The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, December 13, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Donald B. Bailey, Chairman; Richard Swartz; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Michael J. Bakich, and Catherine Hanson. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Marlene Foran, Secretary.
COMMITTEES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning & Development, appeared before the Board to review future meeting dates, as follows: December 17, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., report on the Historical Evaluation & Appraisal Report; December 17, 1990, the Local Planning Agency will transmit the Comprehensive Plan from the LPA to the Board of County Commissioners; January 15, 1991, at 5:00 p.m., the Board of County Commissioners will meet in Public Hearing, and transmit the Comprehensive Plan Document to the State.
Mr. Swanson presented several maps for the Board's review and briefly discussed what would be presented to the Board at this meeting.
Mr. Swanson presented the 141% factor, explaining that staff reached this concept by taking the population projection received from the Bureau of Economic Research, and adding an additional 41%, that staff felt was a more reasonable projection. Mr. Swanson stated that the 41% was reached by adding a 25% factor into the population projections that the State indicated all municipalities should add, with staff adding an additional 16% to account for any error. Mr. Swanson stated that the population factor was equated into density, and reflected on the land use map into five catego
ries: Urban, Urban Expansion, Semi-Rural, Rural, and Rural Future Expansion. Mr. Swanson further commented that the Rural Village Concept would also be presented.
Mr. Alton Roane, Community Development Coordinator, Mr. Michael Stearman, City Manager and Mr. Derryl Benton, Mayor of Eustis, appeared before the Board representing the City of Eustis. Mayor Benton read into the record a letter that had been previously sent to each of the Commissioners and reiterated comments in the letter. Mayor Benton stated that the City of Eustis wants to work with the Commission in a coordinating effort, based on the Interlocal Agreement that was signed in 1987.
Mr. Roane presented before the Board the City of Eustis Land Use Map, with areas highlighted that show specific conflict between the County's number five map and the City of Eustis Land Use Map.
Considerable discussion occurred between the Board and those representing the City of Eustis, with the City of Eustis showing concern over the urban zoning.
Discussion occurred regarding the performance standards, with Commr. Gregg stating that to understand how the performance standard is going to work, a particular site should be analyzed using the point system.
Mayor Benton reiterated the primary concerns of the City of Eustis, and asked consideration be given to the urban areas that are high density areas and protect the property that is there.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Eustis staff take a particular section and, using the point system, see what density they arrive at, with the City of Eustis agreeing and stating they would return with their findings.
Mr. Kirch stated that an important issue is that a development must be compatible with the density in the surrounding area, no matter how many points are scored on the point system.
Mr. Jim Simpson, property owner in Mt. Dora and Eustis, appeared before the Board with concerns regarding the interlocal agreements signed in 1987. Mr. Simpson stated that municipalities
have never been allowed, in the past, to decide what the County wants, and further stated that he went on record in opposition to the agreements. Mr. Simpson stated that urban belongs in the cities, and rural belongs in the County, and asked that the Commissioners keep this concept in mind.
Mr. Kirch distributed a draft of a new policy within the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, stating that 128 interlocal agreements were inventoried for fourteen municipalities, and the policy in question establishes the reduction of the 128 interlocal agreements into fourteen, therefore, giving each municipality only one interlocal agreement.
Mr. Swanson presented to the Board the lineup of the maps, with a brief description of how each of these maps developed. Mr. Swanson stated that the original map, known as the "Mickey Mouse" map, reflects extension of an urban land use classification two miles from the boundary of each city within the County, which is classified as Urban; the next one mile radius would be an Urban Expansion area; a Semi-rural area would be determined; with the fourth classification being Rural. Mr. Swanson stated that a Village Concept would also be developed, which would require developers to meet performance criteria, before they could develop in the rural areas.
Commr. Bakich presented his concept using the original map, suggesting a two mile radius reaching out from the city boundaries for Urban; the third mile would be Urban Expansion; maintain the Rural Village Concept in various parts of the County with criteria, and the rest of the area would be Rural. Commr. Bakich commented that this concept is simple, concise and manageable, and stressed the importance of simplicity, naming his concept "the KIS method", "Keep It Simple". He further pointed out that consideration would be given for development in the rural area of the map, if the performance criteria is met.
Considerable discussion occurred from the Board regarding the above concept.
Mr. Jay VanderMeer, who served on the Zoning Board for twenty-two years, appeared before the Board, in support of Commr. Bakich's concept, stating that he served on the Zoning Board when the 1977 Comprehensive Plan was developed. He further commented that the 1977 concept to use urban nodes has worked, and feels that continued growth can be maintained by using the concept of nodes and expansion of the nodes. Mr. VanderMeer commented that points to be considered are private property rights, road systems, and the cost of the plan.
Mr. Mark McLean, a resident of Clermont, appeared before the Board, in support of Commr. Bakich's "KIS" concept, stating that he feels this concept will be the most manageable and fair, stressing the importance to keep it simple.
Mr. Dale Ladd, a County resident, appeared before the Board, in support of Commr. Bakich's concept, stating that this concept follows what the market is requiring and supports an economic point of view. Mr. Ladd did state that he disagrees with the two mile radius around the City of Clermont.
Mr. Dick Wells, Ivey, Harris & Walls, Inc., representing property owners on the east side of John's Lake, appeared before the Board commenting that he feels the Board is headed in the right direction with the map in question, and presented a map drawn by the property owners in the John's Lake area, presenting their concept of how their area should be developed.
Mr. Hal Turville, Council Member, City of Clermont, appeared before the Board, stating the concept in question has merit, but stated that the circle concept presents problems. Mr. Turville stated that with overlapping circles, the entire County is made available for semi-rural development.
Mr. Bill Karcher, representing the interest of the Bradshaw and Lykes properties, appeared before the board, in support of Commr. Bakich's concept, stating that he felt there was a preoccupation with the map.
Ms. Jackie Conn, a property owner, appeared before the Board and presented a brief history of what has happened in the Broward County area, stating that the nodes concept is how Broward County became densely populated. Ms. Conn commented that criteria in developing a land use map should be the soil, water, and roads (emphasizing roads have to support the plan). Ms. Conn asked that the Board consider her comments when adopting the Future Land Use Map.
Ms. Darrell Jackson, a resident of Lake Ella Road and representing residents of the area, appeared before the Board and read a statement prepared by the residents of Lake Ella Road, and presented a petition with fifty-four names opposing the current land use map as presented today. Ms. Jackson stated that the present map will rezone their rural area from Agricultural to urban expansion, and commented that such zoning will devastate their present way of life.
Mr. Ray Gatch, property owner on Clear Lake, appeared before the Board and introduced Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, who will be representing Mr. Gatch. Mr. Beliveau stated that Mr. Gatch's area is prime for urban expansion, should be designated as such on the map, and wants to go on record to support this fact.
Mr. Beliveau, representing the City of Umatilla, appeared before the Board stating that the City of Umatilla supports the Joint Planning Agreement, and supports that urban expansion should be contained in the joint planning areas.
Mr. Glenn Brecheen, Chairman of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, for the Town of Montverde, appeared before the Board and presented a letter from the officials of Montverde, requesting that vast areas of urban expansion be removed from the Lake County future land use map. The letter requested that a rural designation be given and a rural/urban village concept be used in areas of previous development. The letter further requested that the County adopt a policy of density in the urban expansion areas equal to or
less than the density in the rural/urban villages or cities that they surround.
Mr. Wayne Scott, a resident of Yalaha, appeared before the Board and questioned why the land use maps had not been distributed to locations within the County for public review, with Mr. Swanson responding that staff had distributed maps to various locations within the County. Mr. Scott further commented that his neighbors and himself prefer their rural lifestyle and wished to keep it rural.
Mr. Harlan Hance, representing Glenn Gary Lakes, appeared before the Board supporting the approach that is being taken, stating that the comprehensive plan approach will enable a reasonable balance to take place in the south Lake County area. He further stated that a tremendous impact will be taking place over the next twenty years in south Lake County as a result of the increases in employment Walt Disney World will provide.
Ms. Ann Rou, a resident of Eustis and long time citrus grower, appeared before the Board to address the issue of devastation, pointing out the role that the citrus grower has played in the economy of the County. Ms. Rou further stated the growers must have the ability to do something with their vacant land, stressing the importance of the property owners having the right to do what they want with their land.
Ms. Rosemary Purdum, a resident of the Silver Lake area, appeared before the Board stating that her family has been long time residents of the County, and developers of the Silver Lake area. Ms. Purdum addressed her comments to the audience, stating that they also were citrus growers, commenting on the hardship of the citrus property owners, and stating that a property owner has a right to do what they wish with their property.
Mr. Bud Ward, a resident of Astatula and dairy farmer, appeared before the Board stating that the State requirements mandate that the red areas on the map follow the highways, and that taxes are going to put him out of business.
Senator Dick Langley appeared before the Board and stated that he endorses the concept being considered and encourages the use of the point system, with proper emphasis on the environment and services. Senator Langley further encouraged the Urban Node Concept.
Senator Langley stated it was his understanding that the existing zoning would not continue unless the land had been platted, with Commr. Gregg stating, if the existing zoning is compatible with the new land use, it will remain the same. Senator Langley questioned the legality of this issue, stating that the transition should be the zoning rather than platting.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to look into the zoning concept as Senator Langley suggested, further stating that zoning is a contractual agreement between a property owner and the County.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, addressed the zoning issue from a legal perspective, stating that it is not a contract but a privilege granted by local government to use one's property in a particular way. Discussion from the Board followed.
Ms. Darrell Jackson reappeared before the Board to express her sympathies and understanding to the citrus grove owners, but stated that they made great revenues from their groves, knew the risk involved, and asked that the Board look at everyone's property rights.
Mr. David Edwards, Attorney, representing the people of Mid-Florida Lake Estates Mobile Home Park, appeared before the Board to express concern over the semi-rural designation for that area. Mr. Edwards also expressed concern for the area listed as Goose Prairie, stating it is the fourth most unique, environmentally sensitive area in the County. Mr. Edwards stated that he would like to see a policy in the land use element stating that mining use would not be allowed in urban areas, and also address the issue of mining in environmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. Frank Bouis, a citrus grower, appeared before the Board stating that Lake County needs to continue to be an economic entity and maintain a balanced economy even though the citrus industry, that kept Lake County unique, is gone. Mr. Bouis asked that the Board think about what they really want to create for Lake County.
Ms. Mary Francis Kaskill McKinney, a Lisbon area resident, appeared before the Board to express her concerns, stating that the Board must consider what the people of Lake County want. Ms. McKinney presented letters, from the residents of the Lisbon area, in support of growth for Lisbon.
Mr. Elmer Webb, a resident of Estes Road, appeared before the Board and stated that Estes Road is located on the map as an area that is to be zoned 15 units per acre and questioned how the County intends to control this type of zoning.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that there has been no set standards or discussions addressing the issue of the employment centers, the commercial areas or how to make the potential incompatible uses compatible. Mr. Richey stated that the County must clearly take the initiative to provide the space for the industrial uses that we need and want in order to diversify our economy. Mr. Richey further stated that we have to make ourselves competitive, and asked that the Board take the necessary steps to assure that this happens.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board has identified areas for future economic development, both commercial and industrial, and further stated that some of Mr. Richey's concerns are addressed in the element under "Vesting of Industrial Enclaves", page I-10, Policy 1-4.8. Commr. Swartz pointed out language on page 1-48, where it states, due to the existence of lower density development in the urban area, buffering is necessary to provide better transition and compatibility between densities; further stating all new development must provide five feet of open space buffer for every unit per acre it exceeds the adjacent existing development, not to exceed 50 feet. Commr. Swartz commented that he is not
satisfied that this language is adequate, and suggested that the points system should, perhaps, be addressed in the Goals, Objectives & Policies.
Mr. Buddy Graham, a property owner in the Lake Yale area, appeared before the Board and asked for clarification on the zoning of his property, stating that he has 100 acres zoned RR and 70 acres zoned RE, which is not platted.
Mr. Kirch presented to the Board several handouts, the first being the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, stipulating goals, objectives and implementing policies which direct and manage coordination responsibilities with Federal, State and Local governments; a table that reflects the map acreage on Map No. 5; a revised Objective 1-11, promoting the use of Innovative Land Development Regulations and Applications, Policy 1-11.3: Countywide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program, Policy 1-11.4: Designation of Rural Villages; and an Errata Sheet for the Future Land Use Element, listing changes in the Data Inventory and Analysis document and the Goals, Objectives, and Policies.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until the 7:00 p.m. Future Land Use Element Public Hearing.
COMMITTEES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Con't.)
Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and stated that the Board needs to set a course of direction, focusing in on one map or concept so that staff may then interpret this focus into a Map No. 6. Mr. Swanson stated that the Board also needs to review the Goals, Policies and Objectives that are in the Future Land Use Element.
It was the consensus of the Board to discuss the "KIS" map, known as Map No. 1, and then open the floor for public comment.
Mr. Swanson presented a brief review of the proposed map, known as the "KIS" map, for those in the audience that were not present in the morning session.
Mr. Derryl Benton, Mayor of the City of Eustis, appeared before the Board with the results of the completed survey, using the point system, as suggested in the morning Public Hearing.
Mr. Alton Roane, Development Services Coordinator with the City of Eustis, appeared before the Board stating that the City of Eustis selected a parcel of land and applied the proposed point system to the selected parcel to see if there would be a conflict after the point system was applied. Mr. Roame pointed out the location of the parcel that was selected and, after providing a review of the steps leading up to the final results, stated that they arrived at 54 points, which means the property could be developed at 4.5 units per acre, in an area that the City of Eustis has designated as rural or one unit per acre.
Mr. Jim Simpson, property owner in Mt. Dora and Eustis, appeared before the Board, to discuss the issue of rural density classifications inside the planning areas, stating that the question is whether or not the cities should be involved in rural densities. Mr. Simpson stated that there is a need to bring conformity between the city planning areas and the county planning areas, so that when a change is made in the area, the County does not have to obtain approval through Tallahassee.
Mr. Garth Phillips, a resident of Cathedral Arch Estates, appeared before the Board, to express his concerns regarding the demand on water in the Lady Lake area, stating that there are no services available in this area that would support the proposed future land use map. Mr. Phillips stated that he is representing residents that are in the County and wish to stay in the County. Mr. Phillips presented a petition requesting that the Board designate the Cathedral Arch Estates area rural land use.
Commr. Gregg responded to Mr. Phillips' request by stating that an existing development will continue with its present density and existing zoning.
Mr. Joseph Cruey, a resident of Shirley Shores Road and representing his father, of the same address, appeared before the Board expressing his concern over the present traffic problem, future traffic problems and the danger to the wildlife that a higher density would cause to the area.
Mr. Jack Purdum, a resident of Silver Lake, asked for a clarification of the maps and asked for an explanation of the line that is slashed through the Silver Lake area.
Mr. Jay VanderMeer reappeared before the Board stating that he believes that the node concept is the proper way to go, but expressed concern for the many smaller nodes throughout the County where property owners have built convenient stores, etc. Mr. VanderMeer expressed his concern that, if they become a non-conforming use, they will not be able to rebuild, and requested the Board look at all of the nodes throughout the County when reviewing the node concept.
Mr. Dick Seron, a resident of Tavares, appeared before the Board to make comments on the map in question, stating that the map does not take into consideration the types of soil, location of lakes, and other natural phenomenon that exist. Mr. Seron further stated that he sees a County without its own vitality, does not see provision for sustaining industry, and questioned what is to prevent "creeping" compatibility. Mr. Seron stated that these are problems that he does not feel have been adequately addressed, and asked that the Board make adjustments to the straight lines and circles on the map in question.
Mr. Dick Toole, Groveland, appeared before the Board stating that he was a grove owner and is now a property owner, expressing concern that his property will be zoned rural.
Mr. David Udel, representing residents from the Lake Ella area, appeared before the Board to present a petition from the
residents and pictures of area lakes that are drying up, expressing their concern for the water situation in the area. Mr. Udel also expressed concern over the landfill, how the landfill will affect the area's water, and questioned if the County would be there for them if the water became contaminated from the landfill.
Ms. Elizabeth Bowen, a resident of Fruitland Park and a student at Leesburg High School, appeared before the Board and gave a brief history of Fruitland Park, reflecting it as a nice place to live and requested that the Board consider the small town. Ms. Bowan stated that growth can be good, but it is the way that growth is directed that determines whether it is good or bad.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, a resident of the Eustis area, appeared before the Board to address the issue of the point system, and called attention to the section on "Commercial Activity Center", page 1-45; "Water Reuse", page 1-46; "Access to Public Primary and Secondary Schools", page 1-47; and "Proximity to Public Parks".
Ms. Marian McKinney, a resident of Lisbon, appeared before the Board, and expressed concern over the zoning for property that she is currently developing, and asked if she should continue to develop the property. Discussion from the Board occurred as to
whether or not her property is platted.
Mr. Murphy Cameron appeared before the Board stating that people came to the Public Hearing to be enlightened, and all they are hearing are promises and no decisions.
Ms. Susie Bergman, a land owner and representing a group of people who are concerned with the attempt to stop all growth in Lake County, appeared before the Board stating that, if growth is limited, there will be a lot of people out of work, and asked that the residents of Lake County think about those jobs that will not be available if growth is limited.
Ms. Jamie Nye, a resident of Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board and expressed concern over the vested rights section of the plan. Ms. Nye asked that the Board thoroughly investigate the
vested issue, and consider the rights of others in the "rural" setting.
Mr. Dave Clapsaddle, representing Cherry Lake Farms, appeared before the Board stating that Cherry Lake Farms owns property in the Cherry Lake area, which has been designated as semi-rural and expressed concern for the designation given the close proximity to Clermont.
Mr. John Kauffman, a resident of Grand Island, appeared before the Board and stated that the south side of Lake Yale is designated as rural, expressing his concern that the area would not stay rural. Mr. Kauffman addressed the issue of contaminated aquifer water and asked if there has been a situation in Lake County where aquifer water was contaminated.
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, stated that there is a broad range of contamination in the aquifer, where citrus groves once existed, that runs from central Lake County into south Lake County.
Mr. Ed Bergman, a resident of Leesburg, appeared before the Board to address the issue of an "Employment Center" classification, which lies immediately east of the Leesburg Airport on U.S. 441 and south of Lake Sumter College, and referred to a letter and map from Ms. Rosemary P. Purdum, addressed to Commr. Gregg, which requested that the property in question be reclassified so that it could be used either as light manufacturing or commercial. Mr. Bergman asked that the Board consider that a Level of Service "D" classification be adopted for U.S. 441 between Leesburg and the Lake Square Mall, with discussion from the Board.
Mr. Howard Barry, a resident of Clermont and representing the citizens of Southlake, appeared before the Board stating that the citizens would like to have the urban and urban expansion areas reduced as much as possible, particularly at the intersection of Highway 27 and Highway 192, stating that the map represents an invitation to expansion rather than a limitation to expansion.
Ms. Marilyn Cameron, Shirley Shores Drive, appeared before the Board to ask if Commr. Swartz had plans to present his ideas for public review, with Commr. Bailey stating that, at this time, comments were directed at the map in question.
Mr. Dale Ladd, a resident of the Clermont area, appeared before the Board and questioned what drives the economy in south Lake County. Mr. Ladd stated that, if growth in south Lake County is limited, major problems will develop, commenting that there are approximately twenty-five real estate companies and twelve construction companies currently operating in the area.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, representing several clients in Lake County, appeared before the Board to comment that her clients have worked hard, paid their taxes, and should be able to utilize their property in the manner that they wish. Ms. Bonifay stated that she feels the concept is good, with flexibility given to those in the rural areas.
Mr. Terry Edwards, Leesburg, appeared before the Board and asked what the designation was for his property located along both sides of 27, immediately south of the turnpike overpass.
Mr. Bill Good, Chairman of the Conservation Element, and Vice Chairman of the Executive Advisory Committee, appeared before the Board and presented a letter from Heather Good, his six year old daughter, which expressed her feelings about living in the County. Mr. Good briefly described the steps taken to develop the maps that have been presented, and stated he feels the map in question takes into account suburban areas and rural areas, and confines growth to urban node areas, which is what is most needed.
Mr. Jim Bible appeared before the Board in support of the map in question, stating that the complete comprehensive plan lays out the frame work by which development can occur. Mr. Bible stated that the map is a twenty year map, which is structured toward the developer paying his share toward future development.
Mr. John Whitaker, a resident of Grand Island, appeared before the Board to address the issue of property rights and directed his
comments to the audience. Mr. Whitaker stated that it is the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners to provide restrictions to live by and asked that the Commissioners consider the rights of the people.
Mr. Claude Smoak, local citrus grower, appeared before the Board to state that the concept under consideration is good. Mr. Smoak urged the County to build flexibility into the rules and regulations of the plan, and not force the County into a position where the County has to rely on the Department of Community Affairs to make a decision for them, further stressing the importance of building and writing a comprehensive plan that can be managed.
Commr. Bailey closed the public hearing, and discussion occurred from the Board regarding the map in question, with emphasis on the issues of flexibility, growth, economic standards, vesting and Transfer of Development Rights.
On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board approved to accept the concept of the "KIS" map, which creates the classifications of Urban, Urban Expansion, Rural, and the Rural Village Concept.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
Commr. Swartz commented that a large number of people have just been condemned by creating an urban node at Highway 19 and Highway 27, therefore, causing the people in the white areas (rural) to have nothing but one unit per five acres and taking away the flexibility that was promised.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 9:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute break.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Swanson stated that it is the staff's understanding that the map, known as the "KIS" map, that has been adopted is to have a two mile radius, known as Urban, with the Board requesting that the map show water and sensitivity to splitting section lines; the
section between the two to three mile radius will be known as Urban Expansion; and the section beyond will be Rural.
Commr. Gregg asked if there is allowance for development, to those who provide the infrastructure, without the need for a land use plan amendment. Discussion occurred regarding the need for a land use plan amendment.
Mr. Swanson stated that the Land Use Plan Amendment is not designed to prohibit but designed to inform the citizens of what is occurring.
Mr. Swanson stated that it was staff's understating that the intent of the Board is to provide for a commercial corridor along U.S. 441, east of Leesburg Airport and south of Lake Sumter College, which is currently classified as "Employment Center", thereby reducing some of the light manufacturing, with the Board stating that staff's understanding is correct.
Mr. Kirch reviewed Objective 1-11, which promotes the use of Innovative Land Development Regulations and Applications Through the Use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Designations, Mixed Use Quality Developments (MUQD), Use of Transfer of Development Rights, Rural Village Concept, Traditional Neighborhood Designations, Mandatory Open Space Provisions, Overlay Districts, Clustering Requirements, and Purchase of or Diversion of Development Rights on Sensitive Lands.
Mr. Kirch reviewed Policy 1-11.3, which relates to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) by February 1992, and Policy 1-11.4, which relates to the designation of Rural Villages.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board approved to accept Objective 1-11: Promote Innovative Land Development Applications; Policy 1-11.3: Countywide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program; and Policy 1-11.4: Designation of Rural Villages into the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the Data Inventory & Analysis Draft Document with Commr. Gregg stating thatCorporate City Limits should be addressed on page 1-45, 3.a. "Proximity to a Designated Commercial Activity Center, Commercial Corridor or Employment Center".
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the language stating densities in urban areas surrounding municipalities shall
be compatible with surrounding land uses and be restricted to 80% (rounded to the nearest whole number) of that of the adjacent municipality, with the consensus of the Board to leave the language and percentage at 80%.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the points awarded for that portion of any property within the stated distance of a Commercial Activity Center, Commercial Corridor or Employment Center as listed on page 1-45, 3. a. with the consensus of the board to leave the point designations as is.
Commr. Gregg stated that on page 1-45 "or funded efficiency" should be added to read: "Development, in such a situation, could be delayed, phased or built at lower densities to avoid negative impacts on levels of service or funded efficiency."
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding sections "Vehicular Access to an Arterial", "Fire Protection" and "Water Reuse", on page 1-46, with staff directed to add the language "On-site or Off-site" to the section titled "Water Reuse".
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the language and designation of points under the section titled "Proximity to Public Parks", page 1-47. It was the consensus of the Board to change the 5 points to 3 points for No. 1, "within 1/2 mile radius of a developed park without crossing an arterial or collector".
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the language and designation of points under the section titled "Access to Public Primary and Secondary Schools", with Commr. Swartz stating that points should not be given for No. 3., "within 1/2 mile radius of
a school site" and No. 6., "within one mile radius of a school site", with the consensus of the Board to leave the language as is.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the language on page 1-48, "Submission of Project as a Planned Unit Development", with the consensus of the Board to add language that states "Submission of Project as a Planned Unit Development, MUQD Deeds, or Other Developments that Provide Innovated Designs".
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the language on page 1-48, "Use of lands previously altered (non-native since 1981)", with Commr. Gregg stating that there is a need for guidelines regarding what is previously altered.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the language on page 1-48, f., "Five (5) points (each) can be subtracted for alteration of unaltered (native) lands or encroachment into environmentally sensitive areas.", with staff directed to add language, in parenthesis, indicating in cases where innovated development patterns, including clustering and designation of open space are used, do not deduct for alterations of unaltered lands.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the language on page 1-48, e., with the consensus of the Board to remove the word "Schools" from the paragraph.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding the language on page 1-51 regarding the "Classification of Commercial Activity Centers" and language on page 1-52 regarding semi-rural future expansion.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding Policy 1-1.6: "Function of Future Land Use Categories" in the Goals, Objectives & Policies, with Commr. Swartz questioning why Urban Area did not have the language "Residential development in the Urban Area shall have a maximum density of..." as is stated in the other area sections of Policy 1-1.6, with staff indicating that it was inadvertently omitted and would be added.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding Policy 1-1.3: "Mitigation of Impacts from Adjacent Development", with Commr.
Bakich stating that language should be inserted that states if residential moves adjacent to commercial or industrial, residential should create their own buffer.
Commr. Gregg stated that under Policy 1-2.2: "Floodplains", "Stormwater Management Facilities" should be added as a Number 5 under exceptions. Commr. Bakich stated that Policy 1-2.2 is in conflict with Policy 1-2.11, with the consensus of the Board to add language to Policy 1-2.11 that states "Development proposals as listed in Policy 1-2.2 within the 100-year floodplain of the..."
Commr. Swartz reiterated that the Board previously indicated the need for a Policy that sets performance standards, relating to landscaping, buffers, etc. for commercial and industrial developments as well as for residential developments.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding Policy 1-3.9. Commr. Swartz suggesting that the language "to adopt standards for development and redevelopment..." should read "to adopt standards for redevelopment...", with staff being instructed to add appropriate language.
Discussion occurred from the Board regarding page I-19, Policy 1.12.6, which addresses the vesting of density for lands, lots, or tracts which may be rendered inconsistent, with the County Attorney giving a brief explanation of the language in the policy.
It was the consensus of the Board to remove the language in Policy 1-12.6 (1) that states "improvements have been installed including" and the date, January 1976, shall be added to read "A plat of the property recorded after January 1976...".
After discussion from the board, it was the consensus that Policy 1-12.6, B. Other Uses: (1) should read "Vesting existing industrial zoning with or without a site plan...", with additional language added that states that without a site plan, the new performance criteria will have to be met, and delete the language "Planned commercial or".
The Board further agreed that language will be added to Policy 1-12.6, B. Other Uses that reads "All commercial will be vested for up to two years from the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan".
It was the consensus of the Board that language shall be added to Policy 1-13.6, that reads "The Land Development Regulations shall define performance standards which address but are not limited to the following:".
Mr. Kirch stated that Objective 1-17: Development Within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, on page I-26, is, in fact, the body of Ordinance 1985-19.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
DONALD B. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK