The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners' Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chair; Robert A. Pool; Rhonda H. Gerber; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioners' Office; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

It was noted that a published Addendum No. 1 had been added to the agenda.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, distributed the bid information for Rolling Acres Road Construction Project No. 10-99, Bid No. 99-091; and for North Hancock Road Extension Project No. 12-99, Bid No. 99-082 and stated that Rolling Acres Road Construction Project No. 10-99, Bid No. 99-081, has been awarded to Art Walker Construction, Inc., in the amount of $707,756.34; and the North Hancock Road Extension Project No. 12-99, Bid No. 99-082, has been awarded to Paquette Industries, LLC, in the amount $946,237.84.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Accounts Allowed/Bids/Roads-County & State/Road Projects

Request to award Rolling Acres Road (a/k/a First Street or Rex Road) Construction Project No. 10-99, Bid No. 99-081, to Art Walker Construction, Inc.; and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $707,756.34, from the Road Impact Fee Fund. Benefit District 3, Commissioner District 5.

Accounts Allowed/Bids/Roads-County & State/Road Projects

Request to award #2-1354 North Hancock Road Extension Project No. 12-99, Bid No. 99-082, to Paquette Industries, LLC; and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $946,237.84, from the Road Impact Fee Fund. Benefit District 5, Commissioner District 2.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARINGS - ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 890 - DONNA CRITTENDEN - CLERMONT AREA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public Works, presented Petition No. 890, a request by Donna Crittenden, representative Debbie Williams, to vacate right-of-way and utility easement in the Clermont area. He presented an aerial map on the monitor and noted

the location of the property in question. He explained that there was no necessity to have the right-of-way utility easement; however, there was a utility in a portion of the area and the petitioner has agreed to grant an utility easement to allow the utilities to remain.

At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

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

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved Petition No. 890 by Donna Crittenden, representative Debbie Williams, to vacate right-of-way and utility easement, Section 32, Township 22S, Range 26E, Clermont Area - Commissioner District 2 - Resolution No. 1999-50.

ZONING

It was noted that the following staff members were present for the zoning hearings: Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management; Mr. James N. Smith, Director, Division of Planning & Development Services, and Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Division of Planning & Development Services.

ORDINANCES

Mr. Jim Smith, Director, Division of Planning & Development Services, presented the Consent Agenda Items.

At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting on the Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permits as listed on the Consent Agenda.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the voluntary revocations.

There being no one present who wished to discuss the voluntary revocations, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, 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 Voluntary Revocation of the following Conditional Use Permits:

Ordinance No. 1999-28

Revocation of CUP#104

Mrs. W.H. Alexander

Raymond & Sherilyn Nagel

Section 26, Township 18S, Range 26E

Ordinance No. 1999-29

Revocation of CUP#213-2

Marsha K. Wade/Jesse & Carol Phillips

Section 28, Township 19S, Range 24E

Ordinance No. 1999-30

Revocation of CUP#220-5

Margaret Saul/Hubert & Margaret Saul

Section 29, Township 15S, Range 28E

Ordinance No. 1999-31

Revocation of CUP#264B-4

Mid Florida at Eustis, Inc./Cecil & Dorothy Pentecost

Section 8/17, Township 19S, Range 27E

Ordinance No. 1999-32

Revocation of CUP#276-3

R.E. Williams Groves, Inc. & JoAnn Cunningham

Ernest James & Judith F. Legge

Section 9, Township 22S, Range 26E

Ordinance No. 1999-33

Revocation of CUP#311-2

Robert D. Walker & Arlie & Bernice M. Tintsman

Section 17, Township 22S, Range 25E

Ordinance No. 1999-34

Revocation of CUP#478-1

William Thomas Walsh & Thomas E. Keedy

Section 13, Township 18S, Range 24E

Ordinance No. 1999-35

Revocation of CUP#538-4

Thomas J. Letourneau, Jr. & Marlene Letourneau

Section 4, Township 19S, Range 27E

Ordinance No. 1999-36

Revocation of CUP#592-2

Roper Brothers, Inc. & Jay A. Thompson, President, Spruce Creek

Section 36, Township 20S, Range 24E

Ordinance No. 1999-37

Revocation of CUP#615-5

Marland Hopkins & Sandra Ruth Jones

Section 14, Township 17S, Range 28E

Ordinance No. 1999-38

Revocation of CUP#642-1

Winnie Morrone & John C. & Arlene Malik

Section 20, Township 19S, Range 25E

Ordinance No. 1999-39

Revocation of CUP#689A-1

John C. Adams

Section 15, Township 19S, Range 24E

Ordinance No. 1999-40

Revocation of CUP#699-4

Johnnie C. Hewitt

Section 23, Township 19S, Range 28E

Ordinance No. 1999-41

Revocation of CUP#714-5

Carroll & Caryl Adams

Section 3, Township 18S, Range 25E

Ordinance No. 1999-42

Revocation of CUP#743-1

Donald J. McKeeby, Jr. & Glen & Norma Pell

Section 27, Township 18S, Range 24E

Ordinance No. 1999-43

Revocation of CUP#776-5

Glenn & Iona Burhans & Joy Raye Gibney

Section 4, Township 18S, Range 26E

Ordinance No. 1999-44

Revocation of CUP#788-5

Terrance E. Olson & June E. Olson

Section 35, Township 18S, Range 25E

Ordinance No. 1999-45

Revocation of CUP#812-2

Billie Faye Clemmons & John & Bernice Moss

Section 27, Township 22S, Range 24E

Ordinance No. 1999-46

Revocation of CUP#844-1

Kathy B. Jowers & Oscar A. Desgalier

Section 12, Township 19S, Range 25E

Ordinance No. 1999-47

Revocation of CUP#854-2&(A)

Patricia Johnson & Ronald C. Johnson

Section 21, Township 19S, Range 24E

PETITION NO. CUP#99/3/1-4 CUP IN A ROBERT & JANICE VEASEY

Mr. Jim Smith, Director, Department of Planning and Development Services, explained that this request was for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in Agriculture (A) to allow for a horse training, boarding and riding facility on a ten (10) acre parcel. He explained that the property was currently developed as a horse farm with residence, and the applicant has indicated that the intent of the request was to operate a "small scale" facility with no billboard advertising. He stated that staff was recommending approval for a CUP in A (Agriculture), and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by a 10 - 0 vote. He displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1).

At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

It was noted that the applicants were present in the audience.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

There being no one present wishing to discuss this request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planing and Zoning Commission and approved a request from Robert and Janice Veazey, Petition No. CUP#99/3/1-4, for a CUP in A (Agriculture) to allow for a horse training, board and riding facility - Ordinance No. 1999-48.

PETITION NO. CUP#99/1/1-5 CUP IN A JAMES GETFORD, JR.

Mr. Jim Smith, Director, Department of Planning and Development Services, explained that this request was for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture) for use as an outdoor paintball sports recreational field on a 24.31 acre parcel. He explained that the applicant has revised the original submittal to add an additional 12 acres to the proposed paintball site at the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on January 6, 1999. He stated that staff has worked with the applicant to address issues previously discussed at the January public hearing, and to incorporate the issues into the CUP. He stated that all parking areas, accessory structures and non-playing area uses shall be setback at least 50 feet from all property lines. He stated that staff was recommending approval for a CUP in A (Agriculture), and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by a 7 - 3 vote. Mr. Smith directed the Board's attention to Section 2. B. 3. of the proposed ordinance which states that the facility shall be operated only from 8:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. and allows one 24 hour event three times a year during the months of April, August, and November. He explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request on January 6, 1999 because the location was not set back far enough from the roadway and the additional 12 acres would allow the playing field to be moved away from the roadway and into an existing heavily vegetated area. At this time, he displayed on the monitor an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) of the parcel. In response to a question presented by Commr. Swartz, Mr. Smith read a portion of the original recommendation (County Exhibit 2) indicating that the basis for the original denial was that this type of facility was similar to marinas and ski schools in that they are all commercial uses that do not fit within the commercial location criteria established in the Land Development Regulations. He stated that, with the additional acreage and moving the facility inward, staff feels that this request comes as close to being compatible as possible.

Commr. Hanson questioned if staff was moving forward with the development of criteria for recreational/commercial type facilities on agricultural land that provides for extra uses for agricultural land without falling into the commercial classification.

Mr. Smith stated that staff has discussed permitting certain types of uses during the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, and it was a recommended action that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment be developed to allow for these uses.

It was the direction of the Board to schedule a workshop for the purpose of discussing recreational/commercial uses on agricultural land without a commercial classification.

At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Arnold Jackson, Jr., the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that the paintball game was a game of tag for adults with paintball markers. He stated that the paintballs were gel capsules filled with a vegetable oil based "paint" mixed with food coloring and soap detergent, and the paint guns use CO2 (compressed air) or nitrogen gas as the propellant. He discussed the game of paintball and the request for 24 hour special events.

Mr. David Eubanks, a resident on Emeralda Island Road, appeared before the Board in opposition to this request and expressed concern that this was a rural community and many people use this pristine nature area for fishing, hiking, and biking. He expressed concern with the increased traffic flow that this request would bring into the area, and stated that this was not an appropriate site for a paintball facility. He explained that this area has been reverted into wetlands by the State of Florida and that it was not in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan to allow businesses in the area unless it serves the need of the community and the community has stated that this request does not serve their needs.

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

Mr. James Getford, Sr., owner of the property, appeared before the Board to address questions concerning the current use of the property, and the proposed use of a portion of his 300 acre parcel.

Commr. Cadwell expressed concern that large events held on weekends in a rural area turns a rural community into a commercial activity when residents are at home trying to enjoy their weekend. He stated that he has not been able to find a way to support this request because of the traffic, the parking, and the character of the community.

Commr. Swartz stated that this commercial activity does not fit into a rural community where people are living, and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan clearly states that commercial development in rural areas was not an allowable use unless it serves the local rural community. He stated that the original staff recommendation states that with buffering, restrictions on hours, and capacity this would still have significant impact on the environment and on surrounding property owners and these issues have not changed. He stated that the original recommendation further addresses the undue adverse impact on nearby properties, and indicates that this request was not compatible with existing or planned character of the area.

Mr. Jackson stated that alcoholic beverages would not be permitted on the premises, there would be no noise associated with the game, and there would be no lights. He briefly discussed safety issues associated with the game and the hours of operation.

Commr. Gerber stated that the 24 hour events would be a burden to the local residents. She stated that she would support the hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and deleting the 24 hour events from the proposed ordinance.

Commr. Hanson stated that this was a quasi-commercial activity use. She stated that Lake County was rich in agricultural lands and those agricultural lands have a potential to be a resource for recreational activities in the County. She compared the paintball game to an archery tournament, camping activities, horse boarding, and riding facilities and stated that these were ways to supplement income and keep the land rural for a longer period of time. She stated that there was adequate property to address parking issues for the facility. She expressed concern that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan does not adequately address enhancing the recreational opportunities in Lake County.

Commr. Pool stated that there would be no true impact to the property, the land owner, or the surrounding community when the paintball facility no longer exists. He suggested a one or two year time limit on the Conditional Use Permit in the event that there may be problems associated with the proposed use.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the CUP could have a one year effective date, in which case, the CUP would come back to the Board in one year and the property owner would have the burden to show that it was effective. The CUP can also be brought back to the Board if there was a violation; however, the Board would have to have grounds to revoke the CUP. He noted that CUP's are reviewed annual by County staff.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried by a 3 - 2 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request from James Getford and Arnold Jackson, Jr., Petition No. CUP#99/1/1-5, for a CUP in A (Agriculture), as conditioned, with the time limitations of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., no alcoholic beverages, and deleting all 24 hour events for use as an outdoor paintball sports recreational field - Ordinance No. 1999-49.

Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.

PETITION NO. PH#12-99-2 A AND CP TO MP RICHARD H. LANGLEY

Mr. Jim Smith, Director, Department of Planning and Development Services, explained that this request was to rezone from A (Agriculture) and CP (Planned Commercial) to MP (Planned Industrial) for a soil mixing and bagging plant on a 69.52 acre parcel which was currently used as pasture. He explained that the property was bounded by two sides by the Florida Turnpike and the access road onto the property would be State Road 19. He stated that staff was recommending denial to rezone from A (Agriculture) and CP (Planned Commercial) to MP (Planned Industrial) based upon the fact that the proposed use was inconsistent with Policy 1-4.2 of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan which requires that industrial uses be consistent with the Data Inventory & Analysis section of the Comprehensive Plan and that those uses be Class A. He explained that Class A developments are those which are developed in a coordinated manner with architecturally significant buildings, and in a park-like setting with substantial amounts of open space and buffers. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval by a 9 - 1 vote. At this time, an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) was displayed on the monitor. He stated that this area was in need of a small area study to evaluate all of the current uses in the area and to prepare a long range plan for future uses.

At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

Mr. Richard Langley, the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that Hyponex has the option to remain at their present location in Montverde and ship peat into their facility or to relocate to the site before the Board at this time which would allow them to ship their products into Orlando, southeast and southwest Florida using the Florida Turnpike, U.S. 27 and S.R. 19. He stated that the site was well buffered with a thick growth of pine trees along S.R. 19, a totally undeveloped woods toward Howey-in-the-Hills and the Turnpike, with the remainder of the parcel surrounded by the Turnpike and U.S. 27. He stated that the site would consist of approximately 60,000 square feet of buildings and the remainder would be used to store raw materials comprised of peat, mulch, and natural ingredients. There will be no mining on the site. He stated, for the record, that the actual petitioner was Minneola Oaks Development Corporation. At this time, he noted on the aerial map (County Exhibit 1) the location of the site, the location of the buildings, and the stock pile of raw materials. He discussed adjacent zoning and noted that an adjacent property owner has agreed to provide water and sewer service.

Commr. Swartz questioned if the buildings to be constructed were required to meet the same architectural review standards as the County requires in Christopher C. Ford Central Park which would then make it a Class A industrial development. He stated that he would be inclined to support this request if the raw materials that are intended to be outside in stock piles where stored in buildings. He explained that he was looking at the architectural review and the appearance of this industrial activity as it compares with the industrial activity that the County has encouraged in Christopher C. Ford Central Park.

Discussion occurred regarding the stock piles of raw materials and the practicality of storing the raw materials in an indoor facility. Commr. Cadwell stated that a three sided, high roof structure with the third side facing the mixing plant would provide him more of a comfort level. He asked if the applicant would be willing to let the Architectural Review Committee, comprised of Industrial Development Authority members and County staff, review the site plan.

Mr. Langley stated that he would have to discuss this issue with Hyponex and that he would encourage them to allow a review of the site plan by the Architectural Review Committee.

Commr. Hanson stated that the proposed use was appropriate for the area because Christopher C. Ford Central Park was more of a distribution center than an industrial park. She agreed with the suggestion of an architectural review and a shelter for the raw materials.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board postpone action on this request until such time that Mr. Langley has had the opportunity to discuss with Hyponex the request that an architectural review be performed and that the raw materials be stored inside a building that has some architectural appearance.

Mr. Langley stated that he had no objection to postponing this request until the April 6, 1999 Board Meeting.

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

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to postponed a request from Richard H. Langley, Petition No. PH#12-99-2, until April 6, 1999 at 9:00 a.m.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for fifteen minutes and reconvene at 10:25 a.m.

PETITION NO. OH#99-99-3 RMRP TO CP CURT ROSS/ANGLER'S RESORT

Mr. Jim Smith, Director, Department of Planning and Development Services, explained that this request was to rezone from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) to CP (Planned Commercial) for construction of a hotel/motel, resort and conference facilities; marina, restaurant and accessory retail uses, including retail shops, bait shop, watercraft rentals and charters, boat tours and other tourism-related activities, and until such time as the resort is upgraded, the owners wish to continue the existing uses of a Fish Camp with cottages, mobile homes and RV's. At this time, an aerial map (County Exhibit 1) was displayed on the monitor. He stated that the parcel was approximately 6 acres located in Regional Commercial and Urban Future Land Use. He stated that the Board denied this request on March 24, 1999 without prejudice so that it could be brought back to before the Board at a later date with additional information, particularly that of future traffic improvements on Hwy. 441 that may accommodate an increased use in traffic, as well as a site plan that would give the Board some assurances as to what level of use was being proposed. He stated that the applicant has submitted a preliminary traffic analysis that indicates that Conceptual Plan "A" would generate 1000 average daily trips (adt) from the site. He explained that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan does not require a detailed traffic impact analysis until concurrency is run and development permitting and construction was imminent. If there was no available capacity, the project could not move forward with construction until such time that road capacity was deemed available. He stated that staff was recommending approval to rezone from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) to CP (Planned Commercial), and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 10 - 0 vote. Mr. Smith displayed on the monitor a chart, contained in the staff report, illustrating the Existing Development, Conceptual Plan "A" and Conceptual Plan "B".

In response to a question presented by Commr. Swartz regarding the process used by County staff to evaluate concurrency, Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Department of Public Works, appeared before the Board and explained that staff was currently using the annual traffic counts as a basis for reviewing, and comparing that to the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) Level of Service General Planning Tables, which would red flag roads that were close to falling below the adopted Level of Service. He stated that the Level of Service standards on Hwy. 441 are not generally based on traffic volumes alone, noting that the primary measure of effectiveness on arterial roads was the average travel speed. He stated that along Hwy. 441, where there are coordinated signal systems, traffic volumes may be slightly over the general planning tables. He explained that, for this section of Hwy. 441, Level of Service C would be just over 30,000 average daily trips, and the counts were done annually by FDOT and 24 hour count stations were monitored daily. Extensive discussion continued regard traffic counts and Level of Service for Hwy. 441; at which time, Commr. Swartz requested that staff provide the most recent annual traffic counts for this section of Hwy. 441 before action was taken on this request.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

Ms. Leslie Campione, representing Curt Ross, appeared before the Board and noted that the applicant was present in the audience. She provided a brief history of this request and explained that the applicants were concerned that the existing uses did not conform with the current RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) zoning, and they were looking for a zoning classification that would bring them in conformance with the actual zoning designation on the property and allow them to upgrade the existing facility or to change the use from cottages and RV sites to resort hotel. The ordinance before the Board, at this time, would allow them the continuation of the existing uses on the property or the upgrade or redevelopment of the site to allow possibly a hotel conference facility. She explained that staff has been provided the additional information requested by the Board at the March 24, 1998 public hearing. At this time, she displayed on the monitor the Florida Angler's Resort Traffic Study (Applicant's Exhibit A) and discussed the analysis and Level of Service capacity. She stated that there was a concern with a 20 foot wide easement that was being used by the Florida Angler's Resort to access the site from Hwy. 441, and the property owner has agreed to sell the right-of-way that might be needed if they were to build a resort hotel. At this time, she displayed on the monitor photographs (Applicant's Exhibit B. 1-13) illustrating Hwy. 441, turn lanes into Angler's Resort, and the existing uses, and discussed same.

Mr. Tim Green, Green Consulting Group, appeared before the Board and displayed on the monitor an existing site plan (Applicant's Exhibit C) for Florida Angler's Resort and discussed the location of the existing 11 mobile homes, 14 cottages, 17 RV sites, and 60 boat slips, etc. He stated that the existing development generates 645.75 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends. He displayed on the monitor a Conceptual Plan "B" site plan (Applicant's Exhibit D) and discussed the location of 31 rental cottages and the marina. He stated that Conceptual Plan "B" would generate 275.56 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends. He displayed on the monitor a Conceptual Plan "A" site plan (Applicant's Exhibit E) and discussed the location of a hotel with convention facility. He stated that Conceptual Plan "A" would generate 753.70 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends and a resort hotel would generate 1,000.80 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends. He stated that a 56 unit hotel with convention facilities, or a 40 unit resort hotel could be constructed on the site and remain under the existing average daily trips.

Commr. Swartz questioned what the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual shows for a restaurant and the existing bait and tackle shop. Mr. Green responded that the existing bait and tackle shop was listed as an accessory use to the primary marina use. Commr. Swartz further questioned if there was a proposed change to the marina.

It was noted that Mr. Don Griffey was present in the audience, on behalf of the applicant, to address questions pertaining to Hwy. 441 Level of Service.

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

Commr. Swartz expressed concern that this request still remained a speculative rezoning. He stated that he would support rezoning that would allow the existing uses to be consistent with the zoning, and would also support Conceptual Plan "B" because there would not be a significant increase in the traffic and it would be consistent with the existing development. He stated that there are real traffic problems on Hwy. 441 and anyone who does not accept that analysis does not understand the traffic congestion and the problems on Hwy. 441. He stated that to go forward with this speculative rezoning was not a responsible attempt by the Board to manage growth, or to address the traffic concerns on Hwy. 441. He stated that, although the Comprehensive Plan does not require a traffic analysis prior to or during the rezoning, it does not prohibit the County from doing a traffic analysis and an analysis should be performed when the traffic counts are close to insure that we are not further impacting a road that is at or below its existing level of service.

Commr. Pool stated that, with the exception of a few special events, Conceptual Plan "A" would have approximately a 50% occupancy rate which would result in 35 units which was close to the 31 units under Conceptual Plan "B". He stated that this was a unique piece of property with a great opportunity to provide something that will enhance the value of the surrounding properties.

Commr. Hanson stated that the market would determine whether Conceptual Plan "A" or Conceptual Plan "B" was built. She stated that there was no moratorium on Hwy. 441 and the public was required to deal with the process as it exists today and the applicant will be required to meet concurrency. She stated that Lake County has a tremendous number of lakes that should be part of the County's economic development and ecotourism. She stated that she would support both conceptual plans.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would support Conceptual Plan "B" noting that it was not feasible to develop a resort on a six (6) acre parcel.

Commr. Cadwell stated that both conceptual plans improve the property, and the traffic generated from either plan would be minimal.

Mr. Schneider stated that the current average daily counts on Hwy. 441 were 3,800 average daily trips, and the Level of Service C standards were 3,050 average daily trips based on the planning tables. He explained that the planning tables were based on general assumptions and do not look only at the peak hours and days of the year.

At this time, Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Department of Public Works, appeared before the Board to discussed the traffic studies and explained that staff analyzes each area, each hour, each day, and each time of year to determine the traffic analysis. He noted that this section of Hwy. 441 was proposed to be a six (6) lane highway with a book value of 46,000 average daily trips.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request from Curt Ross/Angler's Resort, Petition No. PH#9-99-3, to rezone from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) to CP (Planned Commercial) for construction of 31 rental cottages; marina, and accessory retail uses including retail shops, bait shop, watercraft rentals and charters, boat tours and other tourism-related activities.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would not support the motion because both conceptual plans would improve the facility and have a minimal effect on the traffic.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed by a 2 - 3 vote.

Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Hanson, and Commr. Pool voted in opposition.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request from Curt Ross/Angler's Resort, Petition No. PH#9-99-3, to rezone from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) to CP (Planned Commercial) for construction of a hotel/motel, resort and conference facilities; marina, restaurant and accessory retail uses, including retail shops, bait shop, watercraft rentals and charters, boat tours and other tourism-related activities; and to allow the owners to continue the existing uses of a Fish Camp with cottages, mobile homes and R.V.'s until such time as the resort is upgraded - Ordinance No. 1999-51.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 3 - 2 vote.

Commr. Gerber and Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.

PETITION NO. 10-99-2 AMD. PUD ORD. #6-90 SUMMER BAY/

PAUL CALDWELL

Mr. Jim Smith, Director, Department of Planning and Development Services, explained that this request was for an amendment to existing PUD Ordinance #6-90, as follows: (1) decrease the number of residential units from 2,461 to 2,228; (2) increase retail/services square footage from 250,000 to 280,020; (3) increase hotel rooms from 300 to 486; (4) delete all institutional land uses; (5) add 35,391 square feet of office use; (6) modify the specific alignment of the spine road while adhering to the original concept; (7) provide clear geographical separation of apartment and time share residential land uses; (8) provide proposed water management facilities; (9) modify transportation access points to be consistent with current FDOT Corridor Plans; (10) Update the PUD Concept Plan wetland jurisdictional wetland determinations and wildlife and vegetation analysis; (11) show completed project date; (12) provide an exchange matrix; (13) delete requirements for School Guard, Police Department and Fire Department; (14) modify development standards relating to buffers, maximum building height, minimum living area, parking requirements, setbacks and permitted uses. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request for amendments to PUD Ordinance #6-90, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 10 - 0 vote. Mr. Smith displayed on the monitor a site plan (County Exhibit 1) for the Board's review.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Department of Planning and Development Services, appeared before the Board and stated that the Department of Community Affairs has completed the review of the Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC) for the Summer Bay DRI and has no objection to the proposed changes as they do not create additional regional impacts.

Commr. Swartz questioned if the existing PUD requirement for a buffer around the wetland jurisdictional lines has been altered.

At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Bob Whidden, R.J. Whidden and Associates, Inc., representing Summer Bay, appeared before the Board and stated that the original requirement in the old DRI and the existing DRI approval required a 25 foot minimum/50 foot minimum average buffer around the jurisdictional wetlands. He explained that the entire site was resurveyed for wetlands and for wildlife issues when they went through the NOPC process, and the new Master Plan reflects the slight changes that occurred in the wetland jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Whidden stated that Section 1.11.1.2 of the proposed Lake County Amended and Restated Development Order for Summer Bay DRI requires fifty (50) feet between Crooked Lake and residential and commercial structures, not already existing.

Commr. Swartz questioned if there was any specific language in the existing ordinance that addresses setbacks and wetlands, at which time, Mr. Richardson displayed on the monitor language from Ordinance No. 6-90 (County Exhibit 2) addressing water bodies.

Mr. Whidden stated that any single item changed in the PUD requires a Notification of Proposed Change through the Department of Community Affairs. He explained that staff has incorporated the zoning requirements into the development order to provide one document more easily administer, and the applicants have no objection to that process as long as DCA has no objection; however, they are requesting to either remove all of the local conditions from the development order or add language, on page 3 of the proposed development order, as follows: WHEREAS, those development order conditions identified herein as local conditions may be amended by local government without requiring any Florida Statute Section 3.80.06 review.

Mr. Richardson stated that he would have a subsequent conversation with DCA to assure that the above noted request would not create a problem.

Mr. Whidden further requested the following changes:

Page 6, Line 125 - change "two (2)" to four (4).

Page 7, Line 171 - change "2,228" to 2,215.

Commr. Swartz questioned if there has been any reduction in the open space requirements that were provided for in the original development order; at which time, Mr. Whidden responded no.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to this request.

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

Commr. Pool stated that this project has generated tax revenues, has been an asset for Lake County, and does not impact our schools.

Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request from Summer Bay/Paul Caldwell, Petition No. 10-99-2, for an amendment to existing PUD Ordinance #6-90, as follows: (1) decrease the number of residential units from 2,461 to 2,228; (2) increase retail/services square footage from 250,000 to 280,020; (3) increase hotel rooms from 300 to 486; (4) delete all institutional land uses; (5) add 35,391 square feet of office use; (6) modify the specific alignment of the spine road while adhering to the original concept; (7) provide clear geographical separation of apartment and time share residential land uses; (8) provide proposed water management facilities; (9) modify transportation access points to be consistent with current FDOT Corridor Plans; (10) Update the PUD Concept Plan wetland jurisdictional wetland determinations and wildlife and vegetation analysis; (11) show completed project date; (12) provide an exchange matrix; (13) delete requirements for School Guard, Police Department and Fire Department; (14) modify development standards relating to buffers, maximum building height, minimum living area, parking requirements, setbacks and permitted uses, as amended to include the following changes: (1) WHEREAS, those development order conditions identified herein as local conditions may be amended by local government without requiring any Florida Statute Section 3.80.06 review.; (2) Page 6, Line 125 - change "two (2)" to four (4); (3) Page 7, Line 171 - change "2,228" to 2,215 - Ordinance No. 1999-51.

Commr. Swartz stated that this PUD may impact Lake County schools, and they are required to pay impact fees for education and fire services to the extent that it was not inconsistent with the development order.

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

PETITION NO. 13-99-2 HM TO PUD LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/CHRISTOPHER C. FORD CENTRAL PARK

Mr. Jim Smith, Director, Department of Planning and Development Services, expressed his appreciation to staff and the various governmental agencies that have assisted in the process of preparing the DRI Development Order to rezone from HM (Heavy Industrial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for an industrial park specializing in warehouse, distribution, trucking assembly and manufacturing. He distributed a copy of the Summary of Major Condition Points for Christopher C. Ford Central Park (County Exhibit 1) outlining the significant issues.

Commr. Cadwell stated that Mr. Bruce Duncan, Director of Economic Development, has met with individuals in the area of Christopher C. Ford Central Park to address the local concerns and will come forward with a method in which to include those concerns. He stated that the development order will include rules and regulations that the County will be required to adhere to that are no different from what was required of all developers.

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Principal Planner, Department of Planning and Development Services, discussed the Summary of Major Condition Points for Christopher C. Ford Central Park, as follows:

Non-Potable Water

Mr. Richardson directed the Board's attention to Item No. 9 of the Development Order, and explained that this item states that all treated wastewater, treated stormwater, and non-potable quality groundwater are not viable for Christopher C. Ford Central Park, and it should be permissible and permitable to use the potable groundwater and/or the central system that is on site for the irrigation needs.

Stormwater Maintenance Responsibility

There were no questions regarding this section.

Transportation

Commr. Swartz commented that voting for this Development Order does not obligate the County to make roadway improvements to those roads that fall below the trip thresholds unless the County moves into future phases.

Commr. Gerber requested clarification on Item 19 addressing proportionate share payment; at which time, Mr. Richardson explained that Item 19 sets forth a requirement that Lake County enter into an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to ensure what the County's proportionate share would be on concurrency based roadways within the County's concurrency management system. He stated that the second portion was for non-concurrency based roadways, which, in this case, only concerns the Florida Turnpike, and the proportionate share amount would be determined based upon the actual impacts from a phase.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the recommendation before the Board, at this time, was from East Central Florida Planning Council and the Department of Planning and Development Services. He stated that the Board has the ability to make changes to the document and was not required to approve the document, which was common in a DRI process.

Commr. Gerber expressed concern that the language in the Development Order referring to the developer, Lake County, and FDOT implies that the County, being the developer, would be responsible for paying two-thirds of the cost of the roadway improvements.

Commr. Hanson questioned if an estimate could be provided of the actual dollars for the County's proportionate share for roadway improvements.

Commr. Cadwell suggested that this request be deferred until the April 6, 1999 Regular Meeting and stated that a presentation should be made to the Industrial Development Authority.

At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Jim Warner, 6850 Marilyn Avenue, appeared before the Board and stated that there would be less concern and objection from the surrounding neighbors if adequate buffering were required around the buildings at Christopher C. Ford Central Park. He suggested that buffering and landscaping trees could help minimize the effect of the lighting on the roadways. He stated that he would hope that the Board would consider implementing these concepts and ideas as the park is further developed and expressed concern that Lake County was losing its countryside and natural buffers.

Mr. Mike Holt, 6920 Marilyn Avenue, appeared before the Board and expressed concern that buffering was being discussed after the buildings were built and industry has moved in. He questioned if anything could be done for the buildings that were already permitted , and the ones to be permitted, requiring landscaping in the back as well as in the front of the building. He suggested that the County ask the current property owners to consider providing additional buffering toward the back of the buildings.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would discuss the issue of additional buffering with the Industrial Development Authority.

Mr. Allen Moore, a resident of Lewis Grove Road, appeared before the Board and stated that he was not in opposition to Christopher C. Ford Central Park and requested that the Board consider a differentiation between the County's zoning laws for buffering. He suggested that a larger plant material be used to buffer the large buildings, and encouraged the Board to work with the property owners at the park. He offered the assistance of himself and his family in the planning. He informed the Board that the turtle reserve was being bushhogged and that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has indicated that they had permission from the City of Tavares to bushhog the reserve to promote new vegetation.

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

Commr. Hanson noted that the Lake County Welcome Center was not included in the list of uses for the PUD; at which time, Mr. Richardson stated that the Lake County Welcome Center was included in Exhibit "B" of the ordinance as a land use in Phase I.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to postpone the request from Lake County Board of County Commissioners, Christopher C. Ford Central Park, Petition No. 13-99-2, to rezone from HM (Heavy Industrial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for an industrial park specializing in warehouse, distribution, trucking assembly and manufacturing until April 20, 1999 at 9:00 a.m.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, appeared before the Board to present discussion on the case of Conway K. Kittredge v. Lake County and explained that this litigation was from a denial of vested rights regarding a parcel of land comprised of approximately 700 acres located on State Road 44 east of Eustis owned by Conway K. Kittredge. At this time, he provided a brief history of the case and stated that a Court Order, dated March 11, 1999, has ruled in favor of Kittredge and quashes the County's vested rights determination. He stated that, as a result of the Court decision, Mr. Kittredge has the right to resubmit his application for vested rights, and the County has the options, at this time, to appeal the Court's March11, 1999 Order within thirty days from the issuance by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Fifth District Court of Appeal; grant the requested vested rights, deny the vesting if there are grounds for denial differing from the grounds relied upon in the County's original denials, or discuss a Settlement Agreement with Mr. Kittredge. Mr. Minkoff stated that this issue has been brought before the Board as an addendum item to allow the County Attorney's Office time to prepare the petition for writ of certiorari should the Board decide to appeal the Court's March 11, 1999 Order. He stated that this issue could also be brought back to the Board on April 6, 1999 for further discussion before the appeal is filed.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board direct staff to begin preparing for appeal of the Court Order and to schedule this issue for discussion on April 6, 1999 which would provide the Board an opportunity to review the facts pertaining to this case.

Commr. Hanson stated that there was no point in continuing the appeal process and that she would not vote to appeal the March 11, 1999 Court Order.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to authorize the County Attorney's Office to begin preparing for the possibility of appeal of the Court's March 11, 1999 Order in the case of Conway K. Kittredge v. Lake County, and to bring this issue back to the Board on April 6, 1999 for a final determination whether or not to appeal, keeping open the possibility of a Settlement Agreement.

Commr. Hanson stated that she has no objection to further discussion of this issue on April 6, 1999, however, she does object to the motion as it was presented indicating that the County move forward in the appeal process.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the Board would be putting County staff in a very difficult position of trying to prepare an appeal in a very short period of time if the majority of the Board came to the conclusion on April 6, 1999 to appeal the Court Order.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which passed by a 3 -2 vote.

Commr. Hanson and Commr. Pool voted in opposition.

COMMISSIONER GERBER - DISTRICT NO. 1

COMMITTEES

Commr. Gerber stated that, at the March 18, 1999 Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee meeting, Mr. Homer Royals, President, Lake County League of Cities, discussed the League's opposition to the proposed five cents local option gas tax and to the current methodology used to determine the cities' share. She stated that the Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee was recommending to the Board that a gas tax team be established for the purpose of looking at the local gas tax methodology being used by the County to determine the amount of funds given to the cities.

Commr. Swartz stated that there would be no reason to establish a gas tax team unless the Board was committed to looking at the County's numbers again and willing to reduce the available gas tax money that the County Commission has for its projects.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he wants to assist the cities in understanding the current process; however, he would not support the establishment of a gas tax team if the philosophy of the Board on how to split up the transportation funds has not changed.

Commr. Gerber stated that members of the Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee were concerned about the Lake County schools, and they want the gas tax to pass. She stated that the Committee's responsibility was to look at all types of revenue that might help with transportation and school needs.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would explained to the Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee the reason that the Board did not take action on the request to establish a gas tax team.

No action was taken at this time.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, discussed the issue of dependency attorney contracts, and informed the Board that the case load for removing parental rights in Lake County has more than doubled from that which the Board anticipated, and the two groups of attorneys contracted to provide services for parental rights cases at a fixed rate have requested an increase in compensation. He stated that, in February 1999, forty-seven (47) petitions were filed, and the Judges were estimating that there would be approximately fifty (50) petitions filed each month. He stated that he would bring back agreements to the Board in April that would increase the cost for legal counsel from $60,000 to approximately $140,000 per year on an annual basis.

Commr. Swartz requested that the County Attorney include language in the agreements with the attorneys that would provide that compensation would decrease if the case load decreases.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the entire system has been overwhelmed because the Courts are required to have a hearing immediately upon seizure of the children, and the Judges were handling four (4) to five (5) unscheduled hearings per day. He noted that Lake County has received $43,000 from the State of Florida this year.

COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT NO. 2

Commr. Pool expressed appreciation to those who participated in the St. Johns River Cleanup and stated that 23,000 pounds of trash was collected in Lake County.

COMMISSIONER SWARTZ - DISTRICT NO. 3

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that there were some business activities in the City of Tavares that were impacting residents who live in the unincorporated area of Lake County, and the County was working with the City of Tavares to find a way to deal with this issue.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

__________________________________ WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

msf\3-23-99-3-29-99\boardmin