Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.02.01City of San rd Planning and Zoning C( 'mission AGENDA Thursday, AUGUST 2, 2001 City Commission Chambers, City Hall, Sanford, Florida 6:00 � Presentation by Bill Colbert, City Attorney regarding sunshine Laver, Procedures, Making Findings and Belated Procedural and Administrative Issues. Regularly Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. 1. Consider the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for crown colony (Turner-Wilkes Project), a 70 Lot Single Family Subdivi located at 950 Vihlen Road. Tax Parcel N umber : 34 -19-30- 300-001 -0000; 34 -19- 9- 399 -9 01 B -0000; 34 -19-3 - 300 - 0 01 C -0900; 3 4-19- 30 -300-001 D -0000; - 19 ;9 -AF- 0000 -0A; - 19 - -AF- 0990 -99B; and 33- 19- 30 -5AF-0000-0 39C Property O wner: Nancy S. & E. V. Turner Jr., and Thomas W. & Sandra T. Wilkes Representatives: Nicole K. Martin and Charlie Madden - Madden Engineering, Inc. 2. Consider changes to Sanford's Land Development regulations (continued from July 1 9, 2001 meeting) Representative: Antonia Gerli, Senior Planner 3 . Minutes 4 . Any other business from floor or Commission Members 5 . Reports from Staff. ADVICE To THE PUBLIC. If a person decides to appeal a decision made with res et to any matter considered at the above meetin g or hearing, e m ay need verbatim record of the proceeding In ludin th testimo �� test and evidence which record Is not provided b the City of Sanford (FS 286.01 P Persons with disabilities needing assistance to p articipate in any of these proceedings should contact the personnel office ADA coordinator at 330 -562 4 hrs in advance of the meeting. P � � F: N I IA EN DA\ 00118- .01.wpd Page I of 1 MENUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2001 00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL, SANFORD, FLORIDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Skat Rami Yoseflan Carol Jennison Ross Robert Robert Carraway Gary Lowell Bobby VonHerbulis Andrew Iut OTHERS PRESENT; Russ Gibson, Land Development Manager Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Mr. Sl at called the meeting to order at 600 P.M. Presentation by W filiam Colbert, City Attorney. Mr. Colbert touched on what the courts have been saying in the past 3 to 5 gears about public hearings, the way things are presented and why some courts are over t urning some decisions of city conunissions and boards appointed by city conunissions. He stated that the Courts have begun to make things more restrictive about discretions of any boards or city commissions that are appointed. The courts have determined that in a series of cases of public hearings and decisions that are made need to meet the essential requirements of the lave, they need to be conducted in some orderly manner. Rules of civil procedures do not have to be followed but there are some essential requirements that the courts have said need to be followed. The courts say that due process needs to be followed so that all applicants are treated the same and the applicant has to have the opportunity to be heard. Mirka l due process means that everybody has the opportunity to present evidence. The courts have said that if a Board does not consider the evidence, and if that Board makes decisions without giving the public an opportunity to be heard or if a decision is made in a way that does not afford equal opportunity for everybody to be governed by the sane standards, the courts use the terms arbitrary and capricious. To a lawyer, defending the City, means we lose. Everybody needs to be treated by the same basis and the decisions need to be consistent. WORK SESSION TES AUGUST 2, 2001 PAGE 2 Mr. Colbert stated that this Board is governed by Gov in the Sunshine. This means that there can't be any communication between two members of the sane body about matters which could conceivably come before them for decisions without being made in the public, at a public meeting. That public meeting needs to be noticed and mutes need to be kept of that public meeting. What a board can't do is to members talk about things which will come before them. If this occurs and can be proven, any decision that is made is void. This includes other ways of communication: a telephone conversation, memos, e- mail, using a conduit- t allying to a member of the staff and asking that staff member or onybody to talk to a board member and get information back and forth. If it is proven that these types of communications occur about matters that would come before a board for decisions, it is a violation of the Sunshine Law, and any decision remade as result of that is void. fir. Colbert Mated that another thing that people seem to get confused about is if they can talk to somebody on another board. The answer is yes. You can talk to a City Commissioner about something on your agenda or on the City Conmiission agenda. You can talk to other people but you can't talk amongst yourselves about things which would come before you for seeably for a decision. Regarding the Public Records Law, Mr. Colbert stated that as members of a body of the City, contact is remade with public records. Most of the time City Staff supplies these records. If you get a packet of information from City Staff, you can review it and when you are through with it you can toss it away because Staff has the original documents. But where you need to be careful is if you get a letter from a citizen about matters that will be on the agenda, if that letter comes to you, this is public record. what you need to do with it is preserve it, bring it in and turn it into Staff. If you receive an e-mail from a citizen about something on the agenda this is a public record, even if it cones to your office, you need to print it out, bring it into City StafE The concept of ex-pie communication comes under fire. E -parte communication is something that is communicated to you abort a nmfter which will come before you for a decision when it is com umcated outside of a public meeting. Sometimes citizens come up and talk to a board member about something on the agenda, that in and of itself is not bad. If someone talks to a board member, as a citizen, about something that will come before that member for a decision, the member should announce it at the meeting. All the board member needs to do is disclose. if it is not disclosed, and its proven that there was an e-arte omrnuuiction, the Court Judge will reverse whatever the decision that was made. Be conscious about a -p rte co mnmin cations. If you receive them, disclose diem. Be sure that decisions are made in accordance with the requirements of the law based on the evidence. lr. Colbert stated that it is not a problem to look at a site, it is not a problem to have somebody talk to you about it, it is a problem if it is not disclosed, and it is a problem if a decision is ade based on things that are not presented in the meeting but based on things that are learned outside. MEVUTES REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AUGUST 2, 2001 7 P.M. PAGE MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Skat R ani Yose fian Carol Dennison Ross Robert Robert Carraway Gary Lowell Bobby Vonerbulis Andrew Lutz Otto Garrett MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Hipes- excused TIERS PRESENT: Antonia Gerli Senior Planner Howard Jeffries, Landscape Architect Russ Gibson, Land Development r Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary l &. Skat called the meeting to order at 7 :1 O P.M The first item on the Agenda was to consider the Prehminary Subdivision Plan for Crown Colony, a 70 Lot single fl y subdivision located at 950 vihlen Road. Chad Morgan of Madden Engineering, 431 E. Horatio, Maitland, was present. Ms. Dennison stated that there are a lot of discrepancies in lot. numbers. 11r. Gibson stated that some of the lot numbers referenced in the Development Greer have changed but the intent of those requirements has been satisfied. Staff has reviewed those and made certain that the lot numbers referenced in the Development Order are achieved even though they nay have a different lot number on the plan presented tonight. Ms. Dennison stated in the Development Order there was an agreement that Lots 30 and 31 old access Dogwood Drive and the rest of the community would not. The back of Lot 32 is co ming into Dogwood Drive. She suggested that Lot 32 be made a nornl sued lot with access onto Dogwood Drive also. Ms. Dennison stated that e in Lot 22 needs to be looked into. She asked what is the intent of the easement area at the end of the cul -de -sac coning out to Dogwood. Mr. Morgan stated that that easement is to loop the water main, the re -use main and MINUTES PLANNING AND O I G COMMISSION MEETING UGUS ' 2, 2001 PAGE the sanitary sewer for better water pressure. A, 16" water main along Upsala Road will loop into Iyllwilde's " water main that will increase the pressure. Mr. Gibson stated that the easement is an underground utility easement so that pipe connections could run from the proposed cul-de-sac road to the right-of-way f Dogwood Drive. There are no vertical improvements allowed in this easement. Mr. VonHerbulis asked if the mm* u* nu living area was approved as 1800 square feet vs. 1500 as it is proposed in the Development Order. Mr. Gibson stated that he didn't recall the specific detafl and insured the Commission that the specifications tonight are directly from the approved and recorded Development Order that the City Commission adopted. Mr. VonHerbulis asked if everything around Dogwood and Maplewood Drives are all SR -1 AA with a mkfimum of 15 00 square feet. Mr. Gibson stated `yes ". Ms. Dennison stated that 1 &. Buckley had agreed to the mm nmurrm living area nweting the SR- I AA standards and that the developer had reduced the proposed density to 70 lots further reducing the gross density of the project to approximately 2. units per acre. Mr. VonHerbulis wanted to insure that the easement was not a driveway and not accessible and that he agrees with Ms. Dennison that three lots should open onto Dogwood as opposed to just the two lots. Mr. Carraway questioned Lot 50 fal ng into the wetlands. Mr. Morgan stated that the rest of the wetlands would be declared as a conservation easement as part of mitigation for Lot 50, of -site mitigation. W. Robert questioned the wall and wall treatment along Lots 1,2, , , , ,and 10. Mr. Morgan stated that it will be a typical white vinyl fence. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that basically there is fencing along the westerly portion from Lots 1 through Lot 30. The balance of Dots 35, 34, and , along there, have no fencing separating them from the existing Idllilde Subdivision, basically on the southerly portion. Mr. Morgan stated that it is an over -sight on their part. Ms. Dennison stated that she would like it stipulated that Lots 18 to 28 be one story only. Mr. Morgan pointed out that Lots 22 to 26 are deeper than what was presented earlier. 1 &. VonHerbulis moved on approval of the Pre ' ' Subdivision plan for Crown Colony rased on Staff s recommendation with recot iendation to the City Commission to modify the existing Development Order to include fencing around the southerly portion of this subdivision, to include three lots opening up to Dogwood Drive and have the fence go around those three lots as per the plan presented tonight on the north side of those three lots and the east side of Lot 32, also limit Lots 18 to 28 to single story. Seconded by Mr. Robert. Mr. VonHerbulis amended his motion to include Lots I to 28 to be limhed to single story. A wndme died for lack of a second. Mr. VonHerbulis withdrew his motion. Mr. Robert withdrew his second. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING of AUGUST 2. 2001 PAGE Mr. VonHerbulis moved to approve the Pre ' ` Subdivision Plan per St recd nmendations with recommendation to the City Commission to modify the Development Order litniting Lots 1 to 8 to one story, three lots, Lots 30, 31 and 32 will face Dogwood Drive, and the fencing to go around the north side of Lots 30, 31 and 32 and on the east side of Lot 32 and on the southerly portion of the balance of the property down to the wetlands area. Seconded b Ms. Dennison. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was consideration of changes to S n ord's Land Development Regulations. Representative: Antonia GerUi Senior planner. Mr. Skat requested that under Violations and Penalties of Schedule J, the penalties be stiffened some because the penalties are the same as the code and what is to prevent someone from cutting a bunch of trees down. 1I. Gerli stated that the penalties could be beefed -up some with some fines, etc. Mr. Skat requested that on Page J- 19, Irrigation, to add the word "operational" because just having a moisture sensor that doesn't work will not be very good. 1 &. Jefffries stated that what the City is going to try to do is require the developers to o is to make sure we don't reduce the total tree count. For example, Staff will have the developer let the City know how many caliper inches of trees are on a property. when the developer comes in with his plan, the City will want to know hove many caliper inches his plans will rewire. whatever the difference is, if trees could be planted that are acceptable to the City to make up the difference is fine, otherwise, we want to have a tree bank so that the difference would be used to continue our tree canopy elsewhere, i.e. City right-of-way, so that the tree count won't be reduced. Mr. VonHerbulis questioned trees under power lines. Mr. Jeffries stated that any trees planted beneath power lines, at its ultimate height, can't be within 10' of the power lines. Mr. Kutz requested that a little more work be dome regarding the spacing of canopy trees. He suggested adding an equation that would allow the use of a given number of alternative trees to one canopy trees and a certain percentage of canopy trees could be substituted. Mr. I ut requested that some consideration be given to requiring trees to be watered from the top down because it will help the trees give. Mr. Kutz suggested that reference should be made as to scre materials being landscaped. We need to require something that wiH be more dense and should be planted closer together. Landscaping should be something more rigorous. Mr. Kutz stated that in the SC-3 District it is imperative as in the waterfront Downtown Business District, to include as a requirement the Melding and Provost Guidelines. Ms. Gerli stated that this had been discussed and she has in her notes to apply those Guidelines to the 1" Street overlay district, when it is written. The Chairman requested that a copy of the Yielding and Provost Guidelines be placed into the next agenda packet. kvk ■ i t9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEL'T'ING OF AUGUST 2, 2001 PAGE Mr. Robert moved to approve the Minutes as circulated. Seconded by Mf. . Kut . All in favor. Motion earned. There being no further business, the mcetmg adjourned at 10 :00 P.M. Michael Skat, Chairnian