HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 12 15 Regular
.. . .. I . 1-
,
.---
"....
,-..
December 6, 1993
To:
From:
Re:
ITEM
Planning & Zoning Board
Land Development coordinato~
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting for December 15, 1993
1 - Hubert Earley has requested that his rezoning request once
again be brought before the Board. In this request the
applicant is seeking either R-1AA (One-Family Dwelling
District) with conditions, or R-1AAA (Single-Family Dwelling
District). Please see attached correspondence.
MINIMUM LOT SIZES:
R-1AA - 10,000 sq. ft. (minimum width - 90 ft at building
line).
R-1AAA - 20,000 sq.ft. (minimum width - 100 ft at building
line).
ITEM 2 - This is a continuation of the past discussion on the
proposed Concurrency Management Ordinance.
...
, L
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
. rCATION FOR ANNEXATION OR CHANGE OF ZONING
PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR THE Annexation ~Change of Zoning
Amendment to Land Use Map
.-
Amendment to PUD Preliminary Plan
Earley Hubert R.
Last Name First Middle Initial
201 S. Orange Avenue
Mailing Address
(If the applicant is not the
owner of the subject property,
the applicant must include a
letter of authorization signed
by the owner)
Orlando
City
Florida
State
32801
Zip Code
(407) 422-0498
Telephone Number
Legal description of the subject property (attach map):
See Attached
Total No. of Acres
80
Total Usable Acres
80
",.....
Present Zoning Category
RC-1
Pr~sent Land ,UseRCla~siflcetion
Lower Denslty eSloentlal
(1.1 to 3.5 du/ac.)
General location of subject property (including names and types of roads which tract abuts):
Fisher Road (dirt)
Panama Road (dirt)
Present development status of Land:
Vacant
Zoning Categories and Land Use Classification of abutting property:
RC-1 and R1-AA
Zoning Category requested R1-AA (Conditioned) OR Land Use Classification Required lower
R1-AAA (See attached for R1-AA Conditionsf Density Res.
Detailed information concerning purpose and intent of request:
Development of single family homesites.
r-
/ / . ~I 5" ,.....
Date // - /~, - _~
Applicant/Owner
7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEE
AMOUNT
RECEIPT NUMBER
,
. ,
,-..
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
/"'"
// 7.
HUBERT R. EARLEY
FISHER ROAD PROPERTY
RI-AA REZONING REQUEST
CONDmONS FOR APPROV AL
125 total lots maximum.
No vehicular access to Fisher Road will be allowed.
90' minimum width lot for all lots.
1,600 square foot minimum house size.
Fisher Road to remain unpaved (consistent with area resident demands).
50' natural buffer tract will be dedicated between Fisher Road right-of-way and any
proposed rear lot line. Said tract will be platted and restricted in perpetuity.
Subdivision road alignment will provide internal road connection between Shore
Road north and Shore Road south with driveway access (same as existing Shore
Road).
8. Panama Road will not be paved. A 50' natural buffer tract will be dedicated along
Panama Road.
9. The power line easement along the property's eastern limits to be deeded as right-
of-way for future connection of Shore Road to use at later date for north south
collector should the City wish to use it for such connection.
10. All lot sizes will be larger than the minimum required RI-AA lot size.
/O/OOO..Af P ch.-J~.
"......
EP3466
~'~"-. I.
. ;:-.. '
t'..:~.
DONALD W. MciNTOSH AssocIates, Inc.
2200 PARK AVENue NORTH, WlNlIR PARK, flORIDA 32789. (407) &44~068
r--
November 24, 1993
Mr. Donald LeBlanc
City Planner
City of Winter Springs
1126 East SR 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Re: Hubert Earley's Fisher Road Property
Dear Don:
,......
On November 22, 1993 a meeting was scheduled before the City Commission, for the purpose of
considering the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny Dr. Earley's request to
rezone the referenced 80 acre tract from RC-l to R I-A. This rezoning request application was filed
with the City on May 13. 1993. The consideration of the recommendation to deny was originally
heard, and tabled by the City Commission, on June 2~, 1993. In the interim. on behalf of Dr.
Earley, we filed a second rezoning request for this propel1y on November 11, 1993. This request
calls for rezoning the 80 acres to either R I-AA with conditions. or a straight R I-AAA zoning
classification. All of these requests are consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan land use
designation.
It became clear that we could not adequately discuss the May 13 rezoning application before the
City Commission without some reference to the application filed on November 11. Therefore, it
was agreed that the item should be tabled at the November 22. 1993 Commission meeting allowing
us the opportunity to proceed in the appropriate manner as outline by City Code. We anticipate (an
hereby request) that the newer application for rezoning to R I -AA conditioned or R I-AAA be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board at its December 15. 1993 meeting and will forward its
recommendations to the City Commission, in accordance with Section 20-102 (h) of the Winter
Springs Zoning Code. We would anticipate this item being scheduled for City Commission no
later than January 10, 1994. We would also anticipate that the consideration of the original
application would be on the January 10 agenda, as well.
We will be prepared to discuss all requests cUlTently before the City relative to this property at the
January 10 meeting. Plea~:e let m: know if there is any additional information we can provide. or
questions we can answer.
Best regards,
DONALD W. McI.NTjH ASSOCIATES. INC.
9'~7-r.
Donald W. McIntosh. Jr.
President
,g~~uWr~
NOV 301993
C: Mr. John Govoruhk
Dr. Hubel1 Earley
f\-ls. Randi Fitzgerald
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Land Development Coordinat~r:
.",..... LG
ECl)3R~
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS. SURVEYORS
~ MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Kruppenbacher, Esq.
Don leBlanc
FROM: Keith W. BriCklemy~
DA TE: November 22. 1993
RE: City of Winter Springs/Hubert Early Rezoning
1. Camp Plan LDR - 1.1 to 3.5 units/gross acre
2. Current Zoning RC-l - Minimum t acre Jots
3. Proposed Zoning R-IA - Minimum 8,000 sq. ft. Iou
r-- Options: R-lAA - Minimum 10,000 sq. ft. lots
R-lAAA - Minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lots
4. The City's zoning districtJ do not state density minimums or maximums. However, the
ordinance rezoning the property could Include a condition to establish density limitations.
S. The City could approve a Euclidean District (R-iA. etc.), with or without density
limitations; or it could require a PUD zoning to deal with other planning issues (access,
environmental, compatibility. etc.) if-there is evidence that these issues need to be
addressed on a site-sPecific basis.
6. To approve Staffs recommendation ofR-lMA with a maximum density of 1.1
units/acre, the City should make findings to support that decision (based on competent
substantial evidence in the record), such as the following:
1. The requested 8,000 square foot minimum lot size is not consistent with and would
not be compatible with the Iou sizes in the surrounding area, according to the memo
by Greg Kern dated July 27, 1993.
r--
2. The 1/2 acre::!: minimum lot size proposed (R-lAAA) would result in smaller lots
than In the majority of the surrounding area, but these smaller lots would enable the
developer to cluster units and thereby protect environmentally sensitive areas and
provide larger open space areas, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
15122221.1
~ .. j, -.
,_ .~) - '.:,., '. ~ I ,
-' :::J. '_ -.. , ....
-
3. The LDR Plan designation allOws up to 3.5 dwelling unit! per acre, but is intended
to be \lsed selectively to infill undeveloped lands in order to prevent higher densities
that would conflict with nearby neighborhoods. In this case. the minimum density
within the permitted range is the only density that would be compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
Rules from Snyder v. Board of CountY Commis~ioners, 18 Florida Law Weekly 5523 (October
7, 1993)
1. Parcel rezonings such 88 this are quasi-judicial actions properly reviewable by
petition for certiorarI.
2. The review of such decisions are subject to strict scrutiny for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Comprehensive Plans provide for the fu.tum use of land and local governments have
the discretion to decide that the maximum development density need not be aHowed if /
such decisions are supported by substantial, competent evidence.
4. A property owner is not necessarily entitled to a zoning by proving that his request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the local iovemment's action is also
consistent with the Plan.
,-.
S. (a)
The land owner has the burden of proving that his proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
(b)
At that point. the burden shifts to local government to demonstrate that
maintaining the existing zoning classification [or approvine an alternative
classification] accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. The local
government has the burden of showing that its refusal to approve the
petitioner's request Is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable.
6. Local government is not required to make findings of fact, but such find in,s may be
useful. Further ,.if challenged in court, local government must show that there was
substantial. competent evidence in the record to support its ruling.
,-.
"'1'1"I"'" t
,
.;
-1l1[g@l1llWlluW
JUt 27 1993 1jjl
CITY of I'IINFR SPP."" _.
CITy MA''\'AGER 1I1lL;,j
-
July 27, 1993
TO:
City Manager
City Planner ,j)(
FROM:
RE:
Fisher Road Project Rezoning Request - Additional Research
As directed at the July 19 commission workshop, I have researched into the Fisher Road
parcel and the assignment of the Lower Density Residential land use classification. I also
researched into the lot sizes of the adjoining neighborhoods, as there were varying and
conflicting statistics coming out during the workshop. Below is an analysis of each
development phase of the Ranchlands, as compiled from the city's plat books. A map is
attached for reference.
1''''''' LOT SIZE ANALYSIS
SECTION Min. Lot Size Max. Lot Size Avg. Lot Size No. < 1.0 acre No. of Lots
N.O.R. Sec. 1 1.00 6.04 2.35 0 76
N.O.R. Sec. lA 0.50 4.20 1.60 9 33
N.O.R. Sec. IB 0.60 1.69 0.95 14 25
N.O.R. Sec. 4 0.75 2.60 1.60 4 14
N.O.R. Sec. 5 1.20 3.97 1.80 0 26
N.O.R. Sec. 6 0.46 1.21 0.71 36 39
N.O.R. Sec. 7 0.52 1.46 0.90 27 45
Of the 21 lots abutting Fisher Road (which are included in the above table), the following
statistics are available:
~fin. Lot Size
0.60
Max. Lot Size
2.52
Avg. Lot Size
1.12
No. < 1.0 acre
8
No. of Lots
21
While many sections of the Ranchlands do have acre minimum lots, Sections IB, 6 and 7
average less than one acre lots. Further, several sections have numerous lots less than one
acre in size.
I"""""
-.'
/
/
.
'.
Fisher Road Rezoning
City Manager Memo
07/27/93
Page 2
M'
.,
,,-..
Finally, while the 21 lots abutting Fisher Road have an average size of over one acre, there
are still 8 lots which are less than an acre in size.
REVIE\V OF PUBLIC MEETINGS
To determine the events of the past regarding the assignment of the land use classification
'Lower Density Residential' to the property, I reviewed both the written minutes and the
tape recorded minutes of Planning and Zoning Board meetings from 1989 through 1991,
as well as City Commission meetings from 1991 and 1992. I was searching for statements
made at public meetings which specifically discussed the projected lot sizes and/or density
of the projected residential development. The following is presented to provide full
disclosure about the events surrounding the development of the plan which will assist in
determining the preferred course of action for the city regarding this rezoning request.
.-..
In December of 1989 at a Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the planner noted the
"Horseshoe Acres" area will be developed with large lots, also noting that the city must
provide adequate housing for the projected population. In February, 1990, the planner
stated to the Board that one-acre lots should be kept along Fisher Road, while east of the
proposed Shore Road extension, higher density half-acre lots would be appropriate, and
would still meet the requirements for one dwelling unit per acre (the maximum density
within the Rustic Residential classification). A map was presented showing one-acre lots
and standard lots, but the subject property was not coded.
During the neighborhood meeting before the Board in March, 1990, the planner discussed
the development of 90 lots on the 90 acres, and noted a wetland buffer would exist
between the proposed development and the Dunmar Estates area. Half-acre lots east of
the Shore Road extension were again discussed. In November, the planner stated that
while the area has been R-Cl, it has been difficult due to the nature of the land to develop
acre-minimum lots, and conclud"ed that 20,000 square foot lots would be more
appropriate.
The Board in March of 1991 noted that they did not realize the city was proposing the
change ofland uses to specific properties and requested a map showing such proposed
changes, Lee Worsham, the attorney assisting the city in the plan's development noted
that such a map or listing needs to be available for public review and comment to protect
the city from future legal challenges. According to my research, no such listing or map
was ever prepared or presented to the public.
~
On October 12, 1991, the Department of Community Affairs issued its ORC report
(omissions, recommendations and comments), noting that the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) transmitted with the plan did not depict the various residential land uses which
are defined in the Future Land Use Element policies 3.A.1. through 3.A. 7. The
0=.."
'.
r--
Fisher Road Rezoning
City Manager Memo
07/27/93
Page 3
.,
-'
transmitted map, of which City Hall retained a copy, color coded all the residential
property as one color, with no segregation of Rustic Residential from Lower Density
Residential.
A revised FLUM depicting the various residential classifications was prepared and
delivered to the city and available for public review on April 7, 1992. The map was
presented during the public hearing prior to adoption of the plan on April 27, during which
several property owners and representatives discussing the classification of their
properties.
CONCLUSIONS
It is my opinion that the residents of the Ranchlands were led to believe that the Fisher
Road parcel would have an overall density of one dwelling unit or less per gross acre,
despite the fact a majority of the lots would be half-acre lots. This would be consistent
with the Rustic Residential land use classification. The planner noted that all the lots may
not be one acre in size, a requirement for the R-C 1 zoning classification, which implies
that she expected a rezoning to develop the property.
/'""
i
The residents did not get an opportunity to see a map showing the proposed land use
classifications versus the existing classifications, despite the requests of the P&Z Board
and legal counsel. The first opportunity to view the proposed future land use came early
in April, just weeks before the adoption public hearing. I believe the residents did not
know what changes were proposed for their area, parallel to the statements made by the
Blumbergs, Dick Parker, William Hatfield and/or their representatives in June and July
regarding the proposed amendments changing their land use classification from Mixed Use
back to Commercial. As they stated in the public hearings, "we were never notified".
I suggest we ,present this.matter to our attorneys to obtain a legal review of the city's
posture and attempt to arrive at.the proper resolution. As the applicant has filed a letter
with the city stating a desire to delay further public meetings on the issue till September,
we have the time to correctly analyze the situation and act accordingly.
,.-.
-=-- .
'.....
~
f} /;'
ciD
/ /
/ /
/ /
(/
11_ 0
I - - - - - -- - ·
_ _ '1-'" 00... tOIl' -- ---
- _. __ ..... II ."'"..
~
i
i
..
w
"
1.1
III
1 1&1
,11
IZ
Iii
lit
I~
I I
sJ Co>
~
110
"C 0 III
~9W
O:Cc:c
O-JU
ZO:~
o c::
It
or' 0 III "
~Q~
a::';fu
o -J -... U
za::CW
oa:1Il
Wi
~ 't~ ~
~
~ ..
f)
\
I
.. ---
--
<t
./,p
...."
~,'
J/'-""
." ~ ",;" .
//