A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MAY 24, 1994

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 24, 1994, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Mayor Eugene Glenn, City of Tavares, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Chairman opened the meeting.

AGENDA UPDATE

The Chairman questioned whether there were any revisions to the Agenda.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board reschedule Addendum No. 1, Item I. A., to the next regular Board Meeting, to allow the Board more time to review the Policy contained in the backup material pertaining to said item. It was noted that the Policy, had only been received the day prior to this meeting.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to postpone Addendum No. 1, Item I. A., until a time certain, at the Board Meeting scheduled for June 7, 1994, subject to their not being a conflict with the schedule of individuals who may need to be present for the discussion.

It was noted that Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, would check with the parties involved and make sure that they did not have a conflict with said date.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson requested that any further information be presented to the Board at least a week prior to a meeting.

The Chairman called for the vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 755 - JOHN T. SNIPES - LAKE JEM AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request and answered questions from the Board regarding same.

Mr. Gary Jahraus, Orlando, the owner's representative for the project in question, appeared before the Board to answer any questions there might be about the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the petitioner was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval of Road Vacation Petition No. 755, by John T. Snipes, to vacate road rights-of-way, Deer Island Club, Section 36, Township 19, Range 26; Section 31, Township 19, Range 27; Section 1, Township 20, Range 26; Section 6, Township 20, Range 27, Lake Jem area - Commissioner District 3.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REZONING

Staff was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.

PETITION NO. 9-94-2 - A TO R-4 - JACK R. AMON

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, explained this request and answered questions from the Board regarding same. He noted that it had been postponed from the previous Board Meeting, due to an issue involving the dedication of right-of-way for the Rails-to-Trails project.

Mr. Stubbs stated that discussion had come up at the previous meeting, with regard to this project's employment center designation. He stated that, when the County adopted the Land Use Map, in 1991, discussion occurred regarding the vesting of industrial sites and employment center designations were given to those sites, which he noted are indicated on the official Land Use Map being utilized today. He stated that staff uses said designations for measurements to specific cases and questioned whether any other clarification was needed, from the Board, regarding the matter.

Commr. Swartz stated that, at the time that the node in question was placed on the Comprehensive Plan Map, under the guise of an employment center, the intent of the Board was to reassure those people who had industrial zoning in place, at the time that the Comprehensive Plan was approved, that their property would be considered for industrial uses. He stated that it was not the intent that said property would be considered for employment centers. He stated that he felt said language stated that those areas designated on the map as industrial zoning would be vested and that any property that was zoned industrial, on the date of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, might not show up on the map. He questioned Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, about said language.

Mr. Knight stated that, at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, if it was done, it was identified on the map, in the language, but he did not feel anything was added to the text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan that identified them specifically.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that staff found they missed a couple of areas, in the vesting portion of the Land Development Regulations, that they should have gotten, therefore, they put into the vesting language that it was staff's intent to address each one of those areas throughout the County. He noted that said language was in Chapter 1, Section 1.02.11, Industrial Zoning Except Chapter 7 - Wekiva, which he read into the Minutes.

Commr. Swartz stated that, when one looks on the Land Use Map, under employment center, it states "includes industrial zoning as of the date of the adoption". He stated that said language creates an additional problem, in that, if everything on the map that is in the "hatch" mark listed for employment centers are employment centers, employment centers do not allow residential and there are some properties that have that designation that are wanting to develop mixed use and would be prohibited from doing so.

Mr. Knight stated that there are Comprehensive Plan amendments in the process, at the present time, that have not yet come before the Board, to eliminate the employment center designation, because it prohibits residential development. He stated that, if somebody wanted to do a residential development that currently has an industrial zoning, they would be required to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment to eliminate that employment center designation, because it prohibits residential development.

Commr. Swartz stated that it was his perception that there was one employment center that was designated, that all the rest, while they use the same "hatch" mark, were intended to show industrial zoning that was going to be vested for industrial uses and that they were not all employment centers. He stated that it raises the problem that Mr. Knight alluded to and that was not the intent that he recalled. He stated that, to remedy the situation, the County would need to recognize that what was considered to be an employment center was the employment center that he alluded to. He noted that there was an entire section that dealt with how to create future employment centers.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended, changing those employment center designations, to keep the vesting of the industrial zoning.

Commr. Swartz further stated that, if one looked on Map I-1, all it states is that the "hatch" mark, which shows the employment center, also includes industrial zoning as of the day of the adoption. He stated that it does not mean that they are employment centers, it means that the "hatch" mark designates those areas that were industrial zoning and received vesting. He stated that there was only one employment center, which was the reason for instituting the concept of a future employment center, and that very strict criteria was placed on it, as a result of that.

Commr. Gerber stated that she realized the matter could not be corrected this date, but that she would support any move to change it, in the future. She further stated that she felt the Board needed to act on the matter, in this round of Comprehensive Plan amendments.

Commr. Swartz stated that the alternative would be to go back and try to trace, within the Minutes, what was actually discussed.

At this time, Mr. Craig Willis, Alternative Transportation Specialist, Public Services, appeared before the Board and commented on the Rails to Trails issue, stating that he had taken a boundary survey, figured out the linear footage, divided it, and came up with 1.23 acres, 40 feet wide, as being the railroad corridor.

At this time, upon the request of Ms. Bonifay, Mr. Amon was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.

Ms. Bonifay appeared before the Board stating that staff had reviewed this request and found that it was consistent with both the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and with the surrounding zoning. She stated that the intended use of the property was for a single family residential subdivision and that the applicant was willing to abide by the requirements of the R-4 zoning that is found in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) governing a regular subdivision.

Ms. Bonifay addressed the issue of the Developer's Agreement, stating that the Board has instituted a policy of requiring a Developer's Agreement, therefore, Mr. Amon agreed to enter into one, with the County. She stated that she met with Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, and they worked out a revision, which included the addition of the abandoned railroad right-of-way as a Rails to Trails corridor for Lake County.

Ms. Bonifay briefly discussed the issue of property rights, noting that, even though Mr. Amon is a proponent of private property rights, because he supports the program, he was willing to abide by the language in the Developer's Agreement and was willing to donate the railroad right-of-way as part of the open space requirement. She stated that Mr. Amon also agreed to dedicate the additional right-of-way, giving the County up to 40 feet along the entire length of the property in question. She further stated that she felt the County's concerns had been resolved, while allowing Mr. Amon flexibility to be able to productively use his property.

Mr. Hoban noted that there were to be no fences, or above ground utility connections, on said right-of-way.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she felt the County Attorney's Office needed to draft a deed, regarding the Rails to Trails issue, whereby the County will be guaranteed that the right-of-way will not be obstructed, in any way, and that Mr. Amon will be granted a hold harmless, or indemnification, release from ongoing maintenance and liability.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of water and sewer, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned whether the applicant would be including a clause, in either the sales contract, or the deed restrictions, to indicate to prospective buyers that, should they put in a well and septic tank, they would be required to hook up to a water and sewer system in the future.

Ms. Bonifay stated that her client, Mr. Amon, would not want to assume any liability, therefore, would give full disclosure of the situation and that she felt he would be in a position, within the next year or so, to provide said service. She further stated that she would have a disclosure added to the Developer's Agreement stating that the developer shall disclose to any perspective purchaser that, when a water and sewer system becomes available within 300 feet of the subdivision, they will be required to pay the costs of connecting to it.

Commr. Bailey thanked Mr. Amon for his cooperation concerning the right-of-way and Rails to Trails issues and stated that he felt Mr. Amon was pioneering a different set of standards, in that he was the first individual to be involved in a process that the County was doing that it had never done before.

Commr. Swartz stated that, while Mr. Amon was pioneering something, it was something that the County should have been doing all along. He stated that he was going to vote in favor of the project and why he was going to vote in favor of it, even though he had some real reservations about it.

The Chairman questioned whether any other individuals present would like to speak on this case.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commr. Bailey and seconded by Commr. Swartz to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-4 (Medium Estate Residential), for the construction of single family residential structures, with changes as noted, with regard to the Rails to Trails and water and sewer issues.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the employment center was critical and that, perhaps, with the Rails to Trails, the residential area might be able to be connected with the employment center.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Planning and Development for approval for James Flach to place a mobile home in an R-1 zoning district, temporarily, while constructing a residential home. The property is located off C-44A and Alger Road (DR 4-6580) - Commissioner District 4.

REZONING (CONT'D.)

PUBLIC HEARING

PETITION NO. 206A-86-4 - AMENDMENT TO CP ORD. NO. 76-86

PINTER ENTERPRISES, INC.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, explained this request and answered questions from the Board regarding same.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Michael Pinter, Applicant, appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions from the Board regarding the request.

No one present was in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for an amendment to CP Ordinance No. 76-86, to keep the existing uses of a marina, boat repair and sales, and to add a restaurant and boat storage/dockage.

PETITION NO. CUP94/4/2-3 - CUP IN R-3

RICHARD AND CAROLYN REINERTSEN

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, explained this request and answered questions from the Board regarding same.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Richard Reinertsen, Applicant, appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions from the Board regarding the request.

No one present was in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for CUP in

R-3 (Medium Residential), with conditions, as recommended by staff, for a home occupation, for the use of a dental lab in an existing residence.

PETITION NO. CUP94/4/1-2 - CUP IN A - GIBSON AND JANET WILSON

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, explained this request and answered questions from the Board regarding same.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Jim Thomas, Environmental Biologist, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions from the Board regarding the request. Mr. Thomas stated that he felt it was an important conservation issue to allow an aviary in an agricultural zoning district and that he would like to see the Board consider amending the County ordinances to reflect it as an accepted use in an agricultural district.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for CUP in A (Agricultural), as conditioned in the CUP, for an aviary.

PETITION NO. 11A-92-5 - R-1 TO AR - GEORGE L. MACKAY

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, explained this request and answered questions from the Board regarding same.

It was noted that an error had been made, concerning this request, in that the County had rezoned a piece of property, in 1992, where the applicant had submitted a legal description for a different piece of property than the property being rezoned and that this request was an attempt to clear up said error.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected that the former County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, had made a determination that, in rezoning a piece of property, a suburban land use classification could be made to AR (Agricultural Residential), even when timeliness was not met, and that the present County Attorney, Mr. Frank Gaylord, was continuing that policy. Mr. Hoban noted that Mr. Gaylord might address the policy, in the future, but will abide by Ms. Lustgarten's determination, at the present time.

Discussion continued regarding the matter.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained how the error in question occurred.

Further discussion occurred regarding the matter.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for the development of single-family residences.

PETITION NO. 18-94-2 - A TO R-4 - D. G. CLOUGHLEY

(DONRIC, INC.)

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, explained this request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Rick Dye, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, for possible future questioning.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that one of the requirements of the Planning and Zoning Commission was a suggestion that the applicant enter into a Developer's Agreement, which he noted he had prepared and sent to the County Attorney's Office approximately two weeks prior to this meeting.

Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Dye about particular aspects of the Developer's Agreement and the fact that he was willing to abide by the conditions set forth in the agreement. Mr. Richey submitted, as evidence, for the record the following:

Applicant's Exhibit 1 - Copy of Developer's Agreement between the County and Donric, Inc.



No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), with conditions, as noted, with respect to the issue of water and sewer, for the development of single-family residential homesites.



RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:15 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.

REZONING (CONT'D.)

PUBLIC HEARING

PETITION NO. 101A-91-2 - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORDINANCE NO. 61-91

GASISOITAME, INC. C/O BRUNO CATTARUZZA (PARADISE LAKE ESTATES)

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, explained this request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

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 a request to amend PUD Ordinance No. 61-91, to reflect those conditions in the Settlement Agreement, to change the number of lots from 126 to 122, and to abide by the septic tank provisions, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney's Office.

PETITION NO. 5-94-2 - R-1 TO PUD - SPRING VALLEY

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, explained this request and answered questions from the Board regarding same. Mr. Stubbs noted, for the record, conditions that were set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as follows:

1. I. (C bn) add paragraph "e" to read "Access to the commercial site shall be through an internal roadway network."



2. II (B) (1) delete centralized system and add "by the City of Clermont."



3. IV (7) add "There will be no connection to Anderson Hill Road."



4. IV add paragraph "9" to read "The applicant shall revise their development plans to extend their internal neighborhood collector road to the south property line for eventual extension to Lakeshore Drive or Lake Louisa Road."



5. V. add paragraph "No. 5" to read "Lighting in the recreational area will not fall upon the neighboring properties."



Mr. Stubbs reviewed a site plan of the property in question and noted that there had been considerable discussion between the City of Clermont, county staff, and Utilities, Inc., with regard to the issue of providing a centralized water and sewer system to the site. He stated that the County was requiring a centralized system, for the site, and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the City of Clermont should be the one to provide same. He further stated that the Board had in their backup material letters from the City of Clermont and Utilities, Inc., regarding the matter, as well as a Resolution.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that this case had been postponed, for 30 days, at the Board Meeting of April 26, 1994, in order to allow the applicant to resolve some issues, with regard to a letter that was contained in their backup material, from Utilities, Inc., and wording that the Planning and Zoning Commission had put in the PUD, with regard to the City of Clermont providing a centralized water and sewer system.

Mr. Richey stated that he had met with the County Attorney's Office and it was decided that the following language would be used: "This project would be required to be served by central water and sewer.", therefore, he requested that said language be placed in the final draft of the PUD.

Mr. Richey stated that everybody involved with this project is unanimous in the fact that they do not want this project to interconnect with the Anderson Hill Subdivision, at which time he reviewed a plat of the property in question, indicating the concern he alluded to about not interconnecting the two subdivisions.

Mr. Richey called Mr. Bob Londeree, Landscape Architect, RDL Planning and Design, the landscape architect for the Spring Valley project, as his first witness.

Mr. Londeree appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions from Mr. Richey and the Board regarding the request. He reviewed a plat of the property in question and discussed various aspects of the development, as well as noted that the applicant had met with the surrounding homeowners several times, in order to obtain their input, which he noted they took into consideration when designing the project.

Mr. Richey submitted, as evidence, for the record, the following:

Applicant's Exhibit A - Spring Valley PUD Site Plan, dated January 31, 1994, with attached amendment, dated May 24, 1994 (revised).



Mr. Gary Soles, a resident of Anderson Hills Subdivision, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated he was glad that an issue concerning the size of the proposed homes had been worked out with the residents of his neighborhood, however, noted other concerns they had, with regard to increased traffic and a desire to keep the commercial uses compatible with the existing subdivisions.

Mr. Richey clarified, with Mr. Soles, the fact that he had indicated that the residents of his subdivision did not want an interconnect road from the proposed project to Anderson Hill Subdivision.

Ms. Sheila Binning, an adjacent property owner to the property in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She noted some concerns she had about the development, with respect to the commercial area, the size of the lots, the number of homes that will be constructed, and the fact that gopher tortoises live on the property in question.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing Mr. David Bornstein, an adjacent property owner, appeared before the Board and called Mr. Bornstein as her first witness. Mr. Bornstein appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions from Ms. Bonifay regarding the request, with respect to the impact that the proposed development, Spring Valley, would have on his property (80 acres) and the fact that any lighting from said development was to be directed onto the applicant's property. She then requested, on Page 8 of the Resolution, under Item 9, that an additional sentence be added, addressing the internal connection road, to the south, as follows: "Access shall be provided from the spine road to the property to the west, as depicted on Exhibit A, or the attachment to Exhibit A, as amended."

Considerable discussion occurred regarding the issues of traffic, concurrency, and an interconnect road and how they may affect the Anderson Hill Subdivision, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he felt language should be inserted in the Resolution to indicate that agreements would have to be entered into, between the two property owners and the County, so that those concerns could be dealt with.

Mr. Richey suggested that language be inserted in the PUD that states that the interconnect road will be subject to a Developer's Agreement, between the County and the property owners, to proportion said costs, and should the developers not be able to agree, that it will come back to the Board, for the Board to proportion those costs.

Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board stating that, if there is something that is enforced, in no way does the applicant want to be subject to aggregation criteria, pursuant to the Development of Regional Impact. She further elaborated on the matter.

Commr. Swartz clarified, for the record, that said language would state that the two adjacent property owners, whether they be to the west, or to the south, would enter into agreements, along with the County, for the interconnects, and, should they not be able to enter into agreements, that the County would bring them back before the Board, for consideration.

Mr. Tim Camron, Utilities, Inc., appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated, for the record, that his firm objected to the Resolution, as it was drafted, in March of this year, and that they were concerned about the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation came about as it did. He questioned whether the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were aware of his firm's ability, the facilities that they have in place, or their intent to provide service to the area of the property in question. He stated that he was present to clarify that fact and see if the situation could be avoided in the future. He stated that his firm was going to be able to provide the lowest cost to everybody concerned, avoid duplication of facilities, and be able to provide it in the most timely manner.

Mr. Don Rasmussen, Vice President of Operations, Utilities, Inc., appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He reviewed a composite map, showing that his firm has facilities in place to service the area in question, with regard to water supply and water distribution facilities, which he then submitted, for the record, as Opposition's Exhibit A.

Mr. Rasmussen then answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.

Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Rasmussen about his firm's ability to provide water to the property in question and the possibility of his firm working in conjunction with the City of Clermont, to make sure that water and sewer are available to the Spring Valley project.

Mr. Richey stated that he had indicated previously to the Board some things that are not compatible with shopping centers, therefore, noted that the applicant was proposing a 15 foot vegetative buffer, berm, and wall, which would shield the residents of Spring Valley from the commercial area, and requested the Board to agree to same, as part of the conditions of this project. There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Bailey noted several concerns that he had about the project, such as property values, the square footage of some of the homes, green space, the commercial area, etc.

Commr. Swartz requested Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Services, to be sworn in.

Mr. Griffey appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions from Commr. Swartz about the site plan and what road classifications exist on said site plan.

Commr. Swartz then questioned the appropriateness of a commercial area being located on what is a neighborhood collector road.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, reappeared before the Board and responded to Commr. Swartz's question. He stated that Anderson Hill Road is a collector road, at the present time, however, Anderson Hill Road is having some difficulties at the intersection of Hwy. 27, so the County put a limitation of 50,000 square feet on the size of the commercial area, for that site. He stated that, if that roadway continued through and became a collector road that connected with Lakeshore Drive, or Lake Louisa Drive, they could get community commercial, because they would be located at a newly created intersection of a collector and an arterial. However, until that time occurs, the applicant cannot achieve more than 50,000 square feet of commercial.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel the commercial area should be allowed where it is presently proposed, which he elaborated on. He noted that the County continues to move commercial further and further out, forcing people to drive greater distances and leaving empty areas near the center core. He stated that he felt that was the argument, not what is in the commercial area.

Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board stating that the developer designed the commercial area to be internal, to serve the residents of Spring Valley, and that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and wording, even if they do not connect to Anderson Hill, because they are serving 500 plus houses.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt 50,000 square feet of commercial, for a 500 unit development was reasonable, and that he would support the commercial area, as it is planned.

Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr. Knight felt that the commercial area was premature.

Mr. Knight responded that he felt, to go in and develop the commercial area up front would be premature, noting that one would not normally do so, on a PUD. He stated that there would have to be some sort of population base in place to support it.

Commr. Hanson noted that she did not have a problem with the commercial area, as it is planned.

Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Bailey noted uses that he would like to see struck from the commercial area, which Mr. Richey noted would be struck.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was concerned about the parking area and the environmental assessment that was done, at which time she requested that the assessment be entered into the record. It was entered into the record as follows:

County's Composite Exhibit A - Level I Environmental Liability Assessment of the Spring Valley PUD, from Modica & Associates, dated February 25, 1994, and Attachment 1 of the Level II Environmental Liability Assessment



Ms. Paula Blazer, Supervisor, Environmental Programs Branch, Environmental Management Division, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and responded to a concern that Commr. Gerber had about gopher tortoises. She noted that neither staff nor the applicant had found any on the site.

Commr. Gerber then addressed the issue of the environmental assessment, stating that she was a little uncomfortable with the non-specific terms that were used in the assessment, which she noted, and questioned Ms. Blazer about the matter.

Ms. Blazer responded that she felt comfortable with the report and its findings, noting that it appeared to be accurate and that it followed the normal procedures.

Commr. Gerber questioned whether Ms. Blazer was stating that staff was confident enough with the report that the County should not require monitoring wells on the property.

Ms. Blazer stated that she saw no need for such wells on the property.

Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board stating that she had brought this issue before the Board before, noting that, as someone who has standing, as an attorney representing an adjacent property owner, that when a Commissioner brings up new evidence, which should have been presented as part of the County's case, where questions should have been directed during the time that the public hearing was open, by closing the hearing and then bringing said matters up, the Board precluded those individuals who have standing from the opportunity to have cross-examination. She wanted the record to reflect that, in no way did the applicant feel that all the pollution was on the adjacent site, so that, at some future point of development, it could be implied, in some way.

Ms. Bonifay was then given the opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Blazer.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the language in the PUD needed to be modified, with regard to the issue of the provision of water and sewer, and suggested that the County come up with language that indicates that central water and sewer are required, but, that the County currently has interlocal agreements with the City of Clermont, which would give the City preference for providing those utilities. He stated that the County recognizes the fact that the City of Clermont has, under Chapter 180, of the Florida Statutes, developed a utility service district and that the County has a private utility that has a PSC service area and that, somehow, those issues are going to have to be resolved. He stated that he would like to acknowledge the City of Clermont and Utilities, Inc., in that regard.

Commr. Bailey reviewed the conditions that were placed on this project, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and added that the following conditions were to be placed on the project, as well: (1) that any adjoining property owners, whether it be the Bornstein property to the west, or property owners to the south, enter into agreements, of which the County will be a part of, with regard to the issues of an interconnect road not being allowed between the Spring Valley and Anderson Hill Subdivisions, concurrency, and traffic and that, if they cannot enter into a satisfactory agreement, that the matter be brought back to the Board, at the time of final platting, for the Board to make a final decision; (2) that language be inserted in the PUD, as indicated by Commr. Swartz, regarding the issue of the provision of a central water and sewer system; (3) that certain uses, noted by Commr. Bailey, be struck from the commercial area, as requested; and (4) that there be a 15 foot wide buffer between the Spring Valley development and adjacent property owners.

A motion was made by Commr. Bailey and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), with conditions, as noted, for a single-family residential development.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he was going to vote for this request, even though he felt the commercial area was premature, because it appeared to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COMMUNITY SERVICES/GRANTS/STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval and signature on the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs Anti-Drug Abuse Act grant funds, for FY 1994-95.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

DEEDS/PUBLIC SERVICES/RIGHTS-OF-WAYS, ROADS & EASEMENTS

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for acceptance of the following Non-Exclusive Easement Deed:

Betty L. Gaard, Trustee

Cooter Pond Road



REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY/STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, informed the Board that the County had been in discussions with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), concerning the matter of the Brady challenge, with respect to kennels in the Wekiva River Protection Area, and had come to a tentative resolution for the continuance of the existing hearing scheduled for June 7, 1994. He stated that DCA had requested two items, being (1) that Lake County consent to redrafting an amendment to its existing Comprehensive Plan dealing with kennels in the Wekiva River Protection Area and (2) that no new development orders be issued, based on the County's existing Land Development Regulations (LDRs), until such revisions have been accomplished.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. Brady, appeared before the Board and confirmed what Mr. Gaylord had stated.

It was noted that this matter was time sensitive.

A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Gerber to accept the proposed continuance, with conditions, as outlined by the County Attorney and Ms. Campione, the attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Brady.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson requested that it be noted that she felt the same regulations being imposed on the Wekiva River Protection Area, concerning kennels, should be enforced countywide and requested Mr. Gaylord to relay that message to DCA.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

COUNTY MANAGER

UTILITIES

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that Mr. Leon Strickland, the property appraiser that was hired by the County to do an appraisal on the Eckerson property would be available for the meeting that had been rescheduled for June 7, 1994, for the purpose of discussing the purchase of said property, by the County.

Mr. Wahl further stated that, in March of this year, the Board had held a workshop on the issue of a public/private partnership for water and wastewater in south Lake County. He stated that, at that time, the Board had directed staff to meet with Greater Construction Corporation and three consultants that were identified and bring back a report, at the end of May, for them to make a determination on the feasibility of the project.

Mr. Wahl stated that staff had met with the consultants on May 20, 1994 and it was their recommendation that, if the project was feasible and would be able to be completed to the benefit of Lake County and its residents, to try and schedule a workshop meeting, for the Board to make a decision regarding whether or not to proceed with the project. He noted, however, that Mr. Mandell would be leaving town on May 22, 1994 and would be gone for four to five weeks.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time it was determined that a workshop meeting would be set for Tuesday, May 31, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., to discuss the matter.

No action was needed or taken at this time.

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Allen Hardwicke to the Lake County Natural Resources Advisory Committee, representing the Business Community, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Sam Wiggins. Mr. Hardwicke's term will expire October of 1998.

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Resolution supporting the designation of June 5-11, 1994, as Safe Boating Week in Florida.



There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.



________________________________

CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/5-24-94/7-5-94/boardmin