Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 01 14 Staff Review Regular Meeting Minutes STAFF REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUI'ES TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1986 The meeting was called to order by City Planner, Peter Cowell. STAFF PRESENT: Peter CO'Well, City Planner John Govoruhk, Police Chief Charles Holzman, Fire Chief Leonard Kozlov, City Engineer Gilbert Artman, Director of Public Works Sam Smith, Building Official Doug Taylor, Utility Superintendent WIN'IER SPRINGS COMMERCE CENTER: Leonard Kozlov stated that his questions pertaining to Winter Springs Carnerce Center were codified in a letter to Mr. Dittmer. His concerns were: APPLICANT: Walt Dittmer 1. For the final engineering show the IS' easement on the plans. 2. The swale has a steel way and needs details. 3. Letter frOOl DER (Juanita Quinn) reference swale. 4. He wants revised engineering and to formally address each question. 5. Detailed final engineering has to be sealed. 6. Portions of the plans submitted by Al Land that needs to be revised. There was discussion on water lines. John Govoruhk stated that there will be three (3) paved lanes instead of four (4), and Mr. Dittmer needs to get with D.O.T. on their requirements. Peter Cowell stated that the only other concern that needs to be taken into accotmt is the size of the lots. Even though it is in a Corrmercial PUD Mr. Dittmer will have to abide by the Arbor Ordinance for each lot. Peter Cowell stated that what Mr. Dittmer is looking at is correcting and modifying the engineering and subject to the minutes of this meeting and the engineer's letter, the Staff will recommend approval. This will go before the Conmission on January 27, 1986. DISCUSSION ON THE RECONSIDERATION OF LECESSE CORPORATION PROJECT-GREENBRIAR AT TUs:'AWIW LECESSE CORPORATION PRESENT: Russ Davidson, Miller McCarthy, Bill Hoelbeck Sal LeCesse Peter Cowell asked if there was a change in the architect that designed this plan over the architect that designed the other project. There was a change which needs to be clarified and stated on the engineering. Because of all of the con- sultants involved in the preparation of the final development plans, they need to be shown. There were changes to the street section, the width of the pave- ment and the gutter which needs to be changed on the plans. MillerM:Carthy stated that they are submitting a plat requesting l~' of asphalt and 3' of curb canbined to make it 21k2', originally there were 20' . Peter Cowell stated that there is a question on the density and the issue of seven (7) tmits per acre, if going back to the original plan, based on the percentage of land in Phase I. LeCesse has utilized in recreation and retention the per- centage for those lots now being at 6.8 which would be about 6. I if breaking Staff Review Board l'~_Lutes Dittmer/LeCesse - January 14, 1986 Page 2 . down the phasing evenly. Russ Davidson stated that they have only platted Phase I. They had to put the retention and recreation area in. If he didn't build any more lots and left the rest vacant, he would still have to put in the retention and recreation area. Peter Cowell stated he mayor may not have at that time been deemed appropriate to have that many tmits for the number of lots. M:illerM::Ca.rthy stated that it is only 12 tmits per acre. Peter Cowell stated that was fine for a different type of tmit. MillerM:Carthy stated that zoning density doesn't say what type of tmit. Zoning density is number of tmits per acre. It doesn't say number of townhouses, plats or houses per acre. Peter Cowell stated that the zoning density does state mder PUD it is estab- lished as to the number and type of tmit that is allowed. Russ Davidson stated that the only thing they are doing is rroving the buildings about 6' apart. Charles Holzman made the motion to reccmnend that the Staff Review Board accept the new final as submitted. he stated that to him it does not constitute a substantial change frOOl the original submission plan. Seconded by Gilbert Artman Vote: John Govoruhk, aye; Charles Holzman, aye; Leonard Kozlov, aye; Gilbert Artman, aye; Sam Smith, aye; Peter Cowell, nay. Peter Cowell stated that he will take his recorrmendation to the Planning and Zoning Board, and if they also find this to be the case; they can also over turn the Staff's decision. Leonard Kozlov stated that this issue does not deal with the roads. Peter Cowell stated that LeCesse will get a copy of the Staff Review Minutes, and he will send a copy of them to the Planning and Zoning Board IreIDbers. He needs five (5) copies of the inforrnation that was distributed to the Staff, so that this inforrnation can be distributed to the Planning and Zoning Board rrembers with the recomnendation that the Staff has fotmd it to be consistent. The Board will have their choice to make their determination at that time. The Planning and Zoning Board meeting will be Wednesday, January 22, 1986, at 7: 30 p.m. Miller McCarthy stated that should the Planning and Zoning Board agree with the Staff's recannendation, then they don't need to go before the Corrmission on the following Monday. Peter Cowell stated that he would just inform the Corrmission that it was deter- mined to be substantially complied. At that point building permits can be issued. Miller McCarthy asked about the variance request for putting in curbs, ',drains and miami curbs. ,-~ Staff Review Board Minutes Dittrner/LeCesse - January 14, 1986 Page 3 Peter Cowell stated that this can not be resolved tmtil the first meeting of the Board of Adjustment which is the first Thursday of February 1986. He also stated that the Staff will be making a recorrmendation on this matter to the Board. Leonard Kozlov stated that the code, which is specific, and this is why LeCesse Corporation is going before the Board of AdjustIoont because a request requires a paved 10' wide lane, this is the minim:n:n width, minim:n:n lane. He has no objection to reducing a miami curb from a 24 to 18", but the miami curb is in addition to the 10' width of the lane. He also stated that LeCesse' s position is that they want to include the curb and his reccmnendation on this is no. The code specifies that the wi.dth of the curb is in addition to the lane width or roadway that will be accOlIDdated. The original engineering plans showed a 9~' width which is not in confonnance with the code. Len Kozlov stated that his recannendation is to meet code for the land and he is accepting a reduction of 24 to 18" curb. He stated: 1. The code does not accept the lane width including the curb. 2. If resurfacing the area, you do not put asphalt into the curb area because you eliminate or reduce considerably the function of the curb. ~~~ secre~