CC 12/18/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council December 18, 1989 Ordinance 651 ( Continued) continued from time to time until final action is taken by the City Council. Copies of the proposed Ordinance are available at City Hall with the Clerk of the City and the same may be inspected by the public." Mrs. Garavano said this notice was published in the legal review section of the Seminole Sentinel on December 3, 1989 and posted in three public places continuously since November 28, 1989. MOTION: Mr. Schutte moved, Mrs. Percle seconded, and motion carried unanimously to read Ordinance 651 by title only. Mrs. Garavano read Ordinance 651 by title as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CASSELBERRY, FLORIDA, AMENDING AMENDED ORDINANCE 233, SECTION 2, INCREASING DENSITY TO 13 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; IMPOSING APPROVAL CONTIN- GENCY AS TO PHASE I OF CARMEL-BY-THE-LAKE DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; CONFLICTS; SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE." Mr. Campbell said Ordinance 651 would increase density from 12 to 13 units per acre; it would also eliminate references to allowance of commer- cial developments that are currently in the Annexation Ordinance. He stated that Ordinance 651 has been recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Department. Mr. Campbell said it was felt that an appropriate trade off between the increase in density to the exclusion of the commercial activities mentioned in the Annexation Ordinance. It is also noted that other properties, i.e. , multi -family (R-3 Zoning) can have 13 units per acre if they access a four -lane road. Mr. Schutte said it should be pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission vote to approve the increased density was on a 3 - 2 simple majority, not a unanimous vote. He stated that the request for increased density contains no justification nor extenuating reasons, except to allow 31 additional apartments for a total of 408. He said this is an apartment complex and should be zoned R-3 -- it is not a PUD; that Article 33.34(A) (6)