Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 01 29 Regular DRAFT 1-29-76 APPLICLrION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS Application for: D Annexation L:7 Change of zoning L:7 Preliminary Plat approval L:7 Final Plat approval L:7 Conditional Use L:7 Variance L:7 Other, Specify Elease print in ink or type * ADP1~can t Last name Niddle initial First name (If the applicant is not the ow~er Mailing address of the subject property, the application must include a letter of authorization signed by the o,mer.) Telephone Legal description of the subject property: To;bal No. acres Total No. usable acres General location of subject property (including name and type of road which tract abuts) Present zoning classification Present land use Abutting zoning classifications and land uses Nature of request: Additonal information (including purpose and intent of reques~) Requests which require a public hearing must also include the following information: .. "--~-"-r-"-""""-'~-"'--'-'''''-' _ a_iSoS cnu cd-dresses of all surrounding property owners lying wi thin 500 f::. 01 t'lC ~-er'ir:J.eter boundaries of the subject property. The applicant =h~ll ~l.so ~tt~ch 2 legal size, stamped, addressed envelopes for each property o'>!ner listed below. 1. 3. 2. 4. Date Signature of Applican t/ovmer ************************* For office use only Fee File Code No. Amount Receipt No. Review L:7 Planning and Zoning Board L-/ Board of Adjustment L:7 City Council Date Action Public Hearing L:7 Planning and Zoning Board ~ Board of Adjustment L-/ City Council Ordinance References Information verified by: Date -r BROCK, MASSEY & WALDEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 102, SEMOBAN BUILDING 616 EAST SEMOBAN BOULBVARD ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32701 NEW.MAN D. BROCB: GARY E. MASSEY FRAN]n.IN '1.'. WALDEN '1.'ELEPHONE (3015) 834-81ll January 22, 1976 t.1EHORANDUM FROH: TO: Gary E. Massey, City Attorney, City of Winter Springs, Florida Diane Kramer, City Planner, City of Winter Springs, Florida RE: On recommendations after reviewing : (A) Zoning map up-date procedures (B) P-UD Ordinance draft revision (C) P-UD approval process and administrative procedures Dear Diane: In reference to the Zoning map up-date procedures, the only comment that I would make in reference to that would in Paragraph lB. It should read, "The City Clerk shall set up a file folder for each re- zo~ing application, and that said folder shall always be kept on file at the City Hall and open to public inspection." As to the draft of the PUD approval process and administrative procedure on page #1 , number 1, Preapplication Conference, the first paragraph should read, "The applicant shall contact the City Clerk to arrange a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Engineer or their designated representatives, in order to review the proposed PUD request prior to formal submittal of said request." The reason I have added in City Engineer into this first meeting is that he can save the Planning and Zoning Board a lot of time and effort and also the particular applicant, in that he can show the applicant at the very beginning what requirements must be met and to give the applicant a general over-view of what the City will require in the way of engineer- ing. Paragraph 2 of that same page, the first paragraph thereof should read as follows, "The applicant shall submit to the City Clerk a change of zoning request and three (3) copies of the preliminary development plan. Change of zoning and the three (3) copies of the preliminary development plan shall be placmin a permanent file and be kept in the City Hall, open to public inspectionat all times." The reason for this inclusion of the permanent file is, I understand, that certain applica- tions and packages have been taken out of the City Hall by someone and on certain occassions there has been no application on file at the City Hall the that any citizen, Councilman or other City employees could refer to in answering questions or looking up information. In Paragraph MEMORA.T'{nill1 PAGE TWO Three, Staff Review, the first paragraph, the City Attorney and Police Chief should be taken out of that paragraph. The paragraph should be rewritten as follows, "The City Clerk shall arrange a staff revie"w meeting of the City Engineer, Planner and Fire Chief and any other pertinent department head or consultants designated by the Planning and Zoning Board to review the preliminary development plan and sub- mit their written recommendations. The applicant shall also be in- vited to attend this meeting." The reason I ask to have the Police Chief and City Attorney taken out is that I do not feel at an early stage in the planning process, that these two individuals are necessary unless there is some peculiar problem involved. I do believe that the Planning and Zoning Board, if there is a peculiar problem involved, could request that the City Attorney and Police Chief be present at the staff review in order to solve that particular problem. The City Engin- eer, Planner and Fire Chief are necessary, for I believe, quite necessary reasons. On Page 2, paragraph 5, Planning and Zoning Public Hearing, the first paragraph thereof should be changed to read as follows: "The Planning and Zoning Board shall hold a public hearing to consider the change of zoning requests. The Board shall either recommend approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the request to the City Council, stating their reasons for such approval with or without modifications or the denial thereof. The City Clerk shall then schedule and advertise a public hearing on the request before the City Council." This recom- mendation is made only to emphasize that any either approving or denying a request, the specific facts upon which the approval or denial was made, must be put down so that the City Council will have a complete basis upon which to review the application. In Paragraph 2 or Paragraph 5, I would ask that in the third sentence "an approved" be deleted because of the fact that with that wording in there, it is assumed that the preliminary development plan would automatically be approved when in fact, it may be denied by the Planning and Zoning Board. In Paragraph 6 of that same page in the third paragraph of 6, once the property is approved accord- ing to that paragraph, it will always remained zoned pun. It would be my recommendation that if the particular development is not carried out pursuant to the preliminary development plan or the final development plan and construction stopped according to the schedules therein, that after a reasonable period of time, possibly six months, that the zoning classification revert back to its original status before being zoned pun. The reason for this recommendation is that you could have a developer ask it to be zoned pun, never carry through with his plan and therefore you either have to have another land owner interested in zoning it pun or the land owner would have to come in and request another change of zoning. With having it revert back to the classi- fication it was before, this would be more compatible with the surround- ing neighborhood since the original classification was set taking into consideration the surrounding zoning of the area. MEMORANDUM PAGE THREE On Page Three in Paragraph 9, the first paragraph, I feel that the Police Chief should be deleted from that particular paragraph since on at least a zoning matter, I do not believe it would be necessary to have him there. However, I believe the paragraph should be rewritten to read as follows: "The City Clerk shall arrange a staff review meeting of the City Engin- eer, Attorney, Planner, and Fire Chief and any other pertinent department heads or consultants designated by the Planning and Zoning Board to review the final development plan and submit their written recommendations. The applicant shall be invited to this meeting." Paragraph Ten, the second paragraph thereof should read as follows, "Upon receiving the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, the City Clerk shall place the request for final development plan approval on the agenda for review by the City Council." On the last page in Paragraph 11, that paragraph should rewritten as follows, "City Council shall review the final development plan and the recommendations of the staff and the PNZ Board. The Council shall then either approve, approve with modifications, or deny the request for final development plan approval, stating the factual reasons for approval, approval with modifications or denial thereof. In reviewing the final development plan, the PNZ Board and the City Council shall make findings of fact upon the following: 1. Whether there is substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of the PUD district and the approved preliminary development plan. 2. Whether the phase of development in question can exist as an independent unit capable of creating an environment of substantial desirability and stability. 3. Whether the existing and proposed utilities and transportation systems are adequate for the population proposed." The reason for these changes are as follows: A. The Council must make specific findings of fact as to either approval or denial and further the way the three particular paragraphs were written, it would be assumed from the writing thereof, that the PUD development plan would be approved. It could be dissapproved and I believe the better and more appropriate language would whether there is substance and so on to indicate that there may be a denial of the PUD development plan. As to the PUD Ordinance, in Section 44.85.2, since you have added condominums into that ordinance, you should consider adding cooperative apartment as a definition therein. If this is done, Section 44.85.3 under Permitted Uses should have condominiums and cooperative apartments therein also. Also, under that Section, I believe, you should retain the old Section 44.85.3(3) as to certain uses in the classification. In particular, sub paragraph E thereof which probably should be changed --,---- MEMORANDUM PAGE FOUR to no commercial use, nor any building devoted primarily to a commercial use shall be built or established prior to beginning construction of the residential buildings or uses is designed or intended to serve in a PUD development which is primarily a residential development. Other- wise a developer could come in stating that he really wanted PUD develo- pment for residential plan, but who was primarily interested in only creating a commercial island. He could construct his commercial estab- lishment and never begin construction of the residential facility. This addition would give you some control over the development of PUD. On page 5 of the draft of the PUD Ordinance, paragraph should be changed in the following respect. The first paragraph should read as follows, "The following site development standards shall apply, unless specifically waived by the City Council upon recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board and that the unique characteristics of the development in question, make unnecessary the application of one or more of these provisions in order to carry out the intent and purposes of the Plan Unit Development district." The reason for this change is the City Council must actually make the waiver of conditions and they would be upon the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board. Subparagraph C of five states "Open space" when it should state "common open space". Also, I would wholeheartedly recommend your proposed change of paragraph F so that set-backs, lot size and lot width would be as approved by the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board. On Page 6, under Section 44.85.5, the first paragraph should read: 1. Preapplication Conference: The applicant shall meet with the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Engineer or their designated representatives, to review the proposed PUD request. I am making this recommendation for the same reasons I made it prior thereto. This also should be included in paragraph 7 on page 7 and I would recommend the same change in paragraph 11 of page 7 as I did City Council review in your PUD administrative procedures. On Page 11 under Section 44.85.9, paragraph 2a where you have building official should be the Planning and Zoning Board. The reason for this recommendation is that the Planning and Zoning Board has originally made recommendations to the Council to change the Zoning to a PUD. PUD zoning is only appropriate because of the total plan itself. Therefore, only the Planning and Zoning Board or the City Council should be able to make any extension, alterations or modifications of the building structures or utilities, since this in effect would be changing the zoning under the PUD concepts. Also in paragraph 2b, it should read, "any uses not authorized by the final development plan may be added to or deleted from the final development plan if approved by the City Council in a public hearing with the recommendations of the staff and the Planning and Zoning Board." I have added or deleted from, since a developer may MEMORANDUM PAGE FIVE want something deleted from a final development plan as well as added thereto. Finally, I would recommend retaining old Section 44.85.4(a,b, and c) at least as to some point including such items as the locations of all mature wood areas indicating those to be retain and those to be removed or altered and some other things which I did not note in the revision. These may be all in there, however some of them I believe were left out whether intentionally or not, I do not know. Also, I would recom- mend retaining Sections 44.85.56B I and 2, C,D, E and F since these are some controlled provisions which gives the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board control over what is to happen to the common open space. In turn, with the improvements which a developer would request in the development, I believe some schedule should be set up where the developer either places a bond up or escrow certain money as each residential lot is sold for common open area to insure that the obligations tie developer has promised within the PUD development plan will be fulfilled. As an example, if the developer gets into financial difficulty and has built only half the residential home and has completed no facilities as promised in the final development plan, who is going to be responsible for the building of the facilities which were promised to those residential home owners who bought within the PUD development. I appreciate the opportunity of reviewing this and I hope that my comments and suggestions are helpful to you in revising the PUD Ordinance. If you need any additional assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.