Loading...
09.07.2021 P & Z MinutesCity of Clermont MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 7, 2021 The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order on Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Krzyminski. Members present were: Chairman Max Krzyminski, Lavonte Rogers, Vincent Niemiec, David Colby, Joe Gustafson, and Jane McAllister. Commissioner Chuck Seaver was absent. Also present for City staff was City Attorney Dan Mantzaris, Planning & Development Director Curt Henschel, Planning Manager John Kruse, Senior Planner Regina McGruder, and Planning Coordinator Rae Chidlow. MINUTES: MOTION TO APPROVE the August 3, 2021 minutes of the Planning & Zoning Board made by Commissioner McAllister. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gustafson. Passed unanimously. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSION: Commissioner Niemiec stated that the expansion of Hartwood Marsh Road from Highway 27 past Regency Hills has been funded and will not begin until 2023. He stated that the County is hearing a new community on Hartwood Marsh Road of 660 homes and the only in and out will be Hartwood Marsh Road. NEW BUSINESS Item #1: Ordinance No. 2021-021— Karma Housing Comp Plan Amendment Request: Consider a request for a Small -Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 3.04 +/- acres located southwest of the SR 50 and East Avenue intersection. The applicant is requesting a change from Commercial to Master Planned Development. Item #2: Ordinance No. 2021-022 — Karma Housin Rezonin Request: Consider a request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance 2020-01 to increase the number of dwelling units from 36 units to 54 units on the 3.04 +/- acre project through the use of the Workforce Housing Density Bonus. Planning Manager John Kruse presented the staff report for both items as follows: The applicant is requesting a Small -Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (SSCPA) and an amendment to PUD Ordinance 2020-01 to increase the number of dwelling units from 36 units to 54 units on the 3.04 +/- acre project. The project is located at the southwest corner of SR 50 and East Avenue, between Chestnut and SR 50. The applicant is requesting this increase through the use of the Workforce Housing Density Bonus provision found in Section 122-358 of the Land Development Code. The applicant has provided a Conceptual Site Plan showing the proposed buildings, parking, landscape areas and access points for the property. The applicant is proposing three new residential buildings with 18 units in each building. The buildings will be three stories each. A traffic study has been performed and reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer Consultant and the proposed project is considered to have a de Minimis impact on the existing roadway network. Page - 1 Small -Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The applicant is requesting a Small -Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use from Commercial to Master Planned Development. The applicant is requesting this amendment in order to seek an increase in density. Policy 1.2.4 allows a density range of 12-25 units per acre in the Master Planned Development Future Land Use category. The current PUD is currently limited to 12 dwelling units per acre. The proposal with the requested amended PUD in the Master Planned Development future land use is 18 dwelling units per acre. Policy 1.7.2 indicates that the Master Planned Development category is intended for new master planned, mixed -use projects. The proposed project is not mixed -use and consists of residential use only. In addition, a review of the Future Land Use map indicates all the projects within the current Master Planned Development category have a mixed -use component, including but not limited to a combination of residential, commercial, and/or office use. Some examples of these developments are Lost Lake DRI, Plaza Collina, Highland Ranch, and Olympus. The Master Planned Development category is not intended for this type of application, as requested by the applicant. The applicant has not provided any justification for the Land Use change to the Master Planned Development category other than it may permit the requested residential density bonus through the workforce housing provision. Staff has reviewed the application for the Small -Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment and cannot support the request due to conflicts in the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code for the final use of the property. Objective 1.7: Mixed -Use Land Use Categories are established to accommodate a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses as single uses on separate parcels or as a mix of uses within a single development. The proposal is in conflict with this objective and staff recommends denial of Ordinance 2021-021. PUD Amendment The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD Ordinance 2020-01. This ordinance was approved by City Council in January 2020 to allow a total of 36 multi -family dwelling units on the site, which is the maximum density permitted at 12 dwelling units per acre. The zoning was originally C-1 Light Commercial prior to this PUD. The conceptual site plan had two buildings, three -stories high, with 18 units in each building. No waivers to the code were requested or required. The applicant is now requesting an amendment to Ordinance 2020- 01 to increase the existing density by utilizing Section 122-358 Workforce housing density bonus. The applicant is requesting an overall density of 18 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 54 multi -family units. This is an increase of 18 dwelling units over the current approved PUD. The applicant intends to add a third building with 18 multi -family units. In reviewing the application, several items are inconsistent and in conflict with the Land Development Code. The Workforce Housing density bonus (Section 122-358 (e)) of the Land Development Code provides two geographic areas within the City that may qualify for the density bonus. These two areas are the Hooks Street Corridor and Wellness Way Area. The project is not located within the two approved geographical areas and is well over a mile from the closest designated area. Secondly, the applicant is proposing to place all the workforce housing units in one building. The provisions of the Workforce density bonus criteria, Section 122-358 (e), prohibits the segregation of any floating units that are permanently designated for Area Median Income (AMI) Page - 2 qualifying tenants and households within any housing development. The intent and purpose of the code encourages and promotes housing that is inclusionary and attainable for all households. The proposed plan, as identified, would segregate the qualified workforce housing tenants from the available market rate tenants. The Land Development Code requires workforce housing units to be dispersed throughout the development and these units cannot be permanently designated as workforce units. This strategy allows housing for all, and prevents segregation based upon income within any project. The applicant is proposing one of the other buildings as market -rate rentals and the final building will be condominium sales. Staff is very concerned with the management and operation of rentals and ownership within the project and how the proposed management of housing units will be operated within the project. In addition, the Workforce units are required to provide inclusive housing units that will provide the same quality and design, with the same access of the amenities, as the other residents within the development. The length of affordability requires the workforce housing units to remain in perpetuity for the life of the project. The applicant has not provided a management agreement indicating this will be done and how the workforce units will be managed. The agreement must address marketing, applicant screening, the process for establishing rental rates, monitoring Fair Housing compliance, determination of income qualifications, and other elements contained in Section 122-358. Section 122-358 requires 30 percent of the housing units designated as workforce housing. Based upon the applicant's proposal, a minimum of 17 units shall be workforce housing units and the applicant is providing 18 units. In comparing the conceptual plan under Ordinance 2020-01 and the new conceptual plan, several waivers are now required due to the added density. The waivers identified are: 1. The proposal is not in conformance with Section 122-358 for Workforce Housing Density Bonus. 2. The retaining wall along East Avenue does not have the five foot separation with landscaping from the sidewalk, as required in Section 122-343 (e)(8). 3. Required landscape buffers along adjacent rights -of -way for multifamily developments are less than what is required in Section 118-37(f). 4. Landscape islands are less than the required 300 square feet, as required in Section 118- 38(c)(2). Staff is not supporting any of the waiver requests. The applicant has an approved PUD, which allows a multi -family project meeting the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment, through the requested increase of density on the site, has necessitated the waiver requests. Staff has reviewed the application and proposed project in regards to Section 122-315 Review Criteria for a Planned Unit Development. The proposed project, as designed, does not comply with the Land Development Regulations and general requirements for granting a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Staff recommends denial of Ordinance 2021-022. Jimmy Crawford stated that he is the Attorney for Karma Housing for the project. He stated that he does not agree with staff. He stated that they believed when they met with staff that they wanted Page - 3 them to apply for future land use amendment to allow the higher density. He stated that it is not required. He stated that they are not mixed -used and their project is allowed. He stated they did not request any waivers, this is a concept plan. He stated the requirements would be addressed through site review. He stated they thought it was better to put all the workforce would be in one building. He stated they thought that would be better for management since they plan to have one condo that they will sell, 18 market rent units and 18 workforce units. He stated that they could split the workforce units between the rental buildings. He stated that there will need to be an amendment to Section 122-358 to allow this location to the ordinance. He stated that the council cannot pass this without that amendment. He stated that the need is present in the Clermont area for workforce housing. City Attorney Mantzaris asked Mr. Crawford that he recognizes and acknowledges that the Section 122-358 needs amended, however he is requesting for the density bonus anyways? Mr. Crawford stated that yes he does recognized that and asking that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the project along with the amendment of Section 122-358. He stated that he spoke with staff about this previously but he had hoped that staff would have recommended the amendment of Section 122-358 as this project was brought forward. Pat Moore, 1237 East Ave. asked what the definition is of workforce housing. Planning Manager John Kruse stated that the meaning of workforce housing is based on the area medium income that is adjusted each year. He stated that it ranges from 80% to 120%. He stated for example if the medium is $60,000 you take 80% divided by 12 and you come up with a number based on the bedrooms. He stated that he didn't have the exact numbers in front of him, but for example a one bedroom would be $975 and two bedroom for $1250, but it changes year to year depending on the medium annual income. Tom Moore, 1237 East Ave. stated that the parcel is commercial. He stated that if they are going to put an abundance of people on a small piece of property, apart from the legalities, is this really the right spot for this type of project. Otis Taylor, 3686 Caladesi Road, stated that this is a nice project and we need workforce housing, however the location is not sufficient. He stated that it is too condensed. Catherine Pagliazzo, 1271 5ch Street, stated that she does not agree with this project and this is going to put a lot of traffic in this area. She stated the area is already congested and adding 54 units to a 3 acre lot is too much. Ursula Naujokat, 1155 East Ave., stated that it is too congested in this area already and does not agree with the project. Rick, 1155 East Ave., stated that there is so much traffic especially in the mornings due to the school that is just down the road. He stated that adding these units will add to the congestion. Marie Blakesly, Minnehaha Ave., stated that her concerns is the traffic congestion in the area. She stated that traffic already cuts through the neighborhood to avoid Highway 50 traffic. Page - 4 Raul Salabarria, 332 Minnehaha Ave., stated that he is echoing about the traffic and crime in that area. He stated that this property is better suited for professional office. Stephan Testa, 1654 3rd Street, stated that this is a very nice area and stated they should have to meet the design and perimeters of the property. He stated that applicants shouldn't be able to come back and request more for something that has already been approved. Mr. Crawford stated that they are not requesting any variances and the last speaker must be getting his information from the staff report. He stated that he feels they have some additional work to do. He stated he would like to postpone to the October 5, 2021. Chairman Krzyminski asked about the waivers in the staff report. Mr. Kruse stated that when they review the plans they look at what is on the conceptual plan. He stated that the applicant did not request any waivers, however if they don't point out the areas that don't meet the code, they can always come back and say it was on the conceptual plan during approvals. Jean Tirri, 8022 Lake Nellie, applicant, stated that she is disappointed because she has been trying to do this for a very long time. She stated that after approval for the 36 units they realized the cost of construction and that is the purpose of requesting more units. She stated that she has lived here for 20 years and she believes in affordable housing. The additional units are needed to make these units affordable. Action: MOTION TO postpone to November 2, 2021 of Ordinance No. 2021-021 and Ordinance No. 2021-22 made by Commissioner David Colby. Motion seconded by Commissioner Vincent Niemiec. Passed unanimously. Item #3: Ordinance No. 2021-024 — The Vue Comp Plan Amendment Item #4: Ordinance No. 2021-025 — The Vue Rezonin Action: MOTION TO table to October 5, 2021 of Ordinance No. 2021-024 and Ordinance No. 2021-25 made by Commissioner David Colby. Motion seconded by Commissioner Lavonte Rogers. Passed unanimously. Item #5: Ordinance No. 2021-027 — Olympus Rezoning Request: Consider a Rezoning an amendment to the Olympus PUD Ordinance 202o-40 to reallocate permitted uses within the development project along with updating several exhibits. Planning Manager John Kruse presented the staff report for all three items as follows: The applicant is requesting an amendment to PUD Ordinance 2020-40 to make some program adjustments and changes within the 243 +/- acre project. The project is located 1.5 miles south of the Lake Louisa Road and US Highway 27 intersection East of US Highway 27 and West of Schofield Road. The project was originally approved by City Council in May of 2019 for a mixed -use project with residential, commercial, office, sports and entertainment uses. The applicant requested an amendment in 2020, which was approved by City Council in December Page - 5 2020, to extend dates and timelines and to shift land uses within the project due to program changes. This amendment included shifting a portion of the residential (multifamily) from the upper northwest corner of the project to the southwest corner. The program capacity and entitlements did not increase or decrease in this amendment. The applicant is now requesting additional program changes, such as increasing the areas for residential uses within the project and decreasing lot width and sizes and including different housing types. The applicant is designating a majority of the lower portion of the project as the residential area. This area is not in the City's utility area and will be served by Utilities, Inc. The upper portion of the project will be served by the City of Clermont and utilities to this area are not in place at this time. Utility service will be extended to this general area via a utility agreement recently approved for the South Lake Crossing PUD to the northeast of this project. The overall base number of residential units, 1088 dwelling units, will not change. The base number of units can be increased to 1413 dwelling units through the use of transportation conversion matrix included in the original Planned Unit Development. The applicant has provided an updated regulating plan and site plan. In reviewing these plans, it was noted in some of the areas that were previously designated for non-residential use have been converted to residential use. The applicant has indicated that these program changes are due to changes in market conditions, the current housing demand, and the pandemic. Staff has noticed that the increase in land area for residential use has increased roughly by 50 acres from the original proposal while non-residential uses, mainly the wave pool area in the northeast corner and the hotel in the southern area, has been eliminated. The applicant has indicated that the residential portion has increased in land area, but the overall residential program has not changed. The applicant has indicated that the non-residential program will continue to be an important part of the project and will come during later phases. One of the most notable changes being requested is found in the Development Standards document, which is exhibit 3 to the PUD. This document provides the specific details of how the project will be designed and developed. In the revised Development Standards document, the applicant is proposing the addition of a townhome product with a minimum width of 16 feet and lot size of 1600 square feet. The applicant has provided a sample elevation and has indicated this would only apply to the interior units within the townhome building with the end units being 22 feet in width. The overall townhome building will range from 2 to 6 units in each structure. The 16' wide units will have a target living area of 900 to 1400 square feet and the 22' wide units will be 1550 to 1900 square feet. Some of the other Development Standard changes include, but are not limited to (1) a change in the side yard setback for detached single-family residential from 5 feet to 3-7 feet with a minimum of 10 feet between buildings, (2) first floor ceiling height in multi -family projects to be 10 feet instead of 12 feet, (3) an increase in the number of habitable stories from 5 to 8 in special use buildings, (4) Shared Parking, and (5) Construction Phase Flexibility. At time of this amendment, the only site development that has been reviewed and approved is the 289 multi -family apartments in the southwest corner of the project. This site is referred to as the Integra Heights project within the Olympus development. The applicant is still working on the transportation impact fee agreement with Lake County and this project may not commence vertical construction until the transportation impact fee agreement is fully executed. A revised Page - 6 location for the fire station within Olympus has been proposed on the east side of the project on Schofield Road, south of Wellness Way. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments and timing of improvements. Staff recognizes the challenges and impacts due to the pandemic on this project along with changing market conditions and demands. The proposed smaller lot widths of the townhome product is untested in Lake County and within the City of Clermont. The applicant has indicated a similar project has been constructed in Laureate Park at Lake Nona and has been successful. Staff will be looking to Council for their review and approval of this new product within the City of Clermont, if the Council desires to support this type of product. Overall, the proposed amendments by the applicant are within reason and staff would expect timelines and program changes to occur within a project of this magnitude. The applicant is aware staff is unable to support Section 3.9.3 Shared Parking and Section 9 Construction Phase Flexibility in the Development Standards, as presented. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant on these sections and keep the applicant's timeline moving forward due to contractual obligations. The applicant understands that these items will be addressed and resolved prior to the final City Council hearing and in the event they are not, it will be continued until such time they are resolved. Staff has reviewed the application and proposed project in regards to Section 122-315 Review Criteria for a Planned Unit Development. The proposed project as designed complies with the Land Development Regulations and general requirements for granting an amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The submitted site plan along with the detailed exhibits indicates a complete uniform development plan once the program fully develops. The phasing and timing of the project has had some challenges and changes, in which the applicant is requesting this amendment. Some of the timeframes have been pushed further out due to the pandemic and when the northern utilities and road network will be available. Staff is able to support these requests with the understanding Council is in support of the townhome product and the two sections in the Development Standards are resolved to staff s satisfaction prior to the final City Council hearing. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 2021-027. Mike Carroll, 14292 Shocklach Drive, Winter Garden, stated that he is one of the founders of Olympus. He stated that they are combining sports, wellness, and health with entertainment, hospitality and community all in one destination. He stated that they have partnered with a leading orthopedic group and sports performance center maximizing athlete performance in this sports campus. He stated they are now entering into a contract with one of the biggest developers of medical offices in the country. He stated that on the residential side they have David Weekly Homes who can offer quality. He stated that this requires an adjustment to the land use. He stated that they have also allocated multifamily residential entitlements to senior living which requires a smaller footprint and has less impact on traffic. Commissioner Niemiec asked if the changes violate the green space requirements. Mr. Kruse stated that the changes do not violate the green space requirements. Commission Gustafson asked if the date to move dirt is June 2022 or have they started moving dirt. Page - 7 Mr. Carroll stated they plan to move dirt this fall. Commissioner Gustafson asked if there will be any impact on the existing facilities that already provide training, health, and rehab. Mr. Carroll stated that what they are doing will complement the NTC. He stated that the difference will be they will also offer the competition venue. Commissioner McAllister asked if the hotel will still be built. Mr. Carroll stated that there will be a couple of hotels on site. He stated that two hotel sites will be in what is considered the town center. He stated that there will also be a couple of larger hotels. Commissioner Niemiec asked about the existing grove trees. Mr. Carroll stated that they will preserve as much as they can but being practically speaking it's difficult. Chairman Krzyminski asked if they were getting rid of a hotel and the wave pool. Mr. Carroll stated they are getting rid of the wave pool, but they are not getting rid of a hotel, they just relocated it on the site. They also added the senior living. Action: MOTION TO APPROVE Ordinance No. 2021-027 made by Commissioner Gustafson. Motion seconded by Commissioner McAllister. Passed unanimously. With no further comments, Chairman Krzyminski adjourned the meeting at 7:50 P.M. Maxkjns hairman ATTEST: �(U , r Rae Chidlow, Planning Coordinator Page - 8