The Planning and Zoning Board denied a preliminary plat application for a 6-unit commercial subdivision located at the southeast corner of Interstate 95 and State Road 44. The 20-acre subdivision did not conform to the city's land development regulations or activity center design standards. Issues included the subdivision plans not meeting requirements for decorative entrances, landscaping, and traffic concerns. The board recommended allowing the applicant time to address the issues before resubmitting plans.

1. ` CITY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH – DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
S-06-05: NSB SE Interchange (Preliminary Plat)
September 12, 2005
Summary
1. Applicant: Paul Momberger, of Zev Cohen and Associates [ZCA], 55 Seton
Trail, Ormond Beach
2. Property Owner: SE Interchange Complex, LLC, PO Box 730086, Ormond
Beach
3. Request: Preliminary plat approval for a 6-unit commercial subdivision (see
enclosed Preliminary Plat)
4. Subject Area: The subject area, zoned BPUD, Business Planned Unit
Development, and BPUD(c), Business Planned Unit Development Corridor
Overlay Zone. It consists of approximately 20.3 acres and is located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 95 and State Road 44.
6. Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Board deny the
application as it does not conform to the City’s Land
Development Regulations (LDR) or Activity Center design
standards.
J-1
Subject
Parcel
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
2

2. LPA/PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
S-13-05 NSB SE INTERCHANGE (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
5. Findings
(1) The Board approved the applicant’s sketch plat, with conditions (please see
on January 3, 2005. Following that, the Board, and then the City
Commission, reviewed and approved a developer’s agreement controlling
this development.
(2) The applicant’s request is for preliminary plat approval of a 6-unit business
planned unit development on approximately 20.3 acres. The BPUD is
bounded by SR44 on the north Glencoe Road on the east and I-95 on the
west. Preliminary plat approval allows a developer to install all required
improvements for the subdivision, including the drainage, right-of-way
improvements and utilities but does not allow the applicant to sell or develop
the lots. The applicant will need final plat approval to sell the lots.
(3) The applicant submitted the preliminary plat for review during the July
8, 2005 Plan Review Committee (PRC) meeting. During the PRC
meeting, staff provided the applicant with a list of issues to address.
(4) The Southeast Interchange Complex is the first development within the
Activity Center. It is important to be sure the Southeast Interchange is
developed correctly and provides a good example for all future development
in the Activity Center. The SE Interchange Complex is the gateway and
entry point for future development. There are areas to the east and south
that will eventually be developed. There needs to be adequate
infrastructure to support this future development.
(5) There are a host of problems associated with this preliminary plat. However,
the development Services staff was directed to include review of this
preliminary plat with the Planning & Zoning Board agenda in September.
The following findings outline the reasons why this preliminary plat cannot
be approved at this time.
(6) The Development agreement was approved conditioned upon the LDR
being amended to exclude the Activity Center from the requirements of the
Corridor Overlay Zone (COZ) regulations. This has not yet occurred and the
preliminary plat is inconsistent with the LDR as it now exists. Once the LDR
is amended to exclude the Activity Center from the COZ regulations, the
preliminary plat may come closer to meeting the requirements of the LDR.
(7) The City adopted Activity Center design standards that all developments
must adhere to when developing within the Activity Center. The proposed
subdivision construction drawings do not conform to these design standards
in several aspects as follows:
a. The design standards require a decorative roadway entrance to the
subdivision. The plans attempt to show a decorative roadway but there
are no details to allow City staff to determine what the decorative roadway
specifications are.
J-2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5

3. LPA/PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
S-13-05 NSB SE INTERCHANGE (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
b. The design standards require specific landscaping in required buffers to
be sure the buffer is consistent throughout the activity center. Although
the landscaping plans show a fairly nice buffer, the specifications don’t
meet the standards.
c. The design standards require specific landscaping around retention areas
to keep retention areas consistent within the activity center. The
landscaping plans around the retention areas don’t meet the activity
center specifications.
(8) There is an overall roadway plan for the Activity Center that this subdivision
will eventually connect to. See Exhibit A. The LDR allows roads to be
stubbed out to allow for future connection and require a temporary turn-
around until the road is continued. The LDR also requires all roads to be
paved. The plans show a temporary cul-de-sac but that cul-de-sac is shown
on what is to become a lot so there is no guarantee the temporary turn-
around will be available for public use. Also, the temporary turn-around,
which will be potentially used for many years, is shown on the plans to be
shell and not a paved surface.
(9) After an analysis of the expected traffic conditions, staff found a number
of Level-Of-Service F conditions reported by the applicant’s traffic
engineer. As a result, staff will need time to work with the applicant to
address the concurrency issue. The City cannot approve a subdivision or
site plan if it does not meet the City’s concurrency management system.
(10)The City has tree preservation, protection and mitigation regulations that
must be met before a subdivision or site plan can be approved. The plans as
submitted do not adequately address tree preservation, protection and
mitigation.
(11)As of this date, the preliminary plat does not have all the signatures of the
PRC members, indicating the plans meet the technical requirements of the
City. Staff has not been able to thoroughly review the plat to confirm it
adheres to the PUD. The original plat was submitted prior to the approval of
the PUD, so staff is unsure if the plat conforms to the PUD or other relevant
City codes.
(12)The applicant provided staff with a traffic analysis in January of 2005. Staff
believes this document needs to be updated before the City grants vesting
rights. Vesting rights are established when the Planning and Zoning Board
approves the preliminary plat, which allows the applicant to obtain permits
for construction. It is important to update the traffic study because new
development may have been approved in the area that could pose Level-Of-
Service problems for roads in this area. Updating the original traffic study
will confirm the applicant is complying with the City’s concurrency standards.
6. Recommendation
Continue the applicant’s request to allow time for the applicant to adequately
meet the items above.
J-3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
5

4. LPA/PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
S-13-05 NSB SE INTERCHANGE (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
If the Planning and Zoning Board elects to approve the preliminary plat, it should
be conditioned upon the following:
1. The City approves a text amendment to the COZ regulations to exempt the
Activity Center from the COZ regulations.
2. The plans meet the Activity Center design standards by specifically meeting
the following requirements:
a. Details are provided for the decorative roadway into the project;
b. The landscape buffer plans meet the specifications of the design
standards;
c. The retention area landscaping plans meet the specifications of the
design standards.
3. The applicant modifies the plans to provide a paved temporary turn-around
area.
4. A legal mechanism is in place to allow the temporary turn-around to be used
by the public until the road is continued to the east.
5. The applicant addresses the Level-Of-Service problems posed by this
development as indicated in the traffic study.
6. The applicant updates the traffic study to reflect current traffic conditions and
considers all vested development at the time of Planning and Zoning Board
approval.
7. The plans conform to the City’s tree preservation, protection and mitigation
regulations.
8. All PRC comments are addressed and all members sign off the preliminary
plat drawings.
J-4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
5