10-11-2022 Minutes ocoee
florlda
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ACTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
Tuesday, October 11,2022
I. CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 pm
A. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum
Present: Chair Lomneck, Vice-Chair Kennedy, Member Forges, Member Mellen, Member
Williams, Alternate Member Keller
Absent: None
Also Present: Zoning Manager Whitfield,Assistant City Attorney Drage, Recording Clerk Heard
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of the Planning&Zoning Commission Meeting held September 13,2022.
Motion for Approval of the Consent Agenda: Moved by Member Mellen, Seconded by
Member Williams; Motion carried unanimously.
III. OLD BUSINESS -None
IV. NEW BUSINESS—Public Hearings (6:32 pm)
A. Variance Request for Family Dollar/Dollar Tree at 1531 East Silver Star Road,
VR-22-07. (Continued from the August 30, 2022, and September 13, 2022, Planning and
Zoning Meeting. Advertised in the West Orange Times on Thursday, August 18, 2022)
Zoning Manager Whitfield presented a brief overview of the variance requested by Family
Dollar/Dollar Tree to allow an additional 80.08 square feet of sign area (108% sign size increase)
to the maximum 75 SF permitted in order to install two (2) signs totaling 155.8 SF on the property
located at 1531 East Silver Star Road, and zoned C-2 (community Commercial District). She
explained this item was advertised as Article VI, Section 6-14C(5) in the LDC, but the sign code
has since been updated to Article VIII, Section 8-6A. Per Section 8-6A, the maximum sign area
1
Planning&Zoning Commission
October 11,2022
allowed is 75 SF, with a sign height of 3.5 feet. The applicant is proposing two (2) signs, totaling
155.8 SF, to be affixed to and serve the same single retail establishment, as follows: (1) Family
Dollar sign—72.3 SF, (2)Dollar Tree sign—83.5 SF. Both signs meet the maximum sign height of
3 feet; however, combined, they exceed the maximum size area by 80.08 SF, representing a size
area increase of 108%. Therefore,the applicant is seeking a variance to increase the sign area.
Zoning Manager Whitfield explained staff findings as stated below and recommendations of
denial.
1)No special conditions and circumstances exist peculiar to this site;
2)The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties with similar conditions; and
3)The granting of the variance would confer special privileges that are denied by these regulations
to other projects and structures on the site. The circumstances of this variance are related to the
applicant's desire for larger sign size; and further, that the provisions of Section 3.1.3 in Chapter 3
of the AASHTO Green Book do not apply to, or provide, adequate justification to support a 108%
increase in size for on-site signage for a development.
Discussion:
Chair Lomneck inquired whether anyone remembered if the Ladybird Academy was denied,
because he believes it was a denial on their variance request for a larger sign. Also, Frank's Place
signage had to be reduced as well,which is located on the side of this same complex.
Member Forges asked if the current signs meet code, and Zoning Manager Whitfield answered
affirmatively.
Vice-Chair Kennedy asked what staff disagreed on. Zoning Manager Whitefield explained staff
does not disagree with the type of road being an urban road; however, staff disagreed with the
applicant's justification of the decision sight distance of 930 feet is required per the Green Book.
Jim Hirni,Applicant,AnchorSign, Inc., Charleston, South Carolina, explained they are requesting
bigger signage for safety reasons and shared photographs of the proposed signage.
Member Keller stated he would be interested to see what the difference would be if the
photographs were the same size. Mr. Hirni showed examples to Member Keller.
Member Mellen stated he believed installing a sign closer to the road would work instead of
making it bigger. Mr.Hirni indicated the owner is not interested in installing a separate monument
sign.
The Public hearing was opened.As no speaker forms were received, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Lomneck said the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the Ladybird Academy's
variance request for bigger signage on the building and monument sign.
Vice-Chair Kennedy asked for clarification if all four conditions must be met, or just one, which
was answered that all four special conditions must be met.
2
Planning&Zoning Commission
October 11,2022
(6:58 pm)
Motion: Move that the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning
Agency, recommend to the Ocoee City Commission Denial of the Family Dollar/Dollar
Tree at 1531 East Silver Star Road, VR-22-07, based on factual interpretation of the
code requirements, as presented by staff, and public testimony related; Moved by
Vice-Chair Kennedy, Seconded by Member Williams; motion carried unanimously.
B. Large Scale Preliminary Site Plan for All Star Corporate Headquarters; Project No.
LS-2022-011. (Advertised in the West Orange Times on Thursday, September 29, 2022)
Chair Lomneck announced the applicant has requested a continuance to the November 8, 2022,
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
The Public hearing was opened.As no speaker forms were received, the public hearing was closed.
(7:00 pm)
Motion: Move that this item be continued to the November 8, 2022, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting; Moved by Member Williams, Seconded by Member Mellen;
motion carried unanimously.
C. Land Development Code(LDC)Amendment to Section 5-15B and Table 5-1 of Article V
Pertaining to Major Community Residential Homes and Commercial Recreational
Facilities. (Advertised in the West Orange Times on Thursday, September 29, 2022)
Zoning Manager Whitfield presented a brief overview of the proposed amendment with respect
to Major Community Residential Homes (CRH)s and Commercial Recreation Facilities. With
respect to CRHs, Table 5-1 allows a CRH use in agriculture zoning districts (A-1 and A-2) and all
of the residential zoning districts(RCE-1 through R-3)as a permitted use by right;however, Section
5-15B(3) of Article V stipulates that a conditional use permit and approvals from Planning and
Zoning Commission/City Commission are required.
In order to eliminate this discrepancy, staff has identified the need to amend the relevant provisions
of the Code relative to Major CRHs and establish clear processes and expectations for this use. To
summarize, staff proposes the following:
1) Modify Table 5-1 to prohibit major community residential homes in the A-1, A-2, and RCE-1
through R-2 zoning districts and require a Special Exception approval for them in the R-3
Multi-family Dwelling District, and
2) Modify Section 5-15B(3)to:
a. Replace the reference to "conditional use permit" with a clear reference to the
requirement for a Special Exception approval; and
b. Clarify the application process and establish criteria for approval of a Major Community
Residential Home.
3
Planning&Zoning Commission
October 11,2022
Zoning Manager Whitfield explained with respect to Recreation Facilities, Section 2-4 in Article
II currently defines commercial and neighborhood recreation facilities as follows:
(258) "Recreation Facility, Commercial" is defined as a "facility providing for indoor or
outdoor recreational activity consisting of the following:
(a) Indoor Recreation Facility: Arcades,billiard and pool parlors,bowling alleys, indoor
recreation centers, gymnasium, spas,health clubs, and similar activities.
(b) Outdoor Recreation Facility: Miniature golf courses, golf driving ranges, go-cart
tracks, stables, horse riding areas, and similar activities."
(260) "Recreation Facility, Neighborhood" is defined as "any outdoor recreational activity
which is oriented to the needs of persons living in fairly close proximity and specifically includes
playgrounds, playfields, ballparks, tennis and basketball courts, facilities for jogging and cycling,
boat docks and boat ramps (but not marinas), fishing piers, and similar uses, including buildings
and facilities for such uses."
Zoning Manager Whitfield stated it has come to staffs attention that Commercial Recreation
Facilities (which include intensive outdoor activities) are permitted by right in C-2, C-3, I-1, and
I-2 zoning districts; however, Neighborhood Recreation Facilities (which include less intensive,
neighborhood-oriented outdoor activities) require a Special Exception approval in those same C-2,
C-3,I-,1 and I-2 zoning districts. Since outdoor Commercial Recreation Facilities and activities are
more intense and impactful to surrounding neighborhoods and properties than outdoor
Neighborhood Recreation Facilities, staff is proposing to modify Table 5-1 to create a distinction
between "Indoor" and "Outdoor" Commercial Recreation Facilities. Specifically, Indoor
Commercial Recreation Facilities may continue to be permitted by right in the C-2, C-3, I-,1, and
I-2 zoning districts; however, Outdoor Commercial Recreation Facilities will be required a Special
Exception approval in the C-2, C-3, I-,1, and I-2 zoning districts. Requiring the Special Exception
for these outdoor commercial, and recreational facilities will allow the City the ability to ensure
that conditions are in place to protect the surrounding properties.
Zoning Manager Whitfield further stated staff recommends approval and feels that the proposed
LDC amendment will resolve discrepancies relative to Community Residential Homes and alleviate
potential adverse impacts of outdoor commercial recreation facilities to the surrounding properties.
Discussion:
Member Mellen asked whether more stringent safety requirements can be put in place. Zoning
Manager Whitfield answered in the affirmative and explained the statutes state they shall meet
building and safety requirements.Discussion ensued regarding building and safety codes.
Member Williams inquired if this will affect existing ALFs or only new ALFs; and further, if the
ALF is dissolved, does the zoning revert back to its original zoning use. Zoning Manager
Whitfield explained this amendment will only affect new ALFs; and if the ALF does dissolve, the
principle initial zoning will be reinstated.
Vice-Chair Kennedy inquired if it is possible to require an affidavit from the homeowner, or for
4
Planning &Zoning Commission
October 11,2022
the HOA to submit a statement whether or not an ALF is allowed in the development. Zoning
Manager Whitfield stated the City would only need input from the HOA if the request somehow
impacts property owned and maintained by the HOA. Vice-Chair Kennedy further asked if there
is a way the HOAs can be notified of any proposed property request within that HOA development.
Zoning Manager Whitfield explained public notice provisions are pursuant to public hearings
which entail notifying the public by a 300 foot notice,publishing an ad in a newspaper of general
circulation, and posting the property. However, she stated she would look into some type of notice
where an entity can look it up on the City's website.
Member Keller asked whether a notice can be placed on the application that the burden is on the
homeowner to obtain HOA approval,if it is not already on the application. Assistant City Attorney
Drage explained it is not the City's responsibility to make sure the homeowner notifies their HOA,
and there may be a better way to inform the homeowner.
Chair Lomneck explained the City is not approving ALFs,the State is; and further,the onus is not
on the City, but on the HOAs to start looking at their bylaws.
Zoning Manager Whitfield clarified the city's application process with respect to the safety permit
inspections. Vice-Chair Kennedy explained his position with regard to ALFs violating the HOA's
bylaws and covenants.
Chair Lomneck asked Assistant City Attorney Drage whether the City could ask the homeowner
whether they have an HOA when the application is at the permitting phase. Assistant City
Attorney Drage stated that is something the City can look into; however, an ALF should not be
treated differently than what State law requires, which is residential even though it may have
commercial standards. Member Mellen stated his position that negligence is not a defense, and it's
the HOA's job to police their covenants. Chair Lomneck believed there are valid comments about
this topic, but asked staff to take the comments back to Development Services Director Rumer to
figure something out.
The Public hearing was opened.As no speaker forms were received, the public hearing was closed.
(7:32 pm)
Motion: Move that the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning
Agency, recommend to the Ocoee City Commission Approval of Land Development
Code (LDC) Amendment to Section 5-15B and Table 5-1 of Article V Pertaining to
Maior Community Residential Homes and Commercial Recreational Facilities,
subject to resolution of the remaining staff comments before the City Commission meeting;
Moved by Member Williams, Seconded by Member Mellen; motion carried 4-5 with
Vice-Chair Kennedy opposing.
Vice-Chair Kennedy explained he appreciated the Assistant City Attorney's comments and would
like to see the research and due diligence prior to it going to the City Commission.
5
Planning&Zoning Commission
October 11,2022
V. MISCELLANEOUS - (7:33 pm)
A. Project Status Report
Zoning Manager Whitfield updated the Board with the following:
• Developers for the Ocoee Landings Mixed Use Building are planning a second
community meeting to resolve community concerns.
• Ocoee Village Center and Wellness Park are currently under construction.
• Arden Park Phase 6 is nearing completion.
• Unity Park is currently under construction,and the Ocoee Medical Building,Advent
Health, is about 90%complete.
• Starbucks and Inspiration are currently under construction.
• Chair Lomneck inquired if there is any more information regarding the widening
of the Turnpike and the 429. Zoning Manager Whitfield stated FDOT has paused
in order to reevaluate; and further, one of the alternatives will not impact the Alibi
Apartments, but there will be an impact to The Regency.
B. October Calendar- No updates
Motion: Move to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Moved by
Vice-Chair Kennedy, Seconded by Member Williams; motion carried unanimously.
VI. ADJOURNMENT - 7:37 pm
ATTEST: APP) yED:
11 110
•fd ,........__
at y Hea , Recording Clerk BrIT:"--0 • 4eck, C air
\
6