The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, at 8:45 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Rhonda Gerber; and Welton Cadwell. School Board members present: Judy Pearson. School Board members not present: Sandra Green. Others present were: Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
The Value Adjustment Board (VAB) was called to order by Commr. Swartz.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of September 29, 1993, with the following corrections being made:
Page 1, Line 29 - Amend: "sent" to "given"
Page 1, Line 31 - Insert: "be provided to the Property Appraiser no later than..."
Page 7, Line 23 - Attention was brought to the term agricultural exemption, with it being noted that agriculture is a classification, and therefore, the minutes would reflect clarification, as follows: agricultural classification (referred herein as agricultural exemption).
Page 8, Line 30 - Insert: "a Deputy of"
Discussion occurred regarding Page 11, Line 7, with Mr. Havill requesting that the following language be added in the record under Recess & Reassembly:
Insert: "Because there was only one School Board Member present, and she had to go to the ladies room,..."
Commr. Swartz explained that he did not feel this language was needed in the record, due to the number of recesses that the Board takes for different reasons, and, at the beginning of the minutes, it reflects the School Board members that were present and not present at the meeting.
Mr. Havill stated that the hearings were delayed from time to time, because the School Board member needed to leave, and at least one School Board member was needed, in order for the meetings to continue. Mr. Havill agreed to leave the proposed language out of the minutes, but requested a record of today's hearing.
Discussion continued regarding the Minutes of September 29, 1993, with the following corrections being made:
Page 1, Line 15 - Insert: "one"
Page 17, Lines 17-18 - Strike: "upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and"
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the VAB approved the Minutes of September 29, 1993, as corrected.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of September 30, 1993, with the following corrections being made:
Page 3, Line 20 - Amend: "at" to "with"
Page 8, Line 30 - Amend: "Eustis" to "Leesburg"
Page 31, Line 14 - Strike: "at"
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB approved the Minutes of September 30, 1993, as corrected.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of October 1, 1993, with the following corrections being made:
Page 7, Line 3 - Amend: "to" to "by"
Page 17, Lines 32-33 - Amend: "assessment from two three fixture bathrooms to a one three fixture bathroom and a one two fixture bathroom"
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by School Board Member Pearson and carried unanimously, the VAB approved the Minutes of October 1, 1993, as amended.
The following information was entered into the record from the Certificates of the Value Adjustment Board:
Tangible Personal Property $692,045,241.00
(no change)
Real Property $3,825,096,856.00
(reduced by $1,717,626.00)
Commr. Swartz suggested that next year Mr. Havill include in his memorandum, which he provides to the people, some underlining of wording, or additional language, that specifically says, if the information is not provided within five days, it cannot be considered by the Value Adjustment Board.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR\BOARDMIN\10-26-93\10-28-93
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
ZONING/ORDINANCES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the Board had before them a request to hear Tab 1, the abandonment of Sunchase Development of Regional Impact (DRI), after zoning case #91A-86-3 Greater Lakes PUD Thousand Trails, Inc. (FKA Sunchase).
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, addressed the Board and stated he has provided the Board with the revisions that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) requested be included in the proposed ordinance to abandon the Development Order for the Sunchase DRI. He directed the Board's attention to Page 4, and the following language that had been included:
5. "No disturbance of any gopher tortoises located on the Property or development of any area designated for upland conservation on Map H of the Development Order shall occur...."
Mr. Stubbs explained that the applicant has a concern with the Board abandoning the DRI, if, in fact, the Board chooses not to take favorable action on the Greater Lakes PUD, and, therefore, the applicant is requesting that a presentation be made on the PUD, as well as the abandonment, with the Board hearing the requests in this particular order. Mr. Stubbs noted that the DRI abandonment had been executed in accordance with 9J-2 of the Administrative Code.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, explained that this would be an appropriate procedure for the Board to take regarding the hearing on both issues.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and clarified the request being made to the Board. He stated that he would like the Board to hear the DRI abandonment, at this time, along with the PUD, which is on the zoning agenda, because both have been advertised for 9 a.m.
At this time, the Deputy Clerk administered the oath to the following staff members: Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting; John Brock, Senior Director, Department of Planning and Development Services; Paula Blazer, Environmental Programs Branch Supervisor; and Al Hewitt, Water Resource Specialist.
PETITION #91A-86-3 Abandon Sunchase DRI Ordinance 1990-11
and Change Use of Existing PUD Ordinance #36-86 -
Thousand Trails - c/o B. J. Thomas
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, explained that the case before the Board is a request for a revision to the existing PUD Ordinance, which was approved for the Sunchase Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Mr. Stubbs stated that Sunchase was primarily a recreational vehicle park and resort plan for a 504 acre site in the south Lake County area. He stated that this request was taken to the Technical Review Committee (TRC), and an extensive review was made on the changes being proposed. The TRC recommended approval, as well as the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission. It was reviewed in accordance with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and upon the abandonment of the DRI, staff is requesting that conditions be consistent with the two documents. The applicant is proposing a development to consist of 709 permanent single-family residential units, at a density of 1.41 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Stubbs stated that this is a considerable reduction from what was approved for Sunchase. Mr. Stubbs stated that there was a concern from staff over the ingress and egress to Highway 27, and the applicant has worked with Public Services to negate this concern.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Board can make the abandonment conditioned upon the adoption of a PUD, or the PUD conditioned upon the abandonment of the DRI.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that he is requesting an amendment to the PUD, which would then take his applicant under the DRI threshold, which would allow the Board to abandon the DRI. Mr. Stubbs reviewed with the Board the following changes made in the ordinance:
Page 2, A. FINDINGS OF FACT
5. (Added) The development proposed for the
Property upon the abandonment of the
Development Order consists of 709 single
family residential units, a retail shopping
center containing 120,000 square feet,
a recreation component containing
approximately 7.5 acres, and approximately
250 acres designated for lakes and
uplands/wetlands preservation, all as
more particularly described in the
Application (the "Proposed Development").
6. (Correction) ...approximately 186 plus/minus
acre wetland/upland area...
Page 3, B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3. (Amended) Within 90 days....
5. (Added) ...or development of any area
designated for upland conservation on
Map H of the Development shall occur...
Mr. Stubbs discussed the requested waivers, which appeared in Section A, Pages 9-10, of the backup zoning material. It was noted that B, C, and D did not require a variance.
Discussion occurred regarding Section C, Page 5, Paragraph D. of the DRI Order.
Ms. Paula Blazer, Environmental Programs Supervisor, appeared before the Board and stated that she performed a field review, and the indications reflect that the open space and preservation requirements are sufficient.
Commr. Swartz stated that he has reviewed the old map of the land classifications from Sunchase, and the old development plan, and that there are two areas that have been identified as xeriscape and fresh water marsh, which now appear to be in areas that are designated residential development. He stated that, if the Board abandons Sunchase, he wants to make sure that the environmental protections and requirements, that were in the original Development Order, remain in the new PUD. Commr. Swartz addressed other requirements for shorelines, buffers, on-site wetland systems, and the additional requirements, because of the nature of the stormwater system, which were placed in the original Development Order.
Commr. Hanson stated that, in view of the decreased intensity and density in the location, the Board needs to determine whether it is necessary to have the same requirements, as in the original DRI.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, stated that he would like to have Mr. Eddie Frances, Attorney, put into perspective the abandonment of the Sunchase DRI, and have the development team discuss the new proposed amendment to the PUD.
Mr. Eddie Frances, Attorney, Orlando, appeared before the Board discussed the development of the ordinance, and stated that the couple of items proposed by DCA were included in the proposed ordinance. At this time, Mr. Francis explained each item listed under the Conclusions of Law.
Ms. Blazer addressed the Board and stated that, in the application for the abandonment of the DRI dated July, 1993, it reveals that the applicants are going to develop previously proposed areas for preservation. At this time, she reviewed the information on Page 6 of the application regarding the development of acreage.
The Deputy Clerk administered the oath to the following experts representing the applicant: Mr. Bob Mandell, Mr. Jim Bible, Mr. Steve Adams, and Mr. Bill Kercher.
Mr. Jim Bible, Greater Construction, appeared before the Board to discuss the proposed amendment to the PUD, and its relationship to the existing Development Order that is being abandoned. Mr. Bible discussed the location of the Sunchase development, which consists of approximately 504 acres, of which 250 acres are being left in the preservation of the conservation area. In comparison, the Sunchase PUD DRI was approved for 2,000 units, 1,700 RV units, and 300 multi-family units. Mr. Bible explained the location of the units, and stated that, instead of the 2,000 units, Greater Lakes is proposing 709 residential units. The Sunchase PUD was approved for 120,000-140,000 square feet of commercial, and Greater Lakes is proposing 120,000 square feet of commercial on 12 acres. Mr. Bible discussed the access that is being proposed, and stated that Greater Lakes is proposing that the golf course, a sewer plant, and a water plant not be developed on the property. He stated that central water and sewer will be proposed from a utility company. Mr. Bible stated that a traffic study was performed, which was given to staff, and that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has reviewed it and issued a letter stating that they have no objections to the abandonment of the Sunchase DRI, because the Greater Lakes will establish less traffic on US 27 and surrounding roads. Mr. Bible stated that the DCA concerns were included in the Development Order. He further stated that the Greater Lakes development substantially reduces the density on the acreage to 1.4 units per acre. It is an urban expansion land use that allows 1-4 units per acre, and it has received unanimous approval from the P & Z Commission and TRC.
Mr. Steve Adams, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board and addressed the environmental issues of the project. Mr. Adams used graphic drawings of the original Sunchase development to explain the environmental impacts that will be eliminated, and stated that the protection guidelines are there.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether there would be a problem in limiting the stormwater management systems within the buffers to ten percent (10%), because otherwise the buffers around the wetlands will become stormwater retention.
Mr. Richey responded by suggesting that the applicant will meet the code, and not ask for any variances, and will live with the St. Johns requirements.
Mr. Adams explained that, from an overall biological perspective, the Greater Lakes development provides a better plan.
The Board reviewed Section A, Pages 9-11, Requested Waivers, with the following action being taken:
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following Department Response: (A) - Cul-de-sac length from 1,320 to 1,450 ft. in length.
It was noted that there was no action necessary on items B, C and D, because no variance was required.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following Department Response: (E) - The developer may provide the County a performance bond for sodding stipulating that sodding will be provided at the time of home/commercial development instead of requiring during development that a sod strip be placed along the pavement edge and that sodding of right-of-way where grades exceed 3% be provided. However, prior to acceptance of the street by Lake County and prior to the release of the maintenance bond and assumption of the release of the maintenance bond and assumption of maintenance by Lake County, the pavement edge and the right-of-way where grades exceed 3% shall be sodded.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, on Page 9, IV. Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU), the Board re-establish language that has been in the previous Development Orders, because the language is appropriate.
Mr. Richey commented on the wording being proposed, and stated that the MSBU will be limited to those things that the applicant has historically used, such as street lighting, stormwater and recreation. The only PUDs that have had the additional wording were the rural village PUDs, which were the two that Mr. Richey brought to the attention of the Board.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels the language being proposed by staff is adequate, as follows: The developer, at the County's discretion, will provide a MSBU (Municipal Service Benefit Unit).
Commr. Swartz stated that the language, which has been struck through, is consistent with what the Board has been doing with developments, and it assures that those services that are demanded and needed, and cause a cost to the taxpayers, be born in these MSBUs, rather than going through a higher cost to all of the taxpayers.
Discussion occurred regarding the action that the Board would take, at a later time, to impose the MSBU for services, when the need arises.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the following: Section A, Page 9, IV. The developer, at the County's discretion, will provide a MSBU (Municipal Service Benefit Unit).
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would like the MSBU brought back to the Board before the houses are in the ground.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff look at Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and law enforcement issues, in order to be prepared to deal with these issues in the future.
Commr. Hanson stated that she supports the change to the PUD, because it meets the Lake County codes, St. Johns' codes, and DCA's concerns. She stated that the density has dropped, and the project will have less impact on the environment.
Commr. Bailey commended the experts representing the applicant, along with County staff, for the presentation made today, which made for very good planning.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve #91A-86-3, amending the Sunchase PUD Ordinance, with the amendments and waivers.
Commr. Swartz stated that he will vote in favor of the motion primarily because of the changes that were placed in the abandonment ordinance, which reinstates the significant parts of the original DRI. He further stated that he does feel the Board is making a mistake by putting 12 acres and 120,000 square feet of commercial on US 27, but this is essentially the same as what was proposed for Sunchase.
The Chairman called for a vote, with the motion being carried unanimously.
Commr. Swartz called for public comment on the ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1990-11, to abandon the Development Order for the Sunchase Development of Regional Impact.
Mr. Hoban requested that the Board's motion on the ordinance be subject to final approval by the County Attorney's Office.
There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Ordinance 1993-17, as follows by title only, subject to final review by the County Attorney's Office:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.1990-11, TO ABANDON
THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE SUNCHASE DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT, ALL IN RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION FOR
ABANDONMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR THE SUNCHASE
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
ADDENDUM NO.1 - PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
GRANTS/COMMITTEES/STATE AGENCIES
Commr. Swartz, called for public comment on Lake County's Application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, stated for the record that the public hearing has been duly advertised and noticed.
There being no public comment, Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that there would be a second public hearing on this issue.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the request for Road Vacation Petition No. 729, by Neil Britt, President, Gourd Neck Springs, Inc., runs concurrently with the final plat approval of Gourd Neck Springs. Mr. Wahl stated that, after conversing with Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, it has been noted that the plat needs to be approved prior to the vacation petition.
Commr. Swartz called for public comment on the request for final plat approval of Gourd Neck Springs. It was noted that no one present wished to address this issue.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Final Plat of Gourd Neck Springs.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
ROAD VACATIONS/PUBLIC SERVICES
PETITION no 729 - Gourd Neck Springs, Inc. - Montverde
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board.
No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 729, by Neil Britt, President, Gourd Neck Springs, Inc., to vacate right-of-ways and easements, Sec. 23 and 24, Twp. 22, Rge. 26, Nearest Town - Montverde, Commissioner District 2, as advertised.
It was noted that the motion included the acceptance of the deed between the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Lake County, as recommended by staff.
PETITION NO. 734 - W.B.B. Utilities, Inc. - Fruitland Park
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board.
No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 734, by Richard E. Bair, President, W.B.B. Utilities, Inc., to vacate road (Bair Ave.), Lake Idlewild Estates, Sec. 35, Twp. 18, Rge. 24, Fruitland Park Area, Commissioner District 1, as advertised.
PETITION NO. 735 - Frank T. Gaylord - Eustis
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, requested a postponement of the request, until November 2, 1993, due to a problem with the utility easement, and not having the necessary paperwork in hand.
No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board postponed Road Vacation Petition No. 735, by Frank T. Gaylord, to vacate street (South St.), Eustis Meadows, Sec. 36, Twp. 18, Rge. 26, Nearest Town - Eustis, Commissioner District 4, until November 2, 1993, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, as recommended by staff.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:43 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.
ZONING (Continued)
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, addressed the Board and stated that he had received letters of withdrawal from the applicants in Case #18-93-2, John P. Adams, and in Case #57-93-4, Gene Smith, Triangle Industrial Park.
Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that he is requesting a 30 day postponement of Case #56-93-5, George Rossell, due to not receiving a withdrawal letter from the applicant, as anticipated.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Case #56-93-5, George Rossell, for 30 days, until November 23, 1993, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, as recommended by staff.
CUP#93/6/2-2 CUP in A David M. Smith
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board and explained that, when the applicant came to see staff about this request, the staff made a determination that this could be a more of an obnoxious use than a general agricultural purpose, and therefore, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was requested of the applicant. Mr. Stubbs stated that he wanted conditions placed on the fish farm, and the only way this could be done was through a CUP. He further stated that this request will have a review by Environmental Management, and staff, but would not go through a full Technical Review Committee (TRC) site plan review. At this time, Mr. Stubbs presented the Board with a sketch of the applicant's plans.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would encourage the environmental staff to check with some of the similar areas, in order to be sure that staff is addressing the types of concerns that may be there.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was present representing the applicant.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve the request for a CUP in A (Agricultural), for a fish farm with an existing dwelling, and including the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for
33 feet from the centerline of Lee Road and 33 feet from the centerline of Stuckey Road, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson commented that, when she attended the Sustainable Community Seminar several months ago in Sarasota, this was one of the items being recommended in agriculture, and she feels this is a perfect use in the Green Swamp.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried unanimously.
PETITION #65-93-3 C-1 and C-2 uses in the existing CP
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. He stated that the right-of-way dedication would become part of the record, if the request was approved.
Mr. Glen Tyre appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Tyre stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Mr. Richard Doster. He stated that this property has been used previously through the years as a carpet retail sales business. He explained that the owner of the adjoining property is buying this property as an investment, and would like to be flexible with the C-1 and C-2 uses. Mr. Tyre addressed the requirement by the Planning and Zoning Commission, for eight (8) feet of road right-of-way deeds on Azalea Drive, Highway 19A, and Triangle Drive, and stated that the County Engineer is in agreement to negotiating a non-exclusive easement on Azalea and Triangle Drive, and a non-exclusive deed on Highway 19A. Mr. Tyre stated that the prospective buyer of the property would like to administratively talk with the zoning officials to get approval from time to time, because the change of use could come often when you negotiate leases, and then the applicant would not have to come back through for a site plan approval.
Mr. Dave Hurley, purchaser of the property, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Hurley described the location of the property in question, and stated that
he would like to have the C-1 and C-2 uses, in order to have the negotiating power with his future tenant(s). He further stated that he had a concern with the purchase of the property, and the changes that would have to be made to the property in the future, in regards to water retention areas, and the widening of County Road (CR) 19A. He questioned the 50 foot setbacks, and whether additional parking could go into the easement area, and whether water retention could be placed in the easement area.
Mr. Don Griffey, Engineering Director, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Barker explained that staff is requesting additional right-of-way on CR 19A to get it up to a 50 foot half right-of-way, which would be eight additional feet along the frontage of CR 19A. He stated that Triangle and Azalea are 25 foot half rights-of-way, and staff is requesting the additional eight feet, in order to get these to 33 feet. In talking with Mr. Tyre, and reviewing the situation, staff felt a non-exclusive easement would adequately serve the County's purposes. Mr. Griffey explained that staff would not necessarily have a problem with retention going into the easement. He stated that the individual would be dedicating the additional footage on CR 19A as a right-of-way deed, and the ownership would transfer to Lake County.
Commr. Swartz discussed the classifications within the C-1 and C-2 uses, and explained that there may be several that would not be consistent, because of the tremendous impact it would have on the residential zoning behind the property in question.
Commr. Hanson stated that this area has a diverse array of activities, and she questioned whether there was any classification that could be placed there that would be any more obnoxious than what was presently there. She stated that she did have a concern with the amount of time that it takes an individual to get an approval when a public hearing is required for consideration of a use. Commr. Hanson stated that, in the interest of the economics of Lake County, this issue can be made more administrative, and not more restrictive in this area.
Commr. Swartz stated that he is not comfortable with some of the uses in C-1 and C-2, such as allowing automotive repair and automotive service stations.
Mr. Stubbs explained that a change of use would have to go through a site plan review.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would not have a problem with inserting language that would say that "any C-1 and C-2 uses that are not more obnoxious than what is currently existing there". He stated that the whole purpose for CP zoning is to have planned commercial, so that you know what is being planned, and that the concerns are addressed. He further stated that he has no problem with approving C-1 and C-2 uses, with the exemption of kennels, auto repair, auto service stations, bar and taverns, and restaurants.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request to amend CP Ordinance #6-73, to include C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses to the existing CP (Planned Commercial) zoning, with the exception of kennels.
The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voting "no".
PETITION #62-93-2 LM to CP with C-1 or C-2 uses
Viola Guthrie
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board and stated that staff is recommending CFD (Community Facility) zoning. Mr. Stubbs stated that one letter was received in favor of the request.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from LM (Light Manufacturing) to CFD (Community Facility) for the construction and operation of a church, and including the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for 50 feet from the centerline of County Road 565A, as requested by staff.
PETITION CUP#93/9/1-2 CUP in A Asphalt Pavers Inc.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board.
Mr. Paul Wilson, applicant, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Wilson explained that presently there are no set hours of operation for the production of asphalt. He stated that, if production was to be used on the Turnpike, some night time hours would be required.
Mr. Stubbs stated that staff has not limited the hours, nor is there a concern that the hours need to be limited, but staff wanted the assurance that the applicant is intending on using it in 24 hour periods. It was noted that the operation would be for twelve (12) months, and would be used around the clock.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in A (Agricultural), for a temporary asphalt plant.
PETITION #63-93-5 RM to A or R-1 Frank & Tina Nettles
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to A (Agricultural), for the construction of a single-family residence.
PETITION MSP#93/9/2-2 MSP in A Charles Rogers
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs explained that the family members, who were mining peat on the Ray Ranch property, will be mining this site, as a condition of the Settlement Agreement for the Ray's Ranch property. He stated that this has been approved by the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that he has met with the Department of Public Services, and he understands the conditions, and he finds them acceptable.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
Mr. Richey stated that the Board has in their backup material a letter from a gentleman who raised some questions and concerns, and he has met with him, and the issues have been resolved.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for MSP (Mining Site Plan) in A (Agricultural), for peat extraction and processing, and including the conditions, as outlined by staff, for stormwater and transportation.
PETITION #69-86B-2 Extension for Monterey DRI
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, presented the case to the Board and explained that the extension of the Development of Regional Impact will be for 54 months. Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant has applied for the extension through the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and staff has no specific objections.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Bucky Carson, applicant, was present for the hearing. At this time, Mr. Richey
presented an overview of the original DRI. He explained that the applicant was asking that the phasing within the 15 years, which has currently been approved, be adjusted by the 54 months. Mr. Richey explained how Mr. Carson sold his property, and through the process, he had to file a foreclosure action, and the company that was subject to the foreclosure act filed a Chapter 11, and the applicant ended up in Federal Court. During this time, the applicant was not in possession of the property, and could not initiate the phasing, but he has since regained possession and is requesting a 54 month extension for Phase I and Phase II. Mr. Richey stated that DCA has reviewed the application and notified County staff that they have no objections to the phasing requirement, as well as the Regional Planning Council. He further stated that a developer is currently working with County staff, to provide central water and sewer in this area, which he felt would assist in the development of the County's industrial park.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
Commr. Swartz stated that he could not support extending what has already had five years, and which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and will be inconsistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He stated that it could be developed exactly as the Development Order allows now, and the water and sewer requirement would allow the developer to hookup to Southern State Utilities, or to another public service commission. He stated that it should require connection to the City of Leesburg. Commr. Swartz stated that there was very clear intent that, in the five years, if a certain percentage of the first phase was not constructed, the Development Order would expire.
Commr. Bailey stated that he would support the request for the extension and, because of the reasons explained, the Board should try and work with the applicant.
Commr. Hanson stated that the request has gone through the DRI process, and a large sum of money has been invested, and because of
this, she would not be in favor of not extending it. She stated that it will come back as something different, and it would be modified. She further stated that the original Comprehensive Plan did have the DRI, but this was taken out, and all DRIs were vested, and therefore, she would support the request.
Mr. Richey explained that the applicant has to go back through the entire DRI process, in order to add additional land, which is the applicant's intent. He further explained that the legislation said that an individual has a right to extend, and he stated that he has a concern that, if the Board conditions the extension, this will bring the applicant out from under the exemption in the application, which was approved by DCA, and the Regional Planning Council. Mr. Richey discussed the possibility of a Developer's Agreement, and stated that he would not have a problem with this, but it should not be a part of the Development Order.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board has the ability to include language that would indicate within the extension period of time, the PUD would be brought back to the Board, and if there are additional conditions which would require a substantial deviation to the DRI, then the applicant would have to go through that as well.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve the extension of the commencement and build-out date for Phase I, of four and one-half years (54 months).
Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that initially she would never have voted for this when it originally came through, but because of being a member of the Regional Planning Council, she feels it would have been given sufficient scrutiny.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Bids/County Buildings/Facilities & Capital Improvements
Request to approve to prepare RFP and solicit bids necessary to replace H.V.A.C. system at the County morgue.
Roads-County & State/Resolutions
Request to approve to establish a school zone at the intersection of C.R. 565A and Silver Eagle Road (formerly Slab Church Road) with a 25 mile per hour speed limit, and install school zone signs with flashing yellow lights.
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Request to accept Statutory Warranty Deed for Donovan Lane (#5-6649): Harlan P. and Maryse T. Dye.
ADDENDUM NO. 2 - OTHER BUSINESS
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Discussion occurred regarding whether "natural water bodies" should be excluded from the calculation of acreage for Lots of Record in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, stated that it is staff's recommendation that the acreage of a Lot of Record include the portion that is covered by a natural water body. Mr. Hoban explained that the Board had before them the changes to the current LDRs, with the "natural water body exclusion" being deleted. He stated that the second change is on Page III-36, which changes the operable date to November 16, 1993, and is the second scheduled public hearing to adopt the amendments to the LDRs.
Commr. Swartz stated that the proposed LDR would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan under Policy 1-12.2, which deals with the interpretation of residential density designations. He stated that the Board should provide for a variance in cases where this may occur, through no fault of the owner.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, explained the process that the County has been using for a building permit, and stated that the County has never actually used the calculation for a lot of record in the past.
Mr. Hoban stated that, if the policy, which Commr. Swartz referred to, is effective, there is not a variance for it. The issue is whether you would allow two or three building permits, and if the County excludes the natural water body, you may get two building permits, and if you include the acreage of a natural water body, you would be able to get three building permits. Mr. Hoban indicated that he will research this issue further, in order to address the Board's questions as to whether this issue can be addressed with a variance amendment.
Mr. Hoban stated that, all through the proposed LDRs, there is an October 1 date, which was initially based on the effective date of October 1. He questioned whether the Board wishes to keep the October 1 date all the way through the LDRs, or an effective date of December 1, 1993, throughout the LDRs, which he is recommending.
It was noted that the Board was in agreement with the date of October 1.
Mr. Hoban addressed the November 16, 1993, the second hearing date, and recommended that the effective date of all of the regulations be December 1.
It was noted that the Board was in agreement with the date of December 1.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, and Mr. Pete Wahl, County Attorney, discussed the memorandum presented to the Board from Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, regarding the Administrative Hearing for Lake County's Comprehensive Plan. The memorandum was requesting funds from the Board, to assure the witnesses that they will be paid for their witness service.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it would be appropriate to keep an accounting of the costs of the Administrative Hearing.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see the Board include in their motion authorization that, at the first time available, there would be some estimate of the funds that would be required with the witness list, and with the understanding that Mr. Jake Varn, and Mr. Jack Sullivan, would be strictly witnesses.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved the payment of witness fees for those indicated in the memorandum from Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, with an estimate of funds being provided to the Board at the first time available, and with the understanding that Mr. Jake Varn, and Mr. Jack Sullivan, will serve strictly in the capacity of a witness for the County.
The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Gerber voting "no".
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
COUNTY ATTORNEY/PERSONNEL
Ms. Lois Martin, Director of Human Resources, addressed the Board on the proposed selection process for filling the County Attorney's position. It was noted that the closing date for the applications would be December 13, 1993. Ms. Martin reviewed the time frame for the selection of the County Attorney with the Board, and discussed the Board appointing a Selection Advisory Committee, which will meet with her, and the Personnel Manager, to outline the process, explain the rating form, and advise them of the time frame for accomplishing the process.
Commr. Cadwell recommended that a five member committee be appointed, with one member being appointed by each Commissioner.
Ms. Martin stated that she feels each Commissioner should appoint an individual from their own district, and suggested that the Board consider having a representative from the Lake County Bar Association.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board supplement the Selection Advisory Committee with four people, to be included to the five being proposed by Commr. Cadwell, as follows: a constitutional officer, the President of the Lake County League of Cities, a city attorney designated by the League of Cities, and a County Attorney from another county, which would form a nine member committee.
Discussion occurred regarding the membership for the Committee, with Commr. Bailey and Commr. Hanson indicating that they were comfortable with the five member committee, as proposed by Commr. Cadwell. Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz indicated that they would be comfortable with the five members appointed by the Commissioners, a constitutional officer, and the President of the League of Cities, which would form a seven member committee.
Ms. Martin discussed the formation of the committee that was used by the Board the last time the Board selected a County Attorney.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved for the Selection Advisory Committee to consist of the following membership: one person to be appointed by each Commissioner, one constitutional officer, and the President of the Lake County League of Cities, or a designee.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Memorandum No. 93-10-156 from Ms. Lois Martin, Director of Human Resources, in regards to the selection process of the County Attorney, and the estimated time frame for the selection.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR\BOARDMIN\10-26-93\11-5-93