A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
APRIL 19, 2005
The
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commr.
Stivender gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INTRODUCTIONS/WELCOMES
Commr.
Hill recognized the following individuals who were present in the audience: Ms. Nadine Foley, Soil and Water Conservation
Council; Ms. Elaine Renick, City Council, City of
Ms.
Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney, introduced Mr. Kevin McBride, a former
prosecutor from
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager, noted that she
had one change on Tab 2, Item 4; the check request from the Sheriff’s Office
for payment of inmate medical invoice is to be retroactive.
Commr. Stivender complimented the fact that there were no
addendums to today’s agenda.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney, stated that
the
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and
carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add the item to the
agenda, as requested, under the
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr.
Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk
of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 11, as follows:
Contractor Bonds
Request to approve Contractor
Bonds, as follows:
New
4804-05 James F. Chaffee d/b/a D & J
Electric Company (Electrical)
4871-05 James
A. Croson/J A Croson LLC (Plumbing)
5642-06 Smith
Roofing/John M. Smith (Roofing)
5766-05 Guy
Clement/Clement Electric Inc. (Electrical)
6063-05 Felix
Martin/Commercial Lighting & Electrical Services, Inc. (Electrical)
6358-05 James
Allen Sherrod d/b/a South Lake Roofing, Inc.
6359-05 Greg
Boucher d/b/a Down to Earth of
6360-05 Robert
W. Rettman d/b/a American Residential Exteriors
6361-05 Donald
R. Hardee d/b/a Machine Control Repair LLC
6362-05 Douglas
George Callais d/b/a Callais Construction Company
6363-05 Robert
G. Meyer d/b/a Buccaneer Construction, Inc.
6364-05 Christian
Ferris d/b/a The Fellowship Group, LLC
6365-05 Diamondback
Site Development, Inc./Underground Solutions, Inc.
Cancellations
5202-05 Thomas
Richards d/b/a
6013-04 Louis Tutin/Bob’s Landscaping Inc.
(5/29/2005)
Annual
Financial Audit-Report/Lake
Request
to acknowledge receipt of the Annual Financial Audit for 2003-2004 and Annual
Financial Report for the Lake County Water Authority.
Application/Water
and Wastewater Certificates/Central Sumter Utility Company
Request
to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Application for Original Water and
Wastewater Certificates – Notice is hereby given on the 21st day of
March, 2005, pursuant to Section 367.045, Florida Statutes, and Section
25-30.030, Florida Administrative Code, of Central Sumter Utility Company,
L.L.C., 1020 Lake Sumter Land, The Villages, Florida, 32159, Application for
Original Water and Wastewater Certificates for described territory in Sumter
County, Florida. Any objections can be
filed, as described in notice.
Request
to acknowledge receipt of the CD copy of the St. John River Water Management
District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended
September 30, 2004.
Ordinance/City
of Clermont/Annexation
Request
to acknowledge receipt of a copy of Ordinance No. 492-M, from the City of
Clermont, for the annexation of a certain parcel of land contiguous to the
present city boundaries, as described, passed and ordained on Final Reading the
8th day of March, 2005, by the City Council of the City of Clermont,
Florida.
City
of Eustis/Annual Financial Report
Request
to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the City of
Public
Notice/City of Mascotte/Ordinance
Request
to acknowledge receipt of a Public Notice – Pursuant to Section 163.346,
Florida Statutes, the City of Mascotte, Florida, does hereby give public notice
of its intention to adopt an ordinance creating and establishing a community
redevelopment agency, as described in Resolution No. 2005-02-249 adopted by the
Mascotte City Council on February 14, 2005, to be considered on April 11, 2005,
beginning at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, at the Mascotte Civic
Center located at 121 North Sunset Avenue, Mascotte, Florida.
Reports/Operational
Audit/Wireless E911 Funds
Request
to acknowledge receipt of a copy of Report No. 2005-161, an Operational Audit
of the County Wireless E911 Funds for the Period October 1, 2002 through
September 30, 2003.
Southwest
Florida Water Management District/Agenda/Minutes
Request
to acknowledge receipt - from Governing Board, Southwest Florida Water
Management District, minutes of January 25, 2005, meeting held in Bartow,
Florida; and agenda for Governing Board Meeting to be held March 29-30, 2006,
9:00 a.m.,
Florida
Public Service Commission/Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Before
the Florida Public Service Commission, Notice of Commission Hearing and
Prehearing to Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Office of Public Counsel and All
Other Interested Persons, Docket No. 041414-EI, Petition for Approval of
Long-Term Fuel Supply and Transportation Contracts for Hines Unit 4 and
Additional System Supply and Transportation, by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.;
information on location of hearings included in Notice.
Ordinances/City of Mascotte
Request to acknowledge receipt of the following
Ordinances from the City of
Ordinance No. 2005-13-376 – Amending the Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 6; Elections; By Adding a New Section 6-7, Early Voting Opt
Out Provisions; Repealing All Ordinances or Parts of Ordinances in Conflict
Herevity, Providing for Severability, and an Effective Date; Passed and Adopted
March 28, 2005.
Ordinance No. 2005-03-377 – Annexing
Certain Real Property into the City of Mascotte, Florida, Upon the Voluntary
Petition of the Owner of all of the Property to be Annexed, Filed with the City
of Mascotte by Flagship Development LLC (Weber Property); (as described further
in the Ordinance); Passed and Adopted March 28, 2005.
Ordinance
No. 2005-03-379 – Annexing Certain Real Property into the City of Mascotte,
Florida, Upon the Voluntary Petition of the Owner of All of the Property to be
Annexed, Filed with the City of Mascotte by Lorene Leininger, Chester W.
Leininger and Kerri S. Leininger; (as further described in the Ordinance);
Passed and Adopted March 28, 2005.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that, under Tab 2, Item 1, the
$819,250.00 is a budget transfer, and the backup shows where the funds are
going.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr.
Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the
following requests under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 2 through
20, with Tab 2, Item 4 being retroactive, as noted: Budget Transfer/Landfill Enterprise Fund/Covanta
Request
from Budget for a budget transfer – Landfill Enterprise Fund, Department of
Environmental Services, Covanta Contract Management Division, in the amount of
$819,250.00 is requested. Funds needed for new software required for scanning
Covanta documents, to repair tipping floor camera for Covanta monitoring, for
promoting Covanta/Lake County public – private partnership, and to return
unused litigation funds to Reserve for Operations. Funds available in Travel
& Per Diem, Professional Services, and Contractual Services not needed
because of the contract settlement.
Budget
Transfer/County Transportation Trust Fund
Request
from Budget for a budget transfer – County Transportation Trust Fund,
Department of Public Works, Road Operations/ Engineering/ Special Services
Divisions, in the amount of $979,660.00 is requested. Transfer $979,660.00 from
Reserve for Operations to Overtime – Road Operations ($120,000.00), Personal
Services – Engineering ($18,000.00), Personal Services – Special Services
($1,600.00), and LAP Projects – CR 48 ($840,060.00). Funds needed to increase
the Road Operations overtime account; to fund the possible reorganization of
the Engineering Division; to fund the possible upgrade for three support staff
positions; and fund the CR-48 LAP Agreement that was approved by the BCC on
January 25, 2005. Funds available in Reserve for Operations.
Budget
Transfer/Building Services Fund/
Request from Budget for a budget transfer – Building Services Fund,
Department of Growth Management, Building Services Division, in the amount of
$64,000.00 is requested. Transfer $64,000.00 from Professional Services to
Repair & Maintenance. The Building Services Division is in need of a higher
degree of maintenance and service for the permitting/ inspection/ code
enforcement/development review modules of CD-Plus due to the increase of
permitting activity and the direction of internet permitting and plan review.
The current Gold Plan allows for 45 hours per month. The Diamond Plan will
allow 160 hours per month and will include all CD-Plus modules. Funds available
in Professional Services.
Check
Request/Sheriff’s Office/Inmate Medical Invoice
Request
from Budget for approval of Check Request (Direct Pay) from the Sheriff's
Office for payment of inmate medical invoice. The request exceeds the
Community Services/Coordinator/Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant
Certificate
of Participation
Request
from Community Services for approval for the Board of County Commissioners to
serve as the coordinator for local governments in Lake County in the Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant application process; signature on the
"Certificate of Participation" document; and designation of Robbie
Hollenbeck to identify and convene on behalf of the BCC any required advisory
board members and meetings, the preparation of the application and/or other
required documents or grant processes.
Satisfaction
and Release of Fine
Request
from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release
of Fine for property owned by William & Maralyn Barney, CEB Number
2004040216.
Satisfaction
and Release of Fine
Request
from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release
of Fine for property owned by Ilar & Erman Drew, CEB Number 222-99.
Satisfaction
and Release of Fine
Request
from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release
of Fine for property owned by John C. & Alfreida Anderson, CEB Number
18-94.
Satisfaction
and Release of Fine
Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a
Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by Mary Faith Bylsma and
Kathryn Mayotte, CEB Number 46-00.
Satisfaction
and Release of Fine
Request
from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release
of Fine for property owned by Houston & Jane Busby, CEB Number 362-00.
Growth
Management
Request from Growth Management for approval of purchase of a v890 to
replace the original GIS Sun 450 server that was purchased in 1997, the old
server will be given to Building Services as a backup to their Sun 450 server;
and approval of Capital Substitution Form in the amount of $42,775.00.
Growth
Management/Public Lands Manager
Request
from Growth Management for approval of the creation of Public Lands Manager
position within Growth Management Department to support Public Lands
Acquisition Advisory Council and County's Environmental Lands Program.
Grants/Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program
Request
from Public Safety for approval to for the Lake County Manager to apply for a
grant in the amount of $515,000.00 through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) for initiatives/projects identified in the Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS).
Public
Safety/E911 Hardware and Software
Request from Public Safety for approval to transfer some reserve funds
from wire and wireless accounts to Capital Outlay (640 Account) for E911
hardware and software additions per Agencies requests with a Fiscal Impact of
$74,283.00.
Letter
of Credit for Performance/Western Pines Phase 2
Request
from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit
for Performance in the amount of $1,430.00 posted for Western Pines Phase 2.
Western Pines Phase 2 consists of 10 lots – Commission District 3.
Final
Plat/Eldorado
Request
from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for
Final
Plat/Beauclair Ranch Club/Bond/Developer’s Agreement
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the
final plat for Beauclair Ranch Club and all areas dedicated to the public as
shown on the Beauclair Ranch Club final plat; accept a Performance Bond in the
amount of $1,127,869.44; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction
of Improvements between Lake County and Florida & Ranches, Inc. Beauclair
Ranch Club consists of 87 lots – Commission District 3.
Final
Plat/Las Colinas Phase II/Letter of Credit/Developer’s Agreement/Sonoma Hills
Request
from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for
Las Colinas Phase II and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Las
Colinas Phase II final plat; accept a Letter of Credit in the amount of
$132,747.98; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of
Improvements between Lake County and Sonoma Hills, Inc. Las Colinas Phase II
consists of 104 lots – Commission District 3.
Purchase
Agreement/Altamese Boxier/Road Project/Lady
Request
from Public Works for approval and execution of a Purchase Agreement with Altamese
Boxier for a parcel of land to be used for a water retention area, in
conjunction with the C-466 Road Project in the
Purchase
Agreement/Litson/Road Paving Project/Howey-in-the-Hills Area
Request
from Public Works for approval and execution of a Purchase Agreement with
Dwight D. Litson and Margaret Litson for right of way, and authorization for
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign any and all documents
necessary for closing, in conjunction with the South Dewey Robbins Road Paving
Project located in the Howey-in-the-Hills area.
Resolution/Permission
to Advertise/Road Vacation Petition 1051
Allan
M. and Ellen L. Muller – Pennbrooke Phase IA – District 1
Request
from Public Works for approval and signature on Resolution 2005-49 to advertise
Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1051 by Allan M. and Ellen L.
Muller, Representative Mary Ludwig, to vacate a utility easement, in the Plat
of Pennbrooke Phase IA, located in Section 19, Township 19 South, Range 24 East,
in the Leesburg area – Commission District 1.
Resolution/Permission
to Advertise/Road Vacation Petition 1049
Request
from Public Works for approval and signature on Resolution 2005-50 to advertise
Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1049 by Ginn Pine Island, GP, LLC,
Representative Xabier Guerricagoita, to vacate easement, in the Plat of Lake
Highland Co., in conjunction with the platting of Bella Collina, located in
Section 10, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Montverde area –
Commission District 3.
PRESENTATION: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR)
THE
COUNTY’S EXTERNAL AUDITORS, ERNST & YOUNG, INCLUDING
VARIOUS
AUDIT REPORTS
Commr. Hill stated that a presentation of the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) will be made by Auditors Ernst
& Young.
Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk,
Mr. Vodenicker addressed the Board and stated that he is
here today to present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the
Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2004. He
stated that the Board members have previously received the CAFR from staff, and
he is now presenting them with the 2004 Audit Results, which he will address
momentarily, but first he would like to read into the record the following, as
shown on Page 15, Paragraph 3, and their opinion on their financial statements:
“In our opinion, the basic financial statements
referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective
financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activity,
each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of Lake County,
Florida as of September 30, 2004, and the respective changes in financial
position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof and the respective budgetary
comparison information for the general fund, road impact fees fund, and county
sales tax fund for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States.”
Mr. Vodenicker referred to Pages 44-45 and stated that
this is
Mr. Vodenicker explained that there is more dialogue
between auditors and audit committees and, in the County’s structure, they are
the audit committee. They are required
to communicate to the audit committee and, as shown on Page 2, these are their
required communications. He stated that,
under Significant Accounting Policies, they need to report to them on any
changes from one year to the next. The
only change noted was that
On Page 3, Mr. Vodenicker pointed out that they are
required to give them assurances that they are independent, and they were not
aware of any relationships that they have with
Mr. Vodenicker reviewed the information provided in the
Audit Results noting that, under the Statement of Net Assets, the County had a
$32 million increase over the previous year, and the liabilities did not
significantly increase; they are very small in relation to their activity. Under Net Assets, they had a $42 million
increase over the previous year, which is about a 13% increase, a nice strong
increase in their net worth.
Mr. Vodenicker noted that the rest of the charts are on a
per capita basis and, on Page 3, Revenues, two categories had some jumps over
the previous year. Under the Taxes, most
of that is ad valorem in nature but, as they know, they did not increase the
millage rate, so all of that was assessed valuation. They did a lot in Special Assessments this
year, a $36 increase over the previous year, so they can see positive growth on
a per capita basis in their revenues. He
referred to Page 4, Taxes – All Governmental Fund Types, which is their largest
per capita revenue, and stated that they did have a nice increase in their ad
valorem tax, with the millage rate being the same for the past three years. He noted that all of it has been assessed
valuation increases, so the County has some vibrant growth that is taking
place. Under the Infrastructure Surtax,
it had been noted earlier that this has dropped, because they changed their
allocation formula. On Page 5, he
addressed the Expenditures – All Governmental Fund Types/Per Fund Financial
Statements noting that there was a good increase in Public Safety, which is
where the hurricane costs landed, so that is not all a reflection of Public
Safety, but the one time hurricane.
Under Debt Service, that number has dropped from the payoff of those
bonds.
Commr. Stivender questioned whether the gas tax affected
the decrease in the transportation area, and Mr. Vodenicker explained that the
road expenses run through that category and, if they go back and look at some
of their transportation funds, they can see where they generated a lot of
revenue, but they did not spend as much and, as shown, the County did not do as
many projects in that category, because there is a lot of capital in there.
On Page 6, Landfill
Mr. Vodenicker stated that they continue to give the
County some benchmarking against some of the other counties and, as a general
comment, he certainly noticed, in looking at ten years or so ago, that Lake
County, because of the development both commercial and residential that is
taking place in the County, they are starting to see a lot of revenue items, and
a lot of the tax information in the report shows that they are closing the gap
on Seminole County and leaving Marion and Alachua behind. In looking at Page 10, Ad Valorem Taxable
Assessed Value (Per Capita), they can see that they have development that is
vibrant and very good.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Osceola County might be
a good one to compare Lake County to, at least population wise, and Mr.
Vodenicker noted that they could certainly add it, but the issue they would
have with Osceola County is the sales tax, and a lot of resort kinds of things
but they could certainly look at putting that in going forward.
In regards to Page 12, General Government Expenditures,
Mr. Vodenicker stated that he makes this comment every year to them, because it
is a very good one. He stated that this
is their General Government Expenditures category within the governmental
funds; this is what it is costing them to run each of their Constitutional
Offices, the Purchasing Department, all the general administrative, the
attorney, the County Manager’s Office and, on a per capita basis, Lake County
does very well here in their budget. He thinks it is good to highlight that
because sometimes, as their government continues to grow, more gets thrown into
the administrative and this is showing that they are able to use a lot of their
resources to do those other things, those other services that are needed by the
citizens.
On Page 13, Governmental Fund Types Public Safety
Expenditures, Mr. Vodenicker stated that this is one of their larger
expenditure areas, and he would say that there is a lot less unincorporated
area in
In looking at Page 14, Governmental Fund Types Debt
Service Expenditures, Mr. Vodenicker stated that they are accomplishing a lot
of their capital programs to date through a pay as you go, so they still have a
good fund balance in
Commr. Hanson noted that this will change next year with
the programs they have for bonding roads, and Mr. Vodenicker noted that they
have been working this down nicely over a period of time to a very low number.
In conclusion, Mr. Vodenicker stated that, as he had
mentioned earlier, they got very good cooperation; they have got very good
people working; and they are very optimistic in the Sheriff’s Office where they
have got some new people that will help them in getting the Sheriff’s
information more timely. He knows that
they are about ready to go into a new computer system, or they are going
through the process right now, and he would like to suggest that the County
Commission be as supportive as possible with the process, because they have an
opportunity with this new system to create some efficiency throughout the
County that they have never had before and there is just as much work in really
looking at their processes, their manual processes, and bringing in this new
system, and there should be money dedicated to making sure that this happens. They want to try and create a more efficient
system and a data base that various people throughout the County can draw
information and, when that system is up and running, they want to spend a lot
more time looking at the control and making sure that they are looking at not
only getting the computer system in, but looking at their processes, which is
just as important. He thinks this is a
good report and, if the Board has any questions, he will be happy to answer them.
In response to questions regarding their participation in
the new process, Mr. Vodenicker explained that, in the new audit environment,
they have to be careful about how much they do, as far as making suggestions
for the processes, but he would like to suggest that there be a pretty
significant look at that and automate as much as they can in the new
system. He thinks that where they can be
helpful is at the end of the process, when it is up and running and making sure
that those general computer controls, the security, is all up and running and,
because people will be so wrapped up in getting this done, certain things might
not get done, and they will have some management letter comments addressing
some of those items.
PRESENTATION: PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL TO BE CHILD
ABUSE
PREVENTION MONTH IN
Commr. Hill asked Commr. Stivender, liaison for the
Children’s Services Commission, and Ms. Emily Lee, Childrens’ Services
Director, to come forward for the presentation of Proclamation 2005-45
declaring April to be Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Commr. Stivender introduced Ms. Ruth Harvey Gilligan, Executive
Director, Haven of Lake and
Ms. Diane Peshak,
Ms. Ruth Harvey Gilligan, Executive Director, Haven of
Lake and
Ms. Annie McPherson, Program Director,
Ms. Emily Lee, Childrens’ Services Commission, wanted to
say thanks to each one of the Board members because, without their support,
these things could not happen.
PRESENTATION: INTRODUCTION BY LEE JOHNSON, TRANSFORMU
OF THEIR ROBOTICS TEAM
Mr. Lee Johnson addressed the Board and stated that he
will be making a presentation on a program called FIRST (For Inspiration and
Recognition of Science and Technology) Robotics. Mr. Johnson stated that this is a brand new
educational program that they have introduced to
Mr. Johnson stated that one of the big benefits to this
program is the scholarship moneys that are available, over $5 million, to the
students that participate with FIRST Robotics.
Today they are joined by one of their mentors, Mr. Joe Petro, and some
of the teachers, Mr. Bob Baldeck and Mr. John Watkins. From the teachers that participate in this,
they are finding that 84% would like to bring a robotics curriculum into their
schools. He stated that 93% of the
school personnel report that the understanding of science, math, and education
with their students has enhanced. Mr.
Johnson stated that this will be the first team in
Mr. Johnson stated that, as a vision, they want to see a
robotics program in every high school in
In closing, Mr. Johnson shared a story about the
potential of all of this. He explained
that NASA, being a big supporter of the program, turned to FIRST and held a contest
that presented a tremendous challenge to students. It was a FIRST student that developed the leg
aperture that they actually used with a Mars Lunar Rover, and he is now a 25
year old NASA, R & D Scientist. He
stated that they have some of that same potential in
Mr. Johnson stated that, in terms of their funding, next
year they are working with the Tavares Rotary to start a new event very similar
to the Dragon Boat Races dealing with go-carts, and they will continue to raise
money through private sources. He stated
that they are very proud of their students, of their community, and they want
to see this grow and make a good impact in
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10 a.m., Commr. Hill announced that the Board will be
taking a 15 minute recess.
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT PROJECT NUMBER 94
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, stated that
Special Assessment No. 94 was rescheduled from the Board Meeting of March 15,
2005, to address concerns about price and longevity of this project. Staff was asked to go back and see exactly
how everyone felt about the petition, and the prices. He noted that the Board has before them a
check list, which coordinates with his map, which shows that the “hot pink” areas
support the project; the “blue” do not support the project. As shown on the check list, the ones with
checkmarks reflect a cap amount, as discussed the last time with the Board, and
the County will pick up anything above that amount. As shown on the last page, 68% of the front
footage supports the petition; 51% of the property owners support the petition
as it is today; so they are above the 55% on one and a little bit below on the
other. Mr. Stivender stated that staff
is recommending approval to go forward and award this project to Art Walker.
Mr. Jim Hunt addressed the Board and clarified that there
were 12 who indicated “no” and four who do not live on the road at all; it is
vacant land. Mr. Hunt stated that he
just spoke to an individual who recently purchased a piece of property, Mr. Roy
Bolling (#17 - Larry D. Simmons, as noted), and he wants the road approved but
he will not be closing on the property until the end of April.
Mr. Stivender pointed out that the cap rate, as noted, probably
made this project workable for property owners.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for
public comment.
Mr. Don Aiken addressed the Board and explained that he
is the father of Anita Combs, #51 on the check list, and she wanted to know how
staff determined the rate of assessment on each piece of property, because he
did not feel that the cap was fair to other property owners.
Mr. Stivender explained the formula and noted that the
County absorbed the cost for areas where there were wetlands; they capped the
cost for anybody that had a large frontage; and the County absorbed anything
above the $8,530.86 cap. He explained
that they were treating them as individual frontage; some were longer than
others; but they were still individual parcels.
He pointed out on the map the strange shapes of properties in the back
that had very little frontage, which caused this to be a unique project. There were others that had huge frontages but
most of them were wetlands, so they basically took that away and applied
something more equitable for everyone else.
Mr. Aiken noted that, even though the large lots were
based on per lot, he wanted to make sure the owners could not cut them up and
sell them as ten lots next year.
Commr. Hanson explained that it will be difficult in the
Wekiva to split those up into smaller lots, and those parcels will basically
remain one unit per lot, as they are now, without other houses being built. It is basically a cap per residence, which
makes it a little bit more equitable.
Mr. Hunt addressed the Board, once again, and stated that
he talked to Mr. Stivender about the control the County has to foreclose on
someone’s property, and he was assured that the County tries very hard not to
pursue this avenue and, if the County places a lien on the property, they have
no problem working with the people until the lien is paid, but he is not
comfortable with the foreclosure process. Mr. Hunt pointed out that Ms. Barbara Schamel,
Public Works Contracts Specialist, has worked very hard on this project, and there
was about $100,000 of federal money available to those who need financial
assistance; only six people qualified for funding, which totaled about $29,000. He wanted others to know that there are still
funds available to those who qualify for assistance.
Commr. Stivender referred to #36 and #37, David E. Spawn,
and noted that he voted no to doing the road.
Each lot is over $6,000 and she questioned whether there are residents
on both of these lots, or whether these could be tied together, with him meeting
the cap amount of $8,530.86 instead of paying $12,000.
Ms. Schamel addressed the Board and explained that Mr.
Spawn has sold one of these lots and, unfortunately, they recorded the deed in
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Mr. David Spawn, owner of properties #36 and #37, addressed
the Board and stated that the property was sold last October, and he notified
the new owner in December when he got the first tax bill that the property
needed to be recorded in
Mr. Minkoff explained that they are required to record
the lien against the owner of record’s name so, when they do it in the public
records, it will show that he is being assessed for two parcels, but he will
only be responsible to pay for the one that he still owns.
Ms. Schamel explained that invoices are not mailed until
after the road is completed and built and is brought into the County maintenance
system. Before she mails them, she always
checks the ownership so, hopefully, by then, the document will be recorded in
Ms. Anita Combs, #51, questioned the timing of the
project, and Mr. Stivender explained that the contractor wants to start within
30 days. It will be about ten months
before the project is completed. Ms.
Combs requested a copy of the map, as shown, which Mr. Stivender noted would be
provided to her.
Commr. Hill called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that this road has been in awful
condition since her entire term of office, until the Board and the Sheriff
started helping with some maintenance of it, and this is the only way that they
have to get that road done and bring non-county maintained roads up to County
standards. She thinks that the community
has worked together very well to make this happen and she wanted to thank Mr.
Hunt for his persistence and commitment, and the Board for their continued
backing of the project. She also wanted
to thank Mr. Stivender and Ms. Schamel for their hard work, which she
appreciates very much.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell
and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Special Assessment
Project Number 94 (Forest Drive "Part", Laurel Court, and Hillcrest
Drive "Part"), Resolution 2005-51.
PUBLIC HEARING –
ORDINANCE
FOR ADOPTION OF
(LDRS) WITH THE CITY OF
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER XV, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, RESERVED; CREATING CHAPTER XV, LAKE COUNTY CODE,
APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; ENTITLED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY; CREATING SECTION 15.00.00 LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY; CREATING
SECTION 15.00.01 PURPOSE, INTENT AND APPLICATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS). ; CREATING SECTION 15.02.00, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E,
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED CLERMONT JOINT PLANNING AREA (JPA) LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; ESTABLISHING A BOUNDARY, SUCH BOUNDARY DESCRIBED AS:
BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA
TURNPIKE AND THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF RANGE 26 EAST TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE WEST TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION
28, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTH TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT- OF
-WAY LINE OF US HIGHWAY 27; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF -WAY
LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE
WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE NORTH TO THE EAST-WEST CENTER SECTION LINE
OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 23
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE NORTH TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD NO.
50; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY SHORE OF
THE PALATLAKAHA CANAL; THENCE IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID EASTERLY
SHORE OF THE PALATLAKAHA CANAL TO LAKE HIAWATHA; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
SHORE OF LAKE HIAWATHA TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION, THENCE
NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 14 TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
COUNTY ROAD NO. 565-A; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE
EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Growth Management,
showed a map, which meets the legal description, and noted that staff has
verified the boundaries several times to make sure of its accuracy. In reference to the actual intent of the
regulations and the application of them, he explained that staff intended for
them to be applied to “new development” but, after discussing it further, they
actually need to define “new development” in the context of Chapter XV.
Commr. Stivender wanted to be clear of the definition that
has been determined by staff, that it means anything that is brought in for
review after this is adopted; that the things already in the pipeline are not
considered “new development.”
Mr. Richardson explained that the major concern is looking
particularly at initial or individual lots that are already out there, so the
lot frontages, lot widths, and lot sizes are not necessarily applying to
those. Because there have been questions
as to the application of the requirements, staff has been notifying everybody
that this document is coming forward and has been strongly encouraging anyone
coming forward with a site plan or subdivision to design to these
standards. Mr. Richardson explained that
there is one subdivision that has already designed and their preliminary plat does
not necessarily match the lot sizes and the lot widths within this proposal; another
one is a site plan for a hotel that exceeds the height limitations, as set
forth in this proposal; at least one more will be affected by the lot widths,
but not necessarily the lot sizes, and those will have an impact on that
development. Mr. Richardson stated that
he would like to review the changes at this time with the Board, as they are presented
in the backup.
Table 15.02.01A
These
requirements were worked on with City staff.
Some of these zoning districts do not have a match for the City; they
attempted to work out lot frontages using lot sizes; staff was concerned about two
issues with the R-3 and R-4 districts; they were presented to the Local
Planning Agency (LPA); the LPA made the recommendation to go with what is
included in the proposed ordinance, R-3 – 100 feet and R-4 – 85 feet.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was very disappointed
because these frontage requirements completely exclude the possibility of the
conservation design. She thought they
had gotten further than that and was hopeful that the cities had gotten beyond
that. She stated that this requirement,
for strict adherence to these frontage requirements, will not allow
conservation design to occur, which is a concern to her, because it precludes and
excludes conservation design; there is no incentive to do conservation
development.
Mr. Richardson noted that the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) allows for that flexibility but does require a rezoning to vary from
these standards for anything that might come forward in the joint planning area
(JPA). Currently the Lake County LDRs do not have a minimum lot size, or a
minimum lot frontage, for new development.
Table 15.02.01B,
Front Setback Requirements –
The
main differences begin in the A, RA, AR, R-1, as well as R-2, R-3, R-4, R-6, RP
and RM. The current regulations are 62 feet
from the centerline for existing developments; 50 feet from the centerline on
new development; or 25 feet from the property line on new development.
Table 15.02.01C,
Residential Side Setback Requirements
–
The main differences fall under the
AR through the RM. The current Lake
County LDRs have a 10 foot side and rear setback on the AR and R-1; R-2 through
RM are a five foot setback; there is no differentiation for pools.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether there was anything in
the language that gives any incentive to do a PUD, because they talked about
having a requirement on smaller parcels, or one standard for PUD open space, to
get beyond all of these strict minimum footages and setbacks because this
pushes the cookie cutter design, and Mr. Richardson noted that staff did not
address PUDs at all within these regulations.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Table 15.02.01D Commercial Side Setback
Requirements –
Currently
the
Table 15.02.01E Other Setback Requirements
–
There
were no real changes.
C Height requirements for the
districts indicated are as follows –
The
City has a different heights restriction and way of measuring the heights, so
that was included. The current County
code allows for a maximum of 40 feet in residential district; 50 feet in the
commercial district; that height is measured between one-half of the distance
between the peak and eave; Mr. Richardson believed that the City measures to
the top.
15.02.02 Treatment of Land with Wetlands and
Floodplains –
This is a brand new section. The City has a prohibition against
alterations of wetlands; a prohibition against alterations of the 100 year
floodplain. In discussions with the LPA,
they wanted a change made to allow some flexibility; the language under this
section reflects those changes.
15.02.03 Utility Construction Standards –
There
is nothing in the current code that specifically speaks to the coordination
with the cities but, in practice, staff has been following the noted
standards. The City reviews those
connections, and the County will do the inspections before any finals.
Table 15.02.03A Minimum Hydrant Spacing By
Land Use –
Public
Safety has reviewed these. The hydrant
spacing for the County is typically 500 foot hose laying distance, so these do
not affect that, other than bringing the hydrants closer together. If a property is annexed, it will not have
existing non-conformities.
Solid waste collection service –
Current
code only has provisions for screening; it does not necessarily give any
architectural detail to those. There are
some details that are included in the proposed ordinance.
Electrical, telephone and television cable
service –
The
15.02.04 Architectural standards –
These
were suggested by the City and, as reviewed by County staff, these actually
seem like a reasonable move, to implement at least on a small scale, some
architectural standards to go along with commercial development.
I.
Buildings –
No
single retail establishment may occupy more than 100,000 square feet. This is a substantial change. There is currently no requirement under the
Lake County Comprehensive Plan, or LDRs, that would preclude a single tenant
user from being greater than 100,000 square feet.
Commr. Pool stated that the City has approved at least
two structures that exceed the 100,000 square foot requirement, so there is a
variance opportunity for someone to come in and present their case to the
County, or to the City but, because they have recently approved two such
structures, a Super Target and a Super Wal-Mart, he thinks it is only right
that they be given that same opportunity to review on a case by case basis, to
approve or deny.
Mr. Richardson stated that, as part of a PUD or, as part
of a planned commercial, staff can address that particular issue. It was not necessarily written as a
prohibition.
Mr. Minkoff stated that another problem is that the
County has a variance board that tends to strictly apply the variance
requirements. The City Council tends to
give variances that are really not variances; they are kind of negotiated land
development approvals; so it would be very difficult to get a variance from
this code through the County’s Board of Adjustment from this provision.
Commr. Pool stated that this is where he wants to bring
this to the forefront. He stated that currently
and just recently the City has approved the Super Wal-Mart and Super Target,
and he does not think that they want to totally prohibit an opportunity. He explained that Home Depot is not very
happy, because they were restricted to a certain size, and they have what they
call a substandard store; other stores are larger but, at that time, the City said
no to them. He questioned why they would
want to restrict themselves, as the area grows, because he does not feel they
are being fair and equitable. He clearly
does not want to deprive a major retailer from coming to the area, so they need
to at least look at this.
J.
These
would be supplemental to existing County regulations. All newly installed support structures shall
be camouflaged. It was clarified that
there is a current definition of “camouflage” within the County’s LDRs.
K. Miscellaneous: -
Staff
felt these were very interesting and acceptable in this context dealing with
cart returns, etc. This would be
reviewed through the individual site plan, and as part of the final inspections
on the property. Staff will do landscape
inspections, and they will look at this.
15.02.05 Roadway and Street Design Standards
–
A. Access to Commercial Sites - New commercial
sites shall have direct access to public right-of-ways. This was a minor area
of disagreement between the City staff and County staff. The LPA elected to go with the language, as
included and provided to the Board today.
B. Minimum Right of Way - The City and the County have worked out all of these issues. The main issue is the widening of the right-of-way
to 60 feet on curb and gutter; allowing for rural areas to continue using
swales but any of those urbanizing areas would basically be limited to curb and
gutter in their roadway and storm water design.
It was noted that the 60 feet is the City standard.
F. Sidewalks - There is a minor change. The current
G.
Stormwater Spread Into Traveled Lanes for Local Streets and Collector Roadways
- New streets and roadways shall be designed to allow for the spread of storm water
at maximum volume to no more than one-half (1/2) of the traveled lane. The staff of both Public Works and the City
agreed that this actually is a good standard.
15.02.06 Signage Standards –
The
current County code does allow for scrolling, electronic changeable copy signs;
the City code does not. The LPA elected to
go with the City standard.
15.02.07 Lighting Standards. –
These
are relatively new and are acceptable as presented here today. It does put some terms and conditions on
parking lighting, street lighting, etc.
15.02.08 Landscaping. –
Two
minor changes –
A.
Parking Lot Trees: 60% of required
canopy trees in parking lots shall be live oak trees (this is from the City
standard, which differs slightly from the County standard).
B. Lawn Grass:
Grass areas shall be planted in species normally grown as permanent lawns
in the vicinity of the County. The
County does not have any one specific kind of grass that they require for
ground cover. This could limit the type
of ground cover.
C. Palm trees and pine trees shall NOT count
towards the minimum canopy tree requirement.
Palms and pines do count for a percentage of the total canopy
requirement under the County code.
15.02.09 Parking Requirements –
There
were two changes that differed from the current County code, which is the ratio
of one space per 250 square feet; the City code was one space per 200 square
feet, as noted.
15.02.10 Grading Standards –
Public
Works and Environmental Services have been working with these grading standards,
and they have been included for applicability in the Clermont JPA.
Commr. Hanson stated that, under landscaping requirements,
she would prefer that palm trees and pine trees count for some of the canopy
tree requirement, which they actually do in the County, because they are going
to find that, even though live oaks are great, they can tear up the sidewalks,
and it may be preferable to have some of these other trees that do not have an
immense root impact. With it being
noted that this is the first reading of the ordinance, Commr. Hanson stated
that she would like to bring this item before the City to see how they feel
about it. Commr. Hanson stated that she
has a problem with the 60 foot requirement for right-of-way; the County has a 50
foot requirement. She stated that the 60
feet should be required in some areas, but she did not believe it should be
required when dealing with neighborhood roads and, even though she sees that the
minimum lane width of 10 feet would be required, and she finds that to be acceptable,
she is not sure the right-of-way needs to be 60 feet when looking at narrower
roads versus wide roads for neighborhoods.
She still feels that, even though this is an amendment, there is no
provision for incentives for the conservation design, or cluster building, if
utilities are available, or requirements for open space. Somewhere they need to allow that and say
this is important as an alternative to the minimum setbacks and these
requirements.
Mr. Richardson explained that early on in the process,
County staff had a lengthy discussion about conservation design.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt that somewhere they
need to have a statement that says that this is an option independent of a PUD;
in some cases, you may still want a PUD but, in some cases, you may want to
have just that zoning but with the requirements for open space and smaller
lots.
C. Additional
Right-of-Way Requirements – (Continued)
Mr.
Richardson noted that currently, if
Commr. Cadwell addressed the landscaping requirements and
stated that palm trees and pine trees still count in the landscaping
requirements, and these are only affected under the section of canopy trees.
Mr. Richardson stated that it was his understanding that
those trees would not count as a percentage of the overall landscaping but
currently they do allow a certain percentage of those to count towards the
minimum tree requirements but, in this case, they would not be counted towards
the minimum tree requirements.
Mr. Darrin Gray, Assistant City Manager, City of
Mr. Gray addressed the canopy tree requirement and stated
that the City wants the canopy type tree, not specifically live oak, but canopy
trees. The landscape islands in the City
meet their requirement of 300 square feet and that helps with not breaking up
sidewalks, or pavements.
Commr. Pool stated that he is somewhat concerned about
limiting the opportunity for a retailer to come to the area that may benefit
the area, yet the City Council chose to approve the Super Target and the Super
Wal-Mart and, since they set the precedent, in his opinion, as they go forward,
he does not want to limit that opportunity.
Mr. Gray stated that the City Council has approved two “big
boxes” per say. The City has a variance
process, so they would like to take a second look at it. When Mr. Minkoff was talking about the Board
of Adjustment, and how they look at variances, he was not aware of that; they
thought that, if someone wanted to come in with over 100,000 square feet of a
building, they could go through the variance process with the County.
Staff clarified that the Board of Adjustment was
established to address hardships; not to go against policy.
Commr. Pool stated that he did not mind looking at it
three times, but he did not want to deny it, if it is a good opportunity for
good jobs, etc., and he wants to give them the leniency to negotiate in good
faith with potential good retailers that want to come to the area. He wanted to make it clear that he thinks
100,000 square feet is a minimum size store, in many cases. He thinks that it is only fair that they be
given that same opportunity in the County to duplicate what the City has
approved. He noted that City has
identified areas in their JPA that they will never annex but, to control or
prohibit does not make sense, or make for fair play. He wants staff to go back and look at this
again.
Mr. Gray stated that his experience with conservation
design requirements has been through the City’s PUD process, and that was his
understanding how they would deal with this concept. He noted that the City would be willing to
look at some type of clustering, because they have a couple of communities in
the City that have that and they do work well.
Mr. Richardson clarified that, when they were putting
this together, they were dealing with just the straight zoning. In going through the process, if someone does
come through the County has a PUD, they can, as almost any other part of the
code, ask for a waiver and have that approved as part of their ordinance.
Commr. Hanson stated that this was a step backward in her
opinion, because sometimes the most restrictive regulations do not get someone
where they really want to be. She would
like to see them go with the County standards on that one, at least.
Commr. Hanson noted that, under the utility section, it
does not identify that the City will be the sole utility provider; it allows
for other contractors to come in the JPA.
Mr. Gray explained that the City will have the first
right of refusal, or to say that they cannot serve them, before they can go to
another private utility. He pointed out
the 180 District area in the City on the map, which was everything except for
the area shaped like a “sword or spear” to the south. Their water area takes out some of the
southwest corner of the 180 District areas, which was their agreement with
Commr. Stivender referred back to additional right-of-way
requirements and questioned whether this applies to anything that the County
has already acquired, lots that may be undersized, or whether this is going to
be under their new definition of “new development” or new lots created.
Mr. Richardson explained that, if this is something that
has not yet developed, but some how the County has acquired the right-of-way,
then it would apply.
Commr. Stivender
pointed out that they are going to make some lots non-buildable, which is a
concern, and she felt that the individual would be compensated for the loss of
a lot, with Mr. Richardson technically agreeing.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the City was set on the
minimum right-of-way, 60 feet and 66 feet, as noted, and Mr. Gray responded that
they are set on that because that is a standard in their code and, if areas in
the JPA do come into the City, they would like it to come in as one standard.
Commr. Hanson stressed that she would still like them to look at the
conservation design, and Mr. Gray noted that this is an area they can look at.
Mr. Richardson stated that this is the first reading of
the ordinance, therefore, he wanted to know if some suggested language to allow
for clustered design could be considered, such as, if they come in with a true
cluster design providing a certain amount of open space, they could be granted
an administrative waiver to reduce those minimum lot sizes, or to waive the
minimum lot sizes and/or lot frontages.
Commr. Hanson stated that, at the very least, this should
be considered but there ought to be an opportunity for an incentive to get
people to do that and they have not even worked that out yet.
Commr. Cadwell stated that one incentive would be for the
Board to vote no on some of the straight zoning cases, until they realize they
need to come back as a PUD.
For the purposes of this section, in dealing with the
minimum lots sizes and lot frontages, Mr. Richardson suggested some proposed language,
as follows: residential subdivisions designed as a cluster subdivision with a
minimum 30% open space may be granted an administrative waiver from the minimum
lot size requirements and minimum lot frontages provided they are really doing
true cluster development and providing common open space.
Commr. Hanson stated that this would be a start but it
depends on the size of the lot, so there needs to be something developed that
gives a little bit of guidance there.
She referred to the tree canopy and noted that it would look much better
to have narrow roads.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for
public comment.
Ms. Allison Turnbull, Akerman Senterfitt,
Commr. Pool stated that he does not think that they want
to deny opportunities for major retailers to come to the area and to provide for
jobs and more ad valorem on the tax rolls. He does not think this is fair and
he wants to make sure that what they do is fair and equitable to all.
Discussion occurred regarding the types of stores that
are right now meeting the 100,000 square foot restriction or getting very close
to it, with Mr. Gray noting that the Home Depot came through the City as a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and it was under the 100,000 square feet and, as
far as he knows, they have never turned down anyone that has asked for a
variance.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the 100,000 square
foot restriction on retail establishments and stated that tied into that is the
criteria of the 15 foot versus 10 foot alteration to the terrain because, in
those very variances that they talked about on the 100,000 square foot
restriction, the City also gave variance to the topography requirement. He explained that you cannot build a 100,000
square foot building and not have, based on the South Lake topography, an
alteration of greater than 15 feet to a site, because you have to get involved
with American with Disability Act (ADA) requirements and such. So they granted variances to that which,
under this new provision, they need to have some flexibility, because it fits
into the same “big box” scenario. He
explained that there are thousands of acres of R-6 zoned property in South Lake
County; it does not require rezoning; it requires giving them an incentive to
do something other than straight “box” subdivisions and, in this particular
provision, they are going backwards in that regard by going back to minimums,
which they did away with years ago to give people an opportunity to embrace
some of the new concepts. It is not
because the Board would approve zoning; it is because zoning already exists and
there is no incentive to take that existing zoning and do it better than the
minimum and that is his concern. He
noted that this is true not only in the R-6, but in all of the zoning
classifications. They do have the
ability to have a PUD, which gives them the flexibility, and he feels that it
ought to reflect somewhere that they are going to reserve the house sizes, lot
sizes, and topography alteration standards as part of that process rather than
sending it to the Board of Adjustment. He explained that the City Commission grants
those variances; they do not send it to an independent board. In the past 18 months, the Board granted two PUDs,
and provided for lots that are smaller than these criteria, and they provided
for density to compensate for the loss of right-of-way, the expense and all, on
both of these projects, one being the Hartle Groves property. Under these scenarios, they need to reserve
the right to continue to do that. He
explained that
Mr. Richey stated that, since this is the first reading
of the ordinance, he would urge the Board not to rush this through the process. They need to look at some affirmative
criteria in this ordinance to give people the incentive to develop and cluster
in their current zoning. He feels they
should not do away with those minimum lot sizes or give people credit when they
give the County right-of-way. There
should be some affirmative duties and obligations by the City, as part of the
Board committing to and upgrading County standards as part of this. Mr. Richey stated that he is also concerned
about new development, because he has preliminary plats for two projects that
absolutely do not meet this standard, and construction plans and permitting are
underway. They need to establish a
definition for “new development” and when this applies and “already existing
development.” He has clients who, in
reliance on their agreements with the County for right-of-way on two of those
projects, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they do not need to
change the rules at this point in time.
Mr. Minkoff explained that it is less of a problem
because, if people have spent money, based on the old rules, and have gotten
approvals, they would be vested under the County code and would not have to
meet these new requirements. The key
issue is what date they would use for applications coming in and he thinks that
staff has talked about using the first advertisement date so that anything that
comes in after that date would have to meet the standards. If the application was filed before that and
money had been spent providing engineering plans, they would be vested and
would not have to meet these standards.
Mr. Richey pointed out that he has preliminary plat
approvals signed off by Lake County that do not meet these standards, and Mr.
Minkoff noted that those would be
vested.
Ms. Christine Harris, resident of
Commr. Hill called for further pubic comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hill stated that this is the first reading of the
ordinance and, as noted, and it appears that the Board wants to go back and
look at the changes that have been brought forth for discussion. She questioned whether these would be placed
in the ordinance for the second reading.
Mr. Minkoff stated that staff is not able to make
significant changes so, if they Board has significant changes they would like
to make, they would need to have a first reading again.
The Board members agreed that there are many areas that
they agree on but there are things that have been brought to the forefront that
need to be addressed, and they need to impose a timeframe.
Commr. Cadwell felt that, since the City and elected
officials have seen this, his idea would be to now take any suggested changes
back to the elected body to see if there is support there; if there is not
support, then there is no reason for staff to continue with their review. He suggested that perhaps Commr. Pool, being
the District Commissioner, may want to attend that meeting when staff makes its
presentation. He noted that there should
at least be some explanation, or clarification, on Commr. Hanson’s idea that it
actually prohibits them from doing things that they City may even want to do.
Mr. Gray suggested that they set up a workshop with their
City Council and invite Commr. Pool and they can go over some of these issues,
and then he could work with staff and see if they can get the ordinance back on
the agenda for the first reading, as soon as possible.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, with the commercial size, the
“big box” portion of it, they need to just have dialogue with them to find out
what is a realistic number; if they are going to grant variances anyway, he
suggested they just find a number that everybody thinks is reasonable and then
they will both keep their variance process.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if more than one Commissioner
plans on attending the workshop meeting, then staff will advertise and keep
minutes.
After some discussion, the Board members felt that the
process would be expedited if Commr. Pool was the only one to attend because he
knows all of their concerns, as expressed today.
Mr. Richardson asked whether the Board wanted to at least
address the date of applicability, which Mr. Richey expressed was a concern to
him.
The Board noted that it will be the date that the Board
adopts the ordinance.
Mr. Richardson noted that staff will still strongly
encourage following those items that are clear.
He further noted that there are currently two subdivisions that are
designed to current County standards.
After further discussion and, in order to close the
window and have a timeline, staff was given direction that anyone that comes in
after today will be bound by the agreement that the Board will adopt.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT AND RESOLUTION
Ms. Regina Frazier, Budget Director, addressed the Board
to present the mid-year budget amendment.
As noted, the adjustments total is about $31 million; the revised
Commr. Stivender pointed out that the money did go back
into the Economic Development/Tourism line, which meant that the money did get
paid back after all of these years, and the infrastructure sales tax did go
back into the road program. She noted
that staff did an excellent job.
Commr. Hanson stated that it is not applicable for
mid-year but she would like the Board to consider, in next year’s budget,
approval of a position for the Elder Affairs Council, if possible. She stated that they do have staff now, and
Ms. Robbie Hollenbeck, Special Projects Coordinator, does a great job working
with them, and the accomplishments have been significant, but she thinks it
will probably be time they have a person in that position.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for
public comment.
Ms. Christine Harris addressed the Board and stated that
one of the mainstays of
Commr. Hill called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr.
Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Mid –
Year Budget Amendment and Resolution 2005-52.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Travis Whigham stated that he would like the County to
help with the following items, and he would like to get some answers on these within
the next couple of weeks:
1) he
would like some temporary maintenance done on Fonseca Lane, so that emergency
and rescue vehicles can get to the residents (It was noted that Mr. Jim
Stivender, Director of Public Works, would look at the feasibility of a culvert);
2) he
would like to see the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) go to the State and
lobby for more school dollars to take care of the overcrowding in schools;
3) he
would like to see the mobile health unit in his area of the County where people
do not have the transportation, or ways of receiving medication attention (It
was noted that the Board has approved this item, and it is in the budget, but it
has not yet been purchased); and
4) he
would like help in preparing his neighborhood for the next hurricane season; he
has the sand but he needs the County to help him with bags and equipment; he also
asked for permission to use the back lot of the community center to make a sand
pile to have it ready to help with any future flooding (It was noted that Mr.
Jim Stivender will look into his request).
OTHER BUSINESS
REAPPOINTMENTS/PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson
and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following reappointment
of individuals to upcoming vacant positions on the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board: Hugh Davis, Basha Schlazer, Karen Ellis, Peggy O’Neil, and
Bobby Gibson.
APPOINTMENTS/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr.
Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment
of Terry Miller as Lake Technical Center's representative on the Lake County
Industrial Development Authority.
APPOINTMENTS/IMPACT FEE COMMITTEE
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr.
Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment
of Tommy Crosby as the Lake County Schools representative on the Lake County
Impact Fee Committee.
APPOINTMENTS/CITIZENS’ COMMISSION FOR CHILDREN
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr.
Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment
of individuals to vacant positions on the Lake County Citizens' Commission for
Children, as follows: Gerri Rivers
(at-large) and Bill Calhoun (District 5); and reappointments – Debbie Thomas,
Michael Matulia, Linda Lewis, and Pernell Mitchell.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
PROCLAMATION/CIVILITY MONTH
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr.
Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved and
authorized the execution of Proclamation 2005-53 designating the month of May
as Civility Month.
REPORTS –
CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr.
Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the
recommendation for Mr. Chuck Johnson to serve as the alternate Code Enforcement
special master.
It was noted that there were a couple of individuals who
had applied for the position, but these were the lowest bidders.
REPORTS –
BUDGET RETREAT
Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager, reported that
staff is trying to schedule a Budget Retreat in May, and hopefully one can be
scheduled off sight on a day other than Tuesday.
EMPLOYEES/COUNTY MANAGER
Commr. Hanson pointed out that the Board has not talked
about seeking another county manager.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr. Hanson commented that the Board may want to
consider Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager, as full time in this position and
not go through all of that, and Commr. Cadwell felt that they should have that dialogue.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT #5
GATOR CLUB/FAIRGROUNDS
Commr. Cadwell brought forth a request from the Gator
Club to waive the fees for them to have their scholarship fund raiser at the
fairgrounds.
After some discussion, the Board members felt that, if
this request was approved, it would be setting a precedent so, in order to be
consistent with other requests, they chose not to approve the waiver, but to
charge the same fee as in the past. They
also directed staff to bring back the amount of revenue that is derived from
non-profits, during budget discussions, so they can decide if they want to make
any changes to their current policy.
REPORTS – COMMISSIOENR POOL – DISTRICT #2
Commr. Pool reported that the
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
(CONT.)
BIKE WEEK
Commr. Hill noted that Bike Week will be held this
weekend (Friday through Sunday) in Leesburg.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT #4
SUSTAINABILITY SEMINAR
Commr. Hanson noted that there will be a “green building”
sustainability seminar on Friday, April 22, 2005, from 9 to 4, in the Magnolia
Room, Lake-Sumter Community College (LSCC).
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3
DRAGON BOAT RACES
Commr. Stivender congratulated the employees who put together
a Dragon Boat Team called the Dragonflies and won their category. There will be a presentation on May 3, 2005. She noted that they won an oar and were very
thrilled with their accomplishment.
PRESENTATIONS/COUNTY ATHLETES
Commr. Stivender noted that, on May 3, 2005, she has two
or three teams that won district or state competitions for their particular
sports, and they will be acknowledged at this time. She wanted to make sure that the Board is
having a meeting on May 10, 2005, so that a presentation can be made to a
couple of other teams.
Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager, noted that, at
this time, there were no other items scheduled for May 10, 2005, other than the
presentations noted by Commr. Stivender.
After further discussion, it was noted that the Board
will make other presentations to athletes at the May 10, 2005 meeting, and
other items of business will be scheduled for that day, as they come forth.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
(CONT.)
MARCH OF DIMES
Commr. Hill thanked staff for their work on the March of
Dimes. The walk is April 30, 2005, at
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
___________________________
JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK