10/12/1979
t'l~" /.'....(,.. ,'.",~., 1"'~" . '.:! . ,'..': ~. . ' :.',"'." ,I . "'.,:I~"-;"'~";"I.:..,...\.'..:I,i..,..".:,.,~.I.~"" ,.... _ .: ~"" "
. ~ ~ . . . '. 1
'.'
), ',.
~
1""'...
, frORIG IN~
MINUTES
RESOURGE DEVELOPMENT COIDIITTEE
City of Clearwater, Florida
October 12, 1979
/"
MEMBERS PRESENT
(,
(:/
..
:/,;.
Elizabeth S. Haesker, rnloirman
David Healey, Planning Director
Ream WilBon, Diyector of Parks and Recreation
Mike Kenton. Environmental Planner ~
George Buhmeyer, Fire Marshal
Don MeeriBns, Assistant Traffic Engineer
Cecil Henderson, Assistant Director of Public Works
Joe Mandy, Assistant Utilities Director
Henry St. Jean, Chief, Building Department
./
'/
",
:,~ ~.
. .'
"
MEMBERS ABSENT
...
.~;;
~ r "
I .!~
Mike Campbell, Land Resource Specialist
..'
" ~ ,.
}','.
OTHERS PRESENT
~. J
Peter Marich, Architect
Dwayne Best, Camelot Oaks Condominium
Kint Heiman, Camelot Oaks Condominium
Fred Boyd, Project }mnager, Public Storage
Dave Kent, Construction Manager, Burger King
, . .~,
,h..,
, "
'1:'/,
t,
...."
:;.
.:":
I....l
.1'
.' '~.
'1':,
........
~~~.~.:.;" ',< '
2i(-':,
~}./{ ~ : ':::, .
)}';:". '
1;~.:~ : :
y>::'"
I: ::, ':.',
".'
, ' The meeting was called to order at 10:15 a.m. in the Operations Center Conference
, Room.
~>"':
.:?
,'",
~::'.::~
.,''1
" .
~ ~.'
:.:!.....
,"',
The first item on the agenda was for approval of minutes of September 28, 1979.
Mr'. Kenton moved that the minutes be approved as amended. The motion was seconded and
.carried unanimously.
'(Continued) "Camelot Oaks Condominium'\ Peter Marich, Architect and Planners, Inc.:
, located between Lime Avenue and Clearwater Bay.
" ~.... ~
. .~ .
.:~'; ~:. '
.:
.'}
Preliminary Site Plan
Envi-ronmentalPlanner: Hr. Kenton stated that he had no comments himself but that
Mike ,Campbell had worked with Mr. Meeriens regarding the redesign of the parking lot.
Mr. Meerians'snid that either plan was acceptable to him and that the developer had
.gone to a 24 foot access point and it had worked out much better than the two accesses.
He stated this has been his main concern.
.'1 ,
:/;
'. ~ ':r~~
..,
,I. . ~ .
r. .
"
.
Mr. Kenton stated that the revision did cost more spaces for parking but saved a
number of trees and moves the drive away from the large oak toward the front and was
. " Che"best method to save it. He realized that it cost some spaces but they were still
4 spaces above the code requirement so no conflicts with code are created.
, '~. ,
".,','
" '
i""
'1".:
.I.;',;
Ii''';'
:~ ~.~. '.
" Mr. Marich said they would rather not lose the spaces, but if it was to everyone's
satisfaction tl1ey would go along with the changes worked out for the parking lot by
Mr. Campbell and Mr. Heerians.
., .
': . . ~ ~ ~
"t\;~;'
.~,):
':''-':
...,.'
Y';'
, ~\i~
, >
,Utilities Department: Mr. ~mndy asked wher~.the garbage container would be placed.
Mr. Marich said there was no change and it was in the building; a maintenance man would
roll it out to. the. garbage truck.
~ ..; l
I:
"~ '.:
:;:i,
" '" ..C"",.., ./""'."...,.. ..i....'.'..,..,...,...,." ".....' .\".[ ../,....,.....,'., ,',",',"
,:.-< :'/:,~ (::>':~', t.~ :':,:), /f:';:;~ :;'<,' >:./<: ..::....;/,?..,..:.;:';:.:;:~ /~':: ;:'.':: <i.::'~.; :.:' '~,:'. :',1 ,',:', .:~ ",::';;, ~..:.;'::;, <:' ;'}~: : '::. ;.:,;':\: .~,'; ;'::::
.
. . -
-
'I. ,.".
'. '
... l
~
,,-...
Page Two
Resource Development Committee
October 11, 1979
BuildinR Department: No comments.
Fire z.rarshu1:
No comments.
Planning Director: Mr. Healey had a question on measuring the building height,
which in turn determines the set back requiren\enta. He stated that their measurement
of the building would result in a height of over 60 feet, which would require a larger
set back than is provided for. There is the legitimate question of how you measure
building height in a site like this where there is a change in grade and the number of
stories in the building is different. Mr. Uealey said that as he read the ordinance,
it required that the building l1eight be determined from measurements made at the exist-
inggrade. He said that the Planning Department's computations establish a building
height of 60.58 feet, That would require a request to vary the set back requirements
BS they pertain to this property.
Mr.' Marich nsked if Mr. Healey was saying they were just 6" in excess of their
calculations. He said that he had a 14 inch parapet around the building and he would
cut it down 6 inches so it would meet the requirements. Mr. Healey stated that he would
have to rely on the Building Department to advise him if that would be satisfactory.
There was some discussion about the purpose of the parapet and water retention on the
roof. Mr. St. Jean of the Building Department said he would have no objection.
Mr. Healey said that if the Building Department had no objection to the parapet
being cut down, he did not object. If the building is less than 60 feet high, the set
back would be satisfactory. The only other objection was the one he had had all along.
He still had problems with the utilization of the site so as to ignore the natural lay
of the land, and the paving of the bluff.
Assistant Public Works Director: Mr. Henderson had no comments.
Parks and Recreation Director: No comments.
Building Department: Mr. St. Jean asked what the slab elevation was in regard
to the street elevation. Mr. Marich showed the plan, which indicated that they were
below the street elevation. Mr. St. Jean said this would require a variance from the
Engineering De.pa't'tment. Mr. Uende't'son observed that the't'e was an ordinance relating
to this with the purpose of protecting people who build in low areas. It would be
just a review by the. Engineering Department on a site like this and approval would
be necessary. If they showed a proper drainage sch~le on the plans they would not
have any problem.
Mr. Henderson said that he understood ~~. Healey's concerns about the property,
but that it was the owner's prerogative to have a design that fits his property and
there was a limit 'to where they could dictate what a person does on his property.
As long as the technical requirements are met, he did not aee any reason to restrain
this project.
Mr. Henderson made a motion for appr~val of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to
modification of the parking landscaping plan suggested by Mike Campbell. Mr. Buhmeyer
seconded the motion. Mr. Healey opposed; Mr. Kenton abstained. Motion carried.
(Continued) Public Storage, Public Storage, Inc. (Owner); located on u.S. 19
frontage road, approximately 300 feet North of the Interesection of U.S. 19 and S.R. 60.
- 2 -
Page n,ree ~
Resource Development Commlttec
October 12, 1979
~
Preliminary Site Plan
Assistant Public Works Director: Mr. Henderson asked Mr. Boyd, Project Manager
, , . J
if he had uubmitted a Revised Site Plan. Mr. Boyd said that he had brought the plan with
him. Mr. Henderson remarked that it was difficult for the committee members to be pre-
pared for the meeting without receiving this plan in advance nnd that it was difficult
to come into n meeting and review something at the meeting. He stated that he usually
had members of his staff review the plan and make notes~ etc., prior to the meeting.
Mr. Boyd was aaked if it had been made clear to him that he was to submit the plan
in advance. Mr. Boyd said it had not. He thought they were to come back toda.y to
review the revised plan. He stated that he would be glad to leave copies of the plan
and come back another time. It was decided that since Mr. noyd was there and had copies
of the plan, the committee would take the time to review it. The plans were distributed.
Mr. Boyd said they had three things to address and one of the main ones was their re-
lationship to the other three projects being built. Mr. Boyd stated that they had com-
municated with the other three parties and tried to put together a composite plan which
they think would show a master plan.
Members of the committee examined the plans for a short time. Chairman Haeseker
called for comments.
Environmental Planner: Mr. Kenton asked Mr. Boyd if he understood that they could
not use the 40 foot set back for landscaping requirements unless they provided a place
for the future road planned on the property. They would have to move the building if
a road came through. Mr. Boyd said they would make the island 10 feet wider and keep
the landscaping within the 10 feet. He stated that they were trying to do what was
right and do it well and they could dimension the island to be 50 feet wide and indicate
the landscaping within the 10 feet. They would grass and maintain the ROW. Mr. Kenton
said that in order to meet the code they needed a minimum of 5 feet. Mr. Boyd said his
building was in 10 foot increments and if he was going to lose some building he would
just as soon lose it and have a nicer landscaped area.
Mr. Boyd stated 'that they. had provided for, parking, of 4 cars outside the ROWand
if the'road is ever widened they did not want to lose their parking spaces or lose some
building, and it was just an oversight in their site plan. He said he understood the
ROC had approved Chi Chi's last time and they had 4 parking spaces indicated in the
area where Public Storage was showing they needed to come through. They had discussed
this with Chi Chi's developer artd they have no objections to working it out with them.
Public Storage is entitled by the purchase agreement access from this easement to be
able to get from their property to State Road 60 without going around.
.\'
Mr. Kenton said he thought that Mr. Boyd understood the landscaping requirenents.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would bring another site plan showing additional landscaping.
Mr. Kenton discussed the site plan and changes necessary with Mr. Boyd.
Assistant Public Works Director: Mr. Henderson said they have shown on the plan
a drainage retention area which should be satisfactory providing it is designed to our
requirements. He aaked Mr. Boyd if the retention pond would have any overflow capability.
This was something they should consider because when they came in with their construction
plan they would ask about that. The fact that they had shown retention area is suffic-
ient for this time. He said that we made our comments about the ROWand I think we have
\\already spoken to the sewer. We did mention the East area which is in the County and
about annexing into the City. Mr. Boyd replied that annexation is underway and they
had filed for it and it was progressing.
- 3 -
October 12, 1979
jNT.~~~ .,".' ,'. .:. ,:"
~.:
, .
"
. ,
Page Four I~
Resource Development Comm1ctee
October 12, 1979
(',
Mr. Boyd made a comment about the retention pond which will be designed to
store the major portion of the water. He also expected in unusual conditions they
would have surface storage. The driveway would drain to drop inleta and it would
be designed so that some portion--they would have a hydrologic study that would
show all this--wou1d be surface drained and some of it would be stored in the drain-
age structures themselves. They would assume 20% run off, which would be normal for
the area anyway, as something that could drain into the streets, otherwise we will
retain all of the water on site. There would be no outfall system of any kind, it
would just have to seep into the ground.
Mr. Henderson asked Mr. Boyd if they had picked up a copy of the Engineering
Department's requirements and Mr. Boyd said that they had and also had very capable
engineers. Mr. Henderson said the requirements change whenever you are talking about
a lake that has no outfall and that they would check the plans carefully on that.
He had no other comments.
Chairman Haeseker stated the minutes should show that the ROC Committee was
looking at a aite plan dated October 8, 1979, submitted at this meeting.
Buildin~ Department: Mr. St. Jean said the only comment he had was about the
fire wall. Mr. Boyd stated that the fire wall was an 8" masonry wall, 2 hour fire
separation wall to reduce the square footage of the building below 1,000 squa~e .
feet. Mr., St. Jean stated that they would need a 4 hour rating fire wall in order
to meet the code. He said they would have to check the code to see what was requited
when you start putting in storage facilities. Mr. Boyd said that they would meet
the requirements.
Fire Marshal: Mr. Buhmeyer said the hydrants were shown on the plan but the plan
did not show where the water was to come from. The main is out front but they did not
show that or the size of the connector line that would be required. Mr. Boyd said the
plan was not engineered. }lr. Buhmeyer said he wanted to make sure that Mr. Boyd under-
stood the requirements relating to the size of the line, placement of fire hydrants,
etc. Further discussion took place reference to these items and Mr. Boyd made note
of the requirements.
Traffic En~ineering= ~lr. Meerians noted that they had gone from one access point
to two and it would be better if they did limit it to one access point as on the old
plan. Mr. Boyd said if the Fire Marshal would accept one access point they would go,
along with'it. Mr. Buhmeyer said that as long as they could enter the access shown
on the plan they would be satisfied. Mr. Boyd said they would omit the other access
and carry the island on through.
'\
Mr. Meerians said it was becomming congested and the more access points you have
the more potential for accidents. Mr. Boyd said they would put in an emergency gate
at the Southeast corner of the property.
Mr. Buhrneyer said there should be a No Parking Fire Lane and Mr. Boyd said they
would so indicate a Fire Lane with a sign.
Mr. Meerians asked if the. number of par.king spaces had been established. Mr.
Healey said there were standards with respect to storage and warehouse use in:the'
pr.ocess of being adapted but that Public Storage did not feel these were appropriate
for this particular type of operation. Mr. Meerians asked if the rear of the prop-
erty was going to have access to Chi Chi's parking lot.' Mr. Boyd asked if the access
road was uidened would it not become two way. Mr. Meerians said possibly, but that
.he had not seen the final design.
- 4 -
Page Five
ResouTce Development Conm~ee
October 12. 1979
,---
.il
','
.'.
Mr. Boyd said that if it was widened ond not made two way there. would be
very little purpose in widening it. If it were widened Dnd mDde two wny, we
would not have to have access to this parkins lot, wos that: correct?
Mr. Heerians replied that if they desired access into Chi Chi's parkins lot,
it should not be 80 close to the frontage road itself as it caused irregular
traffic movements. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Meerians discussed the plan further.
,', l
" .
....
Mr. Boyd stated that they owned more than 100 of these projects and what they
were allowed in virtually every jurisdiction is to allow the projects to function
the way they need to function. They need 3 or 4 parking spaces in the front for
the customer's initial visit. Once the customer has decided to lease or not to lease
a space. they come back with their goods and pa.rk besi.de their space. and that is
where the parking is needed. 99% of all their projects ha.ve 20 foot wide drives
which is completely and totally functional for them. The normal maximum visitation
to their site is about 20 vehicles a day and eight or ten vehicles per day is normal.
'Mr. Boyd went on to say that if they tried to provide a parking lot based on 1,000
square feet or even 2,000 square feet of building area, it really has no functional
purpose and would not have any cars in it. Why would we have parking for 60 cars
up here when our customers want it back here? To his knowledge, our code really does
not address this. There was some figure mentioned of 1500 feet and that would be
really devastating to them from an economic and functional standpoint.
.' ,
.....
. c'l.
. "..
r ~ i ~
.:.<:.'.'~\
~~ :.;.
. ;
'.'
'::0;.'
.'..'
-:-"
..' "
~ .~)
'.' '
ir,,\
..,:-:-
~ ,I~..~ ~
',:'"
.: ~"
~'<""
" .
Mr. Meerians said dimensions should be shown on the revised site plan; access,
widths, etc. Mr. Boyd said the plan would be fully dimensioned as the previous plan,
or more, and discussed it with Mr. Meeriansfurther.
, "
.:t~\;
L'..
: >'.~',:
A discussion followed with Mr. Healey in reference to access points.
,"
, .,
Mr. Henderson said that the ROC philosophy was to look out for Mr. Boyd's
property and also those properties that would come after. We are interested in
having the project go forward. I believe that we have reviewed this plan although
we have only received it today, and there are some questions and some revisions that
need to be made and I would like to make a motion.
I
.....
::: ,t\:
.?',"::
!~ ~:.;.
',- ,".
.>t.+
" ~. ~ .
.tr.;t
, '.
"', ~'.:
i ;';' ~: ~
'\":.:
.':.~:\
,t~
. '.
....
. . ".\"~:
'. ...:
j':.~.'~, J
:::S::
,',!',
.~ 1.1 t'
~ ::. :,;:
The Chairman stated that Mr. Wilson had some comments on the c.r.s. that he wished
to make after the motion on the site plan.
Mr. Henderson said that the hoped the plan could be revised and dimensioned and
that they would talk with Mr. Healey and that Mr. Healey would converse with them
regarding his concern for access along the East side of the property. He stated they
had had for a long standing time problems with this site and they should find out what
is going to happen to the adjacent property.
: ....~<.
Mr. Healey said they had gone to the original property owner, Modern Tool and Die,
and that the City did want to see the subdivision plat but as of yesterday's discussion
with their attorney it was not at all certain if Modern Tool and Die is willing or
anxious to comply with our request. Mr. Healey said that Mr. Boyd was in a position to .f
apply some leverage that the ROC was not. Mr. Boyd said that he had approached Modern
Tool and Die. Mr. Healey said that if Modern Tool and Die wanted to sell property and
want Chi Chi's to proceed, the City needed to see the subdivision plat. Mr. Boyd said
they had offered to continue the work on the plat. Mr. Boyd said if they really wanted
to continue to access in that way to a large area of land, he wondered if RDC might not
address somewhere along the line bringing in a dedicated street to serve that property
to the East.. He also stated that as long as they know what the rules are they would
face it and find a solution.
i: .
C~'..I :
" \
.~ ~ ," .
:.:..~;.:'
j.'''."
"(j".
:/,~
f~.:{:
:r:t
~~:~ '~.
;.M"'l~ ,I'
... 1.'1:,
':.i':
..'
~~,',~~:~
".' '.
- 5 -
.
. .-
;..,\
\! "
.',
.' o.
, ',.
"," "'J
'c .,"
, ,
~ t.'
, ,.
. .,
,'I'
.! .,.
" ;.,
I
.... '.
'". .
'.'
~ " '.
"
;'....
:I"'l,.
~ ,'.
,":"
II.." \
.'! '},.,
'"I' .,
'" " '.,>. I 11 ,. I) ,"<:...,~ "
"' .'..... .'. ,I" ,I ....."-11..,......1,..... .'~f.'L~ II.~I:;.\. , ", .1':0.. ,,,' . . '.. ',"" ~ IJ,~~ ", \... ,,' L I '",;' ~,.'. ;. ;~I,.
1":, c
.., . - -' .' 1/'::, . '" ':",,; ;./' ;:~':';j~!~\fJ};!fi!i,};.;:':'L.:}:.. ...'. :':'t:~; '., . ,", '.:, . :: :,' .' "...,1,,,'
'" ' ,I:'.. ..",'",.'" I...f:, , ., . "f':'..!~ ,'.:l',...\,c ;'/' '~"""~.I"..~.:,~:::'. :~;\
. " .' J'.>'
~~~~/~~.::. -,\; ~"..' :.:~. : .'". :;j>.
)I' .
i~,~.:..: ',I
}.,
....
Page Six ~
Resource Development COmm1&tee
October 12. 1979
,-....
Chairman Haeseker called for the site plon to be continued until the next
meeting. The motion was made to continu<.\ the site plan until October 26. It
was seconded and passed unanimously.
Mr. Boyd said that they would make the revia:l,ons and return on October 26.
Mr. St. Jean asked if they could renlly oct on this if it has not been platted.
Mr. Healey said they should leave it subject to the rcce:l.pt of and concurrence of
their plat. In this way, they would not hold their plan review,up until the plat
was processed and recorded.
,",
,..'
Mr. Boyd said that three other properties hnd been approved and he hoped that
theirs would not be the one that was not approved. He said they would do whatever
they had to do to meet requirements.
'.
'.'
:.",',
"
~~,~~
~:.. .
Parks and Recreation Director: Regarding the C.I.S., Mr. Wilson had a comment
regarding park land dedication. He stated that he had met with Norm Seher and
agrees with what was said in the bottom paragraph about donating $1500. Further ,
Mr. Wilson said that the C.l.S. should be amended to read City instead of County.
(Continued) Bur~er King, Burger King Corporation (OWners); located on the Northwest
corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Arcturas Street.
~ '..
,
~:::.::
, '
, .
Preliminary Site Plan
,"
Assistant Public Works Director: Mr. Henderson stated he believed they had
covered Engineering's comments carefully in the September meeting and the only
problem that they had was that once major changes are made to building sites we
require a retention capacity based on the difference between the pre building con-
dition and the present "completed state". Briefly reading through this project,
. that was' not the case. Drainage calculations submitted show run off from the roof
area as being the natural state and that is not what we mean by natural state. Our
. statement was that if you make major changes in the site we want you 1:0 "catch up on
the retention" and this has not been done.
~ >; .".
. . ,~.
.'.
',.,
.',
. .
~ '.;~
.' .
,;::'>
l, .~..
".-\
~'f::
':'.
Mr. Kent, Construction Manager, stated that he was sure they could make the
necessary changes. He commented that he had just picked up the plan and had not
read the calculations. He stated that the developer is apparently surface draining
an equivalent amount of water, equivalent to what is now draining into the street, and
everything behind that was being retained.
"( '.
.,'
~::.~.:.;
.. ,
.....:.:
"
. ..
.. .
,':
11,':
: 1.
:::/
~~. .
Mr. Henderson said that what they had done is technically correct from the stand-
point of the preparation of the drainage plan. He thought the difference was in our
philosophy as to what he needs to accomplish. The only thing that is incorrect is
the original assumption that he has not had to go back to an original or undeveloped
state in the preparation of his calculations. Mr. Kent was advised that they could
call John Rooks, Engineering Department, at 462-6625, for assistance.
:\".;
~'. tr'
Ii:',
;':~~:
, "
~ ;"1
":"',
"'l
. t. .~
Mr. Kent said that at the last meeting there had been some discussion of the
possible expansion of parking. He thought that Ray waG going to design drainage
to accommodate that and they would discuss it with Mr. Rooks. Mr. Kenton and Mr.
Henderson examined the site plan submitted. Mr. Keat said that as he understood it
if they were able to comply with the criteria for drainage they would not have any
problem. Mr. Henderson said from what they had seen so far, it does not meet the
requirement. Mr. Kent showed a plan with landscaping.
/..\
~': ~ ;...
,~.. ~
"
~ '. I .
.,\:.
!.:,.,+
:.:~t
-:" ~.
":'.J
I ,,~:
j" ,
..
". .-
i'
.....
j ". . I I .'.,. ',".
'r ( , .', . " .',,'.,.,.y}. ','~';,'i"i.';\,'."" .,' :..,..' ; ." . ..,'" """~"':"""""'''!'';'''''''''';''''''.. C"..' ":,'.
,." . ....::,:. .:::'::,:....,::-)~ '.,::~..l.::::,,:)(.~~;::.....~.,:...:l.,:.,...".:.'..:.:,..:".:....~.,..:,:.::.:.'.':.:..'~..'...... ',. '. ,'/' ':':"" ",' ..' '.' ,.' " :-:.. .::' .:;:.:....:.> :'.~:/..:'.:,\.,:.~~;::~<:i1,~::;:;~..:;::.;.'..:;'.'~.'.,;'::.~::':~."\;;:.:...~.;'.:.:.".'...:":.:'.:.:.......:..,'..:'<....... ,:'.' .': '.' ,'..:
." .... . .' .:.;:};':;:U;,;.!i';,k:i;;;\.. · :', . ' . ' . '.
'l," ./ ," +, I I. " I..t," , I",.. '" ~-I' ........ '~I~ ,~- '.. '.
....I.i..:,.. ~..t:. to."';' :,_,':'~<~,,<(:"~"';"'.':'I,..:/(.'::i.",:~:l.I~< .'; .: Pc! ~ ~". 'tr
- 6 -
October12.r. }97~,.
" ,
",'."
. : >.~ "-
I", I
.. I'.
. i '.,
, I
" I,
>,11
, "
. .
...
.'t'..)
.;.': '
,.
l..,.,,:,.'t'
;\~:~".., :..:-......:\:.~~:..;~.I :', ...,' ,"., ;'\ .' :.1.....; of..",' ,(...:,::.., 'r""(I':':I...~I':~":':~..:,:,~'.I:,I,:','.I::i':",('~:.<""":.,,,I::,,:,:.,I,.:;::',\':">'. I,' . I,,' .. ~... I,.,.
Page Seven r~
Resou~ce Development Comm~~tee
October 12, 1979
,-
Environmental Planner: Mr. Kenton Baid it met with perimeter landscaping
t'equi.rernents of the code. He said the code only addressed the parking lot, not the
building. They need an interior area equivalent to 5 parking spaces, or 1,060
square feet. The' intent of the ordinance is not to regulate this building land-
scaping , only to buffer public R01~ and to break up this massive line of parking.
It would COB~ 5 parking spaces. Mr. Kent said they had 57 parking spaces shown on
the plan and Mr. Kenton said that wes close to the requirement. There was further
discussion about parking spaces. Mr. Kenton wanted to know how they were addressing
the back 68 feet, was that just excess land in case it was needed? Mr. Kent said
that if they used it, it would be just for parking. It is just a field and they would
maintain it and mow it, keep it picked up.
Mr. Kenton said the only other question he had was about the two exits on
Gulf to Bay and Don Richter and Dave can address that.
Plannin~ Director: Mr. Healey said they had made a number of suggestions at the
last meeting about the Westerly most entry for parking right in front of the drive-
through window. Mr. McKenzie came by and discussed it but did not want to make a change. ..
Tllis needs to be addressed. The other suggestion that he had last time was that the sign
was way too big and there were too many signs. What we are trying to look at is the
overall plan and desirability and the sign is an important part of that. When you under-
stand that our street lights are only 28 or 30 feet high, this thing is going to stick
up 10 'or 12 feet beyond that. I should think that given all the inadequacies of signing
along Gulf to Bay, we don~want to further clutter that street with a monster sign. I
don't think we need it and Burger Kings around the City have used a more modest sign
treatment and certainly have been succ,essful.
Mr. Kent said that as far as the height of the sign is concerned, the marketing
organization was pretty much opposed to going with less than'submitted. Mr. Heale~
said he understood that but tltat he (Mr. Kent) needed to impress upon ~arketing that
this is the desire of the City. Mr. Kent said that as far as the nUmber of'signs
'went, that instead of 14 there were really only 6 signs; that the notes on the plan
were misleading and maybe they had been counting both sides of the signs.
Mr. Healey and Mr. Kent examined the plan. In discussing the larger sign, Mr.
Ken~ asked if was Mr. Healey's recommendation that it be smaller, less than the code
allowed. Mr. Healey said it was a request for them to consider, given the limited
extent of foliage, the size of the building, and the obvious visibility at this
intersection. Also he stated that other Burger Kings that he had observed in the
city did not have 40 foot high signs.
Chairman Haeseker asked Nr. Kent to express to manag~nent the City's displeasure
with the size of the sign. Mr. Kent said he would see what he could do.
Mr. Healey had no further comments.
Chairman Haeseker indicated that Mr. Wilson had been excused from the meeting
earlier and had no comments in reference to the site plan.
Traffic Engineering: Mr. Meerians said the only comments he had were the same
. ones he had made last time. The present access is on Arcturas and he assumed that
they were going to remove the existing pavement and put in sidewalks. He also made
. the comment that if they wanted to develop the rear portion in any way~ the access
proposed will be, the one to serve the property.
I .
\
There was some discussion about the permit from DOT and the 10 foot radius. Mr.
Meerians also had some question about the design of the Westerly access, suggesting
a right turn out only and the possibility of angle parking. The reason being that
. traffic entering would .conflictwith the traffic exiting the Drive-Up Window.
Parking spaces were discussed. Mr. Kent said they might be able to compromise. He
was-opposed to the idea of angle parking as they would lOBe 4 O~ 5 spaces. Mr. Kent
said it was e. 30 foot aisle.. There was some further discussion on parking. Mr.
Kenton said he would need to see a total landscape plan. Mr. Kent and Mr. Meerians
discussed the access and that ,the width of the one way drive could be 14 or lS:feet,
. which meets the one way out type design. Mr. Kent said that he was Willing to go
'with the one way outlet. There was discussion on driveway widths and DOT regulations.
....... .
?\;'~;.. .' .
~~~~<;:.:. I,:'. :'. . ' .', Motion carried.
~~"',:"<:":,:' ,
:~>:'. :'~: .c.:1,
:~ :{'.~ :. r '. <'
tV~~.;'.'~.'~ . ...
. .
, .1,
t\':.::~ ", ..... ',. . + .
iff;\~ .:.... '....
~ij".,'.'".
:~\~ . ;.
~.~ > l. ~
L'~\'. ~ .-"
g:'~.':,:'~~.. .... '. \.'.'.
f,:", ..,.
~~:;;;,'<: " .....
\~~%:"...' "
~f't, j.' , ". ,.,." ., "
~nR)~~~.~;-:" ~;<~>>.' \;.....; . .fUr ',- .:..
fi..(:c~~> ~
W'"
t.,' ..
~:~:;. '
, .
f;.:;~'>. ,
'II'
~c~;;:. . .
f\" . .
,. .
. ; ~. .
'~ .
~;I. .."
:", ' 'F
,"
" I.~
.' '
l~;'~ '.
,'T ,
.. .
. , .
I,',
. I ;.'
f'~ :,'j
\.
;.i ..
I,'
~' .
'.",
':t. "
\1:' c
;~,l:~ 'c.c :
"
" ,
.> .
::. .\
"i " .
:(1':' .' ~
;;~r~; _~.
" :: ~
.1~1~.. .
" .
r\.
Page Eight ~
Resource Development Comm1ctec
October 12~ 1979
r,
I ,
Building Department: Mr. St. Jean had no comments.
\,
Fire Marshal:
No comments.
Utilities Department: Mr. Mandy had no comments.
Mr. Healey made a motion to continue so that comments could be considered and
the revised'.plan . could be submitted at the next meeting for consideration.
Mr. Buhmeyer seconded the motion.
Mr.' Henderson voted "nay"and the rest of the conunittee voted "aye".
'.\,
The meeting was adjourned. 'at 12 :05 p.m.
.'EC~ ~~
Chairman
,/
."
11
. I.
. \