HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 04 14 Regular Item B
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM
B
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
April 14, 1997
Meeting
MGR. ~ LREP~/?-
I Authorization
REQUEST: Community Development Department requests the City Commission to hold a
public hearing to approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 651 to
change the zoning designation of the 8 acre "Joyce" parcel.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Board Item is to request the Commission to approve the second
reading and adoption of Ordinance 651 to change the zoning designation of the 8 acre
"Joyce" parcel from R-U "Rural Urban Dwelling District" to R-IA "Single Family
Dwelling District".
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of 166.041(3)(c) F.S. which states in part "Ordinances initiated by other
than the municipality that change the actual Zoning Map designation of a parcel or parcels
ofland shall be enacted pursuant to paragraph (a). Ordinances that change the actual list
of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category, or ordinances
initiated by the municipality that change the actual zoning map designation of a parcel or
parcels ofland shall be enacted pursuant to [166.041(3)(c)1.,2.a.b. or c.F.S.].
CONSIDERA TIONS:
1. With the provision of City water and sewer service to applicant's proposed
residential development on the Joyce property, a case is made for higher density
development than under present R-U "Rural Urban (minimum 1 DU/acre) zoning
designation. The subject property is within the City's sewer and water service
area. Sanlando Land, Inc. has indicated it will develop the property utilizing City
water and sewer.
APRIL 14, 1997
AGENDA ITEM B
Page 2
2. There is a close similarity in zoning designation to the land adjacent to the
applicant's property north of Orange Ave. In the county enclave (county zoned R-
1 "Single Family Dwelling District" (8,400 sq. Ft. minimum lot size) and the
requested City zoning designation ofR-IA "One Family Dwelling District" (8,000
sq. ft. Minimum lot size) and setbacks. The setbacks in the nearby St. Johns
Landing Pun are almost the same also.
3. The Planning & Zoning Board at its February 5, 1997 meeting, recommended
approval to the City Commission the rezoning of the "Joyce" parcel to change the
zoning designation of the 8 acre "Joyce" parcel from R-U "Rural Urban Dwelling
District" to R-IA "Single Family Dwelling District" "contingent upon approval by
the City Attorney based on his review with the appropriate land use attorney
(Kieth Bricklemeyer] in review of his memorandum dated March 27, 1995 (i.e. the
land use change [Future Land Use Map] not being required), or contingent upon
the applicant receiving approval of a land use change."
4. NOTE: The applicant has proceeded to apply for an small scale comprehensive
plan land use change for the "Joyce" property from "Mixed Use" to "Lower
Density Residential" (1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre), and is scheduled to have his application
reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board on March 19, 1997.
5. The City Commission approved the first reading of Ordinance 651 on
March 24, 1997.
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant's request for the City's R-IA zoning designation on the subject
property is compatible with the existing county zoning to the north and with the
"Button" property adjacent to the east (which is City designation R-IA).
2. The subject property is not within the 100 year flood prone area as indicated on
FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Rate Map. There may be an isolated
hydric hammock wetland along the eastern portion of the subject property (parcel
17 A). Before any development could occur, St. Johns River Water Management
District would have to give approval for elimination of this wetland.
3. No significant nuisance should result from designating the subject property R-1A
"Single Family Dwelling District" The existing land use in the surrounding area is
residential and vacant land to the north and east and west. To the south is the high
school property with a retention basin to the south of the subject property.
APRIL 14, 1997
AGENDA ITEM B
Page 3
4. The subject property is not within the county service area for extension of sewer
and water service, but is within the City's service area. The City is able to extend
sewer and water service to the subject property. The applicant has stated his
intention to request City water and sewer.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD RECOMMENTATION:
MOTION:
The Planning & Zoning Board at its February 5, 1997 meeting, recommended
approval to the City Commission the rezoning of the "Joyce" parcel to change the
zoning designation of the 8 acre "Joyce" parcel from R-U "Rural Urban Dwelling
District" to R-l A "Single Family Dwelling District" "contingent upon approval by
the City Attorney based on his review with the appropriate land use attorney
[Kieth Bricklemeyer] in review of his memorandum dated March 27, 1995 (i.e. the
land use change [Future Land Use Map] not being required), or contingent upon
the applicant receiving approval of a land use change."
VOTE:
4 aye, 1 nay
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of of Ordinance No. 651 to change the zoning designation
from R-U "Rural Urban Dwelling District" to R-IA "One Family Dwelling District" on the
"Joyce" property based on:
1. The findings indicated above~
2. The recommendation of the Local Planning Agency at its February 5, 1997
meeting.
IMPLEMENTA TION SCHEDULE:
The City Commission would hold a second reading on April 14, 1997 and adopt
Ordinance 651 to change the zoning designation from R-U "Rural Urban Dwelling
District" to R-1A "One Family Dwelling District" on the City's Official Zoning Map. The
ordinance to change the City's Official Zoning Map would take effect thirty-one (31) days
after adoption [ref 163.3187(3)(a) F.S.] of the small scale comprehensive plan
amendment to change the Future Land Use designation from "Mixed Use" to "Lower
Density Residential".
April 14, 1997
AGENDA ITEM B
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Parcel boundary map.
2. Staff Report to P & Z Board.
4. Ordinance No. 651
COMMISSION ACTION:
")..~"
~ ~;t\
>-= . ,. ,
~ ~ ,I
~
.
.
'v
'Q
~..;,:~~
~... '~
';r.);
o
<
t'v
t".,
~
~
""'
<>
/
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LAND TO BE REZONED BY THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
LotH & LotHA, of Block ~, D.A. MITCHELL'S SURVEY OF THE LEVY GRANT ON LAKE JESSUP, according to lhe
plat thereof as recorded In P!at Book 1, Page 5 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida.
(
Tax Map Location
1
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
mity Development
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ITEM:
II. A
NEW BUSINESS
SANLANDO (JOYCE) REZONING
REZ-2-97
STAFF REPORT:
REZ-2-97 REZONlNG
T
i' .t~1. :.
~:.:..~
BACKGROUND:
APPLICANT:
Sanlando Land, Inc.
238 N. Westmonte Dr., suite 290
Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
(407) 682-7747
OWNER:
( Same as Applicant )
REQUEST:
For change of Zoning designation from City's R-U "Rural Urban
Dwelling District (not less than 1 DU/acre) "R-lA "Single
Family Dwelling District (min. 8,000 sq. ft).
PURPOSE:
Applicant states "To develop the property as a single family
residential subdivision of RlA lots."
('~i}..
~
"r.::,:\
': :. J
OJ,......,
'" =',
\'l.:..;:t,.
(. ..~~,;~~~
~
PROPERTY:
Location: On the southside of Orange Ave. west of Tuskawilla
Road bordering the north property line of the Winter Springs
High School land.
Leqal Descriotion: Lot 17 and Lot 17A of Block "B" of the D.
R. Mi tchell' s Survey of the Levy Grant on Lake Jessup
according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page
5 of the Public records of Seminole County, Florida.
ACREAGE:
8 acres
PARCEL NUMBER:
26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-0170 and 26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-017A
EXISTING LAND USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
The site (lots 17 and l7A) has an existing 4,400 square foot
residence, plus other buildings for storage and maintenance.
EXISTING LAND USES ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY:
North:
North of Orange Ave., residential on long lots
running from Orange Ave. to Lake Jesup. These
lots are generally acre+ in size with most
houses set back a significant distance from
the road.
South:
Winter Springs High School property (retention
basin and wooded area immediately south of
subject property.
East:
MOstly former orchard and a wooded area on
east side (Button property). There is' a
currently occupied house on the east side of
the property boundary of Lot 17A.
West:
Mostly wooded area.
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Existing:
Mixed Use.
Requested:
Due to an oversight that the subject parcels
are designated as "MIxed Use" rather than
"Lower Density Residential" on the City's
Future Land Use Map (FLUM), the applicant
indicated that he will apply for a small scale
comprehensive plan amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan FLUM requesting a City
.'~
.=:: "~:~~~t.)
Future Land Use Map designation of "Lower
Density Residential" (1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre).
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY:
North:
South:
(County designation) "Low Density Residential"
[max' 4 DU/acre] and "Conservation".
(City designation) "Public Buildings" (per the
High School property) over the majority of the
property and "Mixed Use" immediately south of
the Button Property.
East:
(county designation)
(maximum 1 DU/acre).'
"Suburban
Estates"
NOTE:
The city recently annexed the 9 . 9
acre (Button) parcel to the east and
will hold the first reading of an
ordinance to change the Future Land
Use Map designation from county
"Suburban Estates" to the City's
designation of "Lower Density
Residential" (1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre).
U,l.,:~
,,"'.r.~"i'
West:
(County designation) "Suburban Estates" and
"Conservation" which is mainly along the
southwest property boundary.
ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Existing:
(City designation) R-U "Rural Urban" Dwelling
District. NOTE: R-U District eliminated per
Policy 1 of Objective A under Goal 3 of the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan..
RC-1 "Single Family Dwelling" District (with
minimum 1 acre lot size) substitutes in place
of R-U.
Requested:
R-1A "One Family Dwelling District" (with
8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size).
ZONING ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY:
North:
(County designation) R-l "Single Family
Dwelling district" (8,400 sq. ft. minimum lot
size).
{t~..;~
V
J~'~.
.. ~. ' .,
':'. ,)
South:
Mostly (City designation) C-1 "Neighborhood
Commercial" . C-2 "General commercial and
Industrial" at the southwest corner of parcel
17.
East:
(County designation) A-1 "Agriculture" (1
DU/acre)
NOTE:
Recently the city annexed the 9.9
acre (Button) parcel to the east and
will hold the first reading of an
ordinance to change the zoning
designation from county
A-1 "Agriculture" (lOU/acre) to the
City's designation of R-lA "One-
Family Dwelling" District (minimum
lot size 8,000 square feet).
(county designation) A-1 "Agriculture
(lOU/acre).
West:
CHRONOLOGY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
November, 1994 -
Mrs. . Clara Joyce applied to change the
zoning on the property from RU and C-2 to
R-3 to permit the remodelling of an
existing residence to a 25 bed Adult
Congregate Living Facility (ACLF).
~
!t~ ::..I~
lu.,.:t:!
~
December, 1994 - Seminole County Planning Department
objects to R-3 since it would allow up to
60 dwelling units on the parcel and that
the county believed that to be
incompatible land use with the "Low
Density Residential" and "Suburban
Estates" designations in the county's
comprehensive plan". Board of County
commissioners objects in letter dated
December 12, 1994.
January 18, 1995 - P & Z Board a proposed amendment to Sec.
20-267, the R-U Zoning District, to
include ACLFs as permitted use was
considered. The P & Z Board passed a
motion to recommend that the City
Commission approve the ordinance with a
change that" the maximum number be six
residents per acre owned".
December 11, 1994 - The City commission tabled the proposed
rezoning.
f;~~
~
,,"""\
'.<:)
~
{,;.:;;;.~
~
~"....~
~;'"
~ .:,1."
='..W
January 9, 1995 -
The City Commission held a first reading
on proposed ordinance (575) to add an
eleventh permitted use, an ACLF, in the
R-U "Rural Urban" Dwelling District. At
the request of the peti tioner the
proposed ordinance was delayed from
further consideration.
April 20, 1995 -
Mrs. Joyce submits request to create two
zoning districts: R-3 to cover the ACLF
area, and R-1 to cover the remaining area
of about 6.5 acres.
June, 1995 -
Applicant withdraws request
discussion with City Commission.
after
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
Sec. 20-57 states The Planning and Zoning Board shall serve.
. .to recommend to the City Commission the boundaries of the
various original zoning districts. . and any amendments
thereto. . .act on measures affecting the present and future
movement of traffic, the segregation of residential and
business districts and the convenience and safety of persons
and property in any way dependent on city planning and zoning.
II. REZONING ANALYSIS:
THE FOLLOWING SUMMARIZES THE DATA AND ISSUES WHICH STAFF ANALYZED
IN REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION.
A. JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING REQUEST:
1. Applicant states "To develop a single family residential
Subdivision of R-lA lots."
2. With the provision of City water and sewer service to
applicant's proposed residential development on the
subject property, a case is made for higher density
development than under present R-U "Rural Urban" (minimum
1 DU/acre) zoning designation. The subject property is
within the City's sewer and water service area. Sanlando
Land, Inc. has indicated it will develop the property
utilizing city water and sewer.
3.
The land adjacent to the applicant's property north of
Orange Ave. in the remainder of the county enclave is
county zoned R-1 "Single Family Dwelling District" (8,400
sq. ft. minimum lot size), with the following setbacks:
front yard 25 feet; side yard 10 feet inside, 25 feet
street side; rear yard 30 feet.
/.~
: .:j
''':.'':.'
~.
~~
<~~
El..ii:'~
~
4.
The City's zoning designation of R-1A requires a minimum
lot size of 8,000 square feet, with the following
setbacks: front yard 25 feet; side yard 7.5 feet, 15 feet
street side provided the corner lot faces the same way as
all other lots in the block. (If the building faces the
long dimension of the lot, or where corner lots face a
different thoroughfare than other lots in he block, the
25 foot or greater setback must be maintained from both
thoroughfares.); rear yard 25 feet.
5. The new st. Johns Landing single family residential
subdivision to the northeast (inside the City) is at the
same density range as the applicant's request of "Lower
Density Residential" (1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre) on the City'S
Future Land Use Map. The zoning is POD with the setbacks
set at: front yard 25 feet; side yard 10 feet inside,
and 15 feet for side yards adjacent to streets; rear yard
25 feet.
6. There is the similarity of zoning in the county enclave
wi th the applicant's requested City zoning designation of
R-lA. The setbacks in the county R-1 zoning district,
the City R-lA zoning district, and the setbacks as set in
the st. Johns Landing POD are almost the same.
B.
NUISANCE POTENTIAL OF PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT TO SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
The applicant's proposed zoning change from City zoning
designation of R-U "Rural Urban Dwelling District" to the
City's zoning designation of R-lA "One Family Dwelling
District" 1S in conformance with the county R-1 zoning
district and the st. John Landing POD for setbacks. Hence,
from the viewpoint of appearance for location of structures
from the edge of the right-of-way, side and rear property
lines, there will be a compatibility and therefore no nuisan~e
in this regard.
Due to an oversight that the subject parcels are designated as
"MIxed Use" rather than "Lower Density Residential" on the
City'S Future Land Use Map (FLUM) , the applicant indicated
that he will apply for a small scale comprehensive plan
amendment to the City'S Comprehensive Plan FLUM requesting a
City Future Land Use Map designation of "Lower Density
Residential" (1.1 to 3.5 DU / acre). This requested designation
is compatible with the county's Future Land Use Map
designation of "Low Density Residential" (maximum 4 DU/acre).
The parcels designated county "Low Density Residential" are
located immediately north of the subject property on the north
side of Orange Ave. Sanlando Land, Inc. requests approval of
the R-lA "One-Family Dwelling" District contingent upon
Sanlando Land, Inc. receiving approval by the city Commission
of a small scale comprehensive plan amendment redesignating
..'~
t:: ..1
.....
the subject parcels 17 and 17A from "Mixed Use" to "Lower
Density Residential".
In the development of this property, the site Plan Review
Board, as indicted in Sec. 9-347 City Code, will review for
"compliance with all city ordinances, for conformity with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, for compatibility with locally
recognized values of community appearance and design, for
conformity with the guidelines on vehicular traffic access,
ingress, egress, internal circulation, parking; concerning
emergency vehicle access and concerning pedestrian movement;
for assurances of satisfactory utility service for the health
and welfare of the community; to assure compatibility with
other improvements and the need for adequate light, air,
access and privacy; to assure that the natural qualities and
characteristics of the land will be preserved and that the
project site will be appropriately landscaped and provisions
established for the maintenance of same; to assure that
adequate setbacks will be provided within the planned project
and that provisions are made for the supervision and
maintenance thereof; and to assure that the aesthetic and
architectural details of the planned project are compatible
with the surrounding area and serve to enhance the character
of that area. The site plan shall be reviewed by the board
and approved, disapproved or properly referred by such board
in accordance with the results of its review."
~I":'~~'
'~.
c;.,....
--
C.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Development of a single-family residential subdivision on the
parcel will add to the City's tax base, over that of existing
vacant land.
D. COMPATIBILITY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The proposed rezoning would be compatible with the Future Land
Use Map designation of "Lower Density Residential" that has
will be requested by the applicant.
E. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
since the applicant's parcel is located in a general area that
has been considered for inclusion in the "Town Center", the
following may be noted:
Disclosure:
*
The applicant was apprised of the City'S S.R. 434
Corridor Vision Plan involving the Town Center and
Possible expansion northward, eastward and
southward. The applicant expressed the desire,
never-the-less, to process and review his
8~
''':.'.
~.~: .
.,,~..
,. .
,:.t' .....
application for rezoning
development.
for
a
residential
Roads:
* Staff contact with Conklin, Porter and Holmes,
which is preparing the update to the Traffic
Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
revealed that present data do not show that the
"winter Spring Loop" and "Tuscawilla Bypass" are
needed for capacity purposes and maintenance of LOS
on S. R. 434.
* Without a minor or major arterial road running
along the north side of the high school, there will
not be demand for commercial property adjacent to
the high school on the north side or along Orange
Ave. to Lake Jesup.
Town Center Focus:
~.""
,~: ",.l.'
"Sf i'.
A desire has been expressed to expand the Town
Center area to include areas just east of
Tuscawilla Road north of S.R. 434 and to include
especially the area around the intersection of
Tuscawilla Road and S.R. 434 as a possible focal
point of the Town Center due to its visibility and
activity.
* The focus of the Town Center will naturally tend to
be along the major roadways and intersections of
such roadways for they attract commercial
establishments and activity
*
County Enclave:
* Presently, all of the land between Central Winds
Park to Tuscawilla Road, from the lake shore .to
Orange Ave. is in the county. The existing land
use is large "bowling alley" lot residential of 1
acre+. Much of this area is designated
"Conservation" on the county's Future Land Use Map
(Fig. 2.0.1)
Environmental:
*
The shore area in the county enclave between
Central Winds Park to Tuscawilla Road back
approximately 250 to 300 feet from the edge of Lake
Jesup is within the 100 year flood prone area,
according to F. E.M.A. Flood Insurance Rate Map
(12117C0135) .
F~~
'v.1:i
...."""'"
,'. '.j
.~,.:, :~?~'
Comprehensive Plan:
~
~
?it~
~
* Proposals to locate commercial along the shore of
Lake Jesup would be in conflict with the Seminole
County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1
"Conservation Land Use" which states "The County
shall continue to regulate development and preserve
environmentally sensitive areas where soils,
topography, wetland and other constraints exist
through the "Conservation land use designation and
associated provisions of the Land Development
Code."
* The county's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the
Future Land Use designation of "Conservation "
involves an overlay land use designation consisting
of protected wetland and flood prone areas. All
development must comply with W-1 "Wetlands Overlay"
and FP-1 "Flood Prone" Zoning Classification
requirements. The thrust of these regulations is
to discourage development in the "Conservation"
designated areas through more restrictive policies
and standards of the county Comprehensive Plan
(ref. Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3) and the county
Land Development Regulations (Sec. 30-961 to
30.968; Sec. 30-981 to 30.989)
*
Should the City eventually annex the county
enclave, the City'S Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations would apply which
discourage development within environmentally
sensitive areas.
*
The City's Comprehensive Plan has a similar
designation of "Conservation" "to apply to all
natural drainage features. . . . (Goal 2, Objective
A, Policy 1 Land Use Element). . . The natural
hydrological, topographical, biological and
ecological functions of natural drainage features,
creeks and wetland areas lying within the
boundaries of the City shall be protected (Goal 2,
Objective A, Policy 3 Land Use Element).
Specifically with respect to Lake Jesup, the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Objective A,
Policy 3 g. states
a. "Development adjacent to Lake Jesup shall not
be permitted to include light industrial,
industrial, or commercial land uses.
*
b.
In addition to these restrictions, the
following provl.sl.ons to protect the natural
functions of the Lake shall be established:
;f?~
....
tfFi.lA
~
If.~
lL.:;'~
~
i.
An upland buffer zone, to be a m~n~mum
width of fifty (50) feet, shall be
provided between any development activity
and the lake;
ii. All development along the lake shall be
required to meet a more restrictive
impervious surface ratio standard. All
development along the Lake shall provide
a minimum of 40% pervious surface.
iii. No direct discharge of stormwater into
the Lake shall be permitted, in
accordance with criteria established by
the SJRWMD.
* The Conservation Element Obj ecti ve B, Policy 2
states "Prohibit development dependent on urban
infrastructure within land delineated to be
conservation, as determined by field review by
state agencies of proposed engineering plans.
III. FINDINGS:
A.
ZONING COMPATIBILITY:
The applicant's request for the City's R-lA zoning
designation on the subject property would be compatible:
a. with the existing zoning of the area to the north
which is county designation R-1 "Single Family
Dwelling District" and to the east which is City
designation of "POD".
b. with the applicant's stated intention to request
the City'S Future Land Use Map designation of
"Lower Density Residential (1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL
1. The subject property is not within the 100 year
flood prone area as indicated on FEMA National
Flood Insurance Program Rate Map (12117C0135-Ei
April, 1995).
2.
There apparently are no wetlands located on parcel
17 property as indicated in Figure F-a of the
City'S Comprehensive Plan; but a' substantial
portion of parcel 17A may have a hydric hammock
according to Figure F-a. This is an isolated
.,~
10. i
- ,
f!!0;'J~ "
,.......1:
W
,(;:'~::t.
~
wetland. Before any development could occur, st.
Johns River Water Management District would have to
give approval for elimination of this wetland.
B.
NUISANCE POTENTIAL:
No significant nuisance should result from designating
the subject property a City single family residentially
zoned district, specifically R-1A. The existing land use
-in the surrounding area is residential and vacant land to
the north and east and west. To the south is the high
school property with a retention basin to the south of
the subject property.
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES:
1..
The subj ect
service area
service.
property is not wi thin
for extension of sewer
the county
and water
2. The subject property is within the City's service
area for extension of sewer and water service.
3. The City is able to extend to the subject property
the urban services it provides to the other areas
of the City.
4.
The applicant has stated his intention to request
City water and sewer.
N. STAFF RECOM11ENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND
ZONING BOARD:
staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend
approval to the City Commission the request by Doug Maise of
Sanlando Land, Inc. for a City zoning designation of R-1A on the
9.9 acre parcel (Parcel # 26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-0180) based on the
findings indicated in III above and contingent upon the City
Commission approving a small scale coprehensi ve plan amendment
redesignating parcels +7 and 17A from "Mixed Use" to "Lower Density
Residential".
. .
..
Fax
/7 Transmission
..,..J
Date; 2/5/97
~ ~Q~
To:
Tom Grimms
City of Winter Springs
Satnlundo l..un~ IDe.
2.18 N. We!jtmont.e .Dr.
Suitf~ .29(.
..-\ltanlunte Springs, FL 32714
Fax #:
Phone #:
(407) 327-6912
(407) 327-1800
DOUG MAISE
From:
Our phone: (407) 682.7747
Our fax: (407) 885-7748
# of pages Including cover page: 3
~
Message: Enclosed is the memo from Mr. Bricklemyer (May 27,.
1995) I mentioned on the phone. On page #2 under "Existing Zoning"
Qt~ lists the zoning districts that are consistent with ML\(ed Use. Call to
- clIscuss.
e"
.~ ..-
--
. .
.~
,.--..,}
~.._..
~
!v! E I\1 0 RAN DUM
To:
Frank Kruppcnbacher, Esq.
John Goyoruhk
KeiC" W. BriCkle,"Y~
Marcn 27, 1995
From:
Date:
Re:
City of Winter Springs. Joyce Property Rezoning
Pursuant to _our ~ent discussions, this memo is to review the law applicable to L~e
proposed Joyce property rezoning from R-U (Rural Urban) to R-3 (Multifamily).
Comp:-ehensive Plan.
~
A. Mi~ed Use C~HeQ'ory. The Comprehensive PIa., designation for the Joyce property
is MU (Mixed Use). This pl~..'l category was established to lIallow flexibility a."1d efficiency to'
development design." A maximuOJ density of 10 units per acre is allowed, but llQ .minimum
densi(~ is r.ecl.!ired. Further, development within this category need not be "mix~d". The
Comp:~hensive Plan allows for an allocation of a project's acreage for 75 % residential, 20 %
(mini:num) o~n space and 5 % (minimum) utilities or wetland conservation easernen~.
B. Concurrencv. Goal 4 of the Land Use Element requires that all developments
adhere to the Stlte's concurrency requirements. Objective A, Policy 1 '..:nde: Goal 4. provides:
New pl:ms for residential areas stall be approved
only when the road systems needed to support them
have sufficient c:1p3city or are budgeted for
improvement a.t the time of approval of the final
cnginee:ir.g plans for the development.
Policy 3 under Objective A provides:
New rcsidcr.tial communities 'Will be perr.ltted only
when conn~ted to the centr3.l potable water and
sanitary sewer systems ovroed. by the City ex~pt in
the Rustic Residential or Conservation
classiflcation.
. B~ecl on the fact thJ.t tile J oyee property's access is via a dirt road, the proposed
R-3. zon:.ogJs not consistent with Policy 1 at this :ime, alt.t.ough it may be at the. time final
@ engmeering p)~s are submitted for the development. The Commission may choo~ [0 fInd the
R:I1II141j\'''U::MO.~
ZO 'd
Z~rS8~ZE [8 'mi Xtli
=~lOWS ~3^~;~~81~E Nl~lE
ss:g( NO~ S6-L~-oQ~
.
oropose.d ZO:iiDg is. nQt consiste:'lt with this policy, or to nnd L~at it is consistent \.\lith this policy
bas~ 011 the e}\pectation l.l1at the n::.:::essary roadway improV'cmc:1ts will be made by U1.e County,
.(~ the City or by the developer in connection with a development agreement with the City.
. .;']
Similarly, based on the fact that public wate!' and sewer service is not presently
a....ail~le to L'1e property, the proposed R-3 zoning is nill consistent with Policy 3 above at this
time. AgWl, a favorable cO::Jsistency detennination would depend on whether public water and
sewer 'will become availabl~ ~o ~upport ll-Je proposed development. At t~is time, multifamily
zonir.g appears to be pre:;.aru:e based on the above polkies.
Existing. Zoning.
Tne Joyce proper.y is pr~ently zoned RU (R-.:ral Urban). This zoning designation
is "predominantly for agriculturaJ pUIJ'oses and government or public service facilities with
single family dwellings as the primary residential use. Tr:e list of permitted uses for this district
is set out in Section 20-267 of the Winter Springs Code..
Based on the a.bove. description of the ?vIixed Use Plan category, both d~e existing
and the p::-opose.d ,;oning...di5=ncts-a.!'e-€.Qn.si~tent with that category, and so are the foilo\V'ing,
residen~al zonmo di..sttlcts~ . ~.----.....
~",';'" ..........
,.
,
.'
......,
~',.,
:'i..~~"'~~, I
t::~_ ..
R-3 (maximum 16 units/acre)'",-.
R-l (minimum lot size 6,600 sq. fto) '\
R-IA (min:mum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.) \
R-lAA (rr:inimum Jot size 10.000 sq. fL) \
RC-l (minimum lot size 1 acre) I
R-U (minimum lot size 1 acre) ;
PUD (der.sity vmes; limit based on Comprehensive Plan)
"',
'....
State Law.
...............
-......-
,.-
--------- - -".--.--"
. -'
Section 163.3194, Florida Statute~, requires that all actions taken in regard to
development orders, including rezonings, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. Recent ~e law, most not:3.bly Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners, 627 So.2d 469
(Fla. 1993), has cla.."itled the requirements for determining consistency ar.d for local government
re\-;ew of rezoni.ligs. The basic rules are as follows:
1. The Ja.'1downer b.s the burden of proving that the proposal is consistent wi1h the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. At that point, the burden shifts to local government to demonstrate tloJat .
mai:.taining the existing zoning classification (or approving 2.Il alteI":1ative
classification), accomplishes a legitimate p:Jblic purpose. Then local gove...'11ment
has the burden of showi.'1g that its refusal to approve the petitioner's request is nor
arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable.
{~1'
~
1i:ll\lI<rn.M OolQ....:x;
2
"0 ''':
~ '"
-:IT ,..c--;~ 'Q 'Ok' 'I'.:':
(.,c;.,t\'j",::~~! 'wi d j)V_
:;\'l"'-~I"" v:"''::jl,;.''I[lo:):; Nl~-:8
_I. L,,,~ 0_.'\1'\_ .iI", __ . .
C',.. I ~' N"'; 1
..../;. . v I 1",I1"i
9c-L2-~~~
~:;~
.... .
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILPA
FEBRUARY 5, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING
L
Call to Order
Chairperson Fernandez called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Commission Chambers,
Municipal Building. '
Pledl!e of Allel!iance
Roll Call Also oresent
Bill Fernandez, Chairman, present Tom Grimms, Community Development Coordinator
Art Hoffmann, present
Gene Lein, present
Carl Stephens, absent
Tom Brown., present
Aooroval of the January 2. 1997 Planninl! and Zoninl! Board Rel!ular Meetinl!
Minutes
G Correction made on Page 2, Item B, first paragraph, second line: ...a change of zoning from
Agricultural to R-IA (single family dwelling district, 80QQ sq. ft. minimum).
Motion: The minutes stand approved.
Motion by Brown. Second by Hoffmann.
Vote: Fernandez, aye; Brown, aye; Lein, aye; Hoffmann, aye.
Chairperson Fernandez stated that the minutes stand approved.
II.
New Business
I)
A)
Sanlando (Jovce) Rezoninl! REZ-2-97
Grimrns distributed copies of a fax from Mr. Doug Maise which included a memo to Frank
Kruppenbacher from Keith Bricklemeyer dated March 27, 1995. Grimms read the findings and staff
recommendation from the staff report; attached hereto.
Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance needing to read the same. Recommendation
for the developer to go through small scale amendment will come before the board on March 5, 1997;
the developer has applied, and paid the fee. The memo from Bricklemeyer states that the developer
would not have to go through the small scale amendment process from mixed use to lower density
t~
~
J'<~
!;'::.,:)
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LPA
FEBRUARY 5, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 2 OF4
residential. Brown said that the code for the zoning designation is changing from R-U to RI-A, then
asked if the Comp plan reads something else. Grimms said that the Comp Plan has a Future Land Use
Designation of mixed use. The zoning designation, presently R-U, is a discrepancy because the
appropriate zoning designation that goes with mixed use is PUD. The developer wants to develop
the property completely residential which suggests to Grimms that they should go Lower Density
Residential. The developer has indicated that he would like to develop this property and the adjacent
property to the east (Button) together in the same fashion.
HofDnann asked if the property can be zoned RI-A without changing the mixed use plan as it exists
now? Grimms said the developer is claiming the memo is stating such. The memo also refers to
~ection 20-267 of the City Codes regarding R-U.
Brown said, referring back to the last P & Z Board meeting (Button), that the staff recommendation
did not include anything about the comp plan, this item (Joyce) did. Grimms stated that the comp
plan designation was going to be changed from county suburban estates to city designation lower
density residential on the Button property. He said he understood what Brown was saying: the
developer wants to do the same type of zoning and development, but under a different type of land
use designation.
@ Lein stated that mixed use would be better than lower density residential.
Grimms read from the Land Use Element of the Comp Plan. Hoffinann asked if every mixed use
property can only develop 75% of their parcel, or does it mean the acreage in that section of the
mixed use area would be 75% residential. Grimms said that residential can develop up to that, but
it can develop less. Grimms referred to the Future Land Use map.
Hoffmann said that the developer could still apply for this as RI-A Mixed Use, and it would still
comply with mixed use. Grimms said that he would go along with that line of thinking. He added,
this is a little different from how he is used to viewing mixed use'.
Doug Maise, 308 Adair Avenue, Longwood, FL 32750, is the President of Sanlando Land, and the
proposed developer of the property. He said that Bricklemeyer is saying that mixed use allows you
to have more than one use, but doesn't say you have to have it. The time spent getting on agendas
is taking a lot of time, and that is his only objection. Maise doesn't want gas stations or such, just
single family homes. He said he is willing to abide with whatever decision is made whether it is
determined by the city attorney that he has to go through a land use, or if the board approves the R 1-
A subject to whether or not he goes through the small scale.
Grimms said that he defers to the land use attorney.
Discussion of the impact on other developers in the same area.
,."
; 'J
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDfLP A
FEBRUARY 5, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING
PAGEJOF4
Chairperson Fernandez suggested Kruppenbacher review the memo.
Maise said that the only entrance and exit will be onto Tuskawilla Road; it will not affect Orange
Avenue. Grimms stated the Conklin, Porter, and Holmes traffic study has been delayed.
Motion: The Planning and Zoning Board approve the change from R-U to R I-A zoning, and
contingent upon approval by the city attorney based on his review with the appropriate land use
attorney (Keith Bricklemeyer) in review of his memorandum dated March 27, 1995, (i.e. the land use
change (Future Land Use Map] not being required), or contingent upon the applicant receiving
approval of a land use change.
Motion by Hoffmann. Second by Brown.
Vote: Brown, aye; Hoffmann, aye; Lein, nay; Fernandez, aye.
Motion carried.
ill. Future A2enda Items
Chairperson Fernandez announced there will be a meeting on February 19, 1997. The items for that
agenda will be Arrowhead Units 3 & 4, the Master Plan for Stone Gable PUD, Preliminary
~ Engineering or Final Subdivision Plans for Stone Gable, and the Brandon Acquisition property.
~ Discussion about Arrowhead.
Lein said that he received a call from Roger Owen, and directed the call to Grimms. Owen inquired
about property for sale near Moss Road that is zoned C-l or 2, but there is not a zoning for whathe
would like to build there. (Commercial showroom frontage with warehouse facilities in the rear)
Hoffinann said that either in the city ordinances or Florida Statutes there are requirements for
notifying the applicants surrounding residents of proposed changes, and requested that the board
members receive documentation regarding such.
./
The members requested that Frank Kruppenbacher, City Attorney, be notified for attendance of the
February 19, 1997 meeting. Grimms said he would convey the request to Don LeBlanc, Land
Management.
Grimms said that the "Future Land Use Map-201O" and the "Zoning Map" are the City's official
maps. He said that he would like to update the official maps.
Brown mentioned that when he was previously on the board, an index was kept of all of the P & Z
board agenda items. He said he would bring it in for discussion.
Chairperson Fernandez informed his fellow members that the city attorney is still working on the
9 "Rules and Procedures".
'.
".~
'';:. !.;...
~
~~
;.;.::....~.
~
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LPA
FEBRUARY 5, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 4 OF4
IV. Adiournment
Chairperson Fernandez adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Jvlinutes submitted by:
Martha Jenkins. Deputy City Clerk
City of Winter Springs. Florida