Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 01 19 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes AMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 19, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman McLeod at 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS David Hopkins, Present Thomas Brown, Present Art Hoffmann, Present David McLeod, Chairman, Present Grace Ann Glavin, Vice Chairman, CITY OFFICIALS D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coord. Attorney Keith Bricklemyer Present McLeod asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Hopkins made a motion to approve the minutes of December 15, 1993. It was seconded by Brown. Vote: All Aye. Motion carried. Discussion of Earley Rezoninq application request of Dec. 15, 1993 It was brought up by McLeod that the Commission had followed the P & Z Board's recommendations concerning the denial of application LeBlanc interrupted, and stated that the motion that was made was to sustain the P & Z Board's recommendation to deny the application; nothing was stated about changing the Comprehensive Plan. LeBlanc went on to say that the Board's recommendation was in two parts; first, to deny the application, and second to change the Comprehensive Plan. At the Commission meeting, the motion was to sustain the recommendation of the Planning and zoning Board to deny the application, and nothing in the motion was stated about changing the Comprehensive Plan. LeBlanc said that the application for rezoning was denied at the Commission meeting. There was discussion concerning the Comprehensive Plan and the amendments thereof. Hoffmann asked LeBlanc, "What we're looking for is the Commission to give you a directive to make that change?" LeBlanc stated, that was correct. LeBlanc stated that the other items of the Comprehensive Plan was to transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendments that were worked on awhile back; that was submitted in July. Brown asked LeBlanc if that became a motion. LeBlanc said that it is an Ordinance, and it went out today, and it will be completed tomorrow. He stated that the Board will get a copy. Glavin asked LeBlanc a question for informational purposes regarding the City Commission, and what they may have omitted in issuing a directive on the Board's recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment with regard to the Ranchland property. Glavin asked if this could be brought up by any of the Commissioners under his seat. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 19, 1994 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. Attorney Keith Bricklemyer Present McLeod asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Hopkins made a motion to approve the minutes of December 15, 1993. I twas seconded by Brown. Vote: All Aye. Motion carried. It was brought up by McLeod that the Commission had followed the P & Z Board's recommendations concerning the denial of application. LeBlanc interrupted, and stated that the motion that was made was to sustain the P & Z Board's recommendation to deny the application; nothing was stated about changing the Comprehensive Plan. LeBlanc went on to say that the Board's recommendation was in two parts; first to deny the application, and second to change the Comprehensive Plan. At the Commission meeting, the motion was to sustain the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the application, and nothing in the motion was stated about changing the Comprehensive Plan. LeBlanc said that the application for rezoning was denied at the Commission meeting. There was discussion concerning the Comprehensive Plan and the amendments thereof. Hoffmann asked LeBlanc, "What we're looking for is the Commission to give you a directive to make that change? LeBlanc stated, that was correct. LeBlanc stated that the other items of the Comprehensive Plan was to transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendments that were worked on awhile back; that was submitted in,July. Brown asked LeBlanc if that became a motion. LeBlanc said that it is an Ordinance, and it went out today, and it will be completed tomorrow. He stated that the Board will get a copy. Glavin asked LeBlanc a question for informational purposes regarding the City Commission, and what they may have omitted in issuing a directive on the Board's recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment with regard to the Ranchland property. Glavin asked if this could be brought up by any of the Commissioners under his seat. .- - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 19, 1994 Page 2 LeBlanc stated that it was possible, but because of the delicate nature of the action to be taken, and of potential law suits, it would be better to have it as an agenda item for one of the next meetings. Glavin asked, "Who puts it on the agenda?" LeBI anc answered that it could be brought up under any Commissioners seat or the City Manager. McLeod stated that this should be looked at by the Commissioners because the majority of the people in the Ranchlands at the last meeting, left here with the assumption that the Comp Plan was going to be amended. LeBlanc said that it would be, it's just going through the proper channels. Proposed Concurrency Manaqement Ordinance (Approval/Disapproval) During discussion concerning the Ordinance; Glavin suggested that if this is the final draft, and Mr. Bricklemyer has indicated that it is his final draft, then a copy could be submitted to the secretary to be included with the minutes. We can then be sure that what we are recommending to the City Commission is an accurate version as reviewed by Mr. Bricklemyer. Hopkins made a motion to recommend approval of the Concurrency Management Ordinance. Hoffmann seconded. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Unified Land Development Code Mr. Fred Goodrow was present to assist the Board with the ULDC. Leblanc said that along with the ULDC, he also gave Mr. Goodrow a copy of Ordinance 547 which addresses Code Enforcement Citations, and is in Chapter 9.02.01. LeBlanc suggested to the Board, that during the course of discussion concerning the ULDC, we can save time, and cover more of the code by going to a particular section or paragraph, whenever someone has a question. McLeod stated that we are not here tonight to approve it, we're here to discuss it. LeBlanc explained that we are to put a final document together for the Commission. Goodrow stated that he had gone over the document, and made some notes as to what changes he thought should be made, however; it's really up to the Board to make those decisions where you think there are problems, and things that need to be changed. LeBlanc addressed "Mineral Resource Extraction Permit" on page (1-5), the last line. Goodrow said that the Board might want to keep that, as it includes Borrow Pits. Bricklemyer suggested that the Board amend this to be consistent with the Concurrency Ordinance. Bricklemyer stated that he has gotten through five chapters of this Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 19, 1994 Page 3 document, and has a number of questions and concerns. He said that what he would like to do is discuss these issues with the City Manager, and how they are going to be administered. McLeod asked, "Why should that make a difference to the Ordinance?" The Ordinance should be administered for the Ordinance shouldn't it? Bricklemyer stated for an example; Wildlife preservation, Envi ronmentall y sensi ti ve areas, and how those issues are addressed in the permitting process, are determined in the first place by whether or not you're going to have somebody from staff deal with those issues, or have an outside consultant represent the City. Bricklemyer went on to say that he would recommend to the City Manager, that whenever the City has a developer come into the city, the property owner be obligated to submit with permit, an assessment of his si te. Does it have environmentally sensi ti ve habitat, or threatened, or endangered species? If so, they are responsible to get with the Game and Fish commission, etc., and when they have that taken care of, then come back to the City for their permit. Then the City is out of the loop, and the laws that are already in place can be administered by an agency- who technically is competent to deal with. This is how things weave their way in and out of this draft. There was discussion concerning the draft; Bricklemyer stated that at this point, there is no person that will stand up, and say, "r am the author of the Land Development Code for the City of Winter Springs." That person doesn't exist! Mr. Goodrow, and all of us has gone through a draft created by Greg Kern, and tweaked it. Bricklemyer suggested that the Board have Mr. Goodrow, not only play with the details of the Ordinance that has been presented to him, but to the extent that when he sees something that he doesn't like from a policy or practice standpoint, to make a recommendation to the city that we do it that way. 'Bricklemyer wanted the Board to be aware that there could be things coming back to them that will be significantly different, depending on. what the City Manager wants to do from a management standpoint. There are real management issues interspersed throughout this code. Glavin stated that rather than going through it word by word, if there were some recommendations as to some major policy changes on how this is put together, maybe we ought to talk about that from a policy standpoint rather than going line by line on a document that's going to have significant changes in the next draft. I'm trying to save time, not waste it. Hopkins stated that we started review of this document back in December of 1992, and seem to be getting no where. He agreed with Glavin, and said that we need to get our resources together, and get this done. ,... - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 19, 1994 Page 4 McLeod said that he was disturbed over the fact that we do not have an author for this document, and that we were led to believe that this was being put together by qualified people. What we have learned was, this was just a draft put together by Mr. Kern, and never finalized by either the consultant or attorney. It needs to go back to this group to streamline one more time. Section 5.01.06 (Green Plan) Glavin asked who the City Forester was, and LeBlanc said, Richard Brookover. Goodrow stated that this particular section does not belong in the Land Development Regulations. If you want to adopt an official "Green Plan", that would be a separate document. It is not a regulatory matter for land development. Hopkins mentioned that we have an existing "Arbor Ordinance" that directs the City Forester. Goodrow stated, in his opinion, if you were not regulating the developing of land in some manner, it does not belong in this document. After much discussion, it was agreed upon by all Board members to delete 5.01.06. Section 5.02.05 (Freshwater Shoreline Resources) After extensive discussion concerning environmental impact, and impervious areas such as the shore line around Lake Jessup, it was agreed by the Board members to decrease Impervious Surface Ratio from, (60% High Density) to (40% Medium Density.) Stormwater Manaqement (Point Discharqe) After much discussion concerning the above which also incl uded digging of channels, it was agreed by all Board members to delete numbers, (6,7,8,9 & 10). Number 5 which referred to "Si I t Screens" will remain as it deals with construction control. Glavin asked, "Are we required to have a Freshwater Shoreline Resource Section? Bricklemyer answered, "In your Comp Plan you are, your Comp Plan establ ishes certain things you need to do around Lake Jessup, and this is one of them. It was also brought to light by Hoffmann that the city could impose minimum or maximum regulations, but if the state bodies that regulate these things have more restrictive regulations, they apply. If the city has more restrictive regulations, then they apply. Hopkins mentioned that this particular Section 1.04.02, (Greater Restrictions) was already touched on earlier. Clearinq land throuqh corridors C-3, paqe 519 Hoffmann said that the code is talking about corridors adjacent to the lake, which is shoreline, not to exceed 15 feet. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 19, 1994 Page 5 Further discussion concerning such corridors brought up a question that Goodrow had with regard to the amount of corridors allowed. Goodrow stated that if you had a 100 ft of land or less, you could clear a 25 foot wide corridor in the water vegetation, the shore line vegetation. One additional such corridor can be cleared for every full 100 feet of frontage along the waters edge above and beyond the first 100 feet. So if someone owned 200 feet, they could clear two corridors. How many corridors do you need before someone decides we have a significant problem here. That's my opinion. McLeod said that perhaps LeBlanc could go back, and look in Kern's notes to see where this had came from. LeBlanc said that this was not in the plan. LeBlanc when on to say that we could omit this. Hoffmann mentioned taking out the last sentence with regard to the one additional corridor. This was agreed upon by all. Glavin questioned Section 5.02.06, number 282 (Permittable water dependent activities.) Does permittable mean, permissible, or does it need to be permitted? Bricklemyer stated that it meant that you need a permit. Glavin suggested that the wording be changed to, "Wa ter acti vi ti es are permissibl e subject to a permi t from the jurisdictional agencies that govern these permits." Goodrow said that this could be done. There was much discussion concerning special use permits wi th regard to bodies of water, and what can and cannot be permitted, and what agencies would be responsible. Brown asked if the Board could get a copy of this section from the City of Sanford who has a Marina, and see what their's says because we are just not getting anywhere. They have artificial reefs, plant trees, etc., We can read this, and get a better understanding of what to do. Glavin said that all this information came from some book, some place copied by Mr. Kern. We have no idea if it was good law, bad law or even if it is law. It might be something copied from a book about dredging. If we do not need to even address this stuff, let's get it out of here. If there is an overwhelming public need for more stringent regulations for any of these things, then let's add the regulations, but not let it in just because we don't know what it says. Hoffmann stated that we are not going to move along if we keep addressing these things item by item, and excessive detail. Let's get more information, rather than saying, we need to go through all the details. Hoffmann further added that everyone go through this document again. McLeod asked LeBlanc if Kern was on any retainment to the city so that he might be able to come in, and answer some questions. ",...., - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 19, 1994 Page 6 LeBlanc said that the parting was very amicable. Everything that was on the computer, was given to Fred Goodrow. We had copies made of everything that was on the computer. McLeod contended that we still do not know where the information came from. He asked if Kern could come in for one evening, and go through this document chapter by chapter as to where he got the information. Glavin stated that Kern did not know. She remembered asking him that speci ficall y. Gl avin stated that she found inconsistent statements one after another, and that he didn't understand the principle that if you define things once, get off it. Don't re- define it, because you're going to create inconsistency. Glavin went on to say that she asked Kern if he could ever, for us, say where he got this information, and he replied that he did not know. McLeod asked Goodrow to take this document and be the publishing body that brings it back to this Board. Goodrow stated that his charge was not to write a new document; my charge was to review, and help you through this one, and I will take credit to a certain extent for the next draft. There are things that I will not know whether or not you want in. After more discussion, the Board continued on wi th the next section. Section 5.05.036 Manqo Stands Goodrow stated that he didn't think we had anything to do with this, and it was just something that slipped by. It was agreed to delete this Section. Section 6.01.032 Water Bodies are impervious Hoffmann stated that in Hydrology, your saying the rain that falls over the water body doesn't percolate into the ground as it does on ground area. So, it is correct to say that water bodies are impervious. All agreed to keep this section as is. Section 6.03.039 Gravel Parkinq Lots (Paqe 6-30) Goodrow said that most of the Environmentalists have a real aversion to gravel parking lots. Even though a paved lot wi 11 cause silt, it will not cause as much as a gravel lot. If you are going to allow non-paved parking lots, it woul d be better to require either Turf Block, or some kind of Turf paving for a parking lot that isn't going to be used very much. It was agreed that a paved surface would be the best; therefore, gravel parking lots were removed from this section. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 19, 1994 Page 7 Section 6.03.04 Handicapped Parkinq Spaces Goodrow recommended having the number of Handicapped spaces that are required by law. If they want to provide more than that, those would not be counted as meeting part of the requirement. It was agreed to include the above. Section 6.04.02 Technical Construction Standard Manuels (pq. 40) Goodrow stated that it is not standard practice to include the Construction Standard Manual as part of the actual adoption of Land Development regulations. The reason for this is, Construction Manuels are best managed, but practices requirements at the time that they are adopted. Generally, technical'standards require that you do what is required in the manual, or something better if it can be proven. The way to prove this is by your Engineers coming in, and stamping and sealing it. Goodrow went on to say that you don't want to make it part of the document in order that your Engineer has the flexibility of getting you a better product out there. So, you want to be able to refer to this, but not have it as part of the document. After extensive discussion concerning the above McLeod asked for a vote. Brown and Glavin: No Hopkins and Hoffmann: Yes Section 7.04.07 Siqns Paqe 7-16 After a brief discussion concerning "Temporary Signs", which included Political, Garage, and Real Estate Signs, it was decided to return to this section at another time. Section 7.05.03 Speed Limit Siqns Paqe 7-18 It was mentioned that this Sign section will be replacing the current Sign Ordinance. After a short discussion, McLeod asked if LeBlanc would take this section back to staff, and go over it. Section 9.02.04 Boards and Aqencies Goodrow stated that if indeed it is your intent to move in the direction that this code is moving; that is to do away with zoning, and just leave the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations as the controlling Land Use requirements, then I would suggest getting rid of the term, "Zoning Board", and call it something else. It was determined that the Board is officially designated as the, "Local Planning Agency"; therefore, it was agreed to keep it as such. Section 9.02.048 Recommendations Paqe 9-12 Glavin said that one of the things that we don't do, and she referred to the very first sentence; "Shall show the estimated cost, and the suggested method or methods of financing." We don t t get involved with how jobs are financed. Glavin went on to say, - - Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 19, 1994 Page 8 the last sentence of that says, "the Ci ty Cl erk shall return to the Planning and Zoning Board, a copy of the recommendation of the Commission. Glavin felt that this was an extra layer of unnecessary paper work, and should be deleted. Glavin stated that there is one instance, and that's in connection wi th the Vested Rights Ordinance. Rather than just being an Advisory Board, or a Board of Recommendation, this is a Board of Last Resorts, sort of speak, in terms of issuing something. I don't know if it should be addressed here. Goodrow stated that, it's in the Vested Rights Section, and the Board is specifically designated by the City Commission with that authority. Glavin asked if we should add a paragraph in here? In Chapter 9 we are listed strictly as an Advisory Board. Goodrow stated that the language Glavin was speaking of was in Chapter 10, Page 10-19. Goodrow agreed to put this language in Section 9.02.048, Page 9-12. Section 9.02.056 Appeals Paqe 9-14 After brief discussion, it was decided that this section will have to be brought back. Section 10 Review After Goodrow addressed his concerns with regard to this Section, it was decided that he would go over this section, and bring it back. Goodrow stated that he would like to establish procedure from now on so that he would have a better idea of how things are going to go. If we are going to rewrite this thing, and it comes back as a recommendation within certain limits for adoption, I know you're going to want to go through it. The first question is, how long do you want it before we have a meeting? Goodrow also said that the best way he felt to go through this document is, page by page. If anyone had a question concerning a particular page, or section, then we would address that particular page and/or section. There was discussion as to when the next meeting should be held, and how much time the Board felt they needed to once again go over the document, and determine where they might have a question. LeBlanc stated that it was up to the Board as to when they wanted to meet again. LeBlanc said that the Board could call a "special meeting". It was agreed that when LeBlanc received the document back from Goodrow, and it was distributed among the Board members, they could then let LeBlanc know how much time they needed, and when they wanted to hold the next meeting. Cindy Ginnell wanted to address the Board concerning Historical Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 19, 1994 Page 9 Sites within our city. Ginnell stated that on this particular letter from the Department of state, Historical Division; Winter Springs appears to have a moderate capacity for containing significant archeological sites, and that's not verbatim, but that's pretty close to what it had said. It said that Winter Springs has not conducted a survey to locate any of them. It suggested that Winter Springs does conduct such a survey in order to protect, preserve, manage and mitigate those kind of locations. Ginnell went on to say that we do have a potentially archeologically rich area along the Lake Jessup shore area, and the Soldier Creek, "G" Creek, and Howell Creek. It also said that there is various grant funds to help do that. Ginnell added that she would like to see a provision under Chapter 3 that's overlay zones, and it's historic districts and land marks. She stated that this would be the proper place to address the identification, and management of those sites as their located. Also, if possible, a requirement on the part of a developer to identify or conduct such a survey as he goes into development at his cost. The county survey wi 11 be done by June 15th. Their one of the 1 eading counties that took the lead to go ahead and do it. The results will be available as a basis to work from. McLeod asked, "does that mean that Seminole County will be into Winter Springs along the shore 1 ine as part of their survey?" Ginnell said they wi II, because how they have identified their priorities were all shore areas of all bodies of water, which is all the whole North part of 434 for us. They are going to cover Winter Springs to the extent that they identify around the lake. Ginnell said that she would 1 ike to see something in our Land Development Code to protect and manage these areas. Ginnell would 1 ike to see it handl ed here and now by this Board if at all possible. Glavin stated that she would be in favor of having this addressed in our code. I don't know if we can get a concurrence of our Board, but I would like to see this put in. The Board agreed to have it put into the code. Meeting Adjourned at 11:20 P.M. es ectfull~ub~~ed .. (A~~ Shirle A. Frankhouser, Record ng Secretary