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