A-7-05 Gardens 207 LLC-Pioneer Trails - staff report

CITY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH – DEVELOPMENT SERVICESGardens 207 LLC – Pioneer Trail #A-7-05

August 1, 2005

I. Background

1. Applicant: Paul Momberger, 55 Seton Trail, Ormond Beach

2. Property Owner: Gardens 207, LLC, 6401 SW 87th Avenue, Miami

3. Request: Voluntary annexation, comprehensive plan amendment, and Rezoning

From County Future Land Use (FLU) designations of: Commercial, Office21 Commercial/Office, Public/Semi Public, Rural, Tourist Commercial, Urban High Intensity, Urban Low Intensity, and Urban Medium Intensity. County Zoning designations of: A-2, Rural Agriculture, A-3, A-3 (2) and A-3C (2), Transitional Agriculture.

To City Future Land Use (FLU) designation of: Conservation, Low Density Residential, and Activity Center. City zoning designations of: RPUD, BPUD and Conservation.

F-1

Subject Property

1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

1

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDAUGUST 1, 2005 – GARDENS 207 LLC – PIONEER TRAILSUMMARY - A-7-05

4. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board recommends to the City Commission that they approve: the proposed annexation; staff’s version of zoning designations (Exhibit 13); and staff’s version of future land use designations (Exhibit 26), once the City Commission adopts a Rural future land use designation.

5. Site Information:

Size: 786.00 acres Location: South of Pioneer Trail Road, between interstate-95, State Road 44,

and Sugar Mill Drive

6. Exhibits:

6.1. Existing Conditions

Exhibit 1(pF-15) - Photos of the Subject Parcel Exhibit 2(pF-17) - Comprehensive Plan Map II-4 – Existing Land Use

Exhibit 3(pF-18) - Map of Current Zoning Boundaries Exhibit 4(pF-19) - Description(s) of Current Zoning Designation(s) Exhibit 5(pF-28) - Map of Current Future Land Use Boundaries Exhibit 6(pF-29) - Description(s) of Current Future Land Use Exhibit 7(pF-39) - Map of the Soil Types Within the Subject Parcel Exhibit 8(pF-40) - Description(s) of Soil Type(s) Within the Subject

Parcel

6.2. Proposed Conditions & Updates

Exhibit 9(pF-55) - Map of Applicant’s Proposed Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan Map II-3

Exhibit 10(pF-56) - Description(s) of Applicant’s Proposed Future Land Use Designation(s)

Exhibit 11(pF-58) - Map of Applicant’s Proposed Zoning Boundaries Exhibit 12(pF-59) - Description(s) of Applicant’s Proposed Zoning

Designations Exhibit 13(pF-72) - Map of Staff’s Recommended Zoning Exhibit 14(pF-73) - Description(s) of Staff’s Proposed Zoning

Designation(s) Exhibit 15(pF-80) - Comprehensive Plan Map II-1 – Neighborhoods Exhibit 16(pF-81) - Comprehensive Plan Map II-2 – Flood Prone Areas Exhibit 17(pF-82) - Comprehensive Plan Map III-1 – 1989 Existing

Traffic Conditions

F-2

1234123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

5


Exhibit 18(pF-83) - Comprehensive Plan Map III-2 – 1995 Existing Plus Committed Traffic Conditions

Exhibit 19(pF-84) - Comprehensive Plan Map III-3 – 2010 Existing Plus Committed Traffic Conditions

Exhibit 20(pF-85) - Comprehensive Plan Map VII-1 – Water and Sewer Service Area

Exhibit 21(pF-86) - Comprehensive Plan Map VII-2 – Soil Limitations for Septic Tank

Exhibit 22(pF-87) - Comprehensive Plan Map VII-4 – Coastal High Hazard Area

Exhibit 23(pF-88) - Comprehensive Plan Map IX-1 – Natural Resources Inventory

Exhibit 24(pF-89) - Comprehensive Plan Map X-1 – Neighborhood and Community Parks

Exhibit 25(pF-90) - Comprehensive Plan Map X-2 – Regional Parks and Special Use Facilities

Exhibit 26(pF-91) - Map of Staff’s Recommended Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan Map II-3

Exhibit 27(pF-92) - Description(s) of Staff’s Proposed Future Land Use Designation(s)

II. Findings

1. The subject property is vacant mostly wooded lands. Photos of the site are attached (please see Exhibit 1). The existing surrounding land uses are as follows:

North – Vacant South – Vacant and one gas station East – Mostly Vacant, Cemetery, then Sugar Mill Community West – Right-of-Way then vacant

A map of surrounding existing land uses is attached (please see Exhibit 2).

2. The existing zoning designations (Exhibits 3 and 4) of the subject property are:

County A-2, Rural AgricultureCounty A-3, Transitional AgricultureCounty A-3 (2), Transitional AgricultureCounty A-3C (2), Transitional Agriculture

The County has several sub-categories for their zoning districts. The “C” indicates that the property is within the Corridor Overlay zone along State Road 44 just as within the City. The “(2)” indicates the property is within the Activity Center.

F-3

1234123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526

27

28293031

32

333435

3637383940

41

4243444546

5


3. The existing future land use designations for the subject property is:

County RuralCounty Urban Low IntensityCounty Urban Medium IntensityCounty Urban High IntensityCounty Tourist CommercialCounty Office21 Commercial/OfficeCounty Commercial

Please refer to Exhibit 5 for a map depicting the existing future land use designations and Exhibit 6 for a description of each designation.

4. The future land use classifications for the surrounding properties are:

North – County Rural and the City of Port Orange’s Residential South – City Activity Center East – County Rural, Urban Low Intensity, Commercial, and City Low

Density Residential West – City Agriculture

A map of surrounding Current Future Land uses is attached (Exhibit 5).

5. The proposal is to annex the subject parcel and construct residential development on the majority of the property to the north and commercial development along State Road 44.

6. There is a wide range of soil types on the subject property. A map of the soils

within the site is attached (Exhibit 7). According the Volusia County Soil Survey prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, the soil types in the portions of the property to be annexed range in development potential from very low to high. A description of the various soil types is attached in Exhibit 8. One must note that, in the context of soil type descriptions, the developmental potential is not a legal restraint on the amount of development.

7. The applicant proposes future land use map designations of low-density residential, conservation and Activity Center. See Exhibit 9 for a map depicting the applicant’s request and Exhibit 10 for a description of each designation. However, during a series of workshops in the spring of 2005 the City Commission made a policy decision that any property located east of I-95 and west of the current City boundary would be designated the future land use category in the City that most closely resembles the future land use designation in the County. Therefore, the future land use designation request does not appear to be consistent with the City Commission policy.

F-4

1234123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

5


8. The position of the applicant is that the number of units allowed on the entire parcel will not increase between the City future land use designations and the County future land use designations. The only difference is the distribution of density/intensity will be different once annexed into the City. The proposal is to increase the density of the portion currently designated County Rural where the more developable land exists and to decrease densities in some of the areas designated for higher densities and exclude development from the more environmentally sensitive land is. The applicant’s justification for this is the conservation of wetlands.

9. It may appear to be proper planning to direct development to land that is more appropriate for development and discourage development from environmental land. However, there is one major flaw in the assumption that the number of units will be the same if developed using the current County future land use designations and the applicants proposed City future land use designations. The applicant’s proposal is to use the density of property that is now designated as urban low intensity (.2 to 4 units per acre), urban medium intensity (4.1 to 8 units per acre) and urban high intensity (8.1 to 20 units per acre) and distribute it among a larger area that is now designated as County rural (1 unit per five). As staff has indicated in the past, there is no practical way to develop at the urban densities indicated above unless the developments are multi-family and multi-story developments. Therefore it is only correct to say the number of units would be the same in mathematical theory and not in practice.

10. It needs to be pointed out that the Rural designation in the Volusia County comprehensive plan allows one unit per five acres unless the property is within 660-feet of property designated urban and:

Compatibility of the proposed development will be viewed within the contextof existing uses, public facility capacity in the area, suitability for wells andseptic tank usage, and the natural features of the parcel in question, such assoils, vegetation, and floodplain.

Therefore, there may be areas within the rural designation that could be developed with a density greater than one unit per five acres. This has yet to be determined.

F-5

1234123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

5


11.Perhaps the City Commission policy needs refinement before proceeding with this development proposal. If the City Commission accepts the redistribution of the densities on the parcel as a whole, it makes good planning sense to allow the applicant the future land use designations as they propose. The result will be an overall lower density suburban style development but built out to the maximum allowed density. If the City Commission policy was intended to be strictly adhered to so the density is not redistributed, then the future land use designations as requested by the applicant should not be approved and instead future land use designations that closely resemble the County’s designations should be used. The result would be higher densities in smaller areas near the activity center and low- and very-low densities on most of the subject parcel. Most likely the later scenario will result in fewer units as the likelihood of development to the maximum allowed density is not great.

12.Another aspect of the proposal is to expand the Activity Center to the east of Sugar Mill Drive, again to conserve wetlands according to the applicant. However, the policy direction from the City Commission is to bring the property in at the same future land use levels that would be allowed in the County. After a review of the comprehensive plan (please refer to Finding 21, below), staff found extensive support for not changing this area to activity center.

13.The applicant proposes to rezone the property to RPUD, BPUD and Conservation. See Exhibit 11 for the proposed map and Exhibit 12 for the descriptions. Since there is no submitted PUD agreement(s) and no clear picture of the direction of the proposed comprehensive plan future land use designations, staff recommends applying an agriculture zoning designation that closely resembles the County zoning designations. Please refer to Exhibit 13 for the staff version of the zoning map and Exhibit 14 for the descriptions.

14.The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is more than 10 acres. Therefore, this is a full-scale amendment and is subject to the twice per year submittal limitation for full-scale Comprehensive Plan amendments. If approved by the City Commission, staff will send it to the State for approval as a full-scale amendment.

15.There are numerous comprehensive plan maps that must be amended to incorporate the subject parcel into the comprehensive plan. Please see Exhibits 15 through 25.

16.This annexation is within the proposed Volusia County Urban Growth Boundary. If the County and the City adopted the Urban Growth Boundary as currently proposed; this site would be designated as an urban development site. Further, this area is within the City’s utility service area.

F-6

1234123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344

5


17.The applicant’s proposal is to change the Future Land Use of the subject property to a combination of densities/intensities. While the applicant proposes to shift the allowable density around the site, the direction from the City Commission was to bring property in this area into the City with essentially the same density/intensity standards the property would have in the County. In keeping with the City Commission policy, development Services staff is recommending the following comprehensive plan future land use designations:

City RuralCity Activity CenterCity Low-Density Residential

Please refer to Exhibit 26 for a map showing the recommended future land use designation boundaries and Exhibit 27 for a description of these designations.

18. Implementation of staff’s recommendation would require the creation of a ‘Rural’ Future Land Use category since the City does not have such a future land use designation at this density now. During a subsequent full-scale comprehensive plan cycle the City needs to develop a future land use designation that is similar to the County’s rural designation if the City is to implement the City Commission policy of applying similar designations once annexed.

19. It is staff’s understanding that the County’s plan for the Activity Center was for this area to develop in the City. Therefore, while the current Future Land Use designations may appear to be changing significantly, the original intent was to have it develop as the City’s Activity Center.

20.The City requires any proposed development to conform to the City’s concurrency management system. That system includes parks and recreation, drainage, traffic, solid waste, and utilities. However, staff elected to not conduct an impact analysis at this time because: 1. The property is already in the City’s Urban Services area; 2. The Staff’s recommended Future Land Use designations will not significantly increase the density/intensity of the subject property; and 3. The applicant will have to demonstrate conformance with concurrency standards prior to any specific development is vested. Should the City Commission decide to accept the applicant’s proposal, a considerable review of the available roadway capacity and services needs to be completed. This analysis needs to consider the large development proposals associated with the City’s first full scale comprehensive plan amendment for the year 2005. It has been demonstrated with the City’s first 2005 full-scale comprehensive plan amendment cycle that the City is nearing capacity on some of the area infrastructure. The City’s ability to provide potable water is nearing capacity because of the St. Johns River Water Management consumptive use permit limitations. Also, the amendment has demonstrated that portions of the area roadways will be at capacity by the year 2015 without significant improvements.

F-7

12341234567

8

91011

12

13141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546

5


21.The Comprehensive Plan provides some guidance on the subject property. The following is a list of objectives in the City’s Comprehensive Plan that supports the staff proposal. Following each objective is a comment in bold italics.

Future land use objective 1: To ensure that future development will be consistent with adjacent uses, natural limitations such as topography and soil conditions, the needs of the citizens of New Smyrna Beach, the Future Land Use Map, the availability of facilities and services, and the goals, objectives and policies contained within this Comprehensive Plan. If this property develops, the applicant should be required to develop using staff’s recommended Future Land Use designations. The recommended designations are consistent with adjacent uses, natural limitations and the stated needs and desires of the citizens. The recommended designations do not significantly affect the developability of the property, and so it makes sense from the perspective of providing facilities and services. Therefore, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Future land use objective 2: To provide adequate services and facilities for future development, at the adopted level-of service standard. In order to maintain the adopted level-of-service standard, development orders and permits will be conditioned on the availability of the public facilities and services necessary to serve the proposed development. Prior to vesting the development, the owner(s) will have to demonstrate all level of service standards will be met.

Future land use objective 6: To maintain a citywide natural-resources protection program through the planning period. Prior to development the applicant will have to identify any existing wetlands or trees. The applicant will have to protect the maximum amount of those wetlands, if any, and their associated buffers, when going through the development process.

Future land use objective 7: To implement land use patterns, utility service extensions, impact fees and annexation methodology, which provide for orderly development and discourage urban sprawl.Enclaves contribute to urban sprawl. The applicant is annexing in order to help alleviate what is functionally an existing enclave, thereby providing for orderly development and eliminating a factor of sprawl.

Future land use objective 7f: Establish the Southeast Volusia Activity Center at the I-95 and SR-44 interchange that will serve a concentration of high intensity mixed use development stressing value-added employment with housing and other types of development as supporting activities.

F-8

1234123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344

5


The staff version of the Future Land Use map supports this concept. Wetlands conservation is important, but this intent in this area is to provide concentrated, high intensity development. The applicant has provided no wetlands survey, and while wetland preservation is important, they are often impacted and mitigated (such is the case across the street) to provide a higher quality development. Further, it is not clear whether these are high-quality wetlands.

Future land use objective 8: To use innovative land development techniques for future projects, which will implement policies identified in this plan, and which will provide for the funding of public impacts by development.

a. Utilize cluster development zoning to allow for mixed uses and unconventional development designs in those cases where the developer can demonstrate improved living environments, protection of natural resources, or increased efficiency of service delivery.By placing a PUD zoning designation on the property, it gives the stake holders involved the flexibility to follow the intent of this objective. Once a PUD agreement is drafted the property should be zoned from the temporary zoning designation to PUD.

Future land use objective 10: To protect existing desirable neighborhoods from encroaching new development which is incompatible and inconsistent with established character of the neighborhood. Staff’s recommended designations were heavily influenced by this concept. By using designations that mimic the existing designations, the proposed future land use designation, and likely development pattern, would be compatible and consistent with the existing neighborhood. Allowing the current use until redevelopment proceeds is also reasonable.

Future land use objective 11: To guide the future development and redevelopment of US 1 and SR 44 as scenic parkways that efficiently move traffic and present an attractive, aesthetically pleasing appearance.Staff’s recommendations for this property will provide development that is consistent with the intent of this part of the City.

22.The proposed annexation would turn a large portion amount of property to the east into an ‘enclave,’ an area entirely surrounded by City property. Enclaves could present a number of challenges, especially with regards to providing emergency services because they result in the reduction in response times. In many respects that area is already an enclave because the city limits of Port Orange and New Smyrna Beach connect to the west. Currently approximately 50% of all fire protection responses are already answered by the City’s fire department.

F-9

1234123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

5


III. Recommendation

Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommend to the City Commission that they:

1. Approve the annexation;2. Adopt a comprehensive plan text amendment that adds a rural future land use

designation. 3. Approve the zoning designations depicted in Exhibit 13.4. Approve the future land use designations depicted in Exhibit 26.

IV. Action Required by Governmental Agencies

1. New Smyrna Beach City Commission must review and approve the proposed action.

2. The Florida Department of Community Affairs must review and approve the proposed action.

3. The Volusia Growth Management Commission must review and approve the proposed action.

***Pages F-11 Through F-14

Intentionally Omitted***

F-10

1234123456789

101112131415161718192021222324

25

26

27

2829

5

Documents

A-7-05 Gardens 207 LLC-Pioneer Trails - staff report