPO) Zoning District on a property located at 90 Forrestal Circle South, and subject to the property achieving compliance with all the Commercial Corridor Standards applicable to new development. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 6 -0. Page 3 of 4 Minutes of the April 1 7, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. A. Beach Avenue Discussion Staff Board members discussed the unique characteristics of Beach Avenue and Report the issues that made it suitable for study. Ms. Hall reported that she was working on GIS maps to highlight historic development patterns and trends. Mr. Stratton said that he felt it would be helpful it the Board could take a field trip to Beach Avenue to look at some of this issues in person. He wondered if this would be permissible or if it would be a violation of Sunshine. Ms. Hall said that she would check into the logistics of such a mobile meeting. It was the consensus of the Board that they did not want this to be a contentious undertaking, but they felt characteristics unique to Beach Avenue, coupled with the regular receipt of variance applications from Beach Avenue property owners, indicated the current regulations were not consistent with the needs of the area and at the very least warranted review. 7. ADJO MENT — 7)37 PM Chris Lambertson, airman Attest Page 4 of 4