Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-17 Workshop Meeting City Commission Meeting Minutes MINUTES DANIA BEACH CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2004 1. Call to order Mayor Anton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call: Present: Mayor: Bob Anton Vice-Mayor: C.K. McElyea Commissioners: Robert Chunn Pat Flury Bob Mikes City Attorney: Tom Ansbro City Manager: Ivan Pato Acting City Clerk: Miriam Nasser 3. Discussion of Allowable Maximum Building Height for Residential Buildings • in the Local Activity Center(Downtown) Area. City Manager Pato clarified that staff was not asking for a discussion on building height issues for the LAC or any other part of the City at this time because the CRA plan, currently at the County level, clearly outlined those components. He felt that any general discussion of the building heights in either the CRA or LAC area could send a confusing signal to the County. He explained that there were two specific projects that needed to be addressed: 1) concerning a project for East Dania Beach Boulevard and 2) a project involving the property across the street from City Hall (only one of which would be addressed today). He suggested that comments be limited to this particular project. Ralph Choeff, Architect for the Project, showed a presentation and wanted to know if the property owner and the City could come up with a plan that was acceptable to both parties. He stated that he had designed a 204-unit, two-bedroom, condominium complex located directly across the street from City Hall. He had dedicated the entire first floor of the complex to municipal parking that would help with the downtown redevelopment area parking, as well as, 4,800-5,000 square feet of City of Dania Beach office space. He stated that the building's amenities included a health spa that would be offered to Dania Beach City staff to become members. He explained that the plan had six floors of parking and 11 floors of condominiums and noted that residents would have a separate parking area from municipal parking. He described the contemporary building design and explained that some parking spaces along the street could be substituted for retail shops. He noted that the building was designed to be a focal point in the City and was approximately 181 feet tall with 18 stories (17 for condo use; 1 for municipal parking use). MINUTES 1 FEBRUARY 17, 2004 WORKSHOP MEETING In response to Mayor Anton's question, Architect Choeff stated that the lot was approximately 150-feet wide and over 400 feet deep. He reported that there had been some objections by the City over the height of the building. In response to Commissioner Flury's questions, Architect Choeff reported that there were 2.2 parking spaces per unit or 466 parking spaces in addition to the 71 spaces reserved for municipal use. Commissioner Flury noted that it was a beautiful building, but felt the guidelines for this area should follow those proposed in the CRA. Lawrence Leeds, Director of Community Development, stated that the architecture for this building was different from the recommendation in the CRA plan. Architect Choeff offered to change the architectural style and explained that the glass- type building not only provided a nice contrast, but also was lighter than the "Mizneresque" architecture that was proposed in the CRA. Mayor Anton stated that anyone who came out of City Hall would be faced with 180 feet of concrete and glass and clarified what the setbacks were. Commissioner Flury stated that she preferred a design that was more consistent with that of the CRA plan and did not feel comfortable with the ultra-modern design. Fernando Vazquez, Director of Public Services, addressed Mayor Anton's concern • regarding the ability of the City's infrastructure to handle this project and was concerned about whether or not the water and sewer system had the capacity to provide for the additional demand. He felt that the plan offered a great concept however, there was also the question of how much more traffic would be generated. Architect Choeff stated that they had planned to have a traffic study done before beginning anything and also offered help with the adjoining streets. He noted that the additional residents would help to increase the tax base and offset the higher demands on the City. Commissioner Mikes was concerned about whether they had considered marketing strategy for these condominiums and if these units could be sold for the anticipated amount. He was also disturbed with the height of the building and the extra load on the infrastructure capacity. He felt that these units might not be able to be marketed at the $250,000. Architect Choeff assured the Commission that preliminary studies had been done and reported that units like these commonly sold for $500,000 - $1,000,000 and felt they had a sufficient market base. Vice-Mayor McElyea felt the current infrastructure was not prepared for this type of building and also felt the building was too large. Commissioner Chunn suggested the height of the building be reduced and wanted to know what type of compromise the owner suggested. MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 17, 2004 WORKSHOP MEETING Architect Choeff noted that the City wanted 8-10 stories and the goals of the owner were • 12-14 stories. He noted that without providing the municipal parking and City offices the height could be brought down further. He also suggested that if the City reduced the parking requirement to 1.75 spaces per unit plus an additional guest parking space for every 10 units, the building could be lowered even further. Commissioner Flury thought that marketing the units at $250,000 was not a problem, but felt the design was too modern. She questioned why parking was being provided for the City. She felt that if the building was lowered by having the City parking eliminated and the design changed that an agreement could possibly be reached. She stated that she, might be a little flexible with the parking requirement. Vice-Mayor McElyea agreed with Commissioner Flury. Commissioner Mikes stated that there was a lot of rumors and speculation about the CRA and LAC and he did not know how much was reality. He felt an area should be developed, not just one site. He stated that land was available at a reasonable rate and that the public wanted redevelopment of the area as opposed to high density. Mayor Anton agreed with Commissioner Mikes and felt they should not deviate from the existing outline. He felt that the public would be shocked with any deviation from the plan. He stated that the consensus of the Commission was that the proposed building was too high. He suggested that the architect meet with the Director of Community Development to determine acceptable guidelines. • Larry Leeds, Director of Community Development, clarified for Architect Choeff that the acceptable height for that area was 10 stories. He felt that the parking requirement could be negotiated and mentioned that the 71 public parking spaces that the owner had offered to the public could be reduced. Commissioner Flury felt strongly that public parking was the City's problem, not the developer's problem. Director Leeds explained it was difficult for smaller municipalities to buy property to accommodate parking needs of the community and the developer's assistance was at' the discretion of the Commission. In response to Commissioner Mikes' question regarding security of a mixed-use parking facility, Architect Choeff stated there was not a problem because there were two separate parking facilities for public and private use. Vice-Mayor McElyea was concerned about whether the setback was large enough to provide a holding lane for late afternoon traffic. Architect Choeff explained that was the purpose of the traffic study. Fernando Vazquez, Director of Public Services, was concerned about drainage issues. Architect Choeff explained that they were providing deep wells for drainage and stated that he would meet with Director Leeds as suggested, but also wondered if they should return to the Commission once they were 85% in compliance with CRA plan standards. MINUTES 3 FEBRUARY 17, 2004 WORKSHOP MEETING The consensus of the Commission was that any further questions should be addressed to Director Leeds. Director Leeds suggested that the Public Services Director be included in the meeting. City Manager Pato felt it was important to follow CRA/LAC guidelines and clarified that City staff had not requested the parking area or offices. 4. Discussion of Sign Code Amortization Ordinance (Removal of Non- Conforming Signs). Lawrence Leeds, Director of Community Development, gave the history of the amortization schedule that began in the late 1980s for removal of old signs. Director Leeds explained that sign code amortization was a statement to property owners the code had changed and their sign was no longer legal and a time schedule for replacement was provided in order to be fair. Mr. Leeds reported that the amortization began in the Downtown Dania Development District (Old Griffin Road to Stirling Road and FEC tracks to Fronton Blvd.). He explained that the original plan was extended several times and in December of 1998 a new code was approved that included all signs in the City with a deadline of December 2003 for all those types of signs to be replaced. He explained that because these types of signs were prohibited, they could not be negotiated by variances, waivers, or adjustments. Director Leeds made a presentation showing and defining the following types of prohibited signs: roof signs, painted signs, and pole signs. He also showed the monument signs that were recommended to replace the pole signs. Director Leeds explained that in 1998 there was plenty of public involvement, including a Sign Task Force, and notices were sent to over 300 businesses. He explained that the City needed to choose one of the following two options: 1) begin enforcing this code today in a systematic manner giving no chance of appeal or variance; 2) wait 12-18 months to amend the code and delay enforcement so that a re-education and notification process could be conducted. He noted that the quickest way to make a town look more attractive was to get rid of these oversized signs and move in the direction of monumental signs. City Manager Pato recommended the second option for the purpose of public notification for new businesses. Commissioner Flury felt that any new business owners should already be in compliance with the sign code, but was concerned about businesses in the newly annexed area. She felt that those people should be given notification and time to comply, but that enforcement for the rest of the City should begin immediately. In response to Mayor Anton's question, Director Leeds stated that businesses would be given 30-60 days to remove the sign before the issue would be addressed in the Code Board and the next step would be Circuit Court. Mayor Anton felt 60 days was a reasonable notification, especially since the businesses had already been given five years to comply. • In response to Vice-Mayor McElyea's question about billboard signs, Mr. Leeds stated that federal laws governed them and there was nothing the City could do about them. MINUTES 4 FEBRUARY 17, 2004 WORKSHOP MEETING • In response to Commissioner Chunn's question, Director Leeds felt 60 days was a sufficient amount of time. Commissioner Mikes was concerned about businesses that would not have the proper setbacks to allow room to construct a new sign and would accuse the Commission of putting them out of business. Director Leeds confirmed that there would be those types of cases, but felt the City should not allow variances or the whole ordinance would become negotiable. Commissioner Mikes suggested the City come up with a process that allowed a waiver in legitimate hardship cases where the suggested alternative would not work. Commissioner Chunn agreed with Commissioner Mikes. City Manager Pato stated that the City had a mechanism in place that helped the City deal with citizens who needed to address the Commission and gave the example of abatement hearings. He wondered if such a mechanism could be offered to businesses with legitimate hardship cases that would allow them to appear before the Commission. Director Leeds felt that if the Commission had to grant "adjustments" routinely then the ordinance was too strict. He would rather see the ordinance changed than to have to deal with hundreds of variances. • Commissioner Flury thought the signage on Federal Highway was horrible and felt the owners should invest in getting better signs. She also felt that providing a hardship mechanism was reasonable and maybe necessary. City Manager Pato felt that it was important to send a consistent message to property owners that the City rules are important and that exceptions could be addressed. City Attorney Ansbro clarified that a hardship and variance were the same thing and stated that a method needed to be created that would provide an alternative to those who could not comply. He stated that the amortization in these areas had already been 10 years because the City had already done this twice. Director Leeds explained that the word "variance" scared business communities and suggested that staff look at the code and try to provide enough flexibility in it so that everyone could comply and prevent a parade of variance applications. Mayor Anton felt there was discretion in enforcement and that some citations could be delayed until the dilemma was addressed. City Manager Pato felt that enforcement should begin right away and a grace period be offered to the newly annexed areas for notification purposes. • MINUTES 5 FEBRUARY 17, 2004 WORKSHOP MEETING 5. Discussion of Sidewalk Replacement Ordinance. Lawrence Leeds, Director of Community Development, stated that staff was recommending a 50% -50% (city/owner) sidewalk replacement program resulting in a lien against the property if the owner refused to pay. Mayor Anton stated that there was one area in the SW section of the City that was full of black olive trees causing the sidewalks to buckle. Director Leeds clarified that in those cases the City would pick up 50% of entire cost, which may include a root barrier. The Commission consensus was in favor. 6. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. i C.K. MCELYE MAYOR-COM ISSIONER ATTEST: • MIRIAM NASSER ACTING CITY CLERK Respectfully submitted by Jill Fiorentino APPROVED: March 9, 2004 MINUTES 6 FEBRUARY 17, 2004 WORKSHOP MEETING