Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 03-14-1989 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1989 Nine The meeting was called to order by Chairman Swickerath at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Swickerath and Vice Chairman Smith, Board members Linebarier, Bello, Weeks, Switzer, Director of Planning Behrens, Senior Planner Harper, Associate Planner Claman, and Deputy Clerk Resnik. ABSENT: Board members Bond and Breeze. Chairman Swickerath said City Manager Shapiro was at the meeting to introduce himself to the Board. Manager Shapiro said he did not want to take up too much time from the regular agenda but wanted the Board to know that he was available to them if they needed him at a meeting or to answer any questions that may come up from time to time. He said he did not feel that he should attend every Planning and Zoning Board meeting but would keep in touch with the Chairman in the event his services were needed. Manager Shapiro urged the Board to develop a set of bylaws and to have them drafted into a City ordinance to be acted on by the City Commission. Now Chairman Swickerath thanked Manager Shapiro for dropping in on the meeting and welcomed him to the City on behalf of the Board. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Manager Shapiro said he would leave them to their business as he had another meeting to attend that evening. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member Linebarier moved to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 14, 1989, Board member Weeks seconded, and approval was unanimous. Vice Chairman Smith moved to approve the workshop meeting minutes of February 23, 1989, Board member Switzer seconded, and approval was unanimous. OLD BUSINESS Silver Glen PUD - Public Hearing on Substantial Change to Land Use Amendment Chairman Swickerath indicated since this was a public hearing, he would first ask staff to give a presentation, then ask the developer to add any comments, then invite any public discussion, then the Board would have a discussion. Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report. He said New the new PUD ordinance requires a public hearing to be held in the event of a substantial change to the land use amendment. 1 Page 2 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Board member Linebarier advised Director Behrens that there was an error in the staff report regarding the Planning and Zoning Board's informal vote for the six foot side yard setbacks. He said the vote was 4 -3 against recommending the six foot side yards. Board member Linebarier reed from the February 14, 1989 minutes that were in the packets for this meeting indicating how each member voted. Director of Planning Behrens said he remembered it differently but that he could possibly be mistaken. He said he would review the tape recordings for that meeting to make sure. Steve Mellich, the Project Engineer for Silver Glen, said he had discussed the issues at a previous meeting with the Board but would gladly answer any questions. There being no questions for the developer, Chairman Swickerath opened the public hearing. He asked for comments specifically on the matter of the six foot aide yard setbacks because that was the issue that was advertised for public hearing. R.P. Mohnacky, 1820 Prairie Lake Boulevard, said he was against the six foot side yards. He said the City had good `mr regulations in place and should stick by them. Mr. Mohnacky said he did not see why the City would want to compromise since the only reason the developer wanted a waiver on this requirement was to get more units per acre. Mr. Mohnacky said that a single - family home should be on a standard size lot which is sufficient for the size of the house on it. Mr. Mohnacky said he felt it was his fob as a citizen to lobby for the consumers and for other citizens since the developer's aide was always sure to be heard. He said he was not against developers per se but that he was for controlled growth. He said he was sure that the Board would be questioned sometime in the future for compromising its standards but then it will be too late. There being no other public comments, Chairman Swickerath closed the public hearing. Because there were citizens present that wished to address other matters on this particular project, Chairmen Swickerath said the Board would hear their comments or concerns now, but the Board would not be able to officially act on anything other than the six foot side yard setbacks. Pitt Varnes, 1405 Spring Lake Terrace, said he wanted to reiterate the points he had made to the Board at a previous meeting in order to keep his concerns fresh in their minds. Mr. Varney said he would like to see a catch basin at the end of Street G for the drainage rather than having runoff from the project enter his property and the lake. He said his 2 Page 3 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting %sr March 14, 1989 other concern was that the developer build a five -foot maaonary wall approximately 475 feet down his property to help control any drainage or erosion problems. A.H. Hensley, 1433 Spring Lake Terrace, said he was not aware that the plans for the project had already been approved and felt that he would be wasting his time trying to work with the City at this point. He said his mayor problem with the project was his objection to any drainage created from the development running into the lake. He said he had not seen his dock in five yearn from the City draining other areas into the lake and he had lost some of his yard (from the increase in the lake level) after the City approved the last development near the lake (Lakeview Terrace). Chairman Swickerath said he had a good view of the lake from where he lived and his personal opinion was that the Lakeview Terrace project did not significantly alter the level of the lake. He said there was a natural ebb and flow and that, of course, water would always run down hill. Chairman Swickerath said with the current pollution abatement devices, taw he did not think the lake quality would be harmed by the project. Board member Switzer asked what had been resolved in reference to the 20 foot front yard setbacks. Director of Planning Behrens said the developer had withdrawn the request for a waiver on the front yard setbacks because they felt that the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission both felt opposed to the request. Chairman Swickerath asked if the six foot side yard setbacks would only be an issue for the 60 foot lots or if the developer planned on having six foot aide yards on the 75 foot lots as well. The developer said the 75 foot lots had all been designed to have 7 1/2 foot aide yards. Board member Linebarier asked if the developer felt the front yard setbacks should be withdrawn, why the developer did not also feel that the aide yard request should also be withdrawn since the Planning and Zoning Board also voted (informally) against it. Director Behrens said the developer realized that the Planning and Zoning Board would probably not favor the six foot side yards but that the developer felt the City Commission might. Board member Linebarier said he had reviewed the City Commission meeting minutes where this was discussed and that they had also voted against it. Director Behrens said the minutes were wrong and that the City 3 Page 4 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Commission had voted in favor of the concept. He said the minutes had not been officially corrected as yet but they were indeed wrong. Board member Switzer asked if there was a City ordinance requiring 7 1/2 foot side yards. Director Behrens said there was no such requirement in the PUD ordinance. He said the ordinance was not specific about it and that the whole purpose of the PUD ordinance was to allow flexibility. Board member Switzer said he was opposed to six foot side yards and that he had asked his neighbors and other citizens in the City and without exception, everyone was opposed. He said everyone he spoke with said they felt 7 1/2 foot side yard setbacks should be looked at as the minimum. He said he felt that the City seemed to be only giving up things to developers and not getting anything in return. Board member Weeks said he had not changed his opinion since the last vote. He said he thought that in this case, six foot side yards were sufficient. Board member Weeks replied '■11.' to Board member Switzer's statement about what the City had gained by saying that if there was only one way to develop and there would be no exceptions granted, he did not see the need for a Planning and Zoning Board. Vice Chairman Smith said the developer was looking to build a particular type of home because there was a market for it. He said he did not see anything wrong with a six foot side yard. He said his neighbor had a trailer in the back yard and that Vice Chairman Smith had to have a 10 foot hedge to keep from having to look at it. He said he wished the neighbor could not have fit the trailer past the side yard to get it into the back yard. Vice Chairman Smith said the City should allow utilization of the land to make living space available and affordable. Board member Bello said she was still not in favor of the six foot side yard. She indicated that she was not, however, diametrically opposed to the idea and that the developer could try to change her mind. Board member Linebarier said he did not agree with Board member Weeks. Board member Linebarier said he felt the Board would be netting a precedent and would not be able to disapprove of the next developer's request for the same liorsw setback and then the 7 1/2 foot minimum would no longer be the case. 4 Page 5 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Board member Linebarier said he had spoken with the developer's engineer and he said the problem with developing in Ocoee was that there was no black and white answers as to what developers could and could not do. He said the engineer felt the City should not work on a cane by case basis. Regarding Vice Chairman Smith's comments about utilizing more apace, Board member Linebarier said the same "space" would be used no matter what happened to the six foot side yard issue (60 foot lots), but that the developer would just be able to cover more of each lot. He did not see where that was utilizing the land better. Chairman Swickerath indicated that dust because the house would have a larger width, it did not necessarily mean the house would be larger. Board member Linebarier said the developer would be able to sell a higher priced home if the width was larger. He said the six foot aide yard would not conserve land and would not necessarily provide a better quality home. Board member Linebarier said he had also talked with about 15 people who S"' lived near him - which was not far from the proposed subdivision - and that without exception, people were opposed to the smaller side yards. He said the smaller aide yards would make the neighborhood look "cheap" and would not allow as much green apace. Chairman Swickerath asked staff if the open space or green space per lot requirement would still be fulfilled with the larger -width homes. Staff indicated that the new PUD ordinance said the maximum coverage of all buildings could not exceed 30 percent of the gross land area. (88 -08, Section 13.11, Item 2(b)) Chairman Swickerath said the real reason for the PUD ordinance was to encourage a certain amount of creativity to come up with an environment that is more pleasing than a strict guideline would enable. He encouraged the Board to keep such creativity possible. Chairman Swickerath said he was generally in favor of the six foot side yards but in this case he was voting againat the request because he felt certain agreements had been broken by the developer and that upset him. He said he would have been willing to vote for the side yards if the developer would have kept the agreement on the curb cute on Silver Star Road but the developer had sold the commercial parcel (and the cut along with it) and now requested, and received, permission from the City Commission on the additional cut despite the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation to deny the additional access. 5 Page 6 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Board member Linebarier asked what the square footage would be for the houses if they got the six foot aide yard approved. Project Engineer Mellich said the plans approved in 1986 were planned for a 1,000 square foot home but now the developer wanted to build a 1,200 square toot home. Director Behrens read the section from the PUD ordinance where it stated that the developer should be given the flexibility to come up with a creative use of the property. He said if the Board did not want to see any exceptions to the minimum standard requirements, maybe they should recommend to the City Commission that the PUD ordinance be killed or at least that the 7 1/2 foot minimum side yard setback be incorporated into the PUD ordinance as well. Chairman Swickerath said with a more cooperative and consistent approach, a developer may get a favorable review. He said the PUD ordinance was not a license for the developer to take advantage of this community. He said there should be trade offs and that the City should get something in return for giving up one of its standards. Chairman Swickerath said he did not feel the City was getting anything in this case. Sow Board member Weeks asked the developer if the lots in the 1986 approved plan were all 60 foot lots and the developer indicated they were (all but the lots along the lake). Board member Weeks said what the developer had given in this case was larger lots (75 foot) for half of the project. Board member Linebarier motioned to deny the six foot side yard setback request and Board member Switzer seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Chairman Swickerath and Board members Switzer, Linebarier, and Bello all voted in favor of the motion (to deny the six foot side yard setbacks), and Vice Chairman Smith and Board member Weeks voted against the motion. There was discussion on the matter of the well that Mr. Varner was requesting. Project Engineer Mellich said he would work with Mr. Varnes and try to cooperate on a wall. Engineer Mellich said he would also work with Mr. Hensley on getting some information on the lake level. Board member Switzer said the City should be cooperative with the present landowners and try to fulfill any reasonable requests, especially since they are in the City. 6 Page 7 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Board member Linebarier asked about the retention pond at the end of Street G. Engineer Mellich said that currently, the developer did not want to have the pond but rather would like to plan for an environmental awale. He said the purpose of the pond would only have been for the seven or so lots right near it (not from the roadways) and that he felt the environmental awale could achieve the same desired result. He said the developer would request of the City to go the way of the swales rather than constructing a pond. Board member Linebarier said he had visited the site and because of the steepness of the grade, he felt a pond was needed to catch the runoff from those lots. He said he also agreed with Mr. Varnes that a wall was needed and Board member Linebarier suggested that the wall be extended to meet the existing stucco wall. He said he thought that the swales would erode after a heavy rain and that the wall may help prevent erosion from occurring. Engineer Mellich said he would not recommend using the wall to take the place of engineering. He said Mr. Varnes' err' concerns were valid but that the wall was not the answer for the drainage issue. Engineer Mellich said he also wanted to address a statement that Board member Linebarier made earlier in reference to a conversation he had with Engineer Mellich. He said Board member Linebarier misinterpreted what he said about the City's development requirements and that he did not mean to convey that he would want the criteria to be stringent but was talking about the development process itself. Engineer Mellich also stated that he was not given his rebuttal opportunity before the vote was taken. Chairman Swickerath said he asked Engineer Mellich if he wanted to respond and he thought he had replied "no ". He said he could ask the Board to withdraw the vote if he wanted a chance for rebuttal because he wanted the developer to feel that they were given due process. Engineer Mellich declined the offer to have the vote withdrawn for a rebuttal period. Board member Linebarier asked Engineer Mellich if he would continue to discuss the possibility of the wall with Mr. Varnes and Engineer Mellich said he would. Chairman Swickerath asked the Board if they wanted to formalize an opinion as to the wall issue or the lake. Board member Linebarier asked how staff felt about these issues and y low Director of Planning Behrens said he did not want a wall there because he thought it would ruin the lake view. He suggested a green vinyl fence as a visual compromise. 7 Page 8 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Board member Weeks said the wall really had nothing to do with water flow but with "child flow ". He said the City was being asked to fence the children in their neighborhood so they would be less likely to flow to the lake. Board member Linebarier made a motion that the developer should continue to work with the adjacent landowners on the issues of drainage, privacy, etc. and to try to satisfy their concerns. Chairman Swickerath suggested that the "etc." be taken out of the motion and Board member Linebarier agreed. Board member Switzer seconded and a roll call was taken with Board members Bello, Weeks, Switzer, and Linebarier voting for the motion and Chairman Swickerath and Vice Chairman Smith voting against the motion. RECESS: 8:50 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 9:05 p.m. Candlswood Shores - Review of Traffic Study Chairman Swickerath reminded the Board that this was not a ' public hearing. Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report and said that the developer has or will address all the previous issues with the exception of the crossing of Clark Road to the recreation area which was a City Commission issue. Chairman Swickerath said the Board had approved the preliminary plan subject to the satisfactory completion and approval of a traffic study addressing the possible stacking problem at the entrance to the subdivision on Clark Road as well as having certain items completed by final engineering. Developer Atwood and Project Engineer Russell said the traffic study had been completed and the City's consultants had reviewed it. Developer Atwood said his engineer met with the St. Johns River Water Management District on the jurisdictional linen and had resolved that issue. He said the preliminary elevation for the 100 year flood plain had also been determined and would be complete by final engineering. Chairman Swickerath asked the project's traffic consultant who was in the audience to answer some questions on the traffic study, specifically what level of service he referred to in the study, Class C or Class D traffic and how would that type of traffic compare to traffic experienced, say, in downtown Orlando. 8 Page 9 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Turgut Dervish of Traffic Planning and Design, Inc., Longwood, said the traffic generated by the intersection would vary from a Class A to a Class C with the Class C being the worst case scenario. Traffic Consultant Dervish said the Class C would be the peak hour traffic that would occur at 7:30 a.m. (when people are leaving the subdivision on the way to work) and that this Class C volume would typically equate to downtown Orlando traffic. Consultant Dervish said the study found that for the most part, mathematically the intersection would produce an overall volume of Class A traffic but that the level would increase at certain times of the day. The Class C would translate to about 25 -30 cars at the intersection during peak hours. For purposes of computing the length (in feet) of the line of cars, those 25- 30 cars would result in a line of 75 feet (this being a minimum and would more realistically be almost twice that). With two lanes out of the subdivision at that intersection (one for left hand turns and one for right hand turns), the study found that there would be adequate stacking space available. Chairman Swickerath asked for clarification on how the study arrived at the trips that would be generated by the homes. Consultant Dervish said the total trip generation was factored by looking at distribution factors, where people go and when they go and more specifically the employment distribution (origins and destinations). Chairman Swickerath asked the developer if they had factored in the impact of the other subdivisions. Consultant Dervish said they had looked at Ridgefield and Coventry but studies show that people will usually use the most direct route of travel even if it will actually cost them more time and the impact of these other subdivisions, he felt, would not lead to a stacking problem at the subject intersection. Chairman Swickerath asked if he was correct in stating that if 50 percent of the trips generated out of the subdivision used the Clark Road entrance /exit, then the level of traffic would still not be greater than Class C. Consultant Dervish said that would be a correct statement and that the Class C traffic was what was acceptable in Orlando. It was discussed that the present plans did not denote the two lanes exiting the subdivision at Clark Road but that there was sufficient right -of -way for this (80 feet) and that the final plans would show this. Board member Linebarier asked the developer if the other exit *law onto Johio Shores Road would also have two lanes for outgoing traffic. Developer Atwood said the present plan only called for one lane for outgoing traffic. Board member Linebarier 9 Page 10 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting .. March 14, 1989 asked if there was sufficient room for two lanes out and one lane in. Developer Atwood said there was 60 feet of right - of -way. Project Engineer Russell asked why the City was asking for two lanes when it was not needed and Board member Linebarier said it was a suggestion on his part as a convenience to the homeowners. He said that one car wanting to turn left can sometimes hold up 10 cars wonting to turn right. Developer Atwood said the right -of -way width could not be enlarged because there were lots planned on either side but that a median had been planned and by removing it there could probably be enough room for a small right turn lane. Board member Linebarier asked if staff would have any objections to removing the median and putting in a turn lane. Senior Planner Harper said he would rather see the turn lane than the median because he felt that medians encouraged accidents and could turn out to be a maintenance hazard. Developer Atwood said he would cooperate with this recommendation. Board member Linebarier asked about the lift station and it `r was stated that this issue had been resolved with the Project Engineer and the City's Consulting Engineers and the lift station would be located in Richfield. Board member Linebarier asked if staff was satisfied with the lift station location and Director Behrens said they were. Director of Planning Behrens said staff and the developer were looking to solve all but the issue of the safe crossing of Clark Road to the recreation area. Developer Atwood said regarding the park, the City Commission originally wanted a regional park and it was the developer's feeling that he should not have to provide a safe crossing to a regional park. Chairman Swickerath said that seemed reasonable. Board member Linebarier made a motion to approve the preliminary plans subject to the resolution of the issue of the safe crossing of Clark Road to the recreation area, Board member Bello seconded, and approval was unanimous. Public Participation Procedures and a Resolution for Citizen Participation for the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Schedule Associate Planner Claman read the staff report and said staff was recommending that the Board review and adopt the resolution and the schedule at its convenience. Chairman Swickerath asked if the Board had to take action on this item %me tonight or if it could be delayed. Associate Planner Claman suggested a workshop to discuss the items in more detail but said she would welcome any comments the Board wanted to make. 10 Page 11 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Director Behrens said there were some deadlines to meet and that the first deadline was the first of May. He said the Board had time for a workshop but wanted to stress that the item be voted on as soon as possible. Chairman Swickerath said he was consistently disappointed in the public participation at the Planning and Zoning Board meetings and feels that this is an important part of the process and would like to explore ways to encourage participation. There was discussion about public participation procedures and Director Behrens said once the Board approves the resolution and the Comprehensive Plan Schedule, staff would like to go to the newspaper with a brochure similar to the one he had given the Board members at a previous meeting, to let the community know their input is important and wanted. He said some citizens have expressed a desire to be a part of this process, especially where recreation matters are concerned. Director of Planning Behrens said staff had "padded" the schedule as much as possible to give the Board ample time to `r, discuss each issue. Chairman Swickerath said he wanted to make sure the Board received a draft of any document before it was advertised for discussion at a public meeting. Planner Claman said as the schedule stood right now, the Board would get the material two weeks in advance of any meeting. Chairman Swickerath said that was sufficient time to review. It was decided that a Workshop would be held on Wednesday, March 22, at 7:30 p.m., to discuss this matter further. The Board directed staff to find a meeting place and to notify them of same. Director of Planning Behrens asked the Board to move ahead on the agenda to the item under New Business regarding West Lake Estates PUD Application since the various representatives for the development were the only people left in attendance at the meeting and the hour was already getting late. The Board agreed. West Lake Estates PUD Application Senior Planner Harper said the application for rezoning for West Lake Estates (Lecesse Development) was previously approved for R -3 (Multi- family residential) but the developer was now requesting a PUD zoning for the 16 acre parcel (Phase 14I1r III). Planner Harper said Phases I and II of the development were well under way. 11 Page 12 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Niue Senior Planner Harper said the developer has a proposed plan that would require 60 foot lots and the developer feels that the City Commission would approve of the smaller lots. Planner Harper said the lots as presently planned would also call for six foot side yards and as stated earlier, there is still some question as to whether the City Commission would favor such a concept. Senior Planner Harper said the PUD ordinance calls for flexibility in aide yards and other requirements in order to save something else or to benefit in some other way. Planner Harper said in this instance, approving the six foot aide yards might enable the City to save some large, beautiful trees and better protect the lake quality although he was not sure that this was the reasoning behind the developer's request. Planner Harper said if this was the case, he would recommend approval of the smaller aide yards in this particular project. Planner Harper said the PUD zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Harper cautioned the Board to give serious consideration of the reasoning behind a developer's request to be exempt from certain minimum requirements. He said dust r because the PUD ordinance did not specify such requirements, the ordinance should be looked upon as upholding the minimum requirements unless there is an extenuating circumstance where it would be beneficial to work around certain minimum requirements in some areas. As an example, Senior Planner Harper said it was his personal opinion that the Silver Glen developers were not utilizing the PUD ordinance for the purposes it was intended. He said it was the site quality which should dictate the proximity of the houses and not the other way around. In conclusion, Senior Planner Harper said it was his opinion that if the City was to require the developer to maintain the 7 1/2 foot side yard setback throughout the Phase III project, the lake quality might be threatened and many of the site's trees - which he thought were some of the most beautiful areas of the City - would be lost. He felt this logs would be more costly than if the City were to "give up" the 7 1/2 foot side yard setbacks for six foot side yard setbacks. Chairman Swickerath asked Senior Planner Harper to clarify his recommendation as to what staff was requesting of the Board. Senior Planner Harper said staff was recommending that the Board give preliminary approval of the PUD application itself. He said the first stage of the process was for the Board to approve conceptually of the rezoning from R -3 to PUD and to recommend that the City Commission approve the rezoning. 12 Page 13 Planning and Zoning Meeting March 14, 1989 Nikier Chairman Swickerath asked if this was a public hearing and if it was not advertised as such, should it have been. Senior Planner Harper said it was a requirement that this stage of the process be conducted in the public but that advertising was not necessary. He said he had received verification that a public hearing was not needed from both the City Clerk and the City Attorney. Planner Harper said he was under the impression that it should have been advertised as a public hearing but that his conversations with the City Clerk and the City Attorney proved otherwise. Board member Linebarier asked Senior Planner Harper if staff was asking the Board to approve the rezoning of the parcel from R -3 to PUD and Planner Harper said yea. Board member Linebarier said a rezoning is a public hearing and effectively that is what staff was asking the Board to do. Chairman Swickerath asked Senior Planner Harper if this was the same project that was cancelled from another meeting in the recent past because it had not been duly advertised. Senior Planner Harper explained that it was the same project, but it was not held from the agenda because of the advertising but because adjacent property owners had not been notified of the meeting. Planner Harper said that notification had been given for this meeting. Developer Don Tooley said the project dated back more than two years. He said the property was originally annexed and then rezoned to R -3 in 1986 and the first design was for multi - family dwelling units. He said the second design was presented to the City Commission in January 1987 and a third design was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board in February 1988 and then to the City Commission in March 1988. He said both of these last two sessions were Workshop sessions and as a result were non - voting sessions but both Boards did give input. Developer Tooley said there were many comments (about 80) that were reduced first to about 66 and then in March 1988, Developer Tooley wrote a letter to former Planning Director Russ Wagner that outlined the few remaining comments and concerns of the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission. Developer Tooley said he did not receive a response from Planning Director Wagner and a few months later, Director Wagner resigned. Developer Tooley said a lot has happened since that letter and that he had been meeting in the last several months with Senior Planner Harper. Developer Tooley said the plan before the Board tonight conforms to the last Workshops with the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission and that they have incorporated the comments made at those meetings. The developer felt that even though these sessions were not formal voting sessions, the developer had made every effort to take into consideration all the concerns of the City. He 13 Page 14 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting ilter March 14, 1989 said he was now looking for final plan approval. Developer Tooley stated that on one particular concern of the City regarding Blackwood Avenue, the developer would like to reserve the right to use that road as the main access to the subdivision and would request that the City not require that any improvements be made to the road since it is a county road. Developer Tooley said both Boards also approved the recreation fee issue which was detailed on the plane. Developer Tooley also wanted to mention that he had heard a "rumor" that the City was now requiring 100 foot building setbacks from lakes. He said he would like to stress that the 100 foot setback was not required by ordinance. Project Engineer Russell Davidson explained that the PUD application was submitted a year ago. Chairman Swickerath said it appeared to him that the City could probably have done a better fob of processing the application but at the same token, that did not free the developer from any responsibility he may have had to follow up with his application. Chairman Swickerath said the letter Developer Tooley sent to former Planning Director Wagner was a "good tactic" on his part but would not hold because it was not consistent or reasonable. Chairman Swickerath apologized for any time delay but that it the developer was looking for approval of the PUD rezoning, he was confident that it would require a public hearing with advertisement. Chairman Swickerath said although they may have discussed the concept of a PUD at an informal session, the process for requesting a rezoning was clear. He repeated that the City should have done a better fob with the application but that the developer should have followed up as well. Board member Linebarier asked if the PUD zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Senior Planner Harper indicated that it was. Board member Linebarier said the Board needed to answer four questions when considering a rezoning: 1. What is the need and justification for the change? 2. What effect will the change have on the property and the surrounding properties? 3. What is the amount of the undeveloped land in the general area and specifically in the City having the same zoning classification as the subject parcel? 14 Page 15 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 4. What would be the relationship of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? Senior Planner Harper said that all of the four questions were addressed in hia staff report on the subject project in regards to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review but were not specifically enumerated and not specifically in that order. Board member Linebarier said the Board now had the answer to the first question, but would need the others addressed. Senior Planner Harper said the answer to the second question would be that it would lessen the density. He said under the R -3 zoning the developer could have as many as 16 units per acre but under the PUD zoning, the developer was looking for a little more than four units per acre. Senior Planner Harper said staff's response to the third question was that it was not so much a question of whether the surrounding property had the same zoning, but was more a question of how the new zoning would relate to the surrounding zonings and it was staff's position that this usage would work very well with the other phases of the property and would be looked upon much more favorably than more multi - family units. Senior Planner Harper said the answer to the fourth question would be that the land use would not only be appropriate, but would be a very commendable use of the property as far as staff was concerned. Senior Planner Harper said he tried to convey in his staff reports what a PUD zoning was, how it could be applied to this particular site, and how it should not be applied to this site. He said the PUD zoning with the plan the developer proposed, would reduce the density, be beneficial to natural resources on the site, and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and because of these facts, he was recommending a favorable approval of the PUD rezoning application. Engineer Davidson said the developer was before the Board asking for approval of the plan and that the discussion on the PUD rezoning alone would not suffice if they could not also be given an approval of the project. `err► 15 Page 16 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Director of Planning Behrens said he would like to try to clarify the issues although he was "coming in cold" as far as this project was concerned. He said the property is currently zoned R -3 but the developer is requesting a PUD zoning in order to design a project with some flexibility. Chairman Swickerath and Board member Linebarier said they were unsure whether the Board could even discuss the issue legally. Board member Linebarier said he would not consider looking at any plans before the zoning issue was settled. Sal Lecesse, of Lecesse Development, said his company held a meeting in September 1986 with neighboring property owners. Mr. Leceaae wanted to develop the property as quickly as possible and told the property owners the developer wanted to build 320 apartments up front and single family homes near the lake. Mr. Lecesse said they wanted 80, 50 -foot lots and staff told them back then that they would have to apply for a PUD zoning. He said after the Workshops with Planning and Zoning and the City Commission it evolved to 66, 60 -foot lots and the developer agreed that he could 1 1'' still do what he needed to financially with the 60 foot lots. Mr. Leceaae said two years later the developer is still trying to do the same thing. He said he does not understand the problem since he is actually down grading the zoning and usually cities are happy to see something like that. Mr. Lecesae said the City has been cooperative with the changes so far but he could not accept, financially, the risk of going through the rezoning process without knowing if he would be able to build as he wanted. He said if the City could not approve his plan as well as the rezoning, he would have to stay with the R -3 and build more apartments. Director of Planning Behrens said the City had certain rules and regulations to follow and that if there was a way to approve the plan with the rezoning, then staff would certainly consider it, but if it was not proper procedure, then it could not be done. He said he would have to look at it. Senior Planner Harper said that such contract zoning was illegal and that the iaaues of rezoning and plan approval needed to be handled separately. Director Behrens asked the developer the reasoning behind wanting smaller side yard setbacks. Mr. Leceaae said the New bottom line was that he wanted to develop more lots for 16 Page 17 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 financial reasons. Mr. Lecesse said he thought he had been mislead by staff about the process and was led to believe that he could apply for a variance. Board member Linebarier said that he and Chairman Swickerath had researched the codes and felt that since the developer was requesting a down grading of the density, the Board could safely hear a rezoning petition without a public hearing; however, Mr. Linebarier added that he would not consider a PUD or any rezoning with a pre- approved plan. He said the City had a case before where the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission both said they would not consider a rezoning petition that stipulated a plan approval as well. Director of Planning Behrens asked the Board whether they would make a recommendation on whether they approved of the concept of the plan. Chairman Swickerath said the Board could take two separate actions: one on the PUD rezoning petition and the other on the site plan concept itself. Chairman Swickerath said he was not sure that the City Commission would also take action. Senior Planner Harper said they would have to treat each item separately. Chairman Swickerath said the City would work with the developer as beat as it could. Vice Chairman Smith made a motion to recommend approval of PUD zoning to the City Commission, Board member Bello seconded, and approval was unanimous. Chairman Swickerath then outlined the items that had been discussed regarding the preliminary plan: 1. 60 foot lots 2. 6 foot side yard setbacks 3. access to the subdivision from the county road (and improvements to that road) 4. emergency access to the subdivision (City now requires two egress - ingress points) Developer Tooley added two more to the list: 5. recreation assessment (developer wants to pay the fee rather than a land donation) 17 Page 18 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 6. setbacks from the lake (developer planned for the setback referred to in the current ordinance but said he had heard a "rumor" that the City was now requiring 100 feet - he said that this new amount was usually incorporated into a development agreement but that they were requesting to go with what was in the ordinance) Board member Switzer asked staff what amount was currently in the ordinance for building setbacks from the lake. Senior Planner Harper said it was a minimum of 35 feet. Board member Linebarier said he had two major concerns, one with the access on Blackwood Avenue and the other that although he would have to go along with the 60 foot lots, he would not vote for approval of six foot side yard setbacks. Board member Switzer said overall he liked the design and that it was a good utilization of the property. Mr Board member Weeks said he would much rather see this plan developed than to see more apartments. Vice Chairman Smith and Board member Bello had no further comments. Chairman Swickerath said his interpretation of the PUD ordinance was that it would allow the developer some flexibility if it was for a reason that was beneficial to the City in some respect as well and asked the developer what the City was getting in return for the smaller side yard setbacks. Developer Tooley said the City was getting less density. Chairman Swickerath said open apace was really important as far as he was concerned and he wondered about drainage if the City approved of the plan. Project Engineer Davidson said there was actually a smaller building pad area with the single family homes and that this plan would save more trees than the apartments would. He said R -3 zoning did not have an open space requirement and that PUD zoning did but they were requesting to have this requirement waived as it would be under the R -3 zoning. Senior Planner Harper said that single family development per se does not save trees, but rather intelligent, well - planned %Impf projects save trees. He said it could very well be that 16 units per acre could save more trees in this instance. 18 Page 19 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Sir March 14, 1989 Board member Weeks said if the PUD ordinance required 25 percent open space, the Planning and Zoning Board could not waive the requirement. Engineer Davidson said they were not looking for a waiver from the Planning and Zoning Board but were looking for their opinion on the plan. Board member Bello said generally she has a problem with six foot side yard setbacks although her opinion was not get in stone. Board member Switzer asked if the development would have an alternate exit other than Blackwood Avenue, not including the emergency access. Engineer Davidson said that it had been discussed in the Workshops and was generally decided upon that one access point was sufficient for bb units. Board member Switzer said he would like to see some improvement at the intersection of Blackwood Avenue and the entrance to the subdivision, specifically a turn lane. Chairman Swickerath said he was unsure what the City could require for improvements to a county road but would personally like to see the road improved to Old Winter Garden Road. Sir Chairman Swickerath said he would approve of the six foot side yard setbacks if the developer would comply with the 25 percent open space requirement. Board member Switzer said he would consider the six toot side yard setbacks if they were only used for some of the project (some 6 foot and some 7 1/2 foot side yard setbacks). Board member Linebarier said he did not see how the City could disapprove the smaller side yard setbacks for one developer and at the same meeting, approve them for another. After some discussion, Vice Chairman Smith moved to have the developer work out the issues with staff and let the City Commission decide as to whether to approve such a concept. Board member Bello seconded, but the motion was defeated with Board members Swickerath, Bello, Switzer, and Linebarier all voting against the motion and Vice Chairman Smith voting in favor. Board member Linebarier outlined his mayor concerns: 1. He is opposed to six foot side yard setbacks 2. He would want to see Blackwood Avenue approved per City regulations with the cooperation of the county. 19 ` R Page 20 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 3. The developer would have to work with the City Commission on the setback distance from the lake 4. The 25 percent open space requirement should be maintained 5. He would accept the 60 toot lots because they were permitted in this case although he personally did not like them Board member Bello agreed with Board member Linebarier's comments and also wanted to make sure that the developer agreed with the second access for emergency purposes. The developer responded that they agreed. Board member Switzer also agreed with all of Board member Linebarier'a comments and concerns. Board member Weeks said he still did not have a problem with six foot side yard setbacks. Sow Chairman Swickerath said he agreed with Board member Weeks although he said his final decision on the six toot side yards would vary from project to project depending upon the circumstances. (In this particular case he said he would probably approve of them.) Chairman Swickerath also wanted to add that the developer would have to abide by the open space requirement as was stated by ordinance. He also said he would like to see Blackwood Avenue improved to guarantee reasonable access. Chairman Swickerath also added that any plans would, of course, also be subject to engineering approval. Sal Lecesse said he was unclear about the 25 percent open space requirement. Engineer Davidson said the project would lose 25 percent of its lots if it had to comply with this requirement. Mr. Lecesse said if this was a requirement, the developer would have to build under the k -3, multi - family. Director of Planning Behrens asked which ordinance the developer was proceeding under, the former PUD ordinance or the current PUD ordinance. Senior Planner Harper said they would fall under the former ordinance since they applied in March 1988 before the new ordinance was passed and because 4410w they could have been through the process in time under the old ordinance. 20 Page 21 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Noir March 14, 1989 Director Behrens said under the old ordinance, the developer would have to request a waiver or variance on the 25 percent open space requirement but the new ordinance stipulated that the 25 percent include the entire gross land area (including retention and recreation space). He said it might be possible to develop the project under the new ordinance. Director Behrens read Page 13, Section 2 of the new ordinance and said his interpretation would be that the project would be processed using the new ordinance. Chairman Swickerath agreed. Chairman Swickerath moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plan subject to the following provisions: 1. That all development criteria must be complied with for this phase of the project (i.e. 25 percent open space requirement as defined in the new ordinance) 2. That Blackwood Avenue be improved to the City Commission's satisfaction 3. That the 60 foot lots be approved 4. That the six foot side yard setbacks not be approved Board member Switzer seconded. Board member Linebarier asked to amend the motion to include a provision that the setback from the lake also be worked out with the City Commission. Chairman Swickerath said that would be a stipulation of his first condition (part of the general development criteria). The amendment died for lack of a second. The motion by Chairman Swickerath was unanimously approved. Mr. Lecesse asked what the next step would be and Director Behrens said the project would go before the City Commission for a public hearing on the rezoning. Senior Planner Harper said the Board had voted but that there was still some legal question as to whether the developer fell under the new or old PUD ordinance. Chairman Swickerath said it was the Board's understanding that it fell under the new ordinance. Developer Tooley requested to be placed on the agenda for the upcoming City Commission meeting. Director Behrens said it would not be possible if a public hearing was required due to itior time needed to complete the advertising requirements. 21 Page 22 Slaw Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 14, 1989 Board member Linebarier moved to continue all the remaining agenda items until the special meeting on March 22 and to make that meeting a Special Session so that the Board could take formal action on those items. The other Board members concurred. ADJOURNMENT: 12:05 a.m. °d / � / // C ' - IR A N S I K - ATH ATTEST: ! - -- 4 44 __, 1 11 i•UTY CLERK RESNIK Ne 22