OCTOBER 8, 1991

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, October 8, 1991, at 5:05 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Donald B. Bailey, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Richard Swartz; and Michael J. Bakich. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Michael Anderson, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Marlene Foran, Deputy Clerk.


Mr. John Swanson, Executive Director of Planning & Development, appeared before the Board and stated that the public hearing this evening is the first of two hearings to be held on the Access Management Ordinance, with the second public hearing scheduled on November 5, 1991, at 5:05 p.m.

Ms. Pat Mayhill, Planner II, appeared before the Board to address questions presented by the Board.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, appeared before the Board to address a number of changes which have been made to the Access Management Ordinance, as follows:

Page 16, Line 9 - change 550 feet to 660 feet.

Page 20, Line 23-27 - insert a reference, to Section 80-122, and 80-123 of Appendix B. Zoning Regulations, as amended from time to time.

Page 13, Line 32 and Page 14, Line 19 - insert the following language: "based upon the Land Use Designation the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Florida Law."

Mr. Alton Roane, Development Services Coordinator for the City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and stated that the City of Eustis is in support of the proposed Ordinance and the Access Management program. He stated that the City of Eustis has worked with County staff in developing the Ordinance, and they are excited about the opportunities for intergovernmental coordination.

Mr. Steven Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and commended County staff on the adequate presentation of information provided the public on the Access Management Ordinance. Mr. Richey addressed language on Page 9, Line 13, suggesting that a specific time limit on the scheduling of a pre-application conference be inserted. Mr. Richey addressed the language on Page 12, Section 7, which addresses the width of fifty (50) feet for rights-of-way for access roads, and language on Page 19 which encourages one-way, one-lane access roads be a minimum pavement width of fourteen (14) feet. He stated that he does not understand why fifty (50) feet for rights-of-way is needed when language is encouraging fourteen (14) feet of pavement. Mr. Richey further addressed the issue of publicly dedicated rights-of-way for access roads.

Ms. Mayhill stated that the Engineering Department has reviewed Mr. Richey's comments and changed the fifty (50) feet for rights-of-way to forty (40) feet for access roads of fourteen (14) feet.

Discussion occurred regarding the publicly dedicated rights-of-way for an access road, such as the frontage road in front of a shopping mall, cross-access roads and the maintenance of such access roads. Ms. Mayhill stated that the Ordinance addresses the concerns regarding cross-access easements.

Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association, appeared before the Board to express her concern with the fifty (50) feet for rights-of-way, suggesting the back portion of the property be used for the connection. She expressed her concern with including Class 1 single family or duplex lots that are exempted from an access road, but not exempted from Access Management requirements.

Discussion occurred regarding pre-application language on Page 9, Line 13, with Commr. Swartz suggesting language be changed to indicate that a pre-application conference is recommended, rather than state a conference shall be scheduled. Ms. Lustgarten stated that the municipalities strongly indicated that they wanted

wording which would allow the municipalities to participate in a conference with the applicant and the County.

Mr. Roane stated that the cities are interested in an opportunity to participate in proceedings with the County and the applicant prior to actual drawings being completed.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that she will readdress the language in question and provide flexibility to the language.

Mr. Richey asked for clarification on the language on Page 10, Line 2, stating that he does not understand the use of the word "adequate". Mr. Swanson stated that the word "adequate" will be defined.

Commr. Gregg stated, in the case of a frontage road or access road falling in the boundary between a city and the County, the site plan for that particular project should be forwarded to the city engineer.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and addressed the timing issue regarding the pre-application conference. She stated that the rights-of-way requirement is taking land off the tax rolls, decreasing the tax base, and providing more land for littering, therefore, increasing operation costs. She stated that the language on Page 17, Item (4), Line 24, which states, "Any other conditions deemed necessary by the County or City to carry out the provisions of this Article, the Access Management Regulations." is overly vague and overly broad.

Ms. Bonifay addressed the Appeals Procedure and suggested that Section 110.01 be used, which is the variance criteria procedure used in the subdivision regulations, and is used by the Planning & Zoning Commission as opposed to the variance criteria used by the Board of Zoning and Adjustment.

Mr. Chuck Langley, City Engineer/Public Works Director for the City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board and stated that the City of Leesburg is in favor of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Langley stated that his understanding of the review process is that the County will review the application if the request is in

the County, the City will review the application if the request is in the City; and the application will be jointly reviewed by the City and the County if the request is approaching a common line.

Commr. Gregg stated that he supports the variance procedure used by the Planning and Zoning Commission; at which time, Ms. Lustgarten read, for purposes of comparison, the criteria for the variance procedure used by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the procedure used by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

It was the consensus of the Board to use the variance procedure criteria used by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.