Loading...
06-12-2000 Regular Meeting• CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES ORDINANCE REVIEW BOARD JUNE 12, 2000 The meeting of the Ordinance Review Board was called to order Monday, June 12, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Members present were Elaine Renick, Howard Barry, Carl Palmisciano and George Wood. Council Member Liaison Hope Lamb and Member Robert Stroble were absent. Also in attendance were James Warner, Landscape Architect, Barry Brown, Director of Planning and Mimi Ogden, Planner I. Discussion followed regarding election of a Chair and Vice Chair person. It was the consensus of those present to delay the election of officers until afl members of the Board were present. Minutes from the May 8, 2000 meeting -Member Elaine Renick asked that the minutes be amended to reference the discussion of enlarging the landscape islands to 250 s.f. and note that this will allow the trees to grow larger, providing shade in the parking lots, which will help to lower the temperature of parking lot areas. Discussion followed regarding landscape buffers. Planning Director Brown explained the requirements of the present Code. Member Elaine Renick suggested that perhaps there should be a larger perimeter buffer and eliminate the vehicular use buffer. James Warner stated that he believes it is important that the landscape ordinance require plantings around the perimeter of the building, not just the landscape buffers along the perimeter of the property. Mr. Warner also stated that he feels the City should require more than 1 tree every 50 feet, noting that he feels the spacing is to far apart. Most municipalities spacing requirements range from 30 to 40 feet. Member Elaine Renick stated she feels the Cities minimum spacing should be 30 feet. Member Carl Palmisciano stated that it would depend on the species of the tree, the canopy of a live oak tree is very large at maturity. Mr. Warner stated that he has designed many sites that have live oaks spaced 30 feet apart, the canopies grow together and you have a totally shaded area. Member Carl Palmisciano expressed his concern that a 5 foot wide landscape buffer was not providing adequate room for the root system of the trees. Member Elaine Renick suggested that the City require a 15 foot wide landscape buffer around the perimeter of the property, rather than having different buffer requirements for vehicular use areas, buffers along rights-of-way, etc. Director of Planning Brown concurred that the ordinance could be arranged to include buffers along rights-of-way, buffers along adjacent properties and then some special language for buffers adjacent to vehicular use areas, as the shrubs need to be around the parking lot. • • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES ORDINANCE REVIEW BOARD JUNE 12, 2000 Page - 2 - It was the consensus of the Board that buffer requirements, as presently written, are confusing. The Board agreed that there should only be one buffer, the present language would make one assume that to buffer a vehicular use area you would have 2 buffers, one along the perimeter of the property and another abutting the vehicular use area. Mr. Warner noted that a lot of municipalities are getting away from the 5 foot buffers, realizing that a 5 foot buffer is not wide enough for the trees. Member Elaine Renick asked if a 15 foot buffer was typical. Mr. Warner replied that a 15 foot buffer was not typical, except where you have a commercial project next to a residential area. Planning Director Brown stated that Staff is proposing to require a 15 foot landscape buffer along collector roadways and a 20 foot landscape buffer along arterial roadways (Highways 50 and 27). Member Elaine Renick asked why the buffer width would be different for collector roadways versus an arterial roadway. Mr. Warner stated that it is typical to have a larger buffer on roads that have a larger right-of-way. Planning Director Brown noted that there might need to be a different buffer requirement from the western city limits to Grand Highway, as this area is mostly already developed and it could be difficult to have a 20 foot buffer in this area where the lots are smaller. Planning Director Brown suggested that the older section of City have a landscape buffer of either 5 feet or 7 feet, as suggested by Mr. Warner. The area east on Highway 50 and south Highway 27 be required to provide a 20 foot landscape buffer and the collector roadways be required to provide a 15 foot buffer. Discussion followed regarding maintenance and pruning standards and the Code Enforcement staff necessary to enforce such regulations. Planning Director Brown noted that staff has been researching, and would be drafting proposed maintenance and pruning standards that would prevent hatracking of trees and would reference the ANSI 300 pruning standards. These regulations could then be handouts that the City could provide to the public. Director of Planning Brown noted that the present code regarding landscape buffers along double frontage lots (along the perimeter of a subdivision) does not address the width of the buffer, nor does it address the plant materials required in the buffer. Mr. Brown suggested that the code require a minimum 10 foot wide buffer if a wall is provided or a 20 foot wide buffer with berms if no wall is provided. Member Elaine Renick stated that she would prefer the 20 foot buffer with berm to the 10 foot buffer with a wall. Planning Director Brown stated that both buffers could be attractive if done properly. • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES ORDINANCE REVIEW BOARD JUNE 12, 2000 Page - 3 - Mr. Warner stated that most municipalities are requiring walls around the perimeter of the subdivisions for privacy and noted that the landscaping should be located in landscape tracts, not easements. Planning Director Brown noted that requiring the landscaping to be in a tract is also one of his recommendations. By requiring the landscaping to be in a tract it is not a part of the backyards and it becomes the responsibility of the home owners association to maintain. Member Elaine Renick questioned if a 10 foot buffer was wide enough and suggested that the buffer with a wall be 15 foot wide. Member Carl Palmisciano stated that he feels 10 feet is wide enough with a wall. Mr. Warner stated that 10 feet may not be wide enough, depending on the type of trees that are planted within the landscape buffer, as oak trees could cause damage to a wall once they mature. Planning Director Brown noted that staff is proposing that the sides of water retention ponds be irrigated. Mr. Kyle explained that irrigation of the sides would allow the grass to grow and prevent wash outs and gullies, which eventually fills in the water retention areas to some extent. There was a consensus of the Board that the City should require the sides of water retention areas to be irrigated. Regarding tree replacement, Planning Director Brown noted that the present code requires tree replacement at a ratio of inch per inch, regardless of why the tree is removed. Mr. Brown explained that there are basically 3 categories that a tree removal permit would fall into. The first is a dead or dying tree, the second removal of a tree to construct a home, and third is someone who wants to take a tree down for no reason. Mr. Brown stated that he does not feel a tree should have to be replaced inch for inch if a tree is dead or dying, perhaps just replace it with a tree that meets the minimum size standard of the code. Mr. Warner asked if this would apply to vacant property. Mr. Brown noted that this should not apply to vacant lots. Planning Director Brown gave, as an example, an existing residential lot that has some mature live oaks and one of the 48" oak trees dies. Mr. Brown explained that the property owner wouldn't have enough room on the property to replace the tree inch per inch and should not be required to do so. Mr. Brown suggested that in this situation, the owner should be required to replace the tree with 1 tree that meets the minimum size requirement of the code. Mr. Warner stated that if there were 10 trees on a residential lot, and 1 dies it should not have to be replaced, as the code only requires 3 trees. Member Elaine Renick suggested that a tree should not have to be replaced if it is destroyed by an act of god, such as a hurricane. It was the consensus of the Board that if a tree needs to removed because it is dead or dying, it should only have to be replaced if there are not enough trees on the property to meet code (i.e. 3 for a residential lot) and should the tree have to be replaced, it could be replaced with a tree that meets the minimum size and height requirement of the code, not inch for inch. • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES ORDINANCE REVIEW BOARD JUNE 12, 2000 Page - 4 - Regarding removal of a tree to construct a home, Member Elaine Renick stated that she feels in this situation they should have to replace the tree inch for inch. Planning Director Brown recommended that the code require less than inch for inch replacement (perhaps'/ inch to one inch). Planner Ogden explained that the only trees that can be removed for construction of a home are those trees that actually need to be removed to construct the house pad. Planning Director Brown stated that staff would rewrite the landscape buffer requirements, based on the comments received from the Board, and present it to the Board again. Member Elaine Renick stated that once staff has completed the changes to the landscape ordinance, she would like to have the ordinance brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission in a workshop, rather than a regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting was adjourned. Chairman ATTEST: Mimi Ogden, Planner I