Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03031983 PZ City of Sebastian Planning & Zoning Committee Minutes A meeting of the Planning & Zoning Committee was held at the City Hall on March 3, lg83. The meeting was called-to order by the Chairman, Mr. Bill Messersmith. The following members of the Committee were present: Mrs. Ellen Workman Mr. L. Gene Harris Mr. William Mahoney Mr. Harold Eisenbarth Mr. Joseph Stephenson Mr. Robert J. Ori The Chairman opened the meeting by stating that a Public Hearing was in order and that by request of the Planning & Zoning Committee, additional data supporting Planned Unit Development {PUD} would be presented by the Sebastian Group, Ltd., a limited partnership, organized under the Laws of the State of Florida, filed on January 27, 1983. Mr. Edward Vick, representing the General Partners of the Sebastian Group, Ltd., and himself a General Partner who also represented Vick Realty, Inc., 310 S. Dillard St., Suite 210, Winter Garden, Florida 32787, introduced Mr. Charles E. Burkett, President of Charles E. Burkett & Associates, Inc., 309 Oak- ridge Blvd., Suite E. P.O. Box 2689, Daytona Beach, FL 32015 Consulting Engineers. ' Mr, Vi'ck presented an aerial view of the 'PUD location in the City of Sebastian. Dis'cuss~on and presentation involved the Pr&liminary Land Use Plan and description of the application of construction. It was stated that details would be worked out in the prel- iminary design phase. Further 5 units per acre were considered for the 312 acres involved. Mr. Charles E. Burkett introduced graphic presentations and discussed the f~lowing concerning the PUD: a- Hy~ology b- Preliminary Development Schedule c- Soils Inventory d- Site Analysis Mr. Burkett then presented additi~al written material - 1 - {copy attached) that included their preliminary deVelopment schedule and additional information concerning financial im- pa~t on the City of Sebastian (as requested at the~.~previous workshop meeting held on 2-24-83. Question regarding the industrial area was addressed by Mr. Lester Solin, who indicated the area was presently zoned industrial but designated as medium density on the Land Use Plan. Subject use as presented by the PUD was not in conflict with the PUD request. Additional comments where then presented by Mr. Lester Solin who also distributed a writted memo relative to his comments (copy attached). Mr. Solin also presented the ~ritten comments of Mr. Dan Kilbride, City Attorney, which indicated that the legal as- pects regarding the definition of land allowed the lake areas to be included in the residential density calculations satis- fied the PUD ordinance. Mr. Solin reviewed the PUD application - his written memo concerning his specific comments is enclosed. As a result of Mr. Solin's presentation, the transport- ation portion of the PUD application was discussed with spec- ific attention given to the location of the major north/south corridor. It was decided that no final decision regarding final location of subject corridor would be made at this time. Question regarding the phasing of water and sewer facil- ities were presented by Mr. Earl Masteller. Applicant stated all facilities would be phased in accord- ance with the development schedule as provided in the prelim- inary plan. The committee then questioned the financial capability of the partnership to develope the PUD. Principals then presented a copy of their Certificate of Limited Partnership for committee review and further stated that all principals involved had the financial capability of supporting all phases of development. Committee then questioned the effect of phasing on indiv- idual phase density calculations. Question was r.esolved when committee was reminded that the PUD zoning ran with the land and future ownerswould be bound by the same net density of 5 units per acre. In summary, the Chairman entertained a motion that the ~'~il~, re'quest be approved subject to comments and conditions Fl" '~ii'.~lated in Mr. Solin's written memo, as amended, and - 2 - Mr. Dan Ktlbrtde's comments as contained in his memo. As re- quested, a motlon was made by Mr. L. Gene Harris and seconded .... by Mr. Joseph Stevenson. Upon committee vote-t~e motion was unanimously approved. A motion was then made by Mr. Haro]d Etsenbarth to c]ose the. Public Hearing and seconded by Mr. Wtl]iam Mahoney. Upon commlttee vote, the Hearing was then closed. The Chairman then stated for the record that at 9:22 PM the regular meeting of the Planning and .Zoning Committee was called to order. The first order of business concerned'a request from Mr. Greg Gore to rezone Lots 55 and 56 .of Wauregan Sub Division from R1 to Cl. After review and discussion it was determined that a Public Hearing would be held on 3-31-83. This delay will allow time to research the land use designation and other applic- able information concerning this request. The second order of business concerned a request by Mr. Edward Hulse to construct an off~ce and storage building on Lot 26, Block 490, Unit 12, Sebastian Highlands. The committee discussed the conformance of the proposed use with the COR designation of the Land Use Plan. It was decided that the proposed use which would include some limited retail sales was in conformance with the COR designation. The applicant was informed that a proper site plan, meet- ing the requirements of .the Zoning Ordinance was required. It was further suggested that Mr. Hulse coordinate his Site plan with Mr. Earl Masteller, City Engineer. The third order of business concerned a request by Sem- bler & Sembler, Inc. for zoning approval for an alcoholic beer license for cosumption on the premises in accordance with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco application form DBR 700-L. The request was tabled for the purpose of allowing the applicant to appear before the board and ~rovide additional information supporting this request. R motion to table the request was made by Mr. L. Gene Harris and seconded by Mrs. Ellen Workman. Upon committee vote the motion was unaminously approved. At this time the Chairman stated that IY1,. ~. ue~e Harris was approved as an alternate member of the Planning and Zoning - 3 - committee and Mrs. Ellen Workman is now a regular member of the Planning and Zoning committee. The Chairman then stated that it was 10:35 PM and the tape on the recorder had ran out. Mr. Robert J. Ori maUe a motion that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by~. Ellen Workman. Upon committee vote,~h~ motion was unaminously approved. /~ully Submitted APPROVED: Bi)i Messersmith, Chairman Dated: - 4 - MEMORANDUM: FROM: DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, J.R. TO: MR. WILLIAM MESSERSMITH, Chairman Planning and Zoning Co~ission City of Sebastian Re: Sebastian Group, Ltd. PUD Request - Definition of "Land for Density Classification" At the Planning & Zoning workshop meeting to review the proposed conceptual plan for the 51I acre PUD proposed by the Sebastian Group, it was determined that Sec. 20A-4.5(c)(1) of the Code of Ordinances provides that: "Maximum Density. The Comprehensive Plan and use desi~'n~tion shall govern the maximum density permitted..." A review of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that: "The densitiesdenoted on the Comprehensive Land Use Map reflect the maximum net residential density permitted on land." Therefore, the question which needs to be answer-~'F~ is "what is the definition of 'land' for the purpose of calculating the permitted maximum density?" Florida has recognized the ancient maxim of the common law that land, in its legal signification, extends from the surface downwards to the center of the earth and upwards indefinitely to the skies, so that whatever is in a direct line between the surface of any land and the center of the earth belongs to the owner of the surface. 25 Fla. Jut., Property S8 at p 510. Therefore, "land" includes not only the soil of the earth, but also things of a permanent nature affixed thereto or found therein, whether by nature, as water, trees, grass, herbage, and other natural or perennial products. Re hayed v City of Caldwell~ 55 Idaho 342 42 P2d 292, ~-B-iack~ Law Dictionary, 4th Edition~ Small, non- 'navigable inland fresh water lakes are susceptible of private ownership in Florida. A nonnavigable lake lying within the boundaries of a single tract of land is an appurtenant to the land and belongs to the owner. $4 Fla. Jut. Water and Watercourses $37 at p 167. Therefore, SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. PCANNIN(~ C:ONSULTANTS 1540 HI(~HLANC) AVENUE VEF::IO BEACH, FL 329G0 March 3, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: William Messersmith, P.E., Chairman City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission and Members FROM: Lester L. Solin, Jr., AICP, Planning Consultant SUBJECT: Review of Proposed Main Street Planned Unit Development (PUD) I. MAJOR FEATURES OF THE APPLICATION. A. Location: Generally the 311.95 plus or minus acres northwest of Main Street at the intersection of Easy Street. The PUD includes all of the Sebastian Gardens S/D and lots 8, 9, 18 - 26, 29 - 47, 50 - 55, 58 - 60, all within Section 30, Fleming Grant. B. Applicant: The Sebastian Group, Ltd. Edward H. Vick, General Partner C. Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LD) -- approx. 265 acres. Medium Density Residential (MD) -- approx. 22 acres. General Commercial -- approx. 25 acres. De Existing Zoning: S~"h~l'~ Family Low Density Residential (R-l) -- approx. 290 acres Industrial -- approx. 22 acres. E. ~..KOPosed. Land Uses: Commercial Uses: Retail Sales Area (195,000 sq ft): Prof'l Ofc (30,000 square feet): Commercial Sub Total: 20 acres 5 acres 25 acres Residential Uses: Multi-Family Units (12.5 D.U./AC.) Patio Homes (6 D.U./AC) Single Family Units (3 D.U./AC.) Residential Sub Total: Total Residential Units: 41 acres 136 acres 35 acres 21-~Z acres Other Uses: Existing Lakes 27 acres 513 D.U. 816 D.U. 105 D.U. 1434 D.U. MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CONSULTING Proposed Lakes Open Space and Recreation Sub total: 16 acres 32 acres 75 acres II. PLANNING CONSULTANT COMMENTS: A. Compliance with the City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan: See Section 20A-4.9(E) (2)(a), Page IV£'5"~ · 1. Residential Uses. The Comprehensive Plan provides that the maximum net residential density shall be five (5) units per acre for low density residential development and eight (8) units per acre for medium density residential development. The proposed density complies with the Comprehensive Plan if the City accepts as "net residential land area" all the land area proposed for use as open space, residential streets, and land incorporated in lakes. Since the generalized plan submitted is a Conceptual Development Plan, approval of a specific number of units by the City is premature at this stage of the review process. Detailed information, including data concerning the natural charac- teristics of the land, hydrology, and proposed location and design of improvements such as size and dimension, land coverage, parking and internal circulation, pedes- trian amenities, recreation and open space, necessary easements, transportation ~ystems, location and design, and drainageways has not been submitted. This informa- tion is not required until the Preliminary Development Plan is submitted. The City does not have sufficient information for evaluating the impacts of the proposed dwelling unit threshold. In fact, at this early stage in the review process, the applicant is not prepared or able to present such detailed data as part of the Conceptual Development Plan. For instance, the applicant has prepared no plans specifying building locations or location and design of support services, nor has the applicant commenced necessary detailed site plans concerning planning and environ- mental factors, engineering considerations, design features, and cost implications needed to justify the proposed dwelling unit threshold. Therefore, it would be both premature and would be a poor precedent for the future if the City were to approve a specific dwelling unit threshold at the time of Conceptual Plan Review. Furthermore, the development proposed is a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) but regional impacts have not yet been determined. These issues will not be addressed in detail until the Preliminary Development Plan stage. During the Prelim- inary Development Plan review stage, detailed local impacts and information shall be required pursuant to Sections 20A-4.10 and 20A-4.13. Adverse impacts identified at this stage could possibly require a lesser number of units or could require unantic- ipated land consuming improvements to be included in the development proposal to alleviate adverse regional or local impacts found to be associated with the project. Based on the factors identified above, the developer should not have a vesting in the specific number of units proposed in the Conceptual Development Plan since such an assumption would be premature. Nevertheless, the general concept for residential development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan assuming credit is extended for residential streets and water bodies in calculating net residential density. 2. Commercial Uses. The commercial uses proposed are consistent with the City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Land Use Map assuming full compliance with all provisions of these ordinances. 3. ~ransportation S~stem. The proposed transportation improvements include: 1) the possible extention of Gibson to Main Street; 2) realigning Main Street to remove the severe curve in the vicinity of the point of junction with Fleming Street in the vicinity of Yucca Court; and 3) and possibly providing a major transportation corridor from the Easy Street intersection with Main Street northward through the proposed site to the northwest corner of the subject property. a) improvement to Gibson Corridor. The Conceptual Development Plan indicates that the proposed development will likely generate a substantial impact on the Gibson corridor. This magnitude of trip generation was not anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the City has not programmed any major expenditures in the next ten years for extending the Gibson corridor southward to Main Street. During the Preliminary Development Plan review the City shall consider the full impact of the development on the Gibson corridor. At that time the City shall also consider whether the applicant should be required to equitably participate in im- provements to the Gibson corridor necessitated by this development. b) Realignment of Main Street. The Conceptual Development Plan indicates that the development will significantly impact traffic flow on the Main Street corridor. The alignment of the Main Street corridor shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City in order to allow for a safe and acceptable level of traffic flow on this corridor. This improvement is indicated on the Conceptual Development Plan. During the Preliminary Development Plan review the City shall consider whether the applicant shall be required to improve this corridor or provide an equitable contribution in lieu thereof based on detailed analysis of the traffic flow analysis presented in the Preliminary Development Plan as well as data presented in the application for development approval of the DRI. c) Main Street Linkage to the Northwest. The applicant proposes providing a major transportation corrid°r ~6m the Easy street intersection with Main Street northward through the proposed site to the northwest corner of the subject property. This corridor should be redesigned to allow for a more direct route from the Easy Street intersection with Main Street northward through the property to the northwestern end point of the corridor. A rough drawing of the suggested improvement accompanies this memorandum. With this revision to the proposed corridor alignment, the proposed transportation system would be consistent with the similar linkage proposed in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The City shall determine whether this shall be a condition of the Conceptual Development Plan approval. d) Additional Co~nent on DRI Review Process and Preliminary Develop~ ment Plan Review. During the preparation of the Preliminary DevelOpment Plan, the appliCant shall be assembling information needed to satisfy requirements of the City of Sebastian Zoning Code as well as the requirements for the "Application for Devel- opment Approval" which must be submitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as part of the review of DRI projects. During this process, the City will become aware of local and regional issues which must be adequately resolved by the applicant. Also, the traffic impact performance standards of the proposed Zoning Code will likely be adopted prior to the applicants' submission of the Preliminary Development Plan. If this performance standard is adopted prior to submission of the Preliminary Development Plan, the developer shall provide the required traffic impact 3 analysis. At this point in the review process, the applicants' participation in needed transportation improvements shall be ascertained. In addition, issues sur- rounding the specific requirements for right-of-way, alignment, dimensions including width of right-of-way and pavement, and design features shall be determined. B. Conformance with Applicable Ordinances: See Section 20A-4.9(E)(2)(b), Page IV-5. Th~ ~onc~'ptual~'Deve'~°pment Pla~ shall bi carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements of all regulations and ordinances of the City of Sebastian. C. Land Use Capatibility: See Section 20A-4.9(E)(2){c), Page IV-5. The Conceptual Development Plan shall be carried out in conformity with applicable City Codes to assure compatibility with adjacent land uses. The applicant shall comply with all required setbacks, screening, buffering, and landscape requirements in order to assure compatibility with adjacent land uses. D. Adequate Public Facilities: See Section 20A-4.9(E}(2}(d), Page IV-5. The developer shail pr~sen~ suffic(ent data to satisfy this section. As of March 2, 1983, the applicant has presented insufficient data to indicate the project's pro- jected impact on existing and future levels of public services and related fiscal impacts required pursuant to this section and Section 20A-4.12(E)(4), page IV-17 and 18. E. .Impacts on Natural Environment: See Section 20A-4.9(E)(2)(e), Page IV-6 1. Potential Impacts on Drainage and Water Quality~ The application recognizes tha{--E~ir are si~nifi"cant f~'ood~hazard lands Within the project bound- aries. The applicant shall preserve the natural qualities of existing and proposed lakes and ponds and shall coordinate closely with the St. John's Water Management District, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel, appropriate state entities, and the City of Sebastian in planning a water management system which adequately addresses potential problems and issues associated with the drainage systems. Furthermore, the applicant shall comply with performance standards in the City of Sebastian Zoning Code existing at the time that a completed and sufficient prelimi- nary development plan is submitted to the City of Sebastian. The City of Sebastian has a draft of a new Zoning Code for review by the applicant, including performance standards for surface water management and erosion control. Furthermore, all grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer. 2. Impact on Natural Vegetation'. The applicant shall comply with the City's adopted LandSCape and %ree Removal Ordinances and any other performance standards in effect at the time that a completed preliminary development plan is submitted to the City of Sebastian. F. Economic Impacts: See Section 20A-4.9(E)(2)(f), Page IV-6. As stated in subsection D above', the developer shall provide further information concerning the fiscal impacts of the project since as of March 2, 1983, the applicant has not complied with the requirement of Section 20A-4.12(E)(4) Page IV-17 which requires that an estimated property tax revenue generated by the project by phase be submitted by the applicant, as well as any other positive or negative public facility impacts generated by the proposed development. G. Consideration of Orderl~ Development Pattern. See Section 20A-4.9(E)(2)(g), Page IV-G Th6' apPlicant"l'~ Coh~eptual D~elop~nt Plan appears to represent an orderly and logical pattern of development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4 H. Consistency with the Public Interest and Intent of the PUD Ordinance. See Section 20A-4.g(E)(2)(h), page IV-6. The~ConEeptdaT~Development Plan appears to reflect the public interest and intent of the PUD ordinance. I. Other Matters. 1. Consideration of New Zoning Code. See Section 20A4.9{E){2){i) and 20A-4.12{E)(5), Page IV-18. The City should put the applicant on notice that the City of Sebastian is currently considering the adoption of a new Zoning Code which includes new procedures for site plan review, including performance standards. This ordinance shall likely be adopted prior to the applicants' submittal of a completed Preliminary Development Plan. Therefore, the applicant should be put on notice that the Preliminary Development Plan shall comply with all provisions of the proposed Zoning Code assuming that it is adopted in a timely manner as proposed. The proposed Zoning Code is available for the applicant's review and consideration. 2. Development Schedule to be Submitted. See Section 20A-4.12{E)(2), Page IV-17. The applicant has not provided a proposed development schedule. A develop- ment schedule indicating the approximate starting and completion dates for the entire project, as well as any scheduled phasing for the project, shall be submitted with the concept plan application in order that the full implications of such schedule and phased construction can be considered by the City reviewing entities. III. CONSULTANT SUMMARY EVALUATION. The planning consultant recommends that the applicants Conceptual~'Development Plan be approved subject to all comments and conditions stipulated in this memorandum dated March ~J1983, and addressed to the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition, any further comments and/or conditions of the City Attorney and/or the City Engineer should be considered by the Commissioners and, if agreed to by the Commission, should also be made a condition of approval. Finally, the applicant should be made aware that the review process for the Preliminary Development Plan and the Final Development Plan have a specified time limitation and the applicant should work closely with the City to assure effective communication concerning any potential problems or issues associated with the development.