7. Public Hearing for the Second Reading / Adoption of Ordinance 2008-01, amending the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Cassady read this ordinance by title, confirming that she had approved for legality and form: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR LARGE-SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET; AMENDING FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT; AMENDING TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND RENAMING: “TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT;” AMENDING UTILITIES ELEMENT AND
RENAMING: “SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT;” AMENDING COASTAL MANAGEMENT/CONSERVATION ELEMENT AND RENAMING: “COASTAL ELEMENT” AND “CONSERVATION ELEMENT;” DELETING CHAPTER X, “MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES;” DELETING CHAPTER I, “INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW,” AND REPLACING WITH NEW CHAPTER I, “ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION;” REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS TOWN HALL, APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TOWN LIMITS BETWEEN ATLANTIC AVENUE AND PENINSULA DRIVE, FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL; REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILBUR BAY WETLANDS, APPROXIMATELY 26.4 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PENINSULA DRIVE AT THE NORTH TOWN LIMITS SOUTH TO THE CANAL NORTH OF OLD CARRIAGE ROAD, FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION; REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 16.3 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS PONCE
PRESERVE, LOCATED IN THE 4400 BLOCK BETWEEN PENINSULA DRIVE AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, FROM VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE; REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS RACING’S NORTH TURN RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 4511 SOUTH ATLANTIC AVENUE, FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES KNOWN AS TIMUCUAN OAKS BOTANICAL GARDENS, LOCATED IN THE 4500 BLOCK OF PENINSULA DRIVE, FROM VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS AND CONSERVATION TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE; REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY .9 ACRES KNOWN AS WINTERHAVEN PARK, LOCATED IN THE 4500 BLOCK OF ATLANTIC AVENUE, FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE; ELIMINATING THE HARBOUR VILLAGE PUD DESIGNATION AND REDESIGNATING THE AREA WITHIN THAT PUD, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS FISHERMAN’S HARBOUR VILLAGE, LOCATED EAST OF ATLANTIC AVENUE BETWEEN 4525 AND 4679 ATLANTIC, BETWEEN ATLANTIC AVENUE AND PENINSULA DRIVE IN THE
4600 BLOCK, AND WEST OF PENINSULA DRIVE FROM THE HARBOUR VILLAGE GOLF & YACHT CLUB SOUTH TO THE 4700 BLOCK OF PENINSULA DRIVE AND INCLUDING THE COLLEY SUBDIVISION, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 200 ACRES, TO LOW-DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, AND CONSERVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USES THAT EXIST WITHIN THE PUD BOUNDARIES; REDESIGNATING THE APPROXIMATELY 5.57 ACRE COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE HARBOUR VILLAGE PUD KNOWN AS FISHERMAN’S HARBOUR VILLAGE, FROM PUD, APPROXIMATELY 2.82 ACRES ON THE EASTERN PORTION TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND APPROXIMATELY 2.75 ACRES ON THE WESTERN PORTION TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Cassady explained that is a continuance of previous meetings and informed the audience of the sign-in sheet
and that both verbal and written comments will be accepted. It was decided that each speaker will have five minutes to speak. Ms. Konchan addressed the Council, outlining the staff memo and the map of the Brady parcel (attached). Mr. Brady’s attorney has requested that they not accept the map as drawn, preferring that 25’ offset from the wetlands boundary not be included in the residential area. Ms. Konchan recommends the map be adopted as drawn. She spoke about her conversation with DCA representatives regarding evacuation clearance times and language recommended in light of conflicting data that exists today. She then reviewed the language in the three alternatives provided for consideration. Councilman Goudie asked about the limit on the building size in the ROD and whether Alternative 2 or 3 would allow buildings up to 10,000 feet. Ms. Konchan replied that Alternative 2 would still include provisions in the event that a
PWD was adopted in that area, and under only that provision could potentially an applicant request a building in excess of 5,000 square feet, up to 10,000, but not for boat storage. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Gary Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, thanked Mayor Epps and Councilman Hinson for their contributions to the town. With regard to the amended Comp Plan, he thanked Ms. Konchan for the wording on hurricane evacuation, and stated that he opposes Alternative 1 and reserved his right to petition DCA should it pass, because he does not feel it is a viable alternative. He does believe that Alternative 2 and 3 are both viable, and that there are potential merits to both the town and landowner for the PWD. He suggested that the town ask the land owner if they are still interested in pursuing the PWD designation, because if they are not, time should not be spent on writing the regulations. He then spoke about the building size and does not believe
that buildings over 5,000 square feet are desired by the citizens. Allan Watts, Cobb Cole, representing Pacetta LLC, joined Mr. Comfort in thanking the Mayor for her service. He said that he really does not favor any of these options, saying the difference and the magnitude in changes between what was transmitted and what is now proposed is remarkable. He then suggested a fourth option: to adopt the plan amendments as transmitted and adopt strictly those changes that answer the DCA comments received. He said there are restrictions in the Charter and that the question of limiting the size of buildings has been a flashpoint and they should not have been allowed to strip the Plan of incentives for Working Waterfront. He suggested rolling it back to the bare essentials and allowing the new Council to write with EAR based amendments. He believes the size of the buildings should not have entered into discussion, saying that you cannot exclude businesses
that want to grow and that the size of the site will limit what can be accommodated. They are prepared to accept anything that resembles what was transmitted, but object to the way that this has strayed from the path it was on at the time of transmittal. Kimberly Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, also thanked Mayor Epps and Councilman Hinson for their service. She feels that Alternative #1 is a no starter and said there are three main issues of concern to her: mixed use, building size and boat storage. She does not believe buildings should exceed 5,000 square feet, and said that if larger buildings are considered, it should only be in exchange for public amenities and suggested limiting it to one building of 10,000 square feet. In terms of the PWD, she feels there is a question of if it is not being used. Barbara Davis, 4871 Sailfish Drive, also thanked the Mayor and Councilman Hinson, and understands that they want to finish this job after years of
working on this Comp Plan. She recommended adoption of either Alternative 2 or 3, saying that Alternative 3 would allow the new council to work with the land owner to determine if they want to pursue a PWD. She said that although Alternative 3 allows buildings up to 10,000, it doesn’t mean the LUDC has to allow that. Asked Ms. Cassady two questions: is Alternative 1 even viable given the Charter amendment; and whether, if the 10,000 square feet exception were left in Alternative 3 in the PWD, could it be limited by further discussion in the LUDC, or if that would be a taking. As far as going back to what was transmitted, she does not believe that is a viable alternative because there have been changes made in response to DCA comments. She also thanked the town for resolving the issue with Mr. Brady. She noted that if adopted without the PWD, the town would have the opportunity to do two small scale comp plan amendments each year.
She ended by asking that Council enact Alternative #3, as it gives us what the voters asked for. Mayor Epps closed public comment. Ms. Cassady responded to Ms. Davis’ questions, saying that Alternative #1 is viable, but she would not recommend it for a few reasons. She also said that just because the Comp Plan says something may be allowed, there is not any vesting and the town would want to carefully draft the PWD to make criteria for when a person could get up to 10,000 square feet. She said that typically, the more the land owner gets, the more they have to give in return, for example open space and view sheds. In response to Ms. Davis’s comment about small scale amendment, she explained that because a whole new use would be recognized, it would be a large scale, not a small scale amendment. Mayor Epps asked if any progress has been made on establishing LUDC’s establishing the PWD, and if it would take a lot of staff
time. Mr. Joulani replied that staff has discussed possibilities and has a consultant in mind to work with on the drafting of the PWD regulations. He then said that regardless of whether the PWD is included or not, there are still implementing ordinances to be drafted regarding the Riverfront Commercial areas, including design guidelines. He feels the benefit of the PWD is enormous because it provides a better means of developing a master plan type of development that the town would have control over from the beginning and can also be used to spread density over parcels and provide public access. He said that there may be other owners in the future and if the process is established it is better for the town. Mayor Epps then asked if commercially zoned area next to residential could be developed in a way that is really not compatible with residential if Alternative 2 was not adopted. Mr. Joulani replied that it would allow the town to
look at the entire development from beginning to end rather than piecemeal. Vice-Mayor McCormick asked what the impact would be to the Inlet Harbor boat stacks. Ms. Cassady replied that their status would not change. Mr. Joulani added that none of those buildings are greater than 5,000 square feet. In response to Councilman Goudie’s question, Mr. Joulani replied that the Comp Plan rules only when there is an absolute number involved and said that ranges permit you to work out what is in the best interest of the town. He read Policy 4.2.4 and said that it required that design modeling and other tools will have to be used to determine the appropriate size and talks about limited exceptions being permitted. Further discussion regarding the use of ranges ensued, with Mr. Joulani saying that it is more appropriate to use ranges in the Comp Plan. He further explained that while 10,000 may be appropriate in one location, but not in another,
and you may decide 7,000 is more appropriate. He said that a PWD provides incentives in exchange for allowances and would give the town the ability to negotiate for public amenities. Councilman Sturno said that he original thought that Alternative 3 and the elimination of the PWD may give us the ability to shorten the moratorium, but after hearing from Mr. Joulani, he said he was not so sure we shouldn’t leave it where it’s at. Ms. Konchan went back to the question of inferring any rights, she referring to Policy 4.2.4 and said it is the Council’s own determination while developing the LUDC what to include and exclude. She said that if the developer does not enter into a PWD agreement, the restrictions in the zoning still apply. In response to Mayor Epps question, Mr. Joulani said it should not take more than a month-and-a-half to draft PWD language for Council’s consideration if those regulations are the only ones staff is
working on. Vice-Mayor McCormick believes that Alternative 2 gives us the most flexibility. Vice-Mayor McCormick moved to adopt Ordinance 2008-01, with Alternative 2. Mr. Hinson seconded the motion. Mayor Epps agreed that it does give us the most flexibility and the tools to allow us to do what we want to do. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Allan Watts, Cobb Cole, representing Pacetta, said that given the choice, he believes that the Support Document contains an enormous amount of material that really has not been a product of any of the hearings, particularly concerned about the supposed facts inserted that end up causing a spot zoning in distinction from any other property in the town. Larry Fornari, 4926 Sailfish, reminded the changes in Alternative 2 do not take any property rights away from Mr. Watts’ client that he had when he purchased the property. Ms. Davis thanked Ms. Cassady for answering her
questions, which clarified her only concern about the PWD and thanked Mr. Joulani’s for his response about the PWD. She now feels very comfortable with it and agrees with Mr. Joulani. She then revised her statement about eliminating the PWD and agreed that #2 protects us the best. Jeff Bowers, 4349 Candlewood Lane, said that in listening to comments about being treated unfairly, he does not understand where that places any new restrictions. In Ponce Inlet, we restrict height, and he asked why restricting size is any different. This motion PASSED 5-0 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes. |
