BOA02-27-08Min ~~s13~-~aar;/ 2 ~4De?'~ It7aa~utes
fR~'~'EN~AN~E:
Barry (levels, Chair Paul Sizemore, Community Sel~~ices Director
Anthony Boni, `'ice Chair- Danielle Adzima, Conumu~ity Development Coordinator
A~11~~u- Heintz, Netnbei- Marveen }<_elly, Recording Secretary
Autumn Do~2}ong, IV1ernbey- Donovan Eloper, City Attorney
Ton: Ce Ne~~re, :l~einb~i-
Cliair Revels called the meeting to order at 7:.?4 P. M.
Chan- Revels led i;l the. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. iCl`.F.f'?'~~N s
f1.C~-BAIT R~'>E;ItS~N
Mo%iarr to r•ed(lh? Chrh•l~tula 12e~~cls us Ch(ri~r lrr.acle 1~Icrr126er Hei,rlt~. Secunde(1 by
h1cr,2li~;~ B(~r2r url(l c(n-ri~ c1 by rlr;cnlill?arts r(~ll c(rll v(lle.
R. t~IC~'-CIf,9fAZ
Mnlion to reacri.n 1%ice-C'lu,ir- f3nlli as i'icc-C7r(rr.r• nT~rcl~ bl% Melrrber Hei~n1_. ~ccon(lccl by
/~?IG17?%78T' >)'L'A~e~l^{'. (112(1 C(lY)'1B(1 1111l1/171Y1OlLS' 1.OII C(!il NO/G'.
AB~B~"B2~®1.~8. 1°t!BI[l~ltL)T~.S:
A. Regi~l~u~ Nteetii~~g, l~ove~~ber '?8, ^U07
A7all(u~r !c a/~pl•ove hr~ !~~en~ber- L~ol;ior2Q, Nlelnbc2- h~~i~l?Iz s~~cr~lydecl llre lr~rolicll2 (r1~2c1
CGli7"1C~(~ 1?V Cf Ll2?(111117?OILS' i~OlCG 1%(3tc'.
Chair Ravels opened the Public Hea?-i~ng.
t}?-27-08 Page, l
MOTION/RECOMMENDATION:
A.VAR 01-08 Variance
Al.Setback Reduction & A2.Wall Height Reduction
131 Longwood Hills Rd.
Property ID #:29-20-30-SAT-0000-0120
Applicant: Michael Towers
Mr. Sizemore stated the requested variance is for the property located at 131 Longwood
Hills Rd. just west of the intersection of Longwood Hills Road and County Rd. 427. Mr.
Sizemore stated he would give some background infoi7nation on the project. He stated
the property was recently annexed into the City. Prior to annexation the property was
under Seminole County's jurisdiction which is where the applicant began the process of
obtaining. development approval. Mr. Towers worked through a process that involved a
joint review of the site plans between Seminole County Staff and the City of Longwood
Staff. A development order has been iss~.ied for the project: and there is a developer's
commitment agreement with Seminole County. As a part of the review process for Mr.
Towers to be able to construct a total of sixteen town home units there were some items
that were identified that, although Mr. Towers was under Seminole County's jurisdiction,
he could not meet according to Longwood's Development. Code standards.
Those two outstanding items are a wetland buffer and a separation wall requirement. Mr.
~ Sizemore showed a drawing which represents the proposed development of the site. To
the West of the site is a wetland area. The uplands are where the townhome units are to
be developed. The Longwood Development Code requires a 20 foot protection buffer
along the full length of the wetlands which means there could be no development activity
which encroaches within 20 feet of the vaetland buffer area.
Mr. Sizemore stated the Water 1Vlanagement District and Seminole County regulations do
not follow that same standard as the City of Longwood. Therefore, although the retaining
wall does not encroach into the wetlands, at points it gets considerably closer than twenty
feet. As part of the joint review process between the City of Longwood and Seminole
County the Longwood City Commission directed the applicant at the time of annexation
to come to the Board of Adjustments (BOA) and request a variance to reduce the wetland
setback buffer from 20 feet down to the actual as-built condition which varies along the
property line.
Mr. Sizemore stated that the other variance the City Commission directed the applicant to
request during the review process deals with the separating wall requirement. For
projects of this sort with multiple residential units, the Longwood Development Code
requires the construction of a 6 foot separating wall in which all exposed sides of the wall
be faced with brick, stone, or an aliernative comparable material Mr. Sizemore noted
that in this case the grading of the site is significantly lower along the Northeastern
property line. The result is a retaining wall that, due to varying .grade levels, does not
meet the intent of the code to create a separation wall from the adjacent properties. Mr.
Sizemore stated that the City Commission suggested a landscape buffer along with some
additional protection along the top of the retaining to compensate for the separation
130A 02-:'7-0~ Page 2
~ requirement. Mr. Sizemore showed drawings that. were part of the site plan proposal
package and drawings of the proposed landscape area which showed the retaining wall
and the security fence to prevent people from going over the edge of the wall. The:re is a
hedge and plantings of trees and hedges at the base of the wall. Also, as part of the
developers commitment agreement, the applicant is required to face that wall according
to the normal separating wall standards which will be brick stone or alternative
comparable material to those materials. Mr. Sizemore stated the applicant was available
to discuss the variances requested.
Chair Revels requested that the applicant step up to the podium and state his name and
address for the record.
Mr. Michael Towers stated his address is 754 Fleet Financial Ct. He stated there are two
variances for the project that need to be addressed. The first is in regard to the wetland
setback which meanders along the west wall for about forty-five line~~r feet. Mr. Towers
stated. that he has provided both Longwood and Seminole County's engineering
departments with the biologist report regarding the impact the wall has on the wetlands.
f-le stated there is actually better protection for the wetlands as it has been designed with a
six foot sand filtration system as opposed to a twenty foot surface filtration system.
With the current six foot elevation, there is essentially a six foot sand filtration system.
This is about sixty percent better than you would receive with a sw-face filtration system.
Mr. Towers stated in fact they had exceeded the code requirements as far as the wetland
protection issue.
Mr. Towers stated there are three properties affected. by the elevation difference of the
wall and has received signed approval fi-om each of those property owners in regard to it.
1-Ie stated that if he were to have built the wall higher in order to meet the intent of the
code regarding the separation wall then he would be in violation of another code. He
stated that building the wall taller, in some cases up to fourteen feet, would present the
look of a penitentiary. Mr. Towers suggests the combination of a retaining wall with
additional heavy landscaping would be the best alternative to meeting the intent of the
code.
Chair Revels asked if the board had any questions of Mr. Towers. No questions noted.
Chair Revels asked staff if they had the signed letters that Mr. Towers referred to. Ms.
Adzima left the meeting to retrieve the signed copies.
Chair Revels asked Mr. Robert Brobst ifhe would like to address the board.
Mr. Robert Brobst , 251 Blackwater Place, Longwood, FL 32750 addressed the board and
stated that he had three signatures on a letter in opposition to the variances. The letter was
handed to Staff. Mr. Brobst commented that from his back yard, lot 55, the wall drops
from eleven feet down to about Eve feet which would leave him with the view of the
under carriage of automobiles. Mr. Brobst stated that what may work (or some of the
properties will not work for him or some of his neighbors.
BOA 02-?7-08 Page 3
~ Mr. Brobst also expressed concern for a species of woodpecker that lives in the wetlands
on the subject property which he believes there should be a wall to buffer some of the
noise. He doesn't think that a final decision can be made on the wall without knowing
where the dumpster will be located. He said that the dumpster noise is also a concern.
Discussion ensued between Chair Revels and Mr. Brobst regarding the wall height
changes and the noise issues.
Mr. Brobst stated Mr. Towers had signed a document stating the surrounding property
owners had been informed of the wetland setback but after speaking to some of the
residents he found that some had no knowledge of it. He also stated that Mr. Towers slid
not clarify what material the wall would be faced with, Mr. Brobst again requested the
dumpster issue be addressed.
Chair Revels asked if the board had any questions. None noted.
Chair Revels asked l~lr. Towers to return. to the podium to respond and possibly clarify
the dumpster situation.
Mr. Towers stated. that Mr.Brobst was.inst~-runental in directing the wall construction
behind his house and around a tree: Mr. Towers addressed the dumpster issue by stating
there will not be a dumpster because they will have roll out garbage pickup.
~ Chair Revels asked if there we any other speakers for or against this variance.
Mr. Brian Pickney who resides in The Oaks at 289 East Long Creek Cove, Longwood,
FL 32750, came to the podium. He stated he would not like a wall that is over 8 feet tall.
Mr. Sizemore stated to the Chai~iperson That Ms. ~~dzima has retrieved the copies of the
signed letters that Mr. Towers referenced and pictures of the separation wall The letters
were distributed to the board for review. Mr. Sizemore pointed out the location of the tree
and where the wall bumps out around it.
Chair Revels asked staff for clarification regarding the City's Development Code height
requirement for walls.
Mr. Sizemore stated that eight feet in height would be the maximum but the separating
wall for residential projects such as this is required to be six feet in height.
Chair Revels asked if there were any questions. No questions were noted.
Chair Revels questioned Mi-. Sizemore as to whether this variance request was for two
variances in one.
Mr. Sizemore stated that it vvas submitted as one item because it is part of the same
project but the Board may address them both in one motion or address each one
separately.
}30A 02-2"1-08 Page 4
U- ~f'hait-rnan Revels asked Mr. T<~wers how far he wouId l?e going into the wetlands. Mr.
Towers resUoncled that there is z?o encroachment into the wetlands. Mr. Towers discussed
tl?e different areas on the property rega!~cling how far the wall is from the wetlands. Mr.
Towez-s explained son?e of the varying n-ieasures of the wetlands buffer, some areas being
less than the required rive~~ly (2C)} foot bt.zffer and some areas being snore than the 20 feet.
Mr. Towers commented tl?at ae was directed by the City C'ommissi9n to request the
variances. He also stated ti?at the variance wouId not affect Mr. Brobst~s property.
Chair Revels asked if there were any additional questions.
lylen?ber DeNegre asked if tae wall was ;doing to be somethi??g other than cement block.
lv?Ir. T~ow;,rs :fated the wall is going to be covered in all exposed areas except on the side
that faces the wetlands. ~1e stated the material is depicted in the site plan which is the
san?e l:irnestone material nn the building.
Discussion ensued.
Cl?air Revels asked if there was anyone who would like to speak for or against the
variance.
Chair Revels stated that There tvas z?o one. who wished to speak.
~ Chair Revels closed the I.)ul~7ii~ hearing fi}r discussion.
Chain- Revels stated. that 1?ecause there were two variances tl-,e Board would separate them
into two different motioi?s, ~hrst addressing the va?-iance request regarding tl?e setback
reduction from the wetlands.
Discussion ensued regarding the first variance.
Attorney Rope- stated that he Lad iniorrriaticn? he wanted to share with the board. The
Seminole County .Beard of Cor.:t??issionc>ra l?ad z~tet the night before and the issue had
been brought up as to ~.vl?o ~rould be the final permitting agency for this project. Mr.
Ropez- stated t'?at l:e snoku will: t~~ir. Ivlr~ilillan, the Attorney for Seminole County, ~vho
said tl~e County Con?mission voted unanimously to agree to enter intro an inter-local
agreern~r.t or an addendum to an existing inter-local agreement with the City oP
i:ongwood p:;P?ding a decision by the City Commission. This interlocal agreement is in
regard to which governn?ent ez?lily would be tl?e (anal permitting agency for the project
~?ntil the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy /certificate of completion. Mr.
Roper stated ti?at he anticil?at:es the City Commission would be agreeable to participate in
the inlet=local agreement.
Chair ?~evels c~uestioz?ed Attorney Roper as to whether the County will have the (anal say
so on the permit and on the wall as well as fhr as tl~e variance is conce~7?ed.
SOA U2-27-UR t'age ~
Attorney Roper stated that under the development order, Mr. Towers is required t~ get
the necessary variances from the City of Longwood to comply wide any and all applicable
city codes on certain issues.
Discussion ensued regarding the height and location of the wall.
Mr. Towers stated that the minimum height of the wall is six feet.
Discussion ensued with Mr. Towers regarding height and location in reference to the oak
tree, the landscape buffer and fence material.
Chair Revels asked il`lhe?-e was any more discussion or questions. None noted.
Chair Revels reopened the public hearing.
Member Boni. rr~ride a nzoti.on to nR~~rove varr~arrce orre ivi.tlr a sec~rrc/ by MerzrberHeinl~.
Al~~~rovecl by a urairrrorrs roll cull vote.
Member 1~cNegre n?crde cr r~rotron to «pprnve vm•i~crrrce tivo ~a-ith ~r second by Merr~rber
Dordarg. Roll call vote. Four votes to ry:~hrove vuricrnce two ti~~i.tlr or~re rrtentber v~ling
agai.rtst. Motir~rr ~rpprnved.
~ B. VAR U2-08 Variance
Decrease i:n size. or required parking space dimensions
?350 S. Highway 17-92
Property Ill #OS-21-30-517-?700-00700
Applicant: Robert Stapleton
Ms. Adzima stated the Community Development Division of the Community Services
Department recommends that the Board of Adjustment review the requested variance
VAR 02-08. This variance proposes a reduction in the minimum allowed required
parking space dimensions. The applicant wants to install live parking spaces to display
vehicles in the front of his building. His building is Peak Perfo~7nance which is on
Highway 17-92. The parking spaces dimensions required are 9'x18' with the wheel stop.
[f he were to install the five spaces at the required dimensions it would trip the threshold
of SQO square feet of additional impervious surface which would ?-equire him to go
through the site plan approval process. The applicant would like to do install five (5)
spaces at 4'x17' to display his vehicles which would acid up to 490 square feet of
impervious surface. Ms. Adzima stated the applicant is present.
The applicant stated his name and his business address, Mr. Robert Stapleton of Peak
Performance Automotive Group ?350 S. Highway 17-92. Mr. Stapleton stated that he
occupied the building in March of ?007. After he built the building he noticed that: the
visibility of the vehicles for display from the windows is n~iinimal. Mr. Stapleton stated
that they did a test where they put vehicles out front for display, as proposed, and the
response was excellent.
BOA 02-27-08 Page 6
Member Heintz questioned the applicant as to whether he had thought of another option
to display the vehicles that would be within the code.
Mr. Stapleton stated that per code the spaces must be paved but the size of 9'x 18' is too
large and would not be aesthetically pleasing.
Chair Revels questioned the applicant as to whether or not the vehicles would he left
outside over night.
Mr. Stapleton stated the vehicles would be left on the pads ove?•?~ight but they would
occasionally be rotated to allow for the display of different vehicles at different time
inte?-vals.
Discussion ensued regarding. the position of the vehicles in relation to the .building and
the windows.
Chair Revels asked if there were any adclitional questions from the board and if there was
anyone present to speak for or against the variance.
Chair Revels closed the public hearing for discussion.
Discussion ensued regarding the pads.
Chair Revels reopened the public hearing.
Merrrber Hei.~rt. n~totiorred to crl~pro>>e lFre vcrriarace rvi~tdr a ,cecorrd by Member Borrr, motion
ccu•rred ?~~ih a rrnrmimous roll call rote.
C. VAR 03-08 Variance fir setback reduction
575 Devonshire Blvd.
Property 1D #36-20-29-506-0000-0300
Applicant:.lohn Donohue
Ms. Adzima stated that the Community Development Division of the Community
Services Depa?-tment recommends that the Board of Adjustment review the requested
variance. VAR 03-08 for a setback reduction regarding a pool screen enclosure.
The applicant is requesting a variance to the side setback ofhis property. The address is
575 Devonshire Blvd. it is a pie shaped lot which makes it difficult for him to add a pool
and an enclosure in the back ofhis pr~pe:rty as he desires. He has the required 7 feet on
one side and is requesting a 2 foot reduction on the other side of his property for the pool
-and screen enclosure:
Chair Revels asked the applicant to step forward and state his name and address f~~>r the
record.
BOA 02-27-08 Page 7
Mr. John Donohue who resides at 575 Devonshire Blvd.
Chair Revels asked if he had anything to add.
Mr. Donohue stated he thought the City went by easements for the setbacks. Therefore he
had the pool and enclosure designed with those setbacks in mind.
Chair Revels closed the Public Hearing for discussion.
Discussion ensued regarding the letters from his neighbors.
Chair Revels reopened the public hearing.
Motion ?>>a.c mac'le by Men~?ber Neir?tz ur?cl seco»de~l by Mer~r?ber D~ak~ng curizec/ u
~u~runi»~o?rs roll call ante.
6. OL® BUSINESS:
Ms. Adzima stated there was no old business.
_ 7. NEW BUSINESS:
Ms. Adzima stated there was no new business.
8. ®ISCUSSION AN® SCHE®ULE FOR FUTURE AGEN®A ITEMS:
Next Special Meeting: March 5, ?007. Next Regular scheduled meeting is March 26,
?008.
Discussion ensued regarding the Special Meeting.
Chair Revels stated that he was not able to make the meeting after all.
Member Dulong stated she would not be able to attend the Special Meeting.
Member DeNegre stated he would not be able to attend the Special Meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding the lack of a quorum for the Special Meeting scheduled for
March 5, ?007.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
10. A®JOURN:
l~.a.-
BOA U2-27-08 Page 8
A~I'ca~zf~ar Heinz mcrcl~ c~ »~alior: to ~~djou;~r~. Seecrxlecl~ by ~rtem~her Bari uru! ear!•ied
by c'~ u~iuninzous vai~ce vale.
Clair Revels adjou.ned tine meeting ?t 8:02 pm
)Barry ? s Chair
AT'~'ih.S7':
~ 1'o%9arveeaa ~oe~Ey, ~~ce~i•d~~a~/~~~r~fi~~ry
Q~~ 02-?'~-as Page n