Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 07 08 Regular Item E (' ~{ '( :-...~. ~ . COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM E REGULAR X CONSENT INFORMATIONAL July 08. 1996 Meeting MGR. R/'//)/ IDh# Authorization REQUEST: Land Management Division updating the Commission on the status of the James N. Duke request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on property located in Seminole County, and seeking direction relative to desired changes in current policy regarding the amendment. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Board Item is to update the Commission on the status of the James N. Duke request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which will be presented to the County Local Planning Agency on July 10, 1996 and the Board of County Commissioners on August 13th, and to determine if the Commission desires to change its current policy regarding the project. NOTE: The City staff will be continuing to negotiate an arrangement agreeable to all sides during this week. A supplemental report will be sent on Friday, July 5, 1996 to the City Commission regarding these negotiations. CONSIDERATIONS: May 13, 1996 The City Commission took action to oppose this project until such time that the Highlands property owners and Duke Properties reach a mutual agreement as regards the development of this property. This position has been conveyed to the County. June 24, 1996 City Commission received an updated report on the project, received public comment and voted to establish a public hearing on July 8, 1996 to determine if the Commission desires to amend the current policy. June 27, 1996 City Manager, staff, representatives of the Highlands Homeowners Association, and Berryman & Henigar met to discuss mutually agreeable compromise. \ ( {. .~ July 08, 1996 AGENDA ITEM Page 2 July 03, 1996 City Manager, staff, County plan reviewer, representatives of the Highlands Homeowners Association, and Berryman & Henigar will meet to discuss a mutually agreeable compromise. August 13, 1996 County Staff presentation of the County's Large Scale Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, to include the Duke property and the amendment to the sewer service area, is to be made to the Board of County Commissioners. This presentation will include the recommendations of the County's Local Planning Agency meeting of July 10th. AL TERNA TIVES: The City Commission has two (2) alternatives available at this time. These are: a) Maintain the current position - the Commission's opposition to the project is on record. b) Amend the current position and provide direction to the City Manager to express the Commission's new position at the July 10th County Local Planning Agency meeting and/or at the August 13th County Commissioners transmittal Public Hearing. ATTACHMENT: Winter Springs Commerce Park Site Plan. COMMISSION ACTION: \ \ \ '\ , I COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM E Supplemental REGULAR X CONSENT INFORMATIONAL July 8, 1996 Meeting MGR/tv A /DEPT Authorization REOUEST: The City Manager requesting direction from the City Commission relative to the transmittal of the Commission's Policy to the Seminole County Planning Commission and Seminole County Commission regarding the proposal of Duke Properties to rezone approximately 13 acres of property located on S.R 419 from Suburban Estates to Planned Commercial District. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Commission Item is for the Commission to hold a Public Hearing on the Duke Properties Rezoning Proposal and to provide the City Manager with direction regarding the transmittal of Commission's Policy resulting from this hearing to the Seminole County Planning Commission and the Seminole County Commission. CONSIDERATIONS: A) On May 13, 1996, the Commission established a policy in opposition to Duke Properties proposed rezoning based upon a finding that the proposal "as presented" failed to meet the compatibility test of the City's Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with the Inter-governments provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan directed the City Manager to do the following: a) Transmit the Commission Policy to the County; b) Advise the County that the City would be open to consideration of a revised proposal that would be acceptable to the adjacent residential property owner's; c) Work with Staff, Homeowner's and developer to determine if a compromise plan acceptable to the parties could be worked out. Page 1 ~ B) On June 24, 1996 the City Commission received a report from the City Manager updating the Commission on the status of the proposal. Upon consideration of the report and continuing opposition from the Highlands Homeowner's the Commission established a public hearing date of July 8, 1996 to reconsider its policy relative to the proposal. C) Following the June 24, 1996 Commission Meeting the City Manager continued efforts to work out a compromise agreement. Meetings were held with members of the Property Owner's Association, City staff, the City's Planning Consultant, the City's Financial Advisor and County staff. Considering the concerns and comments of all the parties, the City through its Planning Consultant, Berryman and Henigar presented the attached compromise proposal (Berryman and Henigar letter, paragraph's 5,6,7, & 8) to the Property Owner's Association late Friday, July 5, 1996 for consideration at the Property Owner's Association meeting that night. On Saturday, July 6, 1996 the residents of the Highland's Property Owner's Association advised the City Manager that the plan was rejected by the representatives of the association. CONCLUSION: As per the City Commission's direction the City Manager attempted to work out a compromise mutually acceptable to the property owners and the developer. These attempts have failed. Additional efforts to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement between the parties does not appear to be possible at this time. AL TERNA TIVES Based upon all information on the record including that presented at the July 8, 1996 Public Hearing, the Commission has at least the following alternatives: 1) Reaffirm the current policy in opposition of the proposal as presented and leaving the door open for a mutually acceptable compromise to be worked out before the County Planning Commission and County Commission. 2) Amend the current policy further stipulating groups upon which the Commission finds the proposal to be objectionable. 3) Amend the current policy further stipulating the grounds upon which the Commission could find the proposal to be acceptable. Page 2 ': RECOMMENDATION: A) The Commission consider all the information that has been presented in the record and choose the policy it determines to be most consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. B) Direct the City Manager to transmit this policy to the Seminole County Planning Commission and/or the Seminole County Commission. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Commission Policy can be presented to the Seminole Planning Commission for consideration at its scheduled July 10, 1996 Public Hearing on the proposal. Commission Policy can be presented to the Seminole County Commission for consideration at its scheduled August 13, 1996 Public Hearing on this proposal. ATTACHMENTS: a) July 5, 1996 Staff Compromise Plan prepared by Berryman and Henigar. b) July 5, 1996 memo prepared by Jim Lentz. COMMISSION ACTION: Page 3 07/05/1gg5 17:10 407425Sgn BERRVf\-lAN HEt'-H GAR PAGE 02 IIB~:~~~,,::!~n .& H'!m::~!.~,~' . MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Ronald W. McLemore, City Manager DATE: July 5, 1996 . FROM: Michael D. \Vadley., AICP SUBJECT: Review of James N. Duke Rezoning Request from Suburban Estates to Planned Development You have requested that I review the Duke Rezoning application. The purpose is to determine if there are reasonable conditions that the Seminole County Commissioners can place on this property to protect the abutting property owners in the City of Winter Springs and still approve the project. The assumption is that the County Commission will approve the rezoning request as presented if a reasonable alternative is not presented. My response is as follows: .1. I agree with Seminole County's staff analysis that the request for rezoning should be approved. The property is located on an arterial, S.R. 419, in an area that is undergoing change and will continue to develop as a commercial and industrial corridor. After reviewing the request in light of Seminole County requirements and comprehensive plan, I can tind no compelling reason for the county to deny the request. 2. Seminole County staffhas requested that this be processed as a Planned Commercial District (PCD). This has given the county the opportunity to place additional restrictions on the proposed project. 3. It has been my experience that a governing board will consider reasonable alternatives at a public hearing if presented properly. The PCD gives them the flexibility to negotiate to try and find a solution that is fair to all parties if possible. Having said that, it is also my experience that the request needs to be sinlple - the fewer the items being requested the better. A long list of requests is likely to be ignored and not considered. It also inc.reases the odds of different commissioners taking opposing sides which will also kill the request. 4. I do not think the County Conunission will support increasing either the buffer or building setback requirements because of the orientation of the buildings and parking shown ou the plan and the restrictions on uses. 5. I do think it is reasonable to request that the proposed wall be brick and not painted block. The brick is more compatible with the residential development. As you suggested, the request could be made to require the developer to construct a 61 high architecturally 5119 N. Magnolia Avenue · Orlando, FL 32801 tel: 407-426-8994 ::' ~ ,~,' r .1 ("' ~1 ,~ .: ~~ t:]//.,1 (jonr::,!unin/ ,~,'7i,:.J:J....ct fax: 407-426-8977 ..... 'i _Il:::' _'::;:; I.... =. . I'~ o'"r 0 n" 07/05/1996 17:10 4074268977 BERRYMAN HEt'-1 I GAR PAGE 03 ., Memorandum Mr. Ronald W. McLemore July 5, 1996 detailed brick wall 10' from the right-of-way line. The 10' area between the right-of-way line and the wall would be landscaped with a combination of canopy trees such as live oaks, understory trees appropriately spaced and shrubs beds. This type of wall would be an asset for the property owners in the Highlands. A second alternative would be to request that the brick wall be placed at the rear ofthe 25' butler. The detailing on the wall would not be as critical at this location. In any event, the wall should be brick and not painted block. 6. Staff recommendation #5. should be modified to prohibit outdoor manufacturing and assemble in addition to no outdoor storage. 7. I would request that the maximwn building height be lowered from 35' to 30'. I think this is reasonable but the chances are the commission will leave the building height at 35'. 8. I would request that the following uses be added as prohibited uses: * Veterinary hospitals and kennels Laundry and dry cleaning plants Lithography and publishing plants . Cold storage and frozen food lockers Printing, bookbinding, lithographic platemaking, engraving, and publishing plants Manufacturing of water-based and/or epoxy based coatings, adhesives, sealants, and paints * >I' * * '" .'~:~~~''::I~n .& .;~g:.~~:~n~' C 'C. j-' ''.If .1 n 7 .1 :" ,: :t J ..... - 'l'7-nc,-OF. n~ ~ 1 ~ PM PIl'":' / / . JUL. -5-..1996 1: llPM ::..~. NO.448 P.2/2 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 5, 1996 TO: Ron MCLem~ Jim Lentz~~ Industrial Project FROM: SUBJECT: The City could create a special assessment district within the industrial acres to pay for the following: · Roads can be financed, provided there is public access witb a separate entrance and exit. · Utilities - The district could provide water and sewer capital cost inside the district area. · Construct and maintain an attractive wall within the district payable from special assessment, thereby, creating goodwill from residential neighbors. These capital costs could be financed with long-term tax-exempt bonds. Since there is a common owner, the assessment would be on a per acre basis, thereby, making this process very simple. . The cost of capital to the developer for these improvements would, typically, be less than conventional source and since the financing includes several projects, the additional expenses for bond counsel and myself are spread over a larger transaction. I have not examined the creditworthiness of the owner or reviewed an appraisal of the property to determine it's financing feasibility.