Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 02 03 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes - --- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, February 03, 1993 BQW) ~: David Hopkins, Chainman, Present Grace Anne Glavin, Vice Chainman. Present David McLeod, Present Tom Brown, Present John Ferring, Present ~ITY OFEICI_ALS: David A1amina, Bldg. Keith Bricklemyer, Atty. Greg Kern. City Planner Leonard Kozlov. Engineer Donald LeBlanc, L.D.C. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. The APproval of Minutes of January 20. 1993 Glavin moved to approve the minutes of McLeod. Vote: Hopkins, aye; Glavin, abstain; Brown, abstain. Motion carried. January 20, 1993. Seconded by aye; McLeod, aye; Fer ring , Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classification Interpretation Hopkins referred to the memo from the City Planner to the City Manager on January 21, 1993 concerning Tuscawilla Parcel 51 which discusses this interpretation. Kern stated that our Comprehensive Plan set up new land use classifications, as outlined at the bottom of the aforementioned memorandll1l, that are "slot" limits. The purpose was to assign land use classifications to existing developments in the City of Winter Springs. Generally, land use classifications specify a maximum allowable density in tenms of dwelling units per acre(dufacre), not usually a minimum. The Comprehensive Plan as it was adopted in April showed these slot limits. Kern asked for an interpretation on the land use classifications as presented in the Comprehensive Plan, that they represent a maximum allowable density within that land use classification and anything with lower density is an allo~ble use. Kern cited Tuscawilla Parcel 51 as an example, stating that it was originally set as Urban Density/Residential with a slot limit of 12 to 21 dwelling units per acre. If a development wanted to develop 6 du/acre on Parcel 51, this would be an allowable use as it does not exceed the set limit. Hopkins questioned if this concept was like "down zoning" and if the original intent of the density limits was to factor transition between developments, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan page 18 Policy 2.b. Hopkins had no problem with "down zoning" but was concerned about the impact of transition between the developments. Ferring questioned if, using this example, going from 12 to 21 to 6 du/acre would change the land use classification to moderate density. Kern stated that what Plan amencment. Kern the City is trying to avoid is a Comprehensive had conferred with Attorney Bricklemyer and I'" ~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, February 03, 1993 Page 2 Bricklemyer found no problem with Kern's interpretation. Kern added that in the discussion of Land Use Regulations(LDRs) the concern over transition between developments would be addressed through the buffering standards. Hopkins questioned page 18 Policy 2.a. of the Comprehensive Plan(Camp Plan) reference to "lot spli tt ing" and how it would apply wi th this eXaI'T(>le. Could the developer down zone this development and in addition split that lot to accommodate the rest of that density with this piece of property? LeBlanc answered that this could not happen because Parcel 51 has never been platted. Hopkins raised the same question if the property had already been platted. LeBlanc answered that what usually happens is that the property is replatted. In addition, for Tuscawilla there are same deed restrictions which prevent lot splits. Hopkins questioned the possibility of a multi dwelling unit within a single dwelling unit property due to the allowance of lot splitting. Kern answered that the Comp Plan would not allow this because the development still has a maximum allowable density of 21 dua and even if lot splitting was allowed each new lot would have to meet the same standards. LeBlanc assured the Board that in that situation there would be a conceptual plan brought before this Board for their approva 1 . McLeod questioned what would happen in the future and who would be protecting the people that have the properties adjacent to and the same property. Kern stated that using the LDRs there would be buffering standards between the two incompatible uses. Br icklemyer added that we may not want to allow lower density in an area designated for higher density. The standard structure of density limitations in the Camp Plan states up to "X aoount" units, then when a proposal is evaluated against the neighborhood and what the Camp Plan designates are, etc., and a decision is made which sets a precedence for the neighborhood. The current Camp Plan has high density defined at 9.1 to 12.0 dua, if the proposal is for 7.5 dua, would this be acceptable? There may be a need to make an amendment to the Camp Plan to set minimum density, which is unusual, or clarify that these slot limits are preferred density but that lower density could be permitted under circumstances providing that it is compatible wi th the neighborhood. It wi 11 need to be done in the Comp Plan and tailored in the LORs, as well. Hopkins asked Kern for his recommendation on how the City should proceed with this interpretation'? Kern stated that he felt it would be favorable for the whole development review process, to make a determination that lower density is an allowable use in a land use classification subject to review of the conceptual plan for that particular development. If there was a case where large incompatible - -- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, February 03, 1993 Page 3 land uses existed in te~ of density! as the conceptual plan is rev iewed there would be a rm.ndate for larger buffers as out! ined in URs. The City is trying to avoid COOl> Plan amenanents! if the proposed density is below the amount specified in the plan. Hopkins asked Kern to elaborate on the process of (~amp Plan amendments. Kern answered that the process is estirm.ted to take six to nine months. It would involve gathering inforrm.tion to explain the changes to the (~Plan-text,rm.p,etc to be discussed before this Board with public hearings in addition to the City Commission. It will be transmitted to DCA, then transmitted to various agencies for their review, back to DCA, then back to us in the fonn of an OCR report. We rm.ke the necessary changes, go through public hearing, and send it back to DCA for final approval. Due to the long process, it can only be done twice a year. The State is looking into ways of shorting the process. Ferring asked if the package to DCA could encompass several amendments at the same time to expedite the process. Kern explained that this is how he was handling the first set of amendments, he presently has sixteen issues. Bricklemyer again explained that if we have a development of 10 acres where the density was I dua, but they are in a designation that allows 6 dua, the potential still exists for someone to ask for that higher density. However, the developer would have to go through the process of coming before this Board in order to get it approved; new plat, conceptual plan, etc. Bricklemyer asked the Board to consider a situation where minimum density would not be advantageous, where there was an issue of an environmentally sensitive area within the property which would not allow the minimum density to be met. An example of 5 acres with a mininun densi ty of 9 dua would yield a mi nimum of 45 dwell ings! but due to the presence of the environmental sensitive area within the property, only 40 dwellings would fit this configuration. McLeod and Glavin raised the question of vested rights on this issue and Bricklemyer explained that vested rights would not be an issue because their approval must have came before the adoption of the Comp Plan. / Ferring asked Atty. Bricklemyer for his recommendation on this issue and Atty. Bricklemyer stated that he agreed with Mr. Kern's interpretation that the Camp PLan has set a rm.xinun density for a land use classification and that as long as each application is evaluated against all the planning standards. we would allow the rm.ximum if it fits or below the rm.ximum if it fits. McLeod restated Kricklemyef's comment to mean that the Camp Plan should only have rm.ximum densi ty, el iminate mininun dens i ty, and deal with each application on an individual basis to see if it meets the r' .~ Planning and Zoning Hoard Minutes Wednesday, February 03, 1993 Page 4 planning standards, without require them to slide out of the slot limi t. Ferring questioned the availability of a map showing the undeveloped parts of the City with their land use classification, which he felt would be helpful for further discussion on this issue. LeBlanc answered that the map would be prepared showing the undeveloped parts of the City with corresponding acreage and it would be brought before the Board at a future time. Hopkins stated that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classification Interpretation would be tabled to our next regularly scheduled meeting awaiting additional information. Land Development ReRulations Review - Chapter 2 Kern stated that the Planning and Zoning Board's role as the LocaL Planning Agency is to review the LDRs in order to implement the policies of the (:amp Plan. He explained that there needs to be a careful review of the existing codes, provisions of the Camp Plan, the draft LDRs, in order to arrive at UDRs which will reflect how we will enforce our Comp Plan. There is a l.1.){ Review SubcOO111ittee, consisting of LeBlanc, Kozlov, and ~self, which reviews chapter by chapter or section by section, calling in the appropriate staff members for cOO111ent. The necessary changes are made to the draft LDRs and provided to the City Manager, then brought before this Board. In addition, the definitions are being transferred to Chapter 1 to clarify any existing inconsistency. Glavin asked why, regarding Section 2.03.02, the density standards were not listed but refers to the Winter Springs Camp Plan. Kern answered that Land Developnent Model Code speci tied not to restate the definition of land use classification in terms of density and intensity in this section, that it should only be in the Camp Plan. However, densities are stated in a later section, found on our page 2- 10 of this draft LDRs. In addition she stated that if the Comp Plan was amended that this document would need reVISIon as well, and recOO111ended changing the title of colUTl'l 2 to read only "Density" and changing the footnote to read "Density allowable subject to developnent mininun requirements" after further input fran McLeod. Kern outlined Section 2.03.031 as basically being set up to explain hGW the uses are grouped together. Section 2.03.032 is basically out of model code which sets up generic or general uses-residential, institutional, outdoor recreational, professional service and office, general coomercial, high density c<mnercial, public service/utility, and industr ial . Sect ion 2.0].04 "Uses Allowed \\I i thi n Land Use Classifications", looks at each one of our land use classification and detennines which general uses are allowable In that land use class i f icat ion. (' ~. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, February 03, 1991 Page 5 Bricklemyer questioned on page 2-2 Section 2.03.031 "Whenever a use is not specifically stated in Section 2.03.04, the Planning and Zoning Board shall make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding the detennination", the Board and staff collaborated with input fran Glavin, McLeod, Hopkins, Bricklemyer and Kern, and collectively recommended the afor~ntioned changes. Kern introduced Section 2..03.032 'Types of Uses" which covers pages 2- 2 through 2-6. Hopkins questiom~d Section 11-lnsti tutional and asked where the City stood for the issue of preventing or encouraging those kinds of entities and their whereabouts. Kern answered that the Comp Plan states on page 21 Policy 2. "sites for new school are available in any land use classification". LeBlanc added that the State instituted that rule. Glavin questioned Section E-(~neral Commercial #7 and wanted to know why it was being deleted. Kern pointed out that it was being added. LeBlanc added that the maximum gross floor area should be changed to 1,250 square feet fran the stated 2,500 square feet. Kern agreed. Discussion ensued regarding Section E-General Commercial #19, produce stands, with the Board and staff. Points that were addressed were: which Board this issue who cane before, how is this issue handled presently-is building pennit issued, what are the costs for pennits, are any fees waived, etc. No detennination was made concerning this issue and Hopkins asked Kern to look into how other cities were addressing this issue regarding roadside stands and report back to the Board with his findings. Ferring asked why roadside stands was deleted from High Intensity Commercial and Kern answered that this was done to place it in an area which is more suitable based on the level of traffic generation. LeBlanc suggested that #4, Bars & Night Clubs. in High Intensity Commercial should be moved to General (:ommercial because these types of businesses are already in allowable land IJses for Commercial. Brown suggested an alternative method of review for upcomIng meetings which would allow for the movement of issues requiring substantial discussion to the end of the discussion, to produce a greater level of accomplishment for the agreed upon issues. Board agreed to adopt this recommended method at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Recording Secretary 8 February 1993