CITY OF LYNN HAVEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 4, 2024  The Lynn Haven Planning Commission's Regular Meeting was held on' Tuesday, June 4, 2024,  at5 5:30j p.m., at the Lynn Haven City Hall Meeting Chambers.  Present:  Jeffrey Snyder, Chairman Stan Parron, Vice Chairman Joseph Ashbrook Aaron White arrived at 5:45pm Robert Waddell Amanda Richard, Planning Director Vicki Harrison, Planning Specialist  Absent:  Erik Nolte Kenny Murphy  1.Call to Order  Chairman Snyder called the meeting to order at 5:30pm and stated there would be ai ten (10) minute recess for the secretary to contact two (2) Planning Commission members that had not notified staff oft their absence, to find out ift they could attend thei meeting sO there would be a Ms. Harrison stated she spoke with Mr. Parron, and he was on the way, and she left a voicemail Upon Mr. Parron's s arrival, Chairman Snyder called the meeting to order at 5:37pm, as a quorum Mr. Ashbrook made ai motion to excuse Mr. Nolte's and Mr. Murphy's absence as staffwas  quorum. for Mr. White. was present.  notified of their absence prior to the meeting, Second to motion: Mr. Waddell  On vote:  Ashbrook: aye Waddell: Parron: Snyder:  aye aye aye  Motion passed: 4-0  2.Approval of] Regular Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 7.2024  Planning Commission  June 4, 2024  Page 1 of6    Mr. Waddell, made ai motion to approve the May 7, 2024: minutes,  Second to motion: Mr. Ashbrook  On vote:  Waddell: Ashbrook: aye Parron: Snyder:  aye aye aye  Motion passed: 4-0  3. Request for Development Order Application: Bedford Park Townhomes: Parcel #11823-080- Ms. Richard, Planning Director, stated the applicant is Skip Rutherford, and the owneri is McRutherford 26/LLC/Skip Rutherford. The agent is Scot Rutherford, P.E., SCR Associates. Ms. Richard stated the project name is Bedford Park Townhomes, and the requested action is Development Order approval. The property is located on the south side of East 26th Street, east ofMinnesota Avenue. Thej parcel # is 11823-080-000, and the parcel has Mixed Use, High Density Residential, and Conservation land uses, and thej parcel is vacant. The project engineer, Scot Rutherford, P.E., SCR. Associates, was present to answer any questions. The reviewing engineer, Chris Shortt, P.E., Dewberry Engineering was present to answer any questions. Ms. Richard stated the owner oft this property ist requesting development order approval to construct one. hundred and fifty-four (154) single-family attached residential units on this 31.16L acrej property along with supporting required landscaping, parking and infrastructure improvements. Thej property has Future Land Use Map designations ofl Mixed-Use, High Density Residential and Conservation. The Mixed-Use designation allows for townhomes tol be constructed at a density of up to ten (10) dwelling units per acre (where there is no commercial) component) which would allow for up to sixty-four (64) dwelling units, and the High Density Residential designation allows for twenty (20) dwelling units per acre, allowing for up to two hundred and thirty six (236), therefore a total ofup to three hundred (300) dwelling units. The developer is asking for one hundred and fifty-four (154). The site plans have been reviewed and have been found tol be in compliance with the City ofLynn Haven Unified Land Development Ms. Richard stated a full Traffic Impact Analysis was required to be submitted for this project which was reviewed by our contracted transportation engineers at Kimley-Horn. The project buildout for the project is 2025. The applicant provided a' Traffic Impact Analysis documenting the anticipated trip generation, trip distribution and operational impacts oft the proposed development, which was submitted to Kimley-Horn for review and comments. The submitted study included an analysis ofs seven intersections in addition to the two (2) driveway connections on E2 26th Street. Project traffic was determined to result in one deficiency under project buildout conditions at the intersection ofE26th Street and CR389/N East Avenue. Under background conditions (without project traffic), the approach would be expected to operate with a volume-to- capacity ratio of0.94 during the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic, the approach would be expected to operate over capacity, with a volume-to-capacity ratio of1.06 during the PM peak hour. Such a deficiency will lead tol longer delays, longer queues, and potentially  000  Code (ULDC), Technical Standards and Florida State: requirements.  Planning Commission  June 4,2024  Page 2of6    unsafe conditions at the intersection. The applicant originally submitted a' Traffic Impact Analysis that included the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane at the subject intersection but has since asserted that the applicant should not responsible for addressing the buildout deficiency. Planning staff and the City's traffic engineering consultant, Kimley-Horn, believe that original recommendation to add an eastbound right-turn lane at the intersection ofE2 26th Street and CR 389/N East Avenue would sufficiently address the anticipated buildout deficiency. Ms. Richard stated the Planning Department received another Traffic Impact Analysis on. Friday, which was the fourth (4) submittal, and the developer does not feel the right turn lane is needed. The second submittal indicated a signal would be installed; however, review oft that Traffic Impact Analysis by Kimley-Horn indicated a signal was not warranted but the right turn lane was needed. The submittal received on Friday has been reviewed by Kimley-Horn and the Mr. Spahr addressed thel board and stated the right turn was recognized. Mr. Ashbrook asked about the approximate length ofthe right turn lane. Mr. Spahr stated with the buildout queue, Ms. Richard stated the City Commission decided they wanted to see the Traffic Impacts that would occur on larger developments, and the City sets the methodology for the analysis Mr. Ashbrook asked about the elevation renderings for the proposed townhomes. Ms. Richard stated that she understood the townhomes would bel built by DR Horton. Mr. Ashbrook asked if they would be similar to the townhomes at Jakes Landing. Mr. Rutherford addressed thel board and stated they would be fairly standard townhomes with a garage on the front. Mr. Ruthertord addressed the board and stated he wanted to provide some background about the Traffic Impact Analysis. He: stated that his parents own the property, they are looking to retire, take care of their children, and they have an interest in the City ofLynn Haven. Mr. Rutherford stated that Mr. Alaghemand could not attend the meeting, and there were errors in the' TIA reports as an intern had calculated the numbers and the engineer allowed the reports to be sent out without reviewing them. The Traffic Impact Analysis impacts were based on seasonal factor of1.2, and that caused the traffic impact to go over. DRMP's: review indicated the development is not in main corridors, and there was one (1) error by allowing a trainee engineer to calculate the information, and wrong numbers were entered into the program. One engineer states the right turn lane is needed, one engineer states it is not needed, and he asked the board to consider Mr. Parron asked about the number ofbedrooms. Mr. Rutherford stated there would be two and Mr. Ashbrook stated without the right turn lane, there would be a lot of people frustrated with the increased traffic. Mr. Rutherford stated traffic is a number one topic as most every road is at peak level of service, and justification for intersections at certain time periods is needed, and even neighboring counties have roads that are over capacity. Mr. Ashbrook stated thei right turn  recommendation remains the same that the: right turn lane is needed.  eight (8) vehicle max, 25' per vehicle, and a 50' taper.  calculations.  thei marginal over peak of five (5) vehicles for the right turn lane.  three bedroom units.  Planning Commission  June 4, 2024  Page 3 of6    lane would be aj plus. Mr. Rutherford stated iti is not just the cost, the 26th Street right ofv wayi is 40', the cost is beyond construction as property will need tol be purchased, one property owneris Mr. White asked about the timeframe for the development, and will it bel built inj phases. Mr. Rutherford stated it depends on the builder, and it will be built in sections, not phases. The Mr. Ashbrook asked ift there are any plans to improve 26th Street. Ms. Richard stated she is not aware ofany, and that she could follow up with Mr. Baker, Chief Infrastructure Director. Mr. Parron stated his conçerns about vehicle parking for each townhome and how in the future the number of cars parked at each townhome could be up to four (4) cars, or more. Mr. Ashbrook: stated the acquisition to obtain property may be a stumbling block. Ms. Richard stated the requirements need to bei met. Traffic Studies are ai new requirement that the City Commission wanted, and the recommendation from the experts the City hired recommend the Ms. Richard stated the City Manager and Mr. Baker had been looking for solutions, but the developer was pushing to take this to thel boards as they arei in al hurry to get this item through. Mr. White asked about the Conservation portion ofthe property. Ms. Richard stated nothing can be constructed on a parcel with a Conservation land use, and a 30' wetland buffer is required. Mr. White asked about open space and a park for the residents. Ms. Richard stated each There was discussion pertaining to East Avenue as iti is busy, the concern for Mosely High Ms. Richard stated thel land uses on this property allow for more units than the number ofunits proposed, and the density is permissible, and the only issue is thet traffic. Mr. Rutherford addressed the board and stated clarity was needed, and when they said they were in a hurry, it was for what was required, and not in al hurry for the development. This is a family project, and they were needing feedback, and they accept the recommendation, and will begin working on the right turn lane requirement. He and his parents care about the City and understand their role. Mr. White stated he felt like this item was not ready and hel has concerns about passing anything. Ms. Richard stated the City Manager sat in on ai meeting that was held: regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis, and she asked the City Manager how she would like toj proceed, and the City Manager instructed her to take the items to the Planning and City Commissions. Ms. Richard stated after the Traffic Impact Analysis was received on) Friday, she asked the City Manager how toj proceed, and the City Manager instructed her toj proceed with taking the item to the Planning  not prone to selling, and the cost will fall to the developer.  infrastructure will bei installed for the complex all at once.  right turn lane.  townhome would have a backyard.  School students, as there will be more traffic with this development.  and City Commission but explain the status and situation.  Planning Commission  June 4, 2024  Page 4 of6    Public comments:  A citizen addressed the board and stated his conçerns about thei increased traffic from this proposed development, and ifthe developer is in a hurry, that tells him a lot. Ifthey care about Mr. Ashbrook, made a motion to recommend approval for the development order application  the City, they will do the right thing.  conditioned upon the right turn lane being constructed,  Second to motion: Mr. Parron  On vote:  Waddell: Ashbrook: aye Parron: White: Snyder:  aye aye nay aye  Motion passed: 4-1  4. Request for Preliminary Plat: Bedford Park Townhomes: Parcel #11823-080-000 Ms. Richard, Planning Director, stated the applicant is Skip Rutherford, and the owner: is McRutherford 26/LLC/Skip Rutherford. The agent is Scot Rutherford, P.E., SCR Associates. Ms. Richard stated the project name: is Bedford Park Townhomes, and the requested action is Preliminary Plat approval. The property is located on the south side of] East 26th Street, east of Minnesota Avenue. The parcel #i is 11823-080-000, and has Mixed Use, High Density Residential, and Conservation land use, and is vacant. The project engineer, Scot Rutherford, P.E., SCR Associates, the project surveyor, Skipper CI Rutherford, PLS, and the reviewing Mr. White stated the Preliminary Plat should be contingent upon the: same as the development order condition. Ms. Richard explained how the preliminary plat is approved so infrastructure can begin, and the Final Plat is brought to the Planning Commission after thei infrastructure is Mr. White asked ifthe Fire Chiefhad any concerns for this development. Ms. Richard stated there are two (2) ingress/egress points as required, and that the Fire Chief and Fire Inspector are part ofthe Technical Review Committee, and they both review site plans to ensure fire hydrant  surveyor, Jonathan Gibson, P.S.M., Dewberry, Inc.  completed, and then goes to the City Commission for approval.  locations and fire truck turnaround requirements are met.  Public comments: None  Mr. Ashbrook, made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as presented,  Second to motion: Mr. Parron  On vote: Planning Commission  Ashbrook: aye Parron:  aye  June 4, 2024  Page 5 of6    White: Snyder:  nay aye  Motion passed: 4-1  5.City) Planner's Report  Ms. Richard stated there is a section in the ULDC that allows for accessory structures, but there are no specific requirements for sheds, except the setbacks, impervious surface ratio, size of the structure, and they can't be more than 50% ofthe primary structure. In the past, there have been questions as to whether pole barns were allowed, however if they meet code they have been permitted, and people ask for them for their RV's, etc. The issue now is that transportation containers are being requested instead of constructing a shed. After Hurricane Michael, portable storage containers were allowed for a certain amount of time following which they had to be removed. There is nothing in the code that states what an accessory structure needs to look like, Ms. Richard asked if the Planning Commission would give it some thought and come up with some ideas to take to the City Commission for their consideration and discussion. There was discussion regarding the possibility ofroof pitch requirements, readymade sheds, and City Attorney Ms. Myers stated she had a few ideas. The commission could create as standard for Mr. Snyder asked ift the item could be placed on the agenda for discussion. Ms. Richard asked if they would like to have a workshop at 5:00pm before the next meeting. The board concurred for With there being no further business or discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:38pm.  orifit needs to be aj permanent structure.  aesthetics standards.  construction material, temporary versus permanent, or prohibit metal sheds.  a workshop tol be held.  MK byll Jefiey Snyder, Chairman  prepared by' Vicki) Harrison  Planning Commission  June 4, 2024  Page 60 of6