Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 10-23-1990 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, r OCTOBER 23, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 6 :35 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Sims; Vice Chairman Linebarier; Commission members Switzer, Shiver, Swickerath, Bond, and Weeks; Alternate member Carroll; City Attorney Rosenthal; Director of Planning Behrens; and Deputy Clerk Resnik. ABSENT: Alternate member Rhodus OLD BUSINESS Director of Planning Behrens explained that there were new staff reports handed out just before the meeting that contained revisions. Director Behrens said the "Recommendations" were from the Development Review Committee and not the Planning Department as the original reports stated. He also said the part of the recommendations that included approval of the Land Use Plan had inadvertently been left out of the original reports and that the Planning and Zoning Commission would need to include that in any motion they made. Director Behrens said also that the reference to "PUD" in the report should be followed by "Planned Unit Development District" rather than "PUD - Residential ". Vice Chairman Linebarier asked why a public hearing was not required and City Attorney Rosenthal said the City Code only requires a public hearing if the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and he reminded the Commission members that Director of Planning Behrens had found all the petitions to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commission member Swickerath said he was also confused about why a public hearing was not required and pointed out that there was language in the PUD Ordinance that stipulated that public hearings were required. City Attorney Rosenthal said he had reviewed the PUD Ordinance and that there was no specific requirement for a public hearing for the Land Use Plan at this stage in the review. Attorney Rosenthal said there would be a public hearing required at the City Commission level because they were adopting an ordinance and for that reason they needed to hold a public hearing. City Attorney Rosenthal explained that if the Land Use Plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and then the developer brought the Plan back before the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting a substantial change, then a public hearing would be required. Commission member Swickerath said he did not Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 23, 1990 think the PUD Ordinance was logical since there was no public hearing required for the initial approval but one is needed for a change to that original Land Use Plan. Case No. 1- 35AR -90: WINGFIELD Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. City Attorney Rosenthal explained that if the Planning and Zoning Commission moved to approve the petitioner's request, it needed to include in its motion that the recommendation was subject to the execution of a Developer's Agreement that would provide for an additional 10 feet of right -of -way dedicated to the City of Ocoee along Maguire Road (as shown on the Land Use Plan). Attorney Rosenthal said the motion should also include the fact that the Land Use Plan needed to be changed to delete the reference to an MSTU (Municipal Services Taxing Unit) for street lighting purposes since this was not an option available to the City and that the street lighting cost would be paid for by the City of Ocoee, unless the developer wanted to use an upgraded street light in which case a Developer's and Homeowners' Association Agreement for street lights would have to be submitted and approved by the City Commission. Marty Pawlikowski of Professional Engineering Consultants, representing the developer, explained that there was one other change that needed to be made to the Plan. Mr. Pawlikowski said the plan reads that the minimum net lot area is 10,890 square feet but should read 4,000 square feet. He said the developer was in agreement with the other changes that Attorney Rosenthal mentioned. Commission member Shiver said the plan denoted 440 school age children and he wanted to know where all these children were going to go to school since there was an article in the paper that day stating that the Ocoee school system is already over capacity. Director of Planning Behrens said the City was working with Lee Ann Lowery of the Orange County School Board and that the School Board said an additional elementary school was needed south of Highway 50 in the Maguire Road area. Commission member Shiver asked what would happen to the middle school children since Ocoee Middle School currently has twice the amount of children that it should have. Director of Planning Behrens said that the Orange County School Board had not given him any indication that they had addressed that problem as yet. Commission member Shiver suggested then, that maybe the Planning and Zoning Commission should not recommend approval of any further development until it is addressed. Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 23, 1990 Commission member Swickerath said the Planning and Zoning Commission had asked on numerous occasions that the City consider schools as necessary a criteria for development as are police, fire, water and sewer, etc. and that the City should look into some method of funding to rectify the situation such as impact fees. Director of Planning Behrens said the Orange County School Board was coming to Ocoee to make a presentation to staff on the recommendations they have as to what needs to be done to address the school overcrowding problems and how they propose to accomplish it. Director Behrens said the City is currently working with at least one developer on the possibility of purchasing land for a school site. He said the City has been asking the Orange County School Board for more than one and a half years now to address this problem and the County is just now getting around to responding to staff's request. Director Behrens said the City decided to try to put together an optional element for the Comprehensive Plan on schools and the County finally took notice of the City's problem when the City approached the School Board with this proposition. Director Behrens said he is trying to bring the above - mentioned landowner together with the School Board to discuss the school site but that sometimes it is easier said than done. Commission member `fir► Shiver said that maybe if the City halted development until the issue was addressed, it might provide an incentive for the School Board to move on the problem. Marty Pawlikowski of Professional Engineering Consultants said the State did not include the issue of schools as part of the mandatory criteria for the Comprehensive Plan and that the City could not use impact fees for this reason since it would be regarded as double taxation and that the courts had already issued rulings on this. Chairman Sims said that Orange County had already approved this development in the County and that the City may as well approve it so that it can benefit from the development. Commission member Swickerath asked what exactly had been approved by the County and Marty Pawlikowski said the development had been approved for 340+ units. Commission member Swickerath said the developer was now asking the City for 733 units so that this plan had not been approved by the County. Director of Planning Behrens said he has had numerous discussions with the County and that they have said they would approve the development for two (2) units per acre which is what the developer was requesting of the City. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked about the 40 foot lots and asked the developer to explain why there would only be two units per acre if they were using such small lots. Mr. Pawlikowski said the Land Use Plan states that the minimum lot width will be 40 feet, which is likar the minimum allowed under the City's PUD Ordinance. He said there Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 411160 October 23, 1990 would probably be some patio homes on 40 foot lots and some standard single family homes on 70 foot lots or maybe larger lots up to 100 feet. Mr. Pawlikowski said not all the lots will be 40 feet wide, but that was just a minimum they were listing. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked if the developer was planning to build with zero lot lines and Mr. Pawlikowski said they would like to have the flexibility allowed under the PUD Ordinance to do so. Commission member Bond asked if the plan was correct where it stipulated that the 40 foot lots would have six (6) foot side setbacks and Mr. Pawlikowski said it was correct. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked the developer's representative if he was aware that the City had yet to approve zero lot lines and Mr. Pawlikowski said he was not aware that the City Commission had taken such a stance but that there had only been two or three PUDs to come before the City since the new ordinance was written. Director of Planning Behrens read part of the PUD Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission members where it talked about the flexibility of clustering lots in order to allow for other uses elsewhere (recreational facilities, open space, etc.) and said the developer was basically asking for that which was currently allowed under the City's PUD Ordinance. Commission member Swickerath asked if the staff was recommending approval of all of the criteria specified on the Land Use Plan without putting any conditions on it and Director of Planning Behrens said he had no problem with the concepts the developer is proposing and that he would comment on the specifics of the way they utilized the criteria when they submit the development plan. Director Behrens said he is not opposed to the concept of zero lot lines, especially since it will free up the necessary space for the proposed golf course. He said the developer is proposing to use 41% of the total land area for a golf course. Commission member Shiver asked if the Fire Department had reviewed the Land Use Plan and whether Chief Strosnider had expressed any concern with zero lot lines in regards to fire protection. Director of Planning Behrens said Captain Coschignano is a member of the Development Review Committee and that he had not made any such comments when staff reviewed and approved the Land Use Plan at the Development Review Committee meeting. City Attorney Rosenthal said when the development plan comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the members will have to approve it consistent with what they approved for the Land Use Plan. In other words, the developer can and should be able to Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 23, 1990 expect that if the City approves the Land Use Plan with these proposed minimums on it, they should be able to work within those parameters when designing their development plan. Vice Chairman Linebarier again expressed that the City had never before granted approval for zero lot lines and Director of Planning Behrens said if the City Boards and City Commission were so opposed to this concept, maybe the PUD Ordinance should be amended so not to allow for that flexibility in design. Vice Chairman Linebarier said maybe the Planning and Zoning Commission should recommend to the City Commission to make that amendment to the ordinance. Commission member Swickerath said he liked the flexibility of the ordinance and that zero lot lines may have a place in the City, but he objects to the side yard setbacks being listed as a minimum of six (6) feet for all the lots in the subdivision. He said the smaller setback is appropriate for the 40 foot lots but not for the larger lots. Marty Pawlikowski said the developer would be willing to stipulate on the plan a chart showing different minimums for each lot size r and suggested the following: 6 foot setback - 40 foot lots 10 foot setback - 50 foot lots 15 foot setback - 70 foot lots Chairman Sims said he respected City Attorney Rosenthal's opinion on the fact that the developer should be able to come up with a Development Plan using the criteria approved at the Land Use Plan stage but he said those are the minimums allowed under the ordinance and that the City should have the right to look at the Development Plan and see if those minimums were applied to create a plan that is acceptable. City Attorney Rosenthal said the Planning and Zoning Commission would be able to comment that they did not like the way the zero lot line lots were situated on the plan or something along that line, but that they would not be able to disapprove the plan simply because they do not like zero lot lines, not if the Land Use Plan was approved showing zero lot lines. Commission member Swickerath said he was concerned with the traffic circulation because there was no means of ingress or egress from Roberson Road. He asked if there was a through street within the development and stressed to the developer that the City requires Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting *ikt,. October 23, 1990 two access points to a development for emergency purposes. Marty Polakowski pointed out that there were two access points, one from Maguire Road and one from Windermere Road. Commission member Switzer asked if there was any provisions for using gray water in this development. Mr. Pawlikowski said that there was a gray water line on the south side of Roberson Road and that there were discussions with Orange County and the City of Orlando to use it for the golf course but that there was no formal agreement at this point. Commission member Swickerath asked if the golf course would be public or private and Mr. Pawlikowski said the developer had not decided as yet. Commission member Swickerath asked about how the golf course would relate to recreational impact fees. City Attorney Rosenthal said the developer would have to meet the recreational requirements stipulated in the PUD Ordinance as well as paying the recreational impact fees with every building permit. Attorney Rosenthal said in this case the developer has met the PUD part but would still have to pay the recreational impact fees. Attorney Rosenthal said there may be a possibility of the developer receiving credits against the park impact fees if they decide to have a public golf course as opposed to a private club. Vice Chairman Linebarier wanted to state for the record that he hoped there would not be any zero lot lines approved at this stage of the process or at any other stage and that the minimum setback would be 7.5 feet. Commission member Swickerath moved to approve the staff recommendation subject to removing from the Land Use Plan those items listed below the "Maximum Building Coverage" that dealt with "Building Setback Criteria" and "Lot Building Setback Criteria" and that the minimum square footage of living area be deleted as well. He also included in his motion that there would need to be a connector road linking Windermere Road and Maguire Road and that the Developer's Agreement would have to be approved by the City Commission addressing the dedication of additional right -of -way along Maguire Road, and that the reference to an MSTU be deleted regarding the street lights as that would be handled through the homeowners' association. Vice Chairman Linebarier seconded the motion. After discussion on various items, Vice Chairman Linebarier withdrew his second to the motion. After further discussion, Commission member Swickerath was asked to restate his motion. Commission member Swickerath moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation subject to: Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 'O,,,, October 23, 19 9 0 - striking the reference to the MSTU on the Land Use Plan - the Developer's Agreement being approved addressing the dedication of additional right -of -way along Maguire Road - striking the items listed under "SITE DATA" on the Land Use Plan from and including "Minimum Net Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)" down to "Parking - 2 spaces /unit" (In other words, deleting the following from the Plan): - Minimum Net Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) - Minimum Lot Width (Ft.) - Minimum Sq. Ft. Living Area - Maximum Building Height - Maximum Building Coverage - Building Setback Criteria - Lot Building Setback Criteria - All Corner Lots are 10 Ft. Greater in Width than Typical Lot These items are being deleted with the intention of revisiting these issues when the developer submits a Development Plan. - including in the Development Plan a road connecting Maguire Road to Windermere Road Vice Chairman Linebarier seconded the motion. City Attorney Rosenthal said the Code stipulates that certain things must be listed on the Land Use Plan and that the things that Commission member Swickerath are asking to be struck from the Plan are things that are required for the Land Use Plan submittal under the PUD Ordinance. Attorney Rosenthal said those things are not required on the Development Plan since it is assumed that once they are approved on the Land Use Plan, they should not have to be restated. Commission member Swickerath withdrew his motion. Chairman Sims asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission members wanted to devise what would be an acceptable lot size /setback size in a chart form and then recommend that the Land Use Plan be approved subject to that chart. Commission member Swickerath said it was not so much the lot size /setback size minimums that bothered him as much as not knowing how the actual layout of the lots would look and where the different things would go. City Attorney Rosenthal said those specifics are not required until the Development Plan stage. Commission member Swickerath said he was not talking specific lot layout but rather that he would like to see the Land Use Plan specify quadrants of development and what they planned for each of %iv those areas. Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting %Iikr October 23, 1990 City Attorney Rosenthal said that all the site data categories listed on the Land Use Plan would need to remain but that the Planning and Zoning Commission could recommend approval subject to the specific criteria being revised such as larger setbacks, size of lots, etc.. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission could also ask for a revised Land Use Plan to show quadrants of development, specifically where they intended to put the zero lot line homes. Commission member Swickerath said he was not willing to approve blanket minimums without being aware of at least where these would be proposed within the development. Commission member Shiver moved to recommend denial of the applicant's petition and Commission member Switzer seconded. Commission member Bond said she would rather qualify the lot sizes and setback sizes rather than just denying the petition because that would at least send a message of what the Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned with. She said she would rather see the Commission offer a solution and not just a denial. Vice Chairman Linebarier and Alternate Carroll said they felt the Planning and •r► Zoning Commission members had made it quite clear what the solution should be and what the developer would need to do before he resubmitted another plan. City Attorney Rosenthal said that the Planning and Zoning Commission has already recommended annexation and he wanted to clarify just what the Commission was recommending. He said it sounded like they were not opposed to the PUD zoning, only that they were not satisfied with the specifics of the Land Use Plan. City Attorney Rosenthal said the annexation /rezone process called for the Planning and Zoning Commission to move on the zoning and the Land Use Plan together, all in one motion. In other words, they could not recommend rezoning to PUD without approving a Land Use Plan to go with the PUD zoning. Director of Planning Behrens asked why the Planning and Zoning Commission would not propose numbers for lot sizes and setbacks that were acceptable to them and then recommend the zoning and the Land Use Plan. Chairman Sims called for a vote on the motion and the motion was denied 3 -4 with Vice Chairman Linebarier and Commission members Switzer and Shiver ,voting for approval and Chairman Sims and Commission members Weeks, Swickerath, and Bond opposed. Alternate member Carroll did not vote since there was a quorum in place. fir° Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 23, 1990 Vice Chairman Linebarier moved to recommend deferral on the recommendation on the zoning and Land Use Plan until the developer resubmitted a plan that indicated what lot widths would go with what setbacks and what percentage of the total lots would be represented by each lot width, and in what areas of the property the developer proposed to put each type of lot. Commission member Swickerath seconded the motion. Commission member Shiver asked what the intent of the 40 foot lot was and Marty Pawlikowski said it would be used for single family homes and would probably be suitable for retired persons who typically want smaller homes and not as large of a yard to take care of. Commission member Shiver asked if these would be single story homes and Mr. Pawlikowski said the developer would probably let the market dictate what kind of homes were built. Commission member Shiver said his questions on why the developer was proposing to use 40 foot lots were to determine whether this was to satisfy a need for a certain type of housing within the City or whether it was merely a profit- driven motive that would result in uncontrolled growth for no real benefit to the City. City Attorney Rosenthal said he needed to make a comment relative to the motion that was made to defer a recommendation until the developer resubmitted a revised Land Use Plan. Attorney Rosenthal said the Zoning Code provides that the City Commission can act on a zoning matter such as this without a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission if the Planning and Zoning Commission does not issue a recommendation within 45 days of the petitioner's request. Vice Chairman Linebarier said because of that he would withdraw his motion and Commission member Swickerath withdrew his second. Commission member Bond moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation subject to striking from the Land Use Plan the reference to the MSTU for street lighting, and subject to the approval of a Developer's Agreement addressing the additional right -of -way needed to be dedicated by the developer along Maguire Road, and subject to the Development Plan including a road that connects Maguire Road with Windermere Road, and subject to the following lot sizes corresponding with the following setbacks: 1. 40 foot lots having a minimum of 6 foot side yard setbacks (3 foot side yards for each lot) 2. 50 foot lots having a minimum of 10 foot side yard setbacks (5 foot side yards for each lot) 3. 75 foot lots having a minimum of 15 foot side yard setbacks (7.5 foot side yards for each lot) Page 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ,,,, October 23, 1990 Commission member Bond's motion also stipulated that it was subject to all the zero lot line lots being contained in one cluster so that it could better be planned for emergency response purposes. Commission member Weeks seconded the motion and upon a roll call vote, the motion was denied 3 -4 with Chairman Sims and Commission members Bond and Weeks voting to approve the motion and Vice Chairman Linebarier and Commission members Swickerath, Switzer, and Shiver opposed. Commission member Swickerath moved to recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission ask the City Commission to allow the developer time to revise the plan as discussed and resubmit it to the Planning and Zoning Commission before the City Commission approves it, Vice Chairman Linebarier seconded, and approval was unanimous. Case No. 1- 37AR -90: CHRISTIANSEN Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report in its entirety. Gifford Anglim, P.O. Box 23, Winter Park, representing the applicant, pointed out that there was a typographical error on the Land Use Plan and that the side yard setback should read 7.5 feet rather than 5 feet. Mr. Anglim said he was also unaware until this evening that the City of Ocoee did not use MSTUs and that he would make sure this was taken off the plan. City Attorney Rosenthal said there were two additional revisions he would recommend: 1. To make any approval subject to the Land Use Plan being revised to delete the reference to Moore Road under the "Impact Fee Credits" item since it is not a road currently listed in the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance, and that the other credits on impact fees for oversizing utilities only be considered if the lines are oversized, and 2. That an additional note be added to the Land Use Plan that there is an additional 3.5 acres of recreation area north of Moore Road. Attorney Rosenthal said the Development Review Committee had recommended that the applicant put this on the Plan and the area was now marked as recreation on the plan but an additional note also needed to be added that this tract would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. Mr. Anglim said the applicant would not have any objection to these revisions. Page 11 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 23, 1990 Commission member Switzer asked if Mr. Anglim would explain the front yard setback, why it was on the plan as 20 feet rather than 25 feet and Mr. Anglim said it was 20 feet as measured from the right -of -way line to the front of the building. He said that is the standard way that front yard setbacks are measured in PUDs. Commission member Shiver voiced the same concern for the number of school age children as he had with the Wingfield petition. City Attorney Rosenthal said the Planning and Zoning Commission should also include in any motion that approval is subject to a Developer's Agreement being approved addressing the additional right -of -way that the developer needs to dedicate to the City along Maguire and Moore Roads. Vice Chairman Linebarier moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation subject to the change of the side yard setbacks from 5 feet to 7.5 feet, and subject to adding the language on the recreational tract north of Moore Road, and subject to deleting the mention of impact fee credits for Moore Road, and subject to execution of a Developer's Agreement granting additional right -of- way along Maguire and Moore Roads, Commission member Swickerath seconded and approval was unanimous. OTHER BUSINESS Commission member Shiver recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Commission that a policy be implemented where all new subdivision names would need to have the approval of the City. Chairman Sims said the City could recommend names or ask that a developer not use a specific name, but that ultimately the developer could market a subdivision as they want to. City Attorney Rosenthal said he would research the matter and find out what the City can require along those lines and report back with the information. Commission member Bond moved to adjourn the meeting, Commission member Shiver seconded, and approval was unanimous. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m. // 4 S ATTEST: fit ' 'vs ►._ ✓ �`'� 4 D U T Y CLERK RESNIK