Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
VI (A1) Second Reading Ordinance No. 2001-02, West Oaks Square, Land Use Plan Amendment, Project No. LS-98-005A
DATE: Agenda 01-02-2001 TO: Item VI At ..Cf'.YTGR OFGOOD LIVING OF IVE.STO]LINGIi" M>nm•Gnnusslonex THROUGH: S. SCOTT VANDERGRIF'I CITY OF OCOEE West Oaks Square PUD COMMISSIONER[ 150 N. LAKEsHORE DRIVE DANNY HOWELL SCOTT ANDERSON OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON (407) 905-3100 NANCY L PARKER I CITY MANAGFR ELLIS SHAPIRO STAFF REPORT DATE: December 11, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Robert Lewis, AICP, Principal Planner THROUGH: Russ Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning/ SUBJECT: West Oaks Square PUD Amendment to PUD Land Use Plan Case # LS -98-005A (Ordinance # 2001-01) 6XY1111Z Should the Mayor and City Commissioners adopt Ordinance # 2001-01, approving an amendment to the PUD Land Use Plan for the West Oaks Square PUD? BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the south side of SR 50 across from the West Oaks Mall and just east of Citrus Oaks Avenue. A small office building (CentraCare) is adjacent to the west. The property was rezoned in 1998 to PUD from P -S on the western portion of the site and A-2 on the eastern portion. At that time, the property was also the subject of a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the western portion of the site, which changed its Future Land Use designation to Commercial. Almost all of the improvements on the property have been built according to the approved PUD Land Use Plan and site plan, including a multi -unit building of approximately 20,000 square feet with associated parking and landscaping. A portion of the sidewalk along SR 50 on the eastern portion of the site and the main identification / directory sign for the building, which were part of the approved site plan, have not yet been built. As a result, the building has not received a permanent Certificate of Occupancy. DISCUSSION: The original West Oaks Square PUD Land Use Plan indicated that the permitted uses on this site would be those uses listed in the C-2 zoning district, less a specific list of more intensive commercial uses. The stated intent at that time was to provide space for professional offices and low intensity retail activities. Staff support for the original Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD zoning was based to a large degree on those stated intensions. At public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Commission, some of the P & Z Commissioners and at least one City Commissioner expressed concern about allowing commercial uses on this site, even though the PUD Land Use Plan restricted those uses. A more complete history of the proceedings regarding the approval of this project is contained in the attached TSRC and DRC reports. PMT� y December 11, 2000 Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners Page 2 This proposed amendment to the West Oaks Square PUD Land Use Plan includes four elements as follows: 1) Amending the list of C-2 uses not permitted to delete restaurants, thereby allowing restaurants as a permitted use within this PUD; 2) Providing a second driveway entrance on SR 50 at the east end of the parking lot with appropriate turn lane improvements, eliminating a few parking spaces in the process; 3) Changing the requirement to construct a sidewalk along SR 50 on the eastern portion of the site, eliminating the Developer's responsibility to construct the sidewalk; 4) Changing the limitation on the size of the main identification / directory sign from 36 square feet to 100 square feet in size. At the Staff review level, the Planning Department stated objections to all four of the elements in this proposed amendment (see the Technical Staff Review Committee (TSRC) report attached to the Development Review Committee (DRC) report attached). The reasons for the Planning Department objections were stated in that department's memo in the TSRC report. The Applicant's attorney submitted a letter which included an amended Development Agreement and a response to each of the objections raised by the Planning Department (see the letter from Scott Glass attached to the DRC report). The letter indicated that the Applicant wished to proceed with the proposed amendment through the review process, despite the objections from the Planning Department. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendment to the PUD Land Use Plan for West Oaks Square was reviewed by the DRC on November 13, 2000. The DRC report presented at the meeting (see the attached DRC report) included the original TSRC report, the letter from the Applicant's attorney responding to that report, and a response from the Planning Department to the letter submitted by the Applicant's attorney. During the DRC meeting, there was discussion on each of the four elements included in the proposed amendment. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the first three elements, and 6-1 to recommend denial of the fourth element in this proposed amendment to the West Oaks Square PUD Land Use Plan (see the attached DRC meeting transcript and referenced letter). PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the PUD Land Use Plan for West Oaks Square on November 29, 2000. Staff and the Applicant's representatives answered numerous questions from the Commission regarding each element of the proposed amendment. The following is a summary of the issues raised by the P & Z Commissioners. • During the discussion on the proposal to allow restaurants, one of the P & Z Commissioners recalled that it had been the intent to limit uses that generate heavy traffic in this area because of the residential uses and the church nearby. • Regarding the second driveway on SR 50, Commissioners asked about the FDOT position on this issue and about the possibility of additional signage or moving the December 11, 2000 Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners Page driveway further east. Staff responded indicating that FDOT would defer to the City on permitting the second driveway, but noted that FDOT had turned down the same request in 1998 because it is inconsistent with FDOT standards. Staff was open to the possibility of additional signage or moving the driveway further east, but proposals with those elements have not been submitted. • When the sidewalk request was discussed, one of the Commissioners asked about the cost of the sidewalk, which the applicant indicated would be about $75,000. Staff suggested that it may be possible to move the sidewalk closer to the road (as was done with the West Oaks Town Center), which would affect the cost. This might still be explored, but it is not part of the current proposal. Addressing the issue of meeting or waiving Code requirements, another Commissioner felt strongly that the Code and the PUD conditions should be enforced, and that the City of Ocoee does not want to look like SR 436 in Altamonte Springs. • Regarding the request to allow a 100 square foot sign, one Commissioner asked if multiple tenants were anticipated on the sign. Staff responded indicating that signs on multi -tenant buildings generally don't list all tenants in the building. Another Commissioner noted that the P & Z did not deviate for the Women's Fitness Center sign, which had to compete with the Twistee Treat cone. As the discussion was ending, two Commissioners indicated that they had not heard anything substantial that would merit a change to the PUD. There was no apparent hardship and no indication that a waiver was needed. Another Commissioner agreed that the sidewalk needed to be built immediately, and he had no objection to moving the entrance, but he was still uncertain about the sign since variances have been issued in adjacent areas. When the discussion ended, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of all four elements of the proposed amendment to the West Oaks Square PUD Land Use Plan, according to the Staff recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the recommendations of the DRC and the Planning and Zoning Commission, Staff respectfully recommends that the Mayor and City Commissioners not adopt Ordinance # 2001-01, denying all four elements of the proposed amendment to the West Oaks Square PUD Land Use Plan (Case # LS -98-005A), as date stamped received by the City on November 22, 2000. Attachments'. Copy of ordinance # 2001-01 (draft) Amended PUD Land Use Plan, date stamped November 22, 2000 DRC Report, dated November 13, 2000 DRC Meeting Transcript, date stamped November 22, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, November 29, 2000 (draft) 11Pollce_fire 1\rlenninglCALE% NDE RW ILI) A\CAPDF ILE Staff ReponeMOOCo5R4$R00091.tl ORDINANCE NO. 2001-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE WEST OAKS SQUARE PUD, ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF S.R. 50 APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF S.R. 50 AND CLARKE ROAD AS PETITIONED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER; AMENDING THE WEST OAKS SQUARE PUD LAND USE PLAN TO INCLUDE RESTAURANT AS A PERMITTED USE, ADD A SECOND ACCESS POINT, AND MODIFY THE SIDEWALK AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the owner of certain real property located within the corporate limits of the City of Ocoee, Florida, as described in the Exhibit "A", has petitioned the City Commission of the City of Ocoee, Florida (the "Ocoee City Commission') to approve certain amendments (the "Amendment") to the West Oaks Square PUD Land Use Plan, as approved by the Ocoee City Commission on December 1, 1998 (the "Land Use Plan'); WHEREAS, in connection with the Amendment, that certain Development Agreement dated December 1, 1998 as recorded in O.R. Book 5681, Page 4141, Public Records of Orange County, Florida (the "Development Agreement") must be amended; WHEREAS, the Amendment was scheduled for study and recommendation and was reviewed by the Development Review Committee ("DRC') on November 13, 2000; WHEREAS, the DRC found that the Amendment constitutes a substantial amendment to the Land Use Plan; WHEREAS, the Amendment was scheduled for study and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Ocoee (" PZC) on November 29, 2000; 0062002373 -1 WHEREAS, the PZC reviewed the Amendment and forwarded its recommendation to the Ocoee City Commission; WHEREAS, the Ocoee City Commission has held a de novo public hearing with public notice thereof with respect to the proposed Amendment and this Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Ocoee City Commission considered this Ordinance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 166.041(3), Florida Statutes, and determined that this Ordinance is consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Authority. The City Commission of the City of Ocoee has the authority to adopt this Ordinance pursuant to Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes. SECTION 2. Amendment to the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan is hereby amended to include restaurant as a permitted use, add a second access point, and modify the sidewalk and signage requirements as more specifically set forth on the Amended Land Use Plan for West Oaks Square PUD prepared by Unroe Engineering and date stamped received by the City on November 22, 2000 (the "Amended Land Use Plan") and in that certain First Amendment to Development Agreement. The Amended Land Use Plan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby approved, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Section 3 below and further subject to the execution of the First Amendment to Development Agreement incorporating by reference the foregoing Amended Land Use Plan, incorporating the Conditions of Approval set forth in Section 3 below, and 006.200231.3 _2 detailing the modified sidewalk requirement. Said Amended Land Use Plan supercedes and replaces the previously approved land use plan for the West Oaks Square PUD. All references to the Land Use Plan or the Amended Land Use Plan for the West Oaks Square PUD shall hereafter refer to the aforementioned Amended Land Use Plan. Notwithstanding any provision in this Ordinance to the contrary, the second access point shall be prohibited until such time as an ordinance amending the Access Management and Intersection Operations Plan adopted by Ordinance 98-11 to allow the second access point is adopted and becomes effective. If no such ordinance is adopted within six months of the effective date of this Ordinance, the second access point shall be deemed denied and any portion of the Amended Land Use Plan related thereto shall be of no further force and effect. SECTION 3. Conditions of Aooroval The property described in Exhibit "A" hereto shall be developed in accordance with and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and by this reference made a part hereof. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event of any conflict between the Amended Land Use Plan referenced in Section 2 above and the Conditions of Approval, the Conditions of Approval shall control. SECTION 4. Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. The Ocoee City Commission hereby finds that this Ordinance is consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 5. Inconsistent Ordinances. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict or inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed and rescinded. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption. 006 200237.3 _3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2001. APPROVED: ATTEST: CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA Jean Grafton, City Clerk S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor (SEAL) ADVERTISED ,2000 READ FIRST TIME , 2000 READ SECOND TIME AND ADOPTED UNDER AGENDA ITEM NO. FOR USE AND RELIANCE ONLY BY THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY this day of , 2001. FOLEY & LARDNER In City Attorney 006 200237.3 _4 EXHIBIT "A" Legcl Description' (Parcel 4) per Official Record Book 4045, Page 0657 That part of tract 4, Orlando Groves Association, Lake Latta Groves, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book "E", page 52, public records of Orange County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: From the southwest corner of said tract 4, run south 89'48'43"east 260.00 feet along the north line of Citrus Oaks Phase One, as recorded in Plot Book 14, page 7, said public records; thence run north 00'18'54" east 260.00 feet, parallel with the west line of the northeast 1\4 of section 28, township 22 south, range 28 east, to the point of beginning; thence run north 89'48'43" west 179.16 feet to the east line of a 30 foot right of way as described in said plat of Lake Latta Groves; thence from a tangent bearing of north 04'18'43" west, run northwesterly along the are of a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 96.15 feet and central angle of 76'32'53" for distance of 128.21 feet; thence continuing along said right of way run north 00'18'54" east 233.44 feet to a point on the south right of way line of State Road 50; thence along said right of way line run south 89'35'23"east 1065.64 feet to the intersection of said right of way line with the southerly prolongation of the western boundary of Block "A", said plat of Orlando Groves Association, Lake Latta Groves; thence south 20'24'53" wets along said southerly prolongation of Block "A" 179.89 feet more or less to the centerline of an unnamed creek; thence along said centerline run the following courses; north 37'45'43" west 120.30 feet; north 86'56'51" west 130.64 feet; south 72'29'39" west 161.43 feet south 71'09'57" west 101.04 feet; south 62'46'55" west 126.45 feet; south 63'05'14" west 200.00 feet; thence leaving said centerline of the creek; run south 00'18'54" west 18.00 feet to the beginning, containing 4.47 acres or less. AND Including the east half of the 30' vacated Right—of—Way known as Michigan Street 006.200237.3 -5- -Free _§f6ri-ding - '' _' 7D cntr 'o n Directory Identification /Directory Sign (100 sf face�, Ig as permitted by code 9.03' Water Ex. 12" dater Ex. Hydrant J U) MEL JR;;m_ -G;Na CL Ex. Jack & Bore Connected to City of Ocoee Force Main '4r 9" -9 Spqces 0 9'_� LLJ_ -High-w Connect to Ex. 127 Water (orange County) / 3" Master Meter & DCVA & 2" Dom. Water & RPBFPD Screened on all sided (Shrub) N I Pedestrian Seating, Trash Receptacle & Bike Parking W 0 Zoning: PUD & C-2 N Second Entrance and Lane Modifications go N N as Parking Provided (Y) 0 0 00 0 Pawn Shop Automotive Service 0 I 1-11 C d) C C)ams 0 ca 0 (Y) - 5 Spaces Cap Q> E -!f E 0 E MEMO= 0 0-0 0 :3 E 0 6 C 0 0 V) C) LL Q EL_ L_ 0 5 4d 0 0 CY) 0) 00 (3) 0069 0) C) Movie Theater Gas Station Impervious Area Pre r Proiect Qescfjpjjgn 04 ""' Deleted Hotel/Motel Doi 18,271 sf This project consists of a a new multipurpose commercial building, associated M CL 0 C Nursing Home Hospital Parking and Access 0 sf Revisions a 18 0 r 0 9 spade, 0. 9� - 10 ::S' Cas, .0 9 _.-s s . . . . . . . . . 13, FE MH NN SOn: N % MH "N ,6 \ T 1 HD L2X _/rr R=96.15. L=128.21 100 -year flood line Tan=75.66 (99.00 NGVD) Delta =76'32'53" ParkinR_A_ 69, Access Drive _0400�'X 6' Overhang M Zoning PS Zoning A-2 Natural Vegetation to Remain 0000 Site Statistics Total Site Area 4.54 Ac (197,570 sf) Developable* Area 2.31 Ac (100,418 sf) <1\ *Area Above 100 -year Flood Line New Gross Floor Area - 20,600sf L a k e Lottc Floor to Site Area Ratio* - 20.5% Wer ne: Retention Under Bldg. Setbacks: N-73.9' W-74.0' E-94.0' S-113.4' Site st Oaks Square, Inc. HWL 107.5 -2 903 Emmett Street Land Use Highway 50 0 Kissimmee, FL 34741 Floor 103.5 Existing - Vacant Ph (407) 847-7311 Future - Commercial PUD (see Conditions of Approval note 1) Engineer: Old Denis R. Unroe P.E. Zoning ter Corderl Unroe Engineering Orange Co. Benchmark Datum: Existing - PS & A-2 Rd F_ ast-\Nest 4017 Orkney Avenue L-408-020. DOT - (109.082) Orlando, Florida 32809 Proposed - PUD Ph (407) 351-4544 Adjacent - Commercial PUD, PS & Non -developable A-1 Fax (407) 352-7125 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Parking Required Surveyor 18.00'-N 0*18'54" E 1. Permitted Land Uses: All uses permitted by C-2 Zoning, except 1 space per 200 sf Building - 103 spaces Mr. Gary Burden PLS the following; Handicapped (101 -150 range) - 5 spaces Atlantic Land Design C34® C-948 C- Drive-in Restaurant Automotive Repair PO Box 1747 CIDP Q P gLj�j��� Conform to local jurisdiction standards nrl A M 325032 Ron 0 It Parking Provided (Y) 0 0 00 0 Pawn Shop Automotive Service CO I 1-11 C d) 0 LO 0 0 (Y) - 5 Spaces > MEMO= 0 0 Total spaces provided - 103 Spaces Flood Zone - A & C LL with gas sales 0 0 Movie Theater Gas Station Impervious Area Pre r Proiect Qescfjpjjgn C M Deleted Hotel/Motel Building Footprint 0 sf 18,271 sf This project consists of a a new multipurpose commercial building, associated 0 A Parking Provided cc 0 0 Lo Pawn Shop Automotive Service CO L d) 0 LO 0 Equipment Sales Commercial Convenience (Y) - 5 Spaces > MEMO= 0 0 Total spaces provided - 103 Spaces Flood Zone - A & C LL with gas sales 0 0 Movie Theater Gas Station Impervious Area Pre Posta Proiect Qescfjpjjgn C M Deleted Hotel/Motel Building Footprint 0 sf 18,271 sf This project consists of a a new multipurpose commercial building, associated 0 CL 0 C Nursing Home Hospital Parking and Access 0 sf 37,544 sf C > for permarket Bar C 3,000 sf d) 2. The development standards Described in Article IV, V &VI shall Total Impervious 0 sf 58,815 sf 0 C C 0 Ile Percent Impervious* 0.0% Percent Open Space* 100% 58.6% 41.4% Commercial PUD (see Conditions of Approval note 1) 0 >i overhang into a landscaped area. Parking stall width of 9 feet. Based on Developable Area Leaal Description: (Parcel 4) Official Record Book 40459 Page 0657 (D 0 per A Parking Provided cc (D Pawn Shop Automotive Service Standard Spaces (9'x13') L d) 0 4_0 0 ORMIN Cn 0 Equipment Sales Commercial Convenience Handicapped Spaces (12'x20') - 5 Spaces E MEMO= Miniature Golf Course Automotive Sales Parking Provided 1_ 0(�.Clllon i-, i a n an W, (D Pawn Shop Automotive Service Standard Spaces (9'x13') - 98 Spaces Long: 81'30'57" 1 Lot: 28'33'07 " Ph (407) 898-7760 LM 0 Equipment Sales Commercial Convenience Handicapped Spaces (12'x20') - 5 Spaces STR - g��S�28E Scale: N.T. S Funeral P r Commercial Convenience Total spaces provided - 103 Spaces Flood Zone - A & C with gas sales 0 Movie Theater Gas Station Impervious Area Pre Posta Proiect Qescfjpjjgn CC u9som Deleted Hotel/Motel Building Footprint 0 sf 18,271 sf This project consists of a a new multipurpose commercial building, associated CL 0 Nursing Home Hospital Parking and Access 0 sf 37,544 sf parking and driveway. 6 for permarket Bar Walks, Pads and Misc. 0 sf 3,000 sf d) 2. The development standards Described in Article IV, V &VI shall Total Impervious 0 sf 58,815 sf Pro cased Land Use U) 0 apply to all uses. 3, Requested Waiver; Parking stall depth of 18 feet with a 2 foot Percent Impervious* 0.0% Percent Open Space* 100% 58.6% 41.4% Commercial PUD (see Conditions of Approval note 1) >i overhang into a landscaped area. Parking stall width of 9 feet. Based on Developable Area Leaal Description: (Parcel 4) Official Record Book 40459 Page 0657 (D per Code Req. Proposed Interior Parking landscaped Area ED cc Parking Stall Depth 20' 18' Required 3,745 sf That part of tract 4, Orlando Groves Association, Lake Latta Groves, according to Justification: Increase open space Provided 6,400 sf the plot thereof as recorded in Plat Book "E", page 52, public records of Orange Front Building Setback 100, 141 Landscape Notes: County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Justification: Prevents fragmenting a small property 1. There are no existing trees 6" or larger on the From the southwest corner of said tract 4, run south 89'48'43"east 260.00 E developable site, feet along the north line of Citrus Oaks Phase One, as recorded in Plot Book 14, 4� Water Service will be provided by Orange County. 2. The developable site is LC - Lakeland Fine Sand. page 7, said public records; thence run north 00'18854" east 260.00 feet, parallel Estimated Potable Flow: 2,570 gpd 3. Provide a meandering berm between SIR 50 and the with the west line of the northeast 1\4 of section 28, township 22 south, range Estimated Fire Flow: 1,660 gpm parking lot. 28 east, to the point of beginning; thence run north 89'48'4,3" west 179.16 feet D.P. Drawri 5. Waste water disposal will be provided by the City of Ocoee. 4. Roof mounted equipment shall be completely to the east line of a 30 foot right of way as described in said plat of Lake Lotta Estimated Flow 2,064 gpd screened from view per LDC 6-10. Groves- thence from a tangent bearing of north 04'18843" west run northwesterly 12" 6. Estimated traffic volume generated from the site is 1545 ADT I along the arc of a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 96.15 feet and D.R. Checked 6" 7. The property will be developed in one phase. central angle of 76'32'53' for distance of 128.21 feet; thence continuing along 36" S. The City is subjected to the terms, provisions and L!�,�n d 2P691 said right of way run north 00'118'54" east 233.44 feet to a point on the south log= 1 0 restrictions of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 concerning moratoria 40' Scale 0 PARKING BY 1 Aa ®on the issuance of building permits under certain circumstances.right of way line of State Road 50; thence along said right of way line run south [W - Cah B DISABLED tcasin 8935'23"east 1065.64 feet to the intersection of said right of way line with the C PERMIT The City has no lawful authority to exempt any private entity, or 9/1/98 Date CL ONLY itself, from the application of such state legislation and nothing southerly prolongation of the western boundary of Block "A", said plat of Orlando 0 7'0" herein should be considered an exemption. Manhole/Lift Station Groves Association, Lake Latta Groves; thence south 20'24'53" wets along said " FDOT -- STD w0scoa File 4wide 9. Prior to the approval of the Final Site Plan for the project, or southerly prolongation of Block "A" 179.89 feet more or less to the centerline of white0'any portion -thereof, the Applicant/Owner will need to apply for and an unnamed creek, thence along said centerline run the following courses-, north la.g. No. striping 0 3- obtain a Final Certificate of Concurrency pursuant to Article IX of Hydrant 37'4543 west 120.30 feet; north 86'56851" west 130.64 feet; south 72'29'39" 101, \\\\\ I C14 the Ocoee Land Development Code. Neither the review of the west 161.43 feet south 71*09857" west 101.04 feet; south 62'48855" west 126.45 application/project by the City nor the granting of any approvals in New Pavement (Project) feet; south 63*058`14" west 200.00 feet; thence leaving said centerline of the creek. 0 connection with such review shall be construed to grant the run south 00'18854" west 18.00 feet to the beginning, containing 4.47 acres or P T U/ Applicant/Owner any entitlement to obtain a Final Certificate of less. C 0 ' 10' or 9' Concurrency with respect to all or any portion of the project or to New Concrete I U AND oa s �ee or �d' create any exception from the provisions of Article IX of the Ocoee R1 - g 1 S i Including the east half of the 30' vacated Right -of -Way known as Michigan Street,,,-, _P o �St Land Development Code. of P a [k1ag5jd" Denis R. U'nroe . P ' -E #15201 CITY OF OCOEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Commission Chambers Conference Room November 13, 2000 10:30 AM HEALTH CENTRAL HOSPITAL Project No. LS -2000-007 PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN See attached Memo from Joanna Dyson dated 11/10/00 ATTENDING: Richard Irwin, CEO, Health Central Chris Coventry, P.E., Health Central John Stack, E.I., Ivey, Harris & Walls Steve Dieter, Ivey, Harris & Walls David Perry, Ivey, Harris & Walls Jennifer Kennedy Robert Doanc 11:30 AM WEST OAKS SQUARE PUD Proiect No LS -98-005A (2000) AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN See attached Memo from Robby Lewis dated 11/10/00 ATTENDING: Paul Rosenthal, City Attorney Scott Glass, Shorts & Bowen Ed Sant, Owner Dean Sant, President, West Oaks Square, Inc. Dennis Unroe, Umoe Engineering Discussion items: A. Determination as to whether the proposed amendment is Substantial or Non -Substantial. B. Proposed Site Plan changes Attachments O:\EKING\ALL_DATA\EKPD P I LE\forms\DRCMTG\Drcagn.frm.doc EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Permitted Land uses: All uses permitted by C-2 Zoning, except the following; Drive-in Restaurant Automotive Repair Miniature Golf Course Automotive Sales Pawn Shop Automotive Service Equipment Sales Commercial Convenience Funeral P r Commercial Convenience with gas sales Movie Theater Gas Station Deleted °nc{n ^^ Hotel/Motel Nursing Home Hospital for permarket Bar 2. The development standards Described in Article IV, V $VI shall apply to all uses. 3. Requested Waiver: Parking stall depth of 18 fleet with a 2 foot overhang into a landscaped area. Parking stall width of 9 feet. Code Req. Proposed Parking Stall Depth 20' 18' Justification: increase open space Front Building Setback 100' 141' Justification: Prevents fragmenting a small property 4. Water Service will be provided by Orange County. Estimated Potable Flow: 2,570 god Estimated Fire Flow: 1,660 gpm 5. Waste water disposal will be provided by the City of Ocoee. Estimated Flow 2,064 gpd 6. Estimated traffic volume generated from the site is 1545 ADT 7. The property will be developed in one phase. 8. The City is subjected to the terms, provisions and restrictions of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 concerning moratoria on the issuance of building permits under certain circumstances. The City has no lawful authority to exempt any private entity, or itself, from the application of such state legislation and nothing herein should be considered an exemption. 9. Prior to the approval of the Final Site Plan for the project, or any portion thereof, the Applicant/Owner will need to apply for and obtain a Final Certificate of Concurrency pursuant to Article IX of the Ocoee Land Development Code. Neither the review of the application/ project by the City nor the granting of any approvals in connection with such review shall be construed to grant the Applicant/Owner any entitlement to obtain a Final Certificate of Concurrency with respect to all or any portion of the project or to create any exception from the provisions of Article IX of the Ocoee Land Development Code. 006.200237.3 -7- "CEA'TER OF GOOD LlVLVG - PRIDE OF tVESTORf 4'GE" 1,111OR • C01110S'OS'_R S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT OcoeeCITY OF OCOEE DANNYNDERS c°NVYHOW L O o n 150 N. LN:ESHORERI DVE SCOTT ANDERSON p OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY 1. PARKARKES R (407) 905-3100 NANCY 1. P CJT X NAGER 4 of G000 FLLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM DATE: November 13, 2000, TO'. Development Review Committee FROM: Robert Lewis, AICP, Principal Planner Brad Friel, AICP, Transportation Planner .01�� j THROUGH' Russ Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning SUBJ: Planning Department Response to Letter from Scott Glass Regarding Proposed Amendments to the West Oaks Square PUD, dated October 31, 2000 The currently proposed amendments to the West Oaks Square PUD Land Use Plan were received in August, The Assistant City Attorney and the Planning Department prepared written comments which were sent to the applicant on October 17 (see attached letter with attachments from Ellen King to Scott Glass) and a Technical Staff Review Committee meeting was held on October 24 to discuss all staff comments. The applicant (Dean Sant), his attorney (Scott Glass) and his engineer (Dennis Unroe) were present, along with City staff (Robert Lewis, Brad Friel, Rosanne Gavrilovic and Assistant City Attorney Martha Formella). At that meeting, all staff comments were discussed and the applicant agreed to submit a revised amended Development Agreement incorporating the comments from the Assistant City Attorney, which has been submitted. However, rather than revise the Plan to address comments from the Planning Department, the applicant chose to submit a letter responding to those comments (see attached letter from Scott Glass to Ellen King) and request that the application move on to the Development Review Committee. The first four comments from the Planning Department addressed the major issues included in the proposed amendment, expressing opposition to each proposed change with supporting arguments. The response letter from Scott Glass included the revised amended Development Agreement and responses to each of the comments presented in the Planning Department's memo (dated October 16). This memo addresses only the issues related to the response to Planning Department comments. The following comments constitute the response of the Planning Department to each of the first four points presented in the October 31 response letter from Scott Glass. The fifth point does not require a response. POW Z November 13, 2000 Development Review Committee Page 2 1) The applicant has proposed an amendment to allow restaurants at this location, which were not allowed by the original PUD Land Use Plan. The Planning Department memo dated October 16, 2000 clearly states the reasoning for opposition to that proposed amendment. This opposition is based primarily on the previous Comprehensive Plan designation of Professional Services for this site, prior to the amendment to allow Commercial uses, and the stated intensions of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Commission during previous public hearings regarding this site (see memo dated October 16, 2000). Even though more commercial development has occurred in this vicinity since the original public hearings, the Planning Department believes that the location of the property (a buffer between SR 50 and residential uses), the small size of the property (2.3 acres of developable land) and the access constraints on the property (no left turn into the site from SR 50) which all contributed to the original restrictions placed on the site, still apply to the site today. Therefore, the Planning Department does not support the proposed amendment to allow restaurants at this location. 2) The applicant is requesting an additional access driveway from State Road 50 into their existing development. The development is already served by two driveway connections, one along Citrus Oaks Blvd. and one along State Road 50. The requested driveway would provide a total of three driveway connections to the si'e. The owner acknowledges that their request is inconsistent with the State Road 50 Access Management Plan, adopted by the City in July of 1998, (supported by FDOT) and with the previously approved PUD / site plan. Because of these inconsistencies, the applicant Is requesting that the City amend the PUD and the State Road 50 Access Management Plan. The Planning Department does not believe that an amendment is warranted for the following reasons: a) The applicant claims that they need the new driveway connection because the existing State Road 50 driveway has created an unsafe situation. The existing driveway was approved and permitted by FDOT as part of the original development approval. Staff must proceed on the assumption that FDOT's approval was based on accepted engineering standards and FDOT criteria which provides for adequate and safe access to the site. Accordingly, staff has requested that the applicant provide acceptable engineering data and analysis which shows that this existing driveway is unsafe. Staff has also requested that the applicant explore engineering solutions to reconfigure the existing driveway to improve safety conditions if the existing driveway is shown to be unsafe. To date the applicant has not provided any of the requested information. Therefore, staff believes that the applicant's claims are unfounded. Additionally, staff fails to see how constructing an additional driveway would alleviate any alleged safety concerns at the existing driveway. If the existing driveway is designed improperly today, would it not be tomorrow if you do not change the design? November 13, 2000 Development Review Committee Page 3 b) The applicant's request to add a third driveway is inconsistent with the State Road 50 Access Management Plan. The access management plan was developed by a licensed engineer to be consistent with FDOT'S standards for access manag rida Following the State Highway System Access Management Act of 1988, Flo Administrative Code Rule Chapter 14-96 and Chapter 14-97, the FDOT has classified this segment of State Road 50 as a Class 3 roadway. Specifically, these State requirements allow for a minimum driveway spacing of 660 feet measured from the closest edge of pavement of the first connection to the closest edge of the pavement for the second connection. The driveway spacing in this request is 460 feet, which clearly does not met the spacing requirements. c) The applicant has indicated that they have met with FDOT on this issue and have found that FOOT does not oppose the proposed second driveway and will defer to the decision of the City Commission so long as the access point meets legally prescribed criteria. Staff has contacted FDOT regarding this meeting and have found that the driveway issue was only briefly discussed and that FDOT has only conceptually agreed to a right in/out driveway provided that the City concurs. If the City does not agree, then they will support the City's position. As a historical note, a formal request for the second driveway connection to State Road 50 was denied by FOOT in July of 1998. The basis of this denial was the Access Management Standards set forth in Rule Chapter 1497. Staff believes that since this issues was only conceptually discussed without City staff present, the particular issues of the City's Access Management Plan, State Access Management Standards and the previous denial were not fully considered. Staff is in the process of getting clarification from FDOT regarding this issue. It is suggested that the applicant provide acceptable engineering data and d analysis h which shows that the existing driveway is unsafe. If found to be unsafe, option would be to explore engineering solutions to reconfigure the existing driveway to improve safety conditions. Simply adding an additional driveway that does not meet the STATE ROAD 50 Access Management Plan or FOOT requirements does not appear to be an appropriate way to correct a safety issue. Additional FOOT correspondence is attached to these comments 3) As part of the original site plan approval, the applicant indicated that a sidewalk would be constructed for the entire length of their property. This is required by the City's Commercial and Industrial Development standards and the State Road 50 Activity Center Plan. After the site plan was approved by the City, the applicant was unable to obtain a FOOT permit to construct this sidewalk as depicted on the site plan. As a result, the sidewalk has not been built, rendering City staff unable to issue a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the project. Since the project is still operating under a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant has had an undisclosed amount of money withheld by their financial institution. The applicant is requesting that the City to cte of occupancy. The Planning tDepartmefrom ts ntr does oject ) not surpport receive waiverlrfornthe follFial lolwing reasons: November 13, 2000 Development Review Committee Page 4 a) FOOT denied the sidewalk permit because it was improperly designed and not set back the required distance from the edge of the travel lane. FDOT requires sidewalks along state roadways without curbs to be placed 30 feet from the edge of the travel lane. In order to construct the sidewalk in this situation, the applicant will be required to bring fill material to the site. Estimates for this effort range from $35,000 to $75,000. The applicant has indicated that the FDOT would build this sidewalk in the 2002 - 2003 fiscal year, but has not provided the City with a written agreement between the applicant and FDOT indicating how this would be done. Even if this agreement is made, City staff cannot waive the sidewalk requirement and issue a Final Certificate of Occupancy. b) The applicant has indicated that the sidewalk requirement should be waived because it is expensive to build, would be unsafe ( fostering criminal activity) and would not be used. As detailed in the Commercial and Industrial Land Development Code, a requirement can only be waived by the City Commission if It is part of an integrated master planned development, compatible with surrounding developments, imposes no impacts on City infrastructure and provides an off -setting public benefit that is technically sound and measurable. c) This project is not part of an integrated master planned development that would provide a safe alternative for pedestrians to safely move from the West Oaks Square site to the adjacent bus stop or the West Oaks Mall. In fact, without the sidewalk, pedestrians are required to walk within the emergency lane of State Road 50 to access the bus stop or to cross the street at the nearby traffic signal. While on a recent day -time site visit, staff observed several pedestrians crossing State Road 50 mid -block to move between the West Oaks Square site and the commercial land uses on the north side of State Road 50. Staff believes that this is a very dangerous maneuver on a busy four lane roadway with a posted speed of 55 mph. If the sidewalk network were completed, the pedestrian would have the opportunity to walk on a sidewalk to the traffic signal where they could cross when traffic was stopped. It is the intent of the Activity Center plan to encourage pedestrian interaction between land uses and to provide access to transit facilities. By encouraging walking or transit use the City could reduce the need to travel by car which impacts public roadways. Staff also observed several people using the nearby transit facility. Given that fact that there is a walk-in medical facility in the West Oaks Square development, it can be assumed that some patients may need to use public transportation as their only means of access to a health care facility. d) With respect to the safety issue, staff does not believe that the sidewalk as proposed by FDOT would be unsafe. In fact, why would FDOT agree to build the sidewalk if they believed it were unsafe and would foster criminal activity. Since the deletion of the sidewalk would not be part of an integrated master plan, would not be compatible with surrounding land uses, would impose additional impacts on City infrastructure and does not provide an off -setting public benefit that is technically sound and measurable the Planning Department cannot support the waiver request. November 13, 2000 Development Review Committee Page 5 The applicant has proposed an amendment to allow a 100 square foot identification / directory sign on SR 50. As indicated in the memo dated October 16, 2000, it was the expressed intent of the Developer, the P & Z Commission and the City Commission, that the uses on this site would be primarily low intensity office and limited commercial uses. Based on those intensions, and the limited signage provided on the adjacent site which has P -S zoning, the signage on this site was to be limited to a comparable size of 36 square feet. The St. Paul's Church sign and the sign at the West Oaks Town Center each have a different set of circumstances, justifying different recommendations. The Planning Department staff still believes that a 100 square foot sign on this site would be inconsistent with the original intent of low intensity signage on this site (for low intensity uses), to be consistent with signage on the adjacent site which has P -S zoning, built by the same developer. Also, since the building on this site is relatively close to the road as compared to the other two sites mentioned, the signage on the building is easily visible to anyone passing by without the need for the visual clutter of large identification signs on the street. 4) RWL \\Police fret\planning\RLEWISr LL_DATA\rlpdUle\Development Review(2000)\MFP00262 doc "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PIUDE OF IVES! OP.ANGE" o` Ocoee o CITY OF OCOEE 150 N. LAI SHOttE Dluv o OcosE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 Q. a" (407) 905-3100 lq Of GOOQ� October 17, 2000 Mr. Scott Glass, Esq. shutts & Bowen, LLC 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801 RE: West Oaks Square PUD Amended PUD Land Use Plan / Preliminary Site Plan Received August 8, 2000 First Staff Review Nt"OR • colorlssla'£R S. SCOTT VANDERGRlf ccloBssio]T S DANNY HOWELL SCOTT ANDERSON RUSTY JOHNSON NANCY I. PARKER CRT MANAGER ELLIS SWIRO Dear Mr. Glass: Thank you for your submittal of plans for the above mentioned project. We have attached staff comments which are in response to your submittal. In order to expedite your project, we would like to meet with you to discuss the comments prior to revision of plans. Our Technical Sta�� Review Committee (TSRC) will meet on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 at 9:30 AM to go over the ourself a clean coo of the site plan to attached staff comments. You will neand Engineer of the ed to brin for red -line as comments are discussed. The Owner (or Authorized Agent) project are required to attend. If there is a no show the project will be postponed for review until the next TSRC (10/31/00) meeting. Please contact me at 407-905-3100 ext. 911017 to confirm that you will be attending. After you have met with the TSRC, please revise the plans to include the additional information requested and submit four (4) folded sets of plans to my attention. In your written response, we ask that you indicate how each comment has been addressed in the revised plans. Sincerely, Ellen King Development Review Coordinator Attachments cc: Development Review Committee Martha Formella, Assistant City Attomey. Foley & Lardner Robby Lewis, Principal Planner Rosanne Gawilovic, Engineer I Project No. LS -98-005A (2000) \\,,LIGEFIREI\PIANNING\EKINGWLL DATA\EKPOFILEWrcreprt\DRC00�0'o7�doc FOLEY & LARDNER MEMORANDUM CLIENT -MATTER NUN12-9 0203]]/0461 TO: Ellen M. King, Development Review Coordinator FROM: Martha H. Formella, Esq., Assistant City Attorney DATE: September 8, 2000 RE: West Oaks Square PUD — Amended Land Use Plan (Project No. LS -98-005 A) In connection with the above referenced matter, we have reviewed the following documents: 1. Amended PUD Land Use Plan/preliminary Site Plan prepared by Umoe Engineering and stamped received by the City of Ocoee August 8, 2000 (the "Plan"); 2. Application stamped received by the City of Ocoee August 8, 2000; and 3. Draft First Amendment to the Development Agreement (West Oaks Square) oee August 8, 2000 ("First Amendment"). stamped received by the City of Oc Based on our review of the documents noted above pursuant to the Ocoee Land Development Code, we have the following comments: 1. A marked up copy of the First Amendment is attached. If there is a mortgage on the Property, please add a Joinder and Consent. (When this Plan is scheduled for public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, a current Title Certificate or Attorney's Title Opinion will be required.) 2. The Developer has not constructed the sidewalk along S.R. 50 in accordance with the approved Final Site Plan. The construction and tinning of the sidewalk should be addressed in the First Amendment in such a manner as to result in the issuance of permanent Certificates of Occupancy. (The approved Final Site Plan should be amended for consistency.) ;. There are a number of discrepancies between the legal descriptions included in the Application, Plan, and original Development Agreement. Please provide a substitute page for the Application, revise the Plan, and/or add a provision to the First Amendment correcting the legal description as necessary to conform all of the documents. q. The second entrance on S.R. 50 is inconsistent with e Access Mea No. 98 a�gcmen`11. and Intersection Operations Plan ("AMIOP") P y we recommend that the AMIOP be amended for consistency prior to approval of the Plan. 5. Please revise the "cloud" in Condition of Approval 1 to surround only the requested change of use. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. cc: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq., City Attorney Attachment Prepared By: Scott A. Glass Shutt, & Bowen, LLP 20 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 Return to: RECEIVED E.LU L LARQ�ER PP��o��� J'�' AUG - 8 2000 Ci l OF OCOEE ]can Grafton, City Clerk=2p -�City of O<aee-150 N. Lakeshore DriveOcoee, FL 34761 FIRST ADIENDMENT TO DEvtLOPiNmt, r AGREEME (NEST OAKS SQUARE) /,t�niS[leNL�Ylteillk"i This First Amendment to Development Agreement s ma e and entered into this _ day of , 200_, by and between West Oaks Square, Inc., whose address is 9428 West Colonial Drive, Ocoee, FL 34761 (hereafter referred to as the "Owner") and the City of Ocoee, a Florida municipal corporation whose mailing address is 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, FL 34761, attention City Manager (hereafter referred to as the "City 1V-attd.. RTTNESSE �o0ttt�' WHEREAS, the Cir, entered into at certain Development Agreement dated December 1, 1998, by and beriveen the City 2nd El =� or Miller Talton, individually and as successor trustee of a certain Land Trust Av-eement, which agreement is recorded in OR Book 5681 at Page 414 , and, . •((`"' tAIO�1L Y S OY3Y�2 �otc) 0 t t 5-f{te," r'2smPl'YF"� WHEREAS, Owner is the successor in int s [ anor r t erT,-Ito-n, individually and as successor trustee, with regard to the ownership of the property legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference (the "Property"); and, WHEREAS, the Property is subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the Owner and the City now desire to modify certain of those terms and conditions. NOW TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration exchanged between the parties hereto, the receipt and sufficiency of which being hereby acknowledged, the Owner and City agree as follows: 1; The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. ted 2. Section 2 A of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting aid paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with the following language: The ON er hereby agrees tc develop the Property in accordance with that certain PUD Land Use Plan for the West Oaks Square PUD prepared by Unroe Engineenng, date stamped received by the City on , 2000 (hereafter referred to as the "Land Use Plan"). The Land Use Plan is hereby incorporated herein by referent, as if fully set forth herein. 3. The Agreement is further amended by deleting therefrom in its entirety Exhibit "B" attached thereto and replacing it with Exhibit "B" attached hereto, "Conditions of Approval" which is incorporated herein by this reference. 4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 5. This Amendment shall be recorded among the public records of Orange County, Florida by the City, at the expense of the Owner. 6. This Amendment shall be effective the day and year first above written. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner and the City have caused this instrument to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence o! Print name: Print name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE WEST OAKS SQUARE, INC " By: Dean Sant, President I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this _ day of 200_, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County of t take acknowledgments, personally appeared Dean Sant, President of West Oaks Square, Inc., who is personally known to me or �� produced as identification, and that he acknowledged executing tl foregoing First Amendment to Development Agreement on behalf of the corporation and that I was properly authorized to do so. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State aforesaid. Notary Public My commission expires: Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: Print Print FOR USE AND RELIANCE ONLY BY THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA. Approved as to form and legality this day of , 2000 FOLEY & LARDNER By: Amiha4City Attorney STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY: CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA M S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor Jean Grafton, City Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED BY THE OCOEE CITY COMMISSION AT A MEETING HELD 4„�Nr UNDER AGENDA ITEM NO.-'� I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT and JEAN GRAFTON, personally known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA and that they severally acknowledged executing the same in the presence of rivo subscribing witnesses, freely and voluntarily under authority duly vested in them by said municipality. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this _ day of , 2000. Signature of Notary Name of Notary (Typed, Printed or Stamped) Commission Number (if not legible on seal): My Commission Expires (if not legible on seal): GfnDGGS 100247804 SXG -CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF IYEST ORANGE' Ocoee CITY OF OCOEE 0 _ 150 N. L41:ESHORE DRIVE v o OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 �� 2v (407) 905-3100 �4 Of 0000 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 16, 2000 TO: Ellen King, Development Review Coordinator FROM: Robert Lewis, AICP, Principal Planner/ THROUGH: Russ Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning SUBJ: Planning Department Comments West Oaks Square PUD, 1st Staff Review PUD Amendment, Received August 8, 2000 Mavoa • co,anssiosez S. SCOTT VANDERGitI Co ,gsslo ER DANNY HOWELL SCOTT ANDERSON RUSTY JOHNSON NANCY J. PARKER CITY\L\.\AGER ELLIS SHAPIRO 1) The Planning Department does not support the proposed change to allow restaurant uses within this PUD for the following reasons. When the original Comprehensive Plan amendment was adopted to allow commercial uses on this land, it was done ,%,th the clear understanding that it would have PUD zoning to limit non-offige uses to low intensity retail. Restaurant uses were not included because they are high intensity commercial uses and inconsistent with the original comprehensive plan designation intent to limit the uses in this location to low intensity commercial uses (primarily office, as reflected by the Professional Services future land use designation). Restaurant uses also would require a larger number of parking spaces than retail, which cannot be accommodated on this site without adding more spaces to those already on the site. In addition, when this original FLUM amendment and PUD zoning went to public hearings, there was concern about the limited commercial uses proposed in the PUD, even without restaurants. Three P & Z Commissioners expressed concern and the vote for approval was 5-1, but two commissioners indicated that they reluctantly voted in favor of the motion. One of the City Commissioners expressed concern and the vote for approval was 4-1. The membership on both commissions has not changed by more than one or two members each since the original approvals in 1998. Another consideration in this mix of issues is impact fees. When the permits were issued for the original building, impact fees were charged for the projected based on the stated intent to have primarily office uses with a limited amount of commercial retail mix of uses in the uil mpactltis pssible feesothatt weretthe cha ged.ntAdditionall changes t dlaloworestaurrantproperly reflect useswould definitely result in the need for additional impact fees to be assessed. A01101 a i=A October 16, 2000 Ellen King, Development Review Coordinator Page 2 2) The Planning Department does not support the proposed change to provide a second driveway entrance to the site for the following reasons. As indicated when the original ith the OIn sistent ManDagemeotPlanadopted by the was pdsecond cCt ysiP July is 1998,n�SAccess with thesupportof FOOT.R 50 In addition, our records include a letter from FOOT, dated July 6, s, expressly indicating that FOOT was unable to support the additional driveway becaauuse it "does not meet Access Management Standards as set forth in Rule Chapter 14-97." Also, the Planning Department had concerns about the location of the original entrance being so close to Citrus Oaks Avenue, and this second entrance would only compound those concerns. The addition of the second entrance also removes four required parking spaces that are not being replaced. Reducing the required amount of parking on the site would require additional waiver, even for the current uses, in addition to a reduction in parking spaces for restaurant uses. Currently, the West Oaks Mall and West oaks Town Center each have only one access point from SR 50, consistent with the SR 50 Access Management Plan ordinance. Those two uses have far greater traffic requirements than this project. If the Developer is willing to remove the existing access point and relocate the access point eastward and make it the only access point from SR 50 to the site, and if FOOT will permit it, then Stawould support the new sinal= access point from SR 50. If this option is chosen, the r 4 parking spaced eliminated at the new access point wI11 need to be added back at the location of the old access point Also, a cross access easement will need to be provided to allow the adjacent building to have access to SR 50 through this site. 3) The Planning Department does not support the proposed change to modify the arrangements for constructing the sidewalk along SR 50 from the east end of the parking lot to the eastern property boundary for the following reasons. The Code requires site plans to provide sidewalks for good pedestrian access throughout individual sites and between sites. This sidewalk is very important because it provides pedestrian access from this site to the traffic light at the main entrance from SR 50 to the West Oaks Mall. There also happens to be a bus stop at that location, doubling the importance of this sidewalk. In addition, the Code specifically requires developers of each commercial site to provide sidewalks along all public rights-of-way adjoining their sites. Transferring the responsibility of constructing the sidewalk to FOOT, which will not be able to construct the sidewalk for years, is directly contrary to the intent of the Code. sidewalkThis is of hags notbeenCertificate under a Temporary occupancy lv en cconstructed yet. Th s ssueh snot been resolved fo a ten (10) months. The sidewalk needs to be constructed as part of this plan to get a Final CO. However, if the Developer can get an agreement with FOOT to have FOOT reimburse the Developer in the future for the cost of constructing the sidewalk, that is a matter between the Developer and FDOT. October 16, 2000 Ellen King, Development Review Coordinator Page 3 The Planning Department does not support the proposed change to allow a 100 square q) foot identification / directory sign on SR 50. When this site was originally reviewed, it he p was the expressed that the'uses onntent this site wothe ould beper tpri primarily Z Commission n low intensity office and limd the ited Commission, commercial uses. Accordingly, to make the site as consistent as possible with ow intensity office and commercial uses that might be allowed in a P -S zoning district, the in this PUD was to be as close as possible to the signage that signage to be allowed. would have been permitted s gn sin a P S9on a maximum of indistg ct (and \ district that time wesite to be P -S zoning). identification square feet. However, with the newly adopted SR 50 Activity Center Standards, individual lots in this area were allowed an identification sign with a uare fee. Therefore, the inal maximum area of 36 sgand the tapproved site plan rlslpecifDshowed callyindicated that the ation sign sign that was 6' wide, would be a maximum of 36 square feet. A 100 square foot sign would se inconsistent with the original intent of low intensity sinage (for low intensity uses), which is consistent with the adjacent site which has P'S zoning, built by the saa to me developer. lt in es in the te 5) The proposed kchange himpe oue PUD s surfmadea ds open uspace,hetc g). It does nlot Statistics (parking provided. appear that the appropriate changes to the Site Statistics have been made on the plan. PUD amendments are granted, It will b=_ necessary to submit g) If any of the requesteda revised site plan consistent with the amendments which were granted, changes to access points, turn lanes, parking, landscaping, water and sewer services (grease traps for restaurants), RWL ATA\rlpdrilelDevelopment Review (2000)VAFP00243.doc \\Police_ firet\planningU2LEWIsl4LL_D 0Gj.-31'00ITUE) 14:41 SHUTTS S E"E\ TELA074258316 e-002 SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP FrTQRNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT [AW 141'A :TY^,rSnm rp[LCMnS 2POrCf SrOnAi nssOCIA➢JCA 20 NORlH OPA.YGfiA [.NVE Cr'T LIJU sure x� Or1Ln\DO.FlAPILA SCJ„✓+i= - lE2r'tlo'ICIWtls2DIC".V ' ..C51NIL KI)1.11” October 31, 2000 Ellen M. King Development Review Coordinator City of Ocoee 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, FL 34761 RE: West Oaks square Amended Land Use Plan, Project No. LS -98-005 A Dear Ms. King: Thank you for your letter of October 17, 2000 with the various staff comments regzrd ^; t^^ e above referenced project. I am enclosing a revised First Amendment to Development Agreement (West Oaks Square) incorporating the changes requested by Martha Formella. Please note that the legal description attached to the First Amendment corrects the scrivener's colors Martha identified in the original Development Agreement, the Application, and on the proposed Amended Land Use Plan. I have enclosed a copy of the legal to be substituted in the application, as requested by Martha. The legal will be corrected in the final Amended Land Use Plan after the DRC meeting. At this time, I have not enclosed four revised sets of plans as requested in your letter because my clients to not agree with the Planning Department comments and have elected not to make the requested revisions. Specifically, we offer the following responses to the Planning Department comments. (1) While the owner originally agreed, at the insistence of City staff, to prohibit restaurant uses, market demands have made it evident that a small restaurant would be an appropriate and desirable use. Several restaurants have approached the owner seeking to lease the 4,000 sq. feet of vacant space in the center of the building. The owner has had to reject these prospective tenants and has been unable to find a suitable tenant (although it has been approached at various times by prospective tenants wishing to locate a billiard parlor and e title loan business, as well as one party considering its suitability for use as an abortion clinic, all of which appear to be permitted uses under the current Land Use Plan). Theowe" would far prefer to locate a small restaururt at the heart of the center than any of these permitted uses. A restaurant would certainly be more consistent with the City's vision for wes r.w no.nr OCT. -al' 001TCE Id 42 SHMS .i 80YES it.L-d0id2SSa16 P.OU3 Ellen M. King October 31, 2000 Page 2 this area than any of thn an ese uses. Iy event, hf the City Co,—. mission ultimately decides to allow the restaurant use, the owner would expect its parking requirement to be measured the same way the Cade provides for calculating necessary parking for zny restaurant located within ashopping center. It is omunderstanding that the parking in such situations is based on the city's standard of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet, which standard this property meets. The owner has no objection torevisiting the issue of impact fees to ensure that correct fees wore charged but certainly reserves the right to provide input into the calculation process based on actual experience. (2) The owner acknowledges that the proposed second access point is inconsistent with the SR 50 Access Management Plan adopted by the City in July, 1998, however actual experience has demonstrated that compliance with that plan has created an unsafe situation. Accordingly, the owner urges the City to amend its Access Management Plan. Moreover, the fact that the FDOT opposed a second access paint several years ago is irrelevant. Only the current position of the FDOT is relevant to the current request. FDOT representatives have indicated that they do not oppose the proposed second access point and will defer to the decision of the City Commission (not the City Planning Deparunent) so long as the access point meets legallyprescribederit=_ria. Finally, it is wholly inappropnzte to compare eccess for a 25,000 square foot shopping center to that of a 1.2 million squaw foot regional mall. Whilc it is true that the mall has only one access point on S.R. 50, that access point d signalized and has dedicated turn lanes. Unless the owner's one access point is signalized, which the owner is certainly not seeking, it is hardly a fair or accurate comparison. The owner will, of course, comply with the direction it receives from the City Commission on this issue. (3) Due to the terrain to be traversed by this sidewalk, pedestrians will be largely hidden from the view of passing motorists, any residential arca, and nearby businesses. We strongly believe that this will lead to an unsafe situation and potentially foster criminal activity. Criven the availability of sidewalks on the north side of SR 50 and the location of has service located in the mall parking lot, the risk to pedestrians, coupled with the cost of this sidewalk, would far outweigh the minimal benefit it would provide to pedestrians, if any, who would actually use the sidewalk. Furthermore, even if a rational nexus between the development of the West Oaks square property and the need for this strip of sidewalk, it should be noted that the even if the sidewalk is completed along the balance of the owner's property, it will still end substantially west of the existing bus stop. This may further increase the risk to pedestrian safety for those few who in ay use the sidewalk. Therefore, wa strongly encourage the City to re -think its demand that this sidewalk be constructed at all. Contrary to the planning department's position, we do not believe that eliminating this sidewalk from the City's plans would set a precedent which would allow other developers OCT:-31'00ME1 Id d2 SHOTTS i EOWEN' E TLd01J25S316 F.00 Ellan M. King October 31, 2000 Page 3 to avoid constructing sidewalks along their property lines where such sidewalks would be safe and where such sidewalks were actually likely to serve a reasonable amount of pedestrian traffic. That being said, the FDOT has agreed to construct the sidewalk and has indicated that it should be completed by June 30, 2002. The owner has agreed to donate all necessary right of way and to reasonably eoopcmte in expediting the construction of the sidewalk, such reasonable cooperation not to include actually constructing or advancing the funds for the sidewalk. (4) Given the recentrecommendationoftheplanningdepartmentandtheBoardofAdjustment to grant a variance to St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, based on its frontage along SR 50 and the special consideration which was given to the Best Buy on the north side of SR 50, we must strongly disagree with the disparate treatment being shown to West Oaks S quare by the planning departments' position on signage. Moreover, there are no uses in the West Oaks Square which are prohibited by its PUD plan. If the planning department truly wished to limit the percentage of commercial uses as opposed to professional service uses, said percentages could and should have been written into the Land Use Plan. Furthermore, the planning dep3*Iment could have limited such uses by continuing the existing split future land use designation On the pronerhv ip. read of directing the owner tO amend the comprehensive plan future land use designation. (5) At such time any changes are approved by the Ciry Commission, the owner will be happy to submit revised site statistics and a revised site plan consistent with approved amendments as requested in Planning Department comments 5 and 6. We look forward to discussing this matter with members of the Development Review Committee at the next available meeting. As always, thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Scott A. Glass Dean Sant, Esq. ORLUMS 100337� 1 axG Cut. -31'Cot TUEI 14 43 SHCTIS S E010 SEL.4074258316 F.005 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (WEST OAKS SQUARE) Lep 1 Description' parcel per Official Record Book 4045, Page 0657 That part of Tract 4, Orlando Groves Association, Lake Lotta Groves, according to the plat ibereof as recorded in Plat Book "E", page 52, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: From the southwest comer of said Tract 4, run south 89' 48'43" east 260.00 feet along One, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 7, said Public the north line of Citrus Oaks Phase Records; thence run north 00' 19, 54" east 260.00 feet, parallel with the west line of the northeast 114 of section 28, township 22 south, range 28 east, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence run north 89' 48'43" west 179.16 feet to the east line of a 30 foot right of way as described in said plat of Lake Lotta Groves; thence from a tangent bearing of north 04'18'43" west, run northwesterly along the are of a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 96.15 feet and central angle of 76' 23,54" for a distance of 128.21 feet; thence continuing along said right of way run north 00' 18'54" east 233.44 feet to a point on the south right of way line of State Road 50; thence along said right of way line run south 89' 35,131, east 1065.64 feet to the inter -section of said right of way line with the southerly prolongation of the westerly boundary of Black "A", said plat of Orlando Groves Association, Lake Lona Groves; thence south 20' 24'53" west along said southerly prolongation of Block "A" 179.89 feet more or less to the centerline of an unnamed creek; thence along said centerline run the following courses; north 37' 45'43" west 120.30 feet; north 86' 56'51" west 130.64 feet; south 72' 29'39" west 161.43 feet: south 71' 09'57" west 101.04 feet; south 62' 48'55" west 126.45 feet; south 63' 05114" west 200.00 feet; the creek; run south 00' 18' 54" west I B.00 feet to the POINT thence leaving said centerline of OF BEGINNING, containing 4.47 acres more or less AND Including the east half of the 30' vacated Right of Way known as Michigan Street. oaLooCs 1W03 I M5N 0CT.-31'00ITUEI 14:43 SHUTTS S BOB TEL=4074238316 P. 006 Prepared By: Scott A. Glass Shuts & Bowen, LLP 20 N. Orange Am, Ste. 1000 O,bado, FL 32801 Return to; lean Grntlon, Ciry Clerk city of Ocooc 150 N. Lakeeho,c Drive Ocoee, FL 34761 FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (WEST OAKS SQUARE) This First Amendment to Development AgCeement ("this is West Oates ") is ma a and entered into this _ day of Y and whose address is 9428 West Colonial Drive, Ocoee, FL 34761 Olereafter referred to as the "Owner") and the City of Ocoee, a Florida municipal corporation whose mailing address is 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, FL 34761, attention City Manager (hereafter referred to as the "City). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City entered into that certain Development Agreement dated December 1, 1998, by and between the City and Eleanor Miller Talton, individually and as successor trustee of a certain Land Trust Agreement, which Development Agreement is recorded in OR Book 5681 at Page 4141, Public Records of orange County, Florida (the `.Agreement'); and, WHEREAS, Owner is the successor in interest to Eleanor Miller Talton, individually and as successor trustee, with regard to the ownership of the property legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference (the "Property'; and, WHEREAS, the Property is subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the Owner and the City now desire to modify certain of those terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration exchanged between the parties hereto, the receipt and sufficiency of which being hereby acknowledged, the Owner and City agree es follows 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. OC-T.-31'00(TUE) 14 dd SHUTS i BO'3ES TEL:dOi�?a8a16 P.OU7 2, Section 2 A of the Agreement is hereby emended by deleting said paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with the following language: The Owner hereby agrees to develop the Property in accordance with that certain Amended PUD Land Use Plan for the West Oaks Square PUD prepared by U 2 e Engineering, hereafteate ed to as stamped received by the City an the "Land Use Plan"). The Land Use Plan is hereby incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 3. The Agreement is further emended by deleting therefrom in its entirety Exhibit "H" attached thereto and replacing it with Exhibit "B" attached hereto, "Conditions of Approval" which is incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The Agreement is further amended by adding a new paragraph to read as follows: Section 17 Constrr ction of sidewalk. The Florida Department of Transportation (the "FDOT') has committed to construct approximately 520 linear feet of sidewalk along a right of way to be donated by the Owner as generally shown on the Land Use Plan (the "Sidewalk"). At the time of this Amendment, the FDOT has indicated that it anticipates construction of the sidewalk to be completed by Lune 30, 2002. Owner hereby agrees that it will donate the necessary right of way and shall take all reasonable steps requested by either the FDOT or the City to expedite the construction of the Sidewalk, provided, however, such reasonable steps shall not be construed to include actually constructing the Sidewalk or advancing the funds for the construction of the Sidewalk. 5. This Amendment shall be effective the day and year first above written. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 6. This Amendment Shall be recorded among the public records of Orange County, Florida by the City, at the expense of the Owner. IN k'ITNESS \i'HEREOF, the Owner and the City have caused this instrument to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year fust above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Print name. name' WEST OAKS SQUARE; INC. a Florida Corporation Hy: Dean Sant, President (Corporate Seal) OCT. -31' OO(TUE) 14:44 SKUTTS & M EA STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE TEL: 40N238316 _ P 008. — , I HEREBY CERTIFY that an 200 beforeme, an this _ day of — officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared Dean Sant, President of West Oats Square, Inc., a Florida Corporaon. who is s idenn 6e hon, and that personally known to me or who produced Ire acknowledged executing the foregoing First Amendment to Development Agreement an behalf of the corporation and that he was properly authorized to do so. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State aforesaid. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: Print Print FOR USE AND RELIANCE ONLY BY THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA. Approved as to form and legality this day of ,2000 FOLEY & LARDNER City Attorney Notary Public My commission expires: CITY: CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor Jean Grafton, City Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED BY THE OCOEE CITY COMMISSION AT A MEETING RELD ON UNDER AGFNDA ITEM NO. OCT. -5!'OOITUEI Id:dV SNUTTS S BOWS\ TEE:40 azssal6 E 009 --- STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to tako acknowledgments, personally appeared S. SCOTT VANDERGRI FTand JEAN GRAFI'ON, personally known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, ofthe CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA and that they severally acknowledged executing the same in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, 6eely and voluntarily under authority duly vested in them by said municipality. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this _ day of '2000. Signature of Notary Name of Notary (Typed, printed or Stamped) Commissiea Numh.r (if not legible on aeal): My Commissio:; Expires (if not legible on scat): OCT. -51'OOITUEI 1445 SHUTTS i HES TE1, 40741258516 _ _ P. 010 EXHIBIT "A" (West Oaks Square Legal Description) i anal DescriplL❑11 Parcel 4 per Official Record Book 4045, Page 0657 That part of Tract 4, Orlando Groves Association, Lake Lotta Groves, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book "E", page 52, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: From the southwest comer of said Tract 4, run south 89' 48' 43" east 260.00 feet along the north line of Citrus Oaks Phase One, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 7, said Public Records; thence run north 00' 18'54" east 260.00 feet, parallel with the west line of the northeast 114 of section 28, township 22 south, range 28 east, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence run north 89' 48'43" west 179.16 feet to the east line of a 30 foot right of way as described in said plat of Lake Lotta Groves; thence from a tangent bearing of north 04'18'43" west, run northwesterly along the arc of a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 96.15 feet and central angle of 76' 23'54" for a distance of 128.21 feet; thence continuing along said light of way run north 00' 18'54'T east 233.44 feet to a point on the south right of way line of State Road 50; thence along said right of way line run south 89' 35' 13" east 1065.64 feet to the intersection of said right of way line with the southerly prolongation of the westerly boundary of Block "A", said plat of Orlando Groves Association, Lake Lotta Groves; thence south 20' 24'53" west along said southerly prolongation of Block "A" 179.89 feet more or less to the centerline of ui unnamed creek; thence along said cente;hne tun the following courses; north 37' 45' 43" west 120.30 feet; north S6' 56, 51" west 130.64 feet; south 72' 29' 39". west 161.43 feet; south 71 09' 57" west 101.04 fact; south 62' 48'55" west 126.45 feet; south 63' 05' 14" west 200,00 feet; thence leaving said centerline of the creek: run south 00' 16' 54" west 18.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 4.47 acres more or less AND Including the east half of the 30' vacated Right of Way known as Michigan Street, (Note: This legal description also corrects two scrivener's errors contained in the legal description attached to the original Development Agreement referenced in the recitals.) OCT. -31' OOITCE) 14:45 SETTS i 807ES TEL:4074258316 1011— — - EXHIBIT "A" (West Oaks Square Legal Descrlptlon) Legal DescriptionParcel 4 per Official Record Book 4045, Page 0657 That part of Tract 4, Orlando Groves Association, Lake Lotto Groves, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book "E", page 52, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: From the southwest comer of said Tract 4, run south 89' 48' 43" east 260.00 feet along the north line of Citrus Oaks Phase One, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 7, said Public Records; thence run north 00' 18' 54" east 260.00 feet, parallel with the west line of the northeast 114 of section 28, township 22 south, range 28 east, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence run north 89* 48'43" west 179.16 feet to the east line of a 30 foot right of way as described in said plat of Lake Lotta Groves; thence from a tangent bearing of north 04018' 43" west, run northwesterly along the arc of a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 96.15 fent and central angle of 760 23' 54" for a distance of 128.21 feet; thence continuing along said right of way run north 00` 18'54" east 233.44 feet to a point on the south right of way line of State Road 50; thence along said right of way lina run south 89° 35' 13" east 1065,64 feet to the intersection of said right of way line with the southerly prolongation of the westerly boundary of Block "A", said plat of Orlando Groves Association, Lake Lotta Groves; thence south 20° 24' 53" west along said southerly prolongation of Block "A" 179.89 feet more or less to the centerline of an unnamed creek; [hence along said centerline run the followjng courses; north 37` 45'43" west 120.30 feet; north 86` 56' 51" west 130,64 feet; south 72- 29'39" west 161.43 fee;; south 71- 09'57" west 101.04 feet; south 62` 48'55" west 126.45 feet; south 63` 05' 14" west 200.00 feet; thence leaving said centerline of the creek; run south 00' 18' 54" west 18.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 4.47 acres more or less AND Including the east half of the 30' vacated Right of Way known es Michigan Street. OAl oC51W247B0.15%G OC T.- 31'00(TCE) 14 46 SHUTTS S BOB TEL 4074258316 F. 012 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL i. Parmitted Rend Uses. All uses permitted by C-2 Zoning, except the tolicwing; Drive-in Restaurant Automotive Repair Miniature Golf Course Automotive Sales Pawn Shop Automotive Service Equipment Sales Commercial Convenience Funeral P r Commercial Convenience with gas sales movie Theater Gas station Deleted –�t-=wP'n`— Hotel/motel Nursing Home Hospital for permarket ear 2. Tho deve opment standards Described in Article IV, V &VI shall- apply hallapply to all uses. 3. Requested Waiver: Parking stall depth of to feet with a 2 foot overhang into a landscaped area. Parking stall width of 0 feet. code Req. Proposed Parking Stall Depth 20' 16' .justification: Increase open specs Front Building setback 100' 141' Justification: Prevents fragmenting a small property 4. vlater Service will be provided by Orange County. Estimated Potable Flow: 2,570 gpd Estimated Fire Flow: 1,660 gpm 5. Waste water disposal will he provided by the City of Ocoee. Estimated Flow 2,064 gpd 3. Estimated traffic volume generated from the site is 1546 ADT 7. The property will be developed in one .and B. The City is subjected to the terms, provisions restrictions of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 concerning moratoria on the issuance of building permits under certain circumstances. The City has no lawful authority to exempt any private entity, or itself, from the application of such state legislation and nothing herein should be considered an exemption. 0. Prior to the approval of the Final Site Plan for the project, or any portion thereof, the Appllcantlawnar will need to apply for and obtain Final Certificate of concurrency DBYslopment Code. Neither the sreview uant oof Article IX of the theOcoee applicationlproject by the City nor the granting of any approvals in connection with such review shall be construed to grant the ApplibantlOwner any entitlement to obtain a Final Certificate of Concurrency with respect to all or any portion of the project or to create any exception from the provisions of Article Ix of the Ocoee Land Development Code. am OCj,-31'OO(TUE) 14:46 SHUTTS & BOVES TEL:4074258316 P. 013 JOINDER AND CONSENT TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (WEST OAKS SQUARE) The undersigned hereby certifies that it is the holder of an indenture of mortgage, dated the _ day of _ and recorded in O.R. Book Page Public Records of Orange County, Florida, upon the properly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and the undersigned for and in consideration of valuable consideration herebyjoins in and consents to the execution of the foregoing First Amendment to Development Agreement (West Oaks Square) and agrees that the lien of its mortgage described herein above shall be subordinated*to the afore described First Amendment to Development Agreement (West Oaks Squaze). (Print name of Mortgage holder) Printed Name Title: WITNESSES: (1) (2) Print Name: Print Name: STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2000, by (Name of Officer) who is the (Title) of (Name) . Helshe is personally known to me or has produced as identification. Notary Public My Commission Expires: - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC ==A � = DEPA u%�oNc�s GOV'E0.'00. 420 W. Lndstreet Road Orlando, Florida 32824 a Su1-v 06, 1998 Mr. Denis R. Unroe, P.E. .. Unroe Engineering 4017 Orkney Avenue Orlando, FL 32809 SUBJECT: Lake Lotta Phase 2 Section No. 75050000, SR 50 rQ r ; Ciyi Dear Denis, A review has been completed on your recent submittal for a driveway determinatiot at the above reverenced site. unfortunately' we are unable to support this additional driveway from. the meet n°Cta ss Dtanege5'-ntaStandt ds ae a-- SR ferte in proposed driveway does not wee `-roc, this phase 2 n --cel sh=1= Rule Chapter 15-97. All access to a..^.d c=_partur prc`=ss o_ b= gained via th previusly pe orra.tted ano constructed Lzk Lo t:.a -- - - Center driveway. should you have any questions, please contact me at 407-858-5900, Ext 132. Cordially, Kara Permits Engineer KLA:a cc: Russ Wagner - City of Ocoee FDOT Fax 904-730-5349 Oct 31 '00 1757 F.02 Florida. Department of Transportation TnnmAS F. BARRY, JR. 11(:R. rANI JEB BUsli aOYEavOR 719 S. Woodland Blvd., ivi.S. 3-562 Deland, Florida 32720-6834 July 25, 2000 _ Mr. Edward Sent 9428 W. Colonial Drive 2000 Ocoee, Florida 34761 Re: Section 75050 - SR 50 Orange County Do& Mr. Sant: This letter is a follow-up of the issues addressed at our meeting of July 11, 2000. Mr. Sant: Will have bis engineer tie doom the right of way location and determine the arca to be donated. Agreed to construction and/or harmonizing easement for the area beyond the sidewalk. NJ, Glass. Will contact the City of Owee for their concurrence with the proposal and time frame of FY 01/02, Mr. Dervish. Will be eaarnu T g the weave condition of the merge lane and the conceptual dnveway(nght rum ane. The Department: Will contact the local maintaining agency about removing the "NO U TURN" re5tnction at the signal for t West Oaks Mall. Conceptually agreed to a fight W right out driveway at the east end of West Oaks Square's parking lot. Department stated if the City of Ocoee does not concur, we will support the City's position. Upon the receipt of the right of way and easement data we will determine the estimated cost and schedule this prof in our work program. Should you require further information or have airy questions, please contact his. Tasha Holter oFthis office. I Huster may be reached at (904) 943-5325. FDF:rjf/km cc Ms. Lennon Moore hL. 13, ace Motycka ®aecam cme� Mr. Dan McDermott www.tlo[sra[e.fl.us Ms. Pat Vole Sic S& Xccess �ur,noAed Cep Traffic count data was collected to identify the peaking characteristics throughout the day. Figure 2 illustrates that the east and westbound traffic is fairly well balanced throughout the day, with the peak morning hour measured from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM. The peak afternoon hour was identified between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The peak eight hours included the morning peak hour, plus the hours from noon to 7:00 PM. Based on this information, tuming movements were counted at each of the signalized intersections for the peak eight hours during March, 1998. Copies of the turning movement counts for each intersection are provided in a separately bound appendix. B. ACCESS MANAGEMENT - Access management is the control of vehicular ingress to, and egress from, the roadway. In the case of SR 50, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is the regulating agency, which must approve any changes in access to this roadway, including driveway connections, median openings, meeting separators and new intersections with other roadways. Access Standards Following the passage of the State Highway System Access Management Act of 1988, FDOT developed a set of rules and standards for access management. Two rules have been published, including: Rule Chapter 14-96, State Highway System Connection Permits Administrative Process, and Rule Chapter 14-97, State Highway System Access Management Classification System and Standards. Rule 14-97 identifies the minimum standards of access control for roadways on the State Highway System (including SR 50). Based on the characteristics of the roadway, FDOT assigns an access classification of I through 7, with Class 1 being the most restrictive and Class 7 being the least restrictive. FDOT has defined the portion of SR 50 within this study as a Class 3 roadway. Access standards are fiuther defined based on the speed limit of the roadway. Currently, the speed limit is 45 MPH through the Good Homes Road intersection. Fromjust west of Good Homes Road to just east of Bluford Avenue, the speed limit increases to 55 MPH. Through the Bluford Avenue intersection, and to the Turnpike interchange, the speed limit is 45 MPH. Based on the Class 3 designation and the speed limits, the standard for connections to the Z roadway and traffic signal spacing are: Minimum connection (driveway) spacing is 660 feet for sections with a speed limit greater than 45 MPH, and 440 feet for sections with a speed limit equal to, or less than, 45 MPH. This distance is measured from the closest edge of pavement of the first connection to the closest edge of pavement of the second connection). Minimum signal spacing is one half mile (2640 feet). This distance is measured from the centerline to centerline of the signalized intersections. For the sections of SR 50 with a restrictive (i.e., grass or raised) median, the following standards for access apply: Minimum directional (only left turns from SR 50 allowed) median opening is one-fourth mile (1320 feet). This distance is measured from centerline to centerline of the openings. Minimum full median opening is one half mile (2640 feet). This distance is measured from the centerline to centerline of the openings. It should be noted that if a property cannot meet these minimum standards (typically due to the amount of frontage) and it does not have reasonable access to SR 50, FDOT would issue a permit for a single connection. However, adjacent properties under the same ownership are not considered as separate properties for permitting connections. Finally, connections, median openings and signals, which were in place prior to the enactment of the rule, are not required to meet these standards. However, when SR 50 is widened to six lanes, it is anticipated that the locations of connections will be reevaluated and restrictive medians will be implemented throughout the corridor. It should be noted that as conditions warrant, it is possible for variance from these standards to be approved. This will be determined by the City and FDOT on a case-by-case basis. Existing Access Management Conditions The existing access to SR 50 was reviewed to identify both examples of good access control and substandard access control. CITY OF OCOEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE NOV 2 2 2000 L� Ocoee, Florida November 13, 2000 11:40 a.m. PROJECT NUMBER LS -98-005A(2000) WEST OAKS SQUARE AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS, INC. 8612 Summerville Place Orlando.. Florida 32819 (407)354-3355 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY: ELLIS SHAPIRO, City Manager MARTHA FORMELLA, Assistant City Attorney RUSS WAGNER, City Planner ROBBY LEWIS, Principal Planner JOANNA DYSON, Senior Planner ELLEN KING, Development Review Coordinator JIM SHIRR, City Engineer BRAD FRIEL, Transportation Planner MARTIN VELIE, Building/Zoning Official BOB SMITH, Public Works Director RON STROSNIDER, Fire Chief ROBERT MARK, Police Chief APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER: DEAN SANT, West Oaks Square, Inc. SCOTT GLASS, Shutts & Bowen DAN O'KEEF, Shafts & Bowen DENNIS UNROE, Unroe Engineering 3 i 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. SHAPIRO: This is West Oaks Square PUD, 3 Project Number LS-98-OO5A -- whatever 2000 means, amendment 9 to the land use plan. 5 Who's doing the staff report? y MR. WAGNER: The applicant is requesting an 7 amendment to an existing PUD, or actually it's a number c- 8 amendments to an existing PUD. 9 The first thing that the DRC needs to do, 10 according to the code, is to determine whether the proposed 11 changes are substantial or non -substantial, and this has to 12 do with the process that it goes through. It's our opinion 13 that this is a substantial change because it c-anoes t:^.= 19 conditions of approval which is one of the ite= listed 15 under the substantial amendments. 16 So the first thing that we have to take a vote on 17 is whether it's substantial or non -substantial. 18 MR. SHAPIRO: Does the developer have any 19 argument on that? 20 MR. GLASS: We don't disagree. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: Let's take the vote on that to 22 start with. Okay. Does anybody have a motion? 23 MR. WAGNER: Well, it's our determination that it 29 is a substantial -- 25 MR. SHAPIRO: You're recommending -- 4 1 MR. WAGNER: We're recommending -- 2 MR. SHAPIRO: -- the DRC to determine -- 3 MR. WAGNER: -- that it be considered -- 4 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. 5 MR. WAGNER: -- a substantial -- 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Yours alone doesn't mean anything 7 to us. g Okay. Is there a second? 9 CHIEF MARK: Second. 10 MR. SHAPIRO: It's moved and seconded. All in 11 favor say "aye." 12 (Seven DRC members respond affirmatively.) 13 MR. SHAPIRO: All opposed? 14 (No DRC members respond negatively.) 15 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Let's get on to the item 16 now. 17 MR. WAGNER: The applicant -- and Robby will give 18 you some of the background, but just to summarize what's 19 being requested, the applicant is requesting an additional 20 access driveway to the site. They're asking for a larger 21 sign than was originally approved. They're asking for a 22 restaurant use that was not one of the original permitted 23 uses. 24 And I believe a part of this is the sidewalk. 25 They want a -- basically deferment of the sidewalk that was 1required to be built from this site down to the 2 intersection with the mall. 3 Is that basically to delete it -- the requirement. 4 or to allow someone else to theoretically build it? 5 MR. LEWIS: They're requesting that t be allowed 6 to be built later on with DOT funding in constructing it. -7 MR. WAGNER: okay. so those are the four 8 changes, and Robby will discuss two of them and Brad will 9 discuss the other two. 10 MR. LEWIS: Okay. Just to remind everybody 11 what's happened with this site, about two years ago when it 12 came in originally, the land use designation on a portion '3 of it was professional services on the -- on the wesuern 14 portion of it. The eastern portion of it, I believe, wa 15 conservation. There was no dispute on the conversation 16 area because they can't use it anyway, so -- but they did I7 want to allow for some commercial uses, at least limited 18 commercial uses on the western portion of it. 19 So they requested a comprehensive plan amendment 20 to allow commercial uses on the western portion site. With 21 that consideration, it was the staff's opinion that because 22 of the uniqueness of the site, it would he advisable to do 23 it with a PUD, to limit the uses to something that the City 24 Commission could accept. 25 During that process it did go through the public 6 1 hearings, it changed as a comprehensive plan amendment, a 2 comprehensive plan to commercial there, and then they 3 changed design to PUD allowing a limited number of uses. 4 Specifically what it did is permit C-2 zoning uses 5 with some other uses removed from that potential list, 6 which would include higher intensity commercia' uses like 7 restaurants and pawn shops and equipment sales and theaters 8 and things like that, high density commercial uses. 9 MR. SHAPIRO: Did it list those things? 10 MR. LEWIS: It listed specifically the things 11 that are not permitted. 12 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. It's listed or the plan. 13 MR. LEWIS: Correct. During the public heari^.c 14 process there was concern from the Planning and Zoning, 15 Commission; the vote was a -- I believe five -one in favor 16 of approving the amendments, but two of those five who 17 voted in favor of it did it with reservation. So it could 18 have been a three -three vote but ended up five -one. 19 When the City Commission looked at the approval, 20 it was a four -one in favor of approving it. One of the 21 Commissioners expressed concern about the commercial uses. 22 At this point now they're requesting these 23 amendments. There are four basic amendments. The first is 24 the restaurant use. They're requesting that that use be 25 deleted from the list of not permitted uses so that now I 7 1Fmentioned. be permitted. 2cond one would be the driveway Russ 3ey want to have a driveway at the eastern end 4 of the site in addition to the one at the west end of the 5 site. 6 Then there's the expansion of the sign. Actually 7 the original sign was proposed to be 36 square feet. Now 8 they're asking for a 100 square foot sign. 9 And then the fourth item was the sidewalk he 10 mentioned. The plan called for the sidewalk because it was 11 part of the code requirements at the time and they haven't 12 built it yet so they're operating on a temporary 13 certificate of occupancy until at such time as the side•aal;< 14 is built or the City Commission decides they don't need to 15 build it in order to get the final CO. 16 Any questions so far? 17 MR. SHAPIRO: Whatever happened to the discussion 18 about having one -- moving the -- this -- the drivewav to a 19 different location? 20 MR.WAGNER: Well, can we -- 21 MR. SHAPIRO: He asked if there was any questions 22 so I'm asking one. 23 MR. WAGNER: Okay. 24 MR. LEWIS: Well -- 25 MR. FRIEL: We had talked about that. I'm sorry, 8 1[Robby. We talked about that in a previous meeting, the 2C meeting, and brought up that option as far as being 3e to construct -- basically eliminate the existing 4 driveway and rebuild it in a different location. And at 5 that time staff kind of indicated that they 'wanted some 6 additional time to think about it and talk about i',,. 7 And then when we got back their written comment, 8 they weren't pursuing that option. They remained to pursue 9 the two -driveway option. So we're still underneath that 10 premise. 11 MR. WAGNER: Why don't you, Robby, just talk 12 about your two items -- 13 MR. LEWIS: Okay. 19 MR. WAGNER: -- and then we'll bring up -- 15 MR. LEWIS: Two of these issues I just discussed 16 in my specialty area and two of them Russ -- Brad discussed 17 in his specialty area. 18 Hopefully most of you have read the staff 19 reports. What had happened at a TSRC meeting -- and there 20 were several comments from the Planning Department on the 21 issues -- four of them addressing specific issues, the 22 other two were to be taken care of, depending on what 23 happens with -- what happens with the first four. 29 The first one I did was addressed in the memo 25 that I did to TSRC was about the restaurant use, and the 9 1 staff put together its recommendation that the Planning 2 Department anyway was not recommending approval of this 3 change based on some of the summary I did a minute ago 9 about discussions that happened a couple years ago when 5 these uses were originally proposed for the site and the 6 concerns from the staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission 7 and City Commission opposing higher intensity uses and 8 also, I might add, the specific indications by the 9 applicant that they intended to keep it at relatively low 10 impact commercial uses. And so the Planning Department at 11 least was opposed to allowing restaurant uses on this site. 12 The second item that I -- 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Let me ask you a question. 14 MR. LEWIS: Yes. 15 MR. SHAPIRO: Would you think it would be 16 appropriate as we take these items, that we take them one 17 at a time and hear the other side of that discussion or ask 18 any questions that anybody has so that we take one at a 19 time on these. 20 MR. WAGNER: That would be fine. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: If that's the case, does the 22 applicant want to discuss the issue regarding the 23 restaurant use? 24 MR. GLASS: Yeah. Just briefly. First -- and 25 Robby, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you i0 1 indicated the property was originally zoned PS and 2 conservation. A portion of it was zoned commercial, was it 3 not? 4 MR. LEWIS: What I was referring to was the 5 comprehensive plan designation. 6 MR. GLASS: No. You said the zoning, Robby. ? And you said that the applicant requested a comp 8 plan amendment to change it to commercial which is not 9 exactly a wholly accurate and truthful statement. As 10 recall from our telephone conversation, wasn't it the C,ty 11 that insisted the applicant change the comp plan 12 designation? 13 MR. LEWIS: And that's quite noss_ble because 14 comp plan said "professional services" even though the 15 zoning might have been C-2. 16 MR. GLASS: Okay. I7 MR. LEWIS: The camp -- 18 MR. GLASS: I just -- Robby, I just want you to 19 present -- because these people don't have the background 20 on this and you're kind of slanting it, and I just want to 21 make sure we're all on the same page because if this ever 22 comes to litigation, I won't do it nicely. 23 MR. WAGNER: Well, then if that's the case, Let 24 me clarify a little further. The underlying land use was 25 professional services and there was, I believe, a sma-1 8 0 8 5 i 0 11 1Fitbarely rlying commercial -- this is from memory -- 2it the end of the site, even though our 3plan showed most of the site as being 9 conservation and predominantly professional services. 5 The attorney -- at the time that we recommended 6 this, the applicant said that all he wanted to do was to 7 have predominantly office uses and his largest user ,:as 9 going to be his son who was an optometrist who both gave 9 exams and sold glasses. 10 And the question was, is it predominantly a 11 retail use or an office use, and the answer was that it was 12 predominantly a retail use but could we accommodate him to 13 a]low his son to be in this ceuzer, but the rest of the 14 center would be predominantly office uses. 15 And it was at that point that we said, well, we 16 would be willing to look at -- the only way we knew how to 17 do that was through a PUD and limit the number of uses. 18 It's my recollection that our attorney suggested 19 that we could not do this PUD without changing the 20 underlying land use to commercial because it raised the 21 intensity of uses outside of the underlying land use of 22 professional services. 23 So it was at that point, to accommodate Mr. Sant, 24 and on the representations that he needed some slight 25 increase in intensity of use that we went ahead and 12 1 suggested the commercial land use change but with the 2 recognition that it was a companion to the PUD and the 3 limited number of uses. 4 MR. GLASS: Okay. 5 MR. SHAPIRO: Do you want to -- 6 MR. GLASS: Well, just for the record, my c__ent 7 disputes Mr. Wagner's recollection of the facts in -- 8 MR. SHAPIRO: Do you want to bring them up? 9 MR. GLASS: -- but let's -- no, let's move 10 forward. 11 MR. SHAPIRO: Scott, the only thing is, is this 12 is a vote of a group -- 13 MR. GLASS: I know. 14 MR. SHAPIRO: -- and if you're hearing 15 hearing one side of it, unless you -- you have any strategy 16 behind this, it would be appropriate for us to hear the 17 other side if there was another side to the issue. I mean, 18 that's up to you if it's a strategy. 19 MR. SANT: If you want me to, 1 will -- 20 MR. GLASS: Okay. (Inaudible) 21 MR. SANT: First of all, at least a third of the 22 property was commercial in the future land use because the 23 property is right on there to the City limits. And when I 24 went to the Planning -- actually, it was the lady -- who -- 25 planner; what was her name? 13 1 MR. WAGNER: Abra. 2 MR. SANT: Abra. She couldn't tell me exactly 3 where it ended but at least a third of the property was 4 commercial in future land use. 5 MR. SHAPIRO: Did we ever figure out what third? 6 MR. SANT: No. 7 MR. WAGNER: It's the eastern third. 8 MR. SANT: Oh, you mean where it ends? 9 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. Where it would -- where the 10 commercial was. 11 MR. SANT: Exactly. No. I asked Abra and she. 12 said she couldn't -- 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Just for the he!1 of it, just 14 wondered. 15 MR. SANT: And when I was working with Russ at 16 the time, I explained we wanted to do a mixture of retail 17 and office uses and that's exactly what we have done. And 18 I mentioned the smaller buildings, so it's not like we 19 could put a Wal-Mart there or anything. And I even -- at 20 the time I asked for a restaurant use and Russ had 21 expressed that he was against that. 22 And so we're not doing anything that we didn't 23 say that we would do. There is a mixture of retail and 24 office. And if you look at the conditions of approval, it 25 specifically says C-2 uses and then it excludes many 14 1 different uses. So -- 2 MR. GLASS: And the reason they're in asking for 3 restaurant at this time is that they have 4,000 square feet 4 in the center of the building, which is currently vacant. 5 They've been approached several times by restaurant 6 operators such as Quizno's and have had to turn them down 7 because of the specific prohibition against restaurant - 8 They've also been approached by a billiard parlor 9 operator, a title -- auto title loan company, although I'm. 10 not sure that's going to be a real lucrative business 11 anymore; and at least one person has approached them about 12 a type of medical use that they're particularly interested 13 in pursuing. 14 MR. SHAPIRO: Well, let me ask you a question. 15 What -- what was the concern, Russ, in regard to the -- 16 what was the -- what made you believe or the staff believe 17 or the Planning and Zoning Board or whoever believe that 18 the restaurant use was an inappropriate use? 19 MR. WAGNER: We -- it wasn't just the restaurant 20 use, it was the whole series of higher intensity commercial 21 uses that -- that tend to produce more traffic generation 22 primarily and -- 23 MR. SHAPIRO: Was it collective or individual? 24 MR. WAGNER: What's that? 25 MR. SHAPIRO: In other words, when you deleted 15 1 the list, you had a list of deletions, the question I've 2 got, was it any one of those uses or any combination of 3 those uses? 4 MR. WAGNER: Well, I -- 5 MR. SHAPIRO: In your mind. I mean, I'm just 6 trying to resurrect what occurred. 7 MR. WAGNER: It was any type of higher intensity 8 use that -- again, we were trying to find a balance between 9 retail and office and respect the underlying professional 10 services types of uses. So we basically extracted ail. of 11 what was considered to be the higher intensity commercial 12 uses within the C-2 zone that are generally thought to be 13 higher traffic generators or somewhat more highly 14 commercial oriented as opposed to professional services. 15 MR. SHAPIRO: And there's no dispute from -- from 16 the applicant that at that point in time they agreed upon 17 that? 18 MR. SANT: To -- I'm sorry? To -- I don't 19 understand the question. 20 MR. GLASS: To not allowing restaurant. 21 MR.SHAPIRO: To the waiver. 22 MR. SANT: Well, when -- I did object to it 23 and -- because I saw there would be a need for that sort of 24 use. 25 MR. WAGNER: Is that on the record in the public 16 1I hearings before the Planning and Zoning and City 2 Commission? 3 HR. SANT: I don't -- your recollection is a bit 4 different from -- I don't recall at either meeting where 5 they said they specifically didn't want restaurants. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Well, that's -- they had it there 7 in writing. The question is, did you agree to this? g MR. SANT: Yeah. Obviously we agreed to this. 9 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Just wanted to put it on the 10 record. 11 MR. GLASS: I think what Mr. Sant was trying to 12 say is, initially he did not agree to it but ultimately in 13 order to get the project through -- 14 MR. SHAPIRO: Through, he dia. 15 MR. GLASS: -- he agreed to what was there. 16 MR. WAGNER: Well, but, I mean, as with all 17 projects, Scott, it's a negotiated -- PUD is a negotiated 18 type of zoning and one wouldn't expect that we would get 19 everything each party wants. So there's always going to be 20 disputes as to what's in or out. But the ultimate project 21 that goes forward is what you see here today. 22 MR. GLASS: Correct. 23 MR. SANT: But just let me clarify. We feel we 24 gave up a lot. We spent a lot on landscaping, 150,000 on 25 landscaping. You know, we're a small company, we're just 17 1 trying to survive. And I'm not trying to put a factory 2 there or tattoo parlor. It's a very upscale, nice 3 building. I don't understand why, you know, the City's 4 fighting us to put a restaurant across from a regional 5 mall. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Scott, do you want to 7 continue on that issue at all? Is there anything you had 9 on that? 9 MR. GLASS: No. I -- I mean, this is obviously 10 what was approved and Russ is right, it's obviously a 11 negotiation process and, you know, this 'isn't the first 12 time someone has requested a revision to a land use plan 13 after the fact, so -- 14 MR. SHAPIRO: Anybody on staff want to Talk abou-� 15 this at all? 16 (No audible response) 17 MR. SHAPIRO: Any comments from anyone? lg Ms. FORMELLA: The only thing I would say is, 19 just for clarification, it sounds like there was not a 20 dispute at the time that it went forward at P & Z level. 21 Prior to that you had discussions about having a restaurant 22 use. But this went forward and, as I recall, there, you 23 know, wasn't a whole lot of controversy or anything at that 29 time. You all prepared this plan and it went forward in 25 this form. 18 1 MR. GLASS: Correct. 2 MS. FORMELLA: But you had pursued a restaurant 3 early on. q MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Does anybody -- any 5 other discussion on this? 6 MR. LEWIS: If anyone's interested in hearing a 7 little bit of what happened at P & Z or City Commission, I 8 do have the minutes here so we can review portions of it if 9 you're interested. 10 But just to summarize, there was -- like I said, 11 there was one of the P & Z members who specifically 12 indicated that she did not like it, too much traffic. And 13 two other members indicated when they -- I me=_n, _ know, 14 voted for it, they said they voted for it with 15 reservations, mainly for the traffic impact reasons. 16 MR. WAGNER: And I think at the time, as I 17 recall, we had advised Mr. Sant -- he wanted to get this 18 approved, again, primarily so his son could open up and he 19 at that time didn't really have any -- meaning, he -- I 20 remember him saying he would like a restaurant. 21 But basically our advice to him was that the 22 closer that he kept it to professional services zoning, 23 knowing that there was some political concern about this 29 site and the level of intensity and the traffic, which were 25 all things that came out of the public hearing, we advised 1[the im that it would be better to limit the uses and there was 2 higher possibility of success. As Robby said, even with 3 limitations on the uses there was some concern. 4 But -- so I think our advice was good at the time 5 because -- and, again, you never know until you go to the 6 vote, but it was our sense that the Commission was looking 7 for relatively low intensity (coughs) -- excuse me -- on 8 this site. 9 MR. SHAPIRO: Any questions or any other comments 10 on this issue? 11 (No audible response) 12 MR. SHAPIRO: Does anybody want to make a motion 13 on this? 14 MR. WAGNER: Well., I would recommend that we not 15 recommend amending the PUD for the restaurant use because 16 it was inconsistent with the original approval. 17 MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a second? 18 MR. SMITH: Second. 19 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Let's have -- since this may 20 or may not be a close vote, I want to have only one voting 21 person at each -- from each department and I want hand 22 movement. 23 MR. WAGNER: Mr. Friel is a voting member of the 24 DRC. 25 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Because you are in a 2v 1 different discipline. 2 MR. FRIEL: As the concurrency. 3 MR. SHAPIRO: Right. So, other than that, i'm. 4 sorry. 5 So let's make -- so the motion is to not 6 the restaurant. 7 All in favor of that, raise your hand - 8 (Seven hands raised) 9 MR. SHAPIRO: All opposed? 10 (No hands raised) 11 THE REPORTER: No opposed; is that correct? 12 MR. SHAPIRO: That's correct. 13 Go on to .he second one. 19 MR. LEWIS: well, just to keep things ccnsiscer. 15 with the order of the report, I would suggest that we To -2 16 on to the two things that Brad was working on. 17 MR. FRIEL: Yeah. I'm Items 2 and 3. is Item 2, in our report dated November 13th, 19 relates to the applicant's request to have an additional 20 driveway access out onto State Road 50. Essentially, from 21 what previous discussions and from the text of the comments 22 from the applicant, they're requesting this additional 23 driveway out onto State Road 50 because they find the 24 existing driveway on State Road 50 is unsafe. 25 After having multiple meetings on the issue, 21 1Fadditional ing staff is recommending denial for that 2ess for three reasons. The first reason is, 3t to the issue of it being unsafe, we've 4 asked that they provide, through an engineer, analysis and 5 data that shows that the intersection is unsafe -- the 6 driveway is unsafe. 7 We're basically operating under presumption that 8 FDOT permitted that driveway access when this project was 9 originally approved and with that DOT permit coT,es the 10 assumption that it's a safe access. If they can have an 11 engineer prove that it is unsafe, then that opens up the 12 opportunity for further discussion on the issue. 13 if '_t is documented as unsafe, then _he City 14 requests that they also explore options that w' -1l -- to 15 redesign that intersection [sic] so that it can be safe. 16 They've used examples in the past that the way the driveway 17 is marked with turn lanes coming from Citrus Oaks Boulevard 18 and other issues are confusing. 19 Well, it's staff's opinion that spending some 20 money to re -stripe an -- to re -stripe a driveway entrance 21 is a lot cheaper than going through the cost of building an 22 entirely new intersection -- an entirely new driveway 23 access. 24 And with the fact that just the addition of an 25 additional driveway, we fail to see how that makes the 22 1 existing driveway safer. If you don't do anything to fix 2 the existing driveway, how can adding another make the old 3 one safe? So that's the first issue. 4 The second item on why we're -- 5 MR. SHAPIRO: No. Let's stop there - 6 MR. FRIEL: Okay. 7 M,R. SHAPIRO: This is on this -- this issue only; 8 right? 9 MR. FRIEL: Well, no. These -- I've got three -- 10 MR. SHAPIRO: On the driveway? 11 MR. FRIEL: -- three points on the driveway. 12 That was the first one. 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Oh, I thought you just made three. 14 Go ahead. 15 MR. FRIEL: No. That was -- that's the safety 16 issue. 17 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. 18 MR. FRIEL: The second issue is it's inconsistent 19 with our State Road 50 access management plan. The access 20 management plan was prepared by a licensed engineer for the 21 City of Ocoee that conforms to all FDOT standards for 22 access management, for Administration Code Rule Chapters 23 [sic] 14-96 and 14-97. 24 Specifically, those rules, based on the state 25 classification of this being a Class 3 roadway, specifies 0 0 5 E 0 23 1Ffeetfrr1ovmewahceir accesses cannot be closer than 660 feet 2riveway access that they're requesting is 960 3 existing access. With that in mind, we're 4 recommending denial of the request. 5 The third item is that they've indicated that 6 they've had a discussion with DOT who does not oppose 7 considering this additional driveway access provided that 8 the City does not object. 9 I've spoken with DOT on the issue to try to get 10 some clarification from them on what their position is. 11 Whenever I talk to Tasha Kushler (ph) who was at a 12 meeting -- at the meeting in which they discussed it with 13 DOT, I asked her that -- if she knew that DOT staff ha-- 14 as19 previously denied the request and she said that she 15 didn't -- she wasn't aware of a previous denial on this 16 driveway connection request and that -- 17 MR. WAGNER: That we do have a letter. 18 MR. FRIEL: -- that we do have a letter and it is 19 included in this packet, that in the -- in 1998 DOT staff 20 denied this request because of the same access management 21 rules I just quoted earlier. 22 Staff feels that that was a meeting that was held 23 between the applicant and DOT and which City staff was not 29 present at. City staff wanted to be present at it. Due to 25 some notification issues and stuff like that, staff was not 24 1 able to meet -- was not able to be at that meeting. And, 2 in fact, staff became aware afterwards that apparently the 3 client didn't want staff at that meeting so that they could 4 discuss the issues by themselves. 5 So, with those issues in mind, staff feels that 6 with some further discussion with DOT, they may not 7 necessarily concur with that additional driveway access. 8 And for those three reasons we're recommending 9 denial of the access. We do suggest that -- that the 10 applicant supply engineering data for the existing driveway 11 and attempt to design the driveway so it's safer. And 12 that's our option. 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Does the applican- have a _ 14 comments on this? 15 MR. GLASS: Yeah. I'll have a couple comments 16 and then I"11 check with Dean to see if -- I'm going to 17 take them in reverse order, if you don't mind. 18 MR. SHAPIRO: That's probably because our 19 attention span's better that way. 20 MR. GLASS: Okay. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. 22 MR. GLASS: First, with respect to the DOT 23 meeting, I tried to get Brad to the meeting. I resent any 24 implication that we attempted to keep staff from attending 25 that meeting. 25 1 The particular meeting was scheduled in advance 2 of my conversations with Brad and we offered to have a 3 second meeting with FDOT. That never -- there was never 4 any followup on that. But certainly it was not my intent 5 nor, to my knowledge, my client's intent to keep the City 6 of Ocoee staff from that meeting. 7 With regard to the issue of FDOT disapproval in 8 198, we don't dispute that. I question the relevance of 9 it. We're not asking the City to somehow super -veto FDOT. 10 When I first met with Russ about this project 11 back in May, I was told that the access point was an FDOT 12 issue and not a City issue. We have been approaching it 13 since that point; however, the City's positio: ta. _named 14 dramatically since that initial meeting. 15 If the FDOT says that we cannot have the second 16 driveway even with City approval, then we cannot have the 17 second driveway. It's that simple. We, however, need to 18 get the City's position on it because we need to negotiate 19 this issue with FDOT. It's a state road and that's the way 20 it was presented to us and that's the way we are proceeding 21 with it. 22 We don't disagree that it's inconsistent with the 23 access management plan. We think the access management is 24 not the better plan and needs amendment or we wouldn't be 25 here. 26 1 With respect to the safety issues, we've elected 2[spending ot to get into a situation with dueling engineers and 3 a lot of money because we are fully convinced that 4 regardless of what information we provide, City staff or 5 consultant engineers will counter it and you'll spend 6 money, we'll spend r„oney. 7 Mr. Sant can speak anecdotally regarding the 8 safety issue, the way a second driveway would make it safer 9 because as it is now, if people miss the first driveway, 10 which they ofttimes do, they end up backing up. A second 11 driveway would eliminate the need for people to back up to 12 get into the center. 13 I know s -ac , Brad _n particular and Russ, 14 strongly disagree with that position. You know, that's 15 fine. I can -- can go ahead and hire five engineers and 16 pay them to give me the data I want. You guys can hire 17 six. I can hire a seventh, you can hire an eighth. We 18 elected not to go there. 19 Dean? 20 MR. SANT: Yeah. I'd like to clarify the safety 21 issue. Staff emphasized the design of the entrance. It's 22 not really the design of the entrance that we're concerned 23 with, it's the location. And if you were to go out there, 24 it's common sense. What happens is the cars, as they're 25 coming along, they see the center here and they pass the 27 1 center as a way to the -- i 2 MR. GLASS: West. 3 MR. SANT: -- to the west. And what happens is 4 I'm often -- here, the cars stop right here and 5 (unintelligible) back up to try to get to this entrance. 6 So it's just not the design that of the entrance. 7 I would also like to mention, we originally -- 8 going back two -- two years or whatever it was, we did 9 submit a plan. We wanted to put the entrance here and 10 staff vetoed that. 11 And the only reason I raise that is because i 12 don't want to like, you know, we're just trying to come l3 back with a whole bunch of issues. Ana '::e wanted to v3 14 this originally and rather than fight staff ,`or two years 15 and then get nowhere on it, we agreed to this entrance. 16 I'd also like to say there is only one entrance 17 to the -- to the center and that's a shared entrance. Tanis 18 is shared with the other building, so that is the only -- 19 there is a Citrus Oaks entrance; we can actually go through 20 this entrance. So that's something on the safety issue. 21 MR. GLASS: And the only other thing I'd say is, 22 if you assume that all FDOT approved access points are 23 safe, then I invite you to try to turn into that 24 professional center across from the hospital at rush hour, 25 or even not at rush hour, any day of the week. And I think 28 1Fstillhuanrgeup� miliar with that particular access point. 2SHAPIRO: Let me ask a question to you. I'm 3 a little bit on the movement of this -- this 4 entrance. If you're going for two entrances, it appears 5 that you're looking for a traffic circulation as well 6 internally, because if the -- if there -- if the problem is 7 backing up, then what you're assuming is that the second 8 entrance is what they'll see if they miss the first as 9 opposed to one in the middle or one further down away from 10 the shared access or further this way from the shared 11 access. 12 So the issue is that you feel like one entrance 13 isn't available. When a guy's uoinq b_:, he can't knoro- tc 14 turn right and he may realize it and then, if he sees 15 another one, be able to turn in; is teat what you're 16 saying? 17 MR. GLASS: Yeah. That's the primary concern. 18 Now, obviously, we would not at all be unhappy with having 19 better internal traffic circulation allowing a right 20 in/right out at the east end of the shopping center. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: Any other questions or comments? 22 MR. FRIEL: Yeah. I guess with respect to the 23 amendment, requesting that the City amend its access 24 management plan to allow this additional access is 25 requesting the city to amend a plan that would be against 29 1 state rule. 2 In other words, we can't go into state rules -- 3 those two rules, administrative codes, specify driveway 4 spacing for this classification of roadway. We cannot go 5 in -- and I've -- I mean, I don't think our engineer or any 6 of our consultants who would be involved in this 7 revision -- they would strongly recommend against doing , 8 that because we would be changing something that's against i 9 the law. 10 MR. WAGNER: Well, and I think we've ment_oned -- 11 MR. FRIEL: So -- 12 MR. WAGNER: -- that also we've been very 13 consistent of our application of that ordinance to 19 point that the new West Oaks Town Center only has one 15 access point, the West Oaks Mall only has one. We -- we've 16 approved some other projects down the road. The hospital 17 now only has one access point. 18 And we have it on record saying that we would 19 support if you want to delete one of the access points and 20 go with the easterly point, we would support that as being 21 reasonably consistent with the access management plan. But 22 to put two in, leave the existing one and add a second one, 23 is totally inconsistent and, as Brad said, doesn't meet the 24 requirements. 25 Another issue I have, I remember early on we had 30 1FfrnodmedClotnrus this access to change the arrows out on the 2on't know to this day that the arrows that 3 Oaks do not show it being a merge lane 4 into Highway 50. 5 In other words, the arrows point out to Highway 6 50, they do not point in as a right -turn entrance road. To 7 this day can you tell me whether those arrows have been 8 changed? 9 MR. SANT: They still point out. 10 MR. WAGNER: They still Point out. 11 So we have consistently recommended, as I recall 12 discussions with Brad, change your arrows on the road -- 13 very simple matter -- to show that i_'s a -- an 14 right -turn deter lane. It's no .ionder that it would be -- 15 MR. GLASS: Just for the record -- 16 MR. WAGNER: -- confusing if it shows it being a 17 merge lane out into Highway 50. And that might be most of 18 your problem right there. The people are not expecting to 19 turn there; they think they're going to merge into Highway 20 50. 21 MR. GLASS: Just for the record, the developer 22 didn't put those arrows in. They, I believe, are FDOT 23 arrows. FDOT indicated in our meeting, that we 24 surreptitiously kept you away from, that those were their 25 arrows and they would see about getting rid of the arrows 6 0 5 E 0 31 1FMR. ether. I don't know why they haven't done that. I 2k they're waiting to see what happens with the City. 3 FRIEL: I remember raising that issue a few 4 years ago when the original PUD came up and essentially it 5 was, "Well, it's too late to do anything about it now." y And this wasn't necessarily your client speaking, 7 Scott. It was just the general consensus was, "Well, it's 8 too late to do anything about it now because DOT's already 9 issued the driveway -- driveway permit." So it was going 10 back to the well after -- you know, afterwards and so the 11 issue was just dropped. 12 MR. SHAPIRO: Any questions from staff? 13 MR. SHIRA: We had a similar situation at the 14 Winn-Dixie on State Road 438 where there was striping the - 15 was across -- that was to guide traffic into the shopping 16 center, if I remember correctly. And the striping that was 17 there was between that entrance and the right -turn lane 18 southbound onto Clarke Road, and people were having some 19 difficulty trying to figure out exactly what to do. 20 And with a phone call and an onsite meeting, we 21 got DOT to agree to grind those stripes off and it was 22 done. So I don't know how much effort you put into it but 23 I think if they were not opposed to doing that, it usually 24 doesn't take much to get them to do that sort of thing. 25 MR. GLASS: And I think if the City would talk to 32 1 them about doing it, because they obviously haven't done it 2 on our request. 3 MR. SHIRA: Yeah. You have requested that they 4 take them out of there? 5 MR. GLASS: Yes. 6 MR. SHIRR: Okay. 7 MR. SHAPIRO: Well, that should be duly noted if 8 nothing else. 9 Any other comments from anybody sitting at the 10 table? 11 (No audible response) 12 MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a motion? 13 MR, FRIEL: Move for denial on this issue base3 19 on staff presentation. is MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a second? 16 MR. WAGNER: Second. 17 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. It's been moved an seconded 18 Again, we will do it by hand. 19 All those in favor of the denial motion, please 20 raise your hand. 21 (Seven hands raised) 22 MR. SHAPIRO: All opposed? 23 (No hands raised) 24 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. 25 MR. WAGNER: There is just -- there were no "no" 33 1 votes. 2 THE REPORTER: Thank you. 3 MR. WAGNER: She has to get a verbal. q MR. SHAPIRO: I will do it from now on. (To the 5 reporter) I'm sorry, Louan. 6 All right. Item Number 3. 7 MR. FRIEL: That's me again. This is the issue 8 of the sidewalk, another issue in which staff and the 9 applicant have had considerable amount discussion on. 10 Essentially, the historical note on this is this 11 sidewalk was originally shown on the site plan that was 12 approved several years ago and that the applicant had 13 agreed to build but at the time gnat they went 19 permitted by DOT, their permit was denied by DOT because 15 essentially at which it was shown at the time wasn't set 16 back far enough from the roadway. 17 And DOT's rules an this is that in a roadway, 18 this type class of roadway, the sidewalk would need to be 19 setback 30 feet from the travel lane of State Road 50. 20 Through all the year -and -a -half worth of 21 discussion I guess we've had on it, this essentially has 22 been able [sic] to try to find a way to move the sidewalk 23 to meet that 30 -foot requirement. There is -- it can be 29 done just from field visits and some discussions with DOT. 25 I've yet to actually see a design that shows how it would d 34 1 work. 2 But essentially it comes down to an issue of the 3 applicant requesting that we waive this requirement from 4 this PUD and from the site plan because their feeling is 5 if -- and I'm summarizing their feelings, I'm sure he'll 6 speak for himself -- but that -- that it's too expensive, 7 it would be unsafe and it wouldn't be used. 8 And based on those three issues, staff is 9 recommending that we not waive it and that we still require 10 the sidewalk as part of the plan. 11 And a real relevant issue is the applicant is 12 still operating underneath of a temporary CO. Staff" or the 13 City can't issue a final certificate of occupancy un__: --he 14 sidewalk's done because it was part of the original site 15 plan. 16 Therefore, they've got some issues with their 17 mortgage company and everything that's associated with a 18 temporary versus final CO. So they're -- that's why 19 they're requesting that the issue be waived. 20 We don't support the waiver because apparently 21 they've -- they've been able to get DOT to agree to build 22 the sidewalk. The timing of the sidewalk is what's of 23 concern to the City, I believe, at least the staff with 24 respect to when it will be built. I mean, I've heard 2S different dates but it seems it's about 2002/2003 when the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 sidewalk would be built. And, here again, it gets back into the issue of the final CO. I don't know how we can issue a final. CO today on something that won't be built till down the road. Related to that, we still -- MR. SHAPIRO: Does everybody -- excuse me. Does everybody or anybody around this staff room understand what the hell he's talking about in regard to DOT? Everybody aware of the situation on that well enough to where he's saying, "Oh, by the way, it may built in 2002/2003." Is anybody on staff not aware of what that's all about? M.R. WAGNER: Well, there's no -- as far as I know there's no documentation. MR. FRIEL: That's -- that's the hangup which is where -- MR. WAGNER: (Inaudible) that we would have presented that to the group. But, as far as we know, other than verbal representations, we've yet to see a letter from DOT that says, "We will fund this and we will do it." So we don't know the answer. MR. FRIEL: Yeah. So pursuant to some of those issues, I mean, we -- we'd be going out essentially on a limb agreeing to that without seeing any type of documentation. Second issue is to be waived because it's unsafe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 and using a -- quote, fostering criminal activity, we -- the staff finds humor and offense to that. MR. SHAPIRO: Why, are you the criminal that will be down there? MR. FRIEL: Yeah. MR. SHAPIRO: It shouldn't be offense. MR. FRIEL: Essentially -- MR. SHAPIRO: It would be -- it might be humorous but not offensive. MR. FRIEL: Well, I guess if DOT has agreed to build the sidewalk in 2002/2003, there again, why would they agree to buc'd a sidewalk that's unsafe. But the issue of -- and, :sere again, not having seen any engineering documents that show how it would be built to even determine whether it is or is [sic] unsafe is -- here again, is a presumption that we're not willing to make. The -- this is part of an activity center, the State Road 50 activity center, which the whole intent of the sidewalk element and the pedestrian element was to create an activity center in which people were able to move from lane use to lane use, be pedestrians, walk around. There's a lot of -- a lot of faith put in by the law enforcement community, eyes on the road, eyes on the sidewalk. The more people you have out there, you know, keeping an eye on things, the safer things get. 37 1 So the third item on why we're denying it is that 2 to request a waiver it's got to meet four factors that 3 it's -- be integrated as part of a master plan, be 4 compatible with surrounding developments, and poses no 5 impacts on City infrastructure and provides and offsetting 6 public benefit. 7 Well, it's not part of an integrated master plan 8 in the sense that by not allowing the sidewalk that it 9 provide -- there's some -- some other option on the south 10 side of State Road 50 that allows pedestrians to move, you 11 know, from their center down to that signal to be able to 12 cross State Road 50 at a signalized crossing and also to 13 gain access to a public transit fac'_lity. 14 The -- with respect to it being compatible with 1.5 surrounding developments, well, if you can't get from 16 surrounding developments as a pedestrian, that's not very 17 compatible. 18 By denying -- by approving the waiver would 19 provide additional impacts on City infrastructure because 20 as a pedestrian you can move from one lane use to the other 21 without getting in your car and having to drive which means 22 that it takes cars off the road which reduces the impact to 23 the City infrastructure. 24 And the waiver, if approved, would not provide 25 any offsetting public benefit. In fact, staff feels that 36 1 it would hurt the public. And for that and the reasons 2 discussed earlier, staff is recommending denial of the 3 waiver request. 4 With -- I mean, we've asked before, you know, 5 that -- that we get some sort of further documentation or 6 discussion on the DOT's position on building the sidewalk 7 but, at this point, staff feels that just requesting a 8 waiver is not the way to solve the issue. So, therefore, 9 we're recommending denial. 10 MR. SHAPIRO: Applicant's response? 11 MR. GLASS: Okay. There was a letter from 12 Florida Department of Transportation, I've got a copy of it 13 in front of me, to Mr. Shapiro wherein the DeoartTeat 0- 14 Transportation acknowledges they've been working with Por. 15 Sant to install the sidewalk in question. 16 They've estimated their construction cost at 17 75,000. They wanted to do a joint agreement with. the City 18 to expedite the project and then acknowledge that the 19 funding for it can be handled in their next fiscal year 20 budget which was consistent with what they told us at their 21 meeting which is the sidewalk would be built by the end of 22 June 2002 at the latest. 23 I'm not sure what additional information the City 24 seeks from FDOT. We'd be more than happy to meet them in 25 DeLand and hash all of this through. You know, the issue 39 1 of safety is an issue that has been raised by a number of 2 non -transportation planners who have looked at the site, 3 including myself as a parent and as a common-sense 4 approach, including a number of other people we've invited 5 out to look at the site, including various and sundry 6 persons who have all expressed the same point which is they 7 would not let their children walk on a sidewalk that has to 8 descend below the surface of the road. 9 Why is FDOT building an unsafe sidewalk? I don't 10 know. We don't question that. If they want to build it, 11 they can build it. It will be their right-of-way when the 12 Sects donate it; it's not our issue at that point. 13 Ho eVer, I don't believe the Sants wil_ be eccouraginc 14 anybody to walk on that sidewalk. 15 To get to public transportation, I think is -- 16 unless you're going to build the rest of the sidewalk down 17 to the transit stop on property you don't have, it doesn't 18 get to the bus stop; it leaves you considerably short of 19 the bus stop. 20 We question whether people are going to move 21 among uses on the north side of 50 and the south side of 50 22 even if they can get down to the signalized intersection. 23 I think it's human nature, most people are not going to 24 want to cross 50; they certainly aren't going to want to 25 cross 50 with a bunch of packages in their hand, going from 40 1 north to south or south to north. 2 There's no -- and I know the comments are that 3 staff observed several people crossing mid -block. I've 4 never seen anyone cross mid -block at any time I've been on 5 Mr. Sant's property. 6 MR. SANT: Could I jump in, too? 7 And even if there is a sidewalk, that will 8 continue because of the contours of this. They're walking 9 across here; this is a big ravine. So I don't think 10 anyone's going to walk -- it's a long distance -- walk all 11 the way along here -- 12 MR. GLASS: Down -- 13 MR. SANT: -- and then back over. So t._a�'s -- 14 that's going to continue. And, I mean, it would be nice at 15 some point if there was a crosswalk maybe or -- and I think 16 we -- I did raise that to Russ and they didn't like that 17 idea, because even if a sidewalk is put in, people coming 18 from Citrus Oaks or whatever go all the way down to the 19 light and then all the way back over. So people will 20 continue to cross over there. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: Is anybody aware of the letter that 22 he's talking about? I think we did discuss in a City -- 23 MR. WAGNER: Well, I'd like to bring up -- 24 MR. FRIEL: The DOT letter? 25 MR. SHAPIRO: Huh? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 MR. WAGNER: -- if you remember -- MR. GLASS: 0h -huh. MR. WAGNER: If you remember, Ellis, there was a subsequent letter that I believe Mr. Rosenthal prepared -- it may have been for your signature -- that said that the staff's position -- or at least your position -- I don't know exactly what it said, but to the point that we think it's fine that you're going to get FDOT to build this sidewalk but that we feel that the developer should front the cost and that your agreement with FDOT should provide for a payback, that we could not release the certificate of occupancy for the building unless the sidewalk was actually constructed. And there is a subsecuent lette- to than effect after we received the FDOT letter. Do you remember that letter? MR. GLASS: I do, and I'm not sure why you bring it up or why it's relevant. We're not asking the C_ty to front the money; we don't think the sidewalk should be built. MR. WAGNER: Well, but I think the issue, Scott, was -- MR. GLASS: What we're asking is to defer it. If FDOT wants to build the sidewalk, they can build the sidewalk; we'll certainly cooperate with them and give them the right-of-way. 6 0 5 0 42 1 We're not asking the City to put a nickel out of 2 its own pocket. We will do everything we can to get a 3 binding agreement with FDOT. They've given us no 9 indication that they would not do that. They've given Mr. 5 Shapiro an indication by way of this letter -- and the only 6 reason I brought up the letter was to allow everyone to 7 hear what it says -- that this is not just us talking to 8 FDOT; FDOT is planning on putting in their budget the 9 75,000 to do the sidewalk. We are just asking that we not 10 be required to do it until FDOT does it. 11 MR. WAGNER: Well, and I -- and I think it is 12 very germane because we have spent a lot of senior staff 13 time -- I think --ills and myself and Brad and - _..-..._ 19 Shira, and I don't know if Bob Smith was there, but t._ 15 City Attorney. We've spent a lot of time discussing this 16 issue, and I think the rest of the staff ought to know 17 that, outside of this meeting. This is not the first t_n.e 18 this has come up. 19 MR. GLASS: Well, if you thought they should know 20 it, you should have brought up the letters, both of them. 21 MR. WAGNER: Well, I am bringing It up because 22 you brought up the letter and -- 23 MR. GLASS: Right after Brad said there was no 29 letter. 25 MR. WAGNER: Well, I'm just entering it into ;3 1 the -- 2 MR. GLASS: So I'm entering it in, too. 3 MR. WAGNER: -- to the discussion at this point. 9 We can certainly add it into the packet, but I think it is 5 germane that we did give you an answer and we said, "Here's 6 how you can do it." 7 MR. GLASS: Yeah. But Brad represented that FDOT 8 had given no indication that they were going to -- 9 MR. FRIEL: We do not have a signed document -- 10 MR. GLASS: -- participate (inaudible). 11 MR. FRIEL: -- that indicates that -- 12 MR. WAGNER: We do not have a signed agreement -- 13 MR. FRIEL: -- there _,.as an agreement. 19 MR. WAGNER: -- from FDOT. 15 MR. GLASS: (Inaudible) 16 MR. FRIEL: The previous letter that you referred 17 to, Mr. Glass, involved City's participation and that the 18 City would be the one to front the money. The letter 19 returned back to you was saying that the City was 20 uncomfortable with that. 21 MR. GLASS: And I -- 22 MR. FRIEL: Since then we have not heard anything 23 as to related [sic) how the sidewalk could be constructed. 24 MR. GLASS: Fine. 25 MR. SANT: Well, just can I -- 44 1 MR. GLASS: No. Let them vote. They're just 2 wasting our time at this point. Let them vote. 3 MR. SHAPIRO: Any other questions from staff? 4 Is there a -- 5 MR. SANT: Can I just make one point? 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah, sure. 7 MR. SANT: I would like to say that I think it 8 really demonstrates that there's no willingness on the part 9 of staff -- not staff but Planning Department, particularly 10 Russ, to be reasonable and work with us, because this 11 should not be an issue. 12 The FDOT said they would do the sidewalk, not 13 where there's immediate need to have it there tomorrow. 14 And then -- and Russ came back and didn't want to work with 15 us on the timing. That was the issue. This should have 16 been resolved. They should have said, "Well, look, all 17 right, if it's a matter of time, then we'll work out the 16 details." 19 That's why we're pushing this position where we 20 got to go for a waiver because you wanted -- were 21 recalcitrant and didn't want to compromise with us on this. 22 We're trying to work this out. 23 MR. WAGNER: Well, do you know why I was not 24 willing to work with you? Because for every project that 25 we have, I don't need to have -- we're going to put a 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 C5 sidewalk in two years from now, we're going to put a driveway in three years from now, we're going to have somebody else pay for these, we're going to have -- MR. SANT: Russ, this is a unique situation. MR. WAGNER: No. This -- this is (inaudible) -- MR. SANT: There's a ravine here. MR. WAGNER: -- point of view here that you -- MR. SANT: It's a $75,000 sidewalk -- MR. WAGNER: -- don't understand. MR. SANT: -- we're talking about. MR. GLASS: Let them vote. Let them vote. MR. WAGNER: It doesn't have anything to do with that. It's your project -- MR. GLASS: 4ie're just wasting time. NIR. WAGNER: -- and the point of it is, we make everyone -- we treat everyone the same, and those requirements are that you put a sidewalk in. It's not my problem. If it costs 75 -- if it costs $75, it's your project and that's a cost of doing business. And I can't -- MR. SANT: No. I understand that. MR. WAGNER: You know, I really resent the fact that we somehow didn't treat you the same way that we treat everyone else, and that isn't true. MR. SANT: You're putting words in my -- I never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 said that I'm being treated differently. But you spea§ to any business person or anyone and they will say the Planning Department, it's hell getting a project through this City. Now, I'm a taxpayer. I'm not a criminal and I don't like to be treated like I'm a criminal. MR. GLASS: Let it go. Let it go. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Is there a motion? MR. FRIEL: I move for denial based on staff discussion. MR. VELIE: Second. MR. SHAPIRO: Seconded. The only issue i -- I'm. going to open rt mo=- on this one. I -- I believe there should be a sidewalk there, too, but I don't know that every remedy associated with this has been done. There was discussion about the possibility of you guys putting a bond up. There was a discussion about having an agreement that DOT was willing to sign. we were opposed to having to front-end the money, only because that would become something that would occur every time any developer came in. But I'm not sure that we have gone all the way on this one, because there's got to be some method between no sidewalk is necessary and -- and a document that can drawn 47 1 up that says a sidewalk will be done in such a way that we 2 could sort of live with it. 3 I'm going to let you know that in this case, no 4 matter how you all vote, I'm going to bring this issue up 5 at the City Commission level because I believe that we -- 6 that something should have occurred between the two that 7 would have guaranteed the sidewalk would be built by the 8 DOT folks sometime. I mean, I'm not -- 9 MR. GLASS: Stop me if I'm wrong, but I think 10 we'd be more than happy to meet with you and with Paul or 11 with Martha, but we're finished with the Planning 12 Department on this issue. 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Wel], T —i --ht have to haves 'r --T 14 there, but I still believe that -- I really believe this 15 issue could be resolved. 16 MR. GLASS: I agree with you 100 percent -- 17 MR. SHAPIRO: And I'm a little concerned -- 18 MR. GLASS: -- but it's not going to be resolved 19 with -- between us and Planning. r think -- I think Russ 20 and Brad and Robby will all agree that we're just not going 21 to get there if it's us trying to work it out. 22 MR. SHAPIRO: I'm going to make a -- I'm going to 23 make -- 24 MR. FRIEL: Agree to disagree. 25 MR. GLASS: we agree to disagree vehemently. 48 1 MR. SHAPIRO: I'm going to make a -- I'm going to 2 make a substitute motion. I don't normally get into this 3 but I'm going to do that. And I'm assuming that I'm going 4 to agree with these two that probably this is going to get 5 a vote just like the other two, maybe for different reasons 6 but each reason may be on its merit. 7 But I'd like to make a substitute motion that 8 while we're in the process of taking this to the Planning 9 and Zoning Board and/or the City Commission, that continued 10 discussion between the developer and the -- and the City 11 Manager, Planners and Attorney's office, be continued to 12 attempt to get some kind of an agreement that will satisfy 13 all parties, that this sidewalk ;s not eradicated bu`, �,- 14 fact, is substantially agreed upon in such a way that we 15 know that eventually the sidewalk will be built, because I 16 really honestly believe this is the only one here -- this 17 is my one that I just feel like should have happened. 18 MR. LEWIS: So I think that would suggest then a 19 modification to what they're requesting at this point. 20 MR. SHAPIRO: Well, what I'm -- 21 MR. WAGNER: Yeah. I don't know -- 22 MR. SHAPIRO: What I'm saying is, is that if -- 23 that if you -- I guess what I'm saying is, is that if you 24 want to deny what they're saying, which is that the -- that 25 the sidewalk be waived until such time as it be built by e9 1 DOT, there's some middle ground in there and I'm just 2 suggesting that that middle ground -- 3 MR. WAGNER: Well, I -- 4 MR. SHAPIRO: -- can be maybe placed -- 5 MR. WAGNER: -- would suggest -- and maybe -he 6 attorney has something to say about this, but what we have 7 on the table is just what was -- what is actually stated is 8 that it be removed entirely or that it -- 9 MR. GLASS: To be built by FDOT or to be built by 10 others or -- 11 MR. WAGNER: What is the actual request? 12 MR. LEWIS: Approximate location for sidewalk 13 extension be -- 14 MR. WAGNER: No. I'm talking about their actual 15 waiver. 16 MR. LEWIS: This is what it says. 17 MR. WAGNER: Okay. 18 MR. LEWIS: Approximate location for sidewak 19 extension to be completed by FDOT, suggesting to me at 20 least -- 21 MR. WAGNER: That's all it says. 22 MR. LEWIS: -- it's not a condition of their site 23 plan, but DOT's going to take care of it. 24 MR. WAGNER: So what we're -- in my view, Ellis, 25 that we're simply reacting to -- this is what -- from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 legal standpoint, this is what's on the paper for us to react to solely. Nothing else has been offered in the record other than what's on that piece of paper, and what the motion was, was to deny that particular request for a waiver because if we had that waiver on every plan, we would have FDOT building all the sidewalks along State Road 50. So we're saying on the pure facts of it we should deny -- MR. SHAPIRO: Well -- MR. WAGNER: -- what they have on that. And I understand where you're coming from, but I'm saying what -- what we're saying is, we have -o react from a very strict legal standpoint, "Here's what they submitted." Now, as far as discussion before P & Z, we can, I think, add parenthetically that we -- we are willing, and we've always been willing, to come up with something that would get the sidewalk built, and that's with the letter that I mentioned. But I don't believe that we can parenthetically adjust their request unless they do it here today. MR. SHAPIRO: Martha? MS. FORMELLA: If I may interject. What they have proposed and what they've put in the first amendment to the development agreement and on the plan is that they 51 1 would donate the right-of-way and take reasonab=_- seeps [o 2 facilitate the sidewalk happening, but it specif-cal ly says 3 that they would not have to construct it or adva--ce the 9 funds. That's what they've proposed. 5 My suggestion would be to take a vote :.. what's 6 been proposed, and certainly as City Manager you can give 7 any and all staff their marching orders in terms cf meeting 8 with the developer to the extent the developer is :illing 9 to continue discussions on this issue. 10 I might add that at the TSRC we had a s-milar 11 discussion to what we had today about this and e•rerybody 12 said it seems like there should be some way to cc--- -3 c-e13 together on this. And we have not received 19 which to review, nothing in the form of a bond c- :ester of 15 credit or even a conceptual proposal of how to accomplish 16 that. 17 So we're only reacting to, you know, e---� has 18 been submitted and I think to a large degree it'_ going .o 19 have to come from the developer in terms of, you know, what 20 they can live with. 21 And as I understood our last conversation, it was 22 going to be you all were going to look into the costs of 23 providing those sureties since the -- you know, that was 29 something from a business standpoint you can live with. 25 And so that's why we haven't, you know, evaluated that. 52 1 And then separate and apart from that is the 2 policy question of, you know, whether you would want to 3 delay the timing and then, if you did, what mechanism is 9 acceptable to ensure that it will get built if DOT does not 5 do it for some reason. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: All right. I'm going to withdraw 7 it but I'm going to make -- I'm going to say something 8 afterwards. 9 Okay. So there's -- it's been moved and 10 seconded. 11 Any discussion by anybody? 12 (No audible response) 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Also again by hand. 19 All in favor of the motion raise your hand. 15 (Seven hands raised) 16 MR. SHAPIRO: Opposed? 17 (No hands raised) 18 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. I'm going to request that 19 this thing continue on a little bit more. I just got to 20 believe between now and the time we meet with -- with at 21 least the City Commission we should be able to settle this 22 issue. 23 I mean, we're all grown -- grown-ups here and I'm 29 going to ask for some suggestions, particularly I think -- 25 I do believe this is the developer's responsibility to a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 degree and I'm going to be looking for some leadership fro,- you ro,you to -- as to what I should do to move this long. If it requires a meeting with Paul or Martha, whoever, and Brad and -- I want to have that meeting and I want you to give me some ideas as to where and how I can get this thing moved on. Maybe -- maybe even -- maybe we can talk about an amendment to the developer agreement that gives you two years or three years. I mean, maybe it's your -- your responsibility. You know, I don't have a clue at this point. I don't have enough of a knowledge. But I just feel really strongly that drawing lines in the sand on something that should be ab'e tc 0 - finished, whoever's -- there -- it's not a fault issue, it's an issue that the sidewalk is going to get built by somebody and -- and probably ought to be. And I just thin' we're sitting there and drawing lines. So -- Yes? MR. VELIE: And tie in the C of O issue, too. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I also would like to see these guys get their -- their CO. I mean, I'm sure there's some dollars sitting in a bank somewhere, because most bank loans require that CO be given to get the final draw. You know, so I mean that's probably also a good -- I mean, 1 understand that. But I would like to suggest a meeting as S 3 0 3 0 54 1 early as possible to discuss this item. 2 For the record, I just wanted to put it on the. 3 record. 4 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. We got one more? 5 MR. LEWIS: Yes. The last item that they've 6 requested an amendment to is related to the signage. With 7 the original PUD there was no specific language about the 8 signage except indication, at least during the review 9 process, at least from our perspective, that the signage 10 provided would be consistent/compatible with signage in the 11 adjacent building. 12 However, there was an illustration on the plan 13 which showed a six foot wide sian and the location of that 14 sign on the site. During the site plan, at went through 15 the process, the sign that was shown on the plan when it 16 was approved was a six feet square -- six feet by six feet, 17 36 square foot sign, which at least in the staff's 18 perspective was consistent/comparable/compatible with the 19 adjacent signage in the adjacent building. 20 If you -- the way that -- the reason that staff 21 in the Planning Department was pushing this option, that is 22 the 36 square foot sign, is again related to the limited 23 uses on the site and compatibility with the adjacent use, 24 intentions being the office and limited retail, so that the 25 signage should be compatible with the signage in the 0 s 0 5 0 55 1 adjacent site, which I believe is 24 square feet, permitted 2 by the PS zoning category. 3 Since the activity center standards permit 36 S square foot signs on individual lots, the Planning staff 5 felt 36 would be a reasonable compromise to allow on this 6 site. And so when the site plan went through, the sign was 7 a 36 square foot sign. 8 What's being proposed in this amendment is 9 specific language allowing a 100 square foot sign for 10 (unintelligible) of the site, overall signage for the site. 11 Again, this is -- it hasn't been mentioned ver much but 12 this is one -- since it was one of the items on a site plan 13 that since was supposed to be built, this was the second 14 item that the reason that Planning Department was not 15 willing to sign off on the final CO, that is a sign that 16 was shown on the site plan was not constructed according to 17 the plan. At this point it still has not yet been 18 constructed. 19 So there were two items, the reason that Planning 20 Department didn't not want to sign off on the CO. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Let me ask you a 22 question. Was it not constructed at all -- 23 MR. LEWIS: Not constructed at all. 24 MR. SHAPIRO: -- or was it not -- or is it 25 constructed at a different size? 56 1Fthere's R. LEWIS: It's not constructed at all. 2R. SHAPIRO: All right. So at this point 3signthere? 4 MR. LEWIS: Correct. 5 MR. SHAPIRO: All right. And what's the 6 compatibility to the building next door? What are you 7 talking about, the Centra Care area? 8 MR. LEWIS: Yes. A small retail building, 9 smaller than this one, but the same kind of uses, except 10 that that one has nothing but office type uses in it. 11 MR. SHAPIRO: With an underlying -- but with an 12 underlying use of PS. 13 MR. LEWIS: Correct. .S '_s on thee. 14 MR. WAGNER: And 24 square loot sign. 15 MR. SHAPIRO: And this is an underlying zoning 16 0£ -- 17 MR. LEWIS: It's underlying commercial land use 18 but with PUD zoning -- 19 MR. SHAPIRO: Right. 20 MR.LEWIS: -- restricting uses. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: So we're getting back to the issue 22 of what's your right to use. 23 All right. And what would have been -- if this 24 was a -- just for the hell of it, along the State Road 50, 25 what would have been the lawful size of a sign in this 57 1 location if it would have had a straight zoning? 2 MR. LEWIS: As a -- if it were identified as a 3 shopping center, which I think most people would consider 4 it a shopping center -- 5 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. 6 MR. LEWIS: -- they would be allowed to have a 7 hundred square foot sign. g MR. SHAPIRO: Is that where we got to the hundred 9 square foot number? I'm just -- I'm trying to get there is 10 where -- 11 MR. SANT: Exactly. 12 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Any questions from. staff? 13 (No audible response` 14 MR. SHAPIRO: Any comments you 'want to make, any 15 retort to that? 16 MR. GLASS: No. I don't -- I mean, it's -- if 17 walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. 18 MR. SHAPIRO: It's a duck. 19 Is there a motion? 20 MR. WAGNER: I move that we deny the request for 21 sign increase. 22 MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a second? 23 MR. SMITH: Second. 24 MR. SHAPIRO: It's been moved and seconded. 25 Let's raise our hand. 5© 1 All in favor of -- for those who want to deny, 2 raise your hand. 3 (Six hands raised) 4 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. 5 MS. KING: Excuse me. Excuse me. Marty, did you 6 vote? MR. VELIE: I didn't vote for it. R MR. SHAPIRO: For denial? g MR. VELIE: No, not -- 10 MR. SHAPIRO: I mean, for accepting -- 11 MS. KING: He did not raise his hand. 12 MR. SHAPIRO: You did not raise your hand? 13 MR. VELIE: Right. 14 MR. SHAPIRO: All right. so you vote -- so that 15 all those in favor of the difference in the sign, are you 16 voting "yes' to that? 17 MS. FORMELLA: Are you voting for -- is MR. VELIE: I'm voting against it. lg MR. SHAPIRO: Are you just sitting here -- are in 20 a coma or -- 21 Ms. FORMELLA: Okay. So it was a single -- is 22 that right? A single nay against the motion. 23 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. It's against the motion. 24 That's very good. 25 MR. WAGNER: Ellis, for the record, the prior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 motion was unanimous, Item 3 was unanimous. This one was how many to what? THE REPORTER: Six to one. MR. WAGNER: Six to one. Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: I'd really like to get that other resolved. I still believe that can be resolved with just something. I mean, you may not want to take the trouble; that's up to you. MR. GLASS: Call me. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. MR. GLASS: Not -- well -- MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. MR. GLASS: -- you call me and we'll MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Okay. Okay. Is there any other issues in front of the DEC? (No audible response) MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Then we're adjourned. MR. LEWIS: We might want to clarify our procedures in here. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Hold on. The procedures. MR. LEWIS: The next step, as I understand it, is it goes to P & Z November 29th; that's what our schedule is. MR. GLASS: Will we get a notice of that? 60 1 MS. KING: Yes. 2 MR. LEWIS: So we're -- the staff will represent 3 the action of the DRC when it goes to Planning and Zoning 9 Commission. Advertise the public hearing, also the City 5 Commission. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: When is the City Commission public 7 hearing? When would that probably be? 8 MR. LEWIS: It's an ordinance so there would have 9 to be two readings of that ordinance. 10 MR. SHAPIRO: So it's sometime in or around 11 Christmas or New Year's. 12 MS. KING: Right now what we're looking at is a 13 first reading on December 5th and a second reading o_ 19 December 19th. 15 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So it would be right before 16 Christmas. I7 MR. WAGNER: Let me ask you this: If -- would we 18 necessarily prepare an ordinance change for this for the 19 public hearing for the City Commission knowing that there 20 also would have to be a change to the activity center -- 21 or, excuse me, the access management plan to accommodate 22 this or would you wait until after you -- 23 MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I don't know. 24 MR. WAGNER: -- see what the vote is -- 25 MR. SHAPIRO: Ms. Formella? 61 1 MR. WAGNER: -- then prepare the ordinance, 2 because any changes to a PUD have to be done by ordinance. 3 But if -- would you prepare that -- in other words, if 9 you're going to get a -- well, who knows what the P & Z 5 will do, but would you prepare an ordinance not knowing 6 what the City Commission's going to do as far as an action. 7 or would you prepare the ordinance after the action? 8 MS. FORMELLA: Well, we can sort all this out 9 before we do the advertisement on it. 10 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. I'm going to tell you that I 11 would think -- the only issue I've got is, is that that's 12 somewhat prejudicial to the party to sit there and say, 13 "Well, if you do this, here's the change you have to 7a�:a 19 to your access management ordinance." But -- 15 MR. LEWIS: But wouldn't the P & Z also have to 16 take action on that ordinance also? 17 MR. SHAPIRO: So the only issue is, I don't -- I 18 don't believe -- if it's subject to this record, I think it 19 would be prejudicial to this record. I think this record 20 is read by everybody and I think it's an issue as to form 21 that will be done off of this record. 22 So I'm going to shut this down as adjourned and 23 if we want to discuss it, it can be discussed either at 29 Rosenthal day or through a telephone conversation. 25 [The meeting was concluded at 12:99 p.m.] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF ORANGE: I, Louan Roe, Court Reporter, certify that I reported the foregoing proceedings at the time and place aforesaid, and that pages numbered 3 through 62, inclusive, constitute a true, complete and accurate transcript of said proceedings. I further certify that I have no personal, professional or financial interest in the outcome of this action. DATED this 21st day of November 2000. FOLEY & LARDNER CNICAGO POST ORECE BOX 2193 SACRAMENTO DENVER ORLANDO. FLORIDA 3Z802 2 1 93 SAN DIEGO JACKSONVILLE 1 11 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, SURE 1000 SAN FRANCISCO LOS ANGELES ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801-2385 TALLAHASSEE MADISON TELEPHONE: U407'4237656 TAMPA MILWAUKEE FACSIMILE'. I407I 648 1743 WASHINGTON, O.O ORLANDO WEST PALM BEACH WRRER'5 DIRECT LINE 407-244-3248 EMAIL ADDRESS CUENTMATTER NUMBER prosenthal®foleylaw.com 20377-461 August 2, 2000 Scott A. Glass, Esq. Schutz & Bowen LLP 20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801 Re: West Oaks Square Dear Scott: This is in response to your letter of July 14, 2000 to Brad Friel regarding the West Oaks Square. I recently met with the City staff to discuss the matters raised in your letter. The City has requested that I respond to your letter. First, with respect to the sidewalk, the City is pleased that West Oaks Square has reached an agreement with FDOT to construct the sidewalk. In order to avoid any miscommunication and assure compliance with prior City approvals, it is important that any sidewalk design be coordinated with and approved by the City. Following such approval, the only remaining issue would be the timing of the FDOT construction of the sidewalk. The proposed construction between July 2001 and June 2002 is unacceptable to the City. Our suggestion for accelerating the schedule would be that the developer of West Oaks Square advance the funds necessary for FDOT to construct the sidewalk and be reimbursed by FDOT when funding is available. If the FDOT is unable to enter into such an agreement with a private party, then the City would be willing to enter into an advance funding agreement with FDOT utilizing funds provided by the developer. The City would then reimburse the developer to the extent it is reimbursed by FDOT. It would seem that an advance funding approach would successfully address all of the issues. Second, your letter indicated that FDOT had no objection to a right in/right out driveway at the eastern most point of the shopping center. My discussions with the City staff indicate that such an access point would be inconsistent with the State Road 50 Access Management Plan adopted by the City. For this reason, the City staff would oppose the issuance of such a permit by FDOT and would also oppose any amendment to the existing 006.189718.1 ESTABLISHED 1942 FOLEY S. L4RDNER Scott A. Glass, Esq. August 2, 2000 Page 2 approvals which would allow for the second access. Should the developer obtain such a permit from FDOT, it would still be necessary to seek and obtain City approval prior to proceeding with any such construction activities. Finally, did you ever determine if your client paid the City the agreed upon escrow monies? I trust that this letter addresses the various matters raised in your letter. After you review this with your client, please call me to discuss the next step. Perhaps another meeting with FDOT would be appropriate. Sincerejn, /Uj Paul E. Rosenthal City Attorney City of Ocoee cc: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager Russell B. Wagner, Planning Director Brad Friel, Transportation Planner Fred Ferrell, FDOT 006.189718.1 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 The public hearing was closed. Board members asked for clarification on the cross access issue and the enclosed drainage on SR 50, Mr. Irvin responded that Health Central had no plans at this time for the development of the rest of their land, but when it is developed the hospital will put in the drainage and the sidewalks. Steve Dieter, of Ivey Hams and Walls, engineer for the hospital, responded to the concerns raised about the trees in the pond area. He assured the board members that they will remove only those trees which need to be removed and any trees that must be removed will be replaced. Member Matthys seconded by Member West moved that Planning and Zoning _Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan for Health -Central Hospital ParkingLot Expansion and State Road 50 Access Project No LS-00- 407 subject to the vacation of Right-of-Way for Division Avenue and a note being added to the Plan as follows- "Enclosed draina e and a sidewalk will be provided alone the SR 50 frontage to maintain an urban roadway cross-section east of the new entrance as part of the design of the abutting development site" Motion carred 5-0. Recess: 8:35 p.m. - 8:47 p.m NN EST OAKS SQUARE PUD LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT - PROJECT No. LS-98-000SA PUBLIC HEARING Planning Director Wagner presented the staff report for the proposed amendment to the PUD for the property located on the south side of SR 50 across from the West Oaks Mall andjust east of Citrus Oaks Avenue. Mr. Wagner stated the building existing on the site is 20,000 sq. ft. used primarily for retail and offices and is substantially complete. He said a portion of the sidewalk and the main identification/directory sign have never been built so no permanent Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Mr. Wagner said because of the underlying land use of the adjoining land there were significant limitations on the intensity of the use allowed on the site in question. It was intended for offices and other low intensity uses. While it was originally zoned P -S, due to a request by the developer it was changed to commercial with very limited uses. Mr. Wagner said the proposed amendment includes four elements: L Amending the list of C-2 uses not permitted to delete restaurants, thereby allowing restaurants as a permitted use within this PUD; Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 2. Providing a second driveway entrance on SR 50 at the east end of the parking lot with appropriate tum lane improvements eliminating a few parking spaces in the process; 3. Changing the requirement to construct a sidewalk along SR 50 on the eastern portion of the site, eliminating the Developer's responsibility to construct the sidewalk; 4. Changing the limitation on the size of the main identification/directory sign from 36 square feet to 100 square feet in size. Mr. Wagner said the proposed amendment to the PUD Land Use Plan for West Oaks Square was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on November 13, 2000. After lengthy discussion of all the issues, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the first three elements , and 6-1 to recommend denial of the fourth element in the proposed amendment. Mr. Wagner stated none of the proposed amendments were warranted as they were either inconsistent with the Land Development Code, inconsistent with the intents of the SR 50 Activity Center Plan, or inconsistent with the original PUD. Any amendment to the original PUD should be for compelling reasons. I -[e said Staff recommends denial of all four elements of the proposed amendment Mr. Wagner said through the negotiation process the City has been successful in getting quality projects in the SR 50 Activity Center because the developers know the City will consistently apply the same standards to other developers and new projects. 'I he public hearing was opened. Principal Planner Lewis presented the original building plan showing the line on the plan where the zoning changes from P -S to Commercial. Mr. Lewis explained the vote on the initial PUD was not unanimous as there were concems about the intensity of the PUD. Use was restricted and restaurants were prohibited. Staff has indicated at this time that no compelling change is seen that would merit a change to intense uses on the site. Mr. Dean Sant, the applicant, said tic too wanted to keep the project attractive and upscale. Mr. Sant said there is a 4,000 sq. ft. vacancy and, although a land title company and a billiards company have inquired about the space, he wanted a small sit-down restaurant. Mr. Sant expressed his view that parking met code requirements. He also said a salon or dental office would generate almost as much traffic and parking. Therefore he saw no reason to oppose his request. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Member Matthys asked why Mr. Sant did not accept the billiard or land title company. Mr. Sant responded that he wanted to attract a more upscale clientele. Chairman Bond recalled that it had been the intent over the years that development for that corridor would not be a heavy traffic commercial area because of the residential area and church that are close by. Mr. Sant pointed out that a large ravine separates the business area from the residential area and said the addition of a restaurant would not change the look of the building, just the type of occupancy. Mr. Friel addressed the applicant's request for an additional driveway. He said the reason the applicant cites in his request is that the existing driveway is unsafe. Mr. Friel stated staff does not support the request for three reasons. The first is the request is not consistent with the City's Access Management Plan. He said the current access driveway was intentionally set at that location to be a joint access for the tiro properties and the only access for the property requesting amendment. The plan was developed with FDOT in adherence with their policies. The second is the request brought by the applicant is not consistent with FDOT's standard for access management for the type of roadway on which it is being requested. The third reason is that the reason given by the applicant is that the existing driveway is unsafe. Mr. Friel advised that numerous verbal and written requests have been made of the applicant to supply the City with data analysis confirming, that the access is unsafe. Mr. Friel said if it is unsafe Staff is more than willing to discuss alternative plans for the existing access to be made safer. He said Staff does not see how an additional driveway would make the existing- driveway safer without making improvements to the existing driveway. He said that based on this discussion and the DRC, Staff recommends denial of this additional driveway access. Member McKey asked if there was an official position from FOOT on this issue. Mr. Friel said the applicant had met with FDOT on the additional driveway and the sidewalk issues. He said FDO'I indicated they would defer to the City and its Access Management Plan for the road. Mr. Sant said their safety concern was not with the design of the existing entrance but that there is not another entrance on the other end. Mr. Sant said a safety problem arises when drivers of vehicles traveling from west to east are uncertain where to tum, pass the entrance, and then back up to enter the shopping center. In further discussion Mr. Friel pointed out that FDOT had denied the second access when the applicant had requested it in 1995. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Mr. Wagner explained that originally the access driveway had been a public right of way, the public street actually split the property and when the City vacated the property the ownership went equally to both sides. Mr. Wagner stated that was one of the reasons why that location was originally chosen for the access point prior to the roadway being vacated. Mr. Wagner showed pictures of the area in question and stated part of the confusion is the striping shows a merge with an arrow pointing outward. Mr. Wagner said they had suggested to the applicant early on that he should get with FDOT and either delete the striping or change it to a "right -in" this should eliminate the confusion. Since Mr. Sant is willing to pay for a roadway and a new access road, Staff recommends he do minor changes first e.g. like re -striping or moving the current access point a few hundred feet to the east and deleting the old one. Mr. Sant has not presented any proposals along those lines and the Access Management Plan or state criteria do not allow for two access points as close together as the applicant is asking for. Staff is more than wilting to work with the applicant, but as they have seen no proposals, they have no alternative except to recommend denial for the additional driveway. Member Matthys asked if there was any signage to indicate where the tum is. He asked if the entrance were moved further to the east if the City would be opposed to allowing a sign indicating the shopping center could be accessed through Citrus Oaks. Mr. Wagner indicated he would not have a problem with that and Mr. Sant said it sounded very reasonable to him. Mr. Friel addressed the sidewalk issue reminding the board members that the original PUD required a sidewalk along SR 50. Mr. Friel said there is a 500 foot gap without sidewalk which is one of the main things which needs to be completed in order to obtain a final Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant had agreed to this in the original site plan, but is now asking that his responsibility to build the sidewalk be waived. DRC voted unanimously to deny the request. Staff has three reasons why the requirement should not be waived. First, the sidewalk is required as part of the SR 50 Activity Center Plan. Mr. Friel showed a series of pictures depicting pedestrian traffic in the area and stressed the urgent need for the sidewalk for public safety. Second, the sidewalk was shown on the original Plan. Third, the applicant had tried to pursue an agreement with FDOT for FDOT to build the sidewalk. The problem that staff has with that proposal is the timing and the fact that there is no written agreement as to when or if it will happen. There were some letters exchanged between FDOT and the City Manager but the issue has not yet been resolved. Staff believes the applicant should continue to pursue this option not just ask to have the requirement waived. For these reasons we recommend the request for a waiver be denied. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Mr. Sant said he did not in fact submit a request to waive the sidewalk. Ile said the sidewalk as shown on the original plan would have to curve towards the road. FDOT rejected that plan due to a required 30 foot clearance. Mr. Sant also stated there is large drop off of approximately 30 feet which created quite a problem. The applicant stated that at a meeting with FDOT it was suggested if the applicant donated some land right-of- way to FDOT they would build the sidewalk at an approximate cost of $75,000 in their Fiscal year of 2002. Member McKey asked if the 5 75, 000 cost was realistic and if the drop off is as drastic as the applicant indicates. Mr. Wagner said anything is buildable, but it is a matter of cost. He said he didn't feel it was that significant. He also said that some of the sidewalks at the West Oaks Town Center were closer than 30 feet to the right-of-way, so FDOT must allow some variance and the applicant should pursue that. Mr. Wagner said it is the developer's responsibility to permit it with FDOT and whatever can be worked out with them is fine with Staff. He said the packet included a letter from City Attorney Paul Rosenthal to the applicant explaining it is the applicant's responsibility to build the sidewalk. If they can get reimbursed from FDOT at a later date that is fine. However, the sidewalk needs to be completed and the applicant needs to do it immediately. Chairman Bond stated many people had put in many hours on codes and PUD regulations and they need to be enforced. She said the City of Ococc does not want the look of SR 436 in Altamonte Springs. Mr. Sant said this is not a normal sidewalk and that they had tried to fulfill the obligation- He said that FDOT had rejected the original plan and that an alternative solution was attempted. He thought one had been reached, with FDOT building the sidewalk in 2002, but Planning will not wait that long. Chairman Bond stated other businesses had to abide by the standards and this applicant would have to also. Mr. Lewis addressed the issue of signage stating the original plan provided for a 36 square foot sign. He said as of yet no sign has been built which is another reason a permanent Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued. Mr. Lewis advised the board that the applicant is now requesting a 100 sq. ft. sign. Member Golden asked if Staff had anticipated multiple tenants for the sign. Mr. Wagner said none of the signs are intended to list all of the tenants e.g. the mall lists only anchor stores. Chairman Bond said the board had not deviated for the Woman's Fitness Center and they had to compete with the Twistee Treat cone. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Mr. Sant said he was requesting only what is allowed by code for commercial PUD, fie further cited the fact that St. Paul's Presbyterian Church had been granted a variance. Mr. Wagner said the actual message board for St. Paul's is only 36 sq. ft.. The variance had been for height but the sign is only 12 feet above the road because the base of the sign is in a ravine. Mr. Wagner said the 36 sq. ft. sign was part of the approved plan. The public hearing was closed. Members asked Mr. Wagner what the usual time frame for a temporary C.O. was and he responded that 30 days is typical. Member McKey stated he had not heard anything substantial that would merit a change to the PUD. Member Golden had no comment at this time. Member Matthys stated he agrees that the sidewalk needs to be built immediately and he has no objection to the moving of the entrance. He stated he is uncertain about the sign since variances have been issued in adjacent areas. Member West stated there is no apparent hardship, the property is attractive and valuable. Member West also stated that the code Ocoee has in place is the envy of all the surrounding communities. He said he saw nothing that indicates a variance is needed and told the applicant that the value of his property would be increased by following City codes. hairman Bond seconded by Member1�cKev moved to recommend denial of all 4 elements of the or000sed amendment to the West aks Square P D Land Use Plan Case # LS-98-0005A,Motion was approved 4-1 with Member Matthys votive no. He stated for the record that he thought it might be possible to reach an agreement on the access issue and the signage. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS None. OrlandoS .tW l oR, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2000 J7 CITY OF OCOEE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Section 166.041 Florida Statutes, that the OCOEE CITY COMMISSION will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on Tuesday, January 2,-2001 at their regular session, at 7:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter as practical, in the Commission Chambers, Ocoee City. Hall, 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, Florida, in order to consider on the second of 2 readings the adoption of the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 2001-01 AN ORDINANCE OFTHE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTTOTHE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE WEST OAKS SQUARE PUD, ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF S.R. 50 APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF S.R. 50 AND CLARKE ROAD AS PETITIONED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER; AMENDING THE WEST OAKS SQUARE PUD LAND USE PLAN TO INCLUDE RESTAURANT AS A PERMITTED USE, ADD A SECOND ACCESS POINT, AND MODIFY THE SIDEWALK AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The ordinance and complete project file, including a legal description of the subject property, may be inspected at the Ocoee Planning Department, 150 North Lakeshore Drive, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. The Ocoee City Commission may continue the public hearing to other dates and times as they deem necessary. Any interested party shall be advised that the dates, times, and places of any continuation of this or continued public hearings shall be announced during the hearing and that no further notices regarding this matter will be published. Interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the application. Any person who desires to appeal any decision made during the public hearing will need a record of the proceeding and for this purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of the proceedings should contact the City Clerk's office 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (407) 905-3105. JEAN GRAFTON, CITY CLERK, CITY OF OCOEE Thursday, December 21, 2000