Loading...
LPA_08-12-2020_Minutes LAND PLANNING AGENCY Longwood City Commission Chambers 175 W Church Avenue Longwood, Florida MINUTES August 12,2020 6:00 P.M. Present: Judy Putz,Chair David Gritton, Member JoAnne Rebello, Member Elias Khoury, Member Chris Kintner,Community Development Director Anjum Mukherjee,Senior Planner Craig Dunn, IT Director Absent: Glenn Kirwan 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Mukherjee called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR A. Regular Meeting held January 8,2020 Vice Chair Gritton moved to approve the minutes from the January 8, 2020 meeting. Seconded by Member Khoury and carried by a unanimous vote. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. ORDINANCE NO.20-2176 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1019, SAID ORDINANCE BEING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LONGWOOD,FLORIDA;SAID SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA 01-20) CHANGING AND AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM COUNTY LOW LPA Meeting 8-12-20/1 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO CITY OF LONGWOOD MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) AND COUNTY ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL (A-1) TO CITY OF LONGWOOD MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 15(MDR-15)TO THE PROPERTY WITH PARCEL ID 30-20-30-300-007G-0000;PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Chris Kintner read Ordinance No. 20-2176 by title and gave a brief introduction about the subject property having being annexed into the City and the land use action requested by the applicant of Medium Density Residential 15. Mr. Kintner requested that the applicant do their presentation and after that he would go over the staff report. Ms. Mukherjee recognized the applicant's representative Mr. Bobby Wannas. Mr.Wannas introduced himself as a Senior Planner with Madden, Morehead,and Stokes,and thanked the Board for hearing the request. He agreed with the staff's recommendation for approval and thanked the staff and said he would be happy to answer any questions that the Board and neighbors may have. Mr. Kintner proceeded to give the staff report by explaining the process of assigning the land use to a property after annexation. Mr. Kintner explained the maximum density associated with MDR-15 and the distinction between what would be allowed with single use-a max of 10 du/acre and mixed use which would be a mixture of residential and retail-a max of 15 du/acre. He explained that although the applicant had not expressed any intent to do a mixed use project for the purposes of the land use the City has to consider the maximum development potential and review it based on that. Mr. Kintner emphasized that although some people may have seen a conceptual plan-the decision under review for the evening was a land use one to assign a City land use and zoning to the property and not a site plan one which would be done later on and the neighbors would be invited to a Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) meeting. Mr. Kintner said that the decision was to figure out if the land use of medium density residential was appropriate for the subject property in relation to all the properties around based on the goals and objectives of the City's comprehensive plan and the City's infrastructure. Mr. Kintner explained that in order to give everybody the accessibility to the proceedings the meeting was set up to get input from people attending virtually. Mr. Kintner asked to utilize the "chat" function in the Zoom window to let Ms. Mukherjee know about their desire to speak. Mr. Kintner proceeded to explain the staff report and how the request was generally consistent with the comprehensive plan with the review being done against the maximum possible density which was more than the developer's request. Mr. Kintner said that the applicant was looking at multifamily which allows townhomes. Mr. Kintner went over the dwelling unit yield in Low Density Residential compared to Medium Density-15 both for single use for a maximum of 50 units and mixed use for a maximum of 75 units. Mr. Kintner explained that the City's traffic engineer had reviewed the trip generation for the maximum of 75 du/acre of 600 trips vs the most likely scenario of 50 dwelling units of 400 trips LPA Meeting 8-12-20/2 with access off Lake Emma which is a County Collector roadway with a capacity of 42,560 daily trips and had a daily count of 18,910 trips which was well below the capacity and even the high development scenario of 75 units would represent an increase of 2%. Mr. Kintner explained that it would be the same for the peak volume. Mr. Kintner said the same applies to Utilities and the Utilities Division has determined that there was capacity. Mr. Kintner pointed to the map in the staff report which showed that the subject property was in close proximity to Danbury Mill and Coventry which were zoned medium density residential and carried more or less the same density. Mr. Kintner said that in light of all those points,the request was generally considered consistent with the Comprehensive plan and issues like storm water management which although extremely important-are considered at the site plan stage. Mr. Kintner then explained the process going forward with the LPA recommending either approval or denial to the City Commission and after the City Commission approval the developer could proceed with development plans and at that point all the access, stormwater, landscaping etc.would be reviewed along with County review for road and traffic. Mr. Kintner also brought up a phone call from Chairwoman Putz about traffic on Longwood Hills and Rangeline and in speaking with the City Engineer who sent some information further indicating an insignificant increase in traffic without losing any level of service. Mr. Kintner then concluded by saying that given all those perspectives the staff therefore recommends approval. Chairwoman Putz discussed opening up the public hearing for public input and based on everything the board members could then discuss the item. Chairwoman Putz then explained that she would alternate between calling on a public person present and Ms. Mukherjee would pick the next person virtually. Chairwoman Putz asked if anyone present wanted to speak and no one in the audience volunteered to speak. Ms. Mukherjee identified Marie Pierre Louis at 1820 Lake Emma as wanting to speak. Ms. Louis said her property was in the forefront of the property in question and was surrounded by the same. She said she was really used to the traffic and noise in the front because of Lake Emma Road and really enjoyed the peace and quiet in the back and it would all change. Ms. Mukherjee then identified Dr. Ballentine as wanting to speak virtually. He said he lived about 1000 feet away and he was upset about the number of units going in and the physical congestion and diseases that would be brought into the area. Ms. Mukherjee identified Todd Ramin as wanting to speak virtually. He said he lived next door. He said he could hear all the cars come and go next door and the headlights even though he lives next to Lake Emma. He wanted to know that if the development goes in there would they be required to put in a fence or a wall like Publix up the road has. He said he had lived there for 18 years overlooking a beautiful horse farm and now he'd have two story buildings overlooking the back of his property. Chairwoman Judy Putz replied that the meeting was just about the land use and not the specifics. Mr. Ramin asked how the property was in the LPA Meeting 8-12-20/3 City because he thought it was in Lake Mary. Chairwoman Putz clarified that it was in unincorporated Seminole County and it was annexed in. She said it had to be assigned a City land use based on whether the land use was compatible and adequate infrastructure was available. She said the LPA could not consider anything other than the land use because no development plans had been submitted formally. Mr. Ramin asked why the property couldn't stay low density residential and Chairwoman Putz answered that the property owner had a right to ask for whatever land use they wanted. Chairwoman Putz said she was not minimizing his concerns but that there would be public hearing in front of the City Commission and also a CAPP meeting where they could provide input and concerns to the developer. Mr. Kintner mentioned that the property is under contract and under both LDR and MDR the property owner could do a single family subdivision and have homes in there that would still be 35 feet in height since that is what is allowed under both land uses. Ms. Mukherjee confirmed that she had asked everybody in the chat section and identified Dr. Ballentine requesting to speak again. Dr. Ballentine wanted to clarify that the property was pending and had not been purchased and have not closed yet and Mr. Kintner confirmed that. Vice Chair Gritton made a motion to close the public hearing and was seconded by Member Rebello,and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Member Rebello said she had several questions. She asked if the lower leg confirmed by Ms. Mukherjee was wide enough for access and safety as far as fire trucks were concerned. Mr. Kintner said that even though this was not a site plan-in the course of the conceptual the City's fire marshal had looked at the plan and said it was workable. Member Rebello asked about the top leg of the property being a utility easement and Ms. Mukherjee clarified that it was a prescriptive access easement for the two lots at the back,owned by Ms. Brewster and Dr. Ballentine. Member Rebello asked how that alley way shown in the conceptual plan would affect access to those properties. Mr. Kintner said that that easement would stay no matter what the land use was. Mr. Kintner mentioned that the conceptual plan has been looked by the City on a pre- development basis and both the City Engineer and Fire Marshall were comfortable with that layout. Member Rebello mentioned that in the past she believed that there had been some developments with a single road where the fire trucks had trouble so that's why she was asking. Member Rebello asked if the property was environmentally or conservation sensitive. Mr. Kintner replied no and Member Rebello asked about the adjoining properties and the run off since those are on a water body. Mr. Kintner said that as a part of the site development plan-all that and particularly storm water would be immediately looked at and as Ms. Mukherjee can attest-stormwater was always challenging and looked at carefully and all site plan development also requires an environmental assessment. Mr. Kintner also mentioned that the run off would not be permitted and the developer has shown a retention pond on the property to contain all run off. Member Rebello sked if the developer had committed to having a certain number of workforce housing units. Mr. Kintner said that they had not. Chairwoman Putz interjected to ask if those issues would be handled LPA Meeting 8-12-20/4 later on and Member Rebello said there was something mentioned in the staff report and that was the basis of her question. Mr. Kintner surmised that what Member Rebello was referring to were sections in the applicant's justification statement where they have to basically state that they were meeting objectives of the housing element. Ms. Mukherjee said that the applicant would like to address the question. Mr. Wannas went over the housing type requested and Mr. Kintner followed up by saying that the applicant has stated in their statement that they are not proposing low income housing. Member Rebello said that she was concerned that once the land use was assigned it was permanent and she wanted to be able to make some conditions and stipulations to the City Commission and she would like to stipulate that there would only be 40 units and not 75. Mr. Kintner said it wasn't legal and that the City couldn't give them MDR-15 land use and allow them only 40 units. Member Rebello asked about the utilities. Ms. Mukherjee said that once the property was annexed they were required to hook up to City Utilities. Member Rebello asked again if it was City utilities and Ms. Mukherjee said that Andrew Marsian, Utilities Manager had confirmed that and it would benefit the applicant to hook up to City utilities as they would get a lower rate. Member Rebello asked about the Consumptive Use Permit and issues with St.Johns in the past and Mr. Kintner said that would be reviewed by Utilities Division. Member Rebello asked about the inter-governmental element. Ms. Mukherjee mentioned that the City coordinates with the County regarding all land use changes. Mr. Kintner said that the applicant was just going over the intergovernmental element stating that they were compliant. Member Rebello brought up the traffic and said she lived off Rangeline Road and asked if the developer would be asking to cut through and make a left on Lake Emma. Mr. Kintner said it would be the County that mades that decision as it did with Publix. He said that that issue was going beyond the land use. Member Rebello asked about the waiver from the wall and Mr. Kintner explained that there was something in the code that would let the developer and property owner agree to waive a wall in favor of a fence if it was mutually beneficial and would apply only to property boundaries where the wall was applicable and only along the section each property owner abutted to and not for the entire boundary. Mr. Kintner gave an example of CompuTech and Longwood Club where a fence was proposed and a sliver of land given to Longwood Club in exchange. Chairwoman Putz asked if there were any other questions from any other LPA members. Member Khoury asked if this approval would set any precedent for medium density residential long Lazy Acres since there were a lot of 1-5 acre parcels still available. Mr. Kintner said the City would look for what is around there and there was mostly low density residential around Lazy Acres. Mr. Kintner said that he couldn't presuppose how that would go but this decision alone would not set a precedent and didn't think anyone could cite this example. Chairwoman Putz asked if the applicant wanted to add anything. Mr. Wannas LPA Meeting 8-12-20/5 reiterated that they were compatible with surrounding land use and there was adequate infrastructure available. He went over the intent of doing 40 units and not 75 units. Vice Chair Gritton moved that the Land Planning Agency recommend approval of Ordinance 20-2176 to the City Commission, Seconded by Chairwoman Putz Kirwan. Member Rebello asked again that if she could get an assurance about the limitation in the number of units and Chairwoman Putz said it wasn't legal and Vice Chair Gritton interjected to say that as a developer that even though 75 units would be allowed did not mean that practically they would be able to fit that in. In addition he thought that nobody would want to do retail there because it made no economic sense so mixed use was most likely not going to happen. Member Khoury said it meant that they would be able to perhaps accommodate 50 units maximum with all roadways and easements taking up significant acreage. Chairwoman Putz mentioned that accordingly to the conceptual it was more like 8 unit/acre which was in keeping with what was around there. Chairwoman Putz asked Ms. Mukherjee to call the vote and the motion was carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Chairwoman Putz reiterated that the City had a strong development code. An unidentified member in the audience asked if the property had exchanged hands. Mr. Kintner said the City didn't know for sure. The audience member said the property was overgrown and Mr. Kintner assured her that code enforcement would get on that immediately. 6. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kintner stated there would likely be a meeting in September for some Land Development Code changes and a small scale amendment. Ms. Mukherjee said it would be a possible small scale amendment as a result of an inter-local agreement with the County in 1995 where enclaves that got sold would come into the City automatically and would have to be assigned a City land use. Mr. Kintner mentioned that UPS had been granted a site plan approval and Alta Cypress was in late stages of stormwater resolution but their building permits were in. Mr.Kintner said that in spite of the COVID circumstances the City had a number of businesses open up and have ribbon cuttings and the larger development side of things had not slowed down fortunately. He also mentioned that the LPA may see some other annexations and subsequent land use amendments come in and the development in the City had not waned. 7. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Gritton made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Member Khoury and Chairwoman Putz adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m. LPA Meeting 8-12-20/6 /42-66-1-' Judy Putz-14°air ATTEST: A um kherjee, Recording Secretary LPA Meeting 8-12-20/7