Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 03 16 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes AMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MARCH 16, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Glavin at 6:04 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS: Grace Ann Glavin, Vice Chairman, Present David Hopkins, Present Art Hoffmann, Present Carl E. Stephens, Jr., Present Thomas Brown, Present CITY OFFICIALS: Fred Goodrow, AICP, Planning Manager Approval of Minutes of January 19, 1994 After a brief discussion concerning the first paragraph of the minutes, and the need to site the subject of said paragraph; Brown made a motion that the minutes be approved as corrected. Seconded by Hoffmann. Vote: All Aye. Motioned carried. Nomination of Chairman and Vice Chairman Vice Chairman Glavin asked for any nominations for the position of Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board; this would be occasioned by the vacancy of Mr. McLeod, who is presently City Commissioner. Hopkins nominated Art Hoffmann for the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. Glavin asked for a second to the nomination. There was no second. Glavin asked if there were any other nominations to the Board. Brown nominated Grace Ann Glavin for Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. Glavin asked for a second to the nomination. Stephens seconded the nomination. Glavin stated that there was a nomination and a second of Grace Ann Glavin for Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. Glavin asked if there was a second to the nomination for Mr. Hoffmann? There was no response. Glavin asked if there were any other nominations for Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board? Again, there was no response. Glavin stated, "As to the nomination of Grace Ann Glavin for Chairman and seconded, I bel ieve it would be the proper procedure for the secretary to call the roll. Vote: All Aye Glavin excepted the posi tion as Chairman for the Planning and Zoning Board. Glavin asked, "As to the position of Vice Chairman, are there any nominations for the position of Vice Chairman to the Planning and Zoning Board?" PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 2 Hopkins nominated Art Hoffmann for Vice Chairman to the Planning and Zoning Board. Seconded by Stephens. Glavin nominated David .Hopkins for Vice Chairman to the Planning and Zoning Board. Seconded by Brown. Hopkins declined the nomination of Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. Glavin asked for any other nominations for the position of Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board? There was no response. Vote: All Aye. Hoffmann was elected as Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. Preliminary Enqineerinq on Parcels. 14-C and 61 Glavin asked Govoruhk if someone from the city would be presenting the parcels, or should we receive it from the applicant? Goodrow stated that he was with Henigar & Ray who is presently acting in the capacity of Land Use Coordinator until such time the city fills the position. Goodrow said that he is here to answer any questions. He suggested that the Board hear the report from the applicant. Glavin said that, typically the city personnel would introduce the applicant, and what was on the agenda. Glavin asked if Mr. Spencer Cowan was present, and Goodrow stated that he was not, due to another engagement, but that he is representing Mr. Cowan. Scot t CuI p stated that he is wi th Vision Developers, and is representing Richland Tuscawilla Limited, the current owners of the property. Culp stated that they have been through two Staff reviews on the preliminary engineering of Parcel 61. Culp told the Board that their engineer, Mr. Charles Madden of Allen Madden Engineering, and their Environmental Consul tant, Jim Morgan of Morgan Environmental, and another representative of Richland properties were present to answer any questions they might have. Glavin explained to Culp that in the Board's package, there are memo's from Mr. Cowan concerning Parcels 14-C, and 61, but she did not find a copy of the application. Culp stated that the preliminary plans before them is the application. Culp said that Parcel 61 is located on Winter Springs Blvd. and Northern way. Essentially it would be an extension of the project known as "Georgetowne". Our preliminary plans submittal proposes PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 3 a hundred thi rty-eight (138) lots, minimum width of fi fty (50) feet, and a minimum depth of a hundred ten (110). Our settlement agreement for the Tuscawilla PUD allows more than the (138) units that we are proposing,_ so we are within the guidelines of our settlement agreement. Culp went on to say that he felt that they had satisfied all of the City Staff's concerns with regard to this project. Culp stated that he did not see any letter or memo's to the Board members from Spencer Cowan. Hoffmann asked Culp what they were going to do with lots, 78, 79, and 80; that's 60, 61, and 136, 137, there are indicated depressions in the lots (part of Hoffmann's question inaudible) Hoffmann also mentioned something about depth changes. Hoffmann asked Culp if they planned to fill those in. Culp explained that they were not depressions, but stockpiles that would be removed. Hoffmann asked if there was going to be a wall around this project. He asked for a yes or no answer to this. Culp stated that we do not have a yes or no answer at this point. What's required by the Code is a ten (10) foot planting/screen easement, and at the final engineering stage, we'll decide what portions will be wall, and what portions will be landscaping and berm. Culp went on to say that at this point, we do not have a definitive decision on what sections of that ten (10) planting/ screen easement wi 11 be wall. CuI p said that we are full y in compliance with the Code, which calls for a ten (10) foot planting screen easement. Hoffmann was under the impression that there would be no wall at Winter Springs Blvd and Northern way. Culp explained that he did not say there wouldn't be a wall, we do anticipate some brick wall in different portions. We don't want to commi t to at this point, a hundred percent brick wall. This decision will be made at final engineering. Hoffmann asked Culp about buffers along retention ponds. Culp stated that they comply with code with regard to all buffers. He went on to answer Hoffmann's concern with regard to the ponds, and said that they will probably be "wet bottom" ponds, and more than three or four feet deep. Culp said that they will be applying for a variance at a later date for these "wet bottom" ponds during the final engineering. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 4 Culp stated that they have gone through two staff reviews, and addressed all of their comments. At this point, we have presented the preliminary plans in accordance with the Code requirements, and answered all the reques.ts and comments from the Staff. Glavin stated that it was important that Culp and Associates hear the staff comments from Cowan's memo's with regard to Parcel 61. After reading the memo, there was discussion concerning the contents and comments of Mr. Cowan. Culp said that in the transition of your Staff over the past few months, there has been some interchange between parties that are in attendance in the staff meetings. We have had two separate Staff Reviews on this Parcel and have responded to all of the comments in those Staff reviews. He said that, they have not seen the comments that you are reading today. With regard to the issue of security/ visual buffer, Culp read from the Code, Section 9.127, paragraph (f). "Double frontage lots, and reverse frontage lots." Culp said, that is what they are proposing, exactly in accordance with the Code. Hopkins asked Culp what the definition of this Staff meeting is referred to? Hopkins asked if this was a Site Plan Review. Culp explained that it is a Preliminary Plan Review under Chapter 9 of your Land Development Code. One is required to have a Staff Review prior to coming to the Planning & Zoning Board. He stated that they have had two of these. Hopkins stated, "that was my impression"; so he questioned why the Board did not have minutes or Staff comments from that meeting as far as the safety, health and welfare of our residents concerning this project. Hopkins went on to say that normally the procedure would be for the Board to receive comments and concerns from that meeting from Fire, Pol ice Department, etc. He fel t that this project should be returned to Staff, and find out there concerns because they are the professionals the Board has to rely on. Goodrow explained that the city has been in transition with the Planning section, and apologized for not getting minutes to the Board if that is what they were given in the past, but it was not his understanding that the Board received any minutes. Glavin said that they have not been getting minutes, but wanted to clarify that no one here is planning to be an obstructionist and certainly not Mr. Hopkins or myself. We want to go forward. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 5 Glavin stated that the Board does not want to look back in terms of the problems there have been with Staff, Planning, and the coordination between . honorable applicants, our Board, the Commission, and Staff. She explained that the City Manager and/or Staff needs to implement some sort of system where in duly these things can come forward to be reviewed, but that everyone has their ducks in a row so we don't waste our time, and the Commission doesn't waste their time on this sort of stuff. Glavin concurred with Mr. Hopkins that this project should go back to Staff. She stressed the importance of the Staff members to submit in writing, their concerns and recommendations so that the Board has a guideline as to what they can base things on. She felt that the Staff members should also be present at the meeting so they can be consulted with, and answer questions. Hoffmann stated that with regards to walls, specifically around the Tuscawilla Plaza (Commercial activity behind the firehouse), those are hazardous areas for the residents particularly, and stated the need for more of a buffer, or obstacle rather than just plantings. Culp first addressed Glavins comments with regard to Staff Reviews. He stated that this Parcel was submitted to Staff on January 19, 1994, and received written comments from the Staff. We responded to those comments wi th a compl ete re-submi t tal; had another Staff Review, and received written comments. We then responded to those comments with a wri t ten response, and then submitted our f ina 1 response which the Board now has before them. The Staff has gone through the procedure they have always used, and established in the past. The only difference is that, they are not here this evening to present their views. Culp then addressed Hoffmann's concerns with regard to the planting/screen easement. Culp explained that they are not saying that there will only be planting and berms. He stated that they have not determined as yet what type of wall; what it will look like, but we do agree with the concerns there. There will be some type of planting/screen in that area. Glavin told Culp that the Board doesn't mean to scold you for the short comings of the city. I would like to apologize to you, but what I am suggesting is, it's not possible for the Board, in an orderly fashion, analyze these things without them being presented in an enlightened manner, and a manner that we can rely on when we make our decision. I would like to have something in writing from Staff with regard to how they are reviewing this; what comments they have, and what they base it on. If a Security Buffer is important to them, then what does that mean? AMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 6 Culp stated that when they got to the final review, the only comments tpat we saw was with regard to the planting/screen easement. What you have in front of you is their response, but not their justification or substantiation for what they are asking for. Commissioner McLeod reminded the Board that this is just a preliminary, it's not the final that will be back in front of you. He suggested that if the Board had any questions they should make it part of their motion for approval for the Staff to look at so that these people didn't have to be turned away, and you can go ahead and proceed. He said this in side of the fact that City Staff is short of a City Planner, and some other areas. He suggested that the Board examine what they have, and what falsehoods they see in it, and put that in their recommendations to the Staff. Glavin stated that her point was how can they proceed without any advisement from Staff. Staff put this on our agenda this evening. Brown made known his concern with regard to the entrances and exits for Parcel 61 for a hundred thirty-eight (138) homes. He said that the city should be concerned about this no matter what the law says. Culp said that would be addressed at the final. We did not get a comment with that regard in writing from the Staff. Govoruhk rei terated what Commissioner McLeod suggested to the Board with regard to their duties and findings of this project. Hopkins reiterated that it's hard to make a preliminary decision on a Parcel of this magnitude when we don't know how it's going to affect the water capaci ty in our ci ty; whether the Pol ice can supply the necessary Staff to Police this area. How is it going to affect the traffic circulation in and around Winter Springs? How it's going to affect our schools, and the recreation. He went on to say that it's hard to make an intelligent decision when we don't have all the facts from our professional Staff on board. There was further discussion of Parcel 61 wi th regard to what should be addressed at preliminary, comments from the Board, etc. Glavin stated that for the future, she would like to establish a better working procedure with Staff; also for the protection of Staff, the City Manager, and for the Board. There was a brief discussion as the procedure that is followed with regard to submission of plans from conceptual to the final stage. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE .7 Hoffmann made a motion that the Board approve the preliminary plan concept subject to consideration of screening or walls adjacent to properties, Northern Way, Winter Springs Boulevard, and also adequate buffers on retention ponds, and also consideration of a second egress on Northern Way. Brown seconded the motion. Discussion. Vote: Aye, Glavin-Nay, Stephens-Nay, Hoffmann-Aye. Hopkins-Nay, Brown- Motion fails. Culp asked for clarification of the process due to the motion failing. He wanted to know if the discussion and review of the Boards concerns could continue so that a favorable motion might be possible. Glavin stated that there was discussion as to getting more comments from City Staff. Glavin asked Govoruhk if he had a recommendation to make on behalf of the city. Govoruhk stated that the requirements of the Code are being met with regard to Parcel 61 according to the Police, Fire, Utility & Bui lding Depts. Govoruhk went on to say that there was some Engineering problems which will be addressed at final engineering, but at this preliminary stage, Staff has recommended approval. There was further discussion of egress and ingress with regard to access for emergency Fire vehicles. Commissioner McLeod felt that they had a procedural problem. There was some discussion as to the meeting being an informal hearing rather than a Public Hearing. Culp stated, "We are at preliminary plan under Chapter 9, page 538, Section 946 (Pre-application Approval Procedure for Preliminary PI an, and final development plan under Chapter 20. This is a Public Hearing, Planning & Zoning; if you read through the entire Code with regard to the process, this is the Public Hearing for Planning & Zoning for the preliminary plan approval. We are at the final development plan under the PUD. Hopkins said that Public Hearings are reserved for re-zoning; this is not a re-zoning. This is preliminary engineering of an existing PUD. It is a Public meeting, not a Public Hearing. Glavin asked for any other motions. Hoffmann stated that he would like to reinstate his original motion which was defeated before. Recording secretary once again read Hoffmann's motion. Seconded by Brown. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 8 Vote: Nay. Hopkins-Nay, Hoffmann-Aye, Brown-Aye, Glavin-Aye, Stephens- Motion carried. Culp introduced Parcel ~4-C, which under the settlement agreement, is approved for (125) Units, but is proposing, (North and South) of Winter Springs Boulevard a total of (50) Units. Typical size of the lots are 85' x 120'. The access at this point will be called "Seneca Bend" in Oviedo, which is also part of the 14-C project. Current zoning for the Seneca Bend project is all Commercial. Culp stated that they have requested, and the Ci ty of Oviedo has recommended approval to change the zoning of the North portion of it to Residential, and have that accessing Seneca Boulevard. They have withdrawn the rezoning, subject to approval/disapproval from the City of Winter Springs Commission, and Planning & Zoning Board. Hopkins asked for clarification that the project is in Oviedo, and the access is in Winter Springs. Culp stated that 14-C from the city line over to the creek, is all in the City of Winter Springs. The project which is called, "Seneca Bend", is in the City of Oviedo, but we would be looking for access onto Seneca if we were to rezone that to Residential. If we don't get access, then we would leave it zoned, (Commercial) as it is currently. Hopkins voiced his concerns with regard to liability issues with the City of Oviedo. He stated that the Board never received anything from Staff telling them whether or not this project is good, bad, or indifferent. Culp stated that the Board should have received a letter from Staff expressing their concerns. He went on to say that they did meet with Staff twice, and they didn't have concerns with regard to this access. Glavin asked Govoruhk if Spencer Cowan attended the February 8, 1994 meeting with regard to Parcel 14-C. Govoruhk stated that he had in fact, and that he had attended all meetings regarding 14-C. There was discussion with regard to sections 1 through 16 which is in the City of Oviedo. Govoruhk stated that he spoke with the City of Oviedo, and that the City of Winter Springs would be happy to annex that section into the City, however, the City of Oviedo did not want that. Discussion of traffic, maintenance of roads, and Impact Fees. Tom O'Connell stated that he lives at, 1718 Seneca Boulevard in Chelsea Woods subdivision. He is the Vice President of the newly AMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 9 formed Chel sea Woods of Tuscawi 11 a Homeowners Association. He stated that Chelsea Woods had some serious concerns with regard to the density of this particular project, and the maintaining of the Parcel which is zoned, C-2 (Commercial). O'Connell requested that the Planning and Zoning Board defer judgement on this Parcel until after the Homeowner Association can provide the Board with their thoughts and recommendations. Hoffmann addressed the issue of Impact Fees, and stated that in the colI ection of these fees, there are no requirements to justi fy where these fees are to be used. Wi th regard to entrances and exists for Seneca Bend, Hoffmann suggested that they invert their egresses onto Winter Springs Boulevard in Oviedo, and not permit a road from this property onto Seneca. Hoffmann added, another concern was six or seven lots that are located in the 100 year flood plane, and that he could not approve that. He remarked that, it looks like they are trying to put 25 gallons of whatever into a 10 gallon bucket. Culp discussed the density of Parcel 14-C, the Commercial Parcel, and addressed the lots located in the 100 year flood plane. Charles Madden of Allen Madden Engineering, 3670 McGuire Blvd., Orlando FL 32803. Madden and the Board discussed in length, flood planes, and environmental swales. Brown questioned if Richland Properties owned a Parcel of property on the West side of Seneca, zoned Commercial, and what they intended to do with this property. Culp stated that, they did not have any plans for it at this point; it's primarily jurisdictional, (Wetlands). He stated that they offered it as a donation parcel for recreation and mitigation to the City of Oviedo, but because the City of Oviedo also wanted to use it for public use (which could mean a bus yard, etc.) we removed that from the developers agreement, and it is no longer a donation parcel. Glavin read a comment from Spencer Cowan, Land Use Coordinator, regarding the Parcel that would have to be rezoned, which is in the City of Oviedo. Cowan's memo states that, "the City has no control over what happens with the request. The proposal of zoning is for (22) Single Family Residential lots, and 2.3, plus or minus acres of Commercial. I f the access is allowed as proposed, the ci ty might need to condi tion it's approval to protect the residents should the zoning not proceed as suggested." Glavin asked for an explanation of how the City can condition any PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 10 kind of approval of the preliminary engineering, conditioned upon what's going to happen in the City of Oviedo. Culp explained that the City of Winter Springs has the ability to condition that access in that location to a maximum of (22) Single Family lots with the only access being at that location. Culp went on to say that it can't be rezoned in Ovi edo unti 1 the Ci ty of Winter Springs approves the access. If we can't get the access, the Parcel will remain Commercial. There was discussion regarding the Boards need of legal input. Culp made a request that the Planning and Zoning Board condition it's approval upon the attorney's review in order for them to move forward. Glavin apologized for the short comings of Staff or everyone for not getting things configured differently as to terms as how these applications move along. They need to proceed in an orderly fashion so that even with Staff turnover, some things are documented, and the City Manager is going to work on that. Culp pointed out that the City does have a restriction as to a time limit of approval on these projects which is (45) days from the submittal of application for preliminary plans. Culp read from Section 9-47, page 539. He went on to say that, "all we are asking for at this time is to move it forward so that there can be, or need be, some additional information requested so the City Council could do that. The City Attorney was at the first Pubic Hearing that we attended at the Councils request, and we have not heard any legal opinions or concerns that we would have to address at this point. We would have been happy to bring those to this meeting to keep us from having to go back if we had known there were any. Glavin stated that, we are already beyond the (45) days, and suggested that Parcel 14-C be tabled until we have more facts before us as to the opinion from Staff, and of Council on the issues. Also, unti 1 the Chel sea Woods Homeowners Association, being newly formed can meet, and advise this Board so we can make recommendations to the City Commission as to what their wishes are. Glavin stated that, if it doesn't get tabled, she would personally support a motion to deny it. Culp asked if it would be appropriate to request an approval with an exception of that access; that access to be determined at a later date through a separate hearing process? He suggested to approve the plan in it I senti rety wi th the exception of the property to the West side of Seneca Blvd. There would be no reason / ,I PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 11 not to do that at this hearing. Glavin explained to Culp that the Board has not had a meeting for sometime until this evening. It would have been nice if your applications for preliminary engineering could have come on an earlier agenda, but for other reasons we were not convened, and this was not placed on an agenda by Staff until this evening. Brown made a motion to table this issue until more facts are brought forward to us, and the Staff and Council recommendations, and also give the Chelsea Woods Homeowner Association a chance to bring their feedback to this Board at the next regular meeting. Seconded by Hoffmann. Discussion. Vote: Aye, Hoffmann-Aye, Brown-Aye, Hopkins-Aye. Stephens-Aye, Glavin- Motion carries. Proposed Draft of February 23, 1994 of the Unified Land Dev. Code There was a brief discussion concerning the ULDC in terms of it being a final draft, and what changes if any that were made by Goodrow. Hoffmann asked if the Board could please move on to the subject, and start reviewing this and allow the Board members to give their input instead of controlling the program. Commissioner McLeod addressed the Board wi th regard to their duti es as a Planning and Zoning Board to review the plans, and not get involved with the issues of the politics. He suggested leaving the politic problems to the Commission. He also urged the Board to use their Code Books, and look for the issues in that Code to keep the people in compliance. McLeod stated that, with regard to the slam dunking of City Staff; I know this has gone on in the past, but conveyed to them that, a public meeting is not the time or place for such actions. He asked that, if the Board had problems with Staff, they should ask for a meeting between the Board, and the City Manager to address the issues with the city and Staff. If they did not get results from the City Manager, then go to the City Commission. McLeod briefly discussed the Board's responsibilities with regard to the Unified Land Development Code, and it's impact that it will have on the city. Gl avin responded dunking of City thereof. to McLeod's staf f , and comments discussed with her regard to views and the slam concerns Brown stated that, as Mr. Goodrow suggested, the best way for us to go through the ULDC is page by page. If anyone has any questions, we will address that page. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 12 Commissioner Gennell wanted to let the Board know that she appreciated the Board's conscientiousness, and shared their frustrations. Gennell stated that, her main concern was in communication, and that she didn't feel that the "fault" did not fall on anyone particular individual, Board, or Staff member. She went on to say that somewhere there must be some better form of co~~unication. She suggested that the Board be more responsible for being active toward seeking answers more forcefully than maybe they have been. Another concern was the fact that, at the last meeting she had requested a copy of the ULDC in order to follow along, and make notes, etc., but never received one. Co~missioner Gennell again requested that someone get copies to the Commission. Hoffmann stated that as a citizen, Commissioner Gennell could review the Unified Land Development Code, but as a Commissioner he said that she should not be reviewing it. He felt that it isn't proper at this time. Discussion with regard to the ULDC, and who or who may not have copies. Co~missioner Ferring wanted to raise a point of order, and said what Commissioner Gennell was doing, was totally improper. This is a Planning Board meeting; we have our own Commission to make these decisions. To interfere with the Planning Board at this point instead of just observing what is going on, is totally uncalled for. Ferring went on to say that the Board has a Professional Consultant here trying to put across this thing, and we have been patiently waiting for a good period of time. We are getting into philosophical discussions. Glavin stated that as a Board member, she tries to be polite to members of the City Commission who choose to attend our meetings, and recognize them when and how they wish to make a co~ment. I think that's been the tradition of our Board, to recognize City Co~~ission members when they are here. Discussion of the Unified Land Development Code Continued Discussion with regard to some type of control for changes to the ULDC. ~1.0401 (b) - Protection of Quality of Life and defining the boundaries of Residential and Conservation. Glavin said that she did not see where conservation was defined in the body as a separate kind of area from a mixed use, commercial or residential. She didn't think that it was in their Land Use Designations. ~_.",_~~--","_,_,_,_,~_,.~_~_",,___"__~<__,_,_~_,"'__._",_._._,__.~,__..__.._..,._._.."_,_,__.~.___._'_".___m..____ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 13 Goodrow stated that it was in ~2.03.04, page 2-5. Gl avin had a question wi th regard to paragraph (c), (To preserve and protect the natural environment, and quality of life on which Winter Springs is founded.) She asked,"do you define in a policy type of statement what the natural environment and the quality of life should be?" Goodrow said, "in a purpose statement, it's left as a very general statement for your interpretation." Discussion of paragraph (e) - Balance the interest of the general publ ic in Winter Springs, and those of the individual property owners. Paragraph (e), left as is. Discussion of page 1.3, the first sentence which reads, "that provided that adopted Comprehensive Plans have legal status". It was agreed to change the wording to, "provided that the adopted Comprehensive Plan have the effect of Law" and that no development may be permitted which is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." There was discussion and agreement of the incorrect term of "LDR' s" when referring Development Code. Board not to use the to the Uni fied Land Paqe 1.3 - Accessory Buildinqs Discussion and minor rewording with regard to Buildings". "Accessory Paragraph (b), "Background Traf fi c" . Wi th regard to, "unbui I t projects tori th vested rights." There was discussion as to what "unbuilt" meant. It was agreed to change the wording to, "unbuilt and incomplete projects with approved vested rights as determined by Section " Paqe 2-3, Non Residential Land Use Classifications Goodrow read from page 2-3 "a COInmercial Classification encompasses neighborhood commercial operations which abuts principal roadways and are adjacent to residential areas." It was agreed by the Board to delete this because there is not a specific definition for COITmercial. Certificate of Concurrency/ Concurrency Manaqement Ordinance Discussed and agreed by the Board to delete this section as it does not coincide with the code. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 14 Convenience stores It was discussed and agreed by the Board to specify "1500 Sq. Feet" in reference to Convenience stores. Glavin asked, "Do we have a Survey of Cultural Resources for the City of Winter Springs?" Commissioner Gennell stated, "no, but we are developing it." She added that the city is not specifically, but she was just put in charge of the 35TH Anniversary of the city, and r'm in touch with Mr. Baker who is in the process of compiling some things. Brown added that it says city or county, so we're ok! There was a brief discussion concerning page 1.5 with regard to "Single Family and Multi-family Dwellings", and the definitions thereof. Goodrow stated that he would define these items. Paqe 1.6 - Historical Sites It was discussed and agreed by the Board to change "Historical Si tes" to, "Historical and Archeo I ogi cal Si t es" in the heading, and in the body of the code. With regard to, "Development Site", it was agreed upon to change the wording to, "Project Development Site." Chapter 16-C - Mineral Resources It was discussed and agreed to remove the "reference". Paqe 1.8 - Preliminary Development Order Board agreed to come back to this at a later time. Chapter 2, Paqes 2.1 and 2.0101 Wherever the word "division" is, will be changed to, "chapter". Paqe 2.4, ~2.03.041 - Maximum Density (last paraqraph) viording changed to, Maximum densi ty is not assured. The "Maximum Densi ty" shall be determined, based on si tes speci fic (remainder of sentence inaudible). Paqe 6.4, ~203.046 Brown stated that page 6.4 refers to ~203.046, but that it does not exist. The Board agreed to change the Section to, ~203.042. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 15 ~2.03.041 - Maximum Density After much discussion, the Board agreed to come back to this section at another meeting. Paqe 2.6 - Accessory Structures After brief discussion, the Board agreed to have Goodrow change the wording to, "Human Habitation". Under Item "c" it says, "Accessory building shall be located to the rear of the existing building line". The Board agreed to change the wording to, "shall be 1 ocated to the"rear of the existing front yard building line". Paragraph (f) contained a sentence which read, "if the resulting I.S.R. exceeds the allowable ratio, a variance from the Board of Adjustment is required". It was agreed by the Board to remove this sentence from paragraph (f). Page 2.7, paragraph (g) - Noxi ous, hazardous, etc. material s in Accessory Buildinas Wording changed to, use and spacing must be approved by City Fire Marshal. Paragraph (i) - Wording changed to, "no more than two (2) Accessory Buildings shall be allowed on any single resident lot unless otherwise prohibited". There was discussion and changes wi th regard to Satell i te and Antennas dishes. Paragraph (k) was deleted. Paqe 2.9 with reqard to "Heiqhts" The board agreed to add the following wording: "At a height no less than 48 inches from ground level". Paragraph (e), wording changed to, "liquid capacity of any wading pool or spas". Goodrow stated that he will reprint all the pages through 2-10 of the changes that were made, except for those that will be brought back for further review. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 16, 1994 PAGE 16 Chairman Glavin adjourned the meeting at 10:35 P.M. , Res~ectful;j_{u~ted'l j _____ ~~Cf~.A..d~ Shirle A. Frankhouser Recor 'ng Secretary