HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 07 12 Public Hearings 408
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 408
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular
x
Julv 12. 2004
Meeting
G~
Dept.
REQUEST:
The City Attorney and City Manager request that the City Commission approve on Second Reading
Ordinance 2004-31 which shall amend Chapter 6 of the City Code, relating to minimum setback
requirements for principal buildings located on property zoned planned unit developments.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish minimum City Code setback requirements for principal
buildings located on property zoned planned unit development.
APPLICABLE LA W AND PUBLIC POLICY:
1. Florida Municipal Home Rule Powers Act.
.2. The United States Supreme Court has held that comprehensive zoning maybe accomplished
as a valid exercise of a state's police power. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272
U.S.365 (1926).
3. Chapter 6, Buildings and Building Regulations, City Code.
Page 1 of 3
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Setbacks are required to preserve open space and to protect harmony in the community.
Setbacks serve as buffers between structures and land uses.
2. Pursuant tb the City's existing PUD ordinance, the City has historically established setback
requirements for PUD developments by requiring developers to record private deed
restrictions.
3. The existing PUD ordinance does not impose specific setback requirements for principal
buildings and structures by Code.
4. However, the City does impose general setback requirements for accessory structures, screen
enclosures, and swimming pools by City Code that are applicable for real property zoned PUD.
See e.g. 99 6-84 and 6-85, Winter Springs Code.
5. As a result, setback enforcement issues have arisen in PUD zoning districts from time to time.
Specifically, does the City or the subject homeowner's association enforce the setback?
Further, which entity can approve a variance to the setback requirements established by deed
restriction?
6. These issues have been complicated by the fact the City Commission has approved numerous
Pun developments and each development has its own unique set of private deed restrictions
with varying setback requirements.
7. Consistent with the approach to establish minimum City Code setbacks for accessory
structures, screen enclosures, and swimming pools, the City Attorney and City Manager
believe the City should establish minimum City Code setbacks for principal buildings located
within PUD zoning districts. It does not make sense to only have minimum setback
requirements for less intensive and obtrusive structures such as pools, screen enclosures, and
accessory buildings and not have such minimum requirements for principal buildings.
8. Ordinance 2004-31 will provide a safeguard against a homeowner's Association amending
their private deed restrictions, or granting a variance, to eliminate the setback requirements for
principal buildings.
9. Per the City Commission's directions at the June 28,2004 Commission meeting, a separate
subsection was added to address zero lot line~. Further, a conflict section was added to address
any applicable development agreements and court approved settlement agreements. In the
event of any conflict between the proposed code and a development agreement or court
approved settlement agreement, the applicable agreement will prevail.
Page 2 of 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Attorney and City Manager recommend approval of Ordinance No 2004-31 on First
Reading and that Ordinance No. 2004-31 be publicly advertised for Second and Final Reading.
ATTACHMENT:
Ordinance No. 2004-31.
COMMISSION ACTION:
The City Commission has previously directed that City staff propose amendments to the City's PUD
ordinance as needed.
Page 3 of 3