CC Minutes 09/23/2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION Minutes of September 23, 2013 — Regular Meeting Page 10 of 17 Site plan approval (requires both Planning and Zoning Commission and City Commission approval). He further explained that in exchange for the use of the City's property for open space and retention requirements, a park and playground with parking would be provided by the applicant. Mr. Sorensen advised that the applicant had provided a Voluntary Development Commitment Agreement that addressed the following issues: 1. The required additional approvals (Future land use amendment, re- zoning, re- platting, and site plan); 2. The conceptual site plan approval for an assisted living facility with up to 70 units in a building that may be up to six stories; 3. One time park improvement payment; 4. Requirement to pay all impact fees and utility fees; 5. Addresses site issues such as fences, access and responsibility for fountains. He added that the Planning and Zoning Commission had reviewed the conceptual plan at its August 14, 2013 meeting and provided a favorable recommendation to the City Commission. Discussion: Discussion ensued regarding various issues, including walkability; use of the dock and the lake; height of the building; setbacks; and impact on surrounding properties. Audience Participation: I . Mr. James Fraleigh, 23 Teresa Court spoke in opposition to the ordinance, citing concerns about traffic safety hazards in the area and the detrimental effect he felt the project would have on surrounding properties due to the proposed height of the facility. 2. Mr. Dan Hale, 325 Southcot Drive, spoke in favor of the ordinance, stating he felt the project would be a benefit to the City due to increased tax revenues, a new park and better access to Lake Kathryn. 3. Mr. John Casselberry, 700 South Lost Lake Lane, voiced some concerns about the amount of property that would be used for retention and the park and urged the Commission not to enter into an agreement until all the calculations had been done by an engineer. 4. Mr. Frank Ramseur, representing the applicant Nieuport Partners, gave a brief overview of his proposed project, stating he felt it would be an asset to the community and would present minimal, if any, detrimental environmental impact. He added that the height of the trees between the project and the lake would prevent the height of the facility from negatively impacting the surrounding properties. Discussion: A brief discussion ensued regarding the proposed design and building materials to be used for the project. Budget Impact: There is no impact to the City Budget.