Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 28, 2008PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 28, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 28, 2008, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Chairperson Lamar Russell Vice Chairperson John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson 1st Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT Ronald Friedman 2nd Alternate OTHERS PRESENT Rocky Randels Mayor Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tem Shannon Roberts Councilmember Bennett Boucher City Manager Todd Morley Building Official Todd Peetz City Planner Susan Chapman Board Secretary NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes May 14,�2008 Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Donald Dunn, to approve the meeting minutes of May 14, 2008, as written. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Presentation: Guest Speaker - Phil Laurien F------ ve Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Todd Peetz, City Planner, introduced guest speaker Phil Laurien Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Mr. Peetz announced that Mr. Laurien had a broad knowledge and extensive expertise in planning, and he was at the meeting to assist the Board by giving guidance for redevelopment, and mixed-use. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 2 Phil Laurien, Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, advised that many communities were currently considering redevelopment. He began by presenting a PowerPoint presentation which highlighted ways of how to promote more growth and redevelopment by creating town center(s) to avoid urban sprawl. He used the City of Tavares as an example of this. Mr. Laurien requested that the members ask themselves how the City should grow and to think about the following: • History of Visioning • Intensity of neighborhoods within a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) • Preference survey for architecture and use within neighborhoods • Refine the meaning of intensity • How tall was too tall • Should tall buildings belong along the water frontage The Board members viewed photographs of various down -town areas and were asked: • How tall were the buildings? How tall should they be? What were they used for? Could water be scene or did the buildings block the water? What could be changed? What should stay the same? • What did they like about the scene? • What did they not like? • What could be changed? • What should stay the same? • What elements of the old neighborhood did they like? • Did they like the picture of the old courthouse, and if so, what did they like. The Board members were asked to consider identifying the City's strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Mr. Laurien pointed -out the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the City of Tavares by obtaining community input as follows: Strengths - 100°! of 28 votes said that they had unique opportunities, a great grid street system and downtown parks: 96% of 27 voteC said that they lived within 1 1/2 blocks away from downtown and could walk to everything except the grocery store, and most of their children walked to school. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 3 Weaknesses - 93% of 26 votes said the City was reactive, not proactive; 78% of 22 votes said the City was losing its history; and 61% of 17 votes said that the black community felt left out and not a part of the City anymore. Opportunities - 100% of 28 votes said that their could be a town center like it once was in the old town; 100% of 28 votes said that economics was pushing people back to live/work neighborhoods; 96% of 27 votes said that the City had the basic elements of an old neighborhood and needed the return of the butcher, baker, and grocery to the downtown; 89% of 25 votes said that the City needed to identify which laws needed to be changed to enhance redevelopment of downtown; 82% of 23 votes said that the City had assets and infrastructure other places did not and could be redeveloped more easily as a transportation hub; 100% of 28 votes said that investment came to small towns with better plans; 100% of 28 votes said the City had to have a vision; 93% of 26 votes said that they had a great city park on the lake; 86% of 24 votes agreed that codes were in place to redevelop; and 71 % of 20 votes said that successful communities had rail, jobs and schools downtown and that the base core was still there. Threats - Hear talk like visioning before. Example: We saved a 10 year old agenda - nothing got done. Mr. Laurien advised that there was a movie called "Save our Lands, Save our Town" which teaches the difference between old and new neighborhoods; and identified historic development patterns that: 1) supported regular interaction of neighbors; fostered a pedestrian friendly environment; 3) provided for open space; and creation of a city's identity by visible boundaries. The movie also taught that history would play an important role in the future. Mr. Laurien advised that in considering redevelopment, the City of Tavares viewed a PowerPoint titled "The Scale of Creat Places", which explained hour Savannah, Georgia and Miami Beach, Florida reinvented themselves around the theme of their historic core. They had defined "human scale" as architectural elements built to human proportions (steps, doorways, railings, columns, eaves, niches, medallions, and moldings). They learned how human scale is deliberately ignored, by modernist architects to achieve a larger than life monument effect. Mr. Laurien explained that even as taller buildings rose above the more typical 3-4 stories, their architecture, landscaping, and detail remained human in scale. He showed an example of a taller building and asked the Board If the building looked ?nnrnnritA He advised that the building was six stories surrounded by three stories. µ The Board looked at photos of the Savannah College of Art and Design building that was six stories; and a plain office building to the rear of the college that was seven stories tall which looked out of place. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 4 The Board looked at an example of two large buildings along a waterway that were considered out of scale and not in harmony with the architecture of other buildings in Savannah. The next step that the City of Tavares did was to discuss how to capitalize on strengths and overcome weaknesses by turning them into opportunities. The attendees of the meeting were asked to participate in an exercise. The participants were given disposable cameras and were asked to photograph beautiful or ugly attributes of a City (architectural styles, densities, signage, colors, etc.) A month later, the participants brought in photographs which were randomly clustered and placed onto display boards. Each participant received red, blue, green & yellow stickers. The red stickers were placed next to the type/style of buildings preferred as next most intense type of development. Green dots were placed next to the type/style buildings for the next most intense type of redevelopment. Yellow dots were placed next to building pictures that typified the least intense development. Attendees also place colored dots onto the CRA map. Red dots were placed where the highest intensity development was preferred, followed by blue, green, and yellow for the least intense. The conclusion was that there were neighborhoods within the CRA District. The Board members looked at several photographs from the PowerPoint that showed the results of the exercise. Mr. Laurien recapped that the red votes included: buildings not exceeding five stories high; mixed use buildings (i.e. retail, offices, residential); awnings; tables with umbrellas; street trees; nice lighting; wide sidewalks; streetscape; human friendly; on -street parking; people friendly streets; encourage tourism downtown; detailed architecture and various styles; retail on the 1st floor, residential above. Mr. Laurien advised that the City Council's CRA Goals for the City of Tavares included: • Promoting the CR I A as a focal point of the community by providing and encouraging designed spaces for a wide range of offices/studios, businesses, retail shops/eateries, public gathering areas, and cultural activities. • Create short term and long term plans. • Create an economic development strategic plan (downtown lob creation), i Provide for the implemUt natation of design standards and guidelines to promote development and redevelopment that is sensitive to architectural resources and quality design, preserves visual quality, enhances visual unity and accommodates pedestrians. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 5 • Promote the integration of pedestrian traffic with vehicle traffic. • Promote the efficient use of land and sensitivity to the environment and water bodies. • Provide for a mixed-use of housing with commercial that is compatible with the development in areas of similar intensity. • Encourage quality facades along streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian ways which will contribute to the City's overall character and charm. • Promote projects which will encourage private, public, and civic partnerships in order to bring patrons to the downtown area (Festivals, block parties, entertainment, events, etc.) Mr. Laurien shared the following suggestions and considerations to help the City: • Complete a downtown development assessment. • Evaluate the needs and opportunities for the community. • Create a vision. What does the City want and where do they want it located? • Analyze existing land use. • Define a downtown center. • Refine the meaning of intensity in the various districts you create. • Establish a vision for the CRA neighborhoods. • Write form -based codes that incorporate the vision and the CRA Goals. • Change the Comprehensive, Plan by adding incentives to stimulate redevelopment. • Good investors do not want to come and fight with a City for years and years. They will bring their money somewhere else. • Increase intensity and demand amenities from developers. • Consider extending existing sidewalks, walkways and bike paths. • Try to create a town center to live, work and play. • Refine the meaning of intensity. • Set buildings back for angled parking vs. parallel parking. • Maximize number of parking spaces. • Create short-term and long-term plans. • Create sub -zones to better develop the City's vision - where image and reality align. • Create a Vision Statement. • Stat with one good City block or area that would be enticing to developers. • Define a place (location, location, location). • Create a theme. • Adequate intensity can change from block to block. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 6 • Consider what's the most viable economic use of property is. • Transportation element is important. Consider expanding bus routes. • Show visual preferences and get comments from the public. • For retail, include: general stores, spas, coffee shops, downtown restaurants, sidewalk vendors, ice cream parlors, drug stores, bakeries, and flower shops. • Revise existing codes for specific mixed use overlays, in defined areas, so existing uses would not become non -conforming. • Begin the thought process by contacting everyone that is located within an overlaid area. Invite them to a meeting when you will be talking about redevelopment within their area. Suggest that they work together with the City. Take them on a bus tour to look at existing properties and ask what their future desires would be if the overlaid areas were redeveloped. In an effort to keep the City's momentum going, Mr. Laurien offered to comeback, (if the Board would be patient on scheduling) and bring a 50 minute movie titled: Save our Land, Save our Town for the Board and audience to watch and then open the meeting to discussion. Mr. Laurien gave two web -site addresses: www.flickr.com to look at photographs of various mixed-use developments; and www.myreglon ora to review an article called "How Should We Grow?" The Mayor and City Council members in attendance, Board members, City staff and the audience thanked Mr. Laurien for his time and excellent presentation. 2. Discussion Re: Mixed Use Districts Chairperson McNeely announced that the Board had already had enough discussion about mixed use districts for the evening. OPEN DISCUSSION John Porter, resident, property owner, and business owner, asked to address the Board to discuss a potential project on his family's 5.8 acres of commercial property along N. ,atlantic avenue. Chairperson McNeely allowed Mr. Porter to speak. He thanked the Chairperson and advised that he had a potential buyer for the property who wanted to construct a two flag hotel, with 171 rooms; and four accessory structures. Nikesh Shah, potential buyer, provided the Board members a hand-out showing a proposed architectural rendering and site layout of the property: Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 7 Laura Minton Young, Esquire, spoke regarding the proposed hotel project. She advised that Manzill, LLC was proposing to develop a hotel to be located on an approximately 5.8 acre lot, with a detached restaurant. The question to the Board was whether the proposed hotel project satisfied the City's density requirement, which was calculated as rental units per acre, mandated by the City code. Ms. Young explained that C-1 is the only zoning classification that permitted hotels. Such permitted hotels must have a minimum of 150 rental units with no more than 30 rental units per net acre. She voiced her opinion that based on Section 110-332, the only hotel projects permitted in the City were those with at least 150 rental units necessitating at least five net acres. Unfortunately, the City's Land Development Code failed to provide a definition of what constituted a net acre. The only place where density could be calculated per the City's code was in Section 110-1, where the term "net residential acre" is defined. Ms. Young explained that restaurants are customarily accessory uses for hotel projects providing service to its hotel guests and others. Accordingly, net acreage for purposes under City Code Section 110-332 should include the horizontal acreage of a lot devoted exclusively to hotel uses and accessory restaurant uses. She voiced her opinion that clearly, that was how Section 110- 332 would be applied if the restaurant was inside the hotel. She advised that nothing in the City's code indicated a different standard should be applicable because the restaurant is located outside of the hotel, as a free standing facility. Ms. Young read the City's definition of accessory use. She stated that accessory use meant a use or structure on the same lot with and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure. She voiced her opinion that the definition indicated that an accesso- use could be a separate structure on a lot. She noted that restaurants do not provide lodging of any kind, and therefore, did not contribute rental units to a hotel's density requirements. Ms. Young explained that the City promulgated Section 110-253 to prevent the reuse of area used for density calculation in certain instances. It provided that the area used in either a site plan or plot plan to determine the number of living units allowed in that area shall not be reused in computing the number of living units for that area or for any subsequent area used within that area. The Section dealt with the use of an area to compute the number of living units for a project or area more than once to allow more living units than would normally be permitted under the Code. Ms. Young used the following example: two hotels could not utilize the saCnF? area fn parmit 150 units for each 1-�otei. This development project did not fall into the jurisdiction of this prohibition because it included only one use or structure that had a density requirement, the hotel, and one structure or use that did not, the restaurant. The developer is not attempting to gain more density, rental units per acre, than would normally be permitted on the lot in the C-1 zone. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 28, 2008 Page 8 Ms. Young explained that the proposed project did not entail subdividing the lot to provide an out parcel for the eating establishment. Both the hotel and the eating establishment would be located within the boundaries of the one lot and would be under common ownership. The project should be considered one development project. The hotel project would be immensely beneficial for the surrounding area and the overall commercial district because it would increase the productivity and raise the quality of the current use of the property. The Board held discussion regarding if they could have two flags in one building. The consensus of the Board was that they could have two flags in one building only under one owner and operation. The Board held discussion regarding the proposed accessory structures. The definition of an accessory structure and a hotel was read b the Cit 6�4nner Y Y -��y numerous times.. The Board's discussion was based on the number of units for the hotel included acreage from the accessory structures could not be sold off. Chairperson McNeely asked Todd Peetz, City Planner, if the proposed project met the Code. He responded that everything on the site had to be one owner and one operator; and a binding development agreement should be submitted stating that it would remain in that manner of ownership and operation in perpetuity of the uses being on site. Secondly, they would need to provide a listing of the accessory uses so that if the uses changed in the future, there would be no question if the changed use was an accessory use. He noted that the City has not received any submittal for the proposed project and the plans presented were only conceptual, however the developer would need to demonstrate that the accessory uses would be customarily incidental and subordinate to the primary use. Mr, Porter, property owner, advised that the buyer wanted to make sure the City was viable to the proposed project and had support from the City before moving forward. Discussion followed. Chairperson McNeely asked Todd Morley, Building Official, his opinion on the issue. Mr. Morley answered that the City code had been enforced historically that five acres would have to be only for the hotel use. Following discussion, the Board concluded to request the City Attorney to give a ruling on Incidental uses, and if two hotel chains being in one building met the intent of the City code. Mr. Porter thanked the Board. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. rr B a N.A.c belei C'hairp �+ :�v�l Iq1 �r so( t Susan pman, Se retary