HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 01 18 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 18. 1995
1 . G~JL_t QuQr:<i~.L;
The meetlng was called to order by Chalrperson Glavln at 7:00
P.M.
2 . ~J_t._e_n_<j~n~~. :
Grace Anne Glavln. Chairperson. Present
David Hopkins. Present
Gene Leln, Present
Carl Stephens. Jr.. Present
Art Hoftmann, Present
Donald R. LeBlanc, Land Manaqement Specialist
3. GQp,sJd~r.<!t!onoJ..thE:=r-.()y~mb~r 2,. 1994m~et:tIl9.!!\:i-JJl!t~~_:
Mr. Hopkins moved to approve the mlnutes of November 2, 1994 as
submltted. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: Chairperson
Glavin abstained due to absence; Mr. Hoffmann abstalned due to
absence: Mr. Stephens, Aye; Mr. Leln, Aye: Mr. Hopkins. Aye.
Minutes approved, motion carried.
Q~t. ()!>_e~_1 ~uL_l~~.tLt1~~tinquMi:!1ut es:
Mr. Hoffmann moved that the mlnutes of October 19. 1994 be put
onto the agenda for approval. Seconded by Mr. Hopkins. Vote:
All Aye: motlon carrIed.
~oJ!u~.i 9_eK3!t~QIL_()j:_.t.h e_ Qc to- ob_e r l. 9. _t99 .tL~~~t.:i,I1gu MJ.J}!! t e~;'
Mr. Hoffmann moved to approve the mlnutes of October 19, 1994
as submitted. Seconded ov Mr. Stephens. Vote: All Aye;
motion carrled.
4 . C ens ide ~<lj:j,:9IL() tA uI>.r. () pos~g..9,m~ndJ1!eJJ1- t..Q_S e.G.:t:.~Qn _4 Q_-=~J?I Lt.h~ R U
~.(m.:!-IJg..u~JCiu$~t.It.G.""t.1:.Qnl_uQfu .the curr~nt- ....Ciu_GQ<le. i:9.in~1J:l~e
AGJ..FIs;CiS.~_.P_~XI1\j.tted us;e :_._ ..un.. ....
Mr. LeBlanc reported that the first tlme the ACLF came before the
Board. they asked for are-rezoning, trYlng to flt it lnto the land
use category which is mixed use.
Mr. LeBlanc saId It was a mIstake on our Dart to look at the land
use instead of looking a~ other things. It was tabled 3 couple of
times at the Commission meetlnas! and He thought why not make this
an authori7.ed use wlthin the RU zonJ.na district. The RU zoning
district wIll also fIt into the future land use comprehensive plan
because lt 1S residential. WhlCh is alLowed.
Mr. LeBlanc sald the first reading was held at the last Commisslon
meetlng. and is now comlng before the Planning and Zoning Board in
between the flrst and second readlng. One of the comments made by
Commissioner Ferrln0 was, he dldn't want to open up a pandora's box
and let an unllmlted number of resident.s In there. Mr. B:111
Rei schmann. at tornev f or the app 1 i C3!1t. 3.0 reed.
.' .
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 18, 1995
PAGE 2
Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Reischmann dlscussed density of residents. Mr.
LeBlanc explained that in any residential zoning category within
the City, there can be SlX (6) or fewer residents without approval
from the City at all.
Mr. LeBlanc received the revised Ordinance from Frank
Kruppenbacher, and said it wi 11 go before the Commissi on wi th
whatever recommendation the PlannIng and Zoning Board submits that
the maximum number of residents per ACLF would not exceed six (6)
residents ~er acre owned.
Mr. LeBl anc exp} ained! we are tal king about an elght (8) acre
parcel of property. which is under contract for four (4) acres with
an option to purchase the remalning four (4). If all the acreage
was purchased by one client, they would be allowed a maximum of
forty-eight (48) resldents.
Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Reischmann dlscussed clustering and agreed that
instead of having one house with six residents here and there, it
would be more cost effect to have everyone under one roof if
possible.
The ACLF's must also meet the gUldellnes of Chapter 9 for Site Plan
Review; meeting with the Fire Department, Police, etc. They must
also meet the gUldellnes of the agency for the Health Care
Administration which oversees ACLF's. The County will be involved
because of County roads.
For clariflcation. Chalrperson Glavin asked Mr. LeBlanc if she was
correct in understanding that in lt's current designation, there
could be six (6\ residents on thlS partlcular parcel, but that
would only be SlX (6) residents per parcel, not six (6) residents
per acre?"
Mr. LeBlanc answered. no. six (6) residents per acre owned. If the
people would buy four acres, they could have twenty-four (24)
residents without any new action. but they would have to go through
the Site Plan Review process.
Chairperson Glavin asked. because they are only planning the six
(6). why are they dOlng this If they dldn't need any modlfication
as is suggested in this amendment to the Code?
Mr. LeBlanc explained they are planning for more than six (6)
residents per acre, and that is why we wanted the re-zoning to make
it appropriate use in the mixed land use, and there was objection
to that.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 18, 1995
PAGE 3
Mr. Hoffmann sald. ! th1nk what we are contusina is SlX (6) total.
versus six (6) oer acre.
Chairperson Glavin rejterated that six (6) residents per parcells
allowable. If there 1S a twenty (201 acre parcel, you can put six
non-related adlllts t.oget.her 1n an ACLF.
Chairperson Glavin asked Mr. LeBlanc if there would be a
possibility for a varlance for this parcel because of the unlque
circumstances?
Mr. LeBlanc explained that 1n this case there would not be a
variance because the only way it could conform, would be as a
boardinghouse type atmosphere WhlCh 1S allowed in R-3 or C-l.
What we were dOIng when we went to the re-zoning issue, was try to
fit 1t 1nto the m1xed land use cateaorv 1nstead of trying to fit
the mixed land use cateaory 1n rural urban. The other was C-l or
industn.al. The m1xed 1 and use category. according to the Comp
Plan. would allow residentlal. commercial or industrial. We were
attemptlng to flnd tne least unsatisfactory one.
Chairperson Glavin asked,.. ."but t.here's no mechanism for a
var1ance for this partIcular parcel?"
Mr. LeBlanc answered. no, not for the amount of people they want.
because the number of residents 1S Governed by the state.
Mr. Reischmann wanted to clarIfy thIngs for the Board and stated
that in Chapter 4-19. subsection 001, subsectlon 2 WhlCh provides
under the code of law. any parcel that js currently zoned in a
res1dent1al character 1S permItted to have what's called a
community residentl.al home. vJ1thln that definit.ion is an ACLF as
defined by the statutes.
Mr. Reischmann explained that you can have one home with SIX (6) or
f ewer residents on anyone pa rcel, and if the parce I 1 S I a rge
enough, you can have another potential home on this parcel with six
people. He stated that he walked off one-thousand feet on that
parcel. and does not thInk It'S possible.
Mr. Reischmann explalned to the Board that he just learned that
evenlng of the meetIng, from Ms. Cowden. that their contract gives
them only until January 23, 1995 to close with zoning to allow an
ACLF wlth sixteen people. He explained to the Board. if they
approve this and it goes to the Comm1ssion. they are looklng at
February 13. 1995 until lt could get passed. and they could comply
with their obligatlons.
Mr. Reischmann sa1d. as this 1S wrItten, this would comply with the
contract they have been working under. We started t.his whole
process in October of 1994.
. . .
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 18, 1995
PAGE 4
Mr. LeBlanc expla~ned that the first reading was on the 9th of
January and because it must be public noticed, two weeks time is
insufficient. This IS why the second readIng wIll not be until
February 13. 1995.
Mr. Reischmann explaIned that they started this nrocess back In
October and the City was working with us. The City knew we had a
deadllne. and tha t the buyers woul d not be bound 1 eqa 11 y if we
could not achieve this by January 23, 1995.
At the end of December. Mr. ReIschmann sald they worked out a
compromise to change the code to provide for addItion use within
RU. That. ~-1aV t.hey ~louldn' t have to ao t.o R-3. and we meet the
needs of the neighbors and the county. There IS no question that
there can't be an apartment complex. and vet the needs. pursuant to
the contract are met.
/.-
Mr. Rei schmann sa}. d , aganl tney went bet ore the Commi. S81. on who
seemed to like the Idea. but now it's a change to the LDR's. so It
must. come before the Plannlna and Zoning Board. and back to the
Commission on February 13.
Mr. Reischmann explained to the Board that the buyers will agree to
the extension and close on the sale if we can either eliminate the
density restrictions completely, or raise the number of residents
to ten (10) residents per acre.
Chairperson Glavin's concerns were that the buyers didn't have thIS
in writing. and they might back out of the deal.
Ms. Cowden said. had they been able to get the approval by January
23, 1995. and able to close, the buyers would be obligated to the
contract, but we lost ~hree months because we have been qOlng on
the City's recommendation to see the change through.
Chairperson Glavin expressed her concern about doing a City wide
amendment for one parcel. but more of a concern by trying to help
a seller, and the seller not havlng a written contract to close on
thIS contract past January 23. 1995.
Mr. LeBlanc sugges~ed to tne Board that they proceed with what is
in front of them and whatever recommendation they make utilizing
six resldents per acre owned. Then It there is an adJustment to be
made. that. \.Jould be tor the C:Lty CornmlSSlon to do.
Ms. Cowden explained that they have been trYlna to get an
extenSIon, but the buyers have been out of the country tor about
SlX weeks and totally una'nu'l,,>_ble "to be reached.. she said the
buyers just returned thlS past weekend.
------.......-...----1'...,..'.-.---
.' .
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
M..EETING MINUTES
,JANUARY 18, 1995
PAGE 5
Mr. Hoffmann explained that what we have before us will not cet
approved by the City Comm~SSlon beca11se thev ax;:> the one's that:
insisted on the SlX resldents per acre If they have to change the
Ordinance. I am not sure if there will have to be another readIng.
Mr. LeBlanc said that there was no number. The Ordlnance. .~ I
remember correctly, can be changed at the meetina date of February
13, 1995 during the second reading.
Mr. Hoffmann said conSIdering that they were looking at a density
lJ..mitatlon. even as a recommendatlon, if we take it out, I doubt
the Commission would gO for it. I think it's best to keep it as it
is and al10H the Comm:Lssion to make it's consirleration.
.-
Mr. Reischmann said that he received letters from three
neighbors who have no object] on to an ACLF. what we
evening from the Boaxd. IS to recommend something to
Commisslon. based on what we know thlS evenino. to elther
with ten (10) per acre owned. or el1mjnate the
restrictIons.
immediate
want this
the Ci ty
go along
denslty
Discusslon wlth reaard to the amount of resldents on a parcel, and
ACLF versus single-famIly resldents.
Mr. Hopklns stated hIS concerns with regard to the fact that there
is no infrastructure in this area. He asked how this falls into
the concurrency management doc~rlne.
Mr. LeBlanc explained that the lnfrastructure is County, the road
belongs to the County. They would have to make the deciSIons. The
County is bound bv thel r own concurrency man21CemetH ru 1 es. Mr.
LeBlanc also explained that the CIty does na~ hav~ a concurrency
management ordlnance at thlS time.
Mr. Stephens aSKPd why the Or(iJn"'lnce 1S tor Uses_~ernntted as
opposed to QQndltUll1a1 U:::;es and what was the purpose for this?
Mr. LeBlanc explalned, condltlonal uses are tor churches, schools,
riding stables. government serVIces facilltles.
Mr. stepnens asked Mr. LeBlanc why the ordlnance was not written to
make it a condltional use rather than uses permitted.
Chairperson ClaVIn S81d ucsslhlv to allow another layer at review
as a condltlonal use Mr. LeBlanc explained not another layer of
rev 1 ew. h1Jt_ another 1 aver .-::f D1Jre;:\llCracy. If thI S \,.1a5 an a 11 owed
use, and that was the reckoning behlnd It. the SlLe Plan Review
Board would ~ake care of the problems.
-----,-.-.--
,.....
PL~NNTNG AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
.JANUARY 18, t995
PAGE f,
Further dIScussion concerninq conditional use vs. uses permitted.
Mr. Reischmann explaIned that the deCISIon here thIS evenIng should
be whether an ACLF with ten (10) residents per acre 1S a good idea
for the Citv as an allowed use or not.
Cathy Cowden - 3513 (Sounds like Terra Cjra Blvd.) Orlando, FL.
Ms. Cowden stated that she 15 a Realtor. Ms. Cowden said, statIle
4-19 WhICh is before you, indicates an ACLF is allowed anywhere in
the entIre state wlth SIX (61 reSIdents. There are some distance
restr1ct1ons of one thousand feet. but if you have one acre in many
of your zonIngs. vou can have certaInJy more than one reSIdence on
that acreage.
To allow ten (101 residents per acre on a s~eclcl zon'.nq of RU
seems no more intensive than what you can have 1n manv of your
other zoninas. You can have six or eIght slnqle-famlly homes on
one acre in many of the zonings. You can conceIvably have an ACLF
on each one ot those WIthIn the dIstance restrIctIons.
Ms. Cowden saId she just couldn't see that ten (10) ner ac~e on an
RU 18 a tremendolls j,mnact on the Ccmmllnltv 0r th~ serVIces of the
Community.
Chairperson GlaVln stated It is Ptltt:ng mlJltip]e structures on one
parcel too, which 18 another way of looking at it.
Ms. Cowden said. one Dar~el. yes. hut we are talklng about an elaht
(8) acre parcel in which you could have eight single-family homes.
Mr. Reischmann explaIned, we have a pIece ot property that 18 zoned
PD. Based on wh"lt ttJ.e Clty Attorney told me at the m<=>etinq on
December 29, 1994. RtJ 1.8 an :rlccns:i.ste11t llse w~"t'~ It's current
classif1cat'.on l.n tuture l3.nd use.
In the staff rep0rt, It states th~t RtJ 1S lnCOnSJ.stent wlth the
current fUT. ur eland use des 1. cma t 1. ons nropert y whi ch is MU. The
consistence wlth zonjngs, the IF:'ast Jntense, WOUJC1 he R-3. rrhe
other alternatlve which 1S more intensive would be PUD, C-l and
industrial.
Mr. Hoffmann asked what hanpens If the buyer. after obtaInIng the
first parcel, deCIdes La DlJrchase the ~dj3.cent. four acres and put
another un.j.T'_ up'? t\IC'\~ Vie h8'Je el(~h.ty t t:fj) 't)e(;n" e~ r.1r. Hottrr'iann
s1..1ggest.ed_~ becallse we a.re orltv 3 r/.?c(~)rnmendinq bod.V. we t;iO wit.h \Vnat
is presented. a SlY (6) resJ.d?nts Der acre rwned arid let- the City
Commission make their de~1sion.
-'r
Pl.ANNJNt} AND ZONING BOA.RD
MEETING MINUTl-:S
JANUARY IP. lqq~
P~GE '}
Mr. Hoffmann moved to ~?prove the OrdInance which the Commisslon
has had a first reading. with the chance ~hat the maximum number be
SlX residents per acre m.;rned. Seconded bv Mr. Hoplo.ns. Vote:
Chairperson Glavin. Nav: Mr. Hotfmann. Ave: Mr. stephens. Ave:
Mr. LelD. Ave: Mr. Ho~kins Aye. Motlon carrIed
5 . N ew..BJl.e ; n.~.~ ~ :
Cha1rperson Gl?vin
Commlsslon/Planning
Februarv 6, ].995 at
apnounced the meetina d8te of the lo1nt Cltv
and Zoning Board workshoP to be held on
7:0U P.M. 1n the C1T.V Hall Chambers.
Mr. LeBlanc informed the Board that there 1S no longer a firm known
as Henigar and. Ray / Tne. The new fJ. rm name 1S Barryman and
Henigar. Inc.
6. .~.Q.jQ.urIlm.~l}1.;.
Chairperson GlaVln adlourned
the meetIng
-...
-:1L
8:15 P.M.
Respecttullv submltted,
~~~~
Adminlstratlve Secretary
Prepared ,Januarv 27, ; 995
This dOC1Jment J_S a summary of the P]ann::na and ZonlDg Board actlons
at this meetinq. The audlotanes of all meetings are maintained in
the permanent records of ~ne "~itv of WInter Springs.
----..-,--