A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JUNE
28, 2005
The
Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
June 28, 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;
and Robert A. Pool. Commissioner Debbie
Stivender was not present, due to another commitment. Others present were: Melanie Marsh, Deputy
County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office
Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy
Clerk.
INVOCATION
AND PLEDGE
Commr.
Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
RECOGNITION
OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
The
Chairman recognized Commr. Ray Goodgame, Clermont City Council, who was present
in the audience, as well as Clermont City Manager, Wayne Saunders.
AGENDA
UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1
to the Agenda, containing two items under the Consent Agenda and one item under
Departmental Business.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by
a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Budget
Request for approval of Resolution No.
2005-100, amending the General Fund,
in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2004/2005, in the
amount of $50,740.00, deposited into the Homeland Security Equipment
Acquisition Grant, and to provide appropriations for the disbursement for
Machinery and Equipment. Emergency
Management will purchase a Reverse 911 capability and the equipment necessary
to conduct live television broadcasts from the Emergency Operations Center over
Government Access Television during emergencies.
Community
Services
Request for approval of the Florida
Agency for Persons with Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement for
July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008.
Growth Management
Request
for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property
owned by Bobby Lee Harris, Case No. CEB 45-92.
Public
Safety
Request for approval of acceptance of a Wal-Mart
gift card donation and Board recognition, in appreciation of the efforts of the
third through fifth grade students at Tavares Elementary School, for raising
funds and collecting other items for Lake County Animal Services.
Public
Works
Request for approval of a grant with the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for $2,410.00, for materials and supplies
needed for Scrub Habitat restoration. No
county funds are required, as part of this grant, and the Palatlakaha Environmental
Agricultural Reserve (PEAR) Association is providing the match through in-kind
services.
Request for approval of the recommendation
of the Parks and Recreation Citizen’s Advisory Board and staff, for approval
and execution of the Revocable Non-Exclusive License Agreement with the Palatlakaha
Environmental Agricultural Reserve (PEAR) Association.
Request for approval and signature on
Proclamation No. 2005-101, designating July as Recreation and Parks Month.
Request for approval and authorization to
accept the final plat for Tuscany Estates at the Lakes and all areas dedicated
to the public, as shown on the Tuscany Estates at the Lakes final plat; accept
a cashier’s check, in the amount of $193,000.00; and execute a Developer’s
Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and NMK
Holdings, Florida, LLC. Tuscany Estates
at the Lakes consists of 27 lots – Commission District 2.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
(CONT’D.)
Community
Services
Request for approval to submit Operations
Step Up Fall 2005 grant application, made available through Volunteer Florida,
in the amount of $8,000.00, contingent upon County Attorney review; and
signature on Application for Funding Assistance, by the Chairman of the Lake
County Board of County Commissioners.
Program goal completion would be December of 2005. No match is required and concept is
sustainable.
Public
Works
Request for approval and authorization to
accept the final plat for Woodgate and all areas dedicated to the public, as
shown on the Woodgate final plat; accept a Cashier’s Check, in the amount of
$120,523.62; and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of
Improvements between Lake County and Tierra Properties, Inc. Woodgate consists of 20 lots – Commission
District 5.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PUBLIC
SAFETY
Mr. Gary
Kaiser, Public Safety Director, addressed the Board and explained this request,
stating that it will amount to a little over a $2 million savings to the
County, should the County be awarded the grant.
An additional benefit to the County is that the staffing increase and
immediate tanker/pumper(s) response support ISO recommendations.
On a
motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a
4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Safety for approval for the
Department of Public Safety, Fire Rescue Division, to submit an application for
the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant to the
United States Fire Administration Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.
PUBLIC
HEARING
ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER XV – JOINT LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS
OF LAKE COUNTY
Ms. Melanie Marsh, Deputy County
Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for its first reading, by
title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER XV, LAKE COUNTY CODE,
APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, RESERVED; CREATING CHAPTER XV, LAKE
COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; ENTITLED LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY; CREATING
SECTION 15.00.00 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE
COUNTY; CREATING SECTION 15.00.01 PURPOSE, INTENT AND APPLICATION OF LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS).; CREATING SECTION 15.02.00, LAKE COUNTY CODE,
APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED CLERMONT JOINT PLANNING AREA
(JPA) LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; ESTABLISHING A BOUNDARY, SUCH BOUNDARY
DESCRIBED AS: BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE
FLORIDA TURNPIKE AND THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF RANGE 26 EAST TO THE SOUTH LINE OF
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE WEST TO THE EAST LINE OF
SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTH TO THE WESTERLY
RIGHT- OF -WAY LINE OF US HIGHWAY 27; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT- OF -WAY LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST; THENCE WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE NORTH TO THE EAST-WEST
CENTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION
22, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE NORTH TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
STATE ROAD NO. 50; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE
EASTERLY SHORE OF THE PALATLAKAHA CANAL; THENCE IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION
ALONG SAID EASTERLY SHORE OF THE PALATLAKAHA CANAL TO LAKE HIAWATHA; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE HIAWATHA TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 14,
TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 14 TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SECTION, THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 14 TO THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 565-A;THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 561-A;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SHORES OF LAKE
MINNEOLA; THENCE SOUTHERLY, EASTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG THE WATERS OF LAKE
MINNEOLA TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DIVISION STREET, ACCORDING TO THE
OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT; THENCE EAST TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION
17, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF
SECTION 17 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 17; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE
TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 17;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
THE SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 17
TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 17; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 17; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 16
AND 15; TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE
FLORIDA TURNPIKE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. ; CREATING SECTION 15.02.01, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED LAND USE AND ZONING STANDARDS; CREATING TABLE
15.02.01A, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED
LOT SIZE AND FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS MATRIX; CREATING TABLE 15.02.01B, LAKE
COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; CREATING TABLE 15.02.01C,
LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED RESIDENTIAL SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS;
CREATING TABLE 15.02.01D, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, ENTITLED COMMERCIAL SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; CREATING TABLE
15.02.01E, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED
OTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.02, LAKE COUNTY CODE,
APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED TREATMENT OF LAND WITHIN
WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.03, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX
E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED UTILITY CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS;
CREATING TABLE 15.02.03A, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, ENTITLED MINIMUM HYDRANT SPACING BY LAND USE; CREATING SECTION
15.02.04., LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.05, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX
E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED ROADWAY AND STREET DESIGN STANDARDS;
CREATING SECTION 15.02.06, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, ENTITLED SIGNAGE STANDARDS; CREATING SECTION 15.02.07, LAKE COUNTY
CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED LIGHTING STANDARDS;
CREATING SECTION 15.02.08, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, ENTITLED LANDSCAPING; CREATING SECTION 15.02.09, LAKE COUNTY CODE,
APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED PARKING REQUIREMENTS;
CREATING SECTION 15.02.10, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, ENTITLED GRADING STANDARDS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING
FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning
Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department,
addressed the Board stating that, on January 20, 2005, staff brought the
proposed Ordinance before them for an initial reading, but there were several
areas that the Board directed both the City of Clemont staff and county staff
to go back and try to address, including
waivers for lot size and lot width; setbacks relating to clustered development
and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs); right of way width, relating to internal
streets, for clustered subdivision designs; minimum pavement widths; commercial
site access; limitation on 100,000 square foot gross leasable space, for any
single tenant retail user; and some issues regarding landscaping. He stated that they were able to work out
most of the items in one shape or another, with some alternative language,
however, noted that there were some deletions, one being on Page 12, regarding
additional right of way requirements, noting that the proposed language
originally read: Where additional right of way is determined to be required and
justified lot sizes shall be adjusted to continue to meet the minimum
requirements after dedication of right of way. He stated that staff from the City and the
County could not come to an agreement, so they elected to delete said language
from the Ordinance. He noted that,
currently, the County does not penalize for dedication of right of way, by
making one readjust their lot size. He
stated that the other issue the two staffs were not able to come to full
agreement on related to pine trees and palm trees being included as part of the
landscape requirements, noting that they tried to come to some sort of a happy
medium and agreed that 25% of them could be counted, but they were not able to
come to a complete agreement on it. He
stated that they tried to address the other issues through the addition of
language, to allow the Board, through public hearings, to grant waivers with
PUDs, regarding clustered subdivision designs, as they go through the process.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr.
Richardson was comfortable with the Joint Planning Agreement, as it relates to
where the County is going, with regard to its Comprehensive Plan, and was
informed by Mr. Richardson that staff was not comfortable with it entirely,
noting that there will still be some things that will need to bring a clustered
subdivision to a public hearing, to grant some of the waivers, and that is not
holding in the spirit of the direction that staff would like to go, which is
encouraging clustered development. She
stated that she was rapidly coming to the conclusion that everything she
approves is going to be clustered development, with corresponding open space,
so she wanted to be sure that the County and the City is consistent and that
they are all on the same page.
Mr. Richardson stated that there
will probably have to be some revisions to the Ordinance, as the County moves
forward with the Comprehensive Plan rewrite, which he elaborated on.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board
would not want people to have to continue to come before them for a waiver,
when it becomes a standard practice.
Mr. Richardson interjected that, if
the County builds standards into the general Code, the Ordinance will need to
be amended, to reflect those standards.
Commr. Pool stated that he was not
sure he shared the thought that, as a standard, clustering will be the way that
the future will be, noting that every community has its own design standards
and thoughts and not everyone wants to live in a clustered development.
Commr. Hanson interjected that there
will be many developments that are already approved that will not be clustered,
but, from where she is coming from, that is what she wants them to be.
Mr. Richardson stated that,
implementation wise, what the two staffs have come to an agreement on so far
and are bringing forward to the Board is that the County can implement that
with minimal friction.
Commr. Pool stated that he wanted to
make sure, along the lines of the 100,000 square foot “big box”, if it is
through a PUD or some understanding and/or a variance agreement that they have
that ability, that the County have that same ability built in on its side. He stated that he felt it was a good
agreement and appreciated both staffs working on it.
Commr. Hill referred to Table 15.02.01E –
Other Setback Requirements, on Page 5 of the Ordinance, stating that it
indicates that structures cannot exceed two stories in height and questioned
whether it meant that, within the Joint Planning Area, they are not going to
allow more than two to three stories, with the third story only being if they
allow a church steeple.
Mr. Richardson stated that, with the
peak of the roof on a structure being two to two and a half stories high,
variances will still be able to be applied for, to exceed those height
limitations. He stated that they
probably will not run into that issue quite as much for structures that have a
flat roof - the issue on the height will pertain more to peaked roofs than flat
roofs, at which time he noted that county staff agreed with the City of
Clermont that they would use their measurement technique, which is the peak of
a roof.
Commr. Hill stated that she was
curious as to why a city of that nature would be so opposed to going up in
height.
Commr. Hanson interjected that that
is part of the answer - to go up.
Commr. Hill stated that another
thing she was disappointed in, with regard to the Ordinance, was the tree
aspect of it, covered under Section 15.02.08 – Landscaping, on Page 13 of the
Ordinance, noting that it requires that 60% of the canopy trees be live oak
trees.
Mr. Richardson stated that the two
staffs could not come to a full agreement on that particular issue.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the logic
behind it is to build a canopy.
Mr. Richardson stated that there are
other alternatives for canopy trees and some that may be a little less water
intensive.
Commr. Hanson stated that, by the
time a shopping center builds out and the trees are grown, there is a change in
use, or the shopping center becomes obsolete and the trees sometimes go by the
wayside, after they are mature, if they are in a parking lot, because they are
not maintained. She stated that the City
and/or County can get the benefit sooner from trees other than live oaks,
because it takes a long time for a live oak to get to the point where it
creates a canopy.
Commr. Pool interjected that oak
trees can sometimes create problems between sidewalks and roads, when they are
planted in small corridors or tight spaces, noting that it is nice for the
first 20 or 30 years, but eventually they become a hazard and create havoc with
the sidewalks and roads crumbling from the root system of the trees.
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager,
City of Clermont, addressed the Board and thanked them for getting the City to
where it is today, noting that it has been a long time getting to this point
and it was a good feeling to finally be there.
He thanked the County’s staff, particularly Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy
County Manager/Growth Management Director; Ms. Amy King, Chief Planner, Long
Range Planning, Growth Management Department; and Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning
Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department,
noting that they worked very hard and spent a lot of time with the City of
Clermont’s staff going through the Ordinance.
He stated that he was happy to say that the only issue is about a few
trees and that they are in total agreement on everything else. He stated that the reasoning behind the tree
requirement and the fact that the palm tree is not included in the City’s Code
is that, although the palm tree is the State tree, it is not on the preferred
tree list, even by the State of Florida, because it is not a native tree. He stated that the City of Clermont adopted
their preferred tree list, based on the State’s preferred tree list, through
the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
He stated that they were more concerned about having a canopy type tree
than any other type of tree, however, noted that that is the only issue that is
out there. He stated that they totally
support everything else and, hopefully, will see the Ordinance move along.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether
there was any way to include the “green building” concept in the Ordinance and
was informed by Mr. Saunders that it was something they would all like to do,
but he did not feel there was enough specific language, at this point in time,
to include it in the Ordinance. He
stated that, as Mr. Richardson had indicated earlier, the Ordinance is going to
have to be amended, as they go along. He
stated that “green building” is something the City of Clermont is looking at
and feels that, at some point, they will need to include in the Ordinance, but
he did not feel the two sides could come up with language this date to enable
them to include it in the Ordinance at this time. She stated that she was thinking more in
terms of guidelines, certification, incentives, and encouragement - not
necessarily mandatory. She stated that
she felt it was something that should be mentioned, but was not willing to hold
the Ordinance up because of it. She
suggested that, perhaps, it be addressed during the next amendment to the
Ordinance.
Mr. Saunders stated that the two
staffs have talked about some areas that they know will have to be amended, as
they go along, and that was certainly one of them. He stated that it is just like any
development code, noting that the City of Clermont has amended its Code several
times over the years, because they find things that work and things that do not
work and changes that need to be made, to ensure the way that they want the
City to look and grow.
Commr. Hanson stated that they need
to look at conservation design and smart growth principals, which include
transportation opportunities – future opportunities for mass transit, which the
County and, particularly, the City of Clermont knows it is going to need to be
looking at. She stated that that is why
clustering is so important – to have those people together, so they can be
picked up by a bus, or some other opportunity for mass transit. She stated that she feels the County and the
City need to be talking about it and that the language ought to be there, so
that, as they move forward, they are at least saying that it is important. She stated that it is just easier if it is in
both areas – then it is not a problem.
Mr. Chris Roper, Attorney, Akerman
Senterfitt, addressed the Board, on behalf of several clients in Lake County,
as well as Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, a fellow attorney with Akerman Senterfitt. He stated that she asked him to make a few
comments about the proposed Ordinance, the first being with regard to
commercial restrictions on 100,000 square foot “big box” retailers, addressed
on Page 11 of the Ordinance. He stated
that they appreciate the new language, however, questioned what benefits there
would be by imposing the 100,000 square foot limitation, noting that they do
not see a benefit, but an additional cost and expense, in terms of having to go
through the PUD rezoning and having a site plan up front. He questioned Table 15.02.05 – Roadway and
Street Design Standards, Item A. – Access to Commercial Sites, on Page 12 of
the Ordinance, noting that it states commercial sites cannot be approved,
unless they have access to public rights of way, which he and Ms. Bonifay find
to be an unnecessary regulation, considering the fact that all commercial sites
would have access to public rights of way - they would not be approved if they
did not have said access. He stated that
it runs the risk of somebody interpreting it as something that it was not
intended to be interpreted as.
Mr. Saunders was asked whether he
had a problem with said language and informed the Board that the City’s Code
currently states that one has to have frontage on a public roadway, in order
for a commercial project to be approved, but the County’s Code does not state
that, so the two staffs developed the hybrid language contained in the proposed
Ordinance, which states that there has to be access, but it does not have to be
frontage on a roadway - it gives one an option.
He stated that the language states, “This
may be accomplished by utilization of existing street frontage or through
platting of streets internal to the commercial development and connected to an
external public right of way.” He
stated that it was just a clarification between the County’s Code and the
City’s Code, in that the County is not as strict as the City, which says there
has to be frontage and gives a developer the option of coming through somebody
else’s property.
Commr. Cadwell stated that that was
clear enough for him.
Mr. Richardson stated that the
intent of the alternative language was to allow for scenarios where there is
frontage roads, reverse frontage roads, or commercial out parcels that may have
been developed first, but, as long as cross access easements are there, or
platted rights of way are there, in order to be able to access the public
rights of way, then the commercial development has that access.
Mr. Roper stated that there was
still the issue of additional right of way requirements, noting that they are
not sure whether or not, within the JPA, the property owner will be penalized
for actually donating right of way. He
stated that, by deleting the language, he assumes the County regulations will
control it and they will not be penalized, but, by actually having the language
in the document and then stricken, there is an interpretation that they should
be penalized. He requested clarification
on the matter.
Mr. Richardson stated that the
strike through is just to show that the language was there and that the
suggestion is to eliminate it, noting that, when the final document goes to
print, said language will not be in there.
Mr. Roper stated that his final
comment pertained to Table 15.02.10 - Grading Standards, on Page 14 of the
Ordinance, Item A.6., which states, “Elevation
changes in topography shall be limited to ten (10) feet. He stated that their concern is that the limitation
is imposed at the ten (10) foot elevation change for residential and fifteen
(15) foot for non-residential, however, noted that it does not provide a
mechanism for a variance, so they were hoping that something could be put in
there regarding same. He stated that,
throughout the Ordinance, where the restrictions are imposed, it states that
one may request a waiver through the PUD process, or a variance through the
formal variance process, and they would like to see said language cleaned up,
noting that the problem is that, since it is already stated elsewhere in the
document, with regard to other requirements, such as the height requirement and
the commercial building space requirement, it looks like it is to the exclusion
of the grading requirement. He stated
that there are two projects in the City of Clermont that involve a PUD, but the
City is still requiring them to apply for a variance – separate applications,
separate filing fees, separate hearings, and separate reviews, although the
hearing will be for a PUD. He stated
that there is some confusion as to whether one can request a variance or waiver
from that kind of restriction and actually embody it within the PUD request, or
whether they actually have to file a separate variance request. He stated that he was looking for some
clarification on the matter, because they run into that problem a lot in the
City.
Mr. Richardson stated that the
intent is that anything the Board of Adjustment (BOA) or the Board of County
Commissioners has to grant as a waiver or variance still remains throughout the
entire Ordinance. He stated that, if
somebody comes in with a BOA request that they need to go 12 feet, rather than
10 feet, on a residential subdivision, that request can be heard. He stated that the County will use the same
process that it always does, noting that, if something comes in as a PUD and is
requesting waivers, it does not separately go to the BOA – it is heard as part
of that entire planned request.
Mr. Saunders stated that the City of
Clermont does it a little differently, noting that all variance requests come
before their City Council, where the BOA handles all the variance requests for
the County, which is why staff put it in the PUD, because it would require them
to come before the Board for approval.
He stated that, as far as the City is concerned, they require them to go
through the variance process for the grading and a lot of times it is folded
in, as part of the PUD, but it is also a variance. He stated that, because the County’s process
is a little different, the Board will see two or three times in the Ordinance
where it refers to PUDs, rather than a variance. He stated that it is the same type of public
hearing, it is just called something different.
Ms. Elaine Renick, a member of the
Clermont City Council, addressed the Board stating that she wanted to make a
quick clarification, noting that the City used to do things differently, but it
has changed. She stated that the way
they used to do it, grading changes were allowed in a PUD, but, what would
happen is that the public, being very partial to the hills in Clermont, would
not realize that there was a grading change, just with an advertisement that
said PUD. She stated that it was something
that was very near and dear to her heart, so she asked that a grading variance
always be published separately, so that people that did not necessarily have a
problem with that particular development, but did have a problem with the
grading, would know to come. She stated
that a grading variance cannot just be folded into a PUD – it will always be
advertised separately in Clermont. She
stated that they will come up at the same time, but will be listed separately.
There being no further individuals
who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson commented about the
issue of sound barrier walls, noting that she feels, as the County and the
cities move forward, they need to look at the proximity of said walls to roads
– the buffer between roads and the actual building site, so that they do not
create situations that the County has to then come back and take care of. She stated that it is something that needs to
be looked at in the future, in order to avoid such situations.
Mr. Richardson stated that he and
Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works Department, have been
discussing said issue, specifically with regard to the Turnpike, as more and
more developments are backing up to the Turnpike. He stated that they are looking at language that
will address the matter, either through setbacks, berming, or walls, however,
noted that, at the present time, they are trying to work out the logistics of
how to bring it to the Board as an ordinance and what it will include, as well
as what options will be available. He
stated that they have not yet come to a full agreement on how to implement it,
especially on local county roads.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels
it needs to be on the burden of the developer, rather than the taxpayers.
It was noted that the date certain
for the final public hearing on this Ordinance would be announced at a later
date.
Commr. Pool stated that he felt the
Ordinance was a good one and he appreciated the hard work that the Clermont
City Council and county staff put into it.
He stated that it has been a long time coming and he was happy to pass
it forward to the next reading.
Mr. Richardson requested
clarification, with regard to the issue of the palm trees and pine trees being
used as a component of the landscaping plan, under Section15.02.08 –
Landscaping, Item C, on Page 14 of the Ordinance, noting that it was language
that county staff suggested, as an alternative.
He stated that the City of Clermont’s preference would be that pine
trees and palm trees not count at all.
It was noted that the County would
be requiring the more stringent regulation, but would allow more palm trees or
pine trees to be planted, if the developer chose to do so - they just would not
count towards the minimum landscape requirement.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell
and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the first reading of
the Ordinance Creating Chapter XV – Joint Land Development Regulations for
Joint Planning Areas of Lake County (City of Clermont), as amended.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS: VACATIONS
PETITION
NO. 1044 – HOSSEIN AND EUGENIA FARAJI – HOWEY IN THE HILLS
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board and explained
this request, stating that it was a request by Hossein and Eugenia Faraji to
vacate unused right of way on East Dewey Robbins Road, in Howey in the
Hills. He pointed out the road in
question on a map (contained in the Board’s backup material) on display, noting
that East Dewey Robbins Road goes through the wetlands; therefore, staff was
recommending approval of the request. He
noted that there were no letters of opposition on file.
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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by
a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2005-102 - Road
Vacation Petition No. 1044, by Hossein and Eugenia Faraji, to vacate unused
right of way on East Dewey Robbins Road, located in Section 10, Township 21
South, Range 25 East, in the Howey-in-the-Hills area – Commission District 3,
as presented.
PETITION NO. 1045 – MICHAEL T.
AND DEBORAH KIELY – CLERMONT
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works
Director, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a
request by Michael T. and Deborah Kiely to vacate a lakefront drainage
easement, in the Plat of Lake Crescent Hills Subdivision, in the Clermont
area. He stated that the issue regarding
this vacation has been worked out with the St. Johns River Water Management
District, however, noted that this vacation has to be approved, in order for
the applicants to put in a pool that is planned for the area. He stated that staff was recommending
approval of the request, contingent upon approval by the St. Johns River Water
Management District.
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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2005-103 - Road Vacation Petition No. 1045, by
Michael T. and Deborah Kiely, to vacate a lakefront drainage easement, in the
Plat of Lake Crescent Hills Subdivision, Plat Book 32, Page 27, located in
Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area – Commission
District 2, as presented.
Commr.
Pool asked that Mr. Stivender work with the residents of Green Valley
subdivision, noting that some of those residents have the same type of
situation, with regard to their proposed pools, and was informed by Mr.
Stivender that he would do so.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS: REZONING
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning
Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department,
addressed the Board stating that the following cases were requesting a 30 day
continuance, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005:
John
Nelson/Nelson Family Trust/Tim Hoban and Carl Ludecke
Rezoning Case No. PH5-05-3
Tracking
No. 10-05-Z
C.
A. Meyer, Jr./Jimmy Crawford
Rezoning Case No. SLPA05/4/1-2
Tracking
No. 35-05-SLPA
C. A. Meyer, Jr.
Jimmy Crawford
Rezoning Case No. PH36-05-2
Tracking
No. 38-05-PUD
Harbor
Hills Development
Steven J. Richey, P.A./Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban
& Regional Planners
Rezoning Case No. PH45-05-5
Tracking
No. 55-05-PUD/AMD
Lake County Public
Schools
Harry Fix, AICP
Rezoning Case No. PH50-05-2
Tracking No. 56-06-CFD
It was noted that the Board would
vote on each case individually.
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
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
No one was present in opposition to
the request for a 30 day continuance of this case.
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. Cadwell
and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a continuance of
John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust/Tim Hoban and Carl Ludecke, Rezoning Case No.
PH5-05-3, Tracking No. 10-05-Z, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of July
26, 2005, as requested.
Commr. Hanson had declared a conflict of interest
regarding this case at a prior meeting, for reasons indicated, therefore,
abstained from the discussion and vote.
REZONING
CASE NOS. SLPA05/4/1-2 - CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION - C.A. MEYER, JR./JIMMY D.
CRAWFORD, ESQUIRE, GRAY
ROBINSON,
P.A. - TRACKING NO. 35-05-SLPA; AND PH36-05-2 - HM AND MP
TO PUD -
C.A. MEYER, JR/JIMMY D. CRAWFORD, ESQUIRE, GRAY
ROBINSON, P.A. - TRACKING NO.
38-05-PUD
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request for a
30 day continuance of these cases.
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. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a
4-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a continuance of C. A. Meyer,
Jr./Jimmy Crawford, Esquire, Gray Robinson, P.A. - Rezoning Case No.
SLPA05/4/1-2, Tracking No. 35-05-SLPA; and C. A. Meyer, Jr./Jimmy Crawford,
Rezoning Case No. PH36-05-2, Tracking No.38-05-PUD, for 30 days, until the
Board Meeting of July 26, 2005, as requested.
REZONING
CASE NO. PH45-05-5 - AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PUD - HARBOR
HILLS
DEVELOPMENT/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A./GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG
URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS -
TRACKING NO. 55-05-PUD/AMD
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request for a
30 day continuance of this case.
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. Pool and carried unanimously, by a
4-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a continuance of Harbor Hills
Development/Steven J. Richey, P.A./Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban &
Regional Planners, Rezoning Case No. PH45-05-5, Tracking No. 55-05-PUD/AMD, for
30 days, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005, as requested.
REZONING CASE NO. PH50-05-2 – PUD TO
CFD – LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS/HARRY
FIX, AICP – TRACKING NO. 56-06-CFD
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one
was present in opposition to the request for a 30 day continuance of this case.
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. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a
4-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a continuance of Lake County
Public Schools/Harry Fix, AICP, Rezoning Case No. PH50-05-2, Tracking No.
56-06-CFD, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting of July 26, 2005, as requested.
REZONING
CASE NO. PH51-05-5 – A TO AR – DEANNA M. DONAHUE AND
BOBBY R. GREEN – TRACKING NO. 58-05-Z
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating
that staff was recommending approval of the request to rezone from A
(Agriculture) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to AR (Agricultural
Residential). She stated that the Zoning
Board approved the request, as well, by a 7-0 vote. She stated that the subject parcel is located
south of Umatilla, off SR 19, at the intersection of CR 450A/Willis V. McCall
Road at Josha Turner Lane (driveway).
She stated that the parcel consists of 16.58 acres and the site lies
within the Urban Expansion future land use category that permits up to four (4)
dwelling units per acre. She stated that
the requested AR zoning district allows a maximum density of one (1) dwelling
unit per two acres and the applicant is requesting AR zoning, to allow two
proposed lots in the rear of the property, to be less than five (5) acres
each. She stated that the existing home
will remain on the resulting 8.58 acres.
She stated that Section 14.11.01(D)(1) of the Land Development
Regulations (LDRs) stipulates that only two lots can be created from a parent
parcel, through the minor lot split process.
She stated that, in addition, Section 14.11.01(D)(2) states that lots
created with frontage on a publicly maintained clay road, private road, or
easement must contain a minimum of twenty acres, with at least one acre of
uplands required. She stated that, in
order to proceed with development, a variance to this two lot limit and 20 acre
parcel size may be granted by the Board of Adjustment, or three lots may be
created, without a variance, for the subdivision process. She stated that staff finds the applicant’s
request for AR zoning consistent with the policies of the Lake County
Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was
noted that 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. Pool and carried unanimously, by a
4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved
Ordinance No. 2005-49 – Deanna
Donahue and Bobby Green, Rezoning Case No. PH51-05-5, Tracking No. 58-06-Z, a
request to rezone 16.58 acres in the Umatilla area from A (Agriculture) and R-6
(Urban Residential) to AR (Agricultural Residential), to allow two proposed
lots in the rear of the property, to be less than five (5) acres each, as
presented.
REZONING
CASE NO. PH47-05-03 – AR TO A – SUSAN M. MILLER AND
THEODORA S. KAFFENBERGER, JTWROS –
TRACKING NO. 62-05-Z
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, addressed the
Board and explained this request, stating that staff was recommending
approval of the request to rezone from AR (Agricultural Residential) to A (Agriculture). She stated that the Zoning Board recommended
approval, with a 7-0 vote, as well. She
stated that the subject five (5) acre parcel is located in the Ferndale area,
on Grace Ridge Road, on the south side of CR 561A and west of CR 455. She stated that the site lies within the
Suburban future land use category and the requested Agricultural zoning
district is allowed under said category.
She stated that the applicants were requesting the Agricultural zoning
district, to allow a tree nursery on the property. She stated that the proposed use is allowed
in the current zoning district, by a conditional use, however, noted that the
owner wishes to rezone the property to the Agricultural district, where a tree
nursery is a permitted use, as this would alleviate the conditional use requirements
and annual inspection fee. She stated
that the site lies within the Lake Apopka Overlay District and the request is
consistent with Sections 6.15.00 through 6.15.06 of the Lake County Land
Development Regulations, which regulate land use and development within said
district. She stated that the request
complies with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as well.
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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a
4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved
Ordinance No. 2005-50 – Theodora
Kaffenberger and Susan Miller, Rezoning Case No. PH47-05-3, Tracking No.
62-05-Z, a request to rezone a five (5) acre parcel in the Ferndale area from
AR (Agricultural Residential) to A (Agriculture), to allow a tree nursery on
the property, as presented.
REZONING
CASE NO. CUP04/12/1-5 – SIX MONTH REVIEW OF CUP – ROBERT
AND NANCY GRUNER /STEVEN J. RICHEY –
TRACKING NO. 83-04-CUP/AMD
Mr. Jeff
Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating
that it was a six month review of a case that the Board had granted an
amendment to in December of 2004. He
stated that it involves a saw mill operation, at which time he noted that the
original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) did not specifically include some of the
uses that the applicants wanted to do on the site; however, the amendment that
was approved in December added those uses back in. He stated that staff inspected the site and
found the sawmill operation to be in compliance, therefore, were recommending a
continuance of the operation, under the CUP.
Commr.
Hill questioned whether the CUP would stay on a six month inspection, or
whether it would go to a one year inspection.
Mr.
Richardson stated that a normal annual inspection would take place from this
point on.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was
noted that 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.
Commr.
Cadwell disclosed, for the record, the fact that he has an interest in some
property on Quail Grove Road, which is in the area of the property in question,
however, noted that the property he has an interest in is far enough away from
the property in question that he does not feel it will affect this case.
On a
motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by
a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Ordinance No. 2005-51 – Robert
and Nancy Gruner/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No.
CUP04/12/1-5,Tracking No. 59-05-CUP, a request for a six (6) month review of
Conditional Use Permit No. 04/12/1-5, as directed by Ordinance No. 2004-92,
Section (2) (C) (2), as presented.
REZONING
CASE NO. PH52-05-4 – R-1 TO R-3 – ROBERT STOCKER,
SHAMROCK HOMES/LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A.
– TRACKING NO. 57-05-Z
Mr. John
Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department,
addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request
to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential). He stated that the subject site is
approximately eleven (11) acres and is located north of CR 44 and south of S.
Fish Camp Road, in the Eustis area. He
stated that water will be supplied by the City of Eustis, while sanitary
disposal will be achieved via individual septic tanks. He stated that the applicant has obtained a
total of 35 points, through the utilization of the Urban Area Residential
Density Chart system. He stated that
Section 3.03.03(F)(2) of the Lake County Land Development Regulations states
that, if the zoning district density is less than the point system density, the
maximum allowable density shall comply with the zoning district density. He stated that, as an R-3 zoning permits a
maximum of three dwelling units per acre, this density shall take precedence
over that of the point system density.
He stated that staff has reviewed the request and finds it to be
consistent with the provisions of the Lake County Land Development Regulations
and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, however,
noted that the Zoning Board recommended denial of the request, by a 4-3
vote. He stated that it was his
understanding that the Zoning Board’s recommendation of denial was based on
school overcrowding in the area in question.
Commr.
Cadwell questioned whether there was enough road right of way on S. Fish Camp
Road to not present a problem and was informed by Mr. Kruse that he had not
received any negative comments from the Public Works Department regarding it.
Commr.
Hanson questioned whether there was any opportunity for open space in the proposed
development and was informed that, due to the fact that it is an 11 acre site,
the opportunity for open space would be limited.
Ms.
Leslie Campione, Attorney, addressed the Board stating that she was
representing Shamrock Homes and Mr. Robert Stocker, the owner of the property
in question. She stated that the
property is an infill piece and is located directly south of the Biscayne
Heights subdivision and east of the Wedgewood subdivision. She stated that there are three phases to the
Biscayne Heights subdivision, which Shamrock Homes purchased several years ago
from Mr. Craig Butterfield, who initiated the subdivision. She stated that Shamrock Homes platted the
last two phases of it and this is an opportunity for them to continue with that
same type of development plan, which she noted has been very well
received. She stated that, as far as the
right of way on Fish Camp Road is concerned, there will be some dedication of
additional right of way, to meet the 33 foot requirement, for a total of 66
feet of right of way. She stated that,
in talking to Mr. Shamrock about the traffic distribution, she found that what
he has observed is that a lot of people will go north on Fish Camp Road to CR
452 and then, depending on where they are going, will take CR 452 up to the
light, if they are going out towards SR 19, and, if they are going towards the
City of Leesburg, they will go up to CR 44 and make a right. She stated that it was her understanding that
there is sufficient capacity at Treadway Elementary School and that, with this
being a very small subdivision, it will entail very nominal impacts, overall.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she noticed, from the Zoning Board Minutes, that one of the
Zoning Board members commented that the middle school in the area of the
proposed subdivision is overcapacity, but that the elementary school and the
high school were alright. She stated
that she felt, by the time the proposed subdivision is completely built, the
school numbers will have shifted somewhat, probably eliminating the
overcapacity situation for the middle school.
She questioned whether there would be any opportunity for open space and
was informed by Ms. Campione that, because of the size of the proposed
development and the fact that it is very limited, the fact that the property is
pie shaped, the frontage involved, and the fact that it is currently an orange
grove there is no plan to have any open space, such as a park, although she
noted that there will be a nice entranceway into the development. She stated that most residents will have
their own swimming pool, or a playground in the back yard. She stated that it will be more of a suburban
feel, as far as the size of the lots is concerned.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the reason he brought up the issue of the frontage was
because he was concerned about the front footage of the development, at which
time it was noted that the entrance to the development will be off of Fish Camp
Road and will not connect to Biscayne Heights, which will cut down on the amount
of traffic traveling through it. He
questioned whether the County had received a letter from the School System,
regarding the issue of the school situation, and was informed by Mr. Kruse that
the County had not. He noted that, for
the majority of cases being heard this month, the County had not received any
letters from the School System.
Mr. Jeff
Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth
Management Department, informed the Board that, due to the loss of Mr. Terry
Adsit, Senior Planner, Lake County Schools, approximately one and a half months
ago, the School System’s staff is spread thin, however, noted that his
understanding is that they now have a replacement for Mr. Adsit, so the County
will probably start receiving comments regarding the school situation from the
School System again around August or September of this year.
Mr.
Kruse stated that staff does not have a magic number indicating at what percent
over capacity they should deny a request.
He stated that they need to have some guidelines in place.
Commr.
Pool concurred, stating that the County needs to be consistent, as it moves
forward, with regard to percentages over capacity, however, noted that the
Board needs to have the true picture. He
stated that, in many instances, there are student stations in portables, but
the School System does not count those portables. He stated that he feels they certainly should
be counted as capacity for a school, because it does adjust the capacity
numbers.
Commr.
Cadwell interjected that he feels, when the County gets true school
concurrency, which he believes is going to happen between now and the next
legislative session, it may solve a portion of the problem.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms.
Cindy Barrow, a member of Voters Organization Involved in Children’s Education
(VOICE), addressed the Board stating that she spoke to the Zoning Board, with
regard to the development in question, and that, although it only involves an
11 acre parcel, VOICE wanted the Board to know what the numbers are, since
representatives from the School System were not present at this meeting to give
the Board that information. She reviewed
and submitted, for the record, a portion of an article (Opposition’s Exhibit A)
that appeared recently in one of the local newspapers, titled Schools Jammed, which lists all the
schools in the County and what their current capacity is, as well as what they
project the enrollment and over capacity figures will be for the 2005/2006
school year. She disagreed with a
statement that was made by Ms. Campione that it was her understanding that
there is sufficient capacity at Treadway Elementary School, noting that it is
at 33% over capacity. She noted other
schools in the area that are over capacity, as well. She stated that the Board needs to think
about the cumulative impact of their actions, noting that each time a new
development comes before them that they feel is not that big and they approve
it, it does nothing but bring more and more students into an already
overcrowded situation. She stated that,
if one takes a look at what is on the School Board’s Capital Five Year Plan,
they will see that no new schools are planned for the area in question, to
relieve the overcrowded situation. She
begged the Board to consider the situation and deny the request before them.
Mr.
Randall Pinkard, the owner of Land Art Landscape Architecture, addressed the
Board stating that he was representing some environmental groups in the area
and questioned whether an environmental assessment had been conducted on the
site and whether they planned to work in accordance with the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Mr. Kruse readdressed the Board stating that,
with regard to environmental assessments, the County does not require them at
the time of rezoning, but when the applicant goes through the site plan
approval process. He stated that
sometimes applicants will do an initial preliminary environmental assessment –
get somebody to walk through the property, to see if there are any endangered
species on the property. He stated that
the County only considers environmental assessments valid for six (6) months,
so staff normally does not require one until the applicants come before the
Board and get approval of their request and, if there are environmental
constraints, the applicants have to design their subdivision around those
environmental constraints. He noted
that, should scrub jays, for instance, be found on the property, the matter
would be turned over to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for any kind of
permitting restraints.
It was
noted that the proposed development would consist of approximately 30 lots,
considering the fact that roadways and stormwater retention ponds would have to
be put in.
Commr.
Pool questioned whether there was a formula that is used by the School System
for determining how many children there will be per household and was informed
by Ms. Jo Frost, a member of VOICE, that it is .41 children per household.
Commr.
Hanson questioned whether all the schools in the area of the proposed
development, as well as the schools in Umatilla and other areas, are under
capacity, or whether all the schools in the area are over capacity, other than
the high school and elementary school listed in the newspaper article alluded
to earlier.
Mr.
Kruse stated that he did not have those figures, but that, based on what is
happening in general in Lake County, he would say that the majority of the
schools in the area are at or over capacity.
He noted that staff relies on the School Board to give the County that
information.
Commr.
Hanson interjected that the County is not getting that information, at which
time she noted that redistricting is not popular, but it would be part of the
solution.
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. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by
a 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the Zoning Board’s recommendation of denial
and approved Ordinance No. 2005-52 – Robert
Stocker, Shamrock Homes/Leslie Campione, Rezoning Case No. PH52-05-4, Tracking
No. 57-05-Z, a request to rezone an eleven (11) acre parcel in the Eustis area
from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential), for the creation of a
single-family residential subdivision, as presented.
REPORTS
– COUNTY MANAGER
“BRANDING”
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, brought to the attention of the Board the issue of “branding”,
which she noted is something that she has been interested in for approximately
a year or so and has worked on, periodically, with the County’s Outreach Team,
although they have not yet brought anything regarding it to the Board. She stated that the “branding” process was
unveiled at the last FAC (Florida Association of Counties) convention, noting
that FAC has a new logo and tag line and is going through a whole unveiling
process to establish an identity throughout the State of how they want to be
perceived and what their direction is.
She stated that they hired a firm to help them do it, who worked with
focus groups, the Board members, some of their staff, etc., to come up with a
comprehensive and unified direction for them.
She stated that it was her opinion that the timing was very advantageous
for Lake County to do a similar type process, noting that the County is growing
and emerging as a diverse county and she feels that, if it could come up with a
common direction and focus, countywide, it could embrace a new identity. She questioned the Board’s thoughts on the
matter and whether there would be a consensus to do a Request for Proposal
(RFP), to go out for a similar type process.
She stated that FAC included in their RFP things that Lake County would
not, which she elaborated on, noting that some of the things they included the
County would do in-house, so she sees the County’s RFP as being a little bit
more comprehensive and a little bit more restrained than FAC’s RFP. It was noted that the new logo would be
phased in over time, because switching everything over at one time would be
very costly for the County.
It was
the consensus of the Board to do the RFP, in that they found the concept to be
exciting.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5
FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Commr.
Cadwell thanked everyone for their support, in allowing him to serve as
President of the Florida Association of Counties (FAC). He stated that he had asked Commr. Hanson to
serve as Vice Chairman of the County’s Growth Management and Environmental
Legislative Policy group and that she had agreed to do so. He stated that he had also asked Mr. Sandy
Minkoff, County Attorney, to serve on a Growth Management and Impact Fee
working group that will bring some language, early on in the process, back to
certain committees that it affects, such as the one that Commr. Hanson will
serve on, and he has agreed to do so, as well.
Commr.
Pool thanked Commr. Cadwell for the time that he has invested, to get to where
he is today, noting that it benefits all of Lake County.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2
FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES CERTIFICATION PROCESS
Commr.
Pool informed the Board that he has gone through the Florida Association of
Counties (FAC) certification process and is now a certified County
Commissioner, at which time he noted that his class was the largest graduating
class of certified Commissioners that FAC has ever had.
It was
noted that 170 Commissioners, statewide, have now gone through the certification
process.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4
FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (CONT’D.)
Commr.
Hanson stated that it was very exciting for Commr. Cadwell to have been elected
President of the Florida Association of Counties (FAC), but that she felt it
was also very exciting for Lake County, in that it will give the County an
opportunity to be at the limelight and she feels that Commr. Cadwell is a great
leader to do that.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4
CRIMINAL
JUSTICE COUNCIL
Commr.
Hanson brought to the attention of the Board the issue of a workshop that she
had attended on the Public Safety Council, which dealt with the number of
prisoners that are in the County’s jails that might not need to be there, which
she elaborated on, noting that it was an opportunity for the County to save
dollars. She stated that there are some
prisoners that need to be in jail, but there are also some that are just
rolling through and the jail is just a place for them to live, rather than
being there to serve justice. She stated
that Sarasota County has a Public Service Council, but they also have created a
sub-committee that deals with a Criminal Justice Council, made up of the Clerk,
the Chief Judge, and most of the elected officials. She stated that it is a smaller group,
consisting of eight to ten members, whereas the Public Safety Council has 23
members. She stated that they felt they
could focus more on the Jail concerns and the growing needs of jails, if they
were a smaller group and had the people that were making the decisions on the
other council. She stated that Lake
County has already approved the creation of a Public Safety Coordinating
Council, but has not yet implemented it, and does not have the appointees in
place yet, at which time she recommended that the Board go ahead and create a
Criminal Justice Council that could fall in later under the Public Safety
Coordinating Council, noting that time is of the essence. She stated that Sarasota County’s numbers
were similar to Lake County’s numbers and, in a year’s time, they eliminated
100 stays per day. She stated that they
attributed the reduction in numbers to a 24/7 pre-trial assessment. She stated that they got people into
treatment, or a better alternative than jail.
She stated that she understands the jail is costing the County $50 to
$60 per day, per inmate; however, she suspects the cost is probably higher than
that, when one looks at the infrastructure costs, etc., which amounts to close
to $2 million per year. She stated that the
County does not always consider the cost of the jail and it is going to keep
growing and, as it continues to grow, the needs are going to continue to
grow. She stated that Sarasota County
has been able to keep that number constant in a growing population. She stated that she feels the Board needs to
look at what Sarasota County has done and decide if they want to create a
Criminal Justice Council for Lake County.
Commr.
Hill stated that she would prefer that Commr. Hanson present her proposal to
the Judiciary, giving them her thoughts and ideas.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she would be glad to do so.
It was
noted that the Board would like to have representatives from Sarasota County
come to Lake County and give them a presentation regarding the matter and, when
they do, they will invite the Judiciary to hear the presentation, as well.
Commr.
Hill stated that her main concern is protecting the citizens of Lake County. Commr. Hanson stated that it is
something the Board should look at and that both Sarasota County and Volusia
County could give them better insight into the matter.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2 (CONT’D.)
SUPREME
COURT’S DECISION REGARDING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY
Commr.
Pool brought to the attention of the Board the issue of the Supreme Court’s
decision regarding the condemnation of property for shopping centers, etc.,
noting that this Board uses that power very sparingly. He stated that he did not feel this Board
would ever have the intent or goal to do something like that, noting that they
want to make sure that the general public benefits from their decisions and
that, while it is a Supreme Court decision, they do not want to let anyone in
the County with private property think that this Board would condemn their
property for the benefit of private gain.
He stated that he did not want to stir something up, but wanted to make
sure that this Board understands and respects private property rights – that it
is not something to take or tread on lightly.
He stated that, perhaps, the Board could address the matter at a later
date, noting that he had received several calls from people that were concerned
about what this Board would do.
Commr. Cadwell stated
that he felt the Board should probably have a dialogue about the matter.
Commr. Pool stated that
it could be about what the Board’s goals and intent would be and what they
think their focus should be in Lake County.
He stated that other counties can do what they want, but he does not
feel they should ask this Board to do it.
Commr. Hanson
interjected that she does not see this Board changing its stance on the matter.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
FOURTH
OF JULY HOLIDAY
Commr.
Hill informed those present that the next Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting
would be held July 12th, rather than July 5th, due to the Fourth of July
holiday. She wished everyone a safe and
happy Fourth of July, at which time she noted that there will be a lot of
parades in the County and invited everyone to go out and enjoy them.
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