Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 05 17 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES HAY 17, 1995 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Mr. Hopkins at 7:00 P.M. 2. Attendance: David Hopkins, Present Art Hoffmann, Chairperson, Absent Gene Lein, Present William Fernandez, Present Carl Stephens, Jr., Present Thomas Grimms, Community Development Coord. Fred Goodrow - Berryman & Henigar 3. Consideration of the AprilS, 1995 Meeting Minutes: Mr. Lein moved to approve the minutes of AprilS, 1995 as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: Mr. Stephens, aye; Mr. Lein, aye; Mr. Hopkins, abstain; Mr. Fernandez, abstain. For lack of a majority vote, motion failed and the April 5, 1995 meeting minutes will be put on the June 7, 1995 agenda for approval at that time. 4. Consideration of the April 19. 1995 Meeting Minutes: Mr. Fernandez moved to approve the minutes of April 19, 1995. Seconded by Mr. Lein. Vote: All aye; motion carried. 5. 01 d Business: Revi ew of Proposed Land Devel opmen t Requl a ti ons. Hr. Grimms reported that at the April 19, 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made changes and corrections to the Land Development Code which were forwarded to Mr. Fred Goodrow. Mr. Goodrow was present to respond to the Board's questions, changes and corrections. Hr. Hopkins asked Mr. Grimms if he had any difficulty in getting the changes, etc. to Mr. Goodrow. Mr. Grimms explained that sometimes during a discussion of an item, a Board member(s) will at some point agree that an item should be changed, and make a motion to that effect; however, the Board will continue discussion of an item, and not get around to bringing the motion to a closure. He assured the Board that he will alert them to take a stand or vote when such situations arise. Mr. Goodrow explained that he had gone over the April 5 and April 19, 1995 meeting minutes recei ved from staff,' however, before preparing a draft from these minutes, wanted to go through the minutes of April 19 with the Board to be sure that he understood what the Board wanted, and hopefully have the Board understand what he was going to explain to them. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - May 17, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Goodrow suggested the minutes of April 19, 1995 be used as a type of agenda in order to go through the changes, etc., and Mr. Grimms wi 11 help wi th the vari ous occasi ons when comparing items with the comprehensive plan becomes necessary. Mr. Goodrow, referring to Chapter 19 ARTICLE IV - Potable Water Supply, shown on page 3 of the April 19, 1995 meeting minutes, informed the Board that he would convey to the attorney their wishes to have the wording, "substantiall y chanqed" defined. Mr. Goodrow suggested that the attorney will probably not give a defini tion for that term as it is not the same as, "substantially altered", or substantial change when speaking of a building, etc. This is something relatively hard to define. He explained that a substantial change in position is actually what the Board is asking a definition for, and that is usually a monetary situation; someone has expended funds. There are court decisions that have actually occurred, that to some extent, have articulated what a substantial change in position is. Usually an attorney will use that if it is to their advantage, and not use it, if it isn't. They don't want to be boxed in if they are defending a City on that issue. Mr. Goodrow addressed the question as to why "subsection (d)" was eliminated from "Vested Rights" in the existing code. He believed that subsection (d) was prepared in the existing code to provide for a vesting situation in terms of impact fees that the City was evidently going to adopt when this vesting rights provision was provided, and since that time have adopted. Therefore, there is no reason to provide a vested status to a situation that wouldn't need to be vested at this point. Mr. Goodrow said he would correct all grammatical errors. According to the April 19, 1995 minutes, Mr. Grimms stated he was going to strengthen the language in Chapter 20 - Zoning. Mr. Goodrow sai d he had recei ved the changed language, and had no problem with it. In SECTION 20-26. Zoning ordinances; alterations, changes or amendments. Shown on page 4 of the April 19, 1995 meeting minutes, Mr. Goodrow informed the Board tha t there was no pol icy prohibi ting this, and would change the words, ONE MILE to the City limits to, ONE QUARTER MILE. r"- Planning and Zoning Board Heeting Hinutes - Hay 17, 1995 Page 3 Con tinuing under Secti on 20-26, regarding pos ting of noti ces in three conspicuous places for a zoning ordinance change, or alteration in three conspicuous places, the Board requested a statement in this section showing that one of the places of posting should be, "on the property". Hr. Goodrow stated that this provision was under the administration section. Basically provisions for actual zoning ordinance changes to the actual code i tsel f, and not a rezoning where a pi ece of property is invol ved. The main in ten t of the secti on as he had read it, was to deal with the code changes as far as terminology and standards, etc., and not necessarily rezonings where an actual piece of property is concerned. Mr. Goodrow assured the Board that if he was in error, that where an actual rezoning is invol ved, or not appropriately handl ed in the code, he would add that in. He would make sure the Board would see it in there, or he would explain where it is otherwise. Under Section 20-101 - Division of city - At the Board's request, Mr. Goodrow will add that the minimum living area for an R1-AAA Single-family dwelling be 1,600 Sq. ft. - Hr. Goodrow addressed the question as to why PUD was not included in Section 20-101. He explained that within Section 20, Article IV is completely about PUD's. He asked if that satisfied the Board's concerns. Hr. Hopkins understood the reason that the Planned Unit Development had it's own section, was that it allowed such a diverse use of land designations such as multiple-family, single-family, commercial, etc. Hr. Goodrow explained that in reality the PUD wouldn't have to be by itself, and most places do not have it by itself. He informed the Board that his charge was to fix the code, and make the appropriate changes as necessary to be consistent with the comprehensive plan; therefore, left the PUD where it was. He expl ained there was nothing wrong wi th put ting the PUD in Section 20-101, but that would be a major change to the existing code, and didn't think it was necessary. - Hr. Fernandez said his understanding of the discussion with regard to Section 20-101 was that they were trying to get "user friendly", and it indicated that the corporate area was divided into districts. It didn't mention PUD's, and according to his notes, indicated that the Board wanted PUD listed and to show... "See Section 20-101". Hr. Goodrow said he had no problem with making it user friendly, and would add... "PUD - See Article IV". Planning and Zoning Board Heeting Hinutes - Hay 17, 1995 Page 4 Section 20-121. Designation - There was a recommendation to change the word, CLASSIFICATION to either ZONING DISTRICT or DESIGNATION. Mr. Goodrow explained that this was not a problem, but that was something he didn't feel he wanted to do under his current contract because in his opini on, it woul d mean a major research of the en ti re code. You must be sure to catch all of those instances where you may have referred to something as cl assi fi cation versus zoning distri ct. They could appear anywhere in the code where they want to refer someone back to the zoning district. Hr. Hopkins said that once again, they were just trying to make the code "user friendly". Instead of the confusion of what is a classification, just define it to say it's a zoning district or a land use designation. Hr. Goodrow pointed out that by doing this, would leave them open for inconsistenci es el sewhere in the code because we are not .- changing the whol e code, just certain areas. If you change a designation here, then that will require someone to completely research the potential for that representation elsewhere. Hr. Fernandez suggested keeping the word "classification", and just add..." zoning district OR designation if it is a concern that it will conflict with other parts of the old code. Hr. Goodrow said he was able to do that. Under Section 20-121 at the top of page 5 of the April 19, 1995 minutes, a statement was made as follows,... "Rustic Residential and RI-AAA is not the same zoning category, and must be changed"... Mr. Goodrow explained, "this issue is mentioned later on with regard to zoning districts, and Rustic Residential is not a zoning category." Hr. Hopkins said Rustic Residential is a land use category. Hr. Stephens replied, "that is for one (1) acre lots only, and when you get into R1-AAA, that becomes a lower densi ty residential." R1-A, R1-AA, and RI-AAA are lower density residential in the comprehensive plan. We went through a big law suit over the same thing with Mr. Earley. Hr. Goodrow said that because of the way the comprehensive plan is done, you have to determine what categories of zoning appropriately fit into what categories of the comprehensive plan land use designations. Planning and Zoning Board Heeting Hinutes - Hay 17~ 1995 Page 5 Hr. Grimms read page 17 (Land Use) from the comprehensive plan. Hr. Stephens added,... "it goes on to say",... "1 ower density residential is revised to a density range of 1.1 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre, and R1-AAA would be 20,000 square foot lots, two homes per acre. . . "; therefore, tha t woul d come under lower densi ty. Hr. Goodrow thought Mr. Stephens was correct because he felt there was a statement that read,... "at least one (1) acre lots". So we need to change the designated lower density residential in the comprehensive plan. For clarification, Hr. Stephens asked if it was correct that Rustic Residential was going to be one (1) acre, and R1-A, R1-AA, and R1- AAA is going to fall under the category as lower density residential? Everyone agreed that was correct. Discussion of Sections 20-121 through 20-181. Hr. Goodrow stated that in these sections, as he understood, are all the designations where he applies a comp plan designation. Hr. Hopkins expressed that they were just trying to make sure the zoning categories did not conflict with the land use elements. Hr. Goodrow, referring to Section 20-141 on his proposal, had RC-1 within the Rustic Residential, and all agreed that was probably the only category that would go into Rustic Residential being it is a one (1) acre minimum lot size. Mr. Goodrow indicated that in R1-A and R1-AA, the appropriate land use designation was lower density and moderate density residential. The reason being, the size of the lots would allow them as long as they did not exceed the density specifications for the land use plan category. The size of those lots will allow them to be built in the lower and moderate density residential zoning. R1-A is 8,000 square foot lots and R1-AA is 10,000 square foot lots. After much discussion regarding zoning categories and densities, Mr. Goodrow assured the Board that this will not allow anyone to violate whatever zoning category they have in place at this time. For an example, if I come in with a blank piece of land, and have a lower density designation on the comp plan, then I know my only opti ons are to ask for ei ther R1-A or R1-AA zoning if I don't already have it; if I ask for R1-A zoning, I'll probably cluster the developments, and leave a lot of open space because 8,000 square feet at 3.5 units per acre is going to leave a lot of open space. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - May 17, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Goodrow explained that the real purpose of this is to make sure that we know, under what comprehensive plan category we are going to allow and apply the zoning districts that are on the books. Mr. Hopkins pointed out that there is a caveat at the bottom of the comp plan that states the minimum lot depth shall not be less than 100 feet for single-family residential lots which should help dissuade any splitting. SECTION 20-105. Mininq and mineral extractions: Mr. Goodrow agreed to delete the words, AND MINERAL, and change to, OR OTHER EARTH EXTRACTIONS. At the top of page 6 of the April 19, 1995 meeting minutes, the Board discussed Mr. Grimms suggestion of del eting the following statement from the comprehensive plan,... "also since there is no intent to extend the municipal boundaries outward to the west, south and east in order to develop new residential areas... ". Mr. Grimms also had found other areas of the comprehensive plan that would be detrimental to any future annexations, and should be removed. The Board concurred that the Commission needs to be alerted to this situation, and asked Mr. Grimms to oversee this. SECTION 20-318. Minimum development standards and requirements: The Board questioned why buffers were deleted from this section. Mr. Goodrow expl ained tha t Arti c 1 e V, a whol e new arti c 1 e, was wri t ten speci fi call y for "buffers". SECTION 20-352. The Board requested a defini tion for "Mixed Use". Mr. Goodrow said he would define this under Section 20-352, page 20-11, subsection (2). It will read the same as described in the comprehensive plan. SECTIONS 20-355, sub-paraqraph 3, 20-381, sub-paraqraph 3 and 9: Mr. Goodrow agreed to reword the paragraphs as suggested by the Board, and wi 11 work wi th Tom Grimms and Don LeBl anc wi th the language regarding the time frame for the same sections. The plan is very speci fi c regarding 1 imi ts to the 1 ength of the revi ew process. ******Mr. Lein was excused from the meeting at 8:00 P.H.****** .-. SECTION 20-380. Site development standards: The Board had previously discussed "net residential acreaqe" versus "qross residential acreaqe in the current Code, and concurred that r~et residential acreage should remain. Mr. Goodrow said he did not have a problem with this. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - May 17, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Goodrow advised the Board that as soon as he hears from the staff regarding the issues coming back from the Pol i ce Chi ef, Building Official, Don LeBlanc, and Tom Grimms, he would then prepare a compl etely new draft so the Board coul d adopt and recommend it for approval to the Commission. Mr. Hopkins asked how soon they might expect to receive the new draft? Mr. Goodrow said as soon as he gets all the issues back from staff, he could have it done in a week. The only problem that might arise is with the Board's request for definition from the attorney regarding "substantial chanqe". Mr. Hopkins asked for some di recti on on how and if the Planning and Zoning Board was going to continue through the draft of the LDR's. Mr. Grimms said he believed the whole code had been reviewed, and all changes will be forwarded to Mr. Goodrow who in turn will make a compl ete new draft to return to the Board. At that time, if the Board finds the new draft of the Code to be satisfactory, can decide when they want to hold their public hearing and make recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Goodrow reiterated that the Board will receive, as in the past, a revised draft containing redlines and strike-outs. 6. Update of the Official Zoninq Map (per Sec. 20-102(c)7 Mr. Grimms explained that this was a requirement of City Code per Section 20-102(c). The Planning and Zoning Board must make recommendations annually to the City Commission on any changes and adoption of the "Official Zoning Map". Mr. Grimms, pointing to the zoning map on the Commission wall, said that was the map that he was recommending the Board approve. The Board will then recommend to the City Commission their approval of the map. The map on the wall is the result of the action taken about a year ago by this Board and the Commission. There hasn't been any zoning changes; therefore, you can feel comfortabl e wi th approving and recommending to the commission. "".-. Mr. Hopkins voi ced some concern over the possibi 1 i ty of some inaccuracies regarding the current zoning map. He asked Mr. Grimms if anyone had researched this, and is the map now current and accurate? - , ~ Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - May 17~ 1995 Page 8 Mr. Grimms stated that he and Mr. LeBlanc went over the map, the various developments and Mr. LeBlanc found everything to be in order on the map. Mr. Fernandez noted that on the second page of Mr. Grimms Staff Report regarding the offi ci a 1 zoning map, it sta tes the Code requires a scale of 1:400, but the present map is at a scale of 1:500. Mr. Grimms stated that the Code does call for a scale of 1:400, and the present map is at a scale of 1:500; however, his understanding from speaking with Mr. Brian Garvey (Engineering Land Systems) who did the map, it was agreed to in the past that it would go to 1:500 because to go to the scale of 1:400 would be an enormous size map of about (6) panels instead of (4) panels. In discussing this matter with Mr. Garvey, Mr. Grimms said from a graphic stand point, and as a planner, did not see any difficulty with going with 1:500. Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Fernandez both questioned the necessi ty of changing the code. Mr. Grimms said that technically speaking, it should be recommended that the section of code pertaining to this be changed. Mr. Fernandez moved that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the current zoning map, and make recommendation to the City Commission to approve the current zoning map, but change the Code to reflect a scale of 1:500. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: All aye; motion carried. 7. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. A. Frankhouser, Admini trative Secretary Prepared May 30, 1995 This document is a summary of the Planning and Zoning Board actions at this meeting. The audiotapes of all meetings are maintained in the permanent records of the City of winter Springs.