LPAMin09-11-85WSLANG PLANN [NG
AGENCY Septeaber 11, 7985
~ Land Pl enni ng Agency amendments and 9dd itlons to work session minutes of 6eptenber 4,
1985.
201,1 Impervious Surface Area
Add as last sentence in paragraph:
Unpaved parking areas shall also be impervious except those designated for occa sronai
parking only.
Charge word "surface" to "site" throughout paragraph.
504.4.X Charge the word "surface" to "site" in subtitle.
,1, third line, thirtl word should be "or.
~Oi,ti: REV ELOPII[NT OR TO OEV ELOP - third line, fourth word
ena nge word "two" to "three'
201.1, WATERS - eliminate the words "Beni nole Lounty Ordinance 80-35
Sections 201,1 correct "IRS" to Read"1 SR"
Sec tf ons 501 .3.A, 502.3. A., 503.3.A., 505.3.0 506.3. A.9, 50I.3.A$ 508.3.A$
509.3.A.8., 610.3.A. Correct word "Site" to read "Surface".
802.1 .C. Add after new paragraph No. 2 (sc hena tic shown as Exhibit A) the following:
The required two feet overhang space adjacent to each parking stall may be landscaped
with suitable ground cover or grass but such overha~ a shall not be included
rn the required open space areas far each Oevel ppment sites
R02.i.C. para9ra ph newly named No. 1, delete first sentence and replace with the
wing: "Off street parking a s wf th mui tf pie bay parking lots shall M1ave a
landscaped interior and end isiandsain conformance with the diagram shown below and
islands shall be a minimum of 6 feet fn width and interior landscaping fsiands
shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Ali islands shall include a minimum of
two (2) trees per island in conformance with Section 803.3.A.- TREES .
61I .2.A.R.6. Delete sentence and re0l ace with the foil owl ng paragraphs.
b. Vlheei stops or curbs are required on ail parking spaces with the exception of
parail ei parking.
Wheel stops shall be constructed and reinforced with two steel rebars per stop,
um of 5/8" fn diameter, sunk 18" through wheel stops antl ground below.
(NOterSec tion 802.1 .C.2., LANOSLAP ING INTERIOR PARKING AREAS.)
61I.2.A.5. Oel ete addition after paragraph two as previ ovsly recmmended and insert
the following: total Paved
Vlidth of Len9 th parking Stall length
Parking Stall Parbinp Stall Wheel Stop Curb
Standard Bay g' or 70' 20' lII' 20 '
Oimensi on
nandica peed Bay 12' 20' 18' 20'
Wor Y. sf on Amendments -2- September 11, 1985
and Aadi Lions
Htltl the following sta tenent after graph.
Parail el parking shall be a'mi nimNn of 9' wide by 24' in length.
61I.2.A.I. Oel ete ail of ftem ], and replace with the foilowi n9:
Access Oimen sign Guidelines
Oi mension at Street:
Width (in feet)* Turn Radius (in feet)
Mi nimpm (one-way) 18 Hi nimuni- X010'
Minimum (two-way) 25 Maximum 30
Maxim~en
Oimens in ns on Internal Pri veways:
4lid th (in feet)* Turn Radius (in feet)
Minimum (one-way) 18 Mf nimmn 10
Mi nimwn (two-way) 26 Maximum 30
Maximum 33
*Measured along right-of-way line at in er limit of curbed radius seep or
between radius and n r edge of curbed island at least (60) square feet in
area. The min imun width aDPli es principally to one-way drives.
LAND PLANNI N6 AGENCY
Septa~iber 11, 1905
The Land Planning Agency held its regularly schedul etl meetii rrcl at Z:30 P.M. on
September 11, 1985 in the Longwood City Canmi ssion Chambers:
Present: Bernard Linton Kenneth Martin and Kenneth Ehlers,
Fmery Meineke Florida Central Commerce Point
David Vlic kham pannie Lewis and eonald Knee,
Lhri sti an Nagle, City Planner Lewis Conditional Use Request
Geri Zambri, Deputy City Clerk .Cohn and Joe Sutherland, Palmetto
eon a; ng
Absent: Ne rbert Haynie, Chairman Ed Ili lcar sky, Jae 5teenbeke and Adam
Robert Hammond Butch, 5 R W Building
i. The meeti ny was called to order at ]:3D P.N, by Mr. Linton in Mr. Haynie's
2. Approval of Minutes of August 2], August 28, and August 29, 1985 Meetings:
Motion by Mr. Meineke, seconded by Mr. Wickham to approve the August 2], 1985,
Avg vst 28, 1985 and Aug ust 29, 1985 Hf notes, with the exception of two items,
rect the Aug ust 2], 1985 minutes to read specially scheduled meeti nq aM the
August 28, 1985 minutes to read specially scheduled meeti ny in lieu of re9 ul arly
scheduled meeting. Motion carried by a unanimous x011 call vote.
3. Site Plan - Florida Central Commerce Point, A Le ndani ni um. Developer: Ken
Ma rti min Constrvc t, Doti on, [nc.. ocati on: lots 6, an Florida Central Commerce
Park. Zoning: 1-2.
Mr. fla9le asked that his comments dated, September 6, 1985, City Engi peer's comments
dated September 9, 1985, pRM&P Gunmen is tla tea September 6, 1985, Police, Fire and
lJa ter pepa r tment comet also be made a part of the record. Mr. Nagle sta tetl
that most of the cortmen is on his letter we and could be easily co ec tea
er ifi ed by the applicant or his e ,arMrr Nagle requested that the developer
~utxait a tree survey as per the Li ty'syArbor Ordinance. Mr. Nagle stated that sr
of the parki n9 spaces ar only 18 feet in len9 th. He stated the developer could,me
retain the 18' spaces prov id etl the wheel stop or curb is set at 18' with a 2' n
hang, but that the o erFa n9 c no[ intrude into required landscape a Iir.Ve
Naqie stated he believed the applfcant had a letter from the adjacent property
er for permission to install the tanporary septic tank. Mr. Nagle stated he
~oultl like to amend the re anmenda tion stated in his September 6, 1985 letter and
ommend that the LPA recommend that the site plan be approved conditional upon
eeti nq all c ents of staff be inq complied with and that the plan be r anded
back to staff only prior to being subni tted to the City Commission far final
approval. Mr. Wickham su9q es tea that the enyi peer check his qe me try On the plan
s there appeared to be a mathematical e Mr. IJi ckham also mentioned that
OER permits for s water and water lineoex tensf ons w eetled. Mr. Wickham
asked what the ground water iev els were due to the fact Chat all the retention
ponds in the park were filled to the top. Mr. Nagle stated he had asked ORMRP
to check the master drai na9e calculations for the Park. Mr. Vli ckham sta tetl the
plan did not meet land scapi n9 cedes for the Li ty. Flr, ili ckham further questioned
the type of trash enclosure, whether there would be an irrigation system. Mr.
Ken Martin, ow stated there would be three feet of fill on the site and
ail of the treesrexi sti ng on the site would be lost. He stated the dumps ters
wi)1 be enclosed with block and stucco, a autana tic sprinkler system would be
ns tail ed for irrigation and further stated that he wa a all the items on
the check list could be accomplished. Mr. Martin asked for clarification on
location of the main water s e lines and fire s and also how many meters
need to be installed, lie Fur iher stated that this project was a condominium and
Land Planni nq Agency -2- September 11, 1905
the condominium association would pay the water bills. Nr. Martin requested that 1
he be permitted to have on meter per building rather than one per unft as there
w old be 29 units for the three buildings. Ne stated that ha sea on other projects -
of this type that he has developed, water usage fs very low and he did not believe
29 individual meters we sary. Mr. Na91e stated Li ty ordinance required o
meter par nn;t and tnatrnenwo~ia nave to d; acq:a tnat ;s w; to the c; ty comm;siien.
Mr. Nagle stated that the condomini mn documents had beensre ewed Y. appeare~cceptable
to the City Attorney. Mr. Lli ckham stated he believe that avtree survey should
be submitted i order for the City to re ew whi cM1 trees would be saved, etc. and
would allow the City Lo require replacement on a ratio of up to two to one.
Motion by Mr. Wickham, s conded by Mr. Metneke to re omnend disapproval to the City
Comni scion of the Florida Central Commerce Point site plan as submitted due to
lack of submittal requirements and that the required cha n9 es and co rec tioni be
es ubmi tted to the Land Pl anni nq Agency to include co menu of Ci tyrs toff and
comments of the Land Planning Agency. Motion carri edmby a una ni moos roll call vote.
4. Conditional Use Request for Automobi le Deal eershi p, Used Car Sales. Owner/
A-P~_LCant;..... fla.0nre LewT-mil on: Z$i wN A y. 1y-91: ~!.
Mr. Nagle asked that his commen is dated September 6, 1985 be made a part of the
cord. Mr. Naq le stated that under the present ordinance there ar er to in
el omen is of the property that ar conforming, i width of driveway
and lack of tandscapi ng and based onn the cha nqe in on the Droperty from a
restaurant, the City Canmi ssio n, could possibly require conditions for the ne
being requested to comply with the zoni n9 ordinance. However, he further sta tede
this might be difficult to do given the constraints of the property size, etc. "•
and that an attorney's opinion was necessary re9ardi n9 these fssues.
Mr. Wickham Stated that the Cf ty code requires pavi n9 of display ar and stated
this would then ra a question as to storm drat nape and if the use was granted
a site O1 an would then be required.
Mr. Don Knee prospective purchaser of property stated he would be storf n9 in r up to
ten ca pn the property and would have no a than five cars for display in
the front. He further stated that the business wa ai my wholesaling of ca
with very tittle retail sales and that there wool ds be no repair or detail ingron
the site. Mr. Wickham reminded Mr. Knee that he must conform to Section 600 of
Ordinance No. 495 regarding regulations for vehicle sales and that he miq ht
nsider porous pavi nq black for any ne sary paving required. Mr. Knee stated
the proposed schematic indicated land scapin9 a required by ordinance with the
xcep Lion of land s cap in9 on the south propertysl ine. He also stated he would
redraw the plan to show where the septic td nk is located.
Motion by Mr. Wickham, s conded by Mr. Neineke to re onvnend approval of the
ondi ti gnal a with tneesti pul ation that all required items be added n ected
on the plans and be submitted back to staff prior to subni ttal to the City Lommi scion.
Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
5. Site Plan - Palmetto Boil di nG. Developer: Sutherland Construction. Coca tl on:
Lots an own o gn9woo o - .
Mr. Na91e asked that his c s dated Septembern6,~ 1985, City En9i peer's c ents ~
dated September 5, 1985, pRME,Pncwmnents dated September fi, 1985, Water Dept. comments
dated B-29-b5, Fire Dept. coPmenis da tetl Auq ust 16, 1985 and Police Depi, comments
be made a part of the record.
Land Pi anni nq Pgency -3- September ii, 1985
Mr. Nagle stated some of his co me is were minor, others were not. He stated there
a tack of adequate drai na9em information and calculations and said the ou tfall
from the retention ar not shown on the plan. Mr. Plag le further sta tetl that
the parking space closesta to the dumps ter area does not have atlequa to turning
ea due to the location of the dumps ter. Mr. flagie re onmendetl disapproval of the
site plan a submitted due tq lack of information and re omnended that the plan
be co rected and resod. fitted to the Land Pl anni nq Ag encyepri or to being submitted
to the City Comm ssion.
Mr. Wickham questioned the slopes on the retention ponds, soil beari n95, driveway
Swale grades. landscaping, u n adjacent properties, arbor ordinance requirements,
and asked that the Bevel opersrecheck plans and cgnply with DRM&P comments. Nr.
Linton stated that John Sutherland has developed quite a number of buildings in
Longwood and believed he would canply with what is bei n9 required. Mr. Nagle also
requested that proposed and existing e men is he shown on the plan. Width of
drive way was discussed and Mr. Nagle sugq ested that the developer widen Lo the
regvi red 25' by taking one foot of land from the landscape buffer and reduce the
buffer to four feet. Mr. Wickham suggested that the area in front of the doors
be striped to indi ca [e "Fire Lane'.
Motion by Mr. Mei neke to re onmend approval to City Comni ss ion of the Palmetto
Boil di n9 Site Plan subject Yo all staff comments being added or rected on the
plans and that the site plan be remanded back to staff only pri or to submittal to
Li ty Comm Mr. Linton passed the gavel ands onded the motion. Mr. Wickham
stated hea had co s regarding the retention ar aeCpar ki ng, retention calculations,
arbor ordinance requirements, etc. Mr. Linton sta tetl he believed John Sutherland
had a good background in building in the City and believed that the comments could
be addressed by Mr, Sutherland through the City Staff. Mr. Na97e stated he believed
the plan was lacking too much inform tf on and that therE were swn major <mments
that needed to be addressed. Motion carr ietl by a two to one voteewi th Mr. Mei neke
and Mr. Linton voting aye, and Mr. Wickham voting nay.
6. Site P1 anSi to P1 an ~5 W__W___B_u_i_lding. Location: N side of SR 434, VI of Grant Str eat.
Deve opera &1 5 W Ni tchens, Zoni nq L-2.
Mr. Nagle stated that the developer's staff and engineers have done a real good ,cob
getting the requested co ec tions cmipl eted. Mr. Ilagle asked [hat his comments
dated September 6, 1985 rbe made a part of the record. He further sta tetl that the
final c ments from the City Engineer would be forthcoming and his co cents wonid
be subject to the applicant givi nq a drainage ea ement due tq the relocation of
the existing ditch on the property, Mr. Nagle further stated that the applicant's
attorney is drawing up a legal agreement for this ea ement and will be accepted
by the City subject to the Li ty Attorney's approval .s Ptr. Nagle also stated that
sary permits from DER and OOT ar required. Mr. Nagle questioned the si e of
trees to be placed on site. Mr. Wickham stated the LPA had requested trees 10 feet
in heiq ht. Mr. Steenbeck agreed tq install trees 10 feet in height.
Motion by Mr. Wickham, 5 conded by Mr. Mein eke, to re mnend approval to the Li ty
Commission of the S&VI Site Plan as submitted incl udi nq comnen is of City staff as
noted being c ec ted before being submitted to City Conmissi on and that alt trees
placed on property be a minimum of 10 feet in he i9 h t. Motion carried by a
unanimous roll call vote.
].. Discussion. Autana tic di sa royal of tlevelo ent tans by LPA. Itr. Ilagle stated
tle ton previous occasions there has been discussion reg ar ng amendment of zoning
ordinance to allow for automatic disapproval of any development plans that have
ten or substantial adverse comments. He stated this would discourage the
a ppl ica ntrfron reg ues ti n9 LPA review when his plan was substantially incon,pl ete.
Land Ple nni ng RGency -4- Septanber 11, 1986
Mr. Nagle explained if it was stated in the ordinance, it would give the LPq the
right to reject any plans and prior to submittal to LPA it would give staff the
ability Co discourage any applicant Fran requesti n9 LPA review based on the
ability of the LPA to reject the plan.
Motion by Mr. Ni ckham, s cond ed by I1 r. Mei ne ke, that an ~endment or Ordinance flo.
495 be presented to the City Commission re iendin9 thatn the LPA be given the
authority to reject any si te'pl ans or subd i~i~si on plats that lack eight or more
of the required items listed in Ordinance No. 495 or tM1e submittal cM1eck list.
Motion carried by a una nlmous rolt call vote.
It was the concen sus of opinion of the Land Pl anni n9 Agency that the Minu [es of
Septenber 4, 1985 and co ec do ns hereto attached dated Septmber il, 1985 be
forwarded to the City Commission as amendnents to Ordinance No. 495.
Geri ]ambr 1, Deputy City Clerk
City of LotLgwopd, P1 on da