Loading...
09-02-1986 Regular Meeting• CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEI4BER 2 , 1986 The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order on Tuesday September 2, 1986 at 7:55 p.m. by chairman John N. Sargent. There was a delay in starting the meeting until the chambers could be cleared by the Election Committee, who were tabulating election results. Members attending were Kathy Bloebaum, Adelbert Evans, Debbie Gaines, Marilyn George, Gloria Johnson Buddy Rogers, Cecil Smart, and Don Smith. Also attending were City Manager Wayne Saunders, City Planner Dean Perlick, and Planning and Zoning Technician Jane Warren. Mr. Sargent welcomed to the commission new members Marilyn George and Gloria Johnson. Minutes of the meetings held May 6, 1986 and July 1, 1986 were approved as presented. PROPOSAL N0.1 Mr. Sargent introduced the proposal to change the described property from District UD-5 to District UD-2. Mr. Sargent asked for Mr. Perlick to present the specifics regarding the requested change. Mr. Perlick explained that the property owner is requesting that the property be included in the UD-2 District, which would allow commercial uses. The current zoning and land use district would not permit commerical uses. Mr. Perlick stated he had received several letters from property owners who were opposed to the request. A letter from Mr. James Carroll stated he was opposed to the request because it would disrupt the residential character of the neighborhood. A petition was received from thirty-three (33) property owners opposing the proposal, and requesting the commercial use be confined to Highway 50. Mr. Perlick stated that although there is a proposal to build a 100,000 sq. ft. shopping on this site, the issue of concern is the use of the land, not the approval of the shopping center. Mr. Sargent requested Mr. Perlick read the permitted zoning and usage in UD-5 and UD-2, from the current Future Land Use District Map. Mr. Perlick read the following: Permitted Land Uses UD-5 1. Single family detached residences east of Grand Highway. 2. Multi-family attached residences west of Grand Highway. 3. Directly related land uses such as parks, schools, utilities, streets and other such activities whose primary purpose is to serve only the residents of this district. 1 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES 4. Property designated UD-5 located north of Highway 50 and east of Grand Highway should be allowed high density single or multi-family development not to exceed twelve (12) units per acre. 5. General commercial uses are permitted on Blocks 50, 63, 1, 2, and 15 located west of Grand Highway and north of Hunt Street. 6. Residential development limited to eight (8) units per acre. Permitted Land Uses UD-2 1. Multi-family attached residences. 2. Highway Commercial 3. Business and professional offices. 4. Light Manufacturing. 5. Tourist accommodations. 6. Public and semi-public facilities. 7. Parks and recreation facilities. 8. Directly related land uses such as utilities, streets, parking facilities and any other activities that are compatible with the district. 9. New residential development will be limited to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. Mr. Dennis Horton the attorney representing the property owners, Bob and Gail Wade, stated there is a contract to purchase the property, and the buyer's intent is to develop a quality shopping center. Mr. Horton noted in order to meet the City's requirements for setbacks, parking and retention area it would be necessary to have 1000 ft. depth from Highway 50, and this is the reason for the request. Mr. Bob Wade stated that he has a large stake in the property as do the property owners adjacent to this property, and his major concern was to try and develop something we all could be proud of. Mr. Wade stated the developers want to be assured they will have the necessary depth to proceed in a pragmatic way. Mr. Wade stated he wou 1 d be wi 1 1 ing to go a 1 ong with any type of suggestions regarding berms and ways in which the area could be camouflaged or beautified. At this time Mr. Sargent asked if there were any members of the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal. Mr. Elbert Ritchie of 1248 Grand Highway stated he felt the property should stay as presently zoned, and opposes the proposal. Mr. Harry Camp of 1312 Grand Highway wished to point out the number of residents who are opposed to this proposal. 2 • CITY Ofi CLERMONT MINUTES At this time Mr. Sargent closed the public hearing portion of proposal and refered it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for discussion. Mr. Evans emphasized that the key point we are addressing is not the development of a shopping center but future land use of the particular area in the City of Clermont. Mr. Evans stated, in regard to the letters and petitions received from residents, he felt a change to the Comprehensive Plan would not be advantageous. Mr. Smart expressed concern about the possible development of the property as it is presently zoned without extending the boundaries. Mr. Smart stated he would favor extending the boundaries. Mrs. Gaines pointed out it is important that the concerns of the residents, who were there Iong before any development of the area, be taken into consideration. Mrs. Gaines asked staff, .depending on the development of this property, whether it be residential or commercial, which would more adversely affect the area? Mr. Perlick, in reference to Grand Highway and Highway 50, making use of a study done by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, stated a shopping center of this size would increase the traffic on Grand Highway approximately 128°10. In comparison there would be little difference between the commercial development and full residential development in regards to the amount of traffic that would be generated. Mr. Smith expressed his concerns with drainage and the topography of the land. Mr. Smith stated if we wanted to control the development along Highway 50, it would be wise to allow the change, and be very stringent in our Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Rogers commented that he felt the proposed shopping center would enhance the present neighborhood, and also expressed his concern for the future commercial growth of Clermont. Mrs. Bloebaum expressed her opinion that the property in question is not a problem within the Comprehensive Plan, and any spot changes would be a disservice to the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore opposed the request. Ms. George remarked that two things to be weighed in the developement of the property were 1. the environmentally sensitivity of the area, and 2. the possibility of some undesirable commercial development. Mrs. Johnson stated she was not opposed to the request. Mr. Perlick stated the staff recommends denial of this request for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would allow commercial uses to extend into an enviormentally sensitive area. 2. The property is located across from a single-family neighborhood. Allowing commercial uses here would trap single-family zoning between multi-family and commercial zoning. This could have a negative impact on the future of the neighborhood. 3 • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES 3. The impact of increased traffic on Grand Highway. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the intersection of Highway 50 and Grand Highway is considered hazardous. Grand Highway is currently a minor street and under county control. 4. A shopping Center of this size would attract other commercial uses that would prefer a location adjacent to the shopping center. At this particular site there is no room for growth in any direction. A shopping center more to the east would allow commercial establishments to grow around their center and may attract more businesses to Clermont in the future. 5. Extending commercial zoning along Grand Highway is not desirable, and could lead to other commercial uses along Grand Highway, and additional commercial zoning requests. After further discussion a motion was made by Mr. Smart, seconded Buddy Rogers, and denied by a 5-4, vote to grant the request as petitioned. Voting was as follows: Planning and Zoning Commission members Smart, Rogers, Smith and Johnson, aye; and Sargent, Gaines, Evans, Bloebaum, and George, nay. Proposal No. 2 Mr. Sargent introduced the proposal to change the described property from District ERD-2 to a new district which would allow 12 units of density per acre. Mr. Perlick stated this property was recently changed from R-3 to R-2 to reduce the density from 12 units to 8 units per acre. The property is on lake front and would not be in the character of the the surrounding zoning to allow multiple family of 12 units per acre. The staff recommends the denial of the request. Mr. Perlick introduced several letters from interested parties. A letter was read from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council which recommends the denial of this request, because it appears to be spot planning and should not be encouraged. A letter from Lake County Planning Department stating this request does not conform to the City's objective of low density developement along lake shores. Mr. Saunders explained that the applicant had requested to be placed in another district, which was not contigous with his property, the reason being the district mentioned in his request does not allow twelve (12) units per acre. The applicant was not present, nor were there any responses from any adjacent property owners. Mr. Evans advised this request appeared to be spot zoning, which is against county and state laws. After further discussion a motion was made by Mr. Evans, seconded by Ms. George, and approved by 8-1 vote, to deny the request. Voting was as follows: Planning and Zoning Commission members Bloebaum, Evans, Gaines, George, Johnson, Sargent, Smart and Smith aye, and Rogers, nay. 4 • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES Proposal No. 3 Mr. Sargent introduced the proposal to add the following permitted uses in UD-4: 1. Multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 12 units per acre on Lots 4-7, Block A; Lots 4-7; Lots 4-7 Block B; Lots 5-8 Block D and Lots 1, 2, & 5, Block E. Property is north of Grand Highway. 2. Multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 8 units per acre on Lots 1-3, Block H; Lots 1-2 and 5-6, Block I; and Lot 4, Block E and Lot 8, Block D. 3. Light Commercial on Lots 7 & 8, Block D. Mr. Perlick presented correspondence from East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, which stated "land uses should be uniformly permitted through out a district not restricting to a set location within a district as amendment 3.,1,2,and 3. separate districts should be considered." A letter from Maureen Bell was read, which stated her oppostion, because of possible rental units. A letter from property owners Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Kirkland, which stated they were opposed to the Commercial proposal on Lots 7&8. Staff made the following recommendation: Proposa 1 No. 3.1 Multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 8 units per acre on the property north of Grand Highway. This will allow the density to conform to the Comprehensive Plan guidelines, but still allow enough density to make a Planned Unit Development feasible. Proposal No.3.2 Multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 4 units per acre on the property south of Grand Highway. Because of the slope of the land and existance of two small lakes, low density would be more desirable. Allowing multi-family as a permitted use will make a Planned Unit Development possible, but at a single family density. Proposal No. 3.3 Staff recommends against allowing light commercial on Lots 7&8, Block D. Mr. Saunders stated, from a utility stand point, a high density development would not be in conjunction with our present capabilities. Mr. O.K. Armstrong, was present, representing the property owner, A.E. Langley. Mr. Armstrong expressed an interest to develop a two (2) stage presentation. The first stage being changes to the Comprehensive Plan leading toward density changes, that would allow the owner to come back with two Planned Unit Developments. 5 • • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES In summarizing the land owners proposal, Mr Armstrong stated there are multi-family zones on most sides of the property in question, also he was not aware of staff's opposition to 8 units per acre, south of Grand Highway. Mr. Sargent pointed out that any changes made by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council, in regard to this property, goes with the land and would apply to any new owner or owners of the property. At this time Mr. Sargent asked in any member of the audience would like to speak for or against the proposal. Roger Test of 268 East Avenue, representing 45 residents in the City, spoke in oppostion to this proposal. Mr. Test felt it would be dangerous to change the Comprehensive Plan and that high density would change the entire nature of the town. He also stated the opposition to the commercial request, the size of the proposed development, and the potential traffic problems. Mr. Test gave the staff a list containing the names of the residents he was representing. Mr. Chester Frederick of 234 East Avenue expressed his opposition to the proposal because of the high density. At this time Mr. Sargent concluded the public response portion to this proposal. Mr. Sargent opened the discussion to the Planning and Zoning Commission, requesting the proposal be discussed in three (3) separate segments, the first one being Proposal No. 3.3., the request for light Commercial on Lots 7&8, Block D. Mr. Smith, stated the type of structures than can be built in 1 fight commercial are generally not desirable that close to a school ground. Mrs. Gaines expressed the concern of possible spot zoning. Mrs. Gaines made a motion to deny, Proposal No. 3.3, requesting the change to Light Commercial. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rogers and approved by a unanimous vote. Proposal No. 3.1 Mr. Saunders again mentioned, the real question before the commission was should the property in question be kept with single family development, or should the Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow something other than single family homes in the area, and if so what areas would be designated high or medium density. Mr. Smith expressed concern for the fact that there are no guarantees as to what type of development we could expect after any proposed changes. Mr. Evans emphazied that a request for a Planned Unit Development could be made in any zoning area, and would be an advantage to the City and the Developer, because finalized plans would have to be presented in order for the project to be considered. 6 CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES Mr. Sargent asked staff for clarification of the Planned Unit Development, in regard to districts. Mr. Saunders clarified what governs the density of a Planned Unit Development is the Comprehensive Plan. A PUD cannot be considered for a density greater than what the Comprehensive Plan states. At this particular time our Comprehensive Plan only allows the density of 4 units per acre in this particular area. If this request were granted, the owner could to come back and request a PUD for the area, or he could divide the property in to separate parcels that could be developed individually. Mrs. Gaines asked what density staff would suggest Mr. Saunders stated he did not have a problem with medium density of 8 units per acre in Block A, but would be opposed to a higher density in that area. After further discussion a motion was made by Mr. Smart, to recommend denial and allow the definition of UD-4 as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, to remain. The motion died for the lack of a second. A motion was made by Mr. Evans to allow the density of 8 Units per acre in Block A, Lots 4-7: Block B, lots 4-7; Block D lots 5- 8; Block E lots 1,2, &5. and seconded by Mr. Gaines. The motion was approved on 6-3 vote. Voting was as follows Planning and Zoning Commission Members Bloebaum, Evans, Gaines, George, Johnson, and Rogers, aye and Members Sargent, Smart, and Smith, nay. Mr. Sargent requested the record to show he voted against the motion because he would prefer to see the density remain at 4 units per acre. Mr. Smith requested the record to show he voted against the motion because he would rather see a higher density along the lake front. Proposal No. 3.2 Mr. Rogers asked for clarification of staff recommendation of a maximum density of 4 units per acre. Mr. Perlick stated staff's reasoning was the existing single family residences across the street, the of the slope of the property and the existance of 2 small lakes would not call for a higher density. Mr Saunders advised that the recommendation is also in compliance with the intent of our Comprehensive Plan. After further discussion, a motion was made by Mrs. Gaines and seconded by Mr. Evans, that the request to raise the maximum density to 8 units per acre be denied, and the present density of 4 units per acre should remain,the motion was approved by a 7-2 vote. The voting was as follows, Planning and Zoning Commission Members Bloebaum, Evans, Gaines, George, Johnson, Sargent and Smart voting aye, and Members Rogers and Smith voting nay. Proposal No. 4 The proposal is to insert the folllowing as Paragraph 2, Page 3, of the Future Land Use Map Criteria: 7 i • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES Non-conforming uses as defined under Article III, Definitions of Ordinance 245-C, City of Clermont Zoning Ordinance,existing at the time of the enactment of this ordinance being 1986 may after consideration of t e P anning an Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council be granted a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction, enlargement or expansion of the non-conforming use where it is determined that such reconstruction, enlargement or expansion is not obnixious or detrimental to the district in which it is located, and where the denial of a Conditional Use Permit would created an unnecessary hardship on the owner. Mr. Sargent clarified that presently, non-conforming properties that are destroyed by whatever means, by more than 50% cannot be rebuilt. Mr. Perlick explained this change would allow the Council to decide if the use should continue or not. Mr Perlick also pointed out that this paragraph is in our current Zoning Ordinance, but not in our Comprehensive Plan. At this time Mr. Sargent asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this request. Mr. Bell from Bell Ceramics spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. Mr. Adam Wilburn question if this would effect the rebuilding of his home should it be destroyed. Mr. Saunders clarified that this proposal pertains mainly to businesses, and would give the Council the opportunity to grant Condition Use Permits where applicable. After a brief discussion a motion was made by Mr. Smart, seconded by Ms. George, to adopt the proposed change into the Future Land Use Map Criteria as presented, second by Ms. George and approved by unanimous vote. Proposal No. 5 Add as permitted land uses for Distric NED-6: 1. Existing Manufacturing 2. Light Commercial Mr. Saunders explained NED-6 is currently single family and multi-family, with a denstiy of 12 units per acre. Mr. Perlick advised the commission, that staff would like to change the wording of proposal 5.1 from" Existing Manufacturing" to "Light Manufacturing", in accordance with the response the City has had from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs. They advised that existing Manufacturing" should not be a permmitted land use as requested. Current industries are grandfathered in, subject to restriction on expansion. If the City wants industries in these areas, restrictions should be established based only on a general type such as, light or heavy industries. 8 • • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES Mr. Lawson Wolfe stated his business was, existing manufacturing" in NED-6, and wished staff to clarify the proposed changes of "exisiting manufacturing " to light manufacturing" in Proposal No. 5. Mr. Saunders explained the change would expand the possiblities. "Light Commercial" would allow the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to zone more property manufacturing or commercial in that area. Mr. Wolfe requested the minutes reflect that what is currently "Existing Manufacturing" is considered by the City of Clermont to be "light manufacturing". Mrs. Pat McCaffrey asked if you would have to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain a permit if you wished to enlarge or build on existing property. Mr. Saunders advised that any request would have to be in accordance with the current Zoning Ordinance. Also, if the amendment is not granted, any property in the NED-6 area that is zoned anything other than residential will have to be rezoned to some form of residential, and anything that is not residential would be a non-conforming use, which falls under the regulations of non-conforming uses. A letter from Evelyn Markland was read, which stated she was opposed to this request because she feels non-conforming uses would enable us to have better control of the industries. Mr. Sargent said he thought there was a letter published in the South Lake Press changing the views expressed in the letter read by staff. Mr. Saunders stated staff had not received any other letter at this time. Mr. Saunders reflected that it would be more desirable for this property to be residential, but in making any decision it should be taken into consideration what currently is there and to what extent business or industry has developed. Mr. Martin Wright asked if his residential waterfront property would effected by this proposal, and was advised that it would not. Mr. Smith suggested the possible development of a new district that would be a manufacturing district, rather than the expanision of manufacturing in the NED-6 area. Mrs. Bloebaum expressed concern that there should be consideration for the future development of "light commercial " within the City as far as tax dollars are concerned. After further discussion, a motion was made by Ms. George to accept Proposal No. 5 with the change of "existing manufacturing" to "light manufacturing.", and seconded by Cecil Smart . The motion was discussed further by Mr. Rogers who felt there was some controversy, with only "light manufacturing" in the City of Clermont. Mr. Saunders stated the only type of manufacturing zoning we have in the City is M-l, light manufacturing. Anything that has been permitted in a M-1 zone is grandfathered in, as 1 fight manufacturing, but some time in the future if Counci 1 or the Planning and Zoning Commission saw the need, they could reclassify all manufacturing. 9 ~ ! CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES After further discussion the motion was approved by a 7-2 vote. Voting was as follows: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Bloebaum, Evans, Gaines, George, Johnson, Sargent and Smart aye, and Members Rogers and Smith, nay. Proposal No. 6 Add as permitted land uses for District NED-1 1. Existing Manufacturing 2. Multi-family attached residences limited to a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Perlick advised the commission, that staff would like to change Proposal 6.1 to "Light Manufacturing" in response to from the County Planning Department which states this proposed amendment does not conform with the Cities overall purpose of creating land use districts. In regard to Proposal 6.2 the County Planning Department commented, the proposal would permit multi-family residential where manufacturing, retail and other commercial uses are proposed to exist. Mr. Perlick stated the Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs also had the same comments as expressed in Proposal No. 5 regarding change from "existing manufacturing to"light manufacturing". No correspondence was received from any adjacent property owners. After a brief discussio approve the proposal, with to "Light Manufacturing", by unanimous vote. Proposal No. 7 and 8 n a motion was made by Mr. Smart to the change of "Existing Manufacturing" seconded by Ms. George, and approved No.7 Change the following described property from District ERD-2 to District EBD-2: The west side of Bowman street, south to and including lot 21, block 7, Sunnyside Unit and north to Highway 50. No.8 As a permitted land use for District EBD-2: 1. Single Family detached residences. 2. Multi-family attaceed residences limited to a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Saunders explained when the Land Use Map was adopted the area was designated to allow professional offices. Our current Zoning Ordinance requires, that in order for professional offices to be built you must have commercial zoning or, a Conditional Use Permit, if the property is zoned R-3. ERD-2 density was set at 8 units an acre, which meant any property zoned R-3 would have to be rezoned R-1 or R-2. This took away the opportunity for someone to request a Conditional Use Permit for a professional office in that area. Mr Saunders pointed out i f these proposa 1 s are not adopted the property would have to be rezoned R-2, which would mean no more professional offices and those exisitng, would be non-conforming. 10 • • CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES Correspondence was received from the County, questioning why the City would want to have residential land uses in established business districts. Mr. Perlick stated staff did not want to disallow the current property owners the option of residential building in that area. After further discussion a motion was made by Ms. George to recommend adoption of Proposals 7 & 8 as ,written, seconded by Mr. Evans and approved by unanimous vote. Proposal No. 9. ~ 10 No.9. Change the following described property from District ERD-2 to NED-3. The east side of East Avenue, south of Chestnut Street and north to Highway 50. No.10. Delete the following permitted land use from District ERD-2: Item 3] Business and Professional Offices may be allowed on the east side of East Avenue, south to Chestnut Street and north of Highway 50 and also on the west side of Bowman Street, south to Lot 19 and north to Highway 50. Mr. Saunders pointed out when the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted it was intended for this area (Proposal No. 9) to be considered in the future for Professional Offices, under a Conditional Use Permit. The NID-3 area does allow for future development to be either professional offices or residential. If this proposal is not granted the property will have to be rezoned to R-2. A letter was read from Mr. and Mrs. John Beck stating their opposition to this request, because they feel it would make the neighborhood less desirable. Mr. Smith pointed out, much of this area is already developed with little or no commercial development in the area at this time. After further discussion a motion was made by Mr. Rogers, to accept as presented Proposals No. 9 and 10, seconded by Mrs. Gaines, and approved by unanimous vote. Propsal No 11. Change the following described property from District ERD-7 to District N ID-2: Lots 7-12, Block 46; Lots 7-12, Block 47; Lots 15-20, Block 48; Lots 15-20, Block 49; Lots 15-2-, Block 50; Lots 26-28 and 31 Block 51; Lots 2-4, Block 52 and Lots B & D, Crestview Subdivision. Mr. Saunders emphazied one of the basic zoning principles is that your zoning should break on a rear property line. In this particular case the break occurs on the side property 1 ine, and it would be better zoning to move the break over to the existing break between R-2 and R-3, which is on a rear property line. 11 ~ ~ CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES Mr. Saunders emphazied one of the basic zoning principles is that your zoning should break on a rear property line. In this particular case the break occurs on the side property line, and it would be better zoning to move the break over to the existing break between R-2 and R-3, which is on a rear property line. Mrs. Bonnie Homan, a property owner, was present and expressed concern about what could go in next to her. Mrs Homan stated she would rather see tighter control of what could be developed and she would like for the R-2 zoning to be protected. Mr. Smith pointed out this zoning line divided some lots in half, with one side being R-3 and the other R-2, and expressed the view it would be more logical to move the 1 ine 50 feet to the east, then property would be zoned the same. Mr. Sargent requested that staff present the uses allowed NED-2 and ERD-7. NED-2 permitted land uses are: 1. Single family detached residences. 2. Multi-family attached residences. Density- a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre. ERD-7 permitted land uses are: 1. Single family detached residences. 2. Multi-family attached residences. Mr. Sargent stated in order for City be in compliance with the State requirement for our Comprehensive Plan we have to change the district that the 150 ft. strip is in or rezone it from R-3 to something else. After further discussion a motion was made by Ms. George for the denial of this request, seconded by Mr. Smith. The motion was discussed further this motion was approved, would a later time for rezoning. Mr. correct. by Mr. Rogers who stated that if this property then be present at Saunders advised that would be The motioned was approved by a 6-3 vote. The voting being, Planning and Zoning Commission Members Bloebaum, Evans, George, Johnson, and Smith voting aye, and Members Gaines, Rogers, Sargent and Smart voting nay. Proposal No. 12. Change the following described property from District NED-5 to District EBD-2: Lots 6 & 7, Forty Pines Subdivision. Mr. Perlick stated in the last changes to the Comprehensive Plan it was decided these two lots should remain commercial. The land use district lines goes around it and included it in a residential area, this proposal would bring this property back into the commercial land use district. c CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES After a brief discussion a motion was made by Mrs. Bloebaum,to accept the proposal as presented, seconded by Mrs. Gaines and approved by unanimous vote. Proposal No. 13 and 14. No. 13 Establish the following new Distinct 8 (ERD-8) Permitted Land Uses: 1. Single Family detached residence. 2. Multi-family attached residence. 3. Directly related land uses such as parks, schools, utilities, streets and other such activities whose primary purpose is to serve only the residents of this district. 4. New residential development will be limited to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. No. 14 Change the following described property from District ERD-7 to District ERD-8: Tracts 2 & 3, Oakhurst Subdivision, Block 5 & 8; Woodlawn Subdivision, Lots 11-20, Block Q. Mr. Perlick stated the last changes to the Comprehensive Plan recommended this particular piece of property should be allowed to have multi-family residential development of 12 units per acre. Mr. Bailey, a property owner, wanted clarification regarding whether offices would be permitted in this area. Mr. Perlick advised they would not. Mr. Saunders stated the Planning and Zoning Commission could make the recommendation that professional offices be permitted in this district, which would require a Conditional Use Permit in that zone. After further discussion a motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Rogers to approve Proposal No. 13 with the addition of item 5. which allows professional offices in the district, and Proposal No. 14 to include District SHD-1 in the change to District ERD-8, and approved by unanimous vote. There being no further discussion the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 A.M. ;` Q/Ii J e Warren, P & Z Technician. . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. "~ %~ Jack N. Sargent, C irman v