HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 12 08 Regular Item B
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM B
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
December 8. 199 7
Meeting
REQUEST: The Community Develc pment Department - Planning Division requests the City
Commission hold a pub ic hearing to consider whether to transmit the large scale
comprehensive plan am :ndment (LG-CP A-4-97) to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, rec )mmending elimination of the minimum density
requirement of residenti alland use categories in the Land Use Element in Volume
2 of 2 of the Comprehe: Isive Plan.
PURPOSE:
To prevent future situations ari .ing where a property owner cannot develop his property
at a density level indicated in tb e zoning district that may be lower than the minimum
density level stated in the ComJ1rehensive Plan. The minimum density requirement in the
residential land use categories, lOuld be eliminated in the Land Use Element in Volume 2
of2. The changes in the text nquire the submission of a large scale comprehensive plan
amendment to the Florida Dep; rtment of Community Affairs.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of 163.3184(3)(a) F.S. which state: "Each local governing body shall
transmit the complete propose(~ comprehensive plan or plan amendment to the state land
planning agency, the appropriate regional planning council and water management district,
the department, and the Department of Transportation immediately following a public
hearing pursuant to subsection (15) as specified in the state land planning agency's
procedural rules. The local go' 'erning body shall also transmit a copy of the complete
proposed comprehensive plan ( r plan amendment to any other unit of local government or
government agency in the state that has filed a written request with the governing body for
the plan or plan amendment."
DECEMBER 8, 1997
AGENDAITEM B
Page 2
The provisions of 163. 3184( 15 (b) F. S. which state: "The local governing body shall hold
at least one advertised public hI ~aring on the proposed comprehensive plan or plan
amendment as follows:
1. The first public: learing shall be held at the transmittal stage pursuant to
subsection (3). :t shall be held on a weekday at least 7 days after the day
that the advertis.~ment is published.
2. The second pub ic hearing shall be held at the adoption stage pursuant to
subsection (7).:t shall be held on a weekday at least 5 days after the day
that the second, ldvertisement is published."
The provisions of9J-l1.006(1) F.A.C. which state "Each proposed amendment including
applicable supporting documen .s which include data and analyses shall be submitted
directly to the Florida Departmmt of Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning
and Management, Plan Process ng Team, the appropriate regional planning council, water
management district(s), Depart nent of Transportation and Department of Environmental
Protection. Proposed plan am€: ndments, except those discussed under the exemption
provisions of Rule 9J-l1.006(1 i(a)7. F.A.C., shall be consolidated into a single submission
for each of the two plan amend nents adoption times during the calendar year. The
comprehensive plan submitted pursuant to Section 163.3167 F.S., shall be counted as one
of the two plan amendment adc ption times during the calendar year; however, only the
submittal requirements of Rule ~J-l1.004 F.A.C. must be followed."
CHRONOLOGY:
The draft of the Comprehensive Plan prepared by Berryman & Henigar (former Henigar &
Ray) in 1990 did not include a minimum density level. Upon the recommendation of Keith
Bricklemyer, a Tampa attorney, the Local Planning Agency in 1991 included minimum
density levels in the residential land use categories. On February 17, 1993, the Local
Planning Agency approved the elimination of minimum density levels. On July 12, 1993
the City Commission voted to transmit an amendment deleting the minimum density levels
for the residential land use categories in Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 under Objective A of Goal
3 of the Land Use Element Volume 2 of2. The City Commission transmitted the
proposed amendment along with other proposed amendments on July 12, 1993. The
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report was received from DCA and
a second public hearing was held on January 10, 1994. The City Commission took no
action on this proposed amend11ent.
DECEMBER 8, 1997
AGENDA ITEM B
Page 3
* The Local Planning Agc ncy, at its November 19, 1997 meeting, voted to
recommend that the Cit ! Commission transmit large scale comprehensive plan
amendment (LG-CP A-i -97) to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
FUNDING:
FINDINGS:
*
To prevent future situat ,ons arising like that of the Hubert Earley property wherein
Mr. Hubert Early wantf d to develop his property according to the zoning
designation of his land (RC-I - maximum 1 DU/acre) but the Lower Density
Residential Future Lam: Use Map designation was 1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre. He was
effectively barred from leveloping at 1 DU/acre because it fell .1 acre below the
minimum density level. He filed a lawsuit and won.
No funds required to transmit t Ie large scale comprehensive plan amendment to the
Florida Department of Commu lity Affairs.
*
There are no statutorial or rule requirements that a residential land use category
have a minimum densit) level. Florida Statutes 163 .3 1 77(6)(a) only states that
"The future land use pIen shall include standards to be followed in the control and
distribution ofpopulati<Dn densities and building and structure intensities. . . .Each
land use category shall be defined in terms of the types of uses included and
specific standards for the density or intensity of use."
*
The Department of Community Affairs does not specifically state a maximum or
minimum density level in 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., which states "Establishment of
standards for densities or intensities of use for each future land use category."
*
The City was the subje<:t of a lawsuit filed by Hubert Earley claiming that he was
unreasonably restricted from developing his property at one (1) unit per acre
because his land was de ;;ignated Lower Density Residential (1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre)
with a minimum densit) level of 1. 1 DU per acre while the zoning designation was
RC-I (maximum 1 DUI icre).
DECEMBER 8, 1997
AGENDA ITEM B
Page 4
*
The comprehensive plan amendment (LG-CP A-4-97) is compatible with the other
elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan
*
The comprehensive plan amendment (LG-CP A-4-97) is compatible with elements
of the State Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 187 F.S.
*
The comprehensive plan amendment (LG-CP A-4-97) is compatible with elements
of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Local Planning Agency, at its November 19, 1997 meeting, voted to recommend that
the City Commission transmit large scale comprehensive plan amendment (LG-CP A-4-97)
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review and comment.
Staff recommends that the Commission transmit (LG-CP A-4-97) to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, recommending elimination of the minimum density
requirement of residential land use categories in the Land Use Element in Volume 2 of2
of the Comprehensive Plan, based on:
1. The findings indicated above;
2. The recommendation of the Local Planing Agency that the City Commission hold a
first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit to the Department of Community
Affairs the proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment (LG-CP A-4-97).
IMPLEMENTATION:
The City Commission would hold a second public hearing within sixty (60) days to adopt
the amendment, or adopt the amendment with changes per 163.3184(7) F.S. Within forty-
five (45) days from adoption, the Department of Community Affairs publishes a "Notice
of Intent" to find the plan amendment in compliance or not in compliance per
163.3184(8)(b) F.S. An "affected person" may file a petition, which petition shall receive
DECEMBER 8, 1997
AGENDAITEM B
Page 5
a hearing by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Florida Department of
Management Services.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report
COMMISSION ACTION:
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Community Development
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR AGENDA ITEM:
II. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE LANU USE ELEMENT VOLUME 2 OF 2
ELIMINA TING MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (LG-CP A-4-97)
STAFF REPORT:
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of 163 .3174(4) Florida Statutes which states "Be the agency (Local Planning
Agency) responsible for the preparation of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment and
shall make recommendations to the governing body regarding the adoption or amendment of
such plan. During the preparation of the plan or plan amendment and prior to any
recommendation to the governing body, the Local Planning Agency shall hold at least one
public hearing, with public notice, on proposed plan or plan amendment.".
The provisions of Sec. 2-57 of the City Code which state in part ". . .the planning and
zoning board shall serve as the local planning agency pursuant to the county comprehensive
planning act and the local government comprehensive planning act of the state. . ."
1. BACKGROUND:
APPLICANT:
City of Winter Springs
1126 East S.R. 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
(407) 327-1800
November 19, 1997
1
LG-CPA-4-97
REQUEST:
For the Local Planning Agency to review and recommend the elimination of the minimum
density requirement in residential land use categories in the City's Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Element Policies 1,2,3,5,6,7 under Objective A of Goal 3.
PURPOSE:
To prevent future situations arising like that of the Hubert Earley property wherein
Mr. Hubert Early wanted to develop his property according to the zoning designation of his
land (RC-1 - maximum 1 DU/acre) but the Lower Density Residential Future Land Use Map
designation was 1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre. He was effectively barred from developing at 1
DU/acre because it fell .1 acre below the minimum density level. He filed a lawsuit and
won.
CHRONOLOGY:
The draft of the Comprehensive Plan prepared by Berryman & Henigar (former Henigar &
Ray) in 1990 did not include a minimum density level. Upon the recommendation of Keith
Bricklemyer, a Tampa attorney, the Local Planning Agency in 1991 included minimum
density levels in the residential land use categories. On February 17, 1993, the Local
Planning Agency approved the elimination of minimum density levels. On July 12, 1993 the
City Commission voted to transmit an amendment deleting the minimum density levels for
the residential land use categories in Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 under Objective A of Goal 3 of
the Land Use Element Volume 2 of2. The City Commission transmitted the proposed
amendment along with other proposed amendments on July 12, 1993. The Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (OR C) Report was received from DCA and a second
public hearing was held on January] 0, 1994. The City Commission took no action on this
proposed amendment.
II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ANAL YSrs:
The following summarizes the data and issues which staff analyzed in reviewing this
application.
A. REASON GIVEN IN CITY RECORD .FOR MINIMUM DENSITY LEVELS:
A review of City records indicates that at the Febmary 3, 1993 meeting of the
Planning & Zoning Board, Greg Kern, the City Planner, stated "that what the City is
trying to avoid is a comprehensive plan amendment." The February 3, 1993 minutes
state the following:
November 19, 1997
2
LG-CPA-4-97
Kern had conferred with Attorney Bricklemyer and Bricklemyer found no
problem with Kern's interpretation. Kern added that in the discussion of Land
Use (Development) Regulations (LDRs) the concern over transition between
developments would be addressed through the buffering standards. . . .Ferring
asked Atty. Bricklemyer for his recommendation on this issue and Atty.
Bricklemyer stated that he agreed with Mr. Kern' interpretation that the Compo
Plan has set a maximum density for a land use classification and that as long as
each application is evaluated against all the planning standards, we would allow
the maximum ifit fits or below the maximum ifit fits. . . .McLeod restated
Bricklemyer's comment to mean that the Compo Plan should only have maximum
density, eliminate minimum density, and deal with each application on an
individual basis to see if it meets the planning standards, without requiring them
to slide out of the slot limit.
The February 17, 1993 minutes state the following:
This issue was tabled from the previous meeting ofF ebruary 3, 1993. Kern
stated that he had spoke with Tim Canon, Project Review Manager at DCA,
regarding how many plans have minimum and maximum density limits. His
answer was that one fourth to one fifth of the plans he reviewed used minimum
density associated with their land use classifications. However, DCA is only
concerned with the maximum densities, they are not concerned with the
enforcement of the minimum densities. He recommended that if there were any
changes, that a formal amendment to the Compo Plan be made to make the
interpretation clear.
Glavin and Hopkins asked for clarification of why this issue has been brought
before the Board. Kern answered that the City is looking for concurrence from
this Board to start the process of making an amendment to the Comp.Plan to
eliminate the minimum density limits for land use classifications. In addition, this
provision would not eliminate the review by this Board of any development.
Discussion ensued regarding the table and map of vacant property in the City
with their land use classifications. The acreage shown is gross acreage. Kern
noted that item 21) Parcel 15A should read UDR for land use classification not
MOD. Discussion ensued regarding the advantages and disadvantages to
making an amendment. Kern noted that if no changes are made to the plan and a
developer wants to build at a lower density level than stated by the Compo Plan,
the amendment process to revise the land use map will place the developer on
hold for 6 to 9 months. The major advantage is that Compo Plan would be clear
and without ambiguity to reduce possibility of law suits due to misinterpretation.
Glavin questioned the impact to the City of eliminating minimum density.
Hopkins stated that he felt that the intent of minimum density would have been
reserved for a certain property as part of an overall plan which formulated such
revenue as taxes and he was concerned that by eliminating the minimum density
November 19, 1997
3
LG-CPA-4-97
there would be a reduction of income to the City. McLeod agreed with Hopkins
on his statement.
McLeod moved to make a recommendation to amend the Compo Plan's land use
classifications by eliminating minimum density. Seconded by Glavin. Vote:
Ferring-aye; Brown-aye; Hopkins-nay; Galvin-aye; and Mcleod-aye. Motion
carried.
B. PROBLEM CREATED:
There were minimum density levels assigned for areas that were vacant land. At a
Moderate Density Residential (3.6 to 6.5 DU/acre), a developer had to develop at 3.6
DU per acre even ifhe wanted to propose a development at 3.4 DU per acre. It
would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The developer would
therefore, have to request a large scale comprehensive plan amendment and go
through the approximately 7-8 month review process prior to the developer beginning
development and prior to the City giving him the approval on his final engineering
plans.
c. OBSERVATION:
The Department of Community Affairs does not specifically state a maximum or
minimum density level in 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., which states "Establishment of standards
for densities or intensities of use for each future land use category". Urban planners
have generally construed "establishment of standards" (for residential land use
categories) as meaning a maximum density level.
In 9J-5.006(5)0)3. Under 0) Development controls. It states in (3) "The following
development controls, to the extent they are included in the comprehensive plan, will
be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl: Other planning
strategies, including the establishment of minimum development density and intensity,
affecting the pattern and character of development." This is not a requirement in the
preparation of and approval by DCA of a comprehensive plan, as outlined in
9J-5.006(1),(2), and (3) F.A.c. , but would be considered under DCA's Review of
Plans and Plan Amendments for Discouraging the Proliferation of Urban Sprawl.
D. PREVIOUS DCA ORe REPORT ON ELIIVlINA TION OF MINIMUM
DENSITY LEVELS:
The ORC Report issued by DCA on this proposed amendment eliminating the
minimum density level for residential land use categories in 1993 stated:
"This proposed amendment eliminates the lower density limits for residential land
use categories within the Future Land Use Element. The elimination of these
lower density limits, in effect, creates a nested hierarchy of residential categories
November 19, 1997
4
LG-CPA-4-97
in which all of the residential uses permitted in lower density category are
permitted in succession in each higher density category. This type of districting
has great potential for permitting land use incompatibilities and inefficient urban
sprawl land use patterns. Additional policies, or individual category policies,
should be adopted which ensure that there is sufficient higher density residential
land use permitted to provide an adequate supply of this multi-family and
moderate income and low income housing,"
E. STAFF RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS ORC REPORT ON ELIMINATION OF
MINIMUM DENSITY LEVELS:
There is not a compelling reason to maintain a minimum density level. Compatibility
may be handled in other ways besides insuring like density abutting like density (i.e.
buffering and landscape standards). Recommend adopting buffering standards
between unlike density developments and ignore the rest of the comments as there are
no statutorial or rule requirements that a residential land use district have a minimum
density level. Florida Statutes 163 .3177(6)(a) only states that "The future land use
plan shall include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population
densities and building and structure intensities. . .Each land use category shall be
defined in terms of the types of uses included and specific standards for the density or
intensity of use."
F. EFFECT OF ELIMINATION OF THE MINIMUM DENSITY LEVEL:
The major effect would be that a developer would not have to request a large scale
comprehensive plan amendment and go through the approximately 7-8 month review
process prior to the developer beginning development and prior to the City giving him
the approval on his final engineering plans. The major advantage is that the
Comprehensive Plan would be clear and without ambiguity to reduce the possibility of
law suits due to misinterpretation.
G. CHANGES TO VOLUME 1 OF 2 CITY OF THE WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1990-2010, THE LAND USE ELEMENT DATA,
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS.
NOTE: There are no new data and analysis that will replace or be added to the
existing data and analysis of the Land Use Element. Therefore, no changes
in Volume 1 of2.
H. CHANGES TO VOLUME 2 OF 2 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1990-2010, THE LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS,
OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES.
Eliminate the minimum density level in Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 under Objective A of
Goal 3 of the Land Use Element Volume 2 of2. (i.e. on pages 16, 17, 18, 19, and
November 19, 1997
5
LG-CP A-4-97
20)
I. CONSISTENCY/COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS:
1. WITH THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and not in conflict with
the other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically
Land Use Element
Objective B of Goal 1
NOTE:
A Local comprehensive plan shall be consistent with a
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan or the State Comprehensive
Plan if the local plan is compatible with and furthers such plans.
9J-5.021(1) F.A.C.
The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in
conflict with the State Comprehensive Plan or appropriate
comprehensive regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to
take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state
or regional plan. 9J-5.021(2) F.A.C.
For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with
the State Comprehensive Plan or the appropriate regional policy
plan the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no
specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation
from the other goals and policies in the plans. 9J-5.021(2) F.A.C.
2. WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 163.3177(IO)(A) F.S.
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers the State
Comprehensive Plan, in Chapter 187 F.S., specifically:
(16) Land Use
Policy 3
NOTE:
A Local comprehensive plan shall be consistent with a
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan or the State Comprehensive
Plan if the local plan is compatible with and furthers such plans.
9J-5.021(1) F.A.C.
The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in
November 19, 1997
6
LG-CPA-4-97
conflict with the State Comprehensive Plan or appropriate
comprehensive regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to
take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state
or regional plan. 9J-5.021 (2) F.A.C.
For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with
the State Comprehensive Plan or the appropriate regional policy
plan the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no
specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation
from the other goals and policies in the plans. 9J-5.021(2) F.A.C.
3. WITH THE EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL POLICY PLAN:
186.507 F.S.; 27-E-4 F.A.c.
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers elements of
the East Central Florida Regional Policy Plan, specifically:
Policy 19.1: I
Policy 57.1: 4, 8
NOTE:
A Local comprehensive plan shall be consistent with a
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan or the State Comprehensive
Plan if the local plan is compatible with and furthers such plans.
9J-5.021(1) F.A.c.
The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in
conflict with the State Comprehensive Plan or appropriate
comprehensive regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to
take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state
or regional plan. 9J-5.021 (2) F.A.C.
For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with
the State Comprehensive Plan or the appropriate regional policy
plan the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no
specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation
from the other goals and policies in the plans. 9J-5.021 (2) F.A.c.
III. FINDINGS:
*
There are no statuto rial or rule requirements that a residential land use category have a
minimum density level. Florida Statutes 163.3 I 77(6)(a) only states that "The future
land use plan shall include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of
population densities and building and structure intensities. . . .Each land use category
November 19, 1997
7
LG-CPA-4-97
J
shall be defined in terms of the types of uses included and specific standards for the
density or intensity of use."
*
The Department of Community Affairs does not specifically state a maximum or
minimum density level in 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., which states "Establishment of standards
for densities or intensities of use for each future land use category."
*
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and not in conflict with the
other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan
*
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and not in conflict with
elements of the State Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 187 F.S.
*
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and not in conflict with
elements of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Local Planning Agency make the following recommendation to the
City Commission:
That the City Commission hold a first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit to the
Department of Community Affairs the proposed Large Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (LG-CP A-4-97) eliminating minimum density requirements for residential
land use designations in Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 under Objective A of Goal 3 Land Use
Element in Volume 2 of 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
November 19, 1997
8
LG-CPA-4-97