Loading...
10/10/1977 rr:.:,' . ,.. , '~... .. :.. . ... ,,.,.-'" . ?.....~\ i . ~" :",( n .~ C' ,..( (..", . ". , ~. , . ",1-' RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES October 10, 1977 t ~ ! ' " , " " Members present: M. J. Paroby, Assistant City Manager Keith Crawford. Director, Traffic Engineering Eddie Moore, Director, Parks and Recreation Pat Tracy, City Forester Cecil Henderson, Assistant Director, Public Works Dept. George Buhmeyer" Fire ~~rshall David Healey, Planning Department (for W. D. Renando) Others present: Grace Loyd, Planning Department Edward Mazur, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan Harlan Hanson, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan David Hansen, U. S. Home Corporation Jack Weigle, U. S. Home Corporation Edward Walker, Williams & Walker, Architects D. E. Simpson, U. S. Steel A. Rychalski, U. S. Steel I' I, Mr. Paroby called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. and requested comments on the U. S. Home Corp., Pedregal housing development. The Traffic Engineer, Keith Crawford, stated that he has problems with the eight foot high walled city proposed by U. S. Home. He stated that 'it violates several city code requirements. Also, if you park in the carport the car will hang over the sidewalk. He questioned how one' would see to back out into the street? Mr. Paroby also querriedthe committee as to swimming pool requirements. Since no one f~om the Building Department was present, the question went una~swered. Mr. Henderson gave the suggestion that the City Commission should see this proposed project before things go further since this is an entirely different concept for this area. Mr. Crawford suggested that a CIS be done on some areas. Pat Tracy expressed concern about the island maintenance (in the street)as to whether they would be city or private. Mr. Harland Hanson, U. S. Home Corp. representative, stated that the proposed development calls for 88 single family homes, with the s~allest having 12,000 square feet. -The homes are built with a O-lot line concept and would have all streets privately maintained by a homeowners association. In relation to the CIS, they feel it isn't necessary because of the reduced density of land use and all other things are taken care of in the plans. Mr. Paroby assured Mr. Hanson that the approach taken by his firm is correct and that the amount of impact on the site has been reduced. But he further stated that this project is an entirely new concept in this area. Compound type dev~lopreents offer a lot of security, but '" " ~, '. .. , ., . . I , .. '., Resource Development Committee - Minutes - October 10, 1977 - Page 2 they also raise problems. The walls alone offer problems. E~ght foot high walls do not conform to the ordinance about fences which allow six foot high fences. The plans also show swimming pools~ which do not comply with setback requirements as stated in the ordinance. 'Mr. Henderson asked how they plan to handle the drainage on Che site. Mr. Paroby stated concern about the street layouts, and the definite need to look at the water distribution system. Mr. Crawford stated his concern that the walls on Wildwood are going to cause some site distance problems for drivers and that the walls will impair the vision of drivers. Looking ahead this could be a serious problem. Mr. Crawford stated that he believed it would be a mistake to permit construction of walls on public streets and also on private streets. Mr. Buhmeyer needed to see water plans for the spacing of fire hydrants. Also~ he questioned how they (Fire Department) would gain access to these homes. It presents problems since access can be gained only from one side of the building. . Mr. Paroby wanted to know, since the streets are private and main- tained by a homeowners association, what kind of assurance the City has that they will do the maintenance. Mr. Weigle stated that the deed restrictions will be set up as part of the homeowners associa- tion., Mr. Paroby restated that there will have to be a definite covenant in the deed. Mr. Henderson wanted to know if.there were other developments of this type in Florida. Mr. Hanson stated there was a project he believed in Sanford. that was largely built and it is a condo project. Mr. Henderson then asked what cities in the West. Mr. Weigle answered Houston and Phoenix. Mr. Hanson added Miami. ", Mr. Paroby stated his belief that a waiver of CIS should not be granted because of the stated concerns expressed at this meeting. A CIS should be done to address the specifics of property maintenance. street main- tenance. utility maintenance and requirements for City water and any easements needed. The questions pertaining to setbacks for pools and the walls. how they impact on the traffic and the site distance prob- lems. should be addressed. Mr. Paroby inf~rmed those present that U. S. Home should address the stated concerns in their CIS and that the city staff will be available to review and assist in this preparation. Mr. Moore stated that the island maintenance should be addressed in the CIS so that the City does not become responsible for the mainten~nce. Mr. Henderson made the motion to recommend to the City Manager that U. S. Home be required to submit a CIS and that it should answer the ..specific concerns of the Connnittee in the body of the CIS. Motion was seconded by Mr. Moore. Pat Tracy wanted the issue of vegetation addressed in the CIS since there will be a substantial amount removed. , ' '.. . .. ~ .\ , ,. Resource Development Committee - Minutes - October 101 1977 - Page 3 A new motion was submitted - Motion to recommend to the City Manager to deny the waiver of CIS and that the applicant be required to pre- pare a modified CIS specifically addressing in detail those questions that were raised at this meeting. Motion was seconded and passed. .It*-Ir The next item on the agenda was the request for waiver of CIS for Sunset Point Road and Montclair Road property adjacent to Woodlake Condo (American Development .Corp.). No representatives were present at this time and the Committee moved to the next agenda item. , *-1,* The final item on the agenda was the review of Community Impact State- ment for Sand Key Shoppes (U. S. Steel). Mr. Henderson stated that the sewers are existing; the water system is there and that Engineering has no problems with the impact statement. Mr. Crawford stated that the problems that they had have been resolved. Any remaining problems. i.e., driveways. are being worked out. Mr. Moore deferred to Pat Tracy. Mr. Tracy did not feel that the vegetation was properly addressed in the impact statement. The Australian pine was a desirable tree in a beach community. Mr. Paroby reminded U. S. Steel representatives of the great concern of citizens in this City about trees. They should start a public relations campaign to explain why they are removing trees from this area. Mr. Rychalski stated that they are planning on leaving 19-20 percent of the trees. Mr. Healey commented that there were several minor problems with the impact statement; including failure to recognize proposed coast guard station, erronious statement saying it is in conformity with , the County Plan, and the fact that no provision is made for treating or assessing impact of storm water runoff (for Michael Kentont Environmental Planner and Committee member). Mr. Paroby querried the representatives from U. S. Steel about the boat facilities and what their plans are for this type of facility. Mr. Rychalski stated that U. S. Steel hasn't any specific plans con- cerning a boat facility per set When they get to this pointt they would like to return to discuss it. Mr. Simpson from U. S. Steel stated that the concept is basically a board walk type facility for boats to tie up at and go shopping, not a marina type facility that sells gas, etc. U. S. Steel has plans for a marina butJ'in another location. Mr. Paroby stated his concern since there is a need for additional boating facilities. Mr,. Healey questioned whether the project was dependent for its financial success on the entire project being built. Specifically, he asked whether the project were a viable one if only Phase I as shown in the : :: : ~ ~ , \ ".} . : . , L .-,1. . " J:~}, :. 11\ . -\ " <., . ,. . ,. .'. :; . ~, . - . . .."'.' r "..' ~~: ~ . . . ~.:~.. .~'.. .- .~~~. ," :. ~~::,::.,.'" ::.' :, ~ ," .'. ' , ~;~~::' .~'>. . '.,. . . .,' ~;;y,,', ~.>.' : {(-\: ": .:. ~. ~:~.: . . >~ ::/:. ~..: \, . ~,;' . ;\.,. ,. r~~;~~:. ::..-:' ..:.:....~. . c .. Resource Development Committee - Minutes - October 10, 1977 - Page 4 CIS was built? Mr. Simpson responded that yes it was, that each phase would be self sustaining. Mr. Healey responded that he felt this point should be brought to the attention of the applicant in light of the proposed rezoning of Sand. Key which was in progress. Mr. Paroby indicated that that was B separate consideration that would have to be complied with at the appropriate time. Mr. Paroby informed the gentlemen that apparently the Committee will approve the CIS with the understanding that it does not include any dock facilities since this item is not addressed in the CIS. Mr. Walker pointed out to the Committee that it is addressed in the CIS. Mr. Paroby informed him that they would have to elaborate on this and that it would not be a commercial facility. Mr. Rychalski stated that it would be an extra feature or luxuary item. Motion was made by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Crawford. to recommend to the City Manager acceptance of the CIS statement. Motion carried, *** Following this action, discussion returned to the Sunset Point Road American Development Corp. project. No representatives for the applicant appeared but the following conunents were made" . Mr. Henderson stated that sewage treatment cannot go to the East Plant . but must be sent to the Marshall Street Plant. The East Plant is at capacity. Mr. Crawford stated that there is a problem with the owner- ship of the lake. Mr. Paroby stated that since questions need to be answered concerning drainage, sewers, utilities and lake frant owner- ship he would entertain a motion for denial of CIS. Motion was made by Mr~ Healey, seconded by Mr. Buhmeyer~ to deny without prejudice . to enable additional information in support of request to be submitted. Meeting adjourned at 12:35 P.M. ., anner :1 'J " . e ey. Planning Department Acting Secretary \1 i . '.