Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-13w An rlZl�:����� Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Following a moment of silent meditation and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, a quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Chairman Campbell, Vice - Chairman McKey, Members Dillard, Dunn, Keethler, Marcotte, and West. Also present were City Planner Rumer, Assistant City Attorney Drage, Commissioner Johnson and Recording Clerk Turner ABSENT: Member(s): de la Portilla (A /U) and Sills (A /E) CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held on Tuesday, March 12, 2013. Member Keethler, seconded bV Vice - Chairman McKey, moved to accept the minutes of the March 92, 2093, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS Westyn Bay Subdivision City Planner Rumer gave a brief overview of the proposed project. The subject subdivision is zoned R -1AA (single - family dwelling) and is located on the north side of Ocoee Crown Point Parkway. The Westyn Bay Subdivision encompasses +/- 376 acres for phases 1 -3, and +/- 40 acres for phases 4 and 5. The final site plan for phases 1 -3 was approved by the City Commission on May 7, 2002, under the name West Groves. The approved subdivision plan provides a condition of approval that is consistent with the Development Agreement for West Groves dated June 5, 2001. City Planner Runner explained that the Westyn Bay Community Association, Inc. (Association) is requesting the following: a. Proposed Deletion of Condition ##22 (Easement) The easement provides pedestrian access through and over the private internal roads of Westyn Bay from the neighboring subdivision called The Vineyards. The easement restricts access to the time in which public schools are open for use by students. The easement does not permit access to any facilities within the Westyn Bay Subdivision. This condition was created to provide a safe route for school children and parents to access Ocoee Crown Point Parkway. At the time, Ocoee Apopka Road did not contain a sidewalk on the western side of the road; however, upon the development of The Vineyards Subdivision, a sidewalk was installed. He continued by stating that he does not have any objections to this request. Planning and Zoning Conintission Meeting August 13, 2013 b. Proposed Deletion of Condition #37 (Street Trees) Condition #37 is a reiteration of Ocoee Land Development Code (LDC), Article 6, Section 6 -10. A street tree shall be provided in front of each single - family lot (two trees on corner lots, with one on each street), prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the house constructed on the lot. This condition requires that the developer plant within five feet of the right -of -way of each street within the development, one shade tree for every fifty linear feet of right -of -way. The Association is requesting the option for removal of the street trees. He continued by saying that he objects to the removal of Condition #37, however, is open to working with the Association. DISCUSSION Vice - Chairman McKey asked where the utilities are located within the subdivision. City Planner Rumer explained that they are located in the right -of -way, which is also where the trees are located. Vice - Chairman McKey stated that he understands the position of the City and Association, and asked if there is middle ground. City Planner Rumer stated that this condition should not be removed from the Land Development Code (LDC), but maybe modified, and he is agreeable to a middle ground. Member Keethler stated that as a homeowner and officer of the Association, this item poses a conflict of interest; therefore, he will abstain from voting (completed Form 88). He continued by saying that the language in the LDC is very specific as to where the trees needed to be planted, and that is why they are there. The Public Hearing was opened. Jim Gustino, attorney for the Westyn Bay Community Association, Inc., attended on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the Association would like to delete Conditions #22 and #37. Mr. Gustino showed a PowerPoint presentation regarding Condition #22 (Exhibit A). He explained that this condition was a stipulation at a time when there was not a safe travel path for school children; however, with the development of The Vineyards, that has changed. There have been instances of vandalism, often times when the gate was locked. The gate allows access to unauthorized individuals. He continued by saying that the Association proposes to remove the gate and fence, and erect a wall that matches aesthetically. Mr. Gustino showed a PowerPoint presentation regarding Condition #37 (Exhibit B). He continued his presentation by explaining that the Association does not want to remove any of the common area trees; instead, they are requesting the removal of the street trees. He continued by saying that there are approximately 600 oak trees located between the 2 Planning and Zoning commission 1VIeeting August 13, 2013 sidewalk and street, and some of these trees are causing steps to be formed in the sidewalks. These steps are a tripping hazard, exposing the Association to substantial liability. He explained that the trees are too large for the small space, and the soil in Westyn Bay is hard clay which causes shallow roots. He continued by saying that the trees could be moved to the other side of the sidewalk, but this will not cure the problem. The Association recommends the deletion of Condition #37 and asked that the board endorse the recommendation. Member Keethler explained that the Association is willing to offer homeowners different options. Some of the options include: 1) homeowners can keep the trees, but will have to assume the liability and responsibility of maintenance, 2) the homeowners can place the street trees elsewhere on their property, 3) any additional trees can be made available to the City for a cost. Member Dillard asked who absorbs the cost of the tree removal. Mr. Gustino stated the Association, unless the City chooses to take the trees. Vice - Chairman McKey asked if the homeowners that choose to keep the trees will absorb the maintenance and liability costs. Mr. Gustino answered in the affirmative. Board discussion ensued regarding details of removing the trees. Susan (Inaudible- no speaker form provided), Westyn Bay resident approached the podium to speak on behalf of Westyn Bay. Member Dunn asked if there is a tally on how much has been spent to -date to repair the sidewalks. Mr. Gustino stated less than $10,000. Member Marcotte asked if the trees are planted within the swale. City Planner Rumer stated no. Member Marcotte stated there should be a mitigation plan, but the property owner should not have to absorb liability if they choose to keep the tree. City Planner Rumer explained that this property was an orange grove, and is not violating the replanting schedule. Mr. Gustino suggested phasing the removal of trees over a period of time. Rodney Stogsdill, Vice - President of the Association, approached the podium to speak on behalf of Westyn Bay. Cllr. Stogsdill explained that moving all the trees to the inside of the lots would be challenging as much of those areas is already landscaped. Also, the corner lots are required to have a clear line of visibility around the corners, and planting the trees in that area would obstruct visibility. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 13, 2013 The Public Hearing was closed. City Planner Rumer stated that the City cautions the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve or deny a variance based on the evidence so it does not set a precedent. He continued by saying that the soil in Westyn Bay is not a draining soil; therefore, the subdivision has shown some hardship. He stated that if the board does recommend approval, to state that the approval is based on hardship due to the soil condition. Vice - Chairman WicKey asked if there are utilities that would preclude planting the trees within five feet from the inside of the sidewalk. City Planner Rumer answered that the utilities would be in the easement, or the right -of -way. Member Keethler stated that the trees were the expense of the developer, and to require the Association or homeowners to plant new trees is a financial burden. The soil is not amenable to the type of trees planted. Vice-Chairman McKey, seconded by Member West, moved the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Ocoee City Commission approval of the deletion of Condition #22 for the Westyn Bay Subdivision, Motion carried (6-9), with Member Keethler abstaining from voting. Member Dillard asked if the wall replacing the gate will be presented to Staff for approval. City Planner Runner answered in the affirmative. Arbours at Crown Point City Planner Rumer gave a brief overview of the proposed project. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. is requesting rezoning from 1 -1 (Light Industrial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) on 28.1 acres of land, and is requesting approval of the associated Arbours at Crown Point PUD Land Use plan, and Development Agreement. The subject property is located on the north side of West Road and west of State Road 429. It is approximately 28.1 acres in size, and is currently vacant except for an abandoned agricultural structure. The subject property is located adjacent to the West Orange Trail on the east with a 73 foot power line easement located along the eastern property line. Pedestrian access to the West Orange Trail is being provided on the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 13, 2013 northern property line with a vehicular crossing located on the eastern property line subject to Orange County approval. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from 1 -1 (Light Industrial) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of developing a mixed use community that combines 192 multi - family apartments with future light industrial uses. Access is proposed via an existing entrance off West Road. An internal road dedicated to the public will be provided in the PUD Land Use Plan. The rezoning from 1 -1 (Light Industrial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) allowing high density residential in a Light Industrial Future Land Use designation is permitted via the City of Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. The Arbours at Crown Point PUD Land Use Plan proposes 192 multi - family units on 17.5 acres and 10.5 acres of land with uses consistent with 1 -1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. The residential density of the project will achieve 11 dwelling units per acre. The PUD Land Use plan provides for a full access road through the property to provide access to the vacant properties on the east side. The proposed apartments will be gated with private roads accessed from the new internal public road. The developer has proposed on -site amenities that will be constructed during various phases of development. The main on -site amenity that will be constructed is a clubhouse and community pool. This is proposed to be constructed at the entrance of the development concurrent with the first phase of construction. In' addition to the clubhouse, other amenities such as open space and connection to the West Orange Trail will be provided. A traffic Study was provided and approved by City Staff and the City's transportation planning consultant. The traffic study indicated no transportation concurrency issues. This means that the trips generated from the 192 multi - family units and the 106,000 sq. ft. of non - residential use will not make any of the road sections within a one -mile radius fail the adopted level of service. The traffic study did indicate operational issues with the turning movements at Fullers Cross Road and Ocoee Apopka Road. The project will mitigate the turning movement issue by paying a proportionate share payment for a northbound to westbound left turn and a southbound to eastbound left turn on Ocoee Apopka Road. A finding of school capacity was provided by Orange County Public Schools on May 1, 2013, with a determination that there is not sufficient capacity to support the development of 192 multi - family total residential units. The School Capacity Determination found that the project fails in capacity for elementary and middle school aged students. The applicant has worked out an agreement with Orange County Public Schools. The agreement will be presented for a first hearing with the Orange County School Board on August 13, 2013, and second hearing and adoption August 27, 2013. s Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 13, 2013 The site is located within the Wekiva Study Area. The site contains class "A" soils and must maintain 35% open space within the areas with the class "A" soils. Other development criteria within the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Vice - Chairman McKey asked if the apartment buildings will be three -story units. City Planner Reamer answered in the affirmative. Member Marcotte asked what happens if the mitigation for the schools does not go through. City Planner Reamer stated that per the interlocal agreement with Orange County Public Schools, the project will not be presented to the City Commission for approval. Member Keethler asked how much of a plan should a PUD have. City Planner Rumer stated that it can be a bubble plan or up to 80% of an engineered plan. Discussion ensued regarding the uses for Light Industrial and Planned Unit Developments. City Planner Rumer explained that Arbours at Crown Point is a mixed -use development and is consistent with two other projects approved by the City Commission. Discussion ensued regarding mixed -use development plans and the functional relationship between mixed - use concepts, and the LDC and Comprehensive Plan. Member Vilest stated that this development will bring in high -end tenants as it is a very desirable area. Assistant City Attorney Drage asked if this item poses a conflict of interest as he owns some of the property. Member West answered in the affirmative and stated he will abstain from voting (completed Form 88). The Public Hearing was opened. Allison Turnbull, attorney for Arbour Valley Development, LLC., attended on behalf of the applicant. She stated that this project meets all the LDC requirements for approval. Mr. Gustino, attorney for Westyn Bay Community Association, Inc., stated the homeowners are concerned because of the radical departure from the area. He stated that the community is concerned because high - density areas often bring crime. He continued by saying that the schools are over capacity, and accommodating new students would necessitate the use of portables. Member West stated that the multi - family area on Maguire Road has not produced more crime. He continued by saying that most developments would cause capacity issues; therefore, it is necessary to mitigate. 6 Planninu and Zonin- Commission Meeting August 13, 2013 Ms. Turnbull, stated that this area is a unique site and the proposed development would be a good fit for that area. Numerous studies have rebutted the opinion that multi - family developments produce more crime. Chairman Campbell stated that he personally feels this project is a good fit for this property. Board discussion ensued regarding the proximity of the development to State Road 429, and the noise levels produced. Member West explained that there will be buffers to reduce noise levels. Member Keetthler asked about the buffers to be installed for the development. City Planner Runner explained that the road, a 60 -foot right -of -way, 25 - -feet of landscaping, and a 6 -foot wall will buffer the development. Additionally, the apartment buildings will be set back from the road. He continued by saying that these buffers meet the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and LDC. Assistant City Attorney Drage informed the board that there are outstanding issues that need to be resolved before being considered by the City Commission; therefore, the motion will need to address the fact that recommendation of approval is conditioned upon the traffic study results, conditions of approval, and the development agreement. The Public Hearing was closed. Member Keethler asked Assistant City Attorney Drage if there is a provision in the Code for conditional approvals. Assistant City Attorney Drage stated the approval is based on the condition that the outstanding issues have been resolved prior to consideration by the City Commission, and this is permissible. Garcia - 424 3rd Street Annexation and Initial Zoning City Planner Rumer gave a brief overview of the proposed annexation and initial zoning. The subject property is located on the west side of 3 rd Street and approximately 170 feet north of the intersection of 3 rd Street and East Silver Star Road. The subject parcel has one existing single - family residence. The applicant is annexing into the City limits as a condition to receive City potable water connection. He explained that per Florida Statutes, the City has the authority to annex contiguous property just as long as it does not create Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 13, 2013 and enclave, and this property is considered contiguous since it is bordered by property located within the City limits on the northwestern point. The Public Hearing was opened. The Public Hearing was closed. Member ®illard, seconded bZ Member West, moved the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Ocoee CitV Commission approval of the Annexation of the +1-.44 acre ,parcel of land It down as the Garcia Property (424 3 ra Street) with an Initial Zoning Classification of "P -IA ". Motion carried unanimously. Eva Medina -- 538 Ist Street Annexation and Initial Zon City Planner Ruer gave a brief overview of the proposed annexation and initial zoning. The subject property is located on the west side of 1 St Street and approximately 120 feet south of the intersection of Center Street and 1 St Street. The subject parcel has one existing single - family residence. The applicant has requested annexation into the City limits for potable water connection. The proposed annexation is a logical extension of the City limits, urban services can be provided, and the annexation meets state and local regulations. Because the property is part of an enclave in the City, it already benefits from Ocoee Fire Rescue services. The subject property is located within the Ocoee- Orange County Joint Planning Area and it is adjacent to the City by a corner. Orange County has been notified of the petition, and is not contesting the annexation. Member Marcotte asked who maintains the right -of -ways for these types of areas. City Planner Rurner stated the city of Ocoee has entered into a Road Transfer Agreement with Orange County. This agreement sets up a provision where if the city of Ocoee fronts 51 % of the road, the road is controlled by the city of Ocoee. However, those specific roads are maintained by Orange County. The Public Hearing was opened. Member Keethler asked at what point these annexations becomes an additional burden to the City for police and fire services. City Planner Rumer stated there is concurrency for solid waste, parks and recreation, schools and transportation, water and sewer, but not for police and fire services. Chairman Campbell asked if the properties will have a tax liability to the City once they are annexed. Commissioner Johnson stated those areas currently benefit from many City services, and annexing the properties will allow the City to receive taxes. The Public Hearing was closed. 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 13, 2013 Member Keethler, seconded by Member Dillard, roved the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Ocoee City Commission approval of the Annexation of the +1-.37 acre parcel of land known as the Medina Property (538 1 Street) with an Initial Zoning Classification of "R -IA ". Motion carried unanimously. West 50 Commercial Subdivision Cancelled per Staff Recommendation City Planner Rumer presented the board with a project status update. Some of upcoming projects are: 2 dog kennels Wendy's restaurant on West Colonial Drive Letter of intent will be mailed out for the Coke property regarding residential aspect ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Attest: '­Diana Turner, Recording Clerk APPROVED: Bradley Campbell, Chairman WrINPIMT Westyn Bay Request to Amend its Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan Conditi ®n #22 8/22/2013 Subdivision Plan Westyn Bay Request to Amend its Preliminary /Final Subdivision Plan • Condition 22 — Establishes an easement allowing students and parents access through Westyn Bay traveling to and from schools • Westyn Bay Community Association requests this condition be deleted from the Subdivision Plan for Westyn Bay Situation << " I I k 2 I 1 8/22/2013 Situation • Background: Conceived at a time when there was no sidewalk along Ocoee Apopka Road for students to walk to school • Access restricted to students and their accompanying parents /supervisors — No practical way to enforce • Access limited to 90 minutes before until 90 minutes after school, when in session — Impractical to open and lock gate outside of those times — When attempted, panels next to gate were kicked out No access to common areas or facilities — Impossible to police What we will do • We will remove the gate and associated PVC fencing and erect a wall with a motif similar to the other walls in Westyn Bay • We will change the combination to the pedestrian gates at the entrances to the subdivision • We will (likely) remove the sidewalk on the Westyn Bay side of the gate Result Unfettered, uncontrollable access through our private gated community which we spend significant sums of money to restrict to residents and guests only • The quickest and easiest way for unauthorized individuals to gain access to our subdivision Unauthorized use of and vandalism to our facilities (while not entirely attributable to the gate, it is the single largest gap in our ability to control access) What we will gain The sanctity of our private property, for which we pay dearly • The freedom from the long term expense to maintain the gate, the fence, and the sidewalk, and the liability exposure of non - residents /guests transiting our streets and sidewalks • Less pedestrian traffic through the subdivision • Significantly reduced opportunity for unauthorized access to the subdivision • Proportional reduction in vandalism and unauthorized use of facilities 8/22/2013 Counterarguments Some students will have a longer distance to walk to school Rebuttal: This is no longer a safety issue —it is merely a shortcut • Many students living within Westyn Bay will walk just as far to school as Vineyards students • Students normally do not have the privilege of crossing private property as a shortcut to school The easement is very restricted —only students during school hours with no access to facilities Rebuttal: Completely impractical to enforce This is a wonderful way to foster closer relationships between neighbors and foster a community spirit Rebuttal: • Reality: that hasn't happened in 8 +years • Other developments (e.g., Arden Park) haven't had to provide access despite similar geography with respect to school locations (Note: Arden Park will allow its residents across clarcona -Ocoee Pkwy to transit through the larger section) Conclusion Removing Condition 22 from the Subdivision Plan will restore and uphold the private property rights of Westyn Bay residents, eliminate the largest single means for unauthorized access to the community, and eliminate the costs and liabilities associated with providing this access We respectfully request your support of our request Counterarguments (cont) We bought a house in the Vineyards based on having this access; this ruins it for us and decreases our property value — Rebuttal: the costs of the streets, sidewalks, and gates in Westyn Bay are completely borne by its residents; you are not entitled to any benefit from what the residents of Westyn Bay have paid and continue to pay for their community, including increasing your property value; you had (and still have) the opportunity to purchase a home in Westyn Bay, and otherwise you have safe sidewalk transit to the school sites 3 TI • Westyn Bay Request to Modify Its Development Agreement Condition x#37 8/22/2013 Development Agreement Westyn Bay Request to Modify Its Development Agreement What is the motivation? • It is NOT about the wholesale removal of trees It IS about the Homeowner's Association ridding itself of substantial legal and financial liability Condition #37: A street tree shall be provided in front of each single - family lot (2 street trees on corner Ims, with one on each street), prior to the issuance of o certificate of o'roponcy for the house constructed on the lot Gach sweet tree shall he a minimum of 2" DAIi and 10' tall at the lime of planting. Westyn Bay Community Association requests this condition be deleted from the Development Agreement for Westyn Bay. Situation Trees WERE planted to comply with the requirement I— oak /Laurel oak trees (encouraged by city staff) (approx -50/50 per Valley crest) -- Planted in red is as( 2- 6feetwide) between sidewalk a ud street ("in front of the of ") - Approx.600trees,I/- - Now s -g years old; 90- 95i are less than8 "Doll Result — )hough stlllimrature, trees are pushing up sidewalksat an alarming rate — Normally a long the joints Resulting " step" foirns a tripping hazard, exposing the Association to substantial legal liability Current coping mechanism — Grind the "steps" down; cost up to $300 each per occurrence — Temporarymeasure;sid,w,lkwill continueto rise, replacement required see ntual ly — Tripping hazard exists until ground down and, arguably, afterward as well 8/22/2013 Current Pictures of Tree Root "Steps" U Z, Grinding the Steps UNSIGHTLY - -W Why is this happening? Per the Arbor Day Foundation: T L Wrong Type of Tree Grovvs 40'-80', with an 80' spread (A,U,,, 0, f W—) Trunk diameter up to 4 feet; flare s out at base lifting sidewalks and "' hing if planted in tree lawns I ass than 8 feet wide S.il Conditions — Thin layer of topsoil over clay, poorly drained; presents a hardship Pe r wide body of research, it always happens -- HOA in Hunter's Creek: $200K in the last five years to repair oak tree damage to sidewalks -TV,4/1�/11-j M 8/22/2013 Result: Shallow Roots,Unstable Trees (Tree blown over by rain - associated wind in VJestyn Bay, May 2013) i s s # ( a' As t .;tJ Y 'i. What happens to a Street Tree? (from Arbor Day Foundation) !I I r 3 8/22/2013 I, d A F 1 it TBW • Roots are deflected horizontally and down by most of the barriers on the market • In compacted soils and soils with it high water table, roots grow under the barrier and up the other side • In well drained soil, roots may remain at deeper depths longer Research on Street Trees University of Florida — Surprisingly ti : ico,; in I Ura rr7 under i i I Ik i `r.r -tc�l — so they tend to congregate there" ti Dr Ed Gilman, University of Florida tree guru, i(- ,i tI, i i u i 1 a- tot ) ins hr, in of Ili], t' r v: iilln it -, tun . th _ to nlc t i, f r sl 1,�]i I nort b an o. _d. — "There are horror stories of municipalities doing sidewalk repairs by using the "cut the roots out" technique and lyres I Icr;ln I o: r and um iincnrny,- int, ill ( .�i; — "When the water table is close to the soil surface or when the soil is compacted tap roots do not develop kilp I ii (I i : t I li It - Ill 11f _,I in cr n IIM3 l ui l r il.i ill �i) f l 11 Il ll uns i itt;tt tan; r J n Ill, I i, ...Even cutting small (less than one half inch) roots under or outside the edge of the canopy for long stretches can cut off water supply to the tree. This can cause the bee to dcchne er d ; t n Il, r t "u:cr: "ots' Pl ace trees on o t h er ., M Damane can be reduced by 1 — " planting on the side of the I sidewalk away from the curb r •' ■ This }daces the root flare in v open soil instead of - between the sidewalk and curb a Roots do not have to grow under the sidewalk to reach the open soil space in the lawn M 8/22/2013 Research on Street Trees Hillsborough County Florida: - "There are three issues nationally and locally: Sidewalks are being destroyed by 'Street bees. Sidewalks must_ meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) criteria_ 'Street Trees are damaged by maintenance Repair costs exceed funds. Sidewalk repairs in Hillsborough County will cost $30 Million by the year 2020." - "In our reconiniendations, there are three parts to stop the uplifting of sidewalks: • ben feet ofsepaiationFom the rice tothesidewalk • Root Barrier.. 12 to 24 inches deep Crushed Base. For sidewalks less than 10 feetf om the tree, 'crushed base' is needed under the sidewalk, Arid the root harrier Research on Street - frees Advanced Tree Care, Inc. — "..the most commonly planted Swale tree in in,my parts of Florida is the ( 4uercusvirgininna ),which..simplyi i, i t ,;.,i U ° r I. designated by the designers.... ( r n s tr r t.. ; I I r as the trees begin to mature and their root systems expand and try tc — "The '.i i anywhere between the slab next In the trunk to as far away [as] ... ! S I t r, a t Once the slab lifts over',;. inch, there is a rhnl. li:,'u l iy i, c a trip and fall hazard" L l l �t r I Resca chat the Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories has demonstrated that cutting large lateral roots within the root plate, which is a distance from the trunk of three times the trunk diameter, r =., And those ordering cutting of major lateral roots should he aware of the tvf. r r 'ir I.Lt( qtr. 1 -. Research on Street Trees Michigan State University: "b—c[chcrs In England compared how often tree roots caused darraga to buildings relative to the specie frequency in the landscape - - .In general, fast growing scories should not be plant. d near sewer Iln_s orsdL. alks." - A _ °�tudy In street trees in Cincinnati found that likelihood of finding a tree Tl ere Is Mary Edwards, Valley Crest Arborist (asked about root pruning and barriers) "I am primarily concerned about if we attempt to root pr id them to prote_t tl e sidewalk, etc. We know that these trees currently have a l i , -? - e We also know that this location b .s centhe sidewalk and the roadway contains the majority of the anchorage roots or critical root zone of the trees. ii My fear Is that be au : the area Is so condensed and v ale limited on how rnanv r'A, we can prune that Eliminating the Cause The most effective solutions are preventive and out of reach for the I OA because the trees and sidewalks are already there: — Appropriate (smaller) species, other side of and farther away from sidewalk, gravel under sidewalk, channels under sidewalks, elevated sidewalks, wider medians Other supposed solutions are either ineffective, dangerous, or too expensive: root "pruning ", root barriers Bottorn line: with already existing live /laurel oak trees in 4 -6 foot medians, there are no effective, affordable means to prevent sidewalk damage 5 8/22/2013 What will we do? Because of language in our covenants, eliminating Condition 37 will allow its to offer each resident the following alternatives: 1. Keep the street tree by assuming fmmm ial and legal liability for the sidewalk 2. Move the tree at their own expense to another location on their property 3. Have the HOA remove the tree In any case, the HOA will be relieved of the considerable legal and financial liability associated with street trees We will NOT eliminate healthy trees along Westyn Bay Boulevard, and we will maintain the sidewalks accordingly (far less exposure than the street trees) Vineyards PEA Counterarguments Granting the request amounts to a waiver ofthe Ocoee Land Development Code without a justifiahie hardship — Rebuttal_ The code oriIy requires the developer to plant st—t trees That, has Been done. Them is no further requ,rement in the rude. and, hence no requi[erne it to waive it. Ever, if there was, there Is a sic icent hardship mndinon due to the compact clay soil, and considerable financ ti ial and legal liability hardship for the Associaon due to this requirement. Granting this request would give Westyn Bay Spec cial favored status over similar developments in the area — Rebuttal: Three of the four contemporaneous developr —rin in the area have virtually no street pees; the fourth has scattered trees, so Westyn Bay is subject to discriminatory enforcement (Pictures follow) There will not he enough trees remaining in the subdivision - fieoettal: Every lot has at least three trees (usually more). by the definition of tree in tl,e Land Devaloprnent Code All of the trees will he taken out — Rebuttal: we anticipaba a substantial nurnhe of residents will choose to retain their street trees me 8/22/2013 Forest Brook �t q l i e Kensington Manor km S. � ` " l� ! 4%.T ,�' a "` / ��aa, e•f"'+u 4 r ;,;�,_„ 1 Mccormick Woods 'T t �� I 4 Conclusion • It is the fiduciary responsibility of the Association and its directors to identify and eliminate financial and legal liability risks • The street trees represent the single largest exposure of the Association for both risks due to the sheer numbers of trees (600 + / -) • The subdivision will retain its beautiful appearance • Therefore, we respectfully ask that you endorse our request 7 L FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR OUNTY MUNlClPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS i.AST VA-NE —FIRST NA—ME—MIDDLE NA E NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR CO- WMI7rEE ;AILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR 100yX 52"101V COMMITTEE ON Q � Q� pr �', NI H I SERVE IS A U T OF: C'[TY COUN � TY �/ U O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICK VOTE OCCURRED ©{,/ 945- J ✓ �.j &0 / 3 My POSITION IS: Q ELECTIVE AfrOINTlVE '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 I with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. I 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 j A person holding elective or appointive coun ry, municipal,. or .other 1pc�l •public office `v UST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure' 'I which inures to his or her special'pttivate'gain or foss. Eaclr elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited froirl •knowingi�y voti ng on a measure which inures to the special gain oe'loss of a principal:(ocher , than'a government agency) by whom he or she is retained including 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 - voce basis are riot pro - hibited from voting iri'that capacity. • i For purposes of this law, a `relative" includes only the officgr's father, mother, sorb,- 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: You 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. IF YOU MAKE NO A17ME MPT TO INFLUENCE THE 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.wit un,l 'days,after the vote occurs with the persoh respdfisth'1e tor'recording the minu'tl4of the'nieeting who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be Provided immedi tely to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after Lhe form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST hereby disclose that on 4 (a) easure came or will come before my agency which (check one) I nured 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 whom I am retained; or — inured to the special gain or loss of 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: l4t: 'r1>90%cR rso,d D f� ats /�'� s�'��' ✓.�sr�.J 449"V Ado 3>00014ppma yr Foe vlrCsrr.✓ c& r ; z A� a , ec6nxA' - e r LJ9s � $9y .440 c�i �y C���►?v^/�i y �sse cy� � 1'�a /ALJG / , a d, 3 Date Filed by which i P v ��� NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLO- SURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: 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. 1i95 PAGE 2 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS i.AV HE—F[ T NAJ1E RIDDLE N,4ME -NAME OF OARD, COUNCIL, COMMIS ITT SION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMEE HAILG ADD THE BOARD HI , COU�fCIL h1M[SS[ON[, A[fCHp(iI R COMMITTEE ON (� WCH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY CO TY CITY p COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY M YAE OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH v E OC URRED �3 MY POSITION IS: Q ELECTIVE X 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 ocher local public office MUST . from voting on a measure .vhich inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained including 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 -voce b- asi hibited from voting in that capacity, s are not pro- For purposes of this law, a `relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, facher- 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). x x x x x 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. * x * x x * * x x 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 EKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You 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. IF YOU MAKE NO Al"LMM 'T 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 immediately 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 J eS hereby disclose that on 19 (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 whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of 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: V x ' by which Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLO- SURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/95 PAGE 2