Loading...
07-07-1987 Regular Meeting• • CITY OF CLERAIONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1987 The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order on July 7, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman John Sargent. Members attending were Adelbert Evans, Debbie Gaines, Cecil Smart, Don Smith, Marilyn George, Ron Carden and Curt Dicamillo. Gloria Johnson was absent. Also attending were Leonard Baird City Attorney, and Jane Warren Planning and Zoning Technician. MINUTES of the meeting held June 2, 1987 were approved as presented. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Sargent introduced ITEM NO. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ESTHER BROWN Mrs. Brown is requesting a Conditional use Permit to repair her home located on the NE corner of Hwy. 50 at Lake Avenue. The home was damaged by fire to the extent of more than 50~. SECTION 26-40 of the Zoning Ordinance states that any non-conforming building which has been destroyed or damaged by fire to the extent of 50~ or more shall thereafter conform to the zoning provisions. The house is non-conforming regarding lot size and required setbacks. Section 26-40 further states that a Conditional Use permit may be issued for reconstruction after consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council if it is determined that the reconstruction is not obnoxious or detrimental to the district in which it is located and when the denial of a Conditional Use Permit would created an unnecessary hardship on the owner. In a memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission Mr. Saunders recommended approval of this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. No further expansion of the use or additions to this facility shall be permitted except as approved by another Conditional Use Permit. 2. This property may be used as a residence only. No other operation may be conducted from this facility. This Conditional Use Permit is not transferable to any other business use, person or corporation. 3. Driveway entrance from Lake Avenue shall be paved to city specifications from edge of pavement to property line. Two offstreet parking spaces shall be provided. 4. The entire exterior of the house shall be repaired, or otherwise refurbished for uniformity in appearance. 1 • • 5. 6. 7. The final Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until each of the stated conditions has been met. This permit shall expire if construction has not begun within one year of the date of this Conditional Use Permit. If any of the stated conditions is violated, the applicant understands and agrees that the City Council may revoke this Conditional Use Permit. by resolution. After a brief discussion a motion was made by Mr. Evans to recommend to the City Council approval of this request be granted subject to the conditions listed on the Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Cecil Smart and approved by unanimous vote. Mr. Sargent introduced Item No. 2 ITEM N0.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - BY HIS SPIRIT MINISTRIES, ING. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish a church in the building located on the NW corner of the intersection of Hwy 50 and Grand Highway. The applicant proposed to use a portion of the building for an electronics store and the remainder for a church Parking has always been a problem at this site so it is important that the problem be addressed. Condition # 2 will prohibit parking on the south and east of the building. The building is setback approximately eight (81 feet from the Grand Highway right-of-way and 5' from the Hwy 50 right-of-way which creates a visibility problem. Mr. Saunders, in a memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission, recommended approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The property must be developed in substantial accordance with an approved site plan. 2. Required parking spaces must be delinated. No parking will be allowed on the south or east of building. If, at a future date, parking at this site proves inadequate, the applicant understands and agrees that the City may require additional parking or rescind this Conditional Use Permit. 3. No further expansion of the use or additions to this facility shall be permitted except as approved by another Conditional Use Permit. 4. All applicable rules and regulations shall be met, including final site plan approval, landscaping, drainage, parking and sign regulations, and all yard setbacks. 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. 5. This portion of the building may be used as a church only. No other business operation may be conducted from this facility. This Conditional Use Permit is not transferable to any other business use, person or corporation. 2 • • 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 is violated, the applicant understands and agrees that the City Council may revoke this Conditional Use Permit by resolution. Pastor Nicholas Leone was present as the representative of the church. Mr. Don Smith expresssed his concerns regarding the establishment of churches in commercial districts, referring to Ordinance h7o. 243-C which restricts the sale of alcholic beverages within 500 feet of a church. Mr. Smith recommended that the Commission request the Council review and amend this ordinance to eliminated the restriction on future businesses, or amend this ordinance to also restrict any church from being established within 500 feet of a business serving or selling alcholic beverages. Mr. Smith also stated in the past the Council granted a Conditional Use Permit, with a time limitation, when it was advised by the church that the request was for temporary housing. Mr. Smith questioned the legality of such a condition. Mrs. Nicholas Leone was presented and stated that this location would only be a temporary housing for the church and that the lease is only for one (1) year with a six (6) month option. Mr. Carden and Mr. Evans both concured with Mr. Smith, and stated they felt the restrictions, if any, should be equally applicable to both parties. Mr. Smart questioned if the church could waive the restriction that would be imposed on futures businesses wishing to sell alcholic beverages within 500 of a church. Mr. Baird advised the commission that it would not be proper to violated an existing ordinance, by stipulating a condition through a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Baird also stated he felt the ordinance would be revised within the next six (6) months. Mr. Baird suggested that if the denial of this request, that This would allow the applicant period, otherwise they would be period of one (1> year. Commission wanted to recommend they do so "without prejudice". to refile after a three (3) month restricted to the normal refiling Mr. Evans made a motion to table this request, without prejudice, until Council reviews the existing ordinance. The motion required no second, Mr. Evans opened the motion to discussion, without an immediate vote. Mr. Smart expressed his concerns for the church, but felt it necessary to also be watchful of the rights of the property owners in the commercial districts, and strongly suggested the Commission request the Council to address revision of the Ordinance as soon as possible. 3 • At this time Mr. Baird recommended, rather than tabling this request, to deny it without prejudice, which would allow this request to be presented to council. Mr. Baird alluded to the point that the Council, would be aware of the time frame in which an amendment to this ordinance could be adopted, which could be a consideration in reviewing this request. At this time Mr. Evans withdrew his motion. Mr. Evans proceeded to motion, that the Planning and Zoning Commission, recommend to Council denial of the request, without prejudice, seconded by Mr. DiCamillo. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. Mr. Sargent introduced item No. 3. REZONING REQUEST - WILLIAM SEGAL Mr. Segal is requesting the rezoning of this property located on the SE corner of Highway 50 and East Avenue. The property is now zoned R-3 Residential/Professional. Mr. Segal is requesting rezoning to C-1 Light/Commercial. Mr. Saunders in his memo to the Commission suggested pages 45- 48 of the Zoning Ordinace be reviewed to compare the permitted uses in R-3 and C-2. Mr. Saunders also stated, the property abuts residential uses on the south and east. To permit C-1 uses in this area would adversely affect the residential uses. The R- 3 zone which allows professional offices is a good transition from the commercial area to the residential area. This is also a busy intersection and the addition of a commercial use in the location would compound the traffic problems. The entrance to the property would be located approximately 35' from the intersection which creates an ingress and egress problem regardless of the use. The preamble and Enactment clauses of the Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the ordinance is to among other things encourage the most appropriate use of the land and promote the general welfare of the City. Because of the location and close proximity of the residential area, I recommend denial of the request. Mr. William Segal was present and stated in order for his to justify his investment, he was requesting a light retail use, and did not want to be limited to professional offices. Mr. Smith mentioned the possible increase of traffic to the intersection of Highway 50 and East Avenue, and reflected the need for caution that already exists when approaching this intersection. Mr. Smith also suggested the C-l Light Commercial would open the area to a variety of uses, and this would limit the City's control of what could be established in this area. Mrs. Gaines stated her feeling regarding the zoning of Highway of 50, which should be commercial, but felt the topography of the land, its location on Highway 50 and East Avenue, made this property an exception and should remain R-3. A motion was made by Mr. Evans, to recommend to the City Council denial of this request, seconded by Mrs. Gaines and approved by unanimous vote. 4 • Mr. Sargent introduced Item No. 4 DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 252 PROPOSED ORDIIvTANCE s AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CITY OF CLERMONT ZONING ORDINANCE NO 245-C, APPENDIX A, AS AMENDED REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILTTY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ADDED TO APPENDIX A FOR ORDINANCE 245-C AS AMENDED: ARTICLE III - DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THE ORDINANCE (38.)ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT Single Family, detached housing, developed in accordance with Article V, Section 26-26A ARTICLE V. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 26-26A Zero Lot Line Development Zero_Lot Line Development may, as a CONDITIONAL USEbe located in zones allowing multi-family development. The following standards, as minimum should be met: 1). Lot Size 2). Lot Width 3). Setbacks 5000 sq. ft. 50 ft. a). Front 25 ft. b). Rear 20 ft. c). Side 0 and 15 ft. d). Setbacks from adjoining unrelated development shall be 9 ft. e). Setback from all street right-of-way shall be 25 ft. except on lots where a rear yard abuts another rear yard, 12ft. on the side adjacent to the street right-of-way shall be required. f). All yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 ft. from the established high water mark. 4). Parking 2 offstreet spaces 5). Living Area 1,000 sq. ft. {exclusive of garages, carports and screen area. 6). Home design or models shall be approved as a part of the Conditional Use Permit. 7). No doors shall be constructed along the zero-lot line. 8). A maintenance and access easement shall be placed on the lot abutting any zero-lot-line yard to permit access for maintenance, construction, drainage, and 5 • other purposes for the benefit of the zero-lot-line lot. The easement shall extend a minimum of 6' perpendicular to the zero-lot-line dwelling unit, and shall also extend at least 10' beyond the dwelling unit along the lot line. This ordinance amends the current zoning ordinance to make provisions for and set minimium standards for zero-lot line development. The zero-lot line concept is to provide a single family detached home at a more affordable price by building on smaller than customary lots. The typical lot is 45' or 50' wide and 100' feet deep. The ordinance proposes that zero-lot line development be allowed in zones allowing multi-family development and only as a Conditional Use. Item #6 of the proposed ordinance requires that alI designs or models must be approved as a part of the Conditional Use Permit, In his memo to the Commission Mr. Saunders expressed the need for sufficient standards be placed on this housing type to prevent a project from evolving into a less-than desirable development. Mr. Baird advised the Commission, that a property owner has requested this type of development for his property, but at this time the Zero Lot Line Development is not addressed in our ordinance. Mrs. Gaines questioned if the ordinance were applicable to the entire city, and was advised by Mr. Baird that it would be. Mr. Evans questioned if a Planned appropriate. Mr. Baird explained, all the requirements in a Conditio acceptable. Mr. Baird stated Development would be a larger parcel would probably prefer a Planned Unit Unit Development would be if the applicant could meet nal Use Permit that would be generally a Planned Unit of land, and the applicant Development. Mrs. George stated she felt there would very little visual effect because of the current side yard setbacks in the City, which allows fifteen {15) feet between structures. Mrs. George also pointed out rear yard setbacks would allow structures to be ten {10) feet closer, which would not be very noticable. Mr. Sargent suggested No. 6. of the proposed ordinance should emphasize "All home designs or models shall be approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit." Mrs. George questioned why there should be that type of control, when there is none in the rest of the City. Mr. Baird stated he felt it was proper to require such a condition in order to create some type of uniformity. Mr. Baird informed the Commission in reviewing several of the ordinances of other municipalites, this provision was part of their ordinance and proved to be benefical. Mr. Smith questioned if the lot line was to be at the wall or at the roof projection edge. His conern being the wall on the lot line and should the design be without a overhang. Mr. Sargent suggested this concern be referred to the City Council for clarification. Mr. Sargent recommended a minimum number of units be set for this type of development. 6 ~J Mr. Smith suggested zero lot line homes only be allowed in a Planned Unit Development only, and setbacks and lot size be addressed individually. Mr. Smart suggested No. 7 of the proposed ordinace should not be restricted to doors only. Mr. Smart recommended the elimination of air ducts, windows and any other opening also be restricted. Mr. Evans recommended the zero lot line development be subject to the requirements of a Planned Unit. Development. After substantial discussion the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the following items be referred to the City Council for review: 1. Establish if setbacks are to be measured to the nearest support for the roof,or to the end of the roof projection. 2. Establish a minimum numbers of units for a development. 3. Stipulate if the Zero Lot Line development will be required under a Conditional Use Permit or under a Planned Unit Development. 4. Eliminate any doors, windows or vents from being constructed along the zero line line. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: ane Warren, Planning & Zoning Technician John Sargent, chairman 7