LPAMin09-12-01CITY OF LONGWOOD
Land Planning Agency
Minutes, September 12, 2001
AHendauee:
Boats: Staff:
Denny Emory. Chairperson Jay Sargent Planning Divison Maneger
George McKenzie. Vine Chairperson Ched Harvey. Planner
David Richards Reverly Majors, Planning Division Secretary
Al Schreiber
Absent:
John Kopack
L GALL TO ORDER:
Mr. Emory as Vice Chairperson called them ring to order.
A. Election of ORlCeR
a. Chairperson
Mr. McXetMe made n moion to tronrinate Omrny Emory as Ch<tirpnsnn.
Mr. Richards secotrded the uronorr The motion ~var nnmrimourly~ urpror~ed
(3-0J.
There were no further nominations. Mr. Emory accepted the position.
,W. Schreibu arrived.
b. Vice Chairperson
Mr_ Pochmds made n motion to nombrcne Geroge McKm¢te as the 4'tce
Chairperson. Mr. ]~Jnory.reewrd¢d Jre nrmrirratlun. /he rrrarlorr nos
urmnrmously ap~noved (J-O).
There were no further noinrnanons. Mr. McKenzie a oepted the posrtroa
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR August 8, 200t:
Mr. McKenzie mode a motors m appt~o~re the mnnrte.s ofAugrri R, 1001 as yreserttad Mr.
LmntY+un'ouded th¢nrorlon. Zhe rrrotian was rennnimorrs]Y ayOraved (a-OJ
3. PUBLIC COMMENT:
There was no one present to speak during public comment
d. PUBLIC HEARINf,:
There were no Hems for public Hearing.
6. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW;
A. SP 0.401 Site Plan
House of Ploars
Floritla Central Parkway, Los 3
Applicant: Phillip C. Hollis
Mr. Sargent preaented Recommendation and Staff Report with visual aide
MoticNRewmmendati
The Planning Divi n of the Community Services Depart ends that the
Land Planning Agency recommend to she City Commissionn appro el of Site Plan (SP
OS-Olj to an 18,500 sq. fl. +/_ general olTioe and warehouse ftoility on
vacant lot 3 of Florida Centre) Commerce Perk.
Exglana[ioNBackaround
The applicant and owner. Jane Maciewicz, has applied for site Plan review to wnnruct
an 18.500 sq. fl. general ufflce and warehouse facility on vaoant lo[ 3 of Florida
Central Commerce Park. She OroPettY is located on Florida Centre) Parkway acroas
6om [he United States Post Office.
The DRA, at its reb tar scheduled meeting of August 2, 2001, rec tmnended to the
eDProDriete boards to approve therequested siteplen with the fnllovingwmmen[earid
excep[iovs_
Comments:
• Extra care shall be mken to Protett existing trees on [he lo[
(LDC Sec. 2A-t5,3).
• Nov ea kom the City Code were requested fortNs pr jeu.
• Staf£re es the right to additional comments during corwrneuonmd
prior to completion.
• No nodifica r alter s of any kind shall be made to iNS rate
plan without the written pe'rmiseion ofthe City ofLOVgwood.
I 1
Upon Mal approval ofthe City Commission.
Site plans expire 180 days after final action.
Follovnng the presentation of the staff review Mr. Sargent showed visual looation of
the property on Florida Central Parkway. He stated that this site plev is part ofthe
tar plan and part of the master retention for the park All elevations and grades
hive been met for the site- Mr. Sargent advised the LPA that the DRB has no
problem with the site plan as presented.
Howevu, Mr- Sargent added that another site plan has boen submitted for the
property adjace and south ofthis torn n. Mr. Sargent has requested the t
properly ownerstand their engineering saffsm eiEejoint-usc Driveway mould
be identified for the Darkwey at this location Hetptepered vianl aide to benefit iha
Hoard in the City's view of th'u proposal.
Mr. Sargent said he would continue with the joint driveway conoepr-but suggested
the Board review thesite plan iuelf lire[.
Mr. Richards questioned the Flood prone area and asked if compensation storaSe was
to be provided or considered.
Mr. Hollis replied that the area lies within two flood basins and its split, which is
soot, but both of those hood plains are below the finished lot elevations of the
subdivi on Iota ea the subdivi as developed Compen ring storage was done
and theaissues were addressed when the subd'rviaion was developed in 1992.
Mr Richards also stated he did not sec plans for a fence around the retention pond.
He stated that he felt a kna ahouW be required for safry.
Mr. Hollis stated that the pond was shallow at 4 to 5 f t. The side slope was 4 to I
and there is a couple feet below the normal water elevation before it slopes down
fnnher. The pond is e' deep in theoentor.
Mr_ Sargent sated theta 4 to I slope would require a Pence He will check with the
City Engineer before the site plan goes before the City Commission
Mr. McKetuie asked for explanation of Item 13 in the staff analysis. Mr. Sargent
advised Mr. MoKe~ie end the Hoard that the staff analysis items ere Keneral
a checklist for the applicant and all may or may not apply to a protect.
The saff wmments are perlinent to each individual site
Mr. McKenzie asked for verification of the square footage of the buildinK. The
mendacion slates 18,500 square Rat and the plans state 23,000 squaro feet.
MrASarKent cortected [his and stated the building and warehouse is 23 000 square
feet.
There were no more quesions and discussion was closed.
Mr. Sargon[ oontinuod with the Staffrecommandation of thejoim-use driveway. He
explained with visual drawings that the City has the tight to require ajoint-use
driveway for traffic solutions.
He v suelly showed the 9oerd that with ajoint-use drive the medians could be
redesigned to bestu prof m the traffic on the right-of-way to allow for IeNin.
righUout use of the drive omitting u-[urns Por south left rums out ofthe drive end
north right wums for entrance.
Mr. Sargen ated the City did no[hav tinders ending ofthe driv way at this
bec a the applicants have not met ae requested some six weeks before concerning e
this concept tie said the projec of being held up, nor was he suggesting that
Thejoim-dove is a safety issue fotrathe parkway.
Following Mr. Bergen's pres n. Mr. Hollis gave his on behalfofhis
etien. Mr.Hollis, Hollis Fn6 nee rig introduced himselfa oe irpresantetive for Jave
and lohn Maciewia. owners of House of Floors.
He stated the applicants are not in favor of thejoint driveway and he wos presenting
t. He started by saying they did get here first end felt this should give
m~ ~oosmwacon.
He presented his argument .v~th the following. They looked at the Land
Development Code, Sermon 24-59 and although [he City has theability to request
on join se driv ways and other n ingresa/egress faulities for public
tafftc safety the other n the node esrablishes rie for whet a legal
on joint driv way s`t Lorrkivg of the two critetinos it ores obvious that dmeway
open rigs shall be separated and offset centerline dirtanus. Residential use is to the
um Feasible distance possible from existing driveways but in no rase be aligned
w have ente~ne ofTset of 5' or less Looking at rho plan the access
regime and what opportunities his clients have across the board and on both of the
properties es it relates to alignment. Lot 4 has three opportunities for alignment, bu[
Lot l doe of have that opportunity. To do ajoint facility would be m
fabticatinS more median openings or adjust the median openings to adjusfl it to give a
vehicular swine COrlazge vehicles this was set up for the post ofllee The
location chosen Por House of Floors driveway and the reason it wee chosen is because
(I) Lot 4 had plenty ofalignment opportunity and the opportunity to do his own
driv ways; (2) we were midway separated to the m xt m possible offset
fiom the center Tine alignment ofthe other two drivew'aysm
Anothu noPthe Code he refmd to mlate to driv way seDara n. The
cnrtb cu separa on dirt requir nt driv way edge to driv way edge is
4Unuuless a Ie6aijoint uu drivewayrs ueated and maintained for wmmertial use
proporty. If a site plan is put togethm end they choose to take dteir drivin6lane and
put as possiblet aPropetty line to get the maximum utilhation oftheir
propenyn His site plan he~ more lavdscapebnfferfhan what is required by the City
Code He indicated his gmen span. The separation isl~IR'orwand iPit needs
shifted to 20'they could do that. By being in the planning process fim they should
nape some nonsiaemttnn
Mr. Emery asked at this time if,Uir. Hollis did not Tike the idea of a wmmon drive.
Mr. Hollis replied that his client dd not. They were unable to figure out how to do
whet Mr_ Sergant wanted them to do legally by the Llty Code and not put ivs client in
a srtuenon where he is having to across medians or have them modified.
Another problem is the type ofbusiness for Clouse of Floors. They have ]]+/_ capet
stallars pu day go in and out oftheir to loading carpet and uaieg the dumpstu_ It
industrial type a e. He asked, if the tw s that re being asked to many up
nethe driveway ar ompatible? Ia the lizatio of one driveway going to adversely
mke away from the rapacity ofthedriveway for the other parry? Looking at tfie
fiontage of the lo[s, the Mac of going to hav a driv way capacity doting
their peak hou whim is early Nt the m ming end re v rig shipments Tatar in the
day. Their capacity will be diminished.ohU. Maciewicz is very wncemed abou[ legal
habTty that may occur with their trucks end varw combined with the automobiles that
will co and go on the other lot. He compared the number of parking spaces for
House of Floors versus those planned for lot Q.
He respectfully requested, at this point. that the House of Floors be allowed to have
wn driv way in the loc n show and it of be ajoint use driveway. They do
not suppon [he geometry of the joint use driveway as it is proposed.
It was asked if I B-wheel trucks go to the dock area, Mr. tlollia replied that the
majority is the long bob trucks. She area is not set up to function as a tmuor~milu
area though it has been demonstrated that ~t could be.
A landscape bufiEr down the middle of the common drive was suggested.
Mr. Sargen[ again showed the Board the area of the dmeway proposed on the site
plan and access. U-rums would present a traffic problem especially during [he
morning hours. Central Florida Parkway is a heavy traffic area.
Mr Sazgent reed from the City Cctle that the Ciry shall have the authority to r quire
Chet nofjnin se driveways.. improve public anspotta[ion
safety Ida ll work with the ELginaers and~he City Tmtfic Engineer on this
proposal.
Mr_ Hollis tnen addressed the Board again with his argumem against thejoint
driv way and asked the Board to consider that request.
Mr. Emory modeamoriorr ro recommend apprmnl fSP OS-0/f rHorrse of
Floors plmr as pies nedro rha City Commrsvon acrd snbjec msrgJjcomments
A4r. SaMeiber seeonded the motion.
Mr Riahardsasked to amend the madon regrdring a fence around the rerenaon
pond, pendveg review Jrhe lmrd Deve(opmo+t Cede. Mr. Schrerber seconded Ure
amendmerrr. The amerulmern ro the maarnr was rmanrmouslY approvrd /?-O).
The moaorr rewmmndhrg approval oJ,SP 05-01 was nnonimmrsly approved (?-O).
6. NEW DUSUYESS:
There was na oew bnsinesa to discuss
]. OLD BUSINESS:
There was no old business to diuuss.
e. DISCUSSION AND SCREDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
The nen regular uheduled meeting date is October 10, 2001.
9. ADJOURNMENT:
M.MaKam madea to adjmrnr the meeting-Mr. Schrerber secorrdxd the
le
monon. TNe motion was unanimously approved ({~4),