Loading...
CCMtg08-21-06MinL®NGVV®®I) CITY C®1VIlVII~SI®N Longwood City Commission Chambers 175 West V~arren Avenue Longwood, Florida M=IN~J~TE~ AU~IU~T 21, 2006 7:00 ~'.1VI. Present: Mayor John C. Maingot: Commissioner Mike Holt Commissioner H.G. "Butch" Bundy, Jr. Commissioner Brian D. Sackett Richard S. Taylor, Jr., City Attorney John J. Drago, City Administrator Sarah M. 1Vlirus, City Clerk Tom Smith, Division M:~nager of Streets/Fleet Richard Kornbluh, Division rVIanager of Utilities Tom Jackson, Police Chief Pat Miller, Director of (<omm~unity Services Fran Meli, Recreation P'rogr2im Manager John Rougeux, Fire Department Carol Roger, Director of Financial Services Paul Sizemore, Community Services Coordinator Danielle Adzima, Communit3~ Services Coordinator Absent: Deputy Mayor Dan Anderson, (Excused) 1. CALL TO ORDER. Mayor Maingot called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. 2. A moment of SILENT MEDITATION was followed by the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 3. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEl~ZENT'S. None. 4: RECOGNITIONS. A. District. #2 Presentation of th~~ Business Person of the Month Award . for August 2006 to Dan Nant;~is of Milcarsky's Appliance Centre', located at 461 East Highway 434. Mayor Maingot inquired if Mr. Nantais was present. Mr.•Naaitais was not in attendance of the meeting for the presentation to be conducted. CC 08-21-2006/231 B. Presentation of the 2006 Key to the City Award to Donna .Bundy. Conunissioner Holt recognized Donna Bundy as a distinguished citizen of the City of Longwood. He read a Proclamation that outlined her history and. accomplishments and presented her with the 200.6 Key to the City Award. Photographs were then taken. C. Presentation of the 2006 Key to the City Award to Ray and Jean McWilliams. Mayor Maingot recognized Ray and Jean McWilliams. He read a Proclamation that outlined their activities and accomplishments. He presented.Mr. and Mrs. McWilliams with the 2006 Key to the City Award. Photographs were then taken. D. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Police Officers who apprehended the individuals who are allegedly responsible for graffiti and criminal mischief in both the City of Longwood and Seminole County. The following Police Officers were recognized and presented a Certificate of Appreciation: Sergeant James McKenna ~ Officer Jesse Gelm Photographs were taken of each presentation. Chief Jackson accepted the Certificates of Appreciation. for the following Police Officers due to being on active duty: Lieutenant Troy Hickson Officer Jeremiah Brown Officer Shelby Smith Officer Matthew Kleinmann E. District #3 Nomination of the Business Person of the Month Award for September 2006. Commissioner Holt nominated Mary Jane Gl:ant, Owner and President of Premier Promotions, as Business Person of the. Month for September 2006. Nomination carried by a unanimous voice vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson. absent. . 5. BOARD APPOINTMENTS. None. J CC 08-21-2006/232 ~ 6. PUBLIC INPU'T'. A. Public Participation. • Donna Bundy, 721 Eagle Avenue, said she was speaking in favor of • annexation of the property under Item 10 D. She said she was in favor of the aiuiexation because she belie;ved the City standards would result in a more attractive struch~re than would. be likely if Mr. Towers were to withdraw his annexation request: and build under the County standards. She. requested the Commission consider and compare this situation to what the Hattaway property on -the Northeast side of Ronald Reagan Boulevard that was recently annexed into .tlie City. She stated that even with stucco over top of the metal portion of he building, this was not a shining example of what the corridor standards were going to be. She pointed out the Tower's property is already .identified on the annexation agreement with Seminole County and. it would be annexed at some point. 7. CITY ADNIINISTRAT®TZ'S REPORT. Mr. Drago reported an application. had been received to rent the Community Building on December 21St and this particular applicant has requested road closures from 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. He said he was bringing this fi~rward because he had a problem with the road closures during that time of the year. He advised they were having a dinner and setting up an event in the parking lot. Mayor Maingot inquired if they had considered the possibility of having a police ~ officer there for traffic control. Mr. Drago reiterated his issue was with the road closure for the merchants four days prior to Christmas. Commissioner Sackett said he would be cautious about setting. a precedence, regardless of the date. It was the consensus of the Conunission to not allow road closure. Mr. Drago stated the Longwood Babe Ruth gave a presentation at the last meeting requesting a waiver of $100 per team fo,- a total of approximately $4,900. He advised Ms. Melt met with them and it appears they had budgeted $30,000 for the improvements and the actual cost carne :in at $42,000. He said Babe Ruth was requesting the City pay $10,000. He said Deputy Mayor Anderson had inquired if any of these improvements were permanent in nature. He stated Ms. Melt has confirmed the improvements are permanent. It was the consensus of the Commission not to pay the $10,000. Mr..Drago inquired if $.5,000 was the number. ~. CC 08-~21-2006/233 Commissioner Bundy stated it would be what the number comes to at $100 per , team. / Mr. Drago stated Ms. IVleli has informed Babe Ruth the City wanted to .see the, '_( budget in advance for prior approval. He reminded the Commission the City had already spent $3,700 toward this. Mr. Drago reported each city was having ongoing issues with the County regarding traffic signals. He said there. was a recent court case and a judge ruled the County was responsible for damages wherein the old agreement called for the cities to be responsible for any damages. He stated the County. has reviewed the situation and decided they wanted to do Interloeal Agreements..He said there were several .issues, the first being that they doubled the cost from $2,000 to almost $4,000. He stated that he and several City Managers met with Cindy Coto over another issue and she indicated not agreeing with the County Commission giving the cities until July 31St to terminate the agreements. He said it appeared she was going to go back to the Board to try and grant more time until some of these issues could be worked out. On July 26th she sent a letter that stated that the termination date would be August 31St rather than July 31St. He stated some cities requested a break down of what was being provided for the $3,900 and it was not provided. He advised :the traffic signals in the current agreement were County Road 427 at Church Avenue, North Street at Bennett, and Rangeline at E.E. Williamson which he would oppose. On State Road 434 at Florida Central ~- Parkway, Wayman, Grant, and Rangeline which he did not oppose maintaining as the State would require that under Florida Statutes. He advised that under the new agreement presented to the City, if the City were to terminate the .agreement,. and we had either a Class 4 or Class 6 signal, we would still be responsible for all of the maintenance cost relative to those signals, even though the maintenance agreement was terminated with the County. He said the County can raise the rates at will. He stated they have looked at privatizing this contract and unless the County can provide additional information, then he would recommend privatizing and only taking care of the signals on the State Road. He advised he also received an e-mail from Charlie Wetzel, Assistant Seminole County Traffic Engineer, inquiring about the Interlocal Agreement. L7pon contacting him, he advised that if the City does not sign the agreement, the County would not pay for half the cost for the traffic signal on Church and 17-92. He said there were two options; not have the signal installed or agree to pay half .the cost which would be at least $40,000. Mayor Maingot inquired to the cost of privatization. Mr. Drago advised the minimum monthly cost was $110 per signal and then there would be a charge for anytime work was done to the signal. Discussion ensued. CC 08-21-2006/234 Commissioner .Sackett inquired what was required from the County's side in promoting public. safety. ~~ Mr: Taylor said they would be responsible for public safety on County roads; the argument is where the CoLU1ty and City roads meet. Mr. Drago requested direction fio:m the Conunission. He said one City was privatizing and one City signed. Commissioner Bundy inquired if privatizing was. for the signals on State Road 434 only, leaving the rest of the signals up to the County. Mr. Drago responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bundy said he supported. looking into privatizing. Mr. Taylor inquired how long the agreement was for and if there was a termination clause. Mr.~ Drago advised the agreement gave either party the right. to terminate. within thirty (30) days notice. He read excerpts from the County Manager's letter. It was the consensus of the Commission. to pursue privatization. 8. MAXOR AND COMMISSIONI~RS' (REPORT. District #2. Absent. District #3. Commissioner Holt. offered all. the documentation from the Florida League of Cities conference for public record. He acknowledged the headline news at 5:30 p.m. was a drug bust in Seminole County through the cooperation of the Sheriffs Office and the City/C;ounty Investigation Bureau. He said there was a tip from a Longwood citizen that resulted in an eight (8) month investigation with an arrest being made of thirty-one 1;3.1) people. He applauded the Longwood Police Department for their due diligence. District #4. Commissioner Bundy reported Seminole County was redoing their land-use design standards. He said he has only read a portion of the document and encouraged each Commissioner to obtain a copy as it would directly affect the City in parts of adjacent unincorporated areas. Mr. Drago said Chairman Henley did bring up at the last Mayors and Managers meeting that they were doing development. design standards for the. CRA on 17- 92. He said their concept was for mixed use along the corridors, increased the density and the heights of the buildings. He advised there was suppose to be a presentation at the next Mayors anal 1Vla~iagers meeting relative to those standards. CC 08-21.-2006/235 Conunissioner Bundy said they discussed a camping ordinance approximately one (1) year ago and this should go a long way in removing some, of the problems along the railroad tracks. Discussion was held regarding a scavenger ordinance. District #5. Commissioner Sackett reported two children from Woodlands Elementary were wallciiig along Rangeline Road and were stopped by adults in a van and asked to get in. He said the children did exactly what they had been taught to do and gave a detailed description. He said the City police apprehended these individuals within eight (8) minutes.. He said Shadow Hill approached him regarding their playground equipment and inquired if there was a plan to replace this equipment. Mr. Drago advised this was in next year's budget. Commissioner Sackett said he went to a presentation by cities at the Florida League of Cities and St. Petersburg salutes 100 children in the 6th grade and if they maintain a C average or higher and is also a Title One child. He said St. Petersburg has a program to buy 100 Florida pre-pay programs per year and it does not cost the city anything. He stated four (4) corporations raise $5,000 and because they are a Title One school the National Government will match the $5,000 for an automatic pre-pay. He said this was good .incentive for a child that ~_ may not be college. bound. He stated he would like to talk to St. Petersburg. further regarding this program. District #1. Mayor Maingot reported attending the Florida League of Cities conference August 9-12 in Jacksonville. He attended the Joint City/County Advisory Committee meeting on August 16th in Sanford and stormwater recommendations were discussed at this meeting. He said they wanted to develop an umbrella Interlocal Agreement. He advised that he and Commissioner Sackett approved the concept so they could move forward. He said there was an update on the Fire Rescue/EMS and also brought up consolidation. They also spoke on cablevision and another program where they are looking, at centralizing all their information systems to be accessible. He attended Envision Seminole Mayor and Managers on August 17th in Oviedo and as Mr. Drago mentioned, the amendments along the CRA 17-92 corridor were discussed. On August 18th Robin Butler made a presentation at Envision Seminole and alluded to the Driver's Education Safety program. He had the honor of participating in a birthday parry fora 100 year old lady at Bethesda. Commissioner Holt announced on August 29th at 6:00 p.m. in the Longwood Community Building there would be a presentation on the State Road 434 median modification project. CC 08-21-2006/236 9. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Approve Minutes.of July 31, X106 Special Meeting and Minutes of the August 7, 2006 Regular Meeting. B. Finance Division of the Financial Services Department recommends payment of approved and. estimated bills for September 2006. C. 'Finance Division of the Financial Services Department recommends approval of the Monthly Financial Report for July 2006. D. City Administrator recommends the City Commission approve a change order to A & M Si Construction Company for the Highland Hills drainage improvements in the amount of $659,417.80 and authorize the. City Administrator to sign the Purchase Order. E. City Administrator recommends the City Commission. appa-ove a change order to A & M Si Construction Company for construction of the concrete area and sidf:walks for Heroes Park in .the amouni: of $30,183.12 and authorize the City Administrator to sign the Purchase Order. F. Police Department recommends the City Commission approve a _ Combined Voluntary Coopera~:ion and Operational Assistance Mutual Aid Agreement between Orange County Sheriff s Office and (~ the Longwood Police Department and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Commissioner Bundy moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Holt. Discussion was held regard.in,~ Item 9 D. Ms. Mirus said there was one correction to be made to the minutes. She advised on page 20.7 wider Ms. F:ebello's report, Declaration Day should be changed to Decoration Day. Motion carried by a. wianimous roll call vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson absent. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. The Community Services Department recommends the City Commission read by title only srnd adopt Ordinance No. 06-1809 amending the Fiscal Year• 2005/06 budget. Mr. Taylor announced having proof of publication for this and all public CC 08-~21-2006/237 hearings listed on the agenda. He then read Ordinance No. 06-1809 by title only. Mayor Maingot opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the Ordinance. Commissioner Holt moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett and carried by a unanimous voice vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson absent. Commissioner Holt moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-1809 as presented, Item 10 A. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett and carried by a unanimous roll call vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson absent. B. The Community Development Division of the Community Services Department recommends the City Commission read by title only, set September 6, 200.6 as the second Public Hearing date, and approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 06-1799 for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use 1Vgap Amendment (SPA 03-06) from Low Density Residential (LDR) and General Commercial (GC) to Downtown (D) for the property .located at 42~ S CR 427, with the attached Design Guidebook Agreement. Mr. Taylor read Ordinance No. 06-1799 by title only. ~ Mr. Taylor made note that he discussed this. Ordinance with Mr. Sizemore this monung in regards to the number of.months .required to obtain a permit. Mayor Maingot outlined the procedures for a quasi ;judicial hearing. Mr. Taylor advised the Agreement provides for 24 months which is correct and the Ordinance was not. changed in Section 3 from 18 to 24 months. He said the developer had requested this and advised when malting the motion to please amend Section 3 from 18 to 24 months which is consistent with the cover memo and the attached contract. Mr._Taylor conducted the swearing-in of witnesses. Mr. Drago advised staff would present the process and generalities of the project. Mr. Sizemore said the applicant first approached the City in March 2006 with this project and a desire to construct amixed-use project on the property which is designated both General Commercial and Low Density CC 08-21-20.06/238 Residential. The applicant. requested aland-use. change to be Downtown in ~ order to construct amixed-use facility. He advised the applicant appeared l~ before the Land Planning Agency on April 12t1i and at that tune the Land Planning Agency denied hi s request. rollowing this, he held a CAPP meeting with affected residents to discuss his proposal and their concerns. Following the CAPP meeting, the .applicant prepared a design guideboolc which he has now linked to his request. He said the applicant held another CAPP meeting last week to go o,~er the proposed design guidebook as well as the land-use change; and collect their concerns once again. The applicant is here to present his request as well as the results of the CAPP meeting. John Youngman, Architect representing the Developer, 459 Sanford Avenue, said they have made several passes at developing design guidelines for this project.:[=Ie sai.d the importance of that is that these design guidelines were directly tied to this land-use change: He stated there have been two (2) meetings with the residents following. the first presentation to the Land PlanninL; Agency. He said they also have had several meetings with the City's design consultants, ACI Architects, concerning their approach i:o this project. The outcome is the design guideline book being presented. He reviewed the location of the subject project. He said this was 3.~4-acres of land and the: front 2-acres were zoned for commercial developme;nt and the rear 1-acre parcel was zoned for low density residential. He: stated in their meetings with the residents they expressed many concerns about introducing a higher density development into the area immediately adjacent to their .homes. The developer has done a lot of economic analysis of the property and the outcome of that has been a plan ghat makes economic sense. He said from the developer's point of view, it benefits the City and it will ultimately enhance the area. and the value of all the properties around there for the residents. He said their concerns were valid in that they did not want to have a lot of people and large buildings next door to them. They also had concerns regarding drainage. He said part of their development plaai has been a commitment that they would not connect to them or open the right- of-way through Tullis Avenue. T:he residents wanted to have a buffer from. their homes to the development. ].3e said they made a commitment to honor a 180-foot setback oi`the rear portion of the property and the only development that would go on in that area would be retention to support this development. He said the residents wanted a fence or a barrier around the back of the property so they proposed a decorative. fence. He stated in the last meeting it was further expressed that they would prefer a wall. The. developer has committed to a wall with no gate. He said if developing this property as it is currently zoned, i:he front portion of the property could be developed for commercial use; the rear segment would be developed as low density residential. FIe said the primary departure from that they are looking for is the. rear portion. of the property, instead of low density CC 08-21~-2006/239 development; they are proposing .six (6) row house style townhomes in the area. They have been kept residential in character and they have addressed the approach to design establishing certain standards that would have to be adhered to. The overall concept they have developed is a mixed-use live and work environment. He said there was a total of four (4) buildings; the three (3) forward buildings will be three-story buildings of which the first floor will have a business, retail, commercial approach and the second floor will be office, and the third floor will be loft style apartments. He stated the rear building will be six (6) row house style townhomes that. will be three-story in height. He advised. they will. make every effort to maintain as many trees as possible on the rear of the site. He said the current plan with the two (2) buildings in the front, there will be a landscaped courtyard environment in between the buildings. They are providing. adequate parking throughout with a five (5) to one (1) parking ratio. He said they would be using quality building materials and quality facades in the treatment of the architecture of each building. Steve Moreira, Developer and President of Allied Capital Advisors, 280 Ronald Reagan Boulevard, said he has been in this building since 1991. He stated he was working to upgrade the building and landscaping at this area. He said he has been a realtor for twenty-four (24) years. He declared he was committed to Longwood and would live here the rest of his life. He said this concept was not just a development design concept, but it was. ~_ from the many visits he has had to many other developments. He strongly encouraged the City to .consider this proposal because it is the future for all of us. ,. The following spoke as substantially affected persons: Kathy Garcia, 284 Reider Avenue, requested the City deny this request. She said it was the second applicant she knew of that wanted to change the land-use designation to suit their plans. She said it didn't make it right to come in one day and. change the land-use, it was already low density residential. She said the County still had storm debris in the ditch from Hurricane Wilma. She declared flooding was still a big problem. Dave Hill, 257 Tullis Avenue, said he. was notreally against the development as much as there was a maj or stormwater problem on the. property behind the proposed buildings. He said there were nine (9) residential homes developed about 5:00 feet from his house and four of the last seven years have been big flooding problems in this canal area. He stated there was one. development proposed and after the engineers looked at the water build up the building was denied. He said he still has sandbags around his house when it floods. 1 ~~ CC 08-21-2006/240 Shirley Bernard, 465 Ronald Reagan Boulevard, said her property was ~ right next to Tullis Avenue and it was her understanding the property ~ would be completely fenced or have a barrier with no access to Tullis. She I ~ stated a few years ago tley had requested .for that portion of Tullis to be given back to their property. They were told all people around the :property had to agree. in order to have thai; done. She inquired if this property was going to be turned over to this project. She said they were told this would always be there and they would have access to their property. Mr. Youngman advised there was aright-of--way to Tullis to the north of the property lute and they would not be developing in the right-of--way. Mr. Drago stated that portion of Tullis was a 25 foot right-of--way. I-Ie advised there was an apron cut and they used the right-of--way easement to access their property. Commissioner Bundy inquired iii there were other driveway cut outs at her property since they have two buildings. Ms. Bernard stated they could be sold separately and if the one was taken away there would be no access to that property. - Commissioner Bundy advised hear that was aright-of--way and not owned by them, but was a cut out made; when the streets were platted. He stated i~ he did not want her to thiri]c it would never be closed. off and they would always have access. He said this project was not impacting the right-of- way. Mr. Taylor advised there was an unimproved City right-of--way there and if at some point the City chose to vacate it then half of the right-of--way would go to each property owner. Mr. YoLm ignan said they had good meetings with the residents and all concerned people. He stated they have tried to listen and respond. I-Ie said they wanted to limit the number of curb cuts and have cross access easements. He pointed out on the; conceptual plan they .are reconunending good entrances and access to the property. He said. the site drainage was a major concern and their ci~iil engineer was working on this issue. He stated there would be a decorative fence around the property with the exception of the rear, whica~ will be a solid wall. He reiterated they would not make any efforts to open the Tullis right-of--way. Commissioner Holt inquired what type of wall would be erected. Mr. Youngman advised they would place a brick or stone wall. ~~. CC 08~-21-2006/241 Mr. Moreira stated they were currently discussing the fence and wall He said they would meet whatever the Code specified. Commissioner Holt inquired to what type of roof would be placed on the buildings. Mr. Youaman stated the buildings would have a metal roof. Commissioner Sackett inquired how they would satisfy the runoff. Mr. Youn~rnan stated the runoff had to be controlled based on the capacity of the, drainage basin it is com~ected to. He said the drainage basin was a significant area. and would meet St. John's Water Management requirements. He stated they acknowledged there is a problem. in that area and they would be sensitive to it. Discussion was held regarding the denial by the Land Plamung Agency. Commissioner Bundy stated the overall concept was great and was what the City was. trying to achieve. He said by the second public hearing he would like to see some of the "maybes" and "encouraged" removed from the language. Mr. Hill said if the drainage does not work now; how would the drainage work with this development. Ms. Bernard stated the 25 feet originally came from their property and wanted to make sure they were aware of that. Mr. Youngman stated they could'not solve existing problems they did not. create, but they could give their assurances they would not contribute to those problems and would hopefully be able to work together to bring improvement to the situation. Commissioner Holt moved to approve the first reading of Ordinance No: 06-1799 and set September 6, 2006 as a second public hearing date and an amendment Section 3 to read 24 months, not 18 months, as Item 10 B. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett and carried by a unanimous roll call vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson absent. , C. The Community Development Division of the Community Services Department recommends the City Commission read by title only and approve Ordinance No. 06-1807 to amend (COCA 04-0.6) the Longwood Development Code. 1. CC 08-21-2006/242 Mr, Taylor read Ordinance No..06-1807 by title only. (~ I`~-~ Mayor Maingot opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to fhe Ordinance. Commissioner Sackett moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Holt. and carried by a tuianiinous voice vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson. absent. Commissioner Holi; moved to approve Ordinance No. 06-1807, as presented, Item 10 C. 'Seconded by Commissioner Sackett. Mr. Drago ,advised that Item 10 B previously discussed. was the forerunner of Item 10 C. Motion carried by a unanimous roll. call vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson absent. The Commission recessed at 9:16 p.m. and reconvened at 9:23 p.m. D. The Community Development Division of the Community Services Department recommends the City Commission read by title only and approve Ordinance No. 06-1787 to annex (ANX 01-06) the property located at 131 Longwood ]EIills Road. Mr. Taylor read Ordinance No. Ob-1787 by title only. Mayor Maingot opened the public hearing. The following spoke regarding the Ordinance: Michael Towers, 754 Fleet Finar.±cal Court, stated they were the applicant and were withdrawing the application for amiexation. Robert Brobst, 251 Blackwater Place, stated he had lot 55, the abutting property, and he also represented. Longwood Oaks, and Longwood C'ireen subdivisions. He said they were concerned about. the destruction of the natural topography. He stated it has. already occLUred in that the property was no longer consistent with abutting properties. He said in approximately 200 feet .from the center of a lot he pointed out there.was a 6-foot deep cut on the northeast confer tluough tree roots of the property owners all the way to the other e~.id which was. 4-feet of fill above finished floors. He stated they would sugf;est that when this goes through developmental review, because ii: is inconsistent with abuttal properties, that the fill be put back and. townhouses be tiered like Blackwater. He said this would be consistent with the existing properties. He stated their second concern was cutting.dowii of Longwood's massive Oaks and asked ~~ CC 08-2.1-2006/243 to send a strong and unwavering sign that these actions were not acceptable. He declared that Longwood Oaks and Longwood Green subdivisions and abutting property owners recommend that no concessions be offered to this developer. Commissioner Bundy requested information from the. City Attorney since the applicant withdrew the application. Mr. Taylor stated he had distributed a memo concerning this matter. He said he had previously indicated since this was a voluntary annexation that Mr. Towers could withdraw his application at any time and then the City would not have the legal right to move forward. However, since, Mr. Towers purchased this property on March 20, 2006, under the Interlocal Agreement with the County it references any transfer of the property would then be subject to the City, and upon recording of the deed. He stated based upon this information, the City has the right to go forward with the annexation under the Interlocal Agreement. Commissioner Sackett moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Bundy and carried by a unanimous voice vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson absent. Mayor Maingot moved to approve Ordinance No. 06-1787 to _ annex the property located at 131 Longwood Hills Road. Seconded ~ by Commissioner Holt. Commissioner Holt inquired since there was litigation over another piece of property if this would cause another hardship on the City. Mr. Taylor stated the only thing that really changes is in the first Whereas clause that needed to be amended to state; this property, since it has changed hands, was property annexed under the annexation agreement with the. County. He said it could be legally challenged, but for all practical purposes the land has changed hands. There was an executed .deed with doc stamps that have been collected. He said the fact that the deed was held back and not recorded does not change the agreement with the County in regards to change of ownership of the property. Commissioner Holt stated it was explained through the legal ramifications that what they were doing. was correct. He saw no point in not moving forward with the annexation. Mayor Maingot requested the City Attorney to read back the language change under the first: Whereas: Mr. Taylor advised to change. to: "...the property has changed hands as ~ CC 08-21-2006/244 contemplated by the Interlocal A,greerrzent with Seminole County, per ~ Resolution No. 95-81 ~,... " ~~ Commissioner Bundy requested a clear defiiifion of when property legally changes hands and when it is recognized. Mr. Taylor said the argumFnt would be that they have not recorded the deed therefore it hasn't. changed hands. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Sackett stated by the City Attorney's understanduig; when the deed is sib ied, stamped. or paid for, that is the transfer of ownership. Mr. Taylor responded in the. affirmative. He added following closing and exchange of keys, the deed is normally mailed to the courthouse for recording. He noted in the City of Longwood, Seminole County Interlocal Agreement relating to joint planning and the annexation of enclaves; and he read from page 2, the second l~hereas clause and on page 3 under subparagraph 2 B regarding; property being annexed into the City upon change of ownership. His advice was a judge would rule the intent of the agreement was upon transfer of the property. ~- ~~ Discussion ensued. Commissioner Sackett stated he landerstood what was being said regarding the deed and the stamps. However; it does say that part 2 has to be done. Mr. Taylor stated the intent: was clear. He said the Cormmission should do what they felt was' right. Mayor Maingot said they had evc;ry right to annex the property based on the Interlocal Agreement with the County. It was the concurrence of the City Commission to hear the applicant. Mr. Towers said when this position was taken, it was with the concurrence of the County Attoniey and. also Coiiltnissioner Morris. He stated the party on the other side of the agreement supported tlieir position. He declared they were voting on an app ieatian for a voluntary annexation and i:hey would have. to re-notice and re-hE;ar this if twning around and forcibly annexing it in because the ~~pplicants no longer exist. Commissioner Holt said the appl:+'.cant withdrew his application for annexation and he inquired if they vote on this at this time and it goes through, was he correct in what he stated. CC 08-21-201)6/245 Mr. Taylor said whether it was advertised as a voluntary or the City does it, from a public notice standpoint did not make .any difference. However, they could let him withdraw it and the City could come forward with the annexation if they so choose. Conunissioner Holt said the best the applicant can do is withdraw and that makes their vote null and void. He said they could not. force hun to arulex in until what? Mr. Taylor reiterated until the property changes hands, if the Commission wanted to move forward with an annexation ordinance on the City's behalf, perhaps a safer route to go would have staff bring this forward. Mayor Maingot said they have received enough correspondence and this has gone back and forth. He said once the City has jurisdiction over the property all of the City Codes would have to be followed. He said if they did not move forward the property would. be developed by the County standards. He stated the purpose to move forward with annexation was so the City would have control over the property. Mr. Taylor advised that Mr. Towers has indicated there were some points he would like to discuss and he would agree to go forward with the voluntary annexation and not withdraw. ~- It was the concurrence of the City Commission to hear the applicant. ~~ Mr. Towers said at this, time the reason they were requesting the withdrawal of the application was a result of the .fact the City cannot issue the permits within a reasonable period of time for them to complete the work. He stated they currently have soil stabilization issues that were presented at the last meeting and dismissed. He said under the Ci"ty's current Code, to obtain a site development permit and a retaining wall permit,. they need a full blown site plan, a minimum of six (6) months under their jurisdiction. Mr. Drago stated it would take longer to develop the site plan than. to review it. Mr. Towers said the concerns of the Longwood residents were their concerns. He said they were not pulling the voluntary annexation to be difficult, but for the length of time to complete the permit work. He stated they have been trying. to work with the- City and give the information. He said if they could continue, the same way the City did with the Hattaway property, they could continue day to day operations. He said there were soil issues and he has tried to work with the City, but they must be allowed to continue to work. J CC 08-21-2006/246 Mr. Taylor said he has held discussions with Mr. Towers and with stafF i regarding permits and it was brought to his attention there was no permit ~`°' process where site preparation could be done without a site plan. He inquired if Mr. Towers does have certified engineering that would state grass stabilization of the slopes going into the wetlands, was acceptable. Mr. Brobst stated Mr. Towers had pulled permits based on single family resident development and about i:he same time he had a meeting with the residents that clearly stated he w;~s going to build townhouses.. He stated Seminole County knew all of this was going on and. he made sure of it. He said the requirements for ownership were met on March 12~'. He said there has been dirt dumped and snore dirt moved around without a site plan and he now wants to continue because of this. Commissioner Holt inquired as to whom held permits from the County. Mr. Taylor advised. they were. issued to Oakwood Development, Ino. He stated the owner affidavit has Mr. Towers name on it. Conunissioner Bundy moved to extend the session. Seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a unanimous voice vote with Deputy Mayor Anderson absent. Commissioner Holt said they have now received more information and through all the paperwork he has reviewed they have only asked for a site plan so it can. be brought into the City. Mr. Drago said everything in the past has been predicated on conception and not an engineered site plan. Commissioner Bundy said there were enough grey areas and he was reluctant. He reiterated the agreement states "upon recordation" and this agreement was signed by ala appropriate parties. Mr. Taylor read the sentence prior to that statement from the agreement. The City Clerkrepeated the motion. Mr. Taylor read the amendment to the Whereas as follows: "Whereas, the owners of certain lands, more. particularly described here and below has transferred ownership pursuant to the previsions of the Interlocal Age°eeTnent with `iernin~~le County in Resolution No. 95-81 S, ... ' CC 08=:Z1-2006/247 Mayor Maingot moved to amend. Ordinance No. 06-1787, the first preamble starting with Whereas, as dictated by the City Attorney. Seconded by Com~izissioner Sackett. Commissioner Holt said this had not been advertised and inquired if the amendment was legally bound for this purpose of annexation. Mr. Taylor advised the Ordinance has been advertised. Motion to amend carried by a unanimous roll call vote with Deputy Mayor A~iderson absent. Main motion failed to pass, as amended, by a three/one/zero roll call vote with Commissioners Holt, Bundy and Sackett voting nay, .Mayor Maingot voting aye and Deputy Mayor Anderson absent. E. The Community Development Division of the Community Services Department recommends the City Commission read by title only, set September 6, 2006 as the second Public Hearing date, and approve the first reading of Ordinance No: 06-1790 for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment (SPA 01-06) from County Low Density Residential to City Medium Density Residential (MDR) for the property located at 131 Longwood Hills !_ Road. ) Mr. Taylor advised they could not move forward on this item. `~ 11. REGi.TLAR BUSINESS. A. The Recreation Division of the Community Services Department requests the City Commission discuss the status of discussions with Lyman High School regarding the renovation/construction of a community/competitive swimming pool and give staff the direction deemed appropriate. Commissioner Sackett stated it was nearly a year ago when discussions started with Lyma~1 High School. He reviewed the meetings held and said there was recently a third meeting at the Principal's office at Lyman High School with Bill West, who is a developer of high school pools. He said they reviewed a design concept and the Athletic Director and the Swim Coach wanted state of the art diving and race type designs to be competitive across the State. He declared he and M's. 1Vleli were talking more about something that could be multi-generational. He stated to bring, the Lyman pool up to code would cost close to $500,000.. He said the general discussion was that it would be better to knock the existing pool in and start fresh. He stated Mr. West understood that he and Ms. Meli i wanted something recreational, accessible by community people; and they J CC 08-21-2006/248 wanted something the City could join in partnership with the County. He ~ said the high school would. only be using. the pool two (2) to three (3) (~ hours a day. He said the City has a very strong relationship with Lyman High School thanks to what Ms. Meli has done with the City's Suiruner Program. Ms. Meli said the next step was i;o decide if they should continue, discussions with Lyman High School. She stated to build a pool that would meet the communtr~'s ne~,ds as well as the competitive needs of a high school; they were looking at approximately $1.5 million dollars. She advised they did not know if the County was willing to partner. They have not pursued this until the Commission gives direction as far as who else could partner with the City. She .Mated the County offered $600,000 to Lake Mary for a project with Lalce Mary High School on land not within the city limits. She confirmed thf; Lyman High School pool was in the city limits of Longwood, but it would also serve a lot of County children.. She stated she was looking into recreation grants to see if the City could apply for grants for something that would be built on school property. Sh.e requested direction from th.e Commission. Commissioner Bundy said he had visited a pool a few years ago with Commissioner Dallari that was a joint venture by Osceola County, the City of Kissimmee, and thF; YMCA. He stated that on more than one occasion the County Commissioners have gone on record stating they ~ wanted quality pools at each ]ugh school and they were. willing to partner with each high school to accomplish this. He discussed utilizing grants with matching fiords. Ms..Meli explained the high school would need eight (8) lanes that were six (6) feet deep from end to end and this would not meet the community needs. She .reviewed a picture of a pool that was built with Brevard. Community College in Palm Bay that was built jointly by the College, Palm Bay, and Brevard County. She said this type of pool would meet the community needs and it would also support spring board diving. She advised that Lyman High School has a grant writer that would work with . the City if they decided to pursue t1us. Commissioner Sackett inquired what the School Board's commitment was to fund on a dilapidated pool. Discussion. ensued. Ms. Meli stated one of the things the school could offer the City was providing the land and providing the utilities. She said the school has verbalized that they see the City's role as running the facility. She stated every step of the operation would.. be in an agreement. CC 08-21-2006/249 Mayor Maingot stated the City should. explore some workability with the County. Mayor Maingot requested the meetings get back to where they were with one person speaking at a time so he does not have to call people to order. 12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT. NIr. Taylor said he can assume the Mayor was referring to his whispering to Mr. 1VIilYer. He said Mr. Miller was asking him where he should bring forward an involuntary annexation of Mr. Tower's property. Discussion was held regarding the conduction of business. Commissioner Bundy made a motion to bring forward a Resolution at the next Commission meeting to fire the City Attorney. Mr. Taylor distributed a letter ofresignation and informed the Commission he just resigned. Commissioner Bundy withdrew the motion. Commissioner Bundy moved to accept the City Attorney's resignation. Motion failed due to lack of a second. 13. CITY CLERK'S REPORT. No report. 14. ADJOURN. Mayor Maingot adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m. ATTEST: ~~ Sarah M. Mir*as, CMC, City Clerk n ~~ o n go ayor r)- ~f i J CC 08-21-2006/250