Planning commission recommends approval of 20‑unit Lake Haven on Grand condominium project

The City of Clermont Planning & Zoning Commission on Oct. 7 voted 5‑0 to recommend City Council approval of a conditional use permit for a 20‑unit condominium development — Lake Haven on Grand — on parcels east of South Grand Highway and north of State Road 50.

Staff said the proposed development is consistent with the property’s R‑2 medium‑density residential future land‑use designation and the Artune zoning district. "Staff recommends approval of conditional use permit resolution number 20 25 dash 0 2 6 R," Planning staff member Nick Gonzales told commissioners during the presentation.

The commission’s recommendation included two conditions appended to the motion: a prohibition on on‑street parking within the development and a requirement that trash removal be handled through a centralized dumpster area rather than individual curbside cans. Commissioner Kramer made the motion to recommend approval with those conditions; Commissioner May seconded. The commission voted 5‑0 in favor.

Why it matters: The project is being treated as infill development on a parcel the city says is appropriate for multifamily uses. Commissioners focused on site‑design details that will affect residents’ safety and long‑term neighborhood maintenance: parking sufficiency, ADA access, waste handling and access for emergency vehicles.

Staff presentation and applicant response

Nick Gonzales of Development Services said the site is designated "high density residential" under the city’s future land‑use plan and that no variances were requested. He described the proposal as a 20‑unit condominium development that “will serve as a compatible transition between existing single family neighborhoods and commercial corridors.”

Applicant Joe Zagame said the plans had been updated to show units and that a member of his engineering team would address technical questions.

Commissioners’ questions and clarifications

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff for practical details. Commissioner Tadona asked whether units would be two‑ or three‑bedroom; the applicant said a final decision had not been made and they would be either two or three bedrooms. Commissioner May noted that parking requirements differ by bedroom count and that the plan shows 50 parking spaces total — 20 garage spaces, 20 driveway spaces and 10 guest spaces — which staff said meets the 2.5‑spaces‑per‑three‑bedroom maximum the plan might require.

Engineer Julian Quintana said the site’s roadway width is 24 feet and that parking stalls are 10 by 20 feet, standard city dimensions. Staff confirmed that Americans with Disabilities Act parking and other details will be addressed during site‑plan review. On trash, staff said multi‑family developments are typically required to provide an enclosure, but as a fee‑simple condominium the units could have individual carts; staff and applicant agreed a centralized enclosure would be appropriate for the site.

Fire and emergency access

Commissioners asked whether a secondary egress was required. Staff said a secondary egress requirement typically applies when a project reaches 25 units; at 20 units the site met the threshold for review and the fire department indicated it was acceptable at the conceptual stage.

Ownership, rentals and HOA

The applicant confirmed the project will be fee‑simple condominium units subject to a homeowners association. The owner may choose to lease some units, the applicant said; the commission noted condo bylaws could restrict short‑term rentals but that such restrictions are a matter for the HOA and not city code.

Next steps

Because the commission recommended approval, the conditional use permit will move to City Council for final action. Staff noted the item is a resolution and would be scheduled for a single council reading after the applicant and staff finalize site‑plan details.

Ending

Commissioners said the design changes and added conditions addressed their primary concerns and would allow the council to consider the project with more detailed site‑plan review to follow.