|
Description |
Palatka City Commission; 12/14/06; 6:00 p.m. |
||
|
Date |
12/14/2006 |
Location |
Palatka City Commission |
|
|
|||
|
Time |
Speaker/Item |
Note |
|
|
PRESENT |
Mayor Karl N. Flagg, Commissioners Mary Lawson Brown, James Norwood, Jr., George E. Sanders, Allegra Kitchens |
||
|
ALSO PRESENT |
City Manager Allen R. Bush; City Attorney Donald E. Holmes; City Clerk Betsy Jordan Driggers; Assistant City Clerk Karen Venables; Finance Director Ruby M. Williams; Police Chief Gary Getchell; Fire Chief Mike Lambert; Planning Director Geoff Pappas; Public Works Director Woody Boynton; General Services Director Kenneth E. Venables; Parks & Cemeteries Supervisor Jeff Norton |
||
|
CALL TO ORDER |
Mayor Karl N. Flagg |
||
|
Invocation |
The Reverend John Jacobs, Pastor; All Saints Anglican Church |
||
|
Pledge of Allegiance |
Led by Commissioner Norwood |
||
|
APPROVAL OF MINUTES |
November 9, 2006 - Commissioner Sanders moved to adopt the minutes as read. Commissioner Norwood seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
PUBLIC RECOGNITION |
|
||
|
DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD |
Jack Trendler – Mayor Flagg presented the award to Mr. Trendler, in absentia, to recognize his public services to the community and as outgoing President of Palatka Main Street. Mr. Trendler was unable to attend the meeting due to illness in the family; however, Mayor Flagg noted that their thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. |
||
|
STUDENT OF THE MONTH |
December, 2006 Mayor Flagg, assisted by Commissioner Norwood, presented certificates for academic excellence, leadership, citizenship and attendance to the following students, representing their respective schools: Dwayne Thomas Williams Jr. Ava Counts Dontae Stephenson Branden Flores Willie Johnson Tanesha Johnson Elizabeth Dampie Amanda Smith Mellon Elementary School Dalton Levi Bowen Moseley
Elementary Abram Jones Palatka High School Libby Beauchamp Peniel
Baptist Academy Ty’shon Jenkins |
||
|
PUBLIC COMMENTS |
Lynda Crabill, 609 S. 14th St., read into the record a letter (filed) from Mr. John Beaty from the University of Florida regarding the inspection/tour of the 100 Block historic buildings. She thanked Mr. Larry Sullivan, the new Editor at the Palatka Daily News, for the wonderful article on the 100 Block. Mayor Flagg stated the records would reflect this letter from the University of Florida College of Design, Construction and Planning, was introduced at tonight’s meeting. Commissioner Kitchens suggested entering the letter into part of the negations with the developer. Mayor Flagg stated the Commission could not take any official action on this tonight, but it could be an item for discussion on a future agenda. Mayor Flagg stated the record would reflect this correspondence was received, and the City Manager could forward this to all concerned parties to make sure they have notice of this. To his knowledge the Commission has not made a decision to endorse the total preservation of these buildings, and that is why it needs to be agendaed to come back before this body. As to the Putnam County History Book, Ms. Crabill reminded everyone that during the holiday season when families are gathered around telling stories, take notes and write them down so they can be put into the history book. |
||
|
CONSENT AGENDA |
1.
Authorize budget amendment transfer of $6,000
from Building & Zoning Department to the Fire Department in exchange for property
transfer of 2001 Grand Marquis LS (fire chief’s vehicle) from
Fire Dept. to Building & Zoning Department 2.
Accept proposal from Beck Auto Sales of $24,528
for purchase of 2007 Dodge RAM 1500 SLT Quad Cab 4x4 pick-up truck, per results of RFQ c. Accept proposal from SunTrust Bank, N.
Florida to
finance $850,000
for a new
Sutphen SPH100 Aerial Platform Fire Truck @ 3.85% Interest for a term of 15
years, per results of RFP d. Award
bid & contract for Parks Dept. tree pruning services to Jacobs Tree
Service in an amount not to exceed $15,000, per results of RFQ e. Award bid for Fred Green Park Concession Stand Roof to
Armstrong Roofing at $3,870, per revised scope of work/design, plus cost of
replacement wood at actual cost of materials and labor plus 15%, per
recommendation of Robert Taylor, AIA, Architect
f. Award bid for Police Department Vehicle Lease to Beck Auto Sales in the amount of $31,994/vehicle/36-month lease for patrol vehicles and $18,400/vehicle/48-month purchase contract for administrative vehicles, per results of a Request for Proposals. g. Award bid for Street Department ¾ ton service truck to Beck Auto Sales in the amount of $23,981.00, per results of a Request for Proposals. h. Authorize contract negotiations with
Ayres Associates, top-ranked responding engineering firm, for engineering
design services for the Reclaimed Wastewater Reuse Expansion Program, per
results of an RFQ and committee ranking. i. Facilitate grant application to the Florida Bureau of
Emergency Medical Services for $49,612.50, or 75%
of cost for 30 Automatic External Defibrillators (total grant
$66,150 – city provides 25% match: 1.
Authorize submission of grant application to Florida Bureau of
Emergency Medical Services to secure $49,612.50, or 75% of cost of 30 LIFEPAK Automatic External
Defibrillators 2.
Authorize expenditure of $16,537.50
in Law Enforcement Trust Funds for 25% grant matching funds for purchase of 30 LIFEPAK AED units
k. Authorize execution of DEP State Financial Assistance Agreement No. LP6771 in
the amount of $250,000 for the Wastewater
Reuse Project, for a total project estimated cost of $450,000.
l. Authorize
execution of Amendment
#6 to DEP
State Revolving Fund Loan Agreement #DW5419 010 for
upgrades to the Water Treatment/Distribution Plant
n. ITEM
PULLED from agenda o. Appoint
Lucy Visnaw to the Nuisance Abatement
Board for a three-year term, 1/1/07
to 12/31/09 (newly established Board – sole applicant) p. Reappoint Earl Wallace and Rev. Ezekiel Johnson the Palatka Planning
Board for 3-year terms
to expire 12/31/09 (incumbents – sole applicants) q. Reappoint
Timothy Parker as City Commission Appointee to the Police Officers’
Pension Board for
a two-year
term to expire December, 2008 (incumbent - sole applicant) r. Amend Airport Advisory Board member classifications by removing (1) Member Representing SJRWMD classification and adding (1) at-large member classification, per staff recommendation, and authorize advertisement to fill vacancy created by resignation of Gene Caputo, SJRWMD Representative s. Authorize the Mayor to execute a Certification of Plan Consistency
on behalf of Palatka Housing Authority’s Annual (2007) and 5-Year (2007-2011) Capital
Improvement Plans’ consistency with the consolidated plan for the City of
Palatka, per Planning Director’s
opinion t. Consent to Accompany/piggy-back with Putnam County BOCC on an intergovernmental service contract with NEFRPC in the amount of $41,000 for updates to the City of Palatka’s Comprehensive Plan, per Planning Director’s recommendation |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved to approve items A thru T with the understanding item N has been pulled from the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Norwood seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. |
||
|
UPDATE ON NEW PALATKA GAS AUTHORITY BUILDING |
Jeff Womble & Dave Cobb, FP&L Corp. - Mr. Cobb distributed a brief summary and drawings of the new building design for the Palatka Gas Authority administrative offices. Mr. Womble stated when the building was first laid out it was a traditional-looking office building. When they discovered it to be in a historic district, they decided to fit the look of the building into the neighborhood and surrounding area. Some of the things they tried to incorporate were matching columns, wrap-a-round porch, etc. They want it to be better than just the standard office building. The architect is finished with the design, and engineering should be completed in March, after which it will go out to bid. They should begin construction in May. It should be completed and ready for occupation in December 2007. Mayor Flagg thanked Mr. Womble for the update, saying he appreciated their sensitivity to the historic district, of which they are a part. FP&L and the Gas Authority Board of Director are to be commended for creating a partnership and working together on this project. Mr. Womble noted that they used a portion of Fred Green Park while working on this project, so they have been working with Mr. Norton, Parks Supervisor, on improvements to the Park. He presented the Commission with a check for $5,000 to be used toward the development of Fred Green Park. Mayor Flagg thanked him on behalf of the commission for partnering with the City on this park’s renovation and improvement. |
||
|
RESOLUTION NO. 8-10 |
RESOLUTION authorizing the financing and purchase of a new Sutphen SPH100 Aerial Platform Fire Truck for $850,000, and authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute documents in connection with the note to SunTrust Bank of N. Florida, NA - The Clerk read a resolution entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA; AWARDING SALE OF A $850,000 NOTE OF THE CITY TO THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LOAN AGREEMENT AND OTHER ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELIVERY OF SUCH NOTE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt Resolution No. 8-10 as read. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioners Brown, Kitchens, Sanders, Norwood and Mayor Flagg; yes. Nays; none. Resolution No. 8-10 was declared adopted. |
||
|
PUBLIC HEARING |
LARGE SCALE LAND USE AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL- 15.51 acres located 300 feet south and east of the intersection of Lundy Road and Edgemoor Street - Consideration of Transmittal of Application to DCA for Large Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use Element from County Urban Reserve (UR) to City Medium Density Residential (MED RES) - Held Investment Properties, Inc., applicant; Kimley-Horn and Associates, Agents - Planning Board Recommendation to Deny. |
||
|
|
Per the question, the Clerk noted there is no ordinance associated with this proposed Land Use Map Amendment at this time; this hearing is to transmit the applications for Large Scale Amendment to the State for comments, etc. This will either be an up or down vote on the transmittal of the application. Mayor Flagg stated this is simply about a transmittal of an application to the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee. City Attorney Don Holmes stated this should be done in the form of a resolution, but that could be done after the fact. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked Mr. Holmes for an overview of the Commission’s charge as it relates to the Planning Board’s recommendation to deny transmittal, and the Planner’s recommendation to transmit the application. Mr. Holmes stated application has been made to change the future land use map designation of a parcel of property about 15 acres in size. This was annexed about a year ago, but at the time there was no comp plan change or designation assigned under the City’s plan. The applicant is seeking a comprehensive plan designation that would allow it to develop the project with a density of up to 10 units per acre, which is allowed under the City’s Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan classification. In the County the property had a designation that would have technically allowed a density of up to 5 units per acre, but the county has a density “points scored” matrix that takes into account a lot of different factors, i.e. proximity to water, sewer, recreational facilities, etc. If that matrix were applied, it is his understanding that the results would be something like 2 units per acre, under the County’s plan. The process for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan change when the parcel is over 10 acres in size. It is termed a “large scale comprehensive plan amendment,” and because of that the process to change the Comp Plan changes. In this instance, the Planning Board and City Commission consider the application, and if it meets with everyone’s approval, with the Commission having the final vote, and they decide they want to pursue the change, the application is transmitted to DCA in Tallahassee. DCA reviews the application and sends back an ORC Report, citing their comments, recommendations and/or objections, if any, and if they raise issues about the City’s comp plan and the changes taking place, the City may have to address those with a response. If the City successfully addresses those objections, the matter will come back before the City Commission for a final adoption of the Comp Plan Change, which does require an ordinance. Tonight’s hearing is called a “Transmittal Hearing.” The question before the Commission is whether or not they want to make this change, even though the details may not be completely worked out. The Planning Board has considered the matter and they voted to recommend not to transmit the application to DCA. In this instance, the City Commission is not prohibited from taking new testimony or evidence. If the City Commission votes not to transmit this application, the Comp Plan change basically “dies” at this point. The property is already in the City. Mayor Flagg asked if it would be fair to say that there still has to be an amendment at some point in time because there is no City designation on that property, as it still holds a county designation? Mr. Holmes stated at this time the City’s Comp Plan does not assign any classification to this property, because this property wasn't in the City when the City Comp Plan and Future Land Use Element were originally adopted, so yes, at some point the City’s Future Land Use Map will have to be modified to assign some category to this piece of property. |
||
|
Developer Presentation |
Lara Diettrich, Planner with Kimley-Horn and Associates, gave a presentation on the proposed Oaks Landing Land Use Amendment Transmittal. Ms. Diettrich noted the current Putnam County land use designation is Urban Reserve, which allows up to 4 units per acre. They are requesting a change to City Medium Density, which allows up to 10 units per acre. The density in their project site plan shows 9.03 units per acre, per a self-imposed density cap as a result of agreements and negotiations with City and County staff and residents. She recapped the project timeline, noting the transmittal of the Land Use Amendment Application, which will be sent to DCA if the City so chooses, is the first phase of the process. DCA will then advise the local government to provide for site-specific limitations through their review of transmitted amendments and the issuance of the objections, recommendations and comments (ORC) report. She referenced Conceptual Site Plan #1, showing Planning Board and residents’ concerns. They met with the community and worked with city staff, and came up with Conceptual Site Plan #2, which addresses their concerns. After that they had meetings with the City and County, and as a result of those comments, issues and concerns, they came up with Conceptual Site Plan #3. Sixty-five percent (65%) of this property is surrounded by recreational open space and conservation. Only 35% of the parcel is adjacent to urban rural or low density residential. A majority of he residential units in the site plan are completely buffered by non-residential land uses. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bill Schilling, also with Kimley-Horn and Associates, was present to follow up on Ms. Diettrich’s presentation and to discuss the traffic studies. He noted two issues that have been raised regarding the Comp Plan primarily. First is compatibility, discussed by Ms. Deittrich, and the different mix of uses that surround this property. The second item of concern is traffic. Much of the discussion about the site plan has been zoning related, which will be addressed when they address the zoning aspect. Compatibility addresses the Comprehensive Plan amendment that is before the Commission tonight for transmittal. As to traffic concerns, Mr. Schilling stated he is a professional engineer and is licensed in the State of Florida; his specialty is in civil and traffic engineering. Kimley-Horne and he specifically performed a traffic study for this site, the purpose of which was to determine if this land use change is in compliance with the City’s existing Comp Plan. Currently the City’s existing Comp Plan designates Lundy Road as an urban collector and assigns it a level of service standard "D" as a part of its transportation element, which means it has assigned a maximum capacity to this road. According to FDOT level of service criteria, level of service "D" on an urban collector relates to approximately 14,600 average daily vehicles. An existing 2006 Putnam County traffic count demonstrated that there are approximately 1,430 daily vehicles on the road today, which is roughly 10% of the capacity as defined by the City’s own Comp Plan as utilized today. As to what this project would add, as Ms. Diettrich stated, this site has been capped at 140 units, which would generate around 860 new trips per day, or 79 vehicles in the evening peak hour. This added traffic is equal to around 6% of the road’s capacity. It is clear that adequate capacity exists on Lundy Road. A question that has come up at prior meetings is whether they have considered traffic on Edgemoor and Moseley Avenue. In response, they also performed counts on both Edgemoor and Moseley and found these roads also demonstrated similar characteristics, and are in the 20 to 25 percent of capacity range; however, their capacity was not exceeded. In their opinion, they believe this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with the transportation element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Concerns have also been raised about a boat ramp at the end of the Road, and whether or not that increased weekend traffic. A traffic count done over Labor Day weekend and for the entire week was conducted, and they compared average weekdays to the average weekend traffic. It demonstrated the two are roughly equivalent, and weekend traffic was not larger than weekday traffic. Staff and citizens have raised the concern that, although Lundy Road has been designated an Urban Collector, when a person drives on it, it may not feel like a collector road. They went out and measured the road today, and found it is 18 feet wide. Typically FDOT recommends 24-foot wide pavement for a collector road. They have met with staff and worked very diligently over the past 30 days on a proposal to improve the section of Lundy Rd. and Edgemoor Street that their project’s traffic will utilize. They plan to upgrade the road to an urban collector standard by widening it at Edgemoor and Lundy down to their entrance, at their expense. The will also re-strip, re-sign and fully overlay the road. Traffic turning on to the site was another concern, and they propose to build, at their expense, a southbound turn lane into the site. Staff has asked them to include a sidewalk, and they have agreed to construct this sidewalk in all areas where it is constructible. They, the applicant, have prepared a draft development agreement. It has been reviewed by staff, who has made some comments, and it is their intention and proposal that the draft development agreement would be transmitted to DCA as well, showing the commitments they have agreed to make. Per discussion with Staff, there are currently potable water and sewer facilities in the area of the site but not immediately in front of the site. For off-site water/sanitary sewer they will run an 8" line to connect into the City’s system, and have included that as part of their development agreement. In conclusion, they feel they have addressed the Planning Board’s concerns. The site currently has a county zoning of PUD. With the transmittal of the Comp Plan application, they are still going to have to come back to the Planning Board to address the rezoning, should this get approval from DCA. It is their intent to request a rezoning and a PUD overlay. As to whether or not that segment of the Road is now in the City or County, they have met with City and County staff and have determined it is in the City. The east half of the r/w will have to be annexed. Mr. Schilling said a third item of concern is that they could not implement a density cap on this project. They have since had a discussion with the NE Florida Regional Planning Council and staff and have determined they can have a self- imposed a density cap, if they so desire. They have proposed a density cap of 140 units verses the maximum 155 that would be allowed. Since the Planning Board hearing, in order to address concerns, they have agreed to remove one of the buildings. Also, as to concerns raised by Mr. Sanders, a citizen, whose driveway is immediately south of the property, as to the proximity of his driveway to the project’s driveway, they have agreed to provide Mr. Sanders and the property owner behind with him a driveway coming off their entrance road to alleviate his concerns. This project fits a niche and a housing demand that is not met in the City of Palatka, and will appeal to professional people. A large portion of the site is surrounded by conservation land that is not going to be built on. A portion abuts the City Golf Course, and the developer has agreed to sell a one-year golf club membership with every unit, which will enhance and support the golf course. This will add tremendous value to the area and will produce considerable ad valorem tax into the city coffers. As part of the agreement, they will bear the burden of the improvements so the City won’t have to. They believe this site is compatible with the uses that surround it. This project is good for the City of Palatka. Tonight they are here to decide whether or not the application merits transmittal to the DCA for further review, not to actually adopt the Comp Plan change. They ask the Commission to follow the staff recommendation and consider the changes, modification and improvements they have made since the Planning Commission, and vote to transmit the application to DCA. |
||
|
|
Planning Director Geoff Pappas said the Planning Board recommended denial of this request due to density and traffic issues. There was no evidence presented at the Planning Board level that he feels would persuade the Commission to vote otherwise on this matter or have a difference of opinion. Through investigation, he has found new evidence that the roadway that fronts Held Properties is, in fact, inside the City and the other portion at Fairway Drive Subdivision is also in the City. The only portion that is not in the City is the portion that is south of the Held Investment Property, running south to the strip that they were going to improve, which is just half of the roadway from the center line south. The Planning Board was looking at the testimony they had, and did not receive full evidence that would have persuaded them otherwise. Further, as noted in the information in the agenda packets, evidence from the Dept. of Community Affairs stipulates that a density cap can be set on this development and asterisked on the Future Land Use Map prior to transmitting to the Dept. of Community Affairs. Adoption of a development agreement would not have to take place until the adoption hearing, which would be two to three months out, depending upon how long it would take to draw up. It is staff’s recommendation that this development be approved; it is a win-win for the City and will provide approximately $1.2 million dollars in potential impact fees. If the school impact fees are passed it would mean $700,000.00 in school impact fees. The area residents have taken issue with a low-density verses medium-density designation. There is a misnomer in trip generation regarding what constitutes trip generation when you do single family trip generation versus multifamily trip generation. The actual trip generation is more based upon a single-family residential designation than a multifamily. The assumption is, because it is multifamily, there is more trip generation, but that is not the case. This development as proposed will generate 79 peak hour trips. If you took the five dwelling unit condition with 5 units per acre, that would generate 75 peak hour trips. If the Commission wanted to specify a lesser capacity, the applicant could be restricted on the density per the Future Land Use Map and the Development Agreement. |
||
|
Public Comment |
Mrs. Ellsworth Howell Kearney, 2403 Lundy Rd., stated she lives next to the church on Lundy Rd. No one has ever met with her or the people who live next to her and no one knew anything about a meeting. She lives in the County, not the City, and the church is in the County. She believes if the road is widened it will take some of her property and the church property. She is not against growth but she feels she is fighting for her home. There is a problem with traffic in that area now. Lundy Road cannot handle 14,000 cars. They are talking about taking away people’s homes. |
||
|
|
Michael Woodward, Esquire, 501 Atlantic Ave., Interlachen, was present representing Thomas Henry Sanders, 2509 Lundy Rd. Mr. Woodward stated Mr. Sanders is not opposed to the development of this parcel or the development of it for residential purposes. He is also not opposed to its development by this particular developer. The issue is the appropriate maximum allowable density for this particular parcel, given what the neighborhood is like and given what is around it. This is the issue the Planning Board voted on unanimously. The Board clearly expressed, as its primary reasoning, that the level of density that would be allowed by medium density future land use, up to 10 units per acre, was just too much. Mr. Sanders is suggesting that low density residential, which allows 5 units per acre, would be much more appropriate. When this was in the County it was classified Urban Reserve, and under the point scale methodology the County utilizes, this parcel apparently scored at 2 units per acre. If it was to come in at low density residential, that would be a considerable boost, as at least 75 units could be built there. Immediately surrounding this area, the designations are generally either County Urban Reserve or Low Density City, and also Conservation, Recreational Use. The commercial future land use that was pointed out previously appears to be an anomaly, not seriously developed for commercial future land use, and he suggests it be more appropriately changed to something that is consistent with the neighborhood and the densities that are there, rather than to change the future land use of the subject parcel to something that is not consistent with its surroundings. The primary issue is the Comp Plan amendment. All the various site plans are relevant to the decision that is to be made this evening. This decision is about the appropriate level of density, and low density is more appropriate than medium density. The Planning Board heard the evidence and determined that putting anything close to 10 units per acre in this location would be completely incompatible with everything that is around it. |
||
|
|
Henry Sanders, 2509 Lundy Road, presented a petition (filed) with 30+ signatures opposing amending the Future Land Use Map from County UR to City Medium Residential on Parcel ID#18-10-27-0000-0060-0000 and 13-10-26-0000-0280, applied for by Held Investment Group, LLC. The petition noted that, as property owners adjacent to the parcel, they object to the proposed multi-family condominium development increasing the current zoning from 30 single-family dwellings units to 140 multi-family dwelling units on the listed parcels. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked Mr. Sanders what they propose would be adequate if they are saying the number that is being presented is too high? It has been established that the property is in the City and the issue seems to be centering on the density. Mr. Sanders responded single-family dwellings would be appropriate. Mayor Flagg asked how many dwellings? Mr. Sanders stated low-density range, which would allow up to 5 units per acre. As to his driveway, Mr. Sanders said he attended the staff meeting and was able to discuss his concerns, and the possibility of having his exit cross over into the development was brought up. He feels there is no way that he is going to give up his private driveway to join up into this development. He worries about the traffic going on and off of his property and feels this is a safety issue. Along the golf course, from Ravine Gardens along Moseley Avenue to Palma Ceia, which dead ends at the golf course, the density is 23 homes. College Arms Apartments is a high-density area, and when you increase density it increases crime. Today he received a three-page list of police calls and crime going on at College Arms. There is a concern that the retention ponds will breed mosquitoes. There are mixed feelings about this project. He quoted Mr. Bush’s Feb. 10th statement, where he said the City looks forward to unprecedented growth, and was in the process of planning and installing the necessary infrastructure to assure quality growth in order to assure the citizens will continue to enjoy the small-community quality of life they now enjoy. |
||
|
|
Christal L. Knight, 117 Macon Rd., stated Debra Massey, who was called out of town and unable to attend tonight’s meeting, asked her to give the Commission her letter regarding her objection to the transmittal of this application, which she would like to have read into the record. Ms. Knight stated it speaks to her concerns, and basically everyone’s in the area involved. She hopes the Commission does not approve this with the density as proposed. Mayor Flagg asked Ms. Knight if the letter from Debra Massey speaks for herself personally or for a group of individuals. Ms. Knight stated Ms. Massey speaks for herself but also speaks for the community, the Lundy Road/Browns Landing Coalition, which is a group in the area that meets to discuss all the development that is trying to come into the area. Mr. Woodward read Debra Massey's letter into the record (filed). |
||
|
|
Holly Coulliette, 2605 Lundy Rd., stated she lives two houses south of the property being discussed. As an educator she works at a school that has increased classes in each grade level over the past three years. There has been no concern expressed to overcrowding in schools. More schools can be built but that is 10 years down the road. If three different developments of high density are allowed, there will be no question that the schools will be squeezed tight. You can only pack so many kids into a portable. If there are behavioral problems in the classroom that cuts down on your instructional process. Impact fees are not guaranteed until they are paid. This is a major concern of hers. Also, as to traffic, she has two young children and there is plenty of traffic on the road now. They had to erect a steel rod fence just so cars would not come into their yard. As to attractiveness to professionals, she lives on the hill and the railroad tracks are beneath them. What professionals are going to want to live on the railroad tracks? She knows development is coming, but she does not believe it needs to be medium to high density. She believes it should be low density or single-family dwellings. They are looking for a bigger house now, and if there were 3 BR 2 baths houses there, she might buy one. There is a nucleus of people on Lundy Rd. whose families have been there 80+ or even 100+ years. |
||
|
|
Carol Bloodsworth, 2407 Lundy Rd., stated she lives next to this property and never received any notice of a public meeting. They live on a curve and experience the traffic on that corner. She asked how widening the road would improve the danger of that curve, and what could be done to eliminate that dangerous corner with all the traffic that is going to be added to it. |
||
|
|
Mrs. Gary Lott, 1601 Edgemoor, asked the Commission to think very carefully about what is being proposed. They want to remain in a peaceful and quiet surrounding. They know that this land will be developed at some point but they are just asking to please keep it to single family homes or two homes per acre, and not change the whole area. To the developer it's about making money, but to them it's about their lifestyle and the way they live. She is worried about traffic, crime and other issues her neighbors are worried about. This property is not only outside her back door, but also front door and side door. She will be nearly surrounded by condos. She asked who would spend that kind of money to sit right on top of the railroad tracks. |
||
|
|
Elijah Banks, 162 Yelvington Rd., stated he has listened to the concerns of the citizens in that area and would like to see the estimated percentage of the death toll that would result from this project and the percentage of crime rate. No one has said how this is going to affect the community. He would like to know how high the death rate and crime rate will go. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg stated he received two letters from citizens related to this issue, and asked the Clerk to read them into the record. The Clerk read a letter from Richard & Grace Keith, 2504 Lundy Road, stating they are opposed to the development (filed). The Clerk read a letter from Brian & Alice Keith, 104 Edgemoor Trail, stating they are opposed to this development (filed). |
||
|
|
Mr. Schilling, Project Engineer, said as to traffic concerns, the portion of Lundy Road in front of the site and north of the site is within the city limits. They intend to widen the road to meet two-lane standards, which will fit into the current right-of-way. They have no intention of taking any homes or impacting anyone’s personal property. Many people have gone before the Commission tonight regarding the traffic. As to the misconception of thinking that a change to low-density residential will not have as great an impact on traffic, Mr. Pappas demonstrated that condominiums/townhomes generate fewer, or roughly 60%, of the same trips that single-family homes generate. There is no significant difference in traffic impact between 140-condominium owner-occupied units compared to 75 single family detached homes. If the Commissions decides to reduce the density to Low-Density based on the assumption that it will reduce traffic, this is not the case. Again, they have conducted a traffic study that is in accordance with accepted industry standards in the traffic engineering industry. It has been received and reviewed by staff and it is his understanding that staff has no objections to that study. There is ample roadway capacity for this Comp Plan amendment. |
||
|
|
Ms. Lara Diettrich, Project Engineer, responded to comments regarding the taking of property, saying there is no intention nor will it happen with this development to take any property, whether it is a church, private residence or any such other matter. In regards to notification of any of the hearings and community meetings, she holds the records of names and addresses that exceed by two times the distance required by ordinance that requires the City of Palatka to take a 100 foot radius of the given proposed site and send those notifications within the four or seven days of any public hearing. Ms. Diettrich stated they also went to the extra length of having the community meeting as well. For that meeting, they also went 200 feet for every single notification instead of the required 100 feet. The land uses that meet this same density are unique in that they are surrounded completely by single family and this development is not. In regards to school capacity, she has a letter from Philip Leary who is the consultant to the Putnam County School Board, which shows and reflects all of the schools capacity, showing the schools have capacity for this project. In regards to comments regarding crime and other such incidents, she completely understands, however that would be addressed to the Commission, Mayor or Police Chief. This evening the issue is the transmittal of a semiannual land use amendment to DCA. The condominiums are middle and upper scale developments and are ownership units, generating a desired “quality of life”. The way it is prepared it would not generate the type of behavior that is not condoned. In regards to the comment in Ms. Massey’s letter as to what is problematic about changing the comp plan to allow for greater density, there are other items that are currently ‘tabled’ that are of far greater magnitude that by far exceed any comparison to this project. Their proposal is for 140 units on 15.51acres. The two that are tabled are in the thousands, and given that, the size is of no comparison. They feel what is proposed tonight stands on its merits alone and should be seen as such. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes asked how, through the Comp Plan Amendment Transmittal process, if medium density is allowed, they would assure that the units that are built are medium to high-end owner condos and not some other form of multi-family unit. Ms. Diettrich said they are in the process of writing a development agreement, which she believes is in an 8th draft already. This has a continued evolution throughout this process, being that they are at the very beginning stage of a process that usually takes about a year. Mr. Holmes asked if what they were proposing is a binding Development Agreement entered into with the City, stating the units that are to be built will be owner-occupied condos of mid to high end scale? Mr. Schilling stated yes. In a catch-22, they cannot submit the formal rezoning application until the transmittal occurs, but they can submit their application after transmittal and prior to its adoption. He would be willing to go on record by saying prior to an adoption they would submit a rezoning application with a PUD overlay. Mr. Homes stated a rezoning does not guarantee a price range or product. Mr. Schilling stated there would be details within the actual PUD overlay language that could guarantee quality and level of finish. Mr. Holmes stated Mr. Schilling answered his question, provided he is standing by his statement that in the development agreement they would bond the developer to building mid- to high-end owner occupied condo units. The railroad tracks may prove to be more of an issue than has been thought. Mr. Holmes stated that Mr. Schilling had said this is a Comp Plan issue, which is correct. It is a density issue and unless there is something in a development order to back up or bind them to the representation they have made that these are going to be owner occupied, mid- to high-end condo units, once the density is changed, you could see apartments or any other structure with a density of not more than 9 units per acre on that site without being out of compliance with the comp plan, if changed. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens noted the Planning Director stated that he calculated 79 trips during peak hours. Mr. Pappas stated that was correct, and it was based on the Kimley-Horn traffic study. Commissioner Kitchens said 140 condo units with a minimum of 1 car per unit, assuming they are all working, would be a minimum of 140 trips during the peak time. Mr. Pappas stated that is not the assumption for peak hour trips for multi family townhouses; they have a different trip generation formula than single-family trip generation. Commissioner Kitchens stated she did not understand the difference. Mr. Pappas stated the Commissioner would have to argue with the Washington, DC Institute of Transportation Engineers, who have adopted the trip generation manual handbook that the City has adopted, along with every local government in the State of Florida. Commissioner Kitchens stated she was confused, because concerning the Jutras Project at Florida Furniture, which has 98 units, it was estimated to generate some 800 trips, and that was to be a residential retired community, so how could 140 families make 79 trips assuming that they were working? Mr. Pappas said he could not comment on the Jutras development but he can on this development, and he has verified the information as demonstrated by the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Commissioner Kitchens said if that is going to generate 864 trips, per Mr. Schilling’s presentation, when do the other 700 or so trips occur if they don't occur during peak hours? Mr. Pappas said it is calculated on a 24-hour basis; you would have to space it out accordingly to the different hours. Commissioner Kitchens noted that College Arms and the public housing on Husson Ave. was referred to as comparable type of housing, but College Arms, which is indeed a high-crime area, or any other type of public housing should not be compared to this property. Mayor Flagg stated College Arms was not built as public housing; it was built as rental apartment housing. Per the question on Lundy Road, Mr. Pappas stated it was verified through the Putnam County Property Appraiser’s office that the east side of the property to the centerline is owned by Held Investments. The west side has been conveyed to the Fairway Drive Subdivision and is partly annexed into the City. Both are in the City except the portion that is south of half of the center line south of the southwestern property line down to the 500 foot strip that parallels the Fairway Drive Subdivision to the east. Commissioner Kitchens concurred that density was the primary reason the Planning Board voted to recommend denial of this request. Mr. Pappas responded that the argument was on whether or not you could stipulate a density requirement, and he found through DCA and other local governments, and it has been verified through NEFRPC, that you can stipulate the density. Commissioner Kitchens said the Planning Board had a problem with it being 140 units, and felt that much less was better. She is satisfied with Mr. Schilling and Ms. Diettrich’s coverage of the eminent domain concern, but the road is now 18 feet wide, and many of these properties go down almost to the pavement. At some point eminent domain may have to be considered; she hopes not. As for ad valorem taxes, the City is at 8 mills, and if one unit is assessed at $400,000, the City would realize $3,200 per unit, which sounds good, but when compared with the impact study information that stated that the one-time cost to the City for each residential unit added was $40,000, she believes this should be given further thought. She asked how high the buildings would be. Mr. Schilling said they have not yet finished the actual architectural design of the buildings so he could not say with certainty. Commissioner Kitchens said she was concerned when Mr. Henry Sanders told her he was asked to leave a staff meeting on this project, held between City and County employees and the developer. Mr. Pappas said they did not want to set precedence on allowing citizens to attend such staff meetings, which are not public meetings. They were obliging Mr. Sanders by letting him talk to the participants at the beginning of the meeting. If every staff meeting was public, nothing would get done and it would also violate State Statue. Commissioner Kitchens said notification concerns were brought up at the Planning Board meeting. Although Ms. Deittrich said she has a list of all those notified, and staff said notices were sent out, some people state they did not receive notice. She believes registered letters should be sent out. The Commission should consider the Planning Board’s recommendation when making a decision. She also has concerns regarding the retention ponds and any Developer Agreement. |
||
|
|
In reference to Ms. Massey’s comments, Commissioner Brown said growth is coming and they are going to have do some compromising. She asked as to the density of the existing subdivision at Edgemoor and Lundy Rd. Mr. Bush said it has about a dozen single-family homes. Commissioner Brown asked if Lundy Road were upgraded, what level it would be. Mr. Holmes said the classification, in this case “D,” is meant to tell you that the road will already handle a certain number of trips per day. I this case, the level “D” assigned it means it will handle 14,000 trips a day. Level of service D says that someone has decided that is the standard that road occupies, so when you improve it you are not changing the level of service on it because you have not exceeded the level of service -- it is already at level D. Before you would theoretically need improvements to increase its capacity, you would have to already project 14,000 trips a day. When the road is improved, it does not necessarily increase the level of service on the road; the road is already at level of service D. They are not projecting that the traffic will come close to meeting that level of service. Mr. Holmes asked if Lundy Rd. hasn't been in the City, how it came to have a level of service under the City’s Comp Plan? Mr. Pappas stated there is a level of service category for the local and collector roadways that are within the City of Palatka’s jurisdiction. Mr. Holmes asked how it was designated as a collector road if it hadn't been a city road before the annexations that occurred last year, or if Lundy Rd. is already named in the City Comprehensive Plan as a collector road? Mr. Pappas stated the Comprehensive Plan for the City is outdated and has not been updated according to standards, so it is not equitable with the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schilling said he could not say what the level of service is under the county, but during a discussion with Mr. Parker, he made it very clear that the County has it designated as a local road. Mr. Holmes said he’d also had that conversation with Mr. Parker. Mr. Schilling read from Table B-9, City of Palatka Projected Traffic Volumes, which does show the Level D designation on Lundy Road. Prior to last year’s annexations. The northern part of Lundy Road that fronts this property is clearly designated as an urban collector in the City’s Comp Plan, and the City’s Comp Plan designates all urban collector roads with a level D standard. They pulled the County’s Comp Plan and the County assigns a level of service D standard to all of its local roads, so whether the County designates it a local road or the City designates it an urban collector, both municipalities have defined that standard as level of service D. Today the road is operating much better than a level of service D. For these type of collector roads that have driveways, the DOT does not recommend the assignment levels of service A or B because A designates a free flowing facility, which a collector can't be, because people come in and out of their driveways. Based on the DOT grading criteria, today this would be a level of service C. With the addition of their traffic it will continue to operate at level of service C. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said she was under the impression that if the road were not improved upon, you could not build. Mr. Schilling stated Commissioner Brown was correct; as part of the City Concurrency Ordinance, for any facility that were to fall below the level of service, it would require litigation in order for the project to move forward. Mr. Holmes stated that each of the letters denotes a higher capacity of the road. Commissioner Brown stated she understands the concept, and used Kingsley Road in Orange Park as an example. Mr. Pappas noted adding the turn lane will increase the level of service. Commissioner Brown asked if there was any other ingress/egress besides from Lundy Road. Public Works Director Woody Boynton stated Moseley Avenue would not be a good extension, as there are homes now built along what fronts between Lundy and what would be the Moseley right-of-way through there. They would have to get an easement or something similar, and he does not know if Moseley extends below Edgemoor. Commissioner Brown said they need to look at impact fees. They need to devise a way to do these things and compromise, because growth is coming. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said although the City has part of the road designated as urban collector, the County has a portion of it designated differently. It is going to bottleneck right at this development into an urban collector. With it being widened at this point and then getting narrower, it could bottleneck and cause serious problems. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Sanders said the public realizes that growth is going to come. Both the City and developer have made concessions. Growth will come regardless of what individuals may think. The City needs upscale housing. Newcomers to the area are living out of the county because they cannot find adequate housing here. He is in favor of transmitting the application. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood said the agenda material has answered most of his questions. He asked Police Chief Getchell to address this development’s impact on the Police Department. Chief Getchell said there are no laws stating that the Police or Fire Department are part of the land use amendment process. They do try to get in on the front end of the process to determine impact to law enforcement, as it obviously impacts them. For residential growth, they specifically look at population and what it will generate in calls for service. They follow certain criteria and standard formulas. Single-family residential doesn’t generate as many calls as multi-family. As to crime, many factors are considered; it is difficult to project out based on preliminary plans; in their review, they note this. As this project progresses, their projections will progress. Crime rates are not necessarily based upon population. Being a transit community, lack of jobs and income levels come into play. With growth he tries to be optimistically cautious. Growth does not pay for itself. Once this is developed and built out, it will be equivalent to a Lowe’s or Home Depot, both of which were significant. Palatka’s “calls for service” load is closer to that of a city with a population closer to 50,000. Middle to upscale housing doesn’t generate a lot of crime-related types of calls; however, there are property issues that they try to take a practical approach to. They would love to be involved in some crime-prevention environmental design aspects of the development that would eliminate potential opportunities for crime. The Department is neither for nor against growth, but are for responsible growth. When growth is not managed, quality of life decreases. He gets many calls from citizens on train-whistle noise. There are ordinances in place to address train whistles, but the only recourse is to stop the train and arrest the conductor, which is not practical. Many issues need to be considered. From a common-sense aspect, all roads leading to annexed developments should also be taken in. If the number of units changes, their numbers change, and that can happen as projects progress forward. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood noted the staff report also indicates that impact on utilities, water and sewage treatment departments would be minimal. He noted the question regarding schools and available capacity. He asked how many ways the City gives public notice on these issues. Ms. Laura Diettrich, Engineer, said in response to school capacity, she again referred to the letter from Mr. Philip Leary, the consultant to the Putnam County School Board. The available capacity is noted in the Commission packets and is noted by the number of “student stations,” which refers to the number of openings for students at each school. As to notice, Mr. Pappas stated notices were sent out via newspaper, mail, signage, and they post it. They could go further with this. Commissioner Norwood would like to see some recommendations as far as notice requirements. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg stated the question before the Commission is whether they will approve the transmittal of this application, or uphold the Planning Board’s recommendation to deny transmittal. If approved, do they approve the transmittal for medium residential, low density residential, or none at all? He asked if there is any flexibility in the level of density that is being transmitted, noting the deadline on this is fast approaching. Mr. Holmes said the Commission should consider the application as stated; at this point there isn’t a lot of leeway to go back and start over. In the absence of any request from the applicant to do otherwise, the Commission either transmits it as it has been submitted, for medium density residential, or not. He does not think the Commission has the luxury of transmitting it as low density residential. As to the question of the 9.03 units per acre, he does believe that the Commission could impose that density restriction through either a notation on the Comp Plan or separate site-specific policy. Since the applicant has essentially asked for that, he thinks the Commission could vote to transmit it at 9.03 units per acre because that is what the applicant has asked for, but he does not think they can go below that. Per the question, Mr. Pappas stated the Commission could set it at a lower density capacity by resolution within the governing authority. Mayor Flagg stated the property owner would have to set the minimum they would want, which is now at 9.03 units/acre, which is what the developer is requesting. Everything that has been discussed still hinges on the density. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Sanders asked to hear from the developer on this. Per the question, Mayor Flagg said DCA would make recommendations on the application. Mr. Schilling said although residents and concerned citizens have asked for low density residential, that is not where they want to be. He asked if the Commission had a number they would feel comfortable approving. Mr. Bush asked if it is financially feasible for them to do this project at a lesser rate than what is proposed. Mr. Schilling stated he would need to confer with his client. |
||
|
Recess |
Mayor Flagg asked for and received commission consensus for a recess. |
||
|
Reconvene |
Mayor Flagg reconvened the meeting to continue with the Orders of the Day. Mr. Schilling said he had conferred with the owner; taking into consideration the comments that have been made here and knowing that their intent is to create what they think is a tremendous asset to this community, they have compromised on several items, regarding the road and the public utilities. They further believe this project can still work at 120 units, which roughly works out to a density of 7.7 dwellings per acre. Therefore, the applicant is willing to agree to a cap of 120 units, which they think is a further compromise and demonstration of their desire to make this a very desirable project. |
||
|
|
Michael Woodward, Esquire, stated his client believes 5 units per acre under low density residential would be an appropriate compromise. As a point of legal procedure, he cited copies of Sec. 163.3174 of the Florida Statutes and also Sec. 54-48 of the City Codes (not filed with the Clerk). Mr. Woodward stated the discussion has turned to whether or not some different density standard should be applied, other than one of the density standards that is already available in a future land use category that is now part of the City Comprehensive Plan. Those standards would essentially be the medium density residential at 10 units per acre or the low density residential at 5 units per acre. This is a discussion about creating an intermediate standard, which in his opinion would involve a modification to the Comprehensive Plan. A modification to an application of this type should warrant that it be remanded back to the local planning agency, or the Planning Board. Mr. Woodward stated he highlighted some language from the Statute and the City’s own code reinforces this, sighting from Sec. 163.3174. At this time they are now ad-hoc creating, or crafting a type of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan creating a new density standard of 7.7, or whatever number that is not currently on the list of density standards that exist in the Comprehensive Plan text. This has been taken to the point where, if the applicant wants to pursue this, it would be appropriate to remand it back to the Planning Board to allow them to have their input and give their recommendation on whether that would be appropriate. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes stated he is troubled with “breaking new ground” in terms of setting a number that is within the range of medium density residential, but not one that has been specifically discussed at the Planning Board. He did try to call the attorney for the NE Fla. Regional Planning Council for some insight on this, but he was on vacation. The bottom line is he believes that they can go forward and consider the limitation that the applicant has offered. His logic is that it has already been considered by the Planning Board at the medium density residential level, which is from 5 to 10 units per acre, their recommendation to the Commission was rejection, or to not transmit. It would be possible to send it back to them and get their input as to the 7.7 unit level that has been suggested, but that would mean missing the transmission cycle deadline. His logic is that the higher density has been advertised, the higher density was before the Planning Board and they rejected the higher density, which is the recommendation in front of the Commission. Now the applicant has essentially offered a level of compromise that is within the range that was considered by the Planning Commission, and it is his opinion that the public has been advised of this potential. Mr. Holmes stated he had read two examples that were given to him of limitations of density within a density category, one being from Putnam County, where DCA in their ORC Report did, in fact, suggest that the density be limited within the category by either a site specific policy adoption, which in his opinion is equivalent of a text amendment to the Comp Plan, or by notation on the Future Land Use Map. This was a specific recommendation from DCA. He has not confirmed that the County did this, but is assuming the county did follow the recommendation. It does appear to him as though you can put a notation on the Future Land Use Map that, even though you are approving medium density residential by consent of the applicant and your own approval, you are limiting that medium density residential to a cap of 7.7 within the category which otherwise would have provided for a cap of 10. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved that the transmittal be submitted to the DCA with a cap of 7.742 units per acre, for a maximum of 120 units. Commissioner Norwood seconded the motion. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens asked for a show of hands from audience members that are in favor of the new amount. Mr. Holmes cautioned that a land use decision is not suppose to be a popular vote of those who happen to show up at a meeting. Commissioner Kitchens stated she asked for that because previously everyone had their chance to speak, and likely do not want to stand up and speak again; she just wanted to get a feel on whether this makes a difference to them, which relates back to compatibility with the adjoining neighborhood and the effect on the character of the neighborhood, which are two of the things that need to be considered. Commissioner Brown stated the Regional Planning Council will thoroughly scrutinize what is there, and if it doesn't work it will be sent back. Mr. Pappas stated this will be transmitted to the DCA and all effected agencies, including the Regional Planning Council. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioner Brown, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg; yes. Commissioner Kitchens; no. Motion carried by a vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed. |
||
|
Public Hearing |
3875 Reid Street - Repeal and Re-adoption of ordinances to Annex, Amend the Land Use Map from County Urban Service to City Industrial, and Rezone from County IL to City M-1 - Palatka Lodge 184, Loyal Order of Moose, owner; Gordon Brooks, Representative. |
||
|
ANNEXATION - ORDINANCE NO. 06-49 |
Clerk read and ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA ANNEXING INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA CERTAIN ADJACENT TERRITORY IN SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA CONTIGUOUS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF PALATKA; REPEALING ANY ORDINANCE IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-49. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioner Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg; yes. Nays; none. Ordinance No. 06-49 was declared adopted. |
||
|
LAND USE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 06-50 |
The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH RESPECT TO ONE PARCEL OF LAND (LESS THAN 10 ACRES IN SIZE) AS DESCRIBED HEREINAFTER; REPEALING ANY ORDINANCE IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING ANY EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-50 as read. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioner Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders, Brown and Mayor Flagg; yes. Nays; none. Ordinance No. 06-50 was declared adopted. |
||
|
REZONING |
The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; REPEALING ANY ORDINANCE IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to pass the ordinance on first reading as read. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioners Norwood, Sanders, Brown, Kitchens and Mayor Flagg; yes. Nays; none. The ordinance was declared passed on first reading. |
||
|
REQUEST TO APPEAL PLANNING BOARD CASE NO. 06-037 |
1100 Madison Street - Request for Conditional Use for an alcoholic beverage license within 300 feet of a church and another licensed premise - Alex Sharp, Agent for R.T. Kohuth, Owner/Applicant - Continued from October 12, 2006 |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood rescued himself from any discussion or vote on this agenda item 8. |
||
|
|
The Clerk read a letter from Alex Sharp withdrawing this appeal (Filed). |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved to accept Mr. Sharp’s letter withdrawing the appeal on a decision to deny a conditional use permit, Planning Board case #06-037. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioners Sanders, Brown, Kitchens and Mayor Flagg; yes. Nays; none. Commissioner Norwood rescued. Motion passed. |
||
|
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS |
Mr. Holmes said tonight’s discussion illustrates the immediate and pressing need to work on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. An example of this is the level of service D road assignment that was discussed tonight. He is concerned with developers coming before the Commission and not considering what is good for the City Comp Plan. The City is going to get more Comp Plan change requests, and it will help if the City has something current to work with. Some of them the City may not want to pass, and will have to have valid reasons not to. |
||
|
|
Regarding the Comp Plan update, Mr. Pappas said the Commission has begun the process to update the Comprehensive Plan. The traffic circulation, future land use element and all the elements of the Comp Plan plus some new elements will be included in the newly featured Comprehensive Plan. This process will take 6 to 12 months and will be monitored very closely by him. This work will be performed in conjunction with the NE Fla. Regional Planning Council. The Concurrency Management System will also be presented to the Commission next month. This is a priority; the Commission will be getting information on City Notice Requirements and Site Plan Requirements, and he will be looking for feedback from the Commission. Commissioner Sanders said the City should look at potential growth areas so the roads and other infrastructure can be improved prior to growth. Commissioner Brown asked if there was a way for the Commission to be notified or told about applications for development or changes that come in. The City needs decent housing, and she’d like to see city employees live in the city. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood stated he has not been through a Comprehensive Plan renewal and asked as to the Commission’s involvement, other than improving it. Mr. Pappas stated City Commission workshops could be set to address the elements. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg stated there are several studies that need to precede the workshops. The Commission has talked previously about dealing with the arteries, collectors and things of that nature, that are more closely related to strategic planning. This is a priority and effects every department of the City. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown noted in the past the plan amendments had to be made by a certain date, or the City wouldn’t receive state or local funding. In the past, there were workshops on the amendments. Per the question, Mr. Pappas said the last amendments were done in 1998. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said public workshops are a good idea and asked that the Commission address the current Comp Plan. It is her opinion that Mr. Holmes is very wise in matters of law, and also knows the County. She’d like to see him involved in the changes at some level. |
||
|
|
Press Release -- Police Chief Gary Getchell passed out a press release to the Commission regarding holiday safety. The alcohol ordinance states that, because New Years Eve falls on Sunday night, bars may extend their operating hours for sales and consumption of alcohol until 4:00 a.m., instead of the normal closing time of midnight. The provision for ½ hour for the owners or managers to clear the premises is still built in and brings the time to 4:30 a.m. They will have increased patrols out over the holidays and have scheduled a DUI enforcement on New Years Eve. |
||
|
|
Press Release -- The Clerk said she issued a press release regarding the christening ceremony for the new aerial fire truck, which will be Tuesday, December 19th at 4:30 p.m. at the Palatka Kay Larkin Fire Station. The Clerk invited the Commission & Dept. Heads to the City Hall/Annex Christmas Luncheon Friday, December 22nd at noon. Mr. Bush said City Hall will close at 3:00 p.m. that day to begin the Christmas holiday. |
||
|
|
Jeff Pappas, Planning Director, said this is his 8th week here at the City. He extended his appreciation to the Commission and in particular Debbie Banks and all of his staff for all of their help. |
||
|
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS |
|
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said brought back information for the Commission from the Affordable Housing workshop she attended. The President of the League of Cities has appointed her to the Blue Ribbon Task Force for housing. Commissioner Brown said she is disturbed that the City has granted a variance for Mr. Braddy to sell alcohol at one of his buildings a few months ago and now that building is up for sale or lease. She would like the Commission, as soon as possible, to revise the ordinance to include a condition that if a variance was granted based upon a certain business plan, and that does not come to fruition, then the variance goes away and the use reverts back to what it was. Then, if the new owners or lessor want a variance, they would have to come in and apply for one based upon the new circumstance. Mr. Holmes stated it was a conditional use and the grantee is bound to do what he stated he would do; that is why they were granted a conditional use. A conditional use is not specific to just the person; they are saying the land use is a suitable land use for that location. In this situation, they had in fact approved that location for a gourmet grocery store, but it would not just have to be Mr. Braddy that ran it. Someone else could put a gourmet grocery store, but not put a package store there. It would have to be a gourmet grocery store, as that is what was applied for. Commissioner Brown asked if that needed to be clarified. Mr. Holmes stated it is already there in the conditional use language. It does not stop someone from selling to someone else, but the new owner would be bound by the same conditional use. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens asked, if a conditional use is given for alcohol and is not specific to what they are going to do but allows alcohol sales & service, then would any owner that came in be able to serve any kind of alcohol, such as a bar or restaurant, if the conditional use was just granted? She does not remember Mr. Braddy’s case being that way, but apparently it was specified he would put in a gourmet grocery store and sell wine and beer. She asked if there is any way to fix the conditional use similar to a variance. Mr. Holmes said that is consistent with the theory of zoning, which is you are not giving permission to a person to conduct a particular activity; it is a land use issue and you are saying the property is appropriate for the activity that is being applied for. It is the location and the use that are the key. He believes the Planning Commission is justified in tailor-making the conditional use to the activity that they think is okay. Mr. Pappas stated the Planning Board hears conditional use requests, but the Zoning Board of Appeals hears variances. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Sanders thanked the members of the Commission for listening to everyone’s concerns tonight and thinks it was all good information. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg stated he has received calls concerning the issue of the regional landfill and asked if Putnam County has given the City any idea of the approach they are going to take. Mr. Bush stated a meeting was held today at 11:30 at the landfill office between the City’s Public Works Director, Superintendent from the Waste Water Plant and the Landfill Superintendent to discuss the issue. He has not had a chance to talk with the Public Works Director yet but will be briefed on the results. It appears that the County is moving forward but he has also heard other comments that it is not going to happen. In the event that it does become a regional landfill, there will either have to be some type of pre-treatment at the landfill, or the City may have to impost restrictions. Mayor Flagg said the City is a partner in this and should be ‘at the table’ to share in the concept and know what the County’s plan is. Mr. Bush said the City has essentially been left out of the discussion thus far. Mayor Flagg said the City should get information on this first-hand and not through the media or otherwise. There was consensus to ask the appropriate County official to make a presentation to the Commission on the matter. |
||
|
ADJOURN |
At 10:09 p.m. upon a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Kitchens. |
||
Produced
by FTR Log Notes™
www.ftrgold.com