HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 01 25 Regular
-.
.
.
,
~
'"
January 18, 1993
TO:
City Manager
Land Development coordinator~
FROM:
RE:
Agenda Item
Highland Lakes, Conceptual plan
This is a conceptual plan for a 4l-lot subdivision at the terminus of
MacGregor Road in the Highlands PUD. This subdivision was previously
approved under different ownership. The new owner has redesigned the
project and is requesting that it be built in three (3) phases for
economic reasons.
The Planning and Zoning Board has recommended approval, with stipulations
as indicated in the attached P&Z Minutes of December 21, 1992. The
determination of Phase I being able to stand on its own will be made
during review process of preliminary engineering by the Staff.
cc: Mayor
Commission
City Attorney
City Clerk
..
.
planning and Zoning Board
Special Heeting
Monday, becember 21, 1992
Page :3
attorney to prepare stich order, especially since we are doing
this for the first tlme~
hf"........ ....O\l40ldlnn thA ~AmDl~ document from APopka, I can not find
.. **** * * . *************** ******* * * * ********* **************** ****** ***** * * **********
,
COMMUNICATION CONFIRMATION REPORT
WINTER SPRINGS CITY
1 1 - 3 0 - 92 04 : 17 PM
" *
***** * ** * * ****** * ** ****** *** *** ** *********** * ***** *** **** ** ***** * **
INPUT TIME
TYPE
START TIME
FILE NO.
04:15 PM
FILE
IMMEDIATE
FO 1 (03 PAGE)
NO. TEL NO.
001 1-407-420-5011
RESULT
RESULT NO.
GOOD
TEL NO.
~ Highland Likes Conceptual Plan
Discussion. Hemb~rs of the Board r~vlewed and verified that thos~
changes that were requested at the m~etlnq of December 16th were
in fact made.
Hotion to approvo Highland Lakes Conceptual plan by HcLeod.
seconded by Ferring,as stated:
.,
phase t Lots 1 through 6 and Lot 41, Including th~
necessary infrastructure. Lot 20, as shown on the plan, is
to be a temporary pond. Engineering-wise, thIs phase must
stand on Its own it nothing else Is built.
phase II - Lots 1 through 20, necessary infrastructure,
stormwater management system, 11ft station, relocation of
gas pipeline and constructing all of Shepherd Road.
Englneerlng-wls~, this phase must stand on its own If
nothing else is built.
....
.
.
.
'..
.-..=- .....-.--
Planning and Zoning Board
Special Meeting
Monday, December 21. 1992
Page 4
Phase III - Lots 21 through 40. including the necessary
infrastructure. Engineering-wise. this phase must sta.pd on
its own if nothing else is built.
Vote: McLeod. aye: Glavin. aye: Hopkins. aye: Ferring. aye.
Respectfully submitted.
~o~Jq
Recording Secretary
.'
.
.
.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (407) 327.1800
Date:
December 17, 1992
Planning and Zoning Board ~
Land Development coordinato~
To:
From:
Subject:
Conceptual Plan, Highland Lakes
The above referenced was tabled at the meeting of December 16,
1992, to be brought up again at the meeting of December 21, 1992.
Although no action was taken, it appears that a solution
agreeable to both the City and the developer was reached. A
formal recommendation is now needed to forward to the Commission
for action.
If there is no change, it is respectfully requested that you
phrase your motion in the following manner:
"The Planning and Zoning Board recommends to
the project, Highland Lakes, be allowed to
phases with the following caveats:
the Commission that
develop in three(3)
'" \. @
~, including the
as shown on the
Engineering-wise,
if nothing else is
a)
Phase I - Lots 1 through 6 and Lot
necessary infrastructure. Lot 20,
plan, is to be a temporary pond.
this phase must stand on its own
built.
b) Phase II - Lots 7 through 20, necessary infrastructure,
stormwater management system, lift station, relocation
of gas pipeline and constructing all of Shepherd Road.
c) Phase III - Lots 21 through 40, including the necessary
infrastructure.
d)
If Phase I cannot stand
entirety, and Phase
simultaneously."
on its own, Phase
I must be
I I, in its
developed
You will note that this plan has 41 lots versus the 40 previously
permitted. The City has no problem with this.
cc: City Manager
City Engineer
City Planner
.'
.
.
.
. -.....
Planning and Zoning Minutes
Wednesday, December 16, 1992
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS:
David Hopkins, Chairman
Grace Ann Glavin,Vice Chairman
David McLeod
John Ferring
Hartin Trencher
Present
Absence
Present
Present
Absence
Appr ova 1 of M i OlL~ of Novembe.f 18. 1.9'~~_._
Motion was made by Ferring to table t.hese minutes tel the ne)lt
meeting on December 21st.due to only threl" members being present
tonight. and one of us having ~o abstain. and not having a quorum.
Hiqhland Lakes Conceptual plan ReVlew
Discussion with Hessrs. LaBlanc and Kozlov regarding any changes
between the plan review on October 21st and the plan presented
tonight. Basically on changes, developer still wanting to do
this project in phases tor financial reasons and the city's
statement that each phase would have to stand on its own and our
concern that the movement of the gas pipeline and improvement to
Shapherd Road would be completed prior to the development of the
majority of the property.
DeMarco: 1 would like.to refer you to the last page of mv
presentation. In that I have provided you with the financial
projection on this projoct. The graph shows the amount ot
capital investment for site development on this project if done
in 1 or 3 phases. Most of the infrastructure would be financed
by sales of previous phases. Phase I is a fairly inexpensive and
would get me going on this project. Phase II is rather
expensive, costing me the larger section of capital. due to the
development of the infrastructure and movement of tho gas
pipeline to Shepherd Road. Phase III is the bulk of the lots
which is where I will be getting my return on investment.
therefore, lt would not financially prudent for me to abandoned
the project atter phasi II.
HcLeod: January 94 1S that the beginning of Phasa III? Whore js
the beginning of Phase II, between September 93 and October 9~?
DeMarco: Yes. you are correct.
.' -
.
.
.
'.
\,
Planning and Zoning Board
Wednesday. December 16. 1992
Page 2
McLeod: Would the City have any problem. taking the
out and adding the completion of Shepherd Road down
Edgemon Road in Phase II?
cui de sac
through to
LeBlanc: The City wants their completion of Shepherd Road at the
same time we are completing Shepherd Road.
DeMarco: No, I would not have a problem. it would probably
be an additional $80K to my Phase II.
Motion made by McLeod to approve Highland Lakes Conceptual Plan
in the following manner:
phase I Bujlding of Jots 1-6. 40 with infrastructure
Phase 11 Building of lots 7-19 with infrastructure.
movement of gas pipeline. removal of cut de sac at MacGregor and
Shepherd, and completion of Shepherd Road.
Phase III Building of remaining lots 20-39 with
infrastructure. and stand alone.
Seconded for discussion only by Ferring. Ferring also abstained
from motion. therefore not having a quorum for voting. This
issue will be table to the next meeting of December 21st for
voting,
Overview of Draft LCtDd Development Reglllat.i9~
Points of concern:
1) Amount of public input in development review process.
Kern: The development review process would remain as it is
now with opportunity for public input before the planning &
Zoning Board and the City Commission. In addition. th~ change of
land use classification would continue to have opportunity for
public input as it is now with Planning & Zoning and City
Commission. Tho state agencies are sensitive about proposed land
use amendments and require detailed data and analysis. ensuring a
-global view. of the effects of the proposed changes.
2)
Buffering of
classifications
dist.r icts .
incompatible uses under land use
and performance standards versus zoning
Reviewed Table 6.06.024 of the draft code.
Kern: APplications for variances will be greatly reduced as
there would be no need to get variance from setbacks after the
implementation of these buffering requirements.
3) Performance standards allow for a more broad interpretation
.
PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING
AND ZONING BOARD
City of Winter Springs
REVISION TO THE
OF HIGHLAND
APPROVAL
LAKE
January 25, 1993
I . THE PROJECT
. I I . REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE
APPROVED PROJECT
I I I . THE DEVELOPER
IV. THE HOMEBUILDER
V. THE PHASING REQUEST
VI. THE CITY'S CONCERNS
VI I . WHY WE ARE REQUESTING PHASING
APPLICANT: ADM3 PARTNERS
BY: ATTILIO DI MARCO, Managing Partner
P.O. BOX 950910
LAKE MARY, FL 32795-0910
(407) 333-2519
.
-1-
.
.
.
I. THE PROJECT
- HIGHLAND LAKE WAS APPROVED IN 1992 AS A
COMMUNITY OF 39 LOTS,
MINIMUM 50' WIDE BY 110' DEEP.
- THE SITE COMPRISES 10 ACRES.
- THE APPROVAL CALLS FOR THE EXTENSION OF
MACGREGOR ROAD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF
660' OF SHEPARD RD.
- THE SITE IS MODERATELY WOODED.
- THE APPROVAL INCLUDES THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING GAS PIPELINE TO THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE PROPOSED SHEPARD ROAD.
-2-
.
.
.
II. REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE
APPROVED PROJECT.
1. ADDITION OF A CUL-DE-SAC:
- RESULT OF NUMEROUS HIGHLAND RESIDENTS
REQUESTS TO MINIMIZE THROUGH TRAFFIC ON
MACGREGOR ROAD.
- ADDS A FEATURE VERY DESIRABLE TO
HOMEOWNERS
2. BUILD THE PROJECT IN PHASES.
3. ADD TWO LOTS.
-3-
.
.
.
III. THE DEVELOPER
THE DEVELOPER IS ADM3 PARTNERS. WILL ALSO BE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILDING ENTITY.
WE ARE A SMALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER OWNED BY
MYSELF, ATTILIO DI MARCO, AND TWO OF MY BROTHERS.
WE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
FOR SOME 10 YEARS, IN NEW JERSEY AND CENTRAL
FLORIDA FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. OUR BASE IS IN
LONGWOOD.
HIGHLAND LAKE IS OUR THIRD PROJECT IN CENTRAL
FLORIDA. WE ARE PRESENTLY ALSO DEVELOPING A 65 LOT
COMMUNITY IN DELAND, VOLUSIA CO.. MARONDA HOMES IS
THE BUILDER.
OUR DELAND COMMUNITY, EASTBROOK, WON THE 1991
OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY AWARD GIVEN BY THE DELAND
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
WE ARE FINANCIALLY CONSERVATIVE DEVELOPERS:
-WE HOLD THE PRINCIPLE OF MINIMIZING THE
AMOUNT OF SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT;
-WE DO SMALL TO MEDIUM SIZED PROJECTS;
-WE ARE WELL CAPITALIZED AND CARRY SMALL
AMOUNTS OF DEBT;
BECAUSE WE PUT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF EQUITY IN
OUR PROJECTS AND WE KEEP THEM SMALL, WE CAN AFFORD
TO FOLLOW THOROUGH A PROJECT TO COMPLETION EVEN IF
SALES ARE SLOWER THAN PROJECTED.
TO REMAIN FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND WITH LITTLE
DEBT, WE NEED TO DO OUR PROJECTS IN PHASES.
WE HAVE A VERY GOOD REPUTATION WITH THE CITIES
THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED IN.
-4-
.
.
.
IV. THE HOMEBUILDER
THE BUILDER WILL BE AN ENTITY OWNED BY THE
DEVELOPER AND RICHARD LEVINE. TOGETHER WE HAVE
SOME 26 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE MANAGING THE
DEVELOPMENT,MARKETING AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
HOMES.
WE INTEND TO BUILD HOMES SIMILAR IN SIZE AND PRICE
TO WHAT MINDICH CONSTRUCTION BUILT IN HIGHLAND
VILLAGE FROM 1988 TO 1992.
LOCALLY WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL PARADE OF HOMES
AWARDS INCLUDING GRAND AWARDS AND SEVERAL REGIONAL
AURORA AWARDS FOR PRODUCT DESIGN AND ATTENTION TO
DETAILS.
--5-
.
.
.
V. THE PHAS I NG REQ(JEST
- WE ARE SEEKING APPROVAL TO DEVELOP THE COMMUNITY
IN 3 PHASES:
- PHASE I (MODEL CENTER) CONSISTING OF 7 LOTS:
WOULD ALLOWS US TO BUILD THE MODELS AND START
SALES ACTIVITY WITHOUT HAVING TO BUILD THE
ENTIRE SUBDIVISION, THUS MEETING OUR FINANCIAL
CONSTRAINTS;
THIS PHASE WOULD BE STARTED IN EARLY 1993;
THIS PHASE WOULD INCLUDE A DRY RETENTION AREA,
WHICH WOULD BE CONVERTED INTO A LOT IN
PHASE III.
- PHASE II WILL CONSIST OF 13 LOTS:
WILL INCLUDE COMPLETION OF THE RELOCATION OF
THE GAS PIPELINE;
WILL INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF OUR PORTION OF
SHEPARD ROAD;
WILL INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FULL
RETENTION AND SEWER LIFT STATION;
- PHASE III WOULD CONSIST OF 20 LOTS:
THIS PHASE WOULD BUILD THE PROJECT'S CUL-DE-
SAC AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROJECT.
THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO
BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF 1994.
-6-
.
.
.
VI. THE CITY'S CONCERNS.
1. THAT EACH PHASE STAND-ALONE:
OUR PROPOSED PHASES INDIVIDUALLY MEET ALL
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE ORDINANCES AND
WILL BE ENGINEERED TO MEET THE APPROPRIATE
STANDARDS;
2. THAT THE GAS PIPELINE BE RELOCATED TO
SHEPARD RD.
THE CITY CAN BE GUARANTEED OF THE RELOCATION
BY IMPOSING THAT REQUIREMENT AS A CONDITION
FOR PLATTING PHASE II;
THE GAS COMPANY HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE
RELOCATION AS PART OF PHASE II;
THE RELOCATION IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST BECAUSE
IT RESULTS IN A LARGER NUMBER OF LOTS;
PHASE ONE WOULD REQUIRE NO CONSTRUCTION OVER
THE PIPELINE.
3. THAT SHEPARD ROAD BE BUILT:
THIS WOULD BE A CONDITION FOR PLATTING
PHASE II
-7-
.
.
.
VII. WHY WE ARE REQUESTING PHASING.
PHASING WOULD ALLOW US TO START THE PROJECT
EARLY IN 1993, A YEAR OR MORE SOONER THAT
WITHOUT PHASING.
PHASING WOULD INCREASE TAX REVENUES TO THE
CITY SOONER;
PHASING WOULD ALLOW US TO OFFER LOWER HOME
PRICES DUE TO REDUCED CARRYING COSTS.
WE NEED PHASING DUE TO FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS.
OUR PRUDENT BUSINESS PRACTICES ARE TO
MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF SPECULATIVE LOTS
(PRINCIPLE OF JUST-IN-TIME INVENTORY);
WE ANTICIPATE A BUILD OUT IN LESS THAN 24
MONTHS. IF SALES ARE MUCH LESS, SAY ONLY ONE
HOUSE PER MONTH, AND WE BORROW ENOUGH TO DO
THE PROJECT IN ONE PHASE, WE WOULD RISK
DEFAULTING ON THE LOAN.
-8-
,.
.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (305) 327-1800
CITY MANAGER
RICHARD ROZANSKY
January 19, 1993
To:
MaYOr/comm~n
City Manag~
Transportation Impact Fee Update
From:
Re:
Attached please find a memorandum from the Planner, subject
as above dated January 5, 1993 and a letter to Mr. Kern from
Attorney Bricklemyer regarding Impact Fee updates.
.
After reviewing the memo and letter I did not sign the
agreement and thought I recommend we not update the
fee this year.
1'11 place this item on the agenda for the January 25,
1993 meeting.
/nav
attachment
.
I
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
City Planner .It;(
FROM:
DATE:
January 5, 1993
RE:
Transportation Impact Fee Update
As you remember, the proposal from Tipton and Associates to perform the annual update of our
transportation impact fees was approved at the December 14th commission meeting subject to
legal review. Yesterday I received the attached letter from attorney Keith Bricklemyer which
advises us to defer the fee update and address fee determination problems on a case-by-case
basis. At Bricklemyer's suggestion, I contacted several municipalities and the County to inquire
about their update schedules. The following is a summary table of my findings.
Local Govt.
Impact Fee Adoption
Fee Update
Oviedo
Casselberry
Altamonte Springs
Seminole County
April, 1987
February, 1988
1986
March, 1987
April, 1992
Not Updated Yet
Every 2 years
May, 1990 & plans for 1993
update
Our 1992/1993 Administrative budget has $35,000 in the consultation linecode, which will be
required for some assistance on the land development regulations, comprehensive plan updates
to the various adopted maps, potential traffic studies, and other such expenses. The $10,000 fee
for the impact fee update is a significant expense which could be deferred to next year. The
ordinance for the transportation impact fee calls for an annual review, however, it notes that
failure to undertake a review will result in the continued use and application of the existing fee
schedule. The downside of deferring the review is the potential for lost impact fee dollars, as
the construction costs for the proposed City roadway network on which the fees are based have
increased. One should note, however, that the City already has some of the highest impact fees
in the County, as I outlined in my September 21, 1992 memo.
: ; J
'1/
, .
RECEIVED
.
LAW OFFICES
HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN
2700 LANDMARK CENTRE
401 EAST ..JACKSON STREET
TAMPA, f"LORIDA 33602
JAN 04 1993
City oi ~'t111(0r Springs
PI"rHlillg Dept.
KEITH W. BRICKLEMYER
TELECOP'ER C813J 223 4410
WEST PALM BEACH. rLOlllOA
ORLANDO, F'"LORIOA.
or TROIT. MICHIGAN
LANSING. MICHIr.3.AN
HOUSTON. TEX"S
LOS ANGELES. CALlrORNIA
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
fB'3J 222 6603
December 30, 1992
Mr. Greg Kern
City of Winter Springs
1126 E. State Road 434
Wimer Springs, FL 32708
Dear Greg:
.
Based on my discussions with Ted Lincks of Lincks & Associates, Inc., a traffic engineer
that I have worked with on numerous projects over the years and for whom I have a great deal of
respect, there is Hille to be gained by the proposed annual update of your impact fee ordinance. My
recommendation would be that you address issues with regard to the ordinance on a case-by-case
basis should the need arise. Before making that recommendation to the City Commission, however,
I recommend that you contact several other jurisdictions to determine what they are doing with
regard to their impact fee ordinances. Ted Lincks advised me he did not believe either Hillsborough
County or Pinellas County do the kind of annual update being proposed, and both of those counties
have substantially more development on an annual basis than the City does.
Please advise me if you have further questions in this regard.
Yours truly,
KWH/ems
cc: Frank Kruppenbacher
.
i: t'
. ~. J
. -';;- -'/ ~,...." ';~;1L~ t
" I /
I
RECEIVED
JAN 04 1993
2865.1
City of \dtller Springs
Planning Dept.
.
January 18, 1993
TO:
City Manager ~
Land Development Coordinator
FROM:
RE:
Agenda Item
Grand Reserve, Conceptual Plan
This is a conceptual plan for an l8-estate lot subdivision located in
the Oak Forest portion of the Tuscawilla PUD, across from Arbor Glen.
This plan was originally presented to the P&Z Board, and approval was
recommended, as a lO-lot subdivision. This was later revised to an
l8-lot subdivision and resubmitted to the P&Z Board on January 6, 1993.
The P&Z Board has again recommended approval and that this could be
presented to the Commission prior to thier approving the minutes of the
January 6th meeting.
Attached are the Staff comments. Again, all concerns will be fully
addressed by the Staff during the review process of preliminary
engineering.
.
CC: Mayor
Commission
City Attorney
City Clerk
.
.
.
.
December 1~ 1992
TO:
city Manager ~
Land Development coordinator~
FROM:
RE:
Grand Reserve, Conceptual Plan
The above referenced was held on December 15, 1992. B. Starmer represented
the project. Staff members present were Alamina, Kern, Kozlov, Lallathln,
LeBlanc, Lockcuff and Taylor.
The wetlands are the primary concern at this time. These have to be
delineated to address the setback requirements. This means that the
wetlands may necessitate a reduction in lots. This will be determined at
formal submission of engineering plans.
Attached are the Staff comments.
This will be presented to the Planning & Zoning Board on January 6, 1993.
/fg
cc: Staff
~ December 15. 1992
TO: Don LeBlanc
FROM:
~Nil~~ ~~.
RE: Grand Reserve. Conceptual Plan
After a review of the above, the following criterias need to be met:
1. Indicate sidewalks on Tuscawilla Road and interior of subdivision.
2. Need wall Engineering - 100mph wind load calculations.
3. House on lot 11 should face south and not encroach on wetlands on the
opposite side (north).
~
4. Indicate pad elevation on each lot as per MSL.
5. Shade areas to be filled. need soil test and compaction report on fill
over two feet.
6. Define building areas.
7. Specify set-backs for each lot.
8. Indicate 100 year flood plane.
~
.
.
.
December 15, 1992
TO:
Land Developm:nta~dinato~
City Enginee~ lL~
Grand Reserve - Oak Forest - Revise Conceptual Plan
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The following comments are noted with regard to the revised submittal
of the conceptual plan.
1) The perimeter wall for the project must meet a 100 m.p.h. wind load
with calculations and proper detail design.
2)
The proposed stormwater parcels do not appear to be adequate to
accommodate the proposed impervious surfaces that are pl'ojected in
proposed plans. Further details are needed.
3) Lots 13 6( 14 may have sewer difficulty in being developed because the
major portion of the lots consist primarily of wetlands. FDER and/or
SJRWMD permits will most likely be needed.
4) On the Preliminary Engineering Plan, a detailed soils report will be
needed.
5) The one hundred year flood elevation will have to be noted. Any
filling or construction within that zone will require compensating
storage.
More questions will be forthcoming, once a more detailed preliminary
engineering plan is submitted.
/fg
cc: City Manager
.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Land Development Coordinator
G. E. Artman .g.~
December 15, 1992
Grand Reserve, Conceptual Review
There is the Arbor Ordinance to consider both for the
infrastructure and individual lots and also, signage installed by
Public Works and paid for by the developer.
I am also concerned with the engineering of roads, drainage, and
retention. If these are acceptable by the Engineering Department
we at Public Works will have no problem.
.
.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
102 NORTH MOSS ROAD
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708
TELEPHONE (407) 327-2332
FIRE AND
RESCUE
SERVICES
December 14, 1992
TO: Donald Leblanc, Land Development Coordinator
FROM, Timothy Lallathin, Fire Chief 2J 1 }-,
RE: Grand Reserve, Conceptual Review
.
The above referenced development has been reviewed by the Fire
Department, and it has been determined that three fire hydrants
will need to be installed to provide adequate coverage for fire
protection.
Possible locations of the hydrants on the submitted revised plan
dated 7 Dee 1992 are as follows:
A. Between lots 1 and 2, or directly across from that location on
lot 13.
B. Between lots 14 and 15, or directly across from that location
on lot 12.
C. Between lots 4 and 5, or across from that location between
lots 11 and 12.
Another site plan consideration will be the proposed entrance on
Tuskawilla Road. Is this an open or secured entrance?
No further comments are submitted at this time.
.
.
WINTER SPRINGS WATER & SEWER
1 NORTH FAIRFAX AVENUE
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (407) 327-1641
December 14, 1992
TO: Don LeBlanc
Land Development Coordinator
FROM: Kipton Lockcuff /J..-r
Utility Director
RE: Grand Reserve Conceptual Plan
We have reviewed the
Reserve project which
and sewer capacity is
this project.
. There is a six inch water main stub out and eight inch gravity
sewer line stub on Quail Nest Drive which lines up approximately
with the sid~ lot line of lots 2 and 3. Reclaimed water lines
would be required to be installed with this development.
conceptual plan for the proposed Grand
was submitted to us December 10th. Water
available but has not been reserved for
cc: Doug Taylor
File
.
.
..
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Land Development Coordinator
FROM: City Planner
. '? s/
'v I\.
DATE: December 11, 1992
RE: Revised Grand Reserve Conceptual Plan
The revised master plan shows two lots, number 13 and 14, existing in or near
a wetlands area which was, under the original plan, not to be developed. These
lots will have depths of less than 110 feet after netting out the required 25
foot uplands buffer from the wetlands. In a similar vein, after netting out the
required 25 foot buffer, lots 8 and 9 will have a lot depth of less than 110
feet. While the City codes do not state that conservation easements shall be
netted out of the lot depth determination, as utility and drainage easements
are, the developer should consider the effects as they relate to the placement
of the building.
The Comprehensive Plan specifies the wetlands protection measures required for
development. The developer must adhere to following policies:
1)
Wetlands shall be delineated on the site plan according to DER, SJRWMD and
USACOE definitions, whichever is stricter.
2) No new individual lots or parcels shall be created after the adoption of
the comprehensive plan that consist of such a high proportion of wetlands
that development of the lot is impossible without filling or other
disturbance of those wetlands.
3) Development shall be clustered away from wetlands. All projects proposing
alterations to wetlands shall submit documentation to the City that the
project cannot be redesigned to avoid alteration to wetlands.
4) A vegetated wetland buffer of 25 feet, depending upon site conditions,
shall be maintained between all structures and the wetland jurisdiction
line.
5) Where the developer documents that the site cannot be reconf igured to avoid
alteration of the wetland, the amount of fill placed shall be limited to
the minimum necessary for development. All structures in wetlands shall
be placed on pilings, unless otherwise approved by jurisdictional agencies.
6) Any alteration of wetlands that impairs wetlands functions shall be
required to replace wetlands acre for acre, type for type, or as permitted
by the USACOE, SJRWMD and/or DER.
7)
Require conservation easements to be
development containing wetlands, when
recorded
outright
as part
public
of all land
ownership is
.
.
.
Grand Reserve Conceptual Plan
City Planner
Dec. 11, 1992
impractical. Uses within conservation easements shall be limited to those
allowed under Chapter 704.06, F.S.
8) Verify all jurisdictional permits of Federal and state agencies have been
acquired before development orders are issued by the City on properties
adjacent to or including the natural drainage features including SJRWMD,
FDER and USACOE permits for wetlands and water bodies, SJRWMD permits for
stormwater management, and FEMA requirements for the 100-year floodplain.
.
.
.
1V:
DON LEBLANC, LAND DEVELOPHEHT COORDINATOR
FROM: John Govoruhk, Chief of Police
DATE: November 04, 1992
SUBJ: GJlAHD RESERVE, CONCEPTUAL PLAN
43-92
After review of this Conceptual Plan there are .any questions that need to
be addressed at this point.
1. When Oak Forest was being built several years back - discussion
and decisions was aade by the City and County Engineer no additional
cuts would be allowed onto Tuscavilla Road from Oak Forest.
There was and is a Road stubed-out (Paved) froa Benchwood Drive to
the First Power Line.
2.
In the event an Entrance is allowed off Tuscavilla Road/is the Road
"PRIVATE" or "PUBLIC", and how would Emergency Vehicles enter if it
is "PRIVATE"!
3. If the Tuscavilla Road cut is allowed Accel and Decel Lanes viII be
required.
4. Sidewalks built vithin Code viII be acquired along Tuscavilla Road
froa South Property Line to Borth Property Line.
5. Sidewalks and Roads viII be provided vithin the Residential Area and
built to City Code.
6. All Traffic Signs, Street Name Signs, and Road Markings viII meet
F.D.O.T. and City Code requirements.
7. With the Creek floving thru some of the Building Lots it viII require
that access to cross this Creek be substantial for Fire Trucks and
other Emergency Vehicles.
~vd
~:ief Ofo~~~ce .
JG/eds