Compatibility Analysis: Port Marigny Development Proposal Prepared for: Concerned Citizens of the City of Mandeville David W. Depew, PhD, AICP, LEED AP Principal, Morris Depew Associates, Inc. 495 Grand Blvd., Suite 206, Miramar Beach, FL 32550
David W. Depew, PhD, AICP, LEED AP EDUCATION University of Florida, BA, Honors, Political Science, 1972 McMaster University, MA, Comparative Political Development, 1973 Johns Hopkins University, PhD coursework and all doctoral exams completed in Policy Analysis & Public Administration, 1973 1976 Kennedy Western University, PhD coursework and dissertation completed, Public Administration, 1997 2004 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION American Institute of Certified Planners, 1983 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ) Accredited Professional, 2008. AFFILIATIONS Member, APA & AICP; FPZA; ULI; ITE Member/Vice President/President, Association of Eminent Domain Professionals Member/Chairman, Fort Myers Historic Preservation Commission, 1999 2006 Member, Fort Myers Charter Review Commission Chairman, Lee County Local Planning Agency, 1982 1984 Member, Real Estate Investment Society Charter Member, Director, Southwest Florida Tiger Bay Club Member/Chair, Walton County Area Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee Member, Fla. Planning Association Legislative Policy Committee 2
Context: The Region Subject Property 3
Context: The City 4
Context: The Neighborhood 5
The Site Plan 6
The Site Green = 5 Contour Red/Orange = 6 Contour Light Yellow = Lands Above the 6 Contour 7
Seaside, FL 80 Acres 350 Dwelling Units 12 restaurants 41 shops/galleries 8
Seaside versus Port Marigny Seaside 80 Acres 350 dwelling units Resort residential uses ± 15 restaurants 5 food trucks 2 coffee shops 3 ice cream/juice bars ± 40 shops Port Marigny 76.648 Acres 350 dwelling units No restriction on resort residential uses 174 units may have secondary dwellings 120 Room hotel No restrictions on number of bedrooms 2 restaurants 11,000 SF total 117 slip marina 56,000 SF commercial 9
Mandeville Comprehensive Plan Along Lakeshore drive, the City has worked to maintain the delicate balance of allowing businesses that serve lake front visitors needs while maintaining the desirability of the neighborhood for full time residents. The City should continue its efforts to ensure that infill development, particularly in the older neighborhoods, is consistent with the existing scale and character. 10
Mandeville Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1 of the Plan states that the City will, Respect the natural environment by retaining valued resources and minimizing the risks to life and property through proper design and construction. Continue to limit development below the 5 ft. elevation contour until critical drainage areas are mapped. 11
Mandeville Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5 of the City s Plan states that the City will, Maintain compatible transitions between different land use and housing types through site design regulations that include buffering and/or formbased design. Policy 2.6 indicates that the City will, Protect neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible land uses by ensuring that zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and requiring site designs that result in compatible land use transitions. 12
Mandeville Comprehensive Plan 13
CLURO: Drainage Overlay District Section 7.6.1.1 establishes Drainage Overlay District Includes any area below 6 MSL, is adjacent to or includes areas of periodic inundation (5 MSL or lower) Section 7.6.1.4 limits development to those areas outside of the D O District 14
CLURO: Mandatory Site Design for TND Section 8.5.2.1 indicates that the development mix must be based upon developable acreage of the site, which excludes land that is below the five (5) ft. contour Placement of uses within the areas below the 5 contour meets the definition of a use variance which is generally unacceptable Article 4 requires that uses must be compatible with the uses on surrounding properties as well as the City at large, yet nowhere has the issue of resort residential activities been addressed There have been no studies related to lighting, signage, architectural styles, hours of operations, or service provisions, all issues that affect compatibility 15
Traffic & Neighborhood Compatibility Use ITE LUC Measure # Formula Average Daily Trips Marina 420 slips 117 T=1.89(X)+410.80 632 Hotel 310 rooms 120 T=8.95(X) 373.16 701 Dwelling Unit Single Family 210 units 174 Ln(T)=0.92Ln(X)+2.72 1748 Dwelling Unit 220 units 150 T=6.06(X)+123.56 1033 Apartment Townhouse 230 units 26 Ln(T)=0.87Ln(X)+2.48 203 Quality Restaurant 931 Sq. Ft. 7000 Avg. Rate = 89.95/1000 SF High Turnover 932 Sq. Ft. 4000 Avg. Rate = Restaurant 127.15/1000 SF Shopping Center 820 1000 Sq. Ft. 174 Additional apartments = 1,178 additional ADT s 627 509 56 Ln(T)=0.55Ln(X)+5.83 3115 Total Anticipated Avg. Daily Trips 8568 16
Development Agreement 1. The Development Agreement (DA) needs to reflect the most recently proposed development program. 2. The DA only addresses Goal 12, Policy 12.8, leaving the balance of the Plan policies unaddressed. 3. The DA allows subsequent phases to be approved administratively instead of full public scrutiny. 4. The DA does not address whether the City will have the necessary resources to monitor ongoing development activities in accordance with the very detailed and complex regulations specifically applied to a single development site. 5. The DA indicates that no permanent residency will be allowed in the marina, but is silent as regards temporary residency and fails to define the length of time for an inhabited vessel to be considered permanent. 6. The DA fails to indicate how disagreements in interpretation of standards found in the CLURO as compared to the Master Plan and Guiding Principles will be resolved. 7. The DA has based proportionate fair share transportation impact costs upon the current traffic study, but the possible addition of 117 units at the marina and 174 secondary dwelling units have not been included. The City should consider requiring annual traffic monitoring reports with a requirement that additional transportation improvements be required in the event that impacts exceed that which is anticipated. 8. The DA commits the City to a 2 year period regarding commencement of design, engineering, and construction of the Immediate Improvements and the Developer Street Improvements. The City should consider whether the 2 year period is adequate for commencement of design, engineering, and construction of the specified improvements. 9. The City should consider whether joint responsibility for DA compliance should be required. 17
Conclusions The issues related to resort residential uses have not been addressed The issues related to uses located below the appropriate elevation contours have not been fully addressed. The traffic issues and the impact to the general public health, safety and welfare have not been adequately addressed. The question of compatibility and the overall density and intensity of the proposed development have not been adequately addressed. Development modifications for future phases have not been fully addressed. There are numerous issues associated with the Developer s Agreement that need further clarification. It is my professional opinion that the application is currently insufficient, and that the City should not approve this development until all of these issues have been fully addressed. David W. Depew, PhD, AICP, LEED AP 18