LPAMin07-26-95AGENCY
Longwood, Florida
July 26, 1995
RESENT:
Meltzer, Chairman SohnFe ock, D ector
JohnrA arl Gosline, rCity Planner
Barry Revels and Tiblie r,
Fepubl is Works Director
Richard Bullington
arb Robbie Robinson
erry Godwin ucy Ryder
Walter Tilly Sohn Lochnicht
Aobbie Robinson
Chairman Mel cz er called t ing t order a e p.m.
taf£ reported that Mr. Bullington called and said he would n t be
at the meeting. No word had been recerved from Ms. xopewell.o
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Meltzer asked £oi any changes o There
additional information given o the m o ac ept ehe
mrnutes of the last meeting. xe asketl fora motion.
eels made a INUTE6 OF JULY 12,
1995, MSeconded by Mr. LinsT This was unanrmoESly approved by voice
ITEM N3
. Gosline explainetl that this i e for a proposed
self storage £acil ity to be located onaHighl ine Drive, ral
blocks s uth of SR 434. S oath-south and Sdue t
the physical a angement lt[he ronly way for the bnildings to fit i
what would n mally be the side as the front. The ' eal
£ronc"e faces n rth where there i The e side ofrthe
property becomes the "legal" frontnyardLeb the side
adjacent to Highline Drive. The applicant hass requested a front
yard v e £rom 25' t She V scheduled
and of rAdjustment hearinglon August alb ,an1995 S Staff reto
approval.
m Harb, Harb D sign Group, aid he i the engin r Eor
the project. Ne has r ceived a copy of ssta££'s c and they
cept all recommendations and comments and will comply with all o£
them.
ock c ted that as Mr. Gosline s ted r very
appropriate and good nu e for the property. The peculiarity i the
property shape and the way t faces Highl ine Drive the
problem and would be practically unbuildable with the 25'a setback.
Y 14, 1995, seconded by Mr. Lins. Unanimously appiovetl by roll
all vote 3-0.
ITEM XA. LONGW000 SELF-STORAGE - SITE P REVIEW
HIGHLINE -RIVE, SOUTH OF SR 434
Gosline explained this rs the s e plan r w £or the
e pro jet the The pesignr Review a arde (n RE) has
wed the plan and staff has m ith the applicants and w
ethe c ents. The staff report i the r salt o£ adjustments
made a salt of those m ings.s st aEf er ends approval
subject t the sta££ r endatiens: a) The e a~d of Adjustment
approval t reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25' t
15', b) A w drainage e toted t the s isfaction of
the City engineer and themeCity sA ney; c) A ree survey rs
completetl to the satisfaction of the City Planner.t
There is a eten ion pond on the south end of the property,
pe emitted almostrfourt years ago, and they have begun w ik there
because their 5 Sohns R Ater M nagement District (SSRWMD)
perm will bet ing o Ana ing pri e drainage
through the property, and then applicant m ecute
ansagreements to move this prior to beginning construction.
The buildings have to £ace a shown o the s e plan or £ire
ucks would be unable t negotiate the t They've complied
ith all landscaping requirements, and haveudone a good job on the
property.
red Mi. Lins question regarding one end building
beingMSmaller thanethe others, this w s done t ample a
£or fire appaz This salted £rom a meeting with the cDRBs
staff and the Frre Marshal e
Mr. Reels made a MOTION TO RECOMMEND A AL OF THE SITE
PLAN T E CITY COMMISSION SUBJECT T E STAFe R ENDATIONS
D SULY 3], 1995, s onded by Mr. ins. This was unanimously
approved by ioll call vote 3-0.
ITEM XS
ock explained that on the e ing z ing map shows a
portion of tRe site r ned R-lA andsa portion i R-1. The
applic requesting t e both portions to PUD, which i
onform with the adopted plan. A ing house and garagesa
the D mown Historic Dist iict and care not part o£ the rezoning
request.
Mr. Gosline said the legal description will be modi£i ed to go
powntown H also eaplai.ned that nei ghboes have
inquired whethernthe sCityt off the developar plans to pave Palmetto
Avenue w and £rom the e ing office development. These a
plans on ethe part of either the City, o the developer to do s
this t the only question i whether the proposed r ing 1A
appropriate. if the z ing is granted, the developer will begin the
detailed subdivision process.
exry Godwin, Boyer-singleton, representing c
s pre any questions. They had ved estaffe's
s edatetl Julyw la, and had no problems witR them. They
hopeeR be under ithin year antl anticipate
submitting a preliminarytpl at ias soon as possible.
Comments from the audience
ucy ftyaer, representing her parents, asketl what type
homesMa a planned, and a hey low-income? osl sae said the
only the r ing a this when you the
property the only concern is if the landau e designation and the
ing c tegory a e proper £or the usage. in both c ses the answer
isnyes. Staff recommends approval o£ the rezoning.a
Walter Tilly, C x Homes, said they a e looking at homes
ing from 1,435 sq soft. up t 500 sq. £t. The price r
expected to be i the mid 9 s fora s r home, antl it could qo
up to 5135,000 to $14-, 00o prangs with options.
Mx. Revels made a MOTION
RECOMMENDATIONS D onded by Mr. Li ns. This
was unanimously approved by iro 119ca11 vote 3-0.
ITEM p6
r. Gosl ine explained that the property is a ooded lot on the
utheast c of wayman Street and say A This of
hundred pare els the City where nthe ing
ith the adoptetlr Comprehensive Plan. The zapplicant has
requestedithe property be r netl to RP so that the parcel will be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Robbie Robinson c ted that he represents N ank,
the property o This ~ ently z ned C-Z. m sof a
sidential a rather than c ~al. The z ing linee which
should have beena oea the south end of the property ors located dead
and this r ing will r salt i onforming. R ved
thetstaff's m andum dated July 1 1995c, had no problemsewith
rc, ana woula e~ovform to rt.
ted that there w the application
whichM re£eren<eda the n rthwest c nstead o£ Lhe utheast
and requested it be c ectede Mr. Robinson initialetl the
riginal rezoning application in the Planning and Building Services
file.
s from the public
Mr~JOhn Lochnicht, w ned about what type of u
ould be located there? M Gvs line said i ould allow r sidencess
townhouses, financial titutions, adult nngregat living
£acil it and rkinds of office s. The o{ this
dirt rictei ar bvf £er between c ral andtr sidential.
Anything to ibea put sthere would have to go cthrough a site plan
review process.
Mr. Livs made a MOTZON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TN RE30NING
TO T Y COMMI SEION W RECOMMENDATIONS DA
14, 1995 Ts onded by Mr AevelsST This was unanimously approved by
roll call vote 3-D.
ITEM #J LDC ARTICLE V - DEEZGN STANDARDS
Goslive explained that these w e primarily technical
standards dealing ith the dimensional requi height
requirements, yards s and parking. The m identifies s ral
policy i e Ras separated the t and landscaping protection
poitionssi TRe current Code has them intermingled
and this Rasocaused problems.
ock s ted that this does n volve any changes that
the LPA hadn't previously approved. Staff has had several meetings
with the City engineer and reviewed the entire article, rnclutling
the physical requirements imposed on new developments.
Gosline said o of the questions rs how to tleal with
double frontage lots. There a ral a where the property
fronts If fishes eto builtl o a double
frontage lotWOShould they be permitted to builtl 15' fromntheir iea.r
lot line even though it rs on a street?
Mr. Tibl ier said that this problem is located within three
blocks. Longdale i a paved s sedale i which leads
him to expect the choose would be to £ace Longdaleot,
front yard/rear yard setback will be decided by the direction of
the existing structures.
. Gosline then discussed the i of mandatory dedication
of park land for subdivisions. There a o pending subdivisions
consrsting of approximately one-hundredeand forty lots.
ock said that we have relatively little undeveloped
land,M particul arly for r sidential subdivision development. The
of dedications that ould be elicited from
developers i eiy limited, antl the r ended the r val of this
f iom the Code VAS a concept this is not practical for oLOngwood.
After discussion, the consensus of the Board was to eliminate
Section 2a-iT.Oa.
. Goslive said that next w til ity i If building a
hou eMin ing subdivision and uif the sewer rs within I50',
yousmust connectt
Tiblier saitl that ntly r antlatory £or
existing single-Family r sidential or duplexes to hook up. It zs
andatory For new residential construction.
osl fine c ted o the parking iequireme nts. Other
cipal c requires dif £erent parking a based on the
intensity oP use. Me suggested that more research be done.
redevelopment for projects in regard Co parking, landscaping, and
ock said that he has hatl little negative response from
davelopersro the landscaping requirements. M t have asked for a
level below nwhich a registered Landscape Architect woultln't be
requiretl to design the landscaping. Presently, it is required by
coae.
After aiaonaaion, the c of ine a ara w s to require
the u of a registered Landscape uArchitect for projects taking
place son identifiable collectors antl arterials.
Me. Goslive explained the "Tree P system. This enhances
the cyst of tree pro and is based o the a unt of shade
ted, en t tree heights.t Specific Language i eeded stating that
both pine t and palm t which don'tsprovide appropriate
shade, are worth less 'tree rpoints" compared to other species.
ock said a decision r eeded o redevelopment projects.
oily, these i rngnstrip c a good location,
butrwith a limited s et They are redeveloping, but don't have
the land t then requi[ed o{{-street parking for today's Code.
r do they have the land to bring their landscaping up t Code.
Sta££ has been meeting with the o er/developer, a empting to
what ns that are possible, wh ther rt be
landscaping or parking1O
After discussion, iL the that staff would
continue meeting avd workingwwith the capplicavts.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further items to be discussed, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:1"1 p.m.
Submitted by,
a Brennan
secretary