Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04121984 PZMINUTES-. PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING - April 12, 1984 A Public Hearing was' held April 12, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Sebastian to consider an application, as submitted by the property owner, requesting a zoning classification of PUD(R).f°r a pre- viously unzoned parcel of land, lying within Sections 14 and 23, Township 31 south, Range 38 east. Present were Chairman Gene Harris, Vice-Chairman Harold Eisenbarth, Members Bill Mahoney, Randy Mosby and Marjorie Poole. Also present was City Planner, Lester Solin and Jim Parmeter, his assistant. Notice of the Public Hearing was read, and the hearing was opened to the public. Dr. Henry Fischer commented that there was a rule in the county that density could not increase on a parcel of. land annexed into the city for two years following annexation. Greg Golien said the parcel being considered was agriculture, given R-1 designation since it was the lowest density the city had. Presentation of the plans for the 66 acre tract were presented by Darrell McQueen of Lloyd and Associates, a Vero Beach Engineering firm. Some of the items he mentioned in his presentation: PUD would have 8 units per acre, 22' wide pavement, realign Roseland Road, have accel, decel lanes on CR#512, dead end Laconia so it won't enter Roseland Road, there will be 5 units per acre in the side that l~es next to the LD areas off Granduer St., there will be 50' bumper strips, buffer zones will be heavily planted, buildings will be 4 units upstairs, 4 units downstairs, they will pay GDU for water, have a tertiary treatment, sewer system, affluent will go into lake, reused as irrigation water, development schedule will be 104 units within one year, 2nd'phase - 168 units, 3rd phase - 200 units. Entrance, club house, two tennis courts and roads and parking will be completed with the 1st phase. Improvements to CR#512, Roselan~ Road, and Laconia will be done during 2nd phase, and 3rd phase will be completed ' by 1987. Presentation by City Planner Lester Solin (See attached me~o from Solin and Associates, dated April 12, 1984) Randy Mosby pointed out that Mr. Solin's six summary points did not include comment concerning the commercial area. Mr. Solin said that was an oversight, he recommended that the board refrain from approving the commercial area until we have as much information on it as we have for the residential area. Randy Mosby questioned whether six acres would be sufficient for a shopping center complex. Les Solin said twelve acres would be better. The other area of most concern was whether or not the area had wetlands. Les Solin suggested Dan Carey, a wetlands expert for ~e Treasure Coast Planners. Lakes would be 10 - 12 feet deep, with sandy clay bottoms which would be more permeable than the shallow ponds there at present; also there are 4 -5 wells artificially adding to the water table. Greg Golien said if the wells were shut off, the area would drain in two weeks. Dr. Fischer showed where the 54" culvert pipe cut through to provide adequate drainage. The question is whether there is the 50% green space required in the PUD ordinance. Minutes - Public Mearing, April 12, 1984 page 2 ~ · 'Darrell McQueen asked us to give approval of PUD(R). "If I don't know how much commercial, I c~'t proceed, if I don't know density, I can't proceed. I will conform to whatever you ask, and I have complied." Les Solin felt the developer didn't show much empathy to reduce units to allow green space, also felt instead of thel500 projected trips from unit there would be approximately 3500 trips as per conversation with county traffic engineer. Board members agreed they were voting on zoning, not setting density. Harold Eisenbarthmade a motion to recommend approval by council of the zoning classification PUD(R) contingent upon aPProval Of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and compliance with the recommendations by City Planner Les Solin. Motion died from lack of a second. There was more discussion concerning what was needed in the motion. Harold Eisenbarth made the motion the Board recommend approval by Council of the zoning classifica~on PUD(R) for the parcel of land lying within sections 14 and 23, township 31 south, range 38 east, contingent upon approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment April 19, 1984, and on compliance with the April 12 review, by Lester $olin of $olin and AsSociates', and Dr. Fischer's comments concerning the location of the sewage treatment plant. (Me was opposed to it being placed on CR#512 next to Roseland Acres, recommended it be next to commercial pod). Motion was' seconded by Marjor~e Peele. Motion carried unani- mously. Chairman Harris felt the members needed clarification on two points: 1. After three meetings missed without good reason, member would automatically be dismissed, no need for resignation letter. 2. Considering the political nature of meetings~, and the non-politically nature of our board, members of thi~ board should at all times remain neutral and conduct themselves.properly at public meetings. Randy Mosby confirmed the fact; we are appointed to serve and make sure the ordinances are complied with, and that is. all. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Attachment - Les Solin review 4/12/84 APPROVED: Gene ~arris, Chairman /sbf Dated: SOLiN AND ASBOCiATI~B. INC. I~L~NNING CONBULTANTI~ 1 ~01 1 ~11;1t 9LACp, IiUITE 101 VERO IiIiACI-I, ICL 12, 1984 Gene ~rria, ~haiznem cit~ of S~ba~ ~lanni~ a.d Zcrdr~ Oc~el~ Xed)ere ~= ]~,:i.e~ of ~ Sebuthn Lakes ~ssidential Pt~ OmoS~ plan The pz~oeed develommt is ompri.d of ~pmxtaatsly located west of Iaoonia Street, north of ~ ~, and ~ of CR 512. C. Edsti.~ C~/~mi~e plan Designation= low ~ity {ID) -- 16.32 acres. Mediu~ Density ~>) -- 34.36 acres. ~maral Ommercial (O~) -- 15.87 acres. De The parcel has recently been ~ by the City of the pre.mt rims ccm+~tns no ~mtn~ cl~mif~. Ee Land Uses: The project is proposed t~ o:~ta~ a six-a~re com~-'ctaI site and multi-family residential clevel~p~mlt with several 46.85 acres 60.56 acres 13.71 acres 472 units 7.79 D.U.s per mcxe site is a fish faro. The fish are reVortedly ~ ~ /k~m~ MEI~tEI::i OF THE AMERICAN 80CIET¥ OF CONBULTING PLANNIERB 66.55 ~ site. T~ ConoeVt Plan incl,~$ four hundred seventy-tm~ (472) units ~ the site, (me less than the max/mm allo~sd by the (k~m~e~si~ Plan policies. The ~ ~ of units assu~es the appzoval of a Ocm%xehensive PLan Map chsr~s of 9.88 acres of land currently desi~nated General (k~mrctal ((~) tO ~ Off~oe ~k~nt~l (om). CUrrently, it is prematur~ to ascertain the s~e~ific density to bm ~ for the site. The proposed cu~m~t plan does not preserve fifty percent of t~ ~pland area as open spece as required by Sectic~ 20A-4.13 it) (4)(a) of the a~opted PUD ordinanoe. T~ infomatioa su~mi~ in~icatem that ap~tely 26% of the residential area will be prese~ as ope~ area. In order to oc~ly with the ordinance, it may be necessary to significantly cut back in the rna~b~r of units planned for the devel~ and/or d~H%~e the ~ 9snsral cunoeVe. There~, no approval of a CUncmpt DeveSt Plan for ~ devest ~ bm gi~ until such time that the ~ and ir~x~t/(~ he satisfied. The actual ma~ber of units which should be approved o~ the site can only be detezmined follow/hq the evaluatic~ of a detain site plan ~hiah i~cludes natural characteristics of the land, includ/ng hydro~! location and design of i~x~mments; specific l;~Uilrlt~cj 001~, ~ts, SpeCific e~gineering characteristics and design of 4r-~-~3~. sys~m, i~xo~ents and p~ogr~ of the This info~mmtio~ is n~t required u~til the Prel/~ ~t~ by the applicant. (~_ly at that tim~ is it ~tely 14.87 acres of land are des:kjnated for c3eneral ~ ¢ial ~mmlo[:mmt at tim soumt wrier of the intersectim of I/farm ~ 519. and ~ Street. This d~signation first appeared On the Proposed Land use Plan far the City of Sebastian prepared by the Indian Ri~r Oamty Plan~ and Zc~ De~t dur/ng 1979-1980. This land is c~e of the few rem~ %u~platted sites along the State Boad 512 corridor. The site is highly aocessi- ble to residential areas within th~ Sebastian H~ghlands via Bazber Street which serves the north~st and sout~$t Highlands. In addition, the site is looa~ at the southern te~mir~m of Boeeland Boad which serves major res/zk~tial settle- m~Ycs m~x~h of the site, north to Boseland. Finally, the site is ac~m~ly The 14.87~ acres ou~,.arcial site ~as designated to ser~e as a ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 199~2000. ~ ~si~ ~ ~ P~ ~ 3 ~ 5 ~1 ~. ~ Ci~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ of ~ The cc,-~xcial develops, hr pzoposal is contained in a narrati~ statement submitted by the applicant. The co~oept plan suk~nitted by ~he cant does not i~ltcate the approximate location of the s~, pursuant to Sec. 20A-4.12[D)(1), nor are the respective types of retail ities included as is required pursuant to Sec. 20A-4.12(D)(1). The ~t of the oc~oept plan does not OOD~Ain any inform~tion On the ~rading plan ar~ pzoposed dr-4nage system ~ On the site as required pursu- ant to ~ 2~A-4.12(E)(3). In fact, no prel~ gra~es indioating oc mptual plan for ctrainac e has been su itted as bm zm t ed with Section 20A-4.12 (E) (3). include widen/hq of Laconia Street to a t~o-lane roa~y and real~ its access to Ca 512, reali~ I~seland ~ ~ p~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 512 ~ ~ ~, ~ p~~t of left ~ ~s ~ ~ 512 1~ ~ ~ ~~t. A~ of ~ =~ti~ ~ w~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~affic ~~ s~ ~ ~~t s~~lly ~s ~ 512. ~ ~ld ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~1~: traffic at the ~ Boeeland Boad intersection. 2. Left turn decel lanes for ~stbound traffic and right turn decel la~es for eastbound traffic shall be provided at the mmin e~tranoe. 3. A right turn deoel lane for ~-tbound traffic shall be ~ at 4. The project should be staged so that tbs realists of La~xu~ and Boselam~ Boad will b~ oc~p~ at a~grc~im~ly the Be Co Do 5. The plans currently shc~ a proposed ~ul-de-mc extending south finn (IR 512 at the north cx~mer of the deve~ and ~ short o~ in a c, zl-ds-sa~, ptoldbiting access to CR 512 from this half ~. 6. Funds should be plaoed in es,,.~,,~ for the futura 4sve~ of a bi~ path alcr~ t~ south side of (IR 512. 7. Funds should be placed in escro~ for a ~ stxjnal at tyro pcopo~d int~rsection of Ca 512 and ~mmland and Laomda. ~. 8. The applicant s~ll proutde the City with leeal mmuranoa, approved by t/~ City Attom~, that ~1~ tal~wv~ts shall b~ ln0~porm~d into the P~eltmimuy ~ek~mmt Plan. fo~moe with ADplicable Ocdinances. See Sectti~ 20A-4. 9 (B) (2) (b) ~1 De~e~ Plan m~b be carried out in a mariner cons~t w/th tl~ requ/rem~ts of all re~l~ti0rm and ord/nanc~a of the City of Sebastian. The applicant mist o0mply with all appl/cable provisto~s of the proposed ~ ~evel~t code fo~ the City of ~ttal of a pre~ 0event plan. ~Ittm ~ ~ See Section 20A-4.9 (E) (2) (c). appLtoM~le be carried out in cc~omity ~ O~cepCual City Oo~s to assure ocm~atibility with a~Jaos~ land urns. ~E~ ~11 ~ly ~ all ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ n w ~~ a ~~ ~ (gO) ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ fi~ (5) f~ ~ ~i~. ~s ~t ~~ly ~t s~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ P~ ~ P~ ~~~~t ~512 ~ ~l~of~~~ Adequate Public Facilities. ~= Sectlcm 20A-4.9 (E) (2) (d). ~hs applicatio~ incl,-~8 a public facility impact stat~sm~nt ad~essing following factors: a) quantity of ~ater generated; b) quantity of po~-hle ~ater L-equired; c) quantity of .criX~le water generat~ d) descriptio~ of recreatio~ facilities proposed; e) est/aa~ n~ber of school a~e children; and, f) estimated property tax. The a~pk6omnt does not a~eas the impact of th~ 4es4~tosme~t ~ pzotsctive servioes. T~is latter issue should be addressed to the satisfacticm of tbs City ~ on ltlatural ~v~t. Section Section 20A-4. 9 (E) (2) (e) Ho applicant shall ocmply with performance standards of the City ~ of Sect/o~ 20A-4.13(D) m~l the ~oil ~tio~ ~mtrol ~ of ~ 20~-4.13 (C) (9) . ~o ~~ Develcpmnt Plan for the proposed c~ve~a~mt strmld be ~ unttl suoh true that a City gn~/nmr ~ a ~1 drainage plan wb/c~ shmm any required eleva~ necessary to /nd/cate wheth~ the oonoept ~ p/an iS satisfactory. Also the d/~ of ston~ater run-off ~ be Eoo~mic ]~pacts. See Section 20A-4.9(E)(2)(f). ~e applicant has ~ ~J~. ~ e~~ of a ~ ~ $84,~0 ~ ~ ~ ~y ~20,~0 ~ ~ s~ it ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1 65% ~t ~. ~. ~ SecT. ion 20A 4.9(E) (2) (h). Basedc~. ~ ~efic~iet Cons~ation of the Ne~ Zoning C~.... ~ ~ 20A-4.9(R) (2) (t) ~' ~-0A-4.12(E)(5). ~ City has notified the appltooant of the ~ ~k~ctcm of a ne~ Land Devel~t OoZe, incl~ ~ zO~ ~ ~ ~~ f~l ~c ~~s ~ ~ ~s ~, ~11 ~f~ ~ ~li~t is ~~ ~ ~t a ~~ ~1- The plarm/ng o0nsul~ f/r~ls that appr~al of tim ~bject ~~ ~he plan ooatatas an insuff/cieat ~ount of pennmble grassed open space as requ/red pursuant to Sec. 20A-4.13(C)(4)ia) of the ~ code. ~he code requires 50% grassed open area but only imat~ly 26% residential open area is included in the ~ plan. This calculatio~ ir~licatee a serious flaw ~ch may ial a=t site lancet, o ~t~ ccao~ptu~ develoim~t plan does not ize~t suff~c~mt i~fm~m- tim m &atnaee, inciudi~ a prelimina~ ~ plan, t~ ~ envizciBm*/tal ~ aB L'uqGil'ut puzm]m~ t:G f~c. 20A-4.12~ (3) of 5 the ~ zon/ng code (Se~ pmg~ IV-22). Similarly, an insufficient amount of information is presented for the City to ascertain whethar required pursuant ~o revie~ criteria of Sec. 20A-4.9(~.) (2) (d) and (e). ~e plmge IV-12. The oommpt p~-, does not inoorporate the type and g~eral ctmrmeCer of pzoj~ traffic imlaoveme~ts. recetvt.n~ ~ntars. The developer has presented no vegeta~ analysis or hyd~locj'tc~l analysis that indtoa~s the sim is fre~ of wetlands. ~he ~eria.~ indicate ~t ~ is a ~gh p~~ of ~ ~1 ~s of ~ltc ~es ~~ ~ ~. The not to ori~mria for revie~ in Sec. 20A-4.9(E)(2)(d). 2Ogk-4.9 (~) (2) (a-t). ~ee Fage IV-12.