A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

NOVEMBER 22, 2005

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 22, 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; Debbie Stivender; Welton G. Cadwell; and Robert A. Pool.  Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

            INTRODUCTIONS

            Commr. Hill recognized Mr. Jim Myers, City Director, Finance/City Clerk, City of Eustis; Mr. Darren Gray, Assistant City Manager, City of Clermont; and Mr. Ed Havill Property Appraiser.  She also introduced Mr. Brook Slogan and Mr. Jim Granger who are participating in the Leadership Lake County class, and they will be shadowing the Board today.

            AGENDA UPDATE

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that the Board has Addendum No. 1 with one budget item for the Sheriff’s Office, and one report item from the County Attorney.  She would also like to place one other item on the agenda under the County Manager’s business, a request by the Lake County League of Cities to accept the offer made by the County and the School Board to provide professional consulting services in connection with the school concurrency project.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place the item from the Lake County League of Cities on the agenda, as requested.

            Commr. Stivender wanted to know if the Sheriff’s item regarding annual increases is retroactive to October 1; Ms. Hall confirmed that the request is retroactive.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, under his business, he has a unique situation on Alco Road in Astor in regards to some directional signs, and it would require a vote.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place the item regarding directional signs on the agenda, as requested.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 8.

            Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell referred to Tab 7 regarding the contract with Faryna Grove Care and stated that this is the property in Umatilla that the Board purchased for the park, and they are probably going to wait a few more weeks to start construction because of the price of that fruit and to make sure they get it picked.

            Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, to approve the following:

            Community Development Block Grant Partnership Agreement/City of Tavares

            Request from Community Services for approval and signature on the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Partnership Agreement between Lake County and the City of Tavares.

 

Community Development Block Grant Partnership Agreement/Mid-Florida Community Services, Inc./Transport Senior Citizens

 

            Request from Community Services for approval and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Partnership Agreement with Mid-Florida Community Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00 to be used to transport senior citizens to congregate meal sites; and to direct the Community Services Department to execute the Agreement and oversee completion of the project covered in the Scope of Services.

 

Community Development Block Grant Partnership Agreement/Mid-Florida Community Services, Inc./Delivery of Meals

 

            Request from Community Services for approval and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Partnership Agreement with Mid-Florida Community Services, Inc., in an amount not the exceed $20,000.00 to be used to deliver weekend meals to homebound senior citizens; and to direct the Community Services Department to execute the Agreement and oversee completion of the project covered in the Scope of Services.

 

            Annual Plan of Service and Combined Budget/Library System

 

            Request from Community Services for approval and adoption of the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Annual Plan of Service and Combined Budget for the Lake County Library System.

 

            David Martin/Property Damage Claim

 

            Request from Employee Services for approval of an offer to settle David Martin's claim for property damage, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.

 

            Agreement/Florida State University-Florida Center for Public Management

 

            Request from Employee Services for approval to accept the Agreement for the Florida State University – Florida Center for Public Management to provide/facilitate the levels included in the Certified Public Manager (CPM) program to Lake County government employees, for the period of November 29, 2005 through April 30, 2007, which includes seven of the eight levels required to complete the program.

 

            Waive Bid Requirements/Contract/Faryna Grove Care and Harvesting/County Property

 

            Request from Procurement Services for approval and authorization for Procurement Services to waive bid requirements and authorize the County Attorney to negotiate and prepare a contract with Faryna Grove Care and Harvesting in Umatilla for the harvesting and selling of 100 acres of citrus fruit located on County property in Umatilla.

 

            Agreement/Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc./Unmarked Grave Sites

 

            Request from Public Works for approval of the amendment to the Agreement between Lake County and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide additional archaeological services to determine if anomalies detected adjacent to Lady Lake Cemetery are unmarked grave sites.

 

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

SHERIFF’S OFFICE/MERIT PROGRAM/BUDGET TRANSFER

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, addressed the request from the Sheriff’s Office to fund the conversion of staff raises from annual increases on October 1 to a merit program on the anniversary date and stated that the Sheriff had presented excess fees from his previous year’s budget, which was approximately $900,000; staff is using that to fund his request; the Board had asked that this be the way that staff handled the conversion; and the budget transfer will be approximately $612,000.

            Ms. Regina Frazier, Director of Budget, was present for the discussion.

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to commend the Sheriff for doing this because the Board has been trying to get the Sheriff’s Office to do this for years and, not only are they going to the anniversary date, it is going to be a merit program, which they have never had there.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from the Sheriff’s Office to fund the conversion of staff raises from annual increases on October 1 to a merit program on the anniversary date, and the associated budget transfer.

            TAX COLLECTOR/UNUSED FUNDS/AMBULANCE DISTRICT 

            Commr. Hill informed the Board that she got a letter from Mr. Bob McKee, Tax Collector, and he is forwarding a check in the amount of $2,597,436.32 which represents the BCC’s share of the unused funds for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005; and a check in the amount of $57,072.61 which represents the Lake County Ambulance District’s share of the unused funds.  Commr. Hill stated that the Board appreciates the way their offices are handled.

            Ms. Regina Frazier, Director of Budget, stated that staff had budgeted approximately $2 million.

LEAGUE OF CITIES/PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES/SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PROJECT

 

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, addressed the Board and stated that last month, at the October 28, 2005 joint meeting with the School Board and the cities regarding school concurrency, the School Board and the County offered jointly to fund a consultant for the municipalities.  The League of Cities is requesting that the Board confirm this offer, and they are ready to proceed with hiring a consultant.  He suggested that, since the School Board also made the offer, staff needs to get concurrence from them, with the Board’s approval today.  He will draft a letter to the School Board and note any action the Board takes today and, hopefully, they can place it on their agenda and take some action.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from the Lake County League of Cities to confirm the offer made by Lake County and the Lake County School Board to provide professional consulting services in connection with the school concurrency project.

PRESENTATION:  BRANDING INITIATIVE “TIME FOR UNITY” BY KEITH GOLD, PRESIDENT & CEO OF GOLD COMPANY

 

            Mr. Keith Gold, President and CEO of Gold and Associates, addressed the Board and introduced Ms. Linda Stat who is with their firm.  Mr. Gold stated that they are going to talk about the branding assignment that was awarded to them by Lake County.  He explained that there has been an outpouring of community support and involvement to lead to the conclusions that they have here today, and most of the Commissioners were involved in their research studies.  Mr. Gold stated that they are trying to have a unified graphic identity; a nomenclature system that is unified and cohesive for all parts of the County.  Mr. Gold noted that their presentation is going to take about 20 minutes.

            Commr. Stivender wanted to know if the Board would be making any decisions today, because this is the first time that she has seen the results of this assignment.

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that this is the first time that this has been disclosed, so it would be the Board’s choice; if they feel comfortable making a selection, then that would be welcomed.  Staff will proceed at the pleasure of the Board.

            Mr. Gold proceeded with his presentation to the Board discussing in detail the following topics:

I.          Branding Definition

II.        Gold at a Glance

III.       Branding Situation

IV.       Branding:  Steps and Results

           

·         Focus Group Studies

·         Natural Features

Ø      Countless lakes

Ø      Rolling hills

Ø      Natural amenities

·         Hometown Lifestyle

·         Central Location

Ø      Situated in the heart of Florida

Ø      Close proximity to Orlando

Ø      Just “far enough” away

·         Logo Designs Overall

Ø      Graphic Identity

Ø      Logo Design Research

Ø      Findings

Ø      Primary Symbols

Ø      Secondary Symbols

Ø      Non-Symbols – Unmentioned

·         Participant’s Design Concepts

Ø      Logo designs

Ø      Business papers

Ø      Nomenclature Overall

·         Descriptive Copies and Theme lines

Ø      Participants Copy

Ø      Concepts

Ø      Copy Explanation

Ø      Lakes. Hills. Horizons.

Ø      “Where the Best Comes Into View”

·         Tasks Remaining

·         Mission Vision Value Statements

·         Guidebook of Standards

 

            After the presentation, the Board members discussed the two options being presented and welcomed comments from the audience.

            Ms. Hall stated that, if there is a logo that the Board is happy and comfortable with today, and they feel comfortable making a decision today, that would be welcomed and staff would move forward and possibly build it into their holiday lunch.  If the Board would like to see others or, if they want time to think about it, staff could bring it back to the December 6, 2005 meeting.

            Commr. Stivender noted that the constitutional officers have their own logo, but she wanted to know if they had an opportunity to look at this to make sure it is going to fit in with theirs or whether they even want to see a change.

            Ms. Hall noted that staff included one of the constitutional officers in the focus groups; they were not included in the actual tweaking of the design; and they do have their own logos.

            Mr. Gold showed the Board how the logo would look on letterhead and, in regards to the discussion about the Lake County map, they explored that possibility and considered the comments made about it and, after reviewing many hours of tapes from those meetings, there was not one person on an unaided basis that mentioned the map.

            The Board members reviewed items that would set Lake County aside from any city, one being the map of the entire County, and they noted that the logo being presented today appears to be similar to many of the cities’ logos.

            Mr. Gold explained that, in the projects that they have done for other counties around the State, at some point in time everybody, if not every County, had the county map in their logo, and every client they have worked with has gotten away from it because most people do not recognize it.  He explained that they are trying to come up with something that is quickly and instantly recognizable; it is the people and natural amenities that make a county unique, not the outline of the county.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she likes the first logo, and she thinks it represents what Lake County is about but she would like to see it all put together including the descriptive copies and theme lines.

            Ms. Hall stated, if the Board is comfortable with this design as to how it actually fits into products, that is something they do not need to decide today but, if this is the design they are comfortable with, then staff can go back and start working on how it will fit into the different products and come back at a later time.          

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by 5-0 vote, the Board approved the first logo (as shown), and the descriptive lines presented with that logo, to be brought back to the Board to see how it fits on everything.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS: VACATIONS

PETITION NUMBER 1058 – DOROTHY LUCAS – REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN J. KAHLER – ALTOONA AREA – COMMISSION DISTRICT 5

 

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, presented Petition Number 1058 by Dorothy Lucas, Representative Martin J. Kahler, to vacate an unnamed road right of way, in the Plat of Hinson's Plan, located in Section 31, Township 17 East, Range 27 South, in the Altoona area – Commission District 5.  Mr. Stivender explained the location and stated that staff is recommending approval to vacate.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  It was noted that the applicant was present.  There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1058 and execution of Resolution 2005-197 by Dorothy Lucas, Representative Martin J. Kahler to vacate an unnamed road right of way, in the Plat of Hinson's Plan, located in Section 31, Township 17 East, Range 27 South, in the Altoona area – Commission District 5.

PETITION NUMBER 1063 – TERRY AND RUTH FURLOW – REPRESENTATIVE MARY LUDWIG – HAINES CREEK AREA – COMMISSION DISTRICT 1

 

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, presented Petition Number 1063 by Terry and Ruth Furlow, Representative Mary Ludwig, to vacate a portion of Portland Avenue and Southgate Avenue, Section 12, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, in the Haines Creek area – Commission District 1.  Mr. Stivender stated that these are part of the old rights-of-way in this area.  There are two access points that are unmaintained; there is trash and debris in the rights-of-way.  The property owners are requesting the vacation; they own on both sides of the road.  Staff sees a duplication of ingress and egress and recommends approval to vacate.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and filed pictures showing the dumping in this area noting that this is the problem they are trying to clear up in the neighborhood.  The Deputy Clerk marked and entered the pictures as Exhibit A for the Applicant (4 pictures).

            Mr. Stivender explained that staff has looked at the area and both roads are more less pathways through the area and places for people to dump things.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Hill stated that the request is in her district, and she has no problem with it.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1063 and execution of Resolution 2005-198 by Terry and Ruth Furlow, Representative Mary Ludwig, to vacate a portion of Portland Avenue and Southgate Avenue, Section 12, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, in the Haines Creek area – Commission District 1.

PETITION NO. 1064 – PAUL R. WILLS – REPRESENTATIVE FLO LANGE – SORRENTO/MT. PLYMOUTH AREA – DISTRICT 4

 

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, presented Petition Number 1064 by Paul R. Wills, Representative Flo Lange, to vacate an unnamed street, in the Plat of Mt. Plymouth Subdivision, located in Section 32, Township 19 East, Range 28 South, in the Sorrento/Mt. Plymouth area – Commission District 4.  Mr. Stivender stated that this plat was done in the 1920s and lot of these do not contain roads or cut betweens in the long roads in the area.  Staff is recommending approval to vacate.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  It was noted that the applicant’s representative was present.  There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1064 and execution of Resolution 2005-199 by Paul R. Wills, Representative Flo Lange, to vacate an unnamed street, in the Plat of Mt. Plymouth Subdivision, located in Section 32, Township 19 East, Range 28 South, in the Sorrento/Mt. Plymouth area – Commission District 4.

PETITION NO. 1065 – YVES G. AND MAGLIE J. NELSON – REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM C. ROWE – CLERMONT AREA – COMMISSION DISTRICT 2

 

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, presented Petition Number 1065 by Yves G. and Maglie J. Nelson, Representative William C. Rowe, to vacate a right of way, in the Map of Clermont Farms, located in Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2.  Mr. Stivender stated that this is an area that is rapidly developing.  He pointed out areas where lot splits have been built out and the location of subdivisions noting that this piece of right-of-way was left over and either not vacated or not included in any of these subdivisions.  Staff is recommending approval to vacate.  There was discussion about vacating more (Nelson property to the north) but this was the only one that could be worked out at this time; the portion to the west had already been vacated in a previous road vacation a few years ago.  He was not certain of the reasons why others did not want to participate.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. William Rowe, representative for the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Nelson was concerned about one of his neighbors putting in a pool and getting too close to his property.  They also had discussion about Mr. Nelson putting in a pool, because there is a lot of elevation there, and it could be very expensive, but that was Mr. Nelson’s main reason.  This was originally a 60 foot right-of-way; the plat itself took 30 feet when they bought it.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1065 and execution of Resolution 2005-200 by Yves G. and Maglie J. Nelson, Representative William C. Rowe, to vacate a right of way, in the Map of Clermont Farms, located in Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2.

            RECESS & REASSEMBLY

            At 10:05 a.m., Commr. Hill announced that the Board will take a 15 minute recess.

            REZONING

            Commr. Stivender disclosed that she had talked to individuals on both sides on agenda items 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

            Commr. Hanson noted that recently she has followed Commr. Cadwell’s policy of not meeting with the applicants or the opposition.  She thinks that the legal ramifications are becoming much more of a reality as they have seen in some recent cases but, prior to that, she disclosed that she did meet with individuals on Agenda Items 5, 7 and 11.

            Commr. Hill disclosed that she met with people on both sides on Agenda Items 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.

            Commr. Pool disclosed that he met with those individuals in favor and in opposition to Agenda Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13.

            Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he met in regards to Agenda Item 3 with the City of Lady Lake; Agenda Item 6 in regards to their postponement for today; and Agenda Item 13 on both sides.

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, stated that staff has some requests for continuances to present to the Board at this time.

REZONING CASE PH#100-05-3 – ROBERT BEUCHER, SONOMA CONSTRUCTORS, LTD, OWNERS – ROBERT BEUCHER, GENERAL PARTNER, SONOMA CONSTRUCTORS, LTD – AMEND PUD - TRACKING #119-05-PUD/AMD

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, informed the Board that, in case PH#100-05-3, Mission Inn/Robert Beucher, Charles Hiott, Farner & Barley, Tracking  #119-05-PUD/AMD, the applicants are requesting a 30 day continuance.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, with Potter, Clement, Lowry & Duncan, addressed the Board and stated that he is here on behalf of Mission Inn/Robert Beucher.  He stated that they have provided the Board with a letter requesting this continuance to December 20, 2005 to give them additional time to talk to some of the folks and to try and work out some of the issues in the case.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for postponement.

            Mr. Allen Brobst addressed the Board and stated that he is an adjacent property owner on two sides of this project, and the County has yet to notify him or anybody else by mail on what is actually going on at this location.  He stated that he was present at the Zoning Board meeting.

            It was noted that staff will check the file to see if notice was sent to Mr. Brobst, and Mr. Duncan noted that he will get his address from staff and make sure that they notify him as well from his office.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment on the request for postponement.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day postponement, until December 20, 2005, for Rezoning Case PH#100-05-3, Mission Inn/Robert Beucher; Robert Beucher, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Owners; Robert Beucher, General Partner, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Applicants; from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add acreage to existing Mission Inn PUD and amend the existing PUD Ordinance #2004-61; Tracking #119-05-PUD/AMD.

            Mr. Hartenstein stated, for the record, that staff has on file the appropriate legal advertising for this meeting.

REZONING CASE PH#87-05-5 – CHAD L. & KRISTIE L. PENLEY, OWNERS – CHAD PENLEY, APPLICANT – A TO R-3 – TRACKING #104-05-Z

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, informed the Board that, in Rezoning Case PH#87-05-5, Chad L. and Kristie L. Penley, Owners; Chad Penley, Applicant; Tracking #104-05-Z; the applicants are requesting a 30 day continuance to allow time to try and work out some road issues.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for postponement.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not think any of the parties were here today.  He spoke to the engineer on this project, and they are still trying to find a way to alleviate problems at the intersection, but they did ask for 30 days.  They are also moving forward with the understanding that the Board was not going to consider anything more dense than R-2.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day postponement, until December 20, 2005, for Rezoning Case PH#87-05-5, Chad L. and Kristie L. Penley, Owners; Chad Penley, Applicant; a request to rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential); Tracking #104-05-Z.

REZONING CASE PH#99-05-3 – DARRYL WROBEL/GREEN ACRES FERNERY & CITRUS, INC., OWNER – STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A., APPLICANT – A TO R-2 – TRACKING #116-05-Z

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, informed the Board that, in Rezoning Case PH#99-05-3, Darryl Wrobel/Green Acres Fernery & Citrus, Inc., Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #116-06-Z; the opposition is requesting a continuance.  Mr. Hartenstein stated that Mr. Steve Richey, P.A., has agreed that 30 days would be sufficient for him.  They have been working on some issues with the Friends of Yalaha.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that he received a letter requesting a continuance from people who have concerns, and he does not have a problem with the 30 day continuance.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she had talked to the applicant and tried to get in touch with Mr. Mark Winwood yesterday, and there are still a couple of issues that they need to clarify with the applicant; she thought 30 days would give them that time.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for postponement.  There being done, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day postponement, until December 20, 2005, for Rezoning Case PH#99-05-3, Darryl Wrobel/Green Acres Fernery & Citrus, Inc., Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential); Tracking #116-05-Z.

REZONING CASE MSP#05/10/1-3 – LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, LLC, OWNERS/APPLICANT – MSP FOR C&D – TRACKING #109-05-MSP

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, informed the Board that, in Rezoning Case MSP#05/10/1-3, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC, Owner/Applicant; a request for a Mining Site Plan (MSP) for a construction and demolition (D&D) landfill facility; Tracking #109-05-MSP; the applicant is requesting a 30 day continuance.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for postponement.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that, seeing as there are so many here representing opposition to the request, and that they had requested the continuance, he has agreed and is willing to move this case to December 20, 2005, to accommodate some of their concerns regarding folks being out of town.

            Mr. David Cimini, The Concerned Citizens of Old Howey, addressed the Board and thanked the Board for considering the delay in hearing the case.

            Commr. Stivender stated that the citizens have been holding meetings, and she has the same comments as she had on the other request, that she would like them to resolve this before it comes back to the Board on December 20, 2005.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment on the request for postponement.  There being none, the public hearing portion of  the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day postponement, until December 20, 2005, in Rezoning Case MSP#05/10/1-3, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC, Owner/Applicant; a request for a Mining Site Plan (MSP) for a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill facility; Tracking #109-05-MSP.

REZONING CASE PH#48-05-2 – DAVID WARREN AND CRA-MAR GROVES, INC., OWNERS – BJM ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT – A TO PUD – TRACKING #60-05-PUD

 

            Ms. Jennifer Debois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#48-05-2, David Warren and Cra-Mar Groves, Inc., Owners; BJM Associates, Inc., Applicant; a request to rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); Tracking #60-05-PUD.  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the applicant wishes to rezone the 272.16 acre parcel presently zoned Agriculture and Estate Residential and designated Urban Expansion with a Community Activity Center overlay on the Future Land Use Map for the creation of an age-restricted mixed use PUD.  The property is located in the Clermont area west of the intersection of SR 60 and Magnolia Pointe Boulevard approximately three-quarters of a mile west of the Orange County line.  In response to staff’s original recommendation of denial, the applicant has submitted an amended conceptual plan dated October 31, 2005 depicting 517 single-family dwelling units, 328 multifamily units, and up to 200,000 square feet of commercial development on 44.54 acres; a reduction from the 425,000 square feet requested in the original application. Even though the applicant obtained the necessary total points, Policy 1-1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan restricts residential development within the Urban Expansion land use category to a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre.  The parcel lies within the Lake Apopka Basin, so commercial uses shall be limited to those in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts.  Because this will be an age-restricted community, it will have little if any impact on the severely overcrowded public schools in the vicinity.  Prior to development, deeds and covenants shall be recorded to restrict occupancy to individuals 18 years of age or older.  Because the parcel is located within the Lake Apopka Basin, a 50 foot natural buffer shall be established upland of wetlands and between any development and shall be designated a “no-build” zone and maintained as noted in the Summary of Analysis.  The applicant originally requested a waiver to allow a 25 foot buffer in selected areas, with an overall average buffer of 50 feet; however, the conceptual plan did not show the location of those areas, nor did the applicant provide justification for it; this request has been eliminated from the development plan as submitted to staff on November 1, 2005.  Staff is recommending approval of the request.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, pointed out the location of the property in relation to surrounding properties and explained that this is a request for 845 mixed use houses; there will be townhouses, large lots on the lake, and smaller lots in the center of the property.  In their plan, they mirrored the same kind of development scenario that took place on Magnolia Pointe, which has larger lots on the lake, a center of smaller lots, and condominiums.  The frontage on SR 50 is being reserved for commercial and, as indicated by staff, it is limited to 200,000 square feet.  They were asked to meet and coordinate their efforts with the Magnolia Pointe Homeowners Associations and, after meeting with them, they came up with some amendments to the proposed ordinance that the Zoning Board recommended to them in a positive way.  Mr. Richey noted that Mr. Keith Shamrock was present, as well as approximately eight other individuals in behalf of MI Homes.  Mr. Shamrock has joined forces with MI Homes to develop this piece of property as an adult-only 55 community, which is the first retirement development that he has been involved in.  They looked at the market in South Lake County and determined that there was a market for this kind of community on an upper scale basis, because of its relation to Magnolia Pointe.  The minimum price range for a house will be $300,000 up to the $700,000 price range for lakefront lots.  Even though they will not be creating school children, they will be paying the two mills on the ad valorem tax base and all other assessments, which will amount to millions of dollars.

            Mr. Richey noted that there are representatives here from Magnolia Pointe, and he would like to review some of the concerns that were addressed with them.  He explained that they agreed to have half acre lots fronting on Johns Lake; they agreed to add in the ordinance, as shown in the new proposed document, Page 3, 2. Commercial, all C-1 and C-2 uses on commercial parcels except for adult entertainment, gas stations, automobile dealerships, automobile parts stores, car washes and automobile repair.  They asked them to put a wall along the property line between Magnolia Pointe and their property, and it will be constructed with masonry, and it will have buffering/landscaping on both sides of it.  All of this is in the agreement and will be built as Phase 1.  In regards to the commercial part of the development, the agreement asks them to try and not have the rear of buildings face Magnolia Pointe Boulevard but, if they do, then the wall will be extended to accommodate that rear building.  They have agreed to develop architectural standards consistent with the joint planning area (JPA) with the City of Clermont, and with Plaza Colinas.  They discussed the issue of transportation with staff and they are going to go through a concurrency evaluation, as they go through the platting process.  They are going to have inner-connect, as required by staff, from Magnolia Pointe Boulevard to the realignment of Hartle Road, which means they will have two signalized intersections that will serve this piece of property.  They will be held to the standards of the six-laning of the road with regard to their concurrency, and they are going to work with staff to make sure they are in compliance with those standards.  They originally filed on these 43 acres of commercial to have 425,000 square feet of commercial.  He has put a provision in the ordinance that limits them to 200,000 square feet but, should the Comprehensive Plan provide for additional square footage on the site, then up to 425,000 square feet shall be permitted.  Mr. Richey explained that they have the same kind of agreement as they did on the Hartle Grove property, which allowed the realignment of Hartle Road and, in consideration of the easement that goes across the front of this property; the City of Clermont will serve Magnolia Pointe with central water and sewer when it is developed.  Once this PUD is formalized and they know the exact number of units and amount of commercial, they will take that easement agreement and apply for the actual utility agreement with the City of Clermont, but there is an agreement right now that commits and obligates them to provide them with services.  He explained the realignment of Hartle Road and noted this will be a gated community.  He also noted that the ongoing litigation with Magnolia Pointe Boulevard would be resolved as part of this rezoning, and that he has not requested any variances to the access management rules, or other waivers.

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to know if the market plan that Mr. Richey did for the adult community was based on what he thought was the best market out there, or was it done to avoid the school issue.

            Mr. Richey stated that he wanted to avoid the school issue.  He offered 35 acres of this property to the School Board, and they chose not to have a school site there.  They went back and looked at the market to see if there was a need for the higher end retirement community and determined there was a market, so there was no need to address the school issue, because they had a market for the kind of high end product they were proposing.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that his long range concern is that a lot of folks will start to try to do that now, to avoid the school issue, and he wanted to know where the workforce housing and all other affordable housing will go.  He hopes that the development community is not in a rush to get ahead of the concurrency rule, because it is not good long range planning for them.

            Mr. Richey stated that he thinks the business community understands that they need to have affordable housing so folks can afford to buy a house and live and work here, as they try to diversify the economy. This particular project with these developers was done because they found a need, and it was something they have wanted to do for a long time.

            Commr. Pool noted that there is Kings Ridge and The Legends and both of those are almost sold out so demographically they recognized that there is still a demand for retirement type communities.  He agrees with Commr. Cadwell that they want to be very careful that they do not eliminate family opportunities, and he does not think they will as they go forward but this particular one helps the schools, because they will pay taxes, yet not impact those schools, and he thinks that Magnolia Pointe was happy to see this type of community.

            Mr. Richey submitted the new proposed Ordinance which the Deputy Clerk marked and entered it as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant; and the conceptual design (Exhibit #1) from BJM Associates, Inc. which was marked and entered as Exhibit A-2 for the Applicant.

            Mr. Egor Emery, Estes Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the request.  Mr. Emery stated  that, as he has said before, this is an urban development; it should be in a city; they are the urban service providers.  He has been participating in the Land Planning Agency’s (LPA) efforts to write the Comprehensive Plan, and he felt that Commr. Cadwell should be commended for raising some issues for long range planning.  The County has made several indications that it does not have the will to be in the urban services business and, if that is true, the Board should not be approving urban developments.  He stated that this is clearly an urban development; it should be under the purview of a city.  The County is going to be responsible for fire, ambulance, and other services that the taxpayer has to pay for those and, as a citizen paying taxes in the County, he does not want to pay for urban services; otherwise, he would live in a city.  He would like to see something in this agreement that the Board is apparently going to pass today mandating that these folks go into a city at the point the city wants to have them in.  He noted the bad situation in the Four Corners area of the County, and the fact that no services are available to those folks long term because there is no city providing the authority.  He urged the Board not to approve urban development unless they are going to be in the urban services business.

            Commr. Pool stated that the existing project, Magnolia Pointe, was approved by the County; the City of Clermont provides the water and sewer.  The agreement was that, once they are contiguous, they will be annexed and, therefore, at some point, they will be in the City of Clermont.   He explained that the JPA agreement says that these new projects will have the same setbacks, landscape, and buffering, and other consistent features of the City to ensure that what they see now, they will see in the City.

            Mr. Emery stated that, as a person who stood here many times arguing for the JPA, he commends them for having it.  He and many citizens share a concern and long term issue about the rate of growth that is outpacing their ability to provide services, both city and County, and he is saying to use every rule in their power to try and control this growth that is ruining their quality of life.

            Mr. Darren Gray, Assistant City Manager, City of Clermont, stated that he is here speaking on behalf of the Clermont City Council.  Mr. Gray stated that they did review this project in June 2005, and it came before them as a family community; now it has changed to an age restricted community.  The City Council did recommend to this Board that they do not increase any of the density, or make any changes to the zoning map, until their new Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map are in place at the beginning of 2006.  On the south side of SR 50, they are looking at residential professional, so this would kind of fit in but not at the density they are proposing.  In the last couple of years, the City has been looking at about 2.5 units per acre and, as Ms. Dubois explained, the residential component of this project is right at 4 units per acre, which they feel is way too much for this area.  The City of Clermont does see this area as part of the City one day.

            Commr. Pool stated that, taking into consideration the townhouse concept, which is considerably a tighter density, he personally likes 2.5 units per acre, but he knows that this mirrors exactly what is next door and was approved by the City of Clermont.  When the County approved Magnolia Pointe, they agreed that what they were providing would be something they would be happy to have and that is why they are willing to put water and sewer lines out there.

            Ms. Dolores Rivera, President of the Magnolia Pionte Master Association, addressed the Board and stated that she is representing over 480 families from the property adjacent to the proposed project.    She pointed out that the aerials they have been looking at show the low water level of Johns Lake that dropped several years ago when they, Magnolia Point, was probably in danger of becoming a golf course community, but that changed.  They would like to applaud the cooperation of MI Homes and Mr. Steve Richey who took the time to meet with the residents in their community to explain their plans and objectives, and they appreciate their cooperation in addressing their concerns and actually taking action to resolve issues.  They support the PUD and look forward to the community as a neighbor.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Mr. Richey explained that Magnolia Pointe is built at 2.5 dwelling units per acre and, if you take net versus the gross, their gross is basically 2.5 so they are consistent.  The density and intensity they have proposed is very consistent with what was proposed there; they tried to mirror them based on the Comprehensive Plan; and the overall density, the gross versus the net, will basically be the same in both communities.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she can understand the Magnolia Pointe folks wanting this to be just like their development, but she feels it is going to be pretty boring by the time they get through with it.  There is no clustering; it is just a subdivision; and even though it is a PUD, there are a lot more creative things they could do to make it a more interesting community and provide for more open space.  She is probably the minority on the Board today, but she will not support it the way it is being proposed today.  The density does not bother her, but she would like to see a lot more creativity and more of the smart growth principles and concepts incorporated.

            Mr. Richey stated that they tried to do that by having a mix of units and development; they put larger lots near the lake; they clustered the smaller lots in the middle; they clustered in townhouses on top of the piece of property to have larger setbacks and open space along the water front.  It may not meet the criteria, but it was designed not as just being the traditional “cookie cutter” approach but to be sensitive to the lake and to the larger lots on the lake, and to cluster more density away from the lake and allow them to have open space and setbacks on Johns Lake.  He noted that they are at the 25% open space requirement.  In doing the marketing analysis, the retirement community does not want large lots; they want the lots being proposed.  If this was a single family residential community, then he would think that the argument would carry a lot more weight but, because this is a retirement community, the smaller lots and the way they put them together in proximity to each other works for that kind of person they are selling to.  There are trade-offs and they have a strong amenity package, which will equal anything in any community that exists in the County today.

            Commr. Hill pointed out that they are going to redo Hartle Road with CR 455 and have their own entrance off of SR 50 and, with this being a gated community, she wanted to know if Hartle Road would be open to the public.

            Mr. Richey explained that Hartle Road will not be open to the general public; it will be open to their public to go in and out of.  They are going to disperse their traffic but they are not going to disperse traffic through their community, as noted on Page 6, G.2 in the proposed Ordinance (Exhibit A-1).

            Commr Pool stated that he and the residents appreciate the cooperation and collaboration between parties, and he thinks Magnolia Pointe is proud to have them as a neighbor.  He thinks this will be built out over a period of years, and it will be something that Clermont can be proud of and they will provide water and sewer.  It is actually 7.9 mills that the residents will provide to the School Board, which will add many more dollars into the community.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#48-05-2, David Warren and Cra-Mar Groves, Inc., Owners; BJM Associates, Inc., Applicant; a request from A (Agriculture) and R-2 (Estate Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development, Tracking PH#48-05-2, Owners; BJM Associates, Inc., Applicant; a request to rezone from A and R-2 to PUD, Ordinance 2005-95,  as presented in the revised Ordinance that included the restrictions of the commercial development (200,000 square feet); allowing for what Mr. Richey stated that they would not do; and all other comments from Magnolia Pointe Homes.

            Commr. Hanson voted “no”.

REZONING CASE PH#94-05-5 – ROBERT AND NANCY WILSON, OWNERS/APPLICANTS – CFD TO AR – TRACKING #111-05-Z

 

            Ms. Jennifer Debois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#94-05-5, Robert and Nancy Wilson, Owners/Applicants; Tracking #111-05-Z; a request to rezone from CFD (Community Facility District) to AR (Agricultural Residential).  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the applicants wish to rezone the 2.5 acre vacant parcel for single family residential use.  The property is located within the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area approximately one-quarter mile north of the intersection of SR 44 and West Huff Road.  The property lies within two land use categories, Wekiva River Protection Area Sending Area Number One – “A-1-40” and Wekiva River Protection Area Sending Area Number Two – “A-1-20”; it complies with neither; however, the property has been recognized as a legal building site through the lot of record determination process, as noted.  Staff is recommending approval.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  It was noted that the applicant was present.  There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#94-05-5, Robert and Nancy Wilson, Owners/Applicants; a request to rezone from CFD (Community Facility District) to AR (Agricultural Residential); Tracking #111-05-Z; Ordinance 2005-96.

REZONING CASE PH#54-05-5 – BLOUNT & MEYER PROPERTIES, LLC, OWNERS – STEVE RICHEY, APPLICANT – R-1 TO R-4 – TRACKING #67-05-Z

 

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#54-05-5, Blount & Meyer Properties, LLC; Steve Richey, Applicant; a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential District) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential District).  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the parcel totals 68 +/- acres and is located west of Lady Lake and US 27/441 on the north side of Lake Ella Road between Rolling Acres and Taylor Mill Roads.  The site lies within the urban future land use (FLU) category that permits up to seven dwelling units per acre; the requested R-4 allows a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre.  The applicant is requesting R-4 zoning to allow a residential subdivision; the development will be limited to four dwelling units per acre.  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the Town of Lady Lake has provided documentation confirming the availability of water and sewer services; central water will be available “as soon as DEP clears the line” and central sewer will be available within eight to ten months.  As noted, Public Works specified that the developer must provide a traffic impact study for their review and additional right-of-way dedication may be required and turn lanes will be required.  The School Board provided documentation stating that “The proposed rezoning has the potential to add 272 new single family dwelling units that will contribute 112 new students to the school system” based on information in the backup.  Staff recommends approval; the Zoning Board voted 4-0 for approval of the R-4; staff has received no written comments in opposition or support of this request.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that central water and sewer is coming from the Town of Lady Lake.  The parcel right next door is developing at six units to the acre; the applicant is asking for four units to the acre.  Mr. Richey stated that, if this property is developed in the County, he will represent to the Board and agree today that they will make this 67 acre parcel adult only simply not to create additional school children, while they go through this transition period; if it develops into Lady Lake, it may not be adult only.  He noted that Mr. Greg Believeau, LPA, is here today and has information on the schools.  If they annex into the City, which they are contiguous to at this point in time, they would be paying their additional fees, because they have a gap fee, and they would be dealing with schools through their process.

            Commr. Cadwell noted that he talked to the City about this request but, once they go into the City, he wanted to know if they are going to ask for a different density at that point.

            Mr. Richey explained that they would still be requesting four dwelling units per acre, not six, but it will allow families, and they will be on central water and sewer from the City.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he understands Mr. Richey’s logic for asking what he is asking for today but, if there was ever an area that needed workforce housing, it would be right there, and he is assuming that is what the City is going to want him to do.

            Mr. Richey stated that the City Manager has asked that they provide some workforce housing, but it is just a matter of timing and financing as to why he is here today, and he knows that they are going to develop in the City. They did not have to go to a Planned Unit Development (PUD); the property next door was being developed at a higher density; and there was not a need in this type of urban setting.  The City has a large park to the northeast of them, and they have their park area and open space as part of that.  He explained the reasons for the delay in the annexation noting that it will allow them time to proceed with their financing and construction loans while they annex the property over the next six to nine months.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that Mr. Richey has been straight forth with them and, therefore, it is probably not going to be adult only in the City but, by the time they go through the process, the Board should have the school concurrency issue resolved.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Rezoning Case PH#54-05-5, Blount & Meyer Properties, LLC, Owners; Steve Richey, Applicant; a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential District) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential District); Tracking #67-05-Z; Ordinance 2005-97.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that her concern is that it is not a PUD and, therefore, they do not have the same requirements for open space, and she thinks they need to get serious about this.  At one point they did require anything over 50 acres to be a PUD, and she thinks they should do that in order to be able to get the open space requirements, even in some of these smaller developments.

            Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote.

            Commr. Hanson voted “no”.

REZONING CASE PH#95-05-2 – DONNA AND STEVE COCKEFAIR, OWNERS – AMEND MP ORDINANCE #1998-57 – TRACKING #118-05-MP/AMD

 

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#95-05-2, Donna and Steve Cockefair, Owners; request to amend MP Ordinance #1998-57; Tracking #118-05-MP/AMD; to allow additional industrial uses.  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the parcel totals 0.80+/- acres and is located east of Groveland on CR 565A.  The current ordinance allows a mail order automotive parts service facility and a residential manufactured home; a manufactured home has not been placed on this property.  In addition to the existing uses, the applicants are requesting to amend the current ordinance to allow the additional uses of a truck yard (boat/trailer storage), self-service storage, professional office, consumer services and repair, personal care services, convenience retail, auto repair, vehicular sales, wholesale and warehouse, and light industrial.  Staff is recommending approval.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.  It was noted that both of the applicants were present.  There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#95-05-2, Donna and Steve Cockefair, Owners; a request to amend MP Ordinance #1998-57 to allow additional industrial uses, as noted; Tracking #118-05-MP/AMD; Ordinance 1005-98.

REZONING CASE PH#77-05-4 – WILEY C. DAVIS, JR. AND ANN DAVIS, OWNERS – ANTHONY ROBERTS AND WICKS CONSULTING SERVICES, APPLICANTS – A TO R-1 – TRACKING #88-05-Z

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#77-05-4, Wiley C. Davis, Jr. and Ann Davis, Owners; Anthony Roberts and Wicks Consulting Services, Applicants; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential).  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the applicants want to subdivide the 25.1+/- acres into a 25 lot residential subdivision, which equates to a density of one dwelling unit to the acre, which coincides with the allowable density per the Urban Residential Density Chart analysis.  Staff is concerned that two of the public schools that will serve the subject parcel are severely overcrowded, and the proposed rezoning has the potential of adding 25 new single family dwelling units, which will contribute ten new students to the school system.  The applicants are proposing to access the property from Wolf Branch Road utilizing the interior streets of The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks subdivision via an easement that was granted to Mr. Davis by Mr. Eric Coe, the developer of the Parks at Wolf Branch.  The Public Works Department has reviewed the deed, and it will be coming before the Board and, if the Board accepts it, it would move forward as a dedicated road.  As further noted in the Summary of Analysis, the Comprehensive Plan permits residential development in the Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) land use category to occur at a density up to 5.5 dwelling units per one net acre and shall use the development regulations that pertain to the urban land use category.  The applicants stated that individual wells and septic tanks will be utilized to provide services to the lots within the proposed subdivision.  Mr. Hartenstein pointed out language on Page 3 of the backup that had been struck out noting that it had been determined that this particular policy (Policy 1-1.6A and Policy 1-1.6B) of the Comprehensive Plan does not apply to this request.  The wells and septic tanks would be permitted through the Health Department, as long as they conform to Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code requirements and, therefore, it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Hartenstein pointed out surrounding properties and their zoning uses noting that it is all at a medium or low density.  He reviewed further information in the Summary of Analysis and noted that they have eight letters of opposition.  The Zoning Board recommended denial of the request by a 5-1 vote; staff recommends approval without consideration of the schools; staff is leaving the school issue at the discretion of the Board.  He noted that staff does not have an actual development plan, and he has no information pertaining to open space; it is straight zoning.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Harry Hackney stated that he is here on behalf of the applicants.  Mr. Hackney explained that this is a low density community that would be adding high end homes to the tax base in Lake County, and they will be developing a minimum lot size of one-half acre.  They made whatever provisions they could for open space, as shown. Another problem that the developers are facing are minimum setbacks in order to meet the requirements of the fire marshal; and in order to have wells and septic tanks, they have to have a minimum lot size of one-half acre.  The 25 acres they have to work with limits what they can do in terms of the amount of open space they can have in addition to the 25 homes.  The ordinance will provide for a park of not less than one-half acre, and this will be in addition to the perimeter open area they would like to provide as part of this project.  The biggest issue would be the addition of ten students to three schools and, of those three schools, Round Lake Elementary would have a total of five students.  The project would add $187,500 in impact fees, which would probably be enough to build a classroom for these ten students.  In addition, they are adding to the tax base approximately $12.5 million on these properties with a minimum value of $450,000 each.  These are 3,000 square foot homes on half acre lots and, assuming that all ten of those children attend public school, the impact on the school system would be minimal.  In addition, the information in the backup shows current zone waivers to be 91 and 17 of those students are coming in from the Orange County area as a result of an agreement with the Orange County School System.  The ten students would be less than the number of students that Lake County is already educating from out of the County pursuant to that agreement, so the impact to the school system would be minimal.  The analysis done by the school system shows the net surplus for homes with values in excess of $288,000 to be $334 a year; these homes are going to be closer to $500,000 so their net surplus will be in excess of $334 per year, therefore, they will more than pay for their impact on the school system.  Mr. Hackney explained that, in 1998, when the plat for The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks was approved, as shown in the highlighted area, a 66 foot right-of-way was vacated by the County to provide for the platting of that subdivision. The road, as shown, provided access to the Davis property and that is why they now have that easement from Dr. Coe; it replaces that access; it replaces what was lost in 1998 when the existing 66 foot right-of-way was vacated so the plat could be done.  Mr. Hackney requested that the Board approve the request for the R-1 zoning and, even though it is not on the agenda today, he would ask that the Board accept the deed that has been provided to them (in backup) and dedicated to the public.  Mr. Hackney presented the preliminary plat for Park at Wolf Branch Oaks Phase 1, and the Deputy Clerk marked and entered it as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant.

            Commr. Hanson wanted to know if there was any way to protect the oak tree that is located in the 66 foot right-of-way, and Mr. Hackney noted that there is a way.

            Commr. Hill explained that the Board has discouraged some areas not to have access from subdivision to subdivision, but it appears that they want to do this today and, in the South Lake area, they found that this was not a good idea.  So the Board has gotten away from doing that even though they do address this type of access on a case by case basis.

            Mr. Hackney pointed out that, in the 1998 Board minutes contained in the backup, the developer of The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks appeared before the Board for the vacation.  In regards to the two existing rights-of-way that needed to be vacated in order to develop that land, Mr. Davis would be given access that was as good as the access he was giving up to his property.   Mr. Davis also expressed concern about emergency services having access to the property and wanted to make sure that his property would not be devalued by the loss of that 66 foot easement.

            Commr. Hill noted that the backup information reflects that the road would be required to be brought up to County standards, so they could get fire trucks in there.

            Commr. Hanson questioned the percentage of open space, with Commr. Stivender pointing out that, on Page 19 of the Zoning Board minutes, it indicates that the The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks subdivision has 52 percent open space.  In this particular case, there will be 33 percent open space; 48 percent including roads.

            Commr. Hanson stated that this was the only semi-clustered subdivision in the County at the time, and it was very controversial but the folks that live there right now love it.  If it is approved, the road is not an issue because she remembers when that issue came up and it was a concern that they not cut off access to that property.  The density, one to the acre, is still reasonable and meets the point system, but she would not want to see it any less than the open space requirements of The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, so that probably would need to go back to the drawing board.

            Mr. Hackney explained that it might be difficult to do that without making substantial changes to the density and going to smaller lots; therefore, more homes would ultimately end up there because they would probably have to go to a PUD to make it work.

            Commr. Hanson stated that they could do it voluntarily but, to require it, it would have to be a PUD.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out that it would only be four percent, if they are using the roads and saving the oak tree.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she wanted it to be consistent with the open space of The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, and she was not sure that those numbers are consistent.

             Mr. Hartenstein explained, in response to Commr. Hanson’s comment, that this would be something that staff would have to look at during development review when they came in with a plat.  Because this is a straight zoning, they cannot put conditions on it; in order to condition it, the request would have to be a PUD.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Egor Emery, Estes Road, Eustis, addressed the Board and stated that, as a veteran of the zoning previously mentioned, The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, there were some controversial aspects of that but most of it was educating the public on the concept.  The concept was to provide actual open space owned in common.  He seemed to remember that the open space requirement for agriculture at that time was closer to 60 percent, because they ended up with 50 percent on this particular development.  He explained that the whole premise of The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks was to show a way to develop differently to provide open space, protect scenic views and majestic oaks in that area and, in looking at the parcel before them today, it is the old way, to cut up the property as much as possible, but this parcel ought to require significant open space, and the way to do that would be through the PUD process.  He asked that the Board not approve this zoning application today, because it should be compatible with its closest neighbor, The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, and it should have an open space design, which can be achieved by clustering the homes and dedicating some open space owned in common.  The applicant can do that with his requested density.  He noted that the well and septic is an issue in the Wekiva area.  He stated that this comes back to long range planning, and those folks ought to know what their area is going to look like based on the Comprehensive Plan; he does not think that it is particularly clear in this area.  He would like to see the new Comprehensive Plan show that a little bit better and to see more compatible developments with open space design.  The way to do that is to deny this today and force them to come back as a PUD, do an open space design, and think compatibility with their closest neighbors.

            Mr. Francois Tetu stated that he lives at The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, and there are many who disagree with this request.  Mr. Tetu submitted a Petition with approximately 53 signatures to reject the rezoning, and the Deputy Clerk marked and entered it as Exhibit O-1 for the Opposition.  Mr. Tetu discussed problems that exist with the older development noting that the developer has to go back and do repairs.  There are 116 houses that pay taxes, and they have water and sewer, and green common area and, to change the easement into a public road would be something that they would ask the Board not to do.  Mr. Tetu noted that he has an eight year old that goes to Round Lake, and she was number 90 on the waiting list for the after school program.  He explained that they have 65 percent green common area at The Park of Wolf Branch Oaks, which is more commonly known as conservation area in other states.  The houses are built on one-third acre parcels, and they are proposing to be connected to them, but they do not offer the same thing, so they are here today to protect their investment.  He explained that, when they bought their property, Round Lake was an “A” school, and the development was nice, and they were told that there would be no more than116 houses, and the easement was only for a single family home; now they want it to be public access. He did not see this as a win-win situation, or a common benefit, and he is here to defend what he owns.

            Mr. John Ingersoll stated that he lives at The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks on Cluster Drive.  He wanted to start out by saying that this is another developer, another subdivision, and another battle over crowded classrooms, and another group of children going to eat lunch at 3 p.m. in the afternoon.  He stated that school concurrency was an important concept to be considered three weeks ago when this case was heard by the Zoning Board and was denied by a 5-1 vote; Round Lake Elementary is still at 152 percent of capacity and not getting any better; new developments approved by this Board are not yet added to that total; Sullivan Ranch with 680 lots will bring in 272 students; Wolf Creek with 291 lots will bring in 117 students; Summerbrook with 571 lots will bring in 229 students; all of these will be enough to have a new school; and if you add all of these to Round Lake, it will be at 243 percent of capacity. Mr. Ingersoll noted that he has not included smaller subdivisions that will also impact it.  No more schools are planned to be built in the area, and no land has been purchased by the Board of Education.  He stated that school concurrency can help to alleviate the problem, if they concur with the new law in this transitional phase.  The petitioners in this case first requested R-2 zoning; then they requested a continuance to come up with a PUD; now they are here with an R-1 request; therefore, he asked the Board to deny the request today. The magnitude of this problem requires the County Commissioners and the Board of Education to work together with their constituents, the people who put them in office.  He stated that portable classrooms are a stopgap measure at best, and new facilities must be built; using schools at night and year round has not worked in a number of counties in Florida, as shown in his handout, and they should visit those counties where it did not work and see what they have to say before they use that in their plan for school concurrency.  As noted, Escambia County did away with year round school and found they were saving $380,000 a year; Marion County test scores went down with year round school; families had difficulty adjusting to different schedules; there was more teacher burnout; and more bussing with a 25 percent increase in cost.  As shown on Page 2 of his handout, Lake County tried it in 1991 but dropped the year round program, and he suggested that the Board talk to those who were involved at that time.  As a pilot study and the new concurrency law, Mr. Ingersoll suggested that they make wise choices by June of next year and set an example for all others to emulate and give them something that they are proud of.  If you build houses, you must build schools, and hopefully the schools will be built first.  He submitted the information about the different counties (2 pages), and the Deputy Clerk marked and entered it as Exhibit O-2 for the Opposition.

            Mr. Bill Hamon addressed the Board and stated that he and his wife are having a home built in The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, and he speaks in favor of the applicant to rezone the land north of where his house will be.  He is confident that one day somebody is going to build something there, and he would rather have $500,000 houses there than $200,000 houses, and he is afraid that might come into being if they do not approve this one house per acre program.

            Ms. Cindy Barrow, Voters Organization Involving Children’s Education (VOICE), addressed the Board and noted that, because she usually speaks about school issues, instead of going through her long presentation, she wanted to say ditto to Mr. Ingersoll’s comments.  When she was looking at some of the figures in regards to school crowding, she found that Mount Dora High School was supposed to be 22 percent under capacity at the end of this school year; now that same school is 24 percent over capacity.  Ms. Barrow stated that this particular development is what they have referred to over and over as the cumulative effect, and this gentleman has very effectively stated that and given the Board figures about what has already been approved and what is going to overcrowd these schools.  Ms. Barrow explained, when you discuss school concurrency, even if you have ten children that are generated from a development, if the school is 54 percent over crowded, this will be about one-third of a classroom underneath the class size reduction.  So they will not have the ability to say it is just ten students.  Ms. Barrow explained that no matter what size of home or cost of home, they still will not know how many children will be associated with that home.  She asked that the Board deny this zoning, and she continues to look forward to talks on school concurrency.

            Mr. Steve Husebye addressed the Board and stated that he and his wife have lived at The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks for about a year and a half and they really enjoy the area.  There are no clustered houses, so they can really enjoy the open space, the environment, and their neighbors.  Mr. Husebye stated that he speaks in opposition to the proposal as it stands for that development.  The road widths in the subdivision are about 18 feet wide, and there is not much room for a typical vehicle to pass one another.  The north end of this development area, the park, is dark; the roads are narrow and winding; there are no streetlights; there are no sidewalks; and people and children walk in these streets. If the Board approves this development and access through their subdivision, it will increase the likelihood of them attending a funeral of a child, because the children wait at the bus stop at the entrance to the park.  He was concerned about traffic and the dangerous situation this could create in terms of safety and asked that the Board not approve this request.

            Ms. Patricia Calamorie stated that she lives at The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, and Ms. Laura Ross, her neighbor, is here with her today.  She explained how concerned they are about their children and their safety and how they are just now of the age where they can allow them to go outside a ride their bikes.  She explained that the addition of homes will cause more years of construction and bring in more heavy equipment vehicles that will cause much damage to the roads.  Ms. Calamorie showed pictures of the road and explained her issues of concern pointing out that the petitioner does not live at The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, so they do not see how all of this will affect their quality of life.  They purchased their house so the kids could have this common area to play.

            Ms. Ross explained that they purchased their home in the neighborhood because they felt it was unique and she is very concerned about the roads being narrow and winding and not being made for passing and noting that their dog was killed by the traffic.  She explained that the neighborhood is very conducive to outdoor activity.  She also noted that her six year old is in one of ten first grade classes.

            Ms. Calamorie explained that 25 homes will double the traffic in this area, and they will bring many more strangers into their community, so they are opposed to the request.

            A gentleman addressed the Board but failed to give his name for the record. He explained that, when the people in this area bought their homes, they were told that there would be 116 homes on 99 acres.  Now they want to put a road through the top of the development and add 25 more homes.  Prior to the last Zoning Board meeting, their attorney, Jim Homich, had a conversation with Dr. Coe, and he told Mr. Homich it was his intention that only Mr. Davis would have the right-of-way, to have ingress and egress through the top of the development, and Dr. Coe put in writing that he was against anybody going in and out of that right-of-way except for Mr. Davis; now he is questioning why Dr. Coe has changed his mind.   They want to put a road through their development that will add more traffic; it will create a safety issue and a water concern; there are overcrowded schools; and all of this is only for them to make money.  He pointed out that next to the 25 acres is over 200 acres owned by Battaglia, and they know they will be turning that cattle/fruit property into development.  He is not against development on this 25 acres; he is against them putting the road through the middle of their development and creating all of these burdens on them.  They have a 13 acre park in the middle of their development, and they have 65 percent of common area.  The Board had already pointed out that they were trying to get away from development hopping, so to speak, and these people want to do exactly what they were trying to get away from.  In the development where he lives they do not have any lights or sidewalks and, when the County allows development to come in, they have to think about something other than money; they need to think about the schools and the impact on the people living in that development.

            Mr. Michael Olm addressed the Board and stated that his wife is Dr. Sharon Nickell-Olm and they are the builders of the last 38 to 40 lots in this area.  They have worked very hard at trying to help the people in The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks get their lights; he will be putting those in through Dr. Coe; and he has worked very hard in trying to get information to the homeowners.  They will do an upgraded landscaping of $25,000; there are seven or eight other items that he wants to do for The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks; and the landscaping in the front will give them a more complete community.  The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks has sidewalks, and they were designed as part of a PUD.  He explained that everyone involved with this project lives in the community, and he met with the residents to figure out what would make it a good community; he personally gave information to Mr. Tetu, and he built his house.  Mr. Olm explained that they are at 33 percent open space right now, and they are required to have half acre lots.  If he could shrink the lots, he would do it with the final drawings and give them more common area.  The people do not even use the walkways in the subdivision, as he has witnessed during his frequent visits to the site.  The traffic is reducing because of the builders are completing their projects.  He explained that five to seven lots were sold to Waterford Homes.  When you look at the drawings of the site plan and engineering plan, you can see that there is a huge area, 200 to 250 feet, that is open and it shows an ingress and egress going toward the property in the back.  Dr. Coe, in his homeowners association, had it set up so that he could add on to the park at any time he wanted to as long as he was still the developer, or in control of the homeowners association.  He went back twice to Mr. Davis to buy the property, but he rejected the offer.  Because Dr. Coe had access to the property, they are purchasing the property; Dr. Coe was going to develop that property and, with the way he worded the easements, he could have done it on his own.  According to the meeting in 1998, the Engineering Director said it was customary for people at that time to be able to have access from one subdivision to the other, to have inter-connects, as noted.  He feels that Mr. and Mrs. Davis have an opportunity to have that road given to them, because they approved to vacate those roads.  He explained other developments they have in the works and noted that he loves the clustering affect but until about two weeks ago, the fire marshal told them that the setbacks had to be 30 feet on the side.  The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks right now has five foot setbacks in the back.  He would love to be able to increase the lot by 15 or 20 feet and turn around and give them a few more feet for the homes, but the fire marshal dictated the conceptual drawing with a 30 foot setback on each side.  If they can reduce it and still get a half acre lot, then they can have more common area.  It may be reduced down to 15 feet because they are going to put fire systems in the house.  He voluntarily said he will upgrade the well systems and put $100,000 to $150,000 into their community well system, but the residents did not want to do that; he also volunteered a lot of other things.  He stated that they will work with the people in the homeowners association, and they are there for the people.

            Mr. Del Averdich addressed the Board and stated that he and his wife just bought a house at The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks last year, a large four bedroom home, and they bought it for more of an investment, because they do not plan on retiring in this area.  He has not been privy to the fact that their road was going to be a major thoroughfare into another subdivision, and he was not told this until just recently.  Also he did not know that their school system was in such bad shape but, to have a school system that is 153 percent overcrowded and, for him to buy a four bedroom home, he is concerned about his house values at this point in time.  He is also amazed how the developers glossed over the fact that there is only going to be about ten more students and, even though it might not be a lot to them, it will mean a lot to those kids and their parents if they do not get a good education at that grade level.  He was also concerned about the wells; there is one major well there now and they will be putting in 25 septic tanks.  Also people spray their lawns with pesticides, and he is concerned about that getting into the well system, but he has not heard anything about that issue.  He wanted to see a disclosure in the contract to purchase a home or property in these developments that tells the individual that these schools are over 100 percent capacity.  He is not in favor of this new subdivision.

            Mr. Mike Jeffes addressed the Board and stated that he is in opposition to this development.  The property owners have an attorney of record, Mr. Homich of Mount Dora, and it would have been nice if they or the attorney had been notified ahead of time by the attorney for the development or Dr. Coe.  Mr. Jeffes pointed out that one gentleman was upset over the letter that went to the developers rather than their attorney, which said “This intent was confirmed by Dr. Coe who said his intent as grantor of the easement was to provide only access for one single family home.”  As noted, it did not say 25.  He went on to say that Dr. Coe, in his letter to their attorney, says it was really for only one family, and now suddenly it shows up that it has been publicly dedicated as a road.  Mr. Jeffes stated that they do not actually have a homeowners association; they are currently in the 90 day phase.  They will have to confer with their attorney about whether or not this can be dedicated during the 90 day turnover, in which the developer turns the development over to the homeowners association.  Mr. Jeffes showed the Board two maps that came out of model homes; there is no easement indicated on them; they only show the accesses.  He explained that the PUD provides for 50 percent, which is a little over 60 acres in their development and is their common area.  He explained the area that allows for trucks to service their wells that is located in the northeast section; he pointed out other openings that allow access into specific areas to allow service; and he pointed out that the maps show no easement.  Mr. Jeffes read into the record the following from his e-mail to Commr. Hanson:

“I am not against development, after all at some point in time our development was created, however, I am against surge growth and over growth.  With development comes the responsibility for the community representatives to make sure that all resources and services are in place so that its citizens are well service.  It includes such things as roads, law enforcement, general community services, and especially the school system.  It appears from what is happening in our community at present, is that we are working backwards.  Lets build the homes first, then worry about everything else…”

 

            Mr. Jeffes stated that they cannot do anything about all of these developments that are in the development phase right now, but they can do something about this one.  They need time for the community to catch up and he is opposed to this development.  He submitted documents to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as follows:  two maps - Exhibit O-4 for the Opposition; e-mail to Commr. Hanson - Exhibit O-5 for the Opposition; and letter dated November 1, 2005 from James L. Homich - Exhibit O-6 for the Opposition.

            Mr. Tom Terrill addressed the Board and stated that the gentleman discussing the easement failed to mention that there is a 19 foot easement on the west side of their property that Mr. Davis has been using.  It is in the notes where the Commissioners discussed when they were getting ready to do the PUD for The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks; it is the only access that he had and the only access he used when he bought his property, so he has always had access in and out.

            Mr. Tom Potter addressed the Board and stated that he does not live in The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, but he takes exception to the rezoning.  He believes that growth is inevitable; it just needs to be controlled.  There are about six subdivisions within a five square mile that are being developed; the impact on the roads alone is going to be phenomenal.  He moved to Lake County 16 years ago, and Wolf Branch Road was the most prestigious thing out there; he sees the growth coming and it is not being managed properly.  The 200 acres west of the land in question is going to develop.  After they get through putting in these 25 homes and a road through The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, and 400 more homes, before they know it, it is going to be one massive urban sprawl, and they need to keep something green out there.  If they continue to develop like this, Lake County is going to look like Seminole County, and that is where he used to live.

            Mr. Anthony Roberts addressed the Board and stated that he is the applicant, and he wished that the residents had done as good a job talking to them about issues of concern as they have today.  He explained that they tried to work with them and, as far as the PUD, it was just a suggestion that was made at the first meeting with them.  There was a lot of other concern expressed by the additional homeowners in the development.  He explained that, with a PUD, they could do more than 25 homes and that is why they went with the R-1, to alleviate the concerns of people in The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, and they knew they would only do 25 homes.  They could cluster more and make more open space; they are at 33 percent now which exceeds the criteria for a PUD.  In order to do smaller lots, less than one-half acre, they would have to do a central water system.  The cost of the water system to them is not a burden to develop for the site; however, turning it over to these 25 individuals could create a burden for them in terms of maintaining the well, and it could be quite costly to them.  He noted Sorrento Springs and other similar situations.  They tried to be a joiner with the development to use their central water system, and they said they would pay for any upgrades and that would allow them to cluster more and be at a higher density.  They designed it at the highest maximum density by doing one-half acre lots with well and septic, per State requirements.  In regards to the easement, it was mandated by this Board in 1998 that Mr. Davis be given access to his property, in order not to diminish their property rights and, if the easement is not approved today, that will diminish their rights with or without the rezoning.  The residents in The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks are on septic tanks; they do not have a sewage system.  They are concerned about more septic tanks, but there are 118 of them there right now.  If they do not develop the property as residential, then the highest and best use may be agricultural; he would be more concerned about the possibility of having a plant nursery in this location that sprays pesticides and could be more detrimental to the community water system.  They also offered to put a school bus turnaround in there, even though the County said there are not enough children in the community, as a safety factor; this cannot be done pursuant to a letter to that affect from the School Board.  The 18 foot roads meet County standards and, as far as the streetlights, they will be put in during the last phase by Sumter Electric.  Mr. Roberts referred to the site plan in the backup and pointed out the preservation area around the development, to be dedicated to the homeowners; this will eliminate any further growth outside of this community.  The open space calculates to about 33 percent; if you factor in the roads, it is about 48 percent.

            Ms. Katheryn Rider addressed the Board and stated that their well is behind all of the homes in their subdivision and sewer does not run uphill like Mr. Roberts stated.

            Mr. Hackney re-addressed the Board to discuss the wells and referred to The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks Phase 4 Asbuilt, which was done in May 2003.  He pointed out the easement and open space, and the 200 foot circle that encompasses Lots 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 noting that all of those lots are required to have their septic tanks in the front yard, in order to stay outside of the 200 foot radius that is required.  The subdivision that they are asking for approval on will lie outside of that area completely to the west.  On the backs of those homes, there is a buffer area that is part of the open space.  He does not think that the wells are that big of a concern because there are 116 septic systems there whether they are uphill or downhill.  He addressed the concern over the generation of ten additional students and pointed out that $187,500 of impact fees will buy them more than one-third of a classroom, and this is a community that is going to have a net positive effect on the school system.  Mr. Hackney addressed comments made by other individuals and stated that this will certainly be a different subdivision in terms of each home having its own green space around it, and he feels that all of these people have respect for the fact that there are people and children and pets in a subdivision and all drive accordingly.  Mr. Hackney pointed out that there have been steps taken to accommodate the homeowners association and the people here today, and all of those changes have been a result of good faith efforts to accommodate people’s concerns.  He really did not feel there was an issue with the easement because, if you go back to 1998, they assured Mr. Davis that he would get access and, even though the Board had discussed having inner-connections in subdivisions, it does not change what happened in 1998 with Mr. Davis.  Mr. Davis wants to sell his property and one of the contingencies for that sale is this rezoning and the approval of the easement.  He asked the Board, whether or not they approve the zoning today, that they at least approve and accept the deed and the dedication of that 66 foot wide easement to the County, because that is ultimately an issue that has been settled.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            As The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks is being built out, Commr. Hanson wanted to know whether it is in compliance with the PUD.  She knows that the streetlights have not been done for the reasons mentioned.

            Mr. Hartenstein stated that at this point he did not know.  The Park approvals were done long before he was involved in it, and he does not know if there are performance bonds or maintenance bonds to that effect. 

            Mr. Minkoff explained that, at the time, Mr. and Mrs. Davis opposed The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks development, and the vacation of the easement; also the Battaglias did not necessarily oppose The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks development but they opposed the closing of the easement to their property.  As part of the agreement, Mr. and Mrs. Davis were guaranteed access by the developer and, in terms of paving it, in the minutes the Board did not require this developer to pave it and dedicate it at that time, as the future use of the Davis property had not been determined.  It was possible that at that time, the people did not know if Mr. and Mrs. Davis would stay there for 50 years or if it would ultimately be developed; the plans were uncertain.  It was the Board that imposed the requirement that Mr. and Mrs. Davis be given access through The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks property as a condition of the vacation.  It could have been fee simple to Mr. and Mrs. Davis directly which would have let them dedicate it later, or it could have been dedicated as a road.  From the minutes, there was discussion about how wide it had to be which was obvious because people were looking at it as a future roadway when they were discussing 50 feet versus 66 feet.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he is less concerned about the access issue than the school situation.  Even with just 25 homes, they have a school that is 53 percent over capacity, so it is hard to justify any more students there, at least until they have some type of vehicle, be it concurrency or whatever, that someone could use to deal with this issue.

            Commr. Pool stated that he agrees and whatever they do they want to make sure they provide legal access to the property; it is how this goes forward to allow them access.

            Commr. Hill stated she does not feel a sense of community here; it is not like the area where she lives and they go from one subdivision to another.  She has a problem with the schools and how they calculate capacity.  She knows that these may be August numbers, which may be totally different now, but she appreciates them showing the waivers, something she has asked for even in the Clermont area.  As they go through the concurrency process, she thinks that this is one of the questions, the waivers.  She has a real problem that there is not a sense of community here, and she does not know if it would get better with the development and the schools.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she mentioned earlier that her concern is not having the requirements the same as The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, the PUD that is currently in place.  She realizes that the cost could be higher per unit, and she knows it would need a central water system, and perhaps some of those things can still be worked out.  She would certainly want it to be a PUD, and she would want the open space to be the same as The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she thinks they need to have the consistency and, if they want a PUD in there, maybe they would want to postpone it and have them come back with one.

            Commr. Hanson made a motion to deny the request without prejudice, and Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that hopefully they will work out some of those community things because she thinks that this access road is going to go there, and she does not think that the road is the actual issue, but it is a legal issue.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the applicant has presented a deed to the County for the roadway area and asked the Board to accept it as a public right-of-way.  The Public Works Department has reviewed it in terms of title work and feels that it is a sufficient deed.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, if they have a sufficient deed, then they would discuss that issue if they come back as a PUD or an amendment to the existing PUD; that would be the time to do that.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that, if the County does not accept the deed, Dr. Coe could provide a deed to them directly rather than using the County as the grantee.

            Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion to deny the request without prejudice, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

            RECESS & REASSEMBLY

            At 1:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

REZONING CASE PH#97-05-3/4 – LES AND PATRICIA WILLIAMS, OWNER – LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A., APPLICANT – C-1 AND R-6 TO CP – TRACKING #117-05-CP

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#97-05-3/4, Les and Patricia Williams, Owners; Leslie Campione, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial District with limited C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Uses.  As shown on the map in the backup, most of this property is C-1; they want to incorporate this small triangle piece of property with their commercial piece of property. As shown in the Summary Analysis, the applicant wants to rezone the parcel to allow limited neighborhood commercial uses such as professional office, banking, medical service, personal care service, general retail, and convenience retail.   The property is located within the adopted Mount Dora Joint Planning Area and, on the rezoning application, the applicant indicates that the City of Mount Dora will be providing central water and sewer for the site.  Staff finds the request complies with all applicable provisions of the Lake Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of the request, with limited C-1 commercial uses, as shown in the attached ordinance.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Ms. Leslie Campione addressed the Board and stated that she is here on behalf of the owners, Les and Patricia Williams.  Ms. Campione noted that this is a matter of trying to round off the rest of this property.  There are no plans to expand the current uses, or build any new structures at this point.  In the event that additional structures will be built, the site plan would have to come through and at that point they would have to connect to the City’s water and sewer and more than likely there would be an annexation involved.  Basically they were doing due diligence for the purpose of them selling the property, and they realized that the triangle piece was not actually commercial although it had been cut out and made a part of this property.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH397-05-3/4, Les and Patricia Williams, Owners; Leslie Campione, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial District) with limited C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Uses, as shown in the attached Ordinance 2005-99.

REZONING CASE PH#96-05-4 – LOIS K. SMITH, TRUSTEE, OWNER – BRUCE G. DUNCAN, APPLICANT – R-2 TO CP – TRACKING #115-05-CP

 

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning Case PH#96-05-4, Lois K. Smith, Trustee, Owner; Bruce G. Duncan, Applicant; a request to rezone from R-2 (Estate Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District) for convenience retail, general retail, professional office, personal care service, and self-service storage uses.  The property is located within the City of Eustis Joint Planning Area (JPA) and City water and septic tank will serve the site.  Staff finds the request complies with all applicable provisions of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), but it does not comply with the commercial location criteria requirements contained in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-3A.1 (3)(a) Location, as noted in the Summary Analysis.  Based on the County classification of highways, S. Fish Camp Road is classified as a local road thus not meeting the location criteria requirements, as noted.  However, the property is located within the boundaries of the City of Eustis JPA.  After discussion with the City of Eustis Planning Department, it was confirmed that the City has S. Fish Camp Road classified as a collector, based on the surrounding developments utilization of that road.  Based on the commercial location criteria contained in the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends denial of the request.  If the Board chooses to look at it in terms of it being located in the City’s JPA and their anticipation that it is eventually going to become part of the City and utilize their classifications, then staff could recommend approval.

            Commr. Hill discussed the south part of S. Fish Camp Road and noted that she foresees this as a commercial corridor.

            Mr. Hartenstein explained that, in his conversations with Mr. Alton Roane, City of Eustis, he indicated that this is what they would entertain as commercial development in that area.  It was noted that the Zoning Board approved the request 6-0 with limited uses addressed in the Ordinance.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that he represents Danny Teems, the new owner of the property, and he provided staff with the amended owner’s affidavit.  Mr. Duncan explained that they are taking residential property off the map and replacing it with commercial, so they are eliminating residential units on this property.  He pointed out that there is also heavy manufacturing along the road, and a substantial amount of commercial that has already been approved.  The numbers they obtained were 27 homes in the City of Eustis in 2006; in the Grand Island area alone in the last year 1,900 homes have been approved in this particular area between the City of Eustis and the County, so it is clear there is a need for commercial.  Before they ever develop the property, they will most likely be in the City of Eustis and will be signing an annexation agreement for water and sewer when it becomes available.  As noted by Mr. Hartenstein, the City of Eustis seems to be okay with this project.  Mr. Duncan noted that the applicant is present and no one in opposition appeared at the Zoning Board meeting.  The resident that lives on the noted four acre parcel that is zoned agriculture has some concerns regarding potential issues, and he may wish to speak to the Board.  He pointed out that the area is actually contiguous to his property, and it is shown on their proposed site plan as being slated for a retention area.  In addition, they will be required to put walls between the residential and the commercial, to address buffering, as part of the site plan review and part of the Eustis JPA requirements.  Mr. Duncan stated that they have no objection to anything in the Ordinance.

            Mr. Bobby Blake addressed the Board and stated that he is the owner of the property that was pointed out by Mr. Duncan.  He is here looking out for the other people that live around him, because he feels that they were mislead by the information provided because it says that the property lies south of SR 44; actually their property is north.  He feels this should be postponed until these people are notified of this request so they can verify the proposed plans.  Mr. Blake noted that the applicant has indicated that there will be retention ponds, and he is looking at future crime and theft in this area, even though the applicant will be putting up walls in the front and back of the property.   Mr. Blake stated that, if houses were going to be built on the site, he would not even be here.  He submitted his Notice of Public Hearing, and it was marked and entered by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit O-1 for the Opposition.

            Mr. Duncan stated that, for a point of clarification, he wanted the Board to know where Mr. Blake’s property is located because the actual portion of the property that is contiguous to him will be the water retention area.  He pointed out that the wall will be required all along the back side between the residential and commercial, as shown.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr. Duncan has considered the end product in terms of all of the aesthetics because that is somewhat of a community there.

            Mr. Duncan explained that the criteria they will have to follow in Eustis are fairly stringent and pointed out the location of the commercial office, professional retail, personal storage, and location of the proposed walls.

            Mr. Hartenstein noted that the property was properly posted as shown in the backup, and legal ads were placed in the paper, but the notice is incorrect in the fact that the notice (Exhibit O-1) says “Property lying S of SR 44” and it should have said “N of SR 44”. 

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that there is some concern that the property owners in the R-3 would have gotten the card and not realized that the property adjacent to them was being rezoned, if it said south of SR 44.

            Mr. Duncan questioned whether the adjoining property owners were all notified within the 300 feet, the people that would actually be impacted by this request.

            It was clarified that this notice would have taken in all of the R-3 zoning but it would have told them that the property was south of SR 44.

            Mr. Hartenstein reviewed the Map Output used by staff for notifying surrounding property owners and, at this point, noted that he would have to review documents to make sure that all pertinent parties were notified; even though the card was wrong, it would not have changed who would have received the card.  Mr. Hartenstein submitted the Map Output, and it was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as Exhibit C-1 for the County.

            Mr. Duncan stated that they are comfortable moving forward; the property was properly posted; the advertisement in the paper was correct; the notice obviously did not have the correct delineation south versus north but all of the proper property owners were notified.

            Discussion occurred regarding the notice sent to the property owners and the correct property being posted with it being noted that the applicant is the one that would be at risk if the Board moves forward.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#96-05-4, Lois K. Smith, Trustee, Owner; Bruce G. Duncan, Applicant; a request to rezone from R-2 (Estate Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District, with the uses of the site limited to convenience retail, general retain, professional office, personal care service, and self-service storage; with the understanding that South Fish Camp Road would actually be considered a collector today, as it is considered that by Eustis; based on the determination of the City of Eustis and the actual use today; Ordinance 2005-100.

REZONING CASE PH#88-05-4 – VREJ MANOOGIAN, MANOOGIAN JOINT VENTURE, LLC, OWNER – LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A., APPLICANT – PUD TO R-1 – TRACKING #101-05-Z

 

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case PH#88-05-4, Vreg Manoogian, Manoogian Joint Venture, LLC, Owner; Leslie Campione, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to R-1 (Rural Residential); noting that the Board heard this case last month and staff is coming forward to clarify some issues on it.  At the previous meeting, on October 25, 2005, there was some information brought forward and it appeared that Dr. Manoogian’s property may or may not have been a part of the PUD.  Mr. Kruse stated that he has researched this issue, and the information shows that there is a Warranty Deed dated December, 2000 between Gladys D. Fortner and the Fortner Family Trust and Manoogian Joint Venture; the application was made in March 1, 2001; therefore, Dr. Manoogian owned the property prior to that PUD rezoning and was never a part of the request for rezoning.  His property was never rezoned as a PUD, and staff needs to now reflect this on the map.  Mr. Kruse submitted the copy of the Warranty Deed, and the Deputy Clerk marked and entered it as Exhibit C-1 for the County.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the Board needs to rezone the property back today to R-1, and it has been properly advertised; the end result would be as if it had never been changed in the first place.  In terms of verifying the information, Mr. Minkoff noted that Mr. Kruse really did a good job.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, addressed the Board and explained that they talked to the neighbors that had some concerns at the last meeting, and they went through the chronology of it and, by the fact that they did not call her between the last meeting and this meeting and did not come to this meeting, she takes that to mean that they came to the same conclusion that Mr. Kruse did when he researched the file.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board to approve Rezoning Case PH#88-05-4, Vrej Manoogian, Manoogian Joint Venture, LLC, Owner; Leslie Campione, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to R-1 (Rural Residential); Tracking #101-05-Z; Ordinance 2005-101.

            Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell wanted it clarified that this change is with the understanding that this basically gives the gentleman back what he had in terms of zoning.

            Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

REZONING CASE PH#98-05-2 – HIGHLAND REAL ESTATE, OWNER – STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A., APPLICANT – R-4 TO CP WITH LIMITED USES – TRACKING #113-05-CP

 

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning Case PH#98-05-2, Highland Real Estate, Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) with limited commercial uses consisting of a bank, carwash, consumer services and repair, medical service, professional offices, personal care services, restaurant, general retail, church, day care center, and/or family day care home.  As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the parcel totals 4.3 acres and is located between the City of Clermont and the Four Corners area off of US Highway 27; the owner wants to rezone the property to allow for light commercial uses to support the adjoining residential development.  Mr. Kruse noted that the owner applied for a change in zoning from R-4 to C-2 in 2003; staff denied the request based on the commercial location criteria; Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval during their May 7, 2003 meeting; the conditions that warranted the denial recommendation in 2003 are the same today.  As noted, the subject parcel does not meet commercial location criteria as outlined in Policy 1-3A.1:  Commercial Development in Land Use Classifications; specifically the parcel does not meet the requirements for a Neighborhood Activity Center that states the location will be “at the intersections of collectors, or at the intersection of a collector and an arterial.”  The parcel fronts on an arterial with no intersection of a collector nearby.  Mr. Kruse stated that information from Public Works has come forward to staff; it is a judgment call; the question is whether the Tradd’s Landing entranceway is considered to be a collector roadway.  From his standpoint, he still feels that it does not meet those criteria; therefore staff recommends denial of the request.  The Zoning Board approved the request by a 6-0 vote.  There are approximately 300 to 400 home sites in Tradd’s Landing.

            Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that he represents the applicant.  Mr. Richey stated that 18 months ago, this application was filed for rezoning.  It had a vacant field, as shown on the aerial map in the backup.  He pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission turned it down because it was premature; it was also for C-1 and C-2 uses.  They have come back in with an application because there are several hundred houses in the area, and they are trying to put a small commercial area there for such things as daycare and limited uses.  He noted that the subdivision located down the road had the same kind of intersection and the same number of houses, and the Board approved that for 125,000 square feet of commercial, based on the road entrance that mirrors this road entrance and number of houses.  They are asking for 37,400 square feet of commercial for those limited uses to serve this community that they are contiguous to; it meets the criteria; and the limited uses will serve that community rather than opening it up for all commercial uses; therefore, it qualifies as neighborhood commercial.  Mr. Richey showed the Board a conceptual plan for Tradd’s Commercial and submitted it to the Deputy Clerk who marked and entered it as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant.  He noted that they are working on an inner-connect but they have some indigenous environmental factors between the properties, maybe even pedestrian or golf course access.  Mr. Richey reviewed the land uses on Page 2 of the proposed Ordinance and noted that he would be happy to have the Board limit those.  He had noted items d, e, f, h, and j.

            Commr. Pool stated that there are between 300 and 400 homes on the ground in this area that can benefit from this scenario, and he sees many of these uses benefiting that location.

            Commr. Hill called for further public comment.  There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#98-05-2, Highland Real Estate, Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; request to rezone from R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial), with limited commercial uses noted d. Medical Service; e. Professional Office; f. Personal Care Services; h. Retail (General only); and j. Day Care Center; Ordinance 2005-102.

            REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

            LEASE AGREEMENT/CITY OF CLERMONT/SHERIFF’S OFFICE

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, presented the request for the renewal of the lease with the City of Clermont for the Sheriff’s space.  As discussed at the workshop, this is a one year renewal for him, and the Sheriff is still looking for a site.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from the County Attorney for approval of renewal of Lease Agreement with the City of Clermont for leased space for the Sheriff's Office at 882 DeSoto Street, Clermont.

            ESCHEATMENT OF TAX DEEDS

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, presented the request for approval of Escheatment of Tax Deeds for parcels where taxes were not paid.  When these are given to them, they will accept them and see if they can be used by the County or Affordable Housing and, if not, then they will be sold.  Staff is recommending approval.

            Commr. Hanson stated that rather than selling them, even if the County does not have a use or affordable housing, it may be possible to have some of those parcels designated for affordable housing.  If they open it up to the market, it might take away the potential for affordable housing.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that they are currently working with Homes in Partnership and Habitat, and they look at every parcel before the County sells them.  Staff is working hard to do that rather than sell them.

            Commr. Stivender requested that, in the future, staff provide the Board with a map showing the location of the sites.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that this request is only to accept the deeds; staff would bring any parcel back to the Board before it was sold.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Escheatment of Tax Deeds for Tax Certificate Numbers 3892/95, 1787/93, and 2409/93.

ADDENDUM NO. 1 –

LETTER OF AGREEMENT/NATURAL GAS UTILITY/COVANTA/CITY OF LEESBURG

 

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, presented the request from Jeff Cooper, Special Projects Administrator/County Administration, through Covanta, that would allow the County to actually buy the natural gas from the City of Leesburg for the waste energy facility, therefore, allowing them to avoid paying the sales taxes and other taxes on the gas.  Mr. Cooper indicated that it will save about $2,500 a month, or $30,000 a year.

            Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, for the Board to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Letter of Agreement allowing the County to place the natural gas utility for Covanta in the County’s name through the City of Leesburg.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that they need to thank Mr. Cooper for looking into this issue.

            Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

            REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

            CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRMS

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that that Board had asked that staff report back on the ranking of the construction management firms for the expansion of the judicial center, the jail, and the parking garage, and the ranking was as follows:  1) Centex Construction; 2) PPI Construction Management; and 3) Skanska USA Building, Inc..  Staff will be negotiating a contract with Centex Construction.  She recalled that it was a unanimous decision by the ranking team.

            Commr. Hanson noted that her son works for Centex and, even though she did not think that he will have anything to do with this project, she will abstain from the vote; Commr. Stivender noted that the gentleman who runs it does live in Lake County, and she thought that was a good thing.

            It was noted that the Board did not need to vote on this item.

            SCHOOL CONCURRENCY

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, addressed the Board and noted that the next school concurrency meeting will be December 5, 2005.  He needs to start preparing some position papers to present to the group next week, and he wanted to get some idea of what the Board’s positions might be on Issue 4 – School Siting and Infrastructure Requirements; and Issue 7 – Joint-Use/Collocation of Facilities.

ISSUE 4:  SCHOOL SITING AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

 

State minimum acreage requirements vary by school type – Discussion & Potential Positions

 

            Mr. Welstead referred to the information regarding State minimum acreage requirements and stated that, based on previous discussions of the Board, he did not really sense there was an issue with the size of the sites as much as infrastructure although, for some of the municipalities, that is certainly an issue.  He explained that it makes the sites difficult to locate within municipal boundaries, and the cities may have issues with that but having a larger site allows for more potential for collocation and joint-use facilities.  He reviewed some of the issues with the Sullivan Road site and the Conserv II site, as examples, and noted that he had included the size requirements dictated by State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF) in the information he provided to the Board.

            Mr. Welstead pointed out that the State would require eight acres; the School Board requires 20.  Commr. Stivender noted that, from talking to the gentleman with the Department of Education (DOE), it was her understanding that they do not look at all of the amenities that may go with the school; they look at hard costs for the structure and what they need for acreage; and if this is going to be a joint deal with the city and the County utilizing the facility, they may need 20 acres or more.

            Commr. Hanson felt that they should still look at the minimum size that the State requires and then add on to that number where they have more collocation of facilities, because it did limit the opportunities for school placement in the South Lake area where they were looking for 100 acres for different schools.  She thought the Board should still recommend using the State recommendations.  It was clarified that the State recommendation was for a “minimum.”

            In their discussion, it was clarified that the School Board has the ability to go on a smaller site, if they can certify that it meets all of the requirements, which does encourage community schools.

            Commr. Cadwell discussed the idea of the Board recommending that they use the SREF acreage requirements, and then a formula for the schools that will be collocated.

            After further discussion, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that it is really what the Board wants to negotiate because the School Board has adopted 20, 40 and 60; the question is whether the Board wants to negotiate to have them change that to be the State standards or some mix.  It was pointed out through further discussion that there would be a substantial difference in cost, and there is the issue with the School Board of having multiple uses on their sites.

            After further comments, the Board members suggested offering the language of taking out the mile or municipality boundary that says they go to those SREF acreage requirements and allow factors for expansion for collocation.

SREF contains criteria for consideration by SB when selecting/acquiring real property – Discussion & Potential Positions

 

            Mr. Welstead referred to the criteria that the School Board considers when selecting and acquiring real property noting that there are no specific guidelines associated with it; they just need to consider it.

            Commr. Stivender stated that this was part of the infrastructure discussion and what is going on now, and she feels they need to put in more stringent language as to who is going to pay for it, or if it is already established or not established.  She felt that it needed to say that they will meet these guidelines, not choose and pick what they want to do.  It was noted that it is strictly criteria, not a mandate.

            Mr. Welstead stated that the question is whether the Board wants to explore this as to whether these requirements should be more specific and whether the School Board would be held to specific criteria.

            After some discussion, Mr. Welstead clarified the comments of the Board noting that they want to explore these criteria to determine whether there may be some enhanced requirements or something else they need to include            in them.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that the schools are opposed to rezoning individual school sites.  They would like school sites to be an allowed use in all of the zoning districts.  Perhaps in allowing them to do that, if the County agreed that the infrastructure was sufficient or agreed on a plan for putting infrastructure in, it would be an alternative negotiation strategy so that they would not have to do rezoning, but the Board would still get to approve the infrastructure as an alternative.  That way the Board would not have to do any specific issues; they would look at each school on a site by site basis.  As clarified, if they eliminated the requirements for a full rezoning and made schools an allowed use in zoning districts but required that the Board agree that adequate infrastructure was available, then that would be all they would do, if infrastructure is their only issue on school location.  He further noted that the contract would say that they would not buy the land unless the Board agreed that there was adequate infrastructure, or if they agreed on a plan on how to provide infrastructure.  Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board may not choose to embrace that position but that is certainly something to give them in exchange for getting a commitment for infrastructure.

            Commr. Cadwell explained that, even with the County’s own property, they go through rezoning, and he thinks they need to think long and hard about it, because no matter how stringent that list can be, that other factor is not there, and that is how it is compatible with the community and, at the end of the day, that is what this Board decides most of the time.  He stated that they can have that discussion with them, but he would be real careful with giving up their ability to have those zoning cases, even though not all counties do it that way.  He also noted that it needs to be done with the understanding that this agreement is going to be signed by 14 municipalities and, in his opinion that is not a road they want to go down.  It was noted that they allow schools in any land use category.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that, in the new rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, there was discussion with the Land Planning Agency (LPA) to limit that and not allow schools in rural areas, so he does not know what their recommendation will be to the Board.  He noted that is was strictly discussion.  The current draft in front of the LPA allows only elementary schools in rural areas; it would not allow middle or high schools.

            Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director of Growth Management, addressed the question asked by Commr. Pool as to what constitutes rural and explained that staff is trying to resolve this issue with the update to the Comprehensive Plan because, the way it is written right now, it is small “rural”; not capital “Rural” like the land use designation.  Staff over the course of time has interpreted it as being in the rural category, one unit to five acres.

            Mr. Minkoff pointed out that the Board is going to get the Comprehensive Plan, so that is all subject to change at this point.  He noted that, as an example, Conserv II is rural, so it would take a Comprehensive Plan change to put a high school there under the draft that they are looking at.

            Mr. Welstead explained that he is proposing to put together a list of potential positions for discussion, things that the Board would like to look at during the negotiation process.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the School Board already owns property in the Wekiva that could be appropriate for a school, which is a concern; it has an elementary school; it was 55 acres; so it was enough land for much more than just the elementary school.  She noted that it was originally purchased for elementary, middle and high schools, so it was already zoned but whether they could put a new school there would be a question but that is land that could be utilized any time.  She is just concerned about the interpretation of that.

            Commr. Pool wanted to know, if they meet all of these criteria, would there be a reason the Board would deny it, and Commr. Cadwell stated absolutely if it was not compatible with the neighborhood.

            Discussion occurred regarding the need for the list of criteria, with Mr. Minkoff explaining that there is a State Statute that says, if the School Board picks a site that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Board cannot deny the rezoning; all they can do is put conditions on it.  If they are going to make compatibility with the neighborhood a requirement for school siting, they will have to place it into the Comprehensive Plan in order to use that as a grounds to turn down a rezoning.  The draft of the Comprehensive Plan allows elementary schools in rural areas and allows all schools in other Comprehensive Plan districts.

            After some discussion, Commr Pool explained that he would have a better comfort level if the criteria list was broad enough and covered all issues and then he could say that it would not have to come to the Board.   It was pointed out that the criteria listed came out of the State requirements; Commr. Pool suggested that the Board develop their own list of criteria.

            Mr. Welstead presented the Board with a copy of the State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF) and noted that they were not necessarily specific.

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to know if the majority of the Board was willing to say, if they have a list of criteria and the schools meet them, then they are not going to have zoning hearings, because that would be the question.

            Mr. Welstead did not feel that staff needed to have a decision on that issue today; just the potential that the Board would consider not doing rezoning.

            Commr. Pool explained that the Board has denied one location for a school, and now they are in litigation because they denied rezoning, so the School Board does not agree with them. He does not have a problem with them having the ability to rezone, but he is saying that, if there is criteria that they believe should be included then it should be added to the list.

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that it seems that there would have to be some process to determine whether they actually met the criteria because, once you have an entire list of criteria and they say they met it, then they would need to have some way of being comfortable with it, and she thinks that it would have to be built into the Comprehensive Plan.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the Board would have to prove that they met the criteria; if they approved it, then they would go forward and, if they had a disagreement, they would have to have a dispute resolution process, which the legislation calls for.  There are other ways to do it and it is really a matter of who gets to make the decision.

            Commr. Pool felt they should give the School Board a minimum criteria list but do not give up the rezoning and to make that the argument.  Even though Commr. Cadwell really wanted to agree with Commr. Pool, he could not yet get to that point, because he felt that this would be an issue with the School Board.

            Mr. Welstead stated that he did not feel that the Board needed to make a decision today, but Mr. Minkoff stated that, if they did not make a decision today on this issue, then they will need to have another meeting before December 6, 2005.

            After further discussion, it was noted that the Board will go into the meeting with a list of criteria, and the parcels would still have to come to rezoning, as the Board’s negotiating position.

            ISSUE 7:  JOINT-USE/COLLOCATION OF FACILITIES

            Joint Use – Discussion & Potential Positions

            Mr. Welstead addressed the collocation of facilities noting that currently the School Board allows some entities to use their facilities.

            Commr. Pool stated that he would stand firm on the fact that these are public facilities and, with proper insurance and other items that they need in place, those facilities ought to be accessible to the general public.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out that it is a countywide policy and not up to the individual schools to make the decision, and Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the County participates in the capital funding.

            Collocation of Facilities

            Mr. Welstead suggested that any new school must consider potential joint usage, EMS, fire, park, anything where the County will help with capital dollars.  He also noted that, when they consider a new site for a fire station or Sheriff substation, they need to look at their facilities, as well, to see whether it makes sense to collocate.

            Mr. Minkoff referred back to the issue of joint use and questioned whether a fall back position would be to make the facility available to other governments, the cities or County entities, and not just to the public.

            It was noted that the potential position of the Board would be to require the School Board to allow use of any facility during non-school hours for any community group or individuals willing/able to pay costs.  After some discussion, it was noted that they need to establish some language, or a policy decision will need to be made at the School Board office, to uphold this decision and address responsibilities such as hours of operation and cleanup.  The Board also brought forth the issue of charter schools and private schools, with it being noted that these would have to meet the same criteria in terms of rezoning requirements.

            Mr. Welstead noted that this would involve removing the discretionary authority from the principal for utilization of facilities by qualifying entities, with the Board noting that it should be a policy by the School Board.

            The Board members noted that they were comfortable with the potential positions for collocation, as presented.

            Mr. Welstead noted that, because of the holidays, staff will expedite the results of the discussion today and provide it to the Board as soon as possible.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT #5

            EMERGENCY ROAD REPAIRS

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to clarify the direction the Board gave to staff after the workshop on roads, that the Public Works staff was instructed to go forward with the emergency road repair using general ad valorem funds.

            The Board members agreed to this clarification.

            ASTOR/OFF-SITE SIGNS

            Commr. Cadwell reported that, in Astor, there is an area on Alco Road that falls into recreational/commercial; there are about three businesses on approximately nine miles of road.  Pursuant to the current sign ordinance, they are not able to put up off-site signs.  He wanted to know if the Board could look into the possibility of putting up some type of directional signs for businesses that are in the rural areas in these types of locations, with the individuals paying for the County signs.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he would like an opportunity to meet with the Growth Management Department and look at this type of countywide program.

            Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve to direct staff to look at this type of countywide program, as noted, and bring something back to the Board.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hill questioned whether this would apply only to Alco Road, with it being clarified that staff would be reviewing this as a countywide program.

            Commr. Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

            Commr. Cadwell asked that this item be expedited.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT #2

            RESOLUTIONS/JAMES B. GREENE AWARD

            Commr. Pool reported that Mr. Edd Holder’s name has been put forward for the James B. Greene Award through the Economic Development Commission (EDC), and they would like something from this Board supporting his efforts and wishing him luck in his candidacy.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place this item, as noted, on the agenda.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 2005-201 supporting Mr. Edd Holder’s efforts in his nomination for the Economic Development Commission (EDC) James B. Greene Award.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT #4

            WATER ALLIANCE/ORLANDO UTILITIES COMPANY

            Commr. Hanson reported that she attended the Water Alliance meeting last week, and there was a partial settlement with Orlando Utilities Company (OUC) that they have a letter from the Board stating, if certain facilities are implemented, that the County will participate.  The letter needs to be submitted by January 1st.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reported that Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, has asked Ms. Blanche Hardy, Director of Environmental Services, to do an agreement item for December 6, 2005, to bring that forward prior to the end of December.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether this needed to be taken back to the Water Alliance at their next meeting.

            Mr. Gregg Welstead noted that he and Ms. Hall have looked at the agreement, and it does not require that it go back to the Water Alliance, but Commr. Hanson explained that it may not require it but, if there is actually a financial commitment, they would want to make sure the cities are involved.

            Mr. Minkoff noted that going forward does not commit them to anything other than to negotiate.  It was noted that they have one year to negotiate and the Water Alliance will meet again on December 14, 2005.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3

            STATE ROAD 50/ERIC RAMIREZ HIGHWAY

            Commr. Stivender reported that she and Commr. Pool attended the dedication of a portion of SR 50 going from Mascotte to Sumter County, and she wanted to thank Commr. Pool for being there; it was dedicated and renamed as the Eric Ramirez Highway and Senator Carey Baker was there to do the presentation.

            LAKE COUNTY DAYS

            Commr. Stivender noted that Lake County Days in Tallahassee have officially been changed to February 13 & 14, 2006.

            It was noted that staff will look at the Board’s schedule for the workshop meeting.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT #4

            PERSONAL THANKS

            Commr. Hanson extended her appreciation to the Board members, as well as others, for their contribution to Hospice on behalf of her mom.

            LEADERSHIP LAKE COUNTY

            Commr. Hill extended her thanks to Mr. Brook Slogan and Mr. Jim Granger for shadowing the Board today as part of Leadership Lake County.

            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 2.48 p.m.

 

 

 

__________________________

JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK