Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 05-10-1988 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 10, 1988 The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Swickerath. PRESENT: Chairman Swickerath, Vice - Chairman Smith, Board Members: Bond, Sanders, Linebarier, Bello and Alternates: Weeks, Breeze, Planning Director Wagner, and Development Secretary King. ABSENT: Board Member: Switzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held on April 12, 1988. Pat Bello moved to approve the minutes of April 12, 1988, and Tom Breeze seconded and the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS REVIEW /APPROVAL - OLYMPIA COVE - PUD City Planner Wagner presented the background on Olympia Cove PUD and explained this project had come before the P &Z Board `fir previously. Planner Wagner requested that the board concentrate on the 4 or 5 items discussed at the March 21st, P &Z meeting and to follow -up with items listed on the May 10, 1988 agenda. Tom Trainer of Bowyer - Singleton & Associates, 520 South Magnolia Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801 was recognized by the Board to speak. Mr. Trainer started the discussion of the Staff Report for Olympia Cove PUD. The first item of concern was the Montgomery Road extension. The developer's concern was the required road extension which would require walls and would divide the community. The developer would like to see the extension of Montgomery Road eliminated, but if it was not, then asked that the Board approve eliminating the walls. The Board's concern on the box culverts in the wet land area was addressed by Planner Wagner. He stated that the area was not considered wet lands but considered a flood plain area. Box culverts would approximately be 8 -feet in width and 8 -feet in height. The crossing would run through, not over the area. The Planning staff had no problem with the Montgomery Road plan. Board Member John Linebarier expressed the Board's long time concern of efficient movement of traffic that would be generated by developers. Concerned citizens were recognized as they stated their disapproval of the Montgomery Road extension. Chairman Swickerath stated to the Board that his understanding of the road extension was that Montgomery Road was an important road which vow would run north and south in the area. Page 2 .► Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 10, 1988 Chairman Swickerath called for a motion. John Linebarier moved for approval to up -hold planning staffs opinion concerning Montgomery Road, Pat Bello seconded, and the motion was approved 4 to 3. Opposing votes were Bond, Sanders and Breeze. Larry Hughes, of Bowyer - Singleton & Associates, 520 South Magnolia Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801, was recognized by the Board, he continued the review of the Staff Report comments. Listed are the items questioned. Board members made their comments known as shown under each item. A.4 Accepted a two year policy as required by the City of Ocoee. A.7 Disagreement of the canal crossing, further discussion with Planning staff required. A.8 -A Disagreent with last sentence which read "The transfer shall be made within 90 days following approval of the Preliminary Master Plan." Chairman Swickerath advised them to take up the issue with City 'fir Commission. A.8 -D John Freeman questioned the wording. City Planner Wagner stated that the clause came directly out of the Developer's Agreement. Let the Developer's Agreement stand in its place. B.2 This item was passed, but with concerns of having the Montgomery Road extension. B.6 Five -foot sidewalk was required in the Subdivision Regulations. John Linebarier moved for approval to keep the five -foot sidewalk requirement, Burton Smith seconded, and the Board approved unanimously. C.1 Meeting scheduled next Monday to discuss the proposed water services plan. C.2 Wastewater - oversizing credit - Mr. Wagner deleted comment and stated that there are no firm establishments, this related to site specifics and was inappropriate. This item needed to be resolved at a later date. Larry Hughes wanted to go on record as they feel they should have an oversizing of credit given to them for oversizing the water and sewer lines r.r off -site. Page 3 `.r Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 10, 1988 E.7 Disagreement that it was their responsibility to accommodate off -site water. The comment was deleted because of statement, "All pre- existing stormwater conditions relating to the discharge of stormwater from Silver Star Road through the site to Lake Olympia shall not be a part of the Olympia Cove stormwater system. The developer shall have the option of relocating the DOT stormwater easement." The Planning staff needed information from the developer, and Engineer should provide information. The Board felt the water run -off would not be the developer's problem. Again for the record: The developer did not want to be responsible for the treatment of the water before it runs into the lake. Chairman Swickerath stated that the City Staff should contact the County to see who should be responsible for this problem. F.1 Developer wanted 30 -foot setback along Silver Star Road due to tightness. Mr. Wagner stated that the 50 -foot setback was standard from an arterial road and it was agreed to in prior planning. Standard front setback was a minimum 25 -foot. Chairman Swickerath stated to Mr. Freeman that he encouraged the developer to play with the front -yard setback, provided that there was plenty of parking off - street as long as they didn't violate the parking criteria, and on corners perhaps 20 -foot or 25 -foot setback would make sense for drivers to see around the corner. City Planner Wagner agreed with Chairman Swickerath that there was plenty of space for flexibility to vary size. Except for one case where they were tight and that was the area between the road and the lake. Chairman Swickerath stated he wouldn't mind letting them come within 10 to 15 feet of the front property line, provided that it didn't cause a traffic hazard. City Planner stated that the problem with less than the minimum 25 foot setback would be the parking. Any detailed matters should be addressed to the Final Master Plan. Pat Bond moved to hold to the 50 -foot setback off Silver Star Road. John Linebarier seconded, the motion carried unanimously. F.2 Disagreement with the 50 -foot building setback. City Commission had now reguired 100 foot setback under the New PUD Ordinance. (New PUD Ordinance had not been approved as of this meeting). John Linebarier moved that they stick with the 50 -foot building setback recommendation and hoped the City Commission did not Now require them to go to 100 -foot setback. Marvin Sanders seconded, the motion carried unanimously. Page 4 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 10, 1988 F.7 Disagreement with the five -foot masonry wall. The developer would like to see berms and landscaping. The concensus of the P &Z Board was to recommend berms and landscaping in lieu of walls along Montgomery Road and Silver Star Road. John Linebarier moved for approval as outlined, Marvin Sanders seconded, the motion was Approved 6 to 1. Opposed: Bond G.3 Along Silver Star Road, where the 50 foot required rear yard setback the Board encouraged some deviation, like 5 -foot to 20 -foot minimum and no closer than 50- feet off of Silver Star Road R.O.W. after the new R.O.W. Pat Bello moved that the Board negotiate on the front yard within 5 -foot of the 20 -foot front, and the corners and intersections should have room to see around. This applied to Silver Star Road, Lake Village and North Village along Silver Star Road, anywhere the 50 -foot setback pertained to. Pat Bond seconded, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Swickerath recommended approval of the Preliminary err Master Plan subject to the Staff Report as amended. Burton Smith moved for approval as recommended , Pat Bello seconded, the motion carried unanimously. RECESS 9:30 PM For The Record - Ms. Pat Bond left the meeting. CALL TO ORDER 9:40 PM REVIEW /APPROVAL - SAWMILL - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN City Planner Wagner gave a brief background description of the project and indicated that there had been continuous discussions with the developer pertaining to the list. Some of the items pertained to Final Engineering plans. The developer would incorporate those into his plans by way of notes. The City Planner and the developer went to the board for approval of the plan that the board had received; the list of conditions were based on those plans. The developer would negotiate with the staff to up -date their plans to conform to the conditions. It was the recommendation of the staff to approve the plan subject to the staff report and any amendments added. John Webb of John B. Webb & Associates, Inc., 3319 Maguire Blvd., Suite 100, Orlando, FL 32803, was recognized by the Board to Page 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 10, 1988 speak. Mr. Webb stated that he agreed with most of the items listed on the staff report and would like to cover eight minor notes. #10 Developer and planner would work with each other on the Park Tract F area, as far as an irrigation system. For clarification, City Planner Wagner had no problem with the developer's suggestion to go without the irrigation system at this time. #13 Developer disagreed with 30 -foot access tract provided to Park Tract F, from Street A. The developer would like to see the access road go through Lot 18 which would provide an access to the park area, a pedestrian walk -way, vehicular access and emergency access of 18 feet wide would be suggested. Burton Smith moved to approve Lot 18 (1 acre) as a parking area and to put a walk -way behind Lots 391, 390, 389, etc. all the way down to the lake. Pat Bellow amended the motion that it not be called a walk -way, but to be called road access, emergency lake access with the stipulation that the developer would make a road bed. Pat Bellow second the motion with the amendment, and the motion carried unanimously. #15 & #17.3 Developer questioned the oversizing of the water main. Planner Wagner stated that typically size of lines are negotiated on a site specific basis. Typically the City had not participated in any thing up to an 8" line. The City had entered into agreement with developers for the credit against impact fees, and had participated in those kinds of matters. This particular development did not have a loop system. This should be negotiated further and have a separate agreement. Developer needed to discuss his concerns with the City Engineer. #17.1 -B The last word in the paragraph should be changed from closing to crossing. #17.1 -B & 1 -C The developer would like the additional comments added to the Developer's Agreement: If Hackney- Prairie improvements were not able to be made because Orange County hadn't approved them, then improvements on Hackney- Prairie should not limit the issuance of building permits on Phase II or any other subsequent phases of development. Page 6 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 10, 1988 John Linebarier moved to retain the portions of the Staff Report, number 17 1 -B & 1 -C concerning the road improvements to Hackney- Prairie Road prior to the beginning of Phase II and Pat Bello seconded. The motion was approved 6 to 1, opposed by Tom Breeze. #18 The staff report simply stated that the developer would work through the Orance County Engineering Department and that the developer was the responsible party to get the road design. There was some question in the Developer's Agreement as to who was going to design or permit the road, etc. The language needed to be dressed -up to clarify Hackney- Prairie Road. #19 Change item #19 to read Phase II. The developer was in the process of acquiring the 20 -foot additional right -of -way along Street "H ". The Developer's Agreement provided for the construction of the roadway within the 40 -foot of existing right -of -way. The developer felt that if there was a problem with getting the additional feet they would remain with the 40 -foot originally agreed 1 0110, upon in the Developer's Agreement. Planner Wagner stated that through verbal agreements the developer would pursue the additional feet. It was the intention of the staff to keep pressure on the developer to get the 60 -foot right -of- way. Noted: 60 -feet is standard for rural sections. Burton Sm :h moved to leave Item 19 in the Staff Report with the added word change to Phase II, and as a part of a recommendation with a parenthetical statement that says: to be talked about if it gets to be a hardship, Marvin Sanders seconded and the motion was approved 6 to 1, opposed by John Linebarier. Items 41, 44, 45, & 46 - Mr. Webb requested that these conditions not be taken from, nor added to the Developer's Agremeent, but to work out these engineering related conditions. The Board recommended approval of this Preliminary Subdivision Plan subject to Staff Report comments, thereto, and the provisions that certain issues be worked on by staff and developer prior to City Commission Meeting. Marvin Sanders moved to approve per Board's recommendation, and Pat Bello second. The motion carried unanimously. Niro Page 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 10, 1988 REVIEW /APPROVAL - LAKE OLYMPIA ESTATES - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN City Planner Wagner stated for the record that since the time the report was prepared there had been a couple of extensive meetings with the developer, the Engineer, and the City Planner. The majority of the comments had been resolved. There were a few items which were of concern and these items would need to be resolved by the Engineer. Bill Fogle of The Civil Design Group, Inc., 2626 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, FL 32804 was recognized by the Board to speak. Mr. Fogle went over the following items from the Staff Report which were of some concern to the developer. #9 City Planner Wagner stated that it would be worth having the City Attorney look into on whether legally it was an advantage or disadvantage of the City. #11 Proposed to extend lot lines. #18 Some type of drainage easement or facility needed to be 'hrr► provided across the site to accommodate the off -site drainage. Developer was working with PEC and City staff to resolve how this was done. #21 Fencing issue to be further discussed with staff. #23 Change in wording - from existing grade to existing ground water table. PEC had agreed to that change. #31 This item was agreed to be deleted by Developer and Planner Wagner. Planner Wagner stated that it would be a burden for the developer since this was out of his control. #34 Reads that the Developer would pay impact fees required by City Ordinances prior to final platting. Planner Wagner explained that staff would acknowledge this development which would be subject to impact fees. Unfortunately, by the wording of this item the staff imposed some limits that staff didn't want included in the conditions of approval. Rather than confuse the situation it would be that we would or would not have an ordinance and it would or would not describe how the developer would operate. Staff would have to conform with their Developer's Agreement which they had in the past. Rather than do this it was the staff's recommendation to delete item 34. `'rrr► Page 8 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 10, 1988 Tom Breeze made a motion to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan under the conditions in the Staff Report with the exceptions of: Condition #9: Should add a parenthetical statement to say: (Unless this requirement could be eliminated through negotiations on liability) Condition #11: Should add a parenthetical statement to say: (or conservation easement, to be determined through negotiation) Condition #18: Should add a statement to say: that it was subject to negotiation with Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. (PEC). Condition #21: Should add a parenthetical statement to say: (Unless this requirement could be eliminated through negotiations on liability). Condition #23: Language corrected to read ground water table instead of grade in the final sentence. 'tow Condition #31 Should be deleted. Condition #34 Should be deleted. John Linebarier seconded, the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Swickerath asked that someone on the Board make a motion that we ask the City Commission to look at the storm drainage problem on Silver Star Road as it comes through the Hawthorne property and to find some way of providing pollution abatement. Tom Breeze moved that this be done and Pat Bello seconded. The motion carried unanimously. City Planner Wagner distributed to the P &Z Board Members colored photographs of the Land Use Plan map. lihir Page 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 10, 1988 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:25 PM '! 1 if A4PA I _ IRM AN SWIC'ERAH ATTEST: ELLEN KING v DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SECRETARY br