X hits on this document





13 / 19


Continuing, Ms. Arnold asked how anyone can determine how the developer plans to handle stormwater on the site without a binding development plan. She asked who would be responsible if the property is annexed and causes flooding to surrounding County property. Additionally, she commented on the following: the area lies in a flood plain as identified by FEMA; the proposed density does not attempt to avoid or minimize impact on wildlife; neighborhood concessions will not be heard without a binding development plan; and the residents do not want Baker Road to cut through to Eau Gallie Boulevard. Ms. Arnold asked that the request be denied until the neighbors are given an opportunity to see exactly what is planned.

John Catlow, 1937 Trimble Road, asked that the item be tabled for 30 days to allow time

for the area residents to review the plan.

Frances Baker, 277 Baker Road, requested the following:

that the proposed

development not increase the current drainage problem or damage the existing wetland on the property; that a natural native plan area remain between the proposed development and the existing residential property; that the development not exceed two stories in height and be sited as close to Eau Gallie Boulevard as possible; that Baker Road not cut into Eau Gallie Boulevard; and that a site plan be provided.

Alex Sokolik, applicant, stated that the property is within the City’s water service district. The annexation and rezoning are being requested so they can receive City services. He added that they had the option of rezoning in the County or coming into the City. They would like to have City water and sewer; they do not want to build with septic tanks. Mr. Sokolik said that staff did a good job of analyzing the project; the proposal is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; the request has gone through the Planning and Zoning Board; and they concur with the findings in the staff report. He concluded by saying the developer, Dave Armstrong, is available to answer general questions on the site plan, which is different than the process on this agenda for land use and zoning.

Mr. Sokolik distributed a copy of an “Environmental Survey Map” prepared by BKI, Inc. and said that only a small portion of the property is wetlands. He noted that one gopher tortoise may be removed and, from a wildlife standpoint, there is nothing that cannot be mitigated.

In response to Mrs. Poole, Mr. Sokolik said that this item is for annexation, land use and zoning; the site plan will come later. He added that he and Mr. Armstrong have called a number of people in the area. They are willing to talk to and work with the residents. Additionally, he pointed out that if this does not go in the direction of nice townhomes, it could be developed as something else in the future. He noted that M-1 is located to the south.

Mr. Contreras asked the essence of the discussions they have had with the area residents. Mr. Sokolik said that the residents don’t want high density or four- and five- story structures. Also, they want to protect the wildlife. He stressed that the drainage

Page 13 of 19

Document info
Document views58
Page views58
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 00:58:06 UTC 2017