The design requirements for Downtown development and property improvement could be changing.
At a workshop last week, members of the city Office of Economic Development’s Downtown Development Review Board discussed how the current regulations have affected development, in particular the high percentage of projects that apply to the board for deviations in requirements.
By city ordinance, the board is empowered to “review and make decisions with respect to all applications for development and redevelopment within the Downtown Overlay Zone to ensure consistency and compatibility of all proposed development and redevelopment with the Downtown Master Plan and to consider the design-related issues of each application to ensure compliance with these Downtown District Regulations and all related approved design guidelines and standards.”
The board also is authorized to make recommendations concerning revision of design standards. Any recommendations must be approved by City Council before they are enacted.
Possibly amending some of the design regulations was prompted by the number of deviations sought by developers who were and are constructing surface parking lots near the Duval County Courthouse.
The parking lot regulations, in some cases, could be interpreted as contradictory.
The design criteria for the surface lots in one section states the design must “promote pedestrian connections” and in another section requires a 6-foot-high fence to be included in the design, which would hinder pedestrian connections.
The board also has historically had on its meeting agendas many applications for deviations concerning another streetscape element.
“Buildings, we don’t have much problem with. Signs and parking send us sideways,” said Tim Miller, board chair.
Board member Wiatt Bowers said the parking lot standards dictate that “screening is required” to block the view of a parking lot from the street. He said he would favor giving developers more leeway in how that could be accomplished, rather than requiring a fence and landscaping.
City Assistant General Counsel Jason Teal said the city might “need to beef up the intent language” in some Downtown design standards. He cautioned the board that even with more flexibility in standards, clearly defined design requirements should remain in the legislation.
That would be particularly important when the board rejected a design plan or denied a variance for a plan.
“If you tell somebody ‘no,’ you have to have a reason for it. You have to be specific and provide direction,” Teal said. “You have to have a public policy reason to deviate from prescriptive codes.”
Board member Craig Davisson said in some cases, Downtown design requirements could be considered unfair to applicants, but any changes should be balanced for both the developer and the city.
“No. 1 is what’s best for the city. No. 2 is what’s fair to the owner,” he said.
City Redevelopment Coordinator Jim Klement advised the board any amendments it sanctions would then have to be approved by the Downtown Investment Authority and then be placed on the council committee schedule, a three- to six-month process after the proposed subcommittee began its work.
He said an action item for the formation of a subcommittee to review would be placed on the agenda for the next scheduled board meeting.
(904) 356-2466