Loading...
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 Chair Paul announced that agenda item A, application ZVAR17- 0003 for 362 Plaza, had been withdrawn as the applicant was no longer seeking a variance.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