HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 06 21 Regular 600 Development of Small Irregular-Shaped Lots Within The Town Center CITY COMMISSION
AGENDA
ITEM 600 Consent
Information
Public Hearing
Regul X
June 21, 2010
Workshop Mgr. /Dept. I/,i 1
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department requests that the City Commission consider certain
proposed text amendments regarding the development of small, irregular- shaped lots within the
Town Center Zoning District.
SYNOPSIS:
The purpose of this agenda item is to consider possible text amendments within the Town Center
Zoning portion of Chapter 20 of the City of Winter Springs Code for the purpose of considering
modifications to the zoning requirements to accommodate small, irregular- shaped lots of less
than one (1) acre in size. The City Commission has directed that any consideration of these text
amendments be done on a holistic basis and not on a parcel by parcel basis.
CONSIDERATIONS:
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes
Chapter 166, Florida Statutes
Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 9, City Code
Chapter 20, City Code (Town Center District, Sections 20 -320 through 20 -327)
DISCUSSION:
Overview
Discussions relative to possible text amendments for the smaller lots in the Town Center resulted
from a request by the owners of a 0.73 acre undeveloped and treed site located within the Winter
Springs Town Center on the southeast comer of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive. During
discussion of Agenda Item 600 at the October 26, 2009 City Commission meeting, the
commissioners directed staff to work with the owners of the subject parcel on possible code
changes for the smaller lots within the Town Center. However, the Commission did not want to
address code deviations on a parcel by parcel basis but asked staff to work with the property
June 21, 2010
Regular Item 600
Page 2
owners to bring back ideas for possible text amendments to allow the developers of smaller,
irregular- shaped lots more latitude in developing these parcels that, because of their size and
shape, could not accommodate every requirement of the Town Center Code.
The applicant on the aforementioned 0.73 acre parcel has requested that the code be relaxed for
small irregularly shaped lots within the Town Center. The applicant has stated that the Town
Center Code works well for larger parcels but makes it economically difficult to develop on
small and odd - shaped parcels. The applicant has also stated that the Town Center requirements
make the site too expensive to finance and develop in today's depressed real estate market
because the banks are providing funds based on the appraised value and not the projected
construction costs.
As part of this agenda item, staff has included an Irregular Small Parcel Analysis Study (map)
identifying the parcels that could be affected by any proposed text amendment/allowance. This
map will change if the definition of a small, irregular- shaped lot, as detailed hereinafter, is
modified.
The Town Center
The Town Center began with seven (7) days of community design sessions in 1998, with
considerable land owner, HOA, policy maker, and other community involvement.
Fundamentals from those sessions which are most pertinent to this discussion include the
following:
• Walkable /pedestrian- oriented;
• Predictability in design/flexibility in use (street layout, building type, and
placement are primary factors — uses change over time);
• Visibly different section of SR 434;
• Design for the long and near term (build -out could take 50 years or more —
better to wait for the right development that furthers the town center);
• Buildings positioned close together, fronting streets and public spaces, with
parking behind or beside buildings; and
• There is no one "deal breaker," without which the town center will fail — need
to keep the long term goal in our minds.
In May of 2001, the primary Town Center consultant, Victor Dover, made a presentation
to the City Commission, ending with a profound statement, paraphrased as follows:
There will be a number of what appear to be reasonable requests to deviate
from the town center vision and code. We always need to consider whether
or not these deviations further the town center or detract from it.
The Town Center Code is a "form- based - code." Form -based codes seek to regulate the
physical form of the built environment to create a specific type of "place. "Form based
codes may be described as an overall picture, with supporting language and specific
graphics of how each block and street is envisioned to look and evolve. This picture is
2
June 21, 2010
Regular Item 600
Page 3
the vision prescribed by the stake - holders. Form -based codes specify the types of
buildings and their relationship with the public realm and the neighborhood. The form
and type of building transcends its use — so that it may be occupied by a number of
different entities over a longer period of time, with only modest alteration, in lieu of
planned obsolescence and demolition. Form -based codes are the most efficient means to
transition from a vision to the successful implementation of that vision.
Comprehensive Plan
A site plan or any development order must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to state law. The most pertinent current Comprehensive Plan policies appear to
be as follows: (1) Future Land Use Element Policy 5.2.6 which contains the following
statement, "Sidewalks that are a minimum of 12' wide along in front of commercial shop
fronts and are a minimum of 6' wide in all other areas... " and (2) Future Land Use
Element Policy 5.2.7, which contains the following statement "All development within
the UCBD shall comply with the Town Center District Code..."
Section 163.3194 of the Florida Statutes states that "after a comprehensive plan, or
element or portion thereof has been adopted in conformity with this act, all development
undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental
agencies in regard to land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such
plan or element as adopted".
Strategic Plan
The Town Center received much attention during the two (2) visioning sessions that led
to the City's Strategic Plan. Goal 3 of the Strategic Plan reads "Aggressively complete
the vision for the Town Center." The S.W.O.T. analysis (S.W.O.T. stands for
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) identified two (2) threats to the
Town Center which are particularly germane to this discussion:
1. "Lack of understanding and knowledge about unique opportunities the town
center affords" and
2. "Not holding to the town center vision/code."
One of the strategic issues identified in the Strategic Plan was the "Focused commitment to [the]
Town Center." "Community Treasures," identified in the strategic plan included controlled
commercial growth and development, a walkable community, enforced standards, Town Center
events, and the Town Center, itself.
POTENTIAL TEXT AMENDMENTS /ALLOWANCES /SOLUTIONS:
During discussions with the applicant for the aforementioned 0.73 acre site, staff and the
applicant vetted several options for allowances on these small irregular- shaped lots. In addition,
we discussed what constitutes such a lot. The initial thoughts for consideration are as follows:
3
June 21, 2010
Regular Item 600
Page 4
• A small, irregular- shaped lot must be less than one (1) acre in size and of a geometric
shape that results in insufficient depth or width to accommodate appropriate tenant space
and the street appurtenances associated with the requirements of the Town Center Code.
Also included would be the small flag lots along Lake Jesup, north of Orange Avenue.
The request to "over develop" a site beyond what is "reasonable and customary" for the
subject site should not be grounds for granting any allowances that may be approved.
• Aggregation, where possible, would be the method of choice in dealing with abutting lots.
This aggregation would allow for the parcel(s) to accommodate the Town Center Code
requirements.
• Shared off -site retention and parking could be utilized to create more developable
property within the confines of the small, irregularly- shaped lot. Also included would be
the use of structured parking.
• The wider (12') sidewalks would only be required in front of established storefronts and
not potential future storefronts. This allowance could result in narrower sidewalks should
the storefront area of the building expand. It will also result in longer areas of narrow
sidewalks next to "dead ", solid building facades, thereby providing for spaces not
conducive to pedestrian activity. There is also a potential conflict with Policy 5.2.6 of the
Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Allow one (1) story buildings. This allowance will be in conflict with Policy 5.2.7 of the
Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Encourage non - traditional but readily accepted methods for treating stormwater
(underground and capture /recycle), thereby allowing for more of the site to be dedicated
to vertical development.
• There have also been discussions about contraction of the Town Center Zoning District
and Land Use. These discussions have centered on possible contraction along the
"fringes" of the Town Center and have also included a discussion of the possible
exclusion of the Winter Springs High School and Central Winds Park from the Town
Center Zoning District.
P &Z ACTION: Planning staff discussed the issue with the Planning and Zoning Board at
its special April 28, 2010 meeting. The Board did not recommend across the board waivers to
small irregularly shaped lots. After lengthy discussion, there was consensus about shared
facilities, such as parking and stormwater. There was some support for 1 story buildings with
architectural upgrades, but that was a minority viewpoint.
FISCAL IMPACT: Fiscal impacts would be assessed on a case -by -case basis for each site
where allowances were requested. However, studies have shown that properties developed
pursuant to Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) standards, as promoted in the Town
4
June 21, 2010
Regular Item 600
Page 5
Center Code, generate significantly more ad valorem taxes than the same site developed pursuant
to Euclidean Zoning Codes.
COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: The Commission Agenda has been posted on the
bulletin board outside City Hall, on the City's electronic sign, the agenda is electronically
posted according to the City Clerk's procedure.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board was not supportive of automatically
waiving the code for small irregularly shaped lots, although it did support shared infrastructure.
Staff recommends that the Commission consider the enclosed considerations in drafting a text
amendment to deal with the issue of small, irregularly- shaped lots.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Irregular Small Parcel Analysis Study
B. April 28, 2010 P &Z Minutes
5
I 1
ATTACHMENT A
�1NTER t . tr
o .N CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
A +L Irregular Small Parcel Analysis Study
.POOR March 2010
1
N om, `
W ., / '
,2 Lake Jesup � !'J'°
e 0 2 U C
o 0 l �� 022 s
2 ' 250 0 250 500 750 1,000
❑ c_=:::> 3 y Ill i ∎ Feet
�� , T ^�� 5 31 ,0
.a 0
4 16
i i t . i fi a t ,,,,,,,, � wit tiff/
'...7' ' ' , 1.
• ,_..._
\,4,,,,,,_,,,,_,,,:_____,,......,.
®�• ®�: , s ue
D �D� Vi \ „ ii.
3,3 20
5
12 N e n
25 24
268
IP•ii? D� o
2, 1 ‘11
® o .
ppACNE 01 .
111111' • �\� ../ F R Gg nesir
��„JJ l
a
r 17, _
p
CHEYENNE T0. s
�� u o� a ` O O
Ky D=
' @ - � '� C — � O
00
H ,E n
le
SHAWNEE TRL n,„,4„,,,,,,,
a ,E
\ .a �
\
so
CHEROKEE VILLAGE TRL ® / o
D WPM 9A
an 'o
sn
,s 17 / 0
' ar
ouT OUT n
„a ,••■/• MILKY WAY
'r f 'r _
S ss ],
1I
.° r� 4 ZZ _e sn , � 66 17 ,s 16 i° 13 , s e . J z TFnCtn` Ja 0.
le
Iii
.o
B �o ae ® ' v OUT it.,=-.. ' / 1
742 ' °� '° "e 10 737 „ „5 ,,. ,,, ,,, , „e Jz9 SEMIN COUNTY a �
,za BLOCKS B 6 C s „ 7.
933 ;4, ,a, ,., ae...,. 7 „e 7 � ,aoreKO x,
Parcel Ownership and Jurisdiction Summary
Parcel
Number Property Appriser PID Owner Jurisdiction Number Property Appriser P10 Owner Jurisdiction Parcel Property Appriser PID Owner Jurisdiction Legend
Number
1 26203054800000204 Jessup Stores Partnership City 21 3120315880000036A Schrimsher Land Fund 1995 U & Land Fund V Lt Et& City 40 31203150200000030 Pullen James City O Study Parcels
2 2670305AROD00108 Ripley Roy & Deborah City 22 26203054ROB000080 Jaeger Rodman D & Angeline G B Jaeger Donald C County 41 31203150200000040 Duffy Wheel City Winter Springs City Limits
3 26203054R0800026B Pa3uccl Jeno F & City 23 2620305ARO1300008A Grows Lawrence A & Barbara A County 42 3120315020000004A Hall Fayette L Jr &Joanne E City
4 26203054R00000260 Sods Inc City 24 26203054808000080 Gates James D County 43 31203150200000050 Benson Judith & Curt A CarAy = Town Center Boundary
5 2620305AROB00026A Seminole Pines Assoc lid City 25 2620306AROB0110088 Fahlstrom Paul C & Mary E County 44 31203150200000054 Hall Fawatte L Jr County • •
6 362030501110000260 Seminole Pines Assoc Ltd City 26 26203054808000070 Ferguson James • & Lorraine E County 45 31203150200000050 Duffy Michel S County 4. • • Urban Central Business District
7 3620305020300001B Seminole Pines Assoc Ltd City 27 26203064R0B00W7A EMews Mane & Luis R City 46 31203150200000659 Hall Fayette 8 Josephine A County
8 36www,G00000050 Devon Orlando/Wats LLC City 26 26203054ROBO30060 Aza Mohamedraza J City 47 31203150203000070 Sage Carolyn S County
9 3620305SG00000060 Devon Onando/Watc LLC City 29 26203054ROB00006A Chan Srinivas S 8 Romani City 48 31203150210000050 Qualls Ronald C Gouty
10 3620305SG00000030 Devon OrlaMOA4stc LLC City 30 26203234R0B000050 Hagen Betty R City 49 31203150300030010 De SaKtel M Gregory & Susan L County
11 25203C50RO0000230 VBBC 5.Y 110 City 31 31203150100000030 Neiswander H Martin 8 Patna County 50 3120315030300001B De Saul& M Gregory 8 Susan L Canty
12 26213054809000248 Seminole County School Board City 32 262D3C64R0130000 A Hyde George T & Gretchen H Gouty 51 3120315030000001A De Saute! • Gregory & Susan L Casty
13 26203054800 060 City Of Winter Sprigs City 33 2620305AR06000040 Meier George A Ili & Mary Y County 52 31203150308300020 HAM1er James K Jr County
14 2820306ARM00003C Sohnmsher Land Fund 1985 U 8 Land Fund V U 9& City 34 26203054R0B00004B Moor George A Iii 8 Mary Y City 53 31203150300030030 Bachnik Gregory T & Susan J County
15 3620 0000090 Ondk:k Robbie R & Ondick City 35 2820305AR00000040 Meier George A Iii 8 Mary Y County 54 31203150300000050 Kama Mohamed 5 & Karen City
16 2620305 008F Ondlok Robbie R 8 Edward R City 36 2620305AR0B00004A Reference Only County 55 3120315030000010A 0000 Michael L & Linda L County - /7$$tj±$ }t:
17 01213050100000040 Griffith Edward W City 37 31203150200000010 Fu YYLL
Fur Wiliam 6 Jr County 56 31203150390000100 More Sherry Gouty Dane
18 2620305AR5 000888 L D Plante Inc County 38 31203150200000020 Heitlage Terry R City 57 31213150100030121 'Rimier Michael 8 Cynthia A County IIIIGG
19 252030 6J45000008G L D Plante Inc County 39 3120315220203A Pullen James F City 58 31201150300003120 Solleau Marion J Jr & Cher)1 County I i 1 � �' r - _ -
21 312031551300000066 Schrimsher Land Fund Lt 8 Land Fund V U Eta! City
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD /LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING - APRIL 28, 2010
PAGE 5 OF 7
VOTE:
CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE
BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE
VICE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE
BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE
BOARD MEMBER HEATWOLE: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Stevenson commented that, "We originally targeted the date of the 10 (May 2010),
however, we will take whatever time is necessary — maybe two (2) weeks later before it
goes to the Commission. We certainly would be willing to make that information public
so that everyone who wants to be at that Meeting. Although, the Final Engineering is not
a Public Hearing, they can certainly be at that Meeting and we will try to get that
language for the `DA' (Developer's Agreement) worked out with the County and through
our City Attorney and their Attorney in plenty of time to have that before the Meeting.
And certainly before we write the Agenda Item up, to take it to the City Commission, so
while we would like to get it on the 10 (May 2010), it may be two (2) weeks later."
REGULAR
602. Community Development Department
Requests That The Planning And Zoning Board Consider Certain Proposed Text
Amendments Regarding The Development Of Small, Irregular- Shaped Lots Within
The Town Center Zoning District
Mr. Stevenson presented this Agenda Item and stated, "This is something we are going to
take back to the Commission and probably a Workshop format, but I wanted to get the
benefit of Planning and Zoning (Board/Local Planning Agency) thoughts on this item to
help us put together the final package for the Commission. And ultimately, it will be a
Text Amendment which will come back to P & Z (Planning and Zoning Board/[Local
Planning Agency]) if we go forward with it."
Chairman Lacey asked, "At the end of this discussion, are you looking for specific
guidance from this Board in terms of a Motion, or are you just looking for a discussion to
take as informal input."
Mr. Stevenson responded, "1 think it is informal input. We asked for providing relative
feedback, suggestions as well as any development options that this Board may want to
entertain. Again, that would go back to the Commission in a form of a Workshop and
then as directed by the Commission; if we move forward with the Text Amendment,
would come back formally before this body, before it goes to the City Commission."
Next, "The City of Winter Springs Irregular Small Parcel Analysis Study March 2010"
map was displayed.
Discussion on various irregular lots continued.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING — APRIL 28, 2010
PAGE 6 OF 7
Tape 1 /Side B
With further discussion, Mr. Stevenson spoke of irregular lots, two -story buildings,
sidewalks and stormwater.
Discussion.
Regarding possibly changing the Text Amendment to the Code for some of the fringe
area or small irregular shaped lots, Mr. Stevenson asked the Board Members for their
suggestions and thoughts.
Chairman Lacey stated, "For these small irregular lots, a deviation to some of these
requirements — two (2) stories — if it is not adjacent to another set of buildings, it is not
going to be visually disruptive to me." Continuing, Chairman Lacey then added, "In this
case, defining a small irregular lot to some objective criteria, makes sense in regard . to
this particular two (2) story requirement."
Vice Chairman Poe remarked, "I would agree with that — because you have quantified it
and objectively defined what perimeters it must have before it is even to be considered."
Chairman Lacey asked, "Are there any projects en route besides the Pinch -A -Penny - that
would take advantage of this? Mr. Stevenson replied, "I think the Pinch -A -Penny is the
only one (1) - that has come in. We have some other projects that would love to take
advantage of it, but they do not qualify for the small irregular- shaped lot as we have it
currently defined."
Discussion.
Continuing, Mr. Stevenson said, "We have to look at these lots on a case by case basis —
and craft language that may address all of them"
Chairman Lacey asked, "What other exceptions would be on your list ?" Mr. Stevenson
replied, "The one that would be an exception again, would be the twelve foot (12)
sidewalks — the one (1) story." Mr. Stevenson added, "The major one is going to be the
one (1) story — just because of the implementations not only on the area of the building
but also on the required parking."
Discussion ensued on two (2) story buildings.
Tape 2/Side A
Chairman Lacey stated, "There is a balance because you have some conflict of interest.
It is in the City's interest that we try to make this as attractive as possible and that it
generates the highest and best use of the property for the long term. On the other side,
you have individual property owners who are trying to get by, day to day, and they are
struggling — you have to balance those interests."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING — APRIL 28, 2010
PAGE 7 OF 7
In summary, Mr. Stevenson stated, "What I am going to go forward with is a real good
discussion, one (1) story potential, but only with upgraded architecture — and the other
things we talked about the shared parking, the underground treatment of stormwater and
those types of things."
Chairman Lacey responded, "I can live with one (1) story, but I think I am in the
minority."
In other City business, Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, ASLA, AICP, Senior Planner, Community
Development Department commented on the recently Approved Ordinance 2010 -09,
which reassigned the duties from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning and Zoning
Board/Local Planning Agency and sunsetted the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Sahlstrom
then distributed a copy of Ordinance 2010 -09 to the Board Members.
Lastly, Ms. Sahlstrom addressed the Board Members regarding Community Planning
Month in October.
Deputy City Clerk Joan Brown asked the Board Members if they were agreeable to being
emailed all future Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Agenda Packets,
in lieu of typical mail delivery via the United States Post Office? Chairman Lacey
replied, "There needs to be some judgment on the very large documents — that we would
not have the capability of printing out ourselves. We would leave it to the Department to
make some recommendation on when it needs to come to us separately. Other than that, I
am fine with email." Vice Chairman Poe stated, "Likewise." Board Member Robert
Heatwole, "Email." Board Members Rosanne Karr and Howard Casman stated that they
would prefer the paper copy.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Lacey adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:49 p.m.
,RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
-- - - - - -: .
- -1213.R0 P I TYC1TY CLERK
APPRO K'
- - ,
- - 44 XX 1 , -
CH ' ,. t'jia . s
. t • .
PLANNING • i ONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the June 9, 2010 Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting.