Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're gonna go ahead and call this meeting of Lake County's Planning and Zoning Board to order. If you would all please stand for the pledge of allegiance followed by a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance

to the flag The United States Of America to the republic for which it stands one nation under God

indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Alright. If you'd all be seated, please. Good morning, folks. The Lake County Planning and Zoning Board is an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners. The board is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the comprehensive plan zoning, conditional uses, mining site plans, and making recommendations on those applications to the board of county commissioners. At this time, we would like to see if there is any update to the agenda.

Good morning, board. For the record, Leslie Regan, senior planner, office of planning and zoning. I will be presenting to you the public hearing agenda, which is comprised of nine cases. In addition, I would like to enter into the record that the public hearing cases have been properly advertised and duly noticed in accordance with law. The proof of the publication I'm sorry.

That clicker is not working. Okay. I'll just, I'll move forward. They have been duly noticed in accordance with, state law. We do have a few agenda updates for you.

Tab three, otherwise known as Parse It Outdoor, has received correspondence in opposition and is available for your review at the dais. We ask for this agenda item to be moved to regular agenda. Also, tab four has received a speaker card. Thank you. So we ask for that to also be moved to the regular agenda. And then on the regular agenda, tab six and seven have been withdrawn at this time, the Harter Hills Apartments. They it will be re advertised when the applicant is ready to come back before the board.

Okay. Is there any other change to the agenda by anyone on the board? Would you like to see any other items or tabs pulled to the regular agenda off of consent? Okay. We will move forward with the minutes. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes of July 2? And if there are no changes, edits, or revisions, I will entertain a motion to approve.

So moved.

Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. Okay. We're now gonna move into public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone in the public to speak on items not on our agenda today. If you do intend to speak on any items on the agenda today, you do need to spill out fill out a speaker card, please. The opportunity will be presented again, but if you go ahead and fill your speaker card out now, then we'll just call you up as we get to those items. There are speaker cards available here in this room or I believe outside. And then we will now move on to well, wait a minute. Anybody? Anybody?

Got it. Okay. So we're gonna move

on to the consent agenda, which now is comprised of tabs one, two, and five. Do we have a motion on the consent agenda?

Motion to accept.

Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a motion and a second. Is there any need for discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed same sign. Okay, we will now move into our regular agenda, which will begin with tab three.

For the record, once again, Leslie Reagan, senior planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting tab number three, case number PZ2025Dash1 four, otherwise known as Parsett Outdoors. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from urban residential and community commercial to heavy industrial to facilitate an outdoor storage facility for RVs. The subject property is located on S R 19 West of Lake Smith Road and contains approximately 9.3 acres. The subject property is designated with the industrial future land use category and zoned, again, urban residential and community commercial.

The applicant proposes to follow all the regulations set forth by the heavy industrial zoning district. Staff does find this consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan.

Okay. Does anyone have any questions for staff related to tab three at this time? Does the applicant wish to say anything before we move into public comments?

Good morning. I'm Ron Sykes. I'm an attorney in Winter Garden representing the applicant here today. You've you've obviously had an opportunity to review the application, the recommendation of staff. The indication is a recommendation for approval based upon the fact that it is consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. So with that, I won't take up your time. But I would like to reserve the opportunity to respond to any public comment that might be appropriate.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. At this time, we will go ahead and begin with our speaker cards. We have Angela Claudio or Angel Claudio, sorry.

Good morning. I believe you've all received the package that we sent to to the planning and zoning. Do you have the which I'm gonna follow through on these three minutes?

Yes. But could you please state your name and address for the record before you begin?

Yes. My name is Angel Claudia. I leave at three three nine three seven six State Road nineteen, Umatilla, Florida three two seven eight four. My name is Angel Claudia, and my family owns and operates Lakeside Arrow Peak in in Umatilla Lake County. In 2023, the community presented multiple concerns regarding the property we're here to discuss today, which is owned by David and Billy Holmes.

For several years, David Holmes operated public shooting range known as Sundet Gun Range at this location without the required permits. Candidate Sundet initially began as a private range in 2016. By 2018, it started offering paid teaching and training services illegally. In early twenty two, was operating as a public range, and multiple calls were made to the sheriff's department where David Holmes continuously lied to the sheriff departments about his conditional use permit. And where David Holmes lied to the department, the sheriffs told us they could not do anything and advised us to call his code enforcement.

Finally, after calling code enforcement multiple times, he finally applied for his CUP, his conditional use permit. He applied for it. Eventually, David Holmes withdrew this conditional use permit application. Today, we're here with the assistance of David Klutz in Civil Engineering Solutions. He is applying to rezone this land from current zoning designation R 6 C 2 to Hemi Industrial.

In the proposed application to achieve project narrative request three and four indicates it uses heavy truck yard, yet in question five, it indicates RC storage and notice of public hearing is outdoor storage. What is the actual intended to use for this property, and what is heavy industrial zoning required? Heavy industrial zoning is for business with higher intensity and potential environmental nuisances and impacts, like manufacturing or processing plant. Granting heavy industrial zoning would allow David Holmes to act once again without due regard for existing community, In addition to the future of Northlake Trail project may negatively be impacted by rezoning the trail, it may be along because it's along this property line. Statements and actions made by the applicant should also be strongly considered.

In 2023, David Hook David Holmes took to social media and specifically named me and and Lakeside Avenue Park in in Pulse, which result in threats to the park. As the community complaints increased, David Holmes started to invite more and more shooters to Facebook come out and shoot, thus regarding an all day shooting and louder fires firings and ultimately setting off concussion grenades on this property. In response to Doors complaint, David Holmes stated multiple times on social media that heavy industrial zoning allows for obnoxious noise, fumes, impacts to the environment. These statements clearly show an awareness of the potential of negative impacts associated with this type of zoning and raises concerns about the proposed use of the property. Therefore, rationale behind this rezoning request to have an industrial zoning should be scrutinized due to David Holmes' nefarious character and past actions and development plans.

I believe the current request is just the guys. And if the rezoning is requested out, he will abandon the current stated use and eventually to reestablish efforts to use the lands as a shooting range. We, the community, believe that David Holmes' long term plans are sinister in nature and would allow him to act with due without due regard for the existing community. If I may speak, David Holmes does not reside in this in this community and therefore do not be directly impacted by the consequences of these noises, potential depreciation of property values, or the overall impact and the quality of life for the community. His action

I do need you to wrap up though.

Yeah. His actions will never be like look to a project and wetlands that are part of the property in question. Planning and zoning committee to is urged to deny this re zoning request.

Thank you. Kelly Fortune?

Good morning. Kelly Fortune, 37936 State Road 19, Umatilla, Florida 32784. I'm here to address the rezoning of 38205 State Road 19 and its implications for the community. The proposal involves rezoning the property to heavy industrial, potentially allowing the return of a shooting range. Once rezoned, options to address the many concerns associated with the shooting range will be limited.

The individual proposing this change withdrew the initial conditional use permit but has been working on the property to maintain a shooting range. Since that withdraw, this work has included rearranging the layout, adding berms, and shifting the direction of fire, indicating a plan to pursue a shooting range. This impact would have on the community is significant. Homes are nearby the property lines with the neighborhood across the street. An assisted living facility is within hearing distance, and the RV park, home to many veterans, will be affected by the noise of daily gunfire.

Various businesses, including shopping establishments, are also in the area. The proposed North Trail project may be compromised, the potential environmental impact should be considered. Half of the land in question is wetlands, an area vulnerable to contamination and environmental pollution. Opposition to the previous gun range stemmed from the unacceptable noise. A minimum of forty hours a week, a work week, including weekends, holidays, and sometimes evenings, we had to hear gunfire. A work week of this noise.

This is what we get to listen to.

Every day. The opposition to this rezoning aims to protect the community. This includes safeguarding property values, ensuring the well-being of veterans and children, and preserving the safety and peaceful environment of the community. It is important to consider these factors when deciding whether to rezone this land to heavy industrial. This classification risk enabling disruptive environment in which the applicant does not care about.

As previously stated, I will state it again that on social media, he had shared multiple times that heavy industrial zoning allows for obnoxious noise, fumes, and impacts to the environment. These statements clearly show an awareness of the potential negative impacts associated with this type of zoning, and these raises concerns of the proposed use of this property. Please ask yourselves if heavy industrial zoning classification is truly needed to operate an RV outdoor storage facility. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter at this time? Okay. Thank you. Do I guess the question would be, do we wanna bring staff up to discuss does anyone have questions for staff on the board before we invite the applicant back up?

Anyone?

I have a question for staff.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Hey. I just would like an answer to her question. Is the heavy industrial use is that required for the intent stated on the application?

There are several different zonings that a truck yard use or outdoor storage for RVs could be. Any of the industrial straight zonings, light medium and heavy industrial, as well as planned industrial and planned commercial. Those those would all allow the truck yard use.

Is that something that people who are applying for that commonly ask for the heavy industrial?

I mean we do have applicants that ask for heavy industrial. You'll have to maybe speak with the applicant about why the specific request for this, but I believe it was because the future land use does allow. It's all industrial in that area as well as the subject property is adjacent to another heavy industrial use, so they were looking for some consistency in that area. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

And just for clarification, they were talking about an an outdoor shooting range that maybe was operating here previously. Is that use permitted under heavy manufacturing?

No, ma'am.

No, ma'am. Is it

even permitted as a conditional use?

If they were to come back and apply for a conditional use permit, then, you know, that would be up to the board's discretion. But, just with the straight zoning of heavy industrial, they would not be allowed to have a commercial gun range.

Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for staff before we invite the applicant up? Alright. Thank you. Uh-huh. Mister Sykes?

Thank you. I'll I'll be brief. The the concerns of the citizens that were expressed today are certainly something that we take quite seriously. However, there is no evidence nor is there, in fact, any existence of any kind of law enforcement action that was taken resulting in any kind of criminal charges, whether it be misdemeanor or felony. There was also no code enforcement board action taken against the applicants as a result of their activities on the properties before.

The entity that was operating there as a private gun range sendant has been voluntarily dissolved by the applicant. And the activities that they're complaining about simply have not taken place on the property for quite some time now. The real issue here is not whether Mr. And Mrs. Holmes are going to build a gun range or operate a gun range.

The real issue is whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive land use plan. And as staff has indicated in its report, it is indeed consistent with that. And we believe that anything other than the classifications, zoning classification, would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan. And that's why we have come in with the request for the zoning classification. The intended use as set forth in the application is that of an RV storage facility.

But as I'm sure you well know, the process for obtaining any use other than the existing use, which is vacant land, would require the complete permitting process through the county, which would require approval and would be the appropriate opportunity, I think, for anyone objecting to the intended use to oppose it. So we believe that the law is clear, that the facts are clear, that the rezoning to is appropriate, is required by the land use plan. And therefore, we would ask that you recommend approval to the county commission.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?

Yes. You mentioned that the entity that was operating the gun range has been dissolved. Yes. How recently has gun range activity taken place on the site?

I would have to ask Mr. Holmes to answer that.

Good morning. Dave Holmes. David Holmes. 4350 Baywood Boulevard, Mount Doar, Florida. When we became educated by the county concerning the CUP permit in 2023, after I saw their comments and realized what Ares had had to go through to get their range, we realized that that possibility was not very viable.

So at that time, '23, we dissolved, Synded LLC. All of that was shut down. According to Florida statute, I can still use the property for personal use, which is what we did. And I can't tell you the exact date, but as far as my family going out there and shooting, my son will go out there occasionally and shoot. I occasionally got there and shoot.

We still have a couple little berms back in the back, but everything else has been taken down. And like I said, I've spent $80,000 to pursue the RV and boat storage. So I'm certainly understand that the county made it very clear that was not a possibility. I don't have the pockets like Ares did to even combat that. So not pursuing it.

Any other questions for the applicant or property owner at this time? Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Is there any further questions for staff? All right. I would entertain a motion, and then we can go into discussion if there's any need for that. Would anyone like to make a motion? Do we wanna have open discussion before we make a motion? Would anyone like to jump in? Any thoughts?

I'll make a motion to approve.

All right, I have a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, is there any need for discussion?

I just wanna clarify and I think you had already stated that if it was to be used for public or even a private gun club. Would still have to go through the

Conditional units.

It still needs a conditional Yeah. Yep. Okay. This zoning doesn't and Melanie, you can correct us if we're wrong, but the zoning does not allow a commercial gun range to be operated on the property in and of itself. They would still need a special permit.

That's correct.

And if they did do that, it would be an independent of the zoning anyways. It'd be a code enforcement type situation.

That's correct.

Okay. Is there anything else or any other comments, discussion on the item before we vote? Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign.

Aye.

Okay, motion carries. We will now move on to tab four.

Good morning. For the record, Eddie Montanes, planner one with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting tab four, case number PZ2024279, otherwise known as Sorrento Ave, Elkridge. The applicant is requesting to reason approximately 0.69 acres from CFD to R 6 to facilitate residential use. Subject property is located at the intersection of County Road 46 and Elkridge Drive and can well yeah. So the current zoning is CFD proposed zoning R six consistent with the surrounding properties in orange on the map. Staff finds the rezoning consistent with the land development regulations and comprehensive plan, and that will conclude my presentation.

Does anyone have any questions for staff? Okay. And is the applicant present?

Yes, ma'am.

Would you like to say anything before we open to public comment?

Hi. My name is Ben Champion with Heiser Construction LLC. I live at 15012 Collie Drive, Tavares, Florida. Staff has recommended that you recommend approval to the board. I think it's pretty straightforward, but if the public has any questions or the board, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll invite you back up after public comment. All right. And our speaker card is from Cindy Newton. If you could please state your name and address for the record.

I will.

It's not your first rodeo.

She might have moved.

Oh, that's true. New digs. Morning. Good morning.

Good morning. Cindy Newton. 19025 Lake Swatira Drive, Unincorporated, Eustis. The rezoning on this, when it was done from r one dash seven urban residential to to PFD, ordinance number thirty four ninety dated 10/03/1990, which is now a CFD, is very specific for the usage allowed. It was limited to a day care facility and normal accessory coordination.

So in the staff report, there's a lot of indication it could be used for other things if it was not rezoned, and that is actually limited. Also, there's a lot of record application that goes with this from 1990, and the lots were listed as irregular rather than actually having the measurements. Although they checked the box indicating their lots must meet the minimum 12,500 square foot recommendation, they don't they don't meet that requirement. Alt key 395-8234 is 5684 square feet. Alt key one three six one zero zero one is seven zero four one square feet, and alt key three nine five eight two three five is actually 17,125 square feet.

So this is a total of twenty nine thousand five eight hundred and fifty square feet. If you divide that by three, which he's stating that there'll be three homes placed here, The lot size would be 9,550 square feet, and that doesn't include right away that's been increased at step State Route 46. So the property is short of the required minimum lot size for three house lots. So what I'm suggesting is changing this wording where it states that three single family residents could be put there because somebody goes to purchase. He's not developing this.

He's going to resell it. And if somebody is purchasing this, I don't want them to be misled that they could put three family residence on

that. K?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Alright. Does anyone else from the public wish to speak on this matter at this time? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and call the applicant back up unless we wanna talk to staff first. Staff or does anybody have questions for staff before we welcome the applicant back?

What would the wording change be from three

Well, first of all, why don't we ask

Oh, I'm sorry.

So for I do have a question. So as miss Newton just explained, the R 6 zoning has a minimum lot size requirement?

It has a a maximum density of one dwelling unit per six I'm sorry. Six dwelling units per acre.

Does it have a minimum requirement for a lot size?

I could do the math real quick. It's the square footage of an acre divided by

So we don't have a stated No.

Minimum There's a a density.

We we don't have a stated lot size. We do have a minimum frontage requirement. If you give me just a minute, I can tell you what that would be for r six. Do you have it?

I don't. I have the so based on the the density, the minimum would be 7,260 square feet. The applicant does have or the property does have a a lot of record, which exempts the property from density requirements. There is a a minimum square footage in the comprehensive plan. But if other criteria are met, then it can be smaller than the 12,500.

What would be the other criteria?

It's there's many. This lot this is part of a platted subdivision from 1926. So there are four lots here, I believe.

Three.

So there's three alternate keys, but I don't have the plat in front of me. I believe we granted lights based on the previous lots.

Yes, ma'am. So like this was actually platted differently. They've then been subsequently aggregated together?

Yes, ma'am.

Got it. Okay.

So the minimum road frontage for a lot in R 6 is 50 feet. So the lots have to be at least 50 feet wide.

And they all appear to be to have at least 50 feet of frontage based on the configuration? Correct. Okay. Are there any questions for staff beyond what I just asked? Okay. We'll invite the applicant up. Is there anything you'd like to add or address at this time?

Just that we went through the process for lot exception for density with the planning and zoning department and received Approval for these three lots to be aggregated from a previous number that's there's like five or six lots that are combined to make these three lots. And that's in accordance with the. Planning and zoning rules and the comprehensive plan for nonconforming lots that preexist the land development regulations. As Eddie mentioned, this was platted in the 1920s. But none

of

that is really relevant to the rezoning issue now it was zoned for day care as stated by lady nice lady. And that use is no longer. Needed. And so we would like to rezone for residential, which is supported by staff.

That's all. Does anyone have questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you so much. All right. If there's nothing further for staff, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

All I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion at this time? Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed same sign. Motion carries. Okay. We are now gonna move into tab 8, Claremont West future land use.

Excuse me while I get the clicker working right. There we go. Alright. So good morning. For the record, James Fry, planner two with Office of Planning and Zoning. I'm here to present both the Claremont West future land use amendment and the rezoning. Do you want me to go ahead and go through both the future land use and the rezoning, and then we'll we'll address each separately? Or do you want me to present on on them one at a time?

Let's do them both at the same time, and then we'll still need to vote on them separately.

Alright. Understood. Alright. So the first one is the Clermont West future land use amendment, tab number eight, case number PZ2024356, otherwise known as Clermont West. The applicant is requesting to amend the future land use map on approximately 15.53 acres from the regional office future land use category to planned unit development, future land use to facilitate a development program for Claremont West, a 300 unit multifamily development.

The subject property is located South Of Hook Street and East of US Highway 27 in the unincorporated Claremont area. The subject parcel is currently designated with the regional office feature land use category and zoned urban residential district R 6. The concept plan depicts the proposed seven buildings containing a maximum of 300 multifamily unit development with associated open space and stormwater area. Additionally, the concept plan includes the associated parking area, stormwater and retention area, and proposed area for utilities. The concept plan emphasizes that a minimum of 25% of the overall developable acreage will be dedicated to open space and with a maximum impervious surface ratio of 70% for the entire site.

The subject parcel is located within the city of Claremont, JPA. The city of Claremont has provided opposition correspondence to the proposed development and emphasized that the proposed density of approximately 19.6 dwelling units per acre exceeds the density of the existing area. The city of Clermont has a maximum density of 12 units per acre. Staff finds the land use amendment inconsistent with the Claremont JPA land development regulations and comprehensive plan. And then on the rezoning is tab nine, case number PZ2024Dash355, otherwise known as Claremont West.

The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 15.53 acres from Urban Residential District R 6 to the plan unit development PUD district. The PUD request also includes four waivers. Waiver request to the land development regulation section 15 o two zero one c to increase the maximum habitable building height to 45 feet and 60 feet maximum building height for architectural features in lieu of a maximum habitable building height of the 35 feet and 45 feet for finished building height. Waiver request to LDR section fifteen oh two ten A six to allow elevation changes in topography that exceeds 10 feet over no more than 15% of the project site, excluding roads and stormwater areas in lieu of the elevation changes that are limited to 10 feet. Waiver request to LDR section 15 o two ten c to allow elevation changes in topography that exceeds 10 feet.

And then waiver request to 15 o two zero one e to exempt the development from the additional 15 feet setback, for each story over two stories. Again, this is the same concept plan for the future land use for the seven buildings with the 300 multifamily unit development, minimum of 25% open space, and maximum of 70% of the, entire site. Additionally, the, city of Claremont stated, with utility availability, if the project connects to the city's utility service, the project will be required to develop to the city's land development code as part of the provided utility agreement. The city stated that the city can provide utility service for up to an average daily flow of 74,000 gallons per day of potable water and 50,000 gallons per day of wastewater subject to compliance with applicable city codes. With the development proposal, however, the 19 units per acre, the project will exceed the Claremont's comprehensive plan maximum density allotment of 12 units per acre.

And then staff finds the waiver request and rezoning request inconsistent with the Claremont, JPA land development regulations and comprehensive plan. And this concludes my, presentation. The applicant is also here and available. And then if you have any questions for staff.

Does anyone have any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant?

Yeah. Just quickly, point of clarification here. In the staff determination, the sentence reads, staff finds a request inconsistent with Claremont JPA land development regulations and comp plan. That is three different documents, not just one with a bunch of adjectives. Is that correct?

Correct. Yeah. We have our own Claremont LDR section with the JPA as well, and then their own JPA when they provided our opposition, and then our comprehensive plan.

Okay. Thank you.

Is there any other question for staff? All right. If the applicant would like to come forward.

Think I'd rather just do it with the copy and do it here because we changed it a little bit. Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff. Jimmy Crawford with Crawford, Monica, and Holt, 702 West Montrose Street, Claremont, Florida, and also right around the corner here. And I do represent the applicant here.

And we also have two members of the engineering and development team from Kimley Horn, and that is Corey Sittler and Jonathan Martin. I knew that. I just terrible with that. We do have a short presentation, and I would like to first just say that we do not agree that it is inconsistent with the Claremont comprehensive plan. We are asking for waivers from their JPA, primarily being the cut and fill that in the JPA and in the Claremont LDRs, it is limited to 10 feet cut or fill for residential uses.

Now, I've argued with them about it to no avail, but I would say multifamily that is owned singly and rented out is a commercial use, not a residential use, and it's taxed that way by the county. And the cut and fill for that is 15 feet cut or fill, and we wouldn't need the waiver. But we do under the circumstances they've asked. The other disagreement I have with them is that the Claremont comprehensive plan and the county comprehensive plan allow up to 24 units per acre in Wellness Way. The part of Wellness Way is in the city.

A little part of it is still in the county. We started this process with a Live Local Act project that we drew up at 24 units to the acre. We then decided we did not want to do the Live Local Act. We have to rezone to do that anyway. Gosh, this gets complicated. I'm so sorry.

It's all right. Well, just take us down your path with you.

Okay. I appreciate it. Of course, it it's inconsistent with the Claremont comprehensive plan in that the comprehensive plan itself doesn't say you can do more than 12 units the acre at this location. Live Local says you get the highest density allowed anywhere in the jurisdiction. That's 24 units of the acre.

What we're asking for is less than that, and we believe consistent with good planning principles and that the surrounding area justifies it, which we'll go through. As to why we didn't annex first, really, we're going by the ISBA that the county signed with Claremont. And it says that development proposals within the ISBA that are in the county are processed in the county, and Claremont can annex those after CO of the buildings is what it says. Now, we don't do that because Claremont gets grumpy about not getting their impact fees on something that they're going to annex, and we certainly understand that. So we the the plan is to zone and gain site plan approval in the county and then annex into the city.

We did we we will sign a utility agreement that has a covenant to annex, so the city will be able to annex us even if we didn't want to at that point. And we hope they will. They have agreed to provide water and sewer to it. We are surrounded by city. We're not a technical enclave because of the lake parcel.

But we are everything around us is in the city. And I would like to point out I'm sure you've seen it in backup but within a quarter mile, the surrounding area, we have about 400,000 square feet of commercial development, including a Dick's Sporting Goods, a Lowe's, a Ford, a Hobby Lobby, four restaurants, a car wash, and what we all need close to us, an ABC Liquor Store is there as well. We have a crosswalk across Hook Street at our northeast boundary that we'll talk about. We believe it's the appropriate place for a more intensive zoning. And the only way to do that in Lake County is through PUD land use and PUD zoning, which the city now has, too, as well.

I would just like to show you a couple of examples of what other jurisdictions do. If I could have that zapped on. In fact, I'm going do the whole PowerPoint from here, partly because a couple of things changed and partly because I'm old and technically not the smartest guy in the world for those. This is Sumter County, Munecode, and Sumter County allows up to 24 units per acre. Orange County, which this area is sort of like, but certainly not like all of Orange County, medium density residential allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, high density up to 50.

And then, in all fairness, Polk County allows only 15 units to the acre. But if you look up urban sprawl in the dictionary, it's got a picture of Polk County. That's a joke. That's not true. Sorry, Polk County.

This would be Seminole County. I tried to take all the ones that bumped us. And Seminole County again, we don't want to be Seminole County, but they allow up to 50 units per acre as well. My point is, in the rapidly developing what used to be suburban areas of Lake County are now becoming urban. And 12 units to the acre is not an appropriate density in a truly urban area.

It doesn't maximize the tax base, doesn't maximize the land area, and our surrounding jurisdictions all allow more than that. And I hope when we get to our comp plan revision, SB 180 aside, that we can address that issue in areas that are appropriate, not everywhere, absolutely not. Okay, let's go through here we go. All right. And I was asked by the owner to point out that the fox is not dead.

The fox is sleeping. Overview we've already pretty much talked about. We're asking for 300 units. We are within the Lake Apopka Basin Overlay District, which has increased storm water and development criteria. We're not asking for a waiver from any of those.

We're going to meet all those criteria. Existing zoning is R6, so we could do up to six units to the acre, except that our land use is regional office. And regional office doesn't allow straight residential like that. It allows a little bit of residential mixed in with the office. Under law, we're entitled to a zoning that is consistent with our land use.

So we have to rezone it one way or another to something that is consistent with the regional office. Agriculture is not. We have Claremont C2 zonings and PUD zonings on all our sides except the south, which is the lake. Here's the concept plan, which you have looked at. Meets all requirements except one setback requirement and the zoning and the cut and fill.

And this property, both on the North Of Hook Street and the South Of Hook Street, was owned by the same family, and it was sand mined for years to the county's code enforcement consternation. They had a lot of issues with that that they went through over the years, but those have all been cleared up. But we have, because of Hook Street construction in the sand mining, a severe slope that is artificial. And I'll show that in a topo here in just a moment. The site specific PUD ordinance when I talked to the city planners about the density and said, gee, you allow it in Wellness Way.

We're not even asking for that much. They said, well, Wellness Way has a lot of protections that condition that density upon architectural guidelines, setbacks, all of those kind of things? And I said, yes. But Wellness Way is also a completely green area. There's no commercial there yet.

There will be. There's starting to be rooftops. But it's much more appropriate to put your density in the middle of your high intensity area, where people have access to walk and to bike there's bike lanes on Hook Street as well and use Hook Street for access both ways, where you don't have to get on Highway 50 for a lot of your trips. Highway 50, if you've been down to Claremont, don't go in the morning or the evening rush hour and try to drive with the traffic, because you'll sit there quite a while. So I'm sorry.

I completely got squirreled there myself. So what we did is we're not asking for we conditioned our PUD, and it's in both the land use ordinance and more strictly and more specifically in the PUD zoning ordinance, with those same restrictions, many of which are in the wellness way restrictions, not all. Some of them are different. But by doing it PUD for a site specific zoning, the county and the city when they annex can condition us with whatever they feel is appropriate for the type of development that we're doing. And those conditions are not just us talking about it.

They're written into the ordinance. And so if we sell it, if I retire, they remain. They run with the land. Okay. Already talked about that. Okay. So all of these are per code. We're not asking for any waivers at all for that. Here's a bigger blow up of our site plan. And this here's the crosswalk that goes up.

What's the name of that road? View Road, which runs right by the Lowe's and the Home Depot and the Dick's. And then over here, we have proposed two hotels, a daycare, and there are four restaurants already existing right there. Not asking Okay, maximum building height, 60 feet. We are asking for a waiver from that.

I believe it's 55 in the code. But when you see the topo, you'll see that it's not. Okay, these are the amenities that we're planning. And as a market rate, rather than a live local, we're able to provide more of those amenities and a more upscale product. I'm not dissing live local projects.

They're fine, and they're needed. But that isn't what the owner wanted to do in this case. The waivers that we're requesting are from the building height, I'm sorry, of 45 feet to a maximum of 60. The finish grade of the site will be lower than the elevation of Hook Street, so the building will appear significantly lower than it actually is. And then the other one is the change from the 10 feet cut and fill, And that is the previous mining operation and the public road construction left us with an artificial, very steep site that we have to deal with.

And within the city of Claremont and what we try to do in the county JPA and ISB area in South Lake County also is a balancing because the hills are pretty steep in a lot of those areas, and we deal with them all the time. We try to balance building walls with a variance to cut and fill, because we've got some places down where we've got almost 20 foot walls. City decided they didn't like that. They enacted six foot wall limit. So we have to do stepped walls of six feet when we do it.

And there are some of those in this project, which are expensive for the builder. But you don't wanna be just looking at walls from the road or from within the development. So we cut and fill to try to eliminate some of the walls. And in this case, the engineers can can talk about how they balance that that operation. But that's why we're asking for the cut and fill variance, so to prevent it being Wall City in there.

And there's our Topo. We have a relatively flat, small interior site, and then low, low here. The fall over the entire site is about 60 feet. Traffic impact is interesting. Our TIA traffic impact analysis covered what is allowed in regional office and then our specific traffic generation in the PUD.

And as you can see, it shows a significant reduction in traffic from what would be allowed in the regional office category itself. Water and sewer, the city has agreed to provide it. The ordinance says FDE approved potable irrigation well or city and On-site which that's misspelled, O N S Y T E is the approved central utility that the county allows when there is no connection. We don't believe those are going to be necessary. That's only if the city refuses, and the city has provided us the letter that said that they are ready, willing, and able to serve.

Landscape irrigation is reuse water. We won't use any potable water for landscaping irrigation. Environmental and floodplain there are no wetlands on the site. The site is extremely disturbed from the previous mining. There is, in some areas, about a five or six foot of wetlands right down by the lake, but there's a 50 foot setback from that that we can't even touch.

So there'll be no wetland impacts from the site. There's no floodplain development on the site planned. We are developing to dark skies, and we'll do native and LID design in the landscaping of the project. That's an aerial of the existing that shows the little piece of wetlands that is down by the site. Originally, this is all part of the old Lake Highlands Platte, 1911, I think.

And they plated a road down there that isn't a road and can't be a road, but it is public property at the moment. These are the policies that support it direct urban development to designated urban areas. If you did a density population map, this would be very close to the center of what Claremont is, because Claremont can't grow to the West because of Groveland, can't grow to the North because of Mineola. It's growing to the South and the East toward the Orange County line. And this puts our development right smack in the middle of the rapid urbanization of the city.

The PUD standards allow site specific flexibility. The overlay considerations that's the Lake Apopka Basin District protects both groundwater and surface water in a larger, a

stricter

manner than the normal St. John's and county standards do. And we will, of course, comply with those. We have noted that all of the substantial evidence favors approval of this. It is consistent with the Lake County comprehensive plan.

We are going through the appropriate procedures pursuant to the ISBA. And we're asking for a density that is lower than the maximum density allowed, either in the city of Claremont or in Lake County. Not in this area. I don't want to misrepresent or play slight of hand at all. But under Live Local, we could do up to 24 units to the acre if we qualified and did a Live Local project. There's our sleeping fox again. We hope he wakes up at some point. I do have Jonathan Martin and Corey Sittler here. They're the engineers that can answer more technical questions. Jonathan, do you John, do you want to say anything?

Questions.

Okay. Yeah. We're here just for questions. We'll all the whole team will try to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

And then we'd like to listen, see if there's any neighbors that want to talk. And if there are questions that come either from you or them, we'd like to get back up and answer them.

Wonderful. Thank you. We do not have any speaker cards on this item, but is anyone present who wishes to speak on this topic at this time? Okay, seeing none. I guess, do we want to bring does anyone have questions for staff? Because I know I do on this one.

We might have the same question as far as the value in approving from a county standpoint when they haven't gotten the waivers from the Claremont, which would be good. But you said I think they said that they've been provided acceptance to provide water and sewer. Do they still have is there any other hoops they have to pass prior to I'm trying to figure out what our role would be in this.

So so your role is strictly to look at the LDRs and the criteria that are contained in your staff report. Whether or not they get water and sewer from Claremont is not an issue for this board or for the county. The ultimate ordinance is gonna require them to have utilities. I don't know that this ordinance specifically says it has to be Claremont or it could be some other central type system. But your concern is not utilities.

Your concern is, is the zoning or the requested future land use and requested zoning change compatible and consistent with our comprehensive plan and our LDR. Again, the staff is indicating it's inconsistent, probably because of the amount of waivers that are being requested. The Claremont JPA, we have joint LDRs with them. So all of those waivers are not to the JPA document itself, it's to our LDR requirements that we have jointly adopted with the city of Claremont.

So my question is probably a little is similar. So it's so we're we're saying that the request is not consistent with those mutually agreed upon land development regulations between the city and the county as stipulated by our joint planning agreement with the city of Claremont, correct?

Yes, that is correct. Yep, and the proposed density as well.

Yeah, so it's not just the waivers. Those are one piece that's not consistent.

Correct.

But under the land use standard, the density exceeds what would be permissible in the county as well as the city. Is that what I'm reading correctly here?

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

I was

So the density they're requesting at 19 Yes.

And a

half units breaker, that exceeds the max both the the county would allow under a PD standard and the city?

Yes. Correct. Yep. Yeah. So so the actually, the surrounding that's within the staff report as well, I have a table that shows the, surrounding existing, densities that have already been annexed into the city. Are two other multifamily developments, Cottonwood apart Claremont Apartments and View At Claremont. And each are at a gross density of eleven point eight nine and eleven point nine seven units respectively.

And so at 19 units per acre, there is not a category, a future land use category that would accommodate that in the county?

That's where the PUD comes into that. They can build it, but we don't have a we used to have a language in there.

So under our future land use, the highest density category we have is urban high at 12 dwelling units per acre. The PUD, future land use category was created in 2019 to try and encourage innovative type developments that may not necessarily fit into a traditional category, not necessarily to give higher density, but more innovative type uses. You can look at the can't It's

all listed provided of the PDs of the PDs that we have from a land use perspective, not the zoning side. And are the densities in these I know that it doesn't note them in our chart here or table that we have. Do you know what the range of densities is for those PUD land use cap land uses that we have shown in our report?

Oh, that are existing? I would have to look that up. I did not prepare a chart for, all the existing or or previously approved PUDs.

I I'm looking that up if you can give me just a few minutes.

Thank you. Let's finish with staff, and then you can come back up after we finish discussing with staff. Thank you. Sure.

So the the chart for adopted PUD future land use does not show density. It shows unit for what's been approved. I'm looking to see if there's a regional this was regional office, I believe. Right?

Mhmm.

So the looks like the last regional office that was changed to a PUD was Mount Dora North, which, of course, is a mixed use commercial residential. This is just residential. Let me see if there's another one in here. There was Dora Grove South was also a regional office original, and that was allowed seven eighty three dwelling units. But again, that was a mixed use with commercial.

The remainder of them look like they're typically rural rural transition that were maybe correcting some older developments that were inconsistent that needed to have some adjustments made. But I don't have actual dwelling units per acre in the chart. Okay.

So one, I know that our focus here is not really the utility aspect of things, water, sewer, the city's strategy there other than us operating in conformance with the JPA. But, hypothetically, if we were to recommend approval on this project and it went forward to the BCC and they approved at the as it's written right now, The agreement with the city of Claremont stipulates that they would then have to annex in or the city may require them to annex in in order to receive utilities, but that same agreement also stipulates that they have to comply with the city's development regulations, comprehensive plan zoning, all that stuff. So if is inconsistent with their regulations already, we know that from the JPA language. So even if we furthered it, it still doesn't get the project actually moving because the city's still going to hold them to their regulatory standard under the utility agreement. Right.

And and just to clarify, the proposed rezoning ordinance specifically states that it is subject to the utility service agreement with the city of Claremont. Then it says connection to central water is required. So the ordinance in and of itself somewhat conflicts because it either it should either say they have to get utilities from Claremont, or it should just be a central water and sewer is required type of designation. But we also have in here the comp plan requirement that if they are going to have wastewater discharge greater than 100,000 gallons per day, then they have to connect to a regional system. If they do a central system because the regional system is not available, then they must meet they must have a Florida licensed wastewater treatment plant operator, and then they must construct it so that it can either be connected into a regional system when available, or bought out by a regional system.

So, you know, at the end of the day, utilities, they're gonna have to get the utilities, they're going to have to have that regional or central system in order to develop this project.

Okay. Does anyone else have questions for staff or county attorney? Anybody like that?

Okay.

Why don't we go ahead and hear from the applicant? And we can ask any questions of the applicant, and then we'll move into discussion.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to try to clarify, because the responses given were exactly appropriate to the question that was asked. But if Paul Harvey were here, he would say, here's the rest of the story. The utility agreement is absolutely required. Claremont standard, it's not been signed yet.

We have the utility availability letter that says they're ready, willing, and able to provide, and it'll require a utility agreement when you do. That utility agreement is not just words saying, we'll provide utilities, you agree that we can annex you whenever you want. It has all the engineering. It says where you're going to connect, what it's going to be, lift stations involved, all of those technical things that aren't done until the engineering for the project is done, which is at site plan approval. So this procedure that we're following, not only is it consistent with the ISBA, it's what the ISBA tells you to do, apply in the county, annex after CO, which we don't.

We annex before building permits so the city can get impact fees. But it's not only that, it's been done before twice, at least. I've done it twice. The CarMax facility and the CarMax expansion facility that have come both through this board, we did exactly the same thing. They were adjacent to Claremont. They were in the JPA and the ISBA. We got our zoning in the county. We get our site plan either approved or applied for in the county. As a part of that, you have to get your utility agreement. The ordinance says utility agreement is required prior to site plan approval.

So we have to have it for that, then we sign the covenant to annex, and the city annexes us. The city then takes the development as it's approved. They will zone it PUD land use and PUD zoning category just like it's zoned in the county. So the project will move forward if the county approves it. The JPA, they said we're not consistent with the JPA.

That's true, but we're asking for waivers, the three waivers, I guess you would call it, cut and fill, height, density. That's in PUD's, you often approve waivers. It's very common. So we're not inconsistent after the ordinance is passed. We are consistent with the waivers that were granted.

It's done in almost every PUD that comes before you, that list the waivers that are required. These are no different than that. They're exactly the same. Lastly, the question of consistency with density. Absolutely true at this location that the highest density allowed under the normal comp plan, unless you go PUD, is 12 units the acre.

But I wouldn't disagree with Ms. Marsh, but I'd like to add to her statement because the county does allow up to 24 units breaker in the Wellness Way sector not sector plan, it was going be that in the Wellness Way area. That's the only place it's allowed. However, going back to that live local analogy, live local would allow you to use the highest density anywhere in the jurisdiction. And in both the county and the city, that's 24 units the acre.

I think those were the only questions I had written down responses to. But of course, we'll try to answer any others that you may have.

You keep bringing up the Live Local, but you're not pursuing the Live Local.

We are not. We don't want to. We're just saying that we could. That's how this project started, as a Live Local project. And then the owner did not like the design. He did not like it was abandoned. And at the moment, this is not a Live Local. It's a planned development, which is another legal way to go about requesting that.

And just to clarify that, if they wanted to do live local, they still have to rezone.

100%.

You cannot do live local in agricultural zoning.

Right. We like I say, we have regional office land use, which allows, which requires us to have some office or commercial zoning which would then qualify us for Live Local.

So you noted a couple of examples where this process has occurred in the city of Claremont. In any of those examples that you referenced, was the PUD land use in excess of the maximum density or intensity permitted in the city of Claremont?

No, ma'am. This is the first one. And five years ago 10 ago, certainly five years ago, probably, it wouldn't have been appropriate from a planning perspective. And as the Mount Dora north and south projects were referenced, those are both large acreage projects and appropriate as a mixed use. This is 15 acres.

I believe it is a mixed use project because within a quarter mile, we have all of the facilities that you would want. There's actually a hospital clinic, a walk in clinic operated by Advent Health within a quarter mile. There's a hospital within a full hospital within a third of a mile, all the restaurants and shops that we've talked about. If you look at the walkable area, it's a mixed use project. What they need in this area is residences and density and people who can use those residential I'm sorry, commercial amenities that are already there without going on Highway 50, which this does.

All right. Does anyone have questions for the applicant? Any additional information or anything anyone is seeking?

I think my concern, not with the project, it's with what do you do with the property. I I do this for a living and there's not a lot of commercial that goes around. There's already all the commercials basically already there that's going to happen. So I mean, think the residential is probably a good use.

Yeah, my only concern is the density. That's where I'm stuck because this isn't a Live Local project. So while I can appreciate that context, it isn't one. Right. But also the city has said their maximum density allotment is 12 units per acre. That's a consumptive use permit issue on their end. They're going to be your water sewer provider. They have an issue with their consumptive use permit if the density exceeds what they're programmed for in terms of volumes. So there's other things that factor into density other than just whether or not it may or may not be, from a planning perspective, fitting into that area.

That would fall on the city. That doesn't fall on us.

The other piece I would I I know your thought on this is that, you know, there's all this commercial directly across Hook Street from here and that adding this density of residential makes sense there. I'm not sure how often you traverse that section of Hook Street, it is not walkable. Crossing that street in that location is 100% taking your life in your hands. It is a four lane divided road. It's not a little small road with an elevated crosswalk.

It's not frequented other than essentially east west movement from a pedestrian movement situation. Those are the back of all those commercial uses. That is not the front of those commercial uses. That is back of house that this would be facing. So if it were designed as a mixed use concept, the residential would have been integrated into those commercial uses as opposed to being sort of on the periphery and outside of that concentration, sort of like how the Cottonwood Cove apartments came out of the ground.

They ended up on the same side of the road as those commercial uses, so they're traversing through commercial parking lots to access those things from a walkability perspective as opposed to crossing a four lane divided road. So from that perspective, there are some concerns in terms of walkability. But again, I come back to if the density exceeds what the city and the county's agreement states, it's not really in our purview to say that that's appropriate if it's inconsistent with our existing agreement is where I'm at. So if you have any information to add that you think is relevant to increasing that density above what the city and county's shared agreement is, I think that would be helpful information.

Well, yes. And I'll try to keep this really short. The city and the county's JPA and ISBA don't have any density requirements in them. And both the city and the county have the PUD land use and the PUD zoning designation, which don't have those density restrictions. It's on a case by case basis. So I would disagree with the word inconsistent. We're not. We're both consistent with the maximum density allowed in the whole jurisdictions. We are inconsistent with the allowed density pursuant to the straight comp plan categories at this property. It is 12.

That's 100% true. But the PUD and the waivers are specifically in our code and our comp plan to be allowed as a land use and a zoning. So if it's passed, it is absolutely consistent with your code and your comp plan. And I believe the county folks would back me up on that. As the walkability, I wanted to talk about that very quickly.

Here's the crosswalk. It currently exists right now. We've had very preliminary discussions with trying to make improvements to that crosswalk and make it a raised lighted one, like you see on A1A or something like that over there. But it's a county road, and we have to deal with both the city and the county through that. It'll be part of the site plan approval process, and we'll do what they tell us with that.

And we already looked at it. It's like a million and a half dollars to to do it, but we would be willing to do it if it's gonna enhance safety for this development of Hook Street. And mister Tetrault's exactly right that this is the last parcel, and it is going for second reading in two weeks to the city of Claremont for two hotels and a daycare. And then the four restaurants are just on the other side. And they do front Highway 50.

That's completely true. But this development has a walkability requirement from the city that we have little pocket parks and walking pathways designated not in the parking lot, all the way through to the restaurant. So we're doing our best to try to change. This was an area that was largely developed in the aughts, and the standards were not what they are today. So we're trying to change that, go more of a strong towns type idea, walkability in higher density.

We are at a disadvantage because, as Ms. Jones Smith said, it's a four lane divided highway, and it's hard to change that into a complete street completely. But we feel like this is a step in the right direction, and it is absolutely consistent with the procedures and the requirements of the PUD land use and zoning in both the county and the city.

And Madam Chairman, just to go back to the waiver issue, Jimmy's correct. We do allow for waivers in the LDR. I think the difference with this and the reason the staff report says it's inconsistent is because historically, we have not had a PUD. And Jimmy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall us ever having a PUD that has asked for four waivers. It is typically one, sometimes two.

It's never been three or four. And so I think from the staff perspective, there comes a point where how many waivers are you going to ask for before you're just simply not consistent and shouldn't be doing what you're doing in the area you're doing it. So I think that's the reason why the staff has listed it as inconsistent is because we have not had four waivers granted on any other project that I recall right offhand.

And I'm not sure. That might very well be true. I would say we're asking for three waivers. The county listed them as a cut waiver from 10 feet and a fill waiver of 10 feet. But in the code, it's one thing. So now that's dancing on the head of a pin. It doesn't really matter. But I just wanted to state that.

May I add to that?

Yes. Just state your name for

the Jonathan Martin with Kimberly Horne Associates. I do wanna add to that, and and I think this goes back to the hardship that this was an old mine. It's not a a natural topographic feature. It's been mined. Even the county, when they built the pond next door to us for Hook Street, they affected our site and filled it. The topo that's in the GIS is a little misleading because in order to stop erosion and things like that, they plant a lot of pine trees. So I think a lot of aerial photography was done to get the topo. But really, that is our hardship here is that we would not be asking for these waivers from cut and fill if it was not for the fact that the property was a old mining site. So it is not a natural feature. We having to work with what is out there and we actually have done the best we could.

And going back to what Jimmy said, I don't I mean, I consider for rent more of a commercial enterprise than it is a it's commercially owned, pays taxes as such. It's not a single family residential or a for for fee simple ownership. So it's a nuance, but I do wanna mention that it would be allowed 15 feet if it was commercial, and we wouldn't probably need these waivers. The waiver from height the reason why the waiver we have from height is that we are working with the land and when you look at the cut and fill, our site has 80 foot of fall across it. Some of our buildings are going to be 20 to 30 feet below hook.

So from a road perspective and even the surrounding area perspective, most of these buildings are only going be 25, 30 foot tall from Hook Street perspective. You are going to be looking in the 3rd, 4th or, you know, 3rd or 4th Floor of these buildings. So we didn't feel like it imposes any hardship on any of our neighbors or any of our joining property owners. When you look to our West, we have the Retention Pond, the County Pond. You go up next next real development is the Wawa.

To our south is all this natural prairie that I think these residences will enjoy that view, kind of that overlook overlook of the lake and everything. And then to our east now is a brand new office complex that's going in that also will benefit from any enhanced pedestrian connection that we do have to the north. As Jimmy said, we're spending a lot of time on the project to the north, the last remaining property, to make it walkable, to make to have vistas and have respites. It there is some topography here and having places to stop and and have respites is is important. So, I think all those technical issues we definitely can solve.

Going back to Jimmy's comment about the PD, I mean, in every PD, there's a give and take to make the project in a in a better form. And this is an opportunity where the county has the ability to set a zone a density that is appropriate for the surrounding use. And like Jimmy said, if we were part of a larger project that went across the street and included those commercial pieces, our density would be five units per acre. It wouldn't be that much. And let's say if we did do the 12 units per acre, that means that, you know, a mile away or two miles away from all these core of commercial that those folks need, another 100 units has to be built.

So you're you're gonna punt a 100 units further away, another development, and and you have the opportunity here to kinda set a standard. Like like, we're worried about traffic and urban sprawl, but it seems like our our our avoidance of a higher density in areas where it should be provided, it's an opportunity to set a precedent here that, hey, you know what, it's good to have density near commercial, folks will walk, they won't have to drive, or they're coming home when they're able to stop instead of making another mile or two mile, three mile trip to go see something. Jimmy did a great job recapping the traffic. I mean, based on where we're allowed, we're going be about a quarter of the traffic. So, this project will be taking trips off the road.

So, we looked at this holistically and we're working on the project that we talked about to the north of this. And we also developed the commercial parcels all the way to 50. So, we're going to we have in our plan create a walkable environment all the way from 50 to this residential project. And when you look at that holistically, we really do meet density and we really we really are creating an amenity for the community to live live and not not live local act, but actually live local and use the amenities that are already there from a density perspective. So we're asking for less than what you've already approved as a max in the county, but we need this density in order for the project to to be fruition.

A lot of projects that I've done, probably, let's say, 50 in my career, are between two seventy five and three hundred. And why is that? The reason why that's the sweet spot is that you need a maintenance crew. You need a sales crew. You need you need staff in order to support a project. And if you have less than that, you add a burden to the project for cost. So you're driving unit cost off. And when you have more than that, it's just too much to handle. So this project between $2.75 and 300 is in the sweet spot BERNANKE: for what

a multifamily project should be in proximity of this density, of the commercial density. So just kind of rounding up all the comments that were made earlier, my thoughts on it.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, if I could close with just two thoughts. First of all, a PUD is, of course, a planned land use and zoning in this case. It can be conditioned. It can be conditioned by this board and by the Board of County Commissioners.

The pedestrian issue is one that was brought up that I absolutely see as an issue. We can design all the walkability we want here and across, and if they have to play frogger going across the street, it's a big problem for that walkability element. If this board wanted to condition this upon some kind of improvements to this walk walkway. We don't believe we can get another walkway because the county doesn't want to spread them have them all across Hook Street because they do want it to be a thoroughfare. But a raised lighted crosswalk that can stop traffic.

Oakland just put in two brand new ones. They're pretty common now everywhere, and it allows traffic to proceed until there's someone who wants to cross the street. Then there's lots of warnings to stop the traffic for that. That can be a condition of this if the PNC Board so wishes. Lastly, these multifamily projects, as you guys know you've sat here for a while They're very hard for zoning approvals almost always because of community opposition.

We have none. We have no residential neighbors. The businesses want us to come in. It's an ideal spot for the multifamily. And to make it work, we need the extra density. And with that, like I say, of course, we'll answer questions, but I'm going to hush.

Thank you. Thank you. Melanie, have a quick question. Do you have the reference in the county's comp plan as to when the PUD land use category is to be used or what the purpose of that designation is?

It's not necessarily in the comp plan. I just know because I was here and I created the ordinance as to what the purpose behind it was. There is a general description in there. Let me see if I can pull that up real quick.

I hope you're not reading that fast. No.

Alright. So the PUD Future Land Use Series is established to provide an implementing tool to accommodate site specific development standards for unique properties and developments which do not conform to an established future land use category. Specific land use designations may be approved on a site specific basis. Designation shall be conditioned on development proposal being reviewed as a PUD zoning district. Each specific land use designation shall be established by a comprehensive plan amendment that identifies specific land use types along with densities and intensities.

And the PUD land use designation is not permitted in the Green Swamp.

So that first segment you read, that first two sentences, can you say that again?

So the plan unit development is established to provide an implementing tool to accommodate site specific development standards for unique properties and developments which do not conform to an established future land use category. And actually, if you look in think it's your ordinance for the rezoning or for the future land use, that is the chart. So you can see what has been approved already as a PUD future land use. Right. Again, we don't have

The actual densities

in We don't have the densities in there. Things like Holiday Travel Park, Wildwoods Campground, those were nonconforming older developments. Illinois Crown, those were two residential properties that were not recognized as two lots. And those were individual property owners that sank their life savings into those properties. Drake Point was a rural transition to a mixed, well, I guess just a residential with amenities.

Okay. So I guess the I know we've done a handful of PUD land use situations over the years I've been here. They've always had some issue that dictated the need for it to be PUD, right? It was always that the land was a problem, the property itself was complicated, or they had previous approvals, then the comp plan amendments or the update that we did to the long range plan created some sort of inconsistency. There was always some sort of driving force behind them.

Some of those, yes. But the recent ones like Mount Dora North, Mount Dora South, Mount Dora Groves North And South, I mean, were just mixed use developments with previous entitlements, but they were readjusting, lowering, I think, commercial in those, if I remember correctly.

And I know the Mount Dora North And South, that's the Wolf Branch Innovation District.

Yes.

So this was all contemplated previously between Mount Dora and Lake County.

Correct. That was in the end

of They were modifying some components to move some density or intensity around. I don't remember which exactly. But I also see a lot of open space in the ones that are pure residential. So Sorrento Pines, for example, was three twenty eight dwelling units, but 50% open space.

Correct.

And then Drake Point was five thirty five dwelling units, but 46% open space. So where we deviated for the PD standard, there was some other thing that was exceeded in some substantial or significant way. So I just wanted to make sure I understood the original intent of the PUD future land use. It wasn't just so that you could get what you wanted to do without having to adhere to the comp plan. It was always to deal with some unique or specific situation.

That's correct.

Okay. Does anyone have any other questions for staff or anything like that before we move into motions and board discussion? Staff questions, applicant questions, anyone? Okay. So we already did public comment.

Mhmm. So let's go ahead and go forward with a motion, and then we can move into discussion if anyone would like to make a motion. And keep in mind your motion does have to be separate because the future land use amendment is tab eight and the rezoning is tab nine. So we can do one motion now on future land use and then zoning, or you can do both, but you need your motion needs to be distinct and we'll have to vote separately.

Correct. Because if you don't approve the future land use change, then Yeah. The zoning is not an issue.

So it makes more sense if whoever makes the motion, let's do the land use motion first. We'll go into discussion on land use, and then we'll go into the rezoning.

I'll move approval on tab eight.

Second. All

right. I have a motion and a second. So we can now go into discussion. What is thoughts amongst the board?

Yeah, for what it's worth, probably thirty minutes ago, it was a solid no on this, but that word unique still keeps coming up. I still have a minor concern that future considerations may not take into account the uniqueness of this and therefore consider it precedent setting. But I think that this whole proposal really is unique enough and there's probably a greater benefit to the area than any detriment that I can see. So that's why I am supporting it.

Anyone else?

I've kind of gone back and forth, yes and no. At this point, I'm a maybe. I do want to address something that the attorney said. I do have a concern about pedestrians because that is not a walkable area. And you mentioned that you were amenable or your clients were amenable to possibly doing something about that.

Yes, improvements to that crosswalk.

Yes, I would very much hope that that will happen.

It can be a condition if the mover in the second.

Right, I understand. But I just

know what, I understand your intent anyway, so even if it doesn't wind up in there, we will pursue it.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Yeah. I think that would I think that makes sense as a condition in the zoning portion and the actual rezoning because I don't know if we can condition land use other than just density. Right? So that condition, if if we move in, would go into the zoning. But also, it's is that section of Hooks County or city?

I think all of Hooks is county.

So county maintained, everything around it has been annexed into the city.

Okay. Just making sure it's which sections are city streets versus county streets. So it would really be up to the county as to whether or not they're willing to allow that type of activity on a county road in terms of being an elevated crosswalk or some sort of more visible crosswalk. And I don't know if County Public Works allows that type of activity on county roads.

Yes. Seth Lynch with Public Works Department. It's a 40 mile an hour road. It's a collector road. A raised crosswalk would not be warranted by the Federal Highway Standards and Florida Green Book, but enhancing it with texture or painting and

Maybe a little

recommended condition of the PUD agenda on nine is to have a signal there. They'll have one full access on the east side. The west side will be a directional median opening, meaning there's no lefts out.

So there is a signalization plan for that location?

They will have to come up with it, but it's a condition of the PUD ordinance currently.

Right.

So there's some safety measures with a signal. There's additional that could happen with it, but a raised crosswalk at this time with the posted speed traffics on the road, classification of the road is not something that will work unless something else changes out there.

But they could enhance it with the signalization to do some better lighting, ground texturing, reflective paint

You could paint the cross lock a little bit better to enhance the the the visual part of it. You could do some texture type things, lighting it up with street lighting and all. And there's some enhancements that measures out there, but raising the pavement is not allowed at 40 mile an hour roads.

Wonderful. Thank you, Seth. So my concern is I don't see this as a unique project. There's two more apartment projects within the immediate perimeter of this that comply with the density standards. There's no additional uses involved. This is just apartments, and that's great. I think we need them. It's not that we don't need the housing, obviously. Lake County needs more housing. We're growing exponentially and we're getting a lot of movement into Lake County from other areas in Central Florida.

So it's not that we don't need the units, We obviously need the units, but there's density standards in place for lots of reasons, and I just don't see a justification for me that makes this project or this site unique compared to everything else that is in South Lake County. Everything in South Lake County has been, at some point, mined or used for agricultural purposes or planted pot that's how everything there was historically. So there's not a lot of land in South Lake County that hasn't had some sort of prior activity on it disturbing the land, but also we have tons of small lakes, we have tons of water bodies and water frontage situations, and it's hilly, Right? I mean, that's part of why these cut and fill standards are in place because it is hilly. So the drop, all of those things just don't really seem particularly unique to me, and the project itself doesn't seem particularly unique given all of the other things that have been developed in this area at the density standard that's permitted.

So that's where I sit is, they could reduce the number of units by probably not that much, and I could do that math pretty quick, and they would be down to the 12 units per acre. So that's just where I'm at. The land use is the concern for me. The cut and fill standard is also concerning because while I I understand the applicant's argument that they're taxed based on a income generating standard, but at the end of the day, multifamily falls under the residential component of both the city and county comprehensive plans and zoning districts. So while I do appreciate that component of it and that perspective, I just don't know that it's really applicable here.

So I have some concerns about waivers in the zoning that I don't know are necessary for the project to move forward, but my actual concern is the land use and the density being requested under the PUD future land use amendment.

So

is there anything we want to discuss about why we think maybe yes, no, so

Well, I'm going to go back to there's another point in all this. I mean, there's no opposition.

No, there's not.

There's zero opposition, which kind of mesmerizes me a little bit that we're here at this point. Usually, there's 50 people lined up arguing about everything, and there's none.

What was the notice standard for this, Melanie? Who was notified?

Oh, it would have been 300 feet of the property boundaries, and then it's published in the paper. But James can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming it was on regular agenda because there was a letter of opposition from Claremont in your packet.

Correct. That's why we put it on opposition.

And it was inconsistent.

So I

found it inconsistent. 300 feet of this site is all commercial. So that's maybe why we didn't get as much.

And that's the other issue here. I mean, there's no more commercial that's going I mean, there's no commercial, guys. Everybody thinks commercial is just showing up everywhere. Commercial is contracting. It's not expanding. So I don't think there's a lot of use for this site outside of this. There's also no neighbors all around it. There's a marsh behind it. There's no opposition. To me, there's a lot of factors that indicate it's really not a bad project.

And I think to bring it to the 12 per acre would bring it down to like 185. Yeah. And your sweet spot being between $2.75 and 300. Understand amount of revenue needed in

order I to can speak to that a little bit just because I do it all the time. Look at financing on these larger projects like this is very especially with rates going up, the multifamily market has been slow the last three or four years. It's starting to open up again. We need more housing of this nature because the single family housing is all we've seen. We need more apartments. We need more market rate. People look at the single family stuff. You've got to pay property taxes. You've got to pay property insurance. It's all tripled and quadrupled.

Interest rates have gone up. The single family stuff, starter houses are $400,000 now. I mean, we need more of this product. And to me, this is almost like a little bit of an infill project at that I

was going

to use.

Yeah. I mean, it's an infill project. And it's a land use that works here. There's no more commercial, in my opinion. I mean, I'm sitting here racking my brain because I know all the commercial guys. There's no more commercial that's going to go back here on this site.

Well, I mean, they did just build there is a new office use going right next door to this. That's being site planned right now.

Office uses are

And then we just had three new restaurants built across the street from this that are all in a little commercial component in Claremont that's LongHorn, Portillo's, and Mission Barbecue. And then a whole new shopping center was built just south on 27 that's full of office, medical office, and all kinds of uses. So while I do appreciate what you're saying, and I I I don't disagree with you, actually, this area, we are starting to see those things carve out these infill pieces and fill that void.

But the commercial, most of the commercial is already there,

is what I'm saying.

It's coming. It's being built right

There's not going to be much more. It's very limited. Commercial's contracting, restaurants are contracting in most cases. They're not expanding.

So my only concern, like I said, is the density. I think that's, I just don't, even as an infill project, the density's big for me. I don't have a problem with the residential, I don't have a problem with the project. I do think we need more housing in Claremont, and it's absolutely needed. This whole area of Lake County is seeing huge growth. The housing units are needed. I don't think anybody's gonna dispute that the housing is needed. My issue is the density is pretty substantially above what's permissible here. And I just don't see the standard that there's some unique situation occurring other than it being infill.

If we had a whole bunch of opposition, I'd probably be a little bit more apt to say the density is too high. The simple fact is there's none. All

right. Well, we can go into a vote on this unless there's any other questions for staff or anything like that. And is there any need to amend any motions, or is everybody good with because the motion was just to approve the future land use amendment, which is tab eight. Alright. Are there any changes to that motion?

Based on what Seth said.

I made the motion. No no changes.

Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and call for a vote unless there's any more discussion or questions. Okay. All in favor of approval of tab eight, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Aye. So that carries three to two. All right. And then we would go into the rezoning component.

And I does anyone would someone like to make a motion on this? And then we'll go into discussion.

I make a motion to approve.

Can we make it conditional to the crosswalk signal in the improved painting? I think that was a concern for some.

I make a motion to approve based on the improved crosswalk signal in the painting.

Second. Okay.

Have a motion and a second. We'll go into discussion. Does anyone have any questions for staff, the applicant, or our legal team, or anything like that before we discuss the waivers and the zoning components.

Okay. Thoughts? We'll start down here. I'm good. Yeah. I'm good.

All good. Okay, sir.

I'm good to go.

Yeah, if there's a Portillo's within walking distance, I might wanna rent an

apartment. Did

you not know we have a Portillo's in Claremont?

Listen, I'm familiar with Portillo's from where my daughter lives in Illinois, so I'm delighted they're getting closer.

I'm good with I mean, I understand everything.

Yeah. My only concern is the cut fill and the building heights. And I mean, those are essentially all of the waivers that are being asked because they are seeking a habitable building height maximum increase from the 45 feet standard to 60 feet. Which is a little, so it's, you're increasing the maximum habitable building height to 45 feet and 60 feet in excess of the approved thirty five and forty five feet. The building heights are a little concerning to me, but the elevation issue I understand, but that cut and fill with that is a bit more concerning to me, that's just me.

These cut fill standards with the wall heights were a big issue, especially in these hilly areas because those walls are very, very visible from other property owners. So while it doesn't seem like a lot to go from, what is it, 10 feet to the I think y'all are asking for, what, 15 feet?

I address that just in thirty seconds? Yeah. The city height requirement is 55. The county's is 45. So it depends on which one you're looking at as to how much waiver. But we're in the county, so it's technically a 50 foot waiver. Once we annex, we'll only be five over what their normal site is. And both the cut and fill waiver and the height waiver are because we tried to minimize our footprints. And so these are four story buildings with elevators instead of three story walk up buildings. If we could have bought five more acres and spread this out to 12 units the acre, it would have been much cheaper for us to do that.

But we're landlocked. We can't go anywhere. And the waivers are requested because of the smaller building footprints that we tried to stick with so we could meet the open space requirements and setback requirements and not ask for any more waivers.

So the way that the waiver is requested is the county standard is 10 feet for cut fill, and you're asking to exceed 10 feet for up to 15% of the site? Yes ma'am. So we're not saying how high it will be, we're just saying it'll be more than 10 feet?

I believe we can answer that question. Not perfectly because it hasn't been engineered. Oh, okay.

Know, we know we can do it for less

than 15,000

sites.

Okay. Don't know yet. That'll be and by the way, the county standard is just the JPA standard. The county doesn't have a standard specifically.

For me, that's that's an area where we probably need more specificity in the ordinance because the way it's written right now, there's no there's no upper limit. So for 15% of the project site, if they decide they wanna engineer it in whatever way that may be, that will that they may have to build because they may choose to cut fill a section at 20 feet or 30 feet, we just don't know. So right now it just says in excess.

And I can help a little bit just talking to the engineers. We haven't engineered it, so we don't know an exact, but it'll be less than 20, over 15% of the site. If you want to write that in, that's great.

Okay. So you would be comfortable saying not to exceed?

Yes. Yes, ma'am. Not to exceed 20%.

No. Not to exceed

Over 2015% of the site.

20% in height.

20 feet. So instead of 10 feet, the limit will be 20, and it's only on 15% or less of the site.

Right. So the changes in topography would not exceed 10 feet over no more. Or sorry, exceed 20 feet. Sorry. Yeah.

So that's that's my concern is really the cut fill and the heights. The setbacks are also a waiver and that's the additional 15 foot setback for each story over two stories. So, yeah, my my concern is these are a lot of waivers and I think that's, I could probably get online on board with like the elevation change ones if we weren't also seeking setbacks and building height or I could probably get on board with building height and setbacks, but we're also doing cut and fill. This is a lot of land development standard that's being deviated, but that's just me. Does anyone have any concerns on these other than myself?

Okey doke.

Is everyone okay with modifying the ordinance to clarify the maximum of 20 foot cut fill over up to 15%, which is a change from what's written there now, which is just that it would exceed the 10 feet that is standard.

We're good with that.

I'm good with it as a second. Okay.

All right. So is there any other questions for staff, the applicant, or legal? Okay. So if you would like to modify your motion and then make that again, then we can move into a vote.

So we're going to make a motion to approve subject to number three, where the elevation changes to five feet that exceed 10 feet over no more than 50% of the project will be changed to 20 feet.

Is that for waiver three and four or just for waiver three?

Waiver three and four. I

think it would be that it would 10, it would not exceed 20 feet.

Correct. Right.

Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?

I second that.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. We've already been through discussion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Aye. Motion carries. And that is the last item on our agenda today. Is there any other business at this time?

Okay. Our next meeting is I'd have to look at a calendar, don't I? September 3 at 9AM. And we are adjourned. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I can go ahead and tell you.