HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 11-16-1992 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
%we SPECIAL SESSION MEETING HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1992
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Shiver at 7:30 p.m.
followed by a moment of silent meditation and the Pledge of
Allegiance.
The determination of a Quorum was made. Commissioner Landefeld
filled Commissioner Miller's position as a voting Member in her
absence.
•
PRESENT: Chairman Mickey Shiver, Vice - Chairman Harold
Switzer, Members: Pat Bond, Darlene Rhodus,
Jim Swickerath, Gerald Weeks, Alternate: Louis
Landefeld, Director of Planning Bruce Behrens,
Sr. Planner Julian Harper, Deputy Clerk Ellen King,
Also attending: City Attorney, Paul Rosenthal,
and Ken Hooper representing Professional Engineering
Consultants, Inc.
ABSENT: Member: Tanya Miller
Chairman Shiver read into the record, prior to the beginning of the
public hearings, a Memorandum from Julian Harper, Senior Planner
dated November 13, 1992 listing errors found in the initial Staff
Reports of the Fall 1992 Annexation /Initial Zoning requests. (See
Attachment "A ".)
Commissioner Bond asked to address the City Attorney and Staff
regarding the Memorandum from City Attorney Paul Rosenthal dated
November 9, 1992 (See Attachment "B" - "Ex parte Communications
Regarding Annexation and Zoning Ordinances "). Commissioner Bond
stated she was not pleased with the memo and took exception to the
requirements. It should have been very clear to everyone on the
Board that was allowed to discuss annexations. The zoning comments
are understandable. Commissioner Bond felt the Board should be
able to look at the whole picture and make a judgement call on
annexation based on all of the facts and not just the final
viewpoint of staff.
City Attorney Rosenthal stated that he agreed with everything
Commissioner Bond said. He did not intend for any one to construe
his memo, and he tried to make it clear to distinguish that there
was no prohibition on annexation but that there was a prohibition
in connection with zoning, and what he was attempting to do, was
basically to say that if there was any confusion on a part of the
person reading the memo, they were to call him and let him sort it
out before anyone got into trouble not in any way to create any
N1rr 1
kind of chilling effect. He stated that he did not receive %Mor" calls from the Board Members indicating there was any confusion.
Vice - Chairman Switzer and Chairman Shiver both commented that they
had understood the memo the same as Commissioner Bond did, and felt
restricted.
City Attorney Rosenthal apologized for the matter and went over the
memo with the audience to explain that the City is still operating
under court decisions, which restrict the ability of the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the City Commission to have any kind of
communication on what is known as quasi - judicial matters which
would be initial zonings or zonings outside of the context of these
meetings, if commissioners do, this could be basis for someone to
challenge the particular proceedings.
City Attorney Rosenthal stated he wanted to review a few matters in
connection with the various petitions before they were discussed in
the meeting. He stated that Staff and City Attorney have gone
through a lengthy process in reviewing the applications for legal
sufficiency. In terms of the applications being complete, prior to
Planning and Zoning Commission consideration. All the applications
considered on the Agenda passed the basic test, i.e. a completed
application received, proper authorization, legal descriptions, and
maps. All the petitions on the P &Z Agenda have all been reviewed
and have passed legal sufficiency.
On the issue of Comprehensive Plan Amendments the City Attorney has
%ow provided the City with an opinion that there are no Comprehensive
Plan Amendments required in connection with any of these
applications, there were some petitions that came before the
Planning Department which did deal with Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and those applications have not been brought forth to
the Planning and Zoning Commission on Agenda.
Some issues have been raised regarding the ability to provide urban
services to several of the properties. Pursuant to the direction
of the City Manager, the City Attorney will negotiate various
Developer Agreements with Staff for a formed Development Agreement.
So in cases where the City is not today in a position to provide
urban services consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at the City
Commission level there will be developer agreements that set forth
the time frame under the Comprehensive Plan within urban services
will be available and that prior to the time the urban services
become available, even though the Board may give a zoning
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the developer would not be
able to develop pursuant to a Developer Agreement consistent with
that zoning until the urban services are available. The purpose of
the Staff in terms of recommending zoning combined with the City
Commission level developer agreements is to see what the ultimate
direction is in terms of urban development of the property, so that
the City can then, in terms of the Five -Year Plans, begin to
program in the infrastructure improvements in order to provide
t io'' 2
urban services, but prior to that time only rural services will be
provided in some instances, and each of those are addressed in the
Staff Reports.
Sewer and Water as indicated in the Staff Reports, there are
territorial agreements between the City and the County as to sewer
and water service whether the County provides it or whether the
City provides it. If the property is in the City sewer and water
territory the developer agreements will all provide that there then
has to be a separate agreement with the City on the provisions of
sewer and water services. So if there is not, for example, a sewer
line available, the property owner under those agreements are
normally provided to extend the line to obtain services. If the
property is in the County sewer and water territories then there
would be a court requirement to go to the County and obtain the
sewer and water services from the County in order to develop as
opposed to from the City. Keeping in mind that there is a finite
term for these territorial agreements, the term being approximately
thirty (30) years of which about two (2) or three (3) years have
run. Puts some point -in -time in the future thirty years down the
line if development has not occurred and if the sewer and water
territorial agreements have expired and depending on extensions,
there maybe an opportunity for City sewer and water service in some
areas currently served by the County.
Roads Professional Engineering Consultants have done an analysis
in terms of road right -of -way requirements under the Comprehensive
' Plans and at the City Commission level will be requiring that the
developers agree to voluntarily, as part of the annexations,
dedicate roads to the City upon request of additional right -of -way
requirements again so that there will be roadway consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan without any road impact fee credits.
Concurrency - Even though the City goes through a whole process to
address sewer and water, roads, and all the comprehensive planning
issues, even if any of these properties are annexed and zoned, when
they ultimately seek to develop with the City they will still have
to meet all the concurrency tests of the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan.
And if in the area of traffic circulation, roads, sewers,
recreation, parks, etc. the concurrency requirements are not met,
even though the property may get a particular zoning, if the
developer can't meet the concurrency requirements of the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, the developer
would not be able to obtain Final Engineering, Final Development
Orders in order to proceed with development.
Orange County Orange County had a representative attending the
meeting who commented about Orange County Staff position. The
Orange County position while they are informative and reflect the
position of Orange County are not binding upon the Board Members.
If the Members should so choose, to differ from some of the
recommendations of Orange County they are at liberty to do so. The
3
Ocoee Staff understands that there will be some instances where
Orange County will have a different recommendation than the Ocoee
Planning Department has recommended to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Charter Amendment During the November, 1992 election there was an
amendment passed to the Orange County Charter dealing with
preservation areas. That amendment will take effect January 1,
1993; it is not a self- executing amendment. What it did was give
Orange County the authority to adopt an ordinance to provide for
preservation areas and then require that there be referendums
within those preservation areas in order to annex certain
properties. That would also require that Orange County, as part of
that process, adopt an ordinance defining what and where these
preservation areas are. In terms of this public hearing the
Charter Amendment is not in effect, it has not been implemented by
Orange County Ordinance. There would be no legal impediment for
taking any action at this meeting.
Chairman Shiver explained the procedure of each of the public
hearings:
1. The Staff Report will be read into the record
2. Open Public Hearing for public comment - pro or con
3. Close Public Hearing - public comment is then over
4. The issue will be brought to the table for discussion then
action will be taken.
fir.► Each case on the agenda will be opened and closed for public
comments.
City Attorney Rosenthal stated that the cases are in the correct
order, if at the City Commission level a particular annexation is
not adopted, that might result in other pieces falling out.
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. 2- 27AR- 92:MILLER
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff Report of
November 11, 1992 into the record, the issue being "Should the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this
application to the Board of City Commissioners to Annex and
Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "R -1, Single
Family Residential" to City of Ocoee "R -1, Single Family
Residential " ?" The .2 acres subject parcel is located at the
northeast corner of Silver Star Road and First Street. City Staff
recommended to approve the petitioner's request for annexation and
initial zoning.
After no further comments by Staff, the public hearing was opened.
%sr 4
Linda Harper, (formerly of Ocoee, but resides in Clermont, FL
presently) came forward to speak on behalf of her mother Beatrice
Miller the applicant. Her mother is looking for protection of the
City and the services of the City.
No comment from Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department.
After no further input from the public, the public hearing was
closed and the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Chairman Shiver asked for the pleasure of the Commission.
Commissioner Swickerath moved that the Planning and Zoning
Commission find that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is
consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use
Map, complies with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land
Development Code and is in the best interest of the City and
recommend to the City Commission Approval of the petition in Case
number 2- 27AR- 92:MILLER, that the property described therein be
annexed with an Initial Zoning of R -1, Single Family Residential as
requested by the petitioner, and that the City Commission find the
proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bond seconded, and the
motion carried unanimously 7 -0. All in favor: Bond, Landefeld,
Rhodus, Shiver, Swickerath, Swizter, Weeks, All opposed: None
CASE NO. 2- 161AR- 92:BATTAGLIA -WEST
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff Report of
November 10, 1992 into the record, the issued being "Should the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this
application to the Board of City Commissioners to Annex and
Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A -1,
Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -AA, Single Family
Residential " ?" The 42.6 acres subject parcel is located on the
west side of Apopka -Ocoee Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of
West Road. The site access is provided by County Road 437 - Ocoee
Apopka Road.
The project is in compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive
Plan and Future Land Use Map.
The City cannot currently provide urban services to this property.
Urban services are currently not planned to be extended to this
area for a minimum of seven years. Only rural services, supporting
agricultural uses will be provided in the interim. A Developer
Agreement concerning the annexation of this property will be
required by the City.
After no further comments by Staff, the public hearing was opened.
5
lOirr R.E. (Bob) Battaglia, P.O. Box 770398, Winter Garden, FL, President
of Battaglia Fruit Company came forward and was available to answer
any questions and requested his petition be granted.
Bob Wiegers, Member of the Orange County Planning Department,
stated that he has met with Bruce Behrens, Planning Director on
several different occasions to go over the annexations. Mr. Wiegers
has worked with Bruce Behrens and feels that they have accomplished
a lot over the years and would like to continue that. For the
purpose of the meeting, he was present basically to give the
Planning and Zoning Commission the initial Orange County Planning
Staff concerns on these annexations. He emphasized that none of
the Staff Reports have gone for official opinion before the County
Commissioners. This is purely staff comments, he had not received
all of the other Orange County Departments staff comments.
The Orange County Future Land Use Map describes the north of Ocoee
and northeast of Winter Garden as the County's Rural Service Area
and has been designated for Rural Development as 1 unit per 10
acres. A lot of the property to the north is what the County calls
Clarcona Rural Settlement.
On a lot of the Annexations the City is basically closing in Orange
County Right -of -Way on each side. What the County would like to
see and the County Public Works Department would like to see, if it
can be worked out, is that when the City annexes or has property on
%irr both sides of the County right -of -way that the City would go ahead
and annex the right -of -way.
Mr. Bob Wiegers stated that on the Battaglia property their big
concern is the compatibility with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map. The Battaglia property is not consistent.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
A question was raised about the City not being able to provide
urban services to the property for a minimum of seven years, how is
annexing the property going to benefit the petitioner? City
Attorney Paul Rosenthal stated that the City's standpoint, the
concern is, does the city prematurely annex property such that it
places a burden to City tax payers to extend municipal services
before the City is in a position to do so consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. To protect against that, the City is telling
the Developers as a disclosure mechanism as much as anything that
the City is not in a position to provide services to the developer
at a minimum during a certain time frame. If during that time
frame a developer comes to the City and says this is my plan for
the extension of municipal services to the property and the
developer wants services earlier than seven (7) years, then the
City would have to consider the financial feasibility consistency
*to 6
with the Comprehensive Plan that may or may not require an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The City would then be
looking at facts specific development plans that the City Staff has
not yet looked at in connection with any of the applications
presented during this Public Hearing. If a developer said that he
is going to extend sewers, roads, and he's going to pay for police
and fire trucks and be able to meet all the Concurrency
Requirements, then the City and the Planning and Zoning Commission
would look at at that time of development review. So, while the
developer may have plans for the development the City has not
focused on specific time schedules or plans as the developer has,
but has focused on the annexation impact and the ability of the
City to provide the services.
Another question raised by a Commissioners was, "Should this
annexation occur and should the City Commission approve it? If the
land is annexed it goes on the tax roll as land within the City
that is undeveloped, and if it happens to be zoned R -1 then the
value of it is not nearly what it would be if it were developed.
But, the taxes would be paid to the City as well as the County.
The misunderstanding is why would - a developer want to pay taxes on
a piece of land that they are not going to develop for seven years?
City Attorney Rosenthal stated that it is two fold and it goes back
to the comprehensive planning process. The key is to get
properties into the City, knowing what the Future Land Use is and
what the zoning is so that the City working with the developer can
err begin to plan and program the extension of municipal services to
those areas. If the developer were to sit back and wait seven
years and came in seven year from now, the City would probably be
saying the same thing; that you're going to have to wait five to
seven years because the City has not planned for the extension of
municipal services. So by annexing the property in and telling the
developer their going to have to fit in an orderly time frame it
allows the City and the developer to work on a capital plan
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the extension of
services. The advantage to the developer, also is they then have
a piece of property which they can put on the market and if the
economy is right and if there is a buyer they then have a piece of
property which rather than just growing orange trees, it may be
suitable for development at a earlier date.
Another question was "What is the City going to do on road impacts
on this type of development ?" Planning Director Behrens commented
that as a part of the impact study that was done there were several
areas considered: water, sewer, and roads. The City has talked to
Orange County. Staff has worked in the Planning Council with
Orange County on what roads will look like in twenty (20) years on
their computers. A concurrency evaluation has been run on
computers to see what happens in 1997 and 2010 when the population
growth is projected based on what's happened between 1990 and
today.
7
Ken Hooper, Professional Engineering Consultants, was present and
stated that they modeled that whole entire planning area. As that
area is developing there will be more traffic on those individual
roads, so each one of those roads in a Comprehensive Plan has a
right -of -way requirements and trip lengths on each of the roads.
So that is how you approach it to define the concurrency
requirements.
Another question was "What is the traffic impact going to be on
Ocoee - Apopka Road at build out ?" Planning Director Behrens stated
that in twenty years Ocoee - Apopka Road is planned to be a four -lane
road. Commissioner Shiver questioned who would pay for the road?
Ken Hooper with P.E.C. stated that when each developer comes in
they will pay road impact fees and the road will be paved out of
those fees.
Commissioner Swickerath stated that it is his understanding that is
the reason why the City has a Comprehensive Plan, so that
appropriate charges or taxes can be levied on development to ensure
that the growth occurs in a certain area and pays for its own way.
Initially if the City annexed this property and it stays an orange
grove their will be virtually no traffic impact. As property
develops, there will be a traffic impact but at that point in time
the Comprehensive Plan and concurrency requirements of it will
dictate, (1) the City has a way to pay for those improvements, and
(2) the City would be sure that the developer pays for the cost of
the growth.
%ar
Ken Hooper, Professional Engineering Consultants, stated that at
each one of the stages that the developer comes in for (i.e.
zoning, plat, etc.) they have to match a concurrency standard. So
the City is evaluating the project as they go through these stages,
and every two years the City is updating the impact fees so that
the impact fees are based on the population that is expected in the
immediate five year period in front of that. The City is
constantly relooking at it, as Bruce Behrens described it probably
is a four lane road, and if trips come in they are paying for those
actual components to pave that road. At the time the need is there
the only way the City is going to issue a permit is if that road is
expanded to four lanes.
City Attorney Paul Rosenthal stated that the other thing that the
City is doing in all these applications on the right -of -way is that
the City is not actually getting conveyances now, but the City will
have Developer Agreements which will basically say, let's say, on
three months notice the City can require that the right -of -way be
conveyed. That would be without any cost to the City and that
would be without any road impact fee credits. And since these are
multiple pieces going in together, the City can impose that
requirement in advance of the actual developer of the property. So
the City does not run into some situations, for example, like the
City ran into along Clarke Road, where the City had to go back and
r 8
renegotiate Developer Agreements because the City could not get the
right -of -way until development actually occurred.
Commissioner Bond questioned, "Would the annexation of these
properties key Orange County School Board to look at the growth ?"
Planning Director Bruce Behrens stated that Lee Ann Lowery of
Orange County Public Schools knows about these areas of Ocoee. She
gets copies of subdivision plans that go through the City for
development review. She also received a copy of the same
annexation / initial zoning packet the Board Members did. Behrens
stated that how Orange County Public Schools determines the area
for schools is their mystical process unto itself.
Vice - Chairman Switzer questioned, "What if this property was
brought into the City and the Developers Agreement is signed and
nothing is going to happen to this property for seven years, who
provides fire and police protection for these groves that will be
out there ?" Planning Director Behrens stated that the Developer
Agreement is an agreement whereby the City agrees to provide
agricultural services, the same kind of services you would get for
one house per acre. Rosenthal stated that the City would provide
rural fire and police service which has a lower and different
response time than for urban services. And the Developer Agreement
restriction on density would prevent an over burdening of the
system.
Chairman Shiver questioned to the Planning Director Bruce Behrens,
"Why does the City want to annex this piece of property? Mr.
Behrens stated that this property is located in the City's Future
Land Use Map that the City agreed to expand. There were eighty
citizens that worked on difference sub - committees, one of which was
the Future Land Use Map. In inter - governmental discussion with
Apopka it was agreed that the City would go up to McCormick Road,
and Apopka would come down to McCormick Road by annexations. Mr.
Behrens commented that the City felt in the future that when
everything is put on one map, this is why there is a Camp Agreement
where all the cities talked, that it was logical in twenty years
given the growth that the City has experienced in the last twenty
years, that eventually Apopka and Ocoee would come together at some
point, just as Winter Garden and Ocoee has. And McCormick Road was
the line that the City felt was realistic for this City to grow to.
It composes about 1500 to 2000 acres. This was put in the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan and submitted to the State of Florida. All of
the data and analysis that was done was based on all of the
population projections. And, Commissioner Swickerath stated that
the Future Land Use Map was approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission (also known as the Local Planning Authority).
*kw 9
After no further discussion by the Board, Commissioner Rhodus moved
that the Planning and Zoning Commission find that the requested
Annexation and Initial Zoning is consistent with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies with all
applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code and is
in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission Approval of the petition in Case Number 2- 161AR-
92:BATTAGLIA -WEST, that the property described therein be annexed
with an Initial Zoning of R -1 -AA, Single Family Residential as
requested by the petitioner, and that the City Commission find the
proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Swickerath seconded, and
the motion carried in favor 5 -2. All in favor: Bond, Landefeld,
Rhodus, Swickerath, Weeks. All opposed: Shiver, Switzer.
CASE NO. 2 121AR 92:WEST
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff Report of
November 12, 1992 into the record, the issue being "Should the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this
application to the Board of City Commissioners to Annex and
Initially Zone:
Parcel A from Orange County A -1, Agricultural to City of
Ocoee, R -1 -A, Single Family Residential;
%Iry Parcel C from Orange County A -1, Agricultural to City of
Ocoee, R -1 -AA, Single Family Residential;
Parcel B -3 and Parcel F from Orange County A -1, Agricultural
to City of Ocoee C -2, Community Commercial; and
Parcel E from Orange County A -1, Agricultural to City of
Ocoee, R -3, Multi - Family Residential?
The 489.4 acres subject parcel is located along the east and west
sides of Apopka -Ocoee Road from 800 feet south of West Road on the
south, to 1,200 feet south of McCormick Road on the north.
This property has been determined by the Planning Director to be in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map.
The City cannot currently provide urban services to this property.
Urban services are currently not planned to be extended to this
area for a minimum of seven years. Only rural services, supporting
agricultural uses will be provided in the interim.
A Developer Agreement concerning the annexation of this property
will be required by the City.
%irr 10
After no further comments by staff, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
concerns of Orange County is the compatibility of the land use.
This property is designated as all County Rural Service Area for
Rural Development as one unit per ten acres. The top north corner
of the property at the end of McCormick Road is Paradise Heights
which is a part of the County's Rural Settlement which is one
little corner, it may have been a mistake on the County's part that
this property was put into a Rural Settlement, obviously it
separates a parent piece of Mr. West's property. The County ask
that the City not annex any rural settlements of the County.
Martin Kreidt, Martin Kreidt Planning and Development, 1516 E.
Hillcrest Street, Suite 306, Orlando, FL 32803 came forward and
stated that they want to include their property in the Ocoee's long
term projections.
Angelo Mazza, 2112 Paradise Point Lane, Apopka, FL 32803, came
forward and questioned what the definition of low density is.
Planning Director Behrens stated that Ocoee's definition is less
than 4 units per acre.
Byron Peavy, 2228 West Road, Apopka, FL 32703 came forward and
questioned if the property was developed on West Road would the
road be paved. Planning Director Behrens commented that the road
would be paved by the developer of the project at the time of
``rr development as a City requirement. The developer will also have to
pay for drainage.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Chairman Shiver stated that he looks after the children of the
area, and all he sees are a lot of houses coming into the are but
no schools. Chairman Shiver stated to Mr. West that it would have
been heroic of him if he would have set aside land for schools and
children in the area. Planning Director Behrens stated that when
the developer gives land to the Orange County School Board the
school may not want this area later on.
After no further discussion of the Board, Chairman Shiver asked for
the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Bond moved that the
Planning and Zoning Commission find that the requested Annexation
and Initial Zoning is consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan
and Future Land Use Map, complies with all applicable requirements
of the Ocoee Land Development Code and is in the best interest of
the City and recommend to the City Commission Approval of the
petition in Case Number 2- 121AR- 92:WEST, that Parcel A be annexed
with an initial zoning of R -1 -A, Single Family Dwelling; that
Parcel C be annexed with an initial zoning of R -1 -AA, Single Family
Dwelling; that Parcel B -3 and Parcel F be annexed with an initial
11
zoning of C -2, Community Commercial and; that Parcel E be annexed
with an initial zoning of R -3, and Parcel F be annexed with an
initial zoning of C -2, Community Commercial and; that Parcel E be
annexed with an initial zoning of R -3, Multi- Family dwelling as
requested by the petitioner, and that the City Commission find the
proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Rhodus seconded, and the
motion carried in favor 4 -3. All in favor: Bond, Rhodus,
Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed: Landefeld, Shiver, Switzer.
CASE NO. 2 122AR 92:WEST
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff Report of
November 12, 1992 into the record, the issue being "Should the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this
application to the Board of City Commissioners to Annex and
Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A -1,
Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "I -1, Restricted Manufacturing and
Warehousing " ?"
The 39.1 acres subject parcel is located north of West Road. Site
access is provided by Apopka -Ocoee Road (CR 437).
The City cannot currently provide urban services to this property.
Urban services are currently not planned to be extended to this
area for a minimum of seven years. Only rural services, supporting
agricultural uses will be provided in the interim. A Developer
r Agreement concerning the annexation of this property will be
required by the City.
After no further comments by Staff, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
property in incompatible with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map. This property would cause an enclave.
Martin Kreidt, 1516 E. Hillcrest Street, Suite 306, Orlando, FL
32803, came forward and stated that the property is consistent with
the Ocoee Future Lane Use Map and the property does not cause an
enclave.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Commissioner Weeks moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission
find that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is consistent
with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies
with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code
and is in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission Approval of the petition in Case Number 2- 122AR- 92:WEST,
that the property described therein be annexed with an Initial
Zoning of I -1, Restricted Manufacturing and Warehousing as
%i" 12
requested by the petitioner, and that the City Commission find the
proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bond seconded, and the
motion carried in favor 6 -1. All in favor: Bond, Landefeld,
Rhodus, Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed: Switzer
CASE NO. 2 123AR 92:WEST
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff Report of
November 11, 1992 into the record, the issue being "Should the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this
application to the Board of City Commissioners to Annex and
Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A -1,
Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -AA, Single Family
Residential " ?" The 3.3 acres subject parcel is located on the west
side of Apopka -Ocoee Road and 1,200 feet north of West Road. The
site access is provided by Apopka -Ocoee Road.
The Planning Director has determined that this property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as Low Density Residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. A Development Agreement concernig
the annexation of this property will be required by the City.
After no other comments from Staff, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department stated that the
proposed land use is inconsistent with the Orange County Future
Land Use Map. Also, the right -of -way should be annexed by the
City.
Martin Kreidt, Martin Kreidt Planning and Development, 1516 E.
Hillcrest Street, Suite 306, Orlando, FL 32803, came forward and
was available for questioning and would like to see this parcel
annexed and zoned into the City.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Bob Wiegers commented on the annexation of right -of -way after being
questioned by a Commissioner. He stated that Orange County would
prefer to see the City include the right -of -way in the ordinance,
this way the Orange County Engineering Department is relieved of
the maintenance. If City property exists on both sides the County
Engineers write the City a letter to have them maintain that right -
of -way. City Attorney Rosenthal stated that since the Florida
Statutes provide that the petition to annex must be signed by the
property owner, and since the property owner does not own the
underline fee of the road, that that could be a basis to attack and
liro" 13
invalidate the petition, so therefore the City does not accept the
r petitions that go into the center of the right -of -way because the
Attorney believes this is inconsistent with the Florida Statutes.
Ken Hooper, Professional Engineering Consultants stated that the
State makes the decision, they do a function classification to say
whether it is a City or County Road. The State guy is the one who
make the final decision.
If the City annexes or not, the right -of -way is still maintained by
the County. Every five years the County looks at the road and
determines if the road is passing through a City or if the right -
of -way is annexed by the City on both sides. It then is determined
who should be responsible for maintenance.
After no further discussion, Chairman Shiver asked for the pleasure
of the Commission. Commissioner Weeks moved that the Planning and
Zoning Commission find that the requested Annexation and Initial
Zoning is consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map, complies with all applicable requirements of the
Ocoee Land Development Code and is in the best interest of the City
and recommend to the City Commission Approval of the petition in
Case Number 2- 123AR- 92:WEST, that the property described therein be
annexed with an Initial Zoning of R -1 -AA, Single Family Residential
as requested by the petitioner, and that the City Commission find
the proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with
the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Rhodus seconded, and
the motion carried in favor 4 -3. All in favor: Bond, Rhodus,
Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed: Landefeld, Shiver, Switzer.
CASE NO. 2- 124AR- 92:WEST
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff Report of
November 11, 1992 into the record, the issue being "Should the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this
application to the Board of City Commissioners to Annex and
Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A -1,
Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "C -2, Community Commercial " ?" The
12.5 acres subject parcel is located on the north side of West Road
and 600 feet east of Apopka -Ocoee Road. The site access will be
provided through the "B -3" parcel which is asking for Commercial
zoning off Ocoee - Apopka Road and off West Road.
The Planning Director has determined that this property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as Commercial. The City cannot currently provide
urban services to this property. Urban services are currently not
planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of seven years.
Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses will be provided
in the interim. The Developer Agreement concerning the annexation
of this property will be required by the City.
14
After no further comment from Staff, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
property is inconsistent with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map.
Martin Kreidt, Martin Kreidt Planning and Development, 1516 E.
Hillcrest Street, Suite 306, Orlando, FL 32803, came forward
representing the owner and stated that he was available for
questioning and would appreciate the Commissions approval of the
petition.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Chairman Shiver asked for the pleasure of the Commission.
Commissioner Landefeld moved that the Planning and Zoning
Commission find that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is
consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use
Map, complies with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land
Development Code and is in the bet interest of the City and
recommend to the City Commission Approval of the petition in Case
Number 2- 124AR- 92:WEST, that the property described therein be
annexed with an Initial Zoning of C -2, Community Commercial as
requested by the petitioner, and that the City Commission find the
proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bond seconded, and the
`► motion carried in favor 6 -1. All in favor: Bond, Landefeld,
Rhodus, Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed: Switzer
RECESS: 9:35 PM
CALL TO ORDER: 9:45 PM
Chairman Shiver stated to the Commissioners and the audience that
the order of business was going to change because of the late hour.
The order would be that the subject property would be pointed out
on the map and that only the Staff Recommendation would be read
into the record.
CASE NO. 2- 01AR- 92:KANG
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 10,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of this application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -A, Single Family
Residential " ?" The 21.8 acres subject parcel is located on the
east side of Apopka -Ocoee Road, 500 feet north of West Road. The
site access is provided by Ocoee - Apopka Road.
15
„: The Planning Director has determined that the properly is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. A Development Agreement
concerning the annexation of this property will be required by the
City.
After no further comments by Staff, the public hearing was opened.
Jung O. Kang, 613 Mariner Way, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 came
forward and stated that he would like to have his property annexed
into the City and anticipated growth in the area as good for the
City and his property.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that this
property is inconsistent with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Commissioner Swickerath moved that the Planning and Zoning
Commission find that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is
%r consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use
Map, complies with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land
Development Code and is in the best interest of the City and
recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition in Case
Number 2- 01AR- 92:KANG, that the property described therein be
annexed with an Initial Zoning of R -1 -A, Single Family Residential
as requested by the petitioner, and that the City Commission find
the proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with
the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Weeks seconded, and the
motion carried in favor 4 -3. All in favor: Bond, Rhodus,
Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed: Landefeld, Shiver, Switzer
CASE NO. 2- 081AR- 92:BARRETT /SOLOMON
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 11,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of this application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel 3 & 5 from Orange
County, "A -1, Agricultural” to City of Ocoee "R -1 -A, Single Family
Residential" and parcels 2, 4 and 4A, from Orange County "A -1,
Agricultural to City of Ocoee "A -1, General Agricultural " ?" The
123.02 acres subject tract is located from the intersection of West
and Ocoee - Clarcona Roads; 1,200 feet east along both sides of
Ocoee - Clarcona Road; 1,200 feet along the east side of West Road;
%r 16
and, 1,200 feet south along the east side of Ocoee - Clarcona Road.
%b. The site access is provided by Ocoee - Clarcona Road.
Parcel A is considered the same as parcels 2, 4, and 4A to zone to
A -1 zoning. Parcel B is considered the same as parcels 3 and 5 to
zone to R -1 -A zoning.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Martin Kreidt, Martin Kreidt Planning and Development, 1516 E.
Hillcrest St., Suite 306, Orlando, FL 32803 came forward and asked
the Commission if it was possible to change the zoning request of
Parcel 2 to be zoned R -1 -A instead of the requested A -1 zoning.
The zoning for A -1, Agricultural has been advertised in the paper.
He stated that it was a mistake on his part. The Commission's
decision was that the Board must address the petition as
advertised. It was the legal opinion that the property in question
could come back at any time to rezone the property and not wait for
the next rezoning window.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
property is inconsistent with the Orange County Future Land Use Map
on the residential only. Parcel 5 would create an enclave.
George Main, 1938 Ocoee - Clarcona Road, Ocoee, FL 34761, came
forward and stated that he owns the property across the street, and
asked the Commission to deny annexation and initial zoning of this
property. He does not want to see the trees pulled up inorder to
plant houses. There is a perfectly good orange grove existing on
the property.
After no other public input, the public hearing was closed and the
issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Commissioner Bond moved to disapprove Staff Recommendation to
approve the petition. Commissioner Landefeld seconded, and the
motion was denied by a 4 -3 vote.
Vice - Chairman Switzer questioned Staff on that fact that, "just
because there is an Ocoee Comprehensive Plan, does that mean the
City has a license to rubber stamp the petitions "? Commissioner
Swickerath stated that it is in the development code of the City
that whatever zone given the property it must be consistent with
the Future Land Use Map and the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner
17
Switzer stated that just because it states that in the
Comprehensive Plan does not mean that the City has to annex the
property. Commissioner Swickerath stated that if the City does not
annex the property the City relinquishes control of it. If the
City annexes the property then the City has to address it under
concurrency. If the County develops on these properties then the
City does not have full control over the supplies for concurrency.
Commissioner Swickerath stated that is why he is in favor of the
annexation of the property and he does not consider it rubber
stamping. Unless the City annexes the property the City has no
control. Commissioner Switzer questioned where the line should be
drawn for the City to annex to.
After a lengthy discussion between Staff and Commissioners, City
Attorney Rosenthal stated that the Commissioner could recommend the
annexation with County A -1 zoning as opposed to Ocoee Single Family
zoning, and between now and the City Commission meeting the
applicant would have to decide whether to accept the
recommendation.
Commissioner Bond stated that she just realized that she had a
conflict of interest in this petition. Her business is actively
undergoing a contract with one of the owners of that property and
had not realized it. Parcel 5 is the specific parcel Commissioner
Bond stated she was in conflict with. She stated that is would
have been nice to have seen applications on all of the petitions
for the public hearings.
11rr After a continued lengthy discussion between Staff and the
Commission on Parcel 3 (Parcel B) being zoned to RCE2 (1 un /ac).
Commissioner Swickerath moved to recommend to the City Commission
to accept Staff Recommendation. Commissioner Weeks seconded, and
the motion tied 3 -3.
Chairman Shiver moved to recommend to the City Commission to accept
the annexation recommendation, but Parcel B (Parcel 3 & 5) be zoned
RCE2, 1 unit per acre, and Parcel A (Parcels 2, 4, and 4A) be zoned
A -1. The motion died for a lack of a second.
City Attorney Rosenthal stated to the Commission that they could
send the petition to the City Commission without a recommendation.
Commissioner Swickerath moved that the Planning and Zoning
Commission find the requested annexation is consistent with the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies with all
applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code and is
in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission approval of the petition of Case No. 2- 081AR- 92:BARRETT
/SOLOMON in respect to annexation only and that the City Commission
find the proposed annexation to be consistent with the Ocoee
%or 18
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Landefeld seconded, and the
motion carried in favor 5 -1. All in favor: Landefeld, Rhodus,
Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All Opposed: Swizter, Abstained: Bond,
due to a conflict of interest
CASE NO. 2- 082AR- 92:BARRETT /SOLOMON
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 11,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -A, Single Family
Residential " ?" The 1.3 acres subject parcel is located on the east
side of West Road and 1/4 mile north of Ocoee - Clarcona Road when
measured from where it turns south. The site access is provide by
Ocoee - Clarcona Road.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department stated that the
parcel is inconsistent with the Orange County Future Land Use Map.
Martin Kreidt, Martin Kreidt Planning and Development, came forward
and asked that the Commission give consideration to divide the
question on this petition too if so desired. On the latest survey,
according to the property appraisers map there is frontage on West
Road. The applicant has identified from the section corner a 60
foot right -of -way on West Road. It may be that the corner of the
parcel corners right on the tip of West Road.
Commissioner Bond redeclared a conflict of interest with the
Barrett /Solomon petition.
George Main, 1938 Ocoee - Clarcona Road, Ocoee, FL 34761, came
forward and restated his concern of the area and asked that the
Commission deny the petitioners request for annexation and initial
zoning.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
19
Commissioner Landefeld moved that the Planning and Zoning
Commission find the requested annexation is consistent with the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies with all
applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code and is
in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission approval of the petition of Case No. 2- 082AR- 92:BARRETT
/SOLOMON in respect to annexation only and that the City Commission
find the proposed annexation to be consistent with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Swickerath seconded, and the
motion carried in favor 5 -1. All in favor: Landefeld, Rhodus,
Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All Opposed: Swizter, Abstained: Bond,
due to a conflict of interest.
CASE NO. 2- 02AR- 92:RUSSELL
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 10,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject from Orange County, "RCE,
Residential Country Estate" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -A, Single Family
Residential "? The 55.6 acres subject parcel is located at the
intersection of Ocoee - Clarcona Road and West Road. The site access
is provided by Ocoee - Clarcona Road.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
rr compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Lane Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. A Developer Agreement concerning
the annexation of this property will be required by the City.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department stated that the
property is not consistent with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map. Orange County objects to the fingerlike extensions of this
property out into the County.
Gary Russell, Developer, 608 E. Central Blvd., Orlando, FL, came
forward to request the approval of the petition. He plans to
improve and enhance the property, and stated that he needs the
services of the City.
Jeff Bersey, P.O. Box 394, Clarcona, FL 32710, came forward as not
in favor of petitioners request.
20
%or George Main, '1938 Ocoee - Clarcona Road, Ocoee, FL 34761, came
forward as not in favor of the growth.
After no further input from the public, the public hearing was
closed and the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
After a lengthy discussion on development of the area, Commissioner
Weeks moved to approve Staff Recommendation, Commissioner
Swickerath seconded, and the motion was denied 5 -2. Voting to
approve the motion was: Weeks and Swickerath. Voting against the
motion was: Bond, Landefeld, Rhodus, Shiver, Switzer.
Commissioner Rhodus moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission
find the requested annexation is consistent with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies with all
applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code and is
in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission approval of the petition of Case No. 2- 02AR- 92:RUSSELL
in respect to annexation only and that the City Commission find the
proposed annexation to be consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive
Plan. Commissioner Swickerath seconded, and the motion carried in
favor 5 -2. All in favor: Bond, Rhodus, Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks,
All Opposed: Landefeld, Swizter
Commissioner Bond moved to deny the zoning request, Commissioners
Landefeld seconded. Discussion on the motion: if the zoning is
r►. denied, the County zoning designation stays in place. Call for the
question, the motion carried 4 -3 in favor of the motion. All in
favor: Bond, Landefeld, Rhodus, Weeks, All opposed: Shiver,
Swickerath, Switzer
At the end of the public hearings Planning Director Behrens asked
that the Board take another look at the Russell case where zoning
had been denied. Behrens asked if the Board would consider a clean
up vote and look at using the same zoning as Orange County.
Chairman Shiver moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend to the City Commission to zone Case No. 2- 02AR- 92:RUSSELL
to RCE -2, Rural Country Estates Districts. Vice - Chairman Switzer
seconded, and the motion carried in favor 7 -0.
CASE NO. 2 09AR 92:HEIDRICH
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 10,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
.
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "A -1, General Agricultural
21
District "? The 23.8 acres subject parcel is located on the west
% side of Ingram Road, just north of Ocoee - Clarcona Road. The site
access is provided by Ocoee - Clarcona and Ingram Roads.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. The Developer Agreement
concerning the annexation of this property will be required by the
City.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
After no public input, the public hearing was closed and the issue
was brought to the table for discussion.
Commissioner Swickerath moved that the Planning and Zoning
Commission find that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is
consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use
Map, complies with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land
Development Code and is in the best interest of the City and
recommend to the City Commission Approval of the petition in Case
Number 2- 09AR- 92:HEIDRICH, that the property described therein be
annexed with an Initial Zoning of A -1, General Agricultural as
%iv requested by the petitioner, and that the City Commission find the
proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Landefeld seconded, and the
motion carried in favor 6 -1. All in favor: Bond, Landefeld,
Rhodus, Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed: Switzer
CASE NO:2- 21AR- 92:VAN WORMER
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 10,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -A, Single Family
Residential " ?" The 256.5 acres subject parcel is located
on the east side of Ingram Road. The site access is provided by
Ingram Road.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
22
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. The Developer Agreement
concerning the annexation of this property will be required by the
City.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
property was inconsistent with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map. If annexation occurs the property will cause an enclave.
David Van Wormer, 1516 E. Hillcrest Street, Suite 207, Orlando, FL
32801, came forward requesting approval of the petition.
Bill Greer, 5811 Ingram Road, Apopka, FL 32703, came forward and
stated that he was opposed to the proposed annexation.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
City Attorney Rosenthal stated that from an administrative
standpoint it is easier for the Staff if there is a comparable City
of Ocoee zoning designation to administer and enforce the City of
Ocoee's zoning code as opposed to having to look to the County
zoning code regulations and start figuring out how their zoning
interfaces with Ocoee's Land Development Code. Also, the City's
Code, it does not require the Board to act on it tonight, clearly
contemplates the direction the City needs to go in with property
annexed under the Land Development Code that it should be given a
City of Ocoee Zoning Classification to avoid that conflict between
the regulations.
Commissioner Swickerath stated that he would like to see this
property annexed. He has no problem with the density (3.2 units
per acre). He would like to see the developer work with the
Planning Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Commission maybe in such a way that the developer could
achieve the desired economic goal and at the same time do something
with the lake and the forest. Maybe Staff could encourage the
developer to put a limited number of house on the property and
commit the developer to a City Park or a permanent nature reserve.
Plan the land sufficiently.
City Attorney Rosenthal stated that density could not be approved,
only zoning classifications. Suggestions given by Staff were, A -1
zoning would be 1 acre with minimum living area of 1,000 sq. ft.;
A -2 zoning would be 1/2 acre with minimum living area of 1,000 sq.
ft.; and, RCE2 zoning would be 1 acre with minimum living area of
2,000 sq. ft. Or, the Board could leave the Orange County zoning
in place.
4 111r' 23
Commissioner Rhodus moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission
find that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is consistent
with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies
with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code
and is in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission Approval of the petition in Case Number 2- 21AR -92: VAN
WORMER, that the property described therein be annexed with an
Initial Zoning of RCE -2, Rural Country Estates Districts, and that
the City Commission find the proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning
to be consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner
Bond seconded, and the motion was approved 6 -1. All in favor:
Bond, Landefeld, Rhodus, Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed:
Switzer
CASE NO. 2- 061AR- 92:CENTER LAKES - WEST
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 10,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -A, Single Family
Residential " ?" The 118.0 acres subject parcel is located on the
south side of McCormick Road, approximately 1/4 mile east of
Apopka -Ocoee Road. The site access is provided by McCormick Road.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
"fir compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. The Developer Agreement
concerning the annexation of this property will be required by the
City.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
property is inconsistent with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map. If annexation occurs the property will create an enclave even
though it is a west orange cemetery the County does not necessarily
have to have an access to it; it still violates the intent of the
Florida Statute.
Austin Caruso, Jr., P.O. Box 568367, Orlando, FL 32856, came
forward as the applicant for the petition. He requested the
petition be granted.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed and
the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
%or 24
Chairman Shiver asked Mr. Caruso if he would have a problem with
another zoning recommendation other than R -1 -A he asked for. Mr.
Caruso stated that he did not oppose to another zoning
classification.
Vice - Chairman Switzer left the room.
Chairman Shiver moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission find
that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is consistent with
the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies with
all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code and
is in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission Approval of the petition in Case Number 2- 21AR -92: VAN
WORMER, that the property described therein be annexed with an
Initial Zoning of RCE -2, Rural Country Estates Districts, and that
the City Commission find the proposed Annexation and Initial Zoning
• to be consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners
Landefeld seconded, and the motion was approved 6 -0. All in favor:
Bond, Landefeld, Rhodus, Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed:
None.
CASE NO. 2 062AR 92:CENTER LAKES - EAST
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 10,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
,r Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -A, Single Family
Residential " ?" The 90.65 acres subject parcel is located on the
south side of McCormick Road, approximately 1/2 mile east of Ingram
Road. The site access is provided by McCormick Road.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. The Developer Agreement
concerning the annexation of this property will be required by the
City.
Vice - Chairman Switzer returned to his chair.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
property is inconsistent with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map. This property is a part of the Clarcona Rural Settlement.
The Future Land Use designation is one unit per acre. It is Orange
County's intent to preserve Rural Settlements.
25
Austin Caruso, Jr., P.O. Box 568367, Orlando, FL 32856, came
forward as the applicant of the project. Mr. Caruso stated that if
the zoning was changed from what was requested on the petition they
would withdraw the annexation request.
Jim Riffle, P.O. Box 511, Clarcona, FL 32710, came forward
requesting that the petition be denied.
After no further input from the public, the public hearing was
closed and the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Commissioner Bond stated that Orange County has this area as a
rural settlement. She felt that the City should drop to a lower
density for the area and was not suggesting that RCE -2 be the
suggested zoning classification. She felt that the City should not
annex this area.
Commissioner Bond moved to deny the request for Annexation and
Initial Zoning. Commissioner Landefeld seconded, and the motion
carried in favor 5 -2. All in favor: Bond, Landefeld, Rhodus,
Shiver, Switzer, All opposed: Swickerath, Weeks
CASE NO. 2 14AR 92:RAVNDAL
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 10,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
fir► approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "A -1, General Agricultural
District " ?" The 165.0 acres subject parcel is located north and
south of Ocoee - Clarcona Road, just east of Ingram Road. The site
access is provided by Ocoee - Clarcona Road.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. The Developer Agreement
concerning the annexation of this property will be required by the
City.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
property is inconsistent with the Orange County Future Land Use
Map. Annexing this property into the City would create enclaves.
SI Iv 26
,. Eric Ravndal, 102 Wisteria Drive, Longwood, FL 32779, came forward
representing his parents who own the property. The property was
orange groves but lies dormant. The owners do not want to develop
at the time, but want to come into the City at this time. The
owners like what they saw in the Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Bond left the room.
After no further public input, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Weeks moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission
find that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is consistent
with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies
with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code
and is in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission Approval of the petition in Case Number 2 -14AR-
92:RAVNDAL, that the property described therein be annexed with an
Initial Zoning of A -1, General Agricultural as requested by the
petitioner, and that the City Commission find the proposed
Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Swickerath seconded, and the
motion carried 5 -1 in favor. All in favor: Landefeld, Rhodus,
Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed: Switzer
CASE NO. 2- 10AR- 92:STARBIRD
lr• Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff Report's
Staff Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November
10, 1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of the application to the Board of City
Commissioners to Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from
Orange County, "A -1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "A -1, General
Agricultural District " ?" The 68.0 acres subject parcel is located
on the south side of McCormick Road approximately 800 feet east of
Ocoee - Apopka Road. The site access will be provided by McCormick
Road.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City cannot currently
provide urban services to this property. Urban services are
currently not planned to be extended to this area for a minimum of
seven years. Only rural services, supporting agricultural uses
will be provided in the interim. The Developer Agreement
concerning the annexation of this property will be required by the
City.
Commissioner Bond returned to her chair.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
%s 27
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the
property with the Center Lakes - West property creates an enclave
of the cemetery.
City Attorney Rosenthal stated that for the record it is his
opinion that a governmentally owned cemetery being annexed around
it does not create an enclave.
Lucile Starbird, 2056 McCormick Road, Apopka, FL 32703, came
forward representing herself and her husband (Sherwood) as
applicant and property owner. They have a landscape nursery and
they are ready to retire. They are ready to sell their property
and since Ocoee has come up to them, they would like to annex their
property since Ocoee has come forward with plans that helps them
sell their property. Mrs. Starbird stated that they appreciate
what Ocoee is doing. Apopka has told them it would be much longer
before Apopka would come down to McCormick Road. Mrs. Starbird
commented that when they started the petition request their was
nothing said about seven year before urban services would be
provided. Even with this information they still want to have their
property annexed into the City.
After no further input from the public, the public hearing was
closed and the issue was brought to the table for discussion.
Commissioner Bond moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission
find that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is consistent
r with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies
with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code
and is in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission Approval of the petition in Case Number 2 -10AR-
92:STARBIRD, that the property described therein be annexed with an
Initial Zoning of A -1, General Agricultural as requested by the
petitioner, and that the City Commission find the proposed
Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Landefeld seconded, and the
motion carried in favor 6 -1. All in favor: Bond, Landefeld,
Rhodus, Shiver, Swickerath, Weeks, All opposed: Switzer
CASE NO. 2 162AR 92:BATTAGLIA - EAST
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 11,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "R -1 -A, Single Family
Residential " ?" The 118.92 acres subject parcel is located along
both sides of Ocoee - Clarcona Road and 2,000 feet west of Apopka -
Vineland Road. The site access is provided by Ocoee - Clarcona Road.
�"' 28
‘ow The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map as low density residential. The City can currently
provide urban services to this property if it is annexed.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department, stated that the two
issues of concern is land use compatibility and annexing property
in a rural settlement area of Orange County.
Robert Battaglia, President of Battaglia Fruit Company, P.O. Box
770398, Winter Garden, FL 34777 -0398, came forward stating that he
wants to bring the property into the City.
Jeff Bersey, P.O. Box 394, Clarcona, FL 32710, stated that he has
an interest in how the developer develops the property. Mr.
Bersey's property is a small triangle surrounded by Sawmill
Subdivision. This property borders the railroad track. Mr. Bersey
stated that Mr. Battaglia's property is involved in a legal dispute
and Mr. Battaglia has been notified as well as the City. Mr.
Bersey gains access to his property through Battaglia's property.
Jim Riffle, P.O. Box 511, Clarcona, FL 32710, came forward as a
Clarcona representative. Mr. Riffle requested rural settlement, 1
unit to 10 acres to exist.
Jim Sellen, 214 E. Lucerne Circle, Orlando, FL 32802, came forward
in favor and stated that he would like to see the City of Ocoee to
work on a vision for the City. He recommended the City to have a
workshop with the Planning Director to take a hard look at the
trends the Commission is setting. Quality of life has nothing to
do with lot size. This is the only property that has the City
services available at the time. This property should get the
density.
After no further input from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
City Attorney Rosenthal stated that the legal dispute Mr. Bersey
has with Mr. Battaglia is not the City's concern.
One feeling of the Board was that the City should not feel
obligated to annex every request for annexation that comes before
them. The Clarcona area has their own kind of subdivision
lifestyle that is different than Ocoee. The other feel of the
Board was not to be selfish neighbors to deny a property owner the
quality of life in the area; services are available at the moment.
The City is trying to manage growth, not outlaw or abandon it.
29
Mr. Battaglia stated that his plans where to build houses like
Sawmill Subdivision.
Commissioner Bond moved to deny the request for annexation and
initial zoning. Commissioner Landefeld seconded, and the motion
carried in favor 4 -3. All in favor: Bond, Landefeld, Shiver,
Swizter, All opposed: Rhodus, Swickerath, Weeks
CASE NO. 2- 17AR- 92:SHARP
Julian Harper, Ocoee Planning Department, read the Staff
Recommendation into the record. The Staff Report of November 10,
1992 stated "Should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the application to the Board of City Commissioners to
Annex and Initially Zone the subject parcel from Orange County, "A-
1, Agricultural" to City of Ocoee "C -2, Community Commercial
District " ?" The 40.0 acres subject parcel is located at the
southwest corner of Blackwood Avenue and State Road 50. The site
access is provided by Blackwood Avenue.
The Planning Director has determined that the property is in
compliance with the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map. The City can currently provide urban services to
this property if it is annexed.
The Staff Report was in error by stating that the City currently
%kw could not provide urban services, this was to be corrected prior to
going to City Commission.
Commissioner Bond returned to her chair.
A Developer Agreement will be required by the City to dedicate
certain right -of -way.
After no further Staff comments, the public hearing was opened.
Bob Wiegers, Orange County Planning Department has no problems with
the petition request.
Chairman Shiver moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission find
that the requested Annexation and Initial Zoning is consistent with
the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, complies with
all applicable requirements of the Ocoee Land Development Code and
is in the best interest of the City and recommend to the City
Commission Approval of the petition in Case Number 2- 17AR -92:
SHARP, that the property described therein be annexed with an
Initial Zoning of C -2, Community Commercial as requested by the
petitioner, and that the City Commission find the proposed
Annexation and Initial Zoning to be consistent with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Swickerath seconded, and the
motion carried in favor 7 -0.
30
OTHER BUSINESS:
Vice - Chairman Switzer requested a workshop between the City
Planning Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City
Commission to discuss the Comprehensive Plan so that everyone is
headed in the same direction. He felt the Planning and Zoning
Commissioners had their eyes opened during the public hearings held
tonight. He feels the City is traveling in different directions,
and requested direction along the Comprehensive Plan. Vice -
Chairman Switzer asked Planning Director Behrens if he would pass
that on to the City Manager and the Mayor, and maybe sometime in
the very near future we could meet.
ADJOURNED:
The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 AM
;461 CLA
l Shiver, hairman
ATTEST:
7e1-14
Ellen King, Deputy Jerk
%kh" 31
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER
Ocoee LESTER DABBS, JR.
° � : C ° CITY OF OCOEE RUSTY COMMISSIONERS RS • a 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE PAUL W. FOSTER
v O OCOEE FLORIDA 34761
(407) 656 - 2322 VERN COMBS
SAM WOODSON
,`
F ~, �� Or 0000 CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENT "A" ELLIS SHAPIRO
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning and Zoning Commi . yn
FROM: Julian Harper, Senior Planner, 4
DATE: November 13, 1992
SUBJECT: FALL 1992 ANNEXATION /INITIAL ZONING STAFF REPORTS
The following errors were made during the writing of the above
Staff Reports, please correct as follows:
1. Case No. 2- 081AR- 92:BARRETT /SOLOMON
Annexation and Initial Zoning "Site Location Maps" should read
123.02 + /- acres. Strike 109.8 + /- acres.
2. Case No. 2- 09AR- 92:HEIDRICH
Annexation and Initial Zoning "Site Location Maps" should read
23.8 + /- acres. Strike 23.0 acres.
3. Case No. 2- 161AR- 92:BATTAGLIA - WEST
Annexation and Initial Zoning "Site Location Maps" should read
42.6 + /- acres. Strike 137.8 acres.
4. Case No. 2- 162AR- 92:BATTAGLIA - EAST
The Staff Report "Background Discussion" first sentence should
read 113.92 + /- acres.
Insert the following on the "Site Location Maps ", "Area:
113.92 + /- acres ".
4`r►
FOLEY & LARDNER
111 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE. SUITE 1800... - -
POST OFFICE BOX 2193
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 -2193
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA TELEPHONE 14071 4 23 -7686 1S A MEMBER OF GLOBALEX
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA FACSIMILE 1407) 648- I743..•�.,,, WITH MEMBER OFFICES IN
TAMPA. FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA LONDON, ENGLAND
MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN 7�� "13"
' MADISON, WISCONSIN AZTi'x,IarEN FRANC
BERLI NI '4
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
STUTTGART, GERMANY
WASHINGTON, D.C. DRESDEN, GERMANY
ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA SINGAPORE
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND MEMORANDUM TAIPEI, TAIWAN
TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Commissioners
The Honorable Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq., City Attorne44f
DATE: November 9, 1992
RE: Ex parte Communications Regarding Annexation and Zoning
Ordinances
Over the next several weeks the Planning & Zoning Commission
and the City Commission will be considering various petitions for
annexation and the establishment of initial zoning in connection
therewith. Please be advised that, in our opinion, the
consideration of an annexation ordinance is a legislative function
of the City and that consideration of matter relating to the
establishment of initial zoning is a quasi - judicial function of the
City.
We have previously discussed the current Florida law regarding
ex parte communications in connection with quasi - judicial
proceedings. Under current law, neither the members of the
Planning & Zoning Commission nor the City Commission should have
any ex parte communication regarding the proposed zoning of lands
being annexed into the City. This means that you should not have
any communication (verbal or written) with the applicants, the
applicants legal counsel, interested persons or members of the
public regarding the e of initial zonings in connection
with the annexations. Any correspondence received by you should be
directed to the City Clerk and be entered into the record of the
proceeding. If you are contacted, the City Clerk should be
advised. However, you may communicate with the City staff
regarding the proposed zonings.
Since consideration of an annexation is a legislative
function, you may communicate with staff, the applicants, the
applicants legal counsel, interested persons and members of the
public regarding the annexation applications and any development
Y O
r .,
/ 1 1 n ,f,
=IY E A R S =
JU gin;'
ATTACH "B" continued.
agreements being executed in connection therewith. In the event
you elect to have any such communications extreme caution should be
exercised to assure that the discussion is limited to the requested
annexation and that there is no discussion regarding the proposed
1-
zoning in connection therewith.
You may recall that earlier this year the City Commissioners
were questioned by legal counsel for the opponents to the rezoning
regarding whether or not any ex parte communications had occurred.
Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Commission
should assume that similar questioning will again occur in
connection with the proposed initial zonings and rezonings.
The penalty for an ex parte communication in a quasi - judicial
proceeding is that a Court could use it as a basis to set aside an
action of the Planning & Zoning Commission and /or City Commission.
If you have any questions or require any further guidance
regarding the legality of any proposed meeting, please contact me
for specific advice. In the meantime, the best advice is to avoid
having a meeting or discussion if there is any doubt in your mind.
This will help assure that any final action taken jay the Ocoee City
Commission (whether in connection with the approval or disapproval
of a requested zoning) is upheld in the event of a legal challenge.
cc: Mr. Ellis Shapiro, City Manager
M. Bruce Behrens, Planning Director
Ms. Montye Beamer, Administrative Services Director
Mr. Julian Harper, Senior Planner
Slo' —