04/09/1981
, \. I . I" .' " '., . . '" 0 '. ,:.. ..:' ,- I . ~.~. . .,:'. 0 j I,.: " .:! . ~ ., . ,\ " ,,',' \' , . \. 4, , "
~
C".;. I
. .-....
MINUTES
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
\
April 9, 1981
MEMBERS PRESENT
Elizabeth S. Haeseker, Chairman
David P. Healey, Planning Director
Bill Tripp, Asst. Director, Building Department
Don Merrleans, Asst. Director, Traffic Engineering
Rearn Wilson, Director Parks and Recreation
George Buhmeyer, Fire Marshal
Bob Maran, Civil Engineer, Public Works
Roy Sattinger, Civil Engineer, Public Works
Don Beachler, Civil Engineer, Public Works
Claude Howell, Utilities Department
John Peddy, Energy Officer
Karen Wil~on, Water Re8ource~ Specialist
~,
./
OTHERS' 'PRESENT
Joseph Grammatico, Master Ke~ Properties, Inc.
William J. Kimpton, Case, Kl~pton) Tragos, & Burke, Attorneys
Emerson AtkinS'on, Atkins-an-Van Korn Associates
Richard Olsen, King Engineering AssociateS'
Ed Mazur, Post Buck.1e~, Schuh. & Jernigan, Inc.
Paul Corace, U. S. Harne Corp.
,"-', Phil Davidson, Post, BuckleYJ Schuh & Jernigan, lnc.
"-...-" William A. Ott, Jr., Myers Plisko Ott Architects
Jay Custer, Custer Con~truction
Jean Jensen, Recording Secretar~
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Haeseker at 10:10 A. M. in
the As.sistant City Manager'ts Conference' Room, City Hall Annex.
Prior to the ~art of the' regular business portion of the meeting, Mrs.
Haeseker polled the' members on the question of whether to resume Friday
RDC mee'tings now that the' Annex will De going back on a five-day week
schedule,' or whether to 'continue ho'lding meetings on Thursday. It was
unanimously agreed to continue with Thursday RDO meetings.
Item #1 ,- (Continued rrom,,2/26/81 ),- Inn"Storage,. Master Key Properties,
'1'o'c'~t'e'd' 'on 'the' h'o'r'th: 's~d'e" 'o'f~ D'r"e'w' 'St're'e't',"-W'e"s't 'aT N.' E.' 'Go'achman Road.
Ream Wilson - No problem.
Bob Maran - Engineering Department comments attached. Anticipating some
problem with dra1n~ge'. Buildings must Be set higher and/or some fill
needed. Applicant stated 'final plans will be in complete compliance and
that plans submitted were preliminary plans, wain1y to determine that the
structure could be Quilt on' this piece of land.
~:)'Bill Tripp questioned sidewalks.
Sidewalks are already in.
I ;.
April
n
. ~\~~'.
/-,
Resource Development Cornm~ttee
April 9, 1981
~age 2
Mr. Healey commented there were still problems wit~ tl~ driveway layouti
part~cularly the manner in which driveway terminates. Also zon~g In-
. formation on plans is inaccurate 'and should be' changed. planneeda to
define more clearly what part of parcelJ and buildings thereon, are in
the County, and what part in the City. Plans should indicate the area
of warehouse space and office space and numoer of parking spaces calcu~
lated with. respect the'reto.
Donald A. Meerians reiterated problems reviewed at previous R.D.C.
meeting on February 26) 1981 regarding driveway and par~g configurations.
Since portion of easement on adjoining property, joint easement required.
Applicant stated surve~ of easement has been submitted.
Marshal Buhmeyer commented plans do not shOw size of water line. Per
appl1.cant this will be BlI and 'will be shown' on final plans.
r,
'. "'"-"'
,.'-,
", i
Karen Wilson commented on retention. Storm water detention must meet
C1ty standards.
Claude Howell anticipateS" problems with traS'h pick-up due to present pro-
posed location of dumpster's-, forcing trucks' to back out of driveway.
Dumpsters will have to be rel'ocated oefor'e Utility Department can approve.
John Peddy - no comment.
Bob Maran - regarding S'anitar~ sewer, Cit~ ~ield crews to make survey on
N. E. Coachman Road to 'see "if' tn..ese lines- can 'be used to serve this site.
Any. work to fie done at City expen'se prior to, or in conjunction with
applicant's construction.
Don Merrian questioned whether there would be any objection to removing
two parking spaces and applicant advised this would not be a problem.
Motion made by David Healey to continue consideration of site plan, sub-
ject to conditions and recommendations made. Motion seconded by Karen
Wilson.
Applicant respectfully protested motion to continue site plan, stating
that plans' submitted were "preliminary" and that final plans would be sub-
mitted with all corrections and recommendations incorporated. Mr. Healey
: informed the applicant that plans submitted to the RDD Committee must be
" correct and complete before committee could approve as these are the plans
that are submitted to the Commission.
Motion as made by Mr. Healey approved unanimously.
Bob Maran left meeting at lO:~5 A. M. Roy Sattinger entered 10:47 A.M.
f~.
, ....;;
1\
- 2 -
April 9, 1981
, ,', ' 1 ~.. , ' ' ',1 '1 I' ' " :' . '..., \ " ~.' .' <. " . :. ; .:. .} ". '. '.. . " . ' : .', j I . , ',,:
o
". :
, ,
,,' /....0
.:,' v:;)
,
(~'" ,
.~> '~ ~.
.. '
"
o
'.
~,
co~
,",
,! '
I~
r\
Resource Development Committee
April 9, 1981
Page 3
Item #2 - Sunset-Coachman Center, located on the southeast corner of
Sunset Point Road and Old Coachman Road. Atkinson Van Horn Associates.
King Engineering Associates.
Preliminary Site Plan
Ream Wilson deferred to Roy Sattinger.
Roy Sattinger - comments from Engineering Department attached. Number
one problem 1s with drainage. City would like to have the south half of
the property (2.6 acres) to design, construct and maintain for water
retention. This property would be deeded to the City. Engineering De-
partment currently working on design; should be ready about middle of
week of April l3, 1981. It was clarified that King Engineering did the
site design for sewer and water only. County did the present drainage
design. (This property is now in County - being considered for annexation
into the City). 'City had worked out drainage design for the problem area
several years ago 'and at that time design was accepted and apparently
approved by County, but County has now backed out of previous understand-
ing with City. Mr. Healey questioned Mr. Atkinson as to whether, given
the option to remain 1n County and accept their conditions, or to opt
to be annexed into the City, dedicating property to City for water re-
tention and parkland, what was their preferred course. Mr. Atkinson
stated their main interest is in moving ahead. They would be willing to
go along with the City as long as there is no undue penalty involved.
,Engineering Department is proceeding with the drainage design. Regarding
sanitary sewer service, any problems that did exist are presently being
worked out, per Mrs. Haeseker.
Ream Wilson stated Parks & Recreation involvement dependent upon Engineer-
ing drainage design being'acceptable to all so that storage area could be '
used for recreation purposes to serve surrounding neighborhood.
At this point Mr. Healey stated that if committee at this time accepted
site plan, Planning & Zoning Board would review simultaneously with
Annexation request,' which would serve to expedite preliminary steps in
getting project started.
Mr. Healey also commented on parking design and number of parking spaces.
Suggested elimination of some spaces to devote more area to landscape
design, breaking up asphalt area to improve overall appearance of project.
Mr. Healey made reference to proposed bank tentatively planned for part
of this property which would be on less than one acre and not normally
subject to prel~minary site plan review. Stipulated City would require
PSP be submitted for this bank project, mainly to govern ingre.ss and
egress.
Finally, Mr. Healey stated if bank parcel is to be separate as it appears
to be, technically a subdivision 1s being created, necessitating sub-
division plat be submitted.
- 3 -
April 9, 1981
,.-..
I']
Resource Development Committee
April 9, 1981
Page 4
~ Mr. Tripp had no comments other than sidewalks to comply with City
regulations.
<'
\' .,
c. .
'!'I'~
, ~.
;;~:'. ,
:.,'.
.;
I. n .
".:';
.,>. .
, ;. ~ '
..;'
;'.
;. '0:
..' '+' jT
\ ." .
ii' .
Mr. Merrians questioned the bank interest in this property stating that
Traffic Engineering department would be opposed to any additional access
on Old Coachman Road - and conditions on Sunset Point Road now complicate
any additional access. Suggested working out aome ty.pe of joint agree-
ment with bank site and applicantls development to locate access further
from the intersection. Also opposed to island as being a traffic hazard.
Marshal Buhmeyer had no comment.
Karen Wilson - Water Resources Specialist opposed to a wet storm water
retention area. Recommended elimination of two or three parking spaces
,; to save trees) specifically 10" oak and 13" pine.
Claude Howell had no problem with site plan and commented buildings
appear to be strip with individual meters required.
John Peddy requested on final building plans applicant give consideration
to high density type of lighting.
At this point) Marshall Buhmeyer questioned type ownership and was ad-
vised these to be condominium offices with individual owners. This should
be stated on plan.
. .'
Karen Wilson stipulated that if final building will occur after property
is annexed into City, will have to meet City's landscaping requirements
and pre~ent plans indicate more internal trees will be required, in
'addition to preserving those already there, i.e. 10" oak and 13" pine.
Mr'. Healey, referring to Traffic Engineering problem with proposed bank
and access to it, suggested establishing at this time points of access
to both properties to be shown on plans. Applicant to work with City
'Traffic Engineering to resolve problems.
Mr. Healey moved to approve site plan, subject to the following:
1 - Area shown for detention to be dedicated to City, designed by
City and improved and maintained according to City requirements.
2 Second point of access be identified on plan to serve both bank
site and Sunset Point Road.
3
That the bank site be subject to site plan review at the time it
is proposed to be developed.
4 - That the existing point of entry on Sunset Point Road be redesigned
. in accordance with Traffic Engineering requirements.
5 - That the plan indicate and provide for the intent to file for
condominium ownership.
- 4 -
April 9, 1981
o
r1
,~,
Resource Development Committee
April 9) 1981
Page 5
6 - That the appropriate easements and meters for the water system
be identified and incorporated into plans.
7 - That the interior parking spaces be reduced in number to provide
for internal landscaping.
Motion seconded by Marshal Buhmeyer.
Mr. Atkinson asked - since the City is redesigning and handling retention
area problems, does that mean City would assume responsibility for sodding
and finishing this retention area. Roy Sattinger stated this would have
to be cleared through Mr. Battle, City Engineer.
Mr. Healey added that it was the intent of his motion that if the re-
tention ,area is dedicated and improved to City specifioations) it would
constitute the park dedication requirement.
No further questions. Motion carried unanimously.
Roy Sattinger left meeting at ll:20 A. M.
Don Beachler arrived at meeting at 11:23 A. M.
Itern.#3 - East Drew Condominiums
'.Street and Falrwood Avenue.
located ncrtheast corner of Drew
'-.
Community Impact statement
Mssrs.Healey) BeaChler, Tripp) Buhmeyer - no comments.
Mri,&. . Karen Wilson commented number of problems had been encountered by
the environmental staff. Mr. Mazur has submitted a revised vegetation
section, which has now been accepted by Mr. Michael Kenton.
Claude Howell - no comment.
, ' '
John Peddy objected to certain inclusions in covenant which restrict
future owners from availing themselves of all of our natural resources.
Hopes in future there will be laws prohibiting this. Reference was to
restrictions not allowing ou~side clothes drying lines and f'elt common
area should be provided for this purpose. Mr. Healey questioned whether
there would be any objection to removing this from covenant. Applicant
stated they would object on grounds such an area would be unattractive
and would detract from value and appearance of property.
Marshal Buhmey~r made motion to approve CIS as amended. Seconded by Mr.
Tripp. Motion carried unanimously.
/: Preliminary Site Plan
-h-:'.<:) ,Mra" Haeseker stipUlated plans being reviewed are plans submitted at
;(;.i....
: <'.\ , .... .
- 5 -
(1
,~....... .
,0
Resource Development Committee
April 9, 1981
Page 6
start of this (April 9, 19B1) meeting as these are the plans that will
ultimately be submitted to the Commission.
Don Beachler - Engineering Department comments attached.
Mr. Healey questioned building height. Applicant stated would be 31 ft.
maximum. This should be more clearly stipulated on plans.
I
Mr. Healey commented PSP very well done, particularly separation of
buildings from school site. Questioned recreation area as shown on the
plans., Area shown as cross-hatched is actual Recreation Center. Shaded
area is additional recreation and the combination of the two meets RPD
15% recreation area requirement.
Mr. Healey requested additional information regarding status of model
center. This will be unpaved parking area to be removed at later date,
but applicant unable to state I'how long model centers will be in use.
Also referring to jogging trail, this is acceptable as part of the
recreation area but requires additional landscaping area separating it
from adjoining parking area. David HealAY confirmed number of units
permitted are result of transfer of density and number of sewer taps
from adjoining tract~under agreement with U. S. Home Corp. and owner of
adjoining tract. This to be so stipulated so there will be no problems
in future development of adjoining tract.
!.,: " ,-...."
, . ~' .' }
).:' ~~ . Mr. Tripp commented sidewalks are indicated and there are no problems.
. '
, '
. ,
~, C
~ ~ .
Mr. Merrians had no comment other than fact 29 handicapped spaces are
shown whereas only five required.
Marshal Buhmeyer, Karen Wilson, Claude Howell - no comment.
Mr. John Peddy acknowledged that while most of project well laid out, he
had problems with Buildings lO and 11, particularly with the window area.
However, applicant stated problems not feasible to correct. Mr. Peddy
stipulated, if at all possible consider use of higher density type of
lig~ting. Applicant advised that they are checking on this currently.
: Mr. Healey questioned whether construction would be in more than one"
phase and was informed now planned in t\'lO phases. North section to be
Pha~e I and South Section Phase II, although there is possibility it
could be in more than two phases. Dave Healey asked that this be deter-
mined and so designated before plans go to Commission. Applicant advised
,their engineering plan will be submitted showing entire site and they
will try to break down into building phases as well.
.(\
Mr., Paul Corace !'ead letter from Mr. 11'red Bullard regarding Swiftmud
(S.W.F.W.M.D.l situation. Closing on property in 'questi.on set for
May 12, 1981. Mrs. .~aeseker stated requirements are that no sewer per-
mits be issued until after purchase is complete. After considerable
discussion, it was determined there would be no conflict with submitting
';:.I~' .
.""... .
..'
~~~ '" .
:.'. ~' '.
,,>. '
OJ"':':
" ,
~:. ~.. . C" .
I',I;":"""'C.
'~" .
, ,
l~ "
'.
",:>,;.,
,', '.
'. ,.
'.
,::< '
.',: ....~~..
, "....J '
I I ~ , , l~',. I ' _ .'
" .
t>,
~' : . '.~' " r .," .. t. ,."
~{'l .'
" ,
r, '.
"" ,
:.1 ,
- 6
April 9, 1981
\i
I'Itjj c', " ,..: . , . "" .'1'" . .\). . ..'I~l~' ", 'I " .,,'-1- ' -' .'~','~','" ',:.' "+ . \ \. ',', "
(1
.r'
Resource Development Committee
~ ~~~~179, 1981
'.~
: . , ,
~
approved plans to Commission) subject to subsequent purchase of property,
if this is so stipulated on approved plans.
Karen Wilson made motion that site plan be approved contingent upon
successful closing on property. David Healey amended motion to include
adjustment on building height, required landscaping adjacent to parking
areas, and project phasing. Motion as amended carried unanimously.
Item #4 - Proposed Triplex Development - Custer Construction, located
north of Woodlawn Street) west of Greenwood Avenue
Community Impace Statement
Don Beachler - no additional comments at this time.
David Healey commented zoning specifications as submitted need clarifying.
Also questioned whether information on Page 7 factual. Questioned whether
or not any covenants or deed restrictions were proposed and applicant
advised there are no restrictions except those imposed or required by the
City. Requested clarification on whether applicant intended to participate
1n any construction or building on the property, or whether he plan~ed
on developing road and utility systems only, making individual lots
available to individual buyers. Applicant stated was not their intent to
par~lcipate in any building at all. Their plans are to sell lots on
which buyer could build as they wish, with no restrictions, as to design
'or uniformity of buildings, althoJ,lgh size limited to triplex.. no larger.
Bill Tripp advised as far as building permits are concerned, these are
computed on the basis of each dwelling unit - not on each structure. In
other words, a triplex would require three permits. David Healey questioned
$200.00 itemized for permits as shown on Page .7 of CIS and asked that the
applicant show method of computation.
Don Merrians-re.ference Page 4 of CIS reading "proposed street to be
dedicated". As presently proposed, this could not be a public street and
this reference should be removed from CIS.
Marshal Buhmeyer - no comment.
,
Karen Wilson - water quality report cannot be accepted as information
provided in CIS is not absolutely correct. Further, City will not accept
a wet retention pond. Also data furnished regarding ditches not accurate.
Other environmental information in this section of CIS not correct.
Would like this to be revised.
Claude Howell - no comment.
JOhll Peddy had many questions with CIS and felt it to be ambiguous,
particularly references to value of property, building permits, tap fees,
etc., when applicant will not be in business of building. Mr. Healey
- 7 -
~
,0,_
, ,.... J
l':'~
~ \. ' :.
~.i :
r}
,.--,
Resource Development Committee
April 9, 1981
Page 7
approved plans to Commission, subject to subsequent purchase of property,
if this is so stipulated on approved plans.
Karen Wilson made motion that site plan be approved contingent upon
succecsful closing on property. David Healey amended motion to include
adjustment on building height, required landscaping adjacent to parking
areas, and project phasing. Motion as amended carried unanimously.
Item #4 - Proposed Triplex Development - Custer Construction, located
north of Woodlawn Street~ west of Greenwood Avenue
Community Impace statement
Don Beachler - no additional comments at this time.
David Healey commented zoning specifications as submitted need clarifying.
Also questioned whether information on Page 7 factual. Questioned whether
or not any covenants or deed restrictions were proposed and applicant
advised there are no restrictions except those imposed or required by the
City. Requested clarification on whether applicant intended to participate
in any construction or building on the property, or whether he planned
on developing road and utility systems only, making individual lots
available to individual buyers. Applicant stated was not their intent to
participate in any building at all. Their plans are to sell lots on
which buyer could build as they wish, with no restrictions. as to design
or uniformity of buildings, although size limited to triplex - no larger.
Bill Tripp advised as far as building permits are concerned, these are
computed on the basis of each dwelling unit - not on each structure. In
other words, a triplex would require three permits. David Healey questioned
$200.00 itemized for permits as shown on Page 7 of CIS and asked that the
'applicant show.method of computation.
Don'Merrians-reference Page 4 of CIS reading "proposed street to be
dedicatedll. As presently proposed, this could not be a public street and
this reference should be removed from CIS.
Marshal Buhmeyer - no comment.
Karen Wilson - water quality report cannot be accepted as information
provided in CIS is not absolutely correct. Further, City will not accept
a wet retention pond. Also data furnished regarding ditches not accurate.
Other environmental information in this section of CIS not ,correct.
Would like this to be revised. '
Claude Howell - no comment.
John Peddy had many questions with CIS and felt it to be ambiguous,
particularly references to value of property, building permits, tap fees,
etc., when applicant will not be in business of building. Mr. Healey
- 7 -
.. . \. '.~ 'I .' .' ", ',' ': . ,I ;', . '. ,"I"" .,: :1:: ';, ,',,"~.' \ " ""L
a
".
.:' f<)
:.:. . \<;.)
I;"~
, ,
It.,,',. .
.I.j ,
'..'. :'.c.
.,
~),~"c':'. ,
<!.
u..;. .
"
.,.
,':'
;',: ~
'~ :
~ c ,
,,'
,,-
,," :)
. . ..
,~i;':":- .
,--:
."--",
Resource Development Committee
April 9, 1981
Page 8
explained Planning Department had to look at total coat of project, i.e.
land value as well as value of buildings on individual lots which brought
value of project to million dollar thresholdt thu~ necessitating C.I.S.
Mr. Peddy stated this should be cleared up in C.I.S.
Marshal~ Buhmeyer questioned whether triplex units would.have to be
built on each lot. Applicant stated lot purchasers could build single
or duplex - but nothing larger than triplex.
David Healey ~oved to continue CIS so applicant can address questions and
comments made which are as follows:
1 - Statement on water quality has to be redone.
2 - Identification of zoning on this tract and surrounding
tracts clarified and incorporated into CIS. I
3 - Reference to "public street" determined and clarified.
4 - Reference to fees and the fact that they do make certain
assumptions regarding development of land clarified.
5" - Clarification of Mr. Peddy's questions regarding value
of land and development costs.
Motion' seconded by Mr. Tripp.
Preliminary Site Plan
Don Beachier - Engineering department comments attached. Additionally
Mr. Beachler emphasized City will not build another lift station and
applicant~ engineer to clarify how sanitary sewer to be directed. A
current survey is needed. This can be done after PSP approval but no
permits can be issued prior to securing new current survey.
Motion carried.
Mr. Healey.commented that this will have to be reviewed as a subdivision
plat and it should be 80 identified. All references to buildings should
be removed and all the Committee should be evaluating is proposed street
:, ,right-or-way, utility system and lot layout. Then would be up to in-
dividual lot buyers/builders to meet building requirements. Also public
street as now designated would mean parking on site plan would not be
acceptable. This reference would have to be deleted from subdivision
plat and it would be up to each individual parcel owner/builder to pro-
vide for parking on his particular lot.
'Bill'Tripp had no comments except if becomes pUblic street, sidewalks
will be required.
Don Merrians stated most of his points already covered if. this to be a
public street. If private street~ no problems as far as traffic engineer-
ing department is concerned.
Marshal Buhmeyer - with reference to water layout, additional tie-in may
be necessary.
- 8 -
April
ir'\
r-,
I*:)
Resource Development Commiztee
April 9, 1981
Page 9
Karen Wilson had sarne comment~ a~ on CIS and stipulated that every effort
should be made to preserve tree~ now on site. There are two major trees
on the property and plan should so indicate stipulating position and
size. ' In arrangement of buildings) every effort should be made to pre-
serve these two trees. Further each building lot will have to meet City
landscapi~g requirements.
Claude Howell - regarding water system, 6" main already serves south part
of City. Believe can obtain easement to tie system 1n but clarification
needed as to whether private or public street.
John Peddy - no comments until clarified as to whether public or private
street.
David Healey.:.. ~ated, he' did not want to leave the inlpression with the
applicant that pr~vate5treet would be preferred solution. Possibility
of ~oo' man~ future problem~ Dei~g imposed on' City should a developer
simply sel~ lots on a pr~vate 'street. Planning Departrment would be
opposed to Iuiv:tng thi:S"as- a private street where City would not have
control' over each individual lot owner's preference for layout of
build~g, par~g, et.c.'
^
. )
~-'
Don Beachler made ~otlon' to continue PSP.
Mot1.on carried.
Seconded by Claude Howell.
Applicant was informed tha"t any help he Eight need in working out his
various problem~ would fie: 'avai.lahle to h:tIn upon contacting each City
department involved.
On ItemS" thr'ee and tour on' the" agenday) Parks & Recreation Department
had not' comments and the'ir representat~~e was excused. Mrs. Haeseker
asked' thatth.1s- lie', rl'1pulated in 1Ilinutes.
.Meet'~g adj ourned 12: 35 P. JJI.
~~.~~,q~
'1 Chairman
"
"
.~.,
- 9 -
April 9, 1981