Loading...
06-02-2020 P & Z MinutesCITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING June 2, 2020 The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order on Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman, Herb Smith. Members present were: Herb Smith, David Colby, Max Krzyminski, Tim Murry, Joe Gustafson, Jane McAllister and Ebo Entsuah. Also present for City staff was City Attorney, Daniel Mantzaris, Esq., Development Services Director Curt Henschel, Planning Manager John Kruse and Senior Planner Regina McGruder. MINUTES: Commissioner Colby moved to approve the minutes of the November 5, 2019 meeting as written; seconded by Commissioner Entsuah. Commissioner McAllister moved to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2019 meeting as written; seconded by Commissioner Colby. Commissioner McAllister moved to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2020 meeting as written; seconded by Commissioner Krzyminski. Commissioner Colby moved to approve the minutes of the February 4, 2020 meeting as written; seconded by Commissioner Entsuah. Commissioner McAllister moved to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2020 meeting as written; seconded by Commissioner Gustafson. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSION: Commissioner Gustafson provided an update to staff regarding the absence of construction for the Mason Ridge CUP, showing that over 90 day period it seemed that there hasn't been any construction on the site. Mr. Gustafson provided photos that are in Code Enforcement's possession. Mr. Mantzaris updated the commission that Mason Ridge has gone to council to pay partial payment on fines as well as they have exercised the extension of construction provided by the State of Emergency due to the pandemic. Commissioner Colby commended the commission and staff on decisions made on a property on Pitt St. that improved the look of the community. Commissioner Entsuah moved to approve the Tabling of Ordinance 2020-17 to July 7, 2020; seconded by Commissioner Murray. Commissioner McAllister moved to approve the Tabling of Ordinance 2020-18 to July 7, 2020; seconded by Commissioner Gustafson. June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 1 Commissioner moved Krzyminski to approve the Tabling of Ordinance 2020-24 to July 7, 2020; seconded by Commissioner McAllister. REPORT FROM CITY STAFF: Planning and Development Director, Curt Henschel introduced Nicholas Gonzalez, Planning and Development Coordinator. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1 - Ordinance No. 2020-17 — Small Scale Comprehensive Amendment — Tabled to July 7, 2020 REQUEST: Consider ordinance to change the future land use from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential for property located at the southeast corner of Hartwood Marsh and Hancock Road. ITEM #2 - Ordinance 2020-18 — Hartwood Marsh ALF PUD Rezoning — Tabled to July 7, 2020 REQUEST: Consider ordinance to change the zoning from R-1 Single Family Medium Density Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for property located at the southeast corner of Hartwood Marsh and Hancock Road. ITEM #3 - Ordinance 2020- 24 — Governor's Lake PUD Amendment — Tabled to July 7, 2020 REQUEST: Consider ordinance to amend a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for property located at the southeast comer of US Highway 27 and Citrus Tower Blvd. ITEM #4 - Resolution 2020- 20R — Lowes Home Improvement REQUEST: Consider amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 3,000 square foot building addition for property located at 1501 Sandy Grove Avenue. Senior Planner McGruder presented the staff report as follows: The applicant, Lowes Home Improvement Store is requesting an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (Resolution 1488) to allow for an increase to the building square footage. The property is located at 1501 Sandy Grove Avenue and the zoning is (PUD) Planned Unit Development with C-2 General Commercial permitted uses; the Land Use is Commercial. The Lowes Store is requesting to amend the Conditional Use Permit to construct a 3,500 square foot building addition for tool rentals and a 1,500 square foot outside storage area expansion to the existing building. The City Council approved on September 26, 2006, a Conditional Use Permit (Resolution 1488) to allow a retail store up to 172,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to build a 3,500 square -foot building expansion for tool rentals services, this request would also expand the existing outside storage, up to 1,500 square feet. All outside storage must be completely screened from public view and any streets. The adjacent parcel is vacant and owned by Lowes; providing no adverse impact to adjacent properties. The existing CUP has a maximum allowed June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 2 of 172,000 square foot building area, and with the proposed building addition, including the outside storage area; the amended maximum allowed building area shall be limited to 178,000 square feet. Staff has reviewed the application as submitted and finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity and the proposed use will comply with the regulations and provisions specified. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment with the conditions contained in Resolution No. 2020-20R. Chairman Smith turned it over to the Applicant/Representative to present their request. Jill Minton, of CPH Engineers, 500 W. Fulton St., Sanford, FL, representing the applicant on this project and to answer any questions pertaining to the project. Chairman Smith opened the floor to the public. No one from the public commented. Chairman Smith brought it back to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Murry asked if the location of the expansion would be near the contractor pick-up area. Ms. Minton stated that the expansion of outside storage would be on the south side area of the existing building aligned with the current outside storage. Increasing the facade of the building. Commissioner Gustafson wanted to make sure that the number of spaces would not be an issue with the expansion. Ms. Minton answered that they would be no effect towards the parking. Commissioner Krzyminski asked staff a question regarding the property lines and how it may affect the future sale of additional parcel. Ms. McGruder explained that the property is already owned by Lowes and if they intend to sell the parcel in the future they would have to redesign and re -plat the parcel. Chairman Smith brought it back to the Board and entertained a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner McAllister to approve Ordinance 2020-15, seconded by Commissioner Murry. Vote passed unanimously 7-0, with everyone voting in favor. ITEM #5 - Ordinance 2020- 14 — Hartle Road Industrial Park PUD REQUEST: Consider an ordinance to for an industrial park/warehouse with outside storage on 36 +/- acres located 3/4 mile south of SR 50 on CR 455/Hartle Road. Planning Manager Kruse presented the staff report as follows: The applicant is requesting a rezoning on the subject property from Lake County Planned Industrial with Heavy Industrial Uses (Ordinance No. 96-89) to City of Clermont Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow M-1 Industrial uses. The PUD request provides flexibility in the site design while allowing specific conditions and building size to be addressed in the development of the project. The property, approximately 36 acres, is located 3/< mile south on CR 455/Hartle Road Extension from the SR 50 intersection. The project is adjacent to Senninger June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 3 Irrigation plant, which has the City's Industrial Future Land Use and the City's M-1 Industrial zoning. This request is being heard concurrently with requests for annexation and a large-scale future land use amendment to Industrial. The property is located within the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) and the Joint Planning Area (JPA). The applicant is proposing to develop the property into a light industrial/warehouse park with associated offices and outdoor RV, boat, commercial vehicle and trailer storage, as shown on the PUD concept plan. The conceptual plan indicates a total of approximately 297,000 square feet dedicated to light industrial/warehouse use through a combination of six buildings. The largest building proposed is approximately 88,000 square feet. The remaining buildings are less than 50,000 square feet. In addition, a small office will accompany the storage facility. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR), based upon the proposal is 0.19, which is less than 1.0 permitted in the City's M-1 Industrial Zoning District, and much less under the current Lake County Future Land Use of Regional Office that allows 3.0. The site is split by CR 455/Hartle Road with three smaller building located on the north end of the project and the other remaining buildings and outdoor storage on the south end of the project. The site has some physical design limitations, mainly the 100 foot Duke Energy easement that runs along the property line on the eastern and southern portion of the project. This has ensured a building setback of 100 feet in these areas and will be developed with stormwater systems, outdoor storage, access points, landscaping and parking. The surrounding area includes industrial use, residential use, a fire station, and vacant land. As with a Planned Unit Development, specific conditions to the Land Development Code may be included. Specific conditions include: 1. The total maximum floor area space allowed is 300,000 square feet of Warehouse space. The maximum building size will be 90,000 square feet for the largest building and 50,000 square feet for the smaller buildings. The storage facility will have a smaller building that will be limited to 5,000 square feet or less. The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the PUD Conceptual Plan prepared by Dave Schmitt Engineering. 2. All permitted uses and business operations shall be conducted inside the buildings. No outdoor work and assembly of products shall be allowed. 3. No automotive, truck, trailer, motorcycle or boat repairs, sales, or leasing shall be conducted on -site. 4. Perimeter landscape buffers shall be planted with 2 canopy trees and one understory trees per 100 lineal feet and must provide a continuous three -foot -high opaque screen of landscape materials at time of plantings. In addition, a twenty-five feet enhanced landscape buffer with 30 percent more landscape material shall be installed along the western and southern property line adjacent to the existing residential community or an opaque six-foot high wall or enhanced fence may be installed in lieu of the additional 30 percent plantings. June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page-4 5. To allow for four (4) Multi -tenant ground monument signs at the designated access points along CR455/Hartle Road not to exceed 15 feet in height, 10 feet in width and 120 square feet of copy area. No additional ground signs will be permitted, including single tenant. 6. The site shall be developed according to the City of Clermont Land Development Codes, unless a waiver has been granted in the PUD, and all buildings must comply with the City of Clermont Architectural Design Standards. The waivers identified as part of the PUD conceptual plan include: 1. To allow for an internal lot line without the requirement for landscape buffers or setbacks between the RV and boat storage area and warehouse space, as shown on the conceptual site plan. 2. To allow for an interior ground identification, not to exceed 32 square feet in of copy area, limited to 6 feet in height, 10 feet in width and 32 square feet of copy area for the RV and boat storage. Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal and finds the proposed zoning at this location is compatible with the uses in the area and is less intensive than what could be developed under the current Heavy Industrial uses in Lake County under Ordinance 96-89. The City is able to serve the project and the requested PUD with M-1 Industrial zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Therefore; staff recommends approval of Ordinance 2020-14. Chairman Smith asked if the commission was presented this ordinance before. Mr. Kruse explained that the commission had passed a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment. This is the second step for rezoning that will be presented to council for adoption and final approval. Chairman Smith turned it over to the Applicant/Representative to present their request. Allison Turnbull, of the Winderweedle Law Firm, 329 N. Park Ave., Winter Park, FL, representing the applicant on this project. Ms. Turnbull agrees with staffs report and is here to answer any questions pertaining to the project. Chairman Smith opened the floor to the public. Lee Pharr, 815 E. Ridgewood St., Orlando, FL, owns the property east of the subject property. Mr. Pharr asked if the developer plans to create a visual buffer or retention wall between the two properties and retention pond. His land is for sale and parties interested are looking to develop residential and is concerned with the industrial park that is being proposed. Ms. Turnbull explains that there is a Duke easement that runs along the side of the retention pond so there will not be a wall on the between the two properties. June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page-5 Commissioner Krzyminski wanted to clarify that there will be a wall between the boat storage and the retention wall and not on the property line. Ms. Turnbull affirmed that there will be a wall present. Ms. Turnbull explains the general appearance will relate more to a high -end office park with industrial use compared to the look of an industrial park and will be in uniformity with the architectural standards of the City. Chairman Smith turned it back over to the Board. Commissioner McAllister asked where they propose to place the 15 ft. sign. Dave Schmitt, 12301 Lake Underhill Rd. Orlando, FL, engineer for the project, indicated that the signage will be placed at the access points allowed per the Code. Commissioner McAllister believes that the 15 ft. sign is too high. Commissioner Gustafson is concerned with the future of the development in the City. Proposes if this project is consistent with what the City would want in fifteen to twenty years. Chairman Smith mentions that property was zoned as Lake County Planned Industrial with Heavy Industrial Uses and with being in the City we are able to control the usage with the City's zoning. Mr. Mantzaris clarifies that the City's Comprehensive Plan that has been adopted has planned the future development of the entire city and staff brings applications that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gustafson would like to see steps be made to adapt to the changes that will be made in fifteen to twenty years that are outside of the scope of the Comprehensive Plan. Tony Rosado, 13207 Hartle Rd. Clermont, FL, expressed that he is against the industrial park project. He does not agree building commercial near residential properties. He is concerned with the privacy and the heavy trucks going in and out of the industrial park. Mr. Rosado does not believe this helps out the community. A motion was made by Commissioner Colby to approve Ordinance 2020-14, seconded by Commissioner Krzyminski. Vote passed unanimously 7-0, with everyone voting in favor. ITEM #6 - Ordinance 2020- 19 — Affordable Housing Density Bonus Criteria Amendment REQUEST: This is a staff initiated land development code amendment to provide an increase in the supply of workforce housing in new development. Planning Manager Kruse presented the staff report as follows: As a result of the multi -family workshop with City Council in January and follow-up presentation on April 7, 2020, City staff has been directed to draft proposed changes to the existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus section of the Land Development Code. The June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 6 proposed changes are intended to provide an increase in the supply of workforce housing in new development. The proposed changes to the City Code include: 1. Change the nomenclature in the code to "Workforce Housing" from "Affordable Housing;" 2. Incorporating household size into the annual income and rental rate criteria for qualifying as workforce housing; 3. Requiring 30% of the project's total unit count be qualified workforce housing units; Change from `Affordable Housing' to `Workforce Housing' During the January 21, 2020 City Council workshop, a panel of subject matter experts recommended that the City focus on increasing the supply of housing units for households whose income falls between 80 and 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). This segment of the population is the largest group within the population needing housing assistance. The panel noted that several federal and state programs exist for those households that fall below 80 percent of AMI. Their conclusion was that that the City could have the greatest positive impact on the cost of housing issues in Clermont by focusing efforts on the largest group in need. Household Size and Annual Median Income The current ordinance contains certain generalized density bonus and AMI criteria for the determination of project eligibility. The experience with the current ordinance shows that the resulting inclusion of workforce housing units has fallen well short of meaningful impact to the housing market. The proposed changes are designed to increase the provision of workforce housing units through a larger required minimum number of units (30% overall) and qualification criteria based upon family size, income level, and number of bedrooms. Staff has worked with several stakeholders throughout this process and has incorporated their feedback into the proposed changes. One of the most significant of the proposed change is the range of income to qualify for workforce housing and the maximum rent. On the display is the recommended table of incomes based upon household size. The criteria in this table would be used to determine income eligibility for qualified workforce housing units in a project seeking a density bonus. The rental rates would be corresponding to the Area Median Income and family size. Based upon the 2019 Area Median Income for the Clermont area by household size, here are the maximum rents that would be considered for workforce housing. This data would be updated annually based upon updated and published AMI determinations by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Minimum 30% of Total Project Units All new development that seek additional density through the workforce housing bonus program would be required to set aside 30% of the overall units for workforce housing. Previously, this was a percentage of the bonus units, which ranged from 10% up to 25% of just the bonus units. June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page-7 The proposed change would require 30% of the overall units. This would increase the supply of units dedicated for workforce housing. The units would have to be of same quality and design with the same amenities as all other residents. Here is an example of hypothetical project of 15 acres and the number of workforce housing units that would be produced if this proposed code amendment were adopted: Some Current Requirements Remain Any workforce housing proposal would continue to require a conditional use permit or rezoning to a Planned Unit Development to achieve any density bonus. All density bonus proposals would still require City Council approval through a public hearing. The two areas in the City where the density bonus provisions apply have not changed — the Hook Street Corridor and Wellness Way. The proposed changes to the City Code are designed to encourage an increase in workforce housing supply via density bonuses in certain areas of the City. A process of evaluating different options was undertaken with input from a stakeholder group prior to the staff drafting these recommended changes. Staff has drafted amendments to Section 122-358, Affordable Housing Bonus Density, of the Land Development Code that are attached for consideration. Staff is recommending approval of Ordinance 2020-19 to incorporate these recommended changes. Chairman Smith opened the floor to the public. No one from the public commented. Chairman Smith brought it back to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Murray liked the increase of units but still thinks the cost is too high to be considered affordable. Would like to know if the price per apartment can be changed and rates be lower. Commissioner Krzyminski asked if the presented rates are the maximum a multi -family can charge a qualifying resident. Mr. Kruse confirms that rate is the maximum. Commissioner Entsuah asked if approved by Planning and Zoning and the City Council, would the rates be made effective immediately. Mr. Kruse answered that only a brand new project would be able to take advantage, if they opted to have the bonus density for their development. Commission Entsuah also ask how the marketing of this option would work with new developers. Mr. Kruse explained that during the workshop, many developers had shown interest in utilizing the bonus density in future projects. Mr. Mantzaris states that other municipalities are doing this and that developers will go to the areas where there is a bonus available. Chairman Smith asks how the city will verify that a developer is renting out the bonus units at the workforce housing rate. Mr. Kruse stated that there is an annual verification process that is already in place. Commissioner McAllister asked if the qualifying income is of the entire household. Mr. Kruse confirms. Commissioner Murry does not agree that the rent should be half of the household's income based on the data presented. June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 8 Commissioner Gustafson wants to know where the pressure for workforce housing is coming from. Mr. Mantzaris explained that the discussion came from the moratorium where a need was found for more workforce housing. Commissioner Colby adds that there is a need for workforce housing so that there is an increase in workforce within the City. Commissioner Gustafson questions the implementation of the workforce housing and monitoring the income criteria for the residents that are utilizing the workforce housing. Mr. Mantzaris clarifies that there is a management agreement in the amendment between the owner and the City to report and monitor the bonus units. Commissioner Murry confirms that there is an annual verification process that is used in developments that utilized affordable and workforce housing. Chairman Smith believes that this will be a good start for the housing issue as well as the bonus being a good incentive for investors to develop in the City. Commissioner Gustafson questions the need for the housing and whether the bonus workforce housing would be utilized, especially with the larger 2 and 3 bedroom units. Commissioner Colby thinks it's a step in the right direction with the increase of units for workforce housing compared to the previous bonus. He does not believe it completely solve the issue but will provide help. Commissioner Murry asked that if approved, would it be possible to make changes with the criteria or rental rates. Mr. Kruse confirms that this ordinance can always be looked at again and be amended and it is driven by the area medium income. A motion was made by Commissioner Krzyminski to approve Ordinance 2020-19, seconded by Commissioner Entsuah. Vote passed unanimously 7-0, with everyone voting in favor. ITEM #7 - Ordinance 2020- 20 — Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) REQUEST: This is a staff initiated land development code amendment to allow accessory dwelling units (ADU) within the City. Planning Manager Kruse presented the staff report as follows: Over the past several months, City Council has been holding public workshops on the issue of workforce housing. One of the recommendations emerging from those workshops is the desire to consider expanding housing supply within the City. One such option is the inclusion of accessory dwelling units (ADU) in certain neighborhoods. City staff has been directed to provide opportunities to increase housing varieties while it is believed that incorporating ADU's into the City Code will increase housing supply, strengthen the efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure, while ensuring the character of neighborhoods remain intact. This issue was also supported by the City's Youth Council. Similar to their findings on "tiny homes," staff has concluded accessory dwelling units may provide a similar outcome with more benefits. The accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, is a secondary housing option to a primary residence that allows a smaller, more affordable and flexible housing option. The ADU provides property owners with an affordable housing option to allow elderly family members, young June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 9 adults or guests a place to live that makes it more affordable and convenient, based upon each unique situation. The ADU's would be constructed on the same lot as the primary residential structure and could not be subdivided and sold off later. The ADU would have to function on its own and be a self- contained dwelling with its own entrance, cooking accommodations and bathing facility. The ADU could be constructed as an attached portion of a primary residential structure or detached. The ADU would be permitted in any residential zoning district, unless HOA deed restrictions prohibit, and would have to be a minimum of 350 square feet of living space up to a maximum of 800 square feet. The ADU would have to be constructed in a similar style, appearance and material as the primary residence. The ADU structure could not be a shed, mobile home, RV, tiny home, travel trailer, or shipping container converted into an ADU. Only one ADU would be permitted per lot and shall be located to the rear of the primary residential front building line. In order to ensure adequate parking, one on -site parking space shall be required for the ADU. Staff has drafted code language to be placed in Section 122-365 of the Land Development Code to permit Accessory Dwelling Units. Staff is recommending approval of Ordinance 2020-20. Chairman Smith opened the floor to the public. No one from the public commented. Chairman Smith brought it back to the Board for discussion. Commissioner McAllister asks what the difference is between a 350 sq. ft. living space and a tiny home. Mr. Kruse explains that the difference can be found in the construction and most tiny homes can be smaller than the 350 sq. ft. minimum. Chairman Smith questions how it would affect the setbacks. Mr. Kruse states that the ADU would have to be in compliance with the setbacks of the property and that the ADU's would be utilized with the larger lots in the City. He reiterates the ADU has to still meet building code for a living situation. Commissioner Entsuah likes the idea but wants to know what the difference is between a shed, trailer, mobile home, or shipping container. Mr. Kruse answers that is has to use conventional construction materials and meet building code. Commissioner Murry asks that the maximum size for the ADU is 800 sq. ft. Mr. Kruse confirms that the allowed square footage is from 350 — 800 sq. ft. Commissioner Gustafson expresses concern on the need for having Accessory Dwelling Units and how many would be built in the city. Mr. Mantzaris states that this is another tool to be used to help the issue on affordable housing. Commissioner Entsuah states that it also allows options for both the owner and someone that needs to rent. Commissioner Colby asks what the registration and tracking process would be. Mr. Kruse states that it would follow the building permit process. Commissioner Colby questions if ADU's would be utilized as vacation rentals. Mr. Mantzaris states that's an issue that may come but would need the proper registration and the structure of the ADU is what is being looked at. June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 10 A motion was made by Commissioner Murry to approve Ordinance 2020-20, seconded by Commissioner McAllister. Vote passed 6-1, for approval with Commissioner Gustafson voting in opposition. ITEM #8 - Ordinance 2020- 21 — Medium -Density Residential FLU Amendment REQUEST: This is a staff initiated future land use amendment to allow opportunities to increase residential density in the Medium -Density Future Land Use within a defined area that promotes the walkability of downtown. Planning Manager Kruse presented the staff report as follows: In an effort to provide walkability housing opportunities adjacent to Downtown, City staff is proposing a Future Land Use Amendment to the Medium Density Residential Category to encourage higher residential density in an area around Downtown. City staff has identified the walkability to downtown in an area, which is South of Lake Minneola, North of SR 50, West of 5th Street and East of 12th Street. The proposed land use amendment would only be applicable to properties within this area and with the Medium Density Residential Future Land Use. The current Medium Density Residential FLU permits up to eight dwelling units per acre. The current Downtown Mixed Use Future Land Use permits up to 25 dwelling units per acre or with a bonus density, up to 40 dwelling units per acre. The proposed area within this boundary would increase this to 12 dwelling units per acre, which would provide a more gradual transition. Any development proposals over eight dwelling units per acre in the Medium Density Residential FLU would require a conditional use permit. A GIS analysis indicates there are 192 parcels within this zone in the Medium Density Residential FLU. The collective acreage of these parcels is approximately 42.55 acres. With the proposed change, the overall potential increase in residential dwelling units would be 170 (4 dwelling unit increase x 42.55 acres). While this would be the maximum, it is very unlikely all the parcels would be able to seek the higher density due to varying physical and other constraints on all of the parcels, including meeting setback and minimum parking requirements. This proposed change would allow development of housing opportunities at a slightly higher density through redevelopment while providing improved pedestrian access for more residents to downtown. This proposed change would also provide a transition of densities from Downtown Mixed Use to Medium Density without having to change the future land use designation which would bring non-residential permitted uses associated with the Downtown Mixed Use Future Land Use category. There are also several existing properties that have similar residential densities, such as Lake Minneola Condominiums and Lake Dot Villas, which approach the 12 dwelling units per acre within the Medium Density Residential FLU boundary. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 2020-21. Chairman Smith opened the floor to the public. Jayson Stringfellow, 1455 W. Lakeshore Dr. Clermont, FL, is excited about this ordinance and the previous ordinance. He thinks this will give an opportunity in redevelopment in the June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 11 residential lots in the downtown to increase the walkability. With aligning with the master plan, bringing in more residential will help local businesses. He also states that the addition of ADU's will also be a great alternative in bringing more housing into the downtown. With being an investor in downtown with an upcoming commercial project, he thinks it's important to increase the residential density in the downtown. Chairman Smith turned it back over to the Board. Chairman Smith asked if the CBS Lumber is included in the increase of residential density. Mr. Kruse refers to the map and states the will ordinance would only include the darker brown area. He also mentions that the lighter brown area is already afforded to 40 units with the density bonus. A motion was made by Commissioner Entsuah to approve Ordinance 2020-21, seconded by Commissioner Colby. Vote passed unanimously 7-0, with everyone voting in favor. ITEM #9 - Ordinance 2020- 22 — CBD Density Bonus Amendment REQUEST: This staff proposed amendment will remove two adopted criteria components, fee simple ownership and wood construction, from the code that has created barriers to higher residential density projects. Planning Manager Kruse presented the staff report as follows: At the request of City Council, City staff is proposing a Land Development Code amendment in order to promote more housing opportunities in the Central Business District (CBD). In 2017, the City increased density in the CBD through a Density Bonus Criteria section in the code, Section 122-249. This change encouraged higher residential densities in the downtown area. The change permitted a maximum residential density in the CBD from the previous limit of 12 dwelling units per acre, to up to 25 dwelling units per acre if five mandatory requirements were met. These requirements included fee -simple ownership, minimum construction material, urban design/architecture, pedestrian improvements, and trail connection. Since the adoption of those changes in 2017, no new residential development proposals have been started or constructed with a density greater than 12 units per acre in the Central Business District. In discussions with developers, it has come to the attention of the City that two of the adopted criteria have created a barrier to higher residential density projects. The two criteria are the fee simple ownership requirement, and the use of construction materials that prohibit buildings from being constructed primarily of wood framing. The development community expressed concern that the fee -simple ownership requirement eliminated the ability to add any higher density rental product to the housing inventory of downtown. Eliminating the fee -simple ownership requirement would allow developers to pursue both fee -simple ownership (condominium) and rental product in the Central Business District. The prohibition on wood framing as a primary material has been a challenge to the development community in delivering new construction at market rates. In order to go vertical in a cost- effective manner, wood framing should be considered as an option. With a smaller footprint to June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 12 build on, residential development in the CBD will have to go higher in order to achieve increased density. Wood framing is an affordable and safe solution, especially when combined with a masonry first floor podium. Requiring only masonry, precast concrete, and/or steel components as a primary material drives costs out of market for a project. Modifying this criterion in no way jeopardizes the safety requirements of projects and is authorized in the Building Code. City staff has received significant feedback from builders and developers that support changes to this section of the code. Staff is proposing to remove the fee simple requirement and the prohibition on primarily of wood framing. Staff is recommending approval of Ordinance 2020- 22. Chairman Smith opened the floor to the public. No one from the public commented Chairman Smith brought it back to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Krzyminski asks Chairman Smith how wood is compared to what is being done currently and how it could be affected with humidity and hurricane season. Chairman Smith explains how the wood that is being used now is good and has had a positive experience with houses constructed with wood in hurricane season and makes building affordable. Chairman Gustafson wanted to clarify that the first floor would be concrete block and the rest of the structure could be wood. Mr. Kruse explains that it's not specified in the ordinance but if board wants to add that criteria it can be done. Commissioner McAllister asked Mr. Mantzaris is the City has plans into increasing the height requirement of the CBD. Mr. Mantzaris and Mr. Kruse has not heard of any changes in the CBD height requirement. Commissioner Krzyminski suggests making the change to the ordinance with the amendment that the first floor exterior walls must be concrete block. Mr. Kruse's only concern is if someone meets the Florida Building Code. A motion was made by Commissioner Krzyminski to approve as presented Ordinance 2020-22, seconded by Commissioner Colby. Vote passed unanimously 7-0, with everyone voting in favor. June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 13 City of Clermont Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 With no further comments, Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M. ATTEST- �I' Curt Henschel, Planning & Development Director June 2, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 14