PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (PDC) SUMMARY MINUTES February 1, 2018

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (PDC) SUMMARY MINUTES Members Present: David Bramblett, Chair; Cheryl Phillips, 1 st Vice Chair; William Garvin, 2 nd Vice Chair; James Brooks; William J. Grant; and Chuck Dixon, School Board Representative (arrived at 9:03 and left at 10:56) Staff Present: Joanna Coutu, Director, Land Development Division (LDD); Cynthia L. Jones, Senior Planner, (LDD); Joe Hochadel, Planner, (LDD); Robbin Johnson, Planner, (LDD); Susan Wright, Coordinator (LDD); Charlene Wolf, Sr. Secretary (LDD) Also Present: Denise Lyn, County Attorney Absent: Joel Brender and Sondra Moylan A. CALL TO ORDER David Bramblett, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. B. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Cheryl Phillips, 1st Vice Chair. C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Cheryl Phillips, 1st Vice Chair. D. ROLL CALL Recording Secretary proceeded with roll call. E. CHAIRMAN READ THE APPEAL PROCESS AND MEETING PROCEDURES F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Nomination for Chair Ms. Lyn opened the nominations for Chair. Ms. Phillips nominated Mr. Bramblett for Chair. No further nominations were submitted. MOTION: Close nominations for Chair 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd Mr. Brooks

2 VOTE: 5 0, Ms. Lyn congratulated Mr. Bramblett. Mr. Bramblett led the nominations for 1 st Vice Chair and 2 nd Vice Chair. Nomination for 1 st Vice Chair Mr. Grant nominated Ms. Phillips for 1 st Vice Chair. Mr. Brooks seconded the nomination. No further nominations were submitted. MOTION: Close nominations for 1 st Vice Chair 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd VOTE: 5 0, Mr. Bramblett congratulated Ms. Phillips. Nomination for 2 nd Vice Chair Mr. Brooks nominated Mr. Garvin for 2 nd Vice Chair. Mr. Bramblett seconded the nomination. No further nominations were submitted. MOTION: Close nominations for 2 nd Vice Chair 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd VOTE: 5 0, Mr. Bramblett congratulated Mr. Garvin. G. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC None H. APPROVE MINUTES MOTION: Approve minutes of December 7, VOTE: 5 0, Minutes approved. I. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS: None J. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd Ms. Phillips County Attorney Denise Lyn polled the PDC members on whether they had any ex parte communications concerning the applications to be heard. All PDC members said they had no ex parte communications. 2

3 K. APPLICATIONS Planning and Development Commission 1. LAND USE APPLICATION a. CU Furman and Hilpert Engineering, Inc. for St. Raphael of Brooklyn Orthodox Church, Inc. REQUEST: This request is for a Conditional Use to allow for the expansion of an existing House of Worship in the Medium Residential District (MDR), pursuant to Section 2406, Medium Density Residential District, as specified in the Land Development Code (LDC). LOCATION: Section 36, Township 18 South, Range 19 East; more specifically, the south 50 feet of Lot 60, Lot 61 and Lot 62, Block A, Highlands Trailer Park, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 132, which address is 1277 North Paul Drive, Inverness, Florida. A complete legal description of the property is on file with the Land Development Division. STAFF CONTACT: Cynthia L. Jones, Senior Planner; Land Development Division INTRODUCTION: Ms. Wright s overview included aerial views of the subject property, photos of the subject property and the surrounding area, and the proposed site plan. The applicant is requesting to expand an existing House of Worship by adding an 800 square-foot multi-purpose building and relocating an existing utility building. Mr. Grant noted that he had hired Paul Furman for a variance application a few years ago. He had no personal knowledge of Mr. Furman other than the contract for professional services. Ms. Lyn said there was no conflict of interest. APPLICANT: The verbal presentation was given by Paul Furman, who said St. Raphael intends to build an 800 square-foot multi-purpose assembly building. The proposed activities will not result in a more intense use of the site in regards to parking and traffic. St. Raphael is requesting a zero-foot setback from the south property line in order to provide more open space for outdoor activities. The proposal includes a 20-foot section of a building wall at the property line with a Type C buffer on each side. He felt that a wall without windows or doors along a common property line between a residence and a church provides more privacy for the residents than a landscape buffer alone. The County s standards allow walls along property lines in residential districts. Walls are required for a Type D buffer between large non-residential projects and residential lots. The proposed improvements are being kept 3

4 below 1,000 square feet in order to qualify as an exempt redevelopment site that does not require a review of existing drainage. The site does not currently have a designed stormwater management system. St. Raphael is requesting the continued use of some of the non-conforming parking spaces that back out onto N. Paul Dr. All of the non-conforming parking spaces on E. David Ave. will be changed to have an internal access and be separated from the County road by a landscape buffer. They are also requesting reduced dimensions for the parking spaces on the north side as the depth between the north property line and the north wall of the church building is not long enough to meet LDC requirements. Mr. Garvin asked about the hours of operation for the proposed multi-purpose building. Mr. Furman said it would generally be on Sundays after the church service. Mr. Garvin expressed concern about the possibility of events in the evening that could disturb residents in the area if the PDC approved a zerofoot setback. Mr. Grant asked for clarification regarding the buffer on the south side of the property. Mr. Furman explained there would be a 20-foot gap in the buffer and the wall would be at the property line. He suggested that the wall be considered a buffer and there would be landscaping on either side of the wall for the whole length of the property. Mr. Grant asked about the property abutting the south property line. Mr. Furman said it was a mobile home and the owner provided a letter indicating they have no objection to the proposed plan. Mr. Grant asked about reconfiguring the plan in order to eliminate the zero-foot setback. Mr. Furman said there is an existing drainfield north of the proposed multi-purpose building. Mr. Grant asked if they had considered rotating the building. Mr. Furman said yes, but the members of the church wanted the proposed orientation. Mr. Grant asked about any issues that would prohibit the construction of the building if it were rotated. Mr. Furman said there is a slope that would require fill, and it would be easier to construct the multi-purpose building closer to the existing fellowship hall. In reviewing the photo of the existing utility building and proposed location of the multipurpose building, there was discussion about the fill. Mr. Furman said the south side of the multi-purpose building could be a stem wall which could accommodate the existing grade without fill. Mr. Grant asked about the distance to the drainfield area to the north. Mr. Furman said he was not sure. Father Sergious Gerken had indicated the area the drainfield was installed. Mr. Brooks expressed concern with the zero-foot setback and asked for additional information regarding opposition to rotating the multi-purpose building. Mr. Furman said the church wanted to use the open space north of the building for outdoor activities. Mr. Brooks questioned there being an adequate hardship in order to grant this request. 4

5 Mr. Bramblett said he concurred with Mr. Grant and Mr. Brooks. A zero-foot setback is a problem. He felt there is plenty of room to either move the multipurpose building north or rotate it. Churches are sold and a zero-foot setback could be incompatible with the new use. Mr. Furman said the LDC does allow for zero-foot setbacks. Ms. Phillips asked about finding out where the drainfield is located so the multi-purpose building could be moved at least five feet north. She has concerns in regards to the zero-foot setback with a permanent wall and the potential of the church or neighbor selling their property in the future. Mr. Grant noted he did not have any issue with the parking, but he was struggling with the setback. Ms. Coutu asked about the possibility of having events in the evening on other days. Mr. Furman said there would not be evening events. STAFF: Ms. Jones presentation included aerial views of the subject property, photos of the subject property, and the proposed site plan. The site has been developed with a House of Worship and a Fellowship Hall. The applicant is proposing to place a multi-purpose building at the south property line with a zero-foot setback. The existing utility building is proposed to be relocated between the Fellowship Hall and the proposed multi-purpose building. Both of the structures would be within the 15-foot buffer area. This deviation does not appear to be justified since there are other areas where the buildings could be placed. The Health Department did not have a site plan available to confirm where the septic was located. Mr. Grant asked about the contour of the land. Ms. Jones said she did not walk to the southeast corner and could not confirm the grading of the lot. Ms. Coutu noted that the photo of the south property line does not appear to indicate a significant grade change. Ms. Jones said the existing driveway will be widened to 24 feet in width. She identified the locations for the proposed parking areas and the access aisle using several photos of the subject property. The applicant is proposing a deviation to reduce the parking space length in the parking lot north of the sanctuary from 20 feet to 18.5 feet. The reduced parking space length allows the applicant to provide the 24-foot wide access aisle, a five-foot wide Type A buffer adjacent to E. David St., and maintain a buffer between the north parking lot and the sanctuary. The requested parking space length is longer than the compact car spaces allowed in the LDC. Staff has no objection to this deviation. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the on-street parking on E. David St. and reduce the on-street parking spaces on N. Paul Dr. Parking within a right-of-way would not be approved as part of this conditional use request. 5

6 Ms. Coutu noted that the applicant requested approval of non-conforming parking spaces in the right-of-way. The PDC does not have the authority to grant that request. The PDC can only consider the expansion of a House of Worship in Medium Density Residential zoning. This request includes a deviation for the setback and relief from the buffer next to the adjacent home. Ms. Jones said the applicant is proposing a five-foot wide Type A buffer between the parking area north of the sanctuary and E. David St. A 15-foot Type C buffer is required along the south property line. The request to place the buildings within the Type C buffer as proposed will reduce the required buffer by approximately 30 percent. The application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan primarily due to the location of the buildings being in the buffer area. Findings of Fact Numbers One and Two have been found to be negative. Ms. Phillips asked about the LDC allowing a zero-foot buffer. Ms. Jones said the LDC allows a zero-foot setback if the applicant obtains a maintenance easement from the adjoining property owner. But in this case, it would not apply since there is a requirement for a 15-foot buffer. Ms. Coutu added that a buffer is still required regardless of the setback. Because this is a commercial use, a 15-foot buffer is required and cannot go to zero unless the PDC chooses to give relief from the buffer requirement. PROPONENT: Father Sergious Gerken thanked the PDC for considering this request. He noted that he has a PhD in Botany and does not want to cut the large trees. If the proposed multi-purpose building is rotated, then 100 year old trees could be compromised. In addition, the majority of the members would have difficulty maneuvering an additional 30 feet to get to the entryway of the multipurpose building. The main purpose of the multi-purpose building is to gather for meals and fellowship after the Sunday service. Bake sales would also be held on Sundays. The only time there would be events in the evening would be for Easter and Christmas. The Sheriff s Office is made aware of these events. Regarding the proposed wall, it would be covered with a plant called creeping fig. The adjacent neighbor would benefit by enjoying what would appear to be a private garden. The area in the back is considered critical to the church so they can use it for children and maintain a safety zone from Rails to Trails. The landscaping is personal to Father Sergious as he wants to show stewardship of the land. Ronald Abbe said the improvements the church has made have been remarkable and enhance the area. Roberta Abbe also commented on how beautiful the landscaping at the church is and her enjoyment of it. 6

7 OPPONENT: None Planning and Development Commission COMMISSION COMMENTS: Ms. Phillips asked about other conditional uses being approved with a zerofoot setback. Ms. Coutu said staff did not do a survey of all the Houses of Worship, but they generally do meet buffer requirements. Ms. Phillips asked about an average setback in the neighborhood. Ms. Coutu said this is the only church in the area. The residential lots would not be required to have buffers. The church is required to have buffers since it is located in a residential district. Mr. Brooks confirmed that if the application is denied, then the applicant would have to make a significant change in the proposed project in order to come back in less than one year. Ms. Coutu said that was correct. Due to the expressed concerns of the PDC regarding the lack of buffer and setback, she suggested the PDC consider approving the conditional use with the understanding that the applicant meets LDC standards (e.g. buffer and setbacks). While that would require redesign, the applicant would not need to return for another hearing if LDC standards are met. The other options are for the PDC to continue or deny this request. Mr. Bramblett said he was okay with the conditional use as long as LDC standards are adhered to. He believes there is plenty of room to redesign. Based on the botanical degree that Father Sergious has, the landscape buffers will be beautiful and enhance the neighborhood. But the wall with the creeping fig may not be suitable to a new owner of the adjacent residence. Mr. Grant concurred with Mr. Bramblett. He commended Father Sergious for the care of the property. His motion was going to be to approve the conditional use with a five-foot setback. Ms. Coutu asked Mr. Grant if he wanted to hear some suggested conditions. She also confirmed that Mr. Grant wanted to propose a five foot setback, but not the 15-foot buffer. Mr. Grant said that was correct. Ms. Lyn noted that the LDC requires 15 feet. Ms. Coutu said the buffer requirement is larger than the setback requirement, which is not unusual for commercial uses. After review of the photo with the south property line delineated and the distance between the Fellowship Hall and the south property line (per the survey), Mr. Grant said he was in favor of a five-foot setback, but he wanted to hear from other PDC members. Mr. Brooks said he had not seen that a hardship had been presented and therefore, the applicant should adhere to the 15-foot buffer. Mr. Garvin concurred. 7

8 Mr. Grant asked what the proposed setback was for the relocated utility building. Ms. Jones said it was approximately 11 feet. Mr. Bramblett and Mr. Grant asked to hear the suggested conditions. Ms. Jones read the following: 1. This Conditional Use is to allow for the expansion of a House of Worship by adding a multi-purpose building and relocating a utility building, as outlined on the conceptual site plan date December 13, The multi-purpose building and the relocated utility building shall be installed at a minimum 15-foot setback from the south property line, providing for the required Type C buffer. 3. A five-foot wide Type A buffer must be provided along the north property line between the new parking area and the right-of-way for East David Street, pursuant to Section 5550, Required Buffer Types, of the Land Development Code. 4. A 15-foot wide Type C buffer must be provided along the south property line adjacent to residential uses, pursuant to Section 5550, Required Buffer Types, of the Land Development Code. 5. Vehicle wheel stops or other design features, such as curbing, shall be used so that parked vehicles do not extend more than two (2) feet into any landscape or buffer area, pursuant to Section 7240.B, Design of Parking Lots, of the Land Development Code. 6. The 12 parking spaces proposed in the grassed parking area north of the sanctuary can have a reduced parking space length of 18.5 feet. 7. Parking within the right-of-way of North Paul Drive is not approved as part of this conditional use application. 8. A site plan must be submitted to the Land Development Division at the time of permitting indicating compliance with these conditions. Mr. Grant asked about the differences between the five-foot setback on the north side and the 15-foot setback on the south property line. Ms. Jones said the five-foot setback is provided for a buffer from a parking lot adjacent to a road, and the 15-foot setback is for a buffer for a commercial development adjacent to a residential use. MOTION: 1 st Mr. Garvin 2 nd Mr. Brooks 8

9 MOTION: The Planning and Development Commission finds application number CU CONSISTENT with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and the Citrus County Land Development Code and that Board APPROVES WITH CONDITIONS the application based upon the evidence and testimony presented, and the staff report and conclusions regarding this petition. It has been determined that APPROVING the proposed Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest; that there is compliance with special rules governing individual conditional uses of the type involved; that the proposed development, with conditions and safeguards attached, would be generally compatible with adjacent properties and other property in the district; and that the PDC is empowered under the section of the LDC described in the application to grant this Conditional Use. Ms. Lyn confirmed those conditions were the ones read by Ms. Jones. Mr. Garvin, Mr. Brooks, and Mr. Bramblett concurred. Mr. Grant asked which Condition addressed the 15-foot buffer. Ms. Jones said that both Condition Number Two and Condition Number Four require a 15-foot Type C buffer. Mr. Grant asked if any other Commissioner was inclined to reduce the 15-foot buffer. Ms. Phillips thought that five feet would be sufficient. Mr. Bramblett said he was in agreement with the LDC standards. Both Mr. Garvin and Mr. Brooks were also in agreement with the 15-foot buffer. Mr. Brooks asked to confirm that this motion will require the applicant to have a 15-foot buffer on the south side of the property. Ms. Coutu said yes, and the word minimum was added to the 15-foot setback to give the applicant some flexibility in case they want to redesign the site plan. Mr. Grant said he would like to consent for a reduced buffer, but he would vote in favor of this motion since there were not enough members that were in agreement with a reduced buffer. CONDITIONS: 1. This Conditional Use is to allow for the expansion of a House of Worship by adding a multi-purpose building and relocating a utility building, as outlined on the conceptual site plan date December 13, The multi-purpose building and the relocated utility building shall be installed at a minimum 15-foot setback from the south lot line, providing for the required Type C buffer. 9

10 3. A five-foot wide Type A buffer must be provided along the north property line between the new parking area and the right-of-way for East David Street, pursuant to Section 5550, Required Buffer Types, of the Land Development Code. 4. A 15-foot wide Type C buffer must be provided along the south property line adjacent to residential uses, pursuant to Section 5550, Required Buffer Types, of the Land Development Code. 5. Vehicle wheel stops or other design features, such as curbing, shall be used so that parked vehicles do not extend more than two (2) feet into any landscape or buffer area, pursuant to Section 7240.B, Design of Parking Lots, of the LDC. 6. The 12 parking spaces proposed in the grassed parking area north of the sanctuary can have a reduced parking space length of 18.5 feet. 7. Parking within the right-of-way of North Paul Drive is not approved as part of this Conditional Use application. 8. A site plan must be submitted to the Land Development Division at the time of permitting indicating compliance with these conditions. VOTE: 5-0, Motion Carried 2) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS a. PUD Architectural Concepts for WCCRE Citrus REQUEST: A request to amend a Master Plan of Development (Planned Unit Development-PUD) for Woodland Terrace (aka Citrus Hills Health and Rehabilitation) to allow for an expansion of a skilled nursing facility. This request is made pursuant to Section 4300, Planned Unit Developments (PUD), as specified in the Land Development Code. LOCATION: Section 24, Township 18 South, Range 18 East; more specifically Lot B, Block 21110, of LR (OR Book 1112, Page 1347), Rovan Farms Unrecorded Subdivision, which address is known as 124 W. Norvell Bryant Hwy., Hernando, FL. A complete legal description is on file with the Land Development Division. STAFF CONTACT: Laura Marley, Principal Planner, Land Development Division; Joe Hochadel, Planner, Land Development Division 10

11 INTRODUCTION: Ms. Wright s overview included an aerial view of the subject property, photos of the subject property and the surrounding area, and the proposed site plan. The applicant is requesting to amend the current PUD for an expansion to the existing skilled nursing facility. APPLICANT: David Glenn gave a verbal presentation, and said the proposal is to add 24 beds to an existing skilled nursing facility with 120 beds. The project will relocate some of the existing parking and construct additional parking spaces. The architectural style of the existing facility will be continued on the addition. Ms. Coutu asked about the noise and request for a fence noted in the public input from a neighbor. Mr. Glenn said the owner did not get a chance to talk with the residents living south of the subject property regarding those issues. Ms. Coutu asked if there were outdoor loud speakers as noted in that letter. Mr. Glenn said there is a public announcement (PA) system in the courtyard areas. Matthew Peterson spoke and said there may be one external speaker located underneath a covered patio area. He thought an individual would need to be within 15 feet to hear announcements. Mr. Brooks asked for an overview of the site plan. Mr. Glenn explained the site plan. Mr. Bramblett referred to an Mr. Glenn sent to Mr. Hochadel on January 10, 2018, and asked about cross-access connections on the site plan. Mr. Glenn indicated that the bump out on the west side was for temporary parking while a parking lot is being demolished. The cross-access to the east was the only one discussed in the preapplication meeting and it is depicted on the site plan. Mr. Bramblett asked whether there was opposition to constructing a cross-access on the west side. Mr. Glenn said they would prefer not to construct the cross-access on the west as it could pose a safety concern for staff and residents, but is not totally against it. Mr. Garvin asked about the adequacy of only nine handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Glenn said that most of the residents are picked-up or droppedoff at the entranceways rather than parking and then walking to the facility. Mr. Grant asked what WCCRE stands for. Robert Yandek, Vice President of Development for Greystone Health Care Management, said WCCRE is the property owner, but he was not sure what the letters stood for. Greystone Health is the operator of the facility and has been under an operating lease with the property owners since Greystone Health was granted a Certificate of Need by a State agency in 2016 to expand this facility by adding 39 beds. He noted that this proposal is only for 24 additional beds. 11

12 Mr. Grant asked about the type of buffer being proposed along the residential parcels. Mr. Glenn said there is an existing landscape buffer on the south side and it will be extended across the south property line. He thought it was a 75 percent opaque landscape buffer. Mr. Grant asked about a fence. Mr. Glenn said a fence was not being proposed. If it is found that the noise is excessive, then a fence may be warranted. Ms. Coutu said this application is proposed as a skilled nursing facility, which is not synonymous with an assisted living facility. She asked the applicant to clarify the difference between the two types of facilities. Mr. Glenn said the patients in a skilled nursing facility will have 24-hour nursing care. It is different than an assisted living facility where residents can come and go as they please. Ms. Coutu said it was explained to her that a skilled nursing facility is for traumatic care and rehabilitation for getting patients back to their normal lifestyle. Assisted living would be more of a long term living arrangement. Mr. Glenn added that there are physical therapy areas within the facility. Mr. Yandek explained that the concept for this additional wing is for short-term rehabilitation and then the patient would return to their home. It is considered a post-acute or sub-acute facility to follow a patient s hospital stay. The facility as a whole does have a combination of short-term rehabilitation and long-term care. Ms. Coutu said she wanted it to be clarified that the skilled nursing facility patients are not coming and going as residents. These patients are there for intense nursing care. Mr. Yandek agreed and added that the typical short-term rehab stay is between days. STAFF: Mr. Hochadel s presentation included an aerial view and photos of the subject property, the approved site plan for PDO-99-02, the approved site plan for Permit , and the proposed amended site plan. This is a request to amend an existing planned unit development for the expansion of a skilled nursing facility. PDO was approved for a 120 bed nursing facility and a 40 bed assisted living facility. However, when they did the permitting, they only permitted the 120 bed skilled nursing facility. The applicant is now proposing a 24 bed expansion. Mr. Hochadel reviewed the photos and site plans. He said the applicant is requesting the following three deviations from LDC requirements: 1.) Proposing a 15-foot bufferyard along CR-486 to match the existing parking and buffer. The LDC requires a 25-foot Type C buffer. It was noted that the widening of CR-486 reduced the property s frontage by 10 feet. 2.) Proposing three loading zones, whereas five are prescribed in the LDC. 3.) Proposing to eliminate the west crossaccess connection. Mr. Hochadel explained that the properties to the west were zoned as residential in 1999 and then changed to commercial around 2006/2007. The LDC requires cross-access to adjacent commercial properties even if they are currently vacant. The applicant will be required to meet all applicable Large Non-Residential Standards at time of permitting. The proposed development meets the LDC standards for nursing facilities. The requested expansion is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and 12

13 meets concurrency standards for sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, drainage, and public schools. The Findings of Fact were all found to be positive. The revised conditions for this request are listed in the staff report. Mr. Brooks asked if the three proposed loading zones would include people. Mr. Hochadel said it would basically be commercial loading zones and he pointed out the locations of the three loading zones on the site plan. The proposed loading zones would not include patient drop-off areas. Mr. Brooks asked if the applicant could wait to construct the cross-access since there is currently no commercial development adjacent to the subject property. Ms. Lyn said that everyone has to construct the cross-access connection at time of development. Ms. Coutu referred to the aerial view of the property and called attention to the platted road that the cross-access as proposed would be connected to as well as the turn lane in the median across from the platted road. Ms. Lyn added that there was a lengthy and extensive discussion about cross-access at the Board of County Commissioners level. It was determined there was no appropriate mechanism to provide for and to enforce the construction of cross access at a later date instead of at time of permitting. Furthermore, the County s bonding promises made in order to accept certain State monies required the construction of cross-access connections. Ms. Phillips asked for clarification regarding the cross-access on the west side. Ms. Coutu said the applicant could connect anywhere along their property line, but they have proposed to connect to the platted road area. Mr. Brooks asked about the cross-access to the east since he did not see it on the aerial view. Mr. Hochadel said cross-access to the east is proposed on the site plan. Ms. Coutu said it was part of the previous application s conditions. PROPONENT: None OPPONENT: Ms. Kelly directed the PDC members attention to her lot on the aerial photo. It is adjacent to the southeast portion of the subject property and has a lower elevation than the subject property. She expressed concerns about noise, buffer zones, and possible water issues and sinkholes when the applicant starts moving the dirt. She said she has stopped at the facility several times to request the volume of the speakers be turned down. She suggested a larger buffer zone and trees planted between the subject property and her property. Brad Ruben pointed out his property, which is located adjacent to the southwest portion of the subject property. He said he was not opposed to the institution, but took issue with the noise from the PA system and the generator. Mr. Ruben submitted a picture of a large oak tree which is located 13

14 along the property line of the subject property and his property. He said that the northwest portion of the subject property sits approximately 15 feet below CR-486 and his property is approximately 20 feet below the adjacent property to the west. Therefore his property is sometimes inundated with water. He expressed concern that any overflow from the proposed DRA would spill over onto his property. REBUTTAL: Mr. Glenn said the existing landscape buffer on the south side will not be reduced. It is proposed to be extended along the entire south property line. Regarding the oak tree, Troy Burrell (Burrell Engineering) spoke and indicated they were not yet to the point of determining premium specimen trees. If the oak tree falls within the buffer, then they will try to save it. Mr. Burrell said there is no proposed construction in the area north of Ms. Kelly s property. He added that the 25-foot buffer would be extended to the west property line and the DRA is being designed to hold 100 percent of the 100- year 24-hour storm event. Mr. Glenn noted that the requested reduction in landscape requirements was only along CR-486 due to the road widening. Concerning the height of the road, they had no control over that. They will do whatever is required in order to connect to it. Mr. Burrell explained that the reason the road was raised was because of a gravity sewer line easement. Mr. Glenn said they would look into modifying outdoor loud speakers. Mr. Peterson, the onsite operator, said they want to be a good neighbor and would address the issue if the PA system is too loud. The generator is required to be run weekly per Federal requirements. Mr. Grant asked if Mr. Peterson had spoken to Ms. Kelly about the noise issue. Mr. Peterson said he had not spoken to her. Mr. Grant said that part of being a good neighbor would be to respond to the neighbor, and Mr. Peterson agreed. Mr. Grant referred to the photo of the existing DRA and asked about the existing buffer. Mr. Burrell said the buffer starts at the top of the south side of the DRA and goes back 25 feet. Mr. Grant asked about the oak tree as seen in the aerial view of the subject and the photo submitted by Dr. Ruben. Mr. Burrell said a tree preservation study had not been done yet. Mr. Grant asked how often SWFWMD checks DRAs on commercial property. Ms. Lyn thought the DRA just needed to be certified, but was not sure how often. Mr. Burrell explained the process and said there are periodic inspections anywhere from two to five years. Mr. Grant asked about the bare land on the west side of the subject property. Mr. Burrell said that during the original construction there was some cut and fill done in that area. Mr. Grant asked about updating or increasing the load capacity of the generator. Mr. Yandek said that due to the Governor s new mandate, an additional generator will be added for the expansion. Mr. Peterson added that the size of the 14

15 current generator meets the current emergency rule. When the facility lost power during Hurricane Irma, it was under generator power. Mr. Grant suggested that they consider a quieter generator when they purchase a new generator. He asked about what time of day the generator is usually turned on. Mr. Peterson said it is usually run during the daytime hours. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Burrell about the 15 feet elevation difference that Dr. Ruben mentioned. Mr. Burrell said that he didn t think that it was that drastic, but he would need to look at a contour map to determine the actual drop in elevation. There is a grade difference due to a gravity sewer line, but it does get closer to grade as it progresses further away from Heritage. This is all taken into consideration as part of the site design process. Part of the grading design is to get back to grade at the property line. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Grant indicated he was going to vote in favor of this request, relying on the good faith representation that the neighbors concerns will be addressed. Mr. Brooks asked about suggested conditions. Ms. Coutu noted that Mr. Hochadel had amended the existing (previous application) conditions for this application. Mr. Brooks asked that the conditions be read and Mr. Hochadel read the following suggested conditions: 1. The Master Plan of Development is hereby amended to allow a 24-bed nursing facility addition as outlined on the Master Plan date-stamped received on December 8, The Land Development Division, prior to release of Development Order(s), must approve the final site plan for the project. The final site plan must demonstrate compliance with applicable development standards including the following: a. Development of the skilled nursing facility must demonstrate compliance with Section 3170, Nursing Homes and Assisted Care Facilities, of the LDC. b. The project shall be limited to one free-standing sign for each use, for a total of two signs each being six feet, four inches high by 10 feet wide (63 square feet of face area). Each sign shall not obstruct clear visibility triangles as defined in the LDC. c. The project shall be limited to two connections from West Norvell Bryant Highway (CR-486). To be consistent with Access Management Plans for West Norvell Bryant Highway, the easternmost connection shall be unrestricted and located across from North Leesburg Avenue. The westernmost connection shall be restricted (right-in/right-out only) and shall be separated from the easternmost connection by a minimum distance of 352 feet. 15

16 d. All site lighting shall meet the requirements of the LDC, and be positioned and shielded so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or rights-of-way. e. Landscaping, design and maintenance shall follow the principles of Florida Friendly Landscaping and the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN) Homeowner Program to reduce water use and fertilizer runoff. f. The project shall provide a 25-foot wide buffer and 75 percent visibility screen from residentially committed areas to the south, pursuant to Section 3170, Nursing homes and Assisted Care Facilities, of the LDC. g. The project shall not exceed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 and an Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) of h. A cross-access connection shall be provided to the properties located east and west of the project. i. At the time of permitting, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with applicable development standards per LDC Section 3740, Additional Design Standards for Large Non-Residential Projects, for façade, pedestrian circulation, parking, and lighting. j. Where standards are not specified herein, the Citrus County Land Development Code standards (or current code standards) will apply. 3. The project shall be served by central water and sewer. 4. Prior to submittal for the Development Order, the revised Master Plan shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Growth Management in accordance with the provisions granted herein. 5. A site plan must be submitted to the Land Development Division at the time of permitting indicating compliance with these conditions. 6. Minor modifications to this Master Plan of Development may be approved by the Director of the Land Development Division as outlined within Section 4304 of the LDC. Mr. Brooks said the conditions were fine, but questioned the buffer along the roadway. Ms. Coutu said that the Master Plan in Condition One shows a reduced buffer along CR-486. Mr. Brooks asked what the LDC requires along that roadway. Mr. Hochadel said it would typically be a 25-foot Type C buffer. The applicant has requested a reduction to a 15-foot Type C buffer. Mr. Garvin asked if the LDC requires a silt fence when earthwork is being done. Ms. Coutu said that the work cannot impact other properties. Mr. Grant asked what happens if other properties are impacted. Ms. Coutu said that County Engineering staff usually go out to the site and talk with them, and Mr. Burrell said that was correct. It is part of the Water Management District and County Engineering requirements, which include silt screens and provisions that there is no impact to adjacent properties. 16

17 Mr. Grant conveyed to Dr. Ruben and Ms. Kelly that this application will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners and encouraged them to attend that meeting. MOTION: 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd Ms. Phillips MOTION: The Planning and Development Commission finds application number PUD CONSISTENT with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and Citrus County Land Development Code and that this Board recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of the application to the Board of County Commissioners based upon the evidence and testimony presented, and the staff report and conclusions regarding this petition. CONDITIONS: 1. The Master Plan of Development is hereby amended to allow a 24-bed nursing facility addition as outlined on the Master Plan date-stamped received on December 8, The Land Development Division, prior to release of Development Order(s), must approve the final site plan for the project. The final site plan must demonstrate compliance with applicable development standards including the following: a. Development of the skilled nursing facility must demonstrate compliance with Section 3170, Nursing Homes and Assisted Care Facilities, of the LDC. b. The project shall be limited to one free-standing sign for each use, for a total of two signs each being six feet, four inches high by 10 feet wide (63 square feet of face area). Each sign shall not obstruct clear visibility triangles as defined in the LDC. c. The project shall be limited to two connections from West Norvell Bryant Highway (CR-486). To be consistent with Access Management Plans for West Norvell Bryant Highway, the easternmost connection shall be unrestricted and located across from North Leesburg Avenue. The westernmost connection shall be restricted (right-in/right-out only) and shall be separated from the easternmost connection by a minimum distance of 352 feet. d. All site lighting shall meet the requirements of the LDC, and be positioned and shielded so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or rights-of-way. 17

18 e. Landscaping, design and maintenance shall follow the principles of Florida Friendly Landscaping and the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN) Homeowner Program to reduce water use and fertilizer runoff. f. The project shall provide a 25-foot wide buffer and 75 percent visibility screen from residentially committed areas to the south, pursuant to Section 3170, Nursing homes and Assisted Care Facilities, of the LDC. g. The project shall not exceed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 and an Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) of h. A cross-access connection shall be provided to the properties located east and west of the project. i. At the time of permitting, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with applicable development standards per LDC Section 3740, Additional Design Standards for Large Non-Residential Projects, for façade, pedestrian circulation, parking, and lighting. j. Where standards are not specified herein, the Citrus County Land Development Code standards (or current code standards) will apply. 3. The project shall be served by central water and sewer. 4. Prior to submittal for the Development Order, the revised Master Plan shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Growth Management in accordance with the provisions granted herein. 5. A site plan must be submitted to the Land Development Division at the time of permitting indicating compliance with these conditions. 6. Minor modifications to this Master Plan of Development may be approved by the Director of the Land Development Division as outlined within Section 4304 of the LDC. VOTE: 5-0, Motion Carried BREAK: 10:56-11:05 b. PUD Maser Consulting and Twistee Treat USA, LLC for Homosassa Retail I, LLC REQUEST: A request to modify the Land Development Code Atlas and the Master Plan (Planned Unit Development-PUD) of Homosassa Regional (aka Homosassa Square) to allow for a fast food restaurant with drive-up facilities. This request is made pursuant to Section 4300, Planned Unit Developments (PUD) of the Citrus County Land Development Code. LOCATION: Section 22, Township 19, Range 17; more specifically a portion of Parcel ; which address is known as 3802, 3810, 3818, 3826 S. Suncoast Blvd., Homosassa, FL. A complete legal description is on file with the Land Development Division. 18

19 STAFF CONTACT: Joe Hochadel, Planner, Land Development Division; Robbin Johnson, Planner, Land Development Division INTRODUCTION: Ms. Wright s overview included aerial views of the subject property, photos of the subject property and the surrounding area, and the proposed site plan. The applicant is requesting to amend a PUD to place a fast food restaurant with drive-up facilities. APPLICANT: Ty Maxey made a verbal presentation, and noted that Marcia Ferreira was present to represent Twistee Treat USA. This property is located at the corner of an existing commercial PUD. The applicant is proposing to lease this area and construct a Twistee Treat fast food restaurant with drivethrough. The building is approximately 580 square feet and the patio seating area is approximately 600 square feet. The applicant is requesting some deviations from LDC requirements due to the project trying to retrofit into an existing parking lot: 1.) Allow the ISR to be increased to 73 percent. The maximum allowable is 70 percent, but the current ISR is 76 percent, so there will be more green space on the site than there is today. 2.) Allow a reduction in required foundation landscaping on the south side between the building and the drive-through lane. There is approximately 1.3 feet between the building and the drive through at the drive-through window. He noted that additional landscaping will be installed on the south side of the drive through. 3.) Allow a 14-foot Type C buffer along US-19. The LDC requires a 25-foot buffer, but there is no buffer there today. 4.) Allow the parking lot along the north property boundary to continue uninterrupted by the required five-foot sod buffer. To mitigate this deviation request, the applicant is proposing to improve the landscape buffer to the west. 5.) Allow the use of the drivethrough area for the loading area. The LDC requires a striped loading area for deliveries. Since this activity takes place around 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. before the business opens, there would be no conflict with the uses of the drivethrough area. 6.) Allow the five parking spaces along the north property boundary to remain at nine feet wide. The LDC requires parking spaces to be a minimum width of 10 feet. Mr. Maxey said the applicant is compliant with all other requirements of the LDC and agrees to staff s proposed conditions. Mr. Brooks asked whether the new parking spaces would meet the 10-foot width requirement. Mr. Maxey said yes. It is only the five parking spaces along the northern boundary that would remain nine feet wide. STAFF: Ms. Johnson s presentation included aerial views of the subject property, photos of the subject property, the Master Plan for the Homosassa Regional Center, and a Master Plan for the proposed restaurant use. The property is part of a PUD which established the Homosassa Regional Commercial Retail Center, formerly known as Homosassa Square. The 19

20 applicant is proposing to amend the Master Plan to allow for a fast food restaurant with drive up facilities (i.e. a Twistee Treat restaurant). The subject area is currently used as part of a larger parking area for the center. The applicant has provided parking calculations for the overall shopping center and for the fast food restaurant to demonstrate compliance with LDC standards for parking. The project will be subject to Standards for Large Nonresidential Projects and Standards for Drive-up Facilities. The deviations requested include the bufferyard along US-19, the five-foot sodded strip to the north, the foundation landscaping for the south side, the loading zone striping, and the ISR, as the applicant explained earlier. Ms. Johnson added that foundation landscaping is generally required between the building s sidewalk and the first vertical wall of the building. In this situation, that would encroach in the proposed customer walk-up area. This is the reason for the applicant s proposal for a five-foot wide landscaped area to the east between the patio area and the drive aisle instead. The conditions for Z allowed for a reduction in length for some of the parking spaces, but not a reduction in width. So this request does not appear to meet the Master Plan or the conditions of approval for Z The application has met concurrency requirements for sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, drainage, and public schools. Suggested Conditions of approval were included in the staff report. Mr. Grant asked that the suggested conditions be read. Ms. Johnson read the suggested conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. PROPONENT: None OPPONENT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: MOTION: 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd Mr. Brooks MOTION: The Planning and Development Commission finds application number PUD CONSISTENT with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and Citrus County Land Development Code and that this Board recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of the application to the Board of County Commissioners based upon the evidence and testimony presented, and the staff report and conclusions regarding this petition. 20

21 CONDITIONS: Planning and Development Commission 1. The Master Plan of Development is hereby amended as outlined on the Master Plan date-stamped received on December 13, A total of 577 parking spaces are required for the commercial/retail plaza in its entirety as demonstrated in the parking analysis. 3. The developer shall have 23 parking spaces as shown on the submitted Master Plan for the fast food restaurant with drive-up facilities. 4. The width of the existing parking spaces shown on the Master Plan for the fast food restaurant with drive-up facilities may be reduced by one (1) foot [from 10x20 to 9x20]. 5. The proposed development must be serviced by central water and central sewer. 6. Landscaping, design and maintenance shall follow the principles of Florida Friendly Landscaping and the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN) Homeowner Program to reduce water use and fertilizer runoff. 7. All site lighting shall meet the requirements of the LDC, and be positioned and shielded so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or rights-of-way. 8. At the time of permitting, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with applicable development standards per LDC Section 3740, Additional Design Standards For Large Non-Residential Projects, for façade, pedestrian circulation, parking, and lighting. 9. The developer shall provide dumpster sites, with a dumpster enclosure meeting standards as specified in LDC Sec C.10. These sites are to be on paved pads that collect fluids from the dumpsters. 10. The developer shall have ingress and egress onto the parcel from the internal access drive to the development. 11. The developer shall have no additional curb cuts on U.S The developer shall comply with all applicable conditions approved in the previous zone changes #Z-85-30, #Z-88-18, and Z-88-36, unless otherwise authorized in these conditions of approval. 13. Where standards are not specified herein, the Citrus County Land Development Code standards (or current code standards) will apply. 14. A site plan must be submitted to the Land Development Division at the time of permitting indicating compliance with these conditions. 15. Minor modifications to this Master Plan of Development may be approved by the Director of the Land Development Division as outlined within Section 4304 of the LDC. VOTE: 5-0, Motion Carried K. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Ms. Coutu gave a brief overview of upcoming PDC meetings and noted there will not be a PDC meeting on March 1, There will be a LDC Workshop on February 27, 2018 with the BCC. Items on the Workshop s agenda include signage, fireworks sales, and visual corridors to the county. 21