03-03-1992 Regular Meeting• ~
MINUTEB
PLANNING & ZONING COMMT88ION
Marsh 3, 1992
The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order
Tuesday, March 3, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman John Sargent.
Members present were Dan Smith, Adelbert Evans, Joseph Wiebush,
Marilyn George, James Brown,~Wendell McDannel and Joseph Janusiak.
Member Bonnie Kranz was absent. Also attending were Lanny Harker
Planning Director and Mimi Shaw Planning Technician.
MINUT88 of the meeting held January 7, 1992 were approved as
presented.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
Nominations for Chairman and Vice-Chairman
Adelbert Evans nominated John Sargent for Chairman and Marilyn
George for Vice-Chairman, seconded by James Brown. There being no
other nominations the nominations were closed. Mr. Sargent was
elected Chairman and Ms. George Vice-Chairman by a unanimous vote.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Caren Haight - Pretty Paws Pet Parlor
OWNER: Caren Haight
LOCATION: 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive
ZONING: C-2 (General Commercial District)
REQUEST: To allow the expansion of the existing facility and allow
the joint use of a single family residence and a pet
grooming facility in a C-2 (General Commercial District).
Mr. Harker informed the Commission that the subject site is located
west of the Emerald Lakes Plaza and both north and east of the
Emerald Lakes Mobile Home Park. Historically, the property has
been utilized as a Radio Station (WWFL), a congregate care living
facility, and the most recent use as a combination residence and
beauty parlor, so there has been a multitude of various uses
located on this site.
Mr. Harker further noted that the property is located in the C-2
zoning district and the use is consistent with the Future Land Use
District designation (NED-1}, and the Generalized Future Land Use
Map designation which is commercial use.
The city staff recommends approval of the proposed use based upon
the historic commercial nature of the property and compliance with
both existing zoning and future land use designation of the site.
However, approval shall be conditioned as follows:
1. The property must be developed in substantial accordance with
an approved site plan.
2. All applicable rules and regulations shall be met, including
final site plan approval, landscaping, drainage, parking and
sign regulations. All required landscaping must be served
with a permanent irrigation system and must be properly
maintained. The drainage and stormwater retention
requirements of the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
met, and approved by the City Engineer. These areas must be
properly maintained.
1
• •
3. No further expansion of the use or additions to this facility
shall be permitted beyond the 240 sq. ft. addition proposed
for this use except as approved by another Conditional Use
Permit.
4. This property may be used as a single family residence as the
primary use and a pet grooming shop as a secondary use only.
No other business operation may be conducted from this
facility.
5. Standard building codes regulating the dual occupancy of a
commercial use within a residential dwelling shall be adhered
to.
6. The final Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until each
of the stated conditions has been met.
7. This permit shall expire if construction has not begun within
one year of the date of this Conditional Use Permit.
8. If any of the stated conditions are violated, the applicant
understands and agrees that the City Council may revoke this
Conditional Use Permit by resolution.
Mr. Smith asked in regard to condition #7 if the addition must be
built prior to the building being used as a pet parlor or could the
business begin and continue if the addition were not built.
Mr. Harker replied that the business could begin and continue
without the addition.
Further discussion followed. The wording of condition #7 was
changed to read "this permit shall expire if the use has not begun
within one year of the date of this Conditional Use Permit".
A motion was made by Don Smith that the Commission recommend to the
City Council approval of this request as presented with the
amendment to condition #7, seconded by Adelbert Evans. Approved by
a unanimous vote.
2. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL U8E PERMIT
APPLICANT: SunBank, N.A. - Clermont Branch
AGENT: Don Wickham, President
GENERAL LOCATION: Southeast corner of Highway 50 and Almond
Street - Clermont
ZONING: C-2 (General Commercial District)
APPROX. ACREAGE: 2.100 acres +/-
REQUEST: To allow integrated parking, ingress/egress and water
retention in the C-2 (General Commercial Business
District).
Mr. Sargent referenced the letter from SunBank dated March 2, 1992,
withdrawing the application.
2
• •
3. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Tom K. Dougherty - JOKA Properties, Inc.
OWNER: Tom K. Dougherty
GENERAL LOCATION: Southeast corner of Disston and Almond Street -
Clermont
ZONINGS R-3 {Residential/Professional District) and C-2
(General Commercial District)
APPROX. ACREAGE: 1.708 acres +/-
REQUEST: To allow construction of a two-story office complex with
integrated parking, ingress/egress and water retention in
the R-3 (Residential/Professional District) and the C-2
(General Commercial Business District).
Mr. Harker informed the Commission that SunBank had withdrawn their
CUP request due to a deadline date they must meet and the SunBank
project independently does not require a CUP. Therefore the site
plan that has been submitted with Mr. Doughertys' request is no
longer germane. Based on these circumstances staff does not feel.
that a recommendation can be made, due to the revisions that will
have to be made to the site plan. Staff is therefore recommending
postponement of action for 60 days.
Marilyn George asked what the advantage would have been for these
two applications to be considered together.
Mr. Harker replied that the advantage to SunBank would have been
that they would have ingress/egress from Disston Avenue, that is
also where they were proposing most of the traffic flow from the
drive-thru be directed. The second advantage to SunBank was that
they would also have joint water retention areas.
Tom Dougherty, applicant, apprised the Commission that the proposed
addition to the SunBank would still be consistent with the existing
site plan and that if his CUP is approved they will join back in
with his project.
Mr. Dougherty further explained the layout of his property and the
basis of his pending variance request.
Mr. Dougherty stated that on approximately April 17 he learned that
the adopted Comprehensive Plan of Clermont states that only 18~ of
a parcel can be utilized as the floor area zatio. He feels this
density is too low for commercial property. When only the
footprint of the building is considered in the floor area ratio his
proposed building only covers 12~ of the parcel, however, when
considering both floors this becomes 24~, which he also feels is
too low of a density for commercial property.
Mr. Sargent asked what the floor area ratio would be for the
property owned by SunBank.
Mr. Dougherty replied 8.4~.
Mr. Dougherty asked the Commission what their interpretation and
meaning of floor area ratio was when they recommended approval of
the Comprehensive Plan. Did the Commission intend this to mean
every floor or was this intended to mean the footprint of the
building.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Dougherty if his proposed building, as shown on
the site plan, would be totally on property owned by him, without
the land transfer from SunBank.
3
•
•
Mr. Dougherty replied that a portion of the proposed building on
the east is on property owned by SunBank and more land would have
to be acquired on the south to meet the proposed setback. SunBank
has stated that the land transfer would still be completed. This
could be made a condition of the CUP.
Mr. Evans stated that the site plans submitted with this
application are now defunct, this has become two separate projects
with the withdrawal of SunBanks application.
Further discussion followed regarding floor area ratio coverage.
Mr. Sargent recounted that he felt the most critical issue was that
the Commission does not have an accurate site plan for the project
that is being presented.
Mr. Dougherty explained that he can obtain all of the property
shown on the site plan. Tabling this request is not going to
correct the problem of the floor area ratio problem, which needs to
be defined.
Mr. McDannel felt that this should be researched further before a
decision could be made.
Mr. Harker stated the ruling of the definition of floor area ratio
should either come from the City Attorney or the City Council.
There are problems with the proposed project other than the floor
area ratio, such as the possibility of opening Disston Avenue into
SR 50, which would then involve FDOT and could take quite sometime.
In addition, legally the applicant does not have formal approval of
SunBank to include that portion still under their ownership.
A motion was made by Adelbert Evans to table this request for 60
days, seconded by Wendell McDannel.
There being no further business the meeting was ad3ourned.
{, 7
P/ John N: Bargen~t`', Ch~lirman
ATTE8T:
Mim' Bhaw, planning Technician
4