Loading...
LPA10-12-11Min CI'T'Y OF LONGWOOD Land Planning Agency Minutes CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS October 12, 2011- 7:00 P.M. 175 W. Warren Avenue Longwood, FL 32750 ATTENDANCE BOARD: STAFF: Bruce E. Noyes, Chair Sheryl L. Bower, AICP, Director BrIa.n Fiore, Vice -Chair Chris Kintner, AICP, Planner Judv Putz, Member Giselle Gonzalez, Recording Secretary Robin Thorn, Member John R. Prince Member 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR A. Regular Meeting July 13, 2011 Member Putz indicated that she would like to move to approve the July 13` 2011 minutes as submitted. Seconded by Vice - Chair Fiore and carried by a unanimous voice call and vote. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chair Noyes moved to close Public Comment section. Seconded by Member Prince and carried by a unanimous voice call and vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. LDCA 02 -1.1 Longwood Development Code Amendment Ordinance 11 -1976 An Ordinance Of The City Of Longwood, Florida, Amending The Longwood :Development Code Article I General Provisions, Article II Land Use And Overlay Districts, Article III Development Design Standards, Article V Supplemental Standards, Article VI Signs, Article IX Hardship Relief, Article X Administration, The Longwood Design Guidebook, And The Historic District Code Book, To Allow For Community Gardens In The Historic District, And Streamline And Clarify Existing Development Processes; Providing For Conflicts, Codification, Severability And Effective Date. Ms. Bower explained that the proposed ordinance clarifies existing regulations and also allows for community gardens in the Historic District. Ms. Bower asked the Board if they liked the new format of the staff report. Board members indicated they found the annotations very helpful. Mr. Kintner explained that this ordinance provides cleanup language in the sections of the Longwood Development Code which refer to landscaping, color palette, parking, accessory structures, signs and administrative waiver. Also the proposed ordinance clarifies and adds language to the Longwood Design Guidebook and the Historic District Codebook to address staff - identified issues. Chair Noyes indicated that since there was no one present to speak in favor or against the item, he would like to move to close the public hearing section. Seconded by Member Putz and carried by a unanimous voice call and vole. Member Putz pointed out to section 3.2.3.D.2.a and asked if the language "a maximum of three (3) colors" would allow customers to use less than three colors. Mr. Kintner indicated that was correct. Customers would be allowed to use less than three colors. Member Putz indicated she called Ms. Bower in the afternoon to discuss the color palette. Member Putz stated that as a business owner and as a member involved in the Private Business Association, she hears a lot of complaints. A large portion of those complaints revolve around restrictive color schemes. Member Putz pointed out that these restrictions are not helping the City of Longwood in attracting new businesses. Staff presented to the Board Members the color palette for non - residential properties and indicated that the Historic District Codebook has its own separate color palette. Member Putz pointed out she did not like the idea of having a color palette. Member indicated she agrees with the language that states high - intensity primary colors, electric, neon, fluorescent, metallic colors and black should not be allowed. Member Putz asked Staff why was a color palette needed if the section clearly states what is allowed and what is not allowed. Ms. Bower explained that a customer can choose any color. However, if they choose a color from the color palette, there will be no fee and the review process will be a little quicker. Member Putz asked Staff why was the color palette needed. Ms. Bower indicated that because at some point the City Commission approved that color palette. Member Putz stated that the City Commission could also get rid of the color palette. Member Putz indicated that business owners should be given more credit for having good sense in picking the colors they want to paint their buildings. If the City has already set the standards of what is allowed and what is not allowed, what more do we need. Chair Noyes noted that character was needed. We are guided by a City Commission that has a vision for our community and wants to set a development standard. Chair Noyes stated that color palettes might help prevent people from using colors that do not go with the character of Longwood. Chair Noyes indicated there are people who believe they need to do whatever it takes to make their business stand out. Member Putz stated she considers that over regulation. Member Putz pointed out that when she looks at the main corridors of Longwood and sees abandoned property after abandoned property, she starts to understand why businesses are leaving Longwood and going to other cities. Chair Noyes asked Member Putz if she thought the color palette was keeping businesses from coming into Longwood or the reason why businesses were leaving Longwood. Member Putz stated she thinks it is over regulation. If the City wants to attract businesses, then it should be as regulation free as possible. Unfortunately, this is not something Longwood has been known for. Vice Chair Fiore asked Staff if a customer picked a color from the approved color palette, there will be no review fee. However, if the customer wanted a different color they would need to pay a review fee. Ms. Bower indicated that was correct. Vice Chair Fiore asked Staff how much would be the review fee. Ms. Bower stated that the review fee was twenty five dollars. Member 'Thorn asked Staff who made the determination of approval. Ms. Bower explained that Staff makes the determination based on the color palette. Vice Chair Fiore asked Staff if they approved anything that was not part of the color palette. Ms. Bower indicated that if a customer picked a color that was close to one on the color palette, Staff would work with the customer. Mr. Kintner indicated that customers can color match. Member Putz asked Staff how many paint applications have been turned down because of inappropriate color choices. Mr. Kintner indicated that customers usually look at the color palette first and choose a color from there. Mr. Kintner indicated that before the biggest issue Staff encountered was with corporate colors. However, this no longer is an issue because about a year ago the City Commission approved language which allowed corporate colors to be up to twenty percent of the total square footage of any one building fagade. Vice Chair Fiore pointed out that he would not be opposed to getting rid of the color palette. Member Putz stated she believed there still needs to be a review process and keep the application documents on file,. In addition, Member Putz noted she could live with the fact of having a color palette but she was opposed to charging a paint application review fee. Ms. Bower explained that Staff not only reviews applications but also conducts inspections. Ms. Bower indicated that if Staff did not have to review or inspect, she would not be opposed to removing the fee. Member Putz indicated that the problem was the inconsistency. If the customer chooses a color from the color palette then the fee will be waived. However if the customer wants a different color that is not on the color palette, their a fee will be charged. Ms. Bower explained that waiving the fee was an incentive. Member Thorn stated if a twenty five dollar fee was going to keep a business from moving into Longwood, what were the chances of that business actually succeeding. Member Putz explained that the fee was also for repainting. Member Prince indicated that it is necessary to keep the process flexible. Chair Noyes stated that having a color palette will serve as guidance. Member Putz explained she does not like the process because it seems like a double standard. If a customer chooses a color from the palette, the customer will be given an over the counter approval and will not be charged a fee. However, if the customer would like to do something a bit more individual and not choose a color from the color palette, then the application will need to go through a review process and a fee will be charged. Ms. Bower asked the Board if they would prefer everyone to pay a fee. Chair Noyes indicated he agrees with Member Putz about the fee aspect because it does not seem fair. However, Chair Noyes stated he believes having a color palette is important because it serves as guidance. In addition, there is flexibility in the process because customers do not have to choose a color from the color palette. Customers are allowed to pick the colors they want as long as they follow the guidelines. Member Thom noted he is not in favor of charging a fee. However, he understands there are working hours involved in reviewing a color that is not part of the color palette. Chair Noyes stated it was part of the job description. Vice Chair Fiore indicated that for the sake of consistency everyone could be charged a fee. Member Putz stated the fee could be the same for everyone. If customers choose a color from the color palette then Staff will give an over the counter approval. However, if the customer would like to do their own individual color scheme, they will have to submit their colors for Staff's review. Ms. Bower pointed out that unless Staff is really busy, most of the paint permits are processed over the counter. Member Thorn indicated he does not want the process to seem like businesses are being nickeled and dimed. When a small business comes into Longwood and decides to paint their building they are confronted with the situation that they need to pay a fee in order to be able to repaint their building. Chair Noyes indicated he agreed with Member Thorn. Chair Noyes asked Staff if there was a fee to repaint a building. Staff indicated that there was a fee. Ms. Bower pointed out she would not have a problem if the Board would like to recommend that the fees be waived if a customer, due to maintenance issues, would like to repaint their building with the exact same colors. Member Putz indicated she agreed with Mr. Thorn and does not like the idea of asking new businesses to pay a fee to repaint their building. Member Putz stated she would agree with not charging a fee for either using a color from the color palette or picking a different color. Member Prince indicated he also agrees with not charging a fee. Member Putz stated she would be comfortable keeping the color palette but removing the fees. Ms. Bower asked if that meant customers would only be able to choose a color from the color palette. Member Putz indicated that customers do not have to pick a color from the color palette. They can bring in their own colors and submit them for review. Chair Noyes asked. Ms. Bower if she felt the twenty five dollar fee was justified. Ms. Bower explained that the fee was justified. The fee charged was for the review and inspection process. Member Thorn pointed out that the color palette was a good reference point so it should be kept. Member Putz noted that in a time when businesses are struggling and when there are hardly any new businesses opening, waiving a fee would be a good incentive. Chair Noyes indicated he agreed. Chair Noyes asked the Board if they had any other questions regarding the Staff Report. Ms. Bower explained to the Board that Mr. Roy had applied for a variance on a property located in the Downtown Historic District. Staff was looking into reducing the side yard setback requirements for mixed use lots in the Historic District and wanted to ask the Board if they had a problem with reducing the setback to five feet. Member Putz stated she sees no problem with reducing the side yard setback requirements for mixed use lots in the Historic. District to five feet. Member Putz indicated that when she built her house thirteen years ago the setbacks used to be five feet. Ms. Bower asked if the Board would allow five feet on both sides. Vice Chair Fiore indicated that for consistency it would be better to keep it five feet on both sides. Board Members agreed. Vice Chair Fiore pointed out to section 3.5.3. which refers to General landscaping requirements and asked if plans are now required to be prepared by a landscape architect or a professional engineer. Mr. Kintner explained that it was already a requirement and pointed out to section 3.5.3.C.1 which states that landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. Mr. Kintner also explained that the type of plans that would be prepared under this section would have to be prepared by a professional engineer or a landscape architect. Vice Chair Fiore indicated he understood. Member Putz pointed out to section 3.5.3.B.1. on page 9 of 29 and asked if Staff could explain the section further. Mr. Kintner explained that the section is mainly stating that if site conditions do not allow for the installation of canopy trees in the front perimeter landscape areas, the Conununity Development Services Director may allow a substitution of canopy trees with smaller trees. Mr. Kintner pointed out that he will work on clearing up the first sentence "A front perimeter landscape area is Buffer A ". Mr. Kintner explained that in the landscape section there are four different types of buffers A, B, C and D. As the letters get higher, there are more trees and bushes required. Buffer A is the lowest one, it is just enough to ensure that the parking is screened. Vice Chair Fiore pointed out to section 3.6.1 and noted that Staff was proposing to delete subsection 5. Vice Chair Fiore noted that comment Al states that because of the changes to subsection 3, these requirements become redundant and are proposed for deletion. Vice Chair Fiore explained that he believes subsection 5 is an exception, which allows a church or other similar institutional use without daily parking needs may be allowed to leave all parking spaces unpaved, other than those spaces needed on a daily basis. If this subsection is deleted, the exception will be removed. Mr. Kintner indicated that subsection 3 states that parking spaces located to the side and rear of a building may be paved through the use of "eco pavers" or like semi - pervious paving materials that are determined by the City Engineer to be substantially similar to the durability of asphalt paving. Vice Chair Fiore pointed out that subsection 5 allows for certain parking spaces to be unpaved. Subsection 3 states that semi - pervious paving materials similar to the durability of asphalt paving must be used. Member Putz asked if the church could still use grass parking or would they be required to use semi - pervious paving materials. Mr. Kintner explained that the parking spaces located to the side and rear of the building may be paved using "eco pavers' or like semi - pervious paving materials. However, the language can be adjusted to allow for grass parking. Ms. Bower indicated that Staff will need to review this request. Vice Chair Fiore suggested allowing the extra parking spaces to be unpaved. Vice Chair Fiore indicated that he does not believe deleting subsection 5 is a good idea. Member Putz agreed. Mr. Kintner indicated that Staff could look into that. Chair Noyes stated it is not frequent that someone paves more parking spaces,than what is required. Member Putz asked if there is anything that prohibits a church to use certain grass areas for parking spaces. Ms. Bower stated it could become a problem if the empty lots are constantly being filled up with cars. If there is an occasional over flow and the lots are being used only once in a while then it might not be a problem. Mr. Kintner indicated that Staff could review the options of allowing excess parking spaces to be unpaved but yet kept in a neat and orderly fashion. P i . Member Putz pointed out that the code has several landscaping requirements for new businesses. However, several businesses allow for their landscape to die after a year, there is no enforcement that makes them replace the dead trees or bushes. Member Putz stated she will take this issue to the City Conunission. Member Putz moved to recommend the City Commission to remove the punt application fee. Seconded by .Member Prince and carried by a unanimous roll call and vote. Member• Putz moved to recommend the City Commission to reduce the side yard setback requirements for mired use lots in the Historic District to five feet. Seconded by Chair Noyes and carried by a unanimous roll call and vote. Vice Chair Fiore moved to recommend the City Commission to keep the portion of subsection 5 firom section 3.61. C., which allows a church or other similar institutional use without daily parking needs to leave parking ,spaces unpaved, other than those spaces needed on a daily basis. Seconded by Member Putz and carried by a unanimous roll call and vote. Chair Noyes moved to approve Ordinance 11 -1976 as amended. Seconded by Member Prince and carried by a unanimous roll call and vote. 6. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Bower stated that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was moving forward and Staff would be scheduling stakeholder meetings to get feedback from Board Members. Neat Regularly Scheduled Meeting: November 9, 2011 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Noyes moved to adjourn. Seconded by Member Prince and carried by a unanimous voice call and vote. Chair Noyes adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m. Bruce Noyes, thair ATTEST: G75e \l C, Ganes icj Giselle Gonzalez, Recording Secretary