06-07-2005 Regular MeetingCity of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• June 7, 2005
The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order Tuesday,
June 7, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Pape. Members present were Sy
Holzman, Carolyn Mathieson, Roger Pierce, David Outlaw, Peter Geigel, Maggie
Miller, Elwood Treadwell and Henry Rhee. Also in attendance were Jim Hitt,
Planning Director, Curt Henschel, Planner, Barbara Hollerand, Planner, Daniel
Mantzaris, City Attorney and Jane McAllister, Planning and Zoning Clerk.
MINUTES of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held May 3, 2005
were approved as written.
REPORTS
Commissioners Outlaw and Pierce wished to defer their reports until the end of
the meeting.
1. REQUEST FOR A LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT.
APPLICANTS: Administrative (442-acre and 10-acre properties)
• Lennar Homes, Inc. (96-acre property)
Planner Barbara Hollerand introduced this request by saying that this is an
administrative large-scale comprehensive plan map amendment to assign a City
Undeveloped District 7 (UD-7) Mixed-Use Classification 1 future land use to two
properties previously annexed into the City. This amendment submittal also
includes an applicant-requested map amendment to change the future land use
of a third parcel from Undeveloped District 7 (UD-7) Residential to Mixed-Use
Classification 1, which is the Kings Ridge Development of Regional Impact
properties future land use designation. All three properties are proposed to
become part of the Kings Ridge Development of Regional Impact through a
Notice of Proposed Change to the DRI, which will begin the public hearing
process upon successful adoption of this comprehensive plan amendment.
Additionally, a text amendment is included that would update the Mixed-Use
Land Use Classification matrix for UD-7. This matrix, approved as part of the
DRI, describes the land use mix for the Kings Ridge properties.
Staff recommends approval of the text change to the mixed-use matrix for UD-7.
Staff also recommends approval of the Future Land Use Map changes to assign
the 442-acre and 10-acre parcels an Undeveloped District 7 (UD-7) Mixed-Use
Classification 1 future land use designation and to change the future land use
designation on the 96-acre parcel from UD-7 Residential to Mixed-Use
Classification 1 for the following reasons:
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• June 7, 2005
Page - 2 -
• The UD-7 mixed-use matrix for the Kings Ridge DRI needs to be
updated to reflect the additional 548 acres.
• The previously annexed parcels still retain the County future land
uses and need to be included on the City's Future Land Use Map.
Both properties were annexed as future residential properties and
the 10-acre tract was rezoned R-1.
• The 96-acre UD-7 Residential property is appropriate for inclusion
in the Kings Ridge DRI properties and future land use designation
due to its proximity to the Legends development.
• The Notice of Proposed Change public hearing process will
delineate the allowed density of the three properties and any further
restrictions (such as age restrictions) that may apply to
development.
Chairman Pape asked if the applicant was present and would like to speak.
John Percy from Glatting Jackson Engineering in Orlando, FL said he was
available to answer questions.
• Commissioner David Outlaw stated he has a voting conflict with this item and
would not be voting on the request.
Chairman Pape asked if there was anyone in the public who wished to speak
about this request.
Lee Kaufman, 3840 Glenford Drive, Clermont, FL said that he does not want a
Mixed-Use Classification on the property that is next to where he lives and that
none of his neighbors do either. He said he wants the property to remain
residential.
Nancy Burke, 3802 Fallscrest Circle, Clermont, FL is concerned about what will
be developed behind her house. She does not want commercial there.
Carlos Garrandes, 3893 Glenford Dr., Clermont, FL said he paid a premium to
Lennar for his lot because he was told by Lennar that the area to the east of him
would not be developed. He is concerned about what will be built on the 442
acres if it is allowed to have mixed use. He is also concerned about the traffic.
Mary Luzunaris, 13303 Pinyon Drive, Clermont, FL 34711 is concerned with the
96-acre property just south of Spring Valley where she has her house. She
doesn't want it to be developed at all and certainly doesn't want any commercial.
• She is also concerned about the noise and traffic along the south connector road.
She wanted to know if there would be a noise wall along the road.
2
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
. June 7, 2005
Page - 3 -
Planner Curt Henschel said that Lake County has not scheduled a noise wall
along the south connector.
John Percy, of Glatting Jackson Engineering said there was a misunderstanding
and that he would like to clear it up. He explained that the Kings Ridge DRI which
includes the parcels in this request is already amixed-use. He cited the Publix
and the other commercial establishments at the corner of Hartwood Marsh Road
and Highway 27. He further said that the parcels in this request would be
developed as only as residential.
Virginia Rena, 13244 Pinyon Drive, Clermont, FL stated that they are moving dirt
on the land behind her house and there is a huge pile of dirt there.
Chairman Pape explained that the grading for the south connector roadway has
started and that is where the dirt is from.
Steve Perry, 3655 Liberty Hills Drive, Clermont, FL asked if there will be all
residences on the properties in question.
. John Percy reiterated that these properties would only be developed as
residential.
Brian Davis of Glenford Dr., Clermont, FL stated that he doesn't want anything
but residential on these properties.
Commissioner Holzman stated that there would be no commercial uses on the
properties in question.
Commissioner Mathieson said that the mixed-use title is confusing and
proceeded to explain again that these properties are still zoned for residential
even though the land use may say mixed-use.
Chairman Pape asked if there was anyone else in the public who would like to
speak about this request. There was no one.
Commissioner Holzman moved to approve fhe request; seconded by
Commissioner Geigel. The vote was 8-0 in favor of approval with Commissioner
Outlaw abstaining.
Commissioner Pierce stated that he has a voting conflict on the next item and
would not be voting on the request.
•
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• June 7, 2005
Page - 4 -
2. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
OWNER: Woody and Wallace Land Development, LLC
APPLICANT: Jimmy D. Crawford
REQUEST: To allow for more than four (4) tenants in a building, and to allow for
a building to occupy more than 20,000 square feet of space.
GENERAL LOCATION: The northwest corner of Hancock Road and Hooks
Street.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant.
FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICT: Undeveloped District 6 - (UD-6).
FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Commercial.
Planning Director Jim Hitt introduced this request by saying that the applicant's
• request is for a retail shopping center with buildings over 20,000 square feet and
more than four users in a building. The parcel is zoned PUD as part of the overall
Hills of Clermont Development. The parcel in an area designated for commercial
development as part of the master development plan. The site is adjacent to the
College Station Shopping Center (Chili's & Chik-fil-A) and is currently
undeveloped.
In July 2001 the developer obtained approval to develop this 11.5 acre parcel for
commercial uses. The developer originally had plans to develop the parcel as a 5
lot commercial subdivision with individual users on each lot. Now the developer
has decided to combine two parcels together and create a 67,200 square foot
shopping plaza.
Within the original Planned Unit Development, specific uses were prohibited on
this property. They will remain in effect for this Conditional Use Permit.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Chairman Pape asked if the applicant was present.
Jimmy D. Crawford, Gray Robinson Attorneys, 1635 E. State Road 50, Clermont,
FL said that he will defer to Rick McCoy the project engineer, to answer
• questions.
4
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• June 7, 2005
Page-5-
Rick McCoy, 713 W. Montrose Street, Clermont, FL 34711 showed the
Commission the site plan for the project.
Chairman Pape asked if there was anyone in the public who wished to speak
about this request. There was no one.
Commissioner Mathieson asked how the lots would be accessed from the street
and from the commercial center.
Rick McCoy said main access is a full median cut on Hooks Street, on Miss
Florida Drive there is a truck entrance that comes in and loops back out with a
right in/right out and a third entrance off of Hooks Street.
Commissioner Miller stated that the existing driveway off Hancock Road north of
this property was supposed to be a drive way to provide access to this project
and to the College Station commercial center. Why is that driveway not shown on
the plan?
Rick McCoy said the elevations will not permit a common driveway through the
property. He further said they are not required to build such a drive and do not
intend to do so because of the elevation, the costs for such a driveway would be
prohibitive.
Planning Director Hitt pointed out the there is one direct access to this site from
Hancock Road.
Commissioner Outlaw said that the applicant is bringing in an application for lots
4-8 ignoring lots 1-3 that were in the original plan. He said staff should provide
the Commission with the old site plan as well as the current plan so the
Commission can see the history and the intent of the entire piece of property. He
said he has a problem with the traffic flow as presented excluding lots 1-3.
There was further discussion about the traffic flow through the property and how
lots 1-3 would be accessed and where truck traffic would be directed for
deliveries.
Commissioner Rhee stated that submittals are very inconsistent and asked if the
City could require more uniform submittals from developers.
Planning Director Jim Hitt stated that we do have requirements for submittals and
that some developers go above and beyond what is required.
• Commissioner Outlaw asked if lots 1-3 will be required to plant trees.
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• June 7, 2005
Page - 6 -
Rick McCoy said it was a requirement for trees to be planted on lots 1-3.
Commissioner Outlaw moved to approve the request excluding the easternmost
ri hq tin/right out on Hooks Street; seconded by Commissioner Rhee.
Jimmy Crawford said the distance from the corner of Hooks Street and Hancock
road to the easternmost right in/right out is a little more than 350 feet rather than
the 200 feet stated earlier in error.
Commissioner Outlaw rescinded his motion. Commissioner Rhee withdrew his
second.
Commissioner Mathieson moved to approve the request; seconded by
Commissioner Miller. The vote was 8-0 in favor of approval with Commissioner
Pierce abstaining.
3. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
OWNER: Charles E. Bosserman.
APPLICANT: Cecelia Bonifay/Langley Corporate Investments.
REQUEST: To allow for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which will consist of
commercial uses, including restaurants, retail sales and professional offices.
EXISTING ZONING:R-1 Medium Density Residential.
SIZE OF PARCEL: +/- 100 acres
GENERAL LOCATION: South of State Road 50, East and West of Highway 27
at the intersection of Highway 27 & Citrus Tower Blvd.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant.
FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICT: Undeveloped District -7 (UD-7).
FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Residential.
Planning Director Jim Hitt introduced this request by saying that this request is to
allow for a commercial Planned Unit Development with up to 459,000 square feet
over four areas (pods) totaling 100.71 acres. The site is located at the
6
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• June 7, 2005
Page - 7 -
intersection of Highway 27, Citrus Tower Blvd (East side of Highway 27) and the
South Lake Connector (West side of Highway 27) on all four corners. The project
will include retail space, a possible theater, restaurants and professional office
space. No building will be over 100,000 square feet. The City will provide sanitary
sewer for the entire site, and South Lake Utilities will provide potable water.
Five variances have been requested by the applicant for this shopping center
development. The variances involve 1) grading in excess of 15 feet, 2) retaining
walls in excess of 6 feet in height, 3) landscape buffers with slopes, 4) the
absence of landscape buffers for internal parcels, and 5) a parking ratio of 4.5
parking spaces per 1000 square feet verses 5 parking spaces per 1000 square
feet.
With the Wal-Mart development being approved to the east and future
commercial development to the north, staff believes this area is appropriate for
this type of development and recommends approval of the Conditional Use
Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development including a shopping center at the
proposed location.
Chairman Pape asked if the applicant was present.
Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman, Senterfitt and Langley Corporate Investments, 131
West Main Street, Tavares, FL 32778 showed conceptual drawings and stated
that it had been difficult to get enough square footage and parking to make the
project worthwhile because of the topography.
Ms. Bonifay cited several items in the conditions that she felt were unfair to her
client by tying the certificate of occupancy to the completion of roadways that
they have no control over. The specific objections involve the following
conditions:
Section 1, General Conditions, item #8 "Project approval is subject to the award
of bids for the South Clermont Connector and the sewer line along the South
Clermont Connector."
Section 4, Transportation, item #4, "All right of ways for the Citrus Tower Blvd
and the South Clermont Connector must be dedicated within 30 days of
execution of the Conditional Use Permit."
Ms. Bonifay said this was extremely unfair since the developer has no control
over who dedicates right of way or when that may happen.
Section 4, Transportation, item #6 "It shall be the developers responsibility to
install all street lights, which must be installed and operational on Highway 27,
7
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 7, 2005
Page - 8 -
Citrus Tower Blvd. and the South Clermont Connector prior issuance of any
certificate of occupancy."
Ms. Bonifay said that in reference to item #6 there is only a small length of Citrus
Tower Blvd., Highway 27 and the South Clermont Connector that goes through
this property and this developer should not be responsible for providing street
lighting the entire length of any of these streets.
Section 4, Transportation, item #7 "The developer or owner is required to install a
traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 27, Citrus Tower Blvd. and the South
Clermont Connector. The traffic signal must be installed and operational prior to
issuance of any certificate of occupancy, unless delayed by FDOT. Upon
approval by FDOT, regardless of any delay, the developer or owner is required to
install a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 27, Citrus Tower Blvd and the
South Clermont Connector."
Ms. Bonifay stated that this traffic signal is on an intrastate highway system and a
major regional road network, and it is not the sole responsibility of this developer.
She said responsibility for this traffic signal should be shared by other developers
• in the area, adding that it was her understanding that Lake County was going to
install this traffic signal and be reimbursed by FDOT. In any case her clients
certificate of occupancy should not be tied to the installation and operation of this
traffic signal.
Ms. Bonifay said she and her team were here to answer any questions.
Chairman Pape asked if there was anyone in the public who wished to speak
regarding this request.
Mary Luzanaris, 13303 Pinyon Dr., Clermont, FL is concerned with the noise and
the traffic that this project will generate.
Steve Perry, 3655 Liberty Hills Dr. Clermont, FL asked when Highway 27 is
scheduled for widening.
Commissioner Outlaw said it would be a minimum of 3 years before the widening
of Highway 27 takes place.
Mr. Perry then asked when construction would be started on Tuscany Village.
Cecelia Bonifay said her client would like for it to be underway the first quarter of
• 2006.
8
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• June 7, 2005
Page - 9 -
She added that they would want to be able to have a certificate of occupancy
when the section of the South Lake Connector that runs through their property is
finished and not when the entire road is complete.
Commissioner Pierce stated that he is against having a 20 foot high retaining
wall at the north end of the west property abutting Spring Valley and putting in so
much concrete. He said it is overdevelopment for the acreage and he could not
endorse the project as presented.
Cecelia Bonifay said that they have eliminated a great deal of square footage
and have reduced the impact and the number of users.
Bob Piera, Avid Engineering, 1585 Virginia Avenue, assured Commissioner
Pierce that there would be no 20 foot retaining wall but rather a slope. It was
discovered that the applicant had submitted a revised grading plan that they did
not supply to the Planning and Zoning Commission, that indicated a slope with a
landscape buffer, rather than three 6 foot retaining walls as indicated in the plans
the Commission had.
• David Outlaw asked if the site plans and landscaping plans that the Commission
has are accurate.
Cecelia said the only change was made to the grading plan and all others that
the Commission has are accurate.
Commissioner Mathieson stated that there is a large difference in the finished
grades for various buildings. She said it looks like the developer has tried to work
with the lay of the land.
Bob Piera said that there is a 100 foot grading difference from one side of the
property to the other. He went on to explain where the retaining walls would be
placed and the grading requirements to make the project work.
Commissioner Pierce asked staff for their opinions of the ingress and egress to
this project.
Planning Director Jim Hitt said staff was comfortable with the ingress and egress
as shown on the plans and that the number of cuts was appropriate.
Commissioner Holzman said that in Section 4 Transportation he is assuming that
when you say all rights of way it means within the context of the property.
Planning Director Jim Hitt said he was correct.
9
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• June 7, 2005
Page - 10 -
Commissioner Holzman asked if the traffic signal would be the sole responsibility
of the developer.
Jim Hitt said that the developer must coordinate with Lake County and FDOT and
that the City would cooperate with the developer with regard to access to the
property.
Commissioner Outlaw asked staff what kind of arrangements had been made in
the past by other developers for street lights.
Jim Hitt said we have not had a development on both sides of a street before, but
he said that if Lake County does not want street lights on the South Clermont
Connector and they send a letter saying that they do not want street lights on the
South Clermont Connector, the city would consider releasing that condition.
Commissioner Outlaw said street lights should not be a burden on developers.
Commissioner Mathieson, in regard to Section 4 item #5, said that the certificate
of occupancy should not be tied to the completion of Citrus Tower Blvd. and the
South Clermont Connector and should be limited to the completion of these
roads to the property.
Commissioner Miller asked what kind of wall would be built along the area where
the commercial property abuts Spring Valley.
Bob Piera said there will be no walls. There is a hill at the border of Spring Hill
and the project, and that is what the people in Spring Valley will be looking at.
Randy Langley, 10102 Lake Minneola Shores, Clermont, FL explained that
Spring Hill will be looking up toward the property. He said they will see a hill
which is on the Spring Valley property, and over the top of the hill possibly the
top of the movie theater.
Commissioner Treadwell said he would like to see a 6 to 7 foot barrier wall to
prevent someone from leaving the commercial area and going into a backyard of
someone in Spring Valley.
Curt Henschel said that would require another variance and there would be
additional buffer issues.
Commissioner Outlaw moved to approve the request with the stipulation that
additional landscape buffers be added along the west side of the project and with
the changes to the conditions suc,~,gested by the Commission which include
10
City of Clermont
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 7, 2005
Page - 11 -
requiring the developer to cooperate with FDOT and Lake County in reference to
the installation of street lights and traffic signals on Highway 27. Citrus Tower
Blvd. and the South Clermont Connector,• that all rights of way for Citrus Tower
Blvd and the South Clermont Connector within the context of the property must
be dedicated within 30 days of execution of the Conditional Use Permit. that the
the issuance of the certificate of occupancy be tied only to the completion of
Citrus Tower Blvd and the South Clermont Connector to the property ; seconded
by Maggie Miller. The vote was 7-2 for approval of the motion with
Commissioners Pierce and Holzman voting na,~
DISCUSSION OF NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Commissioner Pierce read a letter into the record which is attached to and
becomes part of these minutes.
Commissioner Outlaw expressed his agreement with the letter written by
Commissioner Pierce. He also suggested that some members of the Planning &
Zoning Commission attend a scheduled workshop with the City Council on June
8, 2005. He expressed his desire to work with staff in redesigning the LDR's
because the CUP process is so restrictive.
Chairman Pape suggested any change in the existing process be started with
baby steps. He suggested picking two or three targets and then building
momentum to go from there.
Commissioner Outlaw also handed in an application for membership in the
Florida Planning and Zoning Association to be submitted to City Council for
funding.
Chairman Pape asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to
make a statement.
C]
11
Fred Brant, 975 Princeton Drive, Clermont, FL asked if the Diamond Players
Club CUP's were going to be heard this evening. He was informed that those
+......,.. L,...J L......, ...~+h.J.-.,..,.,
June 4, 2005
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
The following comments are made in the interest of
1. Provid"ing a better understanding of the present procedures for
gaining approvals from the City of Clermont for development of raw land within the
City limits, and
2. Understanding the limitations and frustrations that the Planning
and Zoning Commission members face during the process of reviewing an application
and recommending approval or denial to the City Commission, and
3. Preserving the unique aesthetic values of the landscape within
our City limits and surrounding areas.
PRESENT PROCEDURES
1. It is my understanding that any developer that wishes to develop a piece of real
estate within our Clermont City limits can apply to the City for approval, which triggers
a meeting with the Site Plan Review Committee, chaired by the City Manager. Unless
the proposed project is a single family residence that does not require a variance or
some accessory use and fits into the present zoning and Future Land Use category, the
applicant must appear before the Review committee. The review committee will react
to the applicant`s request by suggesting what can or cannot be developed on a
particular piece of real estate, and whether or not the proposed project is compatible
with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Unless the project is a single family
residence, it will most likely require a Conditional Use Permit, necessitating an
appearance before the P&Z Board. Despite my serving on the P&Z Board now for 1+
years, I still do not understand the need for a Conditional Use Permit that requires
applicants to appear before our Board. If an applicant can be handed a set of zoning
regulations that clearly state what a parcel is zoned, what setbacks are required, what
the parking requirements are, and what landscaping is required, why then does the
applicant need to appear before the P&Z Board? If we had a clearly defined set of
Architectural Design Standards, then those standards could be explained as well.
As a practicing architect, I deal with many of the municipalities around the
Orlando area, and I find Clermont's process to be time consuming and agonizingly slow.
It is my opinion that the process can be improved and streamlined by City staff and let
the P&Z Board address the Site Plan Review as intended.
PROCESS FRUSTRATIONS
• 2. During the May, 2005 meeting of the P&Z Board, we were asked to review a project
being sponsored by the South Lake Hospital. The proposed project dealt with an
application to build a Hospice facility on a lot owned by the Hospital. The applicant,
Hospice of Lake County brought a representative who presented the Board with a
drawing that purported to be a site plan of the property in question. As I remember,
the drawing had little or no topography shown, no drainage structures shown nor any
landscaping plan. In addition, the applicant had no visuals as to what the building
would look like. When questioned by members of the Board, the Planning staff from
the City stated that they would review these matters when the applicant met with the
Site Plan Review Committee. On several occasions ,while representing a client, I have
been told by staff to provide them with site plan, parking layouts, elevations of the
proposed building and landscape drawings. To treat one applicant differently from
another is unfair to those who follow the rules. The present Site Plan Review
Committee consists of a few city staff plus the City Manager. There is no representative
from the Pi3cZ Board. Would it not make sense that the Site Plan Review function
include the Planning and Zoning Board? Many municipalities have a staff review
process prior to a project being submitted to the P&Z Board for final recommendation
to the City Commission. Minimum requirements for submissions should include site plan
with preliminary landscaping shown, traffic patterns, driveway widths, drainage
schemes for storm water as well as utility lines, and site grading....plus adjacent
property influences such as existing or approved access driveways. It may not be
presently required, but all applicants should show the Board what their proposed
project is going to look like.
The troubling part about the present process is that City Staff (through the Site Plan
. Review Committee) is apparently making decisions that are the purvue of the P&Z
Board. They are telling one applicant what to submit and then tell another applicant
something entirely different. Again, if the applicant is given a sheet outlining the
specific items that the P&Z Board requires as a minimum submission, the confusion
might be eliminated.
AESTHETIC PRESERVATION
3. The topography and landscape of the Clermont area is unique to this area of Florida
and we are very quickly seeing it leveled for development. Please understand that I
make my living from development and growth, HOWEVER, there reaches a point when
one must stand up and ask `What are we doing to our environment?" We are being
asked to approve projects that level large pieces of acreage in the interest of gaining a
large box retail outlet or a large building pad with outdoor parking. We are leveling
large parcels of acreage to create large shopping center complexes that must by nature
of the design create large, ugly storm-water drainage ponds. We are approving large
developments that pave 90% of the acreage with asphalt and roofs. We are looking
at development plans that ask for variances so that they can avoid a 15ft maximum cut
out of a hillside and instead increase it to 20-30 ft. We are being asked to waive
landscape buffer requirements because the developer doesn't want to plant on a
hillside. We are being asked to approve creation of flat building sites where logic would
tell us that we should not permit such large flat areas out of hilly topography. I do not
believe that the residents of Clermont want to become a city of retaining walls.
The environmental experts tell us that fresh water is going to be the next emergency
facing the populace of Florida. I can remember Mr. Henry Swanson, former Agriculture
Agent for Orange County saying in 1982 that unless we began to limit the paving over
of our land and began conserving fresh water by using more dryer climate-type
landscaping materials, we would be searching for fresh water up in Ocala. Every well
south of Ocala will be tainted with salt water intrusion.
CONCLUSION
I am only one member of the City of Clermont Planning and Zoning Board. I realize
that our Board is charged with "recommending" action to the City Commission.
However, if the P&Z Board is to function as a group dedicated to the orderly growth of
our City, we must address not only the land that we are given to protect, but we must
have all the tools available to us to make the decisions that provide that degree of
protection. Protection does not mean non-development, but rather what kind of
development is appropriate fora particular landscape. When is it appropriate to require
30-40% green area on a property with extreme slopes rather than level it as we do
now? When do we insist that a developer go back to the drawing board rather than
decide to "take their chances with the City Commissioners'? Why not permit the P&Z
Board to recommend to the City Commission items that can be placed on their
"consent" agenda?
For that reason, I ask that consideration be given to streamlining the process for
project approvals through the planning department, publications be generated by City
staff to list the procedures for gaining approvals and that the Director of Planning and
the City Manager be directed to organize a workshop between the City Commission and
the P&Z Board to discuss basic planning principles, priorities of aesthetic value for major
entrances into our Clermont area, and discussions pertaining to what the City
Commission desires as their "vision" of the City's future.
pe submitted,
R ger A. Pierce, AIA
Member
City of Clermont Planning and Zoning Commission
•
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME--FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
t-1 (LAW cJ/D Pfil,es.u~:t f A/~`N
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSIO ,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
3 ~ 3O ~~~~5 C ..°S t' ~~ WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
B CITY ^ COUNTY ^ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY COUNTY
C ~~ ~~` ~i4Ke NAME OF POLITICAL SUB~DrMSION:
C.- ~~ C'~~itu[okj
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
_ ~ _ ps- MY POSI ION IS:
^ ELECTIVE I9~POINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, dty, or other local level of govemment on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay dose attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her spedal private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the spedat gain or loss of a prindpal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate prindpal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the spedal private gain or loss of a business assodate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agendes under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capadty.
For purposes of this taw, a "relative° includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business assodate° means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
GE FORM 8B - EFF. 1!2000 PAGE 1
r
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
inured to my special private gain or loss;
whom I am retained; or
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A spy of the form mus# be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The fo-rri must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
1, ~E}~g ,,rte ,hereby disclose that on ~'yNE 7 , 20 O,S~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
~ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, riA,ot'FFrs~c -i,~ -Lstw Ew~i /~P (%c~}f ;
_ inured to the special gain or loss of , by
,~ inured to the special gain or loss of
which
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
•
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
n~uAp ~. ~IXJ~
Date Filed Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
Jun 08 05 02:40p
CITY OF CLERMONT
352 394 3542
p.l
~ FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-Fft~T W WE--MIDDLE NAME
i~~CC = ~~~jE~ P~i~N NIM~ OF . COIIMC<. GOM~USSION. AU7}tORtiY. OR (~MMT7EE
N t ~r ~' ~ZC 1( C', t- ~sS o
MAILMK; ADDRESS
-~_rj ~ S f {EL. (3 ~ i.~ • T!E BOARD. . COMM~SSIDN. AUTHORliY OR COMMATrEE ON
w~a+ I SERVe Is a urwT aF:
NTr ooTN~tncaLACeNCv
o
. ou
Carr o
v
ciTr couHr
~,~~~~ ~ ~ • ~ NAr~ o~ rouncu bt-BDro~IDn: ~ _ ~ ~
GATE ON YVHICIt VOTE OCCURRED
~)~~ ' l '~j~ ~ -
wy ~~ ~.
^ ELECTNE APPOMJTiVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the caxrty city. or otlrter loco) level of government on an appoir-ted or elected hoard, Council,
conurrission, authority, or committee. it apples equaly to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are pnssented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Fbrida Statutes.
Your tBS{lonsrbiities under the law when taped with votirp on a measure ~ wtech you have a confict of interest wii vary greatly depending
on whether you [told an elective or appontive position. For this reason, please pay cbse aitertiion to the instrtxaions on this form before
completing the reverse side and Ming the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person hoidirtg elective or appointive oourwy, municipal, or other [Deal pubic otTtce MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures b his or her special private gain a low. Each elected or appointed loci officer also is prohibited from krtovringiy voting an a mea-
sure which inures ~ the special gatit or bss of a prirtapal (oCter Chart a government agency) by whom he or she is retained ( the
parent aganaasian tx subsidiary of a e prirKap~ by which he or she is retairfed); to tite specaai private gain ar ioes of a relative: or
to the special private gam ar loss d a business assoaate. Cormtissioners of t~mrnur>rty -edeveioprnerrt a~genaes under Soc. 163.356 or
163.357. F.S., and officers of ir>d~rtdertt spaded tax dsttids elected on a orte-aa'e, ortc-vote basis are riot prohibited from voting io tftat
ppacitY•
For purposes of tsris taw. a 'relative" inductee only the olicer's father, nrotiter, son, dau~tter, hnsbard, wife, txvttter, sister, father-in-law,
m~ottner-irn-taw, son-in-taw, and ~ugftterin-{aw. A 'bwirtess associatie' means any t>ersort or errity engaged tit or c~rryiny on a bu~ness
enterprise with the officer as a partiter, jartt verttts+er, cootvrter of property, or corporate sharettotder (where the shares of the corporation
are not fisted on arry natiaEai a n~iortas exchange).
ELECTED i1FFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the sitirations descried above, you must discbse tine conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEflJG TAKEN by pubidy slating to the assembly tlne natrre of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining From voting: and
VVITlfMS 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filug this form with the person responsiitie for reCarting the rnin-
utas of the meeting. who should incorporate the fain n fie minuses.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situeiiorss descried above, You otherwise may pertidpate in these matters. However, you
must disclose tite nature of the cotnfid before making arty aslertspt 6e intttrernce the dr'rision, wt>eaher araQyr or in writing and whatfier made
by you or at Your direction.
lF YOtf INTEND TO ('AAICE APIY ATTEMPT TO MiFLUENCE THE DEClStON PRIOR TO THE tAEETING AT VVtiICt•f THE VOTE Will BE
TAKEN.
• You rsxast compie~ and fife this form (before maidrtg ar>)r atierrl frt to vakrence tlne decision) with the person resporrsibie for retor+dng the
minutes of the me-etirtg, who wiictoorpor~e the form in tfie minutBS. (Corrtitxled on other side)
CE FORIMt BB -1~F.12000
PAGE t
Jun 08 OS 02:40p CITY OF CLERMONT
352 394 3542 p.2
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided irnmeaietely to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read pubidy at the next meeting after the fiorrn is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO A'T'TEMPT TO INFLUF_NCE THE DECISION F~Ct~PT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
You must desdase oraNy the nadxe of your cadid in the measure betas participalaig.
• You must car~ptete 1ne fiorm and fde R wirrin 15 days after the vote ocx;trrs witle the person responsible for recordr~g ~e mnutess of the
meet~g, who must incorporate ~e fern a- the minutes. A copy of the tarrn rrxrst be provided inxr~ectiatetlr to fie oerer members of the
agency. and the form must be read publicly at the next meetir-g aAer the farm is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
,, ~'~'C~C.(L ,~ - €' iE~C.~ . ~y dim u,at on ~(.~E 7 , 20~-'
{a) A measure carne a w7 aome before my agency which {deck one)
cured to my special private gain a bss; ~
i/~ inured to the spatial gain a loss of my business-a~eeiei~' C ~ ~-~ rS/CfiC,~-i ~'f G~i • ~~ c~'ts 1siG . ,
_ inured to the specie! gain a kyss of my relative, ,
_ inured in the speaal gain or loss of . by
when l am relair>ed; a
_ inured to the spedat gain a Inss of .which
~ the parent organ¢ation a sutisidrary of a principal whir;h has retained me.
{b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my con~CBng interest in the measure is as fotkrws:
Dam Fled
'
~'"--~'
S"
NOTICE: UNOER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR ANO MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CML PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED;10,000.
CE FORM 68 - EFF. 12000
PAGE 2
. June 4, 2005
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
The following comments are made in the interest of
1. Providing a better understanding of the present procedures for
gaining approvals from the City of Clermont for development of raw land within the
City limits, and
2. Understanding the limitations and frustrations that the Planning
and Zoning Commission members face during the process of reviewing an application
and recommending approval or denial to the City Commission, and
3. Preserving the unique aesthetic values of the landscape within
our City limits and surrounding areas.
PRESENT PROCEDURES
1. It is my understanding that any developer that wishes to develop a piece of real
estate within our Clermont City limits can apply to the City for approval, which triggers
a meeting with the Site Plan Review Committee, chaired by the City Manager. Unless
the proposed project is a single family residence that does not require a variance or
some accessory use and fits into the present zoning and Future Land Use category, the
applicant must appear before the Review committee. The review committee will react
to the applicant's request by suggesting what can or cannot be developed on a
particular piece of real estate, and whether or not the proposed project is compatible
with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Unless the project is a single family
residence, it will most likely require a Conditional Use Permit, necessitating an
appearance before the P&Z Board. Despite my serving on the P&Z Board now for 1+
years, I still do not understand the need for a Conditional Use Permit that requires
applicants to appear before our Board. If an applicant can be handed a set of zoning
regulations that clearly state what a parcel is zoned, what setbacks are required, what
the parking requirements are, and what landscaping is required, why then does the
applicant need to appear before the P&Z Board? If we had a clearly defined set of
Architectural Design Standards, then those standards could be explained as well.
As a practicing architect, I deal with many of the municipalities around the
Orlando area, and I find Clermont's process to be time consuming and agonizingly slow.
It is my opinion that the process can be improved and streamlined by City staff and let
the P&Z Board address the Site Plan Review as intended.
PROCESS FRUSTRATIONS
2. During the May, 2005 meeting of the P&Z Board, we were asked to review a project
being sponsored by the South Lake Hospital. The proposed project dealt with an
• application to build a Hospice facility on a lot owned by the Hospital. The applicant,
Hospice of Lake County brought a representative who presented the Board with a
drawing that purported to be a site plan of the property in question. As I remember,
the drawing had little or no topography shown, no drainage structures shown nor any
landscaping plan. In addition, the applicant had no visuals as to what the building
would look like. When questioned by members of the Board, the Planning staff from
the City stated that they would review these matters when the applicant met with the
Site Plan Review Committee. On several occasions ,while representing a client, I have
been told by staff to provide them with site plan, parking layouts, elevations of the
proposed building and landscape drawings. To treat one applicant differently from
another is unfair to those who follow the rules. The present Site Plan Review
Committee consists of a few city staff plus the City Manager. There is no representative
from the P&Z Board. Would it not make sense that the Site Plan Review function
include the Planning and Zoning Board? Many municipalities have a staff review
process prior to a project being submitted to the P&Z Board for final recommendation
to the City Commission. Minimum requirements for submissions should include site plan
with preliminary landscaping shown, traffic patterns, driveway widths, drainage
schemes for storm water as well as utility lines, and site grading....plus adjacent
properly influences such as existing or approved access driveways. It may not be
presently required, but all applicants should show the Board what their proposed
project is going to look like.
The troubling part about the present process is that City Staff (through the Site Plan
Review Committee) is apparently making decisions that are the purvue of the P&Z
Board. They are telling one applicant what to submit and then tell another applicant
something entirely different. Again, if the applicant is given a sheet outlining the
specific items that the P&Z Board requires as a minimum submission, the confusion
might be eliminated.
AESTHETIC PRESERVATION
3. The topography and landscape of the Clermont area is unique to this area of Florida
and we are very quickly seeing it leveled for development. Please understand that I
make my living from development and growth, HOWEVER, there reaches a point when
one must stand up and ask'What are we doing to our environment?" We are being
asked to approve projects that level large pieces of acreage in the interest of gaining a
large box retail outlet or a large building pad with outdoor parking. We are leveling
large parcels of acreage to create large shopping center complexes that must by nature
of the design create large, ugly storm-water drainage ponds. We are approving large
developments that pave 90% of the acreage with asphalt and roofs. We are looking
at development plans that ask for variances so that they can avoid a 15ft maximum cut
out of a hillside and instead increase it to 20-30 ft. We are being asked to waive
landscape buffer requirements because the developer doesn't want to plant on a
hillside. We are being asked to approve creation of flat building sites where logic would
tell us that we should not permit such large flat areas out of hilly topography. I do not
believe that the residents of Clermont want to become a city of retaining walls.
• The environmental experts tell us that fresh water is going to be the next emergency
facing the populace of Florida. I can remember Mr. Henry Swanson, former Agriculture
Agent for Orange County saying in 1982 that unless we began to limit the paving over
of our land and began conserving fresh water by using more dryer climate-type
landscaping materials, we would be searching for fresh water up in Ocala. Every well
south of Ocala will be tainted with salt water intrusion.
CONCLUSION
I am only one member of the City of Clermont Planning and Zoning Board. I realize
that our Board is charged with "recommending" action to the City Commission.
However, if the P&Z Board is to function as a group dedicated to the orderly growth of
our City, we must address not only the land that we are given to protect, but we must
have all the tools available to us to make the decisions that provide that degree of
protection. Protection does not mean non-development, but rather what kind of
development is appropriate fora particular landscape. When is it appropriate to require
30-40% green area on a property with extreme slopes rather than level it as we do
now? When do we insist that a developer go back to the drawing board rather than
decide to "take their chances with the City Commissioners'? Why not permit the P&Z
Board to recommend to the City Commission items that can be placed on their
"consent" agenda?
For that reason, I ask that consideration be given to streamlining the process for
project approvals through the planning department, publications be generated by City
staff to list the procedures for gaining approvals and that the Director of Planning and
the City Manager be directed to organize a workshop between the City Commission and
the P&Z Board to discuss basic planning principles, priorities of aesthetic value for major
entrances into our Clermont area, and discussions pertaining to what the City
Commission desires as their "vision" of the City's future.
p submitted,
ger A. Pierce, AIA
Member
City of Clermont Planning and Zoning Commission