Loading...
LPA_09-09-2020_Minutes LAND PLANNING AGENCY Longwood City Commission Chambers 175 W Church Avenue Longwood, Florida MINUTES September 9,2020 6:00 P.M. Present: Judy Putz, Chair David Gritton,Vice Chair JoAnne Rebello, Member Elias Khoury, Member Chris Kintner, Community Development Director Anjum Mukherjee,Senior Planner Michelle Longo, City Clerk Mayor Matt Morgan Absent: Glenn Kirwan 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Putz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Chairperson Putz recognized Mayor Morgan. Mayor Morgan spoke about the outstanding job the LPA Board was doing and handed out appreciation gifts to all members present. This was followed by a picture taking session. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR A. Regular Meeting held August 12,2020 Member Khoury moved to approve the minutes from the August 12,2020 meeting. Seconded by Vice Chair Gritton and carried by a unanimous vote. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. ORDINANCE NO. 20-2188 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1019, SAID ORDINANCE BEING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LPA Meeting 9-9-20/1 FOR THE CITY OF LONGWOOD,FLORIDA;SAID SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA 03-20) CHANGING AND AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM COUNTY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO CITY OF LONGWOOD LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(LDR)AND COUNTY ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL(A-1)TO CITY OF LONGWOOD LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO THE PROPERTY WITH PARCEL ID 36-20-29-5UC-0000-0110 AND 36-20-29-5UC- 0000-0120; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Mukherjee read Ordinance No. 20-2188 by title and presented the staff report. She explained the interlocal agreement that the City had with Seminole County that automatically reverted the parcels identified as enclaves in the agreement into the City of Longwood municipal limits. Ms. Mukherjee explained that it was just a matter of procedure and the low-density land use would be the same as the rest of the neighborhood. Member Rebello asked about the A-1 Agricultural Zoning. Ms. Mukherjee explained that it was the Seminole County zoning and the rest of the parcels along Slade that were within Seminole County jurisdiction carried the same zoning. Vice Chair Gritton made a motion to close the public hearing and recommend approval. Motion was seconded by Member Rebello, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. B. ORDINANCE NO.20-2189 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LONGWOOD DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, LAND USE DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, ARTICLE III DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS, ARTICLE V SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, ARTICLE VI SIGNS, ARTICLE IX HARDSHIP RELIEF AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ARTICLE X ADMINISTRATION, AND ARTICLE XII HERITAGE VILLAGE URBAN CODE, TO UPDATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, OUTDOOR SEATING REQUIREMENTS, AND TO OTHERWISE STREAMLINE AND UPDATE THE LONGWOOD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Kintner said that the ordinance was done based on a recent City Commission meeting where the Mayor asked for stricter tree preservation standards for undeveloped sites and where an additional Commission member had asked for an inch to inch replacement. Mr. Kintner explained that main change was as follows-requiring stricter standards for removing trees for undeveloped sites; window signs since that came up from time to time and effort was made to provide clarity as it relates to window signs; some townhome standards were addressed as the City was seeing more of those come in and the nature of the narrow lots and stacked driveways which interrupts the sidewalk. Mr. Kintner explained that one way to address that was to introduce alleys so that the front area could be more walkable. Mr. Kintner said that the most recent developer LPA Meeting 9-9-20/2 ,. had offered that design on their own as they saw that as a positive and the City would like to make that a requirement to boost walkability and complete street goals. Mr. Kintner apologized that this ordinance had come in a little quicker than the staff wanted to do but it was a response to the Commission request. Chairperson Judy Putz opened the floor for questions. Member Rebello asked about the tree fund. Mr. Kintner confirmed that the fund existed. Ms. Rebello asked if the off-site trees also go into the fund. Mr. Kintner explained how the process worked currently with the options of either replacing or doing a combination of replacement and paying into the fund. Mr. Kintner also explained that there was an additional option of placing the trees into a specific site like with Reiter Park provided they have City approval. Member Rebello asked if there were going to be any development sites with no trees. Mr. Kintner explained that there was a basic tree requirement per acre, buffer requirements,and parking lot requirements that would necessitate trees on all development sites. Member Rebello asked if there were any alleys in the City. Mr. Kintner said he couldn't think of any right now but explained that it would be in townhome developments where the garages would be rear loaded and accessed by the alleys. Chairperson Putz asked if it applied to townhomes and Mr. Kintner confirmed it. Member Rebello asked if the homes on Pine were townhomes and Mr. Kintner replied yes. Member Rebello said they didn't have alleys and she didn't know why the City needed alleys. Mr. Kintner explained a hypothetical townhome development where there would be townhomes with garages with alleys in between two buildings and streets on either side. Member Rebello asked about the development on Pine again and Mr. Kintner referenced to the fact that it was done under a settlement of a lawsuit as opposed to meeting code. Mr. Kintner said that the alley concept would be moving towards that concept. Member Rebello said that there were no alleys in that case and it was just a double driveway. Member Rebello said that the word"alley" had a negative connotation to her where it could get trash ridden and people would use the area as a storage. Mr. Kintner said that a double driveway or alley would be the same thing. Member Rebello asked why the driveway width went from 20 feet to 18 feet. Mr. Kintner said that 2 feet made a lot of difference to developments and after looking through a lot of codes 18 feet was standard. Member Rebello asked about guest parking and Mr. Kintner replied that they'd have to do on street parking or some other common area parking and the developers would need to meet that requirement. Member Rebello asked about code about signage. She thought that there was something in the code that prevented not being able to see clearly into a place of business. She didn't think it was safe to have opaque coverings as it was unsafe for the patron, police officers and the business owners. Mr. Kintner explained that there was no requirement for windows so places like Publix, CVS,Walgreens all have no windows on first floor so in essence there was no visibility or window requirement as a percentage of the facade. Member Rebello thought that there was a requirement and Mr. Kintner said there was and there was not one currently and the code did not require a window-it just outlined how much of an existing window could be covered. Mr. Kintner said that if the City were to cite someone they could stucco the opening and there would be no visibility. Mr. Kintner said that a number of merchants require space inside for stacking merchandise so punching a window takes away from that space and LPA Meeting 9-9-20/3 floor area. Member Rebello again expounded on the safety issue of not being able to see in. Chairperson Judy Putz said there was only so much you could ask a private business owner to do and some responsibility had to be borne by the property owner. Member Rebello gave the example of Trulieve with windows covered up and said she didn't understand the purpose of a window if they were going to be covered up completely. Mr. Kintner said that a requirement for a window would mean that big corporate business with nation wide floor plans would not be able to locate in the City. Member Rebello that that the City could put requirements in the code if it wanted to. Member Rebello asked about why 5 years was used for grandfathering and Mr. Kintner said it was standard and he knew of many businesses that had their windows covered since the past 13 years. Member Rebello said she couldn't understand why code couldn't be written to have those requirements. Member Khoury explained that there would have to be a provision for windows otherwise compliance would be an issue and Mr. Kintner agreed. Discussion ensued on which businesses had their windows covered. Chairperson Putz asked about grandfathering big business in and Mr. Kintner said that's why he had used 5 years and the ultimate goal was to make the code enforceable. Member Rebello asked Mr. Kintner if he had run this by Chief Dowda. Mr. Kintner said he had mentioned it to him and would be happy to go more in-depth regarding visibility before the next Commission meeting. Mr. Kintner clarified that the language was no longer in code when Member Rebello asked about the enforcement of the visibility requirement. Mr. Kintner said that regardless of the LPA's recommendation he would get with Chief Dowda and have the result of that in a report to the Commission. Mr. Kintner went over some of the other changes in the code like changing the DBH for consistency and went over the landscaping for a developed vs undeveloped site. He mentioned the inch for inch replacement for undeveloped site where the code now would be responsible for some of the trees that would be taken out with a cap on the amount so that sites do not become undevelopable. Member Rebello asked about the tree fund and Mr. Kintner explained that people can do a combination-replace some inches and pay for some. Ms. Mukherjee said that the city had seen that already this year where people have paid up to $500 into the fund. Chairperson Putz asked if anyone else had questions and if there was a motion on the table. Vice Chair Gritton made a motion to close the public hearing and recommend approval. Motion was seconded by Member Khoury. Motion passed 3-1 with Member Rebello voting no. 6. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kintner stated there would likely be a meeting in the near future for some annexations. Ms. Mukherjee said it would be possibly be November. Chairperson Putz asked about the 1800 Lake Emma small scale amendment. Chairperson Putz asked what the current land use was since the Commission had denied it. Mr. Kintner said that as per the annexation agreement it would continue to be Seminole County land use and zoning LPA Meeting 9-9-20/4 f S until the property owner came in with a new application or the City decided to do it with property owner input and agreement. Mr. Kintner said that his informed conjecture was that the developer would probably walk away and the sale price of the property could potentially be affected. Member Rebello asked if they could de-annex and Ms.Mukherjee said that in her discussion with the City attorney it was much harder to de-ananex and would probably end up in a legal battle. Mr. Kintner said they could come back and ask for MDR-7 which would allow for 7 units/acre. Some discussion ensued about addressing and having both Meadow Ridge and Meadowridge Estates in the City. 7. ADJOURNMENT Member Khoury made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Member Rebello and Chairperson Putz adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. a l Minutes approved by the Land Planning Agency: (in�crfdlett) L r Judy P z, ATTEST: �`, An urn ukherjee, Recording Secretary The Official signed minutes are on file in the City Clerk's Office. LPA Meeting 9-9-20/5