01/12/1984
, ...'
,.\ '
,'.
'," ....
, ,"'"
,< '
r--,
!<..:.) ,
t"o
,', i, '
~i .. '" '
,::,", \
rl
JFFICIAL
.-..
MINUTES
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
January 12, 198LJ
/
Members Present
:"'/
.,
".:\
. ~...
,
"
Elizabeth S. Haeseker, Assistant City Manager - Chairman
Joseph Molnar, Fire Department
John Rooks, representing the Public Works Dept.
And~ew Onufer, Interim Director, Building Dept.
Keich Crawford, Director, Traffic Engineering Dept.
Cecil Henderson, Jr., Director, utilities Dept.
Paul Harvey, representing the Planning Dept.
Ream Wilson, Director, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Also Present
Carl E. Gilmore, Jennifer Office Complex
Gary R. Chiles, Jagger Buzbee Co.
Tom Radcliffe, Lloveras, Baur & stevens
Sandy Lloveras, Lloveras, Baur & Stevens
Luis J. Leon, Barbara Leon Sub.
Karnl Targal, Peterson, Inc.
Edward T. Imparato
E. A. Sarker, Biltmore Canst. Co.
William o. Hickok, Hickok & Company
Pat Rehiser, DeYoung & Assoc.
Richard L. Fidler, Post Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
Nick Zarra, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
Niall Falloon, British American (Fla.) Prop. & Invest. Corp.
Jay Rhodes, Rhodes & Wice, P.A.
Janet Laatsch, Recording Secretary, Public Works Dept.
------------------------------------------------------------
The meeting was called to order by Elizabeth S. Haeseker, Chairman,
at 10:10 A.M. in the Operations Center Conference Room.
1. Jennifer Office Complex Buildings 4 and 5. (Allan B. Davis,
Trustee) .
FINAL SITE PLAN
Joseph Molnar - Commented that an additional hydrant would have
,to be added to the complex, and the water lines would have to be
looped.
John Rooks - See written comments (Attachment 1).
'Andrew cnufer - Questioned if the three blocks on the lef.t of the
'plan were all one building Mr. Gilmore stated it would be one
building. Mr. Dnufer presented Mr. Gilmore with written instructions
stating what is required by the Building Dept. in the way of a
submittal for application of permit.
Keith Crawford - Questioned the 12' width of the cuI de sac with
the planter ~nd whether there would be room for a garbage truck to
"
1.
RDC
1/12/84
.
. '
, ,....
,~
for
~......--.....,
J "
, ,
"
"---
. ....
\
..-;
MOTION:
.
':
.-..
~
manuvcr' La make garbogo pick ups. Mr. Gilmore stated that there
would not bo gnt~bogo pick ups in that area, as there is a dumpster
In the front, nnd omorgenoy vehicles would not go around the outer
loop. Mr. Crawford questioned if the same person owned the property
on tho str~ooE and on tho north and south, 1 n regard to arranging
for sidewalks. Mt~. Gilmore stated that the Rutland Bank owns its site,
and the balanco of tho property is still owned by the same land trust
that owns all of it, including that property shown. It has not been
platted. Mr~. Crawford stated that he felt it would be appropriate
-~e-~~-~~~8R-~ the developer to put the sidwalk inJ.~eu~~
-l:i p- #5 2-: 00 r" w.Hrh - flf}- -agreemefl{,. -t,hey- -wi i -1- -ge-t.- -t-l<te--$-&52-;.oo-ea-o<<-,:- The
Rutland Bank would have to be handled as a separate owner. Sidewalks
muat be pr'ovided on U.S. Hwy. 19 prior to iSSUing Certificates of
Occupancy on these buildings. Carl Gilmore stated that he would
need a letter' to the Allen B. Davis, Trustee, (owner of the property)
to get thIs started.
Cecil Henderson - See written comments (Attachment 2).
Discussion ensued with Mr. Gilmore regarding the space provided in
the parking lot for garbage pick up. Mr. Henderson stated he would
not approve the plan unless the garbage truck can get in and out.
Mr. Gilmore stated he would have to know what is to be required, if
different from what is shown on the plan.
Paula Harvey - Stated that the height of the building (in feet)
should be indicated on the site plan. Mr. Gilmore stated that the
he ight of the bui Id ing is approx ima tel y 12 - 13', "and 1 ess than the
30' feet allowed by the zoning requirement. Paula Haryey also stated
the need to identify specific loading spaces on the site plan. There
will be one required for Bldg. #4 and Bldg. #5 for service vehicles
to unload (separate from the parking stalls). Mrs. Harvey noted
the condition for impermeable coverage on these two sites--the figures
are different on the plans from Bldg. #3. These figures need to agree.
Mr. Gilmore stated that they had changed Bldg. #4 slightly in the
final evaluation, and the numbers that are shown for the total area
in Bldg. #4 are correct, and that he would change those for Bldg. #5.
Mrs. Harvey further stated that the landscaped areas will need to be
shown and the materials identified on the site plan or on a separate
sheet. This Preliminary Site Plan was submitted prior to the
Reoreation Ordinances.
Ream Wilson - See written comments (Attachment 3). See written
comments from City Forester (Attachment 4). Mr. Gilmore discussed
the high-lighted plan with Mr. Wilson.
Discussion ensued regarding the garbage truck turn-around.
Mr. Gilmore stated he had no objection to making it a goo and a deeper
turn, and also questioned if the garbage truck could come in from the
side of the hammerhead if that would be acceptable, as there is an
extra parking space according to the plan. Mr. Henderson agreed that
would be acceptable and probably would be the best way it could be
handled as it brings the dumpster in close to the buildings it serves.
Paula Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Final Site Plan
based upon findings of this Committee for the plans to conform with
gUidelines for site plan review subject to the following changes to be
2.
ROC
1/12/84
made on the plan prior to certification:
That building heights be shown in feet;
That loading spaoes be identified In BuIlding Area 4 and
Building Area 5;
B. 1. Sidewalks be provided on U.S. Hwy. 19 prior to the issuance
of ' a Certificate of Occupancy on Building Areas 4 and 5;
2. That the developer work with the City Forester to preserve
and replace trees as required by the code; and
. '
"~
,~
A. l.
2.
3.
"
11 .
5.
6.
\"
.'
, ,
. '
. '
~ '~, .:. ~
~, . .
,;
,,: .
::' , ';-....
'.';"1'---;:"1
~< ~i' :< ~ ~'i/.
e", ',' .
~.;\J.:. :
.~ '\.~'I..'.:I ,>
fJ.. "
:i::';",;", ;,; '" .
: -.- ~ ,
P t ," 1
','". ".
~~/..:. '. " .
, I,'
."'. '.
II
r'""")
..-....
I 1
That the conflIot between impervious area show a total area
be tween 3 I ' I~ I and 5 wou}.~ be correc ted to agree with' each
other; nnd
That a fire hydrant be added to Building Area 4;
That water lines be moved as required by the Fire Marshal
and utilities Department;
That dumpster locations be approved by the Sanitation Superin-
tendent of the Utilities Department;
And that the followlng(conditions be noted on the plan as
certified:
3. That the requisite initial building permit be secured within
six months of the City Manager's approval and the project
, completed within two years from the date of issuance of the
initial building permit.
The motion was seconded by John Rooks.
.~T::;":'I+ c.'"
Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Gilmore's questions regarding the
looping of the water lines.
< .' .".
.~ ~ ...
'"
',~;':" . c ' c I
.' '
i~': ;";..'
The Motion was carried unanimously.
~,~ " .
;r'.:- . "
)~~. ,: '.
~! . ,
+'. .
2.
,.'
I"; ."
"' ,
'. "
[,:.."':.
\'.":" '
. I . ~
f .~. . . .
f"' .
't'.; ~.
.,':". ~
FINAL SITE PLAN
. ~ . ", '
.', .
~ ~ . i.... , ' .
" ' ,.
~~,J,"~ :-:.
"," 0 .~,
,T. t..... ...
. -'"," ,"
,~;::, '.'<.:/,
~. j ".. .
l~::"";"..: ,
., 0
"..'
Joseph Molnar - No comments.
John Rooks - See written comments (Attachment 5).
~Additional comment - Town Place, adjoining the other side of Florida
Power right-of-way is going to put their sewer across the road.
:Mr. Lloveras stated that they have met with the Town Place people and
'Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigari"and will combine and have one crossing.
and Jagger has agreed with Uniflex to share on a 50-50 basis that
,'"",,
,'. ~ ,I . > .
.'f ~
t.>,; '0
.'..l':. .
;,': '>.~. .
3.
; RDC
1/12/84
, . . L' ~ ,>. ~.. ~ c
. . :'. .: -. .,: ;: .' \ ~.; . ' . ,.f ..: j. . . ~ .' '. , . I .' " : .' ' ~ ' ; . . 11.. ' ' .' '. " . 1 ... . ,,', '.: '" i
. .
..
:.,'
\:;,.~
;:.e."
...:. ,
'\:'., '
: :~: :
" '
.i'
"."
"
'.
't'. .
'j'- .
::f:MOTION: .
D::,'>~z>
~,', >/;iJ
1:1 ~T . : <
:,r." e :..
'j-;..',' < '
....;.. .,
I.,. .
,~
,.......,,,
crossing, nnd an ngPtHlmonl 10 llOlns wor'kcd ouL. A copy o,f that
agreement will bo givon Lo PubJio Worku Dept. There will be only
ohe crossing under tho rnJlrond,
Andrew Onufer - Submitlod written instructions to Mr. Lloveras
stating what is required by the Building Dept. for submittal for
application of permil and plnn roview.
Keith Crawford - Questioned if they understood about the sidewalks,
as nothing was shown on the slte plan. Mrs. Haeseker stated that ff
there were no sidewalks, there would be no Certificate of Occupancy;
but if they feel they oan get a sIdewalk waiver in accordance with
the ordinance, they would have to apply with the construction permits.
Mr. Lloveras stated that they had thought the property was County
(on Northeast Coachman Road) and had applied to the County for a waiver,'
and they denied this also. There is a need to show the sidewalk on
the plan.
Cecil Henderson
See written comments (Attachment 6).
Paula Harvey - No comments.
Ream Wilson - See written comments (Attachment 7). See written
comments from City Forester (Attachment 8).
Paula Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Final Site Plan
SUbject to the following:
1. That sidewalks be shown on the site plan along Northeast
Coachman Road;
2. That easements be provided over the water mains up to and
including the meters and hydrants;
3. That ingress/egress easements be provided; and
4 . That specifications for the water distribution system meet
City standards.
The Motion was seconded by Cecil Henderson!
The Motion was carried unanimously.
--------~-----------~--~------------------------------------
'I
~. Barbara Leon Subidivision (one lot).
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT,
, Joseph Molnar - No comments.
John Rooks - No Comments.
Andrew Dnufer - No comments.
Keith Crawford - No comments.
. .
,~
r ,
f/'~'-"
e
Cecil Henderson - Utilities Dept. has carefully reviewed the
Barbara Leon Subdivision and finds that' it meets all the standards
required.
Paula Harver - No comment regarding the sub-division plat itself.
but advised the architect that nine copies of the plat must be
submitted to the Planning Dept. for the Planning and Zoning Board
to review next week (Tuesday).
I,
, ,
"
"
"
I .
Ream Wilson - No comments on the plat.
John Rooks moved to recommend approval of the subdivision plat.
The motion was seconded by Cecil Henderson.
The motion was approved unanimously.
" MOTION:
------------------------------------------------------------
,',
4 .
Professional Office, located on South side of
a roximatel 200 ft. West of S. Ft. Harrison
Continued from 11/231 3
.\ >,
:"
REVISED FINAL SITE PLAN
;'.i
, .
Joseph Molnar - No comments,
John Rooks - See written comments (Attachment 9).
':
';" /.:":"
I' . . ( ;~~,.; "
{'::':'" ,::;~)
.' '
:. ~ '".
:1:' .'
, '
.:,'
',Andrew Dnufer - Submitted the written instructions (Plan,Review
Report) from the BUilding Dept. stating what is required for submittal
for' application for permit.
"
"
" ,
1
'." \, '.
..',
"
Keith Crawford - Stated his concern that basically the whole public
parking area is in turf block. It is hard to stripe, and he also
'questioned whether it would be a dust-free surface. Mr. Targal
stated that they could ,pave the entire lot, if additional retention
wasn't necessary. John Rooks stated that they are using turf block
for lessening the detention impact. Mr. Targal further stated that
because of the trees in the area, the turf block would leave more
air holes for the roots. Keith Crawford questioned what the maximum
,amount of turf block that should be provided, and what constitutes
dust-free parking, and how curb stops would anchor into turf block,
Discussion ensued regarding turf block for parking lot, as opposed to
paving; and, also, the one-way aisles and width of the driveways.
There arel22 parking spaces required, and that would imply a lot of
traffic is expected in that area. John Rooks stated that they still
need to meet the stormwater criteria and that something might be
worked out with a Payment In Lieu Of, which is an amount of money
per sq. f~. associated with the area of the detention pond and is
base9 on the square foot price of'the property.
Cecil Henderson - See written comments (Attachment 10).
~: . ~ , ". . :
~~c;~i ;' . .
"T'
,
-,
'I
, ,
...e..
~. L .
" ; .' ~
; " ~
',<
;,..
I,' .",--'"
"'J
t:_< .: ,
,:,,., .
~:c.. . .'
<:;< ,,\' ' 1
. ~,. "
~".< I
''//:. "
r!:~:': . ~
>.}.::.. ;>":>
iD:..:;,,~~::, :.:,:, ;: ,:, '",
5 .
RDC
1/12/84
. .
...--.\
~-.
,
.
I
:'--
Cecil Henderson - Utilities Dept. has carefully reviewed the
Barbara Leon Subdivision and finds that it meets all the standards
required.
Paula Harvey - No comment regarding the sub-division plat itself,
but advised the architect that nine copies of the plat must be
submitted to the Planning Dept. for the Planning and Zoning Board
to review next week (Tuesday).
" Ream Wilson - No comments on the plat.
."MOTION: John Rooks moved to recommend approval of the subdivision plat.
The motion was seconded by Cecil Henderson.
The motion was approved unanimously.
----------------------------------------------~--------------
4. Corbett
Corbett
Avenue.
Professional Office, located on South side of
a roximatel 200 ft. West of S. Ft. Harrison
Continued from 11/23/ 3
REVISED FINAL SITE PLAN
:~;, r--
: " '.0:,
. ~ . c .. .
.- '
,;.; ..
';' ~ '
Joseph Molnar - No comments.
John Rooks - See written comments (Attachment 9).
. ,
t.,", :
~.; "
~:' \
; ::
Andrew Onufer - Submitted the written instructions (Plan Review
Report) from the Building Dept. stating what is required for submittal
for application for permit.
Keith Crawford - Stated his concern that basically the whole public
p~rking area is in turf block. It is hard to stripe, and he also
'questioned whether it would be a dust-free surface. Mr. Targal
stated,that they could pave the entire lot, if additional retention
wasn't necessary. John Rooks stated that they are using turf block
for lessening the 'detention impact. Mr. Targal further stated that
because of the trees in the area, the turf block would leave more
air holes for the roots. Keith Crawford questioned what the maximum
amount of turf block that should be provided, and what constitutes
dust-free parking, and how curb stops would anchor into turf block.
.:. ' .
~..;!. :..~ '~"", -
i"' .
::. ~ <',
"/ .:
:, .
:..\ ',"
" ,
~ ,
j~';l '. '. 1
t, .
. ~ .. I
..~ ,', .
,'.
,~;::~:j .
{: .
'1
.,
Discussion ensued regarding turf 'block for parking lot, as opposed to
paving; and, also, the one-way aisles and width of the driveways.
There;are 122 parking spaces required, and that would imply a lot of
traffic is expected in that area. John Rooks stated that they still
need to meet the stormwater criteria and that something might be
worked out with a Payment In Lieu Of, which is an amount of money
per sq. ft. associated with the area of the detention pond and is
based on the square foot price of the property.
Ceell Henderson - See written comments (Attachment 10).
~,c ..~,
,.,..J.
(' '
J:.' > L
~?:
'-1-':
5.
RDC
1/12/84
. '
,-.."
..........,
.
,
~
Paula Harvey - Stated the following comments: (1) The parking
calculations shown on the site plan matches what was given In a
letter, but the terminology used on the site plan for identIfying
the requirements for parking are not the same. What is put on the
site plan should be exactly what is on the second page. (2)Landscap-
ing should be shown on the plan--particularly, as required by
code along Corbett St. (3) The impermeable coverage stated in the
letter is 72.27%, but the plan shows 78%--a correction is needed.
(4) Site plan cannot be approved until the vacation Is completed by
the City of Belleair of B Street. (5) Conoerned with the turf block
parking, and prefer that it be paved. (6) Also concerned about the
internal traffio circulation. (7) Discussed additional information
on the CIS which was approved the last time this was brought up to
the RDC Committee. The CIS was approved with conditions that certain
statements or pages be clarified, changed, etc. Some of those have
been addressed, other have not. There are additional things that need
to be amended to the Community Impact'Statement in order for it to be
approved. Mrs. Harvey stated she would provide them with a copy of
the RDC Committee minutes so they will know which things need to be
changed.
Ream Wilson - Stated that one of the comments that was left off the
CIS that was supposed to be amended was the fact that the application
was filed prior to the new ordinance on open space assessments, and
the project is, therefore, exempt from open space assessments under
the new ordinanoe. The site plan application was submitted sometime
back in June.
,,'
I' :,--:~
'.', .~.~;
See written oomments from City Forester (Attachment 11).
Discussion ensued - Keith Crawford commented that the trees should be
exactly where they are shown on the ~lans~ with exact dimensions.
Traffic Engineering Dept. will not a~B~ the Certificate of Occupancy
unless it is the same as this plan. Mr. Targal stated that the
locations are based on a survey. Mrs. Haeseker stated that all
construction must be done in accordance with this plan. PauaHarvey,
commented that she would have a problem in recommending approval of
the plan because the traffic doesn't work, not sure of the parking,
(whether this should be paved and, if paved, there may be a problem
with detention), and there are too many questions unanswered.
Mrs. Haeseker also stated she was reluctant to proceed further, as
there aren't answers to all the CIS items.
',' MOTION:
Joe Molnar moved to recommend that the Revised Final Site Plan for
Corbett Sereet Professional Office be continued to a future date.
The motion was seconded by John Rooks.
'..",:)
,,'
, .,
," Ie.
"
Discussion ensued on the Motion: Mr. Targal'stated they could pave
the parking lot and pay for the extra that would eliminate the turf
problem. He did not feel that these things should keep them from
,getting approval of the site plan. Mrs. Haeseker stated she felt
the item needed to be continued.
Motion for Revised Site Plan to be continued was approved unanimously.
----------------------------------------------------------------
6.
RDC
. ,
. .--..
5. Hercules A artments located on West side of Hercules Avenue
~ North of Sunset Point Road. Bay Development Group
.'
FINAL SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
Mrs. Haeseker stated there would be discussion on both items, with
two motions at the end of the discussion.
Joe Molnar - No comments on either item.
Andrew Dnufer - No comment.
, '
Keith Crawford - Stated he had no real objection to the plan, but was
curious about why a 35' wide manuvering space was provided at the main
entrance, and the strange parking layout. Mr. Hehiser stated that
Mr. DeYoung had felt that in the past the radius' had not been enough
and did not allow for enough speed to exit the roadway at a high enough
speed. Mr. Crawford stated that the National Committee on Driveway
Designs for Traffic Engineers Organization states only 15'. City
ordinance says that the opening where it meets the pavement of the
road be only 40'. He felt the 35' shown would be too wide, as the
cars would be coming out 2 - 3 abreast.
Ceciil Henderson - See written comments for Final Site Plan (Attach-
ment 12). Discussion ensued on looping of the water lines. Mr.
Henderson explained what is involved in looping the water lines, and the
reason why looping of lines is required. Mr. Hickok questioned where
they would be required to connect if the easement to the adjoining
property was not obtained, making it feasible to connect to this system.
Mr. Henderson stated it would be necessary to reconnect back into the
water s~stem, but was confident the easement would be obtained.
Paula Harvey - Stated she had noticed the ,name of the project was taken
off the site plan,(l)A name is needed for the Preliminary Plat.
Mr. Hickok stated that there are two different parties involved--
one with the plat, and one with the development of the project. The
working name is Hercules Apartments. (2) The height of the buildings
be shown in feet. (3) Suggested they show the tennis courts& swimming
pools as actual proposed structures rather than just dash lines,
Mr. Hickok stated these areas were not included in the drainage count
and they will remove them. (4) Questioned the permeable coverage fig~re
requirement which states that only 30% of the site is going to be '
covered, when it appears that more than 30% of the site is going to be
covered. (5) Landscaping needs to be shown. (6) Requirement to show the
proposed location of the identification or entrance sign. (7) Planning
Dept. will need nine copies of the Preliminary Plat by the morning
of Jan. 13th.
:. ~
, ,
- ~', I :
'/",
" ,
:~'\
" }
.. ...../
\,
",
~
\.
"
J,
;.' > ...;'-""
',.'.J.
Ream Wilson - See written comments for Final Site Plan and Preliminary
Subdivision Plat. (Attachments 13 and 13A). See written comments
from City Forester on Final Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision
Plat (Attachment 14). '
,John Rooks - See written comments for Final Site Plan and Preliminary
Subdivision Plat (Attachment 15). Discussion ensued regarding the
annexation of 20' of property. Mr. Hickok stated they are aware ,that
',';, .....l' "
,,' I
.~ .
"
.. ~.'
'. '. >'? '- ~'.:/~;;~~;"\1"f[c"l:{c1;;:;1'~~Iil;,,{~(~i)::;'fj:::;:
", ( ,f ,,,, .. , .. '.' A "..' " " .,; ,'..... "'1 "," ,,,,,', ,/ '} , " ; ,
" .... ,'::., · '.".':::;)!i:i,::(:,;i;~(!1,i~}!~!~~;'~f:\f;:r-r(:;'~:'j,::,:'..::. .:,"
, f' '", I " ," , I" '" ' .. . I.. ,', ' , J n " ,,',
.. (,. ". i:',., ;:;!:':;;'i;,.;:1',;'):j,,}j;':\":':0,;.g;,';:(~}'(~~:,'i,'; .~. . . :';: ..., . ......~;;
:,,'~I:f.:',:\':'~V,),\;;,:=!::::,',:'::!:'::':'/)/":'" I :j. ,J.':, ", ','
;', "1"" .,
.+'1 .
,~...."
. ...., .... ~ Il:~ J,;' ,
.. ~ '" . ,c : ~ ~ I.
"'...
':,~: ,":;';: ~ :' :':' >:,' :,'~'?~;: ~":":
, l" ',.' "" " . ~
~ ,.'::,".,1 .'<~::~\;'c.: .:' ~ . . " I
\1~;j'i!{ii{\'({I:'..,:~':: :....... >:.... ;
. ....
;:~.~.:'" ;';
.:. .:,. ,~'.
r .,1:: ~ .:
~:. i.~\ .:/
. ~':. ~
\1., <"
,', ;/.'
,.'\ .
". (:.:' >; , " ,:-'
"
j. . ~ . ~ . ~', .: ': . ,. ., ~ I .".'
"'\ ..1.....,,".1 _ : "";.o<c:' . J
L ' . -.,') ,. ";,:""",,,,:,,,r:\',/:<:',(:<"'<'
".;:;;",,:)i.?~,')";.!" ..... ..' /" .'
" " : ;' >i','t,..'.',..' .,,:,r,': I .::1..'.' ',','.
.', . . ." '. :' .', r ,", ~\H, . _ {" ," : \ "
~ ~ ,>' . . ':, :"=':;', .;. :. I, ....,
,(
~; ,
\', .
I: " ~ ' ',~', ~ / .:...
. ~. .i I.... \' [.... .:''':': .:: '
. i '.': :,' ~:,,: " ' :,:' I: J, ;....':~ ','
. ~ .. :~ I 1 -" ~ .
......
'.: ~.
. , ... ~
, . ~ ~..
. ..: ~:: .. ' , .
, ..
...1'. '..
., '.I...
, "
, / j~, .
",
:1 ~ .
~ .,~
.' ,.'
~ ".,
. .
'l"--
"
\
" '
" MOTION:
,
"
MOTION:
, "
':'
.....~.
'.- ',; "'l
:!.~. :. >'1:.'/
~~:.. .
.~ :. +\ .', .
---...
,,"' ,
/ '
the balance of the property would have to be annexed into the City.
There appears to have been a mistake made, and he questioned what
sort of mechanism decides the repetition for annexation to correct
this. The present owner believes it had been annexed, as the revised
survey was submitted on April 27, 1973, prior to the annexation showing
the correct legal description; however, the 20' was left off. The
petition shows the correct legal description. The ordinance itself
that annexed the property did not include the 20', but there is informa-
tion in the file that would support the fact that that was in error.
Discussion ensued regarding the entrance width. Mr. Rehiser stated
he would like to adjust the radius to 15' and 25' instead of both 20'.
Mr. Crawford felt that he would recommend going with the National
Organization's recommendation of 15'.
Paula Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for
Hercules Apartments.
The motion was seconded by John Rooks.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Paula Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Final Site Plan for
Hercules Apartments based upon a finding of this Committee that the plan
conforms with the design guidelines for site plan review subject to the
following changes to be made on the plan prior to certification:
1. Provide a name on the site plan;
2. That the pool and tennis court be deleted from the plan--or if
they are to be included, to show the results in the coverage
requirement calculations;
3. That the building height be shown in feet;
4. That a calculation for building coverage be shown on the site
plan;
5.' That landscaping be shown on the site plan;
6. That the proposed location of an identification sign, or
'\ entrance sign, be shown;
7. ,That the radius on the entrance drive be reduced to 20 feet;
8.
That the water system be looped as required by the utilities
Dept.
9.
,
That one dumpster be deleted;
That the back-up spaces at the north and south end of the
parking lot be widened to 24 ft.;
"
That the conditions be noted on the site plan and certified to
include payment of open space and recreation land fees prior to
certification of the final site plan; and,
10.
11.
. ~ 'I
8.
RDC 1/12/84
,I'
,I,
~~1~:,I~\:Y,\:"'(";':~~":, "':;,':',.,~;\,~t}:f~
"1' .',." ~
~t/".>' :','..,' :'",::\:~;;
~~.>>: <~':.~
I-.~.
,-
"
12. That the requisite initial building permits be issued within
six months from the date of the City Manager's approval of
the final site plan and that the project be completed within
two years from the date of issuance of the initial building
permit.
The motion was seconded by John Rooks.
The motion was approved unanimously.
-----~--~---------------------------------------------------
5. GeIger/Ciccotti Parcel, located on West side of McMullen-Booth
Road, approximately 140 ft. South of Tanglewood Drive.
COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT
Mrs. Haeseker stated the Community Impact Statement would be
discussed first.
Joseph Molnar - No comments.
Andrew Onurer - No comments.
I.,
!::"O
~ ;t . .
.
Keith Crawford - No comments.
, , .
., ,
Cecil Henderson - See written comments (Attachment 17).
Paula Harvey - Stated the following comments: (1) Provide a letter
of ,compliance from the property owners that states that they will
actually do on the property what they say they will do on the Community
, Impact Statement, and (2) they need to provide the Resource Development
Committee with the market analysis information required for the
CIS prior to its going before the City Commission for approval.
Ream Wilson - See written comments (Attachment 18).
, Paul~ Harvel recommended approval of the Community Impact Statement
for the Geiger/Ciccotti Parcel subject to the submission of a letter
of,compliance of the market analysis, and that the concerns of the
Public Works Department regarding filling in of the existing ditch
be addressed.
;,,:,MOTION:
Motion was seconded by Ream Wilson.
Motion was approved unanimously.
. ,
.' '.
}'~,:',:~
;'r:,,'~
~~'." .
~., ". .
r t.' .
)/;..~.:,'c .
~.. ,.... '.
,....',... .
rc,',:',
!:fii-;:,C:.'>::;'j',
"'The following discussion followed on the Preliminary Subdivision Plat
for the Geiger/Ciccotti Parcel.
Joseph Molnar - No comment on Preliminary Plat, but would' like to talk
'to them before they submit the Final Site Plan.
John Rooks - See written comments (Attachment 16).
. Mrs. Haeseker questioned who owns the retention area. Mr. Rooks
9.
RDC 1/12/84
. ,
"........,
...~.......
, '
~
stated those will be platted as part of Lot 22 and 23 on the .76;
and, as far as the .72, it will be platted as part of Lot 32 and 31.
Andrew Onufer - No comments.
Keith Crawford - Commented that typically, left turn lanes be pro-
vided in the middle lane of the street (head-on to each other), but
this street goes across that area for a mile and a half. It's a
major east-west street through the whole north end of Countryside, so
it means a heavy left-turn movement that would have to be provided for
and would conflict with the need for a turn lane at another entrance.
If the other street could be brought out further up instead, there is a
very light movement and it would provide for a better turning movement.
Cecil Henderson - See written comments (Attachment 17).
'8
Paula Harvey - Commented (1) Fence and landscape plan be required for
those lots that back onto Landmark'Drive and McMullen-Booth Road,
(2) all structures on those lots running on McMullen-Booth Road will
be required to be 50 ft. from the right-of-way (that is required by
the County), (3) the same concern that Traffic Engineering had about
'relocating the drive and be realigned with Meadow Wood Drive, (4)
the number of lots on the plat (the initial zoning that the property
owner applied for was a Residential Planned Development zoning). It
was pointed out to the City Commission that RPD zoning is necessary
for a single family subdivision. They are doing it because this
particular piece of property is going to have to be reviewed by the
County Planning Council and the Board of County Commissioners will have
to transfer jurisdiction. They have a policy that the limit on density
along this part of McMullen-Booth Road be 2 1/2 units per acre, and
that is what they were trying to accomplish with the RPD3. This par-
ticular plat,as it is drawn here, has a density that is in an area the
Board of County Commissioners can approve, but they are applying for an
RS75 zoning, and that zoning district, if this plat were not approved,
would allow them to build at a greater density. In summary, they are
taking a risk by applying for the RS75 zoning in hopes that we can
assist them in convincing the Board of County Commissioners that annexa-
tion of this property in Clearwater should be done in this category.
In line with the Public Works Dept. comments just given, the ability
to develop the area along the ditch--it is going to be our recommenda-
tion that, in fact, it is to the developer's benefit to apply for the
RSlOO zoni.ng, reduce the number of lots on the property to accommodate
the problems there will be with drainage in the area along that ditch,
and possibly eliminate any problem in going to the County for/juris-
diction. transfer of
!,'
'0:
t;.
,,:)
Ream Wilson - See written comments (Attachment 18) regarding Open
Space Assessments. See written comments by City Forester (Attachment 19~
Discussion ensued on the stream channel. Mr. Fidler stated he had
spoken with ChriS Cowles and the developer of the project with regards
to the existing stream channel. Mr. Fidler also stated they had
attempted twice to meet with Florida D.E.R. at the site. Mrs. Haeseker
stated that no building permits would be allowed to be issued prior to
the recording of the plat.
: (
'j'"
:~. :
~,'.
'.'.
,"
10.
RDC 1/12/84
, ,
~
\
r"'.
, )
MOTION:
Joseph Molnar - Commented (1) Two more hydrants must be added within
the site, and, (2) the water system must be looped. Mr. Fidler stated
that the County is not permitting direct connection to the 48"~
anymore, and informed them they will have to make a connection with the
existing line in Tanglewood and south through the other Geiger parcel
in conjunction with that property project to a proposed subdivision
south of that tract. We have been informed that the connection will
not be as shown, and it will be looped.
John Rooks moved to recommend that the Preliminary Subdivision Plat
for the Geiger/Ciccotti Parcel be continued to a future date.
Paula Harvey seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously.
,)
\ .-"
----------------------------------------------------------------
7. Regency Townhouse Village (Oaks of Northwood--Phase II),
located on South side of Enterprise Road, on South side of
Oaks of Northwood. '
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT
....[
("
Joseph Molnar - No comments.
, ,
:\:':',C:'\
><'J
.," .
John Rooks - Commented that the Lake Chatauqua area of 100' - 200'
should be put on the site plan when finalized. It would be like a
setback when put on the plat.
~','" :,o
Andrew Dnufer - No comments.
",
",.1.
't..
t'}:'
Keith Crawford - Questioned what kind of plan was proposed. Mr. Zarra
explained that they are selling the townhouses with a bit of property
in the front and property in the back--it is attached units, all private.
Roadways will not be dedicated to the City. Ingress/egress is through
th~ Oaks of Northwood, Phase II. There is a written, documented
agreement to this effect. Discussion ensued on the main accesses.
Cecil Henderson - No comments.
" ,
'.' l
Paula Harvey - Stated the following comments: (1) That a variance
to the subdivision regulations reqUiring the lots to be served by a
public or private street which meets City standards be requested,
(2) There is a one-lot subdivision with the name of Regency--they may
, wan t 'to cons ider a d i fferen t name, (3) The access easements shown on
the plat do not appear to match the curvature of the road shown on the
site plan. Mr. Zarra commented that in order' to get the setbacks on
the lots they had to adjust the ingress/egress arrangement out of the
roadways--it is now less curving, and makes a better situation.
(4) The code requires townhouses to have two parking spaces per unit--
an additional 15 spaces are needed. (5) The second ordinance reading
on the RPD site plan is scheduled for February 2nd.
" ,
......
,',
":l
"
" ,-......
, , \
; " '}'
:. '~./'
. '
Discussion ensued on the variance procedure.
Jon Rooks
~RQ~~W1~~ - Made one additional comment that the common areas need
Ream Wilson - see Attachments 20 & 21 for comments.
. ,
.~~.'~.: '. ,"' "'. \
11.
RDC 1/12/84
. '
,"""""'"
"........"
I ,
MOTION:
to be tied to these lots so that they Cannot be separate at a later
date. Mr. Zarra stated that this gets dedicated to an association
and the association has complete responsibility for the maintenance,
of that common area--the associations in the State of Florida are
legal entities that have the power to do that and are responsible
for t hat . A ,l.ao.,. - s.e.e. - A t.t.a.o Rme.n.t. a - .2.0. -aR.d. ..;ll ~ .f...o.r- _ ca.mme o.t.s._
Paula Harvey recommended approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat
sUbject to the following:
1. That a variance of the subdivision regulations requiring the
lots to be served by a public or private street which meets
City standards be requested;
'~
! '
,.
,
1"
2. That building separation and access easements shown on the plat
agree with the final site planj
3. That two parking spaces as required by code be provided for
each individual platted townhouse lot and the appropriate adjust-
ment made to the final site plan;
4. That the common area will be legally tied to the individual town-
house property owners; and
i.
" '
5. Subject to the final plat being recorded within six months from
the date of approval by the City Commission of the Preliminary
Plat; and
B
6. That the agreement for Tract~, Northwood, regarding setbacks be
reflected on the Preliminary Plat.
The Motion was seconded by John Rooks.
The Motion was approved unanimously.
A Discussion ensued regarding taxing of the p~operties (individual
units).,
--------------------------------------------------~-----------
"'c'
8. Rhodes and Wice Funeral Home, located on West side of Belcher Road,
approximately 600 ft. North of Northeast Coachman Road
(Rhodes/Wice)
FINAL SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT
'~-\
..~
Both the Final 'Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Plat will be
discussed together.
Joseph Molnar - No comment on the Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
One question on the Final Site Plan - The required fire hydrant to
be within 300 ft. of the building is not shown on the Final Site Plan.
John Rooks - No comments on the Final Site Plan.
See written comments on Preliminary Subdivision Plat (Attachment 22).
. \
, ,.-....,
r-.
Andrew Dnufer - No comments.
,.,
Cecil Henderson - No Comments on Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
See written comments on Final Site Plan (Attachment 23).
Paula Harve~ - Made the following comments on the Preliminary
Subdivision Plat: (1) Nine more copies of the plat are required
by tomorrow (1/13/84); (2) questioned why the spaces at the rear
of the bUilding were angled, and whether it was a one-way street;
Mr. Rhodes stated it will be one-way and it will be easier to get in
and out. (3)Questioned if there were any plans for,the open area to
the south. Mr. Rhodes stated there was no final decision--his
partner is against using it for anything but a park, but Mr. Rhodes
would favor something compatible. Mrs. Harvey stated that the
site plan needs to be labeled fIOpen Area".
Ream Wilson - See written comments for Preliminary Subdivision Plat
and Final Site Plan (Attachment 24). Mr. Wilson questioned where
the actual property line was, and Mr. Rhodes stated they are using all
of Lot I on the replat. Mr. Rhodes then questioned the assessment,
and Mr. Wilson explained that any site plan that had been filed
before July 7, 1983, were exempt. Mr. Rhodes stated they missed the
date, through no fault of theirs, and feels that the problem was within
the City. Mr. Wilson stated that the ordinance does not provide for
a waiver.
. '.:"'..
"" \
q
.'
See written comments from City Forester on Preliminary Site Plan
(Attachment 25).,
; :, MOTION: '
Mr. Crawford stated he was concerned as to where the real property
line is, and that the streets are offset and questioned the parking
areas shown. Mr. Rhodes stated that it is a unique parking plan,
as several concepts are used for funeral parking and they have two
or three plans.
Paula Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision
Plat for Rhodes and Wice Funeral Home.
. '/
The motion was seconded by Cecil Henderson.
',,,,
The motion was approved unanimously.
:, MOTION:
"
Paula Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Final Site Plan based
upon a finding of this Committee that the plan conforms with the design
guidelines for site plan review subject to the fOllowing changes to be
made on the plan prior to certification:
'. "
1. Location of the fire hydrant within 300 feet of the building
be shown;
\,: .';"
2. That driveways be no closer than 5 feet to the property line;
3. That the drives be realigned as required by the Traffic Engineer;
4. That conditions be noted on the plan for certification to
include payment of open ~lpace fees prior to certification of
the final site plan; and
:;;'c
~I' .
..',T.
~~: .
:.;
RDC
1/12/84
I ,..' , J . '" ' " ' . '[, ~ t , ,", . ' ...
, , . .. , "
l(,~, ,
~,;' '.,
,I';;,'
:', ~, · 4
'i< ·
~;~,'::
<,!.i.
.<j:,-,',:' : '
h',<", .'
'~' .
I:".'"
" "t
\~I.. <' "
"~'I;. "
~t;,'d, "
", I "
r'" 0."
t.t.~;:
F(:',~::':
.j~. i; \ ;' .
~}:.:;::,'~:'..
t~:')'l, "
'f,'.:"
'??:~.;
!' ~ ' ,
~k:,'::'
:,~'~:,:;~': .
. ,
o
(\
5.
That the requisite initial
six months from the date of
,projeot oompleted within two
b':Jilding permit.
building permit be issued within
City Manager approval and the
years from issuance of the 'initial
~i .
,The,'motlon was seconded by Cecil Henderson.
,The ,motion was approved unanimously.
, I.
--~--~--~--~--~--------------------------~--------------
,
Meeting 'was adjourned.
\,
. J.'
!;. , '.
" .
~.~;, ;
;:1 ~ :;
.....'l
(rL.......
.t~ ~~ :. ',T.
~'~~';','.':i"" .
i~fK.0i;:, ..... '.
".v~""
~t:t~~~....',~~,::'d " ,
J,.tf.,~. ,"t,.l, " .It" ,I, .\' ~ {"
~fti*b~~~?:':'~~:':,;:~, '''\ {"+ ':'.~,:', c.
t~~'~~ji ,t;~:;:~.\' . _' ,J, ", "
~~~4... "!I,V/-: ... ',-,.
~.t;r~,::"~"{:: . ~'" ',' '
fMJ'~i ~ ',",'... "
:t{~~I~ii. \,!,o," .~.~ " "," 11 '
\~~~,~~~( ~""i~' ~<,'" '~ :,'. ~:
~~, l' \r"...,,' \ ,. "1 ~ I . I. .
f~~t~':.:/;~'~',';~,:\:,' ',< "~ ';::'
{~~~r\;...o., . ""-:S.o, . I \ . , '.f
~ "'Y.'f
< "
" /'
:ct
. ,~ .
"",,.
, .' .~
I ~,
, ",'
',','
" '.
I,
"i
,\ '
'I'
, ~ 1. .
"
lo
'....
, , '
...~ ..
'I
. 'r
" '>'
" "..
'/ .,
, ,
H 1',
.'. ",.
')
..1
. ,1, ,. , '. ',l' c; ':: ~
". i' ~ , ,; - ,.,
'I '::'>,>/~::;::,,'
'!..L. ",
c,.,l'
,I
>".,1"
. "' ~
" i.
, ,
,,\. ,
I
,~', .~
; ~ ~ ' '. j
"
.::
'"
m':'~>""""" (" I''',.'' ':'"
1)f:~\jij':i;j'~)'~1;"i;'i':i':' ",
tni~:;'..'f'i,~I~\"'" "~. "J!l~:..\ ~Ji~~/"~ " ,
~!t~tt;:'i;iz' /t~?(.!~i{t~t;;,:~~;~ A~~;~f-~J ~~' f~'~:" ~. 1':..~'~ ~l ", l~:
fk~"~~\~J~t.::Jtft':lt~~~;;-~' ,\!.no If'.. ~', .}..J,'. ~tt,,~ . ~'~. :1..., 'lot_, 11 \ ,'~, a,l
'''''c'
)\'
'\!.
"
!, t,
14'.
RDC
1/12/84
"