Meeting Time: October 15, 2020 at 5:00pm EDT
Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

10 20-6004 Text Amendment of the Land Development Regulations - 1900 North Roosevelt Boulevard (RE# 00051820-000000) and 1910 North Roosevelt Boulevard (RE# 00051840-000000) - A Resolution of the City of Key West Planning Board recommending an Ordinance to the City Commission amending Chapter 108 of the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 108 entitled "Planning and Development", Article VII, entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading", Division 2 entitled "Regulations For Required Spaces", to Section 108-572 to amend the schedule of off-street parking requirements by use by adding an 18th use entitled Self-Storage with a minimum number of parking space, 1 space per 50 storage units, plus 1 space for employee parking pursuant to Sections 90-520, 108-572, 122-420 (2), 122-1151 of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Key West, Florida.

  • Default_avatar
    Stephen K Smith about 1 month ago

    We have very adequate space for people to store things. We have at least four storage centers and we certainly don’t need a gigantic storage center on the corner of First st and North Roosevelt. If anything goes in that corner it should be something appealing to the community and not something with giant signs saying rent storage space here.
    I urge a NO vote

  • Default_avatar
    George Bellenger about 1 month ago

    Not being in the self storage business leaves me with no conception of required parking. However, one parking space per 50 units seems light. What are the average visits per unit? Somewhere between 1 visit (then your stuff gets auctioned) to everyday (cuz I'm lovin it). Without this ordinance, how many parking spaces would be required? Not the number (188?) currently assigned to this property, right? Parking aside, we all realize this is only the first step in order to build an oversized warehouse that would ADD to local flooding and encroach on an established residential neighborhood. This appears to be a 10 pound development being squeezed into a five pound bag. Table it!

  • Default_avatar
    Carl Sanders about 1 month ago

    I am against this proposed plan. North Roosevelt is not an industrial park. That intersection is an entrance to Old Town Key West for our visitors. Greed is getting the best of people in this community. This is Paradise, not North Miami.

  • Default_avatar
    Patricia Mastrobuono about 1 month ago

    I oppose this application. To amend the text to satisfy parking issues prior to receipt and review of the completed plans for the entire 53,000sqft. project seems to leave the City open to "unintended consequences" and unexpected drawbacks. Why amend text to suit one individual project that may never receive approval. In addition, the project as explained, seems to ignore the "Public Interest" of incorporating affordable housing in the planning. A structure of this size will negatively impact the ongoing beautification of the boulevard and will, more than likely, negatively impact the adjacent neighborhood.

  • Default_avatar
    Bonnie Jones about 1 month ago

    I oppose the building of another storage facility on the busy intersection of North Roosevelt Blvd and Bertha St.

  • Default_avatar
    susan kongos about 1 month ago

    I oppose the storage facility proposed for 1900 N Roosevelt It is also directly across the street from the City Marina.
    Given the already existing 4 storage facilities within less than one mile, there exists no need for an additional large-scale storage facility in KW.  There are 3 storage facilities on Stock Island and 2 more in Big Copitt.  Rental units are currently widely available. The Palm Ave bridge is at total gridlock during commuting hours.
    I applauded our city government for not allowing our beautiful island to become more like Miami. It is time that we beautify North Roosevelt and not turn it into an industrial park.

  • Default_avatar
    Bunnie Smith about 1 month ago

    I do not believe that variances to established ordinances should be considered/approved for anything other than critical community safety reasons. Each variances erodes the purpose of the ordinance itself. In this case, the requested variance will add to community congestion and can exacerbate the community sustainability challenges that we will address because of climate change/sea level rise. Project should be redesigned to comply with all relevant ordinances

  • Default_avatar
    Glenda Fox about 1 month ago

    I am opposed to granting any variances for an unneeded huge industrial size monstrosity that will take up prime waterfront property. Lets beautify our city instead of making it an eye sore. That intersection is congested enough without adding this huge structure and business to the area.

  • Default_avatar
    Jeff Johnson about 1 month ago

    I am opposed to building the proposed storage facility on North Roosevelt and providing the parking variance they have requested. As a community, we should be working together to further beautify the North Roosevelt Waterfront area and not make it even more industrial-looking than it currently is. The completion of the promenade along the water was a major step in that direction and we should not be going backwards. Please consider the negative impact that this storage facility will have and vote against the variances they have requested. Jeff Johnson

  • Default_avatar
    Babs Wade about 1 month ago

    Another storage facility on Roosevelt means another eyesore and more traffic problems. Seems totally unnecessary considering how many we already have and it would be nice to see more businesses come in that there actually is a need for and that will enhance our island

  • Default_avatar
    Bryan Green about 1 month ago

    This is a further sham application that seeks to gain excess development potential by co-joining an adjacent yet unrelated land use parcel and then claiming increased rights to density, plot coverage etc by using the enlarged parcel. Even then, the proposal needs further variances - simply demonstrating a totally ill conceived and unnecessary scheme. There is clearly no intention to use the appended parcel for the proposed development - merely to benefit from the artificial increase in the development potential. Quite simply, this is a development whose massing, vehicular movements and impact is totally inappropriate at an important entry point of the City

  • Default_avatar
    Marcus Varner about 1 month ago

    There is no obvious community benefit to provide variances for a business that isn't adding anything significant to the community. They aren't adding a bunch of jobs. They aren't providing a new product or service that isn't already available in abundance around the island. I have no objections to a self-storage company building something there, just make sure they follow the same rules everyone else has to follow. If the project isn't viable without getting variances, they need to do something else.

  • Default_avatar
    Daniel Reynen about 1 month ago

    As a resident in this district I oppose this request for creating an 18th use. First, what happens if the "storage facility" in no longer a viable business? You have a building that has inadequate parking for "other" businesses. Second, I find the scale and scope of this project is entirely inappropriate for this location and the neighborhood. It will be a burden on the neighbors views and not contribute positively to the neighborhood.

  • Default_avatar
    Roger McVeigh about 1 month ago

    Although I generally believe the City should reduce or eliminate parking minimums, I believe that we should not do anything to support the proposed storage project on the main entryway to our Island on N Roosevelt Blvd. This project is not appropriate for this location.

  • Default_avatar
    Joanne Martin about 1 month ago

    As a resident in the area of this project, I would like to echo the concerns already stated over the size of this project and all of the variances they are seeking to be able to squeeze this building into the selected spot. This is not an area of the island that would benefit from such a massive undertaking, practically on top of one of our busiest intersections.

  • Default_avatar
    Mark Songer about 1 month ago

    The time for this change in the code is not right. The sponsor has proposed a development requiring multiple variances because the proposed 40,000 square foot storage facility is too massive for the space. Please postpone action on this ordinance until there is an application for a project that does not require height, maximum coverage and minimum open space variances. Without this project that pushes the boundaries of many protections in the code, there is no urgent need to add an 18th use to parking requirements.

  • Default_avatar
    Mike Truhan about 1 month ago

    NOT REASONABLE. As the most adjacent residential neighbors to this proposed structure, we stand to lose the last bit of that which we cherish and work so hard for. As resident taxpayers of this property for over 45 years, we hold to high esteem the ability to see the sun, sky, and bay from our windows in our home. Now, we have a proposal before us for a structure that will all but blot out the sun, sky, and water from our sanctuary that we have built for decades. You are asking us to walk out of our front door into a concrete wall. WE are the tenants of this island. The landscapers, the teachers, the people that care for paradise. WE HAVE EARNED, AND OWN, THE RIGHT TO SIGHT!