Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 05-13-2003 s THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003 AS LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Golden called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Following a moment of silent meditation and the Pledge. of Allegiance to the Flag, a quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Golden, Members Campbell, Keller, McKey (arrived 7:07 p.m.), Rhodus, Riffe and West. Also present were City Attorney Rosenthal, Community Development Director Wagner, Planning Manager Lewis, Senior Planner Willman, Principal Planner James, Senior Planner Grimms and Deputy City Clerk Green. ABSENT: Chairman Bond and Member Landefeld, and also OCPS Representative Foltz. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of approval of Item A: A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. Member Keller, seconded by Member West, moved to approve the Minutes of the March 26, 2003, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6 -0. (Member McKey had not yet arrived.) NEW BUSINESS WINES PROPERTY - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT NO. LS -02 -009 Senior Planner Willman presented the staff report for the proposed Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the Wines Property located at 2500 Ocoee - Apopka Road, Parcel Tax ID 06- 22 -28- 0000 -00 -001. The Preliminary Subdivision Plan proposes 100 single - family residential lots on 38 acres located on the west side of Ocoee - Apopka Road, approximately 600 feet north of West Road. The eastern edge of the property abuts a wetland area, which will be placed in a conservation easement dedicated to the City. The Wines Property is zoned R -1AA and R -3, but R -1AA standards will be used for all development in the subdivision, requiring minimum lot width of 75 feet and lot size of `l'' 9,000 sf. The developer is requesting two zoning waivers to provide homebuyers the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 option to build larger homes. These waivers would allow for an increase in total building coverage from 35% to 45 %, and an increase in maximum impervious surface area from 50% to 55% on each lot. The 45% lot coverage would not encroach upon R -1AA setbacks, and the retention pond would be designed for 55% total impervious area. On April 14, 2003, the DRC reviewed the Wines Property Preliminary Subdivision Plan and voted unanimously to recommend approval with minor changes, which have been incorporated on the plans date, stamped received April 21, 2003. Ms. Willman concluded with Staff's recommendation for approval including the two requested waivers. The public hearing was opened. Board members asked several questions to which Senior Planner Willman and Community Development Director Wagner responded. (Responses underlined). Does the plan provide for a community meeting area? It provides a 495 square foot gazebo along with a tot lot. ,,. What about a second entrance? It was omitted due to limited frontage on Ocoee - Apopka Road. What about funding for future widening or additional turn lanes for area roads? Developers in this area have been dedicating right -of -way, putting in turn lanes on the current road, and paying regular impact fees. To pave Ocoee - Apopka Road from Silver Star to the Expressway would be a $30M project. The City could not do it without County participation. When will the LDC be changed to require larger trees for residential areas? Upgraded regulations can be considered in the update of the LDC now in progress. Noting flag lots on the Plan, what are the standards in the Land Development Code for flag lots? The LDC restricts to no more than two adjacent flag lots. Discussion about the difficulties of developing flag lots and alternative solutions concluded with the suggestion to look at the regulations for them in LDC revisions. Does the LDC allow conjunctive driveways? The only Code requirement is that a lot may not have less than 20 lineal feet on a road. It was suggested that this be addressed in LDC revisions. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Since there are no protected trees on the property, will Staff oversee the clearing for road right -of -way, etc.? Yes. In addition to the recently abandoned orange grove that will be cleared, there are trees in a conservation easement on the northwest side of the site and that will be preserved. What is the size requirement for trees along the street? Street trees would be 2" and others would be 1 1/2 ". Vice Chairman Golden asked that Staff include existing and future land use maps with reports in the future. Kyle Sanders, with Cambridge Homes, the developer of the proposed project, said they concur with Staff's recommendation of approval. He said they appreciate all the help they have received and the opportunity to be before P &Z. He said this would be the third project for Cambridge Homes in the City, and the previous projects have gone well. Kevin Kramer, with PDA, the engineer for the project, was also present to answer questions. In response to a question about the price of the homes for the Wines Property, Mr. Nov Sanders said they are currently building in Orchard Park and those list prices are about $175,000 to $225,000, with some homes in excess of $300,000, but for the most part they are between $225,000 and $275,000. He said they expected the Wines homes prices to be higher than Orchard Park and consistent with Westyn Bay and Forestbrooke. In response to a question about the square footage of the homes in light of the waivers requested, Mr. Sanders distributed a spreadsheet showing Lot Coverage and Impervious Ratio Analysis for the various models of homes. He said the waivers would allow them to build homes up to 4,050 sf, and 4, 950 sf of impervious would allow for driveways, pool deck, etc. Mr. Wagner pointed out the popularity of rear yard pools, gardens and hardscape. He said the waivers would allow the builder to build a larger house on the lot without affecting the side yards and front yards. As no others wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussion of Member Riffe's motion noted below, Member McKey asked the board's consent to amend the motion to ask for 3" to 4" trees along the roadway and 3" minimum on the property because this is such a barren site. Vice Chairman Golden suggested it might be possible to request more trees of the same diameter. Member 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Riffe said she was not willing to amend the motion because she thought it would be unfair to require this developer to do that which was not required of others. She said these concerns should be addressed by changes to the Code. Member West said he appreciated Member McKey's good intentions, but he agreed with Member Riffe's position. Vice Chairman Golden said that should have been brought up with the developer in the public hearing. As had been recommended by Staff, Member Riffe, seconded by Member Keller, moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the Wines Property, Project No. LS -02 -009, as date stamped received by the City on April 21, 2003, including the two requested zoning waivers. Motion carried 7 -0, FARAWAY FARMS /CHEVRON (As LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) PUBLIC HEARING JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, CASE No. JPA -01 -001 LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, CASE No. CPA -01 -002 REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, CASE No. RZ- 01 -06 -01 City Attorney Rosenthal said for purposes of the Planning and Zoning Commission, there could be a consolidated public hearing and all comments would apply for each of the Faraway Farms /Chevron matters scheduled for public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Community Development Director Wagner said there was a full staff report from Mr. Whit Blanton, with Renaissance Planning Group, the City's planning consultant, who has acted as staff and has met with the applicant throughout the review process. There was also a report from Mr. Rosenthal regarding legal issues pertaining to this project. Mr. Wagner briefly explained the background of the project. He said about one year ago (June 11, 2002) Planning and Zoning Commission (as LPA) had conducted a public hearing on the same property in which board members heard from staff, the applicant, and neighbors from the surrounding area. At that meeting the applicant asked for a continuance of that public hearing because there were many unresolved items. In the meantime, the applicant has met with some of the adjoining property owners. They also amended their application that was a land use change to industrial and I -1 zoning and it is now an amendment request to commercial land use and C -3 zoning. Because this was a fairly dramatic change, the public hearings were readvertised. Even though many of the issues are the same, staff did do a full review of this application on its own merits. Mr. Blanton will give a brief synopsis of the findings of the staff. The last time the staff 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 recommendation was a neutral position on this as a policy matter. They believe because of the change to commercial and what they believe the more dramatic potential impacts as a result of that, staff is recommending denial of these applications. Mr. Blanton and Mr. Rosenthal will give the background on why the staff has come to that conclusion. Whit Blanton introduced his associate, Jacob Riger. He said he and Mr. Riger along with another staff member from their office were primarily responsible for reviewing this amended request. Mr. Blanton presented the staff report for the Faraway Farms /Chevron applications. Since the June 11, 2002, meeting they have reviewed a number of documents and have met with the applicant again. While a lot of the things in their staff report have not changed, some things are a little bit different. One thing to keep in mind is that the City's Comprehensive Plan has also been amended, and that is an important consideration. He said they are the City's continuing services consultant and have been for about seven years. Their job is to look out for the long term implications for the City in terms of growth and development, particularly for transportation, but also as it relates to a whole host of other development related issues. He said their focus was to evaluate the proposed land use change in the context of the *110, long term implications for the City and whether there was an adequate game plan in place to provide a suitable development framework to anticipate likely changes that may occur as a result of that request. He said they are reviewing this strictly on the development merits related to the land use and the compatibility of those land uses with the surrounding area. He said the Faraway Farms project is located on the southeast corner of Fuller's Cross Road and Ocoee - Apopka Road. The site is slightly less than 100 acres and about 1/3 of that is conservation. The applicant is proposing to retain the conservation component. The property lies within the Orange County Joint Planning Area (JPA) therefore one of the requested changes is to amend the JPA. Mr. Blanton's presentation included highlights from the staff report in the packet and a power point presentation. Mr. Blanton's staff report and power point presentation are on file. In summary, Mr. Blanton said there are several points he would like to make. They feel the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for a number of reasons. They think it is in conflict with the policies that require compatible land uses and also remedies for dealing with land uses that may be incompatible that address things such as planned unit developments and a stronger mix of land uses on site, potentially even including *kw 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting +„`,. May 13, 2003 residential mixing land uses. They believe that the Comprehensive Plan is in conflict with this request because of the creation of the interchange impact area, which deals with situations just like this. They believe that a substantial land use change before having that interchange impact area analysis in place is premature. That whole plan is intended to prevent poorly planned, piecemeal developments from really changing the character of the community. The City's market studies that have been done for the Coke property (two studies) have both indicated that currently, based on low- density residential development patterns in the area, there is a relatively limited demand for non - residential uses. So, given that, it is hard to justify a nearly one hundred -acre site going to commercial and the impacts that may have. They feel the threat is there for an oversupply of commercial land uses in the area. Mr. Blanton said he and Mr. Riger would be happy to answer questions. City Attorney Rosenthal said he had been working with Mr. Blanton and his office on this project. In some respects their paths are divergent in that Mr. Rosenthal's job is also to make sure that, while they have a negative staff recommendation, should the P &Z desire to recommend the project, that members know the proper legal parameters within which to take that action. He said essentially this is a legislative function allowing broader discretion than when dealing with site plans, subdivision plans, or rezoning 1r where no comprehensive plan amendment is being sought. Mr. Rosenthal presented his staff report explaining procedural matters and addressing three legal issues, which may impact the P &Z discussion and recommendation on the Applications. The legal issues relate to: (1) precedents arising from approval of the Applications, (2) the type of rezoning requested, and (3) a proposed agreement with the Owner. The staff recommendation provided by RPG recommends denial. In the event the P &Z decides to recommend that the City Commission approve the Applications and the Agreement, Mr. Rosenthal recommended 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 with an acceptable equivalency matrix based on Average Daily Trips; and (iii) the JPA Agreement Amendment approval be conditioned on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Rosenthal 's staff report as included in the packet is on file in its entirety. fir► 6 s THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003 AS LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Golden called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Following a moment of silent meditation and the Pledge. of Allegiance to the Flag, a quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Golden, Members Campbell, Keller, McKey (arrived 7:07 p.m.), Rhodus, Riffe and West. Also present were City Attorney Rosenthal, Community Development Director Wagner, Planning Manager Lewis, Senior Planner Willman, Principal Planner James, Senior Planner Grimms and Deputy City Clerk Green. ABSENT: Chairman Bond and Member Landefeld, and also OCPS Representative Foltz. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of approval of Item A: A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. Member Keller, seconded by Member West, moved to approve the Minutes of the March 26, 2003, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6 -0. (Member McKey had not yet arrived.) NEW BUSINESS WINES PROPERTY - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT NO. LS -02 -009 Senior Planner Willman presented the staff report for the proposed Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the Wines Property located at 2500 Ocoee - Apopka Road, Parcel Tax ID 06- 22 -28- 0000 -00 -001. The Preliminary Subdivision Plan proposes 100 single - family residential lots on 38 acres located on the west side of Ocoee - Apopka Road, approximately 600 feet north of West Road. The eastern edge of the property abuts a wetland area, which will be placed in a conservation easement dedicated to the City. The Wines Property is zoned R -1AA and R -3, but R -1AA standards will be used for all development in the subdivision, requiring minimum lot width of 75 feet and lot size of `l'' 9,000 sf. The developer is requesting two zoning waivers to provide homebuyers the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 option to build larger homes. These waivers would allow for an increase in total building coverage from 35% to 45 %, and an increase in maximum impervious surface area from 50% to 55% on each lot. The 45% lot coverage would not encroach upon R -1AA setbacks, and the retention pond would be designed for 55% total impervious area. On April 14, 2003, the DRC reviewed the Wines Property Preliminary Subdivision Plan and voted unanimously to recommend approval with minor changes, which have been incorporated on the plans date, stamped received April 21, 2003. Ms. Willman concluded with Staff's recommendation for approval including the two requested waivers. The public hearing was opened. Board members asked several questions to which Senior Planner Willman and Community Development Director Wagner responded. (Responses underlined). Does the plan provide for a community meeting area? It provides a 495 square foot gazebo along with a tot lot. ,,. What about a second entrance? It was omitted due to limited frontage on Ocoee - Apopka Road. What about funding for future widening or additional turn lanes for area roads? Developers in this area have been dedicating right -of -way, putting in turn lanes on the current road, and paying regular impact fees. To pave Ocoee - Apopka Road from Silver Star to the Expressway would be a $30M project. The City could not do it without County participation. When will the LDC be changed to require larger trees for residential areas? Upgraded regulations can be considered in the update of the LDC now in progress. Noting flag lots on the Plan, what are the standards in the Land Development Code for flag lots? The LDC restricts to no more than two adjacent flag lots. Discussion about the difficulties of developing flag lots and alternative solutions concluded with the suggestion to look at the regulations for them in LDC revisions. Does the LDC allow conjunctive driveways? The only Code requirement is that a lot may not have less than 20 lineal feet on a road. It was suggested that this be addressed in LDC revisions. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Since there are no protected trees on the property, will Staff oversee the clearing for road right -of -way, etc.? Yes. In addition to the recently abandoned orange grove that will be cleared, there are trees in a conservation easement on the northwest side of the site and that will be preserved. What is the size requirement for trees along the street? Street trees would be 2" and others would be 1 1/2 ". Vice Chairman Golden asked that Staff include existing and future land use maps with reports in the future. Kyle Sanders, with Cambridge Homes, the developer of the proposed project, said they concur with Staff's recommendation of approval. He said they appreciate all the help they have received and the opportunity to be before P &Z. He said this would be the third project for Cambridge Homes in the City, and the previous projects have gone well. Kevin Kramer, with PDA, the engineer for the project, was also present to answer questions. In response to a question about the price of the homes for the Wines Property, Mr. Nov Sanders said they are currently building in Orchard Park and those list prices are about $175,000 to $225,000, with some homes in excess of $300,000, but for the most part they are between $225,000 and $275,000. He said they expected the Wines homes prices to be higher than Orchard Park and consistent with Westyn Bay and Forestbrooke. In response to a question about the square footage of the homes in light of the waivers requested, Mr. Sanders distributed a spreadsheet showing Lot Coverage and Impervious Ratio Analysis for the various models of homes. He said the waivers would allow them to build homes up to 4,050 sf, and 4, 950 sf of impervious would allow for driveways, pool deck, etc. Mr. Wagner pointed out the popularity of rear yard pools, gardens and hardscape. He said the waivers would allow the builder to build a larger house on the lot without affecting the side yards and front yards. As no others wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussion of Member Riffe's motion noted below, Member McKey asked the board's consent to amend the motion to ask for 3" to 4" trees along the roadway and 3" minimum on the property because this is such a barren site. Vice Chairman Golden suggested it might be possible to request more trees of the same diameter. Member 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Riffe said she was not willing to amend the motion because she thought it would be unfair to require this developer to do that which was not required of others. She said these concerns should be addressed by changes to the Code. Member West said he appreciated Member McKey's good intentions, but he agreed with Member Riffe's position. Vice Chairman Golden said that should have been brought up with the developer in the public hearing. As had been recommended by Staff, Member Riffe, seconded by Member Keller, moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the Wines Property, Project No. LS -02 -009, as date stamped received by the City on April 21, 2003, including the two requested zoning waivers. Motion carried 7 -0, FARAWAY FARMS /CHEVRON (As LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) PUBLIC HEARING JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, CASE No. JPA -01 -001 LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, CASE No. CPA -01 -002 REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, CASE No. RZ- 01 -06 -01 City Attorney Rosenthal said for purposes of the Planning and Zoning Commission, there could be a consolidated public hearing and all comments would apply for each of the Faraway Farms /Chevron matters scheduled for public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Community Development Director Wagner said there was a full staff report from Mr. Whit Blanton, with Renaissance Planning Group, the City's planning consultant, who has acted as staff and has met with the applicant throughout the review process. There was also a report from Mr. Rosenthal regarding legal issues pertaining to this project. Mr. Wagner briefly explained the background of the project. He said about one year ago (June 11, 2002) Planning and Zoning Commission (as LPA) had conducted a public hearing on the same property in which board members heard from staff, the applicant, and neighbors from the surrounding area. At that meeting the applicant asked for a continuance of that public hearing because there were many unresolved items. In the meantime, the applicant has met with some of the adjoining property owners. They also amended their application that was a land use change to industrial and I -1 zoning and it is now an amendment request to commercial land use and C -3 zoning. Because this was a fairly dramatic change, the public hearings were readvertised. Even though many of the issues are the same, staff did do a full review of this application on its own merits. Mr. Blanton will give a brief synopsis of the findings of the staff. The last time the staff 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Carla Baker, Senior Real Estate Project Representative for Chevron Texaco, 6724Broken Arrow Trail, South, Lakeland, Florida 33813, introduced other members of their team who were present to answer questions. Ms. Baker gave the presentation for the applicant. She said the state's change in the DRI threshold had prompted the change from Light Industrial to Commercial in their amended application. She said that change lowered the square footage of their total plan from 433,000 sf to 400,000 sf, so they felt additional technical review was not needed. She explained in detail how they believe the City would benefit from the mixed -use plan they propose. She concluded with a request for a motion to recommend approval of their collective applications. Ms. Baker's power point presentation is on file. Vice Chairman Golden asked about specifics of the environmental concerns, where the problems are and what makes this a unique problem. Ms. Baker said it is not unique on agricultural land. She pointed out the areas of contamination on the site and said they are nine inches in depth. She said the primary remedy for arsenic is usually dig and haul, which is done with development. She said to put this site into residential condition, it would be necessary to dig and haul about 20,000 tons of soil and bring in clean fill, about a $10M ticket, and so it is uneconomical to develop this as residential. She said Chevron was not willing to take the liability of placing homes on contaminated soil. She said there were no specific regulations written for arsenic cleanup on agricultural land. She said there is substantial information on the arsenic in the documentation they have given to the City. James Magazino said he is currently a resident of New Jersey, but he plans to build a home on his property at 1811 Crown Point Woods Circle. He spoke in support of residential use and against commercial use for the property. Kevin Keller, 1727 Crown Point Woods Circle, the current president of the Crown Point Woods Homeowners' Association, supported denial of Chevron's rezoning application. Mr. Keller submitted a prepared statement, which is attached as Exhibit A. Terri Slifko, 1721 Crown Point Woods Circle, read excerpts from a letter she submitted with her Speaking Reservation Form. She said she opposed the rezoning of the Faraway Farms property, disagreed with the Land Use Map Amendment, and opposed the Joint Planning Area Amendment. Dr. Slifko, a microbiologist, also submitted the letter she had presented in June 2002 that included her findings about the arsenic contamination issue. She thanked the Chevron representatives for their willingness to meet with the homeowners and to listen to their ideas. Dr. Slifko's letters are attached as Exhibits B and C. Slow 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Edmond Harrison, 1350 Clarcona -Ocoee Road, whose property abuts this property on the southeast corner, spoke about a drainage ditch that had been placed along the north side of his property by Orange County in the 50's. He said the ditch drains into his property as well as the Faraway Farms property, spreading contaminants from herbicides used by the County. Ms. Baker said the Chevron Land and Development, a subsidiary of Chevron Texaco, does intend to develop this property along with a joint venture partner. Recess: 8:50 p.m. — 9:05 p.m. Community Development Director Wagner clarified Staff's position. He said there is a lot of existing commercial in the area some of which has been there more than ten years, prior to the adoption of the interchange impact area concept and activity centers. He said the Coca Cola Property is going through a full review and area study of its own in relationship to the public uses and schools, etc., so that has been studied in detail as far as traffic and infrastructure. The two market studies that the City has done did not substantiate the applicant's data about the need for commercial and office development in the area. The City's studies found that the existing commercial in the area and that of the Coca -Cola property would substantially satisfy any commercial, retail and service "a.► need in the area. He also pointed out that the detailed plans presented tonight were not given to staff to review. He said for the record that none of these drawings or models has been provided to staff for review or have been presented to them. He said this is a broad based approval, so none of the drawings or models is a part of this approval, and nothing guarantees that any of that will be built. As to the arsenic issue, Mr. Wagner said as the applicant has admitted, if the arsenic really is not that unique to the site, while there is some, it apparently is not a unique situation over the entire site. The board needs to then consider what Mr. Rosenthal said, is this a unique site or not. If it is not, then it definitely could set some land uses precedents for the area in the future, and that is very significant. This is a classic land use compatibility and character issue for the area. Mr. Blanton said his comments would speak mainly to transportation. First, with regard to traffic and the market demand for this, the market feasibility study prepared for the City which he reviewed referred to the 429 interchange at West Road as a third tier interchange, in terms of where the market would be for non - residential uses. The study cited 438 and SR 50 as more prominent interchanges for those uses. Secondly, in terms of the traffic study related to the commercial uses, there has been a reduction in square footage, but because of the changing characteristic associated with industrial and commercial, there are some changes that would occur in terms of the trip generation rates Saw 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Carla Baker, Senior Real Estate Project Representative for Chevron Texaco, 6724Broken Arrow Trail, South, Lakeland, Florida 33813, introduced other members of their team who were present to answer questions. Ms. Baker gave the presentation for the applicant. She said the state's change in the DRI threshold had prompted the change from Light Industrial to Commercial in their amended application. She said that change lowered the square footage of their total plan from 433,000 sf to 400,000 sf, so they felt additional technical review was not needed. She explained in detail how they believe the City would benefit from the mixed -use plan they propose. She concluded with a request for a motion to recommend approval of their collective applications. Ms. Baker's power point presentation is on file. Vice Chairman Golden asked about specifics of the environmental concerns, where the problems are and what makes this a unique problem. Ms. Baker said it is not unique on agricultural land. She pointed out the areas of contamination on the site and said they are nine inches in depth. She said the primary remedy for arsenic is usually dig and haul, which is done with development. She said to put this site into residential condition, it would be necessary to dig and haul about 20,000 tons of soil and bring in clean fill, about a $10M ticket, and so it is uneconomical to develop this as residential. She said Chevron was not willing to take the liability of placing homes on contaminated soil. She said there were no specific regulations written for arsenic cleanup on agricultural land. She said there is substantial information on the arsenic in the documentation they have given to the City. James Magazino said he is currently a resident of New Jersey, but he plans to build a home on his property at 1811 Crown Point Woods Circle. He spoke in support of residential use and against commercial use for the property. Kevin Keller, 1727 Crown Point Woods Circle, the current president of the Crown Point Woods Homeowners' Association, supported denial of Chevron's rezoning application. Mr. Keller submitted a prepared statement, which is attached as Exhibit A. Terri Slifko, 1721 Crown Point Woods Circle, read excerpts from a letter she submitted with her Speaking Reservation Form. She said she opposed the rezoning of the Faraway Farms property, disagreed with the Land Use Map Amendment, and opposed the Joint Planning Area Amendment. Dr. Slifko, a microbiologist, also submitted the letter she had presented in June 2002 that included her findings about the arsenic contamination issue. She thanked the Chevron representatives for their willingness to meet with the homeowners and to listen to their ideas. Dr. Slifko's letters are attached as Exhibits B and C. Slow 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Edmond Harrison, 1350 Clarcona -Ocoee Road, whose property abuts this property on the southeast corner, spoke about a drainage ditch that had been placed along the north side of his property by Orange County in the 50's. He said the ditch drains into his property as well as the Faraway Farms property, spreading contaminants from herbicides used by the County. Ms. Baker said the Chevron Land and Development, a subsidiary of Chevron Texaco, does intend to develop this property along with a joint venture partner. Recess: 8:50 p.m. — 9:05 p.m. Community Development Director Wagner clarified Staff's position. He said there is a lot of existing commercial in the area some of which has been there more than ten years, prior to the adoption of the interchange impact area concept and activity centers. He said the Coca Cola Property is going through a full review and area study of its own in relationship to the public uses and schools, etc., so that has been studied in detail as far as traffic and infrastructure. The two market studies that the City has done did not substantiate the applicant's data about the need for commercial and office development in the area. The City's studies found that the existing commercial in the area and that of the Coca -Cola property would substantially satisfy any commercial, retail and service "a.► need in the area. He also pointed out that the detailed plans presented tonight were not given to staff to review. He said for the record that none of these drawings or models has been provided to staff for review or have been presented to them. He said this is a broad based approval, so none of the drawings or models is a part of this approval, and nothing guarantees that any of that will be built. As to the arsenic issue, Mr. Wagner said as the applicant has admitted, if the arsenic really is not that unique to the site, while there is some, it apparently is not a unique situation over the entire site. The board needs to then consider what Mr. Rosenthal said, is this a unique site or not. If it is not, then it definitely could set some land uses precedents for the area in the future, and that is very significant. This is a classic land use compatibility and character issue for the area. Mr. Blanton said his comments would speak mainly to transportation. First, with regard to traffic and the market demand for this, the market feasibility study prepared for the City which he reviewed referred to the 429 interchange at West Road as a third tier interchange, in terms of where the market would be for non - residential uses. The study cited 438 and SR 50 as more prominent interchanges for those uses. Secondly, in terms of the traffic study related to the commercial uses, there has been a reduction in square footage, but because of the changing characteristic associated with industrial and commercial, there are some changes that would occur in terms of the trip generation rates Saw 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 that may occur for traffic, the length of those trips, the distribution of those trips, are typically all things that are taken into consideration in any traffic study. He said staff has not been given an opportunity to address those issues. He said the applicant has referred to traditional neighborhood development (TND) or new urbanist type development. He said that is a laudable objective, but research has shown nationwide that TND's such as Winter Park Village and Baldwin Park actually generate a lot more traffic than predicted. They become regional centers that attract traffic from a much further distance and they far exceed the expectations. Mr. Blanton said the applicant has cited similar developments in terms of generating property tax revenues but the traffic characteristics of developments near 17 -92 or I -4 would be very different from those near a limited access toll road. As to traffic concurrency, Mr. Blanton said it is a site - specific tool to deal with very small scale projects, but would not deal with these large scale land use changes that are really very comprehensive in nature. He said he thought those points were significant and they need to be brought into the record. Vice Chairman Golden asked Mr. Blanton what he had seen as far as environmental problems on the site. Mr. Blanton said Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM), an ,.. environmental consulting firm, had helped them with that review. They had done initial reviews a year ago, but his firm had not engaged their services since then. He said what CDM had found was that more information needed to be provided for them to make an accurate assessment of the implications and the impacts. There are potential drainage issues, because the property lies in a drainage basin for Lake Apopka. From their review, there were more unanswered questions than specific answers. Vice Chairman Golden asked if the applicant had been asked to provide additional information, and Mr. Blanton said in the reviews they did raise a number of questions that were not really addressed as far as they could see in the response. Mr. Rosenthal asked that both staff and the applicant provide the clerk with a copy of anything displayed on the overhead projector or in a power point presentation so it would be a part of the record of the proceeding. Ms. Baker responded, with regard to Mr. Blanton's comments about commercial trips, they did take that into account. She said they lessened the square footage for commercial to match the number of trips for the light industrial mixed use as was formerly applied for. 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Nftw May 13, 2003 Ms. Baker said they had answered a plethora of environmental questions. She said there were more than 900 samplings on the site and those were put into what would typically be called a Phase 1/Phase 2 report. She said at this point in a development scheme that should be all that is required. Member McKey asked why they are seeking C -3 zoning, in light of the number of restrictions, instead of a PUD. Ms. Baker said they had first applied in June 2001 when the Graftons still owned the property. She said if they were submitting the application today, it would probably be for a PUD. Member McKey asked Mr. Wagner what zoning would be acceptable to staff. Mr. Wagner said staff is reacting to the proposal on the floor. If the applicant wants to come back with a modified proposal, that would be fine. He said it would not be appropriate to deliberate "what ifs "? Member McKey said we need to look at what helps our City as well as what helps the surrounding area. Kevin Keller said in a survey the majority of Crown Point Woods residents favored annexing into Ocoee, but they had been advised it would have to be almost 100 %. Member Riffe asked if the applicant had been asked to submit a master plan or site plan for this site in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. She said she thought it was the fear of staff and the adjoining neighborhood was, "Is this really what is going to happen ?" City Attorney Rosenthal responded that staff did not ask for anything at a site plan or subdivision level. Early on they had discussed conceptually the concept of an industrial PUD, which would have allowed a better legal format to assure the enforceability of a developer agreement imposing restrictions. He said the compromise position is that they have indicated as a staff level condition that the Greenberg Traurig firm needs to give them an enforceability opinion with respect to the developer agreement and they have agreed on some procedures for consideration of the development agreement which they do not normally follow. Particularly when it gets to the City Commission level, they are going to follow procedures comparable to a zoning ordinance and get an enforceability opinion from them. They did not ask for that level they asked for the bubble plan PUD type approach. Member Riffe supported a PUD as the best alternative for the site, incorporating residential and possibly neighborhood commercial. She said she would not recommend approval of this application, but she does not think this is a dead site. Ni" 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Member Keller asked why a golf course was excluded for the site. Ms. Baker said they struck the golf course because the City golf course is less than a mile away and the site was too small for more than 9 holes as they have only 60 to 65 acres of usable land. Mr. Keller asked why not seek a PUD now. Ms. Baker said they are really here for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and would be willing to withdraw their rezoning application and come back later with that. Mr. Keller suggested that professional offices might be a use more acceptable to the neighbors. Ms. Baker said the developer's agreement was very restrictive and would be binding on the property. Member Rhodus asked Mr. Wagner if in the Feasibility Study finding that there was sufficient commercial in that area they were counting the closed stores. Mr. Wagner said the market study is done on a global basis and then they determine how much is actually being utilized compared to existing population and predicted future growth in an area. He said all market studies are based on housetops. He said they have asked for original market studies from this developer to support what they are requesting and they have relied on the City's study for its development. Member Rhodus asked why adjacent property owners would want commercial zoning if this project were not successful. Mr. Wagner said they have weekly inquiries about potential development around this interchange. He said this is a large enough piece that it will dictate the future character of the area. Member Campbell asked Mr. Rosenthal if there was an actual decline of PUD status by this Owner. Mr. Rosenthal said it was his recollection that they had told them that that is how we would prefer that the application move forward. He said the Graftons owned the property at the time of those discussions, and they were not interested in doing it. He said the staff may have preferences, but the applicant gets to make the call in terms of how it gets presented to P &Z. And P &Z and City Commission make the call as to whether or not that was a good or bad business decision. He said staff does not have the ability to dictate. He said from a legal standpoint, he viewed it as a better mechanism by which he could assure P &Z and the City Commission that whatever restrictions were being imposed would be enforceable and sustainable at the end of the day. He said that led to an in- between position of a development agreement — a PUD without the bubble plan and without the same detail levels of conditions of approval. If this was a PUD application, you would have the bubble plan, specific buffers defined, traffic issues addressed, and specific locations for retail and commercial, which you do not have now. He said his caution would be, and from a timing standpoint, if you were to have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved and adopted, the applicant then has a legal entitlement to commercial zoning consistent with the CP, and were that to occur prior to a PUD ordinance, there would be no assurance or guarantee that that would happen. He said from a procedural standpoint, they try to dual track things. He said clearly a PUD 11 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 process would slow down where we are now, but that is something that could legally be worked with. Member Campbell asked when Chevron assumed ownership of the property. Ms. Baker said they had begun initial discussions with the City about this property and its development in January 2000. She said there were no Large Scale Land Use Amendment windows open at that time. They submitted their collective applications in June of 2001, and Chevron actually took title to the property at the end of December 2001. Member Campbell asked for clarification of the "Equivalency Matrix" data on page 3 of Mr. Rosenthal's staff report, and Mr. Rosenthal explained. Member West said he appreciates the homeowners' viewpoint, but he thought the project as conceptually proposed would be an asset. He said he sometimes has problems with the market studies that municipalities do, as he thought the market should be the supply and demand of what is needed. Julie Kendig Schrader, Greenberg Traurig, attorney for Chevron, said she had spoken with Ms. Baker and it has become obvious they need to do a PUD here. They have made these plans, they have a commitment to pursue these plans, and from speaking to Ms. Now Baker, Chevron is committed to doing that. She said if they need to withdraw their rezoning request to commercial they are willing to do that at this time and just allow the CPA to proceed, pending their commitment in accordance with the PUD ordinance. The public hearing was closed. Member McKey expressed concern about the capacity of the road and the need for road improvements in order to avoid gridlock from development already approved. Member Riffe said she would not support a CPA to change the site to commercial as she thought it was not an appropriate site for all commercial. Member Keller asked if the arsenic issue would preclude using the site for residential. Mr. Blanton said early on the applicant had said it would be cost prohibitive, but staff does not have a quantification of what that is. Member Keller asked, in light of the applicant's willingness to change to PUD, if the wording of the CPA should be changed or if a continuance should be considered. Mr. Rosenthal explained various options. *la "' 12 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 Vice Chairman Golden said he was not sold on changing the CP to commercial and that the project should have been a mixed residential and commercial. He said soil standards are changing and it was a common remediation technique to pave over the contaminated areas. He said traffic issues remain to be worked out, he still has a lot of questions, and could not support this. Member Rhodus said she appreciated the applicant's presentation and would not mind living across the street from the model the applicant presented. She agreed with Member McKey's issues with the roads as well as other members' comments. Member Campbell said transportation was one of the big issues for him. He said while he applauds what they would like to do, he thought mixed use with some residential would be more appropriate for the area, and that he was in consensus with the rest of the Commission at this point. Member West said he thought the roadway would not be the big problem in light of the expressway and the four - laning of Clarcona -Ocoee Road. He said he thought the big problem lay in satisfying the City and the homeowners as to what was really going to be there. He said it was a very nice presentation, but that he could see everybody's concerns. fir. Responding to a question by Member McKey about procedure, Mr. Rosenthal suggested, if the board wished to consider a fall -back position, that they have the applicant come back up to give their position so the board does not direct staff to do something the applicant is not interested in doing. He said even a denial would get the applicant to the City Commission for a definitive, binding vote, and a continuance would not get them to the City Commission. Julie Kendig Schrader, Greenberg Traurig, attorney for the applicant, said what she had indicated was that they would come back with a commercial PUD. She said anything beyond that she had not discussed with Ms. Baker, so Ms. Baker would need to address it. Vice Chairman Golden, seconded by Member McKey, moved that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed applications for the Faraway Farms /Chevron site for the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map Amendment, Case No. JPA -01 -001, Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment, Case No. CPA -01 -002, and the Rezoning and Development Agreement, Case No. RZ- 01 -06- 01. Motion carried 7 -0. �""` 13 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Nifty. May 13, 2003 Attorney Rosenthal advised the P &Z that they have not set a date for this to go to the City Commission. He said from a staff standpoint, they would proceed with the preparation of appropriate ordinances and determine the schedule for this to go to the City Commission with the P &Z's recommendation of denial. OLD BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS None MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Wagner said as much as possible throughout the summer they will try to keep to a regular schedule of meeting on the second Tuesday of the month and only have one meeting a month unless something really critical comes up. Members welcomed new Member Bradley Campbell. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Attest: APPROVED: Ma Green, Deputy City Clerk J. es Golden, Vice Chairman Nar" 14 Exhibit "A" S- /a - o,q to 3JfA uu4.1 w cost. kik. Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 May 13, 2003 City of Ocoee Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Chevron Property rezoning request My name is Kevin Keller and I am a homeowner in Crown Point Woods. I am also the current president of our homeowners association and I know that many of the residents have the same feelings about this issue as I do. 1. Chevron's interest in requesting the re- zoning is not to accommodate their use of the land or benefit the Ocoee community, but rather facilitate Chevron's ability to sell -off a liability. This is the main reason Chevron is requesting a zoning change. Changing the zoning is the easiest and least expensive way to eliminate their liability for the contamination. Ocoee should not change the zoning of a property because the owner has made the property unusable for it's current purpose. 2. Chevron does not intend to develop the property. If they have a planned use for the property, then let them present those plans just as any other owner would have to do. Chevron is showing lots of pretty pictures, but they have no firm plans to develop the land as such. They intend to sell to a developer and we have very little idea what will be built later. 3. There is no current need for this property to be zoned commercial. The only thriving commercial areas are currently along state route 50. Except for the Silver -Star and Clarke Road intersection, anything not on route 50 cannot be sustained, as evidenced by the closing of the Don Pablos restaurant only 1 -1/2 blocks off route 50 next to the West Oaks mall. Other examples are the empty and decaying properties within the mile radius around Silver Star and Ocoee - Apopka roads, only 1 -1/2 miles from the Chevron property. According to the local land use plans, the residential developments being built to the north have already been allocated commercial areas to support their needs. Adding 100 -acres of commercial development in this area is not needed. 4. Changing the zoning at this time is not necessary. Last year, Chevron requested Industrial Zoning and presented studies to show why it needed to be industrial, now they request Commercial Zoning and are showing more studies to justify commercial. This shows they have no real plans for the property. Our investigations indicate the arsenic standards may be changed, making the property suitable for its current residential plan without a major cleanup. The Ocoee community should allow for these future possibilities. 5. Jn conclusion, I would like to remind everyone of both Ocoee's and Orange County's goals and objectives in their Comprehensive Plans. These plans "...shall ensure that future land use changes are compatible with or do not adversely impact existing or proposed neighborhoods." The proposed changes fail both of these tests. Allowing the proposed changes will adversely affect the residential character of our neighborhood and adversely impact future surrounding residential plans. The requests for changes are only in Chevron's self - interests meant to profit Chevron and abandon their responsibilities for the contamination they caused. Ocoee should deny the requested changes for rezoning. Sincerely, Kevin Keller 1727 Crown Point Woods Circle Ocoee, FL 34761 -3720 407 - 905 -0586 `fir+ cpw @kepoco.com Exhibit "B" ogrtzlixi 44 €J to Minutes of Planning and �� i�- _- ,yo� twx,. hLtg7 Zoning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 Theresa R. Slifko, Ph.D. 1721 Crown Point Woods Circle Ocoee, Florida 34761 May 13, 2003 City of Ocoee 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, FL 34761 -2258 ATTENTION: Planning Department — Russ Wagner Planning and Zoning Advisory Board — Pat Bond District #1 City Commissioner — Rusty Johnson SUBJECT: Faraway Farms, SEC Ocoee Apopka Road and Fuller's Cross Road, Ocoee, FL Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA -01 -002), Joint Planning Amendment (JPA -01 -001) and Rezoning Application (RZ- 01- 06 -01). To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of the Crown Point Woods Subdivision in Ocoee, Fl, which as you know, is the subdivision on the west side of Ocoee Apopka road, directly across the street from the "Faraway Farms" / "Grafton" / "Chevron" property (County parcel ID 07- 22 -28- 0000 -00 -001) that is subject of a rezoning from the current status of Low Density Residential /Conservation (R -1AA) to "Commercial /Conservation ". I am writing on behalf of my husband and stepson Tom and Chad Schiferl, `,,,,, respectively. Let it be known that we STRONGLY OPPOSE rezoning the Faraway Farms property from it's current status. As you are already aware, I have been involved with researching the zoning request and have presented the details of the documents to the Crown Point Woods Homeowners Association on May 9, 2002 and to the Ocoee Planning and Zoning Commission on June 11, 2002. My opinion about the soil contamination has not changed but I would like to emphasize several other concerns why the zoning should not be changed. Briefly: ❑ Approving the zoning request will significantly change the character of the area. Existing commercial property is currently unkempt in several developments along Ocoee - Apopka Road south of Fuller's Cross Road to Highway 50 are apparent. Further, there appears to be a lot of property in the vicinity that is currently for sale or under - utilized. I strongly oppose building more commercial property since there does not appear to be commerce able to support the existing commercial development. The proposed Chevron development may also become underutilized and eventually difficult to maintain. ❑ This area will be the gateway to the new Coke property developments. If the area is not carefully planned, permanent changes in the character of the area are imminent. It follows that, should the property be developed as commercial, it would be more likely that adjacent properties would similarly be developed. This would obviously change the character of the area from the residential development currently planned. It is my opinion that it is too early in the development of the area to predict that more commercial developments are needed at this time. It would be helpful if a land use study could demonstrate the need of such 1 00. , 1 ❑ Building commercial development adjacent to high end residential neighborhoods may affect Soar long -term property values of the surrounding neighborhoods and may also lead to justified rezoning requests from adjacent property owners, further impacting property values. The homeowners at Crown Point Woods have invested a lot of money in their properties with hopes that the future residential developments in the area will increase property values. Commercial development directly across the street from the subdivision may affect the rate our property values grow with time. ❑ I do not agree that that particular plot of land would be beneficial to users of the 429 toll road. If the need for commercial property existed in this community, I would think that the other already zoned commercial properties would be utilized, however many are not. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the Chevron representative for their willingness to share their ideas and solicit our own ideas of what that property should be developed as. appreciate your consideration of my concerns and hope that my efforts will be justified and that the rezoning request will be denied. I feel very strongly about this issue and have spent a great deal of time and effort to understand and convey this matter. Should you have any questions about my findings, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Theresa R. Slifko Thomas J. Schiferl And Chad J. Schiferl 2 Exhibit "C " - •ic40 ,i,►J to Minutes of Planning and / �� h � Zoning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 Theresa R. Slifko, Ph.D. 1721 Crown Point Woods Circle Ocoee, Florida 34761 June 11, 2002 City of Ocoee 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, FL 34761 -2258 ATTENTION: Planning Department — Russ Wagner Planning and Zoning Advisory Board — Pat Bond District #1 City Commissioner — Rusty Johnson SUBJECT: Faraway Farms, SEC Ocoee Apopka Road and Fuller's Cross Road, Ocoee, FL Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPE -01 -002), Joint Planning Amendment (JPA -01 -001) and Rezoning Application (RZ- 01- 06 -01). To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of the Crown Point Woods Subdivision in Ocoee, Fl, which as you know, is the subdivision on the west side of Ocoee Apopka road, directly across the street from the "Faraway Farms" / "Grafton" / "Chevron" property (County parcel ID 07- 22 -28- 0000 -00 -001) that is subject of a rezoning from the current status of Low Density Residential /Conservation (R -IAA) to Light Industrial /Conservation (I -1). I am writing on behalf of my husband and stepson Tom and Chad Schiferl, .„ respectively. Let it be known that we STRONGLY OPPOSE rezoning the Faraway Farms property to 1- 1 Restricted Manufacturing and Warehousing District. As a concerned resident with vested interest in my home and neighborhood, I have been involved with researching the zoning request and have presented the details of the documents to the Crown Point Woods Homeowners Association on May 9, 2002. Further, I have evaluated the Faraway Farms Site Activities Disclosure Report (Environmental Study), April 25, 2001, as well as the Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment for the Proposed Grafton High School Site prepared for Orange County Public Schools. It is apparent that the proposed zoning change is based upon the "elevated" arsenic levels in the soils on the Faraway Farms property which is assumed to be a direct result from the Chevron Chemical Company using the land as an agricultural research facility for about 30 years. After careful consideration of the data, I disagree that the arsenic levels on the Chevron property justify changing the current zoning from R1-AA to I -1. I hope the following information will encourage the committee to deny the zoning request. In order to investigate possible contamination of the site from Chevron's pesticide research, several site evaluations were performed including the Site Screening Investigation, August 1990, Environmental Conditions Report: Chevron Chemical Company Research Farm, January 1994, Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, October 1998, and the 2000 Site Activities Disclosure Report for the Faraway Farm Property, Ocoee, Florida, April 25, 2001. These reports clearly indicate that each tract of land has a use history available and that the pesticide and herbicide levels tested were recorded so that there were specific areas where if arsenic was detected in the soil, the levels should correspond with historical use. These reports also identify the levels of chemical constituents in the ground water and soils. With the exception of the arsenic levels detected in the soil, no violations of the soil and groundwater parameters 84 regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency were detected. Arsenic was detected at low levels in the soil but not in the water in the four site evaluations performed (the 2001 site evaluation 1 performed sediment analysis and not ground water analysis). It was therefore concluded that the site- ,,, wide arsenic levels exceed current State of Florida guidelines for residential development (0.8 mg/kg) but are lower than the soil clean up goal for commercial property (3.7 mg/kg). Therefore, the 2001 report recommended that in order to utilize the property in the current status, the site should be "...re -zoned from residential use to commercial /industrial use ". Chevron is basing their request for the zoning change on the 2000 Site Activities Disclosure Report that appears to be a comprehensive analysis of the site -wide arsenic levels in the Soils on Faraway Farms. The 2001 Report described 3 sampling events with 2 focusing on suspected areas (designated "Area 1" and "Area 2 ") to have elevated levels (based on previous testing). The third event was conducted according to Florida Department of Environmental Protection guidelines to characterize the entire site's soil arsenic levels. The zoning request change by Chevron is based upon the third event because it adequately describes the average site -wide level of arsenic in the soil and includes soil depths required by FDEP risk assessment guidance. In summary, of the 329 soil samples tested, there was a site -wide average of 3.1 mg/kg. The highest levels detected were located in Areas 1 and 2 where 291 soil samples were taken. The average arsenic levels for Area 1 and 2 were 0.81 (range 0.2 to 15.8 mg/kg) and 6.1 (range 0.9 to 18.8 mg/kg), respectively. Collectively, this demonstrates that there may be isolated areas that have elevated arsenic levels, and that the entire property may not be "contaminated." It is relevant to note that no attempt was made to establish local arsenic background levels in order to determine if the arsenic levels detected on the Faraway Farms property were indeed a result of the Chevron activities or if the detected levels were normal for the areas surrounding the property (see attached description of arsenic [http://www.metrokc.gov/health/tsp/arsenic.htmp Table 1 shows published arsenic background levels for Florida Soils with comparison data from other sources. Clearly, several reported background levels meet or exceed the site wide levels detected at the Chevron property, which suggests that the detected levels are normal for the State of Florida. Table 1. Arsenic Background Levels in Florida Soils (adopted from Ma, 1999; Chen, 2001). Area Reported Background Arsenic Reference Level ( mg/kg) Florida: random soil samples 0.02 to 7.01 Chen, 1999 Florida: pristine soil samples 6.21 Chen, 2001 Florida: area not defined 1.1 Ma, 1997 Arizona 7.8 Boerngen & Shacklette, 1981 California 2.8 Bradford, 1996 U.S. 5.2 (1.0 to 25.9) Shacklette & Boerngen, 1982 World 11.3 Fergusson, 1990 Dr. Lena Ma, an expert on remediation of contaminated soils, waters, and aquifers, has been a consultant for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to help develop new arsenic guidelines for Florida. After a phone discussion with Dr. Ma, I became convinced that the site wide arsenic average of 3.lmg/kg may be normal for the Florida and at such a low level, may meet revised regulatory guidelines. Dr. Ma explained that the existing data on baseline concentration (of trace elements) in Florida soils are inadequate for determining how clean is clean for cleaning up contaminated soils, and that "...levels of 0.81 mean nothing." She said that 3.1 mg/kg is normal for Florida and described a study she is currently conducting to document the background levels in 200 soil samples in urban Miami in residential Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance and is found ubiquitously throughout the world. 2 neighborhoods. Of the 60 to 80 samples collected thus far, none were less than 0.8 mg/kg. She also said that any ordinary potting soil might contain arsenic levels higher than 3.7 mg/kg (Table 2). It is interesting that recently reported soil arsenic concentrations at 6 golf courses that ranged from 5.3 to 250 mg/kg (Ma 2000). Table 2. Arsenic Levels in Commercially Available Lawn and Garden Products (adapted from Gradient Corporation report: http: / /www.gradcorp.com/). Product Arsenic Concentration (mg/kg) Martha Stewart Rose Fertilizer 5.7 Miracle -Gro All Purpose Lawn Fertilizer 6.1 Scotts Bulb Planting Soil with Bone Meal 0-.1-0 48.5 Scotts Weed and Feed 27 -4-4 8.2 Vigoro Premium Lawn Fertilizer 27 -2 -5 11.6 While the arsenic background levels detected on the Chevron property appear to be "normal background levels" for Florida soils, current Florida DEP guidelines still recommend restricting residential development unless arsenic levels are <0.8 mg/kg. Florida's Cleanup Level Criteria are based upon a 1 in one million risk of getting cancer if consuming water contaminated with arsenic. This rationale does not seem appropriate for a contact based exposure route. Extensive research has and is currently being conducted to challenge the risk -based guidelines in order to support revision. Table 3 shows a comparison of State cleanup levels for soil arsenic. Table 3. Examples of State Cleanup Levels for Soil Arsenic (adapted from Gradient Corporation report: http://www.gradcorp.com/). State Residential Cleanup Rationale Reference .► Criterion (mg/kg) Connecticut 10 Background CTDEP, 1996 Florida 0.8 10 cancer risk FLDEP, 1999 Massachusetts 30 Background MADEP, 1994 New Jersey 20 Background NJDEP, 1999 Pennsylvania 12 10 -5 cancer risk PADEP, 1997 Texas 24 Tier 1 Residential Protective TNRCC, 2001 Concentration level Washington 20 Residential land use Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 2001 Anaconda, 220 Background Lamm, 2001 Montana / One of the most intensely studied arsenic environments in the world (Lamm, 2001). Recently, a Rule Development Workshop was held by FDEP to discuss the impending changes in the Contaminant Cleanup Target Levels (see attached May 7, 2002 agenda) for Florida. These guideline amendments will soon change the cleanup criterion levels to more realistic and appropriate levels for Florida. Once these guidelines are changed, the Chevron property may no longer be limited to Commercial /Industrial development. For example, even if Florida chose to keep the risk based method for developing guidelines, a change from a one in a million chance to one in one - hundred thousand chance of getting cancer may increase the Residential Cleanup Criterion relative to those in Pennsylvania (Table 3.) `1r► 2 Cleanup criterion guidelines for Florida are based upon a risk assessment analysis 3 Besides the detailed explanation above, I have several other concerns why the zoning should not be changed. Briefly: ❑ Approving the zoning request will significantly change the character of the area. Industrial developments south of Fuller's Cross Road to Highway 50 are an eyesore, and I suspect the proposed industrial development will not be much different. Further, there appears to be a lot of property in the vicinity that is currently for sale or under - utilized. Regardless, if there is no commerce to support the industrial development, the Chevron development may also become underutilized and eventually difficult to maintain. ❑ Building an industrial development adjacent to high end residential neighborhoods will affect long -term property values of the surrounding neighborhoods and may also lead to justified rezoning requests from adjacent property owners, further impacting property values. The homeowners at Crown Point Woods have invested a lot of money in their properties with hopes that the future residential developments in the area will increase property values. An industrial development directly across the street from the subdivision will affect the rate our property values grow with time. Our family purchased our home knowing some day there would be development all around us and our existence in a rural area would be short- lived. We would not have invested our money on the purchase in the Crown Point Woods subdivision knowing that an industrial park would soon be built across the street. ❑ Finally, I believe that if Chevron builds an industrial development on such a large property, much of the property would be paved, primarily to contain what is referred to as "high" arsenic levels. Paving this high recharge soil may impact and reduce ground water recharge in the area and could lead to further strains on the environment. The recent news article "Paving it Over" encourages planners to consider the future and take in to account long -term effects of extensive paving. Chevron has requested the rezoning primarily to cover up the "contamination" with pavement so they will not have to remove the soil. This is a short-term fix for a problem that, as described above, may not exist. In closing, I appreciate your consideration of my concerns and hope that my efforts will be justified and that the rezoning request will be denied. I feel very strongly about this issue and have spent a great deal of time and effort to understand and convey this matter. Should you have any questions about my findings, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Theresa R. Slifko, Ph.D. Thomas J. Schiferl And Chad J. Schiferl Attachments NOTE: References available upon request din 4 P ies - c g-- e,o,,w.ca 01111 c . e� 20. Chevron's Request to change zoning from ResidentiallConservation Land Use (R1 -AA) To Industrial /Conservation Land Use (1 -1) Faraway Farms Zoning ;;,_ mamma , Meeting June 11, 2002 Theresa R. Slifko, Ph.D. - - - Crown Point Woods Resident Approving the Zoning Request Will... Arsenic • Significantly change character of area 'r • Impact long term property values of S1r. surrounding neighborhoods • What is it? • Lead to justified rezoning requests from • How can you be exposed? adjacent property owners • Lead to development of large paved area •How does it affect your health? which will impact ground water recharge, thus leading to further strains on the environment Current FDEP guidelines for As Faraway Farms Arsenic Results soil cleanup target levels Summary 2000 study • 329 soil samples tested • Residential = 0.8 mg /kg • Site wide average = 3.1 mg /kg • Highest levels • Commercial /Industrial = 3.7 mg /kg - Site wide = 17 mg /kg (data point not used in statistical analysis) —Area 1 = 0.81 (range 0.2 -15.8) mg /kg —Area 2 = 6.1 (range 0.9 -18.8) mg /kg 1 Dr. Lena Ma What .do these Arsenic levels really mean? • University of Florida Arsenic expert "...0.81 mg /kg means nothing. 3.1 is a • Remediation of contaminated soils, waters normal background level for Florida." and aquifers • Research centers around developing background information on metals in soils and "Existing data on baseline has been a consultant for FLDEP for concentrations of trace elements in developing new Arsenic guidelines. Florida soils are inadequate for determining how clean is clean for cleaning up contaminated soils." What about the rest of Florida soils? Background Arsenic Levels in the United States (Ma 1999) Baseline concentrations of Arsenic in 448 • Range from 1 to 25.9 mg /kg random soil samples covering 80% of - Average 5 to 7 mg /kg Florida were 0.02 -7.01 mg /kg (Chen 1999) .Variation is due to differences in Baseline concentrations of Arsenic in geologic conditions, soil content, pristine soil samples were 6.21 mg /kg (Chen 2001) and impacts from natural and anthropogenic sources Arsenic levels in Commercially Examples of State Cleanup Levels Available Lawn and Garden Products for Soil Arsenic Arsenic coot. State Residential Cleanup Rationale (source) Product (mg /kg) Criterion (mg/kg) Martha Stewart Rose Fertilizer 5.7 Ct 10 Background (CTDEP, 1998) Miracle -Gro All Purpose Lawn Fertilizer 6.1 Fl 0.8 10 cancer risk (FDEP, 1999) Ms 30 Background ( MADEP, 1994) Scotts Bulb Planting Soil with Bone Meal 0 -.1-0 48.5 NJ 20 Background (NJDEP, 1999) Scotts Weed and Feed 27-4-4 8.2 Pa 12 10' cancer risk (PADEP, 1997) Vigoro Premium Lawn Fertilizer 27 -2.5 11.6 Tx 24 Tier 1 Residential Protective Conc. *Reported soil arsenic concentrations at 6 golf courses (TNRCC, 2001) ranged from 5.3 to 250 (avg. 69 mg/kg) (Ma 2000) Wa 20 Residential land use (WA Ecology, 2001) 2 *kir Cleanup goals and guidelines are Conclusions currently changing. Current regulatory soil cleanup goals for contaminated soils are still under 'N , • If the site wide arsenic levels meet the development and vary greatly locally, , 7- new guidelines, then there really is not nationally, and internationally. a problem at Faraway Farms s • "Hot spots" clearly identified in reports • Only remediate the hot spots "Variations in these guidelines indicate a need for standardization on how cleanup criteria are established." (Ma 2001) Phytoremediation Novel, efficient, environmentally friendly, low -cost technology which uses plants to clean up heavy metals and other toxic compounds 111110. contaminated environments. t ■ & Brake Fern (Pterls vittata) , 3 ,.rr �� aim tr . T . T ir Agenda • Grafton Property History • Master Plan in area Crown Point Woods • Faraway Farm Property Site Activities Homeowners Association Disclosure Report • Options Faraway Farms Zoning • Discussion Meeting May 9, 2002 zw Timeline of Events Timeline of Events (Contd.) • 1947.1998 - property used for growing citrus and 2001 other truck farming crops • April - Site Activities Disclosure Report & Traffic • 1962 -1993 - Chevron Chemical Company leased the Analysis site In part or total for use as a pesticide/herbicide • June - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment field research station Application & City of Ocoee Application for Annexation • 1990, 1993, 1998 - environmental investigations and Rezoning were conducted to determine if chemical residues • July - Joint Planning Area Amendment Letter were present in the soli and groundwater • August - First review of Application • 2000 - additional soil investigations were • November - Second review of Application conducted 2002 - AprU • January - Chevron acquisition of Grafton property - Jury • February - Third review of Application - November North -West City of Ocoee Timeline of Events (Contd.) Future Land Use June 11, 2002 - Public Hearing with • 4 lane Ocoee /Apopka Rd. (437) the Planning & Zoning Commission - • 4 lane West Rd. /Fuller's Cross for VOTE Iii • Convenience stores near 429 ramp • Cocoa Cola Property July 16, 2002 - Proposal goes to City - School N Commission for review & VOTE -Park �0� - Shopping/restaurants Proposal will then go to the State of - Residential -. — y Florida for review & final decision Illiar 1 rr Arsenics " Faraway Farm Property Site Activities AV" Disclosure a Disclosure Report Objectives ;6 4 ' • Deter site -wide distribution and 7 110 concentrations of arsenic in soil • What is it? , • Determine potential risk, if any, to humans exposed to soil bound arsenic • How can you be exposed? • Select appropriate land use alternatives • How does it affect your health? based on study • Determine what remedial actions needed, if any, based upon selected land use considerations and site -wide soil- arsenic levels City of Ocoee Zoning District City of Ocoee Zoning District Definitions Definitions • R1 -AA — Single Family Dwelling District or Request to change from Low Density Residential— family dwellings ‘110 "Residential /Conservation Land Use with larger lots; also used for educational, religious, utilities, and noncommercial To recreational needs "Industrial /Conservation Land Use" • 1_1 - Restricted Manufacturing and Warehousing District — allows trucking, warehouse, bus and auto repair, motor vehicle wholesale, recreational vehicle parks, radio stations, etc... Faraway Farm Property Site Activities Disclosure Result Summary What Can be Done Now? • Arsenic is only chemical contaminant at site Phvtoremediation? - novel, efficient, that affects land -use decisions environmentally friendly, low -cost technology • 329 samples adequately characterize soil- which uses plants to clean up heavy metals and arsenic levels across the site other toxic compounds from contaminated • Average arsenic level (3.1 mg /kg) exceeds environments.'"�'�"" r FDEP guideline for residential use (0.8 mg /kg) Lt; ,0 y but is lower than the soil clean up goal for . , A, --A iir- Brake Fern \`' commercial property (3.7 mg /kg) i Ia& , (Pterls vitiate) ,, • One area with arsenic levels >11.1 mg /kg a' � ,. ,- should be covered 2 60- 50 71 40 4 S 30 E 20 r; 10 LL k 0.6 2.4 4 5.7 7.3 6.9 10.5 12.1 13.8 15.4 17 SoII Arsenic levels (m9 /k9) 3