A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OCTOBER 28, 1997

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, 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: William "Bill" H. Good, Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Pastor Richard Green gave the invocation and Commr. Swartz led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that there were no changes to the published agenda.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve the following requests:

Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund Monies in the amount not to exceed $30,750 for Barham Industries, Inc.



Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund Monies in the amount not to exceed $32,200 for Burton International Innovators.



Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund Monies in the amount not to exceed $18,000 for Intuitive Business Systems.



Under discussion, Ms. Leslie Little, Senior Director, Economic Development, provided information regarding the impact each request would have on the economy, as a result of their construction in Lake County.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

The following vested rights determinations have been issued. A complete letter of determination may be reviewed in the Board office as part of the original agenda packet.



Vested Rights Determination Regarding Property Described in the Warranty Deed Recorded in Official Record Book 627, Page 2414 for Robert R. Johnson



Lake County will not deny the owner(s) of the two (2) distinct parcels of property described in the Warranty Deed recorded in Official Record Book 627, Page 2414, less right-of-way, the opportunity to develop each parcel of property in accordance with the R-1 (Rural Residential) Zoning District provided:



1. This vested rights determination is recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida, within three (3) months from the date of this vested rights determination; and



2. A building permit is issued for one (1) of the parcels and physical development has commenced within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determination.



Vested Rights Determination for Property Owned by The Estate of Lois M. Stacks and Linda M. Ridler



Lake County will not deny the owner(s) of the West of Tract 16, Groveland Farms Subdivision, Section 20, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, the opportunity to continue development of the property in accordance with the A (Agricultural) Zoning District provided this vested rights determination is recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida, within three (3) months from the date of this vested rights determination.



Lake County will not deny the owner(s) of the East of Tract 16, Groveland Farms Subdivision, Section 20, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, the opportunity to continue development of the property in accordance with the A (Agricultural) Zoning District provided:



1. The owner of the East of Tract 16, executes deed restrictions obligating the property owner(s), and releasing Lake County from any obligation, to maintain an easement for ingress and egress (Joint Use Connection to State Road 33) over the North 20 feet of Tract 15, and records said deed restrictions in the public records of Lake County, Florida, within three (3) months from the date of this vested rights determination; and



2. The owner of the East of Tract 16, obtains a driveway permit/connection permit from Lake county/the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, within six (6) months from the date of this vested rights determination, for joint use connection to State Road 33, and constructs a driveway apron as required.

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 853 - Tommy and Susan Powers - Umatilla Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and stated that a few years ago, there was opposition to this same request, and the County blocked the road for vehicle access and did not vacate it. Since that time, it has grown up and become wooded and another request has been made for the vacation of the road (Eighth Avenue). Mr. Stivender stated that he has checked with a couple of people who had opposed it before, and they are not in opposition of it today. He stated that the County was also looking at a master grid of east Umatilla to see what rights-of-way can be utilized in the future and other ones that would not be utilized, and this right-of-way was not one that would be utilized in the future.

Commr. Cadwell explained that there had been a concern about the safety of the road, and it being used for pedestrian traffic, but since the condition of the property has changed, it appears that the concerns have been addressed.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Buzz Bowen, Attorney representing the applicants, addressed the Board and stated that what he had to say would be redundant of the Board's comments.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 853 by Tommy and Susan Powers to vacate road (Eighth Avenue), East Umatilla Subdivision, Sec. 8, Twp. 18, Rge. 27, Umatilla Area, Commission District 5, as advertised.

PETITION NO. 854 - JOHN AND JANICE DALY - SORRENTO AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and stated that the request would be vacating an easement along two lot lines and replacing it with two easements. He stated that this was a solution that was worked out as part of the development plan, and staff was recommending approval of the request.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation No. 854 by John and Janice Daly to vacate easements in the Plat of Saratoga, Sec. 23, Twp. 19, Rge. 27, Sorrento Area, Commission District 4, as advertised, and accepted the two replacement drainage easements.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr. Mike Miller, Chief Planner, Growth Management Department, noted that the Board had before them six amendments, with three being County initiated.

Lake County Department of Growth Management - LPA 97/2/1 - Amending The Future Land Use Map



Mr. Miller noted that this particular amendment meant to clarify the legend on Future Land Use Map I-1. No changes to density are proposed. Changes under the Suburban and Transitional land use categories show the states of density potential using the Timeliness criteria. The Wekiva and Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node changes takes these legends off the face of the map making them easier to read. Mr. Miller stated that this clarifies existing policy stating that, in Suburban, the base density is one dwelling unit per five acres; if they meet the Timeliness criteria, one dwelling unit per acre; through a Planned Unit Development (PUD), three dwelling units per acre; and under the Transitional Category base density is one dwelling unit per five acres, and if they meet timeliness, one dwelling unit per acre.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to transmit LPA 97/2/1, amending The Future Land Use Map.

Lake County Department of Growth Management - LPA 97/2/2 - Amendments to Policies 1-2.6, 1-16.1, 1A-1.2, 1A-2.2 and 1A-2.3



Mr. Mike Miller, Chief Planner, Growth Management Department, stated that this item involved minor changes. Mr. Miller addressed Page 2, Policy 1-2.6 and noted that there was a change, in terms of the designation of a State agency, from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He stated that there was a reference to a Statute rule, which was no longer correct. In Policy 1-16.1, there were policies referred to that were removed from the Comprehensive Plan some time ago, so there was no need for the references. In Policy 1A-1.2, the Ridge Land Use Category, there was a recommendation for all developments to have 40 percent of open space. On Page 4, Policy 1A-2.2: Rural/Conservation Land Use Category, staff was recommending the requirement of a minimum of one acre of uplands. Mr. Miller noted that this has been discussed with Ms. Rebecca Jetton, Planning Manager of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and she was in agreement with the change. Mr. Miller referred to Page 5, Policy 1A-2.3: Core/Conservation Land Use Category, and stated that "a minimum of one acre of uplands is required" was added, which was also agreed to by Ms. Jetton.

Discussion occurred regarding Policy 1A-2.2: Rural/Conservation Land Use Category, with Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, suggesting that a new sentence be added to the language for clarification, as follows: "A minimum of one (1) acre of uplands is required for each unit." After further discussion, it was noted that the following language would be added to Policy 1A-2.3: Core/Conservation Land Use Category, as well as to Policy 1A-2.2: Rural/Conservation Land Use Category: "A minimum of one (1) acre of uplands is required for each development unit."

Mr. Miller referred to Page 6 and noted that additional changes had been made to Policy 1A-2.3: Core/Conservation Land Use Category including "ninety (90%) percent of the site shall be retained as open space."

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management Division, explained that the changes made in the noted policies dealt with commitments staff made with the DCA to move forward with because of anticipated changes with the Green Swamp, and the other changes to the land use categories relating to open space would be coming forward to the Board in the next group of amendments, which would deal with the rest of the County.

Commr. Swartz stated that there needed to be further discussion of the open space, because, if it says it in the Comprehensive Plan, but it is not as clear, then the Plan says the open space has to be there regardless if it is a PUD or straight zoning.

Commr. Good stated that, with some of the language changes that are being proposed in some of the other LPAs, it says "as landward as possible", and he wanted to refer to two places, in the document before the Board, where it refers to the clustering on uplands. He referred to Page 5, #5, which states that "development shall be clustered on uplands away from environmentally sensitive lands as identified in this Plan" and stated that it does not have the language "as landward as possible", and this was language being brought forward and refers to the 50 and 100 foot buffers in the later plan amendment. Commr. Good requested that language be included as follows: "development shall be clustered on uplands away from environmentally sensitive lands as identified in this Plan and as landward as possible", in addition to the 50 or 100 foot buffer language in the later land use plan amendment.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the language "as landward as possible" is in another section of the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Miller stated that, in the Evaluation and Appraisal (EAR) process, staff has found that there are places that need a great deal of work to ensure that inconsistencies are eliminated.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, even though this was a transmittal today and there will be a second reading, this was an advertised hearing and the Board, for the most part, should be staying with what was advertised and heard by Planning and Zoning rather than addressing other parts of the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel that "as landward as possible" could be added unless the 50 or 100 foot criteria was changed, because this was the underlying minimum.

Commr. Good further explained his request for additional language.

Commr. Gerber stated that, when the Board starts putting in more and more language, it was going to make it more difficult for those people to do what they want to do.

Commr. Cadwell stated that this particular rule is for an area that is environmentally sensitive, but by leaving it the way it is, in some areas, the upland part may be the more sensitive than the wetland part, and if the Board adds the restrictive language being requested by Commr. Good, it may force them to do something that is really not in the best interest of that particular parcel, and this was his concern.

Commr. Swartz stated that there has to be some underlying criteria, and staff has to have something that ultimately ends up on the LDRs that defines "as landward as possible."

Commr. Good stated that the language "as landward as possible" is in the Plan to allow someone to build closer to the wetland where someone would not normally meet the 50 or 100 foot criteria, and that was the purpose of the language in the later amendment, and because his proposed language is not quantitative or restrictive, it was encouraging development away from the environmentally sensitive land.

Commr. Hanson stated that this was already in an area that is very low density and what is being proposed should further protect the environmentally sensitive lands by pulling that low density development further away from the wetland areas. She felt that the Board should leave the language the way it is and perhaps look at it later.

Commr. Swartz stated that, after further discussion, the Board would need to change the language so that the development shall be clustered on environmentally suitable lands, and as far away as feasible from the environmentally sensitive lands. He suggested that, based on the fact that this was not language that was advertised, or discussed by Planning and Zoning, it should go back through the amendment process, so the Board can start looking at the issue for the next Comprehensive Plan amendment period.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to transmit LPA #97/2/2, with the changes to the language, as recommended by the County Attorney, to Policy 1A-2.2: Rural/Conservation Land Use Category, and Policy 1A-2.3: Core/Conservation Land Use Category, as follows: "A minimum of one (1) acre of uplands is required for each development unit."

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz clarified that the motion would include the following: in Policy 1A-2.2, the existing language referencing one unit per ten acres of uplands; in Policy 1A-2.3, it would add the requirement of twenty acres of uplands; and both policies would include the language regarding a minimum of one acre of uplands being required for each development unit.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 5-0 vote.

Lake County Department of Growth Management - LPA 97/2/3 - Amendments to Policies 1-2.2, 1A-1.1, and 7-7.7



Mr. Mike Miller, Chief Planner, Growth Management Department, stated that this request affects the next application, a map amendment. To enable the Parks Service to have conservation and interpretive activities on State park lands, changes needed to be made to the language concerning public resource lands. Mr. Miller noted that language on the bottom of Page 2 under Policy 1-2.2: Floodplains, had been struck through and moved to the Conservation Element, and it included the public resource land definition. On the bottom of Page 3, he noted that the language had been struck through regarding manufacturing uses, and it was already in Policy 1A-1.3B, which was put in there by DCA. Mr. Miller referred to Page 3 and noted the information that had been added (Numbers 1 through 7) regarding that, in the event development is proposed within the 100-year floodplain, the language would then be applied.

Commr. Good stated that he was troubled by the language "No new parcels shall be created wholly within the floodplain without providing compensating storage.", and questioned what the mechanism would be for creating a parcel on paper and ensuring the parcel would not be created without compensatory storage.

Mr. Miller explained that this would be administered through the FEMA requirements, and whenever developments are proposed within a 100 year floodplain, they cannot muster through FEMA unless they actually provide an engineering study that shows that they have provided sufficient compensatory storage to make a change to the FEMA map to exclude that area from the 100-year floodplain.

Ms. Farrell explained that, if someone was creating new parcels, the DRS representative from Public Works would handle that end of the development review, on a lot by lot basis. If it was in the flood area, the individual would be sent to Public Works to work out the floodplain issues.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that, for site plans of subdivisions, the amendments made to the LDRs in Chapter 9, in 1995, discussed the compensating storage and how it is required to be done, and also requires that map amendments be made, if the floodplain is changed as part. It does not apply to single houses, but it does apply to all subdivisions and all site plans.

Commr. Swartz stated that he has been uneasy with the County's floodplain development allowance since its inception, and staff was trying to clarify it to make it easier to understand how the County was going to handle development in the floodplains, whatever development may be allowed, and he was not sure this was wise when the Board looks at new development. For this Board to continue to approve development wholly or in part within Floodplains, Commr. Swartz did not feel was wise, and he was convinced that, when you start developing in Floodplains and compensating storage, it was very questionable whether or not you can maintain the natural hydrological character of the surface flow, and whether you can maintain natural surface water flows, because you had altered it.

Commr. Good stated that he has, for a long time, been the one to say that the County needed to get away from developing in Floodplains, and he would be happy with the following language: "No new parcels shall be created wholly within the floodplain."

Commr. Swartz stated that this issue needed to be reviewed, and he hoped that the Board would be willing to come back and look at that issue more comprehensively.

Commr. Good submitted the following language for consideration: "No new parcels shall be created wholly within the floodplain."

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to transmit LPA97/2/3 to amend Policies 1-2.2, 1A-1.1, and 7-7.7.

Office of Parks Planning, Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection - LPA 97/2/4 - Map Amendments



Mr. Mike Miller, Chief Planner, Growth Management Department, stated that this particular request involved map amendments, which he reviewed with the Board. He pointed out that most of these have been on the ground for quite some time, and the properties needed to be identified.

Commr. Good referred to the language regarding Lake Louisa State Park - Sewage, and stated, for the record, that he wanted to encourage the Department to seriously consider the water less composting toilet sewage treatment systems, as opposed to septic tank and drain field in this particular area of the County. As District Commissioner, he was encouraging them to seriously consider the water less composting toilet option when they get to that point in development.

Mr. Miller noted that there had been pretty significant negotiations between DCA and the Parks Service over a lot of details associated with the development of the site. One of items of concern was whether or not there would be onsite sewage disposal or septic tanks, and at one point, the Parks Service was not going to go the septic tank route, and all of this would be addressed in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to transmit LPA 97/2/4, recognizing Hontoon Island State Park, recognizing the Van Fleet State Trail, recognizing the Lake Griffin State Recreation Area, recognizing and expanding the Lower Wekiva River Preserve, recognizing and expanding Lake Louise State Park, and recognizing and expanding the Rock Springs Run State Reserve as Public Resource Lands.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

Center Lake Properties, Ltd. - LPA 97/2/5-2 - Rural to Rural Village

Mr. Mike Miller, Chief Planner, Growth Management Department, stated that this was a land use plan amendment to change the land use designation from rural to rural village on 671 acres in south Lake County for 375 dwelling units. He noted that the rural would permit about 134 dwelling units. There was approximately 50,000 square feet of non-residential use being proposed, and it was primarily going to be commercial uses. There were five policies that staff was unable to find consistent with the request, which Mr. Miller explained, as follows: Policy 1-11.8 - change in ag industry, demand for rural lifestyle; 1-11.14 - avoidance of enclaves or finger-life projections; 1-11.15 - commercial uses to serve residents not attract passer-by trips; 1-11A.1 - standards for non-residential development; and 1-3A.1 - neighborhood convenience centers. It was noted that staff was recommending denial of the proposed Map Amendment. Mr. Miller stated that letters were received in the last few day, and they were handed out to the Board by Ms. Susan Strum, AICP, Planner III, prior to the beginning of the hearing. He extended his appreciation to Ms. Strum for all of her hard work on the amendments. Mr. Miller informed the Board that information was received from the Fire Chief regarding response time for fire, which he reviewed with the Board, and he noted that this type of information would be furnished from now on to the Board.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney with Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, stated that she represents the owner and applicant in this case, Center Lake Properties, Ltd. Ms. Bonifay stated that there were several members of the consulting team that would be addressing the Board. She stated that the County has had no newly created rural villages since the inception of the Comprehensive Plan. The County had designated a number of them on the original Plan, but it has always had a provision in the Plan for the creation of new rural villages in rural areas. Based on the recent seminar that was conducted by Mr. Randall Arendt, and borrowing from some of the other designed components, the applicant tried to fashion something that was new and different. Ms. Bonifay noted that this was a transmittal hearing to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and the County will get back an Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report and will still have to make a determination, based on the review made by other State agencies, whether or not to adopt the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. She stated that the applicants have filed a rezoning application and would like to discuss it in concert with the Comprehensive Plan. She realized that the zoning would not be voted on today, and Florida case law recognizes that, even if the Board approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it was not bound to endorse what they were proposing as a PUD, and the Board would have the discretion to determine what the densities would be within land use classifications. Ms. Bonifay stated that they originally went to the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 6, 1997 and made a presentation and received a 5-2 vote for approval. However, in talking with several of the residents, they were unable to speak at the meeting, because they did not know that the case had been moved up on the agenda. In order to allow the greatest amount of participation in this process, the applicants took the case back, at their option, to the Planning and Zoning Commission and held a second public hearing on October 1, 1997. She stated that one of the Commissioners felt that there had not been enough interchange between the applicant and staff, and there was not enough integration of the process between what happens in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and what happens with rezoning. Therefore, they called for several more meetings with the Planning staff to make sure they understood what was being proposed. The other Commissioner was concerned about the applicant not providing a school site. After meeting with a representative of the School Board, they found that the School Board was very interested in an elementary school location at this site, and the applicants have agreed to provide the site, and the plan was modified to show the school location next to the town center. She noted that the School Board had requested 25 acres and the original plan had 15 acres, and the applicants would honor the School Board's request. Ms. Bonifay stated that the rural village policy in the Comprehensive Plan provides for septic tanks, and they did not feel this was the most appropriate use in this area. They talked with Florida Water Services (formerly Southern States Utilities), who currently serves the Palisades with water, and Ms. Bonifay had an updated Letter of Intent dated August 24, 1997 evidencing the desire and intent of Florida Water Services to serve this project, if it was approved. The letter was submitted and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the applicant. Ms. Bonifay noted that there was almost complete devastation of the entire site that was an orange grove, and a determination was made not to replant it, but to put it into another agricultural use. She submitted an article from The Orlando Sentinel, Sunday, October 26, 1997, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "B" for the applicant. Ms. Bonifay stated that the Board could hardly base a denial on a fact that there has been no change in the agricultural industry, because all of the freezes happened prior to 1991. She stated that they have done a traffic analysis since going before the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Harlan L. Hanson to provide testimony in the case. She submitted to the Deputy Clerk Mr. Hanson's resume, which was marked as Exhibit "C" for the applicant and stated that she would like to qualify him as an expert of the area of planning and design.

Mr. Hanson presented an overview of his credentials and his experience over a 30 year period of time and stated that he has been involved in environmental planning throughout his career, and many of the communities where he worked were the first in Florida to donate school sites. Mr. Hanson stated that he supports the objectives in environmental preservation and good community development.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether Mr. Hanson could give an example of good development that he has seen in Central Florida during the period of time that he has been here.

Mr. Hanson stated that Walt Disney World is good site development where they have done an outstanding job of preserving open space in relationship to development, and the Community of Wekiva is a very well done community.

Commr. Swartz questioned how Mr. Hanson would describe, since his coming to Central Florida in 1966, the development patterns that have been created in Central Florida.

Mr. Hanson responded that it has been very rapid and very extensive urbanization, and there has been a dramatic change from a community that was primarily agriculturally based, and one that has responded to a definite change in its economy, with the development of Martin Marietta, as well as Walt Disney World. He felt that the quality of actual development is higher now that when he first arrived here, and he rated the overall development in Central Florida has being good.

Commr. Good noted that the Board had accepted Mr. Hanson as a qualified expert in his field of expertise.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, pointed out that this Comprehensive Plan Amendment was a Legislative change and rules of evidence and cross examination and those types of things were not necessary including the qualification as experts.

Ms. Bonifay questioned how Mr. Hanson's team approached the design given the particular parcel of land that was placed before it, and how it made certain determinations as to where the open space would be, how much, what an appropriate density would be, and what principles it employed from other planners, or urban philosophers in the field.

Mr. Hanson responded by explaining that the team looked at the Lake County Growth Management Plan and the rural village concept and began with a concept of creating a community for approximately 700 to 1,000 people, with the focus of creating a village center. Mr. Hanson explained, in much detail, his perception of the plan and described the concept in design that they developed as a team. He stated that the plan being presented clusters the 375 units in the middle of the project surrounding it by Green Belt, and approximately 308 acres of the buffer area is upland land. He further stated that they anticipated somewhere between 26 and 52 square feet per unit being needed for retail space, which would generate approximately 10,000 to 20,000 of actual retail space. Mr. Hanson stated that, when you combine that with the 10,000 community building, some church activities, and the schools, the 50,000 square foot number, when applied to these kinds of criteria, make sense. He stated that the applicant was willing to make these presentations and commitments as part of the Growth Management Plan application.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the traffic issue came up at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and although there is a staff report and traffic analysis as part of the backup and as part of the staff report which shows that there is capacity available and that they do not exceed the levels of service, they wanted to go beyond this. She called Mr. Reggie Tisdale, a transportation engineer, to testify in this matter. She stated that, even though she did not have to qualify him as an expert, she did want Mr. Tisdale to briefly review his experience and background in this area.

Mr. Tisdale stated that he is a resident of Lake County and the Statewide Director of Engineering for the firm of Vanasse, Hangen & Brustlin, in Orlando. He stated that he has practiced engineering in the State since 1965. He briefed the Board on his experience as an engineer and presented the parameters of his study and the analysis in his findings. Mr. Tisdale stated that he agrees with the staff report that there is sufficient capacity available and that the anticipated level of service, from the addition of this rural village, will be on Cherry Lake Road, as a Level C, which is a standard of measurement dictated by the County's Comprehensive Plan. In reaching that conclusion, he applied the ITE generation rates for the different land uses and for the program outlined by Mr. Hanson. The generation rates were assigned to the local transportation system with the major factors affecting the direction of travel of the County Industrial Park, the turnpike interchange, and the Clermont/Minneola area to the southeast. Mr. Tisdale stated that, from the transportation perspective, he agreed with staff that there was sufficient capacity to handle this development within the limits of the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Wally Temple, an officer with Pineloch Management, to testify as to the vision for this area.

Mr. Temple, Vice President of Pineloch Management Corporation, addressed the Board and explained that the company manages all of the real estate assets for the Caruso family. Mr. Temple addressed one of the points in the staff report, which was the change in the agicultural industry, and the demand for this type of project and testified that the company had to find a better economic use of all of their property, but they wanted to be sensitive to the area. They saw a couple of demand factors that would make this project successful, because they saw the adjacent towns of Clermont and Minneola expanding expediently, and Minneola had just approved a project called Oak Valley, which was just under two units per acre. They did not think the project was compatible for the area, but they did feel that the rural village was compatible.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, in conclusion, she would like to address some of the other issues that were raised by staff, in terms of ways in which they are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies. She addressed the question of what is an appropriate amount of commercial square footage , and stated that, in looking at the County's policies in the Plan that deal with rural villages, the policy provides for up to 50,000 square feet, yet the policy says 50,000 square feet of straight commercial. She stated that there is no requirement for a market study and they offered one in the field of urban design and planning. She asked the Board to look at Pages 8 and 9, and the policies that deal with the creation of rural villages and commercial uses, and noted that, under Policy 1-11.15, it talks about locating the commercial use to the interior. The other objection made by staff was that it is too big, and it does not serve exclusively the rural village residents. Ms. Bonifay stated that, in Policy 1-11.15, A., B., Page 9, Policy 1-11A.1, Standards for Nonresidential Development in Rural Villages, it talks about retail and personal services mainly intended to serve the immediate population, but it may also allow uses that cater to other people within the village, or the County. The typical square footage is 5,000 square feet, but it should be relative to the population served, and it should be allowed to develop, even if it exceeds the average square footage. Commercial uses should be concentrated at the center of activity in a cluster and preferably at the intersection of major roadways, which Ms. Bonifay stated that they have tried to do. They were not talking about 50,000 square feet of commercial, but a mix of uses that get you to that level. Ms. Bonifay stated that they have over 50 percent open space, and the location of the package treatment plant will be handled like any other PUD. The other concern raised by staff was the finger-like projection, which she explained they have not created with this project. She referred to an aerial map and explained the location of the project in relation to the Palisades and noted that some of the homes are 2,600 feet or several miles from the location of the project, and realizing that they will have, in many cases, up to 1,000 feet of green space buffer. Ms. Bonifay stated that she would like to save some time for rebuttal after the Board hears from the opposition.

Mr. John Zagame, Jay Mark Builders and Developers, Clermont, stated that he did not specifically support the project, because he did not have an interest in the property, nor did his company, but they would be profoundly affected, as a company, by the decision that the Board was going to make today. He believed that the Board was going to decide the development patterns for the County for the next 20 years. He stated that development does tend to follow the path of least resistance, and they were being actively courted by Minneola, Clermont, and other cities in Lake County who very much want development. Mr. Zagame stated that the Caruso family owns the property next door to those individuals who are in opposition to the request today, but they have a right to development it. He felt that, as developers, the County has pointed them in the right direction, but if it wants to give the right signal, it has to give them a chance to be creative and to work according to the rules and regulations, otherwise, they will follow the path of least resistance, and Clermont and Minneola will be very large cities and Lake County will be a shrinking entity.

Mr. Jay Schommer addressed the Board and stated that he lives in the surrounding area and the families have bonded together in signing a petition opposing the change of the rural land use to rural village on the 671 acres. He explained that this was a country area where the families have invested their life savings for their homes and acreage. Mr. Schommer stated that they all felt safe in purchasing their properties knowing that their land use plan encouraged and protected the rural area for one house per five acres. They felt there were other areas for those who chose to live in subdivision type settings, and they were asking the Board not to allow this infiltration into their rural lifestyle. Mr. Schommer submitted to the Deputy Clerk a petition signed by the area residents, which was marked as Exhibit "A" for the opposition, and letters from Tom Rodrigues, Susan Schommer, and himself, as well as his comments, which were marked as Exhibit "B" (composite) for the opposition.

Mr. Jeff Cooper, resident on Cherry Lake Road, stated that his comments had been presented to the Board and should be in their backup material. Mr. Cooper stated that the application before the Board does not provide any information on how the proposed development will affect the Clermont Chain-of-Lakes. He addressed the impact on the access road and stated that the studies cited were surveyed at points about three miles away, and no significance was given to the traffic pattern of Cherry Lake Road. He stated that recently the applicant modified the proposal to include a 25 acre donation to the school district, that was identified as a 15 acre parcel on their last site plan. Mr. Cooper stated that the last major issue of importance in his letter was the endorsement by the Board of the Randall Arendt concepts in planning. He stated that, if these concepts were truly the basis for future developments in Lake County, it would be correct for the Board to turn down this proposed amendment. He urged the Board to recommend against the proposal and noted that this was the first time that the residents have seen the site plans that they have been shown to the Board today.

Ms. Katherine Peres, Apshawa Road, stated that she lives approximately one mile from the property in question, and she was here representing herself, as well as her husband and the Apshawa Groves Homeowner's Association, which she is President. Ms. Peres stated that she has lived at the same address for four years, and they relocated to their current home from Broward County in order to enjoy the rural atmosphere, and to get away from the extreme crowding, and the traffic. She addressed the proposal before the Board and stated that the change in designation would alter the possible density from one dwelling unit per five acres to two dwelling units per acre (approximately 1,342 houses). It would also allow the builder to build up to 50,000 square feet of commercial space on this rural property. She and her neighbors were opposed to the change of the land designation of the property and requested that the Board deny the request. She stated that they have presented petitions noting the objection; the proposed change is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and their quality of life will be drastically impacted. Ms. Peres discussed the ownership of the property; the traffic studies including additional trips due to the development; the number of students that would be added to the school district; and the Clermont Chain-of-Lakes. She requested that the Board not change the designation on the land in question.

Mr. Matthew Modica stated that he was present in behalf of the Save Our Lakes Committee to oppose the Cherry Hill project for several reasons. He stated that they were concerned about any future large boat launching facility that would continue to deteriorate both the safety and water quality of the pristine waterways. He noted that approximately 70 percent of new growth is in the south Lake County area. Mr. Modica stated that, as both city and county governments continue to approve the most basic requests for growth, they continue to lag behind in services. He stated that, not only is it time for the development communities to offer properties to build schools, it was time for them to construct the buildings themselves. He respectfully urged opposition to this project and any further requests similar to this one.

Dr. Dwain E. Zagrocki, DVM, Apshawa Road, who lives west of the proposed development, addressed the Board and stated that staff has twice said that this was not something the County should do. Dr. Zagrocki discussed a map he had with him and noted that there are 23 equine barns in the area, and the area has the most integration of agriculture including nurseries and groves. He stated that the issue of the Chain-of-Lakes had been addressed, so he would not repeat his concerns. He further stated that the engineers have indicated that Cherry Lake Road can handle the extra traffic, but no one has addressed how much the community can handle. He discussed an offer that had been made on the property, which would have kept the current zoning, and stated that he believes in property owners' rights, and the right to turn down offers, but he questioned whether the owner of the property has the right to change the zoning in a way that will affect the whole community. Dr. Zagrocki stated that most of the realtors agree that, if you change the zoning in this area, you will forever change the area. He submitted two letters of opposition, which were marked by the Deputy Clerk, as follows: a letter from Fred Sommer, Sommer Sports, Exhibit "C" for the opposition, and a letter from Mike Timpner, South Lake Feed & Supply, Inc., Exhibit "D" for the opposition.

Mr. Dennis Horton stated that he was appearing before the Board as a resident and grove owner in the area being discussed. Mr. Horton stated that Cherry Lake Road feeds onto Jalarmy Road where he has lived for approximately 23 years. If this development is approved, most of the traffic, if it is going to Clermont or Minneola, will be on Cherry Lake Road. He stated that The Palisades is served by CR 561A, not by Cherry Lake Road. He explained that wildlife has been seen on the property in question over the years, and the wetlands area is next to the property. Mr. Horton stated that he owns a ten acre grove on Apshawa Lake, and he knew of the pain through the freezes. He also knew that his groves would not be rezoned to high density residential just because they were groves. Mr. Horton felt there were other uses for the property in question, which would be five to ten acre parcels, which would be keeping it rural residential. He would be shocked if Cherry Lake Road could handle the proposed traffic and, because of the sensitivity of the area and the fact that, if the Board passed it, it would be breeching the integrity of the rural area, he would respectfully request that the Board turn down this project today.

Mr. Mark Schneider stated that he serves on the County's Future Land Use Development Committee, and in the process, the Committee determined that there was approximately 300 percent over allocation to open up and allocate more land for essentially urban development, which he felt would be a mistake. He felt that the designation of a golf course as open space has also drawn a lot of controversy on this Committee, and he did not think that the Committee was going to recommend that golf courses be considered as open space. In reference to the Arendt plan, he did not see terminal vistas or single loaded roads in this project, and most of the houses back up to other houses and not to the open space. He totally disagrees that the County was heading to five acre ranchettes, because the County has approved a lot of urban densities outside the city limits. In regards to the school site, it would require at least 15 acres for an elementary school, and as the children get older, they will go to other schools, which will create even more traffic onto those roads and more need for schools.

Ms. Susan Coake addressed the Board and stated that she has some expertise in commercial realty, and she has done demographics and traffic counts for various places. She stated that one issue not addressed was the impact on the retail traffic entries in these areas, or if a church was built. She further stated that they just moved into a new home on a five acre tract in this area, and it was to benefit their children's lives. Ms. Coake stated that there were plenty of other places strictly zoned for residential. She felt that this would be setting a precedent in the area for other developments.

Mr. J. W. Scott stated that, regardless of shopping areas and schools, it was still a housing development. People that live in housing developments very rarely live there for their entire lives, and they live there until they are able to move somewhere else where they would much rather be. Mr. Scott stated that he was one of those people, because he now lives on five acres in south Lake County where he wants to be. He wondered if he was going to be there for any length of time, or if he was going to be looking at rooftops and lights from houses and schools, and hearing traffic.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford stated that he was here as an adjacent landowner, and he would be referring to a map that had been used earlier but was not introduced as an exhibit. He pointed out the five acres that he owns, and the location of Sam's Lake and stated that he was concerned about the plan being presented. He explained that the density could be further restricted and the clustering arguments could be addressed at the PUD zoning. He stated that Policy 1-11.14 says that you have to be contiguous to existing development for a new rural village and not create enclaves or finger-like projections. He also had a problem with the intensity of the commercial use, because he could not imagine how 375 homes could support 50,000 square feet of commercial development, even when some of it was office and retail. He addressed Policy 1-11A-1 and explained that the commercial should be located preferably at the intersection of major roadways, and they did not have the major intersections and roadways. Mr. Crawford stated that, if the applicant could limit this to one unit per two acres at this stage and limit the commercial to something like 10,000 square feet, then he would not have a problem with it. He stated that the area was going to be developed, and you could put 160 homes there now, and 375 clustered the right way with the right improvements might be all right, but he did not know how this was going to be done with this land use plan amendment. Mr. Crawford submitted the map, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "E" for the opposition.

In rebuttal, on the applicants' behalf, Ms. Bonifay stated that she represents a family who has had to organize themselves into a corporation for purposes of doing business. In terms of entitlements to land use, over the last 60 years, the applicants have seen a variety of land uses applied to their property. In this area, there are 2/10 acre tracts up to about 80 acre tracts, and the lowest evaluation is around $12,000 to $15,000 for almost two acres, so there is a very big range. Ms. Bonifay pointed out that there are a lot of people in this area that live on less than five acres. She stated that, when the Board takes a vote today, she wants it to be based on facts. She noted that the traffic representations made by some of the speakers were not accurate, in terms of the numbers of trips and frequency of those trips, and the representations for the school age population were not accurate in terms of numbers of houses. Ms. Bonifay addressed the quality of life and noted that those in the area are not required to have a stormwater management plan. She wanted the record to reflect the factual information, as follows: there is not an environmental problem; they meet levels of concurrency, which is what the Comprehensive Plan requires; there was no degradation; they have been willing to say that there would be no more than 10,000 to 20,000 square feet of commercial, and they have introduced evidence to show that this is what the planners in this area recommend, with the rest being community facilities. She stated that they have a good program, it was well designed, and she was asking the Board to support it.

At 12:55 p.m., Commr. Good called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Good stated that he was ready to support the staff recommendation for denial and not transmit the application for the reasons stated today. He noted that the applicant was inconsistent with some of the policies and stated that this was a community with a quality of life, and it was a quality that he did not wish to change at this time.

Commr. Gerber stated that, in regard to the rural village designation, she did not believe the intent was to enable new towns to spring up fully formed. She stated that the plan being presented is an example of good site development, but this is a bad site. She further stated that there is the problem with the rural village being contiguous, substantially contiguous, and it is not contiguous to substantially anything. It meets in points on certain properties, but it is really not contiguous to any development on the ground except for the incompatible five acre tracts that those individuals spent a lot of money to buy. Commr. Gerber pointed out that, if there were any areas of the policies that an application was inconsistent, then the project fails, because it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that is on the staff's recommendation, and the Board puts a lot of faith in their knowledge and their technical abilities. She wished that all of the individuals present had been at the small area study for this area, because right now, the area is rural. Commr. Gerber stated that, for all of these reasons, mainly because of the incompatibility issues and the fact that staff is finding it inconsistent, she would not support the amendment for transmittal.

Commr. Good stated that a lot those individuals present today were at the small area study, the community realizes that it is growing, as shown today, and there is definitely that aspect of unity among those people. He further stated that it is really encouraging to see the community come together, and five acres tracts is one way to plan. Commr. Good stated that there appeared to be areas in south Lake County to grow as five acre tracts, to grow as Arendt type communities, and to grow as garage door communities, and all three of these are happening in Lake County, and he considers this being very positive economically and socially.

Commr. Hanson stated this is a good quality development, the design is good, but not perfect, but it would offer a village concept where people would want to live. At this point, she has not found any overwhelming reason that the Board should move forward on an amendment to the land use plan. She stated that, because the Board fought so hard to get where it is today, she is not in a position to start making major changes that this would open the door. She felt there would be places that this would be very appropriate, but she was not ready to do it at this particular place.

Commr. Cadwell stated that this was not a bad plan, but it did not fit in this area.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was pleased with the level of discourse over the years since the first rezonings and when the Astatula area came before the Board in 1989. The level is substantially different than it was back then. He stated that rural village is a concept that initially started out as a plan to look at those existing rural villages around Lake County. He stated that those existing rural villages were identified, and the idea was to provide a way in which they could grow but protect the rural nature of their rural village as it has been developed in the past and would potentially develop in the future. He stated that the concept of a rural village, to expand it, was given not nearly as much thought and effort, which is the reason why, when looking through the Comprehensive Plan and deciding whether or not this would be good place to expand one, he wished it gave a little bit clearer definition of what a rural village was intended to be and how you should go about establishing it. Commr. Swartz stated that this proposal, in all fairness to the applicant, is an effort to increase the density in a development pattern that is now becoming more acceptable, but if you take the logical extension of what has been done in the past in the rural areas, it would eventually take every bit of agricultural land and destroy it. With regard to the transmittal issue, the Board has in its Land Development Regulations (LDRs), Section 14.02.05 Standards for Review, and an application would have to meet all of the criteria before the Board would vote to send it to DCA. To Mr. Zagame, he stated that this vote today is not about whether a rural village, or Mr. Arendt's open space development concepts, is a good idea, because they are both good ideas, but there are other alternatives, and this was not the approach that should be taken. He discussed the page in the backup noting policies that were consistent and not consistent and stated that staff did a good review of the application, and the appropriate answer is not to transmit it to State.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request to transmit LPA 97/2/5-2, Center Lake Properties, Ltd. , to change the land use designation from Rural to Rural Village, to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

REZONING

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, noted that Case PH#46-97-2, Richard & Gloria Oswalt has been postponed for 30 days; Case CUP#635C-4, Holmar Marina has been withdrawn; and Case CUP#93A/6/1-1, Linda Greeson & Alice Rowley has been postponed for 30 days.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve the two postponements and one withdrawal of zoning cases, as stated above by Ms. Farrell.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 5-0 vote.

Small Scale Land Use Plan Amendment 97/8/1-3 - R.K.M. Development Corp.

Mr. Mike Miller, Chief Planner, Growth Management Department, stated that the criteria for a small scale amendment is that it cannot be greater than or equal to ten acres, and during an entire year, there cannot be more than 80 acres processed as a small scale amendment; it cannot be a text amendment; and it cannot be in the Green Swamp. If it is a residential development, it needs to be less than ten dwelling units per acre. Mr. Miller explained that small scale amendments require one hearing, and it is then sent to DCA. He identified the property that would be going from Employment Center to Commercial Corridor and stated that it does concern redevelopment. The actual site was approximately three-fourths of an acre, and if the plan amendment was successful, it would be combined with an existing two and one-half acre parcel to the south to make a parcel a little over three acres, which would then be redeveloped, and staff was recommending approval.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was not opposed to what was being requested here, in terms of going to the commercial zoning, because he felt it was going to improve the overall condition in that area, but he felt the Board was making two mistakes, and he would like to find a way to facilitate what this property owner wants to do without making those mistakes. Under the red dot was a cross-hatch, which was the same cross-hatch as employment center. In Lake County, only one employment center was created, in 1991, at the intersection of SR 19 and US 27, and only one future employment center was created at the intersection of CR 470 and the turnpike. He stated that, at that time, there had been concerns expressed at the public hearing that the Board had these economic development needs, and it did not want to reduce the industrially zoned land in that recognition, and the intent to do that was to say that all of those properties that were zoned as various types of industrial zoning, on July, 1991 would be able to retain that industrial zoning and be consistent with the land use map. It has subsequently become confused that the intent was to make those employment centers. In this particular case, by calling this an employment center, this three-quarters of an acre parcel cannot do what logically it was intended to be able to do, which would be to change the zoning to commercial.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Steve Richey addressed the Board and clarified that he did not have a position on the request before the Board, and he was not representing anyone. Mr. Richey explained that he had appeared before the Board at the adoption hearings on the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, and there was a concern that Lake County was going about trying to create industrial uses, which was not inconsistent with what was being done today, but it was creating a lot of non-conforming industrial uses out in the hinter lands that were not reflected on the Future Land Use Map. There was a discussion, at that time, about putting a notation on the Future Land Use Map that basically was intended to vest, or grandfather, the existing industrial zoning that was in place at the date of adoption. The notation that was on the earlier map was to vest all the zoning that was industrial, so that they would not be found to be incompatible, or inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There was no intention to burden it with all the limitations of employment centers, because employment centers were dealt with in other places. Through that process, and the various challenges by DCA, the wording has evolved and changed. The wording on the map today was different than the original wording, and it must have been deleted from the map, and then put back on the map with less accuracy than when it was originally placed on the map. Now there were areas that were designated that were trying to be vested as industrial vesting, and they are now being burdened with the limitations of the employment center, which was never the intention. He stated that DCA, in talking with staff, understands the problem, and the County has taken the vesting provision and applied all the limitations of the employment center, and there was clearly nothing in the Comprehensive Plan to differentiate the two, except you have to go back to the underlying actions and the intent of the Board, and the notes that were done at that time, in order to guide staff. Mr. Richey stated that, if in fact this was not being classed as an employment center, there would absolutely be no reason to do a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, because it would be in an area that would allow this commercial rezoning.

Commr. Swartz stated that, while this may not be the approved map, he felt that the statements made by Mr. Richey were correct. He felt that there were two things that the Board could do to keep from doing two incorrect things and not delay the applicant, and that would be to go ahead and do a land plan amendment and change it from employment center to urban. He was opposed to changing it to commercial corridor, but if the Board changes it to urban, in urban you can have a commercial use, and then it can be discussed with DCA for clarification.

Mr. Minkoff clarified that urban had not been advertised, so it could not be addressed today. He stated that, unless the Board takes the position that this is an employment center regardless of what the map says, and it chooses not to transmit, then the property can be rezoned and given the building permit. Mr. Minkoff stated that the map was adopted as part of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, and it was the map the County adopted, not what it thought it adopted at the hearing. He stated that the DCA and the County entered into an agreement and stated that this was to be the plan and this was to be the map, and it did not have the notation on it. In terms of curing all of the employment centers, if, in fact, the Board is of that opinion, the best way to do that would be to amend the map now, and to make those changes, and to put this other legend back in, but he did not think, at this point, the Board could do it based upon a map that it cannot find and the memories of others, when the minutes and maps that were used for six years do not reflect it.

Commr. Swartz stated that there were other areas where normal commercial cannot be done as in the past, because they are considered as employment centers. He did not want to delay the applicant, and he stated that, perhaps the Board could transmit the land plan amendment to commercial corridor, and then it would be appropriate to do a zoning, and then the Board could come back and straighten out the employment center issue and perhaps change that from the County's position, which was this new commercial corridor, back to urban.

Mr. Joel Arnold, agent for the applicants, stated that they would like to move forward, because they had some delays previously in regard to this project, and any delays would be crucial. Mr. Arnold noted that, if the County changes the commercial corridor designation back to urban, he would not have a problem with the change, if it would not improvise any problems with their zonings and allow them to go forward as a Walgreens, because there was certain stipulated language that has been put into contracts that they have to adhere to.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Minkoff stated that this was an actual adoption hearing and not a transmittal hearing. He read the following title of proposed Ordinance 1997-77:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM EMPLOYMENT CENTER TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, FOR PROPERTY IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 19, RANGE 25, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF CR 473 (HAINES CREEK ROAD), NORTH OF US 441; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 163.3184(15); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved LPA 97/8/1-3 as Ordinance 1997-77, as read by title only.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:35 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:30 p.m. for rezoning.

COMMISSIONERS

It was noted that the following Commissioners were present: Commr. Good, Chairman; Commr. Swartz, Vice Chairman; Commr. Gerber; and Commr. Hanson.

REZONING

REZONING CASE: PH#49-97-3 FLA. CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST (STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQ.) - TRACKING NO. 75-97-CFD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, informed the Board that this was a request to take an old CUP and rezone it to Community Facility District (CFD) to add the use of a day care and a preschool. She noted that there was no opposition from the neighborhood, it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and staff was recommending approval of the request.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that this was a church and school that exists by a CUP, and they have operated, for two years, a day care facility on the property. It was determined by staff that this was inconsistent with the CUP, and they had to close the preschool. Mr. Crawford stated that they were not asking for any building permits, and the site plan that is submitted is the site plan as it exists today.

Pastor David Canther addressed the Board and stated that they were planning to reopen the facility, with one teacher for the day care program, which has up to 15 students. In the school currently, there are about 50 students and four teachers.

Commr. Swartz questioned staff as to whether there would be any additional traffic impact or would that be reviewed further by staff.

Ms. Farrell stated that, for any future expansions, the traffic impact would be reviewed.

Commr. Good called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

It was noted that, other than adding the day care and the preschool uses, all of the other uses were consistent with the CUP, and there was no expansion to the facility.

The aerial for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A".

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for revocation of CUP#777-1 and rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) to add day care and preschool uses to the existing church and school for future expansion, Ordinance 1997-78.

Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.

COMMISSIONERS

At 2:45 p.m., it was noted that Commr. Cadwell had arrived for the afternoon session of the meeting.



REZONING (CONTINUED)

REZONING CASE: #48-97-3 - RALPH WEEKS, J. M. BOOTH & KATHLEEN WARREN (JOEL T. ARNOLD/AVID ENGINEERING) - TRACKING NO. 73-97-CP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, informed the Board that this was a request for rezoning to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-2 uses for the construction of a Walgreens Store. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, and it will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with a Small Scale Land Use Plan Amendment. It has gone through a pre-submittal with the Development Review Staff (DRS), and the Board has before it a site plan for consideration. Staff has been in contact with the City of Leesburg and there was some dialogue as to central water and sewer.

Commr. Cadwell noted that he had some conversation with these folks when they first started the process, with the conversation being more about what they needed to do and the process itself, and it would not affect his ability to vote on this case.

Discussion occurred regarding access and street lighting, with it being noted that the applicant would still have to go through staff review for access management.

Commr. Swartz stated that the applicant would be required to hook up to the City of Leesburg for water and sewer, if it was available through the City.

Ms. Farrell stated that a representative from the City of Leesburg would most likely attend the DRS meeting.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Joel Arnold, agent, stated that, with this particular plan, he wanted to tie the zoning to it, in terms of the setbacks, because they were meeting existing setbacks that were currently on site.

Ms. Farrell stated that this was not a concern of staff. She stated that there were some existing structures, and they were not meeting a specific right-of-way setback, but with the CP zoning and the approved site plan, staff was comfortable moving forward, and Public Works was comfortable with the setback as shown in the site plan.

After some discussion, it was noted that the applicants would not be meeting the current setbacks from right-of-way for the new structure. They would from Haines Creek but the setbacks would be 28.6 feet from Crossen Street, and this would be the only variance needed.

Discussion occurred regarding sidewalks, with it being noted that, with a CP zoning, the Board has the opportunity to address this issue.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether Mr. Arnold would have any objection to limiting the C-2 uses from kennels, bars and taverns, or warehouses.

Mr. Arnold implied that he would not have any objection to limiting the uses.

The Board discussed the idea of having the parking placed in the back of the building, with Commr. Hanson proposing that the Board look at this as a policy rather than isolating this particular application.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like staff to look at a policy that would address the parking issue, as the County continues to develop in some of these areas.

The aerial for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A".

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), C-2 (Community Commercial), CP (Planned Commercial), LM (Light Industrial), R-6 (Urban Residential) and R-8 (Mixed Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-2 uses for construction of Walgreens Store, with the acceptance of all conditional uses, but exempting the kennels, bar and tavern, and warehouses, which are permitted uses; that in the site plan review and final development, staff require reasonable sidewalk extension from Crossen to the properties including Walgreens, not necessarily going all the way to US 441, because it may not work with the site plan; and that it is clear that central water and sewer would be required, if the City could meet the County's contiguous footage requirements; and that the Board allow the variance from Crossen to allow no structure to be any closer than 28.6 feet, Ordinance 1997-79.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that there have been other CP requests that have not been this clear, and he appreciated the detailed site plan.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in conditional zoning, getting a site plan was important to the Board, and the Board needed to decide whether this was going to be a requirement.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.



REZONING CASE: CUP 97/7/4-2 - PRIMECO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

RANDY DALE & KELLY HARLESS - TRACKING NO. 56-97-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, informed the Board that this was a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for a monopole-type telecommunications tower. Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant has reduced the height of the tower from 330 feet to 180, relocated the tower on the site plan and redesigned the tower. Staff was recommending approval of the request based on the new Towers Ordinance. She noted that there was one letter of opposition, and the request was approved 7 to 0 at Planning and Zoning.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. John Ariale, representing PrimeCo Personal Communications, stated that he, as well as Ms. Cheryl Denon and representatives from Sprint, and property owners and adjacent property owners, were present to answer any questions of the Board. Staff has gone through all of their comments and adjusted the site to meet all of the new code requirements. Mr. Ariale referred to Page 2, D. 3., and stated that, if the Board decides to approve the site, the tower shall be designed to accommodate colocation of not less than three carriers, and this tower will be designed for three users. He pointed out on the aerial the location of the property owners that were present in the audience, and he submitted a letter of no objection from Scott and Vickie Oldaker, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk at Exhibit "A" for the applicant..

Commr. Good called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Good stated that this request was in his district, and he felt this was an appropriate site.

The aerial for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A".

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for placement of a multiple carrier 1890 foot monopole-type telecommunications tower on site, Ordinance 1997-80.



REZONING CASE: CUP #97/7/3-2 - PRIMECO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (CARROLL A. FULMER) - TRACKING NO. 55-97-CUP



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, informed the Board that this was a request for a CUP for placement of a multiple carrier 250 foot self-supporting telecommunications tower on site.

Commr. Swartz questioned, in reading the backup letters, what the ordinance calls for in terms of requirement for colocation in order to get the reduction.

Ms. Farrell explained that the applicant is to supply Letters of Commitment prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Commr. Swartz stated that the letters from Teletrac, Inc., Sprint, and Bellsouth Mobility express their interest in colocating with the applicant.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the County was not issuing a building permit today, and the applicant had asked for an earlier postponement to make certain he could get the letters.

Ms. Farrell noted that staff did discuss coming back with sunset dates on development permits as a separate issue on PUDs, site plans, preliminary plats, but they did not put one in this particular ordinance.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if for some reason the applicant does not build the tower, he was concerned that the County would be holding up somebody else from putting up a tower, so staff may want to have some review in the CUP until it is actually built.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the tower was not built within three years, the County could add language that the CUP would be void.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. John Ariale, agent for the applicant, stated that it was the applicant's intention to go forward with the site plan review as early as the next couple of days, and to provide the agreements the County needs to issue the correct building permits. It was noted that Mr. Ariale had no objection to the inclusion of the additional language being proposed.

Mr. Minkoff directed the Board's attention to Page 4 of the proposed CUP and noted that the language states all construction shall have begun within 12 months, or the CUP becomes void.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

The aerial for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A".

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved for a CUP in HM (Heavy Industrial) for placement of a multiple carrier 250 foot self-supporting telecommunications tower on site, Ordinance 1997-81.

REZONING CASE NO: 33-97-2 - STANFORD REALTY INC./R. F. STONEROCK

TRACKING NO. 47-97-Z



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, informed the Board that this was a request for a single family residential housing development. Ms. Farrell explained that the request had originally been before the Board on August 26, 1997, and the Board had instructed the applicant to go back and draft some documents for R-3 (Medium Residential District) to allow for the same lot sizes as the Lake Ridge Club. There had been some discussion in regards to open space and in regards to other concerns of the adjacent property owners. She stated that the applicant was present today to address these issues, and staff was recommending approval of the request, with the rest of the concerns being addressed by the applicant.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Stonerock who is a co-owner along with Stanford Realty Inc. was present today, and the last time they were here, they had discussions about working with the Lake Ridge Club Homeowners' Association and finalizing an agreement with them with regard to developing this property to be consistent with Lake Ridge Club and the adjacent development, and they have now entered into the Agreement. Mr. Richey explained that the Agreement provides this piece of property to be developed into 24 lots, which would be single family residential sites with 1,800 square feet minimum of living area, and they have increased the setbacks and put height restrictions contiguous to the Lake Ridge Club area. They also had discussions about some of the new concepts being proposed, with regard to cluster development, and this was presented to the Lake Ridge Club Homeowners' Association. Mr. Richey submitted a copy of the letter from the President and a copy of the Agreement, which were marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" (composite) for the applicant. He informed the Board that the applicant will be contiguous with Utilities, Inc., and he had discussed with the Health Department any problems or failures in that area, with regard to septic tanks, and he was assured that they would have no problem meeting percolation tests. He addressed the issue of roads in the area and stated that, when they plat the piece of property, they have committed themselves to develop no more than 24 lots, but when they go through the platting process, they will have to meet concurrency.

Commr. Good called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Good noted that no one has spoken in opposition, but there had been concerns brought forth by a couple of residents about the traffic on Lakeshore Drive. He had spoken to some of the people about the road proposal and noted that there was a solution in the works for the problem that exists on Anderson Hill.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential) for single family residential housing development, Ordinance 1997-82.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that, in visiting those people, he questioned whether it would hinder Commr. Good's ability to make a decision on the case.

Commr. Good clarified that his discussions were not specific to this project, but were just general concerns of the people.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned whenever the Board gets into straight zoning. This was a smaller number of acres than the Board has had with some other recent rezoning requests, and he appreciated the Lake Ridge Club's feelings with regard to the clustering idea, but the Board was going to have to make a decision. He stated that what the Board was doing today was allowing for rezoning and increased density. Commr. Swartz stated that he was not sure of the reasoning for going from R-1 to R-2 other than to get more lots.

Commr. Good stated that he would not disagree with Commr. Swartz, but the reason this becomes slightly more palatable is that it is an infill in an existing neighborhood with accompanying impacts that will occur, and the scale and location of the project allows him to see a consistency here, as opposed to what might be at some other place or level.

Commr. Hanson believed that, if Mr. Richey continued to work with the property owners around the property, they may actually change their minds and allow clustering.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

REZONING CASE: 50-97-2 - LANGLEY GROVES, INC.

TRACKING NO. 77-97-PUD/Z



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, informed the Board that this was a request to rezone property from R-1 to R-2 or to PUD. Ms. Farrell explained that this was a straight rezoning, staff ran the points and checked the Comprehensive Plan policies and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and staff can recommend approval for rezoning to R-2. The maximum allowable density on the site is 2.5 acres, and the applicant has every right to apply for straight R-1 to R-2 for 98 acres in urban expansion. Staff encouraged the applicant, during the process, to go through the PUD process, because after staff visited the site, they realized that there were some planning issues that they would feel a lot more comfortable addressing through the PUD process. Ms. Farrell explained that, due to some communication problems between staff and the applicant, it came forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission as R-2. At that time, staff recommended a postponement to encourage the applicant to format it in a PUD. Ms. Farrell stated that staff was recommending approval to the R-2, it meets the Comprehensive Plan requirements, and there were some outstanding issues that staff wants to address at the Development Review and some transportation and environmental issues. In the backup, there was an Ordinance for straight rezoning, but there were some fairly specific submittal requirements to address those issues. Ms. Farrell stated that they will be on a central water system with individual septics. The debate of open space can be presented on this particular project, but with the LDRs, as they read today, there is no open space criteria to address the issue, and there is no PUD Ordinance in place for residential rezoning such as this.

Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Kevin Hawkins, applicant, reiterated the information provided by Ms. Farrell and stated that he needed to move forward on this project, because he has contractual responsibilities, and he cannot suffer the economic hardship. Mr. Hawkins reviewed his meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Homeowners' Association, he concurred with the staff recommendation to approve R-2 zoning, and he reserved the right to rebut any comments. He stated that there would be approximately 195 units on about 98 acres, and there would be septic tanks and central water. He submitted a map from Glatting, Jackson, Kercher, Anglin, Lopez, Rinehart, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "A" for the applicant.

Mr. Lawrence Stuebner stated that he was opposed to the R-2 rezoning. He submitted information noted as Exhibits A through I (Exhibits C through I were furnished to the Commissioners), and the Deputy Clerk marked it as Exhibit "A" (composite) for the opposition. He reviewed the traffic study done for Spring Valley (Exhibit C), which noted that Anderson Hill Road, at that time, was classified by the County as a local road, not a collector. There was another rezoning request in 1995, and the same traffic engineer, in his report (Exhibit D), pointed out that the County had designated Anderson Hill Road, Lakeshore Drive, Amber Avenue, and Spring Valley Road as local roads. When Mr. Hawkins made his request, several of the homeowners met with the County staff, and they were told that the roads had now become collector roads. Staff provided them with information from the Federal Highway Administration (Exhibit E), which showed Anderson Hill Road, from Lake Shore Blvd., to US 27, as a collector road, and Lake Shore Blvd., from Anderson Hill Blvd., to Sunset Ave/1980 Urban Limit, as a local road, and Lake Shore Blvd., from Lake Louisa Rd. (Clermont) to Anderson Hill Road, as a collector road. He went to Orlando and spoke to Mr. John Lazenski, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Mr. Stuebner explained that the report tells the function evaluation on the road and does not classify it. Mr. Stuebner referred to a map (Exhibit F), which showed the highlighted area of Lakeshore Drive, which was being called a collector road. He stated that the physical characteristics of that road, since classified as local by the County, have not changed. He had gotten information from the Florida Highway Patrol regarding the number of accidents that have occurred on that road in the last few years, and stated that, in 1996, there were two accidents; in 1997, there were five. Mr. Stuebner referred to a paper from rezoning (Exhibit G), which shows the description of roads and stated that he would consider the road as a Feeder/Distributor. He noted that there are now 7,000 cars on that road. The next page (Exhibit H) shows that the lane for a Feeder/Distributor should be 12 feet wide. He measured the lanes and they were 11 feet wide and there was no shoulder. The next page (Exhibit I) was a list of developments that have been approved south of where he lives at Amber Hill, and the last ten were the ones that have been developed since the last request for rezoning by Mr. Bornstein. Mr. Stuebner stated that, if the County continued with developments as such, it would affect their quality of life. He stated that, in the traffic study that was done for Amber Lakes at the traffic intersection of Anderson Hill and US Highway 27, the traffic engineer made a note that this area was already approaching a Level D. At that time, there were 1,600 cars on the roads, and the latest count by the County indicates 2,000. Mr. Stuebner stated that it was probably a Level E or F by now. He submitted ten photographs showing the intersection of Amber Hill and the Deputy Clerk marked them as Exhibit "B" (composite) for the opposition.

Mr. Mark Schneider, Clermont, stated that he lives off of Anderson Hill Road, and his real objection was not the size of the lots, or the size of the homes to be built, or the site plan that was presented to Lake Ridge Club, but it was the process, because this should be a PUD. He stated that it was not the fault of the residents that the developer, or the representative of the developer, was unprepared and did not go through the propert procedures to make sure this was done through a PUD. Mr. Schneider felt it should be a PUD, and he would like to hear from the City of Clermont, because the site plan calls for a majority of the lots to be 1/4 acre. He stated that Kingsridge and Spring Valley are going to be using Clermont sewer, and the 1/4 acre lots could cause a serious problem in this area. He further stated that part of the site plan is part of the Green Swamp, there are FMAI areas adjacent to it, and there are similar developments in the area that are already agreeing to go on sewer. He also wants to see a traffic study for this area before it is determined by staff and the developer without any input from the residents in this area. Mr. Schneider stated that Lakeshore Drive is scenic and constricted, and he thinks the Board should take action at some point in the future to designate it as so, and he feels there is a inherent conflict in this process, because you have the Transportation Consulting Group doing the Spring Valley study, the Amber Lake study, and the study for DOT. He feels that this is a conflict of interest, and there has been a question raised among the residents as to whether the laws have been followed. He reviewed the criteria for urban/collector and stated that Anderson Hill is only mile long, and he felt it did not meet the criteria, which is one reason it should be a PUD. He discussed the need for a policy change, because there were at least two other parcels that would need to be brought on line before the road can be built, so the County needs to buy the right-of-way in this area, so the road can be put in now, before the traffic problem becomes any worse.

Ms. Susana Gibson stated that she is a resident of Sunshine Hills, which is directly off of Anderson Hill Road, and after seeing all of these traffic studies, she challenged anyone to make a right turn out of Sunshine onto Anderson and see how long it takes right now. She stated that all additional developments south of Anderson Hill should require an additional road with direct access to US 27. Ms. Gibson stated that the residents have heard conflicting stories from staff about the availability of the money for the road, and it has been two years since they were here fighting Mr. Bornstein on this same issue. During these two years, there has been uncontrolled growth, which has created an educational crisis for children. There are over 35 developments south of Lakeshore Drive, as well as a development that was approved earlier today, and there is an astronomical number of children that will be in need of schools. Ms. Gibson stated that the residents would like the Commissioners to invite Governor Lawton Chiles to visit the schools and demonstrate true overcrowding. Ms. Gibson stated that the residents respectfully submit that they need the road and they need it now, and if the County gives them the road, they will stop opposing developers.

Commr. Good stated that he hoped that the residents would come forward and ask for the amenities and demand the concurrencies, or they will not get them and, even if the residents get the road, he hoped they will not stop questioning how the community is built, because that is a very important part of the process.

Ms. Joyce Prakke stated that she lives in Amber Hill, and after talking with County staff, she has found that the road is, at the very least, five years away, and with the development being proposed, there will be 2,400 cars a day added onto Lakeshore Drive. She has two children and was concerned about schools. Ms. Prakke stated that the infrastructure cannot deal with the development already there. She was not necessarily against Mr. Hawkins, but the Board has to decide that the infrastructure has to be number one before the rest of the developments come in, in order to make it a safe situation and a safe living area.

Commr. Cadwell noted for the record that the School Board is notified of all rezonings.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the issue of there being no concurrency for schools and stated that it is prohibited by Statute to even pass one.

Mr. Richard Pendergast, Officer in the Lake Ridge Club Homeowners' Association, stated that Lake Ridge Club was the closest subdivision that would be affected by the proposed development, as he noted on the map marked Exhibit "A" for the applicant. He stated that there were 106 lots in Lake Ridge Club and about 70 have been built on, and there were 86 signatures on a petition about the same issues being discussed today, which included the lack of infrastructure, both roads and sewer systems. He submitted a letter from the Lake Ridge Club Homeowners, which was marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit "C" for the opposition. The proposed development envisions 244 lots and the anticipated traffic that would be generated from them. Mr. Pendergast stated that he was concerned about 177 one-quarter acre lots being on septic tanks. He stated that the area suffers from low water pressure, and he understood that the developer would have to get a letter from Lake Utilities certifying that they can provide sufficient water. He felt that this needed to be looked at very closely, because they are not providing sufficient water to them at this point. Mr. Pendergrast reviewed the vote at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, which was 4-4, and stated that this indicated that the project had not been examined enough.

Mr. Justin Turner stated that he lives with his wife at the corner of Lake Louisa Road and Lakeshore Drive, and about 40 years ago, his wife purchased 1 acres on a corner of Lake Louisa Road and Lakeshore Drive. He explained that he was mystified that a developer can now come along and build houses on Lake Louisa Road and block their access to their home and build a new junction for Lake Louisa Road and Lakeshore Drive, which will be a death trap for the fire department, the rescue squad and the motorists that use it. He further could not understand how there could be so many septic tanks and how they could not pollute the aquifer and all of the lakes. He stated that all of these issues needed to be reviewed before the Board approved the request.

Mr. Joe Territo stated that he is an adjacent property owner who lives on east Lake Louisa. He owns two parcels of land, a 16 acre tract and a four (4) acre tract, and this development will abut his property on approximately 1,000 feet. His property is zoned agricultural and he has all intentions of keeping it agricultural, and the density on his property is one home per 20 acres. He was concerned that, if 200 homes are built, the smaller density homes will abutt his property where he has animals, so there will be animal noise and animal smell. Mr. Territo stated that there should be some consideration given for buffering. He was concerned about road congestion having had two personal experiences with the County's fire department. He stated that the infrastructure needed to be added before the County allows more development. Mr. Territo stated for the record that he was opposed to increasing the density of any of the development on any of the property in this area.

Mr. Hawkins presented rebuttal comments and clarified that there is ten acres on the other side of Lakeshore Drive that is on the lake, but he did not plan on developing any homes there, but they had planned on using it for open space. He stated that the overwhelming concern seemed to be transportation; schools are not part of the concurrency, even though they are required to pay impact fees; and they are prepared to meet every septic tank regulation. Mr. Hawkins explained that he cannot delay this development and go through the PUD process, and he was prepared to move forward with the R-2 zoning, which is his preference, and if the Board approves the request, he was prepared to donate the right-of-way and commit to dedicate as much as 20 percent of open space on the site. He stated that they had several meetings with Mr. Don Griffey, Engineering Director, and his staff, and it will cost less to put the road in, and it will happen sooner, if everyone works in harmony. Mr. Hawkins noted that staff has recommended approval of the request, and they comply with all of the criteria, as listed on Pages 6 and 7. He stated that there are 12 subdivisions that surround the project and everyone of them has R-3 zoning, so they are consistent with the zoning in the area. He addressed the reasons for a PUD and stated that staff has the level of service of the roads at Level B. Mr. Hawkins respectfully asked the Board to follow the staff's recommendation and approve the request.

Discussion occurred regarding the offers of open space and right-of-way, with Commr. Hanson stating that she did not think the road was necessary for the development being proposed, but it was necessary to work with the people that live in the area.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the County cannot do conditional zoning, and the County has not adopted or implemented the scheme of a developers agreement, as provided by the Statutes, and he has recommended that the Board not do these agreements, because of the problems associated with them. He stated that the Board could address those issues of importance, as discussed, through the PUD Ordinance, as recommended by staff.

Commr. Good called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

The aerial for the application was submitted by staff and marked by the Deputy Clerk as County Exhibit "A".

Commr. Swartz asked staff to give its best evaluation as to whether or not it is prudent for this Board to approve this rezoning as a straight rezoning from R-1 to R-2 given the questions that were raised as the staff reviewed the development, and in addition to those questions, the issues that have come forward today in a public hearing with regard to roads and other issues.

Ms. Farrell noted that there may be another option that the Board may want to consider today. She stated that staff actually advertised for a PUD.

Commr. Swartz stated that this would not be an option, because if the reason for considering a PUD, or any review of development is to ensure that it is consistent with the adjacent land uses that is in keeping with public health, safety and welfare issues, whether it be roads, septic tanks, open space, or any other issues, it is not a way in which to go in order to ensure that those issues are well dealt with. He stated that there had been some indication by staff to the applicant that staff would prefer to review this as a PUD. He asked staff to relay its feelings with regard to going forward with a straight zoning given these issues as opposed to a PUD.

Ms. Farrell stated that, as the staff report states, staff was reluctantly recommending approval to R-2 based on not having the traffic study, not having an environmental management plan, and other information where staff could have made some site development comments and answer some of the questions that were proposed today by the neighbors. She was not saying that, from the information, staff would have recommended denial, but staff may have made some specific recommendations and comments as to setbacks, buffers, and roadways. During the preliminary plat review process, staff can still get the information, but it was better planning to get it up front, and there would be no development permits issued without having those questions answered. Ms. Farrell stated that, although the Comprehensive Plan has 88 references to open space and some of the other items, the LDRs are not specific enough as to straight zoning versus PUDs. She noted that the code provides for clustering. Ms. Farrell clarified that she could not address those items of concern today with the information that has been provided, but she could address them before the development moves forward.

Mr. Don Griffey, Engineering Director, stated that, when staff looks at a case like the one today, and it does not have a detailed traffic study, staff will typically look at the volume of traffic on the road, the adopted level of service, and the volume associated with the adopted level of service, to determine the excess capacity. If the total trip generation from a development is less than the available capacity, staff will know that it will throw that road into a situation where it will push it over the level of service that was adopted. Mr. Griffey explained other factors that would be considered in calculating the capacity of the road and stated that the residents were correct in the fact that Lakeshore Drive is not a good road to be classified as a collector. He indicated that going from R-1 to R-2 would increase the volume of traffic, and if you increase the density, there would be a higher percentage of impervious surface. Staff would be proposing, when the new road is put in, to redesignate it as the collector road, and a portion of Lakeshore that would be left would be downgraded to a local road.

Commr. Good stated that he was not inclined to see this as a straight zoning to R-2, and he would not support a motion to approve the rezoning.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board has used PUDs before to address commercial and transportation issues, which gave the Board a better comfort level that it was taking care of the concerns, and with the evidence presented today, he would not support this as a straight zoning. He did not know, if it was a PUD, how he would feel about it, but there were too many questions today that were unanswered.

Commr. Gerber stated that her main concern was the septic tanks, and even though the applicant indicates that all of the people are on septic tanks, she did not feel the problem should be intensified. She stated that this was one of the issues that the Board always looked at through the PUD process.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to deny the request to rezone the property from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for development of single family residential homes sites.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that, even though staff has tried to work with the developer, he felt that staff, given the nature of some of the issues, whether it be traffic or environmental, would prefer to see the development come through as a PUD, and he, like Commr. Cadwell, would not want to presuppose his review of that, because there are serious issues related to development and continued development along this road. The traffic issues are ones that can best be reviewed under a PUD. He stated that the Board cannot do a Developer's Agreement, or conditional straight zoning, and a PUD allows the Board the ability to deal with whatever road issues it believes are important to public health, safety and welfare. He felt that staff sees that as a better approach as well. He agreed with Commr. Gerber that it will drain the field, and there is a limit as to how much well drained soil, with higher density, the environment and the quality of water can handle. It is important that the Board get open space, and even though it is being offered, it cannot do conditional zoning or developer's agreements.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 5-0 vote.

Commr. Swartz asked staff to put a discussion item on the agenda regarding the level of service table, which was handed out by Mr. Griffey.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.





WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:





JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\BOARDMIN\10-28-97\11-10-97