A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

April 2, 2024

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that it was being streamed on the County website; furthermore, they were also broadcasting the meeting via Zoom.

Pastor Jon Carey, from First Baptist Church of Umatilla, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Levar Cooper, Director for the Office of Communications, explained that the current meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He elaborated that anyone watching through the livestream who wished to participate could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 to virtually raise their hand, and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak. He said that when it was time for public comment, he would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound to let them know that their time was up. He added that they previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, said that there were no updates to the agenda.

citizen question and comment period

No one wished to address the Board at this time.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 1.

Rezoning Case # PZ2023-253

Sorrento PUD (Hillcrest) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (Transmittal)

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 466.18 +/- acres from Mt Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street and Mt Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood to Planned Unit Development to facilitate the development program for a mixed-use community intended to provide commercial, office, retail, service, and residential uses.

sorrento pud (hillcrest) comprehensive plan map amendment (transmittal)

Commr. Smith asked the Board to disclose any ex parte contact they had.

Commissioner Shields, Commissioner Parks and Commissioner Campione said that they had each met with the applicant.

Commr. Blake stated that he received emails from residents.

Commr. Smith relayed that he met with the applicant and the engineer, and that he received emails from residents in support of and against this project. He opined that it would be good to explain what was being done on the current day, noting that it was a transmittal hearing.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, explained that every local jurisdiction was required to have a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) under Florida Statutes, and that the Comp Plan provided principles, guidelines, standards and strategies for future development. She added that the Comp Plan was organized into goals, objectives and policies, and that it should not include implementing regulations, noting that this was reserved for the Land Development Regulations (LDR) that each jurisdiction had. She relayed that the Comp Plan must include the following elements: capital improvement; intergovernmental coordination; a future land use (FLU) element, which was also the FLU map; transportation; public facilities; conservation; recreation/open space; housing; property rights; and an economic element. She commented that anything over 50 acres was known as a large scale Comp Plan amendment, and that the County had to hold a public hearing to consider transmittal, which meant that the proposed amendment would be sent to the following State of Florida agencies for review and comments: Department of Commerce; Department of Transportation (FDOT); Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); Department of State (FDOS); Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC); Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS); Department of Education; and the applicable water management district. She said that all State comments must be returned to the local jurisdiction within 30 days of receipt of the transmittal, and that within 180 days of receipt of the comments, the local government would hold a second public hearing known as the adoption hearing. She stated that if the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the amendment at the adoption hearing, it would not become effective until 31 days after the State notified that the submittal was complete; furthermore, these were all requirements found in Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. She commented that for Tab 1, Rezoning Case # PZ2023-25, Sorrento PUD (Hillcrest) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (Transmittal), the applicant applied for a Comp Plan amendment, and the request was to amend the FLU map for approximately 466 acres in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento unincorporated area. She added that the current day was the first public hearing to transmit the application to the State for review and comment, and that the BCC had several options. She remarked that if the BCC approved to transmit this item to the State, then a second and final public hearing would be scheduled within 180 days once comments were received back; additionally, the companion rezoning application would be scheduled at the same time as the second and final public hearing on the Comp Plan amendment. She also noted that the rezoning application was currently scheduled to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on the following day. She commented that if the Board did not transmit this item, then they could deny the application, or postpone it if additional information was needed for them to make a decision on whether to transmit it.

Mr. Mike Fitzgerald, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisement for that day’s rezoning case in accordance with the Florida Statutes. He explained that this item was to amend the FLU map to change the FLU category on approximately 466 acres from Mt Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street and Mt Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate the development program for a mixed-use community intended to provide commercial, office, retail, service and residential uses. He said that the property was located south of State Road (SR) 46, also known as Sorrento Avenue, and east of County Road (CR) 437 in the Sorrento area of unincorporated Lake County. He added that the property was in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) and the Wekiva Study Area. He stated that the applicant was proposing some changes outlined in the displayed chart, and that some highlights included the existing densities of 5.5 dwelling units per acre for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU, two dwelling units per acre for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood FLU, and the applicant’s proposal of 3.7 dwelling units per acre, which was a blend of the other two densities. He pointed out that the maximum impervious surface ratios (ISRs) of the existing FLUs were 60 percent and 30 percent, and that the applicant was proposing 65 percent for residential and 70 percent for commercial. He remarked that the minimum open space was 20 percent and 25 percent for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU, and 30 percent and 50 percent for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood FLU; furthermore, the applicant was proposing 25 percent. He showed a map with the current FLUs, along with a map of the property as a PUD with a blending of those densities. He stated that this item was strictly a discussion for land use and what the FLU densities would allow, and that it was exclusive of any kind of rezoning restrictions that would be in place. He commented that the ordinance in the packet included an exhibit B; however, this was a mistake and should not have been included; therefore, the ordinance would not include exhibit B when it was transmitted to the State.

Commr. Smith reiterated that all the Board was doing on the current day was submitting this item to the State for their comments.

Ms. Tara Tedrow, an attorney representing the applicant, recalled that on March 6, 2024 the applicant went before the Planning and Zoning Board for both the FLU and rezoning ordinances, noting that they had a favorable recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board which matched the staff’s recommendation for approval on their FLU ordinance. She added that on the following day, they were taking back the rezoning ordinance to address three issues that the Planning and Zoning Board had asked for clarification on; additionally, this was why they were not discussing the details of the rezoning ordinance on the current day.

Mr. Alex Stringfellow, a planner representing the applicant, showed a map of the area and noted that Sorrento Avenue to the north and CR 437 to the west were both target streets for improvements under capital improvements for Lake County. He mentioned that they would be bringing a concept plan to the BCC in the future alongside the PUD ordinance. He showed maps for the current and proposed land uses, and he pointed out that under the current FLU the maximum permitted density was 1,811 units and the proposed number of units was 1,725. He mentioned that with the FLU there was a floor area ratio (FAR) that was applied across the entire site to create a more realistic projection of what would be built there, noting that the applicant had taken the three million or more square feet of commercial and reduced it to 350,000 square feet. He relayed that there was a mix of zoning districts under the current project, and that they would bring a detailed concept plan to the Board with their PUD ordinance; furthermore, they were planning for this area to include improvements that would tie into capital improvements. He pointed out a spine road running through the center of the project, which connected to the CR 437 realignment, and that it also included three roundabouts. He mentioned that the concept plan included 20 acres of commercial along SR 46, noting that it was always envisioned to be a main street and that this was about 1,900 linear feet. He said that the FLU currently allowed 5.5 dwelling units per acre on the north side of the property, and that the proposal was looking to do more single family closer to three units per acre. He stated that there were open spaces throughout the community, and that there would be walkability to commercial areas and open space. He showed a height map which would regulate heights, pointing out that the 45 foot height was the commercial area, that everything to the west was under the 60 foot area was where multifamily and townhomes were proposed, and that everything to the west was under the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU of 5.5 units per acre; furthermore, the pink area on the map was already a 40 foot height approved PUD, and the rest was 35 feet which was consistent with residential.

Commr. Parks asked if he could summarize why this proposed request was consistent with the Comp Plan.

Mr. Stringfellow explained that the proposed concept had two different FLUs, about five different zonings and three separate property owners. He said that the idea was to master plan this property, create a spine road, and create a cohesive development for the main street; therefore, they had to take the Comp Plan for open space and density, which had an arbitrary line in the middle which split density in the north and the south, and calculate it across the site to come up with their number. He elaborated that they had done this math which blended to 3.7 units per acre. He opined that this was consistent with the current Comp Plan from a density perspective, and that they were reducing the FAR overall, opining that this was also consistent with the current Comp Plan. He said that the intent of the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento area was to create a market for a main street area, and that the FLU was adopted in 2011; however, he opined that functionally nothing had occurred since then. He stated that the request had been to bring a neighborhood and a main street, and that the applicant was trying to do those things with 1,900 feet of linear main street along Sorrento Avenue and much open space throughout to provide walkability options, along with a neighborhood between the two land use densities.

Commr. Parks questioned if it was density, the plan that existed for Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento for years, or the Comp Plan which required putting parcels together and doing a larger master plan.

Mr. Stringfellow responded that it was all three of these items, and that considering that the County was asking for the impetus of that neighborhood and the main street, along with the County wanting to do a complete street on SR 46 and CR 437, he opined that this level of density was not only consistent with the Comp Plan, but that it was needed to support a market for a commercial area. He added that the applicant would be bringing details on buffers, open space, cross sections of the spine road, commercial design standards and utilities, noting that they were required to connect to central utilities in the current draft of the PUD ordinance.

Ms. Tedrow indicated that Comp Plan Policy I-7.14 regarded why the County had a PUD FLU and that it spoke to having these types of unique developments which required specific design standards to consider flexible planning. She added that they had three separate private property owners coming together to develop a comprehensive program, which she opined was better than each of them putting forth their own development plan. She relayed that the staff report recognized that the applicant met those policies and the intent behind the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento design guidelines; additionally, they met the policies of the Wekiva Study Area. She concluded that staff believed that the applicant had met the policies necessary to make a make a recommendation of approval.

Commr. Campione asked about the Wekiva Study Area and the review that Mr. Stringfellow did, and how this interfaced with a transmittal of a Comp Plan provision versus getting into the details of a plat and neighborhood design.

Mr. Stringfellow opined that they were trying to increase compatibility with the Comp Plan and were trying to come up with a way to move forward under the idea that this would be master planned, which was density and intensity. He said that the Wekiva Study Area was a separate Comp Plan section and that they would have to address this regardless of the current transmittal. He added that they would have to functionally engineer it to answer all of the requirements of the Wekiva Study Area, and that they did not know what their max yield, setbacks or buffers were. He elaborated that this would be done later and that they would commit to doing this.

Commr. Campione mentioned issues such as depressions on the property and potential karst activity, relaying her understanding that a preliminary hydrologic and geologic report was done which indicated that there needed to be additional review. She inquired that when the Board transmitted something like this, they were not saying that those items were addressed as a result of this hearing; rather, those items were addressed when the applicant got into the engineering and the detailed analysis of where they could and should put a road or a lot.

Mr. Stringfellow indicated that there were setbacks in the Wekiva Study Area karst features, and that if the final hydrogeological report showed a karst feature, then they would have to meet the setbacks and those standards; however, this was not a decision at the current time, and they would find these items out later.

Ms. Tedrow commented that a PUD FLU did not override the Wekiva Study Area Comp Plan policies, and that the applicant still had to comply with them, noting that this was included in the zoning ordinance; additionally, one of the code’s construction plan requirements was a hydrologic study which reviewed these details. She added that the code did not require this level of detail at a FLU or rezoning hearing, and that it came later when they did the final engineering plans.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. David Harbeck, a resident of Lake County, said that he had lived on that land for many years and that they were not able to develop it because of the flood zone. He questioned what would happen when the applicant brought the dirt in and how it would impact the natural flow of water in the area.

Commr. Smith indicated that this was why the Board was sending this item to the State for their comments, noting that they could receive all the facts.

Commr. Campione added that they could ask staff or representatives of the developer about some of these questions for items such as how additional fill could affect surrounding property owners, and how this could be addressed from an engineering standpoint.

Mr. Jon Suarez, a resident on Curle Road, expressed concerns about what would happen to the area, traffic, the size of this project, and there not being any road improvements occuring. He opined that they needed to look at the plan and what needed to be put in place before something like this came in, and he also indicated concerns for water.

Mr. William Morris, a neighbor of the subject property, relayed concerns for the buffer area between his property and the development, and for people considering this as an extension of their backyard. He asked how the applicant would maintain this buffer area without the residents using it for their own benefit, and said that he would like to see the zoning retained as it was.

Commr. Smith mentioned that this was a concern of the Board, and that the current hearing was a transmittal to receive information back from the State; furthermore, the applicant would then go into their detailed planning for the buffers, roads, swales, etc. He added that the County would receive this information in the future and that Mr. Morris would have an opportunity to review and make comments on it.

Commr. Campione stated that if the PUD zoning came back to the Board, the Board could include things in the ordinance to limit what a buffer could be used for so that it worked as a buffer between him and an adjoining property owner or lot; however, this was not the kind of detail that they could discuss on the current day.

Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, displayed the map which was used for the advertisement and pointed out a parcel which was not part of the project.

Commr. Campione opined that if one did not have a parcel which was supposed to be included, then they would have to stop the hearing; however, if they had extra property, the County would have to ensure that they did not use it for their calculations, though it would not prevent a hearing from going forward.

Ms. Newton expressed concerns for a statement that Ms. Tedrow had brought up regarding Comp Plan Policy I.7.14 which stated that the PUD FLU series was established to provide and implement a tool to accommodate site specific development standards for unique properties and developments which did not conform to the established FLU category. She opined that the request for approval to adopt and transmit this change in FLU to PUD allowed the generic PUD FLU to replace the specific Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street and Neighborhood FLUs, and that if the PUD FLU change was made with the proposed zoning changes, it would allow for a significant increase in density and commercial development. She expressed concerns for losing the small town mom and pop vision that the community had worked hard to preserve, noting that the County had included this in their Comp Plan. She opined that much of the open space and recharge would be lost, which was vital to the natural resources within the Wekiva Study Area, and she asked the Board to read the letter which was submitted by the Friends of the Wekiva River. She said that the obvious changes were the increases in height, the reduction in open space and the increase of impervious surface. She opined that the applicant wanted to reduce the open space from 50 percent to 25 percent and more than double the impervious surface area on nearly half of the property. She also mentioned the change in density and intensity with this FLU change and the zoning. She showed a copy of the existing zoning map and the current entitlements, and she opined that 852 dwelling units and 300,564 square feet of commercial could be built currently. She said that there were some policies in the Comp Plan and the old Sorrento Village PUD which would likely limit this to slightly more; however, she opined that the proposed FLU amendment, together with the rezoning, would increase these entitlements significantly. She stated that the applicant had claimed that the residential density and intensity would decrease if the item was approved, though she opined that they would increase. She expressed concerns for reducing the open space, increasing the impervious surface, and eliminating the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU design standards, and she asked the Board to deny transmitting this change. She added that the landowners could still develop under the current FLU.

Mr. Charles Lee, Director of Advocacy for Audubon Florida, asked the Board to postpone consideration of this matter and pull together more detailed information with regards to the conflicts with the Wekiva Study Area criteria. He opined that these issues should be corrected at this stage rather than going forward, adding that the applicant wanted to move into the quasi-judicial phase of zoning where the ability to address them would be more constrained. He opined that the three conflict areas with the Wekiva Study Area Comp Plan provisions included open space, and said that the applicant was changing this to a 25 percent level of open space; however, he opined that 25 percent was appropriate for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU area but not the whole tract, including the neighborhood areas and the areas which were essentially a buffer to other lands. He expressed concerns for impervious surfaces, noting that the applicant was proposing 65 percent impervious surface for residential and 70 percent for commercial in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU area; additionally, he opined that the County’s Comp Plan provisions with regard to the Wekiva Study Area would allow 60 percent in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU area and 30 percent in the residential area. He then indicated that the protection of karst features was located in Comp Plan Policies I.22.8 and I.22.7, opining that the requirements were in conflict with the maps in the plan. He opined that housing developments, retention ponds and a major arterial road were structured over part of the karst areas that their engineer appeared to have identified, and that these were items that the Board should address at the current time. He said that if this was transmitted, then individuals would have to go to the City of Tallahassee, FDEP and the Florida Department of Commerce to indicate to them what was wrong with what the Board transmitted. He opined that individuals were not saying that this was the wrong place for development, but that there was some blending that needed to be done to have this line up with the other substantive provisions of the Comp Plan regarding the Wekiva Study Area.

Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident representing the Friends of the Wekiva River, indicated that her organization had sent detailed comments to the Board. She relayed that protecting a river, especially a spring-fed river and its tributaries, required protecting other areas which had been identified as important ecological components of the river system, which included the springshed, recharge areas, the rural protection area, karst features and the Wekiva Study Area. She opined that this concept plan weakened the protection of natural resources which were important to the Wekiva Study Area, such as the reduction in required open space, the increase in impervious surface, and the site plan appearing to use wetlands and potential sinkholes for stormwater. She commented that there had been extensive planning to create FLU map categories and policies for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento area, and she believed that they needed to do more to protect these areas. She opined that the proposed changes undermined the longstanding vision and commitments expressed in the current Comp Plan, which were designed to retain the community’s traditional rural atmosphere and protect natural resources. She requested that the Board not adopt and transmit this item on the current day, to consider the concerns mentioned in the Friends of the Wekiva River’s letter, and to work with the applicant to modify the project such that the factors of open space, impervious surface and protection of karst features are addressed.

Mr. JJ Johnson, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, hoped that the Board would not transmit this, opining that it would appear that the Board endorsed it. He opined that this was too soon and that there was much research that had to be done, and he expressed concerns for many developments affecting the environment. He also opined that the proposed development was too large for the area.

Ms. Katherine de Jongh, a resident of Lake County, opined that the proposed plan was excessive in density, had created false open areas by using power line easements, proposed the use of karst areas for containing runoff and retention, and allowed for an alarming percentage of impervious surface area within the Wekiva Study Area. She opined that the plan should have been returned to the developer for revision by the Planning and Zoning Board, and that the current transmittal would undercut the due process that local residents would traditionally participate in and imposed an undue burden on them to pursue avenues which not normally occur to them if they chose to pursue objecting to this. She recalled that nearly 20 years prior, the residents of Mt. Plymouth and Sorrento worked to develop a main street FLU category which would allow for capital improvements and was adopted into the Comp Plan; furthermore, she opined that if approved, the current item would eliminate the main street and neighborhood plan. She opined that the application was before the Board because a developer wanted more than what was currently allowed, and that the Board should vote no. She opined that these limits were not set to be an issue for growth, but were designed to allow for responsible growth; additionally, she said that with the passing of the Wekiva River Protection Act, Counties were required to write in protections to their Comp Plans regarding the Wekiva Study Area and protection areas. She opined that there was not a realistic way to protect this area if they approved this current development plan, and that Hillcrest would be the first significant development in Lake County in the Wekiva Study Area since the completion of the Wekiva Parkway. She opined that it was critical to get this one right before it would set a precedent, and she asked that the applicant be required to work within the current parameters. She opined that doing so would result in a desirable community that was respectful of the wishes of the people and took the proper steps to preserve the Wekiva Study Area and Wekiva River Protection Area. She expressed concerns about the communication for this topic, relaying her understanding that the “more info” tab on the County’s Development Near Me website was disabled and that it became more difficult to obtain this information. She opined that this transmission was premature, and she asked the Board to allow for managed growth while protecting sensitive lands, to require legitimate open space instead of power line easements, to ensure the protection of old growth trees, and to avoid the use of karst features for runoff or sites for infill.

Ms. Barbara Morris, a resident of the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento area speaking via Zoom, objected to the Board transmitting this item. She opined that the information transmitted to the State needed to be accurate, and she expressed concerns for the conceptual plan not listing karst areas, wetlands, setbacks and items that the State should be aware of. She opined that when they had a disagreement regarding what this transmittal would do to the density and intensity of this project, then it would be prudent to solve this dispute before it was transmitted to the State. She opined that the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood FLU was done to protect adjoining properties so that massive density or commercial could not be nearby, and that this would be eliminated if it was approved. She also opined that the commercial and main street would no longer come under that Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA because it would no longer be a main street, and she asked for some of these items to be corrected. She opined that if this land use was changed, it would essentially allow this development to double the densities that they could have currently, and she indicated support for allowing them to use what was currently in place.

Mr. Keith Schue, a former Mt. Plymouth resident speaking via Zoom, indicated that he had previously served on the local planning agency when the County Comp Plan was written. He expressed concerns for misinformation about entitlements, such as if the Board did not approve this, then Hillcrest could be entitled to build 1,800 homes and over three million square feet of commercial, opining that this was incorrect. He opined that the entitlements were about 850 dwelling units and possibly 300,000 square feet of commercial, and that Hillcrest wanted around 1,700 homes and to increase the commercial to build the equivalent of two Super Walmarts. He also opined that Hillcrest wanted to reduce open space from 50 percent to 25 percent, and increase the amount of impervious area which meant there would be less recharge. He indicated his understanding that it looked like they wanted to build on wetlands, water bodies and karst features, or to use those items as a place to hold stormwater. He suggested that the Board not approve the FLU map amendment, and to tell Hillcrest to live with the rules that the County had for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood FLU category and then negotiate a PUD zoning that made sense. He opined that Hillcrest had about 50 percent more land than the original PUD, and that increasing 776 homes by 50 percent would give them about 1,100 homes, which he opined could be a good target; additionally, he expressed support for bringing the commercial down to something that served the community instead of bringing massive traffic. He opined that a less extreme project would give them the opportunity to protect meaningful open space, recharge, trees, wildlife and natural areas.

Mr. Richard Allen, a resident on Ensley Road, expressed concerns for the proposed development affecting land, and he opined that there was an unstudied floodplain. He mentioned that he had dealt with issues of flooding from new development where they were filling in single family lots, and that it was shifting the drainage pattern. He expressed concerns for this and for whether the applicant would study not just the development area, but the area where this site would run off to. He indicated concerns for sensitive land, karst features, sinkholes and the biodiversity of the land and animals. He expressed concerns for the density of the development and for the impervious surface increase, questioning where the stormwater would go. He indicated concerns for changing the community, and he mentioned that the City of Sanford was stopping development because they were growing too fast; furthermore, he opined that Lake County was not developed or staffed enough, nor did they have enough infrastructure in place for this type of development. He also expressed concerns for infrastructure in Mt. Plymouth, school capacity, and the lack of proper services.

Mr. Eric Schaefer, a resident with the Sundance Ridge Homeowners Association (HOA), indicated concerns for density, relaying his understanding that there would basically be zero lot lines for three houses per acre. He relayed that almost everything he had seen with regards to this development was primarily commercial, which he opined would change what he believed that Sorrento was supposed to be. He expressed concerns for having the infrastructure and schools to handle this, and he said that he moved to the area to get away from large densities.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Ms. Tedrow opined that much of this was addressed with design standards, and she agreed with the concerns about items such as karst features or protected recharge areas, noting that there were five pages of the Comp Plan for the Wekiva Study Area which spoke specifically to those design standards; additionally, staff had been tasked to review this when the applicant came back with their final site plans. She clarified that when they came back for a second reading on a Comp Plan amendment, this was still a quasi-legislative decision that the Board would make, and that their rezoning would come back as a separate quasi-judicial decision. She commented that they may receive comments back from the State that they may have to take into consideration before they would come back for a second reading, and opined that there was time before the second reading for the issues they heard to be addressed. She said that they received a copy of the Friends of the Wekiva River letter on the previous day, and she opined that those were issues addressed in the code and the Comp Plan that they would have to comply with. She added that if this meant that they would have to move lots, move roads and change open space, then this would be what they had to do, noting that this would happen anyway by going to a final engineering process, which was not where they were at on the current day. She added that staff and the Planning and Zoning Board had reviewed the request and found the proposed development to be consistent with the Comp Plan and LDR.

Mr. Stringfellow stated that they had CR 437 to the west, and that this was planned to be improved. He also indicated that there would be three roundabouts and that their properties abutted the roundabouts. He mentioned that there was an entryway on the second one, and that the CR 437 realignment entered directly into their property; furthermore, they were required in the PUD ordinance to work with the County to make that project come to fruition. He mentioned that they had to participate from a flood perspective and stormwater alignment, and that they were taking a road which did not go anywhere through their property with a spine road with eight foot trails on both sides, an 18 foot buffer for native landscaping, and connecting it to Sorrento Avenue which had been designated as a complete street. He added that they would have to make improvements along their front linear footage of roughly 1,900 feet, and that they had to create connection points into their neighborhood. He opined that this project was necessary to do anything in the area, and that without this master planned community he was unsure how CR 437 and Sorrento Avenue would function, opining that people needed a bypass and another way to get to the neighborhood and out past it. He elaborated that the PUD would explain this in detail and that this would be a significant improvement which would help the transportation over the lifetime of this community. He then clarified that it was not currently 50 percent open space, noting that they had 254 acres which were 20 to 25 percent open space, and that those 254 acres were eligible for commercial with a decent FAR. He added that they had 207 acres on the south side which were 30 to 50 percent open space, and that when they spread this out it was 25 percent in the north on their concept plan, and 40 percent in the south. He opined that they could address much of what they heard from the Friends of the Wekiva River and that the PUD was the best tool to address those concerns.

Commr. Campione thanked the Friends of the Wekiva River for their comprehensive review, and she opined that the developers were receptive to taking this into account, provided that it was transmitted, that the County received it back, and if they were dealing with the details of a PUD. She opined that it had also highlighted that even though the Board would only be transmitting, those areas of concern would be protected in the long run. She asked if the Board could attach with their transmittal an emphatic statement that the land use designation would fully comply with the Wekiva Study Area, noting that the law said that it had to comply, but that this would be an acknowledgement to the State that the Board was in agreement that a PUD on this site would comply with the area and that the County would take such steps to ensure that this happened.

Ms. Marsh stated that there should be a transmittal letter and that this could be included.

Commr. Campione expressed support for acknowledging that this was important to everyone, and opined that the explanation about the open space was helpful to understand that they could leave the property the way it was with the two FLUs; however, the Board was being asked not to remove the FLUs, but to take the attributes of each FLU and blend them together so that they could take several property owners and create a master plan. She opined that it became difficult to do a master plan on the PUD end if they had a line which went through the property with different FLUs, noting that they would not be able to shift anything around in the design because they were beholden to that line. She added that the applicant asked to make this a PUD land use to have this flexibility, and then the Board had the discretion at the PUD process to ask if they were staying with the 40 to 50 percent open space range in the area that would have otherwise been in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood FLU, and if they were staying with the 20 to 25 percent open space in the commercial area. She mentioned that the Board could discuss this in detail when they got to the PUD side, but that if they did not do this as a PUD land use, then they would not have this flexibility when they got to the master plan. She said that everything from each of the two FLU designations was coming along with this new land use, and that the old PUD was considerably less landmass than this, along with bringing in land in the main street area. She related that if the applicant brought in five different subdivisions as a plat, it would not be master planned but would come under the old land uses, opining that they would likely end up with more houses. She expressed appreciation for comments raised about looking at the whole basin and the watershed, and she remarked that the engineers had to take into account that they were not putting any more water off this property in the long run. She recalled that she had previously advocated for a single group of people in 2006 when individuals were working on the old PUD, and said that she currently felt like an advocate for the entire community from the standpoint of sitting on the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Agency Board and wanting the best for Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento, knowing that all of these visioning sessions through the years focused on how they could create a sense of community. She opined that they wanted a sense of community, a neighborhood commercial district and a true main street, opining that they could not have a true main street if they did not have residences nearby. She opined that when one went back through the visioning documents, what was being proposed was on target. She thought that the old PUD had some good attributes but that the proposed development was superior when it came to complete street requirements, trail requirements and design requirements for commercial; additionally, she opined that they could not have two Super Walmarts because the design requirements did not allow that type of commercial use. She relayed that they would have more of a traditional downtown environment, and she opined that some of the information on social media was so over the top that it was difficult to understand how it reached that point. She said that a project development and environment (PD&E) study had been done for the CR 437 realignment, which she opined would be a significant improvement for the area and would serve as a way of connecting CR 437 south to CR 437 north. She added that this project would help that come to fruition, and she reiterated that it could not be built unless all the things were done to protect the floodplain and karst features, noting that one could not build a retention area in a sinkhole or depression areas, and that this was what occurred when the engineers were involved to ensure that they were not putting things in the wrong place. She opined that much had happened since 2006, stating that they did not have the East Lake Sports and Community Complex, that the fire station was close to being completed on that parcel, that they did not have the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA design criteria in place for commercial uses, and that they did not have the type of school concurrency and proportionate share agreements as they had currently; additionally, the Lake County School District now had a new way of planning where they wanted their schools and how they were going to be funded. She said that one could not build houses unless the school district signed off on the fact that there was capacity to serve that neighborhood, and that these items were not in place previously. She mentioned the complete streets issue on Sorrento Avenue, noting that staff was in the process of reviewing the complete streets for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA and had put a commission to study it, noting that they were looking at whether there were things about this plan that could be put in place sooner to address safety issues. She commented that Orange Avenue, which came out to Sorrento, was a significant safety concern, and that they were looking at whether they could implement a modification to that intersection sooner than later to make it safer. She opined that this project had the potential of seeing these items through, and that there was almost an impossible task in the visioning statements about maintaining the character of the area and yet still having a commercial district and a main street. She opined that this was a tall order and required some compromise, including some density in certain locations to make this work, along with maintaining open space and having greenways and wildlife corridors. She commented that the County did not have the dark sky rules in their 2006 ordinance to the extent that they had them currently, nor did they have bear management provisions. She opined that the County improved in many ways as far as being able to manage the things that were important once housing was added to an area, and she recalled that she was there from roughly 1988 to 1990 when the Wekiva River Protection Act was going into place, noting that there was a large conflict over how this property and the surrounding area could be developed, if it should be part of the Wekiva River Protection Area, and if it should be allowed for development. She elaborated that there was much negotiation involved, and that it was decided that the area would be designated as the urban compact node and be left out of the Wekiva River Protection Area. She mentioned that the County currently had an application to move ahead with development on this property which was specifically designated as an urban compact node, and she opined that they had an obligation to preserve the property rights and acknowledge that history, but to do it in a way that was reasonable, responsible and conscientious. She opined that by highlighting adherence to the Wekiva Study Area rules as they moved forward and making sure that those rules were met, the County was being good stewards to the environment and property rights.

Commr. Parks opined that the proposed development may be consistent with the Comp Plan, and that it may currently be challenging to see how the existing land uses could be better than what the applicant was proposing. He indicated interest in ensuring that it was consistent with the entire Comp Plan, and said that in the past if he did not find that something was consistent with the Comp Plan at a zoning level, then he voted no. He opined that there was some work that had to be done between the current time and the adoption hearing where both the adoption of the current item and the zoning would be heard. He opined that questions had to be answered about floodplains, planning and traffic, and he thought that there was value in the process from the State if the Board transmitted this item. He stated that for open space, he would ensure that they were in the same or a better situation.

Commr. Smith thanked everyone for attending and said that the Board received and read their emails. He opined that to receive all the facts, they had to see what the State said in the transmittal. He mentioned that FWC, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and FDEP would be involved for water issues, and that the Florida Department of Education would be addressing the school issues; additionally, FDOT would be addressing transportation issues. He clarified that the BCC was not approving the development plan at the current stage, and that the Board could deny the project if it did not meet the intent of the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento objectives and the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Neighborhood FLU designation when it came back to them. He reiterated that the Board was just transmitting it to the State to receive their input on what they felt about this property.

Commr. Shields opined that it would be nice if the County could have much of this resolved before transmitting it, and that it he would be voting against it.

Commr. Smith indicated that the applicant could not do a design unless they heard from the State.

Commr. Shields opined that the Board had sometimes addressed both at the same time.

Commr. Campione asked that the developer continue to work with staff and take into account the comments made by the Friends of the Wekiva River. She added that to the extent that they could address details in the plan with some of the discussed items taken into consideration, then the Board would have more detailed information to work with by the time it came back for the next review.

Commr. Smith implored the developers to work with the Friends of the Wekiva River and ensure that the open spaces were there.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 1, Rezoning Case # PZ2023-25, Sorrento PUD (Hillcrest) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (Transmittal).

Commr. Shields voted no.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1

lead board meeting

Commr. Shields mentioned that he had a Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD) Board meeting and that there was some good information presented; furthermore, they were going to discuss what could be brought to the BCC at a future meeting.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

upcoming tdc meeting

Commr. Smith said that he had an upcoming Tourist Development Council (TDC) meeting.

national peanut butter and jelly day

Commr. Smith related that it was National Peanut Butter and Jelly Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK