Loading...
10.05.2021 P & Z MinutesCity of Clermont MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 5, 2021 The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order on Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Krzyminski. Members present were: Chairman Max Krzyminski, Lavonte Rogers, Vincent Niemiec, David Colby, Joe Gustafson, Jane McAllister and Chuck Seaver. Also present for City staff was City Attorney Dan Mantzaris, Planning Manager John Kruse, Senior Planner Regina McGruder, and Planning Coordinator Rae Chidlow. MINUTES: MOTION TO APPROVE the September 7, 2021 minutes of the Planning & Zoning Board as amended made by Commissioner Rogers. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colby. Passed unanimously. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSION: Commissioner Niemiec stated that Lake County BOCC approved The Groves for 661 homes. He stated that he wanted to give a shout out to South Lake TV for keeping Clermont informed. Commissioner Rogers thanked city staff for the work they do. Chairman Krzyminski stated he attended the Sips and Salsa and there was a good turn -out. NEW BUSINESS Item #1: Ordinance No. 2021-024 — The Vue Small -Scale Comp Plan Amendment Request: Consider a request for a Small -Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6.63 +/- acres. The applicant is requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Commercial. Item #2: Ordinance No. 2021-025 — The Vue Rezoning Request: Consider a request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance 2017-24 on approximately 30 acres to allow multi -family units and to include additional acreage with the workforce housing density bonus criteria. Planning Manager John Kruse presented the staff report for both items as follows: The applicant has two applications under consideration. The first application is for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change a portion of the property from Low Density Residential to Commercial. The second request is for an amendment to PUD Ordinance 2017- 24. The applicant is requesting these amendments to: (1) grant approval to construct multi -family units on the Hooks Street frontage and (2) to add approximately 6.6 acres South of Hooks Street to the PUD to be utilized for workforce rental housing. Small -Scale Com rehensive Plan Amendment: The Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for property located south of Hooks Street, between Miss Florida Avenue and Excalibur Road. The parcel is approximately 13.3 acres with a Page - 1 portion consisting of 6.63 acres for the requested change. The whole parcel is not seeking the Future Land Use Amendment. When reviewing requests for new Commercial Future Land Use designations, the Comprehensive Plan provides the following guidance: Objective 1.9: Commercial Land Use Cate o . The commercial category is established to assure availability of sufficient office and commercial sites to serve the needs of the existing and projected population. In addition to office and commercial uses, residential uses are allowed, preferably as mixed -use, high -density developments, as well as supportive accessory uses, churches and schools as conditional uses, minor public utilities (i.e., telephone switching stations, lift stations, drainage infrastructure, and similar facilities), parks and open space, municipal facilities and other civic and cultural uses subject to standards and performance criteria set forth in this plan and in the land development regulations. Policy 1.9.1: The commercial land use category shall accommodate activities such as general retail sales and services, professional and business offices, personal services and limited residential use. Based on current land use trends, the City estimates that the mix of uses will be 90 percent office and commercial uses and 10 percent residential, public facilities/institutional and recreation uses. The adopted Objective and Policy from the Comprehensive Plan do not support the applicant's request to utilize approximately 50 % of the land area for residential use with no commercial use. Commercial FLU lands are desired for employment and non-residential support uses. Staff has reviewed the Future Land Use amendment request and finds the application also does not meet the requirements of Section 86-226 (3), Review Criteria. The request appears to be singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification very different from that of the adjoining area for the benefit of the owner of that property and to the detriment of other property owners. There has been no data presented by the applicant to justify the modification of the Single Family FLU category. Staff recommends denial of Ordinance No. 2021-024 and the proposed amendment because it fails to comply with Policy 1.9.1 of the Future Land Use Element and Section 86-226(3) of the Land Development Code. PUD Amendment The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment to add multi -family development within the project and to increase the multi -family acreage. The project, approximately 30 acres, is located west of the Miss Florida Avenue and Hooks Street intersection, north and south of Hooks Street, directly north of the East Ridge High School baseball field. The multi -family addition is also seeking the density bonus provision under Section 122-358 of the Land Development Code. Several waivers that were previously approved under Ordinance 2017-24 are now being increased or extended on other portions of the property along with some additional waivers being requested. These include an increase in the depth of cut and fill and the increase in acreage where they will occur along with a waiver to the density bonus section to allow the concentration of workforce housing to occur in mainly one area of the development. The multi- family project to the north will consist of four story buildings. The project to the south will consist Page - 2 of three story buildings. The multi -family project to the north will be a separate project from the south project and developed by two different developers. The south project is seeking funding from the Florida Housing Authority Loan Program for the workforce housing project. The multi- family proposal will consist of 322 units with 97 units designated as workforce housing units. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow the segregation and staff is unable to support this request. While the applicant's proposal to provide workforce housing within the City is commendable, the proposed design of the development does not comply with the bonus density requirements contained in Section 122-358, primary the inclusion of floating units throughout the project. Section 122-358 requires the housing units to be of the same quality and should not appear different and the residents must have access to the same amenities as all other residents of the project. The changes in the development plan include an increase in the depth of cut on the project. Previously, the project was allowed 28 feet cut provision as a waiver. The applicant is seeking a 35 foot cut in limited areas on the site (1.4% of the site), along with keeping the original 28 foot depth. This appears to be necessary since the multi -family portion is moving more into the commercial portion of the site. The previous commercial lots (1-6) had a minimum depth from SR 50 of 250 feet. The proposed commercial lots now have 190 feet, thus this 60-foot reduction has increased the percentage of the overall parcel for the multi -family use, which in turn, is increasing the cut/fill request. In addition, the applicant is requesting the cut/fill waiver on the portion of the property south of Hooks Street. This was never presented to council for consideration in the past since this parcel was always designated as stormwater/open space. The cut/fill plan indicates that a majority of the area for the south development plan will exceed the City's 10-foot limitation. Staff is not supportive of the cut/fill increase, both in depth and in area, as well as the overall percentage use of the Commercial FLU designation for residential use. The PUD application is also incomplete since no traffic impact analysis has been submitted for review. Staff has reviewed the application and proposed project in regards to Section 122-315 Review Criteria for a Planned Unit Development. The proposed project does not comply with the Land Development Regulations, specifically Section 122-358 Workforce Housing Density Bonus and general requirements for granting an amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The segregation of housing type goes against the very principle of providing inclusive housing for all. The density and intensity of the project with the multi -family units has created the 35 foot cut request and 49 foot high staggered retaining walls in the project that does not preserve the natural topography. In addition, no traffic study was presented to analyze the impacts the development would have on the existing road network. Therefore, staff recommends denial of Ordinance No. 2021-025. Jimmy Crawford, 702 W. Montrose St., stated that he is representing the property owner and applicant. He stated there were several there to answer any questions they may have. He stated that the workforce housing is needed and housing is considered constrained if you spend more than 30% of your expenses on your home. He stated that at minimum wage someone would spend about 91 % of their income on today's rental prices. He showed several rentals in the area and their rentals rates. He stated that Clermont is number 3 of the worst cities for affordable rentals, so the need is Page - 3 here. He stated that they are what the City asked for when they ended the moratorium of multifamily. He stated that they are asking for less entitlements than the previous PUD. He stated that there are a total of 4 ordinances previously attached to the property but the important Ordinances is 2016-15 and 2016-17 which gave them the entitlements to the northern portion. He stated that he disagrees with staff that multi -family was eliminated. He stated that in Ordinance 2017-24 does not contain any language repealing any other ordinance. He stated that they are asking for less acreage by 30,000 square feet and doing 2 less multi -family units. He stated that policy 1.9 and 1.9.1 policy does not restrict them. He stated that they currently have a waiver for 28 ft. cut and fill which is 7 feet more. He stated there are no other waivers other than what is already approved. He stated there is waivers for a smaller parking space size and a landscaping and signage along Highway 50 due to topography. He stated that you will be disqualified from FHFC financing if you have floating units. He stated that they will submit the request for the traffic study. He stated that they will provide the proportionate share for turning lanes. City Attorney Dan Mantzaris asked Mr. Crawford if he understood that the floating unit issue criteria required for the density bonus does not comply with the City code the way his client has presented their project. Mr. Crawford stated that he did agree that it does not comply with 122.358. Jonathan Moore, 2419 Albert Lee Parkway, Winter Park, stated that he kept hearing about workforce housing and traffic. He stated that he understands about 10% of the units needs to be workforce housing. He stated that he learned that the leadership of Clermont had two different definitions about workforce housing. He stated that half want housing for the working poor and the other half want to accommodate the fireman, teachers, and nurses. He stated that workforce housing can only do subsidies for the low income. He stated that since his property is divided by a road, he could easily accommodate both income categories. He stated he could sell part of it to someone who works with tax credits for the working poor. He stated now that he has found 2 companies that are experts in each category, his main message is that this is the first project that has come before the City that accomplishes both of what the City needs. Jeff Banker, 415 Citrus Tower Blvd., stated that they minimized what they had to do for retaining walls so they are positioned where they will be least visible from Hooks Street. He stated that they came up with a plan for the cut and fill, trying to keep the grades less than 5%. He stated that most of the cut will be to the rear of the property to hide the retaining walls. He stated they will need to increase the cut and fill by 7 feet in limited areas. He stated that this is the best approach for this property and project. Ryan Studzinski, Woodfield Development, 2601 West Horatio, Tampa, stated that they are based out of the Carolinas and are actively expanding into Georgia and Florida. He stated that this will be the first expansion in the Orlando/metro area. He stated that they are focused on aesthetics. He stated that this property offered a lot of challenges due to the topography but they were able to stagger the buildings to hide the view of the walls. Page - 4 Steve Smith stated that young couples can't afford to buy houses in the City of Clermont which is why more we need more apartments. He stated that they get calls every day from people who cannot afford their rent and need something affordable. He stated that they don't meet all the criteria of the code but they have an opportunity to do something for the people in the community. Marion Ringwood, 1808 Nature Cove Lane, stated that she did not see any retention area. She asked how people will cross the four lane road to get across to where the amenities will be. Mr. Crawford showed where the retention would drain and stated that each development would have their own amenities. Commissioner Rogers stated that he has a hard time supporting the project due to the lack of a traffic study. He stated that Clermont is growing and traffic is an issue. He stated that the classrooms are overcrowded. He asked how many bedrooms for each unit. Mr. Smith stated that 25% will be one bedroom, 50% will be two bedroom, and 25% will be three bedroom. Commissioner Niemiec asked how much the rent will be for each bedroom. Mr. Smith stated $740 a month for 1 bedroom, 2 bed will be $970, and 3 bedroom will be $1150. He stated they have 300 people on a waiting list already. Commissioner Niemiec asked about the lift stations. Mr. Banker stated those are the lift stations to city sewer due to the elevation. Commissioner Niemiec asked where the commercial property will be located. Mr. Crawford showed the four lots along SR 50 where commercial will be. Commissioner Niemiec asked where the extra entrances will be located. Mr. Crawford stated that he misspoke and its turn lanes not entrances that are required. Commissioner Niemiec is concerned with no secondary entry for emergency vehicles. Mr. Crawford stated that they are required to put a wide boulevard entrance in when they cannot have a secondary entrance. Mr. Banker stated that they would have to do a right in right out entrance due to the close proximity of Miss Florida Avenue. Commissioner Niemiec asked what the original approval for the cut is in the existing approval. Mr. Kruse stated 28 feet and now they are asking for 35 foot cut. Commissioner Niemiec stated that he can't support this. Page - 5 Commissioner Rogers asked if the workforce would be on the south portion of the property. Mr. Crawford stated there will be 25 workforce housing on the north portion and 72 on the south side of the property. Commissioner Colby asked 72 out of how many total units will be workforce housing on the south portion. Mr. Crawford said there is 72 units total so all would be workforce housing. Commissioner Colby asked about the rates and the formula for workforce housing. Mr. Smith said they take the medium income of the county. He stated they don't want anyone paying more than 60% of income towards housing. He stated the rent rates will only go up as the medium income goes out. Commissioner Colby stated that 97 out of 322 units is for workforce housing. Mr. Smith stated that was correct. Mr. Studzinski stated that the remaining units would be at market rate. Commissioner Colby stated that he feels there is a living crisis and this location would be a good area for this workforce housing. Commissioner Gustafson asked about current occupancy rates. Mr. Crawford stated the occupancy rates are high because very few apartments have availability. Mr. Smith stated that 98% of apartments are occupied. He stated that there is more demand for apartments. Commissioner Gustafson stated that on the workforce they are not paid enough income. He stated he is in favor of workforce housing and we need to find a way to subsidize. He stated that he is not comfortable with the disagreement on the legal interpretation of on the zoning rules and laws between the applicant and staff. He stated that the traffic study and whether a right in right out is going to be required, should be addressed prior to a request being approved. Commissioner McAllister asked if the rental amounts that Mr. Smith provided are for workforce housing or subsidized housing. Mr. Smith stated there no longer subsidized rent, they are now subsidized apartments. He stated these would be for workforce housing. Commissioner McAllister stated they should not segregate the workforce housing from any of the other apartments and amenities. She stated that is against the rules. Page - 6 Mr. Smith stated that the north side and south side will have two different names. He stated he understands the rules, but these type of units are needed. Commissioner McAllister stated that the Land Develop Code for the workforce housing should not be separate or different. Mr. Crawford stated that the density for the southern part is 10 units per acre so they don't need the density bonus. He stated the northern section has more units per acre so they need the density bonus. He stated there is not enough workforce housing so the north portion needs the south portion included. Commissioner Seaver stated that he shares the concern that there is no traffic study. Chairman Krzyminski stated he is concerned about the traffic study and the floating units. Action: MOTION TO DENIAL of Ordinance No. 2021-024 made by Commissioner Jane McAllister. Motion seconded by Commissioner Joe Gustafson. Passed 6-1, with Commissioner Colby opposing. Action: MOTION TO DENIAL of Ordinance No. 2021-025 made by Commissioner Jane McAllister. Motion seconded by Commissioner Vincent Niemiec. Passed 6-1, with Commissioner Colby opposing. Item #3: Ordinance No. 2021-030 — Prince Edward Rezoning Request: Consider rezoning request from R-1 Single Family Medium Density to R-2 Medium Density Residential for a vacant parcel located on the corner of Prince Edward Avenue and East Minneola Avenue. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from "R-1" - Single Family Medium Density Residential District to "R-2"- Medium Density Residential for a vacant parcel located on the corner of Prince Edward Avenue and East Minneola Avenue. The parcel is approximately 0.42 +/- acres with a Future Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. The rezoning request to R-2 Medium Density Residential will allow for a lot split to create (2) two 75-foot wide lots for the future construction of two new single-family homes. The current lot dimensions are 150-foot wide x 122-foot depth. The minimum development standards for a single- family lot in the R-2 zoning district, requires a lot width of 75-foot and a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. The property located to the north has R-2 Medium Density Residential zoning. The vacant lot is considered as infill development because many of the surrounding properties are already developed. Infill housing is part of smart growth strategies and urban redevelopment to help promote growth and renewal of existing communities. The Clermont Comprehensive Plan encourages and promotes infill development to increase the quality of life and property values in existing residential neighborhoods. Any future development of the lots will require compliance to the Land Development Regulations before the issuance of any building permits. Page - 7 The proposed R-2 Medium Density Residential zoning will be consistent and compatible with the existing residential neighborhoods. The rezoning request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies for residential land use. Staff has reviewed the application and provisions of the land development codes to ensure compliance with the review criteria. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 2021-030. Terry Pitt, 944 5t' St., stated that he is here to answer any questions. Commissioner Seaver asked if both would face Prince Edwards. Senior Planner Regina McGruder stated yes. Action: MOTION TO APPROVE Ordinance No. 2021-030 made by Commissioner Colby. Motion seconded by Commissioner Rogers. Passed unanimously. With no further comments, Chairman Krzyminski adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M. ATTEST: Rae Chidlow, Planning Coordinator Page - 8