Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 11 03 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes AMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING November 3, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman McLeod. BOARD MEMBERS: David Hopkins, Present Thomas Brown, Present John Ferring, Present David McLeod, Chairman, Present Grace Ann Glavin, Vice-Chairman, CITY OFFICIAL: D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coordinator Present Aporoval of Minutes of october 20. 1993: Brown moved to approve the minutes of October 20, 1993. Seconded by Glavin. Discussion. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Parcel 15, Tuscawilla - Conceptual Plan Review (that property north of CSX Railroad and East of Howell Creek) Tabled from October 20. 1993 Meeting McLeod said this is concerning most of the minutes of October 20, 1993, let's try not to bring up issues that have already been discussed and have answers for. Ferring said that at the last meeting he brought up several issues and to the best of his knowledge have not been resolved in his mind. The question regarding plat lines to the conceptual approvals - has anything been done as far as what guidelines that we have for any type of conceptual rulings. McLeod said that some of the issues that were brought up at the last meeting have been answered, the issues by the Fire Department, the Police Department have been answered for us, we have written comments from those departments. We also asked for some traffic information and have that in front of us this evening. First of all, to answer Ferring's question, this is just a conceptual idea as a plan brought in front of this Board by the developer prior to going through the rest of the planning review process, to see from this Board if we have any problems with the plan itself, so as the developer goes into his preliminary engineering he can address those issues. Again this is only a conceptual plan in front of this Board, and we must keep that in mind as we look at it, we also know that this particular piece of property has vesting, and legal judgement agreement that allows the developer to build 416 homes ( the plan in front of us this evening is for 289 homes) those are the things we are to look at, we are not here to design the parce 1 . LeBlanc said in response to Ferring's question, there will probably never be guidelines to a conceptual plan, this is voluntary on the part of the developer. It is just bringing it to this Board to keep the Board informed of what is going on, there is nothing that says this has to come in front of the P & Z Board, there is nothing that says it has to go in front of the Camlissioners. Ferring said that he was under the i~pression that it would come to this Board with a conceptual plan so when it comes back in front of this Board later on they will have an idea what our needs are. - - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 3, 1993 Page 2 LeBlanc said that was indeed the intent. Once again, this is only by choice of the developer, the developer has no obligation to accept the presentation of a conceptual plan. When a conceptual plan comes to this Board, it doesn't come close to meeting Code, the Board gets involved before it is really scheduled to get involved, you get to see what is coming into the City. There is nothing in the Code that states a conceptual plan goes before the P & Z or the Commission, it is only informational purposes. Ferring said the Lopez Rinehart, statistics are. the City's side. Board has a report from Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin and asked what has been done to authenticate what these He said that he would be more comfortable with someone on McLeod said that it is not the City's responsibility to do traffic studies for independent developments, it is a requirement of the City that the developers do a traffic study and have a professional engineer sign off on that, and that is part of the acceptance of the traffic study. Ferring said that he still thinks that we need somebody that works for the City to be able to analyze these statistics to see whether or not they are accurate. McLeod said that at this time it is still conceptual. Ferring said again we are talking about a conceptual plan, whether it is conceptual or it is coming back before us, he is uncomrortable with this plan, and he told this in the beginning and he is still uncomfortable with it. He said that he does not like the configuration of the project, and nothing has been changed or has been given to him that makes him change his mind. Glavin said that she is a Tuscawilla resident and said that at the last meeting that her house and lot is on the railroad tracks on Bear Creek Court. She said that she is familiar with the tract and her comments last time and her request of some questions to be addressed by the Police Chief which were not addressed, relates largely to the public safety in terms of the concept of building a residential project of this type with this configuration on a live railroad track with no bufrer. Several trains a week and sometime several train a day go along that track. The day after our last meeting there was a train going by at 11:20 at night. Sometimes there is two cars and sometimes there is an excess of ten cars, the CSX railroad according to her investigation, does not have any plans to abandon that track. Actually they may have some more active plans to abandon the main line going through downtown Orlando through Church Street Station. CSX railroad reveals that they will always have rail going to the QUC coal plant in the southeast part or Orange County. And it is possible someday that the main line might come right along this track. My comments last time - I had a question and I think that in a conceptual plan, although we may be dealing without any guidelines as to what is suppose to happen and what we are suppose to inquire of in a conceptual plan, I think my question the last time was apt one and that was do you know how wide is that railroad easement. LeBlanc stated 100 reet, 50 foot rrom the center line or the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 3, 1993 Page 3 track. Glavin said that the question last time was if the developer is planning any screening or wall along that whole development with all those houses. McLeod said that the developer said no that they are using natural buffers. Glavin said that she has a natural buffer on her lot in the rear. She said that 50 foot from the center line on the proposed development mayor may not include the natural buffering. She said that a 100 foot easement would probably not allow the natural buffer to stay as it being not on the railroad property but on the developrent property. She said that she thinks in the plan the lots along the railroad are 120 feet, so how many feet off the back line from the house would there be fram the back lot line. Burt Bines, President of FRC and owner of the property, said that it would depend on the house size, 25 to 30 feet. Glavin said so we are talking about the house being 25-30 feet off the back lot line, the back lot line being 50 feet from the live track. She said that she doesn't know how you can contend that the natural growth will remain there or it would have to be taken down to configure these lots, you have no buffer zone like you have along the creek. I think you have in some places no buffer zone fram some lots and the railroad but more important you have no wall between the lots and the railroad. She said that she made a comment last time and it is a true one, there is a crime problem right now on the track, from Bear Creek Court there is very limited access to walk through because of the depth of the lots and the thickness of the brush. Through the Vistawilla expansion - kids get their cars and motorcycles onto the railroad easement and they drink and party and carryon and start bonfires sometimes. We have had a problem also, a house four down from me, about 60 days ago there was a bullet shot through the back sliding glass door from the track, we don't know who is out behind the track, we don't think it is the kids fra~ our street, we don't know where they are from. What I'm suggesting is with all those lots opened up the way they are and with all those houses built 25 foot off the back line, which is the easement, which is not going to allow the kind of buffer there is now on Bear Creek Court, that the degree that children, grown-ups, whom ever is going to be running up and down that track is going to be considerable, I have a concern not only for people getting run over by these trains that go during the day and at night, I also have concern our houses on our side and all the houses up and down it's side; when you have a back "alley way" that people can run up and down, there have been burglaries, break-ins, vandalism from that track, again I suggest to my Board members and onto the City to consider that if there was some kind of solid masonry wall to keep it from being a thoroughfare of everybody running out the back yard or other elements running out through peoples back yard and going up and down that track. I specifically asked last time, and also Mr. Ferring asked, with regards to the Fire Department, and I asked that Staff relate to the Police Chief to address some comments , ~~-~.~.~.~",~~-"~.,",,->-'-<"" - - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 3, 1993 Page 4 with regards to the public safety of building houses of this size, and this lot size right on that track. Glavin read the statement from the Police Chief "After review of the above mentioned plans the only requirements at this time would be that all Signage and street Marking meet F.D.O.T. and City of Winter Springs requirements." Glavin stated that she thinks it is an insult to the City of Winter Springs, the people, an insult to the people of Tuscawilla, I think it is an insult to this Board and myself personally that Mr. Sexton shows not to address a public safety concern with regards to small houses and small lots on a railroad track and he is worried about a right Golored street sign. McLeod said that at the present time, it is my understanding that your recommendation to the developer is to look into the feasibility and probability of putting a wall along the back side adjoining the railroad tracks. Glavin said yes, we have already brought out some points and discussed last time with regard to access or emergency access into that property. Apparently the emergency departments of the City of Winter Springs thinks it is ok to access through that only one part on Vistawilla Drive. i know now and I have stated and Mr. Sexton has not responded to that, that the policy of the Winter Springs Police Department that they will not enter onto that track either on foot or with their cars to go afte~ the kids that are starting fires, shooting guns or doing whatever they are doing back there to police the area and it is very very distressing as a resident of that area that certain situation. In that they will not access through there for emergency purposes and in that as it is expressed from our City Staff that they are in concurrence that there is adequate ingress and egress through Vistawilla Drive. I think there is no reason at the very least a solid masonry wall along all of those lots to block any kind of access/foot access onto the railroad and that would be a very deep public safety concern. Ferring stated that in view of what Ms. Glavin has stated I too was looking for the safety factor regarding the entrance and egress access on Vistawilla Road. There will be almost 3,000 trips per day from both sides of Vistawilla Road from that project, nothing has been indicated to me that there is no safety hazard whatsoever involving this. I will again state that I will not, in this particular instance agree to anything without getting some kind of assurance that safety is of the utmost concern. Also, in the minutes on page 4, I asked about setbacks regarding these homes and the developer indicated to me that there is nothing in the Code that addressed setbacks in the PUD. LeBlanc said that is correct, each subdivision in the PUD has varied setbacks, they set them when they come in with their engineering and submit their covenants and the plat. As far as to go into a PUD type zoning there are no setbacks and that is why they have PUD developments so you can go anywhere from zero lot lines to lots 3-4 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes >!ovember 3, 1993 Page 5 acres ln Slze. Ferring said what I see here as far as getting a vote from me conceptual or not you are not going to get it from me. Because I see this as a mass safety factor to the residents in those other areas, i have been given no insurances that there is any steps being taken to safe guard that, and as far as I'm concerned it's a dead issue as far as a vote from me. Hopkins asked how many times will this development come back before this Board. LeBlanc stated that it will ccme back at the preliminary engineering stage. Hopkins asked about the density. LeBlanc stated that this piece of property from the settlement agreement and the property is vested, allows for 416 units per acre and the property is approximately 104 acres, which is about 4 units per acre. Hopkins then stated that the point that he is trying to make is that this development has substantially less homes than what is allowed. Discussion. Hopkins said that he certainly would think that the developers hear this Board's concerns regarding a wall, no recreation available in the development itself, the preservation of the natural creek that abuts the property and access issue as far as emergency and safety. He said that he hopes the developers hear the concerns because when it does come back before this Board for preliminary engineering, we will not forget; with that said and done I would like to make a motion at this ti~~. Hopkins moved that this conceptual plan be allowed to progress to the preliminary engineering stage with the considerations we have given the developer. Seconded by Ferring. Discussion. Glavin mentioned that there are residents present who may want to speak. Hopkins withdrew is motion and Ferring withdrew is second. Moti Khemloni, Tuscawilla Homeowner's Association, said that first he would like to thank two of the Board members for speaking out on behalf of the residents of Tuscawilla. He said that as all of the Board knows that the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association was dead against the whole aspect of changing this parcel 15 from single-family hames to whatever is being proposed now. He said that he feels strongly in the comments made by Glavin that this is a serious issue and is an insult to the people living in that area who bought their homes hoping that these would be single family homes and now they are subjected to a kind of development that he is afraid that will lead to issues that Glavin mentioned such as crime, children's safety and the intensity of traffic and various other problems. On behalf of the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association I would like to go on record saying that we feel and urge all of the Board members to do not go forward with the proposed plan as it stands. McLeod stated to Khemloni that he is also aware that this was an agreement and has been to court and has been settled. That there will commercial and - - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 3, 1993 Page 6 residential property ln there. Khemloni said that he just wanted to go on record that the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association did not approve that agreement, objected to that agreement from the very beginning and still stays the same way. Glavin said that she would like to hear from the developer to augment their presentation from last time in terms of maybe answering some of her questions with regard to how to not only keep people from getting run over by trains but keeping this from being a free-for-all of criminal activity and juvenile delinquent activity up and down the track. Burt Bines, President of FRC the owner of the property, said as a result of the comments and concerns that this Board made at the last meeting, we did some investigation to try and respond to some of your concerns. He said that before he gets to that and said that he is not sure that he can answer how to solve a crime problem, but again I would just like to reiterate the purpose that we are here tonight, that is to solicit your concerns and problems so that we can address them in going through our planning process. The purpose of what we are presenting to you is not to have a final product to answer your concerns because we are learning about them right now. So clearly I understand that there is a concern about crime and about the access on the railroad tracks and the buffer, I understand about the fire and safety and the creek and the preservation of that and I have sa~e responses; just to the questions you raised last time. I don't have all the answers yet, but we are not prepared to have all the answers because we still need to go through the final planning process and investigate your concerns and do what we can to alleviate them or to satisfy them. If we don't satisfy them then you will say no when we come before you again. If we do satisfy them, what we are trying to avoid is if we satisfy all your concerns that you raised in terms of streets and safety and access and egress etc., we don't want you to say that now that you have done that we don't like the street layout, then we would go back to square one, we are just trying to get your comments. Recognizing the parcel we have, allows for this single family development - Glavin asked about the price of the homes. Bines said that he doesn't know at this time how expensive the homes will be at this time. Discussion. Bines said all he can say now is that they price of the lots will be sell for the same amount as lots currently being build and sold in Tuscawilla. Bines said if the Board permits him, he would like to say a few words relative to the comments that the Board raised last time. In general, and not specifically everything that was raised, there were questions about traffic and the traffic that would be generated by the project onto Vistawilla Drive; before I answer that I would like to emphasize that it is not our purpose for us here to say that this is the exact, precise, absolute traffic analysis that you want and there for you should take it as gospel- what we are trying to do is respond to your concerns to give you an idea and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 3, 1993 Page 7 I have some information that goes beyond the letter the Board has. Traffic was one issue, the creek and how the homes and lots back-up to the creek and how that would be affected was another significant issue as was the situation on the railroad track. The comments from the fire and police and the density question was the major things that were discussed at the october 20th meeting. I would like to respond to those but I first would like to emphasize that the property is, as you know, part of the settlement agreement that was executed and agreeded to by the City of winter Springs and the previous developer of the remaining property. That the settlement agreement was approved by the court and that the property in general was approved to be vested and specifically parcel 15 of which this is a part was just recently reaffirmed to be vested by this Board; that was the vested rights special use permit which was executed on August 4th of this year. In the settlement agreement, paragraph 11 states" in the event of any conflict between this agreement and any other ordinance, approval or similar matter regarding the Tuscawilla PUD, this agreement shall control and govern the rights an obligations of the parties hereto and such approval and similar matters." Additionally the agreement says "if any an all approval of master plans, plans submissions and other similar matters affecting the remaining property are hereby automatically amended to conform to and reflect the provision and intent of this agreement." Bines stated so that by virtue of the settlement agreement whatever you all had in terms of Camp Plan etc., were automatically as it related to this property deemed to be consistent with what was in the settlement agreement. Also attached to the settlement agreement were exhibits C & D that expressly incorporated by the reference the depiction of the remaining property and the land uses associated therewith, exhibit D expressed a depiction of parcel 15 and the land uses associated therewith; the paragraph goes onto say the parties agree that both of these exhibits shall collectively constitute the certified map and plan of the remaining property in the Tuscawilla PUD. Bines said the reason he was reading these is going back to the density question that in paragraph 2 it specifically says that now that we know that these properties are governed by the settlement agreement, that the property we're presenting to you tonight can have 416 single family units, we have a total of 289. The density that we have is 2.74 units per acre, so regardless it is under the 3 units per acre; so I hope this well responds to the density issue, we are well below what the settlement agreement calls for. Glavin said that any vesting or settlement agreement does not specify that this you can use any configuration that you want. Bines said he was addressing the density issue of how many units. Glavin said getting beyond the density issue, the settlement agreement does not specify that you can build any type of project that you wish, the settlement agreement does not specify that you can build on a railroad track without a wall nor does it specify you can build right on a creek. - ~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 3, 1993 Page 8 Bines said he is just trying to address and set aside the density issue. The settlement agreement allows us to build 416 units, we are proposing 289, which is less than 3 units per acre; this is much less than we are entitled to build on this property, therefore the density issue is not an issue any more. Glavin said that there was a Comp. Plan amendment by this Board upon application of your predecessor and owner. It was explained by LeBlanc the last time that City staff Kern made a mistake in even considering this. She said that she didn't know if it was a mistake or not, it might be by being a joint application, it might be an amendment to the settlement agreement. Bines said we are still less than 3 units per acre. Bines said with regard to traffic, egress/egress, single lane, one access- The 1 etter you have before you frol1 John i"loore who is a traff i c planner/consultant, the trip rates for the types of uses is developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and these trip rates are the result and developed of ITE and not developed by us or your traffic consultant. Those are a fixed fonmula based on what we are proposing and how many trips, how many peak hour trips and how many peak hour direction trips. if you summarize Moore's letter, he has 1755 daily trip, but what is utilized to determine what type of road that you need are the peak direction trip ends. On the west village it is 115, by formula by ITE. The F.D.O.T. determines the level of service based on the peak hour, peak direction trips that a road might generate. The road for either village is considered a local/collector road (definition by F.O.O.T.) the exceptable level of service for this type of road is level of service "0", this type of service allows up to 690 peak hour, peak direction trip ends per daYi the total for the west village is only 115, clearly we are talking approximately less than 1/6th of what would be allowed by the west village and much less than that generated by the east village. So the information generated by Moore is information that is determined by standards in the industry. Ferring said that in all due respect you classify this as a local collector road, are you basing this as a fact that you have residential homes on Vistawilla Drive that have driveways on the street. Bines interrupted and stated that they don't have anything entering onto Vistawilla Drive, and said that he wasn't addressing Vistawilla Drive that he was addressing the road into the project, one road with one single lane in and out is far in excess than what is necessary. Discussion. Ferring asked if the developer had taken into consideration future development on Vistawilla Drive. Bines stated that the question last time was whether the ingress and egress into this project was adequate. Bines said that Vistawilla Drive and the traffic it generates is accepted by virtue of the settlement agreement - Ferring said not by him it is not. McLeod said that in our City Camp Plan, we are showing that Vistawilla Road // P 1 ann i ng and Zon i ng Board :1 i nutes Noverrber 3, "1993 ?age 9 is contended to beca~e a major roadway. Ferring disagreed. that he is pointing out what is in the Comp. Plan. McLeod said Bines said that another concern was the creek, which is certainly sQToething we do not want to damage. He said that the 100 year flood, which most projects are designed is at 16', the distance from the 100 year level and the rear property line 105', so the houses are set back even further, there is significant distance from the house to the lot line to the 100 year level. Discussion. Bines said we have recognized what your concerns are, when we come in with our preliminary plans, we will be sure that those concerns are addressed and if we can't properly do that we will obviously loose sonle lots, we can't tell that now because we haven't done the preliminary engineering, and again I'm just trying to ~phasize that your concerns are important to us. McLeod stated that the Board has to r~lember that there are other agencies govern that, there is no way today that a home can be built on the 100 year flood plane. Bines said the the comments ,. .1-' preapp; iCal. ion issues to make concerns that relates to fire and police, he can't comment on the Board received fron1 those departments. in the meeting, we sat with these departToents going through many sure we understood the concerns of the Staff. Glavin asked if the developer met with the Police Chief and did the Police Chief make th~ aware of the shooting that happened a few months ago. Bines said our job is not to control crime, that is the police departToent's job, we are allowed to build houses and stated that he thinks that that is an entirely different issue from a subdivision design. Discussion. Bines stated that they believe that they have designed well within their right a very nice project than what was allowed. Hopkins said that he would like to thank the developer for working with this Board, that it shows good faith effort regardless of SOlie of the other circumstances, also he thinks there was some excellent points raised at this meeting that the developer should take into consideration, regarding the construction of a wall to deter crime etc. and a safety factor for the residents. Hopkins moved that this Board recommend to the City Commission that this developToent of Parcel 15, in the Tuscawilla PUD, be allowed to continue to the preliminary engineering stage until at which time it comes back to this Board. (McLeod turned the gavel over to the Vice-Chairman) Seconded by McLeod. Discussion. Glavin asked Bines - without a buffer zone along the railroad track, how does he plan to market a lot with a house as close as 25' to the railroad track. Bines said that they will have this surveyed preciously when they Con1e back with the preliminary engineering, but as he - - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes NoveTber 3, 1993 Page 10 has stated there is a significant tree buffer on the property line. What we have done in other developments is to create a permanent easement/protection area so that no one can go in there and touch the trees. It depends on how thick the coverage is. Discussion. Ferring again stated that he is concerned about the safety factors on traffic not only with this project with the possibility of being cut-off to outside emergency services plus everything he has discussed. McLeod said that again he would like to remind the Board that this is a conceptual plan and the developer has brought this to the Board as a courtesy, they understand some of the criteria they need to look at and perhaps to implement into the preliminary. The City Staff also knows sane concerns of this Board, again we are looking at this under a preliminary plan in the future and we are not here to develop the property. Vote on the motion: Brown: nay; Ferring: nay; McLeod: aye; Glavin: nay; Hopkins: aye. Motion denied. Khemloni spoke again to thank the rr~ers of the Board for not allowing the movement forward to this project. McLeod said that this is just a conceptual plan. Concurrency Management Ordinance - Discussion: LeBlanc stated that he just received the Ordinance this morning, and stated that Bricklemyer is on vacation and is not present tonight. The Board has two copies of the same thing, one is the red-line with corrections made and the other is the clean copy. Bricklemyer's letter that is attached, states that he recommends that the Board recommend this ordinance to the Commission. Brown moved to accept this ordinance as submitted by Attorney Bricklemyer. Seconded by Hopkins. Discussion. Hopkins said that the letter received with the copies of the ordinance referenced comments by Lockcuff. LeBlanc stated that that has been taken care of, Lockcuff has addressed the issues of concern. Discussion. Glavin said that she specifically requested that this ordinance be delivered to the Board at least two days prior to the meeting so the Board has time to review it. McLeod said that he agrees with Glavin. Brown withdrew his motion. Hopkins withdrew his second. Glavin moved to table this issue until the next meeting so the Board can review the ordinance and have Attorney Bricklemyer at the next meeting to answer any questions regarding the ordinance. Seconded by Hopkins. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. LeBlanc asked that if it was possible that the Board give him any comments they may have by the 15th because there will be a workshop on that date, and if there is any comments he can give Bricklemyer them at that time. '. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes NOYeTDer 3, 1993 Page 11 Proposed Ordinance No. 551 - Discussion (Reimbursement for Meetin~s): The Board discussed this and the Chainman will write a 1etter to the Mayor and Commission regarding the Board's comments concerning this. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk