PZ 09/09/2015 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 9, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Henson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. Ms. Karen Almond, 792 North Triplet Lake Drive, Casselberry, Florida came forward to speak in favor of the project. Ms. Almond said she participated in the Strategic Planning process in 2000 and the parks and recreation in 2004. She said in 2006 there was a conversation about revitalizing the City, the City Center and a Civic Center. She said time has passed and almost nothing has happened. Ms. Almond said she is here to lend support to the developer. She said that the developer builds a beautiful product and it would be a true asset to the community. Ms. Shannon Campbell, 586 Queens Mirror Circle, Casselberry, Florida came forward. Ms. Campbell said she is the alternate for the Planning and Zoning Commission and she attends many of the City Commission meetings. She said that this project has a very long history. Ms. Campbell felt that this project was being rushed. Ms. Campbell said that she has looked at other completed projects and the Casselberry project does not compare to the products that they have delivered in other communities. Mr. David Keys, 250 Oak Park Place, Casselberry, Florida came forward. Mr. Keys said the facades won't be seen on US Highway 17/92 once the commercial development is completed. He said the citizens that he spoke with in his neighborhood want this project to move forward. Mr. John Casselberry, 700 South Lost Lake Lane, Casselberry, Florida came forward. Mr. Casselberry was concerned that there was no fire breaks. Mr. Casselberry questioned if the Fire Department has had an opportunity to review the plans. A discussion ensued regarding the outstanding Development Review Committee's comments, the Commission's limited time to review the project and the time schedule if the Planning and Zoning Commission tables this item until the next meeting. Ms. Reischmann explained that the applicant is required to have site plan approval in order to close on the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned with the aesthetics of the project. Ms. Reischmann explained that if the Planning and Zoning Commission is uncomfortable with some of the details, the Commission could recommend against some of the waivers such as the minimum tree count. A discussion ensued regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission providing approval contingent upon staffs favorable recommendation of the facade.