A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JULY 27, 2004

            The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 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; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, 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, per a memorandum from Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, he was asking that Tab 7, under the County Manager’s Departmental Business, a request from Growth Management for approval of the Joint Planning Area Agreement with the City of Leesburg, be pulled until a later date, and that the Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting scheduled for August 10, 2004 be cancelled. He stated that there was a need for some revised language pertaining to Tabs 2 and 3, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, noting that it should state September 2, 2003, under Tab 2, and that the language “and Central Florida Golf Properties, L.L.C.” needed to be deleted from Tab 3.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she would like for the Board to have a brief discussion and report on Forest Drive, in the Pine Lakes area of the County, noting that a resident of that area was present in the audience and would like an update on the matter.

            It was noted that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, as well.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 4, with changes to Tabs 2 and 3, as noted, including Addendum No. 1, as follows:

            Information Technology

            Request for approval and authorization to pay Software House International (SHI) $39,556.67, in accordance with the State of Florida Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, allowing the payment of licensing and software assurance to be spread equally over a three year period.

 

            Public Works

 

            Request for approval and signature on Amendment 1, amending the State Funds, and Amendment 1, amending the Local Funds amount of the Tentative Certified Budget for Arthropod Control for Fiscal Year 2003/2004.

 

            Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Sorrento Hills Phase 3 and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Sorrento Hills Phase 3 plat; accept a Letter of Credit for Performance, in the amount of $1,650,000.00; and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Country Greens Community Development District and Eagle Dunes, L.L.C. Sorrento Hills, Phase 3 (a/k/a Sorrento Springs, Phase 3) consists of 160 lots - Commission District 4.

 

            Request for approval to enter into an Interlocal Agreement between the State of Florida Division of Corrections and Lake County, Florida, for inmate work on Lake County roads.

 

            ADDENDUM NO. 1

 

            Public Works

 

            Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Glenbrook Phase II and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Glenbrook Phase II plat; accept a Letter of Credit for Maintenance, in the amount of $40,161.00; execute a Developer’s Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Whitemark Homes, Inc.; and execute Resolution No. 2004-112, accepting Morning Star Drive “Part” (CR 0162B) and Fresh Meadow Drive (CR2-0163F) into the County Road Maintenance System, all relating to the Glenbrook Phase II subdivision. Glenbrook Phase II consists of 92 lots - Commission District 2.

 

            OTHER BUSINESS

            FOREST DRIVE - PINE LAKES AREA

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, gave the Board a brief update on the situation involving Forest Drive, in the Pine Lakes area, noting that, before the County went before the Board for approval to advertise and for permitting and design work for Forest Drive, approximately three years ago, a discussion was held regarding how much money the County had to spend on the special assessment for Forest Drive. He stated that the original estimate was a little over $1 million; however, the most recent estimate is approximately $800,000, which the County has, so it is now ready to go out for bid.

            Mr. Jim Hunt, a resident of the Pine Lakes area, addressed the Board and briefly discussed the dangers of Forest Drive, in its current state.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS: VACATIONS

            PETITION NO. 1026 - PETER AND DARLENE SIGNOROTTI - FRUITLAND PARK

            AREA

 

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a portion of Crescent Drive, according to the Plat of Crescent Cove, in Commission District 1. He stated that the applicants’ representative was Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney. He displayed a map of the property in question, stating that, when Lake Unity Road was constructed as a State secondary road, the State bypassed the plat in question and Mr. and Mrs. Signorotti have had the right of way in their front yard for years. He stated that it is a surplus right of way; therefore, staff is recommending approval to vacate.

            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 portion of the meeting. 

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2004-113 - Vacation Petition No. 1026, by Peter and Darlene Signorotti, Representative Steven J. Richey, P.A., to vacate a portion of platted right of way for Crescent Drive, according to the Plat of Crescent Cove, located in Section 2, Township 19 South, Range 24 East, in the Fruitland Park area - Commission District 1.

            PETITION NO. 1028 - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

            PROTECTION, DIVISION OF STATE LANDS - LAKE MACK/ROYAL

            TRAILS AREA

 

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate an easement located in the Lake Mack/Royal Trails area, in Commission District 5. He stated that staff would like to postpone the request for 60 days, noting that there is an issue involved with the title to said property, which they would like to clear up before moving forward with the vacation.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Carl Rodkey, a resident of the east Lake County area, addressed the Board stating that he has been watching the tremendous growth in that area and would like to see the vacation approved as soon as possible, noting that it would prevent a connection between Royal Trails and Lake Mack, which he feels would slow down the growth in that area.

            There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Public Works Department for a 60 day postponement of Vacation Petition No. 1028, by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands, to vacate an easement located in Section 30 and 31, Township 17 South, Range 29 East, in the Lake Mack/Royal Trails area - Commission District 5.

 


            PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that staff had received a request to postpone Rezoning Agenda Item No. 6 - Rezoning Case No. PH47-04-4, Carrol and Renelda M. Gatch, Lake County Department of Public Works, for 30 days, to allow some issues to be cleared up.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH43-04-2 - AMEND CFD ORDINANCE NO. 55-89 -

            CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING, INC./CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQUIRE -

            TRACKING NO. 44-04-CFD/AMD

 

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, presented the case, stating that it was a request to amend existing CFD Ordinance No. 55-89, to add an additional radio tower and increase an existing transmitter and tower buildings, which will allow for the additional broadcasting of another radio station. He stated that there are currently six antennas, working in concert, to broadcast the AM signals. He stated that the applicants are requesting the addition of a 369 foot tower to the existing set of arrays. He stated that staff has run the tower separations, in accordance with the wireless transmitter regulations within the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He stated that the site is located south of W. Phil C. Peters Road, although the applicants utilize Tower Pine Drive to access the facility. He stated that there are several homes that fall within the separation distance from residential, however, taking into consideration the fact that the towers act to broadcast an array and a radio station needs to broadcast an array, staff is recommending approval to add the additional tower. He stated that the Zoning Board rendered a recommendation of 5-0 for approval, with one change to the language contained in Section 1.C.2. of the proposed Ordinance, changing “continuously lighted” to “lighted in accordance with Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and FDOT regulations”. He stated that there was some discussion at the Zoning Board Meeting about the applicant providing alternatives for making the towers visible during the daytime and for providing lighting at night, in accordance with the regulations alluded to earlier.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            No one was present in opposition to the request.

            Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that strobe lighting, which has bothered people in the past, will not be used on the towers. She asked the Board to give the applicant some flexibility regarding Item 1. E., on Page 2 of the Ordinance, dealing with the issue of Buffers, stating that it requires a vegetative buffer along the perimeter of the site, to provide a visual and continuous screen, in accordance with Section 3.13.11 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations. She stated that the site is a large one, at which time she displayed a number of photographs (Applicant’s Exhibit A) showing how the applicant has left an entire wooded area around the property in its natural state, noting that the photographs show that one cannot see, to a great extent, what is occurring on the property. She stated that it would be an extreme cost to the applicant to have to install traditional landscaping along the perimeter of the site and would have little or no impact on what the neighbors see.

            Commr. Stivender stated that, in other cases involving a rural area, the Board has not required the applicants to install a vegetative buffer around the perimeter of the property and noted a concern about where the water supply would come from to keep the landscaping maintained.

            Ms. Bonifay stated that it would not be possible for the applicant to maintain the landscaping, because there is no central water in the area. She stated that, other than some maintenance needs, there is very little demand or need for utilities at the site. She asked the Board to approve the recommendation of the Zoning Board and allow the applicant to install an additional radio tower and increase its existing transmitter and tower buildings, with a caveat that the requirement for a vegetative buffer be removed and that the buffer be allowed to be natural, or that direction be given that the matter be addressed at the time of site plan approval.

            Mr. Richardson stated that it appears, from the photographs Ms. Bonifay displayed, that the applicant has installed a six foot privacy fence to buffer the base of the towers and equipment that is located on the site, which he feels should replace the requirement for a vegetative buffer.

            It was noted that the property consists of 80 acres, but due to the configuration of the six guide towers presently on the site, no more than one additional tower would be able to be constructed on the site, without interfering with the frequency of the other towers.

            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 Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2004-50, Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, Rezoning Case No. PH43-04-2,Tracking No. 44-04-CFD/AMD, amending CFD Ordinance No. 55-89, to add an additional radio tower and increase existing transmitter and tower buildings, excluding the requirement for a vegetative buffer, due to the fact that a privacy fence has been installed along the perimeter of the property.

 


            REZONING CASE NO. PH45-04-2 - A TO C-2 - MESSY DOG, LLC

            DAN HESSBURG/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 48-0-4Z

 

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, presented the case, stating that it was a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial District). He stated that the property is located in the vicinity of S.R. 19, U.S. 27, and the Turnpike, near the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park. He stated that, in review, staff has found that the property does not meet the commercial location criteria to the letter, under Policy1-3A.1 of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, however, noted that the property is in extreme proximity to the regional commercial node that is indicated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). He stated that, additionally, there are other commercial uses that are in the vicinity and some recent approvals that the Board has done over the last several years. He stated that, in evaluating the property, staff has found that around the perimeter of the property is a significant amount of wetlands, so there does not appear to be any other alternative use for the property. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that they feel the most logical use of the property would be commercial, based on the environmental factors and development patterns of the surrounding area. He stated that the Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a 5-0 vote.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the property in question was recently zoned C-2. He stated that it is a rather small, enclosed parcel with C-2 zoning on all sides, except for the Turnpike on the back side of it and wetlands on the southern end of it. He stated that the property will most likely be the last parcel in the area that can be zoned commercial, because of some environmental factors involved.

            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 portion of the meeting.

            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 Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2004-51, Messy Dog, LLC/Dan Hessburg/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH45-04-2,Tracking No. 48-0-4Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial District), for commercial uses.

 


            REZONING CASE NO. PH44-04-3 - A TO R-1 - HUGH F. MCELYEA, TRUSTEE,

            ET AL/MIKE PRYSMONT - TRACKING NO. 46-04-Z

 

            Ms. Shannon Suffron, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, presented the case, stating that it was a request to rezone approximately 30 acres from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential) in the Howey in the Hills area, separated by No. 2 Road, adjacent to the Mission Inn PUD (Planned Unit Development). She stated that the Future Land Use for the property is Urban Expansion; however, a small portion of it is classified as Suburban. She stated that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations, as seen in Section 3.00.03, which permits R-1 zoning in Urban Expansion and Suburban land use categories; it is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as seen in Policy 1-1.6, which states that residential development in the Urban Expansion area shall have a density of one to a maximum of four dwelling units per acre; and its associated land use is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use and development patterns in the area. She stated that the applicant states that a real estate assessment shows there are no comparable lots available in the area and that there is growth in the area, so low density residential development would be a good alternative. She stated that the proposed rezoning would not result in a significant increase in demand on public facilities, nor would it result in an adverse impact on the natural environment, and it would be in harmony with the general intent of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations; therefore, based on the above facts, staff was recommending approval of the request. She noted that the Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a 4-1 vote.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Terry Adsit, Senior Planner, Lake County School Board, addressed the Board stating that the development related to this request could result in 30 additional homes that could impact further the schools in the area, which are already over capacity. He shared with the Board the outcome of the School Board meeting that was held the previous night, noting that they voted to approve a gap fee of $7,286.00, which represents the difference between the new impact fee of $10,775.00, which the Randy Young Study came up with, and the current impact fee of $3,489.00. He stated that the School Board went on to say that, until a new impact fee is adopted, if the gap fee is willingly accepted by perspective developers for developments that will impact school capacities, the School Board would not object to the developments in those instances. He stated that the School Board also indicated, if there was a desire to prepay impact fees, they would expect that said prepayment would include the gap fee. He stated that the School Board was informed that the developer in this case only plans to construct 14 to 15 homes on the property in question, rather than the maximum of 30. He stated that, if the developer would be willing to pay the gap fee, on top of the impact fee, the School Board would withdraw its objection to the request.

            It was noted that the schools that would be impacted by said development would be Astatula Elementary, Tavares Middle School, and Tavares High School.

            Mr. Mike Prysmont, the developer of the proposed subdivision, addressed the Board stating that he understood the concerns of the School Board, with all the growth that is occurring in the County, however, noted that he hoped this request would be a good alternative. He stated that he was looking at constructing one to three acre homesites, which would tremendously reduce the possibility of homes that could be constructed on the property in question. He stated that the property backs up to the Mission Inn and to the Howey Reserves, which is scheduled to be constructed in the near future. He stated that, if someone else were to purchase the property for future development, there could be a much larger impact to the school system than what he was proposing. He stated that, with regard to committing to the gap fee, he would have to discuss the matter with the other individuals he is involved with, put the numbers together, and see if it would still work for them.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether the developer had looked at clustering and having smaller lots and a larger amount of open space and was informed by Mr. Prysmont that the majority of the homesites would be between two and three acres; however, he noted that he and his partners were waiting to see what happens, before taking it to the next step.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she felt uncomfortable bouncing up to the gap amount that has been set by the School Board at this point in time, noting that it almost makes it retroactive. She stated that other developers that voluntarily agreed to pay it agreed to a $2,000 fee that the School Board had previously determined would be the gap amount.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Commr. Hanson saw the Board accepting the gap fee as a premature endorsement of the number that is out there and was informed that she did, to which he noted that he concurred.

            Commr. Pool interjected that he felt there may need to be an increase in the gap fee, but did not know at what point the Board would agree to it. He stated that, while he feels the impact fee needs to be increased, he was not sure that the proposed amount would be the amount that it would need to be increased to.

            It was noted by the County Attorney that the Board placed in the Ordinance the fact that the developer agreed to voluntarily pay a $2,000 gap fee at the time of pulling his building permits.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the developer wanted to move forward this date with his request, rather than wait until the Board knows what the gap fee is going to be, and was informed that he did.

            There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2004-52, Hugh McElyea, Trustee, et al/Mike Prysmont, Rezoning Case No. PH44-04-3,Tracking No. 46-04-Z, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential), with a stipulation that the developer voluntarily pay the gap fee, which will be between $2,000 and $10,775, to be set by the Board at a later date.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH46-04-1 - R-6 TO CP - RONALD L. AND LORETTA

            SHELFER/MARSHA GODDU - TRACKING NO 47-04-CP

 

            Ms. Shannon Suffron, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, presented the case, stating that it was a request to rezone approximately 0.8 acres from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District) with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial District) uses. She stated that the property is located in the Leesburg area, on CR 473, and the future land use on the property is Urban. She stated that the applicant is requesting approval to develop the property for a commercial use, noting that a single family residence, with a utility shed, currently exists on the site. She stated that the proposed rezoning does not conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs); however, it is not in compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, as the parcel does not meet commercial location criteria. She stated that Policy 1-3A(4) states that Neighborhood Convenience Centers, which allow combined commercial and retail allocations of 2,500 to 5,000 square feet, may be located on collectors, with preference given to locations at or near an intersection. She stated that the property is presently surrounded by residential uses. She stated that staff feels the proposed commercial use is incompatible with the land use pattern in the immediate vicinity and, while it is true that Neighborhood Convenience Centers may be located along collector roadways, staff believes that the absence of commercial development on the parcels abutting the subject property prevents the site from meeting commercial location criteria. She stated that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations, as seen in Section 3.00.03, that permits CP zoning in Urban land use and is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as seen in Policy 1-1.6, that states that commercial development, including neighborhood, community, regional, and planned commercial shall be an allowable use within the Urban land use category; however, the request is not consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as seen in Policy 1-3A, Criteria to Direct Commercial Development, which categorizes the areas in which commercial development may be located, and the proposed rezoning and its associated land use is not consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use and development patterns in the area. She noted that the properties to the north, east, and south of the subject property and abutting CR 473 have an R-6 zoning and are developed with single family residences, while the Lakes at Leesburg Mobile Home Park, zoned RMRP, lies to the west.

            Ms. Suffron stated that the applicant feels, because the surrounding properties are being rezoned to commercial, the best use of the property would be commercial, rather than residential; however, staff feels there have been no changed conditions to require the rezoning. She stated that the proposed rezoning would not result in a significant increase in demand on public facilities and it would not result in an adverse impact on the environment; however, it would not be in harmony with the general intent of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations and it does not meet commercial location criteria. She stated that, based upon said facts, staff was recommending denial of the request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial District), with C-1 and C-2 uses. She stated that the Zoning Board recommended approval of CP, with C-1 uses, to include a maximum of 5,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, by a 5-0 vote.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether Residential Professional would be allowed on the site, as a transition, without being pulled into the commercial district, and was informed that it would be an appropriate use, which was one of the reasons, with the Planned Commercial, for limiting it to C-1 uses, as opposed to C-2 uses, which is a much more intense commercial use.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Ms. Marsha Goddu, a contingent buyer for the property in question, addressed the Board stating that there is residential development around the property, however, noted that it is in deteriorating condition. She stated that the area does not look like it is any longer conducive to single family homes. She stated that there is a corridor of approximately one mile from Hwy. 441 to an area where there is a PUD (Planned Unit Development), which contains new homes, and the property in question is in between the two areas. She stated that the one mile stretch is now four lanes and the power poles are all being upgraded, so she does not see the area as residential any longer, but more commercial. She asked the Board to consider the rezoning request.

            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.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2004-53, Ronald and Loretta Shelfer/Marsha Goddu, Rezoning Case No. 46-04-1,Tracking No. 47-04-CP, a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District), with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses, to include the maximum of 5,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH48-04-5 - A TO CFD - LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF

            COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/BOB STEVENS/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

            TRACKING NO. 51-04-CFD

 

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, presented the case, stating that it was a request to rezone a 100 acre parcel in the Umatilla area from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the creation of a county recreational park. He stated that the request was amended at the Zoning Board Meeting to include a caretaker’s residence, which was readvertised as such. He stated that the Zoning Board’s recommendation was for approval of the park and caretaker’s residence, by a 4-0 vote. He stated that the property is located in the Urban Expansion and Suburban land use and is appropriate for a park site and staff was recommending approval of the request.

            It was noted that the addition of the caretaker’s residence was based on community meetings that were held in the Umatilla area, where some of the residents indicated a concern about security at the park.

            Commr. Cadwell interjected that he felt the County might want to look into hiring personnel for the park, due to its size.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Ms. Michele Hare, a resident of the Umatilla area, addressed the Board stating that she was building a house on a parcel of property adjacent to the property in question and was concerned about the issue of security. She questioned what type of vegetative buffer will be planted along the perimeter of the property, noting that she is concerned that the County will only have a dirt mound and orange trees, which will not provide much of a buffer for the residents in the area. She stated that she was also concerned about sidewalk access, due to the number of children that will be walking on the edge of the road to access the park.

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works Department, addressed the Board stating that the County is looking at constructing a sidewalk from the park toward Umatilla and one to the northeast of the property.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the County needs to look at realigning Skyline Road with Robert Giles Road, as well.

            Commr. Stivender questioned what type of buffering would be required for the property and was informed that it would be a 10 foot buffer, with four canopy trees per 100 linear feet, which grow to approximately 50 feet in height and have a 30 to 40 foot spread at maturity.

            There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

            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 Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2004-54, Lake County Board of County Commissioners/Bob Stevens/Public Works Department, Rezoning Case No. PH 48-04-5, Tracking No. 51-04-CFD, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the creation of a county recreational park, with a caretaker’s residence for security.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH47-04-4 - A TO CFD - CARROL E. AND RENELDA M.

            GATCH/LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - TRACKING NO.

            49-04-CFD

 

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, informed the Board that some issues have come up involving this request and a 30 day postponement has been requested.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            No one was present in opposition to the postponement.

            There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

            On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 30 day postponement for Rezoning Case No. PH47-04-4, Carrol and Renelda M. Gatch/Lake County Department of Public Works, Tracking No. 48-04-CFD, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District).

            REZONING CASE NO. PH8-04-2 - R-1 AND R-6 TO PUD - KAREN JAFFE-

            MCGUIRE, TRUSTEE/COLONY COMMUNITIES/LARRY GODWIN/STEVEN J.

            RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 16-04-PUD

 

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, presented the case, stating that it was a request to rezone approximately 80 acres, located in the Clermont JPA (Joint Planning Area), from R-1 (Rural Residential) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the creation of a 162 unit residential subdivision, consisting of approximately 2.2 dwelling units per gross acre. He stated that staff has been working with the applicant for quite a while, noting that the request has been filed, withdrawn, and refiled. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Zoning Board approved it, as well, by a 4-1vote. He stated that the property is located in the Urban Expansion future land use category and is on central water and sewer. He noted that the City of Clermont and the Lake County School Board have some concerns about the project, which are contained in the Board’s backup material.

            Commrs. Hill, Stivender, Pool, and Hanson noted, for the record, that they had spoken with the attorney representing the applicants, prior to this meeting. 

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that the property in question consists of 80 acres, of which half is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) and the other half zoned R-6 (Urban Residential). He stated that the future land use classification is Urban Expansion, which means that it could be developed at four units per acre on the southern tract and one unit per acre on the northern tract. He stated that the PUD has 162 units proposed, which is a density reduction. He stated that the applicants have given the County 100 feet of right of way for the south Lake connector, which is on the northern part of the property, as part of an agreement that was reached early on, understanding that they would come in for zoning at some future date. He stated that the applicants also have an agreement with the County for joint water retention on the property, for stormwater. He reiterated the fact that the applicants are reducing the density; adding 25% open space, which is what the PUD requires, that is not required in the existing straight zoning; and they are agreeing to pay the impact fees that are legally established, or a gap fee that is legally established, whichever happens with the schools, even though they are not increasing school capacity problems and can develop at a greater density than what they are requesting, because they understand that there is a problem in south Lake County and want to be good corporate citizens.

            Commr. Hanson questioned whether the applicants had considered using more of a traditional neighborhood design, with more clustering and open space, and was informed by Mr. Richey that, based on the topography of the project, the applicants have laid out the open space and are kind of clustering. He stated that it may not meet the criteria of traditional clustering that she was referring to, but the project does have some clustering incorporated into it.

            Mr. Don McIntosh, Engineer, addressed the Board and displayed the Preliminary Development Plan (Applicant’s Exhibit A) for the project, stating that the applicants have incorporated the right of way for the proposed southern Clermont connector, as shown on the top of the diagram of the project. He noted that a stormwater management area, located in the central northern part of the property, is shown on the diagram, as well, which has not been dedicated yet, but has been planned. He stated that the western and southeastern portions of the property contain a combination of open space, wetlands, and stormwater management. He stated that the project also contains open space throughout, in terms of buffers and perimeter treatments. He stated that the project is a clustered program, by virtue of default on all the different issues. He stated that 70% of the property contains the lots and, within those lots, there is approximately 50% impervious and another 50% that will not be developed. He stated that the project was not proposed as a Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND), but is, nonetheless, a clustered PUD and is consistent with the County’s PUD Ordinance.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she felt this project could have a little more clustering, with the open space around it, however, noted that it was not a requirement.

            Mr. Richey interjected that one of the problems the applicants have with that concept is that it is contrary to the JPA concept, with regard to lot sizes in Clermont. He stated that what Commr. Hanson was asking the applicants to do is part of the reason they are having a problem with getting utilities to the project, because the City of Clermont encourages larger lots and does not want the developers to cluster. He stated that the applicants’ goal is to sit down with the City and try to work out the differences.

            Commr. Cadwell asked for clarification, regarding the open space, questioning whether the developer would still have 25% of open space without the retention areas and was informed that the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) allow for some retention areas to be used for recreation.

            It was noted that 5% of the property will not be used for anything other than a retention area.

            Mr. Richey stated that, in addition to that, the developer will be taking part of the County’s stormwater off of the connector road, by creating a larger stormwater retention area on the site, as part of a joint agreement between the developer and the County.

            Commr. Cadwell then questioned whether the City of Clermont would be the provider for sewer services to the site and was informed by Mr. Richey that the City was providing sewer services to the site contiguous to the site in question and that the developer has to work out an agreement with the City to provide said services to their site, however, noted that the development would be on central water and sewer.

            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 portion of the meeting.

            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 Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2004-55, Karen Jaffe-McGuire/Larry Godwin/Colony Communities/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH8-04-2,Tracking No. 16-04-PUD, a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) and R-6 (Urban Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the creation of a 162 unit residential subdivision, subject to the conditions contained in the associated ordinance and the newly adjusted impact fees.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH41-04-3 - OLYMPIA SPORTS WORLD PUD TO MIXED

            USE RESIDENTIAL PUD - STRATEGIC LAND INVESTMENTS/JOHN PERCY,

            GLATTING JACKSON KERCHER ANGLIN LOPEZ RINEHART -TRACKING NO.

            43-04-PUD

 

            Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, presented the case, stating that it was a request to take the old Olympia Sports World PUD and create a new PUD that will be taken into consideration. He stated that the request is for approval of 360 residential dwellings, including town homes, garden apartments, condominiums, residences above commercial/office space, and clustered single family detached and attached units. He stated that the applicants are requesting C-1 uses for the commercial, with approximately 80,000 square feet of retail, noting that the plan that has been proposed to staff is that the 80,000 square feet will be mixed in with residential - a commercial center with first floor commercial and second floor residential type uses. He stated that the property consists of approximately 380 acres and is located across three different land use categories - Urban, Urban Expansion, and Rural. He stated that a couple of things have come up, with regard to the request, one being the total number of dwelling units and the second being the total amount of commercial square footage. He stated that, based upon the proposal, as it was submitted, staff was recommending denial of the request, because of the inconsistencies created by those two issues. He stated that the Zoning Board made a recommendation, which was somewhat acceptable to the applicants, for approval of the PUD, by a 4-1 vote, for 277 dwelling units and a reduction in the commercial square footage from 80,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet. He stated that part of staff’s issue with the commercial square footage at 80,000 square feet was the fact that it does not technically meet the commercial location criteria, however, as part of a mixed use development, with a reduced square footage, it would come closer to serving the population between the proposed development and the Heritage Lakes Lennar development located on the other side of Hwy. 19, which also has a commercial component that goes along with it. He stated that, between those two commercial components, it would generally serve the local needs of the area. He stated that, with the reduction in the dwelling units and the commercial square footage, as the Zoning Board recommended, it actually lends itself to a greater consistency with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and, with those conditions, staff could change their recommendation of denial to approval.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray Robinson, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that, while one could do the point system and reach differing amounts, the applicants would not argue the case and would agree with the Zoning Board and staff’s recommendation for 277 units total. He stated that the project will be a two phase neo-traditional clustered development, noting that the front 100 acres, located within a quarter mile of the highway, is in the Urban and Urban Expansion future land use category. He stated that the applicants want to construct a commercial center on the front portion of the property, with shops containing apartments, professional offices, or town houses above them, and they plan to cluster one unit per five acres on 300 acres at the back of the property, because it is classified as Rural and Suburban. He stated that the project lends itself well to that, with the clustering being toward the uplands and away from the environmentally sensitive areas. He displayed and presented, for the record, a Conceptual Lotting Study drawing (Applicant’s Exhibit A) that the applicant’s landscape architects drew from an aerial photograph, showing oak islands that will remain in place, noting that they want to prevent residents from cutting down trees, in order to build their houses. He stated that a road will be constructed to meander between the oak islands, which the applicants feel will create a signature development for that part of the County, at which time he displayed and presented, for the record, a sketch (Applicant’s Exhibit B) showing a layout of homes scattered among the oak islands. He stated that the applicants appreciate staff’s accommodation on the C-1 uses, noting that they agree to limit them to only C-1 and make them neighborhood commercial. He stated that the proposed project is located approximately one mile from the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park and the applicants feel it is an area that has a need for several income levels of housing and would like to do it in an environmentally sensitive manner. He stated that he had some proposed changes to the Ordinance, which would make it consistent with the Zoning Board’s recommendation, as follows: On Page 2 of the Ordinance, the maximum number of units should be 277, rather than 260, and the commercial square footage should be 50,000, rather than 80,000.

            It was noted that the copy of the Ordinance before the Board contained said changes.

            Mr. Crawford stated that, on Page 3 of the Ordinance, it states that there shall be a dedication of additional right of way, to accommodate turn lanes at the primary entrance to the development, however, noted that the proposed development will be sharing its primary entrance with the Heritage Lakes development and the applicants believe the Heritage Lakes development will be completed before their development. He stated that, rather than being required to provide it, he would rather the language be changed to state the following: “The developer shall provide, or shall coordinate with adjacent owners to provide, turn lane improvements along SR 19.” He stated that the applicants will probably be cost sharing the improvements with Lennar Homes, the developer of Heritage Lakes. He stated that, on Page 4 of the Ordinance, it requires the applicants to connect to central water and sewer, at which time he noted that they have a letter from the City of Groveland stating that the City has capacity and is ready, willing, and able to serve. He stated that the back portion of the property is zoned one unit per five acres, at which time he noted that it is surrounded on two sides by Arrowtree, a development approved as a PUD by the Board, on well and septic, at one unit per five acres, so the applicants are requesting to develop the back portion of their property, which is 300 acres, at one unit per five acres, on well and septic. He stated that it may be possible for the applicants to connect to water and sewer, however, noted that they have one and a half miles of sewer line to run, which is prohibitively expensive. He stated that the applicants would like the ability to develop the 300 acres on well and septic, just as the surrounding developments have been allowed to do, therefore, would like to add language regarding well and septic to the Ordinance, under Item C. 5., on Page 4 of the Ordinance, after the word “available”, as follows: “however, the western 300 acres, which is limited to one unit per five acre density, shall be allowed to be developed on individual well and septic tanks, provided all local and state regulations are met.”, at which time he submitted, for the record, a copy (Applicant’s Exhibit C) of the Staff Report pertaining to this request, containing the language he was proposing. He stated that it would not be allowed in a lot of cases, because, if one is in Urban or Urban Expansion, the Lake County Comprehensive Plan requires connection, if it is available, however, pointed out the fact that the property in question is located in the Rural land use classification. He stated that the front of the property is located in the Urban Expansion land use classification, which is a higher density, so the applicants will connect everything to sewer, however, noted that the back portion of the property is classified as Rural, calling for one unit per five acres, so the applicants would like to have the ability to have well and septic tanks for those homesites. He noted that the applicants were fine with the gap fee.

            Mr. Richardson was questioned whether the statements made by Mr. Crawford were correct and the applicants would not be required to hook up to water and sewer for the back portion of the property and was informed that it is classified as Rural and there are policies in the County’s Comprehensive Plan that state that regional services shall not be exempted in the Rural areas, however, noted that there are significant amounts of wetlands in the area, so, if it were at all possible for the applicants to connect to central water and sewer, it would be an environmental plus factor for them to do so.

            Mr. John Percy, Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Applicants, addressed the Board stating that the project is probably going to happen in a couple of phases, noting that the area designated as Rural will most likely be the first phase, because the market is the most ready for that. He stated that Phase I will be where they have the clustering going in with the single family homes, which is consistent with the Arrowtree development located to the east of them. He stated that frontage along S.R. 19 is classified on the County’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Urban and Urban Expansion and they are proposing a mix there of residential, with some commercial and office space at the village center, with the entrance lining up with the Heritage Lakes development across the street, at which time he displayed and presented, for the record, an aerial (Applicant’s Exhibit D) of the proposed development. He stated that the original Olympia Sports World PUD had 750 units, of which 119 were used up by Arrowtree, leaving a balance of 631, which was their starting point. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan would allow up to 500 homes, at which time he noted that they had originally proposed 360 units; however, staff recommended 277 and the Zoning Board went along with that recommendation. He stated that they did not have an issue with the 277 units and have agreed to abide by it. He stated that, on the non-residential side of the property, the original PUD had 116,000 square feet of commercial approved, of which Arrowtree used none, which leaves the 116,000 square feet. He stated that they had originally proposed 80,000 square feet, the thinking being that the Comprehensive Plan sets out a Community Commercial designation that has a range of 50,000 to 500,000 square feet and they felt something at the low end of that would be appropriate for this community and for the market that they are a part of. He stated that they are limiting it to C-1 uses, noting that they wanted to have a mix of retail, restaurant, and office space in the village center, which will be developed in a later phase. He stated that it is a very logical place for a commercial center, in combination with the larger retail center across the street, in the Lennar Homes’ project. He stated that its exposure to S.R. 19 makes it a great location for commercial and its proximity to Hwy. 27 and the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park helps, too. He stated that the scale and design of it are what are important to them, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, a packet (Applicant’s Exhibit E) of sketches and photographs demonstrating that.

            No one was present in opposition to the request.

            Staff was questioned as to whether they were comfortable with the 50,000 square feet of commercial.

            Mr. Richardson stated that, consistency wise, staff was not comfortable with it, but design wise, they were comfortable with it.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciated the design and feels the development will be very attractive.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned whether, from a planning perspective, the project was premature, understanding what is going in on the ground and what is happening at the Commerce Park.

            Mr. Richardson stated that it might be slightly premature, but its time is coming, as far as what is going on in that area.

            Commr. Stivender stated that staff was reducing what could be allowed at the site, however, noted that, with the Rural classification in the back portion of the property, containing five acre lots, she felt they might want to add the language “if feasible”, with regard to connecting to water and sewer.

            Mr. Crawford stated that the applicants would have no objection to said language, however, noted that they do not want to be held up from developing the back portion of the property first, because sewer and water was not available to it.

            Commr. Stivender stated that, under Item B. 3, on Page 3 of the Ordinance, if the applicants were being required to dedicate additional right of way to accommodate turn lanes at the primary entrance to the development, she would like to see them coordinate said turning lanes with the Arrowtree development, as alluded to by Mr. Crawford.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to see a requirement for the landscaping buffer alluded to earlier, if anything needs to be enhanced along the roads.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to see the language alluded to earlier regarding the impact fees inserted into the Ordinance, as well, and noted that he feels, with regard to the issue of water and sewer, if it is feasible after the development is completed, it is feasible today.

            Mr. Crawford stated that he did not completely agree with Commr. Cadwell’s statement, noting that, at the present time, water and sewer is more than one mile away from the entrance to the development. He stated that it will be brought up to the front of the development when the applicants develop the front of their property, or when Lennar Homes develops theirs, and, at that point, the feasibility changes completely, with extending the line. He stated that the applicants want to do the right thing, but do not want to be penalized for trying to do so, if it is going to cost them another $2 million to run a sewer line to their property. He stated that the Arrowtree development has lots as small as two acres, yet they got approved by the Board approximately 18 months ago for water and sewer. He stated that he felt to require the applicants to connect to water and sewer, when it becomes available, would be a reasonable compromise.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt central water and sewer should be required for the development, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the requirement for the utilities should be in the Ordinance, as well.

            Mr. Crawford stated that it would put the applicants at an unfair disadvantage with their competitor, because they would have to wait for their competitor to bring them the sewer line. He stated that the interest the developer is having to pay on the property is approximately $30,000 per month and, if they have to wait for somebody else to bring them a sewer line, it does not seem fair, when everybody else around them has been allowed to develop on the same kind of lots on well and septic tank. He reiterated the fact that the applicants have agreed to connect to it, as soon as it becomes available.

            A motion was made by Commr. Pool that the Board uphold the Zoning Board’s recommendation of approval and approve Ordinance No. 2004-56, Strategic Land Investments, L.L.C./John Percy, Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Rezoning Case No. PH41-04-3,Tracking No. 43-04-PUD/AMD, a request to rezone from existing PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning (Olympia Sports World) to requested zoning of PUD (Planned Unit Development) Mixed Use Residential, as amended, allowing no more than 277 units, with 50,000 square feet of commercial space; that there be a requirement that the applicants and homeowners hook up to water and sewer, when it becomes available; that there be an agreement that any additional gap funding, or new impact fees established by the Board, be paid by the applicants; that there be a coordination of the turning lanes with the adjoining development; that a landscape buffer be installed; and that there be the inclusion of a concept involving a traditional neighborhood design (TND) for the Town Center portion of the property. 

            Commr. Hanson seconded the motion, for discussion.

            Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, suggested that, if the Board were going to approve the motion, it be required in the homeowners’ agreements at the time of purchase that, if they have septic tanks, they will be required to hook up to central water and sewer, when it becomes available, so that there are no surprises in the future.

            It was noted that said suggestion would become part of the motion.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, as further amended, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.

            Commrs. Cadwell and Hill voted “No”.

            REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 3

 

            JOINT MEETING - LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND LAKE COUNTY

            BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING GROWTH ISSUES

 

            The Chairman announced that there would be a Joint Meeting between the Lake County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners concerning growth issues, at 2:00 p.m., in the Magnolia Room, at Lake-Sumter Community College. She stated that it would be a workshop between the two Boards concerning impact fees and overall growth issues within Lake County pertaining to its schools.

            REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

            CLOSED SESSION

            Ms. Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that the County Attorney was requesting approval from the Board to hold a Closed Session on August 3, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., or soon thereafter.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to schedule said Closed Session, to be held on August 3, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., as requested.

 


            REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER

            CANCELLATION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S MEETING

            Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, requested approval to cancel the Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting scheduled for August 10, 2004.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to cancel said meeting.

            ADJOURNMENT

            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                    _________________________________

                                                                                    WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK