A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAY
24, 2005
The
Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May
24, 2005, 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: Jennifer
Hill, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Debbie
Stivender; and Robert A. Pool. Others
present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, Assistant
County Manager/Interim County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager,
Board of County Commissioners’ Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION
AND PLEDGE
Commr.
Hill, Chairman, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA
UPDATE
Ms. Cindy Hall, Assistant County Manager/Interim County
Manager, informed the Board that Tab 6, a request from Community Services for
approval of submission
of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Targeted Capacity Expansion Grant for Jail Diversion Programs: Community-Based Treatment for Offenders with
Mental Health Disorders and Co-Occurring Substance Abuse Disorders, in the
amount of $400,000.00, as the grant applicant, collaborating partner, and grant
manager; and to authorize the Chairman’s signature on the application and
subsequent contract, if awarded, contingent upon the County Attorney’s
approval, routine grant documents, and reports, as required, was being pulled
from the Agenda, until a later date.
COUNTY MANAGER’S
CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Hanson stated
that she would be voting for approval of Tab 1, a request from Community
Services for approval of the Application for Continuation of Health Communities
Access Program (HCAP) for a second year, however, asked that the Board be given
a presentation in the near future on where the program currently is with the
grant monies that have already been received.
On a motion by Commr.
Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the
Board approved the following requests:
Community Services
Request from Community Services for
approval of Application for Continuation of Health Communities Access Program
(HCAP) for a second year – Fiscal Year 2005/2006, in the amount of $709,614.00. No local match is required.
Information
Technology
Request
from Information Technology for approval and authorization to pay Software
House International (SHI) $39,556.67, in accordance with year three of the
State of Florida Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, allowing the payment of
licensing and software assurance to be spread over a three year period.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS: VACATIONS
PETITION
NO. 1046 – LAKE SAUNDERS GROVES LAND, LLP/CHELSEA
OAKS, LLC – TAVARES AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works
Director, explained this request, stating that it was postponed from the last
Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting and that, since that time, Commr.
Stivender had held a public meeting with the residents of Tavares, to hear
their concerns about the matter. He
stated that the request is to cease maintenance on a portion of Merry Road, in
the plat of James M. Conner, just outside the City of Tavares, and noted that
there was an interest in vacating an additional portion of right of way to the
north side of the right of way in question, pointing out said area on a map
(contained in the Board’s backup material) on display. He stated that the applicant was requesting
to vacate Merry Road back to the line that was originally asked for, although the
legal description that was advertised was greater than that. He noted, however, that the Board could
vacate less than what was advertised. He
gave a brief history of what has occurred regarding Merry Road, up to this
point in time, noting that it runs into David Walker Drive, which was
constructed in the last 10 years and is a direct connection to Old Hwy.
441. He stated that, as part of the
development, the developer is required to improve the road and widen it to
David Walker Drive, as well as address a turnaround issue and a drainage issue. He stated that all of the surrounding
property, which is in the City of Tavares, was approved for development by the
City, however, pointed out a portion of property that remains in the
County. He stated that staff looked at
the improvements that were made in the area, as well as the ones that are
proposed to be made at David Walker Drive, and it appears that the elimination
of Merry Road to the south and the improvements to David Walker Drive do not
substantially affect health and safety access issues to the site. He stated that there was some confusion as to
whether the road vacation was a City of Tavares issue, or a County issue, however,
noted that Merry Road is currently a county road, thus, the reason for the request
being before the Board. He stated that staff
was recommending approval of the vacation request.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney,
addressed the Board stating that he was representing the applicant, but that,
since Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, had been involved with
the process involving Merry Road from the beginning, he was going to turn the
matter over to her to explain.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board
stating that she was representing Lake Saunders Groves, which has been involved
with the property in question since the mid-1990s, which she elaborated on,
noting that Mr. Bob Hester, with ABC Fruit Company, was the original developer of
the property. She stated that, shortly
after getting the PUD (Planned Unit Development) approved, he passed away and
she has been representing the trust. She
stated that the original PUD was done in 1994 and that one of the requirements
of the PUD was that the developer work with the County and the City of Tavares to
improve what was then Merry Road, which was substandard, and, in certain areas,
had a number of 90 degree turns. She
stated that the City and the County wanted to bring everything out to David
Walker Drive, create a new major thoroughfare, and, ultimately, have some
connection to Old Hwy. 441. She stated
that Mr. Hester donated all the right of way and participated in the paving of
Merry Road, which is now David Walker Drive, with the understanding that, as
the other tracts were developed, the portion in question would be vacated. She stated that the original PUD allowed
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, and attached and detached units and,
as the subdivision developed, different parcels had requirements for a park
dedication. She stated that, in 2003,
the PUD was amended, to be consistent with changes that had occurred with and
around the property since the original PUD was created in 1994. She stated that, at that time, a number of
homeowners were represented by counsel and what was supposed to be a very
simple amendment regarding park space ended up taking over a year, at
significant expense to her clients. She
stated that they still had the various kinds of uses, however, since the homeowners
were very vocal about the fact that they only wanted single-family, her clients
eliminated the multi-family and townhouses, in exchange for moving the project
forward, and part of that was the ultimate vacation of the remaining portions,
which she noted is on record and was discussed at various public hearings that
were held. She stated that the amended
PUD addresses the future vacation of portions of Merry Road, which she pointed
out on the map on display. She
reiterated the fact that her clients, who were the original owners of the
entire parcel, relied on their understanding with the City of Tavares and the
County that, in exchange for all of the right of way that was given and the
construction of the road, the remaining portion of Merry Road would be vacated,
at which time she noted that Mr. Richey’s client has the parcel under contract
for single-family dwelling units, with the understanding that it would be
vacated.
Commr. Stivender questioned whether
the City of Tavares had notified county residents, or only city residents, when
the meetings alluded to earlier were held, and whether it was specifically
addressed that the section of Merry Road in question would be vacated.
Ms. Bonifay responded that she did
not know who the City of Tavares had notified, however, noted that a number of
the residents were represented by legal counsel, who attended those meetings,
and her office negotiated directly with said counsel. She stated that there were maps of the area
on display at all of the meetings showing the portion of Merry Road in
question, with the understanding that it was subject to vacation.
Commr. Stivender questioned whether
it was verbally stated that said portion of the road was going to be vacated
and that the residents would not have that access available to them and was
informed that it was. She noted that she
was a little upset with county staff, because the road in question is in her
district and they had not informed her about the situation, noting that she
knew nothing about it, until she was informed by some of the residents.
Commr. Cadwell questioned what the
development options would be, if the Board chose not to close that portion of Merry
Road being requested to be vacated.
Considerable discussion occurred
regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Richey readdressed the Board stating that
construction plans have been approved for the entire parcel and that portion of
the road has been incorporated, as part of the overall plan. He stated that, in order to make the PUD work,
as envisioned by the City, it will require the utilization of the right of way
in question. He stated that, from day
one, going back to 1994, the PUD has envisioned the property working together,
as shown on the map on display, and the roads were built and improvement plans
approved, based on that. He stated that,
on top of the millions of dollars that have been spent, in doing the road
improvements and providing the right of way, if the request is denied, his
client will lose 16 lots and, if his client has to re-engineer the project, he
will have to start all over again, which will be very expensive.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board
stating that, if her clients do not get the benefit of the bargain that was
made, Mr. Richey’s client may not close, which leaves her client, who has been involved
with the project since 1994, with a problem, in terms of the way that the
development is supposed to be developed, and their clients will suffer economic
hardship due to it.
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
The following individuals addressed
the Board and discussed concerns they had about the proposed road vacation: Ms. Grace Gilbert, Mr. William Chandler, Mr.
Walter Henderson, Ms. Mary Garcia, Mr. Dennis Dutton, Ms. Julie Lamons, Ms.
Shirley Grover, and Mr. Tony Taylor.
They discussed the need for Merry Road to be widened and resurfaced and
sidewalks and curbs installed; the need to protect Lake Saunders from being polluted;
the fact that a traffic signal needs to be installed at the intersection of David
Walker Drive and Old Hwy. 441, because it is a very dangerous intersection; the
fact that the retention pond needs to be fenced, to protect the children in the
area; the fact that the road at the entrance to Lake Saunders subdivision, which
is in disrepair, needs to be repaired; the fact that the residents of Lake
Saunders subdivision are not the only people that are concerned about Merry
Road being closed; the fact that the residents in the area were not notified
about the road vacation; the fact that the attorneys, Ms. Bonifay and Mr.
Richey, have argued that the developers gave up density, in exchange for the
vacation of the road, which is not true; the fact that developer’s have the
right to develop, but not at the expense of someone else’s rights; the fact
that the vacation of Merry Road is just about creating extra lots for the developer;
the fact that the closing of the road would hamper emergency vehicles from
reaching the residents in the area in a timely manner during an emergency
situation; the fact that the residents would like to have turn lanes installed
on Old Hwy. 441; and the fact that the residents feel they have been lied to
about the road vacation issue.
Mr. Ralph Keeler, a real estate
broker with Matsche Real Estate Company, addressed the Board stating that he
has been involved with the project in question since 1998, at which time he
reviewed a little of the history behind the proposed vacation. He pointed out on the map on display the
properties that were included in the original plan, noting that it was to be
developed as a single development, to include the various parcels that he
pointed out, however, noted that that was not the way that it was
developed. He stated that, in the
original ordinance, anticipating some 700 additional homes to be constructed in
the development, traffic flow was the issue.
He stated that Merry Road, in 1994, could not take 700 additional homes,
so, in working with the County, the developers developed a plan for the
extension of Merry Road, which eventually became David Walker Drive. He stated that, as it has been presented,
some land was given up for right of way for the project. He stated that the original concept had the
Merry Road intersection with David Walker Drive closed, noting that Merry Road
was to become an internal road to the development. He stated that the first parcel of property
to sell is what has now become The Pines of Lake Saunders and access from the
north was added to that plan at the request of residents living in the area
that wanted to get out that way, rather than going through the
development. He discussed the second
development that came in, noting that it covered both sides of Merry Road, with
lots on the north side and the south side.
He stated that it has gone back and forth about three different times,
with at least three different plans. He
stated that Merry Road was originally to be closed at the intersection with
David Walker Drive; it was to be looped, with an entrance to be constructed at
a different location; and, finally, a different parcel was put under contract,
however, prior to it going under contract, the City of Tavares and the
developer made some changes to the PUD, which he noted was addressed. He stated that the point he feels everyone is
missing is that over 700 homes were being constructed in the area and the
traffic plan was to utilize David Walker Drive, as it is constructed at the
present time, with a traffic light to be installed at the intersection of Old
Hwy. 441, when it is warranted by the necessary amount of traffic. He discussed what would happen if Merry Road
was to be left open, at which time he noted that that was not the traffic plan
that was envisioned in 1994. He stated
that, unfortunately, in developing the project piecemeal, there have been some
changes made to the traffic plan and things have been looked at in isolation. He stated that he feels the Board needs to
look at the project as an entire 135 acre tract, which was originally
envisioned for some 700 homes, and the best way to handle the traffic situation,
when the development is built out ten years from now.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he feels
a list of the issues addressed this date should be sent to the City of Tavares,
for their response. He stated that the
only thing the Board has over the design of the road is that, if they do not
approve the road vacation, it will affect how the developers design the
subdivision.
Commr. Hanson stated that there are
some real concerns that need to be looked at, but that she was sure a plan
could be developed that would enhance the area and be more beneficial to the
development, as a whole.
There being no further individuals
who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Stivender stated that she had
asked staff to conduct a traffic count at the intersection of Merry Road and
David Walker Drive and asked whether said count was available.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works
Director, readdressed the Board stating that, with regard to the traffic count
that Commr. Stivender requested, staff wanted to look at the intersection, to see
if a traffic signal was warranted. He
stated that one is not warranted yet, but is one of those things that the
County can monitor every six months to a year, whatever the Board would like
for them to do.
Commr. Stivender stated that the
County needs to make sure that the signal is installed as soon as it is needed.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing
the owners of the remaining tracts within the subdivision in question, and Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the developer of the project, readdressed
the Board and rebutted some of the comments that were made regarding the
proposed road vacation.
Commr. Hanson suggested that,
perhaps, a main entrance to Lake Saunders subdivision could be constructed a
little more to the north, noting that it would not bring the residents out onto
Old Hwy. 441, but would help them access David Walker Drive. She stated that the redesign could help
protect the privacy of the residents.
Commr. Pool stated that there are
opportunities to make something better for everybody.
Mr. Richey stated that he did not
have a problem with asking for a 90 day continuance of this hearing, in order
to bring back to the Board a configuration that does what Commr. Hanson
suggested. He stated that he spoke with
the engineers and they feel they can accommodate what she asked for. He stated that he spoke with Ms. Keedy, City
Manager, City of Tavares, as well, and she feels that, within that 90 days, it
can be presented to the Tavares City Commission, as well, for their
review. He stated that, after doing so,
he would suggest that a meeting be held with the residents, to let them know
where the matter stands. He stated that
his only concern is that people have spent a lot of money doing what they
thought they were supposed to do and that needs to be fixed. He stated that the developer could protect
the neighborhood, as they have been directed to do, but yet have the road
system that has been started completed, to upgrade that system. He requested approval for a 90 day
continuance, noting that his client and Ms. Bonifay’s clients agreed to it.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool
and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board granted a 90 day continuance
for Vacation Petition No. 1046, by Lake Saunders Groves Land LLP, Chelsea Oaks,
LLC, to vacate right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of Merry Road
(4455), in the Plat of James M. Conner, located in Section 27, Township 19
South, Range 26 East, in the City of Tavares – Commission District 3, until the
Board Meeting of August 23, 2005.
PETITION NO. 1049 – GINN PINE ISLAND, GP, LLC –
MONTVERDE AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, explained
this request, stating that it was a request to vacate easements in the Plat of
Lake Highland Co., in conjunction with the platting of Bella Colina, in the
Montverde area. He stated that the
portion involved is the old plat, lying under Bella Colina West, noting that
the issue was discussed many years ago, when it was under different ownership. He stated that the original vacation called
for another piece being vacated to the north, however, noted that it has been
taken out of the legal description, because of access issues. He stated that the applicant is trying to
clear up the title and staff is recommending approval to vacate.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether it was all now internal
to the applicant’s property and was informed that it was.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded the Board
that the property involved is the area where the Board approved a plat, but with
an agreement that the applicant would not sell the lots that were impacted by
the roads, pending this vacation.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant’s
representative, was present in the audience.
Mr. John Hendershide, representing Woodlands Lutheran
Camp, which borders the property in question, addressed the Board stating that
the Florida/Georgia District of the Lutheran Church has absolutely no problem
with the vacation.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address
the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool
and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No.
2005-83 - Petition No. 1049, by Ginn
Pine Island, GP, LLC, Representative Xabier Guerricagoita, to vacate easements
in the Plat of Lake Highland Co., in conjunction with the platting of Bella
Colina, located in Section 10, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the
Montverde area – Commission District 3.
PETITION
NO. 1051 – ALLAN M. AND ELLEN L.MULLER/REPRESENTATIVE
MARY
LUDWIG – LEESBURG AREA
Mr. Jim
Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, explained this request, stating that it
was a request to vacate a utility easement in the Plat of Pennbrooke, Phase 1A,
located east of Leesburg. He stated that
it is a lot in a subdivision, where there is an encroachment on a portion of
the easement by a home. He stated that,
in order to clear title, staff was recommending approval to vacate.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was
noted that the applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the
audience.
No one
was present in opposition to the request.
There
being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
On a
motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2005-84 - Petition No. 1051, by Allan M. and Ellen L. Muller,
Representative Mary Ludwig, to vacate a utility easement, in the Plat of
Pennbrooke, Phase 1A, located in Section 19, Township 19 South, Range 24 East,
in the Leesburg area – Commission District 1.
RECESS
AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:50
a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS: REZONING
REZONING CASE NO. PH5-05-3 – R-1
TO R-2 – JOHN NELSON/NELSON FAMILY
TRUST/TIM
HOBAN AND CARL LUDECKE – TRACKING NO. 10-05-Z
Mr.
Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, addressed the Board stating that Mr. Tim Hoban,
Attorney, representing John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust/Tim Hoban and Carl
Ludecke, Rezoning Case No. PH5-05-3, had requested a 60 day continuance, to the
Board Meeting scheduled for July 26, 2005, in order to allow the applicant to
try to work out an issue involving the railroad.
Commr.
Hanson noted, for the record, that she would be abstaining from the discussion
and vote, for reasons disclosed at a previous meeting regarding this case.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
No
one was present in opposition to the request.
There
being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Pool and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a 60 day
continuance for John
Nelson/Nelson Family Trust/Tim Hoban and Carl Ludecke, Rezoning Case No.
PH5-05-3, Tracking No. 10-05-Z, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005, as
requested.
Commr. Hanson abstained from the discussion and vote.
REZONING
CASE NO. PH44-05-5 – AMEND PUD ORDINANCE NO. 57-91
(UPSON DOWNS, L.P.) – THE LAKES AT
BLACK BEAR HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC./JIMMY CRAWFORD –
TRACKING NO.49-05-PUD/AMD
Ms.
Jennifer DuBois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management
Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend PUD
Ordinance No. 57-91 (Upson Downs), to relocate eight lots from Phase III of the
Upson Downs PUD, which is presently unplatted, to Phase II, which has been
platted as the Estates at Black Bear Reserve, and to relocate the community’s
active recreation tract. She stated that
the development is located in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area, north of the
intersection of CR 44-A and CR 437, at which time she displayed a copy of the
Master Plan PUD Modification for the Upson Downs Phase II and III project
(County Exhibit A), which she submitted, for the record. She stated that Upson Downs is a vested
development, which has been approved for 274 single-family units, 2.25 acres of
commercial development, featuring C-1 and C-2 uses, and both active and passive
recreation areas. She stated that, of
the 274 permitted residential lots, 220 have been platted to date – 89 in Phase
I and 131 in Phase II. She stated that
the applicant is seeking to relocate seven lots slated for inclusion in Phase
III to the peninsula, on the interior lake (shown on the Estates at Black Bear
Reserve plat as Tract “B”). She stated
that the peninsula was originally intended as the site of the community’s
clubhouse, pool, and beach area; however, as the residents of the PUD have
access to the amenities of the neighboring Village at Black Bear development,
staff determined, in October of 2003, that Upson Downs’ active recreation
facilities could be scaled back significantly and that the clubhouse, pool, and
beach area could be eliminated. She
stated that the applicant also wishes to shift an eighth lot from Phase III to
the southern portion of Tract “C”, which is an area that was reserved for open
space on the Estates at Black Bear Reserve plat, and to designate Tract “D”,
which is presently shown as open space, as the recreation area. She stated that the relocation of the eight
lots from Phase III to Phase II will leave a balance of 46 homesites and will
enable the applicant to create larger lots during the platting stage of Phase
III and the lots will then be more consistent with the larger parcels that
border the PUD. She stated that, in
addition to the relocation of the eight lots and the recreation tract, the
applicant also wishes to convert the County maintained roads that are presently
in existence in Phase I of the PUD to private roads. She stated that, as with the roads that are
currently in existence in Phase II, the roads will be maintained by the
community’s homeowners association. She
stated that staff finds, while the Upson Downs PUD is inconsistent with the
present Lake County Comprehensive Plan, the requested amendment is compatible
with the conditions that are outlined in the development’s Vested Rights
Certificate, therefore, issues a recommendation of approval.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she did not feel the request was non-conforming, based on
density, noting that she feels it is a conforming development in the Wekiva
Basin, utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights.
Mr.
Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray Robinson, representing the owners of the
property in question, addressed the Board stating that Commr. Hanson was correct,
in that the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the owners have
a Vested Rights Certificate that covers the development. He stated that the owners are relocating
eight lots, internal to the subdivision, under the old Chapter 14. He stated that 24 months ago, this request
would have been a minor amendment and would not have even been required to come
before the Board, but there are no longer any minor amendments, so all PUD
amendments have to come before the Board for approval. He stated that, with regard to the road
vacation issue, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, represents
the Battaglias, who own property adjacent to the property in question. He displayed a copy of the Master Plan
(Applicant’s Exhibit A), which he submitted, for the record, pointing out the
roads in question, noting that they are currently part public and part private,
at which time he indicated at what point they go from public to private. He stated that the remaining roads in the
subdivision are private and, due to the fact that the road names change, the
County does not know at what point to maintain the roads, nor does the
homeowners association. He stated that,
in conversations with the staff from the Public Works Department over the road
name issue, in trying to get the names correct, it was agreed that the roads
would all become private. He stated that
the homeowners association has an agreement with the Battaglias giving them
access to their property through the private roads that already exist in the
subdivision, at which time he displayed an aerial (Applicant’s Exhibit B),
which he submitted, for the record, showing said access, however, noted that
they will have to negotiate with the Battaglias to extend that agreement, to
cover the new roads. He stated that his
client was not before the Board this date to request the vacation of roads, but
merely to have the PUD allow those roads that are currently public to become
private. He stated that he did not want
to vacate the roads, because of ownership issues, however, noted that his
client plans to work with the homeowners association, the County, and the Battaglias,
to try to come up with something that will fix that. He stated that his client would be happy to
leave that provision out, because he does not feel that it means a lot, since
his client has to come back before the Board again, at a later date.
Commr.
Hanson asked Mr. Crawford to show the Board where the lots are being
transferred from, at which time Mr. Crawford displayed a copy of the Master
Plan PUD Modification to Upson Downs Phase II and III (Applicant’s Exhibit C),
which he submitted, for the record, pointing out the lots that are being
reduced. He stated that the development
will have a “tot” lot, a playground facility, and a dock that will give
community access to the interior lakes.
Commr.
Hanson questioned what a portion of the property shown on the map in Phase III
of the project was to be utilized for and was informed by Mr. Crawford that it
was an airstrip. She stated that she did
not recall the Board approving an airstrip for said project.
Mr.
Crawford stated that he did not represent the property owners at the time that
said airstrip was approved, however, noted that it has been included in the
Master Plan from the beginning. He
stated that it is vested, however, noted that the property owners have not yet
built the airstrip and they do not have any plans to do so at the present
time. He stated that it was not a part
of the amendment request before the Board this date, however, noted that he
would be glad to answer any questions the Board had regarding the matter. He stated that the request before the Board
this date was an interior reallocation of lots, making the lots larger.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she did not have a problem with the transfer of lots,
however, was concerned about the airstrip.
Commr.
Hill stated that she was not on the Board at the time that the PUD originally
came before the Board, however, noted that she had always heard that there was
an approved airstrip on the property.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she had heard that the property owners would be bringing
forward a request for an airstrip, but did not know much more about it,
however, noted that she would check into the matter. She stated that she felt this was the first
time that the issue of the airstrip had come up at a meeting before the Board.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bonifay, representing the Battaglias,
addressed the Board stating that Mr. Crawford raised the issue the last time that
this case came before them that she had a conflict of interest; however, she dispelled
that notion, by giving a brief background history of what has occurred
regarding this case, up to this point in time. She asked that the motion by the Board this date
not include language indicating that the private roads will be allowed, noting that the Battaglias have no problem
with whatever the property owners want to do internally, in moving lots, but
the easement modification agreement that was entered into with the Upson Downs
Limited Partnerships (L.P.), the Lakes at Black Bear Reserve Homeowners Association,
the Battaglia Fruit Company, and Mr. Peter Neubaur clearly states that, if the
County ceases to maintain those roads, all the parties involved are to enter
into an agreement as to how those roads are to be maintained, noting that throughout
this process it has been the owners of the Upson Downs and Black Bear portions
that have been responsible for the maintenance and upkeep, not the
Battaglias. She stated that, given the
fact that some of the properties have had financial problems over the years,
the Battaglias’ do not have any idea what the financial capability is of the homeowners
association, therefore, as part of renegotiating the easement modification
agreement, the Battaglias would want a bond posted, or some demonstration of
financial responsibility.
Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact
that the Battaglias would like to have no language at all in the amendment to
the PUD Ordinance, with regard to the roads.
Commr. Hanson pointed out the fact
that Ms. Bonifay has been involved with the property in question for a long
time and questioned whether she remembered the airstrip being a part of the
project and was informed by Ms. Bonifay that she did not, that it was not a
portion of Upson Downs, which is the portion that she represented. She noted that she was not involved with the Lakes
at Black Bear portion.
Upon being questioned as to how the
County felt about the public roads in the subdivision becoming private, Mr.
Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works Department, addressed the
Board stating that the County had no concerns about the matter one way or the
other.
No one was present in opposition to the
request.
There being no further individuals who
wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell
and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board
and approve Ordinance No. 2005-39 - Rezoning Case No. PH44-05-5, The Lakes at
Black Bear Homeowners Association, Inc./Upson Downs, L.P./Jimmy Crawford, a
request to amend PUD Ordinance No. 57-91 (Upson Downs), to shift eight (8)
approved lots from Phase III to Phase II, and to relocate the community’s
active recreation tract, as presented, exacting the language that has anything
to do with transportation, just on the amendment part, with regard to ownership
of the roads.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill
questioned whether Commr. Cadwell’s motion was to vacate the roads.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the
development will be just like it is today, in that the section that is public
will still be public, and, when the property owners can work something out, at
that point in time the County can look at turning the roads over to the
homeowners association.
The Chairman called for a vote on the
motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
REZONING CASE NO. PH5-05-3 – R-1
TO R-2 – JOHN NELSON/NELSON FAMILY
TRUST/TIM
HOBAN AND CARL LUDECKE – TRACKING NO. 10-05-Z (CONT’D.)
The
Chairman announced that Mr. Tim Hoban, Attorney, representing John Nelson/Nelson
Family Trust, had requested a 60 day continuance of this case earlier in the
meeting, however, noted that, upon being informed by Mr. Hoban that the Board
had approved a 60 day continuance, his client stated that he would prefer to
have the case postponed for 30 days, rather than 60. She stated that, normally, the Board does not
reopen the public hearing portion of a case once it has been closed, but she
would leave it up to the district commissioner as to whether or not to reopen
the case.
Commr.
Stivender indicated that she did not have a problem with doing so.
Mr. Hoban readdressed the Board and requested
a 30 day continuance, rather than a 60 day continuance, as he had requested
earlier in the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved to place said item back on the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board
approved a 30 day continuance for John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust/Tim Hoban and
Carl Ludecke, Rezoning Case No. PH5-05-3, Tracking No. 10-05-Z, rather than a
60 day continuance, as previously requested and approved.
Commr. Hanson abstained from the
discussion and vote.
REZONING CASE NO. PH30-05-2 – R-1
TO R-4 – LEONARD H. BAIRD, JR.,
TRUSTEE/CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQUIRE –
TRACKING NO. 47-05-Z
Commrs. Stivender, Hill, and Pool
disclosed, for the record, that they had spoken with the representative of the
applicants, prior to this meeting.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed
the Board that the attorney for this case (Cecelia Bonifay) has raised the fact
that the Commissioners speak to individuals prior to Board Meetings as an issue
in a recent case and that there is litigation pending against the County,
noting that she claims that members of the Board had spoken to her client’s
opponents and that it violated her client’s due process.
Ms.
Jennifer DuBois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management
Department, explained this request, stating that the applicant wishes to rezone
a 19.71 acre parcel, presently vacant, for the creation of a single-family
residential subdivision. She stated that
the property is located in the Clermont area, just east of the intersection of
Lake Louisa Road and Lakeland Drive. She
stated that potable water will be supplied by Lake Utilities, Inc., while
sanitary sewer service will be furnished by the City of Clermont. She stated that, through the utilization of
the Urban Area Residential Density Chart, the applicant has obtained a total of
38 points, corresponding to a maximum allowable density of 3.5 dwelling units
per acre. She stated that Section
3.03.02(F)(1) of the Lake County Land Development Regulations states that, if
the requested zoning district density, which in this case is four dwelling
units per acre, is greater than the point system density, the maximum allowable
density shall comply with the point system density. She stated that staff finds that the desired
use is consistent with all the provisions of the Land Development Regulations
and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, therefore, issues a recommendation of
approval.
Commr. Hanson disclosed, for the
record, that she had spoken with Mr. Mark Oswalt and Mr. Buddy Oswalt, the
applicants, regarding this case, prior to this meeting.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman
Senterfitt, addressed the Board stating that she was representing the applicants. She displayed a map (contained in the Board’s
backup material) of the area in question, showing the designated zonings of the
surrounding properties, which range from R-1 to R-6, noting that there are only
a few parcels left in the area that are still undeveloped. She stated that the applicants were
requesting an R-4 zoning, to give them more flexibility under the Code.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that he had
some concerns about this request, because of the issue with the schools.
Ms. Bonifay stated that her staff obtained
some numbers from the School Board regarding school capacity and that there was
an error in their report, as to what schools would be affected by the proposed
development, noting that Lost Lake Elementary is the elementary school that would
be affected, not Clermont Elementary, as noted in the Staff Report, as well as
Windy Hill Middle School, and East Ridge High School. She stated that the density for the proposed
development is going to be 2.5 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the applicant is doing a
straight zoning, so, if the Board wanted to limit it, through a Developer’s
Agreement, they would do so. She stated
that they have done their calculations on school age children, using the 2.5
dwelling units per acre, and it amounts to approximately 48 lots, which would
result in five (5) new elementary school children, three (3) middle school
children, and four (4) high school children, for a total of twelve (12)
additional students. She stated that
they looked at the individual schools and what is planned for them, noting that
an increase in size for Lost Lake Elementary is scheduled for August of 2005
and a new elementary school, which is currently unnamed, is scheduled to come
on line in August of 2007. She stated
that Lost Lake Elementary is going to increase its size by 216 student stations
and the new elementary school will have 934 student stations, for a total
increase over the next two years of 1,150 student stations.
Commr. Pool questioned whether said
figure included the charter school that is scheduled to open in that area in
the near future and was informed that it did not.
Ms. Bonifay displayed and submitted,
for the record, an aerial (Applicant’s Exhibit A) showing the location of the
new middle and high schools, as well as the new elementary school, and a yet
unnamed elementary school in the area of the property in question, stating that,
in just looking at Lost Lake Elementary and what the School Board has proposed,
the County would be left with a deficit of 442 student stations, which is what
their overcapacity figure is today, allowing an available capacity of 708
student stations. She stated that, considering
the proposed project’s impact, it leaves 703 student stations for the
elementary school; the middle school has a current deficit of 41 student
stations, leaving an available capacity of 1,375 student stations, of which the
proposed development would require three, so it would be 1,372 student stations;
and with regard to the high school, noted that a new high school is scheduled
to open in August of 2007, with 2,070 students stations, for a deficit of 323
student stations, leaving an available capacity of 1,747 student stations, of
which the proposed development would require four, for a total of 1,743 student
stations. She stated that, in looking at
the elementary school, even with the impact of the proposed development and all
the deficiencies with the new schools, it would leave a total of 703 student
stations, and, in adding to that the 700 student stations that are coming on
line in August of 2005, for the elementary school that is located on Hartwood
Marsh Road. She stated that Mr. Oswalt
has already indicated that his child is signed up and will be attending the new
charter school that has been built in the area.
She displayed an aerial (Applicant’s Exhibit B), which she submitted,
for the record, stating that, based on the fairly demenemous impact that this
project will have; the fact that there is development all around the proposed
development; the fact that it is one of the last built-out parcels in the area;
the fact that county staff has indicated that there is no deficiency in the
area; the fact that they have assessed their impact on Lake Louisa Road and
found no impact there; and the fact that the new Citrus Tower Boulevard
extension that is planned will connect with the Lake Shore Drive connector, it
is imminent, in that it is on the County’s impact fee list, and her clients are
waiting to move forward.
Commr. Pool stated that the proposed
development is a classic infill project of minimal size that will not have a
significant impact on the area, the schools, or transportation, and there are
projects coming on line that will help the school situation.
Commr. Stivender stated that she had
voiced some concerns that she had about this project, when it was originally
presented to the Board, however, noted that Ms. Bonifay had answered those
concerns. She questioned whether Ms.
Bonifay had a problem with the Developer’s Agreement stating that her client
would construct no more than 2.5 dwelling units per acre on the property in
question and was informed by Ms. Bonifay that her client did not have a problem
with that.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
interjected that, with said statement being in the Minutes, staff will make
sure that, if, during the preliminary plat review, the applicant comes forward
with something greater than the 2.5 dwelling units per acre, they will bring it
to the Board’s attention.
Commr. Hanson stated that the request
before the Board this date is for straight zoning and questioned whether there could
be an attempt for smaller lots sizes, for more open space.
Ms. Bonifay stated that a problem with
that is that the residents that surround the proposed development are going to
want something that reflects what they currently have on the ground. She noted, however, that her clients could
look at that, as they go through the design process.
Commr. Hill questioned whether there
was any discussion about the Joint Planning Area (JPA) with the City of
Clermont and whether the proposed project fits in with their JPA and their lot
sizes and whether they had any comment, whatsoever, about the project.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, to her
knowledge, they did not.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the
request.
There being no further individuals who
wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the
Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2005-40 - Leonard
H. Baird, Jr., Trustee/Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, Rezoning Case No. PH30-05-2, Tracking
No. 47-05-Z, a request to rezone a 19.71 acre parcel in the Clermont area from
R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), as presented,
with the Developer’s Agreement to state that the project will not exceed 2.5
units per acre.
REZONING
CASE NO. CUP05/5/1-3 – CUP – W. STEVE NOVILLO – TRACKING
NO.
50-05-CUP
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner,
Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, explained this
request, stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), to
allow the placement of a second mobile home on the property, as a caretaker’s
residence, noting that there is an existing mobile home on the property,
together with a nursery/greenhouse operation.
He stated that the property is zoned A (Agriculture) and is 5.06 acres,
in the Lake Jem area. He stated that it
is in the Rural land use category and is consistent with the Lake County
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Lake County Land Development
Regulations. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of the request, however, noted that the owner and any successors
shall adhere to the proposed Ordinance, as attached.
Commr. Stivender stated that the Zoning
Board placed a condition on their approval of the request that the mobile home
be occupied by an employee of the nursery, that it be limited to a single
family, and that it not be used as a rental unit.
Mr. Hartenstein stated that said
condition has been incorporated into the CUP Ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant, or the
applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the
request.
There being no one present who wished
to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2005-41 - W. Steve Novillo, Rezoning Case No. CUP05/5/1-3, Tracking No.
50-05-CUP, a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), to allow a second
mobile home as a caretaker’s residence on 5.06 acres in the Lake Jem area, as
presented, with a condition that the mobile home be occupied by an employee of
the nursery, that it be limited to a single family, and that it not be used as
a rental unit, as set forth in the Ordinance.
REZONING CASE NO. PH43-05-4 – R-6 TO CP
– STEPHEN ZAHN
TRACKING
NO. 51-05-CP
Mr. Rick
Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request to
rezone a 1.04 acre parcel in the Eustis area from R-6 (Urban Residential
District) to CP (Planned Commercial District), with limited C-2 (Community
Commercial District) uses (addressed in the Ordinance) and vehicular
sales. He stated that the applicant
wishes to develop the property, for the purpose of vehicular sales, but also
wishes to include limited C-2 uses, for the purpose of marketing in the
future. He stated that the proposed
rezoning does not conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations, as
seen in Section 3.00.03, Table 3.00.03, which allows CP and C-2 zoning
districts within the Urban Expansion land use designation. He stated that the request is in compliance
with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as seen in Policy1-3A.1(2)(a),which states,
“Location – at the intersection of two
arterials, or at the intersection of an arterial and collector, or along an
arterial at an appropriate distance from an intersection. These centers shall be located within the Urban
and Urban Expansion land use categories.
In addition, these centers shall have a minimum market area radius of
two miles.” He stated that the
subject parcel is located on SR 19, an arterial highway, approximately six
hundred (600) feet north of the intersection of CR 44, a collector highway;
therefore, the subject parcel meets the definition of a Community Activity
Center and, as a result, the site meets commercial location criteria. He stated that the parcel is part of the City
of Eustis’ Joint Planning Area (JPA) and city utilities and central water and
sewer will be provided to the site. He
stated that the Zoning Board recommended approval, by a 6-0 vote, with limited
C-2 uses, as set forth in the Ordinance.
He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, with a stipulation
that any portion of Ruth Street that the applicant may use for access will have
to be paved and brought up to county standards.
He noted that there was no opposition to the request, but that the
County did receive one letter of concern.
Commr.
Cadwell declared a conflict of interest and disclosed, for the record, that he
would be abstaining from the discussion and vote, due to the fact that his
daughter owns property across the street from the property in question.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jack
Wilson, a resident of the area, who lives on Ruth Street, addressed the Board
stating that Ruth Street is a non-maintained county road and that, for the past
30 years, the residents on Ruth Street have had to donate money, in order to keep
the surface of the street in fairly decent shape, so that they can access their
properties. He stated that their concern
is not so much the rezoning of the property, to allow commercial, but that, by allowing
vehicular sales, it will generate more traffic coming down their non-maintained
county road, degrading the surface of the road more than what the garbage
trucks already do, which places an unfair burden on the residents, who have to
continue to maintain the road. He asked
that, if the Board planned to approve the rezoning request, they make it
contingent upon the road being brought up to county standards, so that it can
be maintained.
Commr.
Hanson stated that the County could look at doing a special assessment on Ruth
Street, but that right of way would have to be obtained from the property
owners on either side of the road, who would share one-third of the costs of
paving the road with the County, however, noted that the residents would have
seven (7) years to pay for their share of the assessment.
Mr.
Wilson stated that a limited number of residents live on Ruth Street, however,
assured the Board that they would give the County right of way, for the purpose
of paving the road, because the road is a problem for them. He stated that the residents have been
requesting some type of help from the County for 30 years.
Commr.
Hanson stated that everyone involved can get together with the Public Works
Department and see what can be done about the street, with the understanding
that the applicant dedicate his share of the street to the County at this
time. She noted that there is a huge oak
tree on the site that the County fought to save, when the Discount Auto Parts building
was built, and the County would want to continue to protect it.
There
being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
On a
motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved
Ordinance No. 2005-42 - Stephen Zahn, Rezoning Case No. PH43-05-4,Tracking No.
51-05-CP, a request to rezone a 1.04 acre parcel of land in the Eustis area
from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District), with
limited C-2 (Community Commercial District) uses and vehicular sales, as
presented, with a stipulation that the applicant dedicate right of way along
Ruth Street to the County and that, should the Public Works Department be able
to determine that the County can meet the federal test, it demand that the
remaining portion of Ruth Street right of way be donated.
REZONING CASE NO. PH16-05-1 – CP AND
R-6 TO CP – STEVE DONAHUE
AND
MIKE ROSS – TRACKING NO. 17-05-CP/AMD
Mr. Rick
Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, explained this request, stating that the zoning on the
subject parcel is CP (Planned Commercial District) (Ordinance No. 39-82) and
there is a small one-half acre parcel that is zoned R-6 (Urban Residential). He stated that the applicant is requesting to
amend the CP zoning, in order to incorporate the one-half acre that is zoned
R-6 and to make some amendments to the CP Ordinance, which is currently an auto
repair facility, to include vehicular sales, so that used cars can be sold on
site. He stated that the request is
consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and with the Lake County
Land Development Regulations. He stated
that the Zoning Board’s recommendation was for approval, by a 6-0 vote, with no
stipulations, other than what was already incorporated in the Ordinance. He stated that staff’s recommendation was for
approval of the request.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, pointed out to the Board the fact that the
County has under contract, for purchase, a parcel that is located immediately
south of the property in question.
Commrs.
Hill and Cadwell disclosed, for the record, the fact that the applicants do
their automotive repairs, however, noted that they do not benefit in any way –
that they pay for their repairs.
Commr.
Stivender noted, for the record, that she handled the original zoning
application for the applicants.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was
noted that the applicants were present in the audience.
No one
was present in opposition to the request.
There
being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and
carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the
Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2005-43 - Steve Donahue and Mike Ross, Rezoning Case No. PH16-05-1,
Tracking No. 17-05-CP/AMD, a request for approval to amend the present CP
(Planned Commercial) zoning on the subject parcel, presently utilized for an
automobile repair facility, to include the use of vehicular sales, and to
rezone an adjacent one-half (1/2) acre parcel from R-6 (Urban Residential) and
incorporate the one-half acre of additional land into the Planned Commercial
site, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. PH33-05-2 – AMEND PUD
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-31
ORANGE TREE SUBDIVISION/ROBERT A.
MANDELL, GREATER
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION – TRACKING
NO.46-05-PUD/AMD
Mr. Rick
Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management
Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend PUD
Ordinance No. 2004-31, to eliminate the 125,000 square foot commercial element
in Phase 6 and develop Phase 6 with forty-five (45) single-family dwelling
units. He gave a brief background
history of what has occurred with said property up to this point in time,
stating that the PUD Ordinance was approved in 1999, under Ordinance No.
1999-64, and the property was rezoned from R-4 to PUD, adding 665 dwelling
units, with no commercial; in May of 2002, Ordinance No. 2002-53 was amended,
allowing for 160 town homes in Phase 5, 125,000 square feet of commercial, and
490 dwelling units; and in April of 2004, Ordinance No. 2004-32 was amended,
allowing for 46 single-family dwelling units, 125,000 square feet of
commercial, and 382 dwelling units, but also allowed for short-term rentals. He stated that the parcel consists of a total
of 190 acres and is located in the south Lake County area, south of the
Sawgrass Bay (Savannas) PUD, just east of US 27/SR 25 and approximately 2.5
miles north of US 192/SR 530. He stated
that the property is located in the Urban Expansion future land use category;
Lake Utilities is the service provider; central water and sewer is provided to
the site; and it fronts on an arterial highway.
He stated that the applicant is requesting to amend the 125,000 square
foot commercial element of Phase 6, to eliminate the commercial element and
allow the development of Phase 6, with forty-five single-family homes, which
would equate to 2.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is a slight increase
in the density, but still consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive
Plan. He stated that Policy 1-1.6 of the
Comprehensive Plan allows up to four dwelling units per acre in Urban
Expansion. He stated that the applicant
would like to amend the total number of units from 382 to 427, at which time he
noted that the elimination of the 125,000 square foot of commercial and
replacing it with 45 dwelling units will decrease the intensity of the
development, but will cause a slight increase in the density of the PUD. He stated that the increase will not conflict
with the applicable provisions of the Lake County Land Development Regulations,
or the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
Mr.
Hartenstein stated that, with regard to amending the buffer along the northern
boundary of the property that separates Orange Tree Subdivision and The
Savannas from 50 feet to 25 feet and eliminating the six foot masonry wall,
Table 9.01.04.B of the Lake County Land Development Regulations requires a Type
B landscape buffer between the two PUDs.
He stated that a Type B buffer is 15 feet wide, with four canopy trees
per 100 feet and a single row of shrubs, and allows an option, if the developer
wishes, to also include three ornamental trees per 100 linear feet. He stated that a 25 foot width exceeds the
Type B width requirements for the buffer, but the plantings in the buffer would
still have to meet or exceed the required plantings, according to the Land
Development Regulations. He noted that
the reason for that is that, if they eliminate the commercial, there will be no
need for the extra wall buffer. He
stated that the applicant is also requesting to amend the buffer on the eastern
boundary, between Phases 5 and 6, to eliminate the buffer and six foot wall
requirement, which he noted is interior to the PUD, and its purpose is to
buffer from the commercial element of the PUD and the residential element. He stated that, between Phases 5 and 6, if
the PUD is amended to eliminate the commercial, there would be no buffer
requirements at all. He stated that the
applicant is also requesting to amend the 100 foot citrus tree buffer on U.S.
Highway 27, along Phase 6, to a seventy (70) foot landscaped buffer. He stated that the request is consistent with
the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Lake County Comprehensive
Plan. He stated that the Zoning Board’s
recommendation was for approval, by a 6-0 vote, to eliminate the 125,000 square
foot commercial in Phase 6 and develop Phase 6 with 45 short-term rental units,
restricted to 30 days or less, with no renewals, at which time he noted that he
felt there would be a problem with putting a total restriction on the
short-term rentals, with regard to impact fees, which he elaborated on. He stated that there were two letters of
opposition and one letter of concern on file.
He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, with those
provisions that are outlined in the Ordinance.
Commrs. Hill and Pool had disclosed
earlier in the meeting, for the record, that they had met with representatives
of this case, prior to this meeting.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney,
representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that 95% of the houses that
were sold in The Oranges subdivision were bought by British tourists and put into
short-term rentals, so the applicant feels pretty comfortable with saying that
the 45 single-family dwelling units being proposed will be used for short-term
rentals. He stated that the applicant
has paid the school impact fees and the tourist tax on the short-term rentals
will be paid, as well. He stated that,
although the applicant originally requested approval for the 125,000 square
foot commercial element in Phase 6, there is such a need for short-term rental units
in the County that the applicant is requesting that the property be converted
back to its original zoning classification.
He stated that the buffers that the applicant has proposed exceed the
County’s buffer requirements and that, although this project will not generate
any students, the applicant has donated an 18 acre site for a K-8 school, which
will be free and clear to the School Board.
Commr. Hanson questioned what
percentage of open space will be provided in the development and was informed
by Mr. Richey that it will be 25%, at which time he displayed a copy of the PUD
(Applicant’s Exhibit A), which he submitted, for the record, pointing out the
open space and conservation areas, as well as a 10.7 acre community park. He stated that the density was reduced from
600 units to 400 units and the project meets the County’s code, with regard to
open space.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the
request.
There being no further individuals who
wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by
Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation
of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2005-44
- Orange Tree Subdivision/Robert A. Mandell, Greater Construction
Corporation, Rezoning Case No. PH33-05-2, Tracking No. 46-05-PUD/AMD, a request
to amend PUD Ordinance No. 2004-31, to eliminate the 125,000 square foot
commercial element in Phase 6 and develop Phase 6 with forty-five (45)
single-family dwelling units, to be used as short-term rentals, restricted to
30 days or less, with no renewals, as presented, with the landscaped buffers
and conditions, as set forth in the Ordinance.
REZONING
CASE NO. PH40-05-3 – AMEND PUD ORDINANCE NO. 1999-123
ROYAL HIGHLANDS/STEVEN J. RICHEY,
P.A./GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG
URBAN
& REGIONAL PLANNERS – TRACKING NO. 52-05-PUD/AMD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner,
Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, explained this
request, stating that it was a request to amend existing PUD Ordinance No.
1999-123, to add 44,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial on 4.9 acres,
for a small retail center fronting U.S. Highway 27, south of the Leesburg area,
approximately two miles north of the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park, noting
that the overall PUD consists of 1,086.7 acres.
He stated that it is a vested DRI (Development of Regional Impact),
located in an Urban Expansion land use category. He stated that the City of Leesburg has
assumed the responsibility of providing central water and sewer, in conjunction
with their private plant. He stated that
the property is located on a major arterial and the land use, density, and open
space would not present any substantial modifications, as a result of the
proposed amendment. He stated that,
because of extensive wetlands, uplands, and areas to accommodate the golf
course, the development was afforded an abundance of open space from the
inception of the project. He stated that
the residential density will remain unchanged, as a result of the
amendment. He stated that the initial
5,000 square feet of commercial use was specified as permissible, under the C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) classification.
He stated that the additional 44,500 square feet of commercial has been
reviewed by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, which has
issued a determination that the proposed revisions do not result in an
“automatic substantial deviation”. He
stated that the DRI will require no further review by them and staff finds that
the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable requirements of the Lake
County Land Development Regulations. He
stated that staff finds that, while consistent with Policy 1-1.14(2)(a) of the
Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which requires that commercial uses be located
in planned centers, to avoid strip commercial development, the proposed 44,500
square feet of additional commercial area represented is consistent with Policy
1-3A.1, which limits the location and scope of such commercial
development. He stated that the proposed
expansion of the commercial area would constitute an equivalent Neighborhood
Activity Center, drawing from a market area radius of 1.25 miles. He stated that the proposed 49,500 square
foot center will meet commercial location criteria, as defined in Policy 1-3A.1(3). He stated that staff notes, based on data
provided by the applicant, Monarch Boulevard meets the criteria to be classified
as a collector road. He stated that the
Lake County Public Works Engineering Department has reviewed this analysis and
concurs with the results. He stated that
Policy 1-3A.1(3)(d) further states that the neighborhood activity center
service areas will be proximate to population areas, to support proposed uses,
noting that these centers are intended to accommodate the shopping needs of the
residents living within the immediate surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that the center shall have a minimum
working area of 1.25 miles, and, in addition, a neighborhood activity center,
in which combined commercial allocations from 10,000 to 50,000 square feet are
allowed, is currently located 1.71 miles north of the DRI/PUD, at the
intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and Bridges Road, a minor collector. He stated that, if the amendment is approved,
this area is outside the minimum market area for the existing neighborhood
activity center and would meet the requirements of Policy 1-3A.1(3).
Mr. Hartenstein stated that, given the
predominance of surrounding farm and vacant land use, the magnitude of the
proposed additional commercial area would represent a substantial increase over
and beyond that which was recognized, approved, and, therefore, vested under the
initial approval. He stated that the
development, as a whole, is surrounded by Rural and Suburban land use, which
has predominant zoning of Agriculture.
He stated that the proposed use meets the definition of a neighborhood
activity center, as the minimum market area is within the1.25 mile radius and
will be providing limited C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) services to a
population of over 2,000 people at build-out.
He stated that the proposed PUD amendment will have minimal effects on
the capacities of public facilities. He
stated that, per the Lake County Public Works Department, the development shall
comply with access management provisions; turn lanes will be required at all
proposed entrances; a traffic signal will be required at the main entrance; and
additional right of way dedication may be required. He stated that the Zoning Board recommended
approval, by a 6-0 vote, to add the 44,500 square feet of neighborhood
commercial on the 4.9 acres, for a small retail center, with the condition that
all water, sewer, pump station traffic, golf cart safety, and wall issues be
corrected prior to construction and, in addition, the town design shown in
“Applicant’s Exhibit A” (contained in the Board’s backup material) shall be
followed. He stated that 45 letters of
support were received, along with 53 letters in opposition, and 13 letters of
concern. He stated that staff finds the
proposed amendment to be consistent with the provisions of the Lake County
Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations, relative
to the commercial expansion, and, therefore, offers a recommendation of
approval, subject to the provisions, as set forth in the Ordinance.
Commrs. Stivender, Hill, and Pool had
disclosed earlier in the meeting, for the record, that they had spoken with
representatives of this case, prior to this meeting.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney,
representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that more than a year
ago the application before the Board this date was filed, to add 44,500 square
feet of neighborhood commercial on a 4.9 acre parcel of property fronting U.S.
Highway 27. He stated that, when he
first brought the DRI before the Board years ago, the parcel in question was
set aside for commercial use, however, noted that the square footage was
limited to 5,000 square feet, because, at that time, 5,000 square feet was a
neighborhood center. He stated that the
square footage of neighborhood centers has grown, as communities and the need
for more neighborhood centers has grown, and the applicant is trying to respond
to that need. He gave a brief background
history of what has occurred, up to this point in time, regarding said
property, noting that the application was filed and the request went before the
Planning and Zoning Board, however, there were a lot of people in opposition to
the request, because of the fear of the unknown, so the applicant withdrew his
application and held meetings with the residents of the community, at which
time he presented the proposed plan, which brings them to this date.
Mr.
Greg Beliveau, AICP, Land Planning Group (LPG), representing the applicant,
addressed the Board and answered questions presented to him by Mr. Richey
regarding the issues of traffic, buffers and where they are located, and
access, which were concerns that were raised by the community, and how the
applicant has addressed said issues, at which time he displayed and reviewed
various sketches, the master plan, artist renditions of how the commercial area
will look, photographs of the current site, a Schedule of Permitted and
Conditional Uses (Zoning Districts), etc. (contained in Applicant’s Composite
Exhibit A), which he submitted, for the record.
He also clarified where the sales center sits on the property and where
the existing commercial area is located, noting that the applicant sold a
corner parcel several years ago to a financial institution and, between the
financial institution and the sales office, it ate up the 5,000 square feet;
therefore, when they say proposed, it is because there is an additional square
footage request before the Board this date.
He stated that the access is off of Monarch Boulevard, at which time he
noted that a traffic signal will be installed at the entrance of Monarch
Boulevard and U.S. 27 by the end of this calendar year; where the current sales
center is located; the location of a second entrance, which will be a right
in/right out; a possible third entrance, if the Florida Department of
Transportation approves it; and where the utility system is located (City of
Leesburg is current owner of utility system
– a stand alone system that will be upgraded, as utilities are extended south,
past Royal Highlands). He stated that a
traffic analysis was conducted and it is felt that the commercial center will help
traffic impacts to Hwy. 27, due to the fact that there are 2,500 people living
in Royal Highlands, which is a pretty substantial amount of people, equivalent
to a city the size of Groveland or Mascotte.
He stated that that was one of the points that was made by some of the
residents that live in Royal Highlands - that they would like to have access to
a commercial center that would provide golf cart access, bicycle access, and pedestrian
access, so that they would not have to get out on Hwy. 27 and drive north or
south for their services. He stated that,
although there is currently a 45 foot berm located on the site (pictures
provided in Applicant’s Composite Exhibit A of woman standing at base of berm,
giving perspective of height of berm), a wall will be constructed behind the
berm. He stated that it has been requested
that the wall be architecturally similar to the wall that is located in the
front of the property and that some type of pediment be placed on the top of
the wall, to prevent people from scaling it and accessing the development. He noted that the wall will be stucco on both
sides.
Mr. Beliveau stated that the applicant
was asked to reduce the number of uses that will be allowed in the commercial
area, so they have reduced it down to offices, travel, real estate, financial,
ice cream or pizza parlor, computer store, deli, coffee shop, beauty parlor,
barber shop, bank, dry cleaner (drop-off only), etc. He stated that, currently, the property is
zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and one of the things that came up in the
previous hearing was what can be done with a C-1 zoning, at which time he
listed those types of uses that are allowed in said zoning, being: a plant
nursery, a roadside farm stand (vegetable), commercial amusements, automobile
service station, banking facility, a bar or tavern, a car wash, personal care
services (beauty, hair, etc.), professional offices, a general restaurant (no
fast food), general commercial, a self-service laundry, churches, community
residential, a cultural institution, a daycare center, and a family care center. He stated that the general retail is wide
open – anything that one would want to do, with outside storage, etc. – there
are no restrictions. He stated that some
of the residents adamantly wanted a sports bar and some did not want one at all,
so they included it in the list of approved uses and will let the residents
decide whether one goes in or not. He
stated that the commercial area will not be a typical strip center, but will
look more like a village type facility.
He noted that the applicant does not have a problem with meeting the
conditions that were outlined by the Zoning Board, stipulating the design
before the Board this date, the wall, the utility upgrades, and the golf
cart/pedestrian access.
It was noted that some concerns that
were raised by the residents about lighting, garbage dumpsters, etc. would be
addressed when the development goes through the site plan approval process.
Commr. Hill stated that, when this
request was heard a year ago, there was a concern about the elimination of 300
recreational vehicle sites and questioned where they would be located.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, stated that,
originally, there were 1,500 houses and 300 RV sites, however, noted that the
RV sites were eliminated, but the RV storage area was kept in the project,
which consists of single-family residential units, the commercial area on Hwy.
27, the golf course community, and an RV storage area.
Commr. Hill then questioned the issue
of the setback requirements going from 15 feet to 5 feet and was informed by
Mr. Richey that there was some discussion regarding some of the screen rooms
that the residents were adding, which he noted they deleted, because the
community wanted to keep it as it was.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Millard Cosby, a resident of Royal
Highlands, addressed the Board stating that he wanted to clear up some critical
misconceptions, at which time he submitted, for the record, a packet of
information (Opposition’s Composite Exhibit A), containing his statement; an
excerpt from the Zoning Board Minutes of May 4, 2005; several copies of the
Royal Highlands plat, showing existing/proposed commercial parcels, as well as
possible future development; a copy of Page 2 of Resolution No. 1994-153,
indicating that the development consists of 1,500 single-family dwelling
residential units, 300 recreational vehicles, and 5,000 square feet of
commercial, on 507.25 gross acres, to be developed in accordance with the
Master Development Plan; a copy of Page 4 of Ordinance No. 1999-123, indicating
that the development consists of 1,500 single-family dwelling residential
units, 300 recreational vehicles, and 5,000 square feet of commercial on
1,086.59 gross acres, to be developed in accordance with the Royal Highlands
Amended Preliminary Development Plan; a copy of an email, dated May 18, 2005,
that was received from Mr. Raymond Sharp, Director, City of Leesburg
Environmental Services, indicating that the City of Leesburg does not own or
maintain any of the internal gravity collection system, or any of the internal
sanitary pumping stations within the Royal Highlands subdivision - that they
are all owned and maintained by the homeowners’ association; and a copy of Page
2 of the Royal Highlands Declaration of Restrictions, indicating that, before
any commercial enterprise is built or operated on lands comprising a part of
Royal Highlands, or which expects to utilize facilities or infrastructure
belonging to or maintained by the Royal Highlands Property Owners’ Association,
the proprietor, owner or operator of such enterprise shall enter into a binding
contract with the Association, which contract is to include mutually agreeable
terms for all aspects of the expected use or interaction between the parties. He stated that one of the misconceptions is that
Mr. Richey, the applicant’s attorney, insists that the area in question has
always been commercial and that there was even a veiled threat that, if the
residents did not accept the proposal, something worse would be put in its place,
at which time he read an excerpt into the record from the Zoning Board Minutes alluded
to earlier (contained in Opposition’s Composite Exhibit A), as follows: Mr. Richey said this is not going to go commercial, it is commercial. It will be developed in commercial, either by
using the 5,000 square feet and having some configuration on it which will not
be as restrictive as what they are proposing or it will be restricted and
imposed under the terms and conditions that the Board grants.
Mr. Cosby stated that what that is
saying is that, if the applicant is only allowed to have 5,000 square feet,
they will put in a gas station, or something else that the residents will not
like, so they better go along with the applicant’s proposal, for the increase
to 40,000 square feet. He stated that
the assertion that it is commercial just cannot be so, noting that it is shown
on the applicants own plat (contained in Opposition’s Composite Exhibit A) as
“proposed commercial”. He questioned why
it would be shown as “proposed”, if it were already commercial. He stated that, according to the plat, said
area was residential at one time, not commercial. He questioned when it went to commercial,
noting that he would like to see the documentation of when that happened. He stated that he suspected it went
commercial when the draftsman drew it on the layout. He stated that one of the reasons the
residents of Royal Highlands stated they did not mind this proposal was because
they feared something worse would be put there, if they did not go along with
the amendment. He stated that the area
could be designated open space, upland buffer, or even recreational, which the
residents would certainly not oppose. He
questioned what has changed to require such a dramatic change in the commercial
space, noting that he would like to see a copy of the market research analysis
that was conducted. He stated that he
fears there will be empty store fronts in just a few months, or years, noting
that a shopping mall will be constructed that will devalue their properties and
then there will be empty store fronts, further decreasing their property values,
and, finally, they will allow low end stores to take over, leading to even
lower property values.
Mr. Cosby addressed a concern he has
about the 12 sanitary lift stations that exist in Royal Highlands, pointing out
the fact that Mr. Beliveau had stated that the City of Leesburg owns them, but that
is not true, referring to the email (contained in Opposition’s Composite
Exhibit A) alluded to earlier from Mr. Raymond Sharp, Director, City of
Leesburg Environmental Services, in which he states that the City does not own
or maintain any of them, that they are all owned and maintained by the
homeowners association. He stated that
Mr. Beliveau stated that Pringle Communities holds easement rights along
Commerce Boulevard, but he has been unable to locate such a document. He stated that, with regard to the
Declaration of Restrictions for Royal Highlands (contained in Opposition’s Composite Exhibit A), Paragraph 2,
under Use Restrictions for all Commercial Development, indicates that the
infrastructure usage by the stores, including the roadways and lift stations,
would require an agreement with the Royal Highlands Association before any
construction could begin. He commented
about the notification process that is used by the County, noting that the blue
postcard that is sent out to the residents notifying them about upcoming
meetings looks like junk mail, so a lot of them may have been discarded as
such. He stated that he feels a more official
looking letter would be better. He asked
that the notification contain an email address, as well, so that the residents
can respond to them. He stated that he
is concerned that the applicant is overbuilding a commercial area, on a
rational that the residents need it and will make it financially viable, which
he seriously doubts, noting that there is already too much commercial
development along U.S. 27. He questioned
why the applicant would ruin the resident’s beautiful community, with a
possibility of empty store fronts. He
asked the Board to assess the accuracy of the facts presented and vote “No” to
the amendment to the Royal Highlands PUD.
Mr. Robert “Bob” Buckert, a resident of
Royal Highlands, addressed the Board and submitted, for the record, a packet of
information (Opposition’s Composite Exhibit B), which he reviewed with the
Board, containing an excerpt from the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of
February 4, 2004, which states: It had
been predicted that people would go north to Leesburg for services and goods. Instead
they were going south to the Minneola/Clermont market. DCA felt it would be advantageous to increase
the square footage of commercial to try to capture that traffic flow and keep
it internalized. He stated that said
statement was not true, noting that he goes north to shop and so do most of the
people that he knows. He stated that,
after the findings, the residents agree that Monarch Boulevard would be
considered a collector road (information contained in Opposition’s Composite
Exhibit B), the problem is that they do not know the correct number of average
daily trips (ADT) on Monarch Boulevard, noting that the number that was given was
9,236. He stated that the residents feel
those numbers are going to go up dramatically, approximately 320 to 350 new
ADTs every day, if the property in question becomes a shopping center and
Monarch Boulevard is deteriorating extremely fast, which the residents are concerned
about, at which time he displayed a photograph (contained in Opposition’s
Composite Exhibit B) of said road, noting that it is only nine-sixteenth of an
inch thick. He stated that, on March 10,
2004, a letter (contained in Opposition’s Composite Exhibit B) was sent from
Mr. Fred D. Ferrell, P.E., District Traffic Operations Engineer, with the
Florida Department of Transportation, to Mr. John Pringle, Pringle Development
Retirement Communities, stating that a traffic signal was needed at the intersection
of U.S. 27 and Monarch Boulevard. He
stated that the residents were told in November of 2004 that the traffic signal
would be installed, but it has not happened yet. He addressed the issue of the Neighborhood
Activity Center and the fact that the plat shows the ingress/egress for it
coming off of Commerce Drive, which he noted is not a collector road, but a
private road; therefore, it fails to meet the requirement for a neighborhood
activity center. He stated that the
residents are concerned about tractor trailers entering the shopping center and
what problems they will cause, as well as the additional traffic that will be
generated by the shopping center.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 1:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
recess until 1:45 p.m.
REZONING
CASE NO. PH40-05-3 – AMEND PUD ORDINANCE NO. 1999-123
ROYAL HIGHLANDS/STEVEN J. RICHEY,
P.A./GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG
URBAN
& REGIONAL PLANNERS – TRACKING NO. 52-05-PUD/AMD (CONT’D.)
Mr. Buckert readdressed the Board
stating that there are probably only three to four families, out of the 118 families
in his precinct, that would like to have the activity center – the remaining
114 families do not want one. He stated
that the issue of safety is a real concern to the residents, who feel that they
need both the berm that is currently on the site, as well as a wall, which it
was noted has been proposed by the applicants, and the residents are concerned about
the water retention area and the fact that it is in direct contact with the
aquifer.
Mr. Thomas Johnson, a resident of Royal
Highlands and Vice Chairman for Public Works for Royal Highlands, as well as their
liaison with the City of Leesburg’s Public Utilities Department, addressed the
Board and discussed some concerns the residents have about the roads in the
area, the subdivision’s water system, their sewer system, fire protection, and
potential drainage problems, which he elaborated on. He stated that they have approximately 200
homes left to build in the development and it will be at 1,500 homes. He stated that they have had water and sewer
problems for the past three to four years, because of additional homes being
built in the development, and the City of Leesburg has been unable to
completely fix the system at this time.
He stated that the City informed him that it will be three to ten years
before all the communities along the U.S. 27 corridor will be connected into a
central water system, so the residents are going to have to put up with their
water and sewer problems until then. He
stated that the residents are concerned about the water pressure for the fire
hydrants, in that there is barely enough water pressure for their own community;
odor from the sewer system, which has been ongoing for years, and the City has not
been able to solve the problem; the fact that the residents feel the shopping
center, which will be equivalent to 24 homes being added to the system, will be
the demise of it; that, if the water in the retention pond reaches into the
aquifer, as the residents were told, it will pollute their wells, which are
located in the center of their community and is the source of their drinking
water; and that the proposed shopping center is not consistent with the other buildings
in their community, in that it does not match anything they have. He asked the Board to protect the residents
and deny the request.
Mr. George McMillan, a resident of
Royal Highlands, addressed the Board stating that, whereas he shares many of
the concerns of his fellow residents, he believes the popular opinion is that
the residents would have no objection to the proposed shopping center. He stated that he was sure a dialogue could
be set up between Pringle Communities, who has always been cooperative, and the
residents that came before the Board this date with their concerns, in an
effort to try to address those concerns.
Ms. Janet Porter, a resident of Royal
Highlands, addressed the Board and appealed to them to please let the residents
have the proposed shopping center, noting that one of the main reasons she
bought her home in Royal Highlands was because she was told that the shopping
center would be built. She stated that,
for a while, she and her husband were ambassadors for Pringle Communities and
would take people out to dinner, to find out what they thought about the area,
and the main complaint that they received was that the development was too far away
from anything. She stated that she
agreed with Mr. McMillan that there are problems, but feels that they are going
to be worked out. She stated that the
residents have to drive approximately 10 miles to buy a loaf of bread, or a
bottle of milk, and there will come a time when they will not have a driver’s
license, enabling them to do so. She
stated that she desperately wants to be able to driver her golf cart to the
proposed shopping center, or be able to walk up to it, to purchase basic things
that she needs. She stated that Pringle
Communities has a wonderful reputation and she has never been afraid of what
they will build in front of the development, noting that she does not feel they
will build junk in front of it. She
asked the Board to approve the request before them, to enable the residents to
have an area in front of their development that they can get to when they get
older.
Ms. Mary Javer, a resident of Royal
Highlands, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she has
lived in Royal Highlands for the past one and a half years and is very, very
proud to call it her home. She stated
that she listened to the comments that were made this date and was very
concerned about them, however, noted that her concerns stretch beyond safety
and security issues, they involve the entire community of 1,500 homes. She stated that, should the Board decide to approve
the amendment before them, she would like to request that the developer extend
the berm that runs along U.S. 27 to the southernmost point of the commercial
development; that the six foot concrete wall along King Henry Avenue, within
their community, be extended on top and not be adjacent to the extended earthen
berm southward to the end of the commercial property; that the palm trees
currently in place remain in place and that further plantings be done on the
berm; that the commercial site preparation not commence until the water main
interconnect reaches the subject property; that the cost of the independent
switch disposal be borne by the developers; that the traffic signal at U.S. 27
and Monarch Boulevard be operational, before site preparation can begin; that the
developer be required to provide a safe, secure, and convenient passageway for the
residents, bicyclers, and golf carts to and from the commercial site; that designated
bicycle and golf cart parking be included in the site development; that the
developer enter into an agreement with the Royal Highlands Property Owners
Association, for the use, operation, and maintenance of Commerce Drive, which
is owned by the community; that the developer upgrade Commerce Drive and,
perhaps, Monarch Boulevard, subject to the approval of the Association; that all
commercial signage, outdoor displays, and like advertising be restricted to a
minimum of two feet less than the height of the concrete wall to be
constructed; and that all illumination lighting within the commercial
development not be disruptive to residents in the Royal Highlands community.
Mr.
Chuck Riso, a resident of Royal Highlands, addressed the Board and discussed a
concern he has about the issue of safety, with regard to the proposed shopping
center and Commerce Drive, which he elaborated on. He stated that there is very little room to
widen Commerce Drive, which will create an impossible situation, with cars
going in and out of the shopping center, along with golf carts and trucks
making deliveries. He stated that he
felt the way that the proposed shopping center is laid out is inadequate and
that a lot more thought needs to be given to it. He stated that he feels the safety issue is
going to cause a lot of accidents, because the road cannot handle the traffic.
There being no further individuals who
wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant,
readdressed the Board and rebutted some of the comments that were made this
date regarding the request before them, at which time he asked them to approve
the request, noting that the proposed shopping center will be a positive thing
for the community and will provide an alternative to the residents having to
drive up U.S. 27 to do their shopping.
Commr.
Stivender stated that the original master plan does show all the frontage along
U.S. 27, in front of Royal Highlands, as commercial, it is just that, at the
time that the developer came in with the PUD, they were limited to 5,000 square
feet, because that is all that was allowed at that time. She stated that the developer was not
rezoning, noting that the request before the Board this date was already part
of the PUD.
Commr. Cadwell stated that these types
of things are always a little bothersome to some people, but that he feels being
able to capture those trips and keep them off of U.S. 27 and having the
neighborhood type facilities that the developer is going to build, in the long
run, is going to be a plus. He stated
that the safety wall and the County’s own rules and regulations, with regard to
lighting and access management, should give the residents a little more
assurance.
Commr. Hanson stated that she liked the
design of the shopping center, in that it is more of a village concept.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender
and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board
and approve Ordinance
No. 2005-45 - Royal Highlands,
Steven J. Richey, P.A./Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban & Regional Planners,
Rezoning Case No. PH40-05-3, Tracking No. 52-05-PUD/AMD, a request to amend PUD
Ordinance No. 1999-123, to add 44,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial on
4.9 acres, for a small retail center fronting U.S. 27, as presented, with a
condition that all the water, sewer, pump station, traffic issues (intersection
improvements at Monarch Boulevard and Commerce Drive and a traffic signal being
installed on U.S. Hwy. 27 at Monarch Boulevard), golf cart safety, and wall and
berm issues be corrected and in place, prior to construction, and that the town
design shown in “Applicant Exhibit A” (contained in the Board’s backup
material) be followed.
Under
discussion, Commr. Pool stated that he appreciated the comments that were made
by the residents this date. He stated
that there is a group of residents that want the proposed shopping center and
one that does not, so no matter what the vote is, it is not going to make
everyone happy. He noted that he feels
the shopping center is going to benefit the Royal Highlands development.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion,
which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
COMMISSIONERS
At this
time Commr. Cadwell left the meeting, due to another commitment.
REZONING CASE NO. PH28-05-3 – A TO CFD
– BASMATTIE
JAMALUDIN/SUABI
RAMNARAIN – TRACKING NO. 31-05-CFD
Mr. Jeff
Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request to
rezone from A (Agriculture) and AR (Agricultural Residential) to CFD (Community
Facility District), for the establishment of a private cemetery, related to a
religious institution. He stated that
the property is located approximately 150 feet north of the existing Yalaha
Cemetery, which he pointed out on an aerial (contained in Board’s backup
material) on display. He stated that the
request was consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations and
with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, for an area within the Urban Expansion
future land use category. He stated that
request was also consistent with the Florida Statutes and the Florida
Administrative Code, noting that the type and size of the cemetery would be
consistent with certain regulations and also by the State, as far as the actual
operation; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.
It was
noted that the upkeep and maintenance of the cemetery will be the
responsibility of the institution that it is related to.
Commrs.
Hill and Pool had disclosed earlier in the meeting, for the record, that they
had spoken with representatives of this case prior to this meeting.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms.
Suabi Ramnarain, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that the cemetery would
be only for the Muslim organization and not for the general public, because of
the fashion in which their graves are dug, noting that the bodies are buried in
an east/west direction, rather than the normal north/south direction.
No one
was present in opposition to the request.
There
being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Ordinance No. 2005-46 - Basmattie
Jamaludin/Suabi Ramnarain, Rezoning Case No. PH28-05-3, Tracking No. 31-05-CFD,
a request to rezone a 4.3 acre parcel of property in the Yalaha area, for the
purpose of a private cemetery, for use by a religious institution (Muslim), as
presented.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP05/5/2-4 – AMEND
CUP NO. 1998-12 – SOUTHERN
OAKS
TRAINING CENTER – TRACKING NO. 53-05-CUP/AMD
Mr. Jeff
Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request by
the Southern Oaks Training Center to amend CUP (Conditional Use Permit) No.
1998-12, to add 12 RV spaces for private use by the training facility, to be
used for six (6) months out of the year, during training season. He stated that there is nothing in the Lake
County Land Development Regulations, or the Lake County Comprehensive Plan,
related to the Wekiva River Protection Area, that would prohibit an RV from being
utilized in this manner. He stated that,
taking a look at the agricultural use and the use of the facility itself, under
a CUP, as a training center for harness racing, and limiting the use of the RVs
to the Southern Oaks Training Center facility, it would be considered an accessory
use by staff. He stated that staff is
recommending approval of the request, however, noted that regulation of the
individual RVs, as far as the septic tanks are concerned, will depend on what
they opt to do. He stated that, if they
decide to establish permanent systems, they will have to establish them within
the rules of the Department of Environmental Protection, otherwise, the request
is to leave the RVs as self-contained units.
He stated that the RVs will either be pumped out off site, or they will
have somebody come on site, to pump them out.
Commr.
Hanson questioned whether Mr. Richardson would consider this request to be
similar to migrant housing, considering the temporary situation.
Mr.
Richardson stated that it would not necessarily be considered migrant or farm
worker housing, but more of a convenience to the trainers and riders.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one
was present in opposition to the request.
There
being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
On a
motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a
5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Ordinance No. 2005-47 - Southern Oaks Training Center,
Marlys A. Pinske, Rezoning Case No. CUP05/5/2-4, Tracking No. 53-05-CUP/AMD, a
request to amend CUP (Conditional Use Permit) No. 1998-12, to add 12 RV spaces,
for private use by the training facility, to be used six (6) months out of the
year, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. PH42-05-3 – A TO CP –
M. L. AND JONNETTE SPIKES
TRACKING
NO. 54-05-CP
Mr. Jeff
Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request to
rezone a 2.66 acre parcel in the Yalaha area from A (Agriculture) to CP
(Planned Commercial District) with “C-1” (Neighborhood Commercial District) and
“C-2” (Community Commercial District) uses.
He stated that the applicants sent the County a letter, dated May 4,
2005, amending their request, limiting it to C-1 uses only and limiting the
square footage of the building to 5,000 square feet. He stated that this changes staff’s
evaluation, noting that a portion of the property falls into the Neighborhood
Activity Center classification, but limiting it to 5,000 square feet, along a
collector roadway (CR 48), matches Policy 1-3A.1; therefore, there is a certain
consistency in limiting it to C-1 uses.
He stated that there is further consistency with Comprehensive Plan
policies regulating location of commercial uses and, in that regard, staff was recommending
approval of the request.
Commrs.
Hill and Pool had disclosed earlier in the meeting, for the record, that they
had spoken with representatives of this case, prior to this meeting.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she had heard rumors that more people were coming in
wanting to do the same thing in that area and that she wanted staff to be aware
of that fact. She stated that she did
not feel the County would want strip commercial along CR 48.
Mr.
Richardson stated that the Comprehensive Plan discourages strip commercial.
Mr. Fred
Morrison, Attorney, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating
that, when the applicants purchased the property in question, they found that they
had 2.6 acres of property zoned A (Agriculture), but the County’s ordinance
requires a minimum of five (5) acres for an agricultural enterprise, so the
applicants have a piece of property that is zoned in opposition to the
Comprehensive Plan for that area, which is Urban Expansion. He stated that, in order for the applicants to
have any beneficial use of the property, it would be necessary for them to
obtain some sort of zoning classification.
He stated that the applicants looked at the location and configuration
of the property, which is oddly shaped and does not have much depth, therefore,
does not lend itself to residential development, and questioned what they could
do with it. He stated that, because it
is within the neighborhood commercial area and on a corner, which is a favorable
location for a commercial business, the applicants chose to use it for that
purpose. He admitted that the plans that
were originally submitted were a little grandiose, for a site of this nature,
noting that the applicants had envisioned a much larger building and a
mini-storage, in trying to maximize their use of the site, but, when they
realized what the County’s ordinance allows and heard the concerns expressed by
the residents at the Zoning Board Meeting, they promptly submitted an
amendment, which scaled back the development considerably, to 5,000 square
feet, with C-1 uses, under a CP (Planned Commercial) designation, making it
consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. He stated that, due to said fact, staff
changed their recommendation from denial to approval; therefore, he would solicit
the Board’s approval of the request.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms.
Debra Townsend Herold addressed the Board stating that she and her husband own
the Yalaha Country Bakery and are also residents of Yalaha, noting that they
live on the parcel of property that is directly adjacent to the property in
question. She stated that, when the
residents first became aware of the issue, there was a great deal of discussion
within the community and it was very strongly felt that the proposed use, which
was a strip shopping center, or mini-storage, would be completely inappropriate
for the area. She stated that the Board
could see, from the Zoning Board Minutes and the number of signatures on the
petitions (contained in the Board’s backup material), the people of Yalaha are
very concerned that it be preserved as a special place, noting that it has
characteristics the likes of which are not found in communities very often. She stated that they are all deeply concerned
that, as it has come on the radar screen of developers, the very unique quality
of life that exists there is going to vanish. She stated that there is a lot of interest
among the people of Yalaha, regarding the revision to the Comprehensive Plan, so
they want to attend the next public hearing that is scheduled to be held, in
order to voice their opinion about the matter.
She stated that, as they understand the Comprehensive Plan, they feel
designating Yalaha as a rural village might be more appropriate than designating
it as Urban Expansion. She stated that
she feels making any decision at this time, based upon a Comprehensive Plan
that is in transition, would be inappropriate.
She stated that the area in question is surrounded by residential, so it
may be that a rezoning to commercial of any sort, whether it be limited to
5,000 square feet, with C-1 uses, or not, could well be inappropriate. She stated that she felt bad about the fact
that the applicants purchased a parcel of property that had less acreage than
what they thought they were purchasing and, therefore, cannot be used for
agricultural purposes, but she does not feel that that is a good reason for
granting the change in rezoning. She stated
that the residents were not aware that the applicants had amended their
proposed use and asked that the Board continue this hearing until a later date,
to enable the residents of Yalaha to talk about the issue at greater length,
possibly until the new Comprehensive Plan has been decided, to see if Yalaha
will be redesignated as a rural village.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she felt it would be appropriate to have a master plan prepared
for the whole Yalaha area and would recommend that one be done, noting that the
community could help develop what they would like for the town to look
like. She stated that another
possibility for the property in question might be residential/professional,
which would be a small office space, something that is in keeping and compliments
what the Yalaha Country Bakery has done with their property.
Mr.
Gunter Herold, husband to Deborah and also owner of the Yalaha Country Bakery,
addressed the Board and discussed a project that he has been working on for
approximately 12 years, which he elaborated on, noting that it is a project for
the entire community that will involve good food, the arts, integrative
medicine, and research. He stated that
he and his wife are concerned that, if the request before the Board is
approved, CR 48 will be opened to strip malls, gas stations, Chinese take-out
restaurants, Walgreen’s, etc.
Ms.
Holly Luebcke, a resident of Yalaha, addressed the Board stating that she and
her husband purchased a parcel of property on Lake Shore Drive and are getting
ready to build a house on it. She stated
that she loves Yalaha the way it is and is not happy about commercial being
proposed for the property in question, noting that Yalaha does not need another
commercial building on CR 48.
There
being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
Mr.
Morrison, Attorney, representing the applicants, readdressed the Board regarding
a request that this case be postponed until a later date, because the residents
were not aware that the applicants had amended their proposed use. He stated that the applicants informed him
that the letter amending their proposal and the site plan was presented at the
Zoning Board Meeting, so he questioned why it should be such a surprise this
date to anyone that attended that meeting.
He stated that he and his clients had to sit through 6 ½ hours of this
meeting, at considerable expense to his clients, and, if, in fact, the amended plan
was made public at the Zoning Board Meeting, there would be no reason to put
the request off any longer. He stated
that, because there may be some incipient change in the Comprehensive Plan, or
Mr. Herold has a vision for the development of Yalaha, is not a legal basis for
the Board to deny his clients reasonable, beneficial use of their
property. He stated that, at the present
time, the applicants cannot put anything on the property, so they are being
denied all use of the property, by virtue of the act that the zoning conflicts
with the Comprehensive Plan and the size of the property does not meet the County’s
Zoning Ordinance. He stated that, if one
of the parcels had more depth to it, the applicants could probably put
residential on it, but there is not much of an area for a residence, as it
currently sits. He stated that the only
logical use for the property would be commercial. He stated that the applicants did commit this
date to limit the uses to just general retail, professional, and personal
services, which he feels should allay any concerns that were raised about more
intensive type uses. He stated that the
ideas presented this date may all be great ideas, but his clients are present
this date with a problem that they have with a piece of property that they need
to put to good use. He stated that, if
there is a Comprehensive Plan change in six months, or a year, and there are a
series of meetings that result in big plans for Yalaha two years down the road,
that is not going to do his clients any good, because they have a problem this
date. He stated that he did not see what
purpose would be served by postponing the applicants’ request and asked that
the Board consider and grant their proposal, as amended.
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether it could be stipulated in the CP (Planned
Commercial) that the request will need to come back to the Board for review,
before staff approves it.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board could approve the request
for CP, with no uses, and require the applicants to come back with specific
uses and present a specific site plan to the Board, before the property could
be utilized.
Commr.
Stivender stated that the property could be approved for CP, with C-1 uses, for
the permitted uses, but that a stipulation be put in it that the site plan
itself will have to come back to the Board for approval, to make sure that it
fits in with the town.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that that could be done, as well, however, noted that the Board
would want to be a little more specific in their categories.
Mr.
Morrison stated that his clients would have no objection to doing that.
Commr.
Stivender stated that the Board would like to see village type uses for the
property in question.
Mr.
Minkoff read into the record what types of uses would be permitted, being:
offices, travel, real estate, financial, ice cream shop, pizza, Mom and Pop
operation, drugstore (Mom and Pop type), supported restaurant (5,000 square
feet limitation), florist, bakery, bagel shop, food market, gift card shop, dry
cleaners (pick-up only, not cleaned on site), Mail Boxes, Etc., bank, beauty
salon, clothing store, coffee shop, delicatessen, computer store, hobby or
quilting shop, sports bar (Board approved to take out), take out delivery food
(only if delivered to that community), video rentals, and doctors offices.
Mr. M.
L. Spikes, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he and his wife want to build
something that fits in with the theme of the Yalaha area. He stated that they learned something at the
Zoning Board Meeting that they did not know previously, being that the term
“strip center” is very different from “town center”. He stated that they want something that they
will be proud to be a part of.
Commr.
Hanson suggested that Mr. Spikes speak to the people that spoke against this
request, noting that they might be able to help him a little bit with what they
have in mind.
Mr.
Spikes stated that he would be happy to do so.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously,
by a 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Ordinance No. 2005-48 - M. L. and Jonnette Spikes, Rezoning
Case No. PH42-05-3, Tracking No. 54-05-CP, a request to rezone a 2.66 acre
parcel in the Yalaha area from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial), as
presented, based on staff’s revised recommendation from denial to approval and
the fact that the project has gone from 22,500 square feet to a 5,000 square
foot commercially zoned town village type atmosphere; limiting the uses to
those that were stipulated in the Royal Highlands case; and that the site plan,
once prepared, come back to the Board for approval.
Commr.
Cadwell had left the meeting and was not present for the discussion and vote.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4
OLDER
AMERICANS MONTH IN LAKE COUNTY PROCLAMATION
On a
motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously,
by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2005-85, proclaiming May, 2005, as Older Americans Month in Lake County.
REPORTS
– COUNTY ATTORNEY
SOUTH
LAKE CONNECTOR (CITRUS TOWER EXTENSION)
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, in connection with the
South Lake Connector (Citrus Tower extension), the County has been negotiating
with the Celebration of Praise Church for right of way, but, at the same time,
they have had a disagreement with the County regarding impact fees. He stated that the County resolved the impact
fee issue with a $14,000 settlement to the church, but the Code does not
authorize the County to do a settlement on impact fees; therefore, in trying to
resolve the problem, the church gave the County almost six acres of right of
way deeds (estimated to be worth approximately $260,000) and an additional four
acres of land that the County is going to share with them for drainage
easements. He stated that they also gave
the County eight acres, to be used as temporary construction easements during
construction, which he noted the County values more than the $14,000. He requested approval for the County to pay
the church the $14,000, call it compensation for what they have done for the
County, and agree that all impact fee issues between the County and the church
have been resolved.
On a motion by Commr.
Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the
Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr.
Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the
Board approved said request.
REPORTS –
COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3
HEALTH ISSUE
Commr. Stivender thanked
everyone for their prayers and concerns, with regard to her mother, who has
been ill.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to
be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35
p.m.
__________________________
JENNIFER
HILL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK