A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JULY 26, 2005
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 26, 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; Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney; Cynthia W. “Cindy” Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office; and Judy Whaley, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Pastor Mark Douglas, Bay Street Baptist Church, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that Addendum No. 1 includes two items under the County Manager’s Departmental Business and one item under Other Business.
Commr. Hanson asked that the Addendum item under Other Business, an appointment for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, be postponed until next week.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tab 1, as follows:
Request for approval and execution of Release of Fine recorded in error for Jerry Riddell for violation of working without a proper license; the fine was attached to the wrong property (CEB Number 46-91).
AGENDA UPDATE (CONTINUED)
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved adding discussion on the Lake Jem Fire Station to the agenda under Commr. Stivender’s reports.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – REZONING CASES
REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT
REZONING CASE PH#50-05-2 - LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - HARRY FIX, AICP - TRACKING NO. 56-05-CFD
Commr. Pool requested a 30-day continuance on Rezoning Case PH#50-05-2; Lake County Public Schools; Harry Fix, AICP; Tracking No. 56-05-CFD, because there is a potential alternative site that his been brought to his attention.
Commr. Hill asked if the School Board requested the postponement.
Commr. Pool stated that the County Attorney advised that it would be better to request the postponement of the Board today to avoid violating the Sunshine Law.
Mr. Larry Metz, Lake County School Board, reported that the other School Board members agreed at their meeting last night to appear today to speak in support of their petition. He stated that he had not heard of the request for a continuance.
Commr. Pool stated that he recently met with School Board Member Becky Elswick who confirmed that she would entertain consideration of a nearby alternative site that might serve the School Board better. He stated that, at the last moment, someone has come forward with an 80-acre site which is within a mile of the School Board’s site and which would not require transportation infrastructure improvements. He stated that the owner of the land has said he will sell it. Commr. Pool stated that five partners own this property which is not on Sullivan Road or Grassy Lake Road.
Commissioners Hanson and Stivender stated that they are not opposed to the request for a 30-day extension.
Commr. Pool reiterated that this piece of property is worth pursuing, would save a lot of money for the School Board and the County Commission, and is not so contentious.
Mr. Metz stated that he has no authority to speak on the continuance. He reiterated that he is attending today’s meeting to support the rezoning request.
Mr. Harry Fix, AICP, Director of Growth Planning, Lake County Public Schools, stated that the alternative site suggestion can be taken to the School Board for consideration. He stated that he is not opposed to a 30-day postponement if that would allow an opportunity to work out issues.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, asked the Board for a few minutes to speak with Mr. Fix, during which time the first rezoning case can be heard.
REZONING CASE PH#5-05-3 - JOHN NELSON/NELSON FAMILY TRUST
TIM HOBAN AND CARL LUDECKE - TRACKING NO. 10-05-Z
Ms. Jennifer DuBois, Planner, Lake County Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#5-05-3; John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust; Tim Hoban/Carl Ludecke; Tracking No. 10-05-Z, a request to rezone 48 acres from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential) for the creation of a single-family residential subdivision. She showed the aerial map and stated that the subject parcel is located in the Tavares area, south of the intersection of Old Highway 441 (Old 441) and Merry Road. Ms. DuBois referred to the Summary of Analysis and Findings and stated that the applicants are requesting a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. The City of Tavares has confirmed that the City has adequate capacity to serve the site with potable water but central sewer service is presently unavailable. Staff maintains that connection to central water is necessary. With respect to sewer, once a public sewer system becomes available, the development would be required to connect to that system. Staff recommends approval of the request.
Commissioners Hill and Stivender disclosed, for the record, that they have spoken to parties on Zoning Agenda Nos. 1, 3, 5, 10 and 11.
Commr. Cadwell disclosed, for the record, that he has spoken to parties on Zoning Agenda Nos. 1, 10, and 11.
Commr. Hanson disclosed, for the record, that she has spoken to parties on Zoning Agenda Nos. 5, 10, and 11. She announced that she will abstain from Zoning Agenda No. 1, PH#5-05-3, John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust, Tim Hoban/Carl Ludecke, Tracking No. 10-05-Z, because she is a Director on the Board of United Southern Bank which has loaned money to the applicant for this project. (Form 8B Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and Other Local Public Officers was submitted by Commr. Hanson and is included in the backup material.)
Commr. Pool disclosed, for the record, that he has spoken to parties on Zoning Agenda Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11.
Commissioners Hanson and Stivender disclosed, for the record, that they have also spoken to the representative on Zoning Agenda Nos. 6 and 7.
REZONING CASE PH#5-05-3 - JOHN NELSON/NELSON FAMILY TRUST
TIM HOBAN AND CARL LUDECKE - TRACKING NO. 10-05-Z (CONTINUED)
Ms. DuBois confirmed that staff is requiring the development to hook up to central water because of the lot sizes.
Commr. Stivender stated that the issues are access onto Fairview Avenue with the additional 100 homes on the subject site, the improvements and working with the railroad on an exit onto Old 441. She stated that the issue has never been the zoning because the zoning is appropriate for this location.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Attorney, representing John (Jack) Nelson and Carl Ludecke, stated that they are asking for rezoning from R-1 to R-2, permission to build a railroad crossing and an exemption from the requirement to connect to City of Tavares water and sewer. Mr. Hoban referred to a map of the area (Applicant’s Exhibit A-1). He stated that the current position by the City of Tavares is that, if this development wants Tavares water, it must also have Tavares sewer or at least have dry lines and loop the rest of the system. He stated that if they have to do Tavares sewer, and do 50 foot lots, which is what the cost would mandate, they cannot do the low density subdivision. He stated that the neighbors will be upset if the homes are on 50 foot lots.
Mr. Hoban showed Policy 1-1.6A/Policy 1-1.6B (Applicant’s Exhibit A-2) and stated that it was adopted in 1993 to fight the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He pointed out that Policy 1-1.6B states “…if a public system is available…” He stated that the City of Tavares asked what the definition of “available” is. Eleven years ago Lake County staff thought the definition of “available” should be that the whole County should hook up to water and sewer, and eleven years ago past Commissioner Richard Swartz stated that the definition of “available” should be the same as the then existing Florida Statutes, which was 300 feet for water and 1000 feet for sewer. Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Jim Barker, the then Pollution Control Director made a strong plea that, because water and sewer are so important, the Environmental Protection Agency, not the BCC, should make that decision. Mr. Hoban showed Applicant’s Exhibit A-3, (6.12.00 Central Water System/Central Sewage System) and stated that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) were written to say central water is required “…unless exempted by the Board of County Commissioners via Public Hearing…” Mr. Hoban explained that the BCC adopted this regulation on May 2, 1995. After giving this history of events, Mr. Hoban asked if there is any Commissioner who doubts that the Commission has the right to make this decision.
Mr. Hoban stated that he is taking the position that this Board has the legal right to make a decision. Referring to Exhibit A-1, he stated that the subject site is an active orange grove and perks (percolates) well and all the surrounding neighbors have septic tanks. The subject site is away from the lakes and is not an environmental pollution problem. He stated that it would cost less money to widen Fairview Avenue than it would cost to build a railroad crossing and all the delays would be avoided. He stated that Mr. Ludecke wants to build big houses on big lots, build a low density subdivision and build a railroad crossing which is why they are asking for the exemption from Tavares water and sewer.
Mr. Hoban showed a standard Utility Agreement for water only dated October 2004 between the City of Tavares, Florida, and Chelsea Oak (Applicant’s Exhibit A-4), a subdivision just north of the subject property. He stated that, if the Board would exempt them from Tavares water and sewer, they will commit to go back to the City of Tavares and say, if given that same agreement and cost, no sewer, no dry lines, no looping, they would be happy to do Tavares water at this time. He stated that they will be within 300 feet and 1000 feet of Tavares water and sewer one day but are currently 7,600 feet away from sewer.
In showing the replat map of Grand Oak Estates (Applicant’s Exhibit A-5), Mr. Hoban stated that there has been a suggestion that, after the railroad crossing has been built, Lake County should close Fairvista Drive in the northwest corner of the subdivision (between Lots 13 and 14). He stated that smart growth means following smart road concepts which means making traffic spread out in all directions, not trying to focus all the traffic on the major road (Old 441). He stated that the only traffic going south would be neighbors visiting neighbors and it does not make sense for a neighbor to leave the subdivision through the railroad crossing onto Old 441. He stated that the applicants want to keep Fairvista Drive open. Mr. Hoban stated that they have 17 lots that are under contract or have closed in Grand Oak Estates. None of the contracts and none of the Realtors have disclosed that Fairvista Drive will be closed.
Mr. Hoban stated that the railroad company and Mr. Ludecke are amenable to the location of the crossing shifting one way or the other.
Commr. Stivender confirmed with Mr. Hoban that Fairview Oaks Boulevard, which connects to Fairview Avenue, has been constructed. She confirmed with Mr. Hoban that his promotions do not indicate access in the northwest portion of the subdivision, just that there is access from Fairview Avenue.
Mr. Hoban confirmed that the plan was that the subject site would be Phase II of Grand Oak Estates with the same size lots.
In response to Commr. Stivender regarding the spacing requirement if the railroad crossing is moved further east, perhaps to the corner of the Nelson and Ludecke properties, Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Lake County Public Works, stated that would meet the 1/4 mile roadway access management requirements. They would want to line it up with whatever businesses are on the north side of the road but the railroad will have a lot of influence regarding the location of the crossing.
In conclusion, Mr. Hoban reiterated that past Boards felt very strongly that the BCC should have the authority to make these decisions. He asked the Board to exempt them from Tavares water and Tavares sewer and, essentially, allow them to do a subdivision in keeping with the area. He asked to be rezoned to R-2. He asked the Board to approve the agreement with the railroad and approve the agreement with Charlie Johnson Builder, Inc., for the railroad crossing (Addendum No. 1). He stated that they are committing to work with the City of Tavares to say, if exempted from water and sewer, they would love to get the same agreement the City has reached with other developers for water only, no dry lines, no sewer, no looping.
Mr. Aaron Mercer, Public Works Director, City of Tavares, clarified that the utility agreement (Applicant’s Exhibit A-4) referred to by Mr. Hoban is for water only because Chelsea Oak was already connected to sewer. He agreed that the density in Chelsea Oak is quite high, about five units per acre. He stated that sewer and water is very close to the subject parcel and could be available through easements. Mr. Mercer stated that the City does not have easements through the private property. He clarified that the subject parcel is in the County, not the City, and the City has not required anything of the property owner. He confirmed that the City has met with Mr. Hoban and Mr. Ludecke and the City does have a desire to have water and sewer in the area and the capital lines do show that. He stated that the City would work with the property owner for impact fee credits because it is a capital line. He stated that certain aspects of water and sewer construction and availability are determined by the City Council, not City staff, and he confirmed that the City does have capacity to serve both.
Mr. Hoban agreed that Mr. Mercer’s comments were correct.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, Potter Clement Lowry and Duncan, stated that he is representing several property owners, primarily along Lakeshore Drive and Fairview Avenue, who are in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that they do not object to the density, septic tanks, water issues, school or environmental issues. They object because they do not want the access onto Fairview Avenue to be utilized for the 100+ homes in the subdivision. He stated that the potential is there for over 1,000 trips a day with a good portion coming out onto Fairview Avenue. Mr. Duncan pointed out that Fairview Avenue is a substandard, narrow road. He stated that it would be naive to say that folks would not utilize Fairview Avenue as an access to Lakeshore Drive to go either into Mount Dora or Tavares. He opined that smart growth is growth that neighbors can live with and the neighbors can live with the growth provided they are not accessing onto Fairview Avenue.
Mr. Duncan presented a compilation of petitions (Opposition Exhibit O-1) and stated that, when added to the 80+ petitions previously submitted, they total 123 signatures. He reiterated that the neighbors would support the request for half-acre lots and the exemption to sewer hookups. He proposed a crash gate or limited access gate for emergency purposes between the two subdivisions (Grand Oak Estates), leaving the existing pavement, and noted that is done in a number of neighborhoods throughout the County. Referring to existing and closed contracts that rely on the road, Mr. Duncan stated that Mr. Ludecke and Mr. Hoban have been aware of the road issues for at least three or four months.
Mr. Duncan stated that he attended meetings with the railroad and that Mr. Ben Biscan of Florida Central Railroad made it clear that he wants the cut as far away from Fairview Avenue as possible.
Mr. Duncan noted that about 20 people are in the audience in opposition to this request. He stated that the current access road was not built to County standards and is further evidence that it does not need to be utilized for the potential of 1,000 trips per day.
Commr. Stivender stated that this Board did approve the 40 lots (Exhibit A-5, Grand Oak Estates) with access onto Fairview Avenue. She stated that her idea is that the crash gate would go at the end of the platted road (the northwest corner of Fairvista Drive) which would force the 40 lots to go out onto Fairview Avenue and that the additional, new development would go out onto Old 441. She stated that would still give emergency vehicles the opportunity to go through the crash gate.
Mr. Duncan agreed that the Board makes the final decision. He stated that the crash gate would be a Catch 22 because that would force the 40 residents onto Fairview Avenue. He confirmed that is better than letting both subdivisions come out onto Fairview Avenue, which is what the developer is proposing.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Stivender regarding standards on Fairview Oaks Boulevard, Mr. Schneider explained that, with a 50-foot right of way, Lake County Land Development Regulations require a closed stormwater system with a curb and gutter and this road does not meet that requirement.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Hoban to explain the downside if the new subdivision were to be engineered as a separate subdivision, understanding that they do not share amenities.
Mr. Hoban stated that the thought of having the existing subdivision open to the railroad crossing is operational. He stated that their first choice is to have the road open but they could live with the crash gate after the railroad crossing is operational if need be. He agreed that Mr. Biscan did state that he wants the crossing as far away from Fairview Avenue as possible but said that Mr. Biscan is flexible. He reiterated that, if the railroad crossing is available to the existing subdivision, those residents would only use Fairview Avenue when they want to visit neighbors on Fairview Avenue. He stated that there would be less traffic on Fairview Avenue without the crash gate.
After further discussion, Mr. Hoban stated that the applicant would much prefer a crash gate as opposed to re-engineering the new subdivision without a connection.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board’s decision-making power was kept in an effort to encourage folks to use central water and sewer when it was available but they also did not want someone held hostage by a provider that might not be dealing in good faith. He stated that the City of Tavares, however, is dealing in good faith. He stated that, while he is not excited about wells and would prefer central water, he does not want to sacrifice the lot sizes by requiring central sewer.
Commr. Pool agreed that two units per acre are certainly far more desirable in that vicinity than a higher density development.
Commr. Hill stated that her decision hinges on access. She pointed out that the County would be agreeing to provide maintenance on the railroad crossing.
Mr. Hoban explained that is the case on all of them and the railroad made it clear that they contract with the County.
Mr. Schneider stated that the railroad wants Lake County to enter into an agreement with them in opening a new public crossing. Florida Central Railroad does not own the land, they lease the rails, and they will take it forward to the owner, CSX. He stated that Lake County would be the maintenance entity, the permittee. The agreement with the railroad will be presented to the Board later. In order for Florida Central Railroad to support a new crossing at the Nelson property, the railroad wants the existing crossing on CR 448A in Lake Jem improved and Mr. Schneider confirmed that those improvements are planned.
Mr. Mark Douglas, who lives on Fairview Avenue, stated that his property is adjacent to Fairview Oaks Boulevard. He requested that a privacy fence be put on that road if it is allowed to stay because his house is very close to the road and it could, potentially, have a lot of traffic day and night.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Duncan, Mr. Schneider stated that the current subdivision is not required to make any improvements on Fairview Avenue or at the intersection at Old 441. If the crash gate is installed and the new subdivision only accesses Old 441, turn lanes will be installed on Old 441 at the new railroad crossing. If there is no crash gate and both subdivisions are tied together by open road system, and, if the railroad cannot agree to allow a new crossing, they would be required to do some intersection improvements at Fairview Avenue and Old 441, possibly at Fairview itself, from the subdivision entrance north.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Hoban if the fence line and the entranceway could be looked at in an effort to be made a little more appealing to the neighbors.
Mr. Hoban stated that he cannot guarantee it but he will speak to Mr. Ludecke on that issue. He concurred with Mr. Schneider’s comments.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
In response to a comment by Commr. Hill regarding the request for a privacy fence, Commr. Stivender explained that the existing subdivision, on zoning that has already been approved, cannot be required to put up a fence but the Board can request that it be considered.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender, and seconded by Commr. Pool, to uphold the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approve Ordinance 2005-56, Rezoning Case PH#5-05-3, John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust, Tim Hoban and Carl Ludecke, Tracking No. 10-05-Z, a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential); exempting the requirement for the water and sewer in order to allow for the larger lots that are compatible with the existing neighborhood; to either require a crash gate between the two developments or be totally separate; the existing platted subdivision will use access onto Fairview Avenue per prior approval; and the additional subdivision will use access onto Old Highway 441 at a new railroad crossing.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool stated that he wants to be sure there is an option.
Commr. Stivender confirmed that the option is either a crash gate or stub out, or a cul-de-sac with a separate subdivision.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0.
Commr. Hanson abstained from the discussion and vote.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PUBLIC WORKS – AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND CHARLIE JOHNSON BUILDER, INC. (RAILROAD CROSSING)
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender, and seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for approval and signature on the Agreement between Lake County and Charlie Johnson Builder, Inc., for the railroad crossing west of Fairview Avenue in the Tavares area; and approval of the proposed Agreement between Lake County and Florida Central Railroad.
Under discussion, Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Lake County Public Works, stated that the railroad agreement is not in hand.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Attorney, representing Jack Nelson and Carl Ludecke in the previous Rezoning Case PH#5-05-3, John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust, stated that Mr. Ben Biscan of Florida Central Railroad will not proceed unless he knows this Board has approved e-mails going back and forth.
It was the consensus of the parties that a letter from the Chairman, expressing what the Board’s actions and intentions were today, would be sufficient.
Commr. Stivender amended her motion to add language that the Chairman will send a letter to Mr. Ben Biscan telling him what is going on and that the agreement with the railroad will be approved by the Board as soon as possible.
Commr. Cadwell amended his second to the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which carried by a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Hanson abstained from the discussion and the vote as previously noted by her conflict with Rezoning Case PH#5-05-3. (Form 8B Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and Other Local Public Officers was submitted by Commr. Hanson and is included in the backup material.)
REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT (CONTINUED)
REZONING CASE PH#50-05-2 - LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - HARRY FIX, AICP - TRACKING NO. 56-05-CFD
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, stated that he and Mr. Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning, Lake County Public Schools, had just spoken with Lake County School Board Superintendent Anna Cowin regarding the request for a 30-day postponement on Rezoning Case PH#50-05-2; Lake County Public Schools; Harry Fix, AICP; Tracking No. 56-05-CFD.
Mr. Fix stated that a 30-day postponement will work for the School Board in order to see if there is another school site. He stated that, if the alternate site does not work, the School Board will be back in 30 days with this rezoning request.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for comments on the request for a 30-day postponement.
Ms. Suzen Hillebrandt stated that this would be the third postponement and many of the residents have taken off work three times. She agreed that it would be good if a property that will actually work is found. However, if it does not, they will be back again and the actual site still has a lot of problems. She stated that the Board should be listening to some of the citizens’ information today even if the case is postponed.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, stated that she represents a number of people who own property, both agricultural property and others who have development approvals, in the south Lake County area. She expressed concern that this postponement would be another delay because the School Board wants to move forward and there is a dire need for additional capacity in classrooms. She stated that the developers are being held up because there is no school capacity. She stated that there never is going to be a site that pleases everyone.
Ms. Patricia Donahue asked where the proposed new site is located.
Commr. Pool stated that it is not on Grassy Lake Road or Sullivan Road.
Mr. Robert Foley, Chairperson of the School Advisory Council (SAC) at Windy Hill Middle School, stated that he is not in opposition to the postponement but he wanted to remind the Board that, because of the delays, the SAC’s first meeting in August will include a discussion about alternate scheduling at Windy Hill. He stated that there is nothing on the horizon. Windy Hill was built for 1,000 students but over 1,500 are beginning school next week.
Commr. Pool, in making a public comment, stated that he has been informed that, if this project were to be approved today, the citizens would hold it up for at least three years in court. He reiterated that if this alternate site does not work out, we will be back here in 30 days.
Mr. Foley pointed out that a lot of parents will be highly upset if there is nothing to bring to them at the upcoming SAC discussion.
Mr. Randall Baker, Land Art Landscape Architecture, stated that he represents a group of clients on North Grassy Lake Road who desire to have this case voted on and to achieve a denial of the change in zoning. He expressed concern that, like others, this is the third time they have appeared to speak their point of view. He asked that citizens be heard today and be put on the record.
Commr. Stivender asked if a night meeting could be held separately for this issue once the Board decides where they are going with it. She pointed out that the School Board meets at 6:00 p.m.
Commr. Cadwell stated that a time and location certain could be set but the last time that happened the meeting ended at 5:00 a.m. and the same people were upset that they missed work the next day.
Ms. Becky Elswick, Lake County School Board member, stated that she is not representing the School Board today because they did not have the advance opportunity to consider the possibility of the continuation of this item. She stated that comments have been made by the School Board members over and over in their public meetings about the delay in building new schools, particularly in south Lake County. She remarked that the Superintendent has some agendas of her own. She stated that 30 days may not make a lot of difference in actually getting a school ready for occupancy but she pleaded with the Board to move this forward as quickly as possible. She opined that the School Board has the momentum at this point to evaluate another tract immediately if the location can be disclosed. She pointed out that the subject property has already been purchased by the School Board and an additional purchase would further deplete their ability to build bricks and mortar. She again stressed that this be expedited as quickly as possible and said she would like to see a better site if there is one. She expressed appreciation for Commr. Stivender’s consideration of the public in suggesting an evening meeting.
Commr. Hanson cautioned the School Board regarding future purchases of property that have not been rezoned because that puts each Board in a bad situation.
Ms. Elswick agreed that is a good point to be noted for the future.
Commr. Pool stated that he would be willing to meet in two weeks if possible.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that, if this zoning request is voted down today, the School Board will have to start over.
Ms. Lorraine Frankenfield, a Lake County resident, stated that she has two grandchildren in Lake County’s public schools. She stated that she is concerned about the postponement, not because she wants the school to be built, but because she does not. She stated that, as an educator, she knows this school is not in the right place and she thinks she knows why. She opined that the developers want the land so that it can be developed with high density housing. She stated that will do nothing good for education. She stated that she received a flyer from a developer who cares about developing the land, not education. She stated that she would like the Board to vote against the rezoning today so that the School Board has the time to find the right place. She stated that the high school needs to be in the lower end of Lake County where the students live. She stated that money is running this, not education.
Commr. Hanson explained that, if another site is found, the typical process would be that this case would be withdrawn.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that today’s action will send a clear message to the School Board that there are concerns about the site or the Commissioner from that area would not be looking for another site.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that, by the time a meeting is advertised, it could not be done much sooner than a month from now.
Mr. Rich Jarzemski, who lives on Sullivan Road, agreed with many of the comments made by Ms. Frankenfield. He stated that, if the new site does not require all of the infrastructure that would be necessary on Sullivan Road, the school probably would be built in a shorter time. He stated that they are not against schools but what is proposed for Sullivan Road is outlandish in the way of expense. Mr. Jarzemski stated that Commr. Pool went door to door telling residents that this is the right thing to do.
Commr. Pool stated, for the record, that he only stopped at Mr. Benfield’s house and a neighbor came over.
Mr. Ed Havill, Lake County Property Appraiser, asked if the 80-acre alternate site is already zoned for a school site.
Commr. Pool stated that it is not zoned for a school site but is on a major road and infrastructure improvements will not be needed.
Mr. Havill asked Commr. Pool if he has any relatives connected with the property.
Commr. Hill reiterated that public comments should be made regarding the request for a postponement.
Ms. Christy Jarzemski stated that she lives on the corner of Seminole and Sullivan Road, next to the school site. She stated that she is happy that another school site, less costly to taxpayers, may have been found. She stated that there have been many delays and untruths given to residents. She remarked that residents were only supposed to talk about traffic, not the school site, at the traffic meeting (public workshop held at Minneola City Hall March 15, 2005). She expressed concern that this is another delay for developers and the School Board and for desperate people to become more powerful and get what they want. She stated that this is not the right place for a school. She stated that the traffic meeting went way into the night and agreed that a night meeting might go to the next morning.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for a 30-day postponement in Rezoning Case PH#50-05-2; Lake County Public Schools; Harry Fix, AICP; Tracking No. 56-05-CFD.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell asked if there is more discussion regarding having a meeting near the school site.
Commr. Stivender opined that would be the appropriate place and it would be appropriate to hold the meeting at night.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they will look at available locations and readvertise the meeting.
Commr. Hanson asked for clarification as to how much time would be necessary for the alternate site to go before the School Board. She remarked that the Board will not know anything different in two weeks because the land will not have been rezoned.
Mr. Fix stated that he will speak with Commr. Pool after this meeting and he advised that the next School Board meeting is August 8, with agenda review on Wednesday, August 3.
Commr. Cadwell asked that the two issues not be confused. One issue is that, if another site is found, it has to go through the Zoning Board and, at the end of the day, the Board will have to vote on the current site.
Commr. Hill remarked that the School Board has already purchased the current site. She stated that it needs to be voted up or down.
Commr. Pool reiterated that, after the 30-day postponement, the Board will be right back here or in Minneola to address this issue.
Commr. Cadwell opined that Commr. Pool is trying to facilitate the School Board to some extent as opposed to just saying “no” today and not offering any alternatives. He remarked that 30 days should be given to do that.
Commr. Stivender asked if the meeting should be held on August 16 in Minneola.
Mr. Minkoff reiterated that a location would have to be confirmed. He stated that the meeting will be reposted, advertised and notices will be sent again.
Further discussion occurred regarding meeting in 30 days or less at 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. in the Minneola area.
Commr. Hill reiterated that the School Board will want a decision on the current piece of property. They are asking to build more than one school and that was her reason for thinking the case should be heard today. She stated that she will go along with the majority of the Board on a 30-day postponement.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the School Board could withdraw the current piece of property altogether during the 30-day postponement period.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute break.
REZONING CASE PH#57-05-5 - JACK & DEBORAH WILKERSON - TRACKING NO. 70-05-Z
Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#57-05-5, Jack & Deborah Wilkerson, Tracking No. 70-05-Z, a request to rezone a 9.6 +/- acre parcel from A (Agriculture District) to R-3 (Medium Residential District) to allow a lot line deviation and a 1.7-acre parcel for a single-family dwelling. She showed the aerial map and noted that the subject parcel is located north of Umatilla, west of State Road 19, on the corner of County-maintained Lake Street and Peru Road. Ms. Allen continued the Summary of Analysis and Findings and stated that staff recommends denial of the request because it does not comply with Comprehensive Plan Policies 1-1.6A and 1-1.6B that require residential developments in the Urban Future Land Use category to have central potable water service. The Lake County Zoning Board voted 7-0 for denial and nine letters in opposition to the request have been received.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson, Ms. Allen stated that this parcel was advertised for R-3 rezoning. She noted that there was much discussion at the Zoning Board meeting about R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning.
Mr. Jack Wilkerson stated that there are two lots and they wanted the lot line deviation in order to put their personal home in the back corner. As presented to the Zoning Board, they stated that, given that it is Urban designation and adjacent to Umatilla city limits, R-3 would give a reasonable access driveway to the rear corner lot. He stated that they are requesting setback of about 440 feet because that is in the character of the neighbors’ lots. Mr. Wilkerson stated that he lost one acre on the west side because the County did not survey and whacked it off when they ran the roadway, landlocking part of the property on the west side as well as the orange grove owner. He stated that he has not blocked access to the grove owner. He stated that R-3 would be in compliance with planning because it is adjacent to the Umatilla city limits and the properties to the north are R-3. He stated that a school is 1,400 feet from the property edge and a shopping center is 8/10 of a mile away by roadway. He stated that all except two or three adjacent properties to the south have been annexed and letters have been signed with the City for utility-supplied water if the City chooses to annex up to his property. He requested exemption for a 50-foot access to a rear lot of 1.5 acres, leaving eight acres as the second lot, which is a lot line revision under R-1.
Mr. Wilkerson explained that eight acres is being transferred to the builder of his home as payment for the home. He stated that the builder anticipates holding the property for several years as an investment and he agreed that the builder would be able to build one home per acre in the future. However, County planning has informed him that they will only permit three driveways which could be shared and which would allow only six homes on the remaining eight acres.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if the 10-acre parcel were to be rezoned R-1, a variance would have to be requested from the Board of Adjustment.
If the request was for R-1 instead of R-3, Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, explained that the property is within the City of Umatilla’s utility service area so the consistency issue would still remain.
Ms. Allen stated that the City of Umatilla responded that they would not extend services for just one lot.
Mr. Wilkerson, in discussing water services, concluded that he cannot promise the City enough customers to justify installation of a 6 inch main.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Pat Sykes-Amos, who owns property across the street, stated that her property is zoned R-3 but her home is built on two acres and is one of the smallest lots in the area. Until this issue came up, she thought the zoning was Residential Estates. She stated that they do not want 1/4 or 1/2 acre lots because other homes are built on five, ten and forty-acre lots. She stated that adding a lot of septic tanks will perc (percolate) down to her well. She noted that about six of her neighbors are in the audience. They live in an area that is home to cattle, horses, sheep, sandhill cranes, bald eagles and a bobcat. She stated that the neighbors could live with R-1 zoning but only if that means one home on one acre, not a clustering of all ten homes.
Commr. Cadwell stated that straight R-1 zoning will not guarantee one home on one acre.
Ms. Sykes-Amos remarked that the Wilkersons have an interest in keeping the environment the way it is, but a builder would not.
Commr. Hanson stated that, if rezoned to R-1 and if utilities were present, up to three and one-half units per acre would be allowed through the point system.
Mr. Wilkerson reiterated that he wants to swap eight acres with the builder in exchange for building his house. In response to Commr. Cadwell, Mr. Wilkerson agreed that type of deal enables the builder to do exactly what the neighbors do not want.
Mr. Greg Tighe, who owns 20 acres on pristine Lake Cooley, showed a drawing of the area (Opposition Exhibit O-1). He stated that testing shows that the quality of the lakes depends on the number of homes that surround them. He stated that he does not have a problem with one house on one acre but he does not want clustering. He stated that he wants to keep the character of the area and protect the lakes from runoff.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he and Ms. Amye King, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management Department, attended a City of Umatilla long-range planning workshop. He stated that this was not an area that they anticipated becoming city-like and there were not very many areas around Umatilla that they want to grow. He reminded the Board that Peru Road is not completely paved.
Regarding AR zoning, which allows one unit per two acres, Mr. Wilkerson stated that driveways would have to be wider and the value necessary to pay for his house would be lost.
Commr. Hanson remarked that it could be approved with the requirement that it would have to come back to the Board for site plan approval which would take care of the neighbors’ concerns.
Ms. Monica Poorbaugh, who owns a home and 50 acres on Lake Cooley, stated that she is concerned about keeping the lake pristine. She expressed concern with R-1 zoning and the inability to ensure one home on one acre. She suggested that the developer might want to consider that larger homes worth more money could be built on 2.5 acre lots.
Mr. Ron Chapman, builder, stated that his intention in four to five years would be to build a subdivision on one-acre lots that will be conducive to Mr. Wilkerson’s type of architecture which utilizes open space. He confirmed that the land would be his payment for providing material and labor in the construction of Mr. Wilkerson’s house. He stated that he wants to grow hay for four or five years on the land and it has already been prepped to put seed down. He requested R-1 zoning so that Mr. Wilkerson can put his house on the 1.5-acre lot.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Commr. Cadwell agreed that we do not know what this will be in the future but it is what it is the day the Board zones it. He remarked that the applicant was not interested in AR which would give them 2.5-acre lots, therefore, it should remain Agriculture.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell, and seconded by Commr. Pool, to uphold the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board to deny Rezoning Case PH#57-05-5, Jack and Deborah Wilkerson, Tracking No. 70-05-Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) to R-3 (Medium Residential District) to allow a lot line deviation and a 1.7-acre parcel for a single-family dwelling.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool remarked that the owner and the builder have the opportunity to request a different zoning.
In response to an inquiry by Commr. Hanson regarding a requirement to have the site plan on the remaining property come back before the Board, Mr. Minkoff stated that there is no way under the Code to put that kind of requirement on straight zoning. The only way to make a requirement is through a PUD (Planned Unit Development) which would cause the clustering to occur.
Commr. Cadwell reiterated that the City wanted this area to remain as it is.
Commr. Hanson asked if the City would be opposed to one-acre tracts.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he does not know how to guarantee one-acre tracts and, if AR is not workable for the applicant, the only thing to do is turn down the request.
Commr. Stivender asked if there is a timeframe for a Joint Planning Agreement with the City of Umatilla.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, with what is happening in that area, he still would not be in favor of one-acre lots if the City agreed with one-acre lots.
Ms. Amye King, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management Department, stated that the County is very close to entering into an agreement with the City of Umatilla. She hopes a preliminary agreement will be available by the end of the year. She agreed with Commr. Cadwell that the City is not particularly interested in growth in that area.
Commr. Stivender stated that she would like to know if Mr. Wilkerson has changed his mind about AR zoning.
Commr. Hanson suggested having the vote on the denial motion, then making another motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
Commr. Hanson made an alternative motion to approve AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning in Rezoning Case PH#57-05-5, Jack and Deborah Wilkerson, Tracking No. 70-05-Z.
Commr. Cadwell asked if Commr. Hanson wants to make that motion even if the applicant does not want it. He stated that Agriculture zoning almost completely surrounds the property.
Commr. Stivender seconded the motion for discussion. She asked to hear Mr. Wilkerson’s comments.
Regarding the alternative motion, Mr. Minkoff explained that, in the past when a motion to deny rezoning has passed, the Board has allowed an alternative motion to do a lesser zoning, but not if the applicant opposes it.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed that they would accept AR at this time although they came before the County in an effort to manage the zoning of the property in deference to the neighbors and their own wishes. Given that it is weeks or months away from being annexable by Umatilla, they could submit, have it annexed, and it would become R-3. He stated that he, personally, does not want R-3. He stated that he did speak with Umatilla prior to making the request and only submitted R-3 because of driveway widths.
Mr. Wilkerson and Commr. Cadwell further discussed the surrounding zoning.
Mr. Wilkerson again agreed that they would accept AR although R-1 is in line with planning. He stated that before the year is out that whole area is likely to be within the Umatilla city limits. He stated that they would rather avoid annexation into Umatilla because Umatilla will permit R-3 instantly. He stated that he has had five offers from larger developers who will bring in sewer and water and put in 27 homes but he has chosen not to profit from that by trying to manage it in a delicate manner.
Discussion occurred regarding procedure and whether public comments should be accepted on the alternative motion.
Ms. Allen explained that AR zoning allows a maximum density of one dwelling unit per two acres and she wanted to be sure Mr. Wilkerson understands that his house site would be a minimum of two acres.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed that two acres is acceptable because the driveway access plus the lot size will kiss at two acres.
Commr. Cadwell asked if AR is acceptable to the neighbors.
Commr. Hill noted that the neighbors in the audience nodded their heads in agreement.
Commr. Hill called for a vote on the alternative motion which carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, approving Ordinance 2005-57, Rezoning Case PH#57-05-5, Jack and Deborah Wilkerson, Tracking No. 70-05-Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) to AR (Agricultural Residential) with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per two acres.
REZONING CASE PH#53-05-1 - BLOUNT & BECERRA PROPERTIES - BRUCE DUNCAN, ATTORNEY - TRACKING NO. 66-05-Z
Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#53-05-1; Blount & Becerra Properties; Bruce Duncan, Attorney; Tracking No. 66-05-Z, a request to rezone 86.7 +/- acres (two parcels) from R-1 (Rural Residential District) and R-3 (Medium Residential District) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential District) to allow a residential subdivision. She showed the aerial map of the subject parcels which are located to the west of Fruitland Park and US 27/441 on the south side of Lake Ella Road, north of Piney Ridge Boulevard, between Timbertop Lane to the west and Taylor Mill Road to the east. Ms. Allen reported that the School Board spoke at the Zoning Board hearing regarding the capacity status of the schools. Documentation from the School Board states that approval of this request would have an adverse impact as follows: 7% over capacity for Villages Elementary, 7% over capacity for Carver Middle, and 18% under capacity for Leesburg High. Since the overages do not exceed 10%, staff continues to recommend approval of the request to rezone from R-1 and R-3 to R-4. The Lake County Zoning Board recommended approval of R-3 zoning by a vote of 6-1. The site lies within the Urban Expansion Future Land Use category that permits up to four dwelling units per acre and R-4 zoning allows a maximum density of four units per acre. However, the Urban Area Residential Density Analysis resulted in a total of 40 points, allowing 3.5 dwelling units per acre and the development will be limited to 3.5.
Commissioners Hanson and Pool disclosed, for the record, that they met with Attorney Bruce Duncan on this issue.
Ms. Allen confirmed that the subdivision south of the subject parcels is zoned R-3 but the properties are about one acre in size.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, Potter Clement Lowry and Duncan, representing the applicants, showed a 2004 aerial map of the Lady Lake and Fruitland Park areas (Applicant’s Exhibit A-1). He pointed out that the lots in the subdivision to the south are one-half and two-thirds acre lots because they could not get water and sewer from Fruitland Park. He stated that the subject site is an infill for some of the surrounding higher densities. Mr. Duncan stated that he has water and sewer commitments from the City of Fruitland Park. Although committed, if water and sewer does not become available, this development will be like Spring Lake to the south with one-half and two-thirds acre lots rather than three units per acre. Mr. Duncan stated that a central water plant will be constructed on site in conjunction with the engineering requirements of the City of Fruitland Park. City water and sewer should be available within seven to twelve months. Should the development be done prior to City utilities, that central water project will be tied into the City’s water system. Regarding schools, he pointed out that Villages Elementary is in the process of expanding their facility and is adding capacity. He expressed their reluctance to make this development a 55 and over community because that is not the market in this area. Single-family housing in the Lady Lake/Fruitland Park areas is needed for the 3,000 employees of The Villages. He opined that 55 and over communities knock many people out of the market.
Mr. Duncan confirmed that the Zoning Board approved R-3 zoning. He stated that they acquiesce to that even though the point system gets them to 3.5 units.
Commr. Stivender remarked that it appears that Lake Ella Road is the dividing point between Lady Lake and Fruitland Park. She asked for confirmation that there is no problem with the infill with Fruitland Park.
Mr. Duncan confirmed that the infill is not a problem. He explained that the City of Lady Lake water and sewer is much closer and they wanted to tie into theirs but Fruitland Park wanted to provide the service.
Commr. Hanson asked if the possibility of clustering has been considered with the potential for open space.
Mr. Duncan stated that he has not considered it but that will be addressed during the site plan review process. He agreed that clustering might alleviate some of the concerns of the larger lot owners to the south. He further explained that they have no plans to provide any access out of the subdivision through Spring Lake and the applicant is not requesting permission to do that. Larger lots probably will be in the back of the subdivision.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for comments. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Commr. Hill stated that she does support staff’s and the Zoning Board’s recommendation of R-3 zoning.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell, and seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board for R-3 zoning; approving Ordinance 2005-58, Rezoning Case PH#53-05-1; Blount & Becerra Properties; Bruce Duncan, Attorney; Tracking No. 66-05-Z, a request to rezone 86.7 +/- acres (two parcels) from R-1 (Rural Residential District) and R-3 (Medium Residential District) to R-3 (Medium Residential District) to allow a residential subdivision.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that this is a large enough site that it probably should be considered as a PUD (Planned Unit Development), which would be more acceptable, although that is not what is before the Board.
Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion which carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
REZONING CASE PH#55-05-1 - FRANK STARR - TRACKING NO. 68-05-LM
Ms. Mary Hamilton, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#55-05-1, Frank Starr, Tracking No. 68-05-LM, a request to rezone 5 +/- acres from A (Agriculture) to LM (Light Industrial). She showed the aerial map of the subject parcel which is located in the Leesburg area at the corner of Blackstarr Road and South Whitney Road. The site, in Urban Expansion, requires central sewer and water for new industrial development. Staff recommends denial and the Lake County Zoning Board recommended denial by a vote of 7-0.
Mr. Frank Starr stated that he does not want to argue the case and he is fine with any decision by the Board, whether granting or not granting the request. He stated that central water is only about 300 to 400 feet away.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Scott Christley, who lives next door to the subject property, stated that he recently built a home on five acres. He stated that miniature warehouses were built beside him on the highway (State Road 44) after he started construction of his home but the subject property is not on the highway. He stated that he hopes he will not be boxed in on both sides by a shop or manufacturing facility. He explained that he bought his property several years ago when the property was surrounded by horses and cows and homes and he would like to keep the character of that area. He stated that he opposes the rezoning.
Mr. Thomas Clark, who lives on the corner of Whitney and South Whitney Roads, stated that he bought his property about a year and one-half ago. He stated that he wants to maintain the agricultural zoning and keep industrial zoning out of there.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Commr. Hill stated that she will support the staff’s and the Zoning Board’s recommendation for denial. She stated that State Road 44 has industrial and most of the area is in the City of Leesburg. She noted the requirement for utilities.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool, and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board for denial of Rezoning Case PH#55-05-1, Frank Starr, Tracking No. 68-05-LM, a request to rezone 5 +/- acres from A (Agriculture) to LM (Light Industrial).
REZONING CASE PH#13-05-1 - ARMENTANO ENTERPRISES, INC. AKA
ACA ACADEMY - STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 1-05-CFD
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#13-05-1, Armentano Enterprises, Inc. aka ACA Academy, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking No. 1-05-CFD, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) and Conditional Use Permits (CUP#294-1 and CUP#294A-1) to CFD (Community Facility District). Approval of the request will permit the owner to move forward with the process of correcting a Code Enforcement violation regarding noise for the existing cheerleading academy. Upon investigation, staff found that the operation had expanded beyond what was allowed under the CUPs (Conditional Use Permits). Staff also found that there are issues with after-the-fact building permits and the as-built site plan, neither of which were obtained or filed so far as research shows. Staff does recommend approval of the request for the retreat center. Mr. Richardson noted that the noise has been the main issue and attorneys for the opposition and the applicant have tried to work out those issues.
The Lake County Zoning Board recommended approval to CFD, by a 7-0 vote, with the following conditions: (1) The hours of operation shall be 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. with no amplified music allowed before 8 a.m. or after 10 p.m. (2) A type “C” landscape buffer shall be installed with a contingency for a ten-foot wall if the sound problem is not resolved by the landscape buffer. (3) In six months after approval by the BCC, this case shall come back before the Zoning Board and the BCC.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, concurred with staff’s statements. He explained that ACA Academy, now known as Camp Geneva, dates back to 1964. He stated that, as the camp has evolved, the Christian groups have discovered music and percussion instruments which have, over the last few years, caused a problem for folks who have moved into the area. He stated that he and Attorney Chuck Johnson, who represents the opposition, have worked on a CFD with conditions that will deal with those concerns. He noted that the Lake County noise ordinance went into effect in January 2005 and the camp has spent $50,000 to retrofit some of the early 1970’s buildings. He confirmed that several code citations for noise are pending and the CFD will give six months to do a noise study and provide additional, professional retrofitting. He agreed that it will come back through the Zoning Board and the BCC for an evaluation if noise attenuating walls, or some other noise abatement process, are necessary.
Mr. Richey presented a “rewrite” of the proposed ordinance (Applicant’s Exhibit A-1) to the Board members. He stated that he and Mr. Johnson have discussed this “rewrite” and the document has been provided to Mr. Richardson.
Commr. Hill remarked that there have been several drafts of the proposed ordinance and she expressed her appreciation to the two attorneys for working together. She opined that we will have this problem over and over and this document might be used for other areas of the County as growth and people encroach on other facilities.
Mr. Chuck Johnson, Attorney, Sellar Sewell Russ Saylor and Johnson, PA, expressed concern that the 2005 summer season is about to end and it may be quiet for the next six months. He stated that he does not want the Commission to mistakenly believe, if the next six months are quiet, that would relieve the obligation to put up the wall. There is a possibility that the noise could continue in the summers of 2006, 2007, etc. He stated that the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood is important and the continued success of Camp Geneva is important. They must exist harmoniously and that will not happen unless we deal with this noise issue.
Commr. Cadwell suggested giving one year to address the noise.
Mr. Johnson stated that he wants to be sure, even if they are quiet for a year, if the noise continues in following years the wall will be an option.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the idea was to go through a full season.
Commr. Pool stated that, obviously, if they create more noise it will come back to the Board.
Mr. Richey stated that we can deal with the further review condition when it comes back in six months. He stated that he envisions, over the next three or four months, doing the retrofitting and testing to establish noise levels. Independent of this Board’s action, Code Enforcement cases are being dealt with and are scheduled for August. He stated that it is incumbent upon them to fix the retroactive problems with citations. He stated that it is fine with him to report back to the Board in the next camp season.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, remarked that, initially, there was a citation that they were operating outside the scope of the CUP and that has been held in abeyance pending this rezoning case. The noise ordinance violations are from the noise ordinance, not from zoning. Even with this, or the revised one, if there is unreasonable noise next Saturday night, they will be cited, even if totally in compliance with the CUP. He stated that it is not just retroactive and the noise portion will be ongoing even if they do everything they have agreed to do.
Mr. Richey agreed that, if it violates the noise ordinance, it violates the noise ordinance. He stated that they understand they need to comply with the noise ordinance, period.
Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed ordinance does not address, to his satisfaction, that the Board will be empowered to require them to (1) install the wall or (2) be quiet. He wants to be sure there is an ongoing provision that the Board will always have that option.
Mr. Richey agreed that the proposed ordinance does not say that. He suggested that, at the review time, whether in compliance or not, some wording could be added for a continuing review.
Mr. Minkoff explained that Mr. Richey is suggesting that in six months, if it has been quiet and he asserts that they do not have to install the wall, Mr. Johnson will say, however, if you get noisy in the future you will have to install the wall.
Mr. Richey agreed that he has no problem with it being one year from today’s action rather than six months.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Commr. Hill stated that she supports staff’s and the Zoning Board’s recommendations and conditions set forth in the new ordinance.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2005-59, Rezoning Case PH#13-05-1, Armentano Enterprises, Inc. aka ACA Academy, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking No. 1-05-CFD, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) and Conditional Use Permits (CUP#294-1 and CUP#294A-1) to CFD (Community Facility District); with conditions as stated; bringing the case back in one year for review, or sooner than one year if there is a problem or issue.
REZONING CASE SLPA#05/4/1-2 - C.A. MEYER, JR. - JIMMY CRAWFORD, ESQ. - TRACKING NO. 35-05-SLPA
REZONING CASE PH#36-05-2 - C.A. MEYER, JR. - JIMMY CRAWFORD, ESQ. - TRACKING NO. 38-05-PUD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case SLPA#05/4/1-2, C.A. Meyer, Jr., Jimmy Crawford, Esq., Tracking No. 35-05-SLPA, a request for a change in the Future Land Use designation of Employment Center to Urban Expansion for 9.99 acres. He showed the aerial map and read the Summary of Analysis for SLPA#05/4/1-2. Mr. Kruse showed a preliminary site plan prepared by DRMP (Applicant’s Exhibit A-1) and pointed out a proposed park in the top left corner, a commercial office park area, the Toyota dealership building, the repair and auto body building, and a 60 foot frontage road that runs into the proposed Plaza Colina and into Tiny Morse Boulevard.
Mr. Kruse stated that the subject parcel indicated on the Joint Future Land Use Map between Clermont and Lake County is intended to remain with the Employment Center designation, therefore, staff is unable to support the requested change. The Lake County Local Planning Agency (LPA) voted 4-3 for denial of this project.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, stated that, subsequent to the LPA’s public hearing, the City of Clermont provided a draft Land Use map to County staff. There is a commercial corridor along State Road 50 in that area.
Mr. Kruse stated that the next case, Rezoning Case PH#36-05-2, C.A. Meyer, Jr., Jimmy Crawford, Esq., Tracking No. 38-05-PUD, a request to rezone from HM (Heavy Industrial) and MP (Planned Industrial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development for Commercial Uses) deals with the zoning.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray Robinson in Clermont, representing the owners and applicants, stated that City of Clermont staff gave a statement of opposition at the LPA hearing. That statement was merely that they do not want to see any Land Use Plan changes until the whole JPA (Joint Planning Agreement/Area) Land Use Plan is implemented. He stated that the LPA asked the City where, if not here, do they want a car dealership. City staff did not have an answer and the LPA postponed the hearing for 30 days. He pointed out that Ms. Nadine Foley, a member of the LPA, stated for the record that she could not attend the next meeting but would be in support of that project, and removing the Industrial, at that location. Thirty days later, the City had no further information, and the request was denied by a vote of 4-3 and Ms. Foley’s vote would have made it 4-4.
Mr. Crawford pointed out that the zoning issue (Case No. PH#36-05-2) received approval by a 7-1 vote from the Lake County Zoning Board. He explained that there are two issues. First is the Small Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to remove the Employment Center. Mr. Crawford showed a color rendition of the request (Applicant’s Exhibit A-2) and explained that the dealership property (Siviglia Family Limited Partnership) was purchased from Mr. Meyer. The second issue is the PUD for the commercial development of the same land (Case No. PH#36-05-2, the next agenda item). He stated that he would discuss Agenda No. 6 and 7 at the same time rather than give two presentations.
Mr. Crawford stated that his client, Mr. Joe Siviglia, owns and operates Toyota of Orlando, number 12 in sales out of 1,500 Toyota dealerships in the United States, which does sales in excess of $250 million annually. Toyota of Orlando generates about $2.5 million in local sales tax revenue. It employs over 200 people with an average salary of almost $40,000 for a payroll over $10 million. The sales force is completely salaried and the lowest wage earner starts at $9.00 per hour. Mr. Crawford clarified that the sales tax from new car sales goes to the county of residence of the buyer. Toyota of Orlando has had over 6,000 Lake County customers since opening and 2004 sales to Lake County residents were over $18 million. According to the business plan, Mr. Siviglia will spend between $14-$16 million on the facility. Mr. Crawford stated that projections show the Lake County dealership will do 50% of Orlando’s numbers the first year, 100% the second year and 150% by the fifth year.
Mr. Crawford explained that an information package, prepared by DRMP Engineers and the marketing study firm, was presented at the Zoning Board meeting. He gave a history of the area and of Mr. Siviglia’s purchase of the subject property. Mr. Crawford stated that the County’s zoning conformance letter states that it is Urban Expansion Land Use and would require rezoning for use as a retail car dealership. During the pre-application meeting, Lake County staff advised that the property is in the Clermont JPA and that Mr. Siviglia should talk to the City. Mr. Crawford stated that City staff advised Mr. Siviglia and his engineer that they did not want the car dealership and advised that the area is overlaid by an Employment Center designation which prohibits the retail car facility and which would require rezoning and a Land Use Plan Amendment.
Upon being hired by the applicant, Mr. Crawford stated that the plan was revised because both the County and City said they did not want wetland alterations or curb cuts on SR 50. The only access to the site is off Tiny Morse Boulevard and there will be a 50-foot wetland setback. He stated that he met with County staff to propose the Small Scale Amendment, taking out the 9.9 acres to be able to do the retail car facility. He explained that the auto body needs to be in a separate building, it is an allowed use in Industrial zoning, and he deemed that to be an allowed use in Employment Center.
Mr. Crawford stated that, at an April 12, 2005, Clermont City Council meeting, the City voted to send their usual letter indicating that they do not want to see any changes in land use until the LDRs and the Future Land Use Map are finalized. He read excerpts from transcripts of the April 12 meetings (C.A. Meyer and Mary Eddy/Extreme Groves) (Applicant’s Exhibit A-3). He concluded that the City knows how to say “no” to a request but, in his case, they took staff’s recommendation to wait by issuing their usual statement that they do not want to see any changes in land use until the LDRs and Future Lane Use Map are finished.
Mr. Crawford stated that, in finalizing the plan, two more issues surfaced. One issue is the frontage road and he again referred to Applicant’s Exhibit A-1. The PUD document says they will provide a frontage road with an entrance off Tiny Morse Boulevard at an existing intersection. Secondly, the trail is imminent along the CSX right of way. Mr. Crawford confirmed that they have agreed to donate up to one acre for a rest stop as part of the proposed South Lake Trail project. With 80,000 people a month on the trail, the applicant hopes to do some commercial development such as a yogurt or cappuccino shop.
Mr. Crawford proposed five additions to the PUD ordinance (Rezoning Case PH#36-05-2) as follows:
Provided, however, a portion of the Property, not less than one-half acre nor larger than one acre, located on the north Property boundary adjacent to the proposed South Lake Trail project, shall be dedicated to Lake County for use as a trail enhancement/park facility. The Owner and Lake County shall cooperate to provide improvements for such dedicated Property, which may include but not be limited to potable water for trail users (water fountain), shade canopy, landscaping, benches, and vending machines. The Owner may place a dedication/sponsorship monument sign on the dedicated property indicating sponsorship of the dedicated property by the Owner. Such sign or monument must be approved by Lake County Development Review Staff, must be a wooden or stone ground sign not to exceed 24 square feet, and must meet all applicable Lake County Ordinances.
All landscaping within the PUD shall comply with the applicable regulations of Section 9.01.00, Landscaping Standards, of the Lake County Land Development Regulations, and all Joint Planning Area standards applicable to the City of Clermont/Lake County Joint Planning area.
Additionally, a ten-foot landscape buffer meeting Lake County and Joint Planning Area standards shall be located between the frontage road and State Road 50.
Additionally, the applicant shall construct a frontage road connecting the properties to the east and west, to be located at site plan approval, and shall not be allowed direct access to SR 50. All project entrances and exits shall be to Tiny Morris (sic) (should be Morse) Boulevard.
Mr. Crawford presented 197 form letters of support signed by Lake County residents (Applicant’s Exhibit A-6). In summary, Mr. Crawford stated that this case is about what south Lake County’s front porch is going to look like. This is about providing over 200, non-industrial, good-paying jobs and providing needs and services to Lake County residents. He stated that the City’s objection was that they do not want it to become another used-car area that is not built to standards and he presented the last proposed language revision for the PUD ordinance, as follows:
Use of the site shall be restricted to automobile retail sales, service, and repair, and shall include an auto body repair and paint facility. Additional C-2 (Community Commercial) uses are permitted as well. Normal accessory uses related thereto may be approved by the County Manager or designee. No used car sales facility shall be allowed as a primary use, however, used car sales shall be allowed accessory to new car sales. Any other use of the site shall require approval of an amendment by the Board of County Commissioners.
In response to a question by Commr. Hill regarding what the City of Clermont does want in this area, Mr. Crawford explained that the Mayor has strong opposition to more car dealerships but there was no clear indication of what they do want to see there. He added that City staff wanted it to remain some sort of industrial employment center type use.
Commr. Hill asked if there might be five different dealerships in this area in the future.
Mr. Crawford stated that this issue was actually discussed with the City and he remarked that car dealerships do like to cluster. He stated that he knows the City does not want them strung out along the highway (SR 50). He explained that the existing curb cut could be a nice big boulevard entrance and there is room for four dealerships on one road. However, the zoning being requested today does not do that. Plaza Colina has applied for a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to take out their Industrial zoning. He remarked that Mr. Meyer is being crowded out by residential and commercial development. He stated that, eventually, they will request a Large Scale Amendment to take out the rest of the Employment Center because it is not appropriate anymore. There is no railroad but there are expensive houses and commercial uses.
Regarding the City’s zoning, Mr. Crawford presented the City of Clermont M-1 Industrial District and C-2 General Commercial District zoning regulations (Applicant’s Exhibit A-7). He explained that M-1 allows all uses permitted in the C-2 District and the C-2 allows automobile and truck services, car washes and automobile, truck, boat and farm equipment sales. He stated that, if this parcel were in the City of Clermont, with the zoning he has today, he could build a car dealership on it. He stated that this points out the futility of the City trying to say they do not want this in the JPA when it would be allowed in the City in the same zoning. He remarked that they do not think the Industrial uses are appropriate there now.
Mr. Crawford reiterated that the applicant is asking to build a $15 million car dealership to provide jobs and services and tax revenue to Lake County.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Stivender referred to the LPA minutes of May 19, 2005 (included in the backup material) and a statement by LPA member David Jordan who said “Lake County needs more revenue producing commercial development” and “…common sense should prevail.”
Commr. Pool commented that Clermont asked the County to wait for the JPA but then came back and said they wanted to see a Commercial corridor concept. He stated that he made the motion and voted against a Chrysler dealership in that area because the City of Clermont asked the Board to deny it. Then, the Mayor appeared on television in Chrysler commercials. Commr. Pool stated that he supports commerce, opportunity and jobs. He opined that the dealership will be an asset, not a liability.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Lake County Local Planning Agency and approved Ordinance 2005-60 for Case SLPA#05/4/1-2, C.A. Meyer, Jr., Jimmy Crawford, Esq., Tracking No. 35-05-SLPA, a request for a change in the Future Land Use designation of Employment Center to Urban Expansion for 9.99 acres.
Mr. Minkoff requested clarification that the motion included both cases (SLPA#05/4/1-2 and PH#36-05-2).
Commr. Pool confirmed that his motion did include both cases; therefore, the Board will uphold the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approve Ordinance 2005-61 for Rezoning Case PH#36-05-2, C.A. Meyer, Jr., Jimmy Crawford, Esq., Tracking No. 38-05-PUD, a request to rezone from HM (Heavy Industrial) and MP (Planned Industrial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development for Commercial Uses); including the five PUD amendments as proposed by Attorney Jimmy Crawford.
Commr. Stivender confirmed that her second agrees to that.
REZONING CASE PH#62-05-4 - SCOTT & HEATHER LAUDERBAUGH AND JOSEPH & RUTH BACK - TRACKING NO. 74-05-Z
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#62-05-4, Scott & Heather Lauderbaugh and Joseph & Ruth Back, Tracking No. 74-05-Z, a request to rezone 4.6 acres (two 2.3-acre parcels) from R-2 (Estate Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential) to allow the keeping of a horse. He showed the aerial map and explained that the two property owners are seeking the request for property in the Eustis area, near the intersection of County Road 452 and South Fish Camp Road. He stated that the applicant’s request is consistent with the policies of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; therefore, staff recommends approval of the request. The Lake County Zoning Board recommended denial by a vote of 7-0.
Regarding the unknown factor mentioned at the Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Kruse explained that the R-1 zoning cannot be conditioned for the number of animals. He further explained that, according to Mr. Bill Price, Lake County Agriculture Extension Agent, two acres of improved pasture is acceptable for one horse.
Discussion occurred regarding other animals in the area, other zoning classifications, and the fact that the rezoning could not restrict these owners or future owners.
Commr. Hill noted that the applicants or their representatives were not present.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and denied Rezoning Case PH#62-05-4, Scott & Heather Lauderbaugh and Joseph & Ruth Back, Tracking No. 74-05-Z, a request to rezone 4.6 acres (two 2.3-acre parcels) from R-2 (Estate Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential).
REZONING CASE PH#56-05-4 - RANDOLPH CHAVERS, JR. - TRACKING NO. 69-05-Z
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#56-05-4, Randolph Chavers, Jr., Tracking No. 69-05-Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential). He explained that the request is to rezone only 3.19 acres of the overall 13.19+/- parcel for the purpose of subdividing the parcel into four lots. He showed the aerial map and explained that one lot would remain a 10-acre Agriculture parcel, and three would be one-acre lots for Mr. Chavers and his two daughters. Mr. Kruse pointed out that, because this property is located in the Urban Compact Node, Non-Wekiva, on the Future Land Use Map, the family density exemption (family lot split) is not allowed. Section 14.11.01(D)(1) of the Land Development Regulations stipulates that only two lots may be created from a parent parcel through the minor lot split process. However, a variance to this two-lot limit may be granted by the Lake County Board of Adjustment. Alternatively, the four lots desired by the applicant may be created without a variance through the subdivision process established in Section 14.07.00 of the Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the applicant’s request for a rezoning to R-1 is consistent with the policies of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and recommends approval of the request. The Lake County Zoning Board recommended approval by a unanimous vote of 7-0.
Commr. Cadwell confirmed that the Board, if the request is approved, will not be creating the lots but would be changing the zoning which would allow Mr. Chavers to seek those lots.
Mr. Randy Chavers informed the Board that he plans to build a home on a one-acre lot on the corner, his two daughters will build homes on one-acre lots and he will eventually sell the remaining ten-acre Agricultural lot.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Lake County Zoning Board and approved Ordinance 2005-62, Rezoning Case PH#56-05-4, Randolph Chavers, Jr., Tracking No. 69-05-Z, a request to rezone 3.19 acres of the total 13.19-acre parcel from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential).
REZONING CASE PH#45-05-5 - HARBOR HILLS DEVELOPMENT
STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - GREG BELIVEAU, AICP, LPG URBAN & REGIONAL
PLANNERS - TRACKING NO. 55-05-PUD/AMD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#45-05-5, Harbor Hills Development, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Tracking No. 55-05-PUD/AMD, a request to amend PUD (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance #44-90 to add 150 additional dwelling units to the overall PUD. He showed the aerial map and read the Summary of Staff Determination. The current PUD Ordinance permits the site to have a total of 799 dwelling units consisting of 735 single-family units and 64 multifamily units on a total of 866 +/- acres. The applicants are proposing an amendment to add 150 dwelling units, a combination of single-family and multifamily, for a total of 949 dwelling units. Staff conducted a timeliness analysis using a two-mile study area and only 12.81% of the land within the study area is developed on lots one acre or less. The proposed amendment fails three of the five timeliness criteria, the proposed amendment is premature and staff recommends denial of the request. The Lake County Zoning Board’s motion recommending approval failed by a vote of 2-5.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that timeliness rules are written this way but this PUD is almost built-out and those rules do not make a lot of common sense here.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, commented that staff is taking a very good look at the timeliness criteria during the Comprehensive Plan process. Outside of the Green Swamp, timeliness criteria probably will be eliminated. If this was an independent piece of property, a different set of criteria would be used.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, asked the Board to approve this project adding the 150 units because they think it does meet timeliness. He showed a site plan prepared by LPG (included in the backup material) and stated that it meets all the other criteria. He pointed out that 98 units will be built in one interior area and 52 units will be added in another area near the water. He stated that they are not doing anything inconsistent with the plan the residents relied on when they bought their homes. He confirmed that they are only expanding within the Harbor Hills community and they have the support of the community.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, consultant for Harbor Hills and co-applicant for the request, clarified that 150 units will be added if timeliness is met. Fifty-two units, on one-half acre lots, will be on central water and sewer, and 98 units, on one-third acre lots, will be on septic tanks and central water. He stated that the net density will change from 1.06 to 1.29 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Beliveau confirmed that they are asking for a language change in the PUD for a setback of 25 feet of the primary structure on the canal lots and 15 feet for accessory uses which are pool and pool enclosures. He confirmed that 50 multi-family units that have not been built are being allowed to be built as single-family and additional units will be built when and if they meet timeliness. He stated that an environmental assessment of the two sites showed a few gopher tortoises and a traffic analysis found that there was no negative impact on any capacities on any of the road systems. He stated that a historical check of Harbor Hills showed that, at one time, nine kids were in the public school system, most years showed zero students and this year shows five students out of almost 500 units. He stated that the average price of the homes is about $400,000, those homes are subject to school impact fees because it is not an age-restricted community, and the community is a positive flow for the School System. Mr. Beliveau stated that the open space percentage will stay the same.
Mr. Richey noted that about 30 Harbor Hills’ residents are in the audience.
Mr. Richey and Mr. Beliveau confirmed that this property was included in the original PUD and was set aside on the Master Plan as Residential. Mr. Richey stated that development has been done in stages and these two areas are being developed last.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Robert Weist, a Harbor Hills resident, stated that, originally, the whole area was designated for 799 homes. Because the applicants are asking to increase it, they are talking about smaller lots, closer together, which will increase property values and will have an impact on the water because of more people. He stated that he would vote against the request.
Mr. Greg Thomas, a Harbor Hills resident, stated that he and his wife consider it a privilege to be current homeowners. He stated that the overwhelming majority of residents are professional and middle class retirees in two-member households. Only five children attend schools from Harbor Hills. He stated that there are 50 additional residences under construction with another 100 under contract. He stated that Harbor Hills residents are solid citizens who vote, pay taxes and support local service organizations, charities and churches. He urged the Board to support the application.
Mr. Geremia, a Harbor Hills resident, stated that the center of the community is the country club which is now 18 years old and in need of substantial capital renovations. He stated that the only feasible way to finance those renovations is with new members. He stated that they have been served by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) with a mandate to spend approximately $350,000 in conservations efforts on the golf club. That is a serious burden which enhances the importance of obtaining new members for the club. He urged the Board to support the application.
Ms. Pat Cople stated that, from the first time they looked at Harbor Hills, they were aware of the long-range plan for future development and the request for additional units is not a surprise. She stated that her one concern has to do with the water allocation. She stated that they have been advised by SJRWMD that their water allocation has been reduced by 38 million gallons over what was consumed in 2004. Since that time, additional housing units have been completed and occupied and more units are under construction. Other than the water allocation reduction, she stated that they have no objection to something they knew when they moved in.
Ms. Vicky Zaneis stated that she and her husband own a 120-acre farm about a mile and one-half from Harbor Hills and they are surrounded by hundreds of acres in open parcel and agricultural zoning. Some equine friendly developments are going in her area and will be good for Lake County’s tax base. She remarked that the Growth Management staff has been doing a good job in her area with the myriad of zoning variance requests but many poorly thought out proposals have not reached the BCC level and should be greatly improved before advancement. She stated that, because the Board knows how much residents value the rural areas and because Growth Management recommended denial of the request, they felt it was probably unnecessary to attend today’s meeting. Ms. Zaneis stated that some people think the approval of more homes is justified because the golf course, reportedly, is in the red. She stated that Harbor Hills is a gated golf course community where residents choose to live and the upkeep and maintenance should be borne solely by the homeowners. With regard to schools, she remarked that there is no guarantee in the future that there will not be a lot of school age children.
Ms. Zaneis stated that Harbor Hills has a long standing record of violating the water usage allowed by their CUP (Consumptive Use Permit) although the community is being encouraged to use less water. She stated that more houses will mean more water usage and an increase in the pollution assault upon Lake Griffin. Ms. Zaneis stated that Mr. Michael Rich, the developer at Harbor Hills, is sensitive to the problem of the curving, narrow, hilly, agricultural roads after having lost an employee in a car wreck. She expressed surprise that the roads are not an issue and she explained the different uses on the main roads and side streets. She stated that meeting a wide truck on Lake Griffin or Gray’s Airport Road necessitates driving partly off the road, often by both vehicles. She stated that the taxpayers, wildlife, Lake Griffin and the surrounding residents cannot afford to give the gift of higher density to Harbor Hills which was approved profoundly against the wishes of the surrounding agricultural community. She stated that prior approval was with the promise of a maximum of 799 units and, lacking proper roads and infrastructure, it should never have been approved in what was, and is, a dominantly agricultural area.
Ms. Zaneis stated that 150 additional units are not consistent with the growth plan that will best serve the County or its residents. She stated that the marks made by horse carriage wheels are cosmetic and cause no death or road damage and they hope to never have them disappear from view.
Mr. Harold Tassell, a seven-year resident of Harbor Hills, stated that there will be a time, perhaps five years from now, when Harbor Hills will have been built out. He stated that his only concern has been addressed and that is whether or not this is within the community’s current statutes. If fully within the community’s statutes, he stated that he has difficulty understanding why we have a significant question.
Mr. Harpo Zaneis, Friends of Lake Griffin, stated that he is impressed with the number of Harbor Hills’ residents, perhaps 1,200, who are not here today. He asked the Board to deny this request and he reminded the Board that he was here a few years ago on Harbor Hills’ previous request. He stated that the same reasons exist today that existed then and the Board denied their request then. Mr. Zaneis stated that Gray’s Airport Road, Lake Griffin Road and Griffin View Road are death traps. He stated that the infrastructure will not handle this high density development that is being proposed and the current zoning, one unit to five acres, will max it out. He stated that out-of-county developers are trying to circumvent the comprehensive plan and they want to add 150 rooftops, most on septic tanks, on the shores of Lake Griffin. He stated that three developments in their area are playing by the rules and are developing at one unit to five acres and the rural area can live with that.
Mr. Zaneis stated that this additional development will cause higher taxes because the infrastructure, eventually, will have to be improved. That means other Lake County residents are being asked to subsidize the clubhouse and the golf course. He reiterated that the Board voted for the citizens and taxpayers of Lake County last time. He asked them to do the same in order to preserve a little area of Lake County.
Mr. Tim Schott, a resident of Harbor Hills, stated that the horror story about the traffic problem and the roads is absolutely erroneous because Harbor Hills did a traffic study which showed no problems with the roads. He stated that Griffin View Drive has just been resurfaced and is no more narrow or unsafe than any other road in Lake County. He asked for approval of this request because it is a win-win situation for Lake County and the taxpayers.
Ms. Mary Huey, a Harbor Hills employee for almost eighteen years, stated that she is a neighboring property owner and was invited by Friends of Lake Griffin to participate in their group. She stated that she was a bit offended when she attended their meeting and heard their scare tactics. She confirmed that an employee was killed on Gray’s Airport Road but that accident was not a result of traffic on the highway because it was a single-car accident.
Mr. Michael Rich, developer at Harbor Hills, stated that SJRWMD reduced golf course watering because they felt too much water was being used. He stated that X amount of gallons per year per resident is given so, if more houses are built, Harbor Hills gets more water and approval of this request will not affect the water of any of the current residents. He stated that, if coming to the Board today, they would be able to get 999 homes under the PUD amendment. He stated that plans for a DRI (Development of Regional Impact) have been abandoned and it is now their intention to do an equestrian-type community, with one home per five acres, across the street. They will probably come to the Board within the next six months or one year with those plans. Mr. Rich stated that it is improper to use scare tactics regarding accidents. He stated that in the last two years he has never seen a horse drawn buggy or trailer with a horse on Lake Griffin Road or Griffin View Road.
Regarding improvements to the golf course, Mr. Rich explained that SJRWMD is asking Harbor Hills to establish a lot of micro sprinklers, take out all of the rough, create waste bunkers, and cut down watering. He stated that they hope to be able to turn over a viable club to the members. He added that residents are being asked to conserve water and are being asked to monitor their lawn sprinkling habits.
Mr. Richey reiterated information regarding the size of the proposed lots, costs and regulations associated with the golf course, water usage, school impact fees and no new children being added to the school system. He pointed out that, if declared an adult-only community, road impact fees would be lower. He stated that the last request that came before the Board for a DRI involved 1,500 more units but, with this request, Harbor Hills is only proposing to add 150 units within the gates of the community in the original PUD.
Mr. Richey confirmed that the percentage of open space along the golf course and the lake is staying the same because the land for these two areas was designated for residential in the original development order. He stated that the goal today is to increase the community to make the club house viable and maintain the open space.
Commr. Hanson commented that the Future Land Use is Suburban and asked, if it were to meet timeliness, what density would be allowed.
Mr. Richey replied that the density could go up to three units per acre but they are proposing to go to 1.29 units per acre.
Commr. Hanson added that the possible change in the Comprehensive Plan might allow one unit to the acre if timeliness is not met. She remarked that the density proposed today is close to that and certainly is much better than what was proposed several years ago.
Commr. Cadwell stated that there have been concerns that this might be the first step in continuing with the DRI and he asked if there definitely is no intention of doing that.
Mr. Richey stated that he, and the developer/owner, have represented that is not their intention. He reiterated that their goal is to develop the community that exists today, as he has represented, and use the property to the north for another independent community at one unit to five acres.
Commr. Pool asked if the wetlands will be disturbed in the area near the lake.
Mr. Richey stated that there will be no wetland impacts at all and reiterated that the area near the water will be under central water and sewer. He added that they could build 50 multi-family units now but they are asking that those be built as single-family residential. The density will not be changed.
Commr. Hanson commented that Harbor Hills might be the first golf course that has been required to retrofit under the new Lake County golf course ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that this request is more reasonable than the last one and the development will be internal.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2005-63, Rezoning Case PH#45-05-5, Harbor Hills Development, Steven J. Richey, P.A., Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Tracking No. 55-05-PUD/AMD, a request to amend PUD (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance #44-90 to add 150 additional dwelling units to the overall PUD.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
BUDGET – MILLAGE RATES FOR TRIM NOTIFICATIONS
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, presented the request to set millage rates for the proposed Fiscal Year 2006 budget, as discussed at the Board’s budget workshop July 25, 2005, to be included on TRIM (Truth in Millage) notifications, as follows, and to approve public hearing dates and times for September 6, 2005, at 5:05 p.m., and September 20, 2005, at 5:05 p.m.
· General Fund 5.7970
· Stormwater 0.5000
· Ambulance Fund 0.5289
· Voter Approved Debt 0.1000 (Environmentally Sensitive Lands)
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved millage rates for the TRIM notifications and public hearing dates as submitted.
REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY
LEAHY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request of the County Attorney for the Leahy Property Development Estoppel Certificate on the sale of property at Lake County Central Park for the purpose of assuring that no code violations or assessments exist on the property.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT #5
PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 5:05 P.M.
Commr. Cadwell announced that he will not be able to attend the Board’s 5:05 p.m. public hearings today.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3
LAKE JEM FIRE STATION
Commr. Stivender stated that she, County Attorney Sandy Minkoff, Public Safety Director Gary Kaiser and Property Manager Quinnette Durkin have been diligently working on a location for the Lake Jem Fire Station. She explained that the Board approved Resolution 2005-98 on June 21, 2005, to institute eminent domain proceedings for a site owned by Mr. W. T. Bland on CR 448 at Shirley Shores Road in Tavares. Since that time, Mr. Bland offered to donate a site which is about a mile farther east toward Orange County. Public Safety and Engineering staffs have visited the site to ensure it is a safe location. Commr. Stivender stated that the parcel offered for donation by Mr. Bland will save a lot of money and will put the fire station farther away from the Tavares JPA. She stated that the new location satisfies the concerns of the residents in the area.
Mr. Minkoff stated that it is a substantial, partial donation and will probably cost the County $30,000 to $40,000.
Mr. Kaiser stated that moving down the road 9/10 of a mile adds about 60-65 seconds to the response time into the Deer Island area. The other location was 3.4 miles from the Tavares Fire Station and the new location will open some possibilities to do first response with Orange County.
Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that the eminent domain case will be discontinued and negotiations will proceed with Mr. Bland on the new location.
REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER
PRESENTATION – JUDICIAL CENTER, JAIL AND PARKING GARAGE
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that presentations are being scheduled for August 30, 2005, with the short list of vendors for the expansion of the Judicial Center and the Lake County Jail and a parking garage.
EDUCATIONAL ELEMENT – LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, informed the Board that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will be establishing pilot projects for creation of an Educational Element for comprehensive plans. DCA will be assisting a number of counties in preparing the elements and going through the process in accordance with Senate Bill 360. He stated that staff has been communicating with DCA in an effort to be included as one of the pilot counties. The Lake County School Board may adopt a resolution or send a letter encouraging the inclusion and Mr. Welstead stated that he has asked the League of Cities to include the item on their August 12, 2005, agenda.
It was the consensus of the Board that the Chairman will send a letter to DCA asking that Lake County be included in the pilot project.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT #2
MISSION INN GOLF AND TENNIS RESORT
Commr. Pool reported that Mission Inn Golf and Tennis Resort in Howey-in-the-Hills sponsored and hosted a meeting of the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (EDC) yesterday. He thanked Mission Inn for sponsoring the event.
At 2:00 p.m., Commr. Hill announced that the Board will recess until 5:05 p.m. at which time two public hearings will be held.
ORDINANCE – ADOPTION OF JOINT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WITH THE CITY OF CLERMONT
At 5:05 p.m., Commr. Hill reconvened the meeting for a public hearing on a proposed ordinance for the adoption of Joint Land Development Regulations with the City of Clermont.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed ordinance, relating to the Adoption of Joint Land Development Regulations (LDRs) with the City of Clermont, on the floor by title only for its second reading. He noted that it will be Ordinance 2005-64 if adopted by the Board.
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.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2005-64 for Adoption of Joint Land Development Regulations with the City of Clermont as read, by title only, on its final reading.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the public hearing.
ORDINANCE – AMENDING DEFINITIONS AND SECTION 11.01.03(15) CONCERNING OFF-SITE/OFF-PREMISES SIGNS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed ordinance, Amending Definitions and Section 11.01.03(15), concerning Off-Site/Off-Premises Signs, on the floor by title only for its first reading. He noted that an ordinance number will not be assigned until a second reading is approved by the Board.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER II, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO LARGE POLE SIGNS FROM THE DEFINITION; AMENDING SECTION 11.01.03(15) LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO BILLBOARDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Pool for Board approval of the first reading of the proposed ordinance Amending Definitions and Section 11.01.03(15) concerning Off-Site/Off-Premises Signs as read, by title only.
Under discussion, Mr. Minkoff explained that the proposed ordinance will clarify the definition to prohibit all off-site/off-premises signs, whether they be pole signs, ground signs or otherwise.
Commr. Stivender asked if there would be a variance process.
Mr. Minkoff stated that an off-site sign advertising a subdivision would not be allowed to be approved under the regulations but he will look at the variance process regarding the sign application in question. He confirmed that there is a clause in the proposed ordinance that would allow the application for a variance. He added that staff has been interpreting the regulation that no off-site signs are allowed at all, generally, for commercial-type purposes.
Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion which carried by a vote of 3-1.
Commr. Stivender voted “No.” Commr. Cadwell was not present for the public hearing.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK