01-07-2020 P & Z MinutesCITY OF CLERMONT
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 7, 2020
The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order on
Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman, Herb Smith: Members
present were: Herb Smith, David Colby, Joe Gustafson, Jane McAllister, Max
Krzyminski, Tim Murry and Ebo Entsuah. Also present for City staff was City
Attorney, Daniel Mantzaris, Esq., Development Services Director Curt Henschel,
Planning Manager John Kruse and Senior Planner Regina McGruder.
Report from the City: Development Services Director Curt Henschel thanked
everyone for their service on the Commission and welcomed the new members,
Jane McAllister and Joe Gustafson.
Chairman Smith stated that the minutes of the December meeting are not in the
packet and will be approved at the next meeting.
REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSION:
Commissioner Murry encouraged everyone to attend the upcoming Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. Day celebration with a parade to be held at Waterfront Park on
January 215t and advised that vendors are still needed to participate.
Chairman Smith thanked Commissioner Murry for his efforts in helping to put the
Dr. King Day Celebration and Parade together and welcomed back John Kruse to
the City.
Commissioner Krzyminski advised that the State of the City Address will be held
on January 30" and encouraged everyone to attend.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #1 - Ordinance No. 2020-04 (Transmittal) - Carmax Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting an ordinance to change the future land
use from Lake County High Density and Regional Commercial to Clermont
Commercial for vacant parcel located at east CR 455 and north of SR 50, adjacent
to the East Town Center Publix Plaza.
January 7, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page -1
Senior Planner Regina McGruder presented the staff report.
The City is requesting approval of a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment
transmittal to the State to change the future land use from Lake County Urban
High Density and Regional Commercial to Clermont Commercial designation. The
City is requesting annexation of the subject property as authorized by the Utility
Agreement with the property owner. The Notice of Encumbrance to annex was
executed on August 13, 2019. The property is currently in final site plan approval
with Lake County and is receiving water and sewer services from the City. The
property is located east of County Road 455 and north of State Road 50, adjacent
to the East Town Center Publix Plaza. The property is approximately 19.8 +/-
Acres; and will be developed as an auto dealership, CarMax. The City will annex
the property as approved with Lake County.
The property will also be rezoned from Lake County Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to Clermont Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning classification. Staff
recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment transmittal with
Ordinance 2020-04.
Attorney Jimmy Crawford with Crawford, Modica & Holt, 702 W. Montrose
Street, Clermont, FL represents the owner/developer of the property and stated that
they have no objection to the land use amendment moving forward at this time,
however, there is one caveat in that they have a site plan approval for development
from Lake County and they have to amend that a bit due to access issues with the
development going in next door to the north. The county has asked them to do a
joint access. They don't want to complete their annexation until that site plan ,
amendment is complete. The application has already been submitted and is going
through the review process in the County. They do agree to annex immediately
thereafter and to pull all building permits in the City which would give the City the
impact fees needed to serve the development. There may possibly be a delay after
the land use plan amendment comes back from the state with review of the
adoption and final annexation hearing or we may request that, but because the
county hasn't given them a schedule as of yet, right now they're on the schedule
and are looking forward to being a part of the City.
Chairman Smith opened it up to the audience. There was no one in the audience
to speak, so Chairman Smith turned it over to the Board.
Commissioner Colby asked for clarification on the timing for the annexation.
Attorney Mantzaris explained that Attorney Crawford's statements were directly
January 7, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 2
related to the annexation and that is not before the Commission tonight. The
Commission is voting solely on the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Like any Applicant, when the annexation comes through, he'll have
an opportunity to ask that the application be postponed and it would be up to Staff
and the County to approve it or not.
Chairman Smith brought it back to the board and entertained a motion. Motion to
approve Ordinance No. 2020-04 was made by Commissioner Colby, seconded by
Commissioner Murry. All voted in favor, motion passed unanimously 7-0.
ITEM #2 - Ordinance No. 2020-11 — Advent Health
REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting an ordinance to change the zoning from
C-2 General Commercial to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for property located
at 14138 State Road 50.
Planning Manager Kruse presented the staff report.
The owner, Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., is requesting a rezoning from
C-2 General Commercial to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Medical
Health Park Campus on 10.97 +/- acres. The parcel is located southeast of the
intersection of State Road 50 and Citrus Tower Boulevard. The property is the
former Don Mealy Chevrolet Dealership and the applicant intends to remove all
existing structures and redevelop the site. The applicant has provided a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Plan - C 100 showing the proposed layout of the site. The
project will consist of two primary buildings, an off -site emergency department
(OSED) and a medical office building. The off -site emergency department building
will be approximately 18,500 square feet and the medical office building will be
approximately 36,500 square feet. The total square footage of all the buildings
collectively will not exceed 57,500 square feet. This includes an additional 5%
from City Staff to allow for minor changes in the building design in case changes
are required for final site engineering. The off -site emergency department will
have 24 beds. The OSED will be staffed with doctors, nurses, and other medical
personnel. The site plan shows that parking for the project will be 30% more than
required by the City's Land Development Regulations. All required setbacks and
landscape buffers will be developed according to the Land Development Codes.
The site, as proposed, indicates no waivers to the Land Development Codes are
being requested to redevelop the site. The PUD request is for a building size
greater than 20,000 square feet and the Off Site Emergency Department (OSED),
which is similar to a hospital use. The owner previously submitted plans for a
January 7, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 3
similar project on the adjacent parcel that included several waivers to the Land
Development Code. The owner has shifted the project to the current site to
eliminate any waivers to the code.
Staff has reviewed the request as submitted and finds the proposal does meet the
intent of Section 122-315, Review Criteria for a PUD. There is a mixture of
commercial and office uses, including medical facilities similar to the one being
proposed, within a half -mile of the project location. The site has access to an
arterial roadway, State Road 50, and accessible through a major collector, Citrus
Tower Boulevard, which are major transportation facilities. The City's Traffic
Engineering Consultant has reviewed a recent traffic impact analysis provided by
the owner and the review indicated while the project may contribute to the existing
deficiencies along the roadway network, the project is not expected to create any
new deficiencies. Public utilities are accessible and available, and the City can
provide all services. The proposed use does not require school concurrency and
will provides opportunities for job creation and growth in Clermont. Staff has
reviewed the applicant's proposal and supports the proposed development at this
location, the proposed uses are compatible and consistent with the development
patterns and uses in the area and the existing site is being redeveloped with no
waivers to the Land Development Code. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance
No. 2020-11 to rezone the subject property from C-2 General Commercial to
(PUD) Planned Unit Development to allow for a health park, including an Off -Site
Emergency Department (OSED) and medical office building (Health Park) as
depicted in Exhibit A — PUD Site Development Plan.
Cecilia Bonifay, with the Ackerman Law Firm, 420 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando,
represented the owner/developer. She explained the scope of the project and said
that most of the discussions had to do with the fact that the original site required a
number of variances to the City's code, especially regarding the size of the
retaining walls, additional signage, etc. so the project was flipped to the other side
to avoid those issues. The original application was withdrawn and the technical
issues were addressed. She presented drawings showing the proposed site plan to
include landscaping and parking and entrance and exit points. There is a need for
additional medical services in the area based on growth and so this project is a
welcome one. She is available to answer any questions.
Chairman Smith turned it over to the audience. There being no one in the audience
to speak, he brought it back to the Board.
January 7, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 4
Commissioner Entsuah stated that this proposal is strictly for Planning & Zoning
review and approval and still has to go before the City Council. He thanked the
team for reworking the project, since the original proposal required a lot of
variances and believes those issues have been remedied and the site plan looks a
lot cleaner. He asked staff to clarify the additional five percent for minor changes
mentioned in the report.
Planning Manager Kruse explained that that relates to the building cap, for
example if unforeseen issues are encountered during construction, that five percent
will allow for changes, etc. so the developer will not exceed the maximum number
allowed, and will have no need to come back before the Board for approval.
Commissioner Murry stated that he's pleased to see that the developer took the
City Council's recommendation and reworked the project and it's nice to see the
old Don Mealey site which is an eye sore being redeveloped. He commented on
the jobs that will be created by the project, parking looks good and the access
issues have been addressed.
Commissioner Colby stated he met with the Applicant at their request, he had an
issue with the lack of a traffic study with regard to the original proposal and thinks
this proposal is an improvement and at a much better location. He thanked the
Applicant for taking everyone's comments into consideration to arrive at this new
proposal.
Commissioner McAllister stated that she met with the Applicant as she was not on
the Commission for the previous proposal and thinks the project will be a plus to
the community. The entrance to the rear was a concern for her, but that has been
rectified and she thinks it's a beautiful project.
Chairman Smith stated he thought with the original proposal the Applicant was
getting favoritism on a few variances, and it threw him off, but that this new
proposal looks very good.
Commissioner Gustafson stated that he attended the City Council meeting relating
to the original proposal as a resident and was very concerned, as were other
audience members, as it would entail taking down hills, putting up a 28-foot wall
and multiple variances, etc. He thinks the new proposal looks very good and is
happy with it. He met with the Applicant in an attempt to get up to speed as
quickly as possible. He learned some interesting facts about how need is
determined in a community and believes that this is well needed in the City.
January 7, 2020 PQ Meeting Minutes Page - 5
Commissioner Krzyminski stated that he also met with the Applicant and
appreciate that they took the time to address the issues and reworked the proposal.
Chairman Smith entertained a motion. Motion made by Commissioner Entsuah to
approve Ordinance No. 2020-11, seconded by Commissioner Krzyminski. All
voted in favor, motion passed unanimously 7-0.
ITEM #3 — Resolution No. 2020-02R — Mason's Ridge CUP Revocation
REQUEST: Staff is requesting consideration of the revocation of a Conditional
Use Permit (Resolution No. 2016-30) to allow a multifamily development for
vacant property south of Pitt Street and west of Grand Highway.
Development Services Director Henschel presented the Staff Report
Staff is proposing this Conditional Use Permit Revocation for the Mason's Ridge
development that has not fulfilled their development plans for over two years.
Mason's Ridge is a development that was originally approved by City Council in
August of 2016 under Resolution No. 2016-30. The development is for 102 multi-
family fee -simple townhomes. After obtaining approval from City Council, the
developer proceeded to obtain site plan approval to start construction on the site.
Shortly after grading the site, installing utilities and retaining walls the developer
became absent from the site. In September 2016 Code Enforcement started
receiving complaints in regards to the lack of maintenance of the site. After
starting a case, the developer cleared the overgrowth obstructing the right-of-way.
In November 2018 Code Enforcement again started receiving complaints in
regards to the lack of maintenance. Another case was started and was taken to a
Special Magistrate hearing in January of 2019. The property was found to be in
violation and a fine of $250 per day after January 31, 2019 was ordered. No action
was taken to maintain the property and in May of 2019 a lien was recorded against
the property for $27,500. The property remained in violation until July of 2019 and
accrued a total lien amount of $43,250. Since that time, staff has made contact with
the owner and they have been responsive, but after that, the property became
overgrown again and Code Enforcement has started another cases. This
Conditional Use Permit Revocation would remove any entitlements for Resolution
2016-30 which allowed up to 102 multi -family fee -simple townhomes.
Director Henschel explained that the revocation of this CUP is in accordance with
Section 86-146 2(b) of the City's Land Development Code which states in part that
in the event of the failure of the Permittee to fulfill development in substantial
accordance with the plans as submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission and
January 7, 2020 PW Meeting Minutes Page- 6
the City Council complies with the Codes of the governmental agencies having
lawful and appropriate jurisdiction therein or meet the terms of the Conditional
Use Permit, the permit may be revoked after due public hearings in front of the
Planning Zoning Commission and the City Council.
Jimmy Crawford of the law firm of Crawford, Modica & Holt, 702 W Montrose
St., Clermont, represented the owner of the property, ALP Investments LLC. He
stated the CUP was granted in August of 2016 and site plan approval was granted
in May of 2017. The Code Enforcement case mentioned in 2016 and had nothing
to with construction at the property. It related to overgrowth and trash that was
deposited on the property by outside people and the owner took steps to clear
things up as soon as they were notified. There was no code enforcement order
entered and they were not found to be in violation. Attorney Crawford showed the
CUP, which is a basic CUP form used by the City and has a provision that says the
permit is null and void if substantial construction has not begun within two years.
Substantial construction work means the commencement and continuous
prosecution of construction leading to completion. He stated that Joshua Hyde,
Manager of ALP Investments, who has been involved with the project from the
inception and is familiar matters. He believes that continuous construction has
begun. He showed several payments that were made almost every month between
2016 and 2017 including more than $330,000 paid to the City Clermont as prepaid
impact fees. Payments to Boykin, the site contractor in October 2017, Denise Pyke,
the builder, BESH (Engineering) and the project has continued to have ongoing
expenditures. Total payments are well over $1.5 million. There has been a
slowdown after the initial construction, and he attributes this to the Master Plan
project that the City is doing which is behind a whole year. He stated that he has
been in attendance at meetings where the City Manager stated that construction
costs have come in for City projects more than double what was quoted in 2016
and 2017 and therefore, the Applicant's costs have also escalated due to market
conditions. He explained that the applicant neglected to change their mailing
address with the Property Appraiser and the notices were sent to the address listed
on the property record card. The Applicant found out about the issues when the
Notice to Foreclose Lien, and took action. Since July of 2019 there has been
consistent work going on since then. If there's an issue, the owner wants to take
care. There is no language in the CUP of the Code that allows the CUP to be
revoked. Code Enforcement is its own process and the only way revocation is
possible is due to a lack of continuous prosecution of construction. He apologized
for the miscommunication and believes that the owner's behavior demonstrates
January 7, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 7
good faith in correcting things. He showed the County aerial which backs up his
prior statements, construction mortgage and UCC statements, Notice of
Commencement, Amended Notice of Commencement all showing continuous
prosecution. This will not go on for an indefinite period of time, but they need
some more time. He understands it has become an eye sore. The owner needs
additional financing partners in order to move forward. If they have to come back
and request another CUP, he plans to ask for a refund of the impact fees previously
paid. This is not an abandoned project. He introduced Mr. Joshua Hyde, CPA and
Financial Adviser to ALP Investments,
Mr. Hyde of Deer Island, stated that this is not an abandoned project and the
developer is committed to completing the project. Debt and equity financing is in
place and developer has continued to increase the equity and is committed to
partnering with the City to create a successful development. Per the CUP,
substantial construction has begun within the prescribed time and continuous
construction has been achieved. He emphasized that a substantial amount of
money has been invested in this project, well over $3.5 million which includes
interest, carrying costs, cost of the land, etc., and although earth is not being moved
or blocks going up, there's a lot going on including financing, planning,
recalibrating and other activities associated with the development of a $15-20
million project. Several activities are in the works and are expected to be
completed by March 3111, including updating marketing and cost analyses, sales
plan and renewing the development and construction financing. He stated that
without entitlements or loan covenants in place, advances of the loan will not be
made. It's critical for the CUP to remain in place otherwise the project cannot go
forward.
He stated that the time frame to begin additional construction and vertical building
will be within approximately three to six months. There is a commitment in place
and the project will be done in phases.
Chairman Smith turned it over to the audience.
Linda Smith, resident of 14340 Grand Highway, Clermont stated that she was at
the first meeting and have no problem with building, however, there is now a big
ugly wall with graffiti which is overgrown and within the last three years since the
project started, her yard is sinking from the drainage coming into her yard because
it was not consistent with what was promised. The apartments just above the site
of this project are beautiful and were done quickly, this is not doing Clermont any
January 7, 2020 P&2 Meeting Minutes Page - a
good and she believes the developer is not doing what they promised. There is no
sidewalk, which is very dangerous as people are walking by.
John Songer, resident of 14334 Grand Highway, Clermont stated that when the
project commenced in October 2018, the developer came in and removed all the
trees and made a big bonfire and ashes was all over the place which made a mess
of everything. Then everything stopped, he called the City to complain including
about the wall with overgrowth. What was shown at the time of their presentation
is different from what is there now. There is a cinderblock wall full of graffiti.
The cones and caution tape put up from the start are still there. The developer
came out and mowed the grass, but it just goes back to the same within a few
months. There's no consistent maintenance. He's afraid that someone is going to
get killed walking alongside this site as there's no sidewalk/walkway. He implored
the developer to do something and stated that they are abusing the residents who
have no choice but to look at this ugly eye sore.
Mark Swanson resident of 14446 Grand Highway, Clermont stated that this site is
an eye sore, the developer shows up periodically and does something small, but
nothing consistent. It doesn't appear that any construction is being done, although
the developer said they're spending a lot of money.
Attorney Crawford stated he's willing to speak with the residents regarding the
wall and to remedy any issues. The status of the construction should have no
impact on the dirt and flooding in the neighbor's yard. Construction cannot begin
within a week it'll be about March of April before any construction begins. The
developer does not want this to become an eyesore. If the City revokes the CUP
and the developer cannot get financing, and the City forecloses the lien, then
nothing will get fixed and the situation will remain a problem. He empathizes with
the residents, but requests some additional time to get things up to speed with the
caveat that they come back before the Commission within three to six months to
show what progress has been made.
Mr. Swanson stated that he cannot understand how the developer does not know
what's going on at this site. The site was basically abandoned for two years to
become an eyesore and now requesting additional time.
Attorney Mantzaris explained the terms of revocation of the CUP if the applicant
does not meet the current codes of the City and it deals with completion and
construction regarding the CUP and complying with the city code. He stated that
Attorney Crawford's reference to the City's ongoing construction project has no
January 7, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page - 9
relation to this issue. That is a big project, is not under a CUP and maintenance
and construction has been continuous. There hasn't been any construction on this
project since November of 2018 although payments made were shown relating to
the project but no evidence of any construction. He emphasized that this matter is
before the Commission because construction has not been continuous, as the City
is not in the business of beating up on the developer, but can only go by physical
evidence of construction being done.
Chairman Smith brought it back to the Board.
After discussion among the members of the Commission, including agreeing that
it's taking way too much time, no periodic visits to conduct inspections have been
made to the site, it's in a deplorable condition which is not good for the community
but revocation is not necessarily in the best interests of the City or the residents,
the retaining wall is not attractive, vehicles are parked alongside the wall, which
creates a dangerous condition and is not safe for children walking along the area.
The consensus was that the City should work with the Developer to get this project
going.
Attorney Mantzaris explained that a foreclosure will take a long time to
accomplish, there is evidence of substantial debt on the property and the City
would be taking that on. Whatever exists on the property that creates an unsafe
condition would have to be removed if the City does an abatement action and the
property would have to be restored to its original state. The abatement action
would take approximately six months. This requires two public hearings,
including one before the City Council. The Code Enforcement lien has not been
paid and it's up to the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate to authorize
foreclosure on the lien.
Chairman Smith entertained a motion. Final Motion made by Commissioner
Murry to delay the revocation of the CUP for four months with the agreement that
the developer pay 50 percent (50%) towards the existing code enforcement lien
within thirty days (from the date of the next City Council Meeting), to cure any
violations that exist against the property and to upkeep the maintenance of the
property within that time frame. Motion seconded by Commissioner Gustafson.
All voted in favor, motion passed unanimously 7-0.
January 7, 2020 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page -10
City of Clermont
Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission
January 7, 2020
With no further comments, Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:11 P.M.
ATTEST:
AQ. �CL �
-
J E. Kruse, Planning Manager
January 7, 2020 PU Meeting Minutes Page -11