Loading...
CCMtg12-03-07MinLOI~TGWOOD CITY COMMISSION Longwood City C'omm~ission Chambers 175 West Warren Avenue Longwood, hlorida MIIVUT:ES IDECEM_BER 3, 2007 7:0-0 P.11/I. Present: Mayor John C. Maingot . Deputy Mayor H.G. "Butch" Biindy,.Jr. Commissioner Brian D. S;ickett Commissioner Dan Anderson Commissioner Mike Holt Teresa S. Roper, City Attorney John J. Drago, City Administrator Sarah M. Mirus, City Clerk Tom Smith, Division Man;~ger of Streets/Fleets Richard Kornbluh, Division Manager of Utilities Ryan Spinella, Executive Assista~.nt l Laurie Mooney, Fire ChieiF ~`-' Tom Jackson, Police Chief Carol Rogers, Director of ]H'inanrial Services Danielle Adzima, Community Services Coordinator Paul Sizemore, Director of Community Services 1. CALL TO ORDER. Mayor Maingot called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. A moment of SILENT MEDITATION vas followed by the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 3. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS. Pvls. Mints read the following announcements: A. Movie in the Park `will be held o~~ Friday,. December 7, 2007 beginning at 7:00 p.m., Candyland Park, 5S~9 Longdale Avenue. B. Santa Visits Longwood Saturday, December 8th - West of the railroad tracks Sunday, December 9th - East. of t:he railroad tracks 4. RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMAT'IONS. ~ A. District #3 Presentation of the Business Person of the Month Award ~ for December 2007 to Ben ]emu of ]3ayridge Sushi located at 1000 West ' State Road 434. CC 12-03-07/:361 Commissioner Holt gave a brief biography on Ben Lu, Manager of Bayridge Sushi and presented him with the Business Person of the Month Award for December 2007. Photographs were then taken. 5. BOARD APPOINTMENTS. A. District #4 Nomination to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Deputy Mayor Bundy deferred the nomination. B. District #4 Nomination to the Land Planning Agency. Deputy Mayor Bundy nominated Kelly A. Kirk, 1204 Eagle Trail, to the Land Planning Agency. Nomination carried by a unanimous voice vote. 6. PUBLIC INPUT. A. Public Participation. None. 7. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPO1tT. No report. 8. MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.. District #2. Commissioner Anderson said he spoke with the City Administrator regarding real estate and garage sale signs.. He suggested letting people place signs out from Friday afternoon to Sunday evening without permits, as long as they are not in the median. He stated he would like to give this a try and asked the `,,i Commissioners to share their thoughts on this idea with the City Administrator. District #3. Commissioner Holt said it was a phenomenal weekend with the Tree Lighting Ceremony. He thanked staff and all who participated inputting together a great day. District #4. Deputy Mayor Bundy said Premier Promotions has made an offer to the. City to do a plaque with engraving for the Business Person of the Month Awards. He suggested the City Clerk contact them in regards to the cost involved. Deputy Mayor Bundy reported he had a meeting last week with the developer on the Publix property, a representative from Fifth Third Bank, and the property owner of Township Plaza. He reviewed and distributed a copy of a letter that Fifth Third Bank received from Publix regarding the re-development of the Pic'N Save property. He said if they are required to bring the building to the front of the street, as they have been told, it would.. create a problem for them. They would have to do a double front entrance. and they would have an added expense of shielding their loading docks, chillers, trash compacters and dumpsters. He stated the traffic flow was another concern as they would have deliveries in conflict with the public traffic flow. He said the representative of the Township Plaza owner was at the meeting and he is a key ingredient for this project to move forward. Publix will need to have across-access easement with him for their traffic to go ~ onto his property in order to exit at the traffic light. He declared he and other Commissioners have been involved with the Development Code from the very CC 12-03-07/362 beginning .and they have somethin;; they can build on. He stated even if Publix agreed to move to the front, they would never obtain an access agreement with the owner of Township Plaza. He said Fifth 'T'hird Bank also wants to build and they have been in discussion with Bay-ridge Sushi who would re-locate into the Plaza. He stated they would have a viable business with the construction of Publix and a new Fifth Third Bank. Also, the adjacent shopping center will renovate to match the Publix; and the City would have an immediate increase to their tax base. He declared they could have continued blight as no one has stepped forward to develop this property. He affirmed ACi did a tremendous job with the demographic study. They have indicated Longwood meets criteria for national companies to locate. here. He stated! until a big named company comes. in they will never have this. He affirmed that he fears, while they would maintain the integrity of their design standards,. they will be chasing away a well respected business that would provide jobs in the community. He; said people he has spoken to have expressed a preference for~Publix to come in. They need to take a step back and re-evaluate whether they want strict adherence to the Code or whether they want a company the caliber of a Publix to ~aome in. Commissioner Anderson said there was nothing in the cturent Longwood Development Code that would require therm to bring, the building out to the front. He stated they specifically placed in the Code the flexibility to allow people to choose~where they would like to locate th:, buildings. He affirmed the City has ~ expressed a preference that they build according to the view Guideline Standards --~ and these were opting. in standards i'or the mixed-use. He said. the goal with this was if they do opt in the City, this gives them something in exchange. He stated they should be able to put together a site plan and bring. it forward if they desire to build where the building is currently located. He said if they would need variances, then they would need to go through the process and these were not given automatically. Deputy Mayor Bundy said he was not aware of any.variances. He stated there was possibly some wetland mitigation they ma.y possibly need to do in the back of the property. He said they needed to bring the representatives from Fifth Third Bank and Crestwind Development back to the table with. staff. He suggested the Mayor sit in on these meetings or he would be glad to attend the meetings. They have indicated they were willing to look at it again. He said the ball was in our court and the City has highly competent staff to deal with the matter. Commissioner Holt said during. his meetings with them previously,. he never did see anything they wanted to propose. He stated they should decide tonight whether to bring them back. He said there vas not a lot of land on the property. .Deputy Mayor Bundy said Publix was not interested in being part of a mixed-use. He stated he would like to see the entire east and north end of the. lake. developed '~ as one parcel, but it was not vacant land and there were multiple ownerships. He said the adjacent property was 100°/~ leased. He was not interested in re- developing the whole site and has no intention of doing this. He is willing to • negotiate with Publix regarding across-access easement. He said Publix had no CC 12-03-07./363 issues with the architectural style. They will build to the style the City desires and are willing to exceed the landscaping requirements. He affirmed he was passing ~'I along information he has received; and the fact that the project can possibly be resurrected if not requiring they build near the street. He said they could miss a golden opportunity. Staff could meet with them and was capable of handling the matter. Commissioner Sackett said he would like to see more meetings on this matter and see the project come into fruition. - It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to promote a meeting between the City Administrator, Mayor and the correct members of this group to see where they are, what they can do, and what they can make work. District #~. Commissioner Sackett said he attended the Tree Lighting and we did this right by making it a family event. He reported he may not be able to make the December 17th meeting. District #1. Mayor Maingot said in regards to Publix and Fifth Third Bank, they are more than welcome-to the City. He stated they do wish to see a box to replace the one that exists there. He declared they were prepared to work with them and to see how best they can advance the new Design Standards in the finished product. He said they have been working on this since November 1999. He affirmed the City has a lot of projects about to come out at this time; starting with a 12-acre mixed-use project on Warren Avenue. He stated they also are aware there are economical troubling times and they must face the reality of things. He said they have an obligation to follow the guideline and commitment. He stated they hould meet with them and review their plans and he was willing to dedicate the necessary time regarding this project to see if they can bring to fniition the needs and desires of the people. He declared Fifth Third Bank had $5 million invested in this location and by State Law they cannot hold onto it for more than two years which is up and coming. He said they have other plans with the vision for development of that area regarding the 100-acres to the back of that property where there is a lake; and they envision a beautiful park. He confirmed he vas dedicated to explore every avenue and every opportunity. Mayor Maingot reported on November 26th, he attended a briefing regarding the tax reform issues by Beth Rawlings, a consultant for the Florida League of Cities. He participated in the DARE graduation on November 27th at Longwood Elementary School. The same day, he attended a reception by the Seminole Cotmty-League of Women Voters. Wednesday, November 20th, he participated in a Joint City/County meeting at the Seminole County Commission Chambers. Education Initiative was discussed with regards to the proposed Constitutional Amendment on Property Tax, He said Longwood stands to lose 25% of our tax base because of the proposed Homestead and Save Our Homes exemptions. They also covered a matrix of the Fire and EMS Study Report and the processing of the ~/ Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System, the Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) System, and the Automatic Vehicular Locator (AVL) System. He said the end CC 12-03-07/364 result was that the system was ver/ outd,~ted and they would be coming up with specific recommendations on how to proceed and put in riew equipment. December 1St, he participated in the Tree Lighting Ceremony. He reported that today, he spent time visiting the south side of Sfate Road 434 relative to the importance of showing their voices of concern at a meeting on Thursday, December 6th and Rolling Hills 1Vloravia~t Church regarding the widening project. Commissioner Holt said he would like to request the minutes from that meeting. He~ suggested they check into what it would cost the City to do their own dispatch. Mr. Drago explained they would still need to go through the 911 system through the County. Commissioner Sackett said Longwood was pushing to have the Interlocal Agreement re-addressed. 9. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Approve Minutes of the Noveml'oer 19, 20.07 Regular Meeting. B. Finance Division of the Financial Services Department recommends payment of approved and estimated bills for December 2007. -~ C. The Community Developnnent Division of the Community Services Department recommends the City Commission approve a purchase order to Associated Consulting l[nternational in the amount of $.88,000.00 for revisions to the Historic District Codebook and authorize the City Administrator to sign all appropriate documents. Deputy Mayor Bundy moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett. Discussion was held regarding Item 9 C. Commissioner SackE;tt moved to amend the motion for Item 9 C for reimbursable expenses in addition to the above labor fee and is not to exceed 10% of the si~m basis for labor. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Bundy and carried by a four/one roll call vote with Commissioner Holt ~roting nay. Main motion carried by afour/one roll call vote with Commissioner Holt voting nay. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. The Community Developnnent Division of the Community Services Department recommends the Ciiy Commission read by title only, set December 17, 2007 as the second. public hearing date and approve the first reading of Ordinance 07-18:1 to amend the Longwood CC 12-03-071365 Development Code (LDCA 05-07) to comply with the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act. ~`'~ Ms. Roper announced having proof of publication for this and all public hearings on the agenda. She then read Ordinance No. 07-1851 by title. only. Ms. Adzima said this was the second step in the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act. The first step was to have all local .governments impacted by the Wekiva Study area adopt policies in their comprehensive plan to protect the Wekiva Study area. She advised Longwood has done this step and it was now necessary to adopt Land Development Regulations to implement the specific parts of the policy that relate to private development within the study_area. She stated, should an application for development within the VVekiva Study area come through for review, staff would be able to catch this through the development review process with this amendment. 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.. Commissioner Holt moved to .approve Ordinance No. 07-.1851 and set December 17, 2007 as the second public hearing date. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. B. The Community Development Division of the Community Services Department recommends. the City Commission read by title only and adopt Ordinance 07-1826 to amend the Longwood Development Code (LDCA 01-07) relative to sign regulations. Mayor Maingot advised this wa.s a quasi judicial proceeding. He requested anyone wishing to speak for oragainst to stand and be sworn-in. Ms. Roper advised if there was no one speaking.. for or against the Ordinance; to treat the Item as a regular Public Hearing. Deputy Mayor Bundy disclosed his ex-parte communications. Ms. Roper read Ordinance No. 07-1826 by title only. Mayor Maingot opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the Ordinance. ~, CC 12-03-0,7/36.6 Commissioner Holr. move:d to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner ~acketi: and carried by a unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Hoh: moved to adopt Ordinance No. 07-1826, as amended, LDCA, as submitted, Item 10 B. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett. Commissioner Holt referred to a :memorandum. placed on the dais pertaining to the Bert Harris. Act and asked the City Attorney if she felt comfortable, any claims toward the Harris Act were predicated on the billboard signage as stated. Ms. Roper advised most of the case law has dealt with billboard signage and Bert Harris Act. It has not been individual signs. She stated in their research they could not locate the case Mr. Hattaway brought up at the previous meeting. She stated they were providing, ample opportunity to replace the sign once it is damaged and in the position of requiring to be replaced. Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. C. The Community Development Division of the Community Services Department requests the City Commission revietiv the Site Plan (SP . 05-07) for the Blackadar Insurance Agency Office Buildings, a proposed office use on approximately 1.946 acres fronting North County Road 427, and take action the City Commission deems appropriate. Ms. Roper said this did not :need t~~ be considered as quasi judicial. Mr. Sizemore pointed out tl e location of this project at the intersection of Blackwater Place and North. County Road 427. The application is for. the constntction of fol~r (4) office buildings and associated infrastructure. He said Blackadar Properties, v1c. ha:c been working to develop this plan for approximately two (2) years;. The}~ have conducted a CAPP Program with the affected property owners and several meetings have been held, the most recent on August 6,.2007. Over the course of this time, a number of issLies have been brought up by the homeowners of which many. have been addressed and incorporated in the site plan. Following the August meeting, the issues were reduced to one key concern of the homeowners. A number of residents have requested i;he construction of an eight foot (8') wall down the length of Blackwater Place. He advised the Longwood Development Code, in 3.2.3 D 13, requires that walls be constructed on new commercial projects where the commercial land use directly abuts ~, residential land use. In thus situation, that does occur on the west end of the property. Along the north side of the property there is a platted roadway and he pointed out Blackwater Place on the map stating it was not a parcel designated for residential use. Therefore, the Longwood CC 12-03-07/367 Development Code would not require a wall to be constructed along that ~ edge. He stated their most recent discussions with the homeowner's group, represented by Ms. Shari Rosefelt, indicated they have had some discussions and were requesting, a fence rather than a wall. Mr. Sizemore said the plan, as it has been submitted, proposes a continuous hedge along this property line and does meet the requirements of the Development Code in terms of producing a landscape buffer. However, the homeowner's group has submitted a request for formal review. He said the plan has been through review by City .staff and has been found to be in compliance with the City Codes. Because of the request for a formal review, it does need to appear before the Commission for review and approval before it can be issued a development order. Commissioner Holt inquired if because there was a twelve to fifteen foot (12'-15') section of asphalt between the residents and the property determined whether they need some kind of buffer. He asked if the whole intent was to block the view. Mr. Sizemore responded in the affirmative and then read the specifio language from the LDC. He then demonstrated on the map the land uses for the surrounding parcels. Commissioner Holt said in his mind this was close enoughto require some type of visual buffer. Mayor Maingot said in terms of the edge of the roadway to the property line., the closest point on this plan vas 15.3 feet. In addition, there was an additiona19.5 feet between the edge of the roadway and the first building making 25 feet of separation and in another area there was 55 feet of separation. Commissioner Holt said the residents .did not. purchase their property to look at this building or parking lot. He said a hedge that may or may not last was not good enough. Deputy Mayor Bundy referenced specific properties asking what they were designated. Mr. Sizemore advised these properties were medium density residential.. Deputy Mayor Bundy said his intent was never to use a roadway. He stated this was a private roadway owned by the residents. He said to him this was residential and in checking the dictionary meaning of adjacent is in close proximity. He declared the intent of the Code was to protect . residential property owners from the incursion of a commercial property. He said fences deteriorate and he would vote against any site plan that `~ does not have a wall. CC 12-03-07/368 ~ Commissioner Sackett refs;renced an area and inquired how many houses would see the back side of the br~ilding. Mr. Sizemore said he would gue:;s that. there would be approximately six (6) lots that would see the 1'~uilduig. Commissioner Sackett agreed there needed to be a wall. Mayor Maingot opened the public hearing and no one spoke in favor of approving the site plan. Ms. Roper said it was her understanding that the remaining issue was whether there was going to be a wall, a fence, or a hedge. Everything else has been clarified in previous meetings. Mr. Sizemore said that was correct, this was the remaining issue. Deputy Mayor Bundy said he did not think that was correct as the residents requested a formal review of the site plan. He said they may have come to terms on everything else. He suggested this reverts back to a quasi judicial hearing, as the Corrunission would be either approving or not approving the site plan. _~ Ms. Roper said if the Commission interpreted this in that. light;. to review the site plan, then it would need to revert back to quasi judicial. She stated she interpreted this as whether to approve the issue of a wall, fence,. o:r hedge. Mayor 1Vlaingot said the item read a review of the site plan. Commissioner Anderson said the 1~rocess would be that staff would accept the site plan if everything was okay. The residents have issued a formal challenge: He inquired if this forrr.~.al challenge took place after staff made a decision or during the pros>ess. F[e said it needed to be clarified if the Commission would be tasking action on the entire site plan or just the one item remaining. He inquired if the applicant was ready if this was a formal review as there could be multiple issues. Ms. Roper said her reading was th~~.t there had been several meetings between the homeowners and the applicant; and they have come to an agreement with the remainir.-g issue being the wall, hedge, or fence. It was her understanding the request for a. formal review was after that process and she would defer fo staff. Mr. Sizemore said this was a formal review for the site plan. The way the CAPP Program fits in was that the previous meetings identified issues and they narrowed this down so that by the time it came for formal review the Commission would know what the remaining. issue was that had not been CC 12-03-071369 addressed by the applicant. He said this would be the formal review of the site plan and if the Commission determines to approve it with a hedge or wall, at that point staff could issue a development order for the project and move forward. If the Commission chooses to deny the site plan the development order cannot be issued. Ms. Roper said if they were looking at the site plan as a whole and the affects upon all of the property owners, then it becomes quasi judicial. Deputy Mayor Bundy inquired if staff had approved the site plan. Mr. Sizemore responded in the affirmative. Deputy Mayor Btuldy said they now have a request to the Commission appealing the approval. . Mr. Sizemore advised this was not an appeal. Since the formal review was requested, staff cannot issue a development order until this review. Deputy Mayor Bundy said he would rather go through the formality of a quasi judicial hearing so no one can deny they were provided due process. Ms. Roper stivore-in the witnesses. Mayor Maingot reviewed .the guidelines for a quasi judicial hearing. Mayor Maingot disclosed his ex-pane communications. Deputy Mayor Bundy disclosed his ex-parts communications. Commissioner Holt disclosed his ex-parts communications. Donald B. Blackadar, Jr., 1'74 Varsity Circle,. Altamonte Springs, said he wanted to give a short history of his business in the City of Longwood. He reviewed his business .and said he has spent the last 25 years as a business member of the community. Approximately three years ago, the growth of their business necessitated him to consider whether to move his business out of the City or whether to find another area within the City. He identified the parcel at County Road 427 and Blackwater Place as a good possibility to locate his business. In researching this area, he was led to understand that others had run into difficulties because they were using this property for commercial rather than. for office/professional. He went under contract for the property in Febniary 2005 and had his first formal meeting with representatives from the City in April 2005. He said he learned this property always had an intended use other than residential property and it became apparent to him this would be a good home for the Blackadar Agency. He moved forward and held his first community meeting in May 2005. At that time, he felt Blackadar would probably CC 12-03-07/370 ~ occupy the whole site. He :had a desperate need to get into a new building within a year or two. Three years later, he is still in his 2,450 square foot building. and this has been a long and contentious issue. He declared if he had realized what he was proposing would meet so many difficulties, he would have gone in a different direction. He does own the property and has made a presentation to the City and has worked with them carefully. He stated there have been many complexities that he has had to work through. Throughout the process, he has tried to have an open ear. Their follow-up community meeting in August of this year was held because of so many changes and the City felt it was three for him to share a more total footprint. He brought in top professionals to represent him and show warmly to the residents he wanted to cooperate to build an office park that would be to the pride and development of the City. He stated they had significant resistance at this meeting and he considered this to be a difficult meeting. They tried to ta!~e many of the ideas. presented by the citizens into their final site :plan presented to the. City. They were asked to. build a gate or entrance to the conununity on the private road, they were asked to put in a gate and fence tl'iat would restrict access to the community. They were regl.iested to repair damages to the entrance of the community. He said they want to build an attractive, upscale office park that will have architectural design that will be consistent and compatible with the lovely homes within the :subdivision. He stated'he didn't particularly like walls and they had incorporated recommendations to -~ make sure they would not have re,~.r faces to Blacktivater Place. They would use architectural design, shutters, entrances, and other areas to make the building. interesting and attractive. He said they felt if they landscaped attractively and ,place a hedge buffer allowing trees to be retained they would be adding to the community. The first he heard about a mandate for a wall or a fence was when Mr. Sizemore called him to have a meeting with the Mayor. He said the intent of the community awareness and participation plan was to create dialogue, but it has been very difficult to have this ongoing dialogue as most of the activity has been done adversarial as opposed, in the community spirit, to join together to accomplish something. He affirmed they became aware of a concern regarding taking down some of the; trees when he was called by Channel 9 News to explain why they were taking down landmark trees. He told them they were not taking down landmark trees and have addressed that issue by changing their site plan to inco~.porate the trees..He declared communication has been a bit fragment. He said for 25 years he has been a community neighbor and rel~~reseni:ed a business in this community. Now, as a commercial property ovmer hc; is asking the Commissioners and the City to approve a site plan he has carefully put. together to meet the interest of the citizens and him as the property owner to incorporate both the residential and commercial sites into something very attractive. ~. Bill Harkins, 3525 West Lake Mary Boulevard, Suite 306, Lake Mary, said he was owner of Harkins Development Corporation. He stated they have been in the general contracting and land development business in this CC 12-03-07%371 area in excess of 30 years. He reviewed a sketch of the project and said they put aresidential flare on these buildings. He stated these were office ~ buildings,. but they have a residential look with a nice streetscape and landscaping. He said from what he understands they have- staff approval. They are asking to build a residential in nature building and the City has a chance. to make a statement and take a stand. He affirmed this was a business man who has spent his life in Longwood and he deserves the Commission staying` with.staff s recommendation. Bernard Martin, 506 North Wymore Road, said he was with BJ Associates and the engineer of the project. He has been on this project for the past several months .and went through the LAPP meeting and met with Mr. Sizemore. He said they came up with a plan. with something that was more of a neighborhood commercial design: and something that was more attractive which was what the City was looking for. He said they went through and addressed many of the concerns from the CAPP meeting such as saving trees. Another main focus was the entrances. They went to Seminole County and expressed the concerns of the residents not wanting an entrance into their community .and they now have the County approval .to have the entrance location.. Tina Walk, 248 West Long Creek Cove, said she had a proxy signed by 54 residents within the subdivision. She stated their intent was to have one spokesperson. She read a statement expressing their concerns. She said the application of a wall; they feel would provide a visual barrier so those arriving at the Blackadar property would not drive through the subdivision. Their recommendation is that the development be divided from the existing residential neighborhood by a permanent barrier wall. They feel this to be more. consistent with the Longwood Development Code that calls for cohesive development where. two (2) unlike property uses meet. She reiterated that the road was privately owned and the sole purpose was for residential access. ,Phillip Markoe, 294 Blacktivater Place, said he lives across the street from the proposed site .and had been there for 17 years. He said, with the houses facing this property, they have over 100 years of residency.. He said it was hard to hold a meeting when someone says they don't care if you didn't know there was commercial property across from you. He said.the street was owned by the residents and was a residential use. He stated it was his understanding the Longwood Liberty Tree would be saved and he commended them on saving this 250 year old tree. He affirmed it was always his intent to have a permanent wall. He said they were asking for a little bit of domestic tranquility. Michael Towers, 754 Fleet Financial Court, said he was with. Oakwood Construction and Development and they have the adjacent project on ~' Longwood Hills Road. He stated the question has come up with the interpretation of the Code. He said in looking at the site plan there was CC 12-03-07/372 ~ ariother concern the Commissior.~. needed to address. That would be the wall the developer is being requested to put up, at the west end of the property. He said when The Oaks was developed there were three (3') and seven (7') foot setbacks. This one particular parcel has a three (3') foot setback. He stated putting ,~.n eight foot (8') brick wall three feet outside this lady's living room and. kitchen windows would devalue that particular property. Mayor Maingot advised he thou€ht that matter has been dealt with. Mr. Sizemore advised the applicant had not requested a variance for that wall. Mr. Towers said if the developer was not going to go for variance it would be a waste of funds for him to be required to put up a wall in that area. He stated it was very clear what the intent of the Code was, along the road. Adan Acosta, 271 Blackwa.ter Place, said he lives on the west side and his concern was how far the wall would be from his property. Commissioner Hoit left the meeting at 9:33 p.m. and returned at 9:34 p.m. ~~ Mr. Blackadar said his intention at every meeting has been to try to be a good neighbor. He stated he wants to develop the property in harmony with all of the people interested. Ike previously took a letter to the City, by the abutting property owner who will have an eight (8') foot wall along lus . property, reques"ting the City not ;-equine him to build the wall. He was told this was oirt of order and they would have to file for a variance. He said at the meeting on August 9~' there ~i~as tremendous resistance and references regarding his speaking to the property owner to the west. He stated he was trying to do something that would be helpful to that property owner. When approaching the City regarding the possibility of a variance; he was advised, on one occasion, not to apply for a variance when going for the site permit that it would confuse issues and to come in at a later date 1:0 apply for the variance. He was told on another occasion to file the variance with the site plan. He affirmed the; commtuucaton has not always been consistent or clear. He said when he met with the Mayor and Mr. Sizemore he told them it seemed discouraging to erect an eight (8') foot tivall along the property line of.a property owner who would be severely impacted by this and had already asked the City to allow the site to be developed without that wall.. He was told the City did not have any ability to modify that requirement and al:~ow him to use the bricks and materials to place this wall where it was wanted. He said he wanted to share with the ~ Commission that he has trio-d to compromise, listen, and be concerned. He. ~, stated he planned to apply for a v~iriance for Mr. Acosta and his wife, but than was not the issue at this meeting. He declared they have presented a wonderfiil site plan to the City and hoped they approved the site plan and said he looked forward to buildinl; his development. CC 12-03-Oi'/373 Commissioner Holt asked Mr. Blackadar to explain what he planned to build first. Mr. Blackadar said his intention was to own the property long term. The initial building will be the building on the northeast corner of the property abutting County Road 427. He stated the other property would be developed if and when it became feasible to develop that property. He said his original intent was to retain ownership of the entire site. However, they were looking toward developing it as a condominium association so there would be a common dociunent governing all. of the maintenance of the four (4) sites. This would be in the event they were developed and sold to other owners so that the maintenance would be governed. Commissioner Holt said the site plan shows four (4) buildings and he would be under the assumption this was what the property would look like at the end. Mr. Blackadar responded in the affirmative. Mr. Martin, representing Mr. Blackadar, said the. homeowners were concerned about property values. He would say anytime you take a product like they would be placing on this property it would enhance the surrounding properties. He stated this vas going to be a nice product and they have spent time to not adversely affect or impact the other neighbors. He said when addressing the wall to the north side they were concerned about traffic flow. He stated when addressing adjacent,. how far were they talking about bringing this wall. They also needed to address site visibility when talking about traffic. He said they have worked diligently with the City to get approval and their plan was representative of the Code. Deputy Mayor Bundy inquired what were the original number of concerns and problems of the residents. He stated he understood there to be 25-30 areas of concern and they were dealing tonight with one area of concern. He said that showed the system and process works very well. Ms. Roper advised. they were at the end of the rebuttal proceedings and if allowing new speakers they would need to start the whole procedure over in order to be fair to the applicant. Deputy Mayor Bundy moved to extend fhe meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a unanimous voice vote. Ms. Mires advised. she had received a form for Richard Jarvis to speak on behalf of Tina Walk. Commissioner Anderson. called for a point of order stating people who have already spoken could speak again if they choose to; ifthey have left the meeting they have done their speaking. CC 12-03-07/374 Mr. Markoe said Mr. Bunely has brought up a very good point by'stating there were quite a few items at the first CAPP meeting. He said they have made a lot of concessions and given up a lot to have Mr. Blackadar come in and they were not oppo:;ed to that. He said all they were asking for was a wall and this would help them ;not see the 75 cars parked in the parking lot. Donna Field, 241 West Long Creek Cove, said she deferred to Tina originally. She said she has lived in this subdivision for 25 years. She stated the problem she had was fir the security and quietness of their neighborhood. She said things keep changing and they need the wall. Mr. Towers inquired how many employees Mr. Blackadar currently :has. Mr. Blackadar advised he has 18 employees. Mr. Towers said one .issue they could have with the site plan would be providing enough parking spaces or the overflow would go to Blackwater Place.. He said a concern would be his selling off these buildings and it could completely change the arclutecture. Mr. Acosta said he wanted to knc-w how close the wall would be to his house. Mr. Sizemore advised the proposed site plan places the wall right on the property line. Ms. Roper suggested Mr. Blackadar address thus during his rebuttal. Mr. Blackadar said this project dates back to May 2005. Since that time, they have held several follc-w-up meetings, and" various proposals. He said at the original community meeting he was given a four (4) page list of items to address and these were all addressed by his initial plan. He stated he has never varied from what he has said. However, the proposals have varied because of consultation and ongoing issues. He said. he wanted everyone to understand that all of the issues presented to them were addressed in his presentation to the City. The final issue about a wall or fence came in at the eleventh (11'h) hour after they had prepared a site plan they felt met Code and was very complementary to the City. Mr. Martin said the parkin€; addressed was per the Code and it was adequate parking. Secondly, he said it was mentioned the building setback was three (3') feet. Without having the plans with him, he suspected the ' building to be about two (2') feet off the property line with an ~,, encroachment to the property line;. As noted on their plans, they have some adjustments on the brick wall to work around this encroachment. He said they wanted to bring something vrith no variances or changes that was per the Code and met the desires of the Commission which is why this is in CC 1~;-03-0'7/375 there. In the future, maybe they could address. this wall by variance or the ~ City could make changes regarding moving a portion of this wall so as not to address the homeowner directly and they would be happy to entertain ,some ideas regarding this matter. Deputy Mayor Bundy moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a unanimous voice vote. Deputy Nlayor Bundy moved to approve the site plan. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Deputy Mayor Bundy moved to .amend the site plan to include the requirement of a wall down the northern section of Blackwater Place from the western corner to the eastern portion subject to the necessary sight line encroachment of 427. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett. Commissioner Anderson said one of the issues that needed to be addressed is the wall adjacent to this gentleman's home so not to impact his home. He stated he did not know how they would deal with this because the same Code that requires the wall on the northern boundary also requires the wall that would severely impact this man's home. He declared they needed to somehow work through this issue and the applicant wants. to work on this issue. He said he looked up the definition for adjacent and reviewed ~..~ several of the meanings. He stated the overwhelming ntunbers say directly abutting, in which case this does not qualify. He stated he understands the desire to not have the cross-access and to make sure the buffer between stands the test of time. He cautioned the residents and questioned if they really wanted a solid eight (8') footwall the entire distance. He said it was stated earlier this evening that the City needed businesses to come and stay in Longwood. He stated Mr. Blackadar was. trying to give the residents a product. that is .suitable to them. He said Mr. Blackadar also has rights as a property owner. He affirmed it was his opinion that the wall would degrade the quality of the development. Mayor Maingot said he stood for what was fair and right. He stated he went to the property on Sunday and visited the tree to see if it had anymore life. He said the proposed landscaping on the plan was very fast growing and there was an irrigation system being installed. He stated the finished product, in his opinion, would be far more pleasing than a solid brick wall. He declared that properly installed landscape. materials do a fantastic job. Deputy Mayor Bundy said he had no doubt the plants would be great and work. He stated Mr. Blackadar has already stated he may develop this as a condominium type project. and have multiple owners. This does not mean it will be meticulously maintained. They have. no assurances he will own the property for ever. He said he has been hearing about the wall for two CC 12-03-07/376 years. He reiterated that the process does work and that was why this process was implemented. Commissioner Holt said there wf;re 100 plus trees on this property and only three (3) would be left. He ..tated the headlights would shine through the hedge towards their homes. I [e said if they can perceive a brick wall to look at; then let them have it. Commissioner Sackett said. he lik:ed the design plan for the buildings and they fit nicely in the area. He also agreed with Commissioner Anderson that adjacent means next to or abutting. He stated this road was a residential use road, therefore, it abuts residential. Commissioner Anderson s~iid there were a lot of valid concerns. He stated -in his personal view, if they could have flexibility with parts of it being a wall and parts of it being landscaping and also doing this by the other gentleman's home then everyone would win. He said the neighbors have spoken and were asking for a reasonable interpretation. Motion to amend carried by a iu~animous roll call vote. 11. REGULAR BUSINESS. _~ A. The Finance Division of the Financial Services Department recommends City Commission ~~ead by title only, set December 17, 2007 as a public hearing date axed approve the first reading of Ordinance 07-1856 which amends the Fiscal Year 07/08 Budget. Ms. Roper read Ordinance Teo. 07-185.6 by title only. Deputy Mayor Bundy moved to approve Ordinance No. 07-1856 at first reading and set the public hearing for December 17, 2007.. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. B. City Administrator recommends the City Commission read by title only, set December 17, 20C17 as a. Fublie Hearing date, and approve the first reading of Ordinance 07-1555 which amends the Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services contract. Ms. Roper read Ordinance No. 07.1855 by title only. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the first reading of Ordinance 07-1855 and sei: December 17, 2007 as a public hearing date. Seconded by C;ommi.ssioner Sackett. Deputy Mayor Bundy requested the City Administrator to include in the packet some cost comparison rate:; for the garbage rates. CC 12-~03-07/377 Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT. Ms. Roper said the City Administrator had distributed a letter she had received from Mr. Pinkney's attorney indicating he was out of town and they would be in contact with her regarding the issues once he returns. 13. CITY CLERK'S REPORT. No report. 14. ADJOURN. Mayor Maingot adjourned the meeting at 10.:43 p.m. John ~,.-~aingo~; Mayor ATTEST: ~~ Sarah AI. Mirus, CMC City Clerk CC 12-03-07/37.8 ~. ~~ EX PARTS CONIl'/IUNICATION DISCLOSURE (Please fill out a separate form for each communication. This fonli is to be given to t11e City Clerlc or City Attorney prior to the Commission Meeting, at which the project will be considered.) . Date: 12 13 1 zod ~ Name: _-~ u. f~~/~ ~u,~a y ~-- Project: J«~ ~k~i,yr~./eE Location: Crfy,,.~~,~~ 017 the undersigned entered into an ex pane communication with , K~ ~,-ry~y ,whose address is , who is affiliated with the above referenced project as ~t~ OR who is a substantially affected person (explain how affected) t~iuSl~G`SS l~u~~.P ~~ with respect to the above referenced project. The following conversation transpired and is hereby disclosed and made a part of the record: ~[-5~u~~„~~ m~l~r~oti3 ~~iy S ~G-ci d.e~lti~3-/~. (P1 as e dditional sheets of paper if necessary) ,~ Signature Date 6-0~-Olgz rx PnR~('r C;OMN(UN[CAT.[ON D(:SC(~OSUftC (Please fill out a scpa,~:.etc torn, Ic>r c~,ch COI,1nTUnlCatlOn. ThIS f01-111 IS 10 be gIVCn to the City Clerl< or City /~llorney ~,rior' to the Gomn,ission NleeLing at which the project ~.vill be considered.) Date: t 213 /y~~ .-- N<,n,e: .~~ LJtt.ta~ y Pro-ject: 5 l~,y ~I' ~~,y ~_ L~~cation: _ ~ 1'q~,~j~~ O,~ ~'2"`~w ~ _, the undersigned entered into an ex pane communication ~~-ith ,[_',~ YYtFi~~.e-~ ,whose address is who is afCiiiated with the above referenced project as its OR who is a substantial ly a(~fected person (expla.in how affected with respect to the above referenced project. The Collowing conversation transpired and is hereby disclosed and made a part of th.e record: Fx~/}ESs,~'1l l~15 41~~3/T c1-d f'a ~~ -~--- (I'Icas' use addilion~il sl,ccl:ti c, l~~r,,~,cr il~ncccssarY) - SiSnaturc Dale; ~~-ua -u i ~.. EX PARTS COi\iL1VIUNICATION ~ DISCL,OSURE (Please fill out a separate foi7i~ for each coin:munication. This form is to be given to the City Clerlc or City Attorney prior to the: Conz~nission Meeting at which the project will. be considered.) Date: IE~ ~ z -_ a - ~~7 Name: _-_~~~i~i ~ - G29/3-i~~'GV~ a Project: j~k~-A-~a~ %tiieun.~ti~e~ Locafion: ~-c~~r~n~~~~~' 1~cz~ Ccrh~,~;~;y .~,,~~s /~-G~FrG• J D~=r-E ~~: E~~~%~-itiic s I,~a C'~s? ~ 2 ~ Lv ~,-z-.sz- r-~J . l On J U f z q~~ ~? ! 5.'~~ ~!~ s' ~ ,the undersigned entered into an ea pane communication tivith ~TF~~ ic~r~~c~~~hi~~t~~ a~aK~vis~Srar~i R°swllose address is %~,I i i~~ ~tJ~GGtir~ ~ni C-~7~N:v' ~ca1~ r~v;s:e>~r' ~- ~L~-c~c L~.~a~ X i~C . . who i s affiliated with the above referenced project as its I~p~} ,~,'~~.:,~.~ OR who is a strbstanlially affected person (explain ho~v affected) C~~ituz laa~i:l~L~~~ /.~~, a --~52~?yt~3teL L„ ..~--~-t~-c~ec~ Cale=te, ~~'~'..~/2t~~raff ~2L,t;~ i~c:..e%eLJc=~ei1~1, with respect to th:e above referenced project. The Following conversation transpired and is hereby disclosed and made a part of the record: .~ 2L~ ~~2r~Y+-Lrn.i)~j ..-.~j~riE e.ta C~-zcL ' ~'Y"~L~ ~ ,~i~c~/' .~,>> ~ k ~ a,C~ ~cr~,-~~c~ ~- ....~,-~- ~.cP,~~L ~-1,:e ,~ Lo~rLP j~~c~"~~s:cL G~-~~~~ ;~ k`~iti c~z~.e,~*-~ . yia-e ~~zLLO GYM c~ •-n~~,st~~s-c.,/' k ~ ~ I- ~hi~ L ' ,_J '-~1'LL'Z'dyyiLl~Y y-.+, '.y1'L~-.e-/ •~~..7 l Y~j, .,~~l,~a ~ ~QLZ.GiGGLCC<t/L Cyyi,LL. ~ T` ~t~s~-. ~u~``~ -~.a.c cC ~ ~1~~ ~ a,~~-r~y c:u~~l1~l~~vL~ /Ed7~Gz^t~f k-.GL~~. (Please use add~~i ~p~neeessarY) ~, Sig~ture ~/ ~ _ Date / Z~ v -~~v 7 ~-o:+-o ~ ~Z `-~% ~G l~,`C PnR`I (~ COMMUN.[CAT.[ON DLSCLOSU[ZC (please ill out a separaic form for e(aCll COI'IIITLUnICatlOn. f['hlS [OI-Ill Is LO be given to the City Clerk Or City Atlorncy I~rior to the Cor,unission Nieeting at which the project ~.vill be COn51dCl"eC{.) ~-- .~ Date: / / •- c~~ ~ D~ N<une: 'irrL~rw! ~'- ~~,g-r~.IG~ Project: ~;~erc,ar~,.r~a? lwsrarl~-~rrar~ Location: Cc~-,~.v~~ ~-,,•-~,s, (~.._,,;;~L;~ ~~~w~~, -lrc.~ r`=h % c-~ ~.t//~~~rCrr ~ j ~,~7 ~ 2 fc2~ 2l r ~ --2 ~z t'1~C~ On I f - ~ S~ ~- r, ~ (o. ~Cj, ~ //,~5 ,the undersigned entered into an ex pane communication with 1~`•r' /~z,~-~~;,y,~.,a~ o~~ ~~~ ~~ ;~. ,whose address is ~~~ f~~(:~. '~Z7~. L~777y-~~[, ~•/ ;Jy'7,5"~7 W[l0 IS afriliated with the above referenced project as its _ ~ fj2.,,~~(,Q„- ~ee.L OR who is a substantially affected person (explain. hoer affected) i,u.r~i- / .~, v cc. r~caGC .2.c.~u''a'~~-.-~t."'~•~c~-~-/°' i with respect to the above referenced project. z The foliowirlg conversation transpired and is herebydisc(osed and made a part of th:e record: I~CY~tr.C' ~ -, ~' ' I ~ ~ ~y .y~,L;-Le (~~ --'Lsr~G~ '-~fl~i•l~l~ /~-PSLt~~G~k fz.sr G9~J3C~i `-~/L(,C.. ~ mss: ~'tJ--~ GZ LL ^ `-~,1(-~~ `~~'~~', ~-~,~,c,'~ir;~~,7e eC ~ ~1~~J ~'~ai7 f'~~J(" ~ r//L rt_cLvi~~l, L~LZ~~1 L'-LdN '~Z,L.-G.~1/JL.~,~-L~~`' ~^ ~~~!'7 K.F, 4CL~i.~I~ 1 ~' r~~ ~.c~ ~...~it~~ 'ucfu~ Ste-( ~- 1 ~~~~~ ~ ~~ -~ ~~,-t~s'~~ G-~., ~sz~z-c_u-r~~~:r, ~'G~.~c,~~~c?.~~_czl~i~a'~~ ,r~r.,l/~.~.ez/ ~~ ~.y_Yj-_~-h ~~y~ ./li~' ~ f~,Cc-C'~ C'Z~~t G~~7~'31-''~ "tZ~ '"/'ru-ci/ '' f`~i1,L.L ~'YIL~Yh-'7 S' 47~s 2 L~iA ,~z~,~; Vin: ~ ~•~.ice..~'. _--/,-.~~., ,,~ C,c~.i=Lt~- ~'-~~)`'lu-~~.~=tc:e. ~.a.:..Lrz U'~~WL ~iic.Ct` tyc. t~.c>~F' r-~sit~r' c~.~i~.i~r1"a . "~'~s r ~' `~Z~ t (Please use addilion~ . 1 ;~~~ c~l~lr,l cr if~ncccssary) ~1~'natU _~ _ n I~X PAR"I~E COMN(UN.[CAT.[ON D[SCLOSURC (Please fill out a scparatc lornl for each conln~unication. This (orm is to be given to llle Oily Cleric or City Attorney prior to the Con~n~ission Nieeting al which the project ~.vill be considered.) Dale: _~z(,3 v --- Name: ~3ufc/i- 13~t~c1JS~ Project: _ ,~~G,C~yq,e ~~ Location: N. ,~uA ~jC~ O~, ~ /~ ww ~ ! ! I ~ ~- o _ ,the undersigned. entered into an e~ pane commllnicaGion ~~-ilh 1'y(~eyrAE~ ~~/r~„r~ ,whose address is wlto is affiliated with. the above re[erenced projecC as its OR who is a substantial ly affected person (explain how affected) A~i~~J~ j7~T wry .,- ~---• with respect to the above referenced project. The following conversation transpired and is hereby disclosed and made a part of th.e recoyyr~~d: ~~ V,~~.~,~~:~ fi.//j.f~r~r, w ~r n.~.> .f'/~.Sf_ .f ] sdr~.ur - .../'e~s_ -. , ~ _'7y._ _ . T_- -' (I''Ica c I •~dditional `Ilccas c~l~ll,l~l~r if ncccss~u~) l i,' Ilatll l'e (_1il lC G-U4 -(l l Li. ~~ EY PARTE CON~VIUNICATION D:[S CLOSURE (Please fill out a separate fon~1 for each communication. This form is to be given to the City Clerlc or City Attorney prior to the Con~ialission Meeting at which the project will be considered.) '~ Date: %2 - 3 ~'1J"7 Name: ~ J ~ .,~~. ~, ,J ,+ , Project: ~' ~ ~1~~7:,~,~ Location: X27 r"~~~1~ ,. !f . pane communication with ~x-- ~ ~ ~ r yw-c~~r~ ~vr-t^i c .rte r--~ - „[i~•t 2 affiliated with the above referenced project as i.ts OR ~vho is a substantially affected person (explain llow affected) with respect to the above referenced project. The follotiving conversation trai~sl?irecl a~1d is hereby disclosed and made a part of the record: (Please use additional sheets of paper if n.eeessary) t11e undersigned entered into an ex ~~~ ,whose address is wt.~{ ~ /~- ~ 2~~~ ,who is ~,~,,, Signature Date 6-0=~-~1gz