CC 12/18/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council December 18, 1989 Mrs. Garavano read Notice of Public Hearing relative to SPR -81-03, Revised Preliminary Development Plan, Carmel -by -the -Lake as follows: "Notice is hereby given by the City of Casselberry, Florida, that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on the 18th day of December 1989 at 7: 30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible in the Casselberry City Hall, 95 Triplet Lake Drive, Casselberry, Florida, to consider approval of the Revised Pre- liminary Development Plan of Carmel -by -the -Lake. At the hearing, interested parties may appear and be heard with respect to the Revised Preliminary Development Plan. This hearing may be continued from time to time until final action is taken by the City Council. Copies of the Revised Preliminary Development Plan are available in City Hall in the Planning Department and may be inspected by the public." Mrs. Garavano said this notice was published in the Seminole Sentinel on December 3, 1989 and mailed to adjacent property owners on November 29 and 30, 1989. Mr. Campbell said since the November 16, 1989 memorandum submitted to the Mayor's Office regarding a proposed revised preliminary development plan for Phase I of Carmel -by -the -Lake site, revised drawings and other materials have been submitted and the following contingencies remain: 1. Phases II and III of Carmel -by -the -Lake - Mr. Campbell said agree- ments between Bonaire Development Company, Inc., Carmel Development Associates, Inc., Carmel -by -the -Lake Condominium Association, Inc. and CTSF Properties, Inc. (Trammel Crow) have been reached and properly executed. Mr. Campbell stated that approval of the revised preliminary development plan for Phase I, Carmel -by -the -Lake, should be contingent upon approval of the revised preliminary development plan for Phases II and III of Carmel -by -the -Lake (proposed to be renamed The Vinings at Lake Howell) . Mr. Charles Ogilvie, President, Carmel -by -the -Lake Condominium Associa- tion, Inc., stated that all the unit owners were in agreement but with the expressed understanding that the split PUD would revert back to a single PUD unless all parties sign the agreement. (2)