Loading...
P & Z - 03/13/2001 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Landefeld called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A moment of silent meditation was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. A quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Chairman Bond (arrived 7:35 p.m.), Vice Chairman Landefeld, Members Christoefl, Golden, Matthys, McKey, Miller (arrived 7:43 p.m.), and Rhodus. Also present were Acting Planning Director Lewis, Senior Planner Dyson, Assistant City Attorney Formella, and Deputy City Clerk Green. ABSENT: Member West. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of approval of Item A: A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. Member Matt seconded by Member McKey, moved to accept the Consent A. enda as presented, Motion carried 6 -0. (Chairman Bond and Member Miller had not yet arrived.) NEW BUSINESS CAMBRIDGE VILLAGE PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY /FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, PROJECT NO. LS- 2000 -013 Chairman Bond arrived as consideration of this item began. Senior Planner Dyson presented the Staff Report for the proposed Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan for Cambridge Village. The project as proposed will include 30 single family residential units on approximately nine acres. The subject property is located on the south side of White Road, east of Clarke Road and north of the West Oaks Mall site. The parcel was annexed and zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) in March 2000, and a road right -of -way vacation adjacent to the Rosehill site was approved in September 2000. Site constraints include rolling topography and large and small trees throughout the site. A vegetation covered ridge to be preserved in a 25 foot conservation easement will serve as a buffer between Cambridge Village and Rosehill. The Plan has been Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 modified at Staff's request to accomplish a more natural grading plan and additional tree preservation plus the 25 foot tract along the east portion of the site. Ms. Dyson said attachments to the staff report list additional modifications requested by Planning (Attachment A) and remaining stormwater engineering issues by Engineering. She said all the issues could be handled by administrative review. She concluded with the Staff recommendation that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Cambridge Village Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plan subject to the revisions including the waivers recommended by Staff. Member McKey asked the purpose of the 25 foot conservation easement. Ms. Dyson said it will serve as a transition between the larger lots in Rosehill and the smaller lots in the Cambridge site and it will serve as a buffer between the two projects. She pointed out that the PUD zoning permitted negotiation of additional conditions that help make the project more compatible with its surroundings. Chairman Bond retrieved the gavel at this point in the meeting. Member Golden asked if the Plan they are looking at has the more natural grade plan as negotiated with the owner, and Ms. Dyson confirmed that they had the reengineered Plan. Noting a comment in the Staff Report, Member Matthys asked why the Planning and Zoning Commission was looking at the Plan if it was not the Final Plan. Ms. Dyson pointed out the listings in the attachments to the staff report. She said the comments from Planning are fairly minor changes. The comments from Engineering would involve changes to the pond, but Engineering staff had said if the applicant can accommodate those changes, they could be made after the hearings. She said they have been trying to expedite plans to get them through the process a little faster so allowing Plans to go through with some minor changes after the public hearing allows staff to ask for fewer iterations of the plan. She said that administrative review would be such that as Staff was checking the Plan only previously agreed upon changes could be accepted. Chairman Bond asked if it would be fair to say that the pond would retain its configuration as presented in these Plans, and would not have any impact on the surrounding lots.. Ms. Dyson said she would need to defer to the applicant to respond as this was a fairly technical engineering question. Member Miller arrived. Assistant City Attorney Formella pointed out that this is no different from Plans they have had in the past, but that it may be worded a bit differently in the reports. She said 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 there are a few issues which have not yet been incorporated into the Plan, and Staff has recommended that the Plan be approved subject to those revisions. She said the Final Plan will be what the City Commission approves. The only items that Staff is recommending to be changed from the Plan before Planning and Zoning are those few items that are in Attachment A. She pointed out that, as always, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to make any recommendation they see fit. They could go with the Staff recommendation, could accept the Plan as is, or could add other revisions they would like to see made. Vice Chairman Landefeld expressed his view that the matters referred to in the memo from Engineering were serious. Ms. Dyson said Engineering has indicated that the one foot of freeboard requirement could be met with minor modifications to the Plan. She said she would need to have the applicant address their strategy for dealing with that comment. Ms. Formella said any time a Plan goes through, it will not be signed off as approved for construction until all of the items that were in the City Commission action are met and any conditions of approval which must be met prior to the pre - construction conference have been satisfied. She said there often are items which are outstanding, such as a document that has to be provided prior to the pre - construction conference, and the Development Review Coordinator keeps a check list of those matters. Member Matthys said he was confident that Staff would be able to resolve the outstanding issues, but he was concerned about possible restructuring of the lots and that the Board would be making a recommendation on something that was not going to be the final product. Chairman Bond suggested that they ask the applicant whether or not there will be any restructuring to any of the lots and what impact it will have on any of the changes that they are not seeing here. Bob Lochrane, Lochrane Engineering, 201 S. Bumby Avenue, Orlando, the design engineers for the site, said he was here to represent the applicant. He said the comments from the Engineering Department may sound more serious than they actually are, and that is why the City Engineering Department recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project with these comments. Vice Chairman Landefeld asked that he address them. Mr. Lochrane said the freeboard in the stormwater pond is the elevation difference between the top of the highest water level in the pond from the designed storm to the top of the pond. In this case they are designing a 100 year storm to be held in the pond, but 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 have about a half foot separation instead of the required one foot separation from the 100 year storm elevation. He said the easy correction for this is to raise the pond embankment about one half foot. Vice Chairman Landefeld stressed that the applicant should address the matter out of consideration for the future residents. Mr. Lochrane said they would increase the berm height around the perimeter of the pond so there would be the one foot separation at the 100 year storm elevation as requested by Staff. He said it was a minor change and would have no impact on adjacent lots or on the properties adjacent to their site. He said the pond is within an easement that the homeowners' association will own and maintain. Vice Chairman Landefeld directed attention to Tract A, Note 17 on page 5 of 12. He said he saw no barrier between the retention pond and the tot lot and was concerned about safety of children. Mr. Lochrane said it was not their intention to add a fence as they had kept a mild slope on the pond in that area to maintain a natural appearance of a park like setting without out having to create a fenced in or walled in pool. He said it had been their objective with Staff to keep that open and fence in only the north side which is that part fronting White Road and the west part which is the separation from the entrance driveway. Mr. Lochrane said they typically put fencing around the pond if it has steep side slopes. Mr. Landefeld said he would like staff to address that, and Chairman Bond said if it is the pleasure of the board, the issue could be addressed in the motion. Member Golden pointed out that this was a dry pond. Principal Planner Lewis clarified the code requirements on the fencing of ponds. He said ponds which have a slope greater than 5 to 1 are required to have a fence, so it would not be required by the Code in this case. Mr. Lochrane said this could be perceived as phase 2 of a two phase development and the first phase of the project has a similar pond which is not fenced. He said he would like the board to consider keeping it unfenced on the recreational side. Member McKey asked if there were a tot lot near the other pond, and Mr. Lochrane said he was not certain. Mr. McKey said the board might recommend fencing the tot lot and Member Rhodus said that was a much better idea. The public hearing was opened. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 Ronald M. Ward, 1241 Red Dandy Drive, president of the HOA Rosehill, Phase 3, commended the board for addressing safety issues. He had several questions to which Mr. Richard Wark, general manager of Village Construction, 1046 Lake Francis Drive, Apopka, the developer/builder of the project, responded as noted below. How long is the berm and will it protect the entire property? The 25' conservation area runs entirely along their eastern and southerly property line. What is the proximity of the houses in the proposed development to their homes? The distance between houses will include a 25' setback from the rear of Cambridge Village homes, a 25' buffer, and the setback (25' to 35') of the homes in Rosehill. Mr. Wark said the selling price of the Cambridge homes would be $135,000 to $180,000. What about the previously promised brick wall between subdivisions? In meetings with Rosehill homeowners on this project over the last couple of years, he had promised to put a brick wall up between their project and Rosehill. Along their west and south property lines the West Oaks Mall installed a wooden and chain fence. He said City Commission was requiring him to put a brick wall along the west side and the south side tying into Rosehill's wall on the south side. He said since he had to sustain the expense of that wall he could not afford the expense of the wall between Cambridge Village and Rosehill. Also the City had recommended that he vacate the 25' conservation area, which was right -of -way at the time, and that is the buffer between the two projects. What about the wrought iron post fence? They had been told early on that the developer was going to match their wall on the west end of their property. The City recommended that they go with wrought iron with brick tops. He said one of the reasons they had gone with columns was to preserve some of the trees in that area. Member Golden said he liked the 25' conservation easement, but the separation from the Rosehill homes appeared to be 25' to 35' for Lots 17 and 18. Mr. Wark said it should be 70' to 75'. Member McKey asked for clarification for the note on the drawing which stated the existing fence is to remain. Assistant City Attorney Formella said the existing fence is to remain on the east side, but there is an existing fence to be removed on the south side. Mr. Wark said the barbed wire fence is coming down. He said the fence that West Oaks Mall has put up is on their property, but he will have to build a brick wall inside of that. Ismael Almodovar, 1142 Red Dandy Drive, said he was concerned that, without a wall, there would be a problem with people walking through his yard. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 Gloria Hartly, 1130 Red Dandy Drive, addressed the board about several concerns. He concerns included saving trees, that the homes to be built would look down into their back yards, and that the retention pond area would attract children from out of the area. She supported having a brick wall instead of the wrought iron fence on White Road, and asked if the homes would be similar to those in Rosehill. Ms. Dyson said a ridge along the boundary between Rosehill and the Cambridge development should restrict the view to rooftops from either side. Ms. Hartly said that would not be the case in the areas with flat elevation, and asked if all of the homes would be two story. Mr. Wark said there would be a mix of one and two story homes. Jane Magariner, 9138 Pristine Circle, asked that they reconsider the wrought iron fence. She said a brick wall to match what is already in place would be more esthetically pleasing. Edward Douglas, representing his brother, Harry Douglas of 9146 Pristine Circle, asked who will maintain the buffer zone. Principal Planner Lewis responded that the 25' buffer will be maintained by the homeowners' association. Marge Johnstone, 1124 Red Dandy Drive, said they are trying to protect their neighborhood. She said they are asking to be kept informed and to be given the opportunity to address the issues. Chairman Bond encouraged the Rosehill residents to attend the City Commission meeting when this comes before them on the agenda. She explained that the function of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to recommend to the City Commission. Neville Payne, 1136 Red Dandy Drive, said he was also concerned about the brick wall and the safety of children around the retention ponds. Responding to a question by Ronald Ward, Acting Planning Director Lewis said the City does not recommend brick walls between subdivisions. He said there is no regulation to prevent them, and they do sometimes happen. He proceeded to clarify PUD requirements and what this plan shows as to buffers and walls. He said with the PUD the City Commission had required a brick wall along the western boundary and the southern boundary adjacent to the mall, and this plan shows that. The Plan does not show a wall between the two properties as it was not required by the PUD. The PUD had a Condition of Approval (No. 15) which indicated that a six foot brick column/decorative fence /metal fence combination with landscaping will be provided along the north side of the retention 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 pond adjacent to White Road and along the west side of the retention pond adjacent to the entrance road. In all instances for buffers, this Plan is consistent with the PUD zoning. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bond commented about the City's commitment to tree preservation. Member McKey expressed the hope that saving trees would be addressed on an individual lot basis so the maximum number of trees could be saved. He asked if the wall along White Road was part of the PUD and Ms. Formella explained that it was out of the PUD Land Use Plan. She said it was her opinion that changing that now would require an amendment to the PUD, and that it would be a substantial change which would have to come back through the hearing process. Mr. McKey said there was precedent for that type of structure further along White Road toward Sleepy Harbor. Member McKey also expressed his concern that 60 foot lots will lead to problems with parking on streets. He said as president of his HOA he receives many calls with complaints about parking on streets and they have 80 foot wide lots. He said Article VII (k) of the LDC provides that loops and circles, rather than cul de sacs, are the preferred method of laying out property. He explained how he thought this property would benefit from that approach, and suggested adding an off - street parking area. He urged that staff address this issue so that future developments do not run into that problem. He suggested that alleys can be a helpful alternative to clean up the main streets. Member Christoefl expressed concern about maintenance of the conservation area. She supported adding a brick wall to be woven through the trees in the area. Member Matthys asked the applicant what was proposed for the eastern boundary by Rosehill. Mr. Wark reviewed the history of his dealings with this area since the annexation and zoning. He said the east side would be buffered by the conservation area and the difference in elevation. He said he had promised to put a wall there, but the City had insisted that he put it on the other two sides. Mr. Wark pointed out he had nothing to do with the column and wrought iron fencing provided in the PUD, he had just agreed to do it. Member Christoefl again expressed concern that the conservation area would not be maintained adequately. Ms. Formella pointed out that any problems with that area would be handled through code enforcement procedures. She said, as to the wall and the fencing, she was not aware of any prohibition against having a wall there, but the PUD as approved does provide that no walls or fencing will be required along the east property 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 line. She said the City could not then require the developer to install a fence. (Condition of Approval No. 26). Assistant City Attorney Formella explained the Board's options. She said the PUD Land Use Plan is basically a zoning matter. There are statutory requirements for applications initiated by a property owner as opposed to a governmental entity. She said the PUD Land Use Plan does not prohibit putting something there, but it provides that no walls or fences will be required. She said if the board required it over the objection of the developer, that could be done, but it would have to go through the hearing process as a substantial amendment to the PUD Land Use Plan and would have to follow the statutory requirements for something initiated by a governmental entity. Chairman Bond said she thought that if the homeowners had been told they would have a wall on the east side it should be upheld. Member McKey asked if the owners whose properties back up against the conservation area would be permitted to install fences up to the property line of Rosehill. Member Christoefl said in the staff recommendation based on a revised Plan dated March 7, the reference to the east fence is not included in the Conditions of Approval on Sheet 5 of 12. Attorney Formella said the Subdivision Plan must be consistent with the approved PUD Land Use Plan, and the sheet does not show one. Member Golden asked Mr. Lochrane about the grading of trees on Lots 17, 14, 13, 12 and around the cul de sac. Mr. Lochrane explained that the dashed -in line is not the house footprint but is the maximum area in which the house can be sited. The Plan shows a worst case scenario. He said they had tried to develop a plan that minimizes tree loss and maximizes tree saving. Mr. Golden urged saving trees in the buffer area and especially behind Lots 17 and 18. Mr. Lochrane explained that it would depend upon where the houses are placed. Noting that 60 trees were marked for removal in the pond area up front, Member Golden asked if it would be possible to save any of the large trees with planter type setups. Mr. Lochrane explained that approach would decrease the capacity of the pond which would hinder stormwater management. He said they are saving many trees in the park area. Mr. Lochrane pointed out that the pond was not a water feature, that it would be dry except when it rains. He said it is designed in accordance with good engineering 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 practice, the City's criteria and the state of Florida's criteria. It has minor shallow side slopes and it should drain within a few days even after a 25 year storm. Member Golden said, in the future, he thought they need to see plans that are ready to approve and vote on. He is not comfortable with recommending plans that are not final or have outstanding conditions. Discussion ensued in which Chairman Bond along with other members stressed that they do not want to see incomplete plans. As Member McKey suggested the motion reflected below, Chairman Bond said she agreed with his views, but thought they should not make an example of this applicant. Attorney Formella advised that the members should be aware before they vote on the motion that it has been advertised for public hearing before the City Commission at its meeting on March 20. She said City Commission can act on it without a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said both boards could choose to continue the hearings to a date certain without having to readvertise. As members concluded their discussion, they wanted to send a clear message that they do not like seeing plans which need changes because of outstanding issues and are not ready to be approved as presented. Mr. Lewis said part of the reason for what may appear to be rushing is that Mr. Wark had contract concerns. Chairman Bond clarified for the record that they do not look at it as rushing, but as having received incomplete information. Member McKey, seconded by Member Christoefl, moved that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the Cambridge Village Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan Pro *e t No. L - 2110 -01 as date stamped rec-iv-. • the Cit en Mar h 7 2011 and recommend that City Commission send the Plan back for further Staff review until all the outstanding DRC issues have been resolved, and then have it come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Commission for review and approval. Motion carried 5 -3, with Chairman Bond, Members Matthys and Rhodus voting "no." OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 Member Matthys announced the Florida American Planning Association is having a conference in October in Orlando. He said one of their track sessions is for planning commissioners and suggested board members may wish to attend. Chairman Bond said the City would pay for those members who wish to attend. COMMENTS Principal Planner Lewis said the board would not meet March 28. Matters to be on the April 10 agenda include Orchard Park Subdivision Plan, minor revision to the SR 50 Access Management Plan, and the Health Central Hospital Expansion Plan. Vice Chairman Landefeld asked when the Super WalMart construction would begin. Ms. Dyson said the pre - construction conference for the project may be held this month. Chairman Bond said for the record that she was pleased to see that security cameras have been installed in the old WalMart parking lot, and she hopes that will flow through to the new property site as well. Attorney Formella said this was her last meeting as she will be taking a leave of absence from the practice of law for a few years. She said Scott Cookson will be assisting the board for the foreseeable future. She said it had truly been a privilege and pleasure to work with this board. Members assured her that she will be missed and thanked her for her guidance. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Attest: APPROVED: Marian Green, Deputy City Clerk P t Bond, Chairma ► 10