A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DECEMBER 16, 2003
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting Room, on the second floor of the Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Debbie Stivender, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; William “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Linda Green, Executive Associate, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda and that staff would like to delete Item I.A.1. from said Addendum, a request from Community Services for approval of LifeStream Behavioral Services, Inc. to provide transportation services for the Transportation Disadvantaged population of Lake County, beginning January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, noting that he would like to discuss the item under the County Manager’s Reports later in the meeting.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had two issues to add to the Agenda that would require a vote, the first being an issue pertaining to the Astor Chamber of Commerce, with regard to some property that the County has in Astor.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the second issue pertained to the Golf Cart Ordinance in the Villages, in Lady Lake. He requested that said item be placed on the Agenda, as well.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the Closed Session that was originally scheduled for this meeting at 10:00 a.m., for the purpose of discussing the Covanta issue, would not be needed at this time, however, noted that he would like to add it to the Agenda for the Board Meeting scheduled for January 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., in case it is necessary to discuss any issues pertaining to it.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 28, 2003 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of November 18, 2003 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Bonds - Contractor
Request for approval of Contractor Bonds - Cancellation, as follows:
Cancellation
6068-03 Carl Sellers d/b/a Carl Sellers Air Conditioning and Heating
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk’s Office.
Audited Financial Statements and Supplemental Information from the Greater Orlando
Area Legal Services
Request to acknowledge receipt of Audited Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc., December 31, 2002, from R. A. Simasek, P.A., Certified Public Accountants.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Hanson requested that Tab 3, a request from Budget and Administrative Services - Procurement Services for approval to award contract, subject to County Attorney approval, for grant writing services to In Rem Solutions, Inc.; and approval of the budget transfer from General Fund Reserves for Operations to Contractual Services, in the amount of $37,500.00, for Fiscal Year 2004 be pulled, for discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Budget and Administrative Services - Procurement Services
Request for approval to award contract, subject to County Attorney approval, for a 60 month operating lease for two Motor Graders to Highland Tractor Co., in accordance with RFP 04-101.
Economic Development and Tourism
Request for approval of an amended five party Agreement, which sponsors a bass tournament on the Harris Chain of Lakes.
Human Resources
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2003-219 and Travel Procedures, which implement new meal allowance and mileage rates that are reflective of modern days costs.
Public Safety
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2003-210, renaming Cemetery Road (3-2254) to Grace Ridge Road (3-2254).
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2003-211, renaming Eustis Sand Company Road (5-6585) to Hart Ranch Road (5-6585).
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2003-212, renaming Bernice Court (3-4661) to Amvets Way (3-4661).
Request for approval of the Cable Television Franchise Renewal between Bright House Networks and Lake County, Clermont, Groveland, Mascotte and Minneola.
Public Works
Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Tome Subdivision and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Tome Subdivision plat. Subdivision consists of seven lots - Commission District 4.
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2003-213, advertising Vacation Petition No. 1013, by Carrier and Beebe, to vacate and cease maintenance on a portion of a platted road right of way, in the Plat of Lake Highlands Company, located in Section 20, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2.
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2003-214, advertising Vacation Petition No. 1014, by William R. and Florence Adams, to vacate right of way for Park Avenue, as shown on the Plat of Sorrento, located in Section 25, Township 19 South, Range 27 East, in the Sorrento area - Commission District 4.
Request for approval and authorization to advertise for bids for CR 25 Widening and Resurfacing Phase III Project No. 2004-03, at an estimated cost of $100,000.00, from the Impact Fee Fund. Commission District 5 - Benefit District 3.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)
Public Works
Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Bella Collina Subdivision, and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Bella Collina Subdivision plat; accept a Surety Bond for Construction of Improvements, in the amount of $11,675,499.00; and accept a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Ginn-Pine Island GP, LLC. Subdivision consists of 496 lots - Commission District 2.
Request for approval to execute property lease for the Sheriff’s Office, contingent upon approval of final lease contract by the County Attorney; and approval of budget transfer, in the amount of $60,944.00.
Request for approval and execution of an Alignment Agreement for Sunnyside Drive, in conjunction with the Lake Harris Ridge Development, located in the Leesburg area, in Section 32, Township 19 South, Range 25 East.
Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Lake Harris Ridge.
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - PROCUREMENT SERVICES
CONTRACT FOR GRANT WRITING SERVICES TO IN REM SOLUTIONS, INC.
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she asked that this item be pulled from the County Manager’s Consent Agenda for discussion, because she felt that, even though staff did an excellent job in arriving at their conclusion, she felt it was the wrong conclusion. She stated that she believed the County would get better service and more for its money if they had someone that was local and aware of the history of Lake County, therefore, asked that the request be postponed until the Board Meeting scheduled for January 6, 2004, to allow the Board to discuss the matter further.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone a request from Budget and Administrative Services - Procurement Services for approval to award a contract, subject to County Attorney approval, for grant writing services to In Rem Solutions, Inc.; and approval of the budget transfer from General Fund Reserves for Operations to Contractual Services, in the amount of $37,500.00, for Fiscal Year 2004, until the Board Meeting scheduled for January 6, 2004.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 1012 - LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MT. DORA/SORRENTO
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request that was approved the prior month in error, because the request was for approval to advertise Vacation Petition No. 1012, which involved the vacation of a right of way, rather than approval to actually vacate the right of way, which is what the Board approved. He stated that staff was now requesting approval of Vacation Petition No. 1012, by Lake County Public Works, to vacate right of way at SR 46/Suneagle intersection, located in Section 34, Township 19 South, Range 27 East, in the Mt. Dora/Sorrento area.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2003-215,Vacation Petition No. 1012, by Lake County Public Works, to vacate right of way at SR 46/Suneagle intersection, located in Section 34, Township 19 South, Range 27 East, in the Mt. Dora/Sorrento area - Commission District 4.
PRESENTATION
CHECK TO CHRISTIAN CARE CENTER
Mr. Dale Greiner, Director, Building Services Division, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that this was the Sixth Annual Electrical Seminar to be hosted by the Lake County Department of Growth Management, Building Services Division. He stated that it is put on each year by Mr. Mike Holt, who is nationally known as an electrical guru, and its purpose is to keep the County’s electrical contractors and the people who work for them up to date with the latest technology. At this time, he presented Mr. Holt with a check, in the amount of $8,196.56, representing the proceeds of the Sixth Annual Electrical Seminar, which was hosted by the Lake County Department of Growth Management, Building Services Division, and sponsored by the Florida Association of Electrical Contractors and the International Association of Electrical Inspectors, to be presented to the Christian Care Center.
Mr. Holt addressed the Board and thanked the County for said contribution, stating that the work that has been going on at the First Baptist Church of Leesburg, with regard to the Christian Care Center, has gained national attention, especially with the edition of the Medical Center, which is now staffed by 28 volunteer doctors. He stated that Governor Jeb Bush will be visiting the Christian Care Center in approximately three months and the Commissioners will be invited to attend, as representatives of Lake County.
PRESENTATION
TENTATIVE FIVE YEAR WORK PROGRAM FOR FY 2004/2005 THROUGH
2008/2009
Mr. David Marsh, Marion County MPO Liaison, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District 5, addressed the Board and congratulated them on the letter they received last week from Governor Jeb Bush, authorizing the Lake Sumter MPO, noting that the FDOT feels it is a big step for the County. He stated that the District has always had a cooperative working relationship with Lake County and that, although the roles and responsibilities may change somewhat in that regard, due to the status of the MPO, they feel confident that they will continue in a cooperative and effective partnership. At this time, he presented a brief overview (power point presentation) of the Tentative Five Year Work Program for FY 2004/2005 through 2008/2009. He stated that he had provided the County with a copy of his power point presentation, as well as a copy of the Tentative Five Year Work Program, which he noted will not be official until July 1, 2004, due to the fact that the Florida Legislature has to authorize it, and it then has to be signed by the Governor, which usually occurs in late June.
Mr. Marsh then reviewed other Tentative Work Program Projects or Enhancements for the County, being the Tav-Lee Trail, Phase II, from Lakes Boulevard to Canal Street, comprising 6.5 miles, at a projected cost of $336,000; the Fruitland Park Scenic Trail, from Griffin Road to Lake Ella Road, comprising 3.0 miles, at a projected cost of $290,000; and the Tav-Lee Trail, Phase III, from Lake Ella Road to the Sumter County Line, comprising approximately 5.0 miles, at a projected cost of $336,000. It was noted that the FDOT is suggesting that the County rename the Tav-Lee Trail, Phase III, to perhaps the Lady Lake Scenic Trail, in order to avoid confusion with the Tav-Lee Trail, Phase II. He stated that the FDOT feels it has been another good year for Lake County, noting that the Five Year Tentative Work Program outlook is over $247 million, which represents FDOT expenditures of approximately $49.5 million per year in the County. He then reviewed next year’s “other” improvements or phases project expenditures, projected to cost well over $87 million, which he noted does not include other Turnpike, Aviation, Public Transportation, Bridge, or Maintenance Projects/Programs.
REZONING
REZONING CASE NO. CUP03/11/1-3 - AMEND EXISTING CUP87/8/4-2 -
HILLANDALE FARMS, INC. - TRACKING NO. 104-03-CUP/AMD
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that there was a proposed change to the Rezoning Agenda regarding Item No. 7, noting that Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, had just been retained by the applicant and would like some time to review the request and prepare her case.
The Chairman opened the public hearing on the request for a postponement of this case.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board stating that she had just been retained by the applicant to represent them, in their request for an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and had not had an opportunity to look at the record pertaining to this case, or meet with individuals involved with the request, to see if there are issues that can be resolved. She requested the Board to approve postponement of this case until the Board Meeting scheduled for January 27, 2004.
No one was present in opposition to the request for postponement of this case.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. CUP03/11/1-3, Hillandale Farms, Inc./Jay Hatfield/Gamble Construction, Inc., Tracking No.104-03-CUP/AMD, until the Board Meeting of January 27, 2004.
REZONING CASE NO. PH78-03-4 - R-6 AND R-8 TO R-1 - DEBRA J. RAGAN
TRACKING NO. 108-03-Z
Ms. Tiffany Kapner, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) and R-8 (Mixed Residential District) to R-1 (Rural Residential). She stated that the property consists of approximately six acres and is located within an Urban Expansion area. She stated that the previous request to rezone to Agriculture was denied by the Board, because it was felt that the agricultural zoning allowed uses that were not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. She stated that it was offered that the case be heard again and staff was asked to find a zoning that was more appropriate. She stated that the property owner wishes to keep horses on her property, which is allowed under the R-1 zoning. She stated that the proposed rezoning does not conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations, as seen in Section 3.00.03, which permits R-1 zoning within the Urban Expansion Land Use Category. She stated that the proposed rezoning is consistent with Lake County Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.6, which allows for up to four dwelling units per acre in Urban Expansion. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.
It was noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request by a 10-0 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-105, Debra Ragan, Rezoning Case No. PH78-03-4, Tracking No. 108-03-Z, a request for approval to rezone from an existing zoning of R-6 (Urban Residential District) and R-8 (Mixed Residential District) to R-1 (Rural Residential), to provide for a medium density single family residential usage in an urbanizing area.
REZONING CASE NO. PH73-03-5 - RMRP TO R-3 - JOE GODFREY - TRACKING
NO. 109-03-Z
Ms. Tiffany Kapner, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park District) to R-3 (Medium Residential District). She stated that the property consists of approximately 74 acres, located in the Urban Expansion future land use category. She stated that the proposed rezoning is not in conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), as seen in Section 3.00.03, that permits R-3 zoning within an Urban Expansion land use category. She stated that LDR Subsection 3.03.02.A.1 requires use of the Urban Area Residential Density Chart, in order to determine the maximum allowable density. She stated that the number of points acquired on the chart for this project is 25, which equates to a density of up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. She stated that, per Subsection 3.03.02.F.1, if the zoning district density, which in this case is three dwelling units per acre, is greater than the point system, the maximum allowable density shall comply with the point system density; therefore, the maximum density of this project would be the 2.5 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the proposed rezoning is consistent with Lake County Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.6, which allows up to four dwelling units per acre in the Urban Expansion Land Use Category, and Policy 1-1.7, which requires use of the Urban Area Residential Density Chart in determining density. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request to rezone from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park District) to R-3 (Medium Residential District), to allow for the creation of a single family residential subdivision at the maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
It was noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by an 8-3 vote.
Commrs. Pool, Stivender, and Hanson stated, for the record, that they had met with the applicant prior to this meeting.
Commr. Hanson stated that the property in question has a significant amount of wetlands and questioned whether there would be clustering of the lots, with more open space, and was informed that there will be 50 foot required setbacks from the wetlands.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joe Godfrey, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that several concerns were brought forth at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting by some homeowners in some of the surrounding neighborhoods and he wanted to address those concerns, at which time he indicated what he has done since then, to try to accommodate those individuals and make things better for everybody. He stated that the biggest concern brought forth by the homeowners was the location of the entrance to the proposed subdivision, however, noted that he met with the Public Works Department and has since moved the entrance off of Harbor Shores Road, at which time he displayed a Location Map (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the property in question, pointing out the location of the new entrance. He stated that the entrance will now come out onto SR 44, which he noted will have the necessary accel/decel lanes installed and should remove the issue concerning access onto Harbor Shores Road. He stated that the issue of traffic was brought up, however, noted that a traffic study was conducted and his development was found to be below the capacity for SR 44. He addressed another concern that was brought up, being that of water runoff, at which time he displayed the Preliminary Plat (Applicant’s Exhibit B) of the development, pointing out the wetland areas within the development, noting that drainage from the property will in no way impact the surrounding neighborhoods, in that the drainage flows out to the south and east to Lake Eustis. He stated that he was asking for a lower density than what would be allowed, with 160 lots, and, with the single family residential, felt it would be a much better community than a rental mobile home park.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the applicant had had any dialogue with the Lake County School System and was informed that he had corresponded with them.
Mr. Godfrey stated that the proposed development is zoned for Treadway Elementary, Eustis Ninth Grade Center, and Eustis High School, however, is slated for a five to six year build out and would not even get started for another year, which should give the School System plenty of time to continue their efforts in providing schools for the children in the area.
Commr. Stivender stated that, due to the fact that her mother lives directly across from the property in question, she would be declaring a conflict of interest and would be abstaining from the vote.
Mr. Seford R. Olsen, a resident of Harbor Shores, addressed the Board stating that he feels the program and plan for residential housing in the area in question is an excellent one, however, noted that he has two concerns, one being water runoff, at which time he displayed topographic maps (Opposition’s Exhibit A), stating that all the water from the development will be running down hill, following the natural drainage patterns. He stated that it is a sand hill area and the water will flow on its natural course. He stated that, in Mr. Godfrey’s presentation, he stated that the drainage from his development would be going into the wetland areas and eventually making its way to Lake Eustis, at which time he noted that, if they had a good size rainstorm, the runoff area would very quickly be overwhelmed. He stated that it would not take more than one or two good tropical storms to cause the Harbor Shores area road system to flood. He stated that he thought it was decided at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that the development would be reducing in size from 160 to 150 units. He stated that he found it very encouraging that Mr. Godfrey decided to place an outlet at SR 44, alleviating what would have been a major bottleneck on Harbor Shores Road and a great traffic hazard. He stated that the area is a prime gopher tortoise habitat and feels that appropriate action should be taken, rather than saying that they will accept the cost of the fine for the destruction of the habitat and build the development. He stated that he looked forward to having the housing development constructed and hopes that it will be as fine a development as some of the other ones in the area.
Mr. Godfrey readdressed the Board and rebutted the comments made by Mr. Olsen regarding the gopher tortoises said to be found on the property, noting that he has met all the requirements of the State, with regard to the tortoises, and that, with regard to water runoff, noted that all of it will be retained on the property. He stated that there will be a buffer between the wetland areas and the backs of the lots and that, as far as the water flow is concerned, noted that it does not flow above the ground and across the road, the retention area will drain below the ground and into the underground water system that flows to the south and to the east.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board and answered questions regarding the flow of water runoff into Lake Eustis. He stated that there is a culvert under Harbor Shores Road, so the runoff can flow in either direction. He stated that he suggested at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that the applicant be required to show an alternate way for the stormwater to flow, once it is treated and reduced in volume, into Lake Eustis and that, if the applicant could not do that, then the County needed to put some stronger stormwater requirements on the development, above and beyond what the St. Johns River Water Management District requires. Upon being questioned about the traffic concerns, stated that, if access from the development was on Harbor Shores Road, there might be an opportunity to install a traffic signal, but it might not be warranted, even with the additional volume of traffic. He stated that he felt the better solution would be what was before the Board this date, being an access onto SR 44, with an alternate access onto Harbor Shores Road, in that it would provide a secondary access for not only the residents in the new subdivision, but for the residents in the existing subdivision, as well. He stated that the way the new subdivision is laid out, it should prevent cut-through traffic and should work better.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2003-106, Joe Godfrey, Rezoning Case No. PH73-03-5,Tracking No. 109-03-Z, a request from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park District) to R-3 (Medium Residential District), to provide for low and medium intensity single family residential usage in an Urban area, with a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, under the Urban Area Residential Density Chart, and additional language being added to the Ordinance regarding stormwater retention and no access onto Harbor Shores Road.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the problems Harbor Shores has with drainage would not happen today, because there are new rules in place that would prevent it from happening. He stated that, with regard to the issue of gopher tortoises, he felt most of them moved to the property when Harbor Shores was developed, so, as long as the applicant agrees to do whatever the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission says is best, he did not have a problem with approving the request.
Commr. Hill clarified the fact that the motion was for R-3 (Medium Residential District), with a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units.
Commr. Hanson stated that some time ago the County was requiring properties that were 50 acres or more to be a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would allow more of a clustering concept, and questioned where the County currently is with that policy.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board, in response to Commr. Hanson’s comment, stating that the applicant was not asking for anything special, so there is no policy within the Comprehensive Plan, or the Land Development Regulations, requiring them to do a PUD. He stated that, if an applicant asks for something special, such as a waiver, staff directs them toward a PUD, so they can address the issues, and then staff asks for additional concessions, to justify the waivers that are being requested. He noted that staff took into consideration the clustering concept.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Stivender had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the vote.
REZONING CASE NO. PH77-03-5 - A TO CFD - LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/GARY DEBO/ LAKE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES - TRACKING NO. 110-03-CFD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from the Lake County Environmental Services Department regarding the Paisley Drop-Off Center site, which is located in the Future Land Use Category of Rural Village. He stated that the request was for approval to rezone from A (Agriculture District), which is a non-conforming zoning district for a public facility, to CFD (Community Facility District), to bring it into compliance. He stated that no expansion or changes were involved, it was only to correct a zoning issue, in order to have conforming zoning for any future expansion or development on the site. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-107, Rezoning Case No. PH77-03-5, Lake County Board of County Commissioners/Gary Debo/Lake County Environmental Services, Tracking No. 110-03-CFD, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), to allow for the creation of CFDs in those areas where special or substantial community interest uses and activities are necessary and desirable and to establish CFDs individually under site plans and conditions necessary to promote general welfare and to secure economic and coordinated land use.
REZONING CASE NO. PH76-03-5 - A TO CFD - LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/GARY DEBO/LAKE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES - TRACKING NO. 111-03-CFD; AND REZONING CASE NO. PH75-03-2
A TO CFD - LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/GARY
DEBO/LAKE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - TRACKING NO.
114-03-CFD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, informed the Board that these two cases, along with the previous case, were all non-conforming Agricultural zonings to CFDs, noting that there was no expansion or changes with the projects. He stated that staff was recommending approval for all of them.
The Chairman opened the public hearing, noting that, if there was no opposition, this case and the following case, PH 75-03-2, which pertains to the County correcting the zoning for its transfer stations in the south and northeast portions of the County, would be addressed together.
Mr. John Sibbons, a resident of the area, addressed the Board and questioned exactly where the property was located, noting that he had a problem determining its location, according to the notice that he received from the County.
It was noted that there was a misprint in the notice that went out to the surrounding property owners, at which time Mr. Sibbons stated that he did not have any further questions.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-108, Lake County Board of County Commissioners/Gary Debo/Lake County Environmental Services, Rezoning Case No. PH76-03-5,Tracking No. 111-03-CFD, to allow for the creation of CFDs (Community Facility Districts) in those areas where special or substantial community interest uses and activities are necessary and desirable; to establish CFDs individually under site plans and conditions necessary to promote general welfare; and to secure economic and coordinated land use.
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 Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-109, Lake County Board of County Commissioners/Gary Debo/Lake County Environmental Services, Rezoning Case No. PH75-03-2,Tracking No. 114-03-CFD, to allow for the creation of CFDs in those areas where special or substantial community interest uses and activities are necessary and desirable; to establish CFDs individually under site plans and conditions necessary to promote general welfare; and to secure economic and coordinated land use.
REZONING CASE NO. PH74-03-5 - CFD TO CFD, ORDINANCE NO. 1996-54
CENTRAL FLORIDA COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA - TRACKING NO.
112-03-CFD/AMD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request from the Central Florida Council Boy Scouts of America to amend Community Facilities District (CFD) zoning Ordinance No. 1996-54. He stated that they currently have 100 buildings that were approved for various uses with the Boy Scouts Camp facility and are requesting to add 30 additional buildings, which will consist of 13 campsites, 8 pavilion/educational areas, 2 climbing towers, a lap pool annex that meets the requirements of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), and a training camp area, located on a 1,460 acre parcel in the Paisley area. He stated that part of the property is located in the Wekiva River Protection Area (A-1-20 and A-1-40 Sending Areas). He stated that staff found the request to be in compliance with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and with the Land Development Regulations and feels that it is consistent with the development patterns in the area, which is more of a Rural nature, therefore, were requesting approval of the request. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by an 11-0 vote, as well.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-110,Central Florida Council Boy Scouts of America, Matthew Ragan, Rezoning Case No. PH74-03-5,Tracking No. 112-03-CFD/AMD, a request to amend the Ordinance to add approximately 30 new buildings/structures for the campground facility, maintaining the 100 buildings presently approved. The additional buildings/structures proposed are 13 campsites (each with a latrine, an activity shelter, and a tent area), 8 pavilion/educational areas, 2 climbing towers, a lap pool annex with American Disabilities Act (ADA) access, and a training camp area, to include 4 latrines, an activity shelter, a quartermaster hut/shelter, and primitive camping.
REZONING CASE NO. LPA 03-8-3 - COUNTY-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT -
TRACKING NO. 89-03-LPTA
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a text amendment, amending Policies 1-1.13 and 1-3A.1of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, adding a paragraph under three different sections, which will read as follows: Industrial Zoned Property along Old U.S. 441/Alfred Street shall be eligible to develop or redevelop up to 5,000 square feet of retail, service, or office commercial, per original parcel, as recognized on the Lake County Zoning Maps, as of December 16, 2003. The designation of these properties as Employment Center does not have bearing on their eligibility for commercial development. The effected properties shall be considered consistent with Policy 1-3A.1 (4) Neighborhood Convenience Centers. Commercial uses allowed on these properties shall be consistent with Convenience Retail uses, as defined in Section 3.01.02 ©)(17) of the Lake County Land Development Regulations, as amended. Maximum impervious surface ratio is 70% of the gross development parcel. Maximum building height is 50 feet. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is .70.
Mr. Richardson stated that this corrects a little bit of an issue arising along the Hwy. 441 corridor, which is zoned Industrial as of the date of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it is considered to be located in the Employment Center/Future Land Use District, which has certain limitations on the ability to do retail uses, without associated Industrial. He stated that approval of the request will provide a correction and the ability to do some redevelopment on some of the parcels.
Commr. Stivender questioned whether Mr. Richardson had been in contact with the City of Tavares and was informed that the County had not had any conversations with the City directly related to the language within this amendment, however, noted that discussion had occurred between county staff and the City, as far as opportunities and issues that the County may be able to do, to correct some of the redevelopment along said corridor.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Dottie Keedy, City Administrator, City of Tavares, addressed the Board stating that she was present at this meeting to try to find out what was going on regarding this issue, noting that she nor her staff has had any contact with county staff regarding the matter and, since it is within the City’s proposed planning area, would like to find out the purpose of the amendment.
Commr. Stivender stated that the way it was written in the Comprehensive Plan it was being interpreted that it was zoned Industrial; therefore, no retail type operations would be allowed, even though almost all of Old Hwy. 441 is retail operations. She stated that someone recently tried to purchase a license from the County for retail and was denied, thus, the reason for the Text Amendment before the Board this date.
Ms. Keedy stated that the City of Tavares has been approached by property owners in the area in question about obtaining the City’s utilities and they require annexation, as a condition of that. She stated that, as a rule, they do not annex into the City Code Enforcement cases. She stated that most of the area developed in the past, under little regulation, so it is not something that the City would want to take in. She stated that she was concerned about creating enclaves, which would be difficult for the County to serve. She questioned whether it was an attempt to redevelop the area, or to grandfather in what is currently in place.
Mr. Richardson readdressed the Board stating that there are a lot of legally existing non-conforming retail establishments within Industrial zoning districts at this point in time. He stated that this request would allow those industrial uses that have fallen into “deterioration”an alternative use, such as some sort of combination retail/industrial use that will allow the area to redevelop, but also legitimize some of the retail uses in the industrial districts that are out there.
Commr. Cadwell questioned what would happen to the industrial uses that are currently in place and was informed that they would be allowed to continue.
Commr. Hill pointed out the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended that the word “Staff” be deleted in the sixth “Whereas” paragraph on Page 1 and was informed by Mr. Richardson that said word would be deleted at the same time that the date “December 16, 2003" is inserted in the Ordinance as the date of approval.
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 Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-111, County-Initiated Text Amendment, Alfred Street/Old U.S. Hwy. 441,Rezoning Case No. LPA03-8-1,Tracking No. 89-03-LPTA, with changes, as noted.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that Tab 12, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, a request for approval of a Resolution advertising Vacation Petition No. 1011, by Hills of Lake Louisa HOA, Inc., was advertised as a public hearing, therefore, would have to be readdressed by the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 1011 - HILLS OF LAKE LOUISA HOA, INC. - CLERMONT
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board stating that this request was properly advertised, it was just in the wrong place on the Agenda. He stated that it was a request to vacate a recreation park known as Tract E on the Plat of Hills of Lake Louisa. He stated that somehow during the public dedication process it got included as part of some public dedicated land and the homeowners association would like to restrict it back to the property owners in the subdivision. He stated that the County did not receive any letters of approval or opposition to the request, therefore, would recommend approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the attorney representing Hills of Lake Louisa was present in the audience and that the request was for approval to vacate, not approval to advertise the vacation, as indicated on the Agenda.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2003-216,Vacation Petition No. 1011, by Hills of Lake Louisa HOA, Inc., represented by Taylor & Carls, P.A., to vacate a recreation park known as Tract E, on the Plat of Hills of Lake Louisa, located in Section 13, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2, as presented.
REZONING (CONT’D.)
REZONING CASE NO. LPA03/8/2-2 - AMENDMENT TO CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE DESIGNATION OF EMPLOYMENT CENTER TO URBAN - TRYCON,
INC./BYRON H. KING, TRUSTEE/CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQUIRE - TRACKING
NO. 74-03-LPA
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map, to remove an Employment Center designation and return the underlying property to Urban. He stated that the parcel is approximately 13 acres in size and is located at the southeast corner of Hancock Road and SR 50 in Clermont.
Commrs. Hill, Stivender, Pool, and Hanson noted, for the record, that they had spoken to Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, regarding this case, prior to this meeting.
Mr. Richardson stated that there are Urban designations along the corridor involved and that the property in question is surrounded on three sides by the City of Clermont. He reviewed an aerial (contained in the Board’s backup material) photograph of the site, noting that it indicates some of the existing uses that are in the surrounding area. He stated that he checked with the Economic Development Commission, with regard to viability of the site for industrial uses, and due to the size of it, it may not be beneficial to retain it as industrial, so removal of the Employment Center designation is not a detriment in any way, shape, or form to the County’s Future Land Use designations. He stated that the only issue staff had, which spurred their recommendation for denial, was the fact that the property is surrounded on three sides by the City of Clermont. He stated that, if any parcel of land makes for a logical candidate for annexation, it would be this type of parcel, however, noted that it is neither here nor there, with regard to the future land use being only removal of the Employment Center designation. He stated that the rezoning may ultimately be a place to consider the annexation as a potential issue.
It was noted that the rezoning follows the land use plan amendment and removes the Employment Center, returning the property back to an Urban land use designation - it does not reassign it as a Commercial Node, or anything to that effect, as far as a development parcel for commercial uses. He stated that it would be consistent with the County’s policies regarding commercial location criteria and would make the property more consistent with what currently exists at the intersection.
It was noted that this discussion pertained to just the land use plan amendment and not the rezoning.
Mr. Richardson informed the Board that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)did not submit any objections, recommendations, or comments regarding this particular land use plan amendment.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the property is located at the southeast corner of SR 50 and Hancock Road, as indicated, and is within an Urban node. She reviewed an aerial photograph (contained in the Board’s backup material) of the property, stating that it has already seen commercialization, noting that there is a Super Target located directly across the street from the property and that a number of the out parcels have been developed, as well, which she elaborated on. She stated that, as indicated, this request is a lessening of the density and intensity, noting that it was designated on the County’s Comprehensive Plan as an Employment Center, which limits it to industrial type uses. She stated that the applicant has delayed the request a couple of times, in order to go back to the City of Clermont, to get their input, otherwise, both the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning request would have been before the Board for action sooner. She stated that there were no objections to the use, because most people on both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council believe the site is an appropriate location for commercial uses. She stated that they also had the County’s Economic Development Director, Mr. Greg Mihalic, look at the request, to see if he thought the site was a suitable one for industrial and was informed that he did not, noting that he thought it was much better suited for commercial, in that it is only a 13 acre site. She stated that it seems to fit better within the consistency and compatibility of the area. She stated that DCA had no issues or concerns with the request, noting that the applicant had already done an environmental analysis of the site, as well as a traffic study, and had done a lot of the planning that they wanted to see, in terms of how the development would function, and that it was consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Ms. Bonifay asked the Board to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment before them, reminding them that one of the reasons the applicant was trying to push this forward was that, if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process continues past the first of the year, it would push the request into the next cycle, which means that the Board could not approve it until August of 2004. She informed the Board as to what has occurred with the Clermont City Council up to this point in time, noting that they took the position that they were going to do nothing until they had all the Joint Planning Area Land Development Regulations in place and had a Future Land Use Map. She stated that that was done in October of 2003 and, to date, the applicant has inquired of the City and discovered that they have not even had a first reading on any new LDRs, nor has their been any hearing, workshop, etc. dealing with the FLUM. She stated that, apparently, the City put the applicant’s request on the Agenda for their December 9, 2003 Council Meeting, however, neither she nor her client were provided notice of said matter. She stated that her office routinely receives the City’s Agenda, because of other projects that her office handles, and, in looking at the Agenda, discovered that said issue had been placed on it. She stated that she hand delivered a letter to the City on December 8, 2003 and forwarded copies to the City Commissioners asking that they not address the request until she or her client could be in attendance. She stated that they chose not to do that and she was told that the issue was addressed and the City was surprised that neither the applicant, nor the applicant’s council, was present at the meeting. She stated that they indicated they would oppose the development, unless it was annexed into the City; therefore, she feels the applicant has no other alternative but to pursue both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning in the County and that she felt the Board needed to vote on them separately. She requested the Board to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and, depending on how that vote goes, to then take up the rezoning request, which is to CP (Commercial), to fit with the land use.
Mr. Thomas Polk, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that, when he hears “there is no other alternative”, questions what the negative impact will be of slowing the growth process down, noting that he feels the County needs to look at those things, in going forward. He stated that he feels the request should be tabled and have the County rethink the whole process, noting that to “fast track” things is not the answer, or the way to operate the government today.
Mr. Barry Brown, representing the City of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that a couple of months ago the County received a letter of recommendation from the Clermont City Council regarding the Land Use Amendment. He stated that he was present this date to only address the rezoning portion of the request, therefore, did not have any further comments regarding the land use amendment, but would like to address the Board at the rezoning stage.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board and rebutted the comment made by Mr. Polk regarding “fast tracking” the process, noting that the applicant originally applied for the request in May of 2003 and had delayed it several times, at the Board’s request, in order to take it back before the Clermont City Council. She stated that the down side to it is that, if the request falls into a certain Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle and the Board does not adopt the Ordinance dealing with the request, it pushes it out for almost another entire year. She stated that the applicant has just been trying to follow the appropriate processes and would urge the Board to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from an Employment Center and Industrial Manufacturing designation to Urban.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that, even if the applicant did not have a rezoning request before the Board this date, the Employment Center designation does not belong on the property in question.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-112,Trycon, Inc./Byron H. King, Trustee/Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, Rezoning Case No. LPA03/8/2-2,Tracking No. 74-03-LPA, a request for an amendment to the current Future Land Use Designation of Employment Center to Urban, for approximately 13 acres, Alternate Key No. 2941138, lying within Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The applicant proposes to develop the property for commercial purposes.
REZONING CASE NO. PH49-03-2 - MP TO CP - TRYCON, INC.,/BYRON H. KING,
TRUSTEE/CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQUIRE - TRACKING NO. 77-03-CP
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a rezoning from MP (Planned Industrial) to CP (Planned Commercial) for a parcel of property 13 acres in size, located in the Clermont area, at the southeast corner of SR50 and Hancock Road. He stated that staff found the request to be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and, with regard to the Commercial Location Criteria, appropriateness of the site, major intersection, and collector/arterial intersection, it is an appropriate location. He stated that staff was recommending a conditional approval, being that, when the design formally comes forward for development review, that it is designed as an integrated site, showing the out parcel and the main portion of the commercial center, as well as internal circulation, etc., as actually being designed as a planned center. He stated that the only other issue deals with access management, with regard to direct access to SR 50, versus Hancock Road, noting that he felt there was an access to the site from Hancock Road.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether there were any options for the applicant to obtain utilities, other than from the City of Clermont, and was informed by Mr. Richardson that he was not sure what the overlap was with Utilities, Inc., as far as where they are in the area in question. He stated that that may be the only other alternative.
Commr. Pool interjected that, at the location of the proposed rezoning, the water/sewer lines run due east to within one mile of the Orange County line and that, to his knowledge, there is no other water/sewer available at that site.
Mr. Barry Brown, representing the City of Clermont, concurred.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the applicant is asking for a Planned Commercial designation for the site, for a variety of planned, commercial uses, and they intend to do a retail site, a small commercial center that will have various retail/service uses, including restaurants and a possible food store that might offer coffee while one shops, but in keeping with the nature of the development that the applicant has done on the northeast quadrant, which contains a Walgreens, a bank, and some other uses, so it fits in with the types of commercial uses that are in the area. She stated that Mr. Byron King, Trustee, granted the applicant a utility easement across the front of the property, for that time when water and/or sewer is provided to the site. She noted that water lines are currently on the north side of the property and sewer lines are on the south side of it. She stated that all the property owners gave utility easements across the fronts of their properties, with the understanding that, when they asked for the utilities, they would be made available. She stated that, although the property is surrounded by the City of Clermont, she would urge the Board to approve the rezoning, noting that the applicant would be happy to continue to work with the City; however, they have contractual and financial obligations. She stated that the applicant has had letters pending with the City for the provision of water and sewer, or to even put the item on an agenda and address it, but the City has refused to do it, so she is very concerned about the fact that, if the Board says they do not want to approve the rezoning, because they want the applicant to go back and work it out with the City and do it to their Code, that may happen in 60 days, or it may be six months. She stated that she has handled numerous other cases, where the applicant has followed all the applicable procedures, done what the City has requested, and paid their fees, and, in one case, it was 13 months before they scheduled the case for a hearing. She stated that, if the Board was even thinking about entertaining that idea, she feels there needs to be some kind of time constraint for the City to act, noting that that seems to be the only way to get them to respond. She stated that, if they want to have a JPA Agreement and move forward in a cooperative attitude with the County, they need to do things in good faith and follow their own rules and guidelines when they accept applications. She stated that, when applicants have spent their time and money, they should get processed by the schedule that the City publishes. She stated that the applicant is at a loss to know what else to do, noting that they are located in the geographic area of unincorporated Lake County, where they have to change the County’s Comprehensive Plan. She stated that, at the present time, the only place where they can obtain a rezoning is in Lake County. She stated that, without some limitation on time, she could not, in good conscience for her client, recommend that they file an Annexation Application, unless there is a commitment that it will be processed and heard. She asked that the Board approve the rezoning request before them.
Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact that the applicant is going to be required to annex as soon as utilities are provided to the site and that the question of the joint Land Development Regulations is not just going to be a function of the City of Clermont, but a function of the County, as well, in that they are going to do them together. He stated that he did not feel the process was going to take that long, noting that they have agreed on the framework and how they are going to choose the LDRs. He questioned whether Ms. Bonifay would be interested in entering into a Developer’s Agreement stating that the applicant will develop the property under the joint LDRs, if the Board approved the rezoning request.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she would confer with the applicant about the matter, however, noted that she was concerned about the fact that, when the applicant went before the City of Clermont on September 23, 2003, that is what the City wanted them to do - wait until the LDRs were in place, which they felt would be in November of 2003. She noted that November has come and gone and the end of December is fast approaching and the LDRs are still not adopted.
Mr. Frank Cannon, Trycon, Inc., addressed the Board stating that, as Ms. Bonifay pointed out, the timing issue is one of concern. He stated that he did not have a problem living with the LDRs, if they are in place by the time that he was scheduled to start development, which is anticipated to be four to five months from now. He stated that, if they were not in place by then, he would want to adhere to the County’s regulations and, when the project is finished, they could take it up with the City at that point in time, as to whether they want to bring the property into the City, or leave it in the County. He stated that he felt both the County’s ordinances and the City’s ordinances were fairly parallel. He stated that whatever the LDRs bring to the table he would be willing to work with, but did not want to be held to them, if they go beyond his time frame to get started.
Commr. Cadwell questioned what kind of time frame the County was talking about, with regard to the LDRs.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that he felt the LDRs would be brought before the Board by March of this year, at the latest.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that, even without the LDRs being adopted, if the Ordinance was written that the applicant would meet the best of the City or the County’s LDRs, staff could review it now, because they would have enough information to make a determination regarding it.
Commr. Cadwell stated that his problem with the project is that, if one looks at where it is located and what the City of Clermont has approved around it, it is hard to see why the City would not approve it, if it was located within their City limits. He stated that he felt the only issue was if the Board was going to circumvent the joint LDRs that they are trying to work through and that, if they had some language that would prevent that, he would have a better comfort level with the project.
Mr. Brown stated that the City would be happy to provide the applicant with information as to where it stands at the present time.
Upon being questioned about the matter, Ms. Bonifay stated that her concern was one of timing, noting that the applicant obtained the latest draft of the LDRs in September of 2003 and said at that point that, if they were the ones, the applicant could abide by them. She stated that it was the uncertainty of not having a fixed point in time. She stated that, if the language in the Ordinance were to read that the applicant was granted a CP zoning and that they would meet whatever LDRs were “superior” between the County’s and the City’s, she did not have a problem with it. She stated that the applicant does not want to be held up, to where six months from now there are still no LDRs adopted. She stated that the applicant wants to be able to process the rezoning, whether they are considered to be in the City, or the County, whatever those rules are. She stated that they would be happy with a draft version of the LDRs at this point in time.
Mr. Brown readdressed the Board, stating that, on September 23, 2003, the City Council looked at both the land use change and the rezoning for this case and recommended that neither the rezoning nor the land use change proceed, until it has a Future Land Use Map for the JPA area. He stated that, subsequent to that, the Board approved transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Department of Community Affairs, so he went back to the City Council at their last meeting and asked for another recommendation, given the fact that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment had been approved for transmittal and would likely be adopted. He stated that he wanted them to then address the rezoning specifically. He stated that he would ask that the Board not approve the rezoning, but direct the applicant to annex into the City, rezone into the City, and develop to City standards. He stated that, as mentioned previously, the project is surrounded on three sides by the City of Clermont. He stated that the City received a letter for a utility request, but determined that they did not want to hear that request until the land use and the zoning issues had been addressed at the County level. He stated that, if the applicant wanted to move forward, they could have come to the City and requested annexation, but they never did. He stated that, while they had the option originally to request annexation and do a Comprehensive Plan with the City and develop out to the City’s LDRs, they chose not to do that. He stated that they are at the point now where they have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that will be approved and likely a rezoning that will be approved, so what is important to the City is that the property be annexed into the City and then developed to City standards.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether, if the Board asked the applicant to develop under the joint LDRs, it would quell the concerns of the City, to some extent.
Mr. Brown stated that he would be comfortable with it, however, noted that it was the City Council’s direction that the applicant annex, rezone to the City, and develop to City standards.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that the standards that will be contained in the joint LDRs will be better than the City’s standards or the County’s standards, they will be the best of the best.
Mr. Egor Emory, a resident of the County, addressed the Board stating that this case is a classic example of why people have argued for the JPAs. He stated that he would like to see the County get out of the Urban development approval business, which he feels this case involves. He stated that there has been no discussion, thus far, about whether or not the property requires Urban services - it does, therefore, it should be in the City. He stated that the only pressure he feels for this request being approved this date is from the applicant, but, as a citizen, he wants to apply pressure to do it right - put it in the City, develop it within the City, and have the City decide how it goes. He stated that the compromise that the Board was trying to work out was going to be a fairly reasonable one, but he would rather have the pressure applied. He stated that all the JPA agreements need to be done and all the issues need to be settled and get the City developing City type projects and the County doing what is appropriate for the County. He urged the Board to make the applicant annex the property into the City, because it is going to be in the City in the end anyway.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-113,Trycon, Inc./Byron H. King, Trustee/Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, Rezoning Case No. PH49-03-2,Tracking No. 77-03-CP, a request for approval to rezone property in the east Clermont area, located at the southeast corner of SR 50 and Hancock Road, from MP (Planned Industrial) to CP (Planned Commercial), for Commercial Retail Sales and Services, subject to central public utility availability and that the wording “superior” will be determined by the City of Clermont and the County jointly.
REZONING CASE NO. LPA03/4/2-2 - AMENDMENT TO CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE DESIGNATION OF URBAN EXPANSION TO URBAN - FRANCES
HARTLE, TRUSTEE, HARTLE GROVES, INC. - TRACKING NO. 45-03-LPA
Ms. Amye King, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was the adoption hearing for Land Plan Amendment No. 03/4/2-2. She stated that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Designation of Urban Expansion to Urban for approximately 69 acres, located on the southeast corner of Hartle Road and SR 50, within the Clermont JPA. She stated that the Transmittal Hearing was originally postponed on May 27, 2003 and was postponed again on June 24, 2003. She stated that staff recommended denial of the request at the time, because the amendment would create an enclave of Urban within an Urban Expansion area. She stated that the amendment was approved by the Board and transmitted August 26, 2003. She stated that the County received an ORC (Objections, Recommendations, and Comments) Report on August 31, 2003 that outlined three issues, being (1) the areas within an aquifer recharge area; (2) that the proposed amendment was not supported by adequate public facilities analysis for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and recreation; and (3) that the Future Land Use Map Amendment was not supported by a Transportation Analysis. She stated that staff has since worked with the applicant and received comments on all three issues and feel they have sufficiently worked out most of what they need to transmit all the required data back to DCA. She stated that there is still the concern that it is a proposed Urban area within an Urban Expansion area, but staff feels they have worked out most of the concerns, considering the fact that it is compatible with the existing land uses surrounding it.
It was noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 6-3 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the applicant was requesting strictly a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, noting that the property is currently zoned Agriculture and nothing the Board approves this date changes that. He stated that, for any use other than Agricultural, he would have to go back through the PUD (Planned Unit Development) or rezoning process that has been initiated. He gave the Board a brief background history of the case, noting that a couple of years ago the Public Works Department contacted Ms. Hartle, because there was a plan to realign CR 455, which is directly across the street from the property in question. He stated that the County had plans to realign it and have it come down to a “T” signalized intersection. He stated that Ms. Hartle was contacted, because that realignment made the jog between Hartle Road going south and CR 455 going north an acute problem, with regard to public safety and the fact that those intersections were being exacerbated by the realignment. He stated that Ms. Hartle was asked to provide the County with right of way through her property, to accommodate a realignment of Hartle Road, which under the County plans, interconnects with some roads that go east and west and provides an alternative road system to Hwy. 50. He stated that, over the last two years, Ms. Hartle has been working with various people to try to figure out some way to accommodate the County’s request for 100 feet of right of way through her property and also try to maintain the value of her property. He stated that this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the first step toward allowing Ms. Hartle to do what she has agreed to do. He stated that it is intended to move the property in question from Urban Expansion to Urban, which allows the applicant to come back in the future with a PUD, which is currently in the process for some commercial at the new intersection, with some residential behind it. He stated that the density and intensity of both the commercial and the residential is something the Board will determine at some future date, and, depending on how they work that, Ms. Hartle will be providing the road right of way free of the County.
Mr. Richey stated that the issue before the Board this date is approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which will allow the applicant to go to the next step. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment only increases the density, in actuality, based on the road right of way. He stated that the request involves a parcel consisting of 69 acres and the current Comprehensive Plan allows for four units to the acre. He stated that, with the redesignation of the road to the middle of the property, the applicant only picks up a little over 100 units on the entire site, which is not a significant amount of density. He stated that, in consideration of that density, the County is going to get the 100 feet of right of way, plus stormwater, as part of the next step. He stated that they are not increasing density significantly, they are just providing an opportunity for the applicant to put a plan together that makes economic sense for the applicant and saves the County a substantial amount of money, in not having to acquire the right of way, and the applicant being able to provide the right of way to the County in a very timely way. He stated that the issue that was raised by staff at the transmittal hearing was the applicant’s request for an Urban designation and the fact that the property is surrounded by Urban Expansion. He stated that the Department of Community Affairs, when looking at the ORC Report, did not raise that as an issue - they did not find the property to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there were three issues raised, alluded to by Ms. King, which he would be addressing.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc., addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, stating that his firm was retained by the applicant to provide assistance in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. He stated that, as Ms. King stated, the three issues that came up were Traffic, which he noted Lassiter Transportation Group, Inc. addressed and submitted a traffic analysis (Applicant’s Exhibit A), based on the comments raised by DCA, which were submitted to the County. He stated that the second issue dealt with levels of service for water and sewer, solid waste, and recreation, one being the agreement (Applicant’s Exhibit B)that Ms. Hartle has with the City of Clermont, dealing with water and sewer being provided to the site, which was submitted, for the record. He stated that his firm also did an analysis (Applicant’s Exhibit C) on solid waste (impact that is proposed can be easily accommodated by County’s incinerator in Okahumpka) and recreation (impact is only four-tenths of an acre of increase for open space and can be accommodated either on-site or countywide), which was submitted, for the record. He stated that another issue involves the fact that the State brought up the point that the difference between Urban Expansion and Urban deals with impervious surface and that was a concern. He stated that the County has a policy (Applicant’s Exhibit D) that limits impervious surface impacts separate from the actual differences between the two land use categories, which was submitted, for the record. He noted that the impacts for commercial and residential are equal between the two land use categories.
Mr. Richey clarified the fact that Urban Expansion and Urban allow for the same kind of coverage and impervious surface and the applicant is not increasing that by any action taken this date. He stated that the bottom line is that the Board will not be approving anything other than the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which will allow the applicant to sit down with staff and work out the nature of the PUD and the density that is going to be there, in relation to the commercial and the consideration for providing the new right of way, which the County has been seeking for two years.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Hill to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2003-114, Frances Hartle/Hartle Groves/Steven J. Richey, P.A.,Rezoning Case No. LPA03/4/2-2,Tracking No. 45-03-LPA, a request for an amendment to the current Future Land Use Designation of Urban Expansion to Urban for approximately 69 acres, Alternate Key Nos. 2545542 and 2545551, lying within Section 26, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The applicant proposes to develop the property for Commercial and Residential purposes.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she had some of the same concerns that were brought up during this meeting. She stated that, as a general rule, she does not approve land use amendments, particularly larger ones. She stated that there is no doubt that it will be a benefit to the County to extend CR 455, however, noted that it will open up the area for a higher density at some point in time.
Commr. Pool interjected that the Board will be the one that will dictate what densities are accepted. He stated that it is not a density issue that is being addressed this date, but strictly a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Hanson voted “No”.
VOLUNTARY REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
TRACKING NO. 116-03-CUP/REV
The Chairman opened the public hearing, questioning whether anyone was present in opposition to the request for approval of the Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permits.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-115,Voluntary Revocation of CUPS, as follows:
CUP No. 199-5 Golden Gem Growers, Inc.
CUP Nos. 141-5 and 141A-5 Alfred and Dorothy Smith
CUP No. 125-4 Bobby and Mary Katherine Dempsey
CUP No. 001-2002 Wilmer and Elizabeth Bell
CUP No. 870-3 Cadia Partnership (Amy Blanchard)
CUP No. 87/11/2-2 Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc.
CUP No. 99/8/2-5 Robert and Margaret Ann Craig
CUP No. 105 Larry Michael
CUP No. 90/12/2-2 Leslie and Vallei Ramey
CUP No. 87/8/1-2 Tally Box Company
CUP No. 89/3/2-3 Daniel and Carol Seme
CUP No. 88/5/3-5 Rae Properties, Inc.
CUP No. 89/4/3-4 Paula Lynn Alger
OTHER BUSINESS
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone action regarding the Resolution appointing members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee until the Board Meeting scheduled for January 6, 2004.
REAPPOINTMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
COORDINATING BOARD
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board reappointed Mr. John Askew as Sunrise Arc’s representative on the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board and Ms. Diane Schmidt as its Alternate Representative.
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
PRIORITY LIST OF LEGISLATIVE ISSUES FOR 2004
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Priority List of Legislative Issues for 2004, as presented.
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
CONTRACT WITH LIFESTREAM BEHAVIORAL CENTER
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that staff has been working with LifeStream Behavioral Center on the Transportation Disadvantaged Program, noting that over the last few years it has become more and more expensive in providing the trips with limited funding from state resources. He stated that he pulled from the Agenda a request for approval of a 12 month extension on the current contract and would recommend that the Board extend it through the end of January, 2004, at which time staff will bring back to the Board a revised contract, with numbers that both sides feel comfortable with.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request to extend the County’s contract with LifeStream Behavioral Center for the provision of transportation services through the end of January, 2004, at which time staff will bring back to the Board a revised contract, as noted.
Mr. Neron informed the Board that staff is also working with LifeStream in looking at the County’s long range needs for the Transportation Disadvantaged Program, noting that there have been some cutbacks at the State and Federal levels and the County is not sure whether to expect further reductions in those funds or not. He stated that the Transportation Disadvantaged Program has not been updated for a number of years; therefore, he would recommend that the Board authorize staff to go out for proposals to update the program, which they estimate will take approximately four months, and staff can then come back to the Board with the results, at which time the Board can make a decision regarding whether to bid out all or a portion of those services, or to continue under the current arrangement and see what the estimated funding requirements will be in future years. He stated that staff was recommending that the Board go with Option A, with regard to continuing the contract with LifeStream Behavioral Center for the provision of transportation services, which includes updating the current transportation plan; extending the contract 12 months; and subsequently issuing a new Request for Proposal (RFP).
It was noted that staff would work jointly with LifeStream and the Transportation Disadvantaged Committee in accomplishing that task.
Commr. Hill stated that she thought the County had conducted a study before they contracted with LifeStream last year and that, during the Budget Meetings, the Board had this discussion and what the County intended to do was extend the contract until December of 2004. She stated that she would recommend the Board go with Option C and issue a proposal with hard bids, noting that that is what she asked for last year and she has not changed her mind. She stated that she would not be voting for Option A, but Option C, with the modifications.
Mr. Neron stated that, when the County went out for bids before, it was based on the way that the County is currently providing services. He stated that, by updating the Transportation Disadvantaged Program, the County may change the way it does business and what services it may be able to afford to provide, and, based on that review, the County could go out for hard bids and see where it is at that point in time. He stated that the County did away with the fixed route and is now coming back and looking at what is called a deviated fixed route, where the trips are consolidated.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved to go with Option A, with regard to continuing the contract with LifeStream Behavioral Center for the provision of transportation services, which includes updating the current transportation plan; extending the contract 12 months; and subsequently issuing a new Request for Proposal (RFP).
Commr. Hill voted “No”.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT 2
DISCUSSION WITH CONGRESSWOMAN GINNY BROWN-WAITE’S OFFICE
REGARDING FUNDING FOR EDUCATION AND TRANSPORTATION IN LAKE
COUNTY
Commr. Pool informed the Board that he recently conversed with Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite’s Office about issues that concern the County, at which time he brought forward education and transportation initiatives, noting that any dollars the Federal government may be able to send to the County for education and transportation is greatly needed. He stated that he focused on the Hwy. 27/SR 50 corridor, stating that, if SR 50 is six laned east and west, he would like for the State to look at Hwy. 27 north and south, as well. He stated that they agreed there might be some funding available to enhance that corridor.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT 2
WEST ORANGE/SOUTH LAKE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE
Commr. Pool informed the Board that he met with the West Orange/South Lake Transportation Task Force and discussed how to best provide north/south connectivity, ensuring that the State goes north and south down to the Hartwood Marsh corridor and potentially further south. He stated that they also discussed east and west corridors on Hwy. 27 to the new SR 429, which he noted has nothing to do with the northern extension of SR 429, in that it is going south in south Lake County. He stated that the southern alignment has been figured out and is already on the drawing board. He noted that the Task Force is looking at every transportation corridor in the south Lake County district.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT 5
MEETING WITH ASTOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING BOAT RAMP
PROPERTY
Commr. Cadwell asked that the Board direct staff to meet with the Astor Chamber of Commerce, with regard to utilization of property that the County has at the boat ramp in Astor, where the Sheriff has a substation. He stated that Astor needs a place to house their Chamber of Commerce and it would give the County somebody local that could watch the building and handle the renting of it, should the community want to utilize it, however, noted that the first step would be to meet with the Chamber of Commerce and come up with a lease agreement, which he hoped would instruct them that they will have to be the ones to look after the building and handle the renting of it to the community.
It was noted that the County will be responsible for the day to day maintenance of the building.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved said request.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT 5
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO COUNTY’S GOLF CART ORDINANCE
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he would like for them to direct the County Attorney to prepare a Resolution making the County’s Golf Cart Ordinance consistent with the Town of Lady Lake’s Ordinance, as opposed to amending the Ordinance, with the Resolution to be brought back to the Board for approval in January of 2004.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved for the County Attorney to prepare said Resolution.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4
PINE FOREST PARK
Commr. Hanson brought to the attention of the Board the fact that Pine Forest Park was officially opened on Saturday, December 13, 2003. She stated that, originally, the County purchased 28 acres between Pine Lakes and Forest Hills for said park, however, noted that scrub jays were found on the property, so the County purchased an additional 20 acres, preserved the habitat for the scrub jays on the 28 acres, and installed playground equipment on the 20 acres that were purchased. She stated that the park looks great and there were a lot of people utilizing it on the day that it officially opened.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4
NORTHWEST EXTENSION OF SR 429
Commr. Hanson stated that she suggested to the Board at the last Board Meeting approval of a Resolution supporting some of the various alternatives that have been developed by the working group that Commr. Pool sits on, with regard to the Northwest Extension of SR 429 and operation of the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority in east Lake County, and would like to place said item on the Agenda, for discussion, at which time she distributed an aerial map showing the proposed Wekiva Parkway Corridor, the proposed Apopka Bypass Corridor, the proposed SR 46 Corridor, and the future SR 44 Connector, as of December 2, 2003.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.
Commr. Hanson stated that the map she distributed to the Board was probably very close to the working group’s finished product and she felt what might be helpful to the Board, the working group, the coordinating committee for the Wekiva, and, perhaps, the Governor would be to look at those alternatives or projects that they could find a consensus for. She stated that there seems to be a consensus for approval of the purple area (proposed Wekiva Parkway Corridor) on the map, which will ultimately lead back out to I-4. She stated that that will be the completion of the beltway - the last unfinished segment. She stated that there will be a toll road leading up to Lake County, but not actually into Lake County. She stated that the blue area on the map (proposed SR 46 Corridor) is the southern bypass around Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento, which she noted was proposed by the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Small Area Study. She stated that it brings the road back up to SR 46 as a non-toll, limited access road that will preserve the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area as a community with a two-laned road, with incentives to encourage through traffic to use the bypass. She stated that it would be her recommendation, because there is a lack of consensus and a great deal of controversy in bringing the SR 429 expressway into Lake County, to table it at this time.
Commr. Stivender stated that Mt. Dora’s main concern was that all the traffic would be dumped into Mt. Dora and questioned whether it would eliminate that concern and was informed that it would.
Commr. Hanson stated that it has been overwhelming to the public and to the County to have all the roads put into their laps at one time, in that it is confusing. She stated that she feels, if the County can get these two roads accomplished and widen SR 46, it would have gone a long way in dealing with the very serious concerns of transportation in the east Lake County area. She submitted a draft Resolution for the Board’s approval, however, pointed out the fact that, under the sixth “Whereas”, the wording “within certain portions” should be deleted, as well as the wording “north of SR 46", at the very end of the paragraph, under Section 1.
Commr. Cadwell questioned what Orange County’s position was regarding the SR 429 extension to the Lake County line.
Commr. Pool stated that they have agreed to hold more public hearings and get more public input regarding the matter, which he elaborated on.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the Resolution before them would do away with the green swath on the map and was informed that it would. He then questioned what kind of fiscal responsibility the County would have to the Expressway Authority under the current agreement.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the County would not have any responsibility to them financially, in fact, noted that they have suspended their studies, because of the Task Force meetings.
Commr. Pool stated that he did not have a problem with approving the Resolution, nor with removing the green swath from the map, however, felt that, in fairness to the cities, the Board should send Commr. Hanson with a message that their goal is to remove the green swath from the map, by approving the Resolution, but feels that the cities should be given an opportunity for input, since they were not included in the discussion or invited to this meeting. He stated that he wanted to send a clear message that the Board does not support the green swath and that is what the working group, as a whole, could not come to a consensus on.
It was noted that the cities would now be represented on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Board, at which time Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, reminded the Board that the MPO is a planning board and would not have any funding.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2003-217, regarding the Northwest Extension of SR 429 and Operation of the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority in East Lake County, with changes, as noted.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONT’D.)
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 3
JOEY BERGSMA RETINOBLASTOMA MONTH IN LAKE COUNTY RESOLUTION
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2003-218, declaring the month of January as Joey Bergsma Retinoblastoma Month in Lake County.
OTHER BUSINESS
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, gave the Board a brief update on what the County is doing, with regard to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, noting that the County recently received a preliminary interlocal agreement between the State and the County, which has been sent to the cities and the County Attorney’s Office for review. He stated that it is a standard agreement and will probably be brought before the Board in January of 2004, for approval. He stated that the cities have to approve it, as well, and noted that it was his understanding that within 60 days the County has to receive the interlocal agreement back and start the process. He stated that, within the next six months, he feels discussions regarding the structure of an MPO, from a management standpoint, will be discussed. He stated that, with regard to the 2025 plan that the County has had on hold for a couple of years, a Request for Proposal (RFP) needs to be sent out, at which time he noted that the MPO will be the one managing entity that will be handling the RFP and selecting the process. He stated that that is going to be a key point, because so many topics have changed during the past five years.
It was noted that staff is staying in close contact with Sumter County and the cities during this process.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 3
CIP WORKSHOP
Commr. Stivender informed the Board that a CIP Workshop has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 10, 2004, and that she would like for all the Commissioners to be present at that meeting, if possible. She then wished everyone a safe and peaceful holiday season.
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER (CONT’D.)
COUNTY’S ANNUAL FOOD DRIVE
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that county employees surpassed their record this year in collecting food for the County’s Annual Food Drive, noting that almost 10,000 pounds of food was collected. He stated that the Departments of Growth Management, Public Works, and Community Services doubled their donations over the last year and he was very proud of them, as well as all of the County’s employees.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
_________________________________
DEBBIE STIVENDER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK