HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem V (A) Discussion: Orange Co Land Use Text Admendment No 2.2.7 AGENDA 1-03-96
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" Item V A
OcoeeJ. JL.V11 V!MN VG/XLIIMf1
O �ti O COMMISSIONERS
_ `� CITY OF OCOEE RUSTY JOHNSON
r
... a SCOTT ANDERSON
vO 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT A.GLASS
.4) OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 JIM GLEASON
j ' J� (407)656-2322
�• CITY MANAGER
�f 0000 ELLIS SHAPIRO
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners File: SRP-536
Through: Russell B. Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning ►JI/
From: Abra E. Home, Senior Planner
Subject: Orange County Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP)
Amendment - Future Land Use Element Policy#2.2.7
Date: December 29, 1995
Issue:
Should the City Commission object to the proposed Orange County Future Land Use Element Policy
Amendment Number 2.2.7?
Background:
The City recently found out about a proposed Orange County CPP Amendment (attached) which could
adversely impact the City of Ocoee. This Amendment is scheduled to be discussed at the January 3,
1996 Orange County Local Planning Agency (LPA) meeting. Unfortunately, we did not have time to
bring the matter to the City Commission prior to the LPA Public Hearing. If we do not appear to object
at the LPA meeting, then our standing to object to the amendment is weakened considerably.
Accordingly, we have sent the attached letter and will appear at the Public Hearing. Additionally, we
have transmitted the attached Public Records request to secure additional information.
Discussion:
Staffs primary concern is that the County is broadly amending their CPP in order to respond to issues
related to one specific development project that may directly and adversely impact the City (Belmere).
Instead, Staff feels that CPP Amendments should deal with broad development issues that affect many
property owners. The attached letter outlines Staff concerns regarding the Proposed Amendment as
well as issues pertaining to the specific development project. Staff wanted to discuss the implications
of the Amendment with the full City Commission before the January 23, 1996 Board of County
Commissioners meeting to elicit direction. If any member of the commission has immediate concerns,
please let us know by January 2, 1996.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners object to the
proposed amendment based upon: (1) the broad nature of the proposed amendment; (2) the lack of
intergovernmental coordination; (3) erosion of the effectiveness of the Ocoee-Orange County Joint
Planning Area Agreement; and (4) the potential adverse impacts on City infrastructure, and further,
direct City Staff to appear before the Board of County Commissioners to formally object to the proposed
Amendment.
Attachments
cc: Ellis Shapiro A:\NEWBRI-1\SRP-536.WPD
( NEW ) FLU POLICY 2.2.7
EXHIBIT I
sH.!N .MM
NN .amens��.N....NMNN
... . � I
\-m.,,,11-21"......_/T
1 I `"%l�w.. �1��Iuu!H.J�� La1m .M._
OCOEE t: '
'� =
I . ' Al CONS ' :
TG �
77777 s sea imisiii,"
iw:
:04t4.
a m
liii- . __ a
Law O.nsltr I - -' ---N
(0-8 Its) ! • -
,—. - . y OCOEE Ism! `l ��,
Si _
.4 :b: -J x- ... 't rr iel
, 1'I I -.4 r::
. - --- moor • -- 11 A- ..ire......,...,.......,
,,.. _,-..-, _ .. ._ Nallir.. .' • -
_. .
- 11 1- :: . - % ..,: _� °#i1._*•it:.::'L,.. . _ r !! *h. _ / "l►
/
tlia 61
,• - - - .. lin1111nu11a ,
.r rte .� it1 1!'
s.
• ce - i •
,.i ` /' I - -` - _v
Property Loaoon Mai
BEL-MERE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
r.1 .r
SEG?WNIRNG: 6IZ?t23 & 31/2123 P '
_._ r - r.�. ...„,:_a___;,„,
DISTRICT_ $I
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF ROBERSON ROAD. -
EAST OF WINDERMERE ROAD AND 1:31::.
� ----70 or
WEST OF MAGUIRE ROAD Ti...
Legend: C,.. 'I
PSrrE 11110.11.01
� � � tIN
TRACT SIZE: +S3.a,6 Acres p. j ._.i ,
SCALE: 1 =3100. r;�±'=
P£RTY LOCATION: )iiToclscf'f",-
“....:3. : .
a
NEW FUTURE RE L310 USE Er—EVENT POLICY Z2.7
The proposed policy below allows considcation of urban level densities within the Rural Service
Ars(RSA) under special cut"amstaaces, wlzit consider the relationship and compatibility of a
proposed development located between higher density urban development located in other
jurisdictions,rural settlement areas, and the RSA_ The proposed amendment also allows Orange
County to faeliitate the disposition, use, and development of such properties to ensure that
development is compatible with surrounding land uses, and that adequate public far4lities exist
conctrrct with the impacts of such development . The impetus for this policy change is the
proposed agreement with the owners of the Beimere P-D to provide park and school sites,if their
vested density can be incensed to 4 DU/Acre. The Belniere P-D is designated Rural, but vested
for One DU/Acne,due in part to water/sewer capacity reservations purchased prior to adoption of
the Cave Policy Plan in 1991. The unique characteristics of this site(see Fin-bit 41),
located abutting Winter Garden and Ocoee on two (2) sides,with designated land uses up to Four
DU/Acre,as well as existing rural settlement development to the south,as well as access to water
and sewer,makes this property an ideal transition project and Iogical candidate for this transition
ex=ption_
7 7 7 K+.R • �. .:r•.• 1 \-w-•-,111 - •_fl ••111.41 Hi=+f •.*• 1 ... 11
property iocstec is the Rural Service Atm(RSA1 that is at_least thimv-five percent
(1,5%) contiguous to higher density or intensity urban development located in art
adiacsat municipality This =vision is intended to permit a transitional use
`xewce:t hi2her density urban develamment nd densities whin the RSA. Higher
density urban development shall be defined as:
• Exicrmg or vested devclopmmcit greater than that t mitted in the RSA-
• Or fatae bad use designons al awing u tot 5 residential omits per ace cr
• Or non-residential uses(excluding agricultural uses).
Tr*r-itio a' ti . will be re t-t• • . rn th.rt r• r (41 :we lin- .
cre e _• C . - - -l( • 11I• • * "'ts ••_. ;•pw-r •r_-i• on
the followinr
Cornt•atibiiiry of the proposed oroiect with existingivested develoDruc:t 421
the =era' development rend in the prev
R. • i o r•— iso L SzT T K t• a• ac., , •• ••r ( •e _ 1 t
'irDy
Abili.0 or willingness to provide-uhIic facilities and a park and school sice�
Policy and Textual Amendments 4 Decersle: 13. 1995
1�f• • i .1! • .t+ 1 le. ' C• .t Wt r•
comprehensivepjant or vested r!2his;
E_ Must be_arrmved aS,�P!arined Development;
F. Whether the projsc•is part of a Joint?!awning .area Avreernenr—lati.
Ability to art otter criteria allowing urban deve!oome t (e.z,_ U$g
amendment.Growth Crater expansion etc.},
Q
�y
Policy and Twti:uai Amendments 11 Dear nbe•. 995
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR• COMMISSIONER
Ocoee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT
O�
�y • 0 COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF OCOEERUSTY JOHNSON
a SCOTT ANDERSON
v 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT A.GLASS
OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 JIM GLEASON
�'1'. `:: �? (407)656-2322
`\ CRY MANAGER
Of GOOD ELLIS SHAPIRG
December 29, 1995
LFP-1034
Orange County Local Planning Agency (LPA)
Orange County Government
Post Office Box 1393
Orlando, Florida 32802-1393
Subject: Proposed Text Amendment#2.2.7 to the Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan
Ladies & Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to state the City's objections to the Proposed Text Amendment#2.2.7 to the
Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP). Although the proposed Amendment may address a
specific project, the City is concerned about the broader adverse effects of this new policy. City Staff feels
that this Amendment will undermine the effectiveness of the (1) Rural Service Area (RSA), (2) Joint Planning
Area Agreement (JPAA), (3) Ocoee Intergovernmental Coordination Element, (4) Orange County Intergovern-
mental Coordination Element, and (5) Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act (Chapter 163, Part II, F.S.).
The RSA ensures that future urban land uses are planned in conjunction with the availability of urban
services and public facilities, as required by the State and Regional Goals 16 and 57, respectively. The
proposed Amendment does not discuss how the County will assess and address the added demand,for
traffic, stormwater, sewer, water, police, fire, schools, parks and open space facilities and services generated
by the urban densities that would be permitted under the new policy. The Proposed Amendment also fails
to address anticipated impact on the adjoining local governments. Under the proposed policy, a 450 acre
parcel currently restricted to 45 residential units (1 unit per 10 acres) in the RSA could theoretically be
permitted to build 1800 residential units, a forty-fold increase in density. In the Belmere case, application of
this policy could increase the residential density three-fold, from 456 to 1,823 units. It is unclear how the
additional impact would be evaluated and whether or not surrounding municipalities would be given the
opportunity to review the proposals and provide input to the County.
Section 13 of the JPAA requires that Orange County notify the City of Ocoee of the receipt of any applications
for annexation, deannexation, comprehensive plan amendment including County initiated applications,
rezoning, and development of regional impact. The Belmere property is wholly contained within the Ocoee-
Orange County JPA, yet the City was not formally notified of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Application. Rather, we found out about the proposed Amendment by accident and have filed a written
request for information since LPA consideration of this issue may violate the CPP which requires compliance
with the JPAA. This is the second instance in which the County has failed to communicate or coordinate with
the City on this project, the first being the Substantial Amendment to the PD Plan last June. As you may
recall, the Belmere Substantial Amendment allowed a concentration of urban density along the southern end
of the property where the surrounding land uses are more rural than urban. The new policy states "[t]his
provision is intended to permit a transitional use between higher density urban development and densities
within the RSA." However, the recent Substantial Amendment allowed the higher density development to
occur in the southern portion of the project thereby precluding a transitional use, since the surrounding urban
land uses are only permitted in the City of Ocoee to the north, not within the Windermere Rural Settlement
to the south. An application of this new policy will further exacerbate this situation by permitting urban
densities throughout the entire 456 acre site effectively eliminating any transitioning.
Orange County Local Planning Agency(LPA) -2 - December 29, 1995
The City of Ocoee also believes that in the specific case of Belmere there are a number of unresolved
infrastructure issues.
Traffic How will traffic from this project be handled?
* What will be the effects upon Maguire Road?
* Will turning movements be restricted on Maguire Road?
* Will Maguire Road be widened to accommodate the new demand?
* Will the County acquire additional right-of-way?
* Will Roberson Road be paved?
* Will the County acquire right-of-way along Roberson for potential future widening?
Stormwater * How will the County protect the City's stormwater basins?
* Will all stormwater be retained on-site?
Sewer Where is the closest sewer line?
* Who will pay for the service extension?
* Will a lift station be required?
* Who will maintain the lift station?
* Will it provide additional capacity for other users?
Water * Who will pay to extend the existing water line from Lake Butler Boulevard?
* What size will the extension be?
* Will there be an upsizing agreement?
Police * Can the Sheriffs Department respond to calls from this property?
* Do they have enough manpower in southwest Orange County to handle the additional
impact?
Fire * Will the Fire Station on SR 535 be expected to protect this property?
* What is the response time from that station?
* Can that station handle another 1,400 homes?
* Will additional equipment be provided to that station?
* Does the County expect first response from the City for this property?
Schools * Has the School Board approved this site?
* Will the school be an elementary, middle, or high school?
* Will the school be too close to Windermere Elementary or other existing schools?
* Will there be safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the school site?
* When would the school be constructed?
Parks * Where will this park site be located?
* What sort of park will it be, active or passive?
* Will it be coordinated with any existing park facilities through bike trails?
* Will it be co-located with the school site?
* Will the park impact Maguire Road?
Open Space * Will there be any preserved open space along the lakes?
* Will the wetland areas be protected?
These are a few of our concerns which are not addressed in the CPP Amendment. Further, we do not know
whether these issues have been adequately addressed in the proposed developer agreement.
Orange County Local Planning Agency (LPA) - 3 - December 29, 1995
If the Belmere site is truly a unique situation, as suggested in the Staff Report, then we question whether
CPP policies should be amended to address one specific case. Amendments are generally reserved to
address a comprehensive problem or issue. Instead, the County should be working with the three
surrounding jurisdictions to craft a Developer Agreement for this project which addresses the concerns of the
City of Ocoee, City of Winter Garden, and the Town of Windermere within the RSA. By adding a new policy
to the CPP, the door is opened to other developments to increase their densities without addressing the need
for public facilities and services. Additionally, approval of the proposed text amendment to the CPP would
allow other projects to increase their density without any intergovernmental review, and once the policy Is in
place, the basic purpose of having a Rural Service Area will be effectively negated in many parts of the
County.
Sinc e ,
Russell B. Wagner, AICP
Director of Planning
cc: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
Ellis Shapiro, City Manager
Attachment
A:1LFP-1034.WPD
FOLEY & LARDNER
A r r O R N E • $ A r A w
SUITE 1800 A MEMBER Or GLgGALEX
III NORTH ORANGE AVENUE ` iru MEMBER OFFICES IN
ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801
BERLIN
JACXSONVILLE TELEPHONE I4071423-7658 • BRU$SELS
TALLAHASSEE j DRESDEN
TAMPA FACSIMILE 140716.4E1-1743 �'� " }- a FRANKFURT
WEST PALM BEACH NAILING ADDRESS: t 1
MILWAUKEE T LONDON
PARIS
M AOISON POST OFFICE BOX 2193 DECRE
HICAGO ORLANDO. Fl 32802-2193 1 l.l! 2 8 1995 ��
STUTTGASINGAPRT
WASHINGTON. O.C. TAIPEI
December 27, 199
CITY OF OCOEE
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Thomas J. Wilkes, Jr. , Esq.
County Attorney
Orange County
201 S. Rosalind, 5th Floor
Orlando, Florida 32801
RE: Public Records Request
Dear Tom:
Pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, I request that
you make available for inspection and copying all public records on
the following subject matter existing as of January 5, 1996:
1. Proposed Amendment to Future Land Use Element Policy
2.2.7 of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, a draft ,
copy of which is attached hereto (hereinafter the
"Proposed FLU Amendment") .
2. Data and analysis regarding the Proposed FLU Amendment.
3 . Staff reports prepared regarding the Proposed FLU
Amendment.
4. Minutes of all meetings of the County Commission, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Development
Review Committee at which the subject of the Proposed FLU
Amendment was discussed.
5. Listings of lands currently located in the Orange County
Rural Service Area (RSA) which have been identified as
being potentially eligible for residential development at
urban densities under the Proposed FLU Agreement.
6. Traffic studies regarding the impact of Proposed FLU
Amendment on surrounding roadways within the vicinity of
lands identified in Item 5 above.
E S T A 3 L 13 .4 E 0 3 4 2
Thomas J. Wilkes, Jr. , Esq.
December 27, 1995
Page 2
7 . The Belmere P-D, including any amendments thereto and any
related development agreements.
8 . Reports, memoranda, correspondence, notes, data and
analysis regarding the eligibility of the Belmere P-D to
be developed at urban densities under the Proposed FLU
Amendment.
9. Land use plans, site plans, maps, reports and other
documents regarding the potential development of the
Belmere P-D under the Proposed FLU Amendment.
10. Correspondence regarding the need for or desirability of
a school site located within the Belmere P-D, including
all correspondence with the Orange County School Board
with respect thereto.
11. Agreements or proposed agreements with the owners, agents
or representatives of the Belmere P-D, including but not
limited to any agreements or proposed agreements to
provide park and/or school sites within the Belmere P-D.
12 . Copies of plans and agreements to provide sewer and/or
water service to the Belmere P-D.
13 . Traffic studies regarding the impact of the proposed FLU
Amendment on roadways in the vicinity of the Belmere P-D.
14 . Land use maps of properties surrounding the Belmere P-D.
15. Notes and memoranda of all meetings with the owners,
agents or representatives of the Belmere P-D regarding
the Proposed FLU Amendment.
16. Vested rights granted or denied by Orange County for the
Belmere P-D, including any applications for vested rights
with respect to the Belmere P-D.
"Public records" means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books,
tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings or other material,
regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received
pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction
of official business. Fla. Stat. § 119 . 011(1) . Public records
include any and all draft documents, internal memoranda, and notes.
Thomas J. Wilkes, Jr. , Esq.
December 27, 1995
Page 3
Please note that this public records request includes a
request for public records that may not exist on the date of this
letter, but are anticipated to exist on January 5, 1996 .
I will pay any and all duplication costs in accordance
with Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
Please make the requested public records available for
review on Tuesday, January 9, 1996 by me or such other persons as
may attend on my behalf. Also, please advise me who will be the
contact person for handling this request and where the public
records will be available for inspection. If you have any
questions regarding this request, please let me know.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Since ely,
dJciZjejtJ
Paul E. Rosenthal
PER:dh
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Ellis Shapiro, Ocoee City Manager
Mr. Russell B. Wagner, Ocoee Planning Director
Ms. Montye Beamer, Ocoee Director of Administrative Services
Mr. David C. Heath, Manager, Orange County Planning Department
(Via Hand Delivery)
c.mp3mOCS10(.`oe pERDDH1IIs1 112t 7/93I0981D4!PF7t h