SMART GROWTH POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2013

Transcription

1 SMART GROWTH POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER, 0 In Attendance Clay Ervin, Member Stephen Kintner, Member Dianne Cade, Member Pete Glover, Member Rob Merrell, Member Jamie Seaman, Deputy County Attorney Kelli McGee, Director, Growth and Resource Management Palmer Panton, Director, Planning and Development Services Becky Mendez, Senior Planning Manager Ginger Adair, Environmental Management Director Tara Boujoulian, Environmental Permitting Manager Judy Grim, Road and Bridge Director Jim Judge, Emergency Management Director Larry LaHue, Senior Emergency Management Planner John Stockham, Planner III/Ombudsman Briana Peterson, Senior Staff Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES November, 0 Member Ervin called for discussion and/or a motion on the November, 0, meeting minutes. Member Cade asked that the second portion of Line 1 on Page of be stricken as she did not feel it was accurate. Member Merrill moved to APPROVE the November, 0, meeting minutes as amended. Member Glover seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). Presentation on the Exempt Subdivision Process Palmer Panton, Planning and Development Services Director, gave a presentation on the 00 Subdivision Exemption process and provided a brief overview of the exemptions that were removed from the Land Development Code. He highlighted the following: Parcels located in the unincorporated area of the County, which were ten () acres or larger and met zoning, were automatically exempt and did not require any formal review. Page 1 of

2 Court ordered exemptions that awarded lands to individuals, which proved problematic as those lands were not always buildable. These lands were awarded to individuals in estates, divorces, etc., and had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ½ - -acre subdivisions were reviewed by Development Engineering through the Land Development Office. The subdivision had to consist of,000 sq. ft. of buildable area outside of the 0-year floodplain, had to have access outside of the floodplain, and had to consist of no more than four () owners after the division. These subdivisions did not require any road standards. This type of exemption was problematic as a single entity would divide lands and grant to separate owners, who would then, in turn, further subdivide the lands. Commercial subdivisions had to consist of a minimum of one (1)-acre and required a higher level of review as they were usually intended for neighborhood convenience stores, which had to meet zoning and go through the site plan approval process. Mr. Panton further clarified that because these sites were required to go through the same process as an Overall Development Plan (ODP) application, which was approval by the Development Review Committee (DRC), and the DRC could waive further platting requirements, the commercial subdivision exemption was deemed unnecessary. Mr. Panton also highlighted some of the exemption applications that were still currently in affect as being: Vested right determinations, Division of lands for public purposes, and Lot line adjustments and combinations where lots have to be similar in size and meet zoning. Member Merrell requested that Mr. Panton provide a timeline of the process. Mr. Panton provided the following timeline information: 1 Subdivision regulations were established. 1 Subdivisions were determined as vested or not vested. 1 - Subdivisions were allowed to be partially vested. 1 The Land Development Code was established. Member Merrell requested a copy of the Code prior to 00. Copies of the 00 agenda item were distributed to the Members, which included the Code in strikethrough format. Page of

3 Member Ervin stated that dirt roads create a consumer protection issue and asked what some of the major issues of rural subdivisions were. Mr. Panton responded that Land Development did not hear many of the concerns on these issues as they were directed towards Public Works and Emergency Management. Member Ervin expressed that alternatives needed to be established that consisted of minimum levels of safety and had the benefit of a higher level of review. Member Merrell stated that lands that are not on dirt roads should have to go through the engineering process. Presentation on Dirt Roads Judy Grim, Road and Bridge Director, gave a presentation on dirt roads from a Public Works viewpoint. She discussed the public concerns as being; health and safety concerns, quality of life, ADA issues, emergency access and response, maintenance and costs of maintenance, stormwater, and environmental issues. She provided a breakdown of dirt roads within the County as the following: County maintained miles County emergency maintained (make passable after storm events) miles Special Assessment Districts (SAD) 1 miles Private miles Jamie Seaman, Deputy County Attorney, provided an overview of the West Highlands SAD and the process by which is was established. Member Merrell requested clarification on funding sources such as gas taxes and advalorem taxes. Ms. Seaman responded that the West Highlands SAD was Council-imposed and that there are not advalorem taxes available for funding. She further explained that the implementation of a SAD should be done prior to platting. Discussion regarding implementation of SADs and the County holding lien rights ensued. Member Cade expressed concern that property rights were being taken away and consideration should be given to individual land owners who want to sell ten ()-acres of their land without the establishment of a Homeowner s Association. Member Glover offered consideration be given to establishing a voluntary neighborhood maintenance agreement in those instances. Page of

4 Ms. Grim added that SAD funds are not just for road grading, but also go toward paving and the maintenance of the right-of-ways. There was discussion on road maintenance and problems associated with dirt roads, such as increased traffic accidents. Kelli McGee, Growth and Resource Management Director, stated that Mr. Judge had found a study on dirt roads that was done by Alachua County and had made copies for distribution. This study supports the notion that there are an increased number of accidents on dirt roads. Copies of the Alachua study were distributed to all in attendance. Presentation on the Update to the Floodplain Map Larry LaHue, Senior Emergency Management Planner, gave a presentation on the proposed updates to the Floodplain map. He stated that the current flood maps are based on a five ()-foot data contour, and new LIDAR maps are an estimated two () centimeters. He explained the Biggert Waters Reform Act of 0, which will increase the number of properties within the floodplain and will take effect on February 1, 0. Mr. LaHue added that flood insurance rates are established based on the elevation of a residence, and there will be a significant increase in the number of homes required to have flood insurance. He directed the attendees to the Emergency Management GIS site, which had the current floodplain layer as well as the preliminary new floodplain layer available. Jim Judge, Emergency Management Director, briefly spoke on the affects of weather on the roads, and how washboarding on dirt roads can lead to an increase in accidents, health issues, and prove troublesome for emergency vehicles access. Member Glover inquired as to what the typical cross section requirement is for dirt roads and if there was a cheaper alternative. Ms. Seaman stated the standard was a trip limit of no more than 0 daily trips and a 0% lime rock ratio. She also added that the minimum width for an improved surface is 0 feet. Ms. Grim added that crushed concrete can be drier, but clay is preferable. She noted that the Alachua report provided surface examples and options. Ms. Grim stated that she would come back with alternative treatment research and reminded the Committee that funding mechanisms should be considered. Member Ervin provided a brief recap of the meeting and of the Committee goals as determined by Council. Page of

5 Ms. Seaman offered that the Committee be prepared to address the following items at the next meeting: Public versus private roads? How many lots should be allowed, and how long before it becomes unmanageable? What level of review should be required? Member Ervin also requested that a presentation on the technical standards of roadways be given at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at :0 a.m. Page of