Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011 03 28 Public Hearings 500 Consider Review of Proposed Winter Springs Village Final
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA Consent Informational ITEM 500 Public Hearing X Regular March 28, 2011 Mgr. / Dept Meeting Authorization REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission review the information presented in this agenda item and consider four (4) requests for the proposed Winter Springs Village: (1) the special exception requests, (2) the final engineering/subdivision plans, (3) the aesthetic review drawings, and (4) the development agreement, which will incorporate the requested code deviations if they are approved as part of the special exception requests. SYNOPSIS: The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Commission to consider all the information as a basis for recommendations for the special exceptions, aesthetic review, final engineering/subdivision plan, and development agreement for 202 residential units [33 estate lots (75’ wide), 36 estate lots (50’ wide), and 133 bungalow lots], a clubhouse, park/recreational areas, trail access, and a portion of Michael Blake Boulevard (MBB) adjacent to the 40 acre Winter Springs Village development within the Winter Springs Town Center. The site is located along the east side of Tuskawilla Road, south of St. Johns Landing development (St. Johns Landing and Tuskawilla Trace are not part of the Town Center). CONSIDERATIONS: LAND USE, ZONING DESIGNATION, ETC.: Zoning: Town Center Future Land Use Designation: Town Center APPLICABLE REGULATIONS & OTHER CONTROLING FACTORS: Florida Statutes Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9, City Code Chapter 20, City Code March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 2 Early Work Permit Schrimsher Development Agreement CHRONOLOGY: July 2, 2004 – Preliminary Engineering/Subdivision Plan received August 9, 2004 – Concept Plan approved by City Commission September 27, 2004 – Revised Concept Plan approved by City Commission August 28, 2006 – Aesthetic Review approved by City Commission September 25, 2006 – Early Work Permit sent back to staff for further review November 13, 2006 – Early Work Permit approved by the City Commission December 11, 2006 - Final engineering/subdivision plan and DA approved May 14, 2007 – Concept Plan Revision #3 approved by the City Commission April 28, 2008 – Site Development Permit Agreement approved by the City Commission May 18, 2010 – Staff Review of latest Concept Plan Revision May 24, 2010 – Commission renewed the Early Work Permit for the Property August 9, 2010 – Commission approved the Early Work permit subject to conditions January 5, 2011 – Planning & Zoning Board forwarded a mixed recommendation to the City Commission January 6, 2011 through February 28, 2011 – numerous meetings with the St. John’s Landing HOA to discuss various aspects of the project and how the Winter Springs Village project could be modified to better provide a transitional area along the edge of the Town Center.These meetings are detailed under the “Communication Efforts” section of this agenda item. March 9, 2011 – Planning & Zoning reviewed the revised concept plan and an additional special exception request to help create the transition area adjacent to St. John’s Landing. The following is a listing of the additional meetings held relative to this project: ݱ²½»°¬Ð´¿²ß°°®±ª¿´øÝ·¬§Ý±³³··±²÷¬êñïìñîðïð Û¿®´§É±®µß°°®±ª¿´øÝ·¬§Ý±³³··±²÷¬èñçñîðïð Ò±¬·½»¬±ØÑß®»¹¿®¼·²¹·¬»©±®µ¬çñîìñîðïðøÌ«µ¿©·´´¿Ì®¿½»¿²¼Í¬òÖ±¸² Ô¿²¼·²¹÷ Ю»Ý±²¬®«½¬·±²Ó»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ý·¬§¬çñîéñîðïð Í·¬»É±®µÝ±³³»²½»³»²¬¬ïðñêñîðïð Ó»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ì«µ¿©·´´¿Ì®¿½»ØÑ߬ïïñíñîðïð Ó»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Í¬òÖ±¸²Ô¿²¼·²¹ØÑ߬ïïñïïñîðïð Ó»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ì±©²Ý»²¬»®Þ«·²»»¬ïïñïîñîðïð Ó»®·¬¿¹»±ºº»®±º¼®¿º¬ÓÑˬ±ÍÖÔØÑ߬ïïñïçñîðïð Ó»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ý·¬§¿²¼ÍÖÔØÑ߬ïîñèñîðïð Ý·¬§Í¬¿ºº³»¬©·¬¸Ú´±®·¼¿Ú·¸úÉ·´¼´·º»Ñºº·½»®¬Ö¿²«¿®§ïçôîðïï ɱ®µ¸±°©·¬¸Ó»®·¬¿¹»ôÍÖÔλ·¼»²¬ôÝ·¬§Í¬¿ºº¬Ú»¾®«¿®§ïôîðïï March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 3 Ѳ·¬»Ó»»¬·²¹©·¬¸Ó»®·¬¿¹»ôÍÖÔλ·¼»²¬ôÝ·¬§Í¬¿ºº¬±®»ª·»©¿®¾±®·«»¬ Ú»¾®«¿®§ìôîðïï Ó»»¬·²¹©·¬¸ÍÖÔλ·¼»²¬ôÝ·¬§Í¬¿ºº¬Ú»¾®«¿®§îíôîðïï ɱ®µ¸±°©·¬¸Ó»®·¬¿¹»ôÍÖÔλ·¼»²¬ôÝ·¬§Í¬¿ºº¬Ú»¾®«¿®§îèôîðïï BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The recently cleared 40 acre site is located along the east side of Tuskawilla Road, south of St. Johns Landing, and north of Wetland Park. The presently unimproved equestrian portion of the Cross Seminole Trail immediately abuts the northern site boundary. The subdivision plan includes a segment of Michael Blake Boulevard, which, when completed, will serve as a collector roadway with an eventual traffic light at its intersection with SR 434. A final engineering/subdivision plan, aesthetic review, and development agreement in 2006, for 408 townhouse units (the 2004 concept plan had 436 units), but the development agreement required to memorialize the code deviations in the subdivision plan and aesthetic review was never executed and recorded. The site is subject to the Town Center provisions of the comprehensive plan (Future Land Use Element), the existing Schrimsher Development Agreement, and the Town Center Code (sections 20-320 through 20-327 of the City Code). Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes, requires any development approved or undertaken by a local government to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Since this project was last before the P&Z, the applicant, City staff, and residents of the St. John’s Landing HOA have met in a series of meetings to resolve certain issues relative to the project’s location adjacent to the St. John’s Landing property and the location of the development property at the edge of the Town Center District. The City Commission was supportive of efforts to create a transition zone/area along the Town Center perimeter and adjacent to St. John’s Landing. These meetings have resulted in the addition of a unit type, buffer zones, fences, and other items to accomplish this transition area. These modifications necessitated an additional review by the P&Z of a modified concept plan, a new special exception/deviation, the aesthetic drawings for the new unit type, and consideration of one previously reviewed special exception/deviation to accommodate the new unit type. This meeting with the P&Z took place on March 9, 2011. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: A development agreement (DA) has been reviewed by staff, the applicant, and the City Attorney. Pertinent elements of the DA are as follows: λ·³¾«®»³»²¬º±®½±²¬®«½¬·±²±ºÓ·½¸¿»´Þ´¿µ»Þ±«´»ª¿®¼øÓÞÞ÷ñÍ°·²»Î±¿¼º®±³ Ì«µ¿©·´´¿Î±¿¼¬±¬¸»±«¬¸·¼»±º¬¸»Ý®±Í»³·²±´»Ì®¿·´ò̸·®»·³¾«®»³»²¬©·´´ ¾»·²¬¸»º±®³±ºÌ®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²×³°¿½¬Ú»»Ý®»¼·¬òøп®¿¹®¿°¸ì÷ λ·³¾«®»³»²¬º±®±ª»®·¦·²¹±º¬¸»©¿¬»®³¿·²·²¬¸»¿´·¹²³»²¬±ºÓÞÞñÍ°·²»Î±¿¼ øß°°®±ª»¼É¿¬»®Ý®»¼·¬¬Ð¿®¿¹®¿°¸ë÷ March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 4 λ¯«·®»¬¸»¼»ª»´±°»®±º¬¸»¿¼¶¿½»²¬°¿®½»´±«¬¸±º¬¸»«¾¶»½¬°®±°»®¬§¬± ®»·³¾«®»Ó»®·¬¿¹»º±®°®±ª·¼·²¹»¨½»½¿°¿½·¬§·²¬¸»´·º¬¬¿¬·±²¿²¼º±®½»³¿·² øÍ»©»®Þ»²»º·¬Ú»»¬Ð¿®¿¹®¿°¸é÷ ݱ¬Í¸¿®·²¹º±®Í¬±®³©¿¬»®Ü®¿·²¿¹»×³°®±ª»³»²¬øп®¿¹®¿°¸è÷ Negotiations with the St. Johns Landing HOA and the City have resulted in certain deviations that will be included in the DA if approved by the City Commission. TREES & LANDSCAPING: An early work permit for the site was approved by the City Commission on August 9, 2010 and was conditioned upon the payment of all standard arbor permit fees as well as an additional payment of $39,000 to the City’s tree bank to partially offset the loss of tree canopy value. The applicant also provided security to the City in the amount of $140,000 to be used for a site restoration program in the event that the applicant defaults under the terms of the agreement. The City’s arborist performed an on-site inspection to quantify the number of specimen trees for the arborist has the purpose of establishing the tree bank donation amount. In addition, accessed the row of trees along the project’s frontage with Tuskawilla Road. These trees are somewhat “scrubby” in their structure because of the lack of canopy and root zone area. The residents of St. John’s Landing are still requesting that these trees be preserved and that the parallel parking proposed along this section of Tuskawilla Road be deleted. Deletion of the parallel parking in this area would constitute a deviation to the City’s Town Center Code. The Planning and Zoning Board supported the deletion of the parallel parking on Tuskawilla. LISTED SPECIES: The applicant provided a Wildlife Assessment Report from a third party consultant for the subject property. The report found no plant species listed by either the state of federal agencies present on the site during the assessments. One (1) species was identified that was listed as “commercially exploited” by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The harvesting of this species, cinnamon fern, for commercial gain is not allowed. However, the listing of this species poses no restrictions towards the development of the subject property. Several birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians were identified during the evaluation. None of the species identified are listed in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s official list of Florida’s endangered species, threatened species, or species of special concern. Two (2) Bald Eagle nests were identified within proximity of the subject site. One nest is located approximately 2,300’ to the southeast of the subject property and one nest is located approximately 5,300’ to the west of the property. Since the original study, another nest has been identified approximately 293 feet west of the subject site. The environmental consultant has filed an amendment (letter report) to their original report stating that the new nest will be monitored in accordance with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) “Bald Eagle Monitoring Guidelines”. Meritage has agreed to abide by the requirements for no work within the 330’ primary zone around the nest during nesting season. March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 5 STORMWATER: Onsite stormwater runoff is collected and routed into three onsite wet detention ponds for stormwater treatment and flood attenuation. Pond 1 is located in the northern area of the property, Pond 2 is near the southern end, and Pond 3 is centrally located adjacent to the parcel shown for the future clubhouse / pool area. The ponds have outfall pipes that discharge at two locations on the east side of the property into the existing wetlands and eventually to Lake Jesup. The stormwater system has been designed in accordance with the applicable City and St. John’s River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Standards. The stormwater system includes construction of a Wetlands Park outfall pipe that routes stormwater runoff from Wetlands Park across Michael Blake Boulevard and along the southern property boundary to an outfall at the east side of the Winter Springs Village property. SJRWMD has issued an Environmental Resource Permit for the project. The construction impacts 2.42 acres of wetlands and 0.41 acres of surface waters. These wetland and surface water impacts were previously authorized by SJRWMD and have been mitigated. TRAFFIC: Meritage’s traffic engineering consultant has submitted a traffic impact study for the project, which, after several rounds of review, has been approved by Staff. The traffic study updates the traffic study previously approved for the Sonesta Pointe project on this property in December 2006, when the project consisted of a 400+ unit all-townhome development. The 252-unit mixed use development submitted for the Planning & Zoning Board’s consideration in January 2011 was estimated to generate 2,310 daily trips, with 479 trips in the AM peak hour and 229 trips in the PM peak hour. The updated development plan, consisting of 202 all single-family units, reduces the estimated traffic generation by approximately 14%. The revised traffic generation is 1,995 daily trips, with 414 AM peak hour trips and 198 PM peak hour trips. The traffic study indicated the primary roadway segments impacted by the project (S.R. 434 and Tuskawilla Road) currently operate at an acceptable level-of-service per the City’s Comprehensive Plan and will continue to do so at project buildout. The major intersections impacted by the project (S.R. 434 at Tuskawilla Road and S.R. 434 at Doran Drive) currently operate within their adopted level-of-service and will continue to do so at project buildout. Michael Blake Boulevard (“MBB,” formerly known as Spine Road) is a proposed City collector road that runs from S.R. 434 (approximately 970 feet east of Tuskawilla Road) north across the Cross-Seminole Trail and then adjacent to the east side of Winter Springs Village until it connects to Tuskawilla Road. The traffic study indicates that MBB is not needed to maintain minimum level-of-service standards for the impacted roadway segments and intersections. However, there are a number of reasons to support construction of MBB early on in the development of Winter Springs Village that are not captured in a quantitative traffic analysis, including: Relief from instantaneous peak traffic flows from the high school and other events Improved emergency access to area properties Provides alternative access to SR 434 when Tuskawilla Road is closed for special events Enhances economic development of the Town Center east of Tuskawilla Road March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 6 MBB is a key component of the City’s Town Center Master Transportation Plan The segment of MBB from Tuskawilla Road to the Cross-Seminole Trail will be constructed as part of Winter Springs Village. Meritage has committed to building this segment before any units are issued certificates of occupancy. The MBB segment from the Cross-Seminole Trail to S.R. 434 is a City project and the right-of-way was acquired in November 2010. Staff is proceeding with the final design and permitting for the City segment of MBB with the intention of being prepared to start construction in mid-2011 with completion by the end of 2011. UTILITIES: Winter Springs Village will connect to City water and sanitary sewer services, and the City has adequate plant and system capacity for both water and sewer. The Winter Springs Village water system connects to the existing 8-inch water main in Tuskawilla Road at several locations. In addition to the proposed onsite water mains, services, and fire hydrants, a new 12-inch water main will be installed along Michael Blake Boulevard and will terminate at the south side of the Cross-Seminole Trail. This water main is being oversized (from 8-inches to 12-inches) to provide additional capacity (at the City’s expense) for future development(s) in the area. A sanitary sewer lift station is proposed at the southeast corner of the property. A sanitary sewer force main is proposed from the lift station to Michael Blake Boulevard and then south along the Michael Blake Boulevard right-of-way to S.R. 434 where it connects to an existing force main. PARKING Parking in Winter Springs Village is provided in garages, driveways, and on-street parallel parking spaces. All 202 residential units have two-car garages and sufficient driveway length for two 20-foot long parking spaces (without encroachment into the sidewalk). The overall parking ratio (number of parking spaces per residential unit) is expected to increase under the he revised concept plan due to the elimination of 50 residential units and only a minor decrease in the number of on-street parallel parking spaces. The exact number of parking spaces will be determined when the final engineering plans for the revised concept plan are updated; however, at this point Staff is comfortable with the parking plan and the overall parking ratio should be at or above the ratio of 3.98 parking spaces per unit per the previous plans. SITE GRADING In the pre-development condition the Winter Springs Village site slopes from west to east towards Lake Jesup from a high elevation of approximately 31.0 (NGVD) near Tuskawilla Road to a low of approximately 11.0 at the southeast corner of the property. The Winter Springs Village site requires a substantial amount of fill due to the project’s density, layout, high groundwater table, and the Town Center Code requirement for residential first floors to be elevated a minimum of 24-inches above the adjacent sidewalk elevation. The grading plans show residential finished floor elevations ranging from 2 to 11 feet above the existing grades, with the units requiring the most fill generally being the estate lots located along the northern and eastern property boundaries. The site does not fill in any portion of the 100-year floodplain associated with Lake Jesup, which has a base flood elevation (100-year) of 10.0 (NGVD), which is below the lowest onsite elevation. March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 7 MICHAEL BLAKE BOULEVARD (MBB) (aka: Spine Road): The applicant has agreed to construction MBB from Tuskawilla Road southward to the southern side of the Cross Seminole Trail in exchange for transportation impact fee credits. In addition, the applicant will construct an unpaved trail along the Wetland Park side of this roadway. This construction will as detailed in the “traffic” section above. Completion of this portion of MBB will enable the City to move toward construction of the remaining link from the Cross Seminole Trail southward to the SR 434 right-of-way. FENCES/WALLS/HEDGES: Numerous meetings have occurred between the applicant, the City and representatives of the St. John’s Landing Homeowner’s Association. The applicant has agreed to fund the purchase of the 5-foot wide Schrimsher parcel adjacent to the south boundary of St. John’s Landing and to contribute the cost of a 6-foot high decorative fence in this area. One option that is still being vetted is that the applicant might construct the fence in lieu of payment to the St. John’s Landing HOA for future fence construction. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Policy 5.2.8 of the Future Land Use Element prohibits service areas from being located in front yards and requires that they not be visible from public rights-of-way or squares, parks, or primary spaces. The grouping of bungalows around the pond areas has garages that are accessible from alleys along the pond side of the lots. There is some concern that the garages might be considered “service areas” and, therefore, the applicant has proposed landscaping, to be maintained by the Homeowner’s association, as a buffer of the lower floor (garage area) of these units such that they are not visible from across the ponds. The estate lots around the pond areas are part of the transition area and have back yards that face the pond. SCHRIMSHER AGREEMENT: The existing Schrimsher Agreement that was executed in 2000 called for certain parks areas to be set aside as part of the development of the subject property. Those areas are as follows: Lake Trail Park 0.85 acres Neighborhood Park #2 0.45 Acres Neighborhood Park #3 0.44 Acres _________ 1.74 acres total The proposed concept plan contains the following: Lake Trail Park (Community Garden) 0.00 Ac Neighborhood Square 0.19 Ac. Neighborhood Square (Excluding Pond) 0.47 Ac. Mews 0.43 Ac. Additional Public Recreational Amenities 10’ wide walking trail along Road “A” 0.54 Ac. o 6’ concrete sidewalk offsite to the o March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 8 south connecting project to Trail 0.02 Ac. 6’ concrete sidewalk connecting o Trail to Magnolia Park 0.02 Ac. 6’ wide walk along E. side of o Tuskawilla Rd. from Road “A” To Michael Blake Blvd. 0.07 Ac. 6’ wide concrete walk extending o North from Road “A” connecting to existing sidewalk north of proposed Trail 0.02 Ac. Total 1.76 Ac. CODE DEVIATIONS: The modifications to the concept plan have necessitated one (1) additional special exception/deviation request. Code deviations are not unusual for developments, particularly within the Town Center. It was acknowledged that there would likely be additional items listed in the DA to accommodate the site plan and aesthetic review. I.SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: Section 20-321 – Requirements for Special Exceptions Special exceptions: (1) The city commission may by special exception waive strict compliance with provisions of competent evidence that: a. The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of the Winter Springs Town Center and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Winter Springs Town Center regulations. b. The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the Winter Springs Town Center. c. The proposed development abides by all rules in this code other than those specially excepted. Special limitations apply to large footprint buildings (greater than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet); see subsection 30-324(12) for these limitations. d. The proposed development meets any reasonable additional conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed necessary by the city commission in order to preserve and promote the intent of the Winter Springs Town Center Master Plan. The following questions are to be considered when reviewing a special exception request: a. The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of the Winter Springs Town Center and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Winter Springs Town Center regulations. The proposed development contributes and improves the Winter Springs Town Center by providing more residential development along the eastern edge of the March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 9 Town Center that will support the existing commercial development in the Town Center as well as assist in creating the “nexus” of uses necessary for an active and robust lifestyle within the District. b. The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the Winter Springs Town Center. The proposed development will provide residents within easy walking distance of the existing Town Center merchants and will help provide a favorable effect on the local economy. Please refer to the attached Economic Impact Analysis. c. The proposed development abides by all rules in this code other than those specially excepted. The proposed plan has several special exceptions as listed in this agenda item. These special exceptions are the result of life safety issues as well as the attempt to work with the adjacent homeowners to create the transition area near the edge of the Town Center District. d. The proposed development meets any reasonable additional conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed necessary by the city commission in order to preserve and promote the intent of the Winter Springs Town Center Master Plan. The proposed development has met a number of additional requirements relative to the commission discussions about transition areas and meeting with affected property owners. The plan is not detrimental to the intent of the Town Center Master Plan and carries forward that intent in this section of the District. The following are the special exceptions being requested by the applicant. 1.Rear-loaded alleys Sec. 20-324 (2) requires rear loaded alleys to minimize curb cuts and to provide access to parking and service areas behind buildings. Rear loaded alleys, in conjunction with on-street parking provide for a safer and more pedestrian-friendly environment and typically utilize less pavement area than front loaded garages and driveways. Alley requirements may be waived by the DRC (City Commission) for access to detached single family residential lots greater than fifty-five (55) feet in width in situations in which proper street front orientation, pedestrian circulation, and parking can still be accomplished. The proposed seventy-five (75’) estate lots located along the project’s edge and adjacent to the St. John’s Landing development, meet this requirement. The proposed fifty (50’) foot wide lots are also part of the transition area for this project, located within, but near the edge of the Town Center District. The 50-foot wide lots assist in keeping the density higher in pursuit of the density goal of 7 units per acre in the Town Center. These units still have a proper street front orientation, allow for pedestrian circulation. March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 10 Staff response: Staff can support this request because of the intent to create a transition area along the edge of the Town Center District. 2È Garage setbacks Section 20-324 (e) requires garage doors to be positioned no closer to the street, squares, or parks than twenty (20) feet behind the principle plane of the building frontage. The proposed estate homes on fifty (50’) foot lots have the garage doors positioned twenty (20) feet behind the front plane of the front porch. The principle plane of the building frontage has been determined to mean the front wall before entering an interior space. However, the front porches are integral to the house structure with roofs and raised finished floors. The purpose of the 20-foot setback is to hide the cars that might be parked in the driveways. The integrated, elevated porches serve to partially block these cars. Again, this deviation is integral to the elimination of the rear-loaded alleys along the edge of the Town Center District and the creation of the aforementioned transition area. This special exception/deviation was considered by P&Z at their January 5, 2011 meeting. The addition of the estate homes on seventy-five (75’) foot lots to the transition area of the concept plan requires the same deviation for the garage setbacks. However, the larger estate homes do not have the front porches that extend out from the principle plane of the units to assist in hiding the cars that will be parked in the driveways. As previously stated, these units are more suburban in nature and, for that reason, more suitable to the transition area. While the garages will be located a minimum of twenty (20’) feet from the sidewalk, the cars will be more visible in the driveways. Staff response: Staff can support this request as a result of the negotiations with the adjacent subdivision and as a part of the creation of the transition area along the edge of the Town Center District. 1È Corner curb radii greater than 15 feet (40’, 25’ & 22’). A turning radius of 15’ does not accommodate a school bus or most emergency vehicles. The applicant therefore respectfully requests a Special Exception. This exception is supported by the City Engineer. Staff responses: Staff recognizes that curb radii sometimes need to be made larger to accommodate fire truck turning radii (in this situation). Tight curb radii are important to creating and maintaining a walkable environment because they slow motor vehicle turning which improves bicycle and pedestrian safety - they should be provided within the Town Center wherever reasonable and applicable. Staff can support this request because of the life safety issues involved in assuring that emergency response vehicles have adequate access to the residential units. 0È First floor height for residential: Section 20-324 (5) of the City’s Code of Ordinances requires residential uses to have a finished floor height for the first floor raised a minimum of two (2) feet above the sidewalk grade. The March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 11 proposed estate homes on the seventy-five (75’) foot lots located along the interior perimeter of the proposed development are larger homes and cannot be built on stem walls to achieve the requisite 2-foot elevation. In addition, one of the concerns of the residents of St. John’s Landing was the degree to which the proposed homes in the Winter Springs Village were higher than the St. John’s Landing homes. The requested special exception/deviation would allow construction of the larger homes to help create the transition area and allow the subject homes to be built at an elevation that is four to eight inches above the sidewalk instead of 24 inches. This lowering of the units by approximately 18 inches also helps address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors in St. John’s Landing. Staff response: Staff can support this request because of the intent to create a transition area along the edge of the Town Center District, the City Commission’s desire to work with the residents of St. John’s Landing, and the fact that the proposed units are not a Traditional Neighborhood product but are a more standard residential product that is being incorporated into this development as a result of the aforementioned negotiations and the desire to create the transition area at the edge of the Town Center. I.AESTHETIC REVIEW: The submittal requirements for aesthetic review are set forth in Section 9-605 and include the following: (a) a site plan; (b) elevations illustrating all sides of structures facing public streets or spaces; (c) illustrations of all walls, fences, and other accessory structures and the indication of height and their associated materials; (d) elevation of proposed exterior permanent signs or other constructed elements other than habitable space, if any; (e) illustrations of materials, texture, and colors to be used on all buildings, accessory structures, exterior signs; and (f) other architectural and engineering data as may be required. The procedures for review and approval are set forth in Section 9-603. Each aesthetic review criteria is listed below, followed by staff comments in bold print. The City Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application only after consideration of whether the following criteria have been satisfied: (1) The plans and specifications of the proposed project indicate that the setting, landscaping, proportions, materials, colors, textures, scale, unity, balance, rhythm, contrast, and simplicity are coordinated in a harmonious manner relevant to the particular proposal, surrounding area and cultural character of the community. The plans and specification of the proposed project are harmonious as related to the internal development of a Town Center residential project. Because this property is located along the edge of the Town Center District, there have been some modifications to the plan in response to negotiations with the adjacent HOA to create a transition area particularly in the area of the estate homes. The aesthetic quality of the buildings is consistent with the Town Center code except for the estate homes proposed on the 75-foot lots. These units are more harmonious with the adjacent lots and units in the St. John’s Landing subdivision. March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 12 (2) The plans for the proposed project are in harmony with any future development which has been formally approved by the City within the surrounding area. No other more recent site plans have been submitted in this immediate area. The proposed project represents a very positive addition to the surrounding area. On- going negotiations with the existing St. John’s Landing HOA have resulted in the addition of several items that assist in the transition from the Town Center style development/architecture to the more suburban style of St. John’s Landing. (3) The plans for the proposed project are not excessively similar or dissimilar to any other building, structure or sign which is either fully constructed, permitted but not fully constructed, or included on the same permit application, and facing upon the same or intersecting street within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed site, with respect to one or more of the following features of exterior design and appearance: (a) Front or side elevations, (b) Size and arrangement of elevation facing the street, including reverse arrangement, (c) Other significant features of design such as, but not limited to: materials, roof line, hardscape improvements, and height or design elements. The proposed project is located at the edge of the Town Center District and is incorporating some deviation requests to transition from the Town Center development to the existing suburban style development located to the north of the subject site. The architecture of the project is in keeping with the Town Center code with the exception of the 75-foot estate lots. Material used on the 75-foot estate lots is compatible to the Town Center but certain architectural elements such as expression lines, vertically-oriented windows, shutters, dormers, columns, and balconies are not evident in the proposed architecture. (4) The plans for the proposed project are in harmony with, or significantly enhance, the established character of other buildings, structures or signs in the surrounding area with respect to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly accepted architectural principles of the local community. The proposed project is located at the edge of the Town Center District and is incorporating some deviation requests to transition from the Town Center development to the existing suburban style development located to the north of the subject site. The architecture of the transition area is in harmony and enhances the established character of the existing surrounding buildings. The remaining architecture on the interior of the project is in keeping with the Town Center code. (5) The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of this Article, the Comprehensive Plan for Winter Springs, design criteria adopted by the city (e.g. Towne Center guidelines, SR 434 design specifications) and other applicable federal state or local laws. March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 13 The Winter Springs Village aesthetic plan is consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable regulations, except as noted under the requested deviations. (6) The proposed project has incorporated significant architectural enhancements such as concrete masonry units with stucco, marble, termite-resistant wood, wrought iron, brick, columns and piers, porches, arches, fountains, planting areas, display windows, and other distinctive design detailing and promoting the character of the community. The project has incorporated a number of these features in an appropriate and tasteful manner. II.CONCEPT PLAN/FINAL ENGINEERING: The proposed concept plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the City code and is in substantially similar to the previous concept plan except for the addition of the 75-foot estate lots along the project’s perimeter (northern and eastern outer edge). Certain minor modifications have been made to the plan to accommodate the new unit type and the deletion of all townhome units. The Tuskawilla Road frontage has been modified to eliminate the intersection of Road “B” and Tuskawilla and large open space area (mews) has been added. The alignment of Road “A” has been modified slightly to pull Lots 14-19 further away from the adjacent lots in St. John’s Landing and allow for a more gradual slope back to grade for these lots. These modifications are the result of negotiations between the applicant, the City, and the residents of St. John’s Landing. Again, please be aware that the residents of St. John’s Landing are still requesting that the trees along Tuskawilla Road be preserved and that the parallel parking proposed along this section of Tuskawilla Road be deleted. Deletion of the parallel parking in this area would constitute a deviation to the City’s Town Center Code. Although the parallel parking, as proposed, meets the Code, he Planning and Zoning Board supported the deletion of the parallel parking on Tuskawilla. Modifications to the final engineering plans to accommodate the changes referenced above are minor and not substantial and staff requests authorization to incorporate these modifications and any additional requests from the Commission into the final engineering plans. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The 40 acre Winter Springs Village site is within the City of Winter Springs. The site has a Town Center Future Land Use designation and zoning. 2.The Commission approved an early work permit for the property on August 9, 2010. 3.Central potable water, sanitary sewer, and reclaimed water are available to the site from the City. 4.The aesthetic review and site plan are consistent with the comprehensive plan, except as noted. Except as noted for special exceptions, the plans are consistent with the City Code. March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 14 5. Certain special exceptions have been requested as part of on -going dialogues with the adjacent HOA and with intent to create a "transition" to the existing development to the north (St. John's Landing). FISCAL IMPACT: An Economic Impact Analysis is included with this agenda item as Attachment G. The City's Finance Director has reviewed this analysis and, based upon the information provided, is of the opinion that this project will yield a positive economic impact on the City of Winter Springs. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission; City Manager; City Attorney /Staff; placed in Press Packets; placed in the City Hall (Lobby) City Commission Meeting binder; and is available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's Server. Additionally, information related to this Agenda Item has been sent to media/press representatives who have requested Agendas/Agenda Item information, all Homeowner's Associations on file with the City, all individuals who have requested Agendas /Agenda Item information, Department Directors; and also posted outside City Hall; posted inside City Hall with additional copies available for the general public; and posted at five (5) different locations around the City. In addition to the communication efforts outlined above: 1. A substantial and conspicuous sign has been erected at the site to notice the public hearing and property owners within 150 feet of the site have been notified by mail in addition to the postings by the City Clerk's office. 2. All previous meetings relating to the project have been advertised in accordance with City policy including the concept plan approval and the Early Work permit. 3. Both the applicant and the City have had several meetings with the adjacent developments of Tuskawilla Trace and St. John's Landing, both the HOA representatives as well as individual homeowners. These meetings have resulted in the addition of several elements to the plans as well as accommodations to create a transition area adjacent to the St. John's Landing development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Commission act on the requests for the Winter Springs Village development as follows: 1. Approve the requested Special exceptions /deviations as detailed in this agenda item. All approved special exceptions /deviations will be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 2. Approve the Aesthetic Review for the project as outlined in this agenda item. This approval would include the new estate homes on the 75 -foot lots, recognizing that these units are not true TND products but represent part of the makeup for the "transition area" at the edge of the Town Center District and, in this case, adjacent to the St. John's Landing subdivision.. March 28, 2011 City Commission PH Item 500 Page 15 3. Approve the final engineering plans and minor modifications to the concept plan that were the results of negotiations with the St. John's Landing HOA and authorize the City Manager and City Staff to work with the developer to incorporate those modifications into the final engineering plans. 4. Approve the Development Agreement and authorize the City Attorney and City Manager to finalize the document for execution and recordation. ATTACHMENTS: A Aesthetic Review Package B Modified Concept Plan C Development Agreement D Final Engineering Plans E Planning & Zoning Minutes from January 5, 2011 F Planning & Zoning Minutes from March 9, 2011 G Fiscal Impact Analysis Winter Springs Village - Economic impact Analysis WINTER SPRINGS VILLAGE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS I. Property Value and City Tax Revenue Average Size Average Price Average Sales Annual City Tax* Revenue Property Type Quantity (SF) Per SF Price (Value) (2.5814 MILS) Common Areas 1.8 Acres (A) $450,000.00 $1,133.28 Estates 59 2500 $96.00 $240,000.00 $35,660.54 Bungalows 133 1900 $102.00 $193,800.00 $64,912.77 Townhomes 60 1600 $105.00 $168,000.00 $25,385.47 252 $127,092.06 * Excludes Homestead Exemption Approximate Property Valuation at build-out: $50,465,400.00 il. New Household Economic Impact Estimated Annual Household Annual Household Proposed Homes Quantity Spending* Spending Estates 59 $16,672.16 5983,657.44 Bungalows 133 $15,464.00 $2,056,712.00 y Townhomes 60 $14,255.84 $855,350.40 n i 252 $3,895,719.84 I i Estimated Annual Household Spending in Town Center • $1,947,059.00 4 • (50% of Total Household Spending ) z y 0 Winter Springs Village - Economic Impact Analysis Average spending is weighted by estimated ratio of 2- person and 4(or more)- person households occuppying each unit type. Estates (30/70) Bungalows (50/50) Townhomes (70/30) III. Estimate of Household Expenditures Description Couples Families Average Source Food at Home $5,319.60 $9,074.40 $7,197 "Op "Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home, September 2010 ", Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion Food away from Home $528.00 $429.00 $478.50 Household Operations $823.00 $1,800.00 $1,311.50 Household Supplies $825.00 $775.00 $800 "00 Table 671, "Average Annual Expenditures of All Consumer Units Household Furnishings $2,100.00 $2,456.00 $2,278.00 by Region and Sire of Unit: 2007", US. Bureau of Labor Apparel & Services $1,848.00 $2,859.00 $2,353.50 Statistics, November 2008. Personal Care Products $650.00 $756.00 $703.00 Tobacco & Alcohol $350.00 $335.00 $342.50 Total Annual Spending $12,443.60 $18,484.40 $15,464.00 Total Annual Spending in Town Center $7,732.00 Note: 50% of Total Annual Spending IV. Total Estimated Direct Annual Economic Impact of Project: $2,074,951 This is the total of Annual City Tax Revenue + Annual Household Spending in Town Center V. Construction Impacts Methodology: In Central Florida the accepted methodolgy for estimating Construction Expenditures and Employees in Development of Regional Impact Applications is as follows: Step 1. Estimate Contruction Expenditures for Labor by taking 50% of total value of price of housing units and site work. Step 2. Divide Construction Expendures by Average Annual Salary for Construction Workers to estimate number of Construction Employees. Sources: (a) Meritage Homes: Estimate of total site work and vertical construction expenditures. (b) Average Annual Salary from Metro Economic Development Commission; Winter Springs Village - Economic Impact Analysis Average Salary by Occupation, Orlando MSA, 2010 Wage Estimates" Step 1. Total value of site work and vertical construction = $55,015,400 $55,015,400 times 50% _ $27,507,700 (Construction Expenditures for Labor) Step 2. $27,507,700 divided by $34,257.60 (Average Wage) = 803 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) Total Construction over 5 year = 803 FTE Estimated Average Construction Jobs in one year = 160 (rounded) Prepared by CPC / Wadley Hanson, LLC AESTHETIC REviEw FOR AT TOWN CENTER CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA ADDENDUM SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 REviSED: Nov. 8, 2010 DEC. 6, 20 1 O PREPARED FOR: Merits eHomes PREPARED BY: 4 CARNAHAN • PROCTOR • CROSS 14 East Washington . Orlando, FL 32801 . w .camahan- pro[torxom Phone! (487)843.4863 Fax (407) 367.2106 E% Wintv,r Springs Villeigg. TOWNHOME APPROVED PLAN PRO %N\x N 1 He xiE { ANTAGE Body: PhaY Grey 4111 Custom Color Scheme #2 Thm: Tailored Linen 116.1 Accent Black Mepia 61 &7 P PITTSBURGH' PAINTS l/ANTAGE Custom Color Scheme #4 T-1c: Ta11— dLlaea I16 -1 body. nappy. .16.4 Aaera: Submadrr 56y� n PITTSB IIRGH PAINTS p �,r� r� HOME ICI ANTAGE Body: erictlecane 5235 Custom Color Scheme #6 1 How VLSI VANTAGE Accent: Black Magic 516-7 Q Meritage P PIT PAINTS Homes® Custom Color Scheme #11 Tm: e111 -QfPeed 513 Botly: Earthy Ocher 315 -5 Ar�crt. tnvered Bridge 422 -7 PITTSBURGH 1'11'' PAINTS R Wintjzr §prin8s V Mr , Nr Ews nSTATE HOMES PERSPECTIVE DAVIS VIS BEW I= uu mu mu um um mi um um � li� � +t lf- I v mn nll -- � — �I nnrrl7 .. R DAVIS Sews DESIGN GROW P iwl �u _ - F Ilnm mii um mu mu nm mi uu - y fum mii uui um mu mi iiui mi �, Wintlzr Springs Villagiz ESTATE HOMES STREETSCAPE Wirth S rir� s Villeigiz p � nnvissews ESTATE HOMES FLOOR PLAN & ELEV ATIONS - 2253 ❑MGN GMvp Wintg.r §prings V DAVIS SEWS ESTATE HOMES ELEVATIONS -2253 DESIGN GROUP f Winter §prings V DAVISBEws ESTATE HOMES ELEVATION -2253 DESIGN GROVP u ron 9' P \AR L DOCEMORM �IQ MAIN FLOOR 1568 S.F. VWIY�Id D�Gi LMID9t" 692 S.F. TOTAL LIVING 2260 S.F. ¢� DRYER cHBIE FR'A9 tan vEM ABV. g'4• ta11 Wi1B1ffP.FG Y , A ; IIP At a' -m' LANAI 152 S.F. PORCH 319 S.F. TOTAL SQ. FT, 3119 SR LI JL °P_'ff9 GR L r RuwE➢ .-D f B' -H" aBxbB II'm" 9 -f MT aL TILE aK W �e �� OO DINING _ I � - MASTER SUITE m a -f Mr Rc 3'J1' 3t° --- - - - - -J °� :° H FRONT PORCH 9' -9' U. HT. I W-47 UT ac. � - - - -- � a T T T Sidl I IEIDEIT a RI HDdi� 9EW Ai � �aR. E LEI ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 16 %l Bra � reuu>E �9 P uwTS IT m — s15 a �wlm rtarzamrE — — — - LEW UI N G ROOM n GARAGE e � IP -05a' -0' M c- .'RT.xr.ur. __— ___ —__= o m 101-e LANAI EI '- m - P -� T ¢G 4 R 'tl9'4 HT. 6m Zm I e ® - MR eaum I - I m E r p O I o 0 M a ML m Hp. Ai B'm' iDM HP. AT B' -f' wiatttn', FS, Vq Ai B'0' T 13'4' u ron 9' P \AR L DOCEMORM �IQ MAIN FLOOR 1568 S.F. UPPER FLOOR 692 S.F. TOTAL LIVING 2260 S.F. GARAGE 44S SF LANAI 152 S.F. PORCH 319 S.F. TOTAL SQ. FT, 3119 SR u ron 9' P \AR L DOCEMORM �IQ ��� OF RASM TEXTURM FFIRSH BANDNG AND i OR SAM FRIJNH 112"� FMF PLM H+H� � � PEAR ELEVATION ` � �— -- - -- - - -- � - -- - -- - - -- — FROM El : . T 16% GUONG PRMMMARYI DOCUMEM mr LEFTELEVA Rl(;Fff El"AmON ma in r� Wintjzr §p V ❑AVISBEWS ESTATE HOMES FLOOR PLAN & ELEV ATIONS - 26 `I 2 DESIGN GROW Wintjzr S rin s Villeigiz DAVISBEws ESTATE HOMES ELEVATIONS 1 2 ❑Mr,N GROVP MAIN FLOOR 1559 S.F. UPPER FLOOR 1056 S.F. TOTAL LIVING 26155f_ GARAGE 438 S.F. LANAI 321 Sf, PORCH 3015.F. TOTAL 5Q, FT. 3651 S.F. OPT. MASTER BATH OPT. COVERED DECK iii Wintg.r S rir� s Villagg. p � DAVISBEws ESTATE HOMES ROOF PLAN & EL EVATIONS -26 1 2 ❑Mr,N GROVP Wintjzr §prings V DAVISBEws ESTATE HOMES FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATIONS-3074 ❑ESIGN rROVP Winter S rin s Villeigg p � DAVIS SEWS ESTATE HOMES ELEVATIONS -3074 ossicN ❑Hour ppjeLjg MAN FLOOR 1540 S.F. UFFFEF F-COF 535 SF DOCUMIM TOTAL LIvING 3018 5F co� GARAG 4515.F. LANAI 335 6P, FcpcN ni S.F. TOTAL 5Q, FT. 4061 S.F. z LIVm/ KffCFM DT" M. DM 2 UN - ---- -- --- -- — ----------- - A d FORM I — — — — i � F F m a t FAWY FK= LANN GARAGE 01 4 �j k � d q, L ________- ------ - ------ ----------- a'4' ppjeLjg MAN FLOOR 1540 S.F. UFFFEF F-COF 535 SF DOCUMIM TOTAL LIvING 3018 5F co� GARAG 4515.F. LANAI 335 6P, FcpcN ni S.F. TOTAL 5Q, FT. 4061 S.F. OPT. MASTER BATH O ® J� 4- BEDROOM2 IS I BEDROOM 3 -v�:r SufTE Mi aG mmY _ lel L_J L— J ya I I I I _ I II I II I 1 III 1 III II F#i OPT'. BOWS ROOM I 1 III II II I I1 I I a r- vn BEDROO M 4� un.At,-z' LLm sa 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 5�mn -e� m z' -imp c.m i Wintg.r S rin s Villeigg. DAVIS SEWS ESTATE HOMES ROOF PLAN & ELEVATIONS -3074 DESIGN CROVP �.�.1i1111111111lW�.�_ Jull Nil Illil M HIMI B 11 AJ IM -j I Wintlzr S rir� Villagiz s p � DAVIS SEWS TOWNHOME STREETSCAPE DESIGN GROVP T 1 fo3 07 �suen" Acs 9333 ,Axr&a dL meb 08.05.90 BSB T 1 - sum"� 9795 /UGQ� dGO�r�Zea 08.05.10 atn go 9tyt :/733 x meb 08.05.!0 1 9 1 u0 ru A11 UP2111 !liflFll�nlDMIJILU!!`TI fi I �1 flCl, #III[Ili'LI fi Wintt7r §prings Villei DAVIS SEWS TO W N H O M E E LEVATION oMON GROVP DAVIS SEWS o IGN GROVP Wintjir Springs Villagg; TOWNHOME ELEVATION 1 1 —JELL � I 1 i II i I in, I l I F nonr,n Winter §prings V DAVIS SEWS TO W N H O M E ELEVATIONS DESIGN GROVP 6 Aw ,4" xm 6r1 r Wintjir §prings V DAVIS BEWS 6 -PLEX ToWNHOME FLOOR PLANS DESIGN GROUP fi Wintjzr S rin s Villeigiz DAVIS SEWS 6 -PLEX TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS 13BIGN WIMP r�rsia+E !IF aYLIfABLE) FADED tIXNfE➢PAWMG 3 tuffs ceraL Sw.us r�n�uL ruiraaw g - Fnsro� w�.nrtr, mo saD Fwsueomsrrnas n�icasxw Faimcss israff � c«rF�.r rtwL aE wim mm � uccFCr.E�unE wL ar ioee rtRsmincR_inenwR xvi -1 w R�arei vrD ssm cvb. iRSrauna cF o�xbF Lnrw ruic p�D F+AhrtG AfftIG111M RFWIffM1ENfS toff FFRYfl FDG E[amenw. ao xw amee+r Rlouz as asm c itts. TYP. CRD.SSSECRON OF RAISED TEXTURED FIN SH BANDING AND / OR SAND FQVISH KEYSTONE _ s.7 6 PLEX ROOF PLAN fi Wintjzr §prings V DAVIS SEWS 6-PLEX TOWNHOME FLOOR PLANS -UNIT DESIGN GROW 1334 Wintjzr S rin s Villeigiz DAVISBEws 6 TOWNHOME FLOOR PLANS - UNIT 1715 DESIGN GROW fi Wintjzr §prings V DAVISBEws 6 TOWNHOME FLOOR PLANS - UNIT DESIGN cROVP 1733 JLl DAVIS SEWS DESIGN GROW Wintg,r §prings Villagg; BUNGALOW STREETSCAPE II Winter §prings V DAVISBEws BUNGALOW FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATION - UNIT 1672 DESIGN GROW f� Wintg.r S rin s Villeigg. p � DAVISBEw5 BUNGALOW ELEVATION - UNIT 1672 CESIGN GROW IusG Wintg.r §prings V DAVISBEws BUNGALOW ELEVATIONS - UNIT 1 672 DESIGN GROW it Winter §pring.5 V DAVISBEw5 BUNGALOW REAR ELEVATION - UNIT DESIGN GROW 1672 �b. Al Ya' I�b. AI nY W�.AfTY x{ 111 UPPER FLOOR PLAN .*i " r SG UPPER l I- .® 5F. T — uvir� ins sr-_ GAR%E 515 BF. PORCH 8] SF. tatGL So-tt 224i SF MAIN FLOOR PLAN �� ©Ifrl "�Illllll�l �' �b. Al Ya' I�b. AI nY W�.AfTY x{ 111 UPPER FLOOR PLAN .*i " r SG UPPER l I- .® 5F. T — uvir� ins sr-_ GAR%E 515 BF. PORCH 8] SF. tatGL So-tt 224i SF MAIN FLOOR PLAN ° i ia" rui�x u�arE� mxraffocusrw � ��im wmRn MO rtxnrtsa s�oW oirr sr¢clic 3 KEmrns ui�m r�ix�u�io�oriww wcRnag �uurid T rw xmme ,i1om MLAN �mairso um cvs.Nsra�wnac�exmiwxwrww: � iunN qm—rsroaE rtxxmvac 1919114LkD ma4flBBR umcia3. TYP. CR05 -- SECTION OF RAISED ,FXiURm FPaM BAMM AND, OR SAND FHSH KEYSTONE /\� III 1111 111 11 11 11 111 � 11 11 111 11 11 -------- T _ -_- -_- LEFT ELEVATION ELNFI�B'•I'�0" 111 III III III III III III III REAR ELEVATION fiL4F: IIB" • I'�0' fi� afi a ca�i #srw# a* a� r r -- 19% GLA2MG FRONT ELEVATION YJLE- 114'_' RIGHT ELEVATION I ' f���� =111 1 08. 0.��5�. f0 BSB A AA HomtM � A u - I 766 -'�i =J Wintgr S prings Villagg; Dnviti b av� BUNGALow ELEVATIONS -UNIT 1758 I�LSi(�\ I. IIC14 i' r Wintjzr S rin s Ville p � DAVIS BEWS BUNGALow FLOOR PLANS -UNIT 1758 DESIGN GROW PRffi i1MARY D OCUMEM I la" MIIX saoFlNlw ursiwE nfurt¢ne� "' /� nxnaffoeaww 8 � a�xASEC iExnQSn EM�su ea'orr� a W)SYO fMItHED UT61RE5 n1HfY FPi GELEI FiHC�EEE bto9E � o DIR£F9lf iWLL EE L4lfL OJiA Mkw&Y Cf £:NRD fIW91 P2P KA Q AmLCAtIGN to &' ffR YOl iiLf36911W.NDYMtlMBBR 3l4' WI0361 A+p ldR1 C916. M9tNLAiIM6IXRRIceLAIHW' iHl WID �ryIW Yfi'LIGt141! &¢I�tIENtbro BE tER1M iHL FHw911VL M ]NJlfllBBll x to u1 A'ry aslncicc�. •IYP. CROSS - SECTION OF RAISED iFJCiI1Rm FINISH BANDING AND OR SAND FMSH IIEYSfONE S:.NE: 3 "•I'0' &BGLE Q 4 ® LSWlO ' ,7 f EB LEFT' ELEVATION ELe1E I�'•i'.0' L R4E E Ld ar7 j �e tan J a erays�nmEx; ® � t7 _- _- _- _ -FNEN_ -_ z �IC L� GMIEV1§D ® /FMISH7 A Pw RIC+ff ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION fifJ1E- IPo'.I'�0' lily MIAAL W - 19+1 - 'A' � a _ A. "A. 1841 0B.05f0 yio - I" - mk4e HaNW15 Wintjzr � rir� s Villeigiz p � DAVISSEws BUNGALOW ELEVATIONS -UNIT 1841 ❑ IGN GROVP Wintjzr §prings V DAVIS SEWS BUNGALOW & ELEEVATIONS -UNIT 1841 DESIGN GROVP r Wintg.r S rin s Villeigg DAVIS BEWS BUNGALOW FLOOR PLANS -UNIT 1841 DESIGN GROW M112MARY -------------- -------------- DOMERM W IHIM � w� I IN OF RASED TE3CrURM FNEH BAMM AM OR SAND FINISH KEYSTONE - 7 Lade M-1 me Elm - - - - - - - --- LEFT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN a . - � axFU� �L �� ® rM � 4. ®-I� REAR ELEVATION MG-ff ELEVATION 211% GLAZING FRONT ELEVATION ® A -■ Winter §prings V DAVIS SEWS BUNGALOW UNIT 19 10 DESIGN GROVP I,k4VR PER FLWR I T. uv � s MAIN FLOOR PLAN r • r� � ua^ mlcx ureiarE nturtaAe� Rasm oe usnG nus onaL Slaws TME ttPawL txaKNSss � � aa�rsASE wDaonr. �� kMS�iRLSfWE& Y e GR£fttrt tWLL EE (XIID Wt At 5'EC &I[ KEYNOtE Lo1L M M EE FER'XOIiK.i066B11V1.ND9[W NlRBBd tHl py�{ryI1G AmLIGt141l R¢IRAENtSMEE RR9MIiHG FBGdNL:W MW!!}1BBIIFlVUI. AW nsm c lcu3. 7YP. CROSSSB:IION OF RAISED TE XTURm F94M BAMM AND OR SAND F945H KEY-TO wu:3•. r�m: REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION KXEV4 "• I'a7' ROOF PLAN 1! �O GUAXNG7 LEFT ELEVATION RIGFff ELEVATION ,. M- WO (� 10 z Wintjzr §prings V DAVIS BEWS BUNGALow FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATIONS- 1940 DESIGN GROW �- Alta .0. ��! Wintjzr S rin s Villeigiz DAVISBEws BUNGALOW ELEVATIONS -UNIT 1940 DESIGN GROVP y X y ^ ANA l J all II ,��11111 ■n1 11! ■li � r� �1, ! ■I ms y X y ^ ANA TW. CROS&SEL7M OF RAISED TEXTURED FMM E AMM AND / OR SAND FMSH ICEYSMNE REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION is% GLAMG RIGFff ELEVATION � Iln TM �SAJOFlNIAI NFNftILABIE ItE g PJISED IEmAffG 6YSW rNa �EIALL SIgW51HE1mYSL rHILKNE% � a�rensEOrExnasn rxsu awoW T95AV0 rM151ED UT61RE5 NIHfY �U.#EI FrH WIE�S ato9E � Y4C &IL KEYNOtE Lo1L M ar a . ray akwuw u�iexniao rlws� aie waa am uricn ro eE rtrzxneteEe�manw.MOxnauneert mmairw,um cxa. Wruuncx cxe�lue�ArxW rw xmvac IgGaNL � ma e�m�e�en � r vui. Aw�asm c Icu3. TW. CROS&SEL7M OF RAISED TEXTURED FMM E AMM AND / OR SAND FMSH ICEYSMNE REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION is% GLAMG RIGFff ELEVATION Winter S rin s Villeigg DAVISBEws BUNGALOW FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATION -UNIT 2029 ❑MON GROVP r Winter §prings V DAVISBEws BUNGALOW FLOOR PLANS -UNIT 2029 ❑MGN GROUP I ID" NIIX SWDFlNAI NfNftGABIE WISED � IE:N,ffD9NSAG NNS DEtAl1 SroWS RE ImYSL rHI.KNE% 8 � 6yLRP w9PJDM' .1PP.GpLEMIWIED�S�iGnES fWHfY � e DIR£RNf rWLL EE LP4ID Wr Pr SPEC &I. KEttgfr U1LM to &' PERYOI if4I84B11W.NDMW tlIRBM iE rw ym �anirn zwuuiiai�mm,>:ursroa��xmeac TYP. CROSSSEcnm OF RAISED TEXTURED FWISH BAMM AND / OR SAM F94ISH KEYS CM W ----------- - - - - -- i LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION 2 1 1 % r7LAZNG.7 RIGHT ELEVATION ._ �- _ I� �h�l•ll f�iilwll! I�I11r11.'#�A1C�I ilf��lili��[li }.: ,.. PP- .. ill. ll �IP1��F�� E' �l! �- ���I ��Ipll}�EII' lI..�ILI ��'T. '.. NFL- S ...�•�.:� 1 s, SWIF T Room dimensions are approximate and may vary. Prices, products and specifications subject to change without notice. Merrta eHomes" Mer4age Homes designs are copyrighted and copyright laws will be enforced to she fullest extent. Photos are representative ", of Merits e Homes desi ns and are not necessaril the same as the floor Ian shown, " "" 9 g 8 Y p c elsreoer ELEVATION A ELEVATION B THE PALERMO ELEVATION B WITH GAME ROOM /BEDROOM 5 ELEVATION C ELEVATION C WITH GAME ROOM /BEDROOM 5 www.meritagehomes.com PIP 100931 7/1/10 ELEVATION A WITH GAME ROOM /BEDROOM 5 ns ^ANA . J ',. `1 , � `�� I *y S N - J E J y.� Room dimensions are approximate and may vary. Prices, products and specifications subject to change without notice. Me rrta eH�mes Meritage Homes designs are copyrighted and copyright lows will be enforced to the (vilest extent Photos are representative of Merits e Homes designs and are not necessarily the same as the floo Ian shown - ' "`' ,q 9 Y h h fl P w�rstaarI THE DEL RIO ELEVATION A ELEVATION C www.meritagehomes.com P1P 102796 7/13/10 ELEVATION B THE WIMBERLEY ELEVATION A ELEVATION B ELEVATION C www.meritagehomes.com PIP 102801 7/13/10 0 O� 0 O s 1 � nn �n ui ' AV Estate Lots - 75' - 33 Estate Lots - 50' - 36 Bun galow Lots -133 Total Lots - 202 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 5, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of Wednesday, January 5, 2011 of the Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency was called to Order at 7:01 p.m. by Vice Chairman William H. Poe in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Vice Chairman William H. Poe, present Board Member Howard Casman, present Board Member Rosanne Karr, via telephone Board Member Bart Phillips, present Board Member Helga Schwarz, present A moment of silence preceded the Pledge of Allegiance. REGULAR AGENDA – PART I REGULAR 600. Office Of The City Clerk Requesting An Election Of Chairperson Be Held For 2011. “I MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE BILL POE AS CHAIR (MAN) OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD (/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY).” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 2 OF 32 REGULAR 601. Office Of The City Clerk Requesting An Election of Vice Chairperson Be Held For 2011. “I NOMINATE ROSANNE KARR (FOR VICE CHAIRPERSON).” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER CASMAN. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. INFORMATIONAL AGENDA INFORMATIONAL 100. Not Used. CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT 200.Office Of The City Clerk Requesting Approval Of The December 1, 2010 Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Minutes. “I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CIRCULATED ST FROM THE DECEMBER 1, (2010) MEETING.” MOTION BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 3 OF 32 AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS 300. Not Used. .REPORTS 400 No Reports were given. PUBLIC INPUT Ms. Maureen Landgraf, 327 Freedom Ring Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke regarding the Choices In Learning Charter School and her concern with traffic and safety; thanked Brian Fields and staff for their assistance; and suggested ingress and egress points on the western side of property. PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 500. Community Development Department Requests The Planning And Zoning Board Review The Information Presented In This Agenda Item And Consider Three (3) Requests For The Proposed Choices In Learning Charter School: (1) The Special Exception Requests, (2) Aesthetic Review, And (3) The Final Engineering/Site Plan. Mr. Randy Stevenson, ASLA, AICP, Director, Community Development Department presented this Agenda Item and stated, “This is a request from Choices in Learning Charter School and there will be three (3) requests at the end for which I would ask for separate Votes. One (1) on the Special Exceptions, one (1) on the Aesthetic Review and one (1) on the Final Engineering Site Plan.” Continuing, Mr. Stevenson commented, “Staff also understands that those Special Exceptions that may be Approved here tonight would be incorporated into the Development Agreement prior to it going to the City Commission.” Mr. Stevenson noted, “There are currently two (2) gopher tortoises that are on this property. These are recent imports – but the Applicant is aware of those and is also aware of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permit that will be required and it will be necessary to relocate those gopher tortoises.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 4 OF 32 Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public Works Department noted, “In reviewing the Traffic Study there were really two (2) major concerns in addition to the normal items reviewed in the Traffic Study for this particular site that made it unique. One (1) was the potential to have an overlap in conflicting traffic with the High School traffic. With the High School, we have very high peaks and also with the elementary school and this is explored in detail early on in the process and what the Charter School agreed to do was to actually move back both their start times and their dismissal times to minimize that potential conflict.” Discussion ensued on the carline queue at the proposed Choices in Learning Charter School. Mr. Stevenson displayed photographs of the property and stated, “A black vinyl coated chain link fence was part of the original DA (Development Agreement) - for purposes of working with the play area. That has been incorporated into the existing Development Agreement.” Pointing out a particular area, Mr. Stevenson added, “Because there is some concern along this area of the pond where with the kids and the sidewalk and so forth, they have proposed an additional segment of black chain link fence here. That is a deviation request that at this point in time, Staff does not support.” Mr. Stevenson then discussed a bus shelter and sidewalks in front of the school. Continuing Mr. Stevenson added, “Staff is recommending that we memorialize this deferral in an amendment to the Developers Agreement at a future date, but that would be when the lighting would take place on that sidewalk out there, as well as the parallel parking once they develop that portion of it.” Architectural drawings were displayed and explained by Mr. Stevenson. Discussion. Mr. Matt Breen, Program Manager, Breen Construction Services, 205 West State Road 434, #D, Winter Springs 32708: Mr. Breen stated, “The school has been very successful and currently they have been partnering very closely with First Baptist Church of Longwood. They have a facility there, a classroom building that was filled up very promptly due to the success of the school. Subsequently, a lot of the teaching activity is happening in portable classrooms. So, in order to continue the success of the school and create a positive environment for teaching and learning, it was important that a new facility be built so that the school can continue to grow and prosper.” Brief discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 5 OF 32 Mr. Breen noted, “We are installing sidewalks around the entire perimeter of the piece of property to ensure that the children can come and go under supervision safely and stay out of harms way.” Mr. Breen added, “It is very important to separate children that are primarily on foot from children that are being dropped off by their parents in vehicles. The children in vehicles will happen on the south side in the parking lot area and, children that will be walking or arriving by bus will be received on the north side. So that separation is very important and is incorporated into the design.” Discussion. Vice Chairperson Rosanne Karr asked, “Is there enough parking for the parents?” Mr. Breen replied, “Yes, there is.” Vice Chairperson Karr then asked, “Is there enough parking for 500 plus?” Mr. Breen replied, “There is not enough parking for 500 vehicles. During the planning process we worked very closely with Eloise (Sahlstrom), John (Baker), Randy (Stevenson) and Brian (Fields) and part of the challenge that we have is trying to make sure that everything functions from an engineering perspective and a safety perspective, but also minimize the impact the construction and design has on the environment. And a lot of parking has been added on the perimeter of the sight, primarily on Hicks (Avenue) which will also be very beneficial for the City during events that happen on the weekends and off hours, when the school will not be in session. In addition to that, you heard Randy (Stevenson) mention the Development Agreement that he and Anthony (Garganese) worked with us very extensively on over the summer. Part of that Development Agreement talks about the utilization of parking at predetermined times, for the City to use the parking lot and that the School will be designing and constructing, and also for the school at predetermined times to utilize the grass parking lot at the Parks and Recreation across the way. There are approximately ten (10) events that happen at the school right now that are what we call the over flow events. So we believe that is going to be a very manageable process. And as Randy (Stevenson) talked about earlier, it is pretty well thought through and documented.” Discussion ensued on proposed school Events. Referencing parking spaces, Mr. Breen conveyed, “There is approximately 124 parking places at the City Park, grass parking lot and there is – 105 or 110 that are going to be developed by the School.” Mr. Breen then commented that, “Currently we have the Police at the City of Longwood on an as needed basis.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 6 OF 32 Continuing, Mr. Breen added, “This particular site, the way it has been designed, and with Brian’s (Fields) help and advice, it has been designed and developed such that it would not be necessary for any management from the City of Winter Springs Police Department. The Staff currently at Choices in Learning (Charter School) are very, very involved there everyday in the parking lots directing traffic and making sure that people and the children are kept safe and that traffic flows in an efficient manner and it is only going to improve on this site. The queuing area is ample without over paving the planet. It also can be expanded a little bit to the west with more impervious pavement stone and gravel that is actually already built into the plan as well if it is required. But, right now the intent is to have design in such a way and we believe that it is, so, there will be no additional burden on the City of Winter Springs Police Department to come out and direct traffic when they could be utilizing their time in a better way.” Vice Chairperson Karr asked, “Is there going to be a School Zone in front – in that area of State Road 434?” Mr. Breen replied, “We cannot make you that promise as it is a State Road. I can tell you that Choices in Learning (Charter School) has been at two (2) other locations prior to moving to Winter Springs.” Tape 1/Side B Board Member Howard Casman asked, “Are residents of Stone Gable, Winding Hollow, Parkstone eligible for busing?” Mr. Breen replied, “Busing happens after – a two (2) mile radius that is required in our Charter, outside of a two (2) mile radius.” Next, Board Member Casman inquired, “Will there be crossing guards if they are not eligible for busing?” Mr. Breen responded, “At (State Road) 434 and Central Winds Road? Yes, there will be.” Continuing, Board Member Casman remarked, “As a civic matter, is the School going to have an auditorium and if it does will it be open to civic groups either on a rental basis or just being a nice guy basis for civic organizations?” Mr. Breen replied, “The school has what is – the concept is called ‘Cafetorium’. Most elementary schools do not have auditoriums and this one will not be any different then that. They have to stay within some guidelines. But, what we do have is a flex space called a ‘Cafetorium’ where the school can hold assemblies, plays, things of that nature, meetings and of course serve lunch there as well. They also will have their after school programs in there. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 7 OF 32 As a part of the Development Agreement that Randy (Stevenson) spoke to earlier, there are some provisions that are made for the City’s use. For the Cafetorium area and actually we tried to incorporate into the design ability to access that area without having to worry about somebody wandering off into the school that does not belong; the Media Center for instance. Some of that is incorporated as well.” Discussion. Referencing the Traffic Study, Mr. Fields commented, “The Traffic Study is available if you would like to review it.” Mr. Breen mentioned that, “At the intersection of Central Winds Drive we will be installing six foot (6') sidewalks around the perimeter so everything will be interconnected.” Regarding off street parking, Mr. Breen stated, “Right now our agreement with the City is to install parallel parking along Hicks (Avenue) – there is not enough right-of-way right now, actually around the entire site. This is why there was the necessity for an Agreement. A lot of these improvements that are being made for the benefit of the City and the benefit of the Applicant are being held on private property. This particular area is very tight. Chairman Poe opened the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item. Mr. Michael Cannell, 221 Torcaso Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on the Fiscal Impact; traffic safety concerns; and is opposed to this project. Mr. Rich Zarda, 204 Torcaso Court, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke on the position of the building; the removal of trees; and the concern of coordinating the time of the local schools in the area. Chairman Poe closed the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item. “I MAKE THE MOTION THAT BASED ON THE HEARING TONIGHT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR THE CHOICES IN LEARNING CHARTER SCHOOL.” MOTION BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN POE. DISCUSSION. MR. STEVENSON STATED, “MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION?” CHAIRMAN POE REPLIED, “YES.” MR. STEVENSON ASKED, “DOES THAT INCLUDE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE CHAIN LINK FENCE?” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 8 OF 32 CHAIRMAN POE ANSWERED, “I BELIEVE, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG MS. KARR. I BELIEVE YOU WERE RECOMMENDING IT AS IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF?” VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR CONFIRMED, “YES.” MR. STEVENSON COMMENTED, “JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE – WE WERE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON THE OTHERS. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE MOTION WAS ABOUT.” VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR ASKED, “OKAY, SHOULD I AMEND THE MOTION THEN?” CHAIRMAN POE REPLIED, “ARE YOU RECOMMENDING IT AS STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED IT?” VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR STATED, “YES”. CHAIRMAN POE THEN ADDED, “I WILL SECOND HER MOTION AS IT IS PRESENTED BY STAFF.” VOTE: BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: NAY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: NAY MOTION CARRIED. “I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AESTHETIC REVIEW AS PRESENTED.” MOTION BY CHAIRMAN POE. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. “I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE BASED ON TONIGHT’S HEARING APPROVE THE PLAN; THE FINAL ENGINEERING AND SITE PLANS.” MOTION BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 9 OF 32 VOTE: VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Board Member Schwarz said to Chairman Poe, “When the item goes before the City Commission, I would like the recommendation that street lighting be provided on Central Winds Boulevard and Hicks Boulevard (Avenue), as a compliment to substantially developing that parcel of land, as a recommendation.” Chairman Poe replied, “I am not certain that that could be put into the recommendation. I believe that it could be added as a footnote that it was a concern but it was not included in the Motion but I certainly believe that we could bring that…” Board Member Schwarz noted, “…I do not know what the protocol is. It is just very dark there.” Chairman Poe then responded, “I understand, I was out there myself. I clearly understand but I think that a note could be made in the Minutes that that was a concern to this Board.” PUBLIC HEARINGS 501. Community Development Department Requests The Planning And Zoning Board Review The Information Presented In This Agenda Item And Consider Four (4) Requests For The Proposed Winter Springs Village: (1) The Special Exception Requests, (2) The Aesthetic Review, (3) The Final Engineering/Subdivision Plan, And (4) The Development Agreement. Mr. Stevenson introduced this Agenda Item and stated, “You will be considering; I apologize; there is a mistype, you will not be considering the Development Agreement tonight – you will be considering the Special Exceptions for inclusion in the Development Agreement that will go to the Commission. Again, there will be three (3) requests. Again, I would request a separate Vote on each request. Those are similar to the ones we just talked about and that would be the Special Exception Request, the Aesthetic Review and the Site Plan.” Mr. Stevenson stated, “We are asking the Planning and Zoning Board(/Local Planning Agency) to consider the recommendations for the Special Exceptions, the Aesthetic Review and the Final Engineering Site Plan for a 252 residential unit facility – currently as Winter Springs Village. It also includes a clubhouse, a community garden site, park and recreational areas, Trail access and a portion of Spine Road and Michael Blake Boulevard on a forty (40) acre site along the eastern edge of the Town Center District.” Mr. Fields spoke on Stormwater; the Traffic Study; utilities; and site grading. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 10 OF 32 Mr. Stevenson reviewed the Code Deviations with the Board Members and displayed photographs of the proposed site. Tape 2/Side A Mr. Stevenson read an excerpt of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Special Exceptions. Mr. Shawn Boyle, Director, Finance and Administrative Services Department spoke to the Board Members on the Economic Impact Analysis. Presenting a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Boyle stated, “Implicit in the Report is the assumption that this project will have a non-material impact on the City’s services provided.” Continuing, Mr. Boyle added, “Overall it is not a stretch of the imagination to take this Report and come up with a recommendation that will have a positive impact. I just wanted to add that for the Record.” Discussion. Mr. Stevenson commented, “Parallel parking – also represents a City standard street right-of-way and should they eliminate those parking spaces would constitute an additional Deviation from the Code. Staff is not in support of that.” Mr. Stevenson then added, “We are also not in favor of moving these bungalows back because again it is the nature of the Town Center that those be elevated off the sidewalk there and that parallel parking be there.” Continuing, Mr. Stevenson noted, “When you Vote on these particular items you would do it in separate Votes. One (1) for the Special Exception request, one (1) for the Aesthetic Review and one (1) for the Final Engineering Site Plan.” Mr. Mike Wadley, Vice President of Planning, Wadley Hanson LLC, Division of Carnahan Proctor Cross, 14 East Washington Street, Suite 500, Orlando, Florida and stated, “We agree with the Staff report and we worked very diligently with Staff to try to design the best project we could that met the conditions, economic conditions, market conditions and create a very viable neighborhood for the Town Center. I really do not have a presentation; we agree with Staff reports, and Staff conclusion, and Staff Findings.” Referring to the photograph of the Trail crossing, Mr. Wadley stated, “The fence will be constructed to here and to here which is an outfall, a trail crossing perhaps, and there is really not a benefit of extending it further. We prefer to leave it there and that is where a Trail crossing or access would be provided. We agree with the City’s assessment in this area and we did add fifteen feet (15') to preserve trees on that lot, and we can not just pick up this green space and move it here because there is an access right here. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 11 OF 32 We have already taken up by taking this out and moving it here we have already taken up any land that might be available in that area. This area can not be moved down here to make that wider. We also agree, like I said with the City’s position there are not too many trees in this area there are some but I think the effect that would be created by the parallel parking to be consistent with this, and have a more manicured appearance that would tie into St. Johns Landing would be appropriate – with that I would entertain any questions and also have a gentleman from Meritage Homes who can answer questions as well and we would also like to request time for rebuttal at the end, after public presentations.” Discussion. Vice Chairperson Karr inquired about the neighborhood of estate homes not being gated. Mr. Wadley replied, “It is open, it is walkable, it is assessable for everyone. A gated community within a Town Center would not be permitted. Mr. Stevenson further added, “Normally we do not allow fencing in the Town Center area but again, in consideration of the Transition area and in consideration of the existing residence and in consideration that this is along the edge of the Town Center, Meritage (Homes) has agreed to put that fencing in. And it would be a decorative fence, not chain link, decorative fencing six (6') feet high.” Vice Chairperson Karr inquired about the phases of construction. Mr. Wadley responded, “The phasing would begin at – Phase one (1) would basically be from Tuskawilla over to the Central Winds Park area. And for those of you in the room that is the triangular shape park in the center with the infrastructure necessary to get over to the lift station and the ponds. So, this basically is Phase one (1) on the western side and Phase two (2) being the eastern most, or southern most.” Vice Chairperson Karr inquired, “Are you going to construct it as it is sold out – or are there going to be spec homes that are going to be put in?” Mr. Clint Szubinski, Vice President of Land, Meritage Homes, 5337 Millenia Lakes Boulevard, Suite 160, Orlando, Florida: Mr. Szubinski commented, “To answer the Board Member’s question specifically, we are a pre-sold builder. So, the majority of the homes we sell are out of a model park and we will actually allow the buyer to come in and pick the home, the actual home, the home site, the colors, the specifications that go in the home, and we will build the order of that home for them. On rare occasions we will start some spec homes, but we generally limit those to just a few of them, about two (2) per product type.” Discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 12 OF 32 Board Member Schwarz asked, “Concerning the Mixed Use of this neighborhood, how will the HOA (Homeowners Association) be structured? In the sense of these Townhomes being in there, will they be responsible for the upkeep of each individual owner for the outside of their building or will there be a sub association within the master association and they will be responsible for the upkeep?” Mr. Wadley replied, “I believe there will be a sub association.” Mr. Szubinski answered, “The Homeowner’s Association will be fairly extensive for this site. We are going to have one (1) large association that has governing rules in each of the provisions for each product. The Townhomes will obviously have a different assessment for the exterior to be able to provide for reserves to fix or repair the exterior should they fall to disrepair. And also the Bungalow homes and the Townhomes will also have a special assessment on all of those lots where common maintenance features landscaping, irrigation will all be a master association item for those product types. The Estates are the only product types that will not include lawn maintenance and irrigation on a master scale.” Discussion ensued on the St. Johns River Water Management District mitigation. Mr. Wadley explained, “There are two (2) mitigations we are talking about. The one you have referenced there are mitigation banks offsite and when it went through the permitting process it goes through a very rigorous model to determine how many credits a development would need to purchase to satisfy that mitigation. And so, that was prescribed by the (St. Johns River) Water Management District and there where two (2) areas offsite within proximity to the site. It has to be within the drainage basin and there were conservation easements placed over lands and those payments were made and approved by (St. Johns River) Water Management District.” Photographs of the property site were shown. Mr. Wadley stated, “In addition, I would like to point out that we have - ten foot (10') wide walking trail along the area here. We are going to connect into the Trail to the south. This area in working with the City, is part of satisfying the requirements and this will be a community garden it will have an access right here. It has a rather steep slope. So, we created a series of terraces here where you will have a two foot (2') retaining wall and garden filled and those will be divided into plots with the Trail beside it. There will be a room for a shed for equipment storage and things like that. And then where it evens out or the grade becomes flatter those can be divided into tracks as well. So, that was a suggestion of Staff that we thought was very good.” Board Member Schwarz inquired, “When will the clubhouse - be complete? A pool, is that part of Phase one (1).” Mr. Szubinski responded, “Yes, the clubhouse will be constructed during Phase one (1). We hope to have it constructed when we open up for sale in the summer time.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 13 OF 32 In regard to the public park, Mr. Wadley further noted, “This area was deemed to be private because it will be a clubhouse and that is not included in that 1.8 acres. That is in addition too.” Board Member Schwarz asked, “What was the justification about bringing the utility road between two (2) homes to the lift station versus putting the road at the edge of the property on the southeast side along the one (1) lot.” Mr. Wadley responded, “Well it was engineering considerations in that area as this site falls back. This way this was the best routing that was practical for a truck to be able to get over and down to the utility station.” With discussion on the Aesthetics of the buildings, Mr. Wadley said, “I would like to break that down into two (2) parts. One is with respect to the Mixed Use character, part of the concept of the Town Center is to have diversity and to have a mix of units and I think this plan has been designed to do two (2) things. One (1) is to create that core of energy in the center around the park area and there is going to be extensive landscaping in that area and it is going to be very walkable. And I think you can call it what you would like, neo traditional planning, new urbanism, that sort of thing if you visit developments like Baldwin Park and Celebration and a whole host of others they integrate those Uses within small areas and that is the nature of the design.” Continuing, Mr. Wadley added, “We were challenged to provide seven (7) units per acre. And, we are at, just shy of that and one (1) of the concessions to help with that was to add the ability of mother-in-law units or something like that to boost that density up. The second part of that is if we drop down to Townhomes we would be much less then the desireable density and critical mass. And it really goes to is the overall Town Center.” Mr. Wadley added, “What you have is a critical mass that is necessary in this Town Center to support the commercial aspects.” A photograph of the Townhome Elevations was displayed. Mr. Szubinski commented, “We took a lot of time and energy to actually go out and work with Architects. They actually came to our office spent the whole week, spent the night in our office for a whole week. Designing these in a charette process and we wanted this community to have the various different types of products, but not to look like a Baldwin Park - everything is similar. We wanted to have a blend of style.So, hence is the reason why you see Spanish, Colonial you see some Traditional, some Craftsman type.” Mr. Szubinski then added, “We really wanted each individual home to look like it was a separate home and not a complete building. We put a lot of emphasis on the end units also as well with the large expansive porches. A lot of Townhomes you see here in the area do not have such a large porch on the first and second floor. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 14 OF 32 When you are driving down the street on the corners where these Townhomes are going to be, you are going to see large expansive porches, reminiscence of a New Orleans or a Charleston type look. We took a lot of time and a lot of effort to go in and design this looking at various different views. All of these walk like single family homes. I mean the interiors, our smallest product which is about thirteen hundred and fifty (1,350) square feet. The end units are seventeen hundred (1,700) plus square feet which walk like a normal single family home. Again, various different price points for different individuals and different families and home buyers that can afford different price points in their homes. We are definitely, I think open to suggestions; this is an elevation, it is a skin of a home. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We had some suggestions on various external elements to add or take off. We are open to that and we can certainly engage in that dialogue as we move forward through the development process, again as long as it is consistent with the Town Center Code. I think that we would certainly be open to those suggestions here to make those revisions to perhaps be more appealing if there are some that you want to add.” Vice Chairperson Karr inquired, “About the street size and the width of the road? And since it’s not a gated community that means that Winter Springs would be responsible for the roads in this development?” Mr. Wadley replied, “That is correct. The roads are public and the alleys are private.” Vice Chairperson Karr voiced, “What is the width of the alleys?” Mr. Wadley commented, “The width of the alleys is twenty feet (20').” Mr. Wadley added, “What you will find is in a lot of the New York traditional communities, this is actually generous. Most of them or a lot of them are one way ten (10') to twelve feet (12'). So, this is a nice wide street to accommodate two-way traffic.” Mr. Wadley then added, “The other feature is that the garages – are right up against the pavement of the alley and you will find that these are set back so that you will have two (2) parking spaces outside of the garage and two (2) parking spaces in the garage and your Code only counts three (3) of those spaces.” Mr. Stevenson illustrated and explained the rear Elevation on page 48 of the Aesthetic Review. Mr. Wadley commented, “The easement for the alley itself is thirty feet (30') wide. Then you have got the ribbon curb on either side of the alley which caps off the pavement. And then you have - nineteen (19') to twenty feet (20') of parking outside of that. And this is all private space so that you do not have the problem you have in a lot of communities. They are under parked that is why we have designed this to have maximum parking with the units and the on street parking and we have a significantly higher ratio of parking than most communities have.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 15 OF 32 Discussion ensued on the construction of the Townhomes. Mr. Stevenson reported, “Staff has reviewed this and made our recommendation based upon the regulations required in the Code and as well as the fact that they do incorporate those traditional aspects of architecture be it Craftsman or be it Colonial or be it whatever, I just wanted to make that statement.” Vice Chairperson Karr asked, “What is that the vertical texture. Is that wood or what is that finish?” Mr. Szubinski noted, “Construction will be first floor block with a cementation siding on the second floor hardy plank, as it is generally known as.” Mr. Szubinski replied, “These Townhomes were specifically designed for this project so we would not have the similar type elevation really anywhere in Orlando. The floor plans would be very similar to what we would build in Winter Garden. We have a community out there. But the elevations are specifically designed for the community. So, we could not point you to a place where you could see the outsides of these, because they are ordinary to the community.” Chairman Poe opened the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item. Tape 2/Side B Mr. Richard S. Geller, Esquire, Fishback Dominick, 1947 Lee Road, Winter Park, Florida: retained by Mr. Dave Bowen of St. John’s Landing, Mr. Geller presented a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Geller stated, “I am sure those of you sitting on this Board feel as deeply as members of the community have expressed the importance of the trees of Winter Springs. In fact, this is Tree City USA and so, our requests are centered around the topic of trees. What we can do to improve the aesthetics of this project and save as many trees as we can. This is the St. John’s Landing subdivision where my client lives and you will notice the large oak trees there. Those were preserved during construction as were many others and – people who live in St. John’s Landing would like the same standards held to Meritage (Homes). They would like to see this type of preservation. Back when Schrimsher entered into a Developer’s Agreement with the City back in 2000, a commitment was made that there would be a buffer of at least fifty feet (50') to St. John’s Landing. No less than fifty feet (50'). Of course, you have an Arbor Ordinance here and the standard for tearing down specimen trees, those are trees that are twenty- four inch (24") caliper or greater is extraordinary circumstances and hardship. So, we are going to propose some suggestions here that we think Meritage (Homes) would be able to accommodate. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 16 OF 32 These are some of the trees that will be torn down. This is the back of one of the homes in St. John’s Landing. There is the ten foot (10') tree preservation area – the request is to extend the tree preservation area an additional ten feet (10'). I think that is reasonable. Mr. Wadley is a capable engineer and we think that could be done.” Continuing, Mr. Geller then added, “This is the view down Tuskawilla (Road) and this here is from the Future Land Use Element for the Town Center, and it speaks of promoting and developing connectivity of natural features for habitat and scenic vistas and I would suggest to you that Tuskawilla (Road) does provide you with a scenic vista that we ought to try to preserve. There is a lot of parking here and the Applicant mentioned that the parking ratio is significantly more than other communities. You will note that the on-street parking spaces on Tuskawilla (Road) are not part of that parking calculation. So, we would ask that that we try to preserve whatever trees we can in that area. I also heard that the sidewalk there is ten feet (10') wide and I would suggest that is rather excessive. A sidewalk where you have a commercial area in your Town Code is at least twelve feet (12') wide, so you are awfully, awfully wide there and perhaps that can help us with the tree preservation. One other issue that was brought up by Mr. Stevenson, we do appreciate moving those units at the top over eastward. There is a thirty-eight inch (38") caliper oak and also a forty-four inch (44") caliper oak nearby and we would very much like if there is any possibility at all to preserve that, we would ask for that. I do think that there is a lost opportunity with this project and we were playing with the idea that could you in fact even reverse those Bungalows as it becomes very difficult with the rear entry garages. You may or may not have received this memorandum from the town’s consultant, Dover Kohl (& Partners), who was critical and called this a substantial step backward and I guess, literally in that units were flipped. What they thought should be the front, should be the rear and vice versa. In particular, they mentioned all these units along Tuskawilla Road and the ideas that you front the water. You create these types of environments. The architecture on the Bungalows is very nice, but the statement was made that we are going to try to buffer the view of all those garages. We need to be very careful about the type of buffering you are going to have with the current layouts. I would just bring that to your attention. This here is from the Tree Survey. You will notice the thirty-eight inch (38") caliper oak tree and there is the forty four inch (44") one and you will see, these are not all scrub. There are some scrub there, but there are some nice size trees there. Here is a twenty seven inch (27") oak, there is a thirty-six inch (36") caliper oak and we would ask if there is any, any possibility of saving these trees, we would very much like that to happen. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 17 OF 32 I would point out a technical deficiency and that is that the tree survey that was attached to the development plans that were posted on the website, those plans are from 2003 and your Town Center Code requires a tree survey of no more than one (1) year old and so, we would, as a suggestion to you impose a condition if you are inclined to approve their request for Special Exceptions to update the tree survey. Mr. Cannell will talk about his concerns about elevation here. There is significant Elevation change across from his home here and he is concerned about homes being significantly higher than his own, once this canopy is pushed back. This is one of the trees that is slated to be torn down. The Arbor Ordinance requires a written statement by a landscape architect or other competent professional about the probability whether a grade change will destroy trees or kill trees that are meant for preservation. We would suggest to you that that sort of statement ought to be required here. I do want to raise the eagle nest with you and Mr. Bowen took these photographs. He took his photographs from Tuskawilla Road. The eagles are visible from there and the Consultants from Meritage (Homes) showed the protection of radius of 293 feet the actual protection zone should be 330 feet.That is according to Fish and Wildlife Commission management guidelines that were published in May 2007 and it talks about the avoiding the cutting of trees within 330 feet of any active nest, and you will hear some testimony about that. This is a summary of the conditions that we hope you will consider. I hope that you will view these as reasonable. The folks here are awfully concerned about this. Update the tree inventory and one thing I forgot to mention, there is that ten foot (10') tree buffer that has been offered by Meritage (Homes). The Arbor Ordinance says that you preserve specimen trees unless they are within ten feet (10') of a structure. So, if at all possible, and Meritage (Homes) has very capable engineers and may require some changes in their grading plans, but instead of just a ten foot (10') buffer, make that buffer up to ten feet (10') from the structure. It is already contemplated by the Arbor Ordinance. Do what you can to preserve Tuskawilla’s scenic vista. It is in your Comp(rehensive) Plan and you do not want to Approve a Plan that is at odds with your Comp(rehensive) Plan. So, do what you can to preserve those trees, make the sidewalk a little thinner and do what you can and preserve those trees within three hundred and thirty feet (330') of the eagles nest and get that certification.” Mr. Michael Cannell, 221 Torcaso Court, Winter Springs, Florida: distributed some photographs to the Board and spoke about the grading of the site and is opposed to this proposed project. Mr. Rich Zarda, 204 Torcaso Court, Winter Springs, Florida: noted his concern with the removal of trees; the elevation of estate homes; and horse trails. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 18 OF 32 Mr. Len Dekrey, 219 Torcaso Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented about his concerns with the grading along the horse path; asked to preserve the aesthetics of the community and trees and was opposed to this proposed project. Mr. Todd Stewart, 103 St. Johns Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on the work permit and noted his opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Michael Cannell, 221 Torcaso Court, Winter Springs, Florida: asked for clarification regarding the streets; read a letter he received dated August 11, 2000 regarding a concrete Wall; and asked for fairness. Ms. Lynda White, 452 Harbor Winds Court, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke as a representative of the Audobon Society of Florida and requested that the eagles complete their nesting season without disturbance and is opposed to this proposed project. Ms. Mary Donohue, 113 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: in opposition to this proposed project and commented on the removal of trees and canopy; property values; and parking issues. Mr. Eric Schreck, 104 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: thanked the Board for all of their work; concerns with property values, traffic and is opposed to this proposed project. Mr. Marc Batchelor, 200 Torcaso Court, Winter Springs, Florida: as President of the St. John’s Landing Homeowner’s Association and on behalf of the Association, they are opposed to adding Townhomes in the community; and expressed concerns regarding the parallel parking and expressed concerns of the egress onto the Trail. Mr. David Bowen, 105 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: commented regarding the eagles and other wildlife in the community; and noted concern for the value of his property and is opposed to this proposed project. Ms. Amy Moeder, 102 Trace Point, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Board Members regarding the community and is opposed to this proposed project. Mr. Brian Buholtz, 106 Trace Point, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke of his concerns regarding the parallel parking and bus stops; Traffic Study and is also opposed to this proposed project. Tape 3/ Side A Mr. Todd Stewart, 103 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: concerned with the wildlife in the community and asked the Board to Vote “No” on all three (3) issues. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 19 OF 32 Chairman Poe then mentioned names of individuals who had submitted Public Input forms and did not wish to speak: (Ms.) Terri-Jo Ciocca, 109 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida, is opposed; (Ms.) Geralyn Bowen, 105 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida, is opposed; and (Ms.) Lisa Stewart, 103 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida is opposed. Chairman Poe closed the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item. Mr. Wadleystated, “The City was asked to look at what the vision of Winter Springs could be. I was one of the Consultants when the Town Center concept was created. We had vision sessions and what the vision of the City was to - these were public meetings and was to have a Town Center then there was what was called the New Development area where you did not have along (State Road) 434 Corridor where you had green fields those had standards to be developed too, which they have had a nice success with that and then the redevelopment area which was the old part of Winter Springs on (State Road) 434, and I worked to write regulations to have that redeveloped. I also came up with the concept that all the landscaping along (State Road) 434 and the medians and the Village Town Walk. I also was instrumental in getting a two million dollar grant to repave (State Road) 434 from DOT (Department of Transportation). So, I have some pride in this Town Center as well. But, the vision was to create a Town Center that was viable and based on having shopping and having residential at a higher density to support that Town Center component. And you are at a handicap in Winter Springs when you talk about market areas because of Lake Jesup and all the environmental areas. If you had a Town Center with a normal radius around it, you would need far fewer homes immediately adjacent to it. But you have to have the density to support what you have here. So, there was a vision process and the vision was to create a Town Center at a higher density. We were continually chastised by Staff because we were not making the seven (7) units per acre and that is in your Comp(rehensive) Plan. That is not because Staff just wanted a dense development. If we slash this density in half we would be very inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan. This development goes towards implementing your Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Geller made a point about ‘Tree City USA’. I think I have addressed the fact that you can not have a Town Center at the density that you require without doing what has been done to this site to remove the trees. The fifty (50') foot buffer minimum that has been stated was in the Schrimsher Agreement and Mr. McLemore wrote a letter to the residents of St. John’s Landing and that fifty foot (50') buffer includes five feet (5') adjacent to St. John’s Landing, the trail thirty-five feet (35'), so that is forty feet (40') and then ten feet (10') on our property which we are doing. It is not fifty feet (50') from our property line in, so I wanted to make that clarification. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 20 OF 32 We did have the Arborist involved in this project extensively and in terms of the request to update, we did have - the City Arborist on site to look at our tree survey with respect to have conditions changed substantially? No, conditions have not changed and we were allowed to proceed with the previous tree survey because conditions have not changed. Extend the tree preservation ten feet (10') in the back of the lot there is an area that would be utilized if people would like to have a pool added to their home. That is the area that that would encroach in to.” Continuing, Mr. Wadley then added, “If I had another hundred feet (100') in this property from here to here, I could make everything come out right, and I would have bungalows facing them, facing the water. I do not. What I have is the best you can do under these conditions to get the design worked out that works. So, the 293 feet, I would like to address that for the eagle. Actually it is a 330 feet protection zone which we have respected. The monitoring with all due respect is not a seven (7) day a week monitoring. We have met with the State and Federal Wildlife officials to have an appropriate monitoring program established and we are meeting that. There are now two (2) young eaglets in the nest. I think that is tremendous. They will be fledged by April which would be the end of the nesting season for this pair. And then after that we can move into the 330 feet zone and complete the infrastructure work that is necessary. And I would like to state that you have seen this plan, that this project has a long history. It was Approved and what we are doing is working under the (St. John’s River) Water Management District Permit that we have. We could have built the Townhome project and we could have built the infrastructure that we have and done the mass grading, and we are doing that consistent and we have preserved that as the iterations of the plan have gone forward. So, the decrease in density has not affected substantially the major lay out of the project. And then with respect to the eagles return next season, then again, they have to go out and monitor, respect the 330 foot zone. If the pair does not return by December they will not be required to monitor for the next season. These are requirements or conditions that the Federal and State Agencies have imposed upon us. And this process will be repeated year after year as long as there is construction.” Referencing the Wall, Mr. Wadley stated, “There is five foot (5') strip that goes back to when Schrimsher owned the property. There is St. John’s Landing property boundary; there is the five foot (5') strip and then the trail property and then Meritage (Homes) property begins. The five foot (5') wall was supposed to go in this area and it was only if multi- family backed up or commercial backed up to single family. Well, we have had no multi- family backing up to there, so it was not required. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 21 OF 32 As a matter of fact Brian (Fields), correct me if I am wrong. On the site plan for St. John’s Landing it required St. John’s Landing to build the wall on their property? They have not built their wall. We are building a fence. We have offered to build a decorative fence along our property line, which will restrict people from walking from their backyard to the trail, which they would enjoy from across the street in St. Johns Landing or across the trail.” Continuing, Mr. Wadley then added, “The construction has not been completed. There is going to be a grade down and there is not going to be a nine foot (9') wall there - a nine foot (9') plateau that immediately drops off. We are not creating a situation, where we are going to have massive run off going down into the Trail area and what you saw in some of the photographs was, we have preserved well we have done the construction, a fifty foot (50') buffer along here of trees that we have not touched and a fifty foot (50') here. And the commitment is the hundred and forty thousand dollars ($140,000.00) that was mentioned, that, if we walked away what would make concessions to do to allow us to go forward is to beef up the landscaping in the remaining buffer that we have not touched and to replant this area and to not touch this, so that you would not see PVC pipes sticking up in the ground. That is what the preservation of the buffers were and for the hundred and forty thousand dollars ($140,000.00).” Further, Mr. Wadley remarked, “It was stated that we surprised everyone and started construction and no notice. During the initial process, Meritage (Homes) extended an invitation to meet with the homeowner’s of St. John’s Landing and they were never granted a meeting. Number two (2), a certified letter was sent. The leadership of the HOA (Homeowner’s Association) was contacted and requested a meeting and that meeting was not granted. There was a certified letter that went to the HOA’s (Homeowner’s Association) both HOA’s (Homeowner’s Association), the two (2) neighborhoods prior to the construction beginning. In terms of trees being preserved on these lots versus this, again, this is not Town Center, it is a beautiful community and I admire your community. The conditions that were required to meet on this site are very much different. And we had to pay a substantial amount of money which was determined by the City Arborist to be able to clear the sites that we did. There will not be Townhomes in the backyard of anyone. These are single family detached lots fifty feet (50') wide. It is not going to be Orange Avenue – Winter Springs. Again, I take exception to the fact that this is a perversion of new urbanism. I designed this community and I am proud of the design and not ashamed of it. If you eliminate the Townhomes as I have stated, we are not coming anywhere meeting the intent, the spirit, or the spirit of the Town Center Comprehensive Plan.” Chairman Poe closed the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item Discussion ensued on the specimen trees. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 22 OF 32 Mr. Stevenson commented, “I believe, and correct me if I am wrong Michael (Wadley) that Mr. Mingea was requested to go out and review this property based upon the [20]’03 tree plan and noted no substantial difference except for the fact that the hurricanes had taken down a number of trees. The hurricanes of [20]’04 had taken down a number of trees that were indicated on the [20]’03 tree survey. My suspicions are that if you do a new tree survey that you are going to find significantly less trees. But he did, before any work was done on the property, he did look at this particular site not only from the standpoint of cataloging those trees, but he also was the one that walked this property and catalogued the specimen trees to come with the figure to pay into the tree bank as he normally would.” Discussion. Referencing the Tree Plan, Mr. Stevenson commented that, “Michael (Mingea) was on the property – and he updated it this year.” Discussion ensued on the Early Work Permit. Mr. Fields stated, “The Staff was presented with the request by the Developer to proceed with a early work mass grading permit. We brought that request to the City Commission th at the August 9, (2010) Meeting and as part of that Agenda Item, we laid out the pros and cons and we explained what was happening. It was clearly represented to the Commission that it was a total site clearing. They had a spirited discussion about those pros and cons and then they made a decision based on that.” City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese commented, “In the course of eleven (11) years, there is no formal Public Hearing process tied to an Early Work Permit. They – are not a common occurrence in Winter Springs, but it was considered by the Commission and as Brian (Fields) said, they did have a spirited debate on it and they Approved it.” Mr. Wadley stated, “The Assessment Report and actually if you recall this project started in 2004 and it had Final Engineering plans Approved in 2006 and the (St. John’s River) Water Management District permits in hand and then the economy began to slide - and then Engle went bankrupt - but, my point of that is, and this was discussed at the Commission and they asked questions about it. The basic plan if you take the types of units off - it was originally Approved as all Townhomes. Everything was Townhomes, the road system was essentially the same. The ponds, stormwater areas essentially the same. So, there was really no change to what had been Approved, minor changes, to what had been Approved through Final Engineering and (St. John’s River) Water Management District, and we began work under that permit that we had, fully permitted - and we had the tree assessment done and was in our preliminary Developers Agreement already prior to our clearing the site. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 23 OF 32 Mike (Mingea), Arborist had been on site from 2004 through the current time, and went back out to the site to see if conditions had changed where he would feel that we needed additional assessment. And as Randy (Stevenson) said that in 2004 with the hurricanes, a number of trees came down. So, the concession really was we were paying probably a higher rate then we would have done a new study, quite frankly.” Board Member Casman inquired, “Was the notice to the Homeowner’s Association, the th registered letter, sent out before that August 9, (2010) Commission meeting?” Mr. Wadley replied, “Yes sir.” Mr. Wadley stated, “It was sent after we were advised to notify the residents before any construction began, which we did.” Referencing the buffer, Board Member Casman asked, “What is between those properties?” Mr. Wadley pointed out, “There is a double line right here. What that is, is the north will call it the top line is the property line of the St. John’s Landing residents. The second line represents the five foot (5') piece of property that Schrimsher owned for a wall and maintenance easement. The trail is right here that is - thirty-five feet (35'). So combined that is forty feet (40'). Then there was - and it says fifty feet (50'). The additional ten feet (10') is the tree preservation that Meritage (Homes) has agreed to, and then - which would come to about right here. And then what was asked for by the Homeowner’s was an additional ten feet (10').” Continuing, Mr. Wadley then added, “Here is the house pad right here. The ten feet (10') would be preserved along here.And in addition, from here to here there will be fifteen (15), four inch (4") oaks added to fill in any gaps or trees where it might be thin. There is still quite a bit of tree canopy here. But there is a commitment to locate those trees in the field to best provide additional screening. The ten feet (10') is right here and then if you take another ten feet (10') you are really cutting in to what those people have as a livable back yard, either to add a pool, patio areas or their yard area.” Discussion. “I MAKE A MOTION WE DENY THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR NUMBER I.” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER CASMAN. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ STATED, “IS HE JUST DENYING THE FIRST ONE WITH THE REAR ALLEY, OR ALL THREE (3)?” CHAIRMAN POE RESPONDED, “NO, WE ARE ONLY DEALING WITH ONE (1) ITEM, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ONLY.” MR. STEVENSON COMMENTED, “THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL THREE (3).” ATTORNEY GARGANESE STATED, “THERE ARE THREE (3) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 24 OF 32 BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ, “I JUST NEEDED A CLARIFICATION. IF WE ARE DENYING ALL THREE (3) OR JUST DENYING NUMBER ONE (1)? ATTORNEY GARGANESE ADDED, “YES, THERE ARE THREE (3) LISTED ON THE AGENDA MR. CHAIRMAN; REAR LOADED ALLEYS, GARAGE SET-BACKS, AND CORNER CURB RADII GREATER THAN FIFTEEN FEET (15').” BOARD MEMBER CASMAN, “MY MOTION IS TO DENY ALL THREE (3) OF NUMBER I.” CHAIRMAN POE, “IS THAT THE WAY YOU UNDERSTOOD IT MS. KARR?” VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR, “I AM SORRY, NO, NO, NO. SO, I RETRACT MY SECOND.” CHAIRMAN POE INQUIRED, “YOU WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND.” CHAIRMAN POE, “I WILL REITERATE MR. CASMAN’S MOTION TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY ALL THREE (3) OF THEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND?” MOTION FAILED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND. “I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.” MOTION BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. CHAIRMAN POE ASKED, “IN THEIR ENTIRETY MS. KARR?” VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR STATED, “YES.” MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. “I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST IN THEIR ENTIRETY. ALL THREE (3).” MOTION BY CHAIRMAN POE. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: NAY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: NAY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: NAY MOTION DID NOT CARRY. Attorney Garganese commented, “Mr. Chairman, I do not think you have an outcome on the Special Exceptions.” Chairman Poe replied, “Vote 3-2.” Attorney Garganese then added, “3-2 to not Approve in their entirety.” Chairman Poe stated, “That is correct.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 25 OF 32 Tape 3/Side B Attorney Garganese asked, “Do I take that to mean that the Board is not inclined to Approve any of them?” Chairman Poe responded, “That is the way I am reading their response.” Attorney Garganese then added, “I just want that clear on the Record, because each Special Exception could stand on its own and we need to be clear in your recommendation to the Commission that you are denying them all in their entirety or you need to fair it out here whether or not, three (3) members of the Board might Approve, I guess, maximum two (2) because three (3) is not acceptable.” Chairman Poe stated, “That being the case, my question of you Mr. Garganese, would be Vote on each of the Special Exceptions individually?” Attorney Garganese replied, “My reading of the Board is that you do not have the required Votes to deny them all in their entirety or Approve them all in their entirety. I imply from that those two (2) Votes that there may be support for one (1) or two (2) of the Special Exceptions and if that is not the case, I think you need to clarify that in your recommendation.” “I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY SPECIAL EXCEPTION I. AND II. AND APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION III.” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ. DISCUSSION. CHAIRMAN POE, “WOULD YOU READ FOR THE BOARD WHICH THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE RANDY (STEVENSON), PLEASE.” MR. STEVENSON COMMENTED, “SPECIAL EXCEPTION NUMBER I. IS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR REAR LOADED ALLEYS AND TO ALLOW LOTS FIFTY FEET (50') IN WIDTH FOR WHAT HAS BEEN TERMED THE ESTATE HOMES. THAT IS NUMBER ONE (1)” CHAIRMAN POE SAID, “SHE RECOMMENDED NOT APPROVING I. AND II. BUT APPROVING III. WAS THAT YOUR MOTION?” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ, “THERE IS SOMETHING IN NUMBER I. THAT BOTHERS ME AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ALLEY WAY.” MR. STEVENSON, “NUMBER II. IF I MIGHT?” “NUMBER II. IS THE TWENTY (20') FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT OF WHAT HAS BEEN TERMED AS THE FRONT OF THE PORCH RATHER THAN FROM WHAT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THE PRINCIPLE PLANE OF THE BUILDING FOR THE GARAGES FOR PURPOSES OF ALLOWING THOSE TO BE SET BACK AND TO HIDE THE CARS. AND THEN NUMBER III. IS THE CORNER CURB RADII GREATER THAN FIFTEEN FEET (15').” CHAIRMAN POE REMARKED, “…I THINK - FOR THE SAVING OF TIME.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 26 OF 32 “LET ME MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NUMBER I. EXCEPTION UNDER THE SPECIAL REQUESTS WHICH IS RANDY (STEVENSON) AND, IF YOU WOULD READ THAT ONE MORE TIME.” MOTION BY CHAIRMAN POE. MR. STEVENSON STATED, “THAT IS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR REAR LOADED ALLEYS ON THE ESTATE LOTS AND TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE FRONT LOADED GARAGES AND TO ALLOW THE LOTS INSTEAD OF FIFTY-FIVE FEET (55') WIDE TO ALLOW THEM TO BE FIFTY FEET (50') WIDE. THEY GO TOGETHER THERE THEY ARE COMBINED IN THE CODE.” SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: NAY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Poe asked, “Do I have a Motion on item II., under the Special Exceptions? Randy (Stevenson) if you would read that.” Mr. Stevenson stated, “The Special Exception request number II. is to allow the setback for front loaded garages to be twenty feet (20') from the raised plane of the front porch rather than twenty feet (20') back what has been termed the principle plane of the building which is where the windows and doors are inside of that porch if you will.” “I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY SPECIAL EXCEPTION NUMBER II.” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CASMAN. DISCUSSION. VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR INQUIRED, “I AM ASKING WHAT THEIR EXCEPTION IS TO IT.” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ COMMENTED, “THEY WANT TO USE THE PORCH LINE AS THE MARKING POINT FOR THE DRIVEWAY INSTEAD OF PRIMARY PLANE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF.” VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR THEN ASKED, “AND YOUR OBJECTION TO THAT IS?” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 27 OF 32 BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ REPLIED, “THEY ARE NOT USING THE PRIMARY PLANE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. THAT IS THE CODE ON AN ESTATE HOME.” DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ MENTIONED, “I AM SAYING IF THESE ARE ESTATE HOMES I THINK THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THE CODE OF THE TWENTY FOOT (20') REQUIREMENT OFF THE PRIMARY PLANE OF THE BUILDING.” CHAIRMAN POE SAID, “AND SHE IN HER RECOMMENDATION IS RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL AND MR. CASMAN HAS SECONDED THAT MOTION. DO YOU NEED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION MS. KARR?” VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR THEN STATED, “WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SETBACK BETWEEN WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION AND REGULAR? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THE GARAGE?” MR. STEVENSON EXPLAINED, “DEPENDING UPON THE STYLE OF THE HOUSE IT COULD BE AS MUCH TEN (10') OR ELEVEN FEET (11') I BELIEVE.” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ ASKED, “THE QUESTION TO ME WOULD BE WHAT IS THE DEPTH OF THE PORCH? AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOSING.” MR. STEVENSON STATED, “WHAT IS THE DEEPEST PORCH; THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING.” VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR ASKED, “BUT YOU WOULD NOT OBJECT TO IT IF IT WERE CHANGED TO THE DIFFERENT SET BACK? IS THAT CORRECT?” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ STATED, “IF I DID NOT OBJECT TO IT, IT WOULD NOT BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND WE WOULD NOT EVEN BE DISCUSSING IT.” CHAIRMAN POE STATED, “IT IS IN THE CODE. THE TOWN CENTER CODE.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 28 OF 32 MR. STEVENSON EXPLAINED, “JUST BY WAY OF EXPLANATION THERE IS NEVER LESS THEN TWENTY FEET (20') FROM THE FRONT OF THE PORCH TO THE GARAGE. AND IT APPEARS THAT THOSE FRONT PORCHES VARY BUT THE DEEPEST ONE I BELIEVE I AM LOOKING AT IS TEN FOOT (10'), EIGHT INCHES (8") AS FAR AS THE FRONT PORCH IS CONCERNED.” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ THEN ASKED, “SO YOU WOULD HAVE A THIRTY FOOT (30') BUFFER TO SCREEN CARS?” MR. STEVENSON RESPONDED, “IF THEY WERE SETBACK TWENTY FEET (20') FROM WHAT IS CALLED THE PRINCIPLE PLANE.” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ COMMENTED, “THE GARAGE WOULD BE SET BACK FURTHER?” CONTINUING, MR. STEVENSON THEN ADDED, “THE TWENTY FEET (20') JUST SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN IS FROM THE FRONT PORCH, EDGE OF THE FRONT PORCH WHERE THE STEPS COME OFF THE SIDE WALK TWENTY FEET (20') BEHIND THAT.” BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS ASKED MR. STEVENSON, “WOULD THERE BE ROOM FOR A CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY AFTER THAT?” MR. STEVENSON REPLIED, “YES, THE DRIVEWAYS ARE MINIMUM, YOU GOT TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE FRONT PORCH TO THAT GARAGE IS A MINIMUM TWENTY FOOT (20') OF DRIVEWAY AND BEYOND THAT YOU GOT SIDEWALK, PLANTING AREA AND CURB AREA.” BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS THEN ASKED, “I AM SAYING IF YOU ACTUALLY BROUGHT THE GARAGE UP TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PORCH? WAS THERE ANY DRIVEWAY LEFT?” MR. STEVENSON RESPONDED, “THERE WOULD BE VERY LITTLE BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO HAVE IT TWENTY FEET (20') BEHIND THE FRONT PORCH.” VOTE: BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: NAY CHAIRMAN POE: NAY BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: NAY MOTION DID NOT CARRY. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 29 OF 32 “I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE SECOND EXCEPTION UNDER THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.” MOTION BY CHAIRMAN POE. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: NAY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: NAY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Poe stated, “That brings us to the third item under Special Exceptions, which is the Radii.” “AND FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, I WILL BE THE ONE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THAT EXCEPTION.” MOTION BY CHAIRMAN POE. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: NAY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. “I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE AESTHETIC REVIEW AND GIVE THE CITY COMMISSION A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THE TOWNHOMES OR IS THAT FINAL ENGINEERING?” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ. BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ ADDED, “OR TO IMPROVE THE AESTHETICS OF THE TOWNHOMES?” MR. STEVENSON STATED, “THAT WOULD BE BOTH ACTUALLY. NOW YOU ARE MODIFYING THE FINAL ENGINEERING.” CHAIRMAN POE, “SO YOUR MOTION IS TO...?” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ REPLIED, “…DENY THE AESTHETIC REVIEW.” SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 30 OF 32 ATTORNEY GARGANESE ASKED, “IS THAT JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWNHOMES? JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.” BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS RESPONDED, “I WOULD SAY THE TOWNHOMES AND ALSO THE LANDSCAPE, TREES.” MR. STEVENSON STATED, “I BELIEVE THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE THE ENGINEERING. THIS IS JUST THE ARCHITECT THAT YOU LOOKED AT.” VOTE: BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. “I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE FINAL ENGINEERING IN RELATION TO THE TREE CANOPY AND THE PARKING ON TUSKAWILLA ROAD.” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS. DISCUSSION. ATTORNEY GARGANESE STATED, “YOU HAD MENTIONED THE TOWNHOMES IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION.” DISCUSSION. MR. STEVENSON COMMENTED, “I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD MEAN THE INCLUSION OF TOWNHOMES ON THE SITE PLAN.” CHAIRMAN POE ASKED, “MR. PHILLIPS YOU SECONDED THAT MOTION?” BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS REPLIED, “NO, I AM GOING TO PULL THAT.” CHAIRMAN POE REITERATED, “YOU ARE GOING TO WITHDRAW IT?” BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS CONFIRMED, “WITHDRAW IT.” CHAIRMAN POE ASKED, “DO I HAVE A SECOND?” “I WILL SECOND IT.” SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CASMAN. DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ ASKED, “IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ASK WHY MR. PHILLIPS WITHDREW? DID I ADD SOMETHING THAT..?” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 31 OF 32 BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS EXPLAINED, “…WELL, I BELIEVE THE CODE SAYS THAT YOU CAN HAVE TOWNHOMES THERE, SO I THINK WE CAN CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF IT AND CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE TO MAKE THE APPEARANCE NICER. BUT THE RIGHT FOR THEM TO BE THERE, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS THEIR CODE. NOT THAT I LIKE IT AT ALL, BUT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE THERE, AND SO I CAN NOT GO ALONG WITH SAYING THAT THEY CAN NOT BE THERE. I DID NOT WRITE THE CODE.” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ COMMENTED, “I KNOW BUT I DID NOT ENVISION A CODE ON FORTY (40) ACRES HAVING TOTAL MIX USE.” BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS ADDED, “I AGREE.” MR. STEVENSON EXPLAINED, “POLICY 2.2.4. MIXED USES IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT PERMIT A VARIETY OF MIXED USES CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE AND IN HARMONY WITH THE TOWN CENTER GOAL INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND SERVICES, PUBLIC SERVICES, BUILDINGS, PARKS, SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE ENACTMENT OF CREATIVE AND FLEXIBLE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ REPLIED, “YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT NOT ON ONE (1) PARCEL; NOT IN A VILLAGE; NOT A TRANSITION.” MR. STEVENSON THEN EXPLAINED, “PLEASE UNDERSTAND AND I THINK THAT IF ALL OF ONE (1) USE IS ON ONE (1) PARCEL IT IS NOT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.” DISCUSSION. CHAIRMAN POE REREAD THE MOTION AS, “MOTION TO DISAPPROVE FINAL ENGINEERING PLAN BASED UPON TREE CANOPY, PARKING ON TUSKAWILLA ROAD AND THE…” BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ ADDED, “…AND THE TOWNHOMES.” VOTE: BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: NAY CHAIRMAN POE: NAY BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: NAY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE MOTION DID NOT CARRY. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 5, 2011 PAGE 32 OF 32 “I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY FINAL ENGINEERING BASED ON THE TOWN ON PARKING AND TREES.” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER CASMAN. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS. DISCUSSION. FOR CLARIFICATION, ATTORNEY GARGANESE ASKED, “IS THAT YOUR INTENT BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID PARKING?” BOARD MEMBER CASMAN REPLIED, “I MEANT PARKING ON TUSKAWILLA (ROAD). THAT WAS MY INTENT.” VOTE: VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. REGULAR AGENDA – PART II REGULAR 602. Not Used. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Poe adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: CAROL LALLATHIN, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY CLERK AND _________________________________ JOAN L. BROWN DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED: _________________________________ WILLIAM H. POE, VICE CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the ____________________, 2011 Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency . Regular Meeting CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 9, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Special Meeting of Wednesday, March 9, 2011 of the Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency was called to Order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William H. Poe in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Chairman William H. Poe, present Vice Chairperson Rosanne Karr, present Board Member Howard Casman, present Board Member Bart Phillips, present Board Member Helga Schwarz, present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, present A moment of silence was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Randy Stevenson, ASLA, AICP, Director, Community Development Department stated, “The original Agenda contained Item number ‘500’ which is the Public Hearing tonight relative to the Winter Springs Village complex. You will also note that there were three (3) Items that were added, “600”, “601” and “602”, addressing various aspects of the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) and the Pedestrian Plan. It is my understanding that, although not required for the P&Z (Planning And Zoning Board/[Local Planning Agency]) to review these, it was placed on your Agenda in order to give you information th prior to this going to the City Commission on the 28 - (March 2011).” Chairman Poe asked, “Does it require any action on our part?” Mr. Stevenson stated, “I do not believe so.” PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Jeff Porter, P.E., Land Development Manager, Meritage Homes of Florida, Inc., 5337 Millenia Lakes Boulevard, Suite 160, Orlando, Florida: thanked the Board Members for this Special Meeting and indicated he would be available to answer any questions. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING – MARCH 9, 2011 PAGE 2 OF 7 Mr. Todd A. Stewart, 103 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke of supporting Mr. Porter and Meritage Homes of Florida, Inc. with the changes to the proposed Winter Springs Village project and thanked the City and Staff for their efforts in this proposed project. Mr. Michael J. Cannell, 221 Torcaso Court, Winter Springs, Florida: noted he was in favor of the proposed changes and thanked the Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Board Members for their recommendations. Mr. David Bowen, 105 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Board Members and said he supported the changes for the proposed Winter Springs Village project. PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 500. Community Development Department Requests The Planning And Zoning Board Review The Information Presented In This Agenda Item And Consider Four (4) Requests For The Proposed Winter Springs Village: (1) One Additional Special Exception Request, (2) Certain Modifications To The Concept Plan, (3) Aesthetic Review Drawings For A New Unit Type, And (4) Modification To A Previously Reviewed Special Exception/Deviation Request. Mr. Stevenson presented this Agenda Item and stated, “We are going to try to make you aware of the changes that the residents have spoken of that have been the result of numerous hours of negotiation and discussions among the three (3) parties involved; the residents, the Applicant, and the City Staff.” Continuing, Mr. Stevenson remarked, “When we show you these Modifications tonight, we want to assure you that the basic engineering of the plan is as we showed you on th February 5, (2011).” The “Winter Springs Village New Design” Plan was shown and Mr. Stevenson explained the modifications on this proposed project. Referencing the facades, Mr. Stevenson stated, “Staff recommends that you look favorably on these pieces of architecture as they are in the transition area.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING – MARCH 9, 2011 PAGE 3 OF 7 Lastly, Mr. Stevenson remarked, “We would ask that this Planning And Zoning Board[/Local Planning Agency] forward recommendation to the City Commission to Approve the modifications to the Winter Springs Development as follows: The additional Special Exception deviation and the modified Special Exception deviation to be memorialized in the DA (Developer’s Agreement), that will go to the City Commission, the Aesthetic Review for the new estate homes, and the minor modifications that we discussed here tonight to the Concept Plan.” Discussion. Board Member Helga Schwarz asked, “Was there a requirement in the Town Center to have a two (2) story and is Elevation ‘A’ through ‘C’ considered within the Code?” Mr. Porter stated, “What you see on “The Palermo” – the base option is a single story that you see on the left side, and then we also have a – second floor option which we would use here in this plan to meet the two (2) story requirement.” Mr. Stevenson added, “All units must still be two (2) story. That is a Comp[rehensive] Plan issue.” Board Member Schwarz inquired about the Elevations. Mr. Porter stated, “What we are doing is, this is a black and white concept of what we call ‘F’ and ‘G’ Elevations. These are additional Elevations that we do not have completed yet, but we submitted these to give you a flavor and let you see the ideas behind the new Elevations – we are actually doing these Elevations for all the products that we have.So, we have an upgraded ‘F’ and ‘G’ Elevation for multiple plans and not just the ones you see here. This was just what we had available at the time. We are still incorporating and completing those Elevations, but they are all going to be this type of style with stone work and exposed tails.” Discussion ensued on the Bungalows as the Elevations were shown. Referencing the square footage of the Bungalows, Mr. Porter noted, “They actually range from 1900 [square feet] to about 2,300 square feet.” Chairman Poe opened the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item. Mr. Todd A. Stewart, 103 St. John’s Landing Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke of traffic concerns if Spine Road is not completed. Mr. Stewart then noted, “We also totally agree with the design differences and the change.” Mr. Stewart commented, “I just wanted to really support those two (2) things that came up and also make sure we put on Record - Spine Road - and there also is an agreement that the – lots on the back side of our property that they will not be allowed balconies as well as lights and speakers over the first floor. So, I want to at least put that on the Record.” Mr. Stewart then added, “We haven’t talked about that. That should be in the DA (Developer’s Agreement) when it comes through, and we support that as well.” Chairman Poe closed the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING – MARCH 9, 2011 PAGE 4 OF 7 “I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE WINTER SPRINGS VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AS FOLLOWS; THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION DEVIATION AND MODIFICATION; SPECIAL EXCEPTION DEVIATION TO BE MEMORIALIZED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WILL GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION; THE AESTHETIC REVIEW FOR THE NEW ESTATE HOMES; AS WELL AS THE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONCEPT PLAN.” MOTION BY CHAIRMAN POE. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Poe explained Ordinance 2011-05 Amending the Uniform Requirements for City Boards and Committees that was Approved by the City Commission on February 28, 2011 to the Board Members. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS “600”, “601” AND “602” WERE DISCUSSED NEXT, SIMULTANEOUSLY, AS DOCUMENTED. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department – Planning Division And Public Works – Engineering Division ADD-ON Request The Local Planning Agency Make A Recommendation Regarding The AttachedWhich Was Adopted By The Bicycle And Pedestrian Pedestrian Plan, Advisory Board And Which Includes An Inventory Of Public Sidewalk Gaps With Priority Ranking Based On A ¼ Mile Proximity To The Greatest Number Of Pedestrian Attractors. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING – MARCH 9, 2011 PAGE 5 OF 7 REGULAR 601. Community Development Department – Planning Division And Public Works – Engineering Division ADD-ON Request The Local Planning Agency Make A Recommendation Regarding The AttachedWhich Was Adopted By The Bicycle And Pedestrian 2030Bicycle Plan, Advisory Board Which Includes An Inventory Of Existing And Proposed Bike Lanes, Bike Routes And Multi-Use Paths Or Trails Desired For The City’s Long- Term Bicycle Network. REGULAR 602. Community Development Department – Planning Division ADD-ON Requests That The Local Planning Agency Review And Make A Recommendation Regarding The Requested Revisions To The Existing Capital Improvements Program For FY (Fiscal Year) 2010/11 Thru FY (Fiscal Year) 2015/16. Next, Chairman Poe addressed the Board Members and stated, “We have three (3) items here that Randy (Stevenson) has brought to us for informational purposes only. It does not require any action on our part. Do you wish to address these, this evening, or do you wish to take them home and review them at your convenience?” Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public Works Department asked, “Do you want a brief overview?” There were no objections voiced. Mr. Fields explained that Agenda Items “600”, “601” and “602” were just for information and they pertained to recent Bicycle And Pedestrian Advisory Board recommendations. Continuing, Mr. Fields stated, “Eloise (Sahlstrom, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner, Community Development Department) asked if this Committee could review this and provide a recommendation. She did not believe there was a legal requirement to do so, but we felt it was important to follow our normal process in front of this Board to review and provide input. You can provide a recommendation tonight if you like; you can review this and informally provide comments to the Staff. These items will be brought to th the City Commission at the March 28, (2011) Meeting – this is our last chance to get in front of you to answer any questions.” Furthermore, Mr. Fields remarked, “And then (Regular) ‘602’ is the Capital Improvement Plan of the projects that qualify as Capital Improvements. This is Amending our current year Capital Improvement Plan and that is important because to get some Grants, you have to show a project in your Capital Improvement Plan.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING – MARCH 9, 2011 PAGE 6 OF 7 Chairman Poe inquired, “Would this Board be comfortable with providing a recommendation on these three (3) items with the stipulation that we as individuals have the ability to provide comments to Staff after we have had an opportunity to review these at our convenience, so that they can proceed with the Grant process?” Board Member Bart Phillips asked, “What is the percentage of the Grants being paid?” Mr. Fields replied, “These are one hundred percent (100%) Grants in most cases. In fact, in the Capital Improvement Plan, these are not new funding initiatives that are being proposed. They are either Grants or mitigation. Some of them would be through METROPLAN (Orlando) or through a potential third generation One Cent Sales Tax which is out there and being considered at the County level at this point. No new City funding initiatives are proposed to cover these projects.” Discussion. Board Member Howard Casman asked, “You are going forward with the Grant Application regardless of what we do. Is that correct? You do not need our Approval or our recommendation to go forward with the Grants. Is that correct?” Mr. Fields answered, “That is correct.” Board Member Casman remarked, “Because I am uncomfortable giving a recommendation without really knowing – but I also do not want to impede you and stop you from going forward.” Vice Chairperson Rosanne Karr commented, “I agree with Mr. Casman.” Board Member Helga Schwarz remarked, “I agree as well.” Board Member Phillips commented, “I agree also.” Chairman Poe stated, “That being said, there is no requirement for us to do that. We will take these and review these and at some point in time, if there is a requirement to review and make a recommendation, I am certain that Randy (Stevenson) will bring it back to us and we will do that at that time.” Mr. Fields added, “These will come back, the Capital Improvement Plan as part of our overall current update for next year and you will have an opportunity to review these in more detail at that time. Just wanted to get these in front of you so at least you are aware of the projects and the progress of the BAPAC (Bicycle And Pedestrian Advisory Committee) Committee and as far as being in the loop on these projects.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING – MARCH 9, 2011 PAGE 7 OF 7 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Poe adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:46 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________________ JOAN L. BROWN DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED: _________________________________ WILLIAM H. POE, VICE CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the ____________________, 2011 Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency . Regular Meeting