A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
JULY
24, 2007
The
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION
AND PLEDGE
Mr.
Ken Harley, Public Transportation Manager, gave the Invocation and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA
UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall,
Commr.
Cadwell commented that, under his business, he had gotten the report back from
the Library Board. He stated that he did
not know if they needed to take any action, and they would just wait to decide
if they needed to place it on the Agenda as an action item.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Growth Management
Request
for approval to transfer the
Geographic Information Systems Division to the Office of Information Technology
effective August 1, 2007.
Public Works
Request for approval, acceptance, and execution of the agreement between Herb Grothe and
Request
for approval to record a satisfaction of assessment lien to correct owner’s
name – Commission District 4.
Request for authorization to
release a letter of credit for performance for construction of improvements in
the total amount of $86,226.25 that was posted for Savannah Ridge. Savannah
Ridge consists of 24 lots and is located in Section 12, Township 23 South,
Range 26 East, Commission District 2.
Request
for authorization to release a performance bond for construction of
improvements in the total amount of $286,836.76 that was posted for Sorrento
Springs Phase IV. Sorrento Springs Phase IV consists of 277 lots and is located
in Section 13, Township 19 South, Range 27 East, Commission District 4.
Commr.
Renick pulled Tab 9.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Request
for approval of Lease Agreement with OFB Commercial Properties for office space
for Guardian Ad Litem – Commission District 3.
Commr.
Renick stated that she did not have a problem with the ordinance on Tab 9, but
she thought that it would be a good time to bring up the issue of moving Code
Enforcement to the Sheriff’s Office instead of under Growth Management. She commented that if the Board was
interested in doing that, they could ask Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr.
Cadwell commented that when they looked at it before, they just took a cursory
look and decided not to do it at that time.
He stated that was something they could have staff look at if the rest
of the Board was interested.
On a
motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 9, as follows:
Request
for approval to advertise ordinance amending sections of the Lake County Code
for clarification regarding citation issuance by Code Enforcement officers for
Code violations.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 8, as follows:
Request
for approval of selection of School Board members Mr. Jimmy Connor and Mr.
Scott Strong and Board members Commr. Stewart, Commr. Hill, and Commr.
Stivender to sit on the Value Adjustment Board.
School Board member Ms. Kyleen Fischer was selected as an alternate.
BUDGET
SETTING
OF MILLAGE RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET
Ms. Regina
Frazier, Budget Director, stated this item was to set the millage rates to be
included on the TRIM notifications that would go out to the property owners in
the County. She specified that the rate
was set at 4.7548 for the general fund, which was a 17.3 percent reduction over
the current rate that was in accordance with the State guidelines of reducing
to rollback less an additional 9 percent.
She went on to specify that the Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU rate
was proposed at .4984, a 16.9 percent decrease over the current rate; the
Ambulance MSTU was proposed to be set at .4651, which was a 12 percent
reduction; and the Voter Approved Debt for Environmentally Sensitive Lands was
proposed to remain at the same at .2 of the .33 approved by the voters.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by
Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab
10, the request from Budget to set the millage rates as stated by staff for the
Fiscal Year 2008 budget and approve the public hearing dates and times for
September 4, 2007 at 5:05 p.m. and September 18, 2007, at 5:05 p.m. and to
advertise these public hearings.
FIRE
RESCUE ASSESSMENT FEES
Ms.
Frazier stated that this was the resolution to set the initial Fire Rescue
Assessment, and that the proposed rate for that was $197 for residential, which
was a 15 percent increase, and that all other rates would be increased by the
same percentage. She explained that the
rate they were proposing was the rate from the study that was done in 2003.
Commr.
Stivender noted that this was the program that they were already part of for
Public Safety, so they needed to finish it out to the end.
Ms.
Frazier explained that the non-ad valorem assessment for Fire Rescue was not a
tax and was not affected by the State mandates and that they could not fund
this from general fund taxes, because they were two different boundaries.
Commr.
Stewart asked if Public Safety would be compromised if this was not approved.
Commr.
Cadwell responded that if they stayed at the current rate, they would have to
lay some of those employees off and they would not be able to build the new
fire stations that they had planned. He
also commented that this was a long range plan to get decent coverage
throughout the County, and that they were almost there.
Commr.
Renick pointed out that they were not setting the rate today; they were only
setting the maximum.
Commr. Stivender
pointed out that they instituted the plan because the public wanted the fire
service in different areas.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Budget for authorization
and execution of Resolution No. 2007-105, which initiates the annual process
for preparation of the Fire Rescue Assessment Roll, authorizes the publication
of the advertisement for the public hearing, provides direction to notice all
affected parties of the proposed rates, and directs the imposition of Fire
Rescue Assessment fees for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2007.
COMMUNITY
SERVICES
Mr.
Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, stated that they were requesting
approval to submit a mini-grant application for Florida Healthy Kids Phase I
Outreach and Awareness Campaign for Healthy Kids insurance in the school
system. He explained that they were going to have two part time community
health workers who would be doing outreach activities in unserved populations. He specified that the workers would be
working to sign up at least ten children per week for twelve weeks for health
insurance while they were in school.
Ms. Maria
Granado, Community Health Worker Coordinator, stated that two community health
workers would be working within their community at the schools and with the
clinics to allow them the opportunity to be able to do enrollment there. She also mentioned that they had some other
proposed activities in Clermont, such as participation in Kidfest, which was a
large event at which they planned to do a massive enrollment, and they had
hoped to also apply for Phase II.
Commr.
Stivender commented that this program would be bilingual, because Hispanics
have had trouble understanding the application and getting enrolled to get the
free health insurance.
Commr. Stewart
commented that there were so many needy children in the school system, and she
thought this was a wonderful way to be able to reach them, because they had not
been reached before.
Commr.
Stivender commented that
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Community Services for the
Department of Community Services, Community Health Worker Program to submit an
application for funding by the Florida Healthy Kids Corporation Mini-Grants
Program for a Phase I Project – Outreach and Awareness Campaign by Lake County
Community Health Workers.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
SOLID
WASTE ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008
Mr. Daryl
Smith, Director of Environmental Services, stated that there was much
discussion about this issue at the last meeting, but that he wanted to
emphasize that this agenda item was just establishing the maximum amount, and
Board would have an opportunity at the public hearing to set any rate they
wanted to set. He commented that gave
them an opportunity to consider this as part of the overall budget preparation
and review. He also wanted to emphasize
that the amount they were requesting coincided with the increases that they had
in the solid waste collection services over the past five years, and those
collection services were only applied to their customers that were assessed for
the residential collection services in the unincorporated areas and did not
apply to anyone in the municipalities or the incorporated areas of the County. He opined that he thought it was important
that the residents receiving the collection services paid their fair share and
were up to where they should be in terms of the charges for the services.
Commr.
Cadwell mentioned that he figured that if they charged the residents the
increase that the County had had to pay the haulers on their contract increase,
the amount would be at $196. However, he
commented that there was a realistic expectation that residents wanted to see a
reduction in the bottom line of their property tax bill.
Commr.
Stivender commented that she thought there should be a system that allowed the
residents to pay for different levels of service, depending on the amount of
solid waste they generated.
Mr. Smith
stated that it would be difficult for residents to pay for the exact service
that they used, because they could not measure the amount of bags they were
generating. He noted, however, that
they were going to bring back to the Board next year a recommendation for the
future collection services for 2009 for some options for a “pay-as-you-throw”
concept as well as options for the amount of collections, which they could not
do right now because of the nature of the contract.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that one system he had heard about was one in which the
residents purchased official bags from the County, and the residents paid for
the amount of bags they bought. He
commented, however, that the problem with that was that some people would not
buy the bags, and the litter problem and illegal dumping increased dramatically
in those communities. He noted that
there was a whole litany of graduated systems that they could have policy discussions
on, and they had until 2009 to do that.
Commr.
Stewart commented that their costs had gone up quite a bit over the last few
years, and asked Mr. Smith how much the assessment for the citizens had gone
up.
Mr. Smith
responded that it had not gone up at all.
Commr.
Stewart asked how the County assessment compared to those of the
municipalities.
Mr. Smith
presented a chart that showed that they were on the lower end of the spectrum.
Commr.
Stivender commented that the cities were in the business of making money.
Commr.
Stewart clarified with Mr. Smith that if they did not approve an increase, then
they would have to come up with about $1.6 million somewhere else to cover it.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that if that was the case, then they would have staff look
internally into that enterprise fund to make it up there and not in the general
fund.
Commr.
Renick mentioned that the County’s contract with the hauler had a built-in
increase.
Mr. Smith
reported that with most of the contracts of this type, it was standard to have
some kind of escalator built in to try to project what the future was going to
bring for the next seven or eight years.
He noted that this had been going up between 2 and 5 percent on an
annual basis.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that if they had not renegotiated the deal with Covanta, the
assessment fee would be much higher.
Commr.
Hill commented that she would like to see the fee stay the same and take it out
of the general fund until they had a complete analysis, including if the
tipping fee should stay the same. She
also noted that they had only six or seven more years before the Covanta
component was gone.
Mr. Smith
responded that the negotiations with Covanta focused on the disposal cost and
not the collection cost. He opined that
the municipal customers that were originally part of the system were further
subsidizing the unincorporated customers, because they had not increased that
cost for the collection services.
Commr.
Hill commented that going back to doing recycling in house rather than
contracting out might save the County money and help offset some of those
costs.
Mr. Smith
stated that they had gotten approval from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to
take the recycling over themselves and were preparing an Agenda item regarding
that for the Board’s
consideration. He commented that it
could be something that would mitigate the increases.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that a compromise to cover the department as they should and
still keep the municipal customers paying their share of the disposal costs would
be to split the difference and advertise only a $13 dollar increase as opposed
to a $26 one.
Commr.
Stewart commented that she would like the public to know that they were trying
their best to keep those fees down, and they had a lot to talk about.
On a
motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a vote of
4-0, the Board approved the request from Environmental Services for the Initial
Assessment Resolution No. 2007-106 for collection, management, and disposal of
solid waste and recovered materials for FY 2007/08, including a proposed
maximum residential assessment of $187 and establish a public hearing date of
September 11, 2007; and direct staff to proceed with the steps necessary to
have the solid waste assessment increase automatically each year, by an amount
equal to the increase in the charges for the curbside collection services.
Commr.
Hill voted “no.”
PUBLIC
WORKS
SUNBURST
ESTATES STORMWATER POND RETROFIT SUB-PROJECT
Mr. Jim
Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that Tab 14 was a change order
for the Sunburst Estates Stormwater Pond that they had been talking about
regarding the MSTU for Commission District 2.
He explained that this was to clear up the issues associated with the
type of stone that was involved with it and make some other changes associated
with the project.
Commr.
Renick commented that this was the right thing for the Board to do, because the
road was flooding and it had to be done.
However, she noted that there were some mistakes made and the St. Johns River
Water Management District should not have issued the permits that they had, and
that Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, would be contacting the St. Johns about
recouping as much of this money as they could.
On a
motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Public Works to execute
change order No. 4 in the amount of $38,650 for pavement reconstruction on Lake
Louisa Road relating to the Sunburst Estates Stormwater Pond Retrofit
sub-project of the Countywide Drainage II project and approval of the budget
transfer in the amount of $38,650 from Stormwater MSTU Reserve to Improvements.
UPDATED
FLEET POLICIES
Ms. Cindy
Hall, County Manager, stated that Tab 15 were the policies for their Fleet
Management System, which Mr. Dave Vasquez, their Fleet Manager who had been on
board for a little over a year, had been diligently working on. She mentioned that they were also working on
very detailed procedures.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Public Works of the updated
Fleet Policies.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
STIPULATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DCA FOR DOAH CASE
Mr. Sandy
Minkoff,
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms.
Cecilia Bonifay, with Akerman Senterfitt, stated that the issue of why it was
not in compliance with DCA was not due to the density, but was due to the issue
of the provision of central water and sewer, which they had spent several years
working to resolve. She related that
they had entered into a utility agreement with the Town of
There
being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a vote of
4-1, the Board approved the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between Lake County
and DCA regarding DOAH Case No. 03-3460GM – Commission District 2.
Commr.
Renick voted “no.”
POLLUTANT
STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS ORDINANCE
Mr. Sandy
Minkoff,
AN
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 21-158, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED ENFORCEMENT CRITERIA FOR POLLUTANT
STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS; AMENDING STATUTORY REFERENCES; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that this ordinance was from Environmental Services and
updated the references to the State rules.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
There
being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
On a
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2007-34, amending Section 21-158
of the Lake County Code entitled Enforcement Criteria for Pollutant Storage
Tank Regulations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
At this time, each Commissioner
disclosed for the record that they had spoken to other people prior to this
meeting regarding Tab 2, Case PH22-07-2.
Mr. Wayne Bennett, Planning Director,
Department of Growth Management, stated that there were two items on the
Regular Agenda, and no items on the Consent Agenda.
REZONING CASE NO. PH25-07-2 – BISHOP
OF THE DIOCESE OF
Mr. Bennett stated that Rezoning Case
No. PH25-07-2 was an application submitted by the Bishop of the Diocese of
Orlando, Thomas G. Wenski, and was for a 46-acre parcel of land that fronted on
US Hwy 27. He specified that this was a
request to rezone from Agriculture and R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential
District) to the Community Facility District (CFD) for a church and associated
accessory uses and facilities. He also
mentioned that it was in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern and was
surrounded to the north by the Siena Ridge subdivision; there was an R-4
subdivision nearby to the south; and there was a PUD on the east side of the
property. He related that it came
forward with a positive recommendation from the staff as well as unanimous
recommendation for approval from the Zoning Board.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to
address the Board regarding this rezoning, the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
Commr. Renick commented that in the
future, they needed to be thinking in terms of having a preliminary
environmental assessment done prior to approval of all of the cases, but
pointed out that it was not an issue in this case.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the
Board approved Tab 1, Ordinance No. 2007-35, Rezoning Case No. PH25-07-2, by
the Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando, Thomas Wenski, Tracking No. 38-07-CFD.
REZONING CASE NO. 22-07-2 – F & J
DEVELOPERS, LLC/FRANCO SCALA–
TRACKING NO. 32-07-PUD
Mr. Bennett stated that the
Applicants for Tab 2, Case No. PH22-07-2, were F & J Developers and Franco
Scala, and that the future land use category was Urban Expansion. He also
mentioned that the existing zoning was Agriculture (A), and this was an
application to establish a PUD (Planned Unit Development District). He put a map on the overhead, and noted that
the property lied between CR 50 and the Turnpike.
Mr. Bennett reported that one of the
primary issues related to this project was the density. He commented that they
had enough points to qualify for a density that would be in excess of 4.0, and
they came in for an application for requested density of approximately
3.1. He specified that originally they
requested 88 units, of which a portion was for single family and a portion was
for town houses. He related that the Zoning
Board’s recommendation was to recommend approval at a density of 2.5 dwelling
units per acre. He also mentioned that
the City of
Mr. Bennett explained to the Board
that the ordinance in the backup materials included another issue that came up
at the Zoning Board, which was regarding a wall. He explained that CR 50 was a scenic byway,
and the Zoning Board was concerned that the wall should receive a different
type of treatment than what was proposed, which was more consistent with what
the community wanted to see in terms of design related to the CR 50 corridor. He stated that would be worked out before the
formal site plan approval, and that currently there was no formal design
guidelines for the materials, design, and heights for fences that would be
appropriate in that area. He stated that
there was also another real estate issue regarding some property that F & J
owned which was on the south side of CR 50 and was between the trail and the
road right of way. He explained that
they were trying to work that out in terms of the location of that property and
its potential use with the trail and some stormwater issues.
Commr. Cadwell asked if there was any
language in the PUD that specifically talked about the type of fencing for that
area and whether it would have to be signed off by any particular group or
committee.
Mr. Bennett read from Page 3 of the
ordinance that it should be a minimum six foot high decorative fence, such as
wrought iron with brick pillars or other similar design which shall be
incorporated with the landscape buffer along the CR 50 frontage as depicted on
the master conceptual plan.
Commr. Cadwell asked if there was any
language specific to affordable housing that would require the designation of a
certain number of affordable housing units or was it just a suggestion in the
PUD itself.
Mr. Bennett stated that there was
language on Page 2 of the ordinance that provided guidance for what was a
voluntary offer on the part of the developer, and that it was not a requirement
made by staff. He noted that they had
structured the language to leave it open to how it was to eventually be defined
in terms of all the details of cost and length of time of ownership. He explained that they had left all of those
details to a future date because they needed to work through some workforce
housing strategies with the Board in general at a later date. He calculated that at the 2.5 density, with
ten percent of the units offered by the developer for workforce housing, there
would be seven units.
Commr. Stewart stated that she had
some concerns about this, including that it was in the
The Chairman opened the public
hearing.
Ms. Cecilia Bonifay of Akerman
Senterfitt, representing the Applicant, showed on an overhead map where the
property was located and the developments surrounding it. She provided a handout giving an outline of
some of the issues the County was concerned about. She
pointed out that surveys that were done indicated that there were only five gopher
tortoise barrows and no scrub jays located on the site, and the gopher
tortoises on the site would be subject to relocation. She also stated that the wetlands had been
delineated, and that the site plan showed only one isolated wetland, which was
shown as a pond, and the rest of the land was high and dry. She stated that their own residential density
analysis, which was required in the Comp Plan to analyze the timeliness of
developments, showed that this development would be entitled to 4.5 dwelling
units per acre. She pointed out that her
client did not try to maximize the site, and only came in with a proposal for 3
units per acre initially, and opined that they were trying to do the right
thing. She stated that in terms of
transportation, when Clermont first did their review and analysis around April,
they did not have a final traffic analysis, and she resubmitted another traffic
study, which she entered on the record today, stating that there was adequate
capacity for this project and identified some intersection improvements that
would have to be made and stating that the developers would have to pay their
proportionate share of that.
Ms. Bonifay stated that on the issue
of utilities, because they were in the Clermont Chapter 180 water and sewer
district, they were required to ask each utility provider just at the point of
zoning whether or not they had the capability and the capacity to serve, and
Clermont issued a letter to the staff that stated that they had that capability. She related that if Clermont did not wish at
some future date to enter into a utility agreement, than they had the option to
seek another utility provider, but she commented that the law provided that if
Clermont had the utilities and the capability, then they were supposed to be
the service provider. She also commented
that Clermont was in the business of making money off its water and sewer and
had funded a new waste water treatment plant to serve this area. She explained that if this was approved, they
would negotiate with Clermont on that agreement.
Ms. Bonifay then talked about the
fence or wall that was proposed, and explained that the Scenic Byway Committee
did not want to see just a solid wall and suggested some type of wrought iron
fence with some brick pillars and landscaping.
She stated that they were proposing something like the language that was
proposed in the ordinance, and showed a sketch on the overhead to show the way that
they thought it would look and an overall view of what the project would be. She also stated that they agreed with Public
Works to do a right of way donation along SR 50, and were working with the
County on the open space designation, commenting that this project dedicated 42
percent as open space, which was more than the County requirement of 25
percent. She also mentioned that the
developer volunteered to designate 10 percent of their 88 units for workforce
housing, which would be nine units of the town home product.
Commr. Cadwell asked Ms. Bonifay if
the developer would still offer ten percent for workforce housing with the
reduced density of 2.5.
Ms. Bonifay stated that they would
still do that, but they believed that with all of the concessions and studies
they previously talked about, that it would support the 88 units. She pointed out that the 2.5 density was not
based on anything or required in the Comprehensive Plan, the LDR’s, or the density
point rating, and to do the workforce housing, they believed that they needed a
higher density than 2.5 to make it viable and to give it economy of scale. She suggested that there could be an interim
number that would allow this project to be economically feasible, and they did
not believe that this development was really feasible with 71 units and seven
of those being affordable. She opined
that they were trying to do a balanced development, which had single and town
home product in it and was a well landscaped, attractive community which would
be an asset to the area. She also
commented that she understood that a 60 acre site offered by the Hills of
Minneola for a middle school and high school was accepted by the School Board,
and the money for that was in the School Board budget, and she opined that
there was a lot that had been accomplished on the school site forefront.
There being no one else who wished to
address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that if they were saying that a density of 2.5
would not work if they had to do 7 affordable units, it may boil down to
negotiating density against affordable housing units and looking at the
additional density or cutting back on the affordable housing units.
Commr. Renick asked about the traffic
analysis indication that there was still an intersection failure.
Mr. Bennett explained that there
still needed to be improvements made to those intersections to accommodate the
additional capacity, and that the developers would need to meet the concurrency
test for transportation.
Commr. Renick stated that Clermont
had an agreement with
Commr. Renick made a motion to deny
Rezoning Case No. PH22-07-2, which was seconded by Commr. Stewart. The motion failed by a vote of 3-2, with
Commr. Cadwell, Commr. Stivender, and Commr. Hill voting “no.”
Commr. Renick commented that staff
counted wetlands in the open space percentage, and that they knew from the
discussions of the LPA so far where the County was heading in figuring open
space. She asked what the actual open
space requirement was in relation to what had been proposed.
Mr. Bennett stated that he would have
to ask his staff to figure that. He
related that there was a little more than six acres of wetlands that they had
included in the open space calculations.
Commr. Renick commented that since
this was a PUD, they could put the requirements in there that they thought were
appropriate, and opined that they needed to look at the wetlands issue. She also mentioned that she would like to
have a sunset date limiting the time it could be developed before it would have
to come back to the Board.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr. Renick stated that she thought
there was something that they legally could put into place so that they would
be able to put in time limitations.
Mr. Minkoff responded that his office
was exploring with the LPA a way to do that under the new plan and with new
LDR’s, such as a development order or a zoning overlay. He stated that he did not recommend doing it
in this case, because it actually was a rezoning, which they could do at any
time.
Commr. Stivender made a motion to
approve Rezoning Case No. PH22-07-2 with the Zoning Department’s recommendation
for a wrought iron fence and landscape buffer, that the density be changed to
3.0 to allow workforce housing on the site, and that the open space portion
that was south of CR 50 be dedicated to the County for road intersection
improvements.
Commr. Cadwell noted that that motion
failed because of a lack of a second, and recommended that they included the
language of the fence and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board
of 2.5 units per acre, but then lower the required units of affordable housing
units to 5 as opposed to 7.
Mr. Bennett inquired that if they did
not receive central water and sewer, if the alternative was that they could do
up to two dwelling units per acre.
Commr. Hill commented that she
thought the City of
Commr. Renick asked Mr. Minkoff if he
received a letter regarding Plaza Collina that addressed something about this
issue.
Mr. Minkoff responded that the letter
mentioned the utility agreement with Plaza Collina, but that he would have to
examine the letter to be sure of the details, but believed the letter inferred
that there might be some issues between the City and Plaza Collina.
Commr. Stivender asked Ms. Bonifay if
the recommendation that was on the table was viable with reducing the workforce
housing units.
Ms. Bonifay responded that she
thought the client would have to decide, and that he would work with the County
on that. She wanted the record to
reflect that it was inappropriate and a due process violation to bring extraneous
information into these hearings regarding other projects and resulted in
innuendo and misinformation that was put before the Board. She requested that the Board approve the
motion.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the record
would show her concern.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded
by Commr. Stivender and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Rezoning
Case No. PH22-07-2 by F & J Developers, LLC and Franco Scala, Tracking No.
32-07-PUD, including specifications of a six-foot high decorative fence, such
as wrought iron with brick pillars or other similar design along the CR 50
frontage; the density not exceeding 2.5 dwelling units to the acre; and the developer
to provide 7 percent or 5 units, whichever was greater of the total approved
units for affordable work housing, which may all be town homes. Also, it was noted that if the developer was
not able to get water and sewer service, then the density shall not exceed 2
dwelling units per acre.
REPORTS –
PARKING GARAGE
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr. Stivender asked when that went
to the City Council for approval.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
EOC GRANT
Ms. Hall informed the Board that they
received notice from the lobbyist in
REPORTS – COMMISIONER HILL – VICE
CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
Commr. Hill stated that at the
preliminary hearing with the City before their Zoning Department, the City of
Tavares requested with the downtown project some type of assurance that the
County would return back to the tax rolls the Clerk’s Public Records Building
sometime in the future and to look at that aesthetically as more of a core
downtown area without a government building.
She commented that it was something they could think about and discuss
at a later date, but she wanted to address it preliminarily so that the City
would know that they had a concern about the look and economy of the downtown
area.
Commr. Cadwell commented that with
the change in the Sheriff’s location, they would have a little more space to do
that, and it was something they should look at.
Commr. Stivender commented that the Minutes
reflected that it was supposed to be a temporary location, and the building was
supposed to go back to being a private business once they had an additional
building built for the Clerk.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they would
tell them that they certainly would take that into consideration and work with
them in the future to try to resolve that issue once they got done with
construction.
Commr. Stivender asked if they would
trip the DRI process with the additional square footage.
Mr. Minkoff responded that they were
exploring the issue of whether the courthouse expansion was a DRI, and the
approvals they had submitted with the City said that if they were, they would
comply with it for the courthouse. He
noted that the garage, the office building, and the energy plant were not DRI
issues, and that only the courthouse was.
Commr. Stivender asked if they brought
up changing the roundabout in the meeting.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the proposal
that they made to them was the exact drawing that the Board approved for the
roundabout when they were there that day.
COMMISSIONER CADWELL – CHAIRMAN AND
DISTRICT 5
RESTRICTIONS REGARDING CHECKING OUT
OF VIDEOS FROM LIBRARY
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had a
discussion with the Library Board in regard to the restrictions on the age for
checking R rated videos out, and that the
Commr. Stewart asked how parents were
made aware of that fact.
Commr. Hill mentioned that they could
probably do that when they fill out the initial application to receive a card.
Mr. Minkoff noted that he believed
that a parent would need to sign for a child aged 15 and under to receive a
library card.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
____________________________________
WELTON
G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK