LPAMin08-29-85LaM Planning A4 ency
Longwood, Florida
August 29, 1996
The Land Planni n9 Agency held its regularly scheduled meeting at ]:00 P.M. in the
l Dogwood City Commission Conference Roan on August 29, 1985:
Present: Robert Hammond Bruce Ball inq er, Overhead Door
Bernard Linton Bab Jones, Parkway University
Emery Meine ke Dick IJil li am s, Wil tlmere Office tenter
David Wickham Don Pflueg er, Wil dmere Office Center
Lhrf stian Na91e, City Planner
Geri Zambri, Dep. City Clerk
Absent: Herbert Haynie
1. the mee ti nq was called to order by Mr. Hamm~nd.
Mr. Na91e stated that sane amendments needed to be made to the landscaping and pa rkings
ec do ns of Ord. 495 and asked that the LPA call a workshop to address these is s.
It was the consensus of opinion of the LPA Lhai a work se on be scheduled forsue
]:30 P.N. on Septe'nber 4, 1985 with a Special Meeting scheduled immediately foil owing
Lhe work sesxign.
2. Site Plan Overhead Door Lo, Developer: Hi-Tech Construction and Design.
Loco Linn: t ss~ de of~ve. Zoning: I-2.
Mr. Linton stated it w s his belief that the Land Planning Aq ency should not pass
' any site plan or any other type of request on to the City Cgmni ssion if the plan/
request was incanple to and wanted each of the applicants to understand that he
would vote aq ai nst plans/requests that were substantially incanpi ete. Mr. Mei ne ke,
Mr. Hammond and Mr, klic kham were in agreanent with Mr. Linton.
Mr. Na91e asked that Fis camnen is dated August 2fi, 1985 be made a part of the record.
and also any other Li ty staff comments be made a part of the record. Mre Nagle
stated that this plan was Phase I1 of the Al pha [ndu s tr ial site plan. Mr. Nagle
stated that Che cmmen is fran the City Engineer and DRM&P were not yet received.
Regarding Item 21 of his comments, Mr. Nagle stated he did not believe different
standards should be used for public and private streets regard inq setback of
but idi n9s and stated he believed this building should be set back a mi nimrm of 25
feet fran the right of way line even though the street was privately owned. He
stated the Lf ty Attorney would need to give an opinion as to whether different
standards could be applied tq public and private streets. Mr. Na91e also questioned
when the s qnd bu it di n9 on the site would be c ns true Led. Mr. Nagle also requested
that the expanse of c e be broken with s e landscaped a Mr. Nagle
s u99ested that a portionrof the parking area bemulched fn li eueof paved ar
Mr. Sal ling er stated he wa not sue of the propo sea used for the future boil di nq
and stated it probably would not be constructed for at least one year. He stated
he did not object to setti rg the building back twenty-five feet fran the right of
way line as long ax he could put his septic system in the setback area. Mr.
Na91e stated that if the future bu it di n9 wa not stated to be built for a least
a year, that the site plan approval should not consider the future buildi n9 and
Y that when Che s and building w s proposed, that it would require a rate
ite plan aDProval. Mr. Nagle su9q es Led that the revised site Dlan shown the
- following: eliminate future building fron site plan, m e proposed boil tli ng
back another 20 feet, loco to septic system in front of proposed building, show
re detailed landscaping on plan, require a m of se en Darki ng spaces to
be paved, balance of required parki nq to be mulched, with wheel stops usi n9 rail-
road tf es.
Land pla nni n9 Agency -2- August 29, 7985
Ho tlan by Mr. Wickham, seconded by Nr. Me ineke, to recpmrend to the L1ty Lanmissf on
Yhat the Overhead Door site plan be re,j ec ted a submitted and that tFe owner/ '~
developer res utmi[ a revised site plan based upon conanen is sudni tied this evening, ' '
en is of City Planner, DRMBP and Lity Engineer and that the revised site plan
here s utmitted to the Land Planning Agency for reconrnentlation. Mr. ball in9er asked
if the plan could be resulani tied for the Septanber 25 meeting. He was advised that
if the re iced plan was sudni tied a m of 15 days gr or to [he September 25
meeting, it would be placed on the aq endau Motf on carried by a unanimous roll call
vote.
3. Site Plan~- Par kwa Dn~iv ers_i ty. Developer: Robert Porter, Parkway Nniv. Corp.
Loco tr on: Lot 1' 3, Florida Central Coimnerce Park. Zoni nq I-2.
Mr. Nagle asked that his comments be made a part of the record. He stated the site
very Feavily treed and that a large retention ar as located on the site.
He sas ked that the City Engineer check the drainage system in the Park to as
that the system is working properly as all of the retention ponds on the si tese
onstructed in the Dark are all full of water. Mr. Nagle also requested arbor
i nfonna ti on on the proposed site, s e of trees, location, trees to be saved, etc.
Mr. Nagle stated [hat this site housed a large water retention ar a which is shared
by other sites in the park and asked that the developer of Lot 13es how what percentage
of this retention ar s bet nq considered open sn Mr. Nartonond sta tetl M1e did
not believe there wawa dequa to tarot nq ar n then parki ng lots to maneuver large
tractor trailers. 11r. Nagle asked the developer Lo indicate types of use of the
bu ild i n9, percentages of office and warehousing. The developer stated that was
unknown at present and that the ordinance gu idel roes were unclear. Mr. Ilickham
stated that a "w arfo was probably the best 9uidel ine to us Mr.
Ilamnond asked howrtheedevel open could gate septic tank permit without giving the
Neal ih 0eparbnent specific use 0f the building. Mr, Nagle also requested that the
handicapped ramps be shown on the plan, The developer stated he would pu[ the
ramps on side and the stairs on the other side of the entrances. the developer
stated he had talked extensively with DRMBP and stated they Fel ieved they had co -
plied with all the requests of DRMBP. The developer questioned what portion ofm
the pond could be considered open space. The Land Planning Agency suggested that
only tFe portion of the pond which is used by the subject site could be counted
as open space. The LPA also s qg es tetl that tenpprary septic be sFOwn on the site.
Motion by Mr. Mei neke, seconded by Mr. Wickham, to re nunend disapproval to the
City Commission of the Parkway Dniversi ty as svbmi tied and that revi setl plans be
esubni tied to incl vde all c mnents of staff, DRMBP, City Enq ineer, and the Land
Pla nnin9 Agency and that the revised plans be resubni tied to the Land Planning
Agency for recanmendation. Motion carried by a unanr mous roll call vote.
4. Site Plan - Wildmere Office Le nter. Developer: Stonewood Dev elopnent, inc.
Location: Si tua tetl between it tlmere ve. and Overstreet, approx. 250 feet east of
HwY. 42]. Zoning C-2.
Mr. Nagle asked Fat Fis commnents dated August 26, 1985 be made a part of the
cord. Regardi n9 Iten 4, of Mr. Nagl e's canments, Mr. Wf l ti ams stated he had
put money in a few years ago for the proposed paving of Overstreet however
M1e fn[ended tospave Overstreet fran Hwy. 42] to the west side of the entrance to
his project in addition to the es 0nfes. I4r. Nagle ques tion etl the time frame
for the construction and stated the site Dian was only valid for one yea r. l{e
stated tFat if the c ns traction would possibly a end o e year that the
developer migF[ c si der reques king a three yearx time pert odmfor whicF the ite '~
plan would be val ~d however based on the time allowed, a sudnitgl would have
to be made if construction was not started within the timeeper iqd ail pied by the
City Lomni ssi on. Mr. Nagle asked whether the General Notes or the Special notes
re the controlling notes. Mr. Mei neke questioned secondary means of egress Lo
the second story. Mr. 4li ilfams stated that information would be on the construction
drawl n9 s.Mr. Nagle stated building elevations should reflect the site plan as shown.
Land Planning Aqency -3- August 29, 1985
~ Mr. Nagle also stated that loath nq spaces, handicapped spaces, etc.n ed ed to be
shown on plan. Mr. Nagle also questioned whether one septic tank would be
svffic ten t. Mr. Williams stated possibly two. Mr. Nagle stated that the Health
Department should be consulted prior to the site plan submittal i order that the
site plan properly depf cts the s and location pf the septic tank. Mr. Hanmond
stated that Overstreet has a drat nape problem no and that problem needs to be
addressed to as re that partial pavi nq of the street would not canpou nd the
existing probl anu
Motion by Mr. Linton, s conded by Mr. Wickham, to re ommend di SaDproval to the
City Commission of the Vlil d,nere Office Center site Dian due to missing in£anna ti on
and ne sary co rections needed and that the revised plan be res udni tted, to
'ncl vdeeall staff cmments and eng i neeri nq co cents, to the Land Planning A9 ency
for re mmendation. Mr. Wickham mentioned sane of the itans missing, i arbor
ordinance survey, floor elevations, irrigation system, etc. Mr. Wickham suggested
[hat n irrigation systen be fncl uded as the City ordinance can danantl reDl acement
of all landscape materials and ca request a one year bond for sa Mr. Williams
s to tetl he was still waiting for camnents fran OPM&P and the City Engf neer and
indicated that he was dispi eased with the amount of time it has taken for the
revs ewz to be completed. Motion carri etl by a una nlmous roll call vote.
5. Meeting adjourned at approxfma tely 9:30 P.M
Geri Zambri, pep. City Clerk
City of Longwood, Florida