Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 10 04 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4,1995 1. Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Chairperson Hoffmann at 7:00 P.M. Attendance: Art Hoffmann, Chairperson, Present David Hopkins, Present William W. Fernandez, Absent Carl Stephens, Jr., Present Gene Lein, Absent Donald R. LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist 2. Consideration of the Aueust 16 and September 6. 1995 Meetine Minutes: For lack of a quorum of members who attended these meetings, approval of minutes postponed until next meeting. 3. Old Business: A. Update discussion of Land Development Regulations: Discussion ofLDR's held until completion of the "Small Scale Amendment" agenda items. 4. New Business: A. Feichtner Small Scale Amendment: Mr. LeBlanc said he was taking Mr. Grimms place this evening because Mr. Grimms and his wife just became new parents. Mr. LeBlanc said he was somewhat familiar with the project. This is a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment which gives the Planning and Zoning Board authorization as a recommending body. The property is next to City Hall to the immediate west. Before the April 1992 Comprehensive Plan, the zoning was commercial, and now the land use is Mixed Use. This will only allow them to use 50% of the property for commercial. State Road 434 is taking up most of the property. The Mixed Use category is not feasible for this area. Mr. Feichtner made the request that it be changed to Commercial. Chairperson Hoffmann reiterated that the zoning was C-l, but the land use is Mixed Use, so the change is to make the land use Commercial? Mr. LeBlanc answered yes. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if Mr. Feichtner also owned the adjacent lot 26? Mr. LeBlanc said that Mr. Feichtner owns the lot depicted on the plat, the portion of 1 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4,1995 lot 26 outlined in yellow. Mr. Feichtner does not have the remainder of it. Mr. Feichtner is present this evening to answer the Board's questions. Mr. Hopkins was curious about how much property would be absorbed through the widening of State Road 434? Mr. LeBlanc said quite a bit; Mr. Feichtner has approximately one acre. He asked Mr. Feichtner how much property was being taken? Mr. Feichtner said about 12,000 square feet. Mr. LeBlanc said it was roughly 14,000 square feet, or 70 by 200 feet. Mr. Hopkins, for clarification asked if the property will be abutting State Road 434 once the road is widened? Mr. LeBlanc answered yes. Mr. Hopkins asked if there would be a road cut to the property? Mr. LeBlanc said whenever it gets developed, but the state dictates road cuts. Mr. Stephens moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Commission, that the land designated as Mixed Used be changed to Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Seconded by Mr. Hopkins. Discussion. Vote: All aye; motion carried. B. Mesdaugh Small Scale Amendment: Mr. LeBlanc said again this is property with one property owner, and two different land uses. This property is at the intersection of State Road 419 and Wade Street. The property directly at the end of State Road 419 and Wade Street is Commercial. The property next to it is Moderate Density Residential. The zoning reads C-l and RU. Chairperson HotTmann asked if the property abutted the church on one side, and State Road 419 on the other? Mr. LeBlanc said also Wade and then vacant property. One half of the property is Commercial, while the other is not. There is commercial across the street, and residential across from Wade. Chairperson Hoffmann mentioned that on the same side of Wade Street there is property not identified. Mr. LeBlanc said the church is next to the property, and on the other side of the church it is vacant. It is zoned Rural Urban, but it is (sounds like. . . no longer in existence). He thought the church owned most of the property. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1995 Mr. Hopkins had a question regarding the Rural Residential land use classification. He asked if with the elimination of Rural Residential, did it automatically convert to something else? Mr. LeBlanc explained that according to the Future Land Use, it is Moderate Density Residential, and Rural Urban is now Rustic Residential. Chairperson HotTmann asked if the nearby property owners were notified? Mr. LeBlanc did not know as he was only notified late afternoon that he would be filling in for Mr. Grimms. Mr. Hopkins explained that in the past, anytime a zoning change was made, adjacent property owners were notified. Mr. LeBlanc explained that this action is for changing the land use. If the land use gets approved then the next step is to change the zoning. It is a two-step process. Mr. Hopkins moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Commission approval of this request of the Future Land Use designation to change from Moderate Density Residential to Commercial as submitted on the application. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: All aye; motion carried. Mesdaugh Rezoning: Chairperson HotTmann said that without confirmation of the nearby property owners being notified, I would not want to go ahead with the rezoning. Mr. Hopkins moved that the Planning and Zoning Board postpone the zoning change request until confirmation can be supplied to this Board that adjacent property owners were notified. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: All aye; motion carried. Chairperson HotTmann explained that this is a technicality, but we must conform to the regulations. Rezoning postponed until the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting which will be Tuesday, November 1, 1995. C. Winter Springs Golf Club Small Scale Amendment: Mr. LeBlanc called the Board's attention a Bulletin given to them by Mr. Grimms. It is a Bulletin on Small Scale Amendments. The reason he brought it to their attention was a paragraph that states, ". . . Residential Densities are limited to ten (10) or fewer units per acre." The higher Density Residential requested are 9.1 to 12.0. 3 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4,1995 Mr. LeBlanc said he did not know if Dan Woods received the information or was aware of it. If the information is valid, the motion would be for no more than ten (10) units per acre. If the information is not valid, then go to the higher Density Residential. Mr. Hopkins asked that if the information in the "Growth Management Bulletin" is not correct, would it then fall under a large scale amendment? Mr. LeBlanc said no, it is still a small scale amendment. The amendment is still ten (10) acres or less. According to the information in the bulletin, the density cannot be greater than ten (10) acres; that is why I brought this to your attention. Discussion about where the property is located and description of the surrounding properties, i.e., conservation, recreation, etc. Mr. LeBlanc reminded the Board that before any development could take place, there would have to be engineering. Because it is a PUD zoning category, it would have to come before the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Woods said the developer is hoping to get this issue on the agenda for the October 23 Commission Meeting. Mr. LeBlanc did not know if Mr. Grimms had time to write up all the ordinances and other information that must accompany it. He said the decision would have to be Mr. Grimms. To schedule for the October 23 meeting, Mr. Grimms must have all the information in the City Manager's office by the morning of the fourteenth. Mr. Woods discussed some ideas the developer had in mind for the property. Mr. Hopkins moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to the City Commission, the Winter Springs Golf Club small scale amendment, from the land use designation Recreation, to Higher Density Residential with the clarification that the 9.1 to 12 units per acre be investigated and clarified due to the conflict of information in the Growth Management Bulletin given to us by Mr. Grimms. Also, with the caveat that the density is verified before it is presented to the Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Board's minutes are passed on without approval to the City Commission. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: All aye; motion carried. 4 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1995 Update discussion orLand Development Regulations: Mr. LeBlanc said Mr. Grimms intent is to have Mr. Goodrow present for the next meeting on November 1, 1995. Mr. LeBlanc did not believe this would be a public hearing, but a workshop because Mr. Goodrow has only attended twice. Chairperson HotTmann said only if Mr. Goodrow has all the changes incorporated into the LDR's so we do not have to go back to him. Mr. LeBlanc's understanding was that there was some confusion regarding his comments. His August 10 reply to Mr. Goodrow's memo of June 24, and his April 5 and April 21 memos. Chairperson HotTmann referred to Mr. LeBlanc's memo of August 10, comment number eight. He asked if Goodrow's reply meant that Mr. Goodrow is responsible for preparing the proposed ordinance, and this would be addressed then? Mr. LeBlanc said his comment eight, page 9-1, Section 9-27(a), reads, ". . . what about engineering plans that have been approved prior to platting?" What about plans undergoing review by staff before adopting the LDR's? Does Goodrow's reply mean that he is going to be drafting the proposed ordinance and will take care of it in that? There must be some type of system to grandfather those plans approved, or while being reviewed. Chairperson HotTmann asked, must it be stated in the revision, or is it something that is inherent in any of the changes that anything that happens while something is in process continues review? Mr. LeBlanc said if not explained, there will be some person looking for something else. There is some statement which says plans approved before the adoption of the new Land Development Regulations, or plans being reviewed, fall under the old category. Chairperson HotTmann said, "or plans submitted for consideration." Mr. LeBlanc said he would not call it conceptual plan. Maybe it could be worded, "engineering plans submitted for approval"; that would tighten it even more. Chairperson HotTmann asked if this was City Code, or are these chapters prepared by Mr. Goodrow? 5 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1995 Mr. LeBlanc thought they were prepared by Mr. Goodrow. April 5 was proposed LDR's, and it was a memo to Fred Goodrow. Chairperson Hoffmann, for clarification, said there should be some type of statement to the effect that approved plans, or formal engineering plans submitted for review by City Staffwill be subject to requirements of the final development order. Mr. LeBlanc said Goodrow is also saying, a valid recorded subdivision. It is possible that we have approved final engineering and the people working on the project have not recorded a plat yet. Mr. Hopkins advised Mr. LeBlanc that he needs to address these issues, and forward them to Mr. Goodrow. Mr. LeBlanc said he sent these comments to Mr. Goodrow. Mr. LeBlanc's next comment was regarding Section 9-224(g), page 9-5 (Docks and Piers). Mr. LeBlanc said it states, II. . . No roof structure will be allowed. II Chairperson Hoffmann said the Board previously asked to have this deleted. Mr. LeBlanc said the minutes would be forwarded to Mr. Goodrow, and assumed that Mr. Grimms forwarded his comments of August 10. Mr. LeBlanc's next comment was regarding Section 9-281, 9(e), page 9-12 (Mitigation). Mr. LeBlanc read part of the first paragraph, II. . . Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be within the City of Winter Springs . . . II Mr. LeBlanc felt this was too harsh. We may not find all the property which higher authorities require for compensating property. liTo the extent possiblell should be in there. Chairperson Hoffmann and Mr. Hopkins agreed, and said it was also to be changed previously to the wording, II. . . to the extent possible. II Shirley Frankhouser, recording secretary, reported that the Board's comments were reflected in the August 16 minutes, page 9, regarding the wording, II. . . shall to the extent possible. II Chairperson Hoffmann said the Board's comments regarding roof structures for Docks and Piers are also mentioned on page 9 of the August 16 minutes. Mr. Hopkins said all our comments are in there, and must be incorporated by Mr. Goodrow. 6 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1995 Mr. LeBlanc said he was told there was some confusion, and this is the main reason he was present; to answer questions and clear any concerns. Mr. Hopkins said there was a note made by the recording secretary in the minutes of August 16. The note mentioned Mr. LeBlanc's comment number thirteen, and that it was not addressed by the Board. Section 9-347, page 9-17, the middle of the last sentence reads, ". . .within fifteen (15) working days after a determination by the entire site plan review board that the application is complete. II Mr. Hopkins asked if this was resolved? Mr. Leblanc said we had a problem at first establishing a time frame. Often a plan is submitted, and it is seven months before it is approved. The reason for this is all the questions. I just want to ensure that when Mr. Goodrow says the application is complete, it means it meets ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS; not that he has submitted the plans and fifteen days later the site plan review board has to meet. After the word application, insert the following, ". . .meets all Code requirements. II Chairperson HotTmann went on to Section 20-105. Mining or other earth extractions. In the first sentence after the words, City of Winter Springs, the following wording was added, . . . except earth extractions for storm water management, building site preparations, or construction of swimming pools. Section 20-390, page 20-20, Table of landscape buffer requirements. There was question about what the letter designator "N" meant in the buffer requirement chart. This subject was also discussed at the August 16 meeting, and recorded. Chairperson HotTmann said Mr. Grimms must let staff and this Board know when he has been in contact with Mr. Goodrow. We need more confirmation that he has contacted Mr. Goodrow, and has decided that our concerns are being met. Mr. LeBlanc asked everyone to go to Section 20-417. Group home floating zone; page 20-31(e). Paragraph (e) says, ". . . No group home facility shall be located closer than 3,000 feet, measured from property lines, to another such facility. II In his comment to Mr. Goodrow, Mr. LeBlanc said he quoted from Florida Statutes that states 1,000 feet, and the City has no say about it in a residential district. In this case I do not believe the City can make it more restrictive. Mr. Hopkins said his understanding was that the City could not make something less restrictive, but had the authority to make something more restrictive. Mr. LeBlanc does not believe the City has authority in this case because the state is saying six (6) or fewer people will go any place, and we cannot say anything about it. 7 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4, 1995 It says homes of six (6) 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 if such homes shall not be located within a radius of 1,000 feet. The Board agreed that 3,000 feet should be deleted, and be changed to 1,000 feet to agree with the Florida State Statutes. Mr. LeBlanc said perhaps Goodrow can put in the code that if the home does not meet the criteria of subsection 419.0012 of the Florida Statutes, then it will be 3,000 feet apart, and still maintain the integrity of what he was trying to get. Chairperson Hoffmann again said that Mr. Grimms should be in active communication with Mr. Goodrow so that these points are settled to his and our satisfaction. If Mr. Goodrow has not prepared what he is supposed to, it will not count as a paid meeting. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if there were any other comments? Mr. Stephens commented that the Board addressed the issue of removing roads from the designation as collector roads in the RancWands. I, and the other Board members were not aware at the time that the city was pushing for paved roads because they were designated as collector roads. That would be paid for by impact fees. I would have appreciated knowing the city was striving to do that on the other roads when the other issue came up. I don't know if I would have voted any differently, but I feel it would have been appropriate to make all that information known to us at the time. I found out through someone else that it was on the budget. Some Commissioners were not even aware that it was on there. Mr. LeBlanc said there is much more involved. The most important is that it is in the Comprehensive Plan. They are trying to change some things on the collector road system. Whether the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will go along with it or not is another question. I know there are funds we have to expend in a certain period of time, or we could lose them. 6. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 8: 10 P.M. 8 ,,- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 4,1995 Shirley A. Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary Prepared October 18, 1995 THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9,1995 AT 7:00P.M. wp6.0\p&z\min1O-4 9