Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 02 02 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 2, 1983 7:30 P.M. WORKSHOP MEETING The workshop was called to o~der by John Hatfield. ROLL CALL: CITY OFFICIALS: John Hatfield-Chairman, present Cindy Kaehler-Vice Chairman, present George Kaplan, absent Richard DeFazio, present Tim Johnson, present Jacqueline Koch, City Planner Hatfield stated the purpose of this meeting is to gain insight, recommendations, and com- ments from the commercial property owners on the five commerical zoning classifications the Board had been working on the past 3~ months. At this time Hatfield asked the City Planner to present what the proposals were. Jacqueline Koch, City Planner, stated that basically their goal is to modernize the com- mercial zoning in the City, replacing the two present categories with five. In lq68 when the City's population was approximately 700, the categories of neighborhood professional and retail and of general commercial and light industrial were created. This has been the status for the last 15 years. Because of the growth this City has experienced to a populace of 13,000, the City has become a more complex, urbanized place to live. Ms. Koch went on to state that another very important change happened with the widening of SR 434. The Board and Staff have looked at the existing commercial zoning along 434 and on the north side of 419 and considered the adjacent land use and the traffic situation in each area, these being the two major criteria used. With the extension of Moss Road (from 434 to 419), we're suggesting this will create an additional commercial area, which can be served from 419, relieving some of the pressure on 434. With SR 434 a five-lane highway, problems are increased every time we create an access point along it. For example between Fairfax and Sheoah Boulevard, cross-street are about 200 feet apart; drive-ways created within these blocks are access points to create a conflict with the flow of traffic. When- ever there is a possibility of an interruption of the traffic, problems develop. Between Moss Road and Hayes Road there is approximately ~ mile with no cross-roads, with only Sherry Avenue going to the north, so that there is less access. We took the critical areas for traffic which also is the area in which there are single-family homes, and proposed to limit it to the lowest intensity of commercial activity (the area between Fairfax and Sheoah), for the reasons stated above. Beyond that, as the cross-streets become further apart and as the adjacent land uses increase in intensity up from single-family, commercial usage would be increased up in intensity to retail, then up to service commercial adjacent to open areas or other commercial property along SR 419 is to be a general commercial area with the higher categories of commercial uses that are now allowed in C-2 other than the industrial uses, which we are prescribing to be north of the railroad tracks and on US 17-92. The basis of this proposal is not to prescribe how any particular piece of property shall be developed down to the last detail, and it's not even describing exactly what type of com- mercial operations shall go where. What it is intended to do is describe what impact of commercial activity is acceptable at a particular location. Chart A shows the increase in commercial intensity from low to moderate to medium to high, based on 8 characteristics of commercial activity: (l) the size of the property, (2) the type and size of building, (3) the architecture, (4) the hours of operation, (5) the traffic created by the business, (6) the outdoor activity involved in the business, (7) the noise produced by the activity, and (8) the illumination needed. Our objective is to have intensity uses in the core area adjacent to single-family llomes where there are numerous cross-streets. Moving out from Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 2 that area, we have the category of moderate commercial activity, with an increase in size of prop~rty and buildings, less restrictions on architecture, longer hours of operation, somewhat greater traffic (including light truck traffic), some outside storage activities, some illumination of the building after hours. Moving away from residential areas we have larger property, larger buildings, basic commercial architecture, hours of operation from early in the morning to midnight, higher traffic, some outdoor sales and outdoor storage, some outside/overnight lighting. The highest category is rather unresticted, since it is re~egated to remote areas north of the railroad tracks and on 17-92. The concept has flexibility built in, so that someone has property which is designated by zoning to be limited to moderate commercial activity, it's possible to design the business so that no matter what the product or service, it can be delivered with no more impact than shown to be acceptable to that area, making it an acceptable business at that location. Roger Butcher, representing Richie's Economy Cars, inquired if this will have an impact on the property on 17-92 that is in the City. The City Planner stated there is no net change to the property on 17-92 or north of the railroad tracks. But even if it were to have an effect, any pre-existing use could continue until the business went out of operation. Discussion on the chart, during which Ms. Koch explained that Chart A is used to describe the typical type of operation that once would expect in that category. Discussion. Jerry Sigal, attorney and part owner of the commercial property next to the Shop & Go on Edgemon and 434, asked what the effect of this workshop meeting would be. Discussion. Mr. Sigal and his partner had planned to put up an automotive parts business on this piece of property. Under the new plans, it would be changed from C-l to professional offfice. Could he build the automotive parts store? Discussion on the criteria of the building . Discussion on the impact of the traffic and hours of operation. Input from DeFazio that this Board is only making recommendations to the City Commission, who will make the decisions. Discussion. Phillip Taddish stated he was interested in a piece of property that is in the Light In- dustrial classification, property being north of the railroad tracks and east of the in- tersection of 419 and 434. The City Planner stated the zoning plan would permit industrial uses there. Discussion on Chart A and if it was pyramidal in structure. John Baldwin, owner of a piece of property that fronts on 434 and is between Fairfax and Devon Street, said his property is being split under these revisions. Mr. Baldwin stated his intentions were to put in a shopping center in this area. The property is currently zoned C-l and under the revisions would be C-P. Discussion on the shopping center, with it's possible uses. Ms. Koch stated that this property would be, under the revisions, C-R and C-P. Discussion. Mr. Baldwin asked if he would be notified of any hearings or meetings concerning this matter. Clarification by Ms. Koch that this is not rezoning property but changing the zoning ordinance, for which there is no requirement to send individual notices, but that the City had evidenced its intent to keep property owners notified. Discussion, in which. Commissioner Hartman stated- he would ask as a Commissioner that these property owners be notified of any further meetings. Mr. Baldwin pointed out to the Board that out of 81 uses he has now, under this revision he would have only 10. Discussion by Kaehler on the typical uses. Input from the audience that possibly a time limit be put on this revlslon, where in the property would have to be developed within 3 years or face compliance with these revisions. Discussion by the Board on this. Frank Carter, owner of commercial property on 419 west of Tuscawilla Road, currently zoned C-l, discussed how he has lost two possible sales on convenience stores, while the owner behind him operates a saw mill. Discussion on what could be built on the property under Planning & Zoning .Page 3 revisions. Ms. Koch stated that his current status would not be changed, in that it would be in C-S classification. Discussion. Gary Hunt, stated that his property is currently zoned C-2, but under these revisions, the property would be medium density, which is C-G. If he is currently C-2 and this is not rezoning, why is the revision to professional offices, below what the current zoning is? Disucssion with input from Kaehler that this Board' is trying to set up criteria for the com- mercial areas in the City. Discussion. Clarification by the City Planner that the map shows the ideals expressed in the descriptions of the new zones but changing the zoning ordinance will not change the zoning on anyone piece of property from C-2 to C-l. Further clarification from the City Planner that Mr. Hunt's property is a pre-existing condition and is not precluded; this would preclude rezoning after this point'in time'to anything contrary to this provision, it does not exclude existing uses. She further pointed out that there would be no net change other than to eliminate light industrial uses of current C-2 in C-G. The City Planner stated that the map would not be part of this ordinance revising the zoning code; other ordinances would have to be adopted to apply the new zones to property. Mr. Hunt requested that the brown be removed from the map before the next meeting. Discussion. Cliff Jordan, realtor, discussed the C-l properties being classified C-P, from a commercial zone to a professional one. Discussion. Stated he would like to see a more specific heading used instead of "typical uses": perhaps "permitted uses". Discussion. Discussion on convenience store classification under these revisions. Clarification from the City Planner that "typical" uses offers more flexibility to the categories. Discussion. Chuck Farwig, realtor, represents the owner of the property on the corner of 434 and Wade Street. Property is now zoned C-2; under these provisions it would be zoned C-G. Discus- sion on the Chart. Owner of property across from Dino's pizza, adjacent to Hacienda Village, why height re- quirement was dropped from 50 to 35 feet. Discussion from G. Hunt on criteria for cars per day, that this be referred to in the manual so that everyone will see what the qualifier is. Suggested that "permitted uses subject to meeting the characteristics requirements," instead of "typical uses" be used. Discus- sion of maximum utilization of property tendency under these provisions. Stated that the site standards need to be discussed in this. Question from the audience if all C-l are becoming C-P how do you get to C-S? City Planner stated by administrative rezoning. Is this not rezoning? The City Planner stated only up- ward to the C-R, C-S, and C-LI categories for properties that meet the criteria. The map would not be part of this zoning code ordinance, but implemented by entirely separate ordinances. Mike Hattaway, resident and commercial property owner, stated that it would appear that we are trying to fit what is in the City now (property-wise) and trying to create a plan that would fit this property, based on each individual piece of property. He asked the Chair, are we not changing the use of the land and in effect changing the zoning? The response from the Chair was eventaully it would be changed. Discussion on the rights of property owners. He stated that with every change in this ordinance, a "right" is being taken from a property owner, and this is a very serious matter and should be considered as such. Clarification by DeFazio that this meeting is for input from the property owners. Clari- fication by Hatfield that this Board and it's members are concerned about the rights of the citizens of Winter Springs, be they commercial or residential property owners. This Board is aware of the gravity of what it is doing. Discussion by Hattaway on the services provided by commercial properties to the City. He basically supports what the Board is doing. 'Plannlng & Zoning Page 4 He stated the operating hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m, are unfeasible; discussion on the limits to the types of traffic to businesses; discussion on what the ratio of actual usable space is under these revisions on a piece of property. He stated that this plan leaves a lot of grey areas. Discussion on the way this plan is structured; that if a piece of property is C-R, you shouldn't be able to put a C-G use on that piece of property, simply because of an option, because it gives the right to put something there that shouldn't be there. Clarification by Hatfield that this plan was not structured specifically around the current commercial property in the City. The Board looked at the City overall, and where it was going in the future. It is being designed more with the objective of looking at the long-range plan for the City. Discussion on whether the current property owners felt that five categories were sufficent. Discussion on the short notice given the current property owners of the revisions. Input from the audience that the minutes of this meeting be sent to all the property owners that were notified, along with the names and addresses of the members of the Planning and Zoning Board. Hatfield stated that comments on this meeting and the revision are welcomed from the property owners to the City Planner, so the Board can proceed with this matter. Dis- cussion by the City Planner on the next meeting. Input from Hat Hattaway that the property owners need at least 30 days to review this matter. Hatfield set the next meeting on this matter for March 2nd. At approximately 10:35 p.m. the workshop meeting, at which there were approximately 26 people present, was adjourned by Hatfield. The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order by Hatfield. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Tim Johnson. ROLL CALL: CITY OFFICIALS: John Hatfield-Chairman, present Cindy Kaehler-Vice Chairman, present George Kaplan, absent Richard DeFazio, present Tim Johnson, present Jacqueline Koch, City Planner Motion was made by Tim Johnson to approve the minutes of January 19, 1983. Second was made by Cinqy Kaehler. Vote. All aye, motion carried. REQUEST OF MOHICAN VALLEY, INC. TO ANNEX PARCEL ON S.R. 419 ( PART OF LOT 1, JOE E. JOHNSTON SURVEY). The City Planner stated that this annexation was suggested by the City to the property owner to fill in a gap between Indian Woods and part of the Luttrell property being annexed, to eliminate one of the County's objections. Motion was made by Kaehler to accept the request of Mohican Valley, Inc. to annex parcel on SR 419 (part of Lot 1, Joe E. Johnston Survey), which is currently zoned A-I (County) as R-U. Second by Johnson. Vote. All aye, motion carried. Motion was made by Johnson to table item six on the Agenda until next meeting. Second was made by Kaehler. Vote. All aye, motion carried. Meeting was adjourned by Hatfield at 10:52 p.m. e e 'Plannlng & Zoning Page 4 He stated the operating hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m, are unfeasible; discussion on the limits to the types of traffic to businesses; discussion on what the ratio of actual usable space is under these revisions on a piece of property. He stated that this plan leaves a lot of grey areas. Discussion on the way this plan is s~ructured; that if a piece of property is C-R, you shouldn't be able to put a C-G use on that piece of prop~rty, simply because of an option, because it gives the right to put something there that shouldn't be there. Clarification by Hatfield that this plan was not structured specifically aroun~ the current commercial property in the City. The Board looked at the City overall, and where it was going in the future. It is being designed more with the objective of looking at the long-range plan for the City. Discussion on whether the current property owners felt that five categories were sufficent. Discussion on the short notice given the current property owners of the revisions. Input from the audience that the minutes of this meeting be sent to all the property owners that were notified, along with the names and addresses of the members of the Planning and Zoning Board. Hatfield stated that comments on this meeting and the revision are welcomed from the property owners to the City Planner, so the Board can proceed with this matter. Dis- cussion by the City Planner on the next meeting. Input from Hat Hattaway that the property owners need at least 30 days to review this matter. Hatfield set the next meeting on this matter for March 2nd. At approximately 10:35 p.m. the workshop meeting, at which there were approximately 26 people present, was adjourned by Hatfield. The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoping Board was called to order by Hatfield. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Tim Johnson. ROLL CALL: CITY OFFICIALS: John Hatfield-Chairman, present Cindy Kaehler-Vice Chairman, present George Kaplan, absent Richard DeFazio, present Tim Johnson, present Jacqueline Koch, City Planner Motion was made by Tim Johnson to approve the minutes of January 19, 1983. Second was made by Cindy Kaehler. Vote. All aye, motion carried. REQUEST OF MOHICAN VALLEY, INC. TO ANNEX PARCEL ON S.R. 419 ( PART OF LOT 1, JOE E. JOHNSTON SURVEY). The City Planner stated that this annexation was suggested by the City to the property owner to fill in a gap between Indian Woods and part of the Luttrell property being annexed, to eliminate one of the County's objections. Motion was made by Kaehler to accept the request of Mohican Valley, Inc. to annex parcel on SR 419 (part of Lot 1, Joe E. Johnston Survey), wnich is currently zoned A-I (County) as R-U. Second by Johnson. Vote. All aye, motion carried. Motion was made by Johnson to table item six on the Agenda until next meeting, Second was made by Kaehler. Vote. All aye, motion carried. Meeting was adjourned by Hatfield at 10:52 p.m. ectfUll<~~ Zielonka Secretary