Planning commission OKs recommendation to rezone downtown lot for five‑story mixed‑use building

Planning Commission members voted to recommend approval of a rezoning request for the property identified in the application as 102 Sixth Avenue North, a roughly half‑block site in the downtown community redevelopment area, moving the application to city council for final action next Monday. The applicant is Corner Lots Development Group; the owner is listed in the application as 10 36 Beach Boulevard Inc.; the agent is Driver McAfee Hawthorne (counsel Cindy Trimmer).

Why it matters: The rezoning would allow the applicant to redevelop an erstwhile 1975 strip commercial center into a five‑story, mixed‑use building (the applicant said the upper floors could be market‑rate residential units or hotel rooms). The project is designed to place commercial uses on Sixth Avenue North and First Street to reinforce the downtown pedestrian corridors and to deliver an internal parking garage meant to serve the building and provide public parking in an area where off‑street capacity is limited.

Staff told the commission the application met the standards of the downtown community redevelopment plan and the redevelopment district (RD) standards of the land‑development code; the community redevelopment agency gave a unanimous consistency recommendation. Staff recommended that the commission forward the rezoning to city council for final action. Planning Department staff summarized the application and noted the property’s entitlement to a 59‑foot building height under a settlement agreement that followed a voter‑enacted 35‑foot height limit.

Applicant representatives described the proposal and how it evolved. Billy Sites of Corner Lots Development Group said the team started outreach in the fall and adjusted design and parking plans to align with the city’s updated comprehensive plan and downtown redevelopment objectives. “We wanted to have really clean, wide, elevated pedestrian corridors that slowed people down, that drew them to the commercial businesses,” Sites told the commission. Agent Cindy Trimmer (Driver McAfee) described the project footprint and said the upper‑floor uses (condominiums, apartments or a hotel) would not materially change the building massing or street‑level activation.

Design and parking details presented to the commission include: a commercial/restaurant wrap on the First and Sixth street corners; shaded pedestrian promenades along the primary corridors; an internal, structured garage with two access points off Second Street (the applicant said they located vehicle entrances on Second Street to reduce traffic on First and Sixth); and an intent to provide multi‑modal parking (bike, motorcycle and golf‑cart parking) in addition to vehicle stalls. Trimmer said the project team had “over‑parked” the site relative to minimum code requirements and planned to offer public parking in the garage.

During public comment, resident Roger Whiting asked whether the green area shown beside the plan was private property or a city alley; planning staff clarified that the green area in the presentation is a city alleyway and not on the applicant’s parcel. Whiting also raised concerns about the building’s height and its impact on adjacent properties, saying nearby residences would face a 59‑foot wall and be shaded in summer months. Planning Department staff responded that properties immediately south of the site recently rezoned for redevelopment are expected to convert to commercial and restaurant uses and that, according to staff, planned nearby projects do not preserve the residential units Whiting referenced.

The commission had no substantive conditions attached when the motion to approve was made; the motion carried and the commission voted to forward the recommendation to city council. The record reflects a motion to approve and a second; the chair announced the item was “approved to move forward.”

The application file and the staff report include additional technical details (RD standards, landscaping, trash access and meter locations) that the applicant said remain subject to minor adjustments during site plan review and building permit processing. The application materials state the developer seeks flexibility in upper‑floor uses (residential or hotel) to respond to market conditions.

Next steps: Because the planning commission’s action was a recommendation, city council will consider the rezoning at its next meeting. If council approves, future reviews (site plan, building permits and permitting coordination with Beaches Energy and other utilities) will address final design, parking counts and operational details.