Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 07-09-1991 %raw MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Sims; Vice Chairman Shiver; Planning and Zoning Commission members Bond and Carroll and Alternate members Rhodus and Bateman; City Attorney Rosenthal, Director of Planning Behrens, and Deputy Clerk Resnik. ABSENT: Planning and Zoning Commission members Swickerath, Switzer, and Weeks. Chairman Sims explained that since the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, John Linebarier had resigned and Gary Carroll was moved from his status as an Alternate member to a full member. Chairman Sims then welcomed former City Commissioner John Bateman who had been appointed by the City Commission to fill the Alternate position. CONSENT AGENDA Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes of June 11, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission member Carroll moved to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes of June 11, 1991, Vice Chairman Shiver seconded, and approval was unanimous. NEW BUSINESS Westridge PUD - Land Use Plan Amendment - Public Hearing Chairman Sims declared a conflict of interest and asked Vice Chairman Shiver to oversee the discussion on this item. Vice Chairman Shiver asked Director of Planning Behrens to explain what the developer was requesting. Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report. He explained that the amendment the developer was requesting contained three or four important changes. Director Behrens then asked the developer's representatives to expound on the differences between the plan before the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight versus the one they approved last fall. Gifford Anglim, P.O. Box 23, Winter Park, Florida, representing the developer, said there were three differences: Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes err July 9, 1991 - an increase in the gross density from two (2) to four (4) units per acre - a reduction in the minimum lot size from 80' X 115' lots to 50' X 105' lots as the minimum - a reduction in the side setback from 7 1/2 feet to five (5) feet Mr. Anglim said the developer intended to build homes that would sell for between $80,000 and $120,000. He said they proposed to build a mixture of different types of homes on different size lots and that what they were requesting was only to be used as a minimum. He said they intended for some of the lots to be larger than the 50' X 105'. Mr. Anglim said their plan also called for a recreational complex in the center of the PUD, designed to enable the homeowners to walk to the complex rather than having to drive to one end of the property or the other. He said they would also have bike paths. tkow Mr. Anglim showed a proposed site plan of the recreational area which included a clubhouse, a pool, tennis court, tot lot, and passive play /picnic area. He also showed a conceptual drawing of the entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Anglim said they had participated in the market study that Arvida had presented to the City recently. He said this amendment varied from Arvida's request in that this developer was not seeking any variances. Director of Planning Behrens asked Mr. Anglim to explain the necessity of the five (5) foot side yard setback. Mr. Anglim explained that with the 50 foot lot and two 7 1/2 foot side yards, that would only leave 35 feet for the width of a house. Vice Chairman Shiver asked whether the housing would be mixed throughout the subdivision or whether there would be clusters of similar housing. Mr. Anglim said there would be small neighborhood clusters and that the housing within each cluster would be consistent but that there would be some varying so that it would not be too sharp of a delineation between each neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission member Carroll asked of the total number of units, how many would be composed of the 50'X105' lots versus larger ones. Mr. Anglim said he could not give a specific answer on that until they came back to the City with a Preliminary 1r,. Plan. Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes rnor July 9, 1991 Director of Planning Behrens said because of some problems in the past with other developers, he was sure that the City Commission would want some surety that smaller homes would not be built right next to larger homes. Director Behrens said they wanted to see pods of development that contained similar housing within. Lastly, Mr. Anglim wanted to point out that the PUD also contained a 17 acre conservation tract in addition to a one -acre pond by the proposed recreation complex. R.P. Mohnacky, 1820 Prairie Lake Boulevard, said he was against the reduction of minimum lot size for single family residential and that he was against reducing side yard setbacks because it prohibited the access people needed to get boats and other things into the back yards to keep them from having to be seen out front. Lou Roeder, 2001 Mercy Drive, Suite 104, Orlando, Florida, representing Plantation Grove PUD, the property directly to the north of the Westridge PUD, handed out a packet he had put together that contained the reasons that the Plantation Grove PUD developers were opposed to this amended Land Use Plan. The packet also included a housing analysis of the area. Mr. Roeder read from some `r of the document that outlined the changes being requested. He said Westridge was looking to increase the gross density from two dwelling units per acre to four dwelling units per acre; increase the total number of units from 170 to 268; decrease the minimum lot size from 80' X 115' to 50' X 105'; and reduce the minimum side yard setbacks from 7.5 feet to five (5) feet. Mr. Roeder then read from more of the document outlining that: - In December 1988, the City Commission approved Plantation Grove for four (4) dwelling units per acre, with the understanding there would be a transition zone between us and one dwelling unit per acre (RCE) zoning north of Windermere. In November 1990 the City Commission acknowledged their commitment and limited Westridge to the same or greater lot size as Plantation Grove (i.e. 80' X 115'). A revised minimum lot size of 50' X 105' clearly violates this commitment. - In the rezoning of Wesmere, Arvida was increasing their density to take maximum advantage of their existing residential land use of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Westridge, on the other hand, was previously zoned Agricultural and brought into the City with a density of two dwelling units per acre. Given the existing land use plan, any increase in density would be a clear change of %so policy for their PUD and this area. Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes i ‘tr July 9, 1991 - Despite the fact that Plantation Grove is also a PUD with no predesignated side yard setbacks, we have repeatedly been denied any side yard setback less than 7.5 feet. Because of these stringent side yard setback requirements, Plantation Grove has never been able to utilize our 70 foot minimum lot widths. Given this history, any decrease in side yard setback requirements for this project would be a clear change of policy for their PUD and this area. - Arvida's reputation for planning and building single family residential products on 50 foot wide lots is well established (i.e. architectural control, stringent homeowners' association documents, etc.). The present petitioner has presented no history of developing such product. - Besides the clear profit motive of the petitioner, the market does not indicate any need for this particular product in this particular area. In fact, the existing market area has shown an 18 percent increase in closings for May of this year over May of last year (before the recession). Regardless, Plantation Grove is unaware of any precedence for granting an increase in densities or product for purely economic reasons. To do so would be contrary to good planning practices. - The existing and the revised land use plan for the Westridge PUD show both "single family residential units" and "recreation north of Moore Road ". Which is it? - Plantation Grove has filed a lawsuit challenging the existing zoning of the Westridge PUD for, amongst other reasons, the following: - Plantation Grove has a valid contract to purchase the northern most five acres of the Westridge PUD (that part to be located north of the newly aligned Moore Road) which the existing owners have repeated refused to close on. It is our position that any changes in the previous agricultural zoning, including this land use amendment, which includes or affects this five acre property and does not first have our approval, is invalid. - The existing rezoning of the Westridge PUD, and the resultant realignment of Moore Road further south away from Plantation Grove denies us our present right to access Moore Road. Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 1991 - The existing rezoning of the Westridge PUD, and the resultant realignment of Moore Road further south away from Plantation Grove denies us our corner on Maguire and Moore Roads, and therefore denies us valuable exposure for our already approved commercial zoning. - Given the proposed realignment of Moore Road, together with the maintenance of the existing Moore Road, serious traffic problems are sure to result. Mr. Roeder said for all of the above outlined reasons, the developers of Plantation Grove strongly encouraged denial of the Westridge PUD Land Use Amendment. Don Huber, P.O. Box 960, Orlando, representing Westridge, said the contract for the roadway property was not a valid contract. Bob Ferdinand, 12202 Park Avenue, said the City had come a long way in updating its land regulations and overall image. He said if the City allows the smallest lot with the cheapest product in one of the City's most exclusive areas, it will not be in the best interest of the City or the people who may end up buying homes in the area. Scott Wilt, P.O. Box 633, Orlando, an attorney representing the Plantation Grove developers, said the five acres in question was supposed to act as a buffer to protect the Plantation Grove project. Mr. Wilt said Mr. Huber granted an option to Al Besade to purchase the property. He said Maguire Road Corporation is now suing the City for the rezoning of this property as well as the developer of Westridge for not following through with the contract. City Attorney Rosenthal explained to the Board that there were two pieces of litigation ongoing: one between Pat Christiansen and Maguire Road Corporation where the City is not involved and is trying to stay out of the middle of, and another where Maguire Road Corporation is suing the City for the establishment of initial zoning (when the PUD zoning was granted at the November 1990 City Commission meeting). Attorney Rosenthal explained further that this zoning was approved subject to the signing of a Developer's Agreement. He said the Developer's Agreement did not move along as rapidly as the City had hoped and that it finally went before the City Commission at the May 7, 1991 meeting. At that time the ordinance to rezone the property was also finally signed. Attorney Rosenthal said in the midst of all of this, the option on the roadway land came up. The City moved forward on the advice of the 'k,► City Attorney since the filing of a lawsuit does not automatically Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 1991 mean the process has to stop. Attorney Rosenthal said a judge could order the City to stop the process but that has not happened yet. Attorney Rosenthal said the Planning and Zoning Commission as a policy decision may opt to defer its vote until after the matters are settled but it is not mandatory. Attorney Rosenthal said in reference to the comments made by Mr. Roeder from his written report, the City disagrees that the Land Use Plan amendment would be invalid. He said the other points they raise are matters of policy. Lastly, Attorney Rosenthal said he wanted to clarify the intended use of the five acres in question and said that it was slated to be used for single family residential in either case. Scott Wilt, attorney for the developer of Plantation Grove PUD, pointed out that the amended Land Use Plan for Westridge does not show the existing Moore Road and he thought it should since Moore Road had been there a long time. Mr. Wilt also wanted to state that Maguire Road Corporation would suffer time -wise if the City approved this plan and then the courts decided that Plantation Grove PUD has a right to the five acre piece. He said they would r have to go through the entire process of amending plans. Mr. Anglim responded that Moore Road does not even exist insofar as there is no actual right -of -way and that the primary reason they did not show the existing roadway on the amended Land Use Plan is because the City is requiring them to align the roadway with Roberson Road and that this made more sense to the developer. Lastly, Mr. Anglim said regarding the two versus four units per acre, the two units per acre was done originally because it was coming into the City from previous County zoning. He said the City had worked with the County to make this parcel consistent with the others in the area to allow for the four units per acre to be a possibility. Mr. Anglim argued that the Arvida Corporation was not the only developer capable of building a quality product. Mr. Mohnacky, 1820 Prairie Lake Boulevard, said as far as affordable housing was concerned, he felt that first time homebuyers did not need to buy new homes and that there were plenty of existing homes in the area for them to purchase. He said the City should not reduce its standards to make it possible for them to have a new home. There being no further comments from the public, Vice Chairman Shiver closed the public hearing. Director of Planning Behrens stated for the record that the City's policy is to line up Roberson Road with Moore Road. Director Behrens also asked the Board to Itor Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes rntr July 9, 1991 keep in mind that the numbers being requested tonight were minimums and did not necessarily mean that would be the only lot sizes the developer chooses to use in designing the site. Planning and Zoning Commission member Carroll said he was totally opposed to both the 50' X 105' lots and the five foot side yard setbacks. Alternate member Bateman said the developer was here requesting the amendment because he could not sell what he currently has approval to build. Alternate member Rhodus asked why the developer did not request three units per acre rather than going from two to four. She said there might have been less dissent. Gifford Anglim said they are requesting flexibility but they do not anticipate that the entire subdivision will be developed using only the minimum lot size. Director of Planning Behrens said the developer has a certain number of lots in mind and at four units per acre, they can get that with the lot size and side yard setback requested. Mr. Anglim said if they were to use the 50 foot lots exclusively, they would have left over land that would have to remain vacant because they would go over their gross allowable units. Vice Chairman Shiver asked if he was buying a $200,000 home, why would he want to buy it knowing that $80,000 homes were right next door? Mr. Anglim said it would be the same premise that Arvida is using as far as providing a mix of housing types and that buffers (both roadways and landscaping buffers) would be utilized so that the $80,000 homes would not be visible to the $200,000 homeowners. Alternate member Rhodus and Vice Chairman Shiver both said they had a problem with not knowning specifically how much of a percentage of the development would be 50 foot lots. They said Arvida was more defined with its proposal and they felt they knew what to expect when Arvida came back with its Development Plans. Mr. Anglim said the Westridge developer was willing to confine the 50 foot lots to the 24 -acre pod that was identified as single family (99 units) on the amended Land Use Plan (adjacent to Maguire Road). Mr. Anglim said the developer would also commit to providing a landscape buffer and /or wall to screen the development from other subdivisions. Planning and Zoning Commission member Bond said she does not have a problem with 50 foot lots if it means that the developer can „�► build for middle range income homebuyers to allow them a chance at Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 1991 a new home but she is not convinced that this is the right location for such a development. Commission member Carroll agreed that this was not the right location and said that the recently approved Amber Ridge subdivision would make new homes affordable. Commission member Carroll moved to recommend denial of the Westridge Land Use Plan Amendment, Alternate member Bateman seconded, and the vote was 5 -0. (Chairman Sims abstained.) Director of Planning Behrens asked if the Board wanted to give the developer any guidelines with regard to the lot sizes, etc.. Vice Chairman Shiver said he might have voted differently if they had requested 60 foot lots with standard 7.5 foot side yard setbacks. Some of the other members of the Board concurred. Alternate member Bateman said that he thought Director Behrens' question was improper. Land Development Regulations Discussion Director of Planning Behrens said the City is required to adopt new Land Development Regulations (LDRs) in accordance with the new Comprehensive Plan. He said final adoption of the LDRs must take place by December 1991 so the Planning and Zoning Commission will be seeing a lot of information on this in the next few months. Director Behrens said Jim LaRue and York Phillips are working under contract with the City to develop new LDRs that will implement those recommendations and mandates made under the new Comprehensive Plan. Director Behrens said the Planning and Zoning Commission will probably see a draft of the new integrated Code in September. Chairman Sims requested that they receive the entire Code all at once so that they can read it for its overall impact and then review its components one at a time. He said it was difficult getting the Comprehensive Plan to review in sections (elements), not knowing what the other parts were going to say or cover. OTHER BUSINESS Alternate member Bateman asked about the four laning of Silver Star Road in conjunction with the construction of Clark Road. R.P. Mohnacky, 1820 Prairie Lake Boulevard, said he had attended several County meetings and that it was stated that Silver Star Road would be four -laned to Johio Shores Road for the first phase of the roadway widening project. Director of Planning Behrens said realistically, he thought that project was at least three years ,,. away due to lack of funding. Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes fir► July 9, 1991 Director of Planning Behrens wanted to bring up the issue of side yard setbacks for Planned Unit Developments. He said that was the reason he asked the Board if they had any direction they could provide the Westridge developer. Director Behrens said the PUD ordinance does not state a requirement for side yards and that it was up to each developer to request the dimension and that the Planning and Zoning Commission needed to look at each development independent of the others. Chairman Sims said he thought Alternate member Bateman made the comment that Director Behrens' comment was inappropriate because the plan still has to go to the City Commission so it is not appropriate to make any proposals for changes to it at this point. There being no other business to discuss, Chairman Sims adjourned the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 9:25 p.m. CHA 1447 S IMS • ATTEST: 1111, AO J O PUTY CLERK RESNIK