Loading...
09-23-1986 Regular Meeting _I e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Clermont was held on Tuesday, September 23, 1986 in the Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Pool with the following Council Members in attendance: Council Member Turville, Council Member Huff, Council Member Cole and Council Member Dupee. Other City Officials present were City Manager Saunders, City Attorney Baird, City Planner Perlick and Deputy City Clerk Brandt. INVOCATION The Invocation was offered by Nilsa Whitehead followed by the repeating of The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag by all present. MINUTES The Minutes of the Special Meeting held September 3, 1986 and the Regular Meeting held September 9, 1986 were approved as presented. REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT LEAGUE OF CITIES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING The Council was reminded of the Board of Directors noon luncheon meeting to be held on Friday, September 26, 1986 at the Waterfront Restaurant in Tavares. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Nilsa Whitehead, Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Commission, stated that she had been in contact with Billie King who wished to be appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mayor Pool then appointed Mrs, King to serve on the Commission. STUDENTS AND PARENTS IN ACTION It was reported that the organization Students and Parents in Action had requested free use of the Highlander Hut on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday nights to have a place for the teenagers in Clermont to go for dances and other chaperoned activities. Mr. Saunders stated'that the Boy Scouts were using the building on Wednesday nights, but that it would be available on Fridays and Saturdays. Council Member Huff asked who would be responsible for cleaning up the building. City Manager Saunders stated that the City would work something out with the group. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL 86-160 MEMBER HUFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO GRANT STUDENTS AND PARENTS IN ACTION USE OF THE HIGHLANDER HUT ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHTS AND TO WAIVE ALL RENTAL FEES. COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE'S REPORT LEAGUE OF CITIES CONVENTION Council Member Dupee gave a brief'synopsis of her experiences as the City's representative to the Florida League of Cities Convention held September 18-21 at the Marriott World Center in Orlando. --=---- - --- e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -2,- MAYOR POOL'S REPORT ANNEXATION Mayor Pool commented that a great deal of activity was going on to the east of the present city limits, and that he believed that this City Council should actively pursue annexation in that direction in order for the City to be able to have some say in the planning process of the area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE, AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF FOR THE CITY TO ACTIVELY PURSUE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY LYING EAST OF THE PRESENT CITY LIMITS. . 86-161 Under discussion, Council Member Huff stated that he had heard many negative comments in the community concerning the fact that it was not cost effective and/or there seemed to be a lack of cooperation on the Ci ty' s part for developers to come in the City'. He further stated that he actively wants to see the City grow, but that he believed the City needed to develop an attitude to work with the developers and put them in a position that they could develop as inexpensively within the City as in the County. If this happens, the annexation will follow. Mayor Pool related that the City has a Utility Benefit fee which the County does not have, but Mr. Huff indicated that it had nothing to do with the problem. Mr. Huff told the Council that there were between 150 and 300 lots being developed in the County south of-Clermont, but that the developers of these lots would not consider building within the city limits. Council Member Turville pointed out that at the present time the City could not offer anything to these developers but another tier of taxes. The area has fire protection with the South Lake Fire District and police protection under the sheriffs's department. The areas being developed are low density developments using septic systems, and at the present time the City could not offer them water or sewer services. Mr. Turville stated that he believed that the City could not realistically consider annexing property south of the present city limits, and that the only way to would be to the east. Mayor Pool called for the question, and THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ELECTION UPDATE Council Member Dupee congratulated the three encumbant Council Members on their recent election victories. Qualifying ended at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 22, 1986 with Mayor Pool, Council Member Huff and Council Member Cole being re-elected by virtue of qualifying for their respective seats unopposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE City Manager Saunders informed the Council that the City, based on the information presented, had offered the Seaboard System Railroad (CSX Transportation) $150,000 for the right-of-way within the city e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -3- limits of Clermont. The Seaboard representative had indicated that they would have to exclude two or three small parcel~ to the west from negotiations. Mr. Saunders continued by stating that he had been in contact with A.E. Rast, Jr., Manager of Real Estate Sales for the railroad, and that the railroad was counter-offering at $175,000 for the right-of-way, but are now excluding approximately 500' feet on the west end of the City and 1,500' on the east end of the City from East Avenue to the Minneola City Limits. The City Manager further stated that prior to today, he had no knowledge that the railroad was negotiating for private sale 'of the eastern 1,500', and that the City's offer of $150,000 included that segment of right-of-way. Approximately nine acres of right-of-way are now left within the city limits, and it was recom- mended that the City offer $122,400 for the remaining property. It was pointed out that Mr. Rast, Seaboard's representative, had stated that he was not aware that the eastern 1,500' of right-of-way was in the city limits. Some discussion ensued concerning the City's need for the property to run a new sewer line from the east side of town to the treatment plant. Mayor Pool asked City Attorney Baird if it would be proper procedure for the City to begin condemnation proceedings to obtain the right-of-way. Mr. Baird advised that it would not be proper at this time, and that the City should continue negotiations. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLE AND UNANIMOUSLY'CARRIED TO OFFER THE RAILROAD $122,500 FOR THE REMAINING RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUBJECT TO THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT TRANSMITTED TO CSX TRANSPORTATION ON SEPTEMBER l6~ 1986. 86-162 It was suggested at this point in the meeting that the final reading of Ordinance 179-M be deferred to the last item on the agenda and all other items be considered in order. It was the consensus of Council to do so. APPOINTMENT OF THE 1986 ELECTION BOARD Mayor Pool stated that because there was no opposition to the encumbants who qualified for re-election, an election would not be held, Therefore, there was no need to appoint an Election Board. POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS PENSION FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES City Manager Saunders explained that due to recent changes in Chapters 175 and 185 of the Florida Statutes which regulate Police and Firefighters Pension Funds, the City's existing plan would have to be amended in two areas. The new law mandates that each Policeman or Fireman covered by the plan must contribute 1% of compensation to the Pension Plan effective October 1, 1986. The other change is in the makeup of the Board of Trustees for the plan. It is now required that one representative from either the police or fire department belong to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Saunders then recommended that the Board be increased to seven members with the makeup being the Council plus one representative from the Police Department and one from the Fire Department, each to be nominated by their respective departments; e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -4- Council Member Turville questioned what would be the leng~h of the term of office to be served by the two new representatives. After some discussion, it was determined that a two year term of office would be most effective. After a brief discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE, 86-163 SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO AMEND THE CITY'S POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS PENSION FUND TO INCLUDE THAT EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1986, EMPLOYEES WILL CONTRIBUTE 1% OF COMPENSA- TION TO THE PENSION PLAN AND THAT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PLAN WILL HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS, INCLUDING THE CITY COUNCIL AND ONE REPRE- SENTATIVE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THESE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE CHOSEN BY THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND WILL SERVE TWO YEAR TERMS ON THE BOARD. City Attorney Baird stated that he would review the issue to determine if further amendments to the adopted Pension Ordinance would be required and report back to Council. FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE l79-M Mayor Pool explained that this was the final reading of Ordinance l79-M which addresses fourteen requested and proposed amendments to the City of Clermont Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Items 1 through 3 are changes which have been requested by the property owners, and Items 4 through 14 were Staff recommended. Mayor Pool then explained the procedure to be followed during the public hearing. Council Member Dupee asked for clarification of the procedure to amend the ordinance and it was determined that a motion to change or delete each item would be needed. If the item was to remain in the ordinance unchanged, no motion would be required. It was determined that the Council would begin discussion with Item #4 and continue through Item #14. Items 1 through 3 would then be heard in numerical order. Mayor Pool then read Ordinance l79-M by title only. ITEM IJ4 City Manager Saunders explaineq that the addition of this paragraph on non-conforming uses would enable the City Council to decide if the non-conforming use would be allowed to expand or reconstruct where it is not detrimental to the district in which it is located. The same statement is already included in the City's zoning ordinance. Item #4 reads as follows: 4. Insert the following as Paragraph 2, Page 3 of Future Land Use Map Criteria: Non-Conformance .. Non-conforming uses as defined under Article III, Definitions of Ordinance 245-C. City of Clermont Zoning Ordinance, existing at the time of the enactment of this Ordinance, being , 1986, may after consideration of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council be granted a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction, enlargement or expansion of the non-conforming use where it is determined that --~_. e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -5- such reconstruction, enlargement or expansion is not obnoxious or detrimental to the district in which it is located, and where the denial of a Conditional Use Permit would create an unnecessary hardship on the owner. Mayor Pool then read a letter from Bell Ceramics supporting this amendment. (A copy of the letter is attached and made part of this official record). Mayor Pool then called for comments from those present in the audience and no one spoke for or against the amendment. There being no discussion of this item, it was the consensus of Council to leave Item #4 in the ordinance unchanged. ITEM 1/5 City Manager Saunders explained that adding Existing Manufactur- ing and Light Commercial as permitted uses in the NED-6 district would allow such uses as CBS Industries and Dole Citrus to be permitted uses, instead of non-conforming uses in that district. Mayor Pool read a letter from Patricia McCaffrey in support of the proposed amendment, and then called for comments from those present in the audience. Mr. Adelbert Evans stated that he was neither for or against the amendment, but wished to point out that a great part of the NED-6 area was marshlands which are not considered buildable for any type of development. Lawson Wolfe, owner of CBS Industries, spoke in favor of Item #5, He stated that he favored the ,"Existing Manufacturing" being a permitted use, He stated that he believed that if a business is going to make long term capital expenditures, it does not want the threat of the possibility of not being able to stay in business influencing its decisions. If the threat is there, required improvements might not be made. It was indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of this request by a 7-2 vote. Under Council discussion, it was determined that the addition of the word "Zones" after "Existing Manufacturing" would help to clarify the Council's position of allowing only those areas presently zoned for manufacturing to become permitted uses in the NED-6 district. After some further discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER 86-164 DUPEE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO ADD THE WORD "ZONES" AFTER "EXISTING MANUFACTURING" AND "LIGHT COMMERCIAL" IN ITEM /15-1 AND 5-2. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE, SECONDED BY 86-165 COUNCIL MEMBER COLE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO LEAVE ITEM #5, AS AMENDED, IN THE ORDINANCE. ITEM 1/6 City Manager Saunders explained that Land Use District NED-l is located on the west side of the City in the area of Williams Steel. The suggested amendment was as follows: Add as permitted land uses for District NED-I: 1. Existing Manufacturing, and 2. Multi-family e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -6- attached residences limited to a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre. It was explained that if this amendment was not adopted, Williams Ste~l would become a ~on-conforming use in the NED-l district. Mayor Pool then called for comments from those present in the audience and no one spoke for or against the proposed amendment. The Council concluded, as in Item 6, that the word "Zones" should be added after "Existing Manufacturing". There being no discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER 86-166 TURVILLE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO AMEND ITEM 116 BY THE ADDITION OF THE WORD "ZONES" AFTER "EXIST- ING MANUFACTURING" AND TO LEAVE ITEM 116, AS AMENDED, IN THE ORDINANCE, Council Member Cole abstained from voting on this matter due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Cole is employed by Williams Steel, ITEM 117 City Manager Saunders explained that this property is located on the west side of Bowman Street, south of Highway 50. the property is identified in the ERD-2 area for professional office use, How- ever, R-3 zoning which permits professional offices with a Conditional Use Permit is not permitted in the ERD-2 area. The proposed amendment would place the property in the EBD-2 District which allows professional offices. If the R-3 zoning remains the same, a Conditional Use Permit would still be required in order to maintain a professional office. The proposed amendment is as follows: Change the following described property from District ERD-2 to District EBD-2: The west side of Bowman Street, south to and including Lot 21, Block 7, Sunnyside Unit and north to Highway 50. Mayor Pool then called for comments from those present. Nick Jones, the only property owner affected by the proposed change, stated that he favored the change and believed t~at all property in the R-3 zone should be allowed to be a professional office without a Conditional Use Permit. No one else spoke concerning this matter and there was no Council discussion. It was the consensus of Council to leave Item #7 in the ordinance as requested. ITEM 118 City Manager Saunders explained that this proposed amendment goes with Item #7 and would add as a permitted land use for District EBD-2: 1. Single Family detached residences, and 2. Multi-family attached residences limited to a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. Currently the permitted land uses in EBD-2 are restricted to mostly commercial uses with no type of residential development being permitted. Mayor Pool called for comments from those present in the audience and no one spoke for or against the proposed change. There was no Council discussion, and it was the consensus of Council to leave Item #8 in the ordinance a~ requested. ITEM 119 It was explained that this property is located on the east side of East Avenue, south to Chestnut Street and north to Highway 50. Currently it is located in the ERD-2 District which does not allow professional offices or multi-family residential. The property e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -7- in question has been developed multi-family. The proposed change would read as follows: Change the following described property from District ERD-2 to NED-3: The east side of East Avenue, south to Chestnut Street and north to Highway 50. This would allow all professional offices to be maintained with a Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Pool called for comments from those present in the audience and no one spoke for or against the proposed amendment. It was noted that a letter favoring the proposed amendment had been received from D.M, and Patricia A. McCaffrey. Under Council discussion concern was expressed about offices going into a primarily residential area and the potential parking problems which may arise. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE TO DELETE ITEM #9 FROM THE ORDINANCE. . 86-167 Some further discussion ensued and Council Member Turville reiterated his concern for the parking problems which could arise if the amendment was approved. It was pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of this proposed amendment by a 9 - 0 vote. Council Member Huff stated that he believed that Item #9 should remain in the ordinance and it should be up to the developers to solve the supposed parking problems. Mayor Pool called for the question and THE MOTION TO DELETE ITEM #9 CARRIED BY A FOUR TO ONE VOTE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF VOTING NAY. ITEM IIlO City Manager Saunders advised that Item #10 should be left as is because it is a clean up measure after the action taken on Items #8 and #9. Item #10 reads as follows: Delete the following permitted land use from District ERD-2: Item 3] Business and Professional Offices may be allowed on the east side of East Avenue, south to Chestnut Street and north to Highway 50 and also on the west side of Bowman Street, south to Lot 19 and north to Highway 50 There was no discussion on this item by either the public or Council. It was the consensus of Council to leave Item #10 in the ordinance as requested. ITEM Illl City Manager Saunders explained that this amendment pertains to a strip of land running along Fifth Street from Broome Street to Lake Minneola. It is currently zoned R-3 but was placed in a land use district (ERD-7) which does not allow 12 units per acre. In order for the property to remain R-3, the NED-2 District needs to be moved 150' to the east. He further explained that the Council could leave the area in the ERD-7 district and rezone it from R-3 to R-2 or include the area in the NED-2 district which would allow' the zoning to remain R-3. The Planning and Zoning Commission by a 5 - 4 vote recommended that this item be deleted. . . CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -8- Mayor Pool then called for comments from those present in' the audience. Bonnie Homan, who lives in the area of the proposed change, stated that her house would be in the R-2 district and her garage in the R-3 district if the line was moved. She further stated that she wished to remain in the single family home district and wanted the zoning changed, but not the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Homan concluded by stating that she agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to delete this requested amendment from the ordinance. Mayor Pool asked City Manager Saunders what would be the procedure if the amendment was deleted from the ordinance. Mr. Saunders replied that the property in question would have to be rezoned to bring it into compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. After a brief discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, 86-168 SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO DELETE ITEM #11 FROM THE ORDINANCE. ITEM IJ12 City Manager Saunders explained that the two lots in question were located near Highway 50 and Bloxam Avenue and presently zoned C-2, but were placed in a district which does not allow commer~ial development. The proposed amendment would place the lots in the EBD-2 district which allows commercial. Item 112 reads as follows: 12. Change the following described property from District NED-5 to District EBD-2: Lots 6 & 7, Forty Pines Subdivision There were no public or Council comments concerning this requested amendment. It was the consensus of Council to leave Item 112 in the ordinance as requested. ITEM 1113 City Manager Saunders stated that Items 113 and 114 should be considered simultaneously because Item 113 establishes a new district and Item 114 places the property into the new district. It was further explained that this property is located between Drew and Disston Avenues and north of Highland Avenue. The proposed amendment would create a new land use district which would allow single family residential and multi-family residential to a maximum density of 12 units per acre. Three mult~ple family developments are already located in the area, and creating the new district would eliminate creating non-conforming uses. Item 113 reads as follows: 13, Establish the following new district: Established Residential District 8 (ERD-8)' Permitted Land Uses: 1. Single Family detached residence 2. Multi-family attached residence 3. Directly related land uses such as parks, schools, utilities, streets, and other' such activities whose primary purpose is to serve only the residents of this district. e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -9- 4, New residential development will be limited to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Saunders continued by stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended that Professional Offices be a permitted use in the district, and the City Staff concurs with this recommendation. Professional Offices would require a CUP in the R-3 zone, thereby giving the Council control over that type of development. Mayor Pool called for comments from those present and no one spoke for or against Item #13. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO ADD PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AS A PERMITTED USE IN ITEM #13. It was the consensus of Council to leave Item #13 in the ordinance as amended. 86-169 ITEM 1114 City Manager Saunders stated that Item #14 would place the property mentioned into the newly created ERD-8 district. As a point of clarification Mr. Saunders stated that the property is presently located in districts SHD-l and ERD-7, and that the SHD-l district should be included in the amendment. Presently, the proposed amendment reads: 14, Change the following described property from District ERD-7 to District ERD-8: Tracts 2 & 3, Oakhurst Subdivision, Blocks 5 & 8; Woodlawn Subdivision, Lots 11-20, Block Q Mayor Pool called for comments from those present and no one spoke for or against the proposed amendment. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL 86-170 MEMBER COLE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO AMEND ITEM #14 BY INSERTING "AND SHD-l DISTRICT" AFTER DISTRICT ERD-7. It was the consensus of Council to leave Item #14 in the ordinance as amended. ITEM 111 City Manager Saunders was again called upon to explain the request. It was stated that the applicant, Bob Wade, is requesting that the UD-2 area be extended to the north to allow for 1,000 feet of depth from Highway 50 for commercial development. Currently the UD-2 and C-2 property extends approximately 415' north from Highway 50, except the Quincy property which extends about 310 feet north of the Highway. Mr, Saunders then indicated on the displayed map that the request would allow commercial along Grand Highway up to 690 feet north of Quincy's property and 385 feet north of the existing C-2 property. It was reported that Mr. Wade has indicated that the property is under contract with Morley Development Company who propose to construct a 100,000 square foot shopping center on the site. e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -10- The proposed change for this property is listed below: 1. Change the following described property from District UD-5 to District UD-2: A parcel of which the south boundary is the northern boundary of the property presently zoned C-2 and the north boundary is a line 385 feet north of and parallel to the north boundary line of the property presently zoned C-2, except the property lying directly north and adjacent to Quincy's property being 690 feet in depth from south to north. ' (Located east of Grand Highway, and north of Highway 50). Mayor Pool called for comments from those present in the audience. Mr. Elbert Ritchie, who lives on Grand Highway, stated that he was opposed to any commercial development on Grand Highway. He commented that a similar request by Mr. Wade had been voted down before, and the Planning and Zoning Commission had recom- mended denial of the request. Mr.' Ritchie also cited increased traffic on Grand Highway as a problem. A petition containing 32 signatures opposing the proposed project was presented to Council. Mr. Dennis Horton, Attorney for Mr. Wade, explained the request in detail citing that in order to build a quality shopping center, the additional footage was needed. Mr. Horton then listed all of the positive aspects the proposed shopping center would afford the City, pointing out that the project would cost five million dollars and provide between 150 - 250 jobs for area residents. He also touched upon the environmental issue concerning the property and stated that he believed that the entire City of Clermont was environmentally sensitive due to its rolling topography. If the request was denied, the property would be developed as multi-family residential which would have the potential of being more detrimental to the environment than the shopping center, Mr. Horton assured those present that they would work with the residents living near the project in matters concerning aesthetics and traffic flow because they wished to be "good neighbors". With regard to traffic flow, Mr. Horton pointed out that the main entrance to the shopping center would be from Highway 50, Grand Highway would be widened with x-cel and de-cel lanes added, and a traffic signal installed at the intersection of Grand Highway and Highway 50, Mr. Cecil Smart stated that he favored the proposed project. Mrs. Finser, who lives on Grand Highway across from the proposed project, asked which way the shopping center would face because she had to sleep during the day and did not want increased truck traffic on Grand Highway disturbing her sleep. Mr. Horton put up a drawing of the proposed shopping center and again stated that the main entrance would be from Highway 50. e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -11- At this point in the meeting Mayor Pool called a ten minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p,m, Mayor Pool again called for comments from those present. Mrs. Whitehead expressed her concern about the impact the shopping center would have on the downtown business area. Adelbert Evans explained the workings of Florida's aquifer, pointing out that from Leesburg to Clermont the aquifer is unique because it is recharged solely by rainwater. Mr. Evans then expressed his concern that runoff from the shopping center parking lot would become a major pollutant of the aquifer because commercial develop- ment allows 80% lot coverage. Only 40% coverage is allowed in residential developments which provides for more permeable area and external filtration, He also expressed his concern over the problems which might be caused by the extreme slope of the land and the increased traffic. John Hughes, Paul Davis and Lief Zetterlund all stated that they favored the proposed shopping center. Harry Camp of 1312 Grand Highway expressed his opposition to the shopping center project stating that he did not want any more commercial development in an area he believed should be residential. . James Carroll of 1324 Grand Highway stated that he was against the project because if the property was rezoned commercial, there were no guarantees that the shopping center would be built on the site. Bob Wade, owner of the property, also spoke briefly concerning the positive aspects of the proposed shopping center and his willingness to work with the City. He then presented the Council with a petition containing over 500 signatures of residents and non-residents favoring the project. City Manager Saunders stated that the City Staff had recommended denial of the request, as stated in Mr. Perlick's memo dated September 12, 1986. The Planning and Zoning Commission by a 5 to 4 vote also recommended denial. Council Member Turville stated that he believed the location was wrong for this type of development, The area is environmentally s~nsitive and eleven acres of concrete would certainly have a detrimental effect on Jack's Lake. Mr. Turville summarized his sentiments by stating that the Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended against the proposed project and he too was against it. . Council Member Dupee stated that she believed that there had been no previous discussion concerning the project's impact upon the City's sewer system. She stated that she felt that the shopping center would have less impact than a residential development of 12 units per acre on the same site. The shopping center could be hooked up immediately with no special engineering, which was not the case for a residential project. Council Member Huff remarked that the service area for the City of Clermont was all of South Lake County and this should be con- sidered when making a decision. He also expressed his concern for the area to be developed, but stated that he believed that with proper engineering it was a viable project. e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -12- Mayor Pool stated that he agreed with Mr. Huff's position, and that Lake County Pollution Control's strict rules for on-site water retention would lend feasibility to the proposed project. He concluded by stating that he believed the project to be a benefit, not a liability to the City. Council Member Turville reiterated his position and stated that ,he believed that the area chosen was too cramped, and better areas were located to the east. City Planner Perlick then read and explained the Staff's reasons for recommending denial of the request. After some further discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER 86-171 TURVILLE TO DENY THE REQUEST. This motion died for lack of a second. A majority of the Council agreed to leave Item #1 in the ordinance as presented. I TEM In City Manager Saunders explained that the following request had been made by Mr. George Mayfield for property he owns located on Chestnut Street: 2. Change the following described property from District ERD-2 to new District which would allow 12 units of density per acre: Lots 1-4 and 17, Block 88 Mr. Saunders further explained that by a vote of 8-1 the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial of the request. The property is located along a lakefront and high density is not the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Lake County Planning Department recommended denial of the request. Mayor Pool called for comments from those present in the audience, and no one spoke for or against the request. Based upon the information presented, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO DELETE ITEM #2 FROM THE ORDINANCE, ITEM 113 86-172 Mayor Pool again called on City Manager Saunders to explain the following request: 3. Add the following permitted land uses in District UD-4: 1. Multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 12 units per acre on Lots 4-7, Block A; Lots 4-7, Block B; Lots 5-8, Block D and Lots 1, 2 & 5, Block E 2. Multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 8 units per acre on Lots 1-3, Block H; Lots 1-2 and 5-6, Block I; and Lot 4, Block E and Lot 8, Block D 3. Light Commercial on Lots 7 & 8, Block D, e . CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -13- City Manager Saunders explained that the property owner, A.E. Langley, is requesting the amendment to allow higher density on his property located in the UD-4 area. In light of the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations and public input during the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, the applicant has withdrawn his request for Commercial zoning. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO DELETE ITEM #3 OF ITEM #3 FROM THE ORDINANCE. 86-173 The property in question is a large parcel of approximately 105 acres of undeveloped land. The property north of Grand Highway is bounded on the north and west by areas which permit up to 8 units per acre and to the east by a single family home development. The property around Spring Lake is bounded on the south by the High School, on the west by R-2 property which is developed as single family and on the east by an undeveloped area with a maximum allowable density of 4 units per acre. It was further explained by Mr. Saunders that by a vote of 6-3 the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended multi-family up to 8 units per acre on the north side of Grand Highway, 'and by a vote of 7-2 recommended denial of the request for 8 units per acre around Spring Lake, Mr. O.K. Armstrong, representing Mr. Langley, displayed a map showing the proposed development and explained his amended request to the ' Council. He stated that they would cooperate fully with the City to bring a quality development to Clermont. Detailed information was presented concerning the proposed Planned Unit Development for the property, and the proposed vacating of certain existing streets and the platting of others. Mr. Armstrong stated that they would like to be permitted up to eight units per acre with a PUD for the area around Spring Lake. After this explanation, Mayor Pool called for comments from those prese~t in the audience. Mr. Roger Test of 268 East Avenue stated that he was against any density greater than 4 units per acre because he believed a greater density would change the character of, the whole area. A petition containing more than 50 signatures protesting the proposed development was presented to Council. Those signing the petiition live in the vicinity of the project. Mr. Buck Crews reiterated Mr. Test's sentiments and also stated that the increased traffic caused by the development would necessitate the widening of the streets in the area. Mr. Chester Fredericks, who lives in the vicinity of the proposed development, stated that he was opposed to anything other than single family residences. Winnie Kirkland expressed her concern for the increased traffic caused by such a development. Under Council discussion consideration was given that the density on the property north of Grand Highway be lowered from 12 units per acre to 8, and the property around Spring Lake remain at a density of 4 units per acre. e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -14- Mayor Pool stated that earlier he had met with Mr. Langley and Mr. Armstrong and discussed the timetable for the proposed project. The first phase of development would be 40 - 50 single family homes. It will depend on how this phase progresses before consideration is given to multi-family construction. The entire project may span a period of ten years. Under discussion, Council Member Dupee stated that she would like to see cluster-type homes for families with a maximum density of 6 units per acre around the lake, but only with a PUD. After some further discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER 86-174 DUPEE, AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLE TO CHANGE ITEM 3-1 FROM 12 TO A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 8 AND ITEM 3-2 TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 6 SIX UNITS PER ACRE WITH A PUD. Continuing the discussion, Council Member Turville stated that he did not see the need to change the maximum density to 6. He believed that it should be left as it is, 'until such time as Mr, Langley, who has stated he will be the developer, has a definite plan for the property. It was explained that presently the Comprehensive Plan does not allow multi-family development in the area, if the property is left at 4 units/acre now, he (Mr. Langley) would have to come back later and ask for the amendment. Since this can be done only twice a year, it puts the developer in a difficult position. Mr. Langley stated that he needed the higher density to allow flexibility for planning the development. City Manger Saunders explained that the City's Comprehensive Plan should define areas and what is appropriate development within those areas. Most amendments have been based upon specific developers' requests, and that is not the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Huff stated that he believed that the highest and best use for a property was like water and would seek its own level; it would develop properly with a PUD. With the PUD, the Council will have control, they will have to give approval to the plan. Mayor Pool called for the question and the motion by Mrs. Dupee was repeated. City Manager Saunders stated that for clarification, he would like to restate the UD-4 permitted uses in order to avoid confusion, Mr. Saunders then stated the following changes: 2. Add the following permitted land uses in District UD-4: 1. Single family detached residences with a maximum density of 4 units per acre. 2. Multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 8 units per acre on property north of Grand Highway and on Blocks 6, 7, and 8 north of Hunt Street, west of Bloxam Avenue and south of Grand Highway. 3. Multi-family residential development as a Planned Unit Development with a maximum density of 6 units per acre on Lots 1-3, Block H; Lots 1-2 and 5-6, Block I; and that portion of Lots 3 & 4, Block E and that portion of Lots 7 & 8. Block D lying south of Grand Highway, noted as Tract B. . ,e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING September 23, 1986 Page -15- 4. Directly related land uses such as parks, schools utilities, streets and other such activities whose primary purpose is to serve only the residents of the district. Some further discussion of the suggested wording ensued. Mayor Pool asked City Planner Perlick if he agreed with the wording, Mr, Perlick stated that he would like to define the line of division between the 6 units per acre and the 8 units per acre, as indicated on the displayed map. (A copy of this map is attached and made part of the official record). Mr. Saunders stated that he would meet with the City Attorney for a better definition of the division line which will be included in the final wording of the ordinance. After some further discussion, Council Members Dupee and Cole agreed to use Mr, Saunders suggested wording for Item #3, AND THE MOTION CARRIED BY A THREE TO TWO VOTE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS TURVILLE AND HUFF VOTING NAY. Mayor Pool then read Ordinance 179-M by title only. City Manager Saunders recapped the amendments to the ordinance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLE AND CARRIED BY A FOUR TO ONE VOTE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE VOTING NAY, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE l79-M, AS AMENDED. 86-175 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ~ af/~ R6 ert A. Pool, Mayor Attest: