Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-93 SS MINUTES OF THE JOINT SPECIAL SESSION OF THE OCOEE CITY COMMISSION '-' WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 25, 1993 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Vandergrift called the Joint Special Session between Ocoee City Commission and Orange County Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Ocoee Community Center located at 125 N. Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee. Ocoee Commissioner Woodson offered the prayer and Orange County Chairman Linda Chapin led the pledge of allegiance. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM ORANGE COUNTY - Chairman Chapin called the roll and declared a quorum to be present. CITY OF OCOEE - Mayor Vandergrift called the roll and declared a quorum to be present. PRESENT: Orange County: Chairman Chapin, Commissioners Freeman, Staley, Johnson, Pignone, Donegan and Butler and Attorney Wilkes. Mayor Vandergrift, Commissioners Woodson, Foster, Combs and Johnson. Also present were City Manager Shapiro, City Attorney Rosenthal, Planning Director Behrens and City Clerk Grafton. City of Ocoee: '-' Attorney Rosenthal read into the record a statement agreed to between the two legal departments of the City and County dealing with the parameters of the meeting. The meeting was held to discuss a possible resolution to legal proceedings filed by Orange County challenging City of Ocoee ordinances which annex and zone a number of parcels. Since legal proceedings were pending, the two sides were proceeding with the meeting based upon the agreement that all statements made by anyone would be settlement negotiations, would not be considered part of the record and would be inadmissible in any proceedings for any purpose. Moreover participation in this settlement meeting would not be deemed by any party to constitute a waiver or estoppel to assert any position, claim or defense in pending matters. Counsel for Ocoee and Orange County stipulated to these terms in order to promote a full and frank discussion of the issues and the exploration of all possible means of settlement. Orange County Attorney Wilkes confirmed. .~ Attorney Rosenthal reviewed the purpose of the meeting and gave the background. In the event of a settlement at the meeting, the City and County might be required to hold a subsequent independent public hearing in order to ratify the settlement under Chapter 164. In December 1992 and the beginning of January 1993, the City adopted 27 annexation ordinances. The County contested 15 of those ordinances, which involved approximately 1,478 acres of land. The position and belief of the City at the time of the annexations and the findings made by the City Commission were that all the annexations complied with all the requirements of Florida law, Chapter 171, dealing with annexations and Chapter 163 under the Comprehensive Plan. All of those were voluntary annexations, property owners who approached the City and said they wanted to be part of the City of Ocoee as opposed to being in unincorporated Orange County. Regarding the City Comprehensive Plan, the City Manager had asked him to review a brief history, which he did. The conflict arose over land use designations outside the corporate limits JOINT SPECIAL SESSION - OCOEE CITY COMMISSION WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION ~ JANUARY 25, 1993 of the City that differed from the land use designations on the County Land Use Map. The County made objections to the Department of Community Affairs, which approved the Comprehensive Plan for the City, which were not incorporated into that approval. Two years before, the County made a settlement to keep the land intact for two years and not do any rezoning on the Kenjen annexation. In preparing the annexations, the City looked back at the discussions with the County and attempted to address what was thought to be some of the concerns of the County in terms of development and the ability to provide services. In many, but not all, of the contested annexations, the City required the developers to enter into agreements with the City that for a period of seven years they would not be able to develop their land for any use other than A-I, agriculture, unless they went to the City with a plan that showed how urban municipal services would be provided and, most importantly, who would pay for them, recognizing that all that development would be subject to concurrency regulations of the Growth Management Plan. The developers agreed. Regarding contested annexations, the City Commission felt mixed signals had been received from the County. Past annexations involving enclaves were not challenged by the County. In dealing with the West Orange Hospital, creating a piece of property surrounded on three sides by the City, the County elected not to challenge. '-'" Regarding specific annexations, he pointed out three sets of annexations. West Annexations . Four different ordinances. . Challenged by the County. . At the City Commission meeting adopting these annexation ordinances, no objections were raised by the public nor any representative ofthe County. Battaglia East Annexation . Adjacent to Sawmill, contiguous to the City limit, along a major road. . Challenged by the County. . Several years before the County entered into an agreement with the City on sewer and water that said that property should receive sewer and water from the City, not the County, and there was a contractual agreement with the County that it would never provide sewer and water to that property. Lawrence Annexation . Gotha area, . A-I zoning. . Challenged by the County. '-" 2 JOINT SPECIAL SESSION - OCOEE CITY COMMISSION WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION "-" JANUARY 25, 1993 Ms. Allison Yurko summarized the County's legal position. Discussion followed. Commissioner Freeman addressed parcels 521, 539, 534 and 532, indicating he felt they clearly represented the Gotha rural settlement. He asked that there be an advancement of six months on the annexation of these parcels to allow the working out of a joint agreement among the County, the City and Gotha to preserve the rural settlement. He felt the property owners wanted to go into the City to get better zoning. He said if the Gotha residents could agree to a density of two units an acre and provide the Lawrence parcel with the same consideration and allow those parcels to be annexed, possibly the County would allow the City to furnish utilities and collect the impact fees in the Gotha rural settlement if the Gotha residents agreed. Discussion followed. Commissioner Woodson asked if the property could be left in the City to work out the problems since the petitioners had asked to be part of the City. Commissioner Johnson stated there was no rural settlement when the annexations were approved. Mr. Rosenthal stated there were two concepts, (1) the preservation districts under the Charter, which had not been implemented by the County Commission and (2) the rural settlements which were part of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Lawrence property, which the County referred to as parcel 532, was not in the County rural settlement. Chairman .~ Chapin indicated that the Gotha Rural Settlement had existed in practicality and in the County plan for some time. Commissioner Donegan mentioned the annexation laws of the state since parcels 535, 539 and 521 were finger-like extensions, which were not allowed under the annexation rules. Attorney Wilkes stated the finger-like extension provided grounds for a challenge, but it was up to the County whether to continue the challenge or to settle. Chairman Chapin stated parcel 532 might be the subject of a negotiated settlement with the City but said if parcels 534, 539 and 521, which were in the Gotha Rural Settlement, stayed in the City, a precedent might be set for further incursions into the rural settlement. She wondered if discussion could continue about what was appropriate regarding the land in terms of the interests of the land owners. Discussion could be held equally for the lands within the rural settlement but bordering the City so that it would not have to be done again. City Planner Behrens advised that the top half was zoned one house to ten acres, and the bottom half was zoned one house to the acre. Chairman Chapin advised she was not talking about parcel 532 and was advised the other piece was zoned one house to the acre. Discussion followed. ~ 3 JOINT SPECIAL SESSION - OCOEE CITY COMMISSION WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION '-' JANUARY 25, 1993 Commissioner Combs stated he felt the property owners had a right to approach the City in an effort to protect their rights as property owners. He indicated the Wingfield/Gordon Nutt property that was turned down for annexation by the City. He recalled that Vera Carter, a former County Commissioner, asked the City to run water and sewer lines to that property, which the City was prepared to do until the request was made for 400 units with 1200 square foot houses next to half acre lots. Discussion followed. City Manager Shapiro stated the annexationldeannexation of the land might be an issue to this Commission, but the real issue was land use and providing services to property outside their jurisdiction. He suggested allowing the annexations but waiting a year to talk over the planning of the area. Chairman Chapin stated she did not feel the residents of Gotha would be reassured by the idea that it would simply be postponed a year. She asked the attorney if there was a period to talk and plan jointly but a conclusion could not be reached with the landowners or the City if legal action could still be taken to prevent the annexation. Attorney Wilkes stated that could be done as long as both parties stipulated to holding the litigation in abeyance while the negotiations were attempted. Commissioner Donegan stated the Supreme Court had said citizens have a right to the use of their property, but not necessarily the highest and best use of their property. He said it was in the best interest of the County to keep some of the densities from getting too great. ~ Commissioner Staley stated he had expressed concerns at the December meeting about each of the annexations, from not being compact and contiguous to encroaching into the rural settlement. Chairman Chapin stated she found Commissioner Donegan's argument compelling and asked to hear from members of the County Commission, particularly about the parcels on the south, which she saw in two different ways. She said she had a problem with parcel 532, but she might be prepared to accept a compromised or negotiated settlement on the others. Orange County Planning Manager McClendon stated he felt 532 was still a concern since half of it was in the rural service area. He stated that the council had suggested that utilities would not be provided for seven years. Chairman Chapin asked Mr. Shapiro to explain the seven years, and City Manager Shapiro stated the City was preserving the right to provide services. Attorney Rosenthal clarified that the annexation agreements for parcels designated by the County as 521, 539 and 534, which the City called Baker, Blair and Guess, did not have a seven-year restriction. Parcel 532 was the same. Mayor Vandergrift spoke of the finger-like projection as being a voluntary annexation. Planning Manager McClendon stated a delay of three to six months would allow the City to develop a joint planning area agreement that would clearly identify the area, with a logical and orderly system of expansion for the corporate boundaries and utility systems, to develop an ~ 4 JOINT SPECIAL SESSION - OCOEE CITY COMMISSION WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION '-" JANUARY 25, 1993 agreed-upon pattern for densities of the use that would provide for a proper and suitable transition between the urban area of the City and adjacent rural areas. Then the City and County could go to the State to see if a plan could be approved that both local governments supported. Discussion followed. Commissioner Foster stated he believed there was a common goal and purpose on both sides of the table, that is, to serve the constituents in the best possible way, to provide the best in services. He said the City felt it was in the best position to provide those services. He had trouble telling a property owner that he could not develop his property or could only build one house to ten acres or one house to one acre. He indicated the residents of the historic district must vote on any development approved by the voters in Amendment 3, but the residents of Clarcona or Gotha far outnumbered the property owners who sought to develop their property. He said the problem was that the county residents wanted to impose their will on the property owners, and he was opposed to that concept. He said the City had always sought voluntary annexations, and he felt it was time to consider involuntary annexations. An education program should be commenced that would advise the property owners that the City taxes were less than County taxes. Services would have to be provided by the City or the County, and the City felt it could provide them better. He was opposed to a six-month moratorium as proposed by Commissioner Freeman. He felt the issue should be settled that evening so the City could move forward and the property owners could move forward with plans for their property. '-' Mayor Vandergrift clarified that the City had not sought annexations, but requests for annexations had been brought to the City. Commissioner Pignone was concerned about what the County planned regarding utilities on the west side of the county but was not so concerned about intrusions or projections. She understood the City was better prepared to provide utilities than the County. Discussion followed. Commissioner Mary Johnson felt three months would be enough time to address the issues, but Commissioner Staley felt three months would not be enough time to address the issues. Discussion followed. Commissioner Freeman. seconded by Commissioner Mary Johnson. moved to advance the discussion three months to allow both sides to work toeether to try to create a joint plannine: effort. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Stalev votine: no. Mr. Rosenthal stated he understood there would be a standstill in all pending litigation for a three-month period during which time both sides could continue to talk, but beyond that, there was no commitment on either side. '-" 5 '-' JOINT SPECIAL SESSION - OCOEE CITY COMMISSION WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 Chairman Chapin stated she would look for progress and hope for good planning, but the notion of compromise did not mean she was prepared to give on each of the issues. Attorney Rosenthal stated he understood the County has agreed to put a standstill on the challenge to the annexations and to the zonings that had been filed with the City. In turn, they were asking that the City agree not to process any development permits, building permits, rezoning approvals, review of site plans, etc., to impose a three-month moratorium on the property. During that time, there would be some kind of discussion. He asked, if the City were inclined to agree with that, what direction they would take. City Manager Shapiro asked if it was possible that the City would be subject to litigation from any of the landowners that had been annexed and zoned who would be told that for 90 days they could do nothing with their land. Commissioner Foster stated he felt every action taken by the Commission had been legal. All the voluntary annexations had been legal and had fulfilled all the legal requirements and were in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Mayor Vandergrift stated he felt the same way as Chairman Chapin and wanted to cooperate with the County but wanted to make sure there was not going to be further legal action. Mr. Applegate stated there had been no choice but to file suit under Chapter 171 since the statute requires that suit be filed within 30 days. He said if an agreement was reached to wait 90 days, then attorneys on both sides should be able to work out the appropriate agreement. Discussion ensued. '- Attorney Rosenthal stated there might be disgruntled property owners who would object to a three-month delay. Given the time period of three months, it was not economically feasible to the property owners, no matter how disgruntled, to take legal action against the City. Nothing could be resolved in three months, and the delay would be over before any litigation was resolved. He stated he sensed the Commission supported the annexations and zonings they approved. He felt the greater question was the request of the County to restrict property use to one dwelling an acre. He did not think the property owner to whom he had spoken would agree and did not sense that the City Commission would agree to a Comprehensive Plan amendment supporting that. He did not think the property owner, regardless of whether the City amended its Comprehensive Plan, would ever have any expectation of developing his property to a maximum of 3.9 dwelling units to the acre. He felt ifthere were a delay, there was more a chance to find out if there was a point in between that individual property owners, primarily those with A-I zoning, would find acceptable. Discussion followed. He sensed the County wanted one dwelling unit an acre and that the property owners believed their better position was to litigate it. City Manager Shapiro stated if it is determined that the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan were legal and binding, which was the position of the City, the Plan gave the City direction, and the property owners sought out the City. The City felt it had the future land use approved in the Plan, and the utilities had been planned accordingly. The biggest problem he saw was a moral ~ 6 '- JOINT SPECIAL SESSION - OCOEE CITY COMMISSION WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 issue, an issue of the fact that if the Comprehensive Plan was legal and is legal, the people had approached the City, which said it would provide services. Those people then expended money to pay for the advertising and staff time for annexation. There was an agreement between the City Commission and those people. The County was asking to superimpose a position on those people after the fact. If that were not the case, there had been, in their minds, a lawful annexation and in some places, a lawful rezoning. He felt that political expediency also required some morality. Chairman Chapin suggested that a very threshold issue that would need to be resolved right away was his contention that the City's comprehensive plan is legal. She said that was the issue they would wish to attempt to resolve very early so they would know whether the position of the City or the position of the County were correct. Clearly that was a critical element in all this. Commissioner Donegan asked if the parcels involved were subject to impact fees. The answer was yes. Commissioner Foster asked if the concern was densities or contiguous properties or finger projections. He wanted to know if the two could be separated. Chairman Chapin said she thought both were issues of concern, but it seemed possible to her for the planners to work together to resolve some of the enclave issues by talking to the property owners about going into '-' the City. Commissioner Foster asked if involuntary annexations were considered to eliminate the enclaves if it would change the thinking of the County. Chairman Chapin said that was a good question and stated she did not know the state of the law on the issue of involuntary annexations to eliminate enclaves. Attorney Rosenthal stated there is a way to do it and explained. Attorney Yurko stated it is possible under general law under 171, a dual referendum. Mayor Vandergrift spoke of an enclave created years ago in which the property owners are not contiguous to the City. He said he would support legislation to allow voluntary annexation to someone right in the center of an enclave. Commissioner Foster stated that to agree to the moratorium was admitting that the City had done something illegal. He did not believe the City had. Chairman Chapin stated if the City did not agree to the three-month planning period, the County would be forced back to its original position. Commissioner Butler said the need was to find out who was right and who was wrong. Both parties feel they were within their rights. Discussion followed. Commissioner Staley asked if the City could proceed on any of the parcels while the County is going ahead with litigation. Attorney Wilkes stated he felt until the court ruled, there was ~ 7 JOINT SPECIAL SESSION - OCOEE CITY COMMISSION WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION '-" JANUARY 25, 1993 nothing to stop the City, but the property owners would be at risk if they spent any money based on the approval of the City. Commissioner Rusty Johnson stated the City did what the State said it could do. He said if the County thought that was wrong, the County must prove it was wrong. He said they were spending the taxpayers' dollars to do that. Commissioner Mary Johnson stated a motion was made in good faith to try to work out the problem. Commissioner Butler. seconded by Commissioner Staley. moved to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Foster. seconded by Commissioner Johnson. moved to deny the request for a three-month moratorium reeardine the annexations. Motion carried 3-2 with Mayor Vandererift and Commissioner Woodson votine no. Mayor Vandergrift asked if the City would be processing any of the properties at issue. City Manager Shapiro responded yes, within 90 days. '\..".. At 8:45 p.m.. Commissioner Combs. seconded bv Commissioner Foster. moved to adiourn. Motion carried 5-0. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. APPROVED City of Ocoee ~. i I S ~:zr. !~ S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor ~ 8