A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARCH
28, 2006
The
Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
March 28, 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: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy
Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s
Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION
AND PLEDGE
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA
UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1
to the Agenda, containing one item under the County Attorney’s Reports,
regarding an amendment to a Lease Agreement.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, for requests such as Tab 18, the district commissioner
should be notified, because sometimes the request is from one or two people in
the community and not the entire community.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Budget
Request for approval of Resolution No.
2006-43, modifying the fee schedules for Fiscal Year 2005/2006, to include
Health Department mobile unit fees.
Request for approval to convert the part-time Budget/Impact
Fee Technician to full-time.
Community
Services
Request
for approval of new logo for the Lake County Library System and permission to
launch logo in April, 2006.
Request for approval to make minor revision
to 2005 Justice Assistance Grant, to adjust planned equipment purchases,
reducing purchase of portable message boards from four to two, and adding
purchase of three floodlight systems.
Request for approval to authorize
submission of annual Performance Report, for Federal Fiscal Year 2005 Edward
Byrne Justice Assistance Grant; authorize Commissioner Jennifer Hill to certify
data to be true and correct, by signing certification page of document; and
authorize grant Point of Contact, Robbie Hollenbeck, to submit electronic
report to Bureau of Justice Assistance, on behalf of Lake County.
Request
for approval of Proclamation No. 2006-44, declaring the week of April 3 through
9, 2006, as Public Health Week in Lake County.
Environmental
Services
Request
for approval to advertise for Public Hearing to amend Chapter 21, to allow
solid waste interim assessments to be collected at time building permits are
pulled.
Procurement
Services
Request
for approval to award contract for roof replacement for seven Lake County
buildings to Smith Roofing (Clermont). The buildings are as follows: Lake
County Mosquito and Aquatic Plant Control Facility, which has three buildings;
Lake County Traffic Operations; Lake County Clerk's Records Storage Building;
Lake County Animal Control; and the Tavares Health Clinic. The cost for this
project is $249,800.00, in accordance with Bid No.06-001 (a unit price of
$12.00 per square foot, to replace decking, or any other concealed material
will be applicable, if needed).
Request
for approval and authorization to procure two new airboats from manufacturer,
Diamondback Airboats, in Cocoa, Florida, for Aquatic Plant Management.
Public
Safety
Request
for approval for Department of Public Safety, Fire Rescue Division, to participate
in "A Safe Haven for Newborns" Program.
Public
Works
Request
for approval and authorization to return funds deposited as surety for
performance for Addison Place, in the amount of $4,125.00; accept Maintenance
Bond, in the amount of $43,500.90; execute Developer's Agreement for
Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Showcase Homes, Inc.; and
execute Resolution No. 2006-45, accepting following road into County Road
Maintenance System: Wolf Ridge Lane (CR 4580E). Addison Place consists of 57
lots – Commission District 4.
Request
for approval and authorization to release cash surety posted for performance,
for Tuscany Estates at the Lakes, in the amount of $175,488.97; retain cash
surety for maintenance, in the amount of $17,511.03; execute Developer's
Agreement, for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and NMK
Holdings, Florida, LLC; and execute Resolution No. 2006-46, accepting following
road into County Road Maintenance System: Brunello Circle (CR 1144). Tuscany
Estates consists of 27 lots – Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and authorization to release Letter of Credit for Maintenance, in
the amount of $39,145.10, posted for Bent Tree, Phase I. Bent Tree, Phase I, consists
of 73 lots – Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and authorization to release Maintenance Bond, in the amount of
$47,982.60, posted for Fairways at Mt. Plymouth, Phase II. Fairways at Mt.
Plymouth, Phase II consists of 39 lots – Commission District 4.
Request
for approval and authorization to release Maintenance Bond, in the amount of
$53,503.00, posted for Sunrise Lakes, Phase II. Sunrise Lakes, Phase II
consists of 55 lots – Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and authorization to accept final plat for Vista Grande, Phase I,
and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Vista Grande, Phase I,
final plat; accept Performance Bond, in the amount of $643,047.00; execute
Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and
Ladd Development, Inc.; and execute Agreement Restricting Lot Sales between
Lake County and Ladd Development, Inc. Vista Grande, Phase I, consists of 154
lots – Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and authorization to accept final plat for Vista Grande, Phase II,
and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Vista Grande, Phase II,
final plat; accept Performance Bond, in the amount of $260,693.00; and execute
Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and
Ladd Development, Inc. Vista Grande, Phase II, consists of 35 lots – Commission
District 2.
Request
for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2006-47, to lower 55 mph speed
limit on CR466 to 45 mph, between Sumter County line and 1,000 feet east of
Rolling Acres Road; establish and post speed limit at 40 mph, between 1,000
feet east of Rolling Acres Road and existing 35 mph speed zone; and keep 35 mph
speed zone that currently exists for distance of approximately 1,300 feet.
Request
for approval and authorization to execute revised Resolution No. 2006-48,
accepting Sandy Hook Lane and Cape Hatteras Drive into the Lake County Road
Maintenance System, in the Tradd's Landing Subdivision. Tradd's Landing
consists of 321 lots – Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2006-49, advertising Public
Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1069, by Earl Drawdy, Representative Wicks
Consulting, to vacate platted right of way, in the Plat of Groveland Farms, in
order to replat for subdivision to be known as Triple Crown Estates, located in
Section 6, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the South Clermont area –
Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2006-50, advertising Public
Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1076, by Banyan Homes, Representative Frank
Gammon, to vacate platted right of way, in Plat of Monte Vista Park Farms, in
conjunction with replat to be known as Timberlane, Phase II, located in Section
6, Township 23, Range 26, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2006-51, advertising Public
Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1077, by Dale J. Ladd, to cease maintenance
and vacate portion of county maintained Suggs Road (No. 0739), and vacate
portion of platted right of way, as shown on Plat of Groveland Farms, in
conjunction with plats to be known as Vista Grande – Phases I and II, all
located in Section 13, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area –
Commission District 2.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
UTILITIES STUDY BY CITY OF MOUNT
DORA
Ms. Carol Stricklin, Growth
Management Director, addressed the Board stating that this was a request for
approval and authorization for staff to request that the City of Mount Dora
enter into a study to provide utilities to the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento planning
area. She stated that the area is within
the Wekiva Study Area and the County is required by legislation to undertake a
wastewater facilities study for that entire area, which they will be doing this
year.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved a request from
Growth Management for approval and authorization to request the City of Mount
Dora to study the provision of central water, wastewater, and reclaimed water
to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento planning area; and that the City of Mount Dora
coordinate with Lake County, regarding the utilities study, as it is prepared.
RESOLUTION REGARDING POTENTIAL
SALE OF OCALA NATIONAL FOREST
LANDS
WITHIN LAKE COUNTY
Mr.
David Hansen, Public Lands Manager, addressed the Board stating that the
Federal Government is proposing the sale of approximately 300,000 acres of
national forest land, to support a rural schools program, and 23 acres are
proposed for sale in Lake County. He
stated that, at their March 1, 2006 meeting, the Public Lands Acquisition
Advisory Council requested that a statement come from the Board opposing said
sale.
Commr.
Hanson stated that Commr. Cadwell suggested at the last Board Meeting that the
County at least be given the option of first refusal, however, noted that it
was brought to her attention that that would happen anyway, so it was not
included in this request.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, after having spoke with the County Attorney about the
matter, he agreed with leaving that aspect out of the request.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval
of Resolution No. 2006-52, regarding the potential sale of Ocala National
Forest lands within Lake County.
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
PLANNING WORKS, LLC FOR
CONSULTING
SERVICES FOR SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that
this was a request for approval of an adjustment to the consulting contract
with Planning Works, LLC, to provide services related to school concurrency. She stated that it was a reduction in the
amount of that contract, from $75,000 to $45,000, to reflect a direct contract
with the University of Florida for a demographics study. She stated that it allows the County to keep
within the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) grant amount, by making said
adjustment.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval
of an amendment to the agreement with Planning Works, LLC, for consulting
services related to School Concurrency.
PRESENTATION ON LAKE COUNTY
LIBRARY SYSTEM’S UPCOMING
FESTIVAL
OF READING
Ms.
Judy Buckland, Program Coordinator, Lake County Library System, and Ms. Elizabeth
Heine, Webmaster, Lake County Office of Information Outreach, addressed the
Board and gave a brief power point presentation about the County’s upcoming
Festival of Reading, scheduled to be held April 1-8, 2006, in honor of National
Library Week, with the opening event to be held at Wooten Park, in Tavares, on
Saturday, April 1, 2006, at which time an ad that was developed by Ms. Heine
and currently runs on the County’s cable channel was shown to the Board. The Lake County Library System libraries will
be hosting authors, musicians, dancers, poets, and storytellers.
Ms.
Buckland stated that this is the third and most exciting year for the Lake
County Library System’s Festival of Reading, noting that their mystery themed
events include 21 nationally recognized authors and appearances, at which time
she reviewed the various events that have been scheduled for the Festival of
Reading and the various authors that would be participating in said
events. She stated that all of the
events scheduled to be held in the libraries and the Lake County Historical
Museum would be free to the public, with tickets being available for a planned
luncheon and dinner. She encouraged
everyone to join them for a true celebration of reading, noting that there
would be something for everyone and that programs would be available, after the
meeting, in the lobby of the Administration Building.
PRESENTATION OF AWARD TO BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY
CENTRAL
FLORIDA COUNCIL OF BOY SCOUTS
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board and displayed an
award (large carved eagle on base) that the County received, on behalf of the
Board of County Commissioners, from the Central Florida Council of Boy Scouts,
in appreciation for resurfacing a road in the Paisley area, allowing people to
access the Boy Scout Camp that is located there.
EMERGENCY
MAINTENANCE OF SAND ROADS IN COUNTY
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, discussed the emergency maintenance
of sugar sand roads in the County and the fact that staff will be monitoring
them, due to the dry weather conditions, and watching for the costs associated
with maintaining them, at which time he displayed a map of Lake County showing
those areas that are of interest, with regard to said roads. He noted that most of the roads are in Commr.
Hanson’s and Commr. Cadwell’s districts and that, when the County has drought
conditions, they are the areas that are hit the worst, the hardest, and the
fastest. He stated that the Board gave
staff direction in the past, with regard to maintaining said roads, and he
wanted to let them know that staff will be addressing the issues involving said
roads, based on the Board’s previous direction.
REZONING
Commr.
Hanson reviewed with those present the new procedure that the County has
enacted, with regard to the Board hearing Rezoning cases, in order to help
improve the public hearing process.
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, informed the
Board that this meeting was duly advertised, at which time he submitted, for
the record, a copy of said advertisement.
He stated that the applicants for Item No. 5 on the Rezoning Agenda –
Rezoning Case No. PH27-06-3, Ron and Debra Chapman, Trust/Bruce Duncan, Attorney,
Potter, Clement, Lowry & Duncan, Tracking No. 20-06-Z, requested to have
their case withdrawn.
REZONING
CONSENT AGENDA
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 the Rezoning Consent Agenda, which contained
cases that were recommended for approval and which were not controversial, as
follows:
Ordinance No. 2006-28
Greg Miller and James Gant
Rezoning Case No. PH37-06-5
Tracking
No. 39-06-RP
Applicant’s
Request: A request to rezone from R-6
(Urban Residential) to RP (Residential Professional) a 1.82 acre site in the
Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node Receiving Area Number Two, with a
Neighborhood Activity Center overlay, presently the site of a single family
residence, for professional office use.
Ordinance No. 2006-29
James A. Scobie
Rezoning Case No. PH36-05-5
Tracking
No. 38-06-Z
Applicant’s
Request: A request to rezone from CFD
(Community Facility District) to C-2 (Community Commercial) a 2.54 acre site in
the south Umatilla area, in the Urban Expansion future land use category, with
a Community Activity Center overlay, to allow the applicant to market the
property at its highest and best use.
REZONING CASE NO. PH93-05-2 – A
TO PUD – NOLA LAND COMPANY
SEAN
FROELICH, VICE PRESIDENT, PARK SQUARE ENTERPRISES
Ms.
Jennifer DuBois, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this
request. The request is to rezone a 541
acre parcel, presently the site of the active Jahna East Sand Mine, for the
creation of an age restricted residential Planned Unit Development (PUD). The property lies 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. The site is located in the adopted Clermont
Joint Planning Area and is bound by the City to the north and west. It is the position of the City of Clermont
and county staff that the subject parcel should be annexed into the City and
developed to its standards; however, as the applicant has opted to proceed with
the rezoning under County regulations, a comprehensive plan amendment will be
required to change the designation of the 301 acres presently classified as
Rural to Urban, or Urban Expansion, as the gross density of the Rural portion of
the project (estimated by staff as 1.5 units per acre) exceeds the permitted
maximum of one dwelling unit per five acres.
As stipulated in Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-13.2, a comprehensive plan
amendment is mandatory when a proposed use exceeds the allowable density or
intensity of the specified land use category.
The Lake County Water Resources Management Division has stated that a
mass grading plan for the project must be provided by the applicant and
approved by their staff, prior to the rezoning of the property, and, if deemed
sufficient, this plan would be accepted, in lieu of reclamation of the mining
site. The Water Resources Management
staff indicated, in an email dated December 22, 2005, that a grading plan was
submitted by the project engineer, Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc., which
was reviewed by staff and found to be acceptable, however, based upon the
project’s inconsistency with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, staff was
recommending denial of the rezoning request.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating
that, at the Zoning Board Meeting, he questioned Ms. DuBois about whether the
Interlocal Agreement required annexation of this case, which she testified did
not, and he questioned her about the County’s Comprehensive Plan and a blending
issue. He stated that it was his
understanding from staff that the only objection they have to this project is
the fact that there is an issue of blending and the fact that they feel the
applicant should annex the property into the City of Clermont. He reminded the Board that they asked the
applicant to postpone this request until this date, in order for the applicant
to hold a workshop with the City. He
stated that the request was postponed, but the City declined to hold a workshop
with the applicant, to discuss the project.
He stated that the applicant originally proposed a family project,
providing park space and school sites, but the City did not feel comfortable
with it, so the applicant revised the plan, did some market analysis, and
determined that there was a need for age restricted communities in the south
end of the County, which is not something the City wanted to entertain. He stated that the applicant then filed the
application with the County, at which time Commr. Pool asked that the request
be postponed again, in order to have a workshop with the City, but they
declined to do so. He stated that the
applicant did meet with Mr. Ray Goodgame, City Councilman, City of Clermont,
and, while presenting their presentation this date, they would discuss some of
the amendments that have been done to the PUD, based upon the input of Mr.
Goodgame, in trying to deal with some of his concerns.
Mr.
Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, addressed the Board,
representing the applicant, and answered questions from Mr. Richey about the
issue of blending. He informed the Board
that, in the year 2002, he filed two text amendments to the County’s
Comprehensive Plan, dealing with the issue of blending, which was the result of
an application that they processed in south Lake County. He stated that they met with county staff
during that period and clarified what was and was not allowed for blending in
the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that
the applicant moved forward on those recommendations, which was that blending
was allowed everywhere in the County, except in the Green Swamp, as reflected
in the Staff Report, at which time he submitted, for the record, a copy of said
Staff Report (Applicant’s Exhibit A) , dated September 24, 2005, noting that
staff had recommended denial of the text amendment that he proposed. He stated that, not only did the Staff Report
reflect the position that blending was allowed outside the Green Swamp, in the
other jurisdictions, but that, when the applicant put together his
Justification for Applying for the Text Amendment (Applicant’s Exhibit B),
which he submitted a copy of, for the record, staff informed him that blending
was not a problem, as long as the applicant did not try to do it in the Green
Swamp. He noted that he has sat in the
audience and observed other PUDs being approved, where blending was allowed.
Mr.
Beliveau stated that, during this time, the applicant also met with the
Department of Community Affairs and talked about transferring density into the
Green Swamp. He stated that said project
went to a settlement agreement with DCA and the applicant recently had to amend
the PUD to change the language. He
stated that DCA’s position was that the County’s Comprehensive Plan was silent
on the issue of blending, which he noted was the position that staff took
during the time that the applicant applied for it. He stated that it was not silent in the Green
Swamp, noting that there was a specific that no blending would be allowed in
the Green Swamp. The following was
pointed out: The Zoning Board
recommended this project to the Board and determined that it was more
environmentally sensitive for the applicant to use blending in the subject
area, than to not use blending; the applicant is allowed to construct over
1,200 homes on said property, but is only proposing a little over 800 homes;
the most easterly portion of the property will be left as conservation and
passive park land; and blending has been done since the Comprehensive Plan went
into effect, but has never been questioned, as far as blending outside of the
Green Swamp is concerned.
Ms.
Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman & Senterfitt, representing the owner of
the parcel in question, Nola Land Company, Inc., addressed the Board stating
that she has been working with Mr. Richey on this case. She stated that she had provided a Memorandum
of Law (Applicant’s Exhibit C) to the Zoning Board on the issue of blending,
which she submitted to this Board, for the record, noting that it has also been
her experience in Lake County, since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, in
1993, that blended densities on sites has been allowed outside of the Green
Swamp. She stated that the Memorandum of
Law provides that, because the Lake County Comprehensive Plan is silent, one
does not have to use other methods of statutory interpretation, but looks to
past actions and past processes, which, as Mr. Beliveau testified, has been
used.
Mr.
Richard Levy, Director of Entitlements, Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc.,
addressed the Board, representing the applicant, and displayed and reviewed
various maps and documents contained in a handout (Applicant’s Composite
Exhibit D) that was presented to the Board, for the record, containing a
Preliminary Development Plan for the Jahna PUD; a map showing the location and
size of the conservation areas for Villages N-8 thru 11; a map showing the
location of a 40 foot buffer to be located between the relocated Magnolia
Island Boulevard and the adjoining residential lots and undisturbed natural
buffer; a map showing the location of a 6 foot wall that is to be constructed,
compatible with the existing wall on the east side of the property; a list of
Transportation Improvements that the applicant is proposing, to replace the
ones contained in the Ordinance; and a legal description of the subject
property, all of which will be put in the Ordinance as conditions of the PUD,
should the Board approve said project.
The project contains 90 foot lots, 70 foot lots, and 50 foot lots. The number of units have not changed and the
overall density has not changed. The
Zoning Board expressed concern about the element on the southeast portion of
the site and recommended one acre lots in that component of the project. Since the Zoning Board Meeting, the applicant
has worked with three neighborhood associations, to move the development off
those properties in the southeastern portion of the property and leave them as
conservation areas and transfer the densities to the main portion of the
site. The site is taking advantage of
the past excavation activities and relying upon the reclaimed lakes and slopes,
to make an attractive adult only residential community. He stated that staff has expressed concern,
with regard to preservation of rights of way for future roadways, and, as part
of the PD&E Study with the Public Works staff and the County’s consultants,
the applicant has tried to accommodate the County’s long-term road needs, as part
of the project, at which time he pointed out where the applicant has done that
along the eastern boundary, with the potential Hartle Road extension. As part of working with staff, the applicant
has agreed to accommodate a realignment of Hartle Road down the eastern
boundary of the property, and to the extension of Hook Street. The applicant has met with staff regarding a
120 foot section, with sloping easements, etc., totaling 220 feet, and the
applicant is providing additional right of way on Hooks Street, to allow said
road to be interconnected, which has been added to the PUD, as a condition.
Mr.
Levy stated that the applicant met with Mr. Goodgame, City Councilman, City of
Clermont, as alluded to earlier, who asked that certain development standards
criteria be met, which he reviewed with the Board, noting that Mr. Goodgame
asked that a larger buffer be provided along the northwest property line, which
butts up against existing homes in the City of Clermont, which the applicant
has done, as well as revised the development table, to provide a greater than
required set back for the townhomes, and has exceeded a greater than required
standard for parking for the townhome areas; they are providing 60 foot local
dedicated road right of way; and have committed to an upgraded architectural
lighting standard for the community, which have been incorporated into the
conditions that are before the Board this date for approval. The applicant has met with DOT and established
the parameters of their contribution to improvements to Hwy. 50, as the project
goes along; and have met the requirements of Lake County, in that regard, as
well. The applicant has agreed that, if
the County has the right of way, in addition to the applicant’s right of way,
that the applicant will be constructing roads, Hook Street in particular, when
they build their roads, pursuant to working with the County on impact fee
credits, etc., which is also a condition of the PUD. The revised plan has increased the recreation
area for the project. The project is
required to provide 103 plus or minus acres and is providing 116 acres, which
includes clustering and is a significant amount of open space, based on the
open water bodies and lakes that the County has, although, in all likelihood,
there will be opportunities for other open space within the project, as well,
based upon the topography and the reclamation of the mine that takes place, due
to the fact that the silt that is reclaimed will not be stable enough for
housing, so there will be more open space, in addition to the minimum required,
as part of the reclamation plan, which exceeds the standards that the applicant
would have to meet, if it were a new mine today, so the applicant is improving
a situation beyond what they legally have to improve.
It
was noted that Mr. Goodgame met with the applicant representing himself and not
the City of Clermont.
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that
the information presented to them this date, with regard to a revised site plan
and potential new PUD language, dealing with road right of way, buffering, and
some other amenities that were worked out in the meetings that were held with
the surrounding property owners was new and had not been reviewed by staff. She stated that, knowing that, should the
Board choose to approve the PUD Ordinance, they would want to make sure that
the revised plan and language had been reviewed and was appropriate. She stated that, at the conclusion of the
public hearing, after the public testimony, staff would like to request a 10
minute recess, so they could review the new material, prior to the Board taking
action on the request. She stated that
there were two other issues that were raised, being the issue of blending and
the Hartle Road PD&E Study, at which time she noted that, at the
appropriate time, staff would like for the Board to call on them, so they could
address those issues.
Mr.
John Barone, President of the Magnolia Island Homeowners Association, addressed
the Board stating that his homeowners association has spoken with the developer
of the proposed project and has come to some conclusions that are satisfactory
to everybody’s needs and wants, however, noted that, although they have an
agreement, as stated, they do not have an officially signed agreement. He submitted, for the record, a letter
(Applicant’s Composite Exhibit E) from C. B. Myers, III, P.A., the Attorney for
the land owner, Nola Land Company, Inc., dated March 27, 2006, along with a
Petition and Agreement between Park Square Enterprises, Magnolia Island
Homeowners Association, Inc., Magnolia Bay Homeowners Association, Inc., and
Nola Land Company, Inc., noting that the letter was the intention to sign off
on the Petition and Agreement by Wednesday, March 29, 2006. He stated that they are in favor of the
project, in its entirety, contingent upon the signing off of the entire
agreement, by all parties concerned. He
noted that they would rather have residential throughout the entire project,
rather than any risk of light industrial, which they feel would affect the
entire area, from a value and consistency standpoint, and requested the Board’s
consideration of same, as well.
Mr.
Martin Shaffer, President of the Johns Lake Homeowners Association, addressed
the Board stating that the homeowners association was for the road alignment
that is scheduled to go around the back side of the project to the west side of
their community, noting that they were terrified about the possibility of their
being even a study of putting a four-lane road between the walls of their
community, because of the amount of excess traffic coming from the Hartwood
Marsh Road area. He stated that all the
parties involved have bent over backwards, to make sure that everybody was
involved, and that he wanted to speak in favor of the road going to the west
and the fact that it is going to be an age restricted community, noting that
his association is looking forward to that, in that they feel it will be a nice
addition to the community. He stated
that the only drawback he sees, which may be an issue that has not been totally
disclosed, is the amount of traffic that is going to be imposed onto Johns Lake
Road. He stated that Lost Lake
Elementary is located on said road and that, as a good faith jester, since the
proposed community is not offering any student impacts to Lost Lake Elementary,
but is going to create an excess amount of traffic for an already overcrowded
school, because it is going to take people from Hartwood Marsh Road straight to
the Super Wal-Mart that is located on Hwy. 27, creating a thoroughfare on that
road, suggested that the developer offer a small donation to the school. He thanked Commr. Pool for attending their
homeowners association meeting and answering questions they had about the
project.
Mr.
Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, addressed the Board stating
that he was present representing the Clermont City Council. He stated that this request was asked to be
tabled, in order to try to schedule a workshop with the City Council, however,
noted that Mr. Richey, most of the developers, and the developers’ attorneys
know that the City Council has had a policy not to have workshop meetings with
developers, for their own reasons, which was known before the meeting was
postponed. He stated that the City
Council is very open to having a submittal come to them and go through the
public process, but feel that the workshops circumvent the public process and
does not give the public the same opportunity to comment, or voice their
concerns, as a public hearing would. He
stated that he just wanted to clarify that fact. He stated that a second thing he wanted to
address was the fact that an application was never submitted for this project,
or for the annexation. He stated that,
to his knowledge, there were two or three meetings with the City’s staff, to
discuss what they could or could not support, with regard to this project, and
staff gave their opinion about the project, but the City Council never had an
opportunity to review the project. He
stated that, with regard to the meeting that was held between the applicant’s
representatives and Mr. Goodgame, Mr. Goodgame was not representing the City
Council, but himself, and was trying to do what he could, to get some concessions,
if the request was going to go forward with the County. He submitted, for the record, a letter
(Opposition’s Exhibit A) from the City of Clermont to Mr. Gregg Welstead, dated
October 14, 2005, regarding this request, containing a recommendation from the
City Council that the property should be annexed into the City of Clermont and
developed to City standards, due to the property being contiguous to the City
on both the north and west sides, and the fact that the City Council agreed
with county staff’s recommendation of denial, in that the request is
incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan, at which time he displayed and
submitted, for the record, an aerial (Opposition’s Exhibit B) of the area in
question. He stated that he felt the
County should not even be considering the request, because it is a violation of
the Comprehensive Plan.
In
order to stay within the time limit set by the Board, Mr. Saunders was asked by
Commr. Cadwell as to how he felt the proposed project fits into the plan for
the JPA and was informed that it is the intent of the JPA that properties are
developed consistent with development within the City of Clermont and that
there will be Land Development Regulations (LDRs) produced that are superior to
the standards currently applied. He
stated that the attorneys will tell the Board that it is consistent with the
JPA, because of the PUD, but that he did not feel it was ever anyone’s intent
for a PUD to circumvent the LDRs. He
stated that staff spent a lot of time coming up with standards of what should
be there and that he did not feel it was anyone’s intent that PUDs should
circumvent those standards.
Commr.
Hanson clarified the fact that the part that would require an amendment would
be that part that is located in the Rural area, noting that what is not in
Rural would not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr.
Pool stated that the City of Clermont had interpreted this request to be an
employment center, noting that he was under the impression that the City Council
thought it was an employment center and embraced the idea, but, in reality, the
neighbors felt that an age restricted community was far superior than an
employment center on the shifting sands, for a two or three story complex. He questioned whether Mr. Saunders felt
residential was the way that it should go, versus an employment center, and was
informed by Mr. Saunders that he did not agree with it – that he felt an
employment center should be constructed in the area, noting that, if this
request is approved, it will be an increase in density of approximately 900%,
when the County’s zoning for the property allows less than 100 units on the
property, or less than 100%.
Mr.
Saunders noted, for the record, that he took exception to the fact that he, on behalf
of the City of Clermont, was only allowed the five minutes of public comment,
since the City is a major role player in the JPA, noting that he would like for
the Board to reconsider that aspect of the meeting in the future.
It
was noted that the Board would reconsider it, with regard to comments from the
cities.
Mr.
Ray Goodgame, City Councilman, City of Clermont, addressed the Board stating
that, as expressed earlier in the meeting, he asked Mr. Richey to postpone this
request for 30 days, hoping that he would be able to convince the Clermont City
Council to have a workshop, because he felt that more could have been
accomplished in a workshop, however, noted that he stood alone with that
opinion. He stated that, irrespective of
what Mr. Saunders stated, this project has not been presented to the City
Council, either formally, or in a workshop.
He displayed and submitted, for the record, an aerial (Opposition’s
Exhibit C) showing the Hills of Clermont and the proposed development, noting
that they are located side by side. He
stated that he feels the density is a big issue, between what the City would do
and what could be allowed, otherwise. He
stated that he was not aware of any project that has come before the Board,
where it has been contiguous to a city and has been allowed to be developed
under county rules, rather than city rules, and that he feels it is a terrible
precedent that the Board might be setting.
He stated that he feels, if this request were to be presented to the
City’s planning staff, Mr. Saunders would work with them and come up with what
densities are allowed in other areas near this development. He stated that he could not promise that, but
feels that the City Council and the City’s staff would be willing to work with
it. He stated that it would have less
density than what it has now, if it was done by the City, but feels that that
would be best for the City of Clermont.
He stated that the property is in Clermont, so why should it not be
developed in Clermont. He commended the
applicant for some things that have been changed, such as increasing the width
of the roads, putting in sidewalks and curbs, and modifying some of the
setbacks, however, noted that the density is still the main problem and what
the Board must consider is whether they want to set a precedent for not
allowing the City to annex property for development, when it is contiguous to
the City.
Commr.
Pool stated that he does not believe the applicant would want to annex into the
City of Clermont and create a monster that the residents do not want. He stated that he believes the property in
question will be residential at some point, in some way, and, if the City is
going to push for and demand that it be an employment center, he will have made
a lot of residents in the area very unhappy about what could be a development
that they could embrace. He stated that
it is not easy to get the residents that surround a proposed project to embrace
it and sign off on it, the way that the residents that reside around the proposed
project have done and that he applauded what the applicant has tried to do, to
ensure that the project is consistent with what is around it.
Commr.
Hanson stated that, based on what Mr. Saunders stated, she felt the City would
reject anything but an employment center.
Mr.
Goodgame interjected that he felt, if the project were put before the City
Council, it would have a different vote than what has been expressed.
RECESS
AND REASSEMBLY
At
10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. PH93-05-2 – A
TO PUD – NOLA LAND COMPANY
SEAN
FROELICH, VICE PRESIDENT, PARK SQUARE ENTERPRISES (CONT’D.)
Mr.
Lee Greenwood, President of the Magnolia Bay Homeowners Association, addressed
the Board and displayed an aerial (Applicant’s Exhibit F) of the property in
question, showing Alternative Alignments for Hartle Road. He stated that the applicant has worked
extensively with the homeowners in the area to set aside conservation areas and
that he feels the homeowners in Magnolia Bay, Magnolia Island, and Johns Lake
Estates subdivisions, representing approximately 250 homeowners that are in the
unincorporated area of the County, enjoy being in the County and want to see
the proposed project as residential, as opposed to high employment. He stated that they did not think they would
ever be before the Board supporting such a project, but appreciate everything
the applicant has done, in working through their issues. He stated that it has been give and take,
but, in all, he feels that everybody is happy and supports the request.
There
being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that staff
would like to address a couple of the issues, so that Mr. Richey may consider
it in his rebuttal. She stated that the
first issue was that of density blending, noting that staff researched the
County’s PUD records back to 1993 and did not identify any projects that were
approved by the Board, where density blending occurred, contrary to the
testimony that was given at the Zoning Board meeting. She stated, for the record, that, in the
Staff Report, it cites Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-13.2, which states that a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is mandatory, when a proposed use exceeds an
allowable density or intensity of a specific land use category, so it is
staff’s position that the Comprehensive Plan is not necessarily silent on
blending, but does require consistency of specific densities in Rural or Urban
areas. She stated that the second issue
deals with the fact that this project contains one of the proposed alignments
for the Hartle Road extension, which is currently under a PD&E Study. She asked Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of
Engineering, Public Works Department, to discuss the right of way
considerations that have been negotiated with the applicant, noting that the
County has language that would be inserted into the Ordinance that memorializes
that Agreement, should the Board choose to move forward with this project.
Mr.
Schneider addressed the Board stating that the PD&E (Project Development
and Environmental) Study is ongoing, for the Hartle Road Realignment, noting
that the County has had one public workshop so far and expect the next one to
be sometime around April or May of this year.
He stated that they expect the final adoption of the PD&E preferred
alignment to occur sometime around July or August of this year. He displayed and submitted, for the record,
an aerial (County’s Exhibit A) of the Hartle Road alignments, noting that there
are several alternatives that the County is looking at, as part of the PD&E
Study, which he reviewed with the Board.
He noted that these are the things that will have to go through the
public hearing process and, eventually, the Board will have to make a
determination on the final alignment. He
stated that the applicant has indicated a willingness to donate right of way
for the Hooks Street Extension and the Hartle Road Extension, so the language
that is coming forward states that said roads are subject to the provisions of
the PD&E Study’s final alignment and staff would be in agreement with that
language.
Mr.
Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and
rebutted comments that were made regarding this request.
There
being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
Upon
being questioned as to how many units the applicant was planning for the Rural
portion of the project, if blending were not allowed, Ms. Stricklin addressed
the Board stating that, according to Exhibit A (contained in Applicant’s
Composite Exhibit D, a handout from Mr. Richard Levy, with Donald W. McIntosh
Associates, Inc.), it shows Villages N-8, 9, 10 and 11 will contain
conservation areas, which she noted will be incorporated into the Ordinance, by
reference. She stated that the Zoning
Board restricted said area to one unit per acre, to address the concerns of the
residents, which eliminates the density on that portion of the project
altogether.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she recalled the County allowing blending approximately 14
to 15 years ago and recalled the discussion being that blending not be allowed
in the Green Swamp. She stated that it
was allowed in the Wekiva, but only through TDRs, and that the Comprehensive
Plan was silent on the issue. She stated
that, at the time, staff’s interpretation was that, because it was silent in
the rest of the County, it would be allowed.
Commr.
Cadwell interjected that, in the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, the Board
needs to make sure that the issue of blending is clear one way or the other –
whichever way the Board decides it wants to go.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she could see how it would create a major issue with the
County, because one could have a parcel that is located in Urban Expansion,
Urban, or Suburban, and then an individual could buy up parcels that were Rural
next to it and spread out, basically, creating more Urban sprawl – spreading
out some of that density from the higher density areas to the Rural areas.
Commr.
Pool stated that, in this case, it is one contiguous land owner that did not go
out and buy additional properties – that it traditionally has been under one
ownership.
Ms.
Stricklin informed Commr. Hanson that the density for the Rural portion of the
property, as proposed in the Board’s packet of information, was 1.5 units per
acre. She noted that she did not have a
recalculation of said units, because staff did not receive the revised plan in
advance of this meeting.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she felt the first decision the Board needed to make about
this project was the issue of blending, at which time Commr. Pool stated that,
with regard to this particular piece of property, outside of the Green Swamp,
it is clear what the applicant is trying to accomplish and accommodate,
especially if one is allowed to increase the density on the north side of the
project, by taking into account the south side of the project. He stated that they will have benefited the
entire neighborhood.
Commr.
Stivender concurred, if blending is appropriate for this project.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, if the Board thought it was appropriate for this project,
they needed to use it, but he did not feel they needed to make a decision this
date about whether they were going to use blending or not as a policy. He stated that he was trying to support the
City of Clermont, however, noted that the JPA is not just on paper, but in
spirit, as well, and he was afraid that, if one side or the other starts using
that JPA in a negative way, it is going to affect what the Board has been
trying to do all along. He stated that,
if the County is going to have a true JPA, both sides need to talk to the
applicant and it needs to be an open process.
He stated that it is probably a conversation that the Board needs to
have with the Clermont City Council, on a Commission to Commission basis.
Ms.
Stricklin readdressed the Board and read into the record the changes that were
made to the Ordinance, noting that it falls into two categories, the first
reflecting the agreement that was reached with the surrounding property owners,
with the participation of Mr. Goodgame, and the second being the conditions
related to the Hartle Road alignment and Hook Street.
It
was noted that said changes were reviewed with the applicant during the recess
and that they understand said changes.
A
motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Stivender to uphold the
recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Ordinance No. 2006-30, Nola Land
Company, Inc./Sean Froelich, VP, Park Square Enterprises, Rezoning Case No.
PH93-05-2, Tracking No. 110-05-PUD, a request to rezone a 541 acre parcel of
property, located in the Clermont area, from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development), for the creation of an age-restricted residential PUD, as
amended, as follows: On Page 2 of the
Ordinance, under A. 1. a. – Land Uses:
Number & Type of Residential Units, the following language will be
added: Land uses will be as shown on
sheets 1-5 of the DWMA (Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc.) Preliminary
Development Plan, dated March 24, 2006; on Page 3, with regard to
Townhomes, the front building setback will be changed from 20 feet to 25
feet from the property line and the side yard setback will be deleted and the
words “not applicable” will be inserted;
on Page 4, the rear yard setback will be changed from 25 feet to 20
feet; under Item D. – Open Space, the following language will be added, after
“open space”: as shown on the DWMA
Preliminary Development Plan, dated March 24, 2006.; under Item E. –
Landscaping, add Condition No. 4. – A 40 foot buffer shall be provided on
the area depicted on Exhibit B, dated March 28, 2006, on a portion of Tract
N-8; Condition No. 5. – A six foot wall shall be provided along the northern
boundary of Tract N-8; and Condition No. 6. – A 50 foot landscaped buffer shall
be provided along the boundary common to the Hills of Clermont; on Page 5 –
under F. – Environmental, add Condition No. 5. – Conservation areas shall be
created on Tracts N-8, 9, 10 and 11, as depicted on Exhibit A, dated March 28,
2006; on Page 6, the language under H. – Transportation Improvements, will
be replaced with the language contained in the handout that was distributed to
the Board this date that addresses the right of way for Hartle Road, Hook
Street, and the potential construction of Hook Street improvements by the
applicant; and on Page 6, under I. – Development Review and Approval, add after
the wording “as amended”: pursuant to the notes shown on the DWMA
Preliminary Development Plan, dated March 24, 2006.
Under
discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to encourage the applicant
to form some type of relationship with Lost Lake Elementary School, as
suggested earlier in the meeting by Mr. Shaffer, President of the Johns Lake
Homeowners Association. She stated that
she felt it was also important that the Board realize how important it is for
the Board to move forward on some of the employment centers sooner, before they
become surrounded by residential areas, because that part of the total picture
of the County’s economy and developed county is very important.
The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr.
Cadwell voted “No”.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP06/3/1-2 –
CUP IN A – SUSAN ENGEL/PATRICIA
FULTON
– TRACKING NO. 40-06-CUP
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this
request. The request is for a CUP
(Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture), for an adaptive and therapeutic
horseback riding program. The owner is
presently utilizing the 13.9 acre subject parcel, zoned Agriculture, for
residential and non-intensive agricultural purposes and wishes to allow Horses
for Riders with Disabilities (HeRD), formerly part of the Woodlands Camp in
Montverde, to use the property for its adaptive and therapeutic riding
program. At present, HeRD serves
approximately 60 adults and children, offering therapeutic riding and adaptive
riding lessons to program participants.
It also provides assistance to the members of the Special Olympics
equestrian team. The organization will
use the two existing barns on the site, and the program’s hours of operation
will be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The owner will continue to reside on the
premises. A staff conducted GIS analysis
shows that wetlands comprise approximately 5.17 acres of the 13.9 acre subject
property and that roughly 7.22 acres lie within the 100 year floodplain, so
there appears to be no environmental constraints associated with the requested
conditional use. The existing single
family residence and the two barns that HeRD will utilize are located outside
the wetlands and floodplain. No
additional construction is currently planned, in conjunction with the riding
program, and, if new structures or site improvements associated with the
program are desired, the applicant must submit a formal site plan for review
and approval by the Lake County Development Review Staff. In addition, if the need for additional site
improvements is identified during the annual inspection for compliance with the
terms of the conditional use permit, staff shall reserve the right to require
such improvements. The proposed
conditional use is compatible with all applicable provisions of the Lake County
Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan; therefore, staff is
recommending approval of the request.
The Zoning Board’s recommendation was for approval, adding language that
would limit special events on the site to no more than one per year, and the
event must be reasonably related to the uses for which the CUP was obtained.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms.
Patricia Fulton, the applicant, addressed the Board and discussed the various
uses/programs that are held on the subject 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. Hill and carried unanimously, by a
5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved
Ordinance No. 2006-31, Susan Engel and Patricia Fulton, Rezoning Case No.
CUP06/3/1-2, Tracking No. 40-06-CUP, a request for a CUP (Conditional Use
Permit) in A (Agriculture), for an adaptive and therapeutic horseback riding program,
as presented, with a stipulation that no more than three (3) events per year be
held, rather than one, as recommended by the Zoning Board.
REZONING CASE NO. PH17-06-1 – A
TO R-4 – ROBERT W. LEFRANCOIS
FRED
HAMILTON – TRACKING NO. 19-06-Z
Commr.
Stivender declared a conflict of interest, stating that she would be abstaining
from the discussion and vote, due to the fact that she has a relative that
lives in the area in question.
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this
request. The request is to rezone a
73.05 +/- acre parcel, located to the west of Fruitland Park and US 27/441, on
the southeast corner of Lake Ella and Rolling Acres Roads. The site is currently zoned A (Agriculture)
and lies within the Urban Expansion future land use category, which permits up
to 4 dwelling units per acre. The
applicant is requesting the R-4 zoning district, to allow for a single family
residential subdivision. The City of
Fruitland Park has confirmed that water service is available to the site. Staff finds that the applicant’s request is
consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), but is
inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.9, which states that residential
densities shall be compatible with available public facilities and their
capacity to serve development.
Considering the comments from the School Board that the elementary and
middle schools are over capacity, there are not adequate public facilities to
serve this development; therefore, staff recommends denial of the request. The Zoning Board recommended denial of the
request, as well, by a 4-3 vote.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr.
Bruce Duncan, Attorney, Potter, Clement, Lowry & Duncan, representing the
applicant, addressed the Board stating that the applicant met with several of
the residents in the area prior to this meeting and had a chance to address
their concerns. He stated that there
were twelve items of concern, counting two items that were added this date, ten
of which were contained in an email that he sent to county staff on Monday,
March 27, 2006. He stated that the
residents feel any buyers of homes within the subdivision should be informed
that an airstrip exists in the area, as well as a spray field, which the
applicant has agreed to do. Another
concern that was added this date is that of dust that will be generated during
construction of the homes in the subdivision, at which time he noted that he
had spoken to the applicant and the developer and was informed that they would
construct either a temporary fence, or a permanent wall, during the
construction phase, and watering measures would be put in place, as well, to
cut down on the amount of dust that will be generated by the construction. He reviewed those things that the applicant
has agreed to do, to take care of the concerns expressed by the residents, at
which time he stated that the design of the project will incorporate a larger
setback along the south portion of the Carter property, other than what is
required in the County’s Code. He stated
that one of the residents (Ms. Johnson) expressed concern about some wildlife
habitat that exists around a lake that is located on the property and was
informed that there will probably be some kind of state, county, or federal
requirement for open space, with regard to said wildlife, and, if there is not
a state, county, or federal requirement, the applicant will set aside a
conservation or open space area in the southeast portion of the property
anyway, in order to provide some additional habitat for said wildlife. He stated that he feels the residents now
have a comfort level, with regard to the project, and that they do not have any
objections to it. He stated that the way
the applicant will accomplish same with a straight zoning is through a third
party agreement with the Carters, the Johnsons, the Havilands, and the
Spectors, which would give them the right to enforce said agreement in
court. He stated that they will make the
County a third party beneficiary to said agreement, which will also give them
the right, if they so choose, to enforce it in a court of law, as well. He stated that another reason he requested
that this case be postponed until this date is the school concurrency issue
that the Board addressed with Ms. Allen, noting that the applicant will
voluntarily enter into an agreement with the County that will state that they
will agree to not pull a building permit, or seek approvals for any building
permits, until the school concurrency requirements are in place and the
applicant can meet said requirements. He
noted that it is a voluntary agreement that the applicant is willing to enter
it.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, was asked whether he was comfortable with said
agreement and responded that he was comfortable with the progress that has been
made with the School Board, the County, and the Municipalities regarding the
issue of school concurrency. He stated
that, with respect to the second concern, rather than an agreement, the Minutes
should reflect that the applicant volunteered to enter into an agreement, if
they place the requirement in the Ordinance that they meet the school
concurrency rules, however, noted that it would be at platting time, not
building permit time. He stated that,
with regard to the first concern, the County does not enforce those types of
conditions, but, if the County is aware of them, they will not consciously let
the plat go through. He stated that the
primary enforcement will be with the neighbors.
Mr.
Duncan stated that, for the benefit of the neighbors and the County, the
applicant would not have a problem with recording said document to run with the
land, noting that the applicant would describe the property and have it
recorded as a restrictive covenant, which would be entered into and signed by
the four neighbors that the applicant negotiated the terms and conditions
with. He stated that the applicant would
be happy to include two other families that he met with this date, prior to the
meeting, making them a party to the agreement, as well.
Mr.
William Campbell, a resident of Fruitland Park, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, stating that, according to the applicant’s
calculations, there are approximately 28 acres that are unaccounted for in the
proposed subdivision. He stated that he
has not seen any kind of design for the proposed project and that he was told
by Mr. Duncan that the homes will be high end, in the $200,000 to $400,000
range, at which time he noted that he has been in construction for 30 years and
a $200,000 house these days is an average house, it is nothing
spectacular. He stated that there are
twelve (12) residents that use the airstrip and they want language in the deeds
indicating that an airstrip exists in the area, noting that they are concerned
that, if the home buyers do not get said language in the deeds for their
properties, they will start causing the twelve residents that use the airstrip
problems, even though they do not have standing in the matter. He stated that they are also concerned about
the spray field that is located on the east end of the airstrip; the fact that,
although the applicant is stating that the proposed subdivision will be age
restricted, they are concerned that children will be allowed and, if so, they
will play on the airstrip, causing a safety problem. He stated that he does not feel a subdivision
with three units per acre is conducive to the area, noting that the surrounding
area is five and ten acre tracts.
Mr.
Duncan, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board, and
rebutted comments that were made regarding 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. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by
a 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of denial by the Zoning
Board and approved Ordinance No. 2006-32, Robert LeFrancois, Rezoning Case No.
PH17-06-1, Tracking No. 19-05-Z, a request to rezone a 73.05 +/- acre parcel of
property in the Fruitland Park area from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium
Residential), for the development of a single family residential subdivision,
as presented, with the following conditions:
That any potential buyers of lots in the proposed development will be
required to be notified of the existence of an airstrip that is in the area, as
well as a spray field that is located adjacent to the property in question;
that a temporary fence will be installed, or a permanent six foot concrete
block and stucco wall, which will contain decorative pillars, that is to
surround the entire project will be constructed, during the construction phase,
and, in addition to that, watering measures will be put in place, to cut down
on the amount of dust that will be generated by the construction that will
occur on the site; the only entry/exit points of the subdivision will be onto
Lake Ella Road – there will be no entry/exit point onto Rolling Acres Road; the
community will not be a gated community; the developer will be required to
install accel/decel lanes along Lake Ella Road, at the two entry points to the
subdivision; in the development’s Restrictive Covenants, the developer will
prohibit the overnight outside parking of RV’s, boats, work, or panel trucks,
and there will be no interior site allowing for the parking of boats, RV’s,
etc.; there will be underground utilities throughout the subdivision; the
Restrictive Covenants (to be recorded) will require custom homes consisting of
a minimum of 1,750 square feet; the design of the project shall incorporate a
35 foot minimum setback along the southern portion of the Carter property,
which will incorporate a conservation area, to provide additional habitat for
wildlife that exists in the area; that the development contain 25% open space;
and that no plat is to be recorded, until the County’s school concurrency
requirements have been adopted and the applicant can meet said requirements.
Commr.
Stivender had declared a conflict of interest and abstained from the discussion
and vote.
REZONING CASE NO. PH33-06-2 – A
TO CFD – SOUTH ENGLISH
CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES/DICK SANDERS
TRACKING
NO. 35-06-CFD
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this
request. The request is to rezone a 5
+/- acre parcel of property in the Clermont area from A (Agriculture) to CFD
(Community Facility District), for a church and associated uses. The applicant is proposing an 8,640 square
foot building, consisting of a seating auditorium, meeting rooms, office,
restroom facilities, and covered drop-off.
The property is located in the Rural future land use category. The Lake County Land Development Regulations
(LDRs) allows churches in the CFD zoning classification and allows the CFD zoning
in the Rural future land use category, as does the Lake County Comprehensive
Plan. Staff found the proposed use of
the property to be consistent with the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan,
therefore, recommends approval of the request, with conditions. The site will be served by the City of
Clermont, for water and sewer. The
Zoning Board recommended approval of the request, by a vote of 5-1, as well.
Mr.
Dick Sanders, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that he was
representing the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, of which there are
approximately 100,000 congregations worldwide.
He stated that they plan to construct a new Kingdom Hall on the subject
property, which has been vacant for some time, that will seat between 200 and
240 people, along with an office, library, and restrooms. He noted that, when his congregation
originally planned to construct said Kingdom Hall, they came to the County and
were told to go to the City of Clermont, who told them to go back to the
County.
Mr.
Douglas Faivre, a member of the Board of Directors for the Magnolia Park
Homeowners Association, a community of 250 homes, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, stating that the issue the homeowners were concerned
about was not that of a church, but that of traffic, noting that other people
who have come before the Board on other cases have spoken about the traffic on
Hancock Road, which is horrendous. He
stated that there have been multiple accidents on said road, at which time he
submitted, for the record, a packet (Opposition’s Composite Exhibit A)
containing a petition with 122 names of property owners in the area that would
be directly affected and/or other interested parties opposed to the rezoning
request, due to overwhelming and possibly fatal traffic and safety issues that
would arise; as well as 19 letters of opposition; a color coded map of the
area, showing the subject parcel and its proximity to the Magnolia Park
subdivision, as well as another parcel in the same area that was denied a rezoning
for a church by the Board on November 16, 2004, due to the issue of traffic and
the fact that the church would create too much activity in the rural location;
and a copy of the November 16, 2004 minutes, indicating same.
Ms.
Shirley Harrell, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, stating that she was representing the long-time
residents’ point of view, noting that she has lived in the area for close to 20
years. She stated that, when she
purchased her property, it was sold in five acre tracts and everybody that
purchased property in the area understood that they had to have five acres, in
order to build a home. She stated that
it is a mixed community in a rural area of the county – that is the reason the
residents bought property in that area – for the freedom and tranquility of a
rural area, which they would like to maintain as such. She is concerned that a church being
constructed in the area would greatly disrupt their lifestyle, which she
elaborated on.
Ms.
Amanda Powers, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, stating that she is a neighbor to Ms. Harrell and
has lived in the area for 14 years. She
stated that the neighborhood is a very close knit community, all on five acre
tracts of agricultural land. She stated
that C. W. Harrell Road, which the property in question fronts, is not a county
maintained road, it is a private road that is used solely by the residents that
live on C. W. Harrell Road and Laguna Road, and Sunburst Lane is the only road
that residents of Magnolia Park have to get out to Hancock Road – they have one
way out. She is concerned that, if a
community facility building is constructed there, it is going to increase the
traffic on Sunburst Lane, which will be disastrous. She stated that the residents feel it is the
wrong place and the wrong time for such a facility to be constructed and hope
the Board will take their comments into consideration.
Mr.
Arnoblo Ceballos, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, stating that C. W. Harrell Road is a private
easement that he and the other residents in the area maintain. He stated that churches are good, but he does
not feel that a five acre parcel of land is large enough for a church to be
constructed on it.
Mr.
William Lumsden, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, stating that the concern of the residents in the
area is that of additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed
church, should the Board approve the request.
He stated that it will only transfer the traffic problems that currently
exists at the corner of Johns Lake Road and Hancock Road to the corner of
Sunburst Lane and Hancock Road – one block further south, only that will be
even worse, because it is the corner where the park is located, where the
children in the area play. He stated
that the residents do not have a problem with a church being located in the
area, but it needs to be located where it will have good ingress/egress.
Mr.
Adnane Taifi, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in
opposition to the request, and discussed the issue of electrical power service,
which the residents have a lot of problems with, as well as that of additional
traffic and problems that it will generate, which he feels will disrupt his
lifestyle as a farmer.
Mr.
Gary Baynon, a member of the church being proposed for the area, addressed the
Board and rebutted comments that were made about the church and additional
traffic that it will generate, noting that Sunday would be the day that most of
the members would be attending church.
He stated that, although some of the members spread the word on a daily
basis, it would not be a large amount of members doing so.
Mr.
Sanders readdressed the Board and rebutted comments that were made about the
issues of additional traffic being generated by the church, safety concerns,
and problems with electrical power in the area.
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works Department, addressed the
Board, in response to a question by Commr. Stivender about the fact that C. W.
Harrell Road was a private easement, not a public road, and the fact that the
members of the church would have to cross said easement, in order to access the
subject property, at which time he noted that the members might have rights to
the easement along their property and, if so, they could build a
driveway/roadway from their entrance up to Sunburst Lane, however, noted that
they would have to provide evidence showing that they have rights of entry onto
the property – not going north on C. W. Harrell Road, but connecting to
Sunburst Lane.
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 4-1 vote, the Board overturned the Zoning Board’s recommendation of approval and
denied Rezoning Case No. PH33-06-2, South English Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses/Dick Sanders, Tracking No. PH33-06-2 35-06-CFD, a request to rezone a
5 +/- acre parcel of property in the Clermont area from A (Agriculture) to CFD
(Community Facility District), for a church and associated uses.
Commr.
Hanson voted “No”.
REZONING CASE NO. PH35-06-2 – A
TO CFD – RONNIE R. RIGGS/ROBERT
ALLAN FOSTER, II/DEBORAH R.
LEWIS/SOUTH LAKE LUTHERAN
CHURCH
– TRACKING NO. 37-06-CFD
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this
request. The request is to rezone a 4.75
acre parcel of property in the Clermont area, north of Johns Lake Road,
approximately ½ mile west of the intersection of Johns Lake Road and Hancock
Road, in the Urban Expansion future land use category, for a church, associated
uses, and a cell phone site. The
County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) permits churches in the CFD zoning
classification and in the Urban Expansion future land use category, as does the
County’s Comprehensive Plan. The
applicant is proposing to develop the property in three phases. Phase I will consist of a multipurpose
chapel, ranging in size from 2,200 to 4,000 square feet, expected to seat
approximately 140 to 260 people. The first
phase will likely be constructed with the aid of Builders for Christ, a group
of retired professionals who volunteer their time and construction expertise to
build the facility and, to help assist with said construction, the applicant is
requesting six RVs to be placed on-site temporarily. Phase II will consist of a multipurpose
building, ranging in size up to 7,500 square feet, to be used for a fellowship
hall and offices, Sunday School classrooms, and a possible future preschool,
kindergarten, day school, and/or daycare.
Should the facility be used for said purposes, enrollment will be
limited to 40 children. Phase III will
consist of a new sanctuary and ancillary uses, not to exceed 8,000 square feet,
to be directly related to the ministry of the church. Currently, an older single family residence
exists on the site, which the applicant would like to use for a
parsonage/caretaker’s quarter. In
addition, the applicant would like to have the opportunity to incorporate a
cell phone tower on the property, to be an integral part of a structure (i.e.,
steeple, cross, etc.) located on the site.
The placement of the tower will have to follow Section 3.13 of the Land
Development Regulations for Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Equipment
Facilities. Staff finds the proposed
use of the property to be consistent with the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan,
therefore, recommends approval of the request, with conditions.
Ms.
Eloise Sahlstrom, wife of Pastor Greg Sahlstrom, addressed the Board and gave a
brief Power Point presentation (Applicant’s Exhibit A), which was submitted,
for the record, showing some of the growth that has occurred in the area of the
subject parcel, noting that south Lake County and the City of Clermont are
experiencing expediential growth and change, increasing the demand for
additional community facilities, including churches, for which the property was
purchased, in January of this year. She
stated that there has been a lot of discussion this date about transportation
patterns and roads and feels that the site in question has excellent
ingress/egress opportunities, noting that the property is well connected with
funded improvements for roadways and will be able to disperse any traffic that
might be generated, although they do not expect a lot of traffic from their
site. She stated that the various phases
of the project will take place over 25 to 30 years and they do not expect to
move into the third phase of development until around the year 2025, so,
hopefully, the County’s long-range transportation plan will be in place at that
time and the two will coincide.
It
was pointed out that the subject property is located in an area where there are
opportunities for multiple ways in and out.
Ms.
Sahlstrom stated that the site is heavily wooded with pine trees at the present
time and that she and her husband would like to retain them, to be utilized as
a buffer between the proposed church and the surrounding neighbors. She stated that, with regard to the proposed
school, they do not want to tie it to any particular phase of the project, and
they would like to not be required to connect to sanitary sewer, if the
facility does not warrant it, because of volume, at which time she noted that
the County’s Comprehensive Plan states that new developments that generate less
than 1,500 gpd and which are located greater than 300 feet from public sanitary
sewer will not be required to connect, so, if they fall into that situation,
they would like to not connect with the first phase.
Pastor
Greg Sahlstrom addressed the Board stating that it was expressed at the Zoning
Board meeting that there are a lot of churches in the area, however, pointed
out the fact that their nearest church is approximately 45 miles away, noting
that they are the first church of their kind anywhere in the County. He stated that they have been looking for
land that would be appropriate for their church for two and a half years, so
are very pleased to have been able to find the subject property.
There
being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
No
one was present in opposition to the request.
A
motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Stivender to uphold the
recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve Ordinance No. 2006-33, South
Lake Lutheran Church, Pastor Greg Sahlstrom, Rezoning Case No. PH35-06-2,
Tracking No. 37-06-CFD, a request to rezone a 4.75 acre parcel in the Clermont
area from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a church,
associated uses, and a cell phone site, as presented, with a stipulation that
the cell tower be included, as long as it is incorporated as part of the
steeple, and that the existing pine forest be utilized as a buffer.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that the motion cannot include the
waiver of wastewater, as requested by the applicant, noting that it is
something that will come up at site plan review and, if the property meets the
criteria, the applicant will be required to hook up to it.
It
was noted that the cell tower would be considered a “camouflage”, so the County
would have to look at it under those terms.
The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a
5-0 vote.
REZONING CASE NO. PH21-06-5 – R-1
TO PUD – DR. DONALD J. FORNANCE
MANHAR
K. JADAV, P.E. – TRACKING NO. 31-06-PUD
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this
request. The request is to rezone a 17
+/- acre parcel of property in the Astor area, located to the northwest of the
intersection of SR 40 and Alco Road, designated Urban Expansion, from R-1
(Rural Residential) and CP (Planned Commercial) to a mixed use PUD (Planned
Unit Development), for the creation of a single family residential subdivision,
corresponding to a maximum allowable density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre,
which equates to a total of 59 dwelling units.
The master conceptual plan submitted by the applicant shows a proposed
development of 52 dwelling units and a 1.1 acre commercial site, with C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) uses being proposed.
The Lake County Schools Growth Planning Department provided comment that
the proposed rezoning has the potential to contribute 24 new students to the
school system, which will have an adverse impact on it; therefore, staff was
unable to support the rezoning request.
It was noted, however, that, if language was adopted in the PUD at the
time that the Staff Report was written, requiring the project to meet school concurrency,
prior to platting, staff could have recommended approval. The Zoning Board recommended approval of the
request, by a 6-0 vote. Access to the
development will come off of SR 40, with there being no access from the
development to nearby campsites.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr.
Manhar Jadav, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that utilities for the
proposed subdivision are in place and the wetlands that are located on the
property have been cleared through the St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD). He stated that he
feels the subdivision will be an asset to the community and asked the Board’s
approval of the request.
Ms.
Sue Daniels, a resident of Astor, addressed the Board stating that she also
feels that the proposed subdivision will be a tremendous asset to the Astor
community, noting that it will be the very first planned subdivision in the
area, giving the community a little class to go along with all the wonderful
amenities that the residents enjoy, and that she hoped the Board would approve the
request.
Ms.
Sheila Pike, a resident of Astor, addressed the Board stating that she was
speaking on behalf of the Astor Athletic League, noting that they are concerned
about the additional traffic that will be generated by the subdivision. She stated that SR 40 is a major connector
between Ocala and Daytona Beach, at which time she noted that they currently
have no traffic signals, and, with the addition of 52 new homes, it will
generate approximately 100 additional vehicles utilizing SR 40, not including
the commercial property. She reminded
the Board that SR 40 is an evacuation route from Daytona Beach to Ocala and
noted that Wal-Mart is going to construct a distribution center in Crescent
City, so there will be an influx of an additional 1,000 trucks per day
traveling through Astor. She stated that
the residents are not against expansion, although they believe development
should be chosen, but that, for the safety of the residents in the area and for
the safety of the development, a traffic signal should be installed in front of
the development, especially in front of the commercial portion of it. She stated that she foresees some major
problems in the future, if a traffic signal is not installed there.
Commr.
Cadwell interjected that he was sure the applicant would agree to do that, if
it was a stipulation, but that it would be up to the Department of
Transportation (DOT), as to whether a traffic signal is installed at that
location or not. He stated that the
Board had received a letter from the President of the Astor Chamber of
Commerce, expressing concern about the future traffic situation, with regard to
this request, but also asking that the Board approve the request. He noted that he would like for the Minutes
to reflect the fact that traffic is a concern for the County, with regard to
this request, and that, to whatever extent it can help the situation, it will.
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. Hill and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Ordinance No. 2006-34, Dr. Donald J. Fornance/Manhar K. Jadav, P.E.,
Rezoning Case No. PH21-06-1, Tracking No. 31-06-PUD, a request to rezone a
17+/- acre parcel in the Astor area from R-1 (Rural Residential) and CP
(Planned Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the creation of a
single family residential subdivision, as presented, with a stipulation that no
plat is to be recorded, until the County’s school concurrency requirements have
been adopted and the applicant can meet said requirements.
REZONING CASE NO. PH34-06-3 – A
TO CFD – LAKE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/GARY
KAISER
TRACKING
NO. 36-06-CFD
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this
request. The request is to rezone a 1.75
acre parcel in the Rural future land use category, in the Lake Jem area,
located approximately ¼ mile east of the Apopka-Dora Canal, on the north side
of CR 448, from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the
use of a fire station, police station, and other county government uses, such
as a voting precinct. The applicant is
proposing a 9,050 square foot building, consisting of a two bay or three bay
fire station, with living quarters for on-duty staff, a storage area for gear
and equipment, and a Sheriff’s substation.
The County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) permit government
facilities in the CFD zoning classification and allows CFD zoning in the Rural
future land use category, as does the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the proposed use of the
property is consistent with the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan, therefore,
recommends approval of the request, with conditions. The Zoning Board recommended approval of the
request, as well, by a 6-0 vote.
Commr.
Stivender thanked Mr. Gary Kaiser, Public Safety Director, and his staff, as
well as Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, for working on this project for the
past three to four years. She stated
that there was no opposition to the request, because everyone that lives in the
area needs the fire station and wants it.
She noted that the temporary station that has been established in the
area is doing very well, receiving three calls on their very first day.
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. 2006-35, Lake County Department of Public Safety/Gary
Kaiser, Rezoning Case No. PH34-06-3, Tracking No. 36-06-CFD, a request to
rezone a 1.75 acre parcel in the Lake Jem area from A (Agriculture) to CFD
(Community Facility District), for the use of a fire station, police station,
and other county government uses, as presented, subject to the provisions
contained in the Ordinance.
REPORTS
– COUNTY MANAGER
NEW
PROGRAM OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REDEVELOPMENT
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he was excited about this request and the fact that the
County will be taking that next step and getting aggressive in some of the
things that it is doing and would like to know what the opinion is of the other
Commissioners.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she feels it needs a little more research, before the
County takes action on it, and that she thought that is what the County pays
Ms. Derieth Sutton, Lake County Regional Director, Metro Orlando Economic
Development Commission (EDC), and Mr. Ray Gilley, Executive Director, Metro
Orlando Economic Development Commission, to do.
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that the Metro Orlando Economic Development
Commission is a major player in the County’s economic development program and
the County would be working very closely with them, in identifying land and
corridors for employment centers, however, noted that staff will need to work
with the appropriate agency for the provision of infrastructure to support the
construction of employment centers and those are things that she was not sure
the EDC gets involved with - that they are things that would be done at the
County level. She stated that it is an
effort to work with the EDC and the County’s current Tourism Department to jump
start the program and enhance economic development in Lake County. She stated
that Governor Bush has some legislation that is going to promote targeted
industry and this would fall in line with that, at which time she noted that
one of the things she has heard at different speaking engagements she has
attended, as well as from the newly formed Chamber Alliance, is the need to
institute a targeted industry program, so that the County can bring in the type
of industry that it is seeking and identify locations where the County will
place them. She stated that the goal is
jobs, noting that that was the direction that the Board gave staff at the last
Board Retreat – that the County needs to put as much effort as possible into
high paying jobs and industry and this is a means to do that. She noted that it will not increase the
County’s head count, because they were able to identify a position that was
available and reclassify it.
Commr.
Stivender discussed the timing of it and whether there was an ulterior motive
behind it, noting that she feels, although Mr. Greg Mihalic, the County’s
Economic Development and Tourism Director, does a tremendous job and could
probably use some assistance, the position does not need to be filled right at
this moment.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she feels it is very important that the County take this
step now, because, as the County goes forward, it is going to find that more
and more homes are being built in areas which the County should have targeted
for commerce and higher paying jobs. She
stated that it goes beyond just higher paying jobs - it is also having a
diversified tax base. She stated that
both economic development and tourism are so important to the County and she
does not feel that one person can focus on the whole thing. She stated that she, too, feels Mr. Mihalic
has done an outstanding job, however, pointed out the fact that the County is
looking at going in a different direction than where they have gone in the
past.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she wants to make sure that the position is not being
created for a particular person.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he feels this position will increase the ability of
everybody that works for the County at the present time to do their job, as
well as increase the County’s relationship with the EDC.
Ms.
Sutton, Lake County Regional Director of the EDC, addressed the Board stating
that the EDC supports and appreciates the partnership that it has with Lake
County and will support whatever efforts the County undertakes to help promote
economic development.
Commr.
Cadwell commended the County Manager for responding to the community and to the
Board’s direction, in bringing this request forward.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Manager for approval
to establish a new program of Economic Growth and Redevelopment; and approval
of a related budget transfer, to set up funding for said program.
Commr.
Hanson informed the Board that she had received a request from the City of
Minneola to have a joint meeting with them on April 17, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at
Minneola City Hall.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4
RESOLUTION URGING THE ADDITION OF
HOMELESSNESS TO EXISTING
HATE
CRIMES STATUTES
Commr.
Hill expressed a concern about the fact that domestic violence, child abuse,
capital sexual battery, animal cruelty, etc., which are all hate crimes, were
excluded from this Resolution, which was recently adopted by the Miami-Dade
County Board of County Commissioners, to be sent to Tallahassee, urging the
U.S. Congress and the Florida Legislature to add homelessness to the existing
federal and state hate crimes statutes, and that, perhaps, the Board should
include them and send the Resolution back to the Miami-Dade County Board of
County Commissioners, to see if they would like to include them in their
Resolution, as well.
Commr.
Cadwell pointed out the fact that the crimes alluded to by Commr. Hill are
covered pretty well in the laws that currently exist and that is the reason
there is a distinction between them and the issue of homelessness.
Commr.
Pool stated that the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners was asking for
the Board’s support on this particular Resolution, which covers one specific
hate crime, and that perhaps the County could do its own expanded Resolution,
covering the hate crimes alluded to by Commr. Hill, at a later date.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2006-53, Urging the Addition of
Homelessness to Existing Hate Crimes Statutes.
COMMISSIONERS
At
this time, Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Hill left the meeting, due to commitments
in Tallahassee.
REZONING
(CONT’D.)
REZONING CASE NO. PH24-06-3 – A TO
C-2 – JIM LYDEN & DON
NICHOLSON/CRAIG
KOSUTA & ASSOCIATES – TRACKING NO. 26-06-Z
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Growth Management Department, presented this
request. The request is to rezone a 10.5
+/- acre parcel of property located between the City of Leesburg and the
Turnpike Interchange, off US 27, at the intersection of US 27 and Bridges
Road. The site lies within the Suburban
future land use category, with a Neighborhood Activity Center designation
overlay. The owners want to rezone the
property to allow for commercial uses, to support the market conditions in the
area. The parcel is located along an
arterial and within ¾ mile of the Turnpike interchange. The Neighborhood Activity Center designation
allows up to 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area. The requested rezoning of C-2 (Community
Commercial) and the intensity are not compatible with the Neighborhood Activity
Center designation overlay and would be more appropriate in the Community
Activity Center designation overlay, however, the existing underlying Suburban
future land use would prohibit a change to a Community Activity Center
designation overlay. Staff is very
concerned that, with the Turnpike interchange, it could be a gateway to the
County and there is a lot of economic development potential along the corridor,
so they would like to see the area developed in an appropriately planned
way. Staff finds that the request is
inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development
Regulations (LDRs), therefore, recommends denial of the request. The Zoning Board recommended approval of the
request, by a 6-0 vote. Three maps
(County’s Composite Exhibit A) showing various zoning classifications, as well
as proposed future land uses, for the area in question, were presented to the
Board, for the record.
It
was noted that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) objects to this
request, due to a concern about traffic.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she feels a study needs to be done in the area in question.
Mr.
Craig Kosuta, Craig Kosuta & Associates, the applicant, representing the
owners of the property, addressed the Board stating that they feel staff’s main
objection to the request is the underlying land use designation for it,
however, noted that there is language in the current LDRs that takes into
consideration development around employment centers. He stated that his clients recognize that
fact and that is why they own property from the Turnpike up, noting that they
own a mile of frontage on both sides of Hwy. 27. He stated that they have a PUD on the other
side of Hwy. 27 as well, that the County is aware of, which was postponed,
pending a small area study. He stated
that it was postponed for 90 days, from 30 days ago, so there are 60 days left
on that postponement. He stated that the
property meets all the requirements for a Community Activity Center – location,
size, acreage, frontage, internalization and circulation, and the owners are
willing to work with staff to limit curb cuts on Hwy. 27 and internalize from
there. Commr. Stivender stated that she
did not have a problem with a C-2 zoning at the intersection of Hwy. 27 and
Bridges Road, but did have a problem with it further away.
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board and summarized
staff’s concerns, with regard to the requests before the Board this date, as
well as the requests that were postponed at the Zoning Board Meeting, stating
that the future land use map (FLUM) that was adopted in 1993 designated the
area in question as an employment center, because it is located at an
interchange between a major state roadway and the Florida Turnpike. She stated that, with regard to economic
development strategies and setting property aside adequately, to create
strategic economic development opportunities, staff sees an interchange with
the Florida Turnpike and a major state roadway as a limited resource, where
those opportunities can be created. She
stated that, ultimately, it is very possible that commercial uses are
appropriate, but their distance from the intersection is not driven by
commercial uses right at the interchange, so the request that staff is making
is for the Board to allow them to look at what is a major trend in change in
land uses in the area, away from the employment center that is designated on
the map, to requesting commercialization on both sides of Hwy. 27, for the
distance of a mile, with the potential for “big box” development and other
types of commercial uses. She stated
that there is a trend that is being driven by the market, but that needs to be
counter balanced by the County’s desire to reserve lands for other types of
economic development.
Commr.
Hanson interjected that it could be a mixed use, as well, at which time she
noted that she would like for the Board to see a master plan for the proposed
development, which they do not have.
Ms.
Stricklin stated that the purpose for requesting a delay is to answer two
fundamental questions, being: (1) what
is the appropriate land use, and (2) does the County want to use the land
around the interchange for commercial use.
She stated that, if that is so, then they would have to address the
questions that Mr. Kosuta is posing, which is what are those C-2 uses and how
would access be controlled. She noted
that the fundamental question is whether the Board wants to line a mile of Hwy.
27, north of the Turnpike interchange, with commercial uses, or whether it
wants to have a mixed-use scenario, that focuses on office and other types of
employment based uses.
Commr.
Stivender questioned why this had not already been done during the
Comprehensive Plan process and why the County was still accepting applications,
if staff felt that a study needed to be done.
She further questioned why she was not informed about this matter, prior
to this meeting, being that she is the district Commissioner.
Ms.
Stricklin stated that, what has brought this to a head is some of the input
staff received through the Comprehensive Plan process, noting that the County
has not yet developed a staff recommended FLUM, so the requests are premature,
in terms of the Comprehensive Plan recommendations.
Mr.
Kosuta further discussed the request, noting that his clients are looking at
having a quality mixed-use development, with a town center, some residential,
and some office/commercial, at which time the Board indicated that that is what
they were looking at having in that area, as well.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that residential is allowed in a commercial zoning district,
conditionally.
It
was noted that everybody appeared to be on the same page, but that what the
owners of the property were requesting could not be done with a C-2 zoning –
that it would have to be done through either a CP, or a PUD.
Mr.
Kosuta questioned whether his clients could construct an office building on the
10 acre subject parcel, noting that they have been trying to do so for
approximately three and a half years.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she would not have a problem with his clients doing that,
if they would go to a CP, which would allow the protection that everybody is
talking about and still allow his clients to build the office building that
they want to build, while the small area study is being conducted.
Mr.
Kosuta questioned whether the 10 acre parcel could be put back into the mix, if
his clients and staff cannot work something out when the 29 acre parcel is
readdressed in a PUD, noting that it would give them the option to start
constructing their office building.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that, if they were to request a CP zoning for the 10 acre parcel
before the Board this date and then wanted to change it later, they would have
to submit a new application for the 10 acres and start all over again, which
would delay the request and cost more money.
A
motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Pool to postpone
Rezoning Case No. PH24-06-3, Jim Lyden and Don Nicholson/Craig Kosuta &
Associates, Tracking No. 26-06-Z, a request to rezone a 10.5 acre parcel
located between the City of Leesburg and the Turnpike interchange from A
Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial), to allow for commercial uses, to
support the market conditions in that area, for 60 days, to allow the applicant
to work with staff, have a small area study conducted, and come back with the
best plan for the area in question.
Under
discussion, Mr. Kosuta suggested that, if the Board was going to approve a CP
zoning for the 10 acre parcel, it be postponed for 30 days, and, if his clients
and staff cannot come to terms, that it be thrown back into the mix next month
for another 30 days and have all three cases come before the Board at the same
time.
Commr.
Stivender amended her motion to postpone this request for 30 days, to allow the
applicant to meet with staff, to see if a CP zoning can be worked out for the
10.5 acre parcel.
Commr.
Pool seconded the amendment.
The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a
3-0 vote.
REZONING CASE NO. PH25-06-3 – A
TO C-2 – JIM LYDEN AND DON
NICHOLSON/CRAIG
J. KOSUTA – TRACKING NO. 27-06-Z
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that
staff would like to postpone this request, which relates to the previous
request, until the July 25, 2006 Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 3-0 vote, the Board postponed Rezoning Case No. PH25-06-3, Jim Lyden and
Don Nicholson/Craig Kosuta & Associates, Tracking No. 27-06-Z, a request to
rezone a 29.9 acre parcel located between the City of Leesburg and the Turnpike
interchange from A (Agriculture) to C-2 (Community Commercial), to allow for
commercial uses, to support the market conditions in the area in question,
until the Board Meeting scheduled for July 25, 2006.
OTHER
BUSINESS
REMOVAL OF MEMBER FROM MT.
PLYMOUTH-SORRENTO PLANNING
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by
a 3-0 vote, the Board approved a request for the removal of Sid Caruthers from
the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee, due to non-attendance at
meetings.
APPOINTMENT
TO PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 3-0 vote, the Board appointed Norbert Thomas to the vacant position of a
representative of "County and State Jobs Programs and other Community
Groups who work with Offenders and Victims" on the Public Safety
Coordinating Council
REPORTS
– COUNTY ATTORNEY
ADVERTISING OF ORDINANCE
DISSOLVING SOUTHLAKE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this was a request for approval to
advertise an ordinance that would rescind the Southlake Community Development
District, which was created in 1992. He
stated that, apparently, they were not aware that it existed, until it was
pointed out to them that it was time for elections, so it had never been
utilized. The District is being
dissolved, because it is inactive and dissolution is in the best interest of
the residents within its boundaries.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously,
by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for
approval to advertise an Ordinance dissolving the Southlake Community
Development District, repealing Ordinance No. 1992-5.
REPORTS
– COUNTY ATTORNEY
ADVERTISING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING
PURPOSES, DUTIES, AND
MEMBERSHIP
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this request pertained to the
changes to the Environmental Protection Advisory Board that the Board had
requested.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for
approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Sections 2-90.20 through 2-90.22 of
the Code, to streamline the purposes, update the duties, and adjust the
membership of the Environmental Protection Advisory Board.
ADDENDUM
NO. 1
REPORTS
– COUNTY ATTORNEY (CONT’D.)
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY
AND
DATA GRAPHICS, INC.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this was a request for approval of
a second amendment to a lease between the County and Data Graphics, Inc.,
giving the County some additional office space in Mt. Dora, which one of the
Constitutional Officers is utilizing.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously,
by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for
approval and execution of a Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between
Lake County and Data Graphics, Inc.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2
MEETING
REGARDING HANCOCK ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT
Commr.
Pool informed the Board that a meeting was held in Clermont on Monday, March
27, 2006, for the purpose of discussing the Hancock Road Extension Project,
south to Lake Louisa, as well as the Hartwood Marsh Corridor Project, which he
noted the residents in the area support.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4
TRIP
TO MADRID, SPAIN
Commr.
Hanson stated that she made a trip to Madrid, Spain recently, which she very
much enjoyed, noting that it is a very walkable city, with lots of parks,
museums, etc.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4
MT.
PLYMOUTH/SORRENTO STUDY
Commr.
Hanson updated the Board on the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento study that is currently being
conducted, noting that they will have a mini-charrette on April 29, 2006, led
by the County’s volunteer consultant from Canin & Associates. She stated that all the land owners within
the commercial district will be involved, to try to continue to work on the
Master Plan, which she feels, up to this point, has been very successful.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m.
____________________________________
CATHERINE
C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK