HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 02-14-1989 . '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD UN
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989
14 PRESENT: Chairman Swickerath; Vice Chairman Smith; Board
~ members Linebarier Bello, Weeks, Bond, and Switzer; and
Director of Planning Behrens, Senior Planner Harper,
Associate Planner Claman, and Deputy Clerk Resnik.
ABSENT: Alternate Board member Breeze.
Chairman Swickerath called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Swickerath asked if the Board members had any
corrections to the minutes. Director of Planning Behrens
pointed out that the minutes of the October 25, 1988 Workshop
and the minutes of the November 14, 1988 Workshop were not
included in the packet and had not yet been completed.
Chairman Swickerath indicated that the Board wanted them
complete in time for the next meeting.
There were three nonsubstantial corrections to the minutes of
December 13, 1988. There were two typographical errors on
Pape 5: the word °indepent" should read "independent". Also
on Page 11, the word "discuragement" should read
"discouragement". Vice Chairman Smith moved to approve the
iku� minutes o ,
f December 13, 1988 with toe stated corrections,
Board member Weeks seconded, and approval was unanimous.
Board member Bond asked that toe soel1ing of the word
"spatial" on Page 3 of the January 10, 1969 minut^'s ue double
checked. Vice Chairman Smith moved to approve the minutes of
January 10, 1989, Board member Bond seconded, and approval
was unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS
Plantation Grove PUD - Land Use Amendment - Public Hearing
Chairman Swickerath asked staff whether the public hearing
had been duly advertised and Director of Planning Behrens
said it had. Director Behrens read the staff report and
noted that the developer was present to answer any questions.
Chairman Swickerath wanted to ciarify toe purpose of the
public hearing. He asked whether the only issue was to
relocate the commercial portion of the development. Project
Engineer Martin Kreidt replied that it was the only issue.
Lou Roeder of Phoenix Development and Dr. Robert Ferdinand
showed the Board a conceptual drawing of what they were
proposing to do. Mr. Roeder said the change was basically
putting the multi-family where the commercial had been
planned and vice-versa.
*411~,
^ �
Page 2
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Slew
Chairman Swickerath questioned the developer's reasoning for
the change. The developer explained that they had discovered
that Moore Road was not a road right-of-way, it was a utility
easement, so it could not be paved. Also, Moore Road does
not line up with Roberson Road. The developer said the
change would keep the same cuts on Maguire Road but that it
was considered a substantial change because tney were taking
the commercial border away from the county line and replacing
it with a residential border.
Chairman Swickerath opened the public hearing and there being
no public comments, closed the public hearing and opened up
discussion from the Board. Board member Linebarier said he
liked the new concept much better than the first concept.
Vice Chairman Smith agreed and said if the developer
landscaped it properly, people might not even know that the
commercial property was there. Board member Linebarier moved
to recommend that the land use amendment be granted, Board
member Bond seconded, and approval was unanimous.
Project Engineer Martin Kreidt asked the Board if they would
object to the multi-family being changed to single family.
He said presently the plan called for 15 units per acre but
%� *�
the developer was considering down grading the density to
single family at perhaps four units per acre. Chairman
Swickerath said he would not have any "bJectio,/s to this and
Board member Bond concurred. Staff said they a/so would have
no objection to single family. Board member Linebarier said
he also had no objections to any down grading of density and
that such a decrease would not constitute a substantial
change. He asked whether the developer was considering
moving the multi-family to another location in the
development and the developer responded that they were not.
Silver Glen PUD - Land Use Plan Amendment - Public Hearing
Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report and noted
that representatives from Silver Glen were in attendance. It
was brought to staff's attention that the Planning and Zoning
Board members did not receive the "Attachment A^ referred to
in the staff report. Director Behrens said this was the
development order for the PUD and tnat he would get copies
for the members if they would like to taxe a recess. Board
member Linebarier asked how many pages the document
contained. Director Behrens said it was about seven pages
long. Chairman Swickerath asked for the specific purpose of
the public hearing and staff responded that it was to
consider the developer's request to have another entrance off
era i k th asked whether it
of Silver Star Road. Chairman S w c
2
. .
Page 3
Planning and Zoning meeting
February 14, 1989
So '
was necessary to have the "Attachment A^ in order to hold the
public hearing and Director Behrens said it was not but that
he wanted the Board to be able to review tne background on
the development.
Director Behrens said the developer had also requested to
approach the Board on some other matters concerning setbacks.
There was some discussion amongst the Board that the cut onto
Silver Star Road had already been approved for the developer.
Jim Mehta of U.S. Homes, the Developer of Silver Glen, handed
out the "old" plan to the Board. Steve Mellich the Project
Engineer, said at one time the project was to only have
two (2) entrances off of Clark Road and one off Ridgefield
Avenue. Vice Chairman Smith said he liked the entrance on
Silver Star Road. Chairman Swickerath said he would not like
to see the Silver Star Road entrance.
Chairman Swickerath opened the public hearing. R. P.
Mohnacky 1820 Prairie Lake Boulevard, asked staff to point
out on the City map where the proposed development was to be
built and where the entrance on Silver Star Road would be
located. Staff and the developer pointed out the location.
Director of Planning Behrens said that staff had recently met
with developers in this area and with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) in order to coordinate intersection
designs. Director Behrens said the DOT was in 1ay.'r of the
cut onto Silver Star Road.
Pitt Varnes, 1405 Spring Lake Terrace, said he was an
adjoining property owner on the north side. He said he had a
few questions and comments to make but since they did not
pertain to the issue being addressed for the public hearing,
he said he would refrain from speaking about t until the
issue at hand was resolved.
There being no other public comments, Chairman Swickerath
closed the public hearing. Board member Linebarier
questioned the developer as to why there were two drawings
being shown to the Board. He asked that only the approved
plan be used to address the issue. Director of Planning
Behrens said the second plan was being used because it
better conveyed the entrance on SL1ver Star Road. There was
some discussion about the fact that the second drawir'g was
different than the approved plans and the Board wanted to
know why. Chairman Swickerath reminded the Board that they
were limited to discussing only the item advertised for
public hearing. The developer told the Board that they were
under the impression that they were coming before the Board
3
. `
Page 4
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Nike
to discuss more than just toe entrance on Silver Star Road.
Director Behrens asked that Board to allow the developer time
to present their new plans after tne public hearing.
Chairman Swickerath said since there was a misunderstanding,
and because abutting property owners were present who also
wanted to speak to other items, the Board would allow them to
speak.
Project Engineer Mellich said the proposed entrance on Silver
Star Road would align with the entrance for the Wescar
project on the other side of Silver Star Road. Behrens asked
to provide the Board with some background on the issue.
He said the City now looked for developments to have more
than one entrance, especially for emergency purposes. Board
member Switzer said the developer was originally going to
pave a portion of Clark Road and wondered if this would still
be the case. Director Behrens said the development still
planned on having access from Clark Road and was still
planning on taking part in the building of that road. Board
member Switzer asked why the developer did not want to have
the two entrances to the subdivision off of Clark Roau.
Board member Linebarier said it aopeared to him that the
lome developer was indeed proposing to still have the two
entrances on Clark Road. Chairman Swickerath said that he
understood that the developer now was requesting one on Clark
Road and one on Silver Star Road. Director Behrens said the
developer was not eliminating the entrance cuts on Clark Road
but asking for an additional cut on Silver Star Road. He
said the City had already approved an entrance cut on Silver
Star Road for the commercial piece of property but that the
developer had since sold that commercial piece to another
developer. Director Behrens said as a result, that cut would
still remain but now toe developer was asking for an
additional cut on the property they own.
Chairman Swickerath said he did not approve of toe additional
entrance on Silver Star Road. Director of Planning Behrens
said if the City did not allow the developers in the area to
have a signaled intersection onto Silver Star Road, then the
homeowners from these proposed developments would have to
turn onto Silver Star Road witnoot a light. Chairman
Swickerath said that this was not the first developer to try
to get the Board to recommend approval of entrances to
developments off Silver Star Road and that in the past toe
Board had stood firm against this. Director Behrens said as
a result of the cuts onto Clark Road and no cut on Silver
Star Road, 255 homeowners would be turning onto Clark Road.
Chairman Swickerath and Board member Switzer said tnat was
Ni~w what the developer had asked for originally.
4
Page 5
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Vice Chairman Smith moved to recommend approval of the
entrance cut on Silver Star Road and Board member Weeks
seconded. The motion failed by a vote of 4-3 with Chairman
Swickerath and Board members Linebarier, Switzer, and Bond
voting against, and Vice Chairman Smith and Board members
Weeks and Bello voting in favor. It was noted that the final
decision would be up to the City Commission but tOat toe
issue would go to them with the Planning and Zoning Board's
recommendation of denial.
Chairman Swickerath asked the developer to proceed with the
other matters they wanted to discuss. Board member
Linebarier said the Board should follow its agenda and not
address matters that were not scheduled. Chairman Swickerath
said there were no other public hearings scheduled and toe
citizens who were present wanted further discussion of the
proposed Silver Glen development, and therefore suggested
they discuss it further.
Mr. Varnes requested that the City require the developer to
build a wall along the suboivision lire in order to keep his
privacy and keep the noise level down. He specifically
41_~ requested a wall rather than a fence but did not state a
�~ preference as to t�e type of wall Mr.
pre ^ ^ Varnes also asked the
City and the developer to consider draining the storm sewers
along the lots on Street "F" into the main retention pond
rather than into the proposed smaller retention pond in
between the two houses. Project Engineer Mellich said toe
purpose of the smaller pond was to collect the runoff from
the back of those houses. He said toe developer actually
wants to have environmental swales and would eliminate the
smaller pond if the City approved. Engineer Mellich noted
that the major retention pond was planned to handle about 97
percent of toe water.
Chairman Swickerath summarized the issues of importance to
Mr. Varnes:
1. The issue of the developer building a wall to provide
security as well as privacy to the existing homes.
2. The issue of the smaller pond and whether or not an
alternative could be worked out.
And Mr. Varnes wanted to add one more item to toe list:
3. The issue of whether or not the City had any authority
to regulate the activities on the lake itself (i.e. Jet
� M w� skis, motor boats, etc./. Mr. Varnes said he torsees
5
Page 6
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
problems with the proposed park that is planned for the
development and the fact thet it might draw more of
these types of activities which would ruin the lake.
Chairman Swickerath wanted to note that the Planning and
Zoning Board had not recommended approval of any boat ramps
for this area as yet.
Board member Linebarier asked Mr. Varnes what type of wall he
wanted. Mr. Varnes said he had no preference but that he
would want it to cover the full 1,000 feet.
Board member Weeks asked the developer )f he thought he was
coming before tne Board for approval of the new plan and
Project Engineer Mellich said it was their intention to come
forward with the plan and gain the necessary information so
they could proceed with the preliminary subdivision plan.
Board member Weeks commented that he tnought having a public
hearing only on one small issue such as a curb cut seemed a
bit narrow to him. Engineer Mellich again said he tnought
they were to address the Board about the PUD in general and
was not aware that each change was to be avertised
'401~~ specifically. ificall� Chairman Swickerath commented that the
developer had supposedly already addressed everything and tne
Board was under the impression that the entrance on Silver
Star Road was the only issue the developer was proposing to
change; however, the developer had now redesigned and changed
the entire concept of the development. Board member Weeks
said he was embarrassed because the developer was coming
before the Board with broader expectations to review a whole
new plan and he was not even aware that a new plan existed.
Director of Planning Behrens reminded the Board tnat tne
public hearing was only supposed to be on the issue of the
curb cut and that reducing density, which was the only other
real change, was not considered a substantial change. Board
member Linebarier said reducing density was not a substantial
change, but the developer was also proposing to change
setbacks. Director Behrens noted that tne City's PUD zoning
does not have specific setbacks. He said the side yard
setbacks for R-1-A and R-1-AA were 7 1/2 feet minimum but
that PUD could allow less.
Board member Bond said she did not recall the 60 foot lot
ever being brought before the Planning and Zoning Board
unless it was during the period when sne was in the hospital.
Board member Switzer did not recall discussing this item
Page 7
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Sire
either. Chairman Swickerath said reducing overall density
for the development was one thing but increasing it
for 25 percent of toe land was another.
Jim Mehta said the b0 foot lots were approved by the City
Commission in 1986. Chairman Swickerath said the development
order called for a minimum of 7 1/2 foot siue yard setbacks.
Board member Linebarier noted that toe new plan was calling
for 6 foot side yard setbacks and 20 foot front yard setbacks
on the 60 foot lots. Board member Bond said there were four
of the present members on the Board in 1966 and did not
remember these setbacks being voted on. Board member
Linebarier said they had never been brought before the Board
and added that the Board has always opposed these reductions
in the past.
Director of Planning Behrens said a new PUD ordinance was
passed in the spring and he felt the Board might want to
revisit the issue. Chairman Swickerath and Board member
Switzer asked how many units were planned for the development
and how many would be on 60 foot lots as opposed to 75 foot
lots. Board member Switzer said oe counted a total of 262
l ots The developer said give or take a few, tmere were
love . about 135 60 foot lots planned and about 120 75 foot lots.
He said the reason they were requesting 6 foot side yards was
because they wanted to put a larger (48 foot) home on the
lots. He said the 20 foot front yard setbacks were not
necessary but it would provide for more back yard space.
Board member Switzer said he wanted to see 7 1/2 foot minimum
side yard setbacks no matter what. he said these minimums
were necessary in order to be aole to get boats, etc. in toe
back yard rather than having them in the front. Vice
Chairman Smith said people should have the opportunity to buy
smaller lots and if people felt they needed more space, they
would buy somewhere else. Board member Bond said the Board
needed to look at the overall picture at what they wanted to
happen to tne City long range. Board member Weeks said the
market dictates what people are going to buy and where. He
said he had no problem with 6 foot side yards. Vice Chairman
Smith said the City should not force people to buy a certain
home and that the City should be receptive to woat people are
looking to buy. Board member Switzer said Ocoee shou,d not
lower its standards just to meet a market demand. Board
member Bello said she had a problem with being presented with
a different plan that she was seeing for the first time and
she said she felt totally unprepared.
Page 8
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Director of Planning Behrens said the Board needed to reflect
on the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not 20 years gown
the road they would be aole to say they made the right
decisions and the issue of affordable housing was one of
those decisions. He said the reason for 6 foot side yards
was to compensate for a larger home. He said either the lot
size or the size of the home would have to give if the Board
did not want to see the smaller side yards. Director Behrens
said the developer wanted to put a larger (1,200 square foot)
home rather than a 1,000 square foot home on these lots. He
said he had visited Dean's Landing subdivision and could not
notice the difference in sice yards from the street. He
suggested that the Board consider offering housing that would
be more affordable while keeping the size of the home (square
footage-wise) the same as those in a more expensive price
range.
Board member Linebarier asked the developer if the 46 foot
houses with 6 foot side yards and 60 foot lots would cost any
more or less than a 45 foot house with 7 1/2 foot side yards
on a 60 foot lot. Project Engineer Mel1ich said the size of
the lot was the most expensive component of the entire
equation and the developer could not necessarily say that the
*tar equation
would have any impact on the price of toe h./me if
the lots remained the same size. Board member Linebarier
said that the issue of affordable housing was not relative to
the issue of setbacks and therefore Director Behren's
argument did not hold any weight. He said there would be
more homes and that the developer would profit more by the 6
foot side yards but the home buyer would not be getting a
more affordable home.
Jim Mehta said the developer wanted to build two different
types of housing according to lot size. Chairman Swickerath
asked the developer if they had a specific house in mind
originally for their 60 foot lots with the origineAl 7 1/2
foot side yards). The developer said they had a 4J foot
house (1,000 square foot home) that they could put on the 60
foot lots but they would rather offer a larger home. Board
member Linebarier said that if the developer telt this
strongly about the larger home, then tney should consider
reducing the number of overall lots to be able to fit them
in. He said he felt it should be the developer who should
compromise and not the City by jeopardizing its standards.
Chairman Swickerath gave the developer the reasonings behind
the minimum side yard setbacks:
Itibe
Page 9
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Soar
1. Provides adequate natural light and air between
structures.
2. Provides adequate space for fire vehicles to enter.
3. Provides better acoustical feeling.
Chairman Swickerath said his own personal opinion was that 12
feet between houses was not unreasonable but he agreed that
the Board should set some standards and stick to them.
Chairman Swickerath asked the developer why the Board should
consider the 6 foot setbacks. Jim Mehta said it would allow
larger homes to be built. Chairman Swickera`h said he did
not agree with the developer and said if the larger home was
what was in demand, then the developer wou^d bui/d them and
that the final decision would not remain on wnat toe Board
decided about the 6 foot setback. Project Engineer Mellich
said the developer was willing to provide toe larger (75
foot) lots as a buffer to Brentwood but in return telt that
the smaller lots would provide the buffer needed between
Clark Road and the more expensive (75 foot lot) homes.
Rather than having smaller lots and smaller homes, the
developer wanted to provide the less expensive home buyer
with a smaller lot but the same size house.
Board member Bond said she looked at the issue as something
that would set a precedent. Engineer Mellich said it was his
opinion that these homes would nut oe a "stepchild" but would
be something the home buyer would be very proud of and would
not bring down the standaros of the community at all.
Board member Linebarier said he was not in favor of either
the 6 foot or 20 foot setbacks.
Board member Bello said she did not have a problem with the
20 foot front yard setback but was not in favor of 6 foot
side yard setbacks.
Chairman Swickerath said he had no major objections to tne 6
foot side yards but was not in favor of the 20 foot front
yard setback because of tne off-street parking problems toe
City is already experiencing.
Vice Chairman Smith said he would agree to a 6 foot side yard
and would approve of a 20 foot front yard setback if it meant
more space in the back yard.
Board member Weeks said he would not have a problem with
Niue either the 6 foot or 20 foot setbacks.
9
Page 10
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
1 1160 ,
Board members Bond and Switzer said they disapproved oF both
the 6 foot and 20 foot setbacks.
Board member Switzer suggested that tne developer consider
increasing the size of the 60 foot lots. Chairman
Swickerath said the developer already had approval on those
lots but Board member Switzer said it would allow them to
still build the larger home even if they had to reduce the
overall number of lots. Board member Linebarier agreed and
said he had seen the homes and thought they were very nice.
RECESS: 9:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: 9:35 p.m.
1989 Development Review Schedule and New Application Form
Senior Planner Harper said he had been assigned the
responsibility of critiquing and streamlining the development
review process. He said he had reduced toe four applications
to one and the petition would require more information 1rom
the petitioner in an attempt to collect toe necessary
information up front rather than having to get in toucn with
the petitioner several times or doing a lot of research.
��' Planner Harper said the items on flood plains, topographical
relief, and traffic ingress and egress were very important.
He also said the new schedule would have a turn around time
of 90 to 120 days rather than nine months as was the case in
1988. Planner Harper said he was looking for the Board
members' input and suggestions on his initial drafts and did
not expect them to take any formal action.
Chairman Swickerath asked Senior Planner Harper how pressing
of an issue this was and Planner Harper said it needed
immediate attention. Chairman Swickerath said he had a few
problems with the new petition. He said he thoug|'t it was
completely inappropriate to require detailed topographical
information and preliminary site plans before the rezoning
was finalized. He said in the event someone wanted to buy a
piece of property contingent upon the rezoning, some of these
requirements would contain a substantial amount of work for
what could turn out to be fruitless if the rezoning was not
approved.
Chairman Swickerath said he would like to move on with tie
agenda and revisit this item at the end of the meeting.
Board member Linebarier suggested toat toe Board hold a
workshop to have more time to address all of the information.
A workshop was scheduled tor Thursday, February 23, at
%wee 7:30 p.m. to be held in either the main hall of the Community
10
Page 11
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Center or the Training Room. Senior Planner Harper asked
each of the Board members to review the material and get with
him with any questions or suggestions before the Workshop so
he could prepare his responses accordingly.
Amendments to the Zoning Code
Senior Planner Harper said one of the ordinances in reference
to preliminary site plans was in support of the items to be
discussed in the Workshop session and the other concerned
development review fees. Planner Harper said the ordinance
was revised recently to address new methods of charging
administrative time and that the City Attorney had
accidentally placed the old fee schedule into the newly
revised ordinance. Planner Harper said he recommended that
the City stay with the same fee schedule that was in place
before the recent revisions took place. He said other than
correcting the fee schedule and implementing new
administrative procedures, there were also some revisions to
bring the ordinance up to date with new planning regulations
on the state level.
irow OLD BUSINESS
Candlewood Shores - Revised Plan Update
Director of Planning Behrens indicated that he had handed out
a corrected staff report that included an additional item.
He said staff and the developer had worked out most of tne 64
issues that were first brought up at the December 13 Planning
and Zoning meeting and they were back before the Board in an
effort to solve the remaining issues. Director 8ehrens said
the developer had responded in writing to the 64 comments and
then met with staff during the February 9 Development Review
Committee meeting to go over each issue item by item. He
said staff and the developer were before the board to get its
opinions on some of the unresolved items. Director 8ehrens
said the Developer, Wayne Atwood, and the Project Engineer,
Richard Russell, were available to answer any questions the
Board might have.
Wayne Atwood said the first tnree items on Page 1 of the
staff report were addressed in the revised plan. He said
Comment No. 4 was addressed by the Planning and Zoning Board
at its last meeting and the issue of the straight through
configuration was resolved and he thought was no longer a
concern. Chairman Swickerath agreed that the board had
agreed to the configuration. Mr. Atwood said the stacking
issue on Street ''C" was being addressed in a traffic study
11
Page 12
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Nove
that was currently in process. Senior Planner Harper said
the Board had approved the road alignment but that staff
felt a stacking problem still remained.
Board member Linebarier asked for clarification on Comment
No. 6 on Page 2 of the staff report. The developer said tois
would be completed with the Richfield suboiv)siun whi,h was
already in final engineering and was slated to come out of
the ground before Candlewood Shores subdivision.
The developer said Comment No. 7 would be completed and
noted on the final engineering design. Regarding Comment No.
8 and the vacating of Flora Avenue, the developer said this
was already completed and that he would get with staff to
give them the Orange County Book Number and other pertinent
information.
Project Engineer Russell said the lift station mentioned in
Issue # 1 would be constructed in Richfield subdivision and
would be large enough to serve both subdivisions. He said
the reason it would be built in Richfield was because
Richfield would be built first. Engineer Russell pointed out
the proposed location for the lift station - in the southwest
corner of Lot 41. Board member Switzer asked whether the
developer was proposing to build a house on that lot and Mr.
Atwood said he was. Board member Switzer commented that toe
pumping station would be in the back yard of that lot
Engineer Russell said the station would be on a tract of land
dedicated to the City ar`d that the li/t station would be
walled off from the lot's back yard.
Board member Switzer asked why the ueveloper decided to move
the lift station from Candlewood to Richfield. Mr. Atwood
said the access to the li^'t station where it had been
proposed in Candlewood would have been a problem and the fact
that Richfield subdivision wou:id be bui first was also a
factor. Senior Planner Harper said s"aff and PEC both
recommended that the lift station remain in Candlewood.
Director of Planning Behrens said Rick kerkel and Gary
Beverly of PEC looked at the worst case scenario and that if
the lift station were to fail in Candlewood, the overflow
would go into the retention pond whereas in Richfield it
might end up in the back yard of Lot 41. Engineer Russell
said in the event of an overflow, runoff would still go into
the retention pond in Richfield because it was toe lowest
point.
12
. `
Page 13
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Niro-
Chairman Swickerath asked staff where tne lift station would
have gone if both subdivisions were not being built by the
same developer. Staff responded that it would have had to go
in Richfield but staff still would not have approved of the
location because it was too close to someone's house.
Chairman Swickerath said this was an item that needed to be
resolved by the engineers.
The developer said they were not proposing any building a
all near Spring Lake and that they proposed to na*e the
Jurisdictional boundaries identified on the final engineering
design in regards to Lake Johio. Senior Planner Harper said
if the developer waited to outain the necessary permits, it
might be necessary to move some lots and that is why the
staff wanted to see these permits and the boundaries orawn on
the plans before final engineering. Planner Harper said the
100 year flood plain should also be determined early because
it also determines the layout of the lots. Chairman
Swickerath said the bottom line is that toe developer would
have to comply. Director of Planning Behrens asked why the
developer did not show it now rather than waiting. Board
member Linebarier shared the staff's concerns and that past
experience in Ocoee had made it necessary to have drains in
lakes to keep the water level down.
There was some discussion as to tne 100 year flood plain
level of Lake Johio. Senior Planner Harper and Board member
Switzer said it was probably about 121. Wayne Atwood said it
would be established before any construction was started.
Chairman Swickerath said tne developer should be open to
giving up some lots if it turns out they are in the 100 year
flood plain. Engineer Russell said the developer would have
to build according to state regulations which would prohibit
them from entering the 100 year flood plain. Senior Planner
Harper said to have established this early wou nave solved
the problem. Chairman Swickerath asked tne developer wnen
they expected to have this information. Engineer Russell
said they would have the information on tne flood plain in
about 2 weeks and on the Jurisdictional boundaries within the
month. The developer was instructed to telephone Senior
Planner Harper as soon as he had the information.
The developer said Issue # 3 regarding tue safe crossing of
Clark Road to the proposed recreation area had been discussed
by the Board several times and had decided that this was an
issue that needed to go before the City Commission. it was
discussed that the recreation areas were chosen in an effort
to connect them with other tracts from other subdivisions.
'4— Engineer Russell said at one time the City Commission did not
13
Page 14
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
want to have too many lights on Clark Road in order to keep
the 45 m.p.h. proposed speed limit. The developer said the
Commission had requested the recreation areas be moved across
Clark Road but had not addressed the issue of safe crossing.
Chairman Swickerath said he did not see an answer off hand
and did not see an on-grade crossing being the answer. He
said an above grade crossing would be expensive and that toe
children would probably not want to use it anyway because of
the inconvenience. Director of Planning Behrens asked if tne
developer and the City would consider money in lieu of land.
Board member Weeks questioned why it was tne developer's
responsibility to get the chiidren across Clark Road to the
park and related it to an example of if tne City were to take
the monetary contribution instead and build a park two miles
away, would tne City be responsible for transporting tne
children. It was decided that the issue needed to be
addressed before final engineering either by toe developer,
staff, or the City Commission.
Chairman Swickerath asked staff wily it wanted the ory
retention ponds fenced as pointed out in # 4 and
whether it was per City ordinance or a recommendation by
staff. Street Department Supervisor Elmore said the staff
recommended all ponds be fenced to keep tnem free o/ tnree
and four-wheelers and also from trash. Engineer Russell said
the developer had purposely designed the ponds to allow for a
play area for children. Board member Switzer said he would
propose to go with staff's recommendation. Board member
Weeks and Chairman Swickerath said they did not like fencing
and that the area by tne fence line did not get properly
cared for in most instances. Street Department Supervisor
Elmore said if the pond was four feet deep or more, it was
required by City ordinance to be fenced, whether )t was
designed as a 'wet' bottom pond or a 'dry' bottom pond.
Board member Linebarier said that the developer should fence
it if it was required by City ordinance or not fence it if it
was not required.
Issues # 5 and # 6 were already discussed (traffic study and
establishment of 100 year flood plain) and it was noted that
Tract "E" was being dedicated to the City as a park area and
would be denoted on the plans.
Engineer Russell said tne developer was 1ooking tor
preliminary subdivision plan approval subject to the items
discussed tonight that were still unresolved. Vice Cnairman
Smith moved to approve the preliminary subdivision plan
10
14
' .
Page 15
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
subject to the remaining outstanding items and Board m=mber
Bello seconded. Board member Linebarier said he would like
to amend the motion to specify the outstanding items:
1. That the lift station location w,'s to ue addressed by
the City Engineer prior to final engineering.
2. That the safe crossing of Clark Road to the proposed
recreation area be addressed and a decision made
prior to final engineering.
3. That the traffic study, Jurisdictional permits, and 100
year flood plain information ue submitted prior to final
engineering design.
Board member Linebarier said all other issues had been
resolved to the Planning and Zoning Board's satisfaction.
The motion remained seconded by Board member Bello and was
passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
= Planning and Zoning Board as Local Planning Agency
Director of Planning Behrens said the enclosed information
was for the Board's information and pertained to the Planning
and Zoning Board being designated as the Local Planning
Agency.
1000 Friends of Florida
The brochure was enclosed for the Board's information and
Director of Planning Behrens said this would be the perfect
vehicle to disseminate information. He said staff would keep
this in mind for future use
Public Participation Procedures
Chairman Swickerath said the Board would review this item at
the Workshop scheduled for Thursday, February 23.
Board member Linebarier noted that the Planning and Zoning
Board presently did not have any bylaws and with the
permission of the Board, he wanted to request that staff
draft some preliminary bylaws for the Board to look at.
Board member Linebarier said he would like to see such things
as meeting times, dates, election of officers, etc.
incorporated into the bylaws. Board member Linebarier said
there were no specifications in the City or State codes to
deal with this issue. He noted that the City's Code
15
. ~
Page 16
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
February 14, 1989
Enforcement Board had bylaws tnat staff might want to refer
to. Chairman Swickerath directed staff to bring some iueas
to the Workshop Session.
Board member Switzer motioned to adjourn the meening, Board
member Weeks seconded, and approval was unanimous.
ADJOURNMENT: 11 p.m.
N / /
/1 1
, 11 _'
L AI~ AN SWICKEnATH
ATTEST:
^ -
CLERK RESNIK
T I UTY
4 iitow
16