The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993 07 19 Workshop In--..-'-'----- fttltSIIfI..s &J IS IHIfJ " To S (JI:I/I( 14..E"1'I S tr S ~~,) Yo lJ 1& Ai "'hi f: i:~ IN T Nil /If E Ifl !fT(.)l(li A/J1>~';..ts ~(..~ S ~\}\.\\tn 0--- ,- . X--6 [-:\ ,c21u;JIJ1!J C~, CH/~(l..L.e5 r; A,.J61er....l6L~ ,-~~ S.-lle \l SHeIL (20,J;:> Carl STc-.f/eI1S' #I ~~~ /Cd /~\Pl J-~/' (?r;- '// ) . . /.. (~? / i / ' . /7 .. / . ,- 1/ '7?!!}/!~~ J~;-~~/~;t6~- ~/ ~/7-I] /rt~J:(f;&~;;~~/: ~fP~/ ) " . .1' '-----/ ,/ :/ / / /-;, /, ---y'/ '\. ':'1 .~t// /~I'l:Jl..?/j ,..-:~~ $- r,,/~/ /0*, ((J~ M~SC'aCy. ~~,., t<~ -co.- VQ/J~;"t~fb-. y 2 ;>/} ,A"/ // .I'C' '.;'\ . f / I'\~\ .)';'JX" IcY ,i~ ~ -- l:-.. /~4AA (p s tJ i> tJ A) >>1 A-/r CJ1( CI' . . --" ....""...,.." CtHTCR, SUITt 1000 100 SOu'''' O".".u;.[ .....,..uc: ORLANDO.I"LORIOA 3Z801 'r:l,.[~Jo<lO""[ '.OJ) l...I'OO T(LCCOPI[R '401J 81i CU07 MAGUIRE. VOORHIS & WELLS. P. A. ~k~.j -a~ ~ TWO SOUTH ORANGE PLAZA 2 SOUTH ORANGE AvE..UE . WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (407) 244-1128 ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 2_-1100 TELECOP1ER (407) 423.8796 .['I.[C1'0.... ON 'Me '''''llll. SUITt Je.) I"~. lOV'H "A.80R CITY .OUl..[v....:. MELBOuRNE. rLORIOA 32StOl T[L.[P...ON[ '4011 al.' 1776 ,[...(COPltA '407l 91.-'."8 MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 633 ORLANDO, HORIDA 32802 ""IAMI C[HTCR, 'vlll "60 101 SOVTf'l .1$CAYft.oI[ 80Ul.[",A.O MIAMI. rLORIO'" ))131 T[I..[P",O,",' f )0151 )'''' '601~ TlL.lCOPI[R !30S) )7.-sesl June 24, 1993 \._, ......~ " ". r::,:'^, ','':? .r,'~~ . '. . I ( I !,;.,..~!;:o~, -' ' . "', ,.:., ~ f )'~t j ij , JUr! 2 1 :99] ~ BY HAND DELIVERY elIT/ cr I;V.NTW SflrUNGS Clt ( J.JML Mr. John Govoruhk City Manager City of winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, Florida 32706 Re: Item III.B.1 on City Commission Agenda for June 28, 1993 Rezoning Request of Hubert R. Earley . Dear Mr. Govoruhk: This letter is to request a continuance of the above- referenced agenda item so that a workshop can be scheduled by the City commission on this rezoning request. The workshop will allow the Commission, the Planning and Zoning Board members, the property owner, and the area residents to openly discuss zoning and development issues regarding the property in a less formal setting at a time when the Commission does not have other pressing matters on the agenda. We believe the workshop can provide a forum for reaching a reasonable compromise on the future use of Dr. Earley's property. Don McIntosh and I have spoken by phone with Mr. Frank Stever and Mr. Carl Stevens to inform them (and through them, the other interested homeowners in the area) of this request for a continuance and the scheduling of a workshop. We hope that the continuance and a date for the workshop can be announced at the beginning of the Commission meeting Monday night so that any residents who are present at the meeting will not be further inconvenienced. . Please be the interested readvertising workshop. assured that we will assist the City in informing parties of the workshop and will pay the costs of the public hearings that will occur after the -&t.tJ<UIt?'f" aOt 7511 ~d.x " -./ .....'>......<..'/ Mr. John Govoruhk ,,' JAr :,: / June 24, 1993 ';// Page 2 // '/" I Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, P.A. ~~ ~ ran a F. Fitzge~ ttorneys for Hubert R. Earley . cc: Mayor Phil Kulbes Deputy Mayor John V. Torcaso Commissioner Don Jonas Commissioner John Langellotti Commissioner Terri Donnelly Commissioner Cindy Kaehler Dr. Hubert R. Earley Mr. Donald W. McIntosh, Jr. . . . . CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 327-1800 FAX LETTER: DATE 6/24/93 FAX NO.: 648-1155 TO: Attorney Frank KruooenhRrhpr FROM: Mary Norton City Clerk NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 3 REGARDING: Item III B.1 on City Commission Agenda for June 28, 1993 COMMENTS: PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY IF NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY: (407) 327-1800 TRANSMITTING FROM: dex450 .. . . June 21, 1993 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, PL 32708 RE: Request Por Rezoning, Meeting of June 2, 1993 As a home owner 1n the Ranchlands, I feel as do all my neighbors, that agree1ng to the rezon1ng of said property on pisher Road 1S not 1n the best interest of the residents of Winter Springs. . Large one-acre lots g1 ve rainfall the chance to soak into the ground, back into our water reservour - instead of evaporating on the paved streets that would cover this area. Drainage? I'm sure that you realize that there are many areas 1n Winter Springs that are protected wetlands. By allowing 3-4 houses per acre, you would be jeopardizing the sens1t1ve environment that has attracted home owners to the Ranchlands to begin with. Perhaps you should contact the DER with regards to the changes that would occur should this rezoning be allowed. We need to keep our area safe. Zoning for houses on one-acre lots - not 3-4 houses. In this day and age of environmental awareness, I'm sure you agree that it 1S our responsibility to address these points. Winter Springs supposed to be the "City of Trees " By 18 . rap1ng the land and putting up track houses 1S putting us 1n the same catagory as Altamonte and Casselberry. I'm sure you all take pride 1n our area. By allowing the Ranchlands to be rezoned g1ves way to all lots 1n this area being "chopped" up 1n this same manner. We have a un1que area 1n the Ranchlands. We take pride 1n the fact that we are still a neighborhood that waves at our neighbors, can walk down the streets (enjoying our low crime rate), can ride our horses, it's a great place for children to grow and appreciate the wildlife. Why on earth should it be rezoned for less than one-acre lots? That is greed on the developer's, as well as his lawyer's, part. Please do not let the enticement of increased tax revenue cloud your V1810n of the "whole" picture. . You are backbone progress. our elected to put the officials people's and I hope you V1ews and wishes have the courage and ahead of so called ~ (,/~ s{'.3 . ., . . . June Page 21, 1993 Two I do not believe Mr. Ear ley let alone the Ranchlands. would be next? Convenience any of this. 1S even a resident of Winter Springs, Also, with him owning 115 acres what stores, strip plazas? We do not want This really should be put to a vote of the people, voted you into office to represent interests. There's an old myth that you However, as long as we, as Americans, can just that a myth. Let's continue to be Trees -and not neglect our responsibility cODDlUnity. people. We, the and protect our best can't fight city hall. vote, this will remain known as the City of to our environment and Sincerely, Richard and Cathy Murphy . . '" . . . RESIDENTS OF WINTER SPRINGS OPPOSED TO PROPOSED REZONING OF FISHER ROAD -- ~E AD~S =1Jff!!:t=S~~p?cJ-Z!s~=====~~==c=-i~-lt~~~~=~=~'it$n; ---11-:"-~-~Xl!.cL~~- Ai~------1~4~ln~~t"~. ._r__..:p.s M~f.1"'-_';])"~ rr~W\----..,.,,-....s...-~"--Rl---usI -f.-St.!:.- _ ! 0..._ __ 0 !.L _.:.. a.!~~____..JJ"..J '- _..;&i!Y!J6----'.J2-.i4J -- -'- ~______6:.~:::; _________./../_o..I_l~_~_J.-I1-<rTt!N.fJ-3f2~. '-l \ ~i __ ~:1>.tln _\cU)~___L~_e.::O~...~~~~~~ - - - - - - - - - - _JJiL ~._r &.l:Y~. t;J.I!! [LQ~ g f -1i~ - - - - - - <jj ~ 11J..r.._ _ _____________Q(4.5._f::'-~~~~_f}.rr:.--~~t.:~~.JI.J _~. · __ _ _AQ,c___________~.s.-.d_J[L.~~~:_~_!'::<<..L.JlL~-- __ ...kt.A._ _ ..._____________f_~_E./~ct.€S...._~-..k.J~-~~~rJ;.~--J.:.~>(}J> _ __ ______________~~__~~Sb~~_~~~~~~~i:_~C~~~~ ~.pe.t.'-,- _cSrt:!-bJ.a._r::n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?-J..o.1J_ _ .f~ct,~liL 1<. oL wl ,L1JC.:C ~~ - '~. . ~ ~Mt1trr[. 6t~~-~-----------.?-.(eQ-,f.jf~~.--~ ~ .-l.U~~~z-~ftl..~r:, .U _ _~~&--------~%:)-- --Ba:I2---;cl,J11Lr.-'P~ --~ _J _ _ ___________~~ --- - -~~JAJ~~~a J _~~~~~~---------------~~~. L~-------~- -~ULnLLg1ti~----------------QlL---=~Jt- ~-- ------------ _120~Y~~ _~_______________~J~r_ - ------------ :}(2, (t. .' ~ c. ""~ i r ~ ~p__ .' _..~u-----------u-----C~~----'];;~'J-----.,.------- _ _ _~ _ ~,.:;;(k _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - ~~ J;.;.l.. - -'- -'1dW~ l~__ _ ~ _~_______________ _ ___~_ _ ~~ __~_~1_~~- . " J l \ \ \. L ,'- "\ ') - -- ~~~:--------------C-;7~~-'----~2\---;-~----- S f"~.. - -- - ----~-------------~~- ~~- -~-~-~~. 7~ _ ~--_ _ _______________.z~f.Q.-- ~) L_W.~_s"Es::~ .:3~f'C'-/ ."~, '. _;--' __ 0') :Sol(;.(~.. (,f.!.'. .'}:;;/~' 2.,.:"'Y -!l.t: _ __ Z. ;r_~~ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -:.lG - - - -.... - -.... - - -.'-.: - - - - -.... - ....-..... - - - - - - -- ,)fj//t1j' ' (/' 'r ~ ('wit/) -' ";f) r;,,' ,/ r /' t::~ / If J.!' . ~o,;; ;/d -0-.--. jJ___JJ..:.~_ 'i!...l_________________.-. ------. -. --\11.------...,---~--------- ':J \. . c.~ ~'( N' ., .., '..\,-\'f :"\f"\> "I" \-\,0",,,\' \1\., '-'!/'- 1--. ~~~-~--------....--------------------:r.----~~-~--~-~------------ _. ...k"'"'.:: ~~4 _z ___________S:3P___:... fl.~L.!.~e--Z1:Y....~liJ.-~----- . .: _ ___ ______~12 . ~~~~---~~~~~Z08 _ ______dZ~ .~ --;qu-'~;g.d-::L-__--C7. _ - - - - - - - - - -m- - 'ei.:!. Ut.!fft _'i!;/' - - - 1".1..$'(708 __ __________________~___.isi&?:J: ~-~~. _ ~n_ 6' __~--- _ . ----------~'-~--\:-LSH.tdL~W-W.>-\l1f..~~l}J ~ --~7"- --- j,..~F__-:;;- --------..:l./31---I1~~-~i-~{1vJe~L!~w: __ ~~L~-- L~LIC\.!U-----_-------~L"--- -m~ d-~-JJ~~~..J? s~ -lt~c:--=ll.C.LJD_q.~--- -- ------- ~~ J---. ~_f'J~~d~.w..~-re.r-.. 'sIk.fJ4..~ 01_ - - b:J-- -11lt----~-r------- ____L -6 - ft- _~~~-~iLtJJ.c.AI::tI4:-t.-.1f,f- - - -F~ rLtJl_ J.:~~~IMI..6:..l_ - - - - - -- - t. :rr- ~ ~CV-lo.~ 1L - ~~_02d'=t~~!!!~j. _ _ _ ~-'llf:. _ _ _.ru~ {Q t. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -41: v_ _ IS- J _~~_ - _.i.t&_ fN.LrC!.J ei _/:;'fJClVL..,9 . ~. "' . . . /~t!l~z.~ ~ t?-I -7------~-- ------------- -~~- _____2~---- __~--7S~---- . ____Jl~__~~~~--~-~---------------- ~_ _____./~.Jd.-~04JLg.,---1~~~~- ----------- _~~E~----- ~V_________/~_aJ~~~ ----------- ___ -~ -______________e'.:Jj-.::_~~_U_.!!~"_~_____ --------- ==_ - _.t =m=_=====:;Z;H=~~=~=Uil~#=== __~~2J__~______~~9__1~_ - ---~j~----------- --~-~~~~A~~~--------_4!t~----r~~-f----7-r~------------- _~~~_~~-~~~~~~~________~t6CJ28liq~~-__--~~---~~-------- __~_~~_~~__~_________~~~~~~~-_~f~~-_--~~--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- . . . RESIDENTS OF WINTER SPRINGS OPPOSED TO PROPOSED REZONING OF FISHER ROAD -- NAME ADDRESS ~fl _:M 1<:'1_ _ C9_L:-~ J ~L$_ _ J. _ (q l:~ _?~ 1 ~ fl ~t7__.f~_1- _~~~ _~ ~ - ~ef)_~ ~?- -- ~/ L -: .~ /:;g;, _ ., 0 "3 6 SA; /> . ? j--tf, /..: A'/:.l S .?;<?;. A,,'-s gf- 4~_~:v-" - __________m_'i-n~.Lfd__mnl;;__nV-nnd_m _ _l_ ~ __ _ __ _~ 1_ L _ __.[ ~;Jl:. ~J.~_ _~ _J. _ _1::tL~l1---J. ~JL _ _~.: .!~"- ~_.s: _ ~~-~-ll--E~-@---~-":~~-c---------- A____ -h---Jq]2-~R\~:\'-~.:=M _];)_\~~!Y.l~:S _ _ LO!~~~ _ c;-,~ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~Q::,-\:fj ~ _ _ ~ _'_ _ _ _ ~ ~ _ ~.L - - - - - - - - -- _ __ ~---@r!t-~-~----jg.-~~----------- - ~m~€~jt[ )~cit=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ \')~-z..L_mk:g,n~~ . ~__IO~m_~:2m~')'+Q2f__nm__ Ifi ~ _ _._9-!i;!A..~A-d-r~-~3ZQJ.:-~~/Lb-- _ - t3L~::!t:P(f-m'-5fi3';}1H'---mn-- _~ _____~~z__~Jj_J~i_~~_____~~_]p_r___________ ~---~5t{--~~-(~-----~-~~~1C--------- _ _ ___~1L r ~~___~~_'-a~__________ -~-------~~L - -- ___~~~1)1B--------- _~~~_~~_ . ~_ L.__2.~'2_Qi._______ 't1: ___ 'ULf__S~_flk__U)~_~&-E!.-j.27J-6 ~ m m__m;1!f,,'_~_M~__!d~~nf~_~~]?l_ ~-?Z-~-~JZ~--Jift~~~O! ~- ~ --1-){f~ ; - _l__________~_'itZ_~~~:e;:.f-.L~~Ifi'4.~z.r)) '. '. '/ ' . ' ~._ a3t.l-C6. _ _. _____ ..F_ _ _.___?:___~g.~"__t~~tlgJ~_~A!?_MJ~~~5_t!~J_'J~L'/ '~:;>~ !Jte' - ,r -,-' LJ ,i r:- -, , ,~, . "..' . : '" ') . fl"" ~ ,/.... co" - ,r\\\v'\"';'" ~\J'C; '-....'~' ". ../"\\ ....J"-I..).l ~f; --j---~- a..L,i.LtL___~-L_-;: ~);;.',. . ~':'-\-,..-'-.,--~;----1.. - ffi..L-~t:T-----:, ~_- \).. r;~ - /,)-JL. rv /5' I j I ~rL'J 5'/'lk'" ~- d.d---~=---L.fL~U-----~-,7 j_k_(:.~~'.K____~__~__ fIl-- 7J . SUN BANK CENTER, SUITt 3000 200 SOUTH OR....NGE AVENUE ORLANDO. F"LORIOA 32801 TEL.H"HONE (407) 24..1100 TELECOPfER (401) 872 -e201 MAGUIRE, VOORHIS 8: WELLS, P. A. ~~d~ 2 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE REF'LECT1QN$ ON THE RIVER, SUITE 30.3 l....g5t SOUTH HAFUIOR CITY 80ULEV....RD MELBOURNE, F"LQRIOA 32901 TELEPHONE (.07) 951-177S T[LECOf=>IER (....07) 9SI-le.~ TWO SOUTH ORANGE PLAZA WRITER'S 01 RECT DIAL (407) 244-1128 ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 244-1100 TELECOPIER (407) 423-8796 MAl LI NG ADDRESS: P. O. 80X 633 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3260 201 SOUTH BtSC....VNE BOULEVARD MtAMI. FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 374-6025 TELECOPIER (305) 374-5952 June 24, 1993 BY HAND DELIVERY Mr. John Govoruhk City Manager City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, Florida 32706 Re: Item III.B.1 on City Commission Agenda for June 28, 1993 Rezoning Request of Hubert R. Earley . Dear Mr. Govoruhk: This letter is to request a continuance of the above- referenced agenda item so that a workshop can be scheduled by the City Commission on this rezoning request. The workshop will allow the Commission, the Planning and Zoning Board members, the property owner, and the area residents to openly discuss zoning and development issues regarding the property in a less formal setting at a time when the Commission does not have other pressing matters on the agenda. We believe the workshop can provide a forum for reaching a reasonable compromise on the future use of Dr. Earley's property. Don McIntosh and I have spoken by phone with Mr. Frank Stever and Mr. Carl Stevens to inform them (and through them, the other interested homeowners in the area) of this request for a continuance and the scheduling of a workshop. We hope that the continuance and a date for the workshop can be announced at the beginning of the Commission meeting Monday night so that any residents who are present at the meeting will not be further inconvenienced. . Please be the interested readvertising workshop. assured that we will assist the parties of the workshop and will the public hearings that will City in informing pay the costs of occur after the -t::~tJCa~~ ~~ ?5d ~~ . . . . Mr. John Govoruhk June 14, 1993 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, P.A. cc: Deputy Mayor John V. Torcaso Commissioner Don Jonas Commissioner John Langellotti Commissioner Terri Donnelly Commissioner Cindy Kaehler Dr. Hubert R. Earley Mr. Donald W. McIntosh, Jr. B:\Earley.ltr - ." ran a F. FitZge~ / ttorneys for Hubert R. Earley . . . June 22, 1993 City Commissioner CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS 1126 East State Road 434 winter Springs FL 32708 RE: Fisher Road Development Commissioner: The present dry spell we are experiencing in Central Florida is an indicator of what the Florida Peninsula can endure. We are now on mandatory water hours, the countryside is a tinderbox, and the air we breathe has not been washed by the daily thundershowers we have become accustomed to during the hot months of summer. Some would blame this on El Nino - that hot water thing that happens down near the Galapagos Islands. This natural disaster influences world weather in many ways with storms and many other weather phenomena. One effect of EI Nino that reaches the Florida area is the jet stream which moves ever so slightly North. When this occurs, the weather that is influenced by the jet stream heads North also. Result; Florida has long, dry periods. Why this lesson in weather you ask? Here's why. When you have an ever-increasing density in population the resources you have, which are already under stress due to lack of rain, are diminished at an even faster and increasing rate. People who develop Florida have a responsibility to everyone who lives here to maintain a certain quality of life. Developers tend to deny this public duty and go after the dollar. If they have permission to do one house per acre at a substantial market value this will not satisfy their greed. Developers go for the maximum in hopes they can make more money. What destruction may happen to the environment, the ability of the aquifer to sustain itself, and the overloading of existing roadways and school systems does not matter to them. Developers are the only species who foul the nest of others by being greedy. They do not give a care in the world what exists adjacent to their property, they will not develop in concert with what is already existing, they just go for the jugular and develop to the maximum. . . . City Commissioner June 22, 1992 Page Two Water is not my only concern Since moving to the Ranch Lands in 1976, I have witnessed the rapid decline in the variety of animal life who visit my property. At least six bird species, including the Scrub Jay, Quail and Flickers who were most abundant in 1976 have all but disappeared. Gopher turtles, glass snakes, possums and armadillos are seldom seen now, and more dead squirrels are seen that live ones. Rabbits are also on the decline. Winter Springs hails itself as "Tree City USA" and even has signs designating it as a "Bird Sanctuary". So what will more development do to our beloved Ranch Lands? I can guarantee you it will not improve on any of the previously mentioned areas of concern. Going from one house per acre to three an a half houses per acre will greatly eliminate existing habitat and increase carnage on the animal world in the Winter Springs/Ranch Lands area. Add to this the increased burden placed upon the fragile aquifer and present residents will lose heavily from their already slight advantage of city living in a Ranch Land atmosphere in concert with Mother Nature. I ask the City Commission to limit the development of land bordering Fisher Road in Winter Springs. Please do not give this developer the open opportunity to rape, pillage and destroy all that Ranch Land residents hold so dear. Outsiders don't believe it, but the citizens of Winter Springs are very proud of their pristine island of Mother Nature's paradise that is bounded on the North by State Road 434, on the South by Lake Drive, on the East by Tuskawilla Road and on the West by US 17-92. This is another chance to demonstrate your compassion for people and Mother Nature. Your first home run was the great park you have provided to the people of Winter Springs. Your vote to limit this development will make you 2 for 2. Good luck on a great season. Very respectfully, ~~.?~ Gordon B. Pierce 236 Morton Lane Winter Springs, FL 32708 407/695-2758 ..~ . . . June 21, 1993 Mr. John V. Torcaso CITY COUNCIL City of Winter 1126 East State Winter Springs, Springs Road 434 FL 32708 RE: Request For Rezoning, Meeting of June 2, 1993 Dear Mr. Torcaso: As a home owner in the Ranchlands, I feel as do all my neighbors, that agreeing to the rezoning of said property on Fisher Road is not in the best interest of the residents of Winter Springs. Large one-acre lots give rainfall the chance to soak into the ground, back into our water reservour - instead of evaporating on the paved streets that would cover this area. Drainage? I'm sure that you realize that there are many areas 1n Winter Springs that are protected wetlands. By allowing 3-4 houses per acre, you would be jeopardizing the sens1t1ve environment that has attracted home owners to the Ranchlands to begin with. Perhaps you should contact the DER with regards to the changes that would occur should this rezon1ng be allowed. We need to keep our area safe. Zoning for houses on one-acre lots - not 3-4 houses. In this day and age of environmental awareness, I'm sure you agree that it 1S our responsibility to address these points. Winter Springs is supposed to be the "City of Trees". By raping the land and putting up track houses is putting us 1n the same catagory as Altamonte and Casselberry. I'm sure you all take pride in our area. By allowing the Ranchlands to be rezoned g1ves way to all lots in this area being "chopped" up in this same manner. We have a unique area 1n the Ranchlands. We take pride in the fact that we are still a neighborhood that waves at our neighbors, can walk down the streets (enjoying our low crime rate), can ride our horses, it's a great place for children to grow and appreciate the wildlife. Why on earth should it be rezoned for less than one-acre lots? That is greed on the developer's, as well as his lawyer's, part. Please do not let the enticement of increased tax revenue cloud your V1S10n of the "whole" picture. You are backbone progress. our elected to put the officials people's and views I hope you have the courage and and wishes ahead of so called - ... ."-' . . . June Page 21, 1993 Two I do not believe Mr. Ear ley let alone the Ranchlands. would be next? Convenience any of this. 1S even a resident of Winter Springs, Also, with him owning 115 acres what stores, strip plazas? We do not want This really should be put to a vote of the people, voted you into office to represent interests. There's an old myth that you However, as long as we, as Americans, can just that a myth. Let's continue to be Trees -and not neglect our responsibility cOJDDUnity. ~C~~Y'4 (\QtL (Y\~ \~ ~rd anfCathy \ MurpJ, 0 people. We, the and protect our best can't fight city hall. vote, this will remain known as the City of to our environment and . 1 June 21, 1993 . CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS City of Winter Springs 1126 Bast State Road 434 Winter Springs, PL 32708 RE: Request Por Rezoning, Meeting of June 2, 1993 As a home owner in the Ranchlands, I feel as do all IQ' neighbOrs, that agreeing to the rezoning of said property on Pisher Road is not in the best interest of the residents of Winter Springs. . Large one-acre lots give rainfall the chance to soak. into the ground, back into our water reservour - instead of evaporating on the paved streets that would cover this area. Drainage? I 'ID sure that you realize that there are many areas in Winter Springs that are protected wetlands. By allowing 3-4 houses per acre, you would be jeopardizing the sensitive enviroJmlent that has attracted home owners to the Ranchlands to begin with. Perhaps you should contact the DBR with regards to the changes that would occur should this rezoning be allowed. We need to keep our area safe. Zoning for houses on one-acre lots - not 3-4 houses. In this day and age of environmental awareness, I 'a sure you agree that it is our responsibility to address these points. Winter Springs is supposed to be the "City of Trees". By raping the land and puttins up track houses is putt ins us in the same catagory as Alt8lllOnte and Casselberry. I 'ID sure you all take pride in our area. By allowing the Ranchlands to be rezoned gives way to all lots in this area beins "chopped" up in this same manner. We have a unique area in the Ranchlands. We take pride in the fact that we are still a neighborhood that waves at our neighbors, can walk down the streets (enjoyins our low cri~ rate) , can ride our horses, it's a great place for children to grow and appreciate the wildlife. Why on earth should it be rezoned for less than one-acre lots? That is greed on the developer · s , as well as his lawyer's, part. Please do not let the enticement of increased tax revenue cloud your vision of the "whole" picture. You are backbone progress. our elected officials to put the people · s and I hope you have the courage and views and wishes ahead of so called ~ ,j:H/f.J ""'\. .... ., . . . June Page 21, 1993 Two I do not believe Mr. Earley let alone the Ranchlands. would be next? Convenience any of this. is even a resident of Winter Springs, Also, with him owning 115 acres - what stores, strip plazas? We do not want This really should be put to a vote of the people. We, the people, voted you into office to represent and protect our best interests. There' s an old myth that you can' t fight city hall. However, as long as we, as Americans, can vote, this will remain just that - a iVth. Let's continue to be known as the City of Trees -and not neglect our responsibility to our environment and cOlllllUDity. Sincerely, Richard and Cathy Murphy . . . --- -- " RESIDENTS OF WINTER SPRINGS OPPOSED TO PROPOSED REZONING OF FISHER ROAD -- . . . , <" . - -----------7--~~~~-~-~'~ --------~-~---- --~--~~~~- ____Jl~___~~~---~- ~~~______________ -----J~JLl~ ~~~ ~- ----------- ~4I_________/~_aj~ _ __ ____________~2J~_€~_~~ - == _ m _~ ----=-=====:;j;f<l=~=~=ZU-~4iji===== --~~~--~------~SL- ~--~ ~----------- __~~_~1~~~_________~_~~_ --r~~-~----7-~----. --------- _~~ct~~~~~~--------~26CJ28~~~~-----~~---~-------- ---~---~~-~~:_-~---------j>~~~~~--~~~---~~--------- . . . . , RESIDENTS OF HINTER SPRINGS OPPOSED TO PROPOSED REZONING OF FISHER ROAD -- NAME ADDRESS ~fl - ~ f:'t _ _ C9_~f:l ~_S_ _.L _(p ~~ _ ~1'.!~ fl~t4__ f:.~-A- _~.!~_!:g_ ~e ~'-~ ~?_ __ ~ti' 4-6~--~-:?-t1.-~-11..cL~.Lfd_b!~&1e-~_~~~-i.41d-~__ _J ~ ~----- -1 L L_~"';J1:~L~ -.!. - _!.LL.~-t~~;_&.L... "_.l: - ~~---ll-----~-~-----____~__________ ~-----"--_jEP-5-_~Bl~~:,,-~.:::M~\.n-6..~J:l~::} __ L~~ _ ~_ _ __~~~ __~~~\fJ~__~_.____~.:_;?.__________ -- ---------~jt-~-~----~~~~----------- --~~~~ _.~~tl~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~ -' ~~----~~--~ .~--~._---~~---~~~Q~--------- - --- - -..-Q~=:~ -----A:71?Jj~-~.i3--~.9.tf.::~/L6..-- ~-~:L- ~_ (~f----~~~~~~~~__________ -~ _____~~~__~~1 J i_~~_____~_l~_~___________ ~___~:i{__S _- _ __~(f4_____~_?Z~f_________ - -- - ___"-1.L . , ~~_ _J-:?.~fJA__________ -:-------~~L - - - __~~~L)~--------- ---- - c:~j~~~7- - · ~- ..__:k.~~_Qi_______ ~ m J.~(f-5..~JJk__w.JA>1i._~EI322-'.J ~ --- -----m.2L~-~_~-!d<;;"!::.--~-.E~?.t.. IZ ~-(Z-~-~-- -P~-7~321{J --:,/ ---)tJ --- __________~_'i~_ ,- - M~' z...._ )j;" ,- "'- . , ~~Odl - ;- - - -'- - -,----~___~~..o__f!.~~~e:--, - 1!.e_~J.:~S.!~_~.E_.L' -a.?k il{2f:;;k-L--~(LuLtL__{}~~_J.~\.Q~1Q:.1Q\--lWU!\\!:.J~P<r~lL_-27D.'6 -d~.L~_-:_0.d4.1"~.__~.rr&~~ft2CLLJx____U)I(!-* -1. <)'//11 it ~I (' . . . CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 327-1800 July 14, 1993 TO: Mayor/City Commission FROM: City Planner RE: Fisher Road Rezoning Request In preparation for the City Commission workshop Monday night on the rezoning request for the 80 acre parcel east of Fisher Road, I have assembled the enclosed documents which relate to the property in question. A brief review of these documents follows. 1) September 15, ]986 Special Meeting of the Commission. IGA Holding Company, the owner at the time, applied for a land use classification change from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential, which has a density of2 to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The request was denied. 2) March 7, ]990 Planning and Zoning Board Special Workshop Meeting for comments on the development of the comprehensive plan from residents of the Ranchlands area. Discussions centered around the paving of roads, provisions for water & sewer, and the construction of a new collector road. There was no discussion about the Future Land Use Map or the specific classification of the property. 3) Appendix N from Volume] of the comp plan showing the land use classification of Lower Density Residential for the Fisher Road Parcel, which had been assigned by the former City Planner. 4) Table LU-T5 from Volume] of the comp plan showing the land use classifications of Lower Density Residential for the properties west of the Fisher Road Parcel (Section ]B, 6, and 7 of North Orlando Ranches). 5) August] 1, 1992 Conceptual Site Plan Review for the Fisher Road Development, along with a follow-up memo of August 17, 1992. 6) Correspondences regarding the land use map and the zoning map. Florida statutes state that should a municipality's zoning map be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan . future land use map, the most recently adopted land use map and associated plan shall govern the development of the property (Ch. 163. 3194( I )( a) F. S.). The zoning of R -C I is inconsistent with the land use classification of Lower Density Residential, thus the comp plan map shall govern development. Customarily, the zoning map is revised to be consistent with the land use map, as is the case with the Earley's request for a rezoning. The City may elect, however, to subsequently amend the land use map to conform with the zoning, in effect stating that the recently adopted land use map is incorrect. 7) December 8, 1992 letter from the City Manager to Mr. Earley outlining options for rezoning given the likelihood of the elimination of the City's zoning map with the adoption of the revised land development regulations. A key point in the consideration of the rezoning request is the land use classification of the subject property as well as the surrounding properties. Attached is a map showing the current zoning districts overlaid on the current land use classifications. Also attached is a map showing the boundaries and names for the development projects (i.e. North Orlando Ranches Sec. IA). Note that sections I and IA have R-CI zoning and Rustic Residential classification (acre minimum lots). Section IB, 6 and 7 to the south have R-lAA zoning and Lower Density Residential classification (1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre). . The lots within section IB range from 0.60 acres to 2.0 acres in size, with 25 lots covering 29 acres, for a gross density of 0.86 DU/acre. Section 7 lots range from 0.52 to 1.46 acres, with 46 lots on 71 acres, for a density of 0.65 DU/acre. Section 6 has 39 lots on 38 acres, with a density of 1.03 DU/acre, and lot sizes from 0.47 to 1.21 acres. Despite the fact that the densities of IB and 7 are less than 1.0 DU/acre, the Lower Density classification is mandated by the presence of numerous lots less than one acre. All of the lots within sections I and IA are a minimum of one acre and are thus classified Rustic Residential. The same holds true for the Dunmar Estates area. The property east of Fisher Road subject to the rezoning request was described in the 1992 comprehensive plan as having 90 acres with a projected 80 lots, for a density of 0.89 DU/acre. The former City Planner had coded the area as Lower Density Residential in the city's residential land use database. The suggested rationale is that similar to sections IB and 7, despite the overall density of less than one DU/acre, the lots will not all be one acre minimum lots. In conclusion, there exists an inconsistency between the zoning and the land use classification which should be rectified. The current land use classification for the property is consistent with the surrounding classifications. Lower Density can adjoin Rustic Residential classified lands with minimal or no buffering required. The requested R-I AA zoning would equate with neighboring sections I B, 6 and 7 of the Ranchlands. . The rezoning request is consistent with the City's adopted comprehensive plan. This is a critical point in light of the Snyder Case (Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County). In this recent case, which is before the Florida Supreme Court, a .' landowner requested a rezoning which was consistent with the County's comprehensive plan, and was denied. Snyder challenged this denial as being inconsistent with the plan. The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that the requested rezoning should have been approved. (Attached is a copy of an article summarizing the Snyder case.) There are several other ramifications of this case which may affect the processing of rezoning requests, namely the rezoning hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding requiring sworn testimony, findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which to base the decision. In the Fisher Road property situation, if the Commission believes the comprehensive plan was incorrect in assigning the Lower Density classification, then they should follow the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation of June 2, 1993 to amend the plan, changing the classification to Rustic Residential. If, however, the Commission believes the land use classification assignment was appropriate considering the likelihood of lots less than one acre in size, then the rezoning request should be approved. cc: City Attorney City Manager Land Development Coordinator . . ~ . . . 85-86-30 SPECIAL MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEPTEMBER IS, 1986 The Special Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, was called to order by Mayor John V. Torcaso. Roll Call: Mayor John V. Torcaso, present Deputy Mayor William A. Jacobs, present City Manager Richard Rozansky, present City Attorney Jane Hayman, present Commissioners: Cindy Kaehler, absent Arthur Hoffmann, present Philip A. Kulbes, present Martin Trencher, present Mayor Torcaso called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and then recessed the meeting until 7:30 p. m. as the Public Hearings were advertised for 7:30 p. m. At 7:30 p.m. Mayor Torcaso reconvened the Commission Meeting, then recessed the meeting and opened the public hearing for a request to am~nd land use classification of property owned by IGA Holding Co.-92 acres on east side of Fisher Road-Request for Low Density Residential land use classification to permit R-lAAA zoning. The City Planner reported the applicant called this afternoon and requested to withdraw from the agenda. He was advised that if he did withdraw, he would not be able to proceed again until the first set of amendments in 1987. The applicant is aware that there will be a very lengthy delay. The City did not receive anything in writing. Attorney Chris Brock, representing the Ranchlanders and Dunmar Estate Homeowners, spoke in opposition to the rezoning and reclasSification. Carl Stevens, Fisher Road, Russell DeFazio, Tradewinds Road, Susie Reid, Hayes Road and J. Bailey, Pearl Road, all spoke in oPposition to the rezoning and reclassification. Mayor Torcaso closed the public hearing and reconvened the Commission Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to deny the transmittal. Seconded by Commissioner Trencher. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; motion carried. ' Public Hearing for assignment of Winter Springs land use classification to property annexed by Ruby Shane in February 1986-4.3 acres on south side of SR 434 at SR 419 intersection-Re uest for Commercial land use classification to ermit C-l zonin : Mayor Torcaso recessed the Commission Meeting and opened the public hearing. George Hogan, Mockingbird Lane, spoke in discussion. Mayor Torcaso closed the public hearing and reconvened the Commission Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoffmann to accept the transmittal. Seconded by Commissioner Jacobs. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; motion carried. " . " " " .' ....wu.. '., . 'cJ. "~. . 1~0~) \, ~, " . ," ~ '\ ';-,. .......:....... "'-. ." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 STATE ROAD 434 WINTEn SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (305) 327.1800 1\aND1\ Planning and Zoning Board Wednesday, March 7, 1990 7:30 P.M. 1126 East state Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708-2799 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Roll call. 4. SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING . Comments for Inclusion in the Development of the Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan from Residents ~nd Property Owners of the Ranchlands, Dunmar Estates, Tuscawilla Unit 5, and the Undeveloped Property East of Fisher Road. 5. 1\djournment. , ." .. ". . Persons are advised that if they decide to' appeal any decision made at this meeting, they will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose~ they m~y need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Section 286.0105 Florida Statutes. . . ,j . . . ". - - PLANNItll AND ZONIMl BOARD N:>RKSHOP MINtTI'ES March 7, 1990 'I11e meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. BOARD MEM3ERS: David Hopkins, c.1lainnan, Present John Langelotti, Present John Torcaso, Absent David McLeod, Vice-c.1lairman, Present John Horan, Present CITY OFFICIAL: J. Koch, Dir..Adm./Carp. Planning SPECIAL N:>RKSHOP MEETIJ<<) . Cannents for inclusion in the developnent of the Hinter Springs conprehensive Plan fran residents ard i>roperty ON1ers of the Ranchlands, Dunnar Estates, TUscawilla Unit 6, ard the Urdeveloped property East of Fisher Road. Hopcins gave the citizens a backgrourd of Hhat the Board is doing. He stated that up to this point the Bo8rd has been gathering infonnation on the existing developnent 80i new PrOjects that will have various effects on the residents, for instance the "Super Park" and the Senior Citizens Center. Also the Duda project which abuts our City will have an imp:lct. He also stated that the county Is 1mplementirYJ a solid waste program with sOOuld start In April. Of utJoost importance is the EHpressway, Hhich brings a major concern wIth traffic circulation. 'Ihe major contributor is grcHth. He stated that the population in the City now is about 22,000 people and by the year 2010 the population w111 be approximately 48,000 people. Historically the, City's Population has increased an average of 1,200 people per year. Hopkins briefly went through the elements of the new carprehensive Plan. He stated that this plan will guide the City in'the future. Hopkins read a letter fran Frank GrSsso who could not atterd the meeting, which stated a concern fat' paving the roads in the Ranchlan:Js. Hike Schneider stated that he also suworts road paving in the Ranchlan:1s. He sh:Med the Board pictures of the road endi ticns. Mr. Schneider stated that he is speaking for the residents that live in the southern portion of the Ranchlan:1s. Sam Musgrove stated that he is extremely opposed to the paving of the roads in the Ranchlands. ; Koch went over the rec.Od.lei1datJons for collector roads fran the Staff and the traffic consultant. She stated that thS plan is still being formulated and the ccmnents fran the neighborhoods involved will be incorporated in the decisicns on new collector roads. . Planiling and Zoning Board Workshop Minutes March 7, 1990 Page 2 McLeod stated that the City wi 11 be looking for concerned ci tizens to sit on carnli t tees to help fonrulate goals for the Coo-prehensi ve Plan, helping advise this Board. George Hail stated his concern on the traffic in the Ranchlands and stated that he would like to see the south end of the Ranchlands paved. 1I0pkins read for the residents the working goal for a better understanding on what the meeting is all about. CX>AL: To foster an envirorment that contributes to the morals, health, safety, and welfare of the present residents. And one that will encourage future generations to take residence and or do business in this camlUni ty in order that this Ci ty wi II grow and prosper to the extent of an ideal camlUnity. lIarry Mallory stated he would like to maintained as it is in the Ranchlands. parks and recreation. see that the quality of life lie stated that his concerns be is . John Logan stated his concerns about the roads in the Ranchlands. Kathy Lanieux also stated her concerns about the paving in the Ranchlands. The res idents gave the Board ideas on where to put a coIl ec tor road and what roads might be best to pave in the Ranchlands. TOOl Muhler stated his concern about keeping the rustic, rural character of the Ranchlands. R.J. Risser stated his interest in whether the a collector road would provide access to his land. McLeod stated a question to the residents that today there may not be a problan with water and sewer but the day will cane that there will be a problan. The Board needs to look into the future on what the long range needs will be in the Ranchlands concerning water and sewer. Koch stated that in the water and sewer study covering the next two decades there is not proposal to put water and sewer lines in the Ranchlands. She also stated that if this is a concern with the residents, this needs to be made known so the City Adninistration can consider this in the water and sewer study. Carl Stevens, President of the Ranchlands HOO'leowners ^ssociation, stated .that the residents he represents would like to preserve the country atmosphere and are opposed to any high density abutting the Ranchlands and also against any lot splits. . " I I . . ~J i . .~ PlannIrg and ZonIng Board tbrkshop Minutes March 7, 1990 Page 3 Hopkins stated that one of the things that thIs Board wUl be doJrg Is to look at land use ard try to cane up with more specific codes to eliminate the glitches in the present zoning code. Koch stated that in lookJng at the lard uses the Board could create a maximum land use for any specific area. McLeod stated that the city is faced with growth ani the need for improved roads and this is the purpose of these workshops wi th the residents, to hear their concerns ani get their input. Horan stated that a collector road is needed not only to have other means to get In and a.rourd the c.t tv but there are 98 more lots to be developed out in the Ranchlarrls. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopdns, Recording Secretary Plar.m.1ng ani Zoning Board . -" ,- '\.... ~';. ~ ...... APPENDIX If - -. Pelle No. 1 DENUPKEY.PRG ..... ACREAGE AND DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENTS UNPLATTED AS OF APRIL 1,1990 BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION WINTER SPRINGS Totel Loti Acreelle Density RUSTIC RESIDENTIAL: Min. I acre lot LAKE JESSUP SHORE 40 70 0.57 LAND USE SUBTOTAL 40 70 LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: < 3.S DU/acre - FOlCMOOR 4 56 25 2.24 RISSER PROPERTY 8 8 1.00 ~ FISHER ROAD PARCEL 80 90 0.89 EAGLE RIDGE 400 163 2.45 =- CARRINGTON WOODS III 70 29 2.41 GLEN EAGLE III 48 22 2.18 GLEN EAGLE IV 65 27 2.41 PARCEL 90 ARBOR GLEN 38 22 1.73 CHESTNUT RIDGE 43 19 2.26 WOODSTREAM ADDITION 77 29 2.66 BENTlEY CLUB 41 16 2.56 LAND USE SUBTOTAL 926 450 MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: 3.S - 6.S DU/acre HIGHLAND LAKES 39 10 3.90 WILLIAMS PROPERTY 60 16 3.75 INDIAN RIDGE AREA 129 33 3.91 SEMINOLE PINES 3 & 4 177 49 3.61 SUOA PROPERTY 120 27 4.44 TUSKAWILLA (W. OF TUSC. RD.) 160 34 4.71 SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY 100 22 4.55 TUSCAWlllA 14C 125 32 3.91 PARCel 1SC 416 104 4.00 PARCel 61 198 33 6.00 GEORGETOIINE II 54 10 5.40 GEORGETOIINE III 78 13 6.00 -- LAND USE SUBTOTAL 1656 383 TABLE LU-TS . ACREAGE Residential 1990 Development Density By Development and Existing 1990 Land Use Classification L Total Loti Acreage Densl ty L NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 3 33 55 0.60 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: 1.1 - 4.9 DUlaere ---.,;;;. NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 7 46 71 0.65 -7 NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 18 25 29 0.86 ~ NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 6 39 38 1.03 NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 2 53 26 2.04 NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 9 110 48 2.29 NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 2A 197 81 2.43 NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 10 112 41 2.73 NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SEC. 8 72 22 3.27 . NORTH ORLANDO RANCHES SUBTOTAL 833 746 DUNMAR ESTATES RURAL RESIDENTIAL: 1 DU or less per acre DUNHAR ESTATES 31 179 0.17 DUNHAR ESTATES SUBTOTAL 31 179 MOUNT GREENwOOD LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: 1.1 - 4.9 DUlaere J HOUNT CREEN~ UNIT 1 75 29 2.59 HOUNT CREEN~ UNIT 5 171 " 4.17 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: 5.0 - 9.9 DUtaere J MOUNT CREEN~ UNIT 2 & 4 173 19 9.11 MOUNT GREEN~ SUBTOTAL 419 89 J . Source: Winter Springs Comprehensive Planning Department DENDEVLU.PRC Pt. 4 03/26/92 10:29:08 . . . MEMORANDUM August 11, 1992 TO: City Manager FROM: City Planner hX ,0"' RE: Fisher Road Conceptual Development Site Plan Review Attendance: Hubert Earley and Thorpe Early represented the proposed development; Archer, Artman, Govoruhk, Kern, Kozlov, Lallathin, LeBlanc, Lockcuff, and Taylor represented the City. The Earleys met with the Site Plan Review Board on August 11 to review the concept of a single family development along Fisher Road west of the Florida Power easement in the Ranchlands. Mr. Earley is proposing a rezoning from the present R-C1 to R-1A, allowing lots measuring 75 by 110 feet. LeBlanc pointed out that the 110' depth does not include ~ easements (power, drainage, utilities) located along the rear of the lot per the City's codes. Mr. Earley stated he would bring the water and sewer facilities from their present terminus to the property, and would also want to bring in water reuse lines. He stated he would look for 200 to 220 lots situated on the 110 acres. This is within the land use density designation of our comprehensive plan for this section (Lower Density Residential _ Max. 3.5 DUjacre). Artman pointed out the problem with the muck located on the lots near the power easement. Lallathin stated that a muck fire had presented problems in the past. GOvoruhk stressed the potential problems with getting the nearby residents to go along with the paving of Fisher Road - some may want this while some definitely won't. He, suggested Earley formally discuss this proposal with the Ranchland residents to educate them on the benefits for all persons. Several roadway improvement alternatives were briefly discussed. LeBlanc noted that the City would require a masonry wall on each side of the proposed new roadway which would bisect the development. A landscaping buffer would be required behind the new homes along Fisher Road. Further, the roadway would have to be designed as a 60 foot right-ot-way, with sidewalks on both sides. Earley indicated he for further review. early in the process would work on a conceptual plan to bring back to the City LeBlanc noted that the Commission would review the plan as as possible prior to the expenditure of significant funds. cc: Hubery Earley Staff /' . . . MEMORANDUM August 17, 1992 TO: City Manager FROM: City Planner ,If K RE: Fisher Road Development Addendum During the August 11th meeting, it was noted that Mr. Earley as the property owner would be solely responsible for the construction of the proposed roadway from Shore Road southward to its intersection with Fisher Road to accommodate the new development. It was also understood that Mr. Earley would acquire the necessary right-of-way and provide for the improvement of Fisher road should his proposed development not involve the construction of a new roadway. cc: Hubert Earley Staff ~".~~:;l'r"'(:-.~i l~ \', ',,\ <<'.;j r' I"~'I' '.l I' ,. "},' I \'-';' 6,,'"j;j,..l ...r. ( 1; ] .. " .... .""~ ,\ ~~ \" . NOV 1 6 19~2 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Le Blanc eLl:'(, O.f~ ~NINTER SPRING$: I:tm<:t P3.v.elop'ment Coordinator, FROM: Keith w. Bric~~emye~ DATE: November 9, 1992 e. c. ~ c.~ *, "'^ o-v.. 00- ') e. Q RE. , . i Land Use Map versus Zoning/Hubert Early As indicated in Greg Kern's memo dated November 5, 1992, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map now governs the issuance of development orders on property in the city. Generally, jurisdictions that have retained zoning regulations after the adoption of. a new Land Use Plan Map are required to rezone those parcels that are not in conformance with the Plan designation. In most cases, however, such conformance rezonings are used only to downzone, not to upzone. Therefore, to the extent that the City's Land Use Map designation is more -....-restrictive than existing zoning, the city is obligated to undertake a program to conform the zoning to the Land Use Map designation. .' As long as the the city retains its zoning regulations, owners who wish to take advantage of higher densities or intensi ties permitted by the Comprehensive Plan would have to rezone their property to a zoning category allowing the more intense uses. The city cannot issue permits for development based on the Land Use Map as long as the property is still governed by a zoning district that would not permit the issuance of such a permit. If, however, the city proceeds to adopt land development regulations that eliminate the zoning map, property owners such as Mr. Earley ,could wait until the zoning map was eliminated to pull permits, thereby avoiding the rezoning process. However, processing permit applications in the interim would be subject to the risk (1) that the land development regulations actually do eliminate zoning, and (2) that the standards used for the interim review are consistent with the standards ultimately adopted in the land development regulations. Please advise me if you have further questions in this regard. cc: Greg Kern Frank Kruppenbacher T2361X ~p: --->C7')] lit, .' ~0 N~~'~'l '.; 1',~7 ,- oJ'. . (Ii'. ,! !,i:'IGS ,i~ d . . . MEMORANDUM TO: Land Development Coordinator City Planner ~A( FROM: DATE: November 9, 1992 Land Use Map versus Zoning RE: Attorney Bricklemyer contacted me this morning regarding your letter on the Hubert Earley situation and the incompatibility between the current zoning map and the adopted land use map. Florida statutes clearly state that should such an inconsistency exist, the most recently adopted land use map and its associated provisions shall govern development. Bricklemyer stated that while the above is true, the property owner would still have to conform to the existing zoning provisions, and in Earley's case, would have to file for a rezoning. In questioning the fact that upon adoption of the LDRs, the zoning map will be eliminated, and this adoption is likely to occur prior to approval of a final development order for this development, Bricklemyer noted that the owner could rely on such information and avoid the rezoning process. He would, however, be at the risk of the City not abolishing the zoning map prior to his application for a final development order. The attorney is putting his oplnlon on this matter in writing and will forward it to the City upon completion. / I , cc: City Manager City Attorney . . . RECEIVED NOV 09 1992 November 6, 1992 City of IV IIller Springs Planning Dept. TO: Keith Bricklemyer Don LeBlanc~ City of Winter Springs FROM: RE: Land Use Map versus Zoning Mr. Hubert Earley proposes to develop property which was zoned RC-l (single-family residential) which allows one (1) unit per acre. The Land Use Map submitted with the comprehensive plan designates this same property as Lower Density Residential which allows up to 3.5 DU per acre. Greg called DCA and was told that the Land Use Map is the definitive instrument and, the Florida Statutes appear to validate this. The question: Because the Code still addresses zoning, must the developer go through the rezoning process which will bring the property in compliance with the Land Use Map or, does the map take precedence over the Code and no further action is required. A ttached is Greg's memo on the subject. Please advise. ffg attach. cc: City Manager Ci ty Attorney City Planner . . . MEMORANDUM TO: Land Development Coordinator city Planner Pl( FROM: DATE: November 5, 1992 RE: status of Existing Zoning Map Chapter 163.3194(1) (a) and (b), F.S., addresses the legal status of the comprehensive plan, and in doing so, stipulates that when inconsistencies are encountered between existing development regulations and provisions of the comprehensive plan, the plan shall govern. Specifically, should the land use map, adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, indicate an allowable density greater than the existing zoning, the land use map density shall govern any actions taken in regard to an application for a development order. All land development regulations enacted or amended must be consistent with and implement the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. If a local government allows an existing land development regulation which is inconsistent with the plan to remain in effect, the government shall adopt a schedule for bringing the regulation into conformity with the provisions of the plan. In the City's case, this schedule conforms with the LOR revision process we are currently going through. ,"/cc: File . CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA CITY MANAGER RICHARD ROZANSKY 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 327.1800 December 8, 1992 RECEIVED DEe 08 1992 Mr. Hubert R. Early First Orlando Development Company, Inc. 201 South Orange Avenue Suite 890 Orlando, FI 32801 Cit .. . Y of V/l1l[cr Springs Planning Dept. RE: Land Use Map versus Zoning Regulations Dear Mr. Early: The City has recently received the Attorney's Opinion in regards to the above referenced. The Opinion is: . "As long as the City retains its zoning regulations, owners who wish to take advantage of higher densities or intensities permitted by the Comprehensive Plan would have to rezone their property to a zoning category allowing the more intense uses. The City cannot issue permits for development based on the Land Use Map as long as the property is still governed by a zoning district that would not permit the issuance of such a permit. If, however, the City proceeds to adopt land development regulations that eliminate the zoning map, property owners such as Mr. Early could wait until the zoning map was elim- inated to pull permits, thereby avoiding the rezoning process However, processing permit applications in the interim would be subject to the risk (1) that the land development regula- tions actual~y do eliminate zoning, and (2) that the standards used for the interim review are consistent with the standards ultimately adopted in the land development regulations". The City is working toward the goal of eliminating all zoning districts and adopting the Land Use Map in its place. But, this is not anticipated until mid-1993 at the earliest. And, this is contin- gent upon final approval by the Commission. Therefore, elimination of zoning districts is not guaranteed. There are also fees associated with any rezoning application. There are: $300.00 plus $25.00 per acre or portion of acre to be rezoned, actual cost for the public hearing notice printed (approx- imately $50.00) and $1.00 for each abutting property owner. This . . . . Mr. Hubert R. Early December 8, 1992 Page Two process would, at a minimum, require three (3) months, probably more. It appears that there are three (3) options that you may choose to pursue. These are: 1) Rezone the property to R-1AA to come into compliance with the Land Use Map; 2) Wait until the new Land Development Regulations are approved. This mayor not eliminate zoning districts; and, 3) Submit engineering, with the assumption that zoning districts may be eliminated, for review and not request approval until the Land Development Regulations are in place. In this option you, as the developer, assume all the risks and costs associa- ted with the engineering if zoning districts are not eliminated. Please contact Don LeBlanc of this office should you require further information. SPRINGS Ric ~~z.ns ~\ City Manager RR/DRL cc: Land Development Coordinator Planner . () II c:jtJ I I I I I I f/ // 8 /- . ) ()OI. 110 .~- s- t..! n i . eM ---~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ml i i '" w w r o III ?J i F ~' - 0:: =r - 1 O.-J<:Ju 1 ZO::~W .. 0 0:: III ~r--. .- ~ I'I~ ~z ,;..l ~::J '-'---.:. - ~ ~ ~ o n . . . Snyder, Jennings Cases Will Affect Growth Management by Richard Grosso, Legal Director . . . wo recent opinions by T ~ Florida courts have the : potential to fundamentally I change how development i decisions are made by I local governments and .! reviewed by courts. The Snyder Case The first. Snyder lJ. Board of County Commissioners of BrelJard County. relates to (I) how closely development decisions must be tied to a local comprehensive plan. and (2) who bears the burden of proving that a development order is or is not consistent with a plan. In Snyder. a Brevard County landowner requested that his prop- erty be up-zoned to a classification which would allow the construction of town homes. The Board of County Commissioners denied his request. even though the requested density was less than the maximum allowed in the area by the county's compre- hensive plan. Snyder challenged this denial as being inconsistent with the plan. His case ultimately was de- cided by the Fifth District Court of Appeal (5th DCA). which ruled that the requested rezoning should have been approved. Brevard County has asked the Florida Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the case. The court in Snyder ruled that local government rezoning decisions should be reviewed very c10selx by the courts. This "strict scrutiny rule represents a departure from the traditional and very deferential "fairly debatable" standard. under which courts will uphold a local govern- ment zoning decision for which any plausible. after-the-fact rationale could be offered. The "strict scrutiny. test adopted in Snyder is largely a function of how the role of rezonings has changed since the inception of comprehensive planning. Before comprehensive planning. the fundamental decision about what a parcel's land use and density would be was made through zoning, Now, this decision is made in the plan, and a zoning decision entails applying a particular set of facts to the plan's pre.determined standards. Under the Snyder opinion. rezoning decisions are "quasi-judicial" because they entail the application of a general rule or policy to specific individuals, . interests or situations. This approach, in our view, appropriately preserves the primacy and integrity of comprehensive plans as the fundamental policy document in Florida's communities, 1000 Friends of Florida agrees with the court's decision that zoning decisions should be reviewed very carefully for consistency with a local comprehensive plan. In our view, however, Snyder inappropriately assigns the burden of proving the consistency of a rezoning denial to the local government and fails to apply "strict scrutiny" to the ap- prolJal of a rezoning request. By DEFINITIONS Strict scrutiny: ^ standard used by the courts that requires that deci- sions strictly adhere to the policies in a local government's comprehen- sive plan. Fairly debatable: ^ much looser standard than strict scrutiny. The court asks only if the appropriate- ness of a decision is open to fair debate, and generally deFers to any argument by a local govemment that its decision was a good one. Legislative: Describes the process used by local elected officials when they establish general policies in their comprehensive plans that apply to the entire community, not specific projects. Quasi-judicial: Local agencies act in a "quasi.judicial" manner when they apply the general policies in their compr~hensive plans to specific implementation decisions. requiring the local government to prove that the denial of a rezoning is consistent with the plan. however. Snyder takes an approach that is diFFerent from that of other Florida appellate courts which have adopted the "strict scrutiny" approach. These courts have placed the burden of proving entitlement to a rezoning on the proponent of the rezoning. Under this approach. the landowner who is challenging the denial of a rezoning must prove that the proposal which was denied was consistent with the plan and the zoning decision of the government was not. In a case where the granting of a rezoning is chal- lenged by a third party. the applicant and the local government must affirmatively demonstrate that the rezoning is consistent with the plan. Such a rule would not allow the courts to say that the local govem- ment should have made a better decision than the one being chal- lenged. ^ decision which is shown to fall within the parameters and range of reasonable interpretations of the plan would be upheld even if a diFferent decision would also be consistent with the plan. 1000 Friends agrees with this approach, which requires rezoning decisions to be supported by facts which demon- strate that the objectives of the comprehensive plan are being furthered. An important aspect of "strict scrutiny" is that a zoning decision must be shown to be consistent with a comprehensive plan as a whole, not just one or two distinct parts. This judicial approach should improve the quality of local deci- sions by encouraging local govern- ments to examine c10selv the indi- vidual facts presented by rezoning applications in relation to the goals. objectives and policies previously established in the comprehensive plan. Procedurally. this approach will require local governments to make findings that enable a court to understand the planning rationale of the decision. The adoption of a staFf report or other documents which explain the factual and policy basis for the decision would generally satisfy this requirement. The judicial trend in Florida, away from simply accepting post- hoc rationales for zoning decisions at face value and towards requiring an articulated Factual and policy basis for zoning decisions. is a logical and appropriate e,,,<tension of the require- ment that comprehensive plans be based on supporting data and internally consistent. All of the work that has gone into the development of a plan will be wasted if zoning decisions are not demonstrably calculated to implement a plan's goals. objectives and policies. I 000 Friends supports a judicial approach to "consistency" cases which requires an affirmative show- ing that the intent of a plan is being implemented but which also allows local governments the discretion to (see Snyder page /6/ 418 * . . ,Snyder !mm p.IC/e.JJ act anywhere within the range of discretion established in comprehen- sive plans. . Here's what 1000 Friends would argue should happen. as compared to what the Snyder case requires: I. All applications for rezoning should be reviewed by local governments with "strict scru- tiny" to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the entire comprehensive plan. not just one particular portion of the plan. Snyder suggests that the local government must strictly scrutinize only its intent to deny a rezoning request. 2. If the request is denied and a law suit is initiated. the burden of proving (under strict scrutiny) that the denial was inconsistent with the plan (and that the proposal was consistent) falls on the applicant. Under the Snyder approach. the local government must prove. under strict scrutiny. that its decision was consistent. 3. If the zoning request is approved by the local government but challenged by a third party. the burden of proving that the denied approval was consistent with the pian is on the applicant. The Snyder opinion does not ex- pressly address this situation. but suggests that when a landowner's rights have not been limited by the local action. the courts will not strictly scrutinize the decision, Jennings v. Dade County The case Jennings u. Dade County limits communications between 10c<J1 officials and those involved in a land use dispute. If one party to a dispute which will be decided by a local body has a private conversation with an elected official. the discussion will be as- sumed to cause prejudice to the other party and subject any subse- quent ruling by the elected body to invalidation. In Jennings. a landowner was granted a variance to allow him to operate a quick oil change operation on his property. The adjacent land- owner filed a circuit court complaint alleging that a lobbyist who worked for the landowner had communi- cated with County Commission members outside of the public hearing and that this e\' parte com- munication prejudiced the Commission's decision. On appeal. the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that e\' parte communications should be pre- sumptively prohibited in "quasi- judicial" settings (such as a variance request where a governmental body is determining how the particular facts of a case relate to an existing ordinance). The court ruled that where a party challenges a quasi- judicial action on this basis, a court should presume that the communi- cation prejudiced the complaining party, but that this presumption could be rebutted by a showing that in fact no prejudice occurred. Jennings is the first Florida case to announce such a rule and it can only be speculated whether Florida's other district courts will follow suit. The Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal. Jennings has been praised by those who feel that landowners who 419 ciln hire lobbyists have an unfair ana inappropriate influence on local government decision-making. and that decisions should be based soleh on the record established in public . meetings. On the other hand. the opinion has been criticized by those who argue that the ability to commu- nicate with elected officials on important public matters is a funda- mental component of a citizen's right of access to government. Hopefully. these competing interests can be reconciled by an approach that ensures that quasi- judicial decisions of local govem- ments are based only on consider- ations and arguments that are aired and subject to rebuttal and discus- sion at public hearings. Informal communications between one of the parties al')d a local ,?~cial should not be' completely prohibited as long as . . a record is kept of what was said and the points and considerations dis- cussed at any such meeting are restated at the subsequent public hearing so that the opposing side has an equal opportunity to be heard, Jennings and Snyder depart significantly from the way local decisions have traditionally been reviewed by the courts. This new judicial approach is consistent with the primary role comprehensive plans were given in the Growth Management Act. Local govem- ments are concerned that the local decision-making process may become more complicated. How- ever. a reasonable. common sense approach can ensure that plans are adhered to scrupulously while maintaining meaningful access to the process by all citizens,