Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 01 22 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes - .ANNJNG AND zrnJNG BOARD MINUl'E' Wednesday, Jaunary 22, 1986 The rreeting was called to order by Chairrran Srredley at 7: 35 p.m. IDLL CALL: D. lbbert Srredley, Chainnan, Present Richard I:eFazio, Vice-01ainnan, Present Cene Ibnnan, Present Taru Joshi, Absent Jon Hall, Absent STAFF : Peter ~ll, City Plaimer, Present APPROVAL OF MINUl'ES OF JANUARY 8, 1986: Richard IEFazio made the notion to approve the minutes of January 8, 19 86. Seronded by Cene Ibnnan. Vote: All aye. M:}tion carries. LECESSE CDRPORATIrn ALTERATIrn TO A FINAL DEVEIDPMENT PLAN/GREENBRIAR: Applicants present: Bill Hoelbeck., Iecesse Corporation; Miller McCarthy, Iecesse Corporation; Bill Eagan, Attorney. Peter CoVJell, City Plarmer gave his presentation. He stated that Iecesse Corporation first brought this project to the City in Noverrber 1984. This project was originally Fairway Oaks phases 1, 2, 3 and 4. In June or July of 1985, the City Conmission revieVJed and approved d townhouse project to be ronstructed at 7.5 units per acre, and with that final engineering approval, the developer :reqrested platting of Phase 1 and a band for the anount of the im- proverrents. The density of the first phase is approximately 5 acres, the density within that phase is 6. 8 units per acre with a little over 1 3/4 of an acre left for recreation and re- tention. In and of itself it would have not been an acceptable final developrrent plan. It would have needed the other 2 phases ronstituting the entire project to be ronsidered. It WDuld have been a very unlqtE circumstance for the Corrrnission to approve such a small sul::xlivision. They began doing the engineering work and ran into SOllE trouble out on the site and had to wait for additional DER approvals. Originally, lbb RutrPan approached him and he had understcx:x1 lbb to say that he was going to be providing the architecture of the style. Those types of roncerns are not part of The City's discretion. They belong to the Architect- ural Review Board for the developrrent. Just prior to Christmas, Mr. Raeder, Building Inspector brought in SOllE plans that VJere approved by the ARB which w=re the spanish sty Ie looking building. In past projects the definition of what was presented was not the sarre for town- houses but for patio hollEs. It was not ronnected at all, it was detached which is what a patio hone is. The design was the spanish sty Ie. Changing from a townhouse to a patio hOllE ronstitutes a change in the POD final developrrent plan because the overall approved density is 7.5. The density for a toenhouse is up to 9. The density for a patio hollE is 7.0 for the maximum nurrber of units per acre. A decision needs to be made now because the overall project is phased so that the retention and the recreation falls in that first Phase and therefore, there is going to be less units per acre. This pro- ject was intrcx1uced to the Conmission at the last rreeting and the Cbrrmission realized that it needed to go through the Staff and the Plarming and Zoning Board and then if it is approved on these levels it will need to go back. to the Corrrnission only to notify them that a decision had been made. The controversy carre in the interpretation of the definitions of patio hOllES and townhouses in the Winter Springs Code section 44.85.2. He asked for the City Attorney's opinion on the definitions. The points of the final developllEnt plans that he had requested to be reviewed VJere requested because of the change from what he thought was a townhouse to a patio hollE. The developer rontended that he is not making a change and for that reaso~ the Staff rerorrrrended approval of the alterations and arrendnent. He stated from the plamllng roncerns, he still has the sarre roncerns that he had before and he was over ruled by the rest of the Staff. PIANNrnG & zoornG BOARD MTh~ _ES January 22, 1986 Page 2 Cllainnan 8Iredley asked Peter Cbwell to display the previous final development plan so that the Board rrembers could look over the plans. O:1ainnan 8Iredlev said that the Board has to make a finding of fact as to whether the pro- posed plan oonstitures a change in the preliminary developrrent plan.. If this is nob .the case the Board can proceed, but if it is the case then the Board has to go backto .the original pre- liminary developnent plan. _ Cllainnan 8Iredley nade the motion that the proposal does not constitute a change in the prelim- inary developnent plan . _ Se<:::qnded by Cene Ibnran. Vote: All aye. . M:>tion cprries. Cllainnan 8Iredley said that the next step is to review the proposal and the Staff's recommenda- tion to detennine whether or not the change is substantially consistent with the approved final developrrent plan. If the Board finds that it is consistent, the Board nay approve it and that would be the end of the application, or the Board may approve it with m:xlifications. If the Board finds it is not substantially consistent with the previously filed preliminary developrrent plan, tre Board then would make a recornrrendation to the City Corrmission for their final action. The next step is to detennine whether or not is the change substantially con- sistent with the previously approved final development plan. Bill Hoe1beck said that there is no change in the plat for phase I, other than the fact that they have taken out 5' or 6', 7' or 8' betv.am the houses. He said that it is their feeling that this rreets the qualifications of a tCMIihouse or a patio hone as stated in the code. He said that it rreets both qualifications. Gene Ibnnan asked what is the minimum distance between one house and the ajoining lot line in the new proposal. Bill Hoelbeck said he thinks tre least distance would be 5 I with the exception of the Augusta M:>del if a custoner chooses a fireplace then the fireplace would stick out from the side 2 more feet. Gene Ibnnan said there could be 3' feet or less between the wall of one house and the ad- joining lot line wall or the overhang. Miller M:::Ca:rthy said since these are individual as cpposed to the attached hones that were approved, they can't tell which hone the custoner will buy to go that specific lot. So the engineers have tried to place the various horres on the lots. He stated that 2 of the houses need wider lots. Cllainnan 8Iredley said the next item is to detennine whether or not the change is substantially consistant with the approved final developnent plan. To detennine whether or not it is substantially consistent hinges on whether or not these units are defiable as townhouses and the drawings clearly indicated attached townhouses. If the Board detennines that the pro- posed change sirrply changes the architecture of the style of tCMIihouse and its just a different kind of a tCMIihouse, then the Board can determine that the change is substantially consistant then the Board can act on this nON. If the Board detennines that the lIDits can- not be defined as townhouses, that they are in fact patio hones, then its obvious that the change is not consistent with the plan. Chainnan 8Iredley said that the code defines patio hones as single-family dwelling lIDits with a private outdoor living area, side walls of which may be party or lot line walls and having a minimum twohour fire rating. Patio hones are designed and constructed to be individually owned and are sometines referred to as cluster houses, single-family attached ~lling lIDits, atrium houses or court garden houses. PIANNrnG AND ZrnrnG BOARD MINl ..;;S January 22', 1986 Page'3 Townhouses are self-contained dNelling units located sid:; by side with no units located al:ove or below one another, designed and constructed so that the units may be individually owned. Townhouse units are to be separated by party or lot line walk and shall have a minimum 2 hour fire rating. In his reading of the definition there is another difference and it is that patio hones may not have party or lot line walls, where as tarm houses must have a party or lot line wall. The City does detennine that there is such a thing as a patio hone and a tarm house which are entirely separate kinds of construction or else would not be separate definitions or two kinds of densities for each type. In his personal opinion he considers these to be patio hones. Richard D=Fazio and Cene D::mnan agreed. Gene J:t>nnan stated that these are very fine looking patio hones, and he likes them better than the previous town houses. Bill Hoelbeck said that they have net the requirerrents for a town house. Peter ~ll stated that the under 44. 85.2, the standard definition of a to\&I1 house, which is nmlti-family, and the definition of nmlti-family is 3 or nore attached, so by this de- finition a town house is oonsidered multi-family project. Chainnan Srredley said that in the definition for patio hones, it ~ays specifically single- family dwelling units. It does not rrention anything about llulti -family dwelling units. The City Attorney indicated in his definition that a town house does not have to rreet the requirerrent of individually CMned and tOtmhousesarelocated in multi-family areas. This is another point that there is a substantial change. Gene J:t>nnan said that there are a nurrber of ti.rres the code refers to patio horres and other ti.rres when the code refers to towrllDuses. 'IWo specific examples are in the definitions section where they are listed differently. The intended aifferecne is spelled out when it gets down to the site developnent standards on the allowable maximum density and height limitations placec on the two different types of structure. The intent of the code is that the two are different. Miller M:::Carthy stated that in June 1984, Iecesse bought 33 acres from the developer. In atterrpting to get final approval in O:::tober they were confronted with the decision by the City to dc:Mn zone Imara Construction property from 12 units per acre to 4 units I;er acre. 'Ihey extended the closing date until January and atteIrpted to decide whether they could build as they had purchased at 12 units :Fer acre. 'Ihey had agreed with the developer to build 10 units per acre and they \tJere told by the City Attormy to build 8 units per acre or less, so they submitted the plans at 7.5 units per acre. They had some difficulty with St. Johns Water Managenent district which delayed the closing until May. They broke ground in July and in August ran into sone water problems and decided to withdraw this project and see whether their engineering and cBrainage plans \tJere adequate to deal with this property. During that tine they went back to the marketing feasibility people to ask them about whether the hones would sell as they eJq?ected so that they could make a profit. Their advise was to go to a detached unit. He said that Mr. Schordorf, Mr. Rutman and Mr. Hoelbeck carre into the City Plarmer and told him that they were going to hire another architect and design a new plan. They said they were going to detach the units as reCOITlITl':mded by the leal Estate people, and he said that the City Plarmer told them that in his opinion there is no substantial change - go ahead. So they carre to pull a building pennit and couldn't. So this is why they are pre:sentmg this proposal to the Plarming and Zoning Board. Richard L'eFazio asked the City Planner what is the difference in the number of units per acre for both plans, and is this a better plan than what was previously approved. Peter <h<vell said that the nurrber of units per acre has not changed. They are building the sane nurrber of units as on the original plan. The individual units he feels to be a better PLANNING AND ZCNING MINUI'ES January'22, 1986 Page 4 plan. The qlEstion and ooncern is the closeness of the units and density by the code. Cene Ibnnan made the rrotion that the Board finds that there is substantial change in the approved final developrrent plan. Seoonded by Chainnan Srredley. Discussion on the rrotion. Richard DeFazio asked could the Board make a change in the plan with rrotion. Without having to go through a public hearing. Chainnan SnEdley said that if this rrotion is passed, the Board must forward to the City Corrmission reoormendation whether to approve the proposed change as the developer has pro- posed, approve it with m:xlifications or deny it. The Board has no rights to a public hearing. If the rrotion does not pass then the Board has the pcMer to approve it or approve it with rrodifications. If the Board disapproves it, the developer can go to the City Corrmission with an appeal. Chainnan Srredley e:xplained 44.09 of the City Code, since there was only three rrembers of the Board present. Richard D3Fazio said that what this seems to hinge upon is whether the Board should vote on 'Whether this is. a townhouse or a patio horre, then proceed on with whether tI.he Board wants to approve it as a Patio hone. Cllainnan Srredley said that if the Board cannot make a decision as to whether there has been a substantial change then the Board cannot go on to the next issue which is whether or not the Board can approve this to the City Corrmission. The only reason .to approve it to City Conmission is if there is a substantial change. The only way that the Board oould oontinue the discussion as to whether or not this is approvable is to pass this rrotion 3-0 or 0- 3. Vote on rrotion: All aye. lvbtion carries. Cllainnan Srredley said that the Board needs to decide whether or not the proposed change as submitted or approving the change with m:xlification or denying or rea::>rmending the denial of the change. Chainnan Srredley asked the City Planner in regard to action by the Board towards approval of m:xlification or denial, what was the Staff reoormendation. Peter Co~ll stated that the majority of the Staff reoormended approval for the plan, but he was the decinding vote. Richard DeFazio asked Miller M:::Carthy would he change to 7 units per acre. Mr. McCarthy said no. Cene Ibnnan made the rrotion that the Board recolllTEIld denial of the requesto.for rrodification to approve the final developrrent plan. Seoonded by Richard DeFazio for discussion. Chainnan SnEdley asked the City Planner of his opinion as to 'Whether the Board oould reoorrrrend approval of the final developrrent plan for Phase I, and a detennination that the product is patio horres and that the overall density of the project Phases I, II, and III would be no rrore than 7.0 units per acre. Peter Co~ll said what the Board is asking for is an approval with rrodification. To approve the new style of unit which the proposal would be determined to be a patio ho1re for an overall density of 7.0 units per acre would be oonsistent with the code and would be accep- table . Richard DeFazio withdrew his seoond. lvbtion failed for lack of a seoond. Cene Ibnnan asked what happens if Iecesse just builds Phase 1. P~rNG AND ZCNING MINUI'FS January 22, 1986 Page 5 Peter ~ll stated that it would be the sane circumstance as Woodstream. Where there is an approved final developnent plan with at the end of the first year would go null and void leaving the project to return to the old preliminary developrrent plan which would be at 12 units per acre if they did not ask for and receive an extension to that plan. If it went null and void after an extention it would decline both the preliminary and final developrrent plan. Miller McCarthy said that what he had suggested was that the Board approve Phase I and require that they rone back in for approval on Phase II and III. .;).>> SrretUey said the Board cannot redetennine 1 density in Phase I for something and then zone PhaseIl and III for sorrething else. He said what the Board can do is approve Phase I as submitted, make a determination that the units are patio hones, and that the density for this develop- rrent would be 7.0 units per acre, and specifically state that the units shown in Phases II and III are not approved which allows lecesse to build Phase I as it is approved right now, and Phases II and III would have to be rrodified to fall within the 7.0 units per acre and would have to build patio horres unless they rone in and ask for a change in the final develop- rrent plan. Bill Eagan gave a sumary presentation. - Gene Ibnnan made the rrotion to that the Board determines the units are patio horres and falls under the patio horre designation in the rode. Seronded by Chainnan Smedley. Vote: All aye. MJtion carries. _ Cene IX>:rman made the rrotion to reromrend approval of the proposed alterations to the approved final developrrent plan, proposed alterations dated January 7, 1986, of the approved final developrrent plan with the rrodification that Phase I may be developed as submitted, that Phases II and III may be developed only so that the overall density of Phases I, II and III be not greater than 7.0 units per acre. Seconded by Chainnan Smedley. Vote: All aye. MJtion carries. The rreeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Iespectfully Submitted, U lfL~'1~. /"'. uJ Lh~" MaJ:y Wllso , Secretary Planning zoning Board WV/mh