Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 07 24 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes . . /-- /-". ~ ~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES WORKSHOP July 24, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS: CITY OFFICIALS: David Hopkins, Chairman, Present David McLeod, Vice-Chairman, Present Grace Anne Glavin, Present Martin Trencher, Present John Ferring, Present J. Koch, Dir. Adm. / Compo Planning D. LeBlanc - Land Dev. Coord. Hopkins read a memo from City Attorney Kruppenbacher which related the role of the P & Z Board in reviewing the Tuscawilla PUD from a professional planning standpoint. To the extent professional planning recommended any changes and the City Commission desired to implement any changes, the Attorney would legally analyze the proposed changes. Trencher added that he had a conversation with Kruppenbacher this afternoon discussing the commercial property which was part and parcel to the settlement agreement. Kruppenbacher indicated to Trencher that all of the property should be considered in their discussions. At a later date, Kruppenbacher would render a legal opinion as to whether that or any other property can be dealt with from a zoning point of view. Moti Khemlani, President of the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association, addressed the Board. McLeod asked Khemlani if he had a typed listing of the proposals he and the residents wish the Board to consider. Khemlani said he did not have such a list but would get one together after this workshop. He now has a better understanding of the scope of changes regarding not including the property which was in the settlement agreement. The latest information from Kruppenbacher indicates this property must be included for review. Khemlani noted they are not talking about changing the Tuscawilla PUD plan, but rather changing the PUD classification. McLeod stated he wanted to see the information Khemlani is about to present in his perspective at this time, prior to input from other residents. Khemlani reiterated that the residents are at the workshop to separate the issue of the PUD plan from the PUD classification and changing that classification. McLeod asked Khemlani if he wanted to assign zoning classifications which currently exist within the City to Tuscawilla. Khemlani responded yes, noting the City has the right to change this zoning classification. McLeod said he understood that the Commission wanted the Board to look at the properties of the undeveloped properties only, not those already developed or those in the settlement agreement. Hopkins stated it was his opinion to look at the PUD and recommend to the Commission the best zoning and land use classifications from a planning standpoint without involving the legal aspects. McLeod said he asked a Commissioner this question because when the Board did this review earlier, the Board reviewed not only undeveloped properties but also developed portions to find out how they would fall into the current zoning classifications. The Board recommended at that time that the present zoning of the City would not allow itself without new zoning classifications to encumber (' fJ .. "" . . Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Minutes July 24, 1991 Page 2 the present pieces of developed property. Hopkins said he would get an answer to this question prior to the Public Hearing. Hopkins explained to the audience that the PUD is a speci{ic kind of zoning. Within that zone, there are different land use designations. Trencher added that the Board is free to discuss anything, but in the end, the Commission and the attorneys will step in and say you can't discuss Glen Eagle because they are building homes there and its a done project. From a practical point of view, the Board is discussing land where there is presently no structure. The definition of undeveloped versus property already brought before the Commission and given approval for construction is a legal issue and should not be addressed yet. The Board should really be discussing only property with no structures on it. Khemlani responded that Commissioner Partyka indicated that the residents would like to re-zone the PUD. Trencher asked about the status of the map being developed which would show the undeveloped parcels within the PUD. Koch brought forward and reviewed the current PUD map. Trencher said he wanted a more detailed map showing existing projects, projects in various stages of development noting the stage, type of housing and acreage. The Board needs to review the individual parcels. Koch stated the data is reviewed in tables and can be put on a map. The PUD map shown highlights the parcels involved in the settlement agreement. Khemlani stated he wanted the elimination of the PUD zone, replacing it with the normal existing zoning classifications. Would also like to see a Recreational zoning classification developed in the City. Hopkins asked Khemlani why he believes zoning would be better than the particular zone of the PUD. Khemlani stated that if the golf course is zoned recreational, you could not build a development on it. The residents want more restrictive classifications. Hopkins pointed out that a zoning classification can be changed just like a land use designation. Khemlani followed that the PUD classification was a fuzzy plan in 1971 and no longer makes sense. Further, the new PUD classification for the City is different from the Tuscawilla PUD classification. He stated the 1971 plan is flawed. Hopkins asked wouldn't a developer have the same rights under a particular zone to make a change. Khemlani said yes, but with a standard classification, it is the legislative authority of the City. The developer cannot take you to court if he wants to change it and the City doesn't want it. Glavin noted that the City can consider rezoning any square inch regardless of the presence of a PUD. She believed Kruppenbacher meant the Board can act upon any zoning issues; if such action exposes the City to lawsuit, that will come later. Trencher stated that the City is always open to lawsuit at any given -. --.. ... ~ Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Minutes July 24, 1991 Page 3 time. If the residents wish to change the character of the neighborhood, they must be willing to withstand the legal activity and expense. of their desire.. Ferring noted that the Board is looking at overall planning. Further, Ferring stated that city Planner Koch recommended keeping the PUD status quo but review and reinforce the codes. Khemlani noted that the Board needs to take into account what the Commission wants and what the residents want, not what Koch wants. Koch's recommendations must be weighed by the wishes and desires of the residents. Ferring replied that Koch is the City Planner and is hired to make recommendations for planning for the entire city. He will weigh very carefully her recommendations, they should not be dismissed. LeBlanc distributed tables to the Board outlining the lot sizes and setbacks for all subdivisions in Tuscawilla as of March 1989, along with a zoning classification requirements table. The lot sizes are minimum lot sizes. He noted the City currently doesn't have any R1-AAA dwellings. Glavin asked Khemlani if he could specify the areas within the PUD which the residents are concerned about. Khemlani noted the Greenbriar and Braewick areas are under strain since the developer has gone bankrupt. Trencher stated that it is unclear who would enforce the deed restrictions should the PUD get rezoned. Khemlani replied that they currently have such a problem as, for example, a bank granted approval for a house in which the garage was facing the wrong way, as the bank owns the property. Ferring asked Khemlani specifically about a parcel of land, Tuscawilla Unit 6, which has 248 single family residents and which would fall into R1-AA if rezoned. Khemlani was unsure about the exact zoning classification to be used there. McLeod stated that when the Board tried to tie parcels to the present classification, they were unable to do it. In order to rezone, the Board and the residents would have to come up with other zoning classifications. For instance, the present zoning doesn't cover patio homes, but the PUD zoning does. Glavin wanted to know if the table of Tuscawilla setbacks was set by the PUD zoning or by deed restrictions. There is a distinction between deed restrictions and City zoning. Deed restrictions are enforceable by those who are mutually benefited by those restrictions, possibly in Tuscawilla by an architectural review board. Confusion may result if the deed restrictions differ from the zoning classifications. Hopkins noted that the zones the City currently has are no longer adequate. Moving from a PUD to a zone may be moving from one problem to another. Trencher stated that no one has a good handle on the various deed restrictions throughout Tuscawilla. We need to again ask who will enforce these restrictions. Koch replied that when a majority percentage of lots is owned by the residents versus the developer, that group can take control of the ARB. They need to take legal action first to do this, it is not automatic. Glavin noted f"" ~ . ... Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Minutes July 24, 1991 Page 4 that zoning classifications could be setup that would conform to the deed restrictions of the individual sections which would thus enforce the restrictions. Joe Genova, 715 Addidas Road, made several general statements about various peripheral topics, including the favorable quality of life in Tuscawilla. Genova asked if the PUD is rezoned, what happens to the "PUDs within the PUD", for example the Tennis Villas. Can they ask for reclassification from a PUD to a residential area? Genova stated he didn't like the PUD designation, but wasn't sure about the proper course to take. Khemlani noted that the PUD was annexed into the city under certain provisos, including three schools and other amenities. He finds it interesting that the City is always willing to listen to a developer regarding the developer's vested rights but may not be responsive to homeowner's vested rights, specifically in the siting of schools. Derrick Taylor, La Vida Development, owner of Braewick, stated the developer has contributed substantial funds over the last several years to develop the Braewick project as approved by the City. Any effort to diminish the ability of La Vida development to develop their property as approved or any effort to diminish the value of the property through a land use amendment would be opposed. To suggest that land owners have fewer rights than home owners is indefensible. The PUD has multiple safeguards; it does not allow for a school on the Braewick property unless approved by the City. Braewick is approved for 225 additional townhouse units, and it is the hope of the developer to continue townhouse development. There is no effort by La Vida development to bring a school into this site. Ruben Levine, Greenbriar, moved to Tuscawilla for the favorable lifestyle. He wants to see no changes. He has no objections to development within Greenbriar provided the new homes conform to the existing ones. Richard Denney, 1056 Pebble Beach Circle, is a member of the Architecture Review Committee for Country Club Village. He noted that the City Planner wanted to keep the status quo in terms of zoning classifications as there are currently restrictions on the property. Further, each area within Tuscawilla is controlled by deed restrictions. If there is a ratio of developer's land to homeowners land, then it is necessary to have another authority to watch the developer till the homeowners can do it themselves by law. What the residents want is to stop the type of development which produced the shopping center concept and the hotel/motel concept on the golf course. Carol H. Woods, 670 Vistawilla Drive, asked about the map showing the undeveloped parcels in question. She felt the residents of the Chelsea Woods area have been victims of the PUD. The value of their homes is "going down the drain". They t-- ""'"" Ill" ~........ ".r Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Minutes July 24, 1991 Page 5 bought into a parcel zoned single family and now there is a commercial strip at the end of this property. How has the PUD protected us? Changing the PUD classification would provide some protection. Hal Hamrick, 1389 Ayreswood Court, asked if the PUD classification were replaced by individual zoning classifications, what happens to the thing which holds the PUD together in regards to landscaping, walls, bike paths. Hopkins noted the City would be responsible for those areas, including the creation of special taxing districts. Trencher noted that certain areas which look like public areas are not public but really belong to the homeowner's association. Glen Eagle is an example, as the wall surrounding the project belongs to the residents of Glen Eagle. The residents pay for the maintenance of the grass and the entranceway and this will not change if the area is rezoned. The main entranceway for the Tuscawilla development is in question; the developer owns it now but when they move out, it is unclear who would be responsible. Hamrick asked what the difficulty is in obtaining the original documents regarding the PUD. Glavin noted there is no mandatory homeowners association, beyond certain areas like Wedgewood Villas. No one can make a Tuscawilla resident pay money to maintain the entranceways and common areas, and by default, will fall upon the City and will become a taxing issue. The PUD documentation exists but may be haphazard in its definitions and descriptions. We need to define what properties are in question and what would be the effects of rezoning. McLeod confirmed that rezoning may result in the entire development losing its continuity unless a strong homeowners association holds Tuscawilla together. LeBlanc commented that the City Manager met with the homeowners association and agreed that at some point in the future, the City will maintain the median areas, but not to the degree to which it is being maintained now. There are only two commercial areas in the PUD, one is now in existence and is 1.4 acres at the intersection of Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard and the second is that portion east of the creek, 167 acres just south of SR 434. Koch stated that since there is no mandatory central association to hold things together, if each of the units took control of their own area, an appointee from each unit could be part of the overall association to form a body which would represent the entire development. Glavin replied the problem would be in requiring membership, since there is no mandatory homeowners association. You can't require 100\ compliance, as it is a covenant running with the land and if the land was purchased without this covenant, mandatory membership can't be enforced. Koch replied this may not take care of the cost issue but would take care of deciding that each unit speaks for itself. Ferring noted that the east side of Tuscawilla has several homeowner association groups which are mandatory and the rest which are voluntary. In Oak Forest, there are 800 homes and they have a voluntary association which allows several things to be done, including f" ~ " '10 ^"'II", . .. . Planning and Zoning Board Workshop Minutes July 24, 1991 Page 6 setting up a special taxing district. This is accomplished if you can get 55' of the homeowners to agree to the special taxing district to bring in the funds to maintain common areas. Khemlani stated he has an ordinance in development with Tom Freeman, based upon one in Seminole County, which states that any group of people with the same concerns about common areas can get together. Isabel Laub, 1372 Blue Spruce Court, stated that the PUD is in a muddle and needs to be reviewed and straightened out. Also, Winter Springs will not be left "holding the bag" when they need to provide services. Hopkins replied that the amenities in Tuscawilla are so much further than what they are in the rest of the city that the expense will be proportionately higher. Trencher stated we need another workshop prior to the Public Hearing, to get Khemlani's responses regarding the individual parcels. Hopkins scheduled another workshop for next Wednesday (7/31/91). McLeod noted he wanted to see more of the Tuscawilla residents attend the next meeting to get a broader measure of all the residents' desires on this issue and realize all the interrelated issues brought out by rezoning. Herbert Levine, Wedgewood, stated Khemlani represents a large number of the residents, including their wishes. He is concerned about any large tax increases for maintenance of the common areas. Hopkins asked Khemlani what percentage of the Tuscawilla residents he represents. Khemlani replied member$hip has increased to about 1300 residents, representing about 50\ of the total population. John Morgan, 977 Troon Trace, is asking that the residents don't have "an Alhambra" in Tuscawilla. Hopkins rescheduled the Public Hearing for August 21st. adjourned at 10:10 p.m. The meeting was Respectfully Submitted, ~AU;,/ Gregory Kern, Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Board