Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 12 15 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes ...... ~l ;.~ "....., t PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1993 The meeting was called to order by Chairman McLeod at 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS David Hopkins, Present Thomas Brown, Present Art Hoffman, Present David McLeod, Chairman, Present Grace Ann Glavin, Vice Chairman, CITY OFFICIALS D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coord. K. Lockcuff, Utility Dir. Attorney Keith Bricklemyer Present McLeod tabled the approval of the minutes because not all members present were in attendance at the November 17 meeting. Glavin arrived at 7:45 P.M. Earley Rezoning Request to rezone that 80 acre parcel of land East of Fisher Road, South of Panama Road, and West of the power easement; from RC-l (Single Family Dwelling District) to Rl-AA (One-Family Dwelling District) or Rl-AAA (Single-Family Dwelling District), not to exceed 3.5 units per acre. LeBlanc stated, This is a continuation of what the Board previous- ly addressed that was previously R-1A, not to exceed 3.5 units per acres. This has never gone before the Commission, or anything else. In time you had recommended denial, and with that in mind I sent you a package, and I'd like to turn it over to Mr. McIntosh for his presentation. David McLeod - I would like everybody to bear with us. We would like Mr. McIntosh, representing the developer, to have an oppor- tunity to go through what the proposals are, and at the end of that time, we will open it up to the general public. Don McIntosh - I am Don McIntosh, President of Donald W. McIntosh Associates and Engineering Land Surveying Land Planning Firm in Winter Park, FL. I am here with Randy Fitzgerald of the Lowndes Law Firm, and Leanne Grove of my firm representing the applicant, Dr. Earley, the owner of the subject property. We are here tonight representing Dr. Earley in his most resent application for the 80 acres of his property applying to change the zoning from the present RC-1 designation to either a conditioned RI-AA (those conditions I'll go through in a little bit) or RI-AAA. Tonight we are not here, or do not propose to discuss, unless the board feels differently, the previous heard RI-A application which was sent forward to the Board with a recommendation of denial as Mr. LeBlanc said. We have chosen to apply for virtually all three standard zoning categories that are consistent wi th the cities growth 1 . " J ,~ r r-. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December IS, 1993 Page 2 management plan, in an effort to provide all the alternatives, and seek some fair and common ground for reasonable land use on Dr. Earley's property. McLeod - All three? McIntosh answered yes, all three categories. McLeod said, being the Rl-A, Rl-AA,and RI-AAA ? McIntosh said the Rl-A were the three zoning categories that the city has that are conventional zoning categories that are consis- tent with the growth management plan designation for future Land Use Map for this property. McLeod - At the present time, is our appl ication just for two? McIntosh stated yes. LeBlanc At the present time. The previous meeting , the presentation was for Rl-A. McLeod asked, are we then going to leave that in affect along with this application? McIntosh stated that all three of the categories by virtue of the two applications filed, will be forwarded to the Board. The Rl-A has already been forwarded to the Board with the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning to deny. So tonight we are not here to discuss that, just the other two. I would 1 ike to take a minute, and explain to you a little better and cover just general- ly, Dr. Earley's property. Dr. Earley owns approximately a hundred and fifteen acres that lie in three distinct areas. The first one is the application parcel which is approximately 80 acres that lies in this vicinity, and two other parcels which are designated as Rustic Residential, in the Future Land Use Map that total ap- proximately 35 acres. Those parcels are the sum total of his ownership in the area, and are an aggregate part of the likely development application that will follow what ever judgments, and permissions are provided by both this body, and the city commis- sion. We have in these three different areas two land use designa- tions, and at present, one zoning designation. The two land use designations are for, the Rustic Residential, and Low Densi ty Residential in the form of the area that is in the application before you. The one zoning category that covers both of these are RC-l. In the case of rural residential area, that zoning category is consistent wi th the Future Land Use pI an. The case of the application before you are the 80 acres. That zoning designation is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map that is presently in effect within the city. The density ranges within those two pieces of property are in the case of the 80 acres 1.1 to 3.5 as desig- nated on the growth management plan or Future Land Use Map. That 2 t ill 1 'l /~ is a range based on Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 3 r the acreage of between 88 and 280 units, and up to one unit per acre. A maKimum of one unit per acre on the Rustic Residential, and in this case 35 acres or up to a maKimum of 35 units, leaving the range of unit potentially developed on all of Dr. Earley's property of 122 to 314 units. I share that with you so that you have a cl ear understanding of the composi te ownership, and the composite that can be developed within the area. We have in the process of the work we have done, held several meetings, and spent quite a bit of time looking at the property and investigating the property from a number of di fferent standpoints. With profes- sional s in the area of traffic, environment, and soi I s and the like, and my firm is here to represent to you that the property itself is capable of supporting development at some level in each of the three zoning categories, in this case tonight, in each of the two zoning categories that's before you. In essence, the property is capable of meeting, or exceeding all state, Local and Federal regulations for development of property within the confines of the application before you. We held one specific meeting at the Seventh Day Adventist Church with local property owners. On the coat tales of the first Planning and Zoning Board hearing of the application for RI-A we heard quite a bit of very sincerely shared feedback from the residents in the area about their concerns for lot sizes, development intensity and impact on their neighborhood. We attended a workshop at the City Commission level, and waited for period of several months while there was some investigative work done on whether or not the cities Comprehensive Lane Use Plan went through the proper and legal channels, and was actually legally adopted consistent with guidelines set forth by the state. It's our understanding that the cities Comp Plan has been adopted properly, but that's a scenario that's not my field, and I'll let the attorneys deal with that at the appropriate time. Subsequent to those meetings, and dealing with the issues at hand, we formu- lated the two additional applications for the purposes of embracing virtually every possibility of conventional zoning that would allow development within this property to be consistent with the growth management plan. We have them before you, the two applications. One of them is for RI-AA conditioned. It's conditioned in ten ways with recommendations with voluntary conditions set forth by the appl icant that I'll read into the record wi th your permission. First condition is, that there will be a 125 total lots maKimum. Second, there will be no vehicular access to Fisher Road allowed. I'd like to clarify that the conditions that I am reading are unique and distinctive as it relates to RI-AA application and do not apply to the R1-AAA that stands on its own merit. So number two is no vehicular access to Fisher Rd being allowed. Number three, 90 foot minimum lot widths for all lots. Number four,siKteen ,r' 3 1 ~ J I 1 ,-....,. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 4 I""'" hundred square foot minimum house size which exceeds the minimum in that zoning district and in fact is consistent with the minimum house size in RC-I. Fisher Road shall remain unpaved consistent with the area resident demands. A fifty foot natural buffer tract will be dedicated between Fisher Road Right-Of-Way and any proposed rear lot line on the property's West boundary. The said tract will be platted and restricted in perpetuity. Number seven subdivision road alignment will provide internal road connection between Shore Road North and South with driveway access just as there is on Shore Road to the North existing. Number eight, Panama Road will not be paved a 50 foot natural buffer. Tract will be dedicated along Panama Road as well. Number nine, a power line easement along the properties Eastern limits will be deeded as future Right-of-Way potentially for Shore Roads future extension, should the city at a later date wish to make such extension. Number ten, is that all lots will be larger than the minimum required RI-AA lot size. On its face that is the application, I'm going to, with your permis- sion show you a diagram or schematic of what a plan developed consistent with those conditions looks like. McLeod - I would like to point out one thing, that lot size then, would be ten thousand square feet or larger? McIntosh - Yes sir, that would be correct. This plan embraces all ten conditions that were set forward with buffer on the West side. This plan shows 125 lots. The sizes in this plan incidently, with 125 lots, are 13,000 square foot average. So one of the controll- ing factors Mr. Chairman, is the number of lots as well as the minimum RI-A but someone could theoretically build a 125, 10,000 square foot lots and leave a chunk undeveloped. So your comment is understood and noted. It provides for new access along Fisher or Panama and internal circulation corridor with the Shore Road extensions. Shore Road line such that, at a future time, if it was desired to extend it North and South that would be done as well. One unstated restriction is, that the development rights other than to use the lands to the east as mitigation or storm water retention would also be dedicated such that, there would be no future lots in the vicinity of this. McLeod - No future lots? ,~ McIntosh - No future lots in these two tracts, so as I mentioned to you before. The proposal is to restrict the aggregate number of lots in Dr. Earl ey' s total ownership to 125 lots in this application. 4 I , - ~ ~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 5 Art Hoffman - Does that included the three parcels? McIntosh - Yes sir, that's the proposal. McLeod asked if McIntosh could take a moment and turn the chart around showing the proposed tract of land so that the general public could see it. LeBlanc and McIntosh said that there was a different plan on each side of the chart. McIntosh This is the RI-AA appl ication Mr. chai rman. The advantages to the RI-AA application are that there is a buffer on Fisher Road. The lots are limited to 125 total, clustering of the impacts there is contained within this particular tract buffered on one side by a 50 foot natural landscape buffer and on the other by a power easement. That there would be a minimum house size of 1600 square feet, no Fisher Road improvement of pavement or impact proposed and dedication of fee titled underline the power line to the city for it's future use at no cost to the city. McLeod asked McIntosh to stop at this point to ask if there was any questions by the Board members. Grace Ann Glavin - I just wanted the secretary to note that I arrived late for the meeting and apologize to the Board for my tardiness and her attire but she had just got off an airplane coming back from vacation out of state and was lucky to even get through the International Airport. Art Hoffman asked Don McIntosh what percentage of the gross acreage is buildable according to that plan? McIntosh stated that on this plan approximately 90 percent, 85 percent. Art Hoffman stated that it looks less than that based on that. McIntosh asked if Hoffman was just talking about the 80 acres? Hoffman answered yes, right. McIntosh stated that the 80 acres is probably more than 75 percent area. David Hopkins - Just for point of clarification, the application before us is for 80 acre parcel? McIntosh answered yes that is correct. 5 ! I t r . , -.. ..--. I"'" Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 6 Hopkins - You are mentioning a 125 acre, is that correct? McIntosh It is for 115 total acres but the application is strictly for the 80 acres. McLeod - How many homes are on the 80 acres on that plat right there? McIntosh answered, 125. McLeod - So he has a total of 115 in front of us this evening, we actually have the 80 acre that is showing the 125 on it presently? McIntosh - What I mentioned was, that we would restrict the development rights perpetually on the balance of the property such that it is total ownership. There would be no more than those 125 lots. Glavin - How so do you propose to restrict the development rights? McIntosh - Immediately. Basically coincident with any entitlements that are issued by the city. Glavin - Are you going to file some covenants of declarations with restriction? McIntosh - We can leave that to the attorneys, between she and Mr. Bricklemyer they can carve out the appropriate instrument. The timing would be coincident with any ability to use the property or any other deadline set by the city. McLeod - I am probably right in assuming the reason for part of that would be, that you would need a retention pond to develop this, which would then part of the parcel. The other acreage would be used for retention pond. McIntosh - Yes sir, that would be correct. McLeod - Why would you tie up the other piece of property north of it? McIntosh That would probably be set aside as open space in litigation area for any minor wetland impacts that are occurred in here and to be quite open and straight about it, it is an isolated piece of property that is adjacent to the city's wastewater treatment facility. 6 r- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 7 McLeod - It is land locked isn't it? McIntosh Beyond that, it is adjacent, what we call a"lulu" in terms of the use, locally unacceptable land use in the wastewater treatment facility. So its use in litigation parcel seemed appropriate. McLeod - You have mentioned in here that there would be no paving of Fisher. Would you pave Fisher to your development? McIntosh - Yes sir, the proposal here is to pave both Shore from the South to and through the development so there would be paved access from both directions. McLeod The Southern one basically is just a short extension. McIntosh stated about 400 to 500 feet. r McLeod - The future Shore Road, does it connect on your property on the Southern portion where it would eventually connect to Fisher? Is that it on the very bottom corner? McIntosh - Yes sir, I think that we would recommend that con- figuration like this be set up in the Southern end as well, so that the future extension of Shore through the power line be one that's effortless. This would be in term, effortless, in the sense of alignment, such that it would run pretty consistently. What I am suggesting is, that the alignment might ultimately be designed as such, that the access of the Southern end come off Shore alignment I ike this and would stop here, so that any future proposal to extend it would be less difficult. Hoffman - 150 feet? Is that going along the power line, the Right-Of-Way is McIntosh answered I believe it is 150 or 180. Hoffman - You would have the permission to use the Eastern exterior of that? McIntosh - Dr. Earley retains free title to the power line and the power company has in the past, several times, allowed us to pave provided certain conditions are met, distance from your polls and the structural integrity of their polls be there. r- Hoffman - The road would have to be about 50 foot Right-Of-Way. McIntosh - It would probably be more like 60 or 65 feet. We are convinced that, that can be done even if the road had to move 7 ,- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 8 r between the polls. Now there is one other issue associated with the power line Right-Of-Way that we discussed before. That is, there is a soils pocket in the vicinity of this wetland within the power line that does have muck in it and our Geotechnical Engineers have looked at that and constructed and designed a surcharge system such as the roads can and have been built in areas similar to that and so that is an issue associated with future construction. We have long contended that the city may want to look hard before they build that road North to South and in any location based on traffic needs especially with the link of this road. We have provided a North South corridor at the same caring capacity as Shore is to the North. To the South, there may not be a need for that road to be built. The next application is for RI-AAA which is for lots that are 20,000 square foot, 100 foot in width and this is a plan that depicts a lotting of RI-AAA use on the same piece of property. This plan depicts 104 single family lots within the subject parcel wi th the same at tended uses adjacent. I t shows the same North South corridor. In this plan it shows no access to Fisher Road but we are not proposing to restrict Fisher Road access or Fisher Road pavement in the application at this time. This plan however, does show no access to Fisher Road and access to the property at the North and South extremities as was previously shown. McLeod - I am missing something on the access, what do you say if I miss (cannot understand the rest of what is being stated). McIntosh - There is no access proposed on Fisher Road, there's a 50 foot buffer here and there is access to the site here and here, same access points on the plan that I am showing you. The buffer is gone and actual I y the buffer is incorporated into the lots which are larger and deeper. What I am showing you is a plan that doesn't show access to Fisher Road and I wanted to make clear that isn't the letter of the proposal. The letter of the proposal is for a conventional RI-AAA zoning application without restriction and that we're not proposing to restrict access to Fisher Road in that application, I just wanted to make that point for clarification. Hoffman - This doesn't represent the application? ,- McIntosh - No sir, this is a graphic depiction of the number of lots that might be gotten using 20,000 square foot lots and a traffic circulation in the wetland impact. I might add, as Mr. Bricklemyer I think would agree, either one of these plans are a part of the application. I am showing them to you as concepts and in the case of the Rl-AA application, the conditions that have been 8 . ' ' , ,""" r ,..... Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 9 listed are sufficient and ready enough to essentially mandate a plan very similar to one that has been shown you in the case of the Rl-AAA. It's merely showing the number of lots that can be derived from an RI-AAA use of the property. In essence, the advantages to the RI-AAA application would be larger lots of course in the form of 20,000 square foot lot. Larger homes although not as large as being proposed in the Rl-AA application, the RI-AAA minimum is 1500 square feet, I bel i eve. possibl y fewer lots in the sense that there are 104 lots shown on that plan. The disadvantages to the RI-AAA application include Fisher Road access potential and Fisher Road pavement requirement potential. It's our understanding that the subdivision regulations wi th Fisher Road access might well mandate without some sort of variance or special exception to the improvement of Fisher Road, the pavement of Fisher Road. We have been told very, very clearly that the residents in the area, at least the ones who have attended meetings we have been at, do not favor that. There is no out right buffer tract shown in the RI-AAA application. We have before you the two additional applications and one might ask why would this Board favorably embrace either of the two additional applications? Its our contention respectfully that the property is designated on Future Land Use Map in a fashion that is inconsistent with its present zoning category and that these two applications provide the second and third conventional alternative to zoning classification to bring this particular site in compliance with the Future Land Use Map which is not an option as we understand, but a requirement of the state. We are here to answer whatever questions you might have and I thank you very much for your time. McLeod - Are there were any questions from the Board members at this time? We would like to have input by the general public. I have a few names in front of me but I don't know if we need to do that, I think a show of hands if you would like to speak and we'll recognize you and bring you forward. Carl stevens, 700 Fisher Road. I'm the president of the Ranchlands Homeowners Association. We have listened to both proposals and neither proposal is acceptable to the homeowners association in our area. The land right now is zoned Rc-l and it was zoned that way f or a reason and shoul d remain so. Neighborhoods shoul d be compatible with each other and that is the whole idea of zoning. That's the only idea of zoning, making neighborhoods compatible with each other. If a development is going to be compatible, you don't have to put ribbons around it and buffers and all kinds of things like that. The size of the lots and the homes, if the 9 ~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 10 l~ development is compatible we don't need those things. I'm hearing buffers, paving roads and so forth and of course we don't want paving out there and if you drive out there you'll know why because it's unique. It's a country type environment. We don't need the extra density, we don't need our schools over populated. We have schools in the area that are on multitract because they cannot handle the numbers that are there now. Winter Springs Elementary is on multitract. We have other schools that will probably be going on multitract in the future and middle schools. We don't need the extra traffic, we don't need the additional crime rate that high density often causes.We don't need the extra cost to the city. This was a mistake and the way of correcting a mistake is to fix the Comp Plan. This Board has admitted that it made a mistake, not necessarily the Board, but the mistake was made by a staff person and this Comp Plan was shoved through. The City Commissioners have admi tted making a mistake and I think the way you correct the mistake is to correct the Comp Plan, you don't change the land to match that. Comp Plans were designed for the future and if you go out there and look in the Ranchlands right now, the land is not acceptable in any higher density the way it is. On the East side we have Dunmar Estates. We have 5, 10, maybe 20 acre tracts of 1 and, horse farms. On the other side of Fisher Road we have acreage where the smallest lot is larger than a half acre. The reason for the RI-AA on part of Fisher Road is because we have some lots along Morton which runs away from Fisher Road and has nothing to do with the effect that this development will have if the zoning is changed. To see what the effect the zoning will have you need to drive down Fisher Road, look at the lot sizes, look at the homes and see what the area is like. This is no way compatible with us. I think the only way you can make this compatible is to keep the land zoned one house per acre. We have no problem with developing this land, we want it developed but our neighbors should be as compatible as the Foxes and the Pines and the Bob Cats that are there already. Most of the people living in the Ranchlands love that type of environment and we like to have people out there that appreciate the same type of thing. So we're requesting that you follow your own advise that you gave on June 2nd, that zoning be denied, that the Comp Plan be amended. We think this is the right thing to do regardless of any possible legal litigation you might run into. We're expecting you to do what is right. Any questions? ~ Glavin - While Mr. Stevens is before us and he has bringing up with regard to June 2, I think Mr. LeBlanc, was that the meeting at which we took a vote? I think it was maybe on my motion as to denying the application and my question was, did we take a vote In 10 - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 11 terms of recommending that there be a Comprehensive Plan amendment consistent with the probably 15, 20 amendments that Mr. Kern had just put us through? Largely bounds zoning in terms of making the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the zoning and I think I was discussing at that time that as to this project, the application by the ci ty, the suggest ion to the Board wi th regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendment was markably absent. I wanted to get our procedure straight, I don't know if our Board took a vote on that, or not that it be brought to us as a Comp Plan amendment. You don't know? (Could not make out what was being said by Mr. LeBlanc.) Glavin continued, the Comp Plan amendment, I mean all the other amendments but not concerning this parcel? (Again, could not make out what was being said by Mr. LeBlanc. McLeod - The time el ement was the issue. It was denied by the Board however, and it went to City Commission and City Commission after discussion, sent it back to the Board. ,-. Glavin - I was just wondering if anything further had been done with regard to bringing back to us a Comp Plan amendment on this? Keith Bricklemyer - Are you questioning whether the suggestion was made to amend the Comp Plan during that meeting? Glavin - I think I made a suggestion with regard to amending the Comp Plan because I was in favor of amending the Comp Plan. If there was an inconsistency in the application. This developer was telling us at the time we had to follow the zoning and I think my suggestion, no we didn't, because I believe that with regard to many other parcels throughout the city, where there was inconsis- tency from what the Comp Plan said, to what the zoning said. The staff had brought before us a multitudness Comp Plan proposed amendments but not with regard to this parcel. LeBlanc - Your comments Ms. Glavin was that you were annoyed with City Staff and that we have an attorney telling us we need to bring our zoning into consistency without 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. r-- Glavin - I don't remember saying I was annoyed with City Staff, I never get annoyed with City Staff, but I think I was questioning in that Council was telling us that we had to do something with 11 ,- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 12 regard as to what the zoning said. I said well, that's different because we just went through multitudinous Comp Plan amendment with regard to other parcels in the city. That was just my question. I'm sorry Mr. stevens, I didn't mean to deviate from your comments. stevens - I was listening to the tape and the motion was made to not only deny the rezoning, but to amend the Comp Plan as well. I have a copy of that tape. Thomas Brown -I have the minutes in front of me and you're correct. Mr. McLeod added to the motion at that time, I'll read from when Dave spoke. He felt the motion should have the following language added to have the public hearing to change the Comp Plan to Rustic Residential. r-- Glavin - Mr. Brickl emyer, can this Board add this issue to the public hearing on the Comp Plan amendments tonight? All we are doing is making a recommendations to the City Commission who has the final vote. Bricklemyer - You could make a recommendation that the Comp Plan be changed but I don't feel it would be procedural correct to put in this batch of Comp Plan amendments. McLeod added that he did not applied it was necessary. We had a series of Comp Plan amendments that evening to change, to be added to the present batch but the rezoning request be denied and recommended to the City Commission at a public hearing, to change, update our Comp Plan whether it be within a month or 6 months. stevens stated also, which did not appear on the minutes, which is on tape, Mr. Bricklemyer was asked about the legal aspects of this and he said that in those cases where cities denied permits on the basis of amending Comp Plans the courts found in their favor and I don't find that in the minutes, it should be in there. Brown - We don't verbatim all our minutes. stevens - Something like that should be in the minutes In this case. r" Glavin - From what you're reading there Mr. Brown, did you say that Mr. McLeod added something to my motion with regard to the denial of application and did this Board have a vote? 12 ,,- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 13 Brown - I didn't want to say anything yet because I'm just reading. Digging and reading right? I want to be careful what I say. Glavin asked did we have a vote that the thing should go back to staff for a proposed Comp Plan amendment or was that just discus- sion? Brown said to Glavin here, read it, it's your motion. McLeod said during this time rather than everybody waiting, once Grace Ann finds it, then we'll let her read it. You have anything else at this time? Brown said no that's all thank you. LeBlanc - I just read the first motion you made, and then it was amended. /"""'" Glavin - I make a motion that the zoning application by Mr. Earley be denied, and this Board make recommendation to the City Comrrlis- sion 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 it, and the Board said aye, so Mr. LeBlanc, I'm wondering cause again you know I've been on this Board for two and half years, and I'm still trying to figure out, (the end of Glavins statement is inaudible) LeBlanc - The Commission hasn't discussed this yet. Glavin - Ok, so from June 2 to now it just hasn't come back, is that it? LeBlanc - It hasn't been formally discussed by the Commission, only at a workshop. Glavin - The Comp Plan amendment on this parcel? LeBlanc - There was never a Comp Plan amendment on this parcel. McLeod - Would you mind giving your name and your address please. r-- Neil McCullough - My name is Neil McCullough, I'm with a firm of Clayton and McCullough, I represent the Ranchlands, and I'm at 220 N. Palmetto Ave. in Orlando Florida. I think one of the things we're seeing here is a lot of confusion that is surrounding this particular Comp Plan; especially as it relates to this particular property. I know some of the PI anning and Zoning Board members were actually on the Board at the time the Comp Plan went through. 13 ",.... I"""" ."...... , I Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 14 One of the things I think should be discussed, and discussed openly tonight by those Board members is exactly how that Comp Plan went through and what the problems with that Comp Plan were. I think there were numerous problems with that Comp Plan at least as it relates to this particular zoning parcel. As I understand it, and r'm fairly new to all this getting involved, and I'll be the first one to admi t that. Everything I've heard seems to indicate that this particular property was always intended to literally be RC-l, Rustic Residential, and now turn around at this late date and let that change for whatever reason is wrong. Back to what is right and wrong. One of the things that I'm going to really strongly suggest to this Board is that those Board members who were on the Board at the time the Comp Plan went through, tell the other Board members how it went through, and what the problems were. Did the Board expect this Comp Plan go through the way it did with this new zoning classifications or is there a problem? As I understand it, there is a major problem. The Comp Plan should not have gone through as it exists today. This Board took a very responsibl e approach in recommending an amendment to the Comp Plan. This Board I hope will stick by that approach and stand by that decision. Lets walk through a couple of things if you don't mind because I think its sort of important. As I understand it, this property was always intended to remain the RC-l classification of Rustic Residential. The Comp Plan should have never been created to incorporate the current zoning. It should have always at a minimum incorporated the Rustic Residential zoning criteria. As such, it still needs to be amended. To not amend it allows something to transpire with this property which was not intended, not in the best interest of the citizens, and not in the best interest of the city. One of the things that needs to be looked at here is what was desired by the ci ty, what was expected by its ci tizens, and what was represented. That will change if this Comp Plan is not amended or if any of the zoning applications go through. One of the things I think we need to talk about here a little bit is because I think cities are being put on the spot by virtue of the court cases that are coming down vis-a'-vis the zoning applica- tions. I think that needs to be discussed at least briefly. I think a lot of you have been hearing things about how cities have to do "X" or they're going to get into lawsuits or cities have to do "x" or they're going to lose. I think that needs to be c I a r i fie d a 1 i t tIe bit her e . The ma j 0 rea s e in t his are a is Snyder. A lot of you were there at a board meeting of the City Commission where I spoke about Snyder and some other cases. Well at that time, Snyder was a fifth DCA decision. It was not a Supreme Court decision. That Supreme Court decision has now been rendered. It is the leading authority in the State of Florida. In the Snyder 14 .~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 15 decision, and all the things we are hearing in t.he fifth DCA Snyder deci si on whi ch was a lower court decisi on said, " ci ties had very little power, and you must ramrod everything through." NO! The Supreme Court has massively backed off of what the fifth DCA said, and you all need to understand it, ok? The Supreme Court has affirmatively stated that the Comp Plan is intended for future use of land. It is gone on to say that it contemplates gradual and ordered growth. The Comp PI an only establ ishes a long range maximum limit on density, not immediate minimum limit on density. That's really important. Attorney Keith Bricklemyer the case with this plan. that's the significant considered in the Snyder - Excuse me Mr. Chairman, but that's not This plan does have a minimum density, difference between the plan that was case. ",-.. McCullough - Except for in this particular case, we're also talking about a Comp Plan that got approved that should have never been approved. Bricklemyer - But it is the law. ",-.. McCullough - The law, if you'll go back to Snyder, does one other thing that is very, very important. In the Snyder decision, one of the important things that the Supreme Court did was sent Snyder back to ground one. Snyder, you go back and start the whol e application process over again. They did not go with what the Snyders wanted, they sent them back. As a matter of fact, what the Supreme Court did was it quashed the lower court Snyder case to the extent it was inconsistent. It also went on to say that while the Supreme Court was reluctant to preclude the Snyders of any avenue of relief; they would allow them to file a new application for rezoning of the property. That's very important because what this court case did was it did not do the fi fth DCA. Everybody was believing it was going to severely restrict cities, and what they could do. The Snyder case has opened up another Pandora's box by virtue of the fact that it says its for future land use, and it sets forth maximums and minimums. I don't totally agree with what you're saying, but let me go on. The fact that it is for ordered growth, isn't what was intended, this isn't going to be ordered growth. So that's one thing that the city can bank on. The other thing the ci ty can significantly consider is the fact that the Supreme Court sent the Snyders back to ground zero. What we need to look at here is, should this go back to ground zero? Should the Camp Plan be amended, and then once the Comp Plan is amended, 15 .r- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 16 /""'" determine what use under the Comp Plan should be allowed? So what we're saying is, amend the Comp Plan for Rustic Residential, then grant Rustic Residential. Now I'm not going to stand before this Board and sit here and suggest that this may be a lawsuit. No, I can't do that ok? You may get a I awsui t based upon the Snyder decision, I'm expecting a lot of law suits applied to the Snyder decision. But there's two things I think we can expect, and that is the cities need to do that which is right. They need to protect their citizens, and they need to do that which their citizens have the right to expect; and if that entails a lawsuit, so be it. The other thing is that in doing that the cities are between a rock and a hard place. If they don't, their citizens have to take action as to what they think is right in terms of was this Comp PI an properly adopted in the fi rst place. I'm only saying I hope this Board will do that which is right. I'm very pleased with the fact that the Board has made its previous recolTIffiendation, and I hope it stands by its recommendation, and just to reiterate, I hope that those Board members who were on this Board at the time the Comp Plan was adopted will at least take a couple of seconds now, and discuss exactly how that came down. The problems with it and why we're in this position. I think there's great justification for going back, and amending the Comp Plan, and not just having some zoning which is now consistent with the Comp Plan run through despite the disparities which it will create, and the improprieti- es. Thank you. Glavin - Mr. McCullough, I don't want to cut off your comments but I wanted to go back to something that Mr. Bricklemyer said with regard to that we have minimums. Didn't we go through a proposed Comp Plan amendment and didn't we recommend to the City Commission and did the City Commission pass it and submit (this point inaudible) eliminating our minimums? Bricklemyer - It has not been officially been adopted yet. It lS in the process. "........ Glavin - When there is a zoning, and then there is a Comp Plan designation, is there not reliance going both ways with regard to the zoning designation, and the Camp Plan designation? Does the city need to take the posture that it must follow the Comp Plan designation because of a reliance by a land owner or developer, whatever? Again, I'm going back to the fact that we had before us and most of them at city staff many, many Camp Plan amendments. Largely, I'd say down zoning, because of inconsistencies between the previous zoning and the Camp Plan. This one sticks out like 16 r Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 17 a sore thumb in my opinion, again that nothing has happened since June 2 with regard to getting put on any agenda. I know that we hear lots of talk of lawsuits. We have lots of fear of litigation, and I guess the worries of the at torney fees to the ci ty wi th regard to litigation. I'm a Real Estate Attorney, I speak not as an attorney but as a resident and a Board member here. Why is the city always afraid to take a stand for what its people want or what it wants because its afraid of a lawsuit? Anytime and every time we wind up in a lawsuit, there winds up some mediated settlement anyway which mayor may not be to the best wishes of the residents of the city. What I'm saying is, can the City Commis- sion, upon our recommendation take a stand one way or another with regard to whether they want to follow the Comp Plan or whether they want to follow the zoning and the wishes of the people? ,,-... Bricklemyer - No! Let me go back and try to set the basic ground, rules and obviously there are a lot of ifs ands and buts that go along with it. The basic rule is, the city has an obligation to adopt development orders whether there's zoning, or issuance of permits, or whatever they happen to be that are consistent with the Comp Plan. You cannot adopt an order which would include a rezoning that would be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Now as you apply that rule to this property, the Comp Plan currently has a minimum density of 1.1 units per acre. The zoning on the property is one unit to the acre so the zoning is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The petitioner has requested an array of zoning alternatives which can result in densities in excess of 1.1, or densities as low as 1.1, depending on how you lay the plan out. The plans that were presented to you tonight are not part of the zoning application. When you zone the property your not zoning to that plan, your zoning to a district; the plan will then follow once they do the engineering, and come in with the subdivision plans. So that the rule is that you have to comply with the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan says the density has to be right now, be between 1.1, and 3.5. The Snyder case pointed out that just because it says the maximum density is 3.5, doesn't mean that the owner is entitled to 3.5, or even 3, or even 2. There are a number of different decisions that the Board can make that are consistent with the Camp Plan. The applicant can come in with 3.0 which is consistent, and the Commission can make a decision to go to 1.1 which is consistent. So it depends on all the other factors and, all the other goals, policies and objectives that are in the Camp plan as to what is consistent or what is not consistent. /""" Glavin - But Mr. Bricklemyer, again maybe 15, 20 separate parcels, 17 .-. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 18 its hard to remember. I think there were about 15 amendments that might have included 20, 25 parcels. Many times when we voted on, and passed along to the City Commission those Comp Plan amendments the property owner sat right here, and said, " NO, we want to rely on how the Comp Plan is." He almost uniformily went along with the zoning, and we voted over their objection to change the Camp Plan and change again what they do with the property. Why did the city support those amendments, and not this one? Bricklemyer - That's not a legal question, I can't answer that. ~ McLeod - I think that goes to the Commissioners. I would like to ask something here, and then I'll come back here. Hhat your basically saying then this evening, if this Board found that we were to go to the low density, we could do that with a recommenda- tion that it be at the 1.1 against that piece of property; which presently at the zoning as it is, the RC allows 80 houses on that property, one per acre. If we went low density at 1.1, then we woul d basi call y be saying 88 houses. I s that not cor-rect? So rather than the 125 that they're requesting, we would be looking at a maximum of 88. I just wanted to clear that. Hoffman - Is there any indication why the Commission in the past 6 months has deferred making a change, or discussing a change in the Camp Plan to overcome this problem? Bricklemyer - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the petition on which you acted, included the recommendation to amend the Camp Plan has never been to a city commission meeting. Its been to a workshop. I can't answer that. There's been requests for continuances I think both by the city, and by the applicant while their trying to figure what the best approach might be to deal with it. Hoffman strongly now, and not, but Then at this time, I think we should support most going back to the Commissioners, and saying review this either decide to make a recommendation for a change, ,or to do something because right now it's an impasse. Bricklemyer - Is the other petition scheduled for hearing? r- LeBlanc - No, it isn't. The last time that this was scheduled for hearing I believe, the then Mayor, took it off the agenda and gave the hot potato to the new Co~~ission. Glavin - Mr. LeBlanc, I don't think whether, or not the petition , '"' .J..O ",...... ",...... ",...... " Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 19 of the developer is before the City Commission is J:.-elevant. I'm wondering if staff could not have put on the agenda our recomITlenda- tion for the plan amendment? LeBlanc - It was on the agenda; it was on the agenda more than one time. The way it read was the P & Z Board recom~endation for the rezoning of the Earley property. We can put it on the agenda every other meeting, or every meeting, and if they choose not to discuss it, staff doesn't set policy. That's a decision that's made higher up. Glavin - Well, that was my question, you have put our recommenda- tion on the agenda? LeBlanc - Yes, it has been on the agenda, the P & Z Board recornmen- dation. That's the way all your recommendations go to the Commission, is that P & Z Board recommendation for such and such a project whatever it is. Hoffman - We should renew our recomrnendation as a beginning of a new year with a new Commission, and say it's urgent that this be acted upon, that a change in the development in the Comp Plan be put forth to ag~ee with the Rustic RC-l Residential. LeBlanc The RI-A recommendation is still to go before the Commission at some date. This could be at the same time whenever it's put back on the agenda, whatever your recommendation is tonight. Brown - Just a point that I guess concerns me. When we discussed the amendments at that time to the Comp Plan, they were talking it would be 9 months before we could add another item. Well, six of nine months has gone by on the originals that haven't moved, and we haven't even touched the new item. I don't know who to put the finger on, but it certainly seems like we're moving in any positive direction to resolve the issue. McCleod - Don, aren't we at the point right now, about a six month period, where twice a year we can amend the Comp plan? LeBlanc - Keith is more familiar with the exacts dates. It's twice a year, but I don't know if there's a certain month or. Bricklemyer - You can amend the Plan essentially twice a year and, there's exceptions to that, and I'm not sure. There is a memo I 19 r' Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 20 think that Greg put out that established a schedule. What the application deadlines would be, and it would take about nine months to go through the process, but I'm not sure what that deadline is at this point. McLeod - Would you mind finding out for us, or Don find cut? See that it gets to the Board members so that we know if this needs to go that way, as to what time frame everybody is looking at? r' McCullough - A couple of quick things before I step down. First of all, one of the things that sort of bothers me as an attorney is that I keep hearing hOvl Snyder, regardless of fifth DCA, Supreme Court, is scaring cities; there scaring cities into taking a positions to avoid lawsuits. I guess I have a problem with that because especially with the Supreme COU1-t decision; the Supreme Court did not come in, and slap the city or municipality. (Tape changed at this point) With regard to this particular issue that's before this Planning and Zoning Board, ultimately before the City Commission, these are a different set of facts. Snyder did not deal with, as far as I know, and known of the research I've done; Snyder has indicated that the Snyder court dealt in any fashion with a Camp Plan that probabl y shaul d have never been adopted. Wi th a Camp PI an that might have mislead it's citizens. Snyder does not touch on that in the least. This is a different set of facts. What I'm saying is, even under the Snyder set of facts, the Supreme Court backed off and the Supreme Court backed the city. So for everybody to be running s cared of Snyder, I guess I have a 1 it tIe probl em wi th understanding that. The other thing I think that cities need to appreciate is, how did all this come about? The way it all came about was the cities were forced to deal with the Camp Plan. They were forced to come up with these Comprehensive Maps. One of the things that also sort of happened is, I think cities were a little mislead in what they were doing, and how to do it, and also on their tinle tables they were crunched under. They were looking at what is going to be the ultimate best use to this property, not the best use of the property today, and I think that's one of the things the Supreme Court looked at, and said," wait a minute, we don't have to give the maximum use today, that's not what Vias intended." We asked OUt- cities to go back and look at what would be the ultimate best use of the property, not to give it today. The Supreme Court I think is backing that. So to sit here, and say that the zoning now that exists on their Comp plan is not consis- tent with Rustic Residential, So? The Snyder court, one of the things that have to be dealt with there if I'm not mistaken, and r' 20 ,~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 21 this I can't bet my reputation on, but if I'm not mistaken, In the Snyder decision, all of the zoning that would have been sought, and the current one they had was consistent, you have a different case. Yours is not consistent, and your Comp Plan should have never been adopted and the Supreme Court has never acted on that factual basis. That's basically all I have to say unless anyone has a question, thank you all very much. Bricklemyer - Mr. Chairman, if I may clarify. The last point that was raised is a good point, but I think the direction was the wrong direction. The zoning options that were proposed in the Snyder case were consistent with the Comp Plan. The problem you have in this case is the existing zoning is not consistent with the Comp Plan. Glavin - So we are not controlled by Snyder? ~ Bricklemyer - No, you are controlled by Snyder. All Snyder says is that you have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The current zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Glavin - No, I don't think that's what Snyder says. McCullough - I don't think that's what Snyder says, I think Snyder deal t wi th that parti cuI ar fact scenario, and wi th Snyder, the Supreme Court said we are expecting expanded gro\-lth. I think it says you have to deal with your Comp Flan, you need to be consis- tent. Bricklemyer - You need to be consistent with the Comp Plan, and the corollary to that is you can't be inconsistent with the Comp Plan, and the current zoning on this property is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. It doesn't say you have to go to 3.5 VIhich is the maximum, but if you rezone you cannot rezone under the current Comp Plan to less than 1.1. McCullough - I disagree because it doesn't deal with amending the Comp Plan. With the Planning and Zoning Board like copies of the Snyder case, I've got them with me. ,-.. David Hopkins - Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just try to direct this Board a little bit in that, I don't believe that this is a legal proceeding. This is a voluntary Board up here. We're looking out for the residents of Winter Springs, that is our best interest. I'd like to at this time make a clarification. I know there was ...., .i..i... ."........ "........ r' " Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 22 problems with that Comp Plan, I was one of those Board members here then. However, our intentions were there, and although there may have been some items that were not presented the proper way to the DCA, I would like to site just a small objective in our goals, objectives, and policies in volume two of our Comp Plan. That falls under the land use, page 17. I would like to assume that the Ranchlands certainly is an existing residential development, ok? With that said and done under "B", it says, existing residential developments with lots of at least one acr.e are assigned a new classification, Rustic Residential. To support the rights of residents, and property owners of these established country areas to their preferred life style, where urban infrastJ::ucture is lacking by design, and choice; improvements such as paved local streets, and central water and sewer services will not be mandated unless, and until owners of the majority of the property wish them. Now that was our intent. Glavin - Mr. Bricklemyer, I'm sorry, I must ask you again, why is your law office taken such a strong stand on this one with regard to being consistent with the Comp Plan? Wherein we did multitud- ness Comp PI an amendments over the objections of the property owners and your office was essentially silent, or assisted the city in regard to the preparation of the documents. Bricklemyer - I was never consulted on other matters other than this, and my position is consistent with the position that I've always taken. It's what the statue says.You have to be consistent with the Comp Plan, and you cannot adopt development orders that are inconsistent. That's not to say that you can't change your Comp Plan to correct situations that you want to correct; but you cannot adopt zoning that are inconsistent with the Comp Plan designation, if you are going to adopt a zoning. Nobody says you have to adopt one. Glavin - The zoning is already in place. r'm just saying, how does this fact pattern differ from those other fact patterns where we had the Comp Plan amendments? Bricklemyer - I don't know what those fact patterns were, I wasn't involved in those. Hopkins - I think at this point, the real issue lS why has this not been brought to the City Commission, or why have they not acted upon it rather? I think at this point that's where the dileITma rests. 22 /""'" Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 23 McLeod - I would like at this time; however, still give time or some of the other citizens to have input before we go for a mot on from this Board. Mr. Wilder. r- Henderson Wilder - I live at 235 E. Bahama Rd. We have heard a lot of attorney talk here that rnost us dorl't un.derstand. We do understand one thing, and I think it's been brought out here pretty clearly that the majority of the residents want the RC-I zoning, or the rural residential, or whatever you want to call it. That's been the belief, that's the way it was for quite sometime and should remain that way. It's also been pretty clear to all of us who have been at recent meetings that there certainly was confusion as to how this Comp Plan came into being to begin with. As I recall, the members of this Board as well as the City Commission were kind of dumbfounded to find that the Comp Plan was not consistent with the existing zoning. This apparently has been shoved under the table, and nothing has been done about it, and everybody is running scar ed, and we're tal king about you can't change the Comp PI an. The Comp PI an has to take precedent ove:t: everything. Nobody can change the Comp Plan. Well, this may be legally correct, but it certainly isn't morally right, and it isn't in the best interest of the people who live in the Ranchlands, and what they want. If the City Commission, and if this Board wants to be consistent with what the residents want, I think they should change the Comp Plan. Now there's several things that have been brought up before, and I won't go into all of them. First of all, the plans as I see shown here this evening, although Fisher Road would not be paved, have a little buffer zone there. Basically what it amounts to, those people who now live on Fisher Road are going to be looking at other peoples backyards. I certainly wouldn't consider that in the best interest of the residents. Another factor is that if Panama is not going to be paved, and Fisher is not going to paved, then all the traffic that comes out of there is going to down shor e, is that correct? How are the people going to get out of there except down Shore, and what other roads are going to be paved in the future? They have to get out somewhere. Shore can't really accorrmodate the traffic that's on it now. When you go down Shore you have to go down one of the streets to the West to get back over to Hayes and out to 434. So I haven't heard any real explanation O~ how the traffic is going to be handled that satisfies me. Another thing you mentioned that I didn't quite understand Mr. McLeod, you mentioned the difference in the RI-AAA where it would be the density of 1.1, but that's 1.1 per- g1.-OSs acre as I unde1.-stand it, so the lot sizes would be /""'" 23 r'" Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 24 smaller. Now if it was one house per acre, you wouldn't be able to have 80 homes on a 88 acre parcel; you have to have some area for roads, and retention ponds, and whatever else you might have. So as I see it, you wouldn't have the same density. You referred to 80 homes verses 88. I wouldn't think that would be correct, but I may be wrong. McLeod - Even in a Rustic Residential they are able to cluster. I believe that's correct, is that not right? Let's see if we can't clarify that, but I believe they still can under Rustic Residen- tial. Wilder - So what you're saying is, under that zon1ng classifica- tion, a lot size can be less than one acre? McLeod - Yes, I know that f or a fact. under an acre. Rustic Residential can be r'" Wilder - But the present zoning 1S RC-I which is one acre, is that cor rect? McLeod answered yes. Wi lder asked, is that s till an active zoning in the City of Winter Springs, or is that no longer an active zoning classification? We're mentioning a Rustic Residential against RC-l. They're apparently are not the same then? McLeod - Rustic Residential was to replace RC-I. Wilder - That has replaced it then, is that correct? Bricklemyer - The RC-I zoning district still exists, it just needs to fit into a Comp Plan district that allows one acre lots. McLeod - The Comp Plan district is Rustic Residential. LeBlanc - The way Rustic Residential reads is created, and assigned the density of one dwelling unit or less per acre. It does not say anything about lot size. McLeod - That's gross acreage! ,.,...... Bricklemyer - The Comp Plan designation on this piece has minimum density, which Rustic Residential does not have, and that's what creating the problem. Wilder - T ... understanc. what's cr-eaLL-.g the pr-oblern cause it got 24 r- Planning and Zoning Boa~d Minutes December IS, 1993 Page 25 slipped in there, and nobody knew about it. In fact, there was some question about how in the world the Comp Plan got changed. It was different than the zoning, and I haven't heard anybody satisfac- torily explain how that occurred cause everybody's like the rest of us, dumbfounded. How did it happen? Board. it got changed on the computer, rIve made that statement in McLeod - As we basically know and basically changed by this front of the Comnission. 'J.. 1. '- I Wilder - That basically covers any question. what I have to say unless there , ,~ ....:> r- Glavin - Mr. McLeod, I think what we need to hear from the people here tonight is wi th regard to vThat it is I ike in thei r area; where they live now, and what should be a legitimate public purpose of this Board. If I could just read a sentence from this decision of the Board of County Co~missioners, of Brevard County Florida, verses Snyder, October 7, 1993 the Supreme Court says, " Upon consideration we hold that a land owner seeking to rezone property has the burden of proving that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and complies with all procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance." At this point, the burden shifts to the governmental board to demonstrate that maintaining the existing zoning classification with respect to the property, accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. I would interpret this as sa::ling quite distinotly, that be it the Comp Plan may say one thing, or another, if there is a 1 egi tima te pub 1 i c purpose whi eh can be annunciated before the Board, the Board can make a finding. Then it can uphold the zoning anyway it wants, and again we can make a recommendation back to the City Commission if we have a majority with regard to amending the Camp Pla~. But anyway, if we could hear some more from the residents out there with regard to their Rustic Residential bit. ,""'" Frank Stiver - I live at 135 Tradewinds Road East. One thing I wanted to bring up was, repeatedly in the discussion when we're numbers crunching, some extra acreage that was not included in this proposal keeps being thrown in to beef up the numbers. I just like to reiterate as Mr. McLeod pointed out that the parcel that suppose to be under consideration is, the 88 acre parcel. when we throw in some unusable wet land to beef up the number, that's not part of the proposal, and I don't think that should be considered in the numbers. I think the proposal is for the 88 piece, let's deal with the zoning on the 88 piece. If he decides to go later for a ...,r-:, ...~ ,r- ,.--.. ,.--.. , . Planning December Page 26 and , '" -'-~, Zoning Board Minutes 1993 different petition for the other land, then address that land at another time. You mentioned how this will fit in the neighborhood, and I'm going to go back to something I said at an earlier meeting. I'm a Realtor, I access to the computer to get average land sizes; then took the individual lot sizes of the surrounding properties. This land is bordered on the West, predominantly by DunmaL I figured out that the average lot size in Dunmar Estates is about 325,000 square feet. The North Ranchlands borders it to the East and North. By the North Ranchlands, I'm talking about the area South of Stoner, North of Tradewinds, currently zoned RC-l. In that area, the average lot size is closer to 60,000 square feet. The South Ranchlands, the area South of Tradewinds running to the Southern terminus of this proposed property, is the last of it's bordered properties; average lot size in there is 36,000 square feet. So we're talking 36, 60, and over 300,000, and the proposal is to put in 10,000 foot lots in the center. How does that fit in? I still have yet to see how that fits. I don't think that blends with the surrounding area, and I don't think that's consistent use of the property. Thank you. Dave Barowski I live at 550 Fisher Rd. The piece of p:roperty they're talking about, from what I understand, means I'm going to be looking at roof lines across the street from my home. When I bought out here 5 years ago, I researched before I spent my money investing, because my home is the biggest investment I have. The research that I did found that this was one acre parcels, and it was going to stay that way. My understanding when I talked to residents before I bought out there was, this had already come up; trying to develop this, and it just kept going back and forth, and the city knew the people didn't want it developed that way. They wanted it country, and it seemed to stay that way. Now all 0: a sudden, this has been slipped in some how. Anyway, now they want to change this. All I can see is, I'm looking at roof lines, and that's just not something I want to do.The other problems that I just want to bring up is traffic. It is te~rible coming off of East Lake onto Bird which goes onto Fisher. If you put in whatever he's talking here, a 140 lots, or whatever, I don't understand how you're going to do that without putting in a light, widening the road down there, and doing all of this. Then if you're coming in from Shore, these people in this small neighborhood are going to appreciate all this L:-affic that's going to flow through their- neighborhood. I'm sure they' r-e going to be happy about it. Like I said before, please before you consider this, take a ride out there, drive the Ranchlands, go through Dunmar, and look at the scerlery. Trle people trlat live o-ut t.rlere, live out tr.i.ere for 3. 26 ,"- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 27 reason. We like it country. You can't find a place like this, it's perfect. To ruin it by putting in tract houses, or whatever else is just awful, it doesn't fit. You need to go, and take a look, drive through there, take a walk, you'll really appreciate it. Thank you. McLeod - As this lady is coming forward, T would like to mention the fifty foot buffer. If you people want something to do while you're waiting to come up here, start in the back and count 25 tile forward this way. These tiles are 2 foot by foot, this is your 50 foot buffer. Basically from the back wall to this wall behind me. Just so you have an understanding what 50 foot buffers are. ,-.. Tori Collins - I live at 626 Sailfish Road. I moved here with my two children two years ago, and was attracted to the Rustic area, and all of the children. There's low traffic going through the streets. If you know Shore Road, Shore Road does not go out to 434, and that can be a Northern access point. What's going to happen is, they're going to come down my street, and these other side streets. Do you know how many children are out there? Have you ever been out there on Halloween. We must have bought 10 bags of candy this year. That's how many children are in this neighbor- hood, that they're trying to propose having additional traffic going through. 80 acres at 3.5 units per acre, that's 280 houses. Multiply that times two, most families have two cars. Where are they going to drive through? They're going to drive through my neighborhood. That's all I wanted to say, was just to bring up the point up about the children, and what kind of area we have right now, without having additional traffic running through as a through wa:i. Thank you. ,-.. Pat Mosley - I live at 630 Dunmar Circle in Dunmar Estates. I've heard just a little bit of what is going on, and I'm familiar with the proposal. I spoke at the last rneeti11g / and I'rn flot su:re was here, and who wasn't. However, I do think some points do need to be made. I concur with what my neighbors have said already_ The theme of the Ranchlands, and this area is certainly one of country style living with particular attention to horses, and horse raising, and that kind of life style. When we looked ten years ago, we looked allover the greater Orlando area, and this is the only area that had this type of setting that we could find. That was a decade ago, and if we repeated that process now, it would be impossible. You would almost have to goes to Leesburg to find it. To put a type of a development i~ the middle of the Ranchlaads I think, would be totally missing the theme of what the Ranchlands 27 r-- Planning and Zoning Board Min~tes December 15, 1993 Page 28 ~ creators had in rnind, when they set aside this part of v.1inter Springs or this part of Seminole County. It's an ideal setting for what it's been developed for right now, and I think to deviate from that would be missing the theme of what it was laid out to be. I can empathize, and sympathize with Dr. Earley, his plight in terms of what he's going to do with his 80 acres, and in terms of the fact that he's get a Real Estate investment here that he's trying to realize some profit on. However, as we all know, Real Estate in this day and time is not a particularly good investment. I don't think that it's imperative, that you as a Planning and Zoning Board, have to sure him of making a profit. This is not necessarily the issue here. I've got 30 acres, actually 40 acres in alL that's contiguous with this. It's right across the power line, and we spent the last 10 years with considerable amo~nt of time, effort and money clearing that land, developing it, and making it a state of the art Horse Farm. Again, we sought allover the greater Orlando area to find a suitable setting for that. If you then put a development like Oak Forest right across the power line from our 30 or 40 acr-es that we developed, not only would it rUlr:. the setting, and ruin everything we fought to establish there, it would in fact devalue our land. I think it would devalue it considerab- ly. So whatever you may be giving to Dr. Earley, I think not only for my ownself, but all the neighbors in the Ranchlands area, _ think you may be devaluing their property at least the same amount. I think you may be hurting an awful lot of peopl e to help one person the~e. I don't kno"w that it's necessarili rigb.t, but T don't think that it's keeping with the theme of what the Ranchlands were originally set aside to be. I just appreciate your considera- tion if in fact the plan, or the plan that is on the floor was in error. I think it's the common sense thing to do; to correct that, or rectify that, and not make it worse or compound it. The other thing is if it does pass; if I do have to move my farm because of too many residents, too many peopl e, or kids coming over, and the risk of liability, I may be back in 6 months, or a year requesting the same zoning that he's got. I think it might be difficult not to give it me, if you give it to him. So then you'll have another 80 houses in there on that 30 &Cr8S, or something like that. So I think r'll just consider it, and wish you would consider having ~t as it was laid out, and designed to be. Thank you very much. ,......., Mark Knoll - I live at 135 East Panama. My wife and I just picked this property up last year. I've worked for the telephone company some 28 years, and I've been looking around f or a p I ace that I won't have neighbors close, and I can enjoy myself. Not that I 2" c , " " ,..- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 29 don't like people, but now it looks like because of some goof up on somebody pressing a button on some computer, that we might as well have bought outside Disney Land. I don't know, but with the job I have, if nobody did anything about something for 9 months, there would be somebody else there. Thank you very much. r Carol Alvine - I live at 275 East Tradewin~s Road. I have to say something because we get so irritated with these meetings, on and on, and if you don't get up, and say something, you feel like you didn't do your best. We all know the constitution of this country was formulated to the tyranny of the king. It states, "he has called together legislative bodies that places unusual, uncomfort- able distance frorn the depository of their public records for the sole purpose of fatiguing thern into cornpliance witr.L r.Lis rneasures"; and so walks Dr. Earley. The residents of the Ranchlands have been repeatedl:l forced to figr.i.t to rnaintail1. RC-l ZO:1:rlg, now Rustic whatever. We purchased this right wi th our properties. This attempt by the owner, who also purchased the land RC-I, is uncon- scionable. It's Christmas, we're bereft with emotional, and fatiguing enterprises to put these holidays together, and this man has taken advantage of us in the worst most possibl e time, and vulnerable time of the year. Let it be known, although many of us are missing because of the holiday, it is a unanimous decision of the Ranchlands homeowners, and r'm sure the Dunmar Estates property owners, that we want to maintain our respective current zoning. Should it fall, all the cards will fall regarding residential, and moral values in our community. McLeod - Excuse me Ma'am. Dr. Mosley, do you want a phone? ,..... Carol Alvine - We foresee more than a thousand inhabitants in more than four dwellings per viable acre, and iIT~inent need will arise to pave our roads at homeowner forced expense to accommodate, or reuse, regardless or wr~at they're sa~rirlg. Tr.Lere's flO wa:l out of that, no way. We will loose our treasured habitats. Each one of us on our own properties, maintains a certain lifestyle in which we try to attract wildlife. Youngsters are going to replace that wildlife on our properties, and our roads,. We will have increased mailbox bashing, trashing, noise factors, and the dirt road thrill riders will be unreal. We control it now, but I can envision the children in this development coming through those roads. Fe want no road paved on ~r. Earley's property. He is giving the impres- sion that we don't want Fisher Road paved, we don't want any roads paved in there. We want to maintain dirt roads, and they were told this at the meetings. It's not that all of a sudden we don't want "10 .<..-' r Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 30 /"""" to pave Fishe~ Rd; sure let him off paving Fisher Road, this s not what this is about. He want to maintain our dirt roads n there, we want it to be the way it is. He llas to conform with cur lifestyle, we don't to have to conrorm to his intended property development, this is our right. She stated to our association, Mr. Earley's own attorney said, "there would be no guarantee that they could ensur-e existing property values would not drop." She said this in rront or all the Ranchland homeowners, and we well know that any property value there, will be decreased, and will be jeopardized by this development. In the meantime, our taxes will continue to increase. We have to provide additional police, fire and school to this massive development. Our country lirestyle to which the entire Ranchlands, and Dunmar has been forever dedicated. Since the original conception of the area, and approved by the P & Z Board at that time, whenever that was, 20, 30 years ago, must have been approved. This will be radically altered, and for the most part, erased from the history of Winter Springs, I guarantee it. It's just a matter of common sense to assume that the incidents of hospital emergency, crime, and all the rest will rise for everyone in Winter Springs, not just the Ranchlands. What happened to the petition that we submitted at a original P & Z Board hearing? More than 200 people signed that petition, and it was a last ditch effort; we didn't even think about it till the day before, and everyone said, maintain the zoning. What happened to it? Wrlat happened to tl-1e arne:1drnent ttlat tb.e Cornrnissiorlers n.ever put through? We're told it was a simple thing, everybody had it corrected, W~.i.y not us? ~~r~y ~r:j.asrJ. t t our property zor1ing beer.4. corrected on a Comprehensive Plan? You have heard it five times already. We have been forced to watch seemingly, no activity to protect our community. He ",ere pushed through an election. laced with developer innuendo, and hoped we voted for the right people. We're now faced with a new Mayor, and a new Commissioner who have most likely not heard of other fights over the years to protect this zoning. At those times the P & Z Board, Mayor and Commission all agreed we had the right to maintain our zoning. This was our right, this vias our community. We request that you uphold, and maintain, and act on the wishes of the corr~unity. We truly expect that you will once again provide legislation, commensur-ate with the wishes of your constituents, not with the developers wishes who would come in and destroy our community. The bottom line is not tr.lat of tr.i.e de~Jelopers balance sheet, but our rigr.i.t, a:ad our privilege, and our wish to maintain a specific community in a speci fie rnanner. Our ri gr.i.ts super cede tr.les e cleve 1 opers on. a 11 counts. There's no question here, our rights supercede his. We the people, are entitled to, and respectfully ~equ{~st your conformist ./"""" 30 " I', r Planning and Zoning Boa~d Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 31 with our priorities. Your actiofl to correct tb.e COITiP Plan, arld avoid future harassment will be very much appreciated. ,,- Hopkins - I would just like to bring to everyone's attention, as you already know, I already read off one of our objectives concern- ing the Camp Plan. Another one which is about to be impleffiented in the near future, is to do away with zoning altogether. I'm sure all the Board members noticed that we have been given a draft of a unified Land Development Code. That's the direction that we propose to go in, is to do away with zoning, and to look at each individual parcel on it's own merit if you will. That is in here under the purpos e of trlis U11:' f i ed Lar.i.d Dev el op;rlen t Code. Tb.e purpose of this code is the implementation of the goals, objec- tives, and policies of the most recently adopted Comp Plan. I've already read to you one of the objectives was to keep your kind of established corrmunity at one acre. That's what I read, that was the Boards consensus at the time, based on your input that you gave us durir19 that tilTle frarne. The problerri is tr.i.at tr~e unified Land Development Code as yet to be implemented. So we are operating in a strange capaci ty here in that, we are trying to do away wi th zoning with this Rl-AA, RI-A, and so on and so forth. We're trying to do away wi th all of that, and imp I emen t a Land Devel apemen t Code, if you will. That's where the support comes to the defense of our Camp. Until tb.is is adopted, weeded out, ran through, modified and amended, the reality of the situation is we're going to be looking at these kinds of situations coming before us until this unified Land Development Code is adopted. Maybe that has something to do with why the City COIT~ission has not yet assumed the posture of looking at our request. r'm not really sure because as far as I'm aware, we had no response at all. We are well aware of your concerns, you have voiced them to us way back when, and we are doing our best to implement them. McLeod - How many more people would like a few moments to speak? Ok, we have two other people that would like to spea}~, is that what I see? Three other people, Ok, cause I'd like to kind of hold it to that if possible. If there's sornetr~ing tb.at SOrneOI'lG really wants to say when we get through those three people , you feel yeu really need to say it, of course we'll give you an opportunity. I also want to give an opportunity back to the developer here this evening before we have a motion on the floor. Thank you. r- Dick Langdon - I live at 232 Morton. down cause I only have a statement. preceeding, we have stated how much I'll try to help cut the time My statement here lS that, square footage of land there 31 't ~ I '"'. .. > ,-. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 32 was If.l. Dunrnar. How lTiUCr.i. trlere was lrl tl-le Soutr.i.ern Rancb.l ands I Northern Ranchlands. I don't think that anyone would object too strongly if you were to adopt one acre or more with 1700 square feet or more; no paved roads, and be compatible to what we have. I don' t thin.1~ trlat wO:.lld be too rnucr.L of an objection tr~ere. Anything I ess than that to me, woul d be the same as taking and put ting a low income housing developme:nt down in the middl c of Tuscawilla Golf Course. r Sherry Graham - I live at 260 Panama East. I have a real brief statement. I oan't begin to understand the technicalities of all of this going on, but I wanted to bring in the human element of it. My husband and I saved for about ten years to be able to afford this type of lifestyle, and we moved in one year ago today. We have f our young chi 1 dren; f our bo~rs under nine years 0 I d, and I'm really concerned what the changes might be in their lifestyle if this many more neighbors come in. John Koehler - : live at 505 Hayes Road. We started mov~ng ~n a week ago, and we're still moving in. If you think about the values of why we moved out there, a couple of those are the simple things in life. Where you can hear the leaves falling off the trees, where can you see the wild animals; other than as road kill. Those are some of the simple basic things that we were looking for. This piece of property that we purchased is the type of property that I envisioned when people say, "imagine the place of :four dreams," in those stress management semi~ars. That was it. I turned around to my wife after ';ole saw the proper-t:i, and said, " that's it." Please consider those humanistic values as well as all this legal mumbo jumbo. Thar.k you. McCullough - I just wanted to mention something that Ms. Glavin raised, I think is an excellent point. One of the things that wouldn't be bad to recite, or maybe sum up some of the legitimate public purposes that have been talked about today. The things that I've heard, public safety, kids, traffic, I've heard schools. I've heard consistenc:f with lifestyles, I've heard crime, and have heard pLeservation. You all have a lot under the Snyder decision. Thank you. "'"', Gail Davis - I live at 120 East Tradewinds. We bought about three :fears ago because we wanted to live in the country, but we had to live in the city cause my husband had to be in a certain time fra~e from work. This offered the best of both worlds. We could bring our kids out there, and they could learn to live with nature. We 3~ "" ", .' .1""""' Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15/ 1993 Page 33 could have the stress reduction of coming out there, and having peace and quiet. You could listen to the Whippoorwills at night. People who live in cities that have paved roads and traffic, don't hear the birds that sing at night. They don't see the turtles that are digging their homes, or squirrels getting ready for the winter, the opossums. Every once and awhile, driving around trying to see the fox that eludes everybody. That's why we moved out there so that the kids could see the animals, and nature as it is, not only in a zoo. That's what we're trying to preserve out there. One day it will be gone, but we don't have to loose it, or give it away t oda}' . I""""' Carl stevens - I would like to make just one simple suggestion. If this Board makes the same decision as it made before in regard to this, since we're having trouble getting the att8ntio~ of the City Commissioners, perhaps as a staff person said, perhaps we should reword this a little bit. In stead of saying P & Z Board recommen- dation on Earley property, maybe it should be more specific, and say, "p & Z Boards recornrr.erldation to alT,end tr-le Camp plan in regards to Earley property." Glavin - I think that was ~n my motion last time. stevens - But it needs to have appeared on that, as they receive it. Marty Knoll - I live at 135 East Fanaffia. I only got one statement. This sounds like a meeting where individually we figure there's a problem, and something should be do;:.e. So collectively we get together, and agree there's a problem, and nothing can be done. Thank you. McLeod - I don't think we've decided nothing can be done Slr. By the way, I would just like to take a moment to thank each and everyone of you for tonight, and coming out, and being as courteous as you've been; you have been very courteous this evening, giving other people a chance to speak their opinions without interrup- tions/ and I appreciate that. I \liould like to go back to the developer at this time, O~ the atto~neys. After that, I'm going to come back to the Board. ,,-.., McIntosh There associated wi th the A came before this Board, relative the r.i.as beerl alot of questio;lirlg, a11d COflfusioIl timing, since the application initially fer Rl- Board. SOITie of tb.e ques t i on.s asked by t:his propriety associated with the processing of the ........ :).) " . '" "'" r --- ..r"" Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 34 growth management plan, sent the staff off for a period of several months looking through records trying to investigate, and find what happened. Subsequent to that, one of the staff members was dismissed, and during that same period there was several meetings including workshop that was held, and discussions about which application should be properly filed. He found this additional application, and felt it proper, before the City Commission heard the project, that all the applications found by the applicant be heard by this Board with their opinions, prior to the City Corrmis- sion passing judgement over it. I think that in the aggregate is the reason why it's taking so long to get forward, and I felt that important to clarify that, so no one felt that the Commission had been negligent, or the staff intentionally delayed the process. The second and last COffil'Tlent r'd like to make has to do with the condi tion of Dr. Earl ey' s property, ar~d his posi tion which is certainly only one position, but none the less, the position of the property owner in the City of Winter Springs. Respectfully, we'd like to point out that his property lS presently Comp Plan designated low density residential, that's a fact. The applica- tions that have been placed before this body, and before the city, consistent wi th the process, wi th fees paid apPl:-opriatel y, are consistent with the growth management plan. Therefore, I'd like to close by saying that the request is to make a zoning change to the Earley property, consistent with the cities existing growth management plan. I appreciate very much your time. Thank you. Hoffman - Is it time for a motion at this time? Glavin - I would like to point out that we Board members have a copy of Mr. Brickl emyer' s memo to Frank Kl:-uppenbacher, and Don LeBanc, dated November 22, 1993 with regard to this application. On page two of Mr. Bricklemyer's memo, at number three, he sets forth in terms of rendering a synapse if you will, of part of the Snyder decision. He sets forth at number three that Comprehensive Plar.ls provide fol,- the future, underlir~e use of larld arld local governments. Local governments have the discretion to decide that the maximum development density need not be allowed if such decisions are supported by substantial, competent evidence. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. I had made an amended motion on June 2, 1993, and Mr. LeBlanc was trying to find it in the minutes before. I was wondering if you could be so kind as to read me back my amended motion from June 2? I would also like to add to that motion Mr. Chairman, that the secretary be directed to transcribe the entire minutes of this evening on 34 ~ ";. r- r" r" Planning and Zoning Boa~d Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 35 this issue, including the public cOITment, that it may be part of the permanent record of our P & Z meeting of tonight. LeBlanc - The motion at that time was, I make a motion that the zoning application by Mr. Earley be denied, and that this Boa~d make recommendation to the City Corrmission with or without public input tonight that the Comp Plan be amended to comport with the Rustic Residential zoning of this parcel in question. Glavin - So moved Mr. Chairman. Brown - I second the motion. McCleod Discussion? Hoffman I would like to perhaps amend that to say that we recommend that the City Corrmission rapidly and aggressively pursue amending the Comp Plan so the conflicts that we see here will be removed. Unless they do that, we're going to have that happen again and again in other areas. :::t may be that they de:erred changing the Comp Plan because of the Land Development regulations, but it could have been pursued in the last six lTiOllths, and it changed while this was being worked en. LeBlanc - May you add to your motion please that this go before the Commission without your review of the minutes because the next Commission meeting is the lOth, and your meeting would be scheduled for the 5th, therefore, it couldn't go on the agenda until the 24th. McLeod - I don't know that undeJ:- the circumstances Donald, I as Chairman of this Board, would care to do that because of the intensity of this particular issue. LeBlanc - I was just going by the COITments rapidly, most rapidly. McLeod - If something happens to be typed wrong in there, I think we would like to take the blunt of that up front. Glavin - On discussio~ on that Mr. Chairman, I think an important part of my motion is that there be a full transcript including all the public comment, because it appears the Snyder decision, inc I uding Mr. Bri ok I emyer' s November 2 2 comments on the Snyder decision, states that local government must show that there was substantial, competent evidence in the record to support its ~r.: .......) I' . " ".;, f .-. Planning December Page 36 and , 1:", ..."'/ Zoning Board Minutes 1993 ruling. I think all the nice things that the nice people have sa d here tonight about their neighborhood would constitute substantia / competent evidence. Together wi th 11r. Hopkins comrnents wi th regard to as a city member of the Board when the Comp Plan went through, and his reading of his definition of Rustic Residential. Hoffman - The substantial involves the COmITlents from the public as to the request being incompatible with their lifestyle, and thei~ zoning. Glavin - I guess I'm the minutes or not. Hopkins said, right! saying I don't know if If it's going to be it matters if we review a verbatim transcript. r McLeod - I think what we will do about that is, let's go ahead, and finish the motion you have. If a Board member would like to give a motion to pass it on through to City Corr~ission, then we will take that as (last word of McLeod's was inaudible.) So take your motion as it stands, correct? Glavin - My motion stands as of June 2, 1993 with the addition that the secretary be directed to render a verbatim transcript of this evening on this issue, with Mr. Hoffman's suggestion of rapid and aggressive hearing before the City Commission. McLeod - Read roll. Recording Secretary read the 1-011. David McLeod, aye. Thomas Brown / aye. Art Hoffman, aye. David Hopkins, aye. Grace Ann Glavin, aye. Glavin - Was there a second to my motion? Brown - Yes, I seconded the motion. McLeod - Would somebody like to make a motion regarding this to go in front of the City Comrr,ission? Brown - You've already done that. You said go ahead and pass it th!:ough. McLeod - With transcript? ,-.. Glavin - with transcript, but I didn't say without having to come back to our Board. I think Mr. Bush wanted to be recognized. 36 .' . ~ \ -I: ". .. ",..- Planning and Zoning Board Xin~tes December 15/ 1993 Page 37 McLeod, "Yes Mr. Bush ?" Mayor John Bush - I The City Commission to the Commission. to us. live at 21 Tarpon Circle. I'm also the Mayor. will consider this as soon as you put it over It will be on the agenda as soon as you get it Glavin I make a motion Mr. Chairnian, that pursuant to Mr:. LeBlanc's suggestion that we forward this to the City Commission without reserving the right to review the minutes. Hoffman - Seconded: McLeod called for roll call. ",..-. Recording Secretary read roll call. David Hopkins, Brown, aye. Art Hoffman, aye. Grace Ann Glavin, McLeod, nay. aye. aye. Thomas David McLeod - I'd liJte to read what r'm getting hung for, but seeing that it passed, it's ok. At this timet I would like to have a brief recess with the Board members till 9:30. LeBlanc - Before we go to the next item, you saw at your chairs, the copy of the unified Land Development Code I gave you. We will discuss this on the meeting of the 19th of January. You will have ample time to look at it. Mr. Goodrow will be here on the 19th. The Commission decided that the Boards pay / would be $25 per meeting that you would attend. If you miss a meeting, you get no money. McLeod - I would like the Board to go back and approve the minutes of the 17th of November. Do we have a motion on that? David Hopkins as submitted. - I move to approve the minutes of November , ""/ ... I / 1993 Glavin seconded the motion. "",...... Roll call - Thomas Brown, aye. Art Hoffman abstained since he was not in attendance. David Hopkins, aye. David McLeod also abstained. Grace Ann Glavin, aye. McLeod - In regards to the Ordinance number 551/ I did send a fax ...... ..) i 9 ~".... ~ .)"" t""" ,,-. ,,-. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 38 to the City Commission Monday, and also the Mayor with corrments. "Margo would you get a copy for the Board members?" Hoffman - The compromise was instead of $15 $25, and you didn't get paid by the month. meeting. a meeting, it went to You got paid by the McLeod - Let's move to item SlX. Bricklemyer - I passed out a copy of the proposed Ordinance that would adopt article 10, and a revised version of article 10. At the last meeting the issue was what do we do about the fees that we're going to charge. All the issues with regard to incumbent fees are on page 9. The impact fees for water and sewer have to be paid up front which is consistent with current practice. However, within a 5 year period from the time that payment is made, for some reason a developer or property owner wants to terminate his certificate of concurrency, and get a refund; may get a refund on the basis of the schedule that's here. Which means if he's into a year, he only gets a refund for the years that follow. After 5 years there are no refunds. The only difference between that approach for water and sewer and the other impact fees, those are not required to be paid in full up front. They can be paid for a one year reservation or a three year reservation up to a five year reservation. He had a limit of three years and now we're extending it to five just to be compatible with water and sewer. Bricklemyer also said, one of the things talked about at the last meeting was whether these fees would run with the land in which there would be no refund, but the property owner would have the benefit of that fee by being able to sell it to the next owner. Don and Kip suggested setting it up as I mentioned earlier, you pay it in, you can get a refund under the circumstances that we have outlined here. If you don't get a refund under these circumstances, and you don't use the permits that your permitted to use, then you loose the money. The next guy that comes in goes through the process again and makes the payment again. One of the issues that the refund raises is, who is entitled to the refund? The way it is structured, the owner of the property is the one who benefits from a payment having been made. So it's not necessarily running with the land, it runs with the land to the extent that it runs out. The fees a:t"e held by the city fOL the benefit of the owner of the property that is the subject of the certificate of concurrency. They are non refundable except for as we provided below. LeBlanc - Must a developer participate In this or can he take his 38 '-l, (';,., ,- ~ r Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 39 chances? Bricklemyer - He has to if he wants to reserve capacity. LeBlanc - Can he take his chances? The developer decides there's enough capacity. Bricklemyer - The way this is structured, he cannot get a certifi- cate of concurrency unless he paid at least a one year reservation. At that point in time, pay his water and sewer up front. Hoffman - In other words, after two years he gets 80% back if he wants to, and he wants to turn it over to the new owner he can or whatever. ",- Glavin - At the last meeting we had requested that Mr. Lockcuff formulate some ideas with regard to how he would like to see an ideal situation. I think we were all just provided with this draft this evening, including Mr. Lockcuff. I don't know if we have the ability because this is very important and technical to pass on tonight without reading it in advance. I thought we had requested at one point having two business days to review these drafts. LeBlanc - Please read it and if you have any comments, direct them to me so I can give them to Keith for discussion on the 19th. Let's put a limit on it. The lOth of January, if you have no comments. Glavin - Mr. LeBlanc, could Kip could put something in writing, if only one line that this is the expression of his interest in this Ordinance, that it is correct and accurate? Kipton Lockcuff My only thought to that is when David Hopkins reads it, he'll see one way, I could see it another way, when Grace Ann, another way etc. When we're sitting here as a Board we then hear the other comments. LeBlanc In order to avoid confusion, have it read by the 19th of January. r- Glavin - I make a motion to tabl e the review of the proposed concurrency management Ordinance until January 19th meeting. Hoffman seconded it. 39 (0 'wi ,-_"- .. f' r r- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 40 McLeod asked for discussion. Hopkins - What is the problem was with it right now? Kip is saying it's all right the way it is; Mr. Bricklemyer is here to answer any possible concerns. I think we have beat this thing on numerous occasions, I'm ready to get this thing through. Hoffman - To avoid anybody saying they didn't have a chance to read it. Hopkins - Ok, I tried. McLeod asked for roll call. Roll call - David Hopkins, nay. Art Hoffman, aye. Thomas Brown, aye. Grace Ann Glavin, aye. David McLeod, aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Frankhouser, g Secretary 40