Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-2000 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Niro,, REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bond at 7:32 p.m. A moment of silent meditation was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. A quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Chairman Bond, Vice Chairman Switzer, Members Landefeld, Matthys, McKey, and Rhodus. Also present were Planning Director Wagner, Assistant City Attorney Cookson, Principal Planner Lewis and Deputy City Clerk Green. ABSENT: Members Christoefl, McNeil and Miller. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of approval of Item A: A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, February 8, 2000. Member Landefeld, seconded by Member Rhodus, moved to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried 6 -0. NEW BUSINESS CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE ANNEXATION, CASE No. AP- 97 -09 -08 - PUBLIC HEARING Planning Director Wagner presented the staff report recommending approval for the proposed annexation of the 4.61 acre vacant parcel located on the east side of Clarke Road, between White and Silver Star Roads. He said, if the annexation is approved, the subject property is proposed to be developed as a church and life center, and that the applicant plans to request Planned Unit Development District (PUD) zoning of the property at a later date. Mr. Wagner pointed out that this annexation would reduce the size of an existing enclave. Mr. Wagner confirmed that the nearby residents had been notified of the proposed annexation. The public hearing was opened. Stow Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting *4110,- April 11, 2000 Mike Bryant, 1901 Rachels Ridge Loop, asked several questions about the proposed plans for the site. Mr. Wagner explained that the plan is presently under review. He said that some trees will be saved on the site but the number and location of the trees to be saved is unknown at this time. He said a fence is planned on the east boundary of the site, but no fence is planned on the south boundary since it adjoins a retention pond. He said the plans for the north boundary are still under discussion. The public hearing was closed. Responding to a question by Vice Chairman Switzer, Mr. Wagner said the property to the north of the subject property includes a single family residence on a four to five acre parcel. Member Landefeld, seconded by Member Matthys, moved to recommend approval of the annexation petition by the Church of Nazarene in Case No. AP- 97- 09 -08. Motion carried 6 -0. THE VINTAGE AT LAKE LOTTA (F /K/A/ LAKE LOTTA APARTMENTS) - PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY/T+INAL SITE PLAN, CASE No. LS -99 -006 Member Matthys said for the record he would abstain from voting on this case due to a conflict of interest as he had prior knowledge of the case. (See attached Memorandum of Voting Conflict Form.) Principal Planner Lewis presented the staff report for the proposed complex which will include 199 multifamily residential units and will be located on the north side of Lake Lotta and SR 50, just east of the main entrance road to the West Oaks Mall. He said the subject property is zoned PUD and is part of the Lake Lotta Center PUD. Access to the Vintage at Lake Lotta site is provided from the main entrance road to the West Oaks Mall, just north of SR 50, across from the Borders bookstore. Mr. Lewis pointed out that the Conditions of Approval for The Vintage at Lake Lotta and one proposed waiver are listed on Sheet 14 of the plan set. The proposed waiver requests a 10 foot building setback from parking areas and retention ponds for a few of the buildings rather than the standard 15 feet. Additional landscaping would provide an appropriate buffer where setback is reduced. He said Staff supports the proposed waiver because of the unique constraints associated with the site. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 11, 2000 Mr. Lewis said outstanding issues which still need to be addressed on the plans are detailed in memoranda which are included in the agenda packet. He said none of the issues as addressed in the memos from PEC, Foley and Lardner, and Planning Staff will substantially affect the layout, the operational aspects of the site or the buffering as currently shown on the plans. After a detailed presentation which included numerous pictures and detailed explanations of the Plans as well as the discussion included below, Mr. Lewis concluded with Staff's recommendation for approval of the Preliminary/Final Site Plan for The Vintage at Lake Lotta, including the proposed waiver, subject to making revisions to the plans to satisfy all the remaining outstanding comments from Staff as identified in the memos attached to the staff report prior to scheduling a pre - construction meeting. Addressing questions by Vice Chairman Switzer and Chairman Bond about traffic entering the site and projected stacking of traffic at peak times, Mr. Lewis pointed out the features of the entry way. Mr. Wagner explained that this project is part of the first phase of the Lake Lotta Mall DRI (Development of Regional Impact), and the site was platted as part of the DRI. The traffic study that was done for the DRI took into account 200 units of multi - family and the entry way was always set at this location. There is no access to the east and that was a specific requirement of the DRI. Mr. Wagner said that 'oar the entrance to the project was far enough back from the entry way that there should be enough distance between both the ring road and the actual entrance to the mall to accommodate the traffic most of the time. He said it will be helpful that the peak period for residential traffic differs from the peak period for retail traffic. Vice Chairman Switzer asked if the wooden fence which had been pictured will be replaced by a brick wall. Mr. Lewis said a brick wall seven feet tall will be built parallel to the wooden fence, and that there will be a brick wall along the north and east sides of the property. Member Landefeld recalled flooding in the past from Lake Lotta on to SR 50 and asked what precautions were being taken to avoid flooding. Mr. Lewis said the stormwater management system would be designed to contain all the stormwater on the site in the pond, as City policy requires that the stormwater management system hold up to the 100 year storm. Mr. Wagner pointed out that this development is 25 feet outside of the 100 year flood plain, and that the site has the most stringent stormwater requirements that the City imposes. In response to a request by Member McKey, Mr. Lewis pointed out the areas on the Plan which were affected by the setback waiver. Nohow 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 11, 2000 NiArir The public hearing was opened. Joe Kolb, engineer with Bowyer- Singleton & Associates, Inc., 520 South Magnolia, said their entire staff was present to answer questions. Glen Calvert, architect with Humphreys & Partners Architects, Dallas, described the features of the buildings planned for the project. Greg Reynolds, landscape architect and planner with Bowyer- Singleton, briefly explained their design concept for the landscape. He said their goal was to complement the architecture and to use a wide variety of native and ornamental plants to create a park- like setting. He gave details of the location and types of trees and plants to be included in the landscape plan for the project and said it would be fully irrigated with rain sensors. Chairman Bond asked if they have met with the home owners in Rose Hill. Mr. Reynolds said no, but that they are sensitive to the home owners' needs and concerns and are more than willing to address their problems. Member Rhodus asked how large the trees would be when planted. Mr. Lewis said the "'�► PUD required a minimum of 2 '/2 inches in diameter and 12 to 15 feet tall along Rose Hill, but details were still being worked out. Mr. Wagner pointed out a conservation area along the lake which will be dedicated to the City and said there will be an overlay pedestrian easement if the City chooses to build a pathway around the lake in the future. Mr. Kolb pointed out that the pond is designed to hold two 100 year storms back -to back (or 21" of rainfall) before it flows into Lake Lotta. Four Rose Hill home owners expressed their questions and concerns as noted below. Gretchen Thwing, 9127 Queen Elizabeth Court, Orlando, expressed concern about the location of three story buildings along the northern edge of the site and the potential for third floor apartments looking into their homes and back yards. She said she would like to see the final lighting package and the Final Landscape Plans and expressed concern that the plantings will be kept up and asked who would be responsible for them. Bob Rohdie, president of Tarragon Realty Investors, Inc., the owner /developer, said to contact their firm with concerns about upkeep of plantings. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting r April 11, 2000 Ms. Thwing also expressed concern about the location of dumpsters and asked that they be placed as far from the homes as possible. In the discussion which ensued, Mr. Reynolds showed detailed plans of a dumpster wall enclosure, and Mr. Kolb pointed out that truck accessibility was a factor in determining location of the dumpsters. Chairman Bond suggested that Planning & Zoning Commission direct staff to meet with developers and home owners to discuss the possibility of moving the dumpsters further from their homes. Member McKey suggested adding a requirement that dumpsters must be kept closed. Suzanne Ehrbar, 9090 Floribunda Drive, Orlando, said her home backs up to a dumpster location, and she is concerned about vermin from the dumpster reaching her yard where her young children play. She asked if a wall would be constructed on top of a berm as the mall wall is, and if it will abut that wall both in length and height. She asked if home owners who remove their fences would have a documented easement available for their use. Ms. Ehrbar asked what recourse home owners have if they incur damage during construction, if rental rates had been set, the targeted construction date, and at what stage of construction the wall will be built. Chairman Bond advised her that the buffer wall will be built first. Amy Bennett, 8948 Hillsdale Drive, Orlando, asked what security was planned for the apartments, and what trees will remain. Mr. Rohdie said there will be an intrusion alarm in every apartment and gated key entry access for gates that will be closed from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. And Mr. Reynolds said two oak trees will remain. Mr. Wagner said most of the trees on the site are nuisance or trash trees and removing them will encourage regrowth of native plants. Member McKey said his extensive calculations on the trees showed a loss of 235 inches of trees and then gain of 242 inches, but his concern was that they are all 2 1/2 inches in diameter. Mr. Wagner said they would be requiring trees 3 to 3 1/2 inches in diameter. Patricia Hawkins, 9042 Floribunda Drive, Orlando, who lives directly to the north of one of the proposed three story buildings, said she was concerned about invasion of privacy, as she has no landscaping that would screen a bedroom and bathroom of her home from third floor apartments. She supported moving the three story buildings to face the mall or the lake. She said she had been concerned about the lighting issue, but had been reassured that the lighting will not be facing her property. The public hearing was closed. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 11, 2000 Noting that Vice Chairman Switzer was concerned about the three story buildings abutting the north wall near Rose Hill, Chairman Bond asked if the plans were so far along that they would not be able to swap buildings. Mr. Kolb said they have worked on the project for some time, that three story buildings are very expensive and they would prefer all two story buildings, but it became impractical because of the site constraints. In response to Vice Chairman Switzer's concern about invasion of privacy from third floor apartments, Mr. Kolb said he thought the tree growth and the seven foot wall on the berm would prevent a view into the single family homes. Mr. Switzer asked if the project will be governed by the new lighting ordinance. Mr. Wagner said they would not, but Staff has set parameters requiring a minimum of one foot candle average over the site for safety purposes and have asked a maximum no greater than five at any location, with an average of two foot candles. He said lights around the perimeter will have drop down shields. Chairman Bond said she is concerned that one foot candle is not a safe level, and suggests a safe minimum of two foot candles. Mr. Wagner said the lighting level on an average residential street is one- half a foot candle. *raw Vice Chairman Switzer, seconded by Member Landefeld moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Site Plan for The Vintage at Lake Lotta, in accordance with the staff recommendation which includes the proposed waiver and is subject to making revisions to the plan to satisfy all the remaining outstanding comments from Staff as identified in the memos attached to the staff report, prior to scheduling a pre - construction conference, and subject to the Developer meeting with Staff and the Rose Hill home owners to discuss the possibility of moving the dumpsters further away from their homes. Motion carried 5 -0. (Member Matthys abstained) OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS None. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 11, 2000 COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Attest: APPROVED: L , Mian Green, Deputy City Clerk Pat Bond, Chairman *r. 7 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME— MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE M A 5 T) / < DA B `fi PI `` ca Ai ,v r Z yJ;P ) Cuin,m I re.ING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 5 )) 5 ✓ v, o r Pr IL St WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY yCTTY O COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 L L0 e Oil AA) / NAME OF POLI SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION I v C O E � l Ll J 0 / 0 (} Q ELECTIVE )( APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. , Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each effected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting measure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained luding the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not pro - hibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father - in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A `business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting-, and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: You must abstain from voting and disclose the conflict in the situations described above and in the manner described for elected offi- cers. In order to participate in these matters, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: ou must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. CE FORM 88 - REV. 1/95 PAGE 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immeditely to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST H , tt 2c+a ,hereby disclose that on l-1ot � I )' frr (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: -th-e pro... 1 ,fic -{-1, b c, : wr►5 pro3tc4 wh Icl Z ��eV►o� ln I f fC) tA e ,N �f5 2/1r f Sit f l‘ +h -i 1 ci u th e �� i C r S5 -a w e9 j �' / r y /)1/bf1 Date Filed —IT—nature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCI SURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWINvissf IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - REV. 1/95 PAGE 2