Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 07 19 City Commission Workshop Minutes . WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS JULY 19, 1993 The Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Philip A. Kulbes at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Mayor Philip A. Kulbes, present Deputy Mayor John V. Torcaso, present City Manager John Govoruhk, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, absent Commissioners: Don Jonas, present John Langellotti, present Terri Donnelly, present Cindy Kaehler, absent Discussion of Rezoning Request-80 acre parcel east of Fisher Road, south of Panama Road and west of power easement from RC-l to Rl-A not to exceed 3.5 units per gross acre: Greg Kern, City Planner, explained the Workshop Meeting is to review a rezoning request that was submitted to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 2, 1993. The request is to go from RC-l to Rl-A zoning. . He explained the main issue we have is that we have an inconsistency between the Future Land Use Map that was adopted April 27, 1992 and our current zoning map. The basic inconsistency is the land use classification on the Future Land Use Map shows lower density residential. That allows 1.1 to 3.5 DU per acre. The under- lying zoning of the parcel in question is RC-l. Rc-l mandates acre minimum lots. As a result, the way the property is zoned and classified on the land use map, it cannot be developed. It has to be rezoned or reclassified to allow development. Mr. Kern explained this is a common situation when a municipality adopts a new future land use map. Florida Statutes 163.3194 mandate that if you have an inconsistency between the Future Land Use Map and the zoning map, the provisions of the most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map dictate how you will issue development orders. It also states that the zoning should be brought into compliance with the Future Land Use Map. Mr. Kern said he presented the Commission with a packet of materials reviewing some history of this property. If the Commission believes the Comprehensive Plan was in- correct in assigning lower density classification, then they should follow the P&Z Board's recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan changing the classification to Rustic Residential. If however, the Commission believes the land use classification assignment was appropriate considering the likelihood of the lot sizes that would be less than one acre in size, then the zoning request should be approved. . Mr. Kern said he was asked to discuss how that property got the designation of lower density residential. It was done under the former City Planner back in approximately January 1992. The property back in 1982 under our Future Land Use Map was Rural Residential, one dwelling unit per acre minimum. Mr. Kern said we have a residential dwelling unit database here at the City where we tract the development of projects throughout the City, tracking number of homes, acreage, etc. The City Planner noted this property would have 90 acres of developable land and projected 80 lots. Simple math tells you that is less than 1 DU per acre and that should fall under Rustic Residential according to that criteria; however in approximately January 1992 that was changed to lower density residential. . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, January 19, 1992 Page 2 Mr. Kern said he cannot give the Commission any written data or analysis why that was done. As he stated in his cover letter he can only project that it was done to be consistent with the areas around Arnold Lane and south of Arnold Lane where you have lots anywhere from .5 acres to 2 acres, but overall their density is less than 1 DU per acre over the gross acreage. Mr. Kern said the main question tonight is, "was the Comprehensive Plan done correctly in this area? Were the assignments valid given the information that was available at the time? Were they approved by the City? Did they go through public review, etc. or was it flawed and possibly that map is not correct in that particular area. Don McIntosh, representing the developer Dr. Earley, spoke to the Commission. Mr. McIntosh explained the Earley's owned this property some 12 years ago and then sold it to an individual who gave Dr. Earley a mortgage. Several years back he was unable to honor his commitment under the mortgage, and as a result Dr. Earley ended up with the property back. Dr. Earley has not been a party to any application other than the applications that are before you now, specifically the Rl-A application for rezoning to bring the zoning category consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. . Mr. McIntosh said the property presently is zoned RC-l and the City land use designa- tion was approved in April 1992 and previously approved by the Department of Community Affairs. It sets forward a low density residential category of 1.1 to 3.5 units per acre. The application for rezoning from Dr. Earley was submitted after meetings with Staff and an understanding that he could not move forward with development of this property with the inconsistency between the zoning category and the Comprehensive Plan category. As a result of that an application was filed for an Rl-A category, a category that is consistent with the land use plan designation. Mr. McIntosh explained the homeowners association in the Ranchlands area held a meeting on July 8th, and he was invited to attend, which he did and he spent an hour or an hour and a half with some 60 or 70 residents and he appreciated the feedback. Since that time he has worked to provide some of the answers to the questions that were asked there. Mr. McIntosh said the goal he has is to seek the Commission's guidance regarding the application so Dr. Earley can have a reasonable use of his land while the area residents concerns are dealt with to the extent they can be. Mr. McIntosh explained the site is approximately l14~ acres all total. It is comprised of two parcels. The major tract, part of it lying east and part of it lying west of the power line easement that runs north and south. Fisher Road is the western boundary to the property. Panama on the north and he pointed to Shore Road. Mr. McIntosh pointed to the other tract owned by Dr. Earley which is essentially sandwiched in between a lot of City owned land. Dunmar Estates is southeast of the property and the Ranch- lands to the west and north. The application is before you for the 80 acres. Mr. McIntosh said there were questions about the environment by several residents. He said the wetlands limitations have been surveyed and identified. All required permits for dealing with the habitat and the protection of the habitat will be obtained. . Drainage was another issue that was discussed. The query was what happens to the storm water that runs through this site? The drainage moves from the west side of the prop- erty to the property on the east, then north, then east again running essentially ~ Workshop Meeting, City Commission, July 19, 1993 through the southern part of Eagle Ridge, the eastern part of Eagle Ridge then out the same drainage network that runs eventually to Lake Jesup. Page 3 The next issue is site access. Site access is provided one of a couple ways explained Mr. McIntosh. Site access is provided from Fisher Road which is an existing dirt road and Panama Road on the north side but more logically and consistently with long range plans, the City's roadway improvement program via Shore Road which is planned to be extended from its northern terminus to approximately 2,000+ feet north of this property through the property or adjacent to the property down to Fisher Road and Lake Road's intersection which is again the present terminus of the paved section. In addition long range plans include extension to Panama Road that would eventually hook up with Eagle Ridge improvements that has begun construction, specifically Eagle Ridge Boulevard which runs to S.R. 434. The most logical access especially in light of some of the feedback he has heard, and that is most of the residents in the area have expressed very loudly that they do not want Fisher Road paved, it seems apparent the most probable and logical access for this area would be some sort of coordination with Shore Road's extension. ~ Mr. McIntosh explained the property is surrounded on the west by the Ranchlands and they found categories RC-l and Rl-AA. He said they did a survey of 84 lots and of them 68 homesites. Of the 84 lots only 68 had homes on them. From the Seminole County Property Appraiser's office information was obtained that shows the average assessed value for the 68 homes was $119,500. The average home sale value was $123,256. They found that 9 homes in the area were less then 1600 sq. feet and they found 30 lots less than an acre in size. That canvassed area was the Ranchlands specifically ad- jacent to this property. Mr. McIntosh said they met with the residents and their concerns were about lot sizes, property values as it relates to house sizes; and they were concerned about the protection of the area environment. They expressed concern about leaving Fisher Road unpaved, expressed concerns for area roadway impact due to this land use. They were concerned about area drainage impacts due to the development, protection of the area property values, the potential for increased crime caused by this development, and for the preservation or protection of the area's character and lifestyle, and the impact on area schools. ~ Mr. McIntosh said they have put together a land use plan that is essentially a com- promise, and he showed it to the Commission. He explained the plan is a colored rendering showing the infrastructure road network. It represents a change from the previously requested Rl-A to Rl-AA category which is more consistent with the adjacent land uses, that is specifically 90 ft. minimum width lot and 10,000 minimum lot size. Second thing it shows is a voluntary minimum house size commitement which represents a commitement on the part of Dr. Earley to have the minimum lot size con- sistent with the existing RC-l lot size. The smallest house would be greater than the 15 to 18% of the houses in the adjacent neighborhood. Theplan represents no access directly from project lots to Fisher Road. So there is no access proposed in fact dedication of access rights to Fisher Road to insure that Fisher Road will stay in its present condition for the purpose of the individuals who live to the west. It establishes a 50 foot buffer, preservation area, natural area along Fisher Road that runs the entire width of the property as well as the northern boundary along Panama Road. It effectively screens the individuals west and north from proposed uses. . . . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, July 19, 1993 Page 4 That 50 feet combined with the right of ways ends up being a m~n~mum of 100 feet of distance between anyone's property line and the closest possible lot line. Mr. McIntosh said they have reduced voluntarily the total lot count to a maximum of 160. That does compare to the 200+ mentioned earlier and virtually a 60 lot reduction in the intitial proposal. Depending upon the number of acres you use that with, l14~ acres, it is a density of 1.4 over the whole ownership which is the lower end of the lower density residential category. Mr. McIntosh said portions of Shore Road will be built coincident with this development. They felt it essential to provide access from Shore Road. They are proposing to build approximately 2100 lineal feet of Shore Road to the north, about 400+ feet of Shore Road to the south, pave it and build it to collector standards which is what the City requirement for this road network is. This is a function for building that road would be a candidate for traffic impact fees, that is to say, a credit would be given for each one of the lots for the amount that is used to build those roads. However, there is roughly 40% of the monies needed in traffic impact fees to be generated by this development to build the road so the traffic impact fees will not near compensate Dr. Earley for the off-site road improvements. Mr. McIntosh explained the idea is to build Shore Road in a fashion that brings it both north and south to the point where it will stop providing access to the develop- ment's internal and the development's road network will be a continuous local street cross section much the same as is found in the Ranchlands. This proposal will allow for a north south transportation corridor without any funding for any more improve- ments to be made unless the City decides that they need a collector road eventually running north and south and in order to facilitate that should the City decide in some point in time in the future they want to build Shore Road, he said they would work with the City in the area needed to combine it with the existing power line easement adjacent land next in order to provide sufficient right of way to house basically the 60 feet that is needed in order to house Shore Road's future extension. The program then is to provide a sensitivity to access points not access roads that are of major concern but as importantly to build the road network such that it is consistent with the City's long range road improvement program and plan and this provides the City a great deal of flexibility both to have an immediate connection and the option to build a future collector, or if in their wisdom, the local street if it should provide the transportation corridor there will not be a need to spend any more public funds. Mr. McIntosh explained the preserved wetlands in the property and the power line easement, 175 feet wide will provide some measure of screening and protection from the residents to the south and east. That power line is presently there, it is clear, nonetheless it is a significant distance from the Earley useable property on the west side of the power line to the east side and the proposed Shore Road right of way would be on the western side of this 175 feet right of way partially in the right of way, partially out. Lastly the land east and north that Mr. McIntosh mentioned will be used for retention mitigation, conservation and recreation. The result will be a less dense then orig- inally requested project and still very much consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan designation as was mentioned earlier based on the 115 acres somewhere in the . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, July 19, 1993 Page 5 vicinity of 1.4 units per acre with 160 unit cap, greater buffers for adjacent owners larger home sizes to protect area property values and be more consistent with what is built out there and to accommodate the long and short range roadway improvement program. Miranda Fitzgerald with Maguire, Voorhees & Wells Law Firm, also representing Dr. Earley, said she was going to talk about what Mr. Kern mentioned, the inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning designation that is currently on this property. . Attorney Fitzgerald spoke about the lengthy process the City went through in adopting their Comprehensive Plan. She said that process is governed by statute. The notice requirements were met by the City as far as they have been able to ascertain, the DCA had input. As you read your Comprehensive Plan policies as they have been adopted, one of the things that comes across very clearly is the concern by the City on how it will deal with its future growth, how the City is going to accommodate over a 20 year period all of the new residents that are expected. When you read the Comprehensive Plan and the data and analysis that went into that, the 1990 popula- tion that was used as a basis for the Plan projected or indicated that there were about 23,000 citizens of the City of Winter Springs at that time. As part of the planning process the City has taken upon itself commitements to accommodate over 37,000 residents by the year 2010. That is a significant increase and as you read the Comprehensive Plan policies some of the means that were identified of accommodating that growth was to deal very sensitively with infill areas, undeveloped areas of the City that did not have plans of development for them and to allow those areas to develop at slightly higher intentsity, again as a means of better utilizing vacant land in the City. She said as you read the Comprehensive Plan policies one of the things that is interesting is in the definitions of lower density residential. She said it suggests to her that a great deal of sensitivity was used in designating this particular piece of property that we are here about with that classification because it says in the definition, this classification is not proposed to be applied widely to undeveloped unplanned land but used selectively to fill in areas where greater density residential would conflict with nearby neighborhoods. Attorney Fitzgerald reading that, and what that said to her was that planners viewed as an option of dealing with that undeveloped area that they identified as an infill area, the possibility of putting an even higher intensity on it and a thought that tht higher intensity would not be compatible clearly with the nearby neighborhood and through a very selective method decided the lower density residential, the 1.1 DU to 3.5 DU would be a transition to the other neighborhoods and would not overburden and would be a compatible mix, again trying to accommodate the goal of including areas to accommodate somewhat higher intensity to accommodate all the residents that are pro- jected over the next several years. . She spoke about the case of Garden Country Club Inc. vs. Palm Beach County. It came out of the Fourth District Court of Appeals and because it is so close to the situation we have here she said she wanted to tell about it. In that situation a property owner had applied for a rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan tht was on the books at the time the application was filed. He wanted 1 DU per 2 acres which was allowed under the Comprehensive Plan designation that he had on the property, the adopted plan had a density range and his zoning request was consistent. . . . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, July 19, 1993 Page 6 At the time his application was pending the City determined that it wanted to change the Comprehensive Plan designation on that property to 1 DU per 20 acres, a significant reduction. The court in that particular case indicated that the fact that the City had been contemplating this change back to 1 DU to 20 acres was irrelevant. The fact that the court relied on was a provision in the statute that says once a city or county adopts a Comprehensive Plan, that Plan is effective until the date it is changed, and the fact that discussion may have been ongoing for a contemplated change for that designation was irrelevant. The fact of the matter was the property owner was entitled to apply for a zoning consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan in effect at the time his application was filed. That is really the situation we have here. As Mr. McIntosh stated earlier Dr. Earley has come to the City and applied for a zoning that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan adopted albeit we fully recognize it is not a popular request and that is why we are here trying to work within the parameters of the Comprehensive Plan as it exists and structure a zoning category to this property that will in fact be consistent with the existing plan and yet be more sensitive to the concerns of the residents that we heard in the meeting the other night. Attorney Fitzgerald said if you assume that the Comprehensive Plan designation of lower density residential is valid and binding at least as far as the application that is before you, then the range of options the City has are somewhat limited, I believe. She said if you let us go forward with the compromise they have asked for, a total of 160 lots and in return for that they have offered several restrictions that would not be on the table under a straight Rl-AAA zoning. She said Rl-AAA zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which allows 1.1 DU per acre through 3.5 DU per acre, and she said she thinks that would be shortsighted on the part of the City because that would mean they would have access to Fisher Road, the house size commitement would not be there. She said they have offered commitements to allow them to have 52 additional lots on this site that we think are significant from the City's standpoint. The paving of unpaved portions of Shore Road, the 50 foot natural buffer, the dedication of access along Fisher Road, no houses that front Fisher Road, no houses that have any access whatsoever to Fisher Road, the requirement or commitement that everything will be internalized, all of the lots will be internal- ized into the site and in return the trade off for that is some additional lots, basically 52 additional lots over what they could get with the Rl-AAA category and a commitement that the house size would be equivalent of the RC-l house size~ Attorney Fitzgerald said she thinks the compromise is a fair trade off for what they are offering the City, it is consideration for going forward with the modified zoning application and they are asking for the City's consideration of it. David Hopkins, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board, suggested there needs to be more research done on this; he believes there is an inconsistency here. David McLeod, member of the Planning & Zoning Board, said in the development of the Comprehensive Plan the previous City Planner had mentioned changing the density of this piece of property from 1 DU to 3.5. The plan was turned down by the P&Z Board. He said he has spent his weekend searching through files at his home looking for documentation to show where this particular piece of property ever came back to P&Z for approval to change from 1 to 3.5. Workshop Meeting, City Commission, July 19, 1993 Page 7 . John Ferring, Planning & Zoning Board member, said he was in consistency with what the other members said; and he had no recollection of changing the land use. The City Planner said there was a change approximately in January 1992 to our residential dwelling unit database when this property was described as having 90 acres and 80 total projected lots was in fact changed from rustic residential to lower density residential. That was done in our dwelling unit database. Mr. Kern explained that particular change, to his knowledge, never came before the P&Z Board formally. That is the research Mr. McLeod is saying we should do to find out when this did occur. Mayor Kulbes called a recess at 8:15 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 8:25 p.m. Then Mayor Kulbes opened the meeting for public comment. Charles Angelier, Fisher Road, wanted to know why something like this happened. He said he is against it, it should be 1 house per acre. Frank Steber, Tradewinds East, spoke about the impact of the surrounding area. He said this plan does not fit. Carl Stephens, Fisher Road, president of the Ranchlands Homeowners Assn., said they are opposed to any zoning request of Rl-AA or any changes other than the one house per acre that now exists. He said they would go along with the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow 1.1 DU per acre which is rustic residential. . He said when this Comprehensive Plan was adopted the Ranchland residents depended on the City to inform them of what was going on. He said the only zoning that is compatible with the area is RC-l. He spoke about the traffic and the problem with schools. He said an engineering firm back in 1977 said that 40 to 50% of that land is flood prone that lies within the 100 year elevation. He said now we are talking about increasing the density on that land. Attorney Neil McCulloh, with the firm of Clayton & McCulloh representing the Ranchlands Homeowners Association, spoke to the Commission. He said these citizens out here are looking for their welfare to be protected. He said it appears that they were represented that this area was going to remain at one acre, 1 DU per acre. He said your citizens should not be penalized. Joseph McMillan, lives in the Ranchlands, said he moved to the Ranchlands because of the solitude and natural beauty of the land. He said if this development existed in the way that it is proposed, he would not have moved here. . Carol Alvine, East Tradewinds Road, said at the meeting where Mr. Earley came to their workshop, she asked the attorney if she could guarantee that Mrs. Alvine would not lose property values since she lives directly across the street from Fisher Road, and the attorney answered no. She said we unanimously told these people, and there was only one person that was willing in any way that thought there might be a compromise, every other person in the Ranchlands said no compromise, one acre zoning. She said she hopes the Commissioners will bear in mind that to future decisions regarding Dunmar and the Ranchlands they depend wholly on them to implement their wishes to all people who will attempt to ravage their lifestyles and reap profits from inappropriate developments especially in this instance where the property was originally purchased under one acre zoning many years ago. . . . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, July 19, 1993 Page 8 Mrs. Alvine said they beg the Commission to amend the Comprehensive Plan to correct the errors and defend the rustic residential zoning of more than 300 families in the Ranchlands and in Dunmar whose home will surround this high density development. She said we really are here tonight to beg you to implement our taxpayer wishes and desires. David Barowski, Fisher Road, said he will be directly across the street from this development which does not please him at all. He said he is upset he was not notified of the changes in the Comprehensive Plan. Henderson Wilder, East Bahama Road, said he is opposed to this type of development because it is not .compatible with what is there. Dr. Moseley, said he lives in this area next to this proposed development. He said he has a 40 acre horse farm and also has 30 acres. He has lived there for 10 years and has a considerable investment in terms of buildings, barns, it is totally irrigated and has probably close to a two million dollar investment in this land. Dr. Moseley said he understands the Commission is not bound by the Comprehensive Plan; they can change it if they have a compelling reason. He said what is wrong with the desires of the electorate, the desires of the people that are paying the property taxes. Dr. Moseley spoke about the drainage would drain right into his pasture; he spoke about problems with crime. He asked the Commission to consider to be consistent with what the rest of the property is out there. Ron Keene, current president of the Dunmar Estates Association, said he has been contacting all of the homeowners in Dunmar and all the ones he has contacted have unanimously said they are not in favor of this development. Mayor Kulbes then closed the public input and reconvened the Workshop. Mayor Kulbes said he will ask Staff to research this. He said the School Board has asked for a meeting to discuss the new high school and he said he would notify them we could meet on August 2, 16 or 23rd in a Workshop Session. Meeting was adjourned 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~-r. ~ Mary T. Norton, City Clerk