Loading...
05-02-1989 Regular Meeting• PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1989 The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order on May 2, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman John Sargent. Members attending were Marilyn George, James Brown, Don Smith, Curt DiCamillo, Bonnie Kranz, Adelbert Evans and Cecil Smart. Member Robert Mitchell was excused. Also attending were James McAllister Planning Director and Jane Warren Planning & Zoning Technician. MINUTES of the meeting held April 4, presented. NEW BUSINESB ITEM NO. 1 Requested Zoning Change APPLICANT: William Thomas ADDRESS: 1040 12th Street, Clermont 1989 were approved as LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block 137 Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. 30' of Highland avenue abandoned by City. LOCATION/GENERAL DESCRIPTION: West side of 12th Street approximately 300 feet south of Highway 50. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE: 1.4 acre ZONING: Present: R-1-A Proposed: R-3-A Mr. Sargent pointed out that the applicant is requesting rezoning from R-1-A Urban Residential to R-3-A ResidentialjProfessional for a tract of land located on the west side of 12th street approximately 300' south of State Road 50. The property is immediately north of and contiguous to the 12th Street Park, and south and east of Emerald Lakes Mobile Home Park. The property consists of six (6) platted lots and approximately 10,200 square feet of abandoned right-of-way totaling 1.4 acres more or less. There currently exists one single family structure on the property. Mr. McAllister pointed out that the request is for rezoning to R- 3-A for which no specific reason has been stated. There is no R- 3-A zoning of this side of East Avenue. R-3 zoning exists to the north and west of the property and as such, should be the recommended zoning category in this request. As the applicant has not stated the specific reason for rezoning to the R-3-A, staff recommends that the property be rezoned to R-3. Mr. McAllister informed the Commission that no letters either in favor of or in opposition to this request had been received. Mr. Evans also pointed out that the subject property did not abut any wetlands, but suggested that the proximity of wetlands to this project should be a concern of the commission. 1 • . After a brief discussion a motion was made by Adelbert Evans to recommend to the City Council that this property be rezoned to R- 3-A Residential/Professional Office, seconded by James Brown and approved by a unanimous vote. ITEM NO. 2. Conditional Use Permit Request OWNER: David Fojo APPLICANT: Same PROPERTY: City Block 47, lot 1, 2, and 3 less the W 75'thereof LOCATION: South of Desoto Street, north of Juniata Street and east of Crystal Lake Drive. ZONING: R-2 Medium Density Residential REQUEST: To construct a duplex and a triplex. Mr. Sargent explained that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a duplex and a triplex on one lot consisting of approximately 27,310 square feet. Mr. McAllister pointed out that previous property owners had received a variance to construct with a rear yard setback of 14' on the center and westernmost section of this parcel. At this time only the western unit has been constructed and all other variances have expired. Mr. McAllister also pointed that there exists numerous oak trees on the site that exceed 25 feet in height, and suggested that all trees to be removed by the applicant must be indicated on the site plan and reviewed by staff during the site plan review process. Trees should be removed in accordance with staff's recommended standards for tree removal in the draft tree ordinance. The site plan indicates a proposed beach area along Crystal Lake. The applicant is only permitted to clear a 25 foot wide area. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit does not imply approval of the beach area as indicated'on the plan. Mr. McAllister also pointed out that an easement would be needed in regard to a sewer line connecting the existing duplex to the west to the sewer manhole located on the applicant's property. Mr. McAllister stated the only response from adjacent property owners was from Mr. & Mrs. Norman Horton. The letter stating opposition was read into the records. In additions to the standards conditions of a Conditional Use Permit, staff recommends approval of this xequest, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant will provide the property owner to the west with an easement for the sewer line. 2. All trees to be removed must be approved by city staff prior to removal. 3. No more that a 25' wide area can be cleared on the lake shore without obtaining the necessary permits from the state and county agencies. 2 • • Mr. David Fojo, the applicant was present and stated that he felt the proposed project would be very attractive and an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. McAllister stated that the applicant, without a Conditional Use Permit, could construct two units per lot. Mr. McAllister reminded the Commission that the Conditional Use Permits allow the City to impose conditions which ensures the integrity of the project and provides additional review of the project to protect the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. McAllister emphasized should conditions would not exist under the guidlines of Permitted Uses. Mr. Richard Harris, an adjacent property owner, stated his opposition to the project as presented. Mr. Harris stated he would rather see the development of the previous property owners pursued. Mr. Warren Fowler, an adjacent property owner, stated his opposition to the project, siting density as a concern. Mr. Prentice Tydall, an adjacent property owner, also stated his opposition expressing concern for in integrity of the neighborhood. Mrs. Cuqui Whitehead, an adjacent property owner, objected to the project because of what she considered numerous variances to the previous project, the quality of construction, the topography of the land, and the preservation of the lake. Mr. Frank Fojo emphasized his intentions to preserve the trees and to project the lake. Mr. Fojo stated the reason for requesting a triplex was because of the topography to the parcel. Mr. Smart stated that he felt the on-site retention would help maintain the quality of the lake. Mr. Evans stated he was concerned about the topography of the parcel and also emphasized the importance of proper water retention. After a brief discussion a motion was made by Don Smith to recommend to the City Council approval of this request as amended with the additional condition #3, seconded by Marilyn George and approved by 7-1 vote. Member Curt DiCamillo voting nay. ITEM NO. 2 Conditional Use Permit Request. APPLICANT: South Lake County Hospital d/b/a/ South Lake Memorial Hospital 847 Eighth Street Clermont, Fla. 32711 PROPERTY: Section 18, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida, Begin at a point 630' S. of the NW corner of Block 55 of the official map of the town of Minneola, according to plat book 9, page 31, public records of Lake County, Run thence S.89 deg. 57' E., 929', more or less, to the westerly right-of-way of Hwy 27, run thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line of Hwy 27, to the S. line of Tract 62 in Section 18, Township 22 S. Range 26 E. of Lake Highlands Company, plat book 3, page 28, public records of Lake County, Run thence W to the SW corner of said Tract 62, Run thence N to the common corner of Tracts 51, 52 and 62 in said Section 18, Township 22 S, Range 26 E. Lake Highlands Company, Run thence W. along the S. line of Tract 52 and the extension 3 • • thereof to the centerline of Galena Avenue now vacated; run N to the S line of Division Street; Run thence E. to the E. line of Galena Avenue; Run thence N to the point of beginning, less and excepting therefrom Bloxam Avenue. ALSO: Tract 61 in Section 18, Township 22 S, Range 26 E. GENERAL LOCATION: North of Grand Highway, West of Highway 27, East of Edgewood Place Subdivision. ACREAGE 31 M.O.L. LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION: Present UD-4 Proposed: UD-3, with additional uses, and increased density. ZONING:Present C-2 and R-3 Proposed None PURPOSE FOR AMENDMENT REQUEST: To allow construction of a hospital, medical and professional offices and other healthcare- related business and to increase the density to 12 units per acre. Mr. Sargent stated he would not be voting on the item because of a possible conflict of interest. Mr. McAllister pointed out the necessity for staff to address the concerns of the residents of Edgewood Place since there exists very little vegetation at this end of the property, thereby providing no visual relief for the residents. Mr. McAllister pointed out that staff is only considering the project for conceptual approval based on the proper land use disposition and suggested the additional conditions be considered: 1. A 50' buffer be maintained on the western boundary line. 2. A height restriction of 2 story. Mr. McAllister pointed out that the applicant is requesting a density of 12 dwelling units per acres on the site for the adult congregate living facility element. The City has as the maximum density requirement within the U-D 3 District of 8 dwelling units per acre. Staff recommends that until the future land use element is completed, no changes to the density provision occur. Mr. McAllister also pointed out that staff would like to be advised before any trees are remover from this parcel. Mr. McAllister also suggested, if the Conditional Use Permit is granted, that the construction be required to start within two (2) years of the date of approval. While reviewing the recommended conditions mr. McAllister requested that the following changes be made: 7. The project shall be developed in accordance with an approved site plan. This plan is only conceptual in nature and shall not be constitute preliminary or final approval. 14. The applicant shall grant a joint access to the property to the north in exchange for the for the vacation of Bloxam Avenue. 4 LJ In consideration of Condition No. 11, Mr. Don Smith suggested required landscaping should be indigenous to the area. Mr. Smith also suggested that such a consideration should be a standard conditional of a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Pat Smith, representing the hospital, stated he was in agreement with the City's request regarding buffering the adjacent subdivision from the project. Mr. John Chapman, project engineer, was present and stated the plans presented are conceptual in nature to determine if the site is functional for the operation of a hospital. From an engineering point of view Mr. Chapman suggested the major concerns of the hospital are 1.) Access to the site from the two highways 2.) To provide an acceptable transition from the abutting residential neighborhood to a high density hospital facility. 3.) To provide stormwater management and maintain good water quality of the lake.5.) The topography of the site. Mr. Chapman emphasized that the plan presented is just a conceptual plan. Mr. Wayne Sheppard, an adjacent property owner, stated he was not opposed to the project but his concerns were wit buffering, traffic on Grand Highway and the noise impact. Mr. Warren Thomas of 661 Grand Highway, an adjacent property owner, voiced his. concerns regarding trucks on Grand Highway and the possible expansion of the right-of-way of Grand Highway. Mr. Thomas strongly urged that the density limited. Diane James, Manager of the Citrus Tower and an adjacent property owner, stated her concern regarding traffic. Mrs. James was also concerned about the lack of sidewalks east of Edgewood Place Subdivision. Mr. Smart stated even though the plan in conceptual, he was pleased with manner in which the hospital and the engineering staff had addressed concerns of the City and the residential neighborhood. Mr. Brown stated he felt the plan was an excellent one, and would prove to be a great asset to the City. Mr. Evans stated that the hospital had stated earlier that the purchase of this land was speculative and requested if the hospital still considered this an investment venture at this time. Mr. Pat Smith he stated that the proposed purchase was an investment proposition in the since that in the future the price of land is expected to increase rapidly in Clermont, and considering the future needs of the Community, the price of such a purchase would be greatly increased. Don Smith question why the City of Minneola was not present. Mr. Pat Smith stated that he had spoken with the Mayor of Minneola and had not received any objection to the property. Mr. Don Smith stated he felt that 1.) Topography would be very difficult to work with. 2.) Bloxam should be a through street sometime in the future. 3.) A service road should be constructed from Minneola to Clermont. Mr. Don Smith also mentioned his concern of a non-elected taxing authority spending tax money in competition with private enterprise. 5 i ~ Mr. Don Smith objected to widening the right-of-way on the south side of Grand Highway, Mr. Smith suggested taking property from the developers property instead. After a brief discussion a motion was made by Cecil Smart to recommend to the City Council approval of this request as presented by staff, seconded by Bonnie Kranz and approved by a 4-2 vote. Members Don Smith and Adelbert Evans voting nay and Chairman John Sargent abstaining, Mr. Sargent reminded the Commission of the upcoming meeting of the Local Planning Agency on May 8, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. c~ ~~~ John Sargent, Chairman ATTEST: J e Warren, lanning & Zoning Technician 6 FORM 86 ME RANDOM- OF VOTI CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNlCI L, AND OTHER LOC PUBLIC OFFICERS E-MIDDLE NAME M LAST' NAl•1E-FIRST NA NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ~~ ~~ MAILIN ~ ADD ESS S~ f ./~ S `~ ~ ~~ ~ THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ~ ( L `° ~ CITY i :COUNTY I . C7rHER LOCAL AGENCY CO CITY ~~ Y L e ~- NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: t~ DATE ON ~ti'H1CH VOTE OCCURRED ' ~ MY POSIT 1 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the lam' when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO SHE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (before making. any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. 1(~H~I RB U!-R6 PAGE I IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE MEETING: • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~' F ~ , hereby disclose that on _ ~ 19 1` (a) measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured [o my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: _-~ a ..~ ~~ '~~'/ Date Filed by whom I am retained. NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. . CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGE 2