HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 06 02 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Wednesday, June 2, 1993
Board Members:
David Hopkins, Chairman, Present
Grace Anne Glavin, Vice-Chairman, Present
David McLeod, Present
Thomas Brown, Present
John Ferring, Present
City Official(s):
Keith Bricklemyer, Land Use Atty.
Greg Kern, City Planner
Donald LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coord.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
Approval of the Minutes ofMav 19, 1993
Ferring made a motion to approve the minutes of May 19, 1993, seconded by Glavin. Vote:
McLeod - abstain, due to absence; Glavin-aye; Hopkins-aye; Brown-aye; and Ferring-aye.
Motion carried.
Annexation Request - 925 West State Road 434 (that property to the immediate west of
ABC Liauor)
LeBlanc stated that the staff had no problem with this annexation, that it is contiguous to the City.
Mr. Patel is out of town. F erring asked if an inspection was done on this property due to the fact
that there is a pre-existing building. LeBlanc answered that no inspection was made. Ferring ask
if there were any staff comments in writing about this issue. LeBlanc answered no. Hopkins
asked if there are any existing code violations with this building. LeBlanc answered no. McLeod
asked if the adjacent properties were in the City presently. LeBlanc answered that only the
property to the east is part of the City and property to the west is part of Seminole County or
Casselberry. Glavin asked if there is one commercial tenant or several commercial tenants at this
location and did we know the name of the tenant. LeBlanc answered that as far as he knows they
are two offices but only one tenant, and he did not know the name of the tenant. Glavin asked
LeBlanc if he knew the age of the structure. LeBlanc answered that it was not sure, only that it
was pre-existing since his tenure, which has been six years, it appears to be ten to fifteen years old
by appearance. Glavin stated that she felt it would be a good policy statement due to the
"grandfathering" rule may be bringing a potential problem into the City, to have both a building
and a fire inspection performed on existing structures prior to the annexation of the property they
reside on. Hopkins asked if this annexation was the result of petition of the owner or by request
of City staff LeBlanc answered that the applicant felt that the County was not providing
response time on a timely basis for police calls.
Glavin made a motion of this annexation of a certain parcel owned by Mr. Ramesh M. Patel
located at 925 West State Road 434 be tabled by this Board until a building code and fire
inspection could be arrange on this property along with an interview with the commercial tenant
for its intended use. Seconded by Ferring. Vote: all-aye. Motion carried.
Planning & Zoning lrd Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 2
McLeod added that he felt that if the Board agreed with pre-inspection of building on properties
prior to annexation that this procedure should be added to the annexation request. LeBlanc
answered that it will become part of the procedure going forward.
Hopkins suggested changing the order of the agenda to reverse the Public Hearing and
Determination of Vested Rights Special Use Permit with the Rezoning Request in anticipation of
a lengthly discussion on the Rezoning Request. Brown made a motion to reverse the order of the
agenda to have Public Hearing and Determination of Vested Rights Special Use Permit next,
followed by the Rezoning Request. Seconded by McLeod. Vote: all-aye. Motion carried.
Hopkins closed the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board and opened the Public
Hearing.
Public Hearing and Determination of Vested Rights for Parcel14C, Parcel 61, ParcellS,
Parcel 80. and the Lake Jesup Property of the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development.
Kern stated that there is an application filed with the City; the applicant is Vision Developers, the
owner is Winter Springs Development Joint Venture. The application is for a Vested Rights
Special Use Permit. They are basing their application on two types of approval previously
granted by the City. Firstly, Ordinance 64 dated on 10111/71 and secondly, the settlement
agreement dated on 09111190. Kern reviewed with the Board the FINDINGS OF FACT as
outlined in the draft order before the Board as follows:
1. Application was made on April 23, 1993 and deemed complete on same date.
2. The property in question is Parcel 14C, Parcel 15(1), Parcel 15(2), Parcel 15(3), Parcel 61,
Parcel 80, and the Lake Jesup Property of the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development, as
described in exhibits to the settlement agreement.
3. The owner acquired the Property by Warranty Deed as signed on April 21, 1988, and
recorded with Seminole County on April 25, 1988, prior to the Comprehensive Plan Adoption
date of April 27, 1992.
4. The property has land use classification under the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Parcel 14C
Parcel 15(1)
Parcel 15(2)
Parcel 15(3)
Parcel 61
Parcel 80
Lake Jesup Property
Moderate Density Residential
Commercial
Moderate Density Residential
Urban Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Urban Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
J
/
/
I
5. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development under the City's zoning regulations.
Planning & Zoning Boa.... Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 3
6. The development of the property has been specifically approved in a court order dated
11/21/90, that approved the agreement of 09/11/90 between the owner and the City.
7. The agreement specifies the land use and maximum intensity of development for each parcel
of the property. which is consistent with the land use classifications for the property.
Kern reviewed with the Board the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW as outlined in the draft order
before the Board as follows:
1. The application was filed in a timely manner pursuant to Section II A.3. of City Ordinance No.
534 as adopted 11/23/92.
2. The applicant has met the ownership requirement.
3. The applicant has met standards for presumptive vesting based on the agreement of 09/11/90
and subsequent court order of 11/21/90.
4. The agreement permits the applicant to develop the property in accordance with the specified
land uses and maximum intensities of development contained therein.
Hopkins asked if these land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) why is
this vested rights special use permit needed. Kern answered that Ordinance 534 regarding vested
rights was adopted after the adoption of the Comp Plan. This permit is to allow property owners
to be "grandfathered in" by previous agreements with the City prior to the Comp Plan and LDR
adoptions. The ordinance specifies the following:
B. Presumptive Vested Rights
1. Developments of Regional Impact
c) Development which has been specifically approved in a court order shall be
entitled to a Presumptive Vested Rights Special Use Permit. The court
order shall be made an exhibit to the permit, and the permit shall be subject
to the terms of, and shall reference the limitations imposed by, the court
order.
Kern stated that in conclusion the ultimate development of this property would still be subject to
all terms of the settlement agreement with the City back on 11/21/90, no changes could be made
unless that settlement agreement is amended.
Glavin asked if these parcels where the same parcels discussed regarding changes in land use
classification in Comp Plan Amendments in our previous meeting. Kern answered yes. Glavin
continued by asking how the land use classification could be consistent if the Board was
proposing to change them. Kern answered that the land uses in the settlement agreement for
which they would receive vested rights are consistent with current land uses in the Comp Plan
Planning & Zoning J rd Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 4
Future Land Use Map. Glavin questioned why this Board is being asked to change the land use
classifications.
Discussion ensued regarding the issue of granting vested rights while Comp Plan amendments are
being proposed. Bricklemyer stated that there are two different issues-one of granting vested
rights as set forth in Ordinance 534 and the other-amendment to the Comp Plan Future Land Use
classification. The issue before the Board is acceptance or denial, based on findings of facts,
Presumptive Vested Right Special Use Permit only at this time. If the application is denied, the
reasons must be outlined. Ferring asked Bricklemyer if there is any bearing on this issue in light
of ligitation regarding parcellS. Bricklemyer stated that there would be no bearing on this issue.
Mr. Mike Jones, attorney for the purchaser of subject property, came forth from the audience and
reiterated what Bricklemyer stated about two different issues. He explained further that this
property is under the ownership of Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and to secure financing
the issue of vested rights needs to be resolved. McLeod asked the question of time limitation on
vested rights. Kern answered that the ordinance states 5 years unless otherwise stated and the
settlement agreement states that the vested right special use permit will be permanent, as stated in
the draft order. McLeod asked if vested rights would be passed to new owner. Kern answered
that it "runs" with the land and can be passed on to another owner. Ferring asked Kern if
notification to adjacent property owners was made and he answered yes. Ferring asked if there
was anyone in the audience that was a property owner adjacent to in these parcels that would like
to make a statement. Mr. M. J. Soileau, 206 Brantley Avenue, came from the audience to
speak. He discussed the multi-family land use in the Lake Jesup Property and how it is out of
character for this area. Ferring then asked Bricklemyer what his opinion was regarding accepting
this application and what the ramification of denial would be. Bricklemyer stated that the issue is
whether the application meets the requirements for vested rights special use permit; whether the
development is compatible with its neighborhood is irrelevant. The ordinance states if certain
conditions are in place then the applicant is entitled to a vested rights special use permit.
McLeod made a motion to approve the Vested Rights Special Use Permit VR 93-01 and signed
by Chairman, Planning & Zoning Board and that it is in compliance with court order. Motion
died for lack of second.
Ferring asked Bricklemyer what are the ramification of denial of this permit. Bricklemyer
answered that there is chance for appeal to the City Commission. BrickJemyer explained that if
the application is denied then there should be some issue for rejection so the City Commission
would have something to evaluate. Glavin stated she would abstain from voting or maKing a
motion on this issue due to a conflict of interest because she is active counsel for RTC. Brown
stated that he agreed with Mr. Soileau, who spoke from the audience, and felt that the change in
land use would be inconsistent. Kern reminded Brown that the vested rights permit would not
implement any land use changes.
Brown made a motion to accept the Vested Rights Special Use Permit VR 93-01 which does not
change the land use classification. Seconded by McLeod. Hopkins added that perhaps there are
some parts of the settlement agreement made in 1990 that this Board or the citizens are
uncomfortable with but that is a separate issue. This Board is only complying with the ordinance
Planning & Zoning Boal '" Minutes
\Vednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 5
which states that the applicant is entitled to Vested Rights Special Use Permit as long as certain
requirements are met which have been outlined by Kern.
Vote: Ferring-aye; Brown-aye; Hopkins-aye; Glavin-abstain; and McLeod-aye. Motion carried.
Hopkins closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the Regular Meeting of Planning & Zoning with
Public Input.
Rezoning Request - That 80 acre parcel east of Fisher Road, south of Panama Road and
west of the power easement from RC-1(Single Family Dwelling District) to R1-A(One
Familv Dwellin2 District), not to exceed 3.5 units per 2ross acre
LeBlanc explained that the property has a land use classification of Lower Density Residential
which is up to 3.5 dwellings per gross acre. Mr Earley, meet with staff six months ago and
discussed his conceptual plans for a development. Staffhad some concerns regarding the building
of a road since it was a subdivision, water & sewer to the project, and that it meet the Comp Plan.
However, there is a conflict between the Zoning and the Land Use, as discussed in previous
meetings the Land Use is superior to the Zoning. Therefore to develope this property, Mr. Earley
is asked for rezoning.
McLeod asked if there could be a change in land use requested instead of rezoning in order to
bring the Zoning and Land Use in compliance. LeBlanc answered that Kern would have to
answer that question. McLeod asked further if land use could be down graded to match the
zoning. Kern explained further that when the minimum requirements are eliminated on the density
requirements that the zoning would be consistent with Land Use classification for this property.
McLeod asked why the Comp Plan Future Land Use Map shows Lower Density Residential
which allows up to 3.5 dwellings per gross acre when the zoning ofR-Cl is 1 dwelling per gross
acre.
Glavin asked why staff is bringing a rezoning instead of a Comp Plan amendment to this Board.
LeBlanc answered that Earley was told six months ago of the creation of the Land Development
Regulations(LDRs) through Planning & Zoning and City Commission. It was explained to Mr.
Earley that when the LDRs were approved that zoning would be eliminated, and it was thought
that LDRs would have been completed by this summer. Since he was told that the LDRs might
not be completed for another year, Mr. Earley, approximately three weeks ago, filed for this
rezonmg.
Ferring asked Bricklemyer how fast the City could move on making this issue one of changing the
Land Use classification instead of changing the Zoning. Bricklemyer stated that it could but, most
likely due to a timing constraint, not be included in this batch of Comp Plan Amendments to be
transmitted to DCA on June 28, 1993. Kern added that the change regarding this property could
Planning & Zoning 1 .rd Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 6
be started as a Comp Plan amendment as early as July 1, 1993, after the transmittal to DCA on
the first batch.
Hopkins asked for a clarification on why the zoning and land use are inconsistent. Bricklemyer
answered that the zoning allows a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per acre(du/acre) and the land use
has a minimum density of 1.1 du/acre and a maximum of3.5 du/acre, therefore the property
owner can not develope his property due to not being in compliance. McLeod asked about the
changes discussed regarding eliminating the minimum densities and Kern reminded the Board that
they are presently not approved but only recommended for change.
Glavin stated that this is a public hearing in which the Planning & Zoning Board makes a vote
upon this as submitted by staff and makes recommendation to City Commission. What Mr. Kern
is saying is that it is too late with regard to adding a Comp Plan amendment for this cycle. If the
final vote lies with the City Commission she questions why this Board can not make a vote to
amend the Comp Plan to bring the land use designation in line with the zoning.
Hopkins reminded the Board that they were not having a Public Hearing on this item, but they
were holding a regular Planning & Zoning Board meeting with public input.
LeBlanc stated that there is rezoning request before the Board tonight and that we allow the
developer and public to come forward tonight and give their opinions and then the Board can
make its recommendation to the City Commission.
Hopkins then open the floor to public comments. He asked if there is a designated speaker.
There was no response from the audience. Hopkins then stated that if each individual would wait
until they were recognized and then come down to the microphone and stated their name and
address for the record. Hopkins recognized Carl Stephens from the audience. Mr. Stephens
suggested that perhaps the developer, Mr. Earley, could speak first. Mr. Earley responsed that he
had nothing to say since the request had been denied. The Board reminded Earley that there was
no motion. Ferring asked Earley if the lot size as presented to this Board is 75 feet X 110 feet,
and questioned if that size is a particularily good plan for this area. Earley answered yes. Ferring
stated that he felt more time is needed to evaluate this request due to the impact of a change if
granted from RC-l to RI-A. He felt that this Board needs to look at why the present future land
use classification has been assigned to this property and possibility consider a change to the land
use instead of the zoning. In addition if this issue had been brought before this Board prior to
this evening there is a strong possibility that it could have been added to the present batch of
Comp Plan amendments.
Kim Bechtel, the attorney for the developer, and Charles True, the engineer for Donald W.
McIntosh & Associates, asked to come before the Board with their presentation. Ms. Bechtel
explained a drawing which outlined the boundaries of the property. She explained that the Land
Use Classification is Lower Density Residential and they are requesting to change the zoning to
make it consistent with the land use plan. In order for Mr. Earley to develope this property he
must rezone the property. This is consistent with Florida Statutes. At this time they are
Planning & Zoning Boaru Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 7
requesting a change from RC-1 which is 1 duJacre to R1-A which is up to 3.5 duJacre. Lower
Density Residential provides for 1.1 to 3.5 du/acre, therefore the zoning request is consistent with
the Comp Plan adopted 04/27/92. Mr. Earley has complied with all procedural requirements for
this zoning request. At the time the Comp Plan was adopted, Mr. Earley did not own the
property. He is owner through foreclosure and he had not input to the land use that was assigned.
McLeod asked if at the time of purchase were you shown the zoning ofRC-1, 1 duJacre. She
answered no, they were shown the land use of Lower Density Residential, 1.1 to 3.5 duJacre. Mr.
Earley is proposing not to have any of the lots face Fisher Road, which is a dirt road. He is also
proposing 25 feet of buffering to act as a natural buffer between the existing Rustic Residential
properties and the proposed R1-A designation. He is proposing the building of the extension of
Shore Road which is in the City's Future Traffic Circulation Map within in its 5 year plan. We
have satisfied our burden of compling with the rezoning request to have the zoning consistent
with the land use classification. We have followed the procedural requirements. There are no
legally sufficient grounds for denying this request for rezoning.
McLeod asked about where the traffic will be going into and out of this development. Mr. True
stated that access will be off the newly constructed Shore Road to the north and south boundaries
of the property and will tie into existing pavement. All access for this project will be off Shore
Road. McLeod ask about entranceway to the development. True answered there would be two
to three entranceways. He continued to say that they have no plans to cut onto Panama or any
other roads in that area, only cut onto Shore Road. Mr. True stated that the paving of Shore
Road is proposed to be paid for by the developer not the City, as a developer we have no
obligation to do so. For example, if we were developing 1 acre lots we would front onto Fisher
Road and then it would be up to the City to decide about paving the road. This will take
substantial traffic off Fisher Road. McLeod asked if the 80 acres would go from 80 homes to 280
homes. Mr True stated that they would probably only be building 200 homes, due to the design
and buffering. The property is 115 acres but he is only asking to rezone 80 acres. McLeod ask
then if they are looking at basically 2.5 duJacre. True answered yes.
Glavin stated that she was annoyed with City staff and that we have an attorney telling us we need
to bring our zoning into consistency with our Comp Plan and that staff did not have the proposed
Comp Plan Amendment before us tonight to bring it consistent with what the situation really is
out there. Glavin made a motion that we deny the application of Mr. Earley for rezoning of this
parcel. Seconded by Brown. McLeod stated that he felt that Ms. Glavin is out of order by
making a motion before the developer was finished and before the homeowners association and
public had an opportunity to came before us and give their opinion. He felt that the motion is
inappropriate and should be removed from the floor. Brown withdrew his second on this motion.
Glavin stated that she would not withdrawal her motion. Ferring seconded the motion. Hopkins
stated that he felt that Glavin is in order to make a motion, but felt that discussion would still be
appropriate. Hopkins asked if there is any further discussion. McLeod felt that the motion should
have the following language added: to have Public Hearing to change the Comp Plan to Rustic
Residential. Glavin asked Bricklemyer if this Board can add this issue to the Public Hearing on
Comp Plan amendments tonight, in that all we are doing is making recommendation to City
Commission who has the final vote. Bricklemyer said that you could make the recommendation
that the Comp Plan be changed but he doesn't feel that it would be procedurial correct to put in
Planning & Zoning i .rd Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 8
this batch of Comp Plan Amendments. McLeod added that he did not imply that it was necessary
for the Comp Plan change to be added to the present batch, but that the rezoning request be
denied but recommend to the City Commission that a Public Hearing to change/update our Comp
Plan, whether it be a month or six months. Glavin restated her amended motion as follows: !
make a motion that the zoning application by Mr. Earley be denied and that this Board make
recommendation to the City Commission. with or without public input tonight. that the Comp
Plan be amended to comport with the rustic residential zoning of this parcel in question. Ferring
seconded the motion. Vote: all-aye.
Hopkins reminded the audience that this Board only makes recommendation to the City
Commission and this issue will be brought before them, who will be the final vote probably on the
June 28th.
Hopkins called for recess at 9: 10 P.M.
The Board reconvened meeting at 9:30 P.M.
Public Hearing to recommend to the City Commission Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
Kern presented the recommended approvals and disapprovals which resulted from the previous
workshops.
Recommended ADDrovals
Traffic Circulation Element Policy F.4: The Board found no changes to what was presented.
Traffic Circulation Element Policy D.l: The Board found no changes to what was presented.
except that the phrase "by October 1991" was struck out by previous agreement.
Future Land Use Element Policy 3.A.1 through 3.A.7: Discussion ensued regarding the
addition of "country" areas. In conclusion the Board recommended not adding "within
established "country" areas as described below".
Glavin suggested to change the wording of # 1 to #7 to be consistent with the format of #6 as
follows: "Higher Density Residential is defined as a maximum density of 12.0 DU per Acre. "
The Board agreed with this recommendation.
Glavin suggested to make the change to #7 "Urban Density Residential includes all
developments". Kern and BrickIemyer suggested keeping "that were preexisting or preapproved
in 1991. " The Board agreed with this recommendation.
Traffic Circulation Element Policy C.8: The Board found no changes to what was presented.
Future Land Use Element Policy 3.C.l: The Board found no changes to what was presented.
Planning & Zoning Bo... J Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 9
Future Land Use Element Policy 3.A.9: Kern explained the new policy created as directed by
the Board. Glavin asked if the Comp Plan Amendments related to this definition could be
discussed in conjunction with this definition.
Glavin suggested changing the following "The maximun density is 20 residential dwelling units
per acre" to "The maximum density shall be in accordance with the settlement agreement with
no minimum density applied." Mr Culp, developer for this property in question, agreed with
the change in wording.
Discussion ensued regarding the commercial portion of these parcels in question. Bricklemyer
and the Board suggested adding the following "with the exception of the two commercial
portions of parcels 15 & 61 as stated in the settlement agreement." after "dispute between the
developer and city".
Glavin questioned if perhaps section b. is redundant to what was stated in section a., which
defines the only parcels that can be affected by this change. The Board agreed to strike out
section b. Bricklemyer added that if section b is eliminated that the word "only" should be added
to the first sentence as follows: "Mixed Use-Residential classification is created only to allow
flexibility"
Mr. Culp asked to change the wording on section c to read as follows: "This classification is to
allow the flexibility to provide less intensive residential uses". The Board recommended strike out
of section c because the intent of this provision is already stated in the opening paragraph.
Glavin questioned why section d should remain because acceptable use are already stated in the
settlement agreement. The Board recommended strike out of section d as well.
The proposed policy was restated as follows:
Mixed-Use Residential classification is created only to allow flexibility in the design of
residential developments within the currently vacant parcels of the Tuscawilla Planned
Unit Development, collectively known as the "Remaining Property" by the terms of a
court- approved settlement of a dispute between the developer and the city with the
exception of the two commercial portions of parcels 15 & 61 as stated in the
settlement agreement. The maximum density shall be in accordance wiht the
settlement agreement with no minimum density applied.
a. The "Remaining Property" of the Tuscawilla PUD consists of Parcel 14C, Parcel
15, Parcel 61, Parcel 80, and the Lake Jesup Property.
Hopkins closed the Planning & Zoning meeting and opened the Public Hearing at 10:20 P.M.
ParcellS (Ie):
The Board found no changes to what was presented.
Planning & Zoning. Ird Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 10
ParcellS (2A & B): The Board found no changes to what was presented
ParcellS (3): The Board found no changes to what was presented
Parcel 61: The Board found no changes to what was presented
Parcel 14C: The Board found no changes to what was presented
Parcel 80: The Board found no changes to what was presented
Shasteen annexation: The Board found no changes to what was presented
Sprague annexation: The Board found no changes to what was presented
Bergstresser annexation: The Board found no changes to what was presented
Voska annexation: The Board found no changes to what was presented
Pettit annexation: The Board found no changes to what was presented
High School annexation: The Board found no changes to what was presented
Springs Land: The Board found no changes to what was presented. Kern added
that there is a vested rights application filed and that it will be coming before this Board in the
near future.
Schrimsher:
The Board found no changes to what was presented
Florida Country Clubs: McLeod asked if the driving range was included in the acreage
noted with Parcel 8. Kern answered no, the driving range, 1st & 9th holes are not included in the
acreage figure provide in the table. The Board found no changes to what was presented
Joyce:
The Board found no changes to what was presented
Bear Creek Estates: Glavin expressed her concern that the change in land use would
allow more density going from 1 duJacre to 3.5 duJacre, which is not the intent of the City. The
City's concern was the use of the phrase" "country" area where urban infrastructure is lacking by
design and choice. " which is not sufficient reasoning to change the land use which is consistent.
Discussion ensued regarding the current definition of Rustic Residential among the Board. The
Board agreed to withdraw this amendment.
Parcel 51:
The Board found no changes to what was presented
Planning & Zoning 1: :d Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 12
Hopkins reminded Mr. Parker that he will have an opportunity to express his opinion to the City
Commission on June 28th, 1993.
Lots 26.0,26.B,26.C / Lots 28,29,30/ Lot U.1 / Lot 1 (northern & southern portion) / Lot 5
/ and Lot 4: Kern explained that he had received a letter from one of the property owners, the
Blumbergs, owners of Lot Ul, 28, 29, and 30, which was distributed to the Board tonight. Mr.
Jim Lup, of Schrimsher Properties, is here tonight to represent the Blumbergs. Mr Lup reiterated
what the Blumbergs had stated in their letter:
"we strongly oppose the "Mixed Use" classification for the following reason(s):
1. The reason we applied for annexation into the city was because we were
promised commercial zoning.
2. We were unaware that the classification "Mixed Use" had ever been
applied to our land. Had we known, we would have opposed it at the time.
3 . We feel the restrictions placed upon our use of our land by the "Mixed
Use" classificaiton are confiscatory; will devalue our property; and result in
financial hardship."
Hopkins asked Kern to show on the Map the parcels in question and explain what the
surrounding Land Use classification are. Kern pointed out the surrounding parcels and named
their land use classifications.
Ferring made a motion to approve the Land Use Amendment from Mixed Use to Commercial on
those parcels Lots 28. 29. 30 and U-I. Seconded by Brown. Glavin urged the Board to consider
that we might be creating what now appears on 17-92 in the Fern Park area of wall to wall
concrete, by allowing this change to Commercial. Vote: McLeod- nay; Glavin- nay; Hopkins-
nay; Brown-aye, and Ferring-aye. Motion did not carry. Hopkins reminded Mr. Lup that he can
express his opinion with the City Commission on June 28th, 1993.
Winter Springs, Unit 3:
The Board agreed to withdraw this amendment.
Glavin made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board approve those certain Comp Plan
Amendments as were discussed tonight. as were in concurrence with Board recommendations
from workshops and as are in concurrence with votes upon motion tonight. and disapprove
similiarly those proposed Comp Plan Amendments as were disapproved at workshops that may
not have been changed tonight. Seconded by Brown. Vote: all-aye. Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~Si:~3&cfZ.^,-
)
Jeanine Porter
04 June 1993
Planning & Zoning Boaru Minutes
Wednesday, June 02, 1993
Page 11
Recommended Disapprovals
Future Land Use Element Policy 4.A.3 and Traffic Circulation Element Policy B.9:
Ken Leffler, one of this property's owner, came forth from the audience to speak. He also had
copies of a letter to the Board stating his request as follows:
"Failure to amend the Plan by adoption of those recommendations means that Leffler
Company will continue to have no available road access to its lands under the present
Mixed Use land use classification for these lands. Without such access, Leffler Company
will be effectively denied the substantial economic use of these lands by the City of Winter
Springs. "
Discussion ensued regarding the information of this property as provided by Mr. Leffler. Glavin
suggested ,that in light of the information provided to us by Mr. Leffler, that this Board reverse its
decision to reject this policy and change it to an approval. The Board agreed to move these
policies to an approved policy and not a reiected policy.
Ferring added that he felt that Kern should continue with his communication with CSX regarding
the land use issue that they mentioned in their letter to us this year. Kern explained that nothing
was forwarded to CSX regarding land use because there were no development plans. He added
that just yesterday, Mr. Leffler brought a conceptual plan to his office. Therefore, now he could
proceed with contacting CSX regarding the land use due to a development plan for this location.
Richard Parker: Kern stated that there was a letter distributed to the Board from Mr.
Parker, who is here tonight regarding this issue. Mr. Richard Parker came forth from the
audience to speak. He explained that in 1985 he asked for zoning of C-l (Neighborhood
Commercial) and now he understands that he has a land use classification of Mixed Use. Hopkins
asked Mr. Parker ifhe understood that commercial is allowed in Mixed Use. Mr. Parker
answered yes, but he also understood that not all of the property could be commercial. Hopkins
said yes and that was the intent of this Board with the Park and proposed school as adjacent
property. Glavin asked Parker if he has any plans for development at this time. Parker replied no.
Glavin recommended not changing the land use of Mixed Use until there was an actual
development plan presented to the City, at which time the process of possibility changing the
Land Use classification would be more meaningful. Mr. Parker stated that he was unaware that
there was a land use of Mixed Use on his property, he was only aware of the zoning of
Commercial.
Hopkins closed the Public Hearing at 11: lOP .M. and re-opened the Planning & Zoning Board
meeting.
Brown made a motion to approve the request to amendment the Comp Plan Future Land Use
Map from Mixed Use to Commercial for Mr. Parker's property. Seconded by Ferring. McLeod
asked for a point of reference on the Future Land Use Map of this area and their designation
Vote: Ferring-aye; Brown-aye; Hopkins-nay; Glavin-nay; and McLeod-nay. Motion did not
carry.
FORM 8B MEMOk. "NDUM OF VOTING C . ..4FLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME--MIDDLL NAME NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE
Glavin, Grace Anne City of Winter Springs Planning & Zoning Boarc
MAILING ADDRLSS [HE HOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
681 Bear Creek Court
x Clly COUNTY OTHER LOCAL A(;ENCY
Cln COUNTY
NAME OF POL ITlCAL SUBDIVISION:
Winter Springs Seminole City of Winter Springs
DATE ON WHICH VOll: OCCURRFD MY POSITION IS:
June 02, 1993 ELECTIVE x APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 81
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Sectilln 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an eledive or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding declive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABS1AIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR. TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in lhe measure on
which you arc abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED O}'FICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal. or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by wholll he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
. You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
(I I ('1(\1 ~Il I()~~h
PAGE I
--".'
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
· You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
q:':>
., 19 -1----.-:-?:
?~_/l/ ( 0
tSc. 7J 2 /)
~. inured to my special private gain; .9f' '.' ,./. ". _' .' I
',t.., (.~/Z-trUA0't-. ' . "
4- inured to the special ~ain of J~-5., (lLL:.blL:'..~.Z~{.G"tf- {ll)ttLl-i.f.,~, by whom I am retained.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, 6'ctu~4AL1€~ C;'LJlldt!. h"eby disdos< that on,4-t.LtLL' .;2-
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) 'iY{L'L((L-~y {,L/l(/
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
J- tf~S'fCi!/d'd',-rt'c",,11L C{ L/t.: '/-..,L /{.{f~(ct:"'~~. ,
, ' c- -"" ".. / L"{ C.-, A./Lll{ (:':1 V~,., r;5-cl
V_fSlcf6 ~~HI '> ~(2!'(''//:L\....1 .... (ye / M.'It~ :;~_~;:~di
d'1l l;../Lct'J. >llhLftC.t." /tL/Ct-1{(c. :1''7Uki /(L/ ..... .'
tl V I' I t/ ' ,1l1liZ.r'~/
( ; / ~. I i/'~...S_- / If.) '1',"'/' ~I," "-I-/{.l'<'~l r ~".-'."7..}jl [(--1-I'/l<--- //" . .
~~a7- I~LI~~ ,~ .' a V
I r " S........ CLt',.''1 L~ /t/~){/(.:; ~1:./i .f.....s--
t' C-t };LJ ) 1- /}
.J
;/~ j _C'" /1_. IL?c"}~
Dat~T[;r;~1LL--Jt21'- .__.___n___~___,,___
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~1I2.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MA Y BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
Cl FORM 813 " 10.86
PAGE 2