2007-09-21 TD-BAR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

County has not recorded it for the pump station. There is an easement in front of the pump station, and it has been recorded to give access where the present parking is for the White Sands Beach. FUKE: Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Dickler. Mr. Fuke, so I don’t have to interrupt along the way, it’s probably good if you’re going to call on someone to speak that you kind of address them by name so it’s easy for our recording. FUKE: I will. GRAHAM: Thank you. FUKE: Thank you very much. So the point being that, you know, when the project was rezoned back in 1994 there were these conditions and a lot of things have happened. So it’s not like the Commission is looking at a brand new project relative to satisfaction of obligations.The applicant purchased the property back in October of 2004. And at this point in time because of the sagging economic situation they have been searching for, they’ve been negotiating with a potential joint venturer or investment partner. In terms of like the proposed development plan, after they conducted about a year of studies they came up with a proposed concept. And that concept has been further modified as a result of not only the public testimony but some of the concerns or issues raised by the Planning Commission. So hopefully as I go through these that the Commissioners will come to get a better understanding of how we’ve tried to address, you know, the issues raised in the Commission’s original decision on this matter. It was raised earlier by Ms. MerryAnne Stone about the property not having any on-site amenities and thus would provide for further congestion, you know, to the public recreational areas. I think that was a very good point.What the applicant has proposed to do right now is to provide on-site recreational amenities. They’ll provide a minimum of an area of, 25,000 square foot recreational facility which will include a swimming pool and related facilities. We also heard the issue about parking, not having sufficient on-site parking, which could then translate to additional congestion into the public highways. What the applicant has proposed to do is that they’ll have a minimum of two stalls per units as opposed to the traditional 1.25 stalls. However, while the stalls for the basic requirement, you know, will be consistent with whatever the Zoning Code calls for in terms of the size, the backup, so on and so forth, the additional stalls, you know, may be less than conventional in the sense of allowing tandem, maybe not fully meeting the backup space. But the bottom line is that the project, each unit will have a minimum of two parking stalls. Although the zoning allows for a maximum of 132 units on the property, the applicant originally had conceded to reduce that down to 120, which is what the application right before you is now. However, because of the need to provide for this additional parking on the property and providing these on-site recreational amenities, we EXHIBIT B 21