Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We're going to call to order the June 3rd meeting of the Lake County Planning and Zoning Board. If you would all please rise for a Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for a moment of silence.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, well, may be seated. Good morning, everyone. The Lake County Planning and Zoning Board is an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners. This board is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the comprehensive plan, zoning, conditional uses, mining site plans, and making recommendations on those applications to the Board of County Commissioners. The recommendations of this board are transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled public hearing, and in the instance of the cases scheduled today, Those would be on the July 14th Board of County Commissioners meeting, which will be held at 9 a.m. At this time, is there any update or change to our agenda today?

Good morning. Janie Barone, Planning Manager and CRA Coordinator for the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting to you the agenda, which consists of nine cases. At this time, I would like to enter into the record that the cases have been duly noticed in accordance with state statute. Regarding tab three, the opposition correspondence was provided via email with your agenda updates. And so staff will be doing a full presentation on the proposed LDR amendment and regarding tab nine, you should have a memo in your diets that includes the opposition correspondence and staff will also be doing a full presentation on the rezoning.

Okay. So tabs three and tab nine are going to be receiving a full presentation today.

That is correct.

I also have a speaker card for. 5 and 6. Thank you. So at this time, would we be, let's see, we would be moving 3, 9, 5, and 6 off of consent agenda down to the regular agenda. OK. All right, are there any other items on our agenda today that the board wishes to move off of consent or wishes to have full presentation on? Okay, seeing none, tab one, two, four, seven, and eight will remain on consent. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. Is there any comment or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign. OK. And has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes from the May 6 hearing? If so, I would entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes from May 6.

I have a motion. Is there a second? All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Okay, at this time, we would welcome anyone from the public who wishes to speak on any items not currently on our agenda. This is for any public comment or citizen questions that you may have, but this would not be related to agenda items. Okay, seeing none, we will move on to our regular agenda. So I would actually like to begin with tab five, and we'll do tab three at the end. We may lose some board members throughout our meeting today, so in order to get through the cases while we have a quorum, we'd like to do that, and we'll put agenda item three at the end. So we'll start with, Tab 5, which is the Hartle Hill Apartments Future Land Use.

Good morning. For the record, Leslie Regan, Senior Planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning. With your permission, I'll be presenting Tab 5 and 6, case number PZ2023231 and PZ number 202333. 232 otherwise known as hardell hills apartments future land use amendment and rezone the applicant is requesting to amend the future land use category from regional office to planned unit development to facilitate a development program for a 212 unit multi-family apartment complex and associated amenities the applicant is also requesting to rezone the property from agricultural to planned unit development. The subject property is located north of State Road 50 and west of County Road 455 in unincorporated Claremont area and contains 17.89 acres. The subject property is currently designated with the regional office future land use category and zoned agricultural. The subject property is also located within the Lake Apopka Basin Overlay District. The concept plan, as you can see on the screen, depicts 10 multifamily apartment buildings containing a total of 212 units. Additionally, the concept plan includes other amenities, such as a clubhouse, pool, tot lot, dog park, butterfly garden, and community garden. Approximately 2.78 acres of wetlands are present on the northern portion of the property, and a 50-foot wetland buffer is shown on the concept plan. The concept plan emphasizes the minimum of 25% of the overall developable area as open space with a maximum impervious surface area of 65% for the entire site. The proposed project is located within the City of Claremont JPA and ISBA. The project was routed to the city for comments. The city provided that they do not oppose the project if developed according to the approved utility agreement that is Exhibit G in your packet. Staff does find that the rezone and future land use amendment is consistent with land use development regulations and the comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation. I will stand for any questions you have, and the applicant is present with a presentation and available for questions as well.

Does anyone have questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Okay, seeing none. I know the applicant's present. Do they wish to speak before we hear public comment?

I believe they have a presentation.

Do you want to do a presentation before we hear public comment, or do you want to wait? Okay, public comment first. All right, we only have one speaker card on tab five, and that's Cindy Newton.

Morning, Cindy Newton, District 4. I'm just opposed to the increase in density. There is a lot of concern with the water consumption, especially now with our drought and what we're going through with restrictions. The main concern are the fact that it's in the WF or CFWI initiative. They have a lot of restrictions. They have, sorry. They have really reached out trying to keep consumption down. And this much density increase with the reduction we're having in recharge is to me just unacceptable. So thank you for your time. Thank you.

All right, does anyone else wish to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, if the applicant would like to come forward.

I have a full presentation if you would like me to do that.

That's up to you.

Well, I'm happy to talk through at least on the front end the concerns that you heard from the residents. And sorry, Tara Tedrow, Lowndes Law 215, North Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida. To address Ms. Newton's concern on water consumption, we actually just went back to the city of Claremont to double check that we had available capacity and that there would be no issue from their standpoint for service to this project. And that was as of two weeks ago. So we've had an update actually to that utility agreement to ensure that there was sufficient capacity. I know that the water initiative that was referenced by Ms. Newton is generally an initiative for lower water consumption. It most certainly is not an initiative for no water consumption, and it is all about availability of services in the respective municipalities and counties that are part of that initiative. So we've had this analyzed by Claremont staff. They are in full support. We have it even saying in the water agreement that we have to use the concept plan that we've submitted to you all so that everybody knows what would be approved if they were to annex us at their discretion. They know exactly what they're getting because the entire project has been designed to the standards of the Claremont JPA. We're not asking for anything different than what code would require. We're getting the density that's the maximum that's permitted in Lake County, and we're not asking for any higher density than what you could otherwise get in the city of Claremont too. So that's why we were able to get their full support, their staff review. And like I said, happy to go through any details on the plan and the presentation. I designed the plan myself with all of the amenities, made it extensively amenitized because my husband and I put this property under contract and went through and designed it ourselves in terms of the building layout and the different amenity packages that we were going to have. Ready to answer any questions if you have them. Otherwise, I would ask for a recommendation of approval consistent with your staff's.

Does anyone have questions for the applicant?

This is really just a curiosity. I know that these development decisions are based on market forces, but given the proliferation of rental units, we've certainly seen plenty of them come through here. Coincidentally, the shortage of affordable housing. Was there ever any consideration to make these available for sale as condos rather than rental units?

I mean, the condo market is not there. It really just isn't right now, and that's a tough market. Now, if you could ever transition multi into condo, that's a question for the future, but that's such a market-driven decision. And there really is, I mean, I know folks feel like there's a proliferation of residential rental units. Lake County has a very low number in comparison to other large counties like Orange County. We really don't have a significant number of rental units based on population. I can tell you that because my husband's a developer who has multifamily in Mineola, just a couple miles from here, and there really is no competition. There's no market. There's not enough rental. The rental that gets developed, people are trying to lease it a year before it's even constructed because there's not enough places for folks who work and don't want to have a house or are waiting for a house to get built to live. So we've spent I think three and a half years on this project, analyzing what we could do. And quite literally, the only thing that makes sense respecting the topography of the property and the market forces is a really nice multifamily product that we've designed.

Okay. Lake County is very short on affordable rental units, guys. They're way behind. All right.

Anything further for the applicant? Oh, you've... Melanie, can we hear another public comment? Is that allowed? Okay.

Yeah, I can come back up.

Thanks, Tara. Alan Hartle? Okay. Alan Hartle? Or Alon Hartle? He accidentally thought he was signing it. Oh. He's the owner. OK. Yeah, these are speaker cards. So no? OK, does anyone have further questions for the applicant? If not, we'll let Tara retain her seat. OK, are there any further questions of staff or other members of county staff on this item? All right. If not, um, I would entertain a motion on the Hartle Hills future land use.

Motion to approve second.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this item? I will just say there's, there's a lot of apartments already in this area. They seem to be all leased up and fully occupied. Um, and this seems to be pretty sympathetic to the overall topography and looks to be something that'll fit in with everything else that's already being developed in that area. So good luck. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign.

Motion carries.

Yep. So we will now move to tab six. Now we already had our hearing on the land use. Do we need to have a separate hearing on the zoning for tab six?

I'll make a motion to approve tab six.

Second.

We have a motion and a second on tab 6. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same. Motion carries. All right. And we will now move on to tab 9.

For the record, once again, Leslie Reagan, Senior Planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting tab nine, case number PZ202583, otherwise known as Tiger Paw. The applicant is requesting to amend the Skiing Paradise Swiss Fairways Planned Unit Development Ordinance Number 2018-6 to revise the approved land use by replacing 18 duplex villas and 30 vacation suites with 29 single family, residential units. In order to facilitate and incorporate the Tiger Paw residential development, the applicant is not requesting any other changes to the original PUD. The subject property is located east, west, and south of County Road 565A in the unincorporated Lake County area and contains, the entire PUD contains approximately 406.8 acres And the specific two parcels for development include 47.8. The subject property is currently designated with the Green Swamp Rural Future Land Use category and is zoned planned unit development. The subject property is also located within the Green Swamp area of critical concern. The concept plan depicts the additional 29 single family residential lots on alternative keys 1438764 and 3918951 which are both already part of the planned unit development. The subject parcels contain a total of 47.8 acres. The minimum lot size would be 30,000 square feet as required by the PUD. The typical lot size will be 120 by 250. The concept plan provides for 62% open space meeting the 60% open space requirement for the original PUD. Staff does find the rezone consistent with the land use development regulations. A portion of this was, is part of the ISBA of Groveland and they did not provide any comments of opposition for the case. This concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any questions. The applicant is present and available for questions as well.

Okay, does anyone have questions for staff on this before we hear from the applicant and the public? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to make any statements or present any information before we hear from the public or would you rather wait until after the public speaks? Thank you. Okay, I have two speaker cards on this item. We'll start with Thibaud Dailand.

Good morning. My name is Thibault Daylon. I'm a homeowner at Tiger Power Estates. My parents own a property in Swiss Fairways. I'm a licensed real estate broker for over nine years, and I specifically work in this area. I know this land. I know the developer. I strongly believe the rezoning is the right move for our community. What Tigerport Estates is proposing is simple and straightforward. Fewer units, bigger lots, better homes. Going from 66 multifamily units down to 29 large single-family homes is not an increase in density, it's a reduction. As a real estate professional, the bigger homes on larger lots sells for more. And when homes value goes up in one part of a neighborhood, everyone around them benefits. Every homeowner in Swiss Fairways tends to see their own property value increase. This is a direct win for the people already living here. The buyers who will be buying those homes, they'll be families, retirees, and people who choose Lake County for its lifestyle. They will be playing golf, use Wariski School, and sit down and eat at local restaurants. They invest in this community long-term. They're exactly the kind of resident that help local business grow. From a county perspective, larger homes on larger loss means higher property values, a stronger tax base, and less strain on roads and infrastructure compared to what 66 multifamily units will have demanded. This is simply the right project in the right place at the right time. And I respectfully urge the board to approve Tiger Poe Estates. Thank you.

Thank you. John Croucher? Crocker. So close. Good morning.

I'm John Kroger. I'm one of the owners of Swiss fairways golf course.

Could you state your address for the record? Sorry.

Yes. It's 1 3 1 4 9 skiing paradise Boulevard.

Thank you.

I am actually the one that stood in front of boards, many hours, many days, many meetings, and had this PUD approved in 2017. This is a continuation PUD in 2021. I came to another board meeting. I had it extended for it to not to expire. The reason for that is, is that I built a clubhouse, a pro shop building, a sales office for the golf course. I just finished renovating the golf course a half a million dollars. The property that they are talking about was part of the golf course. The golf course had closed due to that property. It was a mixed up sale deal. We're not gonna get involved in that. That's a different case. However, what people don't realize is the PUD is in continuation. There's surveys done that had the maintenance billing done. I had meetings with the county concerning that. The survey is done and is completed. the density that they are using, that they are taking away from the PUD that I fought for, is the density that I need so I can develop my part of the golf course that is closed due to that property. Now, what I mean by that is, is They don't realize is they're talking about bigger homes. I have 18 contracts that I had to sell my part of the golf course that was closed. I rejected all of them because they wanted to do multi-crash built housing, cluster homes, zero lot lines. My design, my surveys is to have bigger lots than what they're talking about. over 32,000 square foot lots to develop on my part of the 40 acres that I had to close due to that property. So I need that density. What they don't realize is if I can't develop and proceed with my PUD that I spent many days and hours getting approved, the golf course ain't going to exist. And I just spent a half a million dollars renovating it. I just reopened it. Four months ago, five months ago. So all of a sudden somebody just jumps in the loop and wants to change the PUD that I fought for for years. Melanie Marsh, she can remember years ago, 2017. I mean, I went through hell getting that PUD approved. And I came back in 2021.

Okay. If you can start wrapping up, though, because we only have three minutes.

So all I can say is I absolutely oppose this deal getting approved because I need to continue with the PUD that's approved. So they want to take away my PUD, and it's totally wrong. It should never happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, and then David Skim? Skirn? Skirvin.

So, David Skirvin, I live on Belle Reve, which is right next to the development proposed. I just wanted to come in and say, that I know Mike's done other stuff, and he does a very good job of it. And I like what he's put together for this, and I think it would be a bonus for our community as a whole. Aside from all the political stuff I don't know about, but I know Mike does a good job. I just wanted to say I support it because I've been on that side of the board and get a lot beat up and, you know, positive things are helpful too. So that's all. Thanks.

Thank you so much. All right. Anyone else on this item? Yeah, if you want to come up, you can state your name and address and then you'll need to provide a speaker card to the clerk and he has some right there.

you can fill it out after you speak so my name is jamie seibel i live at 12901 phillips road which is the road that kind of runs through both properties my genuine concern with this with the additional development is that since i moved in two years ago to get out of that area to get over 250 we have to go down monta vista and monta vista that intersection at monta vista and 50 cannot handle additional people on it. It's quite often that I spend over 15 minutes just waiting to make a right hand turn, let alone a left hand turn out of there. I know that there has been plans for a light to go there, but that's been in the works, quote unquote, since before I moved in over two years ago. My other concern is the wildlife in that area. Since I've moved in, just with the little bit of additional development that's going on on the other side of Monta Vista, there has been a significant uptick of wildlife that I am finding in my yard, which currently is the little bit of uptick is not so bad, but when there's known documentation of things like coyotes in the area, with the loss of some of this open land, there's gonna be a lot more coyotes, and I tend to fear for my animals personally, which is selfish, but that's all that I wanted to say, is just I think the additional right now, unless we can get some additional infrastructure or road widening or some additional plans for wildlife and lights, I don't think it's necessarily sustainable in the short term.

Thank you. Anyone else on this item? Seeing none, we would now welcome the applicant to come and address any comments or present any information they wish for the board to hear on your proposal or application.

Good morning. My name is Chris Kay. I'm with Carter and Kay Engineering at 137 Fifth Street, Winter Haven. Um, you know, with respect to a couple of the comments that were made, you know, as it relates to coyotes, I think, um, one could argue that this kind of improvement would help reduce the potential of, of coyotes and wildlife in that area. And we're certainly going to meet any kind of regulatory requirements that are necessary. Um, we are currently involved with St. John's water management district. We are close to getting an approval from those folks. Um, I also wanted to say that it really is, at least in our mind, we would think that this is a relatively simple matter. There may be some civil issues that are going on here with respect to, um, ownership and, uh, opportunities. Um, we've spent three years on this project. There's been no word of any other proposed improvements that were coming before us. Um, we want to utilize the land and be good stewards of the land. The applicant does. I just wanted to mention, I mean, this is really just a reduction in the proposed density from 69 units, 66 units to 29 units. And we're looking to maintain the current, you know, rural condition of the site with large estate style lots that are gonna be 30,000 square foot in size. And so the other scenario with the 66 units were going to be triplexes and duplexes that are going to be squeezed into some small areas. This land has opened up because of some title work that took place with Mike Hurst and the property. It ended up being something that he was able to own or that he owns. And that land, now he wants to be a good steward of that land. Um, it, from my perspective, um, you know, we meet the comp plan, we meet the land development regulations and the county staff has already answered that question, you know, in the affirmative by its staff report that it's presented to you. And we, uh, kindly request that you approve this, this, uh, requested action. I stand for any questions.

Does anyone have questions for the applicant? So I actually just have a kind of a clarification, maybe. So the whole project, the whole PD, the Swiss Fairways plan development from 2018, we don't have the original ordinance from that in our packet. But overall, the original approval was for 102 single family units, 18 duplex villas, and 30 vacation suites. And so what you're asking to do is change that over to just being 131 single family units total, correct?

Eliminating the 18 duplexes and the 10 triplexes, which are another 30 units.

Okay, and the duplexes and vacation units were intended to be built on these two parcels that you're proposing to do the single family units on now, correct?

The 18 duplexes.

were to be on those two parcels and the 30 vacation suites were those to be there or elsewhere?

Elsewhere in an area that's plotted, which apparently looks like some single family lots.

Oh, it's in another part of another piece of land. That's part of the PD, but that's already been plotted as single family.

It appears that way. Yes.

Okay. All right. Does anyone have any further questions for the applicant? I was just trying to get my head wrapped around the personalization. Okay, seeing none, thank you. Are there any questions for staff or any county support team folks? All right, seeing none, we'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right, and we will now move on to tab three.

Sorry, just a moment. Good morning. For the record, Janie Barone, Planning Manager and CRA Coordinator with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting to you Tab 3, otherwise known as the Rural Conservation Subdivision. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Chapter 17, Lake County Code, Appendix E, entitled Rural Conservation Design Standards to provide and enhance clarity and consistency in the application and interpretation of these standards itself. Currently, Comprehensive Plan Policy I-7-4.2 required the adoption and design criteria and guidelines for the development of the conservation standards within the Rural Future Land Use Series, the Wekiwa River Protection Area, the Wekiwa Study Area, and the Green Swamp Area of Critical State concerned. In addition, on January 24th of 2023, the Board adopted Ordinance 2309, which created Chapter 17 of the Lake County Code Land Development Regulations entitled the Rural Conservation Subdivision Standards. The proposed regulation highlights is the enhancement of the definition of the primary and secondary conservation areas, which you've seen in your backup throughout the ordinance. It will provide historic and archaeological sites, including cemeteries, prime farmland, critical wildlife habitat, buffers to wetlands and water bodies, preservation of scenic view sheds, mapping and feature analysis, and the protection and binding of legal instruments recorded in public records. Additionally, it's gonna enhance the conceptual sketch plan requirements located in LDR section 170206. and it will revise the timing of the public information meeting, revise the timing of the onsite meeting with county staff, the management plan for open space preservation areas and stormwater roads, all conceptual sketch plans reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners and require conceptual sketch plans be approved by resolution. This concludes my presentation. Are there any questions for staff?

Are there any questions from staff on this item? All right. Thanks, Janie. Thank you. I only have one speaker card for this, and that is Cindy Newton.

Morning, Cindy Newton, District 4. I appreciate several of the proposed changes to the conservation subdivision ordinance, especially the requirement that all these developments will be reviewed by the BCC. Greater public oversight and accountability in public hearings are important. I also appreciate that there is a cap being placed on the density increases. However, density should not be increased within the rural transition areas, the Wekiva study area, Wekiva River protection area, or the green swamp area. area of critical state concern. These are environmentally sensitive lands that play a critical role in groundwater recharge, spring protection, wildlife habitat, and flood control. If density bonuses remain, the cap should be no more than 10%. and only then when transfer of development rights is utilized, with the sending area permanently stripped of the development rights. Otherwise, we are truly not conserving land. We're simply shifting impacts around while increasing overall pressure on our sensitive resources. To move away from the density bonuses and incentives, the wording under the applicability should remain required rather than be changed to permitted. These conservation subdivisions with at least 50% open space should be required in all of our rural areas. It would be best to increase the minimum open space to 60% in the WSA, WRPA, and remain 60 to 80% in the Green Swamp. I'm also concerned about the nitrification fields and land application provisions for both community and individual sewage disposal systems. The spray irrigation of wastewater must be closely monitored and highly restricted within the WSA, WRPA, and Green Swamp. Nutrient pollution is already a major issue with our spring shed and the areas of our basin management plan. Nitrification processes can also produce biosolids. There should be clear language stating that no biosolids are to be spread within the WSA, WRPA, and the Green Swamp. While advanced DWTS systems are more efficient than the conventional septic systems, even under ideal conditions, they're about 85% effective. That still means that approximately 15% of nutrient loading enters the environment. In areas where we're already required to reduce the nutrient loading under our BMAP requirements, we should not be approving policies that increase it. Finally, I strongly support the protection of the cemeteries and burial sites as the primary conservation areas. However, these areas should be included within the primary conservation area category and should not count towards open space or density calculations. Human burial grounds should never be used as bargaining chips for financial gain or development incentives. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Cindy. All right, does anyone have questions for staff or the legal team on this item? Okay. I actually just have one question on the density bonus language. I'm a little confused as to how optional density bonus, based on how this is written, results in additional density because the way it's worded, it says the maximum number of building lots or dwelling units in a subdivision shall not exceed the number that could otherwise be developed by the application if the minimum lot size requirement and or density standard of the future land use category in which the parcel is located. So how does that make additional density if it can't exceed the maximum number of units or the stated density?

So the comprehensive plan includes a policy of transferring it to increased density of wetlands. So by right, they would be able to increase that density itself. I can pull up that policy if you would like. So we're talking about transfer of rights, is that correct? Correct. It's not the transfer of development rights itself, but it's a transfer of wetland credits into actual density units.

Okay. So if they had a, okay, got it. Yeah. I was reading that and I'm like, well, I don't see how that's gonna make more density. Okay, that makes sense. And then the other part of that statement says, a density bonus may be denied if the primary access to the subdivision is from a public roadway that does not meet the current county roadway standard for its classification. Is that the only reason that a density bonus could be denied?

The Board of County Commissioners has pure discretion over whether to approve a density bonus. In fact, they just turned one down.

OK. I'm just making sure that's not a, like, they can only deny it if this.

No, they have discretion over whether to authorize it or not.

All right. That's all I have. Anyone else?

Going back to the wetland thing. So they can essentially buy mitigation credits and increase the density? No.

So if, say, for instance, they have a 40-acre parcel and 10 of those are wetlands itself, they can transfer, depending on what future land use they're in, they can transfer based on that. So in that case, it would be two additional dwelling units for that purpose. Yeah.

Anything else for staff? All right, we'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there any need for discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay, that concludes our agenda for today. Is there any other items or other business that we need to be aware of? There is no other business.

Our next meeting is on July the 1st. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, everybody. We are adjourned.