Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 10-09-1990 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING %r HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Sims. PRESENT: Chairman Sims; Vice Chairman Linebarier; Commission members Shiver, Swickerath, Bond, and Weeks; Alternate Commission member Rhodus; City Attorney Rosenthal; Director of Planning Behrens, Senior Planner Harper, and Deputy Clerk Resnik. ABSENT: Commission member Switzer and Alternate Commission member Carroll. CONSENT AGENDA Regular Meeting Minutes of September 11, 1990 Vice Chairman Linebarier pulled both items on the Consent Agenda. Commission member Bond moved to approve the minutes of the September 11, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and Vice Chairman Linebarier seconded. It was noted for the record that Commission member Weeks should be added to the "absent" Commission members on Page 1 of the minutes and Chairman Sims noted that there was reference made to an Orange County landfill on Good Homes Road. He clarified for the record that it is a transfer station and not a landfill. After stating these corrections, a.vote was taken and the motion passed with Commission member Swickerath abstaining from the vote because he was absent from the subject meeting. West Orange Hospital - Final Engineering Plans Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report. Chairman Sims said he did not like putting a condition of approval on something that was out of the hands of the developer and the City. Director Behrens recommended then that the hospital redesign the site so that wet ponds could be accomplished. Director Behrens said the hospital representatives originally presented the City with the concept of wet ponds along State Road 50 and staff was very much in favor of such a design. He said dry ponds would not be in keeping with what the City wanted along State Road 50. Chairman Sims asked Director Behrens if his recommendation was to disapprove the Final Engineering Plans if the hospital did not get approval from St. Johns River Water Management District ( SJRWMD) for the wet ponds. Director Behrens said it was staff's recommendation that if the hospital did not get approval from SJRWMD for wet ponds, then the City would have to reconsider the overall plan. Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 9, 1990 Vice Chairman Linebarier asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of staff's recommendation, whether the plan would come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission if the wet ponds did not get approval and the plan was redesigned. City Attorney Rosenthal said the new plan would come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bill Phillips, Facilities Director for West Orange Hospital, said he would rather not have the condition of wet ponds placed upon Final Engineering Plan approval. He said there were two issues regarding the wet retention areas one being approval of the work by SJRWMD and two being the costs associated with designing and maintaining wet ponds on this property. Mr. Phillips also said the hospital was on a tight schedule and approval of plans was needed as soon as possible so that they could move forward to the permitting process. Chairman Sims moved to approve the Final Engineering Plans for West Orange Hospital without the condition of wet ponds but encouraged the hospital to provide for additional landscaping in the area. Commission member Shiver seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Linebarier said the hospital had originally come before the Planning and Zoning Commission with a plan that showed the wet ponds and he would like to see more specifics on what the site would look like with the dry ponds before the Commission voted one way or the other. Richard Irwin, Chief Executive Officer of West Orange Hospital, said the hospital had a budget of $750,000 for landscaping. Mr. Irwin said if they went with wet ponds, more than half that dollar amount would have to go towards a single wet pond because of the necessary design criteria. Chairman Sims restated his motion to approve the Final Engineering Plans for West Orange Hospital without making the approval subject to SJRWMD approval of the wet ponds, Commission member Shiver had already seconded the motion and the motion passed 6 -1 with Vice Chairman Linebarier opposing. Chairman Sims explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission bylaws stated that no new business would be brought before the Commission after 10:30 p.m. and that if the Commission members so desired, they could vote to extend that time if they felt the need. Commission member Swickerath moved to extend the meeting time in order to allow all items on the agenda to be discussed, Commission member Bond seconded, and approval was unanimous. `r Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting err October 9, 1990 NEW BUSINESS The Oaks - Preliminary Plan Chairman Sims asked City Attorney Rosenthal if the Planning and Zoning Commission could approve the Preliminary Plan even though the land being voted on was not yet in the City and was not slated to be voted on by the Commission until the following evening. (The property owner has petitioned the City for annexation and rezoning within the City limits of Ocoee and the case is to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission tomorrow night, Wednesday, October 10, 1990.) City Attorney Rosenthal suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission pull this item from tonight's agenda and put it on tomorrow night's agenda immediately following Case 1 -10 AR -90: REAL which was the annexation /rezoning petition for the property known as "The Oaks ". Lou Roeder who was at the meeting representing the property agreed to the postponement. Chairman Sims explained that the cases listed as Items G and I would be moved up on the agenda tonight and would be discussed immediately following the Prairie Lake PUD Amendment to the Land Use Plan at the request of the petitioner. ‘460. Prairie Lake PUD - Amendment to the Land Use Plan Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report and showed the Planning and Zoning Commission the original Land Use Plan that was approved back in 1986. Director Behrens said that staff had no problems with the additional 5,000 square feet of commercial being added. Director Behrens explained that this new plan was the result of the developer working with the City to realign the Clark Road intersection with A.D. Mims Road at the request of the City. The realignment of the roadway caused the developer to have a large commercial tract on one side of the road and a smaller outparcel on the other corner. Commission member Shiver asked what would be developed on the smaller parcel and Mr. Henderson said it would most likely be a bank or a convenience store. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked Director Behrens how staff felt about having the commercial split like this. Director Behrens said staff has no problems with the concept although they have yet to see any specific plans. Director Behrens also wanted the Planning and Zoning Commission members to know that the developer was now proposing to donate 75 acres of park and conservation areas to the City within this PUD at staff's request. Commission member Shiver wanted to know what was on the other (southern) corners of Clark Road and A.D. Mims Road. Director fir Behrens said both corners were part of the Spring Lake subdivision Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission *ftw October 9, 1990 which had approved Final Engineering Plans for single family development. Commission member Shiver asked Director Behrens if he felt the developer was trying to regain the lost square footage they originally had and Director Behrens said staff did not see it that way. R.P. Mohnacky, 1820 Prairie Lake Boulevard, asked why the square footage was reduced in the first place. Director Behrens explained that back in 1985 the Planning Department staff did not see the need for that amount of commercial and because staff did not feel it was justified, the amount was cut back. Director Behrens said staff now feels that the residential growth that will take place in this area more than justifies the extra square footage. Commission member Swickerath moved to accept the staff recommendation of approval of the Land Use Plan amendment, Commission member Shiver seconded, and approval was unanimous. Chairman Sims explained that the remainder of the agenda dealt with the annexation and rezoning petitions for 1990. He pointed out r that staff had reviewed each petition and found that all were in accordance and consistent with the City's current Comprehensive Plan. Director Behrens read his staff report on this matter and explained that these findings and the City's actions on these petitions would be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs as part of the new Comprehensive Plan submittal. City Attorney Rosenthal explained that he was in attendance to make sure that the correct procedures were followed when voting on the petitions. He emphasized the importance of following the City's Code and State Statutes. Attorney Rosenthal said some changes had been made in the Code to ease the process and elaborated that one such amendment to the Code was that the Building Official used to be the staff member to rule whether or not such petitions were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or not and now the City has changed that to the Planning Director. City Attorney Rosenthal said the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission in this annexation /rezoning process was as follows: If the Planning Director finds that all the petitions are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, then no public hearing is required at the Planning and Zoning Commission level. Attorney Rosenthal explained that the City had provided a "courtesy notice" in the newspaper but that no formal notification of adjacent property owners was done. He said a public hearing would lhr Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting '�1rir October 9, 1990 be held and was required at the Second Readings of the annexation and rezoning ordinances at the City Commission level. Attorney Rosenthal said he understood that this was all different than what the Planning and Zoning Commission members were used to in the past although the City's Code has not changed in this regard. He said in the past the staff has interpreted the Code in such a way that it felt public hearings were required at all levels of the process but that the City's legal staff had reviewed the Code and found this not to be the case. Attorney Rosenthal said if the Planning Director did not find the petitions consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then a public hearing would have been required at the Planning and Zoning Commission level. City Attorney Rosenthal explained that even though this was a public meeting and not a public hearing, the public still has a right to speak to any matter on the agenda. Attorney Rosenthal also said that the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the Local Planning Agency under the Comprehensive Plan, must make a determination of whether the petitions before them are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the Planning ,fir+ and Zoning Commission did not necessarily have to agree with the Planning Director in this regard. In summarizing his explanations, Attorney Rosenthal said the Planning and Zoning Commission should first determine if the petition they are considering is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and secondly, vote for or against the petition. Attorney Rosenthal said the process does not require that the Planning and Zoning Commission give its recommendation on each petition other than to say whether or not it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, but as a matter of policy, staff has requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission take a vote on each petition as to whether or not they would recommend approval or disapproval of that item. Attorney Rosenthal explained that most of the petitions involved annexing land into the City and rezoning it to a zoning classification specified in the City's Code but that there were a few petitions that were requesting annexation into the City but that were not requesting zoning at this time. Attorney Rosenthal reminded the Planning and Zoning Commission members that in those latter cases, if the land was brought into the City, it would retain the zoning classification it had currently under the County. Commission member Swickerath asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission found a petition not to be consistent with the City's ,,: Comprehensive Plan, whether that petition would be automatically Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting r October 9, 1990 withdrawn or what would happen to it. Attorney Rosenthal said as the Local Planning Agency, the Planning and Zoning Commission could find a petition inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and then that petition would take a different course than the petitions that were found to be consistent. He said it would not mean that the petition would be withdrawn from consideration but that the City would now have to consider amending its Comprehensive Plan in order for the petition to be consistent. Attorney Rosenthal said because the City will be submitting its newly updated Comprehensive Plan to the state in January 1991, if a petition in this cycle was found inconsistent it would not be able to make the submittal deadline for the new Comprehensive Plan so the City would in essence be amending the "old" Plan while under the new submittal. Chairman Sims asked if the members could make one motion for both annexation and rezoning for each of the petitions that were asking for both and Attorney Rosenthal said that everything could be lumped into one motion for each petition. Chairman Sims asked if the members could approve the annexation portion and deny the zoning if that was the pleasure of the Commission and Attorney Rosenthal explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission could deny the zoning on any given case but that they could not recommend a new zoning. Attorney Rosenthal said if the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a petitioner's request for zoning, the petitioner had two choices: either to have the property annexed without zoning or to change the request for zoning to another classification that might receive a favorable vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission and, in turn, the City Commission. Commission member Swickerath asked if the motion could also include the finding by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the petition is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and City Attorney Rosenthal said that everything could be included in the same motion. Commission member Swickerath said he forgot to mention something during the West Orange Hospital - Final Engineering item. He said his wife was recently appointed to the West Orange Hospital Board of Directors but that he nor the City Attorney perceived any conflict with him voting as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Attorney Rosenthal asked Chairman Sims for the opportunity to brief the Planning and Zoning Commission on some issues concerning Clark Road when the Ozanian and Worsham cases came up on the agenda. Chairman Sims reminded everyone that Items G and I would be moved up on the agenda and then they would continue with the first r Ozanian case. Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting r October 9, 1990 Case 1 -32 AR -90: SHEPLER Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. He explained that the property was 70 feet wide and that the petitioner was requesting R -1 -A zoning because it was the only residential zoning that would allow her to build a home. Chairman Sims asked if the petitioner was requesting annexation and rezoning in order to acquire City water and Carol Deckard, the petitioner, replied affirmatively. She said there was an existing cottage -type home on the property but that she was interested in rebuilding a new home in a few years. Commissioner Shiver asked about the surrounding property and what it was zoned and Director of Planning Behrens said it was all residential. Vice Chairman Linebarier moved to recommend approval of staff's recommendation as set forth in the staff report, Alternate member Rhodus seconded, and approval was unanimous. Case 1 -19 AR -90: HEAVENER Chairman Sims reminded the Commission members that he had moved this case and the Goodman case up on the agenda at the request of the applicant's representative. Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked what the adjacent properties were zoned and Director Behrens said to the east was currently in the County although the owner is currently petitioning to come into the City of Ocoee with commercial zoning; to the west, the property is in the County, zoned agricultural; and to the north the property is zoned R -1 -AA and is within the City limits of Ocoee. Director Behrens said this property would be responsible for meeting the buffering requirements on its northern boundary. Steve Fieldman introduced himself as representing the applicant. Mr. Fieldman explained that the developer intended to move the wetlands area of the property to another location within the 29 acres and that this was allowed under state statutes. He said this would be accomplished by filling in the land in some areas and then "recreating" the wetland area in another site on the property. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked why the petitioner was requesting C -2 rather than C -1 and Mr. Fieldman said his client saw State Road 50 as a place for more intense commercial use than C -1 would allow. Director Behrens added that C -1 was very restrictive in square footage as well. Philip Baldwin, 147 Oak Branch Avenue, Orlando, approached the Commission to request that this property be left in its current state as it is beautiful land with lots of trees and a good place ,,, for motorcycle riding. Mr. Baldwin said there were many trails on Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Wiry October 9, 1990 the property and he was concerned that they would not have anywhere left to ride these vehicles. He asked about the possibility of the City purchasing the land in order for it to be kept as it is. Director of Planning Behrens explained to Mr. Baldwin that because the property is in a choice location for prime commercial space, he seriously doubted that the land would be left in its current natural condition but that he would be happy to discuss various plans the City had for recreational areas if Mr. Baldwin would like to meet with him at another time. Commission member Shiver commented to Mr. Baldwin that this was private property and asked if he had obtained permission to be on the property. Commission member Swickerath moved to recommend approval of staff's recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Commission member Bond seconded, and approval was unanimous. Case 1 -18 R -90: GOODMAN Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Commission member Bond asked what the adjacent properties were zoned. Director Behrens said to the east was the church athletic fields that were soon to become the site of a church school and to the west was zoned agricultural in the County. Director Behrens said staff feels that C -1 is too restrictive for this area. Vice Chairman Linebarier commented that the Planning and Zoning Commission had received a request on this property several years ago and had recommended at that time that the landowner work with the church to purchase the church property in order to create a larger tract of land to be zoned C -2. Vice Chairman Linebarier said it was his understanding that Mr. Goodman had tried to buy the land but that the church was not interested. Vice Chairman Linebarier said he felt before that they needed a larger tract of land to go to a C -2 zoning and he still felt that way. Director of Planning Behrens said he respectfully disagreed with Vice Chairman Linebarier because a lot had changed in those years. He said the East -West Expressway Extention is now a reality as well as Good Homes Plaza, both of which were right next to this property and made it all the more reason to provide a more intense usage to the developer. Director Behrens said the City can either be fearful of what the developer will bring to the City or it can take the approach of working with the developer to ensure that there will be an upscale development to bring the kind of quality Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ,,,,► October 9, 1990 commercial growth to the City that the City is seeing with Good Homes Plaza right across the street. Director Behrens said he felt to deny the applicant the request for C -2 zoning out of fear is wrong. Steve Fieldman, representing the applicant, said that two years ago the applicant had the same discussions with the City as was being discussed this evening. He said the 14,000 square foot requirement under the C -1 zoning classification would create a lower quality development than would be the case if the City allowed the C -2. Commission member Shiver asked what the applicant intended to develop on the property and Mr. Fieldman said although no formal plans had been made, the applicant would ultimately favor one large business over a few smaller ones. Director of Planning Behrens said that C -1 is classified as a "Neighborhood Shopping District" and he read from the Code the intent of that classification. He argued that the "neighborhood" intent was no longer applicable to this area with the extension of a major roadway and the addition of a 170,000 square foot shopping center across the street. Vice Chairman Linebarier read from the Code some of the permissible uses under the C -2 zoning classification. Commission member Swickerath asked about the frontage along State Road 50 and asked specifically what the Highway 50 Study showed for this property as far as curb cuts were concerned. Chairman Sims said the market would dictate what ultimately gets built on this property and that the City should not place unnecessary restrictions on this landowner that it was not placing on others in the immediate area. Commission member Shiver said his only concern was that this area of State Road 50 through Ocoee not become a "dog and pony show" with businesses such as those found along International Drive and he specifically mentioned miniature golf courses. Vice Chairman Linebarier moved to recommend denial of the petitioner's request for rezoning from C -1 to C -2 but the motion died for lack of a second. Commission member Swickerath moved to approve staff's recommendation as outlined in the staff report and emphasized the intent of the Highway 50 Study in regards to curb cuts and landscaping and asked that the developer keep that in mind, Alternate member Rhodus seconded, and the motion was approved 6 -1 with Vice Chairman Linebarier opposing. Page 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting r October 9, 1990 Case 1 -33 AR -90: OZANIAN #1 Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Director Behrens said the adjacent property on one side is zoned P -S and the other side is the East -West Expressway Extension. He explained that this was an outparcel left over after the Expressway Authority took some property. Floyd Whiddon, 315 E. Robinson St., Orlando, representing the developer, was present to answer any questions. Chairman Sims asked what the plans were for the property. Mr. Whiddon said they planned to try to tie the property with the Voss property to the west. Mr. Whiddon said he was unaware until this meeting that Mr. Voss was requesting that his property be rezoned to R -3. Chairman Sims suggested that this item be tabled until after the Voss case is discussed. Case 1 -36 R -90: VOSS Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Commission member Shiver asked if this property was the same property that was rezoned to P -S in the last annexation - rezoning cycle and Director Behrens said it *iew Grover Voss, the applicant, said the reason the change in zoning is being requested is twofold: there is more demand in the market at the present time for multi - family than for professional services, and the hospital is going to put up its own office tower. Mr. Voss said he was leaving 15 acres of Professional Services and felt that that was sufficient to fill the needs in the area for some time in the future. Mr. Voss said he had expressed his interest in the Ozanian property but that nothing had been agreed to at the present time. He said he would like to see the City approve an R -3 zoning for it as well. Commission member Shiver asked about the adjacent properties' zoning. It was discussed that there was a trailer park, some professional services, some scattered residential, and the East - West Expressway. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked what the primary access would be to the site and Mr. Voss said there would be a single access off of State Road 50 and the other access would be from Old Winter Garden Road. Chairman Sims asked Director Behrens if staff still wanted its original recommendations to stand. Director Behrens said that the R -3 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the %Nov City does need more multi - family in the City, especially to handle Page 11 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 9, 1990 the employees who will be working at West Orange Hospital. Commission member Shiver disagreed that the hospital employees would live in the multi- family. City Attorney Rosenthal said the City Commission and staff had entered into a Developer's Agreement with the Ozanians regarding Clark Road and that he would need to fill the Planning and Zoning Commission members in on what the specifics of that agreement were and how the rezoning of the Ozanian property would affect this agreement. He said he would discuss this after the recess. RECESS: 9:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 9:35 p.m. Chairman Sims asked City Attorney Rosenthal to explain the Developer's Agreement on the Ozanian property. Attorney Rosenthal said the Developer's Agreement affects both of the Ozanian petitions. In connection with the Clark Road project, the City Commission entered into the Developer's Agreement with the Ozanian family. Attorney Rosenthal said there is no conceptual plan for fir, the Ozanian #1 but that there was a conceptual plan for the Ozanian #2 parcel and that the Ozanians had agreed to certain conditions for developing the property, including larger setbacks and donating the right -of -way for that particular piece of Clark Road, in exchange for a favorable review of the annexation and rezoning petitions. Attorney Rosenthal said the applicant was aware, as was the City Commission, that the petitions still had to go through the public meeting at the Planning and Zoning Commission level and the meetings at the City Commission level and that if they did not receive favorable approval, the City would have to purchase the right -of -way at a cost based on appraisals. Attorney Rosenthal said the Ozanian #1 property was requested for P -S because of the Voss property beside it and that the Ozanians would probably now want to reconsider the zoning for R -3 instead. Attorney Rosenthal said the Developer's Agreement could be amended to change the P -S to R -3 if that was the case. Attorney Rosenthal suggested the Planning and Zoning Commission first take action on the Voss property. R.P. Mohnacky, 1820 Prairie Lake Boulevard, said he was concerned that the City was losing valuable P -S property that they may not be able to gain in some other area. Director of Planning Behrens said that the pyramid zoning the City used would allow professional services to be located in any of the commercial classifications and that there %Dv Page 12 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 9, 1990 was even a doctor's office going in the West Orange Industrial Park that was zoned I -1 so that there would be a chance to regain this professional services area in other parts of the City. Mr. Whiddon asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve the Voss petition for R -3 zoning, what that would mean for the Ozanian #1 property and Chairman Sims said that petition would still be considered separately. Attorney Rosenthal said he would have to check whether or not the Ozanian #1 petition had to come back before the Commission for rezoning since it was less than five acres and there is a possibility it may be able to be rezoned without waiting for the next cycle. Commission member Bond moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the Voss (Case 1 -36 R -90: VOSS) staff report, Commission member Weeks seconded, and approval was unanimous. Case 1 -33 AR -90: OZANIAN #1 Vice Chairman Linebarier asked if they deferred a decision on this petition until tomorrow night, whether Mr. Whiddon thought he could get a new petition signed by the applicants for the R -3 zoning. Mr. Whiddon said he did not think that would be possible since the document would have to be signed by several people who resided in different states. Alternate member Rhodus asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission could grant the rezoning as a choice to the petitioner for either P -S or R -3 and Attorney Rosenthal said the Planning and Zoning Commission was only permitted to act on the petition by voting for or against the requested zoning and that the Commission could not offer another zoning in its place. Attorney Rosenthal said his recommendation would be for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the petition as it is and then if the petitioner wishes to change the zoning request, they can do so before it goes before the City Commission. Commission member Swickerath moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation for the Ozanian #1 property as outlined in the staff report and Alternate member Rhodus seconded. Commission member Swickerath said he did not appreciate having no previous knowledge of the Developer's Agreement and felt that the staff or the City Commission should have made the Planning and Zoning Commission aware of such an agreement. Vice Chairman Linebarier agreed and said he did not like feeling as if he was pressed into a making a decision one way or the other because of a Developer's Agreement that has already been entered into by the City. Chairman Sims said he wanted to state for the record that the Planning and Ir Zoning Commission members were not being forced into voting a Page 13 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 9, 1990 particular way because of the Developer's Agreement and that in fact the provision had already been discussed between the City and the developer that in the event the application was not reviewed favorably, the agreement for the right -of -way donation would be voided and the City would purchase the land at the appraised value. Commission member Swickerath and Vice Chairman Linebarier said it was not the facts that upset them, but the process itself. City Attorney Rosenthal said that there was nothing in the Developer's Agreement that limited the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Commission from taking any action they chose on these petitions. There being no further discussion, Chairman Sims asked for the vote on the motion and the motion carried 5 -2 in favor of the staff recommendation with Commission member Shiver and Vice Chairman Linebarier opposed. Case 1 -34 AR -90: OZANIAN #2 Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Commission member Shiver asked City Attorney Rosenthal how the developer could request C -2 if the Developer's Agreement stipulates P -S. Attorney Rosenthal said initially the developer was asking for C -2 on both sides of the proposed Clark Road but because of the realignment, the size of one of the parcels was reduced and they decided to go with P -S. Commission member Shiver asked why the developer acquiesced to P -S when the City's pyramid- system of zoning would have allowed them to do P -S under the C -2 regardless and the C -2 would have left them with more options. Floyd Whiddon said the developer did not want to suggest that a "strip center" would be developed and that the developer agreed with staff that the smaller parcel would be more suitable to professional services. Director of Planning Behrens said the P -S zoning was in keeping with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of two years ago for that area of State Road 50. Commission member Shiver moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Commission member Bond seconded, and approval was unanimous. Case 1 -41 AR -90: WORSHAM #1 Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. City Attorney Rosenthal said there was a similar Developer's Agreement for this parcel as there was for the Ozanian property. He explained that the Worsham property was requesting C -2 on both sides of the proposed Clark Road. He said they would agree to a fir► 25 foot voluntary setback which is more extensive than would Page 14 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 9, 1990 normally be the case and if their petition is approved, they would also agree to donate the necessary road right -of -way for Clark Road. Attorney Rosenthal said as a reminder that nothing in the Developer's Agreement restricted the Planning and Zoning Commission from taking whatever action it deemed appropriate. Commission member Weeks moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Commission member Shiver seconded, and approval was unanimous by a vote of 6 -0 (Commission member Bond was out of the room). Case 1 -42 AR -90: WORSHAM #2 Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. City Attorney Rosenthal explained that there was no Developer's Agreement on this property. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked how this property would be accessed. Director Behrens said it would not be accessed through The Hammocks subdivision but would have to come through Clark Road and in turn through the Heavener parcel. Jay Worsham, representing the applicant, said there were no immediate plans for the property and that it was currently surrounded by property that is all within the City of Ocoee and they were merely trying to eliminate the enclave and bring it into the City for future development. Mr. Worsham said they would not use The Hammocks as an access. Director Behrens said he was confident that the Planning Department could work with the developers in the area to come up with a workable solution to provide access to the property for future development. Commission member Swickerath asked if there was not something in the State Statutes that stated that a parcel could not be annexed if there was no access to that property. Attorney Rosenthal said that the City could not annex a land - locked piece of property but that this parcel did have access through Blue Spruce Drive. Commission member Swickerath stressed that that would take the traffic through The Hammocks subdivision. Director of Planning Behrens said that Blue Spruce Drive provided the legal means for them to petition the City for annexation but that staff would work with the developer and the others in the area to come up with an alternative access. Mr. Worsham agreed that The Hammocks was not the appropriate way to annex the parcel and that it would either have to be from Clark Road or State Road 50. Vice Chairman Linebarier said he was willing to annex the parcel but was not personally in favor of rezoning the property at this time because he felt the R -3 zoning was not appropriate to approve without a specific access plan in mind. Commission member Swickerath said that under the R -3 zoning with that many acres, there could probably be 240 units built there and that that would be a lot of traffic moving to and from the 4tw property. Page 15 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting iilar► October 9, 1990 Vice Chairman Linebarier asked Mr. Worsham if he would be willing to annex the property without rezoning it at this time until an access agreement could be worked out. Mr. Worsham said they would be willing to do that although they would rather not have to. Commission member Swickerath moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report but with a change deleting specific reference to access being provided from Clark Road and instead recommending that adequate access be provided to the City's satisfaction (without specifying from which existing roadway), Commission member Bond seconded, and the motion passed 6 -1 with Vice Chairman Linebarier opposed. Case 1 -35 AR -90: WINGFIELD Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Director Behrens explained that the Orange County Commission had amended the Joint Planning Area boundary on July 2, 1990 and that the property was now within the area that could be annexed in to the City of Ocoee. Commission member Swickerath asked whether the PUD zoning %ay required a plan to be submitted along with the annexation /rezoning petition. City Attorney Rosenthal said the Planning and Zoning Commission did have to approve a conceptual plan with a request for a PUD zoning. There was a brief recess to discuss what should happen next. RECESS: 10:35 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 10:45 p.m. City Attorney Rosenthal said from a legal standpoint the applicant properly filed the application and therefore the Planning and Zoning Commission may legally act on the annexation request but that the request for PUD zoning may not be acted upon until the necessary steps are followed and staff has approved of the conceptual plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission has a chance to see it as well. Director of Planning Behrens said the Development Review Committee had seen the conceptual plan but had not taken a formal vote on it. Robert Wiegers, a Senior Planner with the Orange County Planning Department, said the County had a concern with the enclave that would be created as a result of this annexation. Mr. Wiegers said the County would also want the City to annex the Roberson Road right -of -way into the City. Attorney Rosenthal said this had "Ow Page 16 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 9, 1990 already been done. Director Behrens said the City is not creating an enclave but that there would just be a residual piece of land that would need to be annexed into the City sometime in the future. Vice Chairman Linebarier moved to recommend approval on the staff recommendation to annex the property as outlined in the staff report but to defer any action on the rezoning request for PUD until such time as the Development Review Committee vote is taken and that the Planning and Zoning Commission also gets a chance to look at and vote on the PUD conceptual plans. Commission member Swickerath seconded the motion and approval was unanimous. Case 1 -37 AR -90: CHRISTIANSEN Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report but stopped before reading the recommendation. City Attorney Rosenthal suggested that similarly to the Wingfield petition, the Planning and Zoning Commission should act on the annexation part of the petition and defer voting on the rezoning request until all the applicable provisions of the PUD ordinance are followed through (Development Review Committee vote on the conceptual plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission getting to review and vote on the conceptual plan). Robert Wiegers, Senior Planner, Orange County Planning Department, gave the same concerns as expressed before in that it created an enclave and that Moore Road right -of -way and Maguire Road right - of -way should be annexed into the City of Ocoee beforehand. Commission member Shiver moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation to approve the annexation but defer any action on the rezoning request, Commission member Bond seconded, and approval was unanimous. Case 1 -31 A -90: BROWNING Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Michael Lait, representing the applicant, said they were seeking annexation because they would need City services in the future. Commission member Swickerath moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Alternate member Rhodus seconded, and approval was unanimous. Case 1 -38 A -90: BESADE Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. C. Roger Freeman, 151 W. Silver Star Road, Ocoee, representing the applicant, said they realized that the property was currently outside the Joint Planning Area but that they felt strongly that '11r► it was only a matter of time before this area was brought into the Page 17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting r October 9, 1990 City's service area similarly to the recent amendment extending the City's portion of the Joint Planning Area to the south. Mr. Freeman said the applicant filed the petition hoping it would put the County on notice that the owner and the City would like to see the area brought into the City's realm. Commission member Swickerath asked staff and the City Attorney to explain the words "without prejudice" that appeared in the staff recommendation. He asked whether it meant that the applicant would have to wait until the next annexation /rezoning cycle to reapply if the boundary was extended. City Attorney Rosenthal said that that would be a policy decision on the part of the City but that there were no state laws requiring that to be the case. Vice Chairman Linebarier said he understood "without prejudice" to mean that the City holds nothing against annexing the land but because of its legal or moral ties with the County (with the Joint Planning Area), they could not act on it at the present time. City Attorney Rosenthal said in regards to the Joint Planning Area agreement with Orange County, the City may legally annex property `or outside its Joint Planning Area boundaries even if the County objects. Attorney Rosenthal said one of the applicants in this 1990 cycle was asking for annexation even though the property was outside the City's area of the Joint Planning Area and the City staff was recommending approving that annexation. He said that case would be before the Planning and Zoning Commission tomorrow night. Mr. Freeman said he, as the applicant's representative, felt that the petitioner was being penalized for the lack of communication between the City of Ocoee and Orange County representatives. He said the applicant was just looking for the City to agree to annex the land if Orange County would agree to it. Mr. Freeman pointed out that the applicant was not looking to rezone the property at this time. Robert Wiegers said Orange County was against the City annexing any property, including this parcel, outside the Joint Planning Area until such time as the County could sit down with the City and amend the agreement to extend the City's boundary. Mike Bittman, a resident of Gotha, said he was not totally familiar with the petition but that he thought the land was actually part of Gotha. He said he wanted to go on record that the Gotha requirements currently stipulated that there could only be one dwelling unit per acre. fir► Page 18 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 9, 1990 Director Behrens said staff had less than two weeks to review this application and had not had time to meet with the County and that is why the recommendation was as it was. Vice Chairman Linebarier moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report and Commission member Shiver seconded. Commission member Swickerath wanted to state for the record that he hoped the County and City would initiate the discussions on amending the Joint Planning Area as soon as possible. Alternate member Rhodus asked if the applicant would have to wait until next year at this same time of year to request the zoning again and Director Behrens said he was not sure when that next cycle would be. Upon a vote, the motion passed 6 -1 with Commission member Swickerath opposed. Case 1 -9 AR -90: RAIDLE Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Royal Raidle, 1344 W. Colonial Drive, Orlando, was present to %lav answer any questions. Alternate member Rhodus moved to approve the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Commission member Weeks seconded, and the motion passed unanimously 6 -0. (Vice Chairman Linebarier was out of the room when the vote was taken.) Case 1 -23 AR -90: STEELE Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Charles Madden, 1419 E. Robinson Street, Orlando, said he represented the owner and was present at the meeting to answer any questions. Mr. Madden said the owner of the property wanted to have a dental practice at this location and that there was currently a residence there. Commission member Swickerath said he was concerned about all the small parcels along this area each having a curb cut onto Maguire Road and what this would do to the traffic flow. Commission member Shiver said the curb cuts were already there. Commission member Swickerath agreed but said there are less trips generated by a residence than by an office. Commission member Shiver said the curb cuts would be the same and it would just be the amount of traffic in and out of these parcels that may be increased somewhat. There was discussion on Maguire Road curb cuts and about the amount of small parcels in the area. Commission member Swickerath said he was willing to annex the property but not to rezone it at the %or current time. Page 19 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting fir October 9, 1990 Mr. Madden suggested that possibly the City could mandate that two adjacent parcels share a common access point off of Maguire Road when development of the parcels actually took place. He said this would reduce the number of curb cuts in the area by half. Commission member Shiver said the City created the traffic problem on Maguire Road with all the other larger annexations it had approved and that the traffic was not the fault of these smaller parcels. Commission member Weeks agreed. Director of Planning Behrens said there were two issues: 1. The amount of traffic generated by the parcels. 2. The turning movements created by curb cuts. He suggested that the City seriously consider a fifth lane when Maguire Road is widened in order to give that turning lane and solve most of these problems. Commission member Shiver moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Commission member Bond seconded, and the motion was approved by a vote of 6 -1 with Commission member Swickerath opposed. Case 1 -17 AR -90: UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Director Behrens added that the City has a contract to purchase this property from the University of Florida. Glenn Jackson, who represents the Heller Brothers property adjacent to this parcel, explained that there was an agreement worked out between the City of Ocoee and the University of Florida and the Heller Brothers whereby the Hellers would get a transfer of development rights from the City in return for providing land for the new South Water Plant. He said the 65 dwelling units that would have been able to be built on the property donated to the City would be able to be added to the existing proposed uses of the 200+ acres owned by the Hellers south of the Turnpike. Mr. Jackson explained that if the petition did not pass, and the ordinance for the transfer of development rights did not pass, then the City would pay for the property instead of getting it donated. Commission member Weeks moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Alternate member Rhodus seconded, and approval was unanimous. Page 20 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting %ow October 9, 1990 Case 1 -27 R -90: HELLER SOUTH Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Charlie True of McIntosh Associates, representing the Heller Brothers, pointed out the property on the map and explained that they wanted to zone the property that was adjacent to the Turnpike C -3. Commission member Shiver moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Alternate member Rhodus seconded, and approval was unanimous. Case 1 -26 R -90: HELLER I -1 Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Chairman Sims declared a conflict of interest and handed over the chairmanship to Vice Chairman Linebarier. Charlie True explained the background of the property in that it was originally planned for R -3 around the lake but the large amount of "muck" near the lake prevented that kind of development so they were now requesting industrial. Alternate member Rhodus moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Commission member Weeks seconded, and approval was unanimous (with Chairman Sims abstaining from the vote due to a conflict of interest). Case 1 -25 AR -90: HELLER RAILROAD Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. He noted a correction to the staff report that it is Case 1 -25 AR and not 1 -26 AR. Commission member Swickerath moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report and Commission member Weeks seconded. Commission member Shiver asked if this was a direct conflict to the "Rails to Trails" program. Commission member Weeks said the "Rails to Trails" program does not include this particular right -of -way. There being no further discussion, the vote was called on the motion and it passed unanimously. Case 1 -40 AR -90: BOURLAND Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Chairman Sims asked why the two parcels did not require separate petitions. Tom West, the petitioner, explained that the legal description considered it one piece less the Turnpike. Chairman Sims asked the Commission if they wished to vote on it as one parcel. Commission member Weeks said it was the same legal so it is legally considered one piece. There was some question on access to the northern piece but if they were to consider it as one piece then it has an access on the southern portion. r Page 21 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ilrr October 9, 1990 Commission member Weeks moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff report, Commission member Shiver seconded, and the motion passed 5 -2 with Commission member Swickerath and Vice Chairman Linebarier opposed. ADJOURNMENT: 12:45 a.m. C / 7• • WI" IMS ATTEST: EPUTY CLERK RESNIK 1rr