CITY COMMISSION REPORT

Regular Agenda – Public Hearing Item:

Staff Report

10/09-07

 

SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR BISHOP SEABURY ACADEMY (SLD)

 

SUP-09-09-07: Special Use Permit for Bishop Seabury Academy expansion at 4120 Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Bishop Seabury Academy, property owner of record.

 

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:     Planning Staff recommends approval of SUP-09-09-07, a Special Use Permit for an expansion of Bishop Seabury Academy to include a building addition located at 4120 Clinton Parkway, based upon the findings presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.

2.      Approval of a local Floodplain Development Permit.

3.      Publication of an ordinance per Section 20-1306 (j).

4.      Provision of a revised Site Plan to show minimum landscaping along the south boundary of the Drainage Easement west of the floodplain, per staff approval. 

 

Applicant’s Reason for Request:

·         The RM12 district requires a Special Use Permit for school uses.

·         Section 20-1306 (b) grants existing uses this status.

·         Any alteration or expansions of the use are subject to the Special Use Amendment procedures of Section 20-1306 (l) which requires a public hearing by the City Commission.

 

 

KEY POINTS

·         Subject property is existing developed property with an approved site plan on record.

·         School uses in the RM12 district require a Special Use Permit.

·         The proposed development is by definition a major development project.

 

FACTORS TO CONSIDER

  • Procedural requirements of Section 20-1306; Special Use Permits

 

ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED

·         SP-07-49-02; original approval for Bishop Seabury Academy relocation to this site.

·         Publication of an ordinance per Section 20-1306 (j).

·         Application for a local floodplain development permit is required.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING

Phone calls received from adjacent property owners asking for clarification of proposed request and confirmation that no changes to the existing open space were proposed.

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

Current Zoning and Land Use:         

 

RM12 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) district; existing junior and senior high school campus.

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:         

RS7 (Single-dwelling Residential) District to the north; existing detached homes.

PRD (Wimbledon Terraces) District to the north; existing townhouse development with common open space.

RM12 (Multi-Dwelling Residential District) to the east; existing apartment development.

RSO (single-Dwelling Residential and Office) District to the south; undeveloped.

Site Summary

 

Existing Buildings

39,278 SF

New Structure

7,043 SF; includes demolition of existing building in same location

Required Off Street Parking

50 spaces

1 space per 1.5 teachers (15)

1 space per 3 students (118)

Off-Street Parking Provided

54 spaces

 

Summary:

 

The proposed request is for the demolition of an existing structure, formerly the fitness club associated with the tennis club located prior to the school use. The building will be replaced with new construction of a 7,043 SF building in the same location.  The proposed use is to allow for the increase in physical space for classrooms and not for an increase in school enrollment. The location of the new building will be located between the existing outdoor tennis courts and the parking lot. Other site improvements include pedestrian connections from the frontage road to the site and provision of a parking lot to city standards by addition of curb and gutters.

 

Review and Decision-Making Criteria (20-1306(i))

 

1.         WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT CODE

 

Staff Finding – The site was originally developed prior to the current regulations. The site plan proposes to remove the existing off-street parking out of the required 25’ setback along the front property line.  Additionally, a Type One Bufferyard is required along the north side of the subject property abutting residential development. Much of this area is encumbered by an existing drainage easement.   The applicant notes that landscape consistent with the requirements is not appropriate within the drainage easement, but does not propos an alternative. In staff’s opinion, the 35’ width of the existing drainage easements provides some element of a bufferyard for the properties to the north. Additional landscape materials could be plated south of the drainage easement to provide additional buffering.

2.        WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT USES IN TERMS OF SCALE, SITE DESIGN, AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS, INCLUDING HOURS OF OPERATION, TRAFFIC GENERATION, LIGHTING, NOISE, ODOR, DUST AND OTHER EXTERNAL IMPACTS

 

Staff Finding – Approval of the Special Use Permit does not alter the base zoning district. The proposed use, with conditions can be found to be compatible with the adjacent uses.

 

3.        WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE WILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF OTHER PROEPRTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED

 

Staff Finding – The surrounding area is developed residentially on the north side of Clinton Parkway. The significant concern identified by residents in the area included the retention of existing open space along the north property line. There are no building improvements proposed for this area. The subject property has functioned as a private school facility since 2002 at this location.

 

4.        WHTHER PUBLIC SAFETY, TRANSPORTATION AND UTLITY FACILITES AND SERVICES WILL BE AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHILE MAINTAINING SUFFICIENT LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

 

Staff Finding – Public safety, transportation and public utilities are established to provide service to the subject property.

 

5.        WHETHER ADEQUATE ASSURANCES OF CONTINUING MAINTENANCE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED

 

Staff Finding –The site plan will function as the enforcement document to assure that maintenance and use of the property is consistent with the approval.

 

 

6.       WHETHER THE USE WILL CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

 

Staff Finding – The subject property is located within a developed urban neighborhood. There is identified floodplain located across the northeast portion of the property. A dedicated drainage easement is also located along the north property line. A Local Floodplain Development Permit is required for this property prior to development activities. The proposed development shown is located on the southern end of the property away from the floodplain area of the site.

 

7.        WHETHER IT IS APPROPPRIATE TO PLACE A TIME LIMIT ON THE PERIOD OF TIME THE PROPOSED USE IS TO BE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PEMRIT AND, IF SO WHAT THAT TIME PERIOD SHOULD BE.

 

Staff Finding –The subject property received approval through the site plan process under the previous zoning code by the City Commission in 2002. The property has been utilized as a private junior and senior high school since that time. No time limit is recommended. However, any future, expansion of the facility or change of use for this property will require appropriate land use approvals.

Conclusions:

The existing school was a permitted use by right when it was established in 2002. Procedural requirements of the Development Code grant an automatic Special Use Permit status to existing approved development as applicable. Any new development that meets the criteria of a major site plan must comply with the full Development Code including a public hearing by the City Commission per Section 20-1306 (b). It is this provision of the Development Code that has prompted this request to be presented to the City Commission for consideration and approval.

 

As noted a Local Floodplain Development Permit is required. The applicant is working to submit that application which will be reviewed administratively. Standard conditions related to Special Use Permits include site plan performance agreements and the publication of a resolution.

 

Alternative Landscape is required along the north property line to comply with the bufferyard requirement when adjacent to a single-dwelling residential zone. As noted by the applicant, the north side of the property is encumbered by an existing drainage easement and regulatory floodplain. Section 20-1007 allows for the landscape plan to be considered by the Planning Director as an administrative item. Staff has recommended that additional landscape materials be planted south of the drainage easement to comply with the bufferyard requirements.