Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 05 20 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes " e ... . " - PLANN I NG AND ZOO I NG BOARD MEET I NG May 20, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chainman Hopkins at 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS: David Hopkins, Chainman, Present Martin Trencher, Present John Ferring, Absent David McLeod, Vice-Chainman, Present Grace Anne Glavin, Present CITY OFFICIA,,=S: D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coordinator G. Kern, Acting City Planner APp-r9_'l~L9.Ll:linu!!~~_Qf A!;!r'iJ_1L_~~2~____________.____ ________ __ ____u_ __H______ ______ Hopkins stated that this will be tabled to the next meeting as two members of the Board were absent for that meeting and cannot vote on approval. Ann~~~date of Zoning Map: LeBlanc said this is an annual update scheduled for the last meeting of May each year and will go to the Commission at their first meeting in June for approval. LeBlanc went over the annexations and zoning changes taken place over the past year. He pointed out the parcel of land at the corner of Hayes Road and S.R. 434 which was annexed into the City and has a zoning of C-1. The next was the property where the Batting Cage is on Belle Avenue next to Winter Springs Elementary School, and two lots off of Natures Way/South of Seminole Pines. LeBlanc also stated that there will probably be a new map once the Comprehensive Plan is approved and the code is reworked to fall into compliance with the Comp. Plan; we have new land use designations that will not fit in the current map such as mixed use. Discussion. Trencher moved recoomend approval of the update of the zoning map with the stipulation that the minutes of this meeting do not have to be approved before this goes before the Commission. Seconded by Glavin. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Rev i ew QL the F lor i da Col!ntD'_Ql uJLtl~(ti~ijQr:L!::i~~r:: i I]g l__ __ ___ ______uu_ ________h ___ Kern stated that the Board has received his memo and a map regarding this item. Mediation was held on Tuesday, May 5, 1992, what was tentatively arrived at is represented on the map. Tract 1 which was the initial site of the Guest Cottages, located near the clubhouse, approximately 8 acres, a maximum number of units is 24 units or 3 units per acre. Tract 3, west on Winter Springs Boulevard, approximately 6 acres, a maximlm 18 units, located just above the 8th hole. Tract 4, is another 3 acres which was indicated as Guest Cottages, 4 acres maximum with a maximum of 3 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum of 12 units located south of hole 9. Tracts 5 & 6, south part of Northern Way, this is approximately 3200 1.f., what has occurred here is the tentative location of 4 single family dwelling units; one by the creek near the green of the 5th fairway and 3 other homes - one in line with Shetland Ave. and two east of Shetland and west of Florida Power easement; those locations were selected as so they would e , ",." - ,. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 20, 1992 Page 2 not block the view of the golf course fram persons residing along Northern Way and Winter Springs Unit I I I. Tract 7 is approximately 3 acres with 6 units maxirrun, Irore than 1 ikely the 1-2 units wi 11 be toward the green and 2, 3 or 4 units toward the tee. Finally what we are referring to as the "Hooker Buffer" area between the Country Club and the Hooker parcel Sl and right near the 9th green currently is; the owner plans to Irove the green and make it a straight shot, which will give him 2 1/2 acres maximum of 7 units. . Kern stated that overall what was done was an attempt to mediate away fram the Irotel/hotel type units that the residents clearly did not want. These tracts of land were not originally designated to be single family homes but this is probably the best for the Tuscawilla residents. Judge Edwards, who presided over the n~diation felt it was definitely the best alternative for both sides. Kern said that is all there is to report as of now, it is in Attorney Kruppenbacher's hands, and that he is trying to reach him for an update. Trencher asked who put forth this proposal. Kern stated it was evolved fram both sides. Trencher asked what impact would 71 single family units be on the whole PUO. Kern stated that in tenns of roads they are so dispersed that the current level of service around Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard is at such a level that there will be no impact on traffic at all. Kern stated that these 71 units are an absolute maximlln, and that there probably will be less because of wetland areas etc. Trencher also asked if there are any other areas in the PUD that would appear to be a. problem. Kern stated that the other areas were handled in the 1990 ~diation, as far as we can see, 1 don't see another problem. Trencher brought up the matter of the residents of Tuscawi lla . wanting a rezoning of the whole PUD, and that when it came up before this Board the Board tableJ the matter until this latest ~diation was final. My question is is the rezoning of Tuscawilla a Jll..Ite issue or do we have to bring it back and deal with it because we actually tabled it at that point in time pending the litigation. Discussion. Glavin stated that the Board should wait until the ~diation is finalized before the rezoning issue comes back before the Board. The Board was in agreen~nt. Glavin asked how was the issue resolved fram Guest Cottages to single family homes. Kern stated that he was not sure as he was not present in the first ~eting of the ~diation, that he and Attorney Kruppenbacher and Attorney Brickelmeyer were involved in the second session of mediation; he stated that he did not know what the initial strategy was to solve the issue. Trencher asked Kern to ask the City Attorney to give this Board a letter or appear in person as to the genesis of thinking behind the settl~nt as to why it - . -~~ ..~~,"""-''''''''',~ "~~'Y'.''!1'''"~~ - e Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 20, 1992 Page 3 was in the best interest of the City etc. The Board asked for more infonmation as to how the settlement agreement was made. Hopkins asked about this coming before the Board for a land use designation change fran recreation/golf course to single family hanes. The Board discussed what were the setbacks and home sizes for the pr"oposed single family units involved in the mediation. Trencher stated that this is the time for any details to be made, and if we want to look at each piece of property now because they do not fall into an existing group of homes that are locked into a group of deed restrictions, now is the tinltl before the documents were drawn up and become part of the agreement. Discussion. Glavin stated that this is "fresh" residential property and any other PUD designations as they stand do not apply to this property and it is up to son~ne, as the City Commission, to be specific in terms of their knowledge of what they are agreeing to with the other side of this mediation if those certain kinds of restrictions within the PUD designations are a part of the settlement agreement. I think that the private planning of the owner of the property needs to be meshed imnediate ly into what the City's thinking is on zoning, PUO amendnent, whattwel~ it is called, but I think there needs to be some very good representation of the residents of the City, and if this body is not going to have the chance to discuss it and make recommendations to the City Commission, then I think the City Carrnissioners need to be well aware of what the deal is in tenms of their responsibility in looking carefully on how it is going to be set up. McLeod stated that this Board should be a part of this and make a recommendation to the Commission as to what perhaps should be put into it, I really feel that this should have the input of the P & Z, the previous settlement in 1990 you have been talking about really came out of P & Z Board's recommendations about the commercial property going on the outside of the PUC. Glavin asked if the Commission could be n~de aware of using this Board for reviewing the agreement; she also stated that it would be good for the residents of this City to know more went into this decision rather than just legal expertise, as to the t~chnica1 aspects such as setbacks and such. Kern said that he would look into that for the Board. Hopkins stated that the preliminary engineering would cane before this Board and at that time the setbacks etc. could be addressed. Trencher stated that when the developer canes before this Board with the preliminary engineering it will be after the fact, the settlement agreement will already have been signed and I think we will have limited rights at that point, and this should happen before the agreement is signed. Trencher asked Kern to communicate to the City Manager and Commission and City Attorney, our concerns that because this property is totally undesignated property and does not have all the accruements necessary 1 ike property a 11'~ady designated and dealt with in the PUO, that those issues be discussed and becane e - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 1992 Page 4 part of the agreement, before the developer comes up with his preliminary engineering, I would like to put that in a form of a motion. Glavin asked about the effect of this on the Comprehensive Plan as far as the designations of these parcels. Kern stated that there will have to be an amendment to the Comp. Plan, it will have to be noted as to how many acres are being devoted to single fanily hones and denote on the map the location on the parcels, and in terms of housing data it will have to relate to the traffic data etc. it will have to relate to a 11 the 1 and use and data. I wi 11 bas ica 11 y have to show the need for these hon~s in terms of the population growth in Winter Springs. Hopkins stated that there is a motion is there a second. Trencher repeated his motion that the request is that the City Attorney, City Manager or City Commission indicate to them our concerns that we need to address the appropriate issues concerning the use of that property in relationship to the PUD as part of the settlement agreement rather than after the fact.. Seconded by McLeod. Discussion. Glavin stated that perhaps the motion needs to be amended to state that in that the City of Winter Springs is required in it's Comp. Plan requil-enents to provide more data with regard to land use designations of these proposed 7 areas that it is necessary for the City at this time to have more specifically designated housing data on these 7 area and therefore for such reason the P & Z Board would request that such information be brought to the P & Z Board by Staff so that a recommendation can be made to the Commission to incorporate in the settlement agreement. Trencher an~nded his motion to state the Board requests that the City Manager and City Commission and Staff that one of the things that we would like included in the settlement is the data vis-a-vi the Comp. Plan as one of the various elements involved to be incorporated into the settlement. I would like to also add that I don't want my motion be misunderstood to step in or impede in any way of an agreement that was made basically in principal, I just think in this case we have to "cross our T's and dot our I's" ahead of time to get both parties, the developer and the City, to n~ke sure that everything is covered in this agreenent. Discussion. McLeod amended his second. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Kern reviewed the status of Parcel 51, the Hooker property. While it is not directly part of the settlement agreenent, we are looking to change the land use designation from condominiums to single family. The developer has indicated that the Hooker buffer area will be developed as single family homes contingent upon the Hooker property Parcel 51 being redesignated to single family. Kern stated that he has sent a certified letter to the owner, L.J. Hooker, notifying him that we intend to petition for a land use change. I have discussed this with hiln on the phone briefly and he indicated on the phone if he would have an opportunity to protest this. We have an approved final development plan for 196 condo's on parcel 51, but the permits have run out, they had a 12 month extension that expired in March. I just wanted the Board to know the status of that. '" "r"."$:rr "'~~: :0:;, ,.'~~.! 0 .~.;,j,.~ :' '-." -.:......""''"I''T....'''''~~ ',' ,. . 'e . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 1992 Page 5 Trencher course. property buffer. asked that in other words if this does not change then it remains golf Kern stated that the developer would have the right to develop the as rrulti-fami ly units on the 2 1/2 acres referred to as the Hooktw This is only for the Hooker buffer. Glavin stated that she would like go on the record that she is in no way seeking to impede the or have this body in~ede the mediation process or not being personally critical of the City Attorney, I think he is doing a good job, I feel that it would be a public interest to the citizens of Winter Springs that the City Ccmnission present a nDre informed and educated view as to how they arrive at their decision making process. The Board was in agreement. Trencher stated on the record he would like to recognize Kern, the Staff, the consultants and everyone involved in the fine job they did on the Camp. Plan, it was an outstanding job; it is a. good strong Plan fOI~ the City to bui ld off of in the next ten years. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk