Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVI (A) Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2002-10, Amendment to LDC Agenda 4-16-2002 Item VI A "CENTER OF GOODLIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER \ Ocoee A, S.sOOIT VANDERGRJFI ° CITY OF OCOEE �y Q COMMISSIONERS �- ��� .• _ DANNY 110WELL 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SC(7r1 ANDERSON OCORE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON '•9j�� • � ����.Z� (407)905-31(10 NANCY J.PARKER CITY M"AGFR JIM GLEASON STAFF REPORT DATE: March 26, 2002 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Shelly Simon, Code Enforcement Supervisor SUBJECT: ORDNANCE NO. 2002-10 - Amendment to LDC-Setback Requirements for Accessory Structures ISSUE: Should the Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners adopt an amendment to the City of Ocoee Land Development Code, Article V, 5-6 (B), revising the setback requirements for accessory structures in residentially zoned areas. BACKGROUND: The setback requirement for accessory structures in a residential area is seven and one half(7 '/2 ) feet for rear and side lot lines. There have been request from citizens including in the form of variance procedures, and complaints during the permuting process to encroach this setback. The staff was asked to look at the need for seven and one half(7 Yz ) feet, and review reducing this requirement. DISCUSSION: Research by staff included contacting other jurisdictions and reviewing other code books to learn what was considered an"industry standard". Some references used a three(3) foot setback. However the most commonly used setback requirement for accessory structures with the jurisdictions we contacted was five (5) feet. The proposed amendment would reduce the current setback of seven and one half(7 Yz)to five (5) feet for the rear and side setback of the structure to the lot line. For structures not exceeding 120 sq. fi. in size, the setback is further reduced to three (3) feet. The five and three foot setback requirements are inclusive of any overhang of the building. ‘ 2� oW "CENT ER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER Ocoee S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFI o CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS • DANNY I[DWELL O- 150 N. LAKI:SHORL'DRIVE SCO'I'1'ANDIiRSON Ocorr, FI()RIBA 34-61-2258 " f, RUSTY JOIINSON ,� (407)905-3100 • NANCY 1. PARKER Or 0000♦N CITY MANAGER 11A4 GLEASON Page 2 of 2 cont. Staff Report LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS: The Local Planning Agency held its hearing on this issue on March 12, 2002 and voted to recommend that the Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners accept reducing the side and rear yard setback for accessory structures from seven and one half(7 '/z) feet to five(5) feet. They do not recommend that the Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners reduce the same setbacks to three feet(3) for accessory structures under 120 sq. ft. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends that the Honorable Mayor and City Commission approve the amendment to Section 5-6(B)of Article V of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 2002- 10, to allow the reduction of setback requirements of accessory structures for the side and rear setbacks. The reduction will change the existing seven and one-half(7 '/:) feet to five(5) feet, and three feet for structures under 120 sq.ft. PI:111fr THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 AS LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Golden called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Following a moment of silent meditation and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, a quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Golden, Members McKey, Miller, Rhodus, Riffe and West. Also present were Planning Director Wagner, Senior Planner McGinnis, Senior Planner Grimms, Building & Zoning Official Velie, City Attorney Rosenthal and Deputy City Clerk Green. ABSENT: Chairman Bond and Member Lancefeld. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of approval of Item A: A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, February 27, 2002. Member McKev, seconded b Member Riffe, moved to accent the Consent Aeenda as presented. Motion was approved without objectio:i. NEW BUSINESS MCELROY PLACE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER LS-2001-004 Senior Planner Grimms presented the Staff Report for the proposed Preliminary Subdivision Plan (PSP) for McElroy Place. The project will include 127 single family residential lots. The site is located on the south side of McCormick Road at the intersection of the future Clarke Road extensicn. The subject property is currently undeveloped and was primarily an orange grove. The southern edge of the property abuts a wetland area that is to be placed within a conservation easement. The DRC reviewed the PSP on February 8, 2002, and voted unanimously to recommend approval with no conditions. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12, 2002 Mr. Grimms concluded with Staffs recommendation that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Plan as date stamped received by the City on February 14, 2002. The public hearing was opened. City Attorney Rosenthal said, "On this particular project, Friday and today, we became involved in a question raised by an adjacent property owner with regard to the project in terms of some issues relating to public records requests for documents related to this project. At least there is a potential argument that the City may not have timely responded to these public records requests and basically, after reviewing the situation today, discussing it with the Planning Department Staff and with the City Manager, it is our recommendation from a legal standpoint that you go ahead and hear any comments from the applicant or the adjacent neighbor or anybody else in the public that you care to hear tonight, but that you then proceed to continue the public hearing to the Board's next meeting in April on the basis that in our view this would cure any prejudice which the adjacent neighbor might claim with respect to the project. I can let the adjacent neighbor and the like speak for themselves. Also I think it may affect in terms of your direction on this after you hear from the applicant and the adjacent neighbor what your inclination is on that. I think if your inclination is not to continue it, there are probably a number of issues that the adjacent property owner is going to want to present, discuss, raise questions on tonight, some of which might be able to be resolved in this intervening period between the City Staff, the applicant, and the adjacent property owner." Cecilia Bonifay, of Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., representing the applicant, Pineloch Management Corporation, was present along with Kevin Kramer, of Professional Design Associates, consultant, and Richard Gonzalez, an officer of Pincloch. Ms. Bonifay said they were unaware there was an issue until they arrived tonight. She said they would be happy to proceed however the City feels is appropriate. She said they are prepared to make a presentation to the Commission and that might help answer some questions. She said they would be happy to agree to a 30 day continuance to give the adjoining owner the opportunity to come in to the City. Becky Vose, 106 McCormack Road, Apopka, said she is here in two capacities. She is a concerned property owner, as she and her husband own the 13 acres immediately to the east of this property. She said she is also representing some of the other property owners as a land use attorney. She requested a postponement of this hearing. She said she had inquired about this property three times during 2001: in August, on October 22, and in November. She said possibly there was a misunderstanding about which property she was asking. She said she had been told that there had been no plans submitted. Having 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12,2002 seen the notice with regard to the hearing, she had been unable to come to City I fall to see the Plans until last Friday. She said she had been studying the Plans since that time but has not completed the work that she needs to do on them. She said she believes that they would be prejudiced if the hearing were not postponed. She is hoping that in the interim they will be able to get everything worked out with the developers. She said they have some serious concerns about some things that are there, and she thinks they could resolve them as long as they had an opportunity to meet with the City and to meet with the developers and to finish her research. Member Rifle asked when the Plans were submitted to the Planning Department and when the notifications were sent to adjacent property owners. Mr. Wagner said the original application was in September 2001. Fle said they had been unable to determine where the confusion lies, noting that Pincloch Management owns another piece of property south of this project and no plan has been presented for that property. Mr. Wagner said notices are generally mailed to give seven days advanced notice, the property is posted, and ad is placed in the newspaper as the City ordinance requires. Attorney Rosenthal said he does not believe there is a question as to compliance with the noticing provisions in Ocoee's Code as it was, in fact, the noticing provisions that brought this hearing to the attention of the neighbor. Member McKey asked why it is felt that the hearing needs to be continued. Attorney Rosenthal said, "If you proceed, from the standpoint of the City, there is a possibility that we could be facing an issue or question as to compliance with the public records law with respect to the earlier requests and Ms. Vose has put in the record tonight what she believes to be the prejudice to the adjoining property owner to her and her clients as a result of not being responsive to that request. If we then got in litigation, not that litigation has been threatened, there is a possibility that nothing would happen with the property during the course of the proceeding and a potential remedy would be to ultimately overturn any decision that might be reached by the City Commission. Not to predict what the outcome would be, and I have not tried to determine the true set of facts, but my feeling just from a cost standpoint, the most cost effective thing to the City is, if we can avoid a dispute which brings us into court and resolve it in 30 days, that is a cost effective solution from the standpoint of the City." Member McKey asked if the 30 days delay would cause a hardship for the applicant. Member West said it is his understanding that the applicant does not have a problem with the 30 days and he supported the continuance. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12,2002 Attorney Rosenthal clarified that they would like the continuance to be to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in April (April 9). Member Rifle said she felt it was a matter of fairness as all adjacent owners get seven days, and she thought the notices had given sufficient time for the adjacent property owners to come to City Hall to look at the Plans. She questioned the postponement for the applicant. Vice Chairman Golden expressed the opinion that it was best to work these things out not in a public forum but between the applicant and the adjacent land owner. He supported the continuance. Richard Gonzalez, Vice President of Pineloch Management Corporation, the owner, said as Ms. Bonifay said, they do not object to the 30 days to give neighbors and anyone else who wants to review the plans they have submitted an opportunity to do so. He said, however, they are not in the position, and will not be in one, of negotiating with people over things. He said they would submit their plans, go through the public hearing, and at that point disclose what their concerns and issues are, and will address them at that point. He said he felt they have spent a lot of time, money and effort going through the process, designing a good project that is in compliance, as they see it, with the City of Ocoee's regulations. He said if there is something not in compliance, they will fix it, but he is not here to negotiate. He said he is submitting a plan based on the City's rules, regulations and laws, and said they have not done anything wrong. Member West said he thought having information would allay concerns. Mr. Gonzalez said they have no objection to providing information, but he does not intend to negotiate with people off site outside of this forum. Member McKey said he thought it should be addressed through Staff as usual and he saw no reason to diverge from that. Mr. Gonzalez stressed their commitment to provide a quality project, to protect the environment, to comply with all the City's rules and regulations and zoning codes. He said their effort a year ago to have the West Orange Trail run through their property had been unsuccessful because they had been unable to garner support from other property owners. He said they will return for the hearing and at that point, whatever questions are raised or whatever things they might have missed, they are willing to address and correct. He said they have trust in the City and want it to he through this forum. He said they want their neighbors to be happy, and they do not want to disturb their quality of life. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12, 2002 A corrected Staff Report had been distributed in the meeting, and Member McKey asked how it differed from the one in the packet. Senior Planner Grimms said the corrections were in the Background paragraph: 127 single family residential lots (instead of 88), and City R-I AA zoning(instead of R-1 A). As had been recommended by the City Attorney, Member McKey, seconded by Member Rhodus. moved that the Plannine and Zonine Commission continue the public hearin_ for McElro Place Prelimina ubdivision Plan, Case Number LS_2001-004 to the April 9,2002, Planni tg and Zonin_ mmission meetinv. Motion carried 6-0. Attorney Rosenthal pointed out that, per the City's notices, the property would continue to be posted, but there would be no additional advertising or notice to adjacent property owners as the notices that go out specifically give notice that if it is continued it would be simply posted as part of the next agenda, with the sign continuing in place. Member West asked Planning Director Wagner to encourage the neighbors to meet with Staff Mr. Wagner said that he would be happy to do so, and that all the records and files arc available to anyone who wants to come in. Vice Chairman Golden said Item III C would be considered at this point in the meeting at the request of Building& Zoning Official Velie. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ORDINANCE No. 2002-10 (As LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) Building and Zoning Official Velie presented the Staff Report for the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code, Article V, § 5-6 (B) revising the setback requirements for accessory structures in residentially zoned areas. The setback requirement is currently TA feet for rear and side lot lines, and the proposed revision would reduce it to 5 feet. He said citizens who have requested encroachment into the setback via variance procedures have been granted the variance by City Commission nine times out of ten. Ile said Staff is also recommending adoption of this amendment. Member McKey asked how many variances to this Code have been requested in the past year. Mr. Velie said there had been five to six. Mr. Velie said most other communities have a standard of five feet, and the new Florida Building Code also recognizes a three foot setback for Fire and Building Code for 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12, 2002 accessory structures. There is a provision in the proposed ordinance for a three foot setback for smaller sheds (i.e. 10' x 12'). Member McKey asked how this would affect Homeowners' Associations (HOAs) Covenants and Restrictions. Mr. Velie said the City does not enforce HOAs. I le said there is a warning on the building permit application advising that there may be possible HOA requirements. Attorney Rosenthal said if an association has a more restrictive provision, that more restrictive provision would apply, but would not be something that is enforced by the Building Department. It would be enforced by the HOA. Member McKey asked if the Codc referred to local HOAs, and Mr. Rosenthal said it does not, but this is not treated differently from other provisions of the Land Development Code. If the HOA was more restrictive, it would be necessary to get the HOA's approval. Setbacks may or may not be one issue typically dealt with by an association. Member McKey said he appreciates and understands the challenges of Code Enforcement and the Building Department in this respect, but he hates to see some of the standards that the City has worked years to get to be eroded away, and he thought this would be a kind of erosion. He said as the president of an HOA, they get requests all the time about outbuildings, and they are afraid of them because there is not much to protect them as an association, and they do not want to make it easier for homeowners to get around them. Ile asked if tighter provisions could be included to help prevent these buildings from springing up all over, so the IIDA and its Architectural Review Commission (ARC) would have something to lean on and to have as criteria. Attorney Rosenthal said on the Association issue, from a Staff standpoint, they have tried to be very careful about not having the residents of Ocoee to look to the City of Ocoee to enforce individual and different architectural design criteria for every subdivision. The City has avoided in our Code getting into that HOA issue. If a HOA comes to the City and says the City has issued a building permit which violates the City tells them that is a private matter because the City has no legal authority to deny the issuance of the building permit if it complies with City Building and Zoning codes, even if it is in violation of an Association's document. Mr. Velie said many of the newer subdivisions outlaw utility buildings altogether. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12, 2002 Member Riffe said she was very surprised to see this proposal. She felt that approval of five or six cases was not sufficient to support amending the Code. She said five foot setbacks should be the bare minimum, citing maintenance problems with smaller setback areas. Attorney Rosenthal explained that the Board of Adjustment had recommended denial of the requested variances in all cases, but the City Commission had overruled and granted the variances in all cases. He said this why the City Commission had asked Staff to explore an alternative to this ordinance to route through this process for your review and study. Member Riffe said she would feel quite comfortable in recommending denial and then if the Council wanted to overturn that decision then so be it. She said she sees no planning justification for the Code amendment. She said if there would be a change to three feet, a height change should be considered as well. Member Rhodus, Member Miller and Member West supported the proposed change. Vice Chairman Golden said he thought the three foot setback was below the standard of the Southern Building Code, but said he could support the five foot setback, but not as it is written Member Riffe said she would support five feet. Member McKey asked about reducing the setback to zero. Mr. Velie said that could he done if there were certain firewalls on the shed. Member McKey said he thought the system was working as it is now and he would prefer to err on the side of conservation. Member Rhodus suggest requiring a privacy fence with three foot setbacks. Mr. Velie pointed out that ninety per cent of properties have utility easements that are usually about five feet. He said the language states that utility sheds may not be within drainage and utility casements. Member Riffe pointed out that Ocoee's minimum lot standards are larger than those of most other cities in central Florida. She said five feet should be sufficient for a typical lot She stated again that height should be an issue. Mr. Wagner said when he had set about trying to change this some years ago, in the areas of definitions of accessory structures and the different setbacks, etc., the City's code 7 • Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12, 2002 leads off into twenty different directions. Iie recommended looking only at the setback now, and addressing defining type of structure and height in the update of that portion of the LDC. The public hearing was opened. As no member of the public was present, the public hearing was closed. Rewording a preliminary motion that was not seconded, Member Rifle. seconded biz Member McKev moved that Planning and Zoning Cemmj$jQnJcommend approval of a Land Development pde amendment to allow accessory structures to be five (5) feet to the side lot line and five (5) feet to the rear lot lint but striking "provided, howuvcr,,a shed no larger than 120 square feet and not.located within a utility or drainage easement may be located no closer than three (31 feet to the rear lot line and three (3) feet to the side lot line." Motion carried 6-0. Responding to members requests for clarification of zero setback, Mr. Velie explained that building codes are different from zoning codes. He said under building codes any building could be taken down to a zero setback, but then zoning codes and easements must be considered. Mr. Wagner confirmed that he understood from the conversation that Staff needs to discern the different types of accessory structures and this is a problem in the City Code anyway, so it will be addressed in the update. CROWN POINT PROPERTY ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER AX-01-10-01 SENIOR PLANNER MCGINNIS presented the Staff Report for the proposed annexation of the Crown Point Property requested by the applicant, Orange County Public Schools. The subject property comprises approximately 6.25 acres and is located west of the Western Expressway and north of Fullers Cross Road. The subject property is proposed to be developed for an entry road and for stormwater management as part of the Crown Point PUD Master Plan ("Coca-Cola Property"). Ms. McGinnis said on March 4, 2002, the DRC unanimously recommended approval of the proposed annexation. She said Staff also finds the requested annexation to be consistent with the JPA Agreement, the state annexation criteria, and the standards established by the City. She concluded with Staffs recommendation for approval of the Annexation Petition for the Crown Point Property, Case Number AX-0 I-10-01. 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12, 2002 The public hearing was opened. As no one was present from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed. Member West _blecy2lt by Member McKey moved thaI Plwnninu and Zonine Commission recommend approval of the Annexation Petition for the Crown Point Property. Case Number AX-01-10-01. Motion carried 6-0. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS None. COMMENTS Planning Director Wagner said the Planning and Zoning Commission will definitely meet on March 27 and April 9 and there are likely to be two meetings each month for the next few months. Member McKey reported that Commissioner Jacobs is actively working on legislation concerning control of enclaves by the municipality that surrounds them. He said she is planning a public meeting on this issue and urged members to attend and support her effort. Responding to Member McKey's concerns about extension of the West Orange Trail, Mr. Wagner said they are negotiating with Mr. Gonzalez concerning a school park site on his property with the relocation of the West Orange Trail through the park portion of the property. Member West asked if there was new information on the environmentally sensitive land in the Crown Point Property. Attorney Rosenthal said they have identified a group of the properties for which they have obtained appraisals and are in the process of evaluating them. He said the Water Management District has increased the amount of the City's grant as the grant amount was not enough to cover the acquisition of the land. He said, to date, none of the properties has been donated. He said the City would own the property, subject to a Conservation Easement in favor of St. John's. He said Ococe's was the largest project funded by the Water Management District. 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12, 2002 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Attest: APPROVED: Marian Green, Deputy City Clerk James Golden, Vice Chairman 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 12,2002 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. • Attest: APPROVED: Marian Green, Deputy City Clerk :Y es Golden, Vice Chairman ID ORDINANCE NO. 2002-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI77 OF OCOEE, FLORIDA RELATING TO THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE OCOEE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 180 OF THE CODE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA BY REVISING SECTION 5-6(B) OF ARTICLE V TO REDUCE THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO FIVE FEET AND TO THREE FEET FOR CERTAIN SIIEDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Anthnrih. 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 Chapters 163 and 166, Florida Statutes. SECTION 2. Section 5-6(B) of Article V of Chapter 180 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows (with additions double-underlined and deletions stricken): B. Location of Accessory Uses and Structures. In residential districts, accessory uses and structures shall not be located in front or side yards but may be located in rear yards; provided, however, that accessory structures for the housing of persons, such as guest houses and garage apartments, shall not be located in any required yard. On double frontage. through or corner lots in residential districts, accessory uses and structures shall not be located in either of the required front yards but may be located in one but not both side yards. No separate accessory building shall be located within five (5) feet of any other building. In residential districts, utility or accessory buildings will be no closer than five (5)feel to the rear lot line and seven and one-half(7 1/2) five (5)_ feet to the side lot line:provided, however, a shed no larger_than420.square feet and not located within a utilityor_drainage_easement may be located no closer-thatt=three_(3) feet.to the rear lotlinc-and three (3) feet to the side lot.line. 006 228746.1 NOTICE OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OCOEE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE The City Commission of the City of Ocoee proposes to adopt the following Ordinance: Ordinance 2002-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA RELATING TO THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE OCOEE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 180 OF THE CODE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA BY REVISING SECTION 5-6(B) OF ARTICLE V TO REDUCE THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO FIVE FEET AND TO THREE FEET FOR CERTAIN SHEDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Ocoee City Commission will hold the first of two public hearings concerning the proposed Ordinance on Tuesday, April 2, 2002 at 7:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter as practical, and the second of two public hearings concerning the proposed Ordinance on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 7:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter as practical, at the Ocoee City Commission Chambers, 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, Florida. The City Commission may continue the public hearings 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 these or continued public hearings shall be announced during the hearing and that no further notices regarding these matters will be published. A copy of the proposed Ordinance may be inspected by the public at the Ocoee Code Enforcement Division, 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, Florida, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. Interested parties may appear at the public hearings and be heard with respect to the proposed Ordinance. This notice is given pursuant to Section 166.041 (3)(c), Florida Statutes. Any person wishing to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the public hearings will need a record of the proceedings 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 Thursday, March 21, 2002 and April 11, 2002 City of Ocoee (Orlando Sentinel) SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereto. SECTION 4. Conflicts. AU ordinances, resolutions, parts of ordinances, or parts of resolutions of the City of Ocoee in conflict herewith are hereby repealed and rescinded. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2002. APPROVED: ATTEST: CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA Jean Grafton, City Clerk S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor (SEAL) ADVERTISED March 21/April 11, 2002 READ FIRST TIME April 2, 2002 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 By: City Attorney 2 006.228746.1