LPAMin02-12-86LANG PLANNING AGENCY
February 12, 198fi
The Land Planning Agency Feld it regularly schetlul ed meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the
Longwood City Conmf scion Chambers.
Present: Bernard Linton, chairman
Robert Hanmpna
Herbert Naynie
Bernard Linton
Robert Loch ra ne
chri sti an Nagle, City Planner
Geri Lembri, Dep. City Clerk
1. The mee ti n9 was cal letl to order by Mr. Linton at ]:00 P.M.
2. Approval of Minutes of M1leeti ngs of January 22, 1986 kegul ar Session and Work
Session, January Z9, 1986 Work Session and February 5, 1986 Work Session: Nr.
Linton stated he would like the Minutes of the February 5, 198fi meeting amended tp
reflect that under Item 2, Mr. Nagle had asked Dlr. Linton, the Chairman, to permit
Pfr. McQueeney and Mr. Shoemaker to appear before the LPA and that 11r. Li nion hatl
given pe nni ssi on,for them to appear. Dlr. Loc hrane stated he would like the IAi nu tes
of the februa ry 5, 1966 meeting to reflect that he had stated a conflict of interest
on the project bet n9 discussed by Mr. McQueeney and Mr. Shoemaker as he was the
engineer on the project. Motion by Mr. Haynie, s conded by Dlr. Nic khan, tp
approve the Minutes of the January 22, 1986 Regular Session and Work Session and
January 29. 1986 Work Session as written antl to approve the Minutes of the (ebrua ry 5,
1986 Work Session as amended. 1lotion carried by a unanr moos roll call vote.
3. Discussion of pro posed amendment to Ordinance No. ]3fi, Application Fee Schedule
Hr, gagle stated that proposed Ordinance No. ]53 was being sugges tetl in order to
mend the fee schedules for Arbor Permits. He stated that under existing Ordinance
No. ]36 there wa no fee for an Arbor Pem~it fora residential lot antl a $t OD fee
for co cial ii [es. Mr. Nagle stated the existing fee schedule tlid not address new
es identiat subdivisions, n cial/industrial subdivisions and undeveloped
resf denii al lots. Mr. Nagl ews ug9es led that if the fee schedule was adopted, he
would like to suggest that the monies collected frwn the Arbor Permits be earmarked
for purchase and installation of adtli tional trees in the City. Mr. Linton
s u9gested that the word "delete" be used in lieu pf "strike'. Mr. Korman, City
Attorney was present during this discussion and was questioned as to which word would
be proper and Dlr. Korman stated that "delete" was preferred.
Motion by Mr. Vlickham, s conded by Nr. Naynie, to re mend that proposed Ordinance
Np. J5G be atlppted with modification that the word "delete" be used in lieu of the
word "strike" wherever applicable. Motion ca rrietl by a una ni moos roll call vote.
It was the co of opinion of the Land Planning Agency that the decision on
rmarki nq mom iess ufrpm the Arbor Permit fees be left to the discretion of the city
Lpmmi ssi on.
4. Discussion of r osetl amendment to Ordi na ce No. 495 Definition of Buil din
Sit
Dlr, iVagle exDlai ned that proposed Ordinance No. ]54 was being suggested to amend
the Jeff nitipn of Building Site in Ordinance Np. 495. Mr. flag le sta tetl [he ex sti n9
definition w ri tten with the i t to exclude large power e ants from
be in9 coo ntedsas pervious portion nofn the site. However, it created another probl eni
Land Planning Agency -2- February 12, 1986
n tM1at cross ea men is could be excluded from the boil di nq site and would
therefore not bes incl uded in the ioipervi ous portion of the building site. Mr.
Cochrane questioned how this amendment. if passed, would affect the developers,
Mr. McQueeney and Mr. Shoemaker and the opinion that was rendered that week by
the LPA regarding their proposed Bevel opnien t. He stated that based on what
the LPA had told them last week to no mnend passage of this amendment to
the definition of building site wool Owbeeunfair as they are got nq ahead
with their project based on the CPA's opinion and guidance on the existing
definition of building site.
Mr. Nagle stated M1e would suggest that their request be looked upon favorably
as long as they don't abuse it. Ne stated that when he re a propo setl
project he usually tells the developer, if the project appears sto meet all
requirements, that the project appears to comply with code, however, codes ar
subject to change and that as City Planner he cannot speak for the Lantl Pl anneng
A9 ency or the City Camii ss ion. Ne stated the developer could still present
their plan to the City Conniff scion with this varia tien or when the ortli na nce is
adapted they could request consideration of their proposal. Mr. Haynie
suggested that building setbacks to private ea ements be defined in the
ordinance. Mr. Nagle stated he had explained to hlr. Shoemaker and Dlr. McQueeney
that although they re ved a favorable co us from the LPA they still need
to be prepared if an ordinance is adopted amending the de£i ni ti on of building
site. It was the concensus of opinion of the Land Planning Agency that Dlr.
Shoemaker and Mr. McQueeney be contacted and made aw e of the proposed
ordinance change to the definition of "Building Si tear
Motion by Mr. Haynie, s condetl by Plr. Hann,ond, to re ,end approval to the
City Comm scion of proposed ordinance aniendi nq the defieni ti on of "Building Site".
Motion ca ried by a four to on vote with Mr. Nayni e, Mr. Hanunond, Mr. Linton
and Mr. Loc rane voting aye, and Mr. Wickham voting nay.
5. there were no additional discussion items
6. Meeti nq adjourned at 8:30 P. M.
Geri Zambri, Ueputy City Clerk
Li ty of Longwood, Florida