Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 10 13 Public Hearing 500 - DISSENTING VOTES/STATEMENTS Planning & Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting October 13, 2010 The attached are the Dissenting Votes from Public Hearing Agenda Item 500. RECEIVED OrT 14 2010 STATEMENT CITY OF WIN I ER SPRINGS 10/14/2010 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK The following information is submitted with regard to the vote taken on item 500 by the Planning and Zoning Board which met on 10/13/2010. I made the motion to approve item 500 granting 7 Code Deviations&Waivers pursuant to Section 20- 231 of the city code. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Karr. Mrs Karr and I voted to approve and the three other members voted no on approval. In looking at the deviations, I found each of them to be logical based upon the information presented. One of the deviations is actually governed by FDOT as they control State Road 434. 1 also believe that workforce housing is a major issue facing the citizens of Winter Springs. It was discussed at length during preparation of the EAR and later included in the Comprehensive Plan. A great deal of discussion centered on the Fiscal Neutrality Analysis which was required by the City Commission. That analysis had nothing to do with the exceptions being requested. Item 600 was also denied as the exceptions were depicted on the drawings accordingly we could not approve item 600 as we had denied those exceptions in item 500. 1 believe that this is an "opportunity missed" for the citizens of Winter Springs as the applicant made all attempts to satisfy those opposed to the project. Willia . Poe Vice Chairman Joan Brown From: schwarzwald@cfl.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:35 AM To: Joan Brown Cc: Kevin Smith Subject: Helga Schwarz Position Statement for Planning and Zoning Board Regular Meeting 10/13/2010 Attachments: 10-13-2010 Position Statement by P&Z Member Helga Schwarz.doc Attached is my position statement as you requested. I have copied City Manager Kevin Smith on this. Helga Schwarz i i Statement of Position from Helga Schwarz This statement of my majority position for Items 500 &600 is being made upon the request of city staff at the City of Winter Springs Planning&Zoning Board meeting held on October 13,2010. City of Winter Springs Planning&Zoning Board Public Hearing,Item 500 October 13,2010 I could not support a blanket approval of all seven code deviations and waivers presented by city staff on behalf of the applicant because as city code is drafted,each code being requested to waive by the applicant stands alone and I felt each should be voted upon individually. My effort to address each waiver separately failed by a lack of support from the remaining P&Z board members. My effort to approve three of the seven waivers I felt should be approved failed by a lack of support from the remaining P&Z board members. As I felt the P&Z board members were at an impasse,I supported the motion to deny the collective request for all seven waivers due to my objection to city staff's standard procedure that the board vote straight up or down on all seven waivers collectively. City of Winter Springs Planning&Zoning Board Regular,Item 600 October 13,2010 Due to the majority position of the P&Z board members to deny all seven waivers and deviations presented in Public Hearing,Item 500,I supported the motion to deny the final engineering report. In addition,I felt that a blanket acceptance of the final engineering plan,less the denied waivers and deviations from Item 500,without a complete walk-through presentation by staff of all plan elements that comprise a"final engineering" approval was absent and therefore unacceptable to me as a board member who is being asked to make an advisory opinion to the City Commission. Joan Brown From: Bart Phillips [bart419@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:09 AM To: Joan Brown Subject: Item 500 Attachments: Item 500 10-13-10.docx OCT CIN OF WIN FER SPRING6 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK i 1 RECrEIVED or,i 1 To the Board of commissioners CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Winter Springs, Florida Bart Phillips P & Z Board Item 500 dissenting vote, October 13, 2010 1. Item 500 was brought before the P&Z Board as a 108 unit senior apartment complex. After multiple questions it turns out that the apartment complex was not limited to senior citizens as advertized to the general public. 2. Additional information concerning the Fiscal Neutrality Analysis was not presented. Sincerely, Bart Phillips Joan Brown From: Emilylt65@aol.com RECEIVED Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:35 PM OCT 4 210 To: Joan Brown Subject: (no subject) CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I have been asked to explain my vote to reject item 500 at the P&Z meeting held on Oct. 13th. I do not believe that applicant gave any reason to justify a waiver of provisions in the Code. Item 1 , I believe , does not improve the Town Center . Item 2, will have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the Town Center. There is evidence the the crime rate goes up in areas where affordable housing exits. These reasons alone have made me vote against this project. Howard Casman 1 Joan Brown From: Rosanne Karr Boy4life@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 6:14 AM To: Joan Brown Subject: Follow up to Wednesday night's meeting Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Winter Springs, Tonight the Local Planning Agency discussed the Towne Park Project, with its special exceptions and reworked Final Engineering Plan. At this meeting, we actually had Public present and several experts who presented sworn-in testimony. Being on the board for several years, I am used to getting the agenda packet, the large drawing packet, which I read in preparation for the meetings. Sometimes the information sent is adequate, but most of the time, additional information is presented in the meeting which affects the way the decision goes. I understand that we as the P&Z board are to make our decision based on whether the Plans correspond to the Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the City residents. The Towne Park Project, being a low-income apartment complex, has met much opposition from the public, particularly the high income, tax- paying residents. I know from my work and the LPA's research for the Comprehensive Plan that our City needs "workforce" housing, meaning affordable housing for City employees. However, I believe the board rejected the special exceptions and the Final Engineering Plan, because, as is often the case, we were not given all the facts necessary to make an acceptable decision and the board did not give into pressure to vote for the project. It is unacceptable that our LPA should feel pressure to approve agenda items without being given all the facts. i F41Er7lrzD 13 CITY P&Z BOARD OFFICE UF'THH CITY CINGS ERK AGENDA Consent ITEM 500 Information Public Hearing X October 13, 2010 Regular Meeting MGR. /Dept. REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the P&Z Board review the special exception requests for a 108 unit senior apartment complex with amenities on 6.95 acres within the Town Center and provide a recommendation to the City Commission. SYNOPSIS: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the P &Z Board to review the special exception requests for waivers and deviations, pursuant Section 20-321 of the City Code and make a recommendation based on those criteria to the City Commission. CONSIDERATIONS: OVERVIEW: The 6.95 acre undeveloped and treed site is located within the Winter Springs Town Center on the southwest corner of SR 434 and the trail bridge (east of the Mobil station, on the south side of SR 434). The developer originally approached the City in 2003 with a proposal for 192 units. A concept plan was approved April 27, 2009 and amended May 18, 2009 for 201 units on 10.32 acres,but the number and composition of the units and the land area have been modified as the result of the applicant's meetings with concerned citizens (as well as from staff comments at development review meetings). The proposed development currently consists of 108 senior apartments, a pool, a community garden, a putting green, a small dog park, and 174 on-site parking spaces (15 adjacent on-street parking spaces and 14 on-street parking spaces located on the north side of"Townhouse Road"; some of the on-site parking spaces may be covered), on 6.95 acres (15.5 dwellings per acre) straddling the Cross-Seminole Trail adjacent to the south side of the trail bridge over SR 434. LAND USE &ZONING: Future Land Use Designation (FLU):Town Center Zoning: Town Center I vo�d �&r 41,5 1,ky-ri loft5tfd ov, K)O* or) / r Cannp v P I rd.O� hove r 1 • J October 13,2010 Public Hearing Item 500 Page 2 of 5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS & DOCUMENTS: Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (federal) Chapter 163, FS Chapter 166,FS Chapter 760, FS Rule 9J-5,FAC Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9, City Code Town Center District Code Schrimsher Development Agreement (June 26, 2000) DISCUSSION: Transportation The 108-unit apartment project generates an estimated 778 trips per day, including 57 AM peak hour trips and 77 PM peak hour trips (per ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition). The site is accessed from S.R. 434 by "Townhouse Road," a new City street located approximately 400- feet west of the Seminole County Trail Bridge. The location of Townhouse Road is consistent with the City's Town Center Master Plan for S.R. 434 Intersections. The Townhouse Road/ S.R. 434 intersection will be constructed as a full-access median opening, which will allow left- in, left-out, right-in, and right-out turning movements, similar to the S.R. 434 intersection at City Hall. The Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) is expected to require that the "Townhouse Road" intersection be changed to a directional median opening (which allows left- in turning movements but not left-out) at the time the next intersection to the west, Michael Blake Boulevard, is constructed. The Michael Blake Boulevard intersection is pre-approved by FDOT as a full-access median opening,with signalization when warranted. FDOT currently does not allow two full-access median openings to be less than 1/4 mile apart on S.R. 434 in this area,which is the case with Townhouse Road and Michael Blake Boulevard. Town Center Issues The Comprehensive Plan (primarily the Future Land Use Element: Town Center and Urban Central Business District objectives and policies), Town Center Code (sections 20-320 through 20-327 of the City Code of Ordinances), and the Schrimsher Development Agreement address a number of issues related to the subject property. One of the most important considerations is the continuation of the pedestrian-friendly street grid previously established in the Town Center Master Plan. This pedestrian-scale grid has been furthered in the proposed site plan and provides for a continuation of the street network through the subject site for eventual connection to Tuskawilla Road. This interconnected grid network helps to provide a pedestrian-scale to the development and makes efficient multi-modal transportation possible. There will be a LYNX bus stop adjacent to the site in the SR 434 right-of-way (ROW). Wide sidewalks and a nearly continuous line of 4-story buildings oriented to the street(SR 434 and"Townhouse Road") with elevated first floors (the first floor and the porch or stoop elevated at least 2 feet above the elevation of the adjacent public sidewalk) are required to enhance the pedestrian—oriented aspect of the neighborhood and help to create walkability and a sense of place—key goals of the Town Center Code. Street width has been properly scaled to Town Center dimensions to accommodate on-street parallel parking as well as street trees which assist in the creation of a meaningful public space. Additionally, to further keep automobile speeds 2 7 �Y October 13,2010 Public Hearing Item 500 Q� Page 3 of 5 low,which is critical to a pedestrian-oriented development, corner radii are the prescribed 15 feet,except at the intersection of SR 434 and"Townhouse Road", where they are 35 feet, as required by the FDOT. No SR 434 frontage road is proposed for the residential development, since frontage roads are more suitable for retail development. Special Exceptions Section 20-321 of the City Code states that the City Commission may,by special exception, waive strict compliance with the provisions of the Code. In granting a special exception,the City Commission must find by substantial 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 (20,000) square feet); see subsection 20-324 (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. Staff believes that the site plan with the code deviations and waivers listed below satisfies these criteria for a pedestrian-friendly, multimodal, urban, development that meets the spirit and intent of the Town Center. Code Deviations &Waivers The site plan incorporates certain code waivers, as listed below: 1. Section 20-325 (c) (8)provides for the City Commission to waive the frontage road requirement (frontage roads are more suitable in front of retail development; for example, the West End Office site was not required to provide a frontage road;the applicant is providing a wider sidewalk in conjunction with a bus stop with a shelter in the SR 434 ROW; staff supports the waiver). 2. Section 20-324 (1) requires corner curb radii between 9 and 15 feet, which requires motor vehicles to slow down going around corners and thereby increases pedestrian safety. The applicant is meeting this standard, except at the intersection of the new "Townhouse Road" and SR 434, where the FDOT requires the roadway connection to SR 434 to have wider turning radii (35 feet),to maintain the motor vehicle level of service on SR 434 (therefore, since FDOT controls its ROW and will not issue a permit for tighter radii at the intersection, staff supports the waiver as a necessity). 3. Section 20-327 (d)requires each floor of any building fagade facing a park, square or street to have transparent windows covering from 15 to 70 percent of the wall area. The side wall of Building No. 1, which is in vzxj-clse proximity to the trail bridge, has 10 percent window area(which staff supports, since this side of the residential building is so close to the trail bridge; staff supports having windows facing the trail for safety/surveillance purposes, but does not want to compromise the privacy of the 3 October 13,2010 Public Hearing Item 500 Page 4 of 5 residents, by allowing too much view into the living and bedrooms from the trail bridge). The rest of the building frontages meet or exceed the 15 percent opacity requirement. Section 20-324 (10) (f)requires no more than 6 consecutive parking spaces provided without a landscape island,where there is not the alternative landscaping in front of the spaces. There are 8 spaces and handicap accessibility aisles in the area immediately south of the pool (toward the trail). The code allows tree spacing to be determined by the City Arborist, based on tree species and locations. The City Arborist supports this waiver,based upon the proposed tree planting/landscape plan. 5. Section 20-324 (5)requires the first floor to be elevated at least 24 inches above the adjacent sidewalk grade. This is essential to a positive interactive relationship between residences and people on the sidewalks and street (Jane Jacobs' "eyes on the street"). The buildings will have monolithic slabs and some of the ends of the buildings do not meet the letter of this requirement. All buildings are designed to meet or exceed the 24 inch requirement at the front entrances. Staff has stated that deviations too minor to be noticeable (e.g. as much as 3-5 inches below the 24 inch standard) at first floor windows nearest the ends of the buildings would be acceptable. 6. Section 20-325 (8) and (10) set a maximum building width of 160 feet and building depth of 125 feet. Buildings 2 (L-shaped building at the corner; 173 feet along SR 434 & 173 feet along"Townhouse Road" 75 feet depth) and Building 4 (172 feet along"Townhouse Road" and 74 feet depth) exceed these maximums. These buildings do not pose the"big box"problems, such as depicted in Section 20-324 (12)picture. Staff believes these buildings relate well to the adjacent roadways and supports these waivers. Staff had also supported and the Commission approved waiving strict adherence to this rule in the Doran Phase II plans (for the east side of Tuskawilla Road, behind McDonalds), where it was determined that the overall design of the site more than compensated for the deviation. 7. Section 20-325 (10) sets a maximum 35 foot distance between buildings. The distance between buildings 2 and 3 scales to about 80 feet. The driveway into the site(which functions very similarly to an internal roadway) is located within this area, with a 10 foot wide sidewalk and parallel parking on each side. There is a distance of about 32 feet from the western end of building 2 and the driveway curb. The other buildings are much closer together than the 35 foot standard. Staff supports this deviation in this location due to the manner in which this driveway functions as a roadway. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed development is located within the City of Winter Springs, within its Town Center(FLU designation and zoning district, and within the area encompassed by the existing June 26, 2000 Schrimsher Development Agreement. 2. Section 20-323 (a) of the City Code of Ordinances lists adult congregate living facilities, retirement homes (including independent living through assisted living), and multi-family residential as permitted uses within the Town Center District. 3. The concept plan for 201 multi-family dwelling units on 10.32 acres was approved on April 29, 2009, but was amended on May 18, 2009. 4 i October 13,2010 Public Hearing Item 500 6A �,"Mk Page 5 of 5 4. The final engineering/site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Deviations from the Town Center Code are addressed through a special exception, as provided in Section 20-321. Staff supports the listed deviations. 6. The applicant has met with concerned citizens on multiple occasions to discuss the development, obtain input, and has reported that he has incorporated some of that input into the plans. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff estimates that the two parcels that make up this project currently generate approximately $16,000 in ad valorem taxes. These numbers have been estimated because both parcels are the result of a division of existing parcels. If the property is developed as proposed, it will contain 108 apartment units. The applicant has stated that, once the project is finished, it will facilitate 19 permanent jobs with an annual salary of$500,000. The project's Fiscal Neutrality Analysis(FNA) estimates that the project will have an additional fiscal benefit on both a revenue and Net Present Value (NPV) basis. The total net fiscal impact provided to the City due to the development of the project is $618,103. The NPV of the project's impact to the City is $230,185. The conclusion of the applicant's study is that the development will pay its own way in terms of services required from the City. Please be aware that this report is still being vetted by the City and additional information will be forthcoming at the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff has reviewed the FNA and has significant questions and concerns. The applicant is continuing to work to revise the report pursuant to staff concerns. Additional information will be presented at the October 13,2010 P&Z meeting. The applicant is a for-profit [not a 501 (C) 3 tax exempt] organization. The permit, impact, and connection fees will be the same as for any other developer. The ad-valorem taxes are,however, adjusted for the rents, most of which will be below market rate. The entire Fiscal Neutrality Analysis can be viewed on the City's website by looking under "Proposed Town Parke Apartment Project" on the front page. The name of the analysis is "8- 23-2010 Fiscal Neutrality Analysis" and is located under the"New Project Proposal"heading. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: The advertising of the agenda item is required. Extensive information regarding this site is posted on the City website. In addition, a sign has been posted on the site and letters have been sent to abutting property owners of land within 150 feet of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Commission approve the Town Parke Apartments special exceptions. ATTACHMENTS: A—Final engineering plans 5