Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 06 10 Regular 600 Request for advisability on modifying Section 9-10 (c) (1) City Code of Ordinances COMMISSION AGENDA     Informational Consent ITEM600 Public Hearings Regular X       June 10, 2013KSRS Regular MeetingCity ManagerDepartment         REQUEST: The Community Development Department, Planning Division is presenting the City Commission with a request for advisability as to whether or not to pursue modifications to Section 9-10 (c)(1) of the City’s Code of Ordinances relating to general conditions for approval of a lot split request.   SYNOPSIS: On May 7, 2013, City staff received an application for the City Commission to consider a text amendment to Section 9-10 (c)(1) of the City’s Code of Ordinances.  Specifically, the request is to modify the requirements contained in Section 9-10 (c)(1), which applies to any replat or lot split application proposed for approval by the City Commission. Section 9-10 (c)(1) requires a replat or lot split meet the following criteria:   (c) The application is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood including with respect to the size of existing surrounding lots and development trends in the neighborhood which have been previously approved by the city commission. For properties zoned residential (excluding planned unit developments and Town Center), the resulting lots must comply with the following additional minimum standard:   (1) The size of each proposed lot must be equal to or greater than the average size of all lots that are located within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius around the outer perimeter of the proposed lots and have the same city zoning designation as the proposed lots. The average shall be defined as the arithmetic mean and shall be determined using the average of all residential lots, excluding lots and tracts Regular 600 PAGE 1 OF 3 - June 10, 2013 reserved for stormwater, conservation, and areas on previously approved plans designated for future development. The proposed lots shall be included in the calculation of the average.   The requested modification would allow a lot split as long as the resultant lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size required by the applicable zoning designation.   The language contained in Section 9-10 (c) would remain in place and only the language pertaining to the size of the resultant lots would be changed should the City Commission direct staff to pursue a text amendment.    CONSIDERATIONS: APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY : Section 2 (b), Article VIII, Powers - Constitution of the State of Florida    Florida Statute 163.3194 - Legal Status of Comprehensive Plan  Florida Statute 163.3201  - Relationship of Comprehensive Plan in exercise of Land  Development Regulatory Authority Florida Statute 166.041  - Procedures for adoption of ordinances and resolutions  Winter Springs Charter Section 4.15 - Ordinances in General  Winter Springs Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9  Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan  Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (upholding the constitutionality of  the principles of zoning).     DISCUSSION : In 2006, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 2006-11 which was adopted to promote compatibility and harmony between a property that is proposed for replat or lot split and the surrounding properties. Ordinance 2006-11 provides a methodology to demonstrate compatibility and harmony by requiring applicants for replats or lot splits to demonstrate that each proposed lot that is created is at least as large as the average of all lots within 1,000 feet of the subject property that are located within the same zoning district. This only applies to properties zoned residential and excludes properties zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Town Center. The Findings considered as part of the agenda item on Ordinance 2006-11 were as follows:   The request is in keeping with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and  Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes.   The request is in conformance with the purpose and intent of the City Code and with  all applicable requirements.   The request is in keeping with Article VIII, Section 2(b) of the State Constitution.    The request provides a more objective methodology to demonstrate that a plat, re  plat, or lot split is compatible and in harmony with the neighborhood.   If the Commission directs staff to prepare a text amendment to modify Section 9-10 (c) (1), the amended text would be prepared so as to insure that said text remains consistent with Regular 600 PAGE 2 OF 3 - June 10, 2013 the Comprehensive Plan, the City Code, and all other applicable regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediately measurable fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item has been electronically forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission, City Manager, City Attorney/Staff, and is available on the City’s Website, LaserFiche, and the City’s Server. Additionally, portions of this Agenda Item are typed verbatim on the respective Meeting Agenda which has also been electronically forwarded to the individuals noted above, and which is also available on the City’s Website, LaserFiche, and the City’s Server; has been sent to applicable City Staff, Media/Press Representatives who have requested Agendas/Agenda Item information, Homeowner’s Associations/Representatives on file with the City, and all individuals who have requested such information. This information has also been posted outside City Hall, posted inside City Hall with additional copies available for the General Public, and posted at five (5) different locations around the City. Furthermore, this information is also available to any individual requestors. City Staff is always willing to discuss this Agenda Item or any Agenda Item with any interested individuals.   RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Commission consider the request and the information provided in this agenda item and provide direction to staff as they deem appropriate.  The Commission can instruct staff to pursue a text amendment to the Code of Ordinances or choose to leave the Code as it currently reads relative to replat and lot split approval criteria. ATTACHMENTS: A.Section 9-10 (c)(1) - City of Ordinances B.Ordinance 2006-11 Regular 600 PAGE 3 OF 3 - June 10, 2013 Municode Attachment"A" Sec. 9-10. - General criteria for approval. Before any plat replat or lot split application is approved by the city commission under this chapter, the applicant must demonstrate, and the city commission must find, that the proposed plat, replat or lot split meets the following criteria: (a)The application is in compliance with the provisions of this chapter and applicable law. (b) The application is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and applicable city master plans. (c) The application is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood including with respect to the size of existing surrounding lots and development trends in the neighborhood which have been previously approved by the city commission. For properties zoned residential (excluding planned unit developments and Town Center), the resulting lots must comply with the following additional minimum standard: (1) The size of each proposed lot must be equal to or greater than the average size of all lots that are located within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius around the outer perimeter of the proposed lots and have the same city zoning designation as the proposed lots. The average shall be defined as the arithmetic mean and shall be determined using the average of all residential lots, excluding lots and tracts reserved for stormwater, conservation, and areas on previously approved plans designated for future development. The proposed lots shall be included in the calculation of the average. (d) The application does not create any lots, tracts of land or developments that do not conform to the City Code. (e) The application does not create burdensome congestion on the streets and highways. (f) The application promotes the orderly layout and use of land. (g) The application provides for adequate light and air. (h) The application does not create overcrowding of land. (i) The application does not pose any significant harm to the adequate and economical provision of water, sewer, and other public services. (j) The application provides for proper ingress and egress through a public or approved private street or perpetual cross access easements. (Ord. No. 2005-23, § 2, 9-12-05; Ord. No. 2006-11, § 2, 9-11-06) http://library.municode.com/...a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTML%2f12019%2flevel3%2fPTIICOOR_CH9LADE_ARTIINGE.html\[5/16/2013 10:38:22 AM\] Attachment"B"