Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 02 17 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes - - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, February 17, 1993 BQ\RO MENBERS: David Hopkins, Chainman, Present Grace Anne Glavin, Vice Chainman, Present David McLeod, Present Tam Brown, Present John Ferring, Present CITY OFFICIALS: David Alamina, Bldg. Keith Brickl~er, 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 February 03. 1993 Glavin moved to approve the minutes of January 20, 1993. Seconded by Brown. Vote: all - aye. Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classification Interpretation This issue was tabled fram the previous meeting of February 03, 1993. Kern stated that he had spoke with Tim Canon, Project Review Manager at lX'A, regarding how rmny plans have mininun and TlBXinun dens i ty limits. His answer was that one fourth to one fifth of the plans he reviewed used minimum density associated with their land use classifications. However, DCA is only concerned with the maximum densities, they are not concerned with the enforcement of the minimum densities. He recommended that if there were any changes, that a fonmal amendment to the Camp Plan be made to make the interpretation cl ear. Glavin and Hopkins asked for clarification of why this issue has been brought before the Board. Kern answered that the City is looking for concurrence fram this Board to start the process of making an amendment to the Camp Plan to eliminate the minimum density limits for land use classifications. In addition, this provision would not eliminate the review by this Board of any development. Discussion ensued regarding the table and map of vacant property in the City with their land use classifications. The acreage shown is gross acreage. Kern noted that item LI) Parcel 15A should r~ad UOR for land use classification not MOD. f)iscussion ensued regarding the advantages and disadvantages to making an amenanent. Kern noted that if no changes are made to the plan and a developer wants to build at a lower density level than stated by the (~amp Plan, the amendment process to revise the land use map will place the developer on hold for 6 to 9 months. The major advantage is that Camp Plan would be clear and without ambiguity to reduce possibility of law suits due to misinterpretation. Glavin questioned the impact to the City of eliminating mininun density. Hopkins stated that he felt that the intent of minimum density would have been reserved for a certain property as part of an f"". .~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, February 17~ 19Yj Page 1. overall plan which fonnulated such revenue as taxes and he was concerned that by el iminat ing the minirrun ciens i ty there would be a reduction of income to the City. McLeod agreed with Hopkins on his statanent. McLeod rroved to make a recarmendation to amend the COOl> Plan's land use classifications by eliminating minimum density. Seconded by Glavin. Vote: Ferring-aye; Brown-aye; Hopkins-nay; Glavin-aye; and McLeod-aye. Motion carried. Land Development ReRulations Review - Chapter 2 This issue was tabled fran the previous meeting of February 03, 1993. Page 2-1 Section 2.02.01 Administrative Interpretations McLeod pointed out the phrase "this rrodel" and questioned if perhaps another name would be appropriate. LeBlanc and Kern conferred and suggested "u:R" (Land Developnent Regulations). McLeod questioned the need of verifying the existing Codes and Regulations against this draft document to ensure that all areas are covered. Kern answered that this process was already cOOl>leted in the preparation of Chapter 2. The process for Chapter 2 alone took 12 hours and would not be possible in a public forum. He recarmended that the aforanentioned process be performed prior to the meeting and the inconsistencies brought forward for discussion. Page 2-2 Section 2.03.031 Generally Paragraph 1 Hopkins asked for clarification of the following: "Unless otherwise specifically stated, a given land use may be allowed in rrore than one (1) classification." Kern answered in land uses (i.e., parks within recreation) may be allowed in more than one classification. Parks may be in residential and carmercial land use classifications. Paragraph 2 Glavin questioned if perhaps the phrase "accessory uses and structures" to be reversed to maintain the same order as the section outlined in Division L.04. Kern agreed to make that change. Paragraph 3 Discussion ensued regarciing the PlanninR and determining allowable uses. Ferring reminded previous meeting a chanRe was made. Hopkins the Board the best rewording of that phrase. Zoning Board's role in Hopkins that at the asked Kern to return to ,- ~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, February 17, t~93 Page 3 Page 2-2 Section 2.03.032 Types of Uses A. Residential 1. Glavin questioned the location of the definition of accessory apartments. Kern and Hopkins answered page 2-23. Page 2-3 Section 2.03.032 Types of Uses A. Residential 2. Hopkins questioned this area and due to changes proposed to the table in Section 2.03.051 recommended that this issue be revisited after the revisions have been made. Glavin questioned if housing type is defined. Kern answered that a definition will be provided in Chapter t. Page 2-3 Section 2.{}J.032 Types of Uses B. Institutional Glavin recommended the el imination of "halfway hous ing" and "and all other similar institutional uses. Kern agreed. Page 2-3 Section 2.03.032 Types of Uses C. OUtdoor Recreational Hopkins recommended the el iminat ion of "and all similar outdoor recreat ional uses". Clav in recammended the elimination of "and similar recreational or quasi-recreational activities inconsistent wi th the allowable outdoor recreational uses described." Kern agreed and reiterated that if a use is not listed under Outdoor Recreational as pennitted then it would be brought before this Board. Hopkins asked for clarification on conditional uses and marinas. Bricklemyer pointed out that perhaps the bigger issue is what are the conditional uses, how are they processed in general, and what are the standards for approval and denial. Kern answered that it would be covered in Chapter to. Glavin advised that if not already provided that a listing of standards would be outlined which stated what would came before this Board versus Board of Adjustment, etc. Kern answered that Florida State Statute 163 does state the role of the Board as the local planning agency. Bricklemyer recannended that this issue of conrtitional uses be revisited as a separate issup.. Hopkins asked for a rewording for the last sentence and it will be revisited at the next mPeting. Page 2-3 Section .l.03.0>2 Types of Uses D. Professional Service and Office Glavin questioned the use of the word "dispatching" to infer trucks. Kern answered that the inference is to radios. "" ~ Planning and Zoning Hoard Minutes Wednesday, ~ebruary 17, 19~j Page 4 Page 2-4 Section 2.03.032 E. General Coomercial Brown reiterated that the Combination gasoLine sale Typps of Uses Board had previous I y agreed on It7 to chanRe. and food marts. the square footage to 1.250. Brickl~er and Hopkins suggested changing #19. stands, to a conditional use and set specific stands. he had been directed to report back to this ~ard regarding this issue on how it was addressed in other Roadside produce Kern added that on his findings Ci ties. Ovideo states it is a prohibited use and requires a special exception pennit. The application is reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, sent to Council for issuance. Casselberry sets it up as a prohibited use and it needs a Board of Adjustment variance which is the pennit.Longwood sets it up as a pennitted use, but stated that they would like to readdress this issue. In Longwood, it is acceptable in every land use classification except a gas station. Site is reviewed by PLanning and Zoning Board and same rpstrictions may be applied. Kern agreed to rename roadside produce stands with a description and state that it is a conditional use. better Page 2-5 Section 2.03.032 Types of Uses F. High Intensity Coomercial Kern stated that in the previous meeting it was agreed to move 1t4 Taverns & Bars to General Coomercial. Discussion ensued regarding U8 outdoor arenas. Hopkins asked Kern to readdress the language and structure for #8 and it wilL he revisited at the next meeting. Page 2-5 Section 2.Uj.032 G. Public Safety/Utility LeBLanc and Hopkins suggested irrportant publ ic services" in Types of Uses deleting the phrase after the first sentence. "essential or Glavin, Brickl~er, and Hopkins recoomended that the order of Sections 2.03.04 and 2.03.03 be reversed tor better continuity. Page 2-6 Section 2.03.032 Types of Uses H. Industrial Glavin recoomended elimi nat ing "landt i lis collect ion and hand Ling centers." and hazardous waste Page 2-6 through 2-9 Section 2.03.041 Kern stated that the institutional classifications can bp moditied to omit the Glavin suggested further delineated of the use classifications. i.e., non-conmercial Rustic Residential use in aiL appropriate statAment in parentheses. uses al Lowed wi thin Land ou tdoor rpcrpa t i ona I and " - -, Planning and Zoning ~ard Minutes Wednesday, February 17. 1991 Page 5 ccmnercial outdoor recreational. Discussion ensued regarding a revision to fonmat for this section. Hopkins asked Kern to review Section 2.0'3.04 and it will be revisited at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~,-(-.IL @~\.-+<-, ()eanine Porter Recording Secretary 18 February 1993