07-18-17 CDB Minutes v iii:J
SO
'"LJSt Wr
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 18th, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05pm. All members were
present except for Sylvia Simmons, who was absent. Also present
were Planner Derek Reeves, Board Secretary Grace Mackey and
representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna
Durden.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of the May 16th, 2017 Regular Meeting of the
Community Development Board
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr.
Reichler seconded the motion.The motion carried unanimously.
3. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR17-0003 PUBLIC HEARING (Richard Merriam)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to
decrease the side yard setback from a combined 15 feet with
a minimum of 5 feet on either side as required by Section 24-
106(e)(3) to a combined 13.5 feet with a minimum of 3.5 feet
on one side at Atlantic Beach Subdivision A Lot 29 Block 10
(aka 362 Plaza).
Chair Paul announced that agenda item A, application ZVAR17-
0003 for 362 Plaza, had been withdrawn as the applicant was no
longer seeking a variance.
Page 1 of 6
B. PLAT17-0004 (Ahern TH Project LLC)
Request for re-plat approval as required by Section 24,
Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances at Atlantic Beach
Subdivision A, Lots 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 Block 2 (54 East Coast
Drive, 329 and 331 Ahern Street).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that the future land use of the properties
includes Residential Medium (RM) and Residential General
Multifamily(RG-M)zoning.This properties are adjacent to a single-
family zoning district to the North, and the central business district
to the South.
He then explained that the proposed plan is to construct a 12-unit
townhome development, consisting of four, three story buildings
where each unit will have a two-car garage.
Staff then displayed the proposed site plan, which showed that
there would be two driveways which would be accessed through
East Coast Drive. This issue had been discussed at a prior meeting
of the Community Development Board, when the applicant
requested a variance for the proposed construction. Since this
meeting, the applicant has slightly modified the parking
arrangement along East Coast drive, however, there will still be
parking directly along this street.
He explained that prior to this construction, the applicant would
need to go through the full permitting process with all applicable
City Departments. He then noted that the current request was for
a re-plat of the property and as such, the Board would be
recommending approval or denial of this plat request, not of the
proposed construction, to the City Commission.
Previously, the units were going to be considered condos with a
condo association maintaining the ownership of the units. If this
re-plat requested were approved, the units would each be
individually-owned townhomes. The property then, would be
divvied up into 12 individual parcels with independent ownership.
Staff noted that there is an existing easement on the West side of
the property that will remain in place, to allow a driveway access
to the adjacent property for the residents who live there.There are
also ingress and egress as well as utility easements covering much
of the property, other than where the units will be. At this point in
Page 2 of 6
time,these easements have not been legally reviewed by City Staff
nor by the City Attorney. Staff noted that this would be a
requirement prior to sending the application to City Commission.
An approved re-plat is required in this circumstance because the
applicant wishes to subdivide their property into 3 or more parcels.
The property is just under 0.9 acres, allowing for 12.6 units total.
They are proposing to construct 12 units.
Chair Paul questioned if this re-plat request would possibly have to
be modified then brought before the Board again if the easements
are found to be inadequate or inappropriate. Staff replied that the
easements on the property should not affect the re-plat proposed
tonight. Instead, the review of the easements will help give shape
to the legal language of this re-plat.
Mr. Stratton referenced the meeting of the Community
Development Board where this application was previously brought
before them. He commented on the concern that was raised at
that meeting, regarding the driveways which would exit onto East
Coast Drive and the effect that would have on the traffic at that
intersection (of East Coast Drive and Ahern St.) He asked staff what
the parking and driveway situation would be entering and exiting
East Coast Dr. with this current re-plat request tonight. Staff
explained that with the currently proposed parking layout, the
units along East Coast Dr. would each have two parking spots in
their garages, and would share a drive aisle to gain access to and
from these parking spots. This drive aisle would be regulated by
easements for ingress and egress, so that it would remain clear for
all units to properly access their parking spaces.
Mr. Reichler commented on the [Community Development]
Board's responsibility to ensure that anything they are approving
meets the requirements and goals of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations. He asked whether or not
any City Staff had reviewed this re-plat request to make sure that
it does meet these criteria. Staff responded that while minor
tweaks to the request may need to be made at final permitting,the
project proposed was consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations.
Mr. Reichler asked Staff if the applicant's landscape plan was
consistent with the City's requirements regarding tree mitigation.
Page 3 of 6
Staff replied that he did not believe it did, however, he was still
doing the calculations for this proposed plan.
Mr. Mandelbaum questioned whether or not the Plat request
complied with all applicable City legislation. Staff replied that it did
meet such criteria.
Chair Paul clarified that the application was being brought before
the Community Development Board due to the number of parcels
being created through the parcel split.
Applicant Comment
Rick Johnston, 3528 Ocean Drive, Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250,
introduced himself as the applicant. He explained that at a prior
meeting of the Community Development Board, he presented an
application for a variance as the structures were going to originally
be condos, but that he withdrew that application due to the
tension present at the meeting. Following the meeting, he met
with some of the neighbors near his property and worked with the
City of Atlantic Beach's Public Works Department to try and
address any issues that came up in the conversations.
He added that along with these changes, he added a wider
sidewalk along the street in addition to more parking spaces,
while trying to maintain the integrity of his design.
Mr. Johnston then commented on the easements on site. He
stated that he had met with the City's Public Works Department
to discuss these easements along with the Water and Sewer
utilities on-site. He noted that they also have worked with JEA to
plan out how the electric utilities will be tied in to the buildings.
The applicant then went on to discuss his landscape plan,
specifically,the trees they chose to keep on-site versus those they
need to remove.
Mr.Johnston then spoke to the drive aisles which would enter and
exit off of East Coast Drive. He stated that he tried to take into
account the residents who would be immediately effected. At the
same time, he did not find another parking option.
Mr. Elmore questioned what the length of the property was along
Ahern Street and East Coast Drive. The applicant responded that
Page 4 of 6
the length along Ahern Street is 300 feet, while the length of the
property along East Coast Drive is 130 feet.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers,
public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Reichler commented that while he was not personally in favor
of the proposed design of the proposed construction, he could not
vote against the application before the Board so long as it was
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations.
Chair Paul clarified that the Board was only voting on the approval
or denial of the applicant's request to subdivide the lot, per their
Plat Request.
Ms. Lanier commented that she believed the design presented to
the Board for the proposed development to be consistent with the
surrounding community. At the same time, she expressed her
concern for the ingress and egress points along East Coast Drive, in
light of the traffic along that road.
Motion
Mr. Elmore moved to approve application PLAT17-0004 as it was
presented. Mr. Reichler seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
4. REPORTS.
A. Administrative Variances Approved
No Administrative Variances have been approved since the last
Community Development Board Meeting.
Mr. Reichler asked Staff about the status of the Selva Preserve
application. Staff commented that the application is still under
review by City Staff. He noted that all Departments have given the
applicant comments and are awaiting a response.
Mr. Reichler then asked for a status update on the CRA and on the
proposed rezoning ordinance for the Mayport Overlay District.Staff
replied that the CRA was under discussion amongst staff and that
Page 5 of 6
the ordinance proposal would be brought before the Board next
month at the regular meeting of the Community Development
Board. He mentioned that noticing has already taken place for this
ordinance.
5. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. Elmore moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:42pm. Chair Paul
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Brea Paul, Chair
Attest
Page 6 of 6