HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 08 10 Regular 602 Request for advisability - Lot splits COMMISSION AGENDA
Informational
Consent
ITEM 602 Public Hearin s
g
Regular X
August 10, 2015 KS RS
Regular Meeting City Manager Department
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:
At the July 27, 2015 meeting, the City Commission directed staff to bring forward, at a
future meeting, a request for advisability to consider Section 9-10 (c)(1) of the City's Code
of Ordinances, which regulates the procedure for any lot split or replat of real property
within the City of Winter Springs. This section requires that any lot split or replat of
property meet the arithmetic mean of all "like zoned" properties within a 1,000-foot radius,
irrespective of the minimum lot size allowed by the zoning district in which the property is
located.
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
Regular 602 PAGE 1 OF 4-August 10,2015
. Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (upholding the constitutionality of
the principles of zoning).
DISCUS SION:
Section 9-10 (c)(1)requires a replat or lot split to meet the following criteria:
(c) The application is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding nei�hborhood
including with respect to the size of existing surrounding lots and development trends in the
nei�hborhood which have been previously ap�roved by the city commission. For properties
zoned residential (excluding�lanned unit develo�ments and Town Center), the resulting
lots must com�lv with theefollowing additional minimum standard:
(1) The size of each proposed lot must be equal to or�eater than the average size
of all lots that are located within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius around the
outer�erimeter o the�ro�osed lots and have the same citv zoning designation as
the proposed lots. The avera�e shall be de�ned as the arithmetic mean and shall be
determined usin� the avera�of all residential lots, excludin� lots and tracts
reserved for stormwater, conservation, and areas on previously approved plans
desi�for future development. The proposed lots shall be included in the
calculation of the average.
Section 9-10 of the City Code was adopted in 2005 to establish general criteria for approval
of a plat, replat, or lot split prior to said item being presented to the City Commission for
consideration of approval. This section of the Code was adopted to promote compatibility
and harmony between a property that is proposed for a replat or lot split and the surrounding
properties.
In 2006, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 2006-11 which added the "arithmatic
mean" provision to Section 9-10 C as it was determined there was a need to supplement the
existing criteria to provide additional safeguards for established residential neighborhoods.
This is a methodology for applicants to demonstrate compatibility and harmony with the
surrounding properties 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 subj ect property that are located within the same zoning district as the subj ect
property. If the proposed lots are as large as the average size of all lots within 1,000 feet of
the subject property, then the lot split can be presented to the City Commission for
consideration of approval. If the proposed lots are not as large as the average size of all lots
within 1,000 feet of the subject property, then the lot split cannot be presented to the City
Commission for consideration of approval, and the proposal is considered denied. This
criteria only applies to properties zoned residential and excludes properties zoned Planned
Unit Development(PUD) and Town Center.
Prior to the adoption of Section 9-10 and Section 9-10 (c)(1), a platted single lot could be
divided into no more than 2 parcels or lots with the approval of the City Commission. These
lots were required to be consistent with the minimum lot size and other applicable criteria
for the zoning district in which it was located.
Regular 602 PAGE 2 OF 4-August 10,2015
Staff has performed a survey of other jurisdictions located within Central Florida. Their
procedures are noted below:
. Oviedo —Permits a non-statutory subdivision when a lot is divided into 3 lots or less.
Lots must satisfy the minimum criteria of the zoning district in which it is located.
Only requires Land Use Administrator approval.
. Casselberry — Permits a Minor subdivision when 4 lots or less are created from 1
parcel. Lots created must satisfy minimum criteria of the zoning district in which it is
located. Requires City Commission approval and a plat.
. Longwood - permits a lot split when a parcel is split into no more than 2 parcels
provided lots created satisfy minimum zoning district criteria. Requires City
Commission approval.
. Tavares — permits a lot split when a parcel is split into no more than 2 lots provided
lots created satisfy the minimum criteria of the zoning district in which it is located.
Does not require City Commission approval. Only approval of the Community
Development Director.
. Lady Lake — permits a lot split provided parcel is split into no more than 2 lots, and
lots created satisfy minimum criteria of the zoning district in which it is located.
Requires approval of the Town Manager.
On October 28, 2013, at the request of the Commission, Staff presented a workshop in
regards to lot splits, specifically related to Section 9-10(c)(1). No directive was given by the
Commission to staff at this workshop in regards to amending or deleting this Code
requirement. Therefore, no action was taken.
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 amendment remains
consistent with 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.
Regular 602 PAGE 3 OF 4-August 10,2015
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. Workshop minutes - October 28, 2013
C. Ranchlands as originally platted in 1958
D. Ranchlands existing conditions map
E. Ranchlands lot split conditions map
Regular 602 PAGE 4 OF 4-August 10,2015
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
lans.
(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.
(fl 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.
Q) The application provides for proper ingress and egress through a public or approved private
street or perpetual cross access easements.
Page 1
Attachment " B "
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
�1`�,N T E�'S
o�` �
�. '
�- * x
_ �
� �,���.�d �'
• I959 •
�tiGOD wE��Jy�c
CITY COMMISSION
MINUTES
WORKSHOP :
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2013 :
CITY HALL—COMMISSION CHAMBERS
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434,WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
Mayor Charles Lacey
Deputy Mayor Cade Resnick - Seat Four
Commissioner Jean Hovey - Seat One
Commissioner Rick Brown- Seat Two
Commissioner Pam Carroll - Seat Three
Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs - Seat Five
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP-OCTOBER 28,2013 PAGE 2 OF 5
CALL TO ORDER
The Workshop of Monday, October 28, 2013 of the City Commission was called to Order by Mayor Charles
Lacey at 6:18 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building(City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434,
Winter Springs,Florida 32708).
Roll Call:
Mayor Charles Lacey,present
Deputy Mayor Cade Resnick,present
Commissioner Jean Hovey, absent
Commissioner Rick Brown,present
Commissioner Pam Carroll,present
Commissioner Joanne M.Krebs,present via telephone
City Manager Kevin L. Smith,present
City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese,absent
Assistant City Attorney Kate Latorre,present
City Clerk Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces,present
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. William Fernandez, 250 East Panama Road, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on his property, that they
own an Easement on their property, an Attorney Opinion, and they wanted to have a lot split so they could make
plans for retiring on another part of their property.
Mr. Martin Miller, 233 East Panama Road, Winter Springs, Florida: said he wanted to split a lot but part of the
lot would be unbuildable which would affect lot split rules.
REGULAR AGENDA
REGULAR
600. Community Development Department
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department requests the City Commission hear a presentation from Staff
regarding Lot Split and Re-platting procedures as they specifically relate to Section 9-10 (c)(1) of the Code
of Ordinances.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP-OCTOBER 28,2013 PAGE 3 OF 5
COMMUNICATION EFFORTS:
This Agenda Item Has Been Electronically Forwarded To The Mayor And City Commission, City
Manager, City Attorney/Staff, And All eAlertleCitizen Recipients; 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 RespecNve 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 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; And Has 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. This Agenda Item Is Also Available To Any New Individual
Requestors. Ciry Staff Is Always �lling To Discuss This Or Any Agenda Item �th Any Interested
Individuals.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department is requesting that the City Commission hear a presentation
from Staff regarding Lot Split and Re-platting procedures as they relate to Section 9-10 (c) (1) of the Code
of Ordinances and provide any direction the Commission deems appropriate.
Mr. Bobby Howell, AICP, Planner, Community Development Department presented some information on Lot
Splits, the arithmatic mean related to the Code, zoning, original factors and requirements related to a Lot Split,
data on previous lot splits, and went through the various sections in the Ranchlands with the numbers of lot splits
that have taken place. Mr. Howell then showed some images related to the Ranchlands before lot splits and the
present day view; and also how other jurisdictions handle lot split requests.
In closing, Mr. Howell stated, "We're requesting the City Commission consider the information that we presented
tonight and give us direction in regards to section 9-10. (c) (1). We can leave the Code as is,modify it or strike it
and allow the Zoning Code to regulate lot sizes."
Discussion then ensued on how restrictive our lot split criteria was in comparison to other jurisdictions.
: Mayor Lacey said to Mr. Howell, "You referenced some of the other cities in the area, and that they all allow lot
splits in some fashion or form, would you say that our 9-10. (c) (1) is more restrictive than any of those other
cities' regulations are?"
Mr. Howell replied, "Yes. Doing the research of other jurisdictions, I was unable to find anywhere that has a
provision in the Code like we do." Mr. Howell noted a couple of jurisdictions he personally was familiar with
and added, "Lot splits were basically meet the Zoning criteria; and it requires the approval of the Community
Development Director."
Mr.Randy Stevenson,ASLA,AICP, Director, Community Development Department stated, "We've talked about '
several things, one of those was we currently have a Zoning Code that allows a one (1) acre lot. We have an
additional requirement that was put into place as we all talked about here tonight, that is an additional protection
if you will, on the size of those lots out there such that they probably in most cases exceed the minimal lot
required by the Zoning.
One of the other things we talked about was, do we come back now and try to put in another Zoning category for
a two (2) acre or a two and a half( 2 %z) acre lot and so forth. The problem with that is whatever threshold we
choose, immediately we're going to create a lot of non-conforming lots in that Zoning category.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP-OCTOBER 28,2013 PAGE 4 OF 5
So, your Staff has talked about that but we've really not given that particular thing a lot of thought. And I just
offer this information to you,just as additional information and nothing else at this point."
Deputy Mayor Resnick commented, `By altering this 9-10. (c) (1), would we not be taking away the primary
concept of many of the residents who moved into the Ranchlands and starting to create an urban sprawl." Deputy
Mayor Resnick then referenced that Commissioner Brown had someone come to a previous City Commission
meeting to speak on this issue.
Mr. Howell pointed out, "There is a minimum one (1) acre lot size in the majority of the Ranchlands, it's zoned
`RC-1' which requires a minimum of one acre lot size. If you had a code which basically allowed a lot split
without the one thousand foot perimeter thing,you would meet the one(1)acre minimum lot size.
The majority of the lots in our City are not one (1) acre in size; most of them are 10,000 square feet in area,
however it could be argued as well, that there were people that came to the City in the past seeking additional
protection from lot splits in the Ranchlands,and that's where the thousand foot radius was derived from. I think it
was a consensus of a previous Commission that created that; so, yes that could be a safeguard to protect - the
integrity of the Ranchlands."
Mayor Lacey summarized that after Public Input, "Staff will work on digesting those comments and coming back
with any proposed changes.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. William Fernandez, 250 East Panama Road, Winter Springs, Florida: showed his property and mentioned
that previously he had to set aside one(1)acre for agricultural and their intent was to split the lot, live on part of it
and have seven(7)acres to be used for a horse pasture which is an Permitted Use according to the Easement.
Continuing, Mr. Fernandez referenced a previous remark on urban sprawl and thought there is "No urban sprawl
that has not already occurred." With further comments on other jurisdictions that do not have our restrictions,Mr.
Fernandez thought lot splits would be better addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element and to
let Staff decide on these matters as they come up; and asked for more flexibility.
Mayor Lacey mentioned that Mr. Fernandez was more than welcome to individually call or email himself and/or
any Commissioner.
Deputy Mayor Resnick said to Mr. Howell, "Based on what was mentioned and a possibility of one acre lots or
two acre lots,what would it take to draw it so I could visually see it -so I can see what that might look like in the
future when you do bring it back to us."
Mr. Howell summarized, "Draw up the difference between a 1 and 2 acre lots - in the Ranchlands. With no
objections voiced,Mr.Howell stated,"Sure,absolutely,we can put together a graphic for you."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP—OCTOBER 28,2013 PAGE 5 OF 5
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lacey adjourned the Workshop at 6:47 p.m.
RESPECTF ULL Y S UBMITTED:
�
RENZO-LUACES,MMC
CI CLERK
APPROVED:
�� �
MA R CHAi��.. L '
NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the December 9,2013 City Commission Regular Meeting.
? �i f
_ �
!
�
i
_ �
V �
� �
T I
�^ �
W „ �
�J
( , + f
11r ` j €
V
� 4
� J I i
� � � �� �
� �
�� �
�� � _
� �
~'1
�
�
� �4
�^ �
0; i
E •� ___
•i
r
O ��
V/ � 3
� � y n
7�,'I� � �4��,� °
-- � ���
� � �' .�'
� �
� S r:
U 00 � -- E � __ �
z � � �� �r
ca O1
�C rl
� �
- N
� ^ i�� � o
0
�
- N
� �
�
--` �
O
� J �
�
'�� ��
I .,�
�
,
Q
� .,,n �
� � �
� 8
} £
a
�
�
�
� � Q E E
�; .�
�--� ca
�--� �
� O
�
�
�
O
l�A =
�
�
�
�X
N
," I �
�
�
�
�
� U
� ���� �
�� c6
�C �.,
� - i
I '�',
&�
!
�
I� 4
�
Y
R�°—_�_i` -� _ - � • . _ � � ■r
� ! i
_ �� � ��� "
W ��� �- : -.Y
- �
� ° :'.1��-{ �J{
� � � _ r�- —Y°--�� -- - -� ��`� ----i--
� s �� �- - � � �� " ; _. -J--���" .�,
� � _ ._J__���_ ,L_- � �� _ _ �:
�__,� ,�_ _ ,- �. _ � _ �� ` �
� s --� ,,+ ... ,,.,„,� �� - �' ;� :c ��--��" °�
�^ i � �''�°�
� , ,4- __-- � ' f `�< '''"'� " . ''f�.._ , ,�.
_ ��_ � �`~1�J �
T � i '`-�. ��
V �� __� �!I
� � , �
� �� t�:--� �,� .. �' - —_ � -1y '
� - - s , i � � �' ��� � �� � _.—J , ��
� �, - ,
.�� ' � � I ----i- w�R�iws. _.__�'� '�' -�-
li I � �
� � Y /-� , . _ .�- .._ �
-� , LL I ` ..wra p � _.�, _ -'g i� r / �,. -- �.
_ � �-,_- , ..� . �� _ j • �_-.
�JY�i+al � . � �I �I i ', , ! ../ /`-'--.���.` -'�-
L ; �, � ' . I , ` -_
: �{ i ��• �
� � i 1i, . � ; I r I �� (�`---. .- . --
� � �A� ' f ` a� . -
I O � �w � �
�"� ^� -� I I�, ��'A j �� rO� ' _
`��i���oi'_,� � t� � r_� � .
T� �. �-^ �___ _, r �, �
�� � '_ `� .. _�uii.Eae- , _ 7
. �-
O - � __ _ J;
� a.U., �-�__-�.:..�a�.-; �-, 1
� � � ,s _ -��-��� � ' ` --� �i
� N � �
��. _:��-:.� �,
; O � - - --
� J .'�,��' -- --
�_ I ,•f--� '`� �`'
� ✓,��� ,w �__ r'— --- - ' `
� -- _ � ` _� -
ca . �°. "
� � , , � �— � �
� - $ ' �� I
ca , $ _i�'°`����. .
m � — •"°,;-'�--.:- - - - � =3 -� �f�� �
_ - ,� „ " '�jy� /
� 1_1.�-k..:T --. ---- �'� _3 , I ��'r'���
�_ '�� ��r- f` I I �` J '
�-,� .�.�� _ , , 1_��/
, _:-::�� � � , , ,�
,?�'� � � � �"'� t— .�-
i ��-- 'm°-a-°'__".. ,,_f
,�' C- -_ =*��'°°°ar, ;' ' � ' _I � ���� �
•��t _ . � , _ . \ 1� �'i\1 ''� �j
�,' � :y-��i y' � �y '- � �
,-'t tr1. � � i�� � ���I ; G, � � `
��;�' � �/ !t Yi � `�l .a�'�..�`.'}5��� ��'_� —i8 �.� .'��,�` -`.\
it— ' �� �� ' .S
� ��P� ./^ ` �� � �'�'� � ' �' ����'�� i'� � �i 1 � "�
� E, .,j� r .� , 1 �� _ vi-g �' /� s!- ' _�� ',
a 1 � %� i7;�w 1 `��� ' ,'1�
�I , 3 � �1.1 ) /
YF �6 �--J _ .� �'�.� / ` f� �
�� � ,� . _', ;�'._. S ' �� ,.� I
� � 1 y
� y�F P' ,LL� � J y �•
SF� �...,, l�.l / ',;��1• -
Q� �"<���` � ��✓ �Sy(1 / ' ���i¢ � � � � .
��� �'i �+c"�y�� r '�
y{�� � ," \,'' �' _ i�� �/��i. �f�:,r,� ; y. � ,.�'"�
�'� r _, ! �_ � , , ��
! r 8`i ��_i-_s ,'� { -I . �;� .-
�', 1 t ,' �y ys(� axati y .
rf\ rt._�}_ y 1 t✓,.� `,� i-��I„-�'}1*'"('`�y\ •J-L � �}__,Y�
- 1 � -�',�T -, ' �;`�� 1-„�r ` ,a�=�Y �
-� 7 -;� �� f� �I—tf��Y � 1
--�� '�'�` -'---- -�-. --.-.� ,�� � 1