Planning & Zoning Board

EVHNUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING December 15^ 5:30PIVI The City of Lake Waies Planning and Zoning Board held a special meeting on December 15, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall, 201 W< Central Ave. Lake Wales Florida. ATTENDANCE Planning Board Members (Shaded area indicates absence^: Chairman Christopher Lutton Vice- Chairman Charlene r Casey McKibben Eric Rio Kyra Love Betty Wojcik Ben n eft City Staff: Dept of Planning and Development Mark J. Bennett - Director of Development Services Autumn Cochella - Deveiopment Services Manager Jasmine Khammany - Senior Planner Shena Rowland - Recording Secretary Fany Lozano - Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER - Mr. Lutton called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL - Mr. Grave! was absent. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Speciai Meeting - November 30, 2021 Motion by Ms. Bennett to approve and Ms. Love seconded the motion. The minutes approved unanimously by voice vote. 4. COMMUNiCATONS AND PETiTIONS - No Public in Attendance NEW BUSINESS 5. Planned Development Project (PDP) - Hunt Ciub Grove North Review Staff report by Jasmine Khammany Begin Report: PROJECT: Hunt Ctub Grove North PDP APPLfCANT: Dave Schmitt Schmitt Engineering, Inc. APPROVAL: Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approvai/Speciai Exception Use Permit Approval for a Residential Planned Development Project (POP) PUBLIC HEARING: Requirements have been met. Ms. Khammany reads the staff report to the Board. Ms. Khammany then indicates that staff is available for any questions and that a representative from Schmitt Engineering is in attendance for further information and assistance. Mr. Lutton opens the hearing for public comment, seeing no one he doses the public hearing and asked the Board for questions on the staff report. Ms. Bennett then asks if he is talking about things achieved and not achieved. Mr. Lutton then clarifies that it is in general. He asked if there are any questions pertaining to the staff report. Ms, Bennetf does state that she has a question. She reads from the staff report that garages shall be recessed from the front building expression. She asked if expression means the elevation? Ms. Khammany clarifies it means the front. Ms. Bennett states that she does not recall reading anything about setbacks for garages being different the waiver that was mentioned? Ms. Khammany states they have a minimum front set back and they have to go further than that. She states that when they review the plans as long as it does not have a snout. Ms. Bennett then asks for clarification on whether it has to have a specific amount? Ms. Khammany states that it has to meet the minimum, Ms. Cocheila states that the intent is that you are not seeing a garage when you are looking at the front elevation of the home. She states a side-facing garage would be better but in this case. if the garage is facing he front then it needs to be recessed. She further states they will see this as a trend in most of the reports. Mr, Lutton states they are all front facing. Ms. Cocheiia confirms they are. Mr, Lutton states it is due to the 40' width of the lot. Ms. Love then asks If an exact number should be given and if thai is how it was done in the past? Mr. Lutton confirms that a number of 2 ft was given on past projects but he is not sure that this can be done on this project due to space constraints on the lot. Ms, Cochella then reminds the Board that they are required to stagger the setbacks from house to house so it will make it difficult but If the Board would like to recommend something then it can be discussed. She stated that staff did not want to tie a builder down without good reason, Mr. Bennett states that having this standard as opposed to having front building standard of X and garage setback of Y it allows flexibility while stiff accomplishing the goa! of having the garage further back than the house. He believes the wording actually comes from the suggested criteria in the PDP language, Ms. Wojcik then asks if the front elevation as well as the garage set backs are staggered? Mr. Lutton the front is staggered from the neighbor and the garage is staggered from the front door. Mr. Bennett states it is to avoid the monotonous look. Ms. Wojdk then compares this comment to Lake Ashton. Ms. Bennett states she does not think this deveiopment avoids the monotonous look and certainly not from the perspective of a POP, She then states that she wili make some of her usual comments. She wants to start with reading the first paragraph of what a POP is in our code. She then reads: It is intended to promote high quality site design and is use is encouraged. The process allows flexibility in project layout and relief from standard subdivision grids in order to presen/e natural features of the tgnd, maximize common open space and landscaping, and create vital neighborhoods. Creativity in housing types and site layout are encouraged. She states this is just the first paragraph. She also states that she just got back in town and has not had time to go thru the POP stuff and point out all the where this project does not meet PDP standards. She does want to refer to some of the achieved/not achieved items listed by staff. She reads: the development estabfishes identifiable neighborhoods engendering a feeling of belonging. She states this is not achieved. She reads: dwellings are clustered rather than iocated in ilnear patterns on long streets. We are looking at !Jnear patterns on long streets. She reads: streetscapes are designed to provide interest and variety; views of the street are attractive from the dwelling units and from the point of view of the pedestrian. She states this is not achieved. She reads; visual interest is provided along the street through distinctive landscaping and street lighting. She states this is not achieved. She reads: location and orientation of houses or buildings on sites provides a variety and distinctiveness to the street. She states this is not achieved. She then states this goes on and on and that is all she is going to read. She feels that if we look at the plan all we see are linear streets which are not supposed to be in PDP's. You see the makings of cookie cutter look because it is so small and congested and you will see parking on the streets. When you drive thru you will see congestion and it wiil not have the look that a PDP is meant to produce. She is sorry that the Board keeps getting projects that do not meet the spirit or practicalities of the PDP. Ms, Love asks why the Developer will present the plan as a PDP when it could be approved as not a PDP? Ms. Cochelta answers it is the oniy method to have flexibility built in. Otherwise, if they are going to develop as a straight subdivision then you are going to get linear patterns and finear roads because they will not have to add any extra open space and do not have to do anything above and beyond. The developers that are bringing in smaller lots can only be achieved thm a PDP. Ms. Bennett states that they get smaller lot sizes all the time. They couid come in with a regular subdivision plan and ask for setbacks and smaller lots, etc. and probably get it. Ms. CocheHa states this is incorrect and explains that staff cannot allow 45 ft wide lots thru a standard subdivision. Mr. Bennett the zoning code does not have a zoning district with that minimum lot base. Ms. Bennett then states that another option would be to make a PDP project look like a PDP with winding roads. 8he refers to the difference between Whispering Ridge and Sunset Pointe and states thai is how a PDP differs from a standard subdivision. She feefs this project will look like a compact Sunset Pointe. Mr. Bennett expiains that from a staff perspective they have a mixture of housing types. They have 36 percent open space, They aiso have an open space area that is larger than Kiwanis park proposed for this project. They have at least two or three neighborhood parks, mini parks, they could demonstrate this as infili because they are promoting townhomes between two commercial areas. Ms. Bennett then asks if he stated there are more than one neighborhood park? Ms. Love indicates there are several parks. Mr. Bennet confirms there are two mini parks, a neighborhood park and a large park in the middle. He further states that in staff opinion PDPs are give and take. It is a negotiation, between 36% plus open space and the fact that we are getting connections. We are going to get Hamiin Road extended from its current iocation all the way to Post Saiter. Providing more roads will help support the road network as opposed to dumping traffic onto current roads. Mr, Lutton states that at the south end of Hamlin Road there will be more subdivisions because now you have a road built to the next set of groves. Ms. Bennet agrees and states concerns of more projects like this. Mr Lutton states that if they can sell it, it is 652 lots which is a tot of houses. Mr, Bennett then makes another point from a transportation perspective is there will be an extension to Grove Avenue eastward to connect with Hunt Brothers Road which wi!l result in more interconnectivity. Traffic can be disbursed more throughout the area. There ss also a condition to add a bus stop along Hunt Brothers Road because that is a Polk County mass transit drop. He also states that he is not aware of any other time that a bus stop has been requested. In his opinion, he feels staff has accomplished something significant, Ms, Bennett agrees some of these things are very good, however, you still have linear roads and you do not have a sense of neighborhood. You do not have the basic most important things that PDP is ail about You do have a modified basic subdivision and not a PDP. Ms. Wojcik ask if it is true that the landscape is a regular basic landscape? Ms. Love is asking if she is wondering if it wii! have any features? Ms. Bennet states it will have two trees per house and one tree per townhouse. Ms. Wojdk states she is aware of that, the question is right now before development. Mr. Lutton states that right now there is nothing. Ms. Wojcik states she lived in N Georgia, when you developed you had to take the landscaping into consideration, Mr. Lutton states that this area was wiped bare in 1910's. They ripped out the pine trees and planted orange tress. Ms. Wojcik then states now they are ripping out orange trees and planting houses, Mr. Bennett lets the Board know that the appiicant is in attendance if they want him to present the case or answer any questions, Mr. Lutton asks the Board of they have any questions for the engineer. Mr. Mcklbben has a question or staff. He asks if they feei like the compromises to make this a PDP have been met equally on both sides? Mr. Schmitt asks if he may address. Mr. Lutton comments that the engineer is working for an owner that is looking for 650+ lots or more. if this were a straight subdivision you would have no open space except for the ponds. Mr. Schmitt officially introduces himseif for the record and responds with the fact that staff has been working diiigentiy with him on this project and have conveyed things that not only the Board would want to see but also different departments in the City. He mentions a few things that has been requested of him to accommodate. They have eliminated cul-de-sacs, opened up access to many areas for public safety, continued roadway grid network for the City's master pianning efforts, interconnectivity of trails, smaller biocks, mix of lot sizes, more open spaces, more parks with guest parking. The connections of road and additional Right of Way dedication to accommodate the grid system. He states staff has been phenomenal to work with. The developer has been very understanding of the City's needs and desires, he feels there has been a good mesh on both sides. He states the developer has a desire to accommodate and have a successful development. He then thanks the Board for their time. Mr. Lutton points out a trail that runs thru the middle to Ms. Bennett. He then states that there are two things he would like to see corrected in the recommended conditions. First, number 9, take out the word decorative because DuRe has not clarified what the standard street lighting fixture is. Then, letter G, not saving any orange trees. As soon as you turn the water off to do the site development, the trees are dying. He would not attempt fo save and would instead plant new ones. Mr. Schmitt states that the intent is to piant new ones. Mr. Bennett states that is why staff Is recommending instead of mandating shows that they recognize there may not be orange trees, Mr. Lutton says he woutd not do it if he were the developer. Ms. Wojcik asks how many townhomes are per building? Ms. Khammany responds they have 4 unit, 5 unit and 6 unit buildings. Ms. Wojcik asks if the townhomes have decks or private areas? Mr. Schmitt replies it will have a patio of some sort. Mr. Wpjdk then states she used to own a townhome and they had 4 units per building and they each had 2 decks. The HOA took care of vegetation. Mr. Lutton asks if the development wii! be a CDD? Mr, Scmitt replies yes. Mr. Lutton then asks entirely? He thought it was just the road. Mr. Rio asks what is a ODD? Mr. Bennett responds that a CDD is Community Development District, it is a type of taxing district established above the normal taxing requirements. The intent of CDD is to have additional funds to be made available to buiid infrastructure in some cases or maintain things in the development, it is an additional funding mechanism. Ms. Bennett asks if a CDD allows you to tax residents? If so, what are the limitations? Mr. Bennett responds and believes It is up to 3 mils additional, it is in place to handle future road improvements which would be above and beyond what a developer is required to do. An example is Hamlin Street. The question is who wili pay for the additional road network. The staff's intent was to ensure there is a financial mechanism in pface so these costs were covered and not by the current City residents. Ms. Wojcik states that the residents of Lake Ashton were made aware in the contract of the obligation. It is like a bond. Mr. Bennett then states that the rational in that is the residents in the neighborhood will be using the roads more than other residents of the City. To be bfunt, other jurisdictions will try to stick the developer with the additional costs, the risk is it fails the Rational Nexus Test, this is a fancy legal term meaning you cannot make the developer responsible for more than the impact they are causing. Ms. Bennett ask for darification if the developer can ievy taxes at the point of sale but then the HOA can levy taxes on an ongoing basis? Ms> Wojcik then states it is a CDD Board is like a governing body similar to a City Commission and they can levy additional taxes according lo the budget they determine they need for the coming year. Mr. Schmitt states the ODD is in the process of being established. It will actually go before the City before approval. Mr. Lutton then states al! Lake Ashton roads are privately owned. This development is not gated so wiil the roads be HOA maintained or belong to the City? Mr. Bennett states that will ulfimateiy be determined and decided as part of the CDD. The CD outlines who is responsible for what. This discussion to determine has not taken place. He agrees no gates are shown so it does imply public roads. Mr. McKibben asks about the offset? He knows there are no septic tanks. He is confused as to the zero to 5 ft side building set back between townhomes, Ms. Cochella responds that she knows it looks silly to see them ail listed as waivers, but what that means to staff is a way to look at what the underlying zoning cafls for and what they need to ask for to achieve that goal. To achieve a townhome you are going to have zero lot iines at connection. Mr. McMcibben states he is good with the townhomes, he is iooking at the single family homes going from 10ft to 5 ft.? Ms. Cochella states that is the waiver request, tt is asking for the setback to be at 5 ft for the single family homes. Ms. Khammany states you have the big townhomes that have a 5 ft set back giving 10 ft between each building. This statement is discussed among the Board and understanding is clarified it is 10 ft per side. Mr. Lutton states all the new subdivisions are going this way, it is Interesting when they need to change the AC and there is no room. Mr. Bennett states that is an excellent point. Ms. Love asks how that is normally worded? Ms. Cochelfa responds that mechanical equipment required to be installed at the rear of the property and not the side. She then clarifies the request is 10 ft between homes, Ms. Love states number 2 where it goes from 50 ft to 20 ft is even lower. Then the minimum street frontage is even shorter. Mr. McKibben states that it is still manageable because it is street frontage vs side building set back. Mr. Lutton states this developer is going for the lower priced homes. !t still is not affordable, That someone making 15.00 per hour cannot afford it. Ms. Bennett then states if anyone will buy? Mr. Lutton replies yes. Ms. Love says it wii! not be within their means. Mr. Lutton not according to the standard description of affordable, it will not be a $60,000 to 80.000 house, Mr. Bennett then states that the houses on B Street are being priced at 190k to 200K. It is taking down payment assistance, 2nd mortgages and holding notes to make the mortgage down to 120-130 to be able to afford it Ms. Wojcik asks if they know how expensive the townhomes will be? Mr. Lutton responds it is not known at this time, not until the builder is on board. Mr. McKibben comments that if a price was given now it may double by the time they are built. Ms. Wojcik then comments on inflation and is surprised at the interest in developing. Mr. Lutton states there is a lack of housing. Ms. Bennett then asks if anyone knows of any new industries coming to town? Mr, Lutton then states more people are commuting long distance as long as they have their electric car charging stations. Mr. Bennett then states people are moving to Florida for the same reason as always, the weather. Mr. Lutton aiso states there is no income tax, Mr, McKibben asked if we wiil get charging stations. Mr. Bennett states there was conversation with Lake Wales Connected on Park Avenue but he is not sure where it stands. Mr. Lutton states they are $20,000 a pop. Ms. Bennett states that whenever the Board deals with mufti-unit properties they need to start thinking about requiring EV readiness if there are no garages. Mr. Wojcik asks if the townhomes will have garages, Mr. Lutton confirms they will. Ms. Love refers to the design guidelines. She understands there are no cul-de-sacs. She asks for the definition of a cut-de-sac and what the difference is between a cul-de-sac and a cluster? Mr. Lutton responds a cui-de-sac Es a clrcte road. Ms. Love understands this but wants know how it compares to a cluster? Ms. Cochella states that in a cluster development you have more curvy linear streets to creates the visua! effect of having little neighborhood pods, Mr. Bennett refers to Robins Walk layout, it is an example of clustering. Ms. Love asks if there is a landscape plan? She states the report says not achieved. She feels there is landscaping that couid be done to ease the Boards concerns. For example, where side set backs are small plant materials coutd be added to make it seem like people are not right against each other. Mr. McKibben states Just the buffers are marked. Ms. Cochelia reminds the Board that part of their per view is to add conditions of approval that the Board wants to see, She reminds the Board they are making a recommendation to City Commission who may also have conditions of approval they want to see. Mr. Schmitt states that landscape plans were provided at a POP level. Ms. Khammany states they were not provided, it was a standard landscape plan provided. Ms. Cochella states the buffer should say 6 ft high so the piantings wouid be 6ft high and 10 ft wide. She clarifies this with the engineer She states the plan is pretty basic, it is showing street trees being required in addition to the two residential lots, Street trees wilt be maintained by the HOA. in the past, for street trees, the developers have put one in the back yard and one in the front yard. If the homeowner comes in and wants to remove it they can. In light of this they are requiring the street trees to go En a separate tract for the HOA to maintain so the Homeowner cannot come and remove it The plan the Board is seeing is required in the recreation area according to 23-310 and the street tree pfan that is being required as part of the POP. Mr. Bennett reminds the Board that they can request street trees in a PDP where if it were a straight subdivision the code does not allow it. Ms. Wojcik asks what type of trees are being requested? Ms. Cocheila responds native Florida canopy trees, usually Oak trees. Mr. Lutton comments that he likes the bend in Grove Avenue to slow down traffic, He also comments that the roads are pretty straight and they wouid have to get rid all of the open public area to design it Ms. Bennett states that this is not true. They couid do fewer lots instead. Ms. Love states the developer would not agree to this. Mr. Lutton states they are asking for 650 lots and rea!izes they want to get as close to this as possible. EVEr. Bennett states they are asking for 600. Ms. Cocheila states the point is the comp plan density says you can have 652, they will try to get as ciose to 652 as possible. Mr. Lutton states they are taking the big open park space out of the individual lots to make it better for the community. Number one, the townhomes are backing up to the backside of commercial district. That is not the best thing to see, smell or hear. That is why you put the higher density or taller stuff in to screen that out from the other homes. That is proper planning. A concern is the vacant lot on Grove and Hamiin, he understand they do not own that piece of property but wiil be difficutt when it comes time to develop there. Mr, Bennett says he believes the developer did try to acquire that parcel. He further states that when that comes in for development, there is currently a 25 ft wide mini park proposed on the Southside of Grove Avenue, when that 10 acres comes in for development they will push to have that park extended for consistency. Ms. Coche!ia states it will have sidewalk gaps. Mr. Bennett agrees with Ms. Cocheila and.then states the question was if houses were wanted in front across the street to look at houses or a wai! so what was worked out was a 25 ft buffer which effectively meets the criteria for a mini park. Mr. Lutton concedes this will force anyone efse to do the same. Mr. Bennett further states they wii! have to give up right away for the extension of Hamlin Road and in some form or fashion be obligated in the widening of Hamfin Road. It is such a small development so they are not sure if it will generate enough traffic to warrant this. They are having the transportation planner review with the condition that the traffic study has to be approved by staff. [Vfr. Lutton asks Mr. Schmjtt about the initial study on retention ponds, how deep and how dry? Mr. Schmitt responds they are all dry and about 4 to 5 ft deep. Mr. Bennett states they would be fiat so they could be used as soccer fields, Mr, Lutton asks if the 17 acres include the bottom of the ponds? Open discussion on if this was included. Ms. Cochella clarifies it was induded in the open space that the question is was it included in the acreage for the park? Ms. Khammany clarifies the 17.5 acres is the middle setback park. Mr, Lutton states you cannot technically cfaim he retention area as part of the park. He further states you have to be succinct with the terms. The total space is 17 acres of which It is going to be dry recreation space but realizes you can use the entire area. Ms. Cochefla clarifies that staff broke out program recreation that Ms. Khammany was making a a size comparison. Mr. Khammany states that just the ponds has 3.6 acres on the north and 2.3 on the other. Mr. Lutton asks for a recommendation to send to City Commission. He further states it does meet ail of the requirements of Mr. Gibson's memo. Ms. Bennett disagrees with that statement. Mr. Lutton states it does because it is not sprawf and includes the commercial areas. Ms. Love states she is struggiing and thinks it needs more landscaping but is unsure on how to ask. Ms, Cochetla asks which section she is referring too? Ms, Love clarifies it is POP H section. She wants it to meet more PDP requirements. She feeis it is not being met because of cost. If it is a true PDP they should not be looking at cost, it should be better and she does not feel it is better in ail the ways it can be. Mr. Bennett asks Ms, Cochella if they have a number of trees per 1000 ft standard in the recreation section? Ms. Cocheila responds that in the section 23-310 which is landscape and recreation, she believes it is based on a % acre. She informs that if the Board wants them to go above and beyond the minimum standard aside from the street trees then part of the Boards role is to make that recommendation. She suggests they could use the verbiage of increasing by 10 percent as an example or whatever pleases the Board. Mr. Bennett states the recommendations needs to be defined and that Ms. CocheiSa's example is a good example. Ms. Love asks how to word where side set backs are small, plant materials are placed to screen side lot lines from the street? Ms. Cocheila agrees that will work with the street tree plan. Ms. Love asks if it is too much because of the size of the tree as it grows and the set back is so small? is itfeasibie? Mr. Bennett states that is a judgement call but again, the intent with street trees on corner !ots they are making sure that there is a ieast one street tree per frontage to make sure there is adequate coverage, Ms. Cochella thinks the street frees provide visual relief along with all of the other benefits that street trees have. Ms. Wojdk wants to know if we have a landscape plan for the park area? Ms. Cochella states we do not and that the next phase in development is called site development. This indudes the site construction plans. They come in pounds and pounds in weight and it shows the landscape plans, it also shows water, utilities and the irrigation. She confirms that the Board does not see this in the site development phase. She further states that sometimes you see them in site pian phase. This was a large project so it was not included. The landscape plan does not come back. Mr. Rio thinks that asking them to put more trees on a smaller lot wiH be a problem. He thinks it should be common areas. Ms. Cochella agrees it shodd be common area. Mr. Rio then asks if it is just trees or can they also ask for shrubbery. Ms. Cocheila states that they do not regulate shrubbery in a common area. They are normally to screen from parking areas or roadways. They are used to distinguish mini parks and lots. Mr. Rio ask if they can request a hedge around the park? Mr. Lutton states you do not want a continuous hedge behind peoples home for safety reasons. He states the mini park should have amenities. Ms, Cochella states that these plans go thru the development review committee before it reaches the Board. They have asked specifically as far as amenities go in these larger developments, they want to see a dog walking park or dog park. These are things that when staff gets the site development plan, they put conditions on the developer in the rounds and rounds of comments that take place En this phase. They make suggestions like on a mini park sub park benches for a dog park or distinguish the lots between the private lots by adding shrubbery. This is discussed with the horiicufturist. Mr. Lutton states he thinks they can definitely asR for more canopy trees in park areas. He mentions in Bartow, they put pgim cypress in retention ponds and it worked well. Ms. Love states that they could then not use it as a soccer field. Mr. Rio asks how they ask for more landscaping. Ms. Cocheila states it is above the minimum standard. Mr. Rio asks what the minimum standard is. Ms. Cochella slates it is in the code and does not have it memorized but believes it is 2 trees per quarter acre and then there is a minimum so in a case that a mini park does not meet the quarter acre size in a small development or a minimum of two if it is that small. There are standards. She states that if the Board wants to see something above and beyond the minimum landscape standard then ask for 15 or 20 percent in excess of. The Board has back and forth discussion on the percentage needing to be recommended, Ms. Cochella reminds them of the mechanical equipment recommendation. Ms. Love then makes a motion to recommend approva! of City Commission on 600 iot single family preiiminary subdivision plat and a special exception use permit for residential POP with conditions of approval including the mechanical equipment being placed in the rear and canopy trees in excess of 25 percent excess of standard in common areas, Ms, WojcEk seconds. Mr. Lutton calls for a roll call vote Chairman Vice- John Casey Eric Rio Kyra Love Betty Christopher Chairman Gravel McKibben Votes Yes Votes Yes Wojcik Lutton Charlene Votes Yes Votes Yes Votes Yes Bennett Votes No Mr, Lutton announces it passes by majority, OTHER BUSINESS Mark Bennett recognizes Autumn Cochefla for passing her test and achieving the status of AICP, He states that this is a significant achievement. It has a very low pass rate. This is a test that demonstrates to the community that you know what you are talking about with urban planning. He highly commends her on this achievement The meeting adjourned at 6:44 PM, ^.\^ '^ ^ ' .^. -i - \ I Y CM^iiM/^-u.-yLUC t: Shena Rowland ChaJFman: ChFtstopber.LuttaQ M ice. C'^xV^w\ C^'^rte-^c^cv^'ti'