Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 05 15 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes ",-. ~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES May 15, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS: David Hopkins, Chairman, Present David McLeod, Vice-Chairman, Present John Horan, Present Martin Trencher, Present John Ferring, Present CITY OFFICIAL: D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coord. J. Koch, Dir. Adm./Comp. Planning F. Kruppenbacher, City Attorney Aooroval of Minutes of Mav 1f 1991. Trencher moved to approve the minutes of May 1, 1991. Seconded by Horan. Vote: All aye, except McLeod who abstained as he was not present at the May 1 meeting. Approval of updated Zoning Map as per Section 20-102 (C) of the Code of Ordinances. LeBlanc noted to the Board that there is only one change to the map, Ordinance 497, annexing a piece of property for which a land use has not yet been assigned. This was adopted November 12, 1990. Trencher moved to recommend to the City Commission the acceptance of the zoning Map as updated. Seconded by Ferring. Vote: All aye. Conceotual Plan - Tuscawilla Countrv Club. 150-unit Guest Cottaae Prooosal City Attorney Frank Kruppenbach.r addr....d the Board. Krupp.nbach.r .tated h. had received a request from the City Manag.r to render a legal opinion on the proposed development. He performed a comprehensive background check into all related matters, including the Imara decision, to ensure the City acts consistently with previous actions. Kruppenbacher stated he had a conversation with James Mikes of Florida Country Clubs Inc. (the owner of Tuscawilla Country Club) at 5:15 today in which Kruppenbacher noted he had concerns regarding a vested right to develop this project. He believed it would be prudent to meet with the City Manager and City staff to clarify his various concerns. Kruppenbacher said he was immediately advised by Mikes to give an opinion so Mikes could sue the City tomorrow. Kruppenbacher advised the Board to take no action at this time until he can consult with his client, the formal City Commission, and consult with experts within his firm to make sure everyone is handling this issue properly. Kruppenbacher recommended to the Board to defer this discussion. Ferring requested Kruppenbacher to forward copies of the Imara decision to the members of the Board. McLeod requested Kruppenbacher verbally highlight the decision so the Board has some base to work from. Kruppenbacher stated there was an original final judgement which resulted from the case being heard on November 21 and 22, 1985. The court found in Paragraph 1 that a preliminary development plan was approved by the City in 1971 and was currently in effect for the property. The second finding was under that PUD plan, the court found that the parcels of real property owned by Imara planned for development were designated for condominium use development. The third ~ ~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 15, 1991 Page 2 finding was the density for development as established under the original plan was 12 unite. The fourth finding, critical to vested rights, wae that the court obtained from the City written confirmation that the properties were zoned multi- family. The court believed, based upon the above, Imara had vested rights for development. The court made another finding, recognizing the sensitivity of the City and the relationship with the developer, that the actual final development plan was consistent and the City should issue all permits based upon that plan. An amended final judgement gave the court continuing jurisdiction over the develdpment of those two parcels in the Imara decision. Any disputes will go back to the original presiding judge. Trencher asked Kruppenbacher about the relevance of Imara to this issue. Kruppenbacher noted that there are unique aspects of each parcel, and the Imara decision mayor may not be dispositive of this particular issue. Kruppenbacher advised the Board not to act without legal counsel and further legal review of potential conflicts. He noted that Mikes stated that Kruppenbacher would not make any fees defending the City on this suit as Mikes would make Kruppenbacher a witness. Kruppenbacher noted that he regularly acts to settle disputes without court appearances. As a result of his hostile conversation with Mikes, he did not want to make any legal opinion tonight as it may be construed as being made under threat. Kruppenbacher noted that the statements made by Mikes are consistent with earlier statements made to City staff. Trencher made a motion to defer to City commission a ruling on the issue of the legality of this request per the City Attorney's recommendation. Seconded by McLeod. Vote: All aye. Meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~u,./ Gregory Kern, Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Board ~/./. .