PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (PDC) SUMMARY MINUTES August 16, 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 Staff Present: Joanna Coutu, Director, Land Development Division (LDD); Robbin Johnson, Planner, (LDD); Amy Pace, Sr. 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 TO READ THE APPEAL PROCESS AND MEETING PROCEDURES F. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC None G. APPROVE MINUTES None H. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS: None I. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: 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. Mr. Bramblett, Mr. Garvin, and Mr. Grant had site visits.

2 J. APPLICATIONS Planning and Development Commission 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION a. PUD Furman & Hilpert Engineering for Robert Swanson REQUEST: A request to modify the Land Development Code Atlas by redesignating the Land Development Code (LDC) Atlas designation from Low Density Residential District to Low Density Residential District with a Planned Unit Development, by establishing a Master Plan for a single-family residential subdivision, made pursuant to Section 4300, Planned Unit Developments (PUD), and Section 2405, Low Density Residential District (LDR), of the Citrus County Land Development Code. LOCATION: Section 15, Township 19, Range 17; more specifically, Lots 41-49, Block 4C000 Kings Harbor Homesites Unrecorded Subdivision; which addresses are known as 2252, 2270, 2275, 2286, 2287, 2303, 2304, 2315, and 2316 S. Andes Point, Homosassa, FL. A complete legal is on file with the Land Development Division. STAFF CONTACT: Robbin Johnson, Planner; Land Development Division INTRODUCTION: Ms. Pace s overview included an aerial view of the subject property, photos of the subject property and the surrounding area, and a site plan. The applicant is requesting a PUD to place a single-family residential subdivision. APPLICANT: Paul Furman gave a verbal presentation and said this is a single-family development for three units. It is not a high density multiple-family development. This is a PUD application because some deviations from the LDC are being requested. The depth of the lots along S. Andes Pt. is significantly less than lots on nearby streets. Several residences in this neighborhood have been placed on multiple lots. He said it is not practical to build nine new homes on these lots, and the road was never constructed. Reducing the nine lots to three lots will provide more area available for open space and a designed stormwater management system. Pilings will be used instead of fill, which will allow vehicle parking underneath the residence and provide protection from a hurricane storm surge. All three lots will be connected to central water and sewer. A property owners association will maintain the common areas, including the private road and drainage facilities. Mr. Furman said this will be the first residential development in this area to have a designed stormwater management system, and it will be an upscale development. There are no objections to the conditions suggested by staff. 2

3 Ms. Coutu asked about staff s concern regarding the impact to the 15-foot buffer area with some of the grading for the drainage retention area (DRA). Mr. Furman said the they would like to do some geotechnical investigation to see how rocky it is, and if possible, they would maintain a greater separation from the canal. Ms. Coutu asked about including a condition that the applicant would avoid grading and impacts to the buffer area as much as possible, pending the geotechnical analysis. Mr. Furman agreed to that condition. Mr. Grant noted that the application indicated four home sites as indicated on the application sheet. Mr. Furman said it has been reduced to three home sites. Mr. Grant asked about the ownership of the eleven lots. Mr. Furman said that the owner of the two lots that Mr. Swanson does not own is supportive of this development. Mr. Brooks asked whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) or the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) will be involved in the permitting. Mr. Furman thought SWFWMD would be the agency involved. Mr. Bramblett asked how the stormwater management system for the development will be different from any other systems in the area. Mr. Furman said the residences in the area do not have designed drainage systems unless they have been constructed since Mr. Bramblett commented on the additional number of homes that could be built. Mr. Furman noted that in order to complete the road, he thought that the County would expect stormwater management for the road construction. This would reduce the number of lots available to build homes. Ms. Phillips asked about central water and sewer. Mr. Furman said there would be a connection to a force main that runs along the south side of Kingston Drive. Mr. Garvin asked if there had been any perc tests to see if the DRA would drain. Mr. Furman said that during the design phase of this project, there will be geotechnical investigation to determine what soils are there, the depth to the original muck layer, and what the seasonal high water table elevation is. It is likely that the stormwater management system will be a wet detention system as opposed to a normally dry system. Mr. Bramblett confirmed there will be three single-family residences, and the common areas (i.e. the DRA and the road) for these homes will be taken care of by a property owners association. 3

4 Mr. Bramblett asked for clarification on the 15-foot vegetative buffer. Mr. Furman said all of the structures will have a 15-foot setback. Some of the outlines of the DRA may be closer than 15 feet. If the storage volume allows, a 15-foot buffer will be maintained. Vegetation along the slopes of the DRA may be counted as part of the vegetative buffer. STAFF: Ms. Johnson gave a verbal presentation (without the accompanying PowerPoint) due to technical difficulties. The applicant is proposing to establish a Master Plan to allow for a residential subdivision consisting of three single-family residences on individual platted lots. The properties are located in the Coastal High Hazard Area and two of the lots abut a spring-fed canal on the south. The applicant has requested some deviations from LDC standards including setbacks, roadway design, minimum acreage standards, duration of the PUD, and vegetative buffers: The individual lots are proposed with a front setback of 17 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, where the LDC minimum setback is 50 feet. The individual lots are proposed with a setback of 15 feet from the mean high water line and/or JD line on the west side, where the LDC minimum setback is 35 feet with a berm/swale. The individual lots are proposed with a setback of 25 feet from the mean high water line and/or JD line on the south side, where the LDC minimum setback is 100 feet for structures within the vicinity of spring runs. The right-of-way of S. Andes Point is proposed with a minimum centerline radius of 110 feet, where the LDC minimum is 160 feet. The right-of-way of S. Andes Point is proposed with a minimum pavement radius at the intersection of 25 feet, where the LDC minimum is 35 feet. (Note that Engineering has reviewed the proposed right-of-way deviations and had no objections.) The site contains 1.39 acres, where the LDC requires a residential PUD to contain a minimum of five acres. A 10-year time frame for construction has been requested, where the LDC states that a PUD will terminate within three years of the date of approval if either a site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat application is not filed with the County. Allow for intrusion of the DRA into the required minimum natural vegetative buffers to the water body, which is inconsistent with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. (Note that existing vegetation is currently present within the natural vegetative buffer areas.) The applicant has offered to add a condition to maximize this buffer area. The application has met concurrency requirements for sewer, water, solid waste, drainage, and public schools. Suggested conditions for approval are included in the staff report. 4

5 Ms. Phillips asked about other residences in the area. Ms. Johnson said that the depths of the lots create a hardship to meet waterfront and right-of-way setbacks. Some homes were built prior to current standards and others have requested variances. Mr. Garvin questioned the construction of the road being adjusted so that the 35-foot setback could be met. Ms. Coutu noted the size of the lots and the drainage system would make it difficult to meet LDC standards. She did not think that central sewer would be required if individual houses were developed on these lots. Mr. Bramblett commented that could mean individual septic tanks, and being connected to central sewer with this PUD would be less impactful on the environment. PROPONENT: David Lemonde said he has worked with an engineer to determine his options for the two lots he owns, which lie just outside of the PUD on S. Andes Pt., and he thought this development would be a benefit. Robert Swanson said he purchased the property with the intention to develop a high-scale development. He felt the plan could work for everyone s interests. Andrew Paliuca said he felt the development would be a good thing for the County and for the area. He also commented on the difficulties he had in 2008 building his house on S. Dana Pt., and that he had to put in a sewer line. He asked that the condition of the Halls River be taken into consideration with developmental impacts. There is a drainage ditch that collects the oils and pollution off of US-19 that flow into the canal. OPPONENT: Thomas Paliuca questioned how this request would affect setback variances for future building in the area. Joanne Bartell said she was not opposed to this development, and she did not think there was a threat of possibly having nine homes built on these lots. People combine lots in order to develop a nice property in this area. If the DRAs are going to be wet detention areas, she asked whether they would be included in the ISR calculation. She also commented that if the DRAs do not percolate, then they could fill up and spill into the river during a storm event. Another concern was whether fire trucks would be able to service the area since the road is narrow and the houses will be close to the road. 5

6 Dorothy Hahn asked whether the homes would be duplexes and was very concerned about the setbacks. Robert Svoboda said he was opposed to the 15-foot and 25-foot setbacks as this would set a precedent for the County. Virginia Svoboda expressed concern for the Halls River. She also read a letter from Richard Rowson, a neighbor, stating that this development would destroy what is important to him and this environmentally sensitive area. Roy Burtner said he was opposed to more development on this fragile waterway. Paul Jaeger felt that a 15-foot setback would negatively impact the root structure along the banks. REBUTTAL Paul Furman clarified that the sewer along Kingston is a sanitary force main. By Florida statute and Department of Health rules, the development along S. Andes Pt. would not be required to hook up to this force main. This development is proposing to have individual pump stations for each house, which will connect to a combined force main, which will connect to the County s force main. Regarding the turn-around for emergency vehicles, the proposed Y-type was reviewed and approved by Gannon Westmoreland, Fire Plans Examiner of the Building Division. Mr. Furman said the stormwater management retention areas will likely be designed as wet detention systems which will provide water quality and water quantity treatment. The design will be approved by the County and SWFWMD. Mr. Furman said the stairways on the site plan are not reflecting separate units or duplexes. They are single units and the land use will remain Low Density Residential District. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Ms. Phillips asked about the building envelopes for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ms. Johnson noted that the site plan is conceptual only and there may be modifications. Mr. Brooks asked about Water Management District permitting. Ms. Coutu said the Engineering Division will determine whether it will be County or SWFWMD. Mr. Brooks thought the SWFWMD would require scheduled maintenance and certified re-inspection. Ms. Lyn said the DRAs would be transferred to the property owners association and they would be responsible for perpetual maintenance. Mr. Brooks said that the maintenance and reinspection of the berm and swale for individual properties has not been adequately addressed. However, he believes that a DRA permitted by 6

7 SWFWMD requires engineering certification for maintenance and reinspection. Mr. Grant noted that there was concern that nine potential homes were being proposed, but there are only three single-family homes. Other concerns that were raised have been addressed by Mr. Furman. With the suggested conditions provided by staff, he would be voting in favor of this request. He felt this was the best opportunity to develop the land in a way that would be consistent with being able to care for the waterway. Regarding runoff into the Halls River from US-19, he is very concerned about that and plans to followup on that himself. MOTION: 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd Mr. Bramblett 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. Ms. Johnson read the suggested conditions, including the additional one offered by the applicant, at Mr. Grant s request. Mr. Garvin commented that the plan looks good, but he is concerned with the 15-foot setback. There are a number of vacant properties on S. Dana, S. Todd, S. Sahara, and across the canal on W. Harbor. If this application is approved, the developers of the properties on the other streets could use this as a precedent and ask for a 15-foot setback also. Therefore, he will not be voting in favor of this request. Mr. Grant noted that the lots on the other streets appear to be deeper than the ones on S. Andes Pt. Based on case law, his opinion is that the size of the lot and being able to comport need to be taken into consideration for granting a variance. Mr. Bramblett commented that he would not allow a PUD with a Master Plan and an engineered stormwater retention area impact his vote on a variance request for an individual lot with a berm and swale. He will be voting in favor of this request. 7

8 CONDITIONS: Planning and Development Commission 1. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall allow for three single-family residential units as outlined on the Master Plan date-stamped received May 29, 2018 by the Land Development Division. 2. The project must be served by central water and central sewer. 3. The Developer shall plat and construct the subdivision in accordance with the approved Master Plan date-stamped received May 29, 2018 by the Land Development Division. Platting shall take place in accordance with the criteria and requirements of the Citrus County Land Development Code, unless as specifically outlined within these conditions or the Final Development Plan. 4. Development standards (i.e., minimum lot size and minimum building setbacks) for the lots shall be as proposed on the approved Master Plan date-stamped received May 29, 2018 by the Land Development Division, unless otherwise specified herein. 5. The right-of-way of S. Andes Pt. must provide a minimum centerline radius of 110 feet and minimum pavement radius at intersection of 25 feet. 6. The applicant will provide, at the time of platting, a notation on the plat(s) and indicating that the private right-of-way, drainage retention areas, and wastewater collection and transmission systems are to be maintained privately. 7. Construction must be commenced within ten years after the effective date of approval of this Master Plan of Development. Upon written request submitted prior to the first anniversary date, the Director of the Land Development Division may grant one extension not to exceed 365 days. 8. A survey demonstrating the mean high water line and verified jurisdictional wetlands line for all wetlands on site must be submitted to the Land Development Division at time of permitting. 9. As proffered by the applicant, the development will avoid grading impact to the required minimum waterfront/wetland buffer areas to the maximum extent possible. 10. 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: 4-1, Motion Carried 8

9 For: Mr. Bramblett, Ms. Phillips, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Grant Against: Mr. Garvin K. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Mr. Dixon said concerns regarding the stormwater from US-19 should be given to District Seven of the Florida Department of Transportation since that is a state roadway. Mr. Bramblett said he would also be voicing his concerns as he would like to see the Citrus County rivers be brought back to health. Ms. Coutu noted that this was not the final hearing for PUD Mr. Grant added that today s vote was only a recommendation to the BCC and people could attend the BCC hearing. Ms. Coutu explained that one of the amendments regarding the Coastal High Hazard Area will be coming back to the PDC. The BCC voted to send the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the State of Florida s Department of Economic Opportunity. During the discussion regarding the Ordinance Amendment, a citizen introduced an alternative to calculating impervious surface. So this amendment will be brought back to the PDC in October with a revision to impervious surface requirements. She also gave an overview of applications for upcoming meetings. L. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Bramblett brought up a couple questions he had about the application from the previous meeting since he was absent. Regarding the finding that stated, If temporary boat storage is proposed, such storage shall be limited to no more than one boat and must be delineated on the proposed site plan., he was concerned that the language might allow the person to have a boat in the boat slip and also have a boat in storage. Ms. Coutu thought the conditional use process could address that on a case-by-case basis. M. ADJOURN The Planning and Development Commission adjourned at 10:18 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Charlene Wolf, Recording Secretary 9