Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />December 18, 1989 <br />Mr. Campbell said the shifting of Building #3, which was accomplished <br />to satisfy the Carmel -by -the -Lake Condominium owners, should be added <br />to the plans and submitted to staff for review. Mr. Hoeksema said he <br />would comply. <br />MOTION: Mrs. Percle moved, Mr. Henson seconded, <br />and motion carried unanimously to approve <br />SPR -81-03, The Vinings at Lake Howell - <br />Revised Preliminary Development Plan with <br />reference to Phases II and III of Carmel -by - <br />the -Lake, giving consideration to the memo <br />dated December 14, 1989 from Michael Delk, <br />that Item #1 has been altered to the satisfac- <br />tion of the staff; Item #2 has been withdrawn <br />upon recommendation of Mr. Campbell and <br />Item #3 stipulates that building separation <br />shall be by a distance of 30 feet; that <br />Building #10 shall be at least a distance of <br />55 feet from the lake and the setback shall <br />be no closer than 50 feet — all of which are <br />subject to acceptable field adjustments to be <br />approved by the Mayor of the City of Cassel- <br />berry or her staff designee; further that the <br />plan shall be implemented by Trammel Crow or <br />their construction lender mortgagee in accor- <br />dance with ultimate plans and specifications to <br />be submitted and approved by the staff of the <br />City; further that the Engineering Department <br />has evidenced that approval is for preliminary <br />plan only; that the Utility Department has <br />indicated that it is working with the South <br />Seminole North Orange County Wastewater <br />Transmission Authority to satisfy both the re- <br />quirements of the City and other authorities <br />with reference to the transmission of effluent; <br />that approval shall be subject to the payment <br />of all legal ads and other administrative fees <br />previously billed by the City of Casselberry to <br />the owner and the developer. <br />Mr. Schutte said he wanted it noted that his <br />vote for approval on SPR -81-03 was not in- <br />consistent with his previous vote on Ordinance <br />651, that his only objection was with the density, <br />which was granted without any requirement for <br />recreational donation. <br />(10) <br />