Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 10 06 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes l . e Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing Minutes October 6, 1982 The Planning and Zoning Board was called to order by the Chair. The Pledge of Allegiance to the nag was led by IJIr. Kaplan. ROll., CAIL: CITY OFFICIALS: I.earme Grove, present Cindy Kaehler, present Richard ~Fazio, present John Hatfield, present George Kaplan, present Jacqueline Koch City Plarmer lVbtion was made by Kaplan to acc~pt the minutes of September 22, 1982. Seconded by Grove. Vote. All aye, motion carried. The Chair then stated that the purpose of this :rreeting is to have a Public Hearing on the request of Winter Springs Develop:rrent Corporation for revision of the preliminary develop- ment plan. The Chair then stated they would adjourn the Planning and Zoning Board and call a ten minute recess. During this recess those in the audience who would like to speak on Item 5 carne forward and signed in. The Public Hearing was then called to order by the Chair. Mr. Alpert with Winter Springs ~velopment Corporation carne forward and stated that this hearing is in regard to three changes the Winter Springs Develop:rrent Corporation has requested. He went on to state that every effort was made to contact the Homeowners' Association and other community leaders to get the residents' feelings incorporated into these changes. Alper stated that Winter Springs ~velopment Corporation agreed that single-family density should not be over 2 per acre, and multi-family (condominiums) should not be over 12. The original plan for Tuscawilla had 60% multi-family (high density) and 40% single-family. The current plan renects 50% multi-family and 50% single family. The designated school site that the County has rejected is requested to be made into an active play center park augrrenting the adjacent Lake Tuscawilla Park. This would be more feasible there instead of one of the residential zoning classifications. Simultaneously the passive picnic and playground park along Bear Creek north of Winter Springs Boulevard is requested to be designated condominiums. All the amenities that were scheduled for this park would be moved to the park that acts as a buffer around the sewage treat:rrent plant south of Winter Springs Boulevard. Mr. Alpert went on to state the need for a larger active park that would allow several sports to gp on .simultaneously. This proposal meets these requirements and still keeps a passive picnic park east of Howell Creek. He proposed a phase 7 to be added to the existing 6-phase amenities package for Lake Tuscawilla park. When Tuscawilla reaches 3000 developed units (currently under 2500), the developer would install an additional baseball field and a soccer field. The other two proposed changes involve the redesignation of property to condominiums or higher density use. These should have minimum architectural standards for buffering of higher density use. Alpert proposed that on all final development plans for areas with condominiums in Tuscawilla, the Plarming and Zoning Board should require a detail site buffering plan for the property's outer peri:rreter. These plans should contain a visual barrier that is at least 50% obscure when the first living units get a certificate of occupancy. This should be designated to be at least 75% obscure and at least 5 feet high two years later. This should be a minimum standard. A specific buffering plan carmot be outlined prior to a final plan being brought before this Bo.ard. Therefore, with sufficient site buffering, he proposed half of the COI1'1lrercial site on Northern Way be redesignated condominiums. Since the surrounding area is zoned residential, '1 e e Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing 10/6/82 Page 2 this undesirable as conmercial. He further proposed changing a single-family site near the realigned eastern end of Northern Way to condominium. He suggested this was consistent with the overall master plan of Tuscawilla to keep higher density (condos) generally within a center core bounded by Northern Way. In summary, Alpert stated these changes do not raise the overall density; they do not take away but add to the existing recreational amenities; and they are well with the general standards of the existing approved preliminary plan. The fOllowing individuals spoke in obj ection to the proposed arrendrnents: Art Harris, 20 Sable Court, Tom Burke, 1370 Blue Spruce Court, Betty A. Ogus, 668 White Oak Court, Jim Boswell, 1392 Ayerswood Court, Al Mausner, 1016 Antelope Trail, Charles Pascual, 1147 Duncan Drive, Jerry Eans, 739 Sybelwood Circle, John J))yle, 686 Tuscora, Ellen Weiss, 1203 Winter Springs Boulevard, Brigett Herrell, 1215 Swan Street. The City Planner clarified the fact that Winter Springs ~velopment Corporation has so far only developed single-family lots. They sell the multi-family (condominium) site to other developers. The Public Hearing was closed at this time, and the Planning and Zoning Board was reconvened. The Ci tyPlanner then stated that she had some questions to ask the developer; why is there a need to redesignate the comnercial and single-family at this time?; is there a buyer anxious to purchase the land and build condominiums?; she stated his answer to this at the time was no. The City Planner said she is not sure there is a reason for the City to make a decision at this time. Also, to allay the concerns that we've all had as to what type of multi-family dwellings will be built, why cannot a potential property buyer apply through the developer for the land designation at that time, so that these questions could be answered? Why does Winter Springs ~velop:rrent Corporation not want to develop single family home sites at these locations? Why has the development created undesirable spots for single-family homes at these locations? In regards to the first request, this is not a trade of one park for another park; it is a trade of a school site for condominiums. If you make the equation, you cancel out the parks and end up with a condominium instead of a school site. Also you end up with absolutely no public parks along either creek in Tuscawilla. As it appears now, unless one's lot backs up to one of the creeks or one is a member of the country club, the resident has no access at all to the creeks, one of the desirable features of the area. Regarding the third request, the City earlier this year approved 50 acres of added condo- miniums area east of Howell Creek. Why add another 40 acres now, when there is no activity to develop what is currently approved? We are talking about a dense concentration in one solid area of condominiums, which would add up to a bloc of about 170 acres at this location. other condominiums sites in Tuscawilla are 20 to 30 acres, at the most 70 acres. The changes from 1971 to this time including the proposed changes, would add 180 acres of condominiums. This makes 7% of the area in Tuscawilla converted into something that was not planned to be there before. It changes the whole character of the PUD. The Platlner stated that all these questions need to be considered, and specifically why make this decision now? The City Planner went on to state the County may have a future need for another school site, possibly in the undeveloped area east of Howell Creek. However if a 170-acre bloc of condominiums is located there, would this then be suitable ;for a school site? Concern was expressed by the City Planner in reference to the "parkH south of Ninter Springs Bl vd. This is really a buffer for the sewer plant, according to the developer. Nhy then is it labeled park on the plan? If this is true and this area cannot be used as a park land, then why not substitute the school property for this park? Discussion. i . . Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing 10/6/82 Page 3 Input from Bill Jacobs, 404 S. Edgemon; that a possible solution to the density problem would be to redefine that part of the City's code (44.85.4, Article 15) setting units per acre; perhaps lower density would be the solution to residents and the developer would be happy with this. , Input from r.'Jr. Alpert that Winter Springs DevelopJ:l'Jent Corporation has the right to rely on the POD ordinance and the right to propose changes to the plan. He went on to state that these would be general designations in these areas, so in the future people can look and see how this land is to be developed. The Chair then addressed Mr. Alpert's previous amenities proposal being unfeasible now because it would be exposing the sewer plant, therefore it is off. ]'/fr. Alpert then stated they agreed to add additional amenities and he agreed to put those into the school site park. The Chair then stated that at the fO:rrrEr meeting Winter Springs Development Corporation had agreed to put an active park in the south Bear Creek area: ballfield, soccer field, etc. Mr. Alpert then clarified this by stating they do not plan to reduce the amenities but not to put the ball fields in the south Bear Creek site; they would put these in the Lake Tuscawilla park area. Kaehler then stated the reasoning in putting the active park in the south Bear Creek area was there was not enough room in the Lake Tuscawilla Park for all these amenities. Mr. Alpert then clarified his statements by leaving every- thing as is, that is, in exchange for condominiums on the park site east of Howell Creek, the residents of Tuscawilla would be acquiring an active park instead of a passive park. At this time DeFazio stated he would like to make a IIDtion to deny the proposed changes because he didn't see where the City of Winter Springs is goint to get anything from it. We stand to lose an additional park at one end of the development. Which I find is very important to the children and adults, who I feel should not have to go 2 miles to get to a park. It looks like there will be no park near the sewer facility and I believe that the public interest should be considered in this as far as their comments were made. They were led to believe that this was the way the area was to be developed and they bought that way, feeling as through it would be developed like that. Now they want to change the develop- ment plans. I would like to make a motion that it be denied. The Chair then asked if the IIDtion covered all 3 i terns on number 5? DeFazio stated yes. Seconded by Grove. Discus,... sion. Vote. All aye, IIDtion carried. Since the Planning and Zoning Board has found these proposed amendrrents to be inconsistent with the approved plan for Tuscawilla, it will now go to the City Commission for a public hearing. Meeting was adj ourned by the Chair. Re'[1.tfu1.. . l~YU Ot.ted, ,- J,t c;;;' M Sbe~'Zle o~ Rec~~kecretary