July 24, 2006

To the Planning Commission: 

Below are comments from Olde Towne Daphne Association (OTDA) regarding two items of public interest currently before your commission for discussion on July 27th.  We hope that our input will be of help to you when you discuss these projects.  If you have any questions, I can be reached at 680-5034.

Respectfully,

Karen Nady, President OTDA

Item 1:  Request to increase units in the Apalachee Condo project from 60 to 80

At the Site Review meeting on the 19th, there was an administrative presentation regarding a proposal to increase the number of units in the Apalachee project.  The request is for a 33% increase in units from 60 to 80!  This is not a small request. It changes the character of the project and should not be considered merely as an administrative adjustment, especially since it would establish a new precedent for the Residential High Rise (RHR) Ordinance currently being developed and not yet finalized!

The developer has an approved project. If major changes are to be made, they must go back through the planning process. 

If significant changes are considered for this project, there needs to be benefits to the community in addition to benefits to the developer.  Benefits to the community could include provisions for connectivity within the new condo zone, such as public access to the waterfront (which is routinely done in other waterfront communities and was discussed in initial phases of this project), and public sidewalks or boardwalks to unify this zone into a pedestrian friendly asset for our entire community.

The developer asked for a 33% increase in units, but stated that the project will be within the same footprint and height approved last year. He stated that the ceilings will be the same height, the quality will remain high, but the size of the units below the 11th floor will be reduced in size. He also stated that the units will be sold at the original prices. The developer cited the increased cost of building materials as the reason for his need to increase the number of units.  It is possible that the final version of this project will not be as upscale as originally presented.

When this project was first brought to the Commission the number of units was in the low 50’s, then increased to the mid 50’s and then approved with 60 units. If an increase of 60 to 80 units is an administrative change, then as was pointed out by a Planning Commission member at the planning meeting on July 19th, how can the Commission not approve a subsequent request to increase it to 100 units should building costs increase further?

During Site-Review, the possibility of the second tower was openly discussed.  The increase in the density of units in the first tower, and the probability that the second tower will also include smaller units, creates the necessity for this project to be thoroughly reviewed to assess its impact on the RHR Ordinance being developed. Traffic issues must be re-examined. The need for 40 additional parking spaces, plus appropriate additional guest parking spaces, for the first tower may reduce the amount of green space in the overall project.  With the expected number of units in both towers, it is imperative that appropriate sidewalks be planned.

This project was originally granted a variance and was approved without a RHR Ordinance is place. The proposed new RHR Ordinance was crafted based this project.  Now the scope of the project has changed!  It would be fair to say that any decision made on this project will affect our community.  Thus, the request for increasing units in the project should be returned to the Planning Commission for Site- Review discussions about density, traffic, loss of greenspace, parking issues and for public input.  

Items for inclusion in the proposed RHR Ordinance:

Item 2:  Request to revise a plan to include a Private Road in Olde Towne:

The Via Dolorosa Project (Captain O’Neal Drive) has been approved for 7 lots on a public road that conforms to regular R-1 requirements!  The request for 8 lots on a 30' wide private road was denied. The current request for 8 lots on a 50’ private road is on the agenda. This should also be denied! The property is zoned for R-1 construction, with a requirement of 40' setbacks from the street. However, with a private road the set-backs in this current request are calculated from the center of the private road. This allows the developer to increase the number of lots from 7 to 8.  If this road is approved, and in the future the residents want it to come into the City, the houses will not conform to regular R-1 requirements. Each homeowner will need a variance for improvements. The use of private roads to circumvent  regular R-1 zoning requirements is not the intent for zoning laws and requirements!

What was not discussed at Planning meetings or at the Site-Review, was that the creation of a new private road for this project places the adjoining homeowner, on the south side, in a difficult situation.  They own property behind their home that can be developed into 2 lots.  If a private road is approved for the Via Dolorosa project, these homeowners will not be able to cut a road to their back lots onto the private street.  The back and side of their lot is bounded by uncut sections of Lovett Lane and Second Street which could be opened in the future. Lovette Lane, if cut, could provide access to a large tract of land owned by their adjoining neighbor to the south.  When that property is eventually developed their house could essentially become an island, bounded by Captain O’Neal on the front, Via Dolorosa on one side and Lovett Lane on the other side!  An uncut section of Second Street remains a possibility at the back of their house….clearly there is a need to look at future plans for streets in this area!

At public meetings, residents have pointed out that the neighborhood (and the future residents of the Via Dolorosa subdivision) will not be well served with a private road because: (1) FEMA can not pick up debris from a private road (2) City can not pick up garbage on a private road. (The developers have said that three times a week, yard debris, garbage and recycles will hauled down a hill to a concrete pad just inside the gate for pick up.)  A special arrangement has been made with the City, but should that end in the future, the residents will need to arrange for a separate garbage service or place debris for 8 households on Captain O’Neal Dr. (3) Postal Regulations stipulate that each resident must petition the Post Office to request mail service on a private road or a bank of boxes will need to be installed on the opposite side the street on Captain O’Neal Drive, or as the developer said, they will all get PO boxes.

A public road is a simple solution.  The houses would then meet and conform to R-1 requirements.  City services, mail service, and FEMA clean up are guaranteed, and not by special arrangement!  A public road becomes part of the street system in the neighborhood, part of a plan, not a fragment in development. There is an approved plan for this project with a public road that works for the neighborhood.  It should be respected!

If the Commission intends to approve a private road, then as a minimum, it should meet regular R-1set back  standards.

The following items came up during the discussion for this project and should be addressed by the City: