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