Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 05 06 Consent 200 Approval of the April 1, 2009 Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING APRIL 1, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting of Wednesday, April 1, 2009 was called to Order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Charles Lacey in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Chairman Charles Lacey, present Vice Chairman William H. Poe, present Board Member Robert Heatwole, absent Board Member Rosanne Karr, present Board Member Justin C. Reviczky, present A moment of silence preceded the Pledge of Allegiance. INFORMATIONAL AGENDA INFORMATIONAL 100. Not Used. CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT 200. Office Of The City Clerk Re-Approval Of The February 10, 2009 Special Meeting Minutes. There was no discussion on this Agenda Item. CONSENT 201. Office Of The City Clerk Approval Of The March 4, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes. This Agenda Item was not discussed. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 12 CONSENT 202. Office Of The City Clerk Approval Of The March 10, 2009 Special Meeting Minutes. No discussion. "MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES [CONSENT AGENDA] AS CIRCULATED." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN POE. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE BOARD MEMBER REVICZICY: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER I{ARR: AYE MOTION CARRIED. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS 300. Not Used. 400. REPORTS PUBLIC INPUT No one spoke. PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 500. Office Of The City Attorney And Community Development Department Request The LPA (Local Planning Agency)/P&Z (Planning And Zoning Board) To Remove From The Table And Then Discuss To Hold A Public Hearing Related To Ordinance No. (Number) 2009-03, Amending Chapters 16 And 20 Of The City Code, As They Relate To The Signage. '~ Chairman Lacey asked, "Do I have a Motion to Remove this from the Table?" CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 3 OF 12 "SO MOVED TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN POE. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER REVICZKY. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER REVICZKY: AYE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. John Baker, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department presented this Agenda Item and stated, "At the last Meeting you had asked me a question about the Fees for the different signs. The City Resolution (Number) 2001-45 does set forth the Fees that the City assesses for signage. The cost for a Banner is thirty dollars ($30.00); for other signs, there is a minimum of forty-five dollars ($45.00) and it is evaluated at twelve dollars ($12.00) per thousand and the building plans Review Fee is half of the Permit Fee." Continuing, Mr. Baker added, "There were several that we put forward last time that I tried to address in the page two (2) of your Agenda Item -the people from the Realtor's Association were concerned about limiting the distance to half mile from the home that is being sold and -you have a copy of the email that I received from them this afternoon on the dais. The Attorney (Anthony A. Garganese) - I forwarded that to him, the results of their verbal comments at the last Meeting and he replied, `The half mile will run from a common area of the HOA (Homeowner's Association) because the common area will be treated as on premise'. And then he further added, that if we need to clarify that, we can." Furthermore, Mr. Baker stated, "The other one was the length of time for commercial banners and I note that we had had a lot of requests about commercial banners, but I do not believe we had one request since this Ordinance has been in effect for a banner in a residential neighborhood." Mr. Baker added, "Staff talked it over and we feel that forty- five (45) days given the cost of constructing the banner, the cost of permitting the banner, forty-five (45) days is a reasonable amount of time, so we do recommend making that a little bit longer." Mr. Baker then stated, "The other one (1) is the lady came here from the Tax office down here on (State Road) 434. She is only allowed to have a two (2) square foot sign whereas a retail establishment can have a sign two feet (2') tall times seventy percent (70%) of whatever her storefront area would be." Continuing, Mr. Baker said, "We recommend that offices be treated the same as retail; that just seems fair to us. a~ ~~. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 12 There is one (1) other item that came up in the discussion that I forgot to include in the Agenda Item and that is, you could very conceivably have and some of our Staff people ~ have seen this, some very strategically located corners that could just get loaded up with these signs like the realtor folks are asking for. We do not think that is a good thing to have. We recommend limiting, keeping the limit on those residential lots to four (4) signs. That way, we feel that we have some order there." With further discussion, Mr. Baker added, "In terms of the Realtor's request to extend the time that the signs can be up from thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days, we do not see a problem with that." Lastly, Mr. Baker commented, "We do recommend this going forward to the City Commission, but with those recommendations." To clarify Mr. Baker's statement, Vice Chairman William H. Poe asked, "I thought you had the signs at thirty (30) days, but you are telling me now that you are willing to go to forty-five (45) [days]?" Mr. Baker replied, "Yes -the Attorney's office did not revise the Ordinance. We are making these recommendations for him to make those changes before it goes to Commission." Discussion ensued on Banners. Chairman Lacey opened the "Public Input "portion of this Agenda Item. Mr. Greg Goodenbury, 380 West State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Board Members regarding signage for his business and has concerns on the size. A photograph of the signage was shown. Mr. Randy Stevenson, ASLA, AICP, Director, Community Development Department stated, "I think it would be appropriate at this point, to instruct Staff to work on this language before we take it to the Commission. Now, my question to you is, as we craft language, does - P And Z/LPA (Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency) want to see this again prior to taking it to the Commission, because it would be a new language that we do not have in your current draft." Chairman Lacey replied, "I think we would like to have it come back to us. What would be the suggested changes that would accommodate this? Do you agree that those renditions are -accurate, based upon current Code and what he would be allowed to do?" Mr. Stevenson replied, "This is the first time I have seen it tonight, but I have no reason to doubt it." Continuing, Mr. Stevenson added, "What we are trying to do, even before we finish the Comp[rehensive] Plan issues and we are trying to segregate them -there are a lot of issues that we deal with on a daily basis that makes sense to us, but for which we have yet to be able to Amend the Code, so we would like to do this in big sections - so we do not have to do so many of them." Mr. Stevenson then added, "If we can incorporate this and bring this back to you - it is probably the most expedient route and that way we can address many of the sign issues that we have." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING - APRII, 1, 2009 PAGE 5 OF 12 Mr. Baker asked, "You would want to postpone it again to a Time Certain? Mr. Stevenson replied, "Absolutely." Mr. Baker commented, "To preserve the advertising." Discussion. Board Member Justin C. Reviczky stated, "Point of Order" to close Public Input. ~, Vice Chairman Poe asked, "Can you pinpoint a date Randy [Stevenson] that would be acceptable to give Staff sufficient time to work on the verbiage for this?" Mr. Stevenson replied, "I believe we had discussed the next Regular Meeting on May 6`~ [2009]." Chairman Lacey closed the "Public Input"portion of this Agenda Item. "I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE ITEM `500' UNTIL MAY 6TH [2009] TO PROVIDE STAFF AN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE INCLUDED IN THIS ITEM." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN POE. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER REVICZKY. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER REVICZKY: AYE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department -Planning Division Requests That The Local Planning Agency Review, Comment And Make Recommendation To The City Commission On The Draft Future Land Use Element. Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner, Community Development Department presented the Future Land Use Element Draft and stated, "The Goal for `Quality of Life'; it has been rewritten. I think it is much clearer and addresses more things." Ms. Sahlstrom commented, "We added Policy 1.1.6: which is related to the Accessory Dwelling Units." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 6 OF 12 Continuing, Ms. Sahlstrom referred to [Policy] 1.2.1:, we changed that language to `Resource Protection' to make it an Ordinance for Resource Protection rather than `Aquifer Recharge'." Ms. Sahlstrom commented, "[Policy] 1.2.2:, is a new Policy - supporting what we are supposed to be doing anyway. Under - [Policy] 1.2.5:, we added the date, `2012' to complete the study and we also added `to pursue grant funding'." Chairman Lacey noted that on [Policy] 1.2.6, "I think you meant `within' 500 feet?" Ms. Sahlstrom replied, "Yes." For Policy 1.2.12: Lake Buffers/Fill., Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "This kind of gives some more language to what it would or would not allow, so there is some additional language here and what we are basically saying - it talks about protection of the existing vegetation, but also would allow some limited piers and decks to exist in the lake buffer area." Continuing, Ms. Sahlstrom stated that on Policy, "1.4.1:, Redevelopment Plans that is a new Policy to create Redevelopment or small area plans to identify and establish redevelopment opportunities." Chairman Lacey stated, "I do not have [Policy] 1.4.1:." Ms. Sahlstrom noted this deletion. Referring to Policy 1.4.4: Visioning Workshop, Ms. Sahlstrom commented, "We added some language -that we would `Hold a Visioning Workshop to discuss specific issues that may impede Infill and Redevelopment activities'." Discussion. Chairman Lacey pointed out, "That there may be some external factors that may have taken the term and made it mean something else, so it might be wise to use some slightly different words." Ms. Sahlstrom asked, "Do you have any suggestions?" Discussion. Mr. Stevenson stated, "I want to make sure that we do not limit our ability to do that when we talk about Redevelopment areas." Ms. Sahlstrom asked, "Should I take `visioning' out?" Vice Chairman Poe suggested, "`Redevelopment Visioning Workshop' so it identifies it for what it's original purpose is -just `Redevelopment' is not the concept of Visioning experience for the entire City?" Ms. Sahlstrom said, "That is fine. So, just say, `Redevelopment Visioning Workshop here and then down here just say, `Hold a Workshop'. Does that work for everybody?" Chairman Lacey stated, "It works for me." Board Member Rosanne Karr replied, "Yes." There were no other objections voiced." Next, on Policy 1.4.5:, Ms. Sahlstrom added to the end, "`Allow a vertical mix of Uses to promote alive-work environment'." CTfY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 7 OF 12 Referencing Policy 1.5: Land Use Compatibility., Ms. Sahlstrom added text, "`Follow the City Code of Ordinances that strictly prohibits the expansion ofNon-Conforming Uses'." Continuing to Policy 1.5.2:, Ms. Sahlstrom commented that, "We changed that to say `Non-Conforming Structures' which is the definition in the Code." Tape 1/Side B Mr. Stevenson stated, "The intent of the Non-Conforming Use - is to allow a Use that has preceded the Code or was built to a different Code prior to it being adopted." Discussion. Next, Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "This is a new Policy 1.5.3: RedevelopmentJInfill Development and there again, it is the idea of figuring out the priorities and addressing ways that primarily it is a Staff effort to look at how the Zoning -what might work in different areas that would have Redevelopment or Infill and then Amend the Code if necessary to support that or if there are incentives that the City would wish to offer for certain Infill or Redevelopment." Ms. Sahlstrom noted that, "We previously had a Policy regarding Lake Jesup - we just deleted that Policy, and the reason being is that if it is in the Town Center, it would need to develop the Town Center standards and we do not want to prohibit Commercial Use - if it could fit the Town Center Code." Continuing, Ms. Sahlstrom referred to Policy 1.5.7: and said, "We added aphrase - Compatibility -this phrase says, `And which encourage property owners to make property upgrades which enhance and increase property values'." Discussion. Referencing Policy 1.5.9:, Board Member Karr suggested, "Taking out the words `shall be strictly limited'." Chairman Lacey said, "Yes." Ms. Sahlstrom replied, "Good point." Referring back to Policy 1.5.2:, Ms. Sahlstrom suggested that, "Instead of fifty (50) percent, it should be sixty (60) percent of its appraised value." Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "[Policy] 1.6: Transportation/Land Use Compatibility; the first Policy previously stated, which you do not have - `Curb cuts and points of access to the traffic circulation system from individual parcels shall be minimized'. That was struck." Referencing Policy 1.6.1:, Mr. Stevenson suggested language to use, "`Encourage' instead of `Require' since we are talking about two (2) land owners." Board Member Karr stated, "I agree." There were no objections. o--~~- ~.-.v ~~ ~.,'; ..~.,''` Discussion ensued on Policy 1.8.3:. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FIARIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING - APRII.1, 2009 PAGE 8 OF 12 Continuing, Mr. Stevenson stated, "We might want to add a little bit of language to the end of this that says, `Require new development within the County and areas that are contiguous to the City to be annexed into the City and to be developed to City standards as their condition for connection to City utility unless that development is the subject of a '°° special mutually agreed upon utility agreement'." Mr. Stevenson then added, "That way, we would have language in the Comp[rehensive] Plan that would allow that to happen ~„ without having to go back and Amend this Comp[rehensive] Plan for that situation." Chairman Lacey asked, "Is that acceptable to the Board?" Board Member Reviczky replied, "Yes." Board Member Karr stated, "Yes." There were no objections voiced. Referencing Policy 1.9.5:, Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "We added -previously said `historic resources', we added, `archaeological and paleontological'." Policy 1.10:, Ms. Sahlstrom said, "We added `stormwater' in the Public Utility Requirements." For GOAL 2: Town Center., Ms. Sahlstrom remarked, "We added the language, `The primary purpose of the Town Center shall be to create a vibrant, aesthetic, compact, multimodal, diverse, mixed use (including horizontal and vertical integration of uses) neo-traditional urban environment, designed on a pedestrian scale and with a pedestrian orientation', we added most of that phrase - it adds more clarification to the GOAL." Ms. Sahlstrom noted adding in Policy 2.1.8:, `Design Charettes. Host design charettes to create small area plans consistent with the Town Center Master Plan involving property owners and stakeholders for the following areas prior to their development between Orange Avenue and Lake Jesup north and adjacent to Tuscawilla PUD (Planned Unit Development)." Discussion ensued on Development Review Committee. Chairman Lacey asked the Board Members, "What is your opinion whether the Town Center issues should come through P And Z (Planning And Zoning [Board/Local Planning Agency])." Vice Chairman Poe replied, "I would like to climb that mountain." Board Member Karr stated, "So would I." Chairman Lacey stated, "The City Commission still has ultimate authority on these matters, one way or another and some of them are reluctant to see that authority to where any decision on the Town Center or related issue -you identify the problem of in the Town Center we only wanted to have the Developer and his Attorney and his Architect come before the City Commission once and get it done. The problem is we have everybody else come here -and then they go back two (2) or three (3) weeks later - in front of the Commission. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 9 OF 12 I think the better way to do that is to do -for everybody in the City here and what comes out of this body goes to the City Commission but goes on the Consent Agenda and that gives the City Commission a chance to approve it if they have an issue, they can pull it off the Consent Agenda and have the Applicant come back at another time -the Applicant comes here to make his presentation once, and if he is approved, have some level of confidence that he is done and he will not have to go through the process again." ~4 ~~ Discussion. Chairman Lacey commented that, "I think the process is to get Staff s support of this, which includes your boss and Commission support one (1) by one (1) and see if it is viable." Mr. Stevenson stated, "I like Mr. Lacey's suggestion. I would certainly be willing to put that on the Table. I would agree with you that the proper vehicle for this is probably as we begin to forward the rewrites to the Code wherein those specific procedures are defined. If that is the wish, we will certainly take that under advisement as Staff." Referencing Policy 2.2:, Neo-traditional., Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "We added `Pedestrian size blocks' and `Non-gated developments' under [Policy] 2.2.1:." Tape 2/Side A Discussion ensued on Policy 2.2.8:. Continuing onto to GOAL 3, Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "We added a Policy (3.1.3) on `Connectivity'." Ms. Sahlstrom remarked, "Policy 3.2.4: is a new Policy and it restates about the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.0." Mr. Stevenson stated, "I would also tell the Board that all of these perimeters are subject to change as we begin negotiations with the County and the other Cities on this SeminoleWAY Interchanges." Discussion. Vice Chairman Poe asked, "Is that your recommendation Mr. Chair? Just take the stories out and let the Floor [Area] Ratio do it?" Chairman Lacey replied, "Is that acceptable?" Board Member Reviczky said, "I like that." Mr. Stevenson asked, "Along with that are you satisfied with an FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.0?" Board Member Reviczky replied, "I would like to see that go to `2.0' or `1.5'." Chairman Lacey stated, "As a technical matter, I would like to see it go higher, 2.0 would be good." Chairman Lacey confirmed, "My recommendation we go to 2.0." CTfY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FIARIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 10 OF I2 Continuing, Ms. Sahlstrom asked, "On Policy 3.2.4, would you recommend keeping the first part of the sentence, which requires buildings to include at least two (2) stories; and is it your recommendation to strike the last part that basically is the incentive to -and also the restriction?" Chairman Lacey suggested, "I would take it from `Restrict' to the end of the paragraph and delete that..." Ms. Sahlstrom added, "...and leave the two story?" Chairman Lacey continued, "And if the Board will agree to change the 1.0 to "~' 2.0." Board Member Reviczky stated, "I would support that." Vice Chairman Poe replied, "So would I." Board Member Karr stated, "Yes." Lastly, Ms. Sahlstrom noted, "I would guess that if we are changing the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) we are going to have to likely include some Traffic studies for DCA (Community Development Affairs) to -they are going to ask for a lot of documentation to show that the Traffic can support the 2.0. That is my hesitation with the 2.0." Mr. Baker then added, "I just would like to point out that right now (State Road) 434 on the east side of the 417 [GreenWAY Interchange] is very constricted." Discussion. Chairman Lacey stated, "I still say go with 2.0 and let us see what happens and, of course, this will get discussed April 20th [2009] again." With discussion on Policy 3.2.2:, Mr. Stevenson asked, "It says vertical, what about `first building'? If it is a vertical integration, what is the Board's feeling on if it is vertically integrated which means it has to be in conjunction with and maybe no more than fifty percent (50%) of a building to allow residential to come at that point, or does the Board wish to take out any allowances for residential and the CrreenWAY Interchange which has been discussed in the past." Chairman Lacey replied, "We do not really want that to be a truly residential complex out there. We want it to be driven by Commercial Use." Board Member Reviczky added, "I agree with everything that has been said here." Vice Chairman Poe stated, "My concern is though that if you leave that thirty percent (30%) land - as long as it is vertically integrated - but I do not want it to be all residential -not at all." Chairman Lacey said, "I can support that." For clarification, Mr. Stevenson stated, "All of the residential has to be vertical integration. It can be from the first building not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of that building. Does that summarize it fairly well?" Chairman Lacey replied, "Yes." Vice Chairman Poe noted, "Yes." There were no objections voiced. Discussion. CrrY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FIARIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 11 OF 12 To clarify the language, Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "And require no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of any building in Residential Use - to be vertically integrated into Mixed Used structure." Mr. Stevenson commented, "We can work on the language, but the intent is maximum twenty-five percent (25%) residential." Lastly, Mr. Stevenson added, "And do we go as far to make the statement that `No building can be compromised of ~ more than twenty-five percent (25%)'." f`N To summarize, Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "And limit the residential components to no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of any one (1) vertically integrated Mixed Use structure." Board Member Karr said, "Perfect." Chairman Lacey stated, "Yes." Board Member Reviczky replied, "Good." There were no other objections voiced. Continuing with the Future Land Use Element, Ms. Sahlstrom commented, "[Policy] 3.3.3: and 3.3.4:, those are both also new policies." Discussion ensued on having a Water Taxi connecting the Town Center and the GreenWAY [Interchange]. Tape 2 /Side B On Policy 5.2.8:, Board Member Karr suggested to take out the word `are'." Ms. Sahlstrom noted the change. Chairman Lacey stated, "Like we have done in the past, we will have a Motion to Approve this as discussed subject to editorial, not Policy changes, to be submitted by Ms. Karr [Board Member]." Ms. Sahlstrom replied, "That sounds good." Chairman Lacey asked, "Is there a Motion?" "I MAKE THAT MOTION." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER KARR. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN POE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE BOARD MEMBER REVICZKY: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. To review the calendar, Chairman Lacey stated, "Apri16~' [2009] next Monday, we meet and you gave the Commission last Monday a list of Elements we were going to cover?" Ms. Sahlstrom replied, "Yes." Board Member Karr reported that she would be out of town but would participate by phone. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 1, 2009 PAGE 12 OF 12 Discussion ensued on the upcoming Meeting of Apri16~' 2009. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Lacey adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:33 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: JOAN L. BROWN DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED: CHARLES LACEY, CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ~:. NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the , 2009 Regulat Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Meeting.