Loading...
11-17-15 - Minutes " ra 44 4k, r> -.at . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD November 17, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Chair Paul verified that all board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Hansen. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Planner, Derek Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A. was Mr. Sam Garrison. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of October 27, 2015 Mrs. Paul asked for a correction on page 2 of 6 where Mr. Stratton is said to have seconded a motion but he was absent from that meeting. Mrs. Paul asked staff to verify who made the motion and bring back the corrected minutes to the next meeting. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. Mrs. Paul stated that it appears that Item 4.B has a lot of speaker cards. Mrs. Paul then motioned to move up Item 4.B before Item 4.A. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Page 1 of 6 B. 15-ZVAR-1070 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for a reduction in the percentage decrease in height from the percentage of lot area less than 5,000 square feet as required by Section 24-82(c) to allow a 32.5 foot tall house at Daniel and Hackett Replat Block 16 Atlantic Beach West Half of Lot 4 (aka 645 Ocean Boulevard). Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and stated that this item may sound familiar to the board as this property was before the board with another variance request in August. Section 24-64(h) requires a one year waiting period between submissions for a variance that is substantially the same on the same property. The requested variance wording is the exact same but the design of the structure is different. Planner Reeves reminded the board that they voted 6-0 to deny the variance finding that the plan had a negative impact on light and air to adjacent properties. Planner Reeves then reminded the board that they could decide that the new application is substantially the same to the previous and that it has not met the one year waiting period. This decision can be made at any point prior to a vote on this request. Board Discussion Mrs. Paul opened the floor for board discussion. Mrs. Paul stated that the request was the same and it is not like they were going from a height variance to a setback variance. Mrs. Simmons agreed and added that the board does not vote to approve based on design. Mrs. Lanier stated the reason for denial was the impact on light and air and that is still an issue. Mr. Parkes expressed concerns that property owners should have a chance to revise plans after a denial and return within a year. Mrs. Paul asked if there is an appeals process. Staff responded that applicants can appeal any board decision within 30 days of the decision. Mr. Elmore stated that the rules are the rules and that they should have to wait a year, especially with a 6-0 vote. Mr. Stratton expressed concerns about setting a precedent. Mrs. Paul asked the city attorney if the board had to hear from the applicant procedurally. Mr. Garrison stated that if the board deems the application to be untimely then they did not have to hear from the applicant. Mr. Elmore asked if precedent would be set by hearing this variance so soon. Mr. Garrison stated that it could but the item is here before the board and it is the board's decision to make. Page 2 of 6 Mr. Elmore and Mrs. Simmons stated that they had ex parte communication with multiple people related to this project. Motion Mrs. Paul made a motion that application for a variance is substantially the same to the previous application in August of this year and that the waiting period has not been met. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. A. 15-UBEX-1069 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 112(c)(5), 4- 112(c)(5), to allow establishments for heavy automotive repair, towing service or the permanent storage of automobiles, motorcycles, etc. within the Light Industrial and Warehousing (LIW) Zoning District at 325 Mealy Drive. Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and showed maps and photos of the planned location of the business. It was stated that the site is on the corner Mealy Drive and Mealy Street in the Light Industrial and Warehousing Zoning District. The site is surrounded by other light industrial uses with the nearest residential being to the north about 250 feet away. The property is almost fully paved with a 4,500 square foot metal building and a six foot chain link fence surrounding the property. The business is primarily a heavy automotive repair shop with a tow business as well. The towed vehicles will be stored on site but the applicant has stated that it will not be a junk yard where cars stay for a long period of time. A use-by-exception is required for the heavy automotive repair aspect as well as the towing and storage of automobiles. The city also has code that requires all work to be preformed inside of a building which the repair shop would be required to meet. Staff has come up with a few possible conditions that board may want to consider for this project. They include requiring a site plan showing dedicated customer parking and storage areas for towed vehicles; to limit the hours of operation; to limit the number of vehicles stored on site; to limit the amount of time that a vehicle may be stored on site; to prohibit the storage or parking of vehicles within the right-of-way. The board could also require all repair occur inside the building in addition to the city code that would allow for easier enforcement later. The board can select from these ideas or add their own. Page 3 of 6 Mrs. Paul asked about how close this property was to the Coastal Cab property. Staff stated that they are located a few parcels to the south. Mrs. Lanier asked for clarification on heavy automotive. Staff responded that heavy automotive is where you would see engines taken apart or body work while light automotive would be battery replacement and tire repair. Mrs. Lanier then asked for clarity between a tow yard and a junk yard. Staff stated that the amount of time a car is on site is part of it and that the applicant may be able to shed more light on requirements. Applicant Comment Chris Calkins, 2152 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32250, introduced himself as the owner of the business. He stated that he wants to focus on the repair aspect, which he is trained in luxury cars, but would continue the tow aspect to help pay bills. Mrs. Paul asked how long a towed vehicle must stay on site. Mr. Calkins said that most cars have to be on site 35 days but newer ones are 45 days before he can start taking action on them. Mrs. Paul then asked how long the average stays on site. Mr. Calkins stated that most are a couple of days because people come to get them, but some do stay the full term. Mrs. Paul then asked if he planned on selling any cars. Mr. Calkins stated that he did not. Mr. Stratton asked if the applicant was the owner of the property. Mr. Calkins stated that he is not but hopes to purchase the property if approved. Mrs. Lanier asked if he was planning on moving his business or expanding from the current location. Mr. Calkins stated that he would move. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he sees no issues with the business. With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Board Discussion Mr. Stratton asked what conditions the rest of the board would consider. Mr. Elmore stated that he is for a condition to prohibit parking and storing cars in the right-of-way. Mrs. Lanier stated that she would like to see repairs take place inside the building and that that should take care of hours of operation since residential isn't that close to the property. Mr. Elmore stated that this is probably an ideal area for this business. Mrs. Lanier agreed. Page 4 of 6 Motion Mrs. Lanier made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by- exception to the City Commission with the following conditions; that all repair activity take place inside the building and that there be no parking or storage of cars in the right-of-way. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 5. REPORTS. A. Incentive Zoning Discussion. Director Hubsch introduced the concept and reminded the board that this is a continuation of previous discussions. The concept is based around the idea that the city can encourage and attract growth that it would like to see by offering incentives to developers. The primary incentive would be to allow additional density. The city currently allows 14 units per acre on commercial properties, but does allow up to 20 units per acre in other parts of the city. The first step would be to allow 20 units per acre in commercial areas and then to work increases on top of that for providing things that the city would like to see. Staff is proposing an al la carte type menu where if a development offered things on the desired list then they get points and those points would amount to a certain number of additional units per acre. A list of possible criteria was given including location in a CRA, proximity to transit, providing for public parks, energy star construction. A couple of example projects were presented to show how the system would work. Mrs. Simmons asked if the project in Jacksonville Beach on Beach Boulevard was developed with anything like this. Mr. Hubsch responded that they did get an extra 20 units per acre for a total of 40 units per acre just because of their proximity to transit. Mr. Elmore stated that he is in favor of this and would like to see it go further. Mr. Parkes stated that he sees this as an advantage for properties along Mayport Road that could be combined into a larger project. Mr. Elmore and Mrs. Paul both spoke about a need for one and two bedroom units in the area that will add places for young professionals to live. Mrs. Simmons expressed concerns about the long term success of projects like these, but recognized that having a project provide certain elements like those listed could help. Mr. Hubsch added that any project like this would have to come in as an SPA and get a recommendation from the board and approval from commission. Page 5 of 6 Mrs. Lanier asked what the process would be going further. Mr. Hubsch stated that there would be extensive changes to the Land Development Regulations as well as changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Parkes asked if there were a way to add the developer's track record as a way to offer incentives since some developers are better and can show that with their previous products. Staff was directed to continue working and bring back examples and more information to continue the discussion. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 pm. 113z<i—TC)•XZ Brea Paul, Chair `^ Attest Page 6 of 6