HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 05 22 Regular
.
.
,
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
May 17, 1989
The Ineeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS:
David Hopkins, Present
Gene Dorman, Chairman, Present
John Torcaso, Present
David McLeod, Present
Michael Saporito, Vice-Chairman, Present
CITY OFFICIALS:
D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coordinator
J. Koch, Dir.Adm./Comp. Plarming
Approval of Minutes of May 3,1989:
Torcaso moved to approve the minutes of May 3, 1989.
Vote: All aye. Motion carried.
Seconded by Hopkins.
Approval of Minutes of May 10, 1989:
Saporito moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 1989, as amended. Seconded by
Torcaso. Vote: All aye. Motion carried.
Conclusions of Board Concerning Possible Changes to Land Use Designations
Within the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Developnent or the Possible Rezoning of the
~tire Tuscawilla PUD, Based on Recent Workshops and Public Hearing:
The Board had lengthy discussion on this i tern. It was the consensus of the
Board that the Chairman write up the Board I s findings.
Dorman read a surrunary of the findings for the Board's consideration.
McLeod moved to recommend to the Commission the Board's findings regarding the
Tuscawilla PUD as outlined by Chairman Dorman. Seconded by Saporito. Vote:
All aye. Motion carried.
Attached is the recommendation, to the Commission, of the Board's findings
regarding the Tuscawilla PUD.
Presentation by Staff on the Traffic Consultant's Preliminary Report on
Existing Traffic Circulation within the City and RecolIUnendations for Future
Roadways:
This i tern was postponed until the next meeting.
The lneeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Margo Hopkins, Recording Secretary
P larming and Zoning Board
'17
Ivl<:~y
1 ':3f:l9
Planning and Zoning Board Report to the City Commission on Rezoning
and/or Changing Land Use Designations in Tuscawilla.
1. This report is in response to the City Commission's dirBction to
thE! P ~~ Z Boaxd to" gf7?t toqethf?r with thc,? city staff for thE' pUrpOSE!
of specifically reviewing the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development
zoning and whethE'r it would be better to make it rE'sidE'ntial R-1AAA
and/or reviewing all land use designations in the Planned Unit
Development or having any other issues associated with the properE'ties
th.:::\t dl"f2 :i.n thl'? intE:~l"E~~:it~:i of thf.'" public rE:~~~;olvE\d".
2. The P&Z Board has had several workshops with the City Staff, in
addition we have had a public hearing plus a regular meeting of the
P&Z Board in order to come up with our rE'port and recommendations on
this matter. As you are probably well aware this has been a
particularly knotty problE'm. While the board has been unanimous in
drriving at its recommenddtions relative to rezoning the Tuscawilld
PUD there has not been unanimity in its rE'commendations as to land USB
designation changes for the undeveloped portions of the PUD.
. ' , l 1 I l j (.' ~. .'), '1" " ('_~ f.'" ,'_", <.:." <.:" '.l' b '.l' '.1. '.'l 'l", V",,".' f v- (".',,' ,"..... """."., ]'. ,., (:1. .,,, " f''',,' I::' t.J D' .t." ,',,".'
:~,. "''',1E! ":::o<::\r"c r'la~:; 0?:,;amin(7?!. ~ h , .J __ , '"
R-1AAA dnd/ot" dny of the other present zoning districts in the City
Code; (8), The possibility of creatinq nE'W zoning districts to
:,:,:\ccc'ffloddtt:7' t;h()~::;f.::! l"f?~o;idE~ntial un:i.t~.:; of thf=~ pun that do::) not rf.::!a~:;onably
fall within the existinq zoninq districts~ (C), the possibility of
rezoning only the undeveloped portions of the pun, and (D), In view of
the allegations that the pun has not protected the PUD homeowners as
well as if they had beE'n in thE' more conventional zoning districts,
the Board has rE'viewE'd the City Code to determine the correctness of
~::iUC h st at E'fIlpnt ~::i.
A. With the possible exception of Bear Creek, none of the units of
the Tuscawilld PUD fit within the lot size, front, redr or side
set-back, or building line width requirements of the R-1AAA zoning
district. To assign R-1AAA zoning to Tuscawilla would require about
150 variances to the City Code. Similarly to assign R-1AA would
require allnost 100 variances and R-1A would require about seventy five
variances. The number of variances required are for units as a whole
and not for individual homes.
8. Examination of the of the physical characteristics of the
residential units presently existing in the various sections of the
Tuscawilla PUD shows that if we should keep the number of variances
IJ1.-a.ntE2d pf.~r" ~5E~o::tion to onf.::!, or in SOlO!.':? CaSf?f:5 two, that it ~.;ould
requi.re abOlJt fifteen new zoning districts to pro~)erly ejescribe t~.le
types, densitiE's and other characteristics of those units.
C. Review of the possibility of rezoning only the undeveloped
portions of the PUD, does not reveal a qain of any kind to be achieved
by ~he residents of the PUD or by the City. Conversely there would be
a loss of control by the Tuscawilla HomeOwners Association of land in
t 1''1(.:; I'll :i.. c:I cj 1 E." () f the i f' cI (':7!v f.:d c'l::l fllE!n t an d t h f? 1 f.7!Ch':\l pl" c.b I f.::!fTl<::> ~:;uc h 1" [::!z on:l. n q
.
.
,
(1). That cart of the land bounded on the west and northwest
by Northern Way, on the south and southeast by Winter Springs Blvd.
and on the northeast by the FP&L right of way, less the existing fire
station, telephone company, office, day care, 7-11 and sales office.
be redesignated to multi-family with a density no greater than ten
un it,,; P ("~r €:I.C r f:~ .
~~). That part of the land bounded by Northern Way, the FP&L
right of way, Winter Springs Blvd. and Georgetown be redesignated
multi-family with a density no greater than seven units per acre.
c. The Board recommends that the land presently designated for
apartments, bounded on the west by the perimeter of the pun, on the
north by S.R. 434, on the east by Howell Creek and on the south by the
railroad tracks, remain as designated for apartments.
n. It is the opinion of the Board that the land use designation of
" sin 9 1 E'-- f <":":lm i 1 y" p ''" r::!.sE~nt 1 y <::\ s.;s.; i qnE'd to l...Jn :i. t 1 :":i i ",; no 1 onqer' <:":l.p pt.. Ol:lt" :i. <::\t; F~
to the entire Unit. The eastern boundary of this unit is not only
close to the proposed beltway and the beltway intersection with B.R.
434, but it also abuts land already designated commercial and which
will probably, because of its proximity to the aforementioned
intersection, have a quite intense commercial development. Similarly
S.R. 434 is to be widened to four lanes and is anticipated to be a
heavily trafficked thoroughfare. It is the recommendation of the Board
that the land use designation of Unit 15 along B.R. 434 extending to
the south for a distance no greater than 500 feet be redesignated to
,. c ommf2r c i ,,':1.1 II. Th e r' E.' m <":1 :i. n c:I E'r' () f Un it 1:".'i t () bE' r' ed (,2<:-3 i q n <":":1. t; E'd r' (=:'~"; :i. c:1 f:.~n t :i. c:1.1
with a mixture of low density multi-family and single family and the
multi-qamily providing a buffer between the commercial and
single-family areas.
5. Just as the Board did not have unanimity in its recommendations as
to the best land use for the undeveloped areas of the pun, it is
recognized that there will not be whole-hearted acceptance of all the
Board's recommendations by any individual or organization. The
recommendations are however the solutions agreed to by the majority of
th(.? BCI,:1.yd.
Re,,:;pE'C t fU.Il Y
CiE!n (;~ nOt- m<:":1.n
Chai t.. ma.n
.
.
,
o RA--Ff
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 10, 1989
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS:
David Hopkins, Present
Gene Dorman, Chairman, Present
John Torcaso, Present
David McLeod, Present
Michael Saporito, Vice-Chairman, Present
CITY OFFICIALS:
J. Koch, Dir. Admin./Comp. Planning
D. LeBlanc, Land Coordinator
Chairman Dorman stated that the purpose of the meeting is a Public Hearing to
discuss the possible changes to the land use designations within the entire
Tuscawilla PUD or the possible rezoning of the entire PUD. This meeting came
about because of a motion made by Commissioner Partyka at the Commission Meeting
on February 13. The motion was as follows: For the staff and the P&Z Board to
get together for the purpose of specifically reviewing the Tuscawilla PUD zoning,
and whether it would be better to make it residential R-1AAA and/or reviewing all
land use designations in the PUD or having any other issues associated with the
properties that are in the interest of the public, resolved. Since the Commission
Meeting of February 13, we had one additional meeting which Commissioner Partyka
participated in, in which he clarified to some extent what he really wanted to be
done, and what the Commission wanted done as to looking at the Tuscawilla PUD.
There are a number of things to be considered. First, we must understand that R-1AAA
is a zoning district. C-1 is a zoning district, PUD is a zoning district. Tuscawilla
including Oak Forest is entirely a PUD, and that is a zoning district. There are no
separate zones within the PUD. There are separate designations for different sections
of the land as to multi-family, single-family, etc. There have been three or four
workshops with the City Staff to get the physical information about Tuscawilla-
what is there, what is not there, what should be there or what shouldn't. We
announced that we would not be making any recommendations until such time as we had
a Public Hearing with the people from Tuscawilla and/or the people from Gulfstream
participating and making comments.
Zoning districts: First consideration: that the Tuscawilla PUD be broken up, and
we become an R-1AAA zoning district. Divide all of Tuscawilla into a zoning district.
Mr. Khemlani spoke: He said he would like to wait to make a comment until he
hears what the P&Z Board has come up with. Chairman Dorman said they had come up
"with nothing except some figures about what exists and what doesn't exist."
Tim Johnson, 1109 Gator Lane, spoke. He asked why the homeowners suggested R-1AAA.
He said that that is the way Gulfstream set it up except for the waivers and favors
that the City has given to them: Elimination of certain right-of-ways, allowed to
do certain things within the City that wouldn't meet any zoning code. Set backs.
The owners of the homes there should expect the community to meet certain zoning
requirements. Now R-1AAA would be a good one. Now that's past. We are saying
take us out of this PUD. It hasn't protected us. Take the vacant property that
is left and apply R-1AAA to it. We are asking that the homeowners be protected
by the strongest zoning classification available. I have been advised that R-1AAA
is it. The legislative body in the City of Winter Springs has the right to change
that PUD. If they have the right to invoke Ordiance 61, then they certainly have
the right to kick it out. We have to rezone it. There shouldn't have been a PUD
here to begin with. It should have been done right the first time. It should have
been done under the subdivision laws of the State of Florida to begin with.
Mr. Dorman said that the way it was given to us by the Commission and by the
"
.
.
,
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 3
within the middle of a PUD. Mr. Saporito asked if the Board recommended that
because the area surrounding the shopping center is residential, taking into
consideration that the market conditions in that area probably don't support
commercial use of the land, and the Board recommended that it be set up for
single or multiple family residences, you would not object to that? Mr. Chiles
said no. He said that the value of the property will go down if they have a
shopping plaza there. Mr. Saporito asked Mr. Chiles how he would feel about
the area where the expressway will cross 434 being commercial, then the develop-
er will be able to make up a loss there. Mr. Chiles said he would be against that.
Lorraine Seives, 1716 Seneca Boulevard, spoke next. She addressed the area that
would continue out from Vistawilla. She pled for nothing but single family
dwellings in that area. She said they're concerned about Duda, and about
Tuscawilla "going down the tubes".
Cheryl Lawler, 1436 Northern Way, spoke next. She reiterated the resident's
opposition to a shopping center and expressed her concern about the Board's talking
about trade-offs with a developer - that we're avoiding what was requested initially,
and that is to keep the community residential. She feels that the growth is going
unchecked.
Ted. Erion, 1100 Huron Trace, spoke. He objected to a shopping center.
Rae Lawrence, 1003 Trune, Greenbriar subdivision, spoke. She said that the people
feel "manipulated and manuvered". She said a shopping center would invite crime,
drugs, etc.
Bob Lawrence, 1003 Trune Trace, spoke next. He also said keep the industrial area
out or it will go down the tubes like other places have.
Mr. Dorman spoke. He said that prior to this meeting, the general sense of this
Board had been to recommend changing the land use designation of that area in the
central part of Tuscawilla to a residential area. He said he believed that would
be their recommendation. And that there be a buffer, possibly a park between the
existing commercial (7-11 etc.), and the residential area. We are thinking that
the area at the eastern area of Winter Springs Boulevard where you cross the
creek going toward 426 which is undeveloped and is presently called commercial,
that we not make a recommendation as to its use until we know more about what Duda
is going to do. It has possibilities for certain kinds of commercial and for
certain kinds of residential development. We have talked about the large areas
to the north of the railroad tracks. The railroad has a 100 foot right-of-way.
That is bounded by some high trees which provide a good buffer to the north of
the existing homes. Our thought was to provide some commercial are on the south
side of 434 - not in the form of commercial strips, but a commercial enclave that
would have no egress or exit into Vistawilla or Tuscawilla. The commercial enclave
shouldn't be deeper than 750 feet. It could be bounded by some multi-family~ and
then we would have some single family on the north side of the railroad tracks.
Dave McLeod read that R-1AAA does not fit into the first piece of property in
Tuscawilla because of side setbacks or width of lines, etc. R-1AAA requires a
20,000 sq. foot lot. Mr. McLeod discussed each Tuscawilla sector: Unit 2 -
housing lots, 19,000 sq. ft. so don't fall into the R-1AAA; does not meet the
land size or the requirement for the front yard set back, or the side yard set
back. R-1AAA requires a 20 and has a 10. We don't have information on what the
rear yard set back is. Sector II doesn't even fall into it. Sector III -
primary difference is that it is a 1 acre plus tract. So that even as a 1 acre,
because of side set backs etc., we can't get the present requirements to get this
.
.
,
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
May la, 1989
Page 5
of property, then looking at the entire PUD. Mr. Khemlani repeated that he did
not see any negatives of rezoning the PUD. In response to Mr. McLeod's question,
Mr. Khemlani stated" we felt that when someone says 'no Food Lion in Tuscawilla',
that I consider, is saying no commercial in Tuscawilla". Discussion. ~cLeod asked to see
a copy of the petition. (SEE ATTACHED) -
Ms. Lawler spoke for rezoning because she said they do not want commercial develop-
ment anywhere in the community.
Mr. Johnson spoke. He said that the PUD is archaic and outdated. He said that the
P&Z Board should ask the Commission for more time, and perhaps set up a moratorium.
Ms. Katherine Stucker, 1787 Seneca Boulevard, spoke next. She said that she knows
there will be extra traffic.
Ms. Isabelle Laub, 1872 Blue Spruce Court, spoke next. She stated that she has
heard from her neighbors, that no matter what we want, the builder will get what
he wants because he has the money and the power.
There were no further comments from the public.
Mr. Hopkins spoke. He said that he did not see how the PUD zoning has not been
beneficial to Tuscawilla. He mentioned that with the beltway corning through, we
are going to be looking at a whole lot of traffic. He said that he felt that if
they are not going to be stopping in Winter Springs to spend the money, then they
are going to be using it for another freeway through Winter Springs. He said that
he felt that commercial land use, if it is set up in the right manner, around the
beltway, would be a beneficial source of revenue for our City. He said that unless
we find some way to bring in some revenue, the taxes will go up, and will continue
to go up.
Mr. Torcaso spoke. He said that the PUD was approved because you could build any
type of home in that area. It gave the developer and residents the ability to
have the home of their choice. He stated that there is nothing in the Code Book
that says that we can change the PUD. The City has the power to change anything
they want to change.
Mr. Saporito spoke. He said that he wouldn't be adverse to making the whole Tuscawilla
community a limited access community much like Bear Creek. He spoke of the extra
traffic that would be caused by commercial. He said that he does not believe there
is enough business to support a development there. He said that he would vote that
there be no commercial development.
Mr. McLeod spoke. He said that 44.85 (8) and (9) does give the governing bodies of
this Board, and the governing bodies of the City Commission the right to "take a
look" at the PUD.
Mr. Dorman spoke. He stated that at least three of the members of the Board had
attended the Commission Meetings since the shopping center controversy carne up.
He said that the Board has been directed by the City Commission to provide a
report as soon as possible. He said he didn't see much sense in delaying any
longer. He said he was not happy with making any kind of a recommendation about
the eastern edge of Winter Springs Boulevard at this time. He said he would
prefer to "table" that issue until we get more information on the Duda property.
, f ~
.
.
Attn: Mr. R. W. Ketner, Chairman
Food Lion, Inc.
P.O. Box 1330
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
.
Name
~77Y
/
, ,
/) / .
//'!~~- ,Y- ./?~. ) ~1?4' 1ft
7
--- .
,
Address
l /
I
) ,
i.~ ( ,/I/t / T0'{-' r::.... ~:L; ,.{;: .} :i~ /'
./ /.1' "
( .
~ 'j ~') r -, -1' (I
/ /, '::~ 8.1 ,.' (./(i'
f',{.;,:T~i~~J?~~-~?l':?:~::~~;-f;,~;y.:~1~3.i'ls:~~~~~~~~~.Jii-:~}t-i(;;:~~:~t:.L.~~~~'.t:.f~~--;-~;'('-~,-:~~'/"~~;JoD.~~~.7,::'~}f~::~.23~,:;;,~'~~~~~,~-;r....~)~~~:':{;:,.:1~~"2'1",~&;~,?tti~'(;,~:t~;E;:f,.:;-..'-..;: ~:'~;-'''~.':-:'~;l~__~-'.~.s.,:,.,,-:.c:--:~.;';'{;;;".~.:.:~-<n:.r;,a:...~:.;~:;;i~~~~i:
.
.
..
.
....
April 25, 1989
This petition addresses the proposed annexation to the City of Winter
. Springs, and rezoning to Commercial (C-l) of another 18.6 acres in our immediate
neighborhood.
., We, the property owners who reside along Orange Avenue (in unincorporated
Seminole County), are generally concerned with, and hereby protest to, the trend
bf the City of Winter Springs to amend the land use south of Orange Avenue. The
quality of our residential lifestyle is being imminently threatened. At this
time W~ specifically object to the rezoning to Gommercial, the 18.6 acres in Lot
14.(Blk. B., D.R. Mitchell Survey, PB I, Pg. 5) and Lot 15 (Blk. B, D.R.
Mitchell Survey, PB I, Pg. 5).
We feel that the County land use description of Suburban Estates (i.e., one
homesite per~~qFe) is much more in keeping with the present, existing land use.
, We understand that the owners of these lots have every right to annex into
the City of Winter Springs if that is their wish, but we strongly object to this
land then being arbitrarily rezoned to a status that is not compatible with our
interests as residing property owners.
ADDRESS
().eAA!Q= ,.<fvr
.
TELEPHONE
327 tJ C:Z3
--r '-) 7 < - ~
. ..:J '-..... -,) .j( CZt
-,
7 -/?!. 2-.
.::z 1'1-,//'/ i /J
///t~ ~..... / . / ,'..7 t>--
.,' ,.-~..: 0 ["'.': ' r,/'? r"""'r.. /.....
- ~ r/~. ." L/ ;/-<~
t/
-:; ;..' -) "/) & 2
dc2.
3 <- 7 - 0 rs (
---, -'"7 7 I Jl..-:
,~'5 ~___ , - {,; \ ,---!
C\ I ~!
1~0 r; 32 7- Cc.'l c ~
(
-/1 \
~ k ~}"v-.. / I <:j. r;( O:J-4f-? e /fv'-i' ~ 2 7 -~ $"3':'-
~y(W~ 11'11 t2rd4~~ i) J-h3SiJ 1
&njPi//7c- r:?(-f't~. IOtic; V,ranl't" /f2;c d.Jlt?2FIj
'~?~~.~~~~_..-..._...-.......~_._--
r
.
,
e-
.
-r-'.
; '..
. .
April 25, 1989
\,
This petition addresses the proposed annexation to the City of Winter
Springs, and rezoning to Commercial (C-l) of another 18.6 acres in our immediate
neighborhood.
We, the property owners who res~qe along Orange Avenue (in unincorporated
seminole County), are generally conc~rned with, and hereby protest to, the trend
of the City of winter springs to amend the land use south of Orange Avenue. The
quali ty of our residential life!:ltyle is being __imminently threatened. At. this
time wi specifically object to t~e rezoning to Commercial, the 18.6 acres in Lot
14 (Blk. B., D.R. Mitchell Sur,vey, PJ3 1, Pg;" 5) and Lot 15 (Blk. B, D.R.
Mitchell Survey, PB 1, Pg. 5).
We feel that the County land use description of Suburban Estates (i.e., one
homesite per acre) is much more in keeping with ~h~present, existing land use.
. ~
We understand that the owners ot these lots have every right to annex into
the City of Winter Springs if that is their wish, but we strongly object to this
land then being arbitrarily rezoned to a status that is not compatible with our
interests as residing property owners.
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
3;;< 7-7Y;LO"
iJL~,--c..
( (
~ ~ ) ur
.'
r->) ).,) t:> 5'
"
( (
((
i(
)J}J Y
r(
?;
, .r
,
i
,
~_~____,_~.___~~~._____"""''''''''_'''__''''''-''''''_' _'_,.,.___"_,_"'...,...........-.....".......______......,....,....,.,..-."".___~".._,._"""'....... ...-,-......,..,-. ..,J._":'-...,......,