This document may be reproduced upon request in an alternative format by contacting the Martin County ADA Coordinator at (772) 320-3131, the County Administration Office (772) 288-5400, Florida Relay 711, or by completing our accessibility feedback form at www.martin.fl.us/accessibility-feedback. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING Martin County Commission Chambers 2401 S.E. Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 MEETING MINUTES- February 21, 2019 Present: Chairman Jim Moir Vice Chairman. Scott Watson Agency Members William J. Flanagan. Don Foley, III. Cindy Hall School Board Liaison.. Kimberly Everman Staff Present: Growth Management Department: Director Nicki van Vonno Acting County Attorney........ Krista Storey Deputy Director, Development Review Division. Paul Schilling Senior Planner.. Irene Szedlmayer Agency Recorder.. Mary Holleran 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm by Jim Moir, Chairman. A quorum was noted. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Consent Agenda/Minutes of February 7, 2019 * MOTION MOVED by Ms. Hall to approve the Consent Agenda and Minutes of the LPA meeting of February 7, 2019 **SECONDED by Mr. Foley CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearings 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 19-1, Charmer Properties Request to consider a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) change from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial on 1.3 acres, located at the NW corner of SE Commerce Avenue and SE Salerno Road in Port Salerno. Requested by: Michael Houston, HJA Design Studio President Presented by: Irene A. Szedlmayer, Sr. Planner, Growth Management Department Staff requests this item to be continued to the March 7, 2019 LPA Meeting
2. Charmer Properties (Quasi-Judicial) Application for rezoning from R-3A, (Liberal Multiple Family District to GC (General Commercial District) or the most appropriate zoning district regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment 19-1, Charmer Properties. Requested by: Michael Houston, HJA Design Studio President Presented by: Irene A. Szedlmayer, Sr. Planner, Growth Management Department Staff requests this item to be continued to the March 7, 2019 LPA Meeting * MOTION MOVED by Ms. Hall to approve the request to continue the application(s) for CPA 19-1, request to consider a Future Land Use Map change from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial and Charmer Properties application for rezoning from RA-3A (Liberal Multiple Family District) to GC (General Commercial), to the LPA meeting of March 7, 2019. **SECONDED by Mr. Flanagan CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY B. Requests and Presentations *** Ms. Szedlmayer indicated Charmer Properties documents had been turned in for the record. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Public Hearings None B. Requests and Presentations 1. Presentation Regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment 18-10, CRA Text Amendment Requested by: Nicki van Vonno, AICP, Growth Management Dept. Director Presented by: Irene A. Szedlmayer, Sr. Planner, Growth Management Dept. Ms. Szedlmayer indicated this was the second presentation of CPA 18-10, CRA Text Amendments for review and input, that will include seven items, three were introduced at the January 17, 2019 LPA Meeting (1) Design of the Mixed-Use Future Land Use Overlay; (2) Density transition; and (3) No net loss of Mobile Home lands. Tonight s topics for review include: (4) Upland Preservation Requirements; (5) Open space in the CRAs; (6) Shoreline protection zones; and (7) Gross land area of platted lots of record in a CRA. The purpose of tonight s presentation was to elicit comments, input and feedback from the LPA regarding issues on policy options under consideration to strengthen the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the CGMP that encourage in-fill development and redevelopment in the Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs). Ms. Szedlmayer provided a PowerPoint presentation. Upland Preservation CGMP Policy 2.2B.1., regarding 25% of all native upland habitat to be preserved was reviewed. CGMP Policy 9.1G.9 off-site preservation may substitute for on-site preservation when certain factors are met. The difference in new language used in the updated slides that were shown, was compared to the old language. (Slides pg. 7). Discussion ensued on off-site and on-site preservation and considering an alternative for off-site preservation to be utilized. 2
Mr. Moir: asked if it would be beneficial to connect wildlife habitat to other sites as a criteria, becoming part of a sustainable preserve system, and, if not, why not? Off-site transfer preservation with conservation might be an alternative. If upland habitat exists in the CRA it is special and unique, and he was concerned and reluctant to give it up. Ms. Szedlmayer discussed an undeveloped area in Rio with some areas of endangered upland scrub, and Rio s policy as proposed. Large undeveloped parcels in Hobe Sound that are not in the overlay would get little or no relief to transfer the preserve off-site, was discussed. Mr. Watson: Was not a fan of taking property for upland preserve, stating it should be a voluntary system, he appreciated the mitigation policy, but opposed seizing or forcing to take property outright for preserve and believed property should be preserved as AG (Agricultural) vs. forceful preserve. Ms. Szedlmayer reviewed Open Space and said it was the same County-wide. However in the CRAs (pg. 8,) CGMP Policy 4.3A.9., requires 20% open space in MU projects in a MU overlay; and CGMP 4.13A.7.; allows that impervious community gathering spaces can count as open space in a MU project and CGMP 4.3A.10. allows open space to be transferred off-site if certain factors are met. The conditions governing off-site transfers were reviewed (pg. 9). Mr. Moir: Was worried with #4, pg. 9, existing conservation area must have been purchased specifically to provide on-site open space mitigation and with the concept of equating open space with upland preserve. Ms. van Vonno clarified there were several definitions for Open Space, it is also defined in the LDRs., and the definition for Open Space is different in the CRAs than in the County, because you can count plazas as open space. Ms. Szedlmayer explained how and where MU overlays can occur and reviewed Policy Options #1 and #2, (pg.9). Reviewing conditions governing off-site transfers and providing more flexibility, it may be appropriate to: not limit it only to MU projects in MU overlays, transfer sites expressly identified in the CRA Redevelopment Plans, and off-site parcels must be in public ownership at time of Final Site Plan approval. Mr. Flanagan asked what the definition of small projects was, (Policy Options #1, pg. 9) and Ms. Szedlmayer indicated that the size would be clearly defined. Mr. Moir was concerned with Conditions Governing off-site Transfer, #4, (pg.9) and said the existing conservation area must have been purchased specifically to provide on-site open space mitigation, and that it is confined to a MU overlay. Mr. Moir s concern: Was taking away open space protection from the neighborhood which provides enjoyment for nature, trees, and a habitable environment of the CRAs that we are saving, and loosing that control will more likely bring in development in a large scale, and that would be a mistake. Ms. Szedlmayer addressed Mr. Moir s concern and said they were looking to make it easier for small project development. 3
Mr. Moir: Continued the discussion and was concerned with all the rain our area gets, and that we need the ability to move water and to absorb water which is necessary to the storm water treatment areas, whether they are 100% concrete or not. Rather than working on small lot development what we are doing is conglomerating many lots to make way for large development projects. Ms. Szedlmayer asked what in it was in this policy that made him think that s what we are encouraging. Mr. Moir commented that the existing conservation area must have been purchased specifically for that allocation for open space and that generally means some larger plan, and we are changing from current policy. Mr. Watson: Questioned Open Space mitigation banks. Ms. Szedlmayer provided information on open spaces in the CRA and said they will continue working on that. Mr. Moir commented that it works better for commercial development rather than MU development and there has got to be some of that in each of the overlays and it s not necessarily promoting as much MU residential as commercial, as much as full lot development within those overlays and lowering incentive for the residential component of the CRA. Ms. Szedlmayer reviewed the Shoreline Protection Zone (SPZ) with the many exceptions and caveats listed on pg. 11. Mr. Watson: Addressed the setback change from 25 ft. to 75 ft. with no back-up data or criteria for that change. If you already own existing commercial waterfront property you can build in the exact same footprint, but who s to say that is the best use or design for the property. Most marinas are already built closer to the water, and The Twisted Tuna in Port Salerno is an example that exists closer to the water. Most of today s marine boat storage facilities were built to handle 25 ft. long boats and today s boats are 30 ft. long. Those marinas will have to re-design boat storage facilities to accommodate and meet the market demand. We will have backed ourselves into a corner if we can never change an existing marina in Martin County, because you can t change the footprint. Mr. Watson: Did not agree with the 75 ft. setback and asked how it would work. If you go back to the 25 ft. it would give latitude to marina owners to improve or renovate existing property. He did not support the 75 ft., setback or only building in the exact footprint. Mr. Flanagan: Asked about a marina that would be grandfathered in and if a new property owner would have the same consideration. Ms. Szedlmayer reviewed policy options listed on pg. 12, #1, #2, and #3 that might refer to some of the LPA concerns. Other policy options #4, 5, & 6 were reviewed and examples of how reductions to the shoreline might occur including vertical redevelopment of paved areas. Mr. Moir: Asked about the County s rationale for shoreline protection, is it protection from erosion, is it environmental, is it resiliency from seawall shore lines, because it matters if it is a vertical or horizontal bulkhead and why the idea of a bulkhead and shoreline is up to the edge. Further discussion continued on the difficulty of redevelopment in the shoreline protection zone as presented. Comments from the LPA included allowing re-configuration of paved areas and not increasing them, and needing storage area improvements, other than paved areas. 4
Ms. Szedlmayer indicated all comments and feedback were appreciated. Mr. Flanagan commented the presentation was good and the comments and feedback from the LPA were discussion and suggestions in order to move this forward. Ms. Szedlmayer reviewed the Gross Land Area and Platted Lots (CGMP Policy 4.1E.4). The term is fundamental to the determination of the number of dwelling units that can be constructed in the area (pgs. 13, 14, 15). A review of lands that include the ROW on previously undeveloped sites and lands excluding the ROW on in-fill and platted land on redevelopment sites, that staff noted was prejudicial (an example was displayed of three plotted lots of record in Port Salerno). The difference in calculating land size with and without including the ROW, and increasing and decreasing units per acre density was explained. Staff s recommended policy option to be considered was to amend CGMP Policy 4.1E.4 to treat in-fill and redevelopment the same as development on previously undeveloped land regarding gross land area, or make no changes. Ms. Storey confirmed language concerning gross density (Policy 4.1E.4, pgs. 5,6/20, #s 1,2,3,4.) Mr. Moir noted the original developer makes concessions for utilities, water, etc., to be put in long ago, and why that would be a reduction to the current development. Ms. Szedlmayer explained how the density was calculated for net land area versus gross land area in the CRAs. Mr. Foley: commented this was just to get more units per acre on certain properties and extending boundaries to the centerline of the ROW to get more valid property included in the final units per acre. Ms. Szedlmayer explained this was not just increasing the yield, but to treat infill development equally with greenfield development. Mr. Moir: The reality is you are not gaining or creating space, you are just calculating the remaining space that exists, because the streets are already there. He referred to the example in Port Salerno that was displayed and discussion continued. Ms. Szedlmayer finished her presentation, thanked the LPA and appreciated their feedback and input. Public Comments: Bob Raynes, Esq., was here to represent fairness, equality and common sense. He agreed with staff s presentation and addressed the following: The Shoreline Protection Zone referring to Irene s example, some neighborhoods with canals in Palm City have a problem with a hardened shoreline on one side and on the other side a neighbor without a hardened shoreline and neighbors who can t use their properties as other neighbors do. Properties existing today outside of the CRAs should be considered. He favored going back to the 1982 Code, there was no SLPZ and you still can t pollute the Rivers and waterways. Mr. Raynes: The Density Transition Zone - This is the most ridiculous single regulation he has ever seen in any zoning. He provided an example of 20 acres and 10 acres with the same density zoning of 2/u/p/a with the 10 acre having to meet the 20 acre density along the border line. This is unfair. Mr. Raynes: Along the same lines is the View Shed Corridor which must meet new zoning setback requirements along the borderline, which he believed addressed certain issues. This makes no sense, 5
is punishing and should be abolished. Summing up his comments, we should go back to the 1982 Code, there is no hardened shoreline, no density transition zones and no view shed corridors and consider extending outside the CRAs. Mike Houston, echoed Mr. Raynes comments and said Martin County is so much more complicated to develop than other communities. The term compatibility should be changed to zoning and land use on the small, narrow overlay areas and should apply to all large and small CRAs. Mr. Houston: The Density Transition Zone is an awful policy, and has 52 violations to the CGMP (he used Bob s example). There are areas in the CGMP that make it difficult for Boards to make decisions, and the 25-50-75 ft. is bound by the CGMP. Overlays should apply to all CRAs. We are trying to create quality developments, instead we have created approvals that are not quality development and we need to go in the right direction. Also provide 5 to10 examples for discussion. Julian Rogers, Coconut St., Hobe Sound, lives at the Bible College, he and his wife own 35 low and moderate income rental properties and he has land to build 100 more. His development is stopped by the density transition rule and he would like to see that go away. He has built the rental units for workers with need for access to the library, education and the main building areas of the Bible College so that workers can live here and work here, instead of dealing with traffic going to and from having to live in Indiantown or Port St. Lucie versus living in Martin County. Please make the density transition zone go away. 5. COMMENTS A. Public None B. Members Mr. Watson agreed with all three speakers that discussed the density transition zone, that it stops people from using their property and is a taking of property. It has to go away. C. Staff Ms. Szedlmayer discussed the upcoming schedule for presentations and public hearing dates of CPA 18-10 CRA Text Amendment. Ms. van Vonno indicated the potential agenda items for the March 7, 2019 LPA meeting would be Charmer Properties, Cove Royale, and TCCA will get back to staff on their next scheduled public hearing date or their request for a 2 nd continuance. 6. ADJOURN There was no further business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. Recorded and Prepared by: Approved by: _APPROVED Mary F. Holleran, Agency Recorder Jim Moir, Chairman _March 21, 2019 Date 6