Loading...
02-21-17 CDB MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD February 21st, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm. All members, including alternate members, were in attendance. Also present were Planner, Derek Reeves, Board Secretary, Grace Mackey and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden. A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Elmore made a motion to nominate Ms. Paul as the Chair for another year. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. All were in favor of naming Ms. Paul as the Chair of the Community Development Board for the current term. Mr. Stratton made a motion to nominate Mr. Elmore as Vice Chair. Ms. Lanier seconded. All were in favor of naming Mr. Kelly Elmore as the Vice Chair of the Community Development Board for the current term. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of January 17, 2017 Ms. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore asked that the minutes be changed to reflect his statement that the City's LDR's need to be "reviewed" not "changed" as the current minutes state in item 5, paragraph 3 of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the January 17, 2017 Community Development Board. Page 1 of 11 3. OLD BUSINESS. 4. NEW BUSINESS. Staff Report Applicant Comment A. Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Update Chair Paul moved to address new business before old business due to the number of people present to speak on the new business. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously to address new business before old business. A. 17-ZVAR-309 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Marie Mortenson) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section 24-106(e)(2) to 19 feet to allow an addition at Milbert Homes S/D Lot 5 (aka 225 Sherry Drive). Planner Reeves introduced the item and gave site context. The property is zoned RS -2 and RL for future land use. The proposed plan is to construct a 197 square foot addition to an existing 1 story single family home 19 feet from the Northern property line. Planner Reeves clarified that even though the front of the house faces Sherry Drive, for setback purposes, the front yard is actually along 2nd Street. Therefore, the proposed addition is technically in the rear yard. The need for a variance is derived from the required minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet in the RS -2 Zoning District. Planner Reeves explained that the home on the property was built in 1950. The pool on-site is nonconforming as it is in the front yard. The fence around the South end of the property is also nonconforming; the fence should be 4 feet tall but is 6 feet tall. Ms. Lanier asked Staff if the house to the South of the property in question, had a front yard technically along 2nd Street or Sherry Drive. Staff stated that based upon the aerial view displayed of these properties, it looks like that property's front yard is along Sherry Drive and its side yard is along 2nd Street. Marie Mortensen introduced herself as the owner of 225 Sherry Drive. She stated that Carlos, who is working with her contractor, will speak on her behalf. Page 2 of 11 Public Comment Board Discussion Motion Staff Report Carlos Gill, 1018 14th Avenue North, Jacksonville Beach, stated that even though the setback issue is at hand, the actual footprint of the home with the proposed addition, will not extend any further to the North or to the East. Paula O'bannon, 304 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated her concern and advocacy for sidewalks. She alluded to the sidewalks along 2nd Street and advocated for having more sidewalks. Jane Wytzka, 352 2nd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that she was stunned by this scenario, as she believes this homeowner to be requesting a reasonable addition, as opposed to the large building and demolishing happening in the City. She advocated for the approval of this project. There was no Board Discussion. Mr. Reichler motioned to approve case 17-ZVAR-309 based upon the condition of an onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements on the property. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. 17-ZVAR-325 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Ahern TH Project LLC) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-161(f)(3) requirement for off- street parking spaces on properties with uses other than single and two-family residential to be designed and constructed such that vehicles are not required to back into the public rights-of-way to allow up to 6 parking spaces along Ahern Street and 3 driveways/6 parking spaces along East Coast Drive at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 2 Lots 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 (aka 54 East Coast Drive and 329 and 331 Ahern Street). Planner Reeves introduced the item as a request to place six parking spaces in the form of three driveways along East Coast Drive and six parking spaces along Ahern Street where vehicles would be required to back into the right-of-way. Planner Reeves Page 3 of 11 stated that the property is in the Residential Medium (RM) future land use zoning district. The proposed construction plan for the property is to construct a new 12 -unit condo development, all under a condo association. The property will have four three-story buildings built on it, although technically, connecting breezeways will by Code make it two buildings instead of four. The need for variance is derived from section 24-161(f)(3) of the City Code which states: "Off-street parking for all uses other than single and two-family residential shall be designed and constructed such that vehicles are not required to back into public rights-of-way. Parking spaces shall not extend across rights-of-way including any public or private sidewalk or other pedestrian thoroughfare." As the proposed construction is multi -family, a design of parking which requires cars to back into the Public right-of-way is prohibited without a Variance. He explained that East Coast Drive is a 30 foot right-of-way with two lanes of traffic and a sidewalk along the West side of the street. Ahern Street is a 40 foot right-of-way and has a sidewalk along the north side of the street. The first driveway on East Coast Drive would be about 33ft away from intersection of East Coast Drive and Ahern Street. The Ahern Street parking space closest to the same intersection would be 97 feet away from the intersection. Planner Reeves noted that along both East Coast Drive as well as along Ahern Street, the proposed architectural drawings place the edge of the building at least 20 feet away from the property line. He then mentioned that there is the legal possibility of platting the development then making each unit an individually owned townhome rather than a condo. Since townhomes are more similar to single-family homes and that with both building types, each unit could have a driveway leading right up to the individual units. Ms. Simmons asked staff if the public right-of-way on East Coast Drive came right up to the sidewalk along the same road. Staff answered that it did. Staff also clarified that an additional four to five feet of public right-of-way extended beyond the sidewalk onto the property as well along Ahern Street. Staff confirmed that this Page 4of11 Applicant Comment would remain public property and that the building setbacks proposed would provide plenty of space for full parking spaces on the property and not within the public right-of-way. Ms. Simmons questioned, if the property was platted, how many of the townhomes along East Coast Drive could hypothetically have a parking space along east coast. Staff replied that theoretically they could have all 12 units along East Coast Drive. Mr. Elmore questioned where the dumpster pad would be located. Staff answered that currently the applicant is proposing individual garbage cans and providing space within the garages to hold the garbage cans. Ms. Lanier asked Staff to clarify the pervious surface requirement for the property in question. Staff answered that it is 50% required pervious surface. Mr. Mandelbaum asked Staff to explain the portion of the site map provided that shows an easement on the property in question that is used to provide access to the parking spaces next door to the property. Staff clarified that this access to the condos to the West of the property will remain as a permanent easement that will not be obstructed whatsoever, should this building project come to fruition. Planner Reeves then explained that Multi -Family projects East of Seminole Road are required to provide three parking spaces per unit, specifically for beach going guests. The current project in question, would provide two parking spaces per unit within the proposed garages, and the remaining twelve spaces would be more than satisfied should this Variance request be approved. Rick Johnston, 3528 Ocean Drive, Jacksonville Beach, FL, introduced himself as the developer and spoke to the Board regarding their development approach to the property in question, mentioning the growing Atlantic Beach urban core and the pedestrian traffic in the area. He also mentioned the idea of increasing sidewalk sizes. Mr. Johnston emphasized the time he put into trying to help the proposed project integrate into the community. Page 5 of 11 Public Comment Paula O'Bannon, 3041St Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated her concern about water flow with the proposed six parking spaces along East Coast Drive, referencing the impervious surface. She also expressed concern for the sidewalk along that street and advocated for the bolstering of the current sidewalk situation along the street. Kathy Spitz, 278 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed concern for bicyclists, children and other pedestrians using the sidewalk, should parking spaces be allowed along East Coast Drive. Margaret McKay, 2781St Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed her concern for public safety within the intersection of 1st Street and East Coast Drive. She discussed the number of kids that are pedestrians crossing through the area and stated her concern for their safety. Ms. McKay also questioned the necessity of the Variance. She then recommended that a holistic traffic survey be done in the area. Lindsey Peake, 320 1St Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that her office is above Ocean 60 and she walks there from her home along 1st Street. She expressed discontent for the current sidewalk along East Coast Drive. Ms. Peake recommended placing a stop sign at the end of Ahern Street and possibly even speed humps along the road. Jerry Smith, 303 1st Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, commented that East Coast Drive was one of the busiest streets in the town center area and expressed concern about safety. Mr. Smith also commented on the aesthetics of the proposed construction and expressed concern for more driveways along the street as it is already very busy. Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, advocated for the proposed project and encouraged the Board to approve it. Rocky Russell, 460 Ocean Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed a desire for the developers to conform to the City's Code concerning requirements and setbacks, rather than be given a Variance. Fred Kerber, 375 1St Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed his discontent for the parking situation at the beach. Page 6 of 11 Board Discussion Staff Report Ms. Lanier expressed concern about cars backing out along East Coast Drive near the East Coast Drive and Ahern Street intersection, as there is a high level of pedestrian traffic in that area. Mr. Stratton noted that this area is dangerous [due to the traffic], and noted the especially dangerous nature of the proposed parking spaces along East Coast Drive. He proposed sending the project proposal back for further review with City Staff, in order to make the development safe for the area. Ms. Simmons commented on how narrow East Coast Drive is, and expressed her lack of support for the parking spaces along the stretch of East Coast Drive as proposed. Mr. Elmore suggested that the developer potentially change the layout of the proposed project in order to fit the extra parking spaces internally on the property, rather than along East Coast Drive. Mr. Reichler commented that there are other ways of approaching the variance in question that would be safer for the public. He also commented on the congested nature of this area. The Mr. Johnston, approached the Board and stated that he wished to withdraw his application for a Variance at the time. He thanked the Board for their time and consideration. Chair Paul reminded the Board of objective B.1.3 of the City of Atlantic Beach Comprehensive Plan which discusses the City's role to keep streets safe. C. 17-UBEX-333 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Ted Jackrel) Request for a use -by -exception as permitted by Section 24-63, to allow a limited wholesale operation, not involving industrial products or processes or the manufacturing of products of any kind as listed in Section 24-111(c)(5) in the Commercial General zoning district at 1475 Main Street. Planner Reeves introduced the item. The property in question is zoned Commercial General and has a future land use of Commercial. The lot is currently vacant, with a metal garage on the Page 7 of 11 Applicant Comment Northeast corner of the property. The proposed construction on- site is to build a 12,000 square foot building to house the wholesale distribution aspect of the larger business, an electric vehicle company. The need for a use -by -exception is derived from City Code section 24-111(c)(5) which specifically requires a use -by -exception for limited wholesale operations in the Commercial General Zoning District. In this case, the applicant would be bringing in pre - assembled vehicles and adding accessories (such as radios, etc.) Planner Reeves noted that code section 24-154(c) requires all activities on Commercial General zoned properties to be conducted inside. He also recommended that the Board view the electric vehicles that would be stored on this property to be thought of as products that must be kept inside, rather than auto sales which can have outdoor parking. Planner Reeves recommended the Board stipulate as a condition of recommended approval that access from Levy Road be prohibited as it is a main thoroughfare in the area. He also recommended that the Board limit the type of product that be sold on-site and that they require all products to be stored and/or parked inside not outside. Jason Canning, 1713 Furman Road, Jacksonville, FL, introduced himself as the architect of the project. Mr. Canning explained that they do not intend to install Fire Sprinklers in the building and, as such, they must keep the building to less than 12,000 square feet in size. Because of this, they will not be able to stack materials higher than 12 feet tall and therefore, they have no intention of constructing a building 35 feet tall. Mr. Canning reference a variance granted to the same property owners at another property of theirs, where they showcase their vehicles. He explained that the intention for the current property before the Board was to showcase the accessories available for these vehicles. He also mentioned that the owner intends for all loading and unloading of materials to be done one the property, not on the street nor on the City right-of-way. Mr. Mandelbaum asked if the proposed use of the property of loading and unloading equipment would take traffic volume off of W 9th and W 10th street. Mr. Canning confirmed that. Page 8 of 11 Public Comment Board Discussion Motion Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul. Ms. Simmons asked Staff if any complaints or traffic issues have come about as a result of the applicant's business on their other property. Staff replied that only a traffic and landscaping complaint were made and both have been resolved. Ms. Lanier commented on the benefit of economic development such as this situation, in this area of the City. Mr. Elmore likewise gave approving comments toward the nature of the business proposed on this property. Chair Paul gave her approval for the business proposed on-site as well. Mr. Elmore moved to approve 17-UBEX-333 with the following conditions: 1. That there be no driveway access on Levy Road; 2. That the wholesale operation be limited to electric vehicles and associated parts and/or accessories; and 3. That all products, including electric vehicles, must be stored inside a fully enclosed building at all times, except while actively loading or unloading trucks. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Old Business Item 3.A was heard at this time. A. Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Update Planner Reeves displayed for the Board the necessary updates the City is required to make to the Comprehensive Plan, per updates to Florida Statutes. Staff also presented to the Board some issues that have come before them in recent years that they may wish to consider when looking at possible regulation amendments. The Board discussed the nature of the Comprehensive Plan versus the Land Development Regulations. Page 9 of 11 5. REPORTS. Planner Reeves requested that the Board make a recommendation to the City Commission as to how extensive a review they would like to take at the City's Comprehensive Plan. Namely, the Board can recommend that either only the minimum required changes be made to the Comprehensive Plan, or that a broader review be done. Ms. Lanier asked Staff if tree mitigation would fall into this Comprehensive Plan Review Staff responded that elements of tree mitigation and the City's tree canopy could be part of this. Chair Paul commented that she believes it would better benefit the community if the Board contributed more of their time toward the City's Land Development Regulations, rather than toward reviewing the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Brenna Durden commented that the reviews and updated to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations could be conducted simultaneously moving forward. Currently, however, a decision must be made concerning the Comprehensive Plan Review in order to meet deadlines. Mr. Reichler gave his concern toward the possible issue of discrepancies between the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. He supported reviewing both documents in order to make sure they are consistent with one another. Mr. Elmore made a motion for the Community Development Board to recommend to the City Commission that only the minimum necessary updates and review be done to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. A. Administrative Variances Approved No Administrative Variances have been approved since the last Community Development Board Meeting. B. Staffing Update: Planner Reeves explained that the job posting for the Community Development Director has now been closed. The Interim City Manager is currently reviewing applications for this position. Page 10 of 11 6. ADJOURNMENT. Chair Paul made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. )aa Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 11 of 11