Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_2003 02 03 City Commission Workshop Minutes CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 3, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The Workshop of Monday, February 3,2003 of the City Commission was called to order by Mayor John F. Bush at 6:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Mayor John F. Bush, present Deputy Mayor Robert S. Miller, present Commissioner Michael S. Blake, present Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr., present Commissioner Sally McGinnis, present Commissioner David W. McLeod, present City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, arrived 6:35 p.m. City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, arrived 6:37 p.m. After a moment of silence, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. AGENDA 1. A. Office Of The City Attorney Requesting The City Commission To Review Proposed Accessory Building, Noise, Lighting, And Home Occupation Ordinances. Ms. Tracy Crowe, Prinicpal, Land Design Innovations Incorporated, 140 North Orlando Avenue, Suite 295, Winter Park, Florida: addressed the Commission regarding this Agenda Item. City Manager Ronald W McLemore arrived at 6:35 p.m. Ms. Crowe explained that, "There were some regulations related to parking and streetscape that should also reference the new Lighting Code, so that is not a part of your current draft, your package, but we definitely agree that we should have a reference in there to the new Lighting Code; so we have added that." City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese arrived at 6:37 p.m. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3, 2003 PAGE20Fl1 Accessory Buildings: Ms. Pat Tyjeski, Senior Planner, Land Design Innovations Incorporated, 140 North Orlando Avenue, Suite 295, Winter Park, Florida: addressed the Commission regarding "Accessory Structures." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "The Sections that we are looking at to address - Accessory Building Structures are Sections 20-1., which is 'Definitions.,' and Section 6-84., which is your current Ordinance related to 'Accessory Structures.' So starting with the 'Definitions.,' basically we are saying that it is any use that is clearly incidental or subordinate to the principal building on that lot. Those are key words and there should not be a lot of room for interpretation." Ms. Tyjeski further spoke on the "Structures that should be included as an 'Accessory Structure;'" those being "Garages and Carports if they are detached from the home; Storage Buildings whether you are storing tools or garden supplies; Party Houses and this would be similar to a Gazebo or Cabana; Pergola; Gazebos; Trellises; Arbors; Boat Houses; Bath Houses, if you have a swimming pool; Non-Commercial Nurseries; and Guest Cottages." In terms of the number of structures allowed, Ms. Tyjeski stated, "The current Code says you can have up to two (2) 'Accessory Structures' on your lot, and we agree with that. We think that is a good idea to have that limitation. Weare saying if you are in the RC-I District which requires a minimum of one (1) acre lot, we are saying it is okay in that case to have more that two (2). There are other standards that are going to restrict what they look like - how big they are. But we believe that if you have a detached garage, a tool shed, maybe you should be able to have a Stable too, or maybe a Nursery. Uses that are related to the type of use on those lots which is normally closer to a rural type of living, agricultural type ofliving." Ms. Tyjeski addressed the difference between Structures and Buildings and stated, "Originally your Ordinance - the title was 'Accessory Buildings,' and we are trying to cover everything, so we changed the title to 'Accessory Buildings' and' Structures.' This happened today so it is not shown on your draft." Manager McLemore stated, "I am having a problem with the thirty-five feet (35') on , Accessory Buildings.' It seems to be very high for me for an 'Accessory Building' even though you have a two-story house. I guess we are saying if you had a two-story house, you could have a two-story 'Accessory Building' as high as the principal building. This is what bothers me - it is pretty large. And it seems to me that maybe we should think about reducing that some. It just appears to me to be very large for an 'Accessory Building' - thirty-five feet (35') high." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "If you are within that Building - you could go as high as the house. I was thinking about the 'Garage Apartments' or like a Guest Cottage where you have a Garage first floor and - on the top." Deputy Mayor Robert S. Miller stated, "I thought you said that was on one (1) acre CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3, 2003 PAGE 3 OF 11 lots or larger?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "No, the height is for everybody." Deputy Mayor Miller responded, "I may have a problem with that." Discussion. Commissioner David W. McLeod said, "I can see in a subdivision, where you have a home and a piece of property, that you want the buildings behind that. But on these larger pieces - I don't see that that should necessarily be a necessity." Further discussion. Commissioner McLeod suggested, "I think you need to look at it from a District maybe, maybe the R-U District becomes exempt from that. And when you get into the smaller Districts, then it does fall into that category and I can understand that." Ms. Crowe added, "A lot of the other jurisdictions have an Architectural Review Board, and that is what we are trying to get at since you do not and you have no means..." Commissioner McLeod stated, ". ..We do in our Homeowner's Association." Ms. Crowe then said, "Right so that - is just something to discuss as we move forward. But we do need to make a decision, across the board, how you all feel about that - if you would like to exempt RC-l also from the front building line setback." Discussion. Ms. Tyjeski pointed out to the Commission; "The reports that you received refer to the R- U District. We realized afterwards that the Zoning Map said that all R-U Districts were changed to RC-l. So whenever we are talking about RC-l, it is what used to be R-U. I understand that you do not have any R-U Districts anymore, it is called RC-l." Deputy Mayor Miller stated, "I think most of this is pretty good. Ijust have some concerns about putting big buildings in the backs of small lots in neighborhoods where most of the lots are small." Deputy Mayor Miller then remarked that, "In the Ranchlands, I would even entertain some restrictions on homes that are on one (l) acre. Some of those extremely large lots in the Ranchlands probably need to be handled by this Ordinance. But I think the rest - will probably apply uniformly to the entire City." Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr. stated, "I believe that Commissioner McLeod is right on course and I think the City Manager should get together with you and consider the possibility of exempting the areas of concern here; especially when we are talking about properties with more than three (3) acres. I think we need to look at that a little more carefully and try to come up with some concessions exempting them from some of these rules that apparently are going to be a hardship on the owners of the property. And as far as the thirty-five feet (35') height where the building is concerned, I concur with the City Manager." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3,2003 PAGE 4 OF I I Manager McLemore stated, "As far as the Guest Cottage, in order to maintain that it is in fact incidental to the principal use, and this is not a de facto multi-family strategy, turning an area into multi-family, I think we need to make that a percentage of the footprint. If we could use a principal like that and keep it consistent in what we are doing in other areas, then it could really be proportional to whatever an individual owns or is building. The other thing is as far as the front setbacks in the RC-l, in the height restrictions, my question would be this, why could we not make those conditional based simply upon the approval of their local Architectural Review Board if they have one? We need to come up with some sort of standard on that. And again, I would like for us to come to some sort of agreement on the height of those Accessory Buildings in the Districts other than the RC-l District." Ms. Tyjeski stated in regards to maximum height permitted, "Right now you can have a thirty-five foot (35') high single-family home and that's not addressed in terms of stories but just the height." Manager McLemore suggested, "If you want that kind of floor space make it part of the Principal Building, but to have an 'Accessory Building,' let's keep it small." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "You wouldn't want a two-story 'Accessory Structure?' You are trying to limit those." Manager McLemore stated, "I am. If you want two-stories, make it part of the principal building. We are talking about an 'Accessory Building' on a small lot." Commissioner McLeod reiterated, "Again, I would go back to - through here is thirty- five percent (35%) as you have spelled out in @, and I think that probably would make this thing consistent." Tape I/Side B Commissioner McLeod spoke about his concerns against restricting or controlling people's personal lifestyles. With discussion, Ms. Txieski stated, "For the RC-l District we set it at thirty-five percent (35%) of your lot; so if you have five (5) acres that is a pretty big building." Manager McLemore said, "We are only talking about this apartment issue. The 'Accessory Building' is unlimited inside except for thirty-five percent (35%) of the land area in RC- 1. Now we are talking about specifically this issue of the Garage Apartment." Commissioner McLeod stated, "Well if you go to ill and ill, and you put a thirty-five percent (35%) requirement based on a Garage Apartment only, that would be fine. I could buy into that one." Commissioner McLeod further spoke of "Governing peoples usage of their land" and stated his concern with "Trying to over regulate what people are trying to do with a piece of property that they own." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3, 2003 PAGE 5 OF II Commissioner Michael S. Blake stated, "I think we definitely, absolutely, positively have to separate the RC-l District from everything else we do because it is different, just like the Town Center is different. And for us to spend a lot of time trying to meld all of this into one (1) set of rules for every piece of dirt in the City is just a waste of our time." Commissioner Blake stated further, "I would like to see some language that really brings it home that - this really is all one (1) structure." Discussion developed on encroachments and the inconsistencies with the Code in regards to such. Commissioner Martinez stated, "I think Mr. [John] Baker [Senior Planner, Community Development Department] can check on this, but I think that the reason for the ten foot (10') rule on pools is because of the possibility of water spillage." Mayor Bush summarized, "I think the Commission - I sense that they are feeling that the RC-l should be handled separately much like the Town Center. Is that an accurate. . ." Deputy Mayor Miller stated, ".. .Yes." Commissioner Martinez stated, "Yes." Mayor Bush asked further, "And how would you address that Mr. McLemore, in terms of bringing it back to the Commission? Is it just making it exempt from everything, or Commissioner McLeod, do you think there should be something in the City's Code about this at all..." Manager McLemore stated, "...He has got an Architectural District in one of these that provides some regulation, but in another one, there is none at all. So I think we have got to think through that to make sure that we cover both situations." Mayor Bush stated, "Okay, so we have kind of taken it off of the table here." Manager McLemore answered, "Yes, I think we have got to go back and treat it differently and come back with some new language." Ms. Crowe asked the Commission, "Do you feel like pools should be exempted from the setback regulation? So, in other words I am asking if you say yes, then we will leave it the way it is now, because right now the screened enclosures can go into the setback. Then if you say no, then we know that you want us to look at that and make the screens for pools consistent with what we are proposing for other Accessory Structures. So however you want to handle that Mayor, I would like to just ask each Commissioner how they feel about the screens." Deputy Mayor Miller stated, "It is inconsistent but it works. A lot of the yards are small and it is kind of hard to put in a swimming pool where you could use it if we change it. I would just leave it the way it is." Commissioner Blake said, "I do not understand what the definition of a setback is if it means you can build in it." Ms. Crowe stated, "That was a no?" Mayor Bush clarified, "That was a no." Commissioner Martinez stated, "No." Commissioner Sally McGinnis also said, "No." Commissioner McLeod responded by saying, "Absolutely I think you should be able to; I think we have had that. We have given Variances up here for that and now - I hear the Commission going the opposite way. That does not make sense to me. And we have said the screened enclosures should be able to be put into the setback areas. So mine would still be yes, we should be able to." Ms. Crowe asked, "Mayor Bush?" Mayor Bush stated, "Two (2) yes's and three (3) no's." Ms. Crowe said, "Okay, so we will look at that again." Commissioner McLeod added, "You just stopped a lot of people putting CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3, 2003 PAGE 6 OF II pools in their backyards and screened enclosures." Ms. Crowe stated, "We can look at that and we can maybe look at some specific examples since you are divided on that in the community." Ms. Crowe then stated, "The next question I was going to ask was, do you want to allow Garage Apartments in RC-l. And as Pat [Tyjeski] explained, the Garage Apartment allows a kitchen, the Guest Cottage does not. So in the Garage Apartment, in the RC-l District, do you want to allow Garage Apartments that you can rent? It has a kitchen so you could rent it out to a separate family," Commissioner McLeod responded, "No, not to be rented. But that it could have where your guests stayed in it and they could cook a meal there if they wanted. But not for rental purposes because it is still a single-family residential area." With discussion, Mayor Bush stated, "...I think Commissioner McLeod said yes, but no rentals." Commissioner McLeod said, "That is correct." Commissioner McGinnis said, "I would say yes, with no rentals - it is hard to regulate that. I guess we just have to deal with that when there are abuses and bring it to the attention of..." Ms. Crowe interjected, "... There is nothing that Code Enforcement can do if there is no regulation to prevent it though so that is what we run into." Commissioner Martinez said, "Yes, but no rentals. I am sure you can make adjustments to the Ordinance." Commissioner Blake stated, "Yes, as long as you do not violate the density requirements - dwelling units per acre." Deputy Mayor Miller stated, "RC-l is one (1) acre or more. I do not think it is a good idea; I say no. If we get up to bigger lots I would probably go along with it because you are getting into multi-family in a single-family area. If guests come and spend six (6) months there, they have every right to stay there for a year and you do not have to collect any rent. It still becomes another family living in the area on the property with all that goes along with that." Mayor Bush summarized that, "I think what everybody is saying is no rentals on this. But couldn't you control that by - on a certain piece of property only one (1) family can reside there and can live there actually as a residence, and the other people do not really reside there, they are just guests." Manager McLemore added, "I think the garage apartment language should go away totally." Ms. Crowe asked the Commission, "Is everybody in agreement on the twenty foot (20') maximum height in a single-family district? Now fifty-five (55') in the Town Center, but that is considered multi, but twenty feet (20') for a single-family is the maximum for an Accessory Structure. I just want to know if everybody is okay with twenty (20') or they are not okay with twenty (20')." Deputy Mayor Miller answered, "I will say no on that because it is just not clear enough for me. 'Accessory Structures' are many different types and I have seen an awful lot of them in Winter Springs. Some people have three (3) or four (4) storage sheds in their backyard and they may not add up to two-hundred forty square feet (240') but if you start allowing them to go to twenty feet (20') then - I would go with twelve (12)." Commissioner Blake responded, "It would depend on, for instance, if we are talking about a - two (2) car Garage as an 'Accessory Building' that is detached from the house, CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3, 2003 PAGE 7 OF 11 then it may well be architecturally pleasing to have that Garage to be of a height that matches the architecture of the main dwelling unit. On the other hand, if we are talking about a Garden Shed or a Greenhouse or one of those others that I would consider to be 'Accessory Buildings,' I think twelve feet (12') is more than high enough for those. So I think you almost have to - define which type of 'Accessory Building' we are talking about. Twenty feet (20') sounds high to me but I can foresee a situation where if it is a two (2) car Garage, and the roof line is of a similar construction material as the main dwelling unit, that that would make it look more pleasing than if you tried to squash that two (2) car Garage roof down to twelve feet (12 '). Now you are getting close to a flat roof situation and it would not match the main dwelling." Commissioner Martinez said, "I think fifteen feet (15') is more than adequate." Ms. Crowe summarized, "It sounded like there was a little bit of consensus, if a site is more than three (3) acres, which is only going to be in the RC-l, would you exempt them from the building line restriction? Would you allow everything to be in front of the principal structure?" Commissioner McLeod stated, "Yes, based on a particular property." Commissioner McGinnis responded, "No." Commissioner Martinez responded, "My opinion is we should grandfather in those that are existing now and set up a five (5) acre rule, from the date of the Ordinance forward." Commissioner Blake said, "Since we do not really have that many properties in the RC-l District, I think that this is one of those areas that we could potentially provide an exception to the building line requirement by Special Exception, going to the Commission." Ms. Crowe questioned, "What do you think about the idea of - it is very difficult for a City to set up an Architectural Review Board, it is as much time as P and Z [Planning and Zoning] Board or Board of Adjustment. There is a lot to it and a lot of Staff involvement so there is that cost for the City. What if on something like this we said of course we kept the building line restrictions and we said parcels of over five (5) acres may apply to a Special Exception by providing architectural - and we can spell out what architectural is like, and they have to give a building elevation to Staff for review and approval." Deputy Mayor Miller stated, "I liked that last response primarily because there are quite a few houses, I can think of a number of them on Bahama Road for example where there are a couple of homes that must be set back 1 00 feet (100') from the road and they probably do not have twenty feet (20') on the back property line. So if they were going to build something in the front, either I think they should come to the City for approval or maybe the Ranchlands should be forced to have an Architectural Review Board, and let their own community decide whether or not they want to go along with that." Ms. Crowe responded, "You do not want to lose control of that. You want them to come here to you for that." Further discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3, 2003 PAGE80FII Tape 2/Side A Home Occupations: Discussion. Related to kl, Mayor Bush stated that "Commissioner Miller wants none." Commissioner Martinez stated, "I don't see how you are going to stop it." Commissioner McGinnis added, "I don't see how you can stop it either." Commissioner McLeod stated, "I don't know how you are going to govern that." Mayor Bush suggested, "Setting a standard, pretty high - it does not mean that you would have to enforce it, it just means that it could be." With further discussion, Commissioner Blake stated, "When a residential property begins to have commercial type impacts on the residential community, that is something we need to be careful of and should try to regulate." Furthermore, Commissioner Blake stated, "The list of allowed home occupations concerns me somewhat in that I see high potential for neighborhood impacts for the uses that are listed here. Whether it is a professional office where people are coming in and out, or a medical office where you have patients coming in and out, or photography studio where people come in and out, it is really that type of traffic generation. And in fact that is why we have commercial districts, that is one (1) of the main reasons." With discussion, Manager McLemore stated, "There is some language that we can put in here to deal with that kind of stuff - the test of it is whether it changes the character and quality of the neighborhood, and so therefore, we need to be defining some language that gives us a test of that, and I think we can come up with some language that will better represent that." Ms. Tyjeski added, "We proposed some language - if you all feel that you want to be more restrictive, that's fine. We can just tighten it up." With further discussion, Commissioner McGinnis stated, "In reference to what Commissioner Blake said, we already have a regulation regarding parking on the street anyway, which would address that problem. It is prohibited so you might want to check into that." Discussion. Mayor Bush spoke of the Building Department imposing conditions upon an occupational license issued for a home occupation, and stated, "So the Commission is not going to be concerned with it, they are going to turn it over to the Building Department to take care of it"? Manager McLemore said to the Commission, "I do not want it to be turned over to the Building Department - the Building Department sitting there making rules on a daily basis against somebody. I would rather it be certain rules as set out by this Commission." Mayor Bush then said, "So, does the Commission agree with the Manager - that that sentence would be struck?" Deputy Mayor Miller stated, "Yes." Commissioner Martinez responded by saying, "Yes." Commissioner McLeod said, CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3, 2003 PAGE90F11 "Right." Mayor Bush clarified, "Okay, so somehow that has got to be reworded and maybe the Manager, you can work that out." In regards to .Q1 Mayor Bush suggested that the list was incomplete. Referencing !1 Commissioner Blake said, "I have a real problem with that. I think it needs to be rewritten totally. I would not like to see actual uses listed, specifically the ones that are listed they do not sit well with me. I prefer to see listed the impacts - actually if you look at fl. and g.l together - look at the impacts that would be generated by the operation of a home business as opposed to the actual definition of each." Deputy Mayor Miller stated, "I do not think there ought to be any fabrication at all. I can think of one resident in my neighborhood who is running something out of his Garage." Additionally, Deputy Mayor Miller said, "You have got this under Allowed Occupations. I think 'fabrication,' you really want to stay away from it." Deputy Mayor Miller stated further, "Once you put this in writing, we are going to start having problems. I do not think there ought to be any manufacturing of any kind. I am not in favor of putting manufacturing in here. If people want to do it, we can stop them if it turns out to be unacceptable. But I think for us to define what is acceptable and unacceptable, we are going to have to have a list that is going to be the whole chapter in this book." Commissioner Martinez stated, "I do not think we should allow any kind of a business that brings in multiple vehicles and people to a specific address, including religious activities." In summary, Mayor Bush said, "Then fl. and g.l would - be worked together is what they were suggesting there." After brief discussion regarding h1 Mayor Bush summarized, "The agreement is leave it like it is, that way if it is abused you have something to fall back on." With further discussion, it was then agreed that item D. should be "Removed." Mayor Bush asked the Commission, "What do you think about j}?" Commissioner Blake stated, "I would recommend striking it in favor of the language we discussed a moment ago." Tape 2/Side B The traffic impact of home based businesses was discussed next. Ms. Tyjeski asked the Commission, "So you want this Section saying basically you are not going to bring any customers to your neighborhood?" In summary, Mayor Bush stated the consensus as, "To ask the City Manager and Staff to interpret everything we have talked about for the last two and a half (2'li) hours." Commissioner McLeod responded, "Aye." Commissioner McGinnis stated, "Absolutely." Ms. Crowe then asked, "What are you agreeing to?" Mayor Bush clarified, "We are agreeing that what Commissioner Blake and Deputy Mayor Miller stated that this would be taken back, that Mr. McLemore and Staff understand what the Commission is looking for." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3,2003 PAGE 100F]1 Ms. Tyjeski stated, "But they have two (2) different positions. Commissioner Blake wants to write it in such a way that it is controlled and it is not visible. . ." Deputy Mayor Miller stated, ".. . We would like you to craft this some place between - none at all and zero impact on residential areas." Mayor Bush requested that Commissioner Blake restate his position. Commissioner Blake then said, "My position is that we should allow and even embrace home based businesses as long as it has zero commercial impact in a residentially zoned community." Mayor Bush asked, "Commissioner McLeod and Commissioner McGinnis - do you agree with that - so you haven't changed your position?" Commissioner McLeod stated, "I agree with that..." Commissioner Martinez stated, "...I agree with the trend." Deputy Mayor Miller stated, "I agree." Discussion. Commissioner McLeod spoke of the "Portion of the land that could be used" to build on and asked, "Are we going back to look at that." Ms. Tyjeski asked, "Is that 'Home Occupations?" Commissioner McLeod said, "We are going back to our original earlier comments that we are talking about regarding the usage of different buildings and structures and that kind of thing. When I look at some of the Code, it says you can have twenty percent (20%) of the area, yet tonight we talked about thirty-five percent (35%) of the area. So are we taking a look at the Code, how it pertains to each one of the Districts or each one of the different areas that we have discussed this evening. Lot coverage, 20- 267. - that happens to be under 'Uses permitted' and RC-l. It says that twenty percent (20%) of the lot area is the maximum which may be covered by the principal and 'Accessory Buildings' or structures located within RC-l." Commissioner McLeod added, "As we read this evening, we were talking about possibly going to a thirty-five percent (35%), is that not correct?" Manager McLemore stated, "I was pretty comfortable with that. As long as the Commission is comfortable with that, we will stay there." Ms. Tyjeski then said, "I don't think we need to change the impervious surface." With further discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to have the City Manager and Staff "Work on it" - then "Bring it back." Commissioner McLeod added, "I was trying to point out that I think there was a flaw in what we said tonight, of the direction that we gave you, and I think you need to look back to this - to where we are going." Lighting Regulations: Brief discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 3, 2003 PAGE 11 OF 11 Noise Regulations: Discussion. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Bush adjourned the Workshop at 9:04 p.m. .'" ..~":" - > .' - . ,