Loading...
07/11/1980 "1/-', c ..;....... .' , ;1. r,' ' l' " .:;:J" ~ ,- :~ '\\, , ' ~"~~ . :,~" . \'.~ lr .,~ .. ' :. . , , f'~ 'Approvod ;--~ , , MINUTES ~RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMNITrEE JUI.Y 11, 1980 City of Clearwater, Florida MEMBERS PRESENT I v' I, Elizabeth S. Haeseker, Chairman Roy Ayres, Building Director Rearn'Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director Art Kader, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer George Buhmeyer, Fire Marshal 'John peddy, Enex:gy Officer Ceci1M. Henderson, Jr. Assistant Public Works Director Karen Wilson, Water Resources Specialist (Representing Environmental Management) David Healey, Planning Director Paul Rettig, Utilities Director / ',/ , , OTHER PRESENT ROnald P. Nisk, Hercules Business Center North Robert A'. Ferris; .Jr., Hercules Business Centex: ,Dean Van Horn, Van Horn Corporation Richard Olson, King Engineering Jim LaLonde, P.E., E.t-l.I. Engineering Roy, Chapman, Macroy Construction c Don' Williams, Williams and Walker Edwax:d Hogan, Jr., Attorney, Pierce Park Villas ,Ed '~azur, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Mr. Lloveras, Llo'veras, Baur & Stevens George Osterman, Jr., Shadowlawn Mobile Home Park Charles Bohart, Vision Cable Charles Groth, Citizen The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 10:10 a.m. in the Assistant City ,Manager's Conference Room in the City Hall Annex. Minutes of ROC meeting - June 13, 1980 , ceC~l Henderso~ moved that the minutes of June 13 be approved as amended.' Karen Wilson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes 'ot' Roc meeting - June 27, 1980 Cecil' Henderson moved that the 'minutes of June 27 be approved. Dave Healey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. . '"ITEM' #1 - Mayfair Subdividion, Van Horn corporation; located at the Northeast corner ,of S.R.580 and Landmark Drive. (Representatives, Richard Olson and Gene Van Horn) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN '(C.I.S. was previously waived) cecil Henderson - Presented and discussed written comments prepared by Bob Maran, City '~E~gineer, which are attached as Item 1. I '. ~ I " ': ,.1' . , '.': ,~. ' ',';." I ~ ~ i.' . . \ ,. , . ,',.., ,,! " ',": :~. ~ :1". '", ~1. ':,....~...+ . ~ ., ""'.~ ,.::,<.: ; ''-~'... J.;..~.. i':..]~~::'.~I') I '., I. t. ::' ",. ~{.. . , ,:",,::,:.~....~J""':'::':"~:I:.\~:J:\-..:," :'.',.,'~' ,c, \ ". :r.":" . .~ I, ",,:~:,;,~:,,<,/,,;,>,:.:,,'.n1 " l . ....1'....., 'J', ; .~.. ,~ 1 /~~~; , ';," ,;: .' " I ., f" '.J'C , . " 'I,:', '::.,' . ,. \" .. or: ~ ,- Cecil Henderson (continued) In addition to the written cOIMlonts, Mr. Hendorson also aU9gostod that tho developer revise their pond. Somo improvemonts could be made to the pond which would provide a dry area that would be easy to maintain and not be as unsightly as the area which has boon proposed. It was Mr. Maran's thought that the area right at the property 1ino would ~e very unsightly. Karen Wilson would have additional comments in reference to thi~ subject. Karen Wilson - Stated that they prefer dry areas for retention in the city rather than wet because urban stormwater runs off into wot aroas and if the area is not proportly designed to filter the stormwater, the wet area will fill in and become a nuisance problem. In general, they prefer dry areas which arc sodded and can be easily mowed and drain dry rather than wet areas. This area is worso than most in that a largo volume of stormwater from adjacent land areas is corning in from the South and is entering the developer's pro- posed pond site. Without the pond there, the water currently goos across the land through a ditch that is very heavily vegetated. As a result, that water is being treated in essence by the vegetation. The silt is being removed and most of tho nutrients and other disolved pollutants are being removed before the water enters the little pond to the North. Even with this treatment, this pond has started to go bad during the past 4 months. It is silted in,cattails and torpedo grass are starting to walk across it, etc. If this ditch is removed through construction of the proposed pond there will be no treatment of the storm- water entering from the South and that large volume of stormwater will cause this pond to go sour in a shorter periOd of time than it would if it only had runoff from the developer's property. Either the area should be designed to drain dry or an elaborate filter berm would have to be constructed around the property and the water coming in from the South would have. to be diverted around the filter berm. Because of the volume of water that probably would not work and that is why they are proposing a dry system be incorporated to avoid maintenance headaches for the homeowners three or four years down the road. Cecil Henderson - Showed the developers a plan for the dry system and suggested that it would be to their advantage to extend the retention area over onto the adjoining City property, excavating it and using it as part of the retention area, and connecting it into the exist- ing pond. This area would have to be sodded once it was constructed in order to avoid the kind of problems that Karen Wilson mentioned. He also suggested that the storm sewer system be revised to go into or toward the pond. Instead of a deep hole at the back of the prop- erty they would have a very gently sloping section of property to a trickle channel which would be a narrow channel to carry the water away. The gentle slope would leave that location across the trickle channel and coming back up and connecting into the other edge of the City property. It would be easy to maintain for the property owners on both sides and be a better looking situation than proposed on the present plan. Mr. Van Horn asked, (1) would it be possible to sod ten feet of the swale and then ten feet the other side and mulch the rest because of the erosion problem and, (2) since the high school parking lot was right next door, h~ had intended to berm on this side of the pond and needed something to buffer the people from the parking lot. A fence could do thi~. In answer to part 1 of Mr. Van Horn's question, Mr. Henderson said that they prefer sod and the decision would rest with Max Battle. He pointed out that the walls they proposed to put in would not have to be put in under this plan and there would be a savings. Also, they would not have to excavate as deeply as planned. Mr. Van Horn asked if it was possible to put a fence on the City's property. Karen wilson said that there were power lines there and 'that could be a problem. Mr. Henderson said with the rearrangement of the dirt, one potential was an elevated berm of some type along the outside area. One of the major concerns was making the area so that it would be maintained. The deep ponds are very difficult to maintain. .There was further discussion about the ponds. In reference to (n~ren Wilson said they do recommend sod. Seed and mulch on the upper slopes of the area would be acceptable during the dry season with irrigation, but during the rainy season there would be erosion before the grass tak~s hold. -2- July 11, 1980 - ROC t A.. H..... " ~'.:,>::~., I.},' .. ' " '.t.' .,>.r , , ~ . ' . .":,,.~,<,~.t. ,',: 'J' . ." ~ '-I/~\"} ./ '~'j~' '.~ '~"r." ',.., ,~ , " '\ ,,' 'I~' ;"~J\11""~1. ~<..'1' .> "'i.':-l.I,I' (~.. ".~"~' ,.. . "" ::(','.. ~ ", l.:.', "~' . 'ill '.,' I l,'\;~~,~~t .~ ',. t,', .'.I',t,.,: ~.~".., ,'1,;,,"1 't~ ."'.:11'" :.'i ~' ':,"': ;. '.," , .. ., .,,' ", "" 'fi/c' r 'h ,. ,,,".,'" ", ,..... ,.,.~" " ,", .,. " ", .: . .\; ....:':: ::.. ',. .'......; I. ,'::,:',':t:' .:., :,":;).! ."}"">)" ::'f:;"':,e,i:,~~;],~;;~~f~~:~~:!fi:,:y:!;'..,;:"~, i, ;';;:', ",: ";;),, Ie ". .{" , j' ,./ . '. '. "...... """"I""'''''!'['' ,<,,1. (' . ,t' ", " '\,;.': ", P J .;,' :: ': " : ,,;, ,..., I' !.:;,l ',/:,:,..-"',', ':..::,:".,;<:':",:.~:~\'J::'.;::;j ,,':: ' ~ :c":"/",.', ,,' ,"I'.. ..~:.~ ,. ~. . .~ .' I Roy Ayres - No conunont ~ fl ,-.. ..c.",. Art Kader - No comment '.' " .' , . " :' ~i '. '," :....' :'.,,1 . {,I.: ~ !c'.;: ,; , .'. /.,. '.j". . . .~-'. \ 'I"~ 1..... , . ~: ~;~ ,'. ". ~~~ ~I \ , George Buhmeyer - Stated that he had talkod to Mr. Olson about an additional hydrant at the entry drive tiff Landmark and he was supposed to revise the drawing accordingly. Mr. Olson stated that they were going to make a tap with an S" x 12" Dave Healev - Before the final subdivision plat is submitted and signed off for filing, they would require a landscape plan be prepared and submitted for the double frontage lots backing up to 580. They would like to see that done by the developer as part of the develop- ment ~ther than being faced with a set of individual variances when people actually build. Mr. Olson asked if either a fence and/or landscaping would ~e required. Mr. Van Horn sug- gested a combination berm/fence. Mr. Healey replied that whatever proposed combination. they can agreeupon would be the BOlution,and the condition of plat approval would be that it be in place, done as part of the development, and that no subsequent variance would be entertained for the individuals to place their fences. Mr. Healey said that additional right- of-way or right-of-way casement would be needed for 5BO and that Mr. crawford would address that. In reference to the cul-de-sac length, the subdivision regulations would ordinarily limit that length to 500 ft. He had no problem with the longer length'but the Commission's attention needed to be drawn to that as a variance from the typical requirements. He wanted to be sure that as part of the approval access to Lots 1 and 22 are limited to the new cul-de-sac drive with no access to Landmark Drive. He suggested that in respect to Lots 3, 4, & 5, that Lot 5 was a little smaller, 76' where most of the rest are 80'. There 'is~'~ittle room on Lob 4to make it wider and the effect of that would be for these to back up to e'ach other, with Lot 4 on Kenilworth Drive, and a little more standard form of arrange- ment so that one person's side yard matches the other ones and they are not offset so much. There was some discussion about the lot arrangement. John Peddy - No comment. Keith Crawford - Had the following comments. 1. Cul-de-sac exceeds length permitted but can only be cured by placing an intersection on the curve where one should not be. 2. Need sidewalks on Landmark and SR 580 to the high school by 9/2/S0. 3. Right-of-way for SR 580 should be provided now but DOT is noncommital so there is a question as to whether we should require it. 4. Sidewalk needs to go in an area which is now a ditch. Sidewalk in easement on North side' of SR 5BO? Mr. Crawford had discussion with Mr. Olson and Mr. Van Horn on the above items and went over the plan with them. There was then some further discussion about ease- ments and fencing with various ROC members commenting. Paul Rettig - Recommended that the 15 ft. drainage easement be also included as a utility ~asement as he could not forsee down the line what may go in there. Natural gas is avail- able along 580. If ~he easement between 12 and 13 were made utility easement a gas main might conceivably be run there and in the street at some future date. Mr. Olson said it would be a utility easement. Mr. Rettig went on to say that the cost of a tap is through the owner. The developer had changed it from a 6" x 1211 to an Bit x 12". He noted that the developer showed a meter at Lot 22 on Landmark Drive and inquired if it was existing and if so what was the purpose. Mr. Van Horn thought it had been put there for sprinkling. Mr. Rettig said that the Building Dept. is cooperating with the utility Dept. in not approv- ing the plumbing until the meter is set. It is to the developer and the builder's prerogative to qet the water main in first, get it approved, and get it under pressure before building houses. There was some discussion on this. Mr. Rettig then said that he assumed there would be curb side pick up of garbage, the radius is large enough for trucks and it was overall a good plan. MOTION: Mr. Henderson moved for approval subject to the following: ,;c' ,t- ~: ~L'; ~'.' ;.- i),;: ~r.: c:,.;> ;\.,.'.' :/:;:~','" :::<':,::>;,";,I:~: ';.'.;,;,:,~ \' t: , ',:'.':~,>.,:', >: ',' .':.'....1:";':/ ,', : ',:.; .:' ~.)~" '.'. ,I:\\::'.;~~': '.};: '< l~~.!-;"::-., ~;~;; .:~ ::' "'>~"! ;'.: ~,,;. >:.: >~'.:. :;>. :,1: :{':,:','~;.' :'~': :' ,~~':"', ::",':.' ,',<' ':'~?i:" "<" .,'.,.. ..,.,.'.,'.'..., .,1. "',' ,...".....>..,,,11...,, ,)"."'..~) ,,'J ',' ...., ",..' ""(".,, .",J,,, ..,.",'" .:,:....::.i::,,'i... ;,..', :.,,: . .;"-;",...;.,.: ...', ",,! '., ' '.': ""':,: :;. ,::., ..: ':'l'~. . ;,.; ....~'.', .'; ,":.' ',i' ,'" ".';;'\.';~'"((f:,::i"~: :::<":.:'" :.;1.'::.,::.~[,~ .:/. 'i.'.\ r.;' ,..,::...:~,>><;'>.;'<"'.:I. ':'. '. ", ," .' , ~" " J' .';' ".. ..'" \ " '. I, ' .' ,,',,' p,," ".' . >c', ",... "". ,. l'......\ ,. ," .,- ;:(:.:,:",;;;;t:;;;,{:~:}:,.;'r: :;'. "" ;":_j,i;',;;'~~;~~:'i",,, '. ::,.},::.,:/'.. "',. <,"', :::..;..../}i.:):J.~:;,:; ";:?::f?:",,'; :'..~:...;...:;"::.~~'.;. ,.;':;,?;;:"}c' ,.. {<I " I ",-,.l.t ' ' . r '" ~ '. -.... . '" \. L . "1,, . .. . \ '. " ' , ,. " ',''', ., , .'. . .... .. ,'..' 'j . \://:);::::'iY',:..:::;:i{l'.', .:~>':~ :;,;\,.' i, i::.:"': : ,':' ! ';",,:;:::1, f :,', ':,1,';, :';,i/i;: :',' ,:: '..;:. .'; . :;:':'d,<;';1XL;t"i~' ;(; .'; ':,: <i;; " :~. ':,';:':: " ',' .;;!.,.'; "0''' ""..."" 'I" " . t""" "",' ' .' ,,,'J.I..., .. I." . ,,,.,, ,'" c,'.,l/"" ','" ,,/ , -3- July 11, 1980 - ROC ,'~ :' t J " 1. Modificat.ion of tho drligo rotontion aroa to Engineerj"--\Department roquiremonts. 2. Dodication of the drainage easoment shown on tho South R1uQ of the property as a drainago, utility and sidewalk casement. 3. Dedication of the oasomont between Lot.s 12 and 13 as a drainagc and utility easement. 4. Landscaping and/or fonce plan for tho doublo frontage lots which must be submituad prior to tho flnal plat approval and filing. Karon Wilson seconded tho motion. Davc Healey asked should they ask for 10 ft. of additional right-of-way on Landmark Drive East to the easterly limits of the property knowing that thore may well bc more required, particularly at tho curb, but based on previous plan approval. Mr. Henderson said that could be solved by asking that the casement b~ dedicated as right-of-way and then they could put whatever they wanted to in thore. There was some general discussion. Cecil Henderson - Amended the motion, item 2, to read: 2. Dedicate the 15 feet shown as a drainage easement on the South side of the property as right-of-way. Karen Wilson seconded tho amendment to the motion The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment to the motion. The amendment carried unanimously. The amended motion was then voted on and carried. ITEM #2 - Hercules Business Center North - Warehouse Unit, Ronald F. Nisk~ located on the North side of Sunnydale Boulevard. (Mr. Ronald F. Nisk, Mr. Robert Ferris) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Cecil Henderson - Distributed and discussed written comments which are attached as Item 2. Mr. Ferris stated tha"t they had reviewed the plan with Mr. Rooks and in reference to #2 on the Engineering Dept.ts comments, they had sha1lowed the retention from what it had been and had Mr. Rooks' approval on the elevations as they now stand. Roy Ayres - Inquired if the warehouse units were for storage only. Mr. Ferris explained that it is an industrial warehouse type use similar to a project that Mr. Nisk had across the streetl generally going into light manufacturing, with two or three employees. Mr. Ayres said then there would possibly be a mix of some office space, light manufacturing space, storage space, etc. Mr. Nisk said that it would be very similar to a project called Hercules Business Center, which is on the South side of Sunnydale Blvd. In that project they have a precision grinding company and others. Mr. Ayres ,said the only problem he saw was whether or not parking would be sufficient if they had more than just warehouse use there and they should be aware that after the building was occupied and the tenants were in and going through the process of obtaining occupational licenses, license applications would have to be checked against zoning, building, etc. Depending on what evolved there, someone could be denied an occupational license based on there not being adequate parking. Art Kader - No comments Karen"Wilson - Reiterated what Mr. Henderson said about the retention area being designed to drain dry in under 24 hours. The slope was indicated tQ be sodded. The bottom should be also sodded and that is why it needs to drain dry so that grass rather than cattails would grow in it. Also, they require all of the drainage from the property to pass through grassed areas. There was some discussion about drainage. Also, Mike Campbell had indicated to her that more landscaping might be needed and it would be discussed when the developer came in to take out a permit. -4- July 11, 1980 - ROC () ,,- '\ . ' George Buhmeyer - Suggested that the warehouse unit designatl.v.l might be dropped and call it Hercules Businoss Center North, which would indicate the use of it. Dave l'lea1e.'( - Thought it was a good plan. In reference to Units Wand X in Building B, there appeared to be no acc~ss to them. Mr. Ferris said they had been trying to set it up in the most lonnable configuration and one option was to take Unit X and put n dogleg South to an overhead door loading facility. At this point they planned to combine X and Y and eliminate the wall between them and have one 2500 ft. space with office in tho front and parking on the West side and warehouse loading on the South aide. There was some further discussion of this and parking uses. Mr. Nisk said he wanted it to be public record that they would drop the warehouse designation and asked for suggestions for the name. Chairman Haeseker suggested that they just call it Hercules Business Center North. Mr. Nisk agreed. John peddy - Said that it was a potentially high energy use and he would like to see them consider on all of their area lighting to go to a high intensity type lighting, sodium vapor, and to do everything in their power to hold down the energy use. Hopefully, they would see fit from the standpoint of further conservation to do as much as they could with structure, especially in the roof area of those areas which will be air conditioned. Mr. Ferris said they were anticipating ventilated warehousing or manufacturing space rather than finished air conditioning space. Mr. Peddy inquired about outdoor lighting. Mr. Ferris said that it would be primarily security lighting- Keith Crawford - Made the following comments. 1. Planter by Building S should be built so as to leave a 24' opening into the parking lot in front of Buildings S, T, U, v. 2. parlting for Buildings W, X, Y should be 19-24-19 instead of 18-24-20. Paul Rettig - It was his understanding that each of the units would be a separate business and would be separately metered for their water. Mr. Ferris said that there would be one master water meter. Mr. Rettig advised that there is an ordinance requiring each business .to be separately metered. Since they had an easement next to them, they could run a 2U line and set a meter outside each business. If one tenant did not pay his bill the whole thing would not be cut off. Also, he said they would probably have a dumpster for garbage and trash pick up and the location for the dumpster should be approved by the sanitation super- intendent. Karen Wilson swale system. The placement of the dumpster should be that any runoff would go into a Mr. Ferris said the dumpster would he located toward the rear of the project. .Mr. Nisk said that other dumpsters in the area were located in front of businesses and it was an unsightly condition. Chairman Haeseker said that the Sanitation Dept. would look into the location of other dumpsters at the same time they decided the location of this project's dumpster. There was some discussion of placement of the dumpster and the use of the easement. MOTION: Dave Healey moved to approve the preliminary Site Plan subject to the conditions that have been identified with respect to the retention area and the shallowing up of it and to the adjustment in the dimension of the parking spaces on the North end, the dimension with respect to the 24 ft. aisle at the entrance, to showing the revised arrangement for the combination of Units X and V, and to the location of the water easements and meters for the individual businesses. Keith Crawford seconded the motion. Mr. Ferris explained that the way the project would be submitted for a permit would have the project divided into 6 units with a potential for six businesses and he wanted to know how the sewer moritorium would affect this. -5- July 11, 1980 - ROC f.' ~ Cecil Henderson - Advised' i developer permit for more than' 4 units at a time. and the sewer moritoriurn. r-- that they would not; "able to obtain a building There was considerable discussion about permits IThe motion was then voted on and passed unanimously. ITEM #3 - Shadowlawn Mobile Home Park, George Osterman, located on the Eust sido of Bayview Avenue - (Mr. osterman, Mr. Lloveras, Engineer) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Dave Healey - There..is a Shadowlawn .Mobile Horne park with some 39 mobile homes existing inunediately South of the area we are looking at. The developers came to us some time ago with regard to completion of this addition to the park. Mr. Healey then explained briefly some of the problems with zoning, annexation, etc. He said the process we are involved with is that the annexation and zoning requests have been reviewed and considered by both the Planning Board and the City Commission and they recommended approval of the annexation subject to five conditions as follows: 1. An additional 10 ft. of right-of-way along Bayview Blvd. 2. A 15 ft. utility easement on the East side of the property. 3. A 10 ft. utility easement on the North side. 4. Payment of fee in lieu of park dedication. 5. Submission of a plan for mobile home park expansion to be approved by the City Conunission. Mr. Healey said he had reviewed the plan and it still does not meet the requirements of the mobile home district in the zoning ordinance in a couple of areas. The requirement for a new mobile home park is that it be a minimum of ten acres and this is not. There is a requirement for a-lO percent recreation and service area not being technically met with this plan. Also, it would not meet the minimum lot size of 3500 sq. ft. for each mobile home under the code. He felt the developers had done what they could to achieve the intent of the standards and are going to have a substandard park from the standpoint of those three areas that have not been met. He recommended that the plan be approved. , c John Peddy - No comments . Keith Crawford - had the following comments. 1. Closing Bayview entrance creates excessive cul-de-sac length. 2. Hammerhead dimensions adequate. 3. Paved streets? Mr..CrawFord went over the plan with the owner and engineer. The streets were to be paved, according to the owner. ':.." . Paul Rettig - Asked the owner if this portion of the park had been approved by the State Board of Health and was informed that it had. He had no problem other than the location of the dumpster. The owner said the existing dumpsters would serve. Mr. Rettig said that the utilities, the water lines were in and it was private and no problem. But he also advised that mobile home parks are converting and putting in water, mains, sewer lines, and separate meters for each home and that is the way the trend is going. Cecil Henderson - Distributed written comments which are attached as Item 3. The developer stated that he had reviewed #3 with reference to drainage retention with Max Battle and ha~ met his requirements. '. ......,. ~{.' , ';. Paul Rettig - asked why there ~as a 10 ft. utility. easement on the North. The developer said.it had been requested by the Engineering Dept. for preparation for the future. ;~ .. :. ~: ~. . -6- July 11, 1980 - ROC ~';:" ~ ,,-.. Roy Ayres - Inquired if t c would b~ a building construe in tho area indicated for n laundry. The developer said they ware considering putting a structuro thore or oxpanding the existing laundry in the older section, which they felt would be a better Aolution. Mr. Ayres said that he had no conunents on the site plan itself but that they should be sure that permits were properly obtained. \ Art Kader - In reference to the payment of feo in liou of parkland dedication, there is a 10% parkland dedication ordinance within the City for any property that is annexed. The developer asked if they would get credit for recreation facilities. Mr.Kader said not in an annexation but they would look at a new project as far as recreation facilities that would be built. The developer had a question. They could not put any buildings on the 40 ft. setback but he believed they could put shuffleboard courts thero, or would that bo consid~red a structure? Mr. Healey said they could do that under the terms of the ordinance but that would not address the parkland dedication requirement. .~ : Karen Wilson - Asked if the retention swales were going to be sodded in their entirety. The developer said they would be. Mrs. Wilson asked where the overflow would go if it is not adequate. He said it would go down the street. The streets would be paved and sealed with blacktop. The drainage would be to the East. Mrs. Wilson asked if there would be pets and the developer said there would be no pets. .t" .' : '. '7"' .'. :,.. <~I .::;. <. George Buhmeyer - Inquired about fire hydrant placement and recommended that a hydrant be placed at either end of the park. They have no access off Bayview except one for the entire park, every street is fenced off. The Fire Dept. requires fire hydrants on the site with Mr. Buhmeyer's approval. The developer said he would investigate the area. ..'- ~'\ .:~ . \ ::;':1 Mr. Healey asked Mr. Henderson in reference to the 10 ft. utility easement, can the mobile home be placed over part of the easement? Mr. Henderson said no, that the City could not utilize the easement if they did this. Mr. Healey said that this poses an additional limit on the units on the North side. The developer said it was a major problem. There was some discussion on this. ,c, '. "" :;~ : :-.\ , , " Il ',', Cecil Henderson - It has been their policy in the Engineering Dept. to require a 10 ft. right-of-way around the perimeter of properties that are being annexed into the City for future utility placement. The developer was advised to get with the Engineering Dept. and Mr. Battle to work it out. ',t." , ..... \\ ~ . MOTION: Dave Healey moved to recommend approval subject to the five conditions that have already been identified as part of the annexation process, which included the utility easements, the road'right-of-way easements, the park dedication fee, and with the following modifications. 1. Provision for the proper extension of the roadway to Bayview Ave. as per the Traffic Engineer's approval for radius on the opening. 2., That the typical mobile home size permitted meet the setback requirements of the :ordinance and the utility easement requirement however that is resolved with the Engineering Dept. If the Engineering Dept. insists on utility easement, it wi~l be specified in the plan that the coach cannot exceed 42 feet on that North side. 3. That the fire hydrant be located with the approval of the Fire Marshal. ~c , ,~';~ ~ ,.'\, ',',;J ,.~~ : :; I, !" .... i'~I' ,t,. \1,,:' Mr. Buhmeyer seconded the motion. '.1:,'. 'c, The developer said that if it was a monumental problem to bring a fire hydrant to the property then the whole problem might be economically unfeasible. Mr. Buhmeyer said he believed a 611 main ran to the South boundary of the mobile home park. ~: H .' .';. '" Chairman Haeseker advised the developer that they could speak to the City Commission about the difficulties. The Chairman called far a vote on the motion and it carried unanimously. -7- July 11, 1980 - ROC I' ",,'... '1 ,,'\>~;~'..ii.':~:'< c:.,: ". ,; ;'c,. ". " '. . ""I" . ", '.' "c. ,....":. ..'.'~~,:..'r:?!",:'..'.~.~.i,r,{).':",:,:.!.'~.,';.:,I..',!;....\.;~;;I.!.f.,;,;;1..:;,~....,(,!:~.~, ", , '" .,' ".'>~', ',.",'"',,..'.....',',.,',;,;:;'i:.;f.!.;.i...'..:.:.)'.iJ'!,;"',:.;.'i.~...{",.-'-,I.,..,c,.;".,,.,c.,.t.:.-'.'.,.',:,II"'.".'.;..":"~':.:>:~''/J.., .. '-J '~"'.";l't. .c.,,! .'/~~'. ...... .'";......".',,. :,';,.C~.,.:;.,':,;:::,'.:'~". ;:...'i."..;:.,:.':,:,;,. ':':"';I.,,'~.i,;, 'I.'~:":}.::"~:";''': I::,,:';:'::" "" . '.,., " '.'j 'J\';'t?':'" . .'-. . , ,",. . .',,;:<' ,.',., ..:~ ~:..,...".~:.":\::.:..i,',:.' ~',.".:' .' '.:. .t'.". ;',:( .;.:' "/;',';:,,;,>"'i: ':"c.,', .,".,,' . ,. , ' '"'.. . :i,:'! .:' ,,:'::,:,~.. .:", :,.'\, ..." :.) :.,.:,:: '.""! ';'.". '..,c:,:, :.!c. .:"".;:'.c :,' " .:::,.,::,,",!}: " ' ,. ij>,' / ' I . cc i .1.\,' .,..,. ,.. ",...,: '. Il,I"~''''''llIlfl,I,~ ~.. ': :"..':'~.::': :".., t". lj"l\"": ".J t,,: ,.'''. .'., ~.,'-'.;.;:.,<.I~~;l\:".'1:i" '" c."., .;'..::' .,.~c".;':'"' "! ,;'''., ,i, r :, ii' ,I:~. ......:i ':\,:." ',' ': ,(',J>,: :.?tt,,::')'If;~\\\~li!:{ .,:: <, >}'. .', ,: .... >.:'..:'" . .l._ c. > '< .l'>~;.:~"J~:'.".': .c.,....,.i;'~ 'u"':" ., .C.'t" . I <., ~"1 : ..;' , f' ", I ).' ~ I / >;' . . . ... '",1"' ~ r-, The moeting adjourned for! ~h at 12130 p.m. Mr. Kader 10. :ho moeting at this time. At 1z 30 p.m. the meoting resumed. Mr. Roam Wilson joined \:ho mooting. ITEM #4 - Vision Cable, Williams & Walker; located on tllO ~orth alde of Drew street West of U.S. Highway 19, N. -(Don Williams, Architoct, Chuck Bohard, Vision Cable ~ Lieu, designer) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Cecil Henderson - Distributed and discussed written comments which are attached as Item 4. Roy Ayres - Had a question about the towor location. Mr. Williams said they had a minor plan change which they had not yot distributed. The new plan was given out to members at this time. Ream Wilson - No problems. Karen Wilson - Asked if the retention area had 2 to I side slopes. Mr. Williams advised 'that Mr. Lloveras was familiar with the plan and W8S not present due to other commitments. Mrs. Wilson advised him that Mr. Lloveras should take it up with John Rooks and her at a future time. The side slopes should be 3 to 1 and not 2 to 1 because 2 to 1 sodded has a tendency to erode. The underdrain system should extend the entire length of the berm at the center and the entire length of the berm down the West side of the pond rather than the two short pieces. This would eliminate the entire gravel area. Put perforated underdrain under the sodded side of the pond so that you assure adequate drainage through the entire length of the pond. Do away with the entire gravel thing because they like to see the water percolate through sodded areas to absorb nutrients. The gravel does nothing for that. You would have a sodded, depressed area with underdrain on the two high sides. To sumarize, the pond should have 3 to 1 sides rather than 2 to 1 and the entire thing should be sodded with stabilization along the top of the West berm, and underdrain the entire length of the berm. Mr. Williams said there would be no problem. George Buhmeyer - No conunents. Dave Healey - Most of the comments he had were addressed in the revised plan. He added that the variance for the height of the tower is subject to the approval of the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeal. He commented that they ought to dimension at the North end the minimum 3 ft. separation distance between the park and the property line for future reference. He said that handicapped parking would be more appropriate in front. Mr. Williams said there was one handicapped space in the front. Mr. Healey said it would be helpful if they under- stood what was going to happen to the building, what would be studio, office, etc. Could that be noted on the plan so they could apply the proportionate numbers of square feet in each type of use to arrive at the parking. The developer said they would give a breakdown. Keith Crawford - Commented as follows. 1. Minor dimension changes needed in the North parking lot. 2. 35' driveway should be 15',20'. 'John Peddy - He would like to see high intensity, sodium vapor, or something of that nature used for exterior lighting. Paul Rettig - Asked if they meant to tie on to an existing all main and extend down and set a hydrant and then go into it with a meter. He said they should coordinate this with the Water Dept. He also indicated they should coordinate a dumpster location with the Sanitation Dept. if that is what they planned. Roy Ayres - Have they considered the sidewalk requirement on Drew St.? Mr. Williams understood that Drew St. is in the program for widening. -1 j Keith Crawford - Said the sidewalk ordinance required sidewalks unless there are no side- walks within 200 feee, ,plus some other conditions. He said they would stamp the plan and a waiver would have to be obtained. -8- July 11, 1980 - ROC . ' , .' ~, ,I ~;,; .'~\':' .~ ,i, ..., \ "'.';' .~~ ;'/~"~ <.' ,_.' 't "" :. .," :,'~' '~t: '. ,."'~',;"':;llt.,':'~':''': <'\',~' '.: ~>11 ::1 I"'*'" ....-. Chairman lIaosekor said the. were throo major thingy thoy 11 at with reference to the otdinance. Arc there sidewalks within 200 ft., is it hazardous not to havo a Bidttwnlk, and is it a school route. A requost for n waivor could be obtained from tho Building Dept. Mr. Ayres said he would like to seo the sidewalks shown on tho site plan. Mr. Henderson said they could show sidewalk as a proposed futuro sidewalk location and then put a note on thore saying they are requesting waivers. MOTION: Keith Crawford moved for approval subject to approval by the Engineering Dept. regarding drainage. Ream Wilson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEMttS - Tract 54, Countryside, U.s. Home; located just North of City property on Landmark Drive - (Ed. Mazur, Post,Buckley, Schuh, & Jerrigan) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF C.I.S. Dave Healey - Read a letter he had received from U.S. Horne requesting a waiver for C.I.S. for Tract 54. The tract is ~oned ro4 20 and contains 8.70 acres which were included in the Countryside annexation to C.I.S. Their request is based on the fact that it was addressed in the Countryside annexation. The determination would be whether that was complete and adequate and is still timely or whether there is additional information that needs to be forthcoming. Cecil Henderson - Referred to Environmental Section. Engineering has no problems. Roy Ayres - No problems. Ream Wilson - No problems. Karen Wilson - The document that Dave Healey has does not address the fact that this project is within the Government 600 chain - they have two lines of prohibited activities f around the eagle's nest, two different radii, and this particular development lies within one of these. Because of the fact that that the development is higher density than single family, and is multiple family, this may be unacceptable for this close a proximity to the eagle's nest. The eagle's nest is active and has been for some time. A great deal of effort was made to protect the nest and they feel that a c.r.s. on this property should be required. Mr. Mazur asked if they could address this by getting with proper State and Federal agencies, getting a letter from them, and having them look at a site plan. There was discussion on the density. Mrs. Wilson was not sure what approval would be necessary from the State. Mrs. Wilson said that if the project was federally funded in any manner they would have to do an E.I.S. on the property. She stated they hav~ letters on file.from Fish & Game stating their concern about development of any kind, especially higher density within that 600 chain or outside perimeter.. She said she had a note from Mike Kenton that the request for a waiver of the C.I.S. should be denied. Ream Wilson - No comment George Buhmeyer - No comment. .. . Dave Healey - There are some changed conditions from when this plan was prepared in 1977 relative to the eagle's nest being present and that the school site had been shifted. In " the present plan the school site is identified where it was originally proposed with all relationships, traffic, etc. that would be changed in light of relocation of the school. Would suggest that an addendum to the C.I.S. would be appropriate. Take what they did previously and update it based on what has changed and expand upon in great detail the relationship to the environmental sensitivity of the site to the South. Ii'" , f~'-' -9- July 11, 1980 - ROC c' . ,.,. '" .,l. I" .' .,... . '" 'p ..", \. , ,'1 '.... ,.I;cc",.: :(.,.'~:c:""',. ',"'>'l~qp' .:.....",.. roo: :.y'''.:' ,..:;/. .:." .....::c, ,'. . . /'./.l.:...,'....".',..:,::.;.:, ,~',j.,,;.:.'...,.,:.':,:..',..,;,;,.,:.;.'.:.~.'.:,',:i':':';:;'.'~"~"";':":"':;:';::'.';:.("".1;:~'...:.!..,:,..:,..il...:'....:,:~).,,::.:...:.;,',;...'.:.:.':.,....:.;.'.'.:,..;.~,~:\::\~:.'..,..; ;,:',;,',.,:,,,:~,;,;,:,:,~,::,:,:,.,',:,',;,:,',:,',:,(,'.'.:I"',;,:."..:.:....,:...;::;.,.,:.:.~~,,'.:.:..:".:.',:..:". : ~ '.', ..,,~ ',' :"'.,;,!' ,,",' ~.,'-.:. '::'..".:'.',::)~[".~.:.:i.:;, :.: '.::';1, i.' ~.I. ;' ':'; :J: .. , ;::~. , . . ." ;'.," 'I....... ". .'. ", ,-I ,,: . , , ,. .... " I . ." ';', " ;;',i., I;.~.. ;,. . ' ::};;;t;;;;;~:;,,;,!(;:;; " .'. t ~~ .~, I ) \ I" : .. I. I' \ .f , /.. .j\ ,. ,,~:~1'.1,/.' 'Il'..~.; ., \ l.\....".::\{l.::.i,.:";.::.'.\~.;:';\...j;.I:c;.. ~...,l < ~ .. l 'j' ;".t':,. :1,'. ' \ '." ',""""", "'.' .' ,,", 'I'c",,' ,.. ':':'\:)),\"::".,::;.; '1 { , '.' !., '. ;;' ,,.',. .; ...., ". ::;<iA}..:<i !;:: I. ,. , ....' , ~ '. 11~. " I, . \ .~' . \.:~ ':', ! . .I: 'e " ~,.. ~ .... ~ ~ I , r.,. . " ,; . ".. :.'~ : :::'~. ~ ~:. ",,'.1 '1" , ~.' , .e". -.,'" +..... .~..::.l~:.~.. ~.,. ';...l . . .. I, 1 oj' "';, " I.. .c 'c "~Ii' ,c; . l,' ,!": /,' ........ .+'" . I' .; .c . ~ . ~:. 'I " , c\'" ,. '.' . .. ' ..." ..' '. .><. iJ .' . " J ~, . -. j.' ;, ," "." c .~ I ~ did not see a i~ that u. S. Homo could develop ~,,-.... tract at RM 20, max- density of builo.lng height and be compatible. witt'l those environmental It would cause tho ROC to reconsider what is appropriate on the site in basic zoning classification. Dave Ilealey imizing the restraints. tenns of the John Peddy - No comment. Keith Crawford - The moving of the school reduces the load on Landmark Drive. It also puts us at the disadvantage of developing that st!eet through the property. No other comments. Paul Rettig - As far as. utilities go, he knew there was water available and capacity for the sewer. He agreed that the C.I.S. could just be updated. Considerable discussion followed about environmental concerns. MOTION: Dave Healey made a motion that the ROC require an addendum to the original c.r.s. that would address the specific issues of changed land use patterns since the time the original document was prepared and address all of the known limits and ramifications of the eagle's nest. Ream Wilson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ITEM #6 - pierce Park Villas, Macroy Construction, Inc.; located between Pierce and Franklin Streets West of Waverly Way. (Roy Chapman, Jim LaLonde, Mr. Hogan, Attorney) COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT Cecil Henderson -Distributed and discussed written comments which are attached as Item 6. In reference to the C.I.S. on page 4 where it shows 25 gallons per person per day for the sewage generated by thi~ development, our normal design criteria to use is 100 gallons per person per day. The developer said that it could be an error and they would check it. Mr. Henderson said this would change the amount of sewage generated but will not cause any problems, just so they understand that they will be generating considerably more than they anticipated. Mr. Ayres - He did'not see anything under the architectural section about energy conservation and referred this to Jobn Peddy under his comments. Ream.wilson - No comment. Karen Wilson - On the water quality supplement, the conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the water quality of Stevenson's Creek because that amount is' considerably less than the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen entering the creek from the Marshall Street Plant is not a valid conclusion. George Buhmeyer - No comment. Dave Healey - The C.I.S. gives a lot of information but does not get at the purpose or intent of the impact statement in terms of assessing what the impacts are. Under topography, drainage and flood control, it indicates that past experience shows that during periods. of inclement weather, Stevenson's Creek has been known to exceed flood stages. It indicates that there is a problem there but does not tell us it has been solved. Other technical deficiencies would relate to a.letter of compliance being required which should be forth- coming~ With respect to land use and zoning, this section needs to be up~ated as the land use plan designation has changed or is in the process of being changed and this should be reflected on the plan. The section on archaeOlogical and historical is marked N/A. Traditionally, we require a statement from someone with credentials in that regard to make that conclusion. -10- July II, 1980 - ROC I. :".1 . ,. ." '::I,\.>..'~':, ~;:,\:1. :':.;.," " ,.>:',>. . c ~..}. . ,,;'~. '" . "..'.:. ~':' :~.. ; :;"~ .. i....,J,~:I..:.!.:.. ..:..~.,; .,'.' ,."..'. ,i',:: ': :':., ' ',:.,..::' " '" . : ,... '" " iJ; . '," :. ,,' ,.,' ,'" 'i'" ::" .,' <: "'i. ' ""..,,,, ' ,,-,', ..,., . , .", ':"f;,:_i..".:~':'::",'_ . I"~ "."" . ,,,, ,,' ," c C '1 . . "' . \, ... ,,~...,,' " .,:, . '.' (1-.," ~-.J-'" ," ,'. , c' """.' _._...~...., .,,' , ,,' , '. ,: " " "",;' ',' .;", ." ,'," ,',,, ,: L ' ::,,;;, '".,;''': , ,,', "'," ',;,'::::;i',:':"': , ,:,', ,,:, , .;J.'{.'.,....,c..;. .,:,::c;.:'. .:'1'.."....'.,.,:,. ,;',', :::""i' ;,.",.,: ,i"i,\..:..'.,:,,~.,' .\,':..., ....\,.~' ~ .:"",: '. ,.'. ':,' " " ',. ,',':', .', ~,'J' .""., .' .' ,'.' .~I: ""~/'" :.'. · ,:';"''.,,'',; "~\, T " ,.,,,'i" ."."." .,,,' . ,.' ," ' " "..j,'.,......:...,...','.',,'.,......,..:c..,.'...'.'...'......:,.,.;.:'.','...c.........l..,:;'...,.......'.:...'.,'.......'.,'J..,'..':...~.".'..:' .:..',...,,:...'.:.:;~...:"I.'....'..~.:..,::.)...,...':.:...,.':,:,;.:.',c,'..:..,...I:;".~:.:..,:..:.;..':...,,;,'i ,:;:;:,~ ::,:y,:,:::, ,':::,: ',:; i""',:;:':,:;::: ,,' . '.' 'II ,"" ,'r' ":. ,I' . "; . '. ...,'. .' , '. I' ,: .'" ", .',) " ",,, ,~,;:::',"~':;;:f::'}}';~:,~;~;\fw:i,l;':, :~ :'/.',,'i,'::' " . ,,' :~,;:;~",' ': ..::.';",::i;l[,i:%~;?i~t~\:.j:.\.;f.:i\.,..:.."...:'"i';',:",}',i:'f' " r " I ",,/':'''': ", '",:', ' .. ", "', : 'Yi'}" ",' :',,, .' ,:' : ,': :?!', <':: ,;" "," .'. ,,;.. '):~:~...:):il,...::',:; . .,~;,,,,'; ",::..."..:.: '.... ,,:,,',',"'. ';, . ..',":".'. ..' ,.,' ""'~!':' ...: ." ::';,;, . ',' "':::': : ,'... ."",~, !;,;u,'X(r, . : :.'~":::';.\::;~~;~i '" /' (. " "','.:' , '" "':,~.;'i::'." <'. I ' . ,,: '~ :,~:~I,,!,j \.~\:.~..";J:".;..I~:. :~:',~':'\I',' T~.l,~,:J1..:~t\,.:.....\" \"<:,:j':..'\ ,:,....;"'".. I' ~ ,.-. t I John Peddy - The C.I.S. does not address the anergy impact of tho project. It should b~ addressed in a manner to state the energy consumption anticipated for the projoct, what you propose to do to ease or utilize or make the project as anergy officiant as posoiblo. Such things as whether you investigated the use of solar energy, use of high intonsity lighting for the outdoor lighting and security typo lighting. Wo would like to ROO a state- ment that would address these subjects. Keith Crawford - On Page 6, the first line, they mentioned the 9' x 19' stalln, that is good for the open parking but when we get into carports, the column space iA additional to that. As far as the number of trips, there is a figure of 112, but it is probably marc like 650 to 800 based on the ITE Trip generation manual. Paul Rettig - Same comment as Mr. Henderson reference to the figure of 25 gallons per person and we use 100 gallons. Also where you talk about water mains und yoking throe meters off the 6", each meter is separately tapped off the main, you don't yoke two or three off together. Dumpster location will be as by the Sanitation Superintendent. MOTION: Dave Healey made a motion to continue the C.I.S. to offer the developer an opportunity to submit an addendum to address those items that have been identified. Karen Wilson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. \, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Cecil Henderson - Discussed previously distributed written comments. Roy Ayres - Discussed the plan with the developers. Ream Wilson - The tennis courts are shown running p~imarily North and South and this is a good sun factor. Since the shuffleboard courts are in a sqare shape they might want to orient them North and South to eliminate a sun factor. Karen Wilson - Any activities within the waterway or on either side of the waterway will require some kind of approval from the D.E.R. She recommended that they get in touch with Mr. William Kutash at the D.E.R. Regional office in Tampa. Erosion control procedures are . illustrated in the City's manual on erosion and sedimentation control policy and in the manual of construction techniques. These are available as a handout at the Engineering Office. She would like to see the design of the retention ponds changed. The berm they show running down on either side of Stevenson's Creek would blowout under a heavy flood. She recommended that the retention areas be sloped away from the creek and then hermed up on the development side so they don't have flooding into the development but so they can do away with the berm shown .on either:.side of the creek so that the water will pile up downhill of the creek. The entire area should be sodded with 3 to 1 side slopes. She advised the developer to come to the office to speak to Mr. Rooks about this. Chairman Haeseker left the meeting temporarily and Cecil Henderson chaired the meeting. G~orge Buhmeyer - No comment. Dave Healey - He had talked to Mr. Hogan and the others about the plan and believed that !:. 'l?asically they knew his problem with it. The plan is not appropriate, with too much being attempted on the site. Given the difficulties of the site, its configuration with the creek going down the middle of it, the 24 units an acre would not be appropriate. There was some discussion with the developers about the building height. He assumed that with the tennis court on the other side of the creek there would be a need to fence it. If the fence exceeds 6 feet, that would require a variance. .;~ It would make a preferable project given the susceptibility of flooding of Stevenson's Creek if the buildings would be raised and put the parking underneath even though costs would be higher. The site coverage would be decreased substantially and make a much more cohesive -11- July 11, 1980 - ROC ~:: ;. . .\ ~ .".J\ . ' "". '. ,. , . . ,.. . ..' ': ' ':. . ,; '-: ' ': .;' ,';'" I ". .,. \,:::., ,.;, ,..,:::,r,::.',:::,,:,.':, 1':,;,\: ..:}::.,}t:;:;:.:~..:: ':::".::!/' /,~/.:',::(><>. .:::' f," ':.'>.' \.,. '~.:: '.:,",' . ":J""'" , .. '" " " 'I " " " ., """ ',,, '" ",'" , ". ',"" '" "',' ,"''' ' .' " "', , " " ",', ',. I " ;,:,',:;". "'.'<LI. .J....,,"c ;.,."'.!...:,:..r.".J..!:':.",.,..,,,. . I. '.4-' ~ . ,.:...... ." '!. / ~:;' ~ . ~ . J, ~).I .\: c.. f::.j. .' ~;. . , ~ ~.. .,~;;) \: . i ~..... , ,..." ~ ,; '.'/:,,'::: '.: T:.~~,.{:"., '~ I :'. , c,: i 41', '. ':.'L, .:. . 1.1\ ; , ,. . " .:( .r '.: ~ ,-., sort of a project and aV01 potential that building at grade, evon with tho in a severe situation. Cecil Henderson - There is a history 6f flooding in the aroa. 110 recommended to the engineer that the building elevations not be loss tl1an that 100 yoar storm evont. lie stated that several drainage studies had been dvne with a profile of tho 100 year storm event and they would be happy to work with them to establish the exact locations. ",-.\ flood problema to lh(, .1 to, I am not convinced . retention introduced hero will solve tho problem John Peddy - Requested a diagram of the shadowcast on Building US for the month of June and the month of December from 8100 a.m. until 10:00 and Buildings #2 and #3 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. There was sarno discussion of the shadowcast problem. Keith Crawford ~ Had the following comments. 1. Close curb openings on Franklin which will not be a driveway. 2. NW parking is a little far from Building 5. 3. Has four driveways on Pierce; ordinance calls for two. Paul Rettig - Hydrants and meters should be in the right-of-way. MOTION: John Peddy moved that the site plan be continued until the owner addressed the problems stated. Karen Wilson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Fair Oaks; Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; located West of Fairwood Avenue and North of Drew Street. (Formerly Brookston~) -(Ed. Mazur, Mike Adams) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF IMPACT STATEMENT At this time Chairman Haeseker returned to the meeting. " .... ~ . >, ~: . :: Dave Healey - Gave background. The request is in terms of there being a proposed arrange- ment with the City whereby additional land would be dedicated for our park and drainage retention purposes to the North and the East of the road Mith an agreement to transfer density from that land which is to be dedicated to the City to this site and to the site in the SE corner adjacent to the school. The site is served by an existing utility system and that given those installations and the density is established through the RPD 9 category which applies now plus whatever is transferred to it ~here is no particular purpose to be served by the C.I.S. Cecil Henderson - No objection to the request for waiver. Roy Ayres - No objections. Ream Wilson - No objections. Karen Wilson - Spoke for Land Resource Specialist, Mike Campbell. Wanted to be sure that they' see a site plan and see tree removals indicated on the site plan. George Buhrneyer - No comment.,. I. Dave Healey - .No problem with the waiver of the C.I.S. with the prOV1s~on that there is an understanding in writing so the ROC is aware of what density is to be transferred from the portion of the site that is to become City property. To his knowledge there is no firm or concrete agre~nent and he wanted to know that it is firmed up prior to the C.I.S. being waived. Mr. Mazur said that to his knowledge the final transaction relative to the sale of the property,' density transfer, is not firm yet. They have been waiting on the City. His feeling on the density is that they did not want to transfer too much because they would wipe out the trees and they did not want to do that. He could not tell how much they were transferring before the C.I.S. is waived because they had to do the site plan, etc. -12 - July 11, 1980 ROC I y.' :,' , t J~:\.l..,~;;I~'f',' ,: .'1.' ~0;' ~'. .,.... :'l ~ ,r--.... ( 1 Dave Healey - Until Borne agroemont is reached as to the magnitude of that transfer, we really dontt know what wo would be dealing with on the site.. It is all well and good to say that we are going to seo what trees come out but if it is at 14 units an acre rather than 10 a lot more of the trecs nre going to have to come out to achieve that. Tho , ~eve1oper said they could arbitrarily decide on 12 units to the aoro. Mr.'\uealoy said that would be acceptablo as a maximum. Thero was some general discussion. Mr. Healey went 'on to. say they could obviously not agreo to the actual transfer, all he was trying to do was establish an upset number according to which they would reco~nend a waiver of the C~I.S. The aotual alte plan would have to be reviewed and approved by the city Commission, inclUding tranDfer of density. tJ ,~ <"c:}-T- ." .; \;, , ,c ':~ .:'.' I .\". ", P. ,..... '~::: .. ;;1:,<' \.... .' c ',', ~ '. . ;~ ',' p:.J. John Peddy - No ~bjection. : "or ~ '. '.-;. !'......... , Keith Crawford - No objection .' J , , >{\ ' t.,.;'.:.. '" c 'Paul Rettig - No objection. "Of,... . . " . ' , 'MOTION:" . Dave Heaa.eymoved.c to recommend to the Manager that the Impact statement be .. waived for the reasons identified in their request. . ~: I,' . '." .' " cecil Henderson seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. '. . ;,'j., . '.~:~' ,~,'. . ;:'~\>'..."There being no further business befor~ the Conunittee, the meeting was adjourn'ed at 3': 10 p.m. ~~~, :'::'. :"';". c.. . :t~. .. .: c', . ~; ~;r<::: ',.," ROC: pp ;~~~~:";::::'" . ~:~;/}(.~.: , . .eO~~9-1L ~" Chairma . . ....,. ;1 ~~:t::~, .;.::.::. I l' ... c Ii- .' , ' Iif";:;',.:::, ., k~;f:< :: . " :", . .., . <! ." .~ ,':'c-'" . .!;?f::~':,' :' fI..:!, . ,~;;:..: : " t' <11 ?l\; :~.;" . If(~.',',,,.,,.! ;;:'.-." .' H;::::.': ::'. . ~.~: :,'..' " i~t,i"r,..., '.',' ~~\ .'. '... ';'" ~l:>,~ .; .:":' . ,', ,~r;~ll~~!: , " . *~Ji;)e):;., .;~, ; ':, ...... .' ~!i"J.(. ",. ,.....,' . il~~itt{~~):;:~:l{~~~,':,~~- .,: '.l~',:,:~;'.. ~l~ I ~ i 'c\ , , ,\ '.1 ~. " '. / -13- July 11, 1980 - ROC