HomeMy WebLinkAboutVI (C 1-4) Faraway Farms Transmittal Public Hearing, JPA Amendment, Rezoning to C-3, Approval of Development Agreement Center of Good Ltvg Agenda 9-16-2003
Item VI C 1,2,3,4
, 4
Mayor Commissioners
S. Scott Vandergrift Danny Howell, District 1
Scott Anderson, District 2
City Manager Rusty Johnson, District 3
Jim Gleason Nancy J. Parker, District 4
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 8,2003
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: Whit Blanton,AICP and Jacob Riger, AICP, Renaissance Planning Group
THROUGH: Russ Wagner, AICP, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Faraway Farms/Chevron Joint Planning Area Land Use Map Amendment (JPA-
01-001), Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment
(CPA-01-002)and Rezoning (RZ-01-06-01)
ISSUE:
Should the Mayor and City Commission recommend approval of the proposed revised Faraway
Farms/Chevron Joint Planning Area Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
Rezoning applications?
ITEMS REVIEWED:
The following materials submitted by the applicant have been received and reviewed to prepare
this staff report:
1. Applicant's letter requesting the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map Revisions from Low
Density Residential and Conservation to Industrial;
2. Case Number LS-CPA-01-002: Application for a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential and Conservation to Light Industrial;
3. Case Number RZ-01-06-01: Application for Rezoning from R-IAA, Single-Family Dwelling
District to I-1, Restricted Manufacturing and Warehousing District;
4. Faraway Farms Traffic Impact Analysis,April 2001;
5. Faraway Farms Site Activities Disclosure Report(Environmental Study),April 25,2001;
6. Faraway Farms Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised), October 2001;
7. Western Expressway Study(November 2001);
8. Faraway Farms Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Responses to Draft
Review Comments of August 30, 2001 (November 20, 2001);
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
September 8,2003
Page 2 of 9
9. Second Round Comments/Questions/Responses, Joint Planning Area Amendment,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezoning (February 22, 2002);
10.Third Round Comments/Questions/Responses, Joint Planning Area Amendment,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezoning (April 18, 2002);
11. Letter from Thomas Grimms, AICP, City of Ocoee, dated October 30, 2002;
12. Revised Applications: Letter from Julie Kendig-Schrader, Greenberg Traurig dated
November 27, 2002, and attachments (Revised Exhibit B, Need and Justification for the
Requested Action/Change and Exhibit, Consistency with Comprehensive Plan);
13. Fourth Round Comments/Questions/Responses, Joint Planning Area Amendment,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezoning (February 14, 2003), and
14. Draft Agreement Regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning: Faraway
Farms (Developer Agreement).
BACKGROUND:
The Faraway Farms (also known as Chevron) property is slightly less than 100 acres in size
and is located on the southeast corner of Ocoee-Apopka Road and Fuller's Cross Road in the
northwest sector of the City of Ocoee (see attached location map). Used for many years as a
testing area for agricultural products as well as the site of former orange groves, the property is
currently vacant. There are wetlands located on the southern and eastern portion of the site.
The property's current Future Land Use Map designation is Low Density
ResidentiaVConservation and it is zoned R-1-AA Single Family Dwelling District (see attached
maps). The property also lies within the Ocoee — Orange County Joint Planning Area (JPA).
The JPA Land Use Map designation for the property is also Low Density/Conservation (see
attached map).
The applicant originally petitioned for a future land use map and zoning change on the property
to classify it as I-1 Restricted Manufacturing and Warehousing District. The application was
amended by the applicant in November 2002 to request a C-3, General Commercial, zoning
designation. in addition to the rezoning application, the City also needs to process a JPA Land
Use Map Amendment to change the classification to Commercial/Conservation and a Large
Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change that classification to
Commercial/Conservation. A draft developer's agreement has also been prepared for the
proposed project by the City Attorney which needs to be processed concurrently with the
proposed rezoning.
The applications for the amendment and rezoning are primarily based on the presence of
arsenic contamination on the property, which requires mitigation to develop the land for
residential uses. According to the applicant, the property is unsuitable for residential use
because of the cost to bring the site into compliance with Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP)standards.
As a result, the Faraway Farms (aka Chevron) project proposes a dramatic change in land use
patterns in the northwest section of the City of Ocoee. This area has historically developed as a
mix of agricultural, residential, and recreationaVconservation uses. The City's Comprehensive
Plan and Future Land Use Map designate this area for continued low density residential growth
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
September 8,2003
Page 3 of 9
with local commercial, educational, and recreational needs to be served by development to the
north and west.
The Faraway Farms comprehensive plan and rezoning applications propose changing the future
use of the subject property from single family residential to a development program that may
include services and trade shops, large scale commercial uses, a business park and similar
uses. Although the project is located generally proximate to the Western Expressway(SR 429),
the land surrounding the property includes existing and future higher end residential
subdivisions, agricultural land and recreation/open space land. This part of the city has not
been planned for large-scale commercial activities, and the potential impact of this land use
change on surrounding undeveloped lands in the next five to 10 years is unknown.
This proposal represents one of the first large scale comprehensive plan amendments in recent
city history. The only other similar process affecting such a large land use change related to the
approval of the West Oaks Mall, which was a Development of Regional Impact. As such, this
request has major policy implications for the development of the City's northern section, and the
required public facilities and services needed to support future development in the area.
Accordingly, staff recommends denial of the proposed applications at this time based on the
following primary conclusions discussed below:
1. Until an Interchange Impact Area and Development Plan are prepared that establishes a
development pattern for the area, it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan to approve
such a large-scale project that represents a dramatic shift in existing and planned land uses
in the area, especially when no demonstrated market need has been identified for such
uses.
2. Based on the unanswered questions regarding long-term compatibility issues, infrastructure
and environmental impacts and policy implications, the applicant has not demonstrated the
long-term consequences of the proposed change to Commercial land use and C-3, General
Commercial zoning. This is significant given the City's long-term funding shortfall for
roadway and other infrastructure improvements identified for this area to support a much
lower-intensity land use pattern.
3. The City should have the opportunity to consider and assess the growth and development
vision for this area up-front through an area-wide planning process rather than having to
react to issues later during the development review process for individual sites.
DISCUSSION:
The City is faced with an important policy decision. In the context of the area's existing low-
density residential character and the transportation access provided by the SR 429 corridor and
available vacant lands, staff believes it is very likely that this land use change will lead to
pressures for similar or more intensive development changes that will fundamentally change the
character of the area. Such changes likely will entail corresponding impacts on public facilities
and services like roads, water and emergency response.
These applications present an opportunity for the City to consider and assess the growth and
development vision for this area in a comprehensive manner rather than reacting to issues later
during the site plan review process. Such an approach requires an examination of a defined
area in a systematic way to assess cumulative development impacts, and obligations, rather
than considering projects in a piecemeal fashion.
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
September 8,2003
Page 4 of 9
Unfortunately, the applications do not adequately take these long-term impacts into
consideration. The analysis prepared is site specific, yet overly general, ambiguous and
optimistic in terms of the broader context and potential demand. For example, the applications
include a limited land use and market assessment, but do not link that with transportation, a
fundamental premise of sound comprehensive planning. The amended applications for
Commercial future land use and C-3 zoning for the entire site have not resolved consistency
and compatibility questions, as outlined below.
This staff report is not intended to argue the merits of the specific development proposal. The
proposed developer's agreement eliminates many of the potential uses within the land use
category that would be most incompatible with surrounding residential areas. The applicant has
proposed a substantial amount of buffering surrounding the property. In addition, the applicant
has agreed to limiting the development to a maximum number of vehicle trips it will generate,
and has kept the development program below Development of Regional Impact thresholds.
These provisions are more stringent than are usually agreed to for large projects.
However, as demonstrated in the sections below, the applications have not provided sufficient
information about the long-term impacts of this proposal on land use changes for surrounding
properties that are located closer and with better access to SR 429. Further, the applications
have not demonstrated that heavy commercial designation is the only logical use for the
property given the environmental constraints, and have not provided information as to mitigation
measures for the on-site arsenic contamination that may be needed for the heavy commercial
classification or potential other land use classifications.
The sections below document the major findings of the proposed applications based on City
staff review of the items submitted by the applicant. Findings are grouped into the following
categories: land use compatibility, market demand, public infrastructure, transportation, and
environment. The primary finding is listed for each category,followed by other major findings.
Land Use Compatibility
Primary Findino: The proposed project raises several compatibility issues regarding the City's
long-term, primarily residential vision for the surrounding area as articulated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The potential for this land use change to affect surrounding vacant parcels may reduce the
City's ability to attract higher end single family residential to this section of the City. The
Comprehensive Plan clearly articulates that this area will have a predominant low-density
residential character, and the West Groves and ForestBrooke projects help fulfill that vision. In
fact, located immediately adjacent to the property is the Crown Point Woods subdivision. While
buffers and a prohibition of several objectionable uses will help make the proposal more
compatible, the potential long-term change has significant policy implications In terms of
compatibility.
The applicant's Western Expressway Study (market demand analysis) addresses the
compatibility issue by identifying the potential for significant intensification of development
surrounding the subject property. This is one possible scenario, but one that staff agrees is a
possible outcome if the project is approved. This scenario suggests that the proposed
development program is incompatible with existing surrounding residential land uses.
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
September 8,2003
Page 5 of 9
The Comprehensive Plan designates the SR 4291West Road interchange an "Interchange
Impact Area." However, the boundaries or public facility and service implications of this
designation have not been determined at this time. Interchange Impact Areas (11As) are areas
surrounding access points to expressways and include a mix of retail, general commercial, light
industrial, and residential uses. The mix and intensity of uses are intended to be in scale with
surrounding land uses and reflect the relative importance of access to the expressway.
Because the size, nature, and character of the IIA has not yet been defined, any change in land
use predicated upon this designation would be premature. The specific boundaries of the IIA
will be determined at the time a Special Overlay Area is formally adopted to include all land
within at least a one quarter mile radius of the interchange area.
In addition to the Special Overlay Area, the City may require a special development plan to
coordinate development plans among various development projects in the area consistent with
Future Land Use Objective 3 and related policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Given that there
are already existing projects in the area that include commercial uses, the need to consider the
demand and appropriate location and intensity of additional non-residential uses in the IIA is
critical.
The revised applications also cite the commercial development regulations as a means to
ensure high quality development and compatibility between uses. However, the land use
compatibility and consistency concerns extend beyond site layout and appearance. The type
and intensity of uses permitted and their distribution on the site must also be considered in
determining compatibility.
If it is found that non-residential uses are appropriate for the site, a modest amount of
professional office and services or other less intense uses would provide for a transition to the
less-intense residential land uses to the south and west of the site. A PUD zoning would also
be appropriate to specify allowable land uses and establish performance standards to ensure
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with adjacent land uses. As
discussed below, the PUD option was preferred by the Planning and Zoning Commission in
denying approval of the proposed applications.
Market Demand
Primary Findino: According to the recent market studies undertaken by the City, there is not
sufficiently demonstrated market demand and viability for the proposed project given the
ongoing development to the north and west of the project site and the availability of existing
commercial and industrial parcels with greater Infrastructure and transportation access
elsewhere in the City. There is, however, a demonstrated market demand for higher end
residential in this area of the City as evidenced by the West Groves, ForestBrooke, McCormick
Woods, and other developments. As indicated previously, the City has designated this area for
primarily low density residential and small-scale commercial development.
The City's larger scale commercial and industrial development efforts are focused in the vicinity
of the Western Expressway (SR 429) interchanges with SR 438 and SR 50, areas with greater
infrastructure, transportation access and complementary land uses. Additionally, there is a
combination of vacant and under-developed industrially- and commercially-zoned parcels
adjacent to those two interchanges and surrounding areas. These lands have not been
evaluated by the applicant to determine suitability for development or assemblage in the context
of demonstrated demand for the additional commercial uses proposed by this project.
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
September 8,2003
Page 6 of 9
Accordingly, the applications have not sufficiently addressed the market demand for this project.
While there is likely some limited demand for neighborhood commercial and retail services in
the area given the increasing residential growth, that demand is expected to be met through
existing and approved developments in the area. The Ocoee Property Feasibility Study
prepared by the City to assess the non-residential market demand for the Crown Point PUD
property assumed that the Chevron property would be developed as residential. By developing
this parcel as commercial, there is a potential risk of undermining the viability of surrounding
properties and, in turn, causing properties to under-develop or lay fallow, further diluting
development potential within the entire sector.
Staff is also concerned about comparisons of the subject site with properties in Lake Mary
adjacent to Interstate 4 and with Winter Park Village. The demographic, locational, and
transportation network differences are substantial. Additionally, it is important to note that the
presence of SR 429 does not in and of itself dictate the location or demand of high-intensity
commercial or light industrial uses.
Public Infrastructure
Primary Finding: There is not enough information available to assess the cumulative
infrastructure and public service impacts to the City resulting from a major change in the type
and amount of development envisioned for the area surrounding the subject property.
As indicated above, the applicant has not provided meaningful information (in the form of a
small area study) addressing the likely long-term policy and fiscal impacts of the proposed
project. While such a study would not be binding, it is a useful and professionally accepted
approach to provide the data and information needed to accurately assess the land use, market
demand, and public infrastructure costs and benefits associated with the proposed project and
its potential impact on lands in the vicinity of the SR 429 interchange.
City staff is concerned that approval of the proposed application in isolation absent a small area
plan for the area encourages piecemeal development that will ultimately cost more to taxpayers
to support with public infrastructure and services than increased tax revenues generally offset.
Additionally, land use, transportation, and infrastructure impacts are much more difficult to
assess when development occurs in a piecemeal fashion as opposed to a proactive cumulative
assessment of all impacts. Staff does not expect the applicant to know definitively all of these
impacts, nor is the applicant expected to fund all needed infrastructure. However, by approving
a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment, the City should understand the likely long-term
public infrastructure needs for the impact area surrounding this particular site. City staff has
estimated that sewer extensions to this area could cost approximately$8 to $10 million.
The applicant wants to postpone the discussion of infrastructure until the site plan review phase.
Given the potential for significant additional land use changes this application may spawn, staff
believes the long-term need for public facilities and services should be addressed in a more
comprehensive fashion as part of this large-scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Transportation
Primary Finding: Cumulative transportation impacts of a major change in development
character for the area have not been evaluated. The traffic analysis has not been updated to
reflect the different land use characteristics and intensities proposed in the revised applications
from industrial to commercial. Specific traffic mitigation measures for the proposed
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
September 8,2003
Page 7 of 9
development program have not been identified. The City does not have adequate revenues to
fund the area's identified transportation needs.
Long-term transportation impacts of the future land use scenario contained in the applicants
Western Expressway Study are not evaluated. This is a prime example of how piecemeal
analysis of potential impacts is not as effective as a comprehensive evaluation of future
conditions true small area study that would examine long-term transportation needs in the
impact area. This distinction is important because the City's Comprehensive Plan assumes
capital facilities and infrastructure needs based on a certain development scenario for the area.
In addition, the City's Transportation Master Plan identifies the need for $28 to $35 million in
roadway improvement costs in this area of the City based on the adopted future land use plan.
The City does not currently have the revenues to fund these improvements. A more intense
development pattern will likely require substantially higher or different transportation
investments in the area. Additionally, the applicant's traffic study was not updated to re-analyze
the impacts on the transportation system because of the differences in trip generation,
distribution, and characteristics between industrial and commercial uses contained in the
revised applications.
Environment
Primary Finding: Many issues and questions raised by staff remain unanswered regarding the
subject site's environmental conditions and potential impacts.
The applicant has provided insufficient information to assess whether FDEP will allow the site to
be developed given the current levels of arsenic contamination. Given the recent Pinecrest
Lakes decision, it is important that the City follow the policies in its Comprehensive Plan that
pertain to protection of city wellheads, aquifer recharge areas, and hazardous waste
management. Additionally, the applicant has not provided sufficient information regarding the
location of the groundwater monitoring wells or recent sampling results to verify that there is no
on-site groundwater contamination. Given the state's recent emphasis on the cleanup of Lake
Apopka, this type of analysis is also of significant importance.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This item was originally presented to the City of Ocoee Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z)
for formal consideration and recommendation at its June 11th, 2002 meeting. During that
meeting, the applicant requested a continuation of this item to address the public opposition to
the proposed project raised at the meeting. The applicant also subsequently amended the
project applications to seek a Commercial future land use designation and a C-3 (General
Commercial)zoning.
The revised applications were formally considered at the May 13th, 2003 P&Z meeting. After
detailed presentations by City staff and the applicant, and several statements from the public,
the P&Z voted to deny the applications in a 7-0 vote.
Each member of the public who spoke was opposed to the project, primarily because of
concerns about the change in character from residential to commercial zoning in the area. The
President of the Crown Point Woods Homeowners Association (HOA), indicated that the HOA
also opposed approval of the proposed applications.
In terms of the P&Z members' questions and discussion, Vice Chairman Golden asked about
environmental conditions on the site relating the arsenic contamination and water quality. Staff
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
September 8,2003
Page 8 of 9
indicated that its environmental consultant raised several questions that staff felt were not
adequately answered by the applicant. The applicant indicated that they provided all of the
environmental data they felt was necessary at this stage.
Member McKey asked why the applicant is seeking C-3 zoning instead of a PUD designation, to
which the applicant responded that a PUD designation was not feasible at the time the
applications were first made but would have been used if the applications were newly submitted.
Member Rifle supported a PUD designation as the best alternative for the site, incorporating
residential and possibly neighborhood commercial uses. She noted her opposition to the
project in its current form. Member Keller also asked why the applicant was not seeking a PUD
designation. The applicant responded that they would be willing to withdraw the rezoning
application and re-submit it at a later date reflecting the PUD designation.
Member Rhodus asked how the assessment of sufficient demand for commercial in the area
was determined. City staff explained that the City commissioned two market studies as part of
the Crown Point PUD project that only considered that project, and that the applicant is using
the results of these studies in support of its applications for the Chevron property. Several
members also expressed concerns about traffic congestion and roadway capacity in the area.
In summary, it was the consensus of the P&Z that a PUD designation with mixed uses
consisting of residential, small-scale neighborhood commercial, and perhaps professional office
was preferential to the C-3 heavy commercial designation being sought by the applicant. The
applicant indicated a willingness to consider a PUD zoning designation but wanted to move
forward with the current comprehensive plan amendment applications. As noted above, the
P&Z subsequently voted 7-0 to deny the proposed applications.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based upon the information discussed above and the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, staffs findings are as follows:
1. Until an interchange Impact Area and Development Plan are prepared that establishes a
development pattern for the area, it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan to approve
such a large-scale project that represents a dramatic shift in existing and planned land uses
in the area (Future Land Use Objectives 1, 3, and 9; Policies 1.4, 1.6, 3.1, and 7.2 );
2. Based on the unanswered questions regarding long-term compatibility issues, infrastructure
and environmental impacts and policy implications, the applicant has not demonstrated the
long-term consequences of the proposed change to Commercial land use and C-3, General
Commercial zoning (Future Land Use Objectives 1, 2, and 9; Policies 2.3, 2.4, 5.2, 7.2, 7.3),
and
3. The City should have the opportunity to consider and assess the growth and development
vision for this area up-front through an area-wide planning process rather than having to
react to issues later during the development review process for individual sites (Future Land
Use Objectives 1, 3, and 9, Policies 1.4,2.8,and 3.1 of the Comprehensive Plan).
Staff believes that, in order to approve the applications, the City should have meaningful
information available regarding the likely long-term policy and fiscal impacts to the City as well
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
September 8,2003
Page 9 of 9
as fundamental changes in development character of surrounding lands resulting from approval
of the proposed applications. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the proposed applications.
Attachments:
1. Location Map;
2. Joint Planning Area Land Use Map Amendment;
3. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment;
4. Zoning Map Amendment; and
5. Copy of Public Hearing Advertisement September 7, 2003
O:\Development Review\Projects 2003\Faraway Farms\RPG_Staff_Report.doc
Orlando Sentinel
Sunday,September 7,2003
NOTICE OF LAND USE CHANGE
AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE OCOEE CITY COMMISSION
TO CONSIDER TRANSMITTAL OF
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE OCOEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Chapter 163,Florida Statutes,and Sections 1-8,1-10 and
5-9,Ocoee Land Development Code,that on Tuesday,September 16,2003,at 7:15 p.m.,ors
soon thereafter as practical,the Ocoee City Commission will hold the first of two Public Hearst
at the City Commission Chambers,150 North Lakeshore Drive,Ocoee, Florida to consider
application of the property owner to amend Figure 2 (Future Land Use Map) of the Ocala
Comprehensive Plan to change the use of land within the area shown on the map below from Lpw
Density ResidentiaVConservation to CommerciaVConservation and to adopt the followg
Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA AMENDING THE OCOEE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AS ADOPTED IN 1991,AS AMENDED;PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE
LAND USE MAP OF THE OCOEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE USE OF LAND FE)R
AN APPROXIMATELY 97.93 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
FULLERS CROSS ROAD AND OCOEE APOPKA ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL'•/
CONSERVATION TO COMMERCIAL/CONSERVATION;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ,
,:.,,,,,,,:,;;51,,,,,,,,,.._:..t4,..„:0:;,;1„m _01174.,,,, ,,I:i.,,,,,;,,,,,,,, ,:::,,,„,
r �14, a --- I�...�"Vie
/ i��.. f ;61 r d 5, -101;;V:....
a
a a
. -----_—". 4'a /J 1
�ry� � 0 /,---'1.1, • —_�_ 1
'47
�; ,i 4" r y. ,
k' „:-/,::°f?' i :41 — pre;
f.
jib "y
Ai I + syr---1 ' - 1 0 1`'H 1111Ht11 ,
li
,' P`,"` -1 1(\ —.—___-- Itl1',11171;
f
r ,J`r y ,f T'.' Zra ;.
,� Tip °' ,�;a,,,6 ,_ —_-._---- fir,
+;;' I l/ Mop a nm 11
I +t..
;- m) ri11 1 1.
I .'fipyt'I]l{:73-Fin-I
I ' -- . —, 101111k
Et
1 a L. J �- � __ �= 11':i ,
V
Ill .'
, 1 i_� -, - ...,
N
co.46.., Legend:
61.4.94:4,2 a Joint Planning Area Boundary '
11,-nk:. ct A Sut�jeProperty
Wu
City Property o 280_500 750 iwoI2 PW
Ocoee —1 County Property
'�r-�
o...eaonop.I., 5W505.. '"�
The City Commission may continue the public hearing to other dates and times as it deems
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 these matters will be published.
A copy of the proposed amendments and Ordinance 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.Interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard
with respect to the proposed Amendments and Ordinance.Any person who desires to appeal any
decision made during the public hearing 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)905-3100. f1
Orlando Sentinel
Sunday,September 7,2003
CITY OF OCOEE
NOTICE OP PURUC HEARING RY THE
OCOEE CITY COMMISSION
TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
JPA AGREEMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the City of Ocoee proposes to
amend the following interlocal
agreement: the Ocoee - Orange
County Joint Planning Area Agree-
ment,as amended. The proposed
amendment changes the Joint Plan-
ning Area Land Use Map Designa-
tion from Low Density Residential/
Conservation/Wetlands to Commer-
cial/Conservation/Wetland on prop-
erty containing 97.93 acres and lo-
cated at the southeast corner of
Fullers Cross Road and Ocoee
Apopka Road.
The Ocoee City Commission will
hold a public hearing on the pro-
posed map amendment on Tees*,
September 16,2003 at 7:15 P.M.,or as
soon thereafter as practical,at the
Ocoee City Commission Chambers,
City Hall,150 N.Lakeshore Drive,
Ocoee, Florida. The Ocoee City
Commission may continue the pub-
lic 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 contin-
ued public hearing shall be an-
nounced during the hearing and
that no further notices regarding
these matters will be published.A
copy of the proposed amendment
may be inspected by the public at
the Ocoee Planning Department,
150 N. Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee,
Florida between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday,except legal holi-
days.
Interested parties may appear at
the public hearing and be heard
with respect to the proposed action.
Any person wishing to appeal any
decision made with respect to any
matter considered at the public
hearing 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
the public discussion should contact
the City Clerk's office 48 hours in
advance of the meeting at(407)905-
3100.
JEAN GRAFTON,CITY CLERK,
CITY OF OCOEE
OLS5226826 9/7/03
Location Map
_____ ,.
____________—_____
en ta.9 (
lol -.,,
A;A E
=RS CROSS RD.
/ _
�� Subject ñLILI
l ' .
Alp �:� ��104 •, Property: 1, i _
. . i _.1
, ,,, s, ail 1111111t4 -
• 1 -
lea dasvA
inim,rr► .. o - I1"11
�, - _ ._1 _
� VI l
i -1
II
ma .
NM MIR i
1111111 ri
a_1
N
0,eCeetet of Goodtir
Legend: i
raw Joint Planning Area Boundary % ('
'i-b-C° . --:- - Subject Property
tk City Property 0 250 500 750 10001250 Feet
County Property " •
Ocoee Community Printed: May 2002
Development Department
Faraway Farms - Case Number JPA-01-001
Joint Planning Area Land Use Map Amendment
From: Low Density/Conservation
To: Commercial/Conservation
Existing Proposed
fill
boo, 1i
spop-
9
kss. r-r ' p2
5'�P�� _ Z9 51 1%*
LE 'SC' II* 40 :::\ ,
"D -
-.hof tA tl14
Subject \ - ' alt.
��� Subject _ - r�� A
�►emu ret',► Propertyor `s -� Property o
LjiIKk
`�'_1I: I
al lank. .1.'t
1111111111111 ,
6
,...... cm
no xi
1 All
iiiiill ' *
D ir
XI
0
1
N
tLegend: ,i
,SheCen Good
!,�
. � Joint Planning Boundary / ,
—.--City Limits Commercial
P Low Density(<4
Future Land Use Classification:
�` �" r. DU/AC)
Industrial
-,
1 1 Medium Denisty(4-8 DU/AC) noConservation/Wetlands 0 400 800 1200 Feet
High Density(9-16 DU/AC) 1 Institutional 11111111111C111111111.11
Ocoee Community
Development Department I I Professional Services ri Water Body Printed: May 2003
Faraway Farms - Case Number CPA-01-002
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment
From: Low Density Residential/Conservation
To: Commercial/Conservation
Existing Proposed
.i `
if
�, 74-.-
...- X29
...
4 . . - L~� ami -- ='- ---=-
____ ip
- o h 1 ------'11111 ,----- - '-' ,
� � ......- 1
5 0 Ill, -j
1 Lif'ULLE 'S CRO RD FULLE 'S C'i;!:,; , -D
. __11 I--- lall
OW
r, : Subject .fit Subject
."'I,,� Property o - "�� Property o
a IRO rial 110 -- . 1111111111.
n 11111111 NMI
,Imo �•oil `m 1�,►
' ame i P3 ' lij reirtall A
41111111114 -----
1 Vill1111.0.11111
I _ 0 XI 'IMF ‘
r 11111--
i ,1!I
1 Ai
NIL111
i
N
Legend: ,1 ,
\‘' 4' 11;:',-,,,%
r,C.«,tLY of c�,,i i t4Q ��� E
_: ;; 11111=Joint Planning Boundary Commercial
„sc::;1 ' City Limits 111 Light Industrial
`- - -- -" =-"‘K Future Land Use Classification: Heavy Industrial
11111 Low Density Residential Conservation/Floodplains
w Medium Denisty Residential um Recreation and Open Space 0 40800 1200 Feet
Ocoee Community goHigh Density Residential Public Facilities/Institutional
Development Department w Professional Offices and Services Ng Lakes—Natural Water Bodies Printed: May 2003
Faraway Farms - Case Number U-01-06-01
Zoning Map Amendment
From: R-1-AA (Single Family Dwelling)
To: C-3 (General Commercial)
..._
Existing Proposed
I pp-
As 7 .
910'
_____
. .. . / ULLE S CRD FUkLERS cRipt-sr-RD
o -
. A . ....
y 4
/ Subject _____________ _ Subject
-arAIP 0 0 .
wall 4 Property
. ,, * spritrab illi% Property ' uniff-D - - • --
10111A _________R IIIII\0 • , 4.__.
—0
XI ..
I Nill . 0 N Nil. 0_________[
11
{
I ,
-11
. ii 1 i
I
_______
1 n
i I 1 _
1 1 i
MMINVIMINI
Legend: El Neighbourhood Shopping(C-1) N
Nic2 Joint Planning BoundaryME Community Commerical(C-2)
—0.—City Limits 1111 General Commercial(C-3)
Zoning Classification: 1.1 Professional Offices&Services(P-S) , p\
General Agricultural(A-1) .1111 Restricted Manufacturing&Warehousing(1-1)
,e Center of Good Li r - Suburban(A-2) 1111 General Industrial(1-2)
's.-4111011141c. Single-Family Dwelling(R-1AAA)EN Commercial(PUD)
i.,,c0E Single-Fam.ily Dwelling(R-IAA) [7 , Low Density(PUD)16"/-.1 --icili..- ,, Single-FamilySingle-Family
. Dwelkng(R-1A) 1111 umDensity(PUD)
in
‘ Dwelling(R-1) IIM High Density(PUD) 0 400 800 1200 Feet
One-&Two-Family Dwelling(R-2)- Unclassified
Ocoee Community IOU Multiple-Family Dwelling(R-3) Lakes—Natural Water Bodies
Printed: May 2003
Development Department Mobile Home Subdivision(RT-1) Unincorporated Territory
FOLEY : LARDNER
MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
020377-0576
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Ocoee
FROM: Paul E. Rosenthal,Esq., City Attorney
DATE: September 9, 2003
RE: Faraway Farms/Chevron (Project Nos. JPA-01-001, CPA-01-002, RZ-01-06-01):
Ordinance Nos. 2003-38 and 2003-39; Resolution No. 2003-18
BACKGROUND
The large scale comprehensive plan transmittal public hearing and the JPA Amendment
public hearing before the City Commission are the next steps in a process intended by Chevron
USA Inc. (the "Owner") to ultimately lead to the obtaining of C-3 zoning for the Property. In
addition to the public hearings, the first readings of the zoning ordinance (Ordinance No 2003-
39) and a resolution adopting a development agreement are being held. The development
agreement is being adopted by resolution at the request of the property owner. Should the City
Commission transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and approve the JPA Agreement
Amendment, then it would be necessary for the County to also consider, at a public hearing, an
amendment to the JPA Agreement. If the County does not approve the JPA Amendment, the
City Commission would be preclude from taking further action on the comprehensive plan
amendment, rezoning and development agreement. If the County approves the JPA Amendment,
then the City Commission would hold an adoption public hearing on the large scale
comprehensive plan amendment following receipt of comments from the Department of
Community Affairs. A second reading and public hearing would also be held on the rezoning
ordinance and the development agreement resolution.
DISCUSSION
The staff report by RPG sets forth in detail the planning issues related to the applications
for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, JPA Agreement Amendment and Rezoning (collectively,
the "Applications"). In addition to the procedural matters set forth in the background discussion,
this memorandum addresses three legal issues which may impact the City Commission
discussion and action on the Applications. These issues relate to: (1) precedents arising from
FOLEY&LARDNER
006.308717.1
FOLEY : LARDNER
approval of the Applications, (2) the type of rezoning requested, and (3) a proposed agreement
with the Owner.
Precedents Arising from Approval of Applications. The Owner has advised the City
that the Property cannot be economically developed for residential purposes due to arsenic
contamination of a portion of the Property and that this has been a factor in their decision to
submit the Applications. Early in the process the staff considered whether the rezoning could
lead others in the area to seek similar changes and whether the approval of the Applications
would establish a "precedent" which would require the City to approve other comprehensive
plan amendment requirements. Attached hereto as Schedule "1" is our memorandum which
addresses this subject. In summary, we concluded that the consideration of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is a legislative function and that the City has broad discretion to make a
decision based on the information submitted. If the Comprehensive Amendment was approved
and if the City makes a finding that the unique circumstance of arsenic on the Property makes
residential development unfeasible, then it would be difficult for other surrounding property
owners to make a successful legal claim for approval of a similar comprehensive plan
amendment. The legal analysis is separate from whether others might submit similar
applications if the Owner's request is approved.
Zoning. The Applicant is requesting a Commercial Land Use Designation and C-3
zoning. C-3 zoning is the most intense commercial land use designation available in the City. In
order to address City concerns, the Owner proposed an agreement restricting the development of
the Property so that many permitted C-3 uses would be prohibited by contract. The staff
suggested PUD zoning as more appropriate since we typically have a PUD Agreement allowing
a variety of mixed uses and this is a clearly established vehicle for restricting certain types of
development. The Owner declined to pursue PUD zoning. There is well established law
regarding the enforceability of PUD Conditions of Approval which are part of the zoning
approval. The issue of entering into a contract which restricts otherwise permissible uses within
a zoning district is an approach which could be subject to challenge at a later date. The City
Commission may wish to consider the most appropriate zoning category (i.e., PUD vs. C-3)
needed to accomplish the objectives which have been identified by the Owner and take this into
consideration.
Agreement. The Owner has proposed an Agreement Regarding Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning (the "Agreement") which would restrict the maximum intensity of
development which might otherwise be allowed on the Property based upon a C-3 zoning
classification and a Commercial Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. The Agreement
would be entered into by the City and the Owner at the time of adoption of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and prior to the rezoning of the Property to C-3 becoming
effective. The Agreement is attached to Resolution No. 2003-18 which is on the Agenda for first
reading.
Highlights of the Agreement as currently proposed are as follows:
2
006.308717.1
FOLEY : LARDNER
1. Section 2(C) sets forth specific land use restrictions which prohibit certain uses
which would otherwise be permissible in an C-3 zoning district. This is comparable to a
provision which might be contained in a PUD Development Agreement.
2. The Owner has agreed in Section 3 that it will not develop the Property as a DRI
unless agreed to by the City as evidenced by an amendment to the Agreement.
3. The maximum traffic generation from the Property at buildout will be 9,888
average daily trips. The Maximum Daily Trips have been calculated based on a proposed
development plan: The proposed uses under this development plan may be exchanged based on
an "Equivalency Matrix" which would be subject maximum uses and intensities:
4. While not required, the Owner has requested that a public hearing on the
Agreement be held before the City Commission. This approach has been requested by the
Owner's attorney as part of our requirement for an attorney's opinion regarding the
enforceability of the Agreement. To accomplish this, a Resolution has been prepared with the
Agreement as an exhibit thereto.
5. The Agreement does not authorize any site development. The Owner will need to
obtain approvals of development plans in accordance with normal procedures.
The Agreement is intended to restrict the potential impact of the Property on the surrounding
neighborhoods and the transportation network. In the absence of the Agreement, the Owner
could seek development approvals which maximize the development of the Property under a
commercial land use designation and C-3 zoning.
Development of Regional Impact. The proposed Agreement provides that the Property
may not be developed as a development of regional impact. We have reviewed the proposed
maximum development thresholds as set forth in the Agreement and concluded that they are
below the thresholds which require review as a development of regional impact. Attached hereto
as Schedule "2" is a memorandum which sets forth our review of the DRI issues associated
with this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommendation is being provided by RPG. However, in the event the City
Commission approves the Applications and the Agreement, then it is our recommendation that
(i) such action be based on a finding that unique circumstances exist on the Property due to
portions thereof being contaminated by arsenic and not suitable for residential development; (ii)
such action be made subject to the City and Owner entering into an Agreement Regarding
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning at the time of adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment; and (iii) the JPA Agreement Amendment approval be conditioned on the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment so that the JPA Amendment would not become
effective unless the City Commission adopts the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and such
amendment becomes effective.
3
006.308717.1
FOLEY : LARDNER
SCHEDULE"1"
FOLEY : LARDNER
MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
020377-0576
TO: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq., City Attorney
FROM: Ellen M. Avery-Smith,Esq.
DATE: April 29, 2003
RE: Faraway Farms: Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Judicial Review of Same
You have asked me to determine the current status of case law in Florida regarding
judicial review of comprehensive plan amendments, both in general and with respect to
situations involving setting precedent for comprehensive plan amendments on adjacent and
neighboring properties. I have summarized that case law below.
The seminal case regarding the standard of judicial review of comprehensive plans and
plan amendments is Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1292 (Fla. 1997). In Yusem, the
Florida Supreme Court held that amendments to comprehensive land use plans adopted pursuant
to chapter 163, Florida Statutes [the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act, or the "Act"] are legislative, policy-making decisions subject to
the "fairly debatable" standard of review. This holding is not affected by the fact that a proposed
plan amendment is being sought in conjunction with a rezoning application. Id.
The fairly debatable standard of review is a highly deferential one requiring approval of a
planning action by a local government if reasonable persons could differ as to its propriety. See
Yusem, 690 So. 2d at 1295. See also Martin County v. Section 28 Partnership, Ltd., 772 So. 2d
616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). A local government planning action may be said to be fairly debatable
when, for any reason, it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense of point to
a logical deduction that in no way involves its constitutional validity. Id. Challenges to a local
government's denial of an application to amend its comprehensive plan must be filed as original
actions in circuit court. Id.
Small-scale comprehensive plan amendments also are deemed to be legislative decisions
which are subject to the fairly debatable standard of review. See Coastal Development of North
Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001); Minnaugh v. County
Commission of Broward County, 783 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2001).
4
006.308717.1
FOLEY : LARDNER
In Yusem, Section 28 Partnership and other cases in which courts have reviewed local
government denial of comprehensive plan amendment applications, the central focus has been on
whether the local government had reasons related to public health, safety and welfare for
denying such applications. For example, in Section 28 Partnership, the court felt that Martin
County presented ample evidence of the adverse environmental, public facility, financial and
other effects of the proposed development of rural land near the Loxahatchee River to justify its
decision. See Section 28 Partnership, 772 So. 2d at 619-20.
In the instant matter with Faraway Farms, the City of Ocoee is being asked to amend its
future land use map, which is part of its comprehensive plan, from a low-density residential
future land use to a commercial designation. If the City denies the application and it is appealed,
the reviewing court will use the fairly debatable standard of review in determining whether the
City was justified in its decision.
If the City approves the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan for Faraway
Farms and neighboring property owners petition the City to change the future land use
designations of their lands from low-density residential to commercial or a more intense
classification than residential, the City's decision is a legislative, policy-making decision that
would be reviewed in court under the fairly debatable standard of review. Thus, if the City
presents ample evidence during a public hearing on a comprehensive plan amendment
application to show public health, safety and welfare considerations, a court would uphold the
City's decision.
Evidence that has been used by local governments to show adverse health, safety and
welfare effects includes increased traffic generation, environmental degradation, extension of
public utilities into rural areas, provision of increased public services to outlying areas, delay of
growth in certain areas until a future date, and others.
I have found no case law that addresses the precedential effect a previous plan
amendment approval has on a local government's denial of a similar plan amendment for a
neighboring property. However, based upon the case law summarized above, such decision
would be reviewed under the fairly debatable standard. A court could certainly use the prior plan
amendment for a neighboring property as evidence against the local government.
5
006.308717.1
FOLEY : LARDNER
SCHEDULE "2"
FOLEY : LARDNER
MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
020377-0576
TO: Paul E. Rosenthal,Esq., City Attorney
FROM: Ellen M. Avery-Smith, Esq.
DATE: May 1, 2003
RE: City of Ocoee/Faraway Farms/DRI Thresholds -REVISED
You have asked me to determine whether the development of the 97-acre Faraway Farms
property with 251,950 square feet of retail use, 156,800 square feet of office use and 100 hotel
rooms would trigger development of regional impact ("DRP') review pursuant to Florida law.
You have also asked me to determine whether the development of the same property based on a
conversion matrix with a maximum of 400,000 square feet of retail space, 300,000 square feet of
office use and 350 hotel rooms would trigger DRI review. I have summarized below the general
presumptions regarding fixed DRI thresholds as established in section 380.06, Florida Statutes,
and the land use-specific thresholds for each of the above-mentioned land use designations as
established in section 380.0651,Florida Statutes.
1. Summary of DRI Laws, Regulations
Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, sets forth the legal requirements for review, creation,
adoption, operation and amendment of developments of regional impact. Standards and
guidelines for determining whether a proposed project rises to the density and intensity of
development to warrant its designation as a DRI are set forth in section 380.06(2). Section
380.0651, Florida Statutes, provides numeric and other thresholds for determining whether a
proposed level of development constitutes a DRI (i.e., what number of proposed square feet,
units or acres is enough to trigger DRI designation). I have summarized these statutory and code
provisions in relation to the Faraway Farms project below.
2. Fixed DRI Thresholds
a. A development that is below 100 percent of all numeric thresholds, as
summarized in Sections 3 through 6 of this memorandum, is not required to undergo DRI
review.
6
006.308717.1
FOLEY : LARDNER
b. A development that is at or above 120 percent of the numeric thresholds
summarized in Sections 3 through 6 of this memorandum is required to undergo DRI review.
c. Projects that create at least 100 jobs and meet certain criteria of the
Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development as to their impact on an area's
economy, employment and prevailing wage and skill levels that are at or below 100 percent of
the numeric thresholds summarized in Sections 3 through 5 herein for industrial plants, industrial
parks, distribution, warehousing or wholesaling facilities, office development or multi-use
projects other than residential uses are not required to undergo DRI review.
d. A development that is between 100 and 119 percent of the numeric
thresholds summarized in Sections 3 through 6 of this memorandum are presumed to be DRIs
and thus are required to undergo DRI review, unless the presumption can be rebutted with
competent, substantial evidence.
3. Industrial Development Thresholds (100 percent thresholds)
a. Numeric thresholds for any proposed industrial, manufacturing or
processing plant, or distribution, warehousing or wholesaling facility (excluding wholesaling
developments which deal primarily with the general public on-site) under common ownership
are as follows:
1. Parking for more than 2,500 motor vehicles; or
2. Occupies a site greater than 320 acres.
b. Because the Faraway Farms site is only 97 acres in size, it would not
trigger the acreage threshold for industrial development. However, it could trigger the parking
space threshold if the proposed number of spaces exceeds 2,500. In such a case, the proposed
development would have to undergo DRI review, unless the presumption was successfully
rebutted.
4. Office Development Thresholds (100 percent thresholds)
a. Numeric thresholds for any proposed office building or park operated
under common ownership, development plan or management are as follows:
1. Encompasses 300,000 or more square feet of gross floor area; or
2. Encompasses more than 600,000 square feet of gross floor area in
a county with a population greater than 500,000 (like Orange County) and only in a geographic
area specifically designated as highly suitable for increased threshold intensity in the approved
local comprehensive plan and in the strategic regional policy plan.
b. The Faraway Farms project would not trigger DRI review if proposed as
an office development unless more than 300,000 gross square feet of office development were
planned.
7
006.308717.1
FOLEY : LARDNER
5. Retail and Service Development Thresholds (100 percent thresholds)
a. Numeric thresholds for any proposed retail, service or wholesale business
establishment or group of establishments which deal primarily with the general public on site,
operated under one common property ownership, development plan or management are as
follows:
1. Encompasses more than 400,000 square feet of gross floor area; or
2. Provides parking spaces for more than 2,500 motor vehicles.
b. The Faraway Farms project would not trigger DRI review unless the
proposed number of square feet of retail gross floor area exceeds 400,000 or if the number of
parking spaces exceeds 2,500.
6. Hotel or Motel Development Thresholds (100 percent thresholds)
a. Numeric thresholds for any proposed hotel or motel projects are as
follows:
1. Includes 350 or more units; or
2. In a county with a population greater than 500,000, 750 units, but
only if the property on which the units are to be constructed is in a geographic area specifically
designated as highly suitable for increased thresholds in the approved local comprehensive plan
and in the strategic regional policy plan.
7. Multi-Use Development Threshold
a. The numeric threshold for any proposed development with two or more
land uses where the sum of the percentages of the appropriate thresholds identified above (i.e.,
industrial, office or retail) for each land use in the development is equal to or greater than 145
percent. By way of example, a proposed development that is to include 300,000 square feet of
office development (100 percent of office acreage threshold) can only include 180,000 square
feet of gross floor area (45 percent of 400,000 gross square feet) of retail and service
development, for a cumulative total of 145 percent.
b. If the Faraway Farms property is developed as a mixed-use project with
251,950 square feet of retail space, 156,800 square feet of office use and 100 hotel rooms, it
would not trigger DRI review under the mixed-use threshold because the cumulative
development is only 144 percent of combined thresholds. However, if the mixture of land uses is
changed or converted so that the cumulative percentage of 145 is exceeded, such amendment
would trigger DRI review.
8
006.308717.1
SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO JOINT PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF OCOEE
(Faraway Farms Property)
THIS SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO JOINT PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
(this "Amendment") is made and entered into as of the day of , 2003, by
and between ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
(the "County") and the CITY OF OCOEE, a Florida municipal corporation (the "City").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the County and the City have entered into a certain Joint Planning Area
Agreement, dated February 11, 1994 as amended by the First Amendment thereto dated August
4, 1998, as amended by the Second Amendment thereto dated January 19, 1999 as amended by
the Third Amendment thereto dated November 2, 1999, as amended by the Fourth Amendment
thereto dated November 14, 2000, as amended by the Fifth Amendment thereto dated May 6,
2003, as amended by the Sixth Amendment thereto dated July 15, 2003 and as amended by that
certain First Amendment to Joint Planning Area Land Use Map, dated August 4, 1998
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Joint Planning Area Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Area Agreement relates to property described therein
which is located in and around the boundaries of the City(the "Joint Planning Area"); and
WHEREAS, both the County and the City exercise comprehensive planning authority
pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and
Land Development Regulation Act, and enforce land development regulations to regulate the
development of land within the respective areas of jurisdiction of each party; and
006.307199.2
WHEREAS, the County and the City have the authority to enter into this Amendment
pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
Act in general and Section 163.3171,Florida Statutes, in particular; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of the Joint Planning Area Agreement set forth certain
procedures for amending the future land use designations shown on the Joint Planning Area Land
Use Map (hereinafter the "JPA Land Use Map"); and
WHEREAS, the County and City desire to amend the Joint Planning Area Agreement as
it relates to certain real property within the corporate limits of the City of Ocoee, consisting of
approximately 97.93 acres, and as more particularly described in Exhibit"1" attached hereto and
by this reference made a part thereof(hereinafter the "Affected Parcel"); and
WHEREAS, the Affected Parcel is located within the Joint Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the County and City desire to amend the Joint Planning Area Agreement in
order to change the land use designations shown on the JPA Land Use Map for the Affected
Parcel from "Low Density Residential" to "Commercial" (hereinafter referred to as the
"Proposed Map Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, the City has notified the County of the Proposed Map Amendment pursuant
to the provisions of Section 8C of the Joint Planning Area Agreement and requested that the
County amend the JPA Land Use Map as it relates to the Affected Parcel; and
WHEREAS, the County has advised the City that it desires that separate public hearings
be held with respect to this Amendment; and
006.307199.2 -2-
WHEREAS, the local planning agencies of both the County and City have considered
this Amendment and made recommendations to the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners and the Ocoee City Commission, respectively; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3171(3), Florida Statutes, this Amendment has
been approved at advertised public hearings held by both the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners and the Ocoee City Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants made by each party to the other
and of the mutual advantages to be realized by the parties hereto, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the County and the City hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by reference.
Section 2. Authority. This Amendment is entered into pursuant to (1) Chapters 125,
163 and 166, Florida Statutes, (2) the general authority of Section 163.01, Florida Statutes,
relating to interlocal agreements, (3) the Charters of the County and City, and (4) the Joint
Planning Area Agreement.
Section 3. Definitions. All terms and phrases used in this Amendment shall be as
defined in the Joint Planning Area Agreement unless otherwise indicated.
Section 4. Affected Parcel: Amendment to Joint Planning Area Agreement. The
JPA Land Use Map is hereby amended to change the land use designation of the Affected Parcel
from "Low Density Residential" to "Commercial". The Affected Parcel is described in Exhibit
"1" attached hereto. The existing Exhibit "B" to the Joint Planning Area Agreement which sets
forth the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map is to be amended to incorporate this Amendment.
006.307199.2 -3
All references in the Joint Planning Area Agreement to Exhibit "B" shall henceforth be deemed
to include the JPA Land Use Map as amended to incorporate this Sixth Amendment.
Section 5. Continuing Effect. This Amendment shall not become effective until
such time as Ordinance No. 2003-38 becomes effective relating to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the Affected Parcel.
006.307199.2 -4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and City have executed this Amendment on
behalf of the County and City, respectively, and have set their seals hereto as of the date set forth
above.
ORANGE COUNTY,FLORIDA
By: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By:
County Chairman
DATE:
ATTEST: ,County
Comptroller As Clerk of Board of County
Commissioners
Deputy Clerk
006.307199.2 -5-
CITY OF OCOEE,a Florida municipal
WITNESSED: corporation
By:
Printed Name: S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT,Mayor
Attest:
Printed Name: JEAN GRAFTON,City Clerk
(SEAL)
FOR THE USE AND RELIANCE APPROVED BY THE OCOEE CITY
ONLY BY THE CITY OF COMMISSION AT A MEETING HELD ON
OCOEE,FLORIDA;APPROVED ,2003 UNDER
AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY AGENDA ITEM NO.
this day of ,2003
FOLEY&LARDNER
By:
City Attorney
006.307199.2 -6-
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 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, a Florida municipal corporation, and that they
severally acknowledged executing the same in the presence of two 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 , 2003.
Signature of Notary
Name of Notary(type,printed or stamped)
Commission Number(if not legible on seal):
My Commission Expires(if not legible on seal):
006.307199.2 -7-
Exhibit"1"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of Section 7, Township 22 South, Range 28 East, Orange County, Florida
described as follows:
Commence at the North 1/4 corner of aforesaid Section 7; thence South 01°22'35" West along the
West line of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7 for 30.01 feet to the South line of the North 30.00 feet
of Section 7 and the southerly right-of-way line of Fullers Cross Rood as shown on Orange
County Bond Project Book Number 5, sheets 5 and 6; thence South 89°50'45" East along said
South line and southerly right-of-way line for 1280.94 feet to the East line of the West 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of aforesaid Section 7; thence South 0°45'45" West along said East line for 2431.28
feet to the East-West center section line; thence South 87°15'02" West along said center section
line for 1359.97 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of Ocoee Apopka Road (formerly State
Road No. 437) as shown in Road Plat Book 1, Pages 119 through 126 of the Public Records of
Orange County, Florida; thence along said easterly right-of-way line the following courses; run
North 16°17'16" West for 627.90 feet; thence North 16°00'04" West for 1000.00 feet; thence
North 15°24'56" West for 407.21 feet; thence North 07°30'17" West for 548.37 feet to the South
line of the North 30.00 feet of aforesaid Section 7 and the southerly right-of-way line of Fullers
Cross Road; thence South 89°57'53" East along said South line and southerly right-of-way line
for 741.45 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 97.93 acres, more or less.
006.307199.2 -8-
ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -39
CASE NO. RZ-01-06-01: FARAWAY FARMS REZONING
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA, CHANGING
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-1-AA, SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING, TO C-3, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ON CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 97.93 ACRES LOCATED
SOUTH OF FULLERS CROSS ROAD, WEST OF CLARCONA/OCOEE
ROAD AND EAST OF STATE ROAD 437, PURSUANT TO THE
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER; FINDING
SUCH ZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OCOEE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AND AUTHORIZING
THE REVISION OF THE OFFICIAL CITY ZONING MAP; REPEALING
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the owner or owners (the "Applicant") of certain real property located
within the corporate limits of the City of Ocoee, Florida, as hereinafter described, have submitted
an application to the City Commission of the City of Ocoee, Florida (the "Ocoee City
Commission")to rezone said real property(the "Rezoning"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to rezone certain real property containing
approximately 97.93 acres, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by
this reference made a part hereof, from R-1-AA, Single-Family Dwelling, to C-3, General
Commercial; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5-9(B) of Chapter 180 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Ocoee, Florida (the "Ocoee City Code"), the Director of Community Development has
reviewed said Rezoning application and determined that the Rezoning required by the Applicant
is consistent with the 1991 City of Ocoee Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Ordinance #91-28,
adopted September 18, 1991, as amended (the "Ocoee Comprehensive Plan"); and
WHEREAS, said Rezoning application was scheduled for study and recommendation by
the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Ocoee, Florida (the "Planning and Zoning
Commission"); and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2002 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing and reviewed said Rezoning application for consistency with the Ocoee Comprehensive
Plan and recommended to the Ocoee City Commission that the zoning classification of said real
property not be rezoned as requested by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, on , 2003 the Ocoee City Commission held a de novo
advertised public hearing with respect to the proposed Rezoning of said real property and
determined that the Rezoning is consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan; and
006.256613.2
WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been considered by the Ocoee City Commission in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 166.041 (3)(a), Florida Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF OCOEE,FLORIDA,AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. The Ocoee City Commission 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. REZONING. The zoning classification, as defined in the Ocoee City
Code, of the Property described in Exhibit "A" containing approximately 97.93 acres located
within the corporate limits of the City of Ocoee, Florida, is hereby changed from R-1-AA,
Single-Family Dwelling, to C-3, General Commercial. A map of said land herein described
which clearly shows the area of Rezoning is attached hereto as Exhibit"B" and by this reference
is made a part hereof.
SECTION 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The City Commission hereby finds the
Rezoning of the lands described in this Ordinance to be consistent with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 4. ZONING MAP. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
revise the Official Zoning Map of the City of Ocoee in order to incorporate the Rezoning enacted
by this Ordinance and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute said revised
Official Zoning Map in accordance with the provisions of Section 5-1(G) of Article V of Chapter
180 of the Ocoee City Code.
SECTION 5. CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. All ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed and rescinded.
SECTION 6. 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 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2003.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY OF OCOEE,FLORIDA
Jean Grafton, City Clerk S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor
006.256613.2 2
(SEAL)
ADVERTISED , 2003
READ FIRST TIME , 2003.
READ SECOND TIME AND ADOPTED
,2003.
Under Agenda Item No.
FOR USE AND RELIANCE ONLY BY THE
CITY OF OCOEE,FLORIDA.APPROVED
AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
this day of ,2003.
FOLEY & LARDNER
By:
City Attorney
006.256613.2 3
EXHIBIT"A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of Section 7, Township 22 South, Range 28 East, Orange County, Florida
described as follows:
Commence at the North 1/4 corner of aforesaid Section 7; thence South 01°2T35" West along
the West line of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7 for 30.01 feet to the South line of the North 30.00
feet of Section 7 and the southerly right-of-way line of Fullers Cross Rood as shown on Orange
County Bond Project Book Number 5, sheets 5 and 6; thence South 89°50'45" East along said
South line and southerly right-of-way line for 1280.94 feet to the East line of the West 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of aforesaid Section 7; thence South 0°45'45" West along said East line for
2431.28 feet to the East-West center section line; thence South 87°15'02" West along said center
section line for 1359.97 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of Ocoee Apopka Road (formerly
State Road No. 437) as shown in Road Plat Book 1, Pages 119 through 126 of the Public
Records of Orange County, Florida; thence along said easterly right-of-way line the following
courses; run North 16°17'16" West for 627.90 feet; thence North 16°00'04" West for 1000.00
feet; thence North 15°24'56" West for 407.21 feet; thence North 07°30'17" West for 548.37 feet
to the South line of the North 30.00 feet of aforesaid Section 7 and the southerly right-of-way
line of Fullers Cross Road; thence South 89°57'53" East along said South line and southerly
right-of-way line for 741.45 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 97.93 acres, more or less.
006.256613.2 4
EXHIBIT "B"
Location Map
"I'4\14itlitivails ' ' '..''',--e--.7-'-'.
II
0 ` ri=g
/0....................................---.
1
, ,, .. .//
RO..., a�
j .1.1
t ., ..A , lot4 a.- mii,,,
-7.1 1.1....__
. ,4/ , . ,,, , .
..
iiiimw .11111
. /;,.,;. i v_. ,
,,,,,-,
i.,,,,, , ...,....,,,,, . �' 9 0
,.....
:Ea moll1111111111
ri t >•� �0 �� P•1111111111111 ism■■■
111 1 ' � '• ...1r Adlit71 =ellinuom seal
�I% UUI&1(
1 1
iii■ . rMill 1111111 1■1111G Mill 1111111 EMI
0 v. 1 . '
: ■l ■ Iil■m �
mil, ! wili iiili ■illi- .I■1■1III■I1�, - _ ! ■ ■ ■ 1uI■�_ . ,,=
ilia 1H11111 .
MI 1
till11
11
.:
II-inik
mi.
nil 1111111=-- _
MMI II
i
f
Legend: N tis Jdnt Planning Area Boundary %��
� � .;, Subject Property
Qty Property
0 :::3•011=1=150 See 75e 10001250 Feet
County Property
Ocoee Community Printed: May 2002
Development Department
5
006.256613.2
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 - 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 97.93 ACRE
TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF FULLERS CROSS ROAD AND OCOEE
APOPKA ROAD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Ocoee desires to enter into a
Development Agreement with Chevron U.S.A. Inc. regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Rezoning (Faraway Farms) as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference
incorporated herein (the "Development Agreement") with the owner (the "Owner") of an
approximately 97.93 acre tract of land located at the southeast corner of Fullers Cross Road and
Ocoee Apopka Road and as more particularly described in the proposed Development Agreement
(the"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Owner intends to utilize the Property for office and commercial
purposes. Specifically, these purposes include, but are not limited to, professional offices, stores,
and the businesses that accompany such uses, such as restaurants,banks and other uses; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is in the public interest to address the
issues covered by the Development Agreement in a comprehensive manner, in compliance with
all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the City, while allowing the Owner to
proceed in the development of the Property in accordance with existing laws, ordinances, rules
and regulations, subject to the terms hereof, and the City has agreed to enter into the
Development Agreement with the Owner; and
006.307183.3
WHEREAS, the Owner and the City desire to comply with the formal noticing
and public hearing requirements for a property owner initiated zoning ordinance in order to
evidence their mutual agreement as to certain matters related to the development of the Property;
and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has held a first reading on this Resolution and
the Development Agreement at its meeting of September 16, 2003.and held a public hearing
thereon at its meeting of , and approved this Resolution following such
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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 Resolution pursuant to Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of
Florida and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes.
SECTION 2. Approval and Execution of Development Agreement.
The City Commission hereby approves the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the
Development Agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this Resolution 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.
006.307183.3 -2
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon passage and adoption; provided, however, that the effective date of the
Development Agreement shall be in accordance with the terms thereof
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
APPROVED:
ATTEST: CITY OF OCOEE,FLORIDA
Jean Grafton,City Clerk S. Scott Vandergrift,Mayor
(SEAL)
APPROVED BY THE OCOEE CITY
COMMISSION ON THE ABOVE DATE
UNDER AGENDA ITEM NO.
FOR USE AND RELIANCE ONLY
BY THE CITY OF OCOEE,FLORIDA;
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
this day of
FOLEY & LARDNER
By:
City Attorney
006.307183.3 -3
EXHIBIT"A"TO RESOLUTION NO.2003-18
THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY
AND SHOULD BE RETURNED TO:
PREPARED BY:
Paul E.Rosenthal,Esq.
FOLEY&LARDNER
111 North Orange Avenue,Suite 1800
Post Office Box 2193
Orlando,FL 32802-2193
(407)423-7656
For Recording Purposes Only
RETURN TO:
Jean Grafton,City Clerk
CITY OF OCOEE
150 N.Lakeshore Drive
Ocoee,FL 34761
(407)656-2322
AGREEMENT REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
FARAWAY FARMS
THIS AGREEMENT REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
AND REZONING (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the _ day of
by and between CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation whose address is
(hereinafter referred to as the "Owner") and the CITY OF OCOEE, a Florida municipal
corporation, whose mailing address is 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, Florida 34761,
Attention: City Manager(hereinafter referred to as the "City").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner owns fee simple title to certain lands located in Orange County,
Florida, said lands being more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this
reference made a part hereof(hereinafter referred to as the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the application of Land Design Innovations, Inc., as authorized
agent of the Owner, on , 20 , the Ocoee City Commission adopted,
subject to the execution of this Agreement, Ordinance No. 2003-38 which amended the City's
Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use designation for the Property from Low Density
Residential/Conservation to Commercial/Conservation ("Comprehensive Plan Amendment");
and
006.308742.1
WHEREAS, pursuant to the application of Land Design Innovations, Inc., as authorized
agent of the Owner, on , 20_ the Ocoee City Commission and Orange County,
Florida entered into that certain Amendment to Joint Planning Area Agreement changing the
designation for the Property on the JPA Land Use Map from Low Density
Residential/Conservation to Commercial/Conservation ("JPA Amendment"), with the JPA
Amendment becoming effective only upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
such Comprehensive Plan Amendment becoming effective; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the application of Land Design Innovations, as authorized agent
of the Owner, on , 20_the Ocoee City Commission adopted, subject to the execution
of this Agreement, Ordinance No. 2003-39 which rezoned the Property from R-1AA to C-3
("Rezoning Ordinance"), with the Rezoning Ordinance becoming effective only upon adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and such Comprehensive Plan Amendment becoming
effective (the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the JPA Amendment and the Rezoning
Ordinance being collectively referred to herein as the "Land Use Approvals"); and
WHEREAS, the Owner intends to utilize the Property for office and commercial
purposes; Specifically, these purposes include but are not limited to professional offices, stores,
and the businesses that accompany such uses, such as restaurants, banks and other uses. The
Owner intends to, in this Agreement, restrict the uses that will be allowed at the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is in the public interest to address the issues
covered by this Agreement in a comprehensive manner, in compliance with all applicable laws,
ordinances, rules and regulations of the City, while allowing the Owner to proceed in the
development of the Property in accordance with existing laws, ordinances, rules and regulations,
subject to the terms hereof, and the City has agreed to enter into this Agreement with the Owner;
and
WHEREAS, the Owner and the City desire to execute this Agreement in compliance
with the formal noticing and public hearing requirements for a property owner initiated zoning
ordinance as provided in Section 166.041(3)(a), Florida Statutes, in order to evidence their
mutual agreement as to certain matters related to the development of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has held a public hearing on Resolution No. 2003-18,
which Resolution adopts this Agreement, at its meeting of , 20 and has
approved this Agreement following such hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
considerations exchanged between the parties hereto, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein
by this reference.
-2-
006.308742.1
Section 2. Development of the Property.
(A) Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Agreement and in the Land
Use Approvals, it is agreed that the preliminary subdivision plan, the final subdivision plan and
all preliminary and final site plans for the Property, or any portion thereof, shall conform to the
Ocoee Land Development Code requirements, and all other applicable laws, in effect at the time
of approval of any such plans. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Ocoee
Land Development Code, as it may from time to time be amended, and this Agreement, it is
agreed that the provisions of this Agreement shall control.
(B) Neither the granting of the Land Use Approvals nor any other provision
contained herein shall be construed to exempt the Property from compliance with applicable
concurrency management requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code, as it may from
time to time be amended.
(C) Notwithstanding the Land Use Approvals for the Property, the Owner
hereby covenants and agrees that the Property shall not be developed for any of the following
uses: adult entertainment establishment, automobile parking lots, automobile repair, automobile
sales (new and used), automobile auctions, automotive wrecking/salvage yards, boat sales and
services, borrow pits, bus terminal, equipment sales, mobile home and travel trailer sales, motor
vehicle wholesale, recreational vehicle parks, childcare facilities, golf course/country club,
recreational facility(neighborhood) and truck stops.
Section 3. Development of Regional Impact. The City has not required that the
Property be reviewed as a development of regional impact ("DRF') under the provisions of
Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (the "DRI Statute"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties
hereto acknowledge that the City does not have the authority to exempt the Property from review
as a DRI and that the Land Use Approvals do not constitute an exemption from review as a DRI.
The Owner covenants and agrees that it will not develop the Property with densities and
intensities in excess of the statutory thresholds which require DRI review unless this Agreement
is specifically amended by the parties to permit the Property's development as a Development of
Regional Impact, which amendment may be granted or denied in the City's sole and absolute
discretion.
Section 4. Traffic. The Owner hereby agrees to limit the traffic generation from the
Property to a maximum of 9,888 average daily trips (the "Maximum Daily Trips"). The
Maximum Daily Trips have been calculated based on a proposed development plan for the
Property consisting of the following uses and intensities:
Retail: 276,946 square feet
Office: 141,342 square feet
Hotel: 100 Rooms
It is agreed that development exchanges between retail, office and hotel uses may occur based on
the development equivalency matrix attached hereto as Exhibit"B" and by this reference made a
-3-
006.308742.1
part hereof(the "Equivalency Matrix"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Equivalency Matrix
may not be used in such a manner for development of the Property to exceed the Maximum Daily
Trips of the following maximum uses and intensities:
Retail: square feet
Office: square feet
Hotel: Rooms
Section 5. Adoption of this Agreement. This Agreement has been approved at an
advertised public hearing by the adoption of Resolution No. 2003-18, such hearing and adoption
being in compliance with the hearing and notice requirements for a property owner initiated
zoning ordinance as contained in Section 166.041, Florida Statutes.
Section 6. No Permit. This Agreement is not and shall not be construed as a
development permit, or authorization to commence development, nor shall it relieve the Owner
of the obligations to obtain necessary development permits that are required under applicable law
and under and pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
Section 7. Notice. Any notice delivered with respect to this Agreement shall be in
writing and be deemed to be delivered(whether or not actually received) when (1) hand delivered
or sent via airborne delivery with tracking capabilities to the other party at the address appearing
below, or (ii) when deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return
receipt requested, addressed to the party at the address appearing below, or such other person or
address as the party shall have specified by written notice to the other party delivered in
accordance herewith. If to the City, deliver to 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, Florida 34761,
Attention: City Manager. If to the Owner, deliver to 6724 Broken Arrow Trail, South, Lakeland,
Florida 33813, Attention: Carla Baker, with a copy to Julie Kendig-Schrader, Greenberg, Traurig,
450 South Orange Avenue, 6th Floor, Orlando, Florida 32801.
Section 8. Covenant Running with the Land. This Agreement shall run with the
Property and inure to and be for the benefit and burden of the parties hereto and their respective
successors and assigns and any person, firm, corporation, or entity who may become the
successor in interest to the Property or any portion thereof.
Section 9. Recordation of Agreement. The parties hereto agree that an executed
original of this Agreement shall be recorded by the City, at the Owner's expense, in the Public
Records of Orange County, Florida. The City will, from time to time upon request of the Owner,
execute and deliver letters affirming the status of this Agreement.
Section 10. Applicable Law. This Agreement and the provisions contained herein
shall be construed, controlled, and interpreted according to the laws of the State of Florida.
Section 11. Time of the Essence. Time is hereby declared of the essence to the
lawful performance of the duties and obligations contained in this Agreement.
-4-
006.308742.1
Section 12. Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties, and supersedes all previous discussions, understandings and
agreements, with respect to the subject matter hereof. Amendments to and waivers of the
provisions of this Agreement shall be made by the parties only in writing by formal amendment.
Section 13. Further Documentation. The parties agree that at any time following a
request by the other party, each shall execute and deliver to the other party such further
documents and instruments, in form and substance reasonably necessary to confirm and/or
effectuate the obligations of either party hereunder.
Section 14. Specific Performance. Both the City and the Owner shall have the right
to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement by an action for specific performance.
Section 15. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that the City finds it necessary to
commence an action against the Owner to enforce any provision in this Agreement or because of
a breach by the Owner of any terms hereof, the City, if it prevails in such action, shall be entitled
to recover from the Owner its reasonable attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, and costs incurred in
connection therewith, at both trial and appellate levels, including bankruptcy proceeds, without
regard to whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment (collectively, "Attorneys Fees");
provided, however, that in the event the Owner asserts the invalidity or unenforceability of
Sections 2(C), 3 and/or 4 hereof in any such proceeding, then in such event the City shall be
entitled to recover from Owner its Attorneys Fees incurred in connection therewith, without
regard to whether or not the City prevails in any such action or proceeding.
Section 16. Indemnification. The Owner hereby agrees to indemnity, defend and
hold the City harmless from and against all losses, costs, expenses, claims, demands, fines,
penalties, damages,judgments, suits, administrative proceedings, liabilities and causes of action
whatsoever (collectively "Claims") including reasonable attorneys' fees and paralegal fees both
at trial and at appellate levels, arising out of or alleged to have arisen out of this Agreement. The
parties hereto shall use their best efforts to promptly notify each other in writing of any Claims
and shall provide the other party with information regarding the Claims such as the other party
may reasonably request.
Section 17. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 18. Captions. Captions of the Sections and Subsections of this Agreement
are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held
to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of the
provisions of this Agreement.
Section 19. Severability. If any word, sentence, phrase, paragraph, provision, or
portion of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent
-5-
006.308742.1
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereof so long as
the purpose and intent of this Agreement can still be achieved.
Section 20. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the day the
last of the Land Use Approvals becomes final, including the expiration of any applicable appeal
periods and the final conclusion of any appeals or challenges which may be brought to the Land
Use Approvals or this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner and the City have caused this instrument to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered OWNER:
in the presence of:
CHEVRON U.S.A.INC.
a Pennsylvania corporation
Print Name By:
Name:
Title:
Print Name
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the
State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared
, well known to me to be the of
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. a Pennsylvania corporation, who [ ] is personally known to me, or
[_] produced as identification, and that he/she
acknowledged executing the same in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, freely and
voluntarily, for the uses and purposes therein expressed.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this
day of ,
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):
-6-
006.308742.1
CITY:
Signed,sealed and delivered
in the presence of: CITY OF OCOEE,FLORIDA
By:
Print Name: S. Scott Vandergrift,Mayor
Attest:
Jean Grafton, City Clerk
Print Name:
(SEAL)
FOR USE AND RELIANCE ONLY BY APPROVED BY THE OCOEE CITY
THE CITY OF OCOEE,FLORIDA. COMMISSION AT ITS MEETING HELD
Approved as to form and legality this ON , UNDER
day of , AGENDA ITEM NO.
FOLEY &LARDNER
By:
City Attorney
-7-
006.308742.1
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 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 two 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 ,
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):
-8-
006.308742.1
JOINDER AND CONSENT TO AGREEMENT
( )
The undersigned hereby certifies that it is the holder of an indenture of mortgage, dated
the day of , and recorded in Official Records Book , Page
, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, upon the above described property and the
undersigned for and in consideration of valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby join in and consent to the execution of the foregoing
Agreement and agrees that the lien of its mortgage described herein above shall be subordinated
to the aforedescribed Agreement.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of: (Print name of Mortgage holder)
Print Name: By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Print Name:
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 20_, by (Name of Officer) who is
the (Title) of (Name)
He/she [ ] is personally known to me, or [ ] has produced
as identification.
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):
-9-
006.308742.1
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of Section 7, Township 22 South, Range 28 East, Orange County, Florida
described as follows:
Commence at the North 1/4 corner of aforesaid Section 7; thence South 01°22'35" West along the
West line of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7 for 30.01 feet to the South line of the North 30.00 feet
of Section 7 and the southerly right-of-way line of Fullers Cross Rood as shown on Orange
County Bond Project Book Number 5, sheets 5 and 6; thence South 89°50'45" East along said
South line and southerly right-of-way line for 1280.94 feet to the East line of the West 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of aforesaid Section 7; thence South 0°45'45" West along said East line for 2431.28
feet to the East-West center section line; thence South 87°15'02" West along said center section
line for 1359.97 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of Ocoee Apopka Road (formerly State
Road No. 437) as shown in Road Plat Book 1, Pages 119 through 126 of the Public Records of
Orange County, Florida; thence along said easterly right-of-way line the following courses; run
North 16°17'16" West for 627.90 feet; thence North 16°00'04" West for 1000.00 feet; thence
North 15°24'56" West for 407.21 feet; thence North 07°3017" West for 548.37 feet to the South
line of the North 30.00 feet of aforesaid Section 7 and the southerly right-of-way line of Fullers
Cross Road; thence South 89°57'53" East along said South line and southerly right-of-way line
for 741.45 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 97.93 acres, more or less.
-10-
006.308742.1
EXHIBIT"B"
Faraway Farms
Development Equivalency Matrix
Preferred Alternative (With Hotel)
Change From > Retail Office Hotel
Change To (KSF) (KSF) (Rooms)
Retail 1.0760 5.2614
Office 0.9294 •. le 4.8897
Hotel 0.1901 0.2045
Notes:
(1)-Development exchanges based upon ITE 6th Edition Peak Hour Peak Direction Trips as follows:
Retail (ITE Code#820)-1.21 Exiting Trips per KSF
Office (ITE Code#710)-1.12 Exiting Trips per KSF
Hotel (ITE Code#310)- 0.23 Entering Trips per Unit
(2)-Example exchanges:
To add 2,000 square feet of RETAIL and change from OFFICE-
2 KSF x 1.0760=2.152=Reduce OFFICE by 2,152 Square Feet
To add 100 HOTEL units and change from RETAIL
100 Units x 0.1901=19.01—Reduce RETAIL by 19,010 Square Feet
-11-
006.308742.1