Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 11 09 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes PLANNING AND ZONINGILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY lYIEETING lYIINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hoffmann at 7:00 P.M. A TIENDANCE: Art Hoffinann, Chairperson, Present Carl Stephens, Jr., Vice-Chairperson, Present William W. Fernandez, Present David Hopkins, Present Gene Lein, Present II. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 16. SEPTE~mER 6, AND OCTOBER 4. 1995 lVIEETIN G lVIINUTES: The minutes of August 16, and October 4, 1995 were tabled due to the odd numbered pages missing from the minutes. ACTION OF THE BOARD: MR. FERl'fAl~DEZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE l\tIINUTES OF SEPTElVIBER 6, 19950 SECONDED BY ~IR. STEPHENS. VOTE: AYE'S 4 NO'S o ABST AIN 1 CHAIRPERSON HOFFl\iIANN, AYE WILLIAlVI FERNANDEZ, AYE GENE LEIN, AYE CARL STEPHENS, AYE DA VID HOPKINS, ABSTAIN lYIOTION CARRIED Chairperson Hoffmann said he was aware people would like to be heard regarding certain items on the agenda. He reminded everyone, if they have not done so already, to complete a "Request to Speak" form which is located in the lobby. - PLANNING AND ZONINGILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY l\'IEETING .MINUTES - NOVE.MBER 9, 1995 PAGE 2 ill. OLD BUSINESS: A. Mesdaul!h Rezoninl!: lVlr. Grimms said this rezoning comes because of a change of future land use. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval to the City Commission previously. The property is at the southeast corner of the intersection of Wade Street and State Road 419. The application states it is (1.5) acres. He noticed that the sign posted shows (2) acres. The existing zoning is C-l 'on the west portion of the parcel, and RU (Rural Urban) on the east portion. The request is to have C-l on the east portion of the property so that the entire property would be C-l. Nlr. Grimms summarized the justification. He found no nuisance potential, and it was compatible with the Citis Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to the City Commission on the request by Renae Mesdaugh, or change the zoning from RU that would now be RC-l because RU is deleted. RU was deleted because of a Comprehensive Plan Policy from (Single-Family Residential), to C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) on the east portion of the property. Chairperson Hoffmann asked Mr. Grimms to point out the location on the map so people could see where it is. He also asked Mr. Grimms if the request was published? lVlr. Grimms reported that all property owners were given notice by mail at the request of the Board, and it was published. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak on the Mesdaugh request? None presented, he asked the Board members if they had any questions. Mr. Fernandez said for the record, he noted that half the property is currently zoned C-l. This request is to make the other portion of the property consistent with that, that it is abutted to the north and to the east by vacant land that is in the County, and on the south, by the church on Wade Street. ACTION OF THE BOARD: - lVIR FERNANDEZ lVIOVED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGREE \VITH STAFF AND RECOMlVIEND THAT WE CHANGE THE RU (WIDCH \VE NO LONGER HAVE) TO C-l, WHICH IS THE LEAST INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USAGE. PLANNING AND ZONINGILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY :MEETING MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 PAGE 3 Seconded by lYIr. Stephens. DISCUSSION VOTE: AYE'S 5 NO'S o J.\iIR DA VID HOPKINS, AYE CHAIRPERSON HOFFMANN, AYE lVIR. WILLIAl\'I FER.J.'fANDEZ, AYE lVIR. GENE LEIN, AYE lVIR. CARL STEPHENS, JR., AYE lVIOTION CARRIED. B. Update Discussion of Land Development Rewlations: Chairperson Hoffmann explained that item ill (B), Update Discussion of Land Development Regulations will be moved down because it will entail much discussion among the Board members. IV. New Business: A. Linda Staten - Home Occuoation: :Mr. Grimms explained that Linda Staten is the applicant for the request for home occupation. She lives at 116 Alderwood Street. The current zoning is R-l (Single-Family Residential) District. The requested action is to permit a home occupation. The applicant has operated a parttime business for a little more than two (2) years. The applicant would like to now operate fulltime the same nature business. The items assembled into gift baskets consists of, artificial flower arrangements and snack foods. Do to request, the applicant would like to now apply for a beer and wine license to include a bottle of wine in the basket. The applicant has operated her parttime business in her spare bedroom in the house. No construction or exterior alterations are planned. The staff finds that the limited home occupation is appropriate at this location, and recommends ,_ approval of the request, provided the applicant agreed to the following conditions: 1) the applicant only maintain the one business as indicated above in the house; 2) there be no visual exterior modifications to the residence; 3) there be only one non-illuminated name plate attached to the building entrance which shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area. 0: ,-' ~_.~~.,...-....- . PLAN~1NG AND ZONINGILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING lVIINUTES - NOVEIHBER 9,1995 PAGE 4 Chairperson- Hoffmann asked Mr. Grimms if he was also saying that the Board approves the issuing of a liquor license? lVlr. Grimms said no, this Board cannot. She (Linda Staten) would have to make a separate application to a state agency. The request this evening is to receive approval for a home occupation. I have not received any caIIs, in-person contacts, or letters from individuals in objection to her business. DISCUSSION Linda Staten sald that NfL Grimms covered very well what she does and why she is requesting a liquor license. lVlr. Grimms asked NIs. Staten if she had an application from the state to fill out? lVIs. Staten answered, yes I do. lVlr. Grimms said he would have to review for rezoning and approval from the City for zoning. Chairperson Hoffmann said it would then have to come back to us for zoning as far as alcohol being sold in a residential area? lVlr. Grimms said I am not aware that it is in the regulations, certainly for this district. What is before you tonight is merely an approval for an occupational license. My understanding is the beer and wine license is really a matter between the applicant and the state. lVlr. Fernandez said so it is a non issue for our consideration? l\'Ir. Grimms said yes, I put that in there for your general awareness. I feel when the information is presented to me, it will be presented to the Board. DISCUSSION :Mr. Stephens asked if any of the neighbors were present and if they wanted to voice their OpInIon. l\'Ir. Ed l\'Iartinez said he lives in Winter Springs, and questioned the location of the property. He also wanted to know if Ms. Staten would to sell her property, how do we protect our young children from possibly making this a hang-out where they would drink wine and beer since you have no laws to enforce not opening this business? DISCUSSION PLANNING AND ZONINGfLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY l\'IEETING MINUTES - NOVEIVIBER 9, 1995 PAGE 5 lVIs. Staten said all baskets are delivered by me. lVlr. lVloti Khemlani - 605 l\iIorgan, Winter Springs. - Mr. Khemlani asked what happens after a pennit is given [right now it seems the neighbors don't mind], but something happens to where this person cannot deliver, and traffic starts coming into the neighborhood with business be conducted. What is the status of this permit, will we have any recourse or this just going to be continuing? Chairperson Hoffmann said the occupational license is renewable every year, so if there was some violation, we could not renew it. -. .- DISCUSSION ACTION OF THE BOARD: l\'1R. FERNANDEZ :MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION 'VITH THE FURTHER RESTRICTION [OTHER THAN THOSE THAT THE STAFF HAS ALREADY RECOIVINIENDED] THAT THE PRODUCT CAN'T BE DELIVERED AT THE DOOR, CA1'1"'T BE PICKED UP BY CUSTOl\'IERS AT THE RESIDENTS. FURTHER, THE Ii."WO:RJ."IATION 'VILL BE SENT TO THE ALCOHOL CONTROL BOARD OF THE STATE BY THE STAFF OF THE CITY AND THIS WILL BE PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE, SECTION 3-1, ET AL OF OUR CODE. SECONDED BY IVIR. HOPKINS FOR DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION: Chairperson Hoffmann asked if it would be appropriate to transmit any information we have regarding our regulations cited and any other comments due the state board? l\'Ir. Grimms said yes, I can include that in the application. Chairperson Hoffmann asked what would that be; that you would indicate the concern regarding the particular section of City Code? lVlr. Grimms said yes, I can indicate the section of the code, the Board's ruling this evening on granting a home occupation, and indicate the zoning district. PLANNrnG AND ZONrnGILOCAL PLANNli'fG AGENCY IHEETrnG MrnUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1995 PAGE 6 VOTE: AYE'S 4 NO'S 1 lVIR DAVID HOPKINS, AYE CHAIRPERSON HOFFlVIANN, AYE lVIR WILLIAlVI FERNANDEZ, AYE lYIR. GENE LEIN, NO lVIR CARL S~PH:E.NS, JR, AYE MOTION CARRIED IV. NEW BUSINESS Continued B. Dan Wood - Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SLVI) lVlr. Grimms explained that Nfr. Dan Wood, c/o 'Winter Springs Golf Course, is the applicant. The request is for change of Future Land Use designation from Recreation [otherwise known as conservation easement] to Commercial. The purpose is the applicant would like to build a parking lot related to the Club House. Property location is on the east side of the Winter Springs Golf Club building, and adjacent to the ninth green of the golf course. The acreage is .244 acres; existing land use is scoreboard and golf- cart path, grass and treed land. Future Land Use designation as mentioned is Recreation; request is for change of designation to Commercial. The existing zoning is PUD (planned Unit Development), [the Highlands PUD]. Requested is kept the same. Adjacent uses are on the north side - grass treed golf course; south - treed golf course; east _ grass, treed golf course [it is the ninth green], and last, Club House, lawn and Club House building. Staff recommendation is that the Local Planning Agency recommend to the City Commission request by Daniel 'W ood, general partner, Winter Springs Partners, L TD d/b/a (doing business as) Winter Springs Golf Club for change of Future Land Use designation from Recreation to Commercial on the subject property. .- Nfr. Grimms mentioned that the Board does have a map that was included with the application in their mail-out sent to them. The applicant also produced a more detailed map which details more clearly what the applicant plans to do with this property. The applicant has also submitted a picture. PLANNING AND ZONING/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEIVIBER 9, 1995 PAGE 7 Chairperson Hoffmann suggested displaying the more detailed map for the public. lVlr. Dan "\V ood, referring to the map, explained what they wanted to do with the property. He showed what he referred to as an artist rendering of what could happen to a particular section of State Road 434. He said that their customers park very close to 434 currently. Since this is all zoned Commercial along 434, the eventual goal would be to do some development along 434 with a new entrance to the golf club which would be an extension of Belle Avenue. It is a bad intersection, and as many of you might know, a little girl was killed here last year. Long range, we would like to have all the agencies involved, [Transportation, County, City, etc.], to help work toward a big entrance to the golf club with interior roads here [pointing to map] for development. Then push the golf course customer parking back to just south of our driving range area between the restaurant and the ninth green. So we treed this up for commercial development, and also we hope that it encourages people to put a light here and a divided entrance way into these commercial parcels being developed, making this a major intersection. - lVlr. Wood added one more thing by saying the City Commission on September 25, 1995, took this little .244 acre parcel out of the conservation easement I believe in anticipation that I would be up here asking for it to be included with a parking lot area zoned Commercial. Chairperson Hoffmann said it mentions changing the PUD from Recreation to Commercial; do we have a designation of any type Commercial, or is it open ended? lVlr. Grimms explained that it is just open end, it is just Commercial. Chairperson Hoffmann said when the applicant comes in for a particular commercial development, we would then review it to see that it meets the requirements? lVlr. Grimms answered yes. Mr. Lein asked ifthere was any anticipation on the commercial development currently or is just future? lVlr. Wood said it was future. The only two things he had heard discussed are a parking lot [which the artist rendering shows], or the possible expansion of the Club House area. Some future owner of the golf course might want to build a "Taj iVlahal" Club House someday and it might inch out into that area a bit. Right now all it is, is lawn. I suggested that it just be used for future parking, but somebody could expand the Club House or the restaurant on the west end of the parcel you are voting on. PLAL'iNING AND ZONINGfLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEIHBER 9, 1995 PAGE 8 Chairperson Hoffmann asked, if what he was doing was putting a roadway across Belle Avenue to go to the parking lot? :Mr. Wood said we are hoping that the eventual new entrance to the golf club will be like an extension of Belle Avenue. That is what the City and County engineers have recommended to me over the past few years. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak. Mr. Moti Khemlani - 605 .Morgan St., Winter Springs - lVIr. KhemIani commented that this was a fantastic opportunity for the City of Winter Springs to make use of this plan, and generate a nice gateway type of entrance from that side which is badly needed. I think you have a client who is dying for your support, and I definitely think this will help the City change it's image from that side. I really appreciate what he is doing. Thank you. Chairperson Hoffmann said I agree that moving the parking lot away from the front of the street is quite an improvement. ACTION OF THE BOARD: lVIR. FERNANDEZ IHOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOlVThIEND APPROVAL TO THE OTY COlVIlVIISSION TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNA nON FRONI RECREA TION TO COlVIlVIERCIAL. SECONDED BY lVIR. GENE LEIN. DISCUSSION NIr. Hopkins asked lVIr. Grirnms if this is not a two step process; first to detennine the compatibility with the existing PUD. [1\tIr. Hopkins read from page 1230 of the City Code] , the Code states. . . Itany request for an alteration, revision, or modification to the preliminary development plan. . . It lVlr. Hopkins said he felt that in the past that this has always been a two step process for this Board to consider when we are changing a land use designation within a PUD zoning. Mr. Grimms said that he and Don LeBlanc [in charge of development] discussed this, and he did not indicate that there is a step like that. - PLANNING AND ZONINGfLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1995 PAGE 9 - :Mr. Hopkins said maybe you can explain to me exactly what this is in reference to when it says here. . . "the Planning and Zoning Board determines tltat tlte proposal is not consistent, a public hearing on the request shall be held by the City Commission." Perhaps I am confused. Chairperson Hoffmann said that means if we turn it down, then again, there is a public hearing with the Commission. Mr. Hopkins said yes, but what I am trying to determine is, is it consistent with the PUD plan, or is it not, and I think that is what this City Code is asking us. DISCUSSION lVlr. Wood said he was aware of the concerns about the conservation easement vis'a'vis the Planned Unit Development (PUD). When I talked to the Commissioners individually and the Mayor, they said if I voluntarily changed the designation of the area around the number 10 tee from commercial to conservation easement, there would be net gain, and if I voluntarily did that, [which they approved on September 25], then they said go ahead and do a separate small scale amendment with Mr. Grimms and Mr. LeBlanc to add this to a potential parking area. I think in their minds it was a two step process. I had to give the City something which is also good for our customers to make sure that nobody can ever build on the tenth tee. Some of the Commissioners individually asked me if you [the Board] would ask us to do this someday, what are you going to do? . . I said I would like to take the tenth tee and take it out of Commercial which is substantially bigger than the area I am asking you to recommend the change of use tonight. Chairperson Hoffmann suggested that as part of the proposal we put in an amendment that this is contingent upon confirmation that the Commission has approved this as being consistent based on the changes that are being made by the applicant. lVlr. "\V ood said you may have the survey with you; just as a matter of record, the tenth tee area was .863 acres which I took out of Commercial zoning and put into the conservation easement, and the part that I am asking now to have the use designation changed is only .244 acres. So there is a substantial difference in what I put back in, and what I am asking to be taken out. DISCUSSION Mr. "\V ood asked NIr. Grimms, didn't the Commission in effect, alter the final development plan by approving on September 25, 1995 to take this out of the conservation easement? lVlr. Grimms said in my opinion, that is what they did. PLANNING AND ZONINGfLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY :MEETING iVIINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 PAGE 10 DISCUSSION iVlr. Hopkins said, but it makes reference to the Board in here meaning the Planning and Zoning Board iVlr. Grimms said I can see where you are saying that the Planning and Zoning Board should look at this and alterations to the final development plan. This is a request for change of future land use under ten acres [small scale amendment], but I defer you that I could read it that way, that you can construe it as a alteration to the final development plan. I would submit to you that [from my analysis of the system] it does not violate the nature of the land uses around here that exists, and what are designated. Chairperson Hoffmann said ifwe read what Mr. Wood is telling us, that there has been an exchange of usage of properties taking commercial out and making it conservation so that the net acreage is even higher than it was before conservation. So we now need to confirm that it is true, that this went before the Commission and was approved. Perhaps we can have the minutes of September 25, 1995 checked, and take a five minute recess at this time. If there are other people who would like to speak on the Battle Ridge project, and you have not filled out a form, you can do so at this time. ***FIVE lVIINUTE RECESS*** Chairperson Hoffmann said the question was, was the land use change compatible with the original land use, or the development, and the question was also, what had the Commission done in a September 25, 1995 meeting, and you can read the minutes regarding that [speaking to "tvIr. Grimms] . lVlr. Grimms read from the Commission Meeting NIinutes of September 25, 1995, page 25 which states in part. . . "alteration of conservation easement over Winter Springs Golf Course, approval/disapproval, Dan Woods request to altering existing conservation easement over the Winter Springs Golf Course resulting in a net gain of .518 acres, [approximately 1.2 acre to the easement], and the motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to approve the alteration to the existing conservation easement and the grandfathering in of the road subject to the attorneys' review. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. lVlotion passes." NIr. Grimms said, so what has happened is that they have essentially approved it, found it consistent. Chairperson Hoffmann said so in essence, they have approved it out of sequence? iVlr. Grimms said well, you posed the question, I would say in my opinion yes, it should have first come to this Board and then you should have made a recommendation and then to the City Commission, but the City Commission has already acted on that matter. PLANNING AND ZONING/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY :MEETING MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 PAGE 11 M;~:"(;riiririj~.-~sl1aIifiT~Y:'p~iTItotit..that.o~.~':..ofth~::tbings' we shouid."ch~gehi"th~'La~d D~vei9P'm~~t~~gg~ti2IisIsjust tm,s .~,ecti()n2.o-15~; 2.0-359; With mu~h re~pecffor'this-B~-~d; rmust:I{o-fnf:'9'4.~~t;;~#i~{B9ardismerely re(;ommendatory on all development-matt"ers; it does "'~"-<'::~~'~'::..~"""'~:"';~:::,,,"~-r~'''~~'',,,~';;f(~sr.~;~7, "-:"~":~,:;::,,,.::. .--- '--'.- --"-, ind~~~t.ef_appr()y~igrlqi$approve~ Chairperson HotTmann said the clerk will note that we had the reading of this and enter it into the minutes at well, that we read the approval by the Commission on this change assuming it to be compatible, as least the Commissions approval. May we have the motion again, would you read it for the benefit of everyone. Recording Secretary read as follows: "Nfr. Fernandez moved that the Board recommend approval to the City Commission to change the Future Land Use designation from Recreational Conservation Easement to Commercial, and seconded by Mr. Lein." Chairperson H~tTmann said we also have the other property which is noted by the Commission vote in September and that also will be in there. Recording Secretary answered yes, that will also be in there. - Mr. Fernandez said so another words, you are recommending that I amend my motion to say that the other parcel, the tenth tee, for future land use purposes be designated or changed from Commercial to Recreational Conservational Easement? Chairperson HotTmann said just confirming that based on the minutes of the Commission meeting in which that has already taken place. lVlr. Grimms said the request is for change of Future Land Use designation from Recreation "Conservation Easement" as referenced over there to Commercial. Mr. Fernandez said, and that is what I have recommended. Chairperson HotTmann asked for any other comments from the Board; none submitted, called for a vote. VOTE: AYE'S 5 NO'S o - lVIR. DAVID HOPKIN"S, AYE CHAIRPERSON HOFFlVIANN, AYE lVIR. GENE LEIN, AYE lVIR. CARL STEPHENS, JR, AYE lVIR. BILL FERNANDEZ, AYE lVIOTION CARRIED PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVElVIBER 09, 1995 - lVIEETING lVIINTER - CARROL - "YEA VER ITElVI IV (d) - CARROL - COlVIPREHENSIVE PLAN AlVIENDMENT (LG) lVIOTION: Mr. Stephens moved that the Local Planning Agency recommends to the City Commission that the request for the transmittal to DCA on this property be denied. SECONDED BY: Mr. David Hopkins. VOTE: ,- Mr. Gene Lein Mr. William Fernandez Mr. Carl Stpehens Mr. David Hopkins Chairperson Art Hoffmann AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE lVIOTION CARRIED ITEM IV (e) - 'YEA VER - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AlVIENDMENT (LG) MOTION: Mr. William Fernandez moved to recommend that we recommend to the City Commission that they deny the transmittal of this to DCA on the Weaver property based on the density. SECONDED BY: Mr. David Hopkins. PAGE 12 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEIVIBER 09, 1995 lVIEETING IVIINTER - CARROL - WEAVER ITEIVI IV (e) - WEAVER, Continuted VOTE: Chairperson Art Hoffinann AYE "Mr. David Hopkins.. AYE Mr. Carl Stephens AYE Mr. William Fernandez AYE Mr. Gene Lein AYE MOTION CARRIED ITEM IV (f) - IVIINTER - COlVIPREHENSIVE PLAN AIVIENDIVIENT (LG) IVIOTION: Mr. Fernandez said, "I will make the same motion as to IV (f) Mintor. SECONDED BY: Mr. David Hopkins. VOTE: Chairperson Art Hoffmann AYE Mr. David Hopkins AYE Mr. Carl Stephens AYE NIr. William Fernandez AYE NIr. Gene Lein AYE ~IOTION CARRIED I . PAGE 13- BA TTLERIDGE - VERBA TIM MINUTES PREPARED AND ISSUED JANUARY 1996 AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY COMMISSION ,- PLANNING A.l~D ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLAL~NING AGENCY lVIEETING lVIINUTES - BATTLE RIDGE NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - CO:MPREHENSIVE PLAN Al\'IENDiYIENT (LG) .Mr. Grimms said he will be brief and to the point. Representatives of the Battle Ridge Companies are here. The future land use amendment that would be prompted by an annexation into the City, voluntary request by the property owner. The request is to go from County Future Land Use Map designation, "Suburban Estates", that is one dwelling unit per acre, to Low Density Residential City Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use 1'1ap which is (3.5) dwelling units per acre. The property generally is located on the east side of State Route 417, otherwise none as the "Greenway/Beltway", and on the north side of State Route 434. The existing zoning in the County is a (1), the requested zoning is R-l. The approximate acreage is (296.96) acres. The existing use right now is vacant land. - The proposed owner has filed application for annexation, and application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment~ application for rezoning to be filled in the very near future. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment transmittal check list is in your mail out. Chainnan, members of the Board, the property owners representative is here to entertain any questions you may have. Chairperson HotTmann asked if the applicant wished to speak? lVlr. Borron J. Owen said he is an attorney with Grey, Harris & Robinson in Orlando. 1'1yoffice address is 201 East Pine Street, Orlando, FL. I am also a resident of Winter Springs. I am here before you tonight on behalf of Battle Ridge Companies~ the owner of the property described to you by 1'Ir. GrimIns. With me this evening is my law partner Fred Lenhardt as well as Jim Allen, Kelly Harbor, and Michael Myers, representatives of Battle Ridge Companies. Joe Cole with C.c.L. Consultants, and Mike Dennis with Breedlove Dennis & Associates, the environmental consultant. We are here to answer any questions you might have concerning the proposed annexation, or actually in this case tonight, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As NIr. Grimms has explained, we have applied to the City for annexation of approximately three- hundred (300) acres of property east of the Greenway on State Highway 434. As part of the annexation, we have also applied for a designation of the useable property as Low Density Residential through an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We have also applied (and that has been submitted to City) for rezoning of the useable property to R-l Residential. _...___~..._._.__.__~.____~__~".~,..............--..:7~:'::'--=-':'- PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDiLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY l\'IEETlL'l'G :MINUTES - NOVEl\'IBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE _ COMl'REHENSIVE PLAN AlvIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 2 lVIr. Owen said there is a couple of important items I would like to point out to you tonight. I know that you have seen the staff report, Mr. Grimms recommendations as well as other documentation, and like I say, we are happy to answer any questions you have. Let me hit a couple of high points with you this evening. Numher one, there is no commercial development proposed, it is all residential. In the County there was an application at one point in time for Commercial and Multi-Family; that is no longer the case. Weare seeking only low density residential. There will be City water and sewer supplied. The property owner has agreed to extend the necessary water and sewer lines to the property; we will be on the City water and sewer system. There will be no septic tanks. I presented to you a letter addressed to Mr. Govoruhk that you have seen this evening. I don't know if you had a chance to look at it. It coOOnns discussions that we have had with lVIr. Govoruhk that it is the intention of the owners ofthe property to dedicate the unusahle portion of the property to the appropriate governmental agency. If I could draw your attention to the map on the wall, and I'll walk over there. Will you all be able to see that? Chairperson Hoffmann said we can stand up. lVIr. Owen said this is the Battle Ridge property here (pointing on the map on the wall). Although there have been no wetlands lines drawn now, what we anticipate the useable portion of the property to be is somewhere in here. All of this will be we believe unusable, and our intention is to dedicate the unusable portion of the property to the appropriate governmental agency in order to preserve the nature of the property; preserve it as conservation. It will not be developed when it is in public hands, and the public agency only can confirm and assure that it will remain conservation. You can see that it is a significant portion of this property. Another important point to consider is that what we propose doing here on this side ofthe property as Low Density Residential is consistent with the urban pattern developing in the area. We overlay this map here showing what is existing there now in the City of Oviedo. South of State Road 434, this is all Low Density Residential in the City of Oviedo, coming back up here, and then back crossing State Road 434 here [Mr. Borron still pointing to the map]. The density in the City of Oviedo is (1.1 to 3.5) dwelling units, but what we have applied for is (3.5) dwelling units; that is the compatible City of Winter Springs designation, the Low Density Residential. We believe that what we are proposing here is consistent with what is occurring in the area; that coupled with the dedication of the unusable property, is something that is very significant for all of you to know. Chnin>er>on Hoffmann, speaking to Mr. Owen, said the property you are pointing is usable as a PLANNlliG AND ZONlliG BOARDILOCAL PLANNlliG AGENCY ~IEETh'l"G ~IINDTES - NOVE~IBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - CO~IPREHENSIVE PLAN A~IEND~IENT (LG) PAGE 3 triangular comer roughly is [remaining sentence by Chairperson Hoffmann inaudible] . lVlr. Owen - again, we have not had any jurisdictional lines drawn yet. :Mr. Dennis can address any questions you have about wetlan~s tonight. What we expect it to be is something like that. There is the eastern most part of the property, and it does end up looking like a triangular piece. Chairperson Hoffmann asked how far away the northeast comer is from the shoreline? ~Ir. Owen,"speaking to .Nlr. Cole, asked him if he knew how far it was from the shoreline. lYlr. Cole said it is about eight-hundred (800) feet from here to the shoreline. l.\'Ir. Owen said it is interesting to know as wen that in the County, this portion here is the only part that abuts State Road 434; this little rectangle here. That was planned for commercial, but there no longer is commercial so that goes away. Our request does not include any commercial whatsoever. All Low Density Residential. Chairperson Hoffmann, referring to the map asked, your access to State Road 434 is that little neck? :Mr. Owen said yes, right here. The Greenway is here, State Road 434 is here, and this is the access. What we would envision is being quite frankly is the" driveway" into the community. As I mentioned, we believe that the project is consistent with the urban patterns developing in the area. Concerning traffic, our studies have concluded as well as numbers from Seminole County, that State Road 434 in this area has a level of service of "A" with the standard being a level of service of "E". We anticipate additional capacity on the roadway, however, there will not be additional capacity that will cause a degradation of the level of service on State Road 434. Those are the important items we wanted to point out to you this evening concerning the project. Weare here before you tonight asking that you ratify the staff recommendation in favor of our clients Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Weare happy to answer any questions you might have. r would like to however, reserve a few moments .NIr. Chairman, at the conclusion of any comments from the public to respond to any questions or comments they might raise. As r mentioned, any of us are here to answer any questions that you might have. Chairperson Hoffmann asked the Board for any questions or comments. lYlr. Stephens said he would like to hear from the public first. l\'Ir. Fernandez agreed. Chairperson Hoffmann asked Nrr. Owens if there were any other comments from his staff. Mr. Owens said not at this time unless you have questions, we will just wait for response. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNlliG AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - NOVE1\'IBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A1\'IENDl\'IENT (LG) PAGE 4 Chairperson HotTmann asked "NIr. Grimms if he had any other comments? 1\'lr. Grimms said one of the pages were miscollated. Staff recommendation is that the Local Planning Agency recommend to the City Commission that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment concerning the Battle Ridge property, LG-CPA-1-95, be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs [DCA] for its review and comment. [not Luther Carrol, that sheet was inadvertently pur there]. Chairperson HotTmann said what you are saying is, based on our approval or disapproval, it goes to the City Commission, and from there it goes to the Department of Community Affairs for their confirmation? 1\'lr. Grimms said right, the City Commission would decide whether to transmit or not transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment which otherwise is known as an ORC Report, (Objections, Recommendations and Comments). That would be sent back ~o the City which this Board has to review which the City Commission would have to review and public meeting, and take an action to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, to not approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or to prove modification presumably based on the (ORC) Report. Chairperson HotTmann said, I would ask the applicant, has it been some analysis of the ground that you say will be useable as to what wild life or ecology that really exists on that property right now? '.., . 'u_ ;#:.'_:".0' 1\'lr. Owen said yes, there has been. Chairperson HotTmann asked if there was a report on that? :Mr. Owen said yes, there is a report. I don't know if it's in your packet. It was done by Modica and Associates, and "NIr. Grimms, have we given that to you? lVlr. Grimms answered no, that wasn't submitted at this point. 1\'lr. Owen said there has been a report done to answer your question. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if there was any comments from the Board yet? 1\'lr. Fernandez said it is his understanding that this is a preliminary stage. We recommend if the City goes along with it, it goes up. They analyze it, resubmit it with additional comments, and it comes back to us, but all this is, is the first step to get something started. PLANNING AND ZONL.'fG BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY lVIEETING lVIINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COlVIPREHENSIVE PLAN AiHENDlVIENT (LG) PAGE 5 :'Mr. Grimms said that's basically what it is. This Board would make a recommendation to the City Commission whether in their opinion it's a Comprehensive Plan Amendment of substance, nature, interest that it should be transmitted to DCA or not. That is what your recommendation is to the City Commission. You are not approving or making any changes, no approvals of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, no disapprovals of it's very substance. Merely recommendation to the City Commission whether in your opinion collectively as a Board that it ought to be transmitted to DCA or not for DCA's review and comment. By the way, there are other agencies other than Department of Community Affairs that review this, but DCA is the coordinating review agency and then the issue and ORC Report to the City which must be recognized by the City in public session. Chairperson Hoffmann said we will have public input now, and I will go by the listings I have here and remember, if somebody has spoken about something that confirms what you want to say, you can later confirm it, but don't repeat in detail everything that they have said. The first name I have is Jim Logue. :!.VIr. Jim Logue said, I live on Stone Street in the Black Hammock out here. I'm president of the Black Hammock Association, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the proposal that you have there. I want to try to speak slowly and clearly so you can understand where we are coming from. We have been going through this Battle Ridge thing for quite sometime now as country folks out there, residents living in a different environment than you do in the City. It's been real disrupting to our lives to have to continue to go through this. What I want to tell you is that we feel what you are proposing to do threatens the health, safety and welfare of our community. We feel like it totally disregards the rights of the surrounding land owners and it ignores our community values. What you are attempting to do is really revert back to the days in Florida when it was commonly excepted for the good of a few to prevail over the best interest of the public. I feel like they are attempting to undermine the financial stability of your community in the fact that more people cause taxes to go up. At least all my life, I was born and raised here. More people come, the taxes seem to go up. Let it be know that we adamantly and unalterably oppose this proposal. \Ve feel like it is a blatant attempt to undermine the small area study by Seminole County, and really an outright attack on our community values, and a dire threat to the quality of life of our community. We feel that this proposal clearly and openly shows how the City of Winter Springs has disregarded not only the desires of their neighbors as being your neighbors, but even the printed and public statements of your citizens stated objectives of your own agreements and I'll address that. Our County, at great expense with a lot of effort from us, the citizens of the area, attended many PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNlJ.'fG AGENCY NIEETING i\'IINUTES - NOVENIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COi\'IPREHENSlVE PLAN ANIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 6 meetings which became known as the small area study. At that time there was an open invitation and outright plea for input from everybody regarding the future area that you are proposing changes on. Jim Logue went on- to say in the beginning, the staff did a presentation of the topics of discussions. I won't read them all to you, but they started off with this booklet, and I'm going to leave with you a copy of everything for future; if you want to look at it later. I won't take the time to go through the whole thing right now. In it they addressed just about anything and everything you could imagine, and there was representatives from your City there. I donlt know who all they are, I don't know them by face. I know some of the names, but I don't know them, but I know that they were there, but mostly the only time that they spoke is when they were spoken to. I wished at that time, why didn't they say then that they were aggressively soliciting land owners to annex into the City? We were there face to face, they could have said that. NIr. LeBlanc was there, and he was asked if the City had intended to extend services east of 417, and he said that you had the capacity to do that, but that there was no interest at that time to do it, and nobody had made an application to do that, but we were all there to hear and talk about it, it was the purpose of that study. In reading through the applications, this annex agreement here, it says that, (a lot of things I just highlight the things that fm addressing here), If. . . the City has encouraged the owner to annex into the City." It goes on to say, If. . .the agreement with the City provide inducements as set forth in this agreement, including land use approvals, and that the owner would not voluntarily annex into the City, or enter into this agreement butfor such an agreement, and assurances by the City." So to me, I don't know what the Citis appears to be aggressively trying to annex these properties out into the County now. I also asked some of the staff about why would the City want to get out there. "- They said in one of the applications that theire housing they stated that there was a need for more land because of the projected population growth. They said they needed an additional eleven- hundred fifty (1150) acres. Well, I called down here and tried to get a copy of that report or study or whatever it was on how they came up with this; that is in this application where it states there is going to be a need for this extra land. Nobody could find any such report, and nobody remembered there being such a study done. At any rate, I couldn't get a hold of it, it wasn't available to me at that time. I don't want to be in opposition just totally for the sake of PLANNlliG AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLAl'1NlNG AGENCY lVIEETING lVIINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AlVIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 7 opposition. If there is a reason for it, I sure want to know about it. I'm not an attorney or expert, consultant, I don't make a living doing this. I'm in the real estate business, but I've tried to be as prepared as I could. I've tried to read and analyze the material that we have gone through before. In reading the letter from your lYfayor that was submitted to DCA regarding this request, the opening paragraph sounded like all he that he was really do was change the urban boundary line, but it went on to address a whole bunch of other stuff. Jim Logue continuing - The reasons why the land use should be changed, if in fact the whole purpose of it was just to change the urban boundary line, I didn't quite make sense of that. How that whole thing worked, what did all these other things have to do with it? For instance, the [sounds like, the Greenway] was built creating development pressure that if the recommendation of the small area study were followed, that wouldn't be true. That interchange there when it was originally designed was to be a rural interchange. It wasn't suppose to create growth. It seems like that's the philosophy that growth follows these things, but us that lived around here for all these years, that was suppose to be a rural interchange. It wasn't suppose to create this growth, and it doesn't have to create growth. It's just everybody has a right to go for it, I suppose you could say. Anyway, as a result of all that, I have here what's called the 'Winter Springs Joint Planning agreement that came from your City. Here it says, ". . . identification of Joint Planning area boundary, future annexation area. " Well, I had the pleasure of being one of maybe thirty or forty citizens of your City. I was one of the few outsiders. Landowners, some of the officials of your City were there at what was called the 434 Visioning. At that point, and at that time, everybody was invited to come in there and say what they felt like was the vision of this City. I'm not in the City, but I appreciated being there, and I did give what input that I was asked to. We met at tables, and I thought it was a really interesting thing. The guys that put it on, warmed us all up. We didn't really know each other, we were strangers. We had the opportunity to have input, but I also have here the result after all that we went through here all day long at this thing; there was published a result of that visioning, and very plainly right here it say, ". . . the major gateway to the City of Winter Springs would be at highway 417." This was something that was paid for by your City. The citizens of this City, they had an opportunity to have input to it, and this is what carne up from it. So I again I say, I don't know how this is coming to pass that all these studies have been done. Everybody's gotten together had the opportunity to be in agreement. As far as I know, agreements have been reached, but nevertheless, here we are. But in conclusion I'd like to just make a few of the following comments. The proposed use of the parcel would be incompatible with the surrounding area uses since the Future Land Use Map PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY :MEETING MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE.. COlVIPREHENSIVE PLAN AlVIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 8 shows rural 10, rural 5, suburban estates in the vicinity, and is not based on data and analysis concerning the suitability and the character of the site and surrounding land uses. Also, the proposal would allow intrusion of development of higher density into an area of lower density rural and similar rural uses, and therefore would be inconsistent with the above referenced objectives and policies. The proposed amendment would not be supportive, is also not supportive of data and analysis that indicates that the proposed land use is needed to accommodate the projected population of the City as far as the information that I can get anyway. Jim Logue continuing - The proposal is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element regarding protection of natural, historic, and archeological resources. Does not include adequate information concerning capability of these objective and policies. - The proposed development of a portion of this site is not consistent with the conservation of Future Lane Use Map designations since it shown in the conservation overlay category on the Future Land Use Map which means it contains either wetlands or flood plains and must be dedicated to the County as a conservation easement, which I understand they are willing to do that. But I don't know, all this wasn't in the application, at least that I was able to read and gather the information. The data and analysis explains this inconsistency, or that analyzes the suitability of the site based on the presence of flood plain is included. The proposal is inconsistent with conservation element objectives, and is inconsistent with the Future Land Use of elements concerning protection of wildlife habitat, and lists species. There is no analysis of suitability of the site for the proposed use and does not address all the natural resources. It does not evaluate or substantially based on wildlife habitat including endangered threatened species, especially concerned species if the proposed amendment is approved, the habitat value of the area could be lost permanently. ,."- This proposal does not include a revised distribution of trips on the roadway network. It does not identify new or expanded facilities which are needed to maintain the adopted levels of service standards, the Future Traffic Circulation Map, the Capital Improvement Elements. The five year schedule of capital improvements have not been revised. Based on the road improvements, that may be needed to serve the land use. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are inconsistent with Section 187.201 of the Florida Statutes State Comprehensive Plan including the following goals and policies: Goa18(a), and policies 8(b) and 8 and 8(b)10-protected surface ground water quality and quantity and policy 8(b) 12-element of the discharge of the inadequately treated stormwater runoff into the waters of the state; Goals 1 O( a) and policy 1 O(b) 1. . . Chairperson HotTmann asked N1r. Logue, "are you reading from what, the County's report? PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9,1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COlVIPREHENSIVE PLAN Ai'rIENDlVIENT (LG) PAGE 9 lVlr. Logue said this is the State Statutes that I believe to be, that this project would be inconsistent with, but I'm just about to rap it up. Chairperson HotTmann said okay, because other people want to speak. lVlr. Logue said he was just about to the end. Anyway, Goal 1 O( a) and policy 1 O(b) conservation forest, wetlands, fish wildlife, and policies 1 O(b)3 and 4-protect and ensure the survival of the endangered and threatened species, their habitats; 1 0(b)7 -protect and restore ecological functions of the wetland systems .and acquire and maintain ecological systems. Anyway, we came here to state our side; we moved out here years ago to live in the country. We tried to preserve that, our way of life out there. It seems like that 417 is a natural boundary for a City to have. We work with our County, we compromise, they have done an excellent job we feel like. We're happy with what is happening out there. y.ie now have got to come to the City of Winter Springs and go through this thing again. All we're saying is that we would like for you to turn down this request in simple words. I would also like to request that my comments and exhibits be transmitted with these amendments throughout this review process, if that is possible. Chairperson HotTmann said that the minutes of our Board meeting goes to the Commission. Jim Logue said can I submit this to you here to go along with it? Chairperson HotTmann said, if you wish. Jim Logue said, I would like to. Also, I would like to request a response time. Chairperson HotTmann said other people wish to speak, and we will consider your request. lVlr. Fernandez said before he goes, where is Black Hammock in relations to the little red lines? lVlr. Logue had gone to the map to point this out. Chairperson HotTmann asked how far away from that northeast corner of the full property, the farthest red line? lVlr. Logue said that parts of the property are considered the Black Hammock. I don't know that there is line that shows this side is the Black Hammock and that side is not the Black Hammock. There were plats years ago, it was platted as the Black Hammock, there were revisions of the Black Hammock and it's just a big swampy area that is generally called the Black Hammock, but I'm sure that you can find plenty of people that will say that the B lack Hammock starts PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNL\TG AGENCY i\'IEETING i\'IINUTES - NOVEi\'IBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (LG) PAGE 10 somewhere along in here [pointing to the map] and goes on up north. I wouldn't know just how to tell you exactly where the boundary line is. Chairperson Hoffmann said, there are citrus groves just to the right of that, that line? i\'Ir. Logue said, yes sir, there surely are, plenty of them, lots of them. Mr. Fernandez asked, is that in something that we've got Tom? lVlr. Grimms said, no. i\'Ir. Grimms said, if I may respond to a couple of comments N1r. Logue made. As far as I can tell, as I'm aware, Mr. Logue dealt with me only at the City in the past couple weeks. I tried to make myself available to everybody who came in, called in, sent letters on this matter, as well as the three other parcels just to the east of Battle Ridge. ---. lVlr. Grimms continuing - He indicated that people at the City just didn't know how the figures were derived, where they came from. I do remember telling him that they came from the Comprehensive Plan, the present adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City. These figures relating to need for more land are population driven. He asked me well how were they derived, and I said well, I would have to go back and read specifically that section on how those population projections were developed. There are various methods of developing population projections, and I tell him that I would have to take a look at that so that was the end of that. As per the JPA [Joint Planning Area], an area that the County is [it's a good concept] trying to work with each City in the County to develop an area of mutual interest and interest of the City in terms, [for instance, annexation, that sort of thing] where this service area might be. We have been in discussions with the County; we met tvvice on that. We are going to have another meeting after the County water and sewer study is completed; it was suppose to have been completed now as I understand there has been a bit of a delay, but shortly it should be completed. I just want to point out that little map that Mr. Logue did show, that is indeed one proposal schematic of State Route 434, vision plan schematic. I just might point out that was a draft, is a draft, that is submitted to the City, it is at staff level discussion. It was never presented to this Planning and Zoning Board, and never presented to the City Council for review and approval. It's status right now is that it is at staff level. Just wanted to make an observation. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if the applicant had any comments he wished to make at this time? Mr. Owen said, we will just wait until the very end, and respond to all the comments at once. ,- PLANNlliG AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY lVIEETING lVIINUTES - NO\TEIHBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AlVIENDlVIENT (LG) PAGE 11 .!VIr. lVIoti Khemlani -602 Morgan Street, Winter Springs, FL - I am here representing the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association. I am the current president of the homeowners association. I would like to make a statement, and the statement is a letter that I would like to submit to the clerk for record. I would like to read the statement for the record as well. This letter is dated November 9, 1995. Dear members of the LPA [Land Planning Agency]. This letter is to document the opposition of the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association to the proposed approval of the Battle Ridge project and associated properties by the City of Winter Springs. Our opposition to this project has been in concert with concerns expressed by various other homeowners associations in the area over some time. This collective opposition has been well documented in public hearings conducted by Seminole County. The project was only rejected by Seminole County, and the Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida. By this letter, Tuscawilla Homeowners Association is going on record to request each of you to fully address at tonight's public hearing, all concerns already raised and documented at the Seminole County Public Hearings prior to any decision taken by the \Vinter Springs LP A. Tuscawilla Homeowner Association has expended much effort and resources towards the outcome of the State Road 434 corridor, a small area study and Lake Jesup. The Tuscawilla Homeowners Association has been formally designated as a vested member of the Friends of Lake Jesup by the Florida State Statute. The annexation of the Battle Ridge project and associated properties into City of Winter Springs and the project subsequent approval will have a negative impact on the communities represented by the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association as well as other area homeowner associations. This letter is to document our request that you reject this project. Thank you. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, any comments !vir. Grimms? lVIr. Grimms answered, I have none Mr. Chairman. Chairperson Hoffmann asked the Board members if they had any comments? !vir. Matthews, Tony Matthews? lVlr. Tony lVlatthews - Thank you Nfr. Chairman and greetings to you, members of the Board. !vIy name is Tony !vIatthews, and I'm with the Seminole County Comprehensive Planning Division in Sanford. Earlier today I faxed a letter to NIr. Tom Grimms, and I believe NIr. Grimms was kind enough to forward that letter to you all so I won't bother to read the letter. I would like to read portions of later on in my presentation. I will be brief, also tonight I brought with me a copy of the small area study that has been eluded to on several occasions tonight. It is called the Greenway/State Road 434 small area study. It is a document you have there with the PLANNING AND ZONlL'fG BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY wIEETlL'fG wIINUTES - NOVEwIBER 9, 1995 BA TTLE RIDGE - COwIPREHENSIVE PLAN AlYIENDwIENT (LG) PAGE 12 greenish cover on it. Also, attached to that is another document which is associated with the study; it's a document that contains public input. The results of public hearings that we had in Seminole County, Local Planning Agency, Board of County Commissioners, and it also includes a lot of comments that were made at those hearings, letters, and things like that. Just to give you a brief history of this project,[and I'm speaking now specifically to the Battle Ridge site and not to the other properties, they are in question later tonight.] The County received an application for a PUD (planned Unit Development) on this property; way back in 1993 was when the application was filed. That item went to the Board of County Commissioners in January of94. At that time the Board of County Commissioners transmitted the request to the Department of Community Affairs. Subsequent to the transmittal, the Department of Community Affairs issued their ORC Report. In that report they objected to the request and basically for three reasons: one was incompatibility, environmental concerns, and transportation issues. When the item came back to the County Commission for the adoption hearing which was on June 14 of 94, that is when the Board directed the staff to prepare and conduct the small area study. It's been referred to already tonight, the study involved a lot of community input. wlr. wlatthews continuing - I believe we had five community meetings in total, and we had work sessions in front of the Board, public hearings, and ultimately the study came to the Board in December of 1994. At that time the Board approved the study and in conjunction with that, they approved the plan amendment, actually they denied the plan amendment that the applicant had submitted for the PUD on the property, and instead they adopted the Suburban Estates designation. Then later on in early 1995, they approved the rezoning to Al [Agriculture]. The property was, (I think it's been mentioned earlier tonight) Rural 10, which is one dwelling unit per ten (10) acres and zoned AI0 prior to it being Suburban Estates. The reason that it was amended and staff recommended Suburban Estates was because of the study that had been done, a couple issues had surfaced. Since we had adopted the Rural 10, one was the Greenway was now in place which it wasn't when we had the Rural lOon there, and secondly the, [and this is documented in the letter] interest and desire of the City to provide central water and sewer east of the Greenway area to serve the property. \Vhat I would like to do is to just briefly in closing, on page four (4) of the letter, subject letter. There is a couple of sections there, and what I would like to do is just to read those on behalf of the public who perhaps has not had a chance to see the letter. The conclusions of the Greenway study were that the land use on the Battle Ridge property be amended to Suburban Estates and that is a maximum of one dwelling per unit per net acre. Staff further recommended a land use change to Rural 3 on the abutting properties which are coming up later tonight at this hearing. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLA~'NING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEi\-IBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COlVIPREHENSIVE PLAN Al'rIENDlVIENT (LG) PAGE 13 In conclusion based upon the study, based upon the issues of the community documented in the study, staff would suggest that the Winter Springs Local Planning Agency must conclude that the proposed amendment to low density residential is inconsistent with sound planning practices in view of the following: number one, although this land is predominately vacant today, and is located within the future urban boundary, both the environmental and roadway influences constrain this land use to the minimum acceptable urban density, and that is Suburban Estates which is one dwelling unit per acre; secondly, designation of high densities along State Road 434 and within the urban area must be timed with the expansion of State Road 434 east of State Road 417; number three, there has been no change in the area since the Greenway/434 small area study was completed last December. The findings and recommendations presented in the study, represent the most effective and appropriate solutions to successfully transitioning urban land uses from State Road 417 interchange at State Road 434 to the rural area; number four, the proposed amendment to low density residential currently under review by the City of Winter Springs would be inconsistent with the Greenway study since it's intense urban designation would not protect the rural character of the abutting properties. If the amended is recommended, staff would suggest that the Local Planning Agency consider no greater intensity than the City's designation of Rural Residential which is one dwelling unit per acre, or less to reduce the impacts from future development on the adjacent rural area of unincorporated Seminole County. Just one final comment which you won't find in your letter, and that is, if you all, this Board decide to recommend the low density land use, itls been requested tonight on to the City Commission, we would suggest that you table this item for a couple of reasons; one, is so that you have time as a Board to review the study that has just been presented tonight. Perhaps you haven't seen it, and of course it just came to you this evening. Time to look at that as itls been mentioned previously it contains all of the background on the study, how the decisions were made, how the recommendations were finally made, and that you also provide additional opportunity for community input. That concludes my presentation, I will be happy to answer any questions. Chairperson HotTmann asked the Board members if they had any comments, and then asked if Staff had any comments on this. lVIr. Grimms said, I have no comment :Mr. Chairman. l\Ir. Fernandez -.Mr. Grimms, have you read all of this stuff that he gave us tonight? The small area and the. . . [remainder of sentence inaudible as lYIr. Grimms interjected at this point] Mr. Grimms said I read it before and I've looked at certain sections again. .Mr. Fernandez asked, was that before or after the recommendations, and the Staff PLANNrnG AND ZONrnG BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY i\'IEETh'iG ~IINUTES - NOYEi\'IBER 9, 1995 BA TTLE RIDGE - COi\'IPREHENSIYE PLAN Ai\'IEND~IENT (LG) PAGE 14 recommendations? i\'Ir. Grimms answered, I read it before. Mr. Tom O'Connell - 1718 Seneca Boulevard, Winter Springs. - I'm speaking tonight as Vice-President of the Chelsea Woods Homeowners Association, and I have a few questions that came up during the presentation by the developer and by the conversations that have taken place this evening. Primarily, what does the City of Winter Springs gain by annexing this Battle Ridge property into the City of\Vinter Springs? Chairperson Hoffmann said we are just asking for your comments, and we will take questions later sir. - J.\ilr. O'Connell said this is a rhetorical question. Chairperson Hoffmann said just give us your comments. l\'Ir. O'Connell said I'll answer it if you don't mind. Chairperson Hoffmann said you go right ahead. l\'Ir. O'Connell said we are told that the annexation process is population driven, yet the developer has said this property is essentially, the majority of which is unusable. Chairperson Hoffmann said seventy (70) acres will be used. i\'Ir. O'Connell said seventy (70) acres out of three hundred acres. The second part of the equation is, why would the City accept land which is unusable? Why would the City want to take land that the developer has to pay some sort of property tax on, and essentially remove it from the property tax rolls? I don't understand why we are even doing this. Thank you. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if there were any comments from staff? 1\'lr. Grimms answered, to the last question, the city is quite willing to [it's my understanding for the City Manager, and previous discussions with the property owner and the representatives] take in the conservation lands; that is those environmentally sensitive areas which is the majority of the land in Battle Ridge, and designated for conservation/recreation use. This would be an asset to the City. It would greatly improve it's level of service in the park and recreation element. , , PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY IHEETING MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9,1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COIHPREHENSIVE PLAN Al'rIEND.MENT (LG) PAGE 15 lVlr. David Hamstra - 1225 lVlacTavandash Drive, Oviedo, Florida. - I just have two issues or comments to discuss this evening. As most of you are aware, most of us in this room tonight were very actively involved in the small area study regarding this particular development, and the surrounding communities. We met on several occasions to discuss a potential impacts as a group, and proposed as a group, several options and alternatives. At the conclusion, Seminole County Staff presented several viable alternatives and options to the group, which democratically voted on those options, and basically recommended desired alternatives. Based on the results of this process, Seminole County Staff presented these results to the Board of County Commissioners, and supported the recommendations from the residents regarding the small area study. My request tonight is for the Board to support the recommendation as proposed in the small area study. A tremendous amount of time and money and effort by both government officials and the residents have been expended on this particular issue. I feel tonight's proposed land use changes would be an insult to all of us who actively participated in this study. Secondly, of all the identified issues regarding traffic, and environment issues and other land use - compatibility, one of the critical issues that were identified, and have not been discussed this evening is the cut-through traffic through McKinnleys N1ill to get from 434 to 426. Unfortunately, the City of Oviedo nor Seminole County has any true north/south corridors to connect 434 to 426. Because of that, the traffic within NfacKinnIeys N1i1l has been utilized as the cut-through traffic area. There are approximately eighty (80) homes that front this street with children and other people that enjoy this as a residential community. lVlr. Hamstra continued - I strongly recommend that the staff adhere to Seminole County's recommendation in order not to further aggravate the existing situation. Thank you very much. Chairperson Hoffmann asked for comments from the staff lVIr. Grimms answered, no Mr. Chainnan. Nlr. Grey \Vilson - 1330 IHacTavandash Drive, NlacKinnleys NlilI. - I'm here representing the NIacKinnIeys lYIill Homeowners Association as an effective parties of the potential annexation of these properties into Winter Springs. We request that the Planning and Zoning Board not give approve to this. As an affected neighborhood, the City of\Vinter Springs has not discussed the cut-through traffic that will increase in our development as a result of this annex. The impact of this needs to be discussed and solved prior to this stage of annexation. - State Road 434, east of State Road 417, is at or above capacity, and as an arterial roadway one meant to carry flowing traffic, this would hinder it's purpose and this annexation. The Department of Transportation as no plans to widen this area, and this is per Renzo Nastasi, Florida Department of Transportation; that was verified today. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING Mll'fUTES - NOVElYIBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AlYIENDlYIENT (LG) PAGE 16 City of Winter Springs actions in this manner are inconsistent with the intergovernmental coordination element of it's own comprehensive plan. The area requesting to be annexed is recognized as being rural. The comprehensive plan of Oviedo which is already in place by the authority of the State of Florida has in that this area only may be annexed upon agreement with Seminole County. Winter Springs has not interacted with either governmental bodies concerning this matter as required in it's own comprehensive plan. Essentially, the B~ttle Ridge property is attempting to increase density through annexation. Through the small area study the density has already been substantially increased. To the citizens of Winter Springs, keep this in mind. If this developer changes his mind, and decides not to personally develop it, the next developer can demand that the City, [and that's you tax paying citizens, you're tax payers of your City] will have to pay for the cost of water and sewers to be placed in the development. The duty of your Board is to validate that this is or is not in compliance with intergovernmental coordination element. It is not in compliance, therefore your duty is to recommend that you reject this application. Just one more comment, the report on wildlife that was mentioned wasn't available to the public prior this meeting. Thank you. Chairperson HotTmann asked for comments from the staff. lVlr. Grimms said if I just might remind you [the Board] again, the LPA does not approve or disapprove this. It only recommends for transmittal or not for transmittal based upon it's review. Also to with respect, it was mentioned that Winter Springs has not interacted with the County on this matter. We have by way of discussions on a JP A, and the discussions we had with the County Staff generated from the County Staff a map [sounds like] proposed map, to a JP A map for the City of Winter Springs, and that was sent on to the City Conurussion here. The City Commission recognized [and far as I understand] adopted that map, the JP A boundary outlines. Chairperson HotTmann asked, what about the traffic level on 4347 1\'lr. Grimms said by the way included the land of Battle Ridge all the way up to DeLeon. Mr. Chairman, your question? Chairperson Hoffmann said the question was the traffic levels on 434 being exceeded. Mr. Grimms said well, I'll just read what I have here and perhaps the property owner's representative can further elaborate. We did an accumulative impact calculations which is very definitely what DCA is going to look out for the four properties, and we came up with daily trip generation of three-thousand two-hundred fourteen (3,214) trips. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING l\'IINUTES - NOVEl\'IBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COl\'IPREHENSIVE PLAN AI'rlENDl\'IENT (LG) PAGE 17 .Mr. Grimms continued - The ADT [and as I understand, these are County figures] average daily trips on State Route 434. This is for the segment between the beltway to DeLeon Street. ADT is thirteen-thousand one seventy-four (13,174) with the level service A, level service standard is E thirteen-thousand one seventy-four (13,174) plus the three-thousand two-hundred fourteen ' (3,214), equals sixteen-thousand three hundred eighty-eight (16,388) average daily trips. The County indicates that the trip generation would have to exceed eighteen-thousand two- hundred seventy (.18,270) before the level of service is negatively affected. Chairperson HotTmann asked which level of service would be affected, level E or level A? l\'Ir. Grimms said level ^ lYIr. Chairman. lYIs. Valerie EI-Jamil- 1230 lYIacTavandas Drive, Oviedo. - I would like to take issue with the figures on the transportation. I'm looking at a Department of Transportation plan amendment. The report states that the daily volurnn on S.R. 434 as of April 1993 was sixteen-thousand one- hundred (16,100) vehicles. Anticipated volumn [that was operating out by the way at a level C at that time] with no further development in the area is nineteen-thousand seven-hundred ten (19,710) by 1997 which would make it a level F. Chairperson HotTmann asked, where are you reading from Ma'm? l\'Is. EI-Jamil said the Department of Transportation gave comments regarding the proposed amendments when it was proposed at the County level when we all participated in the small area study, and this is a document that we received from the Department of Transportation. I would like to know how the developer and lYIr. GrimIns is coming with much lower figures than the Department of Transportation provided years ago, and traffic has increased. lYIr. Grimms said lYlr. Chairman, members of the Board, by the way, I am not here as an advocate for the project. My roll is to give you a factual basis for this Board, and you draw your own conclusions from that: The staff recommendation was not just mine, it was various department heads that make up the Staff Review Board of the City of Winter Springs. The answer to your question is this, is that the Florida Department of Transportation, Renzo Nastasi has indicated that they do not have a segment from the beltway to DeLeon. Their segment is much larger; from 419, 434 all the way eastward, all the way down to 426 otherwise known as West Broadway in downtown Oviedo. So your figures are going to be higher with the other roads cutting through that. For instance on Tuskawilla Road that's going to carry more traffic. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNL~G AGENCY l\'IEETING MINUTES - NOVEl\'IBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Al\'IENDMENT (LG) PAGE 18 lVIs. EI-J amiI said Tuskawilla Road is not in that segment. Tuskawilla Road is not in that segment east of 417. lVlr. Grimms said the segment that Florida Department of Transportation, small segment they have is from 419 intersection with 434 eastward, all the way down around the curve down to 426/ Aloma which is known as West Broadway in Oviedo. "With that larger segment it is expected that you will get a larger count. That is the explanation for the difference. Chairperson Hoffmann said that would include the roadway which is now being widened to four lanes, is that what you are talking about? It would include the section of the roadway that is now being widened to four lanes. lVIr. Grimms said it includes what is now being enlarged, right! 1\'ls. EI-J amil said based upon the fact that with that construction, you do realize that there is less traffic on that roadway; so therefore, these figures are probably actually lower than the actual figures would be if there were not construction which deters traffic from traveling that segment at this time. LVlr. Grimms said I don't have a comment from FDOT on that so I can't really comment on that. lVls. EI-J ami! said that at the time that this proposed amendment came up at the County level the State Department of Transportation specifically said that this would contradict the County's as well as the State's plan for traffic circulation and mobility. Furthermore, in the small area study a major factor to be considered is cut-through traffic and the effects that will have on adjoining neighborhoods. In the City of Winter Springs intergovernmental coordination statement which is still in effect on page 81 thru pages 85, if you review that, your own City addresses the issues that the City should look at the affect, should look at plans to assure there will be no detrimental affects on nearby property under the jurisdiction of the County or the City of Oviedo. I contend and I believe that many people here tonight will tell you the same thing. This development will generate cut-through traffic to existing neighborhoods. The only services available for grocery shopping, service stations, any of the services requires cut-through traffic to go through residential streets that are already over-burdened, we're already addressing those issues with the City of Oviedo, and the County also agrees that these issues must be resolved before further development. By annexing and rezoning at this time, you are encouraging development in contradiction of the statements of the small area study, and I would request that you adhere to that small area study. PLANNING AND ZONlL'fG BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY lVIEETING :MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COlVIPREHENSIVE PLAN AlYIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 19 Chairperson Hoffmann asked what cut-through areas are you talking about Ma'am? lV1s. EI-Jamil said the current route that most vehicles take goes down MacTavandash Drive, down New Castle Lane across Artesia, and down Pine Avenue. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, this is in MacKinnleys MIl? lV1s. EI-Jamil said MacKinnleys iY1ill, Bentley Woods, Bentley Oaks, and there are a number of developments as well as private properties that are not within developments that are effected. It's well over eighty (80) home sites. I think someone said it was eight (80) home sites, I believe there was over one hundred. Chairperson HotTmann asked if there was any other comments? lV1s. Cecilia Height - I am the Chair of the Sierra Club of Central Florida. I participated as well in the 434 small area study on behalf of Sierra Club. I am also an alternate to the legislative league formed, The Friends of Lake Jesup. Sierra Club goes on the record as requesting that this body not recommend the annexation of.Battle Ridge, or the approval of the project. Before coming here, I attended the Seminole County legislative delegation meeting. It was really interesting. I was really surprised because a lot of people came out, and usually when you go to these delegation meetings they talk about a whole variety of things, and there were some variety, but the major topic, the major topic and the major thrust of it was the anger over the flooding, and over the congestion. The quality of life will continue to go down unless we adhere to the comp plan and adhere to growth management. This project would not adhere to growth management. Seminole County is to be applauded for the 434 small area study, and for subsequently approving it. It was a community based effort, organizations were involved, we worked it out, and everybody came together in a consensus, and we approved it. We said to Seminole County, yes we can live with this. So for the record, just please, we've got to stop amending growth management, and amending comp plans. We have to stick to our blue prints. It's basically, you don't go from being from kindergarten all the way up college. Lets keep the growth small, lets have a vision, and lets not just leap frog out and change the rural character of this area of the County, thank you. - lVlr. Tom Daly - :Mr. Daly said he is with the engineering firm of Harlin, Locklin and Associates. I was the representative of the property owners that will be coming up, items C, D and E. One of the neighbors directly to the east of the Battle Ridge property, and on behalf of these gentlemen, I'd like to say the word support of this amendment, and will work with them in anything that they need to do to secure this approval. Thank you. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNli'fG AGENCY MEETING wlINUTES - NOVEwIBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COwIPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDwIENT (LG) PAGE 20 Chairperson Hoffmann asked if there was any other comments from the public before we close public input? Chairperson Hoffmann, speaking to someone in the audience said, you haven't filled out a fonn. [An unidentified person from the audience answered, yes I did.] Chairperson Hoffmann said I have them all here. There are no others here. We will take a five minute break if you want to sign some fonns. wIre Lein asked, what is the name? [A person from the audience said, Jodi Rosier.] Chairperson Hoffmann said okay, all right. .- Jodi Rosier said she appreciates the opportunity to comment. I am Jodi Rosier, I am representing Florida Audubon Society. I am also a resident of Sanford, Florida. Basically, you've all heard that the Battle Ridge parcel is critical to protecting the integrity of Lake Jesup in the Black Hammock Community, and the Board should recommend that this amendment not be transferred to DCA because the applicant has not identified exactly how many houses will be built on the parcel. I am a little concerned that just a little line was placed up by a pen over there [pointing to the map] earlier tonight as this may be a typical bait and switch where we see this imaginary line at this point, and then once the comp plan amendment is passed, the line kind of moves a little bit further into this conservation area. I know the City is looking forward to have some conservation areas in the City of Winter Springs, but then if all that's left is wetland sites how will the City be able to develop it for public access? That means the City would have to develop in wetland areas for parking and such. So I would not want to encourage the City of Winter Springs to just look at this as a way to get some easy conservation/recreation land unless they look at the full details of it. So, basically I would be a little leery with just a, not a well defined line before it goes for the amendment. So I would once again recommend tabling it for more infonnation to be found or just not approving the amendment at all. In final conclusion, basically Florida Audubon thinks this should be preserved. I think it could be used as possibly mitigation bank area or something to have it help pay for it. Other than that, it should be used for public use, or just wildlife use and just not to ruin the integrity of the Black Hammock Community. Thank you. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETlJ.,(G MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AiYIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 21 Chairperson Hoffmann said now we have Sandra Bogan. Sandra Bogan - 2155 Stone Street, Oviedo, FL 32765 - First of all I'd have to beg to differ with Tom Grimms that tonight you are not here tonight to approve or disapprove this project. I think we all know that if you transmit this to DCA, it is showing your approval of this project as submitted. Another point I'd like to make is when MI. Borron was pointing out the so called urban patterns up there, yes it becomes obvious south of 434 that we have urban areas. We have Oviedo, we have Winter Springs. However, the big green globs on south Lake Jesup are just as apparent. NIost of them are wetlands, hardwood forest wetlands, and the one thing that Mr. Borron did not point out is that in our small area study, we actually defined a rural urban area. We in the Black Hammock believe we have the right to keep our area rural, our quality of life high. So in an effort to do that we drew the rural urban boundary. -- When we changed boundaries to suburban estate that kept them out of the rural boundary so we actually had to draw the rural boundary to the east side of Battle Ridge, and the north side of Battle Ridge. The properties to the east of Battle Ridge are clearly in the rural area, and those properties are going to be coming up, and asking to be changed as well; to PUD, to urban densities. I would say that what's being ignored here is that good planning practices, good growth management practices. Probably the number one element in good growth management practices is transitioning from rural to urban. You cannot have PUD butted up against a rural area. There has to be a grade that goes from low density to high density. That's what we tried to achieve in a small area study. We went from rural 10, ruralS, rural 3, suburban estates, city. That's one big point that I think needs to be made. Another thing that needs to be brought out, is that Battle Ridge originally bought this land as a venture, as a business venture. They bought it to mine dirt for the expressway. They did not get that contract for the expressway, so now they are trying to cover their investment. I don't believe it's our job, I don't believe it's the citizen's job to make sure that they balance out at the end of the year. They are not from this area, they are from out of state. They have really no respect for the piece of land that they have there, and so just to keep in mind that they are just looking for a way to pay for all these [following word sounded like people. word distorted because person laughed when speaking] here today. And then just one other thing is they say that there was a report done on the usable acres. I would like for that report to become available either to you, to me, to anybody because that's the first time anybody has heard of that. So obviously I'd like you to not transmit this to DCA. Thanks. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETll'iG MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COlVIPREHENSIVE PLA.L~ Al''rIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 22 lVlr. Grimms said, I hope this is not seen as an academic point, but I will have to disagree with Nliss Bogan. Chapter 163, and that's 163.3174 Florida Statutes parenthesis (4), parenthesis (a). If I may read in part. . ."during the preparation, a planner plan amendment and prior to any recommendation to the governing body, [the local planning agency] that's this board, so constituted to review this shall hold at least one public hearing and so forth." Florida Administrative Code; these are the rules that each of the state departments operate under. In the case of the Department of Community Affairs, they operate under [among others] 9J11.003 parenthesis (1), and these are the regulations for review of comp plans. The Local Planning Agencies shall hold at least one public hearing with due public notice before making it's recommendation to the local governing body on comp plan amendments. So it's not technically an approval or disapproval by this Board. This Board recommends, makes it's recommendation. In this case for transmittal, or not to transmit to the local governing body, which is the City Commission. It's in their prerogative to transmit or not to. NIr. Chairman! Chairperson Hoffmann called lYfr. Tom McCord for public comment. lVlr. Tom :McCord - 2310 Salt Creek Trail, Black Hammock - I'm treasurer of the Black Hammock Association, and I'm that organization's delegate to the Friends of Lake Jesup. \Ve have many concerns about this particular site and it's intended development, but I've got one that's particularly interesting to me at this time, and I'd like to discuss that, and that's drainage. At this last months meeting of Friends of Lake Jesup, we had a discussion there with J.R. Ball of Seminole County, and he relayed to us there that Seminole County is doing a Gee and Soldier Creek drainage basin studies. If any of you aren't familiar with the area of Winter Springs you know that Gee and Soldier Creeks drain into Lake Jesup, and they drain a good deal of this City. Let me ask you, why are the residents of Seminole County paying for a study to eliviate flooding in the City of Winter Springs? Good question, the reason for it is because those roadways that get flooded obstruct the health, safety and welfare; that is fire trucks, ambulances from getting into areas that they have to go. So the citizens of Seminole County are being effected by this City and that study. \Ve bring another issue to you on drainage. Come closer to your shore of Lake Jesup, look at your Central .Winds Park. How many times has that been written up in the paper? Again, not poor engineering, not a poor decision, but Florida is not like text book engineering. When Florida has rains, Florida has rains that come hundred year rains once a year to anybody else's view point. Those residents that live behind Central Winds Park are part of the County still. At this point, they are an enclave, their still part of the County. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETh'fG MINUTES - NOVEIYIBER 9, 1995 BAITLE RIDGE - COIYIPREHENSIVE PLAN Al'rIENDl'rIENT (LG) PAGE 23 Their complaints go to County Commissioners, their complaints also come to this Commission every time it rains, and the drainage basins blowout. That's at elevation, approximately fifty (50). Lake Jesup right now is about elevation seven (7). Property that we're talking about over there on Battle Ridge, [now let's get closer to home] much lower property, with an underlying marl of clay, was inappropriate even if except a small area was inappropriate for even fill dirt for the expressway. What are you going to do when those residents start complaining about water in their back yards? Are you going to pass it on to the County again? The County does not, and the residents of the County do not like paying for poor development practices from this City. We're doing it already. The residents of Central Florida, lets go into Orange County, look what is happening there; the citizens of Orange County, Orlando, Winter Park, are all paying for poor development practices. You can say that those were done years ago, and the development practices have changed, that rules have changed. Engineers have gotten more save too; they also know how to give exactly the letter of what the rules says to give without giving the whole story. So that what happens in development is that you get a nice painted picture of how well the land percolates, how well the drainage is covered, how much ponds and basins handle. You and I both know that when it rains here, it rains, and there is no amount of mans work that's going to contain that water. You all have tried for four years at Central Winds to do it. Have you succeeded yet? With that one respect in mind, I don't know how this Commission can transmit to DCA an approval of this project. I suggest that you look at it very strongly; that you have a full set of engineering documents, and not just what the letter of the law says, but what each one of you know in your hearts happens with Florida rains. Thank you. Chairperson HotTmann called :NIr. Edward Marting for public comment. iVlr. Edward lVIarting - 802 Leopard Trail, Winter Springs - Thank you and good evening. My message is more emotional than studies or book references. I have been through hard roads in my life time. I have seen things that many of you have never seen or maybe will never see. I come from a topography in our national geography which is known as the "Black Board Jungle". - This attorney was very eager to go over to the map and show you where their development is going to be. All of you can look at that map, and you see nothing but buildings coming up, the greenery is disappearing. The ecology which makes part of the natural environment that gives us air and fresh water is disappearing. The ozone layer is thinning out and the sun is getting hotter, and here in Florida we need greenery. \Ve don't need to make it disappear, we need more of it as time goes by, and as the predictions from the scientists come about. I think that you people are there representing the citizens of Winter Springs. You are not representing high priced lawyers, or developers. You are representing us, the people in \Vinter Springs, and as such, we beg you to consider what has been said here tonight, and deny this permit for this development. Thank you. PLANNlliG AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MlliUTES - NOVEIVIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COlVIPREHENSIVE PLAi'f AiYIENDlVIENT (LG) PAGE 2'-1 Chairperson HotTmann asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. IVlr. Keith Goldsmith said that he filled out a card. The recording secretary conveyed to lYIr. Goldsmith that he put down that he wanted to speak on the Land Development Regulations issue, otherwise the form would have been given to the Chairperson. Chairperson HotTmann said, it was a mistake, that's all right. If you good just be brief because we have put a lot of time in on this now. .,...-. l\'lr. Keith Goldsmith - 1089 Choke Cherry Drive, Winter Springs - I think that considering the land use regulations that were thought out, and established by Seminole County knowing that kind of pressure we have living on a light land body over a general aquifer, that the density that they have established,[ even though it is as I said, one per acre as opposed to the proposed over three per acre, I think even the one per acre] might be a bit generous, considering the pressure that this state has for drainage, and the use of it's water resources, and that any such development such as Battle Ridge, and the adjacent additions to the Black Hammock is going to be a severe impact on a very fragile habitat and eco-system of the Lake J esup body. It is a development that not only the immediate area, but the general area can't tolerate because due to the character of the water being transmitted underground throughout this area. I was looking at another development with this plan over near Lockwood Lane, right across town, and the developers admit that the water that's charted for the way they are going to use their engineering as drainage, and the access to waterways, and ecologically preserved areas is the same aquifer that you're effecting when you're adding more weight to this sensitive land around Lake Jesup. So I don't think that you should be in a position to put that additional pressure on our environment. It should be denied, thank you. Chairperson HotTmann said, .Mr. Grimms, we have three other applicants on the same area, Mentor, Weaver, and Carroll who are just adjacent to DeLeon Street, and they represent twenty- eight (28), twenty-five (25), fourteen (14) acres. Would you like to just make that presentation at this time, and then we can consider them separately, but at least we get it in the same frame? l\'Ir. Grimms said to put it very succinctly Mr. Chairman, they are coming in right about the same time. Their request is basically the same to request annexation to the City. Their request future land use designation of3.5 units per acre right now in that area the County has designated one unit per three acres. I mentioned about the level of service, the trip generation, of course you would have to use 434. " PLANNING AND ZONIN"G BOARD/LOCAL PLANNIN"G AGENCY iYIEETIN"G iYIIN"UTES - NOVELVIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - CD.MPREHENSIVE PLAN AiyIENDl\'IENT (LG) ,- PAGE 25 Chairperson Hoffmann said it was all included in your previous discussion of trip generations? l\'Ir. Grimms said yes, yes that is correct. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, are those individuals here tonight? [No answer was given to Chairperson Hoffmann's question] lVlr. Grimms said, in your mail-out I indicated roughly how many units they could develop on their property and so forth. By the way, just to make an observation, I used .12 as a factor for right-of-way. They couldn't use [like for instance] one unit per acre realistically. When a developer does his developing, he is not going to have exactly that much for that many acres. He has to have less because of needs for right-of-ways, retention basins, and the like; any conservation easements too. ...."- Chairperson Hoffmann asked, they wouldn't be using DeLeon Street then as a. . . [last word inaudible because of interjection by N1r. Grimms] lVlr. Grimms said I do not have a definite answer from the property owner, or developers representative. I have heard some thoughts that they have had discussions with each other; it's the property owners in that there is something that maybe perhaps they would try to in tandem develop, and have their entrance way off of 434, and not DeLeon.. Chairperson Hoffmann said of course their use of the property as annexed into Winter Springs is dependent on what happens. . . [last word inaudible because of interjection by :Mr. Grimms] lV1r. Grimms said that is right because of the requirement in the Florida Statutes of contiguousness must be touching, adjacent to City boundary. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, does the Battle Ridge applicants wish to respond now, or make some other additional comments? NIr. Borron Owen said thank you Nfr. Chairman, we'll keep this very brief. What I'd like to do is introduce you to Nlr. NIike Dennis who is an environmental consultant with Breedlove Dennis; if we just take a couple of moments and explain to you all some of the issues about the environment. Mr. lYIike Dennis said thank: you NIr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Nuke Dennis, I am Vice-President and Senior Scientist with Breedlove Dennis and Associates. PLANNING AND ZONlL"\fG BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY :MEETING lVIINUTES - NOVEl\'IBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COl\'IPREHENSIVE PLAN Al\'IENDMENT (LG) PAGE 26 I would just like to make about four points. One is it's very appropriate and proper and right on target that the environmental issue be brought up as significant concern on this property. It is an environmentally sensitive piece of property. A majority of the property is wetlands, that's already been discussed and identified. To our knowledge, based on materials that we have reviewed so far, there are no threatened or endangered species, critical habitats on this site. There will have to be further studies done of tliat before any develop plans or approvals can be obtained. Lastly, before any approvals on this property to build a single resident can be obtained, these things will have to be done. There will have to be wetland lines established; I've walked the site, I've looked at it, we have begun the process of determining those wetland boundaries. Those wetland boundaries will then be inspected by the St. Johns River Water J.Vfanagement District, they will be inspected by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and the exact limits of the wetlands will be determined. - Our best information that we have right now that's been presented to you that basically the southeast triangle of the property as depicted earlier generally represents the area of uplands on the property. The exact boundaries of that haven't been detennined, they'll have to be detennined before this project can move forward. Also, in that process, appropriate buffers to protect the existing wetlands and Lake Jesup will have to be determined, and established. Water quality and quantity considerations will have to be taken into account, and the project and the approval of the environmental resource pennit which will have to be obtained from the St. Johns River Water Management District. Additionally if there are, and I don't know if they would or would not be at this time, any wetland impacts as a result of the project, a US. Army Corp of Engineers pennit which would have to be obtained and that would have to be reviewed also by EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and Fish and Wildlife Service. So there are environmental issues; they will have to be dealt with significantly as this project moves forward, or before it can move forward. Thank you. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, staff, any questions? l\'Ir. Stephens asked r..-Ir. Dennis, have you read the letter from the Water Management District? They claim that there are at least seven (7) rare species located in the upland area there according to Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, a statewide assessment maps, have you read that? .- lVlr. Dennis said I read that letter, they don't list what species they are talking about. Those statewide assessment maps I believe that they are referring to are very broad scale maps, and I don't know what species they are particularly referring to. It could be species that are occurring in the wetland areas which would not be the subject of the development. l' It PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNfi\fG AGENCY MEETING :MINUTES - NOVElYIBER 9, 1995 BA TTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AlYIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 27 l\-Jr. Stephens said they are talking about that area. lYlr. Dennis said I am very familiar with this entire area having worked on quite a few projects in this vicinity. I know where most of the eagle nests are located, Scrub Jay habitats, Gopher Tortoise habitats, those species that generally come up and become significant issues. I'm not sure, I read that, I'm not sure what species they are talking about, I just saw that this evening. Chairperson Hoffmann said all of this would be subject to review by DCA, is that right? lVlr. Grimms said that "is correct. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, how about the environmental, DP A? - lYlr. Grimms said as I mentioned, the Department of Community Affairs is the coordinative review agency, and the Department of Environmental Protection would be one of the agencies that would look at it, also to, St. Johns River Water Management District is one of the review agencies. They send their comments to DCA and DCA then puts all the comments together and develops an ORC Report (Objections, Recommendations and Comments) and sends it to the City. That no doubt would be addressed. Chairperson Hoffmann asked if the Board members had any other questions for Nfr. Dennis. lYlr. Borron Owen said I would like to also introduce you just for a few minutes to lYfr. Joe Cole with C. C.L. Consultants who want to make a couple of comments as well. :Mr. Joe Cole said we are the civil engineers on the project, and there has been a lot of issues brought today. We are going to be addressing these issues when we go through the development plans. We are going to make sure that the districts criteria, all criteria is met and exceeded. There is one question about traffic that I'd like to just talk about briefly. Our figures that we submitted as part of the annexation agreement was from Seminole County's Comp Plan, and it was from 1994 and it does show that there is a level service A, but a fonnal traffic study has not been complete to date. Chairperson Hoffmann said, so what we are doing here tonight is preliminary to all of these other items being approved, and communicated to the DCA? ,- lYlr. Grimms said that is basically correct. If the Comp Plan Amendment were recommended for approval by DCA down the ro'ad, then the City Commission would then take a look at it, and if they chose to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at their second public hearing, [assuming that they would] then the developer can go ahead and start developing his preliminary plans from that. He really can't do anything right now until he gets an understanding of if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests is going to be approved or not. So it is preliminary. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY l'rIEETING lVIINUTES - NOVEl'rIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Al'rrENDMENT (LG) PAGE 28 l'rIr. Borron Owen said you have heard a lot of information tonight. All points are good points, points to be considered. In closing though, one thing that I would like to suggest that you remember is that there are State and Water Management District regulations in effect, in place which regulate, monitor, control development in an environmentally sensitive areas. Those will all be addressed. This is a preliminary stage. We are here tonight requesting your recommendation to the City Commission to transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Department of Community Affairs. This does not circumvent any of those approval processes or procedures. We will still go tIu:ough.all of those; we must go through all of those before any development can occur. Also please remember that the majority of this property is, or is the intention of the property owner to dedicate that to the appropriate governmental agency to own this, to preserve it so that there will not be development on that property. With that in mind, we request and respectfully ask that you ratify the staffs recommendation, and we are happy to answer any other questions you might have. Thank you. -- Chairperson Hoffmann asked, Board member? Remember this is a consideration for forwarding it to the Commission which then would have their opportunity to review, and if they deem fit to submit it to the DCA for consideration. An unidentified person from the audience asked if the Board was doing all the property all at once, or are you [remainder of sentence inaudible]. Chairperson Hoffmann answered no, I just had him read the other three (3) properties because they are. . . what happens with Battle Ridge effects what happens to the other three. l'rIr. Fernandez said :Mr. GrimIns, the recommendation is from Suburban A-Ion the County to [and they're requesting is zoning ofR-I] and that is the recommendation for the staff to submit that to DCA for that comprehensive land approval? l\'Ir. Grimms said the recommendation of the Staff Review Board is to recommend that this Board recommend to the City Commission to transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to DCA for their review and comment. The future land use map designation of the County is S E (Suburban Estates) at one dwelling unit per acre, and the proposal by way of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to go to 3.5 -- dwelling units per acre, lower density residential is the verbal designation in our comp plan. l\Ir. Fernandez said as I understand it they have the right now to develop that property under the County at one unit per acre. Mr. Grimms answered, that is correct. " . PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY lVIEETING l\UNUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Al\'IENDlVIENT (LG) PAGE 29 lV1r. Fernandez said no matter what we do they can still do that under the County assuming that they can septic tanks, and other type stuff lVIr. Grimms said yes, they would be subject to all the requirements, land development regulations of the County. lVIr. Fernandez asked, is it further my understanding that this Board could in fact recommend, and I believe RC-l. is one unit per acre, in the City of Winter Springs? wIr. Grimms said that is a zoning designation, yes. lVIr. Fernandez said the other one is Rustic Rural, the future land use. What do we have now, I know we [sounds like polished] RD. lVIr. Grimms said that RU has been effectively dropped as a result of a Comprehensive Plan Policy. It now folds into RC-l. - wIr. Fernandez said but the land use would be Rustic Residential (RR), and then. . . . wIr. Grimms said no, the proposed future land use designation is Lower Density Residential, 1.1 to 3.5 units per acre. ~lr. Fernandez said I know what that is, and we have one in the City called Rustic Residential, right? wIr. Grimms said yes. 1'\'Ir. Fernandez said, and Rustic Residential is how many units per acre? I believe it's one. l\'Ir. Stephens said it is one. Chairperson Hoffmann said it is one. wIr. Fernandez said, and this Board if I understand it could make a recommendation to the City Commission to submit this to DCA for future land use map change designation of Rustic Residential. If we did that, do they have the right to withdraw their application to annex? lVlr. Grimms said this Board, my understanding is they certainly could make a modification of the applicants request, and along with that, make a recommendation to transmit or not to the City Commission. You can do that. l\'Ir. Fernandez asked, if we change our recommendation, IF we made such a change, could they withdraw their application? Are we involved in futile process? -- PLANNlliG AND ZONlliG BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY lVIEETING MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDIVIENT (LG) PAGE 30 lVIr. Grimms said my understanding is yes, they can withdraw if they want, or not withdraw, that's their prerogative. lVIr. Fernandez said and the Rustic Rural future land use is compatible, or similar to the County's Suburban Estates? Chairperson Hoffmann said, no. lVIr. Grimms said it's one dwelling unit per acre. It says here Rustic Residential classification created and assigned density of one dwelling unit or less per acre. The County designation., Future Land Use l'iIap designation right now over that property is S E (Suburban Estates) one dwelling unit acre. Chairperson Hoffmann reiterated, one per acre right now? lVIr. Grimms said right. Chairperson Hoffmann said so it would be the same as the County right now, so there would be no advantage to their coming into the City other than having a [following word inaudible] units which for the density use, they may choose not to do it, and so they would drop it. lVIr. Fernandez said right, those were the questions I had. Chairperson Hoffmann said because it hinges on having water and sewage available, and depends on what usage of that water line will get to extend it eight hundred (800) feet. lVIr. Lein asked, Tom, on these seventy (70) usable acres, 3.5 units per acre, what is the percentage of that 3.5 that would not be usable for easements, etc? lVlr. Grimms said for the right-of-way, I pulled out of::Daniel DeChiara's book, Planning and Design, it's 12%; that is a rule of thumb, that's deducted out of your total acreage for rights-of- way. Now that's rights-of-way, basically roads. There are also are such things like retention basins, and well what we have heard about tonight, conservation areas, that sort of thing. lVIr. Lein asked, how many units would go in there based on that 3.5 per acre? NOTE: The following information was given by l\tIr. Owen who spoke without the use of a microphone. lVIr. Barron Owen said the maximum possible would be 240, if we got 3.5 units per usable acre in seventy (70) usable acres. . . [remainder of sentence inaudible]. But then that doesn't consider roadways, retention areas, greenbelts, things like that. l\'Ir. Grimms said you would take your acreage [seventy (70) acres] and you deduct your 12% of that. . .Chairperson HotTmann interjected, we are talking about net acreage, right? PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNlN'G AGENCY MEETING lVlmUTES - NOVElVlBER 9, 1995 BATILE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AlVlENDlVIENT (LG) PAGE 31 lVIr. Grimms said that is what we are getting at, yes, and then you would. . . I don't have a fiaure o , and I couldn't find a figure for a rule of thumb like for retention areas and that, it's so variable. lVIr. Lein said well just what you mentioned before, the 12%, you are bringing it down to around 215. . .lVIr. Grimms interjected, I came up with a figure around 212, that's what I came up with, something like that. Chairperson Hoffmann said and stormwater would be retained on the site, right? lVIr. Grimms said it has to be, that is in the comp plan, it's regulation. lVIr. Borron Owen said he would like to make one quick statement about that. The retention, you would probably lose about 20-25% on the site, total you would probably lose around 30- 35%. - lVIr. Hopkins asked, how does this stand Mr. Grimms in relation to our Concurrency Nfanagement? lVlr. Grimms said right now we are in the process of developing land development regulations. Technically speaking, the Concurrency Management System is part of the land development regulations is not in effect because the LDR's are not passed the revisions. lVIr. Hopkins said that brings me to my next question. What standards would they be held to, are current code that is out of date, or the LDR's that haven't been adopted yet? lVIr. Grimms said, I guess our current code. lVIr. Hopkins said I know your recommendation makes reference to staff agreeing with this, and recommending that we send to DCA . . or rather recommend to the City Commission. lVIr. Grimms said, the Staff Review Board, that's right. lVIr. Hopkins asked, does that include all of staff? I mean all of staff was in concert and said yes this is. . . [lVlr. Grimms interjected, that is correct, all staff, nobody voted or said. . .] lVIr. Hopkins interjected, I find that just a little abnormal with all of the objections that we are hearing here this evening that all of staff, not one would mention anything about all these concerns that we have heard here tonight. .Mr. Grimms said there were concerns discussed and so forth, but in the end the staff and consensus said, lets recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency that they transmit, recommend to the City Commission that the City Commission transmit to DCA for their review and comment. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY l\'IEETING MINUTES - NOVEl\'IBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COl\'IPREHENSIVE PLAN AIYIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 32 :Mr. Hopkins said as far as intergovernmental coordination goes, and our comp plan, has anybody from our City contacted and advised the City of Oviedo of our intent, or the staff's intent? l\-Jr. Grimms said we have talked to the staff person over there, and another staff came and picked up the item before you and took it back to. . .NIr. Hopkins interjected, let me be a little more specific then. On page 32 of our camp plan, number 7, it states in here. . . "the City shall seek to enter into'an inter-local agreement by December of 1992 with Seminole County and all adjacent municipalities to address the conservation use and protection of unique vegetative communities and water bodies which cross local government boundaries." lVIr. Hopkins asked, have we complied with that? lVIr. Grimms answered, I don't believe so. Chairperson Hoffmann asked i\l1r. Grimms, what do you mean by that, we haven't done that? What boundaries are you talking about? NIr. Grimms asked i\l1r. Hopkins, what section are reading, page 327 lVlr. Hopkins said yes, page 32 on number 7. Actually it's in the conservation element. It's under one of the objectives to ensure wildlife habitants and so and so forth. 1\'Ir. Grimms said I am not aware of it. My thoughts are that this is part of the Joint Planning Agreement which is under discussion with the County right now, and the County is in the process of discussion of the JP A with Oviedo and of course, some of the other cities. This I believe is where this would come into play, come into being. Chairperson HotTmann said, what you are saying is whatever our recommendation would be would trigger a joint discussion with the County and others? l\'Ir. Grimms said right now we have like informal discussion, shall we say. JP A is a mechanism to develop a more fonnalized arrangement for discussion among the different cities, and so forth on joint concerns, in the County, excuse me. Chairperson Hoffmann said then when it reaches the Commission level where the decision is binding, then that's where this activity would come into play? l\-Ir. Grimms said I'm not quite sure. -.,,-------..-.'.-----.-.-...'..-.--...--' ---.,--_.,._- PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY lVIEETlL'fG MINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AlVIENDlVIENT (LG) PAGE 33 Chairperson Hoffmann asked, before it gets to the Commission for their, "binding decision", then there would be some discussion with the County and the JP A on a formal basis? lVlr. Grimms said when a JP A is established? Chairperson Hoffmann said, yes. lVlr. Grimms said, oh yes. Staff level would do that, they would have their discussions. Chairperson Hoffmann said that it could be defeated lets say, or sent back or refused by the Commission when it reaches the JP A level of discussion. lVlr. Grimrns said the arrangement is that a JP A is formally established between the County and the Cities, and agreed upon amongst the County and City where it sets up a mechanism for infonning each other, working with each other on problems of mutual interest. Not just negative problems, but things of a more positive nature. It would help ensure that there is the discussions between County and City, and City and Cities, and those discussions would be at certain staff levels. Staff level would take the results of those discussions, [like for our City] make it's recommendations by way of S taff Review Board to this Board, and then on over to the City Commission. - Chairperson Hoffmann said so if this Board would make a recommendation to advance the request, then you would have all this information go to the County, and to the other cities before it reaches the Commission? lVlr. Grimms asked, under the JP A arrangements? Chairperson HotTmann answered, yes. . lVlr. Grimms said that is the way I understand it. Chairperson Hoffmann said so that the Commission wouldn't be acting without there being this discussion with the County and the Cities? lVlr. Grimms said right, that is the way I understand the JP A arrangement is. Chairperson Hoffmann, addressing :Nlr. Hopkins asked, does that satisfy your answer David? ,.- lVlr. Hopkins said sure, which brings me to my next question. Tom, also on page 30, one of our policies in the conservation element, number one, if I could, I'll just recite it real quick. It says. . . "we will require conceptual engineering proposals to include identification and mapping of natural resources within property intended to be developed. This shall include an inventory of plants, animals designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concerns an associated habitat required for the species to remain viable. . .", and so on and so forth. Has any of that occurred? PLANNrnG AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING l\UNUTES - NOVE1\'IBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A1\'IEND1\'IENT (LG) PAGE 34 1\'lr. Grimms said independent of development, not to my understanding. I can tell you this, that certainly the staff that we have at the City, I don't have the qualifications to be identifying various speCIes. 1\'lr. Hopkins said I wouldn't expect that you would do it. 1\'lr. Grimms said to my knowledge, no. Apart from this specific developments proposed for specific sites, my understanding is that we do not have any study done where it does delineate such things, and point out certain, and specify certain species. 1\'lr. Hopkins - Again, thank you. Chairperson Hoffmann said, again, this could be a requirement of a Commission. 1\'lr. Hopkins said, sure. I'm not quite sure why we would we want it to be a requirement at this stage, and just to be quite honest, and what I see here is it appears to me that all that's happening is that somebody couldn't get what they wanted through one governmental agency, so they are moving to the next and trying to manipulate the City. [APPLAUSE] I'm sorry, but that's the way that I see it, and I'm going to call it the way I see it, and that is my final statement. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, any comments? lVlr. Stephens said I've lived in Florida getting close to forty (40) years now, and I'm pretty knowledgeable about the Black Hammock area growing up. I did a lot of fishing and camping there, and I know how sensitive and precious that area is. It also bothers me when I hear people say, "the City, the City" wants to annex this land. lYly guess is if you were to take a vote in the City of\Vmter Springs, the people would not vote to change that, they would keep it one house per acre. The people in Winter Springs are the City. I feel the same way that Dave does; they didn't get what they wanted, so they're coming before us. This land does not need be changed, it needs to stay one house per five (5) acres if possible. [APPLAUSE] Chairperson Hoffmann asked, NIr. Lein, any comments? l'\'1r. Lein answered, I'm fine. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, any other comments? [Unidentified person answered no] 1\'lr. Fernandez said my position is that as it sits right now it could be developed, one house per acre, and apparently with septic tanks which I think in my personal perception would be worse than City sewer and water. I would like to review the small area plan and so forth. If I'm pushed to the wall tonight, I would back recommending that the City Commission approve DCA, send it to DCA for future land use on Rustic Residential so that we're compatible with S E with the County which I believe is Suburban Estates. That way we can ensure that there won't be any further, or any excessive damage to the environment due to septic tanks, and other uncontrolled development out there under the County. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9,1995 BA TILE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDNIENT (LG) PAGE 35 NIr. Hopkins said, Nfr. Chair, then what are we gaining through this annexation? I guess the bottom line is, what does this City stand to get from annexing this in allowing something that the County has already refused. I have a problem understanding that, maybe staff could help me. lVIr. Grimms said I don't think there is anything to gain, if you are going to keep it just the same. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, do we really have the full definition of why the County refused it? lVIr. Hopkins said ifwe would have had a little intergovernmental cooperation, we probably would have. . lVIr. Grimms said it is indicated in the staff report. Perhaps Tony Matthews, representative from the County Comprehensive Planning Division can summarize it. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, Mr. Matthews, do you want to summarize it before we make a decision here? lVIr. Tony lVIatthews said what I think the major issues are in the letter that we sent to you today, but to just make a couple of other comments; when we looked at this area we looked at the Beltway being in place, and we looked at the interest and information that had been shared with us that the City was potentially interested in annexing, and providing central services east of the "Greenway." As you all know, that's not within a County service area for central water and sewer. We did the small area study, [it has been mentioned tonight, we had a lot of community input], the community backed the staff, and supported the small area study. \Ve established the Suburban Estates on this property to serve, has already been eluded to as a transition for on the "Greenway" east over to DeLeon, and farther on into the Black Hammock area. The three additional sites that are coming up to you tonight have been separated from the urban area to remain in the rural area. So essentially, with a lack of services, compatibility issues, we felt like Suburban Estates would be appropriate. Suburban Estates is our least intense urban land use. It is one unit to the acre, that's the net density, and that does allow water wells and septic tanks when services aren't available. Of course septic tanks have to be approved by the health department which is beyond the County's ability to do that. . Chairperson HotTmann said if water and sewer facilities were available though, you had no comments at what the County's position would be. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEE'TL'fG lVIINUTES - NOVElVIBER 9, 1995 BATTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Al\'IENDMENT (LG) PAGE 36 lVlr. lVIatthews responded, I'm sorry. Chairperson Hoffmann said if water and sewer had been available, you have no idea what the County's position would be? lVlr. lVlatthews said if that had been in a central service area perhaps the decision might have been different as far as the density goes because there would have been the services there, but you also have to keep in mind that as mentioned tonight, that section of 434 east over into the downtown area there is no DOT plan improvements that I am aware of. That is a rural section roadway, and there is a major concern downtown Oviedo that we are all familiar with where all those, [426, 419,434] come together. That is a constraint, and until that issue is resolved, the road probably won't be widened. It doesn't pass over the environmental issues as well however. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, Board members, any recommendations? lVlr. Stephens said, I have a recommendation. I lVIOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOlVIl\tIEND TO THE CITY COlVl1vIISSION THAT THE TRAl'fS1\'IITTAL TO DCA BE DENIED. ,- 1\'lr. Hopkins said, I'll second that. Chairperson Hoffmann said, without any changes in the request in acreage or anything? :Mr. Stephens said, none! Chairperson Hoffmann said, moved and seconded, any comments? Call the roll. VOTE: David Hopkins, aye; Gene Lein, aye; \ViIliam Fernandez, aye; Art Hoffmann, no; Carl Stephens, aye [YES - 4 NO - 1] l\'10TION CARRIED. Chairperson Hoffmann said, so at this point that makes the balance of the three a new question, or should we continue with that? 1\'lr. Grimms said you really should take an action on that. Chairperson Hoffmann said we'll take five, and then we'll get back. ,- [ FIVE I\rIINUTE BREAK TAKEN AT THIS PO INT] Chairperson HotTmann said I believe we should treat items 4 (d), (e), and (f) together there. They are three adjacent or almost contiguous properties which are adjacent to Battle Ridge. . , PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ~IEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1995 BA TTLE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AiYIENDMENT (LG) PAGE 37 [ FIVE IVIINUTE BREAK TAKEN AT THIS POINT] Chairperson Hoffmann said I believe we should treat items 4 (d), (e), and (f) together there. They are three adjacent or almost contiguous properties which are adjacent to Battle Ridge. Prepared and Submitted By Shirley A. Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary January 2, 1996 ,..- -- wp6,O/p&z'.baltlo= PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEl\'IBER 09, 1995 - l\'IEETING UPDATE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPl\'IENT REGULATIONS III. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Grimms mentioned to the Board that they still had two more Comprehensive Plan Amendments to discuss, and that they could call a special meeting, or include them with the 1996 first round of amendments. It was discussed and decided to hold a special meeting on Wednesday, November 15, 1995 for items IV(g) Tus~awill~ Bypass _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LG), and IV(h) Winter Springs Loop - Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LG) . B. _ UPDATE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULA nONS: Chairperson Hoffmann asked, did you mention Mr. Goodrow the two items I brought up about Mr. Goodrow said using the minutes sent to me by the staff, I tried to reconstruct the recommendations the best I could. I think what we really need to do is just, if! messed up anywhere let me know what they are, and we'll those corrections, and if they are simple enough, we ought to be able to approve it for transmittal to the City Commission tonight. Chairperson Hoffmann said the one item he thought was left out was the Stormwater lVlanagement section. It was mentioned that the City Commission approved it at a previous meeting, but we didn't see it anywhere in any of your documents. Maybe you just didn't bother re-doing it because there was no changes. Mr. Goodrow said no, there are some things that I have not been contracted to do. Basically, what these changes reflect from the very beginning with a few exceptions because I thought the recommendations were rather easy to handle. These were changes that are necessary to bring your code into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. That particular recommendation was not necessary and it was going to be a rather daunting task to write such standards. Chairperson Hoffmann said then weill have to do that. Did you hear that Mr. Grimms, he is saying that he wasn't contracted to work on that part of the LDR's. Mr. Grimms asked, what part was that? Chairperson Hoffmann said the Stormwater Management which the Commissioners already approved. Page 14 PLANNlNG AND ZONlNG BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEMBER 09, 1995 - lVIEETlNG UPDA TE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPlVIENT REGULATIONS lVlr. Grimms said that was his understanding. Chairperson Hoffmann said so in order to get it into the LDR's we would have to do it on our own? l\tIr. Grimms said yes, the Public Works Director would have to be involved with that proposal. SECTION 6-193. Distance from property line (Page 6-2) GOODROW'S CHANGE: ^'.> ~~~""~,~~,,,,.,,~,,.,..,,..,...,,,-'_' , "V ... .. ~_," Fences or hedges must be so thattheputside:surface is directly over the at least three (3) inches frem property lines. CHAIRPERSON HOFFlVlANN'S SUGGESTION: Fences or hedges must be so that the outside surface is not more than directly over the property line. Mr. Goodrow said, I don't mind doing that, I don't think that solves the problem that was addressed for this change. The problem was, they weren't putting the fences directly on the line, and then two fences would end up being 3 to 6 inches off the line, and there wouldn't be anyone to maintain what was in between the fences. Chairperson Hoffmann said, we are just saying, not more than. l\'Ir. Goodrow said, but if you say not more than, that means it doesn't have to be on the line. Chairperson Hoffmann said that is right, and if they agree not to put it on the line, what are the consequences? Mr. Goodrow said the consequences are you have two fences with six inches between them, and nobody maintaining it. Chairperson Hoffmann said, I see. l\'Ir. Stephens said maybe this is not the place for it, but shouldn't there be something in here about hedges and fences on comers where cars have to stop, and they are trying to see; far as blocking visually? Page 15 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDfLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEMBER 09, 1995 - 1\'IEETING UPDATE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPlVIENT REGULATIONS Chairperson HotTmann said that is addressed in here. So what you are saying is then by putting it that way you are saying the fence must be at the property line? 1\'lr. Goodrow said that is my understanding of the issue that was brought up. Mr. Fernandez asked Chairperson Hoffmann, is this the new material, Chapter Two, Administration that we are going over? Chairperson HotTmann said these pages were submitted by Mr. Goodrow. Mr. Fernandez referring to Section 2-61. powers on page 2-1 read from sub-paragraph (6). 1\'IR. GOODROW'S CHANGE: (6) Assess fines upon notification by the code inspector that a previous order of the code enforcement board has not been complied with by the set time.~The viol(itor):lla.ype order~d to . . ., '." . .,"" ... _'0'- ._. ... _. ,. . -.. ., . . -~,..,. pay a fine not to exceed fWO hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) threehundre(r4oll~fs($309.99Yfor each day the violation continues past the date set for compliance or for each time the violation has been repeated. 1\'IR FERNANDEZ'S SUGGGESTION: 1\'lr. Fernandez states that the Florida Statutes say it may be five hundred dollars ($500.00). It further says if it is irreparable harm it can be up to five thousand dollars ($5.000.00). I want to give our Code Enforcement Board as much leeway as the state allows us to give them as opposed to making it more restrictive. If we need to change this simply to reflect violator be ordered to pay a fine not to exceed those set forth in Florida Statute 162.092 (a) as amended, then that is how I would propose to amend this particular section. Chairperson Hoffmann referring to code violations said there is a list that was approved by the Commission as to the amount of fines for various violations which the City has setup. So whether you made it three thousand ($3,000.00) or whatever, maybe the code violation directive will be what takes precedence, and not this. 1\'lr. Lein said that wouldn't make any difference then because if the figure is at the top, and the code violation fines keep changing, this never has to change. So he might have a point there. .- Chairperson HotTmann said but $300.00 I think is high as any of it goes. This was why this was raised from $250.00 to $300.00 because the violations were raised up to a maximum of $300.00. Page 16 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEMBER 09, 1995 - MEETING UPDA TE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS .Mr. Lein said what he is saying is, since this is going to be a page you don't want to go changing all the time, you want to change the fines. Go with the State Statute so we can have a limit up to a point, and still go along with what the Commission recommends as being the fine. This gives them a guide line to stay underneath it. $300.00 might be something you might want to change a year from now, or two years from now, but he [Fernandez] has a point. lVlr. Hopkins said that he agrees. Chairperson Hoffmann said then make it up to $3,000.00 if you wish. Mr. Fernandez said no, the State law on a repeat offense, the maximum is $500.00, and it is $250.00 on a first offense. Ifit is irreparable harm as specified in the statute [Florida], and the grounds for it, then it can be up to [according to the 1995 Session Laws], $5,000.00 per incident. - I haven't received the Florida Statutes yet, I've ordered them, but they don't come in until December. I am relying on electronic input through one of these services, and the heading says that irreparable harm is up to $10,000.00 per incident, but the body of the text says $5,000.00, so I don't know what it is, so my recommendation would be here to simply say. . . IlOt to exceed the limits set forth ill Florida Statute 162.09. I guess we don't even have to go any further than that. Chairperson HotTmann said without putting a number in then, you just say refer to Florida Statute 162.09? lVlr. Fernandez said yes, that is correct. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THAT THE FOLLOWING CHANGE BE lVIADE TO SECTION 2-61. POWERS. (SUBPARAGRAPH 6): MR GOODROW'S CHANGE: (6) Assess fines upon notification by the code inspector that a previous order of the code enforcement board has not been complied with by the set time'.c_The yioI(3.t8r m(iY,Qe ordereq to pay a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) three hundred'dollar$.($300.00) for each day. . . . lVIR. FERNANDEZ'S SUGGESTION AGREED UPON BY THE BOARD: (6) Assess fines upon notification by the code inspector that a previous order of the code enforcement board has notp.eencorpplied vvit9.by the set time. _,The violator may be ordered to pay a fine not to exceed those set forth in Florida Statute 162~09 for each day. . . . - Page 17 PLANNlNG AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEMBER 09, 1995 - lVIEETING - UPDATE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Chairperson Hoffmann referring to Section 9-347. Duties. - page 9-16, had a question regarding the English language. INCORRECT TEXT: An person desiring to develop or improve any parcel of land as provided for in this chapter shall first submit to the Development Review Committee a site plan. CHAIRPERSON HOFFMANN'S CORRECTION: A Afl person desiring to.deYl:ltopgr improve any parcel ofIand as provided for in this chapter shall first submit4&- a."sit~'pia.lbo the Development Review Committee. lVlr. Goodrow informed the Board that anything that is not shaded is not my language, that is the way it was originally written. SECTION 9-347. DUTIES - page 9-16 (end of paragraph): MR GOODROW'S CHANGE: "'""~ ~1.:<~;;,";,::::",,);rr:'~'7..Ac:'~'~T:,,~~;:';:"'J~~:l't-~c~::r?:'~:i~"":;;:;:::<:,,,""::::,:::~,,: :"~- -:=:.;; ";:;:::,,,,,,,,,":::~-~.":" ~,;, "';-~~-.,.,,,""C--'~~ -'.: :-~ kii@"days;'afterf'a'defeIlnihationbytheentire Development Review .-: ''': . C'_"'-'-':"". ':'_. '~'~;'::,,;;;:~:_';::;I:'-":';:''',_:::: :':,:: :::0"," ___".. - .. _n'. . . -.-.. ....... . p.J2U~~ti9n'is:(:Qiriph~t~:j BOARD'S CHANGE: within fifteen (1,5) 'Y9sJsing days after a determination by the entire Development Review @.,:~~.,-:,~--~, Committee the $J1QIW~ij application is complete. Mr. Stephens asked, if there is a page in here [Goodrow1s Draft ofLDR changes dated 10-30- 95] then that means the code was left the way it is on that particular page. A few of the board members answered yes, that is right! SECTION 20-161. DESIGNATION - page 20-6: Mr. Goodrow said we added the term, respectively as you had requested. It had not been my - intention to do it that way. The R-lAA and R-IA both would fit in either one of the lower density, moderate density residential categories if you wanted to allow them to do that. Page 18 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVElVIBER 09, 1995 - lVIEETING UPDATE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPlVIENT REGULA nONS Chairperson Hoffmann said I think what they are only referring to the designation of the wording. R-lAA refers to the wording, lower density and R-IA refers to moderate density. Mr. Goodrow said right, and it had not been my intention to do that; my intention was that the appropriate land use plan designations for R-IA, R-lAA and is lower density and moderate density residential. Either one could go into either category. MR GOODROWtS CHANGE: The lands included within R-IM and R-IA One-Family Dwelling Distti:~!~:.~~~,g,~x~Jope~c;""0"''''C' pr~qpmimll}!Jy as sin~:farnilyd"YelIings9P:.I9tsof generous areas.The..,'(lppr()PI"iate]andtls~plan ~~:':;""':~~~!"~::~';".':"':~::!,~":':.~~_.~....___',-"'-':~~~W-_~~.., -'-~:',> ':"',;~'-:"' - _";;,'-~-"\':''';'' ",".:: '>' ..-.,.;,~- ,<:: _' - ,f , _ - .--........:O:?f'.CO _ _ :', __ __~ d~~Igp.(lgg~I. oM',," 'e!t:Q~R-:SityaIlclM()d~r.at~;pensityResidential respe(;tivelyi The zone districts are designed to preserve and protect the characteristics of single-family use. ....-.. THE BOARD'S CHANGE: The lands included within R-lAA and R-IA One-Family Dwelling Districts are developed predominantly as single-family dweI1!Ilgs on lots of generous areas. The appropriate land use plan designations are Lower Density tmd"9fikModerate Density Residential. respectively. The zone districts are designed to preserve and protect the characteristics of single-family use. Mr. Goodrow said it is my opinion that you were inaccurate in the answer you gave the gentleman who was asking you about gross and net acreage. I believe the plan provides for gross acreage and means gross acreage. It doesn't mean the net after you take out the roads or anything else, and that is exactly why I believe both of these zoning categories would be appropriate in either one of these land use categories because it is a gross acreage figure. Chairperson HotTmann said it is only when you get down to the zoning that you use net acreage. Mr. Goodrow said actually when you get to your zoning categories, you have a lot size category. So what would happen is you would have to look at both your plan and see how many units you were allowed, and then what size lots you were allowed, and you may not be able to get as many units as you are allowed in the plan because the lots are too big. You may be able to get more lots on the property than the plan allows, but the plan won't allow it so you still can't get anymore. Page 19 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEMBER 09, 1995 - .MEETING UPDATE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPlYIENT REGULA nONS Mr. Lein asked, then it is net usage of the [in this particular case, it was 70 acres, right, 3.5 an acre?] lVIr. Goodrow said 3.5 times 70, that is what would be allowed. If you designated that whole acreage. . . [remainder of sentence inaudible due to someone speaking at same time] Mr. Lein said so in that 3.5 you have to include your roads, easements, and everything else? lVIr. Goodrow said you would have to build those in there, right. Mr. Stephens said lower density residential allows 1.1 to 3.5 per acre, right? If you go to the Comprehensive Plan, page 18 under land use it says, . . ."moderate density residential is created and assigned a density of3.6 to 6.5 dwelling units per acre. Chairperson Hoffmann said that is where I have brought up this question today where we have a difference between this 3.5 and the 3.6. lVIr. Stephens said that is why respectively is in there, their not both in the same. Mr. Goodrow said but you can take the zoning category to R-1AA and R1-A and you can fit those lots in either one of those categories. lVIr. Stephens said I guess what I'm worried about is some builder coming along and saying well, this is lower density residential, and I'm going to put moderate density residential on it. Mr. Goodrow said you can't do that. Chairperson Hoffmann said either density residential he can squeeze R-lAA or R-1A on those lots. Mr. Stephens said okay, I see what you are saying now. Mr. Goodrow said you have to remember, whatever land use category he has, that is the maximum of number units he can put on it. It doesn't matter what zoning he is. That is another reason why I worded this the appropriate land use plan. It doesn't say, it shall be. Those are the kind of decisions you can make as you go along, but it gives some guidance to someone. - lVIr. Stephens said so we are striking moderate density residential then, right? Page 20 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEMBER 09, 1995 -lVIEETING UPDA TE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPlVIENT REGULA nONS Chairperson HotTmann said no, we are just putting the word or instead of and in there, and taking the word respectively out. Mr. Goodrow said if that is not clear, we need to clear that up. What this is saying is, that the lands included within the R-IA, R-lAA, and R-l one family dwelling districts are developed predominately as single-family dwellings on lots of generous area. That is one statement, and the next statement says that for those two zoning categories the appropriate land use category would be either of those two. Mr. Stephens said I guess my question is why would they fit it to moderate density if moderate density as a higher density of3.6 to 6.5? lVIr. Goodrow said R-IA is, what is the size of the lots, pretty small. If you look at it, it probably wouldn't go up to the top of that category. Mr. Stephens said R-IA is 8,000 square feet. Chairperson HotTmann said that is at least 5 per acre. So you see, it could work either way. Mr. Stephens said I guess I'm thinking of the Earley suit were they wanted lower density residential, and that would allow them R-IA, R-lAA, and R-lAAA. That was very clear, that came out over and over again. Then we threw moderate density saying these would fit into moderate density. That is what was throwing me. Chairperson HotTmann said the definition gives you a maximum density. Any of those two zoning classifications, the size of the lots could fit in either one of those. Mr. Hopkins said I guess what this allows for is a less dense application to go into that land use designation. Chairperson HotTmann said he is just stating a fact without really saying this allows you to do anything; he is just saying this is the way it is. lVIr. Goodrow said just trying to give some guidelines and still make some decisions, but it does not negate the fact that if you have lower density, you can't exceed that density whatever it is, 3.5 and if you have moderate, you can't exceed that, but you can put those zoning categories. . .if you recall, way back when we first started this, we were going to comprehensively change the whole code so we didn't have all of this kind of stuff . Then we decided somewhere along the line we didn't, we just wanted to do the minimum amount of work. So now we've got to kind of write these little guidelines in here. - Page 21 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOVEMBER 09, 1995 - MEETING UPDA TE DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Chairperson HotTmann said that 3.6 just doesn't fit in. I'm just wondering why we have a different grouping of numbers. l\'Ir. Goodrow asked, do we still have the ranges, I remember there was some discussion a couple years or so ago about doing away with the lower end of the range? Mr. Hopkins said I think they were done away with, weren't they? l\'Ir. Stephens said I don't know, there was talk about it, but I don't know if anything was ever done. Mr. Goodrow said I think actually we can do away with that whole little gray area in the middle there because we know what the definitions are. Chairperson HotTmann said yes, rather than repeating it and having to change it again, just take them out altogether. l\'Ir. Fernandez pointed out that the word, submittal needs to be added before the word, application in the following sections: SECTION 20-355. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL: " page 20-14, sub-paragraph (3) ... page 20-15, sub-paragraph (9) SECTION 20-381. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEV. " page 20-16, sub-paragraph (3) ... page 20-17, sub-paragraph (9) Chairperson HotTmann referring to page 20-21, Table of landscaped butTer requirements said we would delete the density designations which are [next couple of words not understandable], center of the page. Page 22 '" \ .. PLANNING AND ZONING/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY :MEETING l\UNUTES - NOVEl\'IBER 9, 1995 IV. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 11 :20 P.M. Submitted by, Shirley A Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary Prepared January 19, 1996 APPROVED: Art Hoffmann, Chairperson Attest: Shirley A Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary Page 23 wp6.0\p&zlminsll-9.9~