Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 11 15 City Commission Workshop Minutes . WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS NOVEMBER 15, 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 Also Present: Attorney Keith Bricklemyer Fred Goodrow, Henigar & Ray Discussion of Ord. No. 552, amending Ord. No. 534 regarding the procedures for determination of vested rights; establishing a procedure for vested rights determina- tions for individual parcel owners within a master Planned Project, etc.: Attorney Bricklemyer discussed. Ordinance No. 552. He explained that other property owners could potentially divest other owners in a Planned Unit Development. One of the owners came in and said he wanted to be dealt with individually. The response was providing he met the requirements under the ordinance to get a special use vested rights permit he could be. There was no procedure in the vested rights ordinance to deal with that kind of an issue so it was done without a procedure being in place. All this ordinance does is recognize what was done in that circumstance, and it provides an opportunity for another person to do the same thing. The window of opportunity expires November 23, 1993. The reason is the ordinance says that in order to secure a vested rights special use permit, you have to file within one year of the adoption of the ordinance. That was a year ago on November 23rd. Commissioners: Don Jonas, absent John Langellotti, present Terri Donnelly, absent Cindy Kaehler, present Attorney Bricklemyer explained there is one proviso and that proviso is if property is rezoned to conform to the Comprehensive Plan, then they would have a year from that date to file for a vested rights special use permit, so there is a remote possibility that something like that would happen; however, the City's current approach is to eliminate zoning in the City, so it is unlikely that is going to occur either. Commissioner Kaehler asked if that has anything to do with redesignations within the zoning Planned Unit Development because the property that is in question is redesignated not rezoned, it is zoned Planned Unit Development. Attorney Bricklemyer answered no, it is the Comprehensive Plan designation that exists by virtue of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan designa- tion is different from what was permitted under the zoning, and the zoning was changed to conform to the Comprehensive Plan then that person would have a year from that point in time to come in and say, you cannot rezone me, I have a vested right to continue with my existing use or to continue with myoId zoning. Commissioner Kaehler asked, "what you are telling me, there is very little likelihood of us rezoning a Planned Unit Development.. This will not affect any of the property owners who at some point in time would stand up and say that they want vesting under the loophole". . Attorney Bricklemyer answered that opportunity for all practical purposes is going to expire Nov. 23rd. He said all they were trying to do was to establish a procedure in the ordinance that reflected what had been done for one other property owner, and . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, November 15, 1993 Page 2 because it has taken so long to get to this point, it may be of no consequence. Commissioner Kaehler said if this ordinance is on the agenda for November 22nd"for action, it expires the next day. Attorney Bricklemyer said with the one caveat, if a rezoning is done there is still a window of opportunity there. Commissioner Kaehler said if there is still the window of opportunity there, then her original question still stands and that is if somebody comes in for a piece of property and everybody else around him decides to rezone or use their property for something else and they have a core in the middle with something different and everything around is incompatible, then how does that work? Attorney Bricklemyer explained if the person who gets the vested rights permit meets the legal requirements for a vested rights permit, then that is just the way the world is. Commissioner Kaehler asked if there was a problem with just doing nothing and Attorney Bricklemyer answered at this point he didn't think so. Commissioner Kaehler said she would rather handle it on an individual basis than to have another opening. Attorney Bricklemyer said it really is not another opening, it does nothing to broaden the rights of a property owner. He said because of the anniversary date of the ordinance and the fact that the window for requesting vested rights closes on the 23rd, he thinks it is relatively mute. . Discussion on the aRC Report: Attorney Bricklemyer explained this is the first batch of plan amendments that the City has processed, and this particular batch of amendments were processed without his review and he was not sure if Attorney Kruppenbacher had reviewed them. He said when they received the response back from DCA he thought it would be better for the Commission to look at these questions and proposed responses in a Workshop format. He said the time- frame is such that if we are going to stay within the statutory deadline to respond we need to adopt it at the Nov. 22nd meeting. This is to give the Commission information on what amendments have been forwarded to DCA, what their concerns are and what your Staff recommendations are on these amendments and your consultants recommendations on those amendments. Fred Goodrow, Henigar & Ray, explained a Comprehensive Plan amendment is not a rezoning. He said you need to ask yourself questions when Comprehensive Plan amendments come before you such as what are you trying to accomplish here, what is the City trying to accomplish here, what are the basis for the changes, does the data and analysis that is provided add up, is there a reason for this change and will it work, and most importantly, what is your vision for this community. Another question is why did we not designate this particular area what this applicant is asking for in the first place. That is the real rudiment of the whole issue. Why didn't we do it in the first place. Mr. Goodrow said the Commission has a memo from him to the City Manager regarding the summary recommendations dated November 10, 1993. He said that memo refers to the aRC report and to summarize, his recommendations have been to withdraw just about all of these particular parts. of this application. He said he thinks most of the plan amend- ments changes are premature and there has been no basis established in his reading of the application to warrant those changes. . . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, November 15, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Goodrow recommended in his memo that Sec. lA.la. Amendment be"withdrawn altogether. It is late just so long as we continue to work towards it. Attorney Bricklemyer said the proposed amendment was to delete by Oct. 1991 the provision in the Comprehensive Plan that says you shall adopt Concurrency Ordinance by October 1991 and unfortunately when October 1991 was deleted no alternative date was put in there. Mr. Goodrow explained in b. the amendment to policy F-4 has been proposed in order to implement a legal settlement agreement between the City and the developer in a portion of the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development. He said the bottom line here is they are telling you that you have a legal settlement agreement and there is probably no reason for this amendment to go forward. Again Mr. Goodrow's recommendation was to withdraw this amendment and just deal with the settlement agreement. Commissioner Kaehler asked what has the application from Recreational Use to Lower Density Residential got to do with the collector road policy and whether or not we have individual access? Mr. Goodrow explained the issue that was brought about by that change created a parcel that needed more access to collector roads but the policies the City had would not do it. He said he presumed they went back and tried to solve two problems. They tried to solve it once with a plan amendment change in the land use and a policy change in the transportation plan to allow the collector road access. The Land Development Coordinator explained the Settlement Agreement with Mikes would have single lots on both Winter Springs Boulevard and Northern Way; it was recreational in the Future Land Use Map and he took us to court for the 110 guest cottages, that is the settlement agreement. . Commissioner Kaehler said as long as we have something up on the map at City Hall that says that the pegged areas are governed by the Settlement Agreement, have the changes up there she doesn't have a problem with just going ahead and leaving it the way that it is and withdrawing it. Mr. Goodrow said what we will do is amend the amendment so that it gives you an option when there is no other option for a residential driveway. On c. Mr. Goodrow said once we decide what we are going to keep in this amendment process we will have to go back and do an analysis of the Traffic Circulation System and the Data and Analysis that appeared in the original plan which is on Table TC-T7 in Volume One of the Comprehensive Plan. In 2 Mr. Goodrow said these objections refer to the background information and 2a and 2b have already been discussed. He said on 2C Traffic Circulation Element, again we have already discussed this and we need to make sure there is consistency in the data and analysis with the proposed policy change. Mr. Goodrow said in his summary memo is a recommendation about deleting the word "new". On IIA.l, on Page 4 of the ORC Report, Item 3.C.l floor area ratio for commercial; Mr. Goodrow said that amendment:cam: be withdrawn altogether; Mr. Goodrow explained if that had not been brought to DCA's attention it would not have mattered. He said if you want to create a height restriction then you ought to go ahead and change that and as Attorney Bricklemyer has suggested put a floor area ratio of 1.0. . Commissioner Kaehler said the controls can be written in the Land Development Regula- tions. Then the only restriction should be ~hether or not the Fire Department can handle the 50 feet. . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, November 15, 1993 Page 4 On page 5 of the ORC Report, the Capital Improvements Element, Mr. Goodrow explained what DCA is saying if you are going to increase the amount of development in some manner in some area of the City you have to have done the data and analysis that says you can support that increase and intensity of use, your water system, your sewer system, your road systems and everything else, and if in doing that analysis you determine you are going to have to lay some more water lines or more sewer lines or widen some streets, etc., you have to reflect that in some manner in this Capital Improvements Element. Mr. Goodrow said the City did not do the data and analysis necessary to come up with any of that, so he does not know whether or not we would have to amend the Capital Improvements Element. Mr. Goodrow said when we get finished this evening he will have a better "feel" for whether or not we are going to have to address the Capital Improvements Element because of some kind of increase in water, sewer, roadways and things like that. On Page 6 which is the Future Land Use Map, which has to do with annexations, Mr. Goodrow discussed the ButtontCrescent,View annexation. Mr. Goodrow said it is his understanding this property is in the process or has been purchased by the School Board and its appropriate designation would be public. Until that contract either does not go through, or the property is not bought there is no reason to change that designation. So this amendment needs to be in there, but it needs to be public because we are changing a County designation to a City designation which should be public, and that does have to be done because it is required us to make the necessary changes. Otherwise we would have to continue doing whatever the provisions of the County Comprehensive Plan are. . Mr. Goodrow said his recommendation is to just withdraw this amendment and see what happens with the School Board contract. If the contract goes through then we could come back with an amendment and make it public. Don LeBlanc said the School Board is going through with it and he suggested we should do it public because it is annexed into the City. He said the property is annexed and we have it on our land use map as public. Mr. Goodrow said the next one is the Sprague amendment. The issue was one of public facilities, specifically sewer. According to our policies in the Comprehensive Plan if you are within one quarter mile of the existing sewer service you are required to connect, and apparently DCA figured out that we were not requiring this particular anexee as a condition of the plan amendment to connect to the sewer system. He advised we require them to connect as they are within one quarter mile. Mr. Goodrow suggested the"Utility Director give a letter saying there is no connection within a quarter of a mile of that site. . On page 7, Future Land Use Map: Amendments other than annexations, Mr. Goodrow spoke about the Springs Land Property. He said here is a case where a property owner has gone through the vesting provisions and evidently came out of that process with an approval, a vested approval to do whatever that person feels appropriate. If they are vested there is no reason to go back and change the Comprehensive Plan. He said we may have a mapping problem but you can not tell anybody what they really can do; vesting is vesting, they can do it. If you start throwing vestings into the Comprehensive Plan amendment process you have to start taking into account all the data and analysis that that site generates which can create more problems later on. . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, November 15, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Goodrow said if they are vested, they are vested and he suggested that be removed from the amendments. On the Schrimsher Property his recommendation was to drop this one also. Mr. Goodrow said with the exception of that one annexation as far as the properties are concerned he recommends they all be withdrawn. Mr. Goodrow said the Parker property, the owner really does not have any idea what they want to do with this tract and therefore he recommends we withdraw that request. On the Blumberg property it is already designated mixed use which means they can actually use 50% of the property for commercial use. Most of this tract of land is not even on a major roadway so if they wanted to put commercial on it they could do the front part of the site as commercial and the rest residential. 26, 26B and 26C-again this appears to be a premature request. There was discussion of eliminating the lower range of density. Attorney Randy Fitzgerald, with the law firm of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed spoke to the Commission. She said when the legislature passed the 1985 amendments to the Comprehensive Planning statute they said that if anybody has a problem with any Comprehensive Plan issue they have to appear before the local government and raise the issues that are of concern to them in a public forum, or in writing and they have left it enough of an open end that you do not really know how much you have to do to put on record concerns that you have. . Attorney Fitzgerald wanted to speak on the issue about the elimination of the lower range of density in the Comprehensive Plan categories. She said she agreed with Attorney Bricklemyer that a lot of local governments have elected to eliminate the lower ranges of densities and for a lot of property owners and developers that is a benefit because if you are coming in and the Comprehensive Plan says you have to have four dwelling units to ten dwelling units and your layout only gets you three, you do not want to have to amend the Comprehensive Plan. She said unfortunately they are in a situation, as you all know, she is here tonight representing Dr. Earley. She said she perceives that this same issue, this same policy might be turned around and argued that it could require us to now all of a sudden come back and request or give the City the ability not to grant intensities that are currently in the Comprehensive Plan. She said she thinks it ought to be up to the applicant. If the applicant is having a problem to come in and say yes I'd like a higher or lower density and have some flexibility. In this case based on everything they have been through with the residents, knowing how heated this issue is with residents of the Ranchlands, she said our concern is that by taking out those lower densities it could be used against this project to say even though you applied for a zoning designation that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at the time after your application was in and you were discussing all of this with Staff, we have since taken out that lower range of density and now all of a sudden the City thinks it has the authority to say we can as a City tell you that you cannot develop it as intensely as you want to and that creates a concern for us. . . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, November 15, 1993 Page 6 She said she does not know where this is going. She said personally she thinks that because they have applied for a zoning under an adopted Comprehensive Plan that has the lower range of density, and the maximum and they have come in and asked for something within that range, that the action that the City will be taking at the next meeting does not affect us at all. She said they ought to be able to proceed and be dealt as if the plan had a minimum range of density as it did on the day that the applications were filed. Attorney Fitzgerald said she wanted to put that on the record to let the City know that they do have some concerns and she urged the Commissioners as they go back and look at these Comprehensive Plan policies to adopt the type of policy that DCA has suggested because their concerns, DCA's concerns as you all heard through all of this, one of their concerns is that everything has to fit together, you have to have medium range density, lower range density, higher range density to accommodate your population. She said she thinks the fear is that by taking out the lower ranges it may be creating more of an opportunity for urban sprawl so that you spread develop- ment out more rather than maximizing the utility systems and creating more of an opportunity for moderate range housing in areas where it really is appropriate and can be done in a compatible manner. She urged the Commission to adopt the type of policies that DCA has suggested to prevent that urban sprawl type of development. Commissioner Kaehler said usually property owners come before us and they do not like any controls, and here we are trying to give property owners a little bit more control over their property and you are telling us that you do not want it. . Attorney Fitzgerald said she is concerned about the timing and about the potential for residents in the area to think that by having this Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted just in the sequence of events all of a sudden that they may urge you to take and apply those new policies to an application that has been pending for quite some time and she said she did not think that was appropriate. Discussion followed. Attorney Goodrow said when the City writes their LDR's they are required to provide provisions to insure that properties are appropriately buffered or are compatible with each other. He said he has seen that kind of strategy used in LDR's where you want to keep some semblance of densities. He said usually what happens where you want that to happen is when someone has a very high density parcel of ground and this person next to him has a very high density parcel of ground but this one is undeveloped, and they want to lower their density down, they build a bunch of houses in there. Then this person comes in and he wants his ten units per acre and those folks turn out at the hearings; there is nothing you can do about it. So what you do is you build in some buffering standards and make sure that they are buffered appropriately from future development of high densities. Discussion. Attorney Fitzgerald said their concern is strictly a timing issue. She said "I do not think we are concerned in the broad scheme of things with taking out a minimum density, but for the fact that we do feel we have relied on a Comprehensive Plan designation that has that minimum density in it from a timing standpoint. . . . . Workshop Meeting, City Commission, November 15, 1993 Page 7 What I am suggesting is if Commissioner Kaehler has some issues that maybe need to be thought about a little bit more, is it appropriate to not act on this particular policy as you have done with others. Give it a little bit more time; we are working through the process right now on the pending zoning applications that we have filed; they are going to be concluded fairly quickly. I am trying to keep the waters from being muddied. With a new policy right in the middle of a process that was initiated before the Comprehensive Plan was proposed to be changed in this way and maybe that is the best of all worlds. You all take a little more time and think about this. Let us go forward with the zoning that we had in place, just because the timing will work out that way, and then we really do not have an issue there from my client's perspective anyway; I am just concerned about how this new policy is going to effect something that we initiated back in August 1992." Meeting adjourned 8:45 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Mary T. Norton, City Clerk