Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 11 15 Motions re: Annexation Zoning ) Motions Regarding Annexation Zoning Passed at CAlNO Plan Coordination Committee Meeting of 11/15/82 I. The committee recommended to CALNO that a blanket waiver of the two-year waiting period for a change in zoning be made for unincorporated enclaves of: (a) 20 acres or less which are devoted to single-family uses, (b) 10 acres or less for areas which have other residential designations, and (c) Five acres or less for locations with a non-residential classification. II. The committee recommended to CALNO establishment of a system to develop compatible land use policies implemented by: (a) c evelopment of consistent land use plans mutually agreed upon by ~//f' cities and the county for unincorporated portions of urban growth /' boundary areas, - of a blanket/automatic annexation rezoning process for these (c) Channeling growth into these urban growth boundary areas apd self- supporting planned developments, (d) Requiring that annexation zoning objections focus on inconsistencies with approved land use plans, (e) Defining urban growth boundary areas by using the following guidelines - (1) No new cities, (2) Avoid splitting traffic system areas, (3) Utilize clearly defined boundaries, and (4) Take into account capacity of services (transportation, storm water management, water, sewer and fi re). "\ j MEETING SUMMARY CALNO Plan Coordination Committee Meeting 11/15/82 The following attended the third meeting of the Committee which began at 9:00 A.M. at Longwood City Hall: Harold Henn Jacqueline Koch Gere Zamber David Chacey W. E. "Petell Knowles F. Jon Martin Woody Pr i ce Barry Campbell Oviedo Wi nter Spri ngs Longwood Longwood Sanford A1tamonte Springs Seminole County Casselberry NEXT MEETING - Unscheduled (Anticipated after January 1st) Mr. Price and Mr. Knowles said that Sanford and Seminole County staff had met since the previous committee meeting to discuss the preliminary list of conflicts. Annexation policies for unincorporated enclaves (in regard to justi- fication for annexation and desired residential densities) were noted as being the primary unresolved issue. Mr. Knowles suggested that agreement on enclaves policy was needed for the County as a whole. He said that most enclaves in Sanford were small and either had city services or these services could easily be provided. Not much attention, he stated, was necessary for annexation of such areas. Large enclaves and fringe areas could be more of a problem according to Mr. Knowles. Mr. Price contended that enclaves should require the same justifica- tion for annexation as fringe areas, that they should both be linked to the same process. He said that, in his opinion, enclaves are not a major problem provided the service capability is there. The demonstration of justification for annexing enclaves, he felt, would generally be easier. A number of techniques for annexing enclaves were discussed including: (1) the possibility of a blanket waiver of the two-year waiting period for a change in zoning for unincorporated pockets which already had services, (2) pro- moting a special act in the legislature which would simplify the annexation process for enclaves, and (3) utilizing a blanket waiver for the zoning change waiting period for small and moderate size unincorporated pockets. Eventually, a motion was made by Mr. Henn and seconded by Mr. Martin that the committee recommend to CALNO that a blanket waiver of the two-year wait- ing period for a change in zoning be made for unincorporated enclaves of: (a) 20 acres or 1 ess wh i ch a re devoted to sing I e-fami 1 y uses, (b). 10 acres or less for areas which have other residential designations, and (c) five acres or r-- less for locations with a non-residential classification. The motion passed with a dissenting vote from Mr. Price who desired that enclaves of all sizes and fringe areas utilize the same procedure for justifying waivers. " ) " ~ Page 2 November 15, 1982 Regarding waivers for fringe areas and large enclaves the committee discussed a process whereby localities in Seminole County would mutually agree on land use designations for unincorporated portions of "urban growth boundary areas" and that once agreement was achieved there would be an automatic waiver of the two-year waiting period for a change in zoning consistent with the previously approved land use designation. Reference was made to the guidelines suggested at the preceeding meeting for defining such areas: (1) no new cities, (2) avoid spl itting traffic system areas, (3) utilize clearly defined boundaries, and (4) take into account capacity for services (particularly water, sewer, and fire). ,,- It was suggested by Mr. Price that storm water management and trans- portation be added to the list of services for which capacity would be evaluated. Determination of what is sufficient capacity for urban growth, he sa!~ would be an important question. He also noted that he felt Seminole County snould channel most of the growth into urban growth boundary areas and self-supporting planned developments - with some growth occurring in the form of redevelopment along major transportation corridors at higher intensity levels. Mr. Henn recommended that nearby municipalities have a role in determining another locality's urban growth boundary area characteristics. Joint planning for urban growth boundary areas prior to annexation was suggested as a goal. An interlocal agreement was mentioned as the probable mechanism for formulating the automatic zoning change wa i ve r . A motion was made and passed to recommend to CALNO: Establ ishment of a system to develop compatible land use policies implemented by (a) develop- ment of consistent land use plans mutually agreed upon by cities and the county for unincorporated portions of urban growth boundary areas, (b) the use of a blanket/automatic annexation/rezoning process for these areas, (c) channeling growth into these urban growth boundary areas and self-supporting planned devel- opments, (d) requiring that annexation zoning objections focus on inconsisten- cies with approved land use plans, and (e) defining urban growth boundary areas by using the following guidelines: (1) No new cities, (2) Avoid splitting traffic system areas, (3) Utilize clearly defined boundaries, and (4) Take into account capacity for services (transportation, storm water management, water, sewer, and fire) apply to areas. meeting. dependent Mr. Price voted against the motion because he felt that it should small and moderate size enclaves, as well as, large enclaves and fringe It was decided that the motion should be presented at the next CALNO The focus of the next committee session, it was agreed, would be on CALNO's reactions to the two motions. Also discussed at the meeting was the proposed urban growth boundary proposed for Longwood by Mr. Chacey and Ms. Zamber - particularly the boun~ary with Altamonte Springs and the State Road 434/U.S. Highway 17-92 intersection. ) Page 3 November 15, 1982 Mr. Price said he would provide township maps at one scale for all of the municipalities to locate possible urban growth boundaries. Mr. Campbell indi- cated that Casselberry's final urban growth boundary might not be available until near the end of a comprehensive plan updating process.