by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
A joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop was held Tuesday, June 11, to discuss potential amendments to the Sanibel Code to assist recovery in commercial land use classifications. The workshop’s goal was to expedite decision-making for any Land Development Code amendments the City Council may wish to pursue. The workshop’s purpose was discussion only, no votes were taken. Attorney John Agnew explained that the purpose was to expedite changes or give direction to city staff, and to express a desire as to how things should proceed.
The workshop started with Planning Director Paula McMichael reading some 30 already-enacted amendments designed to assist in recovery. She said the city has done a lot of work to help people recover as expeditiously as possible. The genesis of this workshop is to learn how to help the business community get some relief.
The Planning Commission priorities were reviewed. They are (1) nonresidential parking standards, (2) height limitations in the resort housing district, and (3) open bodies of water. These matters were handled at the day’s earlier meeting of the Planning Commission’s Land Development Code Review Subcommittee. The parking issue and height limitations were referred to the Planning Commission; the open body of water issue was to go back to the Planning Department for further work.
During the workshop, permit processing time was a big issue.
Mayor Richard Johnson said the residential and business communities have to recover together because each needs the other. “It’s important that we adhere to the Code unless it’s no longer in our best interest,” Johnson said. “It’s a complicated process that we as a city could flatten out. The majority of our businesses are small business.”
There was a lot of public comment on the topic. “Part of resiliency is resiliency of businesses,” said one speaker. “Many small businesses came to the aid of the city [after Ian]. If we’re caught with another hurricane and businesses haven’t recovered, that’s going to be a huge detriment to recovery.”
Another speaker said getting a building permit issued was frustrating. He called it “a control problem with city staff – of saying ‘no’ instead of ‘how can I help you’? Pushing you back instead of forward. I know they’re talented and working hard, but we need to be heard,” he said.
The owner of the Paper Fig also expressed frustration over the expense of a traffic study, parking studies, and the fact you can still can potentially be told no. It’s a long process and a financial hardship. “You get a ‘no’ without any ‘we’ll work with you.’ How long is it going to take to make these changes? It’s going to be two years before we can open again. I can’t wait, the landlord can’t wait.”
Ben Dahlman said he’s been before the Planning Commission three times in four months, has had to get vegetation plans and a traffic study, has spent $33,000 in legal bills and almost $14,000 in city fees; in fact, he’s spent a total of $59,000, he said. “I know we do these things to protect the island,” he said. “But staff and the Planning Commission are not on the same page.”
Matthew Pierce said, “The process is hard, it’s hard to understand. We need someone who can help with the basic questions before going to the upper staff.”
One speaker felt city staff was combative when submitting paperwork. He said at first after the storm, the process was great and cooperative. “All this paperwork – it should be one page. I urge you to streamline the process,” he said.
The deadline of 24 months to submit an application was generally thought to be inadequate, disrupting the thoughtful execution of a plan and resulting in long-term negative effects on the community. Extending the deadline to 36 months was the consensus.
Several people, including some Commission members, said taking a survey would be a good idea, as well as considering a liaison in the Planning Department dedicated to getting things through. City Manager Dana Souza said, “We’re in the midst of the biggest problem this community has ever seen. Regarding a liaison position, it’s not going to happen in three months.”
Meanwhile, there are three new employees in the Planning Department.
Conditional Use Permits (CUP) were discussed at length. Conditional Use permits must go before the Planning Commission; that is not necessary for permitted uses. CUPs are traditionally associated with nuisances to neighboring properties: noise, odor, traffic considerations, etc.
Council member Laura DeBruce suggested eliminating the language in the Code stating that the subject property will not affect the health and welfare of neighboring properties. Staff can look into these particular uses, she said, putting the onus on city staff. “The applicant shouldn’t have the burden,” DeBruce said. “Ask the Planning Department to look into eliminating or greatly revising this section so that you don’t need a traffic study.”
Council member Holly Smith said she would be very cautious about “opening that door,” and that the CUP needs more study. “I think there needs to be more understanding of that,” Smith said. “The processes we have in place are important. We can improve what we can. We need some more time to consider this one.”
CUPs, which run with the property, are very site-specific, said Planning Director Paula McMichael, depending on where the property is, who are the residents in the neighboring area, and how to protect people from nuisances.
At the end of the long discussion, the consensus was to look at reducing parking standards and for staff to come back with a revision of the section about affecting the “health and welfare” of neighboring properties so there’s no obligation for most CUP applicants to prove those points.
This issue will next go to the Planning Commission and then to City Council.
Leave a Comment