A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JUNE 25, 2002

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Robert A. Pool, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; Jennifer Hill; and Debbie Stivender. Commissioners not present: Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman. Others present were: William A. Neron, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

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

Commr. Pool noted that Commr. Cadwell is attending the Florida Association of Counties meeting and will not be with the Board today.

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to add under her business, for discussion, the naming of the new Records Building (the old First Union building) after James C. Watkins, Clerk of the Courts.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place the item regarding the naming of the new Records Building, as noted, on the agenda for discussion.

Commr. Cadwell was not present.

INTRODUCTIONS

Ms. Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk, introduced to the Board Ms. Judy Whaley, who is a new employee in the Board Support Office.

AGENDA UPDATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that Tab 2, the public hearing regarding impact fees, has been postponed until July 9, 2002 at 9 a.m. He further noted that there is an Addendum Consent agenda that has been distributed to the Board.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present, the Board approved the County Manager's Consent Agenda, Tab 1, and Addendum No. 1, for the following requests:



Community Services/Resolutions



Request from Community Services for approval and signature on Proclamation 2002-98 commemorating June as National Homeownership Month.



ADDENDUM NO. 1



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Deeds/Subdivisions



Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Silver Creek subdivision, all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Silver Creek subdivision plat; a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Zureiq Investment Company, Inc.; a Letter of Credit for Performance in the amount of $935,814.00; and a Conservation Easement Deed from Zureiq Investment Company, Inc. Subdivision consists of 116 lots - Commission District 2.



Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Grants



Request from Solid Waste Management for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Amendment No. 1, to extend the grant term from June 30, 2002 to December 31, 2002, for the grant agreement between Lake County and Florida Department of Environmental Protection to assist counties to develop an on-going electronic products collection and recycling program.



PUBLIC HEARING

ROAD VACATIONS/RESOLUTIONS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Road Vacation Petition No. 963 to vacate streets in the Plat of Villa City. Mr. Stivender noted that the area in question is wooded and staff is recommending approval to vacate. He stated that it appears there is no legal access to the lake, because it does not really connect to the shoreline, and there is no visible road there at this time.

Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the request from Public Works for approval of Petition No. 963 by Jeff Carlino and approval and execution of Resolution 2002-99 to vacate streets in the Plat of Villa City located in Section 31, Township 21, Range 25 in the Groveland area - Commission District 3.

Commr. Cadwell was not present.



REZONING

PETITION PH#23-02-5 - RITA AND CHARLES CLINTON - RITA CLINTON - C-1 TO R-1 - TRACKING #43-02-Z



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case PH#23-02-5, Rita and Charles Clinton, a request for rezoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-1 (Rural Residential) for a single family residence. Ms. Farrell stated that the parcel is located in the Umatilla area and is a little over one acre in size. It currently has commercial zoning that is inconsistent and they are requesting R-1 zoning for the construction of a single family home. Staff is recommending approval of the request.

Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case No. PH#23-02-5, Rita and Charles Clinton (Rita Clinton), a request for rezoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-1 (Rural Residential) for a single family residence, Tracking #43-02-Z, Ordinance 2002-51.

Commr. Cadwell was not present.

PETITION PH#27-02-5 - MARK AND KAREN BAUMGARDNER, LAKE HERMOSA CHURCH OF GOD - TRACKING #46-02-CFD - A TO CFD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case PH#27-02-5, Mark and Karen Baumgardner, Lake Hermosa Church of God, a request for rezoning from A to CFD for construction of a church and associated uses. Ms. Farrell stated that this is a ten acre site in the Lady Lake area, and staff is recommending approval of the request. She stated that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it 10 to 0.

Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicants were present, and no one wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#27-02-5, Mark and Karen Baumgardner, Lake Hermosa Church of God, a request for rezoning from A to CFD, for construction of a church and associated uses, Tracking #46-02-CFD, Ordinance 2002-52.

Commr. Cadwell was not present.

PETITION PH#14-02-2 - HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUCTS CO. INC., CHARLES W. GREGG AND WARREN KNIGHT, GREATER CONSTRUCTION CORP., STEVEN J. RICHEY - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORDINANCE - TRACKING #27-02-PUD/AMD



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case PH#14-02-2, Holly Hill Fruit Products Co. Inc., Charles W. Gregg and Warren Knight, Greater Construction Corp., a request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance #1999-64, to allow for townhomes and 125,000 square feet of commercial uses. Ms. Farrell explained that this is a 190 acre site with an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) on it. She explained that they have two requests, to add townhomes, and to add some commercial on the site, but staff cannot support the request for the 125,000 square feet of commercial at this particular location. Ms. Farrell stated that the Comprehensive Plan designates a commercial corridor and, in the backup, there is a small map showing that the corridor is designated basically south of CR 474 all the way to the US 192/SR 530 interchange. The site in question is north of the designated corridor, and staff cannot support commercial in this area, because it does not meet commercial locational criteria. She stated that, not only is it outside of the corridor, it is not at an intersection. Staff is supportive of the townhomes, but the commercial uses would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission approved the request by a 5-4 vote.

Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and noted that, at the P & Z Commission meeting, the entire request, for townhomes and commercial uses, was recommended to the Board with a positive vote. Mr. Richey stated that he would like to call Mr. Doug Metzger to go through the request, and to present to the Board evidence as to why they feel it meets the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Richey explained that, for commercial locational criteria, the Comprehensive Plan allows them to provide marketing information to establish the need for additional commercial, and therefore, they are going to present to the Board information that justifies this request.

Mr. Doug Metzger, Glatting, Jackson, Kercher, Anglin, Lopez, Rinehart, Inc., Orlando, appeared before the Board and described the location of the property, as shown on the site aerial. Mr. Metzger stated that the applicant started planning this project about ten years ago. In 1994, R-4 zoning was approved for the parcel; in 1999, the PUD zoning was approved to allow the large scale project more flexibility to adapt to the changing development conditions in south Lake County. The PUD zoning, as shown on the approved Orange Tree plat, included a request for 55 foot lots and 75 foot lots, as well as short term rentals, and it was approved for 665 single family units, at a density of about 3.5 units per acre. After watching the market for three more years, they decided it was time to readdress the plan and look at including a different housing type, and some commercial to service the area surrounding this particular project. Mr. Metzger showed the Board the PUD Amendment/PUD Master Development Plan and explained the different phases of the project, noting that Phase 1 is existing and under construction, and Phase 5, the townhouse parcel, will consist of 20 acres and 160 units; and Phase 6, the commercial, will consist of 13.2 acres with 125,000 square feet of commercial. Mr. Metzger stated that, because planning practices and development patterns have changed in this area, it is important to create mixed use interconnected projects to alleviate some of the traffic congestion, and to better serve the residents. The proposed plan has 330 single family units and 160 townhouse units; for a total of 490 residential units, which is 175 less residential units than the current approved plan. If the request today is approved by the Board, the density will be about 2.5 units per acre instead of 3.5, and it will have 125,000 square feet of commercial, which will be classified as a community activity center under the Comprehensive Plan regulations.

Mr. Metzger stated that they were contacted by the homeowners of The Savannahs subdivision, and they met with them on two different occasions to address their concerns. He reviewed the site plan, as it was presented at P & Z Commission meeting, which showed the commercial parcel with the retention pond on the north, and the townhome parcel. He stated that they had their first meeting with The Savannahs Homeowners Association the night before to discuss their concerns about buffering, and the applicant presented a plan that contained a 50 foot buffer, as opposed to the required 25 foot buffer, with a wall ten feet off of the property line. They held a second meeting with the homeowners after the P & Z Commission meeting, which resulted in more modifications by the applicant. The residents had expressed some concern about the retention pond, so they agreed to extend the wall over to the U.S. 27 right-of-way and, from a site plan perspective, they rotated the northern units 90 degrees. There is 280 feet from the northern property line to the edge of the commercial structures and, with the distance separation, it will cut down on the light and noise, as well as change the neighbors' views across the pond. While they have a 50 foot buffer in the townhome parcel, there is also a 20 foot alley, and a ten foot building setback, which puts the structure approximately 80 feet south of the property line. The County discussed with the applicant the concept of having a Winter Park Village on a smaller scale so, in modifying the site plan, they reduced the size of the anchor tenant from 65,000 to 50,000 square feet and created more out buildings on the south connections into the site. At this time, he explained the road network, in terms of the connections between parcels, the commercial, and the central park, and their creation of a pedestrian oriented environment.

Mr. Richey explained that they will maintain the orange tree buffer along U.S. 27 through a maintenance agreement with the grove owner. He explained that it was always their intention to keep the trees, but it was not clear on the prior plan, so this has now been clarified. He further explained that, up until last year's rewriting of the landscape ordinance, orange trees were not allowed as part of the buffer, but they got an exception to maintain the orange trees when they did the original PUD. Mr. Richey stated that Technical Review Committee (TRC) asked them to go back through the plan and justify the need that they had discovered in this area, and to show how the market had changed. At this time, he asked Mr. Metzger to explain the results of that evaluation.

Mr. Metzger stated that the firm prepared a corridor development analysis using a two mile radius and looked at the service area of the project. He noted that the comments made by the TRC requested a market study. He pointed out that there are 6,618 homes approved in the two mile service area radius, which will provide a population of about 15,000 people. He stated that, based on their experience, and the experience of the applicant, they felt that the development conditions were favorable for commercial development, and it is an appropriate spacing between the commercial areas. He stated that 125,000 square feet appears appropriate to serve their development, and the surrounding developments within the two mile radius, and it will affect the traffic patterns, because they are proposing a mixed use.

Mr. Richey stated that they will be asking that the site plan, with the conditions as discussed, be attached to the ordinance as their preliminary PUD drawing.

Mr. Richey presented to the Deputy Clerk a packet of drawings that were shown to the Board, which were entered and marked as Exhibit A-1 (composite - 10 pages) - for the Applicant, and a copy of a letter dated June 13, 2002 from Mr. Brent Lacy, Senior Transportation Planner, and a copy of a letter dated June 19, 2002 from Mr. Robert A. Mandell, Chairman and CEO, Greater Construction, which were entered and marked as Exhibit A-2 (composite - 2 letters) - for the Applicant. Mr. Richey called Mr. Brent Lacy to give testimony.

Mr. Brent Lacy, Senior Associate with Glatting, Jackson, Kercher, Anglin, Lopez, Rinehart, Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that he manages the land development traffic planning group for the company. Mr. Lacy explained that he has been qualified as an expert to testify in traffic matters, and his experience includes ten years with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). For about 18 years, he has focused on land development and environmental impact analyses. Mr. Lacy testified that he had an opportunity to look at the plan being proposed today, and his focus on the analysis of this plan and evaluation of its impact was based on two comments in the original staff report, which were the comments that staff based their recommendation for denial of commercial. The first comment focused on the increased trip generation that was anticipated from this project. Mr. Lacy stated that he will not disagree that the raw trip generation rate from the combination of all of the commercial traffic, and townhomes and residential, will not produce an initial estimate of traffic that is twice what the residential would be, but they have to analyze the traffic based on its characteristics. Mr. Lacy reviewed the graph showing the traffic characteristics and explained the different types of trips used to develop their evaluation and noted that there are two pieces of the traffic that are reduced from the overall net based trip generation. They were able to show that, by using the ITU trip generation manual, and the new approved and adopted handbook, which is designed to address mixed use development, the net new traffic on the roadway system would only be approximately 100 new trips a day, and as few as three to five trips during the peak hour. So the one statement in the staff report that said the trip generation would double is only true in terms of the total person trips.

Mr. Lacy testified that they looked at the criteria used to establish the classification of roadways, which was a strong point in the argument against the approval of the commercial development, however, he requested and received a copy of the criteria that the County staff uses for classification of roadways. At this time, Mr. Lacy reviewed, in great detail, the information shown regarding the classification criteria and stated that, in looking at the County criteria, he felt that an argument could easily be made that this criteria does apply to this roadway showing it to be at least a minor, if not a standard collector. He stated that he went further and looked at the Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Street (AASHTO), and the final reference he used was the Smart Growth Transportation Guidelines, which are being applied to new mixed use developments. Mr. Lacy stated that, when looking at the sources that are available today, they feel that this roadway meets the criteria. He pointed out the intersection at Holly Grove Boulevard and U.S. 27 that would warrant a future signal, and testified that it was his opinion, based on the criteria he was able to obtain and research, that the road that goes through the project is a collector road from either of the neighborhoods, or from the townhomes, or the commercial, and the interconnect with Weston Hills will allow for additional utilization from across the road. Mr. Lacy stated that he agrees with Mr. Richey that the Board could accept his opinion and find this to be a collector road based on his opinion, and it would not be an unreasonable decision for the Board to make today, based on the standards used in the industry and used by his profession.

Commr. Hill referred to the two mile radius map and questioned how all of the parcels will be interconnected and whether they will all have to come out onto the highway to be interconnected.

Mr. Lacy explained that, within the Orange Tree development itself, all of those trips can access the commercial activities within the site. He explained that they are not all identified as connected per auto trip, but certainly there is an interaction there by way of walking pedestrian activity. At this time, he reviewed the information provided in the letter dated June 13, 2002, Table 2, Proposed Orange Tree Trip Generation (Exhibit A-2).

Mr. Richey clarified that The Savannahs will access the commercial by pedestrian activity, and there are three projects in the area of Weston Hills that interconnect with each other and will have access to the signalized intersection. He further clarified that not every surrounding project currently built will have access to Orange Tree without going out on U.S. 27. Mr. Richey explained that the properties to the west and contiguous to them, and the northern part of the property on the west, will have interconnects through their projects back to the signalized intersection, which will come across the road. By putting the commercial at the proposed location, they will be cutting the trip length for people, if they do have to go out on U.S. 27.

Mr. Richey stated that he would like to hear any concerns of the neighbors and have an opportunity to respond to those concerns.

Mr. Scott Ward, a homeowner in The Savannahs, addressed the Board and extended his appreciation to staff for their recommendations. Mr. Ward stated that they are against rezoning of commercial property, and all of their concerns have not been addressed by Greater Construction, or Mr. Richey. He stated that, at the last meeting where Mr. Richey asked for the continuance, they stated, for the record, that they would like a copy of all revisions, but they never received them. They also asked Mr. Metzger for copies of the analyses and studies including the FDOT studies in regard to the traffic problems, but they never received them. Mr. Ward stated that there is also another discrepancy that he would like stated for the record. In regard to the statement made by Mr. Metzger that he met twice with the homeowners of The Savannahs, Mr. Ward stated that he did meet with them the night before the original P & Z Commission meeting, but only two of their board members were present at that meeting. The entire neighborhood was not aware of this meeting, and they feel that they were wronged in not having that advantage. Once they found out about the meeting, three homeowners appeared at the next scheduled P & Z Commission meeting, and Mr. John Nurse put on record a petition containing 85 signatures of homeowners from The Savannahs that were against the rezoning of commercial property. They have since canvassed the rest of the neighborhood, because many did not have the opportunity to sign the petition. Their concerns included traffic, and they felt that the study would be inconclusive, because they do not know who will be occupying the commercial property, although he was told that it would be a Winn-Dixie, or Publix shopping plaza. They also addressed their concern about another traffic light noting that, in the last eight months, they have seen three traffic lights go up to the north and south on U.S. 27, all being in front of commercial properties. He stated that, as far as a collector road, the staff report reflects that it does not meet the requirements. He explained the location of other Winn-Dixie/Publix shopping plazas that are close in proximity to The Savannahs, as well as out parcels, and other commercial property for sale. They also have environmental concerns and, even though they are proposing a 50 foot buffer zone, it amounts to a buffer zone of ten feet to the residents, because the wall is going to be ten feet off of their property line. The 40 feet will be natural vegetation on the noted property. The Savannahs were to have access to the shopping mall by way of pedestrian traffic, but he did not know if there were going to be any sidewalks, and he felt that this would be a safety issue for his family, as well as others. He discussed the problems his family faced when living near one of Greater's commercial properties years ago in Seminole County where they had expressed concerns about the evaluation of their property as homeowners, the retention pond, the dumpsters, the backside of the commercial property, and gopher tortoises. Mr. Ward stated that Mr. David Orozco, a resident of The Savannahs, also addressed the concerns being expressed today at the P & Z Commission meeting. Mr. Ward stated that he could not say that he was speaking for all of homeowners in The Savannahs, but certainly for the 85 signatures on file and many more that were canvassed. He stated that, when they canvassed the Orange Tree development, many of the residents did not know of the new development plan, and many had concerns and would like to know why they were not notified. Mr. Ward stated that, as indicated earlier, many of the homes in that development are vacation and short term rentals and this goes back to the need for commercial property, and, therefore, he is requesting denial of commercial property.

Mr. Richey stated that they did mail copies of all documentation they filed with the Board. In regards to the 85 signature petition, Mr. Richey stated that he asked the gentleman who presented it at the P & Z Commission meeting if those individuals signed it prior to their meeting, and the gentleman indicated that the signatures were acquired prior to their proposal for buffering, and other revisions to the plan. He then asked him if all of those people continue to oppose it after their discussions, and he could not say. Mr. Richey stated that he would suggest that they are not here today, and they have altered their site plan to meet their concerns, and to make this a unique development for Lake County. Mr. Richey stated that, by the evidence presented today, it meets the standards set forth by FDOT in regard to collector roads; Mr. Lacy has indicated that it meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for collector roads; and the marketing study has been filed with the County. They feel there is a market for townhomes and commercial, and they are cutting the density on the property from 665 residential units to 495. He stated that, if they were to put in 665 units, they would have less open space, less buffer, and more traffic, or at least equal to the same amount of traffic, than they are proposing today. The landscape buffer has been filed with the County, and the gopher tortoises and environmental assessments are going to be handled on this amendment just as they would have been handled for the 665 units. Mr. Richey explained that, with the six laning of U.S. 27, the FDOT has identified the intersection at Weston Hills and Orange Tree as one of the signalization intersections on their long term plan.

Commr. Stivender disclosed that she met with Mr. Mandell, CEO of Greater Homes, and Mr. Richey on this case.

Commr. Pool noted that the other Commissioners disclosed their meetings with the same parties at the last meeting.

Commr. Stivender questioned whether there was any difference in the single family usage of water versus the reduced residential plus commercial.

Mr. Richey explained that it is about the same, and they are not increasing any water or sewer. He further noted that reuse water is not available in this area.

Commr. Hanson stated that the County requires 25% open space, and she questioned the percentage amount of open space with the revised plan.

Mr. Richey stated that it is 25% but, on the area where the townhomes are located, it is more open than if they were to develop 665 houses, but the total is basically the same. Mr. Richey stated that they did not give any consideration to the concept of apartments, because the neighbors wanted to make sure that they did not have apartment dwellers but fee simple owners, so they did not include this component.

Commr. Hanson stated that, with the smart growth concept, it is good to have dwellings above the commercial, to create more of a mixed use process.

Mr. Richey stated that, if the commercial was standing on its own, and they were not mixing in any of the element of the townhomes, they would not be as consistent with smart growth as they are with the current plan, which converts the single family to the townhomes and places commercial next to it, with the interconnect to the two of them.

Mr. Metzger addressed Commr. Hanson's comments about the plan being reviewed by a landscape architect noting that they have a landscape architecture department of about 35 people, which designed this mixed use site and commercial site specifically, and it was designed to meet Lake County's site design criteria.

Mr. Bob Mandell, CEO of Greater Homes, addressed the Board and stated that the price on the townhomes will probably be around $150,000 and above, but they are probably a couple of years away from building them. He noted that they are in Phase 2 of the development right now, and the townhomes would probably not be built until Phase 4.

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

Commr. Pool stated that the request is in his district and, in meeting with the Citrus Ridge Chamber of Commerce in the last few months, they had mentioned wanting opportunities for additional shopping in and around the Citrus Ridge area. He stated that he did not want a typical strip center along U.S. 27, and the buffering and the configuration shows their sensitivity to this issue and, even though it will not please everyone, it is a step in the right direction.

Commr. Hanson stated that, in view of the testimony given regarding the traffic, and the comments on the commercial locational criteria, she questioned whether staff stands on their response to those issues.

Ms. Farrell stated that she would have to stand behind the staff report, because it still does not meet the locational criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and, even though it is a good project, she cannot support it from a comprehensive planning perspective.

Commr. Hanson stated that, even though there is a lot more commercial on line, which only needs to meet minimum requirements in the policies, she feels that the Board should be looking at those policies and incorporating some of the design standards they are looking at today. She feels that they still need to look at apartments in some of the commercial projects, to make them truly a viable and dynamic addition to the County.

Commr. Hill stated that, in regards to the traffic, it may not meet her personal definition of a collector road, but obviously the FDOT has done a lot of research on U.S. 27, and she would like to see very limited access on the highway, but they have already made a design. She questioned whether staff has looked at the FDOT design and what they are proposing to see wether the County is changing the Comprehensive Plan to meet what they are actually proposing to do, to make sure they know what FDOT is doing on that highway.

Ms. Farrell stated that staff is not actually looking at the FDOT design, but they are working with Public Works through their consultant and through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendment process to make sure that it all works. She stated that Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, came to the P & Z Commission meeting and addressed some of the questions they raised regarding collector roadways.

Commr. Hill stated that she read Mr. Schneider's remarks, and they were very good, but it also states that the FDOT can designate a roadway as a collector roadway, and the County can also consider the collector a roadway.

Commr. Hanson stated that, in this case, there is certainly a tradeoff, and they do need to be looking at a better mix in the County of residential and commercial and light industrial zonings. She stated that the reductions in residential outweigh whatever negatives there may be from the commercial. She feels that the mixed use concept is good, and it is a step in the right direction, but she does not feel they have come quite far enough. She would rather see them moving closer to the traditional neighborhood district designs, but she feels this is a long ways from being strip commercial. She would rather see more open space in this design including the townhomes, but she feels the attempt has been there. She also feels they could do better than the 25%, but that is what is required in the PUD. She stated that mixed use is smart growth, and a step in the right direction, but it is not mixed as much as she believes it could be and should be. The interconnectedness is part of that design, and she feels that is positive.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Rezoning Case PH#14-02-2, Holly Hill Fruit Products Co. Inc., Charles W. Gregg and Warren Knight, Greater Construction Corp., Steven J. Richey, Amendment to PUD Ord. #1999-64, to allow for townhouses and 125,000 square feet of commercial uses, Tracking #27-02-PUD/AMD, Ordinance 2002-53.

Under discussion, Commr. Stivender stated that Commr. Hanson was right about the other commercial in this location, and they need to go back and see if there is some way they can make them follow suit.

Commr. Hanson stated that they can go back and look at changing the policies on anything that is not on the ground, or permitted.

Commr. Pool stated that, under discussion, he did feel there were some areas that were developed along U.S. 27 without consideration for setbacks and landscaping, and this does exactly what they are trying to promote, which is a mixed use with buffering and landscaping and additional setbacks and, in the long run, it will be an asset to the neighborhood. It will be well landscaped and buffered differently than anyone else, and it is far superior to a strip mall open to the U.S. 27 corridor, and he did not believe it would devalue the property around it.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.

Commr. Cadwell was not present.

PETITION CUP#02/5/3-2 - DANIS INDUSTRIES, DALLAS WOLFORD - REVOCATION OF CUP#616-3(A&B) - TRACKING #41-02-CUP/REV



Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case CUP#02/5/3-2, Danis Industries, Dallas Wolford, a request for voluntary revocation of CUP#616-3(A&B). Ms. Farrell stated that staff was here last month, and they have been working with the property owner. She stated that they are working on some improvements, as noted in a letter from Gray Harris, which is in the backup. Ms. Farrell clarified that they are revoking some of the more obnoxious land uses, in order to return the bonds to the applicant. The property will still be zoned industrial, and there will be some buffer requirements in the ordinance but, as far as specific buffer requirements, as specified in the Gray Harris letter, they will be not in the ordinance, because they are only going to be revoking those more obnoxious uses. Ms. Farrell stated that there are still some concerns from the neighbors, and they are working with the property owner to improve the buffer but, for the purpose of the revocation, it has nothing to do with what is going to be left on the property. She clarified that it will remove the authority for him to do the more obnoxious uses on the site, which include the borrow pit, landfill, and disposal of shredded tires.

Commr. Pool stated that there were some concerns from some of the residents that live in and around the area, and he shares some of those concerns and, once the Board allows the revocation, there will no longer a bond. He stated that the Board wants to ensure those neighbors that there will not be any future problems.

Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Mr. Joseph Maxwell addressed the Board and presented digital pictures of the site in question noting that this is what he has had to look at since June 1, 2002 (Exhibit OP-1 for the opposition). Mr. Maxwell described the current condition of the site, and the berm as compared to its original design, and stated that his berm is now debris that was taken from the dump site. Mr. Maxwell referred to the letter from Gray Harris, which confirmed corrective actions to be taken by Prestige Gunite, and stated that he had to place two buckets of dirt on top of the berm at his daughter's property, which adjoins the property, to help reestablish the condition of it. He stated that the County had promised that someone would talk with the applicant to decide what is fair and reasonable but, after many attempts, he was unsuccessful in getting someone to meet with him. He stated that the property owner has shown total disregard for the homeowners around him. Mr. Maxwell stated that the applicant told him that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has no objection to the nature of their activity on the site, but, after talking to DEP, he found that the applicant has never given DEP a plan for the wells in the area. His daughter still has a very bad view of the property, and the growth on the fence is out of control. For 17 years, they have never complained about the berm, or anything else, until a piece of property with a retention pond on it was sold to someone else. Once the applicant realized that he no longer had the pond, he put another one on the building line. Mr. Maxwell explained that the berm was supposed to be straight across the back, but the elevation is not the same. Mr. Maxwell noted that the DEP is working on this issue.

Commr. Pool stated that staff is saying that the revocation does not allow them to do anything different and does not allow them to do any more, but the letter from Gray Harris and Mr. Jimmy Crawford talks about some corrective actions to be taken by Prestige Gunite. He questioned whether, if the CUP was revoked, the Board would lose any strength on getting this done correctly.

Ms. Carla Maxwell addressed the Board and explained that the applicant said he was going to plant trees along the berm, but the trees are sitting in buckets on top of the berm. Ms. Maxwell stated that she is very concerned that the applicant has never filed anything with DEP about the wells on the abutting properties.

Mr. Maxwell stated that, under the CUP, the applicant is claiming that he is heavy duty industrial, and he questioned whether this was included under the CUP and, because of all of the noise, he questioned where the operating hours could be addressed with the applicant.

Ms. Farrell explained that the applicant has LM zoning and, unfortunately, if there is residential zoning adjacent to LM zoning, they are going to continue to operate on that site. The bond is being released because all of the conditions for reclamation and other mining standards have been met. She stated that Prestige Gunite, the second owner, has nothing to do with this bond issue, and they are volunteering to do these things, as noted in the letter, to bring the site up, and what they are doing today has nothing to do with the activity on that property today.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if Ms. Farrell's statement is correct that all of the requirements of the CUP have been fulfilled, then releasing the bond would not cause harm to the Board. If all of the requirements of the CUP have not been fulfilled, then releasing the bond would be damaging to their efforts to get them fulfilled.

Mr. Maxwell explained that the berm on the west end of the property was not to be touched. He further explained that the original people on the site was Prestige Gunite, and now there are two different companies, and three or four different people on the property. Mr. Maxwell stated that the DEP is concerned about the water, and the applicant has yet to address the amount of water consumption on the site, or anything else of relevance.

Commr. Stivender stated that the letter in the backup from Gray Harris dated May 31, 2002 indicates that the tree and sodding would be done by Tuesday, June 4th, which has passed, and the other compliance actions would be done by July 15, 2002. She questioned whether anyone has been to the site since May 31, 2002, or since the P & Z Commission meeting, when Mr. Allan Hewitt, Water Resources Management Director, said it met all requirements.

Ms. Farrell stated that Ms. Wendy Linzey, Code Enforcement, has probably been to the site, but she has not received a full report from her, as to the status of the project, so staff does not really know what is there today.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether the Board can go back and readdress the hours of operation for this site through the County's noise ordinance.

Ms. Farrell explained that the parcel is not being rezoned right now but, if they were to come back with LM zoning, the Board may be able to address those items.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board could go back and rezone the property itself and change the conditions, if they felt it was necessary. He stated that staff has some draft noise ordinances that they will be bringing to the Board, but it is a very difficult issue with industrial versus residential, because the uses are compatible with each another.

Commr. Pool stated that, as staff pointed out, the Board could actually rezone this property, but, perhaps through voluntary noise abatement, or consideration for neighbors, they could continue their operation and be a little bit more cognizant of citizens around them.

Mr. Maxwell explained that the well is 20 feet from the site in question, and the applicant did not complete paperwork for it. He stated that he wants to be fair and reasonable, and that is why they want someone from the County to evaluate the situation.

Commr. Stivender stated that, before she would want to revoke the CUP, the Board needs to make sure that Prestige Gunite is in compliance with the items, as stated in the letter from Gray Harris.

Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to approve to postpone Rezoning CUP#01/5/3-2 - Danis Industries, Dallas Wolford - Tracking #41-02-CUP/REV - Voluntary Rev. of CUP#616-3(A&B), for 30 days, in order to allow staff to see whether the applicant is in compliance with all issues noted in the letter from Gray Harris and Mr. Jimmy Crawford.

Under discussion, Commr. Stivender clarified that she did not want to revoke it today, and she would like pictures, and the person who went to evaluate the site to address the Board when it comes back to them.

Commr. Pool called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.

Commr. Cadwell was not present.

The Board also directed staff to meet with Mr. Joseph Maxwell.

CLERK/COUNTY BUILDINGS

Commr. Hanson stated that she had placed on the agenda, by vote, the discussion of naming the new Records Building after Mr. James C. Watkins, Clerk of Courts, but the Board may want to wait and consider it when Commr. Cadwell is present. She recommended that the item be placed on their next agenda.

Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that staff will add the item brought forth by Commr. Hanson to the July 2, 2002 agenda

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

ROBERT A. POOL, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR/BOARDMIN/6-25-02/6-27-02