Rules? Developers Rule!

Unless the residents of Anna Maria reject it, our City is about to become someone’s little parking experiment.

Our present regulations require all parking for new development to be on-site. Our developers don’t like those regulations so we’re going to accommodate the developers and change the regulations. Actually, we’ll do much more than that. We’re going to eliminate the regulations altogether.

That’s right. If we adopt the new public parking option, the developers no longer will be required to provide parking. The City will provide it for them.

Oh, and we’re going to move the sidewalks to make it all work, if the owner of each developed lot agrees to allow us to move the sidewalks. It’s all optional. Their option.

One would have hoped when the developers learned the City had mistakenly approved past site plans and allowed noncompliant parking configurations to go forward, the developers would have altered their plans and instituted compliant parking configurations. But that’s not what happened.

Sidewalk Lunacy

February 27, 2010

In November, I suggested the City of Anna Maria had mistakenly approved site plans in the Residential/Office/Retail (ROR), based on this language in our Comp Plan: “. . . the City’s traffic circulation system shall emphasize safety and aesthetics . . . , separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic . . . , minimize direct access onto major roads”, and accommodate “bicycle and pedestrian traffic needs.” I maintained requiring vehicles to drive across the sidewalk to park, and then back out, sometimes blindly, through pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic to re-enter the roadway, did not meet the above standards, and was inherently unsafe.

My assertions were labeled “monkey wrench” issues. Opponents said we’ve never had a fatality on Pine Avenue, so there is no safety issue. Some said “changing the rules in the middle of the game” was a taking of developer property rights.

My contention was then, and is now; the rules are already in place. They’ve simply not been consistently applied.

From our Land Development Regulations (LDR): “All off-street parking areas, including all areas for maneuvering, shall be located solely on the subject property, shall not use public rights-of-way, . . . and shall be designed to provide safe and convenient circulation.” “Maneuver”, when describing a vehicle, means “steer”.

Restated, every developed lot shall have a driveway; vehicles must enter the subject property to park.

Those who cried “you can’t change the rules” have now proposed the biggest parking rule change in the history of Anna Maria. They’ve asked the City to cede the City-owned right-of-way for parking and allow property owners to determine where to position the sidewalk. Instead of lining Pine Avenue with trees, they wish to line it with cars. It screams “Commercial District!”

It’s a half-access solution. Vehicles will still back into bicycle and vehicle traffic. Property owners will still need driveways to accommodate loading zones. And our sidewalks will weave back and forth the length of Pine, sometimes in the city right-of-way, sometimes on private property, depending on whether or not the owner volunteers to move the sidewalk.

At issue: what do we want the Anna Maria of our future to look like? Do we change the LDR and the Comp Plan to accommodate the wishes of a few, thereby allowing larger buildings and greater commercial intensity in our ROR? Or do we clarify the existing language in the LDR, carrying out our Comp Plan’s goals which are: “to protect the single family residential character of the City within the Residential/Office/Retail Land Use Category, . . . preserve the unique, historic cottage type housing . . .” and “encourage property owners to build less than the maximum size buildings.”

If you care about the outcome of this discussion, you should go to City Hall Thursday, March 4, at 6:00 for the Joint Session of P&Z and the Commission and voice your opinion. Or email the City for city-wide distribution: amclerk@cityofannamaria.com

Thanks for listening.

Harry Stoltzfus

Anna Maria City Commissioner

216 Pine Avenue Site Plan Public Hearing to be Continued

The City of Anna Maria’s January 19, 2010 Public Hearing to consider the preliminary/final Site Plan approval in the ROR zone district at 216 Pine Avenue (Lots 1 & 2, Block 46), Anna Maria Beach Subdivision, Third Addition has been continued. The Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Board members unanimously voted ‘yes’ on a motion to continue the hearing on February 23, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. The applicant (Pine Avenue Restoration, LLC (PAR)) is required to bring, to the Feb. 23rd hearing meeting, a revised site plan showing the buildings separated by 6 feet, one building on each lot (to comply with Comp Plan policy that says one residential unit per lot), a height of 27 feet, a revised number of required parking spaces based upon 2 parking spaces per residential unit, the density (units per gross acre). I am not clear on the stipulations regarding parking design.

Before the above motion was passed, another motion had been made. P&Z Board member Sandy Mattick had made a motion that the site plan be approved with stipulations. Those stipulations were that the buildings be separated by 6 feet, one parking space was to be added to meet the two parking spaces per residential unit requirement, and the structure was to be limited to 27 feet. P&Z Board member Mike Yetter seconded the motion. Bob Barlow, Sandy Mattick and Mike Yetter voted ‘yes’ to approve the site plan with those stipulations but Jim Conoly, Chair Frank Pytel, Margaret Jenkins, Randall Stover voted ‘no’. Prior to this motion, Chair Pytel expressed that they were not just tweaking, that it was a major ‘redo’ with space between the buildings and new setbacks. Mr. Stover said that it was most important that an exact plan of the buildings and the setback line be brought to the board.

(Please note: My summary above was written from notes I took during the hearing. It is not a verbatim account and details of the stipulations may not be described perfectly. However, I am sure of who voted for and against the motion for ‘approval with stipulations’ and for the motion for 'continuance of the hearing to a date certain'.)

To read more, click on ‘comments’.

216 Pine Avenue P&Z hearing Jan 19, 2010

I've asked the Administration to reschedule this hearing, because the Administrative compliance review has been conducted improperly and the P&Z hearing has been scheduled improperly.

The facts that need to be put forth concerning these irregularities are:

1. The City is required to issue a written compliance review on any site plan applications. That review must state in writing a recommendation a site plan is approved, approved with conditions, or denied.

2. After that review has been completed, the City must schedule a hearing with the P&Z or the City Commission, depending on the particulars of the site plan.

3. The developer must publicly advertise at least 10 days before the date of the hearing, and notify by certificate of mail at least 30 days before the hearing, all neighbors within 500 ft. of the subject property. Both of these notices must take place after the site plan compliance recommendation is made by the Administration.

4. In early November, I expressed concern at a Commission meeting that PAR was trying to beat the system by submitting three site plans simultaneously. I suggested to the Mayor the system needed to respond. Chairman Quam suggested a moratorium on site plans may be desirable. Our City Attorney said that may be problematic. He stated that all issues in flux could be considered during the site plan review process and changes in the codes could be applied even if those changes were made after the date of the site plan submittal. He also recommended the City continue to process site plans in the normal manner, not expediting, and not deliberately slowing down the procedure.

5. The Administration has expedited the process. They scheduled the hearing with P&Z for 216 Pine before the compliance review was completed. That’s improper, therefore the hearing is illegitimate.

6. PAR has already mailed the notice letters to neighbors, and the hearing time and date has already been advertised in the Bradenton Herald.

7. For this to be done properly, the City must issue a signed, dated review of 216 Pine that includes a determination of approved, approved with conditions, or denied. The process needs to begin again, from that point. The advertising was done prematurely. The mailing was done prematurely.
Both should be redone.

8. Generally, it should be noted, the whole process regarding the site plan for 216 is unprofessional in the extreme. There are documents in the 216 file that are signed but not dated. The compliance review has a heading suggested it was done in January, but it also is not dated. There is correspondence between the developer and City staff not included in the file.

If, for some reason, the Administration should deny my request for rescheduling, I believe the Mayor has, once again. left us open to litigation.

Harry Stoltzfus

City of Anna Maria Commissioner