City of Mount Dora Planning and Zoning Commission — July 16, 2025

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (7 of 7 members present — full board) Duration: 10:00 AM – 12:55 PM (2 hours 55 minutes) Location: City Hall Board Room, 510 North Baker Street

Attendance

• Present: Chairman Miles Beach, Adrian Coombes, Barbara Tietmeyer, Tom Dring, Harris Turner, Andrea Lother, Suzanne Scheck
• Absent: None
• Staff Present: Michele Janiszewski, Senior Planner; Ryan Winkler, Senior Planner; Whitney Scott, Administrative Coordinator; Andrew Hand, City Attorney

Prior minutes: none approved. Staff stated the June 18, 2025 minutes would be provided at the August 20, 2025 meeting.

Procedural note: In public comment, Hand stated that minutes must be taken of public hearings but an audio recording is not required, and there is no required time frame in which minutes must be completed.

Agenda Items

Item 1: Sara T Rhodes Life Estate — Variance (VAR25-01)

• Type: Variance
• Case Number: VAR25-01
• Location: 410 N Tremain Street
• Applicant: Sara T Rhodes Life Estate (owner); Eco Construction Group LLC (applicant)
• Request: Variance to reduce setbacks to allow replacement of an existing carport and accessory building with a new garage, accessory building, and breezeway in the previous footprints.
• Current Zoning: [not stated in the minutes]
• Proposed Zoning: N/A
• Acreage: [not available]
• Staff Recommendation: Inconsistent — staff found the application inconsistent with Land Development Code Section 2.1(6), the standards established to authorize a variance
• Action: Tabled to the next meeting
• Vote: 7-0 — FOR: Beach, Coombes, Tietmeyer, Dring, Turner, Lother, Scheck. AGAINST: none. (Moved Coombes, seconded Dring.)
• Conditions: The board indicated it needed a clear idea of the variance request and recommended the applicant bring the application back to staff.
• Notable Discussion:
  • Hand swore in staff and anyone present intending to testify. The board disclosed no ex parte communications.
  • Lisa Smith (Eco Construction) argued the structures are existing and the variance would let the proposed garage use the existing concrete footprint, saving construction costs, and that several Tremain Street properties have accessory structures with similar reduced setbacks.
  • Tracey Rhodes (owner) testified the shed is falling down and needs rebuilding, and cited other non-conforming structures along Tremain including the house at 3rd and Tremain.
  • Scheck disclosed on the record that she owns the property at 3rd and Tremain, and stated the detached garage under construction there meets the five-foot setback requirement.
  • The board raised stormwater runoff. Rhodes said all eaves and flat surfaces will be guttered.
  • Janiszewski said she could not confirm what the setback would have been in the 1940s or whether the structures obtained building permits; both are non-conforming, may be maintained but not expanded, and if removed, replacements must meet current regulations. Interior alterations and regular maintenance do not require a variance.
  • The applicants clarified they intend to remove the carport and accessory building and construct a garage and new accessory building in the previous footprints. Rhodes submitted a photograph for the record (Exhibit A).
  • The board asked staff whether other existing accessory structures are non-compliant with setbacks; Janiszewski said not to her knowledge.
  • Asked the purpose of the proposed shed, the owner said they would ideally like an extra bedroom.
  • Mid-hearing, the applicant sought to revise the request to drop the breezeway and accessory building components. The board discussed partial approval and separate applications, then tabled.

Item 2: 2100 Smith Avenue — Small-Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment (FLUM25-02)

• Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (small-scale FLUM)
• Case Number: FLUM25-02
• Location: 2100 Smith Avenue — a former borrow pit
• Applicant: Lindsley Paving Company (owner and applicant)
• Request: Small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment, subject to annexation, to bring the parcel into the City so it can be developed with the applicant's adjoining, already-in-City property.
• Current Zoning: County LM (see Item 3)
• Proposed Zoning: N/A (land use item)
• Acreage: [not available]
• Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions; approval subject to annexation
• Action: Recommended for approval to City Council — found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
• Vote: 7-0 — FOR: Beach, Coombes, Tietmeyer, Dring, Turner, Lother, Scheck. AGAINST: none. (Moved Coombes, seconded Scheck.)
• Conditions: Subject to annexation
• Notable Discussion:
  • Steve Young of Civil Design Solutions testified they want to develop the property as a whole and must annex the subject parcel since the adjoining property is already in the City. A future site plan would encompass the entire holding, and the former borrow pit would be redeveloped into a retention pond. Conceptual plans show warehouses.
  • Karen Carver, a nearby resident, opposed. She said dump trucks coming through her subdivision would cause pot holes, nails, and road damage; that Center Street and Smith Avenue are self-maintained roads not made for that traffic; and that the roads are not capable of supporting the proposed use.
  • The board asked whether the site had been inspected. Janiszewski said she had not completed an inspection. The application went to DRC and staff received no comments or objections. The board recommended staff begin doing inspections in conjunction with annexation applications and said they'd like to see more information from the city. Janiszewski offered to inspect but said it would not change the staff recommendation.
  • Hand's response is notable: "Staff would be trespassing and it would be an atypical request" — if there are violations, the city can proceed with code enforcement. He reiterated annexation is City Council's purview and the P&Z considers the land use and zoning change.
  • General consensus on the dais that county zoning and city zoning are essentially the same with different names.
  • Discussion of whether the borrow pit is still operating and whether current work on the property violates the code.

Item 3: 2100 Smith Avenue — Rezoning (Z25-01)

• Type: Rezoning
• Case Number: Z25-01
• Location: 2100 Smith Avenue
• Applicant: Lindsley Paving Company (owner and applicant)
• Request: Rezone from County LM to City WP-1.
• Current Zoning: County LM
• Proposed Zoning: City WP-1
• Acreage: [not available]
• Staff Recommendation: Approve, subject to adoption of the annexation and FLUM amendment and receipt of a Traffic Impact Analysis prior to filing of the Site Plan
• Action: Recommended for approval to City Council — found consistent with the comprehensive plan
• Vote: 7-0 — FOR: Beach, Coombes, Tietmeyer, Dring, Turner, Lother, Scheck. AGAINST: none. (Moved Coombes, seconded Scheck.)
• Conditions: Subject to annexation and FLUM adoption; Traffic Impact Analysis required prior to site plan filing
• Notable Discussion: Taken with Item 2; no separate discussion recorded.

Item 4: Hillside at Mount Dora — Small-Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment (FLUM25-01)

• Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (small-scale FLUM)
• Case Number: FLUM25-01
• Location: 2329 Smith Avenue
• Applicant: KB Home Orlando, LLC (owner and applicant)
• Request: Small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment, subject to annexation.
• Current Zoning: County PUD (see Item 5)
• Proposed Zoning: N/A (land use item)
• Acreage: [not available]
• Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions; approval subject to annexation
• Action: Recommended for approval to City Council — found consistent with the comprehensive plan
• Vote: 7-0 — FOR: Beach, Coombes, Tietmeyer, Dring, Turner, Lother, Scheck. AGAINST: none. (Moved Coombes, seconded Scheck.)
• Conditions: Subject to annexation
• Notable Discussion:
  • Steven White, applicant, stated the plat was recorded with Lake County the previous day, and that no building permits had been pulled at that point.
  • Impact fees turn on jurisdiction of permitting. Janiszewski: the recipient depends on which jurisdiction issues the permits; once annexed, permits are pulled in the City and the City receives the impact fees. She said wastewater is paid to the city regardless because the project is connected to the central system, and noted the project is already vested for wastewater capacity.
  • Discussion of impact fees, schools, landscaping, tree bank fees, subdivision infrastructure, and subdivision status.
  • KB Home will be the sole developer of the subdivision.

Item 5: Hillside at Mount Dora — Rezoning from County PUD to City PUD (PUD25-01)

• Type: Rezoning / PUD
• Case Number: PUD25-01
• Location: 2329 Smith Avenue
• Applicant: KB Home Orlando, LLC (owner and applicant)
• Request: Change zoning from County PUD to City PUD.
• Current Zoning: County PUD
• Proposed Zoning: City PUD
• Acreage: [not available]
• Staff Recommendation: Approve, subject to annexation and FLUM amendment, and Traffic Impact Analysis prior to filing of the Site Plan
• Action: Recommended for approval to City Council — found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
• Vote: 7-0 — FOR: Beach, Coombes, Tietmeyer, Dring, Turner, Lother, Scheck. AGAINST: none. (Moved Tietmeyer, seconded Scheck.)
• Conditions: Subject to annexation and FLUM amendment; Traffic Impact Analysis prior to site plan filing
• Notable Discussion: Taken with Item 4.

Item 6: TownePlace Suites — Site Plan Extension (SP22-08 & SP23-12Minor)

• Type: Site Plan extension
• Case Number: SP22-08 and SP23-12Minor
• Location: 2905 JW Simpson Way
• Applicant: Jayesh Patel
• Request: One-year extension of the TownePlace Suites site plan.
• Staff Recommendation: Approve the one-year extension
• Action: Approved
• Vote: 7-0 — FOR: Beach, Coombes, Tietmeyer, Dring, Turner, Lother, Scheck. AGAINST: none. (Moved Scheck, seconded Turner.)
• Conditions: None recorded
• Notable Discussion:
  • Patel said TownePlace Suites is releasing a new prototype in October, which is the reason for the extension. The prototype uses the same footprint but changes aesthetics, reduces the number of rooms, and is more eco-friendly.
  • The board expressed concerns about keeping the property in better shape. Patel said he would send a landscaper to maintain it.

Item 7: JPA Agreement — Discussion and Recommendation

• Type: Other (interlocal agreement; advisory recommendation to City Council)
• Case Number: N/A
• Location: The Mount Dora / Lake County joint planning area
• Applicant: City of Mount Dora / Lake County
• Request: Returned to the board at staff's direction as an informational item; Janiszewski stated no action was required by the commission.
• Staff Recommendation: None — informational
• Action: The board acted anyway, forwarding a ten-item list of issues to City Council for consideration prior to adopting the JPA
• Vote: 7-0 — FOR: Beach, Coombes, Tietmeyer, Dring, Turner, Lother, Scheck. AGAINST: none. (Moved Turner, seconded Scheck.)
• Conditions: The motion forwards the following issues "to be considered by the City Council prior to adopting the JPA, to ensure the adoption of a responsible JPA which the City can afford":
  1. Conduct a full financial cost-benefit analysis weighing development revenues against costs of City-provided services required to support future annexations — utilities (in particular wastewater), police, fire, road maintenance, etc.
  2. Assess whether a portion of the County gas tax be provided to the City once road segments are annexed.
  3. JPA should not be auto-renewed; should be reevaluated after 4 years.
  4. Accountability for services sent to other jurisdictions (mutual aid agreement for PD and FD).
  5. Review of streets to be transferred to the City.
  6. Transfer of roads from County to City when 50% within the City should be 60/40 or higher — "maybe when the City has 100% of the property, the road should be annexed."
  7. City Council consider ways to ensure the enforcement of the JPA.
  8. Consider adding conservation measures to the JPA.
  9. Look at public transportation impacts.
  10. Development timeline of incoming costs.
• Notable Discussion: Discussion covered the JPA, future annexations, growth of the City, history of the Mount Dora Groves project, impact fees, costs of new development, concurrency, city utilities, mutual aid repayment, and cost analysis of annexing properties. Board members reiterated concerns on road maintenance costs, wastewater capacity, groundwater impacts, automatic renewal, public facilities, and the need for a JPA.

Public Hearings Summary

• Number of speakers: 1 member of the public — Karen Carver, opposing the 2100 Smith Avenue land use amendment. Applicant-side testimony from Robert "Bobby" P. Rhodes, Lisa Smith, Tracey Rhodes, Steve Young, Steven White, and Jayesh Patel.
• General sentiment: Mixed. No public opposition to the KB Home items, the hotel extension, or the variance. One neighbor opposed the Lindsley Paving annexation package on road-condition grounds.
• Key concerns: Heavy truck traffic on self-maintained residential roads (Center Street, Smith Avenue); whether the borrow pit site had been inspected before staff recommended approval; stormwater runoff from the Tremain Street variance.

Key Signals

• Mount Dora annexed its way to a warehouse district and a KB Home subdivision in one morning, both 7-0, both conditioned on a traffic study that arrives later. Smith Avenue picked up a County-LM-to-City-WP-1 rezoning for Lindsley Paving with warehouses on the concept plan, and 2329 Smith Avenue picked up a County-PUD-to-City-PUD conversion for KB Home. Both recommendations require a Traffic Impact Analysis prior to site plan filing — meaning the entitlement moves first and the traffic evidence follows. For anyone on Smith Avenue, the land use question is now settled and the traffic question is not.

• KB Home recorded its plat with Lake County the day before asking Mount Dora to annex it. That sequencing is the whole play: plat under county rules, then annex for city services and city permitting. Janiszewski confirmed the City collects the impact fees only once permits are pulled in the City — and that Hillside is already vested for wastewater capacity, which in a city with an overcommitted Plant 2 is the scarcest thing a residential project can own.

• The board asked staff to inspect properties before recommending annexation, and the City Attorney said that would be trespassing. Karen Carver's testimony about dump trucks on self-maintained roads collided with the fact that staff had never visited the site and DRC had raised no objection. Hand's answer — inspection is atypical, code enforcement is the remedy — draws the line Mount Dora will apply to every future annexation: land use recommendations are made on paper, and conditions on the ground are somebody else's process.

• The commission was told the JPA needed no action from it and passed a ten-point ultimatum anyway. Having already voted 7-0 in June that the agreement should not be considered without a cost-benefit analysis, the board returned in July and itemized: county gas tax sharing, no auto-renewal, reevaluation at four years, a 60/40 or higher road-transfer trigger instead of 50%, mutual-aid accountability, enforcement mechanisms, conservation measures, transit impacts, and a timeline of incoming costs. This is an advisory board legislating from the advisory seat, twice, on the record.

• July 2025 is where Mount Dora's minutes start recording roll-call votes. Every motion on this agenda carries a named FOR/AGAINST list and a stated tally. Prior meetings recorded movers and seconds but often no count. The documentary record of who voted for what in Mount Dora begins here — which matters for anyone reconstructing accountability on decisions made earlier in 2025.

• A commissioner disclosed she owns the comparison property the applicant was citing. Scheck stated on the record that she owns 3rd and Tremain — the property the applicant offered as evidence of neighborhood non-conformity — and corrected the record that her detached garage meets the five-foot setback. She did not recuse; the item was tabled 7-0. Small-city boards run on proximity, and this is what disclosure looks like when it works.

Raw Notes

• Source provenance: Standalone minutes retrieved as CivicClerk file ID 6154 (event ID 2031, agendaId 1213). The published PDF is a scanned image of the signed original and required OCR.
• These minutes were amended at the August 20, 2025 meeting: Turner noted that on the last page, the motion for the joint committee item was attributed to "Mr. Harris" and should read "Mr. Turner" for consistency; Beach made the edit before the minutes were approved 7-0. The signed copy harvested here carries the JPA motion as "MOTION by TURNER."
• OCR limitation: items 9 and 10 of the JPA motion list are partially garbled in the scanned original ("Look at Public Transportation Impacts" / "Development timeline of incoming costs" appear with stray characters and displaced numbering). The ten items are rendered above as they read; the numbering of items 9 and 10 is reconstructed from position, not from a clean scan.
• The agenda for this meeting listed the JPA item as "Request for Discussion & Recommendation; JPA Agreement" (item V.G).
• The agenda-packet file for this meeting (CivicClerk file ID 6095) is misnamed "July 26, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting"; the meeting date is July 16, 2025.
• Adjournment 12:55 PM, moved Coombes, seconded Tietmeyer. Attested by Whitney Scott, Associate Planner; signed by Chairman Miles Beach.