Loading...
05-27-1986 Regular Meeting -- --- CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Clermont was held on Tuesday, May 27, 1986 in the Council Chambers. 'The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pool at 7:30 p.m. with the following Council Members in attendance: Mayor Pro Tem Turville, Council Member Huff, Council Member Dupee and Council Member Cole. Other City Officials present were City Manager Saunders, Finance Director Van Zile, 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 May 13, 1986 Meeting were approved as amended by Council Member Dupee to change the wording in the first sentence in paragraph nine on page three to read: "Council Member Dupee questioned the buffer on the west side of the shopping center, between Highway 50 and Broome Street". REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Manager Saunders explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission, had requested appointement of two new members to the Com- mission, Wanda Oliver and Ed Rider. Yearly appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission are made by the Mayor. Mayor Pool appointed Ms. Oliver and Mr. Rider to the Commission. COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE'S REPORT PRESS CONFERENCE TAVARES CITY HALL Council Member Dupee reported that she had received a call from Richard Swartz, President of Lake County League of Cities, concerning a press conference being held at 11:00 a.m. on Friday, May 30, 1986, at the Tavares City Hall. The press conference is being called to discuss the Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed G-l Aquifer Rule which would protect the area around large drinking water wells, wells that pump more than 100,000 gallons per day, and to pre- vent those wells from becoming contaminated. Mrs. Dupee urged the Council Members to attend this important meeting. COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE'S REPORT PARKING AT THE HIGH SCHOOL Council Member Turville expressed his concern about parking at the High School, stating that the students were parking allover and up and down East Avenue. City Manager Saunders stated that he would contact the principal concerning using the parking lot behind the football field. VISITORS WITH BUSINESS DENNIS CANNON - REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF APPRAISAL FEE Dennis Cannon appeared before Council representing the residents living along Lake Winona from Settle Street to Margaree Gardens, . -- CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 1986 Page -2- and requested that the $1,000 they paid for an appraisal in late 1985 be reimbursed to them. During the September 10, 1985 Council Meeting, these same residents had requested to purchase from the City a strip of lakefront property across the street from their homes. At that time they offered the City $24,000 for the property. After much discussion concerning this request, the property owners were asked to pay for an appraisal to establish a value for the property, which they agreed to do. The appraisal was obtained and paid for by the residents at a cost of $1,000. At the October 22, 1985 Council Meeting, it was decided, after much discussion, not to declare the property surplus. City Manager Saunders explained the City's position in this matter, and stated that the residents had the impression that the City would definitely sell the property to them after an appraisal was obtained. However, the actual motion made and passed at the September 10, 1985 meeting was directing staff to prepare a resolution to declare the property surplus to be presented at a later date. Mayor Pool stated that he did not want to give the $1,000 back to the residents, but would instead, like use the money to beautify the area. Dennis Cannon stated that they had obtained the appraisal in good faith, and would like to have the money back. However, he would go along with the beautification, in lieu of the money, but could not speak for the other residents. Council Member Huff stated that he believed the property owners were under the impression the City would sell the property to them, and perhaps the whole process had not been adequately explained to them. Mrs. Roy Heilscher, one of the upland property owners, stated that she felt they "had been taken" by the City and wanted the money returned. Cecil Smart, who was present in the audience, stated that at the time of the request he was opposed to the sale. He stated that he felt the Council did give the impression that the property was for sale. He further stated that he was opposed to the refund and the beautification project too. If such a project was undertaken, he believed that the same thing should be done for all the lakes in Clermont. 86-l05Council Member Turville stated that he agreed with Mr. Smart, concern- ing not refunding the money, and A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE, NOT TO REIMBURSE THE $1,000 AND TO GO AHEAD WITH THE BEAUTI- FICATION PROJECT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. This motion died for lack of a second. 86-l06After 'some further discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLE AND CARRIED BY A THREE TO TWO VOTE, WITH MAYOR POOL AND MAYOR PRO TEM TURVILLE VOTING NAY, TO GIVE A REBATE OF $1,000 TO THE UPLAND PROPERTY OWNERS. It was the consensus of Council to explain such matters in greater detail in the future, so there would be no misunderstandings. e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 1986 Page -3- FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE 178-M - REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO CONFORM WITH THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/FUTURE LAND USE MAP Mayor Pool explained that this would be the final reading for adoption of Ordinance l78-M, and asked that everyone who wished to speak would limit themselves to five minutes. It was the consensus of the Council to vote on each Item in the ordinance as the meeting progressed. Item #1 - Hillside Terrace Subdivision Dennis Horton, who owns three townhouses in the subdivision, stated that he had already expressed his comments against the proposed re- zoning during the May 13, 1986 Counc'il Meeting, but that he would briefly reiterate his position. Mr, Horton stated that: 1. He objected to the Comprehensive Plan to begin with because of the lack of public participation when it was written. 2. He felt the City should back up and start over in preparing the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The "down zoning" of his property was taking away value. 4. The rezoning of his property was creating a non-conforming use on property which was already fully developed. If more than 51% of the property was destroyed then it could not be rebuilt. 5, He felt a new zone should be created to solve the density problem in this particular case. I Steve Richey also spoke against the proposed rezoning and asked that the Council avoid creating non-conforming uses, which he pointed out was a part of the Comprehensive Planning Act. He further stated that he did not believe it was fair to the prop- erty owner to become non-conforming and then be at the political whims of the Council if they needed to rebuild or expand their property. At this point in the meeting, the Mayor read letters from Mr. and Mrs. Spinogle and Mr. and Mrs. Kelly favoring a zoning change of the area from R-3 to R-l. Lawson Wolfe, who owns a condominium in the subdivision, stated that he did not want to become a non-conforming use, and wished the zoning to be left R-3. City Manager Saunders then explained the difference between a non-conforming use and a conditional use. He stated that if the property is now developed at 8 units per acre, as previously indicated by Mr. Horton, it is conforming and would be affected by the ordinance regarding 'non-conforming uses. It would be a conditional use requiring a Conditional Use Permit under R-2 zoning. Developments other than single family homes or duplexes are conditional uses in R-2 zones, not non-conforming. e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 1986 Page -4- Council Member Huff asked if all the units ,burned down,'how many could be reconstructed? City Manager Saunders stated they all could be rebuilt with a Conditional Use Permit. Council Member Dupee stated that maybe the Residential in the R-3 zone should be split from the Professional in the R-3 zone. Council Members Huff and Dupee concurred that other zoning classi- fications should be considered. Mayor Pool stated that if they have the proper acreage, then they conform. 86-l0~ MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE TO REZONE HILLSIDE TERRACE SUBDIVISION R-2. After determining that this was not the procedure to follow, the second and motion were withdrawn and Item #1 was left in the ordinance as written. ITEM #2 - SUNSET HEIGHTS (BELL CERAMICS' PROPERTY) Richard Bell, one of the owners of Bell Ceramics, cited the following reasons for opposing the proposed rezoning: 1. He has been located there for over twenty years and the property has been devalued before (rezoned previously) and he doesn't want it to be devalued again. 2. It's too costly to move and the rezoning would make it more difficult to do so. 3. No changes have been made in the surrounding area. 4. He could not understand how the Council could justify the R-2 zoning classification for his property. Jay Vander Meer, who he believed that you density is lowered. periences in dealing was present in the audience, stated that take away a person's rights and value when Mr. Vander Meer then reviewed his past ex- with rezoning much of the City. Mr, Bell reitereated that he believed that the rezoning would devalue his property. City Manager Saunders pointed out that the property under the R-3 use was already non-conforming, and that the rezoning to R-2 would only change the density for future residential development. Council Member Huff stated that by today's standards, lakefront property is not a manufacturing area. The lower density will hurt Mr. Bell with a potential developer because the density is being changed from twelve to eight units per acre. Council Member Turville stated that if Bell Ceramics does leave the property, the City does not want the area developed with manufacturing or professional offices. The City wants an eight units per acre residential development. It was the consensus of Council to leave Item #2 in the ordinance as written. . - e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 1986 Page -5- ITEMS 113 AND 114 Item 113 Attorney Steve Richey, owner of the Clermont Sands, appeared before Council to express his view on the proposed rezoning of his property. He stated that he had found it offensive to find out his property had been "rezoned" when the Compre- hensive Plan was adopted and he had not been personally notified of the change. He further stated that Tracts 2 and 3 should be left a higher density (they are 'now 10 units per acre) because under the proposed rezoning they would become non-conforming with the density of 8 units per acre which would cause him to default on his mortgage. Mayor Pool stated that Items #3 and #4 had been discussed at a recent workshop, and asked City Manager Saunders to explain the discussion. City Manager Saunders stated that Items #3 and #4, which are adjacent properties,' should be considered together. He recommended that the properties not be rezoned at this time and a a new district (as far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned) considered which would iclude this property and some of the adjacent property. 86-l0~fter some further discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE TO DELETE ITEM #3 FROM ORDINANCE 178-M. Item 114 Attorney Steve Richey, representing Tony Hubbard, owner of the Hill- topper Development, stated that if his client's property is rezoned R-2, he would not be able to build four additional units he had planned. He stated that this was not fair to Mr. Hubbard. H. Clifton Bailey stated that he held the same position as stated during the May 13, 1986 Council Meeting and wished to have both of his parcels of property zoned the same as Mr. Richey's. 86-l0~ MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBR HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE TO DELETE ITEM #4 FROM ORDINANCE 178-M. ITEM 115 Carle Bishop, a property owner in the area of the proposed rezoning, stated that he would like to keep his property zoned R-3. The Clay Townhouses built in the area have not caused any problems associated with high density, and in fact, had helped increase the value of his property. He also questioned the validity of a petition which was presented to the Council during the May 13th meeting, requesting that the area be rezoned R-l, when most of the petitioners were not property owners in the immediate area. Attorney Dennis Horton, representing Milton Kuharske, an owner of property in the area to be rezoned, reiterated his position from the May 13, 1986 Council Meeting. He stated that he objected to the proposed rezoning for the following reasons: e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 1986 Page -6- 1. Lack of notification of the rezoning of the property. The allowable density on the property had gone from 16 to 12, and now 8 units per acre. 2. Value of the property being taken away by the lowering of the density. 3. The townhouses have added value to the area, the property is close to Highway 50 and commercially zoned property and should remain R-3. 4. He did not want to have to come before Council every time to ask for a Conditional Use Permit to do something with the property. R.M. Frye stated that he would like the property to be rezoned to R-l instead of R-2 as proposed. He wanted neither high density residential development nor professional buildings in the area. John "Doc" Jones and Mary Hill both wanted the area to be rezoned R-l, instead of the proposed R-2. They stated that they lived in in the area and did not want it to become overcrowded like New York. Cecil Wright and George Mayfield both stated that they wished the property to remain R-3. It was suggested that ,the area be divided into various zones because of the different characteristics of the properties in the area. Carle Bishop and Dennis Horton both expressed their dislike for having to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, and stated that they wanted the area to remain R-3, Mr. Horton suggested that Item 115 be tabled. Jean Bettencourt, who also represented Mr. Kuharske, stated that she wanted it to remain R-3 because Mr. Kuharske had plans to develop the property with the higher density. Much discussion ensued concerning these requests. It was suggested that a workshop be held with the lot owners and City Staff to pursue a different zoning classification based upon Staff recommendations. City Manager Saunders stated that the property could be rezoned R-2 now, then rezoned at a later date to R-3-A or whatever classifi- cation was chosen, but that the R-2 zoning is a step in the right direction and recommended the rezoning to R-2 at this time. It was the consensus of Council to leave Item #5 in the ordinance as written. At this point in the meeting a recess was called by Mayor Pool. The Meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. ITEM 116 Nick Jones appeared before Council and stated that his request was the same as the one made during the May 13, 1986 meeting. The proposed rezoning had placed his studio had on a 50 foot lot, and his other lots in a different zoning classification. Mr. Jones stated that he felt the dividing line between the zoning classifi- cations should be the south boundary line of his property. As before, Mr. Jones stated that he believed greater control had been placed on R-3 properties in the City than R-2, and that if e e CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 1986 Page -7- left R-3, it would continue to be that way. Mr. Jones then read a letter to Council listing his reasons for changing the zoning. (A copy of the letter is attached and made part of this official record). Much discussion ensued concerning Mr. Jones property and the zoning which allows professional offices. City Manager Saunders stated that Mr. Jones' property had been discussed in great detail during the May 21, 1986 Workshop Meeting, and that it was a staff recommendation that his three lots should remain together in the R-3 district. 86-llm MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE TO DELETE LOTS 20 & 21, BLOCK 7 FROM ORDINANCE 178-M. ITEM 117 George Hovis, Attorney for Mr. Phil Windheim, appeared before Council to request that the Council proceed with the proposed rezoning of Mr, Windheim's property. It was pointed out that Mr. Windheim was the fjrst person in Clermont to go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure, and the process had worked for him. It was the consensus of Council to leave Item #7 in the ordinance as written. ITEM 118 Jay Vander Meer, who owns property in the area of the lots in question, stated that at one time the owner wished to make an apartment complex on the property and it should remain in the C-2 zone. City Manager Saunders stated that Lot 6, was a long lot running north and south bounded by R-IA property, and Lot 7 was bounded by residential and commercial property. An R-2 zoning classi- fication is the proper designation because of the R-IA and R-2 property. A letter from the owners of the affected lots, Mr. and Mrs. Nick Pacelli, was read requesting that the zoning remain ,C-2 General Commercial. Harold Roberts, a local realtor, stated that he favored the C-2 zoning classification to Magnolia Street because it would give more depth for Highway 50 development. Council Member Huff stated that he believed the trend in the area for future development was commercial, not residential. Council Member Turville stated that he did not favor this because it would pull commercial development deeper into the residential area. Dennis Horton and Cecil Smart both stated that they favored the commercial zoning. Much discussion ensued regarding the commercial development in the area. Director of Planning, stated that it decide what type of development they pros and cons of allowing Dean Perlick, the City's was up to the Council to wanted on Highway 50. . . CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 1986 Page -8- Council Member Turville stated that he believed that you should consider the worst possible utilization of a parcel of property before any changes are made. 86-ll~ MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLE AND CARRIED BY A FOUR TO ONE ROLL CALL VOTE, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TURVILLE VOTING NAY, TO DELETE ITEM #8 FROM ORDINANCE l78-M. There being no more discussion concerning the proposed ordinance, 86-ll~ MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUFF, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUPEE AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 178-M AS AMENDED BY DELETING ITEMS 3, 4, AND 8 AND LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 7, SUNNYSIDE UNIT IN ITEM 6. THE ORDINANCE WAS READ IN ITS ENTIRETY BY MAYOR POOL. NEW BUSINESS OFFICIAL COUNCIL STATEMENT TO THE LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA SURROUNDING CLERMONT Discussion and consideration of this matter was tabled until after the meeting with County Administrator Willett and County Planner Annas on Friday, May 30, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Discussion at this meeting will include a 'possible inter local agreement between the City and County which would define our "areas of concern" and give the City an opportunity to review and make recommendations to the County Commission prior to any action by the County regarding all development in the City's designated "area of concern". There being no further business or discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ~ I~/l~ Robert A. Pool, Mayor Attest: