Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVII (D) Discussion/ Action re: Central Florida Investments, Inc. Agenda 2-16-99 Item VII D 'CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT Ocoee COMMISSIONERS s CITY OF OCOEE DANNY HOWELL 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON �� •��..JJ a SCOTT A.GLASS 34761-2258 NANCY J.PARKER r. c, (407)656-2322 yr ,`2 Cm MANAGER 14 GF GOO�� ELLIS SHAPIRO STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14,1999 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brad Friel,AICP,Capital Projects!Transportation Planner AC THROUGH: Russell Wagner,AICP, Director of Planning pp SUBJECT: Central Florida Investments- Request to Waive Cross Access Requirement ISSUE: Should the Honorable Mayor and City Commission approve Central Florida Investments request to waive the cross access requirement of the Ocoee State Road 50 Activity Center Special Development Plan? BACKGROUND: In July 1998, the Ocoee State Road 50 Activity Center Special Development Plan was adopted by Ordinance into the Land Development Code. The purpose of the plan is to ensure that new projects improve rather than detract from the character of the community by promoting quality integrated development. One requirement of the plan is that traffic access and circulation patterns be coordinated between adjoining sites to promote sound access management principles including cross access. Access management is a comprehensive approach to control and regulate all aspects of roadway access. This approach examines driveways, median openings, cross access, joint access, turn- lanes, traffic signals and their relationship to each other as well as adjacent land uses. The goal of access management is to ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic and pedestrians by limiting the number of conflict points, separating conflict points and removing turning traffic from through traffic. Access management, including cross access, is discussed throughout the State Road 50 Activity Center Plan. The specific areas include: • Chapter Two: Statement of Intent, page 4; • Chapter Four: Concept Plan, pages 10, 11, 12 and 14 • Chapter Five: Private Area Regulations, pages 18, 19, and 20 (All of the pages noted above are attached for your review. ) Recently, Central Florida Investments purchased an existing building (the old General Elevator building) located at 2801 Professional Parkway with the intent to update the existing facility and expand the office square footage. Company representatives have indicated that the office space would be used as a call center initially employing 700 people. CFI estimates that sufficient space for up to 2,000 employees will c:Aall_datalbfpdfile\correspondence\staffrepods\cc.sr cti cross access waiver.doc Jar The Honorable Mayor and City Commission January 14, 1999 Page 2 be available once the property is completely redeveloped. Prior to purchasing this building, representatives of CFI met with the City to discuss what City procedures would need to be followed to redevelop this property. Additionally, CFI requested the City's help with respect to the widening of Professional Parkway, identifying additional parking options and relief from City impact fees. They indicated the need to have a efficient four lane roadway adjacent to their site to provide good access to regional roadways. Another important element of their relocation plans was the need to modify the building's existing parking area and to acquire additional property to increase the amount of available parking to serve their operation. A portion of the parking expansion is being accomplished by reconfiguring the existing paved areas and by reclaiming an area now used for the building's septic system. CFI intends to connect to the City's sanitary sewer. Since the initial meetings with CFI,the City has: • Passed a bond issue to finance the widening of Maguire Road, Professional Parkway and Maine Street, • Agreed to work with CFI to identify potential parking areas and to maximize the use of their existing parking area, • Reviewed plans to connect to the City's waste water system and, • Found that road impact fees, otherwise totaling at a minimum $ 250,000.00, would not be assessed based on the fact that this property is a redevelopment of an existing structure with no increase in the building footprint. On August 27, 1998, CFI submitted their site plan to modify their existing parking area. This plan was reviewed and commented on by City staff. One comment was that CFI needed to provide cross access. Specifically, it was required that they create an easement for vehicular and pedestrian access between the CFI property and the adjacent property to the west(here after referred to as parcel"W" and shown on Exhibit 1 ). The revised plan set was submitted for City review on November 10, 1998. This plan set included the necessary 24 foot cross access easement. A copy of the relevant portion of the site plan is attached as Exhibit 2. Staff comments on this plan were discussed with CFI at the regularly scheduled Technical Staff Review Committee on December 1, 1998. During this meeting, representatives of CFI indicated that they were unwilling to provide the cross access easement now or in the future. When reminded of the Activity Center requirement to provide cross access, CFI indicated that they would like to request a waiver. The Activity Center Plan is clear on the procedures to follow when an applicant disagrees with the Director of Planning's application of the Code's requirements. When a waiver is requested,the applicant may request a meeting of the Development Review Committee. The DRC may overrule or modify the interpretation or decision made by the Director of Planning. The applicant may appeal the DRC's decision to the City Commission. The Ocoee City Commission, at its sole discretion, may waive provisions within the Ocoee Land Development Code, the Ocoee City Code and Activity Center Special Development Plan within any project if it is: 1. Part of an integrated and master planned development; 2. Compatible with surrounding developments; 3. Imposes no impacts on City infrastructure greater than that generated by other uses normally permitted in the underlying zoning district; 4. And/or provides an off-setting public benefit which is technically sound and measurable. c:\all_datatbrodfiletcorrespondence1slaRreporls cc.sr cfi cross access waiver.doc The Honorable Mayor and City Commission January 14,1999 Page 3 On December 22, 1998 the Development Review Committee met and, after considerable discussion, voted unanimously to deny CFI's waiver request. The minutes of this meeting are attached to this report. DISCUSSION: As outlined in the attached letter dated December 8, 1998 and originally forwarded to the DRC, CFI has raised three reasons why the requirement for a cross access easement should be waived. These reasons are summarized below,followed by the Planning Departments position: 1. Traffic would need to use CFI's parking lot to cut in front of the CFI building en route to parcel '^'. CFI's position is this would create traffic stacking problems forcing traffic to drive around their building. 2. The traffic that uses the circulation pattern described above would create liability issues for CFI employees and visitors. 3. The zoning of parcel 'W' will allow for a variety of uses and it is conceivable that the parcel could be developed as a high turn over/high trip generator which will increase the impacts to CFI. The primary purpose of a cross access easement is to provide the opportunity for vehicles and pedestrians to move from one parcel to an adjacent parcel without the need to pull out onto a public roadway and then back into the adjacent parcel. Traffic destined for parcel "W'will have the opportunity to access that parcel from Professional Parkway and or Maguire Road. That is to say, a trip that begins from a house in Silver Glen, Health Central, or the West Oaks Mall will directly enter parcel "W' from a driveway located on either Professional Parkway or Maguire Road. But a trip originating from CFI going to parcel "W will be able to do so without driving on Professional Parkway. This will reduce the amount of traffic on the City's roads helping to extend their useful life which protects the City's sizable roadway investment. In the coming months, the City will begin the design and then construction of the new four lane Professional Parkway and Maguire Road. Funding for these roadway improvements has been secured from the recent 19 million dollar transportation bond sale. As a result,the location and type of access is anticipated to change from what exists today. The exact location and type of access provided for individual properties will be finalized as part of the Professional Parkway and Maguire Road design. Although this access management plan is not drafted at this time, reasonable access will be provided to all properties. In general, staff believes, that CFI's arguments could apply to any property within the Activity Center and are therefore, not unique. In fact, these are standard arguments regularly used by property owners who dispute cross access easements. 1. CFI's first concern that traffic from parcel"W"could create a stacking problem and force traffic to drive around their building is unrealistic. The only traffic that will use this cross access drive will be going to or coming from the two properties. There would be no increase in traffic at CFI's driveway or parking area that wouldn't exist already since there would be no practical reason to venture into CFI's property. Also, a properly designed cross access driveway will not cause stacking problems. . 2. Since there is no increase in traffic within CFI's parking lot there should not be any additional liability issues. c:gall_tlata\bfpdfile\cor espondence\staffrepodstcc.sr cfi cross access waiver.doc The Honorable Mayor and City Commission January 14, 1999 Page 4 3. It is true that the zoning of parcel "W' will allow for a variety of uses and it is conceivable that the parcel could be developed as a high turn over / high trip generator. Since parcel "W' will have reasonable access onto Professional Parkway and Maguire Road there is no reason to believe that the land use would increase the impacts to CFI. The cross access driveway will largely be used by CFI employees wishing to access parcel'VP, rather than vise-versa. On January 14, 1999, CFI hand delivered a letter which provides additional arguments to waive the cross access easement requirement. ( This letter is attached ) After a brief review of this letter, staff still believes that the cross access easement should be provided by CFI as part of their current parking lot reconfiguration. This easement will minimize traffic impacts to Professional Parkway without adding any additional impacts to CFI. Additionally, cross access easements will be considered for all of the properties adjacent to Professional Parkway as those properties develop or redevelop. In fact the Activity Center Plan requires that CFI provide a cross access easement to the property located to the east of CFI but the Planning Director, at his discretion, did not apply this requirement because the eastern property was already developed and did not allow for cross access. The Planning Department believes that a cross access between CFI and parcel 'W' is a sound access management application. Since the Activity Center Plan requirement is intended to improve rather than detract from the character of the community by promoting integrated development, this access option should be implemented now and then completed when parcel"W'develops. The need to minimize the impacts of traffic within Ocoee cannot be understated. The cross access easement requirement is one of many small steps in this process. By implementing these methods the City will minimize traffic impacts and protect its considerable investment in roads. Additionally, CFI should acknowledge that the access options that exist along Professional Parkway today may change as a result of the redesigned Professional Parkway and that the final details of the Professional Parkway access management plan should be developed by the Professional Parkway design team and all of the adjacent property owners. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends that the Honorable Mayor and City Commission DENY CFI's request to waive the cross access requirement of the State Road 50 Activity Center Plan. Attachments: Cross Access requirements in the Activity Center Plan and Land Development Code Exhibit 1:Site Location Exhibit 2:Site Plan Development Review Committee Minutes CFI letter date December 8, 1998 CFI letter received January 14,1999 c:tall_datatbfpdfle\correspondence\staf repods\cc.sr cfi cross access waiver.doc II. Statement of Intent The City of Ocoee recognizes the potential for urban sprawl, strip commercial development, and visual clutter along the corridor. The City intends to avoid this outcome because it is inefficient and creates unappealing urban design. Instead, the City intends to ensure distinctive, quality, integrated development in this corridor. The City envisions an appealing urban environment that invites people to congregate, encourages multiple modes of transportation,allows innovative designs, promotes mixed- or multiple-use developments, and provides for the efficient delivery of City services. In order to achieve this outcome, the following goals are established to guide Activity Center development: • Ensure distinctive quality, integrated development in the corridor. a. Create a unique and attractive atmosphere that invites people to congregate. b. Set strict building design criteria to ensure unique and visually appealing buildings. c. Establish a safe enjoyable environment for pedestrians,motorists, and cyclists. d. Create a visually coherent development pattern that relates to the human scale. . e. Coordinate access points and pedestrian connections between individual projects. f. Create useable open spaces in and adjacent to new developments. • Mitigate the impacts of development by setting strict site design criteria. a. Set strict site design criteria to ensure that separate projects, buildings, and signs are integrated to create a master-planned appearance. r • b. Require a logical pattern of pedestrian access,traffic flow, and parking lots. c. Integrate on-site circulation, traffic signals, access points, shared access, and cross access among adjoining projects. d. Establish a consistent pattern of setbacks and place buildings and their entrances in close proximity to roads. e. Provide visible connections between roads, parking, sidewalks, and adjacent projects so that pedestrians and motorists can negotiate a path quickly and safely. f. Provide a logical, consistent, and attractive pattern of lighting, signage, and landscaping that relates to the human-scale. g. Minimize the removal of mature trees and integrate them into site development plans. h. Integrate open space in all developments to create a cohesive coordinated network of green areas, pedestrian amenities,and landscaping. 4 3. Streets as Public Open Spaces: A third basic principle is that streets influence community character. Streets must be treated as public spaces, well-landscaped and designed to include multiple types of transportation. Streets should accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as automobiles. State Road 50 is the most important of these streets and along with facilitating its conversion to an urban road section, broad sidewalks will be required that accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. 4. Diversity: Diversity is another basic principle of community design. It lends richness to the experience of a place. The Activity Center concept encourages mixed- and multiple- uses. The corridor has already attracted a diverse range of uses including West Oaks Mall and Health Central. New development with strong connections to local parks and schools will only add to its diverse character. 5. Linkages: The last principle of community design is linkages. Easy access reduces travel times. Multiple routes will increase the livability of the area, minimize congestion, and increase accessibility. Emphasis should be placed on pedestrian and bicycle access as well as the car. Connections should be enhanced in order to link local schools, parks, lakes, environmental areas, and commercial development to the surrounding neighborhoods by car,transit, foot, and bike. B.Key Criteria: The following key criteria are based upon the above study of the corridor including the five planning principles and contextual understanding of jurisdictional boundaries, natural features, future land use, roadways, transit facilities, and pedestrian facilities. 1. Road Improvements: Facilitate the conversion of State Road 50 and Old Winter Garden Road to urban sections with curb and gutters. This would eliminate wide stormwater drainage swales along the roads and create a pedestrian-oriented atmosphere by reducing the overall roadway width. . 2. Access Mana2ement: Require landowners/developers to conform to the requirements of the State Road 50 Access Management Plan. This will reduce congestion by moving traffic more efficiently and safely. 3. Critical Road Connections: Facilitate several critical road connections that will add to the network of roads providing access through and within the corridor. These connections will spread the traffic out so that no one road or intersection bears all of the congestion. These connections include: a. Relocate and extend Maine Street from Blackwood Avenue to Maguire Road. The relocation would preserve the historic portion of Maine Street. An extension of Blackwood and connection to Maguire would add a east-west connection that will create parallel capacity for State Road 50. 10 b. Extend Montgomery Avenue to Blackwood Avenue. This connection will provide a north-south connection for Ocoee residents along the Orlando Avenue corridor. Without this connection, these residents would have to circumnavigate the Mall or Bluford to get to State Road 50 near the hospital. c. Extend Hemple Avenue to State Road 50 and tie into the extension of Montgomery Avenue North of State Road 50. This would create a new north-south connection to help alleviate traffic on Blackwood Avenue. 4. Secondary Connections: Require landowners/developers to provide secondary connections that will provide cross-access between properties and increase the efficiency of State Road 50. The development of outparcels at the West Oaks Mall illustrates this concept where several parcels are interconnected with shared access to the Mall's internal circulation system. 5. Gateway Intersections: Work with landowners/developers to establish key intersections as gateways that have coordinated public, street, and informational signs and uniform/enhanced traffic operations equipment (signals plus). By creating more attractive intersections with reduced visual clutter, drivers and pedestrians may more easily identify and locate local businesses. Several intersections along State Road 50 are identified as gateways. Here specific landscape design treatments will be developed that decorate the intersections and provide directional signage. These intersections include: Good Homes Road; Proposed intersection on the Eastern edge of Lake Lotta; the Southern Mall entrance; Clarke Road; Proposed Hemple-extension Intersection; Blackwood Avenue; Proposed intersection on the Eastern edge of Lake Bennet; and Bluford Avenue. 6. Community Facilities: Establish needed community facilities and new parks. Preserve the historic section of Maine Street and create a park and recreational trailhead adjacent to historic Maine Street. Establish a system of recreational trails to provide public access to the unique natural features within the Activity Centers. 7. Pedestrian/ Bicycle Facilities: Locate pedestrian and bicycle facilities on or adjacent to identified roads. This will create a network of multi-modal connections throughout the Activity Centers. The specific facility appropriate for each road (sidewalk,bike path, or bike lane) will be assessed relative to the conditions and capacity of each road. S. Recreational Trails: Create recreational trails adjacent to wetlands and preserved natural areas. Create a pedestrian/ bike recreational trail between Historic Maine Street and Tiger Minor Park. Access to Lake Bennet will be provided. There will be a recreational trail that extends around all or part of Lake Bennet. Provide a recreational . trail along the Shoal Creek wetland connecting Tiger Minor Park east to State Road 50, Clarke Road, and White Road. 11 9. Wetland Conservation: Create useable wetlands and connected open spaces in and among projects. Preserve the Shoal Creek wetland system between Bluford Avenue and State Road 50. Preserve scenic vistas of lakes and natural areas. Provide public access along lakes and integrate lake shorelines into site design as an amenity. C.Basic Design Theme: Although the five foregoing basic principles are reflected in this Concept Plan, Ocoee must also identify its own basic design theme. Ocoee's basic design theme is to integrate uses and buildings, create a place for people, and eliminate typical detached car-centered projects. Together, these concepts can be applied to the corridor and help us visualize a different type of development that acknowledges our sense of community pride. Following, there is a "Concept Plan" that spatially integrates all of the key criteria on one page. The Concept Plan illustrates the combined impact of a coordinated development scenario, critical road connections, secondary connections, pedestrian/ bicycle facilities, recreational trails, and gateway intersections. The Concept Plan seeks to link the diversity of uses, natural features, and neighborhoods into comprehensive Activity Center that creates a unique sense-of-place through connections and linkages that integrate multiple modes of `access through and within the corridor. The pages following the Concept Plan include the Private Area Special Regulations and the Public Area Special Regulations. Together, these two sets of Special Regulations are designed to implement the statement of intent, goals, planning principles, and key criteria outlined in this Concept Plan. The map on the following page is an attempt to visually integrate all of the concepts on one page. However, where inconsistencies or questions arise regarding the implementation of the Special Regulations and/or Concept Plan, the text above and particularly the statement of intent and goals shall provide direction for the Director of Planning in making a determination and resolving the inconsistency whose administrative interpretations may be appealed to the Development Review Committee. In the event a person disagrees with an interpretation or decision made by the Director of Planning, then they may request a meeting of the Development Review Committee which will be held with 7 working days from the date of receipt of a written request. All such appeals shall be filed with the Director of Planning. The Development Review Committee may overrule or modify the interpretation or decision made by the Director of Planning. 12 The Concept Plan Key Cetera: M following key Wtia ire brad upon the above r rdY of the malt,including-nve pluming prraeipler-csit tua mdaTntlbg of juB4iNnnal boundaries.natural feat=future land uK rNwayr.C.nsit faeilitiq and pe=emirn frilitiet I. Reed lmonvesmr: Facilitate the conversion of Side Road 50 and Old Winter Garden Rood to urban lions web curb and gutters. p 2 Aceea Mnaeenat Require kM owner developers to conform to the reguImomb of the Solt Road 50 Mead Management plan J. Critical Road G H F¢II'm serape d road g o - I y • • e mmallrnr that II We Ac network r roads providing access J 2 s • 66-• I � � � wwg6waN me add cnetheY twork r - I UI p1 ) . q� Remre and nerd Mane Spat from Blackwood Avenue w . 1 L� .. .. %11 I,1' 1-1 Q rid, 'lY .1•i ��t c91 Maguire Road ®W 1 a .y.. - 09 A 1-.v.m Iln l b. ;Send Montgomery Avenue to Blackwood Avenue. I!m I. t . V 1L 1 ® } OI 1 ,.: IL•- c Extend Morale Avenue to Stale Road JO and tie into Montgomery bBg r{miaa ®■-I �. ® I II I I II. I Avmuemwua . O Q I ®® • P ill` d. Selo=and extend Mamba!'Remo Road south of Sure Ro•dM . 1 ®r F I H O 1 • Even Profemonal Parkway west to Marshall Farms Road. V ✓ �.-' PN ✓ Extend Consumer Cron south to Professional Parkway. kmJ ` it ® 1 _ 4 .e Sn.nd.ry Cnnnelom: R N �f p y / Require landowners/developers evelopm m provide •kFi' dg • �' 1 \ ®� / ryl _ Proper• y connections Nu willncprovideteads aaiss between \ / ' 1 o poylnaMw¢tetbc efficiency of State Road 5O /-/'. ¢ 1 / - • JI f { F. I � l'. } ey i Intersections:as BatWork Y By treating b en establish ',� an • w[i l\' r�17,� 9 A .)•IY L wuranemens ith reduced visual a end pad ly Il�l� ._ r tee � •• .1 IL i� ' '. s. vav�r n cad t�.. ▪ easily identify re Iue1W snee- r Al\ ti + 1 p —k\ 1_ =' -� 1\ /�) prang Side Raid JO noise led gateways The r . 4 ®�r�: 1i _ f_i.1A 1 i �9 m a:- \ ` IWe Good Homes ROWPuposedl Re Eastern edge ' ` Iry`G 1> i tl V N� Q r Lake Imu0.tip Southern Mel Clark Rend Proposed Jf O y I �y01 i y ., HmrpRatmrion I Blecionod Proposed rktr � r � shy _ May`°� I �,i .^-- - ��r mmfwn an the Eamon edge of We Rennet.Bluford A cove R rh / 1. m r Maguire Road.Consumer Cuuk and MaMYIF Roark \L\ 1 d! ®� q�i � 4�0 \Ir.!, l �IIIIII =11 �• I\ J 6, C lath FtYIMM ENbI sh needef n fLl and now peat Prtrwe theh6Wic=ton of MY 5 M e• `'� w` /� ®p :• • m"mO . O' - m r S,> pork sod rmmlmY O.IInm adjacent M Mane Sheet r ( \ Q:p(=''p Q m f Ij ltr q m. Esb b.seen of recreational wls to Provide Public=en t the J Q undgne.annY coma wnth Atr.nunlen �' f \ _ I t o pro m Coro. I 7. R1Aabi&BicycleF all Ia Conte a network of muN modal m AA l 1 1 _ m mveEuu Wo g6 th Act ty fmtm me slelfit (Into m operant for each road(sdewaJ bike pH bike Wye)will be m. /�{y�I-'�r'1��II ! _ madmlWvewthe conditions Wmprinof aen road. ='+ 7. R. P¢mtlen.l Really Orate recreational mils',Swat to wetlands ry W proved natural arca Create a pedestrian/bike nee0ona nail taww Hisionc Mane Street and Tiger Minor Para Access to Lake Berm will be provided. Provide a ratotional trail along the Shoal Cmk weBmd connecting Tiger Minor Park eat to State Road 50. Clsrke Reid.and White Road. 9 WeWwl Conservedoer pate usable wetlands and Connected open Taws in and among Proem ensrve the Oral Creek Punted system between Bluford Avenue and State Road 50.Preserve scenic 'aim ci Ian sad natural WMr.provide public"en Soot lain and tote/roe lake shorelines Nw site design asap emetity 14 2. Outoarcels - Outparcels and individual projects shall be cross connections designed to establish a coordinated pattern of uses and buildings that inter-relate and create a sense of a master planned development. a. In commercial subdivisions, outparcels shall be located -7}• so as not to obscure the view of larger commercial : : ` i structures from the roadway. >_I //1 • %� b. Smaller commercial structures and outparcels will not ? r` dominate the street frontage and shall be restricted to G''rt " no more than 50% of the linear roadway frontage e ^ -:.: .zi within a planned commercial development or � ...•. subdivision. c. All out parcels shall be connected to the main Figure2 commercial tract and interconnected with each other and adjoining parcels for vehicular and pedestrian travel. (see Figure 2) d. No more than two outparcels shall abut each other 10' minimum along primary or secondary street frontages, and no outparcel lot shall be less than one acre in size. Any number of outparcels may front on internal streets within a commercial subdivision. 01111111 3. Building Open Areas a. A minimum 10 foot wide open area shall be required around all buildings or building complexes to separate - = i ' ' structures from parking areas and to accommodate landscaping. This area shall be landscaped as outlined in Section B: Landscape Design Standards. (Figure 3) b. In cases where a 10 foot open area cannot be maintained, such as at entrances and loading areas, Figure 3- then a corresponding amount of area shall be added to the surrounding building buffer. 18 7 74. Traffic Access and Circulation - Traffic access and circulation patterns shall be coordinated between adjoining sites and provide for pedestrian connections. Traffic plans will promote joint access, cross access and sound access management principals. a. In general, plans will be consistent with the Ocoee State Road 50 Access Management Plan, the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan, and the Ocoee Transportation Master Plan. b. Traffic calming devices shall be integrated into the site plan where significant pedestrian/ vehicular conflicts will occur. This will include round-abouts at selected intersections and drive-way bump-outs at main building entrances to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety. c. Property owners/developers shall provide for future street widenings and street extensions that are needed to improve the functioning of the overall roadway network consistent with provisions within the Ocoee Transportation Master Plan and the State Road 50 Activity Center Concept Plan. d. Each project shall be reviewed for concurrency management purposes to ensure that adequate traffic operations and capacity exist. e. A traffic impact analysis utilizing City-approved methodology will be required for each project proportionate to its size, unless this requirement is waived by the City based on City criteria. The analysis shall specify appropriate traffic mitigation measures to forestall adverse impacts to the overall transportation network, including a payment methodology acceptable to the City. 19 . ... i: f For the purposes of these regulations, the following `-F = Il streets shall be designated as Primary or Secondary roadways. Primary Roads: State Road 50, Clarke Road, fit- Bluford Avenue, Old Winter Garden Road, Maguire - _ Road, and Marshall Farms Road. - - .riwyll.xr" - Secondary Roads: Good Homes Road, Blackwood Avenue, Professional Parkway, Citrus Oaks Drive, link street access Maine Street, Hemple Avenue extension, and Montgomery Avenue. Mt 5. Coordinated Access - Individual projects shall be ilk- roc coordinated to ensure safety and to plan for shared access. l r�I ///� 1 a. All developments shall integrate on-site circulation, �/� ` 1 traffic signals, access points, shared access, and cross \ access among adjoining projects. ` � : b. Properties with multiple street access must link each 1`,� �e!.; 1 : I access to another access. This provides more route - C. �" !'= options, minimizing concentrated congestion at a - - -"- limited number of access points. (see Figure 4) j c. Cross-access between adjacent parcels shall be required to allow shared access to public streets, Figure 4 increasing access options and minimizing congestion ._ on local roads. t6. Location of Parking and Driveways - Parking areas and - I - driveways shall be designed to establish a logical pattern of pedestrian access, traffic flow, and parking lots with °-_'- - _ _t-� .- =_- visible connections between building entrances, parking lot entrances, roads, parking spaces, sidewalks, and adjacent projects. \\ a. Mixed-use developments may be given flexibility in calculating parking requirements if it can be shown that adjacent uses have different peak parking demands and parking can be shared effectively. 4" b. For buildings of less than 25,000 s.f. g.l.a, only one - bay of parking is allowed adjacent to public and 7 private street rights-of-way in front of the building. 1 ti 5 - Exhibit #1 City of Ocoee, Florida Central Florida Investments, Inc. (CFI) Cross Access Waiver Request t �$T.,' l t. ; aY. 14 y:-, ta j Mcs. "we v c ,a `) - z;,-4 IV Thin s n ,,ems', '�� I.wf s F r 4 `. `e- a _Irritt ibi"p "'f f � ; � 1 b �. ii , r .,, ff' ," ,1"—Iii "z�'z '4 , e4 i p�v� m AAAA�eeee r g{ e` 'X Y>y. •d'!'$1 04,we S-. tel; y e�z t+fa i {` t l iL <b rva F f de "P z+ z9 ,,t� '�' '% X t b y 2 „ .2r % Y f x, {d, —,„, b au �F"`t '4 d 'WV'rr:rv :, .. rks _ 9 Saa .° trs' �P.'a�t'9s.iS_,.. .z hin 2 '4n•—.-P {�' lrg.' fT' 3 v; Legend: � � ; � ...� � , .rf � Lts Ocoee City Limits Subject Parcels A Lakes N Property Lines , Exhibit # 2 I DRIVE TO I3E CONSTRUCTED WHEN LOT TO THE VEST IS DEVELOPED FENCE TO REA ALONG R ' , C/01' CONC N WEST UNE OF S.E. 1/4 OF N.W. 1/4 OF NM, 1/4\ i REC MO I </NO ID I \ dt.TC 'H. 04 *INN LINK FENCE W/ \ TCH°4 II ........../••sAwspo NEE (rnairm.) 50' '4---- • \ TT•:,..'., *NDI >r t ."''''' II .... .5411•. ?. I ...H... ..D, ' . I 4.......N C1 .4al.. 11"1 • - . 14. 44. 'D' 'll 7' .::.1..1r I; .1 tr '.. ' RELOCATE 24. P221226224 324. g CRCEE-ACMFE I EAS010(1" _i UGHT POLE IN ISLAND I / ,." ) rk, .N‘, , ..c. ir^.,f -: -,•• . .. .. • ...:,..., // '. • .5.nu( 111111 le . e(i‘c?ktS . tia•• '441,1( 2 b 4241....;PJ'''.12t1•14,44.424 .74.4.7,p!' CONC II( 7141274/14••• ‘,..41414,4••..4a2.4•4 24.$4 it*%PI- —I / FLUME ir°Wawa I) Orr!. AO(••(P.('4)•,41.1,4•I•cl'•)•,n .-:,4 t ELC 4•••• ..., ' .. \ ( 0 1 P • • 1 ;1 4 4ity.1/4"..,s4-..!";4:10,?,p-2.9 7.3.2(44:11.1,-,11 ---• I 1 -, < tr aa I-1 I- I u r 1 i gq.,4%,;-: ,,vi. r•:,,,,,,,,r tr. .- .-. .%, • ,tc I •Ci ' 1 elt<P1 ..144-24•'or:I:L.)")g4". 41r5.1 •••4 4‘-•• 147\ - 4 t•-• - • ....1 ea) Q_ I 14e g . DI) Id 12 -&seq. -., , ,.. ,•;,,,,:r i t.,., If 1 o IZ 0 444-).-... .L• 94 (TYP ) 1'1 WI 11-1 cc ui 0 \\i:I 0 / rt1. 2 a- I wC I kJ Z WI 14 S—F--- ' :1 g 1 sa a 120 34' ‘ ' 11.1 Et Et • I g st '41 CO 11 & P b (.5 tor-. 6 CO 41 IV a co 1 * co _1 1- na .- ce I rfilt<ClatM I.J (01 * 12. 9* 1 '14 MOLL WON.11.50,1 c tn.WM PECOWOCLE WRIT SAP Z I k• 5' 6RR I.. . FLUME 12'- -- 2 Cin Ct ex i IT --I 1 1:1-1• as. r--- 2 -.I >- nln,• k ) -.I ‘C —J 011 65 0 Z 1..1:C COI 2 9-•11' .e. 8 ° —4 1 U) 0 icoNc Lmni 0 Ct 1 8 94I't ILJ 0 6 Ce) I I . lic 6- , 0 12 0 37 i :1 Et Q. I .1 ' 2.‘, Ito 0 — • I I.4:4• I Q. WH :I EEL--i * rSTOP (TYP.) ---1 r 0 I I 105 3 0 cONC (-10 I j 1. I -1 p L. ..LEME I 1-- o \ *) - - ;• ThANEFORIA Y• \ L - a: . I \ ••• Ettintillec 1 WM 1 ••••••• & & .;.e.„, GATE AND FENCE , -4!44444. 30.00' 1r aosswas .41 OEM IMP TO/BE REMOVED rn 0 W -4446- CURB (TYPICAL)--,,, r ....". I ---- 1 tin rcordc. 1 - I— ;in.. CITY OF OCOEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Ocoee, Florida December 22 , 1998 2 : 00 p.m. 8 6 C, i a CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS - WAIVER REOUEST: 0 No. SS-98-016 6 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY: ELLIS SHAPIRO, City Manager TONY WIERZBICKI, City Engineering DON FLIPPEN, Building/Zoning Director ROBERT MARK, Chief of Police RON STROSNIDER, Fire Chief ROBERT SMITH, Director, Public Works BRAD FRIEL, City Planning DAVID WHEELER, Assistant City Engineer ROBBY LEWIS, City Planning JACKIE LEVESQUE, Fire Inspector ELLEN KING, Dev. Review Coordinator APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER: BILL GOAZIOU, Representative Central Florida Investments JAY R. JACKSON, Representative Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc . MARK WALTRIP, Representative CFI and Westgate Resorts HARRY STECHER, Representative CFI and Westgate Resorts d d 0 3 s 0 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. SHAPIRO: This is case number SS-98-016, 3 Central Florida Investments, Waiver Request . 4 All right . What ' s the issue here, Robby? 5 MR. LEWIS : The applicant is requesting a 6 waiver from the Activity Center standards, specifically 7 requiring cross access between parcels . And the staff 8 report was prepared by Brad Friel, our transportation 9 planner, and he will present our discussion. 10 MR. SHAPIRO: Let met ask one or two 11 questions . Number one, is this within our Activity Center 12 area? 13 MR. LEWIS: Yes, it is. 14 MR. FRIEL: Yes . 15 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Go ahead. 16 MR. FRIEL: Essentially CFI has been working 6 LL 17 with the City for a parking lot -- to reconfigure their 18 parking lot to gain additional spaces. And they submitted 19 a site plan back in I believe it was in August of this 20 year. We went through it, around the comments, and then 21 they submitted their revised plan in November of this 22 year. And we had a -- the regular scheduled Technical s 2 23 Staff Review Committee on December 1st when we were 24 discussing staff comments with CFI regarding that plan. 25 And at that meeting CFI indicated that they were not 4 1 willing to provide the cross access easement to the parcel 2 that ' s located to the west of the CFI property. And they 3 didn' t intend to do it now, or they didn' t want to do it 4 in the future either. At that time we reminded them that 5 it was part of the Activity Center -- it was within the 6 Activity Center and it was part of the Activity Center 7 plan, and it was a code requirement that all parcels have 8 cross access . 9 And essentially at that point they indicated 10 they'd like to request a waiver. And we went over the 11 procedure for requesting a waiver underneath Activity 12 Center guidelines . And essentially what that includes, 13 for those of us who may not be familiar with it, is 14 essentially they have to submit in writing a request for 15 waiver; and that letter is attached in the staff report . 8 16 And we have seven working days to schedule that DRC. And d 17 so here we are for this DRC meeting. s 18 If you' ll notice in their letter they included 19 three reasons why they believe they should not have to do ° 20 the cross access. And I ' ll summarize them briefly. The 21 first one was that by providing the cross access easement 22 CFI believed that traffic would use the CFI parking lot to s 0 23 cut in front of the CFI building, which would create a 24 stacking problem which would ultimately force vehicles who 25 would want to access the parcel to the west to circulate 5 1 around the backside of their building. 2 This ties into their second reason for the 3 waiver, which that that circulation problem would create a 4 liability for both CFI ' s employees and visitors. 5 And their concern -- for the third reason, 6 their concern regarding the potential uses that could be 7 placed on the vacant parcel to the west, believing that it 8 could be a high turnover/high trip generator which would 9 further impact CFI . 10 Essentially the City' s position on this issue 11 is that the reason why the cross access easement is 12 required in the Activity Center Code, or Plan, is so that 13 we have a provision for both vehicular and pedestrian 14 access from the CFI property to the property to the left . 15 With that in mind, and with the knowledge that 16 when that vacant parcel does develop they will have 0 LL 17 reasonable access both probably to Professional Parkway 18 and to Maguire Road, which would serve as their ingress 19 and egress to those properties, there would be no need for 20 any vehicle to go through CFI ' s parking lot to gain access 21 to the adjacent parcel unless it was a trip that 22 originated from CFI and was using that cross access to 2 23 gain access to that parcel . 24 So with that in mind, the City believes that 25 the reason stated by CFI essentially would not occur 6 1 because there would be no need for any additional traffic 2 to cut through that parking lot . 3 MR. GOAZIOU: You' re making that assumption 4 now that you've changed it from the cross easement down 5 here, that you' re going to make it a shared entryway now 6 on the most westerly end of our property? Because that 7 was not the original recommendation by you and your staff . 8 MR. FRIEL: No, the original recommendation 9 which was included on your plan dated November 10th was 10 the provision of a 24-foot cross access easement for 11 vehicular and pedestrian access . 12 MR. GOAZIOU: That goes across our property, 13 there' s not a shared access coming in at the westerly end; 14 is that correct? 15 Your original plan, if I understood it, was we 16 have two entrances, and what you were going to do is F17 provide cross access easement here, where we were going to 18 have parking, so they could go through here . (Indicating) 19 And is it now that your recommendation is we have an 20 access here, across that -- 21 MR. FRIEL: We' ll look at your plan, because 22 your sketch is not -- not clear on the details, or 6 23 location differs, whatever. (Examining documents . ) 24 This is Professional Parkway, and that ' s north. 25 Here' s the parcel that ' s referred to the staff report as 7 1 parcel "W" , the westerly parcel, the 24-foot cross access 2 easement which was requested, put into the plan and then 3 later at that December 1st meeting said that CFI was not 4 willing to do it . 5 This is the access easement in question that' s 6 required by the Code that the City is requiring CFI to do 7 that you' re requesting a waiver on. 8 MR. GOAZIOU: If the people came in here, 9 that ' s a full turning access, and they come in and they go 10 west to this property here? 11 MR. FRIEL: Our point is -- I understand what 12 you' re saying, Bill, but -- 13 MR. GOAZIOU: How do they get back out without 14 going through our property? 15 MR. FRIEL: If this parcel -- when this parcel 16 develops -- 0 17 MR. GOAZIOU: Right . 2 18 MR. FRIEL: -- this parcel will have access to 19 Professional Parkway and to Maguire Road. w 20 MR. GOAZIOU: Right in, right out . 21 MR. FRIEL: It ' s not known at that time . S 22 Those decisions will be made when the design of 23 Professional Parkway and Maguire Road is completed. LL 24 MR. JACKSON: That ' s still something that ' s 25 different, because we were under the impression that they 8 1 were not going to get any access on Professional Parkway. 2 MR. FRIEL: It ' s too early to tell . 3 MR. STECHER: But that is a possibility? 4 MR. FRIEL: What? 5 MR. STECHER: They will or won' t? 6 MR. GOAZIOU: Because my point, Brad, is that 7 you -- 8 MR. FRIEL: They could what? I 'm sorry. 9 MR. STECHER: Finish. 10 MR. FRIEL: I just want your question to be 11 clear, what you' re asking. 12 MR. STECHER: You said it ' s not clear whether 13 it ' s going to be right in and right out at this point . 14 MR. FRIEL: Or full access or full -- 15 MR. STECHER: Or no access . 16 MR. FRIEL: No, they will have reasonable 6 17 access provided to them. 18 MR. JACKSON: Okay. Because that ' s different 19 than what we started with. 0 20 MR. GOAZIOU: Because my question was this : if 21 people come in here, they make a right in, and now they 22 want to go east . Are you saying that nobody is going to g 23 go east that pulled into here, and that they' re all going 24 to go down to Maguire, or are they going to go down and 25 make a "U" turn down at the intersection, they' re not 9 1 going to come back through our property? If that ' s true 2 then you don' t need to have the access . 3 MR. FRIEL: The access is provided so that the 4 2400 trips that are generated by your 700 employees, and 5 your ultimately 6, 000 trips generated by your 2 , 000 6 employees can access this property if they so desire 7 without having to come out on Professional Parkway, drive 8 on Professional Parkway and then turn back into the access 9 for that property. 10 MR. JACKSON: What he' s saying -- 11 MR. FRIEL: That' s the purpose of a cross 12 access . 13 MR. JACKSON: If it' s a restaurant, for 14 whatever reason, and our people want to eat there is the 15 point he' s making. The point we were more afraid of is 16 they didn' t get access on Professional Parkway and then 0 LL 17 had to cut through our project to get to that parcel s se cc 18 because of let ' s say a right in/right out with a -- let' s 19 say if it has a median there. 8 20 MR. GOAZIOU: If there' s a restaurant why 21 would they drive their car over, why don' t they just 22 walk -- i 0 23 MR. FRIEL: The thing is that it could be a 24 quick print. 25 MR. GOAZIOU: Well . 10 1 MR. FRIEL: We could only speculate what the 2 land use ultimately will be . 3 MR. JACKSON: Who' s doing the traffic 4 planning? Is that you, Brad? 5 MR. FRIEL: Yes . 6 MR. JACKSON: Strictly you. Are you doing the 7 traffic planning for Professional Parkway as well -- • 8 MR. SHAPIRO: He' s not doing the designing. 9 MR. FRIEL: I 'm not the planning, I 'm not the 10 designer. I 'm traffic planner for the City. 11 MR. SHAPIRO: There is no -- there' s nobody 12 been hired to do the design yet for Professional Parkway. 13 MR. FRIEL: Right . 14 MR. WALTRIP: Do we have a certified traffic 15 planner who has evaluated this situation and made a formal 16 recommendation? d U LL 17 MR. FRIEL: I 'm an AICP. 18 MR. WALTRIP: Certified traffic planner? 19 MR. FRIEL: It ' s American Institute of w 20 Certified Planning. 21 MR. WALTRIP: For traffic planning. 22 MR. FRIEL: Traffic. 23 MR. WALTRIP: That' s a specialty within AICP. 24 MR. FRIEL: I have a Master' s Degree in 25 Transportation Planning. 11 1 MR. WALTRIP: I have a Master' s Degree in 2 Engineering but I can' t go do engineering on a building. 3 I mean I don' t want to split - - 4 MR. FRIEL: For traffic planning work you 5 don' t need to be -- 6 MR. WALTRIP: Because I hire traffic planners 7 to get involved in those issues, and we haven' t had a 8 chance nor have I seen a study by a certified traffic 9 planner who has come in and said really this needs to be 10 done in order to protect traf -- you know, for ingress and 11 egress for traffic safety, turning radiuses . There' s a 12 whole litany of issues -- 13 MR. FRIEL: Right. 14 MR. WALTRIP: -- that generally you hire a 15 traffic planner -- 16 MR. FRIEL: Just like 20 years of research d LL 17 that indicate cross access easements or sound access 2 18 management principles . 19 MR. WALTRIP: Okay. 20 MR. GOAZIOU: We' re not arguing sound access 21 management, we' re talking about how it affects our 22 property and what the value is of that, because your 2 g 23 ordinance says development or redevelopment . All we' re 24 doing is a modification of our plan to increase our 25 parking lot. And you've used that to create this thing 12 1 where it is -- and also you letter talks about new 2 development, and we ' re not a new development . That 3 building has been there for 20 years . And all we ' re doing 4 is trying to improve the parking lot. 5 MR. WALTRIP: Yeah, I think -- let me kind of 6 put it all in place, and please understand that this whole 7 process here is a little foreign to us because typically 8 the way I like to run our development team is we like to 9 work at the staff level and resolve these issues and try 10 to avoid as much of the bloodletting as possible. It' s 11 just our preferred method of operating. This is a little 12 foreign to us . 13 We' re trying to develop a facility. It' s an 14 existing facility that ' s been there since 1986 . We ' re 15 trying to bring 2, 000 employees into this facility. We s 16 will be the largest employer in the City of Ocoee if we 6 i 17 can make this facility work. We've asked for nothing 18 other than cooperation with the City to help resolve the 19 parking issue that we have at this facility. The City has 0 20 in turn promised in good faith to work with us to help 21 resolve the parking issue . 22 This traffic access easement that has been 0 23 requested by the City needs to be understood that this is 24 not a request that is consistent with any of the outlying 25 property owners on the entire three-mile section of 13 1 roadway improvements as they are currently proposed. And, 2 in fact, I think everyone in the room needs to understand 3 that the only reason why we' re sitting here today is 4 because over four months ago we approached the City and 5 asked them to review and approve permits to resurface our 6 parking lot . And because of that permitting action, that 7 has opened up the door for them to come in and request 8 this access easement . Had we not even submitted that 9 request we wouldn' t be sitting here today. 10 In a spirit of good faith that we thought that 11 we enjoyed with the City prior to this meeting we were 12 looking to try to resolve the parking issues that we have. 13 We need as many parking spaces as possible . This change 14 not only is inconsistent with any other property either 15 adjacent to or within a one-and-a-half-mile radius of our 16 property, it also affects that good faith agreement that d V 17 we have with the City to help deliver as many parking 18 spaces this side as possible so we can make this facility 19 work for us . 20 So we' re not asking for anything that we 21 believe is onerous, anything above or beyond any of the 22 adjacent property owners are currently receiving, and that 2 23 is not to have to have shared access with adjacent 24 properties . No one else along Professional Parkway is 25 having to do that . We don' t think that we should be held 14 1 out simply because we came in over four months ago and 2 requested a permit for a parking lot . And I think that ' s 3 what the fundamental crux of the issue is . 4 I appreciate your credentials, Brad, but until 5 I see a certified traffic planner go through and do a 6 complete study of the entire roadway segment and tell you 7 how many cut-ins you can have, decel lanes, turning 8 radiuses, and do a full-blown study I think it ' s 9 capricious and arbitrary for you to levy this requirement 10 on us without giving us the full benefit of that research. 11 MR. MARK: If you got an acceptance to your 12 waiver and we have a traffic planner come in later on and 13 find that what we wanted in the first place was conducive 14 to the operation would you be willing to do that? 15 MR. WALTRIP: I believe we would. 16 MR. FRIEL: I think we need to step back 6 17 first, Mark. Is the issue of the cross access easement is 18 totally unrelated to what access and entry plan gets in 19 place on Professional Parkway. The cross access easement 20 that ' s provided as required under the Code, the Activity 21 Center plan to provide vehicular and pedestrian access 22 from the CFI property, or any property, to the adjacent i 2 23 property. In other words, it allows the people who work 24 here or would come by and do business here to gain access 25 to this parcel to do business there. That' s the sole 15 1 reason for that cross access easement. 2 It ' s not divided so that cars can, you know, 3 come through and cut through here to avoid traffic lights . 4 It' s not the intent of it . 5 MR. GOAZIOU: The bottom line is you know that 6 they' re going to do that . Come on. 7 MR. FRIEL: How do we know that? How do we 8 know that -- 9 MR. GOAZIOU: You made the statement that "you 10 don' t think. " You haven' t done a study on this . 11 Everything is predicated upon your opinion without any 12 basis or any study. We don' t even know the design speed 13 on Professional Parkway. If it ' s 45 miles an hour or less 14 your rules provide that you can have a median cut of full 15 access every 440 feet or 640 feet . The bottom line is if 16 you look at the standards put out by FDOT it ' s 2, 640 feet, d 17 okay? That ' s already in your ordinance, it says new 18 development or redevelopment . This is not a 19 redevelopment . ` 20 The other thing is if he wants to have a patrol 21 car go across because he can' t -- let' s talk about public i 22 safety issues, okay? You haven' t addressed those either. E 23 Okay. The bottom line is, there' s a Class A pumper, if he 24 wants to turn in to one of these places and he' s going 25 westbound and it ' s here where it only has a right in/right 16 1 out on the other side, is he able -- going to drive across 2 the median? Is it going to be a six-inch median where 3 he'd tear the front end up or is it going to be sloped so 4 he can drive his truck up over the top? 5 MR. FRIEL: Those issues will be worked out, 6 Bill, whenever the roadway is designed. 7 MR. WALTRIP: Then let ' s readdress this issue 8 when -- 9 MR. GOAZIOU: Let ' s address this issue when 10 that roadway is designed. 11 MR. WALTRIP: -- the roadway is designed and we 12 have a certified traffic planner assess -- 13 MR. FRIEL: What is your definition of a 14 certified traffic planner? 15 MR. GOAZIOU: Well, I 'd like to see somebody 16 like a Glatting Jacksons or a PEG or -- 6 LL 17 MR. JACKSON: Or Kimley-Horn. a 18 MR. GOAZIOU: Or Kimley-Horn or somebody like 19 that. 0 20 MR. JACKSON: They've been doing traffic for 50 21 years . 22 MR. FRIEL: How about SCIC or TransCore? 2 23 SCIC, are they -- 24 MR. GOAZIOU: I don' t know them. 25 MR. JACKSON: I do. We've got one of their 17 1 people working for us . So. 2 MR. WALTRIP: The big thing is is that there 3 are more unknowns than knowns right now and to deny us 4 this opportunity based on all the unknowns, again, I think 5 it ' s a little arbitrary and capricious at this point . I 6 think there ' s going to be plenty of opportunity as the 7 roadway is designed and developed to address those issues . 8 All we' re talking about here is it ' s not a new 9 development . Let' s make that painfully clear. 10 MR. FRIEL: Well, it ' s a redevelopment . 11 MR. LEWIS : Yeah, it' s a redevelopment, you' re 12 changing the use from industrial to office. 13 MR. GOAZIOU: But you told us -- let ' s not 14 split hairs, okay. You told us we are a modified site 15 plan. We don' t even require City Council approval, okay. 16 It ' s all done staff wise, right? d LL 17 MR. LEWIS : It does require approval, though. s 18 It ' s a small scale site plan which requires -- 6 19 MR. GOAZIOU: We' re small potatoes, right? 0 20 MR. FRIEL: You are redevelopment . You are 21 redeveloping your site. $ 22 MR. GOAZIOU: But the bottom line is if we 6 3 23 didn' t ask for modification of the parking lot you 24 wouldn' t be asking for that, is that correct? 25 MR. LEWIS: Not at this point in time, but we 18 1 may be at the time the road is done. 2 MR. WALTRIP: Great . And at the time the road 3 is done that will be the time to address the issue. 4 MR. WHEELER: But as far as your parking lot, 5 we have no problem at all with the fact that you want to 6 make these parking spaces . All we' re doing is asking for 7 the ability to -- is have -- to establish a cross access 8 easement from this parcel to the next parcel . You can 9 still build these as parking spaces, use them for parking 10 spaces, and then when the piece of property is developed, 11 depending on what type of development it is we would 12 either utilize this cross access easement or we may even 13 say that there ' s no need to have it there and we may 14 vacate that . 15 MR. WALTRIP: We have no idea at this point 16 what that development is going to be . d V LL 17 MR. GOAZIOU: That ' s correct . s 18 MR. WALTRIP: So, again, you' re asking me to 19 enhance the value of that adjacent property -- 20 MR. FRIEL: How does that enhance the value of 21 that adjacent property? 22 MR. WALTRIP: I think -- E 23 MR. FRIEL: The only reason why that' s there 24 is just to provide access from this parcel to this parcel . 25 This parcel will gain access from Professional Parkway and 19 1 Maguire Road. This has got nothing to do with the value 2 of their property. 3 MR. GOAZIOU: How many people do you think 4 that are over there are going to come out there and use 5 the full turn and go out there instead of going out on 6 either to Florida Parkway and make a UT or to go out -- 7 MR. FRIEL: We don' t -- your speculations are 8 just as good as mine -- 9 MR. GOAZIOU: But you've eliminated our 10 speculations . 11 MR. WALTRIP: Let me tell you how it ' s going 12 to help the value of their property. What you' re doing is 13 you' re basically giving this guy instant value to his 14 property simply because now you' re giving him direct 15 access to my 2 , 000 employees and their vehicular traffic . 16 And I think that' s a decision that we need to make as 6 17 businesses once that property development becomes 18 understood. But it' s not something that I don' t think we 19 have to address at this point. There' s no reason. 0 20 MR. FRIEL: I think we do. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: Any other comments from CFI? 22 MR. GOAZIOU: You got anything? i 0 23 MR. JACKSON: I think we've beat it. We got 24 it . 25 MR. SHAPIRO: Any comments from staff? 20 1 MR. LEWIS : Basically what ' s going here is 2 they' re asking for a waiver specifically from a 3 requirement of the Code. The Code provides for a waiver 4 process and indicates that the City Commission can grant 5 that waiver in its discretion, and it provides several 6 criteria for which they can - for which they need to 7 consider in providing that waiver. 8 And at this point the way the Planning 9 Department sees it the applicant has not presented a case 10 that those criteria have been met . And that' s one of the 11 main reasons -- and this is a discussion we've already had 12 about their criteria -- 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Isn' t that the DRC' s decision? 14 MR. LEWIS : The Code sets up a provision where 15 the DRC can mediate or reassess the decision made by the 16 Planning Director. d u LL 17 MR. SHAPIRO: All right. So what you' re f 18 saying is the Planning Department says they haven' t; the 19 DRC will determine whether they have or haven' t and make a W 20 recommendation to the Commission. 21 MR. LEWIS : The DRC according to the wording ;7, 22 in the Code indicates whether or not they will support the 0 23 Planning Director' s interpretation to cover the 24 requirement . 25 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So it still goes to the 21 1 Commission. 2 MR. FRIEL: No, it goes to the Commission -- 3 well, it goes to the Commission -- if the DRC supports -- 4 MR. SHAPIRO: Or denies, either one, it goes 5 to the City Commission. 6 MR. FRIEL: -- it goes to the City Commission 7 and at that point -- 8 MR. SHAPIRO: Because they' re the only ones 9 that have a right to the waiver. 10 MR. FRIEL: And there ' s four criteria that the 11 City Commission will use to determine to grant the waiver 12 or not. 13 MR. WALTRIP: What are the criteria? 14 MR. FRIEL: And it ' s included on page 16 if 15 you guys want to go back and look at it in your office . I d 16 think -- Bill, I know you got one of these. LL 17 MR. GOAZIOU: We' re in there . s 18 MR. FRIEL: Okay. So. It ' s the -- The 19 project is part of an integrated master plan development, 0 20 is one. Two, compatible with surrounding developments . 21 Three, imposes no impact on City infrastructure greater 0 22 than generated by other uses permitted in the zoning 2 23 district . And/or provides an off-setting public benefit 24 which is technically sound and measurable . 25 Those are your four requirements -- 22 1 MR. WALTRIP: Well let me give you a public 2 benefit which is technically sound and measurable . We' re 3 going to hopefully bring 2 , 000 jobs into this community. 4 And unless we can start getting some good faith measure of 5 support from the City that process can be undone . And Mr. 6 Siegal is very serious about not going away quietly on 7 this issue. We' re trying to do everything we can to work 8 with you guys and be reasonable . We believe that the lack 9 of support from the staff to support this what we see as a 10 very simple waiver countermands that ability of us to 11 operate further in good faith. And so we' re going to 12 present this to the City Council if need be and we 're 13 going to present it in the strongest way possible . 14 So I would prefer again as part of our 15 development philosophy of my team is that we try to let' s 16 fix it now; when the roadway is improved, let ' s address 6 V 17 the access management issues at that time . In addition, 3 18 when the development next door becomes more understood 19 that would also be an opportune time to address the real 0 20 necessity for that access management issue. 21 MR. GOAZIOU: There ' s one other thing that we 22 need to point out before they do their deliberations is 2 23 that this is single purpose buildings . We' re not going to 24 have any doctors, lawyers, indian chiefs, we' re not 25 attracting the public. The only people who are using our 23 1 parking lot are our employees . To get in our building you 2 have to have a security pass to be in. If you come there 3 as a visitor to visit somebody in the building, a vendor 4 of some kind, you have to get a visitor' s pass, and it ' s 5 very secure . This is not one where it ' s doctors, lawyers, 6 indian chiefs coming in and out and we' re generating -- 7 the traffic that we generate, and I don' t know the exact • 8 numbers because I haven' t projected it all out, and we' ll 9 have him do that for us, but the bottom line is the only 10 people who are coming are the people who will work there. 11 So let me say it' s a single purpose building, 12 it' s not open to the general public. It' s not a public 13 facility, it ' s a private facility. 14 MR. FRIEL: And those people -- it ' s the 15 Planning Department position that those people who don' t s 16 have any business at CFI won' t be in CFI ' s parking. d U LL 17 MR. WALTRIP: Let ' s also keep in mind, I also s 18 need the right to continue to use this property as a 19 warehouse facility. Keep in mind that over 55, 60, 000 20 square feet of this will continue to be warehouse. And by 21 continue to limit our access by having a shared entryway 22 is going to create a problem for us in that regard as 2 23 well . 24 MR. FRIEL: And that issue will be -- because 25 here' s the way that the design for Professional Parkway, 24 1 whenever the design team selects it, was they will work 2 with each individual property owner, all the property 3 owners along this way, to work out, you know, access, 4 whether it' s a full, whether it ' s a right in/right out . 5 That process will happen and at that point CFI will have 6 ample opportunity to discuss whether you' re going to have 7 truck deliveries or whatever the case may be. 8 MR. WALTRIP: That ' s why I think -- I think 9 the best point made the whole day was the one the Chief 10 made is that we ' re going to have that opportunity to 11 address this issue when we address the entire roadway. 12 MR. FRIEL: You see, that will be an access 13 issue related to Professional Parkway. This cross access 14 easement is a lane development code issue that occurs 15 whenever a project is in for review. And so we' re 16 required by our Code, when we review these projects in the 0 U LL 17 Activity Center Plan to require cross access easements s 18 between properties . 19 What you' re here to do today is request a a 20 waiver for that cross access . The issue that relates to 21 access on Professional Parkway, Maguire, the Turnpike, 22 whatever it is, is not an issue for what the DRC is to U 2 23 determine today. 24 MR. WALTRIP: Well for the record, and I 'm 25 speaking more out of ignorance than fact on this subject, 25 1 but for the record I would like to state that I am not 2 entirely convinced that this waiver is even appropriate 3 since I think we' re -- no one has convinced me from my 4 team that this in fact is a redevelopment . It' s something 5 that I think we' ll also have to explore also. 6 MR. GOAZIOU: Also; you know, it ' s very -- it 7 says imposes no impact on City infrastructure greater than 8 generated by -- and I think that that applies to us 9 without a problem. 10 MR. FRIEL: That ' ll have to be done as 11 technically sound and measurable, which is the onus is on 12 you to prove. 13 MR. JACKSON: One other thing, Brad. I notice 14 this special development plan actually uses Professional 15 Parkway as the boundary line, so to speak, where 16 everything on our side of Professional Parkway is included d 17 in your special Activity Center. Everything on the other 18 side of the street is not . w 19 In reading this whole report, the only 8 20 modifications that I saw in this development plan is 21 basically from a -- the two intersections at each end of 22 Professional Parkway. Nothing' s mentioned interior, with d 23 the exception of the cross access easement . Is that going 24 to be applied across the street? In the whole -- in their 25 plan is that actually going to take that property into -- 26 1 in account or is that going to be separate? 2 MR. FRIEL: Well that ' ll be determined -- well 3 that' s an existing subdivision which it ' s hard to say what 4 will happen with that, so we'd only be speculating. 5 MR. WALTRIP: It' s an existing subdivision? 6 MR. FRIEL: That project is -- yes, that 7 property -- 8 MR. GOAZIOU: It ' s platted. 9 MR. FRIEL: It ' s platted. 10 MR. LEWIS : No development on it . 11 MR. WALTRIP: So they would not have to 12 submit under redevelopment code when they go to develop 13 then? 14 MR. FRIEL: It depends on what their 15 development plans are. 16 MR. GOAZIOU: They don' t have -- 0 17 MR. FRIEL: You can only speculate what it -- 18 MR. WALTRIP: I find that incredibly strange. 6 19 I 've got an existing building and I just want to repave w 20 the parking lot and I 'm considered redevelopment. All 21 this raw land across the street from me is not . That just 22 doesn' t make sense. s 23 MR. LEWIS: When they present their 24 development plans we' ll review them and if necessary -- 25 MR. FRIEL: And we ' ll apply the land 27 1 development codes to them at that point . 2 MR. WALTRIP: Do you promise to be just as 3 capricious and arbitrary with them as you are with us? 4 MR. FRIEL: They are not in the special 5 development plan -- 6 MR. JACKSON: That' s my point . 7 MR. FRIEL: They are south of the line; you 8 are north of the line. 9 MR. LEWIS : But even without that the Code 10 allows us to provide for cross access . 11 MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any other questions or 12 statements from staff? 13 MR. SMITH: Yes . Just a couple of questions . 14 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . 15 MR. SMITH: By the Planning Department ' s 16 definition this is a redevelopment? 17 MR. FRIEL: Yes. a 18 MR. SMITH: And it is in the special Activity cc 19 Center. And he made a statement about not impacting City 0 cc 20 infrastructure . Do you consider the additional traffic 21 that this will generate impacting City infrastructure or 22 did I read in here that they had a septic tank that they cc 23 essentially wanted to abandon and hook on to City sewer? 24 Does that impact City infrastructure? 25 MR. FRIEL: They' re being -- they have been 28 1 assessed for impact fees for that . 2 MR. SMITH: Oh, okay. And then impact fees . 3 MR. WALTRIP: Yes . 4 MR. SMITH: Okay. Now, if their logic holds 5 water on what they' re saying here could you not apply this 6 to any other parcel that ' s going to come along for 7 redevelopment? 8 MR. FRIEL: Say it one more time? 9 MR. SMITH: All right . If in fact their logic 10 is valid on their three items will that not apply to any 11 other parcel that comes along for redevelopment? 12 MR. FRIEL: In requesting a waiver for cross 13 access? 14 MR. SMITH: Yes . And my last question is, are 15 we asking him to build his section of the cross access or 16 are we asking for the easement for the cross access? d V 2 17 MR. FRIEL: We' re asking for the easement . a 18 MR. LEWIS: And we' re also asking him to 19 provide the pavement so that when it is done it can be 20 used without having to put any paving in. 21 MR. WALTRIP: So the answer to your question 22 is yes, we will have to build it . 23 MR. SHAPIRO: Any other questions? 24 MR. LEWIS: Another feature here that we ' re -- 25 the reason why the Planning Department feels strongly 29 1 about this issue is this is one of the key elements of the 2 Activity Center which would help provide for our traffic 3 circulation throughout the Activity Center to eliminate 4 unnecessary trips on major roadways . And if it is 5 determined that cross access is not necessary in this 6 case, for the reasoning stated in their letter, then we 7 feel that it is jeopardizing future situations where other 8 property owners will also request similar waivers . 9 MR. GOAZIOU: But that is the most subjective 10 observation. You have not provided one objective 11 measurable item for anybody to base this decision other 12 than it' s your opinion. Okay. 13 MR. FRIEL: No, it' s -- 14 MR. GOAZIOU: And there ' s no -- and there has 15 not been a traffic analysis done on Professional Parkway 8 16 from 1 .5 miles how you' re going to have ingress and egress V 17 other than -- i 18 MR. FRIEL: Bill, the cross access easement is 19 separate from the issue with Professional Parkway. cc 20 MR. JACKSON: Right . Could I make one more cc 21 observation. It appears to me since we' re not going to 22 apply to this property to the south of Professional 23 Parkway, to the east of us - - 24 MR. FRIEL: We didn' t say that we weren' t 25 going to apply it. 30 1 MR. JACKSON: But it ' s not in this special 2 area. 3 MR. FRIEL: It ' s not in the Activity Center 4 plan. 5 MR. JACKSON: So it doesn' t have to be 6 employed -- 7 MR. WALTRIP: Probably just an enforceability 8 on your behalf -- 9 MR. LEWIS : Not at this particular -- 10 MR. JACKSON: Let me finish. Going to the 11 east we've got a subdivision which the back of the lots 12 face Professional Parkway, so there' s no opportunity for 13 cross access there. This easement that you' re asking for 14 is really the only one on Professional Parkway you ' re 15 going to get; is that correct? You have no other 16 opportunity to create that cross access corridor from one d 17 user to the next all the way down Professional Parkway. 18 MR. WALTRIP : Therefore the issue of 19 precedence . 20 MR. ' FRIEL: Well it ' s hard to say how -- what 21 will ever occur with this -- when this property to the 22 east comes in for redevelopment at that point -- 2 23 MR. JACKSON: Because they've got a street out 24 in the front -- 25 MR. FRIEL: It may come in for redevelopment 31 1 at some point in time. It ' s -- see you' re only 2 speculating and you' re looking at this as a point in time 3 and not as a plan that will be able to take the City into 4 the future. 5 MR. JACKSON: Well I 'm just making 6 observations -- 7 MR. FRIEL: And so perhaps that building burns 8 down and they have to come in for redevelopment . At that 9 point their site plan will -- 10 MR. WALTRIP: If their building burns down and 11 they have to rebuild the building, is that considered 12 redevelopment? 13 MR. GOAZIOU: If they do they' ll probably 14 build it about 12 stories high and then they won' t worry 15 about parking. That' ll take care of -- 16 MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any other comments from d 17 staff or any questions? 18 [No response. ] 19 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . I 'm going to ask in 20 this case that -- we have not done this before because 21 this hasn' t been a big issue or this may not be a big 22 issue this time, but what I 'm going to ask is that the DEC 23 have one voting member per department, just -- I mean in 24 this particular case. So whoever the voting member is per 25 department -- which one of you two are voting? 32 1 MR. FRIEL: It ' ll be Robby. Robby' s the 2 acting Planning director. I defer to Robby. 3 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. And who' s going to vote 4 between you two? Okay. And between you two? 5 Okay. Is there any other comments from 6 anybody? 7 MR. WALTRIP: No, sir. Just -- regardless of 8 the outcome just thank you for the opportunity to speak to 9 you, and appreciate your time. 10 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . 11 All those in favor of granting the waiver raise 12 your hand. 13 [No response.] 14 MR. SHAPIRO: All those opposed to granting 15 the waiver. 16 You' re not voting, one way or the other? d 17 MR. MARK: I would abstain from voting. 18 MR. SHAPIRO: You' re going to abstain? 19 MR. MARK: Uh-huh. (Affirmative response . ) 0 20 MR. SHAPIRO: You can' t abstain in Florida. 21 [Laughter. ] I 'm saying you can' t abstain. 22 MR. MARK: All right . 2 23 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. 24 [By unanimous vote the waiver was denied. ] 25 MR. SHAPIRO: This goes to the City 33 1 Commission. I know you' re in a hurry. You have some 2 legal questions that you've brought up. 3 How long -- how long will it take for this to 4 be totally typed and put into effect? 5 ELLEN KING: It will probably be January 4th 6 or 5th. 7 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . I would -- if I 8 could make a suggestion to you all . I would urge you that 9 -- and I know you' re trying to get moving on this thing. 10 You have brought up some legal issues and those issues 11 will be -- need to be addressed if you come to the meeting 12 of the 5th of January. I was giving it some thought after 13 meeting with you yesterday, some of these issues that you 14 may have brought up here. First of all I want the City 15 Commission to have a verbatim transcript of this 16 discussion. Second of all, some of the legal issues you 0 17 brought up I feel is going to need the -- some answer from 18 our attorney prior to the meeting. If you show up on the 19 5th for that meeting you will probably get the City 20 Commission to turn around to the attorney and say we want 21 to know whether legally this is true or not true. 22 MR. WALTRIP: Okay. 6 23 MR. SHAPIRO: The question I 've got to you, 24 are you in a situation where you want it to be on the 5th 25 agenda or would you like me to put this at the next 34 1 meeting with our attorney? 2 MR. WALTRIP: When will the next meeting be 3 available? 4 MR. SHAPIRO: Two weeks . What happens is is 5 on the 7th we' ll meet with the City Attorney in order for 6 them to get copies verbatim. I 'm just concerned about you 7 having verbatim copies to go through with your attorney. 8 And also, again, us to have them, have our attorney 9 discuss the issue of redevelopment, which would then make 10 this go on an agenda the 19th for the appeal with every 11 piece of information available to everybody. 12 MR. WALTRIP: Sure. 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Would you agree that that would 14 be in your best interest and our best interest? 15 MR. GOAZIOU: I think it ' s the best interest 16 for everybody to have a chance to hear what and see what 6 i 17 the facts are. 18 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . Then the DRC is 19 denied the waiver. I ' ll put this on the 19th agenda. I 20 will have it on the agenda with my attorney on the 7th. 21 We will -- as soon as -- and I 'm hopeful and expect to see 22 a verbatim transcript typed and ready by the 5th. Okay? 23 That' ll give everybody two weeks to look at it. And give 24 us at least two days prior to our attorney. Is that 25 agreeable to everybody? 35 1 MR. GOAZIOU: Very much so. 2 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Thank you very much. 3 MR. FRIEL: Thank you. 4 (These proceedings were concluded at 2 :40 5 o' clock p.m. ) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 th 15 16 d U 17 I 18 19 0 20 21 s 22 23 24 25 36 CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF ORANGE: I, Peggy S . May, Electronic Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report the above and foregoing proceedings at the time and place aforesaid, and that page number 3 through 35 inclusive, constitute a true and complete transcript . Dated this 31st day of December, 1998 . ‘-eca,.9 ‘1241/ ��P$ GY S . MAY RY PUBLIC e�E 14,A. P EGG Y S MAY My Commission CC486958 .L� �{e�- 1 * CommissionCommission Expires Jul.21.1099 ea Bonded by ANDs,� o,AAP" 800-852-5878 JJ Cl CC J 0 O. a 2 • ❑=. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. P j 2# { 1+i t ' ' ', u a.t� December 8, 1998 CITY (Inner V Ms. Ellen King Development Review Coordinator City of Ocoee 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, Florida 34761 Re: Central Florida Investments-Existing Office Building Parking Lot Expansion Dear Ms. King: This letter is in response to the December 1, 1998 Technical Staff Review Committee (TSRC) meeting comments which are requesting the existing driveways to be reconfigured for the upcoming widening of Professional Parkway and to provide cross access to the vacant parcel of land to the west. Central Florida Investments, Inc. (CFI) agrees to reconfigure the westernmost driveway as a right- in/right-out and the eastern driveway as a full access simultaneously with the widening of Professional parkway construction, in order to minimize any possible conflicts which might arise as the Professional Parkway Access Management Plan and construction documents are being developed. CFI does not agree to provide a cross access easement to the vacant property to the west and is requesting a waiver or variance for the following reasons: 1. The added traffic to the CFI project creates an unsafe internal circulation problem for CFI as employees and clients exiting the site heading east with 3 car stacking will block incoming vehicles from heading west to the adjacent property and,therefore,forcing them to circulate around the rear of the building or sit and wait until the left-turners clear. 2. - The additional traffic also creates liability issues for both CFI employees and guests,as the ingress/egress would traverse directly in front of CFI's main building entrance. Ms.Ellen King,December 8, 1998,Page 2 3. Finally, due to the small size of the vacant parcel,and the current C-3 zoning, it is conceivable that it will be developed as a high turn over/high trip generator which will further increase the impacts to our development. As discussed at the TSRC meeting, it was suggested to make the western driveway full access and the eastern driveway a right-in/right-out, in order to eliminate the traffic flow in front of the building. However, this still does not solve the previously stated two issues. Therefore, we request your consideration and grant this waiver/variance request at the Development Review Committee Meeting. If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Ja R.Jac oks n Project Manager JRJ:mec 04906901\wplking.d98 t# ENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC. 5601 WINDHOVER DRIVE•ORLANDO.FLORIDA 32819-7905 •PHONE(407)351-3354 FAX (407)352-8935-(EXECUTIVE) •(407)352-2237-(CUSTOMER SERVICE)•(407)345-1465(REFERRALS)•(407)352-2382(ACCOUNTING) ,`k 2 I January 12, 1999 s r]'•: CITY OF OCOLF Mr. Ellis Shapiro City Manager City of Ocoee 150 North Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, Florida 34761-2258 Dear Ellis: This letter is a follow up to your inquiry as to who would be making our waiver presentation to the Ocoee City Council on January 19, 1999. Myself and or Michael E. Marder, Esq., further, our engineer, Jay Jackson of Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc., Harry D. Stecher and Bill Goaziou will be in attendance. Also we have attached those points we wish to discuss before council and material to be presented. We appreciate your corporation and help in coordinating our request. Should you have any further question or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC. Mao' altrip Direc of Real Estate and Development MW/vks . Mark/vks/1-13-99/Ellis Shapiro City of Ocoee City Commission Meeting January 19,1999 Waiver Request Information Submittal By: Central Florida Investments 1. Roadway information chart. 2. The project is a reconfiguration of current parking to gain additional spaces. The net increase in impervious area is 5/10 of an acre, on a 8.37 acre site. 3. Staff contends this change to be a redevelopment of the site, even though we are effecting only 5/10 of an acre. The change is such that the modification did not require commission approval. 4. This "redevelopment" has been the basis for a requirement that a cross easement be provided to the land adjacent to the western boundary of our property on Professional Parkway. This cross easement would cause our parking lot and western entrance to become a full intersection for access to the property on our western property line. The utilization of our land to provide a full east/west intersection to the western property is to provide relief to this property. 5. Staff contends that this easement is to our benefit. Further, they contend there is no relationship between their mandate for a cross easement and access management on Professional Parkway. The engineering for the reconstruction of Professional -z- Parkway has not been done, nor has an access management plan been prepared. Professional Parkway is approximately 1.5 miles in length from Old Winter Garden Road to Maguire Road. If we are denied our waiver request, we would be the only parcel on this road to give up such a right. There are significant public safety issues as to ingress and egress by fire, rescue and police to both the north and southside of Professional Parkway that have not been addressed. As a point of interest, the southside of Professional Parkway is not within the State Road 50 Activity Center Special Development Plan. 6. The final access management and intersection operations study report, includes under figure 3 an illustration of the recommended access management techniques to maximize the efficiency of the corridor between the Florida Turnpike and Maguire Road. This illustration, which highlights the intersection of Maguire Road and Professional Parkway indicates the property to our western boundary, will not have a right-in / right-out but will need cross access to the property to its north to have access to Maguire Road. Depending on the Professional Parkway access Management Plan, if this property does not have a full intersection on Professional Parkway, then the cross access being mandated by the planning staff will cause our full intersection to be used by anyone traveling east on Professional Parkway who wants to go to the site, or anyone on site who wants to go east from the site. Since the site is undeveloped, traffic estimates cannot be made. FURTHER, an access management plan for Professional Parkway has not yet been done. -3 - 7. The potential of the added traffic to the CFI project creates an unsafe internal circulation problem for CFI as employees and clients exiting the site heading east with 3 car stacking will block incoming vehicles from heading west to the adjacent property and,therefore, forcing them to circulate around the rear of the building or sit until the left-turners clear. 8. The additional traffic also creates liability issues for both CFI employees and guests, as the ingress/egress would traverse directly in front of CFI's main building entrance. 9. Due to the small size of the vacant parcel, 2.98 acres, and the current C-3 zoning, it is conceivable that it will be developed as a high turn over/high trip generator, which will further increase the impacts to our development. 10. During the DRC hearing on December 22, 1998 (page 29), it was stated that the cross access is one of the elements of the Activity Center which would provide for our traffic circulation throughout the Activity Center to eliminate unnecessary trips on major roadways. Yet earlier, staff indicated the cross access was only to allow our employees access to the property on our west. Also, it was stated that if it is determined that cross access is not necessary in this case, for the reasoning stated in CFI's letter, then we feel that it is jeopardizing future situations where other property owners will also request similar waivers. The adopted State Road 50 Activity Center Special Development Plan provides on page 16, that the Ocoee City Commission, at is sole discretion, may waive provisions within the Activity Center Plan within any project if it is: (1) part of an integrated and master planned development; (2) compatible with surrounding developments; (3) imposes no impacts on City infrastructure greater than that generated by other uses normally permitted in the underlying zoning district; and/or (4) provides an off-setting public benefit which is technically sound and measurable. We are basing our request for a waiver utilizing item (4) above: "provides for an off-setting public benefit which is technically sound and measurable." This public benefit, is the measurable added dollar value to the tax base, the measurable increase to the employment base, and its economic spin off to the businesses in and around the project. Finally, the requirement for the cross easement constitutes an unconstitutional taking of land in violation of the Florida and Federal Constitutions. CRCENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC. 7450 SANDLAKE COMMONS BLVD.•ORLANDO.FLORIDA 32819-5108•PHONE(407) 351-2460 TOLL FREE(800)818-1219 FAX.(407)352-8935-(EXECUTIVE)•(407)352-2237-(CUSTOMER SERVICE)•(407)345-1465(REFERRALS)•(907)352-2382(ACCOUNTING) January 19, 1999 Ms. Marian Green Acting City Clerk City of Ocoee 150 North Lake Shore Drive Ocoee, Florida 34761-2258 Dear Ms. Green: As discussed today by phone, Central Florida Investments, Inc. is requesting a continuation of its waiver request scheduled before Ocoee City Commission at 7:15pm today,January 19, 1999 until the City Council meeting of February 16, 1999. This continuation is based upon a need by staff and legal counsel to further review all the potential ramifications of the cross access issue under discussion. Thank you, for your assistance in this request. Respectfully, Central Florida Investments, Inc. 21lr altrip Dir+ tort al Estate Development MW/ts CRCENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC. b(,j• 7450 SANDLAKE COMMONS BLVD.•ORLANDO.FLORIDA 32819-5108•PHONE(407)351-2460•TOLL FREE(800)818.1244 FAX(407)352-8935-(EXECUTIVE(•(407)352-2237•(CUSTOMER SERVICE)•(407)345.1465(REFERRALS)•(407) 352.2382(ACCOUNTING) January 19, 1999 Ms. Marian Green Acting City Clerk City of Ocoee 150 North Lake Shore Drive Ocoee, Florida 34761-2258 Dear Ms. Green: As discussed today by phone, Central Florida Investments, Inc. is requesting a continuation of its waiver request scheduled before Ocoee City Commission at 7:15pm today, January 19, 1999 until the City Council meeting of February 16, 1999. This continuation is based upon a need by staff and legal counsel to further review all the potential ramifications of the cross access issue under discussion. Thank you, for your assistance in this request. Respectfully, Central Florida Investments, Inc. /� k9% altrip Din tor r al Estate Development M W/ts