Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />December 18, 1989 <br />of the City Code gives Council authority to initiate zoning requests/ <br />changes if the developer/owner of the property does not desire to <br />initiate the request. Mr. Schutte said that 408 additional apartment <br />units would have an impact on the City's recreational facilities and in <br />fairness to the citizens of Casselberry and other developers in the <br />City of Casselberry who have been assessed a recreational fee; this <br />developer (The Vinings) should either have to donate land for <br />recreational purposes or the fair market value thereof. Mr. Schutte <br />said he was not in favor of Ordinance 651. <br />Mr. Douglas Hoeksema, Development Partner for Trammel Crow, <br />380 North Lake Boulevard, Altamonte Springs, addressed concerns <br />regarding distances, i.e., between units and between the units and <br />the lake as it relates to conservation of large trees. He stated that <br />building units were redesigned to achieve 30 foot separation between <br />units; a 55 foot separation exists between Building 10 and the lake. <br />He asked that he be allowed some flexibility to make field adjustments <br />regarding distances, possibly 5 feet latitude, in order to save large <br />trees. He said this would be done in conjunction with City staff. He <br />said they would commit to buildings being no closer than 25 feet be- <br />tween units and 50 feet between buildings and the lake. <br />Mr. Schutte said that some type of safeguard should be imposed for <br />the protection of Carmel -by -the -Lake residents should this development <br />be sold by Trammel Crow. Mr. McIntosh said a provision could be <br />inserted that states Trammel Crow or its successor will complete the <br />project in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the <br />City or return to the City Council. Mr. Hoeksema agreed, this will <br />be made a part of the record at final development plan. <br />Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished <br />to address Ordinance 651, either pro or con. No one came forward. <br />(7) <br />