Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril Agenda Packet RevisedPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AGENDA April 17, 2014, 6:00 P.M. WELCOME • Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers prior to entering the Commission Chambers. • Please note that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency serves in an advisory capacity to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners and has the power to review and make recommendations to the Board, for approval or disapproval, on any applications within their area of responsibility. • The Planning and Zoning Commission strongly encourages your input and comment at the public hearing. Please limit comments to three minutes if possible and be respectful of others' opinions. • For public convenience, all meetings are televised and are provided with wireless internet access. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CATHY TOWNSEND WILLIAM O'DELL CRAIG MUNDT EDWARD LOUNDS BRAD CULVERHOUSE CHARLES GRANDE STEPHANIE MORGAN WILLIAM SMITH BOBBY HOPKINS MARTY SANDERS CHAIR VICE CHAIR COMMISSION MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER EX-OFFICIO MEMBER 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcement(s) D. Disclosure(s) 11. MINUTES Review for approval the minutes from the January 16, 2014 regular meeting. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Future Land Use Map Amendment - Ritchey from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU (Resi#ential Urban - 5 du/acre): FLUMA-920134668 Purpose:" County -initiated petition for a Future Land Use Map Amendment (FLUMA) of a five acre parcel from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU (Residential Urban - 5 du/acre) to correct a scrivener's error contained in Ordinance 04-004. Staff comment and presentation by Britton Wilson, Senior Planner. Exhibit 1: Staff Report Action Recommended: Forward recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. V. WORKSHOPS A. North Hutchison Island Proposed Commercial Resort Development Purpose: The purpose of the workshop for a potential Resort zoning district is to discuss with the Planning and Zoning Commission the possible accommodation of a use not contemplated by the Land Development Code: Resort uses which utilize a certain number of Condo Hotel Units. Comment and presentation by Planning and Development Services - Panning Division Staff. Exhibit 1: Memo Exhibit 2: January/February 2007 Probate & Property Article Exhibit 3: Napa Municipal Code 17.52.095 Condo -hotels Action Recommended: Discussion Item VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Planning and Development ServicesDirector comments. B. Other business at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Board Members. VI1. ADJOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any recommendation made by the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, by hiring their own court reporter at their own expense, to create a record that includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Risk Manager at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-1546 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to St. Lucie County Planning Division at (772) 462-2822. St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Roger Poitras Annex, Commission Chambers, 3`d Floor January 16, 2014 Meeting 6:00 p.m. In the event of a conflict between these written minutes and a compact disc recording, the compact disc shall control. I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Townsend called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Cathy Townsend ................................... Vice Chair Craig Mundt ..................................Commission Member Edward Lounds.................................... Commission Member Brad Culverhouse................................. Commission Member Stephanie Morgan ................................ Commission Member Charles Grande.....................................Commission Member William O'Dell ....................................... Commission Member Marty Sanders ...................................... Ex-Officio Member Members Absent Daniel Regis .......................................... Commissio Staff Present Heather Young Leslie Olson... Britton Wilson' Beverly Austin C. D. Dis( Non II. Minutes Review of th Townsend as ........... ......... ..... Planning Manager ............... Senior Planner' ......... ............... Recording Secretary rney n the November 21, 2013 meeting for approval. Vice Chair re any additions or corrections. Mr. Lounds moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Grande seconded. The motion carried. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 01:1q[ON :l*_1NIi!It] A. Jacobs Midway Commercial Rezone: RZ-1120134701 Purpose: A petition by Johnson Jacobs to rezone a .33 acre parcel from CO (Commercial Office) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) to allow for a small retail pharmacy to support DRAFT Page 2 of 4 the adjacent medical practice. Staff comments and presentation by Britton Wilson, Senior Planner Britton Wilson, Senior Planner stated this is a public hearing and notice was published in the St. Lucie News Tribune on January 2nd and the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Monday where six people were in attendance. Also, provided to you is a supplemental memo containing letters of support for the proposed rezoning. Two of which are from neighbors located directly adjacent to the subject property. The subject property is located at 102 Germani Dr., with road frontage on Midway Road about 1500 feet to the east of US1. Currently on site is a single family home. To the east is a medical office; to the west is a convenience store and single-family homes to the north and south. The future land use map shows the subject parcel and a large part of the area that was designated commercial about thirty years ago, off to the east is residential medium land use. The proposed rezoning from Commercial Office to Commercial Neighborhood is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. This area of Midway Road has been identified for commercial redevelopment since the mid 1980's. Commercial redevelopment of this area is also supported by its proximity to US 1. Both US1 and Midway Road are major arterial roadways with high traffic volumes that are not conducive for sustaining the current residential use. The proposed Commercial Neighborhood zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by providing for a high to low development intensity on Midway Road from US1 eastward. Because the Commercial Neighborhood zoning district is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the Commercial Future Land Use, staff is recommending that the rezoning for Jacobs Midway Commercial be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. Vice Chair Townsend asked if there were questions for staff Mr. Lounds asked is .33.acres large enough to put up a small business and still have useable parking and maneuverability. Ms. Wilson said yes. Mike McCarty of McCarty & Associates Land Planning & Design, representing the client stated they agreed with Ms. Wilson's presentation. Vice Chair Townsend opened the public hearing None Vice Chair Townsend closed the public hearing 94 Vice Chair Townsend asked the Board if there was any discussion 95 No board discussion 96 97 Mr. Odell made the motion: After considering the testimony presented during the public 98 hearing including staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning 99 Commission of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County 100 Commissioners approve the petition of John Jacobs for a change in zoning from CO 101 (Commercial Office) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) because the proposed rezoning 102 for this parcel is consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and the Land 103 Development Code and this it reflects the intended development pattern of the Midway 104 Road Corridor. Ms. Morgan seconded to motion. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Minutes DRAFT Page 3 of 4 The roll was called: Stephanie Morgan Yes Craig Mundt Yes Ed Lounds Yes Vice Chair Townsend Yes Charles Grande Yes Billy O'Dell Yes B. Hutton Rezone: RZ-1120134702 Purpose: A petition by Hutton Growth One, LLC to rezone a 1.1 acre parcel from IL (Industrial Light) to CG (Commercial General) to allow for a discount general store. Staff comment and presentation by Britton Wilson, Senior Planner. Britton Wilson, Senior Planner stated this is a public hearing and notice was published in the St. Lucie News Tribune on January 2"d and the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on December 9`" which was attended by one neighbor. The subject property is located at the lighted intersection of Lennard Road and Melaleuca Blvd., which is contained within a pocket of unincorporated land surrounded by the City of Port St. Lucie. To the north is an industrial plaza; to the south is a landscape nursery; to the east is single and multi -family residential; and to the west is commercial office space. The proposed rezoning from Industrial Light to Commercial General is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. CG Zoning is compatible with the Industrial Future Land Use designation. And the proposed Commercial General zoning is compatible with the surrounding area by providing for an orderly transition of development intensity. Being that the site is located within the City, it is more conducive for commercial than industrial uses and the site is serviced by Port St. Lucie Utilities. r Because the Commercial General zoning district is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the Industrial future land use, staff is recommending that the rezoning for Hutton Growth One be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. Vice Chair Townsend asked if there were questions for staff No questions for staff Noreen Dryer of Greenspoon Marder, P.A. representing Hutton Growth One agreed with staff's presentation. Vice Chair Townsend opened the public hearing None Vice Chair Townsend closed the public hearing Vice Chair Townsend asked the Board if there was any discussion No board discussion Mr. Grande made the motion: After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve the petition of Hutton Growth One LLC, for a change in zoning from IL to CG because it is consistent with the Future Land Use and the surrounding area. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Minutes DRAFT Page 4 of 4 156 The roll was called: 157 Stephanie Morgan Yes 158 Craig Mundt Yes 159 Ed Lounds Yes 160 Vice Chair Townsend Yes 161 Brad Culverhouse Yes 162 Charles Grande Yes 163 Billy O'Dell Yes 164 165 V. OTHER BUSINESS 166 167 A. Approval of the 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting schedule 168 Mr. Mundt motioned to approve with the February meeting being cancelled. Mr. 169 Grande seconded the motion. 170 171 B. Election of Officers 172 Ms. Morgan nominated Ms. Townsend as Chair of the Planning and Zoning 173 Commission. Mr. Lounds motioned nominations closed. Mr. Grande seconded. 174 Unanimously approved —Cathy Townsend as Planning & Zoning Chair for 2014 175 176 Ms. Morgan nominated Mr. O'Dell as Vice Chair of the Planning & Zoning 177 Commission. Mr. Culverhouse motioned nominations closed. Ms. Morgan seconded 178 the motion. Unanimously approved- Billy O'Dell as Planning & Zoning Vice Chair for 179 2014 180 181 C. Planning and Development Services Director comments 182 No comment 183 184 D. Other business at the discretion of the Planning & Zoning Board members 185 No business 186 187 VI. ADJOURN 188, There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:22 pm. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Minutes TO: SUBMITTED BY BACKGROUND: AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. IV -A DATE: 04/17/14 REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING (X) LEG. ( ) QUASWD (X) CONSENT O PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRESENTED BY: Britton WilsoWr Planning and Development Services Senior Plann Department — Planning Division Future Land Use Map Amendment — Ritchey from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU (Residential Urban) See attached memorandum. FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: October 15, 2013 — Board of County. Commissioners granted permission to advertise the public hearings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the amending Ordinance be forwarded to the Board, of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. COORDINATION/SIGNATURES County Attorney (X) C1 Daniel S. McIntyre County Engineer ( ) Michael Powley Originating Dept. (X) A61-7 Mark Satterlee County Surveyor ( ) Ron Harris ERD (X) Care mith Hearing ®ate: Thursday April 17, 2014 Applicant Board of County Commission- ers Owner Mary Ritchey Agent none Existing Future Land Use CPUB (Conservation Public) Future Land Use Request RU (Residential Urban-5 du/ acre) Zonin Hl:RD (Hutchinson Island Res- idential District) Staff Britton Wilson Wilsonb@stlucieco.org (772) 462-1582 AGENDA ITEM IV -A Future Land Use Map Amendment: Ritchey FLUMA-920134668 Future Land Use Ritchey RU RU RU CPUB CPUB RU.. CPUB `� Atlantic Ocean RU � RU Indian . - _ River . `....................... WX T� y 9 CPUB CPUB ® N subject property CPUB -Conservation Public 1500 ft. notification area RU - Residential Urban (5 du/ac) 0.1aP FmpAmd September 11, 2013 Location: North Hutchinson Island approximately 2,000 feet south of the County line on the west side of Al A. File Number Project Description Notice Requirements TCP—1020134689 This is a county -initiated petition to change the Future Land Use designation Public hearing notice in accordance of a privately owned five acre parcel from with Section 11.00.03 of the Land De- CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU velopment Code was placed in the St. Lucie News Tribune on April 3, 2014, (Residential Urban - 5 du/acre) to correct letters were mailed to property owners a 2004 scrivener's error. The petition within a 500 foot radius and a sign M�wro N proposes to revert the Future Land Use placed on the property. I� designation back to the 2004 RU desig- nation. AW; . i i �Puk 7rd�an ehrer Background The subject property is located on north Hutchinson Island, approximately 2,000 feet south of the Indian River and St. Lucie County border on the west side of A1A. The subject property is bordered to the north and south by publicly owned land, all of which were designated CPUB via Ordinance 04-004. The CPUB Future Land Use designation is reserved for those lands held in public ownership and not privately owned such as the subject property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment from CPUB to RU be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. } Planning and Development Services Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THROUGH: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Planning & Development Services Director Leslie Olson, AICP, Planning Manager V FROM: Britton Wilson, Senior Planner, Planning Divisio/W DATE: April 17, 2014 SUBJECT: Future Land Use Map Amendment — Ritchey from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre) ITEM NO.: IV -A This is a county -initiated petition for a Future Land Use Map Amendment (FLUMA) of a five acre parcel from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre) to correct a scrivener's error contained in Ordinance 04-004. OWNER/ Mary Ritchey APPLICANT: 3 Grove Isle Dr. #1505 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 REQUESTED Change in Future Land Use from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU ACTION: (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre) PURPOSE: The proposed FLUMA is to correct a scrivener's error and return the property to its previous Future Land Use designation. LOCATION: North Hutchinson Island approximately 2,000 feet south of the Indian River and St. Lucie County border on the west side of Highway Al A. TAX ID NO.: 1403-130-0007-000-9 PARCEL SIZE: 5 acres EXISTING USE: Vacant and Unimproved FUTURE LAND CPUB (Conservation Public) USE: ZONING: HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Planning & Zoning Commission Petition: Ritchey FLUMA April 17, 2014 Page 2 of 6 PROPOSED RU (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre) FUTURE LAND 5 acres X 5 du = 25 total potential dwelling units USE: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Location Future Land Use Zoning Existing Use Subject CPUB (Conservation HIRD (Hutchinson Island Vacant and Property Public) Residential District) Unimproved Adjacent North CPUB (Conservation Vacant and Unimproved Vacant and Parcels Public) Unimproved South CPUB (Conservation Vacant and Unimproved Vacant and Public) Unimproved East RU (Residential Urban Vacant and Unimproved Vacant and — 5 du/acre) Unimproved West Indian River Lagoon Indian River Lagoon Indian River Lagoon SERVICE INFORMATION: Public Utility Energy: Florida Power and Light Providers: Water: St. Lucie County Utilities Wastewater: St. Lucie County Utilities Public Service Storm Water: South Florida Water Management District Providers: Fire Rescue & EMS: 'St. Lucie County Fire District, Station No. 9 Law Enforcement: St. Lucie County Sheriff Background Analysis Ordinance 04-004 contained general amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, which were adopted on January 6, 2004. Among other things, the amendments intended to change the Future Land Use designation of various publicly owned lands to Conservation Public (CPUB). The CPUB Future Land Use designation is defined as conservation lands owned by federal, state or local governments. Ordinance 04-004 included a privately owned five acre parcel located on North Hutchinson Island that is surrounded to the north and south by publicly owned property, all of which was designated CPUB via the subject ordinance. The below map exhibit shows the Ritchey property outlined in red in Amendment Area 02-049. The subject parcel, located on the west side of Highway A1A, is owned by Mary Ritchey and had a previous Future Land Use designation of RU (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre). The one acre parcel directly to the east with ocean frontage is also owned by Mrs. Ritchey but was not included in Ordinance 04-004 and retained its RU Future Land Use designation. The subject parcel is zoned Hutchinson Island Residential District (HIRD), which is compatible with the original Future Land Use designation of RU. The existing HIRD zoning is not compatible with the current CPUB Future Land Use designation. Planning & Zoning Commission Petition: Ritchey FLUMA April 17, 2014 Page 3of6 Ordinance 04 004 Future Land Use Map Amendment Exhibit (Amendment Area 02-049 includes the five acre Ritchey property outlined in red) Planning & Zoning Commission Petition: Ritchey FLUMA April 17, 2014 Page 4 of 6 Current Future Land Use: The Future Land Use designation is CPUB (Conservation Public), which is intended for "...those lands which exhibit unique environmental characteristics and are owned by federal, state, regional, or local public agencies. They are intended solely for preservation and/or recreational use. No residential or commercial development may occur other than that typically related to park service and security functions." The CPUB Future Land Use designation is reserved for those lands held in public ownership and not privately owned such as the subject property. Proposed Future Land Use: The proposed Future Land Use designation is RU (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre), which is "...the predominant residential land use category in the County. This residential land use category provides for a maximum density of five dwelling units per gross acre. These properties need to be serviced with central water and wastewater services. These services may be provided by either a public utility or through private on -site facilities, as would be permitted in accordance with all applicable regulations. New development in the RU areas can occur using traditional single-family or multifamily zoning designations or through the planned unit development process." Under this proposed Future Land Use designation, the subject parcel would be permitted a maximum total of 25 dwelling units. Current Zoning: The current zoning of the subject property is HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District), which is intended "...to provide a residential environment on North and South Hutchinson Island that is respectful of the natural resources and value of the barrier islands and can be supported by available public and private services." The upland portions of the subject property may be developed with the permitted use of single and multi -family dwelling units at a density set forth in the Future Land Use designation. Possible conditional uses include a hotel, motel, resort, rooming and boarding house, tourist court, and transient timeshare, again at a density set forth in the Future Land Use designation, which permits a maximum total of 25 dwelling units. All issues related to development of environmentally sensitive parcel will be addressed at the time of development application. Such issues include water quality, stormwater, wetlands and protected species. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The analysis staff conducted indicates that a RU Future Land Use designation in this area is consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is located within the Urban Services Boundary with available utility services and the proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment does not contribute to urban sprawl as defined by Florida Statues, Chapter 163.3177(6)(a). The requested change in land use meets Policy 1.1.5.3 requiring the subject property to be within a quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the same or greater type of land use classification. The proposed change further complies with Policy 1.1.5.4 requiring all new development projects to occur where water and wastewater sewer services can be provided. The site has available potable water and sewer services provided by St. Lucie County Utilities. Compliance with State Statutes and the State Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is less than 10 acres in size and is considered a small-scale amendment, which is not subject to review by the State Department of Economic Opportunity division of Community Planning. This small-scale amendment is not anticipated to have any impacts to important state resources. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood: The requested Future Land Use designation of RU (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre) for the subject parcel. is compatible with the surrounding Future Land Use designations found in this area, which within a 500 foot radius is an even mix of CPUB and RU (see the attached Future Land Use Map). Planning & Zoning Commission Petition: Ritchey FLUMA April 17, 2014 Page 5 of 6 Analysis Summary: Based upon staff analysis contained in this memorandum, the proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment to RU for this parcel is consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is intended to correct an apparent scrivener's error contained in Ordinance 04-004. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. Planning & Zoning Commission Petition: Ritchey FLUMA April 17, 2014 Page 6 of 6 Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this request: MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM CPUB TO RU BECAUSE.... [CITE REASON(S) WHY — PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] OTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE -THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ST. LUCIE., COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE_... COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM CPUB TO RU BECAUSE.... [CITE REASON(S) WHY — PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] I S 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ORDINANCE NO. 14-XXX FILE NO.: FLUMA - 920134668 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO AMEND THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR A 5 ACRE (M.O.L.) PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY MARY RITCHEY, FROM CPUB (CONSERVATION PUBLIC) TO (RESIDENTIAL URBAN — 5 DU/ACRE); PROVIDING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, based on the testimony and evidence, including but not limited to the staff report, has made the following determinations: A county -initiated amendment to the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for a 5 acre (more or less) parcel of land owned by Mary Ritchey and located on North Hutchinson Island, from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre) within St. Lucie County, Florida, in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; and The Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County as the governing body of St. Lucie County having jurisdiction over this application pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to consider amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan of St. Lucie County; and 3. On April 17, 2014, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency held a public hearing, of which due notice was published in the St. Lucie News Tribune and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property, and recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the petition for Future Land Use Map Amendment for Mary Ritchey approved; and 4. On , 2014, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida held a public hearing, of which due notice was placed in the St. Lucie News Tribune and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property, and deemed the adoption of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to be in the best interests of the citizens and residents of the County. 5. The proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the Planning and Zoning Commission staff report dated April 17, 2014 and. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Ordinance No. 14-XXX File No.: FLUMA-920134668 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: I��a1iYf1 A�17►TJIAk ir�73�ji11� A_\�11Ib9 1]:6 �/_ @],,I The Future Land Use Designation set forth in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan for the property described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto, containing 5 acres more or less, located on North Hutchinson Island, from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU (Residential Urban — 5 du/acre), as depicted in the attached Exhibit. B. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY The Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, specifically determines that the approval of this amendment to the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and provides for the recognition that impacts of this approval on the public facilities of St. Lucie County will not occur until such time as a Final Development Order for development on this property is issued. C. CHANGE TO FUTURE LAND USE MAP The St. Lucie County Planning and Development Services Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause this change to be made in the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element, of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and to make.. notation of reference to the date of adoption of this Ordinance. D. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS Special acts of the Florida Legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County Ordinances and County Resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby superseded by this Ordinance to the extent of such conflict. E. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance. If this Ordinance or any provisions thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstances, such holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstance. F. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall be applicable as stated in Paragraphs A, B and C. G. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Clerk is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Bureau of Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Ordinance No. 14-XXX File No.: FLUMA-920134668 Page 3 H. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY The Planning and Development Services Director shall send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Department of Economic Opportunity Bureau of Community Planning Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street, MSC 160 Tallahassee, FL 32399. I. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect thirty-one (31) days after adoption. If the Ordinance is challenged within thirty (30) days after adoption, the Ordinance shall not be effective until the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission respectively issues a final order finding the adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. J. ADOPTION After motion and second, the vote on this Ordinance was as follows: Frannie Hutchinson, Chair XXX Paula Lewis, Vice -Chair XXX Chris Dzadovsky, Commissioner XXX Tod Mowery, Commissioner XXX Kim Johnson, Commissioner XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this ATTEST Deputy Clerk day of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA In Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS County Attorney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ordinance No. 14-XXX File No.: FLUMA-920134668 Page 4 Exhibit "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION & FUTURE LAND USE MAP 3 34 40 S 120 FT OF N 920 FT OF GOV LOT 4 LYG W OF A1A AND S 120 FT OF N 920 FT OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 (5.32 AC) (OR 3466-1503) Tax ID No.: 1403-130-0007-000-9 FLUMA-920134668 Future Land Use Ritchey After Change RU RU RU CPUB CPUB RU` Atlantic �- Ocean RU Indian ,` RU enrl esrA s•uR 3 River . .. _'..... .... . ,c�z 9� 9 CPUB CPUB N CPUB A CPUB Subject property CPUB - Conservation Public RU - Residential Urban (5 du/ac) 500 ft. notification area Map prepared February 4, 2014 t c t J Q O �. N t U-go U 40 ry 00000 m ,(� n U U 1 1 ioo� 1 1 M l CD 1 I � I 1 m U- I V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. _1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U � 'a LO CL C: C (0 0 .0 4-+ D c> L � � C C: W 0-0 U � IL D U 0Y acui cu a o o CL O U � N O O (/� LO C i t 4 I O a� � W 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 0 1 l 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 l tL. l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M Z� co O r .n E m a 0 U) j `ro a o. n. ro (u N tti C O Q U L +. s Q Q V � a) .Q O =3 C:) v) Ln Mail To: Meetinq Time: 6:00 PM (or soon thereafter) Location: County Commission Chambers St.. Lucie County Administration Building, 3rd Floor 2300 Virginia Ave Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 Applicant Board of County Commission- ers Owner Mary Ritchey" Existinq Future Land Use CPUB (Conservation Public) Future Land Use Request RU (Residential Urban-5 du/ acre) Zoning HIRD (Hutchinson Island Res- idential District) File Number TCP—1020134689 A.w. em.vm iMidlt ,ter PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE -Thursday, April 17, 2014 Future Land Use Map Amendment: Ritchey FLUMA-920134668 Future Land Use Ritchey RU RU RU CPUB CPUB RU♦ j CPUB ♦� Atlantic i Ocean RU i RU ♦ OICE ESTATES'DR Z Indian` River �`. - - - - -- Y� 9 9 cPUB CPUB ® subject property N CPUB -Conservation Public �- - 500 ft. notification area RU - Residential Urban '(5 du/ac) Wp p1epa d September 11, 2013 / Location: North Hutchinson Island approximately 2,000 feet south of the County line on the west side of A1A. Proiect Description Staff Recommendation This is a county -initiated petition to Staff recommends that the proposed change the Future Land Use designation Future Land Use Map Amendment of a privately owned five acre parcel from from CPUB to RU be forwarded to the CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU Board of County Commissioners with a (Residential Urban - 5 du/acre) to correct recommendation for approval. a 2004 scrivener's error. The petition proposes to revert the Future Land Use designation back to the 2004 RU desig- Staff Contact nation. Please call or email comments directly Background to: The subject property is located on north Britton Wilson, Senior Planner Hutchinson Island, approximately 2,000 WilsonB@stlucieco.org feet south of the Indian River and St. (772) 462-1582 Lucie County border on the west side of Anyone with a disability requiring ac- A1A. The subject property is bordered to commodation to attend the meeting the north and south by publicly owned should contact the ADA coordinator at land, all of which were designated CPUB least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the via Ordinance 04-004. The CPUB Future meeting at: Land Use designation is reserved for those lands held in public ownership and (772) 462-1546 or not privately owned such as the subject T.D.D (772) 462-1428 property. N 0 M 0 H m 0 0 H rl N 0 OP N 7M m m M m Oo a m m m M 0 m N M mN m N N M zT a1 i+ yam+ J Q J J Y Q � C O y X u p U LL Q u !@ N m m Y 0 m m ,-i v < a 3 „ Q d 00 M Ln a E w E Z Y j U C i O O O O o m m m Q to ci M m m ai E M J lL a) (N L � � t 3 o a v O u ti ar Ln E m c co J N O a m m X (U O C O d — m 3 O ai 'm O O U a ar E ca c LL a-1 L Q J � L O J C J LL al E ra =3 2 r 6 C J Q Q O � E T aJ Y O ai y Q C O C = O u (7 L O u` lD w 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vHr,'Tm 0 00 -1 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — m m m N 0 yr-I c-r r-r r-I rn M M M M M L 0 0 0 0 0 m rr v ,t v v a �-r c-r c-r � c-r m ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA April 17, 2014 NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to review and make recommendations regarding the following item petitioned by the applicant for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, by resolution: ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO AMEND THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR A 5 ACRE (M.O.L.) PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY MARY RITCHEY, FROM CPUD (CONSERVATION PUBLIC) TO (RESIDENTIAL URBAN — 5 DU/ACRE); PROVIDING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION. APPLICANT: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners FILE NUMBER: FLUMA - 920134668 PURPOSE: This Is a county -Initiated petition for a Future Land Use Map Amendment (FLUMA) of a five acre parcel going from CPUB (Conservation Public) to RU (Residential Urban —5 du/acre) to correct a 2004 scrivener's error.The petition proposes to return the Future Land Use designation to the 2004 RU designation. LOCATION: North Hutchinson Island, approximately 2,000 feet south of the Indian River and St. Lucie County border on the west side of Highway ALA (see below map). t�wrercowr wuney FLUMAA20IJS66BA River Property APerrtk oaem 1� The Planning and Zoning Commission PUBLIC HEARING on this item will be held In the Commission Chambers, Roger Poitras Annex, 3rd Floor, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on Thursday. April 17 2014 beginning at 6:00 nm or as soon thereafter as possible. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. Whitten comments received In advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the Planning and Development Services Department - Planning Division at least 3 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The petition file Is available for review at the Planning and Development Services Department — Planning Offices located at 2300 Virginia Avenue, 2nd Floor, Fort Pierce, Florida, during regular business hours. Please call (772) 462-2822 or TDD (772) 462-1428 if you have any questions or require additional Information about this petition. The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission has the power to review and recommend to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, for approval or disapproval, any applications within their area of responsibility. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. PURSUANTTO SECTION 286,0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at a meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any Individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Risk Manager at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-1546 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Cathy Townsend, CHAIR PUBLISH DATE: April 3, 2014 SPECIAL NOTICE (PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BELOW) Submission of this application does not constitute the granting of approval. All appropriate requirements must be met prior to this project being presented for approval to the appropriate authority. St. Lucie County reserves the right to request additional information to ensure a complete review of this project. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Applicant Information (Property Developer): Agent Information: Business Name: Business Name: Name: Name: Address: Address: (Please use an address that can accept overnight (Please use an address that can accept overnight packages) packages) Phone: Phone: Fax—.- _. - -Fax: _— Email: Email: Please note: both applicant and agent will receive all official correspondence on this project. Property Owner Information This application and any application supplement will not be considered complete without the notarized signature of all property owners of record, which shall serve, as an acknowledgment of the submittal of this application. -for approval. The property owner's signature below shall also_ serve as authorization for the above applicant or agent to act on behalf of said property owner. Lr -Property awifer ature roperty Owner Name (Printed) Mailing Address: :? a Ro V -e - V ISb 5 Phone: � 6 � - 2 8% I/ R /� If more than one owner, please submit additional C3F-® if e (� r!� j pages STATE OF (3prldCl ,COUNTY OF A(aryl ! --Dade The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ��, 2013 - b,v/Gt�/ L Rl kh�y who is =ersonallyto me or who has produced as identification.' y .80 6-C Type or Print Name of Notary Commission Number (Seal) Page 5 of 6 E a,o Y. BED:tF Revised August 11, 2011 .cs,Notary Public Sida• My Comm. Expire014commission #1°°� Bonded Through Natissn. St. Lucie County Affidavit to Change Land Use Designation Page 1 of 2 From: Britton De Witt <DeWittB@stlucieco.org> To: 'mlrl403@aol.com' <mlrl4O3@aol.com> Subject: St. Lucie County Affidavit to Change Land Use Designation Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2013 4:08 pm Attachments: Signature_Notary_page.pdf (103K) Hello Mary — Attached is the form you need to have signed, notarized and mail the original back to me at the below address. Be sure to put my name as "care of or it may never get to me. We will be changing the Land. Use Designation from Conservation Public (CPUB) to Residential Urban (RU), which allows up to five dwelling units per acre. The process is extensive in requiring two public hearings and the Board of County Commissioners makes the final decision. It may take up to five months. I will keep you posted on when the hearings will take place but you do not need to be there. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have cause you and your family. Feel free to call me if you have any additional questions. Thank you, Britton Wilson Senior Planner Planning & Development Services Department St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 T: 772.462.1582 F: 772.462.1581 E: DeWittB(WStLucieCo.org Please Note. Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from County officials regarding County business are public records available to the public and media upon request. It is the policy of St. Lucie County that all County records shall be open for personal inspection, examination and / or copying. Your e-mail communications will be subject to public disclosure unless an exemption applies to the http://mail.aol.com/38023-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 9/4/2013 Planning S' . .. Development ,i. i•',,. Services Department • , 1t i l � t MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THROUGH: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Planning & Development Services Director FROM: Leslie Olson, AICP, Planning ManagerKt-� Britton Wilson, Senior Planner, Planning Divisio ✓�� DATE: April 17, 2014 SUBJECT: Workshop — Commercial Resort zoning and regulations ITEM NO.: V-A The purpose of this workshop is to -discuss a,.potential new use not contemplated by the Land Development Code: � a full -service resort use with a certain number of the resort units held in separate ownership, commonly known as condo -hotel units. Following extensive research, Staff proposes that the most effective mechanism to allow for a full service resort utilizing condo -hotel units may be a new zoning district. The new ordinance will be designed to create a zoning category that recognizes the unique development characteristics of a large resort project, financed in part by offering some of the resort units for sale to individuals, who would then have the right to utilize their unit for a specified period of time each year. While this new category may have application throughout unincorporated St. Lucie County, staff has been working with representatives of the "old Radisson" site on North Hutchinson Island as the possible first application of the ordinance. A Resort zoning district would provide a framework for tourist resort uses in the County while ensuring citizens and developers of the general outcome of development upon rezoning. Discussion Items: Staff seeks input from the Planning and Zoning Commission on developing criteria for the following issues: • Allowing the use while mitigating for any unintended consequences; and • Ensuring the application of the use in appropriate locations; and • Creating adequate flexibility to allow for different types of resort applications, (i.e. beach, golf, riverfront, ranch, etc.); and • The most appropriate mix of regulatory structures: Planned Development, Development Agreement, "Straight zoning" under new zoning district, and/or Conditional Use in existing zoning district, etc.; and • Creating regulatory controls to ensure the condo -hotel remains a resort in use rather than a high -density residence. Staff also seeks input from the Planning and Zoning Commission on the following questions: Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop - Commercial Resort April 17, 2014 Page 2 of 2 • What qualities differentiate a hotel from a resort? The number of or mix of amenities? Access to those amenities by the public? Level of service such as valet parking, concierge, etc? • What are some local examples of appropriate types? For example, beach, golf, riverfront, ranch, etc. • Should more buffering/landscaping be required for a resort use than is required for a hotel use? • What are appropriate means to ensure the use remains a resort (as opposed to a high density residential use) when the condo -hotel unit financing method is utilized? o Maximum stays for owners (and all resort guests) o Resort signage o Common interior decor o Required services and amenities provided to all rooms: concierge and front desk staff, valet, central switchboard, porter, daily cleaning, room service, etc. o County oversight of records. Attached is an article entitled "Is a Condominium Hotel Really a Hotel" from a 2007 edition of "Probate & Property" magazine. In the article, the author discusses in significant detail how local jurisdictions have addressed the issue. Staff is of the opinion that the criteria contained in the article create a reasonable path to regulating the use. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends discussing and.providing feedback on the informal proposal of a new Commercial Resort zoning district. Attachments. • Magazine Article "Is ,a Condominium Hotel Really a Hotel" by Paul D'Arelli from the January/February 2007 edition of "Probate & Property" • Section 17.52.095 Condo -hotels, Napa Municipal Code (example code) • Draft Resort zoning district language as drafted by staff, based on nationwide research of resort and condo hotel codes he recent condominium Hotel , cram has reciurrtl developers and thew real estate counsel to struggle with the issue of whether a condonniniunn hotel unit is an interest in heal pinperty or a security that must be registered. under applicable seccui- ties regulations. I'lie general under- standing is that a condominium hotel unit in a properly structured and implernernted development and mar- keting program will likely be recog- nized as a real property interest and not as a security. Dolphin of Virginia Beach, SEC No -Action Letter,198-3 WL 29824, at 14 (Dee.-9,1983); One Central Park West, MC No -.Action letter,199g. WL 648105, at' 10 (Nov 2i !"J ).1..and use lawyers am now struggling, host=- -ever, -with local govenunents over whether a cordonunlun-r hotel. is really a "hotel" unit or a residential unit. The issue confroatingpractitioners is.how shoidd cotiaonnixrium hotels be regulat- ed -from a zoning peftpecave to maim taiii the hotel-versus-resldenfial distino- tion in a rnartner that complies with applicably: statelaw against regulation based on form of ownership, while also rninr mizing potential secudkies.regis tration implications. C srdo i tiutn,ltotglgidis,are Prow ixrg to :fie' poptilirr'puirrhases'-t6r A se4- sonal resident corvacationen They pro- vide a predictoble place to stay, with all the conveniences and amewties cm- tomary to ahotel (maid ser ilm, and so Foul-D'Arelli is a shareholder tat the Port l_Auderdale, Florida, office of Greenberg xraurig and the vice -chair of the steal Property land Use and Zonirig Cpmnilttee. ors), together with the opportunity to derive incoare from the unit when it is not occupied by the owner, without the typical management headaches of bung a landlord. For developers, the condonArdurn hotel has become a vehi- cle for financing developments ill a market in which traditional.hotel financing has beCOnne scarcer: Many loHd govennnumts in Florida arid, outer tourist destinations have slowly become educated about the necessity of the condominhunt-hotel as a firrandng niecharusnr and are generally e n*mc- ing the conmpt, Nonethe_—I s% rxiany municipalities have been, are, or wi.il be contemplating reworking their zoning acid land ideveloprnentregulations to ensure that condorninhini Hotels are . truly the "hotels" they are..repae-sent6d. to be by their develope s and not.a subterfuge for peririarientznsiderice<s. Although the possibility thzit a guest could take tip lonig�temi residence in a hotel that ls. under single oitme-6hip has always been present, local goverm- nnents are concermd that such long- term -residency would be mow-fr( - quent in a condominitim hotel and are therefore seeking. -to prevent such pro- liferation for avat:lety of.maso.m.lrt ments also may be motivated by the fact that transient, use.generates bed taxes or occupancy.1axes for the local government that xesidenitihl use does not. Perhaps rxrostsirtrficarntly, lire dis� 20 PRODATE & PROt'P.R1'Y m JMMM/FkaauAar 2007 unction between transient and residen- tial use n a �e im orlant to a lcxz }� _ f? �� .�... . rnment for zoiiiva; conipiiance rea- e sons. Yox ex�tnpl%;; although a hotel nnay be a permitted use in a cornmer- cial zonarn or an use rs rrc , murti- at a acre perspec Live (traffic, 94vols, arid so on), the analysis of aprtopctsed hotel project will be different from the analysis of -a proposed vasidentiai project, and the mitigation of impacts willve deter- mined accordingly. For all>lhese rna- sons, !Md z_ordn regulations gettp�-d fowar ensurrn,�u�t a conr�oin��ituit hotel isindeed a "hotel" are evolve rapidlymid developers and. their coun- M need to consider their inipitcatiotw State Law Pwhibito Regullatlin,q Ciwoorship A starting; point for.discussing anunid- pal regulation of condominium hotels Is to understand the limitations on such regulation_ that might be imposedby state.law. Potexatriple, Florida law - trbits� birrldnr aricl'zozun ' "1 ations on tly form o owners "All laws, ordi- rian zebu ations concerning badings or zoning shall be construed mid applied with reference to the nature and use. of such property, with out regard to the form Of Ownership", Fla. Stat. Ann. § 718,507, see aisflAla. Code § 35-8-21; Ariz. trey Stilt. §.33- 1205; Nev: Rev Stat. Ann, § 116.1106, N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 47C-1-106. Under srtcli statutes, local governtnc:ants can- not prohibit a c:ondominimu form of ownershil.) of a hotel in favor of traditional single otvmetship of.hotel properk-- ,,but they can craft laid devetopment regulations to ensure that Y�ec VCCI� c1�S a �iOtel 2Chtall� 0 era tes and is used as a hotel, 'I e T orida statutes governing Been - sure of hotels cwA be instructive about what constitutes "the nature and law of a lurtel," For example, Florida defines a variety of types of "public lodging establishments," induduig hotels, as aliyuni.t, f, x)up of units, Jwelling, building, or group of buildings wiftl a single complex of build- ings, which is rented to guests mom than three times in a calendar year for periods of less titan 30 days or J Calendar month, whidiever is leis, or which is advertised of held out to ilie public as a place, regularly rent- ed. to guests, Fla. 5tat. Ann. § 509.013(4(a) (cmiphasis added). The statute further defines a "hotel" as "ally public lodging estab- lishmezit contauiang sleeping v)om, accommodations for 25 or anare guests and rcru ing tt:e setvlcrs- erreralh . iu- vicierl 17 ntel zarZd w nizad as a , hold in tl . ttlrlXl{flj Lt] k� "E is situat� Of by the indtts ." Id. § 5f19.242(1)(a) (el 5lfir A e . 1herG'fUtr'> from the state's permpective if the buildilw, pzXiw and le . l . pom an occupancy the mouirenient that the units be rented to guests more thasi three times in a calendar ycmr for peri- ods of less thari,30 days would not be applicable provided it is "advertised or held out t,6 the public as a place regularly watc:d.to guests." Id. § 509.013(4)(a). On this basis, lengthy stays by owners are perriiitted and the facility cart still l,,e comistent with the state requimznent, for licensing as a "ttansient iodgine if the facility is advertised as being regularly Yenned to guests and costomaryhotel services are provided. Within ilieae broild parmileters" local ets. In contrast, hotels today often cont- govariimexntts have responded to the proliferation of condornuiion-t hotels by adopting iegutations on an ad hoc basis to cwtblish criteria that distin- guish between those buildings that „provide services generally provided by a hotel" and tlu'it ane "recognized as a hotel in rite aomnivaiSty" ands are, in the local governmenes-vie�taa °fio e ; as c>p ed to potential residen- HalHal builclin its, �ncopito.Similar local regu](1 inns are cropping tip in other states to ensum that the transient nature of as rrpo eZ�oii<toriiti�'itni 11 Cttel 7`$ 7iiarll (. S eXp a coin "flue- aiTicle;ilie.enelv.Zoning mfula- tiot�s genezaily t>eek io (1) tnaridate r uirt d hysic�sl <aitribute"' of hotel itticl CYlti on tiiutn hnbel ttni(s, L:Y7q-..v. J.✓i`,..'i? �n�lfir.t+'R`:'i'�ti'dvd':1�� From the state's perspective, 'if 'the building provides customary motel services and is advertised and recognized as a hotel, it is a hotel for licensing purposes, regardless of form of ownership. (2) esliablish o Crab II Muir!cmcanks� for kiot`els nit cor�nSum hotels, all {3j iimpose maxintuni ke eth lif Aa , by ownero and occupants. Phys-loal AlYkhibutes of WitoIs tea. R081slomfst 010appeairingT 01stinctions One of the -difficulties thatdevelopers' cou nsei arie faring is that many local governments have an outdated concept cif the charactelistic features of a hotel that may be.out of rytic with the demands of the currexat traveling con- sumer, for uistanm,liote)seif the past typically comprised single small txr ms in the range of 100-300 squat�e feet with no or. limited Cooking facilities, no In- rcx>m )aundty facilities, and small clos- 22 Mioam7u, & Pitoprn'ry r. Amylftmuam' 2007 prise suites ti.iat have rieparate. twiny; ��nd steeping quartets, large closets, full kitchens, and even in -Texan washer; and dryers. This evolution in the nature; of hotel facilities, which are incteasingly being designed as suitable for extended stays with all the conven- S.uice, of horiue, has proven inconsisknt with the zoning regulations of many jurisdictions that have a narrow defini- tion of "hotel." Furthwulore, some ,olected officials are susvlciou�5 t iatt a and Tile followuig is a typical "hotel" definition that is choactedstic of those that have historically abounded inzon- ing codes across the country to livaiit the araienities a hotel, room can include: HOTEL .A.b-WIding in which lodg- ing or boarding and lodging ire pro- vided aitd offered to the public for coniperksation, and inwhidi ingivss and egress to acid f 7nt all. rooms are made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a person In charge at all times. As such, a liot>rl is open to the public, in contradle- (ion to a boarding or lodging house, apartment, motel or multiple ,�dtvellln& 1IMPL14 typically include acces9ory uses such as meeting or convention facilities and reereationKal faellities but individual Moms do rust include kftchen frrcitfties. iOINXi lvtetLiotirne�ay land Dev. Code art,:T., § J.A.-3 (emphasis added). (Author's note: Many of the codes and ordinances cited iii this artf - cle forwMdi no Tntornet cite is provid- ed maybe.aeoessed at www.amlegal:com/Ilbrary or at www. municcxie.cozxt/resources /cinlirie 0/6201ibrary osp.) Some local govern- ments ,allow "hotel suites" or "extend- ed stay hotels" that may include kitchen facilities acid other amenities, Finte! rtrzte; An area within on estab lislmier a licensed as a hotel or.motel by the State of Florida, whicli area provides a sleeping accormriodation and kitchen or cooking fadlities for the Vise of one (1.) or more transient guests registered under one (1) entry with the eatablishment. A hotel suite shall: consist of a znind»tnin nd fltwr area of... d30 ,;quart feet (exclusive of bath - mom, closet and balcony area's); have maid ser<<ice pro- vided uy the establishment; be filly furnished (furnitum., 1111.ens, dishware and cook wait); and beseived by a cen- Ival switchboard telephone systenn. When hotel suites -are- listed as a permitted vise, the licensed establishment must provide and operate a rrtirtirnunr of ... 85 $itch stiles or any coizr- lrhtatdon of hotel suites, hotel rvouzs, or rttoled rooms providing a nel awn (exclusive of bath- rooins, closets, balcony areas, or corniinon areas) of riot less than , , . 38,250 sclumv feet. Pori- Latiderdale, Fla., Code or Ordinances ch. 47,'art, Xf, § 47-35.1 (eniphasis added), Hotel Sillies nn'eans a facility offering temporary lod�c;irig accommodation,; to the general public in which romis or sultes nlay include kitchen fact'lifiez and siltltzg *tvoins fez addition to the sleq;ing. room. The phrase tennporaty lodging refens to a Mental porlod with a normal duration of no more than 1 week l.as.Vegas, Nei., Mui. Code tit..19, 1920.020 (2003) (emphasis added). As condoinWum hotel development proj- ecis.havo_sOup1t.�,ntitletxjEntt xatlirig lawyers kiave attetiipW40" yiigedMA' these projects into hoW, hotel suite, and similar zoning code definitions. Althouglt.re.guiators are sometimes successful at matting a proposed con- dominiuni. hotel product fit Within such an existing code definition (some - Ono Wlylmg oti. a cmative interpreta- thin from a zoning official, for e)eatiiple, that a small refrigerator; sink, and coo Jop.are not "cooking or kitrhein facilities" within the ineaning of the applicable regulations), at othor times a code amendment is necessary to per• xrilt the'type of physical amenities that am rr uired for a marketable condo- rniniuin hotel. An example of a morx, progressive local government regula- tion that acknowledge that snore extensive amenities do not and of then-iselves convert a hotel to it resi- As condominium motel developm nt projects have - sought ens tlement, zoning Lawyers have attempted to pigeonhole these projects into hotel, hotel suite, and -similar zoning epde del"itiitiolis. dense is Hollywood, Florida's defint- tion of "CondOnlitihrrn Hotel." City Of Hollywood,14a., Ordinance No. 02006-24. , o parat:iotnal Requirements In addition to the pl>,ysicol attributes 6',F historically+have characterized hotel i.'Milns, hotels have c*ustoznary operational features. As local gpvem- ments amend their 7,oziingreg-uiations to provide definitions that account for the nontraditional hotel -room arneni- lies (for exanple, ftM kitchens, washers and dryers, among others), theyoften intrpose requirement to ensure that the (alit pzerapes.nth.rytot�iaryiiRati- tier o�a lioteI faille liSr'zistjtri,�i>:g siicli to name a tew, see i-ity orA.veatuin, F4, Code of Chdiminces ch. 31, art. U, § 31- 21, available at wwwmunicMt. cotii/rescrtu�slgateway,�tsp?pid=1315 3&-sid=9; City of Madeira Beach, Fia., Code of. C?rdinances pt. It, subpt. B, ch. 82, § 82.2, avallable at wivwmunicode. coin/i,eE;ources/ gatvway.asp?pid=.1.312 6&sld=9. Lenotht of Stay Unit ations Perhaps the single greatest challenge for local goverAments has been impos- ing length of stay linnits on coadoiWmi- tim hotels that prevent unit owners frorn effectively usuig their units as places of residence .for themselves or a tenant, riiforocnient of letiRth of stav car are by raost defuti- Lions in.tmided to proAde sornetliing less Ulan permanent Ivsldency, although lea!O' of stay limits histori- csnllyleave not been speeificaiiy enu- merated in local zoning regulatidzis. in light of the suite in popular!ty of the condoailniuni hotel, However, III lily localgoveraineats are revisiting their definitions of "hotel- to explicitly account for and limit the longer stays. pf unit awhNI3 that may lie diaracteris- tic of condotniniuon hotels. l'zl making those revislons, local governments ate grappluig With the declsion of when in their opt alon the use by the owiier c`m,�ses -the line from, "transient" to "permanent," 3ioi' example, is the i,xse "transient" if an owner stays 30:days and the unit is made available by the iinanagernent entity to third Party _guests the balance of the year'? Wbat:if the owner stays 60 days?'90 days? 180 days? )list as local govenunents have vari- oiis bbjectives in limiting length of stay .as mentioned abovo (for.exantple, rnaiataTx►lzng €t supply of hotelroonis for A local tqurlsV lriYren �c n myt. ens crating be :oromipancy fiaxe?, vivid zon%tig and Tand We compliance), they have various views on the appropriate length of stay. lit BWward County, Florida, condominlurn hovels have been constructed or are Uri the works in Port.lzudeidale, Pornpvio Beach, 17ania.'Wach, Hollywood; and Weston, See, e.g., City of westor, ma., Code of Ordhiances.fit. 1, cK 12, § 12;1, available ativww.amlegal.com/nxt/gatewaydll/ PnoImi,,. & PoowAtiv a JA)itwY/FEenmwY 260? 23 FlodA is /tveston /cityoftvestonflodd a cod eoford inances?f=4cInplate4fn- default,hhn$3.0$vid=alnlegal:nveslnn, fl. Both the county and municipal govern- ments have land use regulatory author - it), in these locations, Tie Brolvard Cour'ity Planning Councll staff has opined that a condonliniuln ho 1 "that functions in the same tnamler as a con - number of cites„ w_ oldd be considered b..u....w.�...� — M To. be considered a nonresidential use in Broward County, the condominium Hotel unit roust; be occupied by the owner for less than "a significant majorit)f of the year'." ahomesidential use ".subject to confir- full time owner. orreater+occupied. Letter from Planning Council to Jaye Epstein, City of Rollywood (May 25, 2004) (on. file With the author). Thus, .to be considered a nonresi- dential use in Broward County, the condominitun hotel unit must be occrt- pied vy the owner for less that "a- n' Ilantiilaior o the The county is leaving it up to ea h municl- pality to determine what constitutes a "sigrii.ficant majority of tale year," In Fort Lauderdale and Pompano Beach, code amendments are tinder way that would limit stays by owners to 30 days, thin-e tithes per year. ln.Dania Beach, planning staff has deternuned that all upward liluit of a 90-day stay by an owner in a year is an. appropriate lilnitation it) Inainiain hotel use. 1-lollywood, Florida, recently adopted an ordinance that limits owner occu- pancy to 150 days in arty 12-month. period. Hollywood, Pla., supra. Additional examples of vo ning reg- ulations that have been adopted either to expand the definition of hotel to address length of stay cart include sim- ple ones such as the one adopted by Aventura, Florida,referred to above or nnoiv, detailed ones such as the Napa, California, nnuucipal code, Sce City of Napa, Cal., Mim. Code S§ 17.06,030, 17.52,095, available at www.napa-ca. gov �Nal7-zSircJN2/Na paSiztMcnu,lntzn 'p6eal Condominitira "otel Zoning and Issues for Consideration A reviely of zoniatg regulations emerg- ng around the cotaitry to regulate con- dorninium hotels reveals some consis- tent themes, As well as some unique concepts. The types of criteria one might encounter in current or pro- posed regrihtionsleared toi-yard the condon-tinilam hotel are: �� n tuTnxitrtrrrtt length of sfrty, Examples have beers noted rang- ing from a 14=day to 180-day maximum stay by the same occupant or. owner. �*.e City of Boynton Beach, Pla., Code of Ordinances pt. 3, ch. 2, § 6T% 16. Some codes provide a limited exception to the length of stay restriction (51/4 of units or a manager's unit exempt, for exrunple). See Aventura, Fla., supra.., s Record-kepingregidreinenffirgov- ernnreut inspection.. to ensure comph- ance with occupnncy !/tarts. Mari agement and/or individual unit owners may be requiredto keep occupancy lobs for a period of time, subject to inspection by the local government for compli- ance with occupancy limitations. See Napa, Cal., supra. 24 Ntol).-vm & PROPERTY to JANUARY/f@BRUARY 2007 Enforceincnt atechanislzl for occu- 1xilro linlitntions, One of the most significant concerns for local gov- eI-1111lents is how to enforce tale length of shy m slrictions that they adopt. One such enforce- ment nuxhanism is to require a certification of cor>;npliance by affi- davi t or otherwise by the. hotel rnanagernent entity at the three of renewal of the occupation license for the hotel. See Aventura, Fla., supra. Combined with the record -keeping requirement noted above, this certification requirement.gives the local bov- ernnnent the ability to review the books for compliance and with- hold renewal of the occupation license for noncompliance. Central ttlanagetnent or leseivati©n stfstent. Some codes mquirta a sin- gle, central reservation systamn See City of Gulf Shores, Ala., rolling Ordinance art, 4, avnii- a Ae iltnvww.cityofgtllfshores. org/pagef0006/CDD /7.oning/ Contents.pdf. Others require that a mserva.tlon system) be rnad e' available to unit owners without being mandatory. See City of Pompano Beach, kla., Draft Ordinance No. 2006; City Conullission Agenda No. 2006-2-1 (Sept. 1.2,2006), The latter approach, in which use of the central reservation system'is optional, provides greater coal,. fort to developers counsel that securities vegistration will. not be an, issue (see discussiozl below). Signage as a hotel. Some codes require the condonninitun. hotel property to have visible signage So that visitors will 1CnUW that rooms are available to the general public.for Vransientoccupancy: See .HollyrrTood,17a., supra. Maxittatttt unit size Some local govertiments impose a maximum unit size to make it less likely that touts would be suitable or mar- ketable for permanent residet1q, See Madeira Beach, Fla., supra (850 squares foot xnaxxurum unit size). CoIteclion of tourist or reed taxes. bt addition to explicitly stating that condominium hotels are subject to the collection and payment of bed or transient occupancy taxes as are any other hotels, some codes require a payment in lieu of the transient occupancy tax if a unit is not made available for rent to guests for the required mH- mum number of days per year. See City of Indian Wells, Cat., Mon. Code tit. 21, ch. 21,08, avail- able atwww.an legal.com/nxt/ gateway. dIl/Califona /indian/ cityofindianwellscalifomiacodeo fordinan?f=templates$fn=default. htrn$3.0$vid=amiegal:indian wells—ca. Supervised front desk with key dis- bursement by attendant. Some municipalities require that the hotel have a front desk with an attendant on duty at all times and that all room keys, even for own- ers, be disbursed by the attendant, See Aventura, Fla., supra. © Central telephone systern/switch- board. Some local governments require all hotels to have a central telephone system as opposed to direct dial -in phones in each unit. See Gulf Shores, Ala,, supra, e MaiI delivery by attendant. Some municipalities have reguiations that require mail to be delivered by an attendant rather thanhav- ing individual mailboxes. See Aventura, Fla., supra. o Single utility meter: Some codes prohlbit individual electric and water meters for each unit; which are indicative of permanent resi- dences, because hotel buildings traditionally are served by single meters. See Gulf Shores, Ala., supra. • Prohibition against use of hotel address for vehicle or voter registra- tion or homesteading. Some local governments explicitly provide in their codes that condominium hotel units cannot be used for voter registration or vehicle regis- tration or homesteading to pre- clude owners from deriving bene- fits that would be available to per- manent residents. See Madeira Beach, Fla., supra, Some codes provide an exception for voter or vehicle registration for an on -site manager who lives on the prem- ises or for registration of a vehicle owned by the management entity (a courtesy shuttle, for example). See Weston, Fla., supra. Prohibition on conversion to mulfi- family use without f v-thergovern- tnentapprovaI. Because hotels have different zoning require- ments from multifamily residen- tial units, some codes explicitly say that a hotel cannot be con- versed to residential units with- out approval of the local govern- ment, although such approval may be inherently required by operation of the applicable zon- ing regulations. See Boynton Reach, Fla., supra, Requirement for standardized morn dicor. To ensure that individually owned hotel units maintain a tud- form aesthetic, so that the condo- nlirdum hotel looks lllke any other hotel to the visiting public, some local governments have mandat- ed that rooms have uniform fur- niture, furnishings, and decor: See Gulf Shores, Ala., supra. Minitnutn number of rooms. Some local governments require that a condominium hotel have a mini- mum number of rooms. See Hollywood, Isla. (200-room mini- mum), This requirement would obviously prohibit a boutique condominium hotel. Occupational license for each room. In addition to requiring an occu- pational license for the hotel, some local governments also require an occupational license for each separately owned unit, See Madeira Beach, Fla,, supra, Qual ylcafional standards for the ruanagement entity. Some local governments establish minimum standards for the hotel manage- rnent. For example, Hollywood, Florida, requires the operator to be affiliated with a national or international chain or franchise; Napa, California, requires that the management entity must have five consecutive years of experience managing "first class" hotels and have 10 other proper- ties currently under manage- ment. See Hollywood, Fla., supra; Napa, Cal., supra. As condominium hotel regulations with one or more of the above -men- tioned or other criteria are increasingly being formulated and codified in local zoning codes, one must contemplate whether local governments are paying heed to applicable statutory mandates like the one in Florida that "all regula- tions concerning building or zoning be construed and applied ... without regard to the form of ownership." Fla, Stat. Ann, § 718.507. More specifically, is the municipality complying with the statutory mandate of nondiscrimina- tion if a condominium hotel has a max- imum length of stay for occupants imposed by regulation whereas a sin- gle -owner hotel does not? Or, if a con- dominium hotel must comply with record -keeping requirements that a sin- gle -owner hotel does not? Or, if a con- dominium hotel must maintain a stan- dardized mom decor whereas a single - owner hotel can have an eclectic mix of decors? If such zoning regulations are suspect because they in fact provide for disparate treatment of condominium hotels and single owner hotels merely because of the ownership structure, when state law would seem to prohibit such disparity, then perhaps it would be prudent for local governments to make their hotel regulations more uni- form in applicability to all hotels regardless of ownership, (For example, PROD.A. ; & VROPEM ■ .lMMYNEBRINY 2007 25 lice Aventura, Florida, definition of "hotel" makes no mention of owner- ship.) ! Avejitura, Pla., supra. In addition to shiving to comply Wish slich state lath' requirements, a local government that wants to be sen- sitive to potential securities registration issues with developers` Condominium hotel. offerings should tailor Iocal zon- ing ordinances accolAingly, For exam- ple, one operational requirement of some ]local governments that causes developers' counsel anptis tint there be a suigle, central reservation system for renting hotel. rociins. See Madeira Beach, Fla., supra, Thetlisconnfort over such a riluirement steles froth a 7973 Securities and Exchange Commission release that set forth throe categories of condominium offerings that would be viewed as a security by the $PC. Offers and. Sales of Condolninititns or Units in a Real Estate Developinutt, Securities Act Release No.33-5,7, 38 Fed, Re& 1,735 Qan. 4,1.973). Orie cate gory included the offering of a condo- minilun unit together witli a rental or similar arrangement in which the buyer mt.rst hold the unit Available for rental for any part of theyear, must iw, un exelusive 1ental agent(, ar'rnust other- wise be.materially restricted in the occupancy or rentrll of die molt, . `,Subsequent no -action letters from the ;iBC ] a, 'stated that SEC staff will not-, recommend enforcement action, notwithstanding the above, if.certain criteria are met, including the criteria that then be no limitations on omier occupancy of the condorrt(lniurn 110tel unit other than those established in generally applicable zoning repia- tions. Nonetheless, to steer clear of offending the stated prohibition in the 1973 release against ail arrangement whereby a buyer "must use an exdu= live rmtalogentiO developers' couzns@ would prefer to see the zoning regula- tion slate, of anythbig at till, that a wrt- tral reservation sy.4imor agency -be made available, buff not be maxidatrrry: Chi theother hared, the na-Action let- ters provide anapparent safe harbor for Iimitations imposed on owner occu- pancy provided they are established hi generally applicable zoning regula- tions. Thus, a condomunium hotel developer actually may prefer that cer- tain other slan.dards be codified in the zoning ryegIllations. For example, a developer may want to ensutr that owner occupancy is limited to provide a guarantee of sufficient hotel mom iliventory for revenue generation to entice a rihanagetnent entity. That developer would actually prefer to have the local goverrunent mandate the length of stay an the Zoning oldl- nance. Although one triight a t first blusli believe that any length of May limitation would necessarily be objec- tionable to (lie condominium. lintel developer, such a reasonable limitation r:nay elin-tinate the need for the devd- One operational requirement of some local governments that causes developers' counsel angst is that there be a single, central reservation systern for renting hotel rooms, oper to impose one tuiilalerally in the condon-diiiuxn dmuments or otherwise In a manner tlintmighthave securities registration implications. It should. be noted, however, that In at least two tno-action letter issued by the EC, the limitations on Imigth of stay were included in zoning regula- tions that were alleged to "predate" and -be "independent of ttYe offering of thecondsoiniruum. unit" -The Dolphin of'Orginia. Beach', inc., suprA, One' Central Park West, supra, 7inerefore, whether there is a benefit in having length of sty luxr'rtatlons imposed by local regulationmay depend on the timing;,of adoption of such regtrlatlorns. Moreovei,, Aevelopinmt lawyers may want to be cautious a'boirt their involvement in the princess because regulations influenced by development counsel inny not be "independent of the offering of the condominium iinits," Although there tines not appear to be any direct written determine tiorh on this Issue by Elie S;W, it may be pmu dent for developer's counsel tint to ini- tiate a zonlxrg Inform to impose a length of stay Iinnitation And,, in an aburhdance of caution, not to proffer aily explicit suggestions to the local zoning staff or officials regaidi ig, the appropriate length of stay liniWition tliat would suggest -a legs burdensome wstrictlon on owner occupancy when evaluating and conilnenting oil a local government's proposed. zoning regtttatloz#s. Conclusion Developers undoubtedly will conthlue to bring condominium hotel. projects into rilor'e collirnullitiCS. I'heriefore, their development hmTers should expect to co1*011t "]hotel" regulations that tray be inadequate for acconiilho- dating the hotel, and condominium hotel product that die rinarket. is sup- poiling today, When onter'itne, a c&rt- n-nuiity that is not experienced with condominium hotels, a key first step is to educate the plmnirg and zoning staff and local elected officials so that they understand that the condominium hotel concept is a beneficial financing mechanism and notjust a devious attempt to build nnultifamily treks Where they might not otherwise be permi(ted. Omv the local. government uridermands the condonuiliuni hotel concept, the larid developinerrt lawyer should be preparca i to held educate the planning staff and elected. officials aboutthe potontial securities registta- tion and project marketability impltea- tions of current regulatory whernes.. or proposed zoning regulatory reforms. The goal of local goverx ment- should be -to craft hotel tegulations tflat rue comistent witli applicable state law, that Minimize securities registration issues for developers, that allow mir- ketable condominium hotel projects to be developed, and that also proOde tine local governittent with the conhfortthat condominium hotels are just that. hotels. A Atrnedc6n Bar AswdaHan, Probate & Property, daouoryl February 2007,18 a Condoutlohim Hotel SID r a Hotta?: Zontrio Regvatlona ere FvoMng to W Sure' by Paul p'Aretti. Reproduced with po WBtIon. 24 PliU1SXl G . i �ltUt'iili't Y JnttUalry/Fi ftflUAfil l}tli AN materials within those Web pages are oopynghted. The Antetiaao WA%odation. NI rightt rosorved. griisintormalionorenyportionthereofmaynotbecopiedordisseminatedinPayfarmorby any means or downloaded or stored in an areclydnlo detabese or reldeval dysiem without fie owess written boment of the Arnedor) Bar Association, 17.52.095 Condo4iotels. Page t of 2 Napa 1"Wrilclpat E-C�i1(a up pre'yious rleyt lialia Search E?.1tt5t No Frames M!e 17 ZONING C a e 1 :�LSK.C- __Nb �5. kEGUI. iA x�Ns 17.52.096 Condo -hotels. A. PLITI)ose, The spociIc purposes of these regi.11ations are to implement General flan goals and polioies to provide sutlioient hotel rooms to support development of conference facilities in the downtown area, to protea the residential housing, supply; to assure that condo -hotels are approlviately located, to mitigate potential impacts on parks and recreational facilities and other municipal resources; and to allow developers flexibility rn the prancing of hotel projccts. B. Use Permit Required. No person shall construct. a. condo -hotel or convert any portion.of.any botol or similar visitor accommodation to a s.ondo-hotel without approval of a use hermit under this section. A use permit -for a oondo41otel may only be issued.in those zoning districts when hotels or Sirnilarvisitor accommodations ate ponnitted. C. Purntitted Conversions. A hotel or similar visitor accoinawdatioai is the of ly use fhat may be convertod to a condo. -hotel. D. Findings Required. In approving a use pennit for a condo -hotel, the decision -making burly shall make the following findings in addition to standard use pertnit findings: l . An. agreement in recordable forth has teen entered into with the city to ensure that the ptoposed condo -hotel drill not adversely impnot the oity's ability to pmv.ide hre,.police and other oity servioos to the condo -hotel and adjacent and nearby neighborhoods, .businesses and residences. 2. CC&Rs and/or other documents satisfactory to the Conimunity Ueveloprnorit Director and City Attorney will be recorded to ensure the long team ittabneritince and operation of the condo -hotel in accordance with this chapter and the terins of any permits or approvals issued fors the .condo -hotel, to ensure that sufficient rooms will be available for transient.ow.upancy purposes and to provide, notice to firtare purchasers of the city's,riglit to onforoo the CC&its and/or other :doctmients, this chapter and the terins of any portraits -or approvals .issued for the condo -howl, R,. The following requirements shall be observed for condo -hotel projects: ] . Zoning Statidaxds. Zoning; standards of the district and of this tine Shall apply. 2. Landscaping, The condo -hotel shall be landseaped in accord with an.npproved landseaping plan. The landscaping shall generally be planned and developed in accord with the. city.'s standards for lanclsoaping. 3. Parking. Oti •sito parking shall be provicleEl in aecardatt �� it[i the liarltimg and loading reyitirentents contained in Chapter 17.54 or as approved by the deelsion-making body. 4. Utilities. All utilities shall be installed undergrowtd. 5. Owner's Association. An o-vvner's association shall be established to govern, niaintaiu and operate the coiido-hotel and its sarvices.inoluding, but not lirrtited to, housekeeping for all public areas (including tobby and hallways), front desk, conetorge;5er cTices, eto., as a hotel in .accordance with CC&its satisfactory to #lie city. The CC&Rs, as well as other relevant documents, shall require all portions of the condo -hotel including, but not limited to, landscape and open spare areas; lobby; hallways; parking; banquet/ballrooni facilities; coofi rwnce; restaurant; retail; parking; recreational; and spa facilities; and other amenities and inaprovernents (collectively "amenities"), as well as the individual condo -hotel units., their fumituro, fixtures, equipment, to be maintained and operated in littp,/lgcode.uslcods s[iiapa/view.php?topic-1'7-17—,52-i7 52, 095&frames=oiI 412/2014 17.52,095 Condo -hotels, 'page 2 of 2 accordance with the First -Class Motel Standard. 6. Management of Condo -Hotel, The CC&Rs shall require the owner's association to hire a single qualified professional management entity to maintain and operate the condo -hotel. The management entity shall have at least five consecutive years of experience in the hotel management business in hotels that meet the First -Class Hotel Standard and have 10 other properties (nationally or internationally) under current management. The ,applicant shall provide the city with appropriate documentation to demonstrate that the management entity meets the requirements of this section. Upon application by the developer, the decision -making body may modify the experience standards for the management entity upon finding that the management entity has substitute experience meeting the interests served by the standards. The CC&Rs shall give the owner's assoeiation and management entity the right, power and obligation to enforce the First -Class Hotel Standard including, without limitation, the right t6 enter any portion of the condo -hotel, including individual condo -hotel units and cure any failure to meet the First -Class Hotel Standard. The management entity shall offer transient rental services to all owners of the condo -hotel units. 7. Reporting and Inspection, Bach owner of the individual condo -hotel units, the owner's association and management entity shall maintain and regularly make available to city such information, books, records, and documentation, and also shall allow reasonable access to individual units, as the city finds necessary to have or review in order to ensure that city may determine the condo-hotel's compliance with this chapter and other applicable city laws, regulations, project conditions and mitigation measures, The original and every subsequent management entity shall immediately advise the Community Development Director of its name, qualifications, address, telephone number and the name of contact person. 8. Use of Units. For each condo.hotel unit, the owner of the unit ("unit owner") is authorized to use the unit no more than 14 days per calendar year per unit; provided, however, the city may authorize, as a par(of the condo -Hotel use perm it, each unit to be used by the unit owner for a specified number of additional days. If the condo -hotel use permit Authorizes additional days, the total number of days each unit may be used by the unit owner shall not exceed 56 days per calendar year per unit, and shall not exceed 14 days per quarter per unit. For the purpose of this subsection, each "quarter" is defined as the three-month period of each year beginning on January 1, April 1st, July 1st, and October lst. At all other times, each unit shall be used for transient oeeupancy purposes only; and no unit may be rented to any person(s) for more than 30 consecutive days. 9. Compliance with Law. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant for a condo -hotel to comply with the requirements of Title 16 (subdivisions) of this code as well as all other applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. F. In approving a use permit for a condo -hotel, the decision -making body may impose reasonable conditions of approval, G, The city may adopt such additional standards, policies and procedures that may be necessary or convenient to implement this section. (02005 11; 02008 14) littp.,//qcode.us/Codes/rtupWview.php?topict:=17-17,.52-17 52__095&frames=on 4/2/2014 r RESORT (R) Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide and protect areas suitable for the development and operation of resort uses in areas of unique scenic and recreational value, which are intended to serve both resident and nonresident populations over a large market area. This district is not intended for general application, but should be generally be limited to only those areas of the County that have been specifically determined by the County Commission to be suitable for resort uses that o provide a destination point and range of desirable services and activities for visitors and o promote convention, entertainment, civic and related activities, ® provides exceptional architectural and site design. It is the intent of this district to provide for maximum public access, enjoyment and use of an area's scenic, natural and recreational resources while ensuring preservation of such resources. Permitted Uses. The following uses are intended to be self-contained, destination -point in nature, rather than designed to accommodate primarily the overnight traveler. Condominium Hotel Units are permitted within these uses, subject to Condominium Hotel Unit use standards, found in this section. 1. Resorts. Establishments licensed by the state which provide overnight accommodations and containing a mix of accessory amenities. A resort shall provide to all units, whether standard hotel room or condominium hotel unit, at a minimum, a central switchboard; daily room cleaning service, concierge, in -room food service, porter service and valet parking. 2. Convention and Conference Centers 3. Guest Ranches Use Standards, 1. Mix of Accessory Amenity Uses. Any use in this district shall provide a mix of amenities in no less than ,_,.% of the gross square footage of the structure. Such uses may include, but shall not be limited to the sample list below. Other uses not listed may be proposed. The mix of amenities shall be incidental to and appropriate for the character of the proposed resort and compatible with adjacent land uses. a. Restaurants b. Bars c. Spa d, Meeting or conference facilities e. Wedding facilities f. Swimming pools g. Beach clubs h. Boat docks and marina facilities i. Fitness and personal training facilities j. Retail shops k. Business center I. Golf Course m. Golf clubhouse facilities n. Riding and hiking trails o. Walking and jogging paths p. Playgrounds q. Child care facilities r. Tennis Courts s. Fire Pits t. Stable facilities 2. Signs. A monument sign advertising the facility as the permitted use is required, Size requirements are found in 9.01.01. 3`.`"Condo Hotel Units. Such units may be utilized in any permitted use in this zoning district, ,subject to the definition and use standards, below. a. Definition. b. Use Standards i. Condo Hotel Units shall be made available for hotel guests for a significant majority of each year. ii. The facility shall maintain and make available to the County such records necessary to ensure compliance with the use standards for Condominium Hotel Units. iii. Annually, the facility shall submit an affidavit certifying compliance with these standards with its Occupational License renewal. Failure to submit this affidavit will result in nonrenewal of the Occupational License. iv. Condo Hotel Units shall not be claimed as a homestead. v. Condo Hotel Units shall be considered hotel units, and not residential units for the purposes of density calculation.