Loading...
06-06-2000 Regular Meeting• CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order Tuesday, June 6, 2000 at 7:00 P.M., by Chairman Elaine Renick. Members present were Charles Forth, Bill Rauch, Garrett Paquette, John Atwater, Frank Caputo and Wanda Andrews. Richard Tegen and Misty O"Bar were absent. Also in attendance were Barry Brown, Director of Planning, Mimi Ogden, Planner I, Robert Guthrie, City Attorney, and Jane McAllister, Planning Technician 2. Since the next meeting of the Commission would fall on the Fourth of July it was agreed hat it should be held on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, 7:00 P.M., in the Community Room at the Police Department. MINUTES of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held April 4, 2000 were approved with the requested revisions. MINUTES of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held May 2, 2000 were approved with the following corrections; page 7 the woodlands referred to by Elaine Renick should be "The Woodlands", and an interjection by Charles Forth that on page 10 where it says "the members of the commission received a letter from Farner Barley" he did not receive his until a day after the meeting. Chairwoman Elaine Renick announced that Ordinance No. 300-C would be moved from last on the agenda to the second order of business. 1. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Community Care and Rehabilitation Center Inc, OWNER: Bob Thompson REQUEST: To amend an existing Conditional Use Permit, Resolution No. 979, to allow for the continuing operation of a rehabilitation center and adult day care facility which provides speech, occupational, and physical therapy. LOCATION: 347 North Highway 27. On the west side of U.S. 27 and north of Grand Highway. EXISTING LAND USE: The subject parcel is located in a professional office complex. FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICT: Undeveloped District - 3 (UD-3). • ~J CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 Page-2- FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Commercial EXISTING ZONING: C-2 General Commercial District. Planning Director Barry Brown gave a summary of the CUP stating that the rehabilitation center has been operating under a CUP at this location since January 1997. The current CUP expired March 6, 2000 and the applicant is requesting the renewal of the CUP. The requested use is in accordance with land use designations and zoning and is an appropriate use at this location, therefore staff recommends approval with the stated conditions. Elaine Renick asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against this CUP. There was no response so Ms. Renick turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion. Elaine Renick asked if there would be any changes from the previous CUP. She was told it was the same as the original, just a renewal. Charles Forth mentioned that there was not a set time limit on this renewal and asked if staff had any feeling on that. Barry Brown answered that there had been two prior CUPs, which were of a temporary nature because the original intent was for Community Care to purchase their own building. It has not worked out that way so there is no reason to put a time limit on this CUP. Frank Caputo asked if it was customary to not put a time limit on a CUP. Barry Brown responded that most CUPs do not have a time limit and that this was a temporary CUP because the Community Care intended to buy their own building in the near future. Garrett Paquette asked if Community Care could change from adult day care to child day care if they so choose. Mimi Ogden explained that the CUP specifically stated that it is for adult day care. • • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 Page - 3 - A motion was made by Bill Rauch to approve the CUP. The motion was seconded by Frank Caputo and approved by a unanimous vote. Elaine Renick asked Barry Brown to present Ordinance No. 300-C. Barry Brown explained that the impervious surface allowed at present in the City of Clermont for a single family residence is 40%. It has come to the attention of the City that this limitation has become a hardship on some developments in the city. He explained that the city has allowed smaller, narrower lots in golf course communities. As a result, on a typical lot, 40% of the lot is being used for the main structure driveways, and walkways, leaving no room for pools, decks, or other accessory uses. Mr. Brown explained that there are two main situations that need to be looked at. One being PUD's. PUD's typically provide open space in addition to what is on the individual lots such as golf courses, parks, etc. Then there are the straight zoning, (non-PUD), subdivisions where no open space is provided. The consensus of the Council at the May 1, 2000 workshop was that when it came to PUDs they were more willing to grant additional impervious surface because of the open space provided with golf courses and parks. Mr. Brown stated that it was his understanding that the consensus of the Council was that PUD's would be allowed up to 65% impervious coverage, with the principal building, walkways and driveway limited to 55%. For straight zoning, (non-PUD) subdivisions, that we would allow impervious surface coverage of 55% with the principal building, driveway, walkways limited to 40 to 45%. This is the way we drafted this ordinance. John Atwater asked if the difference between the regular community and the golf course community was because of density. Barry Brown explained that the golf course community has more open space, and that it is not a density issue. Wanda Andrews stated she has a problem with considering golf courses open space because it is not park space or usable space if you are not a golfer. The other problem is zero lot lines. Just cramming more houses in. Barry Brown responded that what we are doing here does not open the door to increased density or zero lot line. The strong consensus of the City Council is that we will not back off of current minimum setbacks. You can have greater coverage on a lot but if setbacks remain as they are you would never know from the street that there is more impervious surface. • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 Page-4- Elaine Renick expressed a problem with paragraph 2 referring to the older residential areas in the city. She said there are runoff problems now and with additional impervious surface being allowed the problem would get worse. New developments have to address the recharge and that is fine. Bill Rauch asked how other cities in the area are handling this problem and what their percentage of impervious surface is. Barry Brown said that our proposal for PUD's is in line with what other local governments are doing. He further stated that 50% impervious surface is the average being allowed in R-1 zoning in other local governments. Frank Caputo asked if this is approved then residents of Kings Ridge for example would be able to cover up to 65% of their lots with impervious surface. Mr. Brown explained that they would be limited to 55% for principal building, walkways and driveway and the other 10% for accessory use. Mr. Caputo said that was a lot of coverage and it seems that they are trying to put more on less and if we approve this ordinance we are saying sure, go ahead and do it. Elaine Renick suggested that a lot of the problem was that smaller lots were allowed in the first place. Frank Caputo agreed and said that to allow them to put more on less, just doesn't make sense. Charles Forth stated that more developers are using the Miami curb. Kings Ridge has it in some areas, and majority of the property in Kings Ridge tapers towards the street and not towards the golf course. He stated his concern that we are not catching the storm water runoff and sending it to the green space. Typically what we are doing is sending it out to the storm water system of the City. He expressed concern that the storm water systems serving the older lots were designed to the old code of 40% or at the high end 50% Impervious surface area, and therefore the existing system is not going to be able to handle the additional storm water and it will become a burden to the taxpayers down the road. Barry Brown stated that there are not many vacant lots that are not seared by the modern storm water system. Most of the lots that are yet to be constructed on have been approved under our storm water requirements and those of the St. Johns Water Management District. • • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 Page-5- Mr. Brown further stated that all the storm water is conveyed to a storm water retention area where it percolates back into the soil. Charles Forth agreed with that but said it was based on a 40% runoff. Barry Brown stated that most projects were designed for more than 40%. Typically the project engineers use a minimum of 50%. Lake County does not have a per lot restriction on impervious surface, they look at their PUD in total and they assign a percentage for maximum impervious surface such as 45% and that includes roads. Wanda Andrews asked what the long range advantage would be for us to allow more homes to be built on less land when we have a traffic problem now. Elaine Renick stated that it would allow for larger homes not more homes. Charles Forth expressed the opinion that ultimately what happens when you increase impervious surface is that it either drives the buildings to encroach the front yards, side yards, and rear yards. What that does is to create a backlog of variances because people want pools etc. Elaine Renick expressed concern that everyone who is already built out could add on with the allowance of the additional impervious surface. Barry Brown explained that most people are building to the maximum 40% allowed. We need to allow for pools, decks, and sheds. Additional impervious surface would allow for those accessory uses. Frank Caputo pointed out that most new communities are installing community pools. Barry Brown pointed out that more individuals are installing swimming pools anyway. Garrett Paquette suggested that allowing larger homes to be built on the same size lots would create better communities and add to the value of the community. Frank Caputo noted that most of the lots in the Legends are in the 65' range. He is concerned with cramming more people into a smaller space. Garrett Paquette said if a development has 100 homes, that is all it is going to have. Building a larger house on each lot does not necessarily mean having more people. • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 Page-6- Charles Forth said that the issues of lot size and number of lots in a development can be addressed when the developers bring the proposed PUD to the Planning Director for review. Elaine Renick stated that it was obvious that the Commission agrees that there is a problem with the ordinance the way it is written. Barry Brown suggested that the Commission pass the Ordinance on to the City Council along with the concerns they have about the ordinance. Bill Kercher representing Greater Homes stated that the Comprehensive Plan determines how many houses per acre are allowed. Open space and recreational space should be separate and there should be different standards. Charles Forth said he would like to see both parts of the Ordinance become one, and that a uniform ordinance will be easier for the City to control. John Atwater was of the opinion that 40% to 65% is a large percentage of increase. He agreed with Charles Forth that there should be a uniform ordinance. Barry Brown pointed out that although in a PUD the lots are allowed more impervious surface, there is still more open space with golf courses and parks. While in straight zoning subdivision you are not getting any extra open space. Bill Rauch asked if there was some formula or methodology in arriving at 65% for impervious surface. Barry Brown replied that 65% appeared to be a common upper range according to local governments he had surveyed. Wanda Andrews said that in her opinion 65% for impervious surface was too high. A motion .was made ~ Wanda Andrews to deny approval of Ordinance No. 300-C as written. The motion was seconded ~ Frank Caputo and the vote was unanimously in favor of denying approval of Ordinance No,300-C as written. The recommendation to the City Council is 55% total impervious surface for the entire lot, with the primary structure, driveway, and walkways limited to 45%, and with the additional 10% allocated for accessories such as pools, decks, and sheds. This allocation shall apply to all new residential construction. C~ • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 Page-7- 2. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Greater Construction Corporation OWNER: Greater Construction Corporation LOCATION: Hills of Clermont Subdivision REQUEST: To amend the Hills of Clermont PUD to allow for an impervious surface coverage of 55% per lot and to allow for a minimum lot width of 72' at the main structure building line. EXISTING LAND USE: The subject property is residential subdivision. FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICT: Undeveloped District - 6 (UD-6) FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Commercial and Residential. EXISTING ZONING: PUD. Before Planning Director Barry Brown introduced this Conditional Use Permit the applicant withdrew the part that asked for a minimum lot width of 72' at the main structure building line. Planning Director Barry Brown stated that the applicant is requesting an increase in the impervious surface area from 40% to 55% per residential lot. This request is in keeping with the direction of the Council as stated in the attached minutes from the May 1, 2000 workshop. The consensus of the Council is that PUDs with additional open space, such as golf courses, parks, etc., should be allowed greater impervious surface coverage on individual lots. In recognition that all PUDs are not the same, the amount of impervious surface allowed in a PUD shall be addressed on a case-by-case basis and based on the size and nature of the open space provided. Where golf course communities, such as Legends, provide a golf course, their ISA may be 65% while the Hills of Clermont PUD may be 55%. The additional ISA will allow the homeowners to construct pools, decks, and other accessory structures. Staff supports this request for additional ISA and recommends a total impervious surface area of 55% with 40% limited to the primary building, driveway, and walkways. Bill Kercher, 33 E. Pine St, Orlando, FL was sworn in. Mr. Kercher said that he appreciated the two-tier system where 45% of impervious surface would be for primary structure, driveway, and walkways and the remaining 10% for accessories. C1TY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 Page-8- Elaine Renick opened the floor for public discussion and then opened the discussion to the Commission. A motion was made by Charles Forth to approve this CUP and allow for an impervious surface coverage of 55% with a cap for the main structure including sidewalks and driveways being at 45%. The motion was seconded by Frank Caputo and unanimously improved. Planning Director, Barry Brown introduced Ordinance No. 298-C by saying that this ordinance was drafted to recognize what Hartwood Marsh Road may become in the future. We require building setbacks of 50 feet on Highways 50 and 27. Which means any structure has to be 50 feet back from the property line. The reason we want to also apply this to Hartwood Marsh Road is that it is very likely Hartwood Marsh Road will be an arterial in the future and very possibly afour-lane roadway. We currently have an agreement with the County to get 100 feet of right-of-way along the length of Har'twood Marsh from U.S. 27 to the Orange County line. In addition to that we will require the 50 foot building setback. That will allow us to get additional right-of-way in the future if we need it and it will set the proper scale for that point in the future when Hartwood Marsh is a 4 lane divided highway. Elaine Renick commented that it is nice that someone is planning that far into the future. Charles Forth asked if the 50 foot setback would come on top of the 100 foot right-of- way. Barry Brown said that it would. John Atwater asked if the setback would be from the center line of the road. Barry Brown answered that the setback will begin at the right-of way line, which would put the front of a building 100 feet from the center of the road. Garrett Paquette asked if Publix was within these bounds and was told that it was in compliance as far as the setback on Hartwood Marsh Road and U.S. Highway 27. Bill Rauch asked if there was any chance of the City getting any more land now. Mr. Brown answered that the City does not purchase right-of-way and therefore can only get right-of-way from property owners as they develop their property. The City and County are currently exacting as much right-of-way as is justifiable. A motion was made by Frank Caputo that the Commission recommend adoption of Ordinance No. 298-C to the City Council as it is written. The motion was seconded by Wanda Andrews and approved by a unanimous vote. C~ CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 6, 2000 Page-9- Planner, Mimi Ogden introduced Ordinance No. 299-C regarding clarification in the zoning ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to use the same language and to make zoning requirements consistent throughout. A motion was made by Bill Rauch to recommend adoption of Ordinance No. 299-C to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Wanda Andrews and approved by a vote of 7 to 1 with Charles Forth voting against because he was not in possession of an dated version of the Land Development Regulations. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Elaine Renick, Chair an ATTEST: ,,/ ~' 0 ~~ - ~ ., d ~e C. McAllist~(r -Planning Technician II r~