Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCMtg11-02-09Min
1L®ngw®®~ ~flty ~®~Il~r~fl~,~I®In ~h~~8~~~°~ ~ West W~~°~~egi ~vc~~n~ IL®ng~v®®d, ~'Iloradla l~g~gJ71'IE ~ 1`V®V ~y1V'Ji11.P~g~~ Eey /~®®9 / o®® Jr oM. Pre~elnt: Mayor lE~.~. "SutclIl99 Bundy ~cg~Iaty Mayor ~bohn C. Maingot cCoIrIIllissioner doe Durso Cominissioner Mike ~oflt ~Colnlnissioncr Brian Il). Sacl~ett ~ . Andrew Bayes, Acting pity Attorney ]Katrina Powell, ~C'ity Adrninistl•a;~or Sarah Imo. Minis, pity Cfler~C `T'roy K. I~Iickson, Acting ]Eire 6~llief ~Cllris Kintner, Colnlnunity ~e:ve:loplxlcalt coordinator .1~OlIIIl 1P~t~rs, 1®irect®r of PIII?114: ~~orfl~s~~Ity ~II~I?3~~r ]I+raII Mcfli, ~ircctor of 1L.eisalre Sc:I°vices `~oln Jacfl~son, .Police thief Slxeryl ]~ower,l)irector of Cominulnity ~evclo]plrlcnt ll. ~A1L]L ~1~ER. Mayor Bundy ca].1ed the meeting to order at 7:00 p.in. A In~olnent of S>C]LEl~t'g' M~~g~'A'll'][®l~ vvas fofllowed ley the PLIEIl~~~ ®]E' Ag,L,IE~ ~ AI~TC]E. 3. ~®MMi11~Ig`f'Y Alm®~~C~M~I~T'i. i'~oiie. 4. REC®~N~~I®l~t~/PR®~I,AMA'g'~~1~~~. A. Dis$rlct Presentatioaa Of t112 HDIlSiII~SS Per~OII Of tlfle Mo11t11 AwaTfd • for I~Iovelnl~er 2009 to ~,ulis ~u~iroz, President of Royal Press, 973 West State Road 434. _ :Deputy Mayor Maingot read a brief biography on Mr. Luis Quiroz, :President of Royal Press, 973 Wes;:. State Road 43'4. He presented Mr. Quiroz with the Business Person oj.'the Month. plaque and photographs were then taken. 5. B®AR]ID APP®~I~'f'MEl~t'f'S. None. CC 11-02-©91545 6. ~gJBLg~ gl~PYJ'g'. A. 1Publac P~~°$gcY~~gg®a~. . Mary Sackett, 399 Harbour Isle Way, said almost a year ago to the day she was expressing the same disdain. She stated slle wanted to take this opportunity to set a few things straight. She said Commissioner Sackett has never voted on anything that would improve his home or his subdivision. She affirmed he did not. vote on the stormwater project that relieved the serious flooding in front of Harbour Isle, nor did he vote on cleaning up Mud Lake. She stated as far as nearly losing the Connnuter Rail, in actuality,, Commissioner Sackett's strong negotiating skills got more money for the City than was expected. That to her, is not losing a deal, 'but is successfiilly negotiating and closing a deal. She said as far as the smoke detectors, it stated on the website that the Fire Department offers these free of charge. It appears the Firefighters have money to donate to campaigns in hopes of their special interests, but they don't. have money to support their mission of enhancing the quality of life. She stated, again, to set the record straight, it appears the City Administrator in charge of the City, and well aware of the Budget, bought the smoke detectors, instead of telling Commissioner Sackett that there were no funds. She said. that last. year, Mr. Bundy stated that "the delays caused by the City held up the project so long, with the economy in disarray, Publix was shelving the location, and that ke had savedthis project twice". She stated he was once again telling the citizens of Longwood that he and his posse were riding in to save the day. She inquired if they should believe him this time and asked what happened in the last year. She. said she expected in the 2011 Election to get another update. She stated if she were to believe all of the hearsay and. repeat it the way he has, she would believe that Mr. Richardson had no clue that what was on his last postcard insulted the teaching profession because he didn't write it. However, that would cause her to question his leadership and management skills. She said she would believe he never attended his homeowner meeting and never paid his dues. She stated she would believe that lie falls asleep.during Commission meetings. She said if by some horrible, unfortunate tui71 of events, Mr. Richardson does win the seat for District 5, she would suggest having him sit next to the Commissioner who updates his Faceboolc.during the meetings and maybe that would keep Mr. Richardson awake. She stated she cannot understand why Mr. Bundy ca.imot let candidates run for office based on their merit, support them, and for. this, let the citizens decide. She said she wanted to make sure the Commission laiows she is here as a Longwood resident, tired of the trash that. keeps getting delivered in her mail. She stated. she was here as a neighbor who has listened to senior citizens be afraid that they are goingto lose safety and services. She said she was sick and tired of it and would askthat the, Mayor of our City stop participating in it and condoning it. Estelle McCarron, 157 Sheridan Avem~e, said she was here again to address the fence that has been erected illegally at 1.62 Sheridan Avenue. CC 11-02-09/546 She stated it was not fair that one: (l.) or two (2) individuals should have private access to a park that should be available to all families in Wi.nsor Manor. She says two because, upon. further. research they have fouizd that there is yet another fence erected. illegally that also prohibits lake front access at 204 Sheridan Avenue. ,3hc; said it was unreasonable for the City ' of Longwood to give private lake a~,cess to just these families when they can only increase the value of homea in these economic times. She stated their children played on this land. all of their lives and 'inquired why then were the Donis and Stein Family b~,en allowed to illegally fence off and restrict access to their families. She said it was also disturbing that the Dorris Family has now allowed such a dangerous situation to arise with an unfenced pool that can be accessed by simply walking around the chain link fence. She stated it was oidy a :matter of time before a child or a pet drowns in that pool. She declared if the pool needs to be fenced to meet City Code, then it is only logical that the illegal fence be removed anyv,~ay. She said another item that has com€; to their attento~i was that someone has removed all of the "No Parking" signs along Sheridan Avenue by what they deem their lake access. She stated to please note this is a steep and. nanow piece of land that runs along; a very busy street acid their children are not safe playing in this area. ;311e would also aslc the Commissioners again to vote tonight in removing the Donis and Stein fences and give back to the residents this piece of land that is approximately 240.25 feet long and at the widest point approximately 75 :feet deep. She affirmed this was almost the size of a football field and they were not talking about a. small corner, but a piece of land that can be utilized as a park. She said s11e could not understand why Deputy Mayor Maingot would circumvent the authority of this Commission to i:acilitate illegally erecting a fence. She stated she did believe, had the prop~,r charnels been followed and a public hearing held, this would never hcive happened. She urged the Conunssioners of the City of Longwood and the City Administrator to right this tei•~~ible wrong and imircediately insist that these fences be removed for the benefit of the residents and cll:ildren of Winsor Manor. She stated should the Dol-ris and Stein Families require more privacy, tl.ley should then erect privacy fencing; on their 1v1d and enable the :rest of the residents to dock their sii1a11 boats so that they can fish alld picnic under the shady tree in the heat of summer. She said they would do litigation if necessary. JoAnne Rebello; 301 Loch Lomond. Avenue, said she was speaking to the responsibilities of the Commissioners and stated she was very disturbed at ' what. has taken place. She said. non-substantiated, untruthfitl, slanderous, libelous, despicable, contemptible, loathsome; and bile were just a few ' words to describe the trash that.l\%Ir. Bundy 11as pinned his name to this week acid the candidates; lVlilce Holi: and Jolii 1Zichardson, approved and paid for with campaign contributions. She stated he made accusations with. no proof. Slie said he did not provide the voters with true facts, just innuendo and false hearsay. She declared his actions disgust her since he is the Mayor. She stated'he did not deserve to bear that title or any CC 11-02-09/`~4Z government position. She said he had made statements that were, in her opinion, libelous, and she hoped that appropriate action would be taken. She declared he should be censored for lus actions again and said his malicious attack toward honorable men whose integrity was far above anything; he could possible aspire to make her wonder how he can look into the minor. She stated he had slung mud before, but this was far worse, and she hoped that the voters send a clear message at the polls that your brand of dirty politics is not welcome in our City. She,inquired why he and his candidates have to resort to the malignant falsehoods. She said she was extremely disappointed in Mr. Richardson who stated he would run a clean campaign. She stated she wondered if those who have spoken or written these unsubstantiated fabrications would be willing to give false testimony in a court oflaw and perjure themselves. She said she was entering into public record past negative flyers and lus brochures either approved by or append by Mr. Bundy which will show some of the statements he criticized Mr. Cortes and/or Mr. Sackett with making,that are the same or very similar to the same ones he made during his campaigns. She stated if there was any justice in Longwood, the informed voters will.. see this. group for what they are, unworthy of representing the citizens of Longwood. Steve Dorris; 162 Sheridan Avenue, said he would lilee to clarify a few things, in regards to the fence: He reviewed an overhead marking out the properties involved. He pointed out the access to the lake and said it was between 600 to 800 feet and stated they were not cutting, off the lake access. He stated. they keep referring to this as a park and. it is not a park. He said in his eleven (11) years of living there no one has ever had a picnic in this area. He stated the children never play in this area and have only done so one time when they were instrLieted to. Kathy Dorris, 1.62. Sheridan Avenue, said as Ms. Estelle McCarron said earlier, they are here once again to address the fence that was erected three (3) years ago at 162 Sheridan Avenue. She stated this Fence was erected pursuant to a permit issued by the City of Longwood. She declared, in effect, the property upon which the fence is located is a iio man's land since it was never conveyed by the developer to anyone. She said her father, the original owner, was given pei-mission to maintain the property and treat it as his own by a verbal agreement between himself and the City Planner in 197. She, referenced dotes written by her father showing the discussion and. agreement taken place between him and the City Planner at that time. She stated her mother was also here to testifythat she was a witness to that conversation acid that agreement. She declared the verbal agreement included a fence, whuch they are being. told is illegal. She said he was told he could put up a fence, put in a sprinkler system,, and as long as he maintained that property, the City said it was his to use as he chose. Until recently, no one has questioned. the existence of the fence or sought to use the property since there is a dedicated recreationareafust several hundred feet to the south. She declared her family and she have been CC 11-02-09/548 placed in a state of turmoil because of Estelle McCanon and her petition to the City of Longwood to remove not only the fence erected three (3) • years ago, but any other fences located on this parcel of land. She reviewed a photograph showing l:ences at 162, 204, 206, and 208 Sheridan Avenue. She inquired if this means all of those fences have to be removed. She declared if her fence comes dozen, it was only fair that those fences . should be deemed to be taken down as well. She submitted aerial views of the properties she was talking aboul:. She stated NIs. 1Y1cCarron has dern.arrded removal of the fences so her children can use the property for recreation and picnics. She said that: Ms. McCarron also contends the subject property is her only access to Lalce Wiirsor and the~existence of the fence precludes her family from using the lake. She declared her husband proved that to be incorrect fiom the pictures. She stated also included in the packet of information was a letter from the Civic Association stating iliey had nothing to do with the Attorney Ms. McCarron lured to petition the City. She said while th.e issue; o~.'fence extensions on~most of the properties adjacent to the lake is not raised, if the Corrunission accedes to the wishes of this one resident, a precedent will be set to seek removal of all. fence extensions between platted lots and the lake, thereby creating responsibility for City mauitenance as well as easy access for intruders anal vandals to all lake front properties. She affirmed there were many other properties on this lake that she has checked on that have these areas that are not listed in their surveys, but they also have fences around the lake. Margaret DeBruv1, 162 Sheridan Avenue, said she along with her husband - are the original owners of this property, which they purchased in 1977 as lake front property and paid extra for this privilege. She stated she was here to verify that a verbal agreeme;nt was made between her husband, John H. DeBruin, and the City in rc,gards to this parcel of land and the original fence erected in August 1978. She said included in the documents handed out to the Cornnussion this everting is a copy of the hand written notes by her Husband. She stated h~, made the :notes to confirm the verbal agreement that took place between he and the Ciry Planner during that time. She affirmed that per their agreement, this property was theirs to use and maintain for all these years; which has continued tluough the purchase of the property by her daughter and son-in-law. She stated the level of the la.lce in 1977 was much higher than:-. it is now and they were required to purchase flood insurance. Since then, they have put in culverts and there is a lot of drainage which means the :lake has receded aiid the property has been expanded. She said this also means that this property, as it stands today, could not have been dedicated to the perpetual use of the public, as it did not exist at that time. Until now, not one resident has questioned ownership of this land and the Cite of Longwood has never told them that they own this property. She stated while walking she saw Mr. McC~uron. and he told her he had nothing to do with this. CC 11-02-~09/549 Nancy Goclmour, 161 Sheridan Avenue, said she has lived at this address since 1974. She stated ever since the DeBruin Family purchased and moved into 162 Sheridan Avenue she had always considered the land between the house and lake to be theirs, acid now the Dorris Family backyard. She said the level of the lake at that time was at least one-fourth (1/4) higher onto the property in question than it is.now, and there was no drainage ditch at that time to reduce the water level. She pirt in a pool in 1978 and financed it through. SunTrust who insisted she have flood insurance because of the lake. She stated based on the level of the lake in 1977 shows evidence why this parcel was.not deeded to any entity, because it was under water. She said her family on many occasions has fished and launched boats on Lalce Winsor and it has never been an issue for them using the dedicated area as an access. She affirmed that she does not live on the lake, but she does not consider the erected fence an issue since her family has access to the lake via the area dedicated as public access by the residents. She stated in her opinion, as an original owner in Winsor Manor, this land belongs to the Dorris and DeBruin Family. She said the McCarron children have always played in the lake and there has never been a problem until now. She stated Mr. Steve Dorris keeps that property beautifiil and there has never been a problem with it. Kath~Beacham, 204 Sheridan Avenue, said she, along with her . roommate, Robin Stein, have lived at this address since 2001. She stated when they moved in there was an existing four (4) foot fence at the base of the property near the lake. She said they replaced that fence with a six (6) . foot fence due to their pool and moved it further up on their property. She stated they were never told at closing that they did not own a specific piece of that property down to the lake. As far as where their fence is, they were never told it was illegal. She said when they purchased the property with the existing fence in place; there was no objection dltring their closing. Therefore, this is added proof that the fences on these properties are not a problem. She stated before the fence was erected at 162 Sheridan Avenue, they had to deal with kids and non-residents walking around the lake, jumping on the fences, harassing dogs, leaving trash on their property, and even have personal property being stolen. She declared this fence has only helped in the well being of other lake front property owners by stopping easy access on foot all around the lake. She said due to the ample area designated as access by the residents to Lake Winsor, she supports the fence and added that in no way does it block residents from • appreciating the lake. She stated the Dorris Fanuly has maintained this property for over thirty (30) years and she feels it is rightly their, own. Dan McCoy, 137 East Maine Avenue, declined speaking duj-ing Public .Participation. Andrea Ella-ko-vich, 164 Sheridan Avenue said she has lived at this address a little over tln•ee (3) years. She stated she was there before the fence went up and knows what the condition of that area was. She said she CC 11~-02-09/550 would have to go out and pick-up trash near the trees prior to having company. She stressed that the Do~.~ris Family has maintained this property, including putting in an e~:pensive spcinlcler system. She declared it was a small area compared to the: amount of space available to all of the residents there. She stated it was a health and safety issue; because without those individual fences, there was ~`oo much easy access to houses from the back and around the lake. She said there were over 200 houses in Winsor Manor and this was a sr.~~all area to put residents in such turmoil. She stated she could not believe the Longwood Local Govermnent would vote in favor of two (2) people ma!cing other people who live in the area have to sacrif ce so much for this tiny bit of land. She said this issue was tearing this neighborhood apart for no good reason. Marls Smith, 321 Heather Avemie, said there were two (2) incidents that prompted him to come here. One incident was. that when he was coming home driving past the park in Highland Hills he sa~v a young man trying to shove some money inside a car. H~~ stated l1e didn't think a lot about it, but asked around and other people ].lave seen this. He said he didn't know if it , was drugs or what they were selling, but something was happeniizg in this park. Fie stated others have reporff;d this to the Foli.ce and he was here to respectfiilly request the Commission look into this matter and tallc to the Police Department to see if there was something more intense they can do. The second item was regarding his son who received a speeding ticl~et. IIe said his soil has received two (2) tickets in Longwood since he has been driving and his son will Ue twenty five (25) next week. Ike stated he also. asked around about this and it seems there are a lot of people in their neighborhood receiving tickets for little things.:EIe inquired if there was airy way the Commission could. lighten up the Police Department. C~1~t~lEl~l'~' AGIElYDA. A> A~~II•®ve Min~ate~ o~ ghae ®c$obe~i- Il9, ~00~ llae~~nia~ l~eetinn~. 16. Finance Division o~ tlne lE'inaa~.~iEii S~II~iees De~~r~IIIIIICnt II•ecoanunendls iD~ygn~nt of ap~~oved bifll~ ~®I~ 1l ovennlber ~00~. . cC. City AdIIninistr~to~ n'ccognIIraencls ties City Cornanission ~ppII°ove a legall g~twices a~gII°eeII~ent b~t~een E~n3~.y ~oodblatt, P.~. end ttae City $'or° C®de~ En~oII•ceaxnent ~peciai I~a~istII~ate ~eII-vices anct aantl~o~ize tine I~ayoII° to sig¢~ the contII•ae~. D, T~fl~ ](n~®Il'IgA~tIl®n T~~l3nfllO~y D)l~'i~Il®n t~l~ ~lIllc`flnCll~l S~1C°~'1~~~ D¢~aII°trnent II•ec®II~ynencis the: City CoIInanission ~ppa~ove a cont~raet and puII•chase oII-cte~° in tllae anIIOiflnt of ~6~,260 $o 'g'llne ~even•e ~Gx•oIIIIp, bane., ffo~° gaafo~a~nation B'echnoflo€;3' (tT') iaat'ra~tII°enctIInre rn~anageel sug~poa°t sea°vice~ ~~ci ~utlnoa°a:~e the City A~aninista-atoa• to ~i~n tflae ~g~g~II°og~II•iate dlos~aaaae~nts. CC 11-02-0'a/551 T$H~ ~1ffi~Ormatl®Yl '~'eChffiOl®~' ~?ivisi®n tlIle ~llffiafficial SerViccs ~De~a~°t~Hnent recommends the City CoH~nmissi®n approve a g~IlHrcha~e ®rder in 4he amoIlnnt o~ ~72,~~~ to ~unGard l[~.'1',~., lnc. for annaaal software access, maintenance, upgracdes affid ~IlHppot°t and a~ntho~i~e the City Administrator to sign afll appr®p~°iate docIlHments. Coiiunissioner Sackett moved to approve the Consent Agenda as .submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Durso. Discussion was held regarding Items 7 B, 7 C, and 7 D. Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. P1J~IGgC l[~~A~1~1G~. A. CIlfy A~m'Hni~tratoa° recommends the CHty Commission read &~y title only and adopt ordinance loo. 09m1906, winich am~nd~ the Solid " Waste and l~ecyclin~ ~olicction Services contiract. Mr. Dayes announced having proof of publication. He then read Ordinance No. 09-1906 by title only. 1Vlayor Bundy opened the public. hearing. No one spoke in favor to the Ordinance. The following spoke in opposition to the Ordinance: Dan McCoy, 137 East Maine Avenue, said he was here to speak against the Waste Pro contract., He stated since Waste Pro started collecting the City's garbage there have been a number of problems. He said he has come to the Commission with a number of issues regarding Waste Pro. He reviewed some of these issues and said there was a problem with trucks Criss-crossing up and down the streets keeping cars" from passing. He stated he has made numerous telephone calls to the Commissioners regarding this. He inquired why they were considering a multi-year contract and stated this was not a new issue. He said that every year they hear the same thing, "we'll get it fixed." He stated after all the years they have had Waste Pro, now the problem on their street is beginning to come tinder control. He said he has been told that Maine Avenue was on a watch list. He stated all of our streets should be on a watch list. He suggested two options; 1) Grant Waste Pro aone-year extension to their contract with the provision that customer complaints are held below a certain percentage, and 2) Send the Trash Collection Contract back out for bid. He said if Waste Pro gives us the best deal, then grant them the new contract. He stated this way the City would get the best rate and the residents would get the best service. CC 11-02-09/552 Commissioner Sackett moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Durso and. carried by a unanimous voice vote. Commmissioner Durso maven to approve Item ~ A, as presented. Seconded by Cormmissioner Sacl~ett. Commissioner Sackett said from what he has seen Waste Pro doing at both of lus homes within the. City, he tends to disagree with Mr. McCoy. He stated there was a continuity of good effort and the men are very pleasant. [Ie said Mr. Dolan has do71e everything he has requested. He said while a 45¢ reduction was good, how often. do these things change. He stated he would rather have this as a one->~earagreement, Uut said he was open to listen. He inquired what they could. see out of two- years as compared to what aone-year commitment wota~~ be. Tim Dolan, Regional Vice Preside~it for Waste Pro, said it was simply that the contract was currently written for two-year extensions. Mayor Bundy said the co~ltract allows for amiual price adjustments. Deputy Mayor Maingot asked if'there was a decimal problem anal said he would rather see $4-.50 as opposed to 45¢. He stated there was aloop-hole with the contract that they can con~.e before the Conunission each year for increases. Mr. Dolan said he can understand i:llat. I3e pointed out there were two other contracts currently in the County, Lalce Mary and Oviedo. He stated Oviedo was paying about the same as Longwood, but they were receiving once a week service as opposed to twice a week. He said he does feel their pricing iswery competitive. Deputy Mayor Maingot said the- comments. previously made were something that had to be taken seriously. He stated when they come into 11is subdivision they are followi~.ig procedure. Mr.-Dolan said Mr. McCoy has his cell phone number and they have talked several times in the past fe~~~ months. Ike stated he has no problem in taking the calls and addressing the issues. Conu~iissioner Durso said he has seen nothing but quality service and the times Mr. Dolan has been faced w~4ah i sues, lie has always been very helpfiil. He stated he appreciates that the two-year eontrac.t will lock them into the lower rate and pointed out that the Commission would have to approve any increases or decreases. He encouraged Mc. Dolan to remain vigilant with customer service. CC 11-02-09/553 Coininissioner Sackett inquired if they were looking into recycling at Candyland Park. Mr. Dolan said Waste Pro has embarked on a public recycling program for special events and parks. He stated he would be happy to talk with the City Administrator regarding those services. Mayor Bundy said the complaints with the pr=ioi: service the City had far outweighed what they have now. He stated rebidding the contract, as far as he was concerned, was not an option. He said cities that have rebid the process have suffered from extreme sticker shock. Motion carried by a:unanimous roll call vote. 9. ll~~1J1LAlE~ BgTS1I~T~SS. A. '1'line Finance Il~ivision oIl'tflne Fiunaanciafl Services ~epartnnent recoannnnends tflne City Coanaaaission read by title oanfly, set lYoveanfl~cr 16, X009 as a pnbflic flIlearin~ date and approve tflne ~i~st ~eaditng o~ ®rdianaaace l~lo. 09-190 wflnc}s aarnends tine Fiscafl Fear 0/09 Bandget. Mr. Dayes read Ordinance No. 09-1905 by title only. Commissioner Holt moved to approve Ordinance No. 09-1905 and set November 16, 2009 as a public hearing date, as submitted. Seconded by Mayor Bundy. Deputy Mayor Maingot inquired why they couldn't find the mariey other than from the Reserves. Ms. Powell said it was at the end of the year and this was w11at was necessary to take out of Reserves to cover. the costs of Professional Services for the City Attorney. She explained that the City Attorney expenses exceeded the Budget. Deputy Mayor Maingot inquired if this was in addition to the money being taken from the Reserves to balance the Budget. Ms. Powell explained this was actual funds being.taken fiom Reserves and the fiends to balance the Budget was only incase the fiuZds were needed. . She said this was over and above what was budgeted last year. . Motion cai•~ied by a unanimous roll call vote.. B. 'l~he City Cflerk recoannneands tflne City Coflanaani~saoan a°ead by tatfle ®ffifly, set I~loveflnber 16, X009 as a pubhc flac~rnan~ date, end approve tflne first reading of ®rdinance l~lo. 09-1909 vvfiieln ga°ants a Doan-~xcflaasivc Franchise Il°®r tflae eollectiona of C®anmerciafl SoIlid Waste to Advanced ?~isposafl Ccntrafl Florida, ~,ILC. CC 11-02-09/554 IVIr. Dayes read Ordinance No. 09-1.909 by title only. Cormllissioner Sackett mov~~d~ to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 09-1909, as :presented, Regular Item 9 B and set November 16, 2009 as th.e public hearing date. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Maingot and. carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 1V)[~°. VViflfliag?n Vega, ~•eprresentir~g ]iinaseflfl' aaxcfl hip wwifl'e, g,a~a~a Vega, ~e~~est~ the xmatte~° rega~•cfling a Q~®de~ lEni'®~°~emrne~ic ILi~~n agairfl~~t ~h~ • ~?•o~~rAy flocatecfl at 159 Sheridan Avern~ae he pflaced oua $he 1~1®vennbe~ i6, 2®®9 ~igy ~omflui~~i®n Age:~nd.a. Mayor Bundy said this was a request like they have encountered in the past in regards to Codes Enforcement Liens and the short sale of property. Commissioner Durso inquired where staff was with regards to the request . the Comn~.ission on developing ~:i policy that surrounds these types o:E issues. Ms. Powell advised they were looking into what other cities have done. She said they have some i:eelers out to determine what is lega and not legal. Conmlissioner Durso said he wcnil~~ like to move as quickly as possible on this matter. He requested a time fr~une. IVIs. Powell said she would tbii~c it would be the first of next year. Deputy Mayor Maingot said they had to deal with a situation like this once before and until such time as they'ave a policy upon which they can all agree upon it would not serve a us~,fiil purpose to grave it on an Agenda. Commissioner Sackett said he agreed with Commissioner Durso as :far as having the policy in place. He statf,d they would have more of a comfort level on how to deal with these properties. IIe said they need something to be fair. He agreed in not placing; trus on the Agenda. It was the consensus of the Commission to not hear the matter until the policy is iii place. ~Conunissioner Durso left the meeting at 8:40 p.in. and returned at 8:4-1 p.m. Mayor Bundy said if anyone else requests an Age~ida Item like this that they will not place any Items on the Agenda prior to establishing a policy. He stated to pass onto the Special Magistrate that they do not want to hear any o:Cthose cases until a policy has been established. CC 11-02•-OS'/555 Commissioner Holt inquired why this wasn't brought up at the last meeting when they denied the gentleman who was going to take a blighted property and convert it into a home. Commissioner Dtuso said he suggested at the last meeting that they have the policy. 'City Attorney asps the City Cognrnission to discuss the allo`vanee o~ a-ernoval of a fence earected on City g~rog~erty located at 16~ Sheridan Avenue in the Winsor IVfano~ Subdivision. Michael Marlow, Esquire, said he was with the Law Fvzn of Marlow and Weatherford, P.A. in Winter Park located at 1150 Louisiana Avenue, Suite 4. He represents Mr. and Mrs. Steve Dorris who reside at 162 Sheridan Avenue where the fence is being sought to be removed by Mr. Winston Davis' client. Winston R. Davis, Esquire, 117 West Windham Court located in Longwood. said he was representing Ms. McCarron, and so far unknown others who are seeking evidence against a residence in Winsor Manor subdivision. Ike stated the Commission has heard quite a bit this evening from members of the public concerning this parcel of land and what may or may not have happened thirty (30) years ago. In fact, this is really a very simple issue; it comes down to a question of law and a question of fact. He said the question of law was does the City of Longwood, if in fact, they own the property and tlus has not been established, have the power to parcel out pieces of lake front property which have been dedicated in perpetuity to the public by the plat. He stated the corporation t11at originally platted in the 1970's prior to anyone purchasing any property laid out these boundary lines and showed the parcel that Mr. Dorris displayed as public land dedicated in perpetuity to the use of the public. He said he believed the law and reason dictate that if the City of Longwood does own that property, by right of the dedication in perpetuity to the public, Longwood holds that property in trust for all the public, and particularly for members of Winsor Manor subdivision. He stated if one property owner in Winsor Manor objects to this, then that gives them standing to complain about the fence. He said he would submit that the reasons that they have given to the Conunission are not relevant. The facts indicate that the people, who pluchased these lots, purchased them with a survey showing where their property lines lie. He declared he was sorry for Mr. and Mrs. Dorris who have been used by the system. He said that Deputy Mayor Maingot stated last week that this Agreement between the City and the Dorris was approved by this Commission. He stated that neither he nor his researchers were able. to find any resolution or any other indication that this Commission ever dictated to the City Admiiustrator that that be done. He suggested that it was done in some other fashion, but it was not done properly. Ile said this was a simple Agreement between the City of Longwood and the Donis' stating that they have permission to CC 11-02-09/556 • put the fence there and it very clearly states-this Agreement can be terminated by either party on thirty (30) days notice for any reason; or no reason. al all. He said there were no legal grounds for the Dorris' to object. He affirmed there were other planes on the lake where people can }.lave access to the lake, but this is a large parcel. He stated that logic suggests it is not fair, even if it were legal, for ~~`he City of Longwood to permit one property owner and thereby corrnniiting other property o~~~iers that have ialegal fences across this property to have access while denying the same privilege to other residents of Winsor Manor and to whom that public • dedication in the plat dated 1977. I-1e said the City Attonley has already told the Commission that the outcome of this was likely to be litigation aiid he could not promise them the City would prevail He stated it was his contention that the City would not prevail in this litigation. IIe declared. all that is required by this Commission was for them to follow the law and tivhat is reasonable and direct the City Administrator to write a letter to the Dorris' giving them thirty (30) days to remove this fence. He said they were going to be required to do something to preve~~t access to their pool in any event. Mr. Marlow said land sight was a vaonderfiil thing because it is 20/20. He stated back in the early 1970's when Winsor Manor was devel.opecl and Lake Winsor was dug, there was a plat that was recorded and lots were ;;urveyed and boundary lines were set on those lots. In most instances where you have water front property, be it adjacent to a creels, river, or a lake, there is a theory that the boundary line is at the mean high water mark ai~.d that is the property bei ~Zg purchased. In this particular case, apparently the lots were surveyed and boundaries were set that, while they were lake front lots, following 1V[r. Davis' argument, they may or may not be lake front lots. He said we all la~.ow water will. rise and fall axed the adjacent land owner may have more or less land. If you follow Mr. Davis' argument stating when the water falls that all of these property owners in Winsor Manor no longer o~vn lake front property, it is far beyond reasonable to advance such a position. He stated in this particular case, there is a survey that reflects a si.uvey of the Doi7is' lot that goes back to '1976 when the DeBruin's purchased the property. He said the sL~rvey has the lot description, and then on the south boundary of the lot nett to that it says Lalse Winsor. He stated there ,were three (3) or four (4) property owners on Sheridan Avenue that: faces the situation that their land happens to have these fences on it aild originally it ~Tas just Mr. Davis' client asserting the interest in just the property owned by the Dorris'. Tonight, she stated it also applied to the properties beyond that and those fences should be removed. If this Commission adopts the position that those :fences should be removed, what is to stop a disgruntled homeowner in Winsor Manor fiom coming to this Commission and demanding that a • :fence on another piece of property be eliminated, or a dock, o:f which there are several on this lake, be removed because the lake is public property. He said this Commission has to make its deteinv.nation on the law, but also the facts. He stated in 1977-1978 when the DeBruin's bought th.e CC 11-02-091557 property, they have a contemporaneous note that was written and shown to the Conunission that was written by Mr. DeBruin after he had met with an official of the City of Longwood. He said they don't know for sure the City owns the property: There is conflicting evidence in teens of correspondence that the developer never conveyed the parcel of property, so that parcel is in "no man's land". He affirmed the City heard testimony tonight of people. who live along the lake, who have had problems with vandalism and trash prior to fences being constructed. He stated it creates a health hazard, detracts from the neighborhood and also-reduces the property values of everybody in the neighborhood. He, said the . Commmission has heard some excellent presentations fiom neighbors and stated it does make a difference with what they have to say. He stated they . have forty-.two (42) petitions that concur with Mr. and Mrs. Dorris' position relative to the fences that he will submit to the Clerk for the record. He said he would submit that Mr. Davis was exaggerating a little and said he would say that he has one (1) or two (2) clients,. but certainly not unk~lown others: He stated this issue has been raised throughout the neighborhood and there were many people who could have come forward if they were opposed to this small amount of land. He said there were. problems existing with regard to fries that have been levied by the Codes Enforcement Board. He questioned if Ms. McCarron was trying to go in the backdoor and raise these issues so that she can get the Commission to talee the easy .route and lower the fines, and then maybe drop the fence . issue. Mayor Bundy said he would ask the City Attorney to rule on this, but Mr. Marlow was making suggestions that were not in evidence at this time. Mr. Dayes said they have potentially exceeded the scope of the presentation here when they make reference to Codes Enforcement issues that are,ui~telated to the property at 162 Sheridan Avenue. Mr. Marlow said he would concede that. He summarized by saying taking into consideration the arguments. that have been made by the residents, the history of the property and its possession since 1977, it has been partially fenced since 1978 and has had the additional fence for three (3) years. He affirmed this was after seeking, approval from the City of Longwood. He stated it should be allowed to remain in place because of the plethora of problems that will be brought to the forefront, not only in Winsoi• Manor, but throughout the City of Longwood where there is a lake, stream, or river. Mr. Davis said what his colleague was talking about was called riparian rights and riparian rights do not accrue to someone whose lot boundary does not go down to the lake. He stated when you look at the plat there are a lot of property owners whose lots do run down into the lake and that was what he was speaking. about. He affirmed that does not apply to this situation. He said contrary to what he says, this is not a "no man's land", CC 11-02-09/558 this is property dedicated to the public use by the plat and very clearly shown. Mr. Marlow said lus point. was n.ot about riparia~.i rights. He was talking about the fact of 20/20 land sight and that typically water rises and falls and the adjacent land owner owns the property that either appears by the Gower water level or loses property with a higher water level. In this case, that didn't happen and as a result of that not happening they are sitting :here tonight having to go through Phis and if the Commission forces the removal of this fence will open i:he door to all of the other lake front owners having the same problem by someone coming forth. and petitioning th.e Commission to force the removal of fence or a dock that may go out beyond the property line of that lai:.d owner. Commissioner Durso inquired if 1V:r. Davis was admitting that the City doesn't really know the status oi'tb.e property. Mr. Davis said i.t was not clear tinder the law exactly who ends up owning this property when there is a public dedication and Rio fiu-th.er disposition by the developer. Conunissioner Durso said to that point, what he was saying was since there vas no clear record as to whE:ther or not Longwood owns it or not, the issue of a public dedication could be in question. Mr. Davis said it was show~i as r~, part of the parcel that was dedicated to the public. He stated the other half of it was conveyed to the Homeotivner's Association by the developer. He said it was the intent of the developer to convey the entire parcel, but that never took place. He stated he was conceding, for the sake of argument, since Longwood is the entity that granted the fence permission. Conunissioner Durso said that 1`/Ir. Marlow made the comment that traditionally the mean high water rnarlc is the property line in these lsin.ds o:f purchases. He inquired. if Mr. Davis agreed or disagreed with that statement. Mr. Davis said lie agreed that tb.e mean high water mark is detei~ninative, but he is saying it does not apply to this parcel because the lot lines of the property shown. on the survey do n.ot run contiguous to Lalce Winsor. In fact, it is what is supposed to be art empty parcel.. Conunissioner Durso inquired iCl~1r. Marlow's clients were paying tax on the land. Mr. Marlow responded in the n~,g~~tive. He said that no one really knows who owns the land. He stated the tax assessor's value of the land is zero ~0~. CC 11-02-09/559 Commnissioner Durso clarified that they were not paying taxes on the land, but they were maintaining the land. Mr. Marlow responded n the affirmative. Commissioner Durso said Mr. Marlow had stated people who own property on the water gain and lose property as time goes on. He inquired if it was his contention that if Lake Winsor went dry, all of the property owners around the lake would owrl to the middle of the lake. Mr. Marlow responded in the negative. He said his point was that 20/20 ° hindsight was wonderful, but the way the developer filed the plat, the survey actually drew a line where the property ended and that Brie may Have in some instances been just inside the lake and in many other instances it clearly is not. Yet there were a lot offences, hedges, and docks. Deputy Mayor Maingot said he recalled when this matter first came up ar1d~ the City approached the County to determine who actually owned that piece of land. He stated up to today he has requested a copy of the letter that was written and no one has been able to produce it. He said the County had a problem ascertaining who really owned that property. He stated for the City to be able to proceed, they wrote a letter to the City deeding over that property, which in actual fact, they did not have the right to do. He said it was quite conceivable that that is a piece of property that is "no marl's land" and that the Cotultypassed it onto the City so the City would have a document with which to execute the Agreement. He declared he has been accused of interfering. and~having things done illegally. He stated he has never entered into any such Agreement nor would ever do anything that is against the law as far as the City is concerned. He said he treats everyone equally. Commissioner Sackett said he is hearing about the. safety issues and said the pool had to be fenced regardless of what happens to make that pool as safe as possible. Mr. Marlow said he did not know what the requirements were in the City of Longwood. He stated a lot of lake front homes were grandfathered in terms of enclosing a pool that backs up to a lake. Commissioner Holt. said the. last tune this issue was brought up he referenced an aerial photograph and asked the City Attorney present if this represented the City owned area. He stated they kept saying there was a pie shaped area to the right of a cypress knee going to the left. that was City owned and everything else was Winsor Manor property. He said they keep referring to this as the backyard and it was not the backyard, it is the side yard. He .stated the pool was in the back of the house and it had to be covered. He said if you take the existing fence and turn it toward the back CC 11=02-09/560 cif the yard fliey can be clone. He stated this would open up that small area of land. Mayor Bundy inquired if there was a plat of i;he parcel in question and did it have meets and botu~ds or distant requirements. He asked if there was a recorded document. He inquired if someone surveyed the Dorris' property, would that laird be included on the ;>urvey or if a1L the properties around the lake were re-surveyed, with the records available,. what would it show. Mr. Marlow said he could not answer that. He same Mr. DeBruin was a surveyor and reviewed a document he had dra~viz with mea.sureinents. Ms. Powell said in speaking with tl~.e Property Appraiser's Office in September she asked for them to send her the creed for this property i:n question. She stated what she received from the Property Appraiser was that the part that Longwood owns does not have a deed; it is in the original plat."She. said when the original Alai: came th.i piece of property was included in that, therefore, there is no deed. They further stated that if the cledicatiotl stated that it was for t:he perpetual use of the public, it was automatically deeded to the municipality or the county if they were located'in those jurisdictions. She inquired how this was determined as it was not put into the na>ne of the Ciiy of Longtivood unti12006. She stated if this was indeed the situation, it: should have go~.le into the City's name in 1977 when the original flat uTas dedicated to the City. The Property Appraiser's Office said it somehow fell tluough the cracks and they were not sure, but in 2006 it was brou;;ht to their attention and that was when they determined it needed to go into the City of Longwood's name. Mayor Bundy said he also talked. with the Property Appraiser's Office and there were several other'parcels that, fell into this same category in other cities. Deputy Mayor Maingot said that goes back to the point that they were unable to detei7nine true ownership of that parcel. Mayor Bundy said a swvey would he able to determine ownership or what the Donis' specifically own. FIe stated the assumption could then rationally be made that what was not included in their survey was owned by the public. Mr. Dayes said while he has n.ot bean briefed with each factual incidence here, he did have information to ofi:er the City Attorney's position on the matter. Ike stated it was unchanged from previous statements that the fence should be removed. Deputy Mayor Maingot said he would thii~lc that statement bears :revision based on the evidence presented tonight. I-Ie referenced the correspondence from C11ad Harvey, P1aruler, on August 21, 1978. CC 11-02-09/:61 Mayor Bundy inquired if what was done in 1978 would not be superseded by the Agreement signed in 2006. Mr. Dayes said he could. not say without reviewing the provisions from both Agreements and what was written in 1978.. He stated it would certainly stand to reason that an Agreement that has taken place in 2006 would supersede elements to ,the extent that they conflict with predecessor Agreement. Deputy Mayor Maingot said in as much as there was competent authority, whoever signed the deed or correspondence from the County to the City, did so and it was bona feed. He inquired why it was then that they could not find or determine true ownership. .Mayor Bundy, said the contention of the Property Appraiser was that once the plat was recorded, that was all the conveyance they need. He stated it was like the lake in that there was. no deed for the lake or the streets. Ms. Powell said in talking with the Property Appraiser's Office they also said the copy of the deed doesn't state it is for lake access. She stated maybe someone with the Association has documents-stating that was what this parcel was supposed to be used for. Deputy Mayor Maingot suggested they look at similar surveys on record of other properties aroused to determine how their survey associates the property with Lake Winsor. 1Vlayor Bundy said. he would prefer the City have the properties surveyed so that they would have a clean recent survey rather than relying on what someone else is providing. He stated his concern was the dedication of the property to the public. Commissioner Holt said it was also important to include when the drainage was put in. Deputy Mayor Maingot moved to table this item until such time as they receive the surveyor's report. Seconded to Commissioner Sackett. Mayor Bundy said each person that submitted a Public Participation Form will contact the City Clerk's Office they will make every effoi~ to inform them of when that date is set. Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. The Commission recessed at 9:18 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. CC 11-02-09/562 ')['lie Comunuuity gDcvelopaaaent)IDi~di~ion of tlhe Coa~raBUnit~ ?~evelopment Services ~ep~~tg~e~mt recomnlend5 tine City C®Y7CIl%YTIliS~Il®IlIl clis~uss the Flor°icla IC?epar°tgne~it cal' ~'n°ar~spor°t~tio~a (F~®'T) Cured l~enflaincler Plan~° 1V[r. Peters said the Florida Depa,rtiaent of Transportation (FDOT) was working on the widening of State Road 434 from Interstate-4~ to Rangeline Road. He stated this project ctu-tails widening from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes with intersection improvernerits along th.e wa}~. I-le advised that current City staff met-with FDOT representatives for the first time in July. TLZey expressed concern that State :road 434 was an area already in depressed stag. Staff wus concerned that any type of widening project and the resulting impact on the adjoining properties would further put the properties in a distressed state. He raid they expressed their desires to meet with FDOT representatives and property owners to work out a solution as part of the cure process. Staff informed FDOT that the cures would have to be approved by the City Cormnission. He stated they wanted the property owners involved and also wanted to be able to look at options. He said there were several parcels where they were losing parking and they felt. it might be an opportunity to have multiple. property owners to have a shared parking agreement. He stated. in FDOT's interpretation of the land. acquisition process, they were not able to work in a three (3) party arrangement. He said staff has. been looking at the roadway network from the. transportation planriing st~uldpoint and they were very concerned. He stated the second part of: State Road 434 from Rangeline Road to the east . ~ will not be widened, it will strictly be intersection improved. He saiel this area was very congested now anal it was going to go from six (6) lanes back to four- lanes and then put it tluough two (2) major intersections. He stated that he acid Ms. Bower have discussed that perhaps they should step back and take a look at the proje-ct as a whole with FDOT and rather than widening the road it would be bett~,r to do intersection improvements. He said he spoke with 1V1r. George ]~ovett and indicated their preference would be to meet with FDOT st,~ff and work out a better project that has less impact on the adjoining properties. As part of the Comprehensive Plan process, they will look at the ex:isfing properties to see what the best way is to develop the properties into viable businesses that will be good for the tax base in Longwood. lie stated that includes new parking standards, shared parking arrangements, different landscape requirements, and different sign requirements. 1VIs. Bower said she has done some research looking at cities all over the country and where their Department of Transportation's are headed. is -not toward widening streets, but looking at street diets and ways to make smaller streets, creating more vibrant communities. She stated they are Ending their crash numbers are goring down, economic development is happening and the cities are becoming more viable. She said with what the City has going on with the Design Guidelines; it really does not make sense to take this major thoroughfare. tluough the City and do this CC 11-02-09,!563 widening project. She declared they have a great opportunity to do something special there. Commissioner Sackett inquired what. a dieted 434 would look like to her. Ms. Bower said it wouldii''t be six (6) lanes. She stated it would be the remaining width, but there was more opporhmity for .landscaping. She said they have to look at it from a transportation standpoint. However, commtmites are looking atmulti-modal aiid how you can provide parking, access for bicyclists and pedestrians. She stated especially with SunRail coming in they need to get past moving ears as quickly as . possible through Longwood. Mr. Peters said from a transportation standpoint there was a conflict. He stated there was a four (4) lane road they "want to widen. to six (6) lanes for volume of ears. He said the other thing to look at was from Palm Springs, Rangeline Road, and All American, if making those roads wider and they are~able to have. dual turn lanes, then you are able to get those vehicles out onto State Road 434 quicker which reduces the red tune on 434 and actually makes it more efficient. He declared the deficiency on State. Road 434 has more to do with intersection level of service than the roadway. He stated they want to look at ways to improve the intersections and improve the level of service. Paz-t ofthe overall planning process would be the beautification, green space, and those types of things. Mayor Bundy inquii:ed what I'DOT's position would be on this, or would they intend on moving forward with this project as it is. George Lovett, FDOT- District 5, 719 South Woodland Boulevard, Deland, said this has been discussed before. UIe stated lie was a little stunned to hear it at this point after there has been millions of dollars spent on the early environmental studies and the design work; and a good portion of the right-of--way already purchased that they .would be talking about not building the project. He said there was a very legitimate concern about the types of roads in the community and having roadways that meet the vision is very important. He stated it was a trend that FDOT supports, but he didn't think there was anyone who suggests that you don't have to have a few major thoroughfares in your community that can handle large volumes of traffic. He said if you want economic vitality and development in your area, you can't have gridlock. He declared they were close to .gridlock on State Road 434.. He stated the suggestion that they take and abandon a proj ect when it is close to construction is a fairly difficult concept to implement at this point. He said another major funding partner and a real push on this project has been Seminole County. Mayor Bundy said Seminole County was front loading the cost tluoiigh ' the penny sales tax. CC 11-02-09f564 Mr. Lovett said the project to wide~i State Road 43.4 has been a regional :priority project tluough MetroPlan for many years. He. stated there has been an effort to work tluough son~.e of these issues. He said they have tried to work with staff oii these cure plans. and look for ways to mitigate fhe impacts to the project. IIe stated this was a very difficult corridor and a lot of the properties along this Corr:±dor were already non-conforming prior to the project. He said it was certai:.lly a corridor that needs some redevelopment. He stated there were some ways to accomplish that whether it is with the current roadway or with the widened roadway. He affiinied there was a need to have some roads in the City and in the region that do have the capacity to carry huge volumes of traffic. fIe said 434 was one of those roadways and i:hat's why it is o:n the State lugh~vay system. He stated they were widening fiom the Interstate over to Raalgeline Road and the plan is i:o eventually go fiu•ther to the east. Like most corridors, you can't necessarily afford to widen the entire project in one single project. However, over time, there wi l be a need to look at additional widening to the east. `FIe said the suggestion that they don't need to widen 434 and they were going to Have some other alternate routes in place was a little bit short sigl:ited. He reiterated that 434 was a critical regional roadway. He stated he wished he knew -this'was going to be an Item and he would have brouglii: some additional plaruung staff that has Ueen involved in this project. He said this project lias been in plaitli~.ig for ten (10) years. He stated they were committed to working with City staff and have done so with some of t:he cure plans. He said the concept Mr. Peters talks about works well if the; landowners are cooperative. He. stated the cure plans they have identified are an attempt to address and find a middle ground between what they need for the transportation and what is viable for the remainder properties. He said they have some parcels where they are asking the City to look at the cures where lawsuits have already been filed and negotiations have; been going on i:or a long period of time. Mayor Bundy said it was his understanding they were trying to come up with some indications before the c~~urt date. fIe inquired if there was no intention of fDOT not doing this project or postponing the project. Mr. Lovett responded in the ne€;ati.ve. fIe said Seminole County acrd EDOT were committedto this project. The project to the west was under construction and they have a firm plan. He stated they have had some funding shortfalls that had deferred construction. anal they are reinstatvig the funding. He affirmed with all of the work they have done and all of th.e money that has been spent on thus project, there was no chance this project won't be built. He said they were trying to make sure that immediately after the right-of--way being acquired they can move into construction and not have a year gap. Deputy Mayor Maingot inquired i.f it was fact that they were going i:o go as far as Pa.hn Springs Drive in the; first instance, and then after that move front Palm Springs Drive to the bottom of Rangeline Road. CC 11-02-09/565 Mr. Lovett responded iii the affirmative. Deputy Mayor Maingot said it had already been identified there was a number of businesses concerned about their parking issues acid this was critical. Mr. Lovett,said there were a couple of properties that the FDOT, in doing their appraisals, have determined has insufficient parking to stay in place with the,same business use and~they have compensated those businesses. He advised a couple of those businesses were going to make a ilui at staying in business with the less parking. He stated when they do their appraisals and cure plans they are trying to arrive at something that is acceptable to the land owners. He said the cures they are proposing are part of the appraisal process. He stated the after situation on these properties has a lot to do with what the City will allow for these properties. He said the cure plan is completing their appraisal so they can negotiate and these cures are .not binding on the owners. The City's :Ordinance requires the owners to come in end work out a site plan the City finds acceptable. He advised they already have agreements with many of the land owners and the land owners are. waiting. to see whether the plan FDOT has shown to them is acceptable to the City. He stated they are looking for a process to be able to talk to these property owners about the after situation in a way that is fair to the owners. Deputy Mayor Maingot moved to extend the meeting. Seconded by Mayor Bundy and carried by a.four/one. voice vote with Commissioner Durso voting nay. Mayor. Bundy said the. Ordinance was setup to be binding on the City and it becomes binding on the property owner if they accept FDOT's offer. Deputy Mayor. Ma-in_ got said they know they have certain intersections that were discussed previously in trying to get those improvements done in advance of the widening. He inquired if there was a plan on their part. to get that done prior to the widening. Mr. Lovett said it would be done after as a separate project. Deputy Mayor Maingot said another issue was the question of chicanes for buses. He stated this, has been. discussed on a number of occasions. Mr. Lovett said there were a lot of mixed feelings for bus pull outs. On busy roads, the drivers do not like pull outs because they can't get back on the road.. He stated they were not that efficient and it was safer to have a temporary stop while they load. He advised there were not bus pull outs on the 434 widening. He said as they get closer to the commuter rail station and do another project in a transit friendly corridor; those types of features maybe included in the project. CC 11-02-09/566 Commissioner Holt inquired if all of the road widening was going to be done oii the soirth side.' Mr. Lovett responded in the affi~m~~tive. .Mayor Bundy inquired if the Commission wanted to take up these individual cures under the auspices FDOT was moving forward with this project. • Mr. Peters said part of the concei7l staff has is that they have not been able tb sit down and resolve some of thf; issues they have with. the clues. They were hopuig from toiugllt was that they would. have an agreement with FDOT to sit down with them in a Workshop format to go through each cure and look at the corridor as a whole, coming back to the Commission with a plan they are comfortable with. He stated they Have parcels in. which they were told in one meetir.~.g were going. to be a total take, then they received a phone call from the property owners attorney saying they were contemplating trying to stay in business. He declared that places staff ui a very umiamable position and he referenced businesses sharing parking which is not on the table at this time. Mr. Lovett said he would lilee to cl:~rify this as they must not have made tlus clear when they tallied to staff He stated they have some properties that they have appraised that. are not total takes, but their appraisal has determined that the impact is so gr~,at the existing business cannot remain. The owner will have the remainder property. They are compensating the owner for the loss of the business, but leaving, the remainder of the .property and those landowners will. be coming back to the City to say after the FDOT's take they think they c€~n operate a different business, or zn.aybe the same business recorzfigtued on that same property. He cla.ri :ied when they say it is business wipeout that does not mean they are doing a total take of the property. They sue doing a partial acquisition of the land, but their determination in the appraisal is to pay full value for the business. Ike said they were happy to meet, but there was a sense of urgency as they have been talking about these cure plans since May. He stated they have an obligation when going out to purchase these properties to be fair to owners and pay a fair value. He said they were very hopeful that they can work together and maintain many of these businesses. He stated some of these businesses can stay intact wilh fairly small variances. He said many of the business o«mers have been i~n limbo for a long time because FDOT . has not been able to tell them wLrat the after situation is. They have not been able to work it out with the City and be able to show them exactly what they will be allowed to do on the property. He stated they need to get to that point. and if sitting down an~~ doing a Workshop on these issues with City staff is the quickest way to get there, they are all for that. He said he feels very bad that they have not met their obligation to the owners to communicate to them the after situation they wial be faced with. FIe stated he would plead with the C:it~r to have a :process that lets them get to CC 11-02-09i'S67 a final determination on these cure plans or some other variation on the cure as soon as possible so that the businesses operation ul the community will have some assurance of how they will be allowed to operate and what sort of impositions they will have on the property. At that point they will be able. to tell if what the FDOT is offering them is fair. Deputy Mayor Maingot said that Mr. Peters and Ms. Bowers have recently come onboard with the City. He stated it was only fair to give them the opportunity to do a little more homework to get to a comfort level. He said with FDOT's help to work something out as expeditiously as possible and then. bring it to the Commission. Mr. Lovett reiterated it was important for government to be responsive to citizens. He said they would do whatever it takes and are willing. to meet and. work on this. He stated it was very important to get answers on these dire plans as soon as possible as an obligation they all have to the citizens in Longwood. Ms. Powell said in July staff met: with consultants for FDOT and discussed the cures at that time. She stated they wanted to come up with a tluee (3) party agreement which would include the property owners so everyone. - could discuss this together and work it out. She said staff was being approached by the business owners.wanting them to make a decision on the individual cures. She stated staff has been attempting to meet with all three (3) parties so that all duestions can be answered and they have not I had the consultants comply with that. Mr. Lovett said most of the land owners are represented by attonieys. Some of the land. owners would agree to that and others would refuse. He .advised that Florida Eminent Domain. Law does not encourage this. He stated if this would work on individual properties they would love to do that. NIs. Powell said it behooves the City to try and sit down with these ' businesses and help them work out a plan to keep that economic development. Hal Collins, Engineer with Kelly, Collins, and Gentry in Orlando said when you get into the. nuts and bolts of thee. recently adopted eminent domain ordinance. the City enacted, what it affords is for the FDOT to come in before the property changes hands to present a redevelopment alternative that may or may not be ultimately performed by the property owner, but it is one of many options. He said the one advantageous thing about the ordinance is that once. the taking occurs, the property owner has ninety (90) days to come in and sit dounl with City staff. Within one htuldred and eight (180) days of the taking they. are to submit a site plan. He declared this would be the appropriate time for the tri-party agreement to occur. He stated a cure is a theoretical redevelopment alternative based CC 11-02-09/568 upon some engineering and planning principals.:E=Ie said they were falling :into the danger of trying to get the ~~art before the horse. Ms. Powell said the property ovine:-~s were approaching: the City. Mr. Peters said one of his concerns was that when he first started there were situations with cure plans of business sign being proposed in the sight triangle. He stated with staff being new, they would like to sit clown and go through th.e cures one more time. He said staff would endeavor to -work as quickly as they can in a re:;possible maiuler. He expressed concerns regarding the interaecti.on at :State Road 434 .and County Road 427 with six lanes coming into four:- lanes. iii Longwood. . Mayor Bundy said they were goring; to six (6) ]:arse State Road 434 from hlterstate 4 to Rangeline Road and the City did not have an option. I-Ie stated it was not fault of City sfa.ff or FDOT that this had drug out. Ike said ' he understood there were several cases with hearing dates coming up soon and this was the sense of urgency of placing this on Elie Agenda. He stated he did not have a problem with i:abling this to the next meeting and this ' would allow foru-teen (14) days :For staff to meet with FDOT. Ms. Bower said one thing she was having a hard time grappling with was .landscaping buffers. She inquired if the Commission was willing to live with a reduced landscape buffer of zero (0) or two (2') feet. She requested some direction from the City Commission.. Deputy Mayor Maingot said it would depend where the actual situation occurred. Mayor Bundy said he did not want to end up with businesses that were economically unviable. He used B~uger King as an example and said they were getting frill market value for i:heir business, but expressed interest in staying in the City of Longwood. :Ke stated they will need to come to the City. with a plan. Mr. Lovett.. said if they aslc for lanc~_scaping buffer reductions, it generally is to try to avoid taking substantial portions oi.'the parking. He stated they appreciate the support they have; received from the City and they know there has been a lot of change r.~ tb.e Cit}= staff.'. I~Ie said FDOT is hearing from landowners they are not being fair because they cannot answer their questions on how they will be treai:ed in the after situation. Mayor Bundy said he was looking for Uusinesses that remain and are economically viable with as little negative impact as possible. He stated he realizes there will have to be compromises made. CC 11-02-09./569 Commissioner Sackett said the sooner they can move forward to see what these cures will look like for the whole area they will have more of a comfort level. Deputy Mayor Maingot said he'has seen some of the modifications on the landscaping. elsewhere and it does save on the parking and it works. Commissioner Holt said one of their concerns was that there were no left turns and they were making everyone do U-turns. He inquired if there was some ways of connectivity to the parking lots like some counties have a service road. He referenced the Blockbuster property and said that had occurred in that area. Mr. Collins said that exists today at those series of properties he references and that will be maintained and interconnected in the after condition. He stated when those properties were developed the cross access was recorded and runs with the land. He said the Longwood You•Store It has a building that will be approximately three (3') feet from the right-of--way and that will not be cross accessed, plus it is a secured type of property. He stated there were some properties that aren't conducive to cross access and they evaluated each property. He eXplained that with eminent domain they cannot mandate requiring an adjacent property owner to provide cross access. However, ninety (90) days after the taking occurs that kind of discussions can be held. Mr. Lovett said they were going to work with. staff and get something scheduled right away. He inquired if they wanted fo workshop these issues or handle it at a Regular Commission Meeting. Mayor Bundy said he would prefer a Special Meeting rather than. a Work Session because they could deal with issues and vote at a Special Meeting. It was the consensus of the City Commission to schedule a Special • Meeting on November 23, 2009 at 7:.00 p.m. Mr. Lovett said FDOT does have a grant. program. for landscaping State Roads after the construction activity. He stated they. would like to discuss this at some point with the City. 1®. C~'~'~' ~IVI~YS'TJR~~®JE~'~ ~~®~'g'. 1VIs. Powell said the new City website is now up and running. She recognized City staff that worked on the. website. Ms. Powell reported a new Building Official has been hired, Mr. Bob Pilce. Ms. Powell said the City was. going to start advertising with The Seminole Neighbors similar to what the City of Casselberry does. She stated this was iii lieu CC 11-02-09/570 of The Lanzplighter• that was only published twice a year,. The Seminole 1VeighboNs goes out six (6) times a year at:a lesser cost. Ms. Powell advised she will be bringing forward a report on ib.e City Fire trucks within the next couple of weeks. As it stands now, we are not I~TFPA 1901 qualified and do not meet the standards. Ms. Powell reported on the Ridge, Oak, and Talino paving projects. There have been two (2) proposals received, one at $$55;000 and one at ~804;OOO. She advised. the second proposal will probably be the one they go with. Ms. Powell reported there has been one meeting for the Fire Chie:E' selection. The list has been narrowed to ten (10). They meet again this week to discuss those applicants. She advised the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the City Attorney closes on Wednesday. Following that, all candidates will be screened by a committee of members by the .Florida Bar Association appointed by the City Conunission as, per the Charter. Ms. Powell said at the last Commission Meeting, Deputy Mayor Maingot asked that they look into some collection, agencies regarding the collections on ambulance billing. She stated they have contacted three agencies and the best one. they have can collect up to fourteen percent (14%). flfl. I~1[A~®]L~ AI~1flD ~®I~i I~fl~~g®l~]Efl~S' RIC~~~`fl'. ~n~trict #fl. Deputy Mayor Maingot reported on Friday, October 30t1i, he and ' other Commissioners attended the dedication ceremony of the Seminole State College new Center for Public Safety. Ike said tractor trailers seem to have established a new route to get back to State Road 434 up Church to Rangeline Road onto State Road 434.. gDi~t~ict No report. district No report. district No report. Il~istrict Con~unssioner Sackett .said Boo Village.was very well done this year and the childreiz enjoyed themselves immensely. 1~, ~IIT~i' ~~"fl'®]E~"S 1P~~7r. No report. fl3. Cl['fl'~' ~~~lE~'~ RAP®~'fl'. No report. CC 11-02-09/571 ]l4. A~~®gJ~T. Mayor Bundy adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m. ~[a3~®dl G. ]f~uY~dy, ~a~., May®~° . A'g'~'~S'~'o ~ r Sarah M[. Miru~, MME', MBA pity Clerk CC 11-02-09/572