Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 12 02 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILP A DECEMBER 2~ 1998 - REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge Of Allegiance The Planning and Zoning BoardlLPA meeting was called to order Wednesday~ December 2~ 1998 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Tom Brown in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall~ 1126 East State Road 434~ Winter Springs~ Florida 32708). The Pledge of Allegiance followed. Roll Call Tom Brown~ Chairman~ present Carl Stephens~ Jr.~ Vice Chairman~ present Marc Clinch~ absent Bill Femandez~ present Rosanne Karr~ present Also Present Charles C. Carrington~ AICP ~ Community Development Director Tom Grimms~ AICP~ Comprehensive Planning/Zoning Coordinator Approval Of The October 28,1998 Planning and Zoning Board/LPA Special Meeting Minutes Motion by Bill Fernandez. Board Member Rosanne Karr mentioned that on page 5 of the October 28, 1998 minutes, on the eighth line from the top of the page, the line of text beginning with "Board Member Fernandez said, "I wold..." - the correct spelling should be "would". Seconded. It was agreed that with the above noted spelling correction, that the Motion to adopt the minutes of October 28, 1998 was approved by consensus of the Board. Motion passed. Approval Of The November 4, 1998 Planning and Zoning BoardlLPA Regular Meeting Minutes Chairman Tom Brown commented about the date of the Workshop discussed on page 4~ of the November 4~ 1998 minutes. There was brief discussion by the "Board about this. Chairman Brown said~ "1 stated it incorrect1y"~ in regards to his comment about the date of this referenced workshop. Motion by Rosanne Karr. Seconded by Carl Stephens, Jr. It was agreed that with the above noted comments, that the Motion to adQpt the minutes of November 4, 1998 was approved by consensus of the Board. Motion passed. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LPA DECEMBER 2, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 2 OF 7 Board Member Bill Fernandez brought up the fact that the November 4, 1998 minutes were eleven (11) pages long, and said, "I thought we were getting away from verbatim type of transcripts, unless we have a Court Reporter present, like we do this evening". Discussion. Mr. Tom Grimms, AICP, Comprehensive Planning/Zoning Coordinator spoke about this issue, and stated that he had strongly suggested to the Secretary to this Board, to provide verbatim minutes. He stated, "What I call, or what I think are controversial issues, I have encouraged her to be verbatim - to give precision, and to prevent misunderstandings of what the proceedings were at the meeting". II. Regular Agenda A. Town Center District Code Mr. Grimms introduced this item, and mentioned that this Board at the (previous) November 4, 1998 meeting had requested that "Permitted Uses" be defined - that the concerns of some of the property owners be reviewed; and that the time frame be extended for the proposed adoption of this Item. Mr. Grimms then advised the Board that the City Commission had been apprised of these recommendations, and that the suggested changes have been incorporated into this Item as presented tonight. Discussion. Board Member Fernandez asked why "Attorneys" were specifically mentioned in the "Permitted Uses" section, and he felt that a better way to incorporate this addition would be to state it as either "Professional Offices" or "Attorney's Offices". There was further discussion. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Grimms about a memorandum that was given to Mr. Charles C. Carrington, AICP, Community Development Director, which referenced some of the changes. Chairman Brown then asked the Board if there were any questions. Board Member Fernandez said to Mr. Grimms, "The Ordinance for the City Commission to approve the Town Center guidelines, has been advertised, and there is a scheduled Hearing before the City Commission, is that correct"? Mr. Grimms replied, "Yes, that is correct, for December 14". Board Member Fernandez continued, "And, no matter how we vote, whether to exclude a piece of property, or whatever else, it is going to come up - in front of the City Commission, on December the 14th, whether we recommend it out, recommend it in, approve it, disapprove it, whatever - it's still coming up". Mr. Grimms added, "It is scheduled to come before the City Commission as a Regular Agenda Item, on December 14th - that is correct". Mr. Fernandez continued, "Alright; and specifically on the little package to Charles, and I assume that is Mr. Carrington - ,is there any action that you want this Board to address as to any of the letters or anything about properties being left in or left out or anything"? Mr. Grimms replied, "It's up to the Board to look at this, give their considered opinion, to whether the Town Center boundaci.es are appropriate, and then make recommendation if they see fit, to the full City Commission". Board Member Fernandez then asked Mr. Grimms, "Is it my understanding from previous meetings on this matter - have we clarified, I should say, the question of whether or not, the limited partnerships or the property owners requested to be included in the Town MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LPA DECEMBER 2, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 3 OF 7 Center?" Mr. Grimms answered this query by saying, "My recollection is that there was discussion, and they were invited to come into the Town Center, and I thought there was an agreement there, so we went ahead and developed that - including them in, and of course, Mr. Leerdam has, as you see, in a letter there, indicated his request otherwise". Chairman Brown then asked "Generically, as a lay person, on this conceptual plan, for the comer, where the curve is, I know that that land has been zoned commercial, quite a few years ago"... Mr. Grimms stated, "C-l and C-2". Chairman Brown then also said, "C-l and C - 2. We're constantly talking about a Downtown, and the regulations of the Downtown, to do away with the strip malls, but here we're sticking another strip mall, right on the comer here, with a grocery, and a drugstore, and the retail. . . the parking area there. Am I misunderstanding this concept"? Mr. Grimms stated, "Mr. Chairman. . .interest in the Town Center developing in the way it has, is a result of a number of public meetings, where we got input from the general public, and from the property owners, and so forth. And my recollection again, is that there is a rather strong interest on the part of the public. Especially, they do not want to see any more typical strip shopping centers - that you see all the way along 17-92, State Route 50, and so forth like that, but that they wanted something a bit different - a bit different - noticeably different. And, that is why the orientation went towards the town concept plan that we have now - that incorporates what the planners say - neo-traditional aspects". Discussion. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Carrington, for his comments regarding the conceptual plan. Mr. Carrington then addressed Board Member Fernandez's comments about property owners and any respective zoning changes. Mr. Carrington next explained the various ways that zoning could be changed, and explained to the Board about a conceptual plan that the City had reviewed pertaining to area property. Discussion. Chairman Brown then opened the floor to the public. PUBLIC INPUT: Mr. Michael Grindstaff, 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1000, Orlando, Florida: the law firm that he is affiliated with represents the Schrimsher Group. He spoke to the Board about a number of subjects such as - the Schrimsher's ownership of two of the four comers of the proposed Town Center, and he added that as the largest property owner, that the Town Center would certainly affect them. He mentioned that they do not want this Ordinance approved; he spoke about the development of a shopping center; permitted uses; and the direction of the Development Review Committee (DRC). Mr. Grindstaff further referenced various topics found on page 2 (County Enclaves); page 12 (Market Square); and page 17 (Main Street) of the Town Center District Code. He then saiQ to the Board, "Folks, you have no jurisdiction over two (2) comers ofthat intersection. It's not in the City, and you're asking for the rest of the people, including the Schrimshers, and all the other property owners that are within the City, and within the boundaries to take a risk with you' all - if you were somehow going to have some sort of jurisdiction and get MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LPA DECEMBER 2, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 4 OF 7 these folks to play ball with them. If they don't play ball with them, they can destroy, not just the private property owners, it can also destroy the vision of whoever dreamed this Town Center program up, whenever it came up. You don't control that part of the property". He further spoke about the Schrimsher property being treated differently than other properties. (Chairman Brown asked Mr. Grimms to show the proposed plan on the audio-visual system - there was a brief interruption to the discussion, as this was done). Mr. Grindstaff then discussed interior roadways; how he felt that various properties are being treated differently; that there has been a violation of procedural due process; architectural guidelines; and the discretion of the Development Review Committee (DRC) - including the color of paint; along with the beneficial and reasonable use of the property. Mr. Grindstaff also referenced the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Act and to that effect, he read to those in attendance, a portion of Section 70.001 (1) from the Florida Statutes (see Attachment "A"). Mr. Grindstaff then explained to the Board his understanding of the RFP process for the procurement of a Master Developer for the Town Center; the "below the appraised-value" offer for the Schrimsher property; exclusions to certain properties; and the Kash n'Karry development project. There was discussion about meetings between the Schrimsher Group and the City, followed by Mr. Grindstaff again addressing some of the concerns of the Schrimsher Group. Mr. Carrington next addressed some of the concerns of Mr. Leerdam, and his associates; the issues of density levels; and reasonable use. Mr. Carrington then spoke about annexations; boundary lines; reasonable use of property; and the procurement process for a Master Developer. Tape l/Side B Mr. Carrington advised the Board that the initial offer to the Schrimsher Group was rejected, with no further negotiations made. There was brief discussion about any applicable guidelines for the WiI}.ter Springs High School, as it may pertain to any future changes or renovations. Mr. Carrington also reminded the Board that this proposed plan was still conceptual in nature. There was discussion between Board Member Fernandez, Mr. Carrington, and Mr. Grindstaff regarding the State Road 434 and Tuskawilla Road intersection and related property values. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LPA DECEMBER 2, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 5 OF 7 Mr. Michael A. Schrimsher, 600 East Colonial Drive, Suite 100, Orlando, Florida: spoke on behalf of the partnerships that own the properties East of Tuskawilla Road. Mr. Schrimsher mentioned that he represents Mr. Kingsbury, and advised the Board that there were "Rules about refusing to give services of sewer and water to County Enclaves within the city limits of Winter Springs". Mr. Schrimsher further spoke of zoning designations; and the lack of improvements to the portion of Tuskawilla Road, which leads to Lake Jessup. Mr. Schrimsher spoke for the record, "The exceptions that are listed under the "Permitted Uses" that could be allowed under the Special Exceptions, are bowling alleys, skating rinks, swimming pools, sales and service and supplies. The excluded uses are car wash, mini-mart, convenience store, snack shop, self-service gasoline, retail sale of ice, launderettes and Laundromats, pawn shop and rental shops. It's just a question - should those uses be considered special exceptions? Those recreational uses? And also, it's interesting to note that, other than the last three, Laundromats, pawn shop and rental shops - all those current uses currently exist at the key intersection of the Town Center; Car wash - at the Mobil station; Mini-mart - at the Mobil Station and across the street with the Taco Bell; convenience store; snack store, self-service gasoline. So, if you adopt this plan, you're adopting something that is already, has excluded uses prominent at three of the four comers of the key intersection". Mr. Schrimsher next mentioned the size of parking areas in relation to retail and commercial space and he addressed the issue of "footprint" buildings, in respect to the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Schrimsher spoke of in-line vs. drive-thru fast food restaurants; the McDonalds location; frontage and right-of-ways; permitted/prohibited roofing materials; monument signage; the placement of retention ponds in the plan; the structure of roadways; and the proposed plan with any potential "dealbreakers". There was discussion between Board Member Rosanne Karr, Mr. Carrington, and Mr. Schrimsher about the Schrimsher and Kingsbury properties in relation to the proposed Town Center; aesthetic standards; the Tuscawilla housing community; and the proposed size ofthe Town Center. Board Member Fernandez and Mr. Schrimsher discussed permitted uses and excluded uses (by omission); and the Town Center Overlay Zoning District Regulations. Mr. Schrimsher advised the Board that they have not yet negotiated a Developer's Agreement with the City. There was also discussion about the Master Developer-and the proposed purchase of certain properties. Board Member Fernandez, Mr. Schrimsher, Mr. Grimms, and Mr. Carrington further discussed the respective Developer's Agreement; the proposed size and development of the Town Center; the intended role of the Development Review Committee (DRC); and the results of market studies that have been performed. Tape 2/Side A MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LPA DECEMBER 2, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 6 OF7 There was discussion between Board Member Carl Stephens, Mr. Grimms, and Mr. Carrington about what would be required to change this Ordinance, and the process was outlined. Mr. Schrimsher then spoke about problems he has had trying to negotiate a Developer's Agreement. He also added that there were problems at the end of Tuskawilla Road, as this road is not fully paved, and he commented on access (and proposed access) to Lake Jessup. (There was a brief interruption to the discussion, as the Court Reporter asked to change the paper in her machine). Mr. Ed Leerdam, 175 Lookout Place, in Maitland: representing the Jessup Shores Limited Partnership, and the Jessup Springs Land Limited Partnership, spoke of his concerns about not having received any applicable (new) regulations, and that it was very important that property owners be informed of any changes that are being made. He also asked to be invited to any meetings that involve the Town Center. Mr. Leerdam next mentioned that he had sent a letter (dated October 29th) to Mr. Carrington, asking that his property be deleted from the Town Center. Mr. Schrimsher then asked about the zoning for this property. He also spoke about the demand for grocery stores; and property frontage issues. Mr. Leerdam was asked why he did not want to be a part of this plan, and he briefly stated that it would put him in a "precarious" position. Mr. Schrimsher then spoke to the Board about the proposed plan; frontage; grocery stores; and zoning designations. Motion by Bill Fernandez. "I make a Motion that we recommend approval of these Town Center District Design Codes to the City Commission, based on the findings that our local government should articulate a vision of the future physical appearance and quality in this community; that we have received meaningful public participation at various meetings; that we do need to have an identified Town Center. I will further indicate or add to that that just as the Town Center Overlay Zoning District Regulations of September 8th, 1997 - Ordinance 676, was made inapplicable to the Schrimsher properties, until such time as' a Development Agreement was developed, that in this particular case that I would recommend that the City Commission make this Town Center District Code inapplicable to the Schrimsher property as well as to the gentlemen's property in the descriptions here, the Spring Land Investment Ltd., and Jessup Shores Ltd. EuroAmerican Investors Group represented by Sunbelt Investors Group; Mr. A.C. Leerdam - that it be inapplicable until such time as a Developers Agreement is negotiated with those parties and or the property is purchased by a Master Developer. I would note for MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LPA DECEMBER 2, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 7 OF 7 the record, that since we are acting in our capacity as the Local Planning Agency on a broad scale, as opposed to one single parcel, that we do not need to make the detailed findings of fact that are required when we are dealing with a very small parcel of property. Although I have included in my Motion, general findings of fact, including the presentation of all those who have come forward and spoken this evening, including Mr. Schrimsher and Mr. Leerdam, and as well as Mr. Michael Grindstaff. That's my Motion". Seconded by Rosanne Karr. Vote: Tom Brown: aye; Rosanne Karr: aye; Carl Stephens, Jr.: aye; Bill Fernandez: aye. Motion passed. B. Discussion Of Planning And Zoning BoardlLP A Topic Chart (A Chronological Review) Chairman Tom Brown suggested that due to the lateness of the hour, this item should be cancelled. C. Meeting with Attorney Robert Guthrie On The Draft ByLaws/Rules Of Procedure As Mr. Guthrie was not present, Chairman Brown also noted that this item was cancelled. III. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS This item was not discussed. IV. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, Deputy City Clerk City of Winter Springs, Florida APPROVED: ~a~ TOM BROWN, CHAIRMAN PLANNING and ZONING BOARDILP A DOCSlboards/planning/fy9798/minutes/120298.doc Attachment "A" Ch. 70 RELIEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS F.S. 1997 CHAPTER 70 RELIEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 70.001 70.51 Private property rights protection. Land use and environmental dispute resolu- tion. Construction of ch. 95-181. 70.80 70.001 Private property rights protection.- (1) This act may be cited as the "Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act." The Legisla- ture recognizes that some laws, regulations, and ordi- nances of the state and political entities in the state, as applied, may inordinately burden, restrict, or limit pri- vate property rights without amounting to a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Con- stitution. The Legislature determines that there is an important state interest in protecting the interests of pri- vate property owners from such inordinate burdens. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that, as a separate and distinct cause of action from the law of takings, the Legislature herein provides for relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regu- lation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity in the state, as applied, unfairly affects real property. (2) When a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real prop- erty or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real property is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of government, as provided in this section. (3) For purposes of this section: (a) The existence of a "vested right" is to be deter- mined by applying the principles of equitable estoppel or substantive due process under the common law or by applying the statutory law of this state. (b) The term "existing use" means an actual, pres- ent use or activity on the real property, including peri- ods of inactivity which are normally associated with, or are incidental to, the nature or type of use or activity or such reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative 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 prop- erty greater than the fair market value of the actual, present use or activity on the real property_ (c) The term "governmental entity" includes an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or spe- cial act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority. The term does not include the United States or any of its agencies, or an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises govern- mental authority, when exercising the powers of the United States or any of its agencies through a forrnal delegation of federal authority. (d) The term "action of a governmental entity" means a specific action of a governrnental entity which affects real property, including action on an application or permit. (e) The terms "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" mean that an action of one or more govern- mental entities has directly restricted or limited the use of real property such that the property owner is perma- nently unable to altain the reasonable, investment- backed expectation for the existing use of the real prop- erty or a vested right to a specific use of the real prop- erty with respect to the real property as a whole, or that the property owner is left with existing or vested uses that are unreasonable such that the property owner bears permanently a disproportionate share of a bur- den imposed for the good of the public, which in fair~ ness should be borne by the public at large. The terms "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" do not include temporary impacts to real property; impacts to real property occasioned by governmental abatement, prohibition, prevention, or remediation of a public nui- sance at common law or a noxious use of private prop- erty; or impacts to real property caused by an action of a governmental entity taken to grant relief to a property owner under this section. (f) The term "property owner" means the person who holds legal title to the real property at issue. The term does not include a governmental entity. (g) The term "real property" means land and includes any appurtenances and improvements to the land, including any other relevant real property in which the property owner had a relevant interest. (4)(a) Not less than 180 days prior to filing an action under this section against a governmental entity, a property owner who seeks compensation under this section must present the claim in writing to the head of the governmental entity. The property owner must sub- mit, along with the claim, a bona fide, valid appraisal that supports the claim and demonstrates the loss in fair market value to the real property. If the action of government is the culmination of a process that involves more than one governmental entity, or if a complete resolution of all relevant issues, in the view of the property owner or in the view of a governmental entity to whom a claim is presented, requires the active participation of more than one governmental entity, the property owner shall present the claim as provided in this section to each of the governmental entities. (b) The governmental entity shall provide written notice of the claim to all parties to any administrative action that gave rise to the claim, and to owners of real property contiguous to the owner's property at the addresses listed on the most recent county tax rolls. Within 15 days after the claim being presented, the governmental entity shall report the claim in writing to the Department of Legal Affairs, and shall provide the department with the name, address, and telephone number of the employee of the governmental entity from whom additional information may be obtained about the claim during the pendency of the claim and any subsequent judicial action. 532 ..;'.....