Statement of Issue:o:p>

Continuation of the first and only public hearing on a proposed ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning of the subject property from the LP, Lake Protection zoning district to the PUD Zoning District and to establish a concept plan governing the future development of the subject property for an approximately 107 acre parcel located on the west side of North Monroe Street, on the east side of Old Bainbridge Road and north of the View Point development (Attachment #1).  The mixed use development will consist of 175 single family lots, a 312 unit apartment complex within 13 multiple family residential structures with a club house, two commercial tracts, internal streets, and preserved natural areas and open spaces including six retention ponds.  All streets and stormwater management areas and open space areas will be owned and maintained by the property owners’ association.  The property owner is Mary B. Sellers. The applicant/optionee is Arbor Properties, Inc.  Allen Nobles & Associates, Inc., is the agent.  A general location map is included as Attachment #2. (For Commissioners’ review, a copy of the Summerfield PUD Concept Plan is located in the Board conference room; for public review, a copy of the Summerfield PUD Concept Plan is located in the fifth floor reception area at the Courthouse.)  

Background:

At its meeting of st1:date Month="10" Day="12" Year="2004">October 12, 2004, the Board opened the public hearing on this proposed ordinance and took comment from approximately 50 speakers.  The Board voted to continue consideration of the ordinance and to continue the public hearing to October 26, 2004.  In addition, the Board recommended that Commissioner Winchester meet with the applicant for the Summerfield PUD for purposes of reconciling issues related to the application, and directed the County Attorney to obtain an independent legal opinion.   

The property that is the subject of this proposed ordinance is located mostly within multiple small closed drainage basins. The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning with Conceptual Plan approval on the approximately 107 acre parcel now zoned Lake Protection (LP).   The subject site is presently developed with a farm house and associated accessory structures.  Historic use of the site has been for pasture and a dairy cattle farm.  Prior to 1992, the site was zoned A-2, Rural Agricultural, consistent with its use as a dairy farm.  In 1990, the site and adjacent properties within the greater Lake Jackson drainage basin were designated as “Lake Protection” (LP) on the Future Land Use Map of the newly adopted Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan.  In 1992, the subject site was rezoned to implement the Lake Protection designation through the application of the companion “Lake Protection” (LP) zoning district.     In October 1996, approximately 41 acres within the southern and southwestern portions of the site, along with approximately 300 additional acres of other properties to the south, were redesignated through Future Land Use Map amendment to the “Residential Preservation” (RP) future land use category, based upon these lands being located within closed basins that do not discharge directly to Lake Jackson.  The zoning of the subject site, however, remained LP. 

More recently, the Director of the Planning Department determined that based upon topographic analysis, the location of the ridge lines defining the boundaries of the closed basin upon which the Future Land Use Map amendment was based was inaccurate.  In response, the boundary was adjusted further northward on the subject site, adding approximately 22 acres to the area recognized as designated RP on the Future Land Use Map.  This acreage remains within the LP zoning district.  

On August 25, 2004, the Leon County Development Review Committee (DRC) met to review this application.  The DRC voted 3-0 to recommend that the application be approved with conditions. The DRC’s recommendation was based on the findings and recommendations of the Planning Department, Department of Growth and Environmental Management, and the Department of Public Works, as entered into the record.  The DRC noted in their findings that the applicant had revised their application from that considered on August 4, 2004, removing all portions related to final plan application, relocating potentially incompatible uses from the edges of the PUD bordering on low density residential neighborhoods, and addressing other issues raised at that meeting.  The DRC found, however, that the application continued to have some aspects that were either inconsistent with the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan or not in compliance with the Leon County Land Development Code. There also were numerous internal discrepancies and minor errors requiring revision.  The recommended conditions of approval would correct the inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance issues with the Land Development Code.  The reports of the DRC members are included as Attachments #3-#6.

On September 1, 2004, the applicant submitted a revised PUD document (Summerfield, a Planned Unit Development – Conceptual Site and Development Plan; dated 9/1/04) and revised conceptual site plans (Exhibit “E” of PUD document; 11”x17” Conceptual Site and Development Plans, Sheets CPUD-1 through 13, revised 9/1/04).  The applicant revised the PUD document and conceptual site plans in response to comments provided in the 8/25/04 DRC meeting.  Based on staff’s review of the revised PUD document and plans, it was determined that many of the conditions of approval initially recommended by DRC members and staff had been adequately satisfied.  The conditions of approval contained in the Development Review Committee Recommendations section below have been revised from the DRC’s original recommended conditions of approval such that only the remaining applicable conditions are retained.

The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this application on September 7, 2004.  The application was continued to September 15, 2004 as a result of hazardous weather conditions.  The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map and the concept plan governing the future development of the subject property, subject to those conditions recommended by the Leon County Development Review Committee, based upon the findings contained in the Development Review Committee’s recommendation and report, including the findings of the Planning Department, the Department of Growth and Environmental Management, and the Department of Public Works.  The Planning Commission’s discussion focused on two major issues:  the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s warning of violation of State’s laws regarding construction, dredging, and filling of wetlands or Waters of the State; and, whether the development would be entitled to access Old Bainbridge Road.  Further discussion of these issues is provided under the Analysis Section.

At its September 21, 2004 meeting, the Board continued this item to October 12, 2004.

Analysis:

1.      The DRC’s recommendation reflects the findings of the Planning Department, Department of Growth and Environmental Management, and the Department of Public Works, as set out in their reports to the DRC.  The Department of Growth and Environmental Management sent two reports to the DRC – one from the Environmental Review Section, one from the Development Services Section.  The Department of Growth and Environmental Management Development Services Section’s report is included as Attachment #3; the Department of Growth and Environmental Management Environmental Review Section’s report is included as Attachment #4; and the Department of Public Works report is included as Attachment #5; and the Planning Department’s report to the DRC is included as Attachment #6.

2.      Section 10-915(e), Leon County Code, establishes the criteria for review and approval of Planned Unit Development Applications.  The three criteria are: 

a)  consistency with the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan;

b)  consistency with all other ordinances adopted by Leon County; and,

c)  consistency with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development district as described in Section 10-915(a) which states:

1.    Promote more efficient and economic uses of land.

2.  Provide flexibility to meet changing needs, technologies, economics, and           consumer preferences.

3.   Encourage uses of land which reduce transportation needs and which conserve energy and natural resources to the maximum extent possible.

4.   Preserve to the greatest extent possible, and utilize in a harmonious fashion, existing landscape features and amenities.

5.   Provide for more usable and suitably located recreational facilities, open spaces and scenic areas, either commonly owned or publicly owned, than would otherwise be provided under a conventional zoning district.

6.   Lower development and building costs by permitting smaller networks of utilities and streets and the use of more economical building types and shared facilities.

7.   Permit the combining and coordinating of land uses, building types, and building relationships within a planned development, which otherwise would not be provided under a conventional zoning district.

3.      The proposed Planned Unit Development district (PUD) is located within an area presently within the LP, Lake Protection Zoning district.  The subject site lies within areas designated as RP, Residential Preservation, and LP, Lake Protection, on the Future Land Use Map of the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan, as represented on the map included as Attachment #7.  The entire site lies within the larger area that drains into Lake Jackson, however, a significant portion of the site lies within smaller closed basins that do not drain into Lake Jackson.  Pursuant to the description of the Lake Protection future land use category, included as Attachment #8, closed basins located within the Lake Protection-designated area may be developed with the densities and intensities associated with the Mixed Use land use category (in this location, Mixed Use A is applicable).

4.      During the Planning Commission’s review of the application, discussion focused on alleged unauthorized wetland disturbance as evidenced in a September 10, 2004 letter to the property owner (pages 11-12 of 14, Attachment #9).  Specifically, the letter referenced fill activities in a wetland area located within the northwestern portion of the site.  According to the Department of Growth and Environmental Management staff, the previous condition of this portion of the subject area was a closed basin (in the 1940s), with no ditched outfall.  In the 1970s a ditch was constructed from the area, artificially creating an open basin.  Within the LP FLUM category residential development is limited to one dwelling unit per two acres except within those areas certified by engineer as closed basins, wherein the allowable range of land uses and development intensities may be increased to the limits of the Mixed Use A FLUM category.  Determination of whether the basin is open or closed is essential in approving the concept plan.  During the Development Review Committee and Planning Commission discussion on this matter, it was noted that the closed basin designation would provide greater protection to the waters of Lake Jackson regardless of the permitted intensities.  To date, there has been no conclusion of the alleged violation as provided for in the September 10, 2004, letter.

The second issue discussed in detail by the Planning Commission was access to Old Bainbridge Road.  In 1995, Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.10 (Conservation Element) was adopted.  This policy states in part “Medium and high density residential, commercial and office uses will be allowed on designated canopy roads only where there is alternate access to a road other than a canopy road.”  The Land Use Development Matrix (Attachment # 10) further states that residential, major office (gross floor area of at least 10,000 square feet or floor area ratio greater than .25), and minor commercial (gross floor area of less than 20,000 square feet) land uses are limited as follows:  “Primary access to canopy road permitted only when alternate access to non-canopy roads is unavailable.  Primary access shall be restricted to one driveway designated to mitigate impacts. Planned development required for approval.” The matrix precludes neighborhood commercial land uses gross floor area of 20,000 to 100,000 square feet) from having access to a canopy road.  Policy 3.4.10 does not preclude office and commercial uses from being located on canopy roads, but implies access must be from a non-canopy road.  Staff has historically applied this policy as prohibiting office and commercial land uses from accessing a canopy road by either direct (primary) or indirect (through a street system) access. 

One such example of staff’s application was the Westminster Oaks PUD modification in 2003 where the Board permitted only a gated emergency access from Miccosukee Road (a canopy road). 

During the Development Review Committee review of this application, the Department of Growth and Environmental Management indicated a number of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that support the access to Old Bainbridge Road, such as efficient transportation services and networks, interconnection to surrounding areas and mixed use development.  Additionally, staff’s application of the Comprehensive Plan has been to limit access to a canopy road, even for low density residential, (0-8 dwellings per acre) if alternative access is available from a non-canopy road.  Where it can be demonstrated that an additional access to a canopy road will not result in substantial impacts to the canopy road, the access has been permitted.  This is consistent with Goal 3.4 (Conservation Element), which states, “Local government shall protect, maintain and improve the designated canopy roads.” By comparison, the overall proposed residential density of the PUD is 4.83 dwellings per acre, low density, according to the Comprehensive Plan, and the commercial component fronts North Monroe Street and is served by an internal street.  It would be expected that an additional east/west street system between Monroe Street and Old Bainbridge Road could provide an alternative travel route other than Old Bainbridge Road. 

Planning Commission Recommendation:

The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed Ordinance be approved, and the associated concept plan adopted, subject to the conditions set out below, as recommended by the Development Review Committee based upon the findings and recommendations cited in the Development Review Committee’s reports (Attachments  #3-#6).

Conditions recommended by the Planning Department:

1.  Revise the Concept Plan to eliminate all vehicular access to Old Bainbridge Road.  Pursuant to the Canopy Road Management Plan Interlocal Agreement and the Canopy Roads Citizens’ Committee Bylaws, if the applicant deems it appropriate to provide an emergency vehicle access connection to Old Bainbridge Road, the revised development plan indicating this connection, along with information on impacts to the canopy road resources, should be sent to the CRCC for their review and approval prior to final public hearing on this application by the Board of County Commissioners.

2. To ensure consistency with the Leon County Land Development Code and implementation of the concept plan as intended, the development standards set out in Section 7 of the concept plan (text booklet) shall be added as notes on the concept plan.

3.  The concept plan shall be revised to include or cross-reference documents establishing the Architectural Control Committee referred to in the concept plan and including detailed information as to the composition of the committee, its charge, and any other relevant information.

Conditions recommended by the Department of Public Works:

4.  The last paragraph of Part X, refers to the connection to Old Bainbridge at Camden Road.  The proposed connection to Old Bainbridge will require the approval of the Leon County Board of County Commissioners.

Conditions recommended by the Environmental Review Section of the Department of Growth and Environmental Management:

(Note:  Conditions 5, 9.a, 9.b.(B), 9.b.(C), 9.b.(D), 10, and 11 were also recommended by the Development Services Section of the Department of Growth and Environmental Management.)

5.   Any future applications for final Site and Development Plan approval submitted for any phase or component of the Summerfield PUD shall comply with all applicable requirements and standards set forth in the Land Development Code, including the Environmental Management Act.  Some of the density and/or intensity of development shown on the conceptual plans (Exhibit “E”) may be reduced as a result of this requirement.  Boundaries of natural areas, open space areas, streets, individual land uses, and lot boundaries are subject to change in order to ensure compliance with the LDC and EMA.  Necessary changes may result in the reduction of lots, reduction in number of multiple family dwelling units, relocation of streets, relocation of stormwater ponds, re-positioning of multiple family structures, and re-configuration of utilities and private facilities.  Such modifications shall be determined at the time of final Site and Development Plan review.

6.    All future applications for final Site and Development Plan approval submitted for any phase or component of the Summerfield PUD shall include a completed Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA).  Any such EIA application must be submitted prior to the applicant submitting for Technical Review in cases where this review is required.  Any such EIA application must be approved by Environmental Review staff before final Site and Development Plan approval can be granted.

7. The first EIA application submitted for final Site and Development Plan approval must satisfactorily comply with the conditions listed on Sheet 1 of 2, NFI Map/Features Map, contained in the Natural Features Inventory originally approved for the Summerfield property (reference LEA 03-0072 as approved on 4/6/04).

8.  Any changes to the originally approved Natural Features Inventory (NFI) proposed by the applicant, other than revisions required by conditions listed in said NFI, shall be submitted as an application to modify the original NFI.  The proposed modifications must be approved by Environmental Review staff before the first EIA application submitted for final Site and Development Plan review can be approved.

9.  Prior to final approval of this conceptual PUD, the applicant must make the following changes and revisions to the Conceptual Site and Development Plans (Exhibit “E”).           The revised plans must be approved by the DRC, Development Services staff, and Environmental Review staff prior to final approval of the conceptual plans.

a.   Sheet CPUD-3 --- Indicate the location and function of existing public facilities (schools, parks, fire stations, EMS, etc.) that would serve the residents of this PUD.  This could be done through notes vs. illustrations if the facilities are far away.  Also, show the following information for all adjacent parcels: parcel ID, ownership, and current use.  The applicant must ensure that information provided for adjacent parcels is correct.

b.   Sheet CPUD-4 --- The following revisions must be made to this drawing:

(A)    All buffers, including landscaped perimeter buffers, shall be hatched as open space.

(B)    Under the Natural Area section of the site data, delete all the information presented concerning “required” natural area (acres, square feet, percent, etc.).  If this change is not made, one of the conditions of approval of the Summerfield PUD shall be as follows:  The required natural area information presented on Sheet CPUD-4 in Exhibit “E” is erroneous.        The required natural area shall be determined at the time of final Site and Development Plan review.

(C)    Show the following information for all adjacent parcels: parcel ID, ownership, and current use.  The applicant must ensure that information provided for adjacent parcels is correct.

(D)    The applicant must review and verify the area data (acres, square feet, % of site), and density data listed for Zone categories MR, SR(1), SR(2), SR (3), SR(4), GRO, and Open Space.  The applicant shall appropriately revise all data found to be in error.

10. The applicant must review and verify all acres and percent of site data contained in Section 3.B, 3.E, 3.G, 3.J, and 3.L of the conceptual PUD document.  The applicant shall appropriately revise all data found to be in error and shall also ensure that the data are consistent with corresponding information presented in the revised Sheet CPUD-4 of the Conceptual Site and Development Plans (Exhibit “E). The revised PUD document must be approved by the DRC, Development Services staff, and Environmental Review staff prior to final approval of the conceptual plans.

11. The applicant must review and verify all density data contained in Section 3.C and 3.F of the conceptual PUD document.  The applicant shall appropriately revise all data found to be in error and shall also ensure that the data are consistent with corresponding information presented in the revised Sheet CPUD-4 of the Conceptual Site and Development Plans (Exhibit “E). The revised PUD document must be approved by the DRC, Development Services staff, and Environmental Review staff prior to final approval of the conceptual plans.

12. The applicant must obtain from the Board a variance which exempts the applicant from the requirements of Sections 10-346(a) and 10-915(d)(1)c.7 of the Land Development Code regarding the necessity of having an approved Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) before conceptual site and development plan approval can be granted.  This variance will not alleviate the need for the applicant to obtain approved EIAs before final site and development plan approvals can be granted for individual phases or components of the PUD. 

Conditions recommended by the Development Services Section of the Department of Growth and Environmental Management:

(Note:  Conditions 13 and 14 were also recommended by the Planning Department.)

13. At the time of final Site and Development Plan review, the applicant shall adjust lot boundaries and other proposed development improvements to protect the maximum number of patriarch trees possible and to preserve, to the greatest extent practicable, the maximum number of other large, native, viable trees.

Conditions recommended by the Development Review Committee at the August 25, 2004 meeting:

14. At the time of final Site and Development Plan review, the applicant should consider revising the site plan to create a wider cordon along the western property boundary that would function as a wildlife corridor and would be preserved through the corridor’s inclusion in a conservation easement inuring to Leon County.  Inclusion of such a preserved wildlife corridor represents the County’s preferred design alternative.

15. The applicant shall be eligible for paying a fee in-lieu of constructing sidewalks along Old Bainbridge Road, upon passage of a proposed ordinance establishing such provision. 

16. Any revisions to the concept plan that may impact the canopy road protection zone (along Old Bainbridge Road) shall be sent to the CRCC for their review and shall be subject to their approval.

Response to Notice:

Both the Planning Department and the Department of Growth and Environmental Management noticed this application consistent with the requirements of the Florida Statutes and the Leon County Land Development Code, including publishing a notice in the Tallahassee Democrat (Attachment #11) providing information on this application. Staff has received numerous responses to these notices.  The responses are included within Attachment #9.

Communications provided to staff subsequent to the October 12, 2004 Board meeting are included within Attachment #12.

Options:

1.   Conduct the first and only public hearing and adopt the proposed ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map changing the zoning of approximately 107 acres from the LP zoning district to a PUD zoning district, based upon the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission as set out in this agenda item.   

2.      Adopt the applicant’s proposed concept plan, subject to those conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, based upon the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission as set out in this agenda item.

3.      Conduct the public hearing and adopt the applicant’s proposed concept plan, subject to those conditions as recommended by the Board, based upon the findings made on the record at the public hearing. 

4.      Conduct the public hearing and do not adopt the proposed Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map; retain the present LP, Lake Protection zoning district, based upon the findings made on the record at the public hearing. 

5.      Board Direction.

Recommendation:

Options #1 and #2.

Attachments: 

      1.      Proposed Ordinance

      2.      Location Map

3.     Development Review Committee Report from the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department

4.      Development Review Committee Report from the Department of Growth and Environmental Management, Development Services Section

5.      Development Review Committee Report from the Department of Growth and Environmental Management, Environmental Review Section

6.      Development Review Committee Reports from the Public Works Department

7.      Map illustrating proposed amendment of the Future Land Use Map, pertaining to the subject property, presently under consideration (Application Cycle 2005-1)

8.      Description of the Lake Protection Future Land Use Category, Land Use Element, Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan

9.      Response to notices

10.  Land Development Matrix, Land Use Element, Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan

11.  Tallahassee Democrat Notice

12.  Communications provided to staff subsequent to the October 12, 2004 Board meeting

13.  Additional Information

Note:  Due to size, copies of the PUD concept plan are located in the Board conference room for Commissioners’ review, and at the Courthouse 5^th floor reception area for public review.