AGENDA DOCUMENTS
900304
AGREE. 1
April 11, 1995
8
~
....,
...:.'....,...'
"\
. .
.
_..~
- .~
AGENDA DOCUMENTS
. . ~ : :.:.
i..'
?LANNING DEPT MEMORANDUM NO. J~-102
frnpMli1
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
FROM: Timothy Cannon, Acting Planning Director
DATE: .n.pr il 20, 1990
SUBJECT: Woolbright Place Planned Unit Development--
Revised Master Plan
Please place the following item on the City Commission Agenda for
- the May 1, 1990 meeting under "Development Plans":
Accompanying this memorandum, you will find a copy of the revised
master plan for the Woolbright Place Planned Unit Development.
This master plan is being submitted in accordance with the
stipulation and settlement Agreement approved on January 24,
1990. The revised master plan differs from the previously
approved master plan mainly in that the 450 multi-family
dwellings and 70 single-family dwellings have been replaced with
600 multi-family dwellings. The revised master plan also shows
the re-alignment of S.W. 8th street so that it does not impact
the houses and lots in Leisureville, and eliminates the
T-intersection which was shown on the former plan. Furthermore,
the revised master plan shows the deletion of 5.1 acres at the
southern boundary of the PUD, which would accommodate the
exp~nd~d Planned Commercial Development.
The planning Department, City Manager} and City Attorney have
discussed the procedure for approving the revised master plan,
and are recommending the following: The revised master plan will
first be reviewed by the City Commission to determine whether the
revisions consitute a substantial change and thus warrant a new
rezoning petition. The Item 7 of the stipulation and Settlement
Agreement requires the City to approve the revised master plan,
and this finding would be required, provided that the master plan
is consistent with the Agreement. If the Commission makes a
finding of no substantial change with respect to the zoning, the
master plan would then be forwarded to the planning and zoning
Bca~d for their review and approval. This is the usual procedure
for approving revisions to PUD master plans as set forth in
Section 12 of Appendix B-Planned Unit Developments, of the City's
Code of Ordinances. Since the project is the subject of a
Stipulation and settlement Agreement between the City and
Tradewinds, the action of the Planning and Zoning Board will be
forwarded to the City Commission, which will then need to ratify
1
.
the Planning and Zon.i.ng Board's action as bel.u9 .in accordance
".i th the Agreement.
The Technical Review Board will not have the opportunity to
review the revised master plan until the TRB meeting of May 1,
1990. Therefore, any comments by the TRB will be distributed to
the city Commission at the May 1, 1990 Commission meeting. As a
result of the preliminary review of the master plan, however, the
Planning Department has two areas of concern: First, the public
park dedication which the applicant is proposing does not
constitute usable open space for neighborhood recreation
facilities. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 1 acre of
property at the northwest corner of the property, in exchange for
Poinciana Park. Poinciana Park is a I-acre park site, owned by
the City, which lies at the center of the PUD. The applicant has
indicated that the 2.I2-acre passive buffer which lies along the
west side of the project and the 1.9-acre parcel which lies at
the northeast corner of the project are not intended to be public
park dedications. It is the opinion of both the City Manager and
the Planning Department that the City should not accept the
I-acre public park dedication, since this parcel would not be
usable for neighborhood recreation facilities. It is the
recommendation of the City Manager and Planning Department that
the applicant either dedicate the required 4.5 acres of land or
pay the equivalent value of same to the City in cash, or provide
a combination of land and cash, provided that the park site is at
least 4 acres in size. Since a neighborhood park should have a
minimum area of 4 acres. the Commission should not accept any
public park which is less than this size and which is not of a
reasonably compact configuration. Item 10 of the stipulation and
settlement Agreement states that park dedications shall "meet the
requirements of the subdivision and platting regulations in
effect as of November 1986, and that any public parks which ~re
dedicated shall be of a configuration which is suitable for
neighborhood recreation facilities." Article IX, Section 8.E. of
the Sudivision Regulations states "The city council shall
d~termine whether it accepts land dedication or elects to require
payment of a fee in lieu thereof by consideration of the
following: (a) Topography, geology, access and location of land
in the subdision available for dedication; (b) Size and shape of
the subdivision and land available for dedication; (c) The
feasibility of dedication; (d) Availability of previously
acquired park property; (e) In conformance with the recreation
land llse plan. II Therefore, the City Commission has the
discretion to require that a neighborhood park of a suitable size
be dedicated as part of the PUD. If the Commission chooses to
accep~ any portion of the park dedication in cash, the applicant
will need to provide, at the time the preliminary plat is filed,
an appraisal or other documentation which establishes the fair
market value.
It is the Planning Department's recommendation that the master
plan specify the buffering measures which will be used along the
northern and western boundaries of the project. The master plan
2
_shows a 25 foot buffer, however the plan should specify the
height and density of vegetation to be planted, the height of any
berms, and the height and type of any fences or buffer walls.
The master plan should also specify the maximum building height
along the northern boundary, and the setbacks and orientation of
these buildings. Since a single-familY neighborhood lies to the
north, it is the Planning Department's recommendation that
buildings along the northern boundary should be limited to two
stories, should be setback at least sixty feet from the property
line, and should be oriented so as to avoid creating a wall
effect. Item No.2 of the applicant's cover letter, dated April
5, 1990, states that the apartments will be two and three story
buildings; therefore, it is assumed that the two story buildings
could be located along the northern end of the PUD. otherwise,
the apartment project may severely impact the environment and the
property values in the portion of Lake Boynton Estates which lies
to the north. These conditions could be met without conflicting
with the stipulation and settlement Agreement. These buffering
measures can be addressed in detail by the Planning and Zoning
Board, and subsequently reviewed by the city Commission.
Since the Technical Review Board will be reviewing master plan on
May 1, 1990, the city Commission may receive additional comments
from the TRB at the Commission meeting.
~)7!'~~
Timothy P. Cannon
cc: City Attorney
Jim Golden
charles Frederick
Colene Parker, Kilday & Assoc.
90-102
3