Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 10 20 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes ,. e e PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING October 20, 1993 The meeting was called to order by Chairman McLeod at 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS: David Hopkins, Present Thomas Brown, Present John Ferring, Present David McLeod, Chairman, Present Grace Ann Glavin, Vice-Chairman, CITY OFFICIALS: D. LeB 1 anc , Land Dev. Coord i nator K. Bricklemyer, Attorney Present Approval of Minutes of October 6. 1993: Hopkins moved to approve the minutes of October 6, 1993. Seconded by Brown. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Parcel 15, Tuscawilla - Conceptual Plan Review (that property north of CSX Ra i 1 road and east of Howe 11 Creek): McLeod said that he would like to remind the Board that this is a conceptual plan review it is to allow the developer to bring his ideas to us before he spends a lot of money. LeBlanc stated that the Board has received the Staff comments regarding this conceptual plan. These comments are expected during this review because it is not a formal submission it is just an idea. Mr. Pearcy and Mr. Bines and the engineering firm are present for the presentation. LeBlanc asked the Board that if their thoughts are to recommend approval that he be allowed to put this item on the Commission agenda for their first meeting in November, before this Board approves the minutes. Ferring said he would like to ask a question before the presentation. He asked if the properties have been registered with the County and noted in the County records. LeBlanc said that he could not answer that question for certain, but that it has been in the Little Sentinel a couple of times and ,as early as last Monday. It was advertised that Mr. Yeager purchasing all of Parcel 15 and Mr. Bines purchasing the other half. Ferring stated that he has been advised that as of Monday there was nothing on record in the County regarding this transfer of properties. Mr. Bert Bines, President of FRC, stated that these properties are absolutely recorded with the County. We closed at the end of August and he assures that it has been recorded with the County. Ferring mentioned to Bines that he should check with the County to find out why it hasn't been registered yet. Bines said that our purpose in this and we think this is a great opportunity for us, is to present to you our preliminary plan to get your comments and your concerns so we can address those and move forward so that we can do the ;:.~. e e .. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 2 same with the Commission. Then begin our engineering and 90 through the more fonma1 process of approval so we can avoid engineering the site with a site plan that we think is good only to find out that you don't like it. Bines went on to say that this property is in the Tuscawilla PUD and is zoned residential single family. It is approved for more units than we are presenting. The property is along Vistawi11a Drive and is the portion of Tract 15 which we purchased. Mr. Yeager purchased all of the property and we purchased half from him. The portion we purchased is in the Camp. Plan and zoned as single-family and is vested. On the west side of Vistawilla we have planned this as 75' x 120' lot minimum and on the east side at 50' x 110' minimum which are the minimum standards according to the city ordinances. We have spent a great deal of time trying to come up with a site that at least offers some curves. We have already dealt with and have final agreements and survey from the Anmy Corps of Engineers on the wetlands and for all intents purposes, we believe from Water Management so we have utilized those in our planning process. Bines said he wanted to address the section of the north side of the property. He explained that when DOT widens S.R. 434 they plan a major retention facility very close to the property. There is an existing pond on one side and wetland on two other sides where it almost takes away access to this northern portion of the property from the rest of Yeagers property, so with speaking with Yeager it would be logical for us to extend this and do more single-family; the property is approximately 5 acres. That portion of the property is currently zoned commercial, currently we would ask the City to modify the existing agreement is with the City and the owner, to change this from commercial to single-family; we could proceed with our engineering based on that. We are asking your consideration to allow us to 90 forward with that, we do recognize that if we go forward with that and for some reason the City says no, we would proceed with that risk. We would like to address any concerns you may have and address any issues so we can 90 forward based on this plan. We did meet in great length with City Staff and received comments from all of them. Most of the carments were advising us of the various codes and regulations, others were addressed as it relates to certain things that we should consider adjusting which we have taken into account and this is the result of that. We recognize that we are going to have to comply with all of the City's rules, regulations and ordinances with going forward with the engineering and approvals. ~ McLeodasked if this project would be developed under the Tuscawilla PUD. LeBlanc said that it is developed under the settlement agreement which is the PUD, that was the vested rights that you gave them. They don't fall under the Camp. Plan mandates, they fall into what was there during the settlement agreement. LeBlanc also said for clarification, on the portion ~..~ ~ :"..i.ii:.~ ~~ ;' ')Jt!'....,:\i;j;-i,:~'l'r;-;~1i-<.f;<;:,J1, ;'--1;:"':,.'.s'ii'..'~_-' e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 3 to the north, the five acres, we have looked at it very good and the settlement agreement can be altered if both parties are in agreement by an Ordinance, which the City Commission will have to approve. If during this conceptual plan review you don't like it then he will have to take it out. Glavin said she believes that in the Camp. Plan amendments presented by Mr. Kern, that this parcel Tuscawilla Parcel 15 was in one of our amendments in tenns of 3 units per acre. LeBlanc stated that the ORC report said "why did you do that" because that is governed by a settlement agreement. Bines added that the settlement agreement allows 416 units and our total is 289 units. Glavin asked LeBlanc about the ORC report. LeBlanc said there were comments fran DCA. Glavin asked Bricklemyer if it was why did we address the settlement agreement property in our Camp. Plan amendments because it wasn't necessary. Bricklemyer said that is correct, if it is a vested project then you don't need to amend the plan to make the plan to make the plan reflect what is vested. I think the decision the Board made earlier was that it would be nice that we have residential on the plan but it is vested for commercial, let the plan say what really is going to be developed. Glavin said that the Board had spend a lot of time on the Comp. Plan amendment for that property, including public input and inquiring where Mr. Kern came up with the suggestions and recommendations. Glavin questioned the units per acre. LeBlanc said that according to the settlement agreement the single-family residential had 104 acres and there were 416 units allowed (gross acreage), with the acreage and units allowed it just a little bit more than 4 units per acre. Now, on the same 104 acres plus the other 5 acres on the north side of the property (109 acres), they are building less than 300 units which brings you to less than 3 units per acre. Glavin stated that following the Board's meeting regarding Camp. Plan amendments that she had significant public interest following that meeting with regard to what the density was regarding this property; especially the piece of property between Vistawilla and Howell Creek. Bines stated that is not the issue here, the settlement clearly governs the use of the property. It allows the owner to build 416 units if they can get 416 units on that property. What we are trying to do here is show the site plan, and we meet the various requirements and regulations of developing the piece of property, get cannents you have on our plan and hopefully go forward to the Commission and fran there cannence engineering and go through the formal process of approval. Glavin-asked if the Board was given misinformation. -;..~. e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 4 Discussion. McLeod said that the Board needs to look at this project for what it is this evening and let it stand on its own. Bines said that the only other thing he would like to bring up is at the corner of the property they have property easements for signage and it would be their proposal that this would be an entrance to Tuscawilla and the project would be individual "vi 1 1 ages" which would be named. We do recognize that there are screening, wall obligations, etc. depending upon where the property but again that is all part of the City's regulations that we will comply with. Glavin asked if the developer plans any screening along the railroad tracks. Bines said that they have no plans for anything along the railroad tracks and actually "mother nature" has provided the best screening you can get, it is very heavily wooded in that area. Hopkins asked what was the land use designations and/or zoning abutting this property. LeBlanc said on the south and west side is PUD, on the north side is PUD and the land use designations on the south are multi-family and to the north side is mixed use. Ferring asked about on the eastern section if it is planned that the building will stand alone. Bines said yes they will be single-family detached. Ferring asked if there will be room to get side and rear setbacks. Bines said yes, but again whatever we do, we know that we have to keep within the required setbacks. LeBlanc said that there is nothing in the Code that addresses what the setback must be in a PUD. Ferring asked if Bines was familiar with the Staff's comments. Bines said as he stated before that he has met with Staff and was followed up with a memo and he has a copy of that. Brown said that he has a question with the 50' fram the retention ponds, if they go back 50' you will be taking away half of those properties. He stated that he lives in a project in Tuscawilla and he has 9-12 feet behind his property because the City approved for the developer to do that where it calls for 50' and that bothers him. If the City approves what you have there you are going to take away half of those properties in the western sector around the one retention pond. LeBlanc said that the rear of the building has to be 50' fram the mean high water line not the yard. Bines said that he realizes that they have to be 50' and that is what they will CO"Jl)ly with. ~- !@ McLeod again stated that this is a conceptual plan, they will have to go through all plans and plan reviews and this will be back in front of us again. ~ ,. ",--\,,,,;'''''':';~"-r:;~ 'T~';-"1"'-' ""..~,."".,..,~.,.,~:r:',~ e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 5 Brown said the other problem he has is that the average hame has 2.5 automobiles; that is 722 cars you are feeding out of one exit. They will came down Northern Way and onto Winter Springs Boulevard and asked if the traffic situation been looked at by the City. LeBlanc said that once again this is a vested project and by the time the first hame is sold and by that time Vistawilla Drive will be opened and he doesn't believe that there will be 722 vehicles on Northern Way. Bines said that first of all the property is vested and the vesting says the roads are sufficient for the development of this property. There is only 175 lots which would not cause a large amount of traffic. Discussion. Brown said that he was surprised when he reviewed this plan to see the nUTber of hames and the small lot sizes and I know that the people of Tuscawilla have that same feeling. Bines said in response to that statement that it is surprising to hear that because the property has been vested and approved for quite same time for approximately 400 units on 100 acres which is 4 units per acre and is not a lot of land per house and we are lowering that number of units. Glavin said she has to came back with what she was saying before that she doesn't feel this can be "brushed under the rug" in tenns of the public view in what happened with our proposed Camp. Plan amendments right or wrong, because it received a lot of notoriety in tenns in making that property 3 units per acre and asked how many units per acre are in the yellow area. Bines said less than 3 units per acre in the overall parcel. Glavin said that there has been a lot of public approval within Tuscawilla for what was represented to us and said that she doesn't know how it was passed by the Commission but this Board's recommendation was based upon a representation that it was on the application a request of the predecessor of these folks with regard to lowering that density. Whether or not Mr. Kern was right or wrong or off base in terms of any of that I think it is time that the City starts taking responsibility through the Commission as to what happens because we have had a lot of mistakes over years and before I got involved as to what Staff lTle"Ii:lers may have done or not done. We just can' t keep building on mistakes and say to the public "Oh Well". McLeod said that may be but he wants everybody to still continue to keep in mind this is a vested rights parcel that supersedes the things that Staff may have said in the past or whatever, it is a vested rights piece of property that we are dealing with, they do have the right for 416 hames they have down graded to 286 hames. The things that we need to be looking at is in C01lll i ance wi th what we_ are look i ng for in the area. We ta 1 ked about the parcel 15 in the early days, when it was first brought up, the outer banks to be commercial - This Board said we wanted a buffer of residential hames on the CSX railroad on the northern side, to buffer the present properties of the people in Tuscawilla to help protect those property Planning and e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 6 values. That is one of the things that you now have in front of you. Glavin said that her point is that her understanding of the settlement agreement is that which may have been vested in the settlement agreement can be amended by agreement by the property owner and the City. If the Tuscawilla people want to take an interpretation that upon the City Commission's recommendation to the DCA that something be changed on the Comp. Plan which changes the vesting in the settlement agreement, she does not know. It was told to Glavin that it doesn't. LeBlanc said that this project meets the 3 units per acre, it is less than 3 units per acre, it is 2.8 units per acre. Ferring said uncanfortable. Ferring said avai lable. it is the configuration of the project that makes him Bines said that there is no other way for the traffic to go. that he would like to see if there are any other options Ferring asked Bricklemyer that seeing as the vesting agreement calls that they have the right to put that many unit on that property, how does the configuration as to how they are going to put those units on that particular property affect us. Bricklemyer said that they have to figure out as they have done a development plan to present to the City. The City approves it or denies it, if not they have to have some legitimate basis for denial. He said that he was not sure based on the configuration of that property that there are a whole lot of options in terms of how to get in and out. Ferring said as Glavin stated that we cannot continue to build on our mistakes. Whatever we do here, ( want to feel comfortable with it. Bines said what we have done is ccme up with less density than the law said we could do, we have come up with what we think is a good site plan given the configuration of the property. We have avoided totally any direct access onto Vistawilla Drive. Both the Police and Fire Departments have both reviewed this and have absolutely no problems with it, there is no logical reason there is a problem from a traffic stand point. It was brought up again by McLeod that this is just a conceptual plan. ~' McLeod said that he thinks the developer is well aware of what restrictions is going to fall upon the commitments that he is taking on, he realizes he has, and the City is not mandating him at this point to do anything. This is all just preliminary review from our Staff as a developer has brought a piece of property before the Staff and said if I do these things, what do you see that I Il1Jst carp 1 y to, and our Staff has out 1 i ned some of those things. Another thing that we have here is a vested piece of property that the people have the right to build on up to 416 units provided they can prove that they fall within the PUD and the PUD ordinance and regulations. They have down graded to 289 at this point and as they go through their 1'~ ~ ;;il<.. " ..~"".:.'\<}i'~' e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 7 preliminary and maybe with the final, they may even find that they loose other pieces of lots, they may have to down grade due to water areas, marsh areas and so forth. Hopkins said that one of his concerns is and that is all it is a concern, is with the roads. If the main entrance gets blocked off in an emergency purpose and assistance is needed at the end, how is one to get .in there to service the people conceptually speaking. And, what steps are being taken to preserve the creek with the quality and nature of that type of environnent. Bines said what ever the regulatory bodies require. It was stated that some of the vegetation will be left, and st. Johns River Water Management does not have any buffer requirements. Glavin mentioned that the creek rises and floods at times, the bridge has collapsed. Bines said that he is not proposing any development within that range. Hopkins asked that the developer keep that into consideration as he develops this plan for the good of the environnent. Glavin mentioned her concern on how the creek would react with the development close by. Bines said that they will take a special look at these concerns to make sure these are addressed. Glavin said that she would like to address her concerns of the ingress and egress again, and the comments from the Fire and Police Departments in terms of public safety would be very critical. Shementioned that there is a problem with crime along the railroad tracks. LeBlanc stated that concerning the ingress and egress there may be two lanes in and two lanes out. Bines said that they typically do that to entrances because it makes for a nicer entrance for the community. We will make sure that we address that. Art Hoffmann, Mt. Laurel Drive, said that Country Club Village has 250 homes with a single road for ingress and egress and that has existed without any problem. Hoffmann also asked if there were any amenities planned for the development. Bines said that there were none planned. Brown said that he wants to clarify his stand. He said he does not have a problem legally with what the developer has done, but the fact that he lives in the Tennis Villas, said that he would recommend very highly representing the people. If you look at the Tennis Villas it is finished off the way you want to finish off your property along the creek, if you look across the creek you see railroad pilings stacked about 12' to 20' high because of the expensive homes in Bear Creek. We have wash-outs when the creek goes up to 15', it will fonm water beds which could be 15' inside the property lines and we have gators. My view is the impact with this many homes you wi 11 e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 8 have a real "people" problan (Tuscawi lla residents) problan with this issue. McLeod said that he would like to take one more comment from each Board rnerrDer. Hopkins moved that this Board recommend to the City Commission approval of this conceptual plan review and allow the developers to go on and to continue to develop this project as presented this evening. Motion died due to lack of a second. Discussion. Glavin said her comment is toward the public safety with regard to the ingress and egress. She stated that she thinks it might be important in terms preliminary review to have written recommendations from the Fire Chief and Police Chief with regards to their recommendations on public safety. McLeod again stated this is conceptual and-the questions on public safety will be addressed at a later date. LeBlanc sated that the Fire and Police Departments did not have any problans with this layout. Brown stated that he would like to see the public invited when these gentlanen present this. He said that he would be more comfortable with it, to have the residents here. If the people were aware and the people were here this evening to hear it and see it, this is how I would like to see this handled. Bines said that any delays are costly to him. LeBlanc stated that the idea of the conceptual plan is not stated in the Code. Th i s does not have to be before the P&Z Board and does not have to 90 before the Commission. This is something that in the past developers have expended a lot of money on engineering only to find out later that when it went before the Commission that there were some things that weren't liked. It is not that they did not meet Code, they then had to go back to the "drawing board". All this does is that it gives the developer a feeling of security that they can proceed with their plans. He again stated that a conceptual plan is not in the Code, it gives you a first opportunity to "visit" with it and then it comes before you a second time and at that time it meets Code. Bines stated that they are just trying to get concerns so they can address than properly before the fonmal approval and the engineering plans are done. Ferring moved to table this issue until the next meeting so this Board gets further i nfonmat ion in writing, before we have to make any kind of recommendation. Written comments on public safety, fire and traffic. Seconded by Glavin. Discussion. Glavin said that certain things, even at this stage, sean to came out about this project. Number one - about the creek, number two - the access and shape of this property and number three- - ...... ........ ~ ~ ~~ 0; e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 9 maybe the density. maybe the width of the railroad tracks. Vote: Ferring: aye; Brown: aye; Hopkins: nay; Glavin: aye; McLeod: nay. Motion carried. Hopkins asked if the developer is bound to come back in front of this Board. Bricklemyer stated no. this is a voluntary process and they do not have to come back in front of the Board. Concurrency Mana~ement Ordinance - Discussion: Bricklemyer said that he has incorporated the basic policy decisions into the ordinance that the Board discussed at the last meeting. He said there is one issue that is required that the Board does more work on it, he said that he is not recommending that the Board take a position on it tonight. it will need to come back one more time. The issue is with respect of reservation on capacity and the fees that are paid for that reservation(this is in section 8 & 9 of the ordinance). In those sections. the previous draft had referenced the City's existing ordinance #509. which deals with water and sewer. It makes references to how water and sewer is going to be dealt with. With talking to LeBlanc with how that should be done, it is my feeling that this Ordinance 509 should be superseded by this new Ordinance and we ought to be able to illuminate the cross reference. LeBlanc said that he talked to the utility Director and he said that this would be a good time to incorporate Ordinance 509 and Chapter 19-102. regarding fees and what ever needs to be done at that time. Brick 1 emyer said that he will be getting together with the utility Director to discuss this matter. Bricklemyer said that he is going to go through this new draft with the Board and point out the changes. The next draft the Board receives will be a "red line" version of this draft. so the Board can see the changes. Concurrency Management Ordinance - Article X. Concurrency Management. Division 1. Generally. Section 1. Purpose and Intent. Bricklemyer said that the purpose is to make sure that we comply with the requirements of State Law and the Camp. Plan and that is that no development orders can be issued unless we have adequate public facilities to accommodate the impact of the development. Bricklemyer mentioned that the Concurrency Facilities means Parks and Recreation. Section 2. Definitions. A. Certificate of Concurrency - this is if you meet the test and pass concurrency. D. Final Development Order - this means a Final Site Plan for non PUD residential developments. Final Engineering Plans for residential PUDs and non residential developments; and e tit Planning and Zoning Board Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 10 a Development Agreement and a Building Penmit. F. Public Facilities Inventory this concurrency facilities and what your capacity and where you stand. is your on-going inventory of is and how much is reserved Section 3. Development Subject to Concurrency Review. - Bricklemyer stated that considerable amount of revision has been made, but it is pretty much straight forward. It says that everything has to go through concurrency review unless it is vested, it has a vested rights special use penmit or it is exempt from transportation concurrency review, based on the Elms I I I legislation. Bricklemyer said there is another exception that the Board did not discuss the last time but is in the Statute, which is in the rule that protects the City against a taking claim; it allows the city to make a detenmination that a project can go forward or a portion of a project can go forward to insure that a developer can't say that the City has taken all economic value of his property and the City has to buy it because the City turned down the project based on transportation concurrency. If that happens the City has a way to avoid that by saying that if the Comp. Plan is in compliance (which it is) the proposed development is consistent with the plan and the plan has a financially feasible capital improvements element and that element would provide for the facilities to accommodate this project; however, the City admits that we haven't done what we said we were going to do in the capital improvements element so it is the City's fault. The developer makes a binding commitment to pay his fair share of the cost to provide those facilities which gets into the impact fee exercise. If all of those things are in place then the City can ignore the State's concurrency regulations and allow this development to proceed at some minimal density/intensity in order to avoid having to buy this developer's property. Bricklemyer said that is basically the three exemptions, one exemption is with respect to all concurrency facilities for vested projects, and the other strictly to traffic and it is the de minimis exception or the taking exception. Bricklemyer stated that there are other transportation concurrency exceptions in the new law that are not yet in this regulation because in order to put them in this regulation you have to have guidelines in the Camp. Plan. So, you have to go through a Camp. Plan amendment process first to set up the standard to designate areas of urban renewal, the downtown development district etc., which gives you the opportunity to do some other exceptions. ~ Division 2. Concurrency Administration Section 4. Minirrun Requirements for Concurrency - Bricklemyer said this basically deals with the standards to 3:fr ~ ~-_."," e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 11 meet with concurrency and these standards are right out of the new rules that are in process of being enacted, there are different standards for potable water, solid waste, sewer and drainage, basically they have to be there at the time the final development order is issued. Bricklemyer said that Parks and Recreation the developer has one year after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy before the necessary standard has to be met. Discussion. Bricklemyer said that in the transportation section you have 3 years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the necessary facilities either to be in place or under construction. Discussion on what happens if the facilities are not in place one year after the certificate of occupancy. The exception is that if the City does not do what it is suppose to do for Capital Improvements in the 5 year plan, then the City cannot hold the developer responsible because he may have relied on the City and also with the County's Capital Improvements plan. Bricklemyer said on page 9 and 10 of the draft ordinance, Section 10 - the standard you have to meet in going through this concurrency review is what the Camp. Plan says what the level of service has to be and that level of service. is established for arterial and collector roads. The only thing you are looking at is arterial and collector roads. Bricklemyer said the first opportunity to pass concurrency is if the improvement is scheduled in the City's Camp. Plan. The other two options are: option 3 requires a binding executed agreement, option 4 requires an agreement either pursuant to Chapter 163 or a DIR development order. Section 5. report on f ac i 1 it i es . Monitoring - this section states that you have to came up with a or before June 30th to assess the status of each of the Division 3. Concurrency Review and Capacity deals with the application and review process. Reservation Discussion. - this section Section 8. Certificate of Concurrency and Capacity Reservation - this section states that a certificate is issued when the requirements of Section 4 is met. Discussion, A-2 is deleted. Section 9. Capacity Reservation Fees - this section states the percentage that will be paid for the number years to reserve the capacity. The Board also changed the number of days from 90 to 15 days to remit the fees for approval of a final development order. Division 4. Level of Service Standards and Demand Determinations - this is e e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 12 basically out of the plan. Section 10. Adopted Level of Service Standards this comes out of the Camp. Plan directly. Section 11. Methodology for Detenmining Demands on Concurrency Facilities- this section is also taken from the Camp. Plan. The Board added a fourth for the transportation concurrency review to state adjacent roads. Division 5. Appeals Section 12. Appeals Process - this just states the process that must be gone through to appeal a denial of a certificate of concurrency. Proposed Ordinance No. 551 - Discussion (Reimbursement for meetin~s): Discussion on the lowering of the reimbursement for meetings. LeBlanc said that the Commission will be discussing this at their December 13th meeting and wanted input from all the Boards at that time. Brown said that he feels that $25.00 per meeting should be kept. Glavin said that either the Boards receive no monetary reimbursement or leave it as it is. Hopkins said in his opinion he feels that it doesn't matter if there is payment or not. Ferring said that he thinks it should be a minimum of $25.00 per meeting. McLeod said he is not opposed to if a member does not show up then that member does not get paid, and a minimum of $25.00 per meeting is a fair sum as this Board deals with a great deal. McLeod said that we will discuss this again before the Dec. 13th Commission meeting. ~lI( The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk ;'~ .~ ~ , """"~ /