The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, January 12, 1993 at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Don Bailey; Welton G. Cadwell; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Administrative Assistant to the County Manager; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC SERVICES
Commr. Swartz opened the Comprehensive Plan Workshop and stated that the staff has prepared a handout containing issues that require the Board's direction this date, and that there may be some issues that are presented during the workshop that the Board may not be prepared to give final direction. He further stated that the workshop this date was not intended for public comment, but that future workshops would be scheduled allowing for public comment.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that one of the challenges for staff, in preparing for this workshop, was to address or categorize those issues that individuals and Board members wished to discuss during the first regularly scheduled 1993 calendar year amendment process.
Mr. Wahl stated that Mr. Mark Knight, Principle Planner, has prepared, for the Board's consideration, non-substantive amendments, which primarily address policies that include dates that are unable to be met by staff, policies that differ slightly from actions taken by the County and the State, and policies that require clarification. He stated that there are substantive/critical issues for consideration, that address current conflicts and situations that require immediate attention; and
substantive/not-as-critical issues, that address changes in the direction of the Board and require additional research by staff to formulate possible amendments.
Mr. Mark Knight appeared before the Board and noted that the Comprehensive Plan Document, dated November 3, 1993, would be referred to during the workshop this date. At this time, Mr. Knight brought up for discussion the following issues and possible amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map:
Issue: Policy 1-8.1 requires the County to identify and address areas in need of renewal. The policy also requires the County to seek Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for such areas.
Mr. Knight stated that staff has identified Lake Kathryn, Lake Mack and the Pine Lakes area as areas in need of renewal, for which the Board could seek CDBG funding. These areas are in need of road improvements, and the Lake County Water/Wastewater Master Plan identifies the Lake Kathryn area as an area in need of centralized utilities.
It was the consensus of the Board to instruct staff to prepare an amendment, identifying Lake Kathryn, Lake Mack and the Pine Lakes area as areas in need of renewal, seek CDBG funding for said areas; and prepare a map clearly depicting the areas and identifying the needed improvements.
Issue: Request by the City of Eustis for land use designations around the City.
Commr. Cadwell presented this request by the City of Eustis and stated that the integrity of the joint planning area is in jeopardy regarding this issue, due to the lack of communication between the City and County staff. He stated that he would like for the Board to make a commitment, to the City of Eustis, to address the issue of land use designations, and possibly proceed with a small area study for those areas around the City of Eustis that are of concern to the City.
Discussion occurred regarding the concerns of the City of Eustis, at which time Mr. Knight stated that he is aware of the issues that the City of Eustis would like addressed through the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and the concerns that they have with the existing Future Land Use Map. He suggested that the County and the City of Eustis prepared a draft map, and that said map be brought before a public hearing scheduled for the purpose of public comment.
Mr. Wahl stated that one issue of concern is the question of the awareness of the public and the property owners, and this may be an area that is appropriate for a small area study, in anticipation of preparing a plan amendment for the second amendment process in July. It would assure the involvement of the County and City of Eustis planning staffs, and of the property owners in an on-going series of discussions to address the issues that have been identified.
Commr. Swartz requested that Commr. Cadwell, with the League of Cities, create a structure and interlocal agreement on how to operate in the joint planning areas that are identified primarily as those areas where there is an agreement on land use.
It was the consensus of the Board to direct staff to prepare a recommendation on scheduling meetings between the City of Eustis and the County, in anticipation of the second amendment process, and to conduct a small area study.
Issue: Policy 1-11.4 designates Lake Mack as a Rural Village, but does not designate the area around the intersection of S.R. 44 and C.R. 42 as a Rural Village. The Future Land Use Map does not clearly reflect the language in Policy 1-11.4.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that this issue must be resolved in order to implement the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in order to implement the Settlement Agreement, which will be brought before the Board on January 26, 1993. She further stated that the amendment will have a map attached to it, as did the November 3, 1992 amendment, and specifically deals with
the Rural Village designation reflected on the November 3, 1992 map, which is not consistent with the existing map or the language in the Comprehensive Plan on Rural Villages. The map, and the language, need to be consistent when they are forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Ms. Lustgarten noted that the designation of the Lake Mack Rural Village, created in the Comprehensive Plan, and reflected on the Future Land Use Map, dated July 1991, is in a different location than that reflected on the November 3, 1992 Future Land Use Map.
At this time, Mr. Knight pointed out the present location of the Lake Mack Rural Village on the Future Land Use Map, dated November 3, 1992, and the previous location of said village. He noted that there is approximately a one-half mile distance between the two locations.
Commr. Swartz stated that the alternatives are to amend the written language in Policy 1-11.4 to designate the present location on the Future Land Use Map, dated November 3, 1992, or to revise the Future Land Use Map to clearly reflect the language, which identifies the Lake Mack Rural Village in said policy. He further noted that the Settlement Agreement, between DCA and the County, sets caps on lot approvals and the issuance of building permits for Rural Villages.
At this time, Mr. Knight referred to Chapter V, Table V-1 and V-2, which identifies the maximum of 250 lots, and 200 building permits annually in Rural Villages. Mr. Knight stated that DCA expressed concern that the Rural Villages, as identified, promote Urban Sprawl, and requested that the size of the Rural Villages be reduced. The Rural Villages have been reduced with the exclusion of the Lake Mack Rural Village, and the Astor Park Rural Village.
Commr. Swartz stated that Policy 1-11.4 is not only inconsistent with the specific policy that addresses the location, but is inconsistent with all of the policies that discuss a Rural Village. He noted that the Lake Mack Rural Village location is not
in the area that is predominately Lake Mack, and has no relation to what was originally planned for Rural Villages, and is not in the location that it was originally located.
Further discussion occurred regarding the location of the Lake Mack Rural Village, and current on-going development in the area. Ms. Lustgarten brought to the attention of the Board the definition of Rural Village, as defined in Policy 1-11.6, of the Comprehensive Plan, page I-46, and Policy 1-11.4, which states that the maximum amount of commercial land use shall not exceed 50,000 square feet Gross Leasable Area (GLA). She noted that, when the Rural Villages were identified, said language was the basis of identification.
Commr. Hanson stated that development is occurring in the Lake Mack area, and a Rural Village environment provides the opportunity to create something better than Urban Sprawl, which is what is currently taking place in the back rural areas. She stated that this gives the opportunity to create a village that has character and class, gives the residents the opportunity to shop in a small village commercial atmosphere, and creates a Rural Village as DCA intended.
Commr. Hanson expressed her concerns with efficient land use patterns, design standards, the environment, and provision of facilities and services in the Lake Mack area, and suggested that a small area study be conducted in the area.
Mr. Knight stated that one option for consideration is to designate the Lake Mack Rural Village on the Future Land Use Map, reducing the size comparable to other Rural Villages, put the new Rural Village under the New Rural Village Establishment of the Future Rural Villages, and insert language which states that this Rural Village shall not use more than one-fifth of the caps that are identified.
Commr. Swartz suggested, to avoid any significant changes to the Future Land Use Map, at this time, the Board create a Rural Village in Lake Mack, as originally indicated, reducing the size to be consistent with what other Rural Villages were reduced, and
instruct staff to perform a small area study to determine the feasibility of an amendment, for the second amendment process, creating a new Rural Village.
Commr. Bailey stated that he feels very strongly that a major change should not be made to the Comprehensive Plan until a Settlement Agreement has been agreed upon with DCA.
At this time, Ms. Lustgarten stated that one option for consideration is to leave the Lake Mack Rural Village in the Settlement Agreement, in the reduced size comparable to other designated Rural Villages, and to address the proposed new Rural Village in the current amendment process.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the present Lake Mack Rural Village remains on the Future Land Use Map, it will improve the lifestyle of the area, and he does not approve of any change that will slow down that process.
Mr. Wahl stated that there are no boundary identifiers in the Comprehensive Plan, and the Board would not necessarily have to amend the language in the Comprehensive Plan, or change the location from what is shown. The practical impact would be that the two sections that are identified in the July 1991 Future Land Use Map would not be eligible for consideration under the Rural Village. They would have to be treated as they are proposed in the November 3, 1992 Future Land Use Map, as one (1) unit per five (5) acres. They could then be addressed at a later date to extend, expand or enlarge the Rural Village concept.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Bailey, the Board moved to delete the reference to Lake Mack in Policy 1-11.4, and insert Crows Bluff, thereby making the written policy consistent with the Future Land Use Map; and to look at Lake Mack as an expansion to the Rural Village in the amendatory process.
Ms. Lustgarten cautioned the Board that the size of the newly created Rural Village must be compatible and consistent with the acceptable size DCA stated they would accept.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 4 - 1 vote.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
At this time, Mr. Knight brought up for discussion the following issues and possible amendments to the Traffic Circulation Element:
Issue: Policy 2-1.3 requires Lake County to develop generalized daily level service maximum volumes for arterial, collector and local roadways by 1993 in coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). It was noted that the County has the software available to complete this task; however, staff time and complete traffic count data are not available in order to complete this task by 1993.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 2-1.3 language to extend the date "by 1993" to "by the end of 1994", allowing time for the development of a Strategic Transportation Plan based on the new Future Land Use Map.
Issue: Policy 2-1.13 requires Lake County to develop a functional classification system sensitive to the local dynamics of the County for local and collector roadways by 1993.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 2-1.13 language to extend the date "by 1993" to "by the end of 1994", allowing time for the development of a Strategic Transportation Plan based on the new Future Land Use Map.
Issue: Policy 2-2.1 requires Lake County to update the future traffic circulation system maps by 1993, based on 1990 census data and adopted future land uses identified on the Future Land Use Map.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 2-2.1 language to extend the date "by 1993" to "by the end of 1994", allowing time for the development of a Strategic Transportation Plan based on the new Future Land Use Map.
Issue: Policy 2-4.7 requires Lake County to re-validate its Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS)
traffic model once every three (3) years while Policy 2-4.8 and Policy 2-4.9 require Lake County to include specific roadway projects into the traffic model by 1993 for analysis purposes.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 2-4.7 language to read "once every five (5) years" and extend the dates to the end of 1994, allowing time for the development of a Strategic Transportation Plan based on the new Future Land Use Map.
Issue: Policy 2-1.5 addresses areas of special transportation concern, specifically, the U.S. 441 corridor between the City of Tavares and the City of Leesburg. The policy requires that the County define the U.S. 441 corridor as a geographic area special transportation concern and include the provisions within its Land Development Regulations to address the area by 1992.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the time period for including the provisions within the Land Development Regulations, and it was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 2-1.5 language to change the date "by 1992" to "by the end of 1994", and to assure that the policy does not reflect a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) designation.
Issue: Policy 2-3.5 requires Lake County to designate revenues collected via its traffic impact fee ordinance for acquiring right-of-way for roadways included in the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
Mr. Knight stated that this policy was drafted with the understanding that transportation impact fees were increased by 30% in January 1992 to cover right-of-way costs. He stated that the Road Impact Fee Ordinance has since been amended to remove this requirement.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 2-3.5 language to indicate "Lake County may designate revenues" rather than requiring the County to collect said revenues.
Mr. Knight brought up for discussion the following issues and possible amendments to the Traffic Circulation Element:
Issue: Policy 2-3.4 Right-of-Way Acquisition - This policy calls for the development of a five-year schedule to acquire additional right-of-way on existing roads that do not meet current minimum standards. The schedule is to be developed by February 1992, and is to be used as the basis for a right-of-way acquisition program.
Mr. Donald Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Services, appeared before the Board to address this issue. He stated that the language in said policy requires the County to implement a program to bring all of the County's sub-standard right-of-ways up to current standards. He stated that to initiate a program of this magnitude would require hundreds of man-hours, and the right-of-way staff is unable to add this to their current work load. He stated that an alternative approach would be to include right-of-way acquisition as a component of the five-year road program.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 2-3.4 language to delete the requirement for all additional right-of-ways, and indicate that the County will require review for roads, which are in the County's designated five year plan.
At this time, Mr. Knight brought up for discussion the following issues and possible amendments to the Housing Element.
Issues: Policy 5-1.1: Definition of Affordable Housing
Objective 5-3: Adequate Sites for Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Households and Those With Special Housing Needs.
Policy 5-3.1: Promote Diversity in Housing Types and Sizes.
Policy 5-3.4: Continue to Utilize Federal and State Housing Subsidy Programs.
Policy 5-3.5: Monitor Available Low/Moderate Income Housing.
Policy 5-9.2 Intergovernmental Coordination.
Mr. Knight stated that minor text amendments are required to the above stated policies and Objective 5-3 to comply with definitions as required by the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 5-1.1, Objective 5-3, Policy 5-3.1, Policy 5-3.4, Policy 5-3.5 and Policy 5-9.2 language to bring the Comprehensive Plan language in
compliance with definitions set forth in the Sadowski Act, and definitions as required by the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program regarding Affordable Housing. Issue: Policy 5-1.4 sets as a responsibility of the Affordable Housing Task Force: 1) the development of a Housing Finance Authority by April 1993; 2) the evaluation of the merits of implementing a comprehensive housing rehabilitation program by August 1993; and 3) the evaluation of establishing incentives that encourage the construction of affordable housing by December 1992 for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The purpose of the Housing Finance Authority would be to develop, implement and coordinate a county wide affordable housing program.
It was the consensus of the Board to strike the Housing Finance Authority language from Policy 5-1.4, and redefine the task completion date to make it consistent with the Sadowski Act, and the State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) program.
Issue: Policy 5-1.6 requires the County to grant a forty percent (40%) reduction in traffic impact fees to eligible developments providing mixed residential uses including lower and moderate income housing.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 5-1.6 language to be consistent with Ordinance 1992-14, and include the promotion of mixed use developments providing for affordable housing in the Housing Incentive Plan.
Issue: Policy 5-3.3 requires the County, through the Housing Finance Authority, to evaluate special housing needs of citizens requiring adult congregate living facilities and group home care by 1992.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 5-3.3 language to assign the task of evaluating special housing needs of citizens requiring adult congregate living facilities and group home care to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, rather than the Housing Finance Authority, and to change the date to provide flexibility for completion of said task.
Issue: Policy 5-4.1 requires the County to conduct a mobile home survey by February 1993.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 5-4.1 language to allow the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to establish their schedule for completion of said task.
Issue: Policy 5-7.2 requires the County to establish or assign a committee with the responsibility of evaluating the merits of enforcing maintenance of existing housing through the Southern Standard Existing Building Code. Tasks associated with this policy are to be completed by March 1992, July 1992 and September 1992.
It was the consensus of Board to revise Policy 5-7.2 language to change the completion date of the tasks to correspond with the schedule established for the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
Issue: Policy 5-7.4 requires the Housing Task Force to conduct a housing condition survey prior to February 1992.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 5-7.4 language to change the completion date of the task, to conduct a housing condition survey, to correspond with the schedule established for the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and revise the policy to address substandard housing through the Lake County Affordable Housing Program.
Issue: Policy 5-7.5 requires the Housing Task Force to study and evaluate the feasibility of implementing a comprehensive housing rehabilitation program by August 1992, and present findings to the Board of County Commissioners by 1993. It further requires the Task Force to explore federal and state grant programs assisting in housing rehabilitation, to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners by October 1992.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 5-7.5 language to change the completion dates of the tasks, and provide for the rehabilitation of deteriorating housing through the Lake County Affordable Housing Program.
Issue: Policy 5-9.1 requires the formation of a Housing Authority to facilitate the coordination of housing production by partnerships consisting of local governments and private and non-profit sectors.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 5-9.1 language to strike the Housing Authority language from the policy, and revise the policy to correspond with the Lake County Affordable Housing Program.
Issue: Policy 5-9.2 requires coordination of a county wide housing program through the Affordable Housing Task Force and Affordable Housing Authority.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 5-9.2 language to strike Housing Authority language from the policy, and revise the policy to correspond with the Lake County Affordable Housing Program.
Mr. Knight stated that Public Services has presented comments on the Stormwater Sub-Element, Chapter VI, and noted that workshops on the Stormwater Management Needs Assessment and Water/Wastewater Master Plan have been scheduled in the near future.
Mr. Griffey presented the following policies for the Board's review.
Issue: Policy 6C-1.1 Eliminate Existing Deficiencies -
This policy states that by 1993, specific plans shall be developed to correct existing stormwater problems identified in the Stormwater Needs Assessment.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 6C-1.1 language to reflect dates that are consistent with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for developing a plan, and the dates for the indicated projects.
Issue: Policy 6C-1.3 Priorities for Stormwater Master Planning
The policy establishes dates for basin studies to be performed as part of a stormwater master plan. Currently, a master planning process has not begun.
Mr. Wahl stated that Policy 6C-1.3 is consistent with Policy 6C-1.1, with the dates reflective of the EPA requirements.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 6C-1.3 language to reflect dates, for basin studies, that are consistent with the EPA requirements.
Issue: Policy 6C-1.4 Stormwater Management Ordinance
The policy states that the County shall continue to pursue delegation of responsibility from the regulatory agencies.
A brief discussion occurred regarding this issue, at which time Mr. Griffey stated that the regulatory agencies currently perform a thorough and detailed review of projects within the County, and the intent is that the County will accept their calculations. He noted that the County will still review project from an engineering standpoint.
Commr. Swartz noted that there are on-going discussions regarding duplication of services and permitting. He suggested that language be revised to indicate that the County will have the option to continue to pursue delegation of responsibility from the regulatory agencies.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 6C-1.4 language to indicate the County will have the option to continue to pursue delegation of responsibility from the regulatory agencies.
Issue: Policy 6C-1.5 Funding for Stormwater Management
The policy states that by 1991 the County shall initiate a stormwater utility or other permanent funding mechanism.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 6C-1.5 language to reflect a date to be consistent with the planning schedule for stormwater management, and to delete the word "permanent" from the current language.
Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, appeared before the Board to present the following issues and possible amendments to the Public Facilities Element.
Issue: Policy 7-1.2 requires Lake County to have completed by March 1993, an analysis of all costs necessary to develop, administer, and implement the Lake County Environmental Resource
Management Plan (ERMP), as well as all costs to implement the policies within the Conservation Element.
It was the consensus of the Board to revise Policy 7-1.2 language to reflect a date of 1994 for the completion of the Environment Resource Management Plan (ERMP), and to create a new policy which states that, when the evaluation is complete, and the ERMP is approved by the Board, the program descriptions and implementation dates will be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:00 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for fifteen minutes, and reconvene at 11:15 a.m.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC SERVICES (CON'T)
At this time, Mr. Knight brought up for discussion issues and possible amendments to the Capital Improvements Element and stated that said element will require revision to reflect changes made at the workshops on the Water/Wastewater Master Plan, and Stormwater Management Needs Assessment, and any additional information obtained from Public Services regarding the revised Solid Waste Program.
It was the consensus of the Board to instruct staff to make necessary revisions to the Capital Improvements Element to make said element consistent with amendments made to the Public Facilities Element, Traffic Circulation Element, and the Solid Waste Program.
At this time, discussion occurred regarding substantive/not-as critical issues, which are addressed on page 4 of the handout, presented this date.
Issue: The effectiveness of the Suburban land use category with respect to the existing surrounding development criteria identified in Policy 1-1A.1.
Discussion occurred regarding the Suburban classification on the Future Land Use Map, and language in the Comprehensive Plan addressing specific criteria required for development. Mr. Knight referred to page I-17 of the Comprehensive Plan, dated November 3,
1992, and stated that said language requires one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acre density in the Suburban land use designation. Discussion occurred regarding criteria, identified on page I-17, to achieve a density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, and criteria, identified on page I-18 and I-19, to achieve a density of above one (1) dwelling unit per acre, not to exceed three (3) dwelling units per acre.
Commr. Swartz stated that one of the time considerations and points of concern expressed previously was that adequate land be available for development, and not be unreasonably constricted. He stated that for residential development, based on the Future Land Use Map, dated November 3, 1992, there is a total of 66,500 acres in Urban, Urban Expansion, and Suburban, of which 33,300 acres is in Suburban, a significant part of which would not be available for development at the Urban densities that were allocated, therefore restricting said use of land. Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board identify areas, such as the area of S.R. 19 and U.S. Highway 27, provide for additional density and flexibility, and return to Rural those areas that are designated Suburban but cannot be developed. He further suggested that staff, aiming at the second amendment process, recognize and identify all of the 33,300 acres of Suburban, which have very limited development possibilities, and areas where there is already Urban density, and to look at areas such as S.R. 19 and U.S. Highway 27 and expand what is Rural or Suburban into a higher density design. He further stated that consideration should be given to providing for reasonable densities and development in areas where development is expected, and to look at the areas where density is restricting development.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agrees that the plan is very restrictive in the areas designated Suburban and expressed the need for small area studies to be conducted in many of those areas.
Commr. Gerber encouraged planners from the cities and County to communicate and form a local professional planning group for the purpose of discussing the issues. She stated that the issue is not to restrict growth but to guide growth.
It was the consensus of the Board to instruct staff to evaluate Suburban land use designations in terms of where development is most likely to occur, review it with regard to those areas surrounding cities, and to look at density allocations with regard to where development can occur.
Discussion occurred regarding the area known as Sugarloaf Mountain, and the Suburban land use designation identified on the Future Land Use Map. Ms. Lustgarten reviewed language referring to Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and stated that, in order for a Planned Unit Development Ordinance to be vested, it would have to have been approved and development would have to have been underway prior to July 1, 1991.
Commr. Bailey stated that the boundaries surrounding Sugarloaf Mountain should be defined and requested a list of PUDs in the area; at which time, Mr. Wahl noted that the Board will be
provided with a status report on PUDs, and where the PUDs are in relation to the requirements. Commr. Bailey stated that he would be receptive to looking at the issues surrounding Sugarloaf Mountain at a later time.
It was the decision of the Board to address the area known as Sugarloaf Mountain and the Suburban land use designation identified on the Future Land Use Map during the second amendment process.
Commr. Swartz brought up for discussion the area along U.S. Highway 27, south of Clermont, from Lake Louisa to the northern part of the Southlake Urban Node, designated as Urban Expansion on the Future Land Use Map. He stated that, by designating this area as Urban Expansion, the Board has opened said area up to development, which is in violation of all of the other tenets of the Comprehensive Plan that refer to not allowing for the linear designations for development.
Commr. Gerber suggested that staff review the designated land use in the corridor in question, and prepare, for the Board's review, a professional opinion and recommendation from a planning standpoint.
Commr. Bailey stressed the importance of providing flexibility to allow the Board to look at the economic opportunities along the corridor in question, and further stressed the importance that the Board not send a message to the development community that development will not be allowed in the area, therefore discouraging economic opportunities.
Discussion continued regarding changing the area in question from Urban Expansion to Suburban, and changing other areas in the County that the Board feels should be reconsidered.
It was the consensus of the Board to reconsider the Suburban land use areas which have already been designated; reconsider land use designations in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Node area; reconsider the Southlake/U.S. Highway 27 commercial area, which is designated as Urban Expansion; and to reconsider the Bay Lake Rural Village during the second amendment process.
It was noted that a public hearing will be tentatively scheduled on the Comprehensive Plan first amendment process, for the purpose of public comment, on January 26, 1993.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, presented an update on the medical service issue at the Correctional Facility, noting that the present local medical provider has submitted his resignation, and stated that the County is in the process of securing a substitute local medical provider to take over the medical care for the facility.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for permission for the Chairman to execute an agreement with a substitute local medical provider for the Correctional Facility, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK