Loading...
CCMtg04-19-10Min T1.~~I`~C~~J~O~? CCU 11 ~ CC~IV1 I~~~~~~TT Tf ~vmg~~~®o~ C~~t-~ ~~L2~1L~1:~ll~sl~irll CC~~~~~~~i 1'~~ ~~~>i u°~rrn 1L~rrn~~v~®o19 '~~~~Ild~~ PV1I~~iJT ~ ~ ~~r~IlIl ~®11© ~o~~ ~"o `1VI10 ~li ~ser~Le T~/I1 ~~®Il° ~®~n~ ~~nnSgo~; IDe~un~ ~®e Dnarrs® ~®~nn~flssr~m~~ ~®rrt~s ~®rrnn~n~ss~®~erc I~LI[° 66~r~f~~Tn99 ~a~ili~ndl ~®fi~rnnIlIl~~uoIlIlen° ~r<n~~n ID, ~~~fl~ef~L L~n~~~ An°~~n~a~, (Cr<f~~ A>fi®~nk~~ D~rnn~fl 1L~r~gfle~, ~ge~ 1~.'~~®>i>m~~ ~~fln°Il~~ ]~®a~eflfl, ~g~ ~~a~nnirnflsflr ~i~orr ~~~~1~ l~ll° ~nrrnn~, ~Cflt-~ ~'flen°fl~ `f®rc~ ~~~P~s®m, ]L?ofl>«~ (Cflaneft ®flam P~i~~m~, D>in°~~~®u o~ fl~nnlb~fle ~J®n°fl~~/c~;fli'y 1F,m~Ilnn~err Sfl~crryll fl~®werr, IDflue~fl~n° ®u ~®~~~nnn~rt~ 11~D~~~flIl?]~iIlIl~Il1e (~fl~rra~ ]1~u~LnIl~~c, ~llaIlg~~n°/fit®n°r~nnsw~>~~ ID®Ila~~v~m, A, fl~®~c~rr, S~~efl~ll (C©~Ilrn~~fl ~o ~AL1L 'I['® ~~DLL~° 1Vlayor Maiz~:got called t11~ n'nee~ing to order at '7:02 p.m. ~ ~®~~ffi~ ~1[~,~1`~l'IC I`Vi[~ID~`~'A7C~~1~ ~nv~s u®flllo~~ofl sfl~~ l~]L~1~' c~~ ®l~ A]L]L~~][A1~1cC]Eo ~o ~®~~~(l~JIVfi7I'~ A~~~®~TI~~lE1~11~1~1~'~a Ms. lylirus read the following an~louneements: Ae S~Ilnn®~ I~~flnmee ~~><flfl ~e flnefl®1 ~iTedm~sdl~ay, A~rcnfl ill-, fitr®nin ~o~~ °~n° ~nm, rflfl ~e~~D ~o~°, IL®Ilng~®~~ ~oa~~~~n~nn'~ ]Banflfl~aIla~, ~Yc~s>z ~yarrn°~;nn A~eIlS~ae° 1Tfl~>!~ Ilan®in~h9~ fe~>!nnn°o Ils (C`®ra~pla~~n~~~ ]~o AIl~Ln, ~n~fl,~~icn~ng aflnmg ID~~~e i~®n ~emIl®rr~ ~Iln~ ~~r~u ~nrnllfl ~e flr~fl~ ~b'~ofl~nes~~~, A~>-r>!fl ~®1®fn°®~n ~0~®1o°~e t® 40~~ iL~r~n~r~®®d ~.o~~i'[flLllII~n`~g' l~nnnfl~ni~g, ~Ie~t~ 5~~rrn ern A~emnne~, Tl fl~en ~ aynflfl Poi ~a~ra~nnng, ~ rr~~i`~~, ~nn~ fln~flrt~ r~~Ila°~~flIl~eraky ~~viflll l~.e ~~><°~eoflo ~(C®(G1~IIT1 ]L®l~~° IDn~Lu°n~Lr T~~li~nnm~!Lfl®Iln ~~Lllae,]}~nn~flnne~s P~rr~ora pit ~il~e I`J1I®Iln'sPrn A~rdarcdl f®rc l~~~r ~®~®o CC 04-19-1.0/95 De~~uty Mayor Durso nominated Alex Moses, ~1ice President, Puronics of Grlatido located of 1608 North Donald Reagan Boulevard, for the Business Person of the Month Award for_May2010. Nomination carried by a unanimous voice vote. ~e L~~ARD APP®i<l`~TCTYI[I~Jl~1TS, Ae ~a~tira~e 1`~®~aFn~f~i®~n k® tie (Can°ti~m A~flvn~orr~ (C®~~rrnat~teoo Deplrty Mayor Durso nominated Doug Daznerst, 210 Garden Lane, to the C1larter Advisory Committee. Nomination carried by a unanimous voice vote. Pnd~~~5e the Semir~®fle (C®~ant~y (C®~ncflll ®Il IL®e~ll ~®v~°rrannent~ (cCA1LN~9s) rec®nnmcmm~aefi®rn th~~ Like 1~liarry ~e~r~~ May®~ L o Pu°~r~~~~~° 6~~ ~e~~p~s®g~ieoY t® ~h~ ~~rann~a~llc (Cou~icy ~xp~°~~~~~~~~a Arnt~i®n~f~~e By a unanimous voice vote of the City Commission endorsed the reappointment of Lake Mary Deputy Mayor Gary L. Breeder to the Seminole County Expressway Authority. 6e PTiJB]L~~ I[I`~P~JTi , Ae Puhlir P~fl°~n~y~~~a®n, L~ruze 1 a, lor, Chorus Director, Lyman Nigh School, X65 South Ronald Meagan Boulevard, said she was here to ask the Commission for help on the rental fees for the Longwood Community Building. She stated the Chorus, along with all of the other fine ai-t programs in Seminole County, receives no Winds from the County and is required to raise their ow~z fundi:~ag. She ,said their last fundraiser for this yeai: will bc; a IDinner Theatre. They have May 1St' scheduled at the Longwood Communty Building and she would request that the Coirunission consider reducing the fee of their rental so that they can be assured a successful fundraiser. Barry Gainer, 1664 Windy Bluff Point, said he is the Vice Chair of Choices in Learning. He stated they are in the process of putting a modular building on the propezty to expand and provide the opportunity for snore students to attend their school. He said they need. to use the right-of=way ,and af=firmed this will be a temporary situation. He stated there is another right-uf way to an adjacent property that he understands they are objecting to. He said the. fact that there is another right-of--way to that property should mitigate any concerns the Commission may have with their placement at the School. Shannon McCutcheon, Principal of Choices in Learning, 093 East State Road 434; said she was here to ask the Commission to consider the position of the temporary modular that will be located behind the present modular. Sloe stated this was the safest location for the students. She said CC 04-19-10/96 they were very excited to have the oppoi-tun.ity to serve all Seminole Cou~ity sti:~dents and that their school continues to grow. the stated they now have an additional 1~9 students that they are. looking at for t11e school year 2010/2011. They deed These additional classroom spaces i:n order to meet the class size ainendinent. the said this will include twelve (12) classroom spaces, Assistant Principal Office, and additional inside storage. the reiterate~J That this location was impoi-lant for student safely. the stated Their campus is not f~?iced and if this is located :further away they had no coverage for rainy clays. students do eat in their classrooms once a month as they rent space from the First baptist Church of Longwood and that s ono of their conditions. Cluistopher bravo, 973 Lake Douglas Place, said he is the Civil P;ngineej• for the Choices in Learning Project. He stated he could address any cluestioias or concerns regarding the access, drainage, utzhtres, or things of that nature with regards to the plan. lie said they did ~~.ot feel the proposed location would be a hardship for the neighbor as they do have an alternate means of access. IIe stated the ~ehool was willing. and ready to speak with them with rega~~ ds to ~nalcing changes if there is a need for r~lprovement to the right-o way in the future. James Peterson, 102 Foxridge Pdun, said he represents the Free up the ~ide~vallcs Foundation. Ike stated he was rerently ticketed for a motorized bicycle on the sidewall~. Ike said that President barack Obaina and the Transportation secretary are calling for fuel efficient vehicles and vehicles that possibly get over 100 miles per gallon. He stated his motorized bicycle gets 130 miles per gallon. PIe proposed, since senator Jolii~ McCain was calling for an a~~aclc on Iran, which could possibly inalce fuel here $10 a gallon, can the .sidewalks be freed up for fuel. efficient motorized bicycles and single speed scooters. FIe proposed a speed limit of 1.0 miles per hour and that power chains acid pedestriajis will always have the right of T.~iay. 1Vlatthew Breen, 122 Roxboro Road, said he was here with Choices in Leai-~ling to speak in favor- of asking for the Coninlission's permission to temporarily install a modular building within the right-off way of bay street. IIe staled bay street has aright-of°yvay that bisects piopez~:y ou=ned by First Baptist Church of Longwood that already has i:enlporary inlproveme~lts there. PIe Said. they were willing ~o work with the landowner if the Commission grants permission to then to improve the right-oraway in the. near future. Ho reiterated they were not looking to have this building installed for an indefinite period of Time. He stated they would appreciate the Con~nisson's consideration regarding this matter. ~o C~1~T~L~1~1T A~ ~ T~IIDAo ~i.o A~~n®~~ l~n~u~Lr~~ ®u tie 1`~~re~la ~~,9 ~®l~® S~eCL~~1 TV~Lf~~aln~ ~~~1 ~e~i'nt>iv~ ~e~~no~n d~~l ~~e A,~r:n)1 1_l~eg~nl~n I~Y1[cet~a~n~a CC 04•-19-10/7 ~e A~fi~r®v~fi ~~the Aprgfi xpenafit~a~eso App~°®v~fi ®f~ the PVC®n~l~fiy ~ g~~~~flaIl L~~p~~~ I°®r~ ~~e P~I1 ~~n~~h ©f P~~~°~~ ~®ll!~o ~a Apfi~~®vall ®ft tie ®aF~w~o©o1 ScttYcu~a~nt Agu ecgnento Mr. Langley advised that Item D will have a change for73xhibits A and F as indicated to the Commissioners on Friday by the City 1-~dministiator's electronic mail. Deputy Mayor Durso moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Cones. Bisc;ussion was held regarding Items C and D. Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. da J~ (U]~ILI[EC Ji~;~A~I[1~1~5, A, Apps®v~fl S~x1a01[tc~n Ao fl~~®~ n~e~~Jifi~~ P'rcaay~:cto .Sete ~fi~n w~t~i ~T~rcn~.nc~s) end S~nh°~tem ~a Ap~u®vafi ®i )~~y ARve~~ae Prc~,~QCL If.oe Spsfifi`i. Mayor Maingot reviewed the procedure for quasi-judicial proceedings. Mr. Langley advised them were two Projects under this Item. He suggested the Commission have a motion for each Proj ec;t. Mr. _Langley conducted the swearing-in of witnesses. Mr. vintner said this Sub-Item A was for City Commission review of items related to Michael Towers/®akwood Development and the City of Lonr;wood Settlement Agreement. He stated Sub-Item A relates to the Pine-Wilma Site Plan. The ultimate goal of this site plan is to split the existiirg lot into three additional dwelling units, a com3non area, including a driveway and parking spaces to be maintained by a homeowner assocaiation. He said the Historic District Code requires .any lot splits to have a site plan in advance of-the lot split. If the site plan is approved by the City Commission, the next step would be to obtain final plat approval for this property, which will come back to the City Corninission. He stated that i:he site plan, as proposed, would require. some variances to the Historic District Code. These variances are discussed in tiie Settlement Agreement. He said the first variance would be the street frontages not being consistent with the minimum street frontage requirements of fifty (50') feet. The original proposed street frontage of twent~~-eight. (2'~'') feet and thirty-three (33') feet have been expanded in the new Exhibit F. I-Ie stated the site plan has been estimated to have an impervious surface ratio of approximately sixty five (65%) percent making a variance necessary to CC 04-19-10/9 the requirement of sixty (60%} percent in the Historic District Code. He said the site plan presented will also require variances to the side setback requirement of eight feet. The original plan had a side setback of three (3') feet on each side with sip (6') feet between the buildings. The new proposal has a five (5') foot setbacle with ten (IU') feet between the buildings requiring only a tlv~ee (3'} foot eduction to the Historic 1-7istrict Cade. He advised the other aspects that will be looked at are a photometric sheet detailing security lighting and a landscape plan for the common. area. These will be submitted in the building permit singe arld will not be part of the site plan. He said, provided the City Commission approves the Se~~lement Agreement and Release with the property owners, and applicants, the City Administrator and Community Development Services Director recommend the City Commission approve Site Plan 12- 06 and all included variances for the Pine-C7Jilrna Project. Approval of the site plan is contingent on all required information being provided to the Community Development Services l~epat ~nie~t as part of the Building. Permit process. He affimed thatprior to applying for a site permit or building permit, the applicant will be required to submit for and obtain final plat approval from the Commission in accordance with standard platting procedures. Approval of the site plan and associated variances shall. be subject to owner and applicant's compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Release. He stated approval of this site plan will constitute variances to elements of the Historic .District Code as listed with the third variance for side yard setbacl~s going. from eight (8') feet to five (5') feet in the new proposal. Michael Towers; 961 Lalee Front Lane, said the only matter he wanted to mention was with regards to the variancesbefore the Commission. He stated when they star'ied the discussions towards a settlement, this met t11e Historic Code and there has since been a change. He said the side and front. setbacks were based on a previous I-Iistoric 1~strict Code Book and the variance carne about when the Commission adopted the new Cade Book. Mr: Langley asked Mr. Towers if he could confirm; for the record, if the Corntnission is to approve the site plan and variances before them tonight. that this would satisfy the requirement of the Settlement Agreement and require hire to dismiss the pending lawsuit against the City. Mr. Towers responded in the affirmative. Deputy Mayor Durso said the City was going to require a photometric sheet and landscape plan for the common area, signed and sealed by a registered landscape architect to be submitted- at the building permit stage aild inquired. if Mr. Towers was okay with all of this. Mr. Towers responded in the affirmative. CC 04-19-10/99 Cor..rnni sinner Sackett said it still bothered him for th.e Fine Avenue plan that these buildings were ttiyen'ry-two (22') ~eet 10118. He lllgUlred 110W the homeowner association would be facilitated withiiz this r;roup and iFit had anything to do with the City. 1V1r. Towers said there would be four owners on phis pa3 ~icular ,plat. All of the connnon area would be operated by the homeowner association to maiiatain consistency for landscaping, looks,. and things of that nature that will be deed restricted. Coizunissioner Sackett inquired when they would see buildings. Mr. Towers .said they have a marketing plan for this and since the rail _ system will be coming through, they are lookizlg at not putting these on the market until they see some activity with SunRail. Corrunissioner Sackett asked Mr. Kintner with regards to averaging sites, what this does mathematically when they have this lot size arrangement. Mr. [vintner said the minimum street frontage was one oi~the things they have the variance for and that is parti ofhow this is calculated in the Historic District. PIe stated it was a little different from how they would treat ii otherwise, since it is the Historic IDstrct Code _Bool~ and this is for the t:ommission's consideration. Commissioner Bundy said the concern is with everythint; needing to be a certain percentage above or below the average lot size, in the future, with thesE; being so small, is that going to draw the average down and allow a smaller lot size to fall within those perimeters. Ms. Bower said they were in the process of reviewing the; Historic Code Boot: alzd rewriting some of the sections. She stated they could change the language so that the Code was more specific on the lost size for averaging. Mr. Towers said if looking at the revised site plan, when they did the initial lot size analysis on the Pine Avenue Project they were requiring at that time a three (3%) percent variance from what the average lot size was. He stated wi h the additional five (5') foot on either size, this probably puts them right at the average Iot size. Commissioner Sackett moved to approve Item f~ A, Sub-Item A, as presented. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Durso. 1!/Ir. Langley said he would Iike to clarify that. the motion was to approve the rE:vised site plan that was submitted to the. Corrunission last week with staff's recommendations and conditions, a_s well as the modifications of the setback variance as indicated to allow a ten (10') foot separation of buildings instead of a six (6'') foot separation. CC 04-19-10/100 Mayor Maingot said that was understood. Motion carried i?y a unanimous roll call vote.. Mr. Langley said the next ma~~er was approval for Sub-Item 13 of Item ~ A. Mr. Kintner said this was a sketch and description for the Bay Avenue project. Staff's recommendation was that upon City Commission approval for the sketch and description that Mr. Towers would then have a fu11 survey done that is cotrsistent with this sketch and description and submit that as pat ~ of an application for a lot split. Mr. Langley asltecl Mr. `l'owers to confirm if the City Commission approves the lo:c split for Pay Avenue Project as being presented with the staff memorandum with coiic~itions that he agrees this complies with the Settlement Agreement and requires him to dismiss the lawsuit against the City. Mr. Towers responded in the affizmative. Commissioner Sackett inquired if initially this was a tluee .lot parcel. Mr. l~intner responded in the affirmative. Commissioner ~aclcett inquired what the size was of each lot. Mr. Kintner advised they were. ninety-one (91') feet, ninety-one and a half .(91.50') feet and one was fifcy (50') feet. Commissioner Sacleett said when you have a ninety (90') foot 1o and you go down to fifty-eight (58') feet that this was something they would need to take care of in the Code. Mr. Kintner reiterated that they have Historic District Code Boo1c and Longwood Development Code revisions that are underway in advance of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the City Commission approved for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He said one option would be to work in something that takes out outliers. Comm~issioner Bvaldy said this was a lot split that was pat-t of a litigation settlement. He stated the Conunission has a bit more latitude with this matter without it becoming a perma~leiit exception to the rules. I-le said they may want to isolate the Historic District Code end rnalce sure they don't impact the overall Longwood Development Code. Commissioner Bundy moved to approve Item ~ A, :Sub-Item 13, as submitted. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Durso and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CC 0~!-1910/101 1~e ~gre.~t rcc~~dfflng end I`?rc5e pa~~llic ~c~r~°z~ig f®~ ®pda~~~~.c l~®o Il®~I°~IS, x~cvii~ing the Lt,®n~v®o~ IDevel®p~r~cnf~ ~®dc (LID~C) ~i~~d cli ~~tniab Ax°tacl~ c~trtllcd 66~~°ec~ ~YAl1dflFIlg arc®gr~~rfla59 (T1,11~~A ®2=•IL1D)o Mr. Langley read Ordinance No. 10-1915 by title only a:nd a~ulounced having proof of publication for this and all Public Hearings on fhe Agenda. Mr. Langley advised the Land Planning Agency (LPA) held a Meeting on April 1 2010 and they are recommending a change fo fhe ®rdinance as presented in the Agenda Packet in a Memorandum to the; Commission dated April 15, 2010. He said if the Commission agrees wit1~ that change they can make the approval. subject to the change as recommended by the LPA. MaS~or Mai~~got opened fhe public hearing. I~To one spoke in favor or in opposition to the Ordinance. Commissioner Sacleett moved to close the public hearing. seconded by Commissioner Cortes and carried b,y a unanmous voice vote. Deputy Mayor Durso said aPcer discussing with staff flee LPA recoinmendationtor striking. one and two family residena`ial projects was not a pro,blern. However, (here needs to be one additional change. He stated the word "development" should be changed to "sit.e" so that it is exceptionally clear they are only talking about site plan reviews. Mr. Langley inquired if the word change would only be to subsection 2 as indicated in the LPA Memorandum~or throughout the enure Ordinance. Deputy Mayor Durso said this would be throughout the entire Ordinance. He stated the goal was not to affect building permits at dais point; it was just t:o deal with the site plan reviews. Deputy.Mayor Durso moved to accept the LPA recommended changes, change. the word "development.plan" to "site plan" throughout the entire document, and set May 3, 2010 as the second .reading. seconded by Commissioner Sackett and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ~o >l~~>~JJLA>~_ J~l[J~><l~I]E~~, Ae ~®~°~n~Il date Plan ~°cv~cw it®~ klie exp~~a~n®ffi ox (Ct~n®fca;~ i~ ]Lc~r~r~irage Mr. L angley said the City received a faxed request frorn the adjacent property owner that requested a formal review of this site plan. They are asking the Commission continue tonight's formal review as they have not had adequate notice. He stated they are open to and would consider any CC 04~-19-10/102 compromise that would maintain the right-o_f--way to their property. It also states that the existing right-of way utilization permit would require the building to be relocated within thirty (30) days,. in their view was very shoi~c sighted. This is a 12,000 square foot building that would be very diff cult and expensive to move, especially during the school year. H'e said it was suggested by staff that perhaps the item tonght could. be continued to a time certain of the May 17, 2010 City Corn~nission Agenda unless the matter between the applicant and the property owner can be resolved, then the formal review process wouldn't be necessary. Commissioner Bundy inquired if the necessary notices to the substantially affected persons were met. NI3-. Kintner said as far as the Formal review goes with the property in question, they were noticed and that is where this fo~=ma1 review comes from for the Meeting tonight. As far as continuing it to a time certain, if the formal request to review were rescinded, it could be reviewed at the staff level and approved. He advised the concern at this time was that Mr. ~chillinger has a request for formal review in and he has stated that lae has not had adequate notice to review it in advance of this Meeting and has requested a continuance. Commissioner Bundy said his concern was that the applicant.has done what they have been asked to do, the adjacent property owner received adequate notice. Ms. Bower said the Schillinger's received notice that it was on the Agenda last week. Elie stated they were in Arizona and did not have an opportunity to prepare to be here tonight. Conunissioner Bundy inquired if they received foi-nlal notification of a site plan. Ms. Bower responded ii1 the affirmative. Mr. Kintner advised the adjacent notification was actually done ljy the applicant and that notification is what triggered the request for formal review by Mr. Schillinger. His question about Elie adequate notice relates to the Item actually being on the Agenda tonight. Discussion ensued with regards to tine ti~neframe of notification and the matter being placed on the Agenda. Commissioner Bundy said if the applicant did everything they were supposed to do and the City did .everything we were supposed to do, he did not want to penalize. the applicants. He stated if the applicant and the adjacent properly owner can't come to some sort of conclusion they will have to coins back for another meeting. CC 04-19-10/103 Mr. Kintner said after reviewing the site plan and given tills is a temporary structure; the main concern is the right-of way. I-3e staled: ill the time from when there was a request for formal review and now, at the staff level, illey have not been made aware of extensive communication between the ~chilinger's and Choices in Learning. He said it was hoped that they would have been interacting and find some ki~id of sohation to this issue. He stated if that should happen and file ~chillinger's rescinded their request for formal review, staff could sign off on the site p1ai1, issue a Development ®rder, and sign the right-of way utilization permit. Mayor Maingot. said the ports were well made, but fihey have to follow procedure. He stated it was a quasi judicial proceeding. Mr.:Langley advised this was a formal review of the site plan and under the (:ode it states it is quasi judicial. He suggested it be opened for the applicant to .speak and any otfier participants who wish. to speak on the, mater. Mr.:Langley .conducted the swearing-iii of witnesses. 1VTr. ~antner said one of the concerns at staff level is tliat'the only way this site plan can be approved is with the right-of--way utilization pei7nit. He stated staff would prefer an agreement between the propex~y owners. Mayor Maingot inquired what would be done. if there is no agreement. Mr. Kintner said it was at the Commission's will either tonight, May 3, 2010,. or at a time the Commission deems appropriate to make a decision regarding the right-of--way utilization. He stated there were some other options that could be explored in terms of working with t:l1e Church who aciually owns the property to readjust the Bay Avenue right-o way to allow for the temporary structure to be placed. He said another option that Choices in Learning is not particularly comfortable with would be to place the temporary structure. on the other side of the City right-of--way. 1Vlayor Maingot said the point has been very clear tonight. that the other parties have been duly informed and noted as far as this procedure. It has also been recognized by the :Commission that they were dealing with a critical issue in regards to the time element. He staged it was grossly unfair to have things held in suspension by the mere fact that i:he parties concerned who have requested this evenings procedures are not here. He said i:he Commission would go through the procedures anal deal wiia~it acco~•dingly. Corriimissioner ~aclcett said on the let'cer from Note Investors,. LLC dated 1VIarch 26,.2010, it states "We have no intention to file this Request for Fonn.al Review and cause any project delay. Vie simply want to preserve CC,04-19-10/104 the access to our site." He stated t11at was the key sentence in that they dori't want to cause. a project delay. ~hantion McCutclieon, Principal of Choices in Leari2iilg, 893 East Mate Road 4.34-, said Mr. SehillingE~r indicated he would lilte to speak with her in person and they had a conference in the beginning. of Mareli where he offer~d'co sell the property for ~500,OD0. She told him they were looking diligently for property and were trying to establish their own space and could not afford that kind of price. She stated af'~er Mr. Schillinger reviewed the site plan he sent the Request for For-mal P`eview. the sent a letter to him asking for their consideration in placing the modular in this area and offered additional rent for any inconvenience. She said she reminded him he had access to another undeveloped right-of--way off of State Road 4.34-. She affirmed they have had. cominunieation and the last she heard from Mr. S'chillinger was a single sentence he wrote stating this would not be acceptable. She stated she did not feel it was her place. to noti-fy him of this Meeting.. 5'he reiterated t1~is was the safest place for their students with an open campus. Sarry C-ainer, 1664- Mindy Bluff Point, said he would like to reiterate this is one of two right-of--way accesses to the subject property. He stated this would ii7 no way land lock this property.. He said their primary concern is for the children's safety. They want this modular building to be as close t~ the main campus as possible, not only for safety, but also for weather concerns. He stated in regards to the timeframe, they star ied negotiating with the proper~:y ow~ler in February. He affirmed they were under a great deal of time pressure as they have to have this building in place by July 15, 2010. He said he was greatly appreciative that the Commission was hearing them this evening. Matthew Breen, 1228 Roxboro Road, said he wanted to point out that the property owner requested this Formal Review. I-Ie stated there were already other elements that are in that right~of--way that have been properly permitted and have been there for quite some dine. Cluistonher Bravo, 9735. Lalce Douglas Place, said he wanted to re- emphasize the fact, if this hasn't been made abundantly clear, that the access off of,State Road 434 is in fact paved and is not obstructed. He stated it has been mentioned on more than one occasion that there would be a significant delay between the time: they commence planning activities and any type of construction could take place to improve the existing unimproved right-of--way. I-Ie discussed the School locating other property and said he did not see this as being a hardship for. the property owner. Deputy Mayor Durso said :Ms. Bower had stated she spoke wit11 Mr. Sclillinger and said there were a couple of options that could make all pasties satisfied. CC 04--19-10/105 Ms. Sower said they discussed. both options, one to make the building par~i~flel to the right-o way and do a fence enclosure with. a courtyard. The other option was to move the building into the right-of--way and move the right-of--way around the building. She stated that Mr. Schillinger said with~~ut seeing it he could. not give .a definitive answer, but he would be willing to entertain either of those suggestions. Commissioner .Bundy inquired when he was willuzg to entertain this. Ms. Bower said part of the issue was that he was not notified of the Meeting and found out by looking at the Agenda. on the City's websit~. .She stated there was no process.. at this time in the Community I)eveloprnent Depa~.-tment to notify somebody when the rrceetin6 is scheduled when they require a Formal Site Review. She advised ibis has been changed. Connnissioner Sandy inquired what the land use designation was for this pr ope:rty. Ms'. Sower said it was General Comrriercial. Comrr~ssioner Bundy inquired if there was. legal access to Stare Road 43~ from i~his property. Ms. Bower said .according to Mr. Schillinger :here is an access to State Road 43Q behind the bank. Commissioner Cortes said this brings to mind inverse condemnation. He affirmed he has been told about access to State road ~-34~ and he has not been able to find it via the Property Appraiser's websiie. He inquired if there was any legality if the City cuts off the access on Bay. Mr. L~~ngley said he had not analyzed this particular situation, but. he could speak in general to the question of depriving a property owner of access. He stated if there was no across provided to a property owner, there could be a potential cause of action for inverse condemnation. Commissioner Cortes inquired if this were to be approved, if the permit is rescinc(ed at a later time, what would be the timeframe and cosi be to move t:he building from the right-of--way. TeI1Y IZag_an, General Contractor for Choices in Learning, :I 800 Cypress Landing Drive, said from a_ timing standpoint, this w~ sc~m.eihing they needed. to have resolved as it will make a difference in the. €;lectrical locaiio'n, water and sewer runs, if they have to provide fe~lc:ing, and it will change the ramp and deck configuration for security issues. He stated they stagy red this process tl~e end of last year and they are now against the curve and need an answer. He said thirty (30) to forty five (45) days would be CC Oa-19-10/106 realistic to move the building. He stated the wheels will remain on the axles tl~uoughout this since it is a_ lease. The main issue will be the electrical, water and sewer. Discussion ensued regarding various options for placement of the building. Mr. Peters advised they met with the Church some time ago and had a very broad ranged discussion. He said there were tluee options available. The first option was to create a new right-of--way for Bay Avenue along the northern property line to the adjoining property with the adjoining property maintaining access. The second option was a general right of entry easement over the propei~~y that the adjoining property owner could use. The third option was aright-of--way utilization pei~nit. He stated the preferred option by staff was to create a new right-of--way along the northern boundary. He said the problem they ran into was timing and he reviewed the requirements of redoing a plat which,requires a licensed surveyor. This left the other two options and the reality of having the right-of--way utilization permit, the City has the authority to give a thirty (30) da_y notice of abandoning or providing an altei•~Zative access. He stated the main issue was providing access to the adjoining property. Mr. Langley said with respect of the formal site plan review process, the initial notice to the property owners is clearly set for-t1i. He stated, as Ms. Bower alluded to, the notice requirements for what happens before the Commission hearing is not too clear as to how much notice is to be given. to the person requesting the hearing. It does specify that notice is to be given and that the Community Development Department is to prepare a report on whether the application complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of the Code and shall make that report available to the applicant, the person or persons requesting Formal Review and to the public not later than five days prior to the Commission hearing. He affirmed this was in the Code and he was not sure if that has been complied with. 1VIr. Kintner said the staff report was made available as part of the Agenda. Mr. Langley inquired when the Agenda Packet was posted. Ms. Mirus advised the Agenda Packet was posted on Wednesday. Mayor Maingot asked the City Attorney what his recommendation would be. Mr. Langley said he would provide pros aszd cons. He stated the conservative approach, based on the request for a continuance would be to continue the hearing until a time certain. He said this would allow staff additional time to review the access issues that have arisen. He stated the CC 04~-14-10/107 other way of handling. it would be to move forward with the application base;d on staff's input that they believe the person requesting the hearing had some form of notice of the hearing, had access to the: A Benda Packet, but that would not resolve potential questions staff may now have regarding access to other properties. He said perhaps continuing to the next: meeting would be the best course of action. Ma}nor Maingot said the applicant has stated they•are up against a time constraint. He inquired if the Commission postponed this to the next City Conunission on May 3, 2010 would provide the applicant with sufficient time to accomplish what they need. Mr. Breen inquired if he could offer one other alternative that if the Corrunission did choose to vote on it and chose to vote in. their favor, that it be a conditional approval. The condition that airy access issues which turn up to be open ended must be resolved as a condition of the approval before they can move forward with improvements to the site. He said he did not believe there were any issues, as Mr. Peters pointed out that there is an easement available for the property to the back and'che adjacent property owner has adequate access through the bank parking lot. He stated they would gladly entertain a condition on the approval if those issues are not sufficiently addressed. He said they could ~;o back to the Church and let them know in order for Choices in Learning to proceed, the Church needs to gram an additional easement. He affirmed they are up against the clock now and any further delay would jeopardize their ability to meet the deadline. Mr. I angley said he felt that was a good way of dealing with it, provided it is clear that the condition applies to all access issues, the one staff may have concerns with and also the adjacent property owner. He stated this would allow staff to investigate this matter further, as well as allowing the person requesting the continuance to address matters with. staff. Pie said if this issue caainot be resolved, then it; would need to come -back to the Commission. Commissioner Cortes moved to approve the permit with the condition that access to the sites is resolved as discussed by April 2~, 2010. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Durso. Mr. Langley clarified the motion would be to approve the site plan, conditioned upon the access issues discussed tonight being resolved by a time certain and this would come back to the Conunission if those matters are not resolved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Commissioner Cortes responded in the affinnative. Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CC 04-19-10/10 1pe ~PP~'®vafl o~ E®~Petir~g ~~ure Plan fl~ acc®rr~~~~e wflkka Ou di~aance Nme ~9-~~9fl a®u° Fl®rrlda 17~~Par~t~~~n~ ®u 'I'~°~x~sP®~°ta~a®rn (FDO T)91~~li ~~ll ]t~]t ()CSllarrnd 1L~ke ~Cc~tex°)o Mr. Kintner said this was similar to some of the alternative cure plans that have been before the Commission previously. He stated the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has a cure plan that was approved at the November 23, 2009 Special Commission Meeting. He said the Ordinance allows the property owner to come in with a competing cure plan. He stated the primary difference on this plan is a one-way sixteen (16') foot drive aisle with sixty (60°) degree angled parking and there is are overall rechiction in parking. The City Code requires 120 parldng spaces for this property, the FDOT cure plan provides for 114 spaces and this proposed cure plan'provides for 104• spaces. He said this plan also will require a reduction in the sign setback requirement. The plan provides for five (5') feet which is similar to the FDOT approved plan and the City Code requires ten (10') feet. Ne stated this proposed plan provides more of a landscaping b.ufer than the FDOT plan, however, both plans require a waiver to the City standards of a ten (10') foot landscape buffer. Following review staff recojnmends approval on this cure plan. Conunissioner Mundy moved to accept the alternate cure plan as submitted by staff, Item 9 L'. Seconded Commissioner Sacket~. Commissioner Cortes said he discussed the east to west direction of the parking lot with Mr. Peters. He stated people always tend to tuns left against traffic and inquired if that could be corrected. Mr. Peters said the first entrance was the westernmost entrance and to get to the front Parking spaces you would have to go all around the building. He stated it was suggested to orient the angled parking going east rather than west so that you can go inmlediately into the front parking bays rather than being required to go aroluzd the building. He said the lift station will tie into Utilities, Inc. The line under State Road 434 will require a permit from FDOT. He suggested there be language that the approval was conditioned on approval from staff, FDOT, and Utilities, • Inc. with regards to sewer service. He stated the next application was near and also had a lift station. A FDOT representative has suggested the City look into combining the stations into one and Having one crossing under State Road 434-. Commissioner Sackett inquired if losing ten (10) parking spaces ~h~ould present a problem to any of the businesses in that building. Mr. Peters said staff was in the process of reviewing the City's overall econonuc development program and part of that is reviewing the current parking standards. He stated the new standards for office space was substantially less than the old standards. • CC 04--19-10/109 Ken. 1: I-iit~p, Esquire, Grayllobinson, P.A., 301 East Pine ~9treet, Suite 1400, Orlando, said he was a property rights lawyer representing Island L .aloe Center, LLC. He stated he was in attendance at the November 23, 2009 Special Co~nnussion Meeting and indicated at that time the property owner would be submitting a cure which is the cure they :have come forward with here. The ownerslyp group includes a general contractor, a developer, a lawyer, and a real estate investor. He said thE;y and their engineers believe the cure being proposed by FDOT was inadequate both in character and the safety aspects. This is why they have submitted this alternative cure. He stated they could sign off the end of the aisle adjacent to the first driveway "No Loft Turn" so to make that very clear. I-Ie reiterated they believe this to be much safer, even tl.?ough they had to sacrifice ten (10) parking spaces. He said they were, worlcii~g with the adjacent property owner regarding hooking up to th:e sewer. He stated he did not feel it to be appropriate to condition this cure which is a similar sewer hook-up as the Commission already approved by FDOT. Mr. Langley said there was a motion and a second Ynade.:Following that Mr. Peters recommended a condition. He inquired if Mr. Peters was still recon:umiendingchat condition be placed. If so, this would :~Zeed to be added to the: motion if the Con~nission deems appropriate. VIr. Peters said the reason for his suggestion for the condition is that the City has not received any type of notification from Utiliti€s, Inc. that they will accept the flow. He said it would behoove having. some language in there if for some reason they cannot connect with Utilities, Inc. that they have 'to come back to staff for an alternative. Commissioner Bundy said with this plan if they miss the first driveway, they will have slowed down to enter the second drive. I-1:e stated there will be less of an opportuiuty to impede it. Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ~o ~~rp~°ovall of corgape~ing c~~c pfl~n iffi act®x°dar~c~ wntk~ O~°dfln~~ace l~Y®o ®9~I.~9~ ~®n' >FI®~i~a ~oPa~°ta~~r~~ Of 'Tu°an~g~®~t~ta®n (I+1~~~7C), Par~e~ Mr. Kintner said this was an alternative cure plan submitted by the property owner. He reviewed how this plan differs from the FDOT cure plan that was approved by the City Commission on November 23, 2009. He stated 1VIr. Peters. alsovldicated with regards to the lift station aaid back flow prevention devices on the front of the property that hE; would like to see those placed underground to avoid any visibility issues with the site. He ac1•vised the applicant proposes a temporary holdi~ig tank_ for septic issues during the actual construction. Therefore, Mr. Peters has requested that the pump station be the first improvement completed on the propeziy. He said approving this cure plan as proposed would, as similar to the CC 04-19-10/110 FDOT approved plan, require a waiver to signage requirements. He said staff discussed with flee 1~roperty owner the possibility of increasing landscaping as they are losing some retention area. The prol~et-ty owner was amenable to that and staff recommends including the additional landscaping as .part of the Commission's recommendation on this Item. Edward V~Iilliams, 920 South Delaney Avenue, Orlando, said he was with Williariis Development Services and he was representing Longwood Store-It. He stated there were several differences between their proposal and FDOT's proposal. He stated FDOT's proposal did not allow for the driveway to be deep enough to get trucks out of the travel lanes of the road. He said they can live with the FDOT 240 square feet for signage. However, in order to meet that, they would like to place one sign on each face of the building and get rid of the monument sign. He declared the - proposed monument sign by FDOT will not be visible from one direction of travel and it serves no purpose. He stated the property owner and other owners were concerned with how this strip of road is going to look as the road is taping out much of the landscaping, frees, and amenities that are along that roadway. He said they were hoping that when FDOT took out portions of the landscaping that they would replace it on other portions of the property to make up for what they are taking out. He stated staff was going to recommend that and they were going to push hard for this. He affirmed they fell the Corrnnission should approve that as paL-t of the plan.. He stated they were losing their septic tank and would like to hook into the central sewer. He said they cannot be required due to the parts of the law in eminenl domain to connect with an adjoining property owner. This would be considered an offsite cure. He stated their plan was to go under State Road 434- and collect to the north. He said FDO 1 needs their land right a-way. He stated they cannot get the sewer lines and everything constructed in that time frame, so they have asked for an interim cure of putting in a holding tanlc~in order to aceonvnodate FIDOT. Ike affirmed that under those conditions they support staff recommendations with the understanding that they would have two sign faces totaling 240 square feet on either side of the building .and removing the monument sign. Commmissioner Coz-tes moved to accept the cure plan for Item 9 C with staff recommendations. Seconded by Conin~issioner Bundy. Mayor Maingot inquired what staff's reeoininendation was with regards to the signage. Mr. Kintner said staff recommendation would be to have the monument sign removed -and have 240 square feet rather than the 264 square feet of signage as shown on the plan and as requested by the representative. Commissioner Sackett inquired what staff s recommendations were with regards to vegetation. CC 04-19-10/111 Mr. Kant-ner said staff recommendation was to add additional landscaping to the northwest col-ner of the property to mitigate the impacts of the Wlderl111g. Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ~o ~®~a~rnl~~1®rner~ 1<rTte~Ge ~`~a~tc>i~99 ~~ndy x°e~e~est~ the ~g~~y Q~®gnflni~~i®rn dl~c~n,~5 the Cg~y A~tiomr~ey~ bgll~ k® ~~teo Commissioner Bundy said he 11ad a discussion with the City Administrator regarding the bills and lus conceal initially was that there ~~as a budget of $93,000 and at the time of the turnover in attorneys, after those bills there was approximately $4.3,000 left to October 1St and was even less now. He stated he wanted this brought to the Commission's attention so they could discuss why it was that much and. what They were going -to do about it. He said There was enough money in the budget for about a week's worth of legal representation. He requested the City Administrator to place copies of the most recent bills in the Commissioner's mailboxes so they would have an opportunity to review these. He affirmed he was concerned that they seem to be billed for a lot of items he thought would have been covered under the retainer. He pointed out that apparently conversations regarding the roll of the City Chal-ter and State Statutes for lus resigning- to-run for another office have accumulated a total of over $1,100 worth of legal time and stated these were not at his request. He declared he has no problem with the legal representation they have received from the firm. His concern is whether they can afford the representation at these rates. Mayor Maingo t inquired what the retainer covers in terms of ongoing servicF;. Conunissioner Cortes said he went back and looked at the Request for Propo~~al (RFP). He stated in the last section of the RFP for additional data, it does specify that the firms are to put everything that is included in their n.~onthly retainer in Section 2.1 of the RFP. He reviewed Section 2.1 and said this area talks about ordinances, legal research, and covers a whole sea of items. He declared something was being misunderstood here or he was not given the proper information at the time of the rankings. Mr. Langley said the RFP response filed b~y his firm proposed a retainer that is consistent with the Agreement they have with the City which is X5,000 monthly retainer for attendance of City Comniissiol:i Meetings and other Boards, unlimited telephone calls with Commissioners, City Administrator, and twelve (12) minutes of time with staff: :[fie stated, as they recall, there were other funs that subntted proposals that did not include: a retainer that covered everything, excluding litigation. Therefore, the proposal they submitted was consistent with the Agreement they have with the City and they feel they have been consistent with their Agreement in the billing. He affirmed the City Administrator hasrmet: with Mr. CC 04--19-10/112 Ardaman and himself to lodge her concerns withthe budget matters. She did find a few entries that he agrees they should give some credit to the City and Choy have done that. He said since coming on almost four months ago they have encountered a significant amount of work that has been sent their way in transition. He stated his hope was that as time gees on, the general bill will decrease, and in fact it has the last month by half. He said also in the retainer they review the Agenda Packets and do some quick review of the Code on certain items. He affirmed their firm has been writing off significant amount of dollars worth of.time under the retainer. He staffed that $5,000 a month equates to twenty ive (25) hours of attorney time at $200 an hour. IIe advised they Have been spending more than twenty five (25) hours each month on retainer matters. Mr. Langley said he appreciates the comments about them doing a goad job. He stated they were providing confident and quality legal services. He said they will strive to do their best to work with fhe City Administrator to keep the legal fees as low as possible. In the first four months o.f their representation they have assisted in Icnoelcing out three litigation matters that have concluded and these will not be generating any fees in the future. He stated some of the suggestions he made to the City Administrator regarding certain items being vetted by Department Heads before coming to them, and the Administrator has also implemented some policies internally of what comes to the Attorney and she has matters going through her for approval prior to being referred to the Attorney. Ms. Powell said Commissioner Cortes did bring to her attention Tab 7 of the RFP wlvch states "State your j~~onthly r^etainer fee fof° providing complete scope of services as described in Section 2.1 of this proposal. " She stated this has items from A to W. She said she did not know if when Fishbaclc Dominick submitted their proposal that they did no t take that into consideration with the retainer. She affirmed the City was being charged for a lot of this in addition to the retainer. She stated. in her conversation with Conunissioner Coates, he was under the impression that the retainer would cover all of these costs, which is why he tivas in favor of paying a retainer. Mr. Langley said she was referring to the RFP the City issues, they have a copy of that, and responded to the RFP with a proposal of a $5,000 monthly retainer to cover what they have in the Agreement. He affirmed Fishback Dominick proposed a retainer that provided a cap on certain types of services, but also provided per hour charges for other services. He said when they evaluated responduig to the RFP, it is very difncult to propose an all inclusive retainer that is fair to both parties. He stated not knowing the amount of work that would be involved they proposed what he felt to be a balanced approach that they feel is a fair deal for both sides. As previously pointed out, they are writing off a few granci or more a month in retainer services. He reiterated, as time goes on, it is hoped that general matters will decrease. He said they were initially given a Load of CC 04~-19-10/113 matters that has been held by the City until new counsel was onboard. He stated they are going through each of those matters to try and resolve them as q~.~ickly as possible. Mr. A-rdaman said the City has had a great amount of legal work they have had to deal with early on, so the bills are larger than what the City would like and frankly what they would like. He stated the three cases that were disposed of did take a significant amount of time. In addition to that, a significant amount of those legal fees should be reimbursed to the City. He advised a Resolution will be coming before the Commission with respect to the FDOT matters that will have included a condition to settle all of those cases the FDOT filed including the City as a Defendant and asking the FDOT to reimburse the City. He reiterated that there initially has been a lot of legal work that demanded much attention initially. He said that they expect things will be a lot smoother and will drop off-. He stated the City Administrator was taking steps to reduce this as were Fishbaclc . Dominick. Commissioner Cortes said he felt they went outside the scope of the RFP when they did not follow the guideline of the retainer that. included everything in Section 2.1. He stated that he specif cally asked if someone from outside the Commission called them, would they bill for this and he was told no. He said there were several things that need to be addressed. Mr. Langley said any entries that are of concern, they are willing to evaluate those and give credit if credit is due. 1VIr. ~~rdaman said they expanded the retainer beyond what they initially wanted to include and it was costing them several thousand dollars a month. He stated this was pant of the deal. Commissioner Bundy inquired what credit the City was receiving. IVIr. Langley advised it was X500 on the last bill for two and a half hours entered. Con~xnissioner Bundy said while the other firms may not have listed a_ retav~er, one of the respondents indicated he had looked at our budget and was willing to guarantee in the contract that it would be sufficient in handling our legal needs for the remainder of the year, excluding litigation. He stated at this rate, even if it goes down thirty (30%) percent, that was still a lot of money for the balance of the year with five months left to go in this Budget year. He said he understands some of the legal fees may be reimbursed, but there was no assurance of that. Commissioner Sackett said he was impressed with the services they have been performing in closing out three cases in litigation. He: stated this was the first time he has. seen a sophisticated write up of what all the charges CC 0~1-19-10/114- are and this gives him a better idea. He said. in the budget under City Attorney, year-to-date we have spent ~104,OD0 oz $150,000 budgeted, with sixty-nine (69%) percent of the budget fliers. He stated he became aware of this when it was oiz the Agenda. He inquired if they were going to be able to meet the Budget. Ms. Powell advised the amount now is X10,000 left in the budget. Commissioner Sackett said it was very late to be hearing this. He stated they were going to have to find the. money somewhere to get tluough this year. Ms. Powell said she would need to bring forth a Budget Amendment to the Commission. the stated she. was concerned with that bill. Mayor Maingot said there were areas of .concern and they would need to watch very carefully how the money is spent. He suggested they needed to take an in depth look in terms of what the City is receiving for the X5,000 retainer. He. stated. the City Administrator would be bringing forward an amendment as we have to have~legal representation. Commissioner 3undy said he understands we have to have legal , representation. He stated unless he has assurances that the amount pulled out of Deserves is a solid number of what it,s going to cost, he will not vote to pull anything out of reserves. Deputy Mayor Durso said the money was not. theirs acid they have. a responsibility to how it is being spent. He stated every single month they see these nurnbers on how it is being spent so it was not a surprise. I-e said it was concerning to him, especially since he and the City Administrator have had conversations about things they were being billed for. He stated there was fifty (50%) percent of the Budget year to go and they were at seventy (70% o) percent. Ike said he understands they were front loaded with a lot of work. Mr. Ardaman said if they have an snot to please.make them aware of this. He reiterated they have closed outthree cases that were around a long time and the City will be .getting some of this money back that reduces what has been expended. He stated the expectation is that FDOT money will be .refunded in full and all moriey ..spent on Allied Veteians is expected to be refunded in full. He said they were very sensitive to it being public money and the public trust. He stated the rates they charge are their lowest rates. He said they provide very goodlegal representation. He expressed. concern that perhaps some of the entries billed for maybe improper and they will. be glad to credit those afier they have reviewed them. Ms. Powell said she would like to have the opportunity to sit down with the Attorneys and go through the bills and the irurormaiion thathas been CC 0~l~-19-10/115 presented this evening with regards to the RFP and the proposal that was submitted. She stated she would also like to pull out the litigation costs from the bills to tally up what tl?at amount would be. She said we have received,very good representation and she was pleased with what they have; been able to bring to the City. She advised that leer staff ltnows before they contact the Attorney for anything that it needs to come through her and she will forward it to the Attorneys if it is ~~eemed appropriate. She said the City Clerlc was not covered under the contract and inquired if the Coiinmission would like to make a recommendation that come tluough the City Administrator as well. She stated she would meet with the Finance Director and propose an amount for a Budget .4rnendment. Corrunissioner Coi-tes .said they do appreciate the litigation cases being settled. He stated on the last bill that "General Advice" balled for stands out to him that should be covered under the retainer. He said there were items that were out of their control and they would have ~o live with. Con:unissioner Bundy said he would like for the. City A.dmiivstrator to meet: with the Attorneys to discuss this. I-1e suggested if the Commissioners had specific matters of concern to send these to the Administratoz. Mayor 1Vlaingot suggested the City Clerk also meet with them to dete~~riiine how she can minimize some of her areas of cost. He said they can all work together to resolve these issues. Commissioner Bundy reiterated that this in no way wa_s a rei~ection on his confidence in the Attonleys. He said the representation, especially with the outs<~me of some of the cases t11ey have had was adequatc;ly reflected. Commissioner Sackett moved to extend the meeting. Seconded by Mayor Maingot and carried by a fourlone voice vote with Deputy Mayor Durso voting nay. C][`g'~' A?~1~'>[N~S'>['~A'1I'®>E~'~ ~>~~1'~7['e ~ Ms. Powell said the Employee Appreciation Luncheon on April ~)ttl was an awesome affair that was paid for by the City Department 17irecto:rs and herself. She stated th:e employees. thoroughly enjoyed this. Ms. Powell reported the City had a couple of interns coming from the University of Central Florida at no charge. One. inter-n will be in Cominuni.ty Development and the other will be in Financial Services. Ms. Powell reported the meter reading was now being done in house and it was working weh. CC 04-19-.10/116 JL~° 1VJ!i~ Il A~~~ ~®M1~1[t~~~®~~kC~9 Jlli.11_rP®~Oll e ~Il5~TCIl~t i"i`-~° Deputy Mayor Durso reported he recently had th.e opportunity to represent the City on behalf of the T/Iayor at the Wekiva Parkway Advisory Committee. He said there was a lot of new teclulology they are working on to protect the environmental resources. He suggested inviting them to one of the Commission meetings to review some of the things they aie working on. He thanked all of the Members of the Commission for their support of Kids Week. Ho discussed'che Municipal Advisory Quiet lone Commi~cee that he sits on for the City at MetroPlan and said there was a rnovement led by Mayor Doug Kinson from Maitland to try and get the Department of Transportation and the Federal Government to pay for new crossings and institute new safety measures and quiet zones. He said they were working on a Resolution to bring to cities for support. ~1i5$Y°fl~~. fi`~e Commissioner Cortes said passing the Green Ordinance today puts the City ahead of the curve with the President mandating municipalities to go green. He reported he has asked the City Administrator to look info putting an Ordinance forward with regards to animal control. He stated they will be going to Tallahassee this week. ' ~n~tIl°n~ti ~`~!e Commissioner Bundy reported the Historic Society was pleased to be invited back to provide the food at the Eighth Annual Beat the Heat Car Show. Ho thanked Waste Pro for providing the cooker. He thai~lced the Police Depai ~ment for the work they do with the Explorers. T_-Ie said Waste Fro gets involved with nonprofit groups and this year they provided the cooker, food, beverages, and everything at no cost to the Historic Society and the money raised was all profit. He announced the Earth Day 4-Ot~l Birthday was Thursday at the Wayne Densch Performing Ai%s Center and lie will be participating in this. Corrunissioner Bundy reported he has received multiple complaints regarding the Lake Emma Road widening project. He said Barrington has had a tremendous amount of things torn up and the workers are parking their trucks at Barrington's entrance. He asked if Mr. Peters could check info this matter. DaStra~t i+~. Commissioner Sackett thar~lced Deputy Mayor Durso for the green initiative. He said he appreciated this weekend's Car Show and the Explorer Group and the service they provided. He stated they wire addressed earlier by Lyman High School regarding their fundraiser request for the Community Building and how did the Corn~nission want to handle this. Mayor Maingot said this was the Chorus fi~ndraiser and it was not being sponsored by the School. Ike stated we have waived fees once before for them for the rental of the Building, but they carry the cost for the cleanup. Commissioner Sackett moved to waive the fees similar to what we did last year. Seconded by Mayor Maingot and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CC 0a-19-10/117 Commissioner Sackett said there were some dealings with some people leai-~7ing about Comrunity Services and wha~ was going on in that Departrneni. He said that Ms. Sower and Mr. Kintner dealt with the questions iri a very kind way. He stated he strongly applauds what Community Services was doing a~ld the relationship they are trying to acquire with people who are!trying to develop in this area. Tl?n~~~ict Mayor Maingot reported that Longwood hosted the Seminole County Council of Local Governments (CALLA®) Meeting on April 7tl' alid the same night Deputy Mayor Durso represented the City at the Wekiva River Management Committee Meeting. He atfended the Longwood Chamber of Commerce Meeting on April 12t" and on April 15t1i he attended Tri-County Luncheon. in Apopka. He reported Envision Seminole was moving forward with committees to address major topics. IIe said he was very disturbed with regards fo the: annexation of Milwee Middle School by Casselber7y. He stated the City of Longwood owns part of the property. He said we have discovered that County Road 427 in that area was taken over by the City, but this is not reflective on the map. lie stated there had to be something we can do to keep them from coming across the road. Cormnission.er Bundy said there was a property ow~ier that;owns property on the west side of County Road 427 That he spoke to and is very interested in annexing into the City of Longwood. Ms. Powell said they were meeting with her and she did not want to go into any detail regarding this matter at this time. Mayor Maingot reported that he and Ms. Bower are doing a pr~se.ntation at the Citrus Club on Apri121St that will feature our TOD and out of tlus there should come a lot of benefit for the City. Mayor Maingot said he heard talk last week regarding relocation of City Hall and he asked that this falk cease. C~`It' ~ A'Il'I'Q?~N~~'~ IMP®~7C. Mr. Langley said at the last Commission Meeting he was able to report that the first Rw1ge Appeal had been dismissed by the Circuit Court. As of Thursday or Friday of last week, the second Runge Appeal was dismissed by the Judge. He reported this matter has been concluded. Cl['Tl'SY (CIL~I~'~'S lE~l~®RT1. No report. CC 04~-19-10/11 l~~~f®TU_~1`~0 1Vlayor 1~Iaingot adjouin~el tho meeting at 10:17 .m. 1~'T1`7['~~Ti o y ~~rr~1a Two All°~~y I~l~!~cC9 I~/1I~~9 ~n'~ ~le~rta CC Oc~-19-101119 i Tl pang ~~b~ IL~~~ ~ll~~~~ lf~~~r~~a~~~~~yo CG 04-19-10/120