A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JANUARY 24, 2006

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Debbie Stivender; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool.  Others present were: Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Manager; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Doctor Hal Kitchings, Pastor, First Baptist Church of Eustis, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, containing one item on the Consent Agenda, a request from Public Safety for approval of grant funds, through the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Competitive Grant Programs; and a Public Hearing, pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment.  She stated that it was listed on the Zoning Agenda as Item No. 17; however, it was advertised as if it were under the regular Agenda, so it had to be placed there, but she asked that the Board discuss it when they discuss Item No. 18 on the Zoning Agenda.  She also stated that some backup material was distributed for Tab 3, a request from the Budget Office for the prioritization of the County’s 2006 Legislative Positions, to be submitted for Federal Financial Assistance.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to add to the Agenda, under his Reports, an item that may require Board action.  He stated that the Board is scheduled to discuss at another meeting the Parking Garage, the Property Appraiser’s Office, and the Tax Collector’s Office and he had discussed with staff what he foresaw as another option, however, noted that they were not comfortable with acting on it, unless the Board gave them permission to do so, so he asked to have that discussion at the end of this meeting.

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. Hanson stated that she had received a request from the City of Eustis to meet with the Board, for the purpose of discussing Joint Planning Areas (JPAs), and asked that it be placed on the Agenda.

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

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

            Budget

            Request for approval of Check Request (Direct Pay), to pay Inmate Medical Costs.  The request exceeds the County Manager’s approval limit of $25,000.00.  Total payment is for $31,256.72.

            Community Services

            Request for approval of the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Community Development Block Grant Partnership Agreement between Lake County and the Town of Astatula, revising the “Agreement Period and Termination”; and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Amendment.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)

            Public Safety

            Request for approval for the County Manager to apply for grant funds, in the amount of $178,500.00 ($137,300.00 Grant, $41,200.00 County); approval of minor grant modifications, through the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance (EMPA) Competitive Grant Program; and approval and signature authorization on related Resolution No. 2006-17.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

            BUDGET

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a list of projects to be submitted for Federal Financial Assistance, presented by Mr. Jason Showe, Revenue Coordinator, Office of Budget, as follows:

            Clermont Community Library at Lake-Sumter Community College             $1,000,000

            Lake-Sumter Urban Area Traffic Incident Management Center                    $6,000,000

            Lake County Emergency Operations Center                                                  $3,500,000

            PUBLIC HEARINGS

            PETITION NO. 1070 – HENRICH-LUKE & SWAGGERTY, LLC

            REPRESENTATIVE MARK I. LUKE – CLERMONT AREA

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, explained this request, stating that it pertained to two homes in the Spring Valley subdivision, in south Clermont, that had encroached into a drainage and utility easement and the homeowners needed to clear the title.  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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-18 - Petition No. 1070, by Henrich-Luke & Swaggerty, LLC, Representative Mark I. Luke, to vacate a portion of two drainage and utility easements, in the Plat of Spring Valley, Phase VII, located in Section 5, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2.

            PETITION NO. 1072 – QUENELL BONDS, REPRESENTATIVE PATTI HARKER

            UMATILLA AREA

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, explained this request, stating that it pertained to the vacating of a portion of right of way in the Umatilla Turpentine Company subdivision and the Merrell Vaughn subdivision, in south Umatilla.  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 approved Resolution No. 2006-19 - Petition No. 1072, by Quenell Bonds, Representative Patti Harker, to vacate a portion of right of way known as 10th Avenue, in the Plat of Umatilla Turpentine Company Subdivision and the Merrell Vaughn Subdivision, located in Section 24, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, in the Umatilla area – Commission District 5.

            PETITION NO. 1073 – WILLIAM S. BROCKETT, REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE

            DUNCAN – LAKE JEM AREA

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, explained this request, stating that it pertained to the vacating of an easement in the Twilight Cove subdivision, in the Lake Jem area.  He stated that the request was to clear title, noting that the County does not even have the easement on record - it showed up in some title work that was done.  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. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-20 - Petition No. 1073, by William S. Brocket, Representative Bruce Duncan, to vacate an easement in the Plat of Twilight Cove, located in Section 14, Township 20 South, Range 26 East, in the Lake Jem area – Commission District 3.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONT’D.)

            PUBLIC HEARING:  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP

            AMENDMENT ADOPTION HEARING AND OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

            AND COMMENTS (ORC) RESPONSE

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that this item was listed as a Public Hearing on Addendum No. 1 of the regular Agenda, but that it was actually Item No. 17 on the Zoning Agenda, which relates to Item No. 18, both of which pertain to the Plaza Collina proposed development; therefore, staff would prefer that both items be discussed at the same time.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to discuss Item Nos. 17 and 18 on the Zoning Agenda together, due to the fact that they both pertain to the Plaza Collina proposed development.

            PUBLIC HEARINGS – REZONING

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that this meeting had been duly advertised, at which time he submitted a copy of the ad advertising said meeting.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH93-05-2 - A TO PUD - NOLA LAND COMPANY, INC.

            SEAN FROELICH, VP, PARK SQUARE ENTERPRISES, INC.

            TRACKING NO. 110-05-PUD

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, stated that the applicant was requesting a 30 day postponement of this case, until the Board Meeting of February 28, 2006.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. PH93-05-2 – A to PUD – Nola Land Company, Inc., Sean Froelich, VP, Park Square Enterprises, Inc., Tracking No. 110-05-PUD, a request to rezone a 541 acre parcel, presently the site of the active Jahna East Sand Mine, for the creation of an age-restricted residential PUD, until the Board Meeting of February 28, 2006, as requested.

            At this time, each Commissioner disclosed, for the record, those cases where they had met with the applicants, or the applicants’ representatives, prior to the meeting.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH2-06-3 – A TO CFD – ROBERT E. SMITH C/O JIM AND

            LINDA WATSON/CROSSROADS FAMILY FELLOWSHIP, INC.

            TRACKING NO. 1-06-CFD

            Ms. Jennifer DuBois, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that the applicants were seeking to rezone the six acre subject parcel, which is presently the site of an abandoned nursery and three mobile homes, to CFD (Community Facility District), for the creation of a church and related facilities.  She stated that the property is located in the Minneola area, west of the intersection of CR 455 and Trousedale Street.  She stated that the applicants wish to construct a 13,100 square foot sanctuary, an 8,000 square foot multi-purpose building (possibly to be utilized as a community storm shelter, in the event of a natural disaster), a 1,200 square foot pavilion, and a parsonage on the property.  She stated that, in addition, the applicants would like to have the option to build a 2,400 square foot classroom facility, for a seminary, with an anticipated maximum enrollment of twenty students.  She stated that the applicants participated in a pre-submittal conference with the members of the Lake County Development Review Staff on August 18, 2005 and, at said conference, they were informed that they must contact the American Red Cross, to discuss the regulations for community storm shelters.  She stated that, if it is the applicants’ intention to utilize the multi-purpose building as a shelter, they must comply with the Red Cross’s and the County’s design requirements, which will be addressed during the development review phase of the project.  She stated that staff finds the project to be consistent with all applicable provisions of the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, recommends 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. Stivender, 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. 2006-1, Rezoning Case No. PH2-06-3, A to CFD, Robert E. Smith c/o Jim and Linda Watson/Crossroads Family Fellowship, Inc., Tracking No.1-06-CFD, a request to rezone a six acre parcel, presently the site of an abandoned nursery and three mobile homes, to CFD (Community Facility District), for the creation of a church and related facilities, as presented.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH3-06-2 – A TO PUD – DARYL M. CARTER AND EARL

            “DUKE” CRITTENDEN/GREG A. BELIVEAU, LPG URBAN AND REGIONAL

            PLANNERS, INC. – TRACKING NO. 2-06-PUD

            Ms. Jennifer DuBois, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that the applicants were seeking to rezone a 157 acre parcel of property in the Groveland area, located southeast of the intersection of US 27 and SR 19, presently zoned A (Agriculture), R-1 (Rural Residential), and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development).  She stated that the applicants submitted a conceptual plan depicting four development scenarios – the first being a conventional single family residential concept, with a maximum of 314 dwelling units; the second being an apartment/townhome option, allowing up to 780 units; the third being a mixed use scenario, permitting up to 113 conventional single family units, 350 townhomes, 62 apartment units, and 88,000 square feet of commercial space; and the final option being a commercial/office concept, with a maximum of 788,000 square feet of gross leasable area, and they wish to have the flexibility to select any one of the four scenarios, if the rezoning is approved.  She stated that the property is located within two land use categories:  Urban, with a maximum allowable density of seven dwelling units per acre, and Rural, with a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per five acres.  She stated that approximately 121 acres are presently classified as Urban, while the remaining 36 acres are classified as Rural.  She stated that, in addition, the site is located within a Regional Activity Center, in which 500,000 square feet or more of gross leasable area is permitted.  She stated that, through the use of the Urban Area Residential Density Chart contained in the Land Development Regulations, the applicants have obtained a total of 100 points, corresponding to a maximum allowable residential density of ten dwelling units per acre; however, Policy 1-1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan restricts residential development within the Urban land use category to a maximum density of seven dwelling units per acre.

            Ms. DuBois stated that, as stated previously, 36 acres of the subject parcel are located within the Rural land use category, which permits development of a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres; however, Policy 1-1.11 of the Comprehensive Plan, Treatment of Property that is Contained Within More Than One Land Use Category, states that residential land uses consistent with those allowed in the Urban, Urban Expansion, and Suburban land use categories may be allowed, up to 1,320 feet into the adjacent unincorporated less intense land use categories, excluding the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, without a comprehensive plan amendment.  She stated that the applicants wish to expand the more intense Urban land use into a ten acre portion of the Rural section of the property, which would be consistent with the provisions of Policy 1-1.11, as the area in question does not exceed ten acres, it is not located within any wetland, floodplain, or water body buffer area, and it does not extend beyond a naturally occurring or manmade feature, such as an arterial or collector roadway, canal, or water body.  She stated that, as discussed previously, two of the development scenarios presented on the conceptual plan – the mixed use concept and the commercial/office option, would allow commercial development.  She stated that the applicants have requested that the commercial uses be limited to banking, medical services, personal care services, professional offices, research services, general restaurants, self-service laundries, theaters, and wholesale and warehouse facilities.  She stated that, with respect to utilities, the City of Groveland has stated that it will provide central water and sewer service to the project; however, staff is concerned about the development’s impact on the severely overcrowded public schools in the vicinity.  She stated that the Lake County School’s Growth Planning Department has stated that the proposed rezoning has the potential to add 463 new single family dwelling units and 62 new multifamily units that will contribute 206 new students to the Lake County School System, which is an estimate based on the mixed-use scenario presented on the conceptual plan.  She stated that the addition of these students to schools in the area that are presently overcapacity would only exacerbate the problem.

            Ms. DuBois stated that it is the opinion of staff that the commercial/office scenario presented on the conceptual plan would conflict with neither county regulations, nor the public interest; however, as mentioned previously, the applicant wishes to have the freedom to choose any one of the four development options outlined on the conceptual plan during the platting and/or site plan review phase.  She stated that the selection of the conventional single family, mixed use, or apartment/townhome concept has the potential to result in the creation of up to 314, 525, or 780 dwelling units, respectively.  She stated that staff feels the addition of these units and the students that they would contribute would have an adverse effect on the public schools in the vicinity and would not be in harmony with the public interest.  She stated that, based on the gravity of the current school situation, staff was recommending denial of the request.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the Board realizes, when the School Board gives them figures regarding overcapacity and undercapacity, they are not including portables in those figures and questioned whether staff takes that into consideration.

            Ms. DuBois stated that the County does not take portables into consideration, when reviewing projects, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Board needed to give staff direction to do that – consider both sets of figures, as the County moves forward.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the School Board and the County are going to have to come up with language that they both agree on, with regard to what capacity is, so he felt they should wait and address the matter together, as a group.  He stated that, to address the matter now might hurt the County’s chances of making concurrency work.

            Commr. Hanson concurred, however, noted that she feels the County needs all the facts, which they do not get, and that is her concern.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out the fact that the Zoning Board approved the request, but with a condition that no residential shall be built until the schools that will be affected by the proposed rezoning meet concurrency, whether it be public schools or charter schools, and that she would like to add a further condition that the road system leading to the schools must be completed, as well.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that the applicants met with the City of Groveland regarding the availability of water and sewer to the site and the fact that a road is currently being constructed where 25 acres has been set aside for the elementary and middle charter schools that are being built, which are scheduled to be on line in 2007 and will provide elementary and middle school capacity for any students generated by the proposed project.  He stated that, because the City is providing water and sewer to the site, as a condition of the utility agreement, the applicants will be required to pay additional impact fees, to support said schools.  He noted that, since the applicants filed their application several months ago, there have been a couple of annexations in the area and the subject property is now contiguous to the City of Groveland, but, because of the Comprehensive Plan process involving the City, the applicants are proceeding to obtain a development order from the County, anticipating that, within 60 to 90 days, they will be annexing said property into the City.  He stated that the project started off as a commercial use; however, the applicants were contacted by members of the County’s Industrial Development Authority asking whether they would be willing to have a component in their request that would accommodate multiple types of housing, in order to provide affordable housing for the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park and the industrial uses in the area, so Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc., representing the property owners, put together four options, depending on who comes along and develops the property, which includes townhomes, single family dwelling units, and a limited number of apartments, as alluded to earlier by Ms. DuBois.

            Mr. Beliveau addressed the Board and discussed the proposed plan, noting that the density at the low end is 2 dwelling units per acre and 4.9 dwelling units per acre at the high end, where 780 units are being proposed.  He stated that they looked at the portable capability for the schools and at the amount of students that were attending said schools that lived out of the zone, or out of the County.  He noted, however, that having the two charter schools that are being proposed available to the residents in the area will alleviate the overcrowding issue, based upon which option is chosen.  He addressed the density spread, noting that they are not developing the property at the 7 dwelling units per acre that is allowed for the site, but are developing it at a maximum of 4.9 dwelling units per acre.  He stated that, with regard to the Ordinance and the width requirements for the townhomes/apartments portion of the PUD, the property owners would like the width of the lots to be reduced from 35 feet to 20 feet - the only change being requested.  He noted that the subject property abuts the City of Groveland’s sewer plant, as well as its spray field, which creates a buffer on two sides of the property.  He displayed and reviewed with the Board a copy of the Preliminary Development Plan (Applicant’s Exhibit A), which he submitted, for the record.

            It was noted that every PUD the City of Groveland adopts contains an affordable housing clause that is tailored after the one for Tallahassee, which may be something that Lake County might want to look at in the future.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he wanted to make sure that the language in the Ordinance states residential development shall not occur until there is capacity and the area meets school concurrency requirements.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she would not be in favor of the first two options, which are completely residential, but more in favor of the mixed use options, which are the latter two.

            Commr. Pool concurred, noting that he felt there should be some commercial in the development, to give the residents in the area the opportunity to shop locally, rather than having to travel to shop.

            Mr. Beliveau interjected that, should the Board wish to expand the Ordinance and add “general commercial” or “general retail” to the list of uses, allowing the potential for a commerce park, the applicants would not have a problem with it.

            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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-2, Rezoning Case No. PH3-06-2, A to PUD, Daryl M. Carter and Earl “Duke” Crittenden/Greg A. Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc., Tracking No. 2-06-PUD, a request to rezone a 157 acre parcel, presently zoned A (Agriculture), R-1 (Rural Residential), and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), as presented, with a condition that no residential shall be built until the school concurrency issue is met, whether it be public schools or charter schools; that “general retail” uses be added to the Ordinance; that the typical lot size for the townhomes/apartments be 20 feet by 120 feet, for affordability purposes; and that only the second two scenarios, allowing a blend of commercial and residential and not all residential, be allowed to be developed.

            Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact that, if school concurrency was in place today, it would be a rule that the developer would follow under site plan approval and staff’s recommendation would be for approval.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH9-06-5 – A TO R-1 – RAYMOND ERJAVEC

            STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 3-06-Z

            Ms. Jennifer DuBois, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that the applicant wishes to rezone the 10 acre subject parcel, presently zoned A (Agriculture) and designated Urban Expansion on the Lake County Future Land Use Map, to R-1 (Rural Residential), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision.  She stated that the property is located in the Lady Lake area, approximately one-quarter mile north of the intersection of Lake Griffin Road and Larson Lane.  She stated that the applicant intends to develop the property at a density of one dwelling unit per acre, consistent with the one acre base density of the Urban Expansion land use category and the maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per acre of the requested R-1 zoning classification.  She stated that Policy 1-1.6A of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan stipulates that the residential developments within the Urban and Urban Expansion areas are required to have central potable water service; however, the Town of Lady Lake has stated that central utilities are presently unavailable in the area of the subject parcel, so a community well shall be required to serve the residents of the development.  She stated that, as the requested density does not exceed 4 dwelling units per acre, an interim wastewater system shall not be required, in accordance with Policy 1-1.6B; however, once a public system becomes available, the development shall be required to connect to that system.  She stated that staff finds the desired use to be consistent with all applicable provisions of the Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan; therefore, recommends approval of the request.  She noted that the Zoning Board approved the request, by a 6-0 vote, as well.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the ten acre parcel in question is contiguous to property that the applicant owns that has already been rezoned to R-1 (Rural Residential).  He stated that that applicant is seeking to rezone the property, to allow for one acre lots, for the creation of a single family residential subdivision.  He stated that, in meeting with the Town of Lady Lake, they have stated that they do not have any plans to extend water and sewer services to the area.  He stated that they are extending it to a lot of areas, but the area in question is not one of them.

            Ms. Almeda Williams, who owns a parcel of property next to the property in question, addressed the Board stating that she was concerned about the types of houses that are going to be built on the property and how the subdivision is going to affect Lake Griffin Road, which is already in bad shape.

            It was noted that, should the Board approve this request, there will be no more than a maximum of ten homes (one home per acre) on the property, which is the same type of zoning that surrounds the property at the present time.

            Mr. Richey stated that the property is currently zoned Agriculture, to be developed into mobile homes; however, the applicant is proposing to rezone it to R-1 (Rural Residential), which only allows for single family conventional type homes.  He stated that the lots will actually be larger than one acre and the homes will be in the $300,000 to $400,000 price range.

            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. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-3, Rezoning Case No. PH9-06-5, A to R-1, Raymond Erjavec/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Tracking No. 3-06-Z, a request to rezone a ten acre parcel, presently zoned A (Agriculture) and designated Urban Expansion on the Lake County Future Land Use Map, to R-1 (Rural Residential), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision, as presented.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH105-05-5 – A TO R-3 – GREGORY L. AND LISA A.

            GOTTSCH/BRUCE DUNCAN, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 121-05-Z

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that the subject parcel totals 10 +/- acres and is located in the Grand Island area, east of CR 44, northwest of the intersection of Apiary and Sugarsand Roads.  She stated that the site lies within the Urban Expansion future land use (FLU) category and the applicants are requesting to rezone the property from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential), to allow a single family residential subdivision, which they have revised to a 55+ community.  She stated that the Urban Area Residential Density Analysis (UARDA) resulted in a total of 25 points, allowing a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.  She stated that, regardless of the allowable densities of the Urban Expansion FLU category and the requested R-3 zoning district, development will be limited to 2.5 dwelling units per acre.  She stated that Comprehensive Plan Policies 1-1.6A and 1-1.6B require residential developments in the Urban Expansion FLU category to have central potable water service and the City of Eustis has provided documentation confirming the availability of said service.  She stated that the 55+ community will have no impact on school capacity; however, the Public Works Department commented that additional right of way may be required.  She stated that any proposals for development of the site must follow the subdivision process established in Section 14.07.00 of the Land Development Regulations.  She stated that staff found the request, to rezone the property from A to R-3, to be consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, was recommending approval of the request.

            It was noted that, had the request been limited to a 55+ community when it went before the Zoning Board, they would have approved it, in that their only issue was that of school capacity.

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, representing the owners of the property, addressed the Board and explained why the request was changed to a 55+ community.  He stated that the applicant, Mr. Larry Johnson, submitted the application, but then failed to show up at the Zoning Board hearing, so the owners of the property, Gregory and Lisa Gottsch, asked if he would assist them in trying to get the request back through the process, at which time they were informed that they needed to limit the subdivision to 55+.  He stated that, at the time they submit and file their preliminary and final plats, they have to submit deed restrictions and restrictive covenants that lay out how the Master Stormwater System is going to be managed, which is a requirement for final platting.

            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.

            A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Pool to overturn the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Ordinance No. 2006-4, Rezoning Case No. PH105-05-5, A to R-3, Gregory L. and Lisa A. Gottsch/Bruce Duncan, P.A., Tracking No. 121-05-Z, a request to rezone a 10 +/- acre parcel, located in the Grand Island area, from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential), to allow a single family residential subdivision, as presented, with the understanding that the applicants are going to file deed restrictions requiring that the development be limited to a 55+ community.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Board would be setting a precedent for smaller subdivisions, if they approved this request, and more of these cases will come forward that are adult only; therefore, she would not be supporting the motion.

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

            Commrs. Hanson and Hill voted “No”.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 10:30 a.m.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH6-06-1 – R-1 TO R-2 – RONALD C. DAVIS, KEITH

            WHITMORE, RUDOLPH REIHER – TRACKING NO. 4-06-Z

            Ms. Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that the applicants are requesting a zoning change from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential), to allow for residential lots.  She stated that the site is currently vacant and is located in the Leesburg area, northeast of Silver Lake, on the east side of Radio Road, between Misty Meadow Road and Bay Street.  She stated that the character of the area is low to medium density residential.  She stated that, in the Urban Expansion future land use (FLU) category, the Urban Area Residential Density Analysis (UARDA) determines the maximum residential density allowed and said analysis resulted in a total of 17 points, corresponding to a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.  She stated that, since the requested zoning district is more restrictive, the maximum allowable density will be held at 2 dwelling units per acre.  She stated that the owners are simultaneously pursuing this rezoning request and a variance request to Section 14.11.01, Minor Lot Splits, of the Land Development Regulations, to allow the creation of two new lots, for a total of three lots.  She stated that the minor lot split process was designed to allow the creation of one new lot, for a total of two lots.  She stated that the owners indicate on the rezoning application that they wish to subdivide the subject property into three lots, each approximately 0.86 of an acre.  She stated that Comprehensive Plan Policies 1-1.6A and 1-1.6B require residential developments in the Urban Expansion FLU category to have central potable water service and the City of Leesburg has confirmed that neither central water nor central sewer is available to the site; therefore, the owners shall be responsible for providing a central potable water source, such as a community well, on the site at the time of development.  She stated that, based on comments received from the School Board, this request will have de minimis impacts, as development has the potential to add only two new students to the school system.  She stated that the Zoning Board recommended approval, by a 6-0 vote, and staff was recommending approval of the request, as well.

            Commr. Hill clarified the fact that the applicants will be allowed to put three houses on the subject property, should this request and the request for a variance be approved.

            Commr. Stivender stated that a lot of lot splits have been approved in that area over the past few years, so approval of this request would be in keeping with what is already there.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            The applicant 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. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-6, Rezoning Case No. PH6-06-1, R-1 to R-2, Ronald C. Davis, Keith Whitmore, Rudolph Reiher, Tracking No. 4-06-Z, a request to rezone a 2.52 +/- acre parcel of property in the Leesburg area from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential), to allow for residential lots, as presented.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH11-06-1 – RMRP TO R-1 – DALLAS MCLAURIN

            RICHARD RICHARDSON, RONALD AND CAROLE REINIGHAUS, PETE AND

            CYNTHIA BUHLER/LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 8-06-Z

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone approximately 13.75 +/- acres, located in the Bassville Park area, in the Urban Expansion future land use designation, from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park District) to R-1 (Rural Residential).  He stated that the function of the RMRP zoning district is to provide for a mobile home rental park, but the applicants have indicated that there is no demand for mobile home rental parks in the current real estate market.  He stated that, under the Urban Area Residential Density Chart, the applicants earned zero points; therefore, the project will be limited to one dwelling unit per acre, which is what the applicants are requesting.  He noted that they would be allowed one dwelling unit per acre under the current RMRP zoning district, as well.  He stated that they are not asking for an increase in density, but the ability to use the property in a more desirable fashion, noting that Table 3.00.03, in the Land Development Regulations, permits R-1 zoning in the Urban Expansion future land use district.  He stated that Policy 1-1.15, Land Use Activities within the Land Use Categories, in the Comprehensive Plan, allows residential development for up to four dwelling units per acre in the Urban Expansion future land use category and, since the applicants are not seeking an increase in density permitted under the current RMRP zoning, and the requested zoning, R-1, is consistent with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, staff was recommending approval of the request.  He stated that the Zoning Board approved the request, by a 6-0 vote, as well.  He noted that the County had received one letter of concern from the Lake County Water Authority, who owns property to the south of the subject property, indicating a concern about the applicants increasing the density on the property.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the owners of the property, addressed the Board stating that Mr. and Mrs. Pete Buhler had contracted to purchase the subject property at the time that the application was filed and have since closed on it and would like to build a single family residence on it; however, the property has been somewhat neglected and there is a problem with dumping on it, at which time she submitted several photographs (Applicant’s Exhibit A), for the record, showing what has been dumped on the property.  She stated that the applicants have attempted to do something about the dumping through Code Enforcement, but it is a very hard thing to do, unless the property is fenced and monitored, at which time she noted that the Buhlers are currently in the process of fencing the property and intend to clean it up, so that they can build on it.  She stated that a recent survey shows that there are approximately six acres of wetlands on the property, so there is not enough land to build a subdivision or anything of that nature on it.  She stated that it will be used for a single family residence, so the density in the area will be reduced significantly.  She stated that she feels, if the Water Authority was aware of the fact that the Buhlers were going to get the property cleaned up and prevent future dumping on it, they would be supportive of the 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. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-6, Rezoning Case No. PH11-06-1, RMRP to R-1, Dallas McLaurin, Richard Richardson, Ronald and Carole Reinighaus, Pete and Cynthia Buhler/Leslie Campione, Tracking No. 8-06-Z, a request to rezone 13.75 +/- acres, located in the Bassville Park area, from RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park District) to R-1 (Rural Residential), to construct a single family residential dwelling on the property.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH12-06-1 – C-1 TO C-2 – CORLEY ISLAND

            DEVELOPMENT, LLC/JOHN SCHMID – TRACKING NO. 9-06-Z

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that the applicant wishes to rezone the subject property from C-1 to C-2, to use the site for a medical office, at which time he noted that, under Table 3.01.03 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), medical services are permitted in the C-2, C-3, CP, LM, HM, and MP zoning districts.  He stated that the property is located in the Urban Expansion future land use designation, which allows C-2 zoning, and Policy 1-1.15, Land Use Activities within the Land Use Category of the Comprehensive Plan, allows commercial development in the Urban Expansion future land use designation.  He stated that the desired use is consistent with the requirements of the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and appears to be consistent with existing commercial uses in the area; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.  He stated that the Zoning Board approved the request, by a 6-0 vote, as well, however, noted that they conditioned it to CP (Planned Commercial) with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses only.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. John Schmid, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that a retail/office center is going to be constructed on the property and he wanted to have a use that would allow a medical office, too.  He stated that there is currently a medical facility located to the north of the property, so he felt it would be consistent with the area to have a medical office on the subject property, as well.

            Mr. William Jeffs, who lives around the corner from the property in question, addressed the Board stating that he was in opposition to the request, because it will set a precedent for other rezonings in the area.  He stated that he was told the building currently located on the property will house a restaurant and he was concerned about the issue of parking.

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works Department, addressed the Board stating that the Department of Transportation has funded a southbound left turn lane off of US 27 onto Corley Island Road, which they are scheduled to start soon, and staff has looked at other improvements that the proposed development might have to make, as well as at the stormwater issue.

            Mr. Schmid readdressed the Board stating that he was not asking to rezone just to medical/professional, noting that he would like to keep the C-1 zoning, plus medical.  He reassured Mr. Jeffs that, although the property is zoned for a restaurant, there are no plans to put a restaurant on the site at this time, however, noted that, should they plan to put a restaurant on the site in the future, they will adhere to the parking requirements.

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

            Commr. Hanson stated that she felt medical offices should probably be included under the C-1 zoning and that the County may want to look at that, at which time Mr. Kruse stated that it was something that was brought to his attention and that staff had discussed, however, noted that, in the LDRs, it clearly states that it is a C-2 use.   He stated that one needs to differentiate whether it is a medical office, or a professional office, noting that some people look at a medical office as being a professional office.  He stated that it is all in how it is interpreted, at which time he noted that staff needs to clean it up, in that a restaurant could be put on the property and operate 24 hours a day at the present time and the County would have no control over it.

            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. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-7, Rezoning Case No. PH12-06-1, C-1 to CP with C-1 uses and medical services, Corley Island Development, LLC/John Schmid, Tracking No. 9-06-Z, a request to rezone 2.79+/- acres in the Leesburg area from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial District), to use the site for a medical office.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH104-05-2 – AMEND PUD ORDINANCE NO. 2000-9

            MAGNOLIA PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, LLC/JIMMY CRAWFORD, P.A.

            TRACKING NO. 124-05-PUD/AMD

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend PUD Ordinance No. 2000-9.  He stated that he had received a request from the applicants’ attorney, Mr. Jimmy Crawford, for some language changes in the Ordinance the day before this meeting, at which time Mr. Crawford submitted a copy of the revised Ordinance (Applicant’s Exhibit A), indicating the changes being requested, as well as a revised plat (Applicant’s Exhibit B), indicating the requested layout, for the record.  He stated that the changes being requested are as follows:

            1.  Renumber the existing five (5) lots to create a total of eight (8) lots. (Lot 1=A&B; Lot 2=C; Lot 3=D; Lot 4=E, F, & G; and Lot 5 = H).

            2.  Allow a motorcycle dealership on Lot C, with inside sales only and with daytime outside display moved inside at night.  Allow a motel/hotel on Lot H.

            3.  Allow a full median cut at Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and SR 50 and provide for a traffic signal.

            4.  Restrict any structures on Lots A through G to a maximum height of 45 feet and on Lot H to 35 feet and meet the requirements under Section 15.02.01 (C) of the Land Development Regulations.

            5.  Access to the site will be at Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and there will be a right in only from SR 50, near center of property, and a right in/right out at the eastern portion of the property at SR 50.

            Mr. Kruse stated that the Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a 4-0 vote, limiting it to C-1 and C-2 uses, as defined in Table 3.01.03, Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), except the following:

            Adult Use

            Automotive Repair

            Bar or Tavern*

            Carwash

            Recreation, Commercial

            Restaurant, Fast Food**

            Self-Service Laundry

            Self-Service Storage

            Theater

            Recreational Vehicles

            Truck Yard

            Vehicular Sales***

            Wholesale and Warehouse****

*          Restaurants are permitted beer, wine and alcohol sales, with food.

**        General Restaurants may be permitted a drive-through.

***      Subject to Lot C provision below.

****    Wholesale and Warehouse in structures less than 10,000 square feet, designed to wholesale consumer products, i.e. wines, foods, or restaurant supply shall be allowed.  There shall be no warehousing or wholesaling of building, hardware, or manufacturing goods or products.

            Mr. Kruse stated that the applicants were also requesting a height variance, in order to hide the mechanical units on the top of the buildings, and they would like to change construction on Lot 8 (H) from a hotel/motel to a medical/professional office.  He stated that the following language was also added to the Ordinance:

            The owner shall use best efforts to require construction traffic to access the property via SR 50 and avoid Magnolia Pointe Boulevard.

            Further, a six-foot masonry or brick wall shall be constructed along the west boundary, south of the gated entrance to Magnolia Pointe subdivision, and along the south line.

            The owner shall use best efforts to coordinate the construction and appearance of the wall with the wall which is to be constructed by the development to the west of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard.

            The wall or berm shall be constructed at the beginning of construction of Lot H.

            The building on Lot E shall face west toward Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and shall comply with City of Clermont commercial design guidelines.

            The buildings on Lot H shall be themed in a Mediterranean manner and shall have tile roofs.

            Mr. Kruse stated that the applicants are not changing the impervious surface ratio - they are just subdividing the lots, and they are not creating any additional land area - they are just having more lots available.  He stated that the applicants are asking to have a motorcycle dealership on Lot C, but with special limitations, to where the dealership will be limited to inside sales only and daytime display only, with all units being moved inside at night.  The dealership can only operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and no test drives or rentals shall be allowed.  Any service or repair work shall be completely enclosed and any air compressor use shall be enclosed, as well.  He stated that, with the minimal changes being requested by Mr. Crawford, staff felt they could still recommend approval of the request, with the exclusions, as noted.

            Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray Robinson, representing the applicants, addressed the Board and assured Commr. Stivender that a concern she had about additional traffic accessing the site via Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, due to the addition of the three parcels (allowing the utilization of eight commercial lots, rather than five), had been taken care of, in that the applicants met with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and with the Public Works Department and are putting in an additional right in, so there will be parallel access to the site.  He stated that the design was worked out with the Magnolia Pointe property owners, as well as with the County, at which time he noted that all the concessions that are in the revised Ordinance, with regard to the wall, the buffering, the list of excluded uses, and the hours of operation and terms for the motorcycle shop, were all part of the negotiations with the Magnolia Pointe property owners.  He pointed out the fact that the revised Ordinance contained a few scriveners’ errors, which would be corrected.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-8, Magnolia Property Associates, LLC/Jimmy Crawford, Gray Robinson, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH104-05-2,Tracking No. 124-05-PUD/AMD, as presented, allowing the utilization of 8 commercial lots, rather than 5 (uses not permitted listed on Page 2 of  Ordinance); approval of motorcycle dealership on Lot 3 (Parcel C), with inside sales and daytime display only (all units to be moved inside at night), with hours of operation to be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with no test drives or rentals allowed, and with any service or repair work to be completely enclosed, as well as the use of any air compressor; approval of change in height requirement, as noted; approval of medical/professional offices for Lot 8 (Parcel H), which shall be themed in a Mediterranean manner and have tile roofs; that owner use best efforts to require construction traffic to access property via SR 50 and avoid Magnolia Pointe Boulevard; that a six-foot masonry or brick wall be constructed along the west boundary, south of the gated entrance to the Magnolia Pointe subdivision, and along the South line, with the owner using best efforts to coordinate the construction and appearance of the wall with the wall which is to be constructed by the development to the west of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard; that the wall or berm be constructed at the beginning of construction of Lot 8 (Parcel H); and that the building on Lot 5 (Parcel E) face west toward Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and comply with City of Clermont commercial design guidelines.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH89-05-2 – A TO CP – CARLOS MARTINEZ AND ANNA

            MARIE FORTE MARTINEZ – TRACKING NO. 103-05-CP

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone an agricultural parcel of property to CP (Planned Commercial), with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) uses.  He stated that the applicants wish to rezone the property to Planned Commercial, to obtain the property’s highest and best use, for marketing reasons; however, the applicants have not proposed any commercial uses for the property.  He stated that the subject parcel is currently vacant and is located adjacent to the Florida Turnpike, to the northeast.  He stated that the proposed rezoning is not in conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), as seen in Chapter 3, Table 3.00.03, which permits CP zoning in the Urban Expansion land use category; however, it is not in compliance with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.  He stated that the subject parcel meets the commercial location criteria for the Neighborhood Activity Center, which allows C-1 (Neighborhood Community) uses, but not the criteria for the C-2 (Community Commercial) uses.  He stated that staff feels the proposed commercial uses for C-1 are compatible with the land use pattern in the immediate vicinity, as there are several residential developments in the area that are either under construction, or have been completed, and have the capability to support C-1 uses.  He stated that staff was unable to support the applicant’s request for C-2 uses, due to the fact that the request for C-2 uses do not meet the locational criteria for the Community Activity Center, as set forth in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.  He stated that the applicants have not completed a preliminary review for the proposed project with the Development Review Staff, so, at this point in time, staff is unable to determine if a proposed design may be feasible with the Land Development Regulations.  He stated that the property is located within the boundaries of the Lake Apopka Basin and must meet the Basin requirements contained in Chapter 6, Section 6.15.00, Lake Apopka Basin Development Design and Resource Protection Standards of the LDRs.  He stated that, after further review and discussion amongst staff, it was determined that Section 6.15.03(B)(1) of the LDRs would not apply to this rezoning request; therefore, staff was able to support the request and recommend approval for C-1 zoning.  He stated that the County received one letter of opposition from the City of Clermont (contained in the Board’s backup material) and that the Zoning Board’s recommendation was for approval, by a 6-0 vote, for CP, with C-1 uses only.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Brett Jones, Attorney, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that his clients originally wanted to rezone their property from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial District), with C-1 and C-2 uses; however, after discussing the matter further, they determined that C-1 uses, which was approved by staff and the Zoning Board, would be sufficient for what they would like to do with the property.

            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. 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. 2006-9, Carlos Martinez and Anna Marie Forte Martinez, Rezoning Case No. PH89-05-2, Tracking No. 103-05-CP, for CP (Planned Commercial District) zoning, with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH1-06-4 – A TO R-2 – BRAMDEO ARJUNE

            TRACKING NO. 10-06-Z

            Commr. Hanson informed the Board that her real estate office lists the property in question; therefore, she would be abstaining from the discussion and vote and passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Cadwell.

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicant wishes to rezone the 2.5 acre subject parcel, currently zoned (A) Agriculture and designated Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) on the Lake County Future Land Use Map (FLUM), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision of four one-half acre lots.  He stated that the applicant has obtained a total of 25 points, through the utilization of the Urban Area Residential Density Chart analysis, contained in Table 3.03.03 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), corresponding to a maximum allowable density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.  He stated that the Lake County Schools Growth Planning Department provided comment that the proposed rezoning has the potential to contribute two new students to the school system.  He stated that the Public Works Department provided comment that all the subdivision lots shall have internal access and additional right of way dedication may be required along Wolf Branch Road.  He stated that staff finds the applicant’s request to rezone the property from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential) is consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, and, even though the comments from the Lake County School Board show that the elementary and middle schools are over capacity, the impact of two additional students to the public facilities has been determined to be de minimis; therefore, staff offers a recommendation of approval.  He stated that, during the discussion with the Zoning Board, there were some concerns pertaining to the potential that, with utilizing well and septic, the applicant will be required by the State to have minimum half-acre lots and that there might not be enough land area to accommodate this request.  He stated that the applicant stated he was going to have a 30 foot wide road, with a cul de sac at the end, which threw some flags up to staff, because the minimum requirement, with a swale, is 66 feet of right of way.  He stated that it looks like there may not be enough land area to accommodate four lots, but that would be addressed during the Development Review Staff (DRS) process, should the Board approve this request.  He stated that the Zoning Board made a motion to approve the R-2 zoning district, as requested, but it did not pass, so they came back with a second motion to approve an R-1 zoning, which was approved, by a 6-0 vote.

            The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Bramdeo Arjune, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that he had originally requested an R-2 zoning, however, after further consideration, felt the R-1 zoning would be acceptable.

            Mr. George Giddeon, the owner of a parcel of property located in the vicinity of the property in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was on well and septic and was concerned about the aquifer, noting that the more R-2 and/or R-3 zoning districts the Board approves for the area, the worse it will make it for the residents that live there; there is not enough water; and the schools in the area are already overcrowded as it is.  He stated that it is time for the County to become responsible and start slowing down some of the growth, to where the schools can catch up with the growth, and to where utilities will be available.  He discussed a concern about the traffic situation, as well, noting that the Board approved another subdivision in the area in August of 2005, allowing 40 homes to be built on that 25 acre parcel.  He stated that there are so many things that should be addressed, before this request is approved.  He stated that, if the applicant would like to do a lot split, with an R-1 zoning, he would find that acceptable, but did not approve of an R-2 zoning, which would allow four additional homes, because it would overload an area that is already getting close to becoming overloaded.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-10, Bramdeo Arjune, Rezoning Case No. PH1-06-4, Tracking No. 10-06-Z, a request to rezone a 2.5 acre parcel of property in the Sorrento area from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential), to allow the creation of a single family residential subdivision of four one-half acre lots, as presented.

            Commr. Hanson had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.

            The Vice Chairman passed the gavel back to the Chairman.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH4-06-4 - R-6 TO CP - EAST LAKE COUNTY

            CHAMBER OF COMMERCE/STEPHEN D. JENNELLE, CPA

            TRACKING NO. 11-06-CP

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone a portion of the subject property from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) and to modify CP Ordinance No. 67-86, that is currently on the property, which is zoned Commercial, for the development of a business center, incorporating general retail and professional office uses into the Planned Commercial zoning.  He stated that the proposed rezoning does not conflict with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and is in compliance with all applicable policies of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, especially the commercial location criteria established in Comprehensive Plan Objective 1-3A.  He stated that staff’s analysis shows that the parcel is located in the Neighborhood Activity Center Overlay District within the Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) land use category, as shown on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of Lake County.  He stated that the development pattern for the area is a mix of commercial and residential uses, and it is staff’s opinion that a rezoning to commercial would constitute infill to a functioning commercial neighborhood activity center.  He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and the Zoning Board recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, as well.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she would be abstaining from the discussion and vote, because there was some discussion that her real estate office might get the listing for the subject property, and passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Cadwell.

            The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.

            The applicant 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 Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-11, East Lake County Chamber of Commerce/Stephen Jennelle, CPA, Rezoning Case No. PH4-06-4, Tracking No. 11-06-CP, a request to amend the terms and conditions of CP (Planned Commercial) Ordinance No. 67-86 and rezone an additional 1.91 acre parcel, presently vacant residential property, for the development of a business center, incorporating general retail and professional office uses into the Planned Commercial zoning, as presented.

            Commr. Hanson had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.

            The Vice Chairman passed the gavel back to the Chairman.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH5-06-4 – AMENDMENT TO SULLIVAN RANCH PUD

            ORDINANCE NO. 2004-73 – CENTEX HOMES/THOMAS DALY C/O DALY

            DESIGN GROUP, INC. – TRACKING NO. 12-06-PUD/AMD

            Commr. Hanson informed the Board that her son works for the applicant, Centex Homes; therefore, she would be abstaining from the discussion and vote and passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Cadwell.

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, explained this request, stating that it was a request for an amendment to Sullivan Ranch PUD (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance No. 2004-73.  He stated that the amendment includes the following:  An equestrian training facility, which may be used by the residents of the PUD and the general public; a request to reduce the twenty-four (24) foot wide pavement width for Robie Avenue to a width of twenty (20) feet; and a request for a variance to the two hundred (200) foot setback for the equestrian center structures that house animals, to be set back 100 feet from the right of way of Round Lake Road and any residential lots.  He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Zoning Board recommended approval, by a 5-0 vote, as well.

            The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that this request pertained to an original PUD that was done for the Sullivan family a number of years ago.  She stated that Centex Homes purchased the property, so the existing PUD Ordinance was updated and, at that time, there was a requirement to improve Robie Avenue.  She stated that everyone assumed, wrongly, that there was right of way the length of Robie Avenue, up to the Centex property, but that is not the case.  She stated that they were back before the Board this date to qualify what they need to do with Robie Avenue, which is to maintain it as a secondary access only.  She stated that there were only two changes that they would like to make to the Ordinance, being (1) to discuss the equestrian facility, covered under Item A. - Land Uses, Paragraph 5., on Page 2 of the Ordinance, at which time she displayed an architectural rendering (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the proposed facility, which was submitted, for the record.  She stated that issues dealing with transportation improvements were covered under Item III. – Transportation Improvements, on Page 4 of the Ordinance, under Paragraphs A through D, noting that Robie Avenue is to be a second access to the PUD, with the existing pavement to be widened to twenty (20) feet, concurrent with development of the site, however, noted that, in order to avoid taking out any trees, the applicant is only repaving and improving what is already in place.  She stated that the applicant is required to dedicate additional right of way on Round Lake Road; right and left turn lanes on the Round Lake Road entrance at Hwy. 441; and an internal subdivision road is to be constructed, in accordance with the Lake County Land Development Regulations.  She stated that the rest of the improvements listed were standard improvements that were already in the original Ordinance.  She stated that the applicant has worked with the City of Mt. Dora, the County, and the surrounding property owners and no one wants Robie Avenue to be widened to a full county road.  She stated that the applicant wants it to be clear that Robie Avenue is only going to be a secondary access and noted that one of the property owners in the area, Ms. Simpson, was concerned about being able to get her grove maintenance vehicles in and out of her groves, at which time she noted that the applicant will stabilize that portion of the road that abuts her property and the applicant’s property, so that it will be safe to be utilized as an emergency access.

            Mr. Keith Schue, a member of the Lake County Local Planning Agency (LPA), addressed the Board with a concern he had about a parcel of property to the north of the subject property, being Wolf Branch Sink, which he noted is public property and a sensitive area within the Wekiva Basin spring shed.  He was concerned about where the horses would be riding and whether some coordination had occurred with the Lake County Water Authority, relating to Wolf Branch Sink.

            Ms. Simpson, the owner of the orange grove alluded to earlier by Ms. Bonifay, addressed the Board stating that, if the plan was acceptable to the County, the applicant would stabilize the unpaved portion of Robie Avenue, where her grove is located, with lime rock, however, noted that, if the road is widened to 33 feet, it would actually be into the first row of trees in her grove, making it almost impossible to maintain it.  She stated that, if the road is paved, her equipment would tear it up, making it difficult for the equipment to travel over it.

            Commr. Stivender interjected that there would have to be a change in the stipulations, otherwise, the County will require the road to be paved.

            It was noted that said change would be made.

            Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board stating that, in talking to the engineers for the project, that would be fine, as long as it is clear that it is a policy that the Board wants, noting that the Fire Marshal prefers that the road be paved.  She stated that, to allay Ms. Simpson’s fears, it would only be 20 feet, not 30 feet, so that it would not encroach into her first row of trees.  She reiterated the fact that the road will be a stabilized lime rock base, which suits Ms. Simpson’s concerns and needs, as well as that of the Fire Marshall.

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works Department, addressed the Board stating that, if the residents were going to have access to Robie Avenue, it needed to be paved and that he felt it could be done in such a way that Ms. Simpson’s grove equipment could easily get in and out of the grove, without disturbing any of the trees, or damaging the road.

            Ms. Simpson informed the Board that she feels it is a little cloudy, as to whether or not the applicant has an easement to access the subject property by way of Robie Avenue.  She stated that, when her husband was alive, he told them that they could have an emergency access via Robie Avenue, because, at that point in time, he did not see any problem with it, however, noted that it was to be an emergency access, with the understanding that it would not interfere with the caretaking of their grove.  She stated that there are a lot of clay roads in the area, which emergency vehicles access if they need to, so she did not understand why 100 yards of clay, if well stabilized, would not work for an emergency access.  She stated that that was her only real concern.

            Mr. David Glunt, P.E., Madden Engineering, addressed the Board, representing Centex Homes, and displayed an Offsite Utility Plan for Sullivan Ranch (Applicant’s Exhibit B), which he submitted, for the record, at which time he pointed out the fact that the property line for Sullivan Ranch extends into the right of way, noting that it was dedicated as a right of way, but not to any particular entity.  He stated that it is not a valid dedication, because no one really owns it.  He stated that it is the same on the north side of the property, which is Ms. Simpson’s parcel, however, noted that, on her side, there is a 33 foot easement dedicated to the City of Mt. Dora, for utilities and roadway.  He stated that his client has proposed a 20 foot paved access, to where they can maintain the utilities.  He stated that said roadway would be on the southern 20 feet of the 33 foot easement.  He stated that the first row of trees in Ms. Simpson’s grove would be on the edge of the paved surface, so the applicant would not be encroaching onto her property.

            Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board stating that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding among the City of Mt. Dora, the County, and others, as to who actually owns the right of way along Robie Avenue.  She stated that there have been numerous meetings with county staff, the utilities people, the attorney for the City of Mt. Dora, Mr. Schneider, and others, in trying to work out this problem and still have an active grove operation, thus, the applicant’s reason for coming back with a secondary, or emergency, access only.  She stated that they were suggesting stabilization, as opposed to pavement, to allow Ms. Simpson’s grove equipment to maneuver in the area.  She stated that 33 feet of the right of way is for utility preservation and the applicant will put it in the southern 20 feet of that 33 feet, to get it as far away from Ms. Simpson’s grove as possible.  She stated that it does swing down into the applicant’s property, at which time she pointed out on the aerial the edge of the applicant’s property, explaining that the applicant cannot put it beyond the 33 foot line, because the property beyond that 33 feet is owned by someone else.  She stated that Mr. Schneider was at the meeting where this matter was discussed and did not have a concern with it and the other residents that were present at said meeting do not want the road widened, or significantly improved, because they only want it to be a secondary access for emergency purposes only.  She stated that they do not want it to be the major access for this development.

            Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact that the area that is not going to be paved would be entirely connected either to Ms. Simpson’s property, or to the applicant’s property.

            Ms. Nancy Fullerton, a member of the Lake County Water Authority Board of Trustees, addressed the Board stating that she was not representing the Water Authority Board this date, however, noted that some information would be coming before them on Wednesday, January 25, 2006, regarding this matter and that she felt it would be judicious to read into the record information that the Lake County Water Authority Board of Trustees received in a memorandum (Opposition’s Exhibit A) from Ms. Patricia Burgos, Environmental Program Manager, dated January 13, 2006, with regard to easement issues involving Wolf Branch Sink Preserve, which she submitted, for the record.  She stated that the memorandum indicates that the Water Authority staff had been dealing with Centex Homes regarding questionable discharging of water onto the Preserve and that compliance staff from the St. Johns River Water Management District met with Water Authority staff and representatives from Centex Homes to resolve the issue.  However, other issues surfaced, in particular, continued access to the property from the Robie Avenue entrance.  She stated that the memorandum further indicates that Centex Homes has been in a dispute with the Simpson’s, who own property to the north of the Centex property and Robie Avenue, and that the Water Authority staff was informed by the Centex engineer that a portion of Robie Avenue, approximately 1,200 to 2,000 feet closest to the Water Authority gate was not a public easement and that Centex was “claiming” a portion of the road and would fence it off and plant additional trees.  She stated that the memorandum indicates that Centex Homes sent a surveyor to request that staff sign a petition to vacate an easement on another portion of the Preserve known as 7th Avenue.  She stated that an appointment has been made with Ms. Patty Harker, Lake County’s Right of Way Specialist, and the Water Authority’s attorney, to discuss the situation.  She stated that staff spoke to Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing Ms. Simpson, and he indicated that he would inform the Board of his discussions with Centex Homes and their attorneys.  She stated that she just wanted to let the Board know that there might be corollary issues going on.

            Mr. George Vandoff, a resident of Robie Avenue, addressed the Board stating that he and some of the other residents in the area would like to have the issue of Robie Avenue being an emergency access and a secondary road cleared up, noting that Ms. Simpson has stated that she does not have a problem with the road being utilized as an emergency access, nor do any of the other residents.  He stated that, should the road become a secondary entrance into Centex Homes, Robie Avenue has the possibility of becoming a primary road, because all the amenities are on Hwy. 441 at the present time.  He questioned whether the residents of Centex Homes would be able to use Robie Avenue as a secondary entrance and was informed by Ms. Bonifay that the applicant’s intention is that Robie Avenue be an emergency access only, noting that the secondary access was language that county staff put in.  She stated that the road is a private road into a private, gated community, so she feels it will have a “crash” gate, which should alleviate the residents’ concerns, so any improvements that would be made would be made to the front entrance, where the equestrian center is, and all traffic would be channeled that way via signage.  She stated that it was all tied to a secondary entrance, so, if it is the County’s desire and that of the residents, the applicant will make Robie Avenue an emergency access only and will stabilize the road’s surface.  She stated that, if the applicant should put up a gate, with a code or a key, Ms. Simpson would be given access to it and, with regard to the possible discharging of water onto the Preserve, noted that, apparently, there was some discharge, but a representative from the St. Johns River Water Management District met with the applicant and there is no further issue.  She stated that the applicant was not taking away any of their access and they would be very cognizant of any impacts, at which time she reminded the Board that the applicant left a large area forested, abutting the Wolf Branch Sink, which she noted was a condition placed on the project by the Board at their last meeting.

            Ms. Kathy Kristy, a resident of Robie Avenue, addressed the Board stating that she called several people about this issue approximately two years ago, noting that most of the residents that live on Robie Avenue have been kept in the dark.  She further stated that Wolf Branch Sink is in danger and she felt the public should be aware of it.

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

            A motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Pool that the Board uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Ordinance No. 2006-12, Centex Homes/Pat Knight/Thomas Daly/Sullivan’s Ranch, Rezoning Case No. PH5-06-4, Tracking No. 12-06-PUD/AMD, an amendment to PUD Ordinance No. 2004-73, to include the following conditions:  An equestrian training facility, which may be used by the residents of the PUD and the general public; that Robie Avenue be an “emergency access” only to the PUD; that the existing pavement be reduced from 24 feet to 20 feet, concurrent with development of the site, to the most southern point, if possible; that the existing clay portion be stabilized and remain unpaved; that any reference in the Ordinance to Robie Avenue being a “secondary access” be changed to an “emergency access only”; and that there be a variance to the 200 foot setback requirement for equestrian center structures that house animals, requiring it to be set back 100 feet from the right-of-way of Round Lake Road and any residential lots.

            Under discussion, Mr. Schneider noted that, if Robie Avenue is going to be utilized as an emergency access only, the County normally would not require any improvements to it.

            Commr. Stivender interjected that there would be no need for decel/accel lanes on Hwy. 441 either, which Mr. Schneider concurred with, noting that the road could stay the way it is at the present time, with the end of it being stabilized, and, at some point in the future, if the situation changes*, the County would have to come back and make changes at that time.  He stated that the primary access to would be Round Lake Road, at which time he noted that the Department of Transportation is planning to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Round Lake Road and SR 46, which should occur within the next three to four months, and should be able to handle the traffic impacts from the proposed development.

            Commr. Stivender amended her motion, deleting the requirement that right and left turn lanes be constructed on U.S. 441, indicated on Page 4 of the Ordinance, under Item III. - Transportation Improvements, Paragraph C, due to said lanes not being needed, since Robie Avenue will be an “emergency access only”, rather than a “secondary access” road.

            Commr. Pool seconded the amendment.

            Commr. Hill questioned whether any of the other residents that abut the south side of Robie Avenue would be impacted and was assured that they would not.  She stated that she wanted to make sure that they would have access to their homes.

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

            Commr. Hanson had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion and vote.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 12:05 p.m., the Vice Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:00 p.m.

            The gavel was passed back to the Chairman.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH13-06-4 – A TO PUD – SORRENTO HILLS, INC./JOHN C.

            GRAY, JR., MANAGER, EAGLE DUNES II, LLC – TRACKING NO. 13-06-PUD

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicant wishes to rezone two parcels totaling 202.33 +/- acres from (A) Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit Development), designated Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) (163.14 acres) and Rural (39.43 acres) on the Lake County Future Land Use Map, for the creation of a single family residential subdivision.  He stated that the applicant has obtained a total of 60 development points, through the utilization of the Urban Area Residential Density Chart, contained in Table 3.03.03 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), corresponding to a maximum allowable density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre, for the property located within the Urban Compact Node.  He stated that it equates to a total of 898 dwelling units within the Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) designated property (163.14 acres x 5.5 dwelling units + 897.27 dwelling units rounded to 898).  He stated that the Rural land use designated property (39.43 acres) has a base density of one dwelling unit per five acres, which equates to a total of 8 single family residential dwelling units within the Rural land use designated property (39.43 acres/5 acres = 7.89 dwelling units rounded to 8).  He stated that the total number of dwelling units for the overall proposed rezoning is 906 single family dwelling units.  He stated that the Lake County Schools Growth Planning Department provided comment that the proposed rezoning had the potential to contribute 372 new students to the school system; however, this request has been brought before the Zoning Board as an adult restricted community, so it will have no impact on the school system.

            Mr. Hartenstein stated that the Public Works Department comments state that additional right of way dedication, to provide 50 feet from the centerline of CR 437, may be required; that the CR 437/SR 44 intersection shall be improved/modified before Final Plat approval; and that Cardinal Lane shall be paved/overlaid from SR 44 to the Sorrento Springs entrance.  He stated that, although the proposed project has sufficient development density points to qualify for a base density of 5.5 dwelling units to the acre, in the Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) land use category, this density is inconsistent and not compatible with the surrounding land use and development patterns in the area.  He displayed a map (contained in the Board’s backup material) of the area in question, pointing out the various zoning districts and densities that currently exist in the area, which is one dwelling unit per acre to the north; one acre or larger parcels to the south and east; and five acre or larger parcels to the west.  He stated that, because of the surrounding densities, staff was unable to support the proposed density, however, noted that, if the proposed density was reduced to match the existing development pattern of one dwelling unit per acre, staff could recommend approval of the request.  He stated that the Zoning Board approved the request, by a 4-1 vote, with the following conditions:

            1.  There shall be no access to Equestrian Trail.

            2.  There shall be a decrease in density to 3.5 dwelling units per acre.

            3.  The buffer shall be increased from 25 feet to 100 feet along the Rural portion of the property.

            4.  The accesses to this PUD shall be restricted to CR 437 and through the existing Sorrento Springs development.

            5.  The medium density shall be moved closer to CR 437, where the low density is now located (revised conceptual plan dated January 13, 2006).

            Mr. Hartenstein stated that the applicants were instructed to come back with a revised conceptual plan, which they did, showing the 3.5 dwelling units per acre (conceptual plan submitted with the Board’s backup material).  He stated that the County received a letter and a petition containing 65 signatures, in opposition to this request, with no letters being received in support of the request; and the County received a letter (County Exhibit A) from Mr. Michael Stearman, City Manager, City of Eustis, to Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director, Growth Management, dated January 23, 2006, this date, regarding the request, which he read into the record, noting that the letter indicates that the City had made application to the St. Johns River Water Management District for a new Consumptive Use Permit for the Sorrento Hills Project area, which includes allocation for water that may be sufficient to supply adjacent properties, including the project in question (The Villages of Sorrento Springs), but that the CUP is currently under review by the SJRWMD and has not yet been approved.  The letter further states that the City has not received from the developer an application for water or sewer service from the City’s facility, located at SR 44 and Cardinal Lane, for the proposed project; that the City does not know at this stage whether there will be sufficient capacity of water allocated in the new CUP, by the SJRWMD, for allocation to the adjacent properties, once approved; and that any allocation of water from the current CUP, or a new CUP, requires prior City Commission approval and must be in conformance with the quantities allowed within the approved CUP and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permits.  The letter was submitted, for the record.  He stated that the County also received a letter (County Exhibit B) from Ms. Jeanne Etter, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, to Chairman Catherine Hanson, dated January 18, 2006, which he read into the record, noting that it indicates that she would not be able to attend this meeting, but wanted the Board to be aware of the fact that the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, of which she is a member, has been meeting for the last year and has been working with the County and residents of the community to set guidelines for future growth in the area.  The letter indicates several concerns of Ms. Etter and asks that the Board act favorably on it, only if a low density can be guaranteed, with the appropriate amount of open space, and that the 39 acres designated Rural remain Rural.  He stated that the County also received a letter (County Exhibit C) from Mr. G. Curtis Duffield, President, Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, to Chairman Catherine Hanson, dated January 21, 2006, in which he indicates that the Committee passed a resolution recommending denial by the Board of County Commissioners of this request, in that it would negate the work done by the Committee to concentrate higher densities near the proposed Market Square, by increasing densities in an area that is remote from the proposed Market Square, which is contrary to all current planning and in direct opposition to the wishes of the community.  

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray Robinson, addressed the Board representing the applicant, stating that there were several people in the audience who would be giving testimony to the Board regarding this request, at which time he noted who those individuals would be and the role that they would play in this request.  He stated that, as with any case, it consists of two parts – a “could” and a “should”, but that he would be presenting the “could” – why the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations would support the request, but, more important than that was the “should” part of it – why the proposed development is a good one in the right place at the right time, noting that many of the people that do not want the development to be approved existed under the old regime.  He stated that he would be presenting a lot of evidence about consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding neighborhood, but, to the extent that this request is not consistent with that, he was going to say “good”.  He stated that the way the County used to develop in the Wekiva, as well as any of the other “edge” areas, is that it is too big to mow and too small to farm, which is the kind of development that will kill the Wekiva and Lake County.  He stated that this request fits into the planning perspective that has been going on about changing what the County does – changing what it has done wrong in the past and developing the right way.  He stated that the applicant has done a lot to get where he is today, noting that he has worked with county staff for approximately one year and with the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, as well.  He gave a brief background history of what has occurred regarding this request, up to this point in time, noting that the applicant submitted his application in November of 2005 and came before the Zoning Board in January of this year, where the proposed project was recommended for approval - not at the 5.5 dwelling units per acre, as proposed, but at 3.5 dwelling units per acre.  He stated that some additional conditions were put on the request at that point in time, which the applicant has agreed to.

            Mr. Crawford displayed an Aerial Location Map (Applicant’s Exhibit A) and an Amended Land Use Concept Map (Applicant’s Exhibit B) of the property in question, which was submitted, for the record, at which time he pointed out a 32 acre parcel that was originally considered as part of the development, noting that the applicant was considering a contract on that parcel of property, which he noted is also within the Urban Compact Node and buffers the subject property; however, the neighbors were very concerned about the inclusion of that 32 acre parcel as part of the project, so the applicant agreed to exclude the 32 acres, and, to make sure that it does not change at a later date, put a prohibition on road access between the proposed project and the 32 acres, which means that there can be no future connection between the two parcels.  He stated that the map that he was showing was the current plan, as it exists, noting that it has a 650 foot buffer of open space and only 8 lots, which is the allowed density in Rural land use, which allows the applicant to do many things.  He stated that the applicant wants to provide more open space than what the PUD standards normally require, putting it into a spot that the neighbors thought was appropriate, in the Rural land use.  He stated that a large high line and electric power substation runs through the property, which acts as a border, and all the high and medium density development is located on the east side (CR 437 side) of that high line.  He stated that the neighboring properties are all low to medium density and the only other abutting neighbor is located to the south of the property, Mr. Kyle Johnston.  He stated that the applicant feels he has the support of both of the abutting property owners and he has met with the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, as well as with the neighborhood groups, to answer any concerns they might have.

            Mr. John Gray, Jr., Manager, Eagle Dunes II, LLC, the applicant, addressed the Board and gave a brief power point presentation (Applicant’s Exhibit C), consisting of some pictures of the Sorrento Springs development that he developed, showing some of the architectural styles (craftsman style) that were used in the development that will also be used in The Villages of Sorrento Springs development (proposed project), which was submitted, for the record.  He noted that the development will consist of townhomes and estate homes and any trees that can be preserved will be preserved.  He stated that he has met with many of the residents that live in the area and is willing to work with those residents who have not met with him, but have sent requests in writing, to try to allay any concerns they might have.

            Mr. Charles Gray, Attorney, Gray Robinson, addressed the Board, representing the applicant, and discussed the proposed project’s Consumptive Use Permit, which the applicant is in the process of revising with the City of Eustis, to handle the development, noting that, when the applicant, Mr. John Gray, first purchased the proposed project, the application for the Consumptive Use Permit had already been filed and the permit had been issued.  He stated that the previous developer was deficient in his application, so the applicant had to take on the obligation of processing an amendment to the permit and applying for a new one that would accommodate the balance of the project, as well as any deficiencies in the first part of the project.  He stated that the applicant has not yet filed an application for water and sewer services for the project; however, he has filed an amendment to the existing Developer’s Agreement and has no reason to believe that the City Commission is not going to approve it.  He stated that the applicant has met with the SJRWMD officials and feels quite confident that the Consumptive Use Permit will be issued.  He stated that he had asked Mr. Mike Stearman, City Manager for the City of Eustis, to write a letter (submitted earlier by staff, for the record) and explain exactly where things stand with the proposed project, which he did.

            Mr. Crawford interjected that the PUD is contingent upon central water and sewer services being provided to the property, otherwise, the PUD will be null and void and the applicant will not be able to develop the proposed project.

            Mr. William (Bill) Ray, AICP, Senior Project Manager, Bowyer-Singleton, addressed the Board and gave a brief background history of himself, at which time an exhibit (Applicant’s Composite Exhibit D) was submitted, for the record, containing the Resumes of those individuals at Bowyer-Singleton that will be involved with this project, as well as some background information about Ms. Alexis Stewart, who serves as a Project Manager in the Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Planning Group at Hartman Consulting and Design, who will also be involved with this project, noting that he has a 35 year history with Lake County and was an active participant in writing the Comprehensive Plan that the County currently operates under, as well as the County’s Policies and Procedures and Land Development Regulations.  He stated that it was exciting to be back in Lake County and be able to implement those policies and bring the County forward with a vision, which the initial Comprehensive Plan was intended to do.  He discussed various aspects of the proposed project and what it has to offer, noting that it epitomizes smart growth; is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan, as staff acknowledged; and is located one-half mile from a community commercial center that has already been approved, which cannot be ignored.  He stated that the Board wants an internal, clustered community, but to make those commercial centers and communities viable, they have to have the densities and one unit per acre will not work.  He stated that storefronts will be vacant, because the area does not have the density it needs.  He stated that what is continually referenced under the Urban Land Use Institute, the Smart Growth Policy Institute, and the American Institute of Certified Planners, or the guidelines directing growth, is that density is a county’s savior, when it comes to combating sprawl.  He noted that there will be 40% community owned open space in this project, which epitomizes what he is talking about, with regard to clustering.  He stated that the applicant wants to raise the standards, so he voluntarily wants to employ these techniques – not so much because he is being forced to, but because it is the right thing to do – it protects the community, the environment, and makes a more concentric style of development.  He stated that the applicant selected a site that has no wetland impacts and where he can preserve and enhance the existing natural resources to the greatest extent practical.  He stated that the site selection is key, noting that it is big enough to where a proper project can be designed, yet is within a walkable distance from community centers and one and a half miles from the downtown Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area.  He stated that something he has learned about walkable communities is that, if there is a destination, people will walk there, but, if the County wants those downtown urban cores to flourish, thrive, and develop their own sense of identity and be economically successful and sustainable, there has to be a threshold density that can support it, which is what the applicant is providing with the proposed project.  He stated that the applicant is also providing excessive additional buffers and both active and passive recreational opportunities within the development, such as the use of “pocket parks” (small parks consisting of various sizes).  He stated that the proposed development is the right one, at the right time, in the right place and the applicant is designing the project to accommodate on-sight tree preservation and is providing diverse housing types within the community and the neighborhood, to where they have single family residential and attached residential, to promote clustering, and they are using an innovative design concept that recycles stormwater, for irrigation purposes, which is something that is not common place, or seen statewide, to address groundwater needs in the area.  He stated that no noise impacts, other than those of an active adult residential community, are expected from the development, due to the type of community that is planned.

            Mr. Crawford questioned Mr. Ray about the following items, which were submitted, for the record:  A letter of support (Applicant’s Exhibit E) from Ms. Laura Knutson, Program Coordinator, Central Florida Sustainable Communities Initiative, to Mr. John Gray, Jr., a group that works with the Urban Land Institute to promote sound planning practices and sustainable communities throughout the State – the same agency that is working with the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento community in developing their plan, indicating that the Central Florida Sustainable Communities Initiative supports a demonstration project that would exemplify the best planning principles that have been espoused by them, whose principles include  preserving corridors for transportation that maintain local and regional connectivity, crafting a sense of place, by forming public realms, creating development in ways that promote good stewardship of the land, and scaling the built environment for people; Page 59 of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan Online Version (Applicant’s Exhibit F), which states, “Lands within the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Urban Compact Node and outside of the Wekiva River Protection Area Boundary may be developed to a maximum density of five and one-half (5.5) dwelling units per one (1) net acre and shall utilize the development regulations of Lake County, which pertain to the Urban land use category.  TDR’s will not apply to these lands.”; various pages from the Lake County Comprehensive Plan Online Version (Applicant’s Composite Exhibit G), with the sections pertaining to this request highlighted; and Section 14.03.03 - Standards for Review, from the Lake County Land Development Regulations (Applicant’s Exhibit H).

            A brief discussion occurred regarding the percentage of open space in the proposed development, at which time Commr. Stivender suggested the following change:  On Page 3 of the Ordinance, under Item B. – Open Space/Recreation Uses, Paragraph 1, change 25 percent to 40 percent, or 51 acres of open space.

            Mr. Ray stated that the policies in the County’s Comprehensive Plan will work, if they are implemented.  He stated that the tendency is to spread new development for rural projects into one, five, and ten acre home sites, but, while that may be easier to market and establish a pattern, it creates the worst conditions for the environment and future traffic patterns.  He stated that the County’s own smart growth process directs the County to cluster, maximize open space, and provide enough density to get projects to be sustainable.  He noted that this project is compatible with development in the surrounding neighborhood, which he elaborated on.

            Ms. Alexis Stewart, Project Manager, Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Planning Group, Hartman Consulting and Design, Orlando, addressed the Board stating that she is currently working as an authorized agent for the City of Eustis, to modify their existing Consumptive Use Permit through the St. Johns River Water Management District, and, as part of that Consumptive Use Permit, they have included stormwater reuse as an alternative use of potable water for irrigation purposes, in order to limit the use of available aquifer resources.  She stated that the basic concept is the reuse of stormwater runoff into surface water ponds, or the aquifer, and the retrieving of it, utilizing vertical wells, horizontal wells, or underdrain systems, in order to reduce the potable water use in a particular area.  She stated that stormwater is a good source of irrigation quality water and stormwater reuse ponds are recharged by rain and a significant percentage of it is re-infiltrated by irrigation water.  She stated that the applicant is very excited to present this concept and the opportunity for this project to be the first in Lake County.  She stated that she has met with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the SJRWMD regarding this project and they both support and emphasize the use of alternative water sources for irrigation purposes.  She stated that a summary of the key benefits of the stormwater reuse project is to protect the Wekiva water quality, to preserve potable water resources, to use the lowest quality water for lowest quality needs, and it is a proven technology.  She stated that it is going to be a standard for the future, especially in environmentally sensitive areas.

            Mr. Darrell Cunningham, AICP, GMB Engineers & Planners, Inc., addressed the Board, representing the applicant, and reviewed information contained in a letter (Applicant’s Exhibit I), dated January 23, 2006, from Mr. David Mulholland, Senior Vice President, GMB Engineers & Planners, Inc., to Mr. John Maruniak, Transportation Planner, Lake County Department of Public Works, regarding a Revised Transportation Analysis that was done for The Villages of Sorrento Springs, which was submitted, for the record.  He stated that the age restriction requirement and the lower density of this project over the original proposal results in an 88% reduction in trips that will be generated by this development during peak hours - from 524 to 65.  He stated that another key item is that the only road that will be impacted by the proposed development will be CR 437, noting that the impact to said road will be 4.6%, which is less than the 5% criteria for determining an impact area by the County.  He stated that, based upon trip production and future conditions, the project will meet the County’s concurrency requirements.

            Mr. Robert Curry, Director, Lake County Conservation Council, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, at which time he displayed an aerial map, contained in the Mount Plymouth and Sorrento Framework Study Report (Opposition’s Exhibit A), which was submitted, for the record, pointing out the area in question, stating that, in 1988, the Board decided to approve a PUD for the area in question, at one dwelling unit per acre, in the middle of a one dwelling unit per five acre area, which allowed a 17 acre commercial sector that, under the rules, far exceeded the neighborhood commercial center restrictions of up to 50,000 square feet and it abutted the Wekiva River Protection Area, as well, which was one dwelling unit per 20 acres.  He discussed the effect that the proposed development and its commercial aspect will have on the area in question, at which time he asked the Board to rethink approving this project.

            Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing a number of residents in the area of the proposed project who are opposed to it, addressed the Board stating that it is a beautiful area, with the majority of the homesites being 10 to 15 acres in size and most of the property owners having barns and horses, which they ride on Equestrian Trail.  She stated that the area has been designated as a country estate district, with a rural agricultural character, intended to emphasize open land and pastures, natural wooded or forested areas, and crop land and is to have the lowest density and intensity of all districts in the community, with clustered developments, to maximize open space and provide a reduction in minimum buildable lots of one acre.  She stated that the group of individuals she represents have two concerns, the first being the mitigation of impacts of a development of this nature, when compared to their homesites and their equestrian lifestyle, and the other being the protection of environmental features that are located on the site.  She questioned whether a development of the type being proposed could coexist with the adjoining development and still be compatible, at which time she noted that it was just testified to the Board that the point system is the system in the County’s Code that assures compatibility; however, she begged to differ, noting that she believes the point system is a performance based system and the reason why so many points are given for a water and sewer system is because, typically, one will find water and sewer systems in urbanized areas, which is not the case with this request.  She stated that, because a subdivision was built to the north that would not have been allowed to be built there under today’s standards, a central water and sewer system is already in place, so the applicant was able to get his points to the level that he needed them to be.  She stated that, based on the language, the spirit, and intent of the Code, that is only one factor that the Board would be looking at, with regard to the point system.  She stated that the next factor would be true compatibility and how this development impacts the adjoining properties.  She stated that the applicant changed the development to an age restricted one, due to the school concurrency issue, at which time she noted that the Board needs to be cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of subdivisions in the County that are going to be age restricted, but then will change mid-stream, because they can come on board very quickly as an age restricted community.  She discussed the issue of clustering and whether a developer could use it to create compatibility in the rural land use category, with one dwelling unit per acre, one dwelling unit per ten acres, or one dwelling unit per fifteen acres, but the next question is what would the density be and how much open space would there need to be, in order to create a compatible situation.  She stated that the number being used today (40%) is what her clients abdicated at the Zoning Board meeting, in that they felt it would be a good number, however, noted that the problem is that, when one looks at the number of homesites being proposed for the residential area, one ends up with a situation that is not compatible.  She stated that the development needs to be a lower density and it needs to be clustered, in order to be compatible with the adjoining low density equestrian neighborhood.  She stated that she appreciated the comments about smart growth and the fact that the proposed development complies with its principles, however, noted that she is not convinced that that is the case.  She stated that, if the Board is going to go along with this project, based on those principles, the applicant needs to bring back to the Board a very detailed plan of how they are going to accomplish it, as opposed to the plan being presented this date.

            Ms. Campione addressed the Mt. Plymouth and Sorrento Framework Study Report that was alluded to earlier and the fact that the advisory committee has been working from said report and spending a lot of time and energy trying to formulate a community in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area and they feel very strongly that the way the development in question is being proposed goes directly against what they are attempting to achieve.  She stated that they are asking the Board to consider the hard work, the effort, and the time and energy that has gone into the planning of said community, by the advisory committee, and to recognize their comments and not create another situation that is contrary to what they see as their long-term vision for the area.  She stated that another issue that has not been raised is that of the Wekiva study area guidelines, noting that, although the proposed development is within the urban compact node, the Wekiva study area legislation is clear that those guidelines would apply to the area in question and there has not been any discussion on the part of the developer as to how those guidelines are going to be met.  She stated that the Land Planning Agency (LPA) and county staff have been working on provisions that will go into the Comprehensive Plan changes that are being discussed that will implement said guidelines.  She stated that the work product that she has seen thus far shows that they would support a 50% open space requirement and a density of approximately one dwelling unit per acre, so there are a lot of things going on at the present time that could ultimately impact how the property in question should be developed, yet the Board is being asked this date to approve something that she believes they do not have enough information on.  She stated that there are too many things that need to be established, before the Board goes forward and allows the proposed project to be developed, which she elaborated on.  She asked that the Board require a higher open space; that they lower the density of the development; and that they go with the recommendations of staff and the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee and deny the request.  She noted that the applicant indicated the development would not access Equestrian Trail and asked that it be incorporated in the plan, noting that there is no reason to access it, because of the amount of frontage that the development will have on CR 437.

            Ms. Heather Brush, a resident of the area, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she lives on the north end of Equestrian Trail.  She stated that the residents feel the area in question is a unique one and that it would be a tragedy for the proposed development to have use of Equestrian Trail for any purposes at all.  She then addressed the issue of lighting, at which time she displayed and submitted, for the record, a photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit B) that she had taken the evening before the meeting of the street lighting from the Eagle Dunes development, located adjacent to her property, noting that it is what she and her husband see from their bedroom window at night.  She stated that it not only lights up their bedroom, but the entire night sky.  She stated that she and her husband would like to see a buffering of trees planted along the property line between their property and the Eagle Dunes property, noting that they feel it would protect the value of their home, should they ever decide to sell, as well as hide the huge expanse of homes and the street lighting, as shown in the photograph.

            Mr. Coleman Holt, a resident of the area, who lives on Equestrian Trail, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was a graduate forester and wanted to speak about what may be one of the last mature longleaf pine stands known to exist in their immediate area, estimated to be between 80 and 100 years old, and covering about 26.5 acres, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, an aerial (Opposition’s Exhibit C) of the area in question, showing said pine stand.  He stated that old long-leaf pine is vulnerable to mortality from root disturbance, once injured, and, therefore, vulnerable to nearby development.  He stated that the proposed development would unduly risk failure to what would be left of this stand after construction and also to the species of special concern that exist there now, for which the land development code clearly specifies protection.  He stated that the natural upland vegetated community is known to support Sherman’s fox squirrel and gopher tortoise, thus, meets the County’s LDR critical habitat standard, requiring adherence to Section 6.04.03, which specifies a minimum of 25% open space preservation within PUDs, and specifies that the preservation must include the critical habitat in question.  He further discussed the issue of preserving the pine trees, noting that the LDRs require that they be preserved through site design to the “maximum extent possible”; therefore, they feel that more preservation than proposed must be provided.  He urged the Board to require the following:

·         That, with the exception of an east-west +/- 1.8 acre road corridor, the rest of the longleaf pine community lying west of the gas transmission line be preserved.

·         That the above referenced roadway be situated as far north in the longleaf pine community as practicable.

·         That a determination of no-net-loss not be made, in the event that mitigation for this stand is offered, in lieu of protection under the LDRs, Section 6.04.07.

·         That the southern boundary of the preservation area completely abut the north end of private Equestrian Trail right of way.

·         That the preserved area, about 22.5 acres, be protected by a conservation easement that conforms to Section 704.06, Florida Statutes, that allows no more developed access than unpaved equestrian and foot paths and that prohibits all use of dirt bikes and motorized vehicles, other than those required for site maintenance and protection.

            Mr. Fred Schmidt, the owner of a ten acre parcel in the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he and his wife spent many years looking for a good place to live, noting that they moved to Florida from an area just north of Seattle, Washington, and fell in love with the area in question.  He stated that he was raised in a big city and always wanted to live in the country.  He stated that all of his neighbors, who have either horses or cattle, have a minimum of five acres, with a lot of them having 15 to 20 acres; therefore, he would propose that the Board approve a density of no more than one dwelling unit per five acres.  He stated that it is a rural area, at which time he noted that he has seen gopher tortoises, fox squirrels, a bald eagle, and a panther on his property.  He stated that the residents have agreed that, ideally, the density of the proposed development should be the same as it is at the present time on Equestrian Trail, which is one dwelling unit per ten acres, however, noted that they would compromise and go along with one dwelling unit per five acres.

            Mrs. Marcy Gray and Mr. Bill Gray, husband and wife, who live near the property in question, addressed the Board, individually, and discussed how they feel about the proposed development.  They discussed the concept that was first raised at the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee about density blending, noting that, while they have met with the developer and he has assured them that it will not happen, depending upon what transpires at this meeting and what the end result is about density, they wanted the Board to not allow density blending to spill over, even if it is just ten acres, onto the approximately 40 acres which comprises the rural area of the proposed development.  Their second concern was that of buffering, at which time they noted that the developer agreed to not only the 25 foot buffer that adjoins their property, but also the 20 acres that adjoins it, which would be split and left in an agricultural designation, with a “no build” stipulation, which they agreed to.  The Grays and their neighbors have agreed to 8 dwelling units on the 40 acres of rural land alluded to earlier, as proposed by the developer.  It was noted that, as far as the buffer on the Johnson property is concerned, everything that the developer mentioned this date they concur with and they appreciate his willingness to meet with the property owners in the area, as he has done.

            Ms. Martina DePasqual, a resident of the area, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she and her husband drive horse drawn carriages and are at the onset of starting a small horse breeding program.  She stated that, when she and her husband moved to the area six years ago, there was almost no traffic at all going through their neighborhood and it was a very safe environment for driving their horse drawn carriages; however, in the last couple of years, the traffic has picked up considerably and the proposed development is going to increase it further, making it a lot less safe.

            Mr. Stephen Jennelle, a member of the East Lake County Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board and discussed the applicant’s lack of having a consumptive use permit; what he feels are some serious questions about traffic, noting that he feels the assumptions used by the traffic engineers are flawed, at best; the fact that he likes the multimodal transportation concept; the fact that he feels, with an aged population, there is going to be increased demands on health services, which was not addressed; and the fact that he feels the issue of stormwater reuse is a nice concept and makes economic sense.

            Mr. Crawford readdressed the Board, in rebuttal, stating that the applicant has done everything he possibly can to work within the rules and to alleviate any concerns the residents have about the proposed project, at which time he displayed and reviewed Table 3.03.00 – Urban Area Residential Density Point System and Timeliness, along with various charts pertaining to same (Applicant’s Composite Exhibit J), from the Land Development Regulations; a handout (Applicant’s Exhibit K) containing copies of emails that were sent back and forth between Mr. Tom Hagood, Executive Vice President, The Pinnacle Companies, and Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing a number of residents in the area opposed to the development, responding to concerns and questions from residents of Villages of Sorrento Springs, from a recent meeting that was held with them, as well as questions that Ms. Campione had about the development; and a handout (Applicant’s Exhibit L) containing Additional Provisions/Amendments to the Ordinance, which staff is aware of, that was addressed in the Staff Report and will be required, should the Board approve this request, which he submitted, for the record.

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

            Commr. Hanson stated that she was strongly against the age restricted community and that she feels the County can deal with it, by requiring the development to meet school concurrency, noting that it will certainly be in place, before the project moves forward.  She stated that, if she were to approve the proposed development, she would approve one dwelling unit per acre, without utilities, and two dwelling units per acre, with utilities, both clustering, noting that she would want the clustered development on everything but the 40 acres, in that she does not feel it should be included, but might be with the PUD.  She stated that, if the development is going to have two dwelling units per acre, she would want it to have 50% open space, and with one unit to the acre, 40% open space.  She stated that she feels the idea of protecting the pine tree stand is extremely important, in that, if the County starts putting houses in that area, it will be setting it up for deterioration.  She stated that she liked the traditional neighborhood design and the connectivity with the trails, noting that there has already been discussion about Equestrian Trail being a private road and not being open to the public.  She stated that she feels the lighting is a very important issue, but the applicant has indicated he would work with the residents, with regard to it, and that she feels the Town Center is still going to be located at SR 46 and CR 437, because that is what the committee is working towards.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not want anybody to think that the market is driving the age-restricted communities, noting that the reason developers are going to it is so that they can get their developments approved today, because they know, with the pressure the County is facing with the school concurrency issue, the Board is going to have a tendency to say “No” to their developments and send them on their way.  He stated that it has nothing to do with the market.  He stated that, while he was sure the applicant is working through the process, regarding the issue of water, there are deficiencies in the consumptive use permit.  He stated that the Board inherited the vested subdivision that currently exists in the area, but it does not have to make that problem worse.  He stated that there is going to be a time when that area is going to be developed, but he does not feel that it should be today.  He stated that the Board appointed and empowered the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee to look at growth in that area and that he was not going to be comfortable with ignoring their concerns.  He stated that he feels compact nodes need to grow orderly and the proposed development is on the outer edge of the City of Eustis and on the outer edge of the compact node and, while it was vested and able to be built, the County does not have to make it worse – they can let it sit and let time catch up with it and let things happen naturally, as they should with growth.  He stated that he did not have any intention of supporting this request, even with the suggested changes, and that he felt the Board should deny it.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she and the applicant needed some direction, as to where the Town Center is going to be.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee is still discussing the matter; however, she feels that it is probably going to be one-half mile to one mile from either side of the intersection of SR 46 and CR 437.

            Commr. Stivender stated that the applicant has increased the open space 15% over what the County has asked from anyone else; they have mixed the density; and they have met with the residents in the area, in trying to negotiate how they want to live.  She stated that she feels the proposed project is probably one of the best projects the Board has seen, in the way that it is laid out and in how it incorporates the smart growth issues, so she did not want to totally deny the request.  She questioned whether there was a timeframe that the Board could give the applicant, to come up with something that they would consider approving.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee should have a report to give to the Board within the next couple of months.  She agreed that the proposed project is a good one, with some of the things that have been incorporated, but that she felt it may be in the wrong place, at least with the densities that the applicant is requesting.

            Commr. Pool stated that the project is something he would like to have happen in Lake County, noting that there is no doubt that what the applicant presented and is trying to provide for the County is the right thing, but the question is whether or not it is the right location, which is the issue at hand – its compatibility and how it will blend in with the neighborhood.  He stated that the County should not have a big blue box and say go for it and then not allow one to get there.  He questioned whether the Board, rather than deny the request, should table it and give the applicant a chance to come back with something that they might approve.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the Land Planning Agency is working very hard on some modifications for that area of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, it may be helpful to postpone the request for 90 days.  She stated that, in her discussions with Mr. Keith Schue, a member of the LPA, one dwelling unit per acre is probably going to be appropriate for the area.  She noted that clustering is what she would like to see in the development, with a density no higher than two dwelling units per acre, and with all the “smart growth” principles, or as many as possible, in place.

            Commr. Cadwell interjected that he recently rode through the area and it seemed to him that, if the Board were to approve this request, they would be fueling a fire that does not need to be lit yet.  He noted that his decision would be based upon staff’s report and the evidence presented this date.

            A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hill to overturn the recommendation of the Zoning Board and deny Rezoning Case No. PH13-06-4, Sorrento Hills, Inc./John Gray, Jr., Manager, Eagle Dunes, Tracking No. 13-06-PUD, a request to rezone two parcels of property, totaling 202.33 +/- acres, currently zoned A (Agriculture) and designated Urban Compact Node (Non-Wekiva) (163.14 acres) and Rural (39.43 acres) on the Lake County Future Land Use Map (FLUM), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed, by a 2-3 vote.

            A motion was then made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Stivender to postpone the request for 90 days, until the Board Meeting of April 25, 2006, with a stipulation that the Board receive a report from the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee, along with any other documentation that they might need to make a decision about said case, prior to said meeting.

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

            Commrs. Cadwell and Hill voted “No”.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 3:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.

            REZONING CASE NO. CUP00/4/2-4 – VOLUNTARY REVOCATION OF CUP

            JOHN AND TAMMY NEGRI – TRACKING NO. 14-06-CUP/REV

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved the Voluntary Revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 00/4/2-4, which was granted to John and Tammy Negri by the Board on April 25, 2000, to allow for the placement of a mobile home on site, with an existing single family residence, for the care of an infirm relative.  He stated that, as of April 18, 2005, the applicants voluntarily requested that the CUP be revoked, due to the fact that the relatives no longer reside on the property.  He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Zoning Board approved it, by a 6-0 vote, as well.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2006-13, John and Tammy Negri, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/4/2-4, Tracking No. 14-06-CUP/REV, a request for approval of the voluntary revocation of CUP No. 00/4/2-4.

            REZONING CASE NO. PH99-05-3 – A TO R-2 – DARRYL WROBEL

            GREEN ACRES FERNERY & CITRUS, INC. – STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A.

            TRACKING NO. 116-05-Z

            Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone a 47.25 +/- acre parcel, currently zoned A (Agriculture) and designated Urban Expansion on the Lake County Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision.  He stated that the applicant has recently requested that 8.82 acres be removed from this request, to remain as agricultural land, at which time he displayed an aerial (County Exhibit A) of said property, where he had highlighted the 8.82 acre parcel, which he submitted, for the record.  He stated that the applicant has obtained a total of 50 points, through the utilization of the Urban Area Residential Density Chart, contained in Table 3.03.03 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), corresponding to a maximum allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre.  He stated that Policy 1-1.6A of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan stipulates that residential developments within the Urban and Urban Expansion areas are required to have central potable water service.  He stated that the property lies outside the Community Development District (CDD) for Mission Inn; therefore, it will be necessary for the applicant/developer to provide an interim central water system consistent with the policy requirements contained in Policy 1-1.6B.  He stated that, with regard to wastewater, the City of Howey in the Hills has stated that central sewer service is presently unavailable.  He stated that, as the requested density does not exceed four dwelling units per acre and is not within a public utility service district, or the franchise area of a private utility, an interim sewer system will not be required for the sewer; however, in accordance with Policy 1-1.6B, once a public system becomes available, the development shall be required to connect to said system.  He stated that staff finds the desired use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan.  He stated that the Lake County Schools Growth Planning Department states that the proposed rezoning has the potential to add 94 new single family dwelling units that will contribute 39 new students to the school system; however, pointed out the fact that, with the 8.82 acre parcel alluded to earlier being subtracted from the total acreage, he refigured the calculations and found that it will add a maximum of 77 single family dwelling units that will contribute up to a total of 32 new students to the school system.  He stated that staff recommends approval of the request, with the understanding that central water and sewer will be provided, when available, and that the developer will be subject to school concurrency requirements.  He stated that 22 letters were received in support of the request, with none being received in opposition; however, one resident voiced a concern about the traffic that could possibly be generated on Bloomfield Road.  He stated that he explained to said individual that, during the development review process, if any impacts are found to be involved, they will be addressed during the platting process, which allayed said individual’s concern.  He stated that the Zoning Board approved the request, by a 3-3 vote, at which time he noted that, although it was a tie vote, they did not want to take another vote and moved on to the next case.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that his client reduced the size of the proposed project and met with the Friends of Yalaha and dealt with their concerns.  He stated that the subject property is going to be developed into 61 lots, rather than the 77 lots that staff indicated, with water and sewer being furnished by Mission Inn, noting that the client has an agreement (Applicant’s Exhibit A) with them to do so, which he submitted, for the record.  He stated that the proposed project was reduced by the 8.82 acres alluded to earlier, in order to have a smaller project and less impact on the schools in the area, maintaining the one-half acre density of two dwelling units per acre.  He stated that the points system would justify in excess of four dwelling units per acre; however, the R-2 zoning limits it to two dwelling units per acre, but the applicant is limiting it to even less than that.

            Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc., representing the applicant, addressed the Board and displayed a plat (Applicant’s Exhibit B) of the proposed subdivision, which he submitted, for the record, stating that the applicant is very sensitive to the concerns of the residents of Yalaha, therefore, requested larger lots than is required and he is going to put in a two acre park, which will be the major entry feature and will be available for use by the residents of Yalaha.  He addressed the impact that the proposed development will have on the schools in the area, at which time he noted that it will not affect either the middle school or the high school.

            Mr. Richey stated that this request comes out of the devastation to the ferneries that were on the property by the hurricanes that hit Central Florida last year.  He stated that the applicant would like to still be in the farming business, but having the opportunity to sell his property to a quality developer like Kelly Homes is something that he is looking forward to and does it with pride.  He stated that the quality of the houses that will be built will be equal to, or greater than, that of the Lakes and Springs development, which falls into the $300,000 range.  He stated that the open space for the project, even though it is straight zoning and the lots are larger, is 27%.  He stated that the applicant is aware of the fact that he will have to make any improvements that will need to be made to the roads, including accel/decel and turning lanes, and is prepared to do that, as part of the platting process.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned who would own the park that will be located at the entrance to the subdivision and was informed that it will be the homeowners association – that the County will not have to maintain it.

            Commr. Stivender stated that, when the County does improvements to CR 48, if the railroad right of way that is located in the area is still owned by the railroad and the County ends up buying it for its Rails to Trails program, whether there would be a problem with the trail going through the development and was informed by Mr. Beliveau that he did not foresee any problem with doing so.

            Ms. Debra Harold, representing the Friends of Yalaha, addressed the Board stating that her group met with Mr. Jeff Schnellman, who represents Kelly Homes, as well as Mr. Richey and Mr. Beliveau, and found them to be very cooperative.  She stated that they feel Mr. Schnellman is sincerely committed to developing a quality subdivision, to which they are grateful.  She stated that they would like to go on record as saying that they are not opposed to either the proposed rezoning, or the development.  She noted, however, that they had several concerns that they would like to make part of the record, the first being the school concurrency issue; the second being that of central water and sewer; the third being that the architectural design of the homes preserve the historic rural nature of the community; and, lastly, that the traffic impact be addressed, as the project goes through its various phases.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, 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. 2006-14, Darryl Wrobel, Green Acres Fernery & Citrus, Inc./Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH99-05-3, Tracking No. 116-06-Z, a request to rezone a 47.25 +/-parcel of property currently zoned A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision, as presented, deleting an 8.82 acre parcel located at the back of the property, as noted.

            REZONING CASE NO.LPA05/8/1-2 – FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT

            PLAZA COLLINA/LAKE COUNTY GATEWAY, LLC/CECELIA BONIFAY,

            AKERMAN SENTERFITT, P.A. – TRACKING NO.10-05-LPA; AND REZONING

            CASE NO. PH86-05-2 – MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PUD AND DRI – PLAZA

            COLLINA/LAKE COUNTY GATEWAY, LLC/CECELIA BONIFAY, AKERMAN

            SENTERFITT, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 127-05-PUD/DRI

            Ms. Carol Stricklin, Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and asked that both cases involving the proposed Plaza Collina development be heard together and that any motions involving said cases be held until the public hearings on both items have been closed.

            It was the consensus of the Board to do so.

            Mr. Alfredo Massa, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that the Plaza Collina Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is located just west of the borderline between Lake and Orange counties.  He stated that the DRI has frontage along its southern boundary on the north side of SR 50 and frontage along a portion of Plaza Collina’s northern boundary, below Old CR 50 (Green Mountain Scenic Byway).  He stated that the subject property has a gross acreage of 142 +/- acres and a total of three future land use designations:  Urban Expansion, Employment Center, and Community Commercial.  He stated that the future land use amendment application under review is to change the future land use focus from light industrial/manufacturing to a program of commercial development that includes 1,200,000 square feet of “big box” retail, restaurants, shopping, personal services, offices, and business uses.  He stated that the Development of Regional Impact application, which was filed by the owner/developer with the Department of Community Affairs and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), also includes up to 200 residential units.  He stated that the proposed land use change from Urban Expansion with Employment Center and Community Commercial Overlay to Urban Expansion with Regional Commercial and Public Resource Lands is not inconsistent with the land use in the area.  He stated that the Clermont Joint Planning Area Future Land Use Map designation for the site under review is Commercial/Services, which is in keeping with the applicant’s request to change the County’s land use designations to Regional Commercial, from the current future land use of Employment Center and Community Commercial.  He stated that the applicant is also seeking to add the Public Resource Lands (conservation) designation to a portion of the site under review (+/- 10 acres), which will help to protect and save a wetland area.

            Mr. Massa stated that, on December 14, 2005, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) completed its review of the proposed future land use map amendment to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan generated as a result of the Plaza Collina Development of Regional Impact.  He stated that said proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment requested the aforementioned changes to the 142 acre site from Urban Expansion with Employment Center Overlay and Community Commercial Overlay to 132 acres of Urban Expansion with a Regional Activity Center Overlay and 10 acres of Public Resource Lands.  He stated that DCA expressed concerns that, “the FLUM amendment is not appropriately supported by data and analysis regarding public facilities (transportation, potable water, and sanitary sewer facilities) and the need for the proposed amount of nonresidential land use allowed by the Regional Commercial Overlay.”  He stated that DCA noted three objections to the future land use amendment, being:  (1) That the proposed FLUM amendment increases the potential amount of nonresidential (commercial and office) uses to approximately 5,749,920 square feet (based on Florida Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0).  That the proposed FLUM amendment increases the potential number of vehicle trips that may be generated by the amendment parcel.  The proposed FLUM amendment relies on the transportation analysis that was submitted for the proposed Plaza Collina DRI.  The DRI Transportation Analysis is based on the amounts of development for the DRI (1,200,000 square feet of nonresidential primarily commercial and office type land uses; and 200 residential dwelling units); (2) That the FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis (including assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year and long term planning timeframes addressing the following:

            (1)        Potable water demand and sanitary sewer demand generated by the maximum development potential of 5,749,920 square feet.

            (2)        The available and planned uncommitted capacity of potable water and sanitary sewer.

            (3)        The impact of the demand for potable water and sanitary sewer.

            (4)        The need for potable water and sanitary sewer facilities improvements (scope, timing and cost of improvements).

            (5)        Coordination of any needed improvements or other planning alternatives with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.

            (6)        Coordination of any needed potable water facilities and sanitary sewer facilities improvements with the plans of other local governments that may provide potable water and sanitary sewer facilities to the amendment parcel ; and (3)  That the proposed amendment is not supported by data and analysis demonstrating the need for the amount of additional acreage of Regional Commercial Overlay.  He stated that, in response to DCA’s objections and in keeping with the Department’s recommended second alternative, the following text amendment to the existing Lake County Comprehensive Plan was submitted:  Policy 1-3A.1:  Commercial Development in Land Use Classifications.  Urban areas should be served by shopping facilities, which are designed and planned around market and service areas.  One of the shopping center types that these areas are generally categorized under  is Regional Activity Centers, which states,  In order to ensure managed growth and that the necessary infrastructure is in place to serve the Plaza Collina Development of Regional Impact, located north of SR 50, south of CR 50, and west of Lake Boulevard, the maximum amount of square feet to be developed within the Plaza Collina Development of Regional Impact for commercial and office uses is 1.2 million square feet of gross leasable area.  Residential units, up to a maximum of 200, may be permitted, subject to the terms and conditions of the Development Order adopted by Lake County governing the Plaza Collina Development of Regional Impact.  He stated that, based upon the text amendment, staff was recommending approval of a response to the Department of Community Affairs and approval of the proposed Future Land Use Amendment, for the following reasons:

            a.         Inclusion of the aforementioned text amendment, Policy 1-3A.1(1i), into the Lake County Comprehensive Plan that addresses the objections and concerns of the Department of Community Affairs regarding said project; and,

            b.         The inclusion of Item 18A, in Section 2 of the Lake County PUD Ordinance for the Plaza Collina Development of Regional Impact mitigating increased traffic resulting from said project.

            Mr. Massa stated that this date staff spoke with a representative from DCA, in order to obtain a formal review of the proposed response to DCA’s Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report, and DCA advised staff not to adopt at this time, because they did not find the applicant’s response to the ORC Report satisfactory.  He stated that staff wants the Board to be aware that there is the potential for a challenge from DCA, should the County proceed with the Future Land Use Amendment, which could potentially create considerable delays in the commencement of this project.

            Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that this request is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that will create the ability to develop up to 1.2 million square feet of regional commercial uses in an outdoor mall/plaza, and, in addition, the developer is requesting 200 residential units.  He reviewed the waivers that the applicant is requesting, as follows:

(1)        SIGNAGE:  (a.) Section 11.02.03(2)(A)(4) - Commercial Center Identification Ground Sign - Number of Signs; and (b.) Section 11.02.03(2)A)(5) – Commercial Center Identification Ground Sign - Sign Height - The applicant is asking for four Commercial Center Identification Ground Signs; however, the waiver involves the height of the signs. The applicant would like to go to 25 feet in height, with the additional 5 feet over the 20 feet that is allowed being for an architectural treatment on the Plaza Collina identification sign, to add some additional interest and to emphasize the major entrances, and then they will stay below the 20 feet for the actual copy area.  Staff reviewed the request and found there was justification for it, therefore, agreed to said waiver.  It was noted that the Lake County Code normally limits the height of a sign copy area to 20 feet; however, since the applicant was only asking for four such signs, when they would be eligible for up to sixteen, staff felt comfortable with the request.

(2)        SOLID WASTE COLLECTION BOXES:  (a) Section 15.02.03(A)(2) – Solid Waste Collection Services – The City of Clermont Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) calls for one dumpster per 7,500 square feet, which would equate to a minimum of 160 dumpsters; however, with the incorporation of compactors and bailers that most of the larger commercial retailers are using, the applicant is able to reduce that number to one dumpster per 20,000square feet.  Staff agreed with said waiver.

(3)        GRADING:  (a) Section 15.02.10 – Grading Standards – The City of Clermont JPA talks about certain standards, which staff has reviewed, and, based on the long geometry of the site and the depth of the site being equal to the long road frontage and the change in elevation, staff felt there was a hardship involved with trying to stay within that grading standard.  The engineer provided that approximately 7% of the site, where the fill will be placed, will exceed the required 15 foot maximum depth criterion adopted in the JPA. Staff felt comfortable with that request, as well, therefore, agreed with said waiver.

(4)        PARKING:  (a) Table 9.03.06 – Parking Space Requirements – The applicant has requested approval for one parking space per every 200 square feet of building area, which staff felt comfortable with, therefore, agreed with said waiver.  It was noted that some comments were made about the size of the parking spaces and the breaks in the parking spaces, at which time it was further noted that it was not addressed in the JPA, but is addressed in the County Code, requiring that the spaces be 9’ by 18’, with a parking space break every 15 feet.  It is the County’s intention that those rules be the same.

(5)        ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND SIZE:  (a)  Section 15.02.04 – Architectural Standards – (i)  National retailers have modified the size and design of their stores over the last several years, based on providing a wider range of merchandise and shopping opportunities.  The size of the stores currently being constructed exceeds 100,000 square feet, which is supported by market data and analysis. The County does not have such a requirement and staff feels that, with the kinds of businesses that the applicant wants to attract to this area or location, they would have to exceed that 100,000 square foot requirement; therefore, staff agrees with said waiver; (ii) The applicant is proposing several other architectural changes, which vary in nature and are unique to the overall theme of the project, and, although the County does not have any architectural codes to go by, staff and the City of Clermont feel comfortable with said changes.

(6)        LAND USE AND ZONING STANDARDS:  (a) Section 15.02.01 – Setback Requirements – (i) The applicant is proposing modifications to the commercial side and rear setbacks of the project, mainly for those buildings greater than three stories tall and from interior private frontage roads.  Staff from the City of Clermont and county staff agree with said waiver; (ii) The applicant is proposing a maximum building height of 70 feet for designated habitable occupancy use areas of a building and 100 feet for finished height of all buildings on Parcels 1 and 2 on the PUD Land Use Site Plan.  This waiver increases the height over the maximum height of 35 feet habitable and 45 feet finished. The City of Clermont does not support this waiver and county staff does not have enough justification to deny or support this request, other than what the Code states; and (iii) The applicant is proposing a maximum building height of 40 feet for designated habitable occupancy use areas of a building and 50 feet for finished height of all buildings on Parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the PUD Land Use Site Plan. This waiver increases the height over the maximum height of 35 feet habitable and 45 feet finished height.  The City of Clermont does not support this waiver; however, the request would meet Table 3.02.06 of the County’s regulations outside the Clermont JPA and, due to the uniqueness and theme of the project, staff agrees with the requested waiver.

(7)        LANDSCAPING:  (a) Section 15.02.08 – Landscaping – The 10 foot landscape easement within the SR 50 right of way will allow the applicant to add additional, more intense landscaping in front of the site, to enhance not only the project, but to create that gateway effect along SR 50, as one enters Lake County and heads towards Clermont.  It was noted that, if the applicant is not able to obtain a right of way utilization permit from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to do the landscaping as planned, they are offering to do 100% plantings of material in the 10 foot area, instead of 50% in the 20 foot area.  Staff agreed with said waiver.

            Mr. Kruse noted that staff has had several meetings with the applicant, the applicant’s representative, the City of Clermont, the Town of Oakland, and representatives from the Green Mountain Scenic Byway Board, and has worked a lot of the details out.  He stated that, based upon the anticipated Future Land Use Map Amendment and the text amendment, staff was able to support the request.

            It was noted that language stating that the applicant would not build any residential houses until there is school capacity was included in the Ordinance – in the footnote on Page 3.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and asked that they move forward with this request, as indicated, per the Staff Report for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Development Order, and the Planned Unit Development.  She stated that the applicant provided additional information to DCA, being a copy of the Plaza Collina Response to ORC Report (Applicant’s Exhibit A), containing all exhibits referred to in said report, and, with the text amendment proposed by staff, which limits the square footage on this project to 1.2 million square feet and 200 residential units, feels it goes a long way toward answering DCA’s questions.  She noted that the applicant will continue to work with them.

            Mr. Ronald Manley, Canin Associates, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and gave a power point presentation (Applicant’s Exhibit B) about the proposed project, which was submitted, for the record.  He noted that it is a mixed use project, which will be developed in two phases - Phase 1 (2005-2008) will consist of approximately 950,000 square feet and Phase 2 (2008-2010) will consist of approximately 250,000 square feet, plus 200 dwelling units.  He stated that, as indicated, all of the proposed uses are consistent with the currently adopted Future Land Use Map.  He noted that the project is divided into a number of different parcels, with the two larger parcels, Nos. 1 and 2, being where the bulk of the non-residential development will go.  He stated that, at this point in time, the applicant is still in the early stages of trying to design the center, as well as work on a tenant mix, so it is hard to show the Board what the development is going to look like.  He stated that the parcels along the frontage of the development have adequate depth and there will be a frontage road parallel to SR 50, which is one of the early design features that the applicant put in, based upon input from county and regional staff, in terms of having another way to mitigate some of the traffic that will be coming off of the project.  He stated that the trail, located at the northern end of the site on Old SR 50 (also known as CR 50), is not actually on the site itself, although the applicant dedicated right of way to the County, so that the trail could be completed and hooked up with the West Orange Trail to the east.  He stated that the applicant has made provisions to create protection to the view sheds, which was important to the people who use that roadway to bicycle, as well as to the Green Mountain Scenic Byway Board.

            Mr. Manley displayed a rendition (contained in the power point presentation) of how the project may develop, at which time he noted that it was some of the ideas that the applicant was considering, which contained a lot of landscaping, nice architecture, and controlled signage, with easy pedestrian movements through the various uses.  He stated that there will be six-lane improvements to SR 50; a traffic signal installed at the project entrance on CR 50; intersection improvements during Phase 1 of the project; the applicant will be participating in a study with the Town of Oakland, Lake County, and Orange County, with regard to CR 488 improvements east of the site; modeling and monitoring of traffic will be required, under the DRI, before Phase 2 development commences; $200,000 will be provided to LYNX/Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), up front, to extend service to east Lake County; an on-site LYNX “superstop”, with dedicated parking, will be provided; and the developer will provide parallel frontage road, on site, to connect to the west of the site.  He stated that the Green Mountain Scenic Highway and the South Lake Trail are important to the applicant; therefore, the applicant wants to protect and preserve the existing oak trees along the northern property line, to the extent possible, and wants to provide native trees and plantings, where necessary, along said property line.  He stated that there will be dedication of right of way for the Trail extension, and the views along CR 50 will be protected.

            Mr. Manley addressed the issue of school capacity, noting that 200 residential units are proposed in Phase 2 of the project, however, prior to construction, adequate capacity must be available within the schools serving Plaza Collina.  He stated that said restriction will not apply, if the residential units are restricted to occupants 55 years of age or older.  He stated that the applicant has agreed to architectural design standards and to establish an architectural review board of the property owners association.  He stated that access to the site will occur from SR 50, CR 50, and Lake Boulevard; however, delivery service will be restricted to Lake Boulevard.  He stated that Plaza Collina will provide approximately 30% open space at build-out, and, presently, the plan has 21% open space, but, as the project develops, additional open space will be added on individual opportunity parcels.  He discussed other variance issues, such as Grading Standards, “Big Box” uses in excess of 100,000 square feet, and Parking, noting that the big question on the issue of parking has to do with the size of the stall, which is 9’ x 18’, versus the size that the City of Clermont wants, which is 10’ x 20’.  He stated that the applicant would like to stay with the 9’ x 18’, because they feel comfortable with it, in that it is what the County requires in the Code.  He stated that they can make the parking work and it is consistent with all the other approvals that have occurred in other PUDs throughout the County, so they would like to continue with a parking requirement of that dimension and would like to have the ability to calculate all their parking at one space per 200 square feet across the entire site, which he noted staff seems to be comfortable with.

            Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that there are a lot of questions that have not been answered and some issues that have not been addressed; therefore, the City feels this project should be tabled until things can be resolved with DCA and some of the issues that the City feels are still substantial that have not been addressed could be addressed, noting that this is the largest commercial project to hit Lake County and the County only gets one shot to get it right and this is it.  He stated that the Board should have in their backup material a letter that was sent to them from the City, in September of 2005, stating their issues, and a follow-up memorandum that was submitted to the Board in November of 2005, containing approximately three and a half pages pertaining to the matter.  He addressed some of the issues alluded to in said letter and memorandum, noting that the Board, city staff, and the Clermont City Council spent over two years putting together a Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) and Land Development Regulations for a single purpose, being that the areas in and around Clermont would develop substantially and in accordance with what is happening in the City, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, a copy of the Clermont Adopted JPA Proposed Future Land Use Map (Opposition’s Exhibit A).  He stated that, during the Staff Report, he kept hearing waiver, waiver, waiver, however, noted that there are a lot of things in the adopted JPA and Land Development Regulations that are not being met.  He stated that he did not feel it was ever anyone’s intent that a PUD should be a way to circumvent minimum standards, noting that PUDs have always been a way to address a use that is something different and, in most cases, should be enhanced standards, not reduced or inferior standards to what the County’s minimum standards are.  He stated that some of the standards are so minor and the City feels that, for a project the size of the one being proposed, consisting of 1.2 million square feet, it amazes him that the applicant is not willing to at least meet the minimum standards in some of the areas.

            Mr. Saunders stated that the first standard he wanted to address was the 20 foot landscaped buffer on SR 50, noting that the minimum standard is 20 feet.  He stated that, if this request had come before the City Council, they probably would have asked for more than 20 feet, just because of the sheer size of the project.  He stated that the applicant is requesting that only 10 feet be put on their property, with another 10 feet to be put on the right of way, however, pointed out the fact that, to his knowledge, they have not received a right of way utilization permit from DOT to use that 10 feet and, even if they had, DOT has the right to take it out later on, if they need it, so there is no guarantee that the 10 feet will always be there.  He stated that the second issue is the landscaped islands that are being proposed for the parking lot, noting that the minimum standard does not allow a development to have more than 10 parking spaces, without a landscaped island, the purpose being to break up the big sea of asphalt that one sees in the mega parking lots.  He stated that the applicant is requesting to go with 15 parking spaces, a 30% decrease in the amount of landscaped islands, as a minimum standard for the parking lot.  He stated that the applicant also is not wanting to meet the approved tree list for the landscaped areas, noting that they want to use palm trees, which is fine for them to use somewhere in the development, but the City is asking that they meet the minimum standard regarding canopy trees and the number of canopy trees that are required, as far as the parking lot is concerned, because it makes a huge difference.  He addressed the size of the parking spaces, noting that the minimum standard is not yet in the LDRs, or the JPA, because Chapter 9 has not been rewritten, however, noted that, if one were to go back to the joint meetings between the Board and the Clermont City Council, when they were working on the LDRs, it was suggested that the most restrictive regulations be used, or the one that is the best for this area.  He stated that the minimum standard is 10’ x 20’, however, noted that a developer is allowed, under the City’s Code, to have a certain percentage of those spaces be compact spaces.  He stated that the developer is requesting that all the spaces on the site be compact spaces, which is 9’ x 18’, but the City is requesting that they meet that minimum standard of 10’ x 20’.

            Mr. Saunders stated that, with regard to architectural standards, one of the major concerns the City has had from the beginning is the lack of a site plan for the proposed project, noting that they do not know what it is going to look like.  He stated that the applicant is balking at one of the minimum standards that the City has, which is that there be at least a three foot offset every 300 feet, which they feel is pretty reasonable, but the applicant is requesting that it only be one foot.  He stated that, during the first joint meeting that took place between city staff and county staff, the applicant presented a conceptual site plan for the project, but everyone around the table moaned, stating that it was not what anybody wanted, so the applicant immediately rolled it back up and they have not seen an official site plan of the project since.  He stated that the site plan that was presented this date is an extremely nice one, however, noted that another site plan is also floating around, which he asked the developers about, and was told that it may not be the one either.  He stated that another issue is that of CR 50, which is an issue that the City has mixed feelings about, noting that they understand that it is a scenic road and that a lot of people worked very hard for it to be a scenic road, but, if this project is approved, there will not be much of a scenic drive along it any longer.  He stated that it will still be nice, but one will not want to be on it, because of traffic backups that will exist.  He stated that this request involves a situation that DCA is not ready to sign off on and the last word that he heard from the Department of Transportation (DOT) is that they are not ready to sign off on it, as well.  He stated that the City of Clermont has specific concerns about it and they understand that the City of Oakland has specific concerns about it, as well.  He stated that he feels the Board would be acting prematurely, in giving any kind of approval this date, and was not sure they could put enough language in the document to cover all the questions.  He stated that, if the Board did decide to move forward with the request, the City would ask that there at least be some language in the Ordinance requiring the applicant to meet the minimum standards in the JPA and the LDRs.

            Mr. Ray Goodgame, City Councilman, City of Clermont, addressed the Board and expanded on some of the things that Mr. Saunders spoke about, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, a sketch (Opposition’s Exhibit B) showing 10’ x 20’ parking spaces, as well as 9’ x 18’ parking spaces, and how cars that are parked in the 9’ x 18’ parking spaces are hanging out of them, so, when one backs their car up, it eats into the 24’ space that exists between the two groups of parking spaces, endangering one’s car.  He stated that, when parking in those developments that have the 9’ x 18’ spaces, one gets dings in their cars, which people do not want.  He stated that, if the applicant were to ask for fewer parking spaces, but have them be 10’ x 20’, he feels the City would probably approve of it.  He stated that, with regard to the four-laning of CR 50 to CR 455, he feels the County should have the right of way dedicated for the expansion of that road in the PUD and that he feels everyone should be aware of the fact that the proposed project will probably be built before SR 50 improvements are done, which means that a lot of work is going to be done in front of the shopping center when said work is still going on.  He stated that 7,500 new homes are on the books, to be built in Clermont, where the residents will be using CR 50 to get to the shopping center, so, if one were to add the 2,000 residents that live in Montverde and the 500 +/- homes that are in the Greater Hills subdivision, it amounts to approximately 10,000 homes, where the residents will use CR 50 to get to the shopping center.  He stated that the City has written to the County stating that CR 50 is the number one priority road on their list, at which time he noted that they need to get with the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (LSMPO) and get an overpass built over the Turnpike, from Hancock Road to the shopping center, which will allow it to serve the people in Minneola.  He stated that they will have to depend on CR 50 to take some of the load off of SR 50.

            Commr. Stivender interjected that she thought, due to the fact that CR 50 has been designated as a scenic byway, it cannot be widened and improved, but only maintained.

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, addressed the Board stating that CR 50 has been designated as a scenic byway, however, noted that it is a State scenic byway designation.  He stated that, according to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, a scenic road is two lanes only, however, noted that the Board would have an opportunity to discuss it further, as far as whether they want to keep language in the Comprehensive Plan that that section of roadway remain two lanes, or whether they would like to look at other options.  He noted that there are things that can be done with a two lane road, such as making improvements; installing turn lanes; making it aesthetically pleasing, by installing landscaping; adding bike lanes, for safety, etc.

            At this time, Commr. Stivender left the meeting, due to another commitment.

            Ms. Laura Eldridge, Town Councilwoman, Town of Montverde, addressed the Board stating that CR 455 is the main artery through their town and all the developments that have sprung up recently in the area have already impacted it, noting that the town does not have the infrastructure to handle the amount of traffic that the proposed project is going to create.  She stated that the Town only has two roads that are county maintained, being CR 455 and Ridgewood, which are already in desperate need of repair.  She addressed the issue of CR 455 being designated as the Green Mountain Scenic Byway and the fact that many of the residents in the area have worked very hard to keep it a scenic highway, but they feel they are being forgotten.  She stated that their community is being blocked in by all the new development and the residents will not be able to go anywhere.  She read into the record the contents of a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit C) that was written by Mayor Dale Heathman, Town of Montverde, to the Board, dated January 19, 2006, in which a concern that the Plaza Collina development will endanger the Green Mountain Scenic Byway and create traffic situations that are not safe were addressed, which she submitted, for the record.  Mayor Heathman asked the Board to guard against any encroachment on the Byway, or the West Orange Trail, both of which serve the Montverde area with recreation and represent the natural beauty of the area, noting that the decisions the Board makes now will shape the future of their area.  The Board was asked to make their decisions with care.

            Ms. Brenda Muniz, Town Councilwoman, Town of Montverde, addressed the Board stating that the Town Council had not made a statement about the proposed development, to date, however, noted that they are worried that the growth will be compacted in the Montverde area.  She noted that she was very concerned about how many entrances and exits there are going to be off of CR 50, which could create a dangerous situation, in that it is a bike trail, and that she concurred with the statements made by Ms. Eldridge.

            Mr. Roland Magyar, Planning Director, Town of Oakland, addressed the Board and discussed some concerns the Town of Oakland has about the proposed project, as well as some related transportation issues.  He stated that, through the Town’s involvement with the DRI process, they became aware of a larger transportation picture between Lake and Orange counties, noting that Plaza Collina is just the tip of the iceberg, regarding traffic, but is an immediate concern that will significantly impact traffic through Oakland, on CR 438.  He displayed and submitted, for the record, a Future Traffic Generation Potential Map (Opposition’s Exhibit D), which he reviewed with the Board, noting that the green star on the map represents the proposed development (Plaza Collina) and the black dots represent approximately 5,000 to 6,000 homes in the Clermont area that were approved in 2005 alone.  He stated that the Transportation Study and roundabout options required by the Regional Planning Council’s Development Order is the beginning to resolving the issues of failed intersections and impacts to Oakland’s rural lifestyle and creating a positive dialogue between Lake and Orange counties, to address said issues.

            Ms. Alison Yurko, Esquire, Town Counsel, Town of Oakland, addressed the Board stating that she was the Town’s special land use counsel and has been handling land use issues for 17 years.  She discussed clarification of two conditions of the Development Order and other legal issues, at which time she noted that the Town appreciates the attention that the applicant has given to it, in Condition M of the Development Order, noting that it specifically calls for a traffic study to be done, with respect to the CR 50/CR 438 intersection.  She noted, for the record, that it would be the Town’s expectation that said study would include an analysis of traffic coming into the Town from the Plaza Collina project, as well as an analysis of the means and methods to divert said traffic, to the extent possible, out of the road system located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town of Oakland.  She stated that the second thing that Condition M addresses is the responsibility of the applicant to pay for a roundabout option at CR 438 and CR 50, if it is the Town’s desire, and, if not, at such time as 425,000 square feet of leased space is ready to go, the Town has the option to accept $200,000 in payment for mitigation for traffic concerns.  She stated that the applicant’s obligation to commence the payment for the roundabout option and the permitting and design comes at the 425,000 square foot threshold, at which time she noted that said language is contained in the Development Order before the Board this date.  She submitted a copy of Page 16 of the Development Order (Opposition’s Exhibit E), containing said language, for the record.  She stated that it would be the Town’s expectation that, at that time, the design, permitting, and any necessary right of way acquisition would commence, assuming that the Town opts for that development to occur and does not opt for the payment for the traffic mitigation.  She stated that this only solves a small piece of the puzzle, but the Town appreciates the applicant’s attention to it.

            Ms. Yurko stated that she was a little shocked to hear county staff’s comment at the beginning of their presentation, which the Town of Oakland knew nothing about, that they had spoken with DCA, regarding the response to the ORC Report, and that DCA advised staff not to adopt the Ordinance at this time, because there could be possible intervention from them.  She submitted, for the record, a copy of DCA’s ORC Report (Opposition’s Exhibit F), noting that the Board may want to take a hard look at it, in that, at the end of the day, the applicant will take the risk, but the County is the one that will be sued and have to divert staff time and resources, if and when that happens.  She displayed and submitted, for the record, a copy of Policy 1-3A.1:  Commercial Development in Land Use Classification (Opposition’s Exhibit G), of the ORC Report, in which she addressed Item e., which states, “Requires a unified site plan, which incorporates an internal traffic circulation system and pedestrian circulation.”, and Item g., which states, “Site design will not compromise the integrity of adjacent uses.”, noting that the requirement is not under Community Activity Center, which is what the property is currently planned for - projects that are less than 500,000 square feet.  She stated that the County has added an additional requirement in the Comprehensive Plan that, when the County gets a project this huge, it has to put it under a microscope and have strict scrutiny and it has to look at the site design, but it appears that the Board is hearing from the applicant that they do not know what the site design is going to be and they heard the Town of Clermont make some very good arguments about their policy concerns and their practical concerns about how the Board can approve something, when they do not know what they are approving.  She stated that the Board needs to take a hard look at that and whether they are complying with their own Comprehensive Plan.

            Ms. Yurko stated that there are some concerns about Section 380.06(12)(a)1 of the Development Order, which talks about Developments of Regional Impacts needing to have a determination of whether there is a favorable or unfavorable impact on state or regional resources or facilities, at which time she noted that this project involves a huge regional facility, being the Trail, and there has been a lot of testimony regarding concerns about an adverse impact on it.  She referred to Section VII. – DOWN-ZONING, on Page 26 of the Development Order (Opposition’s Exhibit H), which she submitted, for the record, noting that it states, “Pursuant to Section 380.06(15)(c)3, Florida Statutes, the Property shall not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity reduction until December 31, 2015, and the County has to demonstrate that substantial changes in the conditions underlying the approval of this Development Order have occurred, or that this Development Order was based on substantially inaccurate information provided by the Developer, or that the change is clearly necessary by the County to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.”  She stated that the Board is hearing from some of the local governments that they are not sure what the Board is doing this date and they feel that DCA is telling the Board that they are very concerned about their analysis of the impacts.  She stated that she feels that concern was voiced after they knew that the County was attempting to do the text amendment and it seemed to her that DCA was aware of the attempted fix and continues to have concerns about it.  She stated that the Board heard traffic concerns that have not been substantially addressed all the way around and concerns about the Trail and that she felt, if the Board approved this request this date, the provision was going to get thrown in their faces, if they have to come back on unit density or intensity.  She stated that there appears to be some gaps in where the County is heading, as far as protection of the public’s health, safety, and welfare is concerned.

            Ms. Maureen Rischitelli, Town Manager, Town of Oakland, addressed the Board stating that the Town of Oakland was very fortunate that Lake County’s staff, along with Orange County’s staff, assisted them in trying to be a part of the solution.  She stated that, as Mayor Heathman expressed in the letter alluded to earlier, they all recognize the fact that the traffic that exists on the roads that are currently in place are at capacity and are of concern to the Town.  She stated that the second issue is retaining the character of their Town, noting that they recognize the fact that, within Florida, they are going to have different pockets that will be commercial, that will be rural, and that will be urbanized, and they want to try to retain that rural character.  She stated that the third component is the West Orange Trail that will link into the Lake County Trail, and the final component is the Green Mountain Scenic Byway.  She stated that, for a project the size of this one, to say that they are just coming down to a few items of concern, that was a great “kudos” to the staff of Lake County.  She stated that, with the genesis of intergovernmental cooperation, recognizing the fact that they are neighbors and want to be able to participate and become part of the solution in what is going on in south Lake County and west Orange County, she would like to submit, for the record, a Statement of Intergovernmental Cooperation (Opposition’s Exhibit I), in which the Town addressed its Findings and Recommendations, with regard to the proposed project, at which time she noted that their hope is that they will be able to come back to formalize it more into an intergovernmental agreement, so that they can focus on addressing a full solution of what is going to go on for traffic.

            Ms. Mona Phipps, Town Commissioner, Town of Oakland; President of the Friends of Lake Apopka; and a member of the Green Mountain Scenic Byway Board, addressed the Board stating that, for the last seven years, they have been working through a process of designating CR Old Highway 50 as a scenic byway, noting that it is not CR 50, CR 455, or CR 438 in Lake County and Orange County – it is a scenic byway – a State of Florida designated scenic byway the whole way, which is significant.  She stated that another significant aspect of that is the West Orange Trail, at which time she noted that between 60,000 to 90,000 people per month utilize said trail, which is a major economic impact to west Orange County.  She stated that the majority of them have been biting at the bit to see the part between west Orange County and south Lake County connect, however, now there are concerns about the safety of that connection, which are valid concerns.  She stated that they deal with where the Trail is placed, the slope of the Trail, and the exit from the project itself.  She suggested that the Board not allow an exit to the north directly out of the proposed project, but that they require that all northern traffic come off of Lake Boulevard, which will alleviate a lot of pressure off of the Scenic Byway, as well as off of the Trail, and would add to helping protect the Byway.  She asked that the County not widen the Byway, but to find some other way to make it work, noting that, if they cannot add capacity, they have to off-site mitigate.  She stated that everyone involved can sit down and make this work, before jumping into something that totally destroys what they have spent so much time working for.  She stated that she would like to see the Board embrace ecotourism, the Trail, and the Preserve, noting that she would like to know that children are safe, when they get on the Trail in Oakland and end up in Clermont.  She stated that they were informed by the applicant that they never considered putting the Trail on the railroad bed, but that she wished it would be considered and would happen.

            A letter (Opposition’s Exhibit J) from Mayor Kathy Stark, Town of Oakland, was submitted, for the record, in which she addresses a concern about the proposed project and the impact that it will have on the overall traffic situation and the rural character of the environment in which it is proposed to be situated, asking the Board to take those things into consideration when making their decision, noting that the decision they make will have an impact on the surrounding communities, including Oakland, and will resonate for generations to come.

            Mr. Glenn Burns, a resident of Montverde, addressed the Board stating that he was present representing the Green Mountain Scenic Byway corridor management group, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, three photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit K) of the Green Mountain Scenic Byway, showing bicyclists utilizing said Byway, as well as the old abandoned railroad bed, and a fence that runs along said railroad bed.  He stated that they are asking that the bicycle trail be built on top of the railroad bed and that the strip of woods between the railroad bed and the edge of the pavement of the Byway be kept as it currently exists – that all improvements to the road be to the north.

            Mr. Schneider readdressed the Board and displayed a copy (County Exhibit A) of the South Lake Trail, as it has been revised, which was submitted, for the record, noting that every tree in the area along the Trail has been identified, as indicated on said plans, and the County has designed the Trail to avoid, as much as possible, any impacts to said trees.  He noted that the County is getting $1 million from DOT to help build the Trail, so the County needs to build it within the existing right of way that has been certified by DOT.  He noted, however, that, at some point in the future, should the County decide to choose a different alignment, it is something that could be done at that time.

            Mr. Burns readdressed the Board stating that, where the right of way of Old CR 50 begins to merge with the right of way of the railroad bed are two endangered species of plants, being the Scrub Pigeon-Wing (very rare plant) and the Scrub Buckwheat, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, a copy of the Master Plan of the project and handouts containing photographs and information about said species (Opposition’s Composite Exhibit L).  He noted that he wanted the Board to be aware of the fact that said plants existed along the Trail and that it be on the record.

            Mr. Richard Dunkel, representing Trail Friends, addressed the Board stating that his group was one of the prime movers in getting the West Orange Trail done and that he was very excited about the West Orange Trail and even more excited about linking it with the South Lake Trail.  He congratulated the Board for the part they have played in said project, however, noted a concern he has about the turnaround and suggested that overpasses be installed over CR 50 and Lake Boulevard, if it does come through the back side of the proposed project.  He noted some concerns involving CR 50 and the fact that it is a scenic byway, at which time he stated that he would like to see it stay as a two lane road.

            Ms. Nancy Fullerton, a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that she feels they were given enough justification this date to deny the proposed project and definitely enough justification to table it.  She stated that, if tabling it would give greater assurance that it would be a better project, to please do so.

            Mr. Robert Krego, a real estate agent in the Clermont area, addressed the Board stating that there is commercial development and large shopping centers going in up and down SR 50 and, as the area grows, the traffic is getting worse, not because of the commercial development in the area, but because Clermont is growing in residential housing.  He stated that, regardless of whether any commercial development is built along SR 50, the traffic is still going to take place, whether it goes to Winter Garden, Clermont, or Leesburg, and there is still going to be the same amount of traffic on Hwy. 27 as there currently is, regardless of whether this project or any other project comes on board.

            Mr. Greg Enzimer, a resident of Montverde, addressed the Board stating that he was pleased to see a representation of what the Trail will look like, however, noted that it concerns him that there are not any specific site plans available for the proposed project.  He stated that, before moving forward with approving it, he feels the Board needs to see said site plans, so that they know exactly what is going to be developed.  He noted that he is also the Vice Chairman of the Green Mountain Scenic Byway Board and, since being a member of said Board, he realizes that the Byway is the thread that connects all the different communities in south Lake County and now west Orange County, at which time he asked that the Board raise its expectations of what the County wants to be and what it wants to do, as a County.  He stated that he has visited Pinellas County a lot and is concerned that, as Lake County is developed, it is slowly being turned into another Pinellas County.  He stated that he hopes that will not happen.

            Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicants, readdressed the Board and rebutted comments that were made by those individuals who are opposed to the proposed project, at which time she stated that, with respect to whether the Board should consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the applicant responded to the ORC Report and, for the first time since she has been doing DRIs, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, etc., which is approximately 18 to 20 years, she has tried to get a response to DCA, prior to going to adoption before the Board of County Commissioners, and that she was hoping DCA would give the applicant a timely, courtesy review of the information.  She stated that very little review was done by the DCA, prior to this meeting, so they gave the standard government response, which is don’t do anything.  She stated that her concern is that she does not know if there will be any difference in the DCA schedule, if they wait another 30 days, however, she does know that it may harm her client.  She stated that the applicant has been fully advised and informed that, once it is adopted and transmitted, they will be on a 45 day clock.  She stated that they feel very confident about the project, now that the Board has a Staff Report that is for approval, noting that they did not have a Staff Report to that effect when the request was transmitted to DCA.  She stated that they have spent 24 months in the DRI process and have produced volumes of data, information, and analysis indicating that they will be able to overcome that, noting that the only issue they might not be able to overcome is one that is beyond their control and that is the fact that DCA is very unhappy that Lake County has not updated its Comprehensive Plan since 1993.  She stated that she cannot control whether the applicant will have to wait 30 days or six months, she can only try to control the data and information that her client is responsible for, which demonstrates that there is adequate capacity on the roads, that there are adequate water and sewer services available, and that the other issues of concurrency can be met.  She stated that that is why the applicant feels it would be advisable and would ask the County to move forward with this request.  She stated that a lot of the information that the Board heard this date was strictly allegations and there was conflicting testimony from the City of Clermont, which she elaborated on.  She stated that, with regard to the issue of a site plan, there will not be one forthcoming, which the applicant has stated for the last two years, noting that one was submitted with the PUD and one went to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.  She stated that the proposed project is large in scope and the applicant does not know the location of every building on the site.

            Commr. Hanson interjected that she did not feel that was necessary, but that she does feel the design is important.

            Ms. Bonifay stated that the Board was shown the architectural views of the project and the architectural and design guidelines that were included in the Development Order and hours and hours were spent with county staff, in obtaining a consensus on the architectural standards and guidelines, and that is why they felt they could come forward this date and indicate their response.  She noted that the Ordinance contains pages of nothing but architectural standards, exclusive of the parking, the lighting, and the signage, and it all contains buffers and setbacks, which dictates what can happen within the site.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 6:50 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 7:00 p.m.

            REZONING CASE NO.LPA05/8/1-2 – FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT

            PLAZA COLLINA/LAKE COUNTY GATEWAY, LLC/CECELIA BONIFAY,

            AKERMAN SENTERFITT, P.A. – TRACKING NO.10-05-LPA; AND REZONING

            CASE NO. PH86-05-2 – MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PUD AND DRI – PLAZA

            COLLINA/LAKE COUNTY GATEWAY, LLC/CECELIA BONIFAY, AKERMAN

            SENTERFITT, P.A. – TRACKING NO. 127-05-PUD/DRI (CONT’D.)

            Commr. Hanson stated that, with regard to the site plan that she had requested, it would not have to be a specific site plan, but, if the Board knew where the placement of the buildings were going to be and what the general height of the buildings were going to be, they would be more receptive to the height increase, depending upon how it fit into the total plan.  She stated that she would like for the Board to see a general diagram of the plan, because it is going to be a major development for Lake County and the Board needs to be satisfied that it is one that they will be proud of.  She noted that she was anticipating a sort of town center design, with the buildings scattered around the property.

            Commr. Pool stated that SR 50 is not only the gateway to Lake County, but to Clermont, and he respected Clermont’s concerns about the project.

            Ms. Bonifay continued her rebuttal, noting that the PUD would give specifics on the details.  She stated that the Board has to look at all those things, in conjunction with the terms of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Development Order, and the PUD.  She stated that SR 50, which is the major highway that is going to provide traffic to and from the proposed project, has been the major source of a lot of misinformation about the project.  She stated that the improvements and six-laning of SR 50 is in the three year DOT Work Program and, in the Development Order, it gives an explanation of what constitutes a committed project, at which time she noted that the funding is there for SR 50, from the Turnpike to Hancock Road.  She stated that Page 12 of the Development Order talks about the various road improvements and when, during the course of this project, those improvements will have to be in place.  She stated that, in order to necessitate as few improvements on SR 50 as possible, in the optimum time, the applicant could enter into a tri-party agreement with FDOT and the County, to try to expedite the improvements in front of the project, so that the applicant would do the required turn lanes, along with the six-laning that is being funded by FDOT.  She stated that the applicant has had a number of meetings with FDOT, in trying to put those two timelines together, at which time she noted that the Public Works Department, the Board, and FDOT would have to approve that agreement.

            Mr. Manley, Canin and Associates, readdressed the Board and displayed several renderings (Applicant’s Exhibit C), showing the six-laning of SR 50, along with the turn lanes at the intersections of Main Boulevard and Lake Boulevard, as well as the signalization that will be installed, to be a part of the FDOT plan, which was submitted, for the record.

            A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter of the roundabout, to be located in Orange County, where CR 50 meets CR 438, at which time Ms. Bonifay referred to Item M. (ii) of the Development Order (Applicant’s Exhibit D), which she submitted, for the record, noting that it addresses said issue.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Ms. Bonifay had seen a copy of the Statement of Intergovernmental Cooperation that was presented to the Board from the Town of Oakland and was informed that she had and that her opinion would be that they not join in it, in that she does not feel it reflects any findings of fact or conclusions of law that are integral to this process – that it affects Lake County a lot more than it does the applicant – calling for the Board to enter into an intergovernmental approach with them and with Orange County, regarding their requests.  She stated that she did not really have an opinion on it, noting that all she could speak to would be the modifications that the applicant made and the language that they agreed to with the Town of Oakland.

            Ms. Bonifay stated that the Trail seems to be another major issue of concern, at which time she noted that the County’s FDOT grant was in jeopardy of not being funded, because the County did not have the last piece of the Trail in place.  She stated that a tree survey was conducted, as indicated on the exhibit that was submitted by Mr. Schneider, in an effort to try to save as many of the trees as possible.

            Mr. Manley stated that, under Paragraph T. (iv), on Page 19 of the Development Order for the DRI, the applicant agreed to a very specific condition related to protecting the integrity of CR 50 as a scenic byway and a trail, noting that it states, “Shall provide a proportionate share (based on share of traffic on Lake Boulevard) of a grade separated crossing at Lake Boulevard for the Trail, if Lake County decides to construct such a crossing.”  He stated that, in the applicant’s attempt to look ahead and try to be as compatible with the Trail as possible, they agreed to that provision.

            Mr. Bob Taylor, LPG Planning and Environmental Services, addressed the Board stating that his firm was the environmental consultant on this project.  He discussed the issue of the endangered species that were found along the Trail and the fact that the place where the plants were found to be is in an area where the project’s boundary does not touch the right of way of CR 50.  He stated that, where the project’s north/south road cuts through the Trail is where the project boundary touches the road, so the road, as proposed, is east of where the plants were found.  He stated that the project will have no impact on said plants.

            Mr. Schneider stated that some of the plants along the Trail have been relocated, so that issue has been taken care of.

            Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board stating that she felt she had rebutted all the concerns that were brought to the attention of the Board this date.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the applicant should consider leaving the parking spaces the size that was presented to the Board (9’ x 18’), but putting in some additional islands, which he felt would allay some of Clermont’s concerns.

            Commr. Pool stated that the Board is trying to ensure that, at the end of the day, this project is an asset to Lake County and is something that the County can work with its neighbors on and ensure that, as the project is designed and developed, the shopping experience will attract people to Lake County, as well as for the sales tax, ad valorem taxes, and jobs created, thus, the reason he would like to go with 9’6” x 20’ parking spaces, rather than just 9’, in that it gives a little bit of an advantage, or to cut down on the number of spaces required, noting that 95% of the time they are not going to be filled anyway.  He stated that, if the applicant were to go with 10’ x 20’ spaces, with a fewer number of them, it would benefit everybody.  He stated that he measured the parking spaces in various shopping centers and preferred the 9’6” x 20’ parking space.  He stated that Clermont may not like it, but he feels they would be happier with it, and that Clermont does not like the 10’ utilization of the right of way, but he does.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like for staff to agendize the Findings and Recommendations contained in the Statement of Intergovernmental Cooperation that was received from the Town of Oakland, to see how it fits into what the County is doing with the other entities and whether it needs to be expanded.

            Mr. T. J. Fish, Executive Director, Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (LSMPO), addressed the Board stating that they are trying to facilitate that level of cooperation, noting that they recognize the fact that there is a need for a PD&E Study from CR 455 to Orange County, to determine what needs to be accomplished – widening, a roundabout, or some other alignment.  He stated that the Plaza Collina project is not the cause of that, but it has brought to light the fact that one needs to be done, and the LSMPO is asking that a meeting be held with Orange County, Lake County, the Town of Oakland, and the City of Clermont, to try to facilitate that partnership.

            Mr. Kruse readdressed the Board stating that he wanted them to keep in mind the fact that the County’s LDRs allow 20% of the parking to be compact spaces, which is an 8’ x 15’ space.

            Ms. Bonifay informed the Board that, in further consultation with the applicant and staff, the applicant agreed to a 9’6” x 20’ space, with the parking configured at one space per 225 square feet.

            Commr. Stivender suggested going with the 10’ x 20’ space, noting that it would make everyone involved happy.

            Ms. Bonifay stated that, in reassessing the situation, the applicant decided to go with the 10’ x 20’ parking space, with one space per 225 square feet.

            Commr. Stivender stated that the only other issue was the safe connectivity of the West Orange Trail and the South Lake Trail and questioned whether it was going to be worked out at a later date.

            Ms. Bonifay referred to Page 19 of the Development Order, which was reviewed earlier, reiterating the fact that it indicates, as the Trail is constructed and the applicant moves forward with the proposed project, the applicant will work with the County and provide a proportionate share (based on share of traffic on Lake Boulevard) of a grade separated crossing at Lake Boulevard for the Trail.

            It was noted that said language was also contained on Page 13 of the PUD.

            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. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Adoption Hearing and Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report Response, issued by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), for Case No. 05-D1, with appropriate response, Reference No. OR977136;1, to address the issues in the report.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2006-15, Plaza Collina/Lake County Gateway/Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman Senterfitt, P.A., Rezoning Case No. LPA05/8/1-2,Tracking No. 10-05-LPA, and text amendment, Policy 1-3A.1(1i), limiting the Plaza Collina DRI to 1.2 million square feet of commercial and 200 residential units, which are not to be constructed until school concurrency is met.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2006-16, DRI/Development Order No. PH86-05-2, with any additional conditions for the Plaza Collina DRI, as indicated in the Development Order, on Page 16, under Item M (ii), being:  The Developer shall pay for the roundabout option to the Town of Oakland at the point in time that Developer obtains a certificate of occupancy for 425,000 square feet of leased space.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2006-17, Plaza Collina/Lake County Gateway/Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman Senterfitt, P.A., Rezoning Case No. PH86-05-2,Tracking No. 127-05-PUD/DRI, as presented, with additional conditions for Plaza Collina DRI, as outlined in the Ordinance, being a change from one parking space per 200 sq. ft. to one parking space per 225 sq. ft. of floor space; parking spaces are to be 10’ x 20’, rather than 9’6” x 20’; and there are to be fifteen parking spaces in a row, with the plant type in the landscaping to be adequate and sufficient enough to provide proper screening of vehicles.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she still had a concern about the site plan and would like to see one, before the project moves forward, at which time it was determined that she would be provided with a copy of said plan, when it is available.

            OTHER BUSINESS

            APPOINTMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

            It was the consensus of the Board to postpone action regarding the appointment of an individual to the vacant “Resident Who is a Concerned Citizen for Affordable Housing” position on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee until a later date (Rescheduled from the January 10, 2006 BCC Meeting).

            REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

            FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval to release sealed transcripts and have them be made part of the public record, due to a Final Order of Dismissal being received on December 19, 2005, for Case No. APP-03-020, Department of Community Affairs (DCA) vs. Lake County.  It was noted that this case has been closed.

            REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

            BOARD RETREAT

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that the books were ready for the Board Retreat scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., at the Bragg Center, in Tavares, on Friday, January 27, 2006, and that the Board should be receiving them this date.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5

            PROPERTY APPRAISER’S OFFICE, TAX COLLECTOR’S OFFICE, AND COUNTY

            PARKING GARAGES

            Commr. Cadwell stated stated that he would like for staff to analyze using the existing property that the County owns across the street from the Administration Building for the Property Appraiser’s Office and the Tax Collector’s Office; to look at the property that the County owns behind and beside the Administration Building for an L-shaped parking garage; and to look at a similar garage for the Judicial Center.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she would like for staff to look at another site, as well, west of the Judicial Center, where some abandoned buildings are located next to the Methodist Church.

            Commr. Hill stated that, since she is the Liaison Commissioner for Facilities Development and Management, she spoke with Mr. Jim Bannon, Facilities Development and Management Director, and Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, a couple of weeks ago about some of these issues and would like for the Commissioners to approach staff first with any ideas they might have, rather than going out on their own, noting that it helps staff to know, when they have to negotiate things, it is inhouse and they can do that better than any of the Commissioners can.  She asked that anything the Commissioners want staff to look at be brought to their attention first, which will allow them to do what they need to do and have it ready for the entire Board to look at, at the same time.  She questioned whether said issues could be discussed at the Board Retreat to be held on Friday, January 27, 2006.

            Ms. Hall, County Manager, stated that perhaps the Board could outline their ideas at the Board Retreat and look at a map of the City of Tavares, to make sure that staff is clear on exactly where the locations are that the Board has asked them to look at, and then move forward from there.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4

            PERFORMING ARTS ASSOCIATION OF LAKE AND SUMTER COUNTIES (PALS)

            BREAKFAST

            Commr. Hanson stated that she, Commr. Pool, and Commr. Stivender attended a breakfast that was held this morning for the Performing Arts Association of Lake and Sumter Counties (PALS), at Silver Lake Banquet and Receptions, which was exciting.  She noted that the Chief Financial Officer for the State of Florida, Mr. Tom Gallagher, was present at the banquet, as well.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4

            JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF EUSTIS REGARDING JPAS

            Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she received a letter from the City of Eustis asking the Board to meet with them, to discuss joint planning areas, at which time she asked Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, to schedule said meeting.

            ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK