Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-29-2000 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Niro REGULAR MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bond at 7:37 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, Members Golden, Matthys, McKey, and West. Also present were Planning Director Wagner, Senior Planner Dyson, Principal Planner Robby Lewis, Principal Transportation Planner Brad Friel, Assistant City Attorney Formella, and Deputy City Clerk Whitford. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Landefeld (family illness), Members Christoefl (ill), Miller (ill), and Rhodus. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of approval of Item A: , A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, November 14, 2000. Mem s • r McK • s- • nded • Member old • n m • ved to acce. t the onsent A , enda as presented. Motion carried 5 -0. NEW BUSINESS HEALTH CENTRAL HOSPITAL PARKING LOT EXPANSION AND STATE ROAD 50 ACCESS PROJECT NO. LS -00 -007 PUBLIC HEARING Planning Director Wagner introduced the new Senior Planner Joanna Dyson and gave a brief overview of her credentials. After being welcomed aboard by the members, Senior Planner Dyson made the staff presentation detailing the proposed project for an additional entry roadway and addition of 427 spaces to the existing employee parking lot. Member McKey and Chairman Bond asked if there would be a signal light at the point of the new access road and if the road would connect with Old Winter Garden Road (OWGR). Mr. Wagner said that was the only point where the (FDOT) would consider a signal in the future. He further explained under the current plan it is a private drive, but eventually it is expected to be part of a public roadway. Mr. Wagner explained an extension of the road to the north is also anticipated. Joining with OWGR is not currently part of this project, but the new access is expected to connect with OWGR eventually. r Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Member McKey also asked if the plan was acceptable to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Mr. Wagner advised the City would require the permit from FDOT before construction could begin. The public hearing was opened. Speaking for Health Central was Richard Irwin, President of Health Central. Mr. Irwin explained the need for more parking due to the closing of Princeton Hospital. Mr. Irwin also stated that with the advent of the Super Wal -Mart opening across from Health Central on Blackwood, there is a need for a better access point for the ambulances, as currently Health Central has no access on SR 50. Scott Keating, 1311 Bob White Trail, Chuluota, 32766, whose family members own the adjacent property to the east, spoke in reference to a letter submitted by his brother prior to the meeting. Mr. Keating said their main concern is they have access to their property. They have no objections to the proposed access shown on the hospital plan, but would like assurance the Access Management Plan is followed allowing appropriate access to their property. Mr. Wagner said the Access Management Plan was adopted by Ordinance so it has the same affect as any other code requirement and that nothing in the Health Central plan limits the ability of the adjacent property owner from obtaining fir► access to SR 50. Mr. Wagner also stated that the adjacent property is not yet annexed into the City, and until it is, Ocoee has no authority to require improvements on the property. Mr. Keating responded that the property directly affected by the City of Ocoee requirements is owned by Health Central and suggested that a condition be placed on the plan stating that cross access will be provided when development plans are prepared for the Health Central property. Kermit Bushur, 441 Vandergrift Drive, Ocoee, asked where the access to SR 50 would be located and if there would be a traffic signal. Mr. Wagner said there would not be a traffic light initially, but there is likely to be a traffic light in the future. Brad Friel, Principal Transportation Planner, addressed the location of the driveway and FDOT requirements for a traffic light. Mr. Friel said that, based on state criteria, ambulances do not warrant a signal. Mr. Wagner introduced for the record a letter from A. Tom Harb, P.E., President of Harbco Construction, Inc., the representative of the owner of the property located on the north side of SR 50 across from the hospital. The letter stated the property owners objection and concern to the approval of a non - signalized driveway onto SR 50. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 The public hearing was closed. Board members asked for clarification on the cross access issue and the enclosed drainage on SR 50. Mr. Irwin responded that Health Central had no plans at this time for the development of the rest of their land, but when it is developed the hospital will put in the drainage and the sidewalks. Steve Dieter, of Ivey Harris and Walls, engineer for the hospital, responded to the concerns raised about the trees in the pond area. He assured the board members that they will remove only those trees which need to be removed and any trees that must be removed will be replaced. Member Matthys, seconded by Member West, moved that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan for Health Central Hospital Parking Lot Expansion and State Road 50 Access, Project No. LS -00- 007, subject to the vacation of Right -of -Way for Division Avenue and a note being added to the Plan as follows: "Enclosed drainage and a sidewalk will be provided along the SR 50 frontage to maintain an urban roadway cross - section east of the new entrance as part of the design of the abutting development site." Motion carried 5 -0. Recess: 8:35 p.m. - 8:47 p.m. WEST OAKS SQUARE PUD LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT - PROJECT NO. LS- 98 -0005A PUBLIC HEARING Planning Director Wagner presented the staff report for the proposed amendment to the PUD for the property located on the south side of SR 50 across from the West Oaks Mall and just east of Citrus Oaks Avenue. Mr. Wagner stated the building existing on the site is 20,000 sq. ft. used primarily for retail and offices and is substantially complete. He said a portion of the sidewalk and the main identification/directory sign have never been built so no permanent Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Mr. Wagner said because of the underlying land use of the adjoining land there were significant limitations on the intensity of the use allowed on the site in question. It was intended for offices and other low intensity uses. While it was originally zoned P -S, due to a request by the developer it was changed to commercial with very limited uses. Mr. Wagner said the proposed amendment includes four elements: 1. Amending the list of C -2 uses not permitted to delete restaurants, thereby allowing restaurants as a permitted use within this PUD; `'`' 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 2. Providing a second driveway entrance on SR 50 at the east end of the parking lot with appropriate turn lane improvements eliminating a few parking spaces in the process; 3. Changing the requirement to construct a sidewalk along SR 50 on the eastern portion of the site, eliminating the Developer's responsibility to construct the sidewalk; 4. Changing the limitation on the size of the main identification/directory sign from 36 square feet to 100 square feet in size. Mr. Wagner said the proposed amendment to the PUD Land Use Plan for West Oaks Square was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on November 13, 2000. After lengthy discussion of all the issues, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the first three elements , and 6 -1 to recommend denial of the fourth element in the proposed amendment. Mr. Wagner stated none of the proposed amendments were warranted as they were either inconsistent with the Land Development Code, inconsistent with the intents of the SR 50 Activity Center Plan, or inconsistent with the original PUD. Any amendment to the original PUD should be for compelling reasons. He said Staff recommends denial of all four elements of the proposed amendment. Mr. Wagner said through the negotiation process the City has been successful in getting quality projects in the SR 50 Activity Center because the developers know the City will consistently apply the same standards to other developers and new projects. The public hearing was opened. Principal Planner Lewis presented the original building plan showing the line on the plan where the zoning changes from P -S to Commercial. Mr. Lewis explained the vote on the initial PUD was not unanimous as there were concerns about the intensity of the PUD. Use was restricted and restaurants were prohibited. Staff has indicated at this time that no compelling change is seen that would merit a change to intense uses on the site. Mr. Dean Sant, the applicant, said he too wanted to keep the project attractive and upscale. Mr. Sant said there is a 4,000 sq. ft. vacancy and, although a land title company and a billiards company have inquired about the space, he wanted a small sit -down restaurant. Mr. Sant expressed his view that parking met code requirements. He also said a salon or dental office would generate almost as much traffic and parking. Therefore he saw no reason to oppose his request. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Member Matthys asked why Mr. Sant did not accept the billiard or land title company. Mr. Sant responded that he wanted to attract a more upscale clientele. Chairman Bond recalled that it had been the intent over the years that development for that corridor would not be a heavy traffic commercial area because of the residential area and church that are close by. Mr. Sant pointed out that a large ravine separates the business area from the residential area and said the addition of a restaurant would not change the look of the building, just the type of occupancy. Mr. Friel addressed the applicant's request for an additional driveway. He said the reason the applicant cites in his request is that the existing driveway is unsafe. Mr. Friel stated staff does not support the request for three reasons. The first is the request is not consistent with the City's Access Management Plan. He said the current access driveway was intentionally set at that location to be a joint access for the two properties and the only access for the property requesting amendment. The plan was developed with FDOT in adherence with their policies. The second is the request brought by the applicant is not consistent with FDOT's standard for access management for the type of roadway on which it is being requested. The third reason is that the reason given by the applicant is that the existing driveway is unsafe. Mr. Friel advised that numerous verbal and written requests have been made of the applicant to supply the City with data analysis confirming orr► that the access is unsafe. Mr. Friel said if it is unsafe Staff is more than willing to discuss alternative plans for the existing access to be made safer. He said Staff does not see how an additional driveway would make the existing driveway safer without making improvements to the existing driveway. He said that based on this discussion and the DRC, Staff recommends denial of this additional driveway access. Member McKey asked if there was an official position from FDOT on this issue. Mr. Friel said the applicant had met with FDOT on the additional driveway and the sidewalk issues. He said FDOT indicated they would defer to the City and its Access Management Plan for the road. Mr. Sant said their safety concern was not with the design of the existing entrance but that there is not another entrance on the other end. Mr. Sant said a safety problem arises when drivers of vehicles traveling from west to east are uncertain where to turn, pass the entrance, and then back up to enter the shopping center. In further discussion Mr. Friel pointed out that FDOT had denied the second access when the applicant had requested it in 1998. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Mr. Wagner explained that originally the access driveway had been a public right of way, the public street actually split the property and when the City vacated the property the ownership went equally to both sides. Mr. Wagner stated that was one of the reasons why that location was originally chosen for the access point prior to the roadway being vacated. Mr. Wagner showed pictures of the area in question and stated part of the confusion is the striping shows a mdrge with an arrow pointing outward. Mr. Wagner said they had suggested to the applicant early on that he should get with FDOT and either delete the striping or change it to a "right -in" this should eliminate the confusion. Since Mr. Sant is willing to pay for a roadway and a new access road, Staff recommends he do minor changes first e.g. like re- striping or moving the current access point a few hundred feet to the east and deleting the old one. Mr. Sant has not presented any proposals along those lines and the Access Management Plan or state criteria do not allow for two access points as close together as the applicant is asking for. Staff is more than willing to work with the applicant, but as they have seen no proposals, they have no alternative except to recommend denial for the additional driveway. Member Matthys asked if there was any signage to indicate where the turn is. He asked if the entrance were moved further to the east if the City would be opposed to allowing a sign indicating the shopping center could be accessed through Citrus Oaks. Mr. Wagner indicated he would not have a problem with that and Mr. Sant said it sounded very 'tow reasonable to him. Mr. Friel addressed the sidewalk issue reminding the board members that the original PUD required a sidewalk along SR 50. Mr. Friel said there is a 500 foot gap without sidewalk which is one of the main things which needs to be completed in order to obtain a final Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant had agreed to this in the original site plan, but is now asking that his responsibility to build the sidewalk be waived. DRC voted unanimously to deny the request. Staff has three reasons why the requirement should not be waived. First, the sidewalk is required as part of the SR 50 Activity Center Plan. Mr. Friel showed a series of pictures depicting pedestrian traffic in the area and stressed the urgent need for the sidewalk for public safety. Second, the sidewalk was shown on the original Plan. Third, the applicant had tried to pursue an agreement with FDOT for FDOT to build the sidewalk. The problem that staff has with that proposal is the timing and the fact that there is no written agreement as to when or if it will happen. There were some letters exchanged between FDOT and the City Manager but the issue has not yet been resolved. Staff believes the applicant should continue to pursue this option not just ask to have the requirement waived. For these reasons we recommend the request for a waiver be denied. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Mr. Sant said he did not in fact submit a request to waive the sidewalk. He said the sidewalk as shown on the original plan would have to curve towards the road. FDOT rejected that plan due to a required 30 foot clearance. Mr. Sant also stated there is large drop off of approximately 30 feet which created quite a problem. The applicant stated that at a meeting with FDOT it was suggested if the applicant donated some land right -of- way to FDOT they would build the sidewalk at an approximate cost of $75,000 in their Fiscal year of 2002. Member McKey asked if the $ 75, 000 cost was realistic and if the drop off is as drastic as the applicant indicates. Mr. Wagner said anything is buildable, but it is a matter of cost. He said he didn't feel it was that significant. He also said that some of the sidewalks at the West Oaks Town Center were closer than 30 feet to the right -of -way, so FDOT must allow some variance and the applicant should pursue that. Mr. Wagner said it is the developer's responsibility to permit it with FDOT and whatever can be worked out with them is fine with Staff. He said the packet included a letter from City Attorney Paul Rosenthal to the applicant explaining it is the applicant's responsibility to build the sidewalk. If they can get reimbursed from FDOT at a later date that is fine. However, the sidewalk needs to be completed and the applicant needs to do it immediately. Chairman Bond stated many people had put in many hours on codes and 'otry regulations and they need to be enforced. She said the City of Ocoee does not want the look of SR 436 in Altamonte Springs. Mr. Sant said this is not a normal sidewalk and that they had tried to fulfill the obligation. He said that FDOT had rejected the original plan and that an alternative solution was attempted. He thought one had been reached, with FDOT building the sidewalk in 2002, but Planning will not wait that long. Chairman Bond stated other businesses had to abide by the standards and this applicant would have to also. Mr. Lewis addressed the issue of signage stating the original plan provided for a 36 square foot sign. He said as of yet no sign has been built which is another reason a permanent Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued. Mr. Lewis advised the board that the applicant is now requesting a 100 sq. ft. sign. Member Golden asked if Staff had anticipated multiple tenants for the sign. Mr. Wagner said none of the signs are intended to list all of the tenants e.g. the mall lists only anchor stores. Chairman Bond said the board had not deviated for the Woman's Fitness Center and they had to compete with the Twistee Treat cone. „► 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 29, 2000 Mr. Sant said he was requesting only what is allowed by code for commercial PUD. He further cited the fact that St. Paul's Presbyterian Church had been granted a variance. Mr. Wagner said the actual message board for St. Paul's is only 36 sq. ft.. The variance had been for height but the sign is only 12 feet above the road because the base of the sign is in a ravine. Mr. Wagner said the 36 sq. ft. sign was part of the approved plan. The public hearing was closed. Members asked Mr. Wagner what the usual time frame for a temporary C.O. was and he responded that 30 days is typical. Member McKey stated he had not heard anything substantial that would merit a change to the PUD. Member Golden had no comment at this time. Member Matthys stated he agrees that the sidewalk needs to be built immediately and he has no objection to the moving of the entrance. He stated he is uncertain about the sign since variances have been issued in adjacent areas. Member West stated there is no apparent hardship, the property is attractive and valuable. Member West also stated that the code Ocoee has in place is the envy of all the surrounding communities. He said he saw nothing that indicates a variance is needed and told the applicant that the value of his property would be increased by following City codes. Chairman Bond, seconded by Member McKey, moved to recommend denial of all 4 elements of the ■ ro . osed amendment to the West Oaks S uare PUD Land Use Plan Case # LS- 98- 0005A. Motion was approved 4 -1, with Member Matthys voting no. He stated for the record that he thought it might be possible to reach an agreement on the access issue and the signage. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS None. Nay- 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Nikw November 29, 2000 COMMENTS Mr. Wagner said the agenda for the next meeting would include Super Wal -Mart Final Plans and possibly a subdivision. He also said there would be only one meeting in December. ADJOURNMENT Member West, seconded by Chairman Bond, moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Attest: APP' i ED: AFL-AC' FL —A d � I QY DYE Sa ly ' ford, Dep l y City Clerk Pat Bond, Chairman *4ro' 9