A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, November 29, 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: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Don Bailey; Richard Swartz; and Catherine Hanson. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
COMMITTEES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Ms. Dorie Hostettler, a local resident, appeared before the Board and read a statement noting some concerns she has regarding Lake County's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that what the Board does with it this date, either weakening or strengthening it, will be one of the most important tasks they perform.
Mr. Elmer Webb, a resident of Eustis, appeared before the Board, stating he was very opposed to Estes Road becoming a part of the eastern leg of the bypass around Eustis. He requested the Board to reconsider the routing of said road.
At this time, a brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of the bypass and the alignment of certain roads pertaining to it.
Commr. Swartz noted that, on December 17, 1990, the Board will receive a completed document that will contain all the changes which have been made at the various meetings that have been held, including the meeting this date, which will give the Board the chance to further review language pertaining to the bypass. He stated what is contained in said document is going to have a great impact on the County and appreciated Mr. Webb's concern.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing a number of land owners in Lake County who are very concerned about the Traffic Circulation Element, appeared before the Board and introduced Mr.
Steve Godfrey, a transportation engineer with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., in Orlando, who had been retained by individual land owners, as well as the Citizens for Controlled Positive Growth (a non-profit group that was formed with the advent of the comprehensive planning process, due to the fact that they are concerned about what is presently happening in the County), at which time she turned the podium over to him.
Mr. Godfrey appeared before the Board, giving a brief history of his background, and stating that he has been very involved in the past several years in growth management legislation and concurrency management systems, specifically, for local jurisdictions, as well as representing development interests. Mr. Godfrey stated one of the best things that has happened to Florida in recent years is the Comprehensive Plan and the Concurrency Management System that will flow from that. He stated good development is good for Florida and his firm's goal, as a transportation firm, is to help policy makers and the citizenry sort through some of the confusing technical jargon and have a better understanding of what it is that the County is adopting, in terms of its policies and guidelines, and what the implications of those will be.
Mr. Godfrey called the attention of the Board to three (3) particular areas, in the Traffic Circulation Element, being: (1) the issue of refinement of service volumes; (2) functional classification; and (3) the level of service standards for the County's rural collector roadways. He then reviewed and discussed, in detail, charts pertaining to each area, as well as answered questions presented by the Board.
Pertaining to the refinement of service volumes, he stated that Policy 2-1.3, under the GOPs (Goals, Objectives & Policies) of the Traffic Circulation Element, recognizes the fact that there will need to be updating of the requirements of the service volumes, based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and DOT (Department of Transportation) regulations, by 1993. He stated,
however, that it is likely there will be situations where said information will be necessary before 1993; therefore, recommended an amendment to the policies that allows for a registered professional engineer, that is qualified to present said information, be allowed to present the information to the Board, if it is based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, and if it is consistent with the DOT methodology. This will allow the County to receive, at no cost, updated information and more detailed information on the capacity of roadways, as time goes on, and allow the County to reach their 1993 goal.
Pertaining to functional classification, he recommended that the County look at a functional classification system, which is consistent with the County's Land Use Plan Program for 2005 (noting that it can be a complex and tricky business), before submitting their Comprehensive Plan for approval. He referred to Policy
2-1.13, under the GOPs of the Traffic Circulation Element, and suggested that, during that interim period, as evidence is presented to the Board (after being approved by staff), that on non-State roads, a future functional classification change is deemed appropriate, that the Board be able to make said changes. This allows the flexibility, between the present time and 1993, for the Board to receive the appropriate information and make the appropriate decisions relative to the future functional classifications.
Pertaining to the level of service standards for the County 's rural collector roadways, Mr. Godfrey discussed and reviewed a Rural vs. Urban Standards chart regarding roadways being designated as Level of Service B or C. He stated this goes back to functional classification, noting that the functional classification system, and the way transportation is supposed to work, is that there are small amounts of traffic on local streets, larger amounts on collector roads, and even larger amounts on arterial roads. He noted, as an example, for one to better understand the difference between the two levels, that a car traveling 10 miles on a rural
Level of Service B road can be made in 10.9 minutes; however, at Level of Service C, it would take 11.5 minutes. He noted, however, that a 3 mile trip around the city will take 12.9 minutes, pointing out the fact that rural gets a tremendously better level of service, whether level B or C is selected, than in an urban situation. One can go ten miles on a rural road, for the time it takes to go three miles around town.
Mr. Godfrey reviewed and discussed a Level of Service C and B Development Potential chart, stating that the Department of Transportation is recommending Level of Service B for four lane rural roads, which he noted he agrees with. He stated they feel the Level of Service C volume for four lanes, of 45,000 cars per day, on a rural road, is too much. He noted there is a slight increase (approximately 15%) in the new Level of Service B number over the old Level of Service C number; however, it will operate very nicely with the type of flow characteristics that were previously discussed.
Upon being questioned by Commr. Swartz as to the difference in driving time between a rural ten mile segment of four lane highway, between Level of Service B and C, and on a rural two lane, Mr. Godfrey responded that the travel time is the same, no matter how many lanes are involved, due to the number of cars that would travel each road.
Mr. Godfrey stated there is a tendency towards more sprawl, with Level of Service B (lower service volumes), than there is with Level of Service C. He stated that, as certain concurrency management regulations take place, it tends to start piecemeal development, and to the extent that the County can maximize the available capacity on roads, and not hurt itself (from a serviceability standpoint), the County is going to encourage more well planned developments, which contribute to more accumulated revenue (impact fees, etc.), to help solve those problems. He stated there is a very definite trend in the marketplace towards quality, well planned developments, as opposed to piecemeal
developments which occurred in the past. He then discussed Lake County's Comprehensive Plan goals regarding the Future Land Use and Traffic Circulation Elements.
Mr. Godfrey reviewed and discussed a Lake County Rural Collector Roadways At or Over Capacity in 2005 chart, as well as a Level of Service B Cost Summary chart, regarding improving versus not improving roads from two to four lanes, and the cost involved with upkeep and maintenance of said roads. He stated the annual maintenance cost, taken over the life of a road (generally 20 years), is $6.8 million, so, basically, for 47 miles of roadway that would need to be improved by selecting Level of Service B versus Level of Service C, would cost approximately $77 million, over the time frame between 1996 and the year 2005. He stated the differential between Level of Service B and C is marginal, in terms of the benefit of travel time and convenience to the user or resident. He stated there is something in the neighborhood of $77-78 million of potential additional costs associated with adopting this standard, which will impose an additional tax burden on the County residents - existing and future. Existing - from an ad valorem standpoint, because residents that are here will pay for road improvements and maintenance through gasoline taxes or ad valorem, and future - through impact fees and ad valorem costs.
Mr. Godfrey stated there would be a tendency towards less consolidated development (urban sprawl), as well as potential delays in some developments, if the County reaches situations where it is not economically feasible to provide the improvements at the time of reached capacity, at Level of Service B. He stated the Concurrency Management System, requiring a balance between infrastructure and roads, may defer development.
He then touched on 9-J-5 legislation (which governs Comprehensive Plans being done), indicating what said law states regarding same. He stated that, overall, Lake County's Comprehensive Plan is quite good.
Mr. Godfrey reviewed a Comparison of Service Volumes chart, regarding two and four lane volume roads in rural and urban areas, noting that there has been a significant change in four lane roads, and the fact that there has been a slight increase in Level of Service B over the old Level of Service C.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether the County could possibly go to Level of Service D, to which Mr. Godfrey responded that Level of Service D puts too much traffic on a rural road.
In answer to a question as to whether growth is paying its way, Commr. Gregg stated that, according to Public Works, all the road widening projects done in Lake County last year were paid for with impact fee funds, not Transportation Trust Funds, therefore, growth is paying its way. He stated this was done under the existing ordinance, and now the County has tripled said ordinance, and has done so with the idea that the County will avoid a moratorium, noting that the County has sold the building and development community on that basis, and feels that it will continue on that basis. He stated, on a pay-as-you-go basis, each household will pay a fair share of the County's road improvements -it will not fall on one particular development that happens to hit a moratorium, and he feels the County can maintain the service it presently has. He stated the economy is hurting at the present time, and he does not feel the County will see the growth it has seen in the past five years.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association, appeared before the Board and responded to a statement made by Commr. Swartz in that residents of Lake County who have been born and raised and are living here have paid for the level of service that they have. She stated she feels this is not a correct statement, since as of 1989, the State, as a whole, including Lake County, was something like $28 billion behind, that had not been kept up with over the years, therefore, roads related industries have, over the past few years, been paying their share and, perhaps, those residents who have been in the County all of their
lives did not, for those many years, pay their share and contributed to the problem. Another item she discussed was intangible quotients, being the kinds of traffic which travel the roads, that should be considered when looking at maintaining Level of Service C on the rural roads, noting that it does not show up on technical data, nor in any of the reports and charts, but should be considered.
Commr. Swartz interjected that what he had said was not those individuals that were born here, but those of us who are here today, no matter how they got here.
Ms. Eloise Fisher, a resident of Eustis, appeared before the Board, as a concerned citizen, stating that most residents she had spoken with like the kinds of roads the County presently has, as well as the rural atmosphere, and would like to keep them. She stated they want to continue to have Level of Service B for a good many years. The residents she spoke with want growth, but a reasonable amount of it.
Mr. Bill Good, a local resident and school teacher, appeared before the Board stating that he did not think Level of Service C is good for the County, as he feels it is not consistent with the County's Conservation Element, to protect its resources, and would like to keep Level of Service B.
Ms. Barbara Kent, a local property owner, appeared before the Board stating that development does not pay for itself, and questioned why the County did not have a school element in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Gena Swartz, Chairman of the Transportation Committee and a member of the Executive Land Use Committee for the Comprehensive Plan, appeared before the Board stating that the Committee, after hours of discussion on Level of Service B versus C, voted to support Level of Service B. She responded to the comment made by Ms. Kaminski concerning the fact that she did not support technical data which was referred to by Commr. Swartz, stating that, if anything, the technical data obtained and used by the
Transportation Committee, regarding the Traffic Circulation Element, are real numbers. She stated they are not in contrast to the population projections that are seen in the Land Use Element, noting that they were based on going out to the roads and actually taking a traffic count, to see what level of service they were at. She distributed and reviewed a map indicating certain roads in the County as being Level of Service B or C, at which time she elaborated on, noting that some of the roads go through environmentally sensitive lands. She urged the Board to keep rural roads at Level of Service B.
Mr. Allen Durham, a resident of Eustis, appeared before the Board and questioned why traffic safety had not been discussed this date. He stated there are three components in traffic safety: engineering, enforcement, and education, and questioned whether any research, or a study had been done concerning traffic safety on those roads which will be changed from Level of Service B to C, to which Commr. Swartz responded.
Mr. Jim Miller, Chairman of the Executive Committee, appeared before the Board and complimented Ms. Gena Swartz, staff, and the Transportation Committee for their hard work on the Traffic Circulation Element. He stated it was a difficult one to understand, and noted they did not have the benefit of Mr. Godfrey's presentation, during their decision making, noting that the vote might have been a different one, had they had the benefit of it, as it clarified a lot of issues in his mind.
Ms. Kathleen Traywick, a resident of Altoona, appeared before the Board urging them not to lower the standards of the roads, as the County is presently very beautiful, however, feels it will not remain so if the traffic continues to escalate.
Mr. Ed Bergman, a member of the Citizens' Traffic Advisory Committee, as well as a commercial real estate broker, appeared before the Board, as a concerned citizen. He stated he agreed with the Board's vote, changing the level of service for rural roads from B to C, however, wished to address the matter of arterial
roads. He stated Level of Service C has been proposed in the draft for the principal arterials, Hwys. 27 and 441; however, he feels that said roads are, basically, deficient, insofar as the amount of traffic which presently travels them. He stated he understood the Level of Service is D or E, in most of the areas between Lady Lake and Tavares, therefore, understands there is going to be a moratorium on building anywhere that the level of service is below C, at which time he differentiated between Level of Service B and C. He proposed that the County adopt Level of Service D, which he explained (according to the Department of Transportation) borders on a range in which small increases in traffic flow may cause a substantial increase in approach delay, hence, a decrease in speed. He stated he felt the Department of Transportation figures should not be used in determining the level of service to be used, as they are generalized guidelines that are to be used statewide, as a means of generally analyzing the traffic flow throughout the State - they are not sensitive to specific conditions of specific locations of specific areas. He, again, reiterated that he felt the County should not take the easy way out, by adopting Level of Service C, for the principal arterials.
Mr. George Pringle, a local developer, appeared before the Board stating that it is very clear that there are those individuals in the County that would like to see things stay rural, and those that would like to see the County's economy stay vigorous; however, in order to maintain a higher level of service (B) on the County's roads, it will not only cost more, but, while it will slow down development, it is going to cause it to spread, which is what the majority of the public does not want - it needs to be concentrated. If it is concentrated, there is going to have to be a higher level of traffic on the roads, or the County is going to have to spend more money to six or eight lane them, which he felt is not an efficient use of the County's resources.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing several developers, as well as his family and himself, appeared before the Board
stating that money to maintain roads in Lake County is going to come out of taxpayers' pocketbooks, not the developers' (as it is thought), due to the fact that they will be gone. He referred to the wildlife corridors and wetlands discussions that were held, stating that adopting Level of Service B, rather than Level of Service C, will force the four laning and widening of roads, putting up greater barriers, and having potential to do harm to those very things that would not be there with Level of Service C. He stated the individuals that are going to get taken in this deal are those that live here, own property, and presently pay taxes. He stated the burden is not on the development community to maintain Level of Service B or C, it is on the taxpayers. He stated that people do not want growth to go out in the rural areas, so they force it into the cities, where the level of service will not let it go, therefore, it dies. He further stated, since the County is not planting citrus any longer, economy wise, it needs to have people - reflected in industry, homes and jobs. He stated it is shortsighted to try to force it someplace where it cannot go. He stated the level of service issue allows the County to use a resource that it has, which is the capacity in the roads, and they need to use it to help the County out of the mess it is in, due to the fallen citrus industry.
Mr. Godfrey reappeared before the Board and addressed the issue of safety on the roads, which was brought to the attention of the Board by Mr. Durham, earlier in the meeting. He stated Level of Service C is the standard used in the industry for the design of roadways, noting that it has been so for many, many years. He stated, however, the public, for many years, has abused that, in loading roads with higher levels of traffic than they were designed for. He stated, in his opinion, it is improper to set Level of Service B, because one is concerned about safety, but, rather, let the characteristics of the roadway define the ability of that roadway to carry traffic. He stated one's decision ought to be
related to the relationship of what service needs to be provided and what cost it is worth.
Mr. John Whitaker, a resident of Grand Island, appeared before the Board stating that, like a lot of others, he does not like the traffic pattern; however, he has a lot of property in Grand Island that he has tried to grow citrus on, but has been unable to, therefore, would like to sell it someday as residential property. He stated he would like to see the County adopt Level of Service C, for Hwy. 452, for future development.
Mr. Good reappeared before the Board and urged them to take the level of service issue road by road, rather than vote it into law.
Commr. Gregg stated the County needs to look at market influences, noting that they have been totally ignored. He stated the public has been under the impression that if the County allows density, or traffic, it is going to happen tomorrow - which it is not. He stated what one does have to take into account is a cost benefit ratio - what the benefits are and what the cost is. He stated if one thinks the County is going to stop growth, and not increase ad valorem taxes, they are wrong. He stated that growth is coming, and the whole idea behind the Growth Management Act was to manage that growth. If the County downgrades densities in some of its lands - changes the level of service back to B - what it is doing is devaluing some of the land, shifting the tax burden to a lot of the County's individuals living in single family residences. He stated the County has staff set up for the growth it has been experiencing, however, because they receive their salary out of user fees, the County is going to be faced with laying them off, or paying for them out of the General Fund and ad valorem taxes, so it gets right back to the heart of the matter, which is economics versus benefits.
Commr. Gregg stated he supports Level of Service C, noting that one has to look at the levels of service on more of a technical basis, and make a decision based on that. He repeated
what he has informed the Fruitland Park City Commission and the Lady Lake City Commission, being that, if impact fees are not increased, there is going to be a moratorium in Lake County, due to the fact that growth is not going to carry its load, and the County is not going to be able to keep up with the Comprehensive Plan and concurrency requirements.
A motion was made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Bailey to approve the adoption of language amending Policy 2-1.3, on Page II-2, of the GOPs, as suggested by Mr. Godfrey, in a handout which he distributed to the Board, as follows: During this period, detailed capacity analysis can be presented by a qualified registered engineer, etc.
Commr. Gregg noted that he did not see any harm in the wording and felt that it does make the Plan more flexible, which is called for in the Plan, to meet local conditions.
Commr. Swartz clarified that said language would go to staff, at which time they will analyze it, and it will be used as a part of whatever updating the Board will be doing - it will not, necessarily, become that update - it will simply be information.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Bailey to approve the adoption of language amending Policy 2-1.13, on Page II-4, of the GOPs, as suggested by Mr. Godfrey, in the handout alluded to above.
Commr. Gregg noted that said language, basically, is already allowable, and he saw no harm in putting the language in the policy.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commr. Gregg stated he felt that mention of the Land Development Regulations and the Concurrency Plan, in the body of the document itself, is probably wise in speeding up the process and avoiding problems with the Department of Community Affairs
later. He also stated some comments were made at the last meeting regarding some suggested language, concerning Policy 2-1.9, on Page II-3, of the GOPs, however, no discussion occurred, due to the fact that time ran out, and felt that some discussion should occur regarding it at this time.
Commr. Swartz stated he did not support adding the language alluded to by Commr. Gregg, as he felt it was the same type of language that he has been speaking about for some time, noting that he felt the Board should make non-motorized transportation facilities eligible to receive traffic impact fee funds, or take the language out.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to change language in Policy 2-1.10, on Page II-3, of the GOP's, pertaining to the County's development review process requiring developments to obtain development orders from the County, prior to obtaining curb cut permits from the Florida Department of Transportation, to allow both of them to concur.
A motion was made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Bailey to change language contained on Line 4 of Policy 2-1.15, Page II-4, of the GOPs, from assure that paved shoulders to evaluate the cost and benefits of adding paved shoulders.
Commr. Swartz suggested deferring action on this request until the Board Meeting of December 17, 1990, in order to allow him to review the 1983 Bicycle Bill, which said policy refers to.
Commr. Gregg then withdrew his motion and Commr. Bailey withdrew his second to the motion.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to delete the wording at a minimum from language contained on Line 6, Page II-5, of Policy
2-1.16, of the GOPs.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to add the word plan to the
language contained on Line 6, Page II-5, of Policy 2-1.20, of the GOPs.
A motion was made by Commr. Gregg to change language contained in Policy 2-3.4, on Lines 7-10, Page II-8, of the GOPs, from mandate dedication of right-of-way, or fees in lieu thereof, as a required condition of a development approval associated with Planned Unit Developments, site plans, plats and replats to provide methods for preserving right-of-way adjacent to or through projects. A brief discussion occurred regarding this request, at which time it was the consensus of the Board to defer action until a later date, at which time language which is satisfactory to both Commr. Gregg and Commr. Swartz will be brought back for approval.
Commr. Gregg then stated a concern he had regarding Hwys. 441 and 27, where the County is presently at D, E, and F, between Tavares' western border and Leesburg's eastern border, as well as Hwy. 27/441, from north Leesburg to Fruitland Park, and from Fruitland Park on Hwy. 27 north to Lady Lake. He referred to the first paragraph on Page 2-15, under the Data Inventory & Analysis section of the Traffic Circulation Element, stating that in reading said paragraph it states that the Department of Transportation has, in its five year plan, improvements for roads that are presently classified as E and F, therefore, he would take it to mean that the County will not have a moratorium on those sections of roadway, starting with adoption of this plan, and questioned staff as to whether this was true, to which he was assured that it was. It was noted that there are presently no planned improvements for roads classified as D, however, there are some suggestions for traffic control on said roads, such as utilizing signalization, etc., which could bring those roads into a better position.
Commr. Gregg also stated a concern he had as to whether the County's plan would allow a threshold for grandfathering, if a road classified as D is above its maximum level of service, which is C.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page II-3, of the GOPs, stating that he did not fully understand what Policies 2-1.5, 2-1.6, and 2-1.7
really mean, or what their implications are, and requested staff to review what Commr. Gregg was questioning, concerning Policy 2-1.15, on Page II-4, of the GOPs. He stated he would like to obtain what Policies 2-1.5, 2-1.6, and 2-1.7 mean, in real language, and, if possible, for staff to give the Board some examples, particularly related to the Hwy. 27/441 corridor, as soon as possible, in order to present it at the Board Meeting scheduled for December 17, 1990. Commr. Gregg stated, due to the fact that the Department of Transportation is extremely short of funds, he would like to see the County remain at Level of Service C, because a suggestion was made that the County could amend its plan later on, however, he felt that Level of Service C will accomplish what the County is after, and not suddenly cause a lot of homes to be built on said roads.
Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, clarified Policies
2-1.5, 2-1.6, and 2-1.7, referred to by Commr. Swartz, by referring to Policy 2-4.2, on Page II-9, of the GOPs, which states that the County shall coordinate with the Department of Transportation for the establishment of sections of U.S. 441 and special transportation areas.
Mr. Mark Knight, Planner, stated that, by the time this plan is adopted, the Department of Transportation will come out with all new service standards, most likely changing C to B, however, the level of service will actually be at level D. He stated the maximum volumes will also change, but noted there is no way to tell exactly which areas are going to change.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the present Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and what income impact fees will provide to Lake County, under said ordinance.
Commr. Hanson stated a concern she had regarding Level of Service C versus B, in that the roads could drop below C, before getting to D, and encouraged the Board to keep it at a very
mimimum, rather than getting down to D, before improvements had to be made, to which Commr. Gregg concurred.
Commr. Swartz requested staff to provide the Board with more information as to what other plans are allowing, as far as further degradation below the level of service, and under what circumstances. He stated he would like to have a concise statement of what either the policy is, or what the practice has been, in allowing the plan.
Commr. Bailey stated he felt it was good planning for today, to leave the level of service at C, noting that he felt it was also a sound economic decision; therefore, he supported leaving it at C.
Commr. Bakich commented regarding the County's ability to expand in the future, and the fact that a 15 year plan is what is being discussed, noting that the levels of service are gauged on that plan as well. He stated that, originally, he supported Level of Service C; however, due to the fact that the plan is being stretched out over a 15 year time frame, he supports Level of Service B, as the Executive Committee and staff recommended. He stated he felt the County has the ability, on a bi-annual basis, for the next 10 years, to increase that level of service. He stated the County does not need X amount of lanes or trips, per thousand population, but enough roadway to get people to and from where they want to go, and feels that the County now has the means to do that. He stated the State does not issue building permits, the County does, and it is up to the County to manage growth.
Commr. Swartz stated he was not going to make a motion, this date, relative to the level of service on rural roads, however, would like the Board to keep in mind that part of this plan requires the County to go back and essentially reclassify, based on specific road nature, all the rural roads. He felt when the Board has obtained said information, they will, in some cases, find that there are roads with expanded level of serviceability, or additional trips within that same level of service, as well as find some roads that have real problems, and to have gone forward with
additional traffic on them, may have been shortsighted. Secondly, he stated it is going to be happening over a brief period of time, therefore, was not sure that to go to a lower level of service at this time justifies doing it, when staff is missing some of that data. He questioned what is going to happen to the County's development pattern, because of this plan. He stated the County can see what is happening on the rural roads, and what the needs are. Thirdly, regarding the County's ability to exceed the level of service, when there are planned improvements, he stated he would be much more willing to support an exception to the established Level of Service B into C, when, in fact, this Board and the development community, if necessary, are willing to commit to those planned improvements that would allow the County to continue to develop, continue to issue building permits, but, only do it when those planned improvements are already in the works. Fourthly, he felt the Board could accept going to Level of Service C, for the five roads which the Executive Committee recommended, however, felt the Board might want to reconsider the radius upon which they are going to consider where the County's rural and urban roads begin and end. He requested the Board to consider these issues, and the impact they will have on the County, between now and the Board Meeting scheduled for December 17, 1990.
Commr. Bakich requested the Board members to provide each other with the various comments they are going to exchange between now and the Board Meeting scheduled for December 17, 1990, several days in advance, to allow each other the opportunity to review and study them before the meeting.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:15 p.m., the Chairman announced the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Ms. Marian McKinney, a local resident, appeared before the Board and submitted a letter, for the record, stating some concerns
which she has regarding the Goose Prairie area of the County, and the need to protect it.
Ms. Barbara Kent, a local property owner, appeared before the Board and pointed out the fact that no one had stated how much time the world has left to save the planet, and she was very concerned about it. She stated she had decided to spend the rest of her time on earth trying to do something about it, and hoped it would be in the forefront of the Commissioners' minds when they deliberate, regarding this element.
Mr. Murphy Cameron, a local resident, appeared before the Board and submitted a letter stating his concerns regarding this element.
Commr. Bakich questioned Mr. Kirch, Director of Planning, regarding a letter the Board received from the DeAnza Corporation/ Mid-Florida Lakes Mobile Home Park, in which they state that Goose Prairie is a prime acquifer for a recharge area, to which Mr. Kirch responded, stating that he had spoken to them on the phone and noted they have a law firm in the Jacksonville area that was concerned about the matter, due to the fact that there was a proposal for a mine in that area a few years ago, and they wanted to make sure that this would not occur in the future. He stated he had related to them that there are approximately five places mentioned in the Conservation Element, that relate to Goose Prairie, in that it was still identified as an environmentally sensitive area; however, there are not any specific policies that would prohibit mining in that area.
Ms. Irene Richardson, a resident of Mid-Florida Lakes Mobile Home Park, appeared before the Board stating she was concerned about whether or not a sand mine will be going in across the road from Mid-Florida Lakes, to which she was informed that there would not. She stated she had received numerous calls from residents of the park inquiring about the issue, and wanted to have first hand information to give them.
Mr. Bill Ray, a local resident and member of the Conservation Element Committee, appeared before the Board stating that a lot of work went into the Conservation Element, out of the Committee, and felt that recommendations in the Conservation Element, as they stand, are appropriate, and that any further modification to them, in a conceptual stance would, in fact, weaken the element.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing several land owners in the area, appeared before the Board stating that Policy 7-5.8: Wet Detention Pond Design, seems to strike out tying the wet detention pond design system to the Water Management Districts (where one also has to permit), so what ends up occurring is a potential conflict between the districts and Lake County, with regard to wet detention. He stated he felt said wording needs to be back in the Conservation Element, or some wording added that says what Lake County does will be compatible or consistent with the water management districts that also have concurrent jurisdiction in those areas, otherwise, one will run into a situation of incompatible or inconsistent uses in the wet detention ponds.
Commr. Gregg noted that, in his copy of the Conservation Element, Policy 7-5.8 states that systems with permanently wet detention ponds shall be designed, operated, and maintained according to South West Florida Water Management District and St. Johns River Water Management District criteria.
After a brief discussion regarding the matter, it was noted that the ponds would also have to meet the criteria of the County's Stormwater Management Ordinance, as well. Mr. Kirch noted that staff had not had a chance, as yet, to make changes which had been requested by the Board, pertaining to same.
Mr. Richey then referred to Policy 7-2.2, on Page VII-8, of the GOPs, and questioned whether the Board had clarified the wording of Section 373.095(3), regarding the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the St. Johns River Water Management District's prime groundwater recharge areas, namely, language
regarding State standards, and the definition of State Statutes, with regard to establishing, through the St. Johns River Water Management District, the prime groundwater recharge areas. He stated the County adds wording over and above those prime recharge areas, which say other recharge areas identified by Lake County or the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. He stated his concern was over Lake County determining other water recharge areas, noting that the State Statutes are specific on what the primary ones are, and is not sure that Lake County, from a technical and money point-of-view, as far as time and staff is concerned, is in a position to do that, and questioned why the language regarding Lake County is in there, to which Commr. Swartz responded, stating that Mr. Richey's concerns will be defined in the Land Development Regulations.
Mr. Richey then referred to Policy 7-2.15: Septic Tanks, on Page VII-12, of the GOPs, at which time Mr. Kirch informed the Board that the change which had been requested, regarding this policy, has not been incorporated; however, based on the last meeting, the Board's direction was to make this policy consistent with the Public Facilities Element (Policy 6A-2.6). It was noted that this was correct.
Mr. Joseph Abbott, Environmental Services, appeared before the Board stating that the Public Facilities policy states that a study will be performed by 1992, and noted that an ordinance will be proposed, for the Board's adoption, regarding septic tanks. He also stated staff needs to study the matter a little further, however, agreed that there needs to be an onsight evaluation, as well as a look at the total number of lots in a subdivision, the size of the lots, the soil conditions, the groundwater, etc., as well as the fact that a comprehensive ordinance needs to be developed, and needs to have local input. He stated the Board needs to adopt the Public Facilities Policy, at which time staff will look at it and make recommendations to the Board.
At this time, Mr. Richey, Attorney, referred to Policy 7-3.13: Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Discharge, on Page VII-16, of the GOPs, stating that the County presently has in its rules the ability to provide variances to the zero discharge requirement, and questioned whether it prohibits variances to Pollution Control Regulations that allow for discharge of effluent, to which Commr. Swartz responded that he felt it would.
Mr. Richey referred to Policy 7-13.1: Prohibition of Mining in Specified Areas, on Page VII-28, of the GOPs, stating that, when one thinks in terms of mining, one has a vision of either a dredge operation, or all those kinds of things that are equated with mining; however, mining, as it is defined in the County's Mining Ordinance, covers a whole gambit of things, and, some of those things, as defined in the Mining Ordinance, may or may not be intended to be covered by this section. He requested the Board to look further at this issue.
Mr. Richey then referred to Policy 7-13.4: Protection of Property from Mining Impacts, on Page VII-28, of the GOPs, stating that this policy concerns him, due to the fact that a lot of mining operations are compatible with residential, citing as an example, the Jim Logan operation, noting that his operation is surrounded by residential, yet, a lot of the residents of the area came to the hearings in support of his operation. He stated he felt the County needs to be careful, based on the broad nature of its Mining Ordinance, in that it precludes some things, with the wording of Policy 7-13.4, that it really did not intend to do.
Commr. Gregg agreed, stating he felt the terms used are pretty broad, when it states that no mining should be allowed, noting that he, too, thinks in terms of a deep, dredge sandsucker operation, when he thinks of mining, and feels that a blanket prohibition is rather stiff, of any types of mine that qualifies a mine, under the County's present Mining Ordinance. He then brought up for discussion the Capital Improvements Element, stating that the
County needs to make sure it is not spending money to duplicate a service that is already being provided.
Commr. Swartz stated he would rather see the County do more of the things that show concrete evidence of environmental protection, or the stopping of further degradation, as opposed to things that might be pretty, have bells and whistles, and are studied to death. There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, November 29, 1990, at 5:00 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Don Bailey; Richard Swartz; and Catherine Hanson. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Toni M. Austin, Deputy Clerk.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board to discuss the Capital Improvements Element. He stated that the purpose of the meeting held with Randy Young was to present inventory sheets to all of the departments, in order for them to compile a public facilities needs analysis. Included in the proposed element was the financial capacity analysis. Mr. Swanson stated that the Capital Improvements Element contains the public facilities needs, which establishes the levels of service; revenue projections as compared to expenditures by a funding source; and the determination of a five-year service period, to be planned. Mr. Swanson stated the newly proposed MSTU's for solid waste, water, waste water, and general services will be included in the Capital Improvements Element in February, if approved by the Board.
Mr. Dave Boone, Principal Planner, appeared before the Board to discuss the Capital Improvements Element. At this time, he discussed the financial position of the County, in relation to the proposed capital improvements contained within the element. Mr. Boone stated that the Capital Improvements Elements addresses three types of facilities, as follows: Category A (Concurrency;
Mandatory); Category B (Non-Concurrency; Mandatory); and Category C (Non-Mandatory), which he discussed at this time. Mr. Boone discussed the tables regarding recent financial figures in relation to the costs for the capital improvements.
At this time, the Board discussed each category, the facilities contained within each category, and the requirements for the adoption of a minimum level of service for each.
Mr. Kirch discussed the method used in calculating the figures, which were based on population and land use.
Mr. Boone directed the Board's attention to the last table of information, which indicated a total cost to the County over the five year period to be 105 million dollars. Of this amount, 57 million dollars represents the capital; 49 million dollars represents operating; 37 million dollars for the Florida Department of Transportation Road Improvements, which does not include improvements for 1990-91; with a total cost being 155 million dollars over a five year period.
Mr. George Pringle, builder and developer, appeared before the Board to discuss water and waste water, and stated that natural gas may be a positive revenue generator for the County.
Mr. Jim Bible, Greater Construction, appeared before the Board and questioned the 37 million dollars identified as Florida Department of Transportation improvements, and whether or not FDOT is committed to these improvements for the next five years. Staff clarified that those funds are accounted for three years only.
Mr. Bible questioned the meaning of Policy 10-10.3: Reservation of Available Capacities and Limitations to Vested Rights, with Ms. Lustgarten stating the intent.
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
SANITARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT
Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board to discuss the goals, objectives and policies of the Public Facilities Element. He referred to the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, Policy 6A-1.5: Adoption of Temporary Use, Design and Construction
Ordinance, and stated that the County will follow the State Statute, as far as septic tanks and requirements.
Mr. Joseph Abbott, Environmental Services, addressed the Board on Florida Statute 381.272l, which refers to on site sewage systems being temporary, and discussed the waiver capability of the Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS).
Mr. Steve Richey had a concern with the policy not indicating "septic tank".
Mr. Jim Bible presented revisions to several of the policies, including the following in Policy 6A-1.5: "...when the presence of poor soils, high groundwater table or other environmental condition poses significant public health, safety or welfare problems associated with on-site disposal systems;...". At this time, Mr. Bible discussed the project in Greater Hills, and stated that Environmental Services has indicated that the project needs to provide and allow and support the future sewer development in Greater Hills, with Mr. Abbott discussing this particular project and the requirements being made by the County.
Mr. Abbott stated there are three policies being considered regarding an ordinance, as follows: Policy 6A-1.5: Adoption of Temporary Use, Design and Construction Ordinance; Policy 6A-2.5: Adoption of a Mandatory Connection Ordinance; and Policy 6A-2.6: Connection of On-site Disposal Systems Where Necessary.
Mr. Bible further discussed proposed revisions to the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, and the Potable Water Sub-Element, Chapter VI-D, with the Board suggesting that staff review the revisions and make comments at a later date.
Mr. Bible stated that there is a need for clarification to the policy for an ordinance for MSTU's and MSBU's, with Mr. Thelen informing the Board of a meeting scheduled on December 11, 1990, at which time the Board will consider MSTU's.
Mr. Jim Simpson appeared before the Board and stated that he sits on the Sewer and Water Sanitary Facilities Committee. He stated that he questioned the information provided by the
consultants, which has been interpreted that the policy is designed to have everyone on sewer, with the County being in the sewer and water business. He suggested that the Board reconsider the goals and objectives that have been presented.
SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT
There were no comments to be made by the audience, the Board, or the staff regarding the Solid Waste Sub-Element.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB-ELEMENT
Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board to comment on Policy 6C-2.10: Design Storms Level of Service Standards, and stated that, after talking with the consultants, the original wording was a 25 year for canals, ditches, roadside swales, or culverts for stormwater external to the development, and a 10 year for canals, ditches, roadside swales, or culverts for stormwater internal to the development. Mr. Kirch stated that it was the feeling of the consultants that the 50 year (external) and the 25 year (internal) was extreme, and recommended the 25 and 10.
There were no comments made by the audience regarding the Stormwater Management Sub-Element.
POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT
There were no comments to be made by the audience, the Board, or the staff regarding the Potable Water Sub-Element.
NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB-ELEMENT
Mr. Larry Kirch, Director of Planning, informed the Board that there are three blank pages in the front of the document relating to maps, which will show the history of metric service, and that those will be included at a later date.
Mr. Dick Seron appeared before the Board and discussed Policy 6E-1.5: Potentiometric Surface Contour Monitoring, and stated that there is no explanation or understanding of "Domestic wells will not be included." At this time, an explanation was given by staff.
Mr. Seron continued and discussed Policy 6E-1.8: Provide Net Retention for Aquifer Recharge, and suggested that "...turf blocks
shall be encouraged as a method..." be eliminated and have the sentence read "...turf blocks shall be a method...".
Mr. Seron discussed Policy E-1.10: Secure Aquifer Recharge Lands, and questioned "Where Feasible, ....", and stated that there is no qualification for feasible and not feasible, and suggested that criteria be developed.
It was understood by the Board that feasible is referring to "financially" feasible.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK