Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 08 02 Regular CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708.2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development :MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and zoning Board/LPA Qf~ John Ketteringham, General Services Directorlj' THRU: FROM: Thomas Grimms, AICP community Development coordinat~ August 1, 1995 if DATE: RE: Map of Proposed Deletion of Collector Roads from Comprehensive Plan Please find attached a map with roads marked that are proposed to be deleted as part of the collector road network in the City's _ Comprehensive Plan Traffic Circulation Element. Don LeBlanc received a map that did not have correctly marked those roads to be deleted as part of the collector road network. Bring this map with you to the regular meeting of the P & Z Board on Wednesday evening. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 327-1800 X 315. RECEIVED AUG - 1 1995 e..'..... or \N1....ter Springe GhNIiRAL SERViCeS EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND AVOIDANCE OF PARTIALITY IN QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BACKGROUND: RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS Whereas the 1985 Amendments to the Lo~al Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act launched a noisy revolution in Florida land use law, Florida Courts have begun a quiet revolution. The quiet revolution involves the way local governments make decisions regarding the use of individual parcels of land. The difference between legislative and quasi-judicial decision making is at the heart of the quiet revolution. Two recent cases before the Florida 3rd and 5th District Court of Appeals have the potential for greatly changing land use decision-making by local governments. I. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL: Whether a local government proceeding, such as a rezoning of land, is legislative or quasi-judicial will depend on its nature: A. LEGISLATIVE ACTS: 1. The Supreme Court opinion states enactments of zoning codes will continue to be "legislative" in nature. 2. A rezoning is legislative in nature when it affects "a large portion of the pUblic". 3. Legislative acts then are: a. Future oriented. b. Change existing condi tions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter. c. Applies generally, not to specific parties, i.e. to large areas of the community. 4. The ramifications of legislative acts are: c. Due process is greatly diminished. The general public should be heard, not just specific parties, and standing issues have no relevance. Lobby ing ( a. k. a. ex parte contacts) is permitted and even expected. Notice must go to the public, but not always to specific parties. The standard of review is the highly deferential "fairly debatable" rule. "d_ a. b. d. e. B. QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTS: 1. Quasi-judicial acts are: a. Oriented to past events. b. Investigates, declares, applies or enforces rules. c. Applies and enforces rules based on existing facts. 2. Rezoning actions will be quasi-judicial in nature if: a. They impact only a limited number of persons or property owners or to a specific site, e.g. small scale rezonings. b. They impact on identitiable parties and interests. . c. The decision is contingent on facts arrived at from distinct alternatives presented at the hearing. d. The decision can be functionally viewed as "policy application" rather than "policy setting". 3. The ramifications of quasi-judicial acts are: a. Due process requirements are heightened. b. Particular parties, especially affected landowners and residents, are entitled to notice. c. Ex-parte communications (a.k.a. lObbying) are prohibited. d. Discovery and evidentiary rules may apply, at least in part. e. Testimony may need to be under oath; witnesses may be subject to cross examination. f. The decision must be based on evidence. g. The standard of review is the less deferential "substantial competent evidence" rule. C. REZONINGS AS QUASI-JUDICIAL: Stated more fully, to the extent a particular rezoning is quasi-judicial, the jUdicial standard of review is the competent substantial evidence rule. Further, the Supreme Court opinion states, consideration of a rezoning affecting a small area of the community (i.e. site specific rezoning) will now be "quasi-judicial" in nature. Thus, a site specific rezoning is now handled in much the same manner as a conditional use. Local governments no longer have substantial discretion to say "no" to a requested zoning. Pursuant to the new' Snyder' approach, the initial burden is upon the landowner to demonstrate that the request for rezoning complies with the procedural requirements of the zoning code, and that the use sought is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Upon such a showing, the local government has the following options: ~. Approve the rezoning ~equest; or 2. Show that the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and deny the request; or 3. Approve a less intense or less dense zoning designation. If the local government opts for this alternative, the local government must show by substantial, competent evidence that the less intense or less dense zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not arbitrary and capricious. ' Stated another way, the Florida Supreme Court held that: ~. The Growth Management Act (Ch. 85-88, Laws of Florida; a.k.a. Chap 163 Part II Florida Statutes, Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act) was intended to ensure orderly development, not to preclude it. 2. Comprehensive planning contemplates "gradual and ordered growth, and the local government can refuse to approve the maximum density otherwise allowable under the plan, as long as some development consistent with the plan is allowed." 3. The property owner is not presumptively entitled to a land use once he/she proves it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Once the property owner proves the requested rezoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the burden shifts to the government, but only to prove that the existing zoning "accomplishes a legitimate public purpose." a. Should the local government deny a rezoning: i. The legitimate purpose is proven showing that the rezoning denial was arbitrary, discriminatory unreasonable. by not or Further: ii. The standard of review is the "competent substantial evidence" rule, not the "clear and convincing evidence" rule. iii. The government is not required to make findings of fact. II. TYPES OF LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDERS/CHANGES REGARDED AS QUASI- JUDICIAL IN NATURE: A. Variances. B. site Plans. C. Conditional Use Permits. D. Plat Approvals. E. Comprehensive Plan amendments (that are small in area or in affecting numbers of people) III. SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS: POWERS OF THE QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD: A. Authority of a Board. The board's authority is limited to that authority delegated to it in the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations. [See 82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planninq 283 #23 (1976). "The board does not have untrammeled discretion to determine whether to issue a permit, yet the board does have a certain degree of discretion and does not perform a purely ministerial junction." Id. at nn. 24 and 26] B. Guidelines of a Board of Adjustment. A Board of Adjustment cannot make up new and "creative" standards guiding its discretion, because "Boards of Adjustment have no power to legislate." Mavflower Property. Inc. vs. city of Fort Lauderdale, 137 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2s DCA 1962). To do so would be nothing short of bureaucratic osmosis. Further, the board has no authority to determine the validity of a zoning Ordinance. Vestal-Penn Enterprise vs. Cohen, 397 N.Y.S.2d 466 (App. Div. 1977). C. Focus of the Board. A board has authority only to determine whether to issue a permit based on the conditions or standards for issuance with the Comprehensive Plan. Town of Indialantic vs. Nance, 400 So.2d 37, 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), approved, 419 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1982), discusses the difference between concepts such as substantial, competent evidence, and satisfaction of a standard or condition, e.g. - unnecessary hardship. IV. JENNINGS VS. DADE COUNTY PROCEEDINGS: ITS EFFECT ON QUASI-JUDICIAL One particular aspect of quasi -j udicial proceedings, the issue of ex-parte contacts, or "lobbying" was the subj ect of a widely discussed case, Jenninqs vs. Dade County, 589 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) rev. den., 598 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1992), which opinion was issued just 5 days before the Fifth District Court of Appeals issued its "Sny.der' opinion. -'- In Jennings vs. Dade County, a complaint was filed with the court claiming that during a a zoning variance application (conditional use, a.k.a. special exception), which courts have held to be a quasi-judicial administrative action, the landowner's representaive had "lobbied" the Dade County Commission outside (ex parte) the public hearing. The Court indicated such ex parte communication is to be avoided where they are identifiable but went on to say: "We recognize the reality that cOmInissioners are elected officials in which capacity they may unavoidably be the recipients of unsolicited ex parte communications regarding quasi-judicial matters they are to decide. The occurence of such a communication in a quasi-judicial proceeding does not mad ate automatic reversal. Nevertheless... upon the aggrieved party's proof that ex parte contact occurred, its effect is presumed to be prejudicial unless the defendent proves the contrary by competent evidence." A. 'Jennings' held that: 1. An ex-parte contact with a quasi-judicial officer is presumed to be prejudicial, and 2. Upon proof of it, the aggrieved party is entitled to a new hearing unless the defendant proves the contact was in fact not prejudicial. B. 'Jennings' and other cases suggest that a quasi-judicial zoning proceeding will meet due process requirements if: 1. Parties are provided notice; 2. Parties are provided the opportunity to be heard; 3. Parties are able to present evidence; 4. Parties are abe to cross examine "witnessesll; and 5. Parties are informed of all the facts upon which the quasi-judicial body acts. [Id at 1341; Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. vs. Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648, 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BREVARD COUNTY VS. SNYDER - ITS EFFECT ON QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS: A. The standards to be applied to zoning hearings are those which apply to quasi-judicial hearings of administrative bodies. The requirements of due process are applicable to all procedural questions. B. "After Snyder, the courts have announced their intent to apply "strict scrutinyll to the actions and records of the local governmental body, and it is a safe prediciton that all of the standards ~f due process, including impartiality, will be incorporated into that scrutiny." [March 24, 1994 written statement to 6th Annual Advanced Growth Management Short Course sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce] VI. SNYDER/JENNINGS COMBINED AS TAG TEAM: Because "Snyder' declares that, at least, small rezonings are quasi-judicial, and 'Jennings' says that ex-parte contacts are "presumed prejudicialll, the following al?plies: A. The governing body or advisory boards will be prohibited from obtaining community input by way of ex-parte communications from its citizens. B. 'Jennings' states that "Ex-parte communications are inherently improper and are anathema to quasi-judicial proceedings. Quasi-judicial officers should avoid all such contacts where they are identifiable. VII. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GOVERNING BODY, OTHER BOARDS, STAFF IN QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS: A. DECISION MAKERS 1. Application of Government in the Sunshine requirements apply to quasi-judicial bodies. 2. Ex-parte communications between a party and a decision maker is to be avoided, because it could be presumed prejudicial. 3. Any written correspondence received should be acknowledged during the public hearings on such matters and made a part of the public record. Additionally, it should be made available to anyone interested in reviewing the correspondence. For example, if a board member receives an oral or written ex-parte communication, it is not presumed prejudicial; provided that the date and substance of the communication and with whom it occurred is divulged on the record at the beginning of a public hearing. David A. Theriaque, attorney with Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer & Theriaque law firm, notes that liThe rationale that applies to written communications between a commissioner and staff applies to letters written to a commissioner regarding a matter pending before the Commission. While such communications are clearly ex parte, if the procedures set forth regarding staff communications are followed, a party would be hard-pressed to prove prejudice. By providing interested parties with copies of the letters before the hearing and introducing the letters into evidence at the beginning of the hearing, all parties will have the opportunity to address the information contained in those letters. Again, the fundamental due process issue is whether the parties have been informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. This approach satisfies that requirement and still allows the commissioners to. open and read their mail without fear of receiving ex parte communication. .Another issue regarding written communications to commissioners is whether such communications can be considered competent substantial evidence. A strong argument can be made that only evidence which is provided under oath and subject to cross-examination can be considered to be competent substantial evidence. A written communication fails on both prongs." [March 24, 1995 written statement to 6th Annual Advanced Growth Management Short Course sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce] 4. Telephone calls should be avoided in the same manner as personal conversations with individuals as to any quasi-judicial matter. David A. Theriaque, attorney with Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer & Theriaque law firm, makes the following observation: "Oral ex parte communications will inevitably happen. A commissioner should attempt to halt any oral ex parte communication once he or she realizes that the speaker is addressing a matter pending before the commission. After the ex parte communication occurs, the commissioner should take steps similar to those associated with a written ex parte communication. The commissioner should write a memorandum stating the date, time, individual involved, and content of the ex parte communications. That memorandum should then be placed in the file maintained by staff and made available for public inspection, and provided to all interested parties known to be involved in the matter. Although probably not required, I recommend that the ex parte communication be revealed at the onset of the quasi-judicial hearing. These steps should greatly reduce the likelihood that a party could prove prejudice from the ex parte communication. [March 24, 1995 written statement to 6th Annual Advanced Growth Management Short Course sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce] 5. Logs indicating merely support or opposition of a matter should not be maintained by the decision maker or its staff, nor should the information be announced during public hearing. 6. If the decision maker or its staff believes there may be some merit to any relevant information received by these communications, it is recommended that the decision maker request the staff, an appropriate party or witness, address the issue and either verify, explain or deny the information during the pUblic hearing. 7. If information from a site visit or other common historical knowledge known to the decision-maker is considered in making a decision, that information must be disclosed at the beginning of the hearing. (It has been deemed inappropriate for individual board members to drive by a site to view the lay of the land regarding a specific case. However, the full board, at the same time, may visit a site if the visit is advertised ahead of time and disclosed at the public hearing.) David A. Theriaque, attorney with Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer, & Theriaque law firm, takes the following view II A site visit is not a communication, and, thus, there are no ex parte concerns. Obviously, this conclusion is valid only if the commissioner is unaccompanied during the site visit and does not discuss the matter with anybody else who happens to be on the site. I recommend that after the site visit, the commissioner write a memorandum stating the date and time that he or she visited the site, place the memorandum in the file maintained by staff and made available for public inspection, and provide the memorandum to all interested parties known to be involved in the matter. . There is concern, however, about whether a site visit violates the requirement that a commissioner base his or her decision on evidence introduced during the quasi-judicial hearing. A site visit provides information outside of the quasi-judicial hearing. Therefore, a conservative approach would be for commissioners to not view the site." [March 24, 1995 written statement to 6th Annual Advanced Growth Management Short Course sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce) 8. In most cases, staff or some other knowledgeable person attending the hearing should be asked to verify any information which may be appropriate to alleviate any concerns about the competency of the evidence and to allow appropriate questioning regarding the matter oy the decision maker. 9. C. Allen Watts, attorney with Cobb, Cole & Bell, points out that "Ex parte contact during the actual pendency of a proceeding is only one way in which bias or prejudice can be suggested. Due process requires that if there is other evidence that a member of a body is not impartial, a procedure must be available to remove that member. Few ordinances now provide such a procedure.1I .He notes IIAn impartial decison maker is a ,basic constituent of minimum due process. (Meqill vs. Board of Reqents, 541 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1976). However, there is no per se constitutional rule disqualifying administrative hearing bodies. The record must support actual partiality of the body or its individual members, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a reviewing court will assume that the administrative body acted independently and properly. (Duke vs. North Texas State University, 469 F. 2d 829 (5th cir.1972). [March 24, 1994 written statement to 6th Annual Advanced Growth Management Short Course sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce) B. STAFF 1. Role of the Staff. Staff's role is in general, neither to be proponent or opponent of a request, but an advisor to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations are properly followed. 2. Advisor to Decision-maker. As advisor to the decision-maker, staff members should provide factual background and plan and code analysis for the decision-maker. That analysis may include a recommendation either supporting, supporting with certain modifications, or opposing a zoning request, variance, or conditional use permit. 3. Staff Reports. A local governing body is not bound by departmental reports (Graham Companies vs. Dade County, Case No. 93-163AP, 2 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 241, 242 (Fla. 11th Cir. ct. Apr. 22, 1994). However, when the report is unrefuted or when there is no contrary information, it appears that the reports must be accepted. Id. 4. Substantial Competent Evidence. Additionally, the decision-maker's decision will stand only if it is supported by substantial competent evidence which often may be provided by staff. In making presentations, staff should ensure that all relevant facts to the matter are placed into the record as evidence, and at the conclusion of the presentation, the evidence and opinions should be summarized. 5. Staff Expertise. In the respect that staff has a particular expertise such as in traffic, fire safety, or environmental engineering, and is called upon to give his/her knowledge or advice in the specific area of expertise, staff is then viewed as competent, expert witness in the public hearing process. 6. Staff Response. If staff statements are rebutted by another party, staff should: a. Prepare to respond and attempt to overcome the rebuttal; b. Present evidence to clarify or overcome the testimony; c. Ask any relevant questions to ensure that all relevant information is before the decision- maker; and d. If an answer is unknown, staff appropriately should indicate the fact. 7. Board Member/staff Communication. According to David A. Theriaque, attorney with Apgar, Pelham Pfeiffer & Theriaque, "all communications, including those with staff, which are conducted outside of a quasi-judicial proceeding are ex parte communications. . staff communications have the potential to be biased either in favor of development or in favor of the environment. Consequently, ex parte information provided to commissioners may be tainted in such a fashion as to further the goals of the staff." 8. Exceptions to Board Member/staff Communications. David Theriaque does note that "The fact that such communications are ex parte does not preclude all communications between: staff and commissioners. A legitimate distinction can be drawn between oral and written ex parte communications. While there should be no oral communications, I do not believe that 'Jenningsl precludes all written communications provided the following measures are taken: 1. If a commissioner requires information from staff, the request should be made in writing, placed in the file main,tained by staff and made available for public inspection, and provided to all interested parties known to be involved in the matter. 2. staff must respond in writing provide a copy of the response parties and place a copy maintained by staff. and similarly to interested in the file 3. A copy of the commissioner1s request and staff/s response should be entered into evidence at the quasi-judicial proceeding. While it is true that such written communications are ex parte communications, providing copies to all interested parties at the time the written communication is made and at the beginning of the public hearing should remove any prejudice. Interested parties will have the opportuni ty to refute information which they believe to be inaccurate. It is difficult to envision a court holding that written ex parte communications coupled with the se procedures were prejudicial to VIII. a party." (March 24, 1995 written statement to 6th Annual Advanced Growth Management Short Course sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce] HEARING REQUIREMENTS/CONDITIONS: A. Quality of Due Process. It is well established that quasi-judicial hearings do not require the same quality of due process as that to which a party is entitled in a judicial hearing. (Goss vs. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975); Jenninqs, 589 So. 2d at 1340; Lee County vs. Sunbelt Equities, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). However, certain standards of basic fairness are necessary to afford adequate due process. (Handlev vs. Department of Administration, 411 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1982); Jenninqs, 589 So. 2d at 1340. B. Rules of Evidence. A quasi-judicial hearing requires that the parties must present evidence, cross examine witnesses, and be informed of all facts upon which the decision maker acts. However, strict rules of evidence and procedure are not required for such proceedings as is required in a judicial hearing. c. Rules of Procedure. The chair of quasi-judicial proceedings has the challenging role of maintaining order in a hearing of this type. In order to maintain proper order in a public hearing, fairly detailed procedures are helpful to guide the process. D. Immunity. Most type of immunity which may apply to an official in this type of hearing is determined by the characterization of the activity in the particular case under consideration. Generally, absolute immunity has been applied to local legislators for conduct in furtherance of their duties. Further, absolute immunity has been granted in cases where the decision-maker is operating in a quasi-judicial setting. This is distinguished from persons acting in an administrative function who have been entitled to qualified or "good faith" immunity. However, a qualified immunity defense will not be available if the commissioner or board member knowingly conducted the business in violation of the law or acted with malice. The above points were held in the fOllowing cases, respectively: Hernandez vs. city of Lafayette, 643 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. Unit A, 1981), cert. den. 455 U.S. 907 (1982)j Ellis vs. Coffey County Board of Reqistrars, 981 F.2d 1185 (11th Cir. 1993)j Bay tree of Inverrarv Realtv Partners vs. city of Lauderhill, 873 F.2d 1407 (11th Cir. 1989)j Butz vs. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) j on remand 466 F. Supp. 1351 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)j Akins vs. Deptford Township, 813 F. Supp. 12098 (D. N.J. 1993), aff'd 17 F.3d 1428 (3d Circ. 1994) j Kinderhill Farm Breeding Assoc. vs. Ap~el, 450 F. Supp. 134 (S.D. N. Y. 1978) j Adler vs. Lynch, 415 F. Supp. 705 (D. Neb. 1976)j Crymes vs. DeKalb County, 923 F. 2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1991)j and Espanola Way Corp. vs. Meverson, 690 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. den, 460 U.S. 1039 (1983). NOTE: The categorization of these actions as quasi- judicial would appear to imbue the decision makers with absolute immunity based on the 'Butz' decision and its progeny, but this issue has not _-been addressed since the 'Snyder' decision. E. Examples of Unacceptable Testimony by Residents: The comments of witnesses must be probative or competent as to whether the standards in the ordinance have been satisfied. Comments by neighbors that they don't want a project approved, and that it will generate heavy traffic, for example, or light and pollution problems, in and of themselves are not competen~ statements, because neighbors are usually not expert in traffic or environmental engineering. Thus, neighbors are not competent witnesses, unless a neighbor states on the record what his credentials are as a traffic or environmental engineer, or what the basis of his testimony is. F. Expressions of Mass Opinion at Quasi-Judicial Hearings: How many times have you been at a hearing when someone gets up and asks the question "How many people here oppose this project"? Everybody in the room raises their had except the developer, developer's attorney, the permitting board, the planner, and the board attorney. Acceptable behavior? Definitely not. The fact that there may be a large number of objectors to the approval of a permit or other quasi-judicial decision is not a sound basis for the denial of a permit, no matter how strenuous the objections. The function of quasi-judicial boards or a governing body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity must be exercised on the basis of facts adduced and upon appropriate zoning principles and objectives as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and is not to be based on a mere poll or plebiscite of the neighbors. The merits of the application, rather than the number of opponents, must be the controlling consideration. since quasi-judicial hearings involve a board determination that certain standards set for in the Zoning Ordinance have been met, requiring an affirmative vote of the neighbors may be unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority. Gardiner vs. Stanley Orchards, 432 N.Y.S. 2d 335 (1980). Local governing bodies and boards acting in a quasi- judicial capacity should base their decisions on fact and not indulge in "government by applause meter" A. A. Profiles, Inc. vs. city of Fort Lauderdale, 850 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1988). G. Examples of Acceptable Testimony by Residents: In City of Fort Lauderdale vs. Multidyne Medical Waste Manaqement, 567 So.2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1991), the following testimony opposing a medical waste incinerator facility was found sufficient to support the City Commission's denial of the permit: 1. Letter from a law professor claiming to be an expert in the field of air pollution; "' 2. Testimony of a veterinarian 'Who claimed to have expertise related to incineration and disposal of infectious medical waste. Another example involved a case in which a court determined that a board of zoning appeals, in determining the high water mark at a specific location, can accept testimony of neighbors who were eyewitnesses to the tides and waves as more persuasive than the testimony of expert witnesses. Mack vs. Municipal Officers of Cape Elizabeth, 463 A.2d 717 (Me. 1983). In effect the eyewitnesses become "expert witnesses". Plainly, statements of neighbors regarding the effect of a development on their quality of life is also admissible. city of st. Petersburg vs. Cardinal Industries Development Corp., 493 So.2d 535,538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Graham Companies vs. Dade County, Case No. 93- 163AP, 2 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 241, 2542 (Fla. 11th Circ. ct. Apr. 22, 1994). Lay citizens have the ability to testify how conditions in a neighborhood have changed over time, if they have witnessed those changes. H. Testimony Regarding Factors outside the Standards for Approval. Lay testimony about subjects that a lay witness is not competent to testify to, or mere personal opinions do not constitute substantial, competent evidence. Graham Companies, 2 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. at 242-43. Other cases involve situations in which there is opinion testimony presented that does not relate to the criteria in the ordinance for granting a permit. This type of tesitmony should be ignored. Friendship Neiqhborhood Coalition vs. District of Columbia Board of Zoninq Adiustment, 403 A. 2d 291 (DC App. 1979) (Commissioner of Advisory Neighborhood Commission testified that grant of a special exception for a parking lot was "the wrong kind of expansion" . ) So that a reviewing court can ascertain the competence of a witness, the witness should state at the public hearing who they are, what their ability is to testify to a particular matter, and what the source of their information is. I. Cross Examination of witnesses: In 'Jennings', the Court noted that the quality of due process required in a quasi-judicial zoning proceeding is not the same as that to which a party to full jUdicial hearing is entitled. The court stated: "A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. In quasi-judicial zoning proceedings the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, an be informed of all facts upon which the (government agency) acts." The parties referenced in such opinion are the applicant and the government agency. The 'Jennings' decision does not, in any way, recognize a right on behalf of all neighboring property owners to cross-examine any and all individuals who may speak for or against a zoning application. To recognize such a right on behalf of all "interested" persons would create a cumbersome, unwieldy procedural nightmare for local government bodies. J. Assuring a Complete Record by Staff in Quasi-Judicial Hearings: One of the primary staff goals of hearings is to ensure that relevant facts and evidence are in the record for the decision maker's consideration. The following items should always be entered into the record by the staff: K. - L. 1. The agenda packet or staff report. 2. The most recent copies of resumes of those speaking on the matter. 3 . Relevant documents and comments entered into the record at a prior board meeting. 4. Correspondence and reports from others directed to any decision maker, department or staff person regarding the substance of the hearing (should be placed in a reading file and made available to the public prior to the pUblic hearing) . NOTE: It is staff's responsibility to ensure that a complete agenda packet or staff report is included in the record. Also, staff resumes need to be updated as necessary to accurately reflect the position, education and experience of those staff members who are involved in making recommendations and materials for the decision maker's consideration in the public hear ings . Further, a t the hearing, if a particular issue -_ is likely to be raised, a qualified staff member should be available to answer the questions. staff Restrictions on Ex Parte Discussions: Is staff subject to the restrictions on ex parte discussions which are placed on parties? It would appear so, if they are considered parties to the proceeding. If they are not parties, it would appear that advisory staff is not prohibited to talking to decision makers in private, although conversations with the applicant, the public and other potential parties to the proceeding should not be discussed with the decision maker to avoid doing indirectly what cannot be done directly. This is similar to restrictions on staff discussions with a decision maker regarding comments of other decision makers under the "Government in the Sunshine" laws. (Chapter 286 Florida Statutes; Blackford vs. School Board of Orange County. 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). Attorneys: Ex parte restrictions under the 'Jennings' decision would not prohibit contact with the decision maker as that attorney's client, although it may limit the ability to convey any comments from discussions with various parties to a decision maker. Testimony from attorneys representing parties in quasi- judicial hearings has not generally been considered competent substantial evidence. (National Advertisinq Company vs. Broward County, 491 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) . Rule 4-3.7 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar states: (a) When Lawyer May Testify. A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client except where: (1) The testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) The testimony will relate solely to matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony; (3) The testimony relates to the nature and value of the legal services rendered in the case; or- (4) Disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. (b) Other Members of Law Firm as witnesses. A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another attorney in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 4-1.7 or 4-1.9 The use of "trial" in the Rule would appear to limit application of this Rule to judicial hearings and not quasi-judicial hearings. Thus, there appear to be no ethical prohibition to attorney testimony in quasi- judicial hearings subject to other general limitations based on the attorney/client relationship. M. Voting Requirement at Meetings of Governmental Bodies: Under present Florida law, a member of decision making body generally must vote on an issue. Florida Statutes 286.012 provides the broad requirements regarding voting and states as follows: "Voting requirement at meetings of governmental bodies No member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of any such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting in regard to any such decision, ruling, or act; an a vote shall be recorded or counted for each such member present, except when, with respect to any such member, there is, or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.311, 112.313, or 112.3143 Florida statutes. In such cases, said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of 1121. 3143 F. S. II Florida statutes 112.3143(3) sets forth specific restrictions on voting for local public officials and provides in relevant part as follows: "No county, municipal or other local public officer shall vote in his official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his special private gain; which he knows would inure to the special private gain of any principal by whom he is retained or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by with he is retained, other than agency as defined in 112.312(2); or which he knows would inure to the special private gain of a relative or business associate of the public officer." Chapter 120 Florida statutes, The "Administrative Procedure Act" states: IINotwithstanding the provisions of l12.3143 F.S. any individual serving alone or with others as an agency head may be disqualified from serving in an agency proceeding for bias, prejudice or interest when any party to the agency proceeding shows just cause by a suggestion filed within a reasonable period of time prior to the agency proceeding. II Florida statutes 112.311 provides in part: "(1) It is essential to proper conduct and operation of government that public officials be independent and impartial and that public office not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law. . . " (2) . The law against conflict of interest must be designed as not to impede unreasonably or unnecessarily the recruitment and retention by government of those best qualified to serve. Public off icials should not be denied the opportunity, available to all other citizens, to acquire and retain private economic interests except when conflicts with the responsibility of such officials to the public cannot be avoided." While mandatory voting requirements may be appropriate in legislative hearings, it is opinioned that they may be inappropriate in quasi-judicial settings if a hair hearing is not possible with a member of the decision making body voting. It may be unclear whether very general language in 112.311 F. S. could be applied to allow an exemption to 286.012 F.S.; therefore I should any voting member question whether they have a conflict of interest I that voting member should seek legal opinion from the attorney representing the governing body. N. Voting by Members Who Were Not Present at the Original Hearing; New Board Members: It has been generally held that a members may vote although he was not present to hear the evidence. 82 Am. Jur. 2d Zoninq and Planning #313 (1976). The idea is that the board is continuous in naturel and even a change in membership on the board does not disturb the board's continuity. (The foregoing statement is in the context that evidence had been presented at a previous hearing on the same matter.) However I a member who has not attended a (previous) hearing on the matter, should not vote, unless he has examined all the evidence at the hearing. In summary, so long as competent understanding exists on the part of a new board member or a regular board member (who had been absent at the first hearing in which a zoning matter was heard), he would vote on the matter after he has examined the evidence, based on the premise that the second or third hearing he was in attendance at would have data, cumulative in nature, provided. O. Final Orders: Any motion upon which the board votes in deciding the case, application, or other request, should contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law (drawn from the City/s Code of Ordinances) indicating the factual and legal basis for the motion. These findings of fact and conclusions of law would thereafter be incorporated into a written document stating the decision of the board on the application or case. P. Files to be Maintained. All evidence (documentation including reports, letters I photos I plansl etc.) admitted at the hearing and the original document setting forth the decision of the board, is to be maintained in a separate file constituting the record of the case. Upon approval by the board, the minutes of that portion of the meeting concerning the case shall be placed in the record. The record is to be kept in the custody of the clerk of the board at all times, whereby the public may examine the file in the Office of the Clerk at all reasonable times. CONCLUSION: It is important to remember that quasi-judicial hearings are not intended to and not required to be held to the same degree of formality as a full judicial hearing. However, certain minimum restrictions related to ex parte discussions and procedural requirements are applied. The importance is in establishing compliance with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations on all quasi-judicial matters which are presented to a Council/Commission and administrative boards, accomplished via evidentiary rules and the "substantial competent evidence rulell vs. the "highly debatable deferential rule" for decision making. liThe 1995 legislature is considering remedial amendments which would clarify the 'Jennings' problem for county and municipal zoning officials. Some of these proposals would allow officials to continue participation, but require that any written materials submitted ex parte be made part of the record, and would require that summaries of any oral conversations be submitted and made part of the record. Such legislative actions, assuming they meet the requirements of constitutional due process, will eliminate much of the fear and uncertainty that have enveloped zoning officials and their counsel since the 'Jennings' and 'Snyder' decisions." [March 24, 1994 written statement by C. Allen Watts, attorney with Cobb, Cole & Bell, to 6th Annual Advanced Growth Management Short Course sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce] traffic volumes. The projected development and traffic volumes will not likely be realized to require the construction of the winter springs Loop or the Shore Road Extension. It should also be noted that the Early Property is now being developed as a residential subdivision. The Shore Road Extension would run through the west portion of this subdivision. The Panama Road Extension is slated only as a Corridor Study in Table TC-T9 of the Comprehensive Plan under "Year 1.997 Recommended Improvements". For purposes of alignment, and to avoid the lake and the City's sanitary sewage facility spray fields, staff suggests that this road extension continue eastward from Banana Road rather than Panama Road. Funding: The winter Springs Loop is proposed to be partially built with the City's Transportation Impact Fee, while the Shore Road Extension and the Panama Road Extension are both proposed to be funded totally by the impact fee. It should also be noted that Panama Road between Moss Road and Shore Road is slated for improvement (after 1.996) with funding coming from the City's Transportation Impact Fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P & Z Board (acting in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency) recommend the desirability to delete from the text and maps of the Comprehensive Plan the winter Springs Loop, and the Shore Road Extension, and the extension of the road eastward from Banana Road rather than from pananma Road. In view of the staff recommendation to delete the above roads, staff recommends consideration of an adjustment or perhaps elimination of the City's Transportation Impact Fee as indicated in Policy 1., Objective A of the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Sec. 9-386.1. through 21. of the city Code. A study should be done to find out the effects of such an adjustment or elimination of the impact fees on other proposed road improvements indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that amendments to delete the Shore Road Extension and possible elimination of the Transportation Impact Fee may prompt a strong challenge from the Florida Department of Community Affairs when the proposed amendments are transmitted to them for their review. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327.1800 Community Development l\ffiMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY THRU: JOHN KETTERINGHAM, GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR FROM; THOMAS GRIMMS, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR _ -j~ JULY 20, 1995 DATE: RE: PLANNING INFORMATION PROGRAM In reviewing the Zoning Ordinance, I came across Sec. 20-57 "Duties; general" of the Planning and Zoning Board. One of the duties is to . . ."keep itself informed as to the best practices generally in effect in the matter of city planning and zoning. . ." As a member of the American Planning Association and American Institute of certified Planners, I receive various publications that discuss principles and practices of planning as well as very recent developments. In an effort to help keep the Board informed and up-to-date on planning matters, I will endeavor to include such articles etc. with each month's agenda packet. If you have any questions or would like more information on any topic appearing in the "For Your Information" section of the monthly agenda packet, please call me at 327-1800 X 315. FOR YOUR INFORMATION -- ,- FL PLA Volume VII, Number 6 NEWSLETTER OF THE FLORIDA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION July/August 1995 COPING WITH THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT BY TOM PELHAM The 1995 Florida Legislature enacted the Pri- vate Property Rights Protection Act (the "Act"). Bach public and pri vate sector planners need to be aware of the provisions of the Act. However, public sector planners. particularly those em- ployed by local governments, have a special responsibility to educate themselves about the Act's requirements. In the future, they must exercise their planning and regulatory responsi- bilities to protect the public welfare while avoid- in~e potencial liability which nows from a vi ~n of the new Act. This article identifies SOh.. of the threshold issues arising under the Act. AN OVERVIEW OF THE ACT The Act creates a new judicial cause of action. If a state. regional or local governmental entity "inordinately burdens" an (1) ex.isting use of real property or (2) a vested right to a specific use of real property. the property owner may sue in court for compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the property. The Act de fines "existing use" as "an actual. present use or activ- ':':r. '-.' . '''. : -.-. '. :." .' :.': ':oX,: '.Inslde.' .'. .';.- : , .. 1....... ~. _ _ <..;. .', .'. ;.. .'~ ~ ,': -. : . . -. · FAPA Strategic Plan 3 · Agricultural Land Use 5 · Membership Survey 7 · 1995 Annual Conference 9 , ".- .ofessional Development ,(eport 11 · Source of Our Etbics 16 ity on the real property" or any "reasonably foreseeable, non-speculative. land .uses which are suitable for the subject real property and compatible with adjacent land uses and which have created an existing fair market value in the property greater than the fair market value of the actual. present use or acti vicy on the real prop- erty," The Act defines "inordinate burden" as any ac- tion of governmental entities which directly re- stricts the use of property so that the property owner is permanencly unable to realize a reason- able investment-backed expectation forthe ex.ist- ing use or a vested right or so that the landowner is left with such unreasonable uses of the property that the owner must bear "perrnanencly a dispro- portionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public. which in fairness should be born by the public at large." Although it uses language typically employed by courts in resolving takings claims. the Act expressly states that it "provides a cause of action for governmental actions that may not rise to the level of a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution," The Act establishes an important prerequisite to filing suit in court. At least 180 days prior to filing suit, the landowner must present its written claim. accompanied with a valid appraisal dem- onstrating the loss ill fair market value. to the heads of the governmencal entities involved. During the IOO-day pre-suit period. the govern- mental entities involved must make a written settlement offer which may include a broad range of alternatives. including approval of some or all of the proposed development, transfer of devel- <?pment rights, purchase of some or all of the property, or reaffmnation of the governmencal entity's original action_ If the landowner accepts the offer. then a setclement agreement between the governmental entity and landowner is effec- tuated. If the settlement offer is not accepted by the property owner, the governmental enticy must. within the l80-day period. issue a written ripe- ness decision specifying the uses to which the property may be put. This ripeness decision shall constitute the last prerequisite to judicial review PROPERTY RIGHTS cOnlinued on page 15 5!nlWuncing . FAPA Annual Conference - September 27-29, Tampa Hyatt. For Details: 1-800-599-8908. .. .. Chapter Seeking Student Representative. Interested? Contact the Chapter Office at (904) 222-0808. Membership Directory to be Distributed @Annual Conference. Contact Your Local Section to Assure That Your Lis~ing is Correct. " - PRQPERTY RIGHTS concinuedfrom page I . of the governmental action under the new-Act. .. If the property owner files suit under the new Act. the' circuit court must detc:rmine whether the governmental action has inordinately burdened an existing use or vested right to a specific use of the real property. After the court has determined that an inordinate burden has been imposed on property, and ~1110wing resolution of any interlocutory appeal of that determination, the court ,lust empanel a jury to determine the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the property owner. The prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable cost and attorney's fees. The Act does not apply to any governmental actions relating to transportation facilities, e.g., theconstTUction of roads. Also, it does not apply to the application of any law enacted or noticed for adoption prior to adjournment of the 1995 Legislature. Amendments to such laws are covered by the Act only to the extent they impose an inordinate burden over and above the original law. Finally, any cause of action under the Act must be brought within one year after the law is first applied to the property involved. WHA T IS AN EXISTING USE? The Act's definition of "existing use" presents problems. The first prong of the definition-an actual, present use or activity-is self-explanatory and should present little difficulty. However, the second prong-a reasonably foreseeable. non-speculative land use-raises many questions. When is a land use reason- ably foreseeable? What is a non-speculative land use? How does onedetennine whether this land use is suitable for the subject real property? How are we to determine whether this reasonably foreseeable, non-speculative land use is compatible with adjacent land uses? The other defining characteristic of this category of existing use creates a field day for appraisers; the reasonably foreseeable. non-speculative land use must be appraised at a higher fair market value than that of the actual, present use. The "reasonably foreseeable, non-speculative" category of existing use appears to be aimed at the urban fringe. Its most obvious application is to property which is located adjacent to urban growth boundaries or urban service areas or the transitional area from urban to undeveloped rural or agricultural land. The owner of undeveloped rural, agricultural or even suburban lands which are adjacent to developed lands or lands located just inside an urban growth -'-oundary can obviously claim that he or she has a reasonably foreseeable urban .e for the property which is compatible with the adjacent developed land and which. because of its location. has a higher fair market value than that of the actual, present use. Local governments will have to exercise great care in dealing with such situations. One suggestion is to write into local comprehensive plans and land development regulations standards or guidelines for defining when a land use is "reasonably foreseeable" or "non-speculative" or for determining compatibility with adjacent land uses. For example, timing provisions can be used to carefully circumscribe those land uses which are reasonably foreseeable and strict compatibility standards can be established for determining when a future use is compatible with an adjacent land use. WHAT IS A VESTED RIGHT? Detennining the existence of a vested right may be an easier proposition than identifying a reasonably foreseeable, non-speculative land use. The Act provides that the existence of a vested right is to be determined under common law principles of equitable estoppel or substantive due process or any relevant state statutory provision. FortUnately, there is an extensive body of case law in Florida dealing with the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Essentially, a vested right occurs if the landowner has relied in good faith on some act of government by incurring significant expenditures or substantially changing its position so that it would be unfair to talce away the rights acquired through the reliance. Numerous Florida cases deal with each of the elements of equitable estoppel. What bnd of governmental act is the landowner entitled to rely on? Was the reliance in good faith? What amount of expenditures are sufficient to create a vested right under this doctrine? What types of changes in position will be sufficient to create an estoppel against the government? Governmental regula- tors will have to be familiar with this body of case law. ._.2:rior to the Act, the doctrine of equitable estoppel provided only for an ;unctive remedy. If the landowner had acquired a vested right. a court could enjoin the local government from applying new regulations to the landowner or changing the regulations in mid-stream. However. the new Act provides for a compensation remedy. If the regulation inordinately burdens the vested right. then the landowner is entitled to compensation. To avoid regulatory actions which inordinately burden vested rights, local governments may want to include in their local comprehensive plans and land development regulations administrative provisions for determining the exist- ence of vested rights. By providing such procedures, the local governments can ensure that there will be a careful review of each situation prior to the application of new regulations. These administrative processes will emphasize the impor- tance of vested rights and provide a safeguard against regulatory actions which violate the Act. WHAT IS AN INORDINATE BURDEN? How can a regulatory body determine whether a regulation inordinately burdens private property? To answer this question, a regulator or a reviewing court must determine whether the regulation prevents the landowner from realizing a "reasonable investment-backed expectation for the existing use or vested right or whether the landowner is left with uses of its property that are so unreasonable that the public at large should have to pay." Although the Act expressly provides that an inordinate burden is something short of an actual taking, a review of judicial decisions involving the takings issue may be useful. Many of these cases deal with "reasonable investment-backed expectations" and may provide some guidance. However, it may be prudent for local governments to further define these terms in their local comprehensive plans or land development regulations. These are only a few of the threshold issues arising under the Act. Undoubtedly, the passage of time and the application of the Act will give rise to other questions. It will probably take several years before the parameters of the Act have been clearl): defined by judicial decisions. In the meantime, governmental regulatory agencies must exercise their regulatory authoriry with much greater care. Planners can play an important role in achieving the necessary balance between protection of the public interest and private property rights. Tom Pelham is a partner in rhe Tallahassee law finn of Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer & Theriaque and rhe Presidenr-elecr of Florida APA. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILPA AGENDA ITEM: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 5TH P & Z MEETING MINUTES. July 5th Minutes as submitted by: shirley A. Frankhouser Adminiistrative Secretary Prepared on July 24th CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM: III. ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS BACKGROUND: Sec. 20-54 of the City Code provide for the selection of a chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. It states: There shall be a chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board selected from and by the members. They shall serve a term of one (1) year or until their appointment to the board is terminated, whichever is shorter, unless sooner removed by the board. The annual election of officers scheduled for the July 5, 1995 regular meeting of the P & Z Board was rescheduled by the Board to the August 2, 1995 regular meeting due to two vacancies coming up for appointment. NOTE: Apparently, there have been no rules of conduct adopted by the Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency with respect to time of election of officers, and other matters. Also, the P & Z Board is potentially a quasi-judicial body in certain matters that come before it, such as rezonings, site specific land use amendments, or other site-specific development requests. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM: IV A. OLD BOSINESS LEFFLER REZONING REQUEST FROM RURAL URBAN (RU) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) - PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT: BACKGROUND: Judge K. Leffler, on behalf of the Leffler Company, has made request to change that zoning assigned to approximately 177 acres north of S.R. 434 and east of the Seminole County School Board facilities from Rural Urban (R-U) to Planned unit Development (P.U.D.). In conjunction with this request, a Master, Plan (Wagner station PUD) was submitted as per Code requirements. The Staff Review Board had this request as an agenda item at their meeting of June 6, 1995. A concept plan of the Wagner Station PUD was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for their views on July 5, 1995. [See July 5th P & Z Board Minutes in this agenda packet] At that meeting the P & Z Board voted to hold a public hearing on the rezoning at its August 2, 1995 regular meeting. ANALYSIS: The Future Land Use Designation for this property is Mixed Use which is compatible with the rezoning request. At the Staff Review Board meeting, D. McIntosh, representing the project, discussed the Master Plan and stated that the approach used was that of flexible land use - assigning multi-uses to a parcel while a decision is made as to the best use of the land. Then the preliminary engineering would be submitted for review. ,,--- Different land uses addressed were residential, retirement/nursing facilities, apartments, condos, professional offices and commercial uses. The applicant is aware that there is a very strong possibility that the CSX Railroad and that there are a multitude of proposed uses for this right-of-way once it is abandoned. There was discussion on traffic patterns, reclaimed water, water front recreation, etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff Review Board recommends that request be approved. ,- .- CITY OF WI NTER SPRI NGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM: IV. B. OLD BUSINESS UPDATE/DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS STATUS REPORT STAFF REPORT: BACKGROUND: ".-- The Planning and zoning Board [sitting as the Local Planning Agency in its review of the draft Land Development Regulations (LDRs)] discussed with Mr. Fred Goodrow on May 17th the suggested changes at the April 19th P & Z Meeting. Mr. Goodrow revised the draft LDRs in response to the discussion at the May 17th meeting. This revised draft was sent out to the P & Z Board members in their July 5th agenda packet. STATUS: NOTE: According to the Consultant Agreement with the City I Fred will: * Attend three (3) meetings of the P & Z Board to assist the Board in its deliberations on the amendments. (Fred attended two meetings at this point) * Will prepare a new draft incorporating the Board's recommendations for a Public Hearing. * Attend one (1) public hearing and one concluding work session of the P & Z Board. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM: v. NEW BUSINESS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE CERTAIN COLLECTOR ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. STAFF REPORT: BACKGROUND: The city commission at its July 10th regular meeting acted to request the Planning and Zoning Board (in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency) to make recommendation on a possible comprehensive plan amendment to delete from the Comprehensive Plan various proposed collector roads and reconsideration of the Transportation Impact Fee. In the City's Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1 of 2, the Traffic Circulation Element contains both text and maps (TC-F4 and TC-F6) that indicate certain proposed collector roacts: * winter Springs Loop Traversing along the north side of S.R. 434, extending from S.R. 419 to S.R. 434 west of Brantley Road. This road would have four entrances onto S.R. 434. * Shore Road Extension From Sailfish Road Through Panama Road southward just east of Fisher Road to Lake Drive. * Panama Road Extension From the intersection of Panama Road and Shore Road eastward to Tuskawilla Road. ANALYSIS: Roads: staff has reviewed the above proposed collector roads in relation to the City's existing road network, where development has and is occurring since the adoption year of the Comprehensive Plani and Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 2, 1995 1. Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Chairperson Hoffinann at 7: 00 P.M. Attendance: Art Hoffinann, Chairperson, Present Gene Lein, Present William Fernandez, Present Carl Stephens, Jr., Present Sherilyn Hill, Absent Donald R. LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist 2. Consideration of the July 5. 1995 Meeting Minutes: Mr. Stephens moved to approve the minutes ofJuly 5, 1995 as presented. Seconded by Mr, Lein. Vote: Mr. Fernandez, Abstain, (not present at July 5 meeting); Mr. Stephens, aye; Mr. Lein, aye; Chairperson Hoffinann, aye; motioned carried. 3. Annual Election of Officers: Mr. Lein nominated Mr. Hoffmann for Chairperson. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: Chairperson Hoffmann, aye; Mr. Lein, aye; Mr. Stephens, aye; Mr. Fernandez, aye; motion carried. Mr. Lein nominated Mr. Stephens for Vice-Chairperson. Seconded by Chairperson HofTmamll. Vote: Chairperson Hoffinann, aye; Mr. Lein, aye; Mr. Stephens, aye; Mr. Fernandez, aye; motion carried. 4. Public Hearing: Leffler reauest to rezone approximately 177 acres. north of S.H. 434. from Rural Urban (R-U) to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Mr. LeBlanc said that this was presented at the last Planning and Zoning meeting and the Code requires a public hearing. This was advertised in the Orlando Sentinel. The Planning and Zoning Board have the plans, and Mr. McIntosh is present to further discuss it, if it is the Board's desire. Chairperson HotTmann asked if adjacent property owners were notified? Mr. LeBlanc answered, "the adjacent property owners were notified; people along the sides, across the highway, the school board, the county, and the people who own this property here, (pointing to the plans). There is nothing in the Code that addresses the notification of property owners. It was at the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting lVIinutes - August 2, 1995 Page 3 As a function of this varied use, the single-family uses, multi-family uses, we think a signal will be warranted. We will attempt in the future stages to define exactly when that would take place. The property borders Lake Jesup, an area asset, but is known as a "taxed water body," because it is affected by "over-nutrientazation." There has been frequent agricultural nutrient discharge into the lake. At the very minimum, ironically, the development of those lands around the lake, bringing with it the requirement for predevelopment and postdevelopment stormwater runoff. Balancing, and pollution abatement treatment before discharge of any runoff to the lake, has the effect of increasing the water quality as it relates to the effect of this adjacent property. Wetlands that are adjacent to the lake will be identified during the final design of the project. Permitted consistent with the Water Management District, Core of Engineers, Department of Environmental Protection, and others if applicable. Mr. McIntosh described Tract "A" which is proposed for single-family detached, zero lot line detached, assisted living (including nursing home facilities) and recreation. . . "'*At this point (about 18-20 minutes into the meeting) the recorder stopped working"'* The following are from notes taken by the Recording Secretary. Mr. Stephens wanted to know the lot sizes. Mr. McIntosh said they are proposing (218) residential units, (10) units per acre. Mr. Fernandez asked Mr. McIntosh if the plan will include a "Rails-to-Trails" bike path? Mr. LeBlanc said the CSX will not give the "right-of-way." Mr. McIntosh discussed bike paths. Discussion of railroad safety regarding gates for various locations. Discussion of abandonment of the railroad. Mr. Lein asked when this would happen. Mr. LeBlanc reported that the final comments are to be in around August 21. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - August 2, 1995 Page 5 6. New Business A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to eliminate certain Collector Roads and Transportation Impact Fees. It was the consensus of the Board to table discussion of the above until the new Board member is present. Chairperson Hoffmann asked that a notice of the August 16, 1995 meeting be sent to all Planning and Zoning Board members before the agenda and minutes are ready so they will have sufficient advance notice. 7. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Shirley A Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary Prepared August 4, 1995 The next scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board will be held Wednesday, August 16, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM: III. A. OLD BUSINESS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE CERTAIN COLLECTOR ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. STAFF REPORT: BACKGROUND: The City Commission at its July 10th regular meeting acted to request the Planning and zoning Board (in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency) to make recommendation on a possible comprehensive plan amendment to delete from the Comprehensive Plan various proposed collector roads and reconsideration of the Transportation Impact Fee. In the city's Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1 of 2, the Traffic Circulation Element contains both text and maps (TC-F4 and TC-F6) that indicate certain proposed collector roads: * winter springs Loop Traversing along the north side of S.R. 434, extending from S.R. 419 to S.R. 434 west of Brantley Road. This road would have four entrances onto S.R. 434. * Shore Road Extension From Sailfish Road through Panama Road southward just east of Fisher Road to Lake Drive. * Panama Road Extension From the intersection of Panama Road and Shore road eastward to Tuskawilla Road. ANALYSIS: Roads: Staff has reviewed the above proposed collector roads in relation to the City'S existing road network, where development has and is occurring since the adoption year of the Comprehensive Plan, and traffic volumes. The projected development and traffic volumes will not likely be realized to require the construction of the winter springs Loop or the Shore Road Extension. It should also be noted that the Early Property is now being developed as a residential subdivision. The Shore road Extension would run through the west portion of this subdivision. The Panama Road Extension is slated only as a Corridor Study in Table TC-T9 of the Comprehensive Plan under "Year 1997 Recommended Improvements". For purposes of alignment, and to avoid the lake and the city's sanitary sewage facility spray fields, staff suggests that this road extension continue eastward from Bahama road rather than Panama Road. Fundinq: The winter Springs Loop is proposed to be partially built with the City's Transportation Impact Fee, while the Shore Road Extension, and the Panama Road Extension are both proposed to be funded totally by the impact fee. It should also be noted that Panama Road between Moss Road and Shore Road is slated for improvement (after 1996) with funding coming from the City's Transportation Impact Fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends that the P & Z Board (acting in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency) recommend the desirability to delete from the text and maps of the Comprehensive Plan the winter Springs Loop, and the Shore Road Extension, and the extension of the road eastward from Bahama Road rather than from Panama Road. In view of the staff recommendation to delete the above roads, staff recommends consideration of an adjustment or perhaps elimination of the city's Transportation Impact Fee as indicated in Policy 1, Objective A of the Traffic Circulation Element of the comprehensive Plan and Sec. 9-386.1 through 212 of the City Code. A study should be done to find out the effects of such a adjustment or elimination of the impact fees on other proposed road improvements indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that amendments to delete the Shore Road Extension and possible elimination of the Transportation Impact Fee may prompt a strong challenge from the Florida Department of Community Affairs when the proposed amendments are transmitted to them for their review. ). \.I.' t ,J ~ c~c,.W\ \ r R ""'~ ,~"If-:'rUlflr..'"I- "II n t \,:t:l:t:::c:r:r.' " 1 0)- ........ II ~ \'~~':::-:.: \.to ~~. t f f ~ ~ z f ~ H 0 >1 "' I IT' ~ \ ~ H 0 I ..... co " -P>- :7 (1 i: 0 ("\ r::~ ,.2^~ -.' ,:'::',9 sr~".lC Ayt ~ ~ ~ t"r1 ~ <: G) t<<> x --- Z o t-- C . ,- 3: ii;u '-/ OJ _. < X fTl -ifn ~ gi ~; ~ ri ~- ~ I" . Pl '" Ul :;:0 s:: U .." )>)>)> ~ [1 HHP' g ~q t~ H ~ HO P ~: s:: s:: (;; ~!:O"" 1Il ~ \. I " h H n ~ 'po :J.:1' 0 Eo E ~ z . g ~. n' ~ii r- Hh II!~ II! {j !f ~ 1'1 Q ... n :r C ~~ ~~ "U ~~ ~f p z ~~ :Of'': :u 2~P ~~ 1:4 ~4~: ~ Hhi~ ~ h d g ~f 15 h .." . ~ f ~ ~ ~ ;!. 0 ~.~... C ,. !.:;. lii" 5 ~ IT] o ~ ~ V) ~ .. ~ 'f-"\ ,. \ l (' '....' " ,~ '" ~l -u '::-) /--( t...:> 1- 3 o C:1 I_A ~ t--' ~ ~O () ~ () d d ~:j ~ ~ ~~ > q-~ ~ ~ L~ o trj'-3 Z ~ !~:j - ;;0 ,;0 ~>- If) ~ ~'U ~ ~~~ ~ ~ .--i () ~~ <:;) cn CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM: III. B. OLD BUSINESS UPDATE/DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS STATUS REPORT STAFF REPORT: BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Board [sitting as the Local Planning Agency in its review of the draft Land Development Regulations (LDRs)] discussed with Mr. Fred Goodrow on May 17th the suggested changes at the April 19th P & Z Meeting. Mr. Goodrow revised the draft LDRs in response to the discussion at the May 17th meeting. This revised draft was sent out to the P & Z Board members in their July 5th agenda packet. STATUS: NOTE: According to the Consultant Agreement with the City, Fred will: * Attend three (3) meetings of the P & Z Board to assist the Board in its deliberations on the amendments. (Fred attended two meetings at this point) * will prepare a new draft incorporating the Board's recommendations for a Public Hearing. * Attend one (1) public hearing and one concluding work session of the P & Z Board. REMINDER: PLEASE BRING YOUR LATEST DRAFT OF THE LDRS (DATED JUNE 24, 1995) WITH YOU TO THE AUGUST 16TH MEETING. FOR YOUR INFORMATION EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORTS (EABS} Marla Abadal Cahill Department 01 Community Affairs Introduction The Department of Community Affairs is designated by law as the state land planing agency. The DMsion of Resource Planning and Management is responsible for administering Rorida's Growth Management Laws for the Department. The local government comprehensive planning (LGCP) program (Chapter 163, Rorida Statutes) requires local governments to guide growth, control future development through the adoption of a comprehensive plan to ensure a high quality of life for the citizens of the state. - Each of the 467 local governments in the State have adopted local comprehensive plans. Nearly 96% of the plans are in compliance with the requirements of the 1985 Growth Management Act. With the passage of Chapter 93-206, Laws of Rorida (ELMS III Legislation), the Legislature substantially revised the growth management laws to enhance the local planning program as a prelude to the termination of the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) program in eligible jurisdictions. Section 163.3191, F.S., reflects the intent of the state legislature that local planning should be a continuous and ongoing process. As part of this process a local government should periodically assess the success or failure of its comprehensive plan to adequately address changing conditions and to update the plan to reflect changes in state policy on planning and growth management. 'I , "1 1 j :1 ,1 ,., I' ,. :~ II ! I The DMsion restructured its program responsibilities as a result of these revised growth management laws. The traditional review functions previously contained within the Bureau of Local Planning and the Bureau of State Planning are now combined into the new Bureau of Local Planning. The new Bureau of Local Planning has three regional sections for administering the local plan review, Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) and DRI programs. Each section is responsible for a particular geographic area of the state, corresponding to the state's eleven regional planning councils. - Content of the EAR Section 163.3191 (2), F.S., lists the major components of an evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). The EAR should address, at a minimum, the following: (a) major problems of development and physical deterioration, and the location of land uses and the social and economic effects of such uses; (b) the condition of the plan when it was first adopted and its condition at the date of the EAR; 93 (c) a comparison of plan objectives with actual results at the date of the EAR; (d) unanticipated and unforeseen problems and opportunities which may have occurred since the plan was adopted; (e) the effect on the plan of changes in state law and regulations, as well as the appropriate strategic regional policy plan; (1) the need for new actions to be taken to address the planning issues identified in the EAR; (g) plan amendments necessary to implement the needs identified in the EAR; and (h) a description of the public participation process used during preparation of the EAR. In addition, s.163.3191 (3), F.S., requires that the EAR identify changes needed to update the plan, including revised objectives, policies and standards. Section 163.3191 (6- )(a) specifies that the EAR must also include findings and recommendations regarding items (a) through (h), listed above. Section 163.3131 (6) (b), F.S., also states that the EAR- based amendment must be consistent with and implement the findings and recommendations of the EAR. Due Dates: When to Prepare an EAR Section 163.3191 (1), F.S., indicates that, as a general requirement, the EAR must be prepared at least once every 5 years. Section 163.3191 (5), F.S., specifies that the first EAR must be prepared no later than 7 years after adoption of the comprehensive plan for local governments with a population greater than 2,500 residents. After this initial EAR, additional EARs must be prepared at least every 5 years. However, for local governments with fewer than 2,500 residents (as specified in the 1992 Population Estimates of the Executive Office of the Governor), Section 163.3191 (7), F.S., permits the initial EAR to be prepared within 12 years after adoption of their comprehensive plan and at least every 10 years thereafter. . . . Rule Chapter 9J-33, F.A.C., establishes the schedule for when the EAR must be adopted by the local governing body. Three months prior to the dates included in the schedule, the local planning agency must transmit the draft EAR to the local governing body and to DCA. The schedule is arranged so that some or all of the municipalities within a county will submit their EAR in the same month as the county. The schedule provides that the first EARs should be adopted by November 1, 1995 and that the EAR adoption process will continue through February 1, 2004. 94 EAR Preparation and Adoption Process Role of the Local Planning Agency: Section 163.3191 (4)J F.S., and Rule 9J-5.0053J F.A.C'J establishes the process for the preparation and adoption of an EAR. In accordance with the schedule in Rule Chapter 9J-33 , F.A.C., the proposed EAR is prepared by the local planning agency (LP A) and sent to the 10caJ governing body for adoption. The public participation procedures included in the community's comprehensive plan must be followed by the LP A during the preparation and transmittal of the proposed EAR. If an early EAR has been preparedJ then the LP A must transmit an EAR addendum consistent with the Rule Chapter 9J-33J F.AC'J schedule. Role of the Local Governing Body: Within 90 days of receiving the proposed EAR from the LP A, the local governing body must adopt, or adopt with changesJ the proposed EAR. Adoption may be by ordinance or resolution (see Rule 9J-5.0053(3)(g)J F.A.C.). Within 10 days after adoptionJ three copies are to be submitted to DCA. At a minimum, the public participation procedures included in the communityJs comprehensive plan must be followed by the local governing body during the adoption of the EAR. If an early EAR has been adopted, then the locaJ governing body must adopt and submit an addendum. If the locaJ governing body fails to adopt the EAR or addendum by the established due dateJ then it is prohibited from amending its comprehensive plan until it does adopt an EAR or addendum that the Department determines is sufficient. Role of the Department of Community Affairs: Within 30 days of receipt of an adopted EAR or addendumJ DCA will review the adopted report to determine its sufficiency. The sufficiency review is designed to determine whether the report was adopted in a timely manner and whether it addresses all the requirements of s.163.3191 J F,S'J and Rule 9J-5.0053, F.A.C. As mentioned above, an adopted EAR must address all new statutory and rule changes that have occurred since the plan was originally adopted. The applicable statutes and rules are Rule Chapter 9J-5J F.A.C'J Chapter 163J F.S., Chapter 187J F,S'J and the applicable comprehensive (or strategic) regional policy plan. The EAR must assess the effect of changes in these statutes and rules' on- the plan and make recommendations for needed EAR-based amendments to address new requirements. The recommendations in the EAR must be specific enough to indicate the types of new objectives and policies that should be included in the EAR-based amendment to address all current rule requirements. This level of specificity is needed in the EAR in order to be able to determine whether or not the EAR-based amendment is consistent with and implements the findings and recommendations of the EAR. The adopted EAR may not postpone addressing new requirements which are in effect on the date. of submittal of the adopted EAR. The only requirements that may be postponed are those for which the statute establishes a specific date of preparation (such as the revised Intergovernmental Coordination Element). 95 - In the adopted EAR, data and analysis summaries must describe the current condition of the plan, based on the most current information available at the time of the EAR. These data are existing data that are the most current available, not original data collected specifically for the EAR. In the EAR, the local government must respond to and react appropriately to any currently available data that was not available when the plan was originally adopted. These summaries of data and analysis must describe changed conditions for each element of the plan based on current Rule Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., requirements. If the original plan did not address a specific requirement (for example, because of an absence of data and analysis) and if data are now available to address this requirement, then the EAR must address and respond appropriately to such currently available data An EAR may be found insufficient if currently available data are not used to describe current conditions within a community, consistent with the data and analysis requirements of Rule Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and used as the basis of evaluating the effectiveness of the plan. Failure to Adopt a Sufficient EAR If DCA determines that an adopted EAR or addendum does not sufficiently meet the provisions of s.163.3191, F.S., or if the local government fails to adopt an EAR or addendum by the scheduled due date, then the local government may not amend it comprehensive plan until DCA determines that the EAR or addendum is sufficient See s.163.3187(5), F.S. At the scheduled due date, however, local governments may not propose any amendments, except for EAR-based amendments which incorporate EAR recommendations, until the EAR becomes sufficient. Sufficiency Review by DCA If the EAR is not sufficient because it does not meet the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.0053, F.A.C., then the EAR Sufficiency Report prepared by DCA will point out the areas of insufficiency and recommend corrections. This review will be completed within 30 days of receipt of the adopted EAR. Section 163.3191 (10), F.S., permits DCA to delegate the' sufficiency review to the appropriate regional planning council. If the review is delegated,Jhen a local government may choose to have the RPC, rather than DCA, conduct the review. In order to implement the delegation process, DCA must adopt a rule to ensure that the reviews are carried out in a uniform and adequate manner. In addition, DCA must retain oversight for any delegation of review to a regional planning council. EAR-based Amendments (General) Sections 163.3191 (4) and (6)(b) , F.S., require the comprehensive plan to be amended based upon the findings and recommendations in the EAR. Section 163.3191 (4), F.S., states that the amendment must be adopted within one (1) year after 96 the EAR is adopted. The proposed plan amendment and the adopted EAR may be submitted simultaneously to DCA for review. If these two actions do not occur simulta- neously, then the EAR must include a schedule for adoption of the amendments within one year after the EAR is adopted. The statute permits the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to grant a six- month extension for the adoption of plan amendments. The locaf governing body must request the extension and the request must be supported by good and sufficient cause. The EAR-based amendment must meet all rule and statute requirements in effed as of the date of submittal of the proposed amendment As with any other amendment, internal consistency within the plan must be maintained. Maintaining internal consistency may require changes throughout the plan in order to maintain internal consistency while implementing the finding and recommendations of the EAR. The proposed amendment must be consistent with and implement the recommen- dations contained in the adopted EAR. If the proposed amendment does not incorporate an EAR recommendation, then the plan amendment support document must explain why the recommendation is not incfuded in the proposed amendment If an EAR recommen- dation is not addressed in the proposed amendment and an adequate explanation is not provided in plan amendment support document, then the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report may raise objections. As with any other amendment, the proposed EAR-based amendment must be sup- ported by and consistent with appropriate and relevant data and analysis. If the EAR and EAR-based amendment are submitted simultaneously, the data and analysis which supports the amendment may be in the EAR, or in the plan amendment support docu- ment, or in the data and analysis portion of the comprehensive plan. Thus, data and analysis in an EAR-based amendment may be used to satisfy a sufficiency requirement in Rule 9J-5.0053, F.AC. EAR-based amendments are reviewed for compliance with the requirements of Rule Chapter 9J-5, Chapter 163, F.S., and consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan and the applicable Comprehensive (Strategic) Regional Policy Plan~ . . Section 163.3184(7), F.S., allows the locaf government 120 days from receipt of DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report to adopt the EAR- based amendment. When an interagency hazard mitigation report is prepared in response to a Presidential Disaster Declaration, s.163.3191 (13), F.S., permits its recommendations, as deemed appropriate by the local government, to be adopted as part of the EAR-based amendment. 97 EAR-based Amendments (Small Communities) The statute recognizes that a municipality with less than 5,000 residents or a county with fewer than 50,000 residents may have limited resources to devote to the preparation of an EAR-based amendment. Section 163.3191 (12), F.S., permits DCA to enter into a written agreement with such communities so that they can focus planning resources on selected issues or elements when updating their plan. If an eligible community wishes to enter into such an agreement with DCA, then the EAR should include such a request. DCA will evaluate the request. The following factors will be considered during the evaluation: 1) population growth rate and change in land area since plan adoption; 2) extent of vacant that is developable or vested; 3) the need for redevelopment; 4) the extent to which public facilities are supplied by providers other than the loca! government; 5) past performance in local plan implementation; 6) presence of state or regionally significant natural resources and 7) infrastructure backlog. If DCA agrees to the loca! government's request, then an agreement will be prepared specifying the portions of the plan that will be updated by a plan amendment. Within 18 months after the plan is updated consistent with the agreement, the remaining portions of the plan that were not updated must be updated consistent with the finding and recommendations of the EAR. The statute also requires (sub-section (d)) that the plan be updated in full when the population exceeds the thresholds mentions above. DCA's decision to enter into an agreement with a loca! government to target its planning resources (or to modify or terminate an agreement) shall be subject to the administrative hearing process upon petition by an affected person. In addition, sub-section (e) specifies that all local governments must update their Future Land Use, Intergovernmental Coordination, Conservation, and Capita! Improvements elements. The Coastal Management Element must also be updated, unless it can be shown that all of a community's coastal lands are publically owned or managed, there is no publtc access to coastal lands and there is no existing or planned development in coastal lands. Failure to Adopt an EAR-based Amendment , . If the plan is not amended in a timely and sufficient manner to implement the recommendations and finding of the EAR, then the Administration Commission may impose the sanctions provided by s.163.3184(11). These sanctions may be imposed only after DCA initiates a s. 120.57(1) administrative hearing process ~n which an affected person may intervene), a hearing has been conducted, and the hearing officer has submitted a recommended order to the Administration Commission. Any imposed sanctions would begin after a final order has been issued by the Administration Commission and a reasonable period of time has been allowed for the local government to adopt plan amendments consistent with the final order. 98 DCA Grants Assistance Program The 1994 State Legislature appropriated $1.8 million to DCA to assist local govern- ments with the preparation of the initial draft of portions of the EAR, for those EARs required to be submitted by July 1, 1996 pursuant to Rule Chapter 9J-33, F.A.C. The amount of funds available to each of the 89 affected local governments under this programs is $20,224. The adopted EARs for these local governr:nents are due between November 1, 1995 and July 1, 1996 (see Rule 9J-33.005(1)-(9), F.A.C.). ii i.l ! ;:.l~ >i 1, ~ ,. ;:1 ,~' The Department recognizes that the funding received by local governments under this grant program constitute only a portion of the actual costs associated with the development, completion and adoption of the EAR and that the work products being contracted for constitutes only a portion of the requirements necessary for completion of a sufficient EAR. The Department will continue to request appropriations from the Legislature for funding to assist local governments whose EARs are due after July 1 t 1996. L, h ;1~ !If Ii " I I I t 99 FLORIDA LEGISLATURE ENACTS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT By: Tom Pelham Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer & Theriaque The Florida Legislature, in the closing days of the 1995 Session, enacted the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act. Rep- resentative Harris has been the chief sponsor and advocate of what many regarded as extreme private property rights legislation. The new Act is based in part on the product of a working group of various interests, including the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association _ (FAPA), and incorporates the vested rights concept advocated by FAPA. Unfortunately, one day before pas- sage of the Act, the Governor's Of- fice, key legislators, and lobbyists for large landowner interest agreed to a controversial amendment (the "Hop- ping/Chiles amendment") which ex- pands the coverage of the Act t';) in- clude non-vested property interest. In highly irregular fashion, legisla- tion creating the new Act did not re- ceive a single public hearing before any House committee prior to addi- tion of the referenced amendment; instead, it was rushed to a floor vote in the House, which passed it unani- mously, and to the full Senate, which passed it with only one dissenting vote. The private property rights issue has been very divisive and con- ~- troversial over recent years. In the face of several Draconian legislative proposals, including another pro- posed constitutional amendment, several legislators and representa- tives of the Governor's Office con- vened a meeting of a broad range of concerned organizations early in the 1995 legislative session. At this meeting, which was attended by Senator Rick Dantzler and Represen- tatives Ken Pruitt and Bert Harris, as well as the Governor's General Counsel, a draft proposal based upon protecting existing actual land uses and vested property rights was of- fered as a possible vehicle for com- promise. After numerous organiza- tions, including FAPA, indicated they could support this approach, a work- ing group was formed to finalize the proposal, as chaired by DCA Secre- tary Linda Shelley. Senator Dantzler and Representative Dean Saunders, sponsors of separate legislation on a proposed property rights mediation process, participated in the working group. Their proposed Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act was later added to the working draft. Throughout the work- ing group's sessions, Secretary Shelley and others-including FAPA, the Cities, the Counties, and environ- mental group representatives-in- sisted that the scope of the Private Property Rights Protection Act be limited to actual existing land uses and vested property interest. How- ever, late in the process, attorney Wade Hopping proposed to several in the work group that coverage of the Act be expanded to include what many perceive to be as purely specu- lative land interest. Secretary Shelley and others emphatically re- jected this proposal. According to the Secretary, the Administration was only agreeing to support a bill that protected existing land uses and vested property rights. However, only one day be- fore passage of the new Act, the Governor's Office and the legislators mentioned above, apparently reached agreement, without any consultation with many of the participants in the working group, to an amendment which greatly expands the coverage of the Act and raises serious concerns about its potential impact. What did this process pro- duce? The Private Property Rights Protection Act creates a new cause of action where if a state, regional or local governmental entity "inordi- nately burdens" an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner may sue in court for compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the property. The original version of the bill de- fined "existing use" as "an actual, present use or activity on the real property." The Hopping amendment expanded the term "existing use" to include any reasonably foreseeable, non-speculative, and suitable land uses for real property which are "compatible with adjacent land uses and which have created an existing fair market value in the property greater than the fair market value of the actual, present use." Despite the use of the term "non-speculative," this definition is so broad and vague as to include land uses which are not actual, vested, or even within the contemplation of the landowner. Years of litigation will probably be required to determine the meanings of the Hopping amendment. The Act defines "inordinate burden" as any action of governmen- tal entities which directly restricts the use of property so that the property owner is permanently unable to re- alize a reasonable investment-backed expectation for the existing use or a vefled right or so that the landowner is left with such unreasonable uses -of the property that the owner must uear "permanently a disproportion- ate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public, which in fairness should be born by the public at large." Although it uses language typically employed by courts in re- solving takings claims, the Act ex- pressly states that it "provides a cause of action for governmental actions that may not rise to the level of a tak- ing under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution." The Act establishes an impor- tant prerequisite to filing suit in court. At least 180 days prior to filing suit, the landowner must present its writ- ten claim, accompanied with a valid appraisal demonstrating the loss in fair market value, to the heads of the governmental entities involved. ~_ During the 100-day pre-suit period, the governmental entities involved must make a written settlement of- fer which may include a broad range of alternatives, including approval of some or all of the proposed develop- ment, transfer of development rights, purchase of some or all of the prop- erty, or reaffirmation of the govern- mental entity's original action. If the landowner accepts the offer, then a settlement agreement between the governmental entity and landowner is effectuated. If the settlement of- fer is not accepted by the property owner, the govemmental entity must, within the 180-day period, issue a written ripeness decision specifying the uses to which the property may be put. This ripeness decision shall constitute the last prerequisite to ju- dicial review of the governmental action under the new Act. If the property owner files suit under the new Act, the circuit court must determine whether the governmental action has inordinately burdened an existing use or vested right to a specific use of the real prop- erty. After the court has determined that an inordinate burden has been imposed on property, and following resolution of any interlocutory appeal of that determination, the court must impanel a jury to determine the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the property owner. The prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable cost and attorney's fees. The second section of the new private property rights legisla- tion is called the "Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolu- tion Act." It is based on the recom- mendations of the Governor's Private Property Rights Study Commission. Essentially, this Act creates a glori- fied system of mediation. However, rather than mandating mediation through the use of mediators who are in abundant supply, the Act creates an unnecessary bureaucracy of spe- cial masters, a hybrid mediator/judge specie. Any owner who believes that a development order or an enforce- ment action unreasonably or unfairly burdens its real property may request relief from the governmental entities involved. Before requesting relief, the owner must exhaust all non-ju- diciallocal government administra- tive appeals provided such appeals take no longer than four months. Request for relief must be filed with the head of the governmental entity involved which is required to refer the request to a special master agreed upon by the governmental entity and the landowner. Within fifteen days after the filing of the request for re- lief, the governmental entity must file a response to the request with the special master. The special master must hold an informal hearing which does not require the use of an attorney within 45 days of receiving the request for relief. Acting as a mediator, the spe- cial master must first try to facilitate a resolution of the conflict between the government and the landowner. If mediation is unsuccessful, the spe- cial master must then determine whether the governmental action is unreasonable or unfairly burdens the landowner's property. The special master must prepare and file a writ- ten recommendation within 14 days after conclusion of the hearing. If the special master determines if the governmental action is unreasonable or unfairly burdensome, he or she may recommend to the governmen- tal entity alternative courses of ac- tion which provide for lesser re- straints on use of the landowner's property. However, the special master's recommendation is not binding on any party if the govern- mental entity rejects the recommen- dation or if it accepts the recommen- dation and the landowner rejects it, the governmental entity must issue a written decision within thirty days that describes the specific uses avail- able to the real property. This writ- ten decision shall constitute the last prerequisite to judicial action. The Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act does not create a new cause of action in court. Moreover, the spe- cial master's recommendation is not binding on anyone. However, it may serve as data in support of a compre- hensive plan or comprehensive plan amendment. Any plan amendment necessary to effectuate a special master's recommendation is exempt from the twice-a-year limitation on plan amendments. This bill will apply to regulations adopted on or after May 12, 1995. The Dispute Resolu- tionAct will take effect October 1,1995. " .. August 28, 1995 To: Planning and Zoning Board a Land Management specialis@'1 From: Re: Agenda Item, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting September 6, 1995 SALA, Inc. Request to alter Final Development Plan per Section 20-359 SALA, Inc. has made request to change the density ofMt. Greenwood Tract 5 from 187 townhouses to 143 single-family units. Final Engineering for Tract 5 was originally approved by the City Commission on July 28, 1986. The last correspondence on this tract was in March 1990, addressing an "as-built" inspection. This is about the time that Magnolia, the original developer of Mt. Greenwood encountered financial problems. The property was taken over by Resolution Trust Corporation. Since approximately 1991, there has been some interest shown in completing the development of the property - to no avail. This is the first serious consideration given to the project. ,,"- Section 20-359 allows the Board, if their finding is that the proposed change is substantially consistent with the approved final development plan, to approve or approve with modifications the proposed change. If the change is found not to be consistent, then the City Commission must consider the request at a public hearing. The Board may, for just cause, hold a public hearing on the request (as per Section 20-358). Attached for you review are the following:: I) Commission Meeting Minutes of July 28, 1986 2) overall site plan for townhouses 3) proposed change for 143 single-family units 4) area location map 5) Staff Review Minutes and Staff Comments of August 22, 1995 The Staff recommended approval for the change, with the stipulations mentioned during the meeting and the comments correspondence ,r.- August 24, 1995 To: General Services Director Staff ~ Land Management Specialist V- I From: Re: Staff Review Mt. Greenwood Tract 5 Proposed Relotting The above referenced was held on August 22, 1995. Representing the project were H. Sabeti and R. Bradick. Staff members present were Grimms, Houck, Jenkins, Ketteringham, Lallathin, LeBlanc and Taylor. The request is to change the density from 187 townhouse units to 143 single family units. 49 of the units will be similar to the patio home concept, 22 will be placed in a duplex type - configuration, and 72 units will be placed in a quadraplex configuration (similar to the DeerSong Subdivision). All units are detached. This request is considered under Section 20-359 of the Code of Ordinances - Alterations to the final development plan. The Staff recommends to the Planning and Zoning Board. If the Planning and Zoning Board finds that this action is substantially consistent with the approved final development plan, the Board may approve, or approve with modifications, the proposed changes. Attached are all the Staff comments provided at the meeting. Some of these comments can be addressed in the Deed Restrictions for the property. Motion made by Grimms that the request be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board with recommendation for approval. Second by LaIlathin. All voted aye. .MKMOR-\.l\IDUlVI TO: Don LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist Don Houck. Building Official YJ k./;}.L-- FRON!: RE: Re-Letting Of Tract 5 Mt. Greenwood DATE: August 23, 1995 If this is to follow the same Sl:t:nario as Dl;t:r Song tht: following \;on\;ems will need to he considered in the final design: - 1. Since all models ..vill be three bedroom there should be more than two parking spaces per unit. 2. Provision needs to bt: made for homeO'wners to have access to all areas of their home. 3. Particular attention needs to be given to the drainage design around the homt:s. D\VH:alll DWHland0010 August 23, 1995 TO: Land Management Specialist, Donald LeBlanc FROM: City Engineer, ~~ Mark L. Jenkins, P.E. SUBJECT: Mount Greenwood Tract 5 - Resurrection (Re-Lotting) by Sala, Inc. The following comments and/or concerns relate to the proposed completion of the subject site, that has been dormant since 1990: 1. The last correspondence I can find in my files on this si te is an "as-bui 1 t" deficiency 1 et ter from the previous City Engineer to Bowyer-Singleton, dated March 15, 1990. (copy attached) Bowyer-Singleton will need to answer the comments in that letter, since we did not receive a response at that time. I recommend that they discuss each of those outstanding items with me prior to attempting a repair. 2. I understand that this site never received final acceptance by the City Commission as being completed per the approved engineering plans. 3. As soon as Sala, Inc. obtains ownership of the subject parcel they will need to start paying the appropriate stormwater fee. 4. The site will need a follow-up "as-built" inspection since one was never done after the deficiencies of the March 15, 1990 letter were noted. I do not know if those noted deficiencies were corrected. The condi tion of the existing infrastructure, after 5'years dormant, will need to be field veri fied. Storm structures and piping, sani tary piping, condition of pavement, restriping, etc. According to the Fire Chief, the fire hydrants have been receiving flow checks every 6 months since installed. 5. As required in 9-241 of the Land Development Code, lot grading will need to comply with the 1.25 and 1.50 percent slope for drainage. There must be spot elevations on the revised pI ans to provide this. Proper grading around the building pads will need to be shown. Recommendation: Capturing roof runoff and piping to a storm inlet or manhole will help alleviate a lot of yard flooding. 6. Is a perimeter wall planned for this site? attachment: March 15, 1990 letter from Kozlov to Bowyer-Singleton cc: City Manager Utility Director Building Official ~ ') .~ CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 11 2!3 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 327-1800 March 15, 1990 FILE COpy Mr. Chuck R. Burdick, P.E. Boyer Singleton and Associates, Inc. 520 South Magnolia Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 RE:-'-- Mt':- GreenwOcd ~'TracF ~5,"'uIi.i i- (5 - Dear Mr. Burdick: On March 8, 1990, an "as-built" inspection was made of the site and the following discrepancies were noted. FIRE HYDRANTS , No visible cut off valves were noted for the following locations: 1. West of the North end of "A" street. 2. At the South end of "B" street. 3. South of the North end of "B" street. 4. East of the West end of street "0". 5. At the curve in street "E". 6. At the East end of street "F". Please note that the fire hydrant cut off valves need to be adjacent to the hydrant, mounted in concrete and not in the pavement. PARKING SPACES Street "A" . . 7. End space, in front of Unit 1, is nine (9) feet wide. 8. End space, in front of Unit 43, is 8.6 feet wide. 9. End space, in front of Unit 38, is 9.6 feet wide. - 10. End space, in front of Unit 17, is 9.1 feet wide. / I . ' I i 01' ~) )') Mr. Chuck R. Burdick, P.E. March 14, 1990 Page 2 ,- 11. End space, in front of Unit 18, is 9.8 feet wide. 12. End space, in front of Unit 22, is 9.2 feet wide. Street "B" 13. Space in front of Unit 51 has missing concrete wheel stop. 14. End space in front of Unit 61 is 8.2 feet wide. Street "0" 15. End space in front of Unit 143 is 8.9 feet wide. 16. End space in front of Unit 131 is 9.4 feet wide. The parking spaces are required to be 200 sq. ft. (10 x 20). It will be necessary to adjust these parking _spaces accordingly. In addition, it is noted that there are no handicap spaces provided. It will be necessary to do so. The handicap spaces are to be 12 ft. x 20 ft. . GENERAL - 17. The eastern most storm inlet on street "0" has sand in it and needs to be cleaned out. 18. A valve cover is missing in the pavement at the intersection of streets "0" and "E". 19. Two ( 2 ) underdrains were noted as discharging into the storm inlet near the middle of street "E". We need to know where these drains are placed. There are no underdrains specified on the engineering drawings. 20. There were several unplugged corings in the parking areas. Please fill them with concrete. 21 ~. It may be necessary to provide a fence between the East end of street "0" and Dolphin Road to discourage traffic from using this as an entrance to the project.. . .22:', There needs to be a fence at the end of street "B" where it meets Gee Creek. , ,There is an abrupt steep grade at this location down to Gee Creek. 'Ple~eprovide on the engineering drawing. " ;:23" ,:There is a pile of debris at the end of street "B" where it meets Gee cr~.,~t needs to be removed. : ~ ,~~:/,:' There is an eroded area adjacent to the center stormwater out-fall intq}p::md 5 (mitered end section). This needs back filling to grade. ;~r ~l<, ttf-#', ~ , .,.,...... ~'. , ..i-~.. · . g ... ., . I,' , . I / )) ", 'I Mr. Chuck R. Burdick, P.E. March 14, 1990 Page 3 25. The width of the driveway, excluding parking space, in front of Unit 21 on street "A" is only 23.7 feet. The engineering drawing requires 24 feet. Please correct this deficiency. 26. The width of street "B" between Units 55 and 88 is only 23.5 feet. The engineering drawing requires 24 feet. Please correct this defiCiency. 27. Please provide street names as per Section 9-156 and Section 9-298 of the Land Developnent Code. 28. Please fill out, sign, seal, date, and return the enclosed "Letter of Certification" on your letter head stationery. . 29. Reference to "General Notes", number 11; compaction in non-roadway areas needs to be a minimum of 95% of a modified proctor. . 30. Please provide test pills from various locations of the soil cement. It is designated as "B", "c" and "0" in parking and drive, but there is no way to reference the locations on the site plan. Please provide this information. 31. coring. Please provide the specific thickness or depth of each soil cement Average depths of the base are not acceptable. 32. What is the specific thickness of the asphalt overlay at different locations on the project? Please provide. Please respond to each of the preceding items in writing. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Attachment MJ/LTK/mh cc: Ci ty Manager Land Developnent Coordinator Building Department " FIRE DEPARTMENT 102 NORTH MOSS ROAD WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708 TELEPHONE (407) 327-2332 F1RE AND RESCUE SERVICES MEMORANDUM To: Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist From: Timothy J. Lallathin, Fire Chief 0~~;' Date: August 22, 1995 Subject: Tract 5, Mt. Greenwood, Relotting , The Fire Department has reviewed the request for retotting Tract 5, Mt. Greenwood, from 187 units to 143 units. The Fire Department has no objection tcRhis request, aGd recommends approval. No additional comments are needed at this time. - WINTER SPRINGS UTILITY I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT August 21, 1995 110 NORTH FLAMINGO AVENUE WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 327-2669 Fax (407) 327-0942 To: Land Management Specialist From: Doug Taylor ij'1 Re: Purposed re-10tting of tract 5 Mt. Greenwood Subdivision The following items will have to be done prior to the beginning of construction of any buildings if this project is undertaken. 1. This project will be treated as a new development and therefore water and sewer rates in effect at the time of the construction of the original project are no longer in effect. As these are single family homes this project will require additional water and sewer capacity. 2. All of the water services that will not be used will have to be turned off at the roam. 3. Sewer laterals not being used will have to be cut off and caped at the curbs. 4. New construction drawings will submitted showing the location of all utilities including the lines to be abandoned. ",.,- MEMO FOR RECORD August 22, 1995 From: Don LeBlanc, Land Management SPecialiS~ Re: Tract 5, Mt. Greenwood Relotting This item is to be considered under Section 20-359 of the Code of Ordinances - Alterations to the final development plan. The Staff will review this and send their recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board. If the Board finds that this action is substantially consistent with the approved final development plan, the Board may approve, or approve with modifications, the proposed changes. ,..- I find no objection to the proposed change. This property was under RTC jurisdiction and then purchased. There has been scattered interest shown in this property, but this is the first time that someone has taken the interest to this level. If this change is approved, I recommend the following items be accomplished, provided the concerned departments are in agreement: I) verify that there is no increase in impervious area; 2) verify that the integrity of the streets/parking areas and the water and sewer system are sound, The infrastructure has been in place, without use, for about eight (8) years. cc: Statf SALA, Inc. TO: DON LEBLANC, LAND MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST FROM: CHARLES SEXTON, CHIEF OF POLICE DATE: AUGUST 21, 1995 SUBJ: TRACT 5, M.T. GREENWOOD 86-95 I have reviewed the request for relotting Tract 5, Mt. Greenwood, from 187 Townhouse Units to 143 single family units. I recommend that this request be approved. ~~ Charles Sexton Chief of Police CS/eds .- Community Development CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 l\1EMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Don LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist Thomas Grimms, AICP Community Development coordinato~- August 21, 1995 Mount Greenwood Tract 5 - Proposed Relotting After a review of the conceptual relotting Plan "A" - Tract 5, I have not concerns or other comments at this time. - August 17, 1995 To: General Services Director Staff Land Management SpeCialig From: Re: Mt. Greenwood Tract 5 Proposed Relotting Attached is additional information received by this office on the above referenced to be discussed at the scheduled meeting of August 22, 1995. . . August 16, 1995 File No. MGW 1 VIA Hand Delivered =NGINE=~ING i=l L A i\J N : i'J G SURVEYING Mr. Donald LeBlanc Managemen t Specialist City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, Florida pCCJEIIW1EJD) JAUS 1 7 1995 Subject: Mount Greenwood Tract 5 CITY OF WlNTER SPRINGS Land Management _ Dear Don: ~ Our client, Sala, Inc. is proposing to complete the development and construction of Tract 5 at 1-Iount Greenwood. This proposal is depicted on the conceptual site plans that were hand delivered to the City, Tuesday, August 15, 1995. The conceptual site plan shows a total of 143 units. Of those units, 49 are detached single family lots, and 94 are either duplex or quadraplex patio units, which are on the interior of the project. The single family lots will be 36-foot wide and a minimum of 85.foot deep with 20-foot front setbacks, 15-foot rear setbacks, and 3-foot side setbacks. The single family units will have a minimum separation of 6-feet. The duplex/quadraplex product will be a court yard concept with 10.foot t.o 12.foot wide court yards separating t.he living areas. This is similar to the product currently being const.ructed in DeerSong, Winter Springs. The original Tract 5 design proposed 187 attached townhouse units. The proposed plan has a total of 143 units, which is a reduction of 44 units. The reduction in units along with the elimination of some asphalt parking in front of the single family lots creates a reduction in impervious area for the project. The following table provides a comparison between the approved site plan and the proposed site plan. As Approved As Proposed Description Acreage 01 Difference Acreage ~1> .U 1. Improved area on lots 7.0 Ac 33% -2.4 4.6Ac 22% 2. Pavement 5.2 Ac 25% 0.3 4.9 Ac 23% 3. Ponds 2.9 Ac 14% -0.0 2.9 Ac 14% 4. Green/Open Space 6.0 Ac 28% +2.7 8.7 41% 2 1.1 Ac 100% 21. 1 Ac 100% 520 SOUTH MAGNOLIA AVE. . P.O. BOX 2769 . ORLANOO. FL 32802.2769 . (407) 843.5120 . FAX (407) 649-8664 ~ ~ Mr. Don LeBlanc August 16, 1995 Page Two As you can see, the proposed site plan significantly reduces the impervious area from 72% to 59%. For your use, enclosed are floor plans and elevations of the proposed product. This will provide you with an idea of the type of units that are proposed. If you need any further informa tion, please give me a call. zelY, ~4~ - R~Bradick Principal RRB:skk MGW16001 Enclosures c: Hank Sabeti FLOOR PLANS The Summer Drum ,- The Sun Dance The 'O'f11ilter'(9real ~ BED-RM-3 II '-o6'IQ~O" AI: CXJW DINING ~ V-Q..Cl.G MASTER-BR II"O..14'-d' 't'0l.._a..a. LIVING 12~e.IIl'. 8- "?-_ CLG. ClO BEO-RM-Z IO~O.a IO~O. ~.. MASTER- SR 12'..~1~'.8. ~.;t~~~. .... LlVI!'IG 1'.8112.'.0. .... .-.oJ to.I...... -, 1.'1. 10 -- 10'" u' u__ 12'J. IZ' CD .~ ! I PATIO I -J ~ PA:'~j "'" ,'I.. .~ , I "Am I I . I , _-.J " ~ PATIO LIVING "~a"x 13~6" Ti:llCUA MASTER- BR 13~"x II~O'1 . VOL QJ;.. DINING 13~O"x I~O" 'C\. cu:.. - NOOK IO~O"x II~O II ~e ~ w ir-~l ,.Ie. L _--IL.. _J GARAG E BED-RM-3 1O'-4"xIO~O" o ~TH-2 ) - The Uorizon- The "Horizon" is a true split plan home with a centrally located .kitchen featuring volume ceiling. This home lends itself perfectly to entertainment with the island opening to the dining area and a good sized nook. . .. .. /' // -' ~ / "'" ~ ;;;; -; ./ . ...... MASTER-BR lZ ~4"x 15~O" va.. CLeo. I ClOS I =1 BED- RM-2 IO!.O"x IO~4" FOYE R 10.. cu. BED-RM-3 IO~ O"x II ~O" ENTRY " PATIO LIVING 13~O "X III-a" VOl CUi. DINING 13~o'x8!.a" VOl. aL&. 12.111 0" 9!.o"x 13~4-" YOl aA. NOOK ~e: w If""o : ~ L_......JL_...J FUl A/~ GARAGE The Overlook - A smart .3 bedroom home which offers an eat:-in kitchen and great room. A 12 'x IS' master bedroom complete with a walk-in closet compliment this home. It comes complete with a garage. ,.,// /" ,,- . .' .,~'~ /' . ..... '. . :. .' ...-" . . .....4' :::::---- -~ ~..~. ~::--~'.';'oI~,:: ._.}..,.::""~... 'J .~~. ~ ~:'...)'; ."~"'~,: -.r. "." , ... .....;.~. :.~r;..;.'-";,~.:..,,,.,," .....~ ;_ ....... '. .. " fl- ,.~..:.~)I. Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 28, 1986 Page 2 85-86-26 Request to vacate unimproved road west of Lot E, Chase & Co. Subdivision, etc.- The School Board of Seminole County: Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to deny the request to vacate the 25 ft. strip based on the unknown fact of how property owners north of this site will get access to their property. Seconded by Commissioner Hoffmann. Discussion. Motion and second were withdrawn. Re uest for Lot S lit of the West 375 ft. of Lot 1, Blk. C, Ranches Sec. l-Voekes: Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to deny the request for lot split. Seconded by Commissioner Hoffmann. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Jacobs, no; Commissioner Trencher, no; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; motion carried. Mt. Greenwood Approval for Final Engineering Tract 5: Motion was made by Commissioner Trencher that we approve Final Engineering for Tract 5, subject to continued study and determination of requirement for underdrains in the area and to instruct the City Engineer that if in fact underdrains and other work is necessary, that it be included before any additional steps are taken. Seconded by Commissioner Kulbes. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; motion carried. Oak Forest Unit 6 - Plat Approval: Motion was made by Commissioner Hoffmann to approve Oak Forest Unit 6, Plat Approval with the following exception to be resolved: drainage easements on lots backing to roads and other property need to be 15 ft. versus 7.5 ft. Seconded by Commissioner Jacobs. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; motion carried. First Reading of Ord. No. 346, annexation of the east 229.57 ft. of the south 398.78 ft. (measured at right angles) less the south 20 ft. for the right-of-way, Lot 56, S rin Hammock, etc.-Seminole Count Board of Realtors: Motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs: to read Ord. No. 346 by title only on first reading. Seconded by Commissioner Tren~her. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; motion carried. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. No. 346 by title only on first reading. First Reading of Ord. No. 347, annexation of the west 90.32 ft. of Lot 7, Blk. A, Johnson's Poultry Farm, etc.-C.J.Cromer: Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to read Ord. No. 347 by title only on first reading. Seconded by Commissioner Trencher. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, absent; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; motion carried. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. No. 347 by title only on first reading. ".-- CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA Planning and Zoning Board 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 327-1800 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members FROM: Shirley A. Frankhouser, .;$/rf' Recording Secretary ~ DATE: August 4, 1995 RE: Notice of upcoming Planning & Zoning Board Meeting At the request of Chairperson Hoffmann, I am sending you notice in advance, of the next scheduled Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The meeting minutes of August 2, 1995 is completed and will be mailed to you along with another copy of the agenda, and Mr. Grimms reports. Also at the request of Chairperson Hoffmann, the new Board members will receive Mr. LeBlanc's LDR comments dated April 5 and April 21, 1995 sent to Mr. Goodrow. Please call me if you have any questions. cc: Land Management Specialist Community Development Coordinator wp6.0\p&z\members