HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-92
........
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING HELD
April 21, 1992
Mayor Dabbs called the regular meeting of the City of
Commissioners to order at 7: 30 p.m. in the commission chambers.
the opening prayer and leading in the pledge of allegiance,
called the roll and declared a quorum present.
Ocoee Board of
After delivering
Mayor Dabbs then
PRESENT: Mayor Dabbs, Commissioners Combs, Foster, Johnson, and Woodson. Also
present were City Manager Shapiro, City Attorney Rosenthal, Administrative
Services Director Beamer, Ci ty Engineer/Utilities Director Shira, Planning
Director Behrens, Building Official Flippen and City Clerk Grafton.
ABSENT: None
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
Lions Club presentation of 1st Place Trophy from Central Florida Fair.
Mr. Jay Worsham, President of the Ocoee Lions Club, presented the 1st place
trophy and the manager's trophy won by the Ocoee booth at the Central Florida
Fair in February to Mayor Dabbs.
Mayor Dabbs proclaimed Municipal Clerk's Week May 3 - 9, 1992.
CONSENT AGENDA
The proposed consent agenda consisted of items A, B, and C.
A. Acceptance and Approval of Minutes of Regular Commission Meeti~
April 7,__ 1992.
~ B. Acceptance and_~roval of Appointment_of Robe~t Chedwick to Police
Advisory Committee.
C. Approval and Authorization to Execute Annexation Agreement between
the City of Winter Garden and City of Ocoee for Sprayfield.
Commissioner Woodson, seconded by Commissioner Combs, moved to approve the
consent agenda as presented. Motion carried with unanimous vote in favor.
COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS/PUBLIC
Mrs. Joann Drawdy, 820 E. Harbour Court, spoke again regarding the budget,
listing the things which, in her opinion, were not all right with the way the
City is being run.
'-"
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Second Readings of Ordinances
Or_dinance No!., 92-03 ,_~'relating to Comprehensive Plan Vested Rights; providing for
authority; establishing findings and determinations; providing for definitions;
recognizing the existence of vested rights; providing for an application for
vested rights determination; providing for a procedure for determining vested
rights; providing for health, safety and welfare considerations; providing for
severabili ty; providing for codification; providing an effective date." was
presented by title for the second reading and public hearing. Ci ty Manager
Shapiro explained that this ordinance establishes the base marked date when
vested rights occur in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and what constitutes
vested rights. He explained further that this ordinance does not take away from
those developer agreements already in effect. The public hearing was opened, and
no one wishing to speak, was closed. CODllBissioner Foster, seconded by
CODllBissioner Johnson, moved to enact Ordinance No. 92-03, relating to
Comprehensive Plan Vested Rights, as presented. On roll call Commissioner Combs
voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "aye," Commissioner
Woodson "aye," and Mayor Dabbs "aye." Motion carried.
Page 2
~ Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
Ordinance No. 92-04, "relating to Cemeteries; amending the present Chapter 7 of
the code of Ordinances; providing for severability; providing for codification;
providing an effective date." was presented by title for the second reading and
public hearing. City Manager Shapiro explained that this ordinance amends the
cemetery rules by removing the limitation regarding headstones. The public
hearing was opened. Mrs. Velma Simpson, 311 Phyllis Street, said that her family
has over 30 lots in this cemetery and since the early 70's they have been told
that they must use flat markers for the headstones. Mrs. Simpson felt that the
rules should not be changed at this time. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Woodson moved to not enact the ordinance. The motion died for lack
of a second. Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Combs, moved to
enact Ordinance No. 92-04 as presented. On roll call Commissioner Combs voted
"aye {" Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "aye," Commissioner
Woodson "no," and Mayor Dabbs "aye." Motion carried with 4-1 vote.
'-""
Q~~inance No~92-0~"relating to Development Review Fees; amending Sections 6-1
and 6-2 of Chapter 2 of Appendix A of the City Code; providing for the collection
of flat fees in connection with applications for determination of vested rights;
providing for the collection of review deposits and the payment of review costs
in connection with vested rights applications; amending the development review
fee and collection schedule; providing for severability; providing for
codification; and providing for an effective date." was presented by title for
the second reading and public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Dr. Bob
Ferdinand, 2001 Mercy Drive, Orlando{ spoke in favor of the flat fee. The public
hearing was closed. Commissioner Woodson, seconded by Commissioner Combs, moved
to enact Ordinance No. 92-05 as presented. On roll call Commissioner Combs voted
"aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson "aye," Commissioner
Woodson "aye," and Mayor Dabbs "aye." Motion carried.
'-'-
Ordinance No. 92-06, "relating to and amending' the fees for the issuance of
building' permits, mechanical permits, plumbing' and g'as permits; repealing in its
entirety the current Chapter 5" Section 5-44, Chapter 9, Sections 9-32,9-35 and
9-47, Chapter 14.5, Sections 14.5-33, 14.5-37, 14.5-38 and 14.5-47 and Chapter
18, Sections 18-35, 18-42, 18-43 and 18-50; creating a new Chapter 5 Section 5-
44, Chapter 9, Sections 9-32, 9-35, and 9-47, amending the current Chapter 9,
Section 9-44; creating a new Chapter 14.5, Sections 14.5-33, 14.5-37, 14.5-38 and
14.5-47 and Chapter 18, Sections 18-35, 18-42, 18-43 and 18-50; providing for
severability; providing for codification; providing for an effective date." was
presented by title for the second reading and public hearing. Mayor Dabbs called
attention to the corrected information page showing the average building permit
fees totals which was to be inserted behind the staff report. The public hearing
was opened, and no one wishing to speak, was closed. Commissioner Foster,
seconded by Commissioner Woodson, moved to enact Ordinance No. 92-06 as
presented. On roll call Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster
"aye," Commissioner Johnson "aye," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Dabbs
"aye." Motion carried. City Attorney Rosenthal stated that the ordinance as
presented did not have the effective date filled in and an ordinance must not be
adopted with blank spaces. Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner
Woodson, moved to rescind the prior action taken, insert June 1, 1992 for the
Page 3
~ Ocoee city Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
effective date, and then to enact Ordinance No. 92-06 as completed. On roll call
Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson
"aye," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Dabbs "aye." Motion carried.
Ordinance No. 92-07, Case N. l-1R-92:HUBER - "rezoning certain lands located in
the City of Ocoee by changing the zoning classification from PUD, Planned Unit
Development, to U, Unclassified, on certain real property located on the
southeast corner of Maguire and Moore Roads, as petitioned by the property
owners; approving a revised Land Use Plan for Westridge PUD; providing for and
authorizing the revision of the official City zoning map; repealing inconsistent
ordinances; providing for severability; providing an effective date." was
presented by title for the second reading and public hearing.
Noting the large crowd present to speak to this issue, Mayor Dabbs asked that
each person intending to speak limit their comments to 3-5 minutes and that only
one person speak on each subject.
Commissioner Combs stated for the record that he does not have a conflict of
interest on this particular project, although he does do business with Huber on
other jobS in his capacity as owner of Certified Steel.
'-"
Planning Director Behrens reviewed the staff reports for the rezoning and the
revision to the land use plan, and explained that this action is a part of a
process designed to line up Moore Road and Roberson Road to eliminate the
existing offset intersection at Maguire Road. This portion of the process allows
for the removal of a 5 acre parcel from the Westridge PUD so that it can be added
to the south side of the Plantation Grove PUD. In addition to this, petitioner
wishes to increase the gross density from two units per acre to four units per
acre and decrease the approved lot size from 80' x 115' to 60' x 105'. There was
an outstanding issue regarding the status of 7th Avenue.
City Attorney Rosenthal said that the developer investigated the status of 7th
Avenue and it has been concluded that the tax map which shows 7th Avenue as being
there is partially wrong. Mr. Rosenthal read his recommendation for the record:
1) An additional Condition of Approval added to the Revised Land Use
Plan requiring the developer to dedicate sufficient right-of-way for
a sixty foot wide 7th Avenue when combined with existing right-of-
way whether by dedication, deed or maintenance, along the entire
eastern boundary of the PUD. All dedications shall be required at
the time of platting.
2) The Revised Land Use Plan should be redrawn to show the existing
dirt road and to show the jog in the proposed 7th Avenue which jog
occurs at the point the platted right-of-way ends.
......
3) An additional Condition of Approval should be added prohibiting
construction within the proposed 7th Avenue and the existing dirt
road.
'-
Page 4
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
Mr. Rosenthal quoted from a letter dated April 21, 1992 from Mr. Patrick
Christiansen stating that the three conditions set forth and listed above are
acceptable. Mr. Rosenthal then reviewed his statements made at the last meeting
regarding the relationship between Comprehensive Plans and Future Land Use Maps
and zoning issues for the benefit of those now present, pointing out the fact
that for this issue and the one following that this Commission will be
functioning in a quasi-judicial manner rather than legislative, and that the
decisions made must be based on evidence presented.
'-'
Mr. Gifford Anglim, Environmental Planning and Design, 425 West Colonial Drive,
Suite 203, Orlando, was present representing the applicant. Mr. Anglim described
the project as approximately 80 acres in area and with a proposed 245 units at
a gross density of 4 units per acre with 60' x 105' lots. Mr. Anglim stated that
this plan differs from the one presented to and approved by Commission in
November 1988 in two ways: (1) the 5 acre parcel north of the realigned Moore
Road has been deleted due to the sale of that property and (2) the request for
the increase in density to the maximum allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Anglim said that the plan has been revised over a dozen times to clarify
information provided, to certify to the City on the face of the plan that
dedications of the right-of-ways were being made as requested, for additional
right-of-way for Maguire Road, half the right-of-way for Moore Road and, most
recently, the additional right-of-way for 7th Avenue. ~r. Anglim said that each
of the right-of-ways is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan and the Capital
Facilities Plan of the City and he requested approval of the project in view of
its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the City Codes and policies. Mr.
Anglim displayed sketches also. City Attorney Rosenthal asked Mr. Anglim to
state his credentials in the area of land planning with respect to his testimony
or information presented. Mr. Anglim stated that he has been involved in the
planning and designing development industry in Central Florida for over twenty
years, educated in the University of Wisconsin and has practiced planning in this
area since that time.
The public hearing was opened. The following citizens spoke against the proposed
increase in density and the general focus of their expressed objection is noted:
Mr. Stephen Horrell, P. O. Box 117, Gotha - loss of water supply to private
wells.
Mr. Harry Strange, 1177 7th Avenue, Gotha - increased traffic due to short-
cutting through his quiet dirt road.
Mr. Chip Johnson, P. O. Box 176, Gotha - If City cannot take care of streets it
already has, Commissioners should reconsider the responsibility of additional
space to take care of.
~s. Doreen Chatelier, 1064 Moore Road, Windermere - loss of life style.
~r. Gerry Aldrich, 1995 Maguire Road, Windermere - 4 units per acre will overload
road/school/environment. Presented petition with 66 signatures in protest.
~r. Jim Taylor, 1725 Hempel Avenue, Gotha - loss of rural life style. He stated
~ that this Commission is reneging on 1988 Commission promise to only consider low
density in that area.
~s. Ruth Bertling, 10565 Gotha Road, Windermere - agreed with Mr. Taylor.
'-
~
........
Page 5
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
Mr. O. A. Bertling, 10565 Gotha Road, Windermere - against rezoning.
Ms. Diane Bales, 2021 Maguire Road, Windermere - Wants Commission to listen to
heart of the speakers.
Mrs. Beulah Reeves, 110 Temple Grove Drive, Winter Garden - Supported Mr.
Strange's comments.
Ms. Linda Boone, P. O. Box 201, Gotha - Listed results of development and
overload on educational facilities and presented a prepared statement.
Mr. Richard Johnson, 10532 Moore Road, Gotha - increased crime and drugs.
RECESS FROM 9:20 TO 9:30 P.M.
Mr. Harry Fleming, 11207 Roberson Road, Winter Garden - Has drainage problems due
to Wesmere development and this development will increase those problems.
Mr. C.A. Boucher, 1601 Down Lake Drive, Windermere - Objects to PUD.
Mrs. Vera Carter, P. O. Box 126, Windermere - Her experience as County
Commissioner has shown that in spite of impact fees growth does not pay for
itself. Stressed the need to listen to neighbors' requests.
Mr. Jerry F. Kirk, 527 7th Avenue, Gotha - Asked that this government not
subsidize this developer by approving high density.
Mr. Byron Brooks, County Administrator's Office, Orlando (present at the request
of County Manager Chapin) - Recognized letters/communications from county
residents and asked for consideration.
Mr. John Jowett, 10913 WonderLane, Windermere - Property under consideration used
to be Maguire Airport and was generally flooded, is flooded now, and overflows
through his property to Lake Down. Quality of water is deteriorating.
Ms. Fabienne Erich, P. O. Box 24, Gotha - Their votes do not count in our
elections but what we do affects them. Wants rural life.
Ms. Ginny Bailey, 2568 Carter Grove Circle, Windermere - increased traffic and
child safety.
A. Kurt Ardaman, 170 E. Washington Street, Orlando - Represented Gotha Chamber
of Commerce and noted that this hearing was not a legislative function but rather
a hearing at which a decision must be made based on the evidence presented. Mr.
Ardaman asked Mr. Anglim if he or his client have talked to any of the council
members prior to this hearing. Mr. Anglim said that he had. Mr. Rosenthal said
that the time that the Commissioner was talked to should be established because
of changing case law. Mayor Dabbs said that he has not talked to Mr. Anglim, Mr.
Huber, Mr. Christiansen or anybody representing that development at any time and
that (for the record) it has been his position to never talk to developers
privately. Commissioner Johnson said that he had not talked to the developers
either. Mr. Rosenthal pointed out that at the last meeting he had briefed
Commissioners on the information regarding the case out of Dade County on quasi-
judicial procedures and ex-parte communications. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr.
Ardaman to find out which Commissioner Mr. Anglim had talked to. Mr. Anglim
advised that he had talked to Commissioner Woodson, but that their conversation
was prior to the time that Mr. Rosenthal had advised Commission about the Dade
County case. Mr. Ardaman said that the two issues before Commission now are:
(1) the primary issue of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and (2) the City
zoning code and he quoted Chapter IV Section 13.8 - "... in addition to any
matters of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, a request for a revision of the final
\.
'-'
........
Page 6
Ocoee city Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
master plan shall be supported by the written statement demonstrating the reasons
the revisions are necessary or desirable." Mr. Ardaman said there has been no
evidence presented on the issue of necessity and there was much evidence
presented against desirability. The second issue is whether the developer has
shown a prima facie case of consistency in the change of the development with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ardaman said that he has not done this either and that
the statement in the staff report that it is consistent is not sufficient
evidence. Mayor Dabbs said that it was his understanding that the statement for
the record of the Planning Director that it is consistent with the adopted Plan
is what is required. He said also that the adopted Plan was approved by the State
Department of Community Affairs and was reviewed by Orange County with no
objections and the people represented at this meeting are County people. Mr.
Rosenthal said that the staff report is sufficient and he read from case hi~~ory
"...the verbatim record of this hearing as well as the rezoning application and
the staff report are sufficient to present evidence of a prima facie case." He
pointed out that both of those elements are present. It is the Commissions I
prerogative as finders of fact, to conclude that there is not a factual basis to
support the staff report or that there are errors in the staff report, or that
it is not factually correct. Mr. Ardaman said there is nothing in the report
the Commission can review to determine whether or not the request is consistent
or inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He then presented copies of
portions of the Future Land Use Element, the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element and the Future Land Use Map from the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan to
Commission, the court reporter and City Clerk. Along with those items he
presented also copies (not enough to go around) of the Orange County
Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use Map showing the property immediately abutting
and south of the parcel in question designated as one unit per every ten acres.
Mr. Ardaman said that it seems clear that the principal issue is whether the
change is consistent, and, as the request is for 4 units per acre and the Plan
allows for "less than 4 units per acre" then it is not consistent. He quoted
from the Future Land Use Element, page 21 paragraph III A 3, "All land use
changes and annexations that occur within this area are reviewed with the
County." and stated that there was no evidence this issue has been reviewed with
the County. On page 23, "...various goals, objectives, and policies contained
within all of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan shall be considered, and the
development proposal shall be evaluated to determine if it is consistent with
those goals, objectives, and policies." He said there has been no testimony that
this has happened and no evidence. On page 41, Objective 1 "...the development
of land shall be regulated to ensure that newly developed property and
redeveloped property is compatible (meaning not in direct conflict wi th uses with
regards to specific zoning categories, density and intensity) with adjacent uses
and natural features and resources including topography, vegetation, and soil
conditions." This speaks to density specifically. Mr. Ardaman pointed out that
the County was not involved in coordinating on this issue as directed in the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element.
Mr. Ardaman asked Mr. Jim Taylor to give his qualifications as witness.
Mr. Taylor said that he has lived in Gotha since he was 1/2 years old, is a
graduate of Florida State University with a degree in government, has done post
'-
'-"
'-'
Page 7
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
graduate work in economics, worked for a year at East Central Florida Regional
Planning Council, 3 years for the Florida Department of Commerce, and is
presently vice-president of Maglev Transit, Inc.
Mr. Ardaman requested that the applicant's request be denied.
Teletha Wery, 10568 Moore Road, Winter Garden - Asked that endangered species
(particularly gopher tortoises) be relocated. Mr. Anglim responded that they
were not aware of gophers in the area and that it had been found that relocation
is not successful.
Ms. Jean Hurst, 1514 Division Avenue, Gotha - Asked why the wishes of 1 person,
the developer, should override the wishes of the majority.
RECESS 10:30 TO 10:40 P.M.
In closing statements, Mr. Anglim responded to Mr. Ardaman's statements:
(1) The proposed density requested is less than 4 units per acre.
(2) The comments made by Mr. Ardaman re: the burden on the applicant to provide
evidence pertain to amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. This request is not a proposal to amend the Future Land Use
Element.
(3) Re: traffic - Being sensitive to the fact that they are adjacent to rural
areas, they have restricted access to the property to the main entry which
intersects Maguire Road and to a small section of Moore Road to provide the
required second access. Did specifically not propose access to adjacent roads.
(4) Another reason for the request for increased density is economic as a
minimum of 212 units is necessary to accommodate the commitments in order to do
the project, and they would prefer to have 230 units as that is the most they
have been able to attain with detailed lot studies based on the 60' lot program.
Mr. Anglim asked that the request be granted.
Mr. Ben Poag, 11036 Schooner Way, Windermere, said that the number of people
staying this late indicates their interest in this request not being approved.
The public hearing was closed and then reopened for staff comments.
Planning Director Behrens said that, as planning director, he shares the citizens
views on preserving the rural community. He said that Mr. Ardaman quoted from
the old PUD ordinance that has been replaced with a new PUD ordinance and he
quoted "...When amendments are requested for the Land Use Plan, the overall
project shall be evaluated in conjunction with the proposed amendment to
determine compatibility." The amendment is examined by the Development Review
Committee, made up of the directors of the various City departments (Public
Works, City Engineer, Planning Director, City Manager, Administrative Services,
Fire Chief, and Police Chief) to determine whether it is compatible or in
conflict with the Approved Land Use Plan for conditions of approval. The Future
Land Use Map was put together by a citizens committee and was adopted. Regarding
whether there has been communication with the County (page 21 of Future Land Use
Element) , he has been in touch with the County almost daily. Mr. Behrens pointed
--......
Page 8
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
out that this is not a land use change nor an annexation. Two years ago when
this property was annexed and the land use change occurred a County
representative was present and spoke to the issue. The request presented tonight
is for an increase in density for a previously approved project which will result
in an increase in the projected traffic on Maguire Road by 1.8%. The Development
Review Committee felt that this was within an acceptable range. The increased
density requested will result in an increase of 48 children rather than the
number suggested by an earlier speaker. :Mr. Behrens closed saying that the issues
have been evaluated with the Comprehensive Plan which has been accepted by the
State, and that we are by law required to address this plan.
:Mr. Rosenthal asked Mr. Behrens to state whether, in the staff review of the
proposed revision to the Land Use Plan, all the elements of the Comprehensive
Plan including the Future Land Use Plan Element had been considered, and if so,
to state the result of the review. Mr. Behrens stated that he has reviewed all
the policies of the Future Land Use Element and found the proposed increase in
density not in conflict with those policies of the overall Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rosenthal asked Mr. Behrens if this particular property is wi thin the
terri tory of the reserved planning area agreement with Orange County. :Mr. Behrens
said that this parcel lies outside the existing agreement with Orange County, but
within the area in an agreement with Orange County that is pending and not yet
signed by Orange County.
- ~
:Mrs. Vera Carter, stated that it is true that the County has coordinated, but
that does not mean they have agreed. They also addressed compatibility and Ocoee
should consider that.
In response to another citizen's question regarding the action to be taken, Mr.
Rosenthal explained that: Removing the 5 acres from the PUD requires a revision
to the Land Use Plan to delete the 5 acres, and it would be possible to approve
the deletion and not approve the request for increased density.
Mr. Rosenthal said that, according to case law, the applicant has the initial
burden of proof to establish consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and it is
Commission's decision to make whether that has happened, based on staff testimony
and the developer's testimony. If it is concluded that this has happened, then
the burden shifts to the opponents to prove that the rezoning is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and (not or) adverse to the public interest. If only
one of those is proved, it would not match the language of the case.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Woodson stated that in 2 1/2 years on the Commission he has never
failed to talk to anyone who has a problem, and that he has always reviewed
projects before voting on them. He said that he had spoken to people on both
sides of this issue before the last Commission meeting when the impact of the law
was made clear to the Commission, but since that time he has not.
..,.........,.
Commissioner Combs said that he has scruples and he listens to people. He moved
here because he liked this lifestyle and he understands what the people present
'-'
Page 9
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
are saying. On the issue of schools, Orange County is putting two schools into
Gotha soon. He said that Vera Carter had asked this Commission to run a sewer
line into Belmere (a project located in the County) and that has been done -
indicating cooperation on our part with the County. The City is able to take care
of its obligations and it does.
Mr. Rosenthal outlined the possible motions, and advised that the decision should
be made based upon the testimony and information heard today and the commission's
factual findings based upon that information.
Commissioner Woodson, seconded by Commissioner Foster, moved to approve Ordinance
No. 92-07 along with the three additional conditions of approval contained in the
City Attorney's memorandum of April 17, 1992.
Commissioner Foster said that several people testified that the City cannot
provide services, but he believes we can. He said he does not disagree with any
who spoke regarding the desire to maintain a certain lifestyle, but a great many
people cannot afford to buy into that lifestyle.
\....
Commissioner Johnson said Commissioners have open minds regarding issues that
come before them and he responded to some of the negative remarks made earlier,
asking that citizens have open minds regarding our problems as well.
Commissioner Woodson said he and his wife would like for Ocoee to be the way it
was in 1960 also, but that is not possible. He noted that the hospital will be
here soon providing jobs for many.
commissioner Combs had no comments at this time.
Mayor Dabbs said that he understands the sensitivity of this issue and he
responded to several remarks made which he considered off center, regarding the
City's solvency, ability to take care of its obligations and responsibilities,
responsible development regarding schools, water supply, environmental issues,
etc., and he stated that the City has done it by the book in every instance. He
said that he has no desire to "control the destiny" of Ocoee' s neighbors, but he
does want to protect and develop the City of Ocoee to its maximum potential.
On roll call Commissioner Combs voted "aye, II Commissioner Foster "aye,"
Commissioner Johnson "aye," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Dabbs "aye."
Motion carried.
Mr. Jerry Kirk, who spoke earlier, said from the back of the room that he would
pledge up to $10,000 if four other people would match that amount, to take this
matter to court.
~ RECESS 11:30 - 11:45 P.M.
'-'
Page 10
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
Ordinance No. 92-08, rezonina from U to PUD and revisina Land Use Plan for 5
acres of Plantation Grove PUD, Case No. 1-2R-92:ROEDER- "rezoning certain lands
located in the City of Ocoee by changing the zoning classification from U,
Unclassified, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, on certain real property
located on the southeast corner of Maguire and Moore Roads, as petitioned by the
property owners; approving a Revised Land Use Plan for Plantation Grove PUD;
providing for and authorizing the revision of the Official City Zoning Map;
repealing inconsistent ordinances; providing for severability; providing an
effective date." was presented by title for the second reading and public
hearing.
Planning Director Behrens said that his staff report dated April 16, 1992
supersedes the staff report dated April 3 which should be removed from the packet
provided. After listing the remainder of the contents of the packet: (1) Memo
from Rosenthal to Board of City Commissioners dated 4/16, (2) Memo from Lower to
Rosenthal dated 4/8, (3) Staff Report from Behrens to Board of City Commissioners
dated 4/16, (4) Memo to Rosenthal from David Russ dated 12/18/91, (5) Location
Map, (6) Exhibit Subject Property/ Land Description, (7) Letter from Bill
Stueber, Lochrane Engineering dated 3/4/92, (8) 2 letters from Bob Campbell,
P.E.C. dated 3/4 and 3/30/92, and (9) A draft of proposed Ordinance 92-08, Mr.
Behrens read through his staff report. That report is attached to these minutes
as Exhibit "A".
'--'
City Attorney Rosenthal said that the discussion from the last public hearing
regarding Westridge PUD in terms of the application of the Snyder case, the
standards, criteria, and the specific findings of fact, that applied to the
adoption of the previous ordinance apply here as well. He explained that the
change in the staff report dated April 3 (recommending approval) to the April 16
staff report (recommending denial) was made because the recommendation for
approval was subject to certain conditions being incorporated into the Land Use
Plan which had not been agreed to at that point by the developer. Since this is
a voluntary application, the developer cannot be forced to agree upon any of the
conditions and in light of the new case law, denial of the application requires
specific reasons for denial. This has brought about a change in the manner in
which cases will be coming before Commission. A recommendation from Staff for
approval will mean that the developer has agreed to everything required by Staff,
Development Review Committee, and Planning and Zoning Commission. A
recommendation for denial will state specific areas in which the staff position
differs from the developer's position. This will give Commission a legal basis
on which to act after listening to the evidence. In this particular case the
issues are mainly traffic related, and the developer is asking for more than just
moving the commercial property down, therefore the Code requires that Commission
look at the issues to the extent that they are raised by Staff.
The public hearing was opened.
'-'
Mr. Lou Roeder, 2001 Mercy Drive, Suite 104, Orlando, read his prepared statement
into the record and that statement is attached to these minutes as Exhibit "B".
Mr. Turgut Dervish, 385 Whooping Lane, Al tamonte Springs, Traffic Engineer of the
......
Page 11
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
project, said that the formal road as requested is not necessary. Mr. Roeder said
that to put the spine road through the parking lots would destroy the private
secured entry for the single family portion of the project. There was discussion
here regarding just which map was valid and approved and at what time.
Dr. Bob Ferdinand, 2001 Mercy Drive, Orlando, said he has been doing business
with Ocoee for 15 years and has never had this kind of problem reaching an
agreement. He said that the differences appear to be small and he asked that a
solution be found.
Mr. Steve Mellich, 2600 Lake Lucien Drive #105, Maitland, project engineer, said
he is present to answer questions.
~
Mrs. Linda Boone asked what will happen to the run-off. Mr. Mellich said that
this parcel was included in the major study and the run-off will go northwest
through Wesmere project and their lake system to discharge on their west side.
Mrs. Boone asked if the City has restrictions on how many families can live in
a unit. City Manager Shapiro said there is a minimum housing code in the works
but not yet adopted. Mayor Dabbs pointed out that the record can show that 12
motorcycle type folks have been moved out of a single family dwelling in the
past. Mrs. Boone said that because the staff report already included the move
of the 5 acre parcel that indicated that the decisions must have been made prior
to the hearing, and she was very disappointed in the process.
Mr. Ed Gamble, 605 Edenten Court, Winter Garden, said that he objects to a system
that has decisions made prior to the meeting and he expressed his objections to
both the Westridge and Plantation Grove developments.
Mr. Jerry Kirk, said that this public hearing was opened on April 22 at 12:15
a.m. instead of the advertised April 21 at 7:30 p.m., that he owns property that
is a portion of this property in question and his signature was not on the
petition, therefore his 10' was annexed illegally. He said that the survey on
Moore Road was inaccurate and was done by Hart in 1983. Mr. Kirk also said that
when the City turns on their new well pump his water supply will be gone.
Mr. Harry Strange asked what kind of walls will be put up. Mr. Roeder said that
the rules call for masonry, but Commission prefers brick and so they wi::'l
probably have to do brick. Mr. Strange said no attention has been paid to paving
7th Avenue and he has a concern regarding the right-of-way coming from property
owners on both sides.
Mrs. Leslie Maciel, 2325 Farmwood Circle, Gotha, spoke regarding control of the
limiting of the number of families per unit.
'--'
Mr. Steven Horrell expressed agreement with most of those who spoke against the
applicant's request, and he said that, if the differences are indeed small, as
Dr. Ferdinand has said, why doesn't the developer acquiesce. He pointed out that
Commission is not required to grant the maximum density allowed just because it
is asked for.
"
'-'
Page 12
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
Mrs. Linda Boone spoke again expressing concern about safety and heavy traffic
on the clay road.
RECESS 1:35 - 1:40 A.M.
City Attorney Rosenthal responded to Mr. Kirk's remarks regarding his easement
and annexation: (1) In the proposed Land Use Plan there is a reference to the
existing access easement shown on the plan required by the City and that easement
is Mr. Kirk's easement; the City is taking no action which would be contrary to
any easement rights that a property owner might have. (2) The statutes do not
require that a petition for annexation be signed by easement holders. Petitions
are signed by property owners and an easement right is not a basis to require
being a signer to the petition.
~
In response to Mr. Roeder's remarks concerning the deeding of rights-of-way at
the time of platting (pages 7 and 8 of his response in exhibit ItBIt), Mr.
Rosenthal said that the change in policy came about as a result of experience
with the Clarke Road project and it is now recommended to Commission that they
require the right-of-way dedication prior to platting so that they can control
the timing. In terms of whether or not there is a double standard where 7th
Avenue is concerned, the difference here is that 7th Avenue is a County road for
which there is no access to the property and, as the right-of-way will be going
to the County, the City has no interest in any timing with respect to vacation
of that right-of-way. Regarding Mr. Lower's memo, this was to point out the
differences between the approved plan and the proposed plan. Regarding the
differences, it is true that they were not all addressed at the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting, but they were discussed in DRC.
In the list of things the developer will accept there are three recommendations
from the Planning and Zoning Commission which do not appear:
1) the dedication by warranty deed free and clear of liens,
2) the Revised Land Use Plan stating that appropriate access and utility
easements shall be granted to the City over the private roads,
3) that the realigned Moore Road right-of-way be conveyed within 45 days.
The staff recommendations for additional conditions for approval basically come
down to a discussion of the spine road.
'-"
At Mayor Dabbs' request, Mr. Behrens reviewed Maguire Road Corporation's request
list (page 9 of Exhibit ItB"), giving staff recommendation:
(1) agree
(2) agree - but item should be discussed as P&Z supports a limitation of this-
-Commission disagrees on this item-
(3) agree
(4) agree
(5) disagree - (minimum single family side yard setbacks are 6' in lieu of 7.5')
Developer has pointed out this was allowed for Arvida, but to date none
have been buil t using 6' set backs. Arvida will use it only in 1 or 2
villages, while this developer wants to use 6' set back and apply it to
""".
'--
Page 13
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
all single family residential. This has been denied to Silver Glen, The
Hammocks, Olympia Cove, Pulte, Prairie Lake, Westridge, and Lake Lotta.
(6) agree
(7) agree
(8) disagree - (dedications of rights-of-way to be done by warranty deed at the
time of platting of the particular parcel affected)
(9) agree
Mr. Behrens explained that this project was presented in 1988 and approved with
one single road that came from Maguire Road to the development and stopped. It
did not go all the way to Moore Road. At that time it was considered to be
adequate for what was planned. With the advent of the Comprehensive Plan
(traffic circulation element) came the requirement that traffic needs be
anticipated and met, along with concurrency which requires yearly review
regarding capacity of volume and the distribution of traffic in and out of
developments. The request being made of this developer is simply a second
entrance, of his own design - not a City road.
Mr. Roeder said that in earlier conferences they had agreed to provide a second
access to their spine road but they want to protect their private single family
residents.
~
City Manager Shapiro explained that what the City is requesting is a way to get
to the single family dwelling from Moore Road without going through a commercial
area or parking lot, a meandering road that is not obvious or even convenient for
anyone to know about other than local residents and emergency services.
Dr. Ferdinand suggested that the road be from the multi-family portion of the
development.
Mr. Mellich said that they agree with the access point on Maguire Road, but that
the matter of a 30' wide road meandering through their multi-family and single
family project, making a connection to the spine road system to allow addi tional
access points, of which their contention is that it is not necessary to the
adequate traffic circulation requirements for this project as represented by
their traffic expert. Mr. Mellich said that he thought this had already been
discussed with the City's traffic expert as well.
~
Mr. Bob Campbell, P.E.C., said that in their discussion one issue was raised and
that was whether, technically, one access point would work serving the 338 single
family houses. The answer was technically yes. However, that is not necessarily
the best recommendation. His recommendation is to provide two accesses to those
single family housing units. He said that Mr. Roeder has stated that it has not
been shown that his development will cause any adverse condition on Maguire Road.
Mr. Campbell said that he issued a letter dated December 5, 1991 in which he
stated that this development will generate about 18,000 trips per day on the
road, of which 11,196 will be commercial. At that time there was a reserve
capacity of about 5,000 trips per day. Due to his concern, Mr. Campbell said
that at that time he advised the Planning Director he had a right to ask for
~
~
Page 14
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
phasing of the project. He said he saw also a reason for an additional access
in further studies.
Mr. Roeder said that his recollection of the facts is different from Mr.
Campbell's and that all developers know that it a concurrency problem develops
the project will have to be held up until it is solved. Then when the road is
expanded to the proper service level the development can continue. In the meeting
with Mr. Campbell, Mr. Stueber, Mr. Mellich, and Mr. Behrens, Mr. Roeder said
they had offered a connection with the driveway to multi-family and it was
considered sufficient. Now it is not.
Mr. Mellich offered a compromise. Recognizing that part of Mr. Campbell's
concern is that, it the traffic projected through the multi-family project in
getting to the single family area, the volume would be a traffic hazard backing
out of the parking area. His thought was that the access from Moore Road
meandering through the multi-family/single family part could be approximately
one-half of the length to the spine road and a road-way (unparked) with branch
intersections at appropriate locations to serve the multi-family units going into
the development to disperse the multi-family traffic and at about half way in
turn it back into the parking lot scenario. Mr. Behrens asked how the single
family residents would get out. Mr. Mellich said they agreed to make the
~ connection that was requested to be a roadway connection. The compromise
proposed was that instead of being a roadway connection all the way from Moore
Road connecting to the spine road, that it be the roadway section from Moore Road
about halfway into the multi-family project, then disperse into the parking lot
configuration until it connects back up with the spine road. The single family
access would be off of the spine road originally through a section of parking lot
conditions and then generally tunnelled into that roadway condition. The thought
here is that the hazard of the backing out conflict would be resolved for the
majority of the trips approaching Moore Road.
Mr. Roeder suggested a different compromise: There is a two lane divided spine
road coming into the project going into a cul-de-sac and single roads going into
the single family portion Phase III. If he takes a lot and puts a connection and
continues that road connection to Moore Road and puts a security gate that will
provide a way for a single family resident to come onto Moore Road from east or
west and get into the single family portion from Moore Road. He will then need
a driveway cut into the regular parking lot loop into the multi-family.
Mr. Rosenthal said that it is important that the conditions of approval be
written in such a manner that all understand and agree on so that there is no
cause for debate at a later date.
Mr. Behrens stated again tor clarification that this will cause a resident in the
single family portion to be able to access the single family area from Moore Road
through the gate and eventually arrive on Maguire Road by way of the spine road.
~ It was agreed that this will require two access points on Moore Road.
Mr. Roeder asked that they be allowed to have at least 15% of the units 500 sq.
ft. Consensus was to not allow this.
'--'
Page 15
Ocoee City Commission Regular Meeting
April 21, 1992
Mr. Roeder said they were willing to accept private roads but he asked for
consideration for sidewalks on one side of the road as other developers have been
given. Mr. Behrens said that they could come back at preliminary engineering
with a recommendation on this.
Mayor Dabbs directed staff to work out the verbiage on the agreement and
Ordinance regarding the issues discussed tonight (the Moore Road single family
controlled entrance and multi-family entrance, no 500 ' units, and no compromise
on 6' set backs) and to bring it back to the next meeting.
Commissioner Woodson, seconded by Mayor Dabbs, moved to continue this public
hearing to the May 5 City Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter
as practicable. Motion carried with unanimous vote in favor.
9rdinance No. 92-09, Case No. 1-7A-91:CLOUGHLEY, "annexing into the corporate
limits of the City of Ocoee, Florida, certain real property located on the east
side of Windermere Road and one-half mile south of Tomyn Road (Marshall Farms
Road), as petitioned by the property owners; providing for and authorizing the
updating of official City maps; providing direction to the City Clerk; providing
for severability; providing for conflicts; providing for an effective date." was
~ presented by title for the second reading and public hearing. Planning Director
Behrens read the staff report showing that this request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and there are no concurrent issues concerning this property.
The report showed further that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Planning Director recommend approval of this annexation. The public hearing was
opened, and no one wishing to speak, was closed. Commissioner Combs, seconded
by Commissioner Foster, moved to find that the requested annexation in Case
No. 1-7A-91:CLOUGHLEY is consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan, that it
complies with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee City Code, that it is in
the best interests of the City, and to enact Ordinance No. 92-09. On roll call
Commissioner Combs voted "aye," Commissioner Foster "aye," Commissioner Johnson
"aye," Commissioner Woodson "aye," and Mayor Dabbs "aye." Motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Resolution No~ 92-06, relating to Clarke Road Extension Railroad Crossing~
City Manager Shapiro explained that a Florida Department of Transportation
permit is required to construct a railroad crossing for Clarke Road to cross the
railroad which runs on the north side of, and parallel with, A. D. Mims Road. The
annual maintenance fees for the crossing and protective devices are estimated by
Florida Central Railroad Company to be approximately $5,000 per year and are to
be paid by the City. Resolution No. 92-06 was read in its entirety.
Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Combs, moved to adopt Resolution
No. 92-06 as presented. Motion carried with unanimous vote in favor.
First Reading of Ordinances - Second Reading and Public Hearings are scheduled
~ for May 5, 1992.
"-"
Page 16
Ocoee City Commission Regular Keeting
April 21, 1992
Q~dinance No. 92-10, __CASE_NO. 1-3A-92:WINTER GARDEN~rayfieldL "annexing into
the corporate limits of the City of Ocoee, Florida, certain real property located
on the east side of Apopka-Ocoee Road, 3/4 mile north of Fullers Cross Road, as
petitioned by the property owners; providing for and authorizing the updating of
official City maps; providing direction to the City Clerk; providing for
severability; providing for conflicts; providing for an effective date." was
presented by title for the first reading.
Ordinance No. 92-11, Case No. 1-4A-92:WOODSON, "annexing into the corporate
limits of the City of Ocoee, Florida, certain real property located at the
southeast corner of Woodson Avenue and Center Street, as petitioned by the
property owners; providing for and authorizing the updating of official City
maps; providing direction to the City Clerk; providing for severability;
providing for conflicts; providing for an effective date." was presented by title
for the first reading. Commissioner Woodson declared a conflict of interest as
the owner of the property and his statement is attached as Exhibit ltC"~.
~
Ordinance No. 92-12, relating to Single Member Districting, "creating the initial
geographic boundaries for single member City Commission Districts; providing for
representation of districts; providing for district residency requirements;
providing for notice to the Supervisor of Elections; providing for severability;
providing for codification; providing an effective date." was presented by title
for the first reading.
Discussion on Referendum Question on Districting.
Commissioner Woodson moved to direct City Attorney Rosenthal to prepare an
ordinance to place the districting question on the ballot in November. The
motion died for lack of a second.
STAFF REPORTS
There were no staff reports at this time.
COKKENTS FROM COKKISSIONERS
Commissioner Combs announced the March of Dimes WalkAmerica on April 25 will
begin registration at 6:30 a.m. at the Gazebo.
Commissioner Johnson announced that Mrs. Calvert may be helped at Shands Hospital
in July.
Commissioner Woodson said that Mrs. Broadaway was buried today.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:50 a.m.
Attest:
APPROVED
City of Ocoee
....
~
"CENTER OF GOOD UVING - PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE"
Exhibit A
_ --. -... .._-'-', JA'.
CITY OF OCOEE
150 N, LAKESHORE DRIVE
OCOEE FLORIDA 34761
(407) 656-2322
COMMISSIONERS
RUSTY JOHNSON
P Aut W. FOSTER
VERN COMBS
SAM WOODSON
CITY MANAGER
ELLIS SHAPIRO
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and
Bruce Behrens, Director
April 16, 1992
Plantation Grove PUD Rezoning
Amendment/Ordinance No. 92-08
Case No.: l-2R-92:ROEDER
Board of City Commissioners
of Planning~\..<?>
and
Land
Use
Plan
ISSUE:
Should the Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners approve
the application of Maguire Road Corporation for the rezoning of the
five-acre parcel rezoned to Unclassified by Ordinance No. 92-07
from "Unclassified" to "Planned Unit Development" (PUD) in order to
transfer such property to the Plantation Grove PUD and in
~ connection therewith approve a Revised Land Use Plan ("RLUP") for
~ Plantation Grove PUD, all by the adoption of Ordinance No. 92-08?
REVISED STAFF REPORT:
This is a revised staff report from that initially submitted on
April 3, 1992. In light of recent changes in Florida case law, as
discussed by the City Attorney at the April 7, 1992 City Commission
meeting, the City Attorney has recommended that the staff report be
revised. The staff, Development Review Committee (DRC) and
Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) have all recommended certain
changes to the RLUP submitted by the applicant and those changes
have not, as of this date, been accepted by the applicant, Maguire
Road Corporation ("MRC"). The previous recommendations for
approval have been conditioned upon MRC's acceptance of the
recommended changes. In the absence of MRC's agreement to
voluntarily modify the proposed RLUP, the Planning Department does
not believe that MRC's application should be approved. By
implication, the actions taken by the DRC and P&Z also require that
the application be denied unless certain changes are accepted by
MRC.
The City Attorney has advised that in order to deny an application
the City Commission must state reasons for the action that denies
the owner's petition and make findings of fact in support thereof.
The prior actions of the DRC and P&Z would require denial of the
application as presently submitted to the City. The purpose of
'-'
,_.. --------------"
~._._.--_.. ...~--_.--...__.~-_.-<.-
'-
this staff report is to set forth the basis for a denial by the
City Commission in the event MRC does not modify the proposed RLUP
to adequately address the issues and concerns raised by the City
staff, DRC and P&Z.
BACKGROUND:
A. REZONING:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) has determined that Moore
and Roberson Roads need to be "lined up" to eliminate the existing
"offset" intersection on Maguire Road.
The legal counsel for the Department of Community Affairs has sent
us a written opinion that this realignment of roads and consequent
shift south of the commercial center would not require a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (See attached memorandum from David
Russ, Assistant General Counsel.)
B. LAND USE PLAN:
The existinq Plantation Grove PUD Land Use Plan was adopted on
November 22, 1998. On February 21, 1989, the Land Use Plan was
amended to move the Commercial Center into the center of the
Property.
\...
The existinq Land Use Plan provides for a mixed use development
containing:
1. A 25 acre commercial center containing a gross area of 217,800
square feet.
2. A 30 acre mUlti-family site permitted for 450 multi-family
dwelling units at 15 units per acre (with a minimum living
area of 750 square feet).
3. A 79.53 acre single-family site containing 322 single-family
homes, with a density of four (4) units per acre. Approved
lot sizes are 8,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 70
feet and a minimum living floor area of 1,600 square feet.
The total school age projected population is 439 students.
DISCUSSION:
A. REZONING
A five acre parcel, presently included in the Westridge PUD will
allow for the "lining up" of Roberson and Moore Roads, and the
existing "offset" intersection can be eliminated.
Removing the 5 acre parcel from the Westridge PUD and adding this
5 acre parcel to the south side of the Plantation Grove PUD will
\..,.
2
\...
allow for the "lining up" of Roberson and Moore Roads, an the
existing "offset" intersection can be eliminated.
The City Commission has considered in the prior agenda item
Ordinance No. 92-07 which removes the 5 acre parcel from the
Westridge PUD. The City staff and DRC recommend that the 5 acre
parcel be made a part of the Plantation Grove PUD. However, in
order to accomplish such a rezoning it is necessary to have an
acceptable revised land use plan which includes the 5 acres.
Ordinance No. 92-08 includes a Revised Land Use Plan for the
Plantation Grove PUD (The RLUP). Both the rezoning and the Revise
Land Use Plan will be considered at a single public hearing.
B. LAND USE PLAN:
1. Chanqes Requested by Applicant. The proposed RLUP would
realign Moore Road with Roberson Road. The commercial center would
be shifted to the south and would include the lands acquired from
the Westridge PUD which are being rezoned by proposed Ordinance No.
92-08. The commercial property would align with the realigned
Moore Road.
The proposed Revised Land Use Plan also makes the following changes
in the Conditions of Approval for the PUD:
1.
Lot widths in the single family section would be reduced from
70 feet to 60 feet (this would be consistent with Arivida's
Wesmere development across the street).
\...
2. The approved maximum number of multi-family units would
decrease by 30, from 450 to 480 (the maximum allowable under
the comprehensive plan) .
The developer has also requested the following waivers to the
subdivision regulations: (See RLUP) :
1. The submission of the Revised Land Use Plan at a scale of 1"
= 200 feet in lieu of 1" = 100 feet (Ocoee Code, section
13.5(3)).
2. A 25 foot building setback from proposed Moore Road in lieu of
a 35 foot Code requirement, section 13.11(2) (f) (ii). Maximum
building height would be 35 feet within 35 feet of re-aligned
Moore Road.
3. The minimum net living floor area for the multi-family would
be reduced from 750 square feet to 500 square feet to allow
for some efficiency apartments.
2. DRC Actions. The Development Review Committee reviewed
and approved a Revised Land Use Plan on January 30, 1992. There
\...
3
'-'
was, however, discussion on the amount of automobile traffic to
generated by this proposed PUD and how it will distribute. The DRC
voted to require the Developer to provide access to Moore Road from
both the single family and mUlti-family parcels via a private
roadway. The method of access was left up to the Developer. The
DRC also addressed certain issues set forth in the staff discussion
which were not specifically addressed by the P&Z.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission met on March 10, 1992 and
reviewed the proposed rezoning and Revised Land Use Plan.
(A) Rezoning
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended to the
City Commission that the 5 acre parcel rezoned from "Unclassified"
to "PUD".
(B) LAND USE PLAN
In a 5 - 2 vote, P&Z approved, subject to the incorporation of the
changes set forth below, the proposed Revised Land Use Plan with
the exception of the Code waiver request to allow 500 square feet
as a minimum living area. This was discussed in a separate vote
(see discussion below).
\. The following additional changes recommended by the City Attorney
were also approved by the P&Z and recommended to the City
Commission as Conditions of Approval:
1. A Note should be added to the RLUP that all right-
of-way shall be dedicated by Warranty Deed free and
clear of all liens.
2. Note #11 of the RLUP should be revised to state the
appropriate access and utility easements shall be
granted to the City over all private roadways with
the City being responsible for any damage done by
the City in connection with the utilization of any
such easements.
3. The Developer be required to convey to the City the
right-of-way for the realigned Moore Road within
forty-five (45) days from the date of the City
commission approval of the RLUP.
These changes were included in the above motion.
In a separate motion, with a 4-3 vote, the P&Z recommended that the
Developer be allowed to have fifteen percent (15%) of the multi-
'-'
4
\..r
family units be less than 750 square feet but not less than 500
square feet square feet and that 85% of the mUlti-family units be
750 square feet or larger and that the RLUP be revised to
incorporate this action.
At the P&Z meeting, the applicant agreed to modify the RLUP so as
to incorporate all of the P&Z recommendations except for the
recommendation that the Moore Road right-of-way be conveyed to the
City within 45 days from the approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Except as noted below, all Conditions of Approval set forth in the
existing approved Land Use Plan and Developer Agreement have been
reviewed and incorporated, where necessary, into the RLUP and the
proposed Conditions of Approval. However, subsequent to the DRC
and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, the staff reviewed the
most recent version of the proposed Revised Land Use Plan submitted
by MRC for consideration by the P&Z and concluded that it did not
include all of the Conditions of Approval necessary in order to be
consistent with the DRC action, the provisions contained in the
existing Land Use Plan and the City of Ocoee Comprehensive Plan.
All of these unresolved staff concerns were previously discussed
with MRC.
In order to be consistent with the DRC actions and the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan, the following additional Conditions of Approval
are recommended by staff:
\..r
(1) Condition of Approval Number 11 should be revised to
delete the reference to the Tract I spine road as a
public roadway. The Tract I spine road should be a
public roadway due to the maintenance costs associated
with the landscaping proposed by the developer.
(2) An additional Condition of Approval should be added
as follows: "The developer is to convey to the City the
right-of-way for Maguire Road within 45 days from the
date of the City Commission approval of the RLUP." The
existing Developer's Agreement required this conveyance
on or before November 22, 1988 and the developer has not
complied. No acceptable rationale has been presented to
release the developer from this existing requirement.
Also, long range planning for Maguire Road requires the
right-of-way independent of the platting of the project.
(3) The RLUP should be revised by deleting the notations
on the RLUP which indicate that the Moore Road and
Maguire Road rights-of-way will be dedicated at the time
of platting. This is required for the reasons set forth
in Item 2 above and in order to be consistent with the
proposed Conditions of Approval.
\.
5
\...
(4) An additional Condition of Approval should be added
as follows: "Tract I shall provide access from Moore Road
and shall interconnect with the access from Maguire Road
at such access points as are shown on the RLUP. This
interconnection shall not be a routing though parking
areas but independent roadways. Tract I shall meet all
City standards for a public roadway. The final route of
Tract I is to be determined at Final Development Plan
submittal." This is required in order to meet
requirements of the Traffic Circulation Element of the
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and the recommendation of the
City's transportation consultant. See attached letters
from Bob Campbell, dated March 4 and 30, 1992.
'-'
(5) An additional Condition of Approval should be added
as follows: "At the time of submittal of Final
Development Plans for either Tract A or Tract D,
whichever occurs first, the Final Development Plan for
such Tract will provide for an extension of Tract
I/Street A (to be known as "Tract I/Street A-Phase IV")
so that Tract I/Street A-Phrase IV commences at Moore
Road and intersects with Tract I/Street A-Phrase III for
ultimate access interconnecting Moore Road and Maguire
Road via Tract I/Street A (all Phases). The developer
may present a phasing plan in connection with Tract
I/Street A-Phase IV including all of the utilities under
the roadway, at the time of Final Development Plan
submittal". This is required for the reasons set forth
in Item 4 above.
(6) Note Number 4 of the Multi-family Conceptual
Development Schedule as shown on Sheet 2 of 2 on the
proposed RLUP should be deleted. This is required for
the reasons set forth in Items 1 and 4 above.
(7) An additional Condition of Approval should be added
as follows: liThe developer is to contribute, at the time
of signalization, 33-1/3% of the cost of the
signalization of the intersection of Moore and Maguire
Roads; provided that if the Belmere property annexes into
the City of Ocoee prior to any such contribution, then
the developer participation shall be reduced to 25%."
This is required based on the impacts of the project on
the intersection.
As of this date, MRC has not agreed to modify the RLUP to
incorporate the above staff recommendations set forth above. The
proposed RLUP contained in the Agenda packet and submitted by the
applicant does not contain the revisions requested by Staff and the
P&z.
'-"
6
Attached hereto is a memorandum from the City Attorney dated
April 16, 1992 which discusses the authority of the City to address
~ the issues set forth above.
While all of the staff recommendations were not expressly discussed
at the P&Z hearing, they have been consistently raised as
objections by both staff and the DRC. It is the conclusion of the
Planning Department and the City staff the RLUP as presented to the
City Commission by MRC is inconsistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive
Plan in general and the Traffic Circulation Element in particular
and that approval of the proposed RLUP would not be in the best
interests of the City for the reasons set forth in this memorandum.
The reasons for this recommendation will be discussed in detail at
the public hearing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Commission disapprove Ordinance No.
92-08 and deny the application of Maguire Road Corporation as not
being in the best interests of the City, such actions being taken
based on the report dated April 16, 1992 submitted by the Planning
Director to the City Commission, along with the attachments
thereto, the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing
on Ordinance No. 92-08 and the following findings of fact which are
hereby made by the City Commission:
'-"
(1) The proposed RLUP is inconsistent with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plan in general and the Traffic Circulation
Element in particular.
(2) The transportation impact of the proposed project
and the long range plan of the City necessitates that
right-of-way for Maguire and Moore Roads be conveyed
promptly following the approval of a Revised Land Use
Plan, rather than at the time of platting.
(3) The roadways within the project should be private
roadways maintained by a homeowner association in that
such roadways will primarily serve the residents of the
project and the cost of maintenance of such roadways and
related landscaping would place a disproportionate
financial burden on the City.
(4) Transportation planning in general and the Traffic
Circulation Element of the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan in
particular necessitates that Tract I connect Moore Road
and Maguire Road via a roadway constructed to meet all
City standards for a public roadway.
(5) The proposed RLUP would have an adverse traffic
impact on Maguire Road which would be inconsistent with
the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan.
~
7
Exhibit B
~ared Statennent
~
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: Phoenix Development Group
DA TE: April 21, 1992
RE: PLANTA TION GROVE - EAST P.U.D.
SUBJECT: Application originally submitted January 25, 1991 - Project 88-070
Commission Meeting to Approve Revised Land Use Plan (RLUP)
This statement is in direct response to a Revised Staff Report to the Commission dated April 16,
1992. We only received a copy of that Revised Report just yesterday, April 20, 1992, the day before
this hearing and then only because we telephoned the Planning Department and requested a copy via
facsimile. As such, we feel that we should be allowed to read into the record our response to each point
of the Revised Staff Report, correcting any misstatements and mistruths in an attempt to clarify just
what Staff has asked for, and what we have agreed to incorporate into our Revised Land Use Plan
(RLUP).
\.- Since the Revised Staff Report, authored by Mr. Behren's, references and relies upon a
memorandum from Mr. Rosenthal, the City Attorney, which in turn references and relies upon a
memorandum from Mr. Lower, the Assistant City Attorney, we thought we would start by addressing
Mr. Lower's memorandum, point by point, then working our way back to addressing Mr. Rosenthal's
memorandum, then the Revised Staff Report itself. For convenience, we shall attempt to follow each
and every item of each correspondence as presented by it's author.
I. MR. LOWER'S MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 8. 1992.
It must be noted here that Mr. Lower's memorandum is dated five days after both the April 3,
1992 Staff Report to the City Commission recommending the Commission's conditional approval of our
Revised Land Use Plan, and the April 3, 1992 memorandum from Mr. Rosenthal to the City
Commission attempting to incorporate additional conditions into the Staff Report. It seems clear after
reviewing Mr. Lower's memorandum, and in light of subsequent discussions with Mr. Rosenthal and
Mr. Behrens about Mr. Rosenthal's April 3rd memorandum, that Mr. Lower's subsequent memorandum
is an after-the-fact attempt to justify the inclusion of these additional conditions into the Staff Report. It
is also interesting that almost all, if not all, of his comments are planning comments, not previously
raised as unresolved issues by the planning department.
Mr. Lower's memorandum also infers that there are numerous "significant differences" between
our existing land use plan and the plan presently before the Commission, and that these differences
somehow constitute changes initiated by the Developer. Nothing could be further from the truth.
~
1. We agree that the "spine road" has been shortened, which was done for the sake of efficiency.
Mr. Lower's comment that we have "...asked to relocate the spine road from the single family portion of
the PUD to the multi-family portion" makes absolutely no sense.
STA TEMENT TO MAYOR & CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMIIT AL - Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
......
2. The commercial portion of the PUD has, indeed, been shifted south to the new intersection of
the realigned Moore Road and Maguire Road. This is a major change, a change made in direct response
to the City's realignment of Moore Road. Remember, our original December, 1988 plan also had the
commercial at the comer of Moore Road and Maguire Road. It is also being shifted to bring it in
compliance with the future land use map and various policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
3. The inclusion of the recently acquired 5 acres at the northeast comer of Maguire Road and
the realigned Moore Road is the other major addition to our existing land use plan.
4. Mr. Lower's assertion that we have reduced the park land as shown on OUf existing land use
plan is misleading, at best. He and Mr. Rosenthal, as well as the entire City staff, are aware of the fact
that in 1990, at or near the adoption of the Ocoee recreational impact fee ordinance, the City
Commission allowed us to reduce the size of our park land, to keep the remaining recreation private,
and in exchange we would still dedicate a fire station site to the City and pay the park recreation impact
fee upon development. This is not a change, only the incorporation of what has already been approved.
5. The total roadway and right-of-way acreage has decreased from 7.71 acres to 7.12 acres; but
of what concern is this to the City as long as the traffic circulation meets City standards? We must
emphasize that the acreage specifically outlined in our spine road is only a portion of OUf total internal,
"private" roadway system (remember, the City Staff wants all of our internal roads to be private roads).
\..,.. Since the final road layout is done at Preliminary Subdivision Planning this comment does not constitute
a change and is inconsequential to the review of our Revised Land Use Plan submittal.
6. The number of multi-family units has increased, but only as a result of the Comprehensive
Plan's redefinition of multi-family from "up to U dus per acre" to "up to 1Q dus per acre". The amount
of multi-family acreage has not changed.
7. Mr. Lower asserts that the number of single family units has increased from 332 to 338. This
is another misleading statement. The maxim.um allowable number of single family units in the existing
land use plan is 332, but this doesn't take into account the additional 5 acres of single family land that is
being incorporated into our PUD having a zoning allowing for another 10 single family units _ yielding
an allowable 342 single family units. Since we are only requesting 338 single family units, we do not
understand the point Mr. Lower is trying to make here; this is not a change, only the incorporation of
what has already been approved.
8. Minimum allowable lot sizes have been reduced from 8,000 square feet to 6,800 square feet.
This is a requested change, but Mr. Lower's comment is confusing to us - how can we be expected to
reduce the lot widths without reducing lot sizes? Not only do we already have our land use approval for
4 dus per acre, but our zoning is 4 dus per acre as well. There is just no way to achieve that density
without allowing for smaller minimum lot sizes. Please note that our minimum net living area is still at
1,600 square feet. Arvida's is 800 sq. ft. for townhomes and 1,400 sq. ft. for single family (?).
~ 9. We have also asked for a change in our minimum multi-family square footage from 750 sq.
ft. to 500 sq. ft. Forget the fact for the moment that Orange County allows 500 sq. ft. minimums for
Page 2
Phoenix Developmellt Group
STA TEl\11ENT TO MAYOR & 'CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMIIT AL - Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
'-
this same zoning, and the fact that the City staff has expressed their desire to have the straight zoning
minimums changed to this 500 sq. ft. minimum, we just thought that in light of the fact that Arvida is
being allowed townhomes at a density of 9 + dus per acre with 800 sq. ft. minimums, it seemed only
appropriate to allow 500 sq. ft. minimums for multi-family at densities of 15 + dus per acre.
10. Minimum lot widths have been reduced from 70 ft. to 60 ft., but, again, how can we be
expected to achieve the zoning density already approved for our project without reducing lot sizes and
lot widths? Even at these reduced sizes, we'll only be able to achieve some 3.2 dus per acre at the
submission of our preliminary subdivision plans.
11. Mr. Lower is correct in that our existing land use plan shows "conceptual locations II of our
retention ponds within our residential parcels and the Revised Land Use Plan does not. The reason for
doing so is simple - the City requested us to do it this way. One interim plan that we had submitted to
the City back in December of 1991 showed conceptual retention ponds on every residential parcel. The
City's comment was that this was unnecessary and it made the land use plan appear cluttered. We were
asked to eliminate designating the retention ponds except where retention might be shared between two
different land use parcels (ie. the location of the commercial retention surrounded by multi-family). We
resent Mr. Lower's implication that we are trying to increase our single family acreage. This simply
isn't true, which would be evident to Mr. Lower if he would have reviewed the residential unit numbers
as we did in item no. 7 above.
~ The only reason we're submitting a revised land use plan in the first place is because the City
said we were required to do so in order to incorporate the additional 5 acres we purchased from
Westridge. In short, the following changes are changes required by the City, in that the changes are
either in direct response to the City's realignment of Moore Road to Robinson Road, or necessitated in
order to bring our land use plan in compliance with the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, or simply at the request of the City:
a. the inclusion of the additional 5 acres; and
b. the shift of the commercial to the northeast comer of Maguire Road and the
realigned Moore Road; and
c. the increase of multi-family units from 450 to 480; and
d. the increase of single family units from 332 to 338; and
e. the elimination of retention ponds, in large part, from the land use plan.
f. changes that Mr. Lower did not mention are the building setback waivers we are
requesting on Maguire and Moore Roads as a result of the additional rights-of-
way that the City is now requesting (an additional 10' along Maguire Road [above
and beyond the 10' we agreed to dedicate as a result of our approvals in Dec. '88]
to correct a design error by the City traffic consultant, and an additional 10'
requested along the realigned Moore Road to make the future right-of-way 80'
wide instead of the 60' perviously requested)
~
The following are changes we are requesting of our own accord:
g. the decrease of the minimum lot size from 8,000 sq.ft. to 6,800 sq.ft.; and
Page 3
Phoenix Development Group
STA TEMENT TO MAYOR & CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMIIT AL - Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
\..
h. the decrease of the minimum lot width from 70 ft. to 60 ft.; and
1. the reduction in the minimum multi-family unit from 750 sq.ft. to 500 sq.ft.
J. a change that Mr. Lower did not mention is the decrease of the minimum single family side
yard setback from 7.5 ft. to 6 ft. Note: Mr. Behrens first said this was a waiver that needed
to be made at Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval so we removed it from our RLUP; but
now he has just recently told us that if we don't ask for it at the RLUP, then it might not be
able to be allowed in the future. Arvida requested 10 foot spacing on 50 foot lots for it's
Wesmere project, while we are requesting 12 foot spacing (as would be afforded by 6 foot
side yard setbacks) on 60 foot lots. Given the same land use (4 dus per acre) and the same
zoning (PUD), the latter seems to be more desirable, in that it allows for larger units on
larger lots. We've asked the Planning Department why they had previously recommended 10
foot building separations for Arvida's Wesmere, yet still refuse to recommend 12 foot
building separations for Plantation Grove East. We've yet to receive an answer.
The following are changes that are diminutive and, we feel, irrelevant to the City's review of
our revised land use plan:
k. the decrease in the length of the spine road; and
1. the decrease in the total private roadway reflected on the land use plan.
/- ll.
'--
MR. ROSENTHAL'S MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 16.1992.
Mr. Rosenthal attempts to use Mr. Lower's memorandum as justification as to why the City has
taken such a broad review of our project. But as you can see from the above, of those changes outlined
by Mr. Lower, we are only initiating three of them (items g. thru j. above). The balance are changes
incorporated into the plan as a direct response to the City's realignment of Moore Road to Robinson
Road, or as necessitated in order to bring our land use plan in compliance with the City's recently
adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan, or,simply at the request of the City staff.
To quote Mr. Rosenthal, "...the City is required to examine the affect of the proposed
amendment(s) on the overall project." But this is not what the City has done. If Mr. Lower's list of
changes (or amendments) is complete, then the City, as an example, would be limited to examining the
affect of the decrease in length of the spine road on the project. But what the City has, in fact, been
doing is questioning, without justification or evidence, the validity of the spine road altogether. The
fact is that the shortening of the spine road has no impact on the internal traffic patterns of the project,
in that the same number of cars will use the road as proposed as were to use the road in our existing land
use plan. Instead of dealing only with those changes requested, Staff has repeatedly used the fact that
we are even requesting a single change, as justification to renegotiate the whole PUD. One doesn't have
to be a legal scholar to see that the position the City Staff is taking is not what the City Code describes,
at least not the part quoted by Mr. Rosenthal in his memorandum of April 16, 1992.
There simply has been no factual basis presented by the City Staff to support Mr. Rosenthal's
opinion that the "...revisions to the approved Land Use Plan requested by the Developer affect all
~ aspects and uses within the Planned Unit Development" - probably because it just isn't so.
Page 4
Phoenix Developmellt Group
STA TEMENT TO MAYOR & CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMIIT AL - Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
\-
III. MR. BEHRENS STAFF REPORT OF APRIL 16. 1992.
We'll attempt to highlight only those areas of the Staff Report where we have a relevant
comment or a particular disagreement with Staff.
BACKGROUND:
A. REZONING:
We think it should be noted here that DCA's letter was the result of a direct request by our
attorney, Mr. Wilt, for an opinion from DCA regarding the necessity of a formal Comprehensive Plan
Amendment in order to shift our commercial center south as a result of the City's realignment of Moore
Road. If we hadn't made the request we'd still be sitting here today waiting for the City's next cycle for
making applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, because that's what the City Attorney
erroneously opined a prerequisite to our Revised Land Use Plan. We may have avoided a lengthy delay
due to having to apply for an amendment, but we were unable to avoid the loss of over two months in
getting the DCA letter, not to mention considerable attorney's fees from our attorney and the City
Attorney.
B.
LAND USE PLAN:
'-'
Our existing Land Use Plan was adopted on November 22, 1988, not November 22, 1998.
DISCUSSION:
B. LAND USE PLAN:
1. Changes Requested by Applicant.
Staff describes three waivers that we are requesting. Two of these are in direct response to
requests made to us by the City, namely:
1. The reduction in scale from 1 "=100' to 1 "=200' was necessitated by City requiring
that we reflect property we didn't even own into our Revised Land Use Plan (ie.
that part of Plantation Grove west of Maguire Road). More informational area at
the 1'=100' scale would have required putting the plan on two separate sheets with
a match line. When we informed Staff that we would include this additional
property with the understanding that we would do so only as depicted on the
December, 1988 Land Use Plan. Staff then tried to get us to incorporate land use
and zoning changes to Plantation Grove West, without the consent of the property
owner, MIL Homes. After we made MIL Homes aware of this attempt, the City
suddenly dropped it's request.
"-'
2. In addition to a requested 10' reduction to the building setbacks along Moore
Road, we are requesting a similar one along Maguire Road. Both of these setback
Page 5
PIzOe1lix Developmellt Group
STATEMENT TO MA YOR & CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMIITAL - Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
'-'
reductions, or waivers, were necessitated by the City requiring additional right-of-
way along Maguire Road and the realigned Moore Road. Despite the fact that
both of the right-of-way requests have absolutely nothing to do with any changes
that we have initiated to the Revised Land Use Plan, we made it clear to the City
that we would be amenable to givillg the City this additional right-of-way, but
only if a) it was dedicated at the time of platting to assure City approvals per the
Revised Land Use Plan, and b) that we be allowed waivers to the building
setbacks in these areas commensurate with the additional right-of-way being
dedicated (ie. if the City was requesting an additional 10', we would want a 10'
reduction in the contiguous building setbacks from whatever the City Code might
reflect, say 35' reduced to 25'). Where Moore Road is concerned, we think: it
important to note that Moore Road is not a formal right-of-way, and that the
above arrangement fails to give us any consideration for the original 30' right-of-
way we are agreeing to dedicate to the City (at the time of platting).
2.
DRC Actions.
The Staff Report states that "...(t)he DRC voted to require the Developer to provide access to
Moore Road from 1mth the single family and multi-family parcels via a private roadway." That simply
is inaccurate and misleading. After 15 pages of discussion on this issue, as shown in the transcript of
the January 30, 1992 DRC meeting, a motion was made by the City Planning Director, Mr. Behrens,
and is as follows:
\.....
"I'll make the motion that we request that a spine road -- or that an elltrallce from the
multi-family and the single family be shown onto Moore Road and leave the wav that
the developer does it up to them.'
"But I'd like to see a method of travel through the multi-family and through the single
family that allows both of them, whether they come back onto one spine road and then
get onto Moore Road or whether they have two entrances, I'd like to see them be both __
both the single family and the multi-family be able to access Moore Road somehow. I'll
make that motion."
This DRC comment regarding our RLUP is frequently misread by PEC and others have to
require that a connecting "road" be shown from Moore Road through to Street A. As you can see, this
simply is not the case.
We have never agreed with or consented to Staffs request regarding access to our residential off
of Moore Road. We reluctantly agreed to a single access off of Moore Road to be determined by llS at a
future date. In fact, a meeting was called by Mr. Behrens (after the DRC meeting) to further clarify the
validity of, and alternatives for, this particular DRC comment. The meeting was attended by Mr.
Campbell from PEC, Mr. Stueber from Lochrane Engineering, Mr. Mellich from C.c.L. Consultants,
Mr. Behrens, and myself. We made it quite clear at that meeting our objection to the City's attempt to
~ require a formal road connection between Moore Road and Street A. Both Mr. Campbell and Mr.
Stueber both responded that, given our existing land uses, a roadway was not required. Their
Page 6
Phoenix Developmellt Group
STATEMENT TO MAYOR & CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMIIT AL - Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
\...,.
recommendations came at the behest of Mr. Behrens. A March 4, 1992 letter from Mr. Stueber,
conveniently left out of the Revised Staff Report by Mr. Behrens, states that:
"In discussing the traffic volumes that can be expected from this develoopment with Mr. Robert
Campbell of P.E.C., it appears thaqt the main entrance off Maguire Road is adequate to serve the
property if it is developed per this Land Use Plan. One area of concern we have is with the
internal circulation of Tract A, when a multi-family housing development is designed. At the
time of final design, the Developer is to ensure that the internal circulation of Tract A is adquate
to handle the volume of cars generated by the apartment complex."
Again, even though we did not think that was a good idea at the time, we agreed to incorporate
the note as shown on our RLUP. It was also our understanding that it was the consensus of all those in
attendance at that meeting that this note reflected the recommendation as voiced at the previous DRC
meeting. Nothing to date provided by the City or any of the consultants contradicts this initial position.
Even Staff has acknowledged that this condition to our RLUP that you have before you is not "required"
by any city ordinances or accepted design criteria; rather it is a "requested" change. Unfortunately, it is
a change that is violative of our security concept and wholly unwarranted.
Then the Staff Report goes on to make a one sentence note that the "...DRC also addressed
certain issues set forth in the staff discussion which were not specifically addressed by the P&Z." This
will become very important later in our statement.
~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff attempts to justify the inclusion of additional conditions of approval in their Staff Report
by stating that "...these unresolved staff concerns were previously discussed with MRC." What they fail
to mention was that the great majority of these additional conditions may have been discussed with us,
but not at DRC, not even at P&Z. And there most certainly was no formal DRC action taken, or P&Z
action taken, regarding the majority of these additional conditions.
Our comments to Staffs recommendations are as follows:
(1) We have continuously asked Staff to allow us some leeway on the design of this
spine road. The reasoning was simple - since the Staff would not recommend acceptance
of this street as a "public" road, then a number of the public roadway requirements would
have to be relaxed. Weare requesting nothing different than what was allowed in
Arvida's Wesmere project which has reduced paving widths and a sidewalk on only one
side of their main entry road.
(2) We should clarify here, since the City Staff has not, that they are requesting an
additional 10' along Maguire Road above and beyond what was required of us in
December of 1988. For numerous reasons outlined herein as well as in other
communication with the Commission, we think it only prudent that any right-of-way be
~ dedicated to the City at the time of platting. As to the 10' of right-of-way required as a
result of our December, 1988 approval, we've offered to deed the right-of-way to the
Page 7
Phoellix Developmellt Group
STA TEMENT TO MAYOR & CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMIIT AL - Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
-....
City at any time they should want. Duke Woodson, another attorney from Mr.
Rosenthal's office, responded to us in 1989 and 1990 that he would prefer that we wait to
transfer this right-of-way to the City via our formal platting. We resent Mr. Behrens
assertion that no acceptable rationale has been presented to release (us) the developer
from this existing requirement, especially since he is, and has been, fully aware of Mr.
Woodson's position.
(3) We see no reason, especially in light of the City Staffs recent flip-flop in their
positions, for us to deed the requested rights-of-way for either Maguire Road or Moore
Road until the time of platting. This would assure cooperation by City Staff in the
approval of our subdivision plans in accordance with the Revised Land Use Plan.
(4) As we have conclusively shown above, there is absolutely no reason to add anything
to the note presently on the Revised Land Use Plan showing "Approximate location of
access from Moore Road through to Parcel I".
(5) Our response is the same as item (4), above.
(6) Our response is the same as item (4), above.
(7) This note about the Maguire Road and Moore Road intersection improvements is
'-" finally the way it was agreed to with the City Staff in February of last year.
We specifically have not incorporated all of Staffs recommendations, or those of the P & Z,
because, as we have told Staff, we wish to discuss several of these recommendations with the City
Commission as final arbiter.
Mr. Behrens goes on to make a statement which we are hearing for the first time, namely, that
even though Staff didn't expressly discuss it's recommendations at P & Z, and since Staff has
consistently raised it's objections at DRC, it "...is the conclusion of the Planning Department and the
City Staff(that) the RLUP as presellted to the City Commissioll by MRC is illcollsistellt with the Ocoee
Comprehensive Plall ill gmeral alld the Traffic CirculatiOll Elemellt ill particular...". Again, this is
ther first we are hearing of this from the City Staff. A memorandum from Mr. Lower to the City Staff,
dated December 11, 1991, and included as part of the December 20, 1991 DRC Report regarding our
RLUP states the need to review in a public hearing before the P&Z any changes regarded to be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff never mentioned this at DRC or P&Z. Why? Because
there just isn't any support for it.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(1) Again, there is no evidence, testimony or support for the Staff to assert that our
Revised Land Use Plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or the
Traffic Circulation Element of that plan. With the exception of the addition of the 5 acre
'-'" parcel and the shifting of the commercial parcel south to the comer of Maguire and
Moore Roads, the land uses reflected in our Revised Land Use Plan, and their locations,
Page 8
Phomix Developmellt Group
STATEMENT TO MA YOR & CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMITTAL _ Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
\-
are exactly as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City last year. Since
the DCA memorandum makes it clear that the inclusion of the 5 acres and the shift of the
commercial does not necessitate a change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and
since there are no increases to density other than those already allowed by the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan itself (the number of units allowed for the additional 5
acre parcel and the redefinition of multi-family densities within the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan) we fail to see how our plan is anything but in conformity with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
(2) Again, we see no reason, especially in light of the City Staffs recent flip-flop in their
positions, for us to deed the requested rights-of-way for either Maguire Road or Moore
Road until the time of platting. This would assure cooperation by City Staff in the
approval of our subdivision plans in accordance with the Revised Land Use Plan.
(3) Let us reiterate, since the Staff will not recommend acceptance of our spine road as a
"public" road, then a number of the public roadway requirements should be relaxed. We
are requesting nothing different than what was allowed in Arvida's Wesmere project
which has reduced paving widths and a sidewalk on only one side of their main entry
road. In addition, we have never asked the City to maintain the landscaping we plan to
install on our spine road; to the contrary, we have offered to maintain the landscaping if
the City maintains the road.
'--
(4) Once again, as we have conclusively shown above, there is absolutely no reason to
add anything to the note presently on the Revised Land Use Plan showing "Approximate
location of access from Moore Road through to Parcel I".
(5) The City and it's consultants have neither shown nor offered any evidence that our
project would have an adverse traffic impact on Maguire Road.
Much of Staffs recommendations, so much like the rest of the Staff Report, is totally
inexcusable given previous reports and public meetings involving the City Staff and MRC.
IV. MAGUIRE ROAD CORPORA TION'S REOUEST:
That the City Commission approve our Revised Land Use plan as presented here to you tonight
with the clarification that:
1. In response to the redefinition of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the total number of
approved multi-family units is raised from 450 to 480, or 16 dus per acre; and
2. The minimum multi-family square footage per unit is 500 sq.ft. in lieu of 750 sq.ft.; and
\...,.
3. The minimum single fanlily lot widths are 60 ft. in lieu of 70 ft.; and
Page 9
Phoenix Development Group
STA TEMENT TO MAYOR & CITY COMMISSIONERS
RE: PLANTATION GROVE PLAN SUBMIIT AL - Project No. 88-070
April 21, 1992
'-'
4. The minimum single family lot size is 6,800 sq.ft. in lieu of 8,000 sq.ft.; and
5. The minimum single family side yard setbacks are 6 ft. in lieu of7.5 ft.; and
6. The minimum residential building setback from Maguire Road is 40 ft. in lieu of 50 ft.; and
7. The minimum residential building setback from Moore Road is 25 ft. in lieu of 35 ft., with a
maximum building height of 35 ft. within 35 ft. of the realigned Moore Road; and
8. All dedications of rights-of-way to be done by warranty deed at the time of platting of the
particular parcel affected.
9. The developer will contribute, at the time of signalization, 1/3 of the cost of the signalization
of the intersection of the Moore and Maguire Roads; provided that if the Belmere property
annexes into the City of Ocoee prior to any such contribution, then the developer's
participation shall be reduced to 1/4.
v. IN CONCLUSION:
'"' . We hope the above more accurately clarifies the status of our approval process before the
~ City Staff and the P&Z and we respectfully solicit the Commission's support.
~
Page 10
Phoenix Development Group
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF vOttNG CONFllCJ fOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
lAST NA\IE-F1RST NA\lE-.\IIDDLE NAr-.IE NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
i \-. dson, Samuel L., Jr. Ocoee Board of City Commissioners
\IAILlNG ADDRESS THE BOARD, C:OU~C:II, COMr-.lISSION, AUTHORITY, OR C:O\IMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
814 Chicago Avenue XCITY COUNTY , . OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY COUNTY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDI VISION:
Ocoee, FL 34761 Orange City of Ocoee
DATE ON \\HICH \OTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS:
April 21, 1992 and May 5, 1992 k: El.ECTlVE APPOINTIVE
Exhibit C
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
~
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction,
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT \VHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
~,u should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes,
· A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
(I IllK\1 ~I! IO.U,
PAGE 1
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE MEETING:
· You should disclose oraHy the nature of your contlict in the measure before participating.
· You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minu ,-.,I
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST
!,
Samuel L. Woodson. Jr.
, hereby disclose that on April 21 and Hay 5
,19~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_x_ inured to my special private gain; or
_ inured to the special gain of
, by whom I am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as foHows:
Property under consideration for annexation in Ordinance #92-11 is my property.
....i
Date Filed
~.r-
~OTlCE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~1I2.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MA E ANY REQUIRE",...,
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAYBE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
I\IPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FOR:'>.I 88 - 10.86
PAGE 2