HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-92
~
KIBUTES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE BOARD OF COKKISSIONERS REGULAR KElTING HELD
Deceaber 16, 1992
The regular meeting of the Ocoee Board of City Commissioners was called to order
at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Vandergrift in the commission chambers. Commissioner
Foster led in the prayer and Commissioner Johnson led in the pledge of
allegiance. The roll was called and a quorum declared present.
PRESENT: Mayor Vandergrift, Commissioners Combs, Foster, Johnson, and Woodson.
Also present were City Manager Shapiro, City Attorney Rosenthal, Administrative
Services Director Beamer, Planning Director Behrens, and City Clerk Grafton.
Absent: None
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS - None
CONSENT AGENDA - None
COKKENTS FROM CITIZENS/PUBLIC
There were no citizen comments at this time.
Mayor Vandergrift asked that those who speak limit their remarks to three minutes
if possible, to control tempers, and to avoid redundant remarks.
City Attorney Rosenthal advised that the packets contain two memorandums from
him, and he reviewed the highlights of his memorandum concerning legal issues
~ affecting consideration of annexation and initial zoning petitions.
Mr. Rosenthal continued with an explanation regarding the annexation agreements,
saying that a requirement under the 1991 Ocoee Comprehensive Plan was to
undertake an annexation impact study. When finished, this study disclosed the
Ci ty' s ability to provide services and analyzed the feasibility of annexing
property under the Comprehensive Plan. An annexation agreement form was prepared
which involved an evaluation of right-of-way requirements, availability of sewer
and water capaci ty from ei ther the City or County, predevelopment drainage
issues, the provision of municipal services, compliance with the Land Development
Code, reclaimed water, liens and mortgages, addressing any prior agreements and
dealing with enforcement provisions. Mr. Rosenthal said that he would not go
into any detailed discussion during the consideration of any of the annexation
agreements except to point out any deviations in the standard format and to
answer any questions.
~
City Manager Shapiro pointed out some of the history of the preparation of the
Comprehensive Plan, noting that the citizens committees had made the basic plans
which were formulated by Staff, then presented to the Local Planning Agency and
then finally approved by City Commission. Mr. Shapiro said that plan was used
by Staff when discussing annexation with the property owners who had various
reasons for petitioning the City for annexation. At a joint meeting with other
local governments in November of 1990 the annexation boundaries were discussed
along with the use of a developer agreement, and the guidelines set out by
Commission as a result of that workshop were observed in dealing with the
petitioners. Some of the decisions made were the result of the County's being
non-committal in the area of the provision of water and sewer services, and also,
'-"
Page 2
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
due to their not recognizing the proposed Cooperative Agency of Municipal
Planning (C.A.M.P.) Agreement. Hr. Shapiro noted that there will be no city
services provided for the majority of the proposed annexations for approximately
seven years, but that having the annexations in place will be an advantage in
planning for services and concurrency. Hr. Shapiro commended Mr. Rosenthal for
the preparation of the annexation agreement form and he pointed out that the
annexation agreement was different from, and not intended to replace, a
development agreement. Mr. Shapiro, in closing, said that this action will give
the signal to the County that either they must begin discussing this area with
Ocoee and the landowners or they must give it up for Ocoee to serve.
Robert Wiegers, Senior Planner with Orange County Planning Department, said the
County has typically three main concerns, which are: 1) that the parcel may not
be compact and/or contiguous to the current city limits as proposed by Chapter
171 Florida Statutes; 2) the proposed land use may not be consistent with
County's Future Land Use Map; 3) the cities may be annexing into the rural
settlement areas (rural preservation districts). He said he would reserve future
comments on a case by case basis.
Planning Director Behrens advised that he would be announcing the case number and
giving the staff report for each agenda item and that there were written copies
of the material available on the table should anyone in the audience wish to
~ review it.
PUBLIC BElRIRGS
CASE NO. 2-27AR-92:MILLIR
Planning Director Behrens presented the staff report, noting that the annexation
and initial zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land
Use Map and then he identified the parcel on the map as .2 acres located at the
northeast corner of Silver Star Road and First Street. An annexation agreement
will not be required by the City for this parcel. The City can currently provide
urban services to this property if it is annexed. Hr. Behrens pointed out that
the requested zoning change is from Orange County R-1, Single Family Residential,
to City of Ocoee R-1, Single Family Dwelling. The owner of the parcel is
Beatrice B. Miller.
Staff Rec~endation: That the City Commission, in separate votes, take the
following actions with respect to the petition in Case Number 2-27AR-92:Miller:
1) Approve Ordinance No. 92-62, annexing the subject parcel, subject to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 92-63, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel as requested by the applicant; and
2)
Approve Ordinance No. 92-63, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of the condition of
approval for Ordinance No. 92-62 and find that all conditions subsequent
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 92-62 have been fully satisfied.
'-'
'-"
Page 3
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
Ordinance No.92-62, Annexation.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and Mrs. Linda Killer Harper, Clermont,
spoke for her mother requesting annexation. As there were no further comments
or questions the public hearing was closed. Co..issioner Woodson, seconded by
Co..issioner Johnson, moved to approve staff recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-
62 as presented. On roll call Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner
Foster "a~e," Commissioner Johnson "aye," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor
Vanderarift "aye." Kotion carried.
Ordinance Bo.92-63, Zoning.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and, as no one wished to speak, the
hearing was closed. Coaaissioner Coabs, seconded by Co..issioner Johnson, moved
to approve staff recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-63 as presented. On roll
call Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "a!e," Commissioner
Johnson "aye," Commissloner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Vanderarlft "aye." Kotion
carried.
CASE NO. 2-17lR-92:SBlRP
......
Planning Director Behrens presented the staff report, noting that the annexation
and initial zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land
Use Map and then he identified the parcel on the map as 40 acres located on the
southwest corner of State Road 50 and Blackwood Avenue. The City can provide
urban services to this property if it is annexed. Mr. Behrens pointed out that
the requested zoning change is from Orange County A-1, Agricultural, to City of
Ocoee C-2, Community Commercial. The owner of the parcel is Frances S. Pignone,
as Personal Representative of the Estate of Angeline V. Sharp.
A letter to City Commission from Glenn Jackson, Heller Bros. was entered into the
record regarding Annexation/zoning of parcels south of Highway 50:
"Gentlemen: Historically, Heller Bros. Groves has supported the well planned
growth of the City of Ocoee. We still do. However, on December 16, you will be
considering several parcels south of Highway 50 in the general vicinity of
Maguire Road. We believe that these requests should be delayed until the City
has fully developed a specific action plan on solving the concurrency traffic
problem which already exists on Maguire Road for land owners currently within the
city limits. We would support the annexation and rezoning of these parcels if,
as a part of your approval, you required them to agree to a planned solution
before receiving any development approvals. s/Glenn Jackson"
Staff Reco..endation: That the City Commission, in separate votes, take the
following actions with respect to the petition in Case Number 2-17AR-92:Sharp:
~
1} Approve Ordinance No. 92-64, annexing the subject parcel, subject to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 92-65, establishing an initial zoning for the
'-"
Page 4
Ocoee City C~ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
subject parcel as requested by the applicant and further subject to the
approval of an annexation agreement;
2) Approve the proposed Annexation Agreement between the City of Ocoee and
the owner of the subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of
the condition of approval for Ordinance No. 92-64; and
3) Approve Ordinance No. 92-65, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of the condition of
approval for Ordinance No. 92-64 and find that all conditions subsequent
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 92-64 have been fully satisfied.
City Attorney Rosenthal disclosed for the record that his firm represents the
petitioner in other matters but someone else represented them for this matter.
City Manager Shapiro advised that he was aware of this.
Ordinance .0.92-64, lDnexation.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and, as no one wished to speak, the
hearing was closed. Co..issioner Foster, seconded by Co..issioner Coabs, moved
to approve staff recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-64 as presented. On roll
call Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner
~ Johnson "aye," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Kayor Vanderqrift "aye." Kotion
carried.
Annexation Agree.ent.
City Attorney Rosenthal presented the annexation agreement. Co..issioner Woodson,
seconded by Coaaissioner Johnson, moved to approve staff recommendation. Kotion
carried with unanimous vote in favor.
Ordinance .0.92-65, changing Zoning fro. Orange County A-1, Agricultural, to City
of Ocoee C-2, Co..unity Co.-ercial.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and, as no one wished to speak, the
hearing was closed. Co..issioner Foster, seconded by coaaissioner Coabs, moved
to approve staff recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-65 as presented. On roll
call Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner
Johnson "aye," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Kayor Vanderqrift "aye." Motion
carried.
CASE 10. 2-11lR-92:GEARTRER
'-'
Planning Director Behrens presented the staff report, noting that the annexation
and initial zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land
Use Kap and then he identified the parcel on the map as 5.8 acres located on the
south side of Old Winter Garden Road, 500 feet east of Blackwood Avenue. The
City can provide urban services to this property if it is annexed. Hr. Behrens
pointed out that the requested zoning change is from Orange County A-1,
Page 5
Ocoee City C~ssion Regular Meeting
~ Deceaber 16, 1992
Agricultural, to City of Ocoee A-1, General Agricultural. The owners of the
parcel are Herbert H. Geartner and John Park III, as Trustees.
Staff Rec~endation: That the City Commission, in separate votes, take the
following actions with respect to the petition in Case Number 2-11AR-92 :Geartner:
1) Approve Ordinance No. 92-66, annexing the subject parcel, subject to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 92-67, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel as requested by the applicant and further subject to the
approval of an annexation agreement;
2) Approve the proposed Annexation Agreement between the City of Ocoee and
the owner of the subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of
the condition of approval for Ordinance No. 92-66; and
J) Approve Ordinance No. 92-67, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of the condition of
approval for Ordinance No. 92-66 and find that all conditions sUbsequent
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 92-66 have been fully satisfied.
"-"
Ordinance Ro.92-66, Annexation.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and Herbert Geartner, Trustee of the
property, said they were looking for fire/police protection and had no plans to
develop right now.
Linda Boone, 6th Street, Gotha, said she felt the stopping line for the City of
Ocoee annexations should be the Old Winter Garden Road.
As there were no further comments or questions the public hearing was closed.
Co.-issioner Woodson, seconded by Co..issioner Johnson, moved to approve staff
recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-66 as presented. On roll call Commissioner
Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Comaissioner Johnson "aye, "
Couissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Vandergrift "aye." Kotion carried.
Annexation Agreeaent.
City Attorney Rosenthal presented the annexation agreement. Co..issioner Foster,
seconded by Co.-issioner Johnson, moved to approve staff recolllllendation. Kotion
carried with unanlmous vote in favor.
'-"
Ordinance Ro.92-67, changing Zoning fro. Orange County A-I, Agricultural, to City
of Ocoee 1-1, General Agricultural.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing and City lttorney Rosenthal advised that the "Whereas..." clause
referencing the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation should be deleted.
The public hearing was opened and, as no one wished to speak, the hearing was
closed. C~issioner Woodson, seconded by COIIIlissioner Coos, moved to approve
staff recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-67 as presented with the deletion of the
~
Page 6
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
ara ra h referencin the Plannin. and Zonin~ Commission recommendation. On roll
call Commissioner Combs voted "aye," CommlSsioner Foster "a~e," Commissioner
Johnson "aye," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Vanderarift "aye." Kotion
carried.
CASE NO. 2-25AR-92:WIBGFIELD
Planning Director Behrens presented the staff report, noting that the annexation
and initial zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land
Use Map and then he identified the parcel on the map as 434 acres located
adjacent to the south side of Roberson Road and between Windermere and Maguire
Road. The City can provide urban services to this property if it is annexed.
Mr. Behrens pointed out that the requested zoning change is from Orange County
PUD, Planned Unit Development, to City of Ocoee R-1, Single Family Dwelling. The
owner of the parcel is Wingfield Reserve Corporation.
Staff Reco..endation: That the City Commission, in separate votes, take the
following actions with respect to the petition in Case Number 2-25AR-
92:Wingfield:
'-"
1) Approve Ordinance No. 92-68, annexing the subject parcel, subject to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 92-69, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel as requested by the applicant and further subject to the
approval of an annexation agreement;
2) Approve the proposed Annexation Agreement between the City of Ocoee and
the owner of the subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of
the condition of approval for Ordinance No. 92-68; and
3) Approve Ordinance No. 92-69, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of the condition of
approval for Ordinance No. 92-68 and find that all conditions subsequent
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 92-68 have been fUlly satisfied.
Ordinance No.92-68, Annexation.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and Robert Viegers, Orange County Senior
Planner, advised that the major portion of the area surrounding this annexation
remains in the County and the County does not support the creation of enclaves.
City Attorney Rosenthal pointed out special provisions in the annexation
agreement regarding the property owner bringing certain vested rights with the
County into the City, special sewer arrangements with the County, road right-of-
way, severability, and other legal points.
~
Robert Wiegers confirmed that the property has approval for 344 units with the
County with a density not-to-exceed 1 unit net per developable acre and with a
stipulation that no lots could be less than ~ acre.
Page 7
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
~ Deceoer 16, 1992
Coaaissioner Johnson said he had voted against the agreement for sewer taps to
the County when it was presented.
Co..issioner Coabs recalled that Orange County Commissioner Vera Carter had
proposed, in exchange for these hookups to Belmere, units on the northeast side
of Ocoee to hook up to the County sewer system. Co..issioner Coos spoke also
about the traffic circulation plan and noted that the problem with the Maguire
Road traffic when it reaches Windermere has not been addressed by Orange County.
Hal Kantor, Attorney for the applicant, 215 N. Eola, Orlando, requested approval
of the annexation and and the annexation agreement. He asked for clarification
regarding the transportation impact fee. City Attorney Rosenthal confirmed that
the applicant would pay based on the rate today, and at the time of development
they would pay the then applicable road impact fee at the time each building
permit was pulled. If the fee increases there would be an incremental additional
amount due. Mr. Kantor responded to County objections at length and presented
positive reasons to annex.
Harry Strange, 1177 7th Avenue, Gotha, asked that the property not be annexed
until the roads are ready. City Manager Shapiro responded that when the traffic
study was done it showed that Maguire Road would handle the traffic with the
proposed annexations.
'-'
Kark Keller, 226 Main Street, Windermere, Windermere Councilman, said that his
primary concern is that on the east and west sides of Maguire Road are bay heads
or water recharge areas that flow directly into Lake Down and Lake Crescent and
other lakes. He asked that the issue of environment be addressed.
Mayor Vandergrift responded that we are a city within a community and this
commission is listening to the people.
Bob Boucher, 1601 DownLake Drive, Windermere, Gerald Aldrich, 1995 Maguire Road,
Windermere, and Ginger Hartin, 11329 Winston Willow Court, Windermere, opposed
the annexation unless the zoning remains the way it is.
Bob Hennon, 2050 Willow Lauren Lane, Windermere, presented a petition signed by
49 residents against the annexation (Attachment No.1 to these minutes).
Mr. Kantor said that if they annex, then they will become a part of the solution
rather than the problem and, in response to Mr. Hennon's remarks regarding the
value of the homes, he showed a map displaying no contiguity between their
property and the Willows and showed that the land between is undevelopable.
As there were no further comments or questions the public hearing was closed.
In response to Commissioner Combs request for clarification of the process, City
Attorney Rosenthal explained that the process is in three components, the
ordinance adopting the annexation will be subject to the adoption of the
'-r annexation agreement and the zoning requested by the developer. If either the
'-'"
Page 8
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
annexation agreement or the zoning requested by the developer are not approved,
that will have the effect of undoing any vote to annex. The approval of
Annexation Ordinance 92-68 does not in any way obligate or commit the Commission
to approve the annexation agreement or the zoning requested.
Co.-issioner Coabs, seconded by Co..issioner Woodson, moved to approve staff
recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-68 as presented. On roll call Commissioner
Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "no, "
Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Vandergrift "aye." Motion carried with 4-1
vote in favor.
RECESS 9:15 TO 9:25 P.M.
Annexation 19reeaent.
City Attorney Rosenthal presented the annexation agreement.
Lou Roeder, 2001 Mercy Drive, Orlando, Director of Plantation Grove, read the
first portion of a prepared statement objecting to staff's recommendation
regarding Wingfield's vested rights letter from Orange County. Dr. Bob Ferdinand
read the remainder and asked that Plantation Grove be placed on an agenda and
given the same treatment as Wingfield. Dr. Ferdinand said that they were not
opposed to the annexation but rather to changing the rules. See attachment No. 2
~ to these minutes.
City Manager Shapiro said that the facts are different than presented by Dr.
Ferdinand.
City Attorney Rosenthal, addressing the point that was relevant to this agenda,
said the City staff has not made an evaluation of what Orange County did in terms
of granting vested rights nor has City staff investigated whether, if Wingfield
had been in the City, they would or would not have been granted vested rights.
The City considers that Pud zoning, in and of itself, is not an entitlement to
common law vested rights. City Manager Shapiro explained that, as a PUD is a
preliminary plan that draws up a bubble plan of land use, and the City is not
staffed to take care of processing great quantities of preliminary plans as they
come in, there must be more of a real commitment on the part of the developer
before consideration of vesting rights can be given. City Attorney Rosenthal
said that was the reason Wingfield had a very limited recognition of the Orange
County vesting, even though they had asked for full recognition, including the
requirements of recreation, storm water, sewer and water. Whether the property
came into Ocoee or not those vested rights in terms of transportation would still
be there. Staff felt that it would be better to get those impact fees into the
City so that they could be used for the planning of a solution to Maguire Road.
It was determined that any further discussion regarding Plantation Grove would
be out of order at this time and the attention returned to the Wingfield
consideration.
~.
'-"
Page 9
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
Co.-issioner Foster, seconded by Co..issioner Woodson, moved to approve staff
recommendation. Kotion carried with 4-1 vote in favor with Commissioner Johnson
voting no.
Ordinance 110.92-69, changing Zoning fro. Orange County PUD, Planned Unit
Develop.ent to City of Ocoee R-l, Single Faaily Dwelling.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing and Mr. Rosenthal pointed out that the "Whereas..." clause indicating a
recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission should be deleted. The
public hearing was opened and Hal Kantor, representing the developer, requested
that his comments be postponed until after comments from the public.
Co..issioner Coabs said he cannot accept R-1 zoning and asked if the petitioner
would change his request to PUD.
Mr. Kantor said that there would be no need to annex for the same density that
they can get in the County, but they would agree to a density of 3 units per
acre.
Planning Director Behrens expained why he had recommended as he did and said that
the number of units per acre should not be the only consideration.
~ Robert Viegers, Orange County Senior Planner, said that the proposed zoning will
not be consistent with Orange County Future Land Use Plan as their minimum lot
size recognized for that area is ~ acre.
Jeff Scott, 11485 Willow Gardens Drive, Windermere, expressed concern about what
is going next door to him and asked that Commission delay this until the
developer says what he will put on the property.
Mr. Kantor said that this is transition property betweeen the Willows and the
Wesmere/Westridge developments. He said that they would settle for R-1-AA with
a ridge of R-1-AAA on the edge close to the Willows.
There were several other options discussed and Mr. Scott requested again that
this be tabled.
RECESS 10:20 - 10:35 P.M.
Mr. Kantor proposed the portion abutting Willows RCE 2 (1 acre) and the balance
R-1-AA.
Bob Hennon said the market is not towards ~ acre vs ~ acre and the demand for 1
acre exceeds that for ~ acre.
Harry Strange said that the property just north of this parcel has acres of small
lots that are not selling.
~ As there were no further comments or questions the public hearing was closed.
'-"
Page 10
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
co.-issioner Woodson moved to adopt the last proposal from Hr. Kantor. The
motion died for lack of a second.
co..issioner Foster said he could support RCE2 abutting the Willows if the
developer will agree to R-1-AAA.
Hr. Kantor proposed an amendment to the requested zoning as follows: beginning
at a line 800 feet from SE corner of property and running parallel across the
property, R-I-AAA and north of that R-1-AA except for that portion abutting the
Willows which will be RCE1.
Co..issioner Woodson, seconded by Couissioner Foster, moved to approve Ordinance
No. 92-69 granting the zoning requested by the applicant as modified at the City
Commission meeting which would provide for R-I-AAA on that approximately 800 foot
wide strip as described by Hr. Kantor and R-1-AA on the balance of the property
except for that portion of the property which abutts the Willows Subdivision
residential lots which would be zoned RCE 1, subject to the finalization of
appropriate legal descriptions describing those areas which will be brought back
to Commission, and further subject also to a revised annexation agreement to
include this revision. On roll call Commissioner Combs voted "no," Commissioner
Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "no," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and_Mayor
Vandergrift "no." Motion rejected with 3-2 vote against.
~
City Attorney Rosenthal advised that there should be a motion to deny in order
to close the issue.
Co.-issioner Coabs, seconded by Co..issioner Johnson, moved to deny the zoning
requested by the applicant. On roll call Commissioner Combs voted "aye, "
Commissioner Foster "no," Commissioner Johnson "aye," Commissioner Woodson "no, "
and Mayor Vandergrift "aye." Motion carried 3-2 to deny.
CITY ATTOUIY ROSDTIIAL STlTED FOR TIlE RECORD TBlT TBlAPPROVAL OF ORDINlNCEIfO.
92-68 AND TIlE .lJfIIXlTIOR AGIIDDT Bl'fwUII WIIfGFIELD RESERVE CORPORATION AND THE
CITY or OCOII IS RESCIlIDD DUE TO A FAILURE TO SATISFY THE COlIDITIOIfS SUBSIQUDT
SIT FORTH IIf THE APPROVALS OF TBlT ORDIIUCI llID .lJfIIXlTIOR AGIIIIIDT.
CISE 10. 2-13AR-92:LlWRIRCE
,-,.
Planning Director Behrens presented the staff report, noting that the annexation
and initial zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land
Use Map and then he identified the parcel on the map as 102.5 acres located on
the east side of Maguire Road, 1,200 feet south of Moore Road. The City can
currently provide urban services to this property if it is annexed. Mr. Behrens
pointed out that the requested zoning change is from Orange County A-I,
Agricultural, to City of Ocoee A-1, General Agricultural. The owners of the
parcel are: J. Douglas Lawrence, Paul R. Parker, Steve L. Lawrence, F. Parker
Lawrence, F. Parker Lawrence, II, Anne H. Wiedenbeck, Curtis Branning, H. Dale
~
Page 11
Ocoee City C~ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
Lawrence Parker, Ruth Parker Dunavent, Karjorie G. Lawrence, Marla H. Lawrence,
Stephen K. Wiedenbeck, Lawrence Branning, and Susan Rockett.
staff Reco..endation: That the City Commission, in separate votes, take the
following actions with respect to the petition in Case Number 2-13AR-92:Lawrence:
1) Approve Ordinance No. 92-70, annexing the subject parcel, subject to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 92-71, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel as requested by the applicant and further subject to the
approval of an annexation agreement;
2) Approve the proposed Annexation Agreement between the City of Ocoee and
the owner of the subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of
the condition of approval for Ordinance No. 92-70; and
3) Approve Ordinance No. 92-71, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of the condition of
approval for Ordinance No. 92-70 and find that all conditions subsequent
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 92-70 have been fully satisfied.
Ordinance No.92-70, Annexation.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
~ hearing. The public hearing was opened and Parter Lawrence, 708 NW 8th Avenue,
Gainesville, representing the owners, said that the family wishes to develop the
land.
Robert Wiegers, Orange County Planner, said that this parcel is in the Windermere
rural settlement district and the County objects to this annexation because it
is not compact and contiguous to the Ocoee city limits.
Mary L. Montulli, 10506 Down Lakeview Circle, Windermere, Bob Boucher, 1501
Downlake Drive, Windermere, and Linda Boone, P. O. Box 201, Gotha, spoke against
the annexation.
Saauel Mutch, P. O. Box 14672, Gainesville, representing the Lawrence family,
said that the family considers themselves a part of Ocoee, and he presented a
memorandum addressed to the City Commission which he asked to be placed in the
record. See Attachment to the Minutes Number 3.
Mr. Behrens stated for the record that the original Comprehensive Plan passed in
1970 had a maximum of 3.99 units in low density residential and also that this
property is not in Gotha/Windermere rural settlement area.
Kurt !rdaaan, representing the Gotha Chamber of Commerce, said that the lower
portion of the parcel is located within the Windermere rural settlement area and
that the voters supported that issue.
'-
The public hearing was closed. Co..issioner Foster, seconded by Coaaissioner
Woodson, moved to approve staff recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-70 as
Page 12
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
~ Deceaber 16, 1992
presented. On roll call Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster
"aye," Commissioner Johnson "no," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor
Vandergrift "aye." Motion carried with 4-1 vote.
Annexation Agree.ent.
City Attorney Rosenthal presented the annexation agreement, noting that it
includes 20' of right-of-way along Maguire Road. Mr. Rosenthal pointed out that
one of the original signature pages is missing (a fax copy of the original is
included and the original is en route) and there are a few loose ends but there
is no legal impediment to proceeding with this item. Couissioner Woodson,
seconded by Co..issioner Coabs, moved to approve staff recommendation. Motion
carried with 4-1 vote in favor. Commissioner Johnson cast the vote opposing.
Ordinance .0.92-71, changing Zoning fro. Orange County, A-1, Agricultural to City
of Ocoee A-I, General Agricultural.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing and City Attorney Rosenthal advised that the "Whereas..." clause
referencing the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation should be deleted.
The public hearing was opened and Robert Wiegers, Orange County Senior Planner,
stated that the County will not be objecting to this zoning because that is the
way they have it zoned.
~
Harry Strange, 1177 7th Avenue, Gotha, said that he understood that a request to
zone as the Comprehensive Plan shows could not be denied. City Attorney
Rosenthal explained that the law now says that, in order for Commission to deny
a petitioner who has complied with the land development code and whose requested
zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, sufficient evidence in support
of the denial must be a part of the record. Valid reasons could be opposition
of neighbors whose desires Commission wished to respect.
As there were no further comments or questions the public hearing was closed.
Co..issioner Foster, seconded by Co.-issioner Coos, moved to approve staff
recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-71 as presented with the deletion of the
paragraph referencinG' the PlanninG' and ZoninG' Commission recommendation. On roll
call Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner
Johnson "no," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Kayor Vandergrift "aye." Kotion
carried with 4-1 vote.
AT THIS POIlIT IN THE KElTING THE OCOD RIlIT-A-CHOIR SDG HAPPy BIRTHDAY TO
SIlITIDL REPORTER DIDI SEARS.
CASE 10. 2-03.lR-92:BAIBR
Planning Director Behrens presented the staff report, noting that the annexation
and initial zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land
Use Hap and then he identified the parcel on the map as 8.9 acres located on the
'-' east side of Seventh Avenue, 800 feet south of Moore Road. The City can
~
Page 13
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
currently provide urban services to this property if it is annexed. Hr. Behrens
pointed out that the requested zoning change is from Orange County A-1,
Agricultural to City of Ocoee A-1, General Agricultural. The owners of the
parcel are Charles B. Baker, Jr. and Carolyn K. Baker.
Staff Reco..endation: That the City Commission, in separate votes, take the
following actions with respect to the petition in Case Number 2-03AR-92:Baker:
1) Approve Ordinance No. 92-72, annexing the subject parcel, subject to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 92-73, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel as requested by the applicant and further subject to the
approval of an annexation agreement;
2) Approve the proposed Annexation Agreement between the City of Ocoee and
the owner of the subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of
the condition of approval for Ordinance No. 92-72; and
3) Approve Ordinance No. 92-73, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of the condition of
approval for Ordinance No. 92-72 and find that all conditions subsequent
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 92-72 have been fully satisfied.
~ Ordinance No.92-72, Annexation.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and Charles Bater, 1161 7th Avenue,
Winter Garden, respectfully requested approval of the petition.
Robert Viegers, Orange County Senior Planner, said that the County objects to
this annexation as the parcel is not compact or contiguous to the Ocoee city
limits and that it is a finger-like projection.
Those citizens speaking in opposition to the annexation were: Harry Strange,
1177 7th Avenue, Gotha, Linda Boone, P.O. Box 201, Gotha, Ji. Taylor, 1725
Hempel Avenue, Gotha (who distributed a handout showing Gotha's history), and
Jack Fain, 9842 Kohrs Cove Lane, Windermere. Kurt Ardaaan, representing the
Gotha Chamber of Commerce, said that this annexation violates the 1987 good faith
agreement with Gotha.
Al Pacino spoke in favor.
Robert Viegers asked if he could make one other point regarding densities and
being able to develop the property: His understanding of the preservation
district, if it was enacted, is that the underlying future land use designation
of one uni t to the acre would stay in effect. Kayor Vandergrift said that there
were some that were one unit to ten acres that would stay in effect also.
Hr. Viegers disagreed.
'-"
The public hearing was closed.
'-'"
Page 14
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
co-.issioner Woodson, seconded by Co.-issioner Foster, moved to approve staff
recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-72 as presented. On roll call Commissioner
Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "no, "
Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Vanderarift "aye." Kotion carried with
4-1 vote in favor.
In conjunction with seconding the above motion Co..issioner Foster addressed the
audience, saying that he understood and admired the sincere concern expressed by
the neighboring property owners regarding the action to be taken on the proposed
annexations and zonings. Co..issioner Foster continued, "The gist of the testimony
has been primarily to maintain the status quo in the neighborhoods, but nothing
has been said about the property owners rights to sell their property, to annex
it into the City, or to divide it and sell it. Neither this Commission nor the
County should have the authority to deny them that right. The right of the
property owner has been pushed aside in these testimonies by those who are caught
up in 'what is right for me' in maintaining their own lifestyle. The problems of
the Bakers and the other people who wish to have their property annexed have not
been addressed. Those people want to come into the City to escape the
restrictions that are coming down the line. If you like it or not, if you do
have property and you want to sell it at some future point, there will be a
tremendous amount of restriction placed on you. You will not simply place an ad
in the paper and have people come to purchase your property. You will have to
~ have County approval and the approval of your neighbors, the people who live in
your area, and I cannot condone that. I do not think that I can sit here and say
to the Bakers or to anyone else, 'You cannot come into my city, you cannot
subdivide.' I do not have that authority and I hope that I never have that
authority."
Co..issioner Woodson said that we probably would not be here tonight this late
if this rural district matter had not been voted in. These people were not
clamoring to come into the City until such time as they knew that as of January 1
they may be cut off from any chance to do what they want to do with their
property.
Co..issioner Johnson pointed out that this Commission was elected to make the
final decisions and the Planning and Zoning Commission was appointed to serve in
an advisory capacity; and he noted that citizens are quick to say that the
Planning and Zoning Commission voted against an issue but no one has mentioned
that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of this yet. Co..issioner
Johnson said that he agreed with Commissioner Foster as regards the property
owners rights, and that citizens should take time to look at both sides of an
issue as everybody's rights are involved.
It was at this point that the vote recorded above was taken.
""
Annexation Agreeaent.
City Attorney Rosenthal presented the annexation agreement. co..issioner Foster,
seconded by co.-issioner Coabs, moved to approve staff recommendation. Kotion
carried with 4-1 vote in favor. Commissioner Johnson voted no.
'-'
Page 15
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
Ordinance No.92-73, changing Zoning fro. Orange County A-I, Agricultural to City
of Ocoee A-l, General Agricultural.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and Linda Boone spoke against the zoning,
saying that she feels that the three parcels are being brought into the City in
order to unify and subdivide as the road frontage of each parcel alone is not
enough to divide.
Robert Wiegers, Orange County Senior Planner, expressed no objection at this time
but reserved the right to speak if this property comes up for rezoning.
Co.-issioner Foster, seconded by Co..issioner Coos, moved to approve staff
recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-73 as presented. On roll call Commissioner
Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "no, "
CODlllissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Vandergrift "aye." Motion carried with 4-1
vote in favor.
CASE NO. 2-24AR-92:BLAYER
Planning Director Behrens presented the staff report, noting that the annexation
'-" and initial zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land
Use Map and then he identified the parcel on the map as 19.6 acres located on
the east side of Seventh Avenue and 200 feet south of Moore Road. The city can
currently provide urban services to this property if it is annexed. Hr. Behrens
pointed out that the requested zoning change is from Orange County A-I,
Agricul tural, to City of Ocoee A-1, General Agricultural. The owner of the parcel
is Helen K. Blayer.
Staff Reco..endation: That the City Commission, in separate votes, take the
following actions with respect to the petition in Case Number 2-24AR-92:Blayer:
1) Approve Ordinance No. 92-74, annexing the subject parcel, subject to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 92-75, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel as requested by the applicant and further subject to the
approval of an annexation agreement;
2) Approve the proposed Annexation Agreement between the City of Ocoee and
the owner of the subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of
the condition of approval for Ordinance No. 92-74; and
3) Approve Ordinance No. 92-75, establishing an initial zoning for the
subject parcel, such approval being in satisfaction of the condition of
approval for Ordinance No. 92-74 and find that all conditions subsequent
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 92-74 have been fully satisfied.
'-"
Ordinance 10.92-74, Annexation.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and Al Besade, Jr., 144 G Springwood
'-"
Page 16
Ocoee City Co..ission Regular Meeting
Deceaber 16, 1992
Circle, Longwood, said that he left America two years ago because he was
disgusted with so many things in America, living in Mexico, Australia, New
Zealand and now he is home again. He said that listening to the Commissioners
talk about an American's rights to property and protection made him understand
why he was back home. There is no other country in the whole world where matters
are handled the way they have been tonight, where a person's rights and feelings
are considered by both the city and the county governing bodies. Mr. Besade
explained that he was managing this property for his aunt, and that the access
road to the property has been used as a dump site which is discouraging to
prospective buyers of the property. He asked that Commission approve the
annexation, as the preservation area control will put them in an impossible
situation.
Robert Wiegers, Orange County Senior Planner, advised that the County considers
this parcel to be neither compact nor contiguous to the current city limits, that
it is a finger like extension into Gotha and that this parcel, considered on its
own, is a little less than 10% of the perimeter contiguous to the existing city
limits.
IIlYOR VUDIRGRIFT LIFT TBI TABLE VBILE D. WIEGERS WAS SPUXIRG UD RITUJUIED JUST
AFTER KAYOR PRO TIll JOHNSON CLOSED TBI PUBLIC HEARING.
~ As there were no further comments or questions the public hearing was closed.
C~issioner Woodson, seconded by Co..issioner Foster, moved to approve staff
recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-74 as presented. On roll call Commissioner
Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "no, "
Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Vandergrift "aye." Motion carried with 4-1
vote in favor.
Annexation Agree.ent.
City Attorney Rosenthal presented the annexation agreement. Co..issioner Foster,
seconded by C~issioner Coabs, moved to approve staff recommendation. Motion
carried with 4-1 vote in favor with Commissioner Johnson voting no.
Ordinance Ro.92-75, changing Zoning fro. Orange County A-I, Agricultural to City
of Ocoee A-I, General Agricultural.
This ordinance was presented by title only for the second reading and public
hearing. The public hearing was opened and Robert Wiegers, Orange County Senior
Planner, reserved the right to revisit this. As there were no further comments
or questions the public hearing was closed.
Co-.issioner Coabs, seconded by C~issioner Foster, moved to approve staff
recommendation on Ordinance No. 92-75 as presented. On roll call Commissioner
Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "no, "
Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Kayor Vandergrift "aye." Motion carried with 4-1
vote in favor.
-...
Page 17
Ocoee City Co.-ission Regular Meeting
~ Deceaber 16, 1992
Ci ty Attorney Rosenthal explained that a scrivener's error in the published
advertisement for the next item on the agenda made it necessary to readvertise
the public hearing for January 5, 1993.
THIS ITEK HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO JANUARY 5, 1993
Case No. 2-15AR-92:Guess
1. Ordinance No.92-76, Annexation.
2. Annexation Agreement.
3. Ordinance No.92-77, Zoning.
Co..issioner Coabs said there must not be an agenda like this one next year
at Christmas time.
Mayor Vandergrift expressed to neighbors in Gotha and to the Commission his
appreciation for their patience.
City Attorney Rosenthal, to clarify his position in regards to Kr. Roeder's and
Dr. Ferdinand's remarks made earlier, said that the statement Mr. Roeder and Dr.
Ferdinand presented was full of inaccuracies and that the City (given the
lawsuits, etc.) has given every consideration from a staffing standpoint and
extended every courtesy to make sure that every legal consideration has been
given to them.
.,..,
OTHER BUSIIfISS
There was no other business brought before the Commission at this time.
STAFF REPORTS
There were no staff reports.
CODERTS FROM COKKISSIOIflRS
There were no additional comments from Commissioners at this time.
ADJOURllKEllT
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
Attest:
Approved:
CITY OF OCOEE
6)'~\
.......
DEe 15 ,,~.) 15:06
ATTACHMENT NUMBER 1
TO MINUTES OF 12-16-92
Case ~2-25AR-92: Wingfield
c~Jr#- :l~T/1K- 9"-
W IA.lGF JOf.-D
December 15, 1992
~
As a homeowner at the Willows ot Lake Rhea, I oppose the annexation
into the City of Ocoee of the project named Belmere as its sole
purpose is to obtain a higher density of homes than the one
permitted by PUD approved by Orange County.
The Belmere project is a golf course community that has a density
consistent with the Willows at Lake Rhea and the other surrounding
projects in Orange County. To do away with this would eventually
damage considerably the value of my home.
,..
2. J/ltlk Md~
4.fu~~~
/J
.~
r
10~~
12. ~ ~----,.
:::~?~-
ls.!#Jih _
20~~ C~ j;b
22. ~L1JlJ>~Al O~~
-~ /;' &
24.CN~~'/~ l~?~
26.~/-r1,~
7
6.
/
3.
\..
5.~J~ ~
7 .1.o44JaZ4-J~
9i~a ~~
11.f?ovm ~
13 . fed fJ/LHL
15..~ ~
8.
~
17.
19.
21.
\
28.
~.
'7n;r~
~
~
'-'
DEe 15 '92 14:49
F'.U':
33.~Jl~
34. .~f~
36.6'7uLC Ifl CS"~
35.
4 2 . '!J/ all;:-, /(. ?rl. aJi:::..:
44~ <<
-c
46 . . /YY\- fY" ~"--
.~' 0fl~
49.
50.
ATTACHMENT NUMBER 2
TO MINUTES OF 12-16-92
C'.4$6'tt.. ~..~! AR"q:>:
U/IV' FJtrl.,f)
Prepared Statement
\...r
To:
Ocoee City Commission
From:
Plantation Grove PUD
Date:
December 16, 1992
RE:
WINGFIELD ANNEXATION
Introduction:
Louis Roeder
~
We are not here tonight to oppose Wingfield's annexation into the City
of Ocoee; rather, we are here to express our concerns over the proposed
City approval of Wingfield's annexation agreement - more particularly,
Staff's recommendation that you accept Wingfield's Vested Rights letter
from Orange County. It is our position that the City's acceptance of that
vesting letter has serious implications on vested rights determinations
already made on other projects along Maguire Road, namely, Plantation
Grove.
To more clearly make our point, we think it necessary that we highlight
the City's vested rights process in general, and the vesting of Plantation
Grove in particular.
Vested Rights Determination in Ocoee:
'-'
The Ocoee Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan) was adopted by the
City Commission sometime in September, 1990, after arduous months of
study and numerous advertised hearings where public input was sought.
Subsequent to the adoption of the Compo Plan, and in order to complete that
very important process, it was also necessary that the City Staff formulate a
detailed Development Code, with a section on Concurrency. Unfortunately,
the formulation and adoption of the Development Code did not undergo the
same level of public scrutiny and input as did the main body of the Compo
Plan. We say "unfortunate" because it is the Development Code, and the
Page 1
\r
Concurrency section within it, that are the keys to the enforcement of the
Compo Plan. Yet concurrency is not interpreted and applied by the Planning
and Zoning Board, nor the City Commission? Concurrency is interpreted
and applied solely bv the City Staff.
Vesting vs. Concurrency:
In layman's terms, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency
as outlined in the City's Development Code, a project must be either
"Vested" or "Concurrent". If you are vested, it doesn't matter whether the
development of your project exceeds the level of services outlined in the
Compo Plan. If you are not vested, then you must meet the requirements of
concurrency as outlined in the Compo Plan, that is, there must be capacity
available to develop your project without exceeding the levels of service
outlined in the Compo Plan, and you must reserve capacity for your project's
future use by buying that capacity UP front, if available (paying impact fees
up front). You still pay impact fees if you are vested, but you don't pay for it
until the time you actually development the property. That's why a favorable
vested rights determination or a concurrency management agreement is so
critical to the viability of any development project and should not be left
~ solely to the discretion of the City Staff.
To summarize, either a project is vested or it isn't. If it isn't the
possibility may exist to buy concurrency; but you can't buy vesting. If you
aren't vested and the capacity is not available for purchase, you can't
develop.
Now to be "vested", you must first have a vested rights determination
made by the City. In order to have your project vested, you must satisfy one
of three conditions, namely:
a) have a development order prior to September 18, 1991
(the date the Compo Plan was formally adopted by the
Ocoee City Commission); or
'-"
b) "have relied in good faith and in reasonable reliance upon
some clear and unequivocal act or promise by the City and
have made such a substantial change in position and
incurred such extensive obligations that it would be highly
inequitable or unjust to destroy the rights which said
person has acquired"; or
Page 2
\.r
c) entered into a development agreement prior to Sept. 18,
1991 that expressly grants vested rights.
As you can see, most projects are going to be reviewed under the
second condition; however, there are no set criteria for determining the
adequacy of a project meeting that condition. The City Staff exercises
extreme discretion in applying this part of the concurrency ordinance as it
relates to development projects within the City. We are made to understand
that final determinations are made by a select group of City Staff members -
the City Engineer, the City Planner, the City Administrator, the City Attorney,
and the City Manager. Outside of the application form itself, the applicant
has absolutely no participation or feedback in this group's final
determination.
And, oh yes, you supposedly have until 30 days after a permit is
denied as a result of a vested rights determination in which to file an appeal
to the City Commission.
-.... Vested Rights Determination for Plantation Grove PUD:
Plantation Grove was the first application submitted to the City of
Ocoee under the new Development Code - the Code was adopted on July
23, 1992, we submitted our application on July 30, 1992. Given the history
of our project and the considerable development that had taken place, we
thought that a 1000icl vested rights determination was not only warranted, but
inevitable. On September 1, 1992 we received our vested rights
determination, but onlv for our single family residential, about two-thirds of
our commercial, and none of our multi-family residential. Since we were
only partially vested, it was imperative that we be able to buy transportation
capacity for that part of our project that wasn't vested. If not, our project
would be worth only about half of what it was worth before the City's
determ i nation.
The next day, September 2, 1992, with no application forms being
available at the City, we made a written request to the City to purchase
additional capacity. Despite numerous, subsequent requests by us, as well
as potential buyers of our multi-family parcel, we have been unable to
\..; secure a response by the City to that request, much less an answer as to
whether or not there is, in fact, any transportation capacity in Maguire Road
Page 3
~
that can be reserved. In the interim, however, we have been informed by
City consultants that:
a) Arvida has been totally vested; and
b) Heller Bros., who have little or no vesting along Maguire
Road, without application, managed to pay for and reserve
transportation capacity in Maguire Road; and
c) It has come to light that a detailed study exists, conducted
by PEC, that outlines just what transportation capacity is
available on Maguire Road; and
d) Lastly, the City has negotiated an annexation agreement
with Wingfield that agrees to accept their vesting letter
from Orange County.
Now you might ask why the City's acceptance of Wingfield's vesting
letter should be of concern to us? The answer is simple. If the City were to
apply the standards presently utilized by Orange County to our project, we
~ would be totally vested. Please understand, despite the fact that:
1) through Plantation Grove West, a part of the overall
Plantation Grove PUD as insisted upon by the City Staff,
we have expended between $2 to. $3 million in
development costs and fees;
2) we have provided a $700,000 operating day care facility;
3) we have dedicated a $200,000 fire station site (contrary to
the City Manager's representations to the public that the
City paid over $250,000 for the site);
4) we have paid over $700,000 in sewer and water impact
fees;
5) we have contributed over $105,000 to a joint basin-wide
storm water system installed by Arvida;
\.r 6) we have suffered over a nine month delay and incurred
over $50,000 in attorney's fees as a direct result of the
Page 4
\..,
City's acceptance of a previous annexation that required a
realignment of Moore Road (it's important to note that this
was settled in our favor); and lastly
7)
we have suffered another six month delay and over
$25,000 in review fees to revise our land use plan, again
because of the City's realignment of Moore Road (this was
a serious overcharge of review fees that should have been
administratively done by the City - at no cost to Plantation
Grove); and
8)
we have expended over $100,000 in planning, engineering
and review fees over the past five years;...
...despite all of this, we have only received partial vesting. Please note that
any one of the above would have been sufficient to have totallv vested our
proiect within Oranqe County.
'--'
On November 20, 1992, we formally requested that the City
reconsider our vested rights application. We heard nothing until yesterday
when we were told that we exceeded our 30 day right to have our
application reconsidered or file an appeal to you, the City Commission. We
were told we could reapply or take the City to court (?). Please remember,
the ordinance says we have until 30 days after a permit is denied as a result
of the City's vested rights determination in which to file an appeal to City
Commission, not 30 days after the vested rights determination itself. It may
be two years before we develop a part of our project in which a permit may
be denied because of the City's vested rights determination; but the damage
to our property value is now.
Concurrency is a part of the State mandated comprehensive planning
process. Instead of the City working with developers to jointly satisfy state
requirements on development, the City Staff is using the newly adopted
development code, as written by City Staff, to coerce developers, vested or
not, into paying ransom for the privilege of developing their property in the
City of Ocoee.
~
Page 5
\..-
~
Wingfield Annexation:
Dr. Bob Ferdinand
The Wingfield annexation comes before you tonight with an
annexation agreement attached to it which would have the City agree to
accept Orange County's vesting of the Wingfield project. This is without a
vested rights application or a formal vested rights determination, and before
the proiect is even within the City. Is this an impartial determination? Well
Section 10(C) of Wingfield's Annexation Agreement has Wingfield agreeing
to prepay some $389,000 worth of transportation reserve capacity "in
consideration of' the City recognizing the County's vested rights
determination of their project. Either their project is vested and there is no
. need to reserve capacity, or the project is not vested and what your really
have here is a buying of transportation capacity - capacity that we
understood, until now, was not available. If capacity is available in Maguire
Road, why hasn't the City given Plantation Grove the opportunity to
purchase the remaining capacity in Maguire Road? Isn't Plantation Grove
already a part of the City? Even though there once was a time we could
have afforded to purchase the additional needed capacity, given the City
imposed delay of our project over the past two years, we just can't afford to
pay for something anymore that we should have been vested for in the first
place.
City Staff contends that the vesting of Wingfield is for it's present land
use plan (at 1 du per acre) not the zoning being requested (at 4 dus per
acre). Plantation Grove only wants vesting for our existing land use plan
too.
City Staff contends that the vesting of Wingfield will have no impact on
the available transportation capacity of Maguire Road. The vesting of
Plantation Grove wouldn't have any impact on the available transportation
capacity of Maguire Road either.
City Staff contends that the vesting of Wingfield as it relates to
transportation is on the County portion of Maguire Road. Need we remind
Staff that Maguire Road is a County Road in front of Plantation Grove too?
Would Wingfield still be willing to annex into the City of Ocoee without
the City agreeing to accept Orange County's vested rights determination?
Would Wingfield still be willing to pay for $389,000 worth of transportation
'-' reserve capacity fees without the City agreeing to accept Orange County's
vested rights determination?
Page 6
~
We submit to you that if the Wingfield project existed within the City
today, applying the same standards meted out by the City Staff when they
reviewed Plantation Grove, the Wingfield project, with it's existing land use
plan, would receive no vesting at all from the City of Ocoee. And with no
possibility of reserving capacity in Maguire Road, Wingfield would not be
able to proceed with development.
In Closing...
...by partially vesting Plantation Grove, the City has literally destroyed
my property's value, which in turn has made it impossible for me to get my
bank to release our shopping center site for development. As a result,
Publix has put our site on hold. The damage <;jone by the City Staff may
now be irreversible; but the City Commission could do something tonight
that would go a long way to rectify that situation.
~
We would ask that if you are going to accept the Wingfield annexation,
along with the acceptance of their vesting letter from Orange County, that
you agree to put Plantation Grove on the next Commission meeting agenda,
if not tonight, and instruct Staff here tonight to take the same Orange County
standards they are witting to accept for Wingfield and to, likewise, apply
those standards to Plantation Grove so that the City Commission might
make a favorable determination for total vestina of Plantation Grove.
The bottom line is this - we've paid our dues, and as such, we've
earned a place at the City of Ocoee family table. We invite newcomers; but
we sure would like to be treated, just once, as good as, not any better than,
any newcomer.
~
Page 7
ATTACHMENT NUMBER 3
TO MINUTES OF 12-16-92
~ -i:J,. ~-IM-1!-.9J.J
All-- w-l?,(rlIIU-
MEMORANDUM
~
TO:
City of Ocoee Commission
FROM:
Samuel A. Mutch, AICP
RE:
Case No. 2-13AR-92
DATE:
December 1, 1992
The request for annexation "styled" Case No. 2-13AR-92:Lawrence, is a request by the
owners of a 100+ acre family tract. The property is com prised of agricultural lands bordering
Ocoee's southern city limits. Maguire Road borders the property to the west, while Gotha
Road borders the property to the southeast. The Ocoee city limits border the north and the
property there is zoned PUD. To the southwest, the Lawrence property is bounded by a parcel
on which is situated a professional office used as a veterinarians' clinic.
'-"
Although once rural in nature, the Lawrence property is now surrounded by
development. To the east and southeast of the subject parcel are single-family developments
composed of lots of approximately one (1) acre in size. These developments include
Windermere Downs, First Addition, Windermere Downs III and The Lakes. Some of these
subdivisions are build-out with large single-family homes. Others have the required subdivision
improvements constructed, but have few, if any, homes constructed.
~
The southern boundary of the Lawrence property is formed by a parcel situated at the
apex ofthe angle formed by the intersection of Maguire and Gotha Roads. This parcel is used
for professional offices. Further south towards the Town of Windermere additional
single-family developments occur on either side of Maguire/Gotha Road along the shores of
Lake Butler and Lake Down. These single-family subdivisions are at suburban densities which
provide a ~ between Windermere and Ocoee. These suburban densities help define the
communities <\i.. Ocoee and Windermere.
.-\... +l4r...1 10 "" fr-
To the west of the Lawrence property is an area designated for development in the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as a planned unit development at a density
of one (1) dwelling unit per acre. This is the Wingfield property. This project encompasses
some 400+ acres and includes environmentally sensitive areas where no development would be
permitted. This project may have certain vested rights for utilities and transportation functions
inuring from Orange County.
Memorandum to City of Ocoee Commission
\... December 2, 1992
Page 2
The north boundary of the Lawrence property from Maguire Road east for a distance
of 1613+ is situated on the southern city limits. Adjacent to the Lawrence property within the
City is Westridge PUD. This property is shown on the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan for low
density residential. Approximately one-third mile north of the Lawrence property, along
Maguire Road, the City has approved a neighborhood shopping center along the eastern side
of the road.
\.,.
Clearly, the Lawrence property is surrounded by development greater than that
envisaged by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan which has designated the Lawrence
property for one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. This designation of the Lawrence property
by the County is inappropriate and could be considered confiscatory. The Lawrence property
is designated for low density residential development on the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan,
Future Land Use Map. This designation, which is more in keeping with surrounding uses and
intensity of development, would allow the owners of the Lawrence property more flexibility in
planning for the future of their property. The request by the Lawrence family to zone the
property, ifannexed to the City, to A-I (one [1] dwelling unit per acre) permits the continued
use of the property at an intensity of development akin to the owners of subdivided land to the
south of the Lawrence parcel.
Comments were made during the hearing before the Planning Commission that the
Lawrence property is part of the Gotha community. In fact, the Lawrence property is remote
from the actual Gotha community. The Lawrence property is better characterized as a parcel
adjacent to the City of Ocoee approximately equal distance from Gotha and Windermere. The
property is situated between Maguire and Gotha Roads, which form a natural boundary for
the City of Ocoee rather than artificial boundary formed by the northern property line of the
Lawrence property.
Wingfield is asking for R-l zoning, minimum 7,000 sq.ft. lots and 1,000 sq.ft. living
area, but with a maximum density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre.
The Lawrence property wants to avail itself of the services provided by the City. The
designation of the Lawrence property and the surrounding lands in unincorporated Orange
~ County allows the City of Ocoee to annex each property and zone the property in an
appropriate density. The Ocoee Comprehensive Plan has designated the Lawrence property
~
~
.......
Memorandum to City of Ocoee Commission
December 2, 1992
Page 3
for low density residential allowing densities ofless than four (4) dwelling units per acre. The
flexibility of the Plan allows the City and the property owner to determine the appropriate
density of development at either the time of annexation or at the time of development. This
inherent flexibility ofthe Ocoee Comprehensive Plan allows for innovation based upon market
demands at the time of development. This ensures an economically viable project which will
benefit the community as well as the owner. The intensity of development allowed by the low
density residential designation provides a step-down from the urban densities to the suburban
densities in Gotha and the area north of Windermere.
The Ocoee Comprehensive Plan is an excellent document which serves the city well.
This request for annexation and rezoning of the Lawrence property implements the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan and will allow the property to be served by the urban services provided
by the City.
92689