HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-27 CRA Board Regular Meeting Agenda Packet AGENDA
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMER 27, 2005 - 6:00 P.M.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH REGARD TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS
MEETING OR HEARING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEF.D 'I'O ENSURE
THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH RECORD INCLUDES I'1'IE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
UPON WIIICII Il IF APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
LOBBYIST REGISTRATION REQUIRED-REGISTRATON AS A LOBBYIST IN THE CITY OF DANIA BEACH IS REQUIRED IF ANY
PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION IS BEING PAID TO LOBBY THE COMMISSION ON ANY PETITION OR ISSUE PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 01-93. REGISTRATION FORMS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IN ]'HE ADMINIS'IRA'I'[ON
CENTER.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, PERSONS NEEDING ASSISTANCE '10 PARTICIPATE IN
ANY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTACT LOUISE STILSON, CITY CLERK, 100 W. DANIA BEACH BLVD., DANIA
BEACH,FL 33004,(954)924-3622,A LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
1N CONSIDERATION OF OTHERS,WE ASK'F]IAT YOU:
A. PLEASF_TURN CELL PHONES OFF,OR PLACE ON VIBRATE IF YOU MUST MAKE A CALL,PLEASE S FEP OUF INTO
'HIE A FRIUM,IN ORDER NOT TO INTERRUPT THE MEETING.
13. IF YOU MUST SPEAK TO SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE,PLEASE SPEAK SOFTLY OR GO OUT INTO THE ATRIUM, IN
ORDER NOT TO INTERRUPT THE MEETING.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes for Regular Meeting of August 4, 2005
4. Update from CRA Consultant
5, Dania Beach Hotel Property
6. Discussion of the Letters of Interest (CRA Zoning/Design Regulations)
7. CRA Zoning Issues (See Attached)
8. Adjournment
Community Redevelopment Agency
Agenda— September 27, 2005 —6:00 p.m.
Page 2 of 3
("LAC" and "Commercial"Land Use: North of Stirling)
Minimum Height: 2 stories
Maximum Height: Less that 1.0 acre: 3 floors or 40 feet, whichever is less.
1.0 - 1.5 acres (net): 5 floors or 62 feet, whichever is less.
1.5 acres or more(net): 10 floors or 115 feet, whichever is less.
Pedestal Setbacks (Three floors/35 feet or less)
Major Street: 15—20 feet to curb
Local Street: 10 - 15 feet to curb
Interior yard adjacent to commercial zoning: 10 feet
Interior yard adjacent to multi-family zoning: 20 feet
Interior yard adjacent to single family zoning: 0.75 building height, but no less than 25'
Tower Setbacks: (Pour floors/36 feet— 10 floors/115 feet)
Major Street: 30 feet to curb
Local Street 30 feet to curb
Interior yard adjacent to commercial zoning: 20 feet
Interior yard adjacent to multi-family zoning: 30 feet
Interior yard adjacent to single family zoning: 0.75 building height,but no less than 25'
Pervious Area:
10% - 15% of net lot area
(May be reduced by waiver to 5%by the City Commission for mixed use)
CRA AREA REQUIREMENTS
("Commercial"Land Use: South of Stirling)
Minimum Height: 2 stories
Maximum Height: Less that 1.5 acres: 3 floors or 40 feet, whichever is less.
1.5 acres or more (net): 5 floors or 62 feet, whichever is less.
Pedestal Setbacks (Three floors/35 feet or less)
Major Street: 15 —20 feet to curb
Local Street: 10 - 15 feet to curb
Interior yard adjacent to commercial zoning: 10 feet
Interior yard adjacent to multi-family zoning: 20 feet
Interior yard adjacent to single family zoning: 0.75 building height,but no less than 25'
Community Redevelopment Agency
Agenda— September 27, 2005 —6:00 p.m.
Page 3 of 3
Tower Setbacks: (Four floors/36 feet—5 floors/62 feet)
Major Street: 30 feet to curb
Local Street 30 feet to curb
Interior yard adjacent to commercial zoning: 20 feet
Interior yard adjacent to multi-family zoning: 30 feet
Interior yard adjacent to single family zoning: 0.75 building height, but no less than 25'
Pervious Area:
10% - 15% of net lot area
(May be reduced by waiver to 5% by the City Commission for mixed use)
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
-Limiting% of efficiencies and 1-bedroom units to discourage unit owner rentals.
-Density Regulations.
-Requiring minimum interior height (9 feet) for residential apartments.
-Absence of architectural guidelines.
-Establishment and application of new CRA Zoning Districts (Comprehensive Area-Wide Rezoning or
case-by-case site specific rezoning)
-Regulating height above 10 stories(Variance v.Special Exception)
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF DANIA BEACH
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2005 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
Chairman Castro called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present:
Chairman: Ann Castro
Vice-Chairman: Patricia Flury
Board Members: Robert Anton
John Bertino
C.K. McElyea
City Manager: Ivan Pato
City Attorney: Tom Ansbro
City Clerk: Louise Stilson
3. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 24, 2005
Mr. Anton motioned to approve the May 24, 2005 Minutes; seconded by Mr. McElyea.
The motion carried on the following 5-0 Roll Call vote:
Mr. Anton Yes Vice-Chairman Flury Yes
Mr. Bertino Yes Chairman Castro Yes
Mr. McElyea Yes
4. Adoption of Zoning Regulations to Implement Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Plan
a. Building Height
b. Minimum Parcel Size
c. Minimum Building Setbacks
d. Minimum Pervious Areas
Attorney Michael Moskowitz advised they have identified some items in the Code that need to
be updated as the CRA moves forward in trying to develop a comprehensive plan which is going
to encourage redevelopment within the CRA boundaries. He indicated other Cities have done
comprehensive studies by hiring planning consultants to do a complete overview. He noted
height is one of the first considerations to attract development; currently the City Zoning Code
allows one to three stories, however the CRA Plan calls for six to eight stories.
Mr. Bertino commented the impact on traffic, water, and sewer need to be realized in the
development of structures. He suggested developers would need to remediate our traffic pattern
flows at their expense.
Attorney Moskowitz agreed with Mr. Bertino. However, some situations may differ depending
upon the particular area within the CRA in terms of building heights and other considerations.
He did not suggest they all be uniform within the CRA, there would be different areas that would
need discussion. He noted building setback deals with issues such as footprint and what type of
development we can encourage; pervious area may require a reduction from the current Code;
We should consider limiting the percentage of efficiencies and one bedroom units, as well as
setting minimum unit size, and require minimum interior apartment height. He also noted that
architecture guidelines would need to be addressed.
Vice-Chairman Flury-asked what should be addressed first; the CRA Plan or the City Code.
Laurence Leeds, Director of Community Development, responded the CRA Plan was adopted in
2002; we need to update the Zoning Code in order to implement the CRA Plan. He thinks an
Urban Design Consultant is needed to study the CRA Plan and incorporate it into a new Zoning
Code.
Attorney Moskowitz indicated it would be helpful if the Commission had copies of the types of
studies that other cities had commissioned. This would be helpful in identifying areas, making
recommendations, and moving forward. The correct way to move forward is to hire Planning
Consultants who specialize in urban design and make recommendations.
Mr. Bertino asked for a concept of the cost of the study and questioned if the County should help
pay for it. He also asked if grants were available.
Attorney Moskowitz responded they could tell us how much other cities paid for their studies;
and they would be happy to work with City staff to approach the County to determine if grant,
loan or other money is available. A study normally takes six to twelve months, and costs
approximately $150,000.
Mr. Leeds commented he would work with Attorney Moskowitz because funding may be
available for architectural design guidelines.
Attorney Moskowitz noted the establishment and application of new CRA zoning districts would
need to be evaluated. A special exception process could be established for the districts to allow
flexibility in building height. He views variances as a hindrance to development, but not special
exceptions.
Chairman Castro commented Impact Fee changes may be effective October 1s`. She questioned
the procedure for implementation.
Minutes of Regular Meeting 2
City of Dania Beach
Community Redevelopment Agency
Thursday,August 4, 2005—7:00 p.m.
City Attorney Ansbro responded the Impact Fees are paid at building permit application. It
would be the Commission's decision to address plans that have already received site plan
approval but have not paid Impact Fees.
Chairman Castro suggested the CRA Board meet once per month.
Attorney Moskowitz suggested meeting after Labor Day and before the first Commission
meeting in September.
Vice-Chairman Flury suggested going out for proposals before the next meeting.
Vice-Chairman Flury motioned to get proposals for a Letter of Interest; seconded by Mr.
McElyea. The motion carried on the following 5-0 Roll Call vote:
Mr. Anton Yes Vice-Chairman Flury Yes
Mr. Bertino Yes Chairman Castro Yes
Mr. McElyea Yes
5. Discussion of Expanding Local Activity Center (LAC) Boundaries to include CRA
Commercial Properties along US 1 from Sheridan Street to Old Griffin Road
Laurence Leeds, Director of Community Development, withdrew this item from the agenda.
6. Adjournment
Chairman Castro adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ATTEST: ANNE CASTRO
CHAIRMAN - CRA
LOUISE STILSON
CITY CLERK
Minutes of Regular Meeting 3
City of Dania Beach
Community Redevelopment Agency
Thursday,August 4,2005—7:00 p.m.
Dania Beach, LLP
180 East Dania Beach Blvd.,
Dania Beach, FL 33004
September 27, 2005
City Commission
City of Dania Beach
100 West Dania Beach Boulevard
Dania Beach, Florida 33004
Re: Redevelopment of the Dania Beach Hotel ("Project")
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
As you know, we are interested in developing a mixed use project at the location
of the existing Dania Beach Hotel. The Project will consist of retail uses and
approximately 150 condominium units. We have been working with your Planning &
Zoning staff to complete a submittal for your review and approval. We believe we are
close to being at a point where we will be scheduled for review and approval by the
Commission.
As this Project has been pending for more than one year, in the past staff has
expressed a concern over whether we were committed to develop the site. Further, we
have been advised of the City's interest in condemning the property in order to facilitate
redevelopment. Over the past 2 years our Development team has committed extensive
hours and has expended over $200,000 towards completing this development. We
respectfully request the City reconsider their interest in condemnation for that portion of
the overall property that consists of the hotel. We intend to present our development
plans and introduce our development team to the City Commission at the CRA meeting
to be held this evening.
Our development team is comprised of a multi-talented group of individuals with
years of expertise and are committed to delivering a top quality project for the City and
all of the City's resident.
To guarantee this commitment, we are prepared to deposit with the City Manager
a guarantee in the amount of$50,000 to demonstrate our commitment plus a contribution
of$100,000 to the City to develop CRA guidelines. If the City prefers the entire amount
can serve as the guarantee. In the event that our development team does not pull building
permits within nine months from the date of final approval of all applications required to
FTL 1542929:1
submit for building permit, we are prepared to release the money to the City without
further recourse.
We respectfully hope that our guarantee will overcome any concerns that the City
previously had as it related to the Project and will allow us to move forward at an
expedited rate in order to commence development and offer an exciting product to
current and future residents of the City of Dania Beach.
We look forward to speaking with the Commission this evening.
Sincerely,
r I'a&
J ger
FR-1542929:1
Minutes of September 14, 2005 Meeting
House Select Committee on Private Property Rights
The meeting opened with a comprehensive presentation by staff of the Committee on
Local Government & Veterans' Affairs. Karen Camechis made the presentation.
According to the Committee Chairman, Marco Rubio, the fundamental question that
should be considered by the Select Committee is whether economic development, which
may include but is not limited to, creating jobs and enhancing the tax base, a valid public
purpose for which private property in Florida may be taken and transferred to another
private entity?
The following are comments made by several members of the committee.
Galvano— Thinks Kelo decision "emboldened" local governments to use eminent
domain
Tighten Ch. 163 slum & blight definitions
CRAB are not using up-to-date studies—there needs to be some time
limitations imposed relating to the finding of necessity required to create a
CRA
The criteria for determining if an area is meets the definition of slum and
blight needs to be more quantifiable. There should have to be more of a
burden on local government to prove how much of area is actually
blighted
Remove eminent domain from agencies whose powers already include
TIF
There should be no takings except under very specific circumstances and
the use of the property should be clearly linked to the stated purpose for
the taking
Rubio - Need to answer the question of whether or not economic development is a
reason for eminent domain
Seiler- Definitions of slum & blight should have higher thresholds
Heightened evidence vs. clear& defined evidence
Do not gut the whole system
Redefine blight as it relates to eminent domain
Rubio- The committee will probably only make recommendations to a substantive
committee as to a solution
Greenstein- Redefine slum& blight
Definition of slum & blight should perhaps be broader within the confines
of a CRA than for that of an eminent domain proceeding.
Kravitz- Asked "how much sovereignty does a local government need?" Need to
look at how much influence the legislature is granting local governments.
Recognizes that eminent domain is ultimately a land use decision and
therefore local governments should have some flexibility as to its use but
that need to be clearly defined.
Robaina - How deep is the committee going to go? Power of eminent domain should
only be allowed through CRAs in limited conditions for obvious public
purpose.
Kottkamp - Members of Select Committee must ask themselves "when would they be
comfortable with local government taking their property?"
Just compensation must be paid--there needs to be some thought given as
to the impact of eminent domain proceedings on homesteaded property.
Must consider how any legislation will impact projects and CRAB already
established.
Select Committee should consider higher standards for residential vs.
commercial property when it comes to eminent domain.
Poppel - Slum &blight definitions are currently way too broad.
Many of the criteria set out in definition of blight are not things the
property owner has any control over.
CRAs have become so broad as to hurt private property owners.
Do not forget the private property owner.
Traviesa - Make this an economic issue as well.
He would like to see the economic rationale to takings.
Tinkering with Florida economics may be a problem.
He believes free market will correct circumstances within slum & blighted
areas if allowed to flourish and does not really see the rationale for CRAB.
Rubio - Need to consider the question of standards for what is considered
economic development.
Evers - Does not want to see private property taken for another private entity for
more desirable purposes.
Used Disney as an example of private sector "economic development".
Believes market will fix blighted areas in much the same way as the
Disney example.
Believes the courts have eroded the definition of public use to be far too
broad.
Stansel - Does not see what is stated in Florida's constitution as what is happening
in CRAs----CRAs have too much authority and are essentially taking
property for economic development purposes.
Opposed to purely economic reasons for eminent domain.
Considers "conceivable public purpose" as used by some courts as being
too broad.
Cannon - Feels there is no solid definition of economic development.
Is concerned about bad condemnation conditions vs. "social engineering"
using eminent domain.
As a land use attorney, he understands the need for eminent domain in
redevelopment.
Flores- Legislature must clearly define economic development and public use
relating to eminent domain
Overall this was a very good committee meeting and Chairman Rubio did an outstanding
job keeping every one on track.
The committee agreed on several ideas which will act as the framework for the next
meeting. They are as follows.
l. Promoting economic development is a legitimate function of government.
2. Economic development should never be the sole purpose for which eminent
domain is used. There must be other overlying issues and economic
development would be a byproduct.
3. The definitions of slum & blight must be tightened up and made more
specific.
4. Eminent domain should only be used for a specific public purpose.
DRAFT CRA ZONING (FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION)
Commercial and Local Activity Center (LAC) Areas:
North of Stirling Road
Minimum Height:
2 floors.
Maximum Height: µ:in
Less that 1.0 acre (net): 3 floors or 40 feet, whicheV,er'is less.
1.0 - 1.5 acres (net): 5 floors or 62 feet, which everis less.
1.5 acres or more (net): 10 floors or 115 feet, vvh`ichever is less.
4,
Pedestal Setbacks (Floors one through three`e 35 feet or less)
Major Street: °�,15 -, 20#feet to curb '
Local Street: feet to curb.
Interior yard adjacent to commercial zoning: 10 ;feet.
Interior yard adjacent to multi famii.y zoning 20 feet
Interior yard adjacent to single family, zoning 0.75 building height,
but„no le, than 25'.
Tower Setbacks: (Floors:four through ten - 36 feet to 115 feet)
t b A;
N+ ,
Major Street: a " ' 30 - 35 feet to curb.
€ n
Local Street ,, 30 - 35 feet to curb.
Interior yard adjacent to�,commerciavl zoning 20 feet.
NY!x Y •• ry
Interior yard,Tadjacent td1;m6lti-family zoning: 30 feet.
Interior yard`adla'cent,to single family zoning: 0.75 building height,
fir` �r �., but no less than 25'.
Minimum'Pervious Area:
10% - 15% of net lot area
(May be reduced bywaiver to 5% by the City Commission for mixed use)
e.='Y
PAGE 1 OF 3
Commercial Areas:
South of Stirling Road
Minimum Height:
2 stories
Maximum Height:
:.A
Less than 1.5 acres (net): 3 floors or 40 feet, whicheven�isW less.
1.5 acres or more (net): 5 floors or 62 feet, whicheverjs less.
AJA
Pedestal Setbacks (Floors one through three�'Y'35 feet or;aess)
Major Street: 5 - 20t feet to curb ' A,
Local Street: w.. 10 - 15feet to curb -"'
Interior yard adjacent to commercial zoning "10, feet
Interior yard adjacent to multi-family zoning 20=1eet.
Interior yard adjacent to single family zoning: 0.75' building height,
but no less than 25'.
;: �.. ;
*i :s
Tower Setbacks: (Floors four thr`ouah feet to 62 feet)
Major Street: p
30 feet to curb.
Local Street K_ 30 feet to curb.
v
Interior yard adjacenVAo commercial zoning;, 20 feet.
Interior yard adjacent�to multi family zoning: 30 feet.
Interior yard adjacent toysingle family zoning: 0.75 building height,
but no less than 25'.
;Y, .
Minimum Pervious Area:
10% - 15%of net lot area
(May be reduced by wait/,'er to 5% by the City Commission for mixed use).
Y �
PAGE 2 OF 3
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
-Funding of CRA planning consultant to evaluate/prepare zoning and design
regulations.
-Restricting % of efficiencies and 1-bedroom units per project.
-Establishing minimum unit size.
-Requiring minimum interior height (9 feet) for residential apartments.
-Absence of architectural guidelines. A „6
*
;
.�y:
'P
-Application of CRA Zoning Regulations ,V TT 41
(Comprehensive Area-Wide Rezoning or case by'case site specific'{;rezoning).
4"s -PA
t
{izp
l
y`'. _
aR+
ifl
{ `4 i t t� {'.y r bN,
£7,{..
V tHm
'.
P �Yvi
Kr
"� ? a X,
AM
k,4
b�
UT s
1p,
1 a,
4 ,aw
6
J jrr'
PAGE 3 OF 3