Loading...
09/28/1979 (2) 1',~: ' " .,.. :' . " . /. 'I:. ' "/-"" ~': . ,'. ~ .>1 . l,: :..' ,.,. ~./ (Corrected) ~ ("'.., *ORIGINAL* " MINUTES RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1979 /., VI MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth S. Haeseker, Chairman David Healey, Planning Director Ream Wll~on, Parks and Recreation Director Joe .Mandy, Assistant Utilities Director Mike Kenton, Environmental Planner Don Meerians, Assistant Traffic Engineer Mike Campbell, Land Resources Specialist Cecil Henderson, Assistant Director of Public Works George'Buhmeyer, Fire Marshal Henry st. Jean, Chief, Building Department OTHERS PRESENT: ,"~ ,./"" Peter Marich, Architect Wayne Best, Camelot Oaks Condominium KlmHeiman, Camelot Oaks Condominium Reverend Keith C. Kruck, Christ The Lord Lutheran Church Buford' Jackson, Christ The Lord Lutheran Church Ray'F.. Smiech, S & N Development, Inc. . Kurt Youngstrom, Architect/Planner .J. H. Mancini, Owner of Spottis tlfoode Pi.-':' " F. William Mitchell, Vice President, Public Storage }:::".. . Fred N. Boyd, Project Manager, Public Storage .~iC:' .,. ":D9n"~cKenzie, Burger King ~:<.: :''0 ";~ J;>aul' Fasolas, Chi Chi's Restaurant l;.:.;.,.... ',T.' W. Riggs, Chi Qh1" S Restaurant ~"~" ':..'" ~ .i', . ~ . , , 1/'~" .'. . Chairman Haeseker c.alled the meeting to order at 10 :10 a.m. in the ~'~~;,.\ ,Operations Center Conf,erence Room. ',1.', .' '" .- . b , ~::.i ;::'.'., 1. . Ap"p'ro"vaT 'of 'the minut'es 'of the meeting of September 14) 1979. ....:.,.... ..' "f.;.(.~'" ,Mr. Kenton stated the word "minor" in the first paragraph on Page 8 should ,; .' be chartged to read Hthere was a' maj'or change by the new o\'lnertl. "'. Mr." Campbell stated the word "outside" should be inserted on Page 4 in the first paragraph so that the phrase would read "switched outside to the drip.line of the tree". Mr. Henderson would like the third paragraph from the bottom of Page 4 to . , co"rrectly read "Based on the number of units required for this development, 'it appeared. that they met. the requirements for the East Plant limited moratorium, i. e., that they could get sewer. II ,(, Mr. Kenton made. a motion that.the minutes be approved with the foregoing changes, Mr. Meerians seconded th~ 'motion which' carried t~,nanimously. " 1 " . September 28, 1979 : .. :<~ :... : ' ,':: :., .... :" ..' ~\ . .'1 ......' I ~ "~ ~ . .'~,: ;. :':.' . .; : "':--.":'I.:.'~":' "" ',"', I. '. '. ,.... . " . . ....... .... ....: ,.':::.:' ,.r-... ,.-..... 2. (Continued) "Lifetime of Vacatlons~ll Peter Marlch~ Architect and Planner6~ Inc.; located on Clearwater Beach between Gulf View Boulevard and Bay Way Drlve~ west of Parkway Drive. Preliminary Site Plan. Chairman Haeseker stated the minutes should reflect the Building Department has no comments on Items 1-5. Ream Wilson, Mike Kenton, George BUhmeyer and Mike Campbell had no comments. Cecil Henderson stated there are no major problems just a minor change suggested by Bill Shepard regarding the correction of street names which should state Bayway Boulevard on South Gulf View Boulevard. Joe Mandy stated each building should be separately metered. Dave Healey had two comments - whether the dumpster could be in a more attractive location. Mr. Marich suggested they refer to the new site plan concerning the ten unit building on the right with a dumpster location under the building. When the dumpster truck comes, it will be wheeled out; therefore, the trash will be hidden at all other times. Mr. Healey's second comment concerned setbacks which should be fifteen feet plus one foot for every four foot of total building which is a difference of a couple of feet on the side yard setbacks. On the' north end of the . property, it should be 22 feet rather than 20 feet and 19 feet instead of .17 feet. Interpretation of that is easily misread. Mr. Marich stated he has plenty of building separation or excess land that could be adjusted. Mr. Marich said when drawings are submitted for construction, we will have the corrections. Mr. Healey agreed there is room to do same. Mr. Kenton discussed structural overhang with no objections. Don Meerians stated parking looked adequate. Setback 1s a little off but will be all right as long as parking stalls remain 19 feet by 9 feet minimum. He questioned if there was side~ralk along there? Mrs. Haeseker said sidewalks should go on site plan before it goes to commission. Mr. Henderson moved' to approve site plan subject to Mr. Marich providing committee a corrected site plan showing the proper setbacks and sidewalks immediately so that we can transmit it with our approval; Mr. Marich stated he would hand deliver Tuesday morning for approval and asked how many prints would be required. The answer was four to be certified by City Clerk but six would'be more convenient. Mr. Healey seconded motion to approve as above. Motion passed unanimously. 3. (Continued) "Camelot Oaks Condominium", Peter Marich, Architect and Planners, Inc.; located between Lime Avenue and Clearwater Bay. Community Impact Statement Mr. Healey expressed concern on a couple of items, including current litigation and 'i~d' use'. 'plan "conflict'." Item I Attachment is a copy of the memo response - 2 - September 28, 1979 '-, -..... , " . he received from Mr. Bustin stating "The property should be treated the same as any other tract of land being considered for 7.onlng or rezoning in 1979". Regarding the second question of the land use plan, the memo states, III would proceed to make the zoning consistent with the land use plan unless development in the area or other similar factors indicate that the land use plan is in error". He also advised the land use plan and zoning should be consistent with it to permit a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Best said then his understanding was that Mr. Healey, Mr. Shoemaker, Mr. Marich and he meet and resolve this before it. goes to commission. Mr. Healey I'esponded, "Yes, if that is possible". Mr. Best 1s most interested in the timing of this and felt Mr. Bustin has clearly left the possibility that this can very easily be worked out. Mr. Healey pointed out that all of his comments are by way of explanation to the committee and that he could not approve with this conflict. Mr. Best said he realizes there were conflicts before but felt that was history as this project stands on its own - they are new owner-developers and disagreed with what MI'. Healey said. We have gone to great lengths to follow Community Impact Study, setback, and code study - everything that we could possibly know or understand and yet he felt they were somehow being penalized. Yet the recent building project of over half a million dollars sailed along even when they exceeded all necessities. We need a meeting as quiclcly as possible to resolve this. Meeting set for Friday, October 5 with City Manager, City Attorney and Mr. Healey. Mr. Healey stated Building Department records do show the project referred to as having declared that it was not in excess of C.I.S. principles. ,. . ~ :.. :. . .' ~.. .. Mr. Campbell requested Ex. 13 show a change from minimum to significant. Mr. Marich agreed to do so. Cecil Henderson stated he did not have any additional comments other than last review. He did' say the lift station would not be maintained by the City. . . -: Mr. Henderson stated that he did think the drainage issues were addressed but would like to point out we do have some procedures worked out for handling sediments, etc., and recornmend they pick up a copy in Engineering Depart- ment and follow these recommendations. This will cut down on the amount of silt into the bay. Mr. Mandy reiterated what Mr. Rettig suggested at last meeting regarding l~" meter to pump 40 feet of domestic water. Mr. Marich assured him they were only raising 39 feet from the street. ; .~', 1;<' . ~ ';.' ." ,<< "J. ' .' ~ . ..... , " . ." .f', : " George Buhmeyer and Don Meerians had no cOlmnents. Mr. Kenton did not see any reference to the drainage plan In refe~~ncp. to zoning - shows low _ . dens! ty on plan & high density zoning conflict - scaling down compatibility problem from seven story building to single family residence ...architecture compatibil1ty...high density high rise project you are indicating mid-rise continuity of your comments. Mr. Marich responded they had done everything to comply and felt it was only a matter of words being wrong, RM-28 is not high density. Mr. Kenton asked if he really felt this structure was compatible with the structures 3 !..-...., , ...-.- to the East and South? Mr. Marich answered to the East you have a motel apartment complex, to the South a land owner that loves our project. Mr. Marich also said you have 39 feet from the street, and the Roehling building next door is 60 feet high, which would not make it compatible with our building. Mr. Marich said it is a question of semantics. Mr. Kenton wanted it part of the record that he does not agree with the compatibility statement, and also that he concurred with Mr. Healey regarding the land use plan. Ream Wilson had no comment. Mr. Henderson made a motion for approval of the Community Impact State- ment. Mr. Buhmeyer seconded. Messrs. Healey and Kenton voted "nay" and the rest of the committee voted "aye". Motion carried. Preliminary Site Plan Mr. Meerians stated something had to be worked out as far as the access and circulation was concerned. Normally a one way type operation has access points of 15 feet and the radius tends to indicate to the driver this is a one way type operation. The radius on the north access serves no purpose at all .because nobody should be exiting that way. 24 feet access would only indicate it is a two way type operation. Mr. Marich agreed to narrow them both down to 15 feet. Discussion ensued on driveway. Mr. Buhmeyer wanted wider driveways. Mr. Marich agreed to a meeting with Mr. Buhmeyer, Mr. Meerians and Mr. Campbell to establish the safest possible access. \ Mr. Healey commented that Lime Avenue is sub-standard in terms of Right~ of-Way. If this is to be approved as a high density project, we need to be concerned about the road as it is developed into a high density project. Mr. Henderson stated it could be handled with a ROW easement. Mr. Meerians said the number of parking spaces required are not included in ROW easements. Mr. Best answered there are 38 plus two handicapped versus 32 required by code. Mr. Marich said this parcel is the last multi-family parcel on Lime Street on the water in that area according to the zoning books. Lime Street is not more than 500 feet long before it takes. a turn. If you consider widening it, you would adversely affect the trees and for the sake of such light traffic, you would be hurting the natural beauty of the area. Mr. Best agreed with Mr. Marich that a 50 foot ROW easement would be the best solution. Mr. Healey said he has difficulty with the plan acknowledging the natural terrain and slope - 15% ramp down and back up is not good site planning. Anything above 10% is really marginal. Paved surfaces running the full dimension of that bluff concerns him. The other point is the Building Department function - the setbacks do not comply with the ordinance. Setback requirements in the waterfront portion - there is a provision in that section whereby the building height is more than 60 feet, Mr. Marich responded he was informed to take it from the median of the eleva- tion which is 18'8", which is where their calculations start. They also pick up a bonus for parking under the building which is 10%. It was suggested that at the meeting with Mr. Shoemaker and Mr. Bustin,. this calculation could be correlated to everyone's satisfaction. an additional set back is required. - 4 - September " c ....--, r-, , Mr. Healey questioned sight difficulty as you drive through the building from North to South. A person pulling out of .those upper spaces might have a problem seeing in that short distance. Mr. Marich said they would have to mount sidewalk mirrors. Mr. Best responded the type of concrete is perculating type bloclc to control run-off-textured concrete surface - grass growing between the blocks. Mr. Henderson commented on the steep slope and Mr. Best said this 11% originally was changed thinking they had something better. Mr. Henderson said they have addressed the drainage and taken care of the sewer so he had, no further comments. Mr. Meerians said the site plan will have to be redesigned for angular parking and better than this one way. Mr. Marich preferred signage. Access has to be redesigned. Mr. Henderson would much prefer to see two way traffic. 24 feet of paving except for the entrances. Mr. BUhmeyer's only comment was on widths of driveway for fire equipment. Mr. Meerians made a motion this case be continued. Mr. Henderson seconded motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. (Continued) Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christ The Lord Evangelical Lutheran Church (Owners); located on the Northeast corner of Montclair Road and Hercules Avenue. Preliminary Site Plan Mike Kenton's comments concerned retention pond in Southeast corner - outfall into Cedar Heights Subdivision. Mr. Caudell designed same. This set up the easements across Cedar Heights lots and it ties into that catch basin. There is a flat site with less than a foot elevation. Mr. Kenton sees no use shown for the out pieces of land - large areas here and there - questioned any particular reason why with a full tree survey that pond could not be relocated? No other comment. Don Meerians said they' had discussed parking and gutters and access - no other problems. George Buhmeyer commented he will be requesting an additional hydrant which will be up to the City. Mr. Henderson questioned if there was an existing 50 foot ROW there or " 1s that what we had requested. Mr. Smiech said it is existing because the same lot 11ne continues on down for the run off as it exits to Montclair. Drain~ge 1s adequate but retention pond should be sized and you,:should retain area in the event you expand the parking lot) you should have the capability to expand the retention area also at the same time. Mr. Henderson also questioned this retention right on the property .line, how do you propose to maintain the back side of that retention area? He suggested pulling that away from the property line enough so that you could get a piece of equipment around the back on your own property to mow the side of your retention area. We require 15 feet. Joe Mandy had, no comment. Mike Campbell said it was indicated there will be one oak removed in the .~. - 5 ,~ --, lot. Answer - North section, diameter 5". They will pull permtto from County. Diameter on cedar trees is 5". Dave Healey questioned if all building heights were one story - answer yes. The only comment he had was regarding ISP (Institutional Semi- PUblic) Zoning distrlc t requires a landscape buffer. It would allow you to submit an addendum to show where that district adjoins the residential district. He believed this should be made a condition of the approval. Also no specific dimension, but landscape plan should be propared.. Suggested they may want to stay out 'of some utility easement there. Mr. Kenton wanted it noted that ~ % of the interior of that lot must be in landscaping. Mr. Healey made a motion to 'approve plan on condition that retention pond be relocated to a minimum of 15 feet to East and a landscape plan be approved by Planning Department. Mr. Campbell seconded motion. Motion was approved unanimously. Chairman Haeseker gave Mr. Healey a letter from the County signed by Mr. HostetleI', County Building Director, which will be given to the owners when Planning has given their approval so that there will be no further delay. 5. (Continued) Spottis Woode, Elizabeth C. Mancini. (Owner, on or before October 19, 1979); located East of Clearwater Harbor to Orange Avenue and North of Druid Road. Community Impact Statement Mr. Healey had an addendum to CIS dated September 26, 1979. He also had a response to his particular concern to his architectural preservation. Mr. Youngstrom had responded along the lines requested. There is a question regarding Item #2 having to do with the minimum slope of roof. Mr. Youngstrom responded the main house has a much higher slope than normal Florida roofs. The normal development is in the 4/12,3/12 or 2/12. The Roebling house and estate and the character we> want to preserve is 6/12 and above. The Roeb1ing house is two story but it has an extremely steep roof. You see as much roof as you do sidewalk and that is where you have your design review control..also want that percentage of roof exposure to 'blend in. 4/12 is the lowest we go up in front in terms of the eastern lots - 6/12 to 8/12 in terms of lots adjacent to the main house. Mr. Healey questioned Item #3 - where you,iridicate a minimal home is 2 J 000 square feet exclusive of a garage, is there a minimum, number of stories? These restrictions preclude a one story building. Mr. Youngstrom respond- ed it would not force out a one story building. In fact, a one story works better 1n terms of tree canopy and branching structure that we have discussed with Mike Campbell - expecially at the North and East ends. The 2,000 square feet being enough in terms of living area was questioned. The answer was yes, because you have two to three car garages, patio covered terraces, etc. Since the 1,500 square feet is t:.he minimum required, we have gone sob feet above that plus the. Florida room, etc. Mr. Healey was satisfied on that score. - 6 - September 28, 1979 ;'. ~,'~'I:' ~ '. . .:.~ ',I, .. ,..:-.:.- ".~; '. ".'.~..': ,~Ij." '....~,.. '~'..~...~:':: .:: I,':"::;:"~'~jl~.,:. '. . .' ~i' ..~"":' ......:.;.;,: ...'....,4.~ . .--.... ~ Uo noted that the building coverage would likaly exceed the 25\ coverago roquired in the zoning under standard single family zoning district. Fences are prohibited throughout with the outside perimeter taking care of that. No privacy fences inoide the compound. Maximum of 13 units per density lots. Mr. Manclni has that design review exercise on top of that and would delete that part from the Impact, if necessary. Mr. Healey's last point under architecture would be do you propose to retain the present house in tact keeping the same design to comply with the other new homes? He preferred some legal mechanism or assurance that this firm commitment be provided to preserve the architectural structures. Mr. Young9trom advised they have three landscape architects in mind - Jeff Neesen; Dick Follett, and Bill Roy to take over maintenance function to preserve historic feeling. Under historic preservation, Mr. Healey asked would the garage structure be removed. Answer no, only workshop building. Mr. Healey has an internal different point of view with Traffic Depart- ment regarding less than 24 foot width streets - narrower widths would be better. Mr. Healey and Mr. Meerians will have to get together. Mr. Healey is not convinced the plan does do what we want it to do. He still has that reservation with the Impact that it is not completely preserVing the historic and architectural quality we need. \' Mr. Campbell said the vegetation and soil studies were acceptable. Mr. 'Mandy questioned narrower streets for trash and garbage pick up but was assured by Mr. Youngstrom that with parking limited to one side of the street as is done in Harbor Oaks, a neighboring adjoining area, there is no problem and also because this is a single family residential area. Mr. Youngstrom assured him individual type metering for gas, water, etc. would be done. Mr. Henderson noted at the last meeting regarding the ROW, Engineering's requirements were turned over to Lloveras, Baur & Stevens, and they will provide engineering background. Mr. Henderson sees no problem on CIS or site plan as long as we can follow through. Mr. Henderson asked for comments on double frontage lots on Orange, Peach and Lime Streets. Mr. Youngstrom commented we do not consider in terms of the extensive land-". scaping and the height of the wall, this would be a traditional double frontage lot. This will not be like Countryside where the Boulevard comes through and they have what amounts 'to a little picket fence or a hurricane fence and no landscape development. What we have here 1s historical and architectural preservation maintaining the exterior wall and landscaping. Mr. Voorhees, the present maintenance man, said a sprinkler' system still works on the outside of the wall, and that maintenance will continue. Mr. Henderson asked if they planned to restrict the entrance into this prop~~ty in any way into one roadway? Mr. Youngstrom responded yes, as shown. Also standard subdivision easement shown on rear of the lots. Easement given because a need may arise for new lines to be put in in ten or fift~en years from now. ot \.. - 7 - September 28, 1979 :~~i7t!' ;"'.', ~"'X;,/iT rj," '.,:. '.~~'~ '} .' lJ.~ l' , . :i. .t~ . ... . ., . " .. .. ",to,," " 1.-. .t~: '~ ., . , " ' ;)"," t:.:. ~ '..,.: !::~;.:.,' . ~ . i~ ,---' Mr. Youngstronl advised they are going ahead with the road development, etc. I and hold the main house off from development for awhile. They intend to cater to the more prestigious buyer and market it that way as a limited edition. George Buhmeyer had no comment. Mike Kenton mentioned Mr. Brewer did a good job on the storm retention report and he also questioned the historical review. Mr. Youngstrom addressed the historical element that has been adopted for some time) mentioning it has gone to 11l10rida Review and has been approved by the State of Florida toward national recognition. He recognizes the difference of real preservatlonism as opposed to having thirteen single family homes. Mr. Kenton took exception to the statement on 8011 in the last paragraph - impacted soil be minimized? Wanted an explanation of how they were going to build a cuI de sac on the side of the hill and minimize excava- tion of fill. Mr. Youngstrom explained that if they have to build above 12 to 13 feet of elevation on that coastal area there, these certain houses have to be on stilts. You have to have a courtyard or hamm~rhead solution with parking at level you cone off. That bluff has more taper. Minimum or, some mean the same thing in this case. At some point coming out of the hill, it has to be bridged. The cuI de sac will stand out from the slope area and a slight amount of fill will be necessary. You would have to have elevated parking - very easily accomplished situation. Mike Kenton made a motion to approve the CIS statement subject to approval of Engineering and Planning. Mr. Henderson seconded. There were five "ayee" with Dave Healey voting "nay" and Joe Mandy abstaining. Motion carried. Preliminary Site Plan Don.Meerians stated that the minimum road widths would be 24 feet including . any curb adjustment and gutters. He questioned the big curve. Mr. Young- strom said that will be modified and changes g1ven to Lloveras immediately. George Buhmeyer requested they extend the 6 n line along the future si.te plan. Cecil Henderson reiterated Mike Kenton's concern for the cuI de sac on the bluff area and requested that any'motion regarding this plan include specific studies on how that is to be handled to be -submitted for Engineering and Planning approval. Joe Mandy had no comment. Mike Campbell mentioned the 40" oak tree near the West and stated it will need extensive cutting in that area if you are going to have the cuI de sac at 13 foot elevation. The lowest limbs, would be 12 to 16 feet. Dave Healey commented he would like to preserve as much character as possible...there should be a middle ground between things you preserve and never make a change and their wholesale desecration. He prefe~s a lesser ., . paved road width. - 8 - September 28, 1979 .' '" ,.~..' '.' .,":',: ~. 'r :', "''':'''~l': :'::,'.l.:~.':'", "..' '.'\ \ '. ~", ~ .... " I' . ~~,::.~, ' ..... . . f~~:: :~, " . . ~1/'~:"'.., .... ~.... ;, .... 1'(' .'. ,.. . .<. ~;;~.:/>\.;. .:'.. \: ,i<)., . . ,':. . ~ . ".'''' .' t.., Ll,. 0., ill. "U. . ,:;:;:, ~ . c ;' . " '~/~. '. 'I' r' ~ , I~ c c y,:" ~~ ' '., . ~., ..' , , , ,:..' , ':;:~ .'., , .~\ ~:. .-......., ,,-'--, Mr. Youngstrom stated the three major live oaks would BUffer if the entry were changed. It 1s a more urban setting rather than open the way it is. Two to threa tler landscaping along the wall will give it special architectural delight and fantastic view 1s all toward the bay and bluff. Dave Healey said he is concerned with 1) arrangement of lots, 2) size the of the structure and ground provided at the, foreground 3) placement of homes below bluff- whole concept hurt by squeezing down and clustering. Mr. Healey also said the building envelop for those lots which are noted on the plan should be correlated with the notes on the map. Cecil Henderson made a motion for approval of site plan subject to further study and submission of information for review by the Planning and Enginee~1ng Departments of the Western 'most cuI de sac. Don Meerians seconded. There were five "ayes", one "nay" and one abstention. Motion passed. 6. Public storage, Public Storage, Inc. (Owner); located on U.S. 19 Frontage Road, approximatelY 300 feet North of the Intersection of U.S. 19 and S~R. 60. Community Impact statement . Henry St. Jean had no comments. Ream W~lson requested 90 Page 13, last paragraph, '10% of the land inside city Limits has no land dedication requirement. Annexation of the remaining 30%. is ' sUbject tp land dedication, requirement. ,A cash donation in lieu of land is recommended ~or"t~e portion of the, 'property ~o:be annexed. r~,. ; . . , ,,4' (+." ., I I :\ '. Don Meerians and George Buhmeyer had no comments. Cecil Henderson discussed the Clearwater East Sewer Moratorium - number . of units 2~ persons dwelling criteria or 250 gallons sewage per day. Mr. Mitchell responded they would have two people who would live on site plus two public restrooms with a fixture count of nine which would fall within that 'area.. . extremely low visitation use by customers. Drainage and flood control was discussed with Mr. Mitchell saying they planned to ') use French drains or' soaking pits. Mr. Henderson advised this was not a good alternative for this area. Mr. Mitchell said they had the engineering capability to work out a drainage design where some could be stored on site. . Mike Campbell questioned vegetation report sent showing only a few palmetto trees and a little incongruity in report. Mr. Mitchell said . it was a minor discrepancy as there were very few palmettos at the back and they will substantially landscape. Dave Healey and Mike Kenton both questioned the architectural overall design. Mr. Mitchell said there would be less use of orange - restricted only to doors and that buildings are ten feet high. .~.) . - 9 - September 28, 1979 ~ ,-- Mr. Healey said on site drainago was not provided and tho landscape. plan. would not be acceptable' Rezoning would be neccosary..from CP to CO with CO having no setback requirements. OP has 20 foot side and rear setbacks and 1\0 foot in front. CF would provide those setbacks and Mr. Mitchell said they will do whatever they are instructed regarding this to comply. Mr. Healey made a motion to approve the CIS subject to: 1) correction with respect to dedication requirement that would be determined by the City Commission after conference with Mr. Wilson ; 2) adequate provi- sion be made for onsite drainage retention satisfying Engineering Department; 3) none of the required provisions for parking or landscap- ing be provided for in that 40 foot setback. , Cecil Henderson seconded motion. Motion passed unanimously. Preliminary Site Plan Henry St. Jean and Ream Wilson had no comments. Don Meerians questioned if this is part of the same initial parcel that has been resolved. Mr. Healey stated the original owners from whom Public Storage 1s buying the property needs to file a plat of record showing four separate properties. His concern is that we understand the ROW easement provided from the service road paralleling US 19: and SR 60 North and Public Storage's South property line and how the inter- relationship works. Mr. Mitchell stated they recognized that situation and it has been addressed in the plans. They have made provision for that internal driveway to be connected at the front wherever that drive-' way. is placed. Mr. Healey stated this will not _be a hold up in that the annexation and-zoning may go forward while we await receipt of the ~lat. Mr. Henderson supplied the name and address of K.L. King & Associates, 3250 US 19 No., Suite 105, Clearwater 78~-6559, where a plan showing other requirements could be obtained. Mr. Mitchell said they would make every effort to comply with whatever is required. Mr. Healey said the 40 foot setback needs to be recognized and where you are going to place your parking. Parking is a problem 5 or 6 spaces creates a dilemma. City Commission has just enacted as of last meeting a specific requirement for one space for every 1,500 square feet which would amount to forty parking spaces. Mr. Healey could support change in zoning if there were to be a setback of some sort along the South side, but drainage requirements with no setbacks has to be resolved. "Mr. Mitchell addressed this by saying they can give relief and provide some setback and planning ...perhaps a transition from our building wall to a parking lot. They own one hundred or more throughout the ~ountry. .Don Meerians discussed parking requirements - aisle must be 24 foot minimum and are not to be mistaken for parking spaces. Mr. Mitchell responded they will do what they have to to provide a million dollar facility here. If parking is required, they would not allow it to be within the 24 foot roadway. q Mr. Buhmeyer stated on site fire hydrants must be provided with 300 feet being the distance required between hydrants. - 10 - September 28, 1979 '. '," . i ," ".... . " .--.., ,,-... Mike Campbell had no commento. Mr. Meerian made a motion that we continue this site plan to the next scheduled meeting. Mike Campbell Bcconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Burger King) Burger King Corporation (Owners); located on the Northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Arcturas Street. Preliminary Site Plan Utilities has no problems but wants to inform you there is gas there. Mr. Kenton's comments were that it is necessary to have 1,060 square feet of interior landscaping to meet the code. Some concern about the drainage retention. Considerable concern about two exits on Gulf-to-Bay and suggests that one be two ways and questioned what is occurring with the out parcel at rear - 68 linear feet back there. Mr. McKenzie said the Building Department wanted additional plans and he had gone to a local engineer and had them redesign the original plans regarding holding water on the site. Since that piece of property drains into the street, we are allowed to drain that much and retain the rest on the site. Plan to drain the front third onto Gulf-to-Bay and the rear on~site drainage hOlding in that part that is undeveloped which Burger King keeps for such emergencies, driveway, etc. Permits have been obtained for curb cut and original drainage plan has been approved. There are two openings where we can add asphalt and landscape perimeter on landscape plan. The new drainage plan will show underground retention with stub outs to the back with catch basins. Presently we have 57 spaces for parking and are prepared to add more, if necessary. That is . why we buy bigger pieces of land and retain some if needed at a later date for expanded needs. .Dave Healey stated they need some interior landscaping, and he wasn't able to determine parking spaces. Mr. McKenzie said they had nine or ten employees the majority of the time but at peak times could have as many as fifteen. Mr. Healey said the Building Department would determine the required parking based on floqr area, not se~ting capacity. However, you will probably need 36 spaces plus employees. Commission is reluctant to approve more spaces than necessary when you could improve the aesthetics of the lot. Mr. Healey suggested the sign ordinance be checked as he had counted rourteen. He encouraged a less monumental sign than 12' z 12' x 40' high. Preferred a more modest arrangement. Mr. McKenzie said they naturally preferred the maximum allowed. Cecil Henderson had several comments. He called attention to the current moratorium on the area served by the Clearwater East Plan and said our definition of a unit is a 250 gallons per day flow under the four unit or less than 1,000 gallons a day from you sanitary sewer, you won't run into a problem. If you are over that)" you may; Suggested Mr. McKenzie discuss this with Syd Snair of the Building Department - number of fixtures or units. Mr. McKenzie responded that all of our kitchen equipment has been nothing but air-cooled, garbage and disposal is plastic bagged to dumpster, ~rash compactors installed, mop sink accepted by the Health Department. .\ - 11 - Septembe~ 28,.1979 .~, ~ ..I,.., l' L ,. L ~ ., . . . , . t. ',. \. ;'. ..: .'1,:' .' " ,.' 'r~~~ . " t..j. ". . I" '. ;. . ,. . )-'.. " . r: . i.l. . ., <,'I . I\~' .:~; . ~i ,.". \ - \';'.. . . '. \-:: .: I. .... . '.'. . " t, . , \' :..' ~i, .; . I~;' ~. " , .' , . It' r'~" . . '.~' <,' " . ?{,. ".,', .:>' ...,..,....-.". Mr. Henderson said site plan lacl(s existing elevation but that will be handled in final review. We require retention and Engineering Depart- ment will give you a copy of requirements. Mr. McKenzie said this drainage problem is being changed by a local engineer - Anderson, Johnson & Parish Mr. Henderson stated there is a need within the City for a 10 x 10 utility easement for a pole. Mr. McKenzie stated as soon as property is purchased, the donation of easement will be accomplished. George Buhmeyer had no comment. Don Meerians stated the ROW easement is taken care of but questioned the access points removed along Arcturas. Do you plan to build a curb and replace the sod along the ROWand sidewalk? He also advised if you ever decide to develop the out parcel, we would not issue another access. Also, he questioned the Easterly access on Gulf-to-Bay and the reason a 10 foot radius wasn't used. Mr. McKenzie advised he got the permit from the DOT, and they issue it with a 3 foot transition. Mr. Meerians said he will call DOT and get a 10 foot radius rather than 3 foot transition - also westerly access would be better with a right turn only and interior parking .with exit only. If the access were designed for exit only, it would make the flow work perfectly. Mr. McKenzie offered to check with his operation headquarters to resolve this. Mr'. Meerians asked for minimum opening for one way and just shape it as such. Hank st. Jean commented he had been working for about five weeks with developer and is presently at a standstill waiting for different depart- ments to give their approval, i.e., Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Planning. Mr. St. Jean made a motion that we continue this until the next meeting in two weeks to allow proper time for this developer to prepare engineer- ing drainage report. Dave Healey seconded. Motion passed unanimously. , " ! Preliminary Site Plan Dave Healey noted that requested changes had been accomplished, i.e., building moved on plan to North and flopped, saving the street view of the camphor tree. He still suggests those parking spaces in front of the building that are to be turf blocked be eliminated. His concern at presen~ is to resolve the two points of access to the service road in conj unction w:tth platting the property and to provide at the point of access some stacking availability. The developer responded with regard to the proximity to access road on US 19, Perkins is willing to close off their drive to the South of Chi Chi's drive. In response to the turf block in the front of the building, would prefer to leave nothing there with the idea of putting additional parking there. Developer believe's the subdivision plat has been fnitiated. Mr. Campbell questioned 19" oak in parking lot - fairly close to driveway. 12 September 1979 r';,:",~, Wt'i~.i:":.<''<' , 11,." ,I, :'Meetingw8:s' adjourned at 2:40 P.M. t/,/::.:':.~: "'" ~;\;!.:,", " , Ii:;:':;:"""'" "t~. ','-'::',. '. ~ >..~;: r', :t! '. : ~ !, .w-:- :" . .'.\ - i ~.' \' ~ L l' . I' ':: ..' . . ~'. . ',- , , '.' , ;;~ :;: : t.. ::~>:>:.' . r: ~ ~','< f ~ . . ;;"; ~ T: . , c. ..j '" r-... ) -. ( He suggested some bricl<ed surfaces or sub-surface feeders {drain pot~ that allow\ nir and water to get into the soil. Mr, Campbell said there 1s a company 1n Tampa that handles that. , ' Ce011 Henderson stated 2~ foot driveway easement is a private road and 1s maintained privately, Retention area should not extend into the easement area. Sanitary sewer from this area goes int~ the East Plant. Mr. Henderson advise the developer of the 1tmited moratorium currently existing in the East Plant, George Buhmeyer and Don Meerians had no comments, Mr'. St. Jean questioned the grease trap gallonage. Advised developer to stop at Building Department to obtain seating capacity to settle requirements. Suggests it be relocated to dumpster site and eliminate access problems. Bennigans could give you an easement. Dave Healey commented relative' to subdivision platting allowed in 'connection with' driveway easement. Inter connector North and South would 'dead end'from storage use. 'Mr. Healey pointed.this out as it might. affect parking spaces " at the Wast.end 9f th~ ~ite pro~sed for parking by Chi Chi's. ' Mr,'. St.. Jean made a motion to approve site plan conditional upon 6ubmissionof subdivision plat and its conforming to the plan. Plat to P~anning,Department. George Buhmeyer seconded. Motion passed unanimously. ,~~. Chairman ,\ ....' ., ;, , " , l - 13 -.