1998-1008 Regular City Commission Meeting

Home Browse Search

parked cars, but with a fence at the back to close at 9 p.m. - with the understanding that emergency vehicles would have unrestricted access. Mr. Schulman said that a portion of the 56' easement (approximately 10' to 12') would be used for the developers entrance and their vehicles, with the remainder as landscaped, open space and pedestrian way. City staff must approve any design. Mayor Samson asked if the project was an apartment/hotel, a condo or hotel. Mr. Schulman said it is currently an"apartment/hotel." They can't exceed a density of 265 units. Ms.Rebecca Henderson,Esq. stated that Mr. Schulman only cited a portion of the County Code section dealing with bonus of FAR. She cited the legislative history of County Code § 33-222, Floor Area Ratio, noting that the maximum is 2.0 FAR. [City Clerk's note: Ms. Henderson submitted documents for the record: County Code § 33-222, Floor Area Ratio; and transcript of Zoning hearing 6-B, from the May 28, 1998 City Commission meeting] She asserted that the Code doesn't permit,and therefor the City Commission does not have the right to grant what Mr. Schulman was seeking. Ms. Henderson said an applicant was not permitted to get a variance and then later seek to obtain a grant of a bonus. She reminded that the Mayor's motion in May had been to grant the variance on the condition that the FAR was reduced to 2.5 and the density at 50 units per acre. She argued that to approve the new request for a bonus increasing the FAR on the project to 2.7,would violate the variance. She claimed the developer had plans to build a structure (sales office and model) that would block the beach access easement for several years. She asserted the larger access area would adversely impact the neighboring properties with safety and nuisance issues. Mr. Berkman said staff had previously done an analysis of 2.99 FAR and had given a positive recommendation. He noted the applicant was now seeking a bonus to reach an FAR of 2.7, and staff still recommends it. Our Comprehensive Plan has beach access as a major component and so to be opposed to getting more beach access would violate the Comp Plan. He asserted that getting the additional beach access easement would be a tremendous benefit. Commissioner Kauffman asked why do we need 55 feet for a beach access, if we already have 12 feet for access. Mr. Berkman said it is valuable for recreation purposes. Commissioner Morrow asked if we approve this FAR, can the project be situated so as to reduce its negative shadow that would be cast on the Suez. Mr. Francis Lucas, Suez owner, said he had no objection to a 12' beach access, but 56' access/roadway is objectionable. Commissioner Iglesias noted this request is for an FAR of 8% more than was previously granted,and the city would be getting the equivalent of a"mini-park"in return. Mayor Samson asked if it was true that the access would be obstructed . Mr. Schulman said "yes" during construction for safety reasons.He noted the easement will be in escrow,until after construction has been completed. Mayor Samson expressed his opposition to four years of obstructed access, and asked the developer to construct a roof over a five feet walkway. Mr. Schulman agreed, provided the City approves it. Vice Mayor Turetsky moved and Commissioner Iglesias seconded a motion to approve the request. The motion was approved as Resolution No. 98-Z-24, by a roll call vote of 4-1 Vote: Commissioner Iglesias ves Commissioner Kauffman no Commissioner Morrow ves Summary Minutes of the October 8, 1998, Regular City Commission Meeting - Paee 6 of 13