Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palm Bay council denies 116-unit townhome land-use change after residents cite traffic, flooding and school-capacity concerns
Summary
After hours of testimony from residents, staff and the applicant, Palm Bay's council voted 5—0to—00 to deny a comprehensive-plan amendment and keep the parcel's public/semi-public land-use designation, rejecting a request to permit up to 116 townhome units on roughly 11.66 acres.
Palm Bay City Council on Oct. 6 denied a proposed comprehensive-plan amendment that would have changed an 11.66-acre tract near Ulster Avenue from public/semi-public to moderate-density residential (RT-10), a step the developer said was needed to build up to 116 townhome units.
The applicant, represented by attorney Kim Risenka and planner Jim McKnight, characterized the project as "infill" and part of the city's stated housing strategy to provide "missing-middle" options. The developer said water and sewer would be extended at the developer's cost, that the project would generate about 833 daily trips (roughly 55 a.m. peak and 66 p.m. peak trips), and that buffers and drainage would be designed to code.
Planning staff and many nearby residents, however, raised concerns including pedestrian safety, narrow neighborhood streets, school concurrency, wetlands and stormwater impacts, and long-standing neighborhood drainage problems. "This parcel is boxed in by small secondary streets and does not have a direct access path," said neighbor Roger Adams. "It's a perfect recipe for traffic congestion catastrophes."
Althea Jefferson, acting growth management director, said staff proposed a lower-density land use as a compromise and flagged that the property's public/semi-public designation allows for government uses and parks; staff also recommended a condition tying approval to a successful transportation impact-fee (TIF) agreement if a change were approved. Council members pressed both the applicant and staff on methodology for traffic counts (summer vs. in-session school counts) and on how stormwater systems would be sized to prevent off-site flooding.
After extended debate and public comment, Councilman Langevin moved to deny the land-use change. The motion passed 5—0to—00. Council members who voted to deny cited neighborhood compatibility, unresolved drainage questions and the degree of public opposition in the project's immediate area.
The applicant may return at a later date with a different proposal or a site-plan-level application that addresses the transportation and drainage concerns the council and staff raised. For now, the land use remains public/semi-public and cannot be developed for the townhome plan submitted.
Actions at the hearing: the council accepted staff's recommendation to require a TIF/transportation impact-fee agreement as a condition if a future approval is considered, and denied the requested comprehensive-plan amendment. The Planning and Zoning Board had previously recommended denial at its hearing.
What to watch next: Whether the developer revises the project with additional traffic mitigation, stormwater design and buffering, or pursues a different land-use strategy.
