A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
APRIL
24, 2007
The
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION
AND PLEDGE
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
RECOGNITION
Commr.
Cadwell announced that Ms. Donna Robinson, President, Custom Contracting
Corporation, in
AGENDA
UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that she would like to delay
action regarding Tab 1, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, until after
Tab 4, due to the fact that approval of Tab 1 is contingent upon the approval
of Tab 4; and that she would like to place under her Reports the issue of the
contract and change in ownership of the construction manager for the downtown
campus project, which she and the County Attorney would address.
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that
staff was requesting direction regarding the status of the Building Services
Office, located in Clermont’s City Hall, which has been used to serve south
Lake County for the issuance of building permits and zoning approvals, as well as
businesses and residents of the area, through an interlocal agreement that the
County has with the City of Clermont. She
stated that, over the past year, there has been a substantial reduction in the
demand for service at that office, due to the fact that building activity has
slowed substantially, countywide, but, in particular, in the south Lake County
area. She stated that, in February, her
department reduced staffing at that location, based upon that reduced demand
for service, and, more recently, have made further adjustments and feel that the
south Lake County operation is no longer efficient or effective enough to provide
services in that location. She stated
that the County will realize a savings, in terms of rent and utilities, of approximately
$36,000 per year. She pointed out,
however, the fact that their request for the Board’s consideration was not
based solely upon those cost savings, but also upon the operational needs of
the Building Services Department. She
stated that they will continue to serve the City of
Considerable
discussion occurred regarding whether or not that office should remain open, at
which time it was noted that the number of permits applied for daily was
approximately 12 and the number of city permits issued is approximately 5 per
day.
Ms.
Stricklin stated that the request to close the Clermont Office is not due
primarily to the costs savings in rent that will be achieved by closing it, but
more to the layoffs that her department was forced to do recently in their
central office, located in the
Mr.
Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, addressed the Board regarding
some concerns he had about the closing of the Clermont office and asked that
the Board not make a decision regarding it this date, but to put together some
numbers regarding what it is going to cost the County to keep that office open,
as opposed to what the total costs are going to be once that office is closed,
and let those people in the south Lake County area that will be affected by the
closing of it look at those numbers and see if there is anything that can be
done to assist the County and get that office to a point where it would be
worth spending the money to continue to provide that service to the Clermont
area. He stated that there might be a
solution to the problem, but the City has not had enough time to look into the
matter, to see if there is.
A
motion was made by Commr. Renick and seconded by Commr. Stewart to close the
Clermont Building Services Office, as recommended by staff.
Under
discussion, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the County has an
interlocal agreement with the City of Clermont, which provides not only for
rental of the office, but also for the County to conduct permitting services for
them, so the County does not have the legal ability to just cut out a portion
of the agreement. He stated that, if the
City would like for the County to continue the permitting service for them, a
new interlocal agreement will have to be drawn up and brought back to the Board
within a 30 day period, taking the issue of the rent out of it, so that there
will not be a hiatus in service.
Ms.
Stricklin clarified the fact that it was staff’s intent to cease operations in
the Clermont Office, effective within the next week or so, pending
renegotiation of the interlocal agreement, noting that county staff is still
housed in that office and she would propose to bring them to the Administration
Building immediately.
Ms.
Jean Kaminski, Executive Director, Home Builders Association of Lake County, addressed
the Board and suggested a compromise, noting that a great deal of the County’s
population is located in the Clermont area and it is not only the builders who
use that office, but the residents, as well.
She stated that at least a couple of times in the past 24 years the
County has looked at closing that office and wondered whether a scaled down version
of it could be operated, where somebody could be there at least part of the
time during the day to accept things that could then be delivered to the main
office, in the Administration Building.
Ms.
Stricklin interjected that the County could look at that, but noted that having
a scaled down service would not really offer any benefit and people would still
have to drive to Tavares to obtain their permits.
The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a
4-0 vote.
PUBLIC
WORKS
NEW
MASTER PLAN FOR EXISTING
Mr.
Bobby Bonilla, Parks and Trails Director, Public Works, addressed the Board
stating that he was seeking approval to move forward with the new Master Plan
for
Commr.
Stewart stated that
On
a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by
a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of the new Master Plan for
Commr. Cadwell commended Mr. Bonilla
for a job well done, with regard to a recent ribbon cutting ceremony that was held
for the South Lake Trail.
PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
Ms. Regina Frazier, Budget Director,
addressed the Board stating that they had before them, for consideration,
adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, with the primary purpose of said
adjustments being to amend the audited fund balances. She stated that once the CAFR (Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report) was completed, staff drew up the estimated fund
balances to the actual fund balances contained in that audit. She stated that the total adjustments in the
amendment were $25,558,743, which brings the total
Commr. Renick discussed a concern
she had about a $550,000 transfer that was made from the Stormwater Fund to Parks
and Recreation, noting that the County has some serious stormwater issues that
need to be addressed, so she is not ready to approve that transfer.
Commr. Stewart concurred, noting
that stormwater is a huge issue in the County.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that it
was his understanding from staff that transferring those funds at this time would
not hold up any stormwater projects.
Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of
Engineering, Public Works, addressed the Board regarding the stormwater issue,
stating that the Stormwater Fund is in good shape at the present time and the
funds that will be given to Parks and Recreation will be a loan, to be paid
back at a later date.
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr. Stewart stated that she did
not have a problem with transferring the needed funds from the Stormwater Fund
to Parks and Recreation for the proposed parking lot, if the Board can be
assured that the Stormwater Fund will be repaid and that the County’s
stormwater projects are not going to be affected.
Commr. Hill stated that she did not
want to take any funds from the Stormwater Fund, noting that there are a lot of
stormwater projects scheduled for the County within the Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
Mr. Fred Cranmer, a resident of
Commr. Hill stated that, if staff
could assure her that the stormwater projects she alluded to are on schedule
and will stay on schedule, she would not have a problem with approving this
request.
Mr. Schneider assured her that those
projects would be able to stay on schedule.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he feels the
parking lot is a stormwater project, to some extent, because of the type of
parking lot that is going to be built.
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. Hill, seconded
by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Budget for approval of Resolution
No. 2007-67, adopting the Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, to include
mid-year budget adjustments, for a total amended budget of $512,765,335.
PUBLIC
HEARING
INTERIM
CENTRAL POTABLE WATER SYSTEM FOR LANDSOME RESERVE
Mr.
Brian Sheahan, Chief Planner, Growth Management, presented this request,
stating that the applicant was requesting a waiver from installing a private
interim central potable water system for a proposed subdivision consisting of
30 lots, on a parcel 20.51 acres in size, with a density of 1.46 dwelling units
per acre. He stated that three criteria
were developed, being: (1) whether a public/private regional system is
available; (2) the density of the proposed project is greater than two acres,
which is required for connection; and (3) that the Water Resources Department
has found that no adverse effects would result and it is consistent with water
resource regulations. He stated that,
based on a recent insurance analysis, the Building Services Department had some
concerns regarding fire protection services to the property; however, after
analyzing the request, they have recommended that all subsequent waivers be
required to put in a fire protection system and, in this case, it would consist
of installing a fire well system and two fire hydrants for the
subdivision. He displayed an aerial
showing the existing development pattern around the proposed site, which he
reviewed with the Board, stating that staff was recommending approval of the
request, with the following conditions:
(a) The lots within the Landsome Reserve
Subdivision shall connect to a regional potable water utility system when it
becomes available.
(b) At the time of transition from individual
wells to central water, proper abandonment of any individual wells shall be
completed.
(c)
An approved Fire Well System and fire hydrants shall be installed for the
subdivision, pursuant to the Land Development Regulations, until such time as a
regional potable water utility system is available.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the agenda item raised some interest in the community that
the preliminary plat showed a driveway that was at least one acre into the
property and some of the surrounding residents were concerned that it was going
to run down the property line, which is not the case. He stated that he wanted to assure everyone
that the plan that was before the Board this date was the same plan that was
presented previously.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating
that, when this request went before the County’s Technical Review Committee for
the preliminary plat, the placement of the entrance was based on some houses
across the street from the property in question, in that they wanted said
entrance to be located between the two houses and not be directly in front of
the house. He stated that the entrance
is located where the preliminary plat requires it to be. He noted that he agrees with staff’s
recommendation and that his client has provided all the information to staff
regarding the wells and fire system, to make sure that they could do what they
are agreeing to do.
It
was noted that this request came before staff as a platted subdivision and that
the applicant had already received approval for the zoning.
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. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by
a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval,
with conditions, of the request to waive the requirement to connect to a
regional potable water system and to provide individual wells, as an Interim
Central Potable Water System for Landsome Reserve, until such time as a regional
system is available, with the issue of fire protection being resolved.
PUBLIC HEARING
INTERIM
CENTRAL POTABLE WATER SYSTEM FOR
Mr. Brian
Sheahan, Chief Planner, Growth Management, presented this request, stating that
it was a request for a waiver to the Central Potable Water System requirement
for Windsor Green, Phase 2, a subdivision consisting of 12 lots – the second
phase of a 19 lot subdivision, with a density of .54 dwelling units per acre,
on a 22.36 acre site. He stated that
staff went through the same analysis as discussed with the previous case,
noting that there are no utilities available from the Town of Lady Lake. He stated that the density is less than two
acres, as required by the County’s policy, and comments from the Water
Resources Department remain the same – that there are no adverse impacts on
water resources. He stated that the
Building Services Department, as well as Fire Protection, commented that, due
to concerns based on recent insurance reports, a central fire well system
should be required. He stated that staff
was recommending approval, with the following conditions:
(a) The lots within the Windsor Green, Phase 2,
subdivision shall connect to a regional potable water utility system when it
becomes available.
(b) At the time of transition from individual
wells to central water, proper abandonment of any individual wells shall be
completed.
(c) An approved Fire Well System and fire hydrants
shall be installed for the subdivision, pursuant to the Land Development
Regulations, until such time as a regional potable water utility system is
available.
Mr. Steve
Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that
the platting has been done and the lots have been sold in the first part of this
project, noting that the applicant was able to buy some additional land after
the first part of the subdivision was developed. He stated that a waiver was provided by staff
for central water to those larger lots, for the first part of the property, because
it was not required under the County’s fire code. He displayed the County’s fire protection
standards regarding Exemption to Water Supply Requirements, which he reviewed
with the Board, at which time he noted that the first phase was not required to
have central water, or fire wells; therefore, the applicant was asking that the
County not require them to have fire wells for this phase, even though they are
willing to agree that, if central water becomes available, they will
retroactively connect to it. He stated
that, to put in 12 fire wells would require a Consumptive Use Permit for the
amount of flows that would be required for them and the applicant does not have
the ability to do that. He stated that
the County’s Code exempts the lots and asked that the Board do so, noting that
the subdivision is in a rural area and is not served by central services, nor
will it be served by them, which allows the development of large lots in the
subdivision. He asked that the Board
grant the waiver on the 12 lots and provide the provision that states when
central services become available, the applicant will hook up to them.
Commr. Stewart
questioned how many lots in the first phase of the subdivision have been sold
and was informed that it was all but two and that contracts are pending on them.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was
present in opposition to the request.
There being
no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
A motion
was made by Commr. Hill and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to approve a request from Growth Management to waive the
requirement to connect to a regional potable water system and to provide
individual wells, as an Interim Central Potable Water System for Windsor Green,
Phase 2, until such time as a regional system is available.
The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed, by a 2-2 vote.
A motion
was then made by Commr. Hill and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to approve the
request, with staff’s recommendations and the issue of fire protection being
resolved.
The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a
4-0 vote.
PUBLIC
HEARING
VACATION
PETITION NO. 1094 – KEITH SHAMROCK –
Mr. Fred
Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, addressed the Board stating
that there were some outstanding issues involving this request; therefore,
staff would like to recommend a postponement of the request until a later date.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was
present in opposition to the request for postponement of this case.
There being
no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
On a motion
by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0
vote, the Board postponed action regarding Vacation Petition No. 1094, Keith Shamrock, to vacate a
portion of a drainage easement in the Plat of Biscayne Bluff, Grand Island area
– Commission District 4, until a later date, to allow some outstanding issues
with the development to be resolved.
PUBLIC HEARING
VACATION
PETITION NO. 1104 – GILBERT L. L’HOMMEDIEU – CLERMONT
Mr. Fred
Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, presented this request,
stating that it was a request to vacate a portion of an unnamed right of way,
in the Plat of Minnehaha Terrace, located in Section 31, Township 22 South,
Range 26 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2. He stated that a letter in favor of the
request and a letter in objection to it were on file and that the recommendation
from Public Works and Growth Management were to vacate the right of way, in
that there was not a significant public interest involved with it. He displayed an aerial of the site in
question, noting that it is currently under an easement that was originally set
aside as a joint driveway between the property in question and the adjoining
property; however, since that time, the two properties have developed
differently, with the property in question having a separate driveway to the
north, which he pointed out on the aerial.
He stated that Lakeshore Drive, which the property fronts, is a
collector roadway that carries a significant amount of traffic, but a lot of
that traffic will move to the South Clermont Connector, upon its completion, at
which time Lakeshore Drive will become the scenic roadway that it is identified
as in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, so staff is not concerned about the issue
of the joint driveway and would recommend approval of the request to vacate.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. William
Asma, Attorney, representing the applicant, Mr. Gilbert L’Hommedieu, addressed
the Board and distributed a packet of information pertaining to the request,
containing various documents, photographs, charts, aerials, etc., which he reviewed
with the Board, noting that the original roadway was to serve a subdivision
that was never developed. He stated that,
subsequent to the filing of that plat, there were two applications to vacate
portions of the roadway and what is remaining is a nub that the adjoining
neighbors, the Pennachios, filed a petition to have vacated, but, at the time,
the County denied the request, because it was concerned about access to
Mr. Asma
discussed the fact that his client wishes to square off the boundary of his
property and continue installing four foot columns along the south boundary
line, as well as two across the front, in order to provide an aesthetic look
that he is trying to achieve. He stated
that the Pennachios have objected to the columns for two reasons, being: (1) a
safety issue, in that they claim their visibility is restricted by the columns,
at which time he referred to photographs contained in the packet showing the
placement of said columns; and (2) the width of the driveway and their
turnaround radius. He stated that their
driveway is currently 12 feet in width and, if the vacation is approved, they
would have an additional 18 feet, for a total of 30 feet – more than adequate
room to ingress and egress their property.
He stated that their concerns are not meritorious; therefore, the
vacation should be approved.
Mr. Bob
Williams, Attorney, representing Dr. Michael and Marian Pennachio, addressed
the Board and asked that they deny the vacation petition. He stated that the Pennachios came to the
County with plans to build their residence in 2001 and, at that time, indicated
a couple of things they wanted to do. He
stated that the Board, by Resolution, approved a lot line deviation creating a
newly configured Lot 9 and the Pennachio’s residence includes Lot 10, as well
as a remnant of
Mr.
Williams discussed the safety issue involved, noting that the Pennachios have
experienced several serious accidents, two of them fatal, right in front of
their house. He stated that the South Clermont
Connector may reduce the intensity on that road, but it will not reduce the speed,
which has been the cause of the accidents that he alluded to. He displayed two photographs, which were
submitted, for the record, one of which was taken from the Pennachio’s driveway
looking north, showing what they feel is a safety hazard - a wrought iron fence
and gate, with stucco columns, that is being constructed across the front of Mr.
L’Hommedieu’s property, which obstructs their view of oncoming traffic on
Lakeshore Drive, and the other photograph showing where Mr. L’Hommedieu’s driveway
was intended to be located. He stated
that the only real issue for Mr. L’Hommedieu’s property is that of aesthetics. He stated that, in 2001, the County required
the Pennachios to leave the right of way open for a joint driveway and they
want Mr. L’Hommedieu to be required to play by those rules, as well. He asked the Board to deny the request before
them.
Mr. Asma
readdressed the Board stating that he did not feel the photographs presented by
Mr. Williams accurately depict where his client’s fence and columns are being
constructed and that the issue of safety is not relevant, with regard to
whether or not the right of way should be vacated, at which time he referred to
a photograph (Item F), contained in the packet of information that he distributed
to the Board, that was taken from the Pennachio’s driveway looking north on
Lakeshore Drive, noting that said photograph shows there is clear visibility of
the roadway from their driveway. He
stated that nothing is going to change, except for the fact that his client
will be constructing two additional columns along the front of his property,
which will be set back behind an existing telephone pole, providing a more than
adequate view of the roadway from both directions.
There being
no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Commr.
Renick stated that she visited the site and does not feel it is a safety issue,
but one of fairness, noting that the Pennachios did what the County asked them
to do and constructed their driveway not necessarily where they wanted it to be
located, but where the County suggested it be located, and feel that Mr. L’Hommedieu
should be required to do the same.
A motion
was made by Commr. Renick and seconded by Commr. Stewart to deny Vacation Petition No. 1104, Gilbert
L. L’Hommedieu, to vacate a portion
of an unnamed right of way in the Plat of Minnehaha Terrace, in the Clermont
area – Commission District 2.
Under discussion, Commr. Stewart concurred,
stating that she, too, feels it is a matter of fairness. She stated that the Pennachios acted in good
faith and did exactly what the County asked them to do and positioned their
house in a particular place on their property and made plans for a lot behind
their property to be sold at a later date and she feels they should not be
penalized now, because the County made a mistake and granted their neighbor,
Mr. L’Hommedieu, the right to construct a driveway where it should not have
been constructed.
The Chairman called for a vote on the
motion for denial of this request, which was carried unanimously, by a 4-0
vote.
VACATION PETITION NO. 1111 – HOMER
ALLEN AND TED DEWITT,
REPRESENTATIVE BRET JONES, P.A. –
CLERMONT
Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of
Engineering, Public Works, explained this request, stating that it was a
request to vacate a portion of platted roads and tracts in the Plat of Highland
Lakes, located in Section 29, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Clermont
area. He displayed an aerial, contained
in the Board’s backup material, which he reviewed with the Board, pointing out
the property involved. The purpose of
the vacation petition is to vacate and cease maintenance on a portion of
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was
present in opposition to the request.
It was
noted that the applicant’s representative was present in the audience.
There being
no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
On a motion
by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0
vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2007-68 - Vacation Petition No. 1111, Homer
Allen and Ted Dewitt, Representative Bret Jones, P.A., to vacate a portion of
platted roads and tracts in the Plat of Highland Lakes, in the Clermont area –
Commission District 4.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., the Chairman announced
that the Board would recess until 10:45 a.m.
Procurement
Ms. Cindy Hall,
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board
approved a request from Procurement for approval to award Bid No. 07-0062 and
execute the contract, to provide and install a drivable grass and concrete
driveway at the Ferndale Preserve, to Al Bosgraaf & Sons, Inc., in the
amount of $335,000.00, which was contingent upon the mid-year budget adjustment
being approved by the Board, with the understanding that Parks and Recreation
will pay back monies to be used for stormwater.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
It was noted that this meeting had
been properly advertised and that there were five items on the Rezoning Agenda,
but that two of them were requests for continuance.
REZONING CASE NO. PH17-07-5 – A TO
CFD - WESLEY D. SCOVANNER, ET
AL,/GREG BELIVEAU, LPG URBAN AND
REGIONAL PLANNERS – TRACKING
NO. 24-07-CFD
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director,
Growth Management, informed the Board that staff was requesting a 30 day
continuance of this case.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had received
a request from the applicant’s representative requesting a 30 day continuance
of this case, to allow the applicant time to meet with the surrounding
neighbors regarding an issue involving the commercial aspect of the project,
noting that the square footage that was presented was not correct and the
applicant needs an opportunity to correct it.
He stated that he discussed the matter with the applicant’s
representative and would be in favor of a 30 day continuance, but with the
understanding that the applicant would need to meet with the surrounding neighbors
and, if the matter is not settled in 30 days, this case would automatically go
back before the Zoning Board on June 6, 2007.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and
Regional Planners, representing the applicant, Mr. Wesley D. Scovanner, on
behalf of The Rafiki Foundation, Inc., addressed the Board stating that this
case had originally been requested to be postponed for 60 days, but that the
applicant would be going back to the original site plan and requirements that
were approved by the Zoning Board and not be going with the amended request;
therefore, they only needed a 30 day continuance. He stated that they would be going with the
request that was presented to the Zoning Board, with one correction, being that
of the square footage of the CFD (Community Facilities District) and that the
plan itself is exactly the same. He
noted that the applicant is required to meet with not only the surrounding
neighbors, but with Mr. Keith Schue, who was present at the Zoning Board
Meeting, and with Public Works, to discuss the entrance road.
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
No one was present in opposition to
the request for postponement.
There being no one present who wished
to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded
by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone
Rezoning Case No. PH17-07-5, Wesley D. Scovanner, et al/Greg Beliveau, LPG
Urban and Regional Planners, Tracking No. 24-07-CFD, A (Agriculture) to CFD
(Community Facility District), to allow for the construction of a seminary used
in conjunction with a training facility, for 30 days, until the Board Meeting
of May 22, 2007, with the original 60 day postponement, until the Board Meeting
of June 26, 2007, to remain in place as an option, should an agreement not be
reached between all parties involved before then.
REZONING CASE NO. PH10-07-3 – R-1 TO
CFD - ELY FRANK
SYMPHORIEN/CHURCH IGLESIA REFUGIO DE
AMOR – TRACKING
NO. 16-07-CFD
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director,
Growth Management, informed the Board that staff was requesting a 30 day
continuance of this case.
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
No one was present in opposition to
the request for postponement.
There being no one present who wished
to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board
approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. PH10-07-3, Ely Frank Symphorien/Church
Iglesia Refugio de Amor, Tracking No. 16-07-CFD, R-1 (Rural Residential) to CFD
(Community Facility District), to build a church, for 30 days, until the Board
Meeting of May 22, 2007.
REZONING CASE NO. PH9-07-4 – AMEND
PUD ORDINANCE NO. 2005-79 -
JACK CASSELL/BIG CANOE OF SWATARA/LESLIE
CAMPIONE, ATTORNEY –
TRACKING NO. 13-07-PUD/AMD
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director,
Growth Management, presented this request, a request to amend PUD (Planned Unit
Development) Ordinance No. 2005-79 from A (Agriculture) and PUD to PUD, to allow
for a low density, single family subdivision, with a multi-family/commercial
component. The proposed PUD would
consist of 40.78 acres and allow 20 single family units, 15 multi-family units,
and 36,000 square feet of commercial space.
The existing home site and accessory structures may remain, along with
portions of an orange grove, forested area, and wetlands near the lake, shown
in Exhibit B of the Ordinance. The site
is located on the corner of CR 44 and 44A in the Eustis area, in the Urban
Expansion Future Land Use Category (FLUC).
If approved, the request would reduce the overall residential density
from 0.98 dwelling units per acre to 0.86 units per acre. The proposed zoning is consistent with the
Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan. The City of
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, one of
the applicants, along with her husband Jack Cassell, addressed the Board and
referred to a letter that was sent to the County by the City of Eustis,
indicating some concerns they had about this request, being that she had indicated
to them that she and her clients would commit to no more than 40 units, a
density of one unit per acre, that the dimensions would be no less than 8,700
square feet on the clustered units, and that the goal would be approximately
one-half acre for the larger units. The
letter further stated that the City of
Commr. Stewart stated that she likes
this project and feels that it is good for the area, that the project blends in
with the surrounding land uses, and that it is a good spot for commercial.
However, she is glad that Ms. Campione is waiting to let the City of Eustis
decide that, noting that her one concern about this project is that she wanted
to cooperate with the City and go with what they wanted for that area.
Mr. Gary Cooney, Attorney, representing
Mr. John Kingman Keating, Trustee, the owner of a portion of the property,
addressed the Board, stating that the City is supportive of the project as it
stands, but there is a lot line issue with regard to CR 44 as it cuts to the
south, and there is a dispute over whether it can do that. He stated that the City just wanted to make
the Board aware of that issue.
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director,
Growth Management, readdressed the Board and presented a revised version of the
Ordinance, noting that it removes the commercial aspect from the development
and adds four additional units to what was previously reviewed and approved by
county staff and the Zoning Board. He noted
that the Board would see in handwritten form changes that were made to the
Ordinance after having received the letter from the City of Eustis, being that there
shall be a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet for detached single family
dwelling units, and the number of potential detached single family lots has
increased from 20 to 40. He stated that
the Ordinance and the concept plan are not yet quite in sync, with regard to
the issue of commercial, and the Ordinance will be more effective than the
concept plan. He stated that staff would
request that the applicant bring the concept plan into conformance with the language
of the Ordinance, following the Board’s direction, in terms of how they wish to
proceed with the motion.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved
the revised version of Ordinance No. 2007-18, Jack Cassell/Big Canoe of Swatara/Leslie
Campione, Attorney, Rezoning Case No. PH9-07-4, Tracking No. 13-07-PUD/AMD,
amending PUD Ordinance No. 2005-79, to add 5.93 acres +/-, rezone said acreage
from A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), and add multi-family
and commercial uses, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. PH42-05-3 – CORRECT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
RECORDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 2005-48 –
M. L. AND JONNETTE SPIKES –
TRACKING NO. 54-06-CP
Mr. Alfredo Massa, Senior Planner,
Growth Management, presented this request, stating that it was a continuation
of Rezoning Case No. 42-05-3, where the Board requested that staff review
Ordinance No. 2005-48, regarding buffering requirements for the property in
question. When staff originally brought
this request before the Board, it was to correct the legal description recorded
in Ordinance No. 2005-48, which rezoned only a portion of the site from A
(Agriculture) to (CP) Planned Commercial.
It was noted that the section shown in yellow on the map contained in
the Board’s backup material had not been included in the legal
description. Attached to the Agenda item
was a sketch of the landscape buffering requirements, according to the County’s
Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which shows that, for this type of zoning,
being C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses, surrounded by R-3 (Agriculture –
Medium Residential District), it calls for a Class C type buffering, as shown
on the sketch, which currently requires a 20 foot wide buffer, consisting of
six canopy trees, five ornamental trees, and a double row of shrubs, per 100
lineal feet, and is used to shield residential uses from commercial. A Type D buffering, which is used to shield
industrial uses from residential areas, was provided to the Board, for their
perusal, as well, which requires a six foot high wall running along the
perimeter and calls for ten canopy trees, eight ornamental trees, and a double
row of shrubs per 100 lineal feet. The subject parcel consists of 2.66 acres and
is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of CR 48 and
Ms. Sandra Walsh, a resident of
Yalaha and the owner of a parcel of property adjacent to the applicant’s
property, addressed the Board stating that she was speaking on behalf of her
brother-in-law as well, who owns property adjacent to hers, but is out of state
and unable to attend this meeting. She
stated that they would like to have a larger buffering between the applicant’s
property and their properties, in order to shield them from debris coming off
of the applicant’s commercial property.
Mr. James Lubeke, a resident of
Yalaha and surrounding property owner, addressed the Board stating that he was
against the property in question becoming commercial and that he would like to
see a Type D buffer installed between his property and the applicant’s, as
opposed to a Type C buffer, to better shield his home from the commercial
aspects of the property.
Mr. M. L. Spikes, the applicant,
addressed the Board regarding concerns that were raised by Ms. Walsh and Mr.
Lubeke, stating that Mr. Lubeke built his home on a heavily wooded parcel of
property after the property in question was rezoned to commercial, so he knew
it was going to be commercial, and he removed a tremendous amount of trees from
his property, which could have been used as a buffer between the two
properties. He stated that, with regard
to Ms. Walsh’s concerns, noted that she only has a 30 foot wide driveway on the
west side of his property that would be affected, so he did not know why a
large buffer would be required to shield a driveway. He noted that he has been dealing with this
parcel of property for over two years and would like to proceed with his plans.
Commr. Cadwell stated that once this
case was reopened, staff revisited the site and recommended that the County
stay with the current buffer requirements.
There being no further individuals
who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2007-19, M. L.
and Jonnette Spikes, Rezoning Case No. PH42-05-3, Tracking No. 54-06-CP, to correct
a legal description recorded in Ordinance No. 2005-48, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. PH12-07-2 – A TO
CFD – HEART HOUSE MINISTRIES
E. W.
Mr. Alfredo Massa, Growth Management,
presented this case, a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community
Facility District) a parcel of property approximately 4.48 acres in size, located
north of Clermont, at the intersection of Johns Lake Road and Hancock Road and lying
within the Rural Future Land Use Category (FLUC), which allows a base density
of one dwelling unit per five acres. The
applicant is seeking to rezone the property, to allow for the construction of a
community church. At this time, churches
are not a permitted use in the Agricultural zoning district, but they are a
permitted use in the Community Facility District. He stated that the Board instructed staff to
receive input from the City of
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
It was noted that the applicant, or
the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to
the request.
There being no one present who wished
to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board
approved Ordinance No. 2007-20, Heart House Ministries, E. W. Griffin, Rezoning
Case No. PH12-07-2, Tracking No. 18-07-CFD, to rezone property from A (Agriculture)
to CFD (Community Facility District), to build a church, with the following
conditions, as requested by the City of Clermont: (1) a Certificate of Occupancy not be issued
until completion of Lake County improvements to Johns Lake Road and Hancock Road;
and (2) ingress and egress be limited to Johns Lake Road.
REPORTS –
LETTER OF RENEWAL BETWEEN
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board
approved a request from the County Attorney for approval of a Letter of Renewal
between Lake County and C & P Partnership, regarding lease space in
Clermont for the Cooper Memorial Library, increasing the monthly rent from
$4,500 to $4,725, with the renewal term to commence June 1, 2007 and terminate
May 31, 2008.
REPORTS –
CONTRACT
BETWEEN CENTEX AND
Ms. Cindy
Hall, County Manager, stated that the Board had asked staff to work with
Centex, to see what items could be resolved, and to discuss a situation that
developed, which was that the parent company of the architects, Heery HLM,
purchased Centex, removing the checks and balances that the County originally
had and independence of contractors and consultants, with regard to the
downtown Tavares project. She stated
that she; the
Mr. Minkoff
informed the Board that Mr. Ryan had emailed a letter to them on April 23
regarding the matter. He stated that the
County’s outside counsel has indicated that it would be possible to do what
Centex has suggested, if the Board wanted to go in that direction and do some
additional research to make certain that the County was not violating either
the design/build, or a new project. He
stated that, when staff looked at the contract, their unanimous recommendation
was the recommendation contained in the memorandum before them. He noted that he tried to be pretty detailed
in the memorandum.
Mr. Mike Ryan, Vice President of
Balford Beatty, addressed the Board stating that his firm entered into a
contract with the County approximately a year ago and had not learned of the
new position until seven days ago. He
stated that he had mailed the County a letter requesting a little more time,
since everything has happened so quickly.
He stated that the project in question can be done with two separate
contracts, noting that their outside counsel has advised them of that
fact. He stated that it is the largest
contract that
Commr. Cadwell stated that he wanted
to do everything he could to try to make it work, but that the County has to be
as transparent as it can be.
Mr. Minkoff stated that he was
somewhat comfortable with the fact that the County can rewrite the contracts in
a new form and make them work, but there are some legal issues that have to be
looked at, particularly in terms of the design build issue, but, in doing that,
the County would dramatically change the way the contracts look and the County
would end up with a system that is different than what it started with. He stated that if the Board wants to try to
revise the contracts, he feels the prudent thing for the County to do would be
to spend the next month or six weeks trying to revise them. He stated that he feels there is going to be
a dramatic change in the relationship between the architects, the contractor,
and the County when they do that.
Mr. Bannon was questioned about the
time period and addressed the Board, stating that he did not feel four to six
weeks to redo the contract would be a problem and that he felt it might be
doable in regard to the project construction.
Commr. Hill stated that she felt
going with the original legal opinion was the best and cleanest way to go,
which is to put it out to bid, with costs involved.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:45 a.m., the Chairman
announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.
CONTRACT
BETWEEN CENTEX AND
Mr. Johnny
Smith, President, Lake Mechanical Contractors, addressed the Board stating that
he feels this matter involves an issue of fairness. He stated that subcontractors like to work
for these people, because over the years, they have seen that they make a
schedule, stick to it, and complete the project, which is very important. He noted that they are not easy on
subcontractors, in that they are very demanding and make sure that they do good
work, etc., but the most important issue is that they solve problems and they
are willing to do everything they can to solve the problem being discussed this
date. He stated that his industry has
found that when an architect and a contractor work together as a team, there
are not any problems. He stated that, if
the County changes horses now, it is going to cost the taxpayers of
Mr. Minkoff
stated that the County would never have recommended this project under a
design/build system. He stated that they
chose the construction manager system, because they feel it is the best way to
build this project. He stated that a
design/build project has some serious negatives that the County would not have
wanted to utilize.
Mr. Ryan
stated that if the Board will give his firm two more weeks, they are planning
to disclose laws to protect the County and its concerns, but they have not had
enough time to do that in such a short period of time. He reminded them to not forget about the four
guarantees that they are giving the County, noting that the County will never,
ever get that, if they go back out on the street. He stated that the County will be very
protected by the deal that his firm is offering the County, which any outside
counsel would tell them. He stated that
even the County’s own third party counsel would tell them that that is a deal
that is unheard of in this industry, but they are willing to take that risk,
because they know the architect, have done project after project with them, and
they are a seamless team He stated that
their intent is to clarify each one of the County’s points and show them how it
is protected.
Mr. Minkoff
stated that the issue that is being raised is one that was raised by Mr.
Schwartzman during staff’s discussions and is one that outside counsel also
raised – that what is proposed is significantly different than what was bid and
the proposal would be not give other companies an opportunity to bid on this
proposal. He stated that Procurement’s
recommendation is always that when the specifications are dramatically changed,
the job should be re-bid, to give everybody a chance to bid on the new
specifications. He noted that there are
some things in the proposal that could have some significant advantages for the
County.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was
less confident that something can be worked out than he was a week ago, but
that he did not mind giving Mr. Ryan two weeks, if he thinks there is a law
that protects the County, without the County having to redo the contract and
start from day one. He stated that the
contract cannot be anything other than pure, where everybody can see it. He stated that he did not want staff spending
a lot of time on contracts, but that if Mr. Ryan has case law and new things
that have not been presented to the County yet, then he would be for granting
them two weeks, but if it is not something new and he just wants to argue the
old argument, he does not want to waste their time or staff’s time.
Mr. Ryan stated that he does not
want to waste anybody’s time, he just wants a little more time to present
clarification to all of the County’s positions and concerns.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that Mr.
Ryan would not be contacting the Commissioners, but since this issue involves a
legal question, he will just be talking to the County’s legal staff.
A motion was made by Commr. Stewart
that the County give Mr. Ryan two more weeks to do their part and get the
request on the Board’s agenda three weeks from this date.
Commr. Hill questioned whether there
was anything that would cause the County to get behind in its schedule for the
next three weeks.
Mr. Mike Wass, Heery HLM Design,
addressed the Board in response to Commr. Hill’s question, stating that the
biggest issue at the moment for the architect is that they cannot start
construction for six to eight months, which is the timeline for dealing with
the City of
Commr. Renick seconded the motion.
Mr. Minkoff stated that he has not
authorized outside counsel to research the legality of the issues and
questioned whether the Board would like for him to do that.
It was the consensus of the Board
that he do so.
The Chairman called for a vote on
the motion, which was carried, by a 3-1 vote.
Commr. Hill voted “No”.
Postponement of termination of Construction Manager Contract
with Centex Construction, LLC for three weeks, to allow Centex to address
concerns that the County has regarding some recent changes involving the
contract and the downtown Tavares projects.
Representatives of Centex will address said concerns at the Board
Meeting scheduled for May 15, 2007.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL
LSMPO AND MYREGION.ORG
Commr. Hill informed the Board that she attended a Central
Florida MPO Meeting on April 20th and that there was a lot of
discussion on the MyRegion.org document and the framework policy, scheduled for
discussion at a Joint Meeting to be held with all the elected officials in the
County on April 27, 2007. She stated
that there was discussion regarding what the Central Florida MPO’s role will be
within that framework and how that will transpire.
It
was noted that said meeting has been rescheduled for May 16, 2007.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HILL
Commr.
Hill stated that she attended a Central Florida Manufacturers Association
dinner on April 23, 2007, with Ms. Dottie Keedy, Economic Growth and
Redevelopment Director, which was very informative and that they made a lot of
contacts for future economic development within the County.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HILL – DISTRICT 1
VICTIMS
RIGHTS WEEK PROCLAMATION
Commr.
Hill stated that a Proclamation for Victims Rights Week is usually presented by
the Board in April of each year, but that said presentation has been postponed
until a Board Meeting in May.
MARCH
OF DIMES WALKAMERICA EVENT
Commr. Hill reminded the Board about the
March of Dimes Walk
EARTH
DAY CELEBRATION
Commr.
Hill informed the Board that she attended the Earth Day celebration that was
held recently and planted two plants in honor of the occasion.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2
Commr.
Renick distributed to the Board pamphlets that she was given from the FAITH
(Feed and Instruct the Hungry) Neighborhood Center, which is located in
Groveland, noting that said group had given her the pamphlets, hoping to get
awareness about their Neighborhood Center out to the general public.
Commr.
Renick stated that the Friends of Ferndale have been speaking to the Local
Planning Agency (LPA) about language in the County’s Comprehensive Plan,
following the example that Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento did with the Small Area Plan. She stated that they were going forward with
it and proposing language, but noted that they wanted direction from the Board
that it was alright for them to do that, without having to come to the Board
first.
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, stated that the County does not
have, other than the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Small Area Plan, a model by which to
identify areas that would be subject to special plans. She stated that one of the things that staff
is looking for Board direction on is a process by which they identify the
boundaries of what will be the Ferndale Preservation Area, noting that they do
not necessarily want to follow all of the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory
Committee process in terms of setting up a separate advisory committee at this
time, but that they need some sort of process of community meeting notification
to figure out what that planning area is. She stated that in order for the LPA to
consider those boundaries within the Comprehensive Plan, it would be helpful if
they knew how to establish what that planning area is.
Commr.
Renick interjected that she thought it was established months and months ago.
Ms.
Stricklin stated that the LPA has heard from the property owners and the
Friends of Ferndale extensively, but as an advisory board, their
recommendations to the Board as to those boundaries have not been acted upon by
the Board. She stated that staff is
looking for Board direction as to a process of how they can identify what those
boundaries are, so that as the LPA proceeds to finalize its recommendations, they
could bring those things to the Board. She
stated that it is a matter of timing, noting that it would be helpful for staff
to know that whether there was some Board ratification of that planning area,
because staff does not currently have scheduled before the Board a future land
use element that would contain that planning area boundary for the Board’s
consideration and do not know what that schedule is. She stated that staff wants to move forward
and wants to work with the Friends of Ferndale, but they need a process by
which the Board identifies what those boundaries are. She stated that it would be helpful for them
to know that now, or they can wait until the LPA’s recommendations get to the
Board in due course. She stated that
staff would like to get direction from the Board that it is alright for them to
do that and would look at holding a community meeting and bring those
recommendations back to the Board.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he would be fine with letting staff do that and move
forward with this issue.
Mr.
Fred Cranmer, Friends of Ferndale, addressed the Board stating that the LPA has
agreed on the boundaries for the proposed Future Land Use Map, as well as some
density issues. He stated that they
agreed for the Friends of Ferndale to prepare language for the Special Area
Plan to bring back to them for their review.
He stated that, along with that, there would be a legally noticed public
hearing. He stated that they have 95
percent of the language prepared and want to get it in with the proposed
Comprehensive Plan, but were told by Growth Management that they had not
received any direction from the Board to do so.
He stated that they were ready to move forward and only needed direction
from the Board to do so, before bringing them a recommendation for
approval. He stated that they were
getting some mixed messages and just need to know which way to go.
Commr.
Renick suggested that Growth Management prepare a memo stating how the matter
was going to be addressed, which could be shared with the LPA.
Mr.
Cranmer asked whether staff could provide the Friends of Ferndale with a map or
two, as well as some data, noting that they would prefer that any information they
give back to the County to have come from the County, so that it could be
justified.
Ms.
Stricklin stated that staff would be happy to provide that assistance.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER
– DISTRICT 3
NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
PROCLAMATION
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded
by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2007-69, designating
May 12-20, 2007, as the 24th Annual Celebration of National Tourism
Week in Lake County.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER STEWART – DISTRICT 4
Ms. Cindy Hall,
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL –
CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
RESOLUTION OF PROBLEM INVOLVING
INTERSECTION OF
AND CR44A
Commr. Cadwell stated that earlier in
the week, he and Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr.,
met with the owner of the property located at the northeast corner of
Estes Road and CR 44A, regarding a problem involving said property, and that he
feels they have made some headway, in that the individual is willing to work
with the County regarding the property.
He stated that the individual has something he wants to do with the
property, but at the present time, the County is moving forward and trying to
obtain what it needs to correct that intersection. He stated that the County has some short-term
goals with regard to the site line, which the property owner is going to help
the County with as well.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
____________________________________
WELTON
G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK