LPAMin11-25-86LAND PLANNING AGENCY
Longwood, Florida
November 25, 19D6
Present: Derma rd Linton, Cha i,inan Philip is ti ch - Commerce
Robert Hammond
Herbert Haynie Utilities [n[.
Mr. & Mrs. Lharl es Comeau -
Lhristian Nagle, cf ty Planner California Square
Deri lamb ri, Deputy Li ty Ll erk
Absent: Robert Loch tone (excused)
David Wickham (excused)
t. The mee tf n9 was called to order at 1:00 PI1 by Mr. Li pion.
2. ADProval of Ni mutes: Motion by Mr. Nanniond, s conded by Mr. Haynie, to approve
the Minutes of November 12, 1966. M¢tipn carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
3. Site Plan - Commerce Utilities, (nc. Wastewater Treatment Plant - Owner: Park
Industrial Venture. ADPl ica n t: Ann Swee ti n9-Commerce Utilities, Inc. Location:
Florida Central Commerce Park. Zpni n9: [-2.
Mr, iati ch asked if he could address each of Mr. Na91 e's torments on November 19,
1966 letter and was permitted by the LPA to proceed.
Mr. is ti ch stated: re9a rdi ng Item 1, a s to this site is by way of an ea -
ment 50 feet in width extending fromethe west property line of the site {o
Ni ngo frail. I1r. Tatich stated they objected tp paving this ac it wa
not a Li ty right of way and would prefer the ac s to be stabil izedalime rock
bus Ilr. Tatich further stated Chat this a pad lies beb,een two
industrial sites, however, neither u e the e ent £or a o their sites.
Stem 2, Mr. Nagle has been Furnishedsa copy ofethe r corded¢road ac en t.
Stem 3, Commerce Utilities agrees tp locate the landscape buffer areas ono the
outside of the chain link fence. Item 4, Commerce Utilities agrees to the north
landscape buffer being five feet in width. Item 5, Conone rte Utilities agrees
to providing the 8 required trees, each a m of 10 feet in height. Item 6,
indicated pn the re sed pl un dated 11-12nefiuon page 9 of 12. Item Z,
Commerce Utf li ties understands that site Plan approval woultl be subject to
the acceptance by the City pf a utility franchise a9 reenent.
Regarding Item 8. P1r. Linton stated it was antlers tood that these legal require-
ments must be followed. Regarding Item 9, the LPA recommended no additional
requirements.
Re9a rtli ng Mr. Fl orio's letter tla ted tVOVember 5, 1906, M1lr. Tatich had the following
omen ts: Item 1, had previp usly been discussed and is a legal i e which will
need to be resolved. Item 2, i indicated on sed plans, payes2u Item 3
and Item 4, adtl Tess ed in Mr. Ti blier's letter dated 11-10-8fi antl have been
taken c of and indicated o sed plans. Item 5, i 'informative
s to tement¢a nd is re9 ul ato rynrequirement which must be conipl fed wi [h prior to
being issued a permit or a L.O. Its, 1, under Drai naye, shown on setl
plans. Item 2, regulatory requirement. Item 1 under Paving and Parking, and
a legal i ue discussed earlier. Item 2, egul story requi rcment. Item 1,
under General sSi to Comments, has been provided. Item 2, is a statement of
r, is ti ch stated he hoped that the absence of Mr. Fl on o's rr,ents on the
revssetl plan would not hold uP the project and asked that th ecpl ans be
Land Planning Agency -2- November 25, 1986
recommended for approval subject to the I1-5-86 comnen is bei n9 taken care of.
Motion by Mr. Haynie, s tootled b Mr. Hann~ond, to re lend a 1
Y comet pproval of the
Commerce Utilities, Ince site plan wf th the sti pvla ti on that 11 of the items
discussed be resolved prior to 9oi ng to Li ty Conmi ssi on, including Hr, Fl or io's
w letter subsequent to November 5, 1986. Motion carried by a una ni pious
roll call vote.
4. Site Plan -California Square -Charles Comeau. Location: N side of Lh arch
Avenue, inmetli ately west of Long John Silvers Restaurant. Zoning C-3.
Mr. Nagle explained the request stating the applicant was asking for a
eval idation of an expired approved site plan, approved 3-13-85. Ilr. Hammond
stated he believed it was ne sa ry to re ew the plan carefully due to
isti n9 flooding condi HOnsctn tfie area. Va Mr. Linton ste ted he did not bet ieve
the plan should be revalidated due Co staff comments. Mr. Haynie stated he
believed the drainage should be co rected and the plan updated, but the
applicant should not be made to us registered engi peer due to the fact that
the original plan was approved with an architect's seal. He stated be believed
it would be pl aci n9 a financial hardship on the applicant to require him to dD
Mr. Linton stated that the cu rent codes required the plans be sealed by
oregistered engineer and sw9g es ted asking the Li ty Attorney's opinion as to
whether the plans could be co nsideretl with an architect's seal consi Jeri n9
the circumstances.
Motion by Mr. I{ayni e, seconded by Mr. Hammond, to re nmend consideration be
9i ven to revalidating the plan provided the applicant updates the plan to ~
comply with cu rent codes and also to re mend that the applicant be alt owed
to submit the plans with a rchi tect's seal, subject to the City Attorney
ruling on the legality of the plans bei nq submitted with an architect's s al,
prf or to gof nq to Li ty Commission. lotion carried by a unanimous roll call
vote.
5. Additional Discussion Items.
There were no atldi tional discussion items.
6. Adjourn.
Geri Zamb ri, Deputy Li ty Clerk
City of Longwood, Florida