The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHandouts_Special Meeting_Tab _10/03/2005 (3) � MARTIN COUNT�, FLORIDA , , _,.: �,,,, �- '' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW .,? , . c � ' � STAFF REPORT � � A. Application Information OLD PLANTATION PUD (F/K/A ISLAND WAY ESTATES) - REQUEST FOR MASTER PLAN APPROVAL WITH DEFERRAL OF PUBLIC FACILITIES RESERVATION Project Number: I035-002 Report Number: gmdO5d.775 Agent: Carolyn Bortz, Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. Applicant: Island Way, L.C. Application type and number: D008 200400168 Date application submitted: 04/15/2004 Date application found sufficient: 06/10f2004 Date of lst staff report: 08/31/2004 Date applicant's resubmittal: 12/17/2004 Date of 2nd staff report: 02l08l2005 Date applicant's resubmittal OS/23l2005 Date draft report: 07/29l2005 Project Coordinator: Harry King, Principal Planner Planning Administrator: Gil Backenstoss Date release current report: 08/O1/2005 Date DRC meeting: 08/04l2005 Date of LPA public hearing: 10/06/2005 (advertised) Date of BCC public hearing: (pending LPA action) B. Appliccttion type This is an application for a residential planned unit development master site plan. Request for approval of a PUD Master Site Plan for a 39 unit single family residential development on a 78.59 acre parcel located in southeastern Martin County, bordered by Palm Beach County on the south and east. C. Projeet clescription and an�alysis This is an application for a residential planned unit development master site plan. The request is for approval of a PUD Master Site Plan was filed originally for a 39 unit single family residential development on a 78.59 acre parcel located in southeastern Martin County, bordered by Palm Beach County on the south and east. , Develo�ment Review Sfaff Report Significant site plan issues were initially raised as to how such a propflsal to create lots smaller than 2 acres in this fringe area of southern Martin County is in compliance with the character of a Secondary Urban Service District project. The applicant has now provided puhlic henefits forthcoming to Martin County to establish those lot sizes smaller than 2 net acres as being an accepta.ble land use transitioning of land use intensity in this Section 28 development area. Other anticipated development occurs to the north on this eastern one-half of Section 28 is expected to be comparable and complimentary. The area in Palm Beach County to the east in the Town of Jupiter is subdivided as smaller lots, and the developer is providing a nearly 2.0 acre flow-through marsh to connect the on-site 1.96 acre wetland preserve to the south where a preserve area managed by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Management is located. The applicant was asked to address the separation of the preserve area from the net one-acre lots by merely a security fence. What protection is to be provided to ensure that any future lots on this property are protected from controlled burns done to the south? Protection is provided to separate the � residential lots and associated domesticated/feral pets from disrupting the native wildlife in the Public Conservation property to the south in Palm Beach County with a 6 foot high chain link fence separating the private lots from the Palm Beach County property. The western one-half section of Section 28 has a 200 foot wide conservation easement covering the south property line to allow a wildlife corridor crossing from the east to the west side of SE Island Way. The connection of the 1.97 acre Flow-Through Marsh and the 70 foot wide native vegetation landscape buffer along the eastern border allows the connection of the Wetland Preserve (1.98 acres at the northeast corner of the 78.6 acre PUD to connect to the Public Conservation Preserve in Palm Beach County to the south. With the December 17, 2004 resubmittal the applicant provided the updated Old Plantation PUD Justification statement. Staff is satisfied these documents provide the information needed to justify the creation of 39 one-acre lots in this 78.6 acre PUD proposal. All common areas, whether lakes (12.21 acres), sales/future open space or the temporary construction office (3.519 acres) are now noted on the master plan for management by a single POA. The ultimate use of the construction center is now established as future open space on the master plan. It cannot be used for any other activity by either the developer or the POA without an amendment to the PUD as approved by the Board. The Parks Department and the Project Coordinator have discussed the potential of a private recreation improvement on the 3.519 acre site with the applicant. With the resubmittal of December 17, 2004, the applicant is continuing with the proposal for 39, minimum 1-acre lots, with density transitioning and buffer area to the eastern property line. On January 4, 2005, the Martin County Health Department indicated no objection to the proposed on-site septic systems and the private wells praposed for the 39 lots. Remaining Unresolved issues from various reviewers, including items noted in memo legO5m.192 from the County Attorney were established with the staff report issued on 02/08/2005. These would be satisfied prior to the DRC being asked to file a recommendation on this request. The companion report for the zoning district change from RE-2A to PUD is separately processed for future public hearings before the LPA and the Board after the DRC files its recommendation. The applicant's resubmittal resulting from an updated staff report on February 9, 2005, was provided for a new evaluation and review on May 23 for new report issued on August 1, 2005. The findings and remaining issues in that staff report were provided for DRC consideration on August 4, 2005. The applicant was directed by the DRC to satisfy the wording issues regarding the PUD Agreement C:IDOCUME�1\b{aur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 2 of 16 , Develo,;�ment Review Staff Report Special Conditions with the County Engineer and the County Attorney prior to advertising the public hearing before the LPA. On September 20, 2005 the text was found satisfacto and the request is advertised for LPA consideration on October 6 2005 Please refer to the PUD A greement revised Sentember 21, 2005, and the master site plan revised 03 09 OS both received on September 27 2005 as the recommended items from the DRC meetin D. Staff recommenrlation Staff has reviewed this application for a major or other conditional development order, master site plan, for compliance with the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, the Martin County Land Development Regulations and the code. The staff determination is that this application is currently in compliance with these laws, ordinances and policies, and standards and criteria. All prior noncompliance issues are resolved as a result of the DRC meeting on August 4, 2005, where the applicant was directed to provide PUD Zoning Agreement Special Condition text that satisfied the County Engineer and County Attorney. As established elsewhere in this updated staff report for LPA consideration staff recommends a�proval of this application for a PUD Zoning A�reement and PUD master site plan for the public hearin on October 6, 2005. The specific findings and conclusion of each review agency related to this request are identified in Sections G through T of this report. The current review status for each agency is as follows: Section Division or Department Reviewer Phone Assessment G Comprehensive Plan Harry W. King 288-5501 Comply H Development Review Harry W. King 288-5501 Comply I Community Planning N/A J Environmental Darryl DeLeeuw 221-1317 Comply K Transportation Lisa Wichser Comply L County Surveyor Bill Wallace 288-5418 N/A M General Engineering Bobby Byrd 288-5927 Comply N Stormwater Anthony Lepri 288-5460 Comply O Utilities Deborah Oblaczynski 221-2353 Comply P Fire Protection Jon Pasqualone 288-5633 Comply Q ADA Bob Steiner 221-1396 N/A R Addressing Howard Tupper 288-5500 Comply R Commercial Design David Roller N/A R Electronic file submittal Emily Kohler 288-5692 Comply R Health Department Comply S County Attorney Krista Storey 288-5440 Comply T Adequate Public Facilities Harry W. King Comply E. Re�iew BoardfCommittee action The Development Review Committee (DRC) acts upon major development applications for approval, both master and final site plans. The staff of the departments represented on the DRC reviews the proposed development for compliance with the applicable land development regulations and provides recommendations contained in a staff report. This report and the application materials are submitted for DRC consideration. The DRC makes its determination of compliance with the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Regulations, and C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 3 of 16 , Development Review Staff Report the code based upon the application materials, staff review findings and recommendations and public comment. The DRC will make its recommendation for approval, approval with conditions or denial. Major developments receive consideration before the Local Planning Agency (LPA); final action occurs before the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). At the conclusion of a public hearing for master site plans, or a public meeting for final site plans, the BCC may approve, approve with modifications or deny the application. Board final action is by resolution. (Sections 10.3.A and C, LDR) A final approval always is conditioned upon the applicant's submittal of all required documents, executed where appropriate, and applicable fees to the Growth Management Department (GMD) within sixty (60) days of the BCC action. The required documents are listed in this report. (Section 10.8, LDR) The following are recommended approval conditions from the Local Planning Agency: A. (subiect to conduct of the required public hearin� advertised for October 6 2005� The following are conditions of approval of the development order as granted by the Board of County Commissioners: A. (pending the recommendation of the LPA at the advertised public hearing) F. Location �cnd site information Parcel number(s) and address: 28-40-42-000-000-0011.0-60000 No Address 28-40-42-000-000-0011.1-50000 No Address 28-40-42-000-000-0011.2-40000 No Address Nearest major road: SW Island Way Extension Census Tract: NA Commission District: 3 Community redevelopment area: Not Applicable Municipal taxing district: Not Available Planning area: South County Storm surge zone: Not Available Traffic analysis zone: NA General features of the site Gross area of site: 79 acres Non-residential gross floor area: 0 square feet Pre-construction developed area: 78 Residential development Duplex Dwelling Units 0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 0 Multi-Family Dwelling Units 0 Single Family Dwelling Units 39 C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 4 of 16 ,Development Review Staff Report Zoning dist�ict designations of abutting properties To the north: A-1, Small Farms To the south: PC- Conservation in Palm Beach County To the east: R-1, Single Family in Town of Jupiter To the west: AR-SA, Agricultural Ranchette across Island Way extension Zoning Districts � Map: _.. _ ___ .... _._..._.........._ ____...... ... . �__....... . . __ _ _ _ ___._ /� + _... Martin liQUn` N „ Lo ��onrnaP y Section 28 Zoning i � � ; �. �-- � -..' . .:�� Feet 1 •"•« �•.°.•,• 0 480 �JFO ._ � 2 R50 �. ....� .�,. . , .,..,..._. . � ,�.� , .. i : ....... .. . . p-1 '' q-i I q.t � A 1 RE-2A TheiPrado '' � � At � A'I� . i - � Pennock Preserve - � � � � n-i ,. � �,Q q _� �. s 1 � e � �= Bridgewater y � h �. , _..__.__— . •, �. . , . . _ ,. .. .... __ .. 3 ARSA �� i . ... � ' " - . , - � � � ARSA :� A 1 � q_q i j _._ ... ._.... _ . ! RE-2A �� RE-2A a., OldjFlant2tion. ___ �. _...... ._. _._.._ .._ ' . . ...__ . RE-2A . � .. . ............, .._.. .. _.� � ��..... M artinCou nty . � Paln Be I C inty -- ---..__ . .. ...........___- __.. �� . .....,...._ ....................�. ._._,._ C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 5 of 16 Deve/opment Review Staff Report Future land use designations of abutting properties: To the north: Rural Density To the south: Public Conservation (Palm Beach County) To the east: Rural Density (Palm Beach County, Town of 3upiter) To the west: Agricultural Ranchette Future land use map: _.... _.......... __.. __ _...... 0 49 �...... __... _.__....._.�..........�._._.._ _. . V.4 p . , ,' Markin County Sect�on 28 Land Use , Locationfdap t � i �.:'•_..........—.�..... �� _ _ _�� .. .__— . ..:....a�� Feet . ,s °._ "'""" cw tscn z.�ao � � ` � "'"�� ` ��"� � �'� RURAL�ENSITYRURAL'�LIENSITY �� F : y � 6.s; �RURALOENSITY . � RURALDENSITY £ �` " auRn�oeNSin The Prado r `��' � ' � £ , _., •' ' �� - , � j ��y°�` : � � } p7y� ,�„ t ' : '. � RURALDENSITV i RURALDENSIN P' � �r3` . �` . �� ^ � �� . ..... .. . N � � A , `^uI: € � ��'' � � � Pennock Preserve � „ �, . _ �� 4 " g ��'COIVSERVATIOtJ Rl1RALDENSIN c �. �� . �Q , � 3 �� ,f� ' Bridgewater P � , y. � �h ;s� , �,�*-�, �� ,�»._ � : _... ,� . ... _ _._ � �� '��. AG:��RANCHETTE `? �: � � � .. � v .. . :, i � "� �� ,�� - � �' � � � '°�-, ,� � ,.�.y � ---$ ' AG RANCHETTE RURALDENSITY , RURALDENSITV �a ` ,� s �.. :' � ' � ,, � _ " � a � �,� � � � 1 � �� ' _. �«� E , � �;; ��' a„a� �a � `� _ • .�,. ��P`" � � � RURA� DENSITY RURAL OENSIN a- - Old Plantation [ c�msEevnno�a � � �_ �— . ( —..--.- _.----.. . . RURALDENSIN � ' �` ....___ ___-_ ......._-�' � �.l i[In Co:Jn�y � j � .. �..... P.ilin Beach Counry _—. . � �,�, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_......,,,,...,..............,.._...,,,.._....._„µ.�,.,r.v_,........._..�......,,,..,...._,,,..,,,..�,.,,,,.......__.._.,.....,.,,µ,.._,_,,,....,_...._� Adjacent existing or proposed development To the north: Vacant, proposed as the Pennock Preserve PUD To the south: Palm Beach County Preserve To the east: Single family residences (Town of Jupiter) To the west: Ranchette lots in Bridgewater and future alignment of Island Way C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 6 of 16 Deve/opment Review Staff Report Map illustrating Old Plantation in relation to other applications pending in Island Way Corridvr � _.�_ ___w___._ _ _.__�. __. : _ . _ , ____._� �__..___ � __.. � � Nlart�r� Cour�ty " ` South County Deveiopments � : _, ... , � .._ __.. ...,_ , �.._a�t_ �:��i .. 7��k.�.s - . .. , �. , D 5,t5 Q,3 cS.G tT.9 t3 .. .. . 1 � � � ,' l ; � � � ' .,..._._.;.: .�"- -.7 � . , � � , ' i , , r � .. � .�� " _. ,.... 3 , .. ` _ ! ; _< .. 7� �» 3 „ . !.n_i-__ , � �/ � � ..: � - �.� , ` �-., ..�.-.. . -��. .� �� :. ' �� ';� �{t� tr � ' ,N.�, .. _ __ - _ � YArass.° , , , ' 3 ' ��........ . , y . '. < : 4 ; . . � < , _. : .._ �; � . f � � �` � ' r a � _ 3 � ` E � � �+-�, � `` � _ � � � dupiter EquestMan EsYates The P"r do `° �� r ��_ � � / �. ,_ �. � �, ` `. � ��. . �., � �; � ; ° j �,. � ; Development )nfarmation , �: � � � ° ,; ' ,lupitsr fiquesirlet� Estates Qlr1 �ypress � 3 � _`{ � �� '`'�- �� 16 #ata, 33 acr�s 13 iats, S ar.res 1 � � �'�1, � Rznnack . , i ��`� Pr`eserve Oid F'ianiat'son PUB Parcei 213.U4 � �`� �, � �� 39 lots, 79 acrss 36 iots, 215 acres ' ` Bridgewater ; � ';�� ---- - _ Pennock Preserve Tt7� Pradn g � �/- �� 831ots, ?10 aeres 8 iois, 1d.5 acres ! .� f: `� . , �,: _ 3 , _.. i � ti�,�c.. � -: . .. . �- 1 _ , _ „�an.� �.....ry ... .. .. . - Oid pfantation i PUO l G. Detet•mi�ation of compliance witlt Comprelte�isive Growtli Mantigement Pltcn reyuirements - �� G�otivth Manage�nefit Dep�crtment Unresolved issues: Additional information: ITEM # 1: The proposal is seeking 1.0 acre net lot sizes with PUD master plan proposal outside the PUSA. The gross density remains with the Rural density land use designation at 0.49 units per acre. Comments: The proposal has been evaluated in light of all required density transition requirements of the CGMP and found in compliance. Recommendation: The Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, Goal A, Objective l, Policy a, states: 'The County's existing Land Development Regulations shall be revised to conform to all guidelines and standards contained in this Plan. Staff has reviewed this application and finds that that the PUD zoning agreement and master plan complies with the LDR. Staff finds that this develo mp ent application is currently consistent with the applicable land development re�ulations and recommends approval of the request, in light of the resolution of all remaining issues remainin� from the DRC meeting on August 4, 2005. C:\DOCUME�1\blaurlLOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 7 of 16 Develo,�ment Review Staff Report H. Determination of compliccnce �vitli land use, site desig�z standards, zoniftg, �cnd proce�lurrrl reqccirements - Growt�i Management Department Unresolved issues: Additional information: ITEM # 1: Provide a current list of the names and addresses all property owners within 600 feet of the boundaries of the property that is the subject of this application and is located outside the Primary Urban Service District. Include in the list any condominium and homeowner associations and the name and address of each property owner in each association. (Section 10.6.E.1) Comments: The applicant provided a current list on September 21, 2005, for future public hearings to be held before the LPA and the Board. ITEM # 2: A complete site plan is required as part of the application. [Section 10.2.B, LDR] Comments: a. The creation of net 1 acre lots in this area has been evaluated by staff in light of the Growth Management Plan designation for the net 2 acre tracts allowed by the existing RE-2A zoning district. The applicant has now provided justification with the December 17 2004 responses for the creation of 39 generally net 1 acre lots in this area desi�nated for Rural Density Residential with net 2 acre lots. b. A standard RE-2A lot subdivision as allowed by the existing zoning and land use designation for this area would not result in the public benefit results identified with the Old Plantation PUD Justification provided with the May 23, 2005, resubmittal. An acceptable land use density transition is established with the creation of the proposed 39 net one acre lots to the south of the lots bein� proposed on the Jupiter Isles Estates PUD �roposal for 83 single familv lots on the 210 acres to the north The existin� lots to the east in the Town of Jupiter are separated by the Flow- Through Marsh as one of the benefits. c. All common areas whether lakes (12 21 acres) the proposed roundabout in the SE Island Wav ri�ht-of-way the sales/future open �ace site or the tem�orary construction office (3.519 acres) as a future common open space are now noted on the master plan and zonin� a�reement as development amenities and public benefits. The ultimate use of the construction center is now established as future open space on the master plan. It cannot be used for any other activity by either the developer or the POA without a formal amendment being processed to the Board of County Commissioners. ITEM # 3: The notice of a public hearing regarding development applications shall be mailed at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the public hearing by the applicant to all owners of real property located within the vicinity. For development parcels which lie outside of or border the Primary Urban Service District, the notification distance is increased to six hundred (600) feet. In addition, notice shall be mailed to all homeowner associations, condominium associations and the owners of each condominium unit within the notice area. A list of all owners to be notified shall be provided by the applicant to the Growth Management Department (GMD) director no later than two (2) weeks prior to the scheduled time of the public hearing. This list shall be based on the most recent tax roll available and must be certified as to its authenticity and completeness by an attorney at law or title company. (Section 10.6.E) C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 8 of 16 Develo,�ment Review Staff Report Comments: The September 21, 2005 provided list of adjoinin�property owners is acceptable The a�plicant was asked and a�rees to include the Town of Jupiter Town Manager and the Village of Tequesta Village Mana�er, with the formal notices to meet the inter�overnmental coordination requirements of the Growth Mana�ement Plan. The Project Coordinator has met with the Town officials and is aware both jurisdictions intend to respond the public hearin� notices ITEM # 4: Indicate the lot dimensions on the site plan, measured in feet. (Section 10.2.B,LDR) Comments: The lot sizes bein� reQuested are virtuallv equivalent to the zonin� district RE-lA While smaller than standard lots in the current zoning district RE-2A the proposed lots are acceptably confi ured to have tvpically 150 foot of frontage. The lot confi�uration for lot numbers 1 and 11 res ectively to have 125 and 117 feet of width at the setback line remains acceptable with the PUD zoning agreement master plan• Recommendation: Martin County shall manage growth and development in a fiscally efficient manner which is consistent with the capabilities of the natural and human systems and which maintains quality of life standards acceptable to its citizens. Each development application shall be consistent with the land development regulations which implement the comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies governing land development. The LDR provide development review procedures to implement the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) Pursuant to Section 10.2.F, LDR: 'No development...shall be commenced or undertaken in Martin County that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the LDR and the Code... It shall at all times be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the LDR and the Code.' Staff has reviewed this application for consistency with the LDR and code implementing Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan goals, objectives and policies and the associated guidelines and �tandards. Staff finds that this develo iilei3t a�plicaiion is currentiv consistent with the applicable land development regulations and recommends a�proval of the request since the a� licant resolved the all issues remainin� from the August 4 2005 meetin� of the DRC I. Determination of compliance witli t{re community pl�rnni�zg requirenients — Growtlr Management Dep�zrtrnent Unresolved issues: Additional information: Not in a CRA. Recommendation: Not applicable. .I. Dete�•min�rtion of conzpliazzce rvith envirojzmenta[ requit�emefzts - Groivtlt Nfirszagement Dep�rtsne�zt Unresolved issues: C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 9 of 16 Development Review Staff Report Additional information: ITEM # 1: Please be aware that the master plan is being reviewed in as much detail as possible, except for items not required at this level. When the final site plan is submitted, it must continue to be in compliance with all land development regulations, codes of law and ordinances, and the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, and it must be consistent with the Master Site Plan. Recommendation: The Growth Mana�ement Department Environmental Division staff has reviewed the application and finds it in compliance with the applicable land development re� Alterations cannot be made to the plans after final site plan approval. Any alteration will require an application for a change to the approved plan. An alteration of the landscaping that exceeds ten feet in any direction will require the filing of an amendment to the development order. (Section 10., LDR, Martin County Codes) The applicant has responded to recommendations by the Environmental Division to create additional connected habitat and environmental enhancements to provide environmental and public benefit not afforded via existing regulations for this land use designation, as described in the PUD justification statement. K. Determin�tion of compliance witla transportation requirements - Engineering Depurtment Unresolved issues: Additional information: Compliance with adequate public facilities ordinance: ITEM # 1: The Transportation Planning Division staff has reviewed the information provided regarding this proposed project. All of the transportation related issues are summarized as follows for mass transit: a. Facility - COA paratransit; b. Provider - Martin County; c. Level of service standard (LOS) - 12,600 trips; d. Existing LOS - 12,600 trips; e. Project impact - None, as the LOS is maintained through CIE funding of roadway improvements; £ Post-development LOS - 12,600 trips. Recommendation: Mass transit facilities are in place to provide the proposed development with sufficient services based on the adopted LOS for mass transit facilities. (5.32.D.3.g.(1 .) The application is in compliance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. This proiect satisfies the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for roadwav concurrencv in accordance with Section 5.32.D.3.f Road Facilities. A Certificate of Public Facilities Reservation meets one the following Road standard: a. in place, and will provide the proposed development sufficient services based upon the adopted LOS for road facilities. C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 10 of 16 !�evelopment Review Staff Report L. Determination of compliance witlt county surveyor - Engineering Department Unresolved issues: Additional information: No plat is currently proposed. Recommendation: Not applicable. M. Determifac�tion of compliance witla engineering reqi�irenzents - Enginee�ing Departn�ent Unresolved issues: Additional information: Recommendation: The staff of the Engineering Department has reviewed the application for consistency with general and engineering provisions of the code and the land development regulations. All proposed construction is in accordance with Martin County and/or FDOT standards. The En in�erin�Department recommends �proval of this a�plication for develo ment approval N. Determinatioti of compliatice witli stormfv�cter anrl flood mm��rgement reqccirenze�its - Engijaeering Depf�rtment Unresolved issues: Additional information: Compliance with adequate public facilities ordinance: ITEM # 1: Drainage analysis: a. Facility - C-18 basin. Runoff will be collected on-site by a system of inlets, culverts, and a lake system, which will stage and discharge thru a control structure into the Island Way roadway system. This system eventually outfalls into the C-18 basin. b. Provider - Applicant; North Palm Beach County Improvement District. c. Existing LOS - A 25 year/1 day storm event; d. Project impact - Post-development discharge will not exceed pre-development discharge as required; e. Post-development LOS - Meets or exceeds the LOS standards. ITEM # 2: This proiect meets the standards for a positive evaluation of the stormwater mana�ement facilities provisions of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Section 5 32 B Recommendation: The Stormwater Development Review staff of the En ineerin�Department has reviewed this development application for compliance with applicable stormwater statutes and ordinances and finds it in com liance. C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 11 of 16 Develo�ment Review Staff Report O. Determination of compliance with utilities requirements - Utilities Department Unresolved issues: Additional information: Compliance with adequate public facilities ordinance: ITEM # 1: The anplicant is requestin� a deferral of Adequate Public Facilities Reservation Therefore, concurrency evaluation for water and wastewater level of service is not required for Master Site Plan Approval. Concurrency for water and wastewater level of service will be evaluated during the final site plan review. Recommendation: This development application has been reviewed for compliance with applicable statutes and ordinances and the reviewer finds it in compliance with Martin County's requirements for water and wastewater level of service. The application has been reviewed for compliance under the Wellfield Protection Program. The reviewer finds the application in compliance with the Wellfield Protection and Groundwater Protection Ordinances. P. Detef�mi�i�ztion of compli�cnce witla fire safety anrl enierge�icy prepare�tness reqccirements - E�nergency Services Depccrtment Unresolved issues: Additional information: ITEM # 1: Martin County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 15-30, adopts NFPA 1 and NFPA 101 as the county's fire prevention code. This is in accordance with Chapter 633, F.S. All construction, including, but not limited to, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire suppression systems, shall be subject to these codes. All documents including specifications and hydraulic calculations are required at the time of the application for a building permit for the property that is the subject of this application for site plan approval. Separate permits may be issued by the Fire Prevention Division. Comments: Applicant agrees to provide fire sprinklers in all structures greater than 1000 square feet according to applicants' response letter of 12/17/04. Please replace the language in the PUD document, Exhibit F, Fire Protection, which discusses fire hydrant placement with language to provide built in fire sprinklers. ITEM # 2: The following fire suppression water flow is the minimum for the specified use: Residential Single family homes / duplexes 500 gpm Multi-family 2 story (12 or less units) 750 gpm Multi-family (greater than 12 units) 1,500 gpm Mercantile / business 3000 sq. ft. or less 750 gpm 3000-15,000 sq. ft. 1,000 gpm C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 12 of 16 peve/opment Review Staff Report greater than 15,000 sq. ft. 1,500 gpm Industrial (less than 7000 sq. ft.) 750 gpm (greater than 7000 sq. ft.) 1,500 gpm Warehouse/ storage Less than 7000 sq. ft. 750 gpm greater than 7000 sq. ft. 500 gpm These are the minimum requirements for the specified uses. Additional water flow may be required to supplement fire sprinkler systems or to support other hazardous uses. The developer is responsible to meet any additional flow requirement beyond that which is within the capacity of the utility providei°, [ ITEM # 3: If land clearing is required on this project, and the vegetation debris is to be burned on the site, a burn permit is required. The burning of debris requires use of an air curtain when the site is within 1/4 mile of a residential area. Any validated complaint will result in requiring the remaining debris to be hauled off-site to an approved landfill or vegetative recycling facility. [Martin County Ordinance #480] Recommendation: The Fire Prevention Division has determined that the application is in compliance with a� licable codes. The fire protection requirements have been met. The Fire Prevention Division has no objection to approval of this application. [Section 10.2.D LDRj Q. Deter�minFCtio�t of conzplia�zce witla Americccns ivitli Disabilit,� Act (ADA) re�uiremetrts - Genej•rcl Services Department Unresolved issues: Additional information: Common area improvements are evaluated with the final site plan proposal. Recommendation: Not applicable. R. Determin�rtion of complrance ivitfi a�l�lressing, comfnercial desigrr, electronic file submitta! r�nd He�1th Department reqccire�iefzts Unresolved issues: Additional information: Per Health Department memo of January 4, 2005, "On site septic systems and private potable well will serve this project. We have no objection to master plan approval." Recommendation: Staff finds that this develo mp ent application is currentiv consistent with the a�plicable land development regulations and recommends a�proval of the request, since the a�plicant resolved the all issues remainin� from the Au�ust 4, 2005, meetin�of the DRC. S. Determi�aation of complitrnce witlz legal requirements - County Attorney's Office Unresolveci issues: C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 13 of 16 nevelo�ment Review Staff Report Additional information: I`�EM # 1; The applicant is advised to contact the Growth Management Department for the correct form for all required documents. The forms have been drafted to be consistent with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. If completed properly, there should not be any delay in post-approval processing. Recommendation: The County Attorney's office has no comments at this time regax•ding the proposed application. Howevei•, additional comments may be forthcoming. Please advise if you have specific legal questions or issues. T. Dete�ntisiation of conzpli�nce witlz the a�lequate pr�blic fi�cilities requiYements - respofisible clepurtments ITEM # 1: This development a�plication is eli�ible for a Positive Evaluation of Adequate Public Facilities and an Affidavit Deferrin� Public Facilities Reservation ( Article 5, LDR). The following evaluation summarizes the Positive Evaluation of Adequate Public Facilities: Potable water facilities (Section 5.32.D.3.a, LDR) Service provider - positive evaluation Source - Utilities Department Reference - see Section O of this staff report Sanitary sewer facilities (Section 5.32.D.3.b, LDR) Service provider - positive evaluation Source - Utilities Department Reference - see Section O of this staff report Solid waste facilities (Section 5.32.D.3.c, LDR) Findings - positive evaluation Sour•ce - Growth Management Department Stormwater managexnent facilities (Section 5.32.D.3.d, LDR) Findings - positive evaluation Source - Engineering Department Reference - see Section N of this staff report Community park facilities (Section 5.32.D.3.e, LDR) Findings - This proposed residential development will cause additional impacts to community parks. Source - Growth Management Department Roads facilities (Section 5.32.D.3.f, LDR) Findings - positive evaluation Source - Engineering Department Reference - see Section M of this staff report Mass transit facilities (Section 5.32.D.3.g, LDR) Findings - positive evaluation Source - Engineering Department Reference - see Section L of this staff report Public safety facilities (Section 5.32.D.3.h, LDR) Findings - positive evaluation Source - Growth Management Department Reference - see Section P of this staff report An application for an Evaluation of Adequate Public Facilities and an Affidavit Deferring Public Facilities Reservation has been submitted with this application. This deferral process ensures that the C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 14 of 16 �Jevelo�ment Review Staff Report county and the developer meet concurrency as early as practical in the development review process. The evaluation provides a current view of the availability of public facilities for the proposed development based upon the concurrency evaluation and concurrency reservation tests. A"positive" evaluation means that the project passes the evaluation test. (A "negative" evaluation means that the project fails the evaluation test.) A master site plan development order with a Positive Evaluation of Adequate Public Facilities does not authorize site development, is specific to the development order, and is assignable or transferable only to the extent the development order is assignable or transferable. Maintenance of a valid development order is essential to the maintenance of a valid evaluation. An Evaluation of Adequate Public Facilities runs with the land, consistent with the development order on which it was based. (A positive evaluation does not confer concurrency rights and is not binding on the county (see sections 14-4A.3.d.(2) and (3) of the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan; Section 5.32.C.5, LDR) D. Post-��pprow�cl requirements ITEM # 1: Approval of the development order for this planned unit development, master site plan, is conditioned upon the applicant's submittal of all required documents, executed where appropriate, to the Growth Management Department (GMD), including unpaid fees, within sixty (60) days of the Board of County Commission final action. All documents are to be submitted as one (1) complete 'original' packet accompanied by the required copies as additional packets. The following documents listed and checked must be submitted to the GMD: A. One (1) original of the approved master site plan on 'Mylar' or other stable, plastic material, B. One (1) digital copy of the site plan, in AutoCad 2000 drawing format (.dwg). For other types of computer software that may be utilized by the applicant, a digital exchange file (.dx� version 12 may be substituted. The digital version of the site plan and boundary survey must match the hardcopy version as submitted. C. Twelve (12) copies of the approved master site plan, D. Twelve (12) copies of the approved timetable of development, E. Twelve (12) copies of the approved zoning agreement, F. Twelve (12) copies of any approved development agreement, when applicable, G. Twelve (12) copies of the approved preserve area management plan, H. Twelve (12) copies of the approved homeowners' asociation declaration of covenants and restrictions, when applicable, I. One (1) copy of an accurate legal description, including the acreage total and parcel control number(s) of the subject parcel(s), identified as 'Exhibit A' (to be attached to the development order approval resolution), J. One (1) copy of the approved master site plan, reduced to 8.5 x 11 inches identified as 'Exhibit B,' (to be attached to the development order approval resolution), K. Original and two (2) copies of the current 'unity of title' in standard county format and executed by proper authority, L. Two (2) copies of the warranty deed if a property title transfer has occurred since the site plan approval, M. Payment of recording fees by check made payable to the Clerk of the Circuit Court - calculated at $6.00 for the first page and $4.50 each additional page plus $1.00 search fee for each document. The recording fee for multiple documents should be combined and included in one check. The receipt from the clerk's office and copies of the recorded documents will be mailed to the applicant by the GMD after recording. C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 15 of 16 �evelo�7ment Review Staff Report P. A check made payable to the Martin County Board of Commissioners, for payment of $_154.44 X 2= $308.88_, the estimated advertising fees for the two required public hearing. Failure to submit the required, executed, documents, plans, and fees in compliance with Section 10.9, LDR, will render the development order null and void. V. Fees Public advertising fees for the development order will be determined and billed subsequent to the public hearing. Fees for this application are calculated as follows: Fee type: Fee amount: Fee payment: Balance: Application fees 6,870.39 6,870.39 .00 Environmental inspection fees .00 .00 .00 Engineering fees 1,828.08 1,828.08 .00 Mandatory impact fees .00 .00 .00 Non-mandatory impact fees .00 .00 .00 Note: Impact fees to be calculated on the residences exceeding 2,301 square feet in size. Fee calculation is to be based on the fee schedule in effect beginning on October 1, 2005, in accordance with implementation policy regarding the new fee schedule. W. General application information Applicant: Island Way, L.C. 200 Admirals Cove Blvd. Suite 417 Jupiter, FL 33477 561-744-1033 Agent: Carolyn Bortz, CLA Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 800 SE Monterey Commons Blvd. Stuart, FL 34996 772-288-1980 X. Attachments ' A. Location map & Future land use map, DRC Pre-application Minutes from April l, 2004 B. Application for the proposed development, as filed on April 15, 2004 (on file) C. Power of attorney (on file) D. Warranty deed (on file) E. SFWMD permit - conceptual review, permit needed with final site plan F. Health Department permit (septic system memo) is provided January 4, 2005 G. Preserve area management plan and environmental assessment, received May 23, 2005 H. Letter of no objection from the Martin County School Board (for residential projects) I. Letter of no objection from the Martin County Sheriffs Department (pending) J. Minutes of the DRC meeting on August 4, 2005 K. Applicant has provided a current list of property owners and concerned government jurisdictions to be provided public hearing notice, dated September 21, 2005 (on file) L. Applicant's submittal on September 27, 2005, of the PUD zoning agreement and PUD master plan as recommended by the DRC in accordance with directions from August 4, 2005 C:\DOCUME�1\blaur\LOCALS�1\Temp\gmd05d.775.docPage 16 of 16