Clermont Planning and Zoning Transcript 6/2/26

14:04 I call the June 2nd City of Clermont Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Will the clerk please call the role?
14:15 Commissioner Tidona present.
14:17 Commissioner Neim present.
14:19 Chair Kobe here.
14:21 Commissioner Kramer here.
14:23 Commissioner Hoisington here.
14:25 And Commissioner May on teams here.
14:32 Thank you very much. Please stand if you are able for the pledge of allegiance.
14:38 I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
14:47 under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all for all. Thank you. You may be seated.
14:56 Uh thank you. I remind everyone to please turn on your microphones uh before you speak. Um anyone in the audience who is speaking at the lectern
15:05 this evening um that should already be on. So please speak clearly into the microphone and say your name and
15:13 address. Uh as a reminder this meeting is being recorded and broadcast on the city's YouTube channel which is city of Clermont.
15:23 Commissioners, you should have received a copy of the minutes from the last planning and zoning meeting. Um, if there are no additions, corrections, or
15:32 questions, I will entertain a motion.
15:37 I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Second.
15:41 We have a motion and second. All in favor?
15:45 I I I I chair votes I. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously.
15:54 Um, at this time, uh, we will do reports.
15:58 I'll start to my left. Commissioner Teddona, do you have a report?
16:02 Um, actually, I I don't, uh, the only thing I wanted to mention is that I will not be here next month in July. Other than that, I have no report.
16:11 Okay. All right. And we the meeting um I ask the the clerk or council that we'll have the meeting at the regular time.
16:19 will be on the on the first Tuesday.
16:22 My understanding is we will have a meeting then that is Fourth of July week. Is there anybody else who would not be able to attend?
16:31 All right. Uh Commissioner Neim, do you have a report?
16:34 No, it's just good back to being in the United States. Thank you. No report.
16:39 All right. Commissioner Kramer, no report at this time.
16:43 Commissioner Hoisington, no report, Mr. Chair. Commissioner May, do you have a report?
16:49 No sir, I just want to welcome you guys back from uh Italy. I hope you enjoyed your uh visit and uh no report for me.
16:57 Thank you.
16:58 Okay. And um I have no report, but it is also good to be back from Italy. Um at noon time did I see Vinnie while I was
17:06 in Italy, but I understand we we both had a a great time on our separate trips in Italy. So good to be back here in Clermont.
17:15 All right. Um that that takes care um of the reports.
17:21 So um I will call on staff for item one.
17:29 Good evening planning and zoning commissioners and guests. Nick and Zos Development Services. This is agenda item one, land development code
17:36 amendment, mobile food dispensing vehicles.
17:40 City staff is proposing an amendment to chapter 125 of the land development code to establish a clear review and approval process for mobile food dispensing
17:49 vehicles consist consistent with the requirements of section 509.102 Florida statutes. In recent months, the
17:58 city has experienced a significant increase in applications for food trucks and food trailers seeking approval through the conditional use permit
18:05 process. At the direction of the city council and city manager's office, staff has prepared a targeted amendment to
18:12 formalize standards for MFDVS and to streamline the review pathway, reducing reliance on a conditional use permit for
18:20 routine mobile vending operations to ensure best practices and regional consistency. Staff reviewed and compare
18:27 and compared ordinances from nearby municipalities, including the city of Mland and the city of Winter Springs.
18:34 These references inform the development of the proposed ordinance language. Some main points within the ordinance are
18:41 listed below. Only one MFD allowed on a non-residential property. May be
18:47 temporary or permanent on site. Requires no notorized affidavit from property owner regarding authority to operate in
18:56 restroom usage. Outdoor dining is prohibited and hours of operation are 7 am to 7 pm and certain setbacks from
19:04 residential properties and existing restaurants.
19:07 Staff is presenting this ordinance as a starting point for discussion for mobile food dispensing vehicles to be included
19:14 in the LDC. Staff is seeking guidance and direction on the proposed ordinance.
19:20 Any conditions changes will be presented to city council for final consideration. That concludes staff's presentation.
19:27 All right. Thank you very much. Uh now is the portion of meeting for um public hearing on item number one. Is there any member of the audience who would like to speak on item number one?
19:38 Hearing no one, I will bring it back to the commission and I will we'll go in the same order that um we did report. So starting with you, Commissioner Teddona.
19:47 Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I want to thank you for putting this together. U there were some things that popped out to me.
19:56 Um, so I just want to go over those points. I'm not going to go over everything, but again, I want to thank you for compiling this. I think this was
20:05 an excellent document. Um, on page 15, uh, numbers four and five,
20:15 temporary mobile food dispensing vehicle may operate at a single location up to a maximum of four days a week, but no more than three consecutive days. And on
20:24 five, the thing that stood out for me was the person in charge of the mobile food dispensing vehicle when in operation must be present at all times.
20:33 So I'm assuming that's going to be a little bit of policing on our part to make sure that that is taking place, right?
20:43 uh with the the uh I mean as far as policing.
20:48 Well, I I don't making sure that somebody how do we make sure that somebody is not there three consecutive days. So that would be through code.
20:57 Okay. Through code enforcement. Code enforcement. I'm not saying we send the police out. Yeah. Okay. But through code enforcement. Awesome. Uh page 16.
21:06 Uh number uh 16. Yep. Number 14. mobile food dispensing vehicle shall be located at
21:14 least 100 ft from a lot occupied by a single family or two family duplex dwelling.
21:20 So I'm just hoping that we said that this is a living document, amendable document. If 100 ft turns out
21:28 to be a good number, that's great. But if 100 feet turns out to be not such a good number, I'm assuming that we can revisit that if there are complaints and
21:36 so on and maybe becomes 200 feet, 300 feet. Yep. Awesome.
21:40 Number 17. No additional signage shall be permitted on the developed site related to the mobile food dispensing vehicle except as to the signage per
21:49 permanently affixed and displayed on the vehicle.
21:54 Will this be retro to anything that was already approved?
22:01 And the reason why I ask is a couple of months ago, we had a food truck that was going to be placed on 50 that was below grade and below a fence.
22:14 Mhm.
22:14 And part of the concern of that food truck was you wouldn't see it because it was below grade and and behind a fence.
22:23 So it came up, can we put something on that sidewalk or on the fence? And
22:29 meanwhile, it says that shall not be placed within the right of way. So
22:37 it it also has to be within 10 ft of the dispensing vehicle itself. Um the the particular one that you're discussing,
22:45 it's under a conditional use permit. So I don't believe it can be retrograded back to this. Yeah. So
22:52 yeah, the way it's written and the way we're talking about it, I mean, this is still just a conversation, but no, the way it is, I don't see it as retroactive
22:59 to that or any prior approval, whether it due to the fact that it's a C. Okay.
23:06 Okay. Uh, parking pro page 18, provide a minimum of one off- streetet
23:14 parking space per four seats in addition to parking required on any principal use of a site. So, I'm assuming that goes
23:21 back to kind of code enforcement, just making sure that this thing doesn't spread out where it is without the appropriate amount of spots.
23:31 That would be done through site review.
23:33 So, if they would have to put uh the amount of seating, if it's a permanent location and they're adding seating, right, uh we would ensure that they have the
23:41 right number of the right number parking spaces.
23:43 Mhm. All right. Perfect. Like I said, I I think this was well put together, well thought out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
23:51 All right. Thank you for the comments, Commissioner Neim.
23:55 Yes. I just have one question. I looked this over. Could you just explain to me in here where the lighting comes in?
24:04 You have your days of operations till 10:00 at night.
24:08 Certain times during the change backer times, it gets pitch dark at 5:30.
24:13 You're going to have all these people buy a food truck with no lighting.
24:17 So, can you explain to me where you guys thought about lighting?
24:22 I'm trying to find the one section on the uh site uh site review on what is
24:30 being reviewed, but if it was missed that can be added.
24:33 There is lighting just mentioned in here um in places.
24:36 Okay, good. I'm sorry councelor. Go ahead.
24:39 Well, I I'm just trying to help. I mean I I think could you tell me where it is? That's why I'm asking because um so at least on it appears to be on
24:47 page I can't give you a page number. I don't see numbers on the documents, but it's in section uh I think D25
24:56 where it talks about permanent establishments, additional standards, and then it talks about location and approvals. And then it talks about
25:05 unimproved sites. And here's what it says. For unimproved sites, permanent establishments located on unimproved sites in non-residential zoning
25:13 districts require full site plan review and approval by the city site review committee. site plan shall show access circulation, emergency routes, storm
25:21 water lighting, any seating, parking, ADA routes, no more standards than that, but it has to address it. Correct.
25:29 And that's one um mention of lighting, but yeah.
25:34 Oh, you're a bad person to me because when you said lighting, I that's all I saw was the word lighting. I didn't see how much lumis, how much area this
25:41 lighting has to have. If it's just by the food truck, I'm not trying to be a pain to anybody. I'm just being here for safety. You're going to go out there
25:50 pitch dark at night in front of a food truck with cars going by and there's no lighting a suffic your word says
25:58 lighting. Who's going to judge it? The planning and zoning before it comes to us.
26:03 That's my question. And it still has to abide by our our own code uh regarding lighting with uh with regards to one one
26:11 candle light one foot candle light at the property at the property line. So it still has to buy under the entire property line. If that's in here cuz I don't see it in here. If that
26:20 was in here, I would never ask my question and I'm sorry I didn't see you Monday. I was going to bring that up. I'm sorry.
26:25 But it's part of the the land development code of lighting.
26:30 So it still pro it still would be I would feel a little more comfortable if that was in here before it went to the city council reference a reference to our lighting code.
26:39 Exactly. That's exact just instead of saying the word lighting that could be anything. That's a broad awakening. And
26:47 to get back to piggyback off Commissioner Cona uh John Teddona's question uh the previous
26:56 food trucks that were approved councelor question for you. They would be grandfathered in. Correct. Yeah. Yes. Okay, that's it. No other questions.
27:04 Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Kramer. Thank you, Chairman.
27:10 So, uh, I think staff knows that I've been a big supporter of this and and have asked for this for some time as
27:18 well, and I'm I'm really pleased to see this because, in my opinion, this is starting to create some clear rules. And one of the strengths of this ordinance
27:25 is that it establishes clear expectations for both food trucks, food truck operators, and property owners.
27:32 So, rather than handling each application individually through a conditional use permit process, we're creating an objective standard that everyone can follow. So, I like that
27:40 this is expediting the process and and and reducing a layer of of bureaucracy for for our our people trying to establish themselves as a food truck
27:49 vendor in Clermont. And um you know, not every food truck vendor requires, you know, an application would require a
27:57 public hearing and that's we spend an inordinate amount of time in my opinion on public hearings for food trucks. But I do have some questions for staff. So,
28:06 why was the setback from existing restaurants set at 100 ft? Just how did we land on 100 feet?
28:12 Just language that we we've seen from other ordinances. Um, but if that was something that would wanted it's just a starting point if you wanted to adjust
28:20 it or had a recommendation, um, it can be changed.
28:25 Well, nice thing, Nick, is that this is a fluid environment and and as Commissioner Tona already checked, we can do that and so I appreciate that. Um
28:36 along that same line, I know of one place where we have three trucks located in an area together, but this is specifically saying one food
28:44 truck per property chose as a limit. So I think that's a good idea. We don't have that congregating in there.
28:52 Um, have we had many complaints at the city?
28:57 Rece has the city received any complaints or or very many complaints about our existing food truck operations?
29:04 Of recent, I haven't received any uh complaints or code violations. Okay.
29:11 Um, will staff be able to revoke approvals administratively or would it require us intervening city council or anyone or
29:20 will you guys be able to handle re revocations?
29:23 Yeah, in the document uh revocation is uh can't be done on the staff level. Thank you.
29:40 And what will prevent a food truck from becoming a de facto permanent restaurant without the same development standards
29:47 required as a traditional restaurant? So they're there for a long time and and and just kind of become a deacto restaurant, but they aren't necessarily
29:55 being held to all the standards we would hold a restaurant. Um what do we have anything in there to prevent long-term?
30:03 I think it's specific in in the wording.
30:05 How many how many days and how many consecutive days?
30:08 That's for a temporary structure. That's a if but if they became a permanent structure, they can stay on property. Um
30:16 so that would just depend on Yeah.
30:19 Can can you explain the the difference of of uh the rest?
30:29 I'm I'm trying to understand what you mean by what they may be getting away with. I'm just worried that they're going to become a permanent there. A food truck's not permanent in nature.
30:39 Y and so I'll take the question back. I I there's not a good answer to it anyway you look at it. So, no, it's it's a it's a valid question.
30:49 Just um I'm in my thought process. I'm trying to think of um if it's a permanent permanent location. I'm not
30:57 sure how or what's the best way of of ensuring that it's not a long-term solution, if that makes sense.
31:05 I think we can review it in the future. Yep.
31:07 Um and one more question for staff. Have you discussed these standards at all with um any of local restaurant owners, the chamber of commerce, better, you
31:16 know, any anybody else or or did you guys just come up with this on your own? This is this is the uh the
31:23 your first uh I guess the first time this is being seen. Uh wanted planning and zoning's recommendation. If if you
31:31 think this is a a document that needs to be vetted um more closely, uh that's something that we can do as a staff
31:38 level. Well, thank you very much for your hard work on this and K, thank you everyone who's been involved in this because this really is eliminating
31:46 bureaucracy and and helping move Clermont forward. No more questions.
31:49 Thank you, Commissioner Hoisington.
31:52 Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I too want to join my fellow commissioners on thanking you for putting this um document
31:58 together. I I I I feel that you um put a lot of work into it. A lot of the questions that I had have already been
32:05 addressed. Um, one of the things that I want to focus on the the issue where the
32:12 permanent I think I'm not sure who brought it up, but the permanent person has to be on duty when
32:20 it's in operation and saying that it would be enforced by code enforcement. But how would code
32:28 enforcement know if the permanent person is there?
32:32 Who's going to report it? because I know we don't have staff to be going around to all food trucks to see if the owner, the permanent person is there. And if
32:42 that should happen, what action is taken? If their privileges are revoked, is there an appeal process
32:50 to where they can correct those deficiencies and continue to work the food truck?
32:55 That's a val that's a really good question. I think I was um more uh I was answering the the number four with code
33:04 enforcement of if it's there more than uh three consecutive days. Uh as far as five when you're talking about the person in charge of the mobile
33:12 dispensing vehicle. Uh that's that's a valid question. I'm not sure how that would be uh the best practice of making
33:19 sure that number five is being being abided by. So, um I'm No, I mean the answer to that too is
33:28 code enforcement. Um it's a difficult thing.
33:31 There are other portions of the city code that are difficult to enforce that look like that as well. Um and then the
33:39 question is, you know, normally with code enforcement, you have to give them a time to comply before uh a violation is actually found. Well, I mean, here
33:48 when would a violation actually be found? You issue the notice, they come back in 30 minutes, it's gone, right?
33:54 Um, and so one of the things that you can do is make a finding that they were guilty of it just once, even though it's been rectified,
34:02 and then make them make it a repeat violation later on. You can do a one-time fine. You can levy the cost. We actually have an ordinance right now
34:09 going to the council about increasing the code and the code fines, but it also includes our ability to levy our investigation costs.
34:18 Oh. Which we've never done.
34:20 So people shouldn't get the benefit of us having to go out investigate.
34:25 Um they fix it and then we don't charge them with anything here. That could be something. You know, at least we'll get the cost of investigation if we found that they did
34:34 violate it. Short answer to your question is code enforcement. Okay. And thank you. Thank you for the clarity. I just don't want us to put things in here
34:43 that's not actual going to be enforced just to say we have a document so we can check the box. If it's something that
34:51 can't be managed, then why have it in there? But I understand I understand what you're saying. And I think the intent of staff
34:59 was to uh make a document that had enough uh information, guidelines, guard
35:06 rails that if you decided to take things away, it' be better to take things out than put things in. Okay.
35:13 All right. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Commissioner May.
35:20 Thank you. Um I first of all, I want to thank the staff for putting together a really good draft. Um, but it still
35:28 needs to be tweaked, but bravo to a really good uh good start. So, whoever
35:34 really started this, kudos to you. Um, I do want to
35:43 ask in regards the confusion between me reading this um was in regards to the temporary accessory versus the per
35:50 minute. Um cuz I know in the definitions there's really nothing that describes what a temporary
35:58 versus a permanent establishment. You do have permanent in your definitions, but you don't have temporary. You have
36:06 accessory. So while I was reading word for word, I was going through it and the entire time that I was going through the
36:14 ordinance, I felt like that I was reading about permanent, but then it jumped to permanent. So there was really no changes between temporary and
36:23 permanent. So it was kind of confusing because first you're talking about no seating area and then all of a sudden you talk about seating area.
36:32 Mhm.
36:33 So there's really I don't know if there's a way to separate to really define temporary like you did where it said permanent establishment. Mhm.
36:43 Um, so if there's a way to kind of say, okay, this is temporary establishments
36:50 and you know, and they're defined and then you jump into permanent because for me it was kind of confusing in that sense um when I read it.
36:59 Um, so, so, so in regards to like temporary and permanent, they're both prohibited in
37:08 hours of operations from 7 to 10 p.m., correct? Yes.
37:14 Okay. Um, I know that we did in the p in the previous in the past um meeting, we had
37:24 some issues in regards to time because of safety issues. Mhm.
37:29 So, and I know based on what was said, this is not going to be coming in front
37:35 of us. Um, after this ordinance is going to be approved, this ordinance is not coming in front of the planning and zoning. It's not coming in front of
37:44 planning and zoning. It's administratively done. So, I just want to make sure that a lot of our comments and our recommendations are put forth
37:53 and we're comfortable as a commission and of course comfortable as a council that once these
38:00 permanent and temporary is a little different, but permanent is a little bit different in in a sense. I just want to make sure
38:08 that this the the the residents concerns are being met. And so I'm just taking in
38:16 from the resident's concerns on the previous one that we had. Mhm.
38:20 You know, their concerns was were on the hours and we made it we made a point to listen to them and make sure that the
38:30 hours coincided with the business present. So an example, the gas station.
38:37 We wanted to make sure that the food truck hours of operation coincided with the business. But in this sense, it
38:46 basically just says 7:00 a.m. to 1000 p.m.
38:49 So, is there a way I mean I just, you know, in regards to an operation for say, you know, food
38:58 truck decides they want to be on um another gas station or a business that closes at 5 or 6.
39:05 So, we're saying we're okay for them to continue to operate at 10 p.m. even though maybe the community around it is
39:14 not comfortable with that. So, I'm just like I said, I'm just going with what just happened on the previous meeting that some of our commissioners weren't there.
39:23 So, um, because we're at we're strictly saying, okay, we're good with 7 a.m. say 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. So, that's just, you
39:32 know, just based on just the previous, you know, vote that we just did. Um, so that's one thing. Uh, food trucks may
39:41 operate a maximum of four days per week, but no more than three consecutive days.
39:47 that section I think number four I guess pertains to temporary and it doesn't pertain to the permanent and that's
39:56 where I got confusion in so I just wanted to get clarity from you food trucks all food trucks
40:05 operate a maximum four days or is that just on the temporary ones that would just be for the temporary uh all per if it was a permanent it could
40:13 be seven days a week right but It doesn't say that in the permanent section and that's where my confusion is.
40:21 We can add a we can add that include that into the definition of permanent.
40:26 Yeah. And I don't I don't know if there's too much language and I would ask um our attorney because I know you've dealt with this in other cities.
40:36 Should there be a separation between temporary and then have their rules and then permanent and have the rules? cuz for me it was very confusing in that sense.
40:45 It it's totally your your discretion and the city's discretion how it wants to do it.
40:52 Okay, perfect. Okay. And then the um so again going back to the confusion I mean we
40:58 talked about pave surface you know you talked about pave surface not to exceed 600 square feet unless city manager deterrence more area is required.
41:08 um that is all in the beginning but then you go past the permanent and then you
41:14 talk about um surfacing and you don't talk about anything about requirements
41:20 of 600 ft and things like that. So that's where my confusion was and I that was past number 25. So when you talk
41:30 about paved surfaces that's in number six. Mhm.
41:33 It doesn't exceed 600 ft. So, does that also apply in the permanent establishments?
41:44 I'm just I'm reading number six right now. Uh, and looking at 25 25 C. Um,
41:54 well, it says the mobile food dispensing vehicle temporary S temporary sales area must be on a paved area not exceed an
42:02 area 600 square ft. So that would be for the temporary, right? But there's no square feeted.
42:09 There's no square foot requirements on the permanent side. Would you want it to be 600 as well?
42:15 I don't know. That's where you guys come in. I mean, is there I mean, is it open-ended? I mean, are they allowed to do whatever size?
42:26 I I I think the paved area was to make sure that wherever the uh the vehicle
42:32 itself was on a paved area. So I guess it was dependent on the size of the vehicle itself.
42:41 So does not that not be dependent as well on the permanent? No, that is the permanent. Yes.
42:52 But it doesn't say that, right? I mean it just says improve stabilized surface page or it doesn't really say
42:59 adequate to support vehicle loads without ringing surface. They can have an oversized They can have an oversized double wide or you know
43:08 I mean are we going to I'm not a food I mean I'm just looking at you that's just that was where you
43:16 know I'm just trying to figure out you're you're saying 600 feet on temporaries but you're not saying anything on the permanent. So shouldn't
43:23 it be equal? I mean I'm assuming food trucks are all the same size or they're not you know is there any maximum size
43:31 or minimum size? It's just, you know, yeah, we can we can look into the the dimensions and and add some language at
43:37 least to uh put a at least 600 square f feet or if you want to have a minimum or a maximum, we can we can add that into into uh 25 C.
43:49 Okay. It's just it's all about consistency because you're doing it for one, but you're not doing it for the other.
43:56 Okay. Um All right. Let me see what else.
44:02 Um, I get there's no outdoor seating allowed for temporary. Correct.
44:09 Uh, but it doesn't really say temporary in that section of seven. Hold on. Say there seven
44:22 is seven again.
44:28 great art. But for me, it was just I read every little word and it just was very confusing for me because I was going, "Okay, are we talking about temporary? Are we talking about
44:36 permanent?" So outdoor dining areas are prohibited, included, but not limited to table. So I'm assuming you're talking about temporary. So I don't know if you have to say temporary accessories.
44:47 Um outdoor dining areas are prohibited.
44:50 I guess you say outdoor seating permanent establishments may be permanent when it complies with Okay.
44:56 Correct. And that should and there's uh some typos. I did find uh there's a few times it referenced uh subsection D23
45:04 when it should have be D25D and that'll be changed before it goes to another one of my that was one of my other ones that I was going to say.
45:13 Sorry about that.
45:14 Um yeah, no worries. Again, you got great draft. That's all I want to say.
45:20 Um oh um this goes back to I think Mr. Neck had brought it up in regards to actually
45:28 no um commissioner lighting that was a question of mine because I didn't see anything in there.
45:34 I mean I did see a section under 20 that talked about prohibited lighting but there was no language in there in in
45:42 regards to lighting itself. That was another question of mine. Generators. Um that's going to be something that um is something that's not mentioned.
45:54 There's nothing mentioned about generators. There's only there's only there's only language in there in 20 that talks about excessive fumes.
46:03 And we're assuming that's generators.
46:05 And there's no language in number 18 in regards to sound. There's something about no music, but there's something
46:13 that says other sounds. And generators do cause a lot of sound
46:20 um issues and fumes. Um, is there any mention of generators or do
46:27 you guys plan to have any language about generators in the um in the ordinance?
46:34 There's no mention in the ordinance, but it would have to fall under our sound ordinance, which it would have to be under the certain decel.
46:43 Okay. And what about generators in regards to fumes?
46:49 Because that is an issue. I mean, some people do complain about the smell and the noise during food truck m uh food truck uh night.
46:57 Number 20.
47:04 So number 20 says the operation of these vehicles shall not create uh or cause nuisance conditions to include uh and
47:11 not be limited displaying flags or unauthorized signage, loud noises, visual glare, flashing animated lights, shouting and amplified music, excessive
47:20 fumes or smoke, environmental hazards and or and any vehicular or pedestrian hazard.
47:26 So basically if a generator is making any excess fumes or smoke then code enforcement can it becomes a nuisance. Yeah.
47:34 A nuisance. Okay. All right then. I'm satisfied with that. Um let me see if there's anything else. Uh
47:47 right now I'm going over to the permanent establishment side. Mhm.
47:53 Uh let's see. parking, one off streetet parking per four seats.
48:03 How are we establishing the the seating though? I mean, for a food truck, is there are we establish?
48:14 What is what is how do how do we establish restaurants right now in regards to is it one off street parking per four seats?
48:20 It's it's based off seating. It's it's only based off seating. So if they decide that they want 15 seats in their
48:29 parking uh in their on their food truck, then that means that they need more than like who controls the seating.
48:38 They would come in through site review and ask for how many seating. uh if they asked for 15 uh that would be four parking spaces that they would need and
48:47 they would have to put that on the site plan and we would uh staff would review it and make sure that the parking that they have is adequate and to our standards.
48:57 So how do we establish it on a restaurant though? I mean it say for instance it's the same way the same way based off restaurants are
49:05 based off seating not square footage.
49:07 I just wanted to make sure I just wanted to clarify that the record. Okay, perfect. And then on I saw that the buffers and I setbacks and I thank you
49:16 so much for that 100 foot is great. Um are we requiring them any other buffers in regards to
49:25 um I don't know fake landscaping or anything like that or or just strictly the 100 foot buffers on each? I do
49:34 believe on the site review they we do mention uh on unimproved sites that uh the site
49:41 plan shall show access circulation, emergency routes, storm water, lighting, any seating, parking, ADA routes, trash, restroom facility and buffers.
49:51 Perfect.
49:52 And then the other I think this is my last one.
49:56 Um I think the other thing that I have um that I would like to add um comes with the parking and that was
50:04 an issue that I had on the on the last month's um parking.
50:09 Mhm. I just want to make sure that we I just want to make sure that if they
50:15 do go on a an improved site um that they're sharing parking that we
50:24 they must show the parking the the food truck must show that they are not reducing the required parking for the existing business.
50:38 And this is for the uh the improved parcels, correct?
50:42 Correct. Correct. Because I think that was an issue that was brought up at the previous one.
50:49 And um I just don't want our businesses to be affected because all of a sudden they're popular
50:57 and all of a sudden they're, you know, all their parking spaces are being used and then the business that is there then their parking is being affected. I
51:06 just want to make sure that there's going to be adequate parking for both separately.
51:13 So, we should have language that says must show they are they are not reducing the required parking for the existing business or use.
51:24 Understood. But other than that, great job, guys. All right. Thank you, Commissioner May.
51:33 Um, I I also think it was it was a great job and I love that you went out and found best practices that that that uh people are using elsewhere and this is a
51:42 I think a really great draft. Um, there have been a lot of of comments um and to capture those I know that you've been
51:49 writing uh furiously and staff has been been noting. Um, I'm not sure the the best way. Does does anybody on the
51:55 commission um would somebody like to um to to make a motion and perhaps um putting in some of the things that um
52:03 that that we had talked about? So, I I'll open it up to the to the commission now. And um could we have discussion? I guess we can have a discussion before
52:10 I just have basically two questions. All right. Uh Commissioner Hoyen brought up a very very good point uh with the owner
52:20 operating. Okay. Um, I'm not saying this is New York, just telling you that's where I came from a long time ago. And
52:28 back uh back in back in those days, they used to have a license and they had a tag around
52:36 their neck with a picture of who the ownership belongs to, and that ownership had to run the business
52:44 with a picture on it. Okay. So, that might be able to help you out. Uh, Commissioner Hornston, I mean, that's a
52:52 you brought that up. The first thing I thought about is I assumed, which makes a blank out of me and you, that it was in there or that staff would take care
53:01 of it. But seeing that this is wide, I just have my last question is this is going to the council.
53:09 Mhm.
53:10 If they vote on it, that's it. It's permanent.
53:14 It introduced into the land development code, but it could always be amended. Okay.
53:20 I would highly suggest I mean one every commissioner up here had questions and I'm sure the public's going to have a lot of questions too at a city council
53:28 meeting because this is their town as well. All right. I would highly suggest they do a workshop on this before they take a vote just to get everything
53:37 ironed out because you got you got writers cramp right now son. All right. You just been writing everything down.
53:43 That's my advice. That's what I would like to do. And if you don't want me, you don't have to bring that, put that in writing. I'll be here at the city council and I'll be giving them my
53:52 advice to put this on their workshop because when you rush things out, haste makes waste. All right. You did a great
54:00 job. I'm not knocking it. I'm just saying there's a lot of gray areas that And we knew this was going to be a starting point.
54:06 Well, that's why I asked if they vote on it is does it go through and then the blame is going to be on you guys? And that's not right. Not after the hard work you did. Thank you. That's all I
54:15 got. Commissioner, any any other I would like to set a motion, but I'm not going to Let's see if any anybody else has any
54:23 any comments, input they want to want to make before we All right. Well, um I will I will open it um for a motion then.
54:33 Do I got to say everything they said from Jenny to Mr. Kramer? I mean, Commissioner Kramer.
54:38 I think I think um I'd like to set a motion for what he wrote down. Here are some of the things that I that I got just to kind of
54:46 reference uh go back. Um reference to the lighting code. Um adding uh temporary in the definitions.
54:55 Uh parking for improved park uh properties. Uh showing that that there's not a reduction in parking that does not
55:03 affect existing businesses. Um there was talk on generators if that would be but
55:10 I think we figured out with the fumes uh as far as the uh the person in charge of
55:17 the mobile dispensing vehicles being present. Is this something that we wanted to add or I mean to keep or
55:23 remove? Um and then possible workshop um that Mr.
55:30 Okay. Put that in. But I appreciate I like that. Did he leave anything else out? I heard possibly well addressing
55:37 the concrete service and the 600. Yep. The 600 feet. That's on the other page. You didn't turn over.
55:44 Possibly segregating the temporary and permanent sections. Uh that was thrown out there by Commissioner May. Um those are things that I remember as well.
55:55 Commissioner May, is there anything that you could think of that we might have forgot when we put it in a motion?
56:02 No, I think he uh took good notes. So, okay. Very good. Commissioner May, thank you.
56:08 Did we mention the hours? Wasn't there comments about the hours?
56:13 7 to 10 and previous it's been the time of the business being in operation.
56:19 And I did want to make a comment to that. The the 7 to 10 was just a range that uh we felt comfortable with normal
56:27 business operating hours that we have throughout the city. uh if anything was going to be after that or you know I don't think anybody's going to be open
56:34 at 6 am 5 am but anything after that they would have to come to to PNZ and and council for conditional use permit
56:42 uh and then uh if you did want to I think commissioner May was kind of alluding to was what if the if they're
56:50 on an improved uh property and they're using the the facilities of an an existing business or you know let's say
56:58 a gas station and they close early. Um, what happens then? Uh, and maybe if you wanted to add language that, uh, if it's
57:07 7 to 10, unless, you know, it's with the the operating hours of the business,
57:15 some something along those lines, uh, to make sure that if a business does close early, that that's that's their cap.
57:22 I think we should add something. I mean, and I and I go back to what Commissioner May mentioned. Um, I think the last food truck there were actual
57:32 folks that live close proximity to the one and they were concerned about the about the food truck being in operation after the gas station closed.
57:43 So, I would hate for us to just have a blanket 7 to 10 and one is located near a neighborhood and we have to go through hearing the public say why, you know,
57:52 this is being disturbing after the business has closed. Great point.
58:02 There is one thing that I totally forgot and I apologize.
58:06 Um on the temporary uh in regards to the no outdoor seating allowed,
58:14 what if there is an event, you know, next to a park? Um, you would
58:22 think that you would want to allow some seating or would that seating be part of the
58:29 event? I'm just I'm just trying to figure out how it would be. Say for instance, people at the park, there's a
58:37 food truck that is close to a park and again going back to the other one that we just approved. It's next to Dark
58:45 Park. Wouldn't we want to provide some seating for people if there is no seating at the park to be able to enjoy
58:53 some food at that food truck? So that's where, you know, can we put some language that says unless it's next to a city park or
59:02 unless it's I'm just trying to make it, you know, I don't
59:10 I'm just taking it from the previous one.
59:14 Yeah, but you but you could that could go the other way, Commissioner May. There could be people coming out to to an event and they're like and they thought they were
59:22 going to enjoy a spot and then there was there's all these these the seating for I mean it could go the other way. It could annoy the residents because
59:30 they're like, "Oh, I was going to come out and set up my chair, but I can't because they're setting up, you know, chairs and seating." Yeah. I I I don't know. I think it's a little bit dicey
59:38 and and good point. Thank you very much. I just brought it up. I learned to as part of the discussions. Okay.
59:46 Okay. So, I'll set a motion for everything staff has proposed. Everything. Everything.
59:54 Okay. Even the pages you didn't read. Do I have a set? Oh, okay.
1:00:00 Is that Is that appropriate motion? Um, I mean, I think it's cognizable. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Very good.
1:00:08 I've done it before in the RS.
1:00:09 So, we have a motion. We have a second by Commissioner Hoisington. All in favor? I'm sorry, uh, Mr. Commissioner Kobe.
1:00:18 Yes. Um, would that include the recommendation of possibly doing a workshop as well? Yes, I said everything.
1:00:26 Okay.
1:00:28 Now, I do have a question for the council.
1:00:30 All right. And we have So, we have we have a motion and and a second.
1:00:33 Second. All right. But go ahead. If I may, I'm sorry.
1:00:36 Go ahead, please. Since this is being recorded, they could go back and just in case we missed anything because I said the word everything and and they usually do.
1:00:46 That's what I'll be Yeah, that's what I'll be doing. I I wanted to give you that advice. Yeah, I will. Okay. My brain's not that good. I'm sorry, David. I know you.
1:00:53 So, we have a a a motion and second. Any other take conversation? All in favor?
1:01:02 I I Any opposed? Chair votes I. Unanimous. Unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. That was all. Sorry, David.
1:01:10 That was great.
1:01:13 All right, we will move on the agenda to item number two. Staff, take it away.
1:01:28 Good evening, planning and zoning commissioners and guests. Justine Day with development services. Um due to
1:01:35 both agenda item number two and three being of the same properties, I am going to read them at the same time if that is okay.
1:01:43 Sounds great. Okay.
1:01:46 So the city as the applicant is requesting a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment and resoning of the subject property following a staff
1:01:53 initiated annexation. The approximately 88 uh acre property includes the Hammock Point and Hammock Reserve subdivisions
1:02:02 which are fully built out and contain 196 existing single family homes. The parcel has already been platted,
1:02:09 developed, and is receiving city wastewater services. On October 28th, 2025, the city council approved the
1:02:17 annexation with the understanding that the appropriate future land use and zoning designations would be established at a later date in time. staff is now
1:02:25 proposing to complete the process and on your screen outlined in yellow is both the subdivisions for Hammock Point and Hammock Reserve.
1:02:37 All right. Thank you. And uh council, we can we can discuss these uh for public comment as well as commission discussion, but they would be voted on separately. Correct?
1:02:46 Yes. Okay.
1:02:48 All right. Um at this time, I will open it up to the Yes.
1:02:52 I am Oh, I'm sorry. You just you just did one. Okay, go ahead. Keep keep going. Keep going.
1:02:57 Okay, so on to the future land use. Um the property is currently designated with the urban low density future land
1:03:05 use category under Lake County. The category allowed up to four dwelling units per one acre with the subdivisions being developed at 2.2 dwelling units
1:03:14 per net acre. Under the city's requirements, the compatible future land use category would be low density residential, which allows for three
1:03:22 dwelling units per one acre. The adjacent property to the east within the city is also designated as low density
1:03:28 residential. So up on your screen, it has the parcels again outlined in red this time. Um, and shows the low density right next to it, abudding.
1:03:42 And then next photo just shows what that would look like under the amendment to the map.
1:03:50 Both subdivisions are currently zoned R3 medium residential under Lake County, which requires a minimum lot size of
1:03:57 three dwelling units per one acre based on gross acreage requirements.
1:04:06 Existing lot sizes within the development uh vary with the smallest lots measuring at 85 by 140 or
1:04:13 approximately 11,900 square ft. To ensure compliance with the land development code and maintain property rights, staff is recommending reszoning
1:04:22 the entire property to the city's R1 single family medium density residential district.
1:04:28 The proposed change in the city's low density residential feature land use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and aligns with the existing uses and
1:04:36 land uses within the area. The proposed R1 zoning district presents no conflicts and is compatible with the adjoining
1:04:44 properties as required by the comprehensive plan. If you again look at your screen, the reszoning Lake County
1:04:52 zoning is showed on the north or on the top photo, sorry, showing that R3 zoning district and then the bottom photo shows
1:05:01 the R1 zoning within the city.
1:05:06 Staff recommends approval of ordinance number 2026-21 and ordinance number 2026-
1:05:14 uh 022. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you very much. You're welcome.
1:05:20 At this time, I will open it up to the public for public comment. If you would please uh come over to the lect turn and
1:05:27 um if additional speakers would like to come up, you can line up behind her.
1:05:40 Thank you all for letting us uh have this discussion. Uh, I'd just like Could you please state your name and address?
1:05:48 Patron. I'm at Hammock Point at 12436 Hammock Point Circle.
1:05:55 And I'm a little confused by the designations because you uh the staff person just spoke to the fact that it
1:06:03 would be low density, but R1 in Clermont when I read it online says
1:06:12 it's medium density. And some of this other paperwork says medium density. And when I look at it, I see that medium density can be 8 to 12 units per acre.
1:06:24 And that's quite a contrast from low density, which is three units per
1:06:31 acre and current lake community or lake county where it's currently zoned at
1:06:38 three to four per d units per density. So, I'm reading here urban low density, but then I look
1:06:48 at the actual motion and it's saying medium density, which can be up to 8 to
1:06:54 12 units per acre, and that's a big conflict. So, I I'd like to better understand
1:07:02 what it is. Are you just trying to move us from what Lake County had into an equivalent Clermont City zone, which
1:07:11 would be an R1- A, or are you really wanting to zone to say
1:07:20 that you're now zoning this 8 to 12 units so that you can do some further urban build in the vacant lots adjacent?
1:07:33 like where Sena was supposed to go and that really concerns me.
1:07:40 Okay. Um is that you're done with your question with that question? Yes.
1:07:46 Okay. Um I'll let you finish and then I'll I'll let I'll give staff the opportunity to
1:07:51 to respond. I have um just a few other
1:08:01 I guess I want to know if you know what the purpose if it is your intent to go medium density with 8 to 12 units per
1:08:09 acre and urban. What is your intent with those lots where Sena was supposed to go
1:08:18 in other places? And is this opening you up to be allowed to change your mind later and build other things?
1:08:28 And I'd also just like to say I was quite disappointed that I couldn't get any of this information about this zoning
1:08:37 um online from Clermont. even though we were annexed as of last October, we're still not part of Clermont on any map online.
1:08:50 Um, so that's just a a side thing. Um, personally, I'm extremely concerned about noise,
1:08:59 less so traffic, but yes, if noise if you were to put an urban development in that lot adjacent to Hammock Point.
1:09:08 All right. Thank you.
1:09:09 Well, thank you. uh the city is the the applicant. So um I think probably what would be easier to to respond to this
1:09:16 woman's questions now if you could do that. Thank you.
1:09:21 So with the future land use being low density residential, we are just going by what's currently out there and coming
1:09:30 into compliance with the code. We are not redeveloping the property to be more um then why are you not zoning at R1A?
1:09:42 Right.
1:09:43 So that would be because the zoning districts also um have the minimum lot size requirements and some of the lot
1:09:52 sizes do not meet the requirements for that R1A. R1A requires 100 ft for that
1:09:59 frontage. Some of those lots are at 85 instead of that 100 foot requirement. So that would make them non-compliant with our codes.
1:10:08 Did you build
1:10:17 the R1 properties?
1:10:28 There's supposed to be a chance for public comment and then honestly it's not even really supposed to be a question and answer. It's nice that you're willing to do it.
1:10:37 Yeah. Um No, no, it's okay.
1:10:39 So, so why don't why don't we finish the finish the the questions that you you've given your answer. So, um why why don't we why don't we finish with with with
1:10:47 public comment and then um we'll have the the city staff answer and then the the commission will have have questions
1:10:55 as well. So sir, thank you. My name is Richard Benadetto. I live at 12428 Hammock Point Circle.
1:11:01 I've been there since the home was built, since the property was uh there.
1:11:05 Uh I am part of that growth. My family is part of that growth that I'm when we first came here uh the locals hated us
1:11:12 because we were invading. And now I understand it because my concern is not necessarily the neighborhood that's going in, although it's rental
1:11:21 properties. And if it goes up to like 8 or 12, uh, that's alarming. Uh, but my concern is that the unfettered growth in
1:11:30 Clermont, I believe the traffic or have the traffic surveys been done, the environ environmental impacts, schools impacts, utilities, storm water, all of
1:11:39 that for this new subdivision. And I know it was done for ours, but I I sit there our our it's a four-lane road, so I I don't think traffic would be that
1:11:48 big of an issue, but traffic is a humongous issue in front of Imagine South Lake. Huge issue. And on State
1:11:55 Road 50, I'm not blaming y'all. It's it's just and I I thank you all for doing what you do. I work for the government, too. Um but yeah, it's that
1:12:03 that traffic is horrific. And it was noted in your last minutes about the burnout uh something like that about how State Road 50 has just become an utter
1:12:12 nightmare and I've witnessed it because I go through it a lot. So that was my concern. Have the studies been done? Are
1:12:19 we aware of the impact to schools? Uh do we have enough uh emergency services available? And is the traffic, you know,
1:12:27 how is this going to impact? And is there going to be more development outside of Ivy Ridge? Ivy Ridge in that
1:12:35 area. So that was it. I don't I think this is preunctionary going from the city or from the county to the city. My address hasn't changed yet, you know,
1:12:44 because of the numbers, but and I wasn't aware that we we're involved in the city now. Uh but that's it. That's all my comments. It's my concern about traffic services and all of that stuff.
1:12:54 All right. Thank Thank you, sir. I mean, just to be clear, we we none of us up here work for the government. We're all volunteers who uh who come out in the in
1:13:02 the community. But um any other comment? Anyone in the public want to make comment? All right.
1:13:10 I will turn it back to the city if you'd like to um to say anything else.
1:13:16 I would just like to make a note that Ivy Ridge has already approved gone through the resoning process. They This
1:13:23 has nothing to do with Ivory Ridge. It's just hammock point and reserve designating the zoning and the future
1:13:30 land use with the most compatible within the city. Great. All right. Thank you very much.
1:13:36 Okay. Uh we will bring it to the to the commission. Um so we will start with you commissioner May.
1:13:46 Yes. Thank you. Um I looked at both um or um I both I looked at both items uh two and three. Uh I understand the
1:13:55 public comment that was stated. I just wanted to reiterate that it is not considered medium density. I think there's some confusion there. It is R1
1:14:04 single family medium density residential use which is compatible to with the Lake County. So Lake County right now is R1 which I believe is four units to one.
1:14:17 We're pushing it out to city of Clermont I believe low density. Correct. Three units to the acre.
1:14:23 and it's R1 single family medium density. I think that's where the confusion is where it's single family
1:14:29 medium density versus R3. So I think that's where the confusion is. That's where I I'm I'm thinking where it is.
1:14:37 But with that, I'm okay with um with uh approving both items. Thank you.
1:14:43 All right. Thank you, Commissioner Horington.
1:14:46 Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I am also okay with us moving forward with approval of these. Um, I would just like before we
1:14:53 end that we try to address the public's comments to where they walk out of here at least having some understanding of where we're going in the direction and and how would you like to do that?
1:15:04 If she had any additional questions for staff if that's permissible.
1:15:08 Yeah, I believe staff will be will be available and um they're always available. So um but yeah, perhaps answering any questions. So, thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Kramer.
1:15:20 Thank you, Chairman Colby. So, I'm just going to try to help you out, Justine, because I, you know, I'm trying to help staff. To me, this amendment appears to
1:15:29 be a logical step, next step in completing the annexation that was previously approved by city council, and it aligns with the city's planning
1:15:37 documents with the reality of what already exists on the ground. So, you've got me on that one. Importantly, this request does not increase density.
1:15:49 This subdivision is already developed at approximately 2.2 acre 2.2 dwellings units per acre, which remains below the
1:15:56 city's low density res residential threshold. So, good.
1:16:02 Um, I think residents should understand that this amendment is not going to change the character of their neighborhood. The home sizes, lot sizes or development and the development
1:16:11 pattern remains exactly as they are today.
1:16:16 The surrounding area is already predominantly residential and proposed designation is consistent with nearby
1:16:22 city land use classification. So to me, I think having annex property under continue under the county future land
1:16:30 use categories indefinitely can create confusion. This amendment provides
1:16:38 consistency and clarity within the city's comprehensive plan. So, I'm I'm glad to see that we're just
1:16:44 continuing through and moving from it's a difference which you're not going to feel the difference,
1:16:51 but moving from Lake County into the city, you're already enjoying the support of the fire, the police, the
1:16:59 rescue, all all your emergency services are already there. And for me, the benefit of joining the city is having a
1:17:06 voice because right now you're outside the city commenting, but as a resident, you're a voter. And
1:17:14 there's a huge difference between a Lake County resident coming to the city of Clermont and making a comment and a resident who is a voter when they talk
1:17:22 to because understand we're just going to make a recommendation today whether we're either for it or against it. But it goes to city council and that's where your voice really will matter especially
1:17:31 if you're a voter and this is an election year. So just always remember that. So so being part of the city does give you some distinct advantages. So I
1:17:39 think this is a good move and I think staff's done a good job with this. So thank you. I would just point out that every year is an election year in the city of Clermont.
1:17:50 Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Neck, Commissioner. Okay. I'm sorry.
1:18:00 Okay. Uh, real quick, I want to piggy back off of K uh, Commissioner Kramer for those the gentleman that was out there and the young lady that was there.
1:18:12 All right.
1:18:13 Jesus, I had my phone on. The bad boy spanked me.
1:18:18 Okay. Okay. So, anyway, the difference between being in the city, like Commissioner Kramer said, you have a lot
1:18:26 more power. Trust me. Take it from one that goes to the county at least once or twice a month. You're falling on deaf
1:18:33 ears. Okay. Also, I want to bring up that their zoning laws.
1:18:40 I bite my lip every time we have to annex something. All right. Because young lady said, "Oh, well, we have to
1:18:47 go to all these other homes." No, that's not the way city claim does it. That might be the way the county does it, but that's not the way we do it here. I'm against overdevelopment. You know that.
1:18:57 Okay. Uh and that's basically it. That's I I read it. I think I I agree with it.
1:19:04 It's straightforward. I'd rather have it in our hands controlling it than the county because you have no say with the county. You think you do, but you don't.
1:19:13 All right. So, I agree with my fellow commissioners and that's all I want to say. I don't want to take up too much of the mic. Thank you, Commissioner Teddona.
1:19:22 Thank you, Chair. Um, I definitely want to thank my commissioners for some clarity. As someone who lives in Fox
1:19:29 Chase HOA and has seen the traffic, it's probably the only point I would disagree with you, sir, seen the traffic magnify on what I call panic ridge road.
1:19:42 Um, it's nice to know that, and I'm going to put it in my own words, that Ivy Ridge,
1:19:50 which I think was approved at 105 homes, is not going to get any larger because of this. Correct.
1:19:58 Correct. And the free space in your area
1:20:04 is not going to be developed at eight residents or 12 residences per acre.
1:20:10 Correct. none of that is going to happen.
1:20:12 That is correct. That's a whole different process.
1:20:15 So, knowing that, it sounds like again, welcome to the city as opposed to being on the outer edge. Uh, and as I said, as
1:20:23 somebody who is your neighbor down the block, believe me, the last thing I want to see is more traffic on Panage Ridge
1:20:30 Road. And I've been up here advocating for that stuff as well. I think it's absolutely ridiculous. So, I do thank
1:20:38 all my commissioners for their clarity on that. It was a main concern of mine reading through this. Um, but I think it is going to work out. Thank you, Mr.
1:20:47 Chair.
1:20:48 All right. Thank you so much. And, um, you know, I always feel bad for for um residents who who, you know, can't really get what they're looking for. Um,
1:20:56 sorry you couldn't find your information online, but but I I have to say that our staff is extremely responsive. You can um go to their office anytime. They're
1:21:03 they're they're always very accessible and and uh hopefully you can get your questions answered. I do want to apologize to my fellow commissioners for breaking protocol a little bit. I was
1:21:12 trying to be neighborly and get the women's um questions answered and and um and uh did not not uh um try to have
1:21:20 that much breakdown in our our regular protocol. Um but with that, I do want to um bring it back to um to the
1:21:27 commission, see if there's any further discussion and see if anybody would like to make a motion.
1:21:33 Yes. I'd like to make a motion on item number two, auditance 202621 for approval. Do we have a second? Oh,
1:21:43 so you're making it on on the the first the first one separately.
1:21:46 Correct. Correct. Okay. So, I'll second the motion. We have a a motion on item number two. We have a second by Commissioner Kramer.
1:21:54 Did you have something to uh discussion?
1:21:57 Okay. Um I just saw Jenny. Oh, I was just thinking. Oh, sorry. Okay. That's what the light bulb came on.
1:22:05 Okay. So, we have a a motion and a second. All in favor?
1:22:10 I I I I.
1:22:13 And the chair votes I. That is unanimous. Um, do we have a motion for item number three?
1:22:22 I'll set a motion for item number three, ordinance 2026-022.
1:22:29 All right. Reszoning Hammond Ridge Point Reserved for approval. We have a motion. Do we? I'll second.
1:22:36 All right. Did I hear you, Commissioner May? Is a second. Yes, sir.
1:22:40 Okay. That was a second by Commissioner May. All in favor?
1:22:44 I I I I chair votes I. That is also unanimous.
1:22:51 All right. So, that is uh item number three. Thank you folks for uh coming to talk about that. Um, we also have on our agenda discussion of non-aggenda items.
1:23:02 Item number four.
1:23:04 This is really on me. Um, so and and and this is what I was thinking about, so I apologize. Um, some time ago, you you
1:23:12 will recall we had the joint workshop with the city council and we were talking about checklists. We were talking about what you wanted to see as
1:23:20 part of the cup process, things like that. And so I upon your direction, the city council's direction, I started thinking about it, started working on
1:23:28 it. But then I really started agonizing about some of the things that I was working on and some of the changes that I and I wanted to present some of the
1:23:37 things I was encountering to you because if I have to agonize about the drafting, that means I really don't have proper direction and I don't want to substitute my direction or preferences for yours.
1:23:49 So, what I'd like to do is have a discussion about uh section 101-212
1:23:58 in our city code that talks about the criteria for how you assess conditional use permits. Now, I do this with the
1:24:05 caveat that of course we're right in the middle of a major review process. We we have great consultants. They're working
1:24:12 on the zoning code. They're working on the comp plan. Um, so this might end up being tossed out anyways within the next
1:24:20 six months, whatever we do uh here. But if you'll indulge me a little bit, I want to walk through some of the
1:24:27 thoughts I had on this section, but also some of my concerns and that are re relevant for I think how you consider
1:24:35 CUPs even today. Um, and without further ado, I'll jump in. So,
1:24:42 what you have in front of you um and is part of the agenda packet is kind of where I got in this process. Now, when we amend an ordinance, we have to strike
1:24:52 through the stuff we're taking out. We bold and underline the stuff that we're adding in. And I wasn't really um
1:24:59 looking at changing anything in subsection A or B. Those are wrote procedural things and it's really not
1:25:07 what any of us talked about. What we did talk about is subsections C and D. So in subsection C, when I started looking at
1:25:14 it, I said, I don't know why I would have language saying that the granting of the conditional use permit will not
1:25:23 adversely affect the comp plan because I don't know what that means. What I do know is if something violates it. So what I wanted to do was change something subjective that is capable of debate.
1:25:34 your definition of what adversely affects might be different from someone else's def but if it violates the comp plan that's objective so that to me that
1:25:41 was easy. Um then you look at number two u really there's no change there. Three
1:25:48 it says the proposed use will comply the old version is comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the codes for such use. Well that's your
1:25:56 land development code and again I'd rather it just simplify it. the proposed use will not violate the land development code that includes the
1:26:03 lighting that in it includes everything in your land development. So I think that's more objective. It includes more
1:26:11 than just uh the codes for such use. To me it's very clear and I eliminated I was thinking I felt like the direction I
1:26:19 had was to eliminate the proposed use may be considered desirable because it was so subjective. I thought that was
1:26:26 something we did discuss at the uh joint workshop. And the the issue with that if
1:26:33 we eliminate four is that your your next subsection uh D talking about specific
1:26:40 development standards really refers in part to that. So I I don't like how this
1:26:48 thing is organized because it gives you these three to think about in subsection C. The grant will not violate the comp
1:26:55 plan, will not violate violate the land development code, but also will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare. And to me, that's your
1:27:04 catchall. It's that one right there. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare.
1:27:10 That's when you get to consider pretty much anything. Um, so I don't I like keeping that and eliminating desirable
1:27:18 at the particular location because that's subsumed with your analysis about the health safety uh or general welfare
1:27:25 of persons residing or working in the vicinity. That's the way I look at it.
1:27:29 If you disagree, I'd like to know. But when we get even further, this is when I really start r getting into some some
1:27:36 issues. Um, so subsection one, density or intensity, character, and type of development. the density or intensity
1:27:44 shall be in conformance with the city's comp plan, future land use, future land use. The the reason why I struck through
1:27:52 that because I think we'll all agree density is important. You do want to consider density is it has to comply with the code anyways like to me it's a
1:28:00 completely redundant thing. So we already say that it has to satisfy the land development code. That's all this does is it really just says well it's it
1:28:08 has to you know be consistent with your land development code and comp plan.
1:28:12 Well, guess what? We already have that in the previous section. So, that's my thinking there. I don't want you all to think I've completely lost my mind. In
1:28:19 subsection two there, compatibility development, which I guess would become one. Um, I got I eliminated undo noise and order because those are nuisances.
1:28:29 So, if I'm keeping nuisance in there, I don't need to have these additional words. In subsection three, transportation, I listen to what y'all talked about. Emphasis on multimodal.
1:28:40 Talk about trails. talk about the future of the city's direction. We want to talk about how development satisfy these things. So that's why I integrated those
1:28:49 words. My real problems start arising in subsection um six. And
1:28:58 here's here's why. Site planning the development shall be planned and designed to consider A through H. Now,
1:29:07 we've had some back and forth over the last year and a half since I've been here about the degree to which you should be able to consider site plans.
1:29:17 And normally what I do is I'll interject and I'll say, well, actually site plan is a part of the criteria for the cup.
1:29:23 You're allowed to consider that. But look at that specific language. It doesn't actually give in my view um the
1:29:31 PNZ board or the city council for that matter discretion to consider those things. What it says is the development
1:29:39 shall be planned and designed to consider effectiveness of plotting orientation avoidance of sensitive areas.
1:29:48 If that what that says to me as a lawyer, okay, is if the site plan has a layout or orientation or uh visual re it
1:29:58 doesn't it just says it has to show these things. It doesn't exactly there's no discretion involved with that. And so then once I started
1:30:07 looking at this, I was like, I think we really have a problem with this code and and I want y'all to think about it and
1:30:14 talk to me about and consider it because um it would be an easy fix to say
1:30:21 uh you know the board or it shall be these these I could eliminate those words the development shall be planned
1:30:28 and designed to consider and instead say uh the following elements shall be considered by the board or um and that
1:30:37 would be an easy fix, but we still have look at the wording of this uh orientation of units. What the heck does
1:30:46 that mean? I mean, that could literally mean you don't like I mean, and maybe it's valid, but I mean, you you don't like the way it is facing the sun or not
1:30:54 facing the sun or and the more I start getting into this, the more I'm like, I think we really need to think about these a little bit
1:31:02 more if we're going to take the time to amend this thing. And I'm not trying to slow y'all down. I just I don't think
1:31:10 we're there on h have we spent enough time thinking about it. it might be that we need a workshop, but alternatively we
1:31:17 could talk about it today. So, this is just something I'm thinking about and I don't know if I'm making full sense. Um,
1:31:25 I hope I'm making sense, but those that's my thought process here and I wanted to talk to you about it. That's
1:31:31 it discussion. I mean, yeah, look, I'm going to be frank. All right.
1:31:42 This ain't going to be done overnight.
1:31:44 You know that and I know that and so does all the commissioners up here even hopefully commissioner to donor.
1:31:51 All right. Uh we could talk about it but this I I would like to suggest this is part one or have a workshop on it
1:31:59 because we're seven brains up here but last time we got a lot accomplished when the council was with us. So that's a
1:32:07 whole dozen brains thinking of something I didn't see. Paula,
1:32:13 David, and so on. Okay. So, that's my opinion. I really I'm not prepared to even deep dig into it, but I hope that the rest of you guys are.
1:32:24 And now you know where I'm coming from.
1:32:25 No, I I I'm in agreeance with you 100% counsel. Welcome to my world finally. Yeah.
1:32:31 Yeah. I really Everybody thought I was going crazy, but really it's wide open. And that's why they're saying you can't say that. Sure, I can. I I I think it's some
1:32:40 some great points and we don't have a full full compliment. Uh, Commissioner Sue is not not here tonight either, but but I think I think it would be good for
1:32:49 for a focused discussion and have all of us um, you know, think about it a little bit more either, you know, per per maybe
1:32:56 we we could start with a discussion at the end of the the next meeting and then, you know, if there's a lot but but
1:33:03 you know take take the the next month we have um or if you individually have thoughts in the meantime talk to me you know email
1:33:11 whatever it is if you don't feel comfortable creating the public record, just call me. You know what? But what I'm trying to get is so that y'all know
1:33:18 where I'm coming from and can start thinking about this so we can have that discussion. Okay. I I like that idea a lot.
1:33:24 Yeah. Well, thank you for Thank you for Yeah. I I appreciate I appreciate you
1:33:30 starting this. I appreciate you actually putting in under transportation, I think, including sidewalks, trails, multimotal paths, and all that good stuff.
1:33:40 Um, I think that is great. That's a great start, but I agree with everyone.
1:33:45 I mean, I was like, "Wow, there's a lot here to look at." So, um, Mr. Attorney, I appreciate you bringing this up and and and providing your comments on this.
1:33:57 So, thank you very much for this and I look forward to working on it.
1:34:00 Okay. Is everybody else um good with discussing it? Commissioner Hoisington, Commissioner Teddona, any any comments?
1:34:06 I do. So, thank you. Um, I like some of I like some of the wording. I like the strikeouts.
1:34:12 Um, when it came down and maybe I'm taking this to the nth power. It's not the time to do it, but I got the microphone. Um,
1:34:22 compatibility of development. The first thing that reared in my head was this has got to be worthy of a fight against
1:34:30 SB 399 because 399 basically says we cannot deny anything based on how it
1:34:39 impacts a property. So you you you're going to wind up and I respect you incredibly. You're going to wind up with a fight on your hands when it come down
1:34:48 to transportation. I love it. I love what you made. But John taking it to the nth power with section six on site planning.
1:34:59 Does that give us the ability to also say that an HOA or a development needs
1:35:06 to be wider so that for public safety if I park on the street and you park on the
1:35:13 street, we can get a bus down to grandma's house who's having the heart attack. So again, you got a a huge fight
1:35:21 on your hands and I'm I'm happy to give you I'm not going to be here next month, but I'm happy to email you some thoughts and you could share it with them. You
1:35:28 have my permission if that's what you need. But if this gives us the ability to at least respond
1:35:37 to how we think a development should go together, I'm all for it. with the caveat and I'm I'm saying you because
1:35:46 you're the guy you got to be ready to fight 180 840 and 399 with the potential of this document
1:35:56 and that's a bigger problem we're just that is a huge problem all this comp plan stuff we're doing I mean is it all for not because of SB
1:36:04 correct but you you pointed something out that I I want before I forget look at the language in section three versus
1:36:11 your site planning in section Three, it says whatever we end up the city transportation system must be of sufficient size. That's a standard.
1:36:22 Okay, that like that's something because then you come at a hearing and you review something and say, "Well, you know what? I don't think it is wide enough to handle the emergency vehicles
1:36:31 or the bus or whatever." So, yes, I think that encompasses that, but I don't get that in section six. It just says it shall be planned and designed to
1:36:39 consider. We've got to change that because you've got to provide some kind of standard to judge these things by.
1:36:46 Well, I I think I think because of overdevelopment, it's just my opinion, we're beyond, to your point, considering
1:36:54 somewhere along the line, we're going to have to put a foot down to say you just can't keep building the way you're building. So, and again, I I I raised
1:37:03 this up at the workshop that anything DPZ is doing, which is awesome stuff, okay? But the bottom line is if it
1:37:12 doesn't hold up in court, and I'm sorry for the redundancy against 8418399, we should get our money back because
1:37:20 then it's all for N. So, yeah, if this gives us the ability, maybe not to be a nudge to say your house should be facing
1:37:29 northwest at 68° on an angle, but if all of a sudden I would rather see a
1:37:37 sidewalk throughout an HOA, so, you know, my mom can can take a walk as
1:37:44 opposed to having to cross the street onto grass, off the grass, and so on and so forth, then yes. And th those will be
1:37:51 in my notes. I'm sorry for being verbose, but kudos to you, city attorney. Thank you.
1:37:57 Commissioner Hoisington, do you have anything you want to Okay, Commissioner Kramer. Okay. All right. Well, um, that sounds great.
1:38:04 Thank you for bringing it to our our attention. We appreciate that very much.
1:38:07 I just had one other non non-aggenda item I wanted to bring up that um I I did receive um from the the um Florida
1:38:16 State um Commission on Ethics, the Form One Compliance. Um hopefully everybody got that, but I just did want to bring
1:38:24 that up. It it came through the the states made it a lot easier than than it used to be. You can just go online and do it electronically. I used to have to
1:38:32 bring it up to the supervisor of elections and get it dates stamped and and the whole thing. But uh I just I just wanted to mention it because that that notice um recently went out and non-compliance is a fine of $25 a day.
1:38:44 And um that's a lot more than we make for sitting up here.
1:38:50 Um, so, um, just wanted to to bring that up and make make sure everybody, um, was aware of that. That's July 1st.
1:38:57 July July 1st, it says on on or before July one was supposed to tell us this. And um
1:39:05 yeah, it it looks like the fine the yeah and looks like fines kick in on on September one, but it but it does say
1:39:13 that um it there is a grace period till September, but let's not even think about that. It's July 1.
1:39:20 Yeah. Yeah. So it's it's very very easy to um to to fill out now that it's it's electronic. But I just wanted to to bring that up. So, and and I have to say
1:39:29 city staff is always great that if if uh if ever anyone forgets, they they do notify, but um but I just um since it
1:39:37 was uh in my email, I I just wanted to mention that. So, um does anybody else
1:39:42 have anything? Um all right. Um so, uh nothing else on the agenda. Can I have a motion to adjurnn?
1:39:52 Motion to adjurnn.
1:39:53 And I'll second. All right. We are adjourned. Sorry.