A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
The
Lake County Board of
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
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall,
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
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
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
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
The
Board members reviewed items that would set
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
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 –
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 –
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
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
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
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,
Commr.
Pool stated that the existing project, Magnolia Pointe, was approved by the
County; the City of
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
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
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
Mr.
Richey explained that
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
Mr.
John Ingersoll stated that he lives at The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks on
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
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
“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
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
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,
Commr.
Hill discussed the south part of
Mr.
Hartenstein explained that, in his conversations with Mr. Alton Roane, City of
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
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,
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,
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 –
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
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
–
LEASE
AGREEMENT/CITY OF CLERMONT/SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
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
ESCHEATMENT
OF TAX DEEDS
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
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
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
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
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
–
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
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
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
LAKE
Commr.
Stivender noted that Lake County Days in
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.
Commr.
Hill extended her thanks to Mr. Brook Slogan and Mr. Jim Granger for shadowing
the Board today as part of
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