12-22-81 v M '
MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING BOARD
December 22, 1981
7:30 PM
PRESENT: John Andresen, Chairman
Hal Mullins
Dick Rigsbee
Donna Ross
Catherine G. Van Ness, Commissioner
AND: A. William Moss, City Manager
Joan LaVake, Recording Secretary
AND: Tom Rodgers, TRECO
Pete Hallock (BHR, representing TRECO)
Dave Bingemann, TRECO
George Bull
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Andresen. The first order of busi-
ness was a proposal by TRECO, Inc. , to develop, under PUD, the Catholic Diocese
property located north of Saturiba between Sea Oats and Live Oak Lane. The
City Manager advised the Board that TRECO had approached the City Commission on
December 14 and asked for authorization to make application to develop this
property under Planned Unit Development; that a layout of the property had
been included in the package furnished to the Board, showing the proposed develop-
ment of 48 lots. Mr. Moss introduced Tom Rodgers to the Board.
Mr. Rodgers displayed a map, and proceeded to address the engineering aspects
of the development. He stated that TRECO was proposing to leave the creek
between the two segments in its natural state as much as possible; that drainage
from the two cul de sacs would be handled by catch basins and underground pipe
to the creek; the roadways would be curb and gutter section; the cul de sacs
measure 1,000 feet and 1,050 feet, respectively; water and sewer will be provided
by a connection to existing utilities on Saturiba Drive; the sewer will be a
gravity system with no pump station necessary; the water system will be composed
of 6" and 8" lines which will be looped through the two cul de sacs to give
washing action; there will be fire hydrant protection provided on both cul de sacs;
the maximum water elevation within the ditch was anticipated to be approximately
6.3, therefore establishing a minimum road elevations at 7.3, the Covenants and
Restrictions to reflect a minimum house elevation of 9.3.
Mr. Hallock addressed the Board, advising that TRECO was asking for a 25-foot
front setback line, a 72-foot side setback line, and a 10-foot setback on the
rear; also asking for an easement to go down by the creek, with TRECO to provide
a maintenance road that will go down one side of the creek, and a water easement
where the system will be looped to each cul de sac. Mr. Hallock added that it
had not yet been decided whether to ask for an easement or a right of way in the
creek area. Mr. Moss asked Mr. Hallock if the City granted an easement, would
TRECO still request a 10-foot setback in the rear, or would they go up to 30 feet.
Mr. Hallock replied they would go to 30 feet; that they could go 10 on the side
and 30 on the rear if we have an easement situation. Mr. Moss stated that there
was some argument as to which would be the better way to accept it; that if the
City accepted a right of way situation, it clearly becomes the City's maintenance
responsibility.
Mr. Bull asked for some clarification regarding the background on the lots
that back up on the east and west side of the tract. Mr. Rodgers replied
that if they had an easement situation, they would go 30 feet. After some
discussion, it was agreed that an easement situation was the best for all
concerned. Mr. Moss added that covenants and restrictions would be binding
on the property owners as to what they could and could not do along the
easement.
Mr. Bull pointed out a problem regarding Lot 38; that due to its odd shape,
it might be difficult to enforce the setback requirements. The Board agreed
and it was decided that the City Manager would reserve the right to waive
the setback requirments on Lot 38.
Chairman Andresen asked Mr. Bingemann how their covenants and restrictions
read regarding this development. Mr. Bingemann answered that their covenants
and restrictions were drawn in such a way as to cover any request or problem
which the Board felt should be covered. The Board felt it should reserve the
right to review the covenants and restrictions as they pertain to this project
before approval by the City Commission. Mr. Bingemann stated that these
instruments would be delivered as quickly as possible.
After further discussion regarding the setback lines, the setback lines as
they pertain to Lot 38, the easement situation, and the covenants and
restrictions, Mr. Mullins made a motion that the Board recommend approval of
the project to the City Commission, subject to 1) setback lines of 25 front,
10 side, 20 rear; 2) utilizing an easement situation along the creek; 3)
review by the Board of the covenants and restrictions as they pertain to this
project prior to approval by the City Commission; and, 3) the City Manager
reserving the right to waive the setback requirements on Lot 38. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Rigsbee and carried unanimously.
(NOTE: This is a partial transcription of the minutes of the Advisory Planning
Board meeting of December 22, 1981, only as they pertain to the TRECO
proposal)
John F. Andresen, Chairman