Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
Ordinance No. 2021-015CITY OF CLERMONT
FAILED
ORDINANCE NO.2021-015
AN ORDINANCE UNDER THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT REFERRED
TO IN CHAPTER 122 OF ORDINANCE NO. 289-C, CODE OF
ORDINANCES; REZONING THE REAL PROPERTIES DESCRIBED
HEREIN AS SHOWN BELOW; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT,
SEVERABILITY, ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENERS
ERROR, RECORDING, AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION.
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2021, by a vote of 4-1, the City Council denied Ordinance 2021-
010, rejecting a petition to rezone the property described below to Planned Unit Development;
WHEREAS, the applicant availed itself of its rights pursuant to Section 70.51, Florida Statutes,
requesting relief from the denial of Ordinance 2021-010;
WHEREAS, in accordance with and as required by Section 70.51, City staff and the applicant
mediated the matter on April 30, 2021, before an agreed -upon Special Magistrate; and
WHEREAS, the City staff agreed to recommend City Council consider a revised version of
Ordinance 2021-010 to include additional conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida
hereby ordains that:
SECTION 1:
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida referred to in Chapter 122
of Ordinance No. 289-C, Code of Ordinances, is hereby amended by rezoning the following
described property:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PART OF TRACTS 37, 38, 43 AND 44 OF LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT IN SECTION
28, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 28 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 53 OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS
COMPANY PLAT (SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF A 30.00 FOOT WIDE
RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT); THENCE SOUTH 89°51'04" WEST ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACTS 53, 54 AND 55 (ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
GREATER PINES PHASE 9, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 48, PAGE 80 AND THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF GREATER PINES PHASE 10, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 48, PAGE 83, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA) FOR 1968.84 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID
TRACT 55; THENCE NORTH 00°12'38" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF TRACTS 55 AND 42
OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT, FOR 1326.74 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID TRACT 42; THENCE NORTH 89°49'40" EAST ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE FOR 659.27
TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 38 OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT
AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°20'02" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID TRACT 38 FOR 613.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HOOKS
STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO
Page I I of 9
CITY OF CLERMONT
d ORDINANCE NO.2021-015
COURSES: NORTH 89°48'50" EAST FOR 51.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1350.00 FEET; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15038'08"
FOR A DISTANCE OF 368.40 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 38;
THENCE NORTH 89048'50" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 158.69 FEET TO THE WESTERLY
LINE OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO LAKE COUNTY AND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 2574, PAGES 830-833 FOR STEVE'S ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY
LINE THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: SOUTH 22°56'53" EAST FOR 440.88 FEET TO A POINT
ON A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2053.62 FEET TO WHICH A
RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 76005'45" EAST, THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC
THEREOF, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05050-49" FOR 209.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
02001'00" WEST FOR 333.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1630.11 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 76058'15"
EAST, THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC THEREOF, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 03014'30" FOR 92.23 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH
89049'40" WEST FOR 756.48 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT 43 OF SAID LAKE
HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT; THENCE NORTH 00°20'02" EAST ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY
LINE OF TRACT 43 FOR 370.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 17.03 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
LOCATION
Vacant property southwest of Excalibur Road and Hooks Street Intersection
Alt. Key 1103908, 3801505, 3815507
From: Urban Estate Low Density
To: Planned Unit Development for a 204-unit apartment complex
SECTION 2: GENERAL CONDITIONS
This application is for a Planned Unit Development to allow for a multi -family residential Planned
Unit Development; be granted subject to the following conditions:
The conditions as set forth in this Planned Unit Development shall be legally binding upon
any heirs, assigns and successors in title or interest.
2. The property shall be developed in substantial accordance with the PUD Plan, prepared by
HALFF dated October 2020, Skorman Apartments. Formal construction plans
incorporating all conditions stated in this permit shall be submitted for review and approved
by the Site Review Committee prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance or other
development permits.
3. No person, firm, corporation or entity shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove,
improve, move, convert, or demolish any building or structure, or alter the land in any
manner within the boundary of the project without first submitting necessary plans,
obtaining necessary approvals, and obtaining necessary permits in accordance with the City
of Clermont Land Development Regulations and those of other appropriate jurisdictional
entities.
Page 12 of 9
(,�ONT
CITY OF CLERMONT
��
`r ORDINANCE NO.2021-015
4. Fiber optic conduit and pull boxes may be required to be installed by the developer in the
utility easements to extend the City's fiber optic network. The City's Information
Technology Director will work with the developer at the time of site plan review to
determine the extent of fiber optic conduit. The City will reimburse the developer at 100
percent for all costs including design, permitting, materials, and construction of the fiber
optic conduit and pull boxes.
SECTION 3: LAND USES AND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. A total of up to 204 multi -family dwelling units (d.u) may be permitted on the site, not to
exceed a base density of 12 dwelling units/acre.
2. Building setbacks shall be 25 feet from the property lines.
3. Maximum building height shall be up to 55 feet, measured at the highest point.
4. The project may have elevation changes of up to 13 feet maximum cut and 13 feet maximum
fill up to 10% of the project site, as shown on the cut and fill exhibit — Grading Plan Variance
prepared by HALFF, dated October 2020. These elevation changes will be submitted to the
City Engineer at the time of final engineering.
5. Individual retaining wall height up to 6 feet in height are permitted to deal with grade
changes on the perimeter of the project and in the stormwater pond. A minimum 5-foot
transition shall be required between the walls with landscaping incorporated within the
terracing of the exterior perimeter wall sections.
6. Trash compacters may be substituted for dumpsters for the project if the Applicant can
demonstrate it can sufficiently meet the waste demands for the project.
7. The project will be gated and the internal streets will be privately owned and maintained by
the HOA, owner, or developer.
8. The buildings shall be constructed in a manner that closely resembles the architectural style
and elevations as presented at the end of this ordinance and shall meet the City of Clermont's
Architectural Standards.
9. If required by Lake County or Florida Department of Transportation, the developer shall be
responsible to coordinate the modification of the existing traffic signals and turn lane
improvements to accommodate safe and efficient traffic flow resulting from the project as
identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared on September, 2020 by Kimley-
Horn, and as supplemented by that Response to Comments Letter dated October 13, 2020,
by Kimley-Horn.
10. The development shall comply with all applicable County and Florida Department of
Transportation access management requirements. The final access points shall be
determined during the final site plan and final engineering review and may change from the
conceptual plan. The primary full access entrance to the Project shall be off Hooks Street
with the dominant project signage at the Hooks Street Project entrance. Project signage,
subordinate in size to the Hooks Street signage, may be installed, per City code, at the
Page 13 of 9
6
aEO?NCITY OF CLERMONT
- 1�' ORDINANCE NO.2021-015
secondary project entrance off of Excalibur Road.
11. In consideration of the traffic during the AM and PM school drop off and pick up hours, the
Developer/Owner shall close and prohibit access to Excalibur Road from 6:30 to 9 AM and
1 to 5 PM EST during the schools' academic calendar days for East Ridge Middle School
and East Ridge High School.
12. Additional right-of-way may be required for offsite improvements and the sidewalk. This
dedication shall be made at no cost to the County or the City.
13. The Developer shall install sidewalks along Excalibur Road prior to first Certificate of
Occupancy.
14. The project shall be developed according to the C-2 General Commercial zoning
designation in the Land Development Code, unless expressly stated above.
15. This Planned Unit Development shall become null and void if substantial construction work
has not begun within five (5) years of the date that this Planned Unit Development is
executed and signed by the permittee. "Substantial construction work" means the
commencement and continuous prosecution of construction of required improvements
ultimately finalized at completion. If the Planned Unit Development becomes null and void,
the property will revert to the UE Urban Estate Zoning Designation.
16. School concurrency shall be met before final site plan approval in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.
17. All leases for units in the project shall be for a minimum of one year and all tenants shall
sign the attached Short -Term Subletting or Rental Addendum. Prior to leasing to any
apartment, all proposed tenants shall undergo criminal background checks.
Developer/Owner agrees to follow the protocol below in rejecting any tenants for reasons
that appear in a criminal background check:
a. Criminal — Exclude all Non -Convictions (i.e. Dismissed or Nolle Proseque)
b. Federal, Felony, & Sex Offender will Fail for all years
C. Misdemeanor Crimes will Fail the following categories for all years: Violence
Crimes, Family Relations Crimes, Weapons, Organized Crimes, Sex Crimes and
Unable to Classify.
d. Unclassified Crimes will Fail the following categories for all years: Violence
Crimes, Family Relations Crimes, Weapons, Organized Crimes, Sex Crimes and
Unable to Classify. (All unclassified crimes from the Department of Corrections
will fail)
18. A six (6) foot decorative fence will be installed, per applicable City code, along all property
lines of the project, as depicted on Sheet Number LS-01, dated May 2021, and prepared by
HALFF.
Page 14 of 9
CLE CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-015
19. In addition to all other landscaping required by City code, an additional visual buffer is
required as set forth in the landscaping plan, Sheet Number LS-01, dated May 2021, and
prepared by HALFF; providing vegetative buffering on the interior of the fencing facing
toward the Project, and along the project property lines abutting the shared East Ridge
Middle School property lines.
20. The property management office shall prominently display a notification sign informing
potential tenants of the sounds resulting from activities by the adjacent schools, such as but
not limited to; daytime PE classes, night games, bands playing, bus noise, etc. The sign
shall be a minimum of 11inches x17 inches. In addition, as part of the rental contract,
similar wording shall also be included that the applicant acknowledges.
SECTION 4: CONFLICT
All Ordinances or parts of this Ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5: SEVERABILITY
Should any Section or part of this Section be declared invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such adjudications shall not apply to or affect any other provision of this Ordinance,
except to the extent that the entire Section or part of the Section may be inseparable in meaning
and effect from the Section to which such holding shall apply.
SECTION 6: ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION
This Ordinance may be re -numbered or re -lettered and the correction of typographical and/or
scrivener's errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager or de-
signee, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected or re -codified copy of same with the
City Clerk.
SECTION 7: RECORDING
This Ordinance shall be recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida.
SECTION 8: PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be published as provided by law, and it shall become law and take effect
upon its Second Reading and Final Passage.
Page 15 of 9
CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE N0.2021-015
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County,
Florida on this 8th day of June, 2021.
CITY OF CLERMONT
CUn-
Tim Murry, May
ATTEST.
Tracy Ackroyd Howe, MMC
City Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
Daniel F. Mantzaris, City Attorney
Page 16 of 10
CLE ftw
Location map:
CITY OF CLE"ONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-015
EXHIBIT A
HOOKS ST
O�,LyeF
RRY
= CIR
m
0
K
Q
f
a
East Ridge
W
High School
o
=
East Ridge
Middle School
m
o,
S, VES RO
EXCALIBUR RO
y0
O LAKE OR
LONG PINE TRL etyg`.
SE�Q`ay
a
W
S,q OyP�Q`
1'DY PINE�M
GRFp
Lake BCC
�. A
or wr°�tt�im�.x.uvunanw
Page 17 of 10
4 f'YFu R- H
sc
CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-015
EXHIBIT C
Conceptual Site Plan:
14:4
LI
vil I
29
SIFI�E
SEOTIONAA
Page 19 of 10
CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-015
EXHIBIT D
Short Term Rental Addendum:
ADDENDUM PRO EBITING N�wr w .
SHORT-TERM SUBLETTING OR RENTAL • A
L DWELLING UNIT DESCRIPTION.
Unit No,
(street address) In
(dey), Florida Islp code).
2. LEASE CONTRACTDESCRIMON.
Lease Contract Date:
Owner's name:
RasldeatsIVrtaIl residents):
Tbb Addendum constitutes an Addendum to the above
described Lease Contract For the above described premises,
and Is hereby incorporated Into and made a part of such Lease
.^,mnract Where the terms or conditions found In this
Addendum vary or contradict any terms or conditions found
in the Lease Contract this Addendum shall control,
3. SHORT TERM SUBLEASE OR RENM%6 PROHIBITED
i?ItWa�.. *':'tar fh? _a;" a - -,
=.es�z,=_ -,-•! tsar"^';. - �::r car.;•
-trfhr � ,'8':9a..®__ � : It^'a:•._._... '.,3 _4a_4 f�:.M e�•
h—ke -�:tiag
b!any W.nd-yart^s:, :::v W. r:-'`r• ar:.•.,:d ^esTr.
afa S,x au}' pst'aats ci fl.e s+�e'.'_:7, +'setae. far a : ove!nsght
We dr 6pr.tim of A;" _e.te x::latn our pmr writrea
a uer: to mh m a!;et, ^R .;m3miliran ap-An to erermw
stays yr any ad:er stay. VRBO.
C:3ig"AtP. t. ytd4'iV.'Sna iiSntArf'a�. V'Y:2ttd66�en31
MpKr± of aT, ot'nex' >iverdsigg, webssse
Fate:cat. lt:t'.e.ar W. ne Mi. atru5zr Urtm.4 silo_.
4. PROHIBITION ON LISTINGORAWERRSO/G DWELLING ON
OVERNIGHT SUBLETTING OR RENTING WEBSITRS.
You agree not to Est madverdso the dwelling as being available
For shortterm subletting or rental or occupancy by others on
Abfiubcom. VRBO, CretgslLvt Couchsurflrsg, HomeAway,
VacatiooRenlai. Tr*Advbon Fliplley or any other advertising,
webslte, Internet listing service, or similar Internet wabsttes.
You agree that listing or advertising the dwelling on
Alrbub com. VRBO. Cralgelist Couchsurfing^ HomeAway,
Vacatlonitental, Trip.Advlsot FlipKey or any other advertising,
xebsite, Internet, Hsting service, m similar Internet webshes
sbal be a violation of this Addendum and a breach of your
Lease Contract
Resident orResidents
(ALfresidentsmusra�)
S. VIOLATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT. Year Lease Contract
allows for use of your dwelling as a private residence only
and 3ticdy prohibits conducting any kind of business In,
from, or Involving your dwelling unless expressly permittal,,
by law. Separately, your Lease Contract prohibits subletting
oroccupancy by others of the dwelling forany period of time
without our pilot written consent. Permitting your dwelling
to be used for any subletting or rental or occupancy by others
(Including, without Radiation, for a short term), regardless
of the value of consideration received or if no consideration
is received, Is a violation and breach of this Addendum and
your Lease Contract
E. REMEDY PER VIOLATION. Any violation of this Addendum
constitutes a material violation of the Lease Contract and as
such we may exerdse any default remedies permitted in the
Lease Contract Including termination of your tenancy. In
accordance with local law. This clause shall not be Interpreted
to restrict our rights to terminate year tenancy for any lawful
reason, or by any lawful method.
7. RESIDENT LIABILITY. You are responsible for and shag
be held liable for any and w losses, damages. and/or fines
that we incur as a result of your violations of the terms of this
m Addenduor the Lease Contract Further. you agree you are
responsible for and shall he held liable for any and allacti—
efany person[.) who occupy yourdwelling Inviolaton ofthe
termsofthls d Addendum .,the I— Contract inuding.but
not limited to. property damage, personal ink", disturbance
of other residents. and violence or attempted violence to
another person. In accordance with applicable law, without
Ifta ting your liability you agree we shall haw the right to
collect against any renters or liability insurance pollyy
maintained by you for any losses or damages that we incur
as the result of any violation of the terns of Otis Addendum.
O SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Addendum or
the Lease Contract Is Invalid or unenforceable under applicable
law, ruch provision sbal be ineffeetvo to the extent of slab
InvaEdlty or unonimcoaldlity only without Invalidating or
affecting otherwise the remainder of this Addendum or the
Lease Contract The Court shag interpret the Ieare and
provisions herein In a manner such as to uphold the valid
portions oft is Addendum while preserving the Intent of the
parties,
9. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. The following special provisions
control over conductng provistous ofthis printed form:
Owner or Owner's Representative
INgnsfrehrw)
Data olSigningAddenda.
a 2020, naaaW Ayamuv[Aswel.eba Toe.-7/2021 FWd" Q
Page 110 of 10
0
RIEICEIVE
MAR 2 2 �7L,2 0 2 Z1
BY:
J Lowndes
tara.tedrow@lowndes-law.com
215 North Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida 32801-2028
T: (407) 418-6361 1 F: 407-843-4444
MAIN NUMBER: 407-843-4600
TTT MERITAS'LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE
March 16, 2021
SENT VIA U.S. MAIL
Mayor Tim Murry
Clermont City Council
685 West Montrose Street
Clermont, FL 34711
Re: Skorman Enterprises LLC— Request for Relief
Dear Mayor Murry,
Enclosed please find our Request for Relief pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 70.51, a copy of
the same was also sent via email on March 15, 2021.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Tara L. Tedrow
TLT/nle
Enclosure
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. lowndes-law.com 11 71
0894177\192087\10887087v1
SKORMAN ENTERPRISES LLC
REQUEST FOR RELIEF PURSUANT
TO 4 70.51, FLA. STAT
Skorman Enterprises, LLC, as the applicant ("Applicant") of the real property located on
Excalibur Road and Hooks Street in Clermont, Florida (Alt. Keys 1103908, 3801505 and
3815507) (collectively, the "Property"), hereby files this Request for Relief, pursuant to §70.51,
Fla. Stat. (2020), from the City of Clermont City Council's denial of a Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") rezoning to allow a 204 unit multifamily project and a concurrent waiver
to permit 13 feet of cut/fill over a maximum of 10% of the Property (the "Development Order")
on February 23, 2021 (Ordinance #2021-001). A copy of the Development Order is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A". Pursuant to §70.51(4), Fla. Stat., the Applicant hereby requests that the
City of Clermont City Council (the "City") forward this Request for Relief to a mutually
acceptable Special Magistrate within the ten (10) day requirement for doing so.
1. Brief Statement of Proposed Use of the Property:
The Applicant's proposed use of the approximately 17-acre Property is for a 204-unit
Class A multifamily development project (the "Proposed Use"). A rezoning ("Rezoning") from
Urban Estate Low Density Residential District ("UE") to PUD is necessary to permit the
development of the Property for the Proposed Use.
The Property has a UE zoning designation and a mixed -use future land use designation of
Residential/Office. The future land use designation allows up to 12 dwelling units/acre,
however, under Section 122-83(a)(4) of the City's Land Development Code ("Code"), a
conditional use permit is required for projects that have a proposed density over 8 dwelling units
per acre. Because the Applicant intends to construct a multi -family community at a density of 12
dwelling units/acre, the PUD zoning is necessary to allow such density. Per City's staff
direction, the requested Rezoning can be used to satisfy the conditional use permit requirement
under code. Such Rezoning allows the flexibility necessary to develop a successful residential
project that will serve the existing market demands of the City.
Under Section 122-315 of the City's Code, the following criteria must be evaluated by
the City's planning and development staff ("Staff"), Planning and Zoning Commission and
ultimately the City Council in order to grant approval for Rezoning (the "Rezoning Criteria"):
(1) Location.
a. Relation to major transportation facilities. The criteria to be considered for location of
a planned unit development are its location with respect to local streets, collector streets,
minor arterials or major arterials, and other transportation facilities, including frontage
or reverse frontage roads, or the creation thereof, so as to provide direct access to such
areas, thereby minimizing the creation or generation of traffic along local and collector
streets in residential neighborhoods or other areas outside the planned unit development.
b. Relation to public utilities, facilities and services. The criteria to be considered are the
location of the planned unit development in relation to sanitary sewers, potable water
0894177\192087\10886544v 1
lines, stormwater and surface drainage water systems, and other utilities, systems and
installations, or such information as will allow the determination as to whether the
extension or enlargement of such systems in manner, form, character, location, degree,
scale or timing may result in higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost than
would development in forms generally permitted under existing zoning for the area. Such
planned unit development districts shall be so located with respect to necessary public
facilities as to have access to such facilities in the same degree as would development
permitted under existing zoning, and shall be so located, designed and scaled that access
for public services is equivalent to, and the net costs for such services is not greater than,
access and net costs for public services for development as permitted under existing
zoning. A further criterion is the applicant's agreement to:
1. Provide adequate and appropriate facilities, utilities or services approved by the city
council to meet the needs arising out of the planned unit development, and ensure their
satisfactory continuing operation permanently or until appropriate public utilities,
facilities or services are available and used; or
2. Make provisions acceptable to the city council if required for offsetting any added
net cost or early commitment of public funds made necessary by such development.
Expenses involved in making such determinations as may be required in establishing
this information shall be paid by the applicant. Final determination of these matters
shall be made by the city council.
c. Physical character of site and relation to surrounding property.
1. The site shall be suitable for development in the manner as approved under the
Florida Building Code, and the applicable state, county and city laws.
2. The natural topography, soils, natural vegetation and surface water should be
preserved and utilized through the careful location and design of circulation ways,
buildings and structures, parking areas, recreation areas, open space and drainage
facilities.
3.Buildings and recreation areas should be situated to take full advantage of natural
airflow, sun angle and scenic vistas.
(2) Uses, density, open space, living area per family and other regulations. Within a
planned unit development, any principal and accessory use, density, intensity, setbacks,
impervious surface ratio, open space, living area per family and other regulation may be
permitted which is already permitted in the existing zoning districts or planned unit
development districts as may be determined by the city council pursuant to a planned unit
development application, in which such planned unit development is located. The
arrangement and location of the permitted principal and accessory uses may not be
subject to the existing zoning regulations, but shall be subject to the approval of the city
council. Deviations from the permitted principal and accessory uses, density, intensity,
setbacks, impervious surface ratio, open space, living area per family, and other
regulations may be granted upon approval of the planned unit development application by
2
0894177\192087\10886544v 1
the city council. Criteria to be considered by the city council for approval of deviations as
described in this subsection may include but are not limited to:
a. Private renewal and redevelopment that creates a better urban environment through the
assembly of land;
b. Providing of public useable open space through the provision of plazas, parks and
walkways;
c. Clearance of obsolete, blighted or undesirable buildings and uses;
d. Dedication of waterfront protection and enhancement of views for the public, especially
lakefront and riverfront areas;
e. Preservation of historical structures and areas;
f. Provision of parks or other landscaping which will enhance the environment; and
g. Other public benefits.
Subsection (2) above was not in question during the hearing since no deviations from
development standards, other than the cut/fill waiver, were requested. The Development Order
did not state a basis upon which the Proposed Use was denied due to the waiver, and the only
competent and substantial evidence in the record comes from the Staff Report (defined below),
which supported such waiver request.
Based on the current Code, a Rezoning is necessary to allow the Proposed Use of the
Property.
2. Summary of the Development Order:
The Development Order denied the Rezoning, which prohibits the Applicant's
development of the Proposed Use on the Property.
The report (the "Staff Report"; attached hereto as Exhibit `B") prepared by the City's
Staff, noted that the Applicant met the Applicable rezoning and waiver Criteria set forth in
Section 122-315 of the Code. Generally, the Staff Report concluded that: "Staff has reviewed the
application and proposed project in regards to Section 122-315 Review Criteria for a Planned
Unit Development. The location is suitable for multi family use since the future land use of
Residential/Office allows this type of land use. The property has access to major road networks.
The City's water and sewer service will be required in order to develop the property and
capacity is available to serve the multi family project. The project is located within walking
distance of the assigned high school and middle school. School concurrency shall be met as a
requirement prior to site plan approval. The proposed project, as presented in the revised
conceptual plan, does preserve the natural topography of the site as much as possible. Staff is
able to support the request and recommends approval of Ordinance 2021-001."
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
The City Staff s opinions ought to be taken into consideration by a City Council. In the
Village of Palmetto Bay v. Palmer Trinity Private School, Inc., 128 So. 3d 19 (3d DCA 2012),
the court held that, "There is no dispute that [Petitioner] met its burden of demonstrating
compliance with the standards imposed by the Miami -Dade County Zoning Code for securing a
special exception.... Prior to the public hearing on [Petitioner's] special exception request,
Palmetto Bay's professional staff reviewed [Petitioners] request for compliance and specifically
recommended [Petitioner's] request for a special exception to expand the school onto Parcel B
and to increase the student enrollment from 600 to 1150. This recommendation came through
thirty-nine page review of all applicable criteria and constitutes competent substantial
evidence establishing that the request serves the public interest. See City of Hialeah
Gardens, 857 So.2d at 205 (confirming that the testimony of professional staff, when based
on "professional experiences and personal observations, as well as [information contained
in an] application, site plan, and traffic study"
constitutes competent substantial evidence); Palm Beach Cnty. v. Allen Morris Co., 547 So.2d
690, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (confirming that professional staff reports analyzing a
proposed use constituted competent substantial evidence); Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Fuller. 515
So.2d 1312, 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (stating that staff recommendations constituted
evidence); Dade Cnty. v. United Res., Inc., 374 So.2d 1046, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA
1979) (confirming that the recommendation of professional staff "is probative")."
[emphasis added]
The case law relevant to the probative value of a professional Staff s opinion is quite clear -
their opinions constitute competent substantial evidence. When no other evidence is presented to
the contrary, a City Council decision should be based only on the competent substantial evidence
contained on the record at the hearing.
Despite a recommendation for approval from the City's professional staff and a
unanimous recommendation for approval from the City's Planning Commission on February 2,
2021, the City Council denied the Rezoning request by a vote of 4-1 on February 23, 2021 (the
"City Council Hearing").
The reasons articulated by the City Council included broad generalizations of concerns
about the traffic generated by and the location and impact of the Proposed Use. There was no
competent and substantial evidence presented on the record at the City Council Hearing to justify
such denial. The City Council articulated a few section headers from the relevant Code criteria,
without analyzing the specific substantive criteria that those Code sections required.
A. Location
Regarding location, the City Council incorrectly interpreted Section 122-315(1) of the Code.
Such Rezoning Criteria was not meant to allow nebulous and general opinions about "location"
to be the basis of a Rezoning denial, rather, such subsection contained specifically enumerated
criteria in (a) — (c) relative to the Property's location that the City Council had to consider.
The Rezoning Criteria were met by the Applicant, as confirmed by the City Staff, as and
noted below. Nothing articulated by the City Council members in the City Council Hearing
4
0894177\1 92087\10886544v 1
record directly relates to the following criteria. The basis for approval of the Rezoning based on
relevant Code is noted in bold following the code criteria below.
(1) Location.
a. Relation to major transportation facilities. The criteria to be considered for
location of a planned unit development are its location with respect to local streets,
collector streets, minor arterials or major arterials, and other transportation
facilities, including frontage or reverse frontage roads, or the creation thereof, so
as to provide direct access to such areas, thereby minimizing the creation or
generation of traffic along local and collector streets in residential neighborhoods
or other areas outside the planned unit development.
As noted in the traffic analysis below, the Property had direct access to
Excalibur Road and Hooks Street and would appropriately disperse vehicles
from the Property onto roadways that operated at an acceptable level of
service ("LOS"). Moreover, the Proposed Use would still need to undergo a
subsequent review by Lake County and the City's staff of the Applicant's final
fully engineered site plans. Access concerns, if any existed, would have to be
addressed at that time, as is customary in the City.
b. Relation to public utilities, facilities and services. The criteria to be considered
are the location of the planned unit development in relation to sanitary sewers,
potable water lines, stormwater and surface drainage water systems, and other
utilities, systems and installations, or such information as will allow the
determination as to whether the extension or enlargement of such systems in
manner, form, character, location, degree, scale or timing may result in higher net
public cost or earlier incursion of public cost than would development in forms
generally permitted under existing zoning for the area. Such planned unit
development districts shall be so located with respect to necessary public facilities
as to have access to such facilities in the same degree as would development
permitted under existing zoning, and shall be so located, designed and scaled that
access for public services is equivalent to, and the net costs for such services is not
greater than, access and net costs for public services for development as permitted
under existing zoning. A further criterion is the applicant's agreement to:
1. Provide adequate and appropriate facilities, utilities or services approved by
the city council to meet the needs arising out of the planned unit development,
and ensure their satisfactory continuing operation permanently or until
appropriate public utilities, facilities or services are available and used; or
The Applicant would provide adequate and appropriate facilities, utilities
and services necessary for the Proposed Use.
2. Make provisions acceptable to the city council if required for offsetting any
added net cost or early commitment of public funds made necessary by such
development. Expenses involved in making such determinations as may be
0894177\192087\10886544v1
required in establishing this information shall be paid by the applicant. Final
determination of these matters shall be made by the city council.
The Proposed Use did not generate any additional costs that needed to be
offset by the Applicant or City.
c. Physical character of site and relation to surrounding property.
1. The site shall be suitable for development in the manner as approved under
the Florida Building Code, and the applicable state, county and city laws.
The Property was deemed suitable for development and would meet Florida
Building Code and applicable state, county and City laws.
2. The natural topography, soils, natural vegetation and surface water should be
preserved and utilized through the careful location and design of circulation
ways, buildings and structures, parking areas, recreation areas, open space and
drainage facilities.
The design of the Proposed Use only required a minimal grading based on
the Property's topography to permit development of the same. Such design
was evaluated by the City's professional Staff and deemed to comport with
Code under the requested waiver analysis.
3.Buildings and recreation areas should be situated to take full advantage of
natural airflow, sun angle and scenic vistas.
The design of the Proposed Use was situated to take full advantage of natural
air flow, sun angle and scenic vistas.
The above Rezoning Criteria specific to location were met by the Applicant, as shown in the
record of the City Council Hearing. None of the aforementioned criteria were specifically
referenced in the City Council's basis for denial, nor was any evidence presented on the record
relative to those criteria by anyone other than the Applicant and Staff (both of whom proved the
Rezoning Criteria were met). Rather, the following unsubstantiated generalizations about
location were made, all of which apparently influenced the City Council's ultimate decision: one
Council member was worried about high school students doing "donuts" with their cars in the
parking lot of the Proposed Use, multiple Council members noted they just "did not like" the
location of the Proposed Use, one Council member alleged that the multifamily units were
"sitting right on top of the Middle School" and that they did not want "all kinds of strangers" to
be "looking down" at the East Ridge Middle School track and field area, and other Council
members noted general concerns with traffic in the area.
Though one member of the public commented that the Proposed Use would be a
"pedophile's playground," is worth noting that Applicant does not contend that the City Council
actually believes there to be a correlation between those who rent apartments and an alleged
propensity to engage in criminalized sexual conduct. However, as stated on the record during
the City Council Hearing, unlike single family home purchases, multifamily unit rentals would
6
0894177\192087\10886544v1
require a criminal background check to be passed by any potential residents. Moreover, it is not
just "strangers" who live in apartments, but also families with children who attend Lake County
public schools. Additionally, the contention that any multifamily units in the Proposed Use
would overlook the adjacent Middle School's track and field was factually incorrect, since the
buildings are set back 380 feet from the track. Additionally, that track sits approximately ten feet
higher in elevation than the closest parking area of the Proposed Use, so those line of sight
assertions are incorrect. Additionally, the second story of the closest multifamily buildings would
not even face East Ridge Middle School. Thus, none of these claims were based in fact,
evidence or Code.
Ironically, from a review of the property deeds in the official records, the current Owner of
the Property sold the sites to the Lake County School Board upon which both the East Ridge
Middle School and East Ridge High School sit today. It is doubtful that the Owner would've
consummated such sale had they known that years later, the adjacency of the schools would
serve as a basis for the denial of the redevelopment of their remaining Property.
Moreover, and critically important to why the Applicant chose the Property specifically for
the Intended Uses, was the City's recent enactment of Ordinance 2020-19 (the "Ordinance").
This Ordinance was written and approved by the City Council on June 23, 2020, after months of
a moratorium on multifamily development, multiple workshops with the public and industry
stakeholders, and the drafting of provisions from the City's own Staff. This Ordinance implicitly
confirms that the location of multifamily on Hooks Street is not only appropriate, but
encouraged.
Hooks Street Corridor: Projects may qualify for a maximum density with
bonus units up to 20 dwelling units per acre provided the project meet the
criteria for approval. The developer must set aside thirty percent (30%) of
the overall units for workforce housing. The units must include a mixture
of different unit sizes and types.
Had the City's staff concluded that any type of multifamily unit, including workforce
housing, was inappropriate next to a school, such locational analysis would have been set forth in
the Ordinance. However, the opposite conclusion was reached, and the Ordinance quite clearly
provides an allowability on Hooks Street for an even denser multifamily development than what
is set forth in the Proposed Use's plans.
It is worth noting that not only did the City Council's denial fail to comport with the
requirements under Code, it also would not likely survive judicial scrutiny. In State v. Du Bose
(99 Fla 812) (Fla. 1930), the Florida Supreme Court held that denying a permit to construct a jail
simply because it was next to a school was unconstitutional as it unnecessarily restricts property
and bears no rational relationship to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. The city in
that case argued that it prohibited the jail because it would have perceived negative effects such
as increasing traffic near a school and diminishing the value of property nearby. The court said
that the mere belief on the part of the defendant that the erection of a jail would substantially and
permanently inure the appropriate use of school property is not sufficient to overcome the
inherent right of the plaintiff to appropriate the locus to the use proposed. Based on the lack of
7
0894177\192087T10886544v1
competent and substantial evidence, the City's denial of the Rezoning is equally as arbitrary and
unreasonable as the aforementioned case.
There is no logical reason a multifamily housing project cannot be located next to a school,
especially considering that the Applicant has developed a successful multifamily project across
the street from Grassy Lake Elementary School and directly adjacent to Minneola High School in
nearby Minneola. Another one of the Applicant's multifamily projects developed over five years
ago in the City of Ocoee is also across the street from Westbrooke Elementary School. It is
worth noting that both the mayor of Ocoee and the city manager of Minneola sent letters in
support of the Applicant's Proposed Use to the City.
Moreover, Lake County generally, and the City specifically, have multiple examples of
schools operating directly adjacent, or in close proximity, to single family and multifamily
developments. Lost Lake Elementary School (1901 John Lakes Rd, Clermont) is near both
apartments and single-family homes, as shown below:
The same is true for Clermont Elementary School (680 E Highland Ave, Clermont), as
shown below.
8
0894177\192087\10886544v1
Additionally, and most relevantly, there are existing single-family home developments
directly across the street from both East Ridge Middle and High Schools, as shown below.
Those single-family home developments also appear to have been built before the schools were
constructed, which means the school sites were deemed appropriate even with residential uses
surrounding them. Moreover, the Property's current future land use and zoning designations
would also permit single-family home development on the Property, which means that additional
residential uses could be built directly adjacent to those schools. During the City Council
Hearing, the City Council never articulated a distinction as to why single-family homes and their
owners are appropriate next to schools, versus why residents and their school aged children who
live in rented multifamily units would not be appropriate neighbors. The reasoning as to why
renters are undesirable neighbors for schools lacks any basis in code or law, especially
considering the high likelihood that renters with children would enroll their children in those
exact public schools. It is also worth noting that the Applicant would be required to pay school
impact fees based on the number of school -aged children projected to be generated from the
Proposed Use.
0894177\1 92087\1 0886544v 1
Additionally, unlike Chapters 6 and 95 of the City Code which require licensed alcoholic
beverage vendors and adult entertainment establishments, respectively, to be set back from
schools, no such Code provision exists specifically for schools next to residential uses. In fact,
in reviewing the Lake County School Board policies contained in the Interlocal Agreement
Between Lake County And Lake County School Board And Municipalities For School Facilities
Planning and Siting (the "Interlocal Agreement"), as approved by the Lake County Board of
County Commission on September 5, 2006, proximity to nearby schools is considered a positive
factor in determining school siting. In relevant part, that Interlocal Agreement noted that
"[p]ublic schools are community facilities which are necessary to serve residential development
in Lake County," and that "public schools should be provided in proximity to the actual and
projected population of school age children to be served by such schools." [emphasis added]
Moreover, schools "create a sense of place in a community and are the cornerstones of effective
neighborhood design and a focal point for development of neighborhood plans and
improvements." Specifically when looking at where to locate a school, the Interlocal Agreement
provided that it shall be considered "[w]hether the location of a proposed elementary school site
is proximate to and within walking distance of the residential neighborhoods served;" and
"[w]hether the location of a proposed high school site is conveniently located to the residential
community(s) they are intended to serve with access to major roads."
The City Council did not present any data or facts on the record at the City Council Hearing
as to why there is a danger to health, safety or welfare for school aged children to be educated on
10
0894177\192087\10886544v1
a school site that is next door to where resident live. The exact opposite appears to be the case
based on an examination of the existing locations of Lake County schools, as well as the explicit
policies noted in the Interlocal Agreement. Allowing students and staff of public schools to live
in close proximity to such schools is not only an efficient community planning tool, but it is
specifically encouraged by the Lake County School Board.
Thus, the City Council failed to provide specific reasons why the Proposed Use did not meet
the Rezoning Criteria relative to location.
B. Traffic
Regarding traffic, the City Council incorrectly concluded that the Proposed Use
generated negative traffic impacts on adjacent roadway networks. The Staff Report specifically
concluded that, "The project is proposing two (2) full access points, one access on Hooks Street
and another access on Excalibur Road. A traffic impact analysis has been performed. The study
did not identify any new roadway deficiencies as a result of the project. "
Moreover, the only competent and substantial evidence on the record other than the
Staff s support of the Proposed Use based on traffic came from the undisputed professional
traffic study presented during the City Council Hearing, as prepared by Kimley-Horn in
September 2020 (the "Professional Traffic Study"). The Professional Traffic Study was
prepared based on the Lake -Sumter MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology and Guidelines
and was thereafter reviewed and approved by the City's Staff. The Professional Traffic Study
confirmed that based on the recommendations contained therein, "all offsite intersections
within the study area are anticipated to operate with acceptable LOS during the AM and PM
peak our future (buildout) conditions, with exception of SR 50 & Hancock Rd" based on
existing traffic conditions, and that "[n]o new roadway deficiencies were identified as a result
of project impact."
The staff report also noted that " [tlhe study identified a failing level of service (LOS) and
delay during the AM peak hour due to existing school traffic at the full access driveway on
Excalibur Road. " The two adjacent schools- East Ridge High School and East Ridge Middle
School- both start at 7:20am and end at 2:20pm. Under the ITE Trip Generation Manual, AM
Peak Hours for traffic are 7-9am. During the City Council hearing, though the concerns were
unsubstantiated by any actual data, the Applicant voluntarily offered to close off all access from
the Property to Excalibur Road between the morning hours for drop-off at the schools and the
afternoon Middle School pick-up times, thereby minimizing any additional cars to that roadway
where cars would be dropping students off at school (the "Proposed Access Solution"). The City
Council did not accept the Applicant's Proposed Access Solution, which would have addressed
the Council's stated concerns.
The City Council failed to provide any evidence as to why the Proposed Use would
specifically worsen any existing traffic situation any adjacent roadway networks. Simply adding
more vehicles to roadways is not a valid basis to deny any project, and Florida Statutes Section
163.3180 clearly provides that in reviewing traffic concurrency, applicants "shall not be held
responsible for the additional cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies" that already exist on
11
0894177\1 92087\1 0886544v 1
impacted roadways. Thus, the Proposed Use was not creating any LOS deficiencies and the
existing deficiency that was noted for SR 50 & Hancock Road's intersection was not the fault,
nor the responsibility, of the Applicant to correct. The existing deficiency at such intersection
was also never mentioned by the City Council as a basis for the denial in the hearing or in the
Development Order, since the only real concern was traffic on Excalibur Road during school
drop off and pick up hours. Such concerns could have been resolved by the Proposed Access
Solution, which the Applicant is still willing to implement.
The denial of the Rezoning on the basis of traffic was therefore unreasonable.
C. Objections of Neighbors
Despite an outpouring of support both in person and via email correspondence on behalf
of the Applicant's Proposed Use, there were only a few individuals who spoke against the project
on the basis of traffic and perceived risks of allowing individuals who rent their home to live
next to schools. Opposition of neighbors, when such opposition isn't based in any relevant
evidence, should not have factored into the City Council's decision. Any such denial on the
basis of unsubstantiated opposition statements would also not withstand judicial scrutiny.
In Flowers Baking Co. v. City of Melbourne, 537 So. 2d 1040 (5th DCA 1989), the
petitioner applied for a conditional use permit for gasoline pumps. The petitioner agreed to meet
the city zoning code's conditional use requirements for service stations and agreed to all of the
Planning and Zoning Board's stipulations. However, after local residents objected the city
council denied the permit. The Court remanded the case with instructions to issue the permit
holding, "[o]nce the applicant met the initial burden of showing that his application met the
criteria of the city zoning for granting such permit, the burden was on the zoning authority to
demonstrate, by substantial, competent evidence . .. that the application did not meet the
requirements and the requested permit was adverse to the public interest. Objections of local
residents to the conditional use permit based on fears as to increased traffic do not constitute
such substantial, competent evidence."
In Colonial Apartments, L.P. v. City of Deland, 577 So. 2d 593 (5th DCA 1991), the
petitioner wanted to build an apartment project. The petitioner attempted to comply with the
applicable zoning ordinance and submitted a site plan. The city's planning commission
recommended to the city commission that the plan be approved with certain changes. The
petitioner agreed to these changes in writing. Then adjourning landowners voiced opposition to
the plan which led the city commission to impose additional requirements that the density not
exceed six units per acre. The court stated, "the opinions of neighbors themselves are
insufficient to support a denial of a proposed development."
Thus, any reliance by the City Council on the opposition of any neighbors to the
Proposed Use does not form a valid basis for the denial of the Rezoning.
D. Impact to the Surrounding Area
Though the City Council and the Development Order noted that one basis for denial of
the Rezoning was the "impact to the surrounding area," no actual analysis was provided by the
12
0894177\192087\10886544v1
City Council as to what those impacts entailed. The City Council Hearing record contains no
evidence of any negative impacts of the Proposed Use, other than the ones asserted by the
Council and already refuted above. Without an understanding of what such impacts actually
include, the Applicant cannot mount a legal defense to the same. The only competent and
substantial evidence on the record and as set forth in the Staff Report proves that the Rezoning
met all relevant criteria for approval and did not generate any negative offsite impacts. Thus, a
denial based on unstated impacts is not valid.
Brief Statement of the Impact of the Development Order:
Denial of the Rezoning prohibits the Applicant's ability to develop its Property for the
Proposed Use. The Proposed Use satisfies the requirements for compatibility and the Rezoning
Criteria for a PUD Rezoning and dictates that the Rezoning should have been granted. Denial of
the Rezoning request was arbitrary and unjust, and was not supported by competent and
substantial evidence.
In summary, the Development Order is unreasonable and unfairly burdens the use of the
Property. Relief is hereby requested pursuant to the processes specified in §70.51, Fla. Stat.
Respectfully submitted,
TARA L. TEDROW
Fla. Bar No.100411
Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed P.A.
PO Box 2809
Orlando, FL 32802-2809
407-843-4600
407-423-4495 (fax)
tara.tedrowAlowndes-law.com
Attorney for Skorman Enterprises, LLC
13
0894177\192087T10886544v1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Request for Relief has been served upon Mayor Tim
Murry, Clermont City Council, 685 West Montrose Street, Clermont, FL 34711, by regular mail
and eservice at tmurryna,clermontfl.org, with copy to the City Council members (at
tbates(&clermontfl.org, jpurvisAclerinontfl.org, eentsuah(&clermontfl.org and
mpines(&clermontfl.org) and to City Attorney, Daniel F. Mantzaris, at
DMantzaris(&DSKLAWGROUP.COM on March 15, 2021.
TARA L. TEDROW, ESQ.
14
0894177\192087\10886544v1
Exhibit "A"
Development Order
[ATTACHED]
15
0894177\192087\10886544v1
ORDER OF DENIAL
Rezoning Application
Hooks St. !Skorman Multifamily
Request for Variance
Location: Hooks St. /Excalibur Rd. (Alternate Key 110..VPW 1801505, 3815-14r7)
Applicant: Jimmy Crawford. Esq.
Application Date: August 31, 2020
The application was heard by the City Council to allow for the rezoning request from Urban Instate to
Plannod Unit Devclopmcm (PUD) for a 204-unit apartment complex whereupon, the City Council, based
on the information and evidence presented at the February 2-1, 2021 public hewing, due to the location,
traffic concerns along Hooks St. and Excalibur Rd. and impact on the surrounding area does hereby find
that the proposed and requested rezoning application does not meet the review critcria set forth in Section
122-315 of the Land Development Code of the City of Clermont
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of ClennOnt, Lake County, Florida by
a 4 - 1 vote does hereby deny the above-statod application for the rezoning request.
DONE AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Clairmont, Lake County,
Florida, this 23nd day of February, 2021.
CITY OF CLERMONT
Tim Murry, Ma )fir
ATTEST:
Tracy Ackroyd Howe, City Clerk
16
0894177\192087\10886544vl
Exhibit "B"
Staff Report
[ATTACHED]
17
0894177\192087\10886544v1
S CITY OF CLERMONT
CLERWONT
-� AGENDA ITEM
Paae 1 of 1
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
Ordinance No. 2021-001 Final
Hooks Street/Skorman Multi -family PUD
Recommend approval of Ordinance 2021-001.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Urban Estate to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 204-
unit apartment complex. The 17 +/- acre property is located southwest of the Hooks Street and Excalibur Road
intersection, adjacent to East Ridge Middle School. The future land use is Residential/Office, which permits up to
12 dwellings units per acre. The project can be served by City services. A traffic impact analysis has been
conducted and showed no new roadway deficiencies because of the project. The applicant is requesting one
waiver, cut/fill, up to a maximum of 13 feet over 10% of the site. Since this is a multi -family project, the maximum
cut/full is limited to 10 feet. The applicant revised the conceptual plan and has reduced the volume and depth of the
original cut/fill request and the request for retaining wall heights greater than six feet has been removed.
Staff has reviewed the application and proposed project in regards to Section 122-315 Review Criteria for a Planned
Unit Development. The location is suitable for multi -family use since the future land use of Residential/Office allows
this type of land use. The property has access to major road networks. The revised conceptual plan does preserve
the natural topography of the site as much as possible. An in-depth evaluation is included in the attached Staff
Analysis Report.
Staff is able to support the request and recommends approval of Ordinance 2021-001.
Additional
DescriptionFiscal Impact Fund Number and Available Budget Amount
1. Hooks St Skorman Staff Analysis V2 Hooks St Skorman Staff Analysis V2.pdf
2. Skorman MF Maps Skorman MF Maps.pdf
3. SkormanApartmentsCOLOR RENDERING SkormanApartmentsCOLOR RENDERING.pdf
4. SKORMAN PUD revised-PUD Plan SKORMAN PUD revised-PUD Plan.pdf
5. SKORMAN PUD revised -Grading Waiver SKORMAN PUD revised -Grading Waiver.pdf
6. Elevations Elevations.pdf
7. 2021-001 Hooks St Skorman (V3) 01.27.2021 - RF 2021-001 Hooks St Skorman (V3) 01.27.2021 - RF BL
BL (002) (002).pdf
8. Application and Property Record Cards Application and Property Record Cards.pdf
9. HooksStreet_APFLtrUpdate_10162020.doc HooksStreet_APFLtrUpdate_10162020.doc.pdf
10. Ord 2021-001 Skorman Legal Ad Feb 2021 Ord 2021-001 Skorman Legal Ad Feb 2021.pdf
Page 59
18
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
d= CITY OF CLERMONT
CLER��T Staff Analysis Report
OWNER: Richard E Bosserman Trustee & Gladys T Bosserman
Trustee
APPLICANT: Jimmy Crawford, Esq. — Crawford, Modica & Holt
PROJECT NAME: Hooks Street Multi-Family/Skorman Project
REQUESTED ACTION: A rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow up
to 204 apartment units.
SIZE OF PARCEL: 17 acres +/-
LOCATION: Property is southwest of the Excalibur Road and Hooks Street
intersection
EXISTING ZONING: UE, Urban Estate Low Density Residential District
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant property
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential/Office
SITE UTILITIES: City of Clermont Water and Sewer
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Urban Estate to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for a 204-unit apartment complex. The future land use,
Residential/Office, allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre with a conditional use permit or
through a planned unit development (PUD). The PUD zoning category is being requested
since it allows the flexibility necessary, through waivers to the Land Development Code,
to develop the site and at the density necessary to construct the multi -family project. The
property is located within the City of Clermont and will be served by the City's water and
sewer systems.
The property is located adjacent to East Ridge Middle School and across from East
Ridge High School. The project is proposing two (2) full access points, one access on
Hooks Street and another access on Excalibur Road. A traffic impact analysis has been
performed. The study did not identify any new roadway deficiencies as a result of the
project. The study did identified a failing level of service (LOS) and delay during the AM
peak hour due to existing school traffic at the full access driveway on Excalibur Road.
The applicant's consultant indicated that during peak times of school traffic, it is more
likely that most of the apartment complex will use the Hooks Street full access point and
1- HooksStreetMuItWamil'SkormanProject
Page 60
19
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
avoid the access point on Excalibur Road. Lake County Public Works will have final
jurisdiction of where the access points and number of access points will be developed
on the site.
WAIVERS:
The applicant, as part of the proposed project, is requesting one waiver to the Land
Development Code.
The applicant has requested a waiver for cut/fill over the project site that exceeds the
Land Development Code, which is 10 feet for residential projects. A grading plan
variance exhibit has been provided that shows the area on the site that will have more
than 10 feet of cut/fill. The maximum cut/fill will be up to 13 feet. The area is
approximately 10% of the site. The applicant has revised the site plan to reduce the
cut/fill from the original 30 feet to 13 feet. Since the applicant has revised the site plan
to incorporate the current topography into the site, through the construction of split level
buildings, staffs concern over the amount and extent of cut/fill on the project site has
been reduced and staff can support this waiver.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the application and proposed project in regards to Section 122-315
Review Criteria for a Planned Unit Development. The location is suitable for multi -family
use since the future land use of Residential/Office allows this type of land use. The
property has access to major road networks. The City's water and sewer service will be
required in order to develop the property and capacity is available to serve the multi -family
project. The project is located within walking distance of the assigned high school and
middle school. School concurrency shall be met as a requirement prior to site plan
approval. The proposed project, as presented in the revised conceptual plan, does
preserve the natural topography of the site as much as possible. Staff is able to support
the request and recommends approval of Ordinance 2021-001.
2- HooksStreetMultiFamity.SkorrnanProject
Page 61
20
0894177\192087\10886544v1
Exhibit - Location Map — Hooks St. Multi-Family/Skorman
NOOKS ST &L Y
S BERM' CIR
O
K
Q
0
O
m
ii East Ridge
High School
Z
East Ridge
Middle School
sTEVES RD EXCALIBUR RD gO�
LONG PINE TRL
LAKE DR
4 �
Q 0
W +DY PINE 4+
Lake 8CC
Page 62
?I
0994177\192087\10886544vI
Exhibit — Zoning — Hooks St. Multi-Family/Skorman
Page 63
22
0894177\192087\10886544v1
r
NOOKS STR
'v
CLERMONT I SKORMAN APARTMENTS
23
0894177\192087T10886544v1
I
1.4
f::a
ti
toll
0
00
10
A_
J
y
10
N
O
0.
y
0
00
00
rn
A
A
4a
Ptc KoCH
•xexo xuc�xxf.o .oc.
BUILDING TYPE 1 $ 2 - REAR ELEVATION (EXCALIBUR RD.)
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I SKORMAN APARTMENTS
]aas xf ixri[ x.ut wi.rf. r.— •1-0,1 $2,af ifu {.x.{fr-011f r{.:.e x.{x.-, ar www.roa�f.eeefoe..eor
0
A_
J
y
N
O
y
Cl
00
00
rn
tA
A
A
BUILDING TYPE 1, 2, & 3 - GARAGE ELEVATION
Ft 4 KQcx EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I SKORMAN APARTMENTS
r�xma�numi nnfxaiw. nos..
•foie rnc1,111. xee. fnf rerrre nen wr. re• reef, iouoe fnfr rf �; fer.uf efre ref: .ar-we.rofx .,:eeor ioo w.n ne�eee. ea oc+..ow
O
W
A
J
y
N
O
00
0
00
00
rn
LA
A
A
N m
v m
rn
to
BUILDING TYPE 3 - REAR ELEVATION
a EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I SKORMAN APARTMENTS
FtuuWRGKom rrvoi. raxuamnxni ucrcr.nao..
•:ate ru e�e.rcc I.C. r$is nrru >r.n wee rer r.rr. noco. v.>.r n�..or.n. aen ... .or..a r.�oe> ..a.aov ca
(9-
a-MWONT CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-001
AN ORDINANCE UNDER THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT REFERRED
TO IN CHAPTER 122 OF ORDINANCE NO. 289-C, CODE OF
ORDINANCES; REZONING THE REAL PROPERTIES DESCRIBED
HEREIN AS SHOWN BELOW; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT,
SEVERABILITY, ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENERS
ERROR, RECORDING, AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION.
The City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida hereby ordains that:
SECTION 1•
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida referred to in Chapter 122
of Ordinance No. 289-C, Code of Ordinances, is hereby amended by rezoning the following
described property:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PART OF TRACTS 37, 38, 43 AND 44 OF LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT IN SECTION
28, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 28 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 53 OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS
COMPANY PLAT (SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF A 30.00 FOOT WIDE
RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT); THENCE SOUTH 89°51'04" WEST ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACTS 53, 54 AND 55 (ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
GREATER PINES PHASE 9, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 48, PAGE 80 AND THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF GREATER PINES PHASE 10, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 48, PAGE 83, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA) FOR 1968.84 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID
TRACT 55; THENCE NORTH 00°12'38" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF TRACTS 55 AND 42
OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT, FOR 1326.74 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID TRACT 42; THENCE NORTH 89°49'40" EAST ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE FOR 659.27
TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 38 OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT
AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°20'02" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID TRACT 38 FOR 613.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HOOKS
STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO
COURSES: NORTH 89°48'50" EAST FOR 51.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1350.00 FEET; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15038'08"
FOR A DISTANCE OF 368.40 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 38;
THENCE NORTH 89048'50" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 158.69 FEET TO THE WESTERLY
LINE OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO LAKE COUNTY AND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 2574, PAGES 830-833 FOR STEVE'S ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY
LINE THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: SOUTH 22°56'53" EAST FOR 440.88 FEET TO A POINT
ON A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2053.62 FEET TO WHICH A
RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 76005'45" EAST, THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC
THEREOF, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°50'49" FOR 209.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
02001 W" WEST FOR 333.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1630.11 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 76058'15"
EAST, THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC THEREOF, THROUGH A CENTRAL
Pagel of8
Page 70
28
0894177\192087\10886544v1
(9.
CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-001
ANGLE OF 03014'30" FOR 92.23 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH
89°49'40" WEST FOR 756.48 FEET TO TIM WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT 43 OF SAID LAKE
HIGIILANDS COMPANY PLAT; TIIENCE NORTII OW20'02" EAST ALONG TILE SAIDWESTERLY
LINE OF TRACT 43 FOR 370.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 17.03 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
LOCATION
Vacant property southwest of Excalibur Road and Hooks Street Intersection
Alt. Key 1103908, 3801505, 3815507
From: Urban Estate Low Density
To: Planned Unit Development for a 204-unit apartment complex
SECTION 2. General Conditions
This application is for a Planned Unit Development to allow for a multi -family residential Planned
Unit Development; be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The conditions as set forth in this Planned Unit Development shall be legally binding upon
any heirs, assigns and successors in title or interest.
2. The property shall be developed in substantial accordance with the PUD Plan, prepared by
BESH Haul' dated October 2020, Skorman Apartments. Formal construction plans
incorporating all conditions stated in this permit shall be submitted for review and approved
by the Site Review Committee prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance or other
development permits.
3. No person, firm, corporation or entity shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove,
improve, move, convert, or demolish any building or structure, or alter the land in any
manner within the boundary of the project without first submitting necessary plans,
obtaining necessary approvals, and obtaining necessary permits in accordance with the City
of Clermont Land Development Regulations and those of other appropriate jurisdictional
entities.
4. Fiber optic conduit and pull boxes may be required to be installed by the developer in the
utility easements to extend the City's fiber optic network. The City's Information
Technology Director will work with the developer at the time of site plan review to
determine the extent of fiber optic conduit. The City will reimburse the developer at 100
percent for all costs including design, permitting, materials, and construction of the fiber
optic conduit and pull boxes.
SECTION 3. Land Uses and Specifle Conditions
1. A total of up to 204 multi -family dwelling units (d.u) may be permitted on the site, not to
exceed a base density of 12 dwelling units/acre.
2. Building setbacks shall be 25 feet from the property lines.
Page 12 of 8
Page 71
29
0894177U 92087T 10886544v 1
6;,-
CITY OF CLERMONT
CISWONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-001
3. Maximum building height shall be up to 55 feet, measured at the highest point.
4. The project may have elevation changes of up to 13 feet maximum cut and 13 feet
maximum fill up to 10% of the project site, as shown on the cut and fill exhibit — Grading
Plan Variance prepared by BESH Halff, dated October 2020. These elevation changes will
be submitted to the City Engineer at the time of final engineering.
5. Individual retaining wall height up to 6 feet in height are permitted to deal with grade
changes on the perimeter of the project and in the stormwater pond. A minimum 5 foot
transition shall be required between the walls with landscaping incorporated within the
terracing of the exterior perimeter wall sections.
6. Trash compacters may be substituted for dumpsters for the project if the Applicant can
demonstrate it can sufficiently meet the waste demands for the project.
7. The project will be gated and the streets will be privately owned and maintained by the
HOA, owner, or developer.
8. The buildings shall be constructed in a manner that closely resembles the architectural style
and elevations as presented at the end of this ordinance and shall meet the City of
Clermont's Architectural Standards.
9. If required by Lake County or Florida Department of Transportation, the developer shall
be responsible to coordinate the modification of the existing traffic signals and turn lane
improvements to accommodate safe and efficient traffic flow resulting from the project as
identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared on September, 2020 by Kimley-
Horn.
10. The development shall comply with all applicable County and Florida Department of
Transportation access management requirements. The final access points shall be
determined during the final site plan and final engineering review and may change from
the conceptual plan.
11. Additional right-of-way may be required for offsite improvements and the sidewalk. This
dedication shall be made at no cost to the County or the City.
12. The Developer shall install sidewalks along Excalibur Road prior to first Certificate of
Occupancy.
13. The project shall be developed according to the C-2 General Commercial zoning
designation in the Land Development Code, unless expressly stated above.
14. This Planned Unit Development shall become null and void if substantial construction
work has not begun within five (5) years of the date that this Planned Unit Development is
executed and signed by the permittee. "Substantial construction work" means the
commencement and continuous prosecution of construction of required improvements
ultimately finalized at completion. If the Planned Unit Development becomes null and
void, the property will revert to the UE Urban Estate Zoning Designation.
Page 13 of
Page 72
30
0894177\192087\10886544v1
CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-001
15. School concurrency shall be met before final site plan approval in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.
16. The property management office shall prominently display a notification sign informing
potential tenants of the sounds resulting from activities by the adjacent schools, such as but
not limited to; daytime PE classes, night games, bands playing, bus noise, etc. The sign
shall be a minimum of 11 inches x 17 inches. In addition, as part of the rental contract,
similar wording shall also be included that the applicant acknowledges.
SECTION 4: CONFLICT
All Ordinances or parts of this Ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5: RECORDING
This Ordinance shall be recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida.
SECTION 6: SEVERABILITY
Should any Section or part of this Section be declared invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such adjudications shall not apply to or affect any other provision of this Ordinance,
except to the extent that the entire Section or part of the Section may be inseparable in meaning
and effect from the Section to which such holding shall apply.
SECTION 7: PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be published as provided by law, and it shall become law and take effect
upon its Second Reading and Final Passage.
Page 14 of 8
Page 73
31
0894177\192087\10886544v1
CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-001
Location
O eF.pAv c:.4
' East Ridge
High School
0
East Ridge
Middle School
iO F}CrLL161P1116
`� AFE Op . rNr- 4.wF tGl
Cut/Fill Exhibit:
Pape 15 of 8
Page 74
32
0894177\192087\10886544vl
CITY OF CLERMONT
� ORDINANCE NO.2021-001
Sample Elevations:
w pq IT 11M in11wjff
�104
r y
tR IICtu
un
;R # i a wt it ;n
Page 16 of 8
Page 75
33
0894177\192087\10886544v1
CL CITY OF CLERMONT
ORDINANCE NO.2021-001
Conceptual Site Plan:
Page 17 of 8
Page 76
34
°;
•��+ r
"
_�
J
�y I
�I
ft
0894177\192087\10886544v1
E
CITY OF CLERMONT
2;- ORDINANCE NO.2021-001
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County,
Florida on this 23rd day of February, 2021.
CITY OF CLERMONT
Tim Murry, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tracy Ackroyd Howe, MMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
Daniel F. Mantzaris, City Attorney
PageJ8 of8
Page 77
35
0894177\192087\10886544vl
S-
EER�" O
C NT
Chd- of champioru'
DATE 8-31-20
Project Name (if applicable)
Jimmy Crawford, Esq.
CITY OF CLERMONT
REZONING
APPLICATION
FEE: $542.00 + cost of advertisement + cost of traffic review, if necessary
Contact Person Jimmy Crawford or Jennifer Cotch
Address 702 W Montrose Street
City Clermont
state FL
ZIP 34711
Telephone 352-432-8644
Fax 352-432-8699
Email jcrawford®cmhiawyers.com
OWNER INFORMATION
Owner's Name Richard E. Bosserman & Gladys T. Bosserman, as Co -Trustees of the William Kendal Boss
Owner Address 125-A East Marks Street
city Orlando
state FL
Zip 32803
Telephone
Email
PROPERTY• •
Address of subject Property I
city state
Zip
Hooks Steet and Excalibur Rd (SW corner)
Clermont FL
34711
Legal Description (Include copy of survey)
See attached survey
AK #s 3815507,1103908, 3801505
i
Acreage land Use (City wrlfication required)
17+/- Residential/Office
Present Zoning (City verification required) Proposed Zoning i
I UL PUD
Page 78
36
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
S_ .
+ CITY OF CLERMONT
CL-ER ONT REZONING
ChoiceofChampions APPLICATION
i Answers to the following questions are required to complete this application
What are you proposing to do that would require a rezoning?
Multi -family residential community. Requires CUP for over 8 du/acre in current FLUC.
Check box to indicate additional materials are provided via attachment. El
S� x
Applicant Name (print) Applicant Name (signature)
(print)
City of Clermont
Development Services Department
685 W. Montrose St.
P.O. Box 120219
Clermont, FL 34712-0219
(352) 394-4083 Fax: (352) 394 3542
Page 79
37
0894177\ 192087\ 10886544v 1
Owner Name (signature)
5/22/2020
S—
EEO
CMNT
Choice of Champions
CITY OF CLERMONT
REZONING
APPLICATION
Page 2
Answers to the following questions are required to complete this application.
What are you proposing to do that would require a rezoning?
Applicant Name (print)
Richard E. Bosserman Trustee
x � 1
Applicant N me (signature)
XtJ�w�tBv".
Owner Name (print) Owner Name (signature)
0&27M201106 AM
EUt
City of Clermont
Development Services Department
685 W. Montrose St.
P.O. Box 120219
Clermont, FL. 34712-021 9
(352) 394-4083 Fax: (352) 394-3542
--* SW� uN e51^O^Im'v 18r--.41ft1]56JWJ WJY-SONslfird96
Page 80
38
0894177\192087\10886544v1
Statement of Justification and Support for Multi -family Housing at intersection of Hooks
Street and Excalibur Road
To rezone from Urban Estates to Planned Unit Development
The Applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 17 acres located at the southwest corner of
Hooks Street and Excalibur Road (the "Property"). The Property is located north of East Ridge
Middle School and west of East Ridge High School,
The Property has a mixed -use land use designation of Residential/Office that allows up to 12
dwelling units to the acre, however a conditional use permit is required for projects that propose
density over 8 dwelling units per acre. It is the applicant's intent to construct a multi -family
community at a density of 12 dwelling units per acre and therefore is requesting the PUD zoning
in order to condition the ordinance and increase the density authorized in the current UE zoning
district. The PUD zoning category allows the flexibility necessary to develop the site at the density
necessary to construct multi -family uses while adding conditions to ensure a successful
development for both the Applicant and the City. It is the Applicant's understanding that the
PUD can be used to satisfy the CUP requirement.
The Property will be provided central water and sewer services by the City. All applicable levels
of service are within acceptable levels and will not be adversely impacted, with the potential
exception of public schools, which if not within capacities, will require a Concurrency Mitigation
Agreement which will cure any deficiencies. Furthermore, the requested rezoning will not fiscally
burden city services, in fad, the applicant believes the taxes and impact fees to be paid will offset
or exceed any fiscal burden. A traffic study has been ordered and copy will be provided to the
City as soon as possible.
The Property does not contain any wetlands or protected upland communities. Prior to site plan
issuance, the applicant will supply an Environmental Assessment of the property to ensure there
are no negative impacts on natural resources. The applicant has no reason to believe there are
any historical or cultural resources on the site. If any are discovered through the development
process, all local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding such shall be complied with.
Due to the elevation of the site, the project engineer is analyzing the necessity of a waiver to the
grading provision. This analysis is still being completed and the Applicant will update the City as
soon as possible.
Page 81
39
0894177\1 92087\1 0886544v I
CONSTELLATION O
eSICN ON LINE
Certificate of Authenticity
Session Information
(Signing Session ID: af2476b3-b5d9-4eb2-9f39-50e4a36c8f59
Status:
Completed
Transaction Name: Hook St 16.5 Ac Clermont Fl. - Hosserman to
Created On:
08272020 8:58:02 AM EDT
j Skorman
1 Session Title: Rezoning Application - Book St - Skorman
Last Modified:
08/272020 11:06:19 AM EDT
Documents: I
Owner.
Marvin Puryear
Signers: I
Company:
Saunders Ralston Dantzler Real
j Signer Information
Signature Events Signature
71mestamp
Richard E. Bosscrman, Trustee
Sent 09/27/2020 9:00:06 AM EDT
rcbosserman@gmail.com &)-AtN""'"'""
Viewed: 09/27/2020 11:05:27 AM EDT
Signer Security: Email IP Address: 108.188.113.169
Disclosure: 08/27/2020 11:05:27 AM EDT
ID: 994428cb-ad704e9e-9922-d79b10b956e5
Signed: 08/27/2020 11:06:17 AM EDT
Session Documents
i
Document
RezoningApp l ication2020.pdf
Session Activity
Signatures Initials Dates FormFields Dropdown Checkboa RadioButton
1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Inmestamp
IP Address
Activity
08/27/2020 1 I :06:19 AM EDT
108.188.113.169
Session completed and closed by Marvin Puryear
08272020 11:06:17 AM EDT
108.188.113.169
Signing Completed by Richard E. Bosserman, Trustee (rehosserman@gmail.com)
08272020 11:05:27 AM EDT
108.198.113.169
Signature created and disclosure approved by Richard E. Bosserman, Trustee
(rebosserman@gmaiLcom)
08272020 9:00:06 AM EDT
72.189.178.115
Invitation sent to Richard E. Bosserman, Trustee(rebossemtan@gmail.com) by
Marvin Puryear
08272020 9:00:06 AM EDT
72.189.178.115
eSignOnline Session Created by Marvin Puryear
0827rM 8:59:58 AM EDT
72.189.178.115
Document has been marked up by Marvin Puryear
Disclosure
Consumer Disclosure
Please read the information below regarding the terms and conditions of receiving documents, contracts, and disclosures electronically
through the eSign Online electronic signature system. if this information is to your satisfaction and you agree to the terms and conditions,
please confirm your acceptance and agreement by checking the box 'I Agree to the above Consumer Disclosure' and selecting the 'Create
Page 82
40
0894177\1 92087\1 0886544v I
and Approve Signature button'
Electronic distribution of documents and contracts
Saunders Ralston Dantzler Real (We, us, or the Company) acknowledges your agreement to receive required documents, contracts, notices,
disclosures, authorizations, and other documents electronically through the eSign Online electronic signature system. We appreciate and
thank you for doing your part to go paperless and save our environment. Through the eSign Online electronic signature system, we are able
to save time and process a transaction faster. We do not have to print and mail paper copies, wait for signatures that could take days or
weeks, and there are no delays associated with wailing for you to mail it back to us. Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the
procedures described herein this disclosure, we will provide documents through this electronic method during the course of our relationship
with you. If you do not agree with this process and method, please let us know as described below.
Saunders Ralston Dantzler Real outsources personal information to a third party processing and storage service provider which is located in
the USA. The Buyer and Seller hereby acknowledge that personal information processed and stored by a US third party service provider is
subject to the laws of that country and that information may be made available to the US government or its agencies under a lawful order
made in that country.
Paper copies
During the signing process on eSign Online, you will have the opportunity to download and print your copies of the documents before and
after signing. At any time, you may contact us to obtain paper copies of documents that have been provided to you electronically. To
request paper copies, you must send an email to mpuryear@srdcommemial.com and in the body of the email state your f iU name, address,
telephone number, and the name of the document or transaction that you would like a paper copy for. If any fees apply, we will notify you.
Withdrawing your consent to sign electronically
Once you have decided and agreed to the following disclosure to sign documents electronically, you may at any time thereafter decide to
withdraw your consent and receive required documents only in paper format. There are several ways to inform us that you no longer wish
to received documents and sign electronically:
a) During the electronic signing process, you may elect to `decline' and indicate you reasons for declining and withdrawing your
consent.
bl Send an email to mpuryear*tdoommercial.com and in the body of the email indicate your full name, address. telephone
number and that you no longer wish to sign electronically and instead would like to receive paper copies
Please be aware that withdrawing your consent to sign electronically may result in delays and/or more time to complete a transaction. We
will then have to print and mail paper copies to you, wait for you to receive and sign documents, then wait for you to mail it back and
follow the same procedure with other parties to the transaction.
How to contact Saunders Ralston Dantzler Real
At any time, you may contact us to change your email and contact information, request paper copies, or to indicate your change in consent
to sign electronically hereafter.
Contact Name: Marvin Puryear
Email Address: mpuryear@srdeommereial.com
Phone Number :
Hardware and Software Requirements
The following are minimum hardware and software requirements to use the eSign Online electronic signature system
Operating Systems: Windows® 10, Windows® 8, WindowsilD 7, Windows Vista®, Mac OS® X 10.6 and higher.
Browsers: Google Chrome® 36 and higher, Internet Explorers 9.0 and higher, Mozilla Firefox® 31.0 and higher, Safane 5.1.7 and
higher.
Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum
Security Settings: Allow per session cookies
PDF Reader: AcnobatV or similar software to view and print PDF tiles
Your Acknowledgment and Consent to use electronic signatures
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic documents that we will
provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic consumer disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access. Further, you consent to receiving notices and disclosures in electronic
format on the terms and conditions described herein this consumer disclosure, please let us know by checking the 'I agree with the above
Page 83
41
0894177\1 92087\1 0886544v I
Consumer Disclosure' box below.
By checking the 'I agree with the above Consumer Disclosure' box, I confirm that I can access and read this electronic consumer disclosure
to consent to receipt of electronic documents, i can print on paper if 1 so choose, the disclosure and/or save to a place whets I can print it
for future reference and access, and until i notify Saunders Ralston Dantzler Real otherwise, I consent to receive from Saunders Ralston
Dantzler Real electronic documents that arc required to be provided or made available to me by Saunders Ralston Dantzler Real during the
course of my relationship with Saunders Ralston Dantzler Real.
Page 84
42
0894177\ 1 92087\ 1 0886544v I
7l29/2020 Property Details : Lake County Property Appraiser
PROPERTY RECORD CARD
General Information
Name: BOSSERMAN RICHARD E Alternate Key: 1103908
TRUSTEE &
Mailing GLADYS T BOSSERMAN 09-22-26-
Address: TRUSTEE Parcel Number:,; 1205-038-
1701 SPRING LAKE DR 00000
ORLANDO, FL 32804 000C
Qpdale Mailing Addre Millage Group and City: (CLERMONT)
2019 Total Certified Millage 17.9211
Rate:
Trash/Recycling/Water/info: MY-8&& apV
Property HOOKS ST —
Location: CLERMONT FL 34711 Property Name: Suam l Propedy
llRdate�mRatty Lcr�ttQn v Aroma u
School Localor 8
School Information: Bus Slog to
SchacLBnuadary
mbpa u
CLERMONT, LAKE HIGHLANDS 28-22-26 THAT PART OF TRACT 38
SWI
OF FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: FROM NW COR OF GREATER
PINES PHI
Property I PB 34 PG 27-28, RUN S 0-27-55 W 1324.89 FT, S 89-38-58 W I
Description: 1321 FT, S 89-51-48 W 1157.05 FT, N 40-21-04 E 1016.09 FT, NI
0-08-56 W 682.94 FT TO POB, N 22-56-53 W 285.05 FT, N I
52-52-41 W 448.74 FT TO N LINE OF S 1/2 OF SEC 28 & END OF
DESCRIBED LINE —LESS R/W—PB 2 PG 281
ORB 1049 PG 2186 ORB 3057 PG 1898 ORB 3713 PG 541
MOTE: TAN weMrrY aeeLaplhr, to a eona.ne.arefare.hl.e venlen el a,e M aexc of h Iouu tWC. d CpttM M U6— yaeSeYarUlpebn SerW- T roenMIqe ft nq aelwmYyN Y,elr IM MIny IMin
pmpey M 41Nb neenlMW.d Mqo.MMwY,N rpMutlGk eee+merae a oaw MeneYW nwa. TIN a.a[apuon eM„la
,nl M shed lar purpose a comaylrp propeM aN. TM Properly MHeleer auurr,u ro reeponalWlttY Fa au caupuer,pe o! MgprapNu ueu or
Inl.pr.ulione a m. propMy Nerlprion.
Land Data
Line Land Use Frontage Depth Notes No. Class
Units Type Value Land Value
1 VACANT RESIDENTIAL 0 0 9 AC $0.00 $270,000.00
(0000)
Click here for ZoningjnfQ v FEMA Flood Map
Miscellaneous Improvements
There Is no improvement information to display.
Sales History
NOTe� TM1.w wx,m n r«n ni,n„lx� In N s. r.�r,p«,« 4 M,li,mwl nlfnp Ini/,vyw m«,Mry mwY tr Gw,rl N a.a MrTw�rY Nwr,lnann w[n,w nnaio-,crurao-� wrrn
r,cevec win rM GeA M (:Derr. IUYiM II®1Y0.1p LJfCIYJ_OLLL1gU1L4Y.�111�i{Ii01L
Book/Page Sale Date Instrument Qualified/Unqualified
VacanUlmproved Sale Price
3713154 10/29/2008 Warranty Deed Multi -Parcel
Vacant
$100.00
30571 1898 1/4/2006 Warranty Deed Multi -Parcel
Vacant
$1.00
1050 / 213 31111990 Warranty Deed Qualified
Vacant
$65,000.00
863 / 10 12/111985 Warranty Deed Qualified
Vacant
$32,500.00
Click here lo.seamb for modgagas,_Lh ,.and other legal documents. J
hops://www.lakeoopropappr.com/property-details.aspx?altkey=1103908
113
Page 85
43
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
7/29/2020 Property Details: Lake County Property Appraiser
Values and Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes
Velum shown W— are 2020 CERTIFIED VALUES.
Tha Markel Vale D— bebw I -,—dad b repnbent do—cipaled sellbq ante of the pruaany and should nd be rekad upon by any mdMdval ar endly as
a debrtnmalbn Or cOrte��. me�krtt value.
Tax Authority
Market
Assessed
Taxable
Millage
Estimated
Value
Value
Value
Taxes
LAKE COUNTY BCC GENERAL
$270,000
$270,000
$270,000
5.07340
$1,369.82
FUND
LAKE COUNTY MSTU
$270,000
$270,000
$270,000
0.46290
$124.98
AMBULANCE
SCHOOL BOARD STATE
$270,000
$270,000
$270,000
3.88500
$1,048.95
SCHOOL BOARD LOCAL
$270,000
$270,000
$270,000
2.99800
$809.46
CITY OF CLERMONT
$270.000
$270,000
$270,000
4.20610
$1,135.65
ST JOHNS RIVER FL WATER
$270.000
$270,000
$270,000
0.24140
$65.18
MGMT DIST
LAKE COUNTY VOTED DEBT
$270,000
$270,000
$270,000
0.11000
$29.70
SERVICE
LAKE COUNTY WATER
$270,000
$270,000
$270,000
0.35570
$96.04
AUTHORITY
SOUTH LAKE HOSPITAL DIST
$270,000
$270,000
$270,000
0.00000
$0.00
Total:
Total:
17.3325
$4,679.78
Exemptions Information
This property is benefitting from the following exemptions with a checkmark ✓
Homestead Exemption (first exemption up to $25.000) LoamMo[a view the Lew
Additional Homestead Exemption (up to an additional $25,000) Loam more View me Law
Limited Income Senior Exemption (applied to county millage - up to
550,000) Laam More Yrew the Law
Limited Income Senior Exemption (applied to city millage - up to $25,000) irLa-M WM view the Law
Limited Income Senior 25 Year Residency (county millage only -exemption
amount varies) Leam Mere View the Law
Widow / Widower Exemption (up to $500) Learn Mom view the Law
Blind Exemption (up to $500) Loam Wm view the Law
Disability Exemption (up to $500) Learn . re View the Law
Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount varies) Learn More view the Lew
Veteran's Disability Exemption ($5000) Learn More View the Law
Veteran's Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount vanes) Laam More view the Law
Veteran's Combat Related Disability Exemption (amount varies) Learn View the Law
Deployed Servicemember Exemption (amount varies) Loam More view the Lew
First Responder Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount varies) Learn More vew me Law
Surviving Spouse of First Responder Exemption (amount varies) Learn M, View the L,w
Conservation Exemption (amount varies) Learn More view me Law
Tangible Personal Property Exemption (up to $25,000) Loom Mao YlawtGa.Laa
Religious, Charitable, Institutional, and Organizational Exemptions (amount
varies) I eam More view the Law
Economic Development Exemption Laam_69Tm yreLyf6e.Latr
Government Exemption (amount vanes) Loamblom Ybw the Law
Exemption Savings
The exemptions marked with a ✓ above are providing a tax dollar savings of: $0.00
https:ltwww.lakecopropappr.com/prol)erty-details.aspx?altkey=l 103908
Page 86
44
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
2/3
7/29/2020 Property Detaits Lake County Property Appraiser
Assessment Reduction Information (3% cap, 10% cap, Agricultural,
Portability, etc.)
This property is benefitting from the following assessment reductions with a
checkmark
Save Our Homes Assessment Limitation (3% assessed value cap) Leem Mae Vow the Lew
Save Our Homes Assessment Transfer (Portability) Leam More wew me Lew
Non -Homestead Assessment Limitation (10% assessed value cap) Leam More trees fhe Law
Conservation Classification Assessment Limitation Leam More V&wthe r__
Agricultural Classification Leam More Vf ft Law
Assessment Reduction Savings
The assessment reductions marked with a ✓ above are providing a tax dollar
savings of: $0.00
NOT[: IM>me -- Tle Properly R— C.. b —I- we u— W Oro l k. Co Y Proaerq Agavaar far Ib — WNafa al atl -- property lax aasevmna
arsorEenca wT. M FIoMa Conwunian, SmNlaa. aM AOIwyaVelna Caee. TM l C*I* PIPUV Appraise �W rro rayawllaColr mwart�ntlea
cyt —ne mnylslarleas am ac;yracY d arts neeln,ewunwrpraueon.;M leett MAMwVaplkanetMawrnNpa arumeranu ofM property.aM auune:
rw Yad4Y aaeociNetl S aN� rts uw a mm�a. See Ilro ppaNtl Stls NoYoe.
Copyright 0 2014 Lake County Property Appraiser. All rights reserved.
Property data last updated on July 26, 2020.
Site Notice
htlps:Uwww.lakecopmpappr.com/property-details.aspx?ahkey=1103908
Page 87
45
0894177\192087\10886544vl
3/3
7/29/2020 Property Details : Lake County Property Appraiser
PROPERTY RECORD CARD
General Information
Name: BOSSERMAN RICHARD E Alternate Key: 3801505
TRUSTEE &
Mailing GLADYS T BOSSERMAN 28-22-26-
Address: TRUSTEE Parcel Number: v 0003-000-
1701 SPRING LAKE DR 00400
ORLANDO, FL 32804 OOOC
Llodale MailinaAddress Millage Group and City: (CLERMONT)
2019 Total Certified Millage 17.9211
Rate:
Trash/RecyclingfWaterllnfo: myPublrc
Services w v
Property EXCALIBUR RD —
Location: CLERMONT FL 34711 Property Name: Suemi[PwQwy
Slndare Prosy Location o Na» W
Schad Localo l
School Information: Bus sro2.11fBR %P
Slunda0t
Mao u
FROM NW COR OF GREATER PINES PH 1 PB 34 PG 27-28, RUN S 1
OODEG 27MIN 55SEC W 1324.89 FT. S 89DEG 38MIN 58SEC W 13211
FT, S 89DEG 51 MIN 48SEC W 1157.05 FT, N 40DEG 21 MIN 04SEC E 1
1016.09 FT, N OODEG 08MIN 56SEC W 682.94 FT, N 22DEG 56MIN 1
53SEC W 139.12 FT FOR POB, CONT N 22DEG 56MIN 53SEC W
Property 145.931
Description: FT, N 52DEG 52MIN 41SEC W TO A PT ON E LINE OF TRACT 38
LAKEI
HIGHLANDS SUB IN SEC 28, S TO SE COR OF SAID TRACT 38, W 1
ALONG S LINE OF TRACT 38 TO SW COR OF SAID TRACT 38, S 1
0-20-02 W 370.92 FT, N 89-40-40 E 756A6 FT TO W'LY R/W LINES
OF STEVE'S RD, NW'LY ALONG SAID W'LY R/W LINE TO POB 1
ORB 1049 PG 2186 ORB 3713 PG 54 ORB 3790 PG 1211 1
Nere: Tltlf hoofrb uflwf�.n w f coner,welfmnw.Ne wnm hraw enghw efuwf+s, r,.w,e.e an e«w o. nuw. NyY wan,era in hN ruh.c
nKeMf d hw Vtlw County CtM of COM. h n,1x „fl M,el,tlf M fBun,fy ByfN,n'f iflon, Tow,Nd, b,yf InIwnlNm a ow wunq w vlhlGb
Ur O.W1wY Y Iheu.G. p if u1,f1,lW b npMwl Y,f IfnG bMiM, ouI - Me ahr na f,eh,e..�..,.df a ohr I,aneae a nxhre. Tnw arcAryinn f W WE
nol k uwC M pYpoNf al wnwHnY W^Of.M fIN. TM fir .PP1wx 1lfuhwf no mpshiRT for 1M cwgwnw of Fwoprhpwb V1w >
Inlwpnwtlp� OI IM pagny Mfrgtlon.
Land Data
Line Land Use Frontage Depth Notes Units Type Value end Value
1 VACANT RESIDENTIAL 0 0 7.5 AC $0.00 $225,000.00
(0000)
Click here for Zoning-taf.Q v FEMA Flood Map
Miscellaneous Improvements
There is no improvement information to display.
Sales History
MOTE me.xfw;...+,m.iau w a oovn1NN w, a m...emem 1'*W bO*tl .u.La,f m.y ww N1 wuo.m.lw1X. •bravermv nco,d.tl nc
�tleieC M.
Cwrh W GauM1 r
Book/Page Sale Date Instrument Qualified/Unqualified Vacant/Improved Sale Price
37_WL1211 6/24/2009 Warranty Deed Multi -Parcel Vacant $100.00
3713 / 54 10/29/2008 Warranty Deed Multi -Parcel Vacant $100.00
https:/NAvw.lakecopropappr.com/property-detais. aspx?altkey=3801505
Page 88
46
0894177\1 92087\1 0886544v I
1 /3
71292020 Property Details: Lake County Property Appraiser
2775 / 806 2/25/2005 Quit Claim Deed Unqualified Vacant $0.00
here to search formortgHgH3Jiom, and other leastVQcuments U
Values and Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes.,
Values chows below an Me CERTIFIED VALUES.
1 ne Maher �31oc .iaktl below a -t ,n* Md W ra.—i ew MI dPWad Mfmq MN! d dr VoWY uo 0-A! n W Mod boon Dy"1,4. l m MWy ea
a oelemrr,rlbn M r,imm; msk,Y vaWe
Tax Authority
Market
Assessed
Taxable
Millage
Estimated
Value
Value
Value
Taxes
LAKE COUNTY BCC GENERAL
$225,000
$196,181
$196,181
5.07340
$995.30
FUND
LAKE COUNTY MSTU
5225,000
$196,181
$196,181
0.46290
$90.81
AMBULANCE
SCHOOL BOARD STATE
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
3.88500
$874.13
SCHOOL BOARD LOCAL
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
2.99800
$674.55
CITY OF CLERMONT
$225,000
$196,181
$196,181
4.20610
$825.16
ST JOHNS RIVER FL WATER
$225,000
$196,181
$196,181
024140
$47.36
MGMT DIST
LAKE COUNTY VOTED DEBT
$225,000
$196,181
$196,181
0.11000
$21.58
SERVICE
LAKE COUNTY WATER
$225,000
$196,181
$196,181
0.35570
$69.78
AUTHORITY
SOUTH LAKE HOSPITAL DIST
$225,000
$196,181
$196,181
0.00000
$0.00
Total:
Total:
17.3325
$3,598.67
Exemptions Information
This property is benefitting from the following exemptions with a checkmark ✓
Homestead Exemption (first exemption up to $25,000) Leam-6lam View ale law
Additional Homestead Exemption (up to an additional $25,000) LaamL6lm view the taw
Limited Income Senior Exemption (applied to county millage - up to
$50,000) LearnAillore Vmw the Law
Limited Income Senior Exemption (applied to city millage - up to $25,000) pLeam mo a View the taw
Limited Income Senior 25 Year Residency (county millage only -exemption
amount varies) Learn Wow are Law
Widow / Widower Exemption (up to $500) Larm6io Vt' dcLaw
Bind Exemption (up to $500) Loamdetm vew me Lew
Disability Exemption (up to $500) Loam krtewme taw
Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount varies) Loom_M¢ce view the Law
Veteran's Disability Exemption($5000) Loam Mam View the Law
Veteran's Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount varies) team Moe view are Lew
Veteran's Combat Related Disability Exemption (amount varies) Learn Mom View the Law
Deployed Servioemember Exemption (amount varies) Learn y1awthelaw
First Responder Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount varies) Loom More ymyft.LBw
Surviving Spouse of First Responder Exemption (amount varies) LaemAlan Wei#the La
Conservation Exemption (amount varies) Leam Mara View the L
Tangible Personal Property Exemption (up to $25,000) Learn-Eilom View one r ew
Religious, Charitable, Institutional, and Organizational Exemptions (amount
varies) Loam_tei@ Vierw are Lew
Economic Development Exemption Loam A V"JIM Lew
Government Exemption (amount varies) Learn Mwe yffiw 9 "w
Exemption Savings -
https:/AwAv.lakecopropa ppr.com/propertydetails.aspx?altkey=3801505
Page 89
47
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
m
7/29/2020 Property Details : Lake County Property Appraiser
The exemptions marked with a ,/ above are providing a tax dollar savings of: $0.00
Assessment Reduction Information (3% cap, 10% cap, Agricultural,
Portability, etc.)
This property is benefitting from the following assessment reductions with a
checkmark ✓
Save Our Homes Assessment Limitation (3% assessed value cap) beam We View nee taw
Save Our Homes Assessment Transfer (Portability) Loam More View ft Law
Non -Homestead Assessment Limitation (10% assessed value cap) Learn More yew Me Lew
Conservation Classification Assessment Limitation Lemn re View the Lew
Agricultural Classltication Learn More V., the Law
Assessment Reduction Savings o
The assessment reductions marked with a ✓ above are providing a tax dollar
savings of: $301.14
NOR tdamr.lian wr un I'. tyR. Cud a ftp end reed M M i . ('.DI V PMP" APps.r l M ed. pip a mac rabrcn P.P" b asse.smerY
,.Wdnson F avoder.¢ Wn M �hrila G.Mbaa� SY• . ar1E AYr�iY.in CaO.. TM lb l:aUq PmOMry Appre.r null ra reYwanDoorn a vn��vn
rayrd.p M mnpker.ex.nd am y d me Cas Iw.r. ca uee a nnspraYev. M 4a a tr�N.W pi.nw aF awrWv arcunrEnmra M dw popan,. aM r.umr
m 4.4r.y roa.Yd..rN ti rr ar rrvue. 9w M pyad .
Copyright ® 2014 Lake County Property Appraiser. All rights reserved.
Property data last updated on July 26, 2020.
Site Notice
https JAvww.lakecopropappr.comlproperty-data ils. esp>naftkey=3801505
Page 90
48
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
3/3
7/29/2020 Property Details : Lake County Property Appraiser
PROPERTY RECORD CARD
General Information
Name: BOSSERMAN RICHARD E Alternate Key: 3815507
TRUSTEE &
Mailing GLADYS T BOSSERMAN 28-22-26-
Address: TRUSTEE Parcel Number: u 0003-000-
1701 SPRING LAKE DR 00600
ORLANDO, FL 32804 OOOC
Madate MalilogAddmu Millage Group and City: (CLERMONT)
2019 Total Certified Millage 17.9211
Rate:
Trash/Recycling/Water/Info: myevok
Services Map v
Property HOOKS ST —
Location: CLERMONT FL 34711 Property Name: 8ubmH Pmak*
�MI»fe Pmpgpy ! or»lion u bid= U
School Locator
School Information:�p"
Schoo/ Bound»ry
Maas u
FROM SE COR OF TRACT 51 OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS 28-22-26
NOW I
VACATED RUN N OODEG 27MIN 55SEC E 1987.33 FT TO NE COR OF
Property SAID TRACT 35 NOW VACATED, S 89DEG 48MIN 50SEC W 2064.20
Description: FT J
FOR POB, CON S 89DEG 48MIN 50SEC W 242.81 FT, S 52DEG
52MINI
41SEC E 448.74 FT, N 22DEG 56MIN 53SEC W 294.95 FT TO POB
ORB 3057 PG 1898 ORB 3713 PG 541
MOIF. TM1In wap.,y 4nc11Pcon b • <anNnNNNMWICY wnbn o11M w1ylnY NY:rlPtlm u recotOYc on W Ws w aMr IpY InWumalb hl te. PUNk
«oNc o(Iro LaN Coumy pPrtl d Cov1. x may na rcbee Ws PWIc YaM Surwr SFnrm'n 3ndlon, TewnMlp. Aangn InbnMbn w IM county b +I,icM1
Me woMI1Y I.IouNE.tlb1men0e0bnMYwV Yr rna lPwY.ry oay YM tleen nol InaudPnNYnnnb wallcrancerA. TJc rNalptlon ctleaG
na Ue usM for puryN.c a y d-1 proeerry br. iM1e PropMy ApP,YNr eNumnn ro rNpomWlry w Itle ........... PPIOPMn uNn w
IderPr.blbn. d nK woNnr ae«rl0Pn
Land Data
Line Land Use Frontage Depth Notes No. Type Class Land
Units Value Value
1 VACANT RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0.79 AC $0.00 $23,700.00
(0000)
Click here for Zoning_LnfQ ar FEMA Flood Map
Miscellaneous Improvements
There is no improvement information to display.
Sales History
non: Trc eedm r rol HYIME r a a aanOrr a.Ya w.. MllcnY arr tleoM/aw nntw. a rina Fr wnvYrY a.ecn' •ee...,ws �da.m
eacuE .u'n M fit d Cauc Fdortlir F,i b sNral tlE LW rrrr.
Book/Page Sale Date Instrument Qualified/Unqualified Vacant/improved Sale Price
3713 / 54 10/29/2008 Warranty Deed Multi -Parcel Vacant $100.00
3057118 1/4/2006 Warranty Deed Multi -Parcel Vacant $1.00
2236 / 2376 11/18/2002 Warranty Deed Qualified Vacant $12.700.00
Click hereto search for modoagfs,1o0s, and other legal documents. u
Values and Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes
https:/lwww.lakacopropappr. m m/prnpe rty-deta ds. aspx?AltKey=3815507
Page 91
49
113
0894177\192087\10886544vI
7/29/2020 Property Details : Lake County Property Appraiser
Values Mown balm am 2020 CERTIFIED VALUES.
T . Markel ai- bled b.bw Is not Inwded t mpnaa , a,e..dCb tad.WWv p— or dr property and thDW not be mw Won by any Individual a antay w
a dabmw of cnnam m.k va .
Tax Authority
Market
Assessed
Taxable
Millage
Estimated
Value
Value
Value
Taxes
LAKE COUNTY BCC GENERAL
$23,700
$6,159
$6,159
5.07340
$31.25
FUND
LAKE COUNTY MSTU
$23,700
$6,159
$6,159
0.46290
$2.85
AMBULANCE
SCHOOL BOARD STATE
$23,700
$23,700
$23,700
3.88500
$92.07
SCHOOL BOARD LOCAL
$23,700
$23.700
$23,700
2.99800
$71.05
CITY OF CLERMONT
$23,700
$6,159
$6,169
4.20610
$25.91
ST JOHNS RIVER FL WATER
$23,700
$6.159
$6.159
0.24140
$1,49
MGMT DIST
LAKE COUNTY VOTED DEBT
$23,700
$6,159
$6,159
0.11000
$0.68
SERVICE
LAKE COUNTY WATER
$23,700
$6,159
$6,159
0.35570
$2.19
AUTHORITY
SOUTH LAKE HOSPITAL DIST
$23,700
$6,159
$6.159
0.00000
$0.00
Total:
Total:
17.3325
$227.49
Exemptions Information
This property is benefitting from the following exemptions with a checkmark yr
Homestead Exemption (first exemption up to $25,000) Learn Moe View the t Aw
Additional Homestead Exemption (up to an additional $25.000) LeamM= view Me Law
Limited Income Senior Exemption (applied to county millage - up to
$50,000) Learn Mom View Me Lew
Limited Income Senior Exemption (applied to city millage - up to $25,000) ULeam Moro View Me Law
Limited Income Senior 25 Year Residency (county millage only -exemption
amount varies) Loam More View Me Law
Widow / Widower Exemption (up to $500) Loam Moro View ma Law
Blind Exemption (up to $500) Leam More View the taw
Disability Exemption (up to $500) Learn More View Me 1,w
Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount varies) L"M Mom View the taw
Veteran's Disability Exemption ($5000) Learn More View Me taw
Veteran's Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount varies) Loam More View Me Lew
Veteran's Combat Related Disability Exemption (amount varies) Leem Moe View Me Lew
Deployed Servicemember Exemption (amount varies) Leem Moe View the taw
First Responder Total and Permanent Disability Exemption (amount varies) Learn Mora View it, iaw
Surviving Spouse of First Responder Exemption (amount varies) Loam Moro View the Lew
Conservation Exemption (amount varies) Leem More Vkwthe Law
Tangible Personal Property Exemption (up to $25,000) Learn Moo View Me Lew
Religious, Charitable, Institutional, and Organizational Exemptions (amount
varies) Loam More View Me Lew
Economic Development Exemption Leem More View the Lew
Government Exemption (amount varies) I earn Mora Via, the Law
Exemption Savings.,
The exemptions marked with a ✓ above are providing a tax dollar savings of: $0.00
haps itwww.lakecopropappr.com/property-details.aspx?AJtKey-3815507
Page 92
50
0894177\1 92087\1 0886544v I
2/3
779�767C Property Details : Lake County Property Appraiser
Assessment Reduction Information (3% cap, 10% cap, Agricultural,
Portability, etc.)
This property is benefitting from the following assessment reductions with a
checkmark
Save Our Homes Assessment Limitation (3% assessed value cap) Lenin View are Law
Save Our Homes Assessment Transfer (Portability) Loam Mo s Vow the Lew
✓ Non -Homestead Assessment Limitation (10% assessed value cap) Learn Mom View Ne Law
Conservation Classification Assessment Limitation Laam Moreyew a e Lew
Agricultural Classification Lcam Momyicw the Law
Assessment Reduction Savings o
The assessment reductions marked with a ✓ above are providing a tax dollar
savings of: $183.29
•o�r,amruen an sa FmP"R-1 minr—*W o-a—M-Anacam'.P"No.- m. we wcw.a.e,mw�❑.oRr u. �....w.
Mobs m.um�,.caue.,r..ay.'rura. eunuwbn siwee..m.amw..ur.coe.m.wca.nr vmpny Ma.�.'mrrronp.nrmu a.rrrmr
�.W�O M mmeeoraa ex.ouncy at M aee eera.r, b w a wraewo-,. e,s w u ee.a.�.u.a.ree eie ww.no a.wna.K.. an. r•warr.m..,�.s
nor s�raor.i.m'r ors a mwu. s� u,e uoma SeitfaYra
Copyright © 2014 Lake County Property Appraiser. All rights reserved.
Properly data last updated on July 26, 2020.
Site Notice
https:tlwww.lakecopropappr.com/property-d etalls.aspx?AltKaym3815507
Page 93
51
0894177\1 92087\10886544v I
Superintendent:
School Board Members
Diane S. Kornegay, M.Ed.
District t
�-
Bill Mathias
District 2
Kristi Burns, Ph,D.
District 3
Marc Dodd
District 4
201 West Burlegh Boulevard Tavares FL 32778-2496
Sandy Gamble
(352) 253-6500 Fax (352) 253-6503 www.lake.02.N.us
District 5
Stephanie Luke
October 16. 2020
Mr. John Kruse, Planning Mgr. Via Email
City of Clermont
682 W Montrose Street
Clermont, Florida 34712
RE: Hooks Street Multi -Family - City of Clermont (Updated)
Adequate Public Facilities Determination (LCS APF33-2019)
Dear Mr Kruse.
The School District has performed a second review of the above referenced development proposing an
increase in the multifamily dwellings for a total of 204 units on approximately seventeen (17) acres The
subject property is located at the southwest corner of Hooks Street and Excalibur Road This project is in
close proximity to East Ridge Middle and High Schools
The proposed development has the potential to generate approximately fifty-eight (58) students for the
Lake County School system Based on current school attendance zones, the schools impacted by the
proposed residential project and their projected 5th year capacities are as follows
• Lost Lake Elementary School 106% Capacity
• East Ridge Middle School 66% Capacity
• East Ridge High School 107% Capacity
This project does exceed the level of service standards for the elementary and high school levels. Lake
Point Academy, which is under construction, will provide relief at the elementary level Additionally, the
school district approved a south county boundary adjustment that may provide some relief at the
elementary schools. The district continues to monitor the growth in South County to address high school
capacities
Please be aware that school concurrency review is required prior to final development order approval.
Proportionate share mitigation may be required at that time.
Should you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at (352) 253-6694 or by
email at lavalleyh(a)lake, k1211.us,
Sincerely,
Helen LaValley
Growth Planning Department
Fncl Adequate Public Facildies Analysis
Page 94
"Equal Opportunity in Education and Employment"
52
0894177\ 1 92087\ 1 0886544v I
NAMEICASES
DESCRIPTION
NEW DU IMPACT
STUDENT GENERATION
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
CSA #10
;nod Schools:
Lake Elementary
Ridge Middle
Ridge High
Lake County Schools
Adequate Public Facilities
Determination
Lake County Schools
LCS APF33-2019 Revised Hooks Street Multi -family
Proposed 204 multi -family units/17+/- acres
SWC Hooks Street and Excalibur Road
5507, 1103908, 3801505
SF -DU
MF-DU
MH-DU
SF Impacts
MF Impacts
204
0.350
0.282
1
0.185
0
58
0.157
0153
0,095
0
31
0.079
0.061
0.044
0
12
0.114
0.068
0.046
0
14
'Students generated may differ from distribution percentages due to rounding
Projected Student % of Perm. Planned
Enrollment Concurrency Five Year Enrollment Capacity Capacity
1 1.041 1 1.590 1 65% 1 1.053 1 66% 1 No
rtease note tnat tnts is Nu i a Scnool uoncurrency capacity reservation.
Please be aware that at time of school concurrency review that proportionate share mitigation may be required.
This review does not include already reserved capacities.
Prepared by Helen LaValley, Lake County Schools Growth Planning Dept. Issue rate: 10/16/2020
Page 95
53
0994177\192087\10886544vI
LEGAL NOTICE
NphGe 4 oreny ow, 1';Ito ;J!Y -nr.n Gil o1 'he Cry 0! Clermont wolf
uanaber the e,KIPWI of rollemait pnlpoeeU ordinance. AN Uniereslad
ponied wU be alter an opporttn'.y In
express!m" Ylewe or thle mamr
ORDINANCE NO.2D21dID1
AN ORDINANCE UNDER THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY Of CLERMONT, REFERRED TO IN
CHAPTER 122 OF ORDINANCE NO.2B8-C, CODE OF ORDDIANCES:
REZONING THE REAL PROPERTIES DESCRIBED HEREIN AS
SHOWN BELOW, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT. SEVERABIUTY,
ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRNENERS ERROR,
RECORDING, AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION.
LOCATION'.
VaG1nl prnprrty mk,lt e5 of Eacalibr. Road acid H00ke Shea'
hlereel.Tbn
Al( 1103908 3801505 3815507
1703 -Ores
LEGAL DEWRUPTION
THAT PART OF TRACTS 37, 38. 43 AND 44 OF LAKE HKMLANDS
COMPANY PLAT N %CTIDN28.TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH. RANGE 26EAST.
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 28 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
LAW COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST GORIER OF TRACT 53 OF SAID
LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT (SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE
CENTERLIAE OF A 30.OD FOOT WIDE FIGHT OF WAY AS SHOO ON
SAIDPLATTTHENCE SOUTH WSI'04'WESTALOIG THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF TRACTS 53 54 AND 551ALSC BEING THE NORTHERLY LINE
OF GREATER PINES PHASE 9, AS RECORDED N. PLAT BOON 48.
PAGE 80 AkD THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREATEP NINES PtULSE 10.
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOO( 48. PAGE 63, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA) FOR 1%8.84 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF
SAID TRACT 55: THENCE NORTH 00^12'38" EAST ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF TRACTS 55 AND 42 OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY
PLAT, FOR 132674 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 42:
THENCE NORTH 89"4940' EAST ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE
FOR 659.27 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 38 OF SAID
LAKE HIGHLANDS C3MMY PLAT AND THE PONT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH OUi 07' EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
TRACT 38 FOR 613 51 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY FIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF HOOKS STREET. THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES NORTH 89'48'50" EAST FOR
51.62 FEET TO THE PONT OF CURVATURE OF A CIARVE CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1350.DO FEET, THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL.
ANGLE OF 15'38'DB' FOR A DISTANCE OF 368.40 FEET TO A PONE
ON THE NORFH LINE OF SAID TRACT 38; THENCE NORTH 89'48'50'
EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LDIE 158.E FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE
OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO LANE COUNTY AND DESCRBED
IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2574, PAGES 830-833 FOR STEVE S
ROAD; THENCE At OAG SAID WESTERLY LINE THE FO.LfYMG FOUR
COURSES. SOUTH 72'56'53' EAST FOR 440.88 FEET TO A POINT ON
A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING I.S G A RAD OF 2063 Tr2
FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE Et MS NORTH 76'05'45" EAST,
THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC THEREOF, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05'50 49" FOR 209,57 FEET: THENCE SOUTH
02'0100' WEST FDR 333.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE
CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.11 FEET TO
WHICH A RADIAL LINE BLARS SOUTH 76'S815' EAST. THENCE RUN
SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC THEREOF THROUGH A CB.TRAL ANGLE
OF 0311430, FDA 92.23 FEET. THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY
LINE SOUTH 89'49'40" WEST FOR 75648 FEET TO THE WESTERLY
LINE OF TRACT 43 OF SAID LAKE HIGHLANDS COMPANY PLAT;
THENCE NORTH 00'20'02' EAST ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY LINE
OF TRACT 43 FOR 37092 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
i Yw MAIN
I 601"
I swoop
A11a1b f+aaP
4 FROM: Uftn Estate
TO: Planmd UMl Dm"lo 1MFl (RID) tar a 204-unit apartment
msplaa
This request wfI be conslrfemo by lie Plareing L Zoni CpmmINHI on
Tunoey February 2, 2021 at 6 30 PM.
A p0so nleeling to consider this requeflwill be heb before the Coy Council
or Tueecay Febrllmy 23, 2021 for 11net armartenl
0 nleeonga wet be held a1 Chy Hall Am floor Council Chambers bcatad r
Gas W Mdnlmae 5tmet Cuermml FL 34711
Tons ftirlarm is avrallabic Ire piox Inspection In Re office of'J+e City Cork.
685 W Mlmrosc Stmc% Clammy Fi- Martin'hmugh Friday beweer, 11Y'
hays o' BOO AM we 500 PM Please be ativlaeo the' under State law
If you shooq; decioe 10 appeal a UegNa matte Wth fespW to INN matter
ym may EPC to amnia :Mt a verbatim Moore Is mde Nmona wit
tlkeblllllea who raaec ane01&rce stnAlo Cen18Cl ;he Clty Clerk a alTw. 1352V
241- 30. at least 4A notes prior ne the public hearings
Tracy Ackroye Howe Mk1C
a©.,3sh +.o.r re4z. zrr Pa��lM
54
0894177\1 92087\10886544v 1
ORDER OF DENIAL
Rezoning Application
Hooks St. /Skorman Multifamily
Request for Planned Unit Development
Location: Hooks St. /Excalibur Rd. (Alternate Key 1103908, 3801505, 3815507)
Applicant: Jimmy Crawford, Esq. & Tara Tedrow, Esq.
Application Date: August 31, 2020
Proposed ordinance 2021-015 was heard by the City Council for consideration of a revised version
of previously denied Ordinance 2021-010 in accordance with Section 70.51, Florida
Statutes. Approval of proposed Ordinance 2021-015 would rezone the subject property from
Urban Estate to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 204-unit apartment complex with
conditions as presented. The City Council, based on the additional information and evidence
presented at the June 8, 2021 public hearing, does hereby find that Ordinance 2021-015 does not
meet the review criteria set forth in Section 122-315 of the Land Development Code of the City of
Clermont.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida by
a 3 - 2 vote does hereby deny the above -stated application for the rezoning request.
DONE AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County,
Florida, this 8th day of June, 2021.
CITY OF CLERMONT
Tim Mim Mayor
ATTEST:
Tracy Ackro)ed Howe, City Clerk
