HOLMES BEACH – After hearing from the applicant, the city planner and neighbors in a marathon three-hour meeting, planning commissioners found the owners’ requests not in compliance with the comprehensive plan.
The subject property is at 214 54th Street, across the street from Island Lumber, and contains two residential units and a CPA office. Property owners Ben and Keren ten Haaf propose demolishing the existing structure and building two office units on the first level and two residential units on the second level.
In order to do so, they are seeking a change to the future land use category of the comprehensive plan from medium density residential to commercial with a mixed-use overlay and a change in the zoning from R-2 to C-1.
City Planner Bill Brisson submitted staff reports on both requests and an addendum with comments on the applicant’s submission.
Advocates for the applicant
Designer Emily Anne Smith said the request “is a soft and easy transition from residential to commercial” and “the design represents old fashioned warmth and style.”
“It they were in it for the money, they would do the highest and best use, a duplex with two swimming pools and five bedrooms on each side, which could be done today with only a building permit,” she pointed out.
She said the landscape will be lush and tropical with 54 trees buffering it from the neighbors and there will not be a dumpster, a swimming pool or truck deliveries.
Monica Simpson, the agent for the applicant, said the project would re-energize the corner parcel, be a catalyst for the future vision of the city, be a buffer between commercial and residential and a less intensive land use transition and offer greater controls for resort housing and limit its negative impacts on neighbors.
Contractor Greg Ross said if the owners wanted to maximize the use under C-1 zoning with mixed use, they could build five single bedroom units on the second floor or four units with two bedrooms each. If they wanted to maximize the use under R-2 zoning, they could build approximately a 4,400 square foot duplex with six bedrooms per side.
“We live here and we want to be part of the community,” Ben ten Haaf said. “We put a lot of thought into that structure. We don’t want something that looks awful or doesn’t fit in. We will work hard to make this look well and blend in with the community.”
Planner’s summary
Brisson discussed several major points the applicant used to support the request.
• The mixed use overlay was intended for the commercial area of the city, not for residential, and “it was directed at larger properties such as the shopping center across the street. There is no reason to push that boundary.”
• The number of bedrooms under the mixed use designation would be more than double that allowable under the R-2 zoning district regulations.
• It does not further the long-term plan for the central commercial area because “it is not in the commercial district. It’s expanding it into residential.”
• On providing a transition he said, “There really is no transition if you consider the potential uses of the property” and that “a new applicant would probably develop it to the highest and best use.”
• It substitutes the potential impacts of two resort housing units as presently allowed for the potential for four or five resort housing units plus two offices.
• The R-2 allows 40 percent impervious surface coverage, while C-1 allows 70 percent impervious surface coverage.
He concluded, “The comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and provides an incompatible land use in a residential area.”
Neighbors speak
“We want no commercial zoning in our residential areas,” Dick Motzer, of 56th Street, said. “They knew when they bought it that it was residential. If they wanted commercial, they should have bought commercial.
“Don’t be so presumptuous as to think that you can buy a residential property with the intent that the city and the residents have to make adjustments so you can line your pockets.”
He said the proposal is invasive and would negatively affect the quality of life and property values.
“My head is swimming,” Nancy Deal, of 56th Street, declared. “I feel threatened when they talk about the what ifs. If you don’t do what we are proposing right now, you could get something you don’t want.
“We had a dream to live in a modest community. It did not include commercial encroaching into residential. Share our dreams; don’t shatter them.”
Carol Soustek, of 73rd Street, urged planning commissioners to “think of the future any time you make a change in the comp plan.”
Ross said he did not make any threats, but just told the board what could happen and added, “One of three things will happen. You will approve our proposal and we’ll develop it under the guidelines, we will developed it as an R-2 resort housing duplex or the owner will sell it to another developer.
“When you have resort housing abutting resort housing, I don’t understand how that’s not a compatible use,” Ross said.
Brisson said the potential for something else is greater because the density under mixed use is greater than in R-2.
Planning commissioners debate
Member Gary Hickerson said the board created the mixed-use overlay to encourage redevelopment of the commercial area and that the prime directive of the comp plan is to preserve and protect the residential neighborhoods.
However, he pointed out, “Their proposal is attractive, and they could create something better than what the neighbors could end up with if a mega duplex is built. But Mr. Brisson suggests that there’s more risk. At this point I’m leaning toward leaving it the way it is.”
Then he quipped, “The applicant could get run over by a lumber truck while planting the 54 trees and everything could go to pot.”
Member Sylvia Harris said she doesn’t feel comfortable going from R-2 to C-1, and that the neighbors don’t want it.
Member Barbara Hines praised the presentation and “beautiful renderings,” but said it is not compatible with the comp plan.
She said that “residential is not a holding area for more intense development” and that buffers should be in the commercial area across the street.
Member Don Ferguson said the safe thing to do would be to deny the requests, but “I’m not sure it’s the right thing to do. I go along with the plan. My concern is I would hate to see two 10 bedroom houses over there.”
Chair Sue Normand also praised the presentation, but said it is not in compliance with the comp plan.
“I would hate to see two giant duplexes go up there, but when we did the mixed use, we envisioned primarily the commercial zone where the shopping center is.
“We did not have in mind that we would rezone another area. We need to protect the residential areas.”
Deny requests
Planners approved a motion to find the comp plan amendment not in compliance with the comp plan. Brisson said because they denied that, they also must find the rezone request not in compliance, and they approved a motion to do so.
Mayor Carmel Monti said one reason he ran for office is because of the proliferation of huge rental homes, but pointed out, “There’s the law and the intent of the law. In this situation, we have something here that the intent of the individuals is very high end, much less onerous for the city and against the out of control boarding houses.”
The planning commission’s recommendation will be considered by the city commission, which can accept or reject it. Simpson said the city commission can consider the site plan first, and it won’t be in effect unless the comprehensive plan amendment and the zoning change are adopted.
No date has been set for the city commission hearing.