Loading...
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