Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 09 22 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes Planning & Zoning Board Minutes September 22, 1982 7:30 P. M. Meeting o~ the Planning & Zoning Board was called to order by Chairman Kaplan. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by Mr. IeFazio. ROIL CALL: CITY OFFICIALS: Cindy Kaehler, present George Kaplan, present Richard DeFazio, present John Hatfield, present Leanne Grove, present Jacqueline Koch City Planner J:lbtion was made by Leanne Grove to approve the minutes of September 8, 1982 meeting. Seconded by John Hatfield. Vote. All aye, motion carried. PARLIAMENTARIAN'S NorIFICATION OF INTENT TO MOVE THAT SEPTEMBER 8th ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1982~83 BE BEHELD. The Chair asked the Parliamentarian to state the premise for this motion. The' Parliamen- tarian stated the proper parliamentarian procedure was not followed, as noted in her letter of September 13, 1982. The Chair then opened the floor for nominations for new officers to the Planning and Zoning Board for the year 1982-83. Kaehler motioned to nominate Grove for Chairman. Seconded by Hatfield. Grove declined the nomination. Kaplan nominated himself for Chairman. Motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Kaplan then made a motion to unamiITDusly accept John Hatfield as Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. Seconded by DeFazio. Discussion. Vote. All aye, ITDtion carried. John Hatfield became the new Chairman. The Parliamentarian stated that according to Robert's Rules, in a role call vote, a Board memher does have the right to abstain from voting, unless the Board l s by-laws dictate otherwise. The Chair now opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chairman, to the Board. Grove made a rmtion to nominate Kaehler. Seconded by IeFazio. Discussion. Grove amended the original rmtion to nominate unanirmusly Kaehler for Vice-Chairman. Seconded by IeFazio. Discussion. Vote; Grove; aye, Hatfield; aye, IeFazio; aye, Kaplan; abstaining, Kaehler; aye. Motion carried. . The Chair opened nominations for Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Board concluded the need at this time for a Secretary was not pressing, and if there did come about a need, they would appoint one. Parliamentarian was discussed by the Board. It was then decided that the Chair would assume the duties of Parliamentarian. REQUEST OF ALCIDE CAMPO FOR REZONllJG OF LOr 2, BLOCK E, NOm ORLANDO RANCHES, SECTION 3 FROM RC-l TO R-1AA (NORI'HWEST CORNER OF MURPHY ROAD 'AND SOurHEDGEr-~ON AVENUE.) The City Planner explained there was a 'delay in this request because the legal owner had not signed the application. Since then, the daughters of the owner have been given the right by the Court to act on behalf of the property. In addition the City has in its possession a letter from their attorney appointing Ms. funna Stokes, who is present, to represent the property. f;1s. Stokes came forward and in front of the Board, signed the application. The City Planner stated the property in question is a 2/3 acre parcel, that is surrDunded by R-l zoning on the west and R-1AA zoning on the east. The owner's intent is to split e e Planning & Zoning Board Minutes September 22, 1982 Page 2 the lots into twu lots for individual hom.esites. THis cannot be done under the current zoning. A proposal on the specifics on the lot split will be presented to the Cormnission for their approval. Discussion. D=Fazio made a motion to recorrnnend the request of re- zoning of wt 2, Block E, North Orlando Ranches, Section 3 from RC-l to R-lAA. Seconded by Kaplan. Discussion. Vote. All aye, motion carried. FURrHER CONSIDERATION OF RECOJ.V1lVENDATION ON ORDINANCE NO. 262 REZDNING C-2 PROPERrIES TO C-l ON SOurH SIDE OF S. R. 434 NEAR U. S. 17-92, ON NORrHEAST CORNER OF S. R. 434 AND WADE STREET, AND ON SOurH MOSS ROAD, IN LIGHr OF REVISION OF C-l AND C-2 ZONING ORDINANCES SINCE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS REFERRED. The Ci ty P~anner stated that the first parcel listed on the agenda ( south side of 434 near 17-92) currently has an auto paint shop and locksmith and cleaners, with about two acres of undeveloped land also. The reasoning in the rezoning is to keep the in- dustrial area north of 419. The City Planner stated that the pUI1)ose of this con- sideration is to make a finding whether or not this land use will be rrore proper at this location, on an irrpersonal basis. The City Planner stated that previously a public hearing for the rezoning was held, but thtLs was prior to the adoption of the revised zoning ordinances. The Cormnission felt it would be fairer to the owners of the property to wait until after the ordin- ances were passed, so they would have confidence to what they could do in C-l, thus it was tabled. Because of the tine lapse, the City Attorney felt it best to ::tart over again with the Board's reconmendation. Discussion. Kaplan made a motion to re- conmend the rezoning from C-2 to C-l on south side of 434 near 17-92. Seconded by D=Fazio. Discussion. Vote. All aye, motion carried. The City Planner stated the next property is that on the northeast COl"'ner of S.R. 434 and Wade Street. The property in the City in this particular area is all residential, plus the conmercial strip on 434 is being rezoned lot by lot. There is one piece of property adjacent here that is still in the County. Discussion. D=Fazio rrotioned to recorrmend rezoning from C-2 to C-l the property on the northeast comer of S.R. 434 and Wade Street. Seconded by Kaplan. Discussion. Vote, all aye, motion carried. The final piece of property in this request is on South Moss Road, and consist of Jl/bss- Wood Apartments, Gablevision antenna and the Hunt property, stated the City Planner. Here again this property is surrounded by residential property. Discussion. The Planner stated that these properties could still function if the proposed rezoning were changed to R- 3 rather than C-l. Kaehler recorrmended that this particular piece of property be rezoned from C-2 to R-3. Seconded by Kaplan. Discussion. Vote. All aye, motion carried. COMMENTS FROM SEMINOIE COUNTY REGARDING EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The City Planner stated this item was in regards to the corrnnents received from Seminole County on the Corrprehensi ve Plan. Since these were received after the 60-day deadline prescribed by law, the Report's adoption timetable is not affected, but a courtesy reply will be sent to the County. The City Engineer had responded to some of their corrments in the attached memo. The City Planner stated that concerning the Land Use, Seminole County would like to see the land north of SR 419 stay as a preserve. The City's proposal on this property is to make it an industrial zone. Discussion. The City Planner went on to elaborate that the City could not do anything detrimental to the environment without violating DER's requirements here. The City's proposal on this land is to develop in areas where the soil is suitable. The County here again is afraid of this affecting the natural environment. Discussion. The Planning and Zoning Board recorrmends that the City proceed with the Plan. However, the City is in receipt of Seminole County's corrrnents and appreciates them; is tak:ing them into consideration; and will keept them in consideration when the City proceeds further; as our intent is to proceed with the Plan. Meeting adj ourned.