The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Monday, January 22, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in the Board Meeting Room, Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; Rhonda G. Gerber; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Staff members present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to the BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
JOINT PLANNING MEETING BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, CITIES AND SCHOOL BOARD
JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
It was noted that approximately 25 individuals were present, with some representing the cities, and no one was present representing the Lake County School Board, due to a conflict in schedules.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that staff was in the process of printing copies of a draft Joint Planning Agreement, which was prepared by Mr. Bob Williams, to distribute to the Board for discussion.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 9:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT (Continued)
Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that the draft of the Joint Planning Agreement prepared by Mr. Williams, and the one prepared by the County, were based on the same Orange County Joint Planning Agreement. Mr. Minkoff stated that Mr. Williams had addressed some of the immediate issues, which the County's Agreement had avoided, because the County felt these issues should be negotiated.
Mr. Williams appeared before the Board to discuss the proposed draft of the Joint Planning Agreement, which he had prepared for discussion. He noted that the first few pages of the document were more less preamble type language. Mr. Williams referred to Page 5, 2. Purpose/Intent/Joint Planning Area and stated that he was contemplating that, in each of the Joint Planning Area (JPA) Agreements, a legal description, or a map would be attached as an exhibit, which would show the boundaries of the JPA. He noted that a five year expiration date was established for discussion. Mr. Williams stated that he addressed standards for annexation, which basically incorporated Chapter 171, Florida Statutes.
Mr. Minkoff explained that discussion had taken place between the attorneys about the possibility of some of the agreements involving more than one city at a time, and all of the cities would agree and coordinate all of the planning areas.
Mr. Williams addressed some of the metier issues, with the first one being on Page 10, 6. e. Applicability of City LDRs to County Development. He stated that, where County development was taking place that was adjacent to, or very close to the City's boundaries, in some instances the cities had development standards in their LDRs that were more restrictive than the County's, and since those areas of development were very likely going to be potential annexation targets in the future for the cities, he would like the development to be consistent with the City regulations, so that when it was annexed into the City, it would be consistent with the other City developments. If the City's development standards were more restrictive that those in the County LDRs, the County would impose and enforce the City's more restrictive development standards. He stated that, under Paragraph f. Applicability of LDR's Upon Annexation, he had tried to incorporate the standards that everyone was currently working under. He noted a sentence pertaining to "timeliness", and stated that he realized there might be some changes on the suburban land use designation. Mr. Williams stated that the most aggressive parts of the draft were in Paragraph 7, Water and Wastewater Services and Extensions. He
attempted to develop a definition of what would constitute the availability of service, and the Agreement contemplated a requirement of mandatory service. When sewer and water became available within the JPA to a property that was already using either a well or a septic tank, Mr. Williams stated that he would like to see those properties be required to connect into the municipal sewer service at some time. He noted the seven year requirement, which had been placed in the Agreement for discussion, and stated that the cities would like to see the lowest number possible. Mr. Williams reviewed Paragraph c. Connections Required When Service Becomes Available, as well as d. Private Utility Systems Prohibited, and e. Annexation Required As Condition of Utility and presented detailed information regarding each. He referred to 9. Use and Annexation of Rights-of-Way and stressed the need to be able to annex contiguous road rights-of-way, so that the City could exercise public safety and police jurisdiction over those rights-of-way. The City would not be assuming maintenance, or control over any road rights-of-way for driveway permitting, or anything else.
Discussion occurred regarding certain requirements that might be more restrictive in the County's LDRs versus the cities' LDRs.
At 10:05 a.m., Commr. Gerber left the meeting, due to prior commitments.
JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT (Continued)
Commr. Swartz stated that it sounded like the structure of the Agreement before the Board was one that, within the designated JPAs, the development review would still occur within the County frame work, with input from the City. If the County had more restrictive LDRs, it would apply them at that time.
Mr. Williams clarified that it would be an affirmative obligation on the part of the municipality, after notice of a development in the JPA area, to notify the County as to a
particular area where the City's LDRs were more restrictive, and it would be only after that notice, that the County would have an obligation to then go forward and exact that additional standard.
Discussion occurred regarding the timeliness issue, as indicated on Page 11, f., with Mr. Williams explaining that the real problem comes when you annex property that was designated suburban, the gap between the time that the City annexes it, and the time that it takes to finally get through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The Agreement states that the city would agree to apply the density to suburban, but not the timeliness criteria during that gap period.
Commr. Swartz explained that densities could not be applied to suburban without considering timeliness.
Mr. Williams stated that the intent of the timeliness criteria was to allow a greater density, due to a more urban type nature of property, as there were more rooftops available. He was suggesting that, in the Agreement, more urban nature would be taken care of by the fact that the city was now going to be providing central water, sewer and municipal services to that area, which would take the place of counting rooftops.
Commr. Good stated that, unless the pipes were in the ground, and the economics were there to sustain a more economic and efficient provision of services, he was not sure that the County should ignore the timeliness criteria. He stated that it protected the city residents, and the taxes that they would pay to support infrastructure, as well as County residents. He believed that, when the Board signed off with the DCA on timeliness, it moved in this direction to protect residents and taxpayers from having to pay for the extension of services beyond what was necessarily economically feasible.
Mr. Williams stated that, with the municipal annexation process, the annexation was required to be noticed and published,
and the property posted, and it would go through two readings of an annexation ordinance and a rezoning category.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Comprehensive Plan was very clear in the fact that, when property gets annexed, it does not change the land use designation, or the requirements associated with it, until a land plan amendment was accomplished.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 13, c. Connections Required When Service Becomes Available, with Mr. Minkoff stating that the Comprehensive Plan talks about environmental factors, and there may be some conflict between the current Plan and State law, which may require hookup when it becomes available, regardless of the environmental factors. He stated that there were some things in the Agreement that may require a County Comprehensive Plan change. He stated that this was known by Mr. Williams when he prepared it, so he was not necessarily looking at the Agreement to make it fit with the County Comprehensive Plan, but thinking that the Plan would be adjusted, if necessary, to satisfy what ultimately was negotiated between the cities and County.
Discussion occurred regarding the Agreement, and the language that would require all improved property within the JPA to connect to the City's utility system. Mr. Minkoff explained that the Agreement does not require everyone, but it does require everyone where service was available.
Commr. Good addressed page 13, d. Private Utility Systems Prohibited, with Mr. Williams explaining that the "certificated" utility territories was the term used by the Public Services Commission (PSC) for their franchise territories. Mr. Williams stated that, to get a new one established, or to expand an existing one, it would take a public hearing through the PSC through an application process where local governments would be notified and have the right to be heard. If a utility service, within a JPA, petitioned the PSC to expand its utility service area, the County, as well as the City, would oppose it.
Commr. Good suggested taking the language in Paragraph d. and finding some way to put some criteria in it that leaves the option that, if it was to the benefit of the consumer, to actually bring forth a smaller utility, or private utility, the County could support it, rather than just oppose it through a blanket clause.
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, addressed the Board and stated that staff had used the same model ordinance to form its Joint Planning Agreement. Mr. Bergmann stated that staff looked at the LDRs and felt that, upon annexation, the cities' regulations would take effect. The suggestion that the cities might comment during the County's review process, where they might have something more restrictive, was something that could be considered, but he appreciated Mr. Williams' concern that the County would have to deal with its LDRs, as well as those of 14 cities. He stated that, regarding applicable land designations, staff would agree that the County's would stay in place, until a Plan amendment was approved, or unless some type of advisory planning document had been approved.
Mr. Alton Roane, City of Eustis, addressed the Board and stated that the city planners had included in the draft a key component that said, once the property was annexed, the City's LDRs would apply, and it would include authority to permit. This would eliminate a lot of the problems including who was going to issue the development orders, and who was actually going to review the projects. This would eliminate the problem of the County having to enforce the City's regulations, or the City having to learn the County's regulations. Mr. Roane stated that the DCA had said, if you incorporated this into your JPA agreement, and both parties had agreed to it, you could take that authority. The City had also incorporated into the Agreement a Conflict Resolution process, which Mr. Roan explained at this time.
Discussion occurred regarding access management, with Mr. Minkoff explaining that, with the existing County maintained
roads within municipalities, a County permit was required for connection to the County road. The County would review it, as well as the City when it approved the commercial site plan.
Ms. Mary Scott, Lady Lake, addressed the Board and stated that the County's Access Management Ordinance did not include all of the County roads that were in Lady Lake. She explained that the City sent everyone to the County for a driveway connection permit to any County road. All of the site plan approvals were contingent upon driveway connection approval from Lake County.
Ms. MaryAnn Bardon, Transportation Engineer, Lake County, addressed the Board and stated that the County had access management on major collectors and above, and minor collectors and below were for driveway permits, which the County did not apply access management.
Commr. Good requested that the language in the Agreement pertaining to the definition of collector and arterial roads be reviewed, so that the collector label did not negate the other label, just because it had been annexed into the city.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, addressed the Board and stated that the Department of Transportation (DOT) had notified all municipalities that, any time they did an upgrade on their Comprehensive Plan, they needed to use the same classification naming system as DOT was utilizing. He noted that every City's Comprehensive Plan had a recognition of the County's road systems, and its Level Of Service (LOS).
Discussion occurred regarding Page 15, b. and the following language: "It is the intent of the parties that the City not use this Interlocal Agreement to effect corridor annexations of County rights-of-way."
Mr. Williams stated that he had approached the County about this area, in behalf of the City of Tavares, because of the public safety issue that the City has when it annexes properties that are adjacent to County roads going towards the Tavares Middle School.
The City was trying to engraft a provision that would allow it to automatically annex County right-of-way for public safety purposes only, as it annexed contiguous property along the right-of-way.
Commr. Good noted that the Sheriff had expressed some concerns at the Legislative Delegation meeting about expanding corridors out from the cities for purposes of speed traps.
Mr. Beliveau addressed the issue of utilities and stated that the intent was to initiate a dialogue early on where a municipality could become a joint partner, or could initiate concessions from a utility, so that when they did get there, they did annex, and they did acquire that utility system, or the utility system had a clause where it would give it to the provider, there would be coordination ahead of time.
Commr. Cadwell stated that this was the first day that the Board had seen the documents before them.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that the Board could schedule another quarterly meeting on April 22, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. The Manager's Group had not reviewed either of the proposals, and it needed the time to do so, and any remaining issues could be brought back to the Board on April 22nd.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, after getting everyone back together, and the issues had been set forth, a sub-committee could be formed to bring the final document back to the Board.
Commr. Swartz stated that, before annexation within a JPA, the County LDRs, that might be more restrictive, would be applied, and likewise with commercial locational criteria. He was concerned about what type of approach might be agreed upon, after annexation, in an area that was presently unincorporated within a JPA, that would be annexing sometime in the future, so that the County could maintain the integrity of some of the roadways. He stated that it would not make any sense for the County to have protected the integrity of the roadway of commercial strip development, for a period of time through the locational criteria, to see it annexed,
and then perhaps see that type of criteria no longer a factor. He would like to have this issue explored, or have comments at this time.
It was noted that there were no comments on the issue presented by Commr. Swartz at this time. Commr. Cadwell stated that this would be one of the discussion items for the next meeting.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:58 a.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK