Town
of
Special
Planning and Zoning Minutes
CALL
TO ORDER: Chairman Gable called the meeting to order at
ROLL
CALL FOR THE RECORD:
Chairman Brad
Gable – present
Member/Co-Chairman
Gene Tucker – present
Member/Secretary
Sally
Member Johann
Behnken – present
Member Mickey
Clements – present
OTHERS
IN ATTENDANCE:
Town Manager Tom Burns, Deputy Clerk Tina Smith, Town Attorney Mike
Chesser, Amy LeMay, Steve Copus, Dana Mathews, Scott Work, Adam Russell, Mike
Richardson, Debbie Dantin, Mike Munson, Steve and Paulette Peterson, and
residents Frank and Gloria Kane, and Jon Shepard.
OLD
BUSINESS:
I.
APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2006 PLANNING & ZONING MEETING – Member
Clements moved to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2006 P&Z Meeting as
written. Member
II.
Agenda
ideas – P&Z meeting
Meeting
objectives: Make determinations of
compliance and recommendations (with final comments) to the Shalimar Town
Commission on the proposed SYB development application (PDP), as presented on
preliminary plans dated
1.
Compliance with previous Commission zoning change guidance.
A. density -
meets 25/acre guidelines
B. height -
meets 50 foot maximum for all building guidelines
C. setbacks -
appears that setback requirements are met. Dana
Matthews stated that the developers are using an updated/current survey that
shows the correct property lines.
D. parking
(check handicap numbers - 1 for every 25 spots) - The developer stated that they
would check the numbers of handicap spaces that will be required.
They also pointed out that, at this time, there are 12 extra parking
spaces.
E. minimum unit
size - meets 1400 sq. ft. minimum guidelines
F. open space -
meets guidelines of at 15% minimum
G. signage
(location of and size) - there is no information on the plans about signage but
the board pointed out that, according to the January 24, 2005 Town Commission
Meeting, the developers are limited to 200 sq. ft. as with any commercial lot.
2.
Traffic
A.
Adequacy of traffic concurrency
study (Exhibit 1C is missing) - (1C in the concurrency study was renumbered to
1.3.) The board decided that the
traffic concurrency study was adequate.
B.
Level of Service and roadway
width sufficiency on
7:40
Dana Matthews pointed out that A. Lemay has to leave at 8 and asked if we could
move to the agenda items that she has to answer 2E – 2J and #3
C.
Recommended traffic calming
measures on above roadways with all recommended changes to proposed roadway
structures (curbs, materials, landscaping/ maintenance).
The
developers agreed to a concurrency study after the development is approximately
70% occupied and to putting in necessary traffic calming devices at that time.
1.
4-way stop sign at
2.
Round-about at
3.
4.
Round-about at
a.
Closes one entrance to Finesterra.
Have they received approval to do this? - will look at this item at a
later date if necessary
b.
Maintenance of device - will look
at this item at a later date if necessary
5.
6.
Raised intersection on
a.
Brick vs. Stamped Pavers - will
look at this item at a later date if necessary
b.
Maintenance of device - will look
at this item at a later date if necessary
7.
3-way stop sign at
8.
Speed Hump on
Traffic
calming measures to help manage the traffic on
The
developers agreed to this but asked that a cap be put on the escrow amount.
Member Behnken asked the traffic expert if she could provide the town
commission with a cost estimate for each traffic calming measure proposed and
Ms. Dantin agreed.
D.
Turn (deceleration) lanes off of
SR 85 to
E.
Raising of Old Ferry Road,
Runoff, Edges, Curbs (Grading Plan) - Amy LeMay briefed that they would be
raising Old Ferry Road, where it dips, approximately 4 feet and the swale will
be raised. There will be no change
to the Stormwater flow.
F.
Sidewalks on
G.
Turning adequacy for vessel
removal, garbage, fire, school buses - ratio meets requirements
H.
Entrance widths (24’ for 2-way
entrance 15’ for one-way entrance) - all widths meet requirements
I.
Crosswalk locations - The
developer has no objection to striping the sidewalks across the entrances as per
board recommendations
J.
Traffic moving within the site -
The board is comfortable with this issue
3.
Storm water concurrency study
A.
Sufficiency - the retention pond
on the south end of the SYB plans is on the town right-of-way but will be put
there to service
B.
Maintenance - The developers
stated that the Homeowner’s Association will maintain all Stormwater retention
areas shown on the site plan.
C.
Flood Zone Ratings Compliance
(Minimum floor elevation for the site) - Since parking garages are on the bottom
floor of all buildings, the habitable level is well above all flood plain
elevations and should not affect the town’s CRS level.
The garages will have frangible walls based on Florida Building Codes, if
necessary.
4.
Commercial Activity
A. Restrictions
on activity type - This issue was covered at the
B. Commercial
vs. residential layout - This issue was covered at the
C. Marina
activity limitations - There was some discrepancy between the current owner,
Steve Peterson, and the Developer as to the type of marina activities that would
take place. Mr. Peterson stated that
he would continue to do everything that is being done now except sandblasting.
The Developer declared that there would be very little marina activities,
stating that there would be no boats on stands, etc.
D. Signage
(location of and size) - This issue was covered at the
5.
General
A.
Landscaping plan – buffer
zones, right-of-ways
1.
Open Space Landscaping (82-287
15%) - meets guidelines
2.
Front Perimeter Landscaping
(82-288 minimum 10’ wide from abutting right of way) - meets guidelines except
that in front of the showroom the landscaping is on the right-of-way and the
sidewalk is on the Shalimar Yacht Basin property.
The developer agreed that they will maintain the landscaping.
3.
Interior Parking Landscaping
(82-289) - appears that the requirement has been met.
4.
Buffer Zone Landscaping (82-90) -
appears that the requirement has been met.
B.
Maintenance of any landscaped
right-of-ways - already covered, developers have agreed that the homeowner’s
association will maintain the landscaping.
C.
Underground Utilities - The
developers will meet with Gulf Power and if the power company requires that the
lines be underground then they will put them underground.
6.
Compatibility
A. Building
size/length – board does not agree to adding floors but wants the long
building split in two.
Member
B. Building
appearance/variability – Already discussed
C. View
corridors and parking “look through” – Board all in agreement that there
should be some open vistas through the buildings/parking garage.
Developers don’t have a problem with the “vistas” and have agreed
to add a 3-4 foot high wall to hide the front of the cars, all A/Cs, and
mechanicals will be on the roof.
D. Public water
access/boardwalk - There will be no public boardwalk.
The boardwalk is only to paying customers and it’ll be up to the HOA
who is allowed on the property and how it will be policed.
At
the end of the meeting, Town Attorney Mike Chesser went over each agenda item
and the outcome of each. This
information is listed below:
1.
Compliance with previous Commission zoning change guidance.
A. density - no
report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
B. height - no
report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
C. setbacks -
no report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
D. parking
(check handicap numbers - 1 for every 25 spots) - Developer pointed out that
they will check on the number of handicap spots required and make sure that they
have enough.
E. minimum unit
size - no report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
F. open space -
no report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
G. signage
(location of and size) - at their
2.
Traffic
A.
Adequacy of traffic concurrency
study (Exhibit 1C is missing) - no report or recommendations to the Town
Commission.
B.
Level of Service and roadway
width sufficiency on
The
Level of Service, according to the town’s Comp Plan, is Level C but the
numbers in the traffic study were based on Level D.
Debbie Dantin will change the study to reflect Level C, revise the
numbers, and provide the new calculations to the Town Commission.
Member
Behnken moved that it be recommended for the Town Commission to study the issue
and to determine whether the widening of the road falls into the scope of this
project or if it’s an infrastructure problem of the city which has been there
for quite some time and needs to be resolved.
Member Clements seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with Member Gable
voting nay.
C.
Recommended traffic calming
measures on above roadways with all recommended changes to proposed roadway
structures (curbs, materials, landscaping/ maintenance).
1.
4-way stop sign at
2.
Round-about at
3.
4.
Round-about at
a.
Closes one entrance to Finesterra.
Have they received approval to do this? - will look at later
b.
Maintenance of device - will look
at later
5.
6.
Raised intersection on
c.
Brick vs. Stamped Pavers - will
look at later
d.
Maintenance of device - will look
at later
7.
3-way stop sign at
8.
Speed Hump on
The
developer agreed to put some money into an escrow account.
At a later date, when the development is approximately 70% full, a
traffic concurrency study should be done and any necessary traffic calming
measures will be added using the money from the escrow account.
The developers agreed to this but asked that a cap be put on the escrow
amount.
Member
Behnken asked the traffic expert if she could provide the town commission with a
cost estimate for each traffic calming measure proposed and Ms. Dantin agreed.
D.
Turn (deceleration) lanes off of
SR 85 to
E.
Raising of
F.
Sidewalks on
G.
Turning adequacy for vessel
removal, garbage, fire, school buses - no report or recommendations to the Town
Commission.
H.
Entrance widths (24’ for 2-way
entrance 15’ for one-way entrance) - no report or recommendations to the Town
Commission.
I.
Crosswalk locations - The
developer has agreed to paint stripes at all entryways
J.
Traffic moving within the site -
no report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
3.
Storm water concurrency study
A.
Sufficiency - no report or
recommendations to the Town Commission.
B.
Maintenance - All maintenance
will be handled by the homeowner’s association for all Stormwater retention
areas shown on the site plan.
C.
Flood Zone Ratings Compliance
(Minimum floor elevation for the site) - no report or recommendations to the
Town Commission.
4.
Commercial Activity
A. Restrictions
on activity type - (according to the developer) will conform to motion made by
the Town Commission at the
B. Commercial
vs. residential layout - (according to the developer) will conform to motion
made by the Town Commission at the
C. Marina
activity limitations - (according to the developer) will conform to motion made
by the Town Commission at the
D.
Signage (location of and size) - will conform to motion made by the Town
Commission at the
It
was agreed upon that if more than 128 boat slips are to be considered, the
property owner will have to come before the board for approval.
5.
General
A.
Landscaping plan – buffer
zones, right-of-ways
1.
Open Space Landscaping (82-287
15%) - no report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
2.
Front Perimeter Landscaping
(82-288 minimum 10’ wide from abutting right of way) - no report or
recommendations to the Town Commission.
3.
Interior Parking Landscaping
(82-289) - no report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
4.
Buffer Zone Landscaping (82-90) -
no report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
B.
Maintenance of any landscaped
right-of-ways - Developer has agreed that the Homeowner’s Association will
maintain everything shown on the plat.
C.
Underground Utilities - Developer
will talk to Gulf Power and pay for underground utilities if required by Gulf
Power.
6.
Compatibility
A. Building
size/length - The longest building allowed will be 217 feet and the space
required between all buildings will be at least 20 feet
B. Building
appearance/variability - no report or recommendations to the Town Commission.
C. View
corridors and parking “look through” - the developer agreed to include a 3-4
foot wall on the bottom/garage floor with frangible/break away walls, if
necessary according to Florida Building Codes
D. Public water
access/boardwalk - there will be no public water access
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The
P&Z Board will be meeting again on
ADJOURNMENT:
Member Tucker moved to adjourn the meeting at
___________________________
Tina
Smith