Loading...
08-01-2000 Regular Meeting• • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order Tuesday, August 1, 2000 at 7:00 P.M., by Chairman Elaine Renick. Members present were Charles Forth, Bill Rauch, John Atwater, Frank Caputo, and Richard Tegen, Misty O"Bar, Wanda Andrews, and Garrett Paquette. Also in attendance were Barry Brown, Director of Planning, Mimi Ogden, Planner I, and Jane McAllister, Planning Technician II. City Attorney Robert Guthrie was absent. MINUTES of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held July 5, 2000 were not approved. Charles Forth wished to add to his statement on page 5 regarding lightened landscape requirements on the interior portions of the parking areas. Elaine Renick also requested an addition to her comment on page 5. A motion was made by Frank Caputo to approve the amended minutes. The motion was seconded by Charles Forth and unanimously approved. 1. SMALL SCALE COMPHEHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: Hovis, Boyette, and Crawford, P.A. OWNER: Lake Estates Housing and Development, LLC. REQUEST: Change the Land Use District from Undeveloped District-4 (UD-4) to Undeveloped District-3 (UD-3). LOCATION: Southwest corner of Bloxam Ave. and Hunt St. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant. FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICT: Undeveloped District - 4 (UD-4). This use is not allowed in this section of the UD-4 land use district. FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Residential. Multifamily is an allowed use in this classification. EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Residential. Multifamily is not permitted in R-1 zoning. SIZE OF PARCEL: 6.7+/ -acres. Planning Director Barry Brown gave a summary of the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment stating that the applicant would like to develop a town home project on 6.7 acres of a larger 16 acre parcel. The proposed project is similar to two projects • • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page-2- to the north of the subject property. North and directly adjacent to the subject property is Tower Grove, a 51-unit town home community. And north of Tower Grove is Southern Villas, a 52-unit town home community. The current Land Use District UD-4 does not allow for density greater than 4 units per acre at this location. To revise the district language to allow for the greater density would require a full scale amendment and approximately 9 to 12 months for processing and State approval. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to change the Land Use District to UD-3, the district adjacent to and east of the subject property. UD-3 would allow for the increased residential density and can be accomplished with a small scale amendment that would be approved in approximately 60 days. UD-3 allows only one use that would be objectionable on the subject property, tourist accommodations. However, the land use classification and the zoning would preclude the tourist accommodation use. Given that the proposed use is similar to other projects in the area, staff recommends approval of the requested land use amendment. Elaine Renick asked for interested parties who would like to speak for or against this Small Scale Comprehensive Plan. Attorney George Hovis, representative of Lake Estates Housing and Development, LLC. pointed out that the neighboring properties were UD-3 and that adjoining property owners in the neighborhood had been polled and that there were no objections to the proposed project. Elaine Renick asked if the neighbors polled had been asked whether they would rather have multifamily there as opposed to tourist accommodations, or were they asked if they would prefer having multifamily there. Mr. Hovis indicated that they were asked if they would prefer having multifamily located there. Mr. Boyette, one of the developers, stated that he had been one of those doing the canvassing and that the homeowners in the area were told that the project would be a multifamily project similar to those to the north, and asked if they had any objection to that. They said they had no objections and that they would welcome it. Elaine Renick asked if Mr. Boyette told those canvassed that there could be 6 to 8 units per acre instead of 4. Mr. Boyette replied that he did in fact inform those canvassed. Elaine Renick expressed concern that if this property should be sold to another C~ • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page-3- developer, under this amendment the density could be as much as 8 units per acre instead of the 6.5 units per acre proposed by the applicant. Frank Caputo asked if owners of the single family lots bordering the property had been asked for their input. Mr. Boyette indicated that the property bordering the multifamily to the west and south was also owned and would be developed by the same organization. Those buying the single-family lots would know of the multifamily project. Garrett Paquette asked if it wasn't the intent that Hunt Street should act as a buffer between multifamily and single family homes. He stated that if we put multifamily in that spot, then people who buy the single family lots are going to be subjected to having multifamily right behind them. Mr. Hovis explained again that the people who buy the lots for single family homes will be well aware that multifamily will be directly behind them. Bill Rauch asked if the single family lots will come on the market at the same time as the multifamily. Mr. Boyette replied "no" to that question. The single family lots will be sold before the multifamily is all built up. Elaine Renick expressed concern that if this was granted and multifamily went in south of Hunt St. that the single family lots abutting the multifamily would not sell and the developer would then~request to build additional multifamily units. Mr. Hovis stated that the developer had done a very good job of buffering adjoining properties from the multifamily section of the development. Charles Forth pointed out that the city realized there needed to be a buffer between single family and multifamily homes and decided that Hunt Street should serve that purpose. Misty O'Bar asked how long Hunt Street had been platted. Barry Brown informed her that it had been platted at least ten years ago. Charles Forth pointed out that the same owners will develop both the multifamily and the single family residences. There will be a CUP required and the Planning and Zoning • u CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page-4- Commission could require above and beyond anything the City Code requires and mandate a forty foot buffer separation between the two types of housing. Mr. Hovis indicated that the developers would abide by the conditions agreed to in the CUP. Elaine Renick stated that she was uncomfortable just increasing the density. Wanda Andrews stated that she is very uncomfortable encroaching on the buffer and that Hunt Street is there for a reason. She said we are looking at additional traffic, and schools, and asked how this project was going to enhance the quality of life in Clermont. Mr. Hovis replied that it will give people affordable housing that looks good, as opposed to being what some affordable housing might look like. Wanda Andrews stated she thinks we have our allotment of affordable housing. She further inquired as to whether these units would be owner occupied or rentals. Mr. Boyette replied that they would be sold as town homes but could be rented out on a long term basis by the owners. Mr. Atwater asked how the city planned to ease the traffic at Hunt Street and U.S.27. Barry Brown replied that Hunt Street would not extend to U.S. 27 but that traffic would go north on Bloxam to Grand Highway, south to Pitt St., or east on Pitt where it becomes North Ridge Blvd. He stated that there is a good transportation network. Charles Forth pointed out that it was a mistake to not have gotten more road right-of- way before everything got built. Barry Brown explained that the city has actively sought and received additional right-of- way along Bloxam Ave. except for the area of Tower Grove. Wanda Andrews asked why the property in question couldn't just switch designations with the property across Bloxam Ave to the east. Mr. Hovis stated that there will only be an additional sixteen units if this is approved. Elaine Renick again pointed out that the property could be sold and someone else could come in and do 8 units rather than 6.5 units per acre. • • C1TY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page - 5 - Barry Brown pointed out that 6.5 units could be a condition included in the CUP. Bill Rauch stated that he was comfortable with the proposed project. Frank Caputo asked if the CUP would run out in the event that the property was not developed. Barry Brown replied that the CUP can limit the density to 6.5 units per acre but that the CUP would run out if the developer didn't build within 2 years. Frank Caputo reiterated that if the CUP ran out the property could then be developed with a density of 8 units per acre. Richard Tegen pointed out that there was an advantage in the fact that the owner was developing both the single family and multifamily. Misty O'Bar stated that if an exception was made in this case then others would seek the same and the density would continue to increase. She stated she was not at all comfortable with this project. Mr. Tegen pointed out that the developer would be responsible to the people who buy into the single family section for informing them that the multifamily would be behind them. If they had a problem with it they would have to take it up with the developer. Robert Crego, Managing Partner for Lake Estates stated that he wanted to clear up the confusion about the buffer situation around the property. There will be a landscaping berm all around the whole project. On the backside of the multifamily, where the single family lots are, there will be ayvater retention area, along with a landscaped berm, and most of the multifamily will not be visible from the single family lots. He further pointed out that the multifamily in his project would act as a buffer from the commercial on the east side of Bloxam Ave. Elaine Renick pointed out that some people in residential neighborhoods prefer to have professional offices next to them rather than multifamily. She recapped by saying that three major issues surfaced, those being that people didn't expect to see multifamily units south of Hunt Street, having the single family and the multifamily abut, and the other thing is the density. Mr. Hovis said that every community has multifamily and that this is the best way to have it. Elaine Renick said she found no fault with what the developers were trying to do, but • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page-6- with the fact that so much multifamily has already been approved for construction. She said that she wasn't sure that the community needed any more multifamily units, and that she feels it is her responsibility to do whatever she can even if it's only a little bit, and that she is not comfortable with the additional multifamily being there. Mr. Boyettte stated that he saw a need for upscale town homes to be built in South Lake County. Elaine Renick asked Planning Director Barry Brown how many such units already are scheduled for the area. How many of the multifamily units being built would be apartments and how many would be town homes. Barry Brown replied that there are 2100 multifamily units approved. About half would be apartments and the other half would be condos and town homes. Richard Tegen made a motion to approve the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion was seconded by Bill Rauch. The vote was 3 to 6 to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with Garrett Paquette, Frank Caputo, Wanda Andrews, Elaine Renick, Misty O'Bar and Charles Forth voting nav. Therefore, the motion was NOT approved. Garrett Paquette made a motion to deny the Rezoning. The motion was seconded by Frank Caputo. The vote was 6 to 3 to deny the Rezoning with Richard Tegen, Bill Rauch, and John Atwater voting nav. Garrett Paquette made a motion to deny the CUP. The motion was seconded by Misty Obar. The vote was 6 to 3 to denv the CUP with Richard Te4en. Bill Rauch and John Atwater voting nay. 5. DISCUSSION OF MINIMUM LOT SIZES IN R-1 AND R-1-A ZONING DISTRICTS. Planning Director, Barry Brown stated that this discussion was brought before the Planning & Zoning Commission for their feedback and that it will go before the City Council in a Workshop on Monday, August 7, 2000. He explained that the minimum for R-1 would be raised from 7,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet and that the minimum for R-1-A would be raised from 10,000 square feet to 13,000 square feet, and that there should also be some minimum dimensions. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES u PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page-7- Elaine Renick expressed unabashed approval that the city was going to raise the minimum lot size. She then asked for comments from the Commission. Wanda Andrews also expressed approval of the idea. Charles Forth brought up the fact that this would not effect anything that is already in the city. But that it would cover areas that might come up for annexation. Elaine Renick asked if there was any land in the City right now that would be affected by this change in lot size. Barry Brown replied that there was some property in the City that could be affected such as the Bosserman property on the west side of south U.S. 27. He further stated that PUD's will likely get smaller lot sizes, but that is usually a trade off for increased open space. Frank Caputo stated that minimum lot sizes for PUD's should be set as well. Charles Forth made the point that surrounding cities are increasing lot sizes to 1 or 2 acres, and that they are not losing any taxes because of it. He said when somebody buys something that big and you have restricted it from having mobile homes or already fabricated housing, then what you see are estates being built. You haven't lost a dime because you haven't had to pay out for services because they are paying for it on the front end. Elaine Renick said that in towns across the country the streets where you see all the trees and the homes on biggel lots seem to be areas that have the character. She further suggested that she would like to send the message to the City Council that the increase in lot size is great and that they shouldn't feel limited to just this increase. Charles Forth expressed the opinion that there should be a buffer between the city and the county, saying that when you have one acre lots in the city and then a structure on ten acres in the county there is no buffer. Barry Brown expressed the opinion that you don't want to create a buffer between the city and the county. What you want to do is to develop joint planning agreements with the county, so that properties that are adjacent to the city will have to develop out under our land development regulations. Mayor Turville is working with the League of Cities to develop a proposal for a joint planning agreement that will be acceptable to the County Commission. Phase 1 would entail getting the Commission to agree that a joint planning commission is a good thing and would include elements such as developing • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page-8- out under the cities LDR's as step one. Phase II would delineate the boundry of the joint planning agreement. Bill Rauch said he could see the advantage for the City in having a joint agreement with the County, but wanted to know what the advantage to the County would be. Barry Brown replied that we would take some responsibility for review of developments from them. The county is short on staff and this would be to their advantage. Elaine Renick commented that a joint planning agreement would be good for the city and the county. Frank Caputo said that the Commission is in agreement with the lar4er lot sizes and should recommend to the City Council that the 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size be moved to 12, 000 sq. ft and that the 10, 000 sq. tt. minimum lot size be moved up to 15.000 sg. ftft. John Atwater asked if the Commission could discuss lot size in measurement as well as in square footage. After some discussion Elaine Renick suggested sending a message to the City Council that there be a minimum street frontage, or a minimum width at the street setback line. Barry Brown said that there is now a minimum 75 foot width at the building set back line and a minimum 50 foot width at the street. Frank Caputo suggested that.a good minimum width would be 80' at the street and the Commission agreed to send that message to the City Council. 5. DISCUSSION OF LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS Planning Director, Barry Brown said that staff had met twice this year with the Ordinance Review Committee which was originally set up to go through and update the old ordinances. They are going to be doing that and the Planning and Zoning Commission will review and revise the Landscape Ordinance and send suggestions on to Council. Included in the packet and made part of these minutes were minutes from the Ordinance Review Committee meetings, along with supporting materials. Misty O'Bar presented an article from the Orlando Sentinel which was passed out to the Commission members and made part of these minutes. • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page - 9 - Barry Brown started the discussion with the first item on the agenda, "Method of Measuring The Size of Required Landscape Trees." He stated that the way trees are measured by the city now is "DBH", diameter at breast height, which is 4.5 feet from the ground. This is the standard method for measuring trunk diameter in the in the forestry industry. The standard however, for measuring trunk diameter in the nursery and landscape industry is by caliper. Caliper is the measurement of trunk diameter 6 inches from the ground. If trunk diameter measured at 6 inches from the ground is greater than 4 inches, then the measurement would be taken 12 inches from the ground. Mr. Brown is of the opinion that we should use the caliper (nursery) method rather than DBH. This way the user of the code landscape architects, contractors and homeowners) would be using the same method as the nurseries. Misty O'Bar suggested that the commission needed to address how the trees would be measured. For example, what type of instrument would be used to measure the caliper. Would it be a tool called a caliper or a tool called a caliper tape. Ms. O'Bar suggested that the caliper tape was the most accurate and that should be the tool of choice. Charles Forth made the comment that the proper height to measure the caliper of a palm tree was three feet, making the point that the standard could change with the type of tree that is being measured. He also pointed out that DBH measurements are useful in the penalty phase as when someone has taken a tree down without a permit. Charles Forth asked if palm trees were going to be addressed. Barry Brown replied that they were going to follow nursery standards because measurements are taken differently on different types of trees. Chares Forth stated that nursery standards are "cut and dried", and that trees are labeled at the nursery, that the installer cannot remove those labels until the trees have been cleared, and for them not to follow this procedure is a serious violation. After additional discussion and clarification it was the general consensus that it would be a good idea to use the caliper taAe as the measuring tool and that nursery standards for measuring would be used. Barry Brown went on to the next section to be addressed "Minimum Size of Required Landscape Trees." He recommended not increasing the minimum size of trees citing the fact that according to the experts who attended the Ordinance Review Committee meetings, larger trees take much longer to become established than smaller trees, cost more and are harder to find. • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page - 10 - Elaine Renick and Misty O'Bar indicated that they were of the opinion that the larger trees were available and that they would prefer having the larger trees planted to begin with. Charles Forth stated that planting a smaller tree that might become established quicker or planting a larger tree will not make a difference if the owners do not maintain them. Barry Brown made the point that according to the experts who were asked, a smaller tree is easier to establish and in 2-3 years there would be no difference between the smaller tree and a larger one that had been planted at the same time. Elaine Renick stated that if the expert, Mr. Fedunak, Environmental Horticulture Agent for Lake County, said that in 2 years you are not going to see the big difference in the size of the tree because the smaller tree is going to catch up with the size of the bigger tree, but he made the point that it depends on what your are looking for. Whether you want it to look good right now or, you want to have to wait. It was the consensus of the Ordinance Review Committee that the minimum tree size should be 3'/z inch caliper. The discussion was between the 3'/2 inch or the 4 inch caliper. No one suggested going smaller than the 31/2 inch caliper. Elaine Renick brought up the point that commercial and residential tree requirements should be treated differently. John Atwater asked what the standard is now and was told it was 3" at 4'/2 feet. He then asked what the measurement would be at 6" off the ground to have the same size tree. The answer was 3 ~/2 to 4 inches. Mr. Atwater stated that it should be 3'h to 4 inches then. _ ~. There was discussion about the difference in the cost of a tree that size and the cost of a smaller tree. Elaine Renick suggested that there needs to be another workshop because there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what the experts said at the Ordinance Review meeting. Barry Brown suggested that the Planning & Zoning Commission continue with discussions until they can formulate a list of things that need to be readdressed and asked of the experts. At that time a workshop could be arranged to clear up any issues that are still in question. • • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page - 11 - Wanda Andrews commented that it maybe that a smaller tree grows to be just as big as the larger tree in two years, but the point is that during those two years we have a bigger tree that looks nicer. She said it would look a little more established, so that gives us two years of looking like we are not strip mining. For Commercial development it was the consensus to keep the tree size that is presently required in place, in spite of the fact that staff feels the smaller tree would be lust as effective. Misty O'Bar commented that cities are giving credits to developers if they use the larger trees on the perimeters, they are allowing them to put smaller trees on the actual home sites. Charles Forth suggested that the city might want to allow bonding for trees that cannot be readily available and have to be put on order for a future date. This would be a way to guarantee the tree would eventually be planted. Barry Brown suggested that the Commission talk about residential tree requirements. Charles Forth said that there are probably enough trees on the lots in the older parts of the city so that the requirements would already be met. On the undeveloped lots the costs are going to impact the homeowners. There could be a recommendation that just one of the trees be of the larger size and be placed in the front yard with the option of putting the smaller trees in the rear yard. Elaine Renick agreed that that could possibly be a solution. Charles Forth suggested that the tree in the front yard be a Live Oak as opposed to a Laurel Oak, and then the homeowner could be allowed to use something else in the rear yard. He also suggested we could have a "Front Yard Tree List. Elaine Renick suggested having a preferred list of trees for the front yard and if one of those trees were used, then the property owner would have the option of choosing smaller less desirable trees to plant in the rear yard. Misty O'Bar suggested a "Don't Count Tree List". That would be a list of trees that could be planted but would not count towards the tree ordinance requirements. • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page - 12 - The next item discussed was "Landscape Buffers Along Double Frontage Lots." Planning Director, Barry Brown explained that double frontage lots are those lots that are on the perimeter of a subdivision and back up to a collector or an arterial roadway. Present code calls for a landscape buffer but it doesn't say how large it has to be. He recommended calling for a minimum ten foot landscape buffer with a wall or a twenty foot landscape buffer with a berm 3 feet high. Frank Caputo asked how high a wall was required now. Barry Brown replied that a wall was not a requirement now. These buffers would be in a tract to be maintained by the homeowners association. There was discussion of walls that surround several of the subdivisions in the area and the various conditions they are in. Charles Forth stated he would prefer to see brick walls because they are maintenance free and look good. Richard Tegen stated that staffs recommendation was in line with that of the Ordinance Review Committee. Elaine Renick made the point that even if a brick wall was built the root system of a tree like a live oak could damage that wall. She suggested that possibly more than a ten foot landscape buffer would be needed even with a wall. Charles Forth suggested that where trees are planted the wall panels could be off the ground to allow room for root systems. Ground plantings could be used to hide the gap. Barry Brown continued with item number 4 "Landscape Buffers Along Collector and Arterial Roadways". He proposed the use of a fifteen foot landscape buffer along collector roads, and possibly a twenty foot landscape buffer along arterial roads. Mr. Brown said that arterial roads would be U.S. 27 and State Road 50, and that examples of collector roads would be Citrus Tower Blvd., Hancock Road, and future Hook Street. Elaine Renick said that the old part of town, west of U.S. 27 would have to remain the same as it is now. Newer construction east of U.S. 27 would be able to comply. Garrett Paquette suggested standardizing the required buffer at 20 feet for all roads. Elaine Renick, and Charles Forth, and Frank Caputo agreed with Mr. Paquette. Barry Brown then moved on to item number 5 "Maintenance Standards". He stated that CITY OF CLERMONT • • MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 1, 2000 Page - 13 this is where we could reference the ANSI standards for the maintenance and pruning of trees. Charles Forth suggested having the property owner pull out and replace trees that have not been properly pruned or have been cut away to make signage more visible. Offending property owners could also be brought before the Code Enforcement Board and made to pay a fine. The discussion then turned to the problem of real estate signs being placed in the right- of-ways on the week-ends. Charles Forth suggested withholding certificates of occupancy from those builders who place illegal signage until the signs are removed. Barry Brown suggested formulating some rules as to where and when builders could erect signs directing people to their projects. Then if the builders did not comply with the rules they would be fined. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Elaine Renick, Chair an ATTEST: ~~ ,;. ~~ ~ 1"L ~ /`~ / /.,~ arre C. McAlli~'ter -Planning Technician II