Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 09.02.2025 - Planning and ZoningCITY OF CLERMONT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 CALL TO ORDER Chair Bain called the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bain, Vice -Chair Niemiec, Commissioner Cramer, Commissioner Hoisington, Commissioner May, Commissioner Tidona MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Commissioner Colby ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Curt Henschel, Planning Manager Kruse, Planning Economic Development Officer Nicholas Gonzalez, Planner I Justine Day, City Attorney Waugh, Planning Coordinator Rae Chidlow PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES MOTION TO APPROVE the August 5, 2025, Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as amended, made by Commissioner Niemiec, seconded by Commissioner Hoisington. Motion passed 6-0. REPORTS Development Services Director Curt Henschel explained that staff had mistakenly used the council meeting agenda format, which places reports at the end of the meeting, rather than the board's usual format. He noted this was unintentional and emphasized that the board could choose to keep the reports at the end or move them back to the beginning of the agenda. Commissioner Cramer expressed strong support for the City Council's upcoming consideration of form -based zoning for downtown Clermont. He emphasized that this approach prioritizes how development looks and functions, aligning growth with the community's vision for a walkable, mixed -use, and vibrant city center. He also noted that form -based zoning protects the city's character, improves predictability, and fosters sustainable economic growth, calling it a transformative tool for Clermont's future. Commissioner Hoisington stated that she did not have a formal report but mentioned hearing on the news that the Planning and Zoning meeting was announced that morning, which came as a surprise. She noted it was interesting that the local news had highlighted the meeting, meaning the broader community was made aware of it. She stated that she also attended the recent city council meeting and took the opportunity to go on record with a continuing request that the council would eventually agree to alternate meeting times —one at 3:00 PM and one at 6:30 PM. as a fair compromise that would allow more members of the community to participate and attend council meetings. Page - 1 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 Commissioner Tidona shared that he reached a personal milestone —successfully completing the Ohio State University Planning and Zoning Basics course. He stated that the course doesn't make him a subject matter expert, but found it valuable, including the importance of a strong town mindset, walkability, vibrant town centers, centralized living opportunities, open spaces, and reducing urban sprawl. He expressed a commitment to applying these concepts as they continue to grow and contribute more effectively to the committee. Commissioner May expressed support for Commissioner Cramer's comments regarding form - based code and shared that she also attended the recent city council meeting to support the vote approving the new planning firm, DPZ, to lead the downtown form -based code initiative. She emphasized the significance of this development, describing it as an exciting opportunity for the city. She expressed enthusiasm about the firm's potential to bring positive, forward -thinking planning to the downtown area and looked forward to seeing the results of their work. Vice -Chair Niemiec stated he had no reports. Chair Bain reminded the public that the first budget hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 5:30 PM in the council chambers. He stated that the City Council will review the proposed budget and millage rate for the 2026 fiscal year followed by a second hearing, where final action will be taken, which will be two weeks later at the same time and location. He brought up a question for the City Attorney regarding an upcoming city council agenda item related to proposed disclosure rules for both commissioners and council members. City Attorney Waugh added that in addition to the resolution concerning disclosure rules for site visits, expert reports, and outside communications —as long as they are disclosed —there will be another resolution on the city council's agenda next week of interest. He stated the resolution involves the city potentially expressing support for amending or repealing SB 180. He mentioned that the resolution, as currently drafted, is quite strong in its language and intent, and may be of particular interest to the commission. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1 — Resolution No. 2025-023R — Plaza Collina Pod 1 Conditional Use Permit Planner Gonzalez presented as follows: The applicant, Jessica Gow, Esq., is requesting to amend the Plaza Collina Planned Unit Development (Resolution 2015-08) to allow for internal shared drive isles and reduced landscape buffers for parcel identified as Pod I within the parent parcel. The property is located on the north side of State Road 50 and east of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, west of Lake Boulevard. The proposed site is a vacant portion within the Plaza Collina Mixed Use project that consists of C-2 General Commercial uses. The Land Development Code requires an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for any uses or site changes not identified in the Master Development Plan or permitted by the land development regulations for the C-2 General Commercial zoning district. The site proposes a quick -service restaurant, retail and other commercial uses under the Page - 2 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 C-2 General Commercial uses. The parcel to the west was granted the same conditions, ensuring that the shared driveways provide maximum feasible interconnectivity while reducing the number of driveway cuts along the north frontage road. When evaluating a request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Land Development Code, Section 101-212, requires specific development standards that are required to be met. Staff have reviewed the application as submitted in accordance with the development standards criteria and finds the proposed use can meet the general criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions contained in Resolution No. 2025-023R. Jessica Gow with Cobb Cole Law Firm, 1 Daytona Boulevard, Daytona Beach, spoke on behalf of WMG Development, the retail developer for the project. She thanked the planning staff for their support. She stated that the amendment being proposed is not new —it is similar to one brought forward in January 2024 for pods F and H within the same development. She stated that the detailed layout for the current pod was not available, which is why they are now seeking the same treatment to allow interconnectivity between lots and reduce the number of curb cuts. She stated that there are no confirmed end users yet, the general mix of uses described by staff is accurate. She concluded by expressing hope for exciting future tenants. The floor was opened for public comments. With no speakers present, the floor was closed. Commissioner Cramer commented on the proposed amendment, noting that it appears to be a request from the applicant for flexibility regarding driveways and landscaping within Pod 1. He stated that they characterized the change as a technical adjustment to the Plaza Collina master plan. He expressed support for shared driveways, stating that they help reduce traffic congestion and enhance safety by limiting the number of curb cuts onto the main road. He acknowledged that staff had reviewed the request and seemed supportive and indicated his support for the resolution. Commissioner Hoisington raised a question regarding the impact of shared driveways on traffic flow from Highway 50 into the development area. She asked whether this had been considered and if it posed any issues. She also questioned the reduction in landscape buffers. Planner Nick Gonzalaz clarified that the plan does not create any additional driveways; instead, it reduces the number of driveways by allowing connectivity between parcels. Without this shared access, each parcel would require its own driveway, increasing the number of entrances onto the frontage road. He explained that the reduction of landscape occurs between parcels where shared drive aisles are introduced —normally, a 10-foot landscape buffer would separate each parcel, but the addition of shared driveways eliminates the need for those internal buffers. Commissioner Tidona voiced concerns about the proposed amendment, particularly regarding traffic flow, safety, and the loss of landscaping. He stated that while the plan promotes interconnectivity, in reality it amounts to just one lane in and one lane out, creating what he described as a "big U" with limited access. He questioned how this setup aligns with public Page - 3 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 health and safety goals, especially during emergencies or evacuations, noting the nearby apartment complexes would be impacted. He stated with the reduction in required landscape buffers, which mandates minimum widths, tree plantings, and shrub requirements and expressed that approving the amendment would eliminate these elements, further reducing greenery and visual buffers. He emphasized that this single -lane interconnectivity connects not just commercial sites, but also a nine -building apartment complex, all funneling traffic onto Lake Boulevard. He concluded that he could not support a plan that creates a traffic nightmare and sacrifices valuable trees and vegetation. Commissioner May shared several concerns about the proposed amendment, primarily focusing on traffic flow, pedestrian access, and loss of landscaping. She agreed with fellow commissioners regarding the lack of direct access from Highway 50 and the heavy reliance on a single point of entry and exit from the rear of the site. She stated that with high -traffic conditions at nearby businesses like Dick's Sporting Goods and Golf Galaxy and questioned whether an updated traffic study had been conducted, especially given the addition of more retail and quick - service restaurants. She stated that she understood the rationale behind eliminating 10-foot landscape buffers to accommodate drive aisles but insisted that trees and greenery should still be included. She also advocated for a pedestrian -friendly design, suggesting the addition of crosswalks, sidewalks, and outdoor seating areas with trees and shading, especially considering the proximity of a large apartment complex. She emphasized the importance of aligning with the city's stated goals of "live, work, play" and reducing car dependency. She concluded by stating that in order to support the amendment, she would need to see meaningful inclusion of green space, open space, and pedestrian infrastructure. Planning Manager John Kruse clarified that a new traffic study was not required because the original development had already undergone a comprehensive traffic review as part of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for 1.2 million square feet of commercial space, which also included 200 residential units. He stated the current buildout remains well below that original threshold and the existing traffic study still applies. Commissioner May asked about sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure. Planner Nick Gonzalez explained that the plan presented was conceptual and would go through a site review process where sidewalks, landscape buffers, and other design elements would be finalized. He stated that this pod would be consistent with the existing pods and sidewalks. Commissioner Niemiec inquired about the signage plans for the proposed development. Ms. Gow explained that final signage details were not yet available, as they are still in the site plan review phase, and much of the signage will depend on the specific tenants. She stated that signage is expected to be consistent with other parts of the overall development, including potential building -mounted signs and monument signage. Commissioner Niemiec asked about the visible green areas on the diagram, particularly on the east and west sides. Page - 4 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 Ms. Gow clarified that those are separate parcels that may be developed in the future, which is why interconnectivity is being incorporated now. She also noted that while the front landscape buffer along West Colonial Drive is already planned and will be 20 feet wide, the detailed landscape plans for the remaining areas are still under review. She stated that internal landscaping will include parking lot islands, building perimeter plantings, and a potential patio space for outdoor seating if a tenant requires it. Chair Bain raised the question about whether additional landscaping could be added to compensate for the reduced internal landscape buffers between parcels. Ms. Gow responded that through the site plan review process, they could work with staff to place smaller trees, shrubs, and landscape islands, especially around the building perimeters, to make up for the buffer reductions while still maintaining visibility for tenants and usability for patrons. She clarified that without interconnectivity, each parcel would require its own separate driveway from the frontage road, which would increase traffic congestion and reduce efficiency. Chair Bain emphasized that from a user perspective, this interconnectivity makes practical sense by allowing patrons to move between businesses without re-entering main roads, using the example of a similar retail area with separate parking lots causing inconvenience. He also acknowledged concerns about losing green space but believed that targeted landscaping and flexibility in design could result in a better overall experience for both developers and the public. He added by pointing out that sidewalks already exist along the north side of the road and suggested adding a north -south crosswalk at the intersection of Collina Terrace to improve pedestrian access from nearby residential areas. Commissioner Cramer is in support of the proposal, noting that fewer driveway cuts improve safety and traffic flow, and that landscaping between retail parcels is less critical than buffers between commercial and residential zones. He concluded with a recommendation to support the project with an amendment to include the additional crosswalk, balancing walkability, traffic efficiency, and design flexibility. Ms. Gow clarified the willingness to work with city staff on enhancing landscaping and improving pedestrian connectivity as part of the site plan review process. She stated that regarding the proposed north -south crosswalk they requested that any condition related to it be made subject to engineering and detailed site review to ensure feasibility. She emphasized that the core reason for the shared driveway design is safety, not only for traffic flow but also to reduce potential conflict points between vehicles. She explained that direct access to West Colonial Drive is not feasible because the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) does not allow additional driveway cuts along that corridor due to high traffic volumes. She stated that all traffic must enter from a central access point and circulate internally via the frontage road. She also pointed out that adding multiple driveway cuts would result in increased congestion and collision risk, particularly near apartment traffic and areas with limited sight distance. She stated that the project will continue the sidewalk pattern seen in other pod areas and that the concerns raised about landscaping and pedestrian access can be addressed cooperatively during detailed site planning. Page - 5 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Resolution No. 2025-023R Plaza Collina Pod 1 Conditional Use Permit with an added crosswalk approved by engineering; moved by Commissioner Cramer. Motion failed due to lack of a second. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Resolution No. 2025-023R Plaza Collina Pod I Conditional Use Permit with an added crosswalk approved by engineering and the requirement to meet Chapter 123.43d; moved by Commissioner May. Commissioner May withdrew her motion. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Resolution No. 2025-023R Plaza Collina Pod I Conditional Use Permit with an added crosswalk approved by engineering and to add the landscape that will be removed from the interior and distributed elsewhere within the site; moved by Commissioner Cramer, Seconded by Commissioner Niemiec. Motion passed 6-0. Item No. 2 — Resolution No. 2025-024R —1227 Bloxam Avenue Conditional Use Permit Planning Manager Kruse presented as follows: The applicant, Lake County, is requesting to use the existing building located at 1227 Bloxam Avenue for public safety use as an EMS/ambulance station. Lake County desires to establish an EMS/ambulance location in Clermont and has been looking for a suitable location for many years. This site provides an optimal location, according to Lake County. The property consists of a single-family home that will have to undergo a change of use/life safety inspection if approved. Lake County plans to use the site as -is and no improvements to the site are planned. The site will function as it appears with the existing gravel parking, and no additional landscaping is planned. A condition has been placed within the Conditional Use Permit that any damage resulting from the operation of this use on Bloxam Avenue or the City's ROW as a result of the as -is condition will be required to be repaired by the Applicant/Owner. The total number of ambulances onsite will be limited to 2 with a maximum of 4 onsite personnel. The property is currently zoned R-3 Residential/Professional. The proposed EMS/ambulance station is not listed under Section 125-250 as a conditional use. This is due to the unique nature of the use with the property being occupied 24 hours a day/7 days a week with personnel in conjunction with the station. Section 125-250(b) states that in case of uncertainty of the classification of any use, uses may be permitted which, after consideration by the planning and zoning commission and approval by the city council, are not more obnoxious to the district than uses provided in this section. Staff have reviewed the CUP application in accordance with Sec. 101-212 of the Land Development Code. The project does not appear to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The future land use is Commercial and the proposed use, municipal facilities, is identified in Objective 1.9. The location of the site is in an area that is transiting from residential to commercial. The site appears to have access to the major arterial roadways to serve the community. The service provided by the EMS/ambulance station is needed within the City of Clermont and the proposed use may be desirable in this location. Conditions, such as potential off -site improvements of warning lights, adequate parking, and potential Bloxam Avenue Page - 6 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 improvements have been added to the resolution to ensure safe operations at the site. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 2025-024R. Michelle Wilkinson, the property manager for Lake County and the applicant who is accompanied by other county officials, including the assistant county manager, the public safety director, and the property manager. She explained that the site is already zoned for commercial use, and the county is seeking approval to add an ambulance station due to the lack of nearby locations. She stated that the closest are in Minneola and Groveland. She stated that the proposed use would be modest, involving just one ambulance and two vehicles stationed there, primarily for crew members to rest, use the restroom, and take breaks. She noted that life safety inspections and building modifications (such as fire suppression) would be required, and that any changes would be contingent on City Council approval. The floor was opened for public comments. Pamela De Cambre, 1211 Bloxom Avenue, voiced opposition to the proposal. She highlighted concerns about the impact on the residential character of the neighborhood, referencing a prior assurance from city officials that any future business at the site would need to fit in with the surrounding homes. She emphasized that the former occupant, a quiet accounting office, operated only during normal business hours, while the proposed ambulance station would run 24/7, with up to four ambulances coming and going. She expressed concerns about increased noise, light pollution, and difficulty turning onto Bloxom Road, especially since her home is directly adjacent to the site and already affected by noise from a nearby Winn -Dixie. She also stated she was speaking on behalf of other neighbors who shared similar concerns. With no further speakers present, the floor was closed. Commissioner Cramer expressed internal conflict over the proposed conditional use permit for an ambulance station at 1227 Bloxom Avenue. He acknowledged the valid concerns of the nearby resident, particularly regarding neighborhood aesthetics and potential disruption. He stated that there is an urgent need for improved emergency medical services in Clermont. He stated that there was some confusion about the number of ambulances, it was clarified that the maximum would be two, not four as initially suggested. He stated that despite concerns about issues such as gravel parking and neighborhood compatibility, he viewed the proposal as a practical and cost-effective use of the building. He expressed empathy for the neighbor's position but stated he was leaning in favor of approving the project due to the broader public benefit. Commissioner Hoisington voiced strong support for the ambulance service citing a personal experience with delayed emergency medical services that underscored the urgent need for improved EMS access in Clermont, however, not at this location. She questioned parking availability for the two ambulances and up to four on -site personnel, as well as the potential for increased noise, light alerts, and traffic congestion on the already busy Bloxom Avenue. She stressed the importance of considering the effects on nearby residents, particularly given the property's proximity to residential homes and the existing activity from nearby businesses like Winn -Dixie. While affirming the necessity of the service, she urged careful evaluation of Page - 7 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 whether this specific site was the most appropriate and considerate location for a 24/7 emergency facility. David Kilbury, Public Safety Director for Lake County Fire Rescue, emphasized that due to rapid city growth, fire stations previously used for EMS units are now fully needed for fire suppression personnel, creating a demand for standalone ambulance locations. He highlighted the strategic value of the Bloxom site, located near the SR 50/27 cloverleaf interchange and nestled in a commercial district between a Volkswagen dealership and Winn -Dixie. He addressed neighborhood concerns by assuring that sirens would not be used unnecessarily, minimizing noise disturbances, and noted that parking would be contained under a carport or in the rear of the property. He also stressed that Lake County has similar facilities throughout the region and consistently acts as a good neighbor and reiterated that this project represents a cost- effective and efficient use of public funds to ensure faster emergency response and improved patient outcomes. Commissioner Tidona expressed gratitude for the EMS team's service and acknowledged the urgent need for such a facility in Clermont, despite the challenges of finding an ideal location. He asked if the two ambulances would be parked in front of the house. Mr. Kilbury clarified that while the application allows for a maximum of two ambulances, the intended use is for one, with two to four personnel on -site depending on shift changes. He stated that the ambulance would be parked on the existing concrete driveway, facing Bloxom for quick deployment, while staff vehicles would use the side gravel area or under the carport. He stated that the ambulance will not be stored in the back of the property. Commissioner Tidona expressed concerns about noise, visibility for neighbors, and the potential use of sirens. He asked if anyone had looked into whether the ambulance would sink into the gravel. He asked if there would be improvements to the site. He suggested considering some type of visual barrier between the property and the neighboring home to reduce the aesthetic and psychological impact of having emergency vehicles nearby. Mr. Kilbury assured us that lights and sirens would only be used based on the urgency of the call and not unnecessarily activated in residential areas, especially during quiet hours. He stated that the ambulance does not carry the weight such as a suppression fire truck and is equivalent to a utility truck. He stated that the ambulance would be parked on the driveway. He stated that site modifications will include fire sprinklers for overnight occupancy, but there are no plans for expanding the facility into a dispatch or operational tower. Commissioner May inquired whether flashing lights would be required at the facility to aid traffic flow, given the busy nature of Bloxom Avenue. Mr. Kilbury stated that no such lights are currently required and similar EMS stations in the county operate without external flashing signage. Page - 8 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 Chair Bain clarified that the resolution does include a provision allowing the fire chief to implement off -site improvements like signage or lighting in the future if deemed necessary for safe operation, without returning to city council for approval. Commissioner May revisited parking requirements, comparing the EMS site to a previous medical office approval. Mr. Kruse stated that the EMS use does not require visitor parking, and the applicant had requested to use the existing parking layout, which was supported due to the facility's low - impact use. Mr. Kilbury confirmed that no public visitors are expected at the site, as EMS teams respond to calls rather than receiving patients. Commissioner May raised the idea of adding a landscape buffer between the EMS station and the neighboring residence to address privacy concerns, especially since the neighbor's bedroom faces the station. Mr. Kruse stated that although the original request was to leave the site "as is," but suggested adding a buffer requirement to the conditional use permit to show consideration for the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Niemiec acknowledging the need for emergency medical services and expressing respect for first responders, he stated that he personally opposes the chosen location, citing traffic, noise, and neighborhood compatibility issues. He raised concerns about the use of sirens and lights, asking when and where they would be activated, and whether they might disturb the adjacent residents. Mr. Kilbury stated that it is logistically ideal due to proximity to key roadways and emphasized that lights and sirens are used only when necessary. Commissioner Niemiec suggested alternative staging methods like parking ambulances around the city, as done in New York. He asked about planned modifications to the building, including sprinkler systems but no antennas, and inquired about engine types, highlighting the noise differences between diesel and gas vehicles. He stated he supports the goal of expanding EMS service but maintained that this particular location is inappropriate and potentially disruptive to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kilbury stated that in order to be compliant with the fire code they will be adding sprinkler system to the property. He stated that there will be no antennas. Chair Bain expresses concern about traffic safety, particularly regarding ingress and egress in a high -traffic area. He stated that the location in question is noted to have significant traffic congestion, which could make ambulance access more difficult. He suggests that, if approved, additional traffic control measures should be required upfront, not decided later without public Page - 9 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 input. He raised concerns about whether ambulances would be running, idling, or making noise while parked. He asked about auditory signals and alarms from ambulances. Mr. Kilbury explained that the vehicles will be connected to shoreline power which keeps systems running without the engine which reduces noise and idling. He stated that they are implementing a "heart -friendly" alert system called G2 Phoenix, which emits softer tones, and will reduce loud alerts both inside and outside the building. He stated the alerts might be faintly audible; they won't be projected externally. Chair Bain acknowledges the benefit of such quieter tones and asks if ambulances make beeping sounds when backing up. Mr. Kilbury stated that some likely do, but a spotter is used to assist, and the designated gravel area will allow ambulances to turn around without backing into the street. Chair Bain asked what parking is allowed at the site now. Mr. Kruse explained that under the existing residential zoning (R-3), parking in those areas is permitted. However, if the site were a business, parking would need to follow stricter codes (e.g., size, drainage, landscaping). A previous professional office site plan was approved for the property but never implemented. Chair Bain stated that he shares some of the same concerns as the other Commissioners. Aaron Blake, 290 Citrus Tower Blvd., suggested that a hedge row be added between this property and the neighbor. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Resolution No. 2025-024R 1227 Bloxam Avenue Conditional Use Permit with an added hedge row from the front building line to Bloxam Avenue; Moved by Commissioner Cramer, Seconded by Commissioner Tidona. Motion passed 4-2, with Commissioner Hoisington and Commissioner Niemiec opposing. Item No. 3 — Resolution No. 2025-026R — Lakehayen on Grand Conditional Use Permit Planner Gonzalez presented as follows: The applicant, Joe Zagame, Jr., is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a multi- family complex in the R-2 Medium Density Residential Zoning District. The vacant parcels are located east of South Grand Highway and north of East Highway 50. The subject property is designated for Medium Density Residential use under the City's Future Land Use and is zoned R-2, which permits multi -family development subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. The proposed project includes a 20-unit multi -family development that is consistent with both the density allowances and the intent of the R-2 zoning district. Page - 10 Planning & Zoning Commission September Z 2025 The CUP process provides an opportunity to ensure that multi -family developments are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and that appropriate design, buffering, and access are addressed. Staff has reviewed the proposed request and find it to be in compliance with the City's Land Development Code requirements. No waivers or variances have been requested by the applicant at this time. The site is located adjacent to residential and commercial uses, with frontage and access from South Grand Highway. The proposed development will serve as a compatible transition between existing single-family neighborhoods and commercial corridors. The site is located directly behind the At Home store and down from an existing stormwater pond. The development could be considered infill development since majority of the surrounding area has been developed. When evaluating a request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Land Development Code, Section 101-212, requires specific development standards that are required to be met. Staff have reviewed the application as submitted in accordance with the development standards criteria and finds the proposed use can meet the general criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Resolution No. 2025- 026R. Joe Zagami Jr., 230 Mohawk Road, stated that he has had a pre -application meeting and all departments have had an opportunity to comment on this project. He stated that what is submitted is the revised site plan based on their comments. The floor was opened for public comments. With no speakers present, the floor was closed. Commissioner Cramer stated that the request aligns with the current zoning and future land use designations. Although it's a modest project, the conditional use process allows the city to ensure proper design, access, buffering, and compatibility with neighboring properties. He stated that his concerns included traffic impact on South Grand Highway. Planner Nick Gonzalaz stated that the applicant provided a traffic summary indicating only 14 peak -hour trips —qualifying as de minimis—and noting they may seek an exemption from a tier one traffic study. Commissioner Cramer questioned the stormwater management due to the site's proximity to Jack's Lake. Mr. Gonzalez stated the stormwater pond would be evaluated during the site review process. Commissioner Hoisington expressing concerns about the proposed development of 20 additional homes on Grand Highway. While the development appears compatible with the area, she is worried about increased traffic, especially considering other nearby developments like Mason Page - 11 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 Ridge and new town homes. She stated that Grand Highway is already a busy street, frequently used by school buses in the morning and afternoon. She questioned whether the proposed development has only one way in and out, which could further impact traffic flow and safety. Mr. Gonzalez stated that it is one way in and one way out. Commissioner Tidona raised several concerns pertaining to trash pick up and walking to a central dumpster. He is also concerned with the removal of trees and the walkability and connectivity to the nearby shopping center. He is also concerned with the added traffic and there are only four additional parking spaces for guests. He does like that it feels secluded. Commissioner May questioned if the units were for sale or rent. Mr. Zagami stated that they were fee simple units. Commissioner May noted that parking requirements differ between for sale and for rent properties, and Mr. Gonzalez stated that in this case, the calculations are based on the number of bedrooms. He stated that the proposal includes one -car garage and one driveway space per unit, totaling 40 residential parking spaces, in addition to four guest parking spaces that were added voluntarily by the applicant and not required by staff. Commissioner May mentioned that the traffic impact of the project referenced a 14 peak -hour trip count, which was deemed "de minimis" by the traffic consultant. She mentioned her concerns for tree preservation and environmental considerations, noting that the property is currently populated with many large, mature trees. She emphasized the need for a formal tree study (tree inventory) to be submitted and reviewed as part of the development process. Mr. Gonzalez confirmed that a tree inventory is already required under code, and they would have to meet the landscape buffers. Development Director Curt Henschel clarified the tree study would be required. He stated that part of the study includes a number of inches of landscape. He mentioned that if they are unable to replace the landscape with the same number of inches, then they will have to pay into the tree fund. Commissioner May mentioned the sidewalk that currently terminates at the edge of the property, limiting pedestrian access to nearby shopping centers and restaurants. Commissioner Niemiec questioned if there would be an HOA and amenities included. Mr. Zagami stated that there would be an HOA and would like to add a walking path along the lake in the future. He indicated that the elevation difference between his property and the shopping center was significant. He mentioned the property between them is their stormwater Page - 12 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 pond and would be a natural buffer between the two properties. He stated that there would not be a club house or any other amenities. Commissioner Niemiec raised concerns regarding emergency vehicle access, asking where the egress for commercial or emergency use would be located. He asked about the long driveway. Mr. Zagami confirmed that ingress and egress will be via a single access point on Grand Highway, which is allowed because the project contains fewer than 20 units. The long driveway was explained as a necessity due to the flag -shaped configuration of the lot, which restricts access to the lakefront portion of the property. He also noted that Lake County has reviewed the project, and as a condition, the developer will install a sidewalk along Grand Highway to connect to existing sidewalks to the north and south, including the one in front of the At Home store. Commissioner Niemiec noted that there are no internal sidewalks within the development, including around the guest parking area. Chair Bain requested clarification regarding whether the proposed development would be fee simple ownership or multifamily (rental -style) in nature. With the presence of a trash enclosure it led to some initial confusion, as that is more commonly associated with multifamily or rental communities. He explained that while the current conceptual plan shows a multifamily configuration, he questioned whether their actual intent is to develop 20 fee simple town homes, each individually owned, with 20 separate parcel IDs and tax bills, and trash collected via individual receptacles rather than a shared enclosure. Mr. Zagami noted that ownership would be split between him and a partner, with each potentially owning buildings that contain multiple units, but the goal is to sell the units individually, including to family members. Mr. Gonzalez clarified that the plan under review was not for fee simple parcels, but rather a single parcel with 20 units, more typical of a multifamily or condominium layout. Chair Bain emphasized the need to align the applicant's intent with the formal application — noting that fee simple and multifamily developments are regulated differently under city code, especially regarding services like trash collection, emergency access, and site layout. Commissioners suggested the applicant might need to postpone the review and work with staff to resubmit a revised plan that accurately reflects the intended ownership structure before proceeding with approvals. MOTION TO TABLE Resolution No. 2025-026R Lakehaven on Grand Conditional Use Permit to the October 7, 2025; moved by Commissioner Niemiec, Seconded by Commissioner May. Motion passed 6-0. Item No. 4 — Ordinance No. 2025-032 — Land Development Code Amendment The floor was opened for public comments. With no speakers present, the floor was closed. Page - 13 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 Commissioner Cramer expressed concerns about a proposed ordinance that would allow unlimited flagpole heights without permits, stating that while the intent may be patriotic, the change could lead to unintended consequences. He acknowledged the federal protections for American flag displays under the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 but emphasized that the city already has reasonable codes and ordinances in place to manage such displays. His concern centered around the removal of oversight and whether allowing large flagpoles without regulation would open the door to other oversized flag displays, potentially from various groups or causes. He personally supports and displays the American flag respectfully, they questioned whether this ordinance was truly necessary, or if it was a form of political pandering in response to a recent large flag installation. Commissioner Hoisington stated that she did not understand the need to change the code Commissioner Tidona voiced significant concerns about a 130-foot flagpole that was installed without a permit, in violation of the city's existing code, which limits flagpole height to 55 feet. He stressed the need to avoid exploiting patriotic symbols for political or commercial gain. He expressed discomfort with what seemed like an intentional disregard for the permitting process. He questioned the structural integrity and safety of such a tall pole, especially during severe weather like Category 5 hurricanes, and raised concerns about potential impacts on neighboring properties. He discussed broader issues such as FAA regulations, the risk of setting a problematic precedent, and the importance of adhering to existing code. He concluded that if someone wishes to fly a flag, they should do so within the established regulations or work with the city on a proper variance —rather than unilaterally exceeding height limits and forcing the city to react. Commissioner May emphasized the importance of upholding city code and ensuring safety regarding flagpole installations, particularly in response to a 130-foot pole erected without a permit. She criticized the lack of process followed by the applicant, noting similar unpermitted installations in other states. She urged the city to differentiate between residential and non- residential zoning when allowing such structures, suggesting that tall poles may be more appropriate in commercial corridors but not in neighborhoods. She recommended setting a maximum flagpole height and flag size, citing concerns about structural integrity, hurricane resistance, and potential hazards if improperly installed. She stated to avoid misuse and ensure accountability, they proposed requiring a simple application, similar to a tree permit, so the city can track installations and request structural engineering documentation. She raised enforcement issues, such as people circumventing rules by initially displaying an American flag, then swapping it for something else. She advocated for a more structured, enforceable process that respects patriotism while maintaining public safety and code compliance. Commissioner Niemiec focused on the implications of flagpole regulations in response to a specific case —Camping World's installation of a 130-foot flagpole without a permit. He emphasized that while Florida Statute 720 protects homeowners' rights to fly the U.S. flag in HOAs, it doesn't override local building and safety codes, particularly regarding height and structural integrity. He expressed concern over the absence of any permit, engineering report, or safety checks for the flagpole, which is a disregard for the city's process. He pointed out inconsistencies in current ordinances, such as conflicting height limits (30 ft vs. 55 ft), and stressed the need for clarity and enforceable rules. Page - 14 Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 2025 Chair Bain raises significant concerns about the implications of a proposed ordinance that would exempt flagpoles displaying only the U.S. flag from height and permit requirements. He stated that the ordinance appears tailored to retroactively legitimize an unpermitted 130-foot Camping World flagpole, essentially rewriting the code to avoid enforcement. He stated that while the ordinance includes conditions such as FAA compliance, structural certification, and adherence to the U.S. Flag Code, the lack of a formal process (like a permit or application) poses safety and enforcement challenges. He states that the ordinance creates a legal gray area —potentially violating constitutional protections by favoring the U.S. flag over others, which could open the city to lawsuits. He further noted that large flags, such as those similar to Camping World's in North Carolina, are extremely heavy and pose safety risks in high -wind or hurricane -prone areas like Florida. He stated that maintenance, structural integrity, and code compliance become difficult to track without a formal approval process. He stresses that public safety, enforceability, and legal neutrality must be prioritized. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 2025-032 Land Development Code Amendment as amended. Moved by Commissioner Niemiec, Seconded by Commissioner Tidona. Motion passed 1-5, with Commissions Hoisington, Cramer, May, Tidona and Chair Bain opposing. DISCUSSION OF NON -AGENDA ITEMS There were no discussions of non -agenda items. ADJOURNMENT — 10:24 pm ATTEST: 1 Rae Chidlow Page - 15