09/22/1983
, " " ...'1', :'."''.... . " ~ ''':'"''-:\::::::':~'~'''\',::.'',.'..':-:'',~;,:.',~~,
(".
f",,~
,,'
" '
~, ,'" .
i~/"j : "
f~,i;"O': "
:.:.,~, '
-$:'. '.
~' >
,. -
-!;." .
!:':' '.'.,. ,.
',"\ ,
..
fl
~--
OFFICIAL
M I NUT E S
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
September 22, 1983
vi
Members Present
Elizabeth S. Haeseker, Assistant City Manager - Chairman
Nick Lewis, representing the Fire Marshal
William Tripp, representing the Building Department
John Rooks, representing the Public Works Department
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineering Director -
Don Meerians, representing Traffic Engineering Dept. (4th Item)
Claude Howell, representing Utilities Department
David Healey, Planning Director
Ream Wilson, Parks & Recreation Department Director
/"
Also Present
Gary R. Chiles, Developer-
'Sandy Lloveras, Lloveras, Baur & Stevens
Tom Radcliffe, Lloveras, Baur & Stevens
Hugh M. Hamilton, Hi-Lan Lanes
~redric E. Melby, The Melby Architects, P.A.
Nick Zarra, Post, Buckley, Shuh & Jernigan, Inc.
Kevin Henderson, Metro Development Corp.
:Ed Mazur, Post Buckley, Shuh & Jernigan, Inc.
Kathy Harter, Mason Homes
Charlie Brackett, Mason Homes
,
'The meeting was called to order by Elizabeth S. Haeseker, Chairman,
at 10:08 A~M., in the Operations Center Conference Ro6m.
Minutes of the meeting of August 25, 1983, were approved as written.
---------------------------------------------------------------
,1. Orange Grove Apartments, located East of N.E. Coachman Road,
North of S.C.L. R.R. a ortion of Blackburn AGreement to
Annex. Jagger Associates, Inc.
COURTESY REVIEW ONLY - PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
Nick Lewis -'Stated that the Fire Department would req~ire that the
water lines be looped back, to Coachman Road.
','Bill Tripp - Recommended that a sidewalk be provided for the south side
of Northeast Coachman Road; and that the handicapped parking spaces
be relocated. Mr. Tripp also questio~ if these were to be pUblic or
private roads. Mr. Lloveras stated that the handicapped parking would
be corrected, and that the roads would be private roacts.
Keith Crawford - Stated that S.R. 590 is a FloridaD.D.T. road as of
this month and anY'p'ermits will be State permits,and questioned if the
D.O.T.would allow j ariveways.
John Rooks - See written comments (Attachment 1). One further comment
,;'.'"~':.,.,',."~'.,, "~:'; .'.,:.'~:~"":"~~I",..I'J..'...:..',I':,.'.," :':'1 .,...... ~', :~, .. I..:'>j', .:,.,....... ,': :.,...' ..~,.,. '" :,:. '~, /. ..,~:::,f4;:...:..j:...:;..':' ..:,..,'.';+.'::'"
.
~ ("I
on an item not mentioned in the attached cont.~nts was that the
outlet ditch be relieved to lake so drainage will work.
Claude Howell - See written' comment~ (Attachment 2).
David Healey - Stated that in return for the Committeets support in
re-zoning, the developerts committment is that this will be designed
and fully comply with all City requirements and City standards.
With respect to the density, Mr. Healey further stated that (l)by
his calculations it would allow some 218 units--6 units need to be
removed, (2) suggested that the separate entrance for the office be
eliminated, as it seems unnecessary and would be confusing, and with
the reduction of the number of units it gives them an opportunity to
make relocation of that and the third entrance be eliminated, (3)
questioned if the walkways shown are all the same building. Mr.Lloveras
stated that it is all one building. Mr. Healey mentioned that there
should be changes in Note #2 to reflect the actual number of units
permitted by net density and to change #5 to show minimum distance
between buildings is 20t rather than 15'. Mr. Lloveras responded to
Mr. Healey's comments that (1) he would like to discuss the density
with Mr. Healey and (2) he felt that, with the rental concept, the
drives should ~e centered in one area.
.......-....\
Ream Wilson - Commented that the parkland dedication requirement was
satisfied under the previous agreement with the Blackburn's and
Chris Cowles, City Forester, has no comments.
Piscussion ensued regarding the steps taken in the Pinellas County
process for Final Site Plan. Mr. Heale~ suggested to recommend to
the City Manager that the Preliminary Site Plan be approved with
changes that Staff want madeJ and that Preliminary Site Plan be
approved by the Manager subject to the filing of the Final Site Plan
and subject to the Final Site Plan being accepted at the time the
property is annexed under the RPDl4 zoning.
David Healey moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan
for Orange Grove Apartments, consistent with the terms of the annexation
for this p~Qperty and its amendment as agreed to by Staff, subject to
the following changes being made to that plan prior to it being for-,
warded to the City Manager:
1. The loo~ of the water line as requested by the Fire Marshall;
2. A five foot (5') sidewalk be 'provided for the south side of
Northeast Coachman Road;
3. The handicapped parking spaces be relocated consistent with the
recommendations of the BUilding Dept. and the State law;
4. Any necessary revisions to the retention system to comply with
the City's requirements, as outlined by the Public Works Dept.,
be made;
5. Buildings will be individually metered;
6. That the number of units be adjusted to conform with the
permitted net density, calculated~o be 218 units;
7. That the note be adjusted to reflect thatJ and the required
'minimum building separation distance of 20 ft.;
2.
~ .'" .:.....J..'...,,: .,~..,':..,..:+.~..,".~:I.'.,',.I.'..'.....:.,',.. I~:, :.:."-.~'::''''l:'' .,., ". ~ ' .' "f"":-' .',.,'. ~~ .1. ,> j,
. ,
,
8.
n ('l
That the separate entry drives to the of~~ce and clubhouse be
eliminated.
',~
MotIon was seconded by John Rooks.
Disoussion ensued regarding the third driveway. Keith Crawford stated
that he had not seen any objection to the plan when he had first looked
at it, as to the way the third driveway is designed, but feels that
Mr. Healey is correct In that it would cause confusion. Mr. Lloveras
stated that if the third curb cut is eliminated, probably the entire
core of the project would have to be redesigned. Mrs. Haeseker
questioned that sign locations and sizes should be shown. Mr. Healey
stated that the size and dimensions of signs should be shown on the
Final Site Plan.
Motion was carried unanimously.
--------------~----------------------~-------------------------
2. Addition to Hi-Lan Lanes, located Southeast corner of Highland
Avenue and Barry Street. (Clearwater Hamilton Corp.)
t.' "
FINAL SITE PLAN
Nick Lewis - No comments.
Bill Tripp - Commented that they are going to extend sidewalks down
Barry Street. No further comment.
John Rooks - See written comments (Attachment 3).
Keith Crawfo~d - 'Stated that 40 more parking spaces had been added
than were required, and felt it was a very good plan.
Claude Howell - Commented that they may need a separate meter for the
., addition and will check on this at construction time.
1'1. ."~ '
:;::;' MOTION:
1 '
).
David Healey' - Stated that the plan was good and would like to take
, it. back to the Commission to show them that the additional landscaping
arid buffer zone they had suggested had been complied with.
Ream Wilson - Stated that there is no open space dedication req~ire-
ment for the site since the addition is less than 50% of the existing
square footage. See written comments from City Forester (Attachment 4).
Keith Crawford moved to recommend approval of the final site plan
as submitted, with the requisite initial'building permit(s) be
issued within six months from the date, of City Manager's approval
of,the final site plan and all requisite certificate(s) of occupancy
be issued within two years from the date of issuance of the initial
building permit.
Motion was seconded by John Rooks.
)r;, :-), ,
, ~.. " '
{,' , '. '
... ','
. ~, .
":'/' .
;:'~.f .;, ,
~:~~:~,':,:' ,
t;:.:::.,:'," , \
~:;i;-'" ;', " '
~~~~: ;':':: . ,\ ~~ '. : \' "~:~". : ;.~ :
Motion ,was carried unanimously.
----~-----~-------------------------------------------------------
3.
9/22/83
,.,
.. ,..-..,
',', " ,
<:'.-1
, ..-...,
f i
~
: I
3. Park Place, Tract 1 of Phase 1. (Metro DeveloR,meDt Corp.)
FINAL SITE PLAN
Nick Lewis
No comments
Bill Tripp - No Comments
John Rooks - See attached comments (Attachment No.5). Kevin Henderson
responded to Comment No. 4 stating that their understanding is that
Metro Development will prepare an agreement for submittal to the City
stating that they will maintain whatever aspects of the roadway do not
coincide with the City codes, and under those conditions they might be
able to dedicate the,remainder to the City. John Rooks commented
that his concern was regarding the maintenance and flow of the ditches,
and there should be an agreement stating such. Mr. Henderson felt
that an agreement was understandable.
Keith Crawford: Questioned (1) the type of street lighting that is
planned (2) the truck loading spaces for the three retail stores shown.
The Code ,does require the loading spaces and specifies square footage
and dimensions which can be used by a truck to unload. Mr. Henderson
stated that they visualize meeting the City codes with these existing
loading zones shown. Mr. Zarra discussed the possibility that these
would be bus drop/loading zones.
Claude Howell: Commented regarding Item No.9. This should state
that each unit has to be individually metered.
David Healey: Stated (1) the CG setback requirement should be corrected
to meet the new code, (2) the total number of buildings should be
3 and 1, (3) Note No. 13, Maintenance responsibility agreement must
accompany Final Site Plan to City Commission, (4) questioned whether
the "future expansion" is included in the building area data,
(5) identify use for retail and office--a floor area ratio is needed
for the two uses, (6) existing available information be provided on
layout, design, etc. for courtyard. Mr. Healey also referred to the
six conditions on agenda item for Preliminary Site Plan, which are
floor area ratios; parking requirements; determinations of whether
private or public classification for Parkland Blvd.; design of retention
and drainage with Public Works approval; identify & locate all the
sidewalks, pedestrian paths, bike paths; and the layout & design
of the courtyard.
The developer questioned if it would be acceptable to prepare the
agreement at some later date rather than try to work it out immediately.
Mr. Healey answered that when the Final Site Plan goes to the City
Commission there needs to be the offer of dedication of the right-of-way
as to whether it is going to be a publiC street. The developer also
questioned if the "future expansion" could be shown as a solid line on
the plan, and if it changes then get a permit for minor changes called
"future expansion". Keith Crawford stated that all these things must
be in the Final Site Plan. Discussion e~sued regarding retention area
and possible ch~nge of outfall design or retention design because of
do'wnstr,'eam 1 imi ta tions. Also discussed was the des ign and landscaping
of the courtyard. The developer felt that the courtyard was something
they want to give a lot of detail to, but it will be a mall-type area;
and, from the site plan point of view, the architechtural and landscape
plans are not completed. Mr. Healey stated he would like to see that
plan as part of the Final Site Plan. John Rooks mentioned that a
, l.,~;'~ ,..,"" .....~f.'t"'~..., MI <.. '1..~."""_'-'..'~ ."..< '. ,-
"..~ ~ -';:o-.-ar~".~~'I"." , ", .
, '
"
"
n
,,........,,
I ,
:, \i
" .....
. ' 'f ",.l'i
, . .J"
statement was also needed as to the permeability of the courtyard,
a percentage for landscaping. etc. Further discussion ensued regarding
the forty-five day appeal period from 9/1/83 until approval of Final
Site Plan.
..
"
Ream Wilson: Questioned when the parkland payment would be conveyed
to the City. See written comments from Chris Cowles, City Forester,
(Attachment No.6).
\'
~ "MOTION:
David Healey moved to recommend approval of the final site plan
for Tract 1, Phase I. of Park Place, based upon the finding of this
Committee that the plan conforms with the design gUidelines for
site plan review, subject to the fallowing:
A.
I
Those changes to be made to the plan prior to its submission
for review by the City Commission:
1. To show the sidewalk, pedestrian, and bicycle path locations
and any easements associated with them;
2. To correct the information under the site data panel with
respect 'to zoning. number of buildings, and applicable
setbacks;
3. To adjust the designation and configuration of the loading
zones in a manner satisfactory to the Traffic Engineer.
~. To clarify underth~ General Notes panel, Item No.9,
having to do with water meters, that buildings and individual
units, as required by the Code, will be metered separately;
'and, with respect to Note No. 13, that that agreement be
prepared and accompany the final site plan as to the main-
tenance responsibility for road rights-or-way and medians;
~ I ,"
.'" '
, ,
'. ,
. , '
:1:'-0"
",,' .'
;:',';:~'
..~ ; .
'... .'
5. That additional existing available information be provided
concerning the courtyard treatment for the retail buildings;
6. That the reference to future expansion be eliminated and
the building be shown in its entirety as ultimately proposed;
7. Provide the additional information to differentiate between
the types of use proposed and the respective floor area ratio
for each.
B~ That such final site plan be approved by the City Commission
SUbject to ~he following conditions:
'1. The determination and acceptance of the provisions for
street lighting by the Traffic Engineer;
3.
The determination and approval of the storm water. retention
and runoff design with the final construction plans accept-
able to the Public Works Department;
The receipt of the initial building permit for this tract
within six monthst and certificates of occupancy for all.
buildings within three (3) years.
~. . <' "
":;-.... .:
~'.'
{:~',::~
;~. ......JJ
\ . . ~
ttk(, :
" '
(J~~' .
2.
5.
9/22/83
:~ . '
n
..-....
I
~
Motion was seconded by Claude Howell.
Ream Wilson moved to amend the motion with on additional requirement
as follows: "
l.
B. 4. That the parkland dedlcation payment ($600,000) be conveyed
to the Cityooncurrent with the certification of the final
site plan.
" '
Amendment was seconded by John Rooks and carried unanimously.
Motion as amended carried unanImously.
Mr. Henderson questioned when the parkland fee would have to be paid,
and Mrs. Haeseker explained that the amendment states that the money
will be presented concurrent with the certification of the final site
plan. Payment will be a condition of certification.
Discussion ensued regarding the forty-five day appeal period and, also,
reviewal of the construction plans.
i,
4 .
Southeast corner of Keene Road and C.H. 34
Inc.
:- '
I '
, "
CIS ADDENDUM
REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
:,,:.0.'
~i,,::~
/ '
/~(,.' ,
. ~~ ;, ...
" .'
I")',
~./:,~ .
CIS Addendum Discussion
Mr. Healey questioned the meaning of the covenants and restrictions
section, Paragraph 2, and stated that if the setback is 10 ft. then
npthing (including patios) go into that area. Mr. Mazur responded
that it was his understanding that it becomes an encroachment into
the setback when a wall or roof is put up. Mr. Healey suggested that
the Commit~ee'go on to the plan and come back to the CIS later.
Revised Preliminary Site Plan Discussion
,Nick Lewis: No comments
Bill Tripp: No comments
John Rooks: Questioned development of Parcel A and suggested it go
back to RDC if it is developed later. See written comments (Attach-
,ment No.7). ,One thing not mentioned in the comments is the configur-
ation of the sanitary sewer and force main--may want to change the
sanitary sewer layout later, as it is a deep cut where it comes back
out onto the road right-of-way.
\,
iX, .,',
,t'J~:',,'
'" '. ~ ,
~~,;,~':.~ .,~:': '
,Don Meerians: Questioned why there is a 36 ft. pavement. Mr. Mazur
replied that it is supposed to be the standard 26 ft. It will be a
public right-of-way for the main road. Mr. Meerians stated that
Note No. 4 should be changed. He also mentioned that two street signs
., wi 11 be needed.
6.
9/22/83
'.
~ ;='-:-
. "J'
<
; ~\'~
J<:, , ~
,,'
1!'.'"
I\~
11'1
; , . ~..
':..' ,~j,
:'(:'
:~ ;1:.;
, -"""
,', ' I
" ...../
;-"f
,.'
'.
".'.-
'c:"I,
1'1:'"
".,;.
~~; !'
.\~'#~
,/>~
'"
I ~ i L~ '
,r, -
" '
~ ' ....
}~.~
I:
;.i,:
.~' \Ii
,0,
;'~., \:
.','""',
;'.,'j
;'.'
: ~j :~. ':
.~(
"'1
,'(,
~ .;
,:i":
:: '~!
. .
~",
, ~ "
'I~'\i.
~'. ,t
. "
,I ,r;:.
'~', ,
In
''I j~,
, ,"-:0
(\:.,
I?:'
.,......
:~r\ .
~ :, ' ,
:~::f
.';..
,.,,.....
":.
.....
,~' "
'tW;t:,'{\rr(;
, "J
,',
"
",
;..'.\/.~' ',.1,::, ~
_, 'I,] 'I'
. ":' ': ',.~~~
',:c,,"
, "
, '
"
) . ,-
.,'.
r ,,'
. '
", .'
f1
",-.,
; 1
Claude Howell: See written comments (Attachment No.8).
David Healey: Stated that Post Buckley had responded to a number of
suggestions Staff had made--most obviously the public street through
the project and the additional setbacks for the double frontage lots,
but there are still some problems. Notations that need to be changed
are (1) Note No.6, that sidewalks are to be constructed by the
developer, (2) Site data notes--the proposed zoning identified the
RPD 7 l/2--it should also identify that part of the site is to be
zoned Aquatic land, part of the site is going to be zoned P public for
the dedicated parkland, and Tract A then would be zoned RS75. Those
additions should be made. The acreage under wetlands to be zoned AL
should be 20.2 acres, and need to define the limits of that aquatic
land as a condition of approval. Distinctions need to be made between
the different zoning categories. The total net acres is shown as
23.64 and appears to be RPD only. Must show recreation area of
194,000 sq. ft. Mr. Healey Auestioned whether the 194,000 sq. ft. of
water can be counted as satisfying the requirement for RPD. Mr. Healey
also questioned that the general lot dimensions of 45'xlOO' is correct
and an additional notation is required on the lots that require a larger
than minimum setback. He also questioned the note regarding building
and permeable lot coverage (whether by the Tract or by the lot). A
fence and landscape plan for the double frontage lots is needed, and
the note is wrong. He was also concerned about the location of the
recreation area, and the need to be assured of what will be zoned
wetlands AL. Mr. Healey further stated that he was (1) bothered by
the narrowness of five lots, where they narrow down to 20 ft.; and
a big problem with the plan is that a number of the lots intrude into
the 100' year flood plain, and some into the 25 year flood plain.
(A flood plain map was shown at this point.) He stated that when the
entire buildable portion of the lots extend into the flood plain it
will necessitate demucking, dredge & fill, and some will require permits
from D.E.R. (2) Extend the dedicated parkland to include all of the
upland that extends out into the wate~.
Ream Wilson: Stated that Chris Cowles, City Foreste~, doesn't have
any comments at this time. A note on the plat is needed stating that
the maintenance of the lake would be the responsibility of the property
owners, or the condominium association. Also, a note is needed on the
plat stating that the general public has a recreation easement over the
lake. He also questioned if the tip of land that protrudes from the'
area marked as dedicated parkland was upland or submerged. Mr. Mazur
stated that it is upland.
The consensus of opinion was that it would be more appropriate to
change the boundary to include that tip of land to the City.
Discussion ensued regarding the sidewalks to be put on all streets,
and the width of the roadways for sanitation trucks to make pick ups,
and the location of ' the recreation area. Further discussion ensued
regarding the flood plain and o~dinance. Mr. Mazur stated that they
would plan to go by the ordinance, and further discussion ensued
regarding the ordinance.
Mrs. Haeseker called for a discussion on the CIS Addendum.
Nick Lewis: No comment
7.
.
.
'"
.
'.."')::~~:. ;'.:: ':{,!;'r;~j';;!::::':'~!(.:!'.: .', ....:' ..:,;::,' .,' .
), ,;,' .' "".' ,I ,I.., :,' .,'..,: 'I,,,
, , ,I.. ":: ,: ~ >:' . :': :' ',:,:,': .~'\::.. \: ,", "I",),,'..~ Pit'
,'..' '~' ,j , . ~ I . I
'J' . I .' '1 ",' ,.,; ,l ' , ..'~' " I'" .', ~.
""",;'<:',':>: " ''-", i ' ", ", . :: ,.'!,,' ;:,"
~ . ' , . ,." . . . R "
~.... .
" lc:
";: ;:; ::.) ~,',::!,::,<,\'{
':::. '. !~';
,.... ,.\, ", '.' ,~.~
. ,',
'. .'. :., ::'i \.'
, ' '<< ',:':';"; ;,;:;:, ":~'~:~:\:; ~'
. . ,,',',", I,
,
/11.::',
W, ....
, "
, ..-.::::;.... .
, ~. "
/I: ~'~ ":
"
~'. ""....
. \ I' ,~ ' r, "
" " ",,', '-'} , ': : :"...
/' ,,' .. .., " , ' r' " .. "
.' , ,~ : . , ~'
~ . I " .':. ';"'.. ~. :' .. \ ' " > ,~I" ,." '.: ,. <.~, " J' . .
"'. ~ 1 ~, I. I ...,~" -,,:.',': ,~;:':.,',', '
,,_, I " . '. ',~~. .' " ; r. , " .
.~ . ,'., . - "," . > ,~ '
':'; I:~,,"": ,,:.,);,'..':::,'~:,~:,:.' 'r ;; ,;t,:;:'":,':',.:,:.~:,,,::;,,'~"\> ;:,:',:\,:,,:,:,~:~,~,':,:.i,:;~,',:,~:',;'^,'~,',;<''',',<',;-; ,,~"" ;-!':;: , ,', '>>:<,
, . "-.' . ' : ;.,:\f,",:,},:: o:.~, " .,( , " "
'J " , , ")' + I , ',' t., ,,' "",;': ' -, . ....':: " ~ "::',1: :.,'.',:'.:,',':,,',..:":. .-
',':::-:,', ' ' , ,', ." ',:' ~ ': ,.",l.,:~: :,,;.. ~,,: ~:,.., " ..,. ,10 ',' '."
" I" ,",: ','.. ':'",::I":..'~.:i,'~~'.~:~':',:::':',;;,':;>,:::>::,:; ,,'..:::,,','1-."
..,.,.,::.,:':,..:.".::'".~":,'.,:":i".:::,,,::,':.,:.",;,':'.,'i,','~:,:.':!,;,.,;.,';:,:,."i:..,,:'.,:,',::J.,.:,'~':~,'l,'::",'.',",:,:,:.,',.,:::,:,.,'".:'";1,::\:.,:,.,.',:,',:,.:.,'",,,',.,',: ",'1:',:, :,:,,'~::":,., 'f,:;i~',,:\i.~';k,'. \: ," .1 I; ~:::l.::(
. . ... ..' ... .. ... .. . . ';, ,iii'"~ "\:f.:::;,!iI,.: f.:~,i');:'::,..~::.>!;.;;'!.~{,
, " .,' ~.:.
, t J , ,', " ~. " '. ~, '.\ . ,/, . ." ,
'[.. ~!. ~. " 1 "', ~ , " " ,I ~' ,
. . t .' ~ " , . ;' ."...1 , , \ ; , .' :,'. ., '
,,',."o~': "..' '"1 -" ',~~.~."~c.' i ?, I'.'
"', ,,:, :' ,".... : .:' 1 l'
<: :',,/" :<::, .:",..<,>!i},:~;,;:;"';~'... '"
'i', 0'.'",.' " .",.,1.." /,.-.,1 ,,",
, , "',, ':, ',:,'.>',\~'::;.(I~:(\i~!:t~ .:, ,,-" ;.. ,:;:, '.','
('*")
r.",
o
Bill Tripp: No comment
John Rooks: Stated that one of the requirements should be-that
Parcel A be brought before the ROC when it is developed.
Don Meerians: No comment
Claude Howell: No comment
David Healey: Commented that the statement on flood hazard area,on
Page 5 needs to be amended to properly reflect the site that is in
the 25 year aryd 100 year flood plain. It is simply stated that it
would be a problem because that portion devoted to roadways and yards
would be designed above the elevation.
The Chairman called for a motion on CIS as amended.
:' MOTION:
Claude Howell moved to recommend approval of the CIS Addendum,
as amended, subject to the following:
\'
1. That when Parcel A is developed it requires formal review of
the Resource Development Committee, and subject to the further
explanation of the Flood Hazard paragraph.
Motion was seconded by John Rooks and carried unanimously.
A joint motion was made on the revised Preliminary Site Plan and
Preliminary Plat of Spring Lake, recommending the following:
,John Rooks moved to recommend that the requisite initial building
permit(s) be issued within six months from the date of City Manager
approval of the final site plan and all requisite certificates of
occupancy be issued within two years from the date of issuance of
the initial building permit with the following conditions:
":MOTION:
The proper easements for the pump station, force main and gravity
sewer serving off-site areas, and ingress/egress easements for road
right-of-way; \
If the site needs to incorporate honey aipping, and the lift station
isn't built in time, and if there is any problem with the honey
dipping process overflows, then the certificates of occupancy and
future building permits both will be withheld;
The plan should be changed before it goes to the City Commission
for the ,recreational area and pool area to be planned closer;
The land areas should be covered by the plat.
Claude Howell added the following:
'/."0'
~': :; ~ . f"
r ~;:: .
~\ : . <
i; , '
;:r , .. , ' ~ ' .
,
That ingress/egress easements be granted over the private drives;
That some gu~ran~y be made that parking be limited to one side of
the street only;
That the note regarding a 6 ft. high masonry fence on the property
line be teleted, must meet City requirements;
8.
9/22/83
'-
'<<
~ ','1':' .I-
:;..
,d
<,
,
,
,( "
'0'"
.l:; . .
~{~~:..":. "', '
)" <, : .
'. ~.' .
::~,~. :,
~~'. " C
f;r;,< ,T",
~;-l: :c ': ,c.' '
~QC: "
:~ Q'
~:"" i;,. '
~" ~. ' " ,
:'.< Cr ,
5~.L ,,'
~.+., ~'"
;;', , .
fl
['1
Ream Wilson added the following conditions;
That a note be< made on the site plan and/or plat stating that the
public has a recreation easement over the lake;
That the parkland configuration be changed to include the tip that
is now just outside what is now shown on the plan;
..
That the developer work with the City Forester regarding the trees
on the site and their location and protection and, also, on the
aquatic land designation;
That no lots have frontage less than 20 feet be included in the"
plat;
David Healey moved to recommend the following condition:
That the respective separate zoning designations be shown on the
plan for the aquatic lands, the RPD 7 1/2, the FS75, and P.
The motion was seconded by Bill Tripp.
A 'vote was taken 6n the four items in the motion concerning the
Pl~t, which were (l)Must have ingress/egress easements, (2) property
lines'must go to the center of the road, (3) all frontage must be
20 ft., and (4) all land areas must be on the plat.
Motion failed. (one in favor, six opposed)
A ~ote was taken on the items in the motion concerning the Preliminary
Site Plan.
Motion failed. (Seven opposed, None in favor)
,After further discussion, the Chairman determined the item will be
continued to a date to be set~
Meeting was adjourned.
,I
"
"
9.