Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 08 16 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 16, 1995 1. Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Chairperson Hoffmann at 7:00 P.M. Attendance: Art Hoffmann, Chairperson, Present Sherilyn Hill, Present William W. Fernandez, Present Gene Lein, Present Carl Stephens, Jr., Present Thomas Grimms, Community Development Coordinator 2. Consideration of the August 2. 1995 Meeting Minutes: - Chairperson Hoffmann noted that on page four of the minutes, the Board's motion was shown, but no record of the vote. Mr. Fernandez moved to approve the minutes as amended to show the Board's vote on the Lefller request. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: Sherilyn Hill, abstain (not present at August 2, 1995 meeting); Mr. Stephens, aye; Mr. Fernandez, aye; Mr. Lein, aye; Chairperson Hoffmann, aye; motion carried. 3. Old Business: A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to eliminate certain collector roads and transportation impact fees. Chairperson HotTmann explained that collector roads were proposed by the previous planner. These were indicated collector roads to ease transportation throughout the community. This was in part, related to the Comprehensive Plan and the program of improving transportation. Mr. Grimms explained that when the Comprehensive Plan was being formulated, it wasn't known if S.R. 434 would be widened; there was discussion, but no commitment. As a result, the Winter Springs "Loop" was considered on the premise that it would not be widened. They had to take a position to do their formulations of the "Traffic Circulation Maps." Now that we have a definite commitment to widen S.R. 434, this eliminates the need (I think) for the Winter Springs "Loop." Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 2 With the building of the high school, the road would be close to the back of the building. The School Board has property near the intersection of S.R. 419 and S.R. 434, and that also is an accomplished fact. So these are two other situations that were not envisioned when the Comprehensive Plan was being created. Mr. Grimms reported what he found in the Comprehensive Plan, (date inventory analysis section). He said there does not exist a good road network of north, south, east and west for the City for its size of population. S.R. 434 and Tuscawilla Road are very good, but with the planning guidelines that we have, there is usually at least another east/west and north/south arterial level road. We do not have that, and I think that the Panama Road extension was an attempt to address that in part. Mr. Grimms said the proposal is to drop the Panama Road extension that is proposed to go through environmentally sensitive areas, which I can go along with that as a planner. I would like to see reviewed later, a Bahama Road extension coming east off Bahama Road, following the basic route of the Panama Road extension. It would be more aligned in a straight line. We can delay review pending traffic counts showing a need. Chairperson Hoffmann asked what extension went through an environmentally sensitive area? Mr. Grimms said it is the Panama extension, traveling eastward from the intersection of Shore Road and Panama Road eastward to Tuscawilla Road. A good portion of that is environmentally sensitive. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if a "power line II went through there? Mr. Grimms said that a power line does go through the area, but it comes in a north/south fashion. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if it is where the City has eflluent ponds? Mr. Grimms said that it does go through that area of the city's eflluent fields; that also must be dealt with. Mr. Grimms said right now, the approved subdivision of Winding Hollow has homes built in the first phases of the road infrastructure there. A good portion of the alignment of the road coming down from S.R. 434 down to the Panama Road extension is approved in the subdivision plan for Winding Hollow. The Winding Hollow road curves southeastward, and is supposed to lineup with the road that ends immediately on the south side of the Panama Road extension. As I understand, the agreement was that there would be a barrier between the two roads aligning with each other. If in the future there was a need, the barrier would be removed. Mr. Lein asked Mr. Grimms if he was referring to Trotwood Boulevard? Mr. Grimms said yes that would be the "Trotwood Extension. II Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 3 Chairperson HotTmann explained that the Trotwood Extension was settled by placing a barrier that could only be used in emergencies, ifin deed it would be used that way. There was much discussion regarding the "Trotwood Connection" at the Commission meetings because though Trotwood was wide enough for traffic, there were too many homes along there, making it unsuitable as a collector road. Mr. Stephens also mentioned that Bahama Road would be running through an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Grimms explained that the only reason Bahama Road is mentioned is that he recommends the City revisit the question five years from now, and see if the traffic counts suggest a consideration of an extension off Bahama Road to Tuscawilla Road. This will provide a more straightened road alignment. That is the reason we suggest Bahama Road, but again both of them would go through an environmentally sensitive area. Ms. Hill asked if Bahama Road went all the way out to Moss Road? Mr. Grimms said that it does, and believes it turns into a dirt road at that point. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if we were looking for a road to relieve congestion or traffic density on existing roads? Are we looking for an alternate road for emergencies? Mr. Grimms said the orientation is to relieve congestion which either exists now, or is expected to build up within the planning horizon. Widening of Tuskawilla Road and S.R. 434 to a four lane will ease the traffic congestion. It also takes away the argument they had in the past (when they formulated the traffic circulation element) for the Comprehensive Plan of the Winter Springs "Loop." Although not shown on the map, the so-called Tukcawilla Bypass, would cost about 1.8 million dollars. When Tuskawilla Road and S.R. 434 is widened to four lanes, we do not see the point in having something like that. Ms. Hill felt that having roads on the north of S.R. 434 are not warranted at all; however, with the high school, middle school, and elementary school all in proximity of one another, having an alternate route (even with the widening of both Tuskawilla Road and S.R. 434), is a good idea. When they finish widening Tuskawilla Road and S.R. 434, Mr. Lein asked if the corner of Tuskawilla Road and S.R. 434 was going to be a traffic light corner? Mr. Grimms said his understanding was that they will have right turn aprons and will be controlled by the traffic lights. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 4 Mr. Stephens said that this topic has come up before when the Ranchlands were invited to various meetings. He pointed out first that the Comprehensive Plan designates that part of the Ranchlands as Rustic Residential, designed to protect the country type character of the neighborhood. I'm not so sure putting a road through there will do that. Secondly, we just settled a lawsuit where Mr. Earley has agreed to try to channel his traffic away from the Ranchlands. That is another issue the City has put a lot of time and money into. To turn around and put a road through the Ranchlands just does not make sense. Mr. Grimms said as a planner and from a traffic standpoint, I would say it does make sense. On the other hand, I appreciate the character of the area being preserved. If they do put a Bahama Road extension through for example, you will have an increase in traffic. People will find out quickly that there is another access to get around, and they will use it. Mr. Lein said, so what you are saying is, the only way we are going to move around the City of Winter Springs is on S.R. 434 and Tuskawilla Road? Mr. Grimms said yes, if preserving the character of the Ranchlands is crucial, then the recommendation would be not to recommend a Bahama Road extension. Mr. Lein said at the present, there is only one entrance and exit for the subdivision of Winding Hollow; are there plans for a second entrance and exit? Mr. Grimms said he did not know at this time if anyone had plans for other entrances and exits. His understanding is they are thinking about putting a traffic light there. What they would like to do regarding "Wagner Station", is run a road directly opposite of Winding Hollow, and that is good planning. Discussion as to the amount of homes ultimately to be built in the Winding Hollow subdivision and the effects on traffic, and future need for addition entrances and exits. Mr. Fernandez moved to delete the Shore Road extension from the 1997 - 2010 Future Traffic Circulation Map of the Comprehensive Plan. At this point, I am just limiting it to that, we can discuss the others one at a time. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Discussion. Mr. Grimms said the staff recommendation is to delete from the 1997 - 2010 Future Traffic Circulation Maps, the collector roads shown in the Planning and Zoning Board's mail out highlighted in yellow. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 5 Chairperson Hoffmann questioned a section of Shore Road going onto S.R. 434, which should also be deleted. Mr. Grimms explained that if not indicated, it was an oversight, and should be included. Chairperson Hoffmann also noted that the Tuskawilla By-pass from Tuskawilla Road to S.R. 434 was not in there. Mr. Grimms explained that was a separate issue that would be coming before the Board at another time; however, if the Board wanted to so indicate, may do so at this meeting. Chairperson Hoffmann said if we put it in there, it would wind up as a road to nowhere. Are you saving people from making a right turn at that light? I'm speaking of the Tuskawilla By-pass. Mr. Grimms said the reason it was not put in was because it was coming up as a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment. Also these roads would be funded under the Transportation Impact Fee, which is the other reason we did not include it. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if we delete it now, would there be a problem getting it back? If we leave it in, is there any consequence? Mr. Grimms said that they do not have to take action on the Tuskawilla Bypass at this time. Mr. Fernandez restated his motion of recommendation to the City Commission to delete from the 1997 - 2010 Future Traffic Circulation Map of the Comprehensive Plan to include all the areas designated in yellow on our map which is the Winter Springs Loop, the four connecting points to S.R. 434, the Shore Road including the northern intersection with S.R. 419 and S.R. 434, Eagle Ridge Drive extension, and the Panama Road extension. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Chairperson Hoffmann asked for any discussion from the public; none submitted. Mr. Lein said the proposed extension of Bahama is not on here. Mr. Grimms said he had just mentioned that for the future. Mr. Lein said, but you have it in your staff recommendation that states, ... "to delete from the Comprehensive Plan, Winter Springs Loop, and the Shore Road extension, and the extension of the road eastward from Bahama Road rather than from Panama Road . . ." In other words, the way I read this, it should have been on Bahama Road, and you want to delete that? ,- Mr. Grimms said there was a series of discussions at staff level and this was written before the succeeding discussion was held at staff level. At this time, do not delete Bahama Road, but Panama Road. ^'~..-. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 6 Chairperson Hoffmann asked Mr. Grimms if the staff recommendation was going to be amended to agree with the motion this evening? Mr. Grimms answered yes. Ms. Hill, for clarification, asked Mr.Grimms if what he was saying was, he does not recommend that we have any road connecting either Panama, Bahama or any other roads leading over to Tuskawilla Road? Mr. Grimms said that is correct at this time. Chairperson Hoffmann asked for a vote on the motion made by Mr. Fernandez. Vote: All aye; motion carried. Chairperson Hoffmann said the second part of this has to do with the impact fees. It was mentioned that many impact fees collected are for transportation use. Ifwe are amending the transportation plans this dramatically, we have reduced the need for the amount of impact fees we are collecting. The question is, are we still able to collect them, or are we by law then required to diminish them to a certain extent? Mr. Grimms explained that the Comprehensive Plan and Traffic Circulation Element does show that the collector road system shall be funded by the standards driven transportation impact fee. The way it is written in the City regulations does not give us a choice to negotiate or bargain with the developer on transportation impact fees. They have to pay the transportation impact fees. The reason the staff has made this recommendation is that so much of the collector road system is recommended for deletion from the 1997 - 2010 Future Traffic Circulation Map until further needs are realized. Although I cannot personally prove this, I have heard it said that developers are looking in different areas that will enable them to make deals on such things as transportation impact fees. Because we are unable to, we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage for attracting development, whether commercial or residential. That was the basis for the staff recommendation. Mr. Fernandez said the staff recommendation he was reading from may have been from the first meeting of August, but it talks about a study. He asked Mr. Grimms if he felt this was still appropriate. Mr. Fernandez read from the recommendation that stated, . . . "a study should be done to find out the effects of such an adjustment or elimination of the impact fees on other proposed road improvements indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. " As a planner, Mr. Grimms said he always feels more comfortable with a study in hand to make a solid recommendation. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Fernandez asked if this was going to be a staff study, or would the City have to hire a consulting firm? Mr. Grimms said the City would get an outside consultant because we do not have the staff expertise to do traffic counts. He felt a study would be appropriate, but the final decision remains with the City Commission. Further discussion regarding transportation impact fees. Mr. Fernandez moved to recommend to the City Commission that a study be done to determine whether or not to eliminate or reduce impact fees as a result of changing or deleting certain roads from the future road plan for 1997 - 2010. Seconded by Ms. Hill. Vote: All aye; motion carried. B. U odate discussion of Land Develooment Re2ulations Chairperson Hoffmann asked the Board members if they received Mr. LeBlanc's comments to Fred Goodrow dated April 5 and April 21? All members received comments. Chairperson Hoffmann asked the Board members to refer to their August 15 memo regarding Chapter 6. The first new item dealt with building regulations. Chairperson Hoffmann said this item describes certain changes concerning the 1994 Edition of the Southern Building Code (SBCCI). He pointed out that Mr. LeBlanc refers to Chapter 6, page 6-1 of the LDR's, article number three (3) that deals with the standard building code. Previous editions dated 1988 are now updated to 1991. Mr. Hoffmann asked if the Building Official, Don Houck, is requesting that we change the date to read, "1994?" Mr. Grimms said that is correct, and Mr. Houck will be approaching the City Commission with a recommendation that the City pass an ordinance incorporating those changes made by SBCCI. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if they should bring it up to date now rather than have to do it again? Mr. Grimms said yes, after the City Commission makes their changes. Chairperson Hoffmann asked the Board for concurrence on changing the Standard Building Code year from" 1991" to "1994" edition if the Commission will approve the recommendation of Mr. Houck; the Board concurred. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 8 Chapter 9 - Land Development Chairperson Hoffmann said that there should be a statement of purpose and intent at the beginning of the Chapter. Mr. Grimms explained that first, he was familiar with that type of arrangement from other places he has been, and two, believed that the City attorney mentioned that this helps create a defensible basis for that section that begins with the purpose and intent. Chairperson Hoffmann asked Mr. Grimms ifhe had established any wording for this. Mr. Grimms said that he had not, but he would have something prepared for the next meeting. It was also suggested that the wording, "Site Plan Review Board" be changed to "Development Review Committee. " Mr. Grimms said that a site plan is developing a parcel ofland, and not dividing it. A subdivision is usually thought of as a residential development where you subdivide the parcel of land into many subdivisions of that parcel. He felt that Site Plan Review gives a misnomer because the Site Plan Review Board as it is now labeled, reviews much more than just site plans. The usual term used around the state is, "Development Review Committee. " Discussion as to the wording to be placed for procedure for submittal of site plans, applicants, etc. Discussion or Don LeBlanc's Memo to Mr. Grimms dated Aus!Ust 10. 1995 resmrdin2 his comments to Mr. Goodrow. dated April 5th. 1995: Mr. Lein asked if Mr. LeBlanc was recommending that Section 9-224 be deleted entirely? Chairperson Hoffmann explained that comment eight (8) had to do with page 9-1, section 927(a), but was not sure what he was referring to. Mr. LeBlanc's original question was, what about engineering plans approved by the platting? Chairperson Hoffinann read the following: ".. .development standards is not required if it is in conflict with the previously approved plat. . .", and that is what Mr. LeBlanc's question is. What Mr. LeBlanc is saying is, what happens to plans that have been approved, and what about plans that are undergoing staff review prior to this code? I think he is concerned with saying you don't have to comply with standards in this code, and it also has to do with what happens when a ,- code changes. The Board did not understand Mr. LeBlanc's comment number eight (8), and asked that Mr. LeBlanc explain it, or reword it. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 9 Comment nine (9). Section 9-224. page 9-5. Docks and Piers - April 5. 1995: Item (G) states, . . . "no roof structure will be allowed". . . , and Mr. LeBlanc suggested deleting entirely. In other words, what we are saying is we do not have any specific objection to having roofs on docks. If so, we can make a decision on a case to case basis. Mr. Grimms, for clarification, asked if the Board concurred regarding comment number nine (9)? The Board concurred. Comment ten (10). Section 9-241 - April 5. 1995: Chairperson Hoffmann said that Mr. LeBlanc's original question regarding Comment ten (10), Section 9-241 was that it was not addressed. Mr. LeBlanc wrote that this change was mailed to your (Mr. Goodrow) office by the Commission on March 27, 1995. Chairperson Hoffmann said that what Mr. LeBlanc is saying is that Section 9-241 should be included. Mr. Stephens commented that Section 9-241 had to do with "Stormwater Management." Chairperson Hoffmann said that the Commission has adopted the stormwater management plan. We assume that this may be included, and the question is a valid one. Mr. Lein said I guess the answer there is yes, right? Is he asking us a question on comment ten (1O)? Chairperson Hoffmann said, yes, but he is saying,. . . "does this mean that the ordinance was sent to Mr. Goodrow for review?" Has Goodrow reviewed it? That should be sent back. Comment eleven (In. Section 9-281(e). page 9-12. Wetland Mitigation - April 5. 1995: Chairperson Hoffmann said that in his notes it states that we place in the middle of the first line after the word, SHALL, ... "compensatory wetland mitigation shall be within the City limits of Winter Springs and shall require. . .". Mr. Grimms asked if he was saying, . . . "to add to the extent possible. . . ." Chairperson Hoffmann answered, okay,. . . "shall to the extent possible. . . .", so we will place the words, . . . "compensatory wetland mitigation shall to the extent possible, be within the City limits of Winter Springs. . . . It Chairperson Hoffmann referring to Section 9-283(b), #3 said that after the word City, add the words,. . . "and other appropriate governmental agencies. . . ." Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 10 Comment number thirteen (13). Section 9-347. page 9-17 - Duties: The following changes are to be made to page 9-17, (last lines): a) Within the sentence,. . . "within fifteen (15) working days after determination by the entire site plan review board that the application is complete. . . ", underline the word AFTER. b) Change the wording, "Site Plan Review Board" to "DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. " ****************************************************************************** NOTE FROM THE RECORDING SECRETARY: Regarding Mr. LeBlanc's comment #13, Section 9-347, page 9-17, Mr. LeBlanc writes, . . . "last lines - this has been changed and is acceptable if the meaning of that portion. . . "that the application is complete. . . " also means that the plans are IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CODE. During the process of listening and typing the minutes of August 16, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board did not address this issue raised by Mr. LeBlanc. ****************************************************************************** Mr. Lein pointed out that because of the name change of the "Review Board" to, "DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE" , anything referring to boards should be changed to committee, and anything referring to Site Plan Review Board should be changed to Development Review Committee throughout the entire Code Book. Mr. Lein asked Mr. Grimms why the change from the word board to committee? Mr. Grimms explained that BOARD is generally considered to be something that is non staff level; a standing body that is either appointed or elected. What we are talking about here is staff level that is a body of people that reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board. Comment fifteen (15). Section 20-105. paee 20-5 - Minine or other earth extractions: The Board agreed to add the following after the words, the City of Winter Springs in the first sentence, . . . "except for earth excavation for stormwater management, building site preparation, or construction of a swimming pool." Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 11 Comment 23. Section 20-355(3). paee 20-14 - Comment 24. Section 20-355(9). paee 20-15- Comment 26. Section 20-381(3). paee 20-16 - Comment 27. Section 20-381. paee 20-17 (top of page): In Mr. LeBlanc's memo to Mr. Grimms dated August 10, 1995 regarding his AprilS comments to Mr. Goodrow, Mr. LeBlanc asked that the same wording in these sections be used to satisfY the issues raised in Comment number 13. The Board agreed to revise the wording as follows: . . . "within fifteen (15) working days after determination by the entire Development Review Committee that the application is complete. . . ." Chairperson Hoffmann said that this will apply to Mr. LeBlanc's comments numbered 23,24, 26, and 27. Comment 25 - Is there the potential of leeal conflict between net residential acre and eross acreaee? Chairperson Hoffmann said he felt that this issue had been addressed as to the difference. Mr. Grimms said, currently the Comprehensive Plan uses gross acreage. Chairperson Hoffmann asked the Board to refer to the current Code book, Section 20-376, page 1233. Definitions. This is where gross acreage and gross residential acreage is defined. Chairperson Hoffmann said that in Section 20-380, Site development standards lists that density in subsection (6) of not exceeding the maximum number of units per net residential acres as shown in the preceding paragraph. This has to do with the different densities for single-family, patio and townhouses, etc. This is under Planned Unit Development (PUD). Where else does density show gross acreage? After the Board's efforts to find density to show gross acreage, Mr. Grimms said that he would take this issue back to Mr. LeBlanc for an answer. Chairperson Hoffmann said Mr. LeBlanc is referring to the Comprehensive Plan. This item refers to net residential acreage and the Comprehensive Plan uses gross acreage. Mr. Grimms said this is located in the Land Use section, page 14 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stephens asked Mr. Grimms if he was referring to the following sentence in the Comprehensive Plan, . . . "residential density shall not exceed dwelling unit per five gross acres?" Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Grimms said yes, it talks in terms of gross acreage in the Comprehensive Plan. To reaffirm, on page 22 concerning Mixed Use, density and gross acres. Mr. Grimms said that he will get with Mr. LeBlanc concerning this issue. Mr. LeBlanc's memo of AUl!:ust 10. 1995 referrinl!: to his comments of Aoril21. 1995 to Mr. Goodrow: Comment one (1): Same comment as addressed in comment number 25 listed in memo of August 10, 1995. Comment three (3). Section 20-390. page 20-20. Table of landscape butTer requirements: Mr. LeBlanc's comments states,. . . "does the letter designator "n" mean that no buffer is required? Please align the buffering requirement for URB directly under the column. Chairperson Hoffmann said somewhere there is a code, and the code should be close to where the chart with letters are so you are not left wondering what it all means. The letters A, B, C, D, and N exist, but the code does not explain what the letter "N" is. IDENTIFY THE LETTER "N". The buffering requirements need to be aligned directly under the URB Column. Comment six (6). Section 20-417. page 20-20 and page 31. Group home floating zone: In Mr. LeBlanc's memo, he talks about Chapter 419, Florida Statutes (Community Residential Homes), subsection 419.001(2) that reads, . . . "Homes of six or fewer residents which otherwise meet the definition of a community residential home shall be allowed in single-family or multi- family zoning without approval by the local government, provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such home with six or fewer residents. . . ." Mr. LeBlanc's question is, . . . "Can the City be more stringent in its requirements, especially when the City does not have approval authority for that mentioned above? Mr. Grimms said that Mr. LeBlanc is referring to Section 20-417 paragraph (c), Approval of group homes; standards. Can the City be more restrictive? Generally speaking, Mr. Grimms said a local government can be more restrictive than the state, but cannot fall below the minimum requirements set by the state. There are certain exceptions. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 13 Chairperson HotTmann said the statutes talk about six or fewer residents, and asked where we limit the number? He then referred to and read from Section 20-417 subparagraph (3) which states: "In no case shall the total occupancy of a structure designed for group use exceed the following: that allowed in section 16.1.7.1 of the Life Safety Code (or 200 square feet per occupant)." Chairperson Hoffmann said that his (Mr. LeBlanc) original comments on this had to do with the same paragraph; he says, . . . "this section is in conflict with Florida Statutes, it is assumed that an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) is a group home. . . ", and that is true. Mr. Stephens questioned Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, and asked if that is based on the assumption that once the state issues a license, the city has no say? Chairperson HotTmann said that he thinks it has to do with zoning, but what we are looking at are the standards. Mr. Grimms said that the state can issue a license below the threshold of six (6) or fewer, and the city cannot restrict or prohibit. Above that amount, city regulations can control to some extent. Mr. Fernandez said the "home rule" plays in there, if you have a home rule city or home rule county, then the state has delegated authority to that city or county in all those areas. Chairperson HotTmann said that it doesn't indicate the maximum number other than saying two hundred (200) square feet per person or occupant. Ms. Hill questioned if it is in direct conflict with the Florida Statutes, can you put it in there? Chairperson HotTmann said that is a question we are not sure just what it is he sees in conflict. Tom is saying that the city can be more stringent in its requirements above the threshold of six (6). He asked Mr. Grimms to have Mr. LeBlanc clarify. Chairperson HotTmann asked the members if they had other questions or comments. Mr. Stephens, referring to the LDR's, Section 20-161, page 20-6. Designation., read the shaded sentence that states, . . . "The appropriate land use plan designations are Lower Density and Moderate Density Residential." He noted that the word respectively needed to be added at the end of the sentence. A developer can misuse this statement and say whether it is Rl-AA or RI-A, I can use either one. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 14 Mr. Stephens said what we are really saying here is Rl-AA is lower density and RI-A is moderate density, and we need to make that clear. Chairperson HotTmann said that it states Land Use Designation~, which is two? Mr. Stephens felt that the word respectively should still be added to make it very clear. The Board agreed to add the word respectively. Mr. Fernandez asked Mr. Stephens if he also wanted the word respectively added after the word Residential in Section 20-181. In general. First paragraph, last sentence? The Board agreed to also add the word respectively at the end of the sentence after the word Residential in Section 20-181. Mr. Stephens, referring to the LDR's, Section 20-396--20-410. Reserved., page 20-29 questioned that since that is reserved and there is no mention (for example) of20-414, does that mean it will automatically be left in the Code book? Chairperson Hoffmann answered yes, anything that he hasn't changed or modified will still stay. Mr. Stephens said Mr. Goodrow has this section as being reserved, and that makes me wonder if something is not stated later about reserving it, will it still be there? Do you understand what I am saying? Chairperson HotTmann said by putting it this way just means that if at some later date we wanted to add a section, its already in there. Mr. Grimms said that regarding rules of procedure especially as it relates to quasi-judicial matters, explained that the City Manager took the issue to the City Attorney for review and comment. Mr. Grimms said that another question brought up at the last meeting was whether the Board should be called the Planning and Zoning Board, or Local Planning Agency? Actually the Board should be called both because you have different and separate functions. The City Commission also has appointed this Board as the Local Planning Agency. Chairperson Hoffmann asked how the second title is to be added? Mr. Grimms explained that when the Board deals with things related to the Comprehensive Plan amendments as Comprehensive planning, Comprehensive Plan amendments, LDR's, these fall under the title, Local Planning Agency. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 16, 1995 Page 15 Mr. Grimms went on to explain that all other matters are as Planning and Zoning Board. Chairperson HotTmann said the next meeting if required, would be September 6. He informed Mr. Grimms that when the time approaches, the decision to have Mr. Goodrow present will need to be made. If all the minutes are up to date, answered and satisfied all of Mr. LeBlanc's questions, we could bring in Mr. Goodrow. V. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, '.' ~~~ Shirley . Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary Prepared September 11, 1995 THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WILL BE HELD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4,1995 AT 7:00 P.M.