Loading...
01/26/1979 "Ream Wilson, 'Par~s & Recreation Director Ed "B~.~nton,B~lding Director ~Yi'!:, PaUlRettig,.p'tilities Director 'MUte 'Paroby," Assistant City Manager ;~{;: ..... Albert Roger..; Citizen ~~.:~,:,,:' ," OTHERS PRESENT: \\.< ':'. . ,:.. I . ?F,;:,' '-, ,,~o~,Maran, Civil Engineer, Public Works Department t~'~~''',''''','",\.':,Tim Kerw~n,'::RepreBe~tative for Property OWner, Tract 21, Countryside :,.';':: ',", : Frank Bosworth II II II II II II II . '", , , , ,~',," ",Jo'sephOagHardi, Civil Engineer, Representative for. Tract 21, Countryside :<,':', ,.e ,}' : ' .5~~. . .: . Pi'. ~ I .",' :: .: . {,.J/.! \}~:: ... ~t..:, , .V(. ~1~~ ,;0 ~ , \ ) (I \, / J MINUTES RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE City of Clearwater, Florida January 26, 1979 I" . ::: MEMBERS PRESENT: I "j .. , I J I 'J Elizabeth Haeseker, Assistant to the City Manager Grace Loyd, Planning DcpartInent (representing Mike Kenton) , George, Buhmeyer, Fire Marshal ~ave Healey,' Planning Director Doh.Meerians, Assistant Traffic Engineer Mike Campbell, Land Resources Specialist, Planning Dept. Cecil, Henderson, Assistant Public Works Director Don Alexande,r, Citizen I , i I ..l '., MEMBERS '!A'lBS$:N!TT; . jr, " , , 'I The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a. m., in the Chairman's " ,': office~ third floor, City Hall. ~(~;::',' , . ,The first item on the agenda was for approval of minutes. Mr. Healey ;,f~;, ,', ,', moved that all four sets of minutes be approved as submitted. The motion, was )". ". < < I > C',::/:, '...,:, se.conded.. Mr. Henderson joined the meeti~g at this time and stated that he had ;-:<?",, ," "an: objection-to the statement on page five of the January 12 minutes, reading, f:;::~:;< "PM'r~ ,Henderson'ag'reed with Mr. Blanton and encouraged his discretionary ;.,::i".<;,~.'; , .'issuance of these perm.its.. fl Mr~ Henderson requested that 8ectinn'~~ be changed .J. ',' . ., ,_ . ~>~~,: '." to read, "Mr. 'Henderson spoke up -in behalf of Mr. Blanton and the procedure he :'" ", had'u~ed regarding issuing the foundation permits. . Mr. Henders''On indicated he was , , " , ; I ,l,., ", ,'.c .,:;;, ">." ,t, ~~;i;t: :.."\'" , , ,.... :~ ... :~. ", f, ~:. :', ' ..; ,r. :~~:: r.' " . \ ~ , v," ,. ...'.- ~. .', ';'. . ':' ; ~. . 1, " -- , " . , J . ~ ',.J' . ',' ~ I I.., ("J ~:'-~ . . . '\~'.' . ::~I.'; :':: ~~;l; . ;I'" , ':;t'1:1' ~[.:':' ' ~,~~.~:.. ,. ,r, }};(. , ~V::,! >:, . :~i~it~';'.'~' . ~. , . :~;f:'~/"~,:,,, , , .' , . ,~ ,- l\ member of the Building Permit Review Committee and that Mr. Blanton had brought this matter before the Building Permit Review Committee for comment and consideration. After discussion, the Committee recommended to Mr. Blanton that it was their opinion that the circumstances regarding this request warranted issuing the permit and suggested to Mr. Blanton that it-Jwould be appropriate. Mr. Henderson also pointed out that Mr. ,Blanton has no doubt been involved in more legal proceedings related to buildings than any other person in the City, and that he should and does have a considerable concern for the issuance of such permits. fI Mr. Heal ey accepted the amendment to his motion for approval. Mr.. Alexander seconded the motion, as amended, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Henderson introduce'd Mr. Bob Maran, etaff engineer, at this time. Mr. Maran is attending the Resource Development Committee meeting for tne training. The Committee proceeded to item mmber three on the agenda due to the abs.ence of representatives for Chateau Wood. ,Tract 21, Countryside ..: 'U~ s. Home Developers, located northeast corner of s. R.. 580 and Countryside Boulevard. Preliminary PI~Ln (shown incorrectly on agenda as "Plat. ") The representatives for Tract 21, Countryside, joined the meeting at , .' this, time and'introduced themselves to the Conunittee members. Representatives were Tim Kerwin, Frank Bo~worth, a~d Joseph Gagliardi. Chairman noted that the item was listed on the agenda. as JlPreliminary Plat"; this is in error and shoUld be "Preliminary Plan. " Mr. Kerwin stated that h~ had submitted a site plan along with other engineering data .to the staff members approximately ten days ago. Mr. Kerwin pointed out that Mr. Gagliardi and Mr. Bosworth had subsequently met with staff and that the conunents and questions raised by stf\H have been incorporated into the revised site plan, handed out at this time. Assistant Public Works Director: Presented a list of comments ~at the engin~ering staff have ra.ised regardirg the project. Mr. Henderson , expressed his concern on the stretch of road between Countryside Boulevard and the entrance to Tract 21. The Plan shows this area in its natural state. Mr~ Henderson advised that the City will request that it be paved up to the 'entrance to Tract 21. 'Discussion followed relating to whether this section ':h~s been dedica.ted as a right-oi-way. Mr. Kerwin agreed to present the " "'documentation which he reierred to in which it states that the area is dedicated " as<',~ right-ai-way. '...} , - Z - ....T ....'" " '" ~ .. ,', ~: " I> ' " ' , , " , ' lot: ..... .' ".... . , , .,. , , ' '. .- " ~,\ . , '.~' / . I " ,i:, ;~.. ",": . ~ ,.- . . Mr. Henderson noted that the interior water main is not looped into the City and no provision has been made Cor extonding it. Mr. Gagliardi stated that he had discussed the water main with Mr. Buhmcyer yesterday. Mr. Henderson noted an entrapped contour where it a.ppears that wa.ter will build up. He suggested a permanent overflow area be considered. He further suggested consideration be given to tying into phase two. Mr. Gagliardi assured the Committee it will be. There is a stuq, according to Mr. Gagliardi, although it is not shown on the plan. Chairman indicated that Ream Wilson had sent in a memora.ndum expressing his concern regarding the paving of that section of roadway along the north side of the project. This is the same section the Committee discussed earlier. Assistant Traffic Engineer: Expressed concern as to the access from phase two. Mr. Kerwin explained that there will be a liT" intersection to phase two, connecting into phase one. Mr. Meerians had no further comments. Planning Director: Commended the developer on the handling of the job. Mr. Healey noted that the carports adjacent to Countryside Boulevard may present a problem. ,One block would end up too close to the right-of-way. Mr. Healey expressed his concern on the set back for the pool and requested that Mr.., Kerwin check with the zoning officials on this. Mr. Healey noted that apparently there is no additional entrance planned to S. R. 580. He suggested that if the developer anticipated phase two with respect to this entrance, it might be better served to move it to the west, perha.ps to the recreation complex. As it presently exists, it favors phase one. The ~eveloper stated he would rather not ha.ve any entrances on S. R. 580, for the sake of the residents. Mr. Healey , noted, that the developer had dropped one complete building on the revised site ,plan, rnaldng eleven fewerl!units (since one additional unit was added to the model). Mr. Healey believed this to be a great improvement. . I .1 Mr. Henderson expressed further concern about S. R. 580. He believes there will be a need for another entrance onto S. R. 580 to serve the development. Mr. Healey stated that his re~,son in drawing attention to the entrance was that if it is to be for access from S. R~ 580, as it appears to be, it could better serve both phases if it were more centrally located. ,The City' B advantage from a traffic standpoint would be to have as few entrances as required to serve the public. Mr. Henderson noted that the second entrance appears to be needed; that it would be 800 - 1000 feet away from the other.. He did not believe that there would bee a corlnict between the entrances. The developer pointed out that the company is not near to a Bolution to development of the seCQl d half of the project. ,', Mr,. Meerians stated that it would be helpful to see both stages. Mr. Healey expressed concern as to the purpose and functional classification of highways indicating tha.t, in his opinion, movement should be encouraged from Countryside ,Boulevard rather than arterial highways. Mr. Meerians stated that a.ccess to S.. R. 580 will be the major access. - 3 - . . ,.......... '--' . . Mr. Kerwin requested that he be allowed to comment on this question from the developer's viewpoint. He stated that the la.nd is expensive and that the density of the project is wel1less than 500;0 of what it was originally zoned lor. I{ proper a.nd careful consideration is given to the aite plan and the developer is conscientiouB, he believes that the carports right off of the edge of the pavement could work well. Should an ordinance be passed to make condominium streets meet all requirements of other streetsJ he does not believe he could make this development work because he could not build the number of buildings that are needed to malte it economically feasible if he had to be governed by required set backs for public streets. Mr. Kerwin suggested holding a workshop with developers. Mr. Henderson Buggested that the dovelopers be invited to take a look at the proposed ordinance when the City comes close to a. finished product. Mr. Kerwin stated ,that the developer's concerns are (l) to make the project comfortable, safe and a nice place to live; and (2) to make the project salea ble. He further expressed his belief that there are other ways to solve the problem. J...and Resources Specialist: Expressed concern with trees on the project. He did not have the diameter and specie of each tree which is r~quired ,information.. The developer agreed that it will be supplied at the time (a ',tf~> 'peirmit application is made. . 1 1 i Mr.. Alexander: All questions have been answered. " Environmental Planner: (Represented by Grace Loyd) - Mr. Kenton had asked that it be put into the record.that he appreciated worldng with Mr. Bosworth and that he further appreciated the developer eliminating one building to avoid disturbing a grove of trees. The only question still concerning Mr. Kenton was the depth of the la.ke. In 'some places, it will be 16' deep. Mr. Kerwin stated that the reason for the ,depth of the lake is that 40 - 60,000 yards, of fill were , re,quired in some place s on the project. The fill is intended to be taken f~om , . the lake. The developer has taken care of the aeration problem\\ in the lake. Fire Marshal: No comments. Chairman noted that Mr.. Paroby had no comments. Mr. Buhmeyer expressed concern as to emergency vehicle access. Mr. Kerwin stated that the development is not designed for parallel street-aide parking. It ie controlled, according to Mr. Kerwin, by the lack of places to park caused by the trees. Mr. Healey asked the developer to describe the fence shown on the ,," "plan. Mr. Boswo;tlth stated that the fence at the set back line is to protect the pool. i:<', ,:, ' The ,fence on the other side is decorative.T-fM~~ Healey had nol problems as long as Ul.,'~~. it ~eetB the set back requirements. Mr. "~Wgroved for'.approval of thet~J'e1imi.nary :::ininms sit,e pla.n. Mr. Alexander seconded. Mr. Healey moved for amendment of nf~ motion '::.:Y9j79~o'include that space between the buildings for set backs meet zoning requirements ::h~,:'" of the, BUilding Depa.rtment. He stated there may be a few problems, but he believed ." I~ . . t~'bbth : them to be solveable.. The developer was informed that these requirements must ';4' ", . kcorre'ctions ' l\~{I", ' , ' :1 ~i. I. . JY~:!,:,' , - 4 - :;\'~II!',\,,< ',",,1."1 '~ .'/1" " ',,; ',:1:1'/.1", j,",;'\ ';, ~:l;'j' ,~'\"'," ~.j'[H.'j.,I'''('\'}: ,..\,1/.,..'\' ~.:~~. .".'. '~'<~ .1.~~:~I::~;,,::-<,;(,'}:~':,~\\~.,{'\l:I:~1;,"~~ ""'J'\~""~:"::"':/:'~': "ll,": .;" ! .~ , " , '" .) ~ .- . ~:? ' ~. .'.~.,.- " ", ~ c " ", J'<, J '.;.... .. ,! , " , " , ' ,: " " { I~' . " ' r;'~ ' '. , ' , , , .' I', i'j". ~:~l;,,', ' ....:'~ I" ,r: . , ~. :-- ~'I:'::;"""" tr"., ' ,'t,'" , " ::.. . It :,,\ I: .~ .' be met prior to the itom being taken beiore tho City Comrrission.. The motion, a.s amonded, carried unanimously. Chairma.n stated that we would try and agenda this item for the 15th of February. Representatives for Tract 21 left tho meeting at this time. ;/ l I " i , I , Chairman ente rtaincd a motion to continue item numbe r two - Chateau Wood - to the next Resource Develop~ nt Committee meeting due to the continued absonce of representatives of the developmont. Mr. Henderson so moved; Mr. Healey seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Henderson advised the group that he had come to the meeting prepared to make the above motion because of problems which had not been solved by the developer and the engineer.. He stated his motion had nothing to do 'with the absence of the representat:ives. Mr. Henderson agreed to meet with the developers prior to the next meeting of the Resource Dovelopment Committee meeting and explain the problems. Estima.ted Costs for Staff Review Tirpe: ,I Mr. Healey distributed the memo that was noted as forthcoming on the agenda sheet. Mr~ Heaey recomxnended there be no fee for the Community hnpact Statement application, and that the City establish a fee for site plan review, based on unit count. ,He believed an appropriate fee would approximate $150. 00. Mr. Healey further noted that in his opinion the back-up information on hand is sufficient for establishing ,the fee. Mr. Henderson suggested the Committee challenge its own 'position and try to pla.ce itself in the developer's position. Mr. Healey believed , one good argument would be in the service we provide. This service is priIDarily . directed toward the developerts project. The service does not relate to the community-at-Iarge as much as the Community Impact Statement. The service , is aimed to the developer's benefit from which the developer hopes to profit. In 'the 'review, the'City is not attempting to recover costs for staff work. Mr. Henderson , b~lieve;d the question might be raised as to why this fee should not be included in 'property taxes~ sewer impact fees, etc. Chairman requested that these arguments be made known to the City Manager in order that he be aware of the possibility of their being raised.. Mr.. Maran expres Bed his conc~rn that if the developer drope his 'project before completion, staff time is wasted. t;hairman indicated that the 'pros and cons should be submitted to Jeff Butler, who initiated the rei:luest that a lee be established,' prior to taldng to the City Manager with a formal presentation . to be submitted to the City Commission for a.pproval. "I \ '. Mr. Henderson suggested that the Conunittee transmit this infonmtion to Mr. Butler and advise that there may be questions raised, and that the GonUiutt~e is ready to discuss this with him. Chairman will handle and report ,back to the Conunittee at the next n'leeting. Private Street Polic'y: Mr. Buhmeyer felt we should obtain the developers' viewpoints. \ ' - 5 - ; <, .... " ',.. ~ ,.t..'t ~ ' , I, 'Ii .}~ ... ~~I~t". " 'i". ~ J~cr . " , :il\~;t, .l ~(oIi"'" .' , ::~,,\",' ~, " Pl.,": . ~ . i ' 'f ;,'", ': , .. :" ' , '~r. Healey volunteered to put something in writing as to criteria ',: ,I baoed on length, numbered units served, etc. Chairman suggested that Mr. ,Healey i:~:,:, , '" ,alBo,c.heck with Reani. Wilson concerning maneuvering, of maintenance verJ.cles ~?:,' ' ' on private streets. Mr. Meerians stated tha.t With back-out parldng, the niinimum J;}:~;> ',,>Width would be 24'. 'Mr. Heq,ley's offer was accepted. ' Chairma~ as sured '?;::."': ',',' " !', Mr~ Healey that all Committee members would be willing ~o offer t:heir assistance.' ~'.i.:;~':", ~he meeting adjourned at 11:30 a, m. .....c ~ E!.C' ~ ,;,.> . c. ':'" .~?~~.:;.;::; ': C ,,' ~~ ..(. . :". ti{U' ::,:..,,':':...' , ,",' ., t~/.\ '. '\ .~<.': :': " .', , ~;~{,!.: ," Ii.~;i(~,' ~," ',:,:;,: . """ , , \'., ,'" 3,. .. " ?',.", '. : i' " ~ ., . . .. , " or".'".. - (~.., ~{f::,:~<;> ,~ ~".':.' .f.::. ~ .', , . ~f;;t/,. " j~t~:~~I~~); '~. ' , . ~,r~~:;i;:r :,!{': ' :. '.' ,'" ,...::. ' . !"! " .' ; ,.'.':, ,:',':\ ~~t~,I,",!, ~,::'. "'- ",',' ~~ . q ~, . ~ ~ :.1 ~. . I :,j~f';;~l'~I~ ,.: : ..,.~ ,>. " . ~..c.':',~. ,'-' '"l.; ~ \. "l<:'",.. ','.,:',,: ',' : $rf~~:.::;',/;,:,:" ';::),!,;~~~:t,:.',:",',~'.' ..'<.,' r.", . '...: ~ . &:",.. :\h\ :l!), . fJ' : ;,:!~:, , . ..: > ,~I :, . ;. , ) ~ \ ,',' ' <" ::~~. " . '..r." , ' " ~:~y .' <, . . ;. . ~ ~ . , '~, ' ",<..:~~:.[. o. . > '\. ~\ ' \ .'. , . '< I :" f) (l ..' , , /:{ t , I " , Mr.. Henderson inquired whether there \y8.S any disagreement on .thedi1eed, for :,a polley on privatestreets~ Mr. Buluneyer expressed his belief that priva.te 'streets should be ailowed, but agreed there should be a policy. The Conuiiittee 'ag~eed with this. Mr. Meeda-ns a.sked Mr. Buhmeyer wha.t vehibles would : be involved. ,Mr. Buhmeyer stated that those coming immediately to mind were fire, garbage, ambulances, moving vans, 'etc. Mr. Henderson expre~sed h1sbellef that a minimum requir'ement is needed. If we anticipate parldng is going, to occur, then we must set a minimum street width.' Mr. Heililey stated that if 'the developer wa.nts' to ha.ve a na.rrow street, then he should be expected , toprC?,Vlde more ofl-street parldng.' ' " p. :; . ,. ~ : .~ i l:..,-:" ':::' :: , ::1 , 1 " :1 , ',j '\',' ,'\ " :'. ,I , I " '-i , I , I ... ~"\ " , , . 'q ,', ~ ~ , " '] . :.: ~ Cc ~ " ' " ~ '. .,' ' '.C C.;.:: "/ . , : \ . ". +' ; " ' , . " , , T.! >.'. ,.> 6 - .. "J . , ',' I . <,